Atheism vs Christianity: Atheism-vs-Christianity - 24 new messages in 9 topics

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A N S W E R - M E ! ! ! - THE ACTUAL BAD ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL
SITUATION AROUND THE WORLD is the begining of the END of The WORLD ? ? ? ? ?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/063e4e98eabc4942?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:32 pm
From: "Timothy 1:4a"

Get some facts, Atila. Tweetybird lives in a more real world than the
one you do.

On Dec 2, 6:13 pm, arcangel <alien...@univision.com> wrote:
> BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA: The begining of the Armagedon War.
>
> With Barack Obama The Armagedon War begins soon, is a prophecy;
> thousands of millions will be dead, exterminated, but, don 't worry,
> be happy, good news, millions will stay alive forever, please; you
> only have to obey The Laws of God in the New Testament of The Holly
> Bible, and pray, visit the real christians, and read it !:
> - Psalm: 37: 9,10,29; Mathew 5:5http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=salm%2037:%209,10,29;%20m...
>
> Barack Hussein Obama ( is that a christian name or what ? ) is a false
> christian. He is a muslim from Islam, and he is a socialist trained by
> Fidel Castro and partners from Internacional Socialism. He is a Jew
> Zionist luxury member too.
>
> >>>>>> USE THE GOOGLE TRANSLATOR, IS FREE, <<<<<<
>
> You can translate some words or a total web page:http://translate.google.com/translate_t?hl=es#
> Use a separate tab or another window to translate any thing in many
> languages.
>
> The Zionists are a sect or cult from Israel.
>
> The sect of the Zionists will be destroyed according to the
> prophecies:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaias%201;&version=31;
>
> Judaism has failed in bringing peace and security to the rest of the
> world. Christianity was established as the only hope for mankind.
> Laws, mandates and councils in the New Testament of the Holy Bible can
> change the behavior of millions to live better, in peace and
> harmony ...
>
> http://es.geocities.com/eleazarcarvajal/sionismo.html
>
> If not open, click here:
>
> http://religion-politica.googlegroups.com/web/sionismo.htm
>
> GREAT DESTRUCTION approaches, bad religions and evil sects or cults
> are involved.
> The Vatican, in Rome, will be destroyed first .... and after...
> ¡ BUUUM !, The Armagedon War begins ! ! ! !
>
> Read about the dirty war that the narco-terrorist regime of the jew
> Fidel Castro directed against the population of America and the rest
> of the world that is NOT a socialist (red communist atheist):
>
> Use the google translator; is an emergency:http://mipagina.univision.com/alien777
>
> Visit some times this link with secret info that you never saw:
>
> http://group.google.com/group/religion-politica/topics

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Historical Precedence For Non-Violence in the Face of Irrational
Injustice
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/6e541b28803148ed?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:34 pm
From: thomas

What a red herring.

On Dec 1, 4:28 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Let's go!

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:35 pm
From: Dev

On Dec 2, 3:41 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> What really drives history?
>
> > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> > didn't lose.
>
> Hey Dev,
> Technically the American Revolution would have been
> unsuccessful without French help. So that's a good place to start.
> Obviously many countries exist who sucked at violence but got help.
> But I'm splitting hairs with the question obviously.

No, that is completely relevant. The point is the initial point: the
historical precedence for non-violence. If violence had a happy face,
if violence was not sanctioned by the hegemony, whatever--not the
issue. What has absolute pacifism accomplished mainly because of the
weight of its own non-force?

> I would not hazard a guess at your proportional question but attempts
> at non violent success may have been historically more common than
> known but had been quashed. History has been written by the victors
> after all.

Well...my question is pretty much how that last statement doesn't
confirm what I or the author have said precisely. :)

> -The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the
> blood of patriots and tyrants,
> Thomas
> Jefferson
>
> I guess nowadays we can't go spilling the blood of patriots and
> tyrants.......Unless they are in another country of course. Non
> violent success seems to have something to do with how much violence
> is likely to be visited on the non violent.

Yes. The example of the Civil Rights movement is relevant to this, if
you read the article referenced. The non-violent success stories are
largely myths. People like to undermine the role of violence in the
success afforded to them, because it makes for a happier picture of
humanity.

> On Dec 1, 8:52 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually, book,
> > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples" that
> > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
> > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
> > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
> > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
> > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with human
> > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case, anyone--explain
> > exactly how one explains the other).
>
> > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is of
> > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the proportion
> > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> > didn't lose.
>
> > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > Let's go!
>
> > > Martin Luther King.
>
> > > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
>
> > > Mahatma Gandhi.
>
> > > --
> > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
> > > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > > Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:36 pm
From: Dev

I think the new rule shouldn't be "if you don't have anything nice to
say" but, instead, "if you don't have anything to say". Make a fucking
case, asshole.

On Dec 2, 5:34 pm, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What a red herring.
>
> On Dec 1, 4:28 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Let's go!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:39 pm
From: Dev

Trance--

I hope you get it into your head that Max is not an intellectual
anything, who is opposed to contributing ideas, facts, reason, etc.
and is thus on the side not just of theists, but anyone who is wrong
about anything.

Fuck him. He should die.

