Atheism vs Christianity: Atheism-vs-Christianity - 25 new messages in 9 topics

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 3:41 pm
From: Neil Kelsey

On Dec 2, 3:13 pm, arcangel <alien...@univision.com> wrote:
> BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA: The begining of the Armagedon War.
>
> With Barack Obama The Armagedon War begins soon, is a prophecy;
> thousands of millions will be dead, exterminated, but, don 't worry,
> be happy, good news, millions will stay alive forever, please; you
> only have to obey The Laws of God in the New Testament of The Holly
> Bible, and pray, visit the real christians, and read it !:

YES! ARMAGEDDON IS COMING!! RUN!!!!!

But before you do, it is best that you send your earthly belongings
and financial assets to the AvC Armaggedon Fund (Atheist Division) for
Post-Armaggedon safekeeping.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:20 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Dec 2, 3:13 pm, arcangel <alien...@univision.com> wrote:
> > BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA: The begining of the Armagedon War.
> >
> > With Barack Obama The Armagedon War begins soon, is a prophecy;
> > thousands of millions will be dead, exterminated, but, don 't worry,
> > be happy, good news, millions will stay alive forever, please; you
> > only have to obey The Laws of God in the New Testament of The Holly
> > Bible, and pray, visit the real christians, and read it !:
>
> YES! ARMAGEDDON IS COMING!! RUN!!!!!
>
> But before you do, it is best that you send your earthly belongings
> and financial assets to the AvC Armaggedon Fund (Atheist Division) for
> Post-Armaggedon safekeeping.

LMAO! Now there's a plan!

>
> >
>

--
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

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:32 pm
From: "Timothy 1:4a"

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

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

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

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 3:45 pm
From: Dev

On Dec 2, 5:04 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It'll be easier if I just summarize instead of dealing with specific points
> but if I've missed something just ask and I'll comment on it.
> 1. I know that the author is not supporting the British. My comments are
> directed to the fact that his analysis of the situation is not correct.

Okay, I suspected that you might have had that hunch only because my I
don't think you never actually challenged anything the author said
directly. You never called any of the actual facts he presented into
question--please re-read the previous responses if you don't believe
me. You did say "not true", but you didn't follow it with an actual
refute of what the author was saying, which led me to believe that you
misinterpreted his point.

> 2. I use the term non-cooperation instead of pacifism because there were
> situations for example where the British attacked people physically and in
> other ways and people fought back physically and in other ways. That's not
> pacifism but it is non-cooperation. It's also not using violence as a
> strategy. It's defending oneself in the appropriate way.

Okay, now, this is what I'm talking about: violence in self-defense is
still violence. I thought you might have taken issue with his use of
the term "terrorism", but he specifically qualified this with the
reminder that it was not a term of condemnation. Neumann defines
"terrorism" as violent attacks on technical "non-combatants". He
believes there is a grey area in terms of, for example, attacking a
factory in which "non-combatants" are producing weapons. In any case,
he does think it can be justified when a mortal threat to a people is
immediate.

I think "terrorism" can be differently defined within an explicitly
faith-based context, as proposed by other thinkers such as Mark
Juergensmeyer. It can be defined within a narrative-based context, an
essentially mythological complex. These two definitions are not
necessarily exclusive.

> 3. I'm objecting to the use of violence as an offensive strategy. I'm not
> saying that if someone physically attacks a person that person shouldn't
> defend themselves.

I'm going to take the liberty of speaking for the author's point,
since I think I understand it and agree: "offensive" and "defensive"
violence are hard to divide into a dichotomy. The main issue, as I
think Neumann would agree, is who is actually in the right. Neumann
mentions the Thomas Hobbes theory, in his book, that even a criminal
may be justified in defending his own existence against law-
enforcement officials. At least in how Neumann interprets and
disagrees with Hobbes on this, I agree with Neumann: the serial killer
would be wrong because he is not in the right in the actual dispute.
Neumann believes that India was in the right against the British, thus
he believes that even what he defines as "terrorism" was justified.

In any case, this is all getting pretty off-topic. Did the British
leave more because of pacifism or actual violence, violence being
defined as causing physical harm to human beings? You are defending
your case based on what I previously said was an argument from
ambiguity, and you have confirmed this with your definitions here: you
conflate violence in self-defense with "non-cooperation", which you
won't call "pacifism" because you already understand that you are not--
as per the title of this thread--establishing an historical precedent
for non-violence with the Gandhi example. That's my point, which I
think you kind of agree with but are grudgingly resisting. You are
defending violence as being justified, which in and of itself proves
that India and Gandhi and the Great Partition are not an historical
precedent for non-violence.

