Atheism vs Christianity: 25 new messages in 12 topics

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Meaning/Purpose
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/a0c32080ea5622da?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 2:29 pm
From: Walt

On Jun 5, 4:50 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2:33 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Intelligent theists say their intuition tells them there is a God.
> > It is highly questionable whether intuition has any real value.
> > But the vast majority of people, including atheists, use
> > intuition to one degree or another. People have to make
> > decisions often without enough information. And they
> > aren't just going to flip a coin. So intuition is here
> > to stay for the forseeable future. The only practical
> > thing to do is keep it within the bounds of secular
> > morality.
>
> Almost all theists, by definition, say "GOD IS REAL". Maybe you just
> say "my intuition kind of tells me there's a God, but of course that
> could be explained by wishful thinking on my part so I'm not going to
> act on it" and I'd wonder _why_ you found Christianity appealing, and
> I'd consider you an enabler, but I'd also consider you more or less a
> nonbeliever. I noticed what you said to Drafterman about most theists
> having sufficient doubt and I can simply say from debating hundreds of
> theists, being raised as a churchgoer, reading countless books on
> religion and simply living in the real world that you are wrong,
> wrong, wrong about that.

There is lots of stupidity and hypocrisy. Religion is not
the cause of it, it is just tainted by it just like
all other major categories of human thought and activity.
Any fool can tell by the way they behave that most
Christians and Moslems doubt there really is a
heaven. Even most of those who vehemently insist
they have no doubts.

It's the utopianism Chris Hedges speaks of. You
can't face it that stupidity and hypocrisy are woven
inextricably into almost all things human. So you
build up this fantasy you can get rid of it all in
one fell swoop if you can get rid of religion.

> > You only have the lame slippery-slope argument that
> > religion is inherently bad. You just drone on and
> > on, repeating and rewording the same crap, and
> > throwing in lots of unfounded slanders.
>
> If I have repeated myself it is because you are a slippery little worm
> who doesn't address all the points. And if my points are crap I wonder
> what that says about you, who have resorted to dodges and strawmen in
> the face of being helpless to address most of what I've written. As
> for me slandering you--nope, you can't find anything I said about you
> that wasn't substantiated so you are, in fact, a liar.

Birds are free masons who cause dandruff, because Hitler ate
lots of chicken.

I bet you're too much of a slipper little worn to refute that
overwhelming logic!

> > On Jun 5, 3:54 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 5, 1:34 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 5, 2:42 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > Again, you are pretending your faith exists in a bubble. There is no
> > > > > question you are perpetuating theism--you are on a group to defend it.
> > > > > You understand it is not just your faith you are defending, but faith
> > > > > in God in general. As such, you are perpetuating the cause of so much
> > > > > suffering in the world and theism has obviously affected you in a
> > > > > negative way on an individual level or you'd feel bad about that.
>
> > > > No matter how far down in a pool of foul brain diarrhea you
> > > > try to hide it, it's still obvious what you're doing. The same
> > > > thing a racist does. You take a group of people, and
> > > > blame all of them for the bad acts of some members
> > > > of the group.
>
> > > Racism is a harmful way of thinking, like theism is a harmful way of
> > > thinking. That's been my point all along, and you have been unable to
> > > refute it. Therefore I am like someone who opposes racism, and you are
> > > like the racist. But I love that you took this pathetic cheap shot
> > > instead of addressing the point--with all the pathetic maneuvers you
> > > have used in this little exchange it was only a matter of time before
> > > you cracked entirely.
>
> > > > > You speak of faith the way somebody would speak of recreational drugs--
> > > > > with the "car at a safe speed" analogy and now this one. You seem to
> > > > > acknowledge that religious faith is a bad thing if someone has too
> > > > > much of it, but defend the right to be a "casual" theist. I agree that
> > > > > it is better that someone has only a little faith than a lot. Of
> > > > > course, when you consider yourself a theist it means you have faith in
> > > > > God all the time--that would be the equivalent of being on heroin all
> > > > > the time if you keep up this reasoning.
>
> > > > An understandable mistake, but my analogy was not meant
> > > > to imply that too much faith is automatically bad. A flaw
> > > > in the car analogy is that there is no speed that is completely
> > > > safe, whereas there are many religious beliefs that are
> > > > completely safe.
>
> > > The idea that the soul entered the body at the point of conception
> > > seemed like a harmless belief until it caused people to oppose the
> > > life saving potential of embryonic stem cell research. Besides, you're
> > > still dodging the fact that you're lending credibility to more harmful
> > > religious beliefs. In any case, how do you suspect we differentiate
> > > "good faith" from "bad faith"? By using reasonable standards? It is
> > > true that some faith can be assessed to be more harmful than other
> > > faith that way, but it requires the acknowledgement that all faith is
> > > indefensible and stupid.
>
> > > > > It is true it is someone's own business if they want to do drugs as
> > > > > long as they keep themselves in a situation where they aren't likely
> > > > > to hurt other people. Likewise, I have never said that people
> > > > > shouldn't have a legal right to believe what they do. If we simply
> > > > > treated theists like we treat drug addicts I would think that would be
> > > > > a huge step in the right direction. In fact, I think that is precisely
> > > > > the right step to take. Theism is more selfish than drug use, as drug
> > > > > use mainly afflicts the users instead of having the consequences being
> > > > > directed at other people. But since you started this "moderation" line
> > > > > of reasoning I would wonder what objection you could possibly have
> > > > > towards applying the drug model to theism overall instead of just
> > > > > using it to defend it.
>
> > > > I think John Hagee is more evil than heroin. But John Hagee,
> > > > not all theists, is responsible for John Hagee. Just as Willie
> > > > Horton is the only one who is responsible for Willie Horton.
>
> > > And Adolph Hitler, I suppose, was the only one responsible for the
> > > consequences we attribute to Adolph Hitler? Even though we wouldn't
> > > even be talking about what an evil guy he was if it wasn't for the
> > > thousands of theists who brought a struggling artist bum into power?
> > > If theism were considered for what it is--a mental illness--none of
> > > these theistic nuts would come into power. But you won't accept any
> > > responsibility because theism has destroyed your conscience.
>
> > > > Trying to protect weak-minded people from John Hagee
> > > > would have as many or more negative consequences
> > > > as the effort to protect people from heroin has had.
>
> > > So you don't think people should be protected from crack cocaine or
> > > Osama Bin Laden? I think you're being deliberately vague in your
> > > response here.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 2:58 pm
From: Dag Yo

btw, this also happens to be my reason for believing that I have the
moral high ground over all theists.

On Jun 5, 12:26 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hope no one minds me butting in real quick.
>
> > Theist: But why is this religious belief a bad thing?
>
> Real short answer: because it isn't true.
>
> Short answer: because religious beliefs aren't true. And anyone who
> gives a shit about whether their beliefs are true or not shouldn't
> believe them.
>
> Long answer: Beliefs affect our actions, if we care whether or not our
> actions are justified then we should strive to hold as many true
> beliefs as possible and hold as few false beliefs as possible, lest we
> take unjustified actions. An examination of all relevant information
> regarding the existence of gods leads one to the conclusion that gods
> do not exist; hence atheism is the most righteous and moral position
> for anyone who wishes to act righteously and morally.
>
> -
> On Jun 5, 10:15 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 5, 2:03 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 5, 1:18 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 5, 12:55 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 5, 12:18 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 5, 10:57 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 5, 10:51 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 9:15 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 9:01 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 8:30 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 1:28 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 4, 7:50 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 4, 3:55 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 4, 3:39 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I fail to see the point of this merry-go-round thing. Are you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggesting that just because you can predict a response it isn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valid?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would help to see the point if you would follow the link
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and read it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Only if you assume that there is a point to that file. Since I did
> > > > > > > > > > > > > follow the link and read it, it would seem that assumption is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unwarranted.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Circular arguments are not valid, as any assertion can be
> > > > > > > > > > > > proven true with one.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Actually no assertion can be proven true with one. That's why they're
> > > > > > > > > > > invalid.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > But, aside from a few statements, I fail to see how your link applies.
> > > > > > > > > > > Unless you're a psychic or are implementing a hasty generalization.
> > > > > > > > > > > Your choice.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Show that it doesn't apply. Make an argument that any religious
> > > > > > > > > > belief is harmful to society, that doesn't fit into the pattern I
> > > > > > > > > > describe. And try to avoid lame shit like making
> > > > > > > > > > a slippery slope argument and then claiming that you aren't.
>
> > > > > > > > > I can't make an argument (nor have I ever tried) regarding "any"
> > > > > > > > > religious belief since that statment includes religious beliefs that
> > > > > > > > > have yet to be thought of. (That is, I could make an argument
> > > > > > > > > regarding existing religious beliefs and you could just invent a new
> > > > > > > > > one to disprove it).
>
> > > > > > > > So you agree that, while there are harmful religious beliefs,
> > > > > > > > religious belief in and of itself is not bad?
>
> > > > > > > Nope. I just refuse to make the arguments you tell me to make.
>
> > > > > > OK, so you can't say that any and all religious beliefs are
> > > > > > harmful, but you can't agree with the statement that religious
> > > > > > belief is not inherently bad.
>
> > > > > > > > > So no, I'm not interested in making an insane argument because you
> > > > > > > > > order me to.
>
> > > > > > > > It's the argument that Dev is making. Dev may be pathologically
> > > > > > > > hostile, but I don't think it's fair to call him insane.
>
> > > > > > > > > Regardless, it still stands that you cannot say your discuss with Dev
> > > > > > > > > mimics the link simply because you've managed to shoehorn two
> > > > > > > > > statements here into two corresponding statements there. Again, hasty
> > > > > > > > > generalization.
>
> > > > > > > > I believe I was pointing out straight-forward logical equivalences.
> > > > > > > > Sorry, but at some point it just lose patience with the tedium
> > > > > > > > of having to elaborate on points that seem fairly obvious to me.
>
> > > > > > > Well I'm sorry if not committing logical fallacies is a burden on you.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just because something makes someone's life meaingful and pleasant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't make it "good" nor stop it from being "bad". If this is a next
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step in your merry-go-round, so what? It's a valid response.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > To me it is self-evident that it is good for life to be meaningful and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > pleasant.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So serial killing is good if it makes your life meaingful and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pleasant?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > It would be a good aspect of serial killing. I know where you're
> > > > > > > > > > > > going with this, it's the next step in the merry-go-round:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Anti-theist: You can't justify bad things because it
> > > > > > > > > > > > makes people's lives more enjoyable.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > No, I was going to say that you're committing the fallacy of hasty
> > > > > > > > > > > generalization. Just because one aspect can be interpreted as good
> > > > > > > > > > > does not make the whole thing, in general, good.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Since we are talking about religion in a general, universal context,
> > > > > > > > > > > subjective and individual aspects are irrelevant.
>
> > > > > > > > > > If someone derives satisfaction or enjoyment from something, it's
> > > > > > > > > > hard to see a case where it would make sense to argue to them
> > > > > > > > > > "you're not really enjoying that". If you wish them to renounce
> > > > > > > > > > that something, you must convince them that it is bad for
> > > > > > > > > > themself or others in some way.
>
> > > > > > > > > I don't see that I was making an argument that they aren't really
> > > > > > > > > enjoying it. So strawman there. I was simply stating the fact that to
> > > > > > > > > take a single aspect (it makes them feel good) and extrapolate that to
> > > > > > > > > define the whole concept is hastily generalize. A fallacy and not a
> > > > > > > > > valid refutation against general statements made about whole concepts.
>
> > > > > > > > > That is, "But it makes them feel good!" is not a valid refutation of
> > > > > > > > > "Religion is bad".
>
> > > > > > > > No, it's a refutation of "religion is useless". See merry-go-round.
>
> > > > > > > Who said religion is useless?
>
> > > > > > So since religion is useful, and some religious beliefs are
> > > > > > not bad, it is OK for people to hold those non-bad religious
> > > > > > beliefs?
>
> > > > > Such as...?
>
> > > > After you die you go to heaven and you're happy. If you
> > > > feel this is not specific enough, interpret it in a way
> > > > of your choosing that results in it being minimally
> > > > bad.
>
> > > I think that's a horrible religious belief. I really don't see a way
> > > to interpret that in a non-bad way.
>
> > Theist: But why is this religious belief a bad thing?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > To me it is self-evident that in order to make universal claims about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > something you need to factor in less subjecive things then how an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > individual feels about it for themselves.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 4, 3:32 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Congratulations, you've come up with a very clever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and well-disguised rewording of the next step in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merry-go-round.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anti-theist: You can't justify bad things because it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes people's lives more enjoyable.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 4, 3:13 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You could say the same thing about being a Nazi.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 4, 11:44 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Getting on the merry-go-round at:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Theist: But many people find that religious belief
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes their life much more meaningful and pleasant.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >http://atheism-vs-christianity.googlegroups.com/web/Time-saver.txt
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 4, 12:49 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. And the good aspects of religion--treating people well, etc.--
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do not require your fucktarded religious mythology at all. Everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we agree that is good that is done under the banner of religious faith
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is good because it can be justified as good without bringing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supernatural deities into it. If you need God to justify something, it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > obviously must not be a good thing. You can't argue why the world
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't be better without theism because it isn't true. You just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't care because theism has killed any
>
> ...
>
> read more >>