XOXO,
Dev

On Dec 2, 4:26 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > OK TG, I've looked at Dev's premise a bit more, ostensibly to look for
> > the key motivation behind it and the Ghandi example that you have been
> > discussing was really a manufactured argument from the start. Devy had
> > done some reading, threw the bait out with a fairly broad statement
> > knowing that Ghandi would appear from someone fairly early on in the
> > piece. (He acknowledged it later anyway)
>
> > Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> > to back his premise that
>
> > "I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a
> > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material."
>
> > After a couple of exchanges, I'm sure you started feeling like this
> > was all a set up.
>
> Not at all. I knew where Dev was going with it.
>
> I'm glad he brought the topic up so we can discuss it.
>
> Dev already knows my opinions on this topic so my comments were no surprise
> to him either.
>
> We've had this discussion privately as well so we both knew where this was
> going to go.
>
>
>
> > I think Dev sees most things in Black & White only. I mean reference
> > to the statement 'Non violence has never worked" Mmmmhh, very few
> > greys, so it seems.
>
> Actually he doesn't. Not in my opinion anyway. He just makes his points
> strongly and I guess it can look like that sometimes but I don't really see
> that.
>
>
>
> > He sees the 'pacifist, non compliant or non violent' approach to
> > dealing with problems of state, injustice etc as not a viable solution
> > and that regarding non violence as a valuable strategy is without
> > historical efficacy and is only supported by wooses. (Or more likely
> > churchy pacifists, or liberals etc)
>
> It's paragraphs like the above that get him pissed off at you (if you want
> to know ;-)
>
>
>
> > I think he misses the point that non violent strategies are really
> > only a recent phenomena, so the weight of historic evidence that
> > violent measures have worked clearly has held sway for millenia. It's
> > a flawed argument that one.
>
> Well I wouldn't call it "flawed". It's an opinion.
>
> I happen to have a different assessment of that.
>
>
>
> > But yes, war, insurrection, violent opposition etc has it's place. I
> > certainly don't argue otherwise.
>
> Only rarely in extreme cases where there are no other options whatsoever.
>
>
>
> > But if we as a species are to evolve towards some form of
> > enlightenment, surely there is a place in this world for non violent
> > protest and strive towards notions of understanding, empathy and a
> > brotherhood of man & (woman). I mean, the examples provided here
> > demonstrate that non violent protest does work, in certain
> > circumstances.
>
> If it's necessary, yes.
>
> It's a new approach and a new strategy and needs to have the bugs worked out
> but in reality I'm not even talking about protest movements and brotherhood
> when I discuss strategy.
>
> I'm talking about atheists taking what's going on seriously from the
> wealthiest to the poorest.
>
> Getting active and getting involved in the government, military, media,
> social aspects of society.
>
> Be everywhere and get our policies implemented and our opinions heard.
>
> Influence is what we need.
>
> Why allow ourselves to be marginalized in the first place.
>
> The protest movement approach is one taken by marginalized people.
>
> The problem is that's how we see ourselves and so that's how we behave.
>
> We're reacting to things instead of taking charge of things.
>
>
>
> > Religion has divided us, ideological dogma has divided us, colonialism
> > and imperialism has divided us, war has divided us and ignorance has
> > divided us.
>
> Well we can only take responsibility for ourselves we can't control how
> theists react to these things and unfortunately they don't react in the most
> intelligent manner no matter how intelligent they may be individually.
>
>
>
> > It's time to move away from the paradigm of hostility to seize and
> > control what we want. Yes, defend ourselves against tyranny with
> > violence, individual or state sanctioned, but we should collectively
> > strive for understanding.
>
> Well that all sounds lovely but this is where you and some of the others
> here lose people like Dev and me.
>
> I can't speak for Rapp but if he reads this I'm sure he'll jump in and
> comment.
>
> The reason is that I don't believe theists want understanding. They want
> conversion. Only the most liberal, and not even all of them, might be
> willing to accept a limited truce on these questions.
>
> Understanding isn't going to happen. On this I agree with Dev.
>
> Agreements can be made on certain issues.
>
> For example, atheists and some theists might agree that we both want
> secularism or that we both want a certain level of human rights, etc.
>
> Other than that anyone who thinks that theists have any interest whatsoever
> in building understanding, empathy, etc types of relationships with atheists
> is delusional themselves in my opinion.
>
> The best we can have is agreements on specific issues.
>
> And this is precisely why the atheist solution has to be to get into
> positions of influence and deal with issues directly instead of
> marginalizing ourselves and then complaining when theists who are getting
> themselves in positions of influence exercise their power.
>
>
>
> > Too many people, like Dev only see things in absolute terms and
> > particularly with the view that they are right, absolutley. I mean who
> > writes this kind of thing other than a ideologue who figures every one
> > else is 'stupid' but fails to see that the status quo actually prefer
> > violence anyway.
>
> > "It isn't about who can be more liberal or politically correct
> > anymore--the status quo is stupid, and we should try to figure out
> > what's right."
>
> > Max
>
> > On Dec 2, 9:06 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > Dear Lady,
>
> > > > I thought I'd cover off some other "non violence in the face of
> > > > irrational injustice" success stories with you because I'm getting Dev
> > > > is getting violent with me again:) I'll try a non violent 'sit in'
> > > > with him going forward, but it will be difficult nonetheless. I didn't
> > > > realise that this thread was meant to discuss only what he wanted to
> > > > discuss. Silly me, wrong again!
>
> > > > I think the gay community has had some wins for community acceptance
> > > > particularly over the last 20 years or so (in western democracies
> > > > anyway) The participnats of the early gay pride parades must have had
> > > > the 'balls' to do what they did (pun intended). The 'struggle' still
> > > > ain't over as yet, but it's heading in the right direction
>
> > > > Going back further, the 'suffragettes' also, through a program of non
> > > > violence, really changed the paradigm that only the men had the right
> > > > to vote. Go girls!
>
> > > > There are many individual cases such as Rosa Parks, whose non violent
> > > > protest, kick started the media into looking squarely at the
> > > > injustices perpetrated both on her and the wider black community in
> > > > the US. From this 'spark' a fire then raged. Non violent
> > > > though..............and look where we are decades later.......an
> > > > African American US president.....That's one for democracy and non
> > > > violence eh!
>
> > > Exactly. The fact is that this approach is new but it's one that we know
> > is
> > > working and for that reason it's becoming a favored approach.
>
> > > > There's more, but I'll leave it at this for the minute
>
> > > > Cheers
>
> > > > Max
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 12:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually,
> > book,
> > > > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > > > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples"
> > that
> > > > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
> > > > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > > > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
> > > > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
> > > > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
> > > > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with
> > human
> > > > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case,
> > anyone--explain
> > > > > > exactly how one explains the other).
>
> > > > > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human beings
> > are
> > > > > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence in
> > order
> > > > to
> > > > > resolve problems.
>
> > > > > I would think that was a good thing.
>
> > > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is
> > of
> > > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the
> > proportion
> > > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> > > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence
> > more
> > > > > > didn't lose.
>
> > > > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
>
> > > > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the
> > existing
> > > > > circumstances.
>
> > > > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a War
> > of
> > > > > Conquest a success.
>
> > > > > It depends on what the goals are.
>
> > > > > If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a
> > problem,
> > > > > violence is rarely the right solution.
>
> > > > > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini"
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nice.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/91d6751736ff8cb2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:42 pm
From: Dev

Eat shit and die.

On Dec 2, 5:31 pm, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Christ is King.
>
> On Dec 2, 11:21 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > And nicely reported on.
>
> >http://www.yahoo.com/s/996016- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:43 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

King of the mental ward.

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 7:31 PM, thomas <tdierden@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Christ is King.
>
> On Dec 2, 11:21 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > And nicely reported on.
> >
> > http://www.yahoo.com/s/996016
> >
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: what if rapture occurs
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/0b67077a7af4af57?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:43 pm
From: Ruthie

My question is to atheist. How will you respond if and when bible
revelations start to take place? If the rapture occurs or two
witness's who are performing miracles? I just want to understand.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:44 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

Probably have a party, given that all the crazy Christians will be gone.

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Ruthie <willruthie1965@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> My question is to atheist. How will you respond if and when bible
> revelations start to take place? If the rapture occurs or two
> witness's who are performing miracles? I just want to understand.
> >
>

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:04 pm
From: Kilmir

On 3 dec, 01:43, Ruthie <willruthie1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My question is to atheist. How will you respond if and when bible
> revelations start to take place? If the rapture occurs or two
> witness's who are performing miracles? I just want to understand.