> 4. The violence that occurred during the Independence movement was
> insignificant compared to the many and creative ways that people simply
> refused to cooperate with the state.

Okay, this is an actual factual assertion that I'd want you to support
unless you're still saying violence in self-defense is not violence,
which is a weird definition to me.

> 5. The British were not concerned about the violence which they used to
> justify the most brutal suppression campaigns and massacres against the
> people.

You still seem to be on the defensive about how bad the British were,
even though I thought you understood that _nobody_ is arguing that the
British weren't the bad guys. Maybe the problem I'm having is that you
are saying what they did was violence, but what was done in self-
defense was not, which, like I said, is an unconventional way of
defining violence.

> 6. What little violence occurred, the British were happy about because it
> gave them the justification to arrest and otherwise suppress masses of
> people thus Weakening the Independence movement.

Why, explicitly, do you think the British left, Trance? Was it because
violence (or, I'll grant you, "non-pacifistic noncooperation") made
their presence less manageable, or because they were like the Grinch
who saw Gandhi and had his heart grow so big it exploded past the
little outline of a heart?

> 7. The reason the Indians became too much trouble was that they simply
> refused to go along with or cooperate with anything the British were doing.

Trance...what's the real issue here? The definition of "violence" or
the factual details? You already conceded that at least maybe most
historians don't attribute the successes to Gandhi's campaign. What,
explicitly, was it that the Indians were doing that was too much
trouble? Was the threat of force that might cost human lives a factor
or not?

> 8. The British also used Religious strife to create a divide and rule
> situation to also successfully weaken the Independence movement.

Again, I don't see how this could be relevant. The problem is that you
say you know that nobody is saying the British were the good guys, but
then you say this. This is why I'm not sure we're on the same page in
terms of what we're actually arguing about. The only things you've
said that I think might be incorrect factually are things that can be
explained by the evidence that we are actually using different
definitions of "violence" and "nonviolence". I think you are being
more particular and subjective about it. I've hit a nerve with you,
and that bothers me a lot, but I think we should clarify what we're
talking about. I think we agree, but you don't want to put it in the
terminology of "India kicked out the Brits because of violence". You
gave a key statement that "pacifism" and "nonviolence" were two
different things--I see them as more or less the same. We're mincing
words, and I'm curious as to why.

> Their only problem was that it wasn't weakened enough for them to be able to
> stay.

Here I would suggest that you are actually agreeing with the
definition of "weakness" as "inability to apply force". I think we do
agree, but you want to use this linguistic thing to...I hate knocking
you, Trance, by the former definition. :) Do you get what I'm saying
or not?

> So frankly I don't see any contradictions here. Perhaps I got lost in a
> couple of points and didn't express my opinion clearly and so it got
> misunderstood.

I hope this post clarified a thing or two.

> It was non-cooperation that worked. The violence was insignificant and the
> British took advantage of it to weaken the movement.
>
> Hope that's clearer ;-)

By your definition of "non-violence", _justified_ violence is not
violence, and therefore non-violence. If "okay violence" is
acceptable, then technically violence is always wrong, and killing
fucking Max isn't violence. :)

Love you, too.

> I'm glad you brought this topic up.

Yeah, me too. I'm glad you don't seem to be pissed off at me at this
point in the message. We can still have all the e-sex the rest of the
regulars are already suspecting us of. :)

