Atheism vs Christianity: 25 new messages in 10 topics

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:03 am
From: Trance Gemini

I have a feeling he'd enjoy that ;-).

On Apr 2, 4:46 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> Right in the kisser.
>
> On Apr 2, 7:15 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 1, 5:12 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 1, 3:41 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 1, 12:14 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 1, 5:22 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 1, 12:30 am, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 31, 9:07 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > I think it's a matter of weighing expectations. A few things to
> > > > > > > > consider:
>
> > > > > > > > (1) Theists who whine that insults are "ruining a logical
> > > > > > > > discussion" (or something similar) never say anything logical and are
> > > > > > > > always whining about people who do.
>
> > > > > > > This is generally true. Some of them also whine where there are no
> > > > > > > insults, or not reverence of their long held beliefs.
>
> > > > > > > > (2) If you make a logical argument, insults don't make it less
> > > > > > > > logical.
>
> > > > > > > Yes, it may make it more likely though that the more reasonable
> > > > > > > theists of the lot will not respond at all.
>
> > > > > > > > (3) Theists have--_are_--a bottomless pit of excuses to act like
> > > > > > > > idiots. It makes no difference if you "give" them one or not. You
> > > > > > > > don't need a good reason to be completely unreasonable. You don't even
> > > > > > > > need a bad reason to be unreasonable.
>
> > > > > > > Yup, this is generally true as well.
>
> > > > > > > > (4) It is hard to think of a mean thing to say about theists that
> > > > > > > > isn't true.
>
> > > > > > > Well, I can. If I say the same thing to OldMan as I do to semi, for
> > > > > > > example, that'd mean.
>
> > > > > > > > (5) These true things are often relevant to the conversation.
>
> > > > > > > I don't understand.
>
> > > > > > > > (6) On this group, if it comes to honesty versus politeness which it
> > > > > > > > almost certainly does, think about all the usual reasons you are
> > > > > > > > polite and see if they matter here.
>
> > > > > > > Politeness only gets you more responses. It does not get you more
> > > > > > > reasonable responses. With the kooks, continued politeness
> > > > > > > accompanied by steadfast reasoning will get you a straw man, or an
> > > > > > > accusation of being closed-minded.
>
> > > > > > > > (7) There's no reason to feel bad about expressing your honest,
> > > > > > > > accurate impressions of a theist.
>
> > > > > > > I agree.
>
> > > > > > > > They are delusional enough about who
> > > > > > > > they are without help and deserve every bit of what they get. If they
> > > > > > > > want to stop being cursed out for being liars, for example, maybe they
> > > > > > > > should just stop lying.
>
> > > > > > > I agree with this too. However, if your goal is to discuss things in
> > > > > > > this group, that is counterproductive
>
> > > > > > > > (8) You probably wouldn't have stayed here for so long if you didn't
> > > > > > > > enjoy a little theist bashing so, all things considered, why the hell
> > > > > > > > not?
>
> > > > > > > Well, I can't say I hated someone enough that I relished bashing them,
> > > > > > > I do enjoy bashing their irrational positions. I try really hard not
> > > > > > > to bash the poster, unless it is for the explicit purpose of
> > > > > > > maintaining the tone.
>
> > > > > > You can be very mean, Simpleton.
>
> > > > > Shut up lowly woman! I am not mean at all.
>
> > > > Now you made me cry :-(
>
> > > > I hope you're happy :-(
>
> > > <whispers to Kitty>
> > > Psssttt... you're supposed to be a Christian. You're supposed to say
> > > something like "Oh, yes, massa man, you knows da best" and make him a
> > > pie or something.
>
> > Can I make him Boston Cream and toss it at him ;-)
>
> > > ;)

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:10 am
From: rappoccio

On Apr 2, 3:28 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> Good on you Rapp for realizing this.
> Further realization must include the fact that your actions will
> not change their actions in any way.

Of course. I fully expect the same dishonesty and illogic. However
it's high time that I just let the dishonesty and illogic speak for
themselves (with some carefully sprinkled derision ;) ).

> So, providing you can
> maintain your cool responses, go for it. You may have to keep
> your meaningful discussions between your buddies - except for
> OM of course, and a couple of others who actually can debate
> at times - at least get their points across without wholesale
> irrationality.
>
> On Apr 1, 1:25 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think I'm starting to hate posting against a lot of people here.
> > They really get me so irritated, and of course I have a hot temper so
> > I get carried away at times that I say things that I don't like having
> > to say. However I've come to realize that it only feeds their
> > dishonesty. It only gives credence to their lies. Inadvertently, I'm
> > giving their fallacies a false sense of credibility by responding to
> > them in anger, rather than in coolness. I hate that we can't have a
> > rational discourse here with some people. It's really irritating. But
> > constantly re-expressing how irrational their positions are, and
> > constantly re-demonstrating how unintelligible their responses are,
> > will actually demonstrate our case better, in my opinion. At least I
> > think it's worth a shot.
>
> > But I do apologize for losing my temper to many here, including Keith,
> > Brock, Joe, Chris, Omprem, and others. I still think your positions
> > are completely unfounded and that you're not interested in honest
> > debate. However your illogic and lies are not substantive reason for
> > me to get angry.
>
> > As for my many friends, carry on as you wish by ALL means, I don't
> > even for a second expect anyone to follow suit or even respect this
> > opinion, but as for me, I'll be attempting to ignore stupidity and
> > checking my anger as much as possible. Don't stop the righteous
> > indignation on my account, though :) (unless of course you find this
> > argument persuasive, then we can be "anger management buddies"). But I
> > think that it's time that I personally had a cooler head, and so I'll
> > be trying this for awhile.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Theism and Sociopathy/Psychopathy.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/5eb440110a35406f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:04 am
From: Drafterman

On Apr 2, 10:51 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 2, 6:29 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 12:17 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 1, 9:02 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 1, 7:21 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > This stuff about Hitler's undertaking of the Final Solution based
> > > > > on his Catholicism is ridiculous.
>
> > > > Why?
>
> > > > > Did Hitler go to mass and
> > > > > take Communion regularly?
>
> > > > So a person that doesn't go to mass and take communion regularly is
> > > > not a Catholic?
>
> > > The Catholic church encourages people to go to mass and
> > > take communion. If a person does not do these things, this
> > > shows they do not have a strong belief in the Catholic Church as
> > > an institution. They may have some ideas in common
> > > with the Catholic Church, but their behavior is not guided
> > > by Catholic Church.
>
> > > I don't think the Catholic Church generally concerns
> > > itself with determining exactly who is or is not
> > > a Catholic. Rather, it provides guidance as
> > > to where various behaviors fall on a scale
> > > from positve to neutral to negative in the
> > > eyes of God.
>
> > Interesting. I have just one unanswered question:
>
> > So a person that doesn't go to mass and take communion regularly is
> > not a Catholic?
>
> Sorry, I thought I was being clear, it isn't a yes or no
> question. I'm sure a Catholic would say that the
> only perfect Catholic was Jesus. Everyone else
> ranks somewhere lower on a scale of "Catholicness".
> A Catholic would say that it is God who judges
> exactly where on the scale someone is at.

If Hitler's attendence at mass or participation of communion is not a
clear cut measure by which one can confirm or deny another's
Catholicism, then why bring it up except as a red herring?

So, yes, I think we can all agree that there is no set of specific
actions which will define a person as Christian or non-Christian and
that the only "true" Christian would have been Jesus. Everyone else
merely is X% a Christian. What you fail to realize or acknowledge is
there is A) No way to measure how much a Christian they are and B)
there is currently nothing, anywhere, that states that a person below
a certain % of Christianity is, effectively, a non-Christian.

In short, and to repeat again, the ONLY existing method of determing a
person's religious affiliation is what they say they are. Now, before
you go off on some fallacious hasty generalization again, this does
not mean that all labels or titles everywhere for all time should be
determined by that method. When possible, objective measures should be
sued to determine whether or not a person is or is not something. This
does not exist for Christianity. If it does, I ask for you to present
it. Otherwise acknowledge that the only viable method for determining
whether or not someone is actually a Christian and what their
motivations are for their actions, is what they say about themselves.

>
> The Catholic Church is guilty of crimes against
> the Jewish people. The religious nature of these
> crimes were made clear in that Jews who converted
> were spared further oppression. Hitler defined
> Jewishness by ancestry, not religious belief. This
> makes it clear he was motivated by racism, not
> religion.

Hitler's definition of 'Jewishness' is irrelevant. Hitler claimed he
was motivated by his Christianity to exterminate the Jews and that
they were poison. You are effectively saying that people's racism
can't be backed or stem from their religious beliefs.

