Atheism vs Christianity: 22 new messages in 11 topics

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: (Attn Dev: quoteworthy (was Re: if jesus is a God, why didn't mary
worship to her son?)
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/c1e2ed6b212ce01d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 9 2008 9:33 pm
From: DaVuxOrz

>>if user X & Y come from the same IP address,
does it means X & Y are the same person?

No, but it's unlikely both are using the exact same IP address. If
you need to read about IP's, look here:

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

>.how about if X & Y using the same proxy server?
there are several free-public proxy servers available on internet..

Do you even know how proxies work? They don't mask themselves as
living IP addresses, they simply block out your ip address, so it
simply reads as 202.02.000 or whatever. Tor Circuits do an even
better job. Very few people use them for anything but bit torrent
downloads, so it's usually not something to worry about when
identifying someone on a google groups.

On Apr 9, 8:46 pm, "jamesn...@gmail.com" <jamesn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> if user X & Y come from the same IP address,
> does it means X & Y are the same person?
>
> how about if X & Y using the same proxy server?
> there are several free-public proxy servers available on internet..
>
> On Apr 9, 1:00 am, DaVuxOrz <afollowerofli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>Not worth the effort.
>
> > What effort? It's a click away, or do you not know how to do it?
> > Here, I can find your IP easily:
>
> > Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 04:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
> > Received: by 10.151.111.15 with SMTP id o15mr289442ybm.
> > 13.1207654633494; Tue,
> > 08 Apr 2008 04:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
> > In-Reply-To: <d050b7c0-8284-46ee-
> > b6d8-328d913f4...@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
> > X-IP: 198.142.99.50
> > References: <cb93c046-865f-424f-a5dc-
> > b85935562...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
> > <92bf3445-f0cd-4f0c-aaf4-dfe8a9617...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
> > <4d7846ad-e15d-4685-bc95-48f5a3a67...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
> > <81c37bb4-2d34-4439-a961-a4782d249...@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
> > <4889da05-7154-4265-af71-50f89c8a4...@k20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
> > <49a6a6240804071051u4dd998biff209d02f9cab...@mail.gmail.com>
> > <6fc0c692-d783-4b05-9336-94f317187...@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
> > <49a6a6240804071131tb5fc9d1nac8bbb83e5e27...@mail.gmail.com>
> > <c817ebde-12a3-44d2-86a8-1c69efe13...@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
> > <d730457e-1e3f-47f0-bee5-0771ad0c1...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
> > <f7a4f44f-84d0-41ad-971c-d7de3aa6b...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
> > <d050b7c0-8284-46ee-b6d8-328d913f4...@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
> > User-Agent: G2/1.0
> > X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
> > SV1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
>
> > There.
>
> > What's your excuse for doing the same?
>
> > But I'm not.
>
> > On Apr 8, 4:37 am, Saint Onan <gigacy...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 8, 7:05 pm, DaVuxOrz <afollowerofli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I was just beginning to wonder if MacNevins and DaVuxOrz were one and
> > > > the same when I came across this little exchange between them. Only
> > > > because it seems a staggering coincidence that TWO such irritating
> > > > fuckwits could both find their way to this forum, not because I have
> > > > any concrete evidence.
>
> > > > Just check our IPs to see if we are the same. It's easy as that.
>
> > > Not worth the effort.
>
> > > > >>And because MacNevins appears to be the kind of individual who would
>
> > > > enjoy carrying on an insulting conversation with himself.
>
> > > > Nah, he just tries to annoy and troll Atheist.
>
> > > What's your excuse for doing the same?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 9 2008 11:31 pm
From: "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"

On Apr 9, 8:25 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Bible teaches that there will be
> an eternal punishment for sinners.

Will Moses be eternally punished? If not, why not?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What kind of person denies another person medical benefits?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/108b55f1cec66434?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 9 2008 9:37 pm
From: DaVuxOrz

Samuel Clemens was an Atheist heathen.

On Apr 9, 7:34 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2008, at 4:58 PM, DaVuxOrz wrote:
>
> > Samuel Clemens is in Hell now. Thank God for that.
>
> I think it would be a very sad thing. God has offered a free gift of
> salvation through the Lord Jesus, I would encourage all to receive it.
> :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
>
>
>
> > On Apr 7, 1:26 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Heaven for the atmosphere
> >> Hell for the company
>
> >> M. Twain
>
> >> On Apr 7, 2:23 am, DaVuxOrz <afollowerofli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Jesus has not forgiven you for your sins, since you continue on
> >>> sinning and forsaking the Lord Jesus Christ, flipping him off. You
> >>> worship the rectum, that which pleases you, and you are headed for
> >>> Hell.
>
> >>> On Apr 6, 6:39 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Apr 6, 2008, at 3:38 PM, DaVuxOrz wrote:
>
> >>>>> Then you're headed for Hell.
>
> >>>> I have a mediator, who has already paid my sin penalty. Perfectly.
> >>>> And He has secured an eternal and blessed inheritance for me. I
> >>>> praise
> >>>> the Lord Jesus. :)
>
> >>>> Regards,
>
> >>>> Brock
>
> >>>>> On Apr 5, 6:48 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Apr 5, 2008, at 7:12 PM, DaVuxOrz wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Okay then. But the Bible does command abortions and forced
> >>>>>>> miscarriages. God is OKAY with Abortion, and so am I :) Thank
> >>>>>>> God
> >>>>>>> for Abortion Clinics!
>
> >>>>>> I don't agree with your summarization.
>
> >>>>>> Regards,
>
> >>>>>> Brock
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 5, 10:05 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 2008, at 5:45 AM, DaVuxOrz wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't agree that it is a child, but even if it is, God has
> >>>>>>>>> decreed
> >>>>>>>>> Abortion is okay.
>
> >>>>>>>> We'll agree to disagree. :)
>
> >>>>>>>> Regards,
>
> >>>>>>>> Brock
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 7:12 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 1, 2008, at 4:34 AM, chazworth wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 31, 5:16 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 28, 10:22 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A right to lifer!
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't call an abortion a medical benefit to the child
> >>>>>>>>>>>> being
> >>>>>>>>>>>> aborted.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> But a foetus is not a "child".
>
> >>>>>>>>>> I believe that he/she is.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Brock

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 9 2008 9:38 pm
From: DaVuxOrz

Thank you :)