>
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 1, 6:54 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > Okay, I think this is a good counterargument to that--admittedly,
> > > > anticipated. Here's the source:
>
> > > >http://www.tamilnation.org/ideology/neuman_on_non_violence.htm
>
> > > > ---
>
> > > > Gandhi's nonviolence can't have been successful, because there was
> > > > nothing he would have called a success. Gandhi's priorities may have
> > > > shifted over time: he said, that, if he changed his mind from one week
> > > > to the next, it was because he had learned something in between. But
> > > > it seems fair to say that he wanted independence from British rule, a
> > > > united India, and nonviolence itself, an end to civil or ethnic strife
> > > > on the Indian subcontinent. What he got was India 1947: partition, and
> > > > one of the most horrifying outbursts of bloodshed and cruelty in the
> > > > whole bloody, cruel history of the postwar world. The antagonism
> > > > between Muslims and Hindus, so painful to Gandhi, still seems almost
> > > > set in stone. These consequences alone would be sufficient to count
> > > > his project as a tragic failure.
>
> > > The fact that bloodshed occurred and that antagonism existed has nothing
> > to
> > > do with whether the strategy of non-cooperation worked.
>
> > I think you're on to kind of the point, although you don't know it.
> > Now, the whole ideal of pacifism is that things can be accomplished
> > without violence. So when things are accomplished _with_ violence, it
> > is not proof that nonviolence works. The point of the author is that
> > these nonviolent campaigns _did_ work--just not in the pacifistic,
> > idealistic constraints of "working", because all the results gained
> > from the use of force or the threat of force. There were nonviolent
> > elements that were less influential, evidently, than the forceful
> > elements. But the forceful elements make lousy T-shirts, essentially.
>
> > > It's quite well known by most Indians that the Religious strife that
> > > occurred during Partition was instigated by the British before they left.
>
> > Well, look--the US instigated exacerbated warfare between Sunni and
> > Shi'ite, and that might just run us off, too.
>
> > > The British during their entire time in India played the Divide and Rule
> > > game in order to maintain control of the very large and diverse
> > population.
>
> > Of course. But this doesn't have any bearing on the issue: did the
> > British get their knickers up their bullocks-holes because people were
> > behavng themselves and playing hacky-sack with Gandhi, or because shit
> > was going to go down one way or another?
>
> > > > What of independence itself? Historians might argue about its causes,
> > > > but I doubt any of them would attribute it primarily to Gandhi's
> > > > campaign.
>
> > > Of course not, but these policies of non-cooperation (some of which were
> > led
> > > by Gandhi) amounted to some very strategic fights which certainly
> > > contributed to the British leaving simply because they were not able to
> > > maintain control of a country where non-cooperation was the name of the
> > > game.
>
> > Trance, you are actually kind of agreeing with the author, but
> > grudgingly. What you are doing is arguing from ambiguity. I am
> > requesting an argument for nonviolence. You have rephrased this: "non-
> > cooperation". But violence is, of course, not cooperation. If all the
> > citizens did was sit there and starve and burn themselves, what were
> > the British afraid of?
>
> > > However, that wasn't the only strategy used by the Indian Freedom
> > Fighters
> > > and the bombing of trains and other terrorist attacks didn't contribute
> > to
> > > the British leaving either.
>
> > Didn't?
>
> > > It contributed to and justified the large scale suppression and massacres
> > > that occurred by the British against the Indians though.
>
> > So what can cause someone to be violent can't be the same thing that
> > causes them to flee?
>
> > So wait--you know more about Indian history than I do, I'm sure. But
> > what I'm getting from you is "violence made them fight, non-violence
> > made them flee"? Really? I've been in fights with bigger guys than me,
> > Trance, and that shit _never_ fucking flies. Being in a fight with the
> > bigger guy when you have less to lose and you're way, way more pissed
> > off? That works. Did you ever see the kid who actually _repeated_ "I'm
> > like rubber, you're like glue" in the playground? Did you ever see him
> > again? Nonviolence is just a great pretense for force--like an
> > advertising campaign. The more you put*ahJESUSANDCHRISTIANITYem*
>
> > I'm getting a consistent picture from both your account and the
> > authors: non-violence is a useful motivating tool to make the masses a
> > considerable threat.
>
> > > > The British began contemplating--admittedly with varying
> > > > degrees of sincerity--some measure of autonomy for India before Gandhi
> > > > did anything, as early as 1917. A.J.P.Taylor says that after World War
> > > > I, the British were beginning to find India a liability, because India
> > > > was once again producing its own cotton, and buying cheap textiles
> > > > from Japan. Later, India's strategic importance, while valued by many,
> > > > became questioned by some, who saw the oil of the Middle East and the
> > > > Suez canal as far more important. By the end of the Second World War,
> > > > Britain's will to hold onto its empire had pretty well crumbled, for
> > > > reasons having little or nothing to do with nonviolence.
>
> > > Not true. Had India been easy to control like Canada was, the British
> > still
> > > had a lot to gain by staying.
>
> > > Because of all the dissension, the economic benefit was too small to
> > justify
> > > the military and other resources required to suppress and control these
> > > movements.
>
> > Trance, I'm sorry, I love you to death, but you seem to say "not true"
> > and then basically confirm the author's thesis. You and the author
> > agree on this: the British abandoned India because it was too hard to
> > control. The author suggests this was not because of nonviolence. Now,
> > name a list of things that are violent, and a list of things that are
> > not violent, and tell me which list of things are _easier to control_.
> > The author's suggestion is that the _threat_ of "eruption" scared the
> > British off. Do you dispute this? Don't you think the "non-violence"
> > contributed to this? Doesn't that bring to mind exactly what the real
> > purpose of "non-violence" is in a dispute like this?
>
> > > > But this is the least important of the reasons why Gandhi cannot be
> > > > said to have won independence for India. It was not his saintliness or
> > > > the disruption he caused that impressed the British. What impressed
> > > > them was that the country seemed (and was) about to erupt into a
> > > > slaughter. The colonial authorities could see no way to stop it.
>
> > > Nonsense. The colonial authorities instigated it as I said it was part of
> > > British Divide and Rule policy which they had used consistently in India
> > > since their arrival.
>
> > But Trance. You aren't disputing his point! He's for the Indians and
> > against the British. He's just saying that they didn't leave because
> > they were nice people who shed tears over Gandhi being a nice guy. He
> > agrees they instigated it. He's just saying they didn't leave because
> > it was hurting their feelings being such meanies and all. They left
> > because the threat made it expedient.
>
> > > What
>
> > > > they could see was the increasingly violent antagonism between Muslims
> > > > and Hindus, both of whom detected, in the distance, the emergence of a
> > > > power vacuum they rushed to fill. This violence included the "Great
> > > > Calcutta Killing" of August 1946, when at least 4000 people died in
> > > > three days.
>
> > > This has nothing to do with whether the
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 3:59 pm
From: Dev

