Atheism vs Christianity: Atheism-vs-Christianity - 25 new messages in 15 topics

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Historical Jesus
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/47dc898e56d000c0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:56 am
From: Ivan Karamazov

On 2 dec, 00:11, LedZepp <FledZeppe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 12:28 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 29, 3:14 pm, LedZepp <FledZeppe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > As an atheist, I believe in the historical Jesus. There's overwhelming
> > > evidence that he existed. His divinity though is for Christians.
>
> > What is the "overwhelming" evidence?
>
> History books and letters other than the New Testament.

All fake.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hello
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/6d065aab595d7d5a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:59 am
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:58 AM, philosophy <smwilson@tpg.com.au> wrote:

>
> TG
> They are doing what they do best - lying, cheating and scheming.
> This is the sort of nonsense that is giving so-called Christians a
> bad name, and annoys the ...... out of some atheists.
> I mean, come on. If you've been banned under one name, why
> come back? Because they don't learn. Some are as thick as
> bricks, and worse than that, they seem to have a belief that they
> are "God inspired". No different from radical Muslims, really.
>

Exactly. Not only do they sleazily come back under different names but they
do the same things that got them banned in the first place.

Just shows that they're not coming back because they want to be here.

They're coming back so that they can continue abusing people.

This says a lot for theist morality and ethics (such as they are).

It's what happens when you follow a book that advocates a 2000 year old
morality invented by neolithic goat herders.

>
> On Dec 3, 9:56 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:23 AM, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 1, 6:31 pm, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Hello, I am a Christian. An atheist friend of mine is here in Simi
> > > > Valley, California and challenged me to post here.
> >
> > > > He's quite sure that I will be banned because of my education in
> > > > religious antiquity, so I accepted the challenge.
> >
> > > > We're visiting a friend. Tomorrow, we're both going to separate
> > > > directions.
> >
> > > Hi, Roger Pearse. You're really bad at spoofing. You will not be
> > > banned because of your education in religious antiquity. From what I
> > > recall you were banned from google groups for spoofing to begin with.
> >
> > > Haven't learned your lesson, have you?
> >
> > Interesting. I would have sworn he was Liam because LedZepp vouched for
> him
> > and I suspected LedZepp of being Liam.
> >
> > However, I do see your point. Tertullian combined with the first name
> Roger.
> >
> > Do you think Roger and Liam are both trying to sneak back in through the
> > back door?
> >
> > They appear to have formed an alliance of sorts at any rate.
> >
> > What on earth are these assholes up to?
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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: Dinosaurs & the Bible
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/ea1b75046a21902d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:01 am
From: Max

Speak not of this Max oh Sister T......he has but flagellated himself
mercilessly for crimes against the brethren and the lesser beings, our
parishoners. Proofs have been found that he (and god save me for
uttering these sinful words), has massaged the bottoms and (god
forbid) the 'jiggly bits' of some of our our parishioners (just the
naughty ones mind you) under the guise of assisting them with prayer.
Lord knows the number of bottoms and bits he hath nestled, but fear
not Sister T. We have dealt with him in an appropriate and usual
manner.

We spake with the Bishop & our grace believes that a transfer to a
little church somewhere out of sight, plus a stipend indexed to around
7% p.a. may just do the trick. No pesky little men with cameras needed
really is there.

Get God in your head

More God & more Head

In thy mercy

On Dec 3, 8:38 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:06 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Brother Hayes, do you mock me. Oh brother, where art thou love. The
> > reality is for all to witness. I beseech thee, enter the world of
> > Christ and be reborn. Know that the lord and lordesses and horny
> > toads, and salmon and concreters and other less savoury types love
> > you, want you, caress you. Please come to our church next Tuesday
> > (cheaper rent for us on Tuesdays and it's too busy with those other
> > bastard apostates) and bring a sheckle or two, if you can.
>
> I agree. Brother Hayes should not be mocking our illustrious Max who is
> devoted to and has entered the world of Christ.
>
> Such mockery should not be tolerated.
>
> I'm fresh out of sheckles though and Tuesday is Bingo night.
>
> :-(
>
>
>
>
>
> > Reach out o brother. Get God in your head
>
> > More God & more Head
>
> > In thy mercy
>
> > On Dec 3, 3:33 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ladies and gentlemen, this is what a Poe looks like.
> > > Yes, I know Max is an atheist and is being sarcastic, but my point is
> > that
> > > if I didn't, I would have no idea if he was serious or not--in fact, I
> > would
> > > probably think he was.
>
> > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > For too long now, non believing atheists have tried to peddle their
> > > > non belief to we believers, i.e. their beliefs as non believers, so we
> > > > believers must turn the tables on them and get people believing
> > > > again.
>
> > > > Clear....Good!
>
> > > > One of the big issues that that the lord has asked me to cover off
> > > > with you today regards the silly atheistic scientists who say that
> > > > dinosaurs were in existance millions of years ago. As if they found
> > > > labels on their bones saying how old they are. Ridiculous!
>
> > > > "The Bible also teaches us (in Genesis 1:29-30) that the original
> > > > animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There
> > > > were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was
> > > > no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals
> > > > (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants."
>
> > > > Get some sense into you now. Get God in your head. That's what you
> > > > need.
>
> > > > More God & more Head.....are you with me!
>
> > > >http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/2.asp
>
> --
> 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 5 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:34 am
From: Multiverse

> More God & more Head

yaaawwwwnnnn. It's early. I'll just take some more head thank you!

On Dec 3, 7:01 am, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Speak not of this Max oh Sister T......he has but flagellated himself
> mercilessly for crimes against the brethren and the lesser beings, our
> parishoners. Proofs have been found that he (and god save me for
> uttering these sinful words), has massaged the bottoms and (god
> forbid) the 'jiggly bits' of some of our our parishioners (just the
> naughty ones mind you) under the guise of assisting them with prayer.
> Lord knows the number of bottoms and bits he hath nestled, but fear
> not Sister T. We have dealt with him in an appropriate and usual
> manner.
>
> We spake with the Bishop & our grace believes that a transfer to a
> little church somewhere out of sight, plus a stipend indexed to around
> 7% p.a. may just do the trick. No pesky little men with cameras needed
> really is there.
>
> Get God in your head
>
> More God & more Head
>
> In thy mercy
>
> On Dec 3, 8:38 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:06 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > Brother Hayes, do you mock me. Oh brother, where art thou love. The
> > > reality is for all to witness. I beseech thee, enter the world of
> > > Christ and be reborn. Know that the lord and lordesses and horny
> > > toads, and salmon and concreters and other less savoury types love
> > > you, want you, caress you. Please come to our church next Tuesday
> > > (cheaper rent for us on Tuesdays and it's too busy with those other
> > > bastard apostates) and bring a sheckle or two, if you can.
>
> > I agree. Brother Hayes should not be mocking our illustrious Max who is
> > devoted to and has entered the world of Christ.
>
> > Such mockery should not be tolerated.
>
> > I'm fresh out of sheckles though and Tuesday is Bingo night.
>
> > :-(
>
> > > Reach out o brother. Get God in your head
>
> > > More God & more Head
>
> > > In thy mercy
>
> > > On Dec 3, 3:33 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Ladies and gentlemen, this is what a Poe looks like.
> > > > Yes, I know Max is an atheist and is being sarcastic, but my point is
> > > that
> > > > if I didn't, I would have no idea if he was serious or not--in fact, I
> > > would
> > > > probably think he was.
>
> > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > For too long now, non believing atheists have tried to peddle their
> > > > > non belief to we believers, i.e. their beliefs as non believers, so we
> > > > > believers must turn the tables on them and get people believing
> > > > > again.
>
> > > > > Clear....Good!
>
> > > > > One of the big issues that that the lord has asked me to cover off
> > > > > with you today regards the silly atheistic scientists who say that
> > > > > dinosaurs were in existance millions of years ago. As if they found
> > > > > labels on their bones saying how old they are. Ridiculous!
>
> > > > > "The Bible also teaches us (in Genesis 1:29-30) that the original
> > > > > animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There
> > > > > were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was
> > > > > no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals
> > > > > (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants."
>
> > > > > Get some sense into you now. Get God in your head. That's what you
> > > > > need.
>
> > > > > More God & more Head.....are you with me!
>
> > > > >http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/2.asp
>
> > --
> > 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 5 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:54 am
From: Max