On Apr 9, 8:39 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is something wrong with you.
>
> On 4/9/08, DaVuxOrz <afollowerofli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Not really, word to the Jews, the greatest fools to ever have
> > existed. Faking a holocaust...sickening.
>
> > On Apr 9, 10:26 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Words to the wise.
>
> > > On 4/9/08, DaVuxOrz <afollowerofli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned
> > > > to hell?
>
> > > > Matthew 23:33
>
> > > > On Apr 8, 8:14 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > The ever lasting fire was because Gehenna was a garbage pit where
> > > > > the dead were thrown, they were burning their trash day and night.
> > > > > Your Christ also mentions that the worms never die in Gehenna.
> > > > > So be nice and do what the asshole Christians say or it's into the
> > > > > dump.
>
> > > > > On Apr 8, 6:56 pm, DaVuxOrz <afollowerofli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>Chapter and verse. A lot of folks think the bible proves there
> > is no
>
> > > > > > hell? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
>
> > > > > > The Bible constantly speaks of Hell, and that's proof enough.
>
> > > > > > Does the mother religion Judaism believe in Hell?
> > Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
>
> > > > > > Yes. Even Kikes and Fags believe in Hell.
>
> > > > > > >>I think Hell is just more happy bullshit from the greatest
> > bullshit
>
> > > > > > artists ever.
>
> > > > > > Daniel 12:2
>
> > > > > > Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to
> > > > > > everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting fire.
>
> > > > > > On Apr 8, 3:11 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Chapter and verse. A lot of folks think the bible proves there
> > is no
> > > > > > > hell? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
> > > > > > > Does the mother religion Judaism believe in Hell?
> > Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
> > > > > > > I think Hell is just more happy bullshit from the greatest
> > bullshit
> > > > > > > artists ever.
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 8, 2:05 pm, DaVuxOrz <afollowerofli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >>You have a reputable site for this?
>
> > > > > > > > Site for what? To prove Hell exist? It's in a book called
> > the
> > > > Bible,
> > > > > > > > which is all the proof anyone needs.
>
> > > > > > > > >>If I were a God and one of my followers was going around
>
> > > > > > > > condemning my other followers to hell, guess what I would
> > > > > > > > do?
>
> > > > > > > > You'd be happy if you were Yahweh, because that's what he
> > wants.
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 9:59 am, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > You have a reputable site for this?
> > > > > > > > > If I were a God and one of my followers was going around
> > > > > > > > > condemning my other followers to hell, guess what I would
> > > > > > > > > do?
>
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 3:13 am, DaVuxOrz <afollowerofli...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Hell is under the ground, near Sheol and Hades, it is not
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > surface of this flat Earth.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Apr 7, 7:32 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Some folks went to Israel and visited Hell, they have
> > really
> > > > cleaned
> > > > > > > > > > > it up, grass, flowers, trees. Looks nice. You folks call
> > it
> > > > Gehenna, I
> > > > > > > > > > > believe. I wonder if they will build condos?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 7, 4:58 pm, DaVuxOrz <afollowerofli...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Samuel Clemens is in Hell now. Thank God for that.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 7, 1:26 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Heaven for the atmosphere
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hell for the company
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > M. Twain
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 7, 2:23 am, DaVuxOrz <
> > afollowerofli...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jesus has not forgiven you for your sins, since
> > you
> > > > continue on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sinning and forsaking the Lord Jesus Christ,
> > flipping
> > > > him off. You
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > worship the rectum, that which pleases you, and
> > you
> > > > are headed for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hell.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 6, 6:39 pm, Brock Organ <
> > brockor...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 6, 2008, at 3:38 PM, DaVuxOrz wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you're headed for Hell.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a mediator, who has already paid my sin
> > > > penalty. Perfectly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And He has secured an eternal and blessed
> > > > inheritance for me. I praise
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Lord Jesus. :)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brock
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 5, 6:48 pm, Brock Organ <
> > > > brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Apr 5, 2008, at 7:12 PM, DaVuxOrz wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Okay then. But the Bible does command
> > abortions
> > > > and forced
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> miscarriages. God is OKAY with Abortion,
> > and so
> > > > am I :) Thank God
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> for Abortion Clinics!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I don't agree with your summarization.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Regards,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Brock
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Apr 5, 10:05 am, Brock Organ <
> > > > brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Apr 3, 2008, at 5:45 AM, DaVuxOrz wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I don't agree that it is a child, but even
> > if
> > > > it is, God has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> decreed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Abortion is okay.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We'll agree to disagree. :)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Regards,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Brock
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Apr 2, 7:12 pm, Brock Organ <
> > > > brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Apr 1, 2008, at 4:34 AM, chazworth
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Mar 31, 5:16 pm, Brock <
> > > > brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Mar 28, 10:22 pm, Eris <
> > > > vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> A right to lifer!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I wouldn't call an abortion a medical
> > > > benefit to the child being
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> aborted.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> But a foetus is not a "child".
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I believe that he/she is.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Regards,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Brock
>
> > > --
> > > Ambassador From Hell
>
> --
> Ambassador From Hell

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 9 2008 9:38 pm
From: DaVuxOrz

>>
DaVux is an atheist, so take his representation of Christian
positions
with a grain of salt. :)

Why?

On Apr 9, 8:46 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2008, at 11:14 PM, Eris wrote:
>
> > The ever lasting fire was because Gehenna was a garbage pit where
> > the dead were thrown, they were burning their trash day and night.
> > Your Christ also mentions that the worms never die in Gehenna.
> > So be nice and do what the asshole Christians say or it's into the
> > dump.
>
> DaVux is an atheist, so take his representation of Christian positions
> with a grain of salt. :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 6:56 pm, DaVuxOrz <afollowerofli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Chapter and verse. A lot of folks think the bible proves there is no
>
> >> hell? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
>
> >> The Bible constantly speaks of Hell, and that's proof enough.
>
> >> Does the mother religion Judaism believe in Hell? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
>
> >> Yes. Even Kikes and Fags believe in Hell.
>
> >>>> I think Hell is just more happy bullshit from the greatest bullshit
>
> >> artists ever.
>
> >> Daniel 12:2
>
> >> Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to
> >> everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting fire.
>
> >> On Apr 8, 3:11 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Chapter and verse. A lot of folks think the bible proves there is no
> >>> hell? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
> >>> Does the mother religion Judaism believe in Hell? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
> >>> I think Hell is just more happy bullshit from the greatest bullshit
> >>> artists ever.
>
> >>> On Apr 8, 2:05 pm, DaVuxOrz <afollowerofli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> You have a reputable site for this?
>
> >>>> Site for what? To prove Hell exist? It's in a book called the
> >>>> Bible,
> >>>> which is all the proof anyone needs.
>
> >>>>>> If I were a God and one of my followers was going around
>
> >>>> condemning my other followers to hell, guess what I would
> >>>> do?
>
> >>>> You'd be happy if you were Yahweh, because that's what he wants.
>
> >>>> On Apr 8, 9:59 am, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> You have a reputable site for this?
> >>>>> If I were a God and one of my followers was going around
> >>>>> condemning my other followers to hell, guess what I would
> >>>>> do?
>
> >>>>> On Apr 8, 3:13 am, DaVuxOrz <afollowerofli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Hell is under the ground, near Sheol and Hades, it is not on the
> >>>>>> surface of this flat Earth.
>
> >>>>>> On Apr 7, 7:32 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Some folks went to Israel and visited Hell, they have really
> >>>>>>> cleaned
> >>>>>>> it up, grass, flowers, trees. Looks nice. You folks call it
> >>>>>>> Gehenna, I
> >>>>>>> believe. I wonder if they will build condos?
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 7, 4:58 pm, DaVuxOrz <afollowerofli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Samuel Clemens is in Hell now. Thank God for that.
>
> >>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 1:26 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Heaven for the atmosphere
> >>>>>>>>> Hell for the company
>
> >>>>>>>>> M. Twain
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2:23 am, DaVuxOrz <afollowerofli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Jesus has not forgiven you for your sins, since you continue
> >>>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>> sinning and forsaking the Lord Jesus Christ, flipping him
> >>>>>>>>>> off. You
> >>>>>>>>>> worship the rectum, that which pleases you, and you are
> >>>>>>>>>> headed for
> >>>>>>>>>> Hell.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 6:39 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 2008, at 3:38 PM, DaVuxOrz wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Then you're headed for Hell.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I have a mediator, who has already paid my sin penalty.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Perfectly.
> >>>>>>>>>>> And He has secured an eternal and blessed inheritance for
> >>>>>>>>>>> me. I praise
> >>>>>>>>>>> the Lord Jesus. :)
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Brock
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 6:48 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 2008, at 7:12 PM, DaVuxOrz wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay then. But the Bible does command abortions and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> forced
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miscarriages. God is OKAY with Abortion, and so am I :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank God
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for Abortion Clinics!
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree with your summarization.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Brock
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 10:05 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 2008, at 5:45 AM, DaVuxOrz wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree that it is a child, but even if it is,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decreed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Abortion is okay.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll agree to disagree. :)
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brock
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 7:12 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 1, 2008, at 4:34 AM, chazworth wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 31, 5:16 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 28, 10:22 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A right to lifer!
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't call an abortion a medical benefit to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> child being
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But a foetus is not a "child".
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that he/she is.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brock