On Dec 2, 5:13 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 1, 7:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually, book,
> > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples" that
> > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
> > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
> > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
> > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
> > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with human
> > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case, anyone--explain
> > > > exactly how one explains the other).
>
> > > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human beings are
> > > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence in order
> > to
> > > resolve problems.
>
> > > I would think that was a good thing.
>
> > Okay. But for a truly nonviolent campaign to work, wouldn't that mean
> > it worked with no threat of violence?
>
> And many have. That doesn't mean that violence didn't occur but violence was
> not the strategy.
>
> For example, the Protest Movement of the 1960s started having sit-ins,
> bed-ins (Lennon) and be-ins (Vancouver/Frisco).
>
> These were peaceful protests.

Yes, but the point of the author is that the apparent effects of these
were contingent on non-pacifistic associations.

> That didn't stop the police from charging in with billy clubs to drag off,
> arrest protestors and charge the protesters with "assault".

You seem to contradict yourself with this. Let me state again: by
saying nonviolence did not make certain movements work, I am by no
means _defending_ the cocksuckers. Read the title of this thread
again.

> > The three (and only three,
> > versus like thousands of major historical examples where violence
> > works) examples of whether nonviolence works exclusively all have, I
> > think, substantial arguments that the "non-cooperation" encompassed
> > riots and threats at the bare minimum, state force sometimes. So.
> > Three disputable examples of nonviolence versus three-hundred-thousand
> > of violence works, nonviolence wins?
>
> Numbers aren't the issue.
>
> This is a new strategy. It's one that was developed in the last century as
> an alternative to violence and wars. So far, it's effect is being seen.

No, it hasn't. It isn't substantiated, is the problem. We have three
(3) examples--let's call them the "prototypes for the miracle of
nonviolence"--and all of them are essentially defended with...oh,
saying justified violence isn't actually violence and shit? Dubious,
mythological examples that even neither you or Drafterman can really
defend with facts that a third grader can divide into twelve versus
the actual history of the entire human race.

> We have to get better at it and more strategic about it instead of tossing
> it out just because it hasn't proven to be perfect yet.

Explain a non-violent strategy that you perceive as effective.

> And we need brilliant young minds like yours to work on this problem, not to
> dismiss it.

How is pacifism different from creationism?

> Violence as a strategy doesn't benefit anyone except, as I said before, in
> Wars of Conquest.

But...but facts and history and stuff, as opposed to hippie rock
music!

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is of
> > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the proportion
> > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> > > > didn't lose.
>
> > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
>
> > :P
>
> > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the existing
> > > circumstances.
>
> > :P
>
> > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a War of
> > > Conquest a success.
>
> > :P
>
> > > It depends on what the goals are.
>
> > Trance, none of the "great nonviolent leaders" achieved anything
> > historically without at least the threat of force behind them, and if
> > they were sincere, then they failed because of it.
>
> > > If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a problem,
> > > violence is rarely the right solution.
>
> > So you would argue that the minority of things in history that were
> > accomplished against adversity were accomplished with violence or the
> > threat of violence? Could you make, I dunno, lists to substantiate
> > this with facts, counterarguments taken into account?
>
> > I hate being the bad guy with you, but goddamn. I think we have to
> > start being realistic.
>
> > > > 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
>
> > > --
> > > 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 -
>
> --
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
> Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:00 pm
From: Max

On Dec 3, 8:26 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > OK TG, I've looked at Dev's premise a bit more, ostensibly to look for
> > the key motivation behind it and the Ghandi example that you have been
> > discussing was really a manufactured argument from the start. Devy had
> > done some reading, threw the bait out with a fairly broad statement
> > knowing that Ghandi would appear from someone fairly early on in the
> > piece. (He acknowledged it later anyway)
>
> > Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> > to back his premise that
>
> > "I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a
> > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material."
>
> > After a couple of exchanges, I'm sure you started feeling like this
> > was all a set up.
>
> Not at all. I knew where Dev was going with it.

