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

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Theism and Special Privilege
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/3cc405563ba2a0ae?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:04 pm
From: Saint Onan

On Dec 1, 3:59 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Theists. A question. Please read the following article.
>
> Now, please explain to me why this Texas man was sent to a psychiatrist for
> claiming that your god told him to hit this woman's car and why Bush was not
> sent to a psychiatrist for claiming that your god told him to send the
> troops into Iraq?
>
> Exactly what is the difference between the two?

No difference. God's fessed up, Trance. He really did tell that guy to
hit the woman's car.

http://stuffgodhates.com/?p=769

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:07 pm
From: Dev

You missed the point because you're garbage.

On Dec 3, 3:38 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your thread title is misleading. You aren't talking about "Theism and
> special privilege," since obviously Bush and the irate driver are both
> theists. Bush gets special privilege because he's "The Decider," not
> because he's a theist.
>
> On Nov 30, 11:59 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Theists. A question. Please read the following article.
>
> > Now, please explain to me why this Texas man was sent to a psychiatrist for
> > claiming that your god told him to hit this woman's car and why Bush was not
> > sent to a psychiatrist for claiming that your god told him to send the
> > troops into Iraq?
>
> > Exactly what is the difference between the two?
>
> > In addition, please explain why there appears to be so many people out there
> > committing crimes in the name of your god which lends a great deal of
> > credence to the question, Which God Do You Kill For?
>
> > Texas man says God told him to hit woman's car
> > By ROBERT CROWE
> > San Antonio Express-News
> > Nov. 29, 2008, 12:15AM
>
> > The driver of a pickup that struck a woman's car on San Antonio's
> > South Side on Friday morning is being evaluated by psychiatrists
> > because he thinks God told him to drive in excess of 100 mph to take
> > the other car off the road, police said.
>
> > The bizarre incident that shut down southbound U.S. Highway 281 above
> > the Medina River happened about 7:25 a.m.
>
> > "He just said God said she wasn't driving right, and she needed to be
> > taken off the road," said Lt. Kyle Coleman of the Bexar County
> > Sheriff's Office.
>
> > The woman was driving her sedan northbound when the pickup rear-ended
> > her vehicle. The pickup's driver told deputies that was driving in
> > excess of 100 mph at the time, Coleman said. The impact caused both
> > vehicles to spin across a median before they came to a stop along a
> > barrier in the southbound lanes. No other vehicles were involved.
>
> > Though both vehicles were badly damaged, the drivers suffered minor
> > injuries.
>
> > "God must have been with them, 'cause any other time, the severity of
> > this crash, it would have been a fatal," Coleman said.
>
> > The woman was taken to a hospital as a precaution, while the pickup
> > driver was taken for psychiatric evaluation.
>
> > Police did not find evidence of alcohol or drug use by either driver,
> > nor did the pickup driver specify for police how the woman's driving
> > was unsatisfactory.
>
> >http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6137502.html#
>
> > --
> > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> > "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and
> > assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech
> > to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US
> > Supreme Court Justice- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:09 pm
From: Joe

On Dec 3, 7:56 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Your thread title is misleading. You aren't talking about "Theism and
> > special privilege," since obviously Bush and the irate driver are both
> > theists. Bush gets special privilege because he's "The Decider," not
> > because he's a theist.
>
> Ah. So it's okay for "The Decider" to be crazy as a loon but no the driver?
>

I don't think war-mongering OR running a bad driver off the road are
"okay."

But neither has to do with theism per se. People do fucked-up shit,
and sometimes theists blame their fucked-up shit on God. Atheists, by
contrast, blame it on theists. ;)

>
>
>
> > On Nov 30, 11:59 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Theists. A question. Please read the following article.
>
> > > Now, please explain to me why this Texas man was sent to a psychiatrist
> > for
> > > claiming that your god told him to hit this woman's car and why Bush was
> > not
> > > sent to a psychiatrist for claiming that your god told him to send the
> > > troops into Iraq?
>
> > > Exactly what is the difference between the two?
>
> > > In addition, please explain why there appears to be so many people out
> > there
> > > committing crimes in the name of your god which lends a great deal of
> > > credence to the question, Which God Do You Kill For?
>
> > > Texas man says God told him to hit woman's car
> > > By ROBERT CROWE
> > > San Antonio Express-News
> > > Nov. 29, 2008, 12:15AM
>
> > > The driver of a pickup that struck a woman's car on San Antonio's
> > > South Side on Friday morning is being evaluated by psychiatrists
> > > because he thinks God told him to drive in excess of 100 mph to take
> > > the other car off the road, police said.
>
> > > The bizarre incident that shut down southbound U.S. Highway 281 above
> > > the Medina River happened about 7:25 a.m.
>
> > > "He just said God said she wasn't driving right, and she needed to be
> > > taken off the road," said Lt. Kyle Coleman of the Bexar County
> > > Sheriff's Office.
>
> > > The woman was driving her sedan northbound when the pickup rear-ended
> > > her vehicle. The pickup's driver told deputies that was driving in
> > > excess of 100 mph at the time, Coleman said. The impact caused both
> > > vehicles to spin across a median before they came to a stop along a
> > > barrier in the southbound lanes. No other vehicles were involved.
>
> > > Though both vehicles were badly damaged, the drivers suffered minor
> > > injuries.
>
> > > "God must have been with them, 'cause any other time, the severity of
> > > this crash, it would have been a fatal," Coleman said.
>
> > > The woman was taken to a hospital as a precaution, while the pickup
> > > driver was taken for psychiatric evaluation.
>
> > > Police did not find evidence of alcohol or drug use by either driver,
> > > nor did the pickup driver specify for police how the woman's driving
> > > was unsatisfactory.
>
> > >http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6137502.html#
>
> > > --
> > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> > > "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech
> > and
> > > assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of
> > speech
> > > to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis,
> > US
> > > Supreme Court Justice
>
> --
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
> Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> Andromeda

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:05 pm
From: Joe

On Dec 1, 9:49 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 1:50 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 30, 3:16 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > So what you are saying is that you get "glimpses of God"
> > > but you don't know who or what God is for sure -
>
> > No, what I am saying is that I know for sure God is Love,
>
> God is a Christian deity for which there is no evidence that it
> exists. Love is an emotion that exists without God. Love is not
> evidence God exists. Atheists feel love, Hindus feel love, chimps feel
> love. Love and God are not the same thing.
>
> > and Love is
> > infinite,
>
> Love is an emotion that ceases upon death.
>
> > and I experience the infinity of Love as ever-increasing
> > love in me.
>
> I'm just a bit skeptical about this claim, judging by the seething
> hatred you show towards those who don't recognize your overpowering
> personal divinity. And your "love" isn't infinite; like everyone
> else's it will cease upon death.
>

Aw, Neil! I don't hate you. You are off your rocker!