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 3:05 pm
From: Dev

On Jun 5, 3:29 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 4:50 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 2:33 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Intelligent theists say their intuition tells them there is a God.
> > > It is highly questionable whether intuition has any real value.
> > > But the vast majority of people, including atheists, use
> > > intuition to one degree or another. People have to make
> > > decisions often without enough information. And they
> > > aren't just going to flip a coin. So intuition is here
> > > to stay for the forseeable future. The only practical
> > > thing to do is keep it within the bounds of secular
> > > morality.
>
> > Almost all theists, by definition, say "GOD IS REAL". Maybe you just
> > say "my intuition kind of tells me there's a God, but of course that
> > could be explained by wishful thinking on my part so I'm not going to
> > act on it" and I'd wonder _why_ you found Christianity appealing, and
> > I'd consider you an enabler, but I'd also consider you more or less a
> > nonbeliever. I noticed what you said to Drafterman about most theists
> > having sufficient doubt and I can simply say from debating hundreds of
> > theists, being raised as a churchgoer, reading countless books on
> > religion and simply living in the real world that you are wrong,
> > wrong, wrong about that.
>
> There is lots of stupidity and hypocrisy. Religion is not
> the cause of it, it is just tainted by it just like
> all other major categories of human thought and activity.
> Any fool can tell by the way they behave that most
> Christians and Moslems doubt there really is a
> heaven. Even most of those who vehemently insist
> they have no doubts.
>
> It's the utopianism Chris Hedges speaks of. You
> can't face it that stupidity and hypocrisy are woven
> inextricably into almost all things human. So you
> build up this fantasy you can get rid of it all in
> one fell swoop if you can get rid of religion.

Chris Hedges used a fucktarded strawman that the atheists thought the
world would be perfect without religion, something you would know
_none_ of them actually said if you read their books. Hedges could
have written more or less the same book fifty years ago about the
civil rights movement and titled it _I Don't Believe in Niggers_,
criticizing the "utopianism" of MLK's "I Have A Dream Speech" (far
more utopian than anything Dawkins, Dennett, Harris or Hitchens has
written) except that the civil rights movement has been effective so
it shatters his case that it's bad to fight harmful ideas for the
betterment of the human race. You're the first person I've come across
who actually thinks Hedges made a good case so you're going to be
barrels of fun for me.

> > > You only have the lame slippery-slope argument that
> > > religion is inherently bad. You just drone on and
> > > on, repeating and rewording the same crap, and
> > > throwing in lots of unfounded slanders.
>
> > If I have repeated myself it is because you are a slippery little worm
> > who doesn't address all the points. And if my points are crap I wonder
> > what that says about you, who have resorted to dodges and strawmen in
> > the face of being helpless to address most of what I've written. As
> > for me slandering you--nope, you can't find anything I said about you
> > that wasn't substantiated so you are, in fact, a liar.
>
> Birds are free masons who cause dandruff, because Hitler ate
> lots of chicken.
>
> I bet you're too much of a slipper little worn to refute that
> overwhelming logic!

Hitler's diet didn't have anything to do with why so much of Germany
was willing to persecute Jews. Anti-semitism rooted in Christianity
did. Saying theism wasn't partly to blame for The Holocaust makes as
much sense as saying racism wasn't partly to blame for The Holocaust.
It is fucktarded to argue that perpetuating ideas doesn't have
consequences.

Again, you are desperately trying these old, stupid arguments that you
know have already been refuted and you wouldn't dodge the majority of
what I've written if you didn't know you were wrong on some level.

>
>
> > > On Jun 5, 3:54 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 5, 1:34 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 5, 2:42 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Again, you are pretending your faith exists in a bubble. There is no
> > > > > > question you are perpetuating theism--you are on a group to defend it.
> > > > > > You understand it is not just your faith you are defending, but faith
> > > > > > in God in general. As such, you are perpetuating the cause of so much
> > > > > > suffering in the world and theism has obviously affected you in a
> > > > > > negative way on an individual level or you'd feel bad about that.
>
> > > > > No matter how far down in a pool of foul brain diarrhea you
> > > > > try to hide it, it's still obvious what you're doing. The same
> > > > > thing a racist does. You take a group of people, and
> > > > > blame all of them for the bad acts of some members
> > > > > of the group.
>
> > > > Racism is a harmful way of thinking, like theism is a harmful way of
> > > > thinking. That's been my point all along, and you have been unable to
> > > > refute it. Therefore I am like someone who opposes racism, and you are
> > > > like the racist. But I love that you took this pathetic cheap shot
> > > > instead of addressing the point--with all the pathetic maneuvers you
> > > > have used in this little exchange it was only a matter of time before
> > > > you cracked entirely.
>
> > > > > > You speak of faith the way somebody would speak of recreational drugs--
> > > > > > with the "car at a safe speed" analogy and now this one. You seem to
> > > > > > acknowledge that religious faith is a bad thing if someone has too
> > > > > > much of it, but defend the right to be a "casual" theist. I agree that
> > > > > > it is better that someone has only a little faith than a lot. Of
> > > > > > course, when you consider yourself a theist it means you have faith in
> > > > > > God all the time--that would be the equivalent of being on heroin all
> > > > > > the time if you keep up this reasoning.
>
> > > > > An understandable mistake, but my analogy was not meant
> > > > > to imply that too much faith is automatically bad. A flaw
> > > > > in the car analogy is that there is no speed that is completely
> > > > > safe, whereas there are many religious beliefs that are
> > > > > completely safe.
>
> > > > The idea that the soul entered the body at the point of conception
> > > > seemed like a harmless belief until it caused people to oppose the
> > > > life saving potential of embryonic stem cell research. Besides, you're
> > > > still dodging the fact that you're lending credibility to more harmful
> > > > religious beliefs. In any case, how do you suspect we differentiate
> > > > "good faith" from "bad faith"? By using reasonable standards? It is
> > > > true that some faith can be assessed to be more harmful than other
> > > > faith that way, but it requires the acknowledgement that all faith is
> > > > indefensible and stupid.
>
> > > > > > It is true it is someone's own business if they want to do drugs as
> > > > > > long as they keep themselves in a situation where they aren't likely
> > > > > > to hurt other people. Likewise, I have never said that people
> > > > > > shouldn't have a legal right to believe what they do. If we simply
> > > > > > treated theists like we treat drug addicts I would think that would be
> > > > > > a huge step in the right direction. In fact, I think that is precisely
> > > > > > the right step to take. Theism is more selfish than drug use, as drug
> > > > > > use mainly afflicts the users instead of having the consequences being
> > > > > > directed at other people. But since you started this "moderation" line
> > > > > > of reasoning I would wonder what objection you could possibly have
> > > > > > towards applying the drug model to theism overall instead of just
> > > > > > using it to defend it.
>
> > > > > I think John Hagee is more evil than heroin. But John Hagee,
> > > > > not all theists, is responsible for John Hagee. Just as Willie
> > > > > Horton is the only one who is responsible for Willie Horton.
>
> > > > And Adolph Hitler, I suppose, was the only one responsible for the
> > > > consequences we attribute to Adolph Hitler? Even though we wouldn't
> > > > even be talking about what an evil guy he was if it wasn't for the
> > > > thousands of theists who brought a struggling artist bum into power?
> > > > If theism were considered for what it is--a mental illness--none of
> > > > these theistic nuts would come into power. But you won't accept any
> > > > responsibility because theism has destroyed your conscience.
>
> > > > > Trying to protect weak-minded people from John Hagee
> > > > > would have as many or more negative consequences
> > > > > as the effort to protect people from heroin has had.
>
> > > > So you don't think people should be protected from crack cocaine or
> > > > Osama Bin Laden? I think you're being deliberately vague in your
> > > > response here.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 3:11 pm
From: Dag Yo

> It's the utopianism Chris Hedges speaks of. You
> can't face it that stupidity and hypocrisy are woven
> inextricably into almost all things human. So you
> build up this fantasy you can get rid of it all in
> one fell swoop if you can get rid of religion.