Well a an outsider, looking in, when you proposed Ghandi with two
other suggestions as examples - one of which I also noted), I naively
assumed he was actually looking for a breadth of examples, not to
discuss the Ghandi thing exclusively.

> I'm glad he brought the topic up so we can discuss it.

No problem there.

> Dev already knows my opinions on this topic so my comments were no surprise
> to him either.

Fine, but I was unaware of that based on the threads title

> We've had this discussion privately as well so we both knew where this was
> going to go.

Again, not for me to know.

> > I think Dev sees most things in Black & White only. I mean reference
> > to the statement 'Non violence has never worked" Mmmmhh, very few
> > greys, so it seems.
>
> Actually he doesn't. Not in my opinion anyway. He just makes his points
> strongly and I guess it can look like that sometimes but I don't really see
> that.

I disagree.. If his statement is correctly restated; "Non violence has
never worked" & the I provide examples that it has (or could be argued
so) & he then immaturely dismisses them, with his poo on Max thing,
what's the conclusion?

> > He sees the 'pacifist, non compliant or non violent' approach to
> > dealing with problems of state, injustice etc as not a viable solution
> > and that regarding non violence as a valuable strategy is without
> > historical efficacy and is only supported by wooses. (Or more likely
> > churchy pacifists, or liberals etc)
>
> It's paragraphs like the above that get him pissed off at you (if you want
> to know ;-)

Why....unless I read it wrong, how is that not what he's saying. (Such
a shame I have to ask you, as he won't converse with me maturely
anymore)

> > I think he misses the point that non violent strategies are really
> > only a recent phenomena, so the weight of historic evidence that
> > violent measures have worked clearly has held sway for millenia. It's
> > a flawed argument that one.
>
> Well I wouldn't call it "flawed". It's an opinion.

It's my opinion & I think his is flawed. It's like saying that people
didn't fly aeroplanes in the 18th Century as well as people can fly
them in the 21st Century. It just didn't happen in the 18th century,
so how can one compare the efficacy of violent vs non violent protest
then & now.

> I happen to have a different assessment of that.

Fine.

> > But yes, war, insurrection, violent opposition etc has it's place. I
> > certainly don't argue otherwise.
>
> Only rarely in extreme cases where there are no other options whatsoever.

Agreed

> > But if we as a species are to evolve towards some form of
> > enlightenment, surely there is a place in this world for non violent
> > protest and strive towards notions of understanding, empathy and a
> > brotherhood of man & (woman). I mean, the examples provided here
> > demonstrate that non violent protest does work, in certain
> > circumstances.
>
> If it's necessary, yes.

Agreed

> It's a new approach and a new strategy and needs to have the bugs worked out
> but in reality I'm not even talking about protest movements and brotherhood
> when I discuss strategy.

Now, this is the first reference to religion and atheism (apart from
the Indian sectarian implications) in the context of the discussion
(for me anyway)

> I'm talking about atheists taking what's going on seriously from the
> wealthiest to the poorest.
>
> Getting active and getting involved in the government, military, media,
> social aspects of society.
>
> Be everywhere and get our policies implemented and our opinions heard.
>
> Influence is what we need.
>
> Why allow ourselves to be marginalized in the first place.
>
> The protest movement approach is one taken by marginalized people.
>
> The problem is that's how we see ourselves and so that's how we behave.
>
> We're reacting to things instead of taking charge of things.

Yes, yes, & yes again. No issue here

> > Religion has divided us, ideological dogma has divided us, colonialism
> > and imperialism has divided us, war has divided us and ignorance has
> > divided us.
>
> Well we can only take responsibility for ourselves we can't control how
> theists react to these things and unfortunately they don't react in the most
> intelligent manner no matter how intelligent they may be individually.

OK, here's the introduction of the theists argument now. This is
another issue, and again I have no problem so far.

> > It's time to move away from the paradigm of hostility to seize and
> > control what we want. Yes, defend ourselves against tyranny with
> > violence, individual or state sanctioned, but we should collectively
> > strive for understanding.
>
> Well that all sounds lovely but this is where you and some of the others
> here lose people like Dev and me.
>
> I can't speak for Rapp but if he reads this I'm sure he'll jump in and
> comment.
>
> The reason is that I don't believe theists want understanding. They want
> conversion. Only the most liberal, and not even all of them, might be
> willing to accept a limited truce on these questions.

OK, the goal posts have moved. The Ghandi discussion (British
colonialism and all my geo political examples) were not focussing on
the theistic implications you're drawing attention to now (in the
main)

> Understanding isn't going to happen. On this I agree with Dev.