> > To increase without bound is actually the definition of
> > infinity.
>
> But that's got nothing to do with your finite emotions.
>
> > > all you
> > > know is that this being/entity is all powerful and all
> > > encompassing and has the ability to do what it will
> > > with you. It also likes to be glorified.
>
> > That is a human guess at what God "likes" according to a human
> > perspective.
>
> You know about as much about God as an atheist does. Less, even.
>
> > I would say, rather, that God deserves to be glorified, and when a
> > finite being encounters Him,
>
> How could a finite being know when they have encountered God? God is
> allegedly "incomprehensible" and "unfathomable."
>
> > that finite being's natural reaction is
> > to give Him glory, or else to hate Him if the being hates Love.
>
> You really do have an active imagination, don't you?
>
> > > Still, with all of this
> > > it remains a mystery?
>
> > Infinity cannot be rendered comprehensible to a finite being. God is
> > the ultimate Mystery.
>
> And yet there you were, just a few sentences ago, spouting off about
> infinity. Further evidence you consider yourself to be an infinite
> being. Hey, if you're talking to Jesus, can you ask him what stocks I
> should invest in? Thanks...> > On Nov 30, 5:21 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 28, 7:32 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > Actually Joe, I was using it purely as a definition.
> > > > > It seems to me that when people believe in God, God is different
> > > > > for every person who believes in him/her. Some people believe
> > > > > God is a person and has human form. Others say, no, God is a
> > > > > spirit, and the third lot suggest that God is both.
> > > > > Then there is the metaphysical side of things, where people don't
> > > > > relate to God as anything like a human entity, but more like the
> > > > > power of life, or the consciousness of the universe, the oneness
> > > > > of all life, etc. My question was limited to asking what Christians
> > > > > thought their God was, hence my asking for a definition from
> > > > > them. There is no ulterior motive - just being respectful of
> > > > > something I can't relate to, or believe in.
>
> > > > I wold say that all the above descriptions are limited ideas of
> > > > attributes of God. Limited ideas are the only ideas we can have, of
> > > > an infinite Entity, so I prefer to acknowledge that for the most part
> > > > God is Unknown. I believe He has revealed Himself to us in Jesus
> > > > Christ, as previously as the Word to the prophets of old. I believe
> > > > the Word remains with us, in the Holy Eucharist, so that there is no
> > > > limit to how much Love will reveal both now and forever, and yet
> > > > everything He has revealed at any time will still be nothing compared
> > > > with the infinity that lies still hidden in Love. He will always be
> > > > for the most part Unknown to us as the Infinite Mystery, but He has
> > > > revealed enough for us to know Him as Love, and that is Enough, for
> > > > Love is Infinite. And the infinity of Love is Incarnate, in the
> > > > Eucharist.
>
> > > > > On Nov 29, 5:28 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> No, it is your move. Where do we go with this?
>
> > > > > > Or did you actually only honestly want to know what God is?
>
> > > > > > On Nov 27, 12:01 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > So far?
> > > > > > > Do you want more?
> > > > > > > If so, please add.
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 27, 1:10 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 26, 5:42 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Okay Joe
> > > > > > > > > Let's try and get some sense here.
> > > > > > > > > So, your definition of God is going to be:
> > > > > > > > > God is:
> > > > > > > > > Unique (in that there is only one God).
> > > > > > > > > Universal (in that he is the God of All).
> > > > > > > > > Life-generating (in that he is the Origin of all life).
> > > > > > > > > Personal (in that he may be characterized as a Person rather than an
> > > > > > > > > impersonal force or principle.)
> > > > > > > > > Omnipotent (in that he is able to exercise power over any part of the
> > > > > > > > > universe or over the universe as a whole.
> > > > > > > > > Benevolent (in that god is Kind to His children.)
> > > > > > > > > Incomprehensible (in that he is infinite).
> > > > > > > > > In short, Joe is postulating:
> > > > > > > > > God is the unique, universal, all-powerful, benevolent Person
> > > > > > > > > who is the source of all life.
> > > > > > > > > Have I got this right Joe, or have I got it wrong?
>
> > > > > > > > So far, so good.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 27, 5:53 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> First of all, I am amazed to see some possible progress in a thread
> > > > > > > > > > like this. Bravo to you both, philosopher and Alan, for bringing it
> > > > > > > > > > this far. My hope is restored!
>
> > > > > > > > > > I too was struck by the nearness of the miss in the opening post.
>
> > > > > > > > > > "the big Skydaddy who rules over all."
>
> > > > > > > > > > Skydaddy is a common derogatory form of "Heavenly Father." The
> > > > > > > > > > thought is that "Heavenly Father" sounds too normal, since we often
> > > > > > > > > > pray to our heavenly Father, in fact, Our Lord began the Lord's Prayer
> > > > > > > > > > with "Our Father who art in Heaven." Had His words instead been
> > > > > > > > > > historically rendered into the common English as "Our Daddy who art in
> > > > > > > > > > the Sky," no doubt atheists would choose a different phrase to mock
> > > > > > > > > > that. Maybe philosopher would have said, "I understand him to be the
> > > > > > > > > > big Cloud Stud. . ." or something that sounds equally mocking.
>
> > > > > > > > > > But I understand that to be cursed with atheism is to suffer a social
> > > > > > > > > > handicap, so I'll let it slide. After all, there isn't anyone here
> > > > > > > > > > more socially backwards than yours truly --- ask any atheist.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Anyway, analyzing phil's phrase for content, I find, mocking
> > > > > > > > > > phraseology aside, he has done a passable job.
>
> > > > > > > > > > "the" not "a" --- indicating this entity is Unique.
>
> > > > > > > > > > "big" not "small" --- indicating this unique entity is important
> > > > > > > > > > rather than inconsequential.
>
> > > > > > > > > > "Skydaddy" --- a compound we should break down:
> > > > > > > > > > "Sky" --- indicating that this entity is associated with the vastness
> > > > > > > > > > of the universe rather than just the local planet.
> > > > > > > > > > "daddy" --- indicating that this entity has the power to generate new
> > > > > > > > > > life.
>
> > > > > > > > > > "who" --- indicating a Person rather than an impersonal force or
> > > > > > > > > > principle.
>
> > > > > > > > > > "rules" --- indicating that this unique, important, universal, life-
> > > > > > > > > > generating Person has the power of control.
>
> > > > > > > > > > "over" --- a preposition joining said power of control with its object
>
> > > > > > > > > > "all" --- the object-set over which the entity has control --- in this
> > > > > > > > > > case, what is being asserted is omnipotence, "power over all."
>
> > > > > > > > > > So we have a pretty good picture of God, from an atheist. Not bad.
> > > > > > > > > > "Big" seems redundant given omnipotence. But God, according to this
> > > > > > > > > > understanding is:
>
> > > > > > > > > > 1. unique --- there is only one God.
> > > > > > > > > > 2. universal --- He is the God of All.
> > > > > > > > > > 3. life-generating --- He is the Origin of all life.
> > > > > > > > > > 4. personal --- He may be characterized as a Person rather than an
> > > > > > > > > > impersonal force or principle.
> > > > > > > > > > 5. omnipotent --- He is able to exercise power over any part of the
> > > > > > > > > > universe or over the universe as a whole.
>
> > > > > > > > > > There is some redundancy here, since to be able to exercise power
> > > > > > > > > > already does indicate a personal nature. We could say that a lake
> > > > > > > > > > behind a dam *has* a lot of power, but we would not say that the lake
> > > > > > > > > > *exercises* that power when its pressure is used to generate
> > > > > > > > > > electricity. Rather, we would attribute the use of the power of the
> > > > > > > > > > lake to those human beings who took advantage of its potential.
> > > > > > > > > > Still, it is possible --- as in the case of the lake --- to attribute
> > > > > > > > > > great power to an impersonal entity. We associate potential with
> > > > > > > > > > impersonal entities, but not potency. The attribute of omnipotence
> > > > > > > > > > means the ability to exercise infinite power, not merely to possess
> > > > > > > > > > it. God has infinite potency, not merely infinite potential.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Nevertheless, there is obvious overlap, and it may be unclear that any
> > > > > > > > > > entity could possess any one of these attributes without
> > > > > > > > > > simultaneously possessing all the others.
>
> > > > > > > > > > I would add another attribute that is included in the definition but
> > > > > > > > > > that I passed over initially: "Father," or more accurately,
> > > > > > > > > > "Daddy," ("Daddy" more accurately renders the Hebrew "Abba") indicates
> > > > > > > > > > not only one who can generate life, but one who affectionately regards
> > > > > > > > > > the life he generates, and cares for it in a personal way. This might
> > > > > > > > > > also be derived from the combination of omnipotence, generativity, and
> > > > > > > > > > personality, but in case that derivation might be missed, it is O.K.
> > > > > > > > > > to state it separately:
>
> > > > > > > > > > 6. benevolent --- God is Kind to His children.
>
> > > > > > > > > > I think we have now arrived at a fairly accurate definition of my God,
> > > > > > > > > > or at least a fair description. He is the unique, universal, all-
> > > > > > > > > > powerful, benevolent Person who is the source of all life.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 26, 11:38 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > God is spirit? Yes. Incomprehensible? I confess don't know with any
> > > > > > > > > > > precision term incomprehensible, since it's not used in the modern
> > > > > > > > > > > creeds or
>
> > ...
>
> > read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:25 pm
From: Neil Kelsey