>
>
>
> > > > > It's anti-theist dogma, comparable
> > > > > to Creation "Science" in its bending of the facts to fit the forgone
> > > > > conclusion.
>
> > > > > On Apr 1, 4:11 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 1, 10:42 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 31, 3:48 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 3:42 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 2:42 pm, ZonkTheBear <ZonkTheB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Democracy is a well defined word, e.g:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
>
> > > > > > > > > > If I may be so bold to ask you: Would you please give me a crisp
> > > > > > > > > > description of what a "christian" is so that I can, beyond reasonable
> > > > > > > > > > doubt, judge whether a person who claims to be a christian actually is
> > > > > > > > > > one.
>
> > > > > > > > > The first sentence of the third paragraph of the definition you link
> > > > > > > > > to says there is no universally recognized definition of what
> > > > > > > > > democracy is. Likewise, there is no universally recognized
> > > > > > > > > definition of what Christianity is. For this and other reasons,
> > > > > > > > > the fact that people calling themselves Christian are
> > > > > > > > > overrepresented in the prison population does not,
> > > > > > > > > in and of itself, is not grounds for the conclusion that
> > > > > > > > > Christianity is immoral or promotes immorality.
>
> > > > > > > > Sure it is. Despite the fact that there may not be a specific
> > > > > > > > definition for what constitutes a democracy or a Christian, there are,
> > > > > > > > of course, general core concepts. If anything, there exists within
> > > > > > > > each and every self-identified Christians something that causes them
> > > > > > > > to identify their beliefs as Christian. Perhaps not causation (does
> > > > > > > > Christianity inspire criminal behavior, or does it merely attract
> > > > > > > > criminals?) but certainly correlation.
>
> > > > > > > Some evidence is not the same as conclusive evidence. There
> > > > > > > is some evidence Christianity has made the world more evil.
> > > > > > > There is some evidence Christianity has made the world
> > > > > > > more good. There is conclusive evidence for neither. as
> > > > > > > far as I know.
>
> > > > > > > It seems that many atheists here feel that any theistic
> > > > > > > belief inevitably leads to evil.
>
> > > > > > Observer
> > > > > > It is not the thousands of deities created in the minds of men and
> > > > > > women that are the proximate cause of evil but the total abject
> > > > > > abandonment of sound intellectual properties and the assumption of
> > > > > > hideous and quite stupid superstitions which displace them.
>
> > > > > > Christianity has at is core the most completely stupid story ever
> > > > > > invented by fear driven ignorance. It's fruits have been a string of
> > > > > > endless atrocities and an insane rejection of scientific method
> > > > > > held in check by terrorism , torture and brutality for over 1300
> > > > > > years.
>
> > > > > >http://freetruth.50webs.org/
>
> > > > > >http://www.atheistresource.co.uk/victimsofchristianity.html
>
> > > > > >http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
>
> > > > > >http://www.reformation.org/holocaus.html
>
> > > > > > But they make weak
>
> > > > > > > arguments to support this, then call people stupid
> > > > > > > if they aren't convinced by their weak arguments.
>
> > > > > > Observer
>
> > > > > > There exists no argument weak or otherwise which is necessary to the
> > > > > > refutation of your hideous superstition . No on the contrary those of
> > > > > > you making the preposterous claims for the veracity of the biblical
> > > > > > myths put in your own hands the responsibility to offer scientifically
> > > > > > verifiable substantiating data . In the absence of such it must be
> > > > > > assumed to be the construct of no more than regurgitated , fear
> > > > > > driven , neolithic superstitious myths.
>
> > > > > > Of course you are free to attempt to argue the case and if you succeed
> > > > > > you will be the first human ever to do so. All arguments hereto fore
> > > > > > have been completely lacking in any substance.
>
> > > > > > I sympathizes with your plight in as much as stupidity is completely
> > > > > > indefensible.
>
> > > > > > But go ahead give it a go it is always worth a laugh.
>
> > > > > > Regards
>
> > > > > > Psychonomist
>
> > > > > > > > > > On 31 Mar, 19:45, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 1:07 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 12:59 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 7:46 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 7:40 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 5:34 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 6:32 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 12:12 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 12:49 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to the low number of athiests in prison: there is alot of bigotry
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against athiests in the US. Any smart atheist in prison would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > profess Christianity in order to get a parole. And to avoid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being victimized by other prisoners.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not so sure about that one.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's no indication whatsoever that happens.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You'd have to show me something, somewhere that would indicate that.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the figures are pretty straightforward and the religious hate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that so they come up with a gazillion unfounded claims to explain them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > away.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Many prisoners also claim to be innocent and falsely imprisioned.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that also to be taken at face value as the straightforward
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > truth? Or is that simply because theists are know liars?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And how does that change anything?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Provide the figures.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think there are any statistics on this. But I just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't understand how you put so much trust in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > claims of people who claim to be Christian but are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in prison most likely because they did something
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that violates the teachings of Christianity.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > They identify themselves as Christians.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Many communist countries have identified themselves
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as "democratic republics". Were they?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. They identified themselves as democratic-socialist republics and
> > > > > > > > > > > > yes they were, according to the definitions of democratic-socialism.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Most identified themselves as socialist states which applied
> > > > > > > > > > > > "proletarian democracy".
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > However, this is a red herring. Please stick to the topic which is
> > > > > > > > > > > > Christianity.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > If someone identifies themselves as Christian. How does one determine
> > > > > > > > > > > > that they are not?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > So characterizations of communist countries who call themselves
> > > > > > > > > > > democracies will often not apply to all countries that
> > > > > > > > > > > call themselves
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:16 am
From: cathyb

On Apr 3, 12:51 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 2, 6:29 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 12:17 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 1, 9:02 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 1, 7:21 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > This stuff about Hitler's undertaking of the Final Solution based
> > > > > on his Catholicism is ridiculous.
>
> > > > Why?
>
> > > > > Did Hitler go to mass and
> > > > > take Communion regularly?
>
> > > > So a person that doesn't go to mass and take communion regularly is
> > > > not a Catholic?
>
> > > The Catholic church encourages people to go to mass and
> > > take communion. If a person does not do these things, this
> > > shows they do not have a strong belief in the Catholic Church as
> > > an institution. They may have some ideas in common
> > > with the Catholic Church, but their behavior is not guided
> > > by Catholic Church.
>
> > > I don't think the Catholic Church generally concerns
> > > itself with determining exactly who is or is not
> > > a Catholic. Rather, it provides guidance as
> > > to where various behaviors fall on a scale
> > > from positve to neutral to negative in the
> > > eyes of God.
>
> > Interesting. I have just one unanswered question:
>
> > So a person that doesn't go to mass and take communion regularly is
> > not a Catholic?
>
> Sorry, I thought I was being clear, it isn't a yes or no
> question. I'm sure a Catholic would say that the
> only perfect Catholic was Jesus. Everyone else
> ranks somewhere lower on a scale of "Catholicness".
> A Catholic would say that it is God who judges
> exactly where on the scale someone is at.
>
> The Catholic Church is guilty of crimes against
> the Jewish people. The religious nature of these
> crimes were made clear in that Jews who converted
> were spared further oppression. Hitler defined
> Jewishness by ancestry, not religious belief. This
> makes it clear he was motivated by racism, not
> religion.

Nonsense.

Much of the *christian* persecution of the Jews is based on their
allegedly having said "His blood be on us and on our children". It's
always been about race and religion.

Geloso, a Catholic anti-semite, in this very group has claimed that
the Jews were responsible for their own destruction in the Holocaust
using this quote from the Bible.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:24 am
From: "dafsmo@googlemail.com"

and what about STALIN he was atheists and what did he do then you are
in his side. can you just make eximple of yourself and not people
because you die on your own.

On Apr 2, 4:04 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 2, 10:51 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 6:29 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 2, 12:17 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 1, 9:02 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 1, 7:21 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > This stuff about Hitler's undertaking of the Final Solution based
> > > > > > on his Catholicism is ridiculous.
>
> > > > > Why?
>
> > > > > > Did Hitler go to mass and
> > > > > > take Communion regularly?
>
> > > > > So a person that doesn't go to mass and take communion regularly is
> > > > > not a Catholic?
>
> > > > The Catholic church encourages people to go to mass and
> > > > take communion. If a person does not do these things, this
> > > > shows they do not have a strong belief in the Catholic Church as
> > > > an institution. They may have some ideas in common
> > > > with the Catholic Church, but their behavior is not guided
> > > > by Catholic Church.
>
> > > > I don't think the Catholic Church generally concerns
> > > > itself with determining exactly who is or is not
> > > > a Catholic. Rather, it provides guidance as
> > > > to where various behaviors fall on a scale
> > > > from positve to neutral to negative in the
> > > > eyes of God.
>
> > > Interesting. I have just one unanswered question:
>
> > > So a person that doesn't go to mass and take communion regularly is
> > > not a Catholic?
>
> > Sorry, I thought I was being clear, it isn't a yes or no
> > question. I'm sure a Catholic would say that the
> > only perfect Catholic was Jesus. Everyone else
> > ranks somewhere lower on a scale of "Catholicness".
> > A Catholic would say that it is God who judges
> > exactly where on the scale someone is at.
>
> If Hitler's attendence at mass or participation of communion is not a
> clear cut measure by which one can confirm or deny another's
> Catholicism, then why bring it up except as a red herring?
>
> So, yes, I think we can all agree that there is no set of specific
> actions which will define a person as Christian or non-Christian and
> that the only "true" Christian would have been Jesus. Everyone else
> merely is X% a Christian. What you fail to realize or acknowledge is
> there is A) No way to measure how much a Christian they are and B)
> there is currently nothing, anywhere, that states that a person below
> a certain % of Christianity is, effectively, a non-Christian.
>
> In short, and to repeat again, the ONLY existing method of determing a
> person's religious affiliation is what they say they are. Now, before
> you go off on some fallacious hasty generalization again, this does
> not mean that all labels or titles everywhere for all time should be
> determined by that method. When possible, objective measures should be
> sued to determine whether or not a person is or is not something. This
> does not exist for Christianity. If it does, I ask for you to present
> it. Otherwise acknowledge that the only viable method for determining
> whether or not someone is actually a Christian and what their
> motivations are for their actions, is what they say about themselves.
>
>
>
> > The Catholic Church is guilty of crimes against
> > the Jewish people. The religious nature of these
> > crimes were made clear in that Jews who converted
> > were spared further oppression. Hitler defined
> > Jewishness by ancestry, not religious belief. This
> > makes it clear he was motivated by racism, not
> > religion.
>
> Hitler's definition of 'Jewishness' is irrelevant. Hitler claimed he
> was motivated by his Christianity to exterminate the Jews and that
> they were poison. You are effectively saying that people's racism
> can't be backed or stem from their religious beliefs.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > It's anti-theist dogma, comparable
> > > > > > to Creation "Science" in its bending of the facts to fit the forgone
> > > > > > conclusion.
>
> > > > > > On Apr 1, 4:11 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 1, 10:42 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 3:48 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 3:42 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 2:42 pm, ZonkTheBear <ZonkTheB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Democracy is a well defined word, e.g:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
>
> > > > > > > > > > > If I may be so bold to ask you: Would you please give me a crisp
> > > > > > > > > > > description of what a "christian" is so that I can, beyond reasonable
> > > > > > > > > > > doubt, judge whether a person who claims to be a christian actually is
> > > > > > > > > > > one.
>
> > > > > > > > > > The first sentence of the third paragraph of the definition you link
> > > > > > > > > > to says there is no universally recognized definition of what
> > > > > > > > > > democracy is. Likewise, there is no universally recognized
> > > > > > > > > > definition of what Christianity is. For this and other reasons,
> > > > > > > > > > the fact that people calling themselves Christian are
> > > > > > > > > > overrepresented in the prison population does not,
> > > > > > > > > > in and of itself, is not grounds for the conclusion that
> > > > > > > > > > Christianity is immoral or promotes immorality.
>
> > > > > > > > > Sure it is. Despite the fact that there may not be a specific
> > > > > > > > > definition for what constitutes a democracy or a Christian, there are,
> > > > > > > > > of course, general core concepts. If anything, there exists within
> > > > > > > > > each and every self-identified Christians something that causes them
> > > > > > > > > to identify their beliefs as Christian. Perhaps not causation (does
> > > > > > > > > Christianity inspire criminal behavior, or does it merely attract
> > > > > > > > > criminals?) but certainly correlation.
>
> > > > > > > > Some evidence is not the same as conclusive evidence. There
> > > > > > > > is some evidence Christianity has made the world more evil.
> > > > > > > > There is some evidence Christianity has made the world
> > > > > > > > more good. There is conclusive evidence for neither. as
> > > > > > > > far as I know.
>
> > > > > > > > It seems that many atheists here feel that any theistic
> > > > > > > > belief inevitably leads to evil.
>
> > > > > > > Observer
> > > > > > > It is not the thousands of deities created in the minds of men and
> > > > > > > women that are the proximate cause of evil but the total abject
> > > > > > > abandonment of sound intellectual properties and the assumption of
> > > > > > > hideous and quite stupid superstitions which displace them.
>
> > > > > > > Christianity has at is core the most completely stupid story ever
> > > > > > > invented by fear driven ignorance. It's fruits have been a string of
> > > > > > > endless atrocities and an insane rejection of scientific method
> > > > > > > held in check by terrorism , torture and brutality for over 1300
> > > > > > > years.
>
> > > > > > >http://freetruth.50webs.org/
>
> > > > > > >http://www.atheistresource.co.uk/victimsofchristianity.html
>
> > > > > > >http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
>
> > > > > > >http://www.reformation.org/holocaus.html
>
> > > > > > > But they make weak
>
> > > > > > > > arguments to support this, then call people stupid
> > > > > > > > if they aren't convinced by their weak arguments.
>
> > > > > > > Observer
>
> > > > > > > There exists no argument weak or otherwise which is necessary to the
> > > > > > > refutation of your hideous superstition . No on the contrary those of
> > > > > > > you making the preposterous claims for the veracity of the biblical
> > > > > > > myths put in your own hands the responsibility to offer scientifically
> > > > > > > verifiable substantiating data . In the absence of such it must be
> > > > > > > assumed to be the construct of no more than regurgitated , fear
> > > > > > > driven , neolithic superstitious myths.
>
> > > > > > > Of course you are free to attempt to argue the case and if you succeed
> > > > > > > you will be the first human ever to do so. All arguments hereto fore
> > > > > > > have been completely lacking in any substance.
>
> > > > > > > I sympathizes with your plight in as much as stupidity is completely
> > > > > > > indefensible.
>
> > > > > > > But go ahead give it a go it is always worth a laugh.
>
> > > > > > > Regards
>
> > > > > > > Psychonomist
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On 31 Mar, 19:45, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 1:07 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 12:59 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 7:46 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 7:40 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 5:34 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 6:32 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 12:12 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 12:49 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to the low number of athiests in prison: there is alot of bigotry
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against athiests in the US. Any smart atheist in prison would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > profess Christianity in order to get a parole. And to avoid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being victimized by other prisoners.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not so sure about that one.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's no indication whatsoever that happens.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You'd have to show me something, somewhere that would indicate that.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the figures are pretty straightforward and the
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:37 am
From: "dafsmo@googlemail.com"

