Atheism vs Christianity: Atheism-vs-Christianity - 25 new messages in 13 topics

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Please help me understand.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/4ccde3b062522deb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:11 am
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 2:32 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

All you are doing is trying to obfuscate the fact that you were a
piece of shit by trying to somehow shift the blame on me for very
minor hypothetical offenses I allegedly committed.

You are hoping that in the pile of insults and accusations you throw
at me, people will forget the original cause of all this.

So, let me repeat it:

You are a piece of shit because you made fun twice of someone who was
sharing personal experiences that had to do with their problems with
mental illnesses. It was totally immoral and dumb. You have refused to
acknowledge that what you did was wrong and have, unsurprisingly,
refused to apologize.

There is no justification for that behaviour, none, ever.

Accusing me of various perceived and alleged offenses will not help
you.
You are a piece of shit for acting like you did, and it proves that
you are at the extreme lower end of the moral spectrum, close to
amoral.
Then you acted like a moron by trying to find fault with everything I
write instead of addressing the issue like a mature and responsible
person would.

-----------------------EOF-------------------------------------
___________________________________________
I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
-- Ruth Hurmence Green

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:36 am
From: checkers

On Dec 2, 3:11 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2:32 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> All you are doing is trying to obfuscate the fact that you were a
> piece of shit by trying to somehow shift the blame on me for very
> minor hypothetical offenses I allegedly committed.
>
> You are hoping that in the pile of insults and accusations you throw
> at me, people will forget the original cause of all this.
>
> So, let me repeat it:
>
> You are a piece of shit because you made fun twice of someone who was
> sharing personal experiences that had to do with their problems with
> mental illnesses. It was totally immoral and dumb. You have refused to
> acknowledge that what you did was wrong and have, unsurprisingly,
> refused to apologize.
>
> There is no justification for that behaviour, none, ever.
>
> Accusing me of various perceived and alleged offenses will not help
> you.
> You are a piece of shit for acting like you did, and it proves that
> you are at the extreme lower end of the moral spectrum, close to
> amoral.
> Then you acted like a moron by trying to find fault with everything I
> write instead of addressing the issue like a mature and responsible
> person would.

chx
i would respond to a mature and responsible person in that manner.
however, you don't qualify for either...sorry ;)

>
> -----------------------EOF-------------------------------------
> ___________________________________________
> I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
> -- Ruth Hurmence Green

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:54 am
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Answer_42 <ipu.believer@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 1 déc, 16:55, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > chx
> > i told you to stop digging. now you're a liar as well. you called me
> > moronic and paranoid in the same post and not as you state in two
> > seperate posts. it was in the very next post you replied to on this
> > same page about one third down on the issue i called 'round two' after
> > this i pointed it out - fool!.
>
> You are so fucking moronic, it is not even funny anymore.
>
> Recap:
> In a post, I called you a moronic piece of shit, emphasis on piece of
> shit.
> Then, lower down, I stated you were paranoid.
> There were no connection between the two statements.
>
> You then accused me of being a hypocrite for allegedly making fun of
> some hypothetical mental illness you never claimed to have.
>
> Then I really called you a moron in response to that. And I did not
> call you paranoid again.
> That was the first time I actually called you moronic as such.
>
> From that point you have been grasping at straws to try to insinuate I
> was a hypocrite and so on.
>
> I will not take the time to rewrite the last 6 posts to reexplain
> everything again just because you are too moronic to understand
> simple statements.

It's called willful ignorance and deliberate obfuscation.

A very dishonest tactic by theists and unfortunately all too common.

>
> __________________________________________
> Whenever morality is based on theology, whenever right is made
> dependent on divine authority, the most immoral, unjust, infamous
> things can be justified and established.
> -- Ludwig Feuerbach
> > gotcha!!!
> >
> >
> >
> > > Then, you replied to that by saying I was a hypocrite (for calling on
> > > you for making fun of someone's mental health) by trying to accuse me
> > > of doing the same (when I allegedly made fun of you by calling you
> > > paranoid).
> >
> > > I then called you a moron for not being able to tell the difference.
> >
> > > This last reply of yours just serves to prove I was right in stating
> > > you were a moron.
> >
> > > > > Also, I would be a hypocrite only if you freely admitted that you
> were
> > > > > paranoid or had been paranoid. Then if I, hypothetically, made fun
> of
> > > > > you based on the fat that you were paranoid (which I did not do
> here)
> > > > > you might call me a hypocrite. My saying you are paranoid does not
> > > > > automatically make it true.
> >
> > > > chx
> > > > then what is your calling me moronic, fool?
> >
> > > The truth.
> >
> > > The proof is that you seem to be insisting that my calling you a moron
> > > is in some way making fun of you as a paranoid person.
> > > I will repeat:
> > > All this can only be remotely related to what you did when, and only
> > > when, you announce officialy that you are suffering from paranoia,
> > > which you have not. If you do that, and after that I make fun of you
> > > for making such a statement, then, and only then, will you have a
> > > case.
> >
> > > So, I called you paranoid.
> > > You reacted like a moron to that statement of mine.
> > > So I then called you a moron.
> > > You are still reacting like a moron, so you are a moron.
> > > So I repeat:
> > > I am only stating the truth.
> >
> > > > > So, I am not making fun of the fact you are paranoid.
> > > > > You never admitted that you were or had been paranoid.
> > > > > This absolutely does not correlate with the fact that you did make
> fun
> > > > > of someone who admitted that they had had mental health problems.
> >
> > > > > So, you are still a moronic piece of shit, unless you apologize.
> >
> > > > chx
> > > > this is so absurd, are you saying i will not be moronic all of a
> > > > sudden if i apologise?
> >
> > > No.
> > > More proof that you are a moron.You cannot comprehend simple
> > > sentences.
> > > If you apologize, you will not be such a piece of shit anymore.
> > > You have demonstrated that you are a moron in the last few posts here,
> > > so, sorry, there is nothing I, or anyone else, can do about that.
> >
> > > > my gawd, you are a fool!!!
> > > > what happens to the piece of shit then, you lump of shit?
> >
> > > That was the whole point.
> > > You got sidetracked by the "paranoid," and then the "moronic" bits.
> > > Because you are a moron, you forgot my point at the beginning, a few
> > > posts ago:
> > > "
> > > (...)
> > > This is why I call you a moronic
> > > piece of shit.
> >
> > > Prove me wrong by apologizing, even two weeks after the fact and after
> > > I have had to explain the whole thing so many times, it will be
> > > somewhat redeeming.
> > > "
> > > If, at that point you had let the matter drop and apologized, I would
> > > have taken back the "moronic piece of shit", as stated.
> >
> > > But you went on and on, each post further demonstrating that you are a
> > > moron.
> > > So, if you were to apologize, I am afraid that my only option at this
> > > point would be to take back, and never use it again, unless you
> > > deserve it, that call (piece of shit) with you.
> > > As for the moron, part, it is now a separate issue.
> >
> > > > a tip for you; stop digging, oops, too late!! har!
> >
> > > Right. You should take you own advice here.
> > > __________________________________________
> > > Whenever morality is based on theology, whenever right is made
> > > dependent on divine authority, the most immoral, unjust, infamous
> > > things can be justified and established.
> > > -- Ludwig Feuerbach
> >
>