Sister Capitofficium will be with you shortly to assist with your
morning ablutions! Pray hard and long

Get God in your Head

More God & more Head

In thy mercy

On Dec 3, 9:34 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > More God & more Head
>
> yaaawwwwnnnn. It's early. I'll just take some more head thank you!
>
> On Dec 3, 7:01 am, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Speak not of this Max oh Sister T......he has but flagellated himself
> > mercilessly for crimes against the brethren and the lesser beings, our
> > parishoners. Proofs have been found that he (and god save me for
> > uttering these sinful words), has massaged the bottoms and (god
> > forbid) the 'jiggly bits' of some of our our parishioners (just the
> > naughty ones mind you) under the guise of assisting them with prayer.
> > Lord knows the number of bottoms and bits he hath nestled, but fear
> > not Sister T. We have dealt with him in an appropriate and usual
> > manner.
>
> > We spake with the Bishop & our grace believes that a transfer to a
> > little church somewhere out of sight, plus a stipend indexed to around
> > 7% p.a. may just do the trick. No pesky little men with cameras needed
> > really is there.
>
> > Get God in your head
>
> > More God & more Head
>
> > In thy mercy
>
> > On Dec 3, 8:38 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:06 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > Brother Hayes, do you mock me. Oh brother, where art thou love. The
> > > > reality is for all to witness. I beseech thee, enter the world of
> > > > Christ and be reborn. Know that the lord and lordesses and horny
> > > > toads, and salmon and concreters and other less savoury types love
> > > > you, want you, caress you. Please come to our church next Tuesday
> > > > (cheaper rent for us on Tuesdays and it's too busy with those other
> > > > bastard apostates) and bring a sheckle or two, if you can.
>
> > > I agree. Brother Hayes should not be mocking our illustrious Max who is
> > > devoted to and has entered the world of Christ.
>
> > > Such mockery should not be tolerated.
>
> > > I'm fresh out of sheckles though and Tuesday is Bingo night.
>
> > > :-(
>
> > > > Reach out o brother. Get God in your head
>
> > > > More God & more Head
>
> > > > In thy mercy
>
> > > > On Dec 3, 3:33 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Ladies and gentlemen, this is what a Poe looks like.
> > > > > Yes, I know Max is an atheist and is being sarcastic, but my point is
> > > > that
> > > > > if I didn't, I would have no idea if he was serious or not--in fact, I
> > > > would
> > > > > probably think he was.
>
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > For too long now, non believing atheists have tried to peddle their
> > > > > > non belief to we believers, i.e. their beliefs as non believers, so we
> > > > > > believers must turn the tables on them and get people believing
> > > > > > again.
>
> > > > > > Clear....Good!
>
> > > > > > One of the big issues that that the lord has asked me to cover off
> > > > > > with you today regards the silly atheistic scientists who say that
> > > > > > dinosaurs were in existance millions of years ago. As if they found
> > > > > > labels on their bones saying how old they are. Ridiculous!
>
> > > > > > "The Bible also teaches us (in Genesis 1:29-30) that the original
> > > > > > animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There
> > > > > > were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was
> > > > > > no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals
> > > > > > (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants."
>
> > > > > > Get some sense into you now. Get God in your head. That's what you
> > > > > > need.
>
> > > > > > More God & more Head.....are you with me!
>
> > > > > >http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/2.asp
>
> > > --
> > > 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 -

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:13 am
From: Bob Crowley

Which Catholic Church do you play your bingo in?

On Dec 3, 9:38 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:06 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Brother Hayes, do you mock me. Oh brother, where art thou love. The
> > reality is for all to witness. I beseech thee, enter the world of
> > Christ and be reborn. Know that the lord and lordesses and horny
> > toads, and salmon and concreters and other less savoury types love
> > you, want you, caress you. Please come to our church next Tuesday
> > (cheaper rent for us on Tuesdays and it's too busy with those other
> > bastard apostates) and bring a sheckle or two, if you can.
>
> I agree. Brother Hayes should not be mocking our illustrious Max who is
> devoted to and has entered the world of Christ.
>
> Such mockery should not be tolerated.
>
> I'm fresh out of sheckles though and Tuesday is Bingo night.
>
> :-(
>
>
>
>
>
> > Reach out o brother. Get God in your head
>
> > More God & more Head
>
> > In thy mercy
>
> > On Dec 3, 3:33 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ladies and gentlemen, this is what a Poe looks like.
> > > Yes, I know Max is an atheist and is being sarcastic, but my point is
> > that
> > > if I didn't, I would have no idea if he was serious or not--in fact, I
> > would
> > > probably think he was.
>
> > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > For too long now, non believing atheists have tried to peddle their
> > > > non belief to we believers, i.e. their beliefs as non believers, so we
> > > > believers must turn the tables on them and get people believing
> > > > again.
>
> > > > Clear....Good!
>
> > > > One of the big issues that that the lord has asked me to cover off
> > > > with you today regards the silly atheistic scientists who say that
> > > > dinosaurs were in existance millions of years ago. As if they found
> > > > labels on their bones saying how old they are. Ridiculous!
>
> > > > "The Bible also teaches us (in Genesis 1:29-30) that the original
> > > > animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There
> > > > were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was
> > > > no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals
> > > > (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants."
>
> > > > Get some sense into you now. Get God in your head. That's what you
> > > > need.
>
> > > > More God & more Head.....are you with me!
>
> > > >http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/2.asp
>
> --
> 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

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:02 am
From: "Turner Hayes"

You're right. My behavior was unbecoming of a Servant of Christ. What shall
I do to make amends to Our Lord and Savior?

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:06 AM, Max <amf6@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>
> Brother Hayes, do you mock me. Oh brother, where art thou love. The
> reality is for all to witness. I beseech thee, enter the world of
> Christ and be reborn. Know that the lord and lordesses and horny
> toads, and salmon and concreters and other less savoury types love
> you, want you, caress you. Please come to our church next Tuesday
> (cheaper rent for us on Tuesdays and it's too busy with those other
> bastard apostates) and bring a sheckle or two, if you can.
>
> Reach out o brother. Get God in your head
>
> More God & more Head
>
> In thy mercy
>
> On Dec 3, 3:33 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ladies and gentlemen, this is what a Poe looks like.
> > Yes, I know Max is an atheist and is being sarcastic, but my point is
> that
> > if I didn't, I would have no idea if he was serious or not--in fact, I
> would
> > probably think he was.
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > For too long now, non believing atheists have tried to peddle their
> > > non belief to we believers, i.e. their beliefs as non believers, so we
> > > believers must turn the tables on them and get people believing
> > > again.
> >
> > > Clear....Good!
> >
> > > One of the big issues that that the lord has asked me to cover off
> > > with you today regards the silly atheistic scientists who say that
> > > dinosaurs were in existance millions of years ago. As if they found
> > > labels on their bones saying how old they are. Ridiculous!
> >
> > > "The Bible also teaches us (in Genesis 1:29-30) that the original
> > > animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There
> > > were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was
> > > no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals
> > > (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants."
> >
> > > Get some sense into you now. Get God in your head. That's what you
> > > need.
> >
> > > More God & more Head.....are you with me!
> >
> > >http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/2.asp
> >
>

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:17 am
From: Max

By Grabthar's hammer, by the suns of Warvan, Ruthie you shall be
avenged!

What is this heresy you utter, oh warlord of atheistic damnation, so
called Observer! The fires of hell will sweep you up, in a whirlwind
of horror, so be warned.

But in the meantime, would you like a copy of our educational booklet,
the Blossoms of Life. A wonderful tale of brotherly love, happiness
and life to be lived with our lord. Could I interest you in two copies
perhaps. No you say............