2 believers performing miracles that are in no other way explainable?
I'd least be open to the option of another power at work that we don't
know of yet. They'd still have a way to go to prove it's whatever one
of the religions that causes it, or the diety(/ies) it worships. So
far David Copperfield has performed more impressive tricks then any
religious person in the name of it's religion. Technology these days
allows men to fly in the air and land on the moon; not even Jesus was
famed to do things as impressive as those.
As Carl Sagan said: Sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic.

Now the interesting question would be how many failed tries at proving
religion does it take for you to understand it's all make believe?

Kilmir

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Congratulations
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/d322fa2af711303a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:59 pm
From: Neil Kelsey

On Dec 2, 4:03 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 4:50 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 2, 1:56 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I also value both. The ethics is really what I'm talking about, I
> > > guess. You say that the laws of the modern secular democracies
> > > generally reflect your idea of ethical rights and wrongs. What if
> > > they didn't?
>
> > Then vote the buggers out.
>
> What if you can't.

Then it ain't a democracy.

> What I'm asking is if the laws reflect your
> ideals, you're happy. What if they didn't?

I'd move to another country. Secular democracies are my current ideal.

> What if you're the
> minority and you wish to practice your own ethics?

If your ethics conflict with the law of the land then you risk arrest.

> Are your ethics a
> result of the laws or something you determined on your own
> irregardless of law?

Probably a bit of both.

> So if you think it should be legal to grow pot,
> do you do it?

No. And I think it should be legal to grow pot, but I don't grow it.
This is one major area in which I disagree with the current laws of
most secular democracies. I think the Black Market should be
eliminated, and one way to do that is to legalize drugs. So. If some
party ran on this platform, and I agreed with them in other areas (I
won't vote for one issue parties), then I would vote for them.

> That's just an example, but do you get the idea of the
> question?

Yes. But secular democracies aren't static - the laws can and do
change. Women and blacks couldn't vote before; now they can. Abortion
was illegal, now it isn't. Democracies evolve with the times;
theocracies don't.

> > > BTW, I agree that the Dark Ages was a horrible nightmare
> > > that theists and atheists both want to avoid ever again.
>
> > I disagree that theists want to avoid the Dark Ages, or that they
> > think it was a horrible nightmare. Some do, some don't. The more
> > fundamentalist section of Christianity would welcome Christian rule,
> > and they come out and say so. They view modern America (et al) as
> > sinful and Godless. And fundamentalists have a way of steamrollering
> > moderates. It's a slippery slope from the Religious Right to another
> > Inquisition. Good thing we can vote the buggers out!
>
> I'm sorry, but I can't agree that ANY modern person--theist or
> atheist--wants the Dark Ages back again.

I guess I should be more specific. I am sure Christians and other
theists would not want to give up modern luxuries given to them via
science, so in that sense I agree with you, they would not want to
return to the Dark Ages. But LOTS would want a return to religious
rule. LOTS. For instance, Muslim fundamentalists are attempting to do
just that. And then you have various Christian cults who LIVE as if
they are in the past, they don't vote, and only obey "God's" laws.
Lots of Christians think America is a Christian nation, so I'm
inclined to think they are dumb enough to have convinced themselves
that they already are living under Christian rule, if only these
heathens would move back to whatever they came from.

> So far as the "Religious
> Right" political statement, I'm not going to respond because I can't
> stand either side's extremists and this isn't a political argument.

What? We're talking about "religious governments" and it isn't
political?

Just because you want to hide your head in the sand doesn't mean the
Religious Right don't want to institute a Christian theocracy.

> That could just blow up into a major thing. Concerning
> steamrollering, I think there's enough coming and going from both
> sides.

What sides are you talking about? I was talking about religious
extremists and religious "moderates."

> > > But again,
> > > the actual events I think you're referring to had to do with a
> > > governmentalized religion. That's just a nightmare in itself.
>
> > That "governmentalized religion" was Christianity. The West is
> > secularized largely because of the Christian nightmare it lived
> > through.
>
> You're right. Catholicism, specifically. We still have Islam and
> many other religions in governmentalized religion now. I guess we at
> least agree on this.

I see all religions as being equally dangerous, if given political
power. So I bet we disagree that whatever cult you belong to is the
equivalent to Catholicism.

> > > I've seen many good reconciliations of evolution and Genesis.
>
> > I haven't. I don't see any way to believe God made the universe (and
> > when the Bible was written they thought the universe was WAYYYYY
> > smaller than it turned out to be) in a week, and at the same time
> > think that species evolve over millions and billions of years.
> > Evolution contradicts Genesis.
>
> Surely you've seen the Days = Ages theories?

Right, and I don't buy it. I've read the Bible, and I think the people
that wrote it meant EXACTLY what it says. I'm not inclined to perform
mental gymnastics required to believe days are ages.

> > > I'm
> > > betting you've seen the same ones. I really don't know for a fact how
> > > everything went back then. I wasn't there. None of us have
> > > conclusive proof.
>
> > There is conclusive proof. Fossils. Molecular DNA. Observed evolution.
> > I thought you said you have a curious mind. How come you're making
> > conclusions before you've examined all the evidence?
>
> Conclusive proof?

Yes. Evolution is fact.

> If we had that, we could trace exactly the
> evolution of every creature out there.

Why would you think that?

> There's quite a few anomalies
> hard to explain. We'd be able to do more than theorize. I have a
> curious mind and have read many things and am asking you for a
> discussion and this is what I get?

> By the way, what is Observed Evolution? I've never witnessed actual
> evolution. Can you direct me to anywhere I can read up on this?
> Meanwhile I'll google it.

Read about the finches on the Galapagos Islands.

> What conclusions did I make except that there wasn't enough factual
> evidence? Even when I try to agree with you in part, you seem to
> think sarcasm is a necessity to make your point. I specifically said
> "I really don't know" and that's a conclusion?

If you were curious, you'd go and find out instead of tossing up your
hands and saying "I don't know." Go read "The Ancestor's Tale" by
Richard Dawkins if you really are curious.

> > And why don't you hold religion up to the same standards of evidence
> > that you do for evolution? There is, after all, NO evidence that God
> > exists. Where's your "curious mind" in this regard?
>
> So far, I've not claimed any proof at all.

Not YOU. Others. Why don't you demand evidence from OTHERS who tell
you God exists, when you demand evidence to the point of absurdity
from science?

> I'm examining your proof
> and it's mighty hard to get someone to just do that without calling me
> names or simply turning everything I say into a challenge.

I'm not calling you names. Really I'm not. I'm questioning the name
that you called yourself. Really. You THINK you have a "curious mind,"
but to me it seems like you have a closed mind. You don't seem like
you have an honest view of yourself.

> I'm
> looking for answers.

Are you? Are you really? Because it seems like you are only looking to
prove your conclusions.

> Christians are very willing to give me theirs in
> a matter-of-fact way.

And I don't think you are asking them for objective and verifiable
evidence that God exists. You are holding them to ridiculously low
standards.

> Please, stop trying to degrade me into
> submission. Persuade me.