--
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: Another Theist bites the dust.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/e4d18055d0abcf63?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:11 am
From: floyd_1977

On Nov 27, 3:07 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 10:30 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 3:23 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Wanderer then LiamToo, who would be next and why?
>
> > > chx
> > > i don't know who be next, i just know they are waiting for an excuse
> > > to ban us one by one.
> > > actually by their own words they don't need an excuse and don't even
> > > need to give a reason to ban us. they own the game and do as they
> > > please. they can ban me now and no one can stop them.
>
> > Right, this is why we are in a group called AvC where the C is for
> > "Christianity," idiot.
>
> > If we wanted a group without fucktards like you we would make one,
> > moron.
>
> chx
> they won't ban me now. they first want to beat me in a debate before
> they will think about banning me. har"
>
> beam me up scotty!!!

I certainly wouldn't want you banned. Your posts are evidence of
what religion can do to the mind.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:33 am
From: Answer_42

On Dec 1, 3:39 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

All you are doing is trying to obfuscate the fact that you were a
piece of shit by trying to somehow shift the blame on me for very
minor hypothetical offenses I allegedly committed.

You are hoping that in the pile of insults and accusations you throw
at me, people will forget the original cause of all this.

So, let me repeat it:

There is no justification for that behaviour, none, ever.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:44 am
From: checkers

On Dec 2, 3:33 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 3:39 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> All you are doing is trying to obfuscate the fact that you were a
> piece of shit by trying to somehow shift the blame on me for very
> minor hypothetical offenses I allegedly committed.
>
> You are hoping that in the pile of insults and accusations you throw
> at me, people will forget the original cause of all this.
>
> So, let me repeat it:
>
> You are a piece of shit because you made fun twice of someone who was
> sharing personal experiences that had to do with their problems with
> mental illnesses. It was totally immoral and dumb. You have refused to
> acknowledge that what you did was wrong and have, unsurprisingly,
> refused to apologize.
>
> There is no justification for that behaviour, none, ever.
>
> Accusing me of various perceived and alleged offenses will not help
> you.
> You are a piece of shit for acting like you did, and it proves that
> you are at the extreme lower end of the moral spectrum, close to
> amoral.
> Then you acted like a moron by trying to find fault with everything I
> write instead of addressing the issue like a mature and responsible
> person would.

chx
yikes! i have a stalker...now i feel afraid, this can be a scary
place.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:58 am
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:53 AM, checkers <mkoneill@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Dec 2, 3:36 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > >> I must be out of the loop here. When LiamZep started posting about
> Liam
> > >> being banned, I figured he was having paranoid fits, as usual for
> theists
> > >> and their ilk. But Liam was actually banned? Out of curiosity, what
> was his
> > >> offense?
> >
> > > We found proof that he was Wanderer.
> >
> > Seriously? Crazy shit.
>
> chx
> and i found proof it could not be him as they both posted on the same
> threat within 4 minutes apart.

...Because it would be impossible to post under two names in 4 minutes,
clearly.

>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 5:41 AM, Trance Gemini <
> trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > >>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 3:23 AM, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > >>>> checkers,
> >
> > >>>> You have an over-inflated opinion of your own importance,
> > >>>> what makes you think you are so obnoxious as to warrant
> > >>>> exclusion. We need people, who like you who are gulible enough
> > >>>> to set themselves up as foils for the rest of us.
> > >>>> Stay within the rules and you will be safe enough.
> >
> > >>> Rank paranoia does that to people.
> >
> > >>> The critical factor that keeps escaping him is that despite his
> constant
> > >>> provocations and extreme abuse of the Moderators (two weeks - three
> threads
> > >>> - almost a thousand abusive and slanderous posts just directed at me
> and
> > >>> we're not including the ones that were directed at the others or the
> ones in
> > >>> the past), He's Still Here.
> >
> > >>> It's either nothing short of a "miracle" or the Moderators are being
> > >>> fair.
> >
> > >>> Guess which explanation he'll pick? ;-)
> >
> > >>> There are medications to help people who suffer from delusions and
> > >>> paranoia and it would be nice if he would seek medical assistance but
> > >>> unfortunately ....
> >
> > >>>> On Nov 27, 8:23 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > >>>> > On Nov 27, 9:49 pm, LedZepp <FledZeppe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>>> > > Wanderer then LiamToo, who would be next and why?
> >
> > >>>> > chx
> > >>>> > i don't know who be next, i just know they are waiting for an
> excuse
> > >>>> > to ban us one by one.
> > >>>> > actually by their own words they don't need an excuse and don't
> even
> > >>>> > need to give a reason to ban us. they own the game and do as they
> > >>>> > please. they can ban me now and no one can stop them.
> >
> > >>> --
> > >>> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> > >>> "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free
> speech
> > >>> and assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function
> of
> > >>> speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D.
> > >>> Brandeis, US Supreme Court Justice
> >
> > > --
> > > 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 -
> >
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: AMERICA: THE POLITICS AND CULTURE OF EMPTINESS
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/736dfbdf024d78c9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:18 am
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 7:14 am, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Sorrry, this is abuse. Argument is two doors down.
>
> No, it's not.

Yes, it is you dumb cocksucker.
___________________________________________
I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
-- Ruth Hurmence Green

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What came first: Time or Space (or God)?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/bd7525e99bb1766f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:21 am
From: Multiverse

> Wiki? That's the best you can do?

baby steps. Once I see your not to wobbily we'll get you onto bigger
and better references. patience Gollum.

> Didn't. Try googling "quantum flux origin universe". You'll get some
> interesting hits.

Well, I pointed to exactly what I was referencing from my reference.
Why don't you provide a quote and a reference.

> You need to do more than a quick wikipedia search.

it would have been easier if you just conceded the points and let the
thread die.

> You're a jackass.

Snork!