On Dec 3, 6:05 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 9:49 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 30, 1:50 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 30, 3:16 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > So what you are saying is that you get "glimpses of God"
> > > > but you don't know who or what God is for sure -
>
> > > No, what I am saying is that I know for sure God is Love,
>
> > God is a Christian deity for which there is no evidence that it
> > exists. Love is an emotion that exists without God. Love is not
> > evidence God exists. Atheists feel love, Hindus feel love, chimps feel
> > love. Love and God are not the same thing.
>
> > > and Love is
> > > infinite,
>
> > Love is an emotion that ceases upon death.
>
> > > and I experience the infinity of Love as ever-increasing
> > > love in me.
>
> > I'm just a bit skeptical about this claim, judging by the seething
> > hatred you show towards those who don't recognize your overpowering
> > personal divinity. And your "love" isn't infinite; like everyone
> > else's it will cease upon death.
>
> Aw, Neil! I don't hate you.

Sure you do. Review your posts objectively, and then we'll talk.

> You are off your rocker!

You think there's an invisible incomprehensible infinite being who
loves us while he finds new ways to torture us and seems to be overly
concerned with our genitals, with no idea that he even exists, and you
think I'm off MY rocker? HAHHAHAHAHHAHAAAAA! Hey! Joe! I hear there's
a job opening for the Second Coming, you ought to apply!

If you had said "You are off your fucking rocker" would that have been
uncivilized? Or have you finally figured out the difference between an
ad hominem and an insult?

> > > To increase without bound is actually the definition of
> > > infinity.
>
> > But that's got nothing to do with your finite emotions.
>
> > > > all you
> > > > know is that this being/entity is all powerful and all
> > > > encompassing and has the ability to do what it will
> > > > with you. It also likes to be glorified.
>
> > > That is a human guess at what God "likes" according to a human
> > > perspective.
>
> > You know about as much about God as an atheist does. Less, even.
>
> > > I would say, rather, that God deserves to be glorified, and when a
> > > finite being encounters Him,
>
> > How could a finite being know when they have encountered God? God is
> > allegedly "incomprehensible" and "unfathomable."
>
> > > that finite being's natural reaction is
> > > to give Him glory, or else to hate Him if the being hates Love.
>
> > You really do have an active imagination, don't you?
>
> > > > Still, with all of this
> > > > it remains a mystery?
>
> > > Infinity cannot be rendered comprehensible to a finite being. God is
> > > the ultimate Mystery.
>
> > And yet there you were, just a few sentences ago, spouting off about
> > infinity. Further evidence you consider yourself to be an infinite
> > being. Hey, if you're talking to Jesus, can you ask him what stocks I
> > should invest in? Thanks...> > On Nov 30, 5:21 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 28, 7:32 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Actually Joe, I was using it purely as a definition.
> > > > > > It seems to me that when people believe in God, God is different
> > > > > > for every person who believes in him/her. Some people believe
> > > > > > God is a person and has human form. Others say, no, God is a
> > > > > > spirit, and the third lot suggest that God is both.
> > > > > > Then there is the metaphysical side of things, where people don't
> > > > > > relate to God as anything like a human entity, but more like the
> > > > > > power of life, or the consciousness of the universe, the oneness
> > > > > > of all life, etc. My question was limited to asking what Christians
> > > > > > thought their God was, hence my asking for a definition from
> > > > > > them. There is no ulterior motive - just being respectful of
> > > > > > something I can't relate to, or believe in.
>
> > > > > I wold say that all the above descriptions are limited ideas of
> > > > > attributes of God. Limited ideas are the only ideas we can have, of
> > > > > an infinite Entity, so I prefer to acknowledge that for the most part
> > > > > God is Unknown. I believe He has revealed Himself to us in Jesus
> > > > > Christ, as previously as the Word to the prophets of old. I believe
> > > > > the Word remains with us, in the Holy Eucharist, so that there is no
> > > > > limit to how much Love will reveal both now and forever, and yet
> > > > > everything He has revealed at any time will still be nothing compared
> > > > > with the infinity that lies still hidden in Love. He will always be
> > > > > for the most part Unknown to us as the Infinite Mystery, but He has
> > > > > revealed enough for us to know Him as Love, and that is Enough, for
> > > > > Love is Infinite. And the infinity of Love is Incarnate, in the
> > > > > Eucharist.
>
> > > > > > On Nov 29, 5:28 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> No, it is your move. Where do we go with this?
>
> > > > > > > Or did you actually only honestly want to know what God is?
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 27, 12:01 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > So far?
> > > > > > > > Do you want more?
> > > > > > > > If so, please add.
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 27, 1:10 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 26, 5:42 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Okay Joe
> > > > > > > > > > Let's try and get some sense here.
> > > > > > > > > > So, your definition of God is going to be:
> > > > > > > > > > God is:
> > > > > > > > > > Unique (in that there is only one God).
> > > > > > > > > > Universal (in that he is the God of All).
> > > > > > > > > > Life-generating (in that he is the Origin of all life).
> > > > > > > > > > Personal (in that he may be characterized as a Person rather than an
> > > > > > > > > > impersonal force or principle.)
> > > > > > > > > > Omnipotent (in that he is able to exercise power over any part of the
> > > > > > > > > > universe or over the universe as a whole.
> > > > > > > > > > Benevolent (in that god is Kind to His children.)
> > > > > > > > > > Incomprehensible (in that he is infinite).
> > > > > > > > > > In short, Joe is postulating:
> > > > > > > > > > God is the unique, universal, all-powerful, benevolent Person
> > > > > > > > > > who is the source of all life.
> > > > > > > > > > Have I got this right Joe, or have I got it wrong?
>
> > > > > > > > > So far, so good.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 27, 5:53 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> First of all, I am amazed to see some possible progress in a thread
> > > > > > > > > > > like this. Bravo to you both, philosopher and Alan, for bringing it
> > > > > > > > > > > this far. My hope is restored!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I too was struck by the nearness of the miss in the opening post.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > "the big Skydaddy who rules over all."
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Skydaddy is a common derogatory form of "Heavenly Father." The
> > > > > > > > > > > thought is that "Heavenly Father" sounds too normal, since we often
> > > > > > > > > > > pray to our heavenly Father, in fact, Our Lord began the Lord's Prayer
> > > > > > > > > > > with "Our Father who art in Heaven." Had His words instead been
> > > > > > > > > > > historically rendered into the common English as "Our Daddy who art in
> > > > > > > > > > > the Sky," no doubt atheists would choose a different phrase to mock
> > > > > > > > > > > that. Maybe philosopher would have said, "I understand him to be the
> > > > > > > > > > > big Cloud Stud. . ." or something that sounds equally mocking.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > But I understand that to be cursed with atheism is to suffer a social
> > > > > > > > > > > handicap, so I'll let it slide. After all, there isn't anyone here
> > > > > > > > > > > more socially backwards than yours truly --- ask any atheist.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, analyzing phil's phrase for content, I find, mocking
> > > > > > > > > > > phraseology aside, he has done a passable job.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > "the" not "a" --- indicating this entity is Unique.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > "big" not "small" --- indicating this unique entity is important
> > > > > > > > > > > rather than inconsequential.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > "Skydaddy" --- a compound we should break down:
> > > > > > > > > > > "Sky" --- indicating that this entity is associated with the vastness
> > > > > > > > > > > of the universe rather than just the local planet.
> > > > > > > > > > > "daddy" --- indicating that this entity has the power to generate new
> > > > > > > > > > > life.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > "who" --- indicating a Person rather than an impersonal force or
> > > > > > > > > > > principle.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > "rules" --- indicating that this unique, important, universal, life-
> > > > > > > > > > > generating Person has the power of control.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > "over" --- a preposition joining said power of control with its object
>
> > > > > > > > > > > "all" --- the object-set over which the entity has control --- in this
> > > > > > > > > > > case, what is being asserted is omnipotence, "power over all."
>
> > > > > > > > > > > So we have a pretty good picture of God, from an atheist. Not bad.
> > > > > > > > > > > "Big" seems redundant given omnipotence. But God, according to this
> > > > > > > > > > > understanding is:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. unique --- there is only one God.
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. universal --- He is the God of All.
> > > > > > > > > > > 3. life-generating --- He is the Origin of all life.
> > > > > > > > > > > 4. personal --- He may be characterized as a Person rather than an
> > > > > > > > > > > impersonal force or principle.
> > > > > > > > > > > 5. omnipotent --- He is able to exercise power over any part of the
> > > > > > > > > > > universe or over the universe as a whole.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > There is some redundancy here, since to be able to exercise power
> > > > > > > > > > > already does indicate a personal nature. We could say that a lake
> > > > > > > > > > > behind a dam *has* a lot of power, but we would not say that the lake
> > > > > > > > > > > *exercises* that power when its pressure is used to generate
> > > > > > > > > > > electricity. Rather, we would attribute the use of the power of the
> > > > > > > > > > > lake to those human beings who took advantage of its potential.
> > > > > > > > > > > Still, it is possible --- as in the case of the
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:06 pm
From: Dev