Know thy enemy, but I do see what you're saying

> Agreements can be made on certain issues.

Sure

> For example, atheists and some theists might agree that we both want
> secularism or that we both want a certain level of human rights, etc.
>
> Other than that anyone who thinks that theists have any interest whatsoever
> in building understanding, empathy, etc types of relationships with atheists
> is delusional themselves in my opinion.

Absolutely Trance, but where in hell is this issue part of this
thread. If the thread was entitled, "what are the tactics we should
employ that would best & most effectively marginalise world theism",
well then, that'd bring out what you wanting here. Fine. But again, I
saw this as something else.

> The best we can have is agreements on specific issues.
>
> And this is precisely why the atheist solution has to be to get into
> positions of influence and deal with issues directly instead of
> marginalizing ourselves and then complaining when theists who are getting
> themselves in positions of influence exercise their power.

Yes, covered that

> > Too many people, like Dev only see things in absolute terms and
> > particularly with the view that they are right, absolutley. I mean who
> > writes this kind of thing other than a ideologue who figures every one
> > else is 'stupid' but fails to see that the status quo actually prefer
> > violence anyway.
>
> > "It isn't about who can be more liberal or politically correct
> > anymore--the status quo is stupid, and we should try to figure out
> > what's right."

>
> > Max
>
> > On Dec 2, 9:06 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > Dear Lady,
>
> > > > I thought I'd cover off some other "non violence in the face of
> > > > irrational injustice" success stories with you because I'm getting Dev
> > > > is getting violent with me again:) I'll try a non violent 'sit in'
> > > > with him going forward, but it will be difficult nonetheless. I didn't
> > > > realise that this thread was meant to discuss only what he wanted to
> > > > discuss. Silly me, wrong again!
>
> > > > I think the gay community has had some wins for community acceptance
> > > > particularly over the last 20 years or so (in western democracies
> > > > anyway) The participnats of the early gay pride parades must have had
> > > > the 'balls' to do what they did (pun intended). The 'struggle' still
> > > > ain't over as yet, but it's heading in the right direction
>
> > > > Going back further, the 'suffragettes' also, through a program of non
> > > > violence, really changed the paradigm that only the men had the right
> > > > to vote. Go girls!
>
> > > > There are many individual cases such as Rosa Parks, whose non violent
> > > > protest, kick started the media into looking squarely at the
> > > > injustices perpetrated both on her and the wider black community in
> > > > the US. From this 'spark' a fire then raged. Non violent
> > > > though..............and look where we are decades later.......an
> > > > African American US president.....That's one for democracy and non
> > > > violence eh!
>
> > > Exactly. The fact is that this approach is new but it's one that we know
> > is
> > > working and for that reason it's becoming a favored approach.
>
> > > > There's more, but I'll leave it at this for the minute
>
> > > > Cheers
>
> > > > Max
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 12:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually,
> > book,
> > > > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > > > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples"
> > that
> > > > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
> > > > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > > > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
> > > > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
> > > > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
> > > > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with
> > human
> > > > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case,
> > anyone--explain
> > > > > > exactly how one explains the other).
>
> > > > > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human beings
> > are
> > > > > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence in
> > order
> > > > to
> > > > > resolve problems.
>
> > > > > I would think that was a good thing.
>
> > > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is
> > of
> > > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the
> > proportion
> > > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> > > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence
> > more
> > > > > > didn't lose.
>
> > > > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
>
> > > > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the
> > existing
> > > > > circumstances.
>
> > > > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a War
> > of
> > > > > Conquest a success.
>
> > > > > It depends on what the goals are.
>
> > > > > If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a
> > problem,
> > > > > violence is rarely the right solution.
>
> > > > > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini"
>
> ...
>
> read more »

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:08 pm
From: Max

Thanks Trance,

But how do you appraise this comment after my initial non
confrontational & pertinant post in this thread again;

"Yeah, pooping on Max isn't violence either. I intended this thread
for
actual people who understood the issue. Drafterman and Trance both
knew what I was talking about, which is why I'm debating them. You're
retarded and don't understand the question. Go die somewhere."