On Dec 1, 8:36 pm, The Wonderer <thewonderer2...@lycos.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 8:54 am, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Thanks. That's very sweet of you to chime in. I am familiar with
> > current theories and I believe science is hot on the trail to an
> > explanation of the universe. In my reply to leebert I was asking him
> > to explain the apparent malarky in his post. In your post here you
> > state:
>
> > > The beginning of the observable universe can
> > > be explained as a random conversion of energy to matter in a quantum
> > > flux event we call the big bang.
>
> > which is incorrect as: As used by scientists, the term Big Bang
> > generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a
> > primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the
> > past, and continues to expand to this day. .... Without any evidence
> > associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang
> > theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial
> > condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of
> > the universe since that instant.
> > (Wiki)
>
> Wiki? That's the best you can do?
>
>
>
> > Try not making stuff up.
>
> Didn't. Try googling "quantum flux origin universe". You'll get some
> interesting hits.
>
>
>
> > and you ask:
>
> > >Could the spark of energy the
> > > universe emerged from have existed outside of the framework of time
> > > and space?
>
> > I think I get your question here although since you lack an accurate
> > understanding of the the term "The Big Bang" I could be wrong.
>
> You need to do more than a quick wikipedia search.
>
>
>
> > you might find "M Theory" interesting. Wander over to a book and give
> > it a whirl.
>
> You're a jackass.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:23 am
From: Multiverse

I'm up. Kinda early though. Can I just stay in bed?

On Dec 1, 9:50 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:04 PM, leebert <sregdor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 1, 6:22 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > You and Leebert are hysterical (Sorry I really couldn't these posts
> > > seriously).
>
> > I was laughing my way through my response....
>
> > Do you feel the love ?
>
> > > We need a comedy thread.
>
> > > I nominate the two of you to start one :-)
>
> > If he'll be my Gracie, I'll be his George.
>
> Okay MV. Are ya up to the challenge? :-)
>
>
>
> > /leebert
>
> --
> 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 -

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 6:08 am
From: Multiverse

Everybody wants the other guy to wear the dress in these gigs! I am
really getting tired of that but ok, just this one last time and
that's it!

> Droooooooooooooool.....

thanks I'll take that as a compliment.

> As you were saying, this isn't about dialectics. But you insist I'm
> taking a dialectic approach. So then we must be in agreement but you
> misunderstand my point, which is in fact *against* iron-clad immanence
> & dualism.

ahem!....Er... Snookems!? (whispering) why would you think I am
agreeing with something I don't understand? I'm not blonde and the
curtains do match the drapes.

> Correctness is a strange thing. In this forum it's almost an obsession
> for the denizens. Where I come from (alt.zen,
> alt.buddha.short.fat.guy )

Your right. ..... The dress would not fit you anyway.

> Which brings us to the problem of cosmology and belief.

What? The dress not fitting you? Don't worry you'll get your turn.
I thought the problem was time, space and god. Look at the top of
the screen. Focus. We won;t sell tickets if you keep flubbing your
lines! Do you know how uncomfortable this dress is?

> So what you see in the position I write from is my invocation of
> metaphor, not hard fact (and in scientific cosmology the hard facts
> evaporate on the bleeding edge of inquiry).

Blood is good. It will help with the 18-35 demographics.

> Hey, I've been wrong before.

No you were right, your fat ass would not fit this dress!

> A fit!!?? Now wait a dogggonnnne minuto there bubba... I didn't write
> a wall of text, you did!

That's because your not funny. We both no why they tune in.

> <grumble mumble expletive deleted expurgated idiom>
>
> > >Bwahaaahaaaaahaaaaaaaaah.
> > >Yes, I'm a baaaaad man.

I take that back. Those are good lines. I worked them in here nicely
so....your welcome.

> > I don't think I can help you with that.
>
> Yes you can, big boy....

Stick to your lines freak boy! We are on set.

>If "time" as a physical dimension didn't
> exist, but rather a different parametric field effect reified time as
> a fixed rate of experience? Where does that put experience &
> information (akin to Buddhist "mind") in terms of impermanence?

If it was up your ass you;d know!

> Right. The approach I was taking is that if time as a separate
> dimensional field doesn't exist, then neither time=space nor no-
> time=no-space are working dialectics. This is much like the
> problematic notion of a creator which requires the idea of
> nothingness, but since nothingness is exclusive to a creator, then the
> concepts either cancel each other out OR must be conflated
> (creator=nothingness). This is where theists get really PO'd b/c the
> internal contradiction inherent in what is really naive materialism
> coupled overburdened with naive theism.

you know, really.... I have paid good money for a spanking like
that. Snork!

Come out and take a bow! You earned it.