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 9 2008 9:49 pm
From: "Keith MacNevins"

Who, with his satirical wit offended no one more than the self-righteous
hypocrites of the world, and particularly those who touted themselves as
religious. But who better to judge Mark Twain than God? Perhaps Mr. Twain
was welcomed into Heaven. A sense of humor is not a defect. If we are going
to attribute to God mankind's characteristics then we ought to ascribe God
a perfect sense of humor. No doubt it is God who has the last laugh.

On 4/9/08, DaVuxOrz <afolloweroflight@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Samuel Clemens was an Atheist heathen.
>
> On Apr 9, 7:34 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 7, 2008, at 4:58 PM, DaVuxOrz wrote:
> >
> > > Samuel Clemens is in Hell now. Thank God for that.
> >
> > I think it would be a very sad thing. God has offered a free gift of
> > salvation through the Lord Jesus, I would encourage all to receive it.
> > :)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Brock
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 7, 1:26 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Heaven for the atmosphere
> > >> Hell for the company
> >
> > >> M. Twain
> >
> > >> On Apr 7, 2:23 am, DaVuxOrz <afollowerofli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>> Jesus has not forgiven you for your sins, since you continue on
> > >>> sinning and forsaking the Lord Jesus Christ, flipping him off. You
> > >>> worship the rectum, that which pleases you, and you are headed for
> > >>> Hell.
> >
> > >>> On Apr 6, 6:39 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>>> On Apr 6, 2008, at 3:38 PM, DaVuxOrz wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> Then you're headed for Hell.
> >
> > >>>> I have a mediator, who has already paid my sin penalty. Perfectly.
> > >>>> And He has secured an eternal and blessed inheritance for me. I
> > >>>> praise
> > >>>> the Lord Jesus. :)
> >
> > >>>> Regards,
> >
> > >>>> Brock
> >
> > >>>>> On Apr 5, 6:48 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Apr 5, 2008, at 7:12 PM, DaVuxOrz wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>> Okay then. But the Bible does command abortions and forced
> > >>>>>>> miscarriages. God is OKAY with Abortion, and so am I :) Thank
> > >>>>>>> God
> > >>>>>>> for Abortion Clinics!
> >
> > >>>>>> I don't agree with your summarization.
> >
> > >>>>>> Regards,
> >
> > >>>>>> Brock
> >
> > >>>>>>> On Apr 5, 10:05 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 2008, at 5:45 AM, DaVuxOrz wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>>>> I don't agree that it is a child, but even if it is, God has
> > >>>>>>>>> decreed
> > >>>>>>>>> Abortion is okay.
> >
> > >>>>>>>> We'll agree to disagree. :)
> >
> > >>>>>>>> Regards,
> >
> > >>>>>>>> Brock
> >
> > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 7:12 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 1, 2008, at 4:34 AM, chazworth wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 31, 5:16 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 28, 10:22 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> A right to lifer!
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't call an abortion a medical benefit to the child
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> being
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> aborted.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>> But a foetus is not a "child".
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>> I believe that he/she is.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>> Brock
> >
>

--
Ambassador From Hell

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 9 2008 10:47 pm
From: DaVuxOrz

He was an Atheist, thus he is in Hell.

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

On Apr 9, 9:49 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Who, with his satirical wit offended no one more than the self-righteous
> hypocrites of the world, and particularly those who touted themselves as
> religious. But who better to judge Mark Twain than God? Perhaps Mr. Twain
> was welcomed into Heaven. A sense of humor is not a defect. If we are going
> to attribute to God mankind's characteristics then we ought to ascribe God
> a perfect sense of humor. No doubt it is God who has the last laugh.
>
> On 4/9/08, DaVuxOrz <afollowerofli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Samuel Clemens was an Atheist heathen.
>
> > On Apr 9, 7:34 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 7, 2008, at 4:58 PM, DaVuxOrz wrote:
>
> > > > Samuel Clemens is in Hell now. Thank God for that.
>
> > > I think it would be a very sad thing. God has offered a free gift of
> > > salvation through the Lord Jesus, I would encourage all to receive it.
> > > :)
>
> > > Regards,
>
> > > Brock
>
> > > > On Apr 7, 1:26 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Heaven for the atmosphere
> > > >> Hell for the company
>
> > > >> M. Twain
>
> > > >> On Apr 7, 2:23 am, DaVuxOrz <afollowerofli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> Jesus has not forgiven you for your sins, since you continue on
> > > >>> sinning and forsaking the Lord Jesus Christ, flipping him off. You
> > > >>> worship the rectum, that which pleases you, and you are headed for
> > > >>> Hell.
>
> > > >>> On Apr 6, 6:39 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>>> On Apr 6, 2008, at 3:38 PM, DaVuxOrz wrote:
>
> > > >>>>> Then you're headed for Hell.
>
> > > >>>> I have a mediator, who has already paid my sin penalty. Perfectly.
> > > >>>> And He has secured an eternal and blessed inheritance for me. I
> > > >>>> praise
> > > >>>> the Lord Jesus. :)
>
> > > >>>> Regards,
>
> > > >>>> Brock
>
> > > >>>>> On Apr 5, 6:48 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> On Apr 5, 2008, at 7:12 PM, DaVuxOrz wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>>> Okay then. But the Bible does command abortions and forced
> > > >>>>>>> miscarriages. God is OKAY with Abortion, and so am I :) Thank
> > > >>>>>>> God
> > > >>>>>>> for Abortion Clinics!
>
> > > >>>>>> I don't agree with your summarization.
>
> > > >>>>>> Regards,
>
> > > >>>>>> Brock
>
> > > >>>>>>> On Apr 5, 10:05 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 2008, at 5:45 AM, DaVuxOrz wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>>>>> I don't agree that it is a child, but even if it is, God has
> > > >>>>>>>>> decreed
> > > >>>>>>>>> Abortion is okay.
>
> > > >>>>>>>> We'll agree to disagree. :)
>
> > > >>>>>>>> Regards,
>
> > > >>>>>>>> Brock
>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 7:12 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 1, 2008, at 4:34 AM, chazworth wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 31, 5:16 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 28, 10:22 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> A right to lifer!
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't call an abortion a medical benefit to the child
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> being
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> aborted.
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> But a foetus is not a "child".
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I believe that he/she is.
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Brock
>
> --
> Ambassador From Hell

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anger management
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/8381d5f5b3503eb3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 9 2008 9:43 pm
From: "Keith MacNevins"

This has been discussed recently. "Man is the measure of all things." I do
believe a rather lofty ancient Greek guy said that. What does it mean? To me
it means that no one is better endowed with a capacity to observe all
aspects of creation than man, and to evaluate, categorize, synthesize and
summarize. Well, no one besides man and higher beings. But even then man is
the "mean" entity.