Maybe they're just insane and a danger to your family?

Whoops, threw that one out there...

On Dec 3, 9:00 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, that always baffled me.
>
> But that's because I expect a hairline's worth of consistency. I guess
> it's my fault for expecting that.
>
> On Dec 2, 9:14 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
> > How can theists deny that their faith is based largely on the fear of
> > death when they admit it so openly?
>
> > On Dec 2, 7:12 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Brock wrote:
> > > > Facing death, however, is neither scary nor foreboding when you have
> > > > the concrete assurance that death opens the door to eternal life.
> > > > That s the difference that Jesus Christ made in our world."
>
> > > Yeah, we all know we're going to croak someday. However, the rational
> > > do not believe in eternal life. I live as full a life as I can and
> > > leave the Jesus fairy tales in the "myths" file.
>
> > > Medusa- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:28 pm
From: Answer_42

On 3 déc, 11:05, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There we go. It took all of two posts for him to get to one of his repeats.

chx
Yep, I be on his ass non stop yuk yuk yuk

HELP!
I can't stop impersonating him... I am becoming him!
_____________________________________
Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
understand.
-- Frederick the Great

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:29 pm
From: Answer_42

On 3 déc, 17:55, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> BRAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
>
> You always make me laugh when you reply to Brock.

Glad you appreciate... Some meanies are claiming I am spamming!
The nerve!
_____________________________________
Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
understand.
-- Frederick the Great

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Can Christians tolerate each other as well as Jews can?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/1f898d2ae6259b6c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:18 pm
From: "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"

On Dec 3, 5:51 pm, gousaphe <dangdang...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If only Paul's were teaching something akin to a replica to Jesus'
> teachings. His, however, is not. Paul was a twisted mind admirer. When
> he taught Christianity, his brand of Christianity is without a command
> of Christ and is fooled.

It was not just Paul who preached a new message claiming that it was
the correct interpretation of an old message. Jesus did this too. Are
you going to call Jesus twisted too?

That seems like the way that people were able to find, to market a new
message. If Jesus/Paul had come out and said that his message was a
new message/covenant that would replace the old one, he wouldn't have
got any followers.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Faux Pas Tolerance: Many Christians Are Hypocrites and Violate Code Of
Conduct
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/10b5c64fbe191c3d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:25 pm
From: Joe

Wow O.K., have a nice day!