On Dec 2, 7:29 am, leebert <sregdor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My dear sweet didactic literalist multiverse,
>
> On Dec 1, 5:13 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > Belief? Is this what's got your undies up in a wad? This isn't about
> > > belief, this is about speculation and cosmology.
>
> > Fine. you don't believe what your saying. I don't see
> > why you would
> > anyway. Switch the word "belief" in my post for the words
> > "basis for
> > your statements. Then try to keep from blathering.
>
> Droooooooooooooool.....
>
>
>
> > >There *IS* no believing.
>
> > If you don't believe the possibilities of your statements thats your
> > problem.
>
> Not my problem. Back to you, MV... (shift to Camera B, cue in backshot
> of pigs eating at trough for piece on AvC ladies jubilee)
>
> As you were saying, this isn't about dialectics. But you insist I'm
> taking a dialectic approach. So then we must be in agreement but you
> misunderstand my point, which is in fact *against* iron-clad immanence
> & dualism.
>
> > >Cosmological arguments are speculative conceits, guilty pleasures,
> > >that's all. And that *IS* what I'm trying to demonstrate, that
> > >theistic speculations end in a paradox. And here you come & ruin it
> > >all with your obsession with "correctness" when this kind of
> > >speculation is riven with phenomonological and noumenal vagueries.
>
> > I don't see why being an atheist should allow you a pass on
> > correctness. For the record, I don't bother with checking profiles
> > and I am only familiar with the definitive positions of a handful here
> > by name.
>
> Correctness is a strange thing. In this forum it's almost an obsession
> for the denizens. Where I come from (alt.zen,
> alt.buddha.short.fat.guy ) the approach isn't so didactic b/c the
> subject matter is a (slow) moving target. Excessive correctness
> reifies "other" and creates opposition. Not to say zennies don't
> argue ... Buddhism is full of "this, not that" reductive dialects, but
> the result isn't materialist.
>
> Which brings us to the problem of cosmology and belief. The dharmic
> view on cosmological arguments is very different from your typical
> western view. There's a great deal of material agnosticism,
> exemplified by the idea of impermanence & cosmological indifference
> (but it's not nihilist, it's positivist).
>
> So what you see in the position I write from is my invocation of
> metaphor, not hard fact (and in scientific cosmology the hard facts
> evaporate on the bleeding edge of inquiry).
>
> > The point was you should be up front about basing your
> > phenomonological and noumenal vagueries on things that have not been
> > shown to be correct or are already proven incorrect.
>
> Hey, I've been wrong before.
>
> > Your having a
> > fit and blathering about being called on it wont change things.
>
> A fit!!?? Now wait a dogggonnnne minuto there bubba... I didn't write
> a wall of text, you did!
>
> <grumble mumble expletive deleted expurgated idiom>
>
> > >Bwahaaahaaaaahaaaaaaaaah.
> > >Yes, I'm a baaaaad man.
>
> > I don't think I can help you with that.
>
> Yes you can, big boy....
>
> > >I wrote that time "may not exist."
>
> > and then provided the link to the article discussing the
> > topic.....what did you mean?
>
> B/c this is an interesting problem in the sense of understanding
> experience and phenomena. If "time" as a physical dimension didn't
> exist, but rather a different parametric field effect reified time as
> a fixed rate of experience? Where does that put experience &
> information (akin to Buddhist "mind") in terms of impermanence?
>
> And again, not that I was endorsing the concept, but the operative
> word "may" was supposed to show ambiguity. It's an interesting
> argument, but just as unlikely AFAIK as membranes & strings. I never
> bought in, & I don't insist on buy-in from anyone else, in contrast to
> our loyal opposition from the gawd sqawd.
>
> > Also, how do you figure that declaring "time may not exist" is not
> > contrary to no time = no space?
>
> Right. The approach I was taking is that if time as a separate
> dimensional field doesn't exist, then neither time=space nor no-
> time=no-space are working dialectics. This is much like the
> problematic notion of a creator which requires the idea of
> nothingness, but since nothingness is exclusive to a creator, then the
> concepts either cancel each other out OR must be conflated
> (creator=nothingness). This is where theists get really PO'd b/c the
> internal contradiction inherent in what is really naive materialism
> coupled overburdened with naive theism.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >What izit with you & wuzhizname, you two project opposition like a
> > >bunch o' xenophobes. Crap, man, not every atheist thinks like you do,
> > >you Murray-O'Hare fundies!
>
> > That wasnt very nice of you, you,.....Fuckhead! :)
>
> > >Snork.
>
> > lol. I like that. It's so much easier then the rest of the post. I
> > think I'll use it.
>
> > Snork.
>
> > fuck I like that.
>
> > Snork. Snork
>
> A systems analysis would demonstrate that this is the most common
> functional output of most discussions in AvC.
>
> /leebert- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do theists do the scariest things?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/222031400f6d3dc5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:30 am
From: dali_70

> On Dec 2, 1:17 pm, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > so to the athiest :-
>
> > Whats the worst thats happened to you at the hands of theists?

I have been assaulted, had my car vandalized (more than once), and
been verbally accosted more times than I can remember.
Out of all of those I'd have to say the vandalization of my car was
the worse. The assault wasn't really much. I was told by some high and
mighty theist that... "the only good atheist is a dead one." To which
I replied, "fuck off". Then he punched me. Luckily for me, he hit like
a school girl, unfortunately for him, I don't.
My car on the other hand used to sport a Darwin fish on the back. I
had my paint scratched up, a window busted and my Darwin fish
destroyed. that was the first time. The second time I had my car spray
painted with religious themed graffiti. Insurance only covered the
window. The cops told me there was nothing they could do and told me
it was basically my own fault for having an offensive decal on my car.
The Darwin fish is gone, but I replaced it with a rocket fish that
says science in it. So far, no problems yet with that one.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Attention, Brock needed.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/e6ee90a2ad693f5e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:35 am
From: Treebeard

On Dec 1, 10:48 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 10:44 am, I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN <X...@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> > Dear hopelessly confused sucker of Satan's cock,
> > YOU DISTURBED HATEMONGERING FUCK! THE DARK PRINCE HAS HIS HAND FIRMLY
> > INSERTED INTO YOUR ANUS AND IS USING YOU AS A PUPPET TO SPREAD HIS
> > FEAR AND ODIUM. DO THE UNIVERSE A FAVOR AND END YOUR MISERABLE,
> > DISTORTED EXISTENCE BEFORE YOUR INIQUITY SEEPS INTO AN UNSPOILED MIND.
> > YOU ARE A FUNDAMENTALLY CORRUPT VEHICLE OF HATE AND YOU ARE BEYOND
> > REDEMPTION. KILL YOURSELF. KILL YOURSELF. KILL YOURSELF YOU ROTTEN,
> > UNEDUCATED, DISGUSTINGLY TAINTED GRATIFIER OF ALL THAT IS IMPURE.
>
> Brock, you dishonest and deluded theist...
> Where are you?
> Why don't you tell him off the same way you tell off any atheist who
> uses "invectives and vitriol"?
> If atheists do it in order to propagate new atheism (according to
> you), what does this theist do it for?
> Why have you ignored the half dozen cases I highlighted since last
> week or so?

I can't speak for Brock, but the big difference for me here is that as
far as I know no one takes this poster seriously. And I don't mean
that they think or do not think that his threats and invective is
serious, but that engaging him is seen as a pointless waste of time
and he is utterly incapable of any sort of rational discussion, even
for a short period of time.

I don't think you'll want to claim the same thing about Dev.

Basically, one person's invective is cheered and the other's is mocked
and ignored. So you can see a sharp difference right there.

Also, considering the fact that there are far more really active
atheist posters than theist posters, and that atheist posters are
certainly capable of defending themselves, where is the need for
theist posters to tell these people off? Theists have enough to do
defending theism; there is no obligation for us to defend atheists as
well.

And this is coming from someone who HAS defended atheists ...

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 6:08 am
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Dec 1, 10:48 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 10:44 am, I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN <X...@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear hopelessly confused sucker of Satan's cock,
> > > YOU DISTURBED HATEMONGERING FUCK! THE DARK PRINCE HAS HIS HAND FIRMLY
> > > INSERTED INTO YOUR ANUS AND IS USING YOU AS A PUPPET TO SPREAD HIS
> > > FEAR AND ODIUM. DO THE UNIVERSE A FAVOR AND END YOUR MISERABLE,
> > > DISTORTED EXISTENCE BEFORE YOUR INIQUITY SEEPS INTO AN UNSPOILED MIND.
> > > YOU ARE A FUNDAMENTALLY CORRUPT VEHICLE OF HATE AND YOU ARE BEYOND
> > > REDEMPTION. KILL YOURSELF. KILL YOURSELF. KILL YOURSELF YOU ROTTEN,
> > > UNEDUCATED, DISGUSTINGLY TAINTED GRATIFIER OF ALL THAT IS IMPURE.
> >
> > Brock, you dishonest and deluded theist...
> > Where are you?
> > Why don't you tell him off the same way you tell off any atheist who
> > uses "invectives and vitriol"?
> > If atheists do it in order to propagate new atheism (according to
> > you), what does this theist do it for?
> > Why have you ignored the half dozen cases I highlighted since last
> > week or so?
>
> I can't speak for Brock, but the big difference for me here is that as
> far as I know no one takes this poster seriously. And I don't mean
> that they think or do not think that his threats and invective is
> serious, but that engaging him is seen as a pointless waste of time
> and he is utterly incapable of any sort of rational discussion, even
> for a short period of time.