> There is lots of stupidity and hypocrisy. Religion is not
> the cause of it, it is just tainted by it just like
> all other major categories of human thought and activity.
> Any fool can tell by the way they behave that most
> Christians and Moslems doubt there really is a
> heaven. Even most of those who vehemently insist
> they have no doubts.
You know, there is a perfectly simple way to make sure you aren't
putting forward an utterly fucktarded straw man. And that is to ask
whether what you're putting forward is actually what the person
believes.

So Dev, do you believe that all the world's violence, stupidity and
hypocrisy will instantly disappear in "one fell swoop if you can get
rid of religion" which will usher in a new utopia for the human race?
Y/N?

-
On Jun 5, 1:29 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 4:50 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 2:33 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Intelligent theists say their intuition tells them there is a God.
> > > It is highly questionable whether intuition has any real value.
> > > But the vast majority of people, including atheists, use
> > > intuition to one degree or another. People have to make
> > > decisions often without enough information. And they
> > > aren't just going to flip a coin. So intuition is here
> > > to stay for the forseeable future. The only practical
> > > thing to do is keep it within the bounds of secular
> > > morality.
>
> > Almost all theists, by definition, say "GOD IS REAL". Maybe you just
> > say "my intuition kind of tells me there's a God, but of course that
> > could be explained by wishful thinking on my part so I'm not going to
> > act on it" and I'd wonder _why_ you found Christianity appealing, and
> > I'd consider you an enabler, but I'd also consider you more or less a
> > nonbeliever. I noticed what you said to Drafterman about most theists
> > having sufficient doubt and I can simply say from debating hundreds of
> > theists, being raised as a churchgoer, reading countless books on
> > religion and simply living in the real world that you are wrong,
> > wrong, wrong about that.
>
> There is lots of stupidity and hypocrisy. Religion is not
> the cause of it, it is just tainted by it just like
> all other major categories of human thought and activity.
> Any fool can tell by the way they behave that most
> Christians and Moslems doubt there really is a
> heaven. Even most of those who vehemently insist
> they have no doubts.
>
> It's the utopianism Chris Hedges speaks of. You
> can't face it that stupidity and hypocrisy are woven
> inextricably into almost all things human. So you
> build up this fantasy you can get rid of it all in
> one fell swoop if you can get rid of religion.
>
> > > You only have the lame slippery-slope argument that
> > > religion is inherently bad. You just drone on and
> > > on, repeating and rewording the same crap, and
> > > throwing in lots of unfounded slanders.
>
> > If I have repeated myself it is because you are a slippery little worm
> > who doesn't address all the points. And if my points are crap I wonder
> > what that says about you, who have resorted to dodges and strawmen in
> > the face of being helpless to address most of what I've written. As
> > for me slandering you--nope, you can't find anything I said about you
> > that wasn't substantiated so you are, in fact, a liar.
>
> Birds are free masons who cause dandruff, because Hitler ate
> lots of chicken.
>
> I bet you're too much of a slipper little worn to refute that
> overwhelming logic!
>
> > > On Jun 5, 3:54 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 5, 1:34 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 5, 2:42 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Again, you are pretending your faith exists in a bubble. There is no
> > > > > > question you are perpetuating theism--you are on a group to defend it.
> > > > > > You understand it is not just your faith you are defending, but faith
> > > > > > in God in general. As such, you are perpetuating the cause of so much
> > > > > > suffering in the world and theism has obviously affected you in a
> > > > > > negative way on an individual level or you'd feel bad about that.
>
> > > > > No matter how far down in a pool of foul brain diarrhea you
> > > > > try to hide it, it's still obvious what you're doing. The same
> > > > > thing a racist does. You take a group of people, and
> > > > > blame all of them for the bad acts of some members
> > > > > of the group.
>
> > > > Racism is a harmful way of thinking, like theism is a harmful way of
> > > > thinking. That's been my point all along, and you have been unable to
> > > > refute it. Therefore I am like someone who opposes racism, and you are
> > > > like the racist. But I love that you took this pathetic cheap shot
> > > > instead of addressing the point--with all the pathetic maneuvers you
> > > > have used in this little exchange it was only a matter of time before
> > > > you cracked entirely.
>
> > > > > > You speak of faith the way somebody would speak of recreational drugs--
> > > > > > with the "car at a safe speed" analogy and now this one. You seem to
> > > > > > acknowledge that religious faith is a bad thing if someone has too
> > > > > > much of it, but defend the right to be a "casual" theist. I agree that
> > > > > > it is better that someone has only a little faith than a lot. Of
> > > > > > course, when you consider yourself a theist it means you have faith in
> > > > > > God all the time--that would be the equivalent of being on heroin all
> > > > > > the time if you keep up this reasoning.
>
> > > > > An understandable mistake, but my analogy was not meant
> > > > > to imply that too much faith is automatically bad. A flaw
> > > > > in the car analogy is that there is no speed that is completely
> > > > > safe, whereas there are many religious beliefs that are
> > > > > completely safe.
>
> > > > The idea that the soul entered the body at the point of conception
> > > > seemed like a harmless belief until it caused people to oppose the
> > > > life saving potential of embryonic stem cell research. Besides, you're
> > > > still dodging the fact that you're lending credibility to more harmful
> > > > religious beliefs. In any case, how do you suspect we differentiate
> > > > "good faith" from "bad faith"? By using reasonable standards? It is
> > > > true that some faith can be assessed to be more harmful than other
> > > > faith that way, but it requires the acknowledgement that all faith is
> > > > indefensible and stupid.
>
> > > > > > It is true it is someone's own business if they want to do drugs as
> > > > > > long as they keep themselves in a situation where they aren't likely
> > > > > > to hurt other people. Likewise, I have never said that people
> > > > > > shouldn't have a legal right to believe what they do. If we simply
> > > > > > treated theists like we treat drug addicts I would think that would be
> > > > > > a huge step in the right direction. In fact, I think that is precisely
> > > > > > the right step to take. Theism is more selfish than drug use, as drug
> > > > > > use mainly afflicts the users instead of having the consequences being
> > > > > > directed at other people. But since you started this "moderation" line
> > > > > > of reasoning I would wonder what objection you could possibly have
> > > > > > towards applying the drug model to theism overall instead of just
> > > > > > using it to defend it.
>
> > > > > I think John Hagee is more evil than heroin. But John Hagee,
> > > > > not all theists, is responsible for John Hagee. Just as Willie
> > > > > Horton is the only one who is responsible for Willie Horton.
>
> > > > And Adolph Hitler, I suppose, was the only one responsible for the
> > > > consequences we attribute to Adolph Hitler? Even though we wouldn't
> > > > even be talking about what an evil guy he was if it wasn't for the
> > > > thousands of theists who brought a struggling artist bum into power?
> > > > If theism were considered for what it is--a mental illness--none of
> > > > these theistic nuts would come into power. But you won't accept any
> > > > responsibility because theism has destroyed your conscience.
>
> > > > > Trying to protect weak-minded people from John Hagee
> > > > > would have as many or more negative consequences
> > > > > as the effort to protect people from heroin has had.
>
> > > > So you don't think people should be protected from crack cocaine or
> > > > Osama Bin Laden? I think you're being deliberately vague in your
> > > > response here.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 3:21 pm
From: Walt

I'll say it again -- you have to look at what people
do, even more than what they say. Look at
Dev's profile, look at where he posts. Either
he thinks that religion is THE problem in the
world, or he's irrationally obsessed by it. I think
it's the former.