Well then devil Observer, evil incanter of foul mouthed terror. Die
before me, before my lord, die and never get up again, 'cause we just
don't like you really.

Get god in your head

More God & more Head

In thy mercy

On Dec 3, 4:52 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 4:43 pm, 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.
>
> I am more concerned as th what will happen when the giant grean flea
> that shit out the universe comes back to suck the blood out of his
> creatures because the Christians pissed him off.
>
> It Just so happens that I have a bottle of frog magic holey oil for
> sale, to protect you from this horrible fate. It is made of the green
> blood of the off spring of the giant frog , you know the one that was
> sacrificed for the giant frog leg dinner last week. Any way just send
> a dollar two ninety eight to the mighty Amphibian in the order of
> Anura, 000 nuttin Street , Some where in the bible belt zip 00000.
>
> Your order will be promptly shipped , Expect delivery within fourteen
> billion seven hundred years.
> Just a coincidence that is how long ago the giant frog shit out the
> universe.
>
> Hallelujah , Praise the Great Green Frog for he gave you life and is
> coming back to suck out your blood. Damn Those pesky Christians for
> pissing him off.
>
> Regards
> To the morons of the world
>
> Psychonomist

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:08 am
From: FreeThinker

I've already thought about this. I'm starting my own Post Rapture Pet
Care Taking Services business. See:
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/42a51d5a7994cc8f/96128ebd9654c230?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=post+rapture#96128ebd9654c230.

Ruthie, I expect a lot of pets to be left behind. I will be needing a
few good employees to help me run my business. Would you be interested
in applying for a job in my future company?

On Dec 3, 1:43 pm, 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.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:05 am
From: dali_70

> On Dec 3, 1:43 pm, 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.

The Pope has a better chance of getting pregnant. Understand?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why some reject the historical Christ.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/7eae8e28bf4a817b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:22 am
From: Drafterman

On Dec 3, 5:30 am, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 11:03 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 24, 4:12 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 17, 7:01 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 17, 1:50 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 16, 6:24 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 15, 11:48 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 8, 5:08 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 11:59 am,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Oct 30, 6:21 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 30, 9:50 am,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 23, 4:02 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 23, 10:54 am,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Intelligent design is evidence of God.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK. Give us an example of "Intelligent Design" evidence.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The fine tuned universe.The fine tuning of universal constants.The
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > "fine tuned universe"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > What is that?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > The fine-tuned Universe is the idea that the conditions that allow
> > > > > > > > > > > life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal physical
> > > > > > > > > > > constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several
> > > > > > > > > > > fundamental constants were only slightly different the universe would
> > > > > > > > > > > be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of
> > > > > > > > > > > matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is
> > > > > > > > > > > presently understood.
>
> > > > > > > > > > This silly argument has been refuted many times over...
>
> > > > > > > > > > 1.
> > > > > > > > > > Dr. Craig calls upon the currently popular argument that the physics
> > > > > > > > > > of our universe is fine tuned for life. This is taken as evidence for
> > > > > > > > > > divine purpose behind the existence of life.
>
> > > > > > > > > > However, even if any given kind of life is highly improbable to have
> > > > > > > > > > arisen by natural means, some kind of life may be highly probable.
> > > > > > > > > > Another form of life might evolve in a universe with different
> > > > > > > > > > physical constants or even different physical laws. We certainly don't
> > > > > > > > > > have sufficient knowledge to rule out the possibility of every
> > > > > > > > > > conceivable form of life under every conceivable circumstance. Dr.
> > > > > > > > > > Craig cannot prove that only carbon-based life like ours can exist.
>
> > > > > > > > > > 2.http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/finetuning.html
>
> > > > > > > > > > 3.http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/aparthib/design_argument.htm
>
> > > > > > > > > > Etc.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fundamental physical constants.Nuclear forces,Electromagnetism and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > gravity.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > You need to explain yourself. Merely listing some items in not a proof
> > > > > > > > > > > > for anything.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Intelligent design proponents also raise occasional arguments outside
> > > > > > > > > > > biology, most notably an argument based on the concept of the fine-
> > > > > > > > > > > tuning of universal constants that make matter and life possible and
>
> > > > > > > > > > See above.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > which are argued not to be solely attributable to chance. These
> > > > > > > > > > > include the values of fundamental physical constants, the relative
> > > > > > > > > > > strength of nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravity between
> > > > > > > > > > > fundamental particles, as well as the ratios of masses of such
> > > > > > > > > > > particles. Intelligent design proponent and Center for Science and
> > > > > > > > > > > Culture fellow Guillermo Gonzalez argues that if any of these values
> > > > > > > > > > > were even slightly different, the universe would be dramatically
> > > > > > > > > > > different, making it impossible for many chemical elements and
> > > > > > > > > > > features of the Universe, such as galaxies, to form.[85] Thus,
> > > > > > > > > > > proponents argue, an intelligent designer of life was needed to ensure
> > > > > > > > > > > that the requisite features were present to achieve that particular
> > > > > > > > > > > outcome.
>
> > > > > > > > > > See above
>
> > > > > > > > > > Not proof, but evidence.
>
> > > > > > > > > > The fine-tuned universe is not evidence, it is a biased interpretation
> > > > > > > > > > of observed facts flawed by bad science and improper understanding of
> > > > > > > > > > statistics.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > anything really. It's just a name with give to something when we don't
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Show me one instance of a scientific claim that is explained based on
> > > > > > > > > > > > "chance."
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Evolution. Small random mutations. Environment is also random.So
> > > > > > > > > > > Evolution happens by chance.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > You would only be right if the actual Theory of Evolution assigned to
> > > > > > > > > > life a purpose or a goal,
>
> > > > > > > > > This is my point. Evolutionists believe life can mean what ever you
> > > > > > > > > want it to mean. So if I want your argument to mean nothing it means
> > > > > > > > > nothing. How then can ever have an objective debate about any thing?
>
> > > > > > > > First, there are no such things as evolutionists.
>
> > > > > > > There is according to the Webster dictionary. I like dictionary
> > > > > > > definitions.
>
> > > > > > Really? And what does Webster say about it?
>
> > > > > Here's some more for you to peruse.
>
> > > > > General (13 matching dictionaries)
>
> > > > > evolutionist : Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition
> > > > > [home, info]
>
> > > > > evolutionist : Wiktionary [home, info]
>
> > > > > evolutionist : Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed. [home,
> > > > > info]
>
> > > > > evolutionist : The Wordsmyth English Dictionary-Thesaurus [home,
> > > > > info]
>
> > > > > evolutionist : Infoplease Dictionary [home, info]
>
> > > > > evolutionist : Dictionary.com [home, info]
>
> > > > > evolutionist : UltraLingua English Dictionary [home, info]
>
> > > > > Evolutionist : Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia [home, info]
>
> > > > > Evolutionist : Online Plain Text English Dictionary [home, info]
>
> > > > > evolutionist : Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition [home,
> > > > > info]
>
> > > > > Evolutionist : AllWords.com Multi-Lingual Dictionary [home, info]
>
> > > > > evolutionist : Free Dictionary [home, info]
>
> > > > > evolutionist : Dictionary/thesaurus [home, info]
>
> > > > > evolutionist
> > > > > One entry found.
>
> > > > > Sponsored LinksDiscover Darwin with OU
> > > > > Find out more about the evolution theory that changed the world!www.darwinou.co.uk
>
> > > > > Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
> > > > > Pronunciation: \ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən, ˌē-və-\
> > > > > Function: noun
> > > > > Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
> > > > > Date: 1622
> > > > > 1: one of a set of prescribed movements
> > > > > 2 a: a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b: the
> > > > > action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c
> > > > > (1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to
> > > > > a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2): a process of
> > > > > gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic
> > > > > advance d: something evolved
> > > > > 3: the process of working out or developing
> > > > > 4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or
> > > > > species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and
> > > > > plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the
> > > > > distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive
> > > > > generations ; also : the process described by this theory
> > > > > 5: the extraction of a mathematical root
> > > > > 6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of
> > > > > interrelated phenomena
> > > > > — evo·lu·tion·ari·ly \-shə-ˌner-ə-lē\ adverb
>
> > > > >http://www.onelook.com/?loc=rescb&refclue=theory&w=evolutionist
>
> > > > Yeah, and what does the "Main entry" say? It says "evolution"
>
> > > > I want you to show me the "Main entry" for "evolutionist".
>
> > > Why does it have to be main entry?
>
> > Because that's how dictionaries work.
>
> > > evolutionist
> > > One entry found for evolutionist.
>
> > > Main Entry: evo·lu·tion·ist
> > > Pronunciation: -sh(-)nst
> > > Function: noun
> > > : a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution
>
> > >http://medical.merriam-webster.com/medical/evolutionist
>
> > Wow. You actually found one. It's a sad day for the english language.
>
> > Question: Are you a gravitationist?
>
> > > > > > > > Second, what else are words other than what we want them to mean?
>
> > > > > > > you may like to make words mean what ever you want them to mean. I
> > > > > > > like dictionary definitions.
>
> > > > > > > > That's not to say that they should simply be changed on a whim, but do
> > > > > > > > you really think that God ordained the meaning of all words and such
> > > > > > > > meanings are immutable?
>
> > > > > > > I don't know.
> > > > > > > I don't believe in subjective meaning.I don't believe in subjective
> > > > > > > truth or reality. Do you?
>
> > > > > > Yes. Asthetics.
>
> > > > > So you can assign any value you want to anything I write. So what is
> > > > > the point in us debating?
>
> > > > Ideally I think the point in debating is to establish is to take two
> > > > contradictory conclusions and establish the truth of one over the
> > > > other.
>
> > > yes , but this can't be done unless you believe in objective truth.
>
> > Which I do.
>
> So you believe in a subjective universe with of objective truth in it.
> This is not logical.