Except that Brock never argued anything like that; he repeatedly, stupidly
argues that "invective and vitriol are part of the strategy of the new
atheism", without any reference to the perceived influence of the poster.

By the way, you're still a paranoid nutjob for thinking that Dev is
inspiring an army of violent antitheists. You're also a hypocrite for
condemning Dev's violent fantasies but not having any problem with the tons
and tons of much worse things the Bible has being done to non-believers.

>
>
> I don't think you'll want to claim the same thing about Dev.
>
> Basically, one person's invective is cheered and the other's is mocked
> and ignored. So you can see a sharp difference right there.
>
> Also, considering the fact that there are far more really active
> atheist posters than theist posters, and that atheist posters are
> certainly capable of defending themselves, where is the need for
> theist posters to tell these people off? Theists have enough to do
> defending theism; there is no obligation for us to defend atheists as
> well.
>
> And this is coming from someone who HAS defended atheists ...
> >
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Awakenings
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/c7bcb4123e4127f1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:53 am
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Turner Hayes <lordlacolith@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemini7@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Brock <brockorgan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 26, 6:42 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> > Just thought I'd give an opportunity for the posters, and I'm
>>> > particularly targeting the nontheists although as always everyone is
>>> > of course free to comment, to talk about how AvC may have--probably
>>> > only slightly--transformed perspectives towards the nature of
>>> > religiosity versus rationality. Who or what changed your perspective?
>>>
>>> I have enjoyed participating in the forum. Because of the feedback
>>> from participants, I have learned how to articulate many doctrines
>>> better and more consistently; in answering particular objections,
>>> I've come away with a broader understanding of the history, background
>>> and nature of how classical philosophical positions compare and
>>> contrast with many biblical positions.
>>>
>>> The invective and vitriol have not been welcome, but I frankly,
>>> consider it as close to a concession as I'm likely to receive on the
>>> group. I've been reminded by atheist examples that there are a myriad
>>> ways to reject a truth one does not wish to receive. Though it would
>>> be an overstatement to imply universality, in my opinion much of what
>>> passes for the "new atheism" is not much more than a wilful rejection
>>> of the gospel message, articulated so well by Thomas Nagel:
>>>
>>> "It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that
>>> I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want
>>> there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."
>>>
>>
>> Nagel was considered a dualist and wrong on other things as well.
>>
>
> And beside that, that quote doesn't show what Fucktard wants it to show.
> Nagel explicitly stated in the first statement that he doesn't believe in
> God. The next statements are embellishments; rather than not believing in
> God but wishing he could, or thinking that belief is a nice, optimistic
> viewpoint, he states that it would be unpleasant IF it were true. But lies
> and misrepresentation are a common tactic in the New Christian movement, and
> they do not reflect well on it.
>
>

I agree. It just makes them look the dishonest assholes they are.

Not to mention that they don't seem to have a problem with theist invective,
only atheist invective.

Pretty biased I'd say.

>
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Brock
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> >
>

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 6:00 am
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Trance Gemini <trancegemini7@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Turner Hayes <lordlacolith@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemini7@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Brock <brockorgan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 26, 6:42 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> > Just thought I'd give an opportunity for the posters, and I'm
>>>> > particularly targeting the nontheists although as always everyone is
>>>> > of course free to comment, to talk about how AvC may have--probably
>>>> > only slightly--transformed perspectives towards the nature of
>>>> > religiosity versus rationality. Who or what changed your perspective?
>>>>
>>>> I have enjoyed participating in the forum. Because of the feedback
>>>> from participants, I have learned how to articulate many doctrines
>>>> better and more consistently; in answering particular objections,
>>>> I've come away with a broader understanding of the history, background
>>>> and nature of how classical philosophical positions compare and
>>>> contrast with many biblical positions.
>>>>
>>>> The invective and vitriol have not been welcome, but I frankly,
>>>> consider it as close to a concession as I'm likely to receive on the
>>>> group. I've been reminded by atheist examples that there are a myriad
>>>> ways to reject a truth one does not wish to receive. Though it would
>>>> be an overstatement to imply universality, in my opinion much of what
>>>> passes for the "new atheism" is not much more than a wilful rejection
>>>> of the gospel message, articulated so well by Thomas Nagel:
>>>>
>>>> "It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that
>>>> I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want
>>>> there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nagel was considered a dualist and wrong on other things as well.
>>>
>>
>> And beside that, that quote doesn't show what Fucktard wants it to show.
>> Nagel explicitly stated in the first statement that he doesn't believe in
>> God. The next statements are embellishments; rather than not believing in
>> God but wishing he could, or thinking that belief is a nice, optimistic
>> viewpoint, he states that it would be unpleasant IF it were true. But lies
>> and misrepresentation are a common tactic in the New Christian movement, and
>> they do not reflect well on it.
>>
>>
>
> I agree. It just makes them look the dishonest assholes they are.
>
> Not to mention that they don't seem to have a problem with theist
> invective, only atheist invective.
>

Exactly. Brocktard has shown himself to be a walking, babbling piece of
hypocritical shit.

>
>
> Pretty biased I'd say.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Brock
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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: I know your God doesn't exist.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/f1ee8b5d7f597854?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:57 am
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 6:36 am, Jian-Xia <wongl...@singnet.com.sg> wrote:

> > > The starkest difference between the two is that gravity is an
> > > observation, whereas evolution is not.
>
> > Wrong.
> > Evolution has been observed on the lab and in nature, today, as we
> > speak.
>
> This doesn't take the cheese.
> So what if you have observed a few lab rats. It didn't and it doesn't
> prove that YOU evolved, in the degree the lab "rats" did.

You do not know what you are talking about.
Speciation has been observed in the wild and in the lab.

> > Do some research before spouting all kinds of nonsense.
>
> I think he may have more qualifications than you.

Is he a physicist *and* a biologist?
If not, we are on equal footing.
If he thinks that evolution is not as much of a fact as gravity is he
is ill-informed and uneducated in those particular matters.