No 'matey' myopia now :)

Max

On Dec 3, 8:31 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > >Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > >Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> > >to back his premise that
>
> > Max,
> > Most interesting threads that are worth responding to are a set up of
> > sorts. You should know that. What would you think if Dev did not do
> > his homework and devise a plan to flesh out some interesting stuff?
> > Certainly you would go on about his unpreparedness. Properly done,
> > the one who starts the thread should bear the burden of responding and
> > working the thread. That means they should do their homework.
>
> > But seriously Max,..you know that. Try to get over your tiff with
> > Dev. We have all had em. He calls you a name and you write another
> > book on his misgivings. You will contribute better here if you drop
> > it. Of course it's none of my business really.
>
> Wise words of Wisdom from MV.
>
> Advice I agree with, Max.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 5:30 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > > OK TG, I've looked at Dev's premise a bit more, ostensibly to look for
> > > the key motivation behind it and the Ghandi example that you have been
> > > discussing was really a manufactured argument from the start. Devy had
> > > done some reading, threw the bait out with a fairly broad statement
> > > knowing that Ghandi would appear from someone fairly early on in the
> > > piece. (He acknowledged it later anyway)
>
> > > Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > > Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> > > to back his premise that
>
> > > "I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a
> > > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material."
>
> > > After a couple of exchanges, I'm sure you started feeling like this
> > > was all a set up.
>
> > > I think Dev sees most things in Black & White only. I mean reference
> > > to the statement 'Non violence has never worked" Mmmmhh, very few
> > > greys, so it seems.
>
> > > He sees the 'pacifist, non compliant or non violent' approach to
> > > dealing with problems of state, injustice etc as not a viable solution
> > > and that regarding non violence as a valuable strategy is without
> > > historical efficacy and is only supported by wooses. (Or more likely
> > > churchy pacifists, or liberals etc)
>
> > > I think he misses the point that non violent strategies are really
> > > only a recent phenomena, so the weight of historic evidence that
> > > violent measures have worked clearly has held sway for millenia. It's
> > > a flawed argument that one.
>
> > > But yes, war, insurrection, violent opposition etc has it's place. I
> > > certainly don't argue otherwise.
>
> > > But if we as a species are to evolve towards some form of
> > > enlightenment, surely there is a place in this world for non violent
> > > protest and strive towards notions of understanding, empathy and a
> > > brotherhood of man & (woman). I mean, the examples provided here
> > > demonstrate that non violent protest does work, in certain
> > > circumstances.
>
> > > Religion has divided us, ideological dogma has divided us, colonialism
> > > and imperialism has divided us, war has divided us and ignorance has
> > > divided us.
>
> > > It's time to move away from the paradigm of hostility to seize and
> > > control what we want. Yes, defend ourselves against tyranny with
> > > violence, individual or state sanctioned, but we should collectively
> > > strive for understanding.
>
> > > Too many people, like Dev only see things in absolute terms and
> > > particularly with the view that they are right, absolutley. I mean who
> > > writes this kind of thing other than a ideologue who figures every one
> > > else is 'stupid' but fails to see that the status quo actually prefer
> > > violence anyway.
>
> > > "It isn't about who can be more liberal or politically correct
> > > anymore--the status quo is stupid, and we should try to figure out
> > > what's right."
>
> > > Max
>
> > > On Dec 2, 9:06 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > Dear Lady,
>
> > > > > I thought I'd cover off some other "non violence in the face of
> > > > > irrational injustice" success stories with you because I'm getting
> > Dev
> > > > > is getting violent with me again:) I'll try a non violent 'sit in'
> > > > > with him going forward, but it will be difficult nonetheless. I
> > didn't
> > > > > realise that this thread was meant to discuss only what he wanted to
> > > > > discuss. Silly me, wrong again!
>
> > > > > I think the gay community has had some wins for community acceptance
> > > > > particularly over the last 20 years or so (in western democracies
> > > > > anyway) The participnats of the early gay pride parades must have had
> > > > > the 'balls' to do what they did (pun intended). The 'struggle' still
> > > > > ain't over as yet, but it's heading in the right direction
>
> > > > > Going back further, the 'suffragettes' also, through a program of non
> > > > > violence, really changed the paradigm that only the men had the right
> > > > > to vote. Go girls!
>
> > > > > There are many individual cases such as Rosa Parks, whose non violent
> > > > > protest, kick started the media into looking squarely at the
> > > > > injustices perpetrated both on her and the wider black community in
> > > > > the US. From this 'spark' a fire then raged. Non violent
> > > > > though..............and look where we are decades later.......an
> > > > > African American US president.....That's one for democracy and non
> > > > > violence eh!
>
> > > > Exactly. The fact is that this approach is new but it's one that we
> > know is
> > > > working and for that reason it's becoming a favored approach.
>
> > > > > There's more, but I'll leave it at this for the minute
>
> > > > > Cheers
>
> > > > > Max
>
> > > > > On Dec 2, 12:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually,
> > book,
> > > > > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > > > > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples"
> > that
> > > > > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the
> > link,
> > > > > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > > > > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why
> > are
> > > > > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples?
> > Is
> > > > > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well,
> > no--
> > > > > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with
> > human
> > > > > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case,
> > anyone--explain
> > > > > > > exactly how one explains the other).
>
> > > > > > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human
> > beings are
> > > > > > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence in
> > order
> > > > > to
> > > > > > resolve problems.
>
> > > > > > I would think that was a good thing.
>
> > > > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion
> > is of
> > > > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the
> > proportion
> > > > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives
> > history?
> > > > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence
> > more
> > > > > > > didn't lose.
>
> > > > > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
>
> > > > > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the
> > existing
> > > > > > circumstances.
>
> > > > > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a
> > War of
> > > > > > Conquest a success.
>
> > > > > > It depends on what the goals are.
>
> > > > > > If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a
> > problem,
> > > > > > violence is rarely the right solution.
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <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
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 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 -
>
> > > > --
> > > > 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 -
>
> --
> 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 6 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:22 pm
From: Dev