I believe that there are subjective truths. I believe that there are
also objective truths. This is not illogical.

That a sandwich exists on a plate before me would be an objective
truth. That it is tasty and delicious would be a subjective truth.
Understand?

>
> > > > > You don't believe in objective truth and
> > > > > reality.
>
> > > > Where did I say I don't believe in objective truth and reality?
>
> > > See above where you say Yes.Asthetics. When I asked you . Do you
>
> > ...
>
> > read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:26 am
From: Drafterman

On Dec 3, 5:28 am, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 11:03 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 24, 4:12 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 17, 7:01 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 17, 1:50 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 16, 6:24 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 15, 11:48 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 8, 5:08 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 11:59 am,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Oct 30, 6:21 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 30, 9:50 am,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 23, 4:02 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 23, 10:54 am,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Intelligent design is evidence of God.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK. Give us an example of "Intelligent Design" evidence.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The fine tuned universe.The fine tuning of universal constants.The
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > "fine tuned universe"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > What is that?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > The fine-tuned Universe is the idea that the conditions that allow
> > > > > > > > > > > life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal physical
> > > > > > > > > > > constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several
> > > > > > > > > > > fundamental constants were only slightly different the universe would
> > > > > > > > > > > be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of
> > > > > > > > > > > matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is
> > > > > > > > > > > presently understood.
>
> > > > > > > > > > This silly argument has been refuted many times over...
>
> > > > > > > > > > 1.
> > > > > > > > > > Dr. Craig calls upon the currently popular argument that the physics
> > > > > > > > > > of our universe is fine tuned for life. This is taken as evidence for
> > > > > > > > > > divine purpose behind the existence of life.
>
> > > > > > > > > > However, even if any given kind of life is highly improbable to have
> > > > > > > > > > arisen by natural means, some kind of life may be highly probable.
> > > > > > > > > > Another form of life might evolve in a universe with different
> > > > > > > > > > physical constants or even different physical laws. We certainly don't
> > > > > > > > > > have sufficient knowledge to rule out the possibility of every
> > > > > > > > > > conceivable form of life under every conceivable circumstance. Dr.
> > > > > > > > > > Craig cannot prove that only carbon-based life like ours can exist.
>
> > > > > > > > > > 2.http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/finetuning.html
>
> > > > > > > > > > 3.http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/aparthib/design_argument.htm
>
> > > > > > > > > > Etc.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fundamental physical constants.Nuclear forces,Electromagnetism and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > gravity.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > You need to explain yourself. Merely listing some items in not a proof
> > > > > > > > > > > > for anything.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Intelligent design proponents also raise occasional arguments outside
> > > > > > > > > > > biology, most notably an argument based on the concept of the fine-
> > > > > > > > > > > tuning of universal constants that make matter and life possible and
>
> > > > > > > > > > See above.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > which are argued not to be solely attributable to chance. These
> > > > > > > > > > > include the values of fundamental physical constants, the relative
> > > > > > > > > > > strength of nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravity between
> > > > > > > > > > > fundamental particles, as well as the ratios of masses of such
> > > > > > > > > > > particles. Intelligent design proponent and Center for Science and
> > > > > > > > > > > Culture fellow Guillermo Gonzalez argues that if any of these values
> > > > > > > > > > > were even slightly different, the universe would be dramatically
> > > > > > > > > > > different, making it impossible for many chemical elements and
> > > > > > > > > > > features of the Universe, such as galaxies, to form.[85] Thus,
> > > > > > > > > > > proponents argue, an intelligent designer of life was needed to ensure
> > > > > > > > > > > that the requisite features were present to achieve that particular
> > > > > > > > > > > outcome.
>
> > > > > > > > > > See above
>
> > > > > > > > > > Not proof, but evidence.
>
> > > > > > > > > > The fine-tuned universe is not evidence, it is a biased interpretation
> > > > > > > > > > of observed facts flawed by bad science and improper understanding of
> > > > > > > > > > statistics.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > anything really. It's just a name with give to something when we don't
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Show me one instance of a scientific claim that is explained based on
> > > > > > > > > > > > "chance."
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Evolution. Small random mutations. Environment is also random.So
> > > > > > > > > > > Evolution happens by chance.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > You would only be right if the actual Theory of Evolution assigned to
> > > > > > > > > > life a purpose or a goal,
>
> > > > > > > > > This is my point. Evolutionists believe life can mean what ever you
> > > > > > > > > want it to mean. So if I want your argument to mean nothing it means
> > > > > > > > > nothing. How then can ever have an objective debate about any thing?
>
> > > > > > > > First, there are no such things as evolutionists.
>
> > > > > > > There is according to the Webster dictionary. I like dictionary
> > > > > > > definitions.
>
> > > > > > Really? And what does Webster say about it?
>
> > > > > Here's some more for you to peruse.
>
> > > > > General (13 matching dictionaries)
>
> > > > > evolutionist : Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition
> > > > > [home, info]
>
> > > > > evolutionist : Wiktionary [home, info]
>
> > > > > evolutionist : Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed. [home,
> > > > > info]
>
> > > > > evolutionist : The Wordsmyth English Dictionary-Thesaurus [home,
> > > > > info]
>
> > > > > evolutionist : Infoplease Dictionary [home, info]
>
> > > > > evolutionist : Dictionary.com [home, info]
>
> > > > > evolutionist : UltraLingua English Dictionary [home, info]
>
> > > > > Evolutionist : Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia [home, info]
>
> > > > > Evolutionist : Online Plain Text English Dictionary [home, info]
>
> > > > > evolutionist : Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition [home,
> > > > > info]
>
> > > > > Evolutionist : AllWords.com Multi-Lingual Dictionary [home, info]
>
> > > > > evolutionist : Free Dictionary [home, info]
>
> > > > > evolutionist : Dictionary/thesaurus [home, info]
>
> > > > > evolutionist
> > > > > One entry found.
>
> > > > > Sponsored LinksDiscover Darwin with OU
> > > > > Find out more about the evolution theory that changed the world!www.darwinou.co.uk
>
> > > > > Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
> > > > > Pronunciation: \ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən, ˌē-və-\
> > > > > Function: noun
> > > > > Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
> > > > > Date: 1622
> > > > > 1: one of a set of prescribed movements
> > > > > 2 a: a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b: the
> > > > > action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c
> > > > > (1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to
> > > > > a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2): a process of
> > > > > gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic
> > > > > advance d: something evolved
> > > > > 3: the process of working out or developing
> > > > > 4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or
> > > > > species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and
> > > > > plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the
> > > > > distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive
> > > > > generations ; also : the process described by this theory
> > > > > 5: the extraction of a mathematical root
> > > > > 6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of
> > > > > interrelated phenomena
> > > > > — evo·lu·tion·ari·ly \-shə-ˌner-ə-lē\ adverb
>
> > > > >http://www.onelook.com/?loc=rescb&refclue=theory&w=evolutionist
>
> > > > Yeah, and what does the "Main entry" say? It says "evolution"
>
> > > > I want you to show me the "Main entry" for "evolutionist".
>
> > > Why does it have to be main entry?
>
> > Because that's how dictionaries work.
>
> What are you trying to say?