well you need to know that you only have to believe in God. that is
your first step, then the rest all come to you clear, and you can see
the light, but you have to be honest with yourself ,you don't do it
for anybody exept you, "you do it for you." and then you see how you
feel, you will change the way you feel.

On Apr 2, 11:29 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 2, 12:17 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 1, 9:02 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 1, 7:21 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > This stuff about Hitler's undertaking of the Final Solution based
> > > > on his Catholicism is ridiculous.
>
> > > Why?
>
> > > > Did Hitler go to mass and
> > > > take Communion regularly?
>
> > > So a person that doesn't go to mass and take communion regularly is
> > > not a Catholic?
>
> > The Catholic church encourages people to go to mass and
> > take communion. If a person does not do these things, this
> > shows they do not have a strong belief in the Catholic Church as
> > an institution. They may have some ideas in common
> > with the Catholic Church, but their behavior is not guided
> > by Catholic Church.
>
> > I don't think the Catholic Church generally concerns
> > itself with determining exactly who is or is not
> > a Catholic. Rather, it provides guidance as
> > to where various behaviors fall on a scale
> > from positve to neutral to negative in the
> > eyes of God.
>
> Interesting. I have just one unanswered question:
>
> So a person that doesn't go to mass and take communion regularly is
> not a Catholic?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > It's anti-theist dogma, comparable
> > > > to Creation "Science" in its bending of the facts to fit the forgone
> > > > conclusion.
>
> > > > On Apr 1, 4:11 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 1, 10:42 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 31, 3:48 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 31, 3:42 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 2:42 pm, ZonkTheBear <ZonkTheB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Democracy is a well defined word, e.g:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
>
> > > > > > > > > If I may be so bold to ask you: Would you please give me a crisp
> > > > > > > > > description of what a "christian" is so that I can, beyond reasonable
> > > > > > > > > doubt, judge whether a person who claims to be a christian actually is
> > > > > > > > > one.
>
> > > > > > > > The first sentence of the third paragraph of the definition you link
> > > > > > > > to says there is no universally recognized definition of what
> > > > > > > > democracy is. Likewise, there is no universally recognized
> > > > > > > > definition of what Christianity is. For this and other reasons,
> > > > > > > > the fact that people calling themselves Christian are
> > > > > > > > overrepresented in the prison population does not,
> > > > > > > > in and of itself, is not grounds for the conclusion that
> > > > > > > > Christianity is immoral or promotes immorality.
>
> > > > > > > Sure it is. Despite the fact that there may not be a specific
> > > > > > > definition for what constitutes a democracy or a Christian, there are,
> > > > > > > of course, general core concepts. If anything, there exists within
> > > > > > > each and every self-identified Christians something that causes them
> > > > > > > to identify their beliefs as Christian. Perhaps not causation (does
> > > > > > > Christianity inspire criminal behavior, or does it merely attract
> > > > > > > criminals?) but certainly correlation.
>
> > > > > > Some evidence is not the same as conclusive evidence. There
> > > > > > is some evidence Christianity has made the world more evil.
> > > > > > There is some evidence Christianity has made the world
> > > > > > more good. There is conclusive evidence for neither. as
> > > > > > far as I know.
>
> > > > > > It seems that many atheists here feel that any theistic
> > > > > > belief inevitably leads to evil.
>
> > > > > Observer
> > > > > It is not the thousands of deities created in the minds of men and
> > > > > women that are the proximate cause of evil but the total abject
> > > > > abandonment of sound intellectual properties and the assumption of
> > > > > hideous and quite stupid superstitions which displace them.
>
> > > > > Christianity has at is core the most completely stupid story ever
> > > > > invented by fear driven ignorance. It's fruits have been a string of
> > > > > endless atrocities and an insane rejection of scientific method
> > > > > held in check by terrorism , torture and brutality for over 1300
> > > > > years.
>
> > > > >http://freetruth.50webs.org/
>
> > > > >http://www.atheistresource.co.uk/victimsofchristianity.html
>
> > > > >http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
>
> > > > >http://www.reformation.org/holocaus.html
>
> > > > > But they make weak
>
> > > > > > arguments to support this, then call people stupid
> > > > > > if they aren't convinced by their weak arguments.
>
> > > > > Observer
>
> > > > > There exists no argument weak or otherwise which is necessary to the
> > > > > refutation of your hideous superstition . No on the contrary those of
> > > > > you making the preposterous claims for the veracity of the biblical
> > > > > myths put in your own hands the responsibility to offer scientifically
> > > > > verifiable substantiating data . In the absence of such it must be
> > > > > assumed to be the construct of no more than regurgitated , fear
> > > > > driven , neolithic superstitious myths.
>
> > > > > Of course you are free to attempt to argue the case and if you succeed
> > > > > you will be the first human ever to do so. All arguments hereto fore
> > > > > have been completely lacking in any substance.
>
> > > > > I sympathizes with your plight in as much as stupidity is completely
> > > > > indefensible.
>
> > > > > But go ahead give it a go it is always worth a laugh.
>
> > > > > Regards
>
> > > > > Psychonomist
>
> > > > > > > > > On 31 Mar, 19:45, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 1:07 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 12:59 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 7:46 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 7:40 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 5:34 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 6:32 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 12:12 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 12:49 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to the low number of athiests in prison: there is alot of bigotry
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against athiests in the US. Any smart atheist in prison would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > profess Christianity in order to get a parole. And to avoid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being victimized by other prisoners.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not so sure about that one.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's no indication whatsoever that happens.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You'd have to show me something, somewhere that would indicate that.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the figures are pretty straightforward and the religious hate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that so they come up with a gazillion unfounded claims to explain them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > away.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Many prisoners also claim to be innocent and falsely imprisioned.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that also to be taken at face value as the straightforward
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > truth? Or is that simply because theists are know liars?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And how does that change anything?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Provide the figures.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think there are any statistics on this. But I just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't understand how you put so much trust in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > claims of people who claim to be Christian but are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in prison most likely because they did something
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that violates the teachings of Christianity.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > They identify themselves as Christians.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Many communist countries have identified themselves
> > > > > > > > > > > > as "democratic republics". Were they?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Nope. They identified themselves as democratic-socialist republics and
> > > > > > > > > > > yes they were, according to the definitions of democratic-socialism.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Most identified themselves as socialist states which applied
> > > > > > > > > > > "proletarian democracy".
>
> > > > > > > > > > > However, this is a red herring. Please stick to the topic which is
> > > > > > > > > > > Christianity.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > If someone identifies themselves as Christian. How does one determine
> > > > > > > > > > > that they are not?
>
> > > > > > > > > > So characterizations of communist countries who call themselves
> > > > > > > > > > democracies will often not apply to all countries that
> > > > > > > > > > call themselves democracies. Likewise, characterizations of
> > > > > > > > > > criminals who call themselves Christians will often not apply to
> > > > > > > > > > all people who call themselves Christians.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > teachings of Christianity being the interpretations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the Bible made by the various Christian
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > denominations. Not the interpretations made by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > anti-Christians.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Who are these anti-Christians who interpret Christianity?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Those who quote passages from the Bible that explicitly
> > > > > > > > > > > > or implicitly condone evil behavior, then claim this is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > central message of Christianity.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > How do you define evil behavior?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Which passages are you referring to? Give me some examples and explain
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:39 am
From: Drafterman

On Apr 2, 11:24 am, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> and what about STALIN he was atheists and what did he do then you are
> in his side. can you just make eximple of yourself and not people
> because you die on your own.