On Jun 5, 6:11 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > It's the utopianism Chris Hedges speaks of. You
> > can't face it that stupidity and hypocrisy are woven
> > inextricably into almost all things human. So you
> > build up this fantasy you can get rid of it all in
> > one fell swoop if you can get rid of religion.
> > There is lots of stupidity and hypocrisy. Religion is not
> > the cause of it, it is just tainted by it just like
> > all other major categories of human thought and activity.
> > Any fool can tell by the way they behave that most
> > Christians and Moslems doubt there really is a
> > heaven. Even most of those who vehemently insist
> > they have no doubts.
>
> You know, there is a perfectly simple way to make sure you aren't
> putting forward an utterly fucktarded straw man. And that is to ask
> whether what you're putting forward is actually what the person
> believes.
>
> So Dev, do you believe that all the world's violence, stupidity and
> hypocrisy will instantly disappear in "one fell swoop if you can get
> rid of religion" which will usher in a new utopia for the human race?
> Y/N?
>
> -
> On Jun 5, 1:29 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 5, 4:50 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 5, 2:33 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Intelligent theists say their intuition tells them there is a God.
> > > > It is highly questionable whether intuition has any real value.
> > > > But the vast majority of people, including atheists, use
> > > > intuition to one degree or another. People have to make
> > > > decisions often without enough information. And they
> > > > aren't just going to flip a coin. So intuition is here
> > > > to stay for the forseeable future. The only practical
> > > > thing to do is keep it within the bounds of secular
> > > > morality.
>
> > > Almost all theists, by definition, say "GOD IS REAL". Maybe you just
> > > say "my intuition kind of tells me there's a God, but of course that
> > > could be explained by wishful thinking on my part so I'm not going to
> > > act on it" and I'd wonder _why_ you found Christianity appealing, and
> > > I'd consider you an enabler, but I'd also consider you more or less a
> > > nonbeliever. I noticed what you said to Drafterman about most theists
> > > having sufficient doubt and I can simply say from debating hundreds of
> > > theists, being raised as a churchgoer, reading countless books on
> > > religion and simply living in the real world that you are wrong,
> > > wrong, wrong about that.
>
> > There is lots of stupidity and hypocrisy. Religion is not
> > the cause of it, it is just tainted by it just like
> > all other major categories of human thought and activity.
> > Any fool can tell by the way they behave that most
> > Christians and Moslems doubt there really is a
> > heaven. Even most of those who vehemently insist
> > they have no doubts.
>
> > It's the utopianism Chris Hedges speaks of. You
> > can't face it that stupidity and hypocrisy are woven
> > inextricably into almost all things human. So you
> > build up this fantasy you can get rid of it all in
> > one fell swoop if you can get rid of religion.
>
> > > > You only have the lame slippery-slope argument that
> > > > religion is inherently bad. You just drone on and
> > > > on, repeating and rewording the same crap, and
> > > > throwing in lots of unfounded slanders.
>
> > > If I have repeated myself it is because you are a slippery little worm
> > > who doesn't address all the points. And if my points are crap I wonder
> > > what that says about you, who have resorted to dodges and strawmen in
> > > the face of being helpless to address most of what I've written. As
> > > for me slandering you--nope, you can't find anything I said about you
> > > that wasn't substantiated so you are, in fact, a liar.
>
> > Birds are free masons who cause dandruff, because Hitler ate
> > lots of chicken.
>
> > I bet you're too much of a slipper little worn to refute that
> > overwhelming logic!
>
> > > > On Jun 5, 3:54 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 5, 1:34 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 5, 2:42 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Again, you are pretending your faith exists in a bubble. There is no
> > > > > > > question you are perpetuating theism--you are on a group to defend it.
> > > > > > > You understand it is not just your faith you are defending, but faith
> > > > > > > in God in general. As such, you are perpetuating the cause of so much
> > > > > > > suffering in the world and theism has obviously affected you in a
> > > > > > > negative way on an individual level or you'd feel bad about that.
>
> > > > > > No matter how far down in a pool of foul brain diarrhea you
> > > > > > try to hide it, it's still obvious what you're doing. The same
> > > > > > thing a racist does. You take a group of people, and
> > > > > > blame all of them for the bad acts of some members
> > > > > > of the group.
>
> > > > > Racism is a harmful way of thinking, like theism is a harmful way of
> > > > > thinking. That's been my point all along, and you have been unable to
> > > > > refute it. Therefore I am like someone who opposes racism, and you are
> > > > > like the racist. But I love that you took this pathetic cheap shot
> > > > > instead of addressing the point--with all the pathetic maneuvers you
> > > > > have used in this little exchange it was only a matter of time before
> > > > > you cracked entirely.
>
> > > > > > > You speak of faith the way somebody would speak of recreational drugs--
> > > > > > > with the "car at a safe speed" analogy and now this one. You seem to
> > > > > > > acknowledge that religious faith is a bad thing if someone has too
> > > > > > > much of it, but defend the right to be a "casual" theist. I agree that
> > > > > > > it is better that someone has only a little faith than a lot. Of
> > > > > > > course, when you consider yourself a theist it means you have faith in
> > > > > > > God all the time--that would be the equivalent of being on heroin all
> > > > > > > the time if you keep up this reasoning.
>
> > > > > > An understandable mistake, but my analogy was not meant
> > > > > > to imply that too much faith is automatically bad. A flaw
> > > > > > in the car analogy is that there is no speed that is completely
> > > > > > safe, whereas there are many religious beliefs that are
> > > > > > completely safe.
>
> > > > > The idea that the soul entered the body at the point of conception
> > > > > seemed like a harmless belief until it caused people to oppose the
> > > > > life saving potential of embryonic stem cell research. Besides, you're
> > > > > still dodging the fact that you're lending credibility to more harmful
> > > > > religious beliefs. In any case, how do you suspect we differentiate
> > > > > "good faith" from "bad faith"? By using reasonable standards? It is
> > > > > true that some faith can be assessed to be more harmful than other
> > > > > faith that way, but it requires the acknowledgement that all faith is
> > > > > indefensible and stupid.
>
> > > > > > > It is true it is someone's own business if they want to do drugs as
> > > > > > > long as they keep themselves in a situation where they aren't likely
> > > > > > > to hurt other people. Likewise, I have never said that people
> > > > > > > shouldn't have a legal right to believe what they do. If we simply
> > > > > > > treated theists like we treat drug addicts I would think that would be
> > > > > > > a huge step in the right direction. In fact, I think that is precisely
> > > > > > > the right step to take. Theism is more selfish than drug use, as drug
> > > > > > > use mainly afflicts the users instead of having the consequences being
> > > > > > > directed at other people. But since you started this "moderation" line
> > > > > > > of reasoning I would wonder what objection you could possibly have
> > > > > > > towards applying the drug model to theism overall instead of just
> > > > > > > using it to defend it.
>
> > > > > > I think John Hagee is more evil than heroin. But John Hagee,
> > > > > > not all theists, is responsible for John Hagee. Just as Willie
> > > > > > Horton is the only one who is responsible for Willie Horton.
>
> > > > > And Adolph Hitler, I suppose, was the only one responsible for the
> > > > > consequences we attribute to Adolph Hitler? Even though we wouldn't
> > > > > even be talking about what an evil guy he was if it wasn't for the
> > > > > thousands of theists who brought a struggling artist bum into power?
> > > > > If theism were considered for what it is--a mental illness--none of
> > > > > these theistic nuts would come into power. But you won't accept any
> > > > > responsibility because theism has destroyed your conscience.
>
> > > > > > Trying to protect weak-minded people from John Hagee
> > > > > > would have as many or more negative consequences
> > > > > > as the effort to protect people from heroin has had.
>
> > > > > So you don't think people should be protected from crack cocaine or
> > > > > Osama Bin Laden? I think you're being deliberately vague in your
> > > > > response here.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Prodigous things happen...
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/dc4779c986c9546f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 2:31 pm
From: trog69

Thanks baby! I was gettin' a little jealous.

On Jun 5, 7:21 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 10:10 am, sinner_saint <f72...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You gotta be kidding me?
>
> Nope. I didn't see anything in your story that points to God.
>
> > Are you so fucking blind that you cannot even
> > see your own hand in front of your fucking face?
>
> I can see my hand. It's right there. I don't see God, in this story or
> elsewhere.
>
>
>
> > I LOVE YOU MAN!
>
> I'm spoken for.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 2:50 pm
From: Checkers

chx
let me give it a shot;

On Jun 5, 5:46 am, sinner_saint <f72...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jimmy Dean the crack rock fiend sat entrenched between his love for
> the rock and the unseen. Jimmy cried "Lord send me a miracle!" No
> answer except for cries of the seagulls overhead. Jimmy walked hastily
> down a no named street in downtown Seattle. A man in a white coat
> approached.

chx
when one pray's to God everyone expects to see it happen there and
then...wrong, it will happen when it must. when it does happen you
will not recognize it as an answer to a prayer 'forgotten'

> "I have got three keys in my pocket for a reason." Jimmy stated. A
> short conversation ensued. The man outstreched his arm, the coat
> dangling from his left wrist. And then the most unexpected thing
> happened.
>
> A ten dollar bill slowly unrolled from the man's sleeve.

chx
sometimes you will exclaim,

> "OH MY GOD!!!" Jimmy Cried.

chx
the answer to my prayer

> The man pulled the ten dollar bill from his left sleeve and gladly
> handed it over to Jimmy.
>
> "OH MY GOD!!" Jimmy declared again.

chx
and grasp it with open arms

> "You are the one, you are the chosen one! You dance to the beat of a
> different drum!" Jimmy said gleefully.

chx
and praise the Lord

> Jimmy pulled the man down the corner of the street (maybe thinking
> that this miracle would happen again) and the man began talking about
> how he had given all of his possessions to the poor. Jimmy stated
> bluntly:

chx
you then get a bit carried away and expect more than just the miracle

> "Take nothing with you, only a full tank of gas, you will find those
> who will come to your aid, and the whole world will be watching your
> every move."

chx
instead of using the talents you were given

> "I will leave on Easter." The man said.
>
> And then Jimmy succumbed to his old ways. " Give me twenty dollars."
> Jimmy said.

chx
you are expecting this giving to continue and sit back saying 'God
must just give and give and give' and you will put no effort in
yourself other than just reaping what others toiled for.

> The man gladly handed over twenty dollars, feeling he had no use for
> money. And Jimmy went down the street, came back and sat on the steps
> to the left of a soon-to-be closed corner market.
>
> "Shield me." Jimmy Said.

chx
and then starts with his demands returning nothing at all

> And so Jimmy pulled out his crack pipe and began smoking the rock.

chx
when the handouts came to an end, he became an atheist because he
received nothing saying God does not exist because He just left me
here without 'dope' (evidence)

> The man left, disgusted.
>
> The events that followed were no less miraculous and entwined with
> fate.

chx
how true!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: God proves his own non existance
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/d4540abaa0205366?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 2:37 pm
From: bob600

Bob600 replies:-

Metallica sing:-

"Angel from below . . .
I WISH TO SELL MY SOUL . . .
DEVIL TAKE MY SOUL
with diamonds you repay I don't care for heaven
so don't you look for me to cry
AND I WILL BURN IN HELL from the day I die."

On 5 Jun, 20:37, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> From: "bob600" <b...@nireland.com>
>
>
>
> > But I
> > hear that the "word" is written in crayon on the walls of his cell as
> > a testament to the truth.
>
> The Words of the Prophets are written on the subway walls and tenement halls
> - The Sounds of Silence, by Simon and Garfunkle

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 3:18 pm
From: Dag Yo

You're off a bit bob. Gnosticism/agnosticism and atheism/theism are
mutually exclusive positions, and as such combinations of them can be
held at once.

On Jun 5, 1:28 pm, bob600 <b...@nireland.com> wrote:
> Bob600 replies:- Anything that is considered "overwhelmingly unlikely"
> allows for the possibility that it may be finitely likely, and if you
> are acknowledging that there is a possibility of the existence of God
> at worst or that his existence is unknown at best, then you are an
> agnostic. If one takes the three terms Atheist Agnostic and theist and
> if the definition of Agnostic is one who considers the existence of
> God is unknown then an Atheist considers the non existence of God as
> known while a Theist considers the existence of God as known. I'm an
> Atheist what are you?.
>
> On 4 Jun, 16:18, Squatbean <squatb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > One that considers the personal god of christianity overwhelmingly
> > unlikely. Outside the realms of possibility? I honestly don't consider
> > my understanding of the universe to be complete, but the question is
> > irrelevant when I consider the likelihood of the christian God
> > existing compared with the liklihood of christianity being just
> > another myth created by a race who has a record of creating myths.
>
> > The concept of god you describe in your opening post is another
> > matter, and is something I need to consider further.
>
> > On May 31, 6:34 pm, bob600 <b...@nireland.com> wrote:
>
> > > Bob600 replies:- What sort of atheist? one where you consider that
> > > there may be a possibility of the existence of God, no matter how
> > > slight or, an atheist who KNOWS God does not exist.
>
> > > On 30 May, 23:50, Squatbean <squatb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Absolutely.
>
> > > > The concept of God has always been presented to me for as long as I
> > > > can remember, and for as long as I remembered, I questioned it, just
> > > > like I questioned most other things. The incomprehensible God you
> > > > describe was one of the concepts of god I entertained for a while on
> > > > my way to atheism.
>
> > > > On May 30, 9:26 pm, bob600 <b...@nireland.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Did it ever occur to atheist and theists alike that even should "God"
> > > > > exist he/she/it would be so far removed from what our science,
> > > > > mathematics, philosophy, and our puny brains could ever comprehend
> > > > > that he/she/it would to all intentions NOT EXIST, and never could, so
> > > > > why bother.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Morality Is Not Being Responsible For Anything
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/30b01cfc9407f46c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 2:47 pm
From: Dev

God bless! Christian Dev here again. I'm sure proud of my fellow
brothers in Christ and all the brilliant things they have been saying
here lately. A neurosurgeon believes in God, therefore it isn't
stupid--good one, jake! You have found a gaping hole in atheist logic,
and inspired me to come up with two lists: one of things that I don't
want to be stupid anymore, and another of neurosurgeons I can bribe to
say whatever I want. It is amazing that stupid atheists actually try
to support things with logic and evidence instead of just finding
someone to agree with them!