Dictionaries work by having entries and then providing the definitions
for that corresponding entry. That's how they work. So if you want to
know the definition of a word, you find the entry that matches that
word, and the corresponding definition will apply to that word.

So, if I want to know the meaning of "evolution" I find where
"evolution" is the entry, then read the definitions. What I don't do
is find the entry for another word (like "spaghetti"), read the
definition *there* and then say that is the definition of evolution.

So, I want you to find me the definition of EVOLUTIONIST which
requires you to find the entry that says EVOLUTIONIST not EVOLUTION

>
>
>
> > > evolutionist
> > > One entry found for evolutionist.
>
> > > Main Entry: evo·lu·tion·ist
> > > Pronunciation: -sh(-)nst
> > > Function: noun
> > > : a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution
>
> > >http://medical.merriam-webster.com/medical/evolutionist
>
> > Wow. You actually found one. It's a sad day for the english language.
>
> Why is it?

Because "evolutionist" is a weasel word used by people that have no
idea what evolution is in an effort to drag it down to the same level
of other philosophical belief systems (-isms).

>
>
>
> > Question: Are you a gravitationist?
>
> No such word according to the dictionary. What is your definition of
> it?
>
> > > > > > > > Second, what else are words other than what we want them to mean?
>
> > > > > > > you may like to make words mean what ever you want them to mean. I
> > > > > > > like dictionary definitions.
>
> > > > > > > > That's not to say that they should simply be changed on a whim, but do
> > > > > > > > you really think that God ordained the meaning of all words and such
> > > > > > > > meanings are immutable?
>
> > > > > > > I don't know.
> > > > > > > I don't believe in subjective meaning.I don't believe in subjective
> > > > > > > truth or reality. Do you?
>
> > > > > > Yes. Asthetics.
>
> > > > > So you can assign any value you want to anything I write. So what is
> > > > > the point in us debating?
>
> > > > Ideally I think the point in debating is to establish is to take two
> > > > contradictory conclusions and establish the truth of one over the
> > > > other.
>
> > > yes , but this can't be done unless you believe in objective truth.
>
> > Which I do.
>
> > > > > You don't believe in objective truth and
> > > > > reality.
>
> > > > Where did I say I don't believe in objective truth and reality?
>
> > > See above where you say Yes.Asthetics. When I asked you . Do you
>
> > ...
>
> > read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
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 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:29 am
From: Drafterman

Then I would say I misunderstood the original question. I thought you
were just looking for examples period, not necessarily examples that
conclusively, without any doubt what-so-ever worked in an undeniable
manner.

On Dec 2, 10:13 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Did you read the article I linked to in response to Drafterman, that
> kind of motivated this thread?
>
> http://www.tamilnation.org/ideology/neuman_on_non_violence.htm
>
> I'm pretty much agreeing with what he said: that there doesn't seem to
> be an historical precedent for nonviolence working mainly on its own
> merits in a serious conflict, and the few predictable examples
> anticipated from posters on this thread are at best
> oversimplifications.
>
> On Dec 2, 8:03 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > People like to undermine the role of violence in the
>
> > > success afforded to them, because it makes for a happier picture of
> > > humanity.
>
> > Good point. Take the case of journalistic censorship on the
> > battlefield. Not showing the lifeless bodies of the 18 year old
> > American boy on the battlefield helps. At last count there have been
> > more than 4800 US service-members killed in Iraq / Afghanistan. How
> > many dead American bodies have you seen on TV? Initially, the
> > military purposes for censorship are to protect against things like
> > protests on the home-front etc.... But as the victor writes the
> > history it definitely helps lessen the impact of the horrors of war.
> > It is not really hard to train someone to hold a rifle and march into
> > battle. It's much harder to get him to go back and do it again
> > although you won't have to wonder if he has sharpened his bayonet.
> > The happy picture for humanity ironically has more to do with
> > benefiting government power than humanity itself. This is evidenced
> > by the fact that it does nothing to prevent violence and it has been
> > practised vigorously regardless of political party. Although there is
> > the easy argument that if it helps the American war machine maintain
> > preparedness to go to war than it is necessary. After-all the Union
> > was formed in part to "provide for the common defence". It is
> > something we expect our tax dollars to be used for.
>
> > On Dec 2, 7:35 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > 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 -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Killing Theists vs. Making Them Slaves
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/991f8eabe166b131?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:29 am
From: simonsaysbye

On Nov 27, 10:48 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 nov, 16:34, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I've snipped lots because it was getting too long ... :-)
>
> So will I.
>
> <snip>
>
> > the postion was a 'fine one'? Or that he was 'seized by an ardent
> > desire', and that he 'pointed out where the wall was'? What criteria
> > do you use to assess this source or that this event even happened?
>
> You may argue about that example, the fact is, Alexander did exist and
> he was responsible for giving his name to dozens of cities, amongst
> many other known achievements. Nobody even disputes that. The evidence
> is overwhelming.
>
> > And then consider this:
>
> > A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus,
> > was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to
> > carry the cross. They brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha
> > (which means The Place of the Skull). Then they offered him wine mixed
> > with myrrh, but he did not take it. And they crucified him. Dividing
> > up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get. It was the
> > third hour when they crucified him. The written notice of the charge
> > against him read 'The king of the Jews'. They crucified two robbers
> > with him, one on his right and one on his left.
>
> > Why do you claim that this is not 'history'? It was probably written
> > within 30 to 40 years of the event, and would have almost certainly
>
> Probably?
> No proof of that.
>
> > been read by eyewitnesses of the time. The earliest fragment is
> > possibly from papyrus 7Q5 and dates from the mid 50s, and there are
> > 100s of copies of it dating from the ancient world.
>
> You mean the piece of papyrus that has at best 7 complete characters
> that are meaningless in and of themselves and that has been dated to
> between 68 and 136 CE?
> Is this what you call "evidence" for the gospel of Mark?

So you find the evidence regarding Alexander 'overwhelming', so
logically you should also find the evidence that Jesus exists to be
'overwhelming'. I have taken a few days to reply because I wanted to
get my facts straight, and that meant getting my hands on a critical
edition to Arrian's text (which I have now done). The critical
introduction makes for interesting reading. It points out, for
example, that almost all evidence for our understanding of Alexander's
life is literary. So when you say that the evidence is overwhelming,
you are doing this based on your trust in the historical nature of the
texts. You said that he founded Alexandria: I just did you the favour
by supplying you with the primary source upon which your belief (and
everyone else's) is based. You have not yet justified why this source
is reliable, and the one I cited below is not.

The evidence for mark is primarily in the 100s of copies; the fragment
is simply icing on the cake, but it is truly remarkable. Even if it
was dates between 68 and 136 (how these dates are arrived at I'm
uncertain, it is my understanding that the cave was sealed before
68). I really think you have little idea just how unusual it is to
have copies of ancient documents that date so close to the event being
recorded. For example: Arrian's Anabasis Alexandri was written 450
years after Alexander died, drawing from sources of which we have no
record. But then, our earliest *copy* of this text comes from the
15th century, nearly 1500 years after with was written. Of the 32
texts that exist, 29 are all thought to be copies from a 12th century
text, now lost. The 15th century text is badly water damaged, and
less reliable copies are used to fill in the gaps.