Ah, more diversionary tactics. But I can understand the mistake. This
argument has been done over and ove, that most of us jump to points
further along int the argument, and take shortcuts. Those not familiar
then are left with false impressions.

At the core, the point of the matter is that Hitler used Christianity
as a reason to commit the atrocities he did. He said so himself. Now,
this usually devolves into an argument about whether or not Hitler was
a Christian because if Hitler was not a Christian then this somehow
disproves that he was actually motivated by Christian beliefs.

So when we say "Hitler was a Christian" it's shorthand for "Hitler was
motivated by Christian beliefs".

Now, while I would expect this explanation to show why this doesn't
apply to Stalin, forgive me if I don't trust you to make the
connection.

When you say "Stalin was an atheist" this cannot be shorthand for
"Stalin was motivated by atheistic beliefs" because there is no such
thing as atheistic beliefs. Now, I am not aware of any quotes by
Stalin where he says his lack of belief in a god was the reason for
committing the acts that he did. And even if there was there is a BIG
difference between believing you are free to commit an act (as would
have bee be the case for Stalin if he was motivated by atheism) and
believing you are responsible to commit an act (as was the case for
Hilter).

In short "Hilter was a Christian" merely means Christianity was his
reason, for the purposes of this argument. This does not translate for
Stalin because athiesm was not his reason.

I hope that clears that up for you, so you won't make that mistake
again.

>
> On Apr 2, 4:04 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 10:51 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 2, 6:29 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 2, 12:17 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 1, 9:02 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 1, 7:21 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > This stuff about Hitler's undertaking of the Final Solution based
> > > > > > > on his Catholicism is ridiculous.
>
> > > > > > Why?
>
> > > > > > > Did Hitler go to mass and
> > > > > > > take Communion regularly?
>
> > > > > > So a person that doesn't go to mass and take communion regularly is
> > > > > > not a Catholic?
>
> > > > > The Catholic church encourages people to go to mass and
> > > > > take communion. If a person does not do these things, this
> > > > > shows they do not have a strong belief in the Catholic Church as
> > > > > an institution. They may have some ideas in common
> > > > > with the Catholic Church, but their behavior is not guided
> > > > > by Catholic Church.
>
> > > > > I don't think the Catholic Church generally concerns
> > > > > itself with determining exactly who is or is not
> > > > > a Catholic. Rather, it provides guidance as
> > > > > to where various behaviors fall on a scale
> > > > > from positve to neutral to negative in the
> > > > > eyes of God.
>
> > > > Interesting. I have just one unanswered question:
>
> > > > So a person that doesn't go to mass and take communion regularly is
> > > > not a Catholic?
>
> > > Sorry, I thought I was being clear, it isn't a yes or no
> > > question. I'm sure a Catholic would say that the
> > > only perfect Catholic was Jesus. Everyone else
> > > ranks somewhere lower on a scale of "Catholicness".
> > > A Catholic would say that it is God who judges
> > > exactly where on the scale someone is at.
>
> > If Hitler's attendence at mass or participation of communion is not a
> > clear cut measure by which one can confirm or deny another's
> > Catholicism, then why bring it up except as a red herring?
>
> > So, yes, I think we can all agree that there is no set of specific
> > actions which will define a person as Christian or non-Christian and
> > that the only "true" Christian would have been Jesus. Everyone else
> > merely is X% a Christian. What you fail to realize or acknowledge is
> > there is A) No way to measure how much a Christian they are and B)
> > there is currently nothing, anywhere, that states that a person below
> > a certain % of Christianity is, effectively, a non-Christian.
>
> > In short, and to repeat again, the ONLY existing method of determing a
> > person's religious affiliation is what they say they are. Now, before
> > you go off on some fallacious hasty generalization again, this does
> > not mean that all labels or titles everywhere for all time should be
> > determined by that method. When possible, objective measures should be
> > sued to determine whether or not a person is or is not something. This
> > does not exist for Christianity. If it does, I ask for you to present
> > it. Otherwise acknowledge that the only viable method for determining
> > whether or not someone is actually a Christian and what their
> > motivations are for their actions, is what they say about themselves.
>
> > > The Catholic Church is guilty of crimes against
> > > the Jewish people. The religious nature of these
> > > crimes were made clear in that Jews who converted
> > > were spared further oppression. Hitler defined
> > > Jewishness by ancestry, not religious belief. This
> > > makes it clear he was motivated by racism, not
> > > religion.
>
> > Hitler's definition of 'Jewishness' is irrelevant. Hitler claimed he
> > was motivated by his Christianity to exterminate the Jews and that
> > they were poison. You are effectively saying that people's racism
> > can't be backed or stem from their religious beliefs.
>
> > > > > > > It's anti-theist dogma, comparable
> > > > > > > to Creation "Science" in its bending of the facts to fit the forgone
> > > > > > > conclusion.
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 1, 4:11 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 1, 10:42 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 3:48 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 3:42 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 2:42 pm, ZonkTheBear <ZonkTheB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Democracy is a well defined word, e.g:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > If I may be so bold to ask you: Would you please give me a crisp
> > > > > > > > > > > > description of what a "christian" is so that I can, beyond reasonable
> > > > > > > > > > > > doubt, judge whether a person who claims to be a christian actually is
> > > > > > > > > > > > one.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > The first sentence of the third paragraph of the definition you link
> > > > > > > > > > > to says there is no universally recognized definition of what
> > > > > > > > > > > democracy is. Likewise, there is no universally recognized
> > > > > > > > > > > definition of what Christianity is. For this and other reasons,
> > > > > > > > > > > the fact that people calling themselves Christian are
> > > > > > > > > > > overrepresented in the prison population does not,
> > > > > > > > > > > in and of itself, is not grounds for the conclusion that
> > > > > > > > > > > Christianity is immoral or promotes immorality.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Sure it is. Despite the fact that there may not be a specific
> > > > > > > > > > definition for what constitutes a democracy or a Christian, there are,
> > > > > > > > > > of course, general core concepts. If anything, there exists within
> > > > > > > > > > each and every self-identified Christians something that causes them
> > > > > > > > > > to identify their beliefs as Christian. Perhaps not causation (does
> > > > > > > > > > Christianity inspire criminal behavior, or does it merely attract
> > > > > > > > > > criminals?) but certainly correlation.
>
> > > > > > > > > Some evidence is not the same as conclusive evidence. There
> > > > > > > > > is some evidence Christianity has made the world more evil.
> > > > > > > > > There is some evidence Christianity has made the world
> > > > > > > > > more good. There is conclusive evidence for neither. as
> > > > > > > > > far as I know.
>
> > > > > > > > > It seems that many atheists here feel that any theistic
> > > > > > > > > belief inevitably leads to evil.
>
> > > > > > > > Observer
> > > > > > > > It is not the thousands of deities created in the minds of men and
> > > > > > > > women that are the proximate cause of evil but the total abject
> > > > > > > > abandonment of sound intellectual properties and the assumption of
> > > > > > > > hideous and quite stupid superstitions which displace them.
>
> > > > > > > > Christianity has at is core the most completely stupid story ever
> > > > > > > > invented by fear driven ignorance. It's fruits have been a string of
> > > > > > > > endless atrocities and an insane rejection of scientific method
> > > > > > > > held in check by terrorism , torture and brutality for over 1300
> > > > > > > > years.
>
> > > > > > > >http://freetruth.50webs.org/
>
> > > > > > > >http://www.atheistresource.co.uk/victimsofchristianity.html
>
> > > > > > > >http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
>
> > > > > > > >http://www.reformation.org/holocaus.html
>
> > > > > > > > But they make weak
>
> > > > > > > > > arguments to support this, then call people stupid
> > > > > > > > > if they aren't convinced by their weak arguments.
>
> > > > > > > > Observer
>
> > > > > > > > There exists no argument weak or otherwise which is necessary to the
> > > > > > > > refutation of your hideous superstition . No on the contrary those of
> > > > > > > > you making the preposterous claims for the veracity of the biblical
> > > > > > > > myths put in your own hands the responsibility to offer scientifically
> > > > > > > > verifiable substantiating data . In the absence of such it must be
> > > > > > > > assumed to be the construct of no more than regurgitated , fear
> > > > > > > > driven , neolithic superstitious myths.
>
> > > > > > > > Of course you are free to attempt to argue the case and if you succeed
> > > > > > > > you will be the first human ever to do so. All arguments hereto fore
> > > > > > > > have been completely lacking in any substance.
>
> > > > > > > > I sympathizes with your plight in as much as stupidity is completely
> > > > > > > > indefensible.
>
> > > > > > > > But go ahead give it a go it is always worth a laugh.
>
> > > > > > > > Regards
>
> > > > > > > > Psychonomist
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 31 Mar, 19:45, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 1:07 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 12:59 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 7:46 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 7:40 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 5:34 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 6:32 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 12:12 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 12:49 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to the low number of athiests in prison: there is alot of bigotry
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against athiests in the US. Any smart atheist in prison would
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The power of prayer as a form of child abuse
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/8d5dcc9c0a96086c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:04 am
From: floyd_1977

On Mar 29, 3:33 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IMO the parents would have gotten medical help for themselves.And IMO
> churches like that are worse than misguided, they are evil.