I'm not trying to degrade you. I'm telling you, you are not being
honest with yourself about being curious. That's not an insult. That
actually might be something you'll be glad you heard in the long run.

> > I think you might be kidding yourself about yourself.
>
> > > We have theories and we have scant evidence and we
> > > have words written to a people very little like us.
>
> > They were a lot like us. In fact, they were exactly like us. They were
> > homo sapiens, so are we. We are the same species. I thought you said
> > you have a curious mind.
>
> You're stuck on that. Can't you simply answer the friggin questions
> without a stab here and there? Am I dissing you?

Am I dissing you? You really are quick to play the hurt card. Just
because atheists are mean* does not mean God exists. That is an
invalid argument, and the premise is false, too.

> Am I getting
> personal here? They were biologically like us. Sure. They wore
> clothes that weren't manufactured; reading wasn't what the common man
> was taught; their biggest concerns were mating and farming and hunting
> and gathering, etc. If you were transplanted in time to their time,
> you'd die.

Why?

> So would I.

Why?

> Any fantasies about becoming their ruler or
> god is nothing more than that.

Why would I want to be their ruler or their God?

> How many of us would survive in that
> world?

Lots. We're the same species.

> > > We've been able
> > > to prove the world isn't on a tortoise's back like the Indians believe
> > > or believed by pointing telescopes in all directions. No turtle. So
> > > no one, in my opinion has an arguable position on this since we have
> > > no witnesses to ask and no instruments to measure with and no evidence
> > > lying right in front of us. Some say we evolved from Martian pee in
> > > the ocean. Same problem there.
>
> > That didn't make much sense, no offence.
>
> Basically, I'm saying that we've been able to scientifically disprove
> many beliefs. I'm trying to get someone to talk. Not just get nasty
> responses.

Lots of people are talking to you, you just seem a little thin-
skinned. Why?

> > > On Dec 2, 3:40 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 12:50 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I'm mentally healthy and am an inquisitive child (at heart). As an
> > > > > atheist, how do you decide what is right and what is wrong? Is there
> > > > > a site or something I can see? I'm honestly curious here.
>
> > > > What do you mean, right and wrong as in "factually correct," or right
> > > > and wrong as in ethics? Because I value both. I'm not trying to avoid
> > > > your question. I'd say (to keep it managably short) the laws of the
> > > > modern secular democracies generally reflect my idea of ethical rights
> > > > and wrongs. I also think the more people get their facts straight the
> > > > better society will be - if most members of a culture believe the
> > > > other members of the culture are going to be tortured for eternity by
> > > > God then they might be inclined to treat the non-believers like crap
> > > > (history shows this is exactly what happens). So start by getting the
> > > > facts straight - does God even exist? Being right about this IS
> > > > important.
>
> > > > If you're an inquisitive child at heart (and I'm assuming you're a
> > > > Christian - forgive me if I'm wrong) then how do you reconcile, say,
> > > > evolution with Genesis?
>
> > > > > On Dec 2, 12:33 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 2, 9:37 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Dec 1, 5:10 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Dec 1, 1:19 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > I mean, come on, how can you respect yourself and believe you are a
> > > > > > > > > > wretched
> > > > > > > > > > > sinner who deserves nothing more than an eternity in hell at the same
> > > > > > > > > > time?
>
> > > > > > > > > > *good* *point*
>
> > > > > > > > > > But most of the time I don't buy that they really see themselves as
> > > > > > > > > > sinners.
>
> > > > > > > > > Probably not, but that belief is absolutely the core of Christianity (and
> > > > > > > > > most religions, incidentally)--without that belief, the "sacrifice" of
> > > > > > > > Jesus
> > > > > > > > > is useless and meaningless (why do we need a savior if we're not
> > > > > > > > "depraved",
> > > > > > > > > as Brock so gleefully puts it). They like to say that their religion is
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > about love and forgiveness and shit, but they're lying or mistaken. All
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > "God's love" is pointless if we don't need it to live a good life/get
> > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > Heaven. So, as much as the phrase "true Christian" get well-deserved flak
> > > > > > > > > around here, I think you could argue that anyone who DOESN'T see himself
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > a sinner isn't a "true Christian", in the sense that he does not ACTUALLY
> > > > > > > > > believe the core tenets of Christianity.
>
> > > > > > > > I agree with you, but I'm finding it weird that the ones who seem the
> > > > > > > > loudest about being depraved sinners (e.g. Brock, e.g. thea. e.g.
> > > > > > > > preachers) come across as being the most in love with themselves.
>
> > > > > > > That's a good point. But then, we know from his behavior that Brock doesn't
> > > > > > > actually believe what he says, and only says it in order to justify his
> > > > > > > unjustifiable points.
>
> > > > > > Exactly. Brock just wants to be seen as Jesus Junior, so he talks the
> > > > > > talk. That's my point. The only people that actually fall for the
> > > > > > "wretched sinner" bullshit are frightened children and the mentally
> > > > > > ill, it seems to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:01 pm
From: Woodbridge

Seriously do you read what I posted about Christians doing dangerous
things saying God tell them?