As far as fragment 7Q5 goes, I'm looking right now at a facsimile of
it, and can identify 20 characters from it. The process of
extrapolating from a fragment to a text uses a technique called
stichometry, and if you do a text search for this fragment you get an
EXACT fit: Mark 6:52–53. The earliest complete copies of Mark are
later, but before that nearly the entire gospel can be assembled by it
being referenced in writings from Christians in other written works.
Which cannot be said for Anabasis Alexandri, or, for that matter, any
text dating from Classical times, upon which all our knowledge of
ancient history is based. So please justify why the New Testament
texts are not historical.

>
> <snip>
>
> > > OK, then, let's be methodical.
> > > What genre are the 4 gospels of the NT?
>
> > Prosopography (study of a person, a form of biography dating from
>
> I did not now that term.
>
> A quick look in Wikipedia states the following:
> "
> prosopography is an investigation of the common characteristics of an
> historical group, whose individual biographies may be largely
> untraceable, by means of a collective study of their lives.
> "
>
> It does not specify that it has to do with Roman times either. In
> fact, the whole article does not mention the bible or the gospels.
>
> In any case, it seems that the study if the gospel *may* fall under
> the umbrella of prosopography (Jesus is not an historical group), but
> the gospels themselves are not of the "prospography" genre because
> prosopogrpahy is not a literary genre.
>
> So, unless you have an explanation, my question remains unanswered.

You thought you were asking for a word to describe a *collection* of
biographies: (A42: "What genre are the 4 gospels of the NT");
prosopography seemed the best fit. The word is used loosely to mean a
collection of biographies; I myself don't use it in the more formal
way that is Wikipedia so my answer was potentially misleading. I've
just looked up the word in my concise OED and it says this: "the study
of such descriptions, especially in Roman history", so I'm guessing
that at some point when I first heard the word being used in this way
I looked it up, and that's how I formed an opinion on what the word
means.

>
> > Roman times). Look: the single largest academic work of this type in
> > English is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. It has over
> > 50,000 biographies, and the bibliographies that supply all the sources
> > to support the eviddence in the articles amounts to 12 million words.
> > I was the chief editor for all the sources for all the entries, and
> > worked on this project for several years up to publication. The
> > chances of you knowing more than me about how sources create history
> > is somewhere approaching 0%.
>
> Sure, but do not assume I am dumb as you did above by bringing in
> prosopography.

I don't see how answering a question means that I assume you are
dumb. If I thought you were dumb I wouldn't bother answering you at
all.

>
> <snip>
>
> > > So, you are saying that they were not divinely inspired, but written
> > > by men for men.
> > > Am I correct?
>
> > Another false dichotomy. You can either stop using them, or stop
> > living. ;-)
>
> How is it false? There is a disagreement between various christians
> regarding this. The text was either inspired by god or it was not.
> Please explain how this is a false dichotomy.

'The text is either inspire by god or not inspired by god" is not a
false dichotomy. But that is not what you said, you asked whether it
was 'divinely inspired' or 'written by men for men,. This is a false
dichotomy because A) there are other options apart from the two you
supplied, and B) the two are not in any case mutually exclusive: a
document can be both divinely inspired, and written by men for men.
(From wiki: The informal fallacy of false dilemma (also called false
dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only
two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other
options.)

>
> > I don't mind for a moment that you asked the questions, the point I
> > meant to make was that there are too many there to answer all at once.
>
> Fair enough.
> But the tone of your reply gave me the impression that you were sort
> of mildly outraged that I had had the balls to ask you such questions
> apparently for not good reasons.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Fine with me: I've never uses the word 'supernatural' anyway.
>
> > You haven't answered my question about being a materialist but it
> > seems necessary because it will affect pretty much anything we talk
> > about. For example, miracles are usually seen as an event that goes
> > against the laws of nature, so to talk about any miracles that Jesus
> > did or did not do means applying truth values to 'laws of nature' and
> > 'past'.
>
> I do not believe in miracles.
> According to you, if I understand correctly, miracles happened at a
> time when the laws of nature were different because god willed them to
> be different. But, if that was the case, why was it a miracle to the
> people living at that time? If the laws of nature were such that those
> "miracles" were possible, the "miracles" must in fact have been pretty
> ordinary for that time, no?
>
> > The problem is that you probably do not believe that laws of
> > nature, or the past, actually exist (if the past exists where is it
> > located? what colour is it? etc.)
>
> Why would you think that?
>
> > so it seems difficult to know how
> > you can explain your question to start with (I've been saying from the
> > start that I suspect you do not fully understand the nature of your
> > question).
>
> I have never seen anybody tiptoeing around a question such as you do
> here.
>
> It is very simple. You believe they happened or they did not.
> Once you have answered, you may justify/qualify your answer as you see
> fit.
>
> > I suspect that the past exists as the memory of God (which
> > is why we can meaningfully apply truth values to it),
>
> Why do you suspect that?
> What led you to that conclusion?
>
> > and that laws of
> > nature do not in fact exist but rather that all materials have powers
> > and liabilities that either by some remarkable coincidence or by a
> > certain sort of god happen to all work in such a way that the entire
> > universe is understandable and predicable. I presume you think
> > otherwise,
>
> You presume right.
>
> > but I don't yet know how, and you can't even make sense of
> > your question in a way that makes sense according to your world view,
> > I don't see how you can be justified asking it in the first place.
>
> Just answer according to your "world view".

I like being part of a discussion, and I do not like being part of an
interrogation. If you are not willing to explain – and defend – your
own world view then the conversation is one sided: you ask and I
answer. But I don't find my answers that interesting, what I find
interesting is you defending your own beliefs. And atheism is not a
belief, as such. So unless you put more of your own cards on the
table I will draw a line here.

> Are you a YEC?
>

No I am not.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Indigenous culture and beliefs
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/2f29f31db899913a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:43 am
From: Bob Crowley

I'm a Christian, without formal training in Christian apologetics, but
having done sufficient reading to accept scholarly comments on
Christ's undoubted existence, to say nothing of personal spiritual
experiences. Others have them also. I've never "spoken in tongues"
myself, due to a reluctance to hand mind over to another spiritual
reality. But I recently met an electrical engineer, fellow Christian,
who speaks Japanese fluently (and, no, he's not Japanese. He's white
Australian). He wants to be a missionary to the Japanese. However he
was struggling to learn the language, but told me that after an
episode of "speaking in tongues", the very next day he found he was
speaking the language quite fluently.

However the devil can do something similar. I was watching a DVD of
an old retreat by Bishop Fulton Sheen, who stated that a priest friend
of his dealt with a young Vietnamese girl who was demonically
affected. He found himself speaking perfect Latin, French and Spanish
with the girl, but she'd never had any training in any of the
languges. After exorcism, she no longer spoke a word of any of them.
Tha'ts why I'm a bit wary of sticking my neck out on "tongues". But
I'm digressing.

In the case of indigenous beliefs, you are correct in saying that
you've been trained to respect their beliefs as part of political
correctness, in much the same way Pavlov's dogs were trained to
salivate at the ringing of a bell.

As to whether you'd be game to challenge their beliefs .... ? I think
that would depend on context. If you were by yourself in Bourke,
Western NSW, you'd be a brave, and stupid, man if you stood in the
main street and verbally ridiculed their beliefs. If on the other
hand you were in a debate with aboriginal academics, using restrained
language, you'd probably be prepared to challenge them, and then share
a politically correct goanna burger afterwards. They might even
invite you to blow on their sacred Didgeridoo.

In other words, you're a bit of a hypocrite.