By what means do you determine what churches are evil and which are ok?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:06 am
From: cathyb

On Apr 2, 11:55 pm, brattysoul <brattys...@comcast.net> wrote:
> You still miss one other point I made that Christian Scientists can
> use healing prayer because it is recognized by the US Government's
> IRS(TAX) Dept.
>
> Get that?
>
> Big Money, Big Lobbyist money, allowed to let their children die....
>
> Of course John Travolta and Tom Cruise wouldn't get into any trouble
> now would they.

I can't believe your moral outrage at Cruise and Travolta
(Scientologists, by the way) and Christian Scientists when there are
so many other things you could be morally outraged about.

My word, there are Catholic charities refusing to distribute condoms
in the third world, thus contributing to the AIDS epedemic there and
the orphaning of millions of children, and all you can do is witter on
about something as trivial as the Christian Scientists having a
lobby?! Deal with it.

>
> On Apr 1, 2:44 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hey guys I found another one.
>
> > This time it's a 15 month old babe with pneumonia.
>
> > And the article had this to say which I found rather shocking:
> > "Laws passed in the 1990s struck down legal shields for faith-healing
> > parents after the deaths of several children whose parents were
> > members of the fundamentalist church.
> > Since those laws took effect in 1999, "We haven't seen any cases of
> > significant medical neglect ... until now," said child abuse Detective
> > Jeff Green of the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office."
>
> > Well at least those laws (which might be state specific for all I
> > know) went into effect in '99. [Kinda reminds me of how I felt when I
> > learned that some states still executed the mentally retarded]
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080331/ap_on_re_us/faith_healing_death- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: My Conversion - Trance Goes Theist.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/97ce80694d66b81e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:12 am
From: "zencycle"

I guess as long as they stick to the music, and not the bashing of
it........

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Trance Gemini" <trancegemini7@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 8:14 AM
To: "Atheism vs Christianity" <Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [AvC] Re: My Conversion - Trance Goes Theist.

>
> Well you know we could have some fun with that ;-).
>
> What do you think?
>
> This is AvC I mean we can't leave the Christians out can we?
>
> On Apr 2, 8:02 am, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Actually, brocko already followed up my Dear God by XTC post with some
>> stupid 'jesus loves me' bible camp song.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 12:19 AM
>> To: "Atheism vs Christianity" <Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com>
>> Subject: [AvC] Re: My Conversion - Trance Goes Theist.
>>
>>
>>
>> > They're not that bright. Of course now that you gave them the
>> > idea .... ;-)
>>
>> > On Apr 1, 10:29 pm, zen cycle <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> That could work, 'i'm concerned morons like ruxolo and brock would
>> >> start
>> >> positn hymnals though
>>
>> >> > Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 16:33:35 -0700
>> >> > Subject: [AvC] Re: My Conversion - Trance Goes Theist.
>> >> > From: sir_ro...@yahoo.com
>> >> > To: Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
>>
>> >> > Don't you and trance think it's about time we have a mostly
>> >> > off-topic
>> >> > music thread in here?
>>
>> >> > On Apr 1, 9:08 am, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > He sewed his eyes shut because he is afraid to see
>> >> > > He tries to tell me what I put inside of me
>> >> > > He's got the answers to ease my curiosity
>> >> > > He dreamed a god up and called it Christianity
>> >> > > Your God is dead and no one cares
>> >> > > If there is a Hell I will see you there
>>
>> >> > > He flexed his muscles to keep his flock of sheep in line
>> >> > > He made a virus that would kill off all the swine
>> >> > > His perfect kingdom of killing, suffering and pain
>> >> > > Demands devotion atrocities done in his name
>> >> > > Your God is dead and no one cares
>> >> > > Drowning in his own hypocrisy
>> >> > > If there is a Hell I will see you there
>> >> > > Burning with your god in humility
>>
>> >> > > Will you die for this?
>>
>> >> > > Heresy by Nine Inch Nails
>>
>> >> > > --------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > From: "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
>> >> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 11:47 AM
>> >> > > To: "Atheism vs Christianity"
>> >> > > <Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com>
>> >> > > Subject: [AvC] Re: My Conversion - Trance Goes Theist.
>>
>> >> > > > Punish me
>>
>> >> > > > English
>>
>> >> > > > Punish me
>> >> > > > punish me
>> >> > > > straw turns to gold
>> >> > > > and gold turns to stone
>> >> > > > your size makes me small
>> >> > > > you can be my punisher (yeah)
>>
>> >> > > > The Lord God takes
>> >> > > > the Lord God gives
>>
>> >> > > > Punish me
>> >> > > > punish me
>> >> > > > you say yes
>> >> > > > and I say no
>> >> > > > include me in your prayer
>> >> > > > before the wind blows even colder
>> >> > > > Your size makes me small
>> >> > > > you can be my punisher
>> >> > > > you can be my punisher
>>
>> >> > > > Your size makes me small
>> >> > > > you can be my punisher
>> >> > > > you can be my punisher
>> >> > > > you can be my punisher
>> >> > > > your size makes him small
>> >> > > > you will be my punishment
>> >> > > > the Lord God takes
>> >> > > > the Lord God gives
>> >> > > > but he only gives to those
>> >> > > > whom he also loves
>> >> > > > punish me...
>>
>> >> > > > --Rammstein
>>
>> >> > > > On Apr 1, 11:32 am, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > >> From: "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
>> >> > > >> Subject: [AvC] Re: My Conversion - Trance Goes Theist.
>>
>> >> > > >> > Since God made Woman from Man's Rib
>> >> > > >> > Then Woman exists for Man ;-)
>>
>> >> > > >> > Man serves God
>> >> > > >> > Woman serves Man
>>
>> >> > > >> > Tell me you guys don't love that!
>>
>> >> > > >> My name is Dita
>> >> > > >> I'll be your mistress tonight
>> >> > > >> I'd like to put you in a trance
>>
>> >> > > >> If I take you from behind
>> >> > > >> Push myself into your mind
>> >> > > >> When you least expect it
>> >> > > >> Will you try and reject it
>> >> > > >> If I'm in charge and I treat you like a child
>> >> > > >> Will you let yourself go wild
>> >> > > >> Let my mouth go where it wants to
>>
>> >> > > >> Once you put your hand in the flame
>> >> > > >> You can never be the same
>> >> > > >> There's a certain satisfaction
>> >> > > >> In a little bit of pain
>> >> > > >> I can see you understand
>> >> > > >> I can tell that you're the same
>> >> > > >> If you're afraid, well rise above
>> >> > > >> I only hurt the ones I love
>>
>> >> > > >> I don't think you know what pain is
>> >> > > >> I don't think you've gone that way
>> >> > > >> I could bring you so much pleasure
>> >> > > >> I'll come to you when you say
>> >> > > >> I know you want me
>> >> > > >> I'm not gonna hurt you
>> >> > > >> I'm not gonna hurt you, just close your eyes
>>
>> >> > > >> Only the one that hurts you can make you feel better
>> >> > > >> Only the one that inflicts pain can take it away
>>
>> >> > > >> - Erotica by Madonna (abridged)
>>
>> >> _________________________________________________________________
>> >> Going green? See the top 12 foods to eat
>> >> organic.http://green.msn.com/galleries/photos/photos.aspx?gid=164&ocid=T003MS...
> >
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Way of Science and the Way of Religion
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/1f283f246e7d28e4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:20 am
From: ZonkTheBear

Ok, so when you said that feelings and emotions come from the soul,
you actually meant "special" feelings and emotions about things that
are not "natural"
... Hmmm, ever heard of "moving the goalposts"?

I have felt love, which was overwhelming, I felt totally out of this
world at the hospital when my kids were born, I felt bottomless grief
when my grandfather died, I felt an enormous joy and relief the day I
finally took the step and realized after many years of doubt that
there is no god, devil, heaven, hell, demons or eternal damnation.

All of these are pretty powerful emotions. Where would you say they
come from if I have no soul?

And finally, we try again:

Do you believe that animals have souls?

Yes or No...