<snip>

> > As I stated (and you ignored), the only reason you, and others like
> > you, refuse to accept the Theory of Evolution in the same way you are
> > willing to accept other scientific theories and facts is that
> > evolution challenges your faith. Since your faith is weak, your
> > solution is to reject or cast doubts on evolution instead of finding a
> > way to accommodate both.
>
> Have you ever considered that because you have zero faith, therefore
> it gives you no tolerance for anything with faith. Faith is real.
> Whether you believe it or not. Humans survive by living on faith. It
> may not be belief in Jesus but we all do live with some degree of
> faith.

Irrelevant.
You are conflating religious faith with faith as a concept.
I do experience faith, but not religious faith.

Also, faith has nothing to do with a discussion that compares gravity
and evolution as scientific facts.
I just mentioned faith at the end, as a possible explanation why
people refuse to accept that evolution is a fact.

Faith, in and of istelf, is not related to evolution.

The proof is that many people of religious faith have no problem
whatsoever with accepting evolution as a fact.
They do net see evolution as a threat to their faith as you do,
probably because their faith is stronger than yours, oh, and also,
they do not take the bible literally.

> Whatever that is agreeable, I'm sure I'll agree.

This is the problem, right there.

You will only accept what makes sense to you. This is totally
subjective and contrary to how science in general works.
This is the reaction of a 9-year-old. Anything that is outside a kid's
scope of comprehension is "unreal."

> But the Bible is
> clear- you were made different from all the animals.

The bible is wrong. This is just wishful thinking on your part.
Humans are also part of the animal kingdom, so they are animals as
well.

> DO I have to
> prove that as well?

Yes.

> I'm sure "evolution" made a very clear distinction
> in that.

No.

You are looking for a special status for humans, which reinforces your
belief that your god created us and that he created the whole universe
just for us, because we are so "special" and all that.
All hogwash.
___________________________________________
I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
-- Ruth Hurmence Green

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 6:09 am
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 6:29 am, Jian-Xia <wongl...@singnet.com.sg> wrote:

<snip>

> > I do not believe any of teh crap I wriote about leprechauns.
> > My point was to show you how you, and other theists, sound like when
> > you try to defend your belief.
> > It is easy to fabricate all kinds of excuses, like I did above.
>
> Excuses, those excuses do make perfect sense, if you were actually
> telling a tale, a story.

Which the bible is.

> What is the difference b/w God and leprechauns?
> God made you,.

Prove it, without the bible.

> leprechauns didn't.

I know.

> From my above viewpoint, I was suggesting, what if a person had no
> such knowledge. An orphan, living by himself, alone, who doesn't know
> exactly how he could've been there. How could where he came from?

He would not know.

> And
> how does he prove that?

He could not prove anything.

You ignore that a human child left on its own will never learn
language and will never develop its cognitive abilities. It will be
stuck at the developmental age of about 8 or 9 (IIRC), without
language, for ever. Such children cannot be taught when they are found
as teenagers or older. Even the concept of god would be unteachable to
such children. They are the ultimate atheists!

Do some research on feral children...

> > All children are atheists -- they have no idea of God.
> > -- Baron d'Holbach
>
> And all atheists are children = they have no idea of God.

Wrong.
Atheists know about the concept of god.
They just reject it as being real. They now it is just a concept, in
the mind, like Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Demons, etc.
___________________________________________
I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
-- Ruth Hurmence Green

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bible Movie
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/d56c1d21db8e6745?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:58 am
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Turner Hayes <lordlacolith@gmail.com>wrote:

> Well, we don't really even need to theorize about this:
> http://www.capalert.com/capreports/tencommandments1923.htm
>
> *Wanton Violence/Crime (W)*
> massive slavery and bondage with brutality (non-graphic)
> individualized events of brutality, repeated
> threat with an axe
> dead child (Pharaoh's son) (non-graphic)
> threat to kill many
> drowning deaths of hundreds (somewhat graphic)
> many deaths (few seen) as a consequence of evil doings
> theft of food
> death by crumbling faulty concrete work due to cheating
> attempted suicide by firearm
> firearm for offense
> threat of physical harm to control a woman
> gunfire murder (non-graphic)
> dead body (non-graphic)
> defensive threat to kill
> aiding and abetting a felon
> illegal flight to escape lawful capture
> contemplation of suicide
> death by storm at sea (non-graphic)
>
> *Impudence/Hate (I)*
> disregard for human life
> teaching son arrogance and brutality and encouraging them (Pharaoh's son),
> multiple
> son's arrogance and impudence at mother teaching the Bible, repeatedly
> lies, various
> bribing to cheat
> cheating by using substandard construction material
> lie to protect adulterous relationship
> one use of the three/four letter word vocabulary
>
> *Sexual Immorality (S)*
> long sequence of orgy and sexual revelry, no nudity
> inappropriate touch
> sexual innuendo
>
> *Drugs/Alcohol (D)*:
> smoking, repeatedly, frequent
> drinking, repeatedly
>
> *Offense to God (O)*
> idolatry, repeatedly
> worshiping of false gods
> seeking vengeance
> denying God's Word to excuse sin, repeatedly
> mockery of God's Grace and power
> condemning God's Word
> adultery
> coveting others for selfish gain
>
> *Murder/Suicide (M)*
> one gunfire murder
> Final score: 65
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> The Passion of the Christ:
>
> *Wanton Violence/Crime (W)*
> fighting
> ear amputation
> beating, repeatedly, frequent, including after recent beatings, most
> intensely graphic and realistic
> physical brutality, repeatedly, often and increasingly brutal
> facial injuries from beatings/brutality
> brutal vicious whipping with graphic injuries, ripping flesh, repeatedly
> driving thorns into scalp
> intensely graphic full-body gore, repeatedly, frequently
> crowd control beatings, repeatedly
> crowd brutalization of near-dead Jesus
> continued beatings/whippings of our already mutilated Lord
> kicking our near-dead Lord
> hand/foot impalement with spikes
> a crow pecking the eyes of the thief to Jesus' right (the one who mocked
> Jesus as He hung on the Cross)
> spear impalement with exudates
>
> *Impudence/Hate (I)*
> tormenting by children (who were cast as controlled by Satan)
> mockery of our Lord, repeatedly
> crowd lusting after killing Jesus
> lusting after sadistic brutality
> flash nudity, clearly non-sexual but nudity nonetheless
>
> *Sexual Immorality (S)*
> none noted
>
> *Drugs/Alcohol (D)*:
> drinking wine, repeatedly [Eph. 5:18]
>
> *Offense to God (O)*
> flashes of grotesque demons
> images of children as demons
> calling Jesus a fool repeatedly [Matt. 5:22]
> attempts of Satan to tempt and control our Lord and events that would
> impede Him
>
> *Murder/Suicide (M)*
> suicide of Judas
> murder of our Lord
>
> Final score: 69
>
> So it seems it wouldn't be approved of very highly by conservatives.
>
>
> (by the way, if you haven't encountered CAP movie reviews, you're in for a
> treat)
>