On Dec 2, 4:06 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay. But why? Why do you care what they think? Seriously...
>
> On Dec 2, 4:26 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 2, 2:10 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:> I believe in Spiderman. Don't mess with Spidey. That's just war...
>
> > > Then why the Atheist vs Christianity group? Why do you post here? Can
> > > I get a thought-out, honest answer?
>
> > I post because I want Christian to give proof or accept that God is
> > real like SpiderMan only.So no need to make gay people be second class
> > or third class people.No need to start war and say God told me to do
> > war when there is no God proof.Many things like that being done as
> > compulsory which are dangerous to people like Judaists and Atheists
>
> > I'd actually like to see> everyone's response to this one. Surely you have a purpose? Right?
> > > There's actions you must wish for since you've taken the time for so
> > > many words. I was told earlier in the thread that atheists want
> > > nothing, but why waste your time? Should we start a new thread for
> > > this? I know I'd learn a lot.
>
> > > Once more though--don't mess with Spidey.
>
> > Ha ha
>
> > > On Dec 2, 3:47 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 1:42 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Firstly, consider that everyone assumed that I was, what? Christian?
> > > > > Islam? Whatever. That is when the remarks were made. They were
> > > > > intended to be toward myself--at least most of them.
>
> > > > > In hind-sight, I'll admit that my post probably guaranteed a flame war
> > > > > and was probably taken as a flame. Also consider this before dropping
> > > > > the gallows trap door: I'd never been to groups.google.com and I
> > > > > joined this one because it was on the sign-on page and looked like a
> > > > > place for learning. Note that immediately most of the titles are
> > > > > flames to begin with. I ignored those and went to safe-looking
> > > > > titles. Bile. Bile. Bile. From people who are claiming to be
> > > > > loving, intelligent, and thoughtful. (yes, those claims were actually
> > > > > made) I expected a battle ground of wit and instead, watched people
> > > > > shooting fish in a barrel. Fun stuff. The joy I saw people getting
> > > > > from outright meanness left me non-plussed and I shouldn't have posted
> > > > > what I did the way that I did. My apologies for being disenchanted
> > > > > with the language and heckling.
>
> > > > > I have a question: From what I can tell, there's only two theists
> > > > > posting regularly. Is there more? I'd like to hear both sides of
> > > > > this, even though I was told that there were no sides.
>
> > > > I told that there were no BOTH sides not no sides.If there is two side
> > > > that says there is God prove that side.Otherwise anyone can say three
> > > > sides with SpiderMan and no SpiderMan also.
> > > > But to say three side we must give PROOF for SpiderMan YES?
> > > > Same thing with God YES?
>
> > > > > On Dec 2, 3:00 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 2, 3:05 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > Once more, a theist playing the victim and showing signs of having
> > > > > > difficulties understanding simple sentences.
>
> > > > > > > I mentioned the insults? So far, here's a description of me by our
> > > > > > > peers here:
> > > > > > > A dishonest biased prick.
>
> > > > > > That was my comment, and
>
> > > > > > 1) it was not an insult, just a fact.
> > > > > > 2) not addressed at you, as you claim above.
>
> > > > > > > I am still spewing your bullshit about "new atheism" (actually, I've
> > > > > > > never heard the term before this comment)
>
> > > > > > Lifted from my post.
> > > > > > I was merely repeating what a theist has claimed (except for the
> > > > > > "spewing" and "bullshit" which are not really insults since "New
> > > > > > Atheism" is bullshit, and it was not addressed at you anyway.)
>
> > > > > > If you want to know about "new atheism", join the club! Ask Brock to
> > > > > > explain it.
> > > > > > The best he could do was produce a few web pages/blogs that used the
> > > > > > term in their page title. He could never demonstrate that it was an
> > > > > > actual movement/organization/philosophy/etc.
>
> > > > > > > Then you are no self-respecting Christian. (apparently not)
>
> > > > > > Where is the insult here?
>
> > > > > > > arrogant prick
>
> > > > > > Yep, that one is an insult!
>
> > > > > > > I have apparently been suffering from Alzheimer's. (wow, didn't see
> > > > > > > that one coming)
>
> > > > > > An wrong assessment?
>
> > > > > > > I have an unremarkable life.
>
> > > > > > Not insults.
>
> > > > > > > I have no feelings, no brains, no consciences, no ethics, absolutely
> > > > > > > nothing that a human would call human. Period.
>
> > > > > > A wrong assessment?
>
> > > > > > > Wow, that one had a "Period." So why should I even continue? How
> > > > > > > does one debate with that? I mean, I don't want to start with debates
> > > > > > > proving I have feelings, brains, conscience, ethics, and that I'm
> > > > > > > human! I mean, I need to go find those groups first, I guess...
>
> > > > > > So, you produced little evidence in lieu of actual insults that were
> > > > > > actually addressed at you.
> > > > > > But, considering that your OP was an open call for flaming how can you
> > > > > > be honestly surprised that you got what you were asking for?
>
> > > > > > In case you try to disagree with me, here is a little reminder of your
> > > > > > opening statement:
> > > > > > "
> > > > > > have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> > > > > > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
>
> > > > > > Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> > > > > > interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> > > > > > atheist into a flame war.
> > > > > > "
>
> > > > > > Right off the bat you claim that 99% percent of atheist on this site
> > > > > > are angry and do not want to intelligent discussions, so they must be
> > > > > > stupid or something like that.
>
> > > > > > Then you have the balls to state that the same atheists are only
> > > > > > interested in flaming?
>
> > > > > > "Arrogant prick" was too good for you, actual bona fide arrogant
> > > > > > pricks the world over are offended that you were associated with them.
> > > > > > _________________________________
> > > > > > I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
> > > > > > -- Ruth Hurmence Green

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:03 pm
From: Woodbridge

You read that loud to yourself because it is true thing about Borgan.

On Dec 2, 4:23 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh my. When in question of what I'm saying, you assume the worst? I
> hated that I was apparently being dense again! geez Was this
> response supposed to mean something? It sounds to me like you just
> don't like someone or other. That's not typical of your responses.
> Usually you offer some decent content with a jab, but umm, read that
> out loud to yourself?
>
> On Dec 2, 4:19 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > Why do you hate?
> > Borgan says Dev is hater many times but not say I AM TRU CHRISTIAN is
> > hater even ONCE because Dev is Atheist and I AM TRU CHRISTIAN is
> > Christian.
> > So Borgan is BIG hypocrite
>
> > On Dec 2, 2:03 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I hate this. This is the second time I gotta be stupid today. What
> > > in the name of Spiderman are you saying here?
>
> > > On Dec 2, 3:56 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Or Borgan is BIG hypocrite saying nothing to Christian I AM TRU
> > > > CHRISTIAN
> > > > On Dec 2, 12:46 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 3:40 PM, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Nope. No hate here!
>
> > > > > What an ... um, observant eye you have, ... um, ObservantEye ... :)
>
> > > > > Regards,
>
> > > > > Brock
>
> > > > > > On Dec 1, 6:42 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > > >> What bad happens to the world when a Christian burns to death,
> > > > > >> exactly?
>
> > > > > >> Take flushing a public toilet as an example, if you like.

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:08 pm
From: Dev

That's the thing about modesty. Now, if you or Turner were to say "I
AM THE AWESOMEST", I would take that to actually be self-deprecating.
Since you're both reasonable intelligent, you would realize that
saying "I AM THE AWESOMEST" would imply that you were conceited
douchebags. It would be self-deprecating with the concealed truth
that, frankly, we all think we're better than most people--we think
our opinions are more correct, at least. The most arrogant people
generally don't say "I AM THE AWESOMEST", they start their sentences
with "I understand your pain but" or "I don't think I'm any better
than you but" and whatnot. The clearest sign of actual arrogance is
the pretension that you actually don't place yourself on a higher
ground than everyone else in terms of your assessment of reality.

You _do_ think you're better than Brock, and you are and you should.
But I suspect you don't think you're so much better than Brock that
you think you can get away with feigning moral superiority by claiming
him as your equal.