On 2 Apr, 16:54, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> I think you never in your live have been in a situation, where you
> feilt something big, too powerfull to be normal, deep in that what i
> called emotion that no animal can have, i don't think so. it's special
> thats the feeling iam talking about . like they say you can't give
> what you dont have.
>
> On Apr 1, 8:32 pm, ZonkTheBear <ZonkTheB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 1 Apr, 17:20, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > well i try again, because i did answer your quistion, and let you
> > > think, if you care to do ,ok" we human are a spiritual beign the
> > > animals are not but you don't beleive that to . this the closer i can
> > > go because no one can realy know what the soul is except God.
>
> > If you claim that "no one can realy know what the soul is except God",
> > why do you say that emotions and feelings come from the soul? :
>
> > On 29 Mar, 15:27, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > and that take me bec to the subject, I rise before if u say u don't
> > > have no soul, then you don't
> > > have no feeling, because that where all the emotion come from,
>
> > I find your arguments most incoherend and self-contradictory.
>
> > Are you just making things up as you go or do you have some kind of
> > evidence that feelings and emotions come from the soul even though you
> > admit that no one (exept your alledged god) knows what the soul is?
>
> > ZtB
>
> > I can only find one "No" in your answer so I presume that your answer
> > is "No, I do not believe that animals have souls".
>
> > Can you then please tell me where the evident feelings and emotions
> > that animals display come from?
>
> > On 1 Apr, 17:20, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > well i try again, because i did answer your quistion, and let you
> > > think, if you care to do ,ok" we human are a spiritual beign the
> > > animals are not but you don't beleive that to . this the closer i can
> > > go because no one can realy know what the soul is except God.
>
> > > On Apr 1, 3:14 pm, ZonkTheBear <ZonkTheB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 1 Apr, 15:53, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > can't you see, that what i mean by some people don't have feeling,
> > > > > they think they do feel like everyone, because they are human, so they
> > > > > feel like everyone, what i am saying is if you dont have God in your
> > > > > heart and you keep pressing this feeling down you will loos them and
> > > > > that what make you defirant from everybody. exp.. people like you
>
> > > > And yet again, you manage to write a lot without answering my
> > > > question.
>
> > > > I will try one more time:
>
> > > > Please answer "Yes" or "No" to this question:
>
> > > > Do you believe that animals have souls?
>
> > > > Yes or No...
>
> > > > On 1 Apr, 15:53, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > can't you see, that what i mean by some people don't have feeling,
> > > > > they think they do feel like everyone, because they are human, so they
> > > > > feel like everyone, what i am saying is if you dont have God in your
> > > > > heart and you keep pressing this feeling down you will loos them and
> > > > > that what make you defirant from everybody. exp.. people like you
>
> > > > > On Apr 1, 2:30 pm, ZonkTheBear <ZonkTheB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 1 Apr, 15:23, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > so can you swap your child for a dog, if you can do that, then you
> > > > > > > realy believe that animal have soluls just like your child if not then
> > > > > > > you have to think again.
>
> > > > > > Typical christian red herring...
>
> > > > > > I don't believe that dogs have souls because I don't believe there is
> > > > > > such a thing as a soul.
>
> > > > > > _You_, on the other hand, asserted that emotions and feelings come
> > > > > > from a soul:
>
> > > > > > On 29 Mar, 15:27, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > and that take me bec to the subject, I rise before if u say u don't
> > > > > > > have no soul, then you don't
> > > > > > > have no feeling, because that where all the emotion come from, but you
> > > > > > > don't believe that to .remamber that God mercy is too great that why
> > > > > > > you may still have some feeling but to keep poshing them deep you may
> > > > > > > loose them I HOPE NOT.
>
> > > > > > Since dogs have feelings and emotions, my natural question is whether
> > > > > > you believe that dogs have souls since they too display emotions and
> > > > > > feelings.
>
> > > > > > Try to answer the question this time instead of bringing in my kids
> > > > > > (if you are able to, that is)...
>
> > > > > > On 1 Apr, 15:23, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > so can you swap your child for a dog, if you can do that, then you
> > > > > > > realy believe that animal have soluls just like your child if not then
> > > > > > > you have to think again.
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 29, 9:50 pm, ZonkTheBear <ZonkTheB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 29 Mar, 15:27, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > and that take me bec to the subject, I rise before if u say u don't
> > > > > > > > > have no soul, then you don't
> > > > > > > > > have no feeling, because that where all the emotion come from, but you
> > > > > > > > > don't believe that to .remamber that God mercy is too great that why
> > > > > > > > > you may still have some feeling but to keep poshing them deep you may
> > > > > > > > > loose them I HOPE NOT.
>
> > > > > > > > Do you believe then, that animals have "souls" too since they show
> > > > > > > > both feelings and emotions?
>
> > > > > > > > On 29 Mar, 15:27, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > and that take me bec to the subject, I rise before if u say u don't
> > > > > > > > > have no soul, then you don't
> > > > > > > > > have no feeling, because that where all the emotion come from, but you
> > > > > > > > > don't believe that to .remamber that God mercy is too great that why
> > > > > > > > > you may still have some feeling but to keep poshing them deep you may
> > > > > > > > > loose them I HOPE NOT.
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 10:36 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Andrew,
>
> > > > > > > > > > I enjoy a nice piece of freshly caught Sole especially Dover Sole.
> > > > > > > > > > I also have soles to my feet and soles to my shoes. These
> > > > > > > > > > are the only universlly known soles that I know of.
> > > > > > > > > > The soul to which you refer, like the god that is implied,is not
> > > > > > > > > > known to exist and cannot therefore be universal. It is the subject
> > > > > > > > > > of a belief by religious people. All in the mind of the mindless.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 28, 3:49 pm, Andrew <and...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > (I'm always looking for comments.responses/discussions/criticisms of
> > > > > > > > > > > these ideas):
>
> > > > > > > > > > > THE SOUL
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Today, it is an orthodox and virtually universal opinion that each of
> > > > > > > > > > > us has a soul, and that its welfare is an important concern. But when
> > > > > > > > > > > Socrates' spoke of perfecting the soul to the ancient Athenians, his
> > > > > > > > > > > words did not carry the same meaning as a contemporary sermon might
> > > > > > > > > > > carry today. To most Athenians, a soul was a sort of immaterial
> > > > > > > > > > > 'double'. It left the body at death, and this was a major distinction
> > > > > > > > > > > between a living being and a dead one. But it had nothing to do with
> > > > > > > > > > > consciousness, good and evil, ignorance or wisdom. The soul was just a
> > > > > > > > > > > temporary animating substance that was reabsorbed into the air after
> > > > > > > > > > > death, just as bodies returned to the earth. This explains why most
> > > > > > > > > > > Athenians were not particularly shocked by Democritus' atomistic view
> > > > > > > > > > > of the soul. In fact, when beseeched by Socrates to take care of his
> > > > > > > > > > > soul, the average Athenian may well have thought that he was being
> > > > > > > > > > > warned to watch out for his personal safety. Socrates' insistence that
> > > > > > > > > > > everyone should care for his soul "must have come as a shock to the
> > > > > > > > > > > Athenian of those days, and may even have seemed not a little
> > > > > > > > > > > ridiculous."
>
> > > > > > > > > > > The soul, as we think of it today in the Judeo-Christian West, was
> > > > > > > > > > > (according to tradition) discovered by Socrates. The perfection of
> > > > > > > > > > > this soul, what we would call 'spiritual perfection', was for the
> > > > > > > > > > > first time pronounced by Socrates to be the proper concern of a human
> > > > > > > > > > > being and the secret of true happiness. The soul, he said, was the
> > > > > > > > > > > sacred essence of an individual. It existed prior to birth and would
> > > > > > > > > > > continue to exist after death. Attending to the perfection of one's
> > > > > > > > > > > soul was of the utmost importance because the soul's fate after death
> > > > > > > > > > > would be determined according to how one had lived one's life on
> > > > > > > > > > > Earth. Consequently, Socrates' sole concern was with what makes a
> > > > > > > > > > > person 'good'.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > But exactly what is this thing he called a soul, and how is one to
> > > > > > > > > > > 'perfect' it? In Plato's Republic, Socrates describes the human soul
> > > > > > > > > > > as being composed of three parts, and he demonstrates that these parts
> > > > > > > > > > > are most often in a state of utter
>
> ...
>
> les mer >>- Skjul sitert tekst -
>
> - Vis sitert tekst -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why does Quran say, "Kill infidels" and others?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/e88a778f7451add5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:22 am
From: "zencycle"

From: "David Flint" <DavidCFlint@googlemail.com>
Subject: [AvC] Re: Why does Quran say, "Kill infidels" and others?

>
> I might, being British, add detention without trial for 28 days,
> support for the invasion of Iraq and failure to restrain Israel's
> attacks on its neighbours.

Not to mention the overt coercion of president eisenhower to overthrow the
democratically elected government of iran and install the shah, based purely
on the pressure exerted by BP on the british government. This was a direct
influence on the 1979 overthrow. The britons history, recent and older, is
not much better than the us, if at all. The one bright spot in both our
histories is WW2. Other than that, pretty much everything else is total
shit.

> We should also keep our thinking straight. Do you think that the
> atrocity of 911 JUSTIFIES the atrocities of Guantanamo and Iraq?

Personally, no, but I can't speak for everyone here.

> If
> not why say "if it hadn't been for the MUSLIM terrorists flying planes
> into buildings on 9/11/2001 Afghanistan, Iraq, and Abu Graibh WOULD
> NEVER HAVE HAPPENED."

Because it's true. I will concede it's a shitty excuse, and I personally
have not supported any of my governments recent colonial behavior, but the
fact remains, if the attacks of 9/11 had not happened, the US would not be
embroiled in this level of human rights violations and colonial incursions
as they are now.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:28 am
From: Trance Gemini

On Apr 2, 10:58 am, David Flint <DavidCFl...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> "> What country are you from? Let's take a look at their human rights
>
> > record and compare it's history and current practices with any Western
> > country, particuarly the US."
>
> No, Trance, let's not do that.
> It's easy to see other's faults - and surely the Muslim world has many
> - but foolish to suppose that because they have faults we must be
> faultless. We're not.

I've never said we were faultless. However, our faults exist in
context too.

And if we're going to make a list about evil let's be fair about it.

The wayofthetruth1 has a gazillion condemnations of the West and our
"hypocrisy" but refuses to look at the hypocrisy of Islam.

Lying about Islam and calling it a religion of peace is nothing short
of an attempt to whitewash what Islam has been doing in today's world,
the crimes it's been committing in the name of their god and their
prophet muhammed.

>
> Wayofthetruth gives a great list of US faults. Although I would
> disagree about some of them the following stand out for me: Guantanamo
> Bay, the Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, legalisation of
> torture, the invasion of Iraq. These are all recent or current. And of
> these the invasion of Iraq, leading to over half a million deaths, is
> clearly the worst.

The fact is that the older items on the list are no longer issues. We,
in both Canada and US worked hard to eliminate those inequities. For
the most part, they are gone, at least they are no longer legislated
even though some of those attitudes may still exist.

thewayofthetruth1 proposes that we should weaken these freedoms we
fought for in order to eliminate these equities in the name of "not
offending Islam".

Give me one good reason why we should weaken our freedom of speech to
cater to those who suppress freedom of speech through their religion.

>
> I might, being British, add detention without trial for 28 days,
> support for the invasion of Iraq and failure to restrain Israel's
> attacks on its neighbours.
>
> So we should start by admitting our own faults - it's good politics as
> well as honest - and then find actions to address them.

Not when the person who is pulling them out their ass in order to use
those shortcoming to further their own undemocratic agenda.

I suggest you read this entire thread closely before coming to such
superficial conclusions.

It's clear to me that you don't understand the focus of this
conversation.

>
> We should also take thought before attacking countries we don't
> understand. Pakistan has spent more time under military then
> democratic rule - it's not much of a democracy. General Musharraf is
> not closely tied to Muslim terrorists - though some parts of the
> Pakistan Army are. 'Pakistan' did not kill Benazir any more than 'the
> US' killed Kennedy. The US has encouraged the Army to undermine
> democracy - though rarely in public.

No, I'm sorry you're wrong. It's my understanding from talking to
people in the know that this is not the case.

Musharraf is connected to these terrorist circles and roughly half of
Pakistani Intelligence supports them as well.

Have you forgotten that Musharraf was the one who eliminated
democratic elections by organizing a coup against Bhutto?

And as far as your claims about the US supporting the army in
undermining Democracy? What is your proof for this?

Or is this just another conspiracy theory floating around.