On 4/9/08, Brock Organ <brockorgan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Apr 9, 2008, at 11:53 AM, e-bomber-z wrote:
> > You're a twat.
>
> I was happy to note:
>
> Humankind is not the measure of all things.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
>
> >
> > On Apr 10, 1:12 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 7, 2008, at 3:49 PM, rappoccio wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Apr 5, 1:00 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Apr 5, 2008, at 1:49 PM, scooter wrote:
> >>>>> On Apr 5, 12:41 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Apr 4, 2008, at 10:26 PM, scooter wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Apr 4, 2:02 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 1:14 PM, MrCool
> >>>>>>>> <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 3 Apr, 23:12, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:29 AM, MrCool
> >>>>>>>>>> <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 3 Apr, 04:53, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2008, at 10:00 PM, MrCool wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 Apr, 16:58, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 1, 10:25 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 1, 10:14 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 1, 6:44 am, MrCool <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inductive logic is a fallacy when trying to arrive
> >>>>>>>>> at
> >>>>>>>>> absolute
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truths,
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well said. The implications of this issue devastate
> >>>>>>>>> and disqualify
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the scientific method as a means for "proving" God
> >>>>>>>>> doesn't exist as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are usually articulated on this forum.
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is still the best method to arrive at the
> >>>>>>>>> best
> >>>>>>>>> explanations
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given our limited knowledge of the universe.
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How then did you arrive at this absolute truth (that
> >>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>> is the best
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method)? It certainly isn't established by
> >>>>>>>>> scientific
> >>>>>>>>> means for the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason you noted above, the limited nature of
> >>>>>>>>> induction.
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, if it is not an absolute truth (that it
> >>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>> the best
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method), then aren't you simply expressing a
> >>>>>>>>> personal
> >>>>>>>>> subjective
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief?
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one pretends that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science arrives at absolute truths, that's what
> >>>>>>>>> religious people
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do.
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely. Nothing but objective truth will do.
> >>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>> claim is that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Bible provides nothing less:
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why should we accept that claim?
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd be happy for agreement from you on the limitations
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>> inductive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and deductive methods of argument. :)
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> People using faulty premises and coming up with faulty
> >>>>>>>>> conclusions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> does not mean that there's anything wrong with
> >>>>>>>>> deductive
> >>>>>>>>> logic.
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But it does mean:
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Since deductive reasoning is dependent on its premises,
> >>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>> too has
> >>>>>>>>>>>> limitations, namely the limitations of its premises."
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I disagree. Thats not a limitation of deductive reasoning,
> >>>>>>>>> it's a
> >>>>>>>>>>> limitation of faulty premises.
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>> To be a little bit more precise, I mean that the quality of
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> conclusions derived from deductive reasoning is limited by the
> >>>>>>>>> quality
> >>>>>>>>>> of its axioms. So I believe that is a significant limitation.
> >>
> >>>>>>>>> Is the fact that I *can* use bad grammar a limitation of the
> >>>>>>>>> english
> >>>>>>>>> language? Are we limited by the fact that we cannot escape
> >>>>>>>>> axioms?
> >>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>> guess it could be argued that it would be better to have a
> >>>>>>>>> language
> >>>>>>>>> where only good grammar was possible, but this is pointless.
> >>>>>>>>> Where
> >>>>>>>>> can you go with this?
> >>
> >>>>>>>> It means that even deductive reasoning is limited by the quality
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> its axioms.
> >>
> >>>>>>> No. First, its not just dedeuctive reasoning--its all reasoning.
> >>>>>>> Second, it does not mean all reasoning, theism included, is
> >>>>>>> limited
> >>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>> the quality of its axioms. It means the veracity of reasoning is
> >>>>>>> determined by the quality of its axioms.
> >>
> >>>>>> Well, sounds like you've taken my point:
> >>
> >>>>> It wasn't your point. These have been well established facts for a
> >>>>> long time.
> >>
> >>>>>> * inductive reasoning has specific and significant limitations
> >>>>>> * deductive reasoning has specific and significant limitations
> >>
> >>>> Excellent. You've taken my points:
> >>
> >>>> * inductive reasoning has specific and significant limitations
> >>>> * deductive reasoning has specific and significant limitations
> >>
> >>>> And further you've agreed with them. I'm happy to hear that.
> >>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>
> >>>> Brock
> >>
> >>> * Listening to the Holy Spirit has nothing BUT limitations.
> >>
> >> Humankind is not the measure of all things.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Brock
> > >
>
>
> >
>

--
Ambassador From Hell

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Proof That Theists Belong In Cages #6768950726 (Volume 82FFZ)
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/09d97119dcff6658?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 9 2008 9:52 pm
From: Jericho

Well, now that you realize it, shut the hell up!
You want to act like a dumbass, I'll treat you like one.

On Apr 9, 8:39 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My mistake. I did not realize that you know everything.
>
> On 4/9/08, Jericho <wasteofcar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If Jesus Christ was personally posting at this group, he'd be
> > answering questions about his statement rather than evading them like
> > every theist does. Oh, sure, he'd likely get attacked, but not
> > because he's JC but because he claimed to be JC. Anyone can claim to
> > be anyone here (if you disagree, what's my name?). But, once he
> > convinced anyone he actually knows that he's talking about, the
> > attacks would stop and the questions would start.
>
> > On Apr 9, 8:52 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If the demons at this group had their way I would have minus five stars
> > for
> > > each and every post. What does that prove? If Jesus Christ was
> > personally
> > > posting at this group you'd be attacking him with a lot more fervor and
> > > nastiness. Why should I care what a bunch of demons have to say about
> > me? If
> > > you liked me I would be worried about the integrity of my immortal soul.
> > Are
> > > you a bug BTW?
>
> > > On 4/9/08, e-bomber-z <Bombylii...@aussiemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > You've got 14454 one star ratings and you think people like you.
>
> > > > On Apr 9, 1:22 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Yer a poet and you didn't even knowet!
>
> > > > > On 4/8/08, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Then you wouldn't be resting your argument, would you, jackass?
>
> > > > > > On Apr 8, 1:51 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > That depends in part on him, on you, and on your demon cohorts
> > at
> > > > this
> > > > > > > group. Okay draftyass?
>
> > > > > > > On 4/8/08, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Does that mean you're going to shut up about it, now?
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 1:46 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > People have asked me why I refer to this demon-dev guy as a
> > > > demon. I
> > > > > > > > rest my
> > > > > > > > > case.
>
> > > > > > > > > On 4/8/08, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > The Religious Right attempts to exploit any shred of
> > possible
> > > > > > evidence
> > > > > > > > > > that violent video games and cartoons influence violence
> > in
> > > > order
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > "protect their children" from them, but teach The Bible to
> > > > their
> > > > > > kids
> > > > > > > > > > despite the millions killed because of the explicitly
> > violent
> > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > > > > contained within.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Fun question of the week: people who don't advocate
> > locking
> > > > > > theists up
> > > > > > > > > > have an average of how many sexually violated child
> > corpses in
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > basement?
>
> > > > > > > > > > (1) Three.
> > > > > > > > > > (2) Fourteen and a half.
> > > > > > > > > > (3) It depends on what you call "sex".
>
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Ambassador From Hell- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Ambassador From Hell- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ambassador From Hell
>
> > > --
> > > Ambassador From Hell
>
> --
> Ambassador From Hell

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 9 2008 10:02 pm
From: Jericho

Could someone loan Brock a sense of humor? He seems to have
completely lost his.