On Dec 2, 7:45 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 5:10 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 1, 1:19 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I mean, come on, how can you respect yourself and believe you are a
> > > wretched
> > > > sinner who deserves nothing more than an eternity in hell at the same
> > > time?
>
> > > *good* *point*
>
> > > But most of the time I don't buy that they really see themselves as
> > > sinners.
>
> > Probably not, but that belief is absolutely the core of Christianity (and
> > most religions, incidentally)--without that belief, the "sacrifice" of Jesus
> > is useless and meaningless (why do we need a savior if we're not "depraved",
> > as Brock so gleefully puts it). They like to say that their religion is all
> > about love and forgiveness and shit, but they're lying or mistaken. All that
> > "God's love" is pointless if we don't need it to live a good life/get into
> > Heaven. So, as much as the phrase "true Christian" get well-deserved flak
> > around here, I think you could argue that anyone who DOESN'T see himself as
> > a sinner isn't a "true Christian", in the sense that he does not ACTUALLY
> > believe the core tenets of Christianity.
>
> I agree with you, but I'm finding it weird that the ones who seem the
> loudest about being depraved sinners (e.g. Brock, e.g. thea. e.g.
> preachers) come across as being the most in love with themselves.
>
>
>
> > > > Unless you twist the definition of "respect" extremely (which fits in
> > > with
> > > > the Christian, m.o., actually--see e.g. Christian "love").
>
> > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Zing!
>
> > > > > On Dec 1, 12:57 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > <snip troll shit>
>
> > > > > > > Of course, no self-respecting Christian
>
> > > > > > "self-respecting Christian"--that's a good one.
>
> > > > > > > would waste his time on you
> > > > > > > any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning
> > > Christian...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:17 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

Schizophrenia: it's fun for the whole family!

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 7:26 PM, ObservantEye <mike.shull@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY YOU PEOPLE!!!
>
> On Dec 2, 6:03 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You people really are nice and helpful. Thanks!
> >
> > On Dec 2, 4:25 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Dec 2, 9:37 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Neil Kelsey <
> neil_kel...@hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On Dec 1, 5:10 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Neil Kelsey <
> neil_kel...@hotmail.com
> >
> > > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > On Dec 1, 1:19 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I mean, come on, how can you respect yourself and believe
> you are
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > wretched
> > > > > > > > > sinner who deserves nothing more than an eternity in hell
> at the
> > > > same
> > > > > > > > time?
> >
> > > > > > > > *good* *point*
> >
> > > > > > > > But most of the time I don't buy that they really see
> themselves as
> > > > > > > > sinners.
> >
> > > > > > > Probably not, but that belief is absolutely the core of
> Christianity
> > > > (and
> > > > > > > most religions, incidentally)--without that belief, the
> "sacrifice"
> > > > of
> > > > > > Jesus
> > > > > > > is useless and meaningless (why do we need a savior if we're
> not
> > > > > > "depraved",
> > > > > > > as Brock so gleefully puts it). They like to say that their
> religion
> > > > is
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > about love and forgiveness and shit, but they're lying or
> mistaken.
> > > > All
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > "God's love" is pointless if we don't need it to live a good
> life/get
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > > Heaven. So, as much as the phrase "true Christian" get
> well-deserved
> > > > flak
> > > > > > > around here, I think you could argue that anyone who DOESN'T
> see
> > > > himself
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > a sinner isn't a "true Christian", in the sense that he does
> not
> > > > ACTUALLY
> > > > > > > believe the core tenets of Christianity.
> >
> > > > > > I agree with you, but I'm finding it weird that the ones who seem
> the
> > > > > > loudest about being depraved sinners (e.g. Brock, e.g. thea. e.g.
> > > > > > preachers) come across as being the most in love with themselves.
> >
> > > > > That's a good point. But then, we know from his behavior that Brock
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > actually believe what he says, and only says it in order to justify
> his
> > > > > unjustifiable points.
> >
> > > > Exactly. Brock just wants to be seen as Jesus Junior, so he talks the
> > > > talk. That's my point. The only people that actually fall for the
> > > > "wretched sinner" bullshit are frightened children and the mentally
> > > > ill, it seems to me.
> >
> > > Nonsense! Are you saying the only people who can possibly be True
> Christians
> > > are frightened children and the mentally ill!?!?
> >
> > > Oh, wait. No, that makes perfect sense. As you were.
> >
>

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:28 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Turner Hayes <lordlacolith@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 4:42 PM, ObservantEye <mike.shull@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Firstly, consider that everyone assumed that I was, what? Christian?
>> Islam? Whatever. That is when the remarks were made. They were
>> intended to be toward myself--at least most of them.
>>
>> In hind-sight, I'll admit that my post probably guaranteed a flame war
>> and was probably taken as a flame. Also consider this before dropping
>> the gallows trap door: I'd never been to groups.google.com and I
>> joined this one because it was on the sign-on page and looked like a
>> place for learning. Note that immediately most of the titles are
>> flames to begin with. I ignored those and went to safe-looking
>> titles. Bile. Bile. Bile. From people who are claiming to be
>> loving, intelligent, and thoughtful. (yes, those claims were actually
>> made) I expected a battle ground of wit and instead, watched people
>> shooting fish in a barrel. Fun stuff. The joy I saw people getting
>> from outright meanness left me non-plussed and I shouldn't have posted
>> what I did the way that I did. My apologies for being disenchanted
>> with the language and heckling.
>>
>> I have a question: From what I can tell, there's only two theists
>> posting regularly. Is there more? I'd like to hear both sides of
>> this, even though I was told that there were no sides.
>
>
> Off the top of my head, there's
>
> Brock Organ
> Checkers
> Alan Wosterburg (or something like that)
> Allan I-forget-his-last-name a.k.a. Vaarsuvius a.k.a. Treebeard
> Bob Crowley
> thea
> simonsaysbye comes around sporadically
> I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN is probably actually a troll, but posts as a
> Christian
>

Stoney. Daffy hasn't posted in a while.

>
> Am I forgetting anyone?
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 2, 3:00 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Dec 2, 3:05 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > Once more, a theist playing the victim and showing signs of having
>> > difficulties understanding simple sentences.
>> >
>> > > I mentioned the insults? So far, here's a description of me by our
>> > > peers here:
>> > > A dishonest biased prick.
>> >
>> > That was my comment, and
>> >
>> > 1) it was not an insult, just a fact.
>> > 2) not addressed at you, as you claim above.
>> >
>> > > I am still spewing your bullshit about "new atheism" (actually, I've
>> > > never heard the term before this comment)
>> >
>> > Lifted from my post.
>> > I was merely repeating what a theist has claimed (except for the
>> > "spewing" and "bullshit" which are not really insults since "New
>> > Atheism" is bullshit, and it was not addressed at you anyway.)
>> >
>> > If you want to know about "new atheism", join the club! Ask Brock to
>> > explain it.
>> > The best he could do was produce a few web pages/blogs that used the
>> > term in their page title. He could never demonstrate that it was an
>> > actual movement/organization/philosophy/etc.
>> >
>> > > Then you are no self-respecting Christian. (apparently not)
>> >
>> > Where is the insult here?
>> >
>> > > arrogant prick
>> >
>> > Yep, that one is an insult!
>> >
>> > > I have apparently been suffering from Alzheimer's. (wow, didn't see
>> > > that one coming)
>> >
>> > An wrong assessment?
>> >
>> > > I have an unremarkable life.
>> >
>> > Not insults.
>> >
>> > > I have no feelings, no brains, no consciences, no ethics, absolutely
>> > > nothing that a human would call human. Period.
>> >
>> > A wrong assessment?
>> >
>> > > Wow, that one had a "Period." So why should I even continue? How
>> > > does one debate with that? I mean, I don't want to start with debates
>> > > proving I have feelings, brains, conscience, ethics, and that I'm
>> > > human! I mean, I need to go find those groups first, I guess...
>> >
>> > So, you produced little evidence in lieu of actual insults that were
>> > actually addressed at you.
>> > But, considering that your OP was an open call for flaming how can you
>> > be honestly surprised that you got what you were asking for?
>> >
>> > In case you try to disagree with me, here is a little reminder of your
>> > opening statement:
>> > "
>> > have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
>> > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
>> >
>> > Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
>> > interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
>> > atheist into a flame war.
>> > "
>> >
>> > Right off the bat you claim that 99% percent of atheist on this site
>> > are angry and do not want to intelligent discussions, so they must be
>> > stupid or something like that.
>> >
>> > Then you have the balls to state that the same atheists are only
>> > interested in flaming?
>> >
>> > "Arrogant prick" was too good for you, actual bona fide arrogant
>> > pricks the world over are offended that you were associated with them.
>> > _________________________________
>> > I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
>> > -- Ruth Hurmence Green
>>
>>
>
> >
>