>
> We should also keep our thinking straight. Do you think that the
> atrocity of 911 JUSTIFIES the atrocities of Guantanamo and Iraq? If
> not why say "if it hadn't been for the MUSLIM terrorists flying planes
> into buildings on 9/11/2001 Afghanistan, Iraq, and Abu Graibh WOULD
> NEVER HAVE HAPPENED."

I didn't say that it was justified.

I said it wouldn't have happened without 9/11.

Those two statements are not equivalent.

>
> Every atrocity leads to others. Each is a response to others. 911 was
> a response to western meddling in the middle east. In Israel/Palestine
> rockets on Israel lead to attacks on Gaza. What we need here is not
> more blame but more compassion.

Bullshit. The Palestinians made it clear that they didn't agree with
911.

If, in fact, Bin Ladin did it for them as you claim why weren't the
Palestinians involved?

For your information, my compassion is reserved for:

The 9/11 families and people like my son who suffered horrendously
that day and continue to suffer.

For Hirsi Ali who is forced to go into hiding because she spoke out
against the extremism and terrorism of Islam.

For Van Gogh who was brutally murdered because he produced a film
exposing Islams horrific attitudes towards women.

For Salman Rushdie, who lost 20 years of his life in hiding, and his
wife.

For the women of Islam who are being brutally punished for being
victims of rape, childhood sexual abuse, and domestic violence.

For the innocent Israelis and Palestinians who are forced to live in
fear and hardship because Extremism and Terrorism refuses to release
it's Religious stranglehold on that region.

I have no compassion for people who advocate the horrors of Islam and
demand (not ask) that I respect a Religion which through it's own
laws, Sharia Law, grossly violates human rights on a daily basis.

Nor do I have compassion for people who advocate any type of Religious
Law imposed on the Secular societies of the West, including
Christianity.

Like I said, you have no idea what the discussion in this thread is
about.

I suggest you read it in it's entirety and closely before you start
talking out of your ass, like you're doing now.

>
> On Mar 16, 8:22 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 16, 2:16 pm, thewayoftruth1 <bicbess2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> > What country are you from? Let's take a look at their human rights
> > record and compare it's history and current practices with any Western
> > country, particuarly the US.
>
> > Let's take a look at any Muslim country and compare their history and
> > current practices with any Western country, particuarly the US.
>
> > Even Pakistan which is considered a democracy assassinated Benazir
> > Bhutto because the existing Leader who is closely tied to Muslim
> > terrorists was afraid she would win the first democratic elections
> > planned in years in that country.
>
> > When you can show me that any single Muslim country in this world
> > actually has any human rights and allows their citizens the type of
> > freedoms that North Americans, the British and the Europeans have I
> > might take you seriously.
>
> > This is hypocrisy of the worst order on your part.
>
> > You want to condemn the Americans for Abu Graibh when if it hadn't
> > been for the MUSLIM terrorists flying planes into buildings on
> > 9/11/2001 Afghanistan, Iraq, and Abu Graibh WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:35 am
From: ZonkTheBear

Ditto !

On 2 Apr, 17:28, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 2, 10:58 am, David Flint <DavidCFl...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > "> What country are you from? Let's take a look at their human rights
>
> > > record and compare it's history and current practices with any Western
> > > country, particuarly the US."
>
> > No, Trance, let's not do that.
> > It's easy to see other's faults - and surely the Muslim world has many
> > - but foolish to suppose that because they have faults we must be
> > faultless. We're not.
>
> I've never said we were faultless. However, our faults exist in
> context too.
>
> And if we're going to make a list about evil let's be fair about it.
>
> The wayofthetruth1 has a gazillion condemnations of the West and our
> "hypocrisy" but refuses to look at the hypocrisy of Islam.
>
> Lying about Islam and calling it a religion of peace is nothing short
> of an attempt to whitewash what Islam has been doing in today's world,
> the crimes it's been committing in the name of their god and their
> prophet muhammed.
>
>
>
> > Wayofthetruth gives a great list of US faults. Although I would
> > disagree about some of them the following stand out for me: Guantanamo
> > Bay, the Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, legalisation of
> > torture, the invasion of Iraq. These are all recent or current. And of
> > these the invasion of Iraq, leading to over half a million deaths, is
> > clearly the worst.
>
> The fact is that the older items on the list are no longer issues. We,
> in both Canada and US worked hard to eliminate those inequities. For
> the most part, they are gone, at least they are no longer legislated
> even though some of those attitudes may still exist.
>
> thewayofthetruth1 proposes that we should weaken these freedoms we
> fought for in order to eliminate these equities in the name of "not
> offending Islam".
>
> Give me one good reason why we should weaken our freedom of speech to
> cater to those who suppress freedom of speech through their religion.
>
>
>
> > I might, being British, add detention without trial for 28 days,
> > support for the invasion of Iraq and failure to restrain Israel's
> > attacks on its neighbours.
>
> > So we should start by admitting our own faults - it's good politics as
> > well as honest - and then find actions to address them.
>
> Not when the person who is pulling them out their ass in order to use
> those shortcoming to further their own undemocratic agenda.
>
> I suggest you read this entire thread closely before coming to such
> superficial conclusions.
>
> It's clear to me that you don't understand the focus of this
> conversation.
>
>
>
> > We should also take thought before attacking countries we don't
> > understand. Pakistan has spent more time under military then
> > democratic rule - it's not much of a democracy. General Musharraf is
> > not closely tied to Muslim terrorists - though some parts of the
> > Pakistan Army are. 'Pakistan' did not kill Benazir any more than 'the
> > US' killed Kennedy. The US has encouraged the Army to undermine
> > democracy - though rarely in public.
>
> No, I'm sorry you're wrong. It's my understanding from talking to
> people in the know that this is not the case.
>
> Musharraf is connected to these terrorist circles and roughly half of
> Pakistani Intelligence supports them as well.
>
> Have you forgotten that Musharraf was the one who eliminated
> democratic elections by organizing a coup against Bhutto?
>
> And as far as your claims about the US supporting the army in
> undermining Democracy? What is your proof for this?
>
> Or is this just another conspiracy theory floating around.
>
>
>
> > We should also keep our thinking straight. Do you think that the
> > atrocity of 911 JUSTIFIES the atrocities of Guantanamo and Iraq? If
> > not why say "if it hadn't been for the MUSLIM terrorists flying planes
> > into buildings on 9/11/2001 Afghanistan, Iraq, and Abu Graibh WOULD
> > NEVER HAVE HAPPENED."
>
> I didn't say that it was justified.
>
> I said it wouldn't have happened without 9/11.
>
> Those two statements are not equivalent.
>
>
>
> > Every atrocity leads to others. Each is a response to others. 911 was
> > a response to western meddling in the middle east. In Israel/Palestine
> > rockets on Israel lead to attacks on Gaza. What we need here is not
> > more blame but more compassion.
>
> Bullshit. The Palestinians made it clear that they didn't agree with
> 911.
>
> If, in fact, Bin Ladin did it for them as you claim why weren't the
> Palestinians involved?
>
> For your information, my compassion is reserved for:
>
> The 9/11 families and people like my son who suffered horrendously
> that day and continue to suffer.
>
> For Hirsi Ali who is forced to go into hiding because she spoke out
> against the extremism and terrorism of Islam.
>
> For Van Gogh who was brutally murdered because he produced a film
> exposing Islams horrific attitudes towards women.
>
> For Salman Rushdie, who lost 20 years of his life in hiding, and his
> wife.
>
> For the women of Islam who are being brutally punished for being
> victims of rape, childhood sexual abuse, and domestic violence.
>
> For the innocent Israelis and Palestinians who are forced to live in
> fear and hardship because Extremism and Terrorism refuses to release
> it's Religious stranglehold on that region.
>
> I have no compassion for people who advocate the horrors of Islam and
> demand (not ask) that I respect a Religion which through it's own
> laws, Sharia Law, grossly violates human rights on a daily basis.
>
> Nor do I have compassion for people who advocate any type of Religious
> Law imposed on the Secular societies of the West, including
> Christianity.
>
> Like I said, you have no idea what the discussion in this thread is
> about.
>
> I suggest you read it in it's entirety and closely before you start
> talking out of your ass, like you're doing now.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 8:22 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 16, 2:16 pm, thewayoftruth1 <bicbess2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > > What country are you from? Let's take a look at their human rights
> > > record and compare it's history and current practices with any Western
> > > country, particuarly the US.
>
> > > Let's take a look at any Muslim country and compare their history and
> > > current practices with any Western country, particuarly the US.
>
> > > Even Pakistan which is considered a democracy assassinated Benazir
> > > Bhutto because the existing Leader who is closely tied to Muslim
> > > terrorists was afraid she would win the first democratic elections
> > > planned in years in that country.
>
> > > When you can show me that any single Muslim country in this world
> > > actually has any human rights and allows their citizens the type of
> > > freedoms that North Americans, the British and the Europeans have I
> > > might take you seriously.
>
> > > This is hypocrisy of the worst order on your part.
>
> > > You want to condemn the Americans for Abu Graibh when if it hadn't
> > > been for the MUSLIM terrorists flying planes into buildings on
> > > 9/11/2001 Afghanistan, Iraq, and Abu Graibh WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED.- Skjul sitert tekst -
>
> - Vis sitert tekst -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The video right to life does not want you to see
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/863933c789d2c2d3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:25 am
From: rappoccio

On Apr 1, 6:54 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 6:06 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "In favor of a woman's right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term".
> > There you go.
>
> If you can't see the nebulousness inherent in both terms as per the
> usage, then I guess there's no point in continuing.

There is no ambiguity in being in favor of a woman's right to choose
to carry a pregnancy to term.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:28 am
From: rappoccio

On Apr 1, 6:57 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 4:58 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Since it is a matter of whether or not a choice should be allowed,
> > "pro-choice" is what English-speaking humans would call _accurate_.
> > Unlike the right-wing pro-Iraq war, pro-death penalty, pro-religion
> > gunowners who call themselves "pro-life".
>
> Ok let me get this strait. You can only call yourself "pro-life" (and
> again it's just a slogan of sorts) w/legitimacy if, along with your
> opposition to abortion/infanticide, you'd gleefully let Nazis and
> Jihadists and Commies and Atheists run rampant the wide world over.
> And let murdering criminals roam free (and I do waffle on the death
> penalty issue some granted). Gotcha. Only in a contorted liberal mind
> does that logic follow.