On Dec 3, 5:57 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2:49 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 3, 4:04 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 3, 1:03 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 3, 12:15 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Labeling Atheists
> > > > > Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
> > > > > morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
> > > > > categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
> > > > > categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
> > > > > Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
> > > > > For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
> > > > > statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
> > > > > same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
> > > > > irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
> > > > > either side of the argument of truth.
> > > > > Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
> > > > > through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
> > > > > conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
> > > > > have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
> > > > > I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
> > > > > it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
> > > > > cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
> > > > > addressed.
> > > > > So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
> > > > > doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and
> > > > > name-calling have no place in the discussion.
> > > > > Ignoring Atheists' Questions
> > > > > If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
> > > > > way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
> > > > > away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
> > > > > would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
> > > > > objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
> > > > > everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
> > > > > that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
> > > > > okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
> > > > > answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
> > > > > Stating that Atheism is a religion
> > > > > Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
> > > > > religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
> > > > > sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
> > > > > that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
> > > > > way."
> > > > > To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
> > > > > effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
> > > > > Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
> > > > > torture people."
>
> > > > That is something Christians here hear all the time from atheists
> > > > here. It is far more common than the reverse. So maybe the point of
> > > > your post should be that many atheists are hypocrites.
>
> > > No because many Christians are hypocrites.
> > > VERY clear in title of posting
>
> > And contradicted by the preponderance of atheistic postings more or
> > less exactly like that which you cite just above.
>
> Not contradicted by the preponderance of atheistic postings more or
> less exactly like that which you cite just above.
> Many Christians are hypocrites
> VERY clear in title of posting
>
> Also your Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #4, 5:
>
> "Labeling Atheists
> Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
> morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
> categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
> categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
> Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
> For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
> statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
> same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
> irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
> either side of the argument of truth.
> Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
> through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
> conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
> have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
> I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
> it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
> cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
> addressed.
> So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
> doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and
> name-calling have no place in the discussion.
> Ignoring Atheists' Questions
> If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
> way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
> away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
> would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
> objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
> everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
> that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
> okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
> answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
> Stating that Atheism is a religion
> Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
> religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
> sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
> that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
> way."
> To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
> effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
> Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
> torture people." The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
> that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
> effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much.
> Stating unsupportable facts
> No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
> reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
> Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
> have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
> occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your credibility. Of
> course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
> illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
> Never admitting when you are wrong
> Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
> It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
> Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
> If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
> courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
> mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
> error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
> wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
> never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
> anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
> respect of the one with whom you are debating."
>
> http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm> > > > The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
> > > > > that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
> > > > > effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much.
> > > > > Stating unsupportable facts
> > > > > No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
> > > > > reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
> > > > > Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
> > > > > have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
> > > > > occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your credibility. Of
> > > > > course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
> > > > > illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
> > > > > Never admitting when you are wrong
> > > > > Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
> > > > > It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
> > > > > Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
> > > > > If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
> > > > > courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
> > > > > mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
> > > > > error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
> > > > > wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
> > > > > never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
> > > > > anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
> > > > > respect of the one with whom you are debating."
>
> > > > >http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why do we have proof of Herod the Great?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/b5232c75cf9605f9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:29 pm
From: Medusa

Ruthie wrote:

> Why do we have books that were published around the time of Jesus but
> have no original bible that was published? We have proof of all these
> people, who were around when Jesus was performing miracles but we have
> no one writing about these events. I would think if it was dark for 40
> days, like the bible said,there would be someone documenting this
> amazing event.

You're beginning to catch on. There is no record of these events
outside the Bible. Maybe the events never happened/

> Whenever you look for facts,you come up with no answer.
>
> In 325 A D Constatine ordered a meeting at the council of Niceae ,so
> all these different religions would decide what was christian
> doctrine. Why would these religions have to come together and decide
> on doctrine that was already supose to be the truth from the bible.
>
> This shows me they came together and chaged the bible and made it fit
> their agenda.

That's exactly what I think. The Bible was rewritten to suit those
who were putting it together.

Whole books were deleted, too, such as the Gospel of Mary. Mary
Magdalene, not the Virgin Mary.

Medusa

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:30 pm
From: Dev

I don't blame you. When John Travolta did that thing and Tom Cruise
did that thing, I almost stopped burning my witch.

On Dec 3, 11:03 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Damn it, I keep falling for these things. Last time it was Scientology.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > It was a trap, Turner. I was just proving how intolerant and mean you
> > are. Maybe now you should convert to Christianity and start defending
> > how everyone who doesn't believe in your Sky Pixie deserves to burn
> > forever while simultaneously nailing yourself to a cross because
> > someone said something mean to you on the Internets.
>
> > On Dec 2, 7:50 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > NOTE TO ALLAN: MY AGREEMENT WITH DEV DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE SUGGESTION OF
> > > TOXIC DARTS. WHEN I SAY, YES, DEV, YOU'RE RIGHT, I AM NOT AGREEING TO GO
> > > KIDNAP YOU AND MAKE YOU SLEEP WITH THE FISHES. YOU CAN PUT AWAY YOUR
> > SHOTGUN
> > > AND TINFOIL HAT.
>
> > > Yes, Dev, you're right.
>
> > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > Well, Allan is mentally ill. The logical incoherence follows, and the
> > > > moral incoherence is why we should fire toxic darts into his throat so
> > > > he wakes up in a cage in the ocean somewhere.
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 7:31 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Yeah, but aside from the moral incoherence of the argument, it's also
> > > > > logically incoherent. His conclusion simply does not follow from his
> > > > > premises.
>
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Amen, Turner. I still don't get how a serial killer on trial can
> > say
> > > > > > "other people kill, not just me, therefore I'm innocent" and be
> > > > > > proclaimed a psychopath, but this psychopathic argument rests so
> > well
> > > > > > with theists.
>
> > > > > > On Dec 2, 6:43 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Treebeard <
> > > > allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> > > > > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Dec 2, 1:36 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Treebeard <
> > > > > > allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> > > > > > > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 28, 4:24 pm, "Trance Gemini" <
> > trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Treebeard <
> > > > > > > > allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Let's cut to the chase here: do you think that there
> > can be
> > > > a
> > > > > > non-
> > > > > > > > > > > > extremist religion?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I think there are extremists in all religions.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Do you think that there is any movement or philosophy of
> > any
> > > > > > > > > > importance that does not have extremists?
>
> > > > > > > > > We are not talking about other movements or philosophies.
>
> > > > > > > > My point is that if all movements or philosophies may have
> > > > extremists,
> > > > > > > > you didn't answer my question, which was if there can be a non-
> > > > > > > > extremist religion. Remember, your reply was that all
> > religions
> > > > have
> > > > > > > > extremists, and I was merely trying to ascertain if you thought
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > made the religion itself extremist or not.
>
> > > > > > > > > We debate religion on this site and frankly it's a
> > nonsensical
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > childish
> > > > > > > > > argument to say "well everyone else does it."
>
> > > > > > > > It is a perfect argument if you want to assert that extremism
> > is a
> > > > > > > > quality of religion itself, which is what I objected to. If
> > that
> > > > was
> > > > > > > > not your intent, then we don't have much to talk about.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Would you force us to give up our faith before you'd
> > > > accept
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > aren't extremists?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I would expect all religious people who don't agree with
> > > > > > Religious
> > > > > > > > > > Extremism
> > > > > > > > > > > to Acknowledge It and take a stand against it and stop
> > trying
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > justify
> > > > > > > > > > it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Can you give a specific action that we could take to show
> > you
> > > > that
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > are not trying to justify it?
>
> > > > > > > > > You could stop giving silly arguments like "everyone else
> > does
> > > > it" to
> > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > it seem justifiable.
>
> > > > > > > > Again, I am merely claiming that religions are not inherently
> > > > > > > > extremist, and proving that by demonstrating other causes that
> > are
> > > > non-
> > > > > > > > religious but are or contain extremists.
>
> > > > > > > That doesn't show what you want to show. You've got your logic
> > all
> > > > > > cockeyed.
> > > > > > > What you'd need to show in order to show that religions are not
> > > > > > inherently
> > > > > > > extremist is to demonstrate religious causes that are not
> > extremist,
> > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > than extremist causes that are not religious. The exact term for
> > the
> > > > the
> > > > > > > logical induction escapes me, but you can't disprove "x is a
> > > > religion" ->
> > > > > > "x
> > > > > > > is extremist" by showing "there exists a y such that y is
> > extremist".
>
> > > > > > > > I replied to a comment you
> > > > > > > > made that, to me, stated precisely that. If that is not what
> > you
> > > > > > > > meant, feel free to inform me of that.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Note that you can't say "Give up your religion" because we
> > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > they're wrong about their interpretation of the religion.
>
> > > > > > > > > I've never once asked anyone to "give up their religion" on
> > this
> > > > > > site.
>
> > > > > > > > I never stated that you had; I am simply eliminating that as an
> > > > option
> > > > > > > > because based on what I listed I cannot really see any other
> > > > > > > > alternative thing that is not already being done, but perhaps
> > there
> > > > > > > > will be something in your list below.
>
> > > > > > > > > > And you can't say "Write books and papers and work to
> > change
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > religion from inside", because many do.
>
> > > > > > > > > > And you can't say "Be an activist" because most people
> > aren't.
> > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > myself am not an activist about anything; you cannot demand
> > > > that I
> > > > > > > > > > change my personality over this.
>
> > > > > > > > > > So, other than that, what actions are you expecting us to
> > take?
>
> > > > > > > > > You should acknowledge the reality of the consequences of
> > your
> > > > > > beliefs on
> > > > > > > > > others and the rest of the world and stop making excuses for
> > what
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > crimes
> > > > > > > > > religion has committed in the past.
>
> > > > > > > > I merely claim that religion is no worse than anything else.
> > > > That's a
> > > > > > > > logical position that you can oppose if you'd like. I do
> > indeed
> > > > > > > > acknowledge that people can do bad things in the name of
> > religion,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > > quite reasonably refuse to accept the claim that those things
> > would
> > > > > > > > not occur without religion.
>
> > > > > > > > > You should object to those who commit crimes in your god's
> > name.
>
> > > > > > > > I do.
>
> > > > > > > > > You should isolate the extremists and not go along with or
> > accept
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > do in your gods name.
>
> > > > > > > > I do.
>
> > > > > > > > > And you should support the fight to maintain a secular
> > society.
>
> > > > > > > > This depends on what you mean by "secular". If it includes the
> > > > > > > > elimination of religion or an insistence that even moderate
> > > > religious
> > > > > > > > people cannot act on their religious beliefs, that is,
> > obviously, a
> > > > > > > > step far too far.- 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: Dinosaurs & the Bible
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/ea1b75046a21902d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:33 pm
From: Max