--
Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
"Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
Andromeda

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:45 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemini7@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Turner Hayes <lordlacolith@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 4:42 PM, ObservantEye <mike.shull@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Firstly, consider that everyone assumed that I was, what? Christian?
>>> Islam? Whatever. That is when the remarks were made. They were
>>> intended to be toward myself--at least most of them.
>>>
>>> In hind-sight, I'll admit that my post probably guaranteed a flame war
>>> and was probably taken as a flame. Also consider this before dropping
>>> the gallows trap door: I'd never been to groups.google.com and I
>>> joined this one because it was on the sign-on page and looked like a
>>> place for learning. Note that immediately most of the titles are
>>> flames to begin with. I ignored those and went to safe-looking
>>> titles. Bile. Bile. Bile. From people who are claiming to be
>>> loving, intelligent, and thoughtful. (yes, those claims were actually
>>> made) I expected a battle ground of wit and instead, watched people
>>> shooting fish in a barrel. Fun stuff. The joy I saw people getting
>>> from outright meanness left me non-plussed and I shouldn't have posted
>>> what I did the way that I did. My apologies for being disenchanted
>>> with the language and heckling.
>>>
>>> I have a question: From what I can tell, there's only two theists
>>> posting regularly. Is there more? I'd like to hear both sides of
>>> this, even though I was told that there were no sides.
>>
>>
>> Off the top of my head, there's
>>
>> Brock Organ
>> Checkers
>> Alan Wosterburg (or something like that)
>> Allan I-forget-his-last-name a.k.a. Vaarsuvius a.k.a. Treebeard
>> Bob Crowley
>> thea
>> simonsaysbye comes around sporadically
>> I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN is probably actually a troll, but posts as a
>> Christian
>>
>
> Stoney. Daffy hasn't posted in a while.
>

Ah, yes, how could I possibly forget Stoney?
Yes, and manny, who we call "Daffy".

>
>
>>
>> Am I forgetting anyone?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 2, 3:00 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On Dec 2, 3:05 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > <snip>
>>> >
>>> > Once more, a theist playing the victim and showing signs of having
>>> > difficulties understanding simple sentences.
>>> >
>>> > > I mentioned the insults? So far, here's a description of me by our
>>> > > peers here:
>>> > > A dishonest biased prick.
>>> >
>>> > That was my comment, and
>>> >
>>> > 1) it was not an insult, just a fact.
>>> > 2) not addressed at you, as you claim above.
>>> >
>>> > > I am still spewing your bullshit about "new atheism" (actually, I've
>>> > > never heard the term before this comment)
>>> >
>>> > Lifted from my post.
>>> > I was merely repeating what a theist has claimed (except for the
>>> > "spewing" and "bullshit" which are not really insults since "New
>>> > Atheism" is bullshit, and it was not addressed at you anyway.)
>>> >
>>> > If you want to know about "new atheism", join the club! Ask Brock to
>>> > explain it.
>>> > The best he could do was produce a few web pages/blogs that used the
>>> > term in their page title. He could never demonstrate that it was an
>>> > actual movement/organization/philosophy/etc.
>>> >
>>> > > Then you are no self-respecting Christian. (apparently not)
>>> >
>>> > Where is the insult here?
>>> >
>>> > > arrogant prick
>>> >
>>> > Yep, that one is an insult!
>>> >
>>> > > I have apparently been suffering from Alzheimer's. (wow, didn't see
>>> > > that one coming)
>>> >
>>> > An wrong assessment?
>>> >
>>> > > I have an unremarkable life.
>>> >
>>> > Not insults.
>>> >
>>> > > I have no feelings, no brains, no consciences, no ethics, absolutely
>>> > > nothing that a human would call human. Period.
>>> >
>>> > A wrong assessment?
>>> >
>>> > > Wow, that one had a "Period." So why should I even continue? How
>>> > > does one debate with that? I mean, I don't want to start with
>>> debates
>>> > > proving I have feelings, brains, conscience, ethics, and that I'm
>>> > > human! I mean, I need to go find those groups first, I guess...
>>> >
>>> > So, you produced little evidence in lieu of actual insults that were
>>> > actually addressed at you.
>>> > But, considering that your OP was an open call for flaming how can you
>>> > be honestly surprised that you got what you were asking for?
>>> >
>>> > In case you try to disagree with me, here is a little reminder of your
>>> > opening statement:
>>> > "
>>> > have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
>>> > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
>>> >
>>> > Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
>>> > interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
>>> > atheist into a flame war.
>>> > "
>>> >
>>> > Right off the bat you claim that 99% percent of atheist on this site
>>> > are angry and do not want to intelligent discussions, so they must be
>>> > stupid or something like that.
>>> >
>>> > Then you have the balls to state that the same atheists are only
>>> > interested in flaming?
>>> >
>>> > "Arrogant prick" was too good for you, actual bona fide arrogant
>>> > pricks the world over are offended that you were associated with them.
>>> > _________________________________
>>> > I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
>>> > -- Ruth Hurmence Green
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
> Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> Andromeda
>
>
> >
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How do Christians avoid worshipping the wrong god?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/6d788c3a77b4c371?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:08 pm
From: etienne

On 2 déc, 22:43, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 4:30 PM, etienne <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I don't claim that. Rather, I claim:
>
> >> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
>
> > Well, the bible is objectively false
>
> The indictment may be easier to bring than the conviction.

Pi isn't 3.
The earth is not flat.
There is no being in the sky near which a resurrected jesus would be
able to seat.
And there is no beings, serving your imagined master, with wings to
avoid crashing on the ground who would help you.

It's incredible to which extend some human love fantasy. What is the
name of your sect again ?