Like I said I would require a XXX rating and allow showing only in Porn
Theatres and Porn Web Sites. ;-)

>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 9:58 PM, scenario_dave <scenario_dave@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> A thought experiment. Its a few years from now and with $20,000 in
>> equipment, a couple of really talented people can make a couple of
>> hours of Disney/Pixar quality animation in about a week.
>>
>> A religious couple decide to make an accurate version of the entire
>> bible, one two hour disc at a time. They don't care if it takes a
>> thousand discs to complete the work.
>>
>> They do not leave anything out. For example, when god says to kill
>> every man, woman and children, they show god's warriors rip a baby
>> from it's mothers hands, kill the baby in front of the parents and
>> then kill the parents. Afterwards the soldiers are shown as being
>> happy because they just did god's work.
>>
>> What should this work be rated? It can't be rated R because its gods
>> words come alive.
>>
>> If you are religious, would you show this work to your small children?
>> If yes, how could you show such violent and disturbing images to a
>> child?
>> If no, why not? The bible is the most perfect book in the world
>> according to fundamentalists. Why hid the good book from the
>> children?
>>
>> Who would buy this work?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> >
>

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 6:04 am
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Trance Gemini <trancegemini7@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Turner Hayes <lordlacolith@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Well, we don't really even need to theorize about this:
>> http://www.capalert.com/capreports/tencommandments1923.htm
>>
>> *Wanton Violence/Crime (W)*
>> massive slavery and bondage with brutality (non-graphic)
>> individualized events of brutality, repeated
>> threat with an axe
>> dead child (Pharaoh's son) (non-graphic)
>> threat to kill many
>> drowning deaths of hundreds (somewhat graphic)
>> many deaths (few seen) as a consequence of evil doings
>> theft of food
>> death by crumbling faulty concrete work due to cheating
>> attempted suicide by firearm
>> firearm for offense
>> threat of physical harm to control a woman
>> gunfire murder (non-graphic)
>> dead body (non-graphic)
>> defensive threat to kill
>> aiding and abetting a felon
>> illegal flight to escape lawful capture
>> contemplation of suicide
>> death by storm at sea (non-graphic)
>>
>> *Impudence/Hate (I)*
>> disregard for human life
>> teaching son arrogance and brutality and encouraging them (Pharaoh's son),
>> multiple
>> son's arrogance and impudence at mother teaching the Bible, repeatedly
>> lies, various
>> bribing to cheat
>> cheating by using substandard construction material
>> lie to protect adulterous relationship
>> one use of the three/four letter word vocabulary
>>
>> *Sexual Immorality (S)*
>> long sequence of orgy and sexual revelry, no nudity
>> inappropriate touch
>> sexual innuendo
>>
>> *Drugs/Alcohol (D)*:
>> smoking, repeatedly, frequent
>> drinking, repeatedly
>>
>> *Offense to God (O)*
>> idolatry, repeatedly
>> worshiping of false gods
>> seeking vengeance
>> denying God's Word to excuse sin, repeatedly
>> mockery of God's Grace and power
>> condemning God's Word
>> adultery
>> coveting others for selfish gain
>>
>> *Murder/Suicide (M)*
>> one gunfire murder
>> Final score: 65
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------
>>
>> The Passion of the Christ:
>>
>> *Wanton Violence/Crime (W)*
>> fighting
>> ear amputation
>> beating, repeatedly, frequent, including after recent beatings, most
>> intensely graphic and realistic
>> physical brutality, repeatedly, often and increasingly brutal
>> facial injuries from beatings/brutality
>> brutal vicious whipping with graphic injuries, ripping flesh, repeatedly
>> driving thorns into scalp
>> intensely graphic full-body gore, repeatedly, frequently
>> crowd control beatings, repeatedly
>> crowd brutalization of near-dead Jesus
>> continued beatings/whippings of our already mutilated Lord
>> kicking our near-dead Lord
>> hand/foot impalement with spikes
>> a crow pecking the eyes of the thief to Jesus' right (the one who mocked
>> Jesus as He hung on the Cross)
>> spear impalement with exudates
>>
>> *Impudence/Hate (I)*
>> tormenting by children (who were cast as controlled by Satan)
>> mockery of our Lord, repeatedly
>> crowd lusting after killing Jesus
>> lusting after sadistic brutality
>> flash nudity, clearly non-sexual but nudity nonetheless
>>
>> *Sexual Immorality (S)*
>> none noted
>>
>> *Drugs/Alcohol (D)*:
>> drinking wine, repeatedly [Eph. 5:18]
>>
>> *Offense to God (O)*
>> flashes of grotesque demons
>> images of children as demons
>> calling Jesus a fool repeatedly [Matt. 5:22]
>> attempts of Satan to tempt and control our Lord and events that would
>> impede Him
>>
>> *Murder/Suicide (M)*
>> suicide of Judas
>> murder of our Lord
>>
>> Final score: 69
>>
>> So it seems it wouldn't be approved of very highly by conservatives.
>>
>>
>> (by the way, if you haven't encountered CAP movie reviews, you're in for a
>> treat)
>>
>
> Like I said I would require a XXX rating and allow showing only in Porn
> Theatres and Porn Web Sites. ;-)
>

It WOULD be pretty...kinky.

>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 9:58 PM, scenario_dave <scenario_dave@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> A thought experiment. Its a few years from now and with $20,000 in
>>> equipment, a couple of really talented people can make a couple of
>>> hours of Disney/Pixar quality animation in about a week.
>>>
>>> A religious couple decide to make an accurate version of the entire
>>> bible, one two hour disc at a time. They don't care if it takes a
>>> thousand discs to complete the work.
>>>
>>> They do not leave anything out. For example, when god says to kill
>>> every man, woman and children, they show god's warriors rip a baby
>>> from it's mothers hands, kill the baby in front of the parents and
>>> then kill the parents. Afterwards the soldiers are shown as being
>>> happy because they just did god's work.
>>>
>>> What should this work be rated? It can't be rated R because its gods
>>> words come alive.
>>>
>>> If you are religious, would you show this work to your small children?
>>> If yes, how could you show such violent and disturbing images to a
>>> child?
>>> If no, why not? The bible is the most perfect book in the world
>>> according to fundamentalists. Why hid the good book from the
>>> children?
>>>
>>> Who would buy this work?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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: Hypocrisy & Accountability
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/b002a76d9cfbb14e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 6:01 am
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:06 AM, Max <amf6@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>
> Ah Brock, please mate....don't defend me....please don't do that.....I
> don't need to give Dev a free goal, really I don't. I'd like to score
> some points please!
>
> Thanks anyway

You know it's time to your position when Brock agrees with you ;-)