Jericho

On Apr 9, 7:38 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2008, at 4:35 PM, Jericho wrote:
>
> > Does that mean I have to get loaded before I can answer? Oh well, if
> > I must.
>
> No, it means that a loaded question has a great chance of receiving a
> similar answer in kind. :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
>
> > Jericho
>
> > On Apr 8, 11:18 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 8, 1:38 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >>> Fun question of the week: people who don't advocate locking theists
> >>> up
> >>> have an average of how many sexually violated child corpses in their
> >>> basement?
>
> >> Ask a loaded question, don't be surprised if you receive a loaded
> >> answer. :)
>
> >> Regards,
>
> >> Brock

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Advice for Atheist with Christian Spouse?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/6fc3fe93b8adf75c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 9 2008 9:54 pm
From: DaVuxOrz

Strange the woman until she converts.

On Apr 9, 8:45 pm, Engineer Eric <ericdla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I abandoned belief in God about two years ago. I married my wife 3
> years ago. Of course, at the time, I didn't plan on becoming an
> atheist. I've tried to express my views to my wife the best way I
> can, but it's been a slow process getting her to accept that I do not
> at all believe in a god. I am humoring her for the moment by saying I
> have questions or doubts about God rather than total non-belief
> (though I really am certain God does not exist and I am now completely
> repulsed by all religions).
>
> My disdain for religion is difficult to conceal and I really wish I
> could be open about it with my wife. I really love my wife and is
> painful for me to see her cry when all of our religious discussions
> end with something about me being destined for Hell. I also worry
> about whether or not we could ever have kids in this state. I cannot
> raise them to be superstitious dimwits. I feel that I was damaged by
> religion and I will not let that happen to any children of mine.
>
> Has anyone else had difficulty convincing a family member to give up
> their religion? Any advice you could give would be appreciated.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 9 2008 10:30 pm
From: Dag Yo

My advice is probably silly, but how about taking some cheap junior
college philosophy and logic classes together. Then after a while
talk about the implications of what you learned.

On Apr 9, 7:45 pm, Engineer Eric <ericdla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I abandoned belief in God about two years ago. I married my wife 3
> years ago. Of course, at the time, I didn't plan on becoming an
> atheist. I've tried to express my views to my wife the best way I
> can, but it's been a slow process getting her to accept that I do not
> at all believe in a god. I am humoring her for the moment by saying I
> have questions or doubts about God rather than total non-belief
> (though I really am certain God does not exist and I am now completely
> repulsed by all religions).
>
> My disdain for religion is difficult to conceal and I really wish I
> could be open about it with my wife. I really love my wife and is
> painful for me to see her cry when all of our religious discussions
> end with something about me being destined for Hell. I also worry
> about whether or not we could ever have kids in this state. I cannot
> raise them to be superstitious dimwits. I feel that I was damaged by
> religion and I will not let that happen to any children of mine.
>
> Has anyone else had difficulty convincing a family member to give up
> their religion? Any advice you could give would be appreciated.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why do Christians think atheists have no morals?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/c6e1f4bea12da0f4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 9 2008 10:10 pm
From: "Timothy 1:4a"

On Apr 9, 10:07 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2008, at 9:56 PM, Timothy 1:4a wrote:
>
> > If you really agree with Scruton on this, accuse Heidegger and Sartre
> > of sloppy language use. Then move past it!
> > By Sartre's argument, nobody's recommendation (including his own) has
> > objective force.
>
> But that is a limitation of the existential position ("existence
> precedes essence") only. This is a compelling reason to abandon
> existential premises as sources of first principles.
>
> > Which merely puts it on the same footing as arguments
> > that do claim objective force.
>
> But that is precisely what one using existential premises cannot claim
> objectively.
>
> > In case you hadn't noticed, there are
> > hundreds of contrary "objective" arguments but no objective way to
> > choose among them.
>
> Again, if basing this on existential premises, you cannot assert that
> there is no objective why to choose among them.
>
> > Exsitentialism provides meaningful answers for those who have
> > understood the untenability of whatever particular brand of infallible
> > truth they had the bad fortune to be raised under.
>
> But not objectively. And worse, lacking an objective point of
> reference, existentialism is unable to objectively criticize any
> competing belief. What a useless epistemology! :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 9:56 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 5, 2008, at 7:27 PM, wiseclam wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 5, 11:57 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Apr 5, 2008, at 1:42 PM, wiseclam wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 5, 11:36 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> I think Steve's point notes the limitations of existential
> >>>>>> premises.
>
> >>>>> Never mind the limitations of non-existential premises...
>
> >>>> Why?
>
> >>> My point is if you think existential premises have limitations then
> >>> non-existential premises must be profoundly weak, relatively
> >>> speaking.
>
> >> But I don't believe that one can make such a position objectively if
> >> they are using existential premises. For example:
>
> >> "Roger Scruton claimed, in his book From Descartes to Wittgenstein,
> >> that both Heidegger's concept of inauthenticity and Sartre's concept
> >> of
> >> bad faith were self-inconsistent; both deny any universal moral creed,
> >> yet speak of these concepts as if everyone is bound to abide by them.
> >> In chapter 18, he writes, "In what sense Sartre is able to 'recommend'
> >> the authenticity which consists in the purely self-made morality is
> >> unclear. He does recommend it, but, by his own argument, his
> >> recommendation can have no objective force.""[1]
>
> >> Regards,
"I take no leave of you Miss Bennet, I send no regards to your mother.
You deserve no such attention. I am most seriously displeased. Drive
on"
>
> >> Brock
>
> >> [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism#Criticism-Hide quoted
> >> text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: why do athiests think christians are ",So frigging retarded"
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/35228a90ed5305fd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 9 2008 10:13 pm
From: Dag Yo

> Don't worry Obs, I'll put on a slinky gown and keep the detectives
> distracted at the Roulette wheel ;-).
<3 <3 <3

I wanna watch this movie now.