Ah brother Hayes......such a reasonable and compliant child of christ.
For pennace, you must spank Sister Capitaofficium with the holy 'Rod
of God' (and could you get some photos for me & Father Peter Phile,
glossy 8 x 4's preferably) and then offer your eternal sorrow for such
ungodly remarks.

Get God in your Head

More God & more Head

On Dec 4, 1:02 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 <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.
>
> > 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:40 pm
From: Max

Brother Harry......nay you damnable unbelieving non believer. The
great council of the 'Order of brotherly love' have told us about you
and we know you are an unregistered defiler. Nay, we have other
methods for your conversion.

You are commanded to attend the council 'round house' to not be
administered to by our lovely Sister Capitiofficium (she's busy at
present anyway.......deeper Sis, deeper!!!!) but to find your true God
in the spirit of our brotherly love. You are to bring with you, the
Holy KY cream, 3 poles, oil, candles (nice scented ones) and 7
gerbils.

I look forward to your conversion, as should you!!

Get God in your Head

More God & more Head

On Dec 4, 3:07 am, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 10:26 pm, 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
>
> If it is all the same with you, I will take the 'more head' option.
>
> Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:07 pm
From: Multiverse

Yes for Christ's sake! Get her out of here already! She's been so god
dammed clingy and all. She as been praying all frickin day. Didn'T
think Id ever have to say it but enough already. You'd think she'd
been locked in a convent or sumpin!

On Dec 3, 9:33 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Ah brother Hayes......such a reasonable and compliant child of christ.
> For pennace, you must spank Sister Capitaofficium with the holy 'Rod
> of God' (and could you get some photos for me & Father Peter Phile,
> glossy 8 x 4's preferably) and then offer your eternal sorrow for such
> ungodly remarks.
>
> Get God in your Head
>
> More God & more Head
>
> On Dec 4, 1:02 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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 <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.
>
> > > 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-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:39 pm
From: Dev

*unzips Max's pants*

Sorry, man, I'm an asshole. Third time's a charm.

On Dec 3, 9:51 am, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's two times you made me laugh out loud this morning. Knock it
> off!
>
> On Dec 2, 7:40 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Priests ask me this sometimes, and I say they're on their own at this
> > point.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Moderation in AvC
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/673043bbcc4e3339?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:05 pm
From: trog69

Listen dumbass, either file a complaint with Google, or shut the fuck
up.

On Dec 3, 3:08 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 11:40 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:21 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 3, 10:43 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 3, 2:48 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > chx
> > > > > you knew you were wrong after i pointed it out to you. you even
> > > > > offered to delete your entry, why? because you knew. now you see that
> > > > > Rap is backing you, you are being tough.
>
> > > > And now you are either dishonest or lying.
>
> > > > IIRC, I stated that if it turned out that it was not allowed according
> > > > to Goolge, I would delete it myself (I am too titred to dig it up now,
> > > > heck, you made the claim, you prove me wriong right here).
> > > > Makiing fun of somebody in a post that bears your own name/handle is
> > > > not against any regulations, and certainly not illegal in any sense of
> > > > the term.
>
> > > chx
> > > no problem, i don't balme you for having a poor memory of where you
> > > saw or wrote something. here, i'll help you out;
> > > ***
> > > On Dec 2, 11:39 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > chx
> > > > oh, and as Medusa pointed out back then. it is not the content that
> > > > matters so much. just the fact that one is impersonated.
>
> > > > you could do this in other threads where i don't post and i won't even
> > > > be aware of it.
>
> > > Yes, you are right, if I had used your handle, you would have a case
> > > and it would be serious.
> > > However, I did not use your handle, I made no effort to hide the fact
> > > that it was from me.
>
> > > So, in short, you have no reason to complain.
>
> > > If it turns out that making fun of you inside a message of my own -
> > > posted with my handle - is against some rules, I will delete it.
> > > _________________________________
> > > I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
> > > -- Ruth Hurmence Green
> > > ***
>
> > > > > in fact everyone knows this was impersonating someone
>
> > > > Right, so according to you, the whole cast of SNL and Mad TV should be
> > > > arrested becasue they have impersonated American an International
> > > > public figures, including Bush himself.
> > > > This must be treason.
> > > > No, you idiot. They cannot be arrested because it is clear they are
> > > > impersonating, they are not sitting in the oval office and making
> > > > actual decisions and phone calls as if they were the president. Just
> > > > like it is clear I am impersonating you when I post the message using
> > > > my OWN handle, you dim wit.
>
> > > chx
> > > it may have have been within your post, if that is what you mean, this
> > > was the same with Keith and TU.
> > > however, you did use my name directly above your text to appear as if
> > > i wrote it. in fact all my writing will still appear the same under
> > > your heading fool. you impersonated me.
>
> > > > > and now selling
> > > > > all sorts of shit to make it go away. it is illegal.
>
> > > > If you believe that, you are retarded.
>
> > > > Now stop whining and wasting our time, you piece of shit who likes to
> > > > make fun of people who share their experiences with mental illnesses
> > > > (That is way more damnable than anything I did, and you claim that
> > > > there is a bias? The only bias I see is all those theists not saying
> > > > anything about your despicable behaviour back then, on that thread.)
>
> > > chx
> > > what you wrote here is simply just expressing your foolish ideas etc.
> > > it does not bother me. all it does is float your boat. impersonating
> > > me by using my name above your deceiving message is illegal. that goes
> > > for Trog69 and Turner. you are all three impersonating me by using my
> > > name above your deceiving messages.
>
> > I'd love to be a fly on the wall when checkers calls the cops to report us.
>
> chx
> why would i want to do that Turner? is that what you would have done?
>
>
>
> > > this is what TG has to say about this;
> > > ***
> > > On Feb 3, 2:30 am, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I'm outa here. They can falsify your name but if you fight back they
> > > > cry foul. Unintelligent morons.
> > > > Bye all. And please don't kill your babies
>
> > > Changing your name slightly is very different from actually
> > > impersonating someone and posting something that appears to come from
> > > them which is what you did in this post.
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/ea7ca23004...
>
> > > The reason that it violates Google's Terms Of Service is because it's
> > > illegal.
>
> > > > _____________________________________________
> > > > Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
> > > > understand.
> > > > -- Frederick the Great
> > > ***
>
> > > you will find the original post of TU as well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:17 pm
From: Answer_42