On Dec 3, 8:36 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Dawkins outlines a view in conjunction with Kim Sterelny (philosopher)
> in his book 'The God Delusion' pointing to a dramatic contrast in our
> lives. Sterelny asserts that "intelligent as our species might be, we
> are perversely intelligent".
>
> Using the case in point with Australian Aboriginals, Dawkins continues
> "The very same peoples who are so savvy about the natural world and
> how to survive in it, simultaneously clutter their minds with beliefs
> that are palpably false and for which the word 'useless' is a generous
> understatement."
>
> As a fairly comfortable westerner able to converse and discuss this &
> that, I did get the sqeamish self conscious feeling that yes, I could
> easily mock, berate and challenge the beliefs of monotheists (under
> the correct cicumstances) but I would find it almost 'impossible' to
> do the same to indiginous peoples beliefs. Why, I thought? Is this
> hypocrisy or is it misplaced respect?
>
> Is my view just political correctness gone mad or in fact is it me
> just too reluctant to disrespect an indigenous peoples beliefs;
> largely due to the social mores of my own socio economic grouping.
> Even though I recognise that indiginous peoples don't ram their
> beliefs down my throat. in my opinion, their beliefs are just as silly
> and wacko as the christians and their beliefs.
>
> I wonder if I would have the balls to tell an Australian Aboriginal or
> any other indigenous person that their beliefs are shit, silly and
> stupid. I wonder if I could be so 'out there'.
>
> Do others here have similar concerns or would they feel no reluctance
> to mock or denigrate indigenous peoples beliefs?
>
> Max

==============================================================================
TOPIC: I know your God doesn't exist.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/f1ee8b5d7f597854?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:48 am
From: Jian-Xia

On Dec 2, 9:57 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Nor does it have anything to do with gravity, however, we do believe
that gravity exists.
Hey you do too, you can't feel it, you can't touch, you can't see it.
So why do you think it's fact?

> 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.

Oh I'm sure it's literal when it records, "And God said, "Let the land
produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock,
creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according
to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to
their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the
creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God
saw that it was good.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image,..."
Genesis 1:24-26

> > Whatever that is agreeable, I'm sure I'll agree.
>
> This is the problem, right there.

I understand. That's where your problem lies, evoletino is so out of
sync with reality. You accept it only because scientists said so.

> 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."

I can understand everything about evolution enough to know that some
it isn't true. The Bible is true because it talks about reality. The
Bible is literal.

So God CREATED man in his own image,
in the image of God he CREATED him;
male and female he CREATED them."
EMPHASIS MINE
Genesis 1:27

> > 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.

In terms of physiology, we are animals, and that's about where our
similarities end. It's the atheists who have to reconcile their
dignity and that about being just mere animals which doesn't shew in
reality.

> > DO I have to
> > prove that as well?
>
> Yes.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let
them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the
livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move
along the ground.

Genesis 1:26

> > 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.

While we are talking about the special status of humans, you are
wrong. for a FACT> humans are at the Ttop^ of the food chain.
Evidently, since the extinction of dinosaurs humans have been able to
climb up real fast. Coincidence? I think not.

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

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:11 am
From: ObservantEye

Note to self. No sense of humor here...

On Dec 3, 3:46 am, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> no i am happy to accept the existance of trolls. Im "conversing" with
> one.
>
> please try to resist being an idiot in the future.
>
> On 2 Dec, 21:13, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Great, and you're an atroll, too? LOL Just kidding, couldn't resist.
>
> > On Dec 2, 10:45 am, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > that was the politest, well considered, gramatically correct piece of
> > > trolling ive seen in ages.
>
> > > On 1 Dec, 19:17, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I 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. There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> > > > but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These
> > > > furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> > > > wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> > > > language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture
> > > > you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> > > > hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> > > > through your keyboard with every angry jab.
>
> > > > The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> > > > arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> > > > agnostics.
>
> > > > Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
> > > > that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
> > > > you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
>
> > > > Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
> > > > because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
> > > > enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
> > > > hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
> > > > their keyboards in their dark basements.
>
> > > > Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
> > > > see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
> > > > The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
>
> > > > Of course, no self-respecting Christian 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 -

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:17 am
From: ObservantEye

Wow. You've persuaded me. Your twisted wit, name-calling, and
insults have convinced me that you must be the superior mind. Would
you be offended if I worshiped you?

On Dec 3, 4:54 am, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> hi turner, i couldnt be arsed going back an replying to this directly
> sorry.
>
> On 3 Dec, 02:11, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 7:08 PM, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Do any of them do more than post those giant cut/pastes from whatever
> > > site that is? Holy cow, what is that about? I can't even get myself
> > > to read it since it represents no thought from the minds here...
> > > Plus, it looks like something my lawyer vomited.
>
> > And you wonder why we atheists are frustrated and angry at them?
>
> exactly.
>
> he demanded we read something from the other side.
>
> Well ive read the babble and it took me almost 3 weeks. i took plenty
> of time off and had the occassional dip into "100 days of sodomy" 'cos
> i wanted to read something less sexually violent for a bit.
>
> then all we do is post a link to a web site and its
>
> " I can't even get myself
>
> > > to read it since it represents no thought from the minds here"
>
> so iobserveaoneeyedtrousersnake...go fuck yourself.
>
> chin chin
>
>
>
> > > On Dec 2, 4:19 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 4:42 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.
>
> > > > 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
>
> > > > 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:36 am
From: ObservantEye

I tried. I really did. I was convinced that maybe 99% was a little
high, but not by much. Since the original post, I've admitted I
shouldn't have started this thread the way I did. I've asked honest,
non-insulting (I hoped) questions. Too many here seemed to TRY to
prove my original post right. Neil, thanks for your thought-out
posts. There were a couple of others, but overall, the very things I
saw theists condemned for were shown to be the same here. Don't
respond to this. I'm out of this group in a couple minutes.
Everything I've posted was taken in the worst possible light and
attacked. Few had any interest in my quest for knowledge, but had
only time for insults and outright meanness.

Those of you who simply wanted to call names, degrade me, and tell me
what I can do to myself: You're very sad people. I am ashamed for my
atheist friends that I know in real life because of what people like
you do for the atheistic community is make them look like bigots. I
know that few I've met in real life had half the bile you have
spewed. They believe it, but don't think they have to demean anyone
who thinks differently. How are you different that the Christians?
You act the same as you told me they've treated you. Does that make
you a better person when you treat others the same? Is that the real
difference? You don't want to have to strive to be better? Where are
you people in real life? The only place I've seen people like you is
in the news, which kinda took away from the reality of your existence
for me. Interacting with you has convinced me that you're really out
there. That frightens me more for my childrens' future than
Christians do.

Well, I'm out of this group, and I can only imagine the replies to
this that'll colorfully and effectively say, "good riddance." But
running the undecided out like this isn't exactly the way to convince
people that you're a better option than any other theism. All you've
shown me is what you're NOT. I wanted to know who you ARE. I don't
want to be remembered for what I'm not. I'm not a zebra. I'm not
mineral. I'm not plant. (have fun with that one, you predictable
people).

I hate to part with the few of you that actually spoke, but I can't
deal with the rest of them. I think we had potential to learn from
each other.

Remember: the original post wasn't about theism or atheism. It was
about the people here. I hope I or mine never meet most of you in
real life.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:52 am
From: Drafterman

On Dec 3, 9:36 am, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I tried. I really did. I was convinced that maybe 99% was a little
> high, but not by much. Since the original post, I've admitted I
> shouldn't have started this thread the way I did. I've asked honest,
> non-insulting (I hoped) questions. Too many here seemed to TRY to
> prove my original post right. Neil, thanks for your thought-out
> posts. There were a couple of others, but overall, the very things I
> saw theists condemned for were shown to be the same here. Don't
> respond to this. I'm out of this group in a couple minutes.
> Everything I've posted was taken in the worst possible light and
> attacked. Few had any interest in my quest for knowledge, but had
> only time for insults and outright meanness.
>
> Those of you who simply wanted to call names, degrade me, and tell me
> what I can do to myself: You're very sad people. I am ashamed for my
> atheist friends that I know in real life because of what people like
> you do for the atheistic community is make them look like bigots. I
> know that few I've met in real life had half the bile you have
> spewed. They believe it, but don't think they have to demean anyone
> who thinks differently. How are you different that the Christians?
> You act the same as you told me they've treated you. Does that make
> you a better person when you treat others the same? Is that the real
> difference? You don't want to have to strive to be better? Where are
> you people in real life? The only place I've seen people like you is
> in the news, which kinda took away from the reality of your existence
> for me. Interacting with you has convinced me that you're really out
> there. That frightens me more for my childrens' future than
> Christians do.
>
> Well, I'm out of this group, and I can only imagine the replies to
> this that'll colorfully and effectively say, "good riddance." But
> running the undecided out like this isn't exactly the way to convince
> people that you're a better option than any other theism. All you've
> shown me is what you're NOT. I wanted to know who you ARE. I don't
> want to be remembered for what I'm not. I'm not a zebra. I'm not
> mineral. I'm not plant. (have fun with that one, you predictable
> people).
>
> I hate to part with the few of you that actually spoke, but I can't
> deal with the rest of them. I think we had potential to learn from
> each other.
>
> Remember: the original post wasn't about theism or atheism. It was
> about the people here. I hope I or mine never meet most of you in
> real life.