>
>
> Max
>
> On Dec 2, 11:50 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 5:39 am, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > The violence he states
> > > is theatrical, designed for shock value. Dev doesn't actually think
> > > that we should actually kill theists. He does intend to shock them by
> > > saying that they don't deserve to live based on their behavior.
> >
> > I suspect its a grim outlook for those who claim that they didn't mean
> > what they said, highlighted so classically:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Brock
> >
>

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 6:01 am
From: "Trance Gemini"

You know it's time to your position when Brock agrees with you ;-)

The above should have said:

You know it's time to Re-think your position when Brock agrees with you ;-)

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Trance Gemini <trancegemini7@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:06 AM, Max <amf6@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ah Brock, please mate....don't defend me....please don't do that.....I
>> don't need to give Dev a free goal, really I don't. I'd like to score
>> some points please!
>>
>> Thanks anyway
>
>
> You know it's time to your position when Brock agrees with you ;-)
>
>
>>
>>
>> Max
>>
>> On Dec 2, 11:50 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 29, 5:39 am, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> >
>> > > The violence he states
>> > > is theatrical, designed for shock value. Dev doesn't actually think
>> > > that we should actually kill theists. He does intend to shock them by
>> > > saying that they don't deserve to live based on their behavior.
>> >
>> > I suspect its a grim outlook for those who claim that they didn't mean
>> > what they said, highlighted so classically:
>> >
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Brock
>> >>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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: Understanding revelations.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/92bafc67fc37cde3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 6:04 am
From: dali_70

What's to understand about Revelations?
Nothing, its a mythology, pure fiction.
Thats all you need to understand about the whole damn book.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Big Bang test may throw up never-before particles
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/4e5471ac57c67bdd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 6:09 am
From: "Trance Gemini"

Cool. I had no idea India was so actively involved in this.

Thanks for the update Student13!

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:44 AM, student13 <pairamblr@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Big_Bang_test_may_throw_up_never-before_particles_/articleshow/3782319.cms
>
> ************************************************************************************************************
> Kolkata: If the Big Bang experiment finally happens at CERN this time,
> some completely unknown particles are expected to be created - not
> undiscovered particles, but those that have never before existed in
> the universe.
>
> Scientists at two of the city's premier research institutes are
> working in tandem with those at CERN on the kind of particles that are
> likely to be created . While theorists are working at the Indian
> Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), scientists from
> the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics are busy fine-tuning instruments
> made by them at CERN.
>
> The experiment at CERN is being conducted inside the Large Hadron
> Collider where an atmosphere similar to that of the pre-universe times
> has been created. Inside the LHC, proton beams are being made to
> collide at extremely high speed, as is thought to be the case at the
> beginning of the universe . The idea is that when they collide at such
> high speed, some parts merge, while others disintegrate and a new
> particle is created. However, Kolkatabased scientists hint that some
> of these particles are expected to be of a very different character -
> something that had not been thought of earlier.
>
> Amitabha Dutta, an eminent physicist with IISER, has been leading the
> project here with some of his research scholars. "We have simulated
> the CERN experiment on the computer and are applying our theories to
> see results. This is called computer simulation of new particle
> production," Dutta said.
>
> "We are searching for that new particle that no one was expecting to
> see all this while. This particle would be much heavier than the
> others and can provide an important link to the creation of the
> universe and to the existence of black holes," Dutta added.
>
> To make sure that everything works according to plan when the CERN
> experiment resumes , two teams from Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics
> (SINP) and Variable Energy Cyclotrone Centre (VECC) are working round-
> the-clock at the site. While the SINP team is busy putting together a
> new muon chamber inside the tunnel , the VECC scientists are working
> on the Photon Multiplicity Detectors (PMD), which are being put
> through a series of tests. Both detectors have been designed and
> installed by city scientists and will help analyze the properties of
> the particles generated within micro seconds of the simulated bang.
>
> While the SINP team comprises two technicians, two faculty members and
> two students, VECC has sent four senior scientists . The teams are
> expected to finish the job by the first week of December. "Our
> scientists are not in a hurry as the experiment will not resume before
> March," said Subhashish Chattopadhyay, senior scientific officer at
> VECC. Scientists Sukalyan Chattopadhyay and Subhendu Bose are part of
> the SINP team while the VECC team includes scientific officers GSN
> Murthy, Susanta Pal, S Ramnarayan and M R Dutta Majumdar.
>
> The existing muon chamber has been pulled out of the experiment pit.
> It will be put back after the new one is put through a trial run. "The
> tunnel is narrow so there isn't enough space for two chambers. Once
> the new one is found to be functioning, it will be replaced by the
> previous one. This is being done to make sure that we have a ready
> replacement in case the chamber malfunctions," said senior SINP
> scientists Pradip Roy.
>
> The VECC team, on the other hand, is busy examining all the 48 PMD
> detectors installed by them. They are being put through high-voltage
> and gas tests to check if they are working properly. "Since the
> experiment is now on hold, this is the time to work on the instruments
> and make sure they are in perfect order," said Chattopadhyay.
>
> The PMD was created entirely by VECC scientists - right from its
> design and material to functioning system and the actual manufacture.
> >
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Historical Peter Parker
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/dfb77186035b2555?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 6:10 am
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:45 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Dec 2, 6:37 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Those web sites are blaspheming Peter Parker and should be removed for
> > heresy!
>
> Considering that they are the sites of the SOURCE of the information
> about Peter Parker, if you think they are lying now what makes you
> think they weren't lying then?

I said they were blasphemous and heretic.

>
>
> But thanks for proving that there won't be intelligent discussion on
> this. I expect to see you and Woodbridge continuing to insist that
> Christians have to accept the existence of Peter Parker despite the
> fact that I have proven the difference between the two that shows that
> we KNOW that Peter Parker as Spiderman is not real.

Now your heaping invective on me and insulting me.

I want you banned :-P

>
>
> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 1, 6:50 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> > > > As an atheist, I believe in the historical Peter Parker. There's
> > > > overwhelming evidence that he existed. His swinging from webs though
> > > > is for Christians.
> > > > Are there any Christians here who does not believe that the man Peter
> > > > Parker existed?
> >
> > > I have access to web sites, writer interviews, and even a DVD
> > > interview with Stan Lee describing how they invented Peter Parker/
> > > Spiderman and where the ideas came from.
> >
> > > In addition, the comics themselves include a disclaimer that none of
> > > the characters therein are meant to be similar in any way to any real
> > > persons. The movies probably do somewhere as well; I haven't looked.
> >
> > > That is more than sufficient evidence to conclude that Peter Parker is
> > > not a real person. None of this exists for God, as most atheists must
> > > concede.
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>

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

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 - 25 new messages in 13 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links