On 3 déc, 20:18, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> chx
> i am a good christin
> mocking me is illegal
> but i don't report illegal activity yuk yuk yuk

checkers, enough with the whining already!
At least you have the sense not to report this alleged illegal
activity, you idiot.
_____________________________________
Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
understand.
-- Frederick the Great

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:30 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Answer_42 <ipu.believer@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 3 déc, 20:18, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > chx
> > i am a good christin
> > mocking me is illegal
> > but i don't report illegal activity yuk yuk yuk
>
> checkers, enough with the whining already!
> At least you have the sense not to report this alleged illegal
> activity, you idiot.

chx
anser42 is a dumm
he is out to kill me. the atheists are in a conspreerasee aginst me
yuk yuk yuk [chuckle]

>
> _____________________________________
> Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
> understand.
> -- Frederick the Great
> >
>

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:10 pm
From: Multiverse

>Should we worship a
> piece of wood?

Sister Capitoff sure does!

On Dec 3, 5:43 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So essentially, Asherahs are pieces of wood. Should we worship a
> piece of wood? Even if someone claims to receive prophecy from their
> piece of wood?
>
> On Dec 3, 5:23 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
>
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 12:55 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 2, 3:17 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> > > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 2, 10:42 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > How do you know you're not breathing the wrong air?
>
> > > > The air in one place is typically as good as the air in any other
> > > > place. Is Asherah as good a goddess as any other divinity?
>
> > > I understand the definition of air. I understand the definition of
> > > God. Kindly define for me this word Asherah.
>
> > Glean a definition from this:
>
> > Though all three ancient Levantine great goddesses appear in the
> > Hebrew Bible, the Christian Old Testament, Asherah occurs most often:
> > forty times in nine books. The biblical texts are hostile witnesses,
> > for they either vilify the goddess or, more often, obliterate her
> > grammatically, for instance, by referring to her in the masculine
> > plural as "the asherahs." Until the Ugaritic tablets were deciphered
> > beginning in the 1930s, most scholars did not even speculate that "the
> > asherahs" might be obscuring a goddess(Hadley 2000:4). They
> > interpreted "the asherahs" as either wooden poles, cult objects from
> > Baal worship, or groves of trees. Only a brave few claimed that "the
> > asherahs" referred to a goddess citing such passages as I Kings 18, in
> > which "prophets of Asherah"(1) served Queen Jezebel(Binger 1997:111;
> > Yamashita 1963:126). The first detailed study of Asherah in the Hebrew
> > Bible after the Ugaritic discoveries concluded that "the asherah"
> > represented both a wooden cult object and a goddess (Reed 1949:37,
> > 53), a position some scholars still hold today.
>
> > Unquestionably, "the asherahs" were usually wooden; they stood
> > upright, often beside altars, along with stone pillars. However, in at
> > least eight instances, they are described as carved(Pettey 1990:45).
> > Thus, far from being merely wooden "cult poles," they were probably
> > quite large carved images. As was the case with cult statues in other
> > areas of the Eastern Mediterranean, "the asherahs" almost certainly
> > would have been "animated" ritually (Walker and Dick 1999:57). Thus
> > they did not just represent the goddess, but actually were worshipped
> > as Asherah herself. Further, according to the Bible, a statue of
> > Asherah stood in the Solomonic temple in Jerusalem for about two-
> > thirds of its existence (Patai 1990:50). Asherah "must, then, have
> > been a legitimate part of the cult of Yahweh" (Olyan 1988:13).
>
> > The Hebrew Scriptures regularly pair Asherah's name, especially "the
> > asherahs," with Baal's, so that some scholars have wondered whether
> > Asherah had ousted Astarte as Baal's consort. In 1963 Yamashita noted
> > that most of the references to Asherah in the Hebrew Bible, including
> > those pairing Asherah with Baal, were associated with only one source
> > (1963:123-137). Later, Olyan argued very convincingly that the
> > biblical attacks on Asherah were "restricted to the Deuteronomistic
> > History"(2) and to texts exhibiting Deuteronomistic influence. For
> > instance, the numerous pairings of Baal with Asherah's "cult symbol,"
> > called "the asherah," are part of a reformist, monotheistic "anti-
> > asherah polemic" aimed at discrediting "the asherah" by associating it
> > with Baal and Astarte (Olyan 1988: 1, 3, 13-14). This polemic was
> > necessary because Asherah "had some role in the cult of Yahweh … not
> > only in popular Yahwism, but in the official cult as well" (Olyan
> > 1988:74).
>
> > In addition to the testimony of the Hebrew Bible, there is also
> > considerable archaeological evidence that may throw light on the role
> > of Asherah in the religion of the early Israelites. First, a
> > considerable number of small, clay, female statuettes, which
> > archaeologists usually call "pillar figurines," have been unearthed
> > all over Israel. Dating to the eighth and early seventh centuries,
> > that is, to the height of the Israelite monarchy, they occur in almost
> > every excavation of the period (Kletter 1996: 4, 40-41).(3) So many
> > pillar figurines have been excavated in the heartland of Judah that
> > they are often regarded as "a characteristic expression of Judahite
> > piety" (Keel and Uehlinger 1998:327; Kletter 1996:45).
>
> > Relatively recently, startling archaeological discoveries in modern
> > Israel have strengthened the arguments that Asherah was the Israelite
> > god's consort (Hadley 2000: 86-102). One dig was in the heartland of
> > Judah, the other in the northern Sinai. Several blessing inscriptions
> > from the sites contain a controversial phrase possibly to be
> > translated as "Yahweh and his Asherah." Even more exciting are
> > drawings that accompany the inscriptions, especially those from the
> > Sinai site (Toorn 1998:88-89).
>
> > Relatively recently, startling archaeological discoveries in modern
> > Israel have strengthened the arguments that Asherah was the Israelite
> > god's consort (Hadley 2000: 86-102). One dig was in the heartland of
> > Judah, the other in the northern Sinai. Several blessing inscriptions
> > from the sites contain a controversial phrase possibly to be
> > translated as "Yahweh and his Asherah." Even more exciting are
> > drawings that accompany the inscriptions, especially those from the
> > Sinai site (Toorn 1998:88-89).
>
> >http://www.matrifocus.com/LAM04/spotlight.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:11 pm
From: LL