Yes, it was about the nasty atheists and the poor, poor theists. Maybe
you missed it in your calculated anaylsis of this group, but the
theists here don't need any help making martyrs out of themselves.

>
> On Dec 3, 4:54 am, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > hi turner, i couldnt be arsed going back an replying to this directly
> > sorry.
>
> > On 3 Dec, 02:11, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 7:08 PM, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Do any of them do more than post those giant cut/pastes from whatever
> > > > site that is? Holy cow, what is that about? I can't even get myself
> > > > to read it since it represents no thought from the minds here...
> > > > Plus, it looks like something my lawyer vomited.
>
> > > And you wonder why we atheists are frustrated and angry at them?
>
> > exactly.
>
> > he demanded we read something from the other side.
>
> > Well ive read the babble and it took me almost 3 weeks. i took plenty
> > of time off and had the occassional dip into "100 days of sodomy" 'cos
> > i wanted to read something less sexually violent for a bit.
>
> > then all we do is post a link to a web site and its
>
> > " I can't even get myself
>
> > > > to read it since it represents no thought from the minds here"
>
> > so iobserveaoneeyedtrousersnake...go fuck yourself.
>
> > chin chin
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 4:19 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 4:42 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.
>
> > > > > 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
>
> > > > > 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A Gentle inquisition please tell us why ?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/2b0c60cf9303d074?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:41 am
From: klytu

On Dec 2, 9:53 am, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 2 Dec, 11:58, klytu <jazzyjef...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 1, 5:43 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why are you here supporting Christianity or positing an atheistic
> > > stance?
>
> > In searching for truth, I believe it's important to start with a clean
> > slate; with as few preconceived notions as possible. It's difficult
> > for me to do that at times because I was brought up in a Christian
> > family; but I think taking a rational, atheistic position is a first
> > step in clearing my mind of non-sensical preconceived notions.
>
> late at night i sometime have doubts about my atheism, i look at the
> universe and wonder did this really come from nothing?"
>
Interesting. Were you raised in a religious family? As a child, when I
was told that God created everything, I used to ask "Where did God
come from?". The ensuing conversations rarely got anywhere. I can
see how it might be simpler and more emotionally satisfying for many
people to just accept that everything came from God and give up
asking.

For me, as I grew older the question of "where did the universe come
from?" became less and less important. Now when I think about such
things, my thoughts are more along the lines of "what is really out
there ?". What is the underlying substance of reality that we try to
comprehend based upon our sensory impressions and rational
interpetations of those?

About two years ago, I read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene.
Real possibilities tied to string theory in physics include the idea
that our universe may be part of a "multiverse" that includes multiple
dimensions. I think that the real possibilities being uncovered by
science are far more interesting and wondrous than the creation myths
developed by people over the years.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Culti-mutualism (was: Re: Christmas and Easter
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/31dcd07b1c9dcbf5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:54 am
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 6:50 AM, Trance Gemini <trancegemini7@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Turner Hayes <lordlacolith@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemini7@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:36 PM, leebert <sregdoreel@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey you godless bums, yule burn in eternal tarnation for that!
>>>>
>>>> Or somethin' like dat.
>>>>
>>>> I'm for the Easter Platypus, he's the one that actually lays the eggs.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and Dec 25 = Oct 31.
>>>>
>>>> That's why programmers confuse Christmas with Halloween.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wow. Cool. Thanks.
>>>
>>> I was wondering what I was doing wrong when I was "programming" Christmas
>>> :-).
>>>
>>
>> "I didn't remember this many ghosts and slutty nurses/policewomen/cats on
>> Christmas..."
>>
>
> You must be having the same problem ;-)
>

Problem? Who said it was a problem? ;)

>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> /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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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: Who's for banning LedZepp?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/e62147ab0129248c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:57 am
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 6:10 AM, checkers <mkoneill@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Dec 3, 11:24 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > Dev
> > If this wo/man is using all this technology, I, as an ignoramus
> > in such things, has to ask "Why?" Why is this person finding it
> > necessary to use these things? For what purpose is s/he using
> > it? I think it is all so unnecessary. However, if they are using it
> > for their own sick purposes, then the spirit of this group is
> > compromised, and s/he should go.
>
> chx
> i am no expert in this tech. but if i should post from a webcafe in
> Cape Town today. fly to NY and post from there. then fly to Boston and
> post from a webcafe there. will the IP not change every time. LZ did
> say he will be all over.
>
> the person who mentioned this thingy was only Dev and now you assume
> LZ is using it. but what confuses me more is you. you talk about 'this
> person' then jump to 'if they' and end with 's/he'. i'd say you tried
> to implicate ALL theists with this style of writing (sic)
>
> how can you ban someone because some other dude _thinks_ another may
> be using a gadget? this was not confirmed in any way.
>
> it sounds like the aheists are thinking up all sorts of ydeas to ban
> theists when they ignore atheists breaking rules. if you really want
> an atheists only group, why not start one then?

We already did. Mostly what we discuss is how to get you. Because there's a
massive Atheist Conspiracy against you.

>
>
> this group is losing or lost it's spirit 3 months ago with BIAS
>
> >
> > On Nov 28, 6:10 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > This post is a practical admission, beyond any reasonable doubt, that
> > > LedZepp is using an IP anonymizer. If you have been following his
> > > recent posts in which he emphasized different IP addresses as "proof"
> > > that Wanderer, Liam and LedZepp are not all one, it's especially
> > > obvious here that he's just thumbing his nose at the high standards
> > > generally required to ban a regular from AvC, all the while trying to
> > > disingenuously make this out as a witchhunt against theists. Liam
> > > would have been fine if he had learned his lesson about posting
> > > private information the first time he was banned, as Wanderer.
> >
> > > I'm afraid I'm going to have to make a judgment call here, but I'm
> > > going to get some input here: who thinks LedZepp should be able to get
> > > away with whatever he wants while practically admitting what he's
> > > doing just because he has an IP anonymizer? Who thinks LedZepp should
> > > be _banned_, and anyone else we have good reason to think is Liam
> > > should be banned?
> >
> > > On Nov 27, 12:37 pm, LedZepp <FledZeppe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > I will be moving around the world, basically Germany, Canada and all
> > > > over the United States. My IP will be changing constantly.- Hide
> quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>

==============================================================================
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: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:08 am
From: dali_70

> On Dec 3, 8:13 am, arcangel <alien...@univision.com> wrote:
> snipped the psycho BS.

How much glue have you been sniffing?
It's obviously causing severe brain damage. I would recommend you seek
professional help soon.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: guidelines.org: You can only live so long
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/716971416ddc1540?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:15 am
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 5:54 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Answer, I leave this to you and your "blah blah blah".

As much as I would like to.. I can't.

As I stated to some willfully ignorant posters before, there is a
method in my madness... This post is not appropriate...he is trying to
say something relatively new here...

But if he replies with his stupid confession, or the objective truth,
or measurements, then BAM, I'm there!
____________________________________
Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
understand.
-- Frederick the Great

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atheism vs Christianity

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Atheism-vs-Christianity - 25 new messages in 15 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links