On Apr 9, 5:16 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 8:39 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 3:38 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 80% of U.S. prisoners are Christian and 0.2% are atheists
>
> > > Has the possibility ever occurred to you Observer, that given the
> > > negative correlation between IQ and theism, that perhaps atheists are
> > > indeed the leading demographic amongst criminals, but the reason that
> > > they aren't represented in prison statistics is because they are
> > > gentleman thieves who constantly engage in brilliantly planned
> > > robberies of priceless artifacts and huge diamonds but, through their
> > > charm and cleverness always manage to stay one step ahead of the
> > > detectives on their trail?
>
> > Observer
>
> > Oh Please don't expose me further. Maybe the detectives haven't read
> > this and I can continue my life of gentlemanly crime unscathed.
>
> > Got to run I have a cat burglar caper to pull off in Monte Carlo and
> > then a fifty million dollar swindle to complete . Ups I have said
> > too much already .
>
> Don't worry Obs, I'll put on a slinky gown and keep the detectives
> distracted at the Roulette wheel ;-).
>
>
>
> > Regards
>
> > Psychonomist
>
> > > -
> > > On Apr 9, 7:37 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 7, 4:59 pm, CB <cmbass...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 7, 8:21 am, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > There is no logical reason to
> > > > > > believe a god of any kind exists.
>
> > > > > Subjective opinion pretending to be objective fact noted.
>
> > > > Observer
>
> > > > Please give us compelling reasons to believe that your moronic concept
> > > > of a god thing exists.
>
> > > > List one scientifically verifiable act of this god thing.
>
> > > > Since no one has ever defined it (what is it and what is it not) it
> > > > would seem necessary to a thinking mind that there must at least exist
> > > > scientifically verifiable substantiating data as to some act that this
> > > > thing has commited
> > > > somewhere in the universe at some time.
>
> > > > Lacking either belief in your superstitious concept is some what less
> > > > than intelligent.
>
> > > > > > It appears that the Atheists moral system are far better than the
> > > > > > christian ones. That's supported by the fact that christians are
> > > > > > overrepresented in USA prisons than Atheists. Christians are around
> > > > > > 80% of the USA population but make up over 97% of the USA prison
> > > > > > population. Atheist are about15% of the USA population but less than
> > > > > > one percent of the prison population.
>
> > > > > Fallacy.
>
> > > > > 31% of inmates classified themselves as "no religion", which is the
> > > > > equivalent of atheism. Ergo, 46% of the prison population is atheist
> > > > > versus 20% of the general population.
>
> > > > > This lie has gone on too long.
>
> > > > Observer
>
> > > > 80% of U.S. prisoners are Christian and 0.2% are atheists
>
> > > > Data source is The Federal Bureau of Prisons, March 1997.
>
> > > > Holysmoke.org - prisons
>
> > > >http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
>
> > > > Regards
>
> > > > Psychonomist

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What does TERM "ATHEIST" really means to you
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/4519000988ba2e24?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 9 2008 10:16 pm
From: Dag Yo

Indeed.

On Apr 9, 6:28 pm, osei <osei.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think an atheist has to reject the existence of God because
> the existence of God has never been proven, therefore there is nothing
> to reject. Honestly I believe the term atheist should not even exist
> there should be theists and everyone else. If I told you there was an
> invisible unicorn under my dining room table I may call myself a
> Unicornist, but I doubt the entire planet would be Aunicornist.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 9 2008 10:19 pm
From: Dag Yo

You're just doing it wrong (as if you haven't been told that a few
times already).

Atheism is the absence of theism. Thats all there is to it, what
you're looking at are questions of possibilities (known or not), and
if anything those are questions for the issue of gnosticism/
agnosticism -- which is about knowledge of god not belief of god.

On Apr 9, 6:04 pm, "jamesn...@gmail.com" <jamesn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good Dag Yo..
> CMIIW, if we write your logic in mathematical :
>
> For theist
> GOD >= 1
> Ok, thats specific..
>
> For Atheist
> GOD < 1
> (so, is it possible if God = 0,5 ?, or is it possible if God = -1
> (negative) ?)
> i'm sure you'll say it's Impossible..
> So, according to you... is this mean For Atheist GOD = 0..
>
> On Apr 9, 6:27 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What the heck yo. I know a good dozen people or so have already told
> > you what the word means.
>
> > It has a specific meaning and no amount of polling is going to change
> > that. A theist is someone who believes in at least one god, an
> > atheist is someone who is not a theist...thats all there is to it.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 9 2008 10:22 pm
From: Dag Yo

> in other word, they believe that God does not exist..
> i think, this is the really means abt term "Atheist".
You are close James.

On Apr 9, 7:20 pm, "jamesn...@gmail.com" <jamesn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, .
> some people here, do not believe the existence of God, They need a
> proof, that God does exist.
> in other word, they believe that God does not exist..
> i think, this is the really means abt term "Atheist".
>
> On Apr 10, 9:28 am, osei <osei.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think an atheist has to reject the existence of God because
> > the existence of God has never been proven, therefore there is nothing
> > to reject. Honestly I believe the term atheist should not even exist
> > there should be theists and everyone else. If I told you there was an
> > invisible unicorn under my dining room table I may call myself a
> > Unicornist, but I doubt the entire planet would be Aunicornist.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rep. Monique Davis to atheist Rob Sherman: `It's dangerous for our
children to even know that your philosophy exists!'
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/6525b7de7a54b68d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 9 2008 11:16 pm
From: "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"

On Apr 8, 12:16 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 1:17 pm, DigitalPoet <briankr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Davis: You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You
> > believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was
> > built upon.
>
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
> Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
> among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
> governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive
> of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
> it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
> principles and organizing its powers in such form ..."[1]
>
> There it is. The government of this country was founded upon the
> rights endowed by God.

It says Creator, not God. Where nature is the creator, the passage
would imply that the Law comes from nature. Whence the term Natural
Law?

> Regards,
> Brock
> [1] http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rational faith and irrational faith
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/d87851484e2e4325?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 9 2008 11:42 pm
From: simonsaysbye

On Apr 10, 2:28 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 5:19 pm, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 7:53 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Apr 9, 8:27 am, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Suppose we assign a probability P to any hypothesis h, then:
> > > > P(h) = 1 = complete certainty that h is true
> > > > P(h) = 0.75 = a reasonable conviction that h is more likely to be true
> > > > than false
> > > > P(h) = 0.5 = complete uncertainty as to whether h it true or false
> > > > P(h) = 0.25 = a reasonable conviction that h is less likely to be true
> > > > than false
> > > > P(h) = 0 = complete certainty that h is false
>
> > > > I believe that faith might be the process that takes place when a
> > > > person needs to act, or chooses to act, upon a particular belief
> > > > despite some evidence to the contrary.
>
> > > Why not stick with the proper definition?
>
> > > From dictionary.com:
>
> > > faith, noun:
> > > 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's
> > > ability.
>
> > OK, so first meaning: trust in a person or thing. That sounds
> > promising.
> > So for example:
> > Christian 1: 'Do you believe that god will speak to you tonight?'
> > Christian 2: 'Yes I do! I am really trusting in the Lord' = 'Yes I
> > do! I have faith in the Lord'
>
> > Another example:
> > Christian 1: 'Do have you given your life to Jesus?'
> > Christian 2: 'Yes, I have put all my trust in Him.' = 'Yes, I have
> > faith in Him.'
>
> > Another example:
> > Christian 1: 'Do you believe that there is a god?'
> > Christian 2: 'Yes, I trust that there is a god' = 'Yes, I have faith
> > that there is a god.'
>
> > So, straight up I see that faith and trust are connected.
>
> I do not. Trust is based on previous experience (which none of your
> previous examples have), and faith is based on nothing. Regardless,
> it's word games. Better to be more precise:
>

Act 1 Scene 1. A theist (T) enters a room filled with atheists (A)

T: Hi!
A (all): Hello yourself, dog turd.
T: Oh. Well hello, can I talk about my faith?
A: OK. That would be that think which you believe against all reason,
logic and rationality. You dog turd.
T: No I have my reasons, so my faith is not -
A: Now listen. Do you have faith?
T: Yes I do, but I have reasons for my fa-
A: Fine. And faith is defined as totally believing in something
against all logic, rationality, or reason. That is why you are a dog
turd.
T: Well when I say faith what I mean is that I trust that there is a
god and I trust what he has to say.
A: That's not faith, you total fool. That is trust. Trust is
completely different. Scientists trust things. That is why they are
not dog turds. You are a dog turd, because you do not trust, you have
faith.
T: (flipping through dictionary and not finding a definition that fits
this): No, I am using 'faith' as defined here: "Christian Theology.
the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the
Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved"
A: Typical. All theists love to play word games. Let me be more
precise. Let me arbitrarily select one of those definitions, modify
it to my advantage, ignore how trust is defined in that same
dictionary, and then call that faith. See? I am being precise, and
not playing word games like you. You dog turd.
T: But if you insist that that is what faith means, have you not just
built into the very definition that religious belief is then belief in
something without reason or justification?
A: Bingo. Which just goes to show: you really are a dog turd.
(Theist exits, stage left)
A: Well I refuted that dog turd.
A (all): What a dog turd.