There are no Nazis nor Commies in Iraq, there were no Jihadists before
the US got there and made them, and atheists have nothing to do with
anything in this situation, so I fail to see how any of this is A.
Implied, or B. relevant.

Apparently the only contorted mind is yours.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:38 am
From: Trance Gemini

On Apr 1, 7:57 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 4:58 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Since it is a matter of whether or not a choice should be allowed,
> > "pro-choice" is what English-speaking humans would call _accurate_.
> > Unlike the right-wing pro-Iraq war, pro-death penalty, pro-religion
> > gunowners who call themselves "pro-life".
>
> Ok let me get this strait. You can only call yourself "pro-life" (and
> again it's just a slogan of sorts) w/legitimacy if, along with your
> opposition to abortion/infanticide, you'd gleefully let Nazis and
> Jihadists and Commies and Atheists run rampant the wide world over.
> And let murdering criminals roam free (and I do waffle on the death
> penalty issue some granted). Gotcha. Only in a contorted liberal mind
> does that logic follow.

Well, Chris, I can't believe I missed this thread. I see you're up to
no good again.

Has absolutely nothing sunk in with you in the many conversations
we've had?

It seems not.

Tell me, who are the "Atheists" running rampant the world over?

And before you answer that please try to remember that Communists are
communists many of whom are Christian. It's their Communist beliefs
they are acting on not the fact that some lack a belief in god(s). The
Christian Marxists are leading terrorist organizations in South
America and so are no different than those Marxists who were atheists.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:40 am
From: Trance Gemini

On Apr 1, 8:02 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 3:55 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > They uninvited involved them selves in her life and forced her to
> > abandon her life decision to terminate her pregnancy, this gives them
> > a responsibility.
> > Your fuck and run tactics have never won you new recruits, has it?
>
> I beg to differ. If an act can be deemed morally abhorrent, it's
> wrong regardless of what involvement in this woman's life the
> proponents have. She decided to get pregnant, decided to have the kid
> (yes it was her decision), now it's her responsibility.
> You still haven't produced the video though.
> Does the kid have some sort of medical problem, or a learning
> disability? Regardless it's not unique to that child. Raising a
> challenged kid is bound to be awfully tough, but it's still her child.
> I'll remind the readers that the under the Red Communist regime
> children were with GREAT REGULARITY led out into the wilderness to
> die. At great cost to their society also (they're overrun w/males).
> You're all once again sounding like the good commies that you are.

Oh fuck, Chris, just because we disagree with you doesn't make us
Commies. Get over it.

She was pushed into having the child by a bunch of Skanks who didn't
give a damn what the consequences of that decision would be either to
her or her child.

Is it so difficult for them to just keep their noses out of peoples
lives?

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:41 am
From: Trance Gemini

Trust me, everyone knows Chris's ideas are completely fucked. In fact,
I wouldn't be surprised if Chris knew it too.

On Apr 1, 10:32 pm, zen cycle <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Subject: [AvC] Re: The video right to life does not want you to see
> > From: chrism3...@yahoo.com
>
> > Ok let me get this strait. You can only call yourself "pro-life" (and
> > again it's just a slogan of sorts) w/legitimacy if, along with your
> > opposition to abortion/infanticide, you'd gleefully let Nazis and
> > Jihadists and Commies and Atheists run rampant the wide world over.
> > And let murdering criminals roam free (and I do waffle on the death
> > penalty issue some granted). Gotcha. Only in a contorted liberal mind
> > does that logic follow.
>
> I'm glad it's not just me that thinks you're completely fucked.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> More immediate than e-mail? Get instant access with Windows Live Messenger.http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT Music Thread
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/86dfa0cf08d650ab?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:26 am
From: "zencycle"

Bob Seger was quite possibly the best show I've ever seen (1980). And I
don't mind bragging I've seen quite a few concerts. It was one of the two
shows that compiled the "nine tonight" album. I'm not a huge bob seger fan,
and only ever boughtthe 'against the wind' album. But damn, was he good
live.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Trance Gemini" <trancegemini7@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 10:37 AM
To: "Atheism vs Christianity" <Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [AvC] Re: OT Music Thread

>
> I've added these two for no other reason than I just happen to like
> them ;-)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6se90rFN1qI&feature=PlayList&p=2BBF1032E59B0988&index=44
>
> Born To Run by Bruce Springsteen
>
> and
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN1_3zHjhW8&feature=PlayList&p=2BBF1032E59B0988&index=42
>
> Night Moves by Bob Seger
>
> On Apr 2, 10:09 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This video gives a whole new meaning to the words of the Mamas and
>> Papas song, Dream A Little Dream For Me!
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcv77dDKsMM&feature=PlayList&p=2BBF103...
>>
>> On Apr 2, 9:35 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 2, 9:32 am, floyd_1977 <floyd_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Apr 2, 8:24 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Here's a good one to start ;-)
>>
>> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3T8xr274q8&feature=PlayList&p=2BBF103...
>>
>> > > > John Lennon's Imagine sung by Neil Young, a Canadian as a tribute
>> > > > to
>> > > > the 9/11 victims.
>>
>> > > > Enjoy!
>>
>> > > Neil Young is my favorite. I have license plates that say HRT O GLD.
>>
>> > Great song :-) Love that one too and him!
>>
>> > Here's another oldy but great classic as far as I'm concerned!
>>
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_OqdHMoTxE&feature=PlayList&p=2BBF103...
>>
>> > Abraham, Martin and John by Dion. No further explanation required
>> > right?
> >
>

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:30 am
From: Trance Gemini

I saw the movie on TV. It was a really lovely walk down memory
lane :-)

On Apr 2, 10:57 am, floyd_1977 <floyd_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 2, 9:41 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Anyone remember The Band?
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBzGi6M-fTM
>
> > Up on Cripple Creek.
>
> Yep, I have The Last Waltz on DVD.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:31 am
From: Trance Gemini

He's great. I have an attachment to this particular song though.

On Apr 2, 11:26 am, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Bob Seger was quite possibly the best show I've ever seen (1980). And I
> don't mind bragging I've seen quite a few concerts. It was one of the two
> shows that compiled the "nine tonight" album. I'm not a huge bob seger fan,
> and only ever boughtthe 'against the wind' album. But damn, was he good
> live.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 10:37 AM
> To: "Atheism vs Christianity" <Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [AvC] Re: OT Music Thread
>
>
>
> > I've added these two for no other reason than I just happen to like
> > them ;-)
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6se90rFN1qI&feature=PlayList&p=2BBF103...
>
> > Born To Run by Bruce Springsteen
>
> > and
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN1_3zHjhW8&feature=PlayList&p=2BBF103...
>
> > Night Moves by Bob Seger
>
> > On Apr 2, 10:09 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> This video gives a whole new meaning to the words of the Mamas and
> >> Papas song, Dream A Little Dream For Me!
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcv77dDKsMM&feature=PlayList&p=2BBF103...
>
> >> On Apr 2, 9:35 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Apr 2, 9:32 am, floyd_1977 <floyd_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Apr 2, 8:24 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > Here's a good one to start ;-)
>
> >> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3T8xr274q8&feature=PlayList&p=2BBF103...
>
> >> > > > John Lennon's Imagine sung by Neil Young, a Canadian as a tribute
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > the 9/11 victims.
>
> >> > > > Enjoy!
>
> >> > > Neil Young is my favorite. I have license plates that say HRT O GLD.
>
> >> > Great song :-) Love that one too and him!
>
> >> > Here's another oldy but great classic as far as I'm concerned!
>
> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_OqdHMoTxE&feature=PlayList&p=2BBF103...
>
> >> > Abraham, Martin and John by Dion. No further explanation required
> >> > right?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Just seen a great program on BBC2 about the Turin Shroud.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/09fb4b917fc51029?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:33 am
From: harry k

On Apr 2, 5:26 am, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 2, 1:52 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 1, 2:05 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > As I keep saying supernatural claims is a separate issue. I'm talking
> > > about evidence for these people's existence not any supernatural
> > > events in their life's.
>
> > LL: Please provide documentation--not Bible writings--that he existed.
>
> Why do you reject Paul's writing and the Gospels. Yes reject the
> miracles if you have a problem with them, but why reject the rest.
>
>

Because there is no proof that any of that happened. You are
attempting to use the bible to prove the bible.

Because Paul said something is not proof that what he said is true.

Harry K

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Support of the Premise "that god exists" via the Scientific Method.!
!!
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/feb0472ffeac7e40?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 2 2008 8:43 am
From: "dafsmo@googlemail.com"

well what i see that your friend Trance have left you behand, he just
move on, he can see clear now, and you are still blind.

On Apr 1, 11:25 pm, ZonkTheBear <ZonkTheB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Are you here again? You have still not answered the questions Trance
> and I asked you in our last round but instead, you ran away with your
> religion's bigotry exposed for all to see.
>
> If you want to debate, I'm all in, but I don't want to waste my time
> on religious fundies who spew rote learning without understanding what
> they actually are saying.
>
> Do you know your religion? Are you prepared to defend it by
> intellectual means and not only by bombs and RPGs?
>
> In that case, you get the first shot (pardon the pun) and can start by
> showing me proof of your god's existence.
>
> On 1 Apr, 20:28, thewayoftruth1 <bicbess2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Im going to post a book which contain Some Evidence for the Truth of
> > Islam by a scientific method : (1) The Scientific Miracles in the
> > Holy Quran
>
> > A) The Quran on Human Embryonic Development
>
> > B) The Quran on Mountains
>
> > C) The Quran on the Origin of the Universe
>
> > D) The Quran on the Cerebrum
>
> > E) The Quran on Seas and Rivers
>
> > F) The Quran on Deeps Seas and Internal Waves
>
> > G) The Quran on Clouds
>
> > H) Scientists' Comments on the Scientific
> > Miracles in the Holy Quran (with RealPlayer Video)
>
> > and this work is especially for the atheist because they always want
> > proofs that GOD exist so tell me how an illiterate man knows all that
> > before 1424 yars
>
> > and this is the link :http://www.zshare.net/download/9909513c979812/- 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

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links