There has been, as usual, the radical assertion by the godless that we
are somehow responsible for the consequences of beliefs that we
perpetuate. As Walt says, this is absolutely ridiculous (and somehow
racist--I like how that sounds so let's pretend it makes sense). While
Thehyze and Checkers agree that the 9/11 attacks were absolutely
hilarious, just because we as Christians mock the suffering of
innocent people doesn't mean we want to accept responsibility for it.

We, as Christians, must proclaim the actions of the terrorists (hehe--
I just thought of 9/11 and laughed again) to be (snicker) absolutely
(LOL) deplorable (HAHAHAHAHAHA). "But," the atheists say, "they were
just doing what they thought God wanted them to do--how is their
reasoning any different from yours?" Walt seems to have the right idea
here: we can simply apply secular, rational standards to other
people's beliefs and not to our own. Atheists don't understand the
first thing about Christian morality.

As Christians, it is our duty to hold higher standards to the
terrorists than we do to ourselves. It is absolutely unfair for
atheists to expect us to compete with people who fly airplanes into
buildings on a moral or rational level. We expect more from them than
we do from ourselves. The trade-off is already fair: we perpetuate the
idea that acting on faith is acceptable, and they in turn make us
laugh our asses off with their terrorist antics.

The standards of God are different from the standards of Man. The
standards of Man are limited by their need to be consistent and make
sense. We, as higher moral creatures, are not limited by any standards
of morality at all and that is why it is okay for us to perpetuate
dangerous beliefs and not accept responsibility for it and laugh at
the consequences.

God bless!

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 2:59 pm
From: Checkers

chx
and as i said, i am lenient with you as i realise you are a sick man
(sic)

On Jun 5, 11:47 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> God bless! Christian Dev here again. I'm sure proud of my fellow
> brothers in Christ and all the brilliant things they have been saying
> here lately. A neurosurgeon believes in God, therefore it isn't
> stupid--good one, jake! You have found a gaping hole in atheist logic,
> and inspired me to come up with two lists: one of things that I don't
> want to be stupid anymore, and another of neurosurgeons I can bribe to
> say whatever I want. It is amazing that stupid atheists actually try
> to support things with logic and evidence instead of just finding
> someone to agree with them!
>
> There has been, as usual, the radical assertion by the godless that we
> are somehow responsible for the consequences of beliefs that we
> perpetuate. As Walt says, this is absolutely ridiculous (and somehow
> racist--I like how that sounds so let's pretend it makes sense). While
> Thehyze and Checkers agree that the 9/11 attacks were absolutely
> hilarious, just because we as Christians mock the suffering of
> innocent people doesn't mean we want to accept responsibility for it.
>
> We, as Christians, must proclaim the actions of the terrorists (hehe--
> I just thought of 9/11 and laughed again) to be (snicker) absolutely
> (LOL) deplorable (HAHAHAHAHAHA). "But," the atheists say, "they were
> just doing what they thought God wanted them to do--how is their
> reasoning any different from yours?" Walt seems to have the right idea
> here: we can simply apply secular, rational standards to other
> people's beliefs and not to our own. Atheists don't understand the
> first thing about Christian morality.
>
> As Christians, it is our duty to hold higher standards to the
> terrorists than we do to ourselves. It is absolutely unfair for
> atheists to expect us to compete with people who fly airplanes into
> buildings on a moral or rational level. We expect more from them than
> we do from ourselves. The trade-off is already fair: we perpetuate the
> idea that acting on faith is acceptable, and they in turn make us
> laugh our asses off with their terrorist antics.
>
> The standards of God are different from the standards of Man. The
> standards of Man are limited by their need to be consistent and make
> sense. We, as higher moral creatures, are not limited by any standards
> of morality at all and that is why it is okay for us to perpetuate
> dangerous beliefs and not accept responsibility for it and laugh at
> the consequences.
>
> God bless!

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 3:00 pm
From: "zencycle"

you're such a silly goose....

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Dev" <thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 5:47 PM
To: "Atheism vs Christianity" <Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [AvC] Morality Is Not Being Responsible For Anything

>
> God bless! Christian Dev here again. I'm sure proud of my fellow
> brothers in Christ and all the brilliant things they have been saying
> here lately. A neurosurgeon believes in God, therefore it isn't
> stupid--good one, jake! You have found a gaping hole in atheist logic,
> and inspired me to come up with two lists: one of things that I don't
> want to be stupid anymore, and another of neurosurgeons I can bribe to
> say whatever I want. It is amazing that stupid atheists actually try
> to support things with logic and evidence instead of just finding
> someone to agree with them!
>
> There has been, as usual, the radical assertion by the godless that we
> are somehow responsible for the consequences of beliefs that we
> perpetuate. As Walt says, this is absolutely ridiculous (and somehow
> racist--I like how that sounds so let's pretend it makes sense). While
> Thehyze and Checkers agree that the 9/11 attacks were absolutely
> hilarious, just because we as Christians mock the suffering of
> innocent people doesn't mean we want to accept responsibility for it.
>
> We, as Christians, must proclaim the actions of the terrorists (hehe--
> I just thought of 9/11 and laughed again) to be (snicker) absolutely
> (LOL) deplorable (HAHAHAHAHAHA). "But," the atheists say, "they were
> just doing what they thought God wanted them to do--how is their
> reasoning any different from yours?" Walt seems to have the right idea
> here: we can simply apply secular, rational standards to other
> people's beliefs and not to our own. Atheists don't understand the
> first thing about Christian morality.
>
> As Christians, it is our duty to hold higher standards to the
> terrorists than we do to ourselves. It is absolutely unfair for
> atheists to expect us to compete with people who fly airplanes into
> buildings on a moral or rational level. We expect more from them than
> we do from ourselves. The trade-off is already fair: we perpetuate the
> idea that acting on faith is acceptable, and they in turn make us
> laugh our asses off with their terrorist antics.
>
> The standards of God are different from the standards of Man. The
> standards of Man are limited by their need to be consistent and make
> sense. We, as higher moral creatures, are not limited by any standards
> of morality at all and that is why it is okay for us to perpetuate
> dangerous beliefs and not accept responsibility for it and laugh at
> the consequences.
>
> God bless!
> >
>

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 3:04 pm
From: Trance Gemini

On Jun 5, 5:47 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> God bless! Christian Dev here again. I'm sure proud of my fellow
> brothers in Christ and all the brilliant things they have been saying
> here lately. A neurosurgeon believes in God, therefore it isn't
> stupid--good one, jake! You have found a gaping hole in atheist logic,
> and inspired me to come up with two lists: one of things that I don't
> want to be stupid anymore, and another of neurosurgeons I can bribe to
> say whatever I want. It is amazing that stupid atheists actually try
> to support things with logic and evidence instead of just finding
> someone to agree with them!
>
> There has been, as usual, the radical assertion by the godless that we
> are somehow responsible for the consequences of beliefs that we
> perpetuate. As Walt says, this is absolutely ridiculous (and somehow
> racist--I like how that sounds so let's pretend it makes sense). While
> Thehyze and Checkers agree that the 9/11 attacks were absolutely
> hilarious, just because we as Christians mock the suffering of
> innocent people doesn't mean we want to accept responsibility for it.
>
> We, as Christians, must proclaim the actions of the terrorists (hehe--
> I just thought of 9/11 and laughed again) to be (snicker) absolutely
> (LOL) deplorable (HAHAHAHAHAHA). "But," the atheists say, "they were
> just doing what they thought God wanted them to do--how is their
> reasoning any different from yours?" Walt seems to have the right idea
> here: we can simply apply secular, rational standards to other
> people's beliefs and not to our own. Atheists don't understand the
> first thing about Christian morality.
>
> As Christians, it is our duty to hold higher standards to the
> terrorists than we do to ourselves. It is absolutely unfair for
> atheists to expect us to compete with people who fly airplanes into
> buildings on a moral or rational level. We expect more from them than
> we do from ourselves. The trade-off is already fair: we perpetuate the
> idea that acting on faith is acceptable, and they in turn make us
> laugh our asses off with their terrorist antics.
>
> The standards of God are different from the standards of Man. The
> standards of Man are limited by their need to be consistent and make
> sense. We, as higher moral creatures, are not limited by any standards
> of morality at all and that is why it is okay for us to perpetuate
> dangerous beliefs and not accept responsibility for it and laugh at
> the consequences.
>
> God bless!

Beautiful ;-).

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 3:06 pm
From: Dev

If bein' sick with Jesus is bein' sick, I don't want to be well! Amen!
Praise the Lord! Hey Checkers, want to hear a funny joke? 9/11!