End of play.

I notice that you have cut out nearly all of my responses to your
reply. I suppose that's one way of dealing with someone who presents
evidence that you find bothersome to reply to.

To sum up:
1: Of the 8 definitions you gave on faith nearly all of them informed
correctly on how I was using the word, but you have not explained why
in that case it is wrong to use the word in the ways they are defined
except to say that faith does not really mean those things
2: Out of your list of 8 nuances of meaning of faith you selected the
second meaning, which you claim is 'most closely linked to the concept
of religious faith', ignoring the fact that it is not one of the
definitions that is in fact linked to religious faith given in the
list of meanings of the word, and that there are indeed some
definitions that do exactly this. When this is pointed out to you,
you say nothing.
3: You then modify that definition to make it mean what you want it to
mean, instead of what it says. You give no justification for doing
this and when this is pointed out to, you do not give any explanation.
4: You then distinguish between faith and trust but in doing so ignore
how trust is in fact defined. Of the 24 nuances of meaning for the
word 'trust' I found at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trust I
quote nine of them that inform correctly on how I use the word, and
note that none of the 24 fit your own definition. (And since then
another source that Trance posted gives 3 nuances that fit with me and
none that fit with you). You do not address this point.
5: When considering how the 8 definitions fit with each other you make
no mention at all of meaning 8, the one definition that most directly
addresses the discussion at hand and very straightforwardly defines it
in terms of 'trust' ("8. Christian Theology. the TRUST in God and in
His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans
are justified or saved", my emphasis). Again, when this is pointed
out you do not have an answer.

Instead you say that this is all word games, and it would be better to
be more precise.

I finished my last post with a very simple appeal: "What I would like
to do is ask that you to allow me the privilege of using the word
'faith' as defined by the dictionary definitions that you have pasted
in at the top of your response. Is that too much to ask?"

Clearly it was.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 12:08 am
From: Dag Yo

If you feel that your belief in the existence of God is a valid one
that does not run counter to logic, reason, and rationality then
please post it.

I'm quite curious.

-
On Apr 9, 10:42 pm, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2:28 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 5:19 pm, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 9, 7:53 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Apr 9, 8:27 am, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > Suppose we assign a probability P to any hypothesis h, then:
> > > > > P(h) = 1 = complete certainty that h is true
> > > > > P(h) = 0.75 = a reasonable conviction that h is more likely to be true
> > > > > than false
> > > > > P(h) = 0.5 = complete uncertainty as to whether h it true or false
> > > > > P(h) = 0.25 = a reasonable conviction that h is less likely to be true
> > > > > than false
> > > > > P(h) = 0 = complete certainty that h is false
>
> > > > > I believe that faith might be the process that takes place when a
> > > > > person needs to act, or chooses to act, upon a particular belief
> > > > > despite some evidence to the contrary.
>
> > > > Why not stick with the proper definition?
>
> > > > From dictionary.com:
>
> > > > faith, noun:
> > > > 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's
> > > > ability.
>
> > > OK, so first meaning: trust in a person or thing. That sounds
> > > promising.
> > > So for example:
> > > Christian 1: 'Do you believe that god will speak to you tonight?'
> > > Christian 2: 'Yes I do! I am really trusting in the Lord' = 'Yes I
> > > do! I have faith in the Lord'
>
> > > Another example:
> > > Christian 1: 'Do have you given your life to Jesus?'
> > > Christian 2: 'Yes, I have put all my trust in Him.' = 'Yes, I have
> > > faith in Him.'
>
> > > Another example:
> > > Christian 1: 'Do you believe that there is a god?'
> > > Christian 2: 'Yes, I trust that there is a god' = 'Yes, I have faith
> > > that there is a god.'
>
> > > So, straight up I see that faith and trust are connected.
>
> > I do not. Trust is based on previous experience (which none of your
> > previous examples have), and faith is based on nothing. Regardless,
> > it's word games. Better to be more precise:
>
> On Apr 10, 2:28 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 5:19 pm, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 9, 7:53 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Apr 9, 8:27 am, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > Suppose we assign a probability P to any hypothesis h, then:
> > > > > P(h) = 1 = complete certainty that h is true
> > > > > P(h) = 0.75 = a reasonable conviction that h is more likely to be true
> > > > > than false
> > > > > P(h) = 0.5 = complete uncertainty as to whether h it true or false
> > > > > P(h) = 0.25 = a reasonable conviction that h is less likely to be true
> > > > > than false
> > > > > P(h) = 0 = complete certainty that h is false
>
> > > > > I believe that faith might be the process that takes place when a
> > > > > person needs to act, or chooses to act, upon a particular belief
> > > > > despite some evidence to the contrary.
>
> > > > Why not stick with the proper definition?
>
> > > > From dictionary.com:
>
> > > > faith, noun:
> > > > 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's
> > > > ability.
>
> > > OK, so first meaning: trust in a person or thing. That sounds
> > > promising.
> > > So for example:
> > > Christian 1: 'Do you believe that god will speak to you tonight?'
> > > Christian 2: 'Yes I do! I am really trusting in the Lord' = 'Yes I
> > > do! I have faith in the Lord'
>
> > > Another example:
> > > Christian 1: 'Do have you given your life to Jesus?'
> > > Christian 2: 'Yes, I have put all my trust in Him.' = 'Yes, I have
> > > faith in Him.'
>
> > > Another example:
> > > Christian 1: 'Do you believe that there is a god?'
> > > Christian 2: 'Yes, I trust that there is a god' = 'Yes, I have faith
> > > that there is a god.'
>
> > > So, straight up I see that faith and trust are connected.
>
> > I do not. Trust is based on previous experience (which none of your
> > previous examples have), and faith is based on nothing. Regardless,
> > it's word games. Better to be more precise:
>
> Act 1 Scene 1. A theist (T) enters a room filled with atheists (A)
>
> T: Hi!
> A (all): Hello yourself, dog turd.
> T: Oh. Well hello, can I talk about my faith?
> A: OK. That would be that think which you believe against all reason,
> logic and rationality. You dog turd.
> T: No I have my reasons, so my faith is not -
> A: Now listen. Do you have faith?
> T: Yes I do, but I have reasons for my fa-
> A: Fine. And faith is defined as totally believing in something
> against all logic, rationality, or reason. That is why you are a dog
> turd.
> T: Well when I say faith what I mean is that I trust that there is a
> god and I trust what he has to say.
> A: That's not faith, you total fool. That is trust. Trust is
> completely different. Scientists trust things. That is why they are
> not dog turds. You are a dog turd, because you do not trust, you have
> faith.
> T: (flipping through dictionary and not finding a definition that fits
> this): No, I am using 'faith' as defined here: "Christian Theology.
> the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the
> Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved"
> A: Typical. All theists love to play word games. Let me be more
> precise. Let me arbitrarily select one of those definitions, modify
> it to my advantage, ignore how trust is defined in that same
> dictionary, and then call that faith. See? I am being precise, and
> not playing word games like you. You dog turd.
> T: But if you insist that that is what faith means, have you not just
> built into the very definition that religious belief is then belief in
> something without reason or justification?
> A: Bingo. Which just goes to show: you really are a dog turd.
> (Theist exits, stage left)
> A: Well I refuted that dog turd.
> A (all): What a dog turd.
>
> End of play.
>
> I notice that you have cut out nearly all of my responses to your
> reply. I suppose that's one way of dealing with someone who presents
> evidence that you find bothersome to reply to.
>
> To sum up:
> 1: Of the 8 definitions you gave on faith nearly all of them informed
> correctly on how I was using the word, but you have not explained why
> in that case it is wrong to use the word in the ways they are defined
> except to say that faith does not really mean those things
> 2: Out of your list of 8 nuances of meaning of faith you selected the
> second meaning, which you claim is 'most closely linked to the concept
> of religious faith', ignoring the fact that it is not one of the
> definitions that is in fact linked to religious faith given in the
> list of meanings of the word, and that there are indeed some
> definitions that do exactly this. When this is pointed out to you,
> you say nothing.
> 3: You then modify that definition to make it mean what you want it to
> mean, instead of what it says. You give no justification for doing
> this and when this is pointed out to, you do not give any explanation.
> 4: You then distinguish between faith and trust but in doing so ignore
> how trust is in fact defined. Of the 24 nuances of meaning for the
> word 'trust' I found athttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trustI
> quote nine of them that inform correctly on how I use the word, and
> note that none of the 24 fit your own definition. (And since then
> another source that Trance posted gives 3 nuances that fit with me and
> none that fit with you). You do not address this point.
> 5: When considering how the 8 definitions fit with each other you make
> no mention at all of meaning 8, the one definition that most directly
> addresses the discussion at hand and very straightforwardly defines it
> in terms of 'trust' ("8. Christian Theology. the TRUST in God and in
> His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans
> are justified or saved", my emphasis). Again, when this is pointed
> out you do not have an answer.
>
> Instead you say that this is all word games, and it would be better to
> be more precise.
>
> I finished my last post with a very simple appeal: "What I would like
> to do is ask that you to allow me the privilege of using the word
> 'faith' as defined by the dictionary definitions that you have pasted
> in at the top of your response. Is that too much to ask?"
>
> Clearly it was.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Higher Power"
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/8f1ccddba40543e7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 12:16 am
From: 4praise