>
> >> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>
> > You dream
>
> It's truth really is independent of my person. :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:22 pm
From: LL

On Dec 2, 1:30 pm, etienne <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 déc, 16:57, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:43 AM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> And thus is the futility of humanistic "verification" exposed. Of
> > >> course, I like how the Confession puts it:
>
> > > LL: Perhaps you can explain then your need to verify or claim without
> > > verification that there is only one god and that he has the attributes
> > > you have given him.
>
> > I don't claim that. Rather, I claim:
>
> > 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
>
> Well, the bible is objectively false
>
> > 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>
> You dream

LL: That's what all theists do. They're trapped in their dreams.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:31 pm
From: LL

On Dec 2, 7:57 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:43 AM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> And thus is the futility of humanistic "verification" exposed. Of
> >> course, I like how the Confession puts it:
>
> > LL: Perhaps you can explain then your need to verify or claim without
> > verification that there is only one god and that he has the attributes
> > you have given him.
>
> I don't claim that. Rather, I claim:
>
> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs

LL: Please explain how this objectiveness works.

***********************************************************
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:50 pm
From: Multiverse

>In particular, this rejects the erroneous humanistic
> claim that 1) is true "cuz I say so".

Ok. It's a shame though to see a person make obedient their sense of
reason, to a book that is as unreasonable as the bible, through the
process of subjucating their sense of reason to the unreasonable.

What comes next? Food deprivation? Isolation?

Have you ever taken a look at how this stuff invades your life?

On Dec 2, 6:40 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Brock,
> > You state this often and it seems to present a paradox of ideas.
> > Perhaps you could comment why:
>
> > you say you "believe that the bible is objectively true".
>
> > ok. so if then you say:
>
> > "The objective truth of the bible is independent of my beliefs".
>
> > so apparently your beliefs are in contrast to the objective truth of
> > the bible. See how this does not seem to follow from your belief that
> > the bible is objectively true?
>
> > In short you are saying that the bible is the truth and that your own
> > beliefs are different.
>
> > Are you ready to revamp your beliefs based on this kunundrum?
>
> I simply separate a commonly presumed humanistic justification for 1)
> by noting 2). In particular, this rejects the erroneous humanistic
> claim that 1) is true "cuz I say so".
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Christians, please define what you mean by God.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/6e79397d59ea1ce0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:14 pm
From: xeno <69blacklab@gmail.com>

On Dec 1, 1:04 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > infinite beings can't have complete self-knowledge.
>
> Consider instead, that God who possess all knowledge

he can't possess all knowledge if he is infinite. that's because
infinity is immeasurable. insisting otherwise is like insisting that
he can make a square circle.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The good life
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/2fdf103aa3f1dd09?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:32 pm
From: xeno <69blacklab@gmail.com>

On Dec 1, 12:59 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
>
> > that's a pointless belief because you haven't demonstrated that what's
> > within the bible is congruent with objective reality.

> Or rather, I simply note that the objective nature of truth is
> independent of humanistic verification.

you can't have knowledge of something w/o knowledge of *that* thing,
ok. you can signify that something can be true w/o verification but
how could you know that it's true w/o some evidence? see, if you say
the holy spirit told me so, the question is going to be, well how do
you know it's the holy spirit & not just your own certitude pretending
to stand outside of yourself. there is evidence that people do things
like that while on the other hand there's no evidence of any spirits.
the bottomline though, is that you can't claim not to have some kind
of verification, regardless of any skepticism towards spirits. so why
would you waste time noting that the objective truth is independent of
verification? so what? see the first sentence.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Christians get the message.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/11511ccd36fe0d4c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:43 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Dec 2, 1:36 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 28, 4:24 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Treebeard <
> allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> > > >wrote:
> > > > > Let's cut to the chase here: do you think that there can be a non-
> > > > > extremist religion?
> >
> > > > I think there are extremists in all religions.
> >
> > > Do you think that there is any movement or philosophy of any
> > > importance that does not have extremists?
> >
> > We are not talking about other movements or philosophies.
>
> My point is that if all movements or philosophies may have extremists,
> you didn't answer my question, which was if there can be a non-
> extremist religion. Remember, your reply was that all religions have
> extremists, and I was merely trying to ascertain if you thought that
> made the religion itself extremist or not.
>
> >
> > We debate religion on this site and frankly it's a nonsensical and
> childish
> > argument to say "well everyone else does it."
>
> It is a perfect argument if you want to assert that extremism is a
> quality of religion itself, which is what I objected to. If that was
> not your intent, then we don't have much to talk about.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > Would you force us to give up our faith before you'd accept that
> we
> > > > > aren't extremists?
> >
> > > > I would expect all religious people who don't agree with Religious
> > > Extremism
> > > > to Acknowledge It and take a stand against it and stop trying to
> justify
> > > it.
> >
> > > Can you give a specific action that we could take to show you that we
> > > are not trying to justify it?
> >
> > You could stop giving silly arguments like "everyone else does it" to
> make
> > it seem justifiable.
>
> Again, I am merely claiming that religions are not inherently
> extremist, and proving that by demonstrating other causes that are non-
> religious but are or contain extremists.

That doesn't show what you want to show. You've got your logic all cockeyed.
What you'd need to show in order to show that religions are not inherently
extremist is to demonstrate religious causes that are not extremist, rather
than extremist causes that are not religious. The exact term for the the
logical induction escapes me, but you can't disprove "x is a religion" -> "x
is extremist" by showing "there exists a y such that y is extremist".

> I replied to a comment you
> made that, to me, stated precisely that. If that is not what you
> meant, feel free to inform me of that.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > Note that you can't say "Give up your religion" because we think
> > > they're wrong about their interpretation of the religion.
> >
> > I've never once asked anyone to "give up their religion" on this site.
>
> I never stated that you had; I am simply eliminating that as an option
> because based on what I listed I cannot really see any other
> alternative thing that is not already being done, but perhaps there
> will be something in your list below.
>
> > > And you can't say "Write books and papers and work to change the
> > > religion from inside", because many do.
> >
> > > And you can't say "Be an activist" because most people aren't. I
> > > myself am not an activist about anything; you cannot demand that I
> > > change my personality over this.
> >
> > > So, other than that, what actions are you expecting us to take?
> >
> > You should acknowledge the reality of the consequences of your beliefs on
> > others and the rest of the world and stop making excuses for what the
> crimes
> > religion has committed in the past.
>
> I merely claim that religion is no worse than anything else. That's a
> logical position that you can oppose if you'd like. I do indeed
> acknowledge that people can do bad things in the name of religion, but
> quite reasonably refuse to accept the claim that those things would
> not occur without religion.
>
> >
> > You should object to those who commit crimes in your god's name.
>
> I do.
>
> >
> > You should isolate the extremists and not go along with or accept what
> they
> > do in your gods name.
>
> I do.
>
> >
> > And you should support the fight to maintain a secular society.
>
> This depends on what you mean by "secular". If it includes the
> elimination of religion or an insistence that even moderate religious
> people cannot act on their religious beliefs, that is, obviously, a
> step far too far.
>
> >
>

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

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

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Atheism-vs-Christianity - 24 new messages in 9 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links