Your brother in Christ,
Christian Dev

On Jun 5, 3:59 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> chx
> and as i said, i am lenient with you as i realise you are a sick man
> (sic)
>
> On Jun 5, 11:47 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
> > God bless! Christian Dev here again. I'm sure proud of my fellow
> > brothers in Christ and all the brilliant things they have been saying
> > here lately. A neurosurgeon believes in God, therefore it isn't
> > stupid--good one, jake! You have found a gaping hole in atheist logic,
> > and inspired me to come up with two lists: one of things that I don't
> > want to be stupid anymore, and another of neurosurgeons I can bribe to
> > say whatever I want. It is amazing that stupid atheists actually try
> > to support things with logic and evidence instead of just finding
> > someone to agree with them!
>
> > There has been, as usual, the radical assertion by the godless that we
> > are somehow responsible for the consequences of beliefs that we
> > perpetuate. As Walt says, this is absolutely ridiculous (and somehow
> > racist--I like how that sounds so let's pretend it makes sense). While
> > Thehyze and Checkers agree that the 9/11 attacks were absolutely
> > hilarious, just because we as Christians mock the suffering of
> > innocent people doesn't mean we want to accept responsibility for it.
>
> > We, as Christians, must proclaim the actions of the terrorists (hehe--
> > I just thought of 9/11 and laughed again) to be (snicker) absolutely
> > (LOL) deplorable (HAHAHAHAHAHA). "But," the atheists say, "they were
> > just doing what they thought God wanted them to do--how is their
> > reasoning any different from yours?" Walt seems to have the right idea
> > here: we can simply apply secular, rational standards to other
> > people's beliefs and not to our own. Atheists don't understand the
> > first thing about Christian morality.
>
> > As Christians, it is our duty to hold higher standards to the
> > terrorists than we do to ourselves. It is absolutely unfair for
> > atheists to expect us to compete with people who fly airplanes into
> > buildings on a moral or rational level. We expect more from them than
> > we do from ourselves. The trade-off is already fair: we perpetuate the
> > idea that acting on faith is acceptable, and they in turn make us
> > laugh our asses off with their terrorist antics.
>
> > The standards of God are different from the standards of Man. The
> > standards of Man are limited by their need to be consistent and make
> > sense. We, as higher moral creatures, are not limited by any standards
> > of morality at all and that is why it is okay for us to perpetuate
> > dangerous beliefs and not accept responsibility for it and laugh at
> > the consequences.
>
> > God bless!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 3:20 pm
From: Checkers

On Jun 6, 12:06 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> If bein' sick with Jesus is bein' sick, I don't want to be well! Amen!
> Praise the Lord! Hey Checkers, want to hear a funny joke? 9/11!

chx
i have a real one for you
go read your own posts and tell me who are the most murderous between
you and terrorists. (sic)

>
> Your brother in Christ,
> Christian Dev
>
> On Jun 5, 3:59 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > chx
> > and as i said, i am lenient with you as i realise you are a sick man
> > (sic)
>
> > On Jun 5, 11:47 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > God bless! Christian Dev here again. I'm sure proud of my fellow
> > > brothers in Christ and all the brilliant things they have been saying
> > > here lately. A neurosurgeon believes in God, therefore it isn't
> > > stupid--good one, jake! You have found a gaping hole in atheist logic,
> > > and inspired me to come up with two lists: one of things that I don't
> > > want to be stupid anymore, and another of neurosurgeons I can bribe to
> > > say whatever I want. It is amazing that stupid atheists actually try
> > > to support things with logic and evidence instead of just finding
> > > someone to agree with them!
>
> > > There has been, as usual, the radical assertion by the godless that we
> > > are somehow responsible for the consequences of beliefs that we
> > > perpetuate. As Walt says, this is absolutely ridiculous (and somehow
> > > racist--I like how that sounds so let's pretend it makes sense). While
> > > Thehyze and Checkers agree that the 9/11 attacks were absolutely
> > > hilarious, just because we as Christians mock the suffering of
> > > innocent people doesn't mean we want to accept responsibility for it.
>
> > > We, as Christians, must proclaim the actions of the terrorists (hehe--
> > > I just thought of 9/11 and laughed again) to be (snicker) absolutely
> > > (LOL) deplorable (HAHAHAHAHAHA). "But," the atheists say, "they were
> > > just doing what they thought God wanted them to do--how is their
> > > reasoning any different from yours?" Walt seems to have the right idea
> > > here: we can simply apply secular, rational standards to other
> > > people's beliefs and not to our own. Atheists don't understand the
> > > first thing about Christian morality.
>
> > > As Christians, it is our duty to hold higher standards to the
> > > terrorists than we do to ourselves. It is absolutely unfair for
> > > atheists to expect us to compete with people who fly airplanes into
> > > buildings on a moral or rational level. We expect more from them than
> > > we do from ourselves. The trade-off is already fair: we perpetuate the
> > > idea that acting on faith is acceptable, and they in turn make us
> > > laugh our asses off with their terrorist antics.
>
> > > The standards of God are different from the standards of Man. The
> > > standards of Man are limited by their need to be consistent and make
> > > sense. We, as higher moral creatures, are not limited by any standards
> > > of morality at all and that is why it is okay for us to perpetuate
> > > dangerous beliefs and not accept responsibility for it and laugh at
> > > the consequences.
>
> > > God bless!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 3:22 pm
From: Dag Yo

Hi Trance!

On Jun 5, 2:04 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 5:47 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
> > God bless! Christian Dev here again. I'm sure proud of my fellow
> > brothers in Christ and all the brilliant things they have been saying
> > here lately. A neurosurgeon believes in God, therefore it isn't
> > stupid--good one, jake! You have found a gaping hole in atheist logic,
> > and inspired me to come up with two lists: one of things that I don't
> > want to be stupid anymore, and another of neurosurgeons I can bribe to
> > say whatever I want. It is amazing that stupid atheists actually try
> > to support things with logic and evidence instead of just finding
> > someone to agree with them!
>
> > There has been, as usual, the radical assertion by the godless that we
> > are somehow responsible for the consequences of beliefs that we
> > perpetuate. As Walt says, this is absolutely ridiculous (and somehow
> > racist--I like how that sounds so let's pretend it makes sense). While
> > Thehyze and Checkers agree that the 9/11 attacks were absolutely
> > hilarious, just because we as Christians mock the suffering of
> > innocent people doesn't mean we want to accept responsibility for it.
>
> > We, as Christians, must proclaim the actions of the terrorists (hehe--
> > I just thought of 9/11 and laughed again) to be (snicker) absolutely
> > (LOL) deplorable (HAHAHAHAHAHA). "But," the atheists say, "they were
> > just doing what they thought God wanted them to do--how is their
> > reasoning any different from yours?" Walt seems to have the right idea
> > here: we can simply apply secular, rational standards to other
> > people's beliefs and not to our own. Atheists don't understand the
> > first thing about Christian morality.
>
> > As Christians, it is our duty to hold higher standards to the
> > terrorists than we do to ourselves. It is absolutely unfair for
> > atheists to expect us to compete with people who fly airplanes into
> > buildings on a moral or rational level. We expect more from them than
> > we do from ourselves. The trade-off is already fair: we perpetuate the
> > idea that acting on faith is acceptable, and they in turn make us
> > laugh our asses off with their terrorist antics.
>
> > The standards of God are different from the standards of Man. The
> > standards of Man are limited by their need to be consistent and make
> > sense. We, as higher moral creatures, are not limited by any standards
> > of morality at all and that is why it is okay for us to perpetuate
> > dangerous beliefs and not accept responsibility for it and laugh at
> > the consequences.
>
> > God bless!
>
> Beautiful ;-).

==============================================================================
TOPIC: WITHOUT RELIGION, ANYTHING GOES?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/908cbe2bc47157b6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 2:49 pm
From: Alexandre

WITHOUT RELIGION, ANYTHING GOES?

Many religious people just love quoting a character from Dostoevsky's
"Brothers Karamazov" who says that "If God does not exist, everything
is permissible".
This statement seems irrefutable. Without God and therefore religion,
what else could legitimate our laws? How would we be able to tell
appart wrong from right, good from evil? A godless world seems to be
condemned to chaos, anarchy, moral relativism and nihilism. It just
seems so wrong! Isn't it absurd?

The first problem with this statement is that it is fallacious. These
people think that "chaos, anarchy, moral relativism and nihilism" are
wrong exactly because they believe that all these things are against
God's laws. But if there were no God, how could these things be
against his laws? The conclusion is also a premise of the argument. It
begs the question!

The second problem is that this statement does not seem to correspond
to reality. When it comes to the belief that chaos and anarchy would
be the fate of a godless world, it seems very unlikely.
Rules are a human need. We can find them even in the most unlikely
places. In prison, for instancy, criminal convicts have rules of their
own. As a matter of fact, these rules are often very rigorous, and the
punishment for those who violate them is gererally severe. The human
need for rules may be explained on evolutionary grounds (by Games
Theory, for example), and there is nothing supernatural about it. Even
what we call "Natural Law" is, well, "natural"!
Besides, saying that non-religious people are necessarily "bad" is as
absurd as saying that religious people are necessarily "good" (what
about Osama bin Laden and Torquemada, for example?).

A secular world would not be lawless and barbaric. As a matter of
fact, It would probably be better. Religion, as well as ideology, is
frequently unsed to justify anything. When it is "for a higher cause",
anything goes! The Crusades, "holy" wars, Islamic terrorism, the
Holocaust (before being "justified" on racial grounds, anti-semitism
was nurtured for centuries by christians) and the Inquisition are only
the most notable examples.

http://sciencereason.blogspot.com/2008/06/without-religion-anything-goes.html

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where's Clegmeister?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/c5780ba8e46065a7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 2:52 pm
From: "zencycle"

OR, it could be that Cleg is insightful enough to know a screaming fucking
loon when he sees one. Batshit reminds me of the homeless guys on the
subway, who curse you as you walk past him for not putting money in his cup
so he can live off the grid where the men in black can't find him.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "trog69" <tom.trog69@gmail.com>
>
> Oh, I don't think so, omprem. From what I've read of your comments,
> you are far too strong a debater. Gosh, you're almost...no, you are
> definitely a MASTER deBATER! Congratulations, and you can pick up your
> trophy just as soon as the last ignorant fucking theist who won gets
> it pulled out of their ass.
>
> On Jun 5, 7:45 am, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>> This little twit, clegmeister, issued a challenge on May 30 in the
>> 'Why Did Simpleton Leave' thread, specifically, "I arrived at this
>> site about a week ago and thought I may be some interlectual [sic]
>> christian debaters here but all I have found so far is a bunch
>> primative christian Mass-debaters who are incapable of reasoning or
>> thinking for themselves."
>>
>> I challenged him: "I'll take you on, wise guy. Give me any of your
>> beliefs in favour of atheism or against religion and I'll show how
>> that belief
>> based on illogic or false information."
>>
>> He responded with three atheists beliefs:
>> 1.(a) There should be empirical proof of God.
>> 1(b) Empiricism is the only way to gain knowledge and wisdom and,
>> therefore, the only way to know God.
>> 2. The age of man and the earth
>> 3. The problem of good and evil
>>
>> I responded to that post and he wanted to continue the debate first on
>> the problem of good and evil and then on the other two. But, alas,
>> clegmeister, is MIA. Perhaps he is on vacation. Perhaps he realized
>> what a twit he is and how unsupportable his atheist belief system is
>> and crawled back into his rat hole.
>>
>> RIP, clegmeister.
>>
>> What, here's a thought, perhaps some of you other atheist mooks might
>> want to step up and take his place.
> >
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Polygamy. Moral or Immoral
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/369d8c3e7d12f84c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 3:00 pm
From: Trance Gemini