If you want to read detailed stories about people that have
surrendered to the holy spiri,. there are plenty of them available.
For example:

"The interior castle" by Saint Teresa
"Rees Howells: Intercessor" by Norman Grubb
"The practice of the presence of God" by Brother Lawrence

On Apr 8, 4:21 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 5:37 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
>
> > You have to make up your own mind about it. Why did he pursue the
> > abolition of slavery, risking his political career?
>
> You are the one making the claim. You have to provide the evidence.
> Otherwise retract the claim.
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 5:21 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 7, 4:52 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
>
> > > > "in 1785 he underwent a conversion experience and became an
> > > > evangelical Christian."
>
> > > So? How do I know he surrendered? Where is the reference to him
> > > letting go of all his stuff?
>
> > > > On Apr 6, 5:02 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 6, 1:58 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > And a real-world example of this would be....?
>
> > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce
>
> > > > > > Not the person, but the various acts by various people that play into
> > > > > > this story.
>
> > > > > I found no reference of anyone surrendering to any spirits.
>
> > > > > > On Apr 5, 6:06 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > And a real-world example of this would be....?
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 5, 7:54 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > In children and in adults that can surrender to the holy spirit and
> > > > > > > > let go of thier stuff
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 5, 3:40 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 5, 2:37 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Is not faith subject to your own prejudices?
>
> > > > > > > > > > It depends on how you define faith or which type of faith you are
> > > > > > > > > > describing. Religion can definitely take on the mores of society and
> > > > > > > > > > in turn can influence society.
>
> > > > > > > > > > There is a pure faith that isn't corrupted or influenced, but it is
> > > > > > > > > > rare.
>
> > > > > > > > > Really? Where?
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Apr 2, 3:31 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 2, 3:11 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, essentially, our relationship to both reason and faith in God is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > self-serving. However, with reason the relationship is dictated by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > reason and with faith it is dictated by the preferences of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > individual human.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Reason is not subject to our prejudices? Is that why it seemed
> > > > > > > > > > > > "reasonable" to Jefferson to write that "all men are created equal"
> > > > > > > > > > > > and "endowed with a right to liberty" while he owned slaves?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Is not faith subject to your own prejudices?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > How did he do that? He somehow managed to convince himself (using
> > > > > > > > > > > > "reason") that slaves were not fully human (as did many at that
> > > > > > > > > > > > time).
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > The activists involved in the movement to end slavery in the U.S. and
> > > > > > > > > > > > England were predominately Christians. While I am sure that they used
> > > > > > > > > > > > reason, the driving force was compassion and conviction which they
> > > > > > > > > > > > would say came to them as a revelation of God's will. These men had
> > > > > > > > > > > > to get something from somewhere to convince them to invest their lives
> > > > > > > > > > > > into abolition - the early pioneers of abolition were moving
> > > > > > > > > > > > completely against the tide.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 1, 12:14 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, theists _claim_ that they are in service to a higher power.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we know that at least _most_ conceptions of the will of God
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are really invented by humans--that is mathematically true, because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > any conception of God's specific will is a minority conception--and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the idea that there is a God at all that theists are serving is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > completely unsubstantiated. When arguing about the value of faith,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > theists usually attempt not just to ironically make failed attempts to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > use reason to defend it, but also base their arguments around what it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > does for humans.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, essentially, our relationship to both reason and faith in God is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > self-serving. However, with reason the relationship is dictated by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > reason and with faith it is dictated by the preferences of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > individual human.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 1, 12:47 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It depends on who is making the claim. If the creator says "2" then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's not arrogant.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But did he? The bible says that we were created for him not the other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way around.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 11:30 pm, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Speaking of that, which of the two statements below is a more arrogant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > claim?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) The powers of the universe effect things without any connection to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) The powers of the universe are created mainly for us humans to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fulfill some unknown special goal.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 1, 9:00 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have always had a problem with the religious assumption that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > atheists don't believe in anything "higher than themselves"--it has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always been a veiled insult of arrogance from people so smug as to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think they and they alone don't have any responsibility to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > substantiate their outlandish assertions of being guided by perfect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intelligence and morality. Consider Brock's often repeated statement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "humankind is not the measure of all things", something I've never
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > heard an atheist say here (and he accuses other people of making
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strawmen). Now let's evaluate the differences between reason and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > religious faith and ask yourself who is really making themselves the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > highest authority.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > REASON: Our understanding of this is imperfect and evolving, but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable people know that if personal preferences or convictions are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in direct opposition to it then reason wins out. If we can't figure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something out reasonably, we acknowledge that the limitations are ours
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for not developing our reasonable comprehension to that point yet. As
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > our reasoning capabilities improve, they become more sufficient to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > describe more about The Universe.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RELIGIOUS FAITH: The individual's personal convictions trump
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything else, period. While there is a claim of a "higher power",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all evidence points to the will and nature of said entity being
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dictated by that of the individual who believes it exists. Faith,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since it is without consistent standards, cannot evolve. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > individual accepts his own faith, then, as basically perfect, and the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > faith of other people--while rationally indistinguishable--imperfect.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- 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

Thursday, April 10, 2008

22 new messages in 11 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links