On Dec 2, 7:10 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:31 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
> >> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>
> > LL: Please explain how this objectiveness works.
>
> Consider:
>
> "In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true
> everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. For instance,
> it is true always and everywhere that 'in base 10, 2 plus 2 equals 4'.
> A subjective fact is a truth that is only true in certain times,
> places or people. For instance, 'That painting is beautiful' may be
> true for someone who likes it, but not for everyone."

LL: I still don't know how this translates to objectiveness when it
comes to the truth of the bible.

The bible is not considered true everywhere. In fact, less than 30%
of the world's population considers themselves Christians--and of
those only a percentage of that would say the bible is completely
true. Islam is running a close second to Christianity as a percentage
of the world's population. In terms of numbers of people there are
probably more people in the world who think the Koran is true than the
bible.

*******************************************************************************************************

******************************************************
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)#Objectivity_and...
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dan R. Smedra: The redefining of tolerance
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/933a1bfb5dac7034?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:10 pm
From: trog69

Fuck you and Dan R. Smegma.

On Dec 3, 1:41 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> from:
>
> http://withchrist.org/tolerance.htm
>
> The author has many good points to note about how "tolerance", a value
> defined in a relativistic context, can be used to impose relativistic
> values in an absolute fashion:
>
> "Close-minded. Intolerant. Arrogant. All these words are frequently
> used to disparage and ridicule those who believe that absolutes exist
> and can be known; that there are moral rights and wrongs, and that
> some viewpoints are correct while others are wrong."
>
> and:
>
> "A growing number of people reject the idea of the absolute reality
> exists in favor of the philosophy of postmodern relativism. Today's
> relativism dogmatically asserts that nothing can be known with
> certainty, except the maxim of relativism. Yes, this position is
> self-contradictory. This dogmatism is similar to the atheist's
> emphatic assertion that God does not exist. They assert a universal
> axiom they cannot prove. According to relativism, positive knowledge
> is an impossibility; no viewpoint can legitimately claim to be
> superior, except of course relativism."
>
> The author tellingly notes:
>
> ""Relativism about truth does not lead to tolerance. Rather, it leads
> to the conclusion that social conflicts cannot be resolved by reason
> or even compromise, because there is no common reason that can unite
> groups that differ on fundamental questions." Thus, relativism leads
> to power struggles and in the end...violence."
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Schism!
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/8abd798698d5604e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:12 pm
From: trog69

Yeah, I had a condo in Fox Lake, and worked at the Zion Nuke for a
couple of years; It's a very uptight corner of Illinois.

On Dec 3, 12:40 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2:34 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Conservatives form rival to Episcopal Church
>
> >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28033549
>
> > WHEATON, Ill. - Theological conservatives upset by the liberal views
> > of the Episcopal Church are forming a rival denomination.
>
> > The new Anglican Church in North America will include four Episcopal
> > dioceses that recently split from the U.S. church, along with
> > breakaway Anglican parishes from Canada.
>
> > The announcement Wednesday in Wheaton, Illinois, comes after decades
> > of debate over what Episcopalians should believe about issues ranging
> > from salvation to sexuality.
>
> > * end of item *
>
> > Oh goodie. Maybe North Americans can finally have its own "Troubles."
>
> Oi vey. It's so bizarre that Wheaton, IL is right next to Fermilab,
> and yet be so backwards.
>
> I just don't get it.
>
> Oh, wait... I lived in that area for three years. Yes I do. The
> Catholics there made me really want to not be Catholic, so in some
> sense I should thank them. :)

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:33 pm
From: rappoccio

On Dec 3, 4:21 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 11:55 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 2:47 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 3, 11:40 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 3, 2:34 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Conservatives form rival to Episcopal Church
>
> > > > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28033549
>
> > > > > WHEATON, Ill. - Theological conservatives upset by the liberal views
> > > > > of the Episcopal Church are forming a rival denomination.
>
> > > > > The new Anglican Church in North America will include four Episcopal
> > > > > dioceses that recently split from the U.S. church, along with
> > > > > breakaway Anglican parishes from Canada.
>
> > > > > The announcement Wednesday in Wheaton, Illinois, comes after decades
> > > > > of debate over what Episcopalians should believe about issues ranging
> > > > > from salvation to sexuality.
>
> > > > > * end of item *
>
> > > > > Oh goodie. Maybe North Americans can finally have its own "Troubles."
>
> > > > Oi vey. It's so bizarre that Wheaton, IL is right next to Fermilab,
> > > > and yet be so backwards.
>
> > > > I just don't get it.
>
> > > > Oh, wait... I lived in that area for three years. Yes I do. The
> > > > Catholics there made me really want to not be Catholic, so in some
> > > > sense I should thank them. :)-
>
> > > ????
>
> > > That's a provocative statement...what sort of things did they do that
> > > turned you off?
>
> > Oh, where should I start?
>
> > - All but commanding their parishioners to vote Republican.
> > - Never said a word criticizing George Bush while he blatantly lied to
> > get the nation to go to war, but yet regularly railed against John
> > Kerry (for instance) in every single thing he ever did.
> > - Made fun of scientists on a regular basis, saying that they aren't
> > moral or ethical.
> > - Pretended there was a moral decline in America, of course
> > perpetrated by the atheists.
>
> > I'm not sure I should stop here, but any one of these is disgusting
> > enough.
>
> Weird that Catholics would have railed against John Kerry, no?

They didn't consider him a "true Catholic" since he was pro-choice.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:33 pm
From: rappoccio

On Dec 3, 5:14 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 11:55 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 2:47 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 3, 11:40 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Oi vey. It's so bizarre that Wheaton, IL is right next to Fermilab,
> > > > and yet be so backwards.
>
> > > > Oh, wait... I lived in that area for three years. Yes I do. The
> > > > Catholics there made me really want to not be Catholic, so in some
> > > > sense I should thank them. :)-
>
> > > That's a provocative statement...what sort of things did they do that
> > > turned you off?
>
> > - Made fun of scientists on a regular basis, saying that they aren't
> > moral or ethical.
>
> Did they have no parishioners who were scientists?

Yes, I was among them.

>
> > - Pretended there was a moral decline in America, of course
> > perpetrated by the atheists.
>
> If moral values that they hold dear are successfully opposed, they
> would naturally think that who ever opposes them are perpetrating
> moral decline. Why do you think they pretend to think so?

Because I don't think there is a moral decline in America.

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

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 13 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links