On Jun 5, 12:00 pm, Wiseclam <wisec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm late to this party but if it's OK I'll add my two cents anyway...
>
> On Apr 27, 8:18 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > However, it seems to have also resulted in the conflation of child
> > abuse with polygamy.
>
> > This, in my opinion, is wrong.
>
> > They are two very separate issues and should be dealt with as such.
>
> Completely agree.
>
> Once these are separated properly I think it becomes very difficult to
> make an argument that polyamourism is amoral. I've yet to see such
> an argument (I don't consider Brock's Confession reference an
> argument).
>
> > There are, in my opinion, two approaches that can be taken here.
>
> > 1. Individual. Would you agree that Polygamy is acceptable for you
> > personally and that you would want to engage in a Polygamous marriage?
>
> > My answer. No. I would find such a relationship personally offensive,
> > degrading and demeaning to me as a woman.
>
> I can imagine a circumstance where this could work for me. I love my
> wife very much and I know she would not want me to love (or be
> intimate with) another person, so I refrain from that behavior. But
> under other circumstances I can imagine a situation where polyamory
> would be acceptable to me and where I would engage in such a
> lifestyle. Please note that I have never cheated on any relationship
> in my life, so I'm speaking in theoretical terms not from experience.
>
> I would most certainly not find it degrading, demeaning or offensive
> and, perhaps it is because I am a man but I can't understand why such
> a relationship would NECESSARILY be degrading, demeaning and
> offensive. Care to explain TG?
>

Hey Wiseclam.

Essentially I'm just saying that I would personally perceive a
polygamous/polyamorous relationship demeaning and degrading to me as a
woman.

I'm not saying that it *is* necessarily degrading, demeaning, and
offensive to women in general.

The emphasis being on my personal perception.

Other women don't see it that way.

Generally speaking there is nothing inherent in such a relationship
that makes it demeaning, degrading or offensive.

Hope that clears it up. That sentence wasn't well worded and you're
not the first to misunderstand my intent.

> > 2. General. Would you agree that Polygamy is acceptable for others?
> > Therefore is it moral or immoral generally speaking and Why?
>
> > My answer. Yes. Generally speaking there is nothing intrinsically
> > immoral about Polygamy and if all parties who are involved in the
> > relationship are consenting adults and engage in the polygamous
> > relationship knowingly and freely, they are not engaging in an immoral
> > act.
>
> Of course I agree. Again, I can't think of a single thing that is
> morally wrong with polygamy.

I'll bet your wife can ;-) <joking>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Re. Christions being ignorant and delusional:
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/dfd4660b990e0c30?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 3:04 pm
From: trog69

Speaking of which, my "THEIST HAS JUST LIED" button is just about
shot. Should I IM BlueSci for a replacement? Thanks.

On Jun 5, 2:12 pm, ZonkTheBear <ZonkTheB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 Jun, 02:10, jake <pepp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Bad answer....the good doctor did brain surgery on the patient,
> > he did'nt just sit there and pray. Pay attention please.
>
> My dear jake.
> I _do_ pay more attention than you might realize to the posts I reply
> to. I never said that he didn't do brain surgery on the patient. My
> reply implies that if he does_not_ perform medical treatment but
> merely pray, I would not have wanted him as my doctor and my reply
> also implies that if he _does_ perform medical treatment, I would have
> no problems with having him as my doctor and since the latter is the
> case here, I would have no problem with having him as my doctor.
>
> I think you'd better read the posts you reply to a little better
> before you slam the "bad answer"-button...
>
> On 5 Jun, 02:10, jake <pepp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Bad answer....the good doctor did brain surgery on the patient,
> > he did'nt just sit there and pray. Pay attention please.
>
> > On Jun 4, 12:57 am, ZonkTheBear <ZonkTheB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 4 Jun, 03:00, jake <pepp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > So you would turn down Dr. Allen Friedman as your surgeon
> > > > if you had a deadly malignant tumor just because he prays?
> > > > I thought you called us Christians stupid!
>
> > > I sure would if he did nothing but pray but if he stuck to the
> > > _medical_ treatment, I would have no problems with having him as a
> > > surgeon.
>
> > > On 4 Jun, 03:00, jake <pepp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > So you would turn down Dr. Allen Friedman as your surgeon
> > > > if you had a deadly malignant tumor just because he prays?
> > > > I thought you called us Christians stupid!
>
> > > > On Jun 3, 9:01 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 2, 10:27 pm, jake <pepp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I don't call priests to operate on my brainy and I don't want my brain
> > > > > surgeons praying for me.- Skjul sitert tekst -
>
> > > > - Vis sitert tekst -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Skjul sitert tekst -
>
> > - Vis sitert tekst -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is the bicycle an improvement on God's design?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/72f1a99f31f1cbe2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 3:11 pm
From: trog69

>...but then he got married and had a kid.

I'll bet his wife was overjoyed! Did she help him breathe, at least?

"Breathe in...now out...now AAAAAUAUAUUUGGGGGHHHHH!"

On Jun 4, 8:44 am, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> From: "trog69" <tom.tro...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> > There's a whole heap of cyclists here in Tucson, and they don't mind
>
> This guys from flagstaff:
>
> http://drunkcyclist.com/wordpress/
>
> and a real 'safe cycling' advocate as well as an exceptional blogger. His
> blog used to be a lot funnier, but then he got married and had a kid.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Seek God instead of trying to prove He doesn't exist
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/a790c2421a9d7f5e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 3:17 pm
From: sydney_christian

Matthew 7:7
"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and
the door will be opened to you."
Instead of trying to prove God does not exist, seek Him and you will
find Him.
Ways you can seek God:
Prayer: for example, ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Ask for faith.
Read Bible, God speaks to us through His word, start in the gospel of
John.
Go to a charismatic worship service: God's presence is strongest there
and a beautiful, deep connection with God can be experienced.
See and investigate the battle between good and evil forces in our
society.
Try and find God in nature and the beauty of the earth
GOD IS REAL! HE IS AWESOME! SO KIND, GLORIOUS! HIS LOVE AND GLORY
NEVER END!
SEEK THE TRUTH.
I love yz all. thats why I'm writing to you today.
PEACE.
JOEYC

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

ps..Acts 2:38 "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name
of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins."

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 3:21 pm
From: Dag Yo

Is this drive-by spam that needs to be deleted or do you plan on
actually discussing any of this?

On Jun 5, 2:17 pm, sydney_christian <jcreat...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Matthew 7:7
> "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and
> the door will be opened to you."
> Instead of trying to prove God does not exist, seek Him and you will
> find Him.
> Ways you can seek God:
> Prayer: for example, ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Ask for faith.
> Read Bible, God speaks to us through His word, start in the gospel of
> John.
> Go to a charismatic worship service: God's presence is strongest there
> and a beautiful, deep connection with God can be experienced.
> See and investigate the battle between good and evil forces in our
> society.
> Try and find God in nature and the beauty of the earth
> GOD IS REAL! HE IS AWESOME! SO KIND, GLORIOUS! HIS LOVE AND GLORY
> NEVER END!
> SEEK THE TRUTH.
> I love yz all. thats why I'm writing to you today.
> PEACE.
> JOEYC
>
> John 3:16
> For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whosoever
> believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
>
> ps..Acts 2:38 "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name
> of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: who says we've never seen Diptera: Tephritidae giving birth to a human (
sort of)
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/ae2ba4c0de824120?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 3:19 pm
From: gousaphe

There is no straw man. Visit 'inbreeding' on Wikipedia it is quite
good reading.
And I would act on the idea of speciation before long if I find
myself an Evolutionist, since the idea is central to the evolutionary
theory!
You do know Darwin practiced what he preached: he bedded his first
cousin, don't you?
We Christians experience with our heart and soul our faith. We suppose
Evolutionists doing the same.
On Jun 5, 8:31 pm, "dead.kenne...@googlemail.com"
<dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> the article specifiacally points out that the fruit flys are almost
> repoductively isolated
>
> the hybrids have "reduced fitness compared to their parents. Natural
> selection will
> not favour these unfortunate individuals and a divide is created
> between the two races of the species."
>
> so breeding between them would not ...ive just realized that this is
> an attemp at a creationist straw man!
>
> of course the speciation happens when the species interbreed you oaf,
> thats why we ecall them species.
>
> - they are reproductively isolated
>
> On 5 Jun, 18:12, gousaphe <dangdang...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > No, it is not a theory more like a hypothese since there aren't
> > sufficient conclusive data...yet. And speciation seemed to have
> > occurred not because of the mating to similar but the actual
> > inbreeding.
> > On Jun 5, 10:37 am, "dead.kenne...@googlemail.com"
>
> > <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On 5 Jun, 15:00, gousaphe <dangdang...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The apple and the hawthorn are only two of perhaps thousands of
> > > > environmental factors that influence the fruit flies. Most of these
> > > > remaining environment factors such as water and air etc. are nearly
> > > > identical to both species.
>
> > > so what would you put it down to then. the "almost identical factors"
> > > or the "differences"
>
> > > should i type slower to make it easier for you?
>
> > > The same goes for the mole rats who happen
>
> > > > to live in the ground where the environmental condition is not much
> > > > different as in the air.
>
> > > hold it!
>
> > > > The speciation then must have occurred most likely not because of
> > > > environmental isolation but because of the mating isolation.
>
> > > so you are suggesting that the difference in chromosomal numbers is
> > > due to mole rates mating with other molerats who are very similar to
> > > themselves?
>
> > > This
>
> > > > isolation leads the flies and the mole rats to mate with their close
> > > > relatives: the cousins.
>
> > > i am getting the feeeling that this isnt just a theory to you.
>
> > > > Get off your high horse
>
> > > we have developed to the point of automotive transport, have you?
>
> > > and witness speciation,
>
> > > i do every day in the london underground (flippin mozzies)
> > > evolutionist.
>
> > > It ain't
>
> > > > pretty.
>
> > > and nor is your sister but i bet that dont stop you.
>
> > > > On Jun 4, 3:24 pm, "dead.kenne...@googlemail.com"
>
> > > > <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > >http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A737985#footnote3
>
> > > > be
> > > > > 'sympatric' (ie, they occupy the same geographic areas). One race
> > > > > lives and breeds on hawthorn trees, while the divergent race prefers
> > > > > apple trees. We can witness this speciation event because apple trees
> > > > > were only introduced to North America around 200 years ago. The
> > > > > important thing to note is that the two trees fruit at different times
> > > > > of the year. Natural selection has adapted the 'apple-based' fly race
> > > > > to this difference in timing by matching their emergence to when the
> > > > > apples mature. Consequently the two races never really come into
> > > > > contact with each other - they are reproductively isolated. Hybrids
> > > > > between the two races have been documented, but they were found to
> > > > > have reduced fitness compared to their parents. Natural selection will
> > > > > not favour these unfortunate individuals and a divide is created
> > > > > between the two races of the species.
>
> > > > > The naked mole rat of Israel (Spalax ehrenbergi) is another good
> > > > > example of speciation that is underway4. Three new chromosomal races
> > > > > have emerged from the main population. From an original diploid number
> > > > > of 52, races with 54, 58 and 60 chromosomes now exist. North Israel is
> > > > > cold, the south is hot; the coast is humid, inland is arid. The races
> > > > > follow these environmental gradients and the chromosomal mutations
> > > > > confer some kind of selective advantage in their respective
> > > > > microclimate. These differences are being reinforced by adaptation to
> > > > > habitat and divergence of mechanisms that reproductively isolate the
> > > > > races by preventing mating. This isolation has come about because of
> > > > > different mating calls and olfactory (smell-based) signals between the
> > > > > chromosomal races that have emerged.
>
> > > > > 3 Feder JL, Bush GL. (1989) A field test of differential host-plant
> > > > > usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies
> > > > > (Diptera: Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of
> > > > > speciation. Evolution 43: P1813.
> > > > > 4 Nevo. (1991) Evolutionary theory and processes of active speciation
> > > > > and adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, Spalax ehrenbergi
> > > > > superspecies in Israel. Evolutionary Biology 25: 1 - 125.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: IN GOD WE TRUST
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/5af223fe887d7a67?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 5 2008 3:21 pm
From: Max

Omprem. I seek your indulgence here. Work commitments and family
matters will delay my response a bit. I'll tackle it on the weekend.
Keith, same as well. Give us a tick.

Max

On Jun 5, 10:51 am, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Max: "I could follow the same path that I and most others have
> previously
> followed when dealing with your posts, i.e. to rebut each & every
> point you raise, "
>
> Omprem: You are already starting with false info. No one here has
> successfully rebutted anything that I have said about atheism. What
> has occurred is outright denial (without any attempted proof), a
> restatement of the same illogic atheist belief that I had exposed (on
> the theory that the more times an atheist repeats their illogic it
> somehow becomes logical), a plea for empirical proof of that which is
> beyond the narrow limits of empiricism and invective. Nothing more.
>
> Your next point was that somehow wondering about nature invalidates
> religion. But investigating nature requires the empirical method
> according to you and religion use different methods because empiricism
> is not capable of going where religion does.
>
> Then you claim that atheism is not a belief system when you have just
> previously enumerated three of its beliefs - the primacy of
> empiricism, the supposed illusion of religion, and the lack of other
> methods of acquiring knowledge. Then there are the reasons why you
> hold those beliefs, for example, that sensory phenomena refer to
> entities that are separate from you and refers to them in their
> entirety. Or, the primacy of reason and logic when reason and logic by
> definition can only operate in time and space. Then there are all the
> fears and biases of atheists that influence what they think they
> perceive in the first place. No, there is a mountain of shoddy beliefs
> underlying atheism. And, as a result atheism is shoddy.
>
> Having exhausted your arguments, you resort to restatement of you had
> said above. You claim, "The difficulty for any atheist or agnostic, is
> that we are asked to 'believe' or accept as fact, events that have
> not, nor are able to be proven with evidence." That is true because
> of the self limiting nature of science. But one item that you overlook
> is that there have any number of alternative methods suggested that
> you and all other atheists have refused to educate yourself about and
> to use. This is, in essence, just your restatement that empiricism is
> the only way to attain knowledge and wisdom and it is wrong. This
> atheist insistence is mere laziness.
>
> Your next comment, "By it's[religion's] very nature, trying to provide
> the physical evidence of the
> supernatural, which of itself has no physical representation in our
> physical world, is doomed to fail." is just nonsensical. Religion does
> try to provide physical evidence of God for precisely the reason you
> noted, i.e. that God is not an individuated entity. The only possible
> meaning, and I use that term loosely, is that you are referring to
> miracles. But your debunking miracles only means that you do not
> understand the universe as you claim to. The universe does not act
> under hard and invariable natural laws. Think of the universe as an
> amorphous consciousness that responds to your desires, fears and
> deepest yearnings: it opens some avenues for you and erects barriers
> to others. In fact, it is you that creates your own universe.
>
> Your next statement, if it is sincere, shows your true argument . You
> said, 'Atheists can appreciate the difference
> between those that practice spiritualism for personal enlightenment
> and organised religion that impedes human understanding." You seem to
> be against organized religion but not spiritual paths. Have I
> understood this correctly? If so, then your admission that spiritual
> pursuits lead to personal enlightenment would mean that atheists
> who by definition refuse to follow spiritual pursuits can never be
> attain spiritual enlightenment. You validate spiritual pursuits and
> yet refuse to follow them. How silly is that?
>
> In addition, organized religion does not impede human understanding of
> the human condition. It articulates it fully to those who fully the
> teachings deeply. Each religion may seem different on the surface but
> at its core, each religion is the same. It is the methodology and
> emphasis that is different initially to suit different kinds of people
> but the final result of enlightenment is the same. This point of
> yours, is merely an overgeneralization; you mistakenly think that
> because some people misunderstand or misuse their religion for
> personal gain, that misuse somehow applies to and invalidates the
> religion. It does not.
>
> Your next tactic is to claim that atheism is enlightening (it is not)
> and empowering. You may have a point with empowering if you mean ego-
> aggrandizing. As I have pointed out before, atheism is a haven for the
> fearful. It tells them that their liabilities are not liabilities and
> therefore it is okay to revel in materialism. Even more, atheism
> mistakenly tells them that materialism will give them a sense of place
> and purpose. It does not. In fact, atheistic materialism (is there
> any other kind) erects barriers to people discovering their sense of
> place and purpose. Materialism will not answer the ago old question,
> "Who am I?"
>
> Your little rant about slavishly following dogma and doctrinal demands
> clearly shows that you have not the faintest clue about what religious
> ritual is intended to achieve. Ritual is designed to elevate
> consciousness, attune oneself to God, if you will. That you are not
> aware of that purpose and that you have not the foggiest idea of how
> this occurs or what happens when it does, does not in any way impact
> on the validity of the process of ritual or the possible end result.
> Ritual requires a desire and a willingness to be changed; atheists
> have neither being either too fearful or too complacent or too self-
> indulgent. Your comment about atheists immersing themselves in
> friends, family and community affairs only proves the limited vision
> of atheists, their willingness to substitute materialism for
> enlightenment and their inclination to accept at surface value the
> illusions of society and their need to feel accepted and to belong.
> The only problem is that they sell themselves short.
>
> I can see that you are giving a heartfelt commentary, at least, I hope
> you are. And I respect you for that. You are one of the better ones
> around here. It is gratifying that each time I drop in, I meet at
> least one person such as yourself and am pleased to have done so.
>
> Your smartest statement was, "Atheism therefore is not the sole
> definition who I am either." Atheism is too illogical and rests on too
> many pieces of false info especially in regards to religious
> teachings. I would venture to say that you are not an atheist but a
> spiritual seeker in search of a home.
>
> You again highlight your central issue as not things of the spirit
> but organized religion with your comment, "It is however a word that
> probably best describes my antipathy towards mono theistic religion
> and all that it represents." Again, if you better understood the more
> profound aspects of religion you would have a different, more positive
> view. It has been my good fortune to meet some highly evolved
> spiritual people from the Hindu, Sufi and Christian faiths. It has
> also been my lot to meet a lot of clerics who do not have a clue about
> the more profound aspects of their religion. It is the 20-60-20 rule:
> 60% of clerics do not have an adequate grasp of the truths of their
> religion, 20% do and 20% should seek another career. You have to seek
> out the knowledgeable 20% and forget the rest.
>
> Finally, demanding your right to choose and to express your beliefs is
> one thing. Using that freedom to denigrate, possibly even destroy,
> that which you do not understand and thereby deprive others of their
> system of spiritual growth is not acceptable. It is fear-ridden, mean-
> spirited and based on a lack of knowledge. And, it is beneath you.
> You have shown yourself to be intelligent and willing to learn but
> with some blind spots re organized religion. But atheism is an
> organized religion itself and you seem to be okay with that one, so
> leave the others alone. Better yet, find someone knowledgeable and
> learn from them.
>
> I have a knowledgeable friend who teaches Yoga in the Blue Mountains.
> Let me know if you want her contact info.
>
> On Jun 3, 9:55 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Thank you Omprem,
>
> > As I climb out of the slime pit of atheistic despair, I do thank you
> > for your candour.
>
> > I could follow the same path that I and most others have previously
> > followed when dealing with your posts, i.e. to rebut each & every
> > point you raise, but I feel that would be of little use & would simply
> > provide a platform for another round of schoolyard banter to follow.
>
> > Anyway, I'll have a go at 'debating' your post in two parts as well.
> > I'll discuss the two key themes that you have presented;
>
> > 1. Being an atheist / agnostic does not mean that one cannot & does
> > not wonder and ruminate about our physical surroundings. We most
> > certainly do. In fact, the sheer complexity and vastness of our
> > universe, to an atheist & agnostic, compels us to question all the
> > traditionally held beliefs with greater voracity, as for more & more
> > of us, those traditionally held beliefs have been found wanting under
> > the 'microscope' of educated men & women the world over. It also does
> > not mean that an atheist / agnostic dismisses theism 'completely' out
> > of hand either. An atheist / agnostic's viewpoint has been developed
> > over significant time and after much study, reflection and
> > consideration, theism as a viable answer to the big questions is
> > rejected. Theism as a result of this process has not been rejected out
> > of hand, but in a considered manner.
>
> > Atheism is truly not a belief system in it self. It is no more a
> > belief system than dismissing the flat earth society advocates. I have
> > not been in space to see the earth as an orb. I dismiss all 'doctored'
>
> ...
>
> read more >>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atheism vs Christianity

Thursday, June 5, 2008

25 new messages in 12 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links