Wow, and we see you have an actual argument based on researching
facts. Or, as your intellectual equal Brock Organ would say, or
not. :)

On Dec 2, 7:27 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On 2 Dec, 03:14, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, pooping on Max isn't violence either. I intended this thread for
> > actual people who understood the issue. Drafterman and Trance both
> > knew what I was talking about, which is why I'm debating them. You're
> > retarded and don't understand the question. Go die somewhere.
>
> Max's response was entirely relevant to your OP. The fact that you
> are too sensitive to come up with anything other than childish insults
> for no reason other than he has disagreed with you in the past is
> pathetic.
>
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 7:32 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > To change public opinion through democratic change which often leads
> > > to cajoling so called 'irrational injustice' out of it's position of
> > > influence. Means at our disposal have been (and are still available)
> > > e.g.
>
> > > anti war marches & demonstrations
> > > Documentary film making
> > > Internet publications
> > > Broader education
> > > Music
> > > Strikes
> > > Constitutional & legisllative protections for free speech
> > > Political lobbying
>
> > > etc etc etc
>
> > > Go here for more examples:
>
> > >http://www.starhawk.org/activism/198ways.html
>
> > > Tactics of non violent protest have been a mainstay for citizenry for
> > > years.
>
> > > Max
>
> > > On Dec 2, 9:28 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > Let's go!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:30 pm
From: Dev

I think it's all of our business if fucktards like Max and Kippers
don't want to seriously participate, but thanks anyway, MV. I want to
emphasize, again, that it isn't a matter of me shitting on everyone
who disagrees with me--thus far, nobody has agreed with me or Neumann
(per se), but Drafterman and Trance gave it a go and since they have
both proven to be sincerely interested in being reasonable I will of
course reply to them as such. Sincerely. Max and Kippers, clearly,
aren't interested. They're just stupid in the same, militantly stupid
way that creationists are stupid. Would I be a greater ambassador of
reason if I pretended they were actually trying to make points? I
don't think so. I think dishonesty is uncalled for in this situation.
They're hecklers, spammers, trolls, and whatnot. They aren't even
trying. So fuck them. They should be diminished and devalued in every
conceivable way. They have no place in a rational discussion of
anything.

On Dec 2, 4:08 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> >Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> >to back his premise that
>
> Max,
> Most interesting threads that are worth responding to are a set up of
> sorts. You should know that. What would you think if Dev did not do
> his homework and devise a plan to flesh out some interesting stuff?
> Certainly you would go on about his unpreparedness. Properly done,
> the one who starts the thread should bear the burden of responding and
> working the thread. That means they should do their homework.
>
> But seriously Max,..you know that. Try to get over your tiff with
> Dev. We have all had em. He calls you a name and you write another
> book on his misgivings. You will contribute better here if you drop
> it. Of course it's none of my business really.
>
> On Dec 2, 5:30 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > OK TG, I've looked at Dev's premise a bit more, ostensibly to look for
> > the key motivation behind it and the Ghandi example that you have been
> > discussing was really a manufactured argument from the start. Devy had
> > done some reading, threw the bait out with a fairly broad statement
> > knowing that Ghandi would appear from someone fairly early on in the
> > piece. (He acknowledged it later anyway)
>
> > Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> > to back his premise that
>
> > "I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a
> > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material."
>
> > After a couple of exchanges, I'm sure you started feeling like this
> > was all a set up.
>
> > I think Dev sees most things in Black & White only. I mean reference
> > to the statement 'Non violence has never worked" Mmmmhh, very few
> > greys, so it seems.
>
> > He sees the 'pacifist, non compliant or non violent' approach to
> > dealing with problems of state, injustice etc as not a viable solution
> > and that regarding non violence as a valuable strategy is without
> > historical efficacy and is only supported by wooses. (Or more likely
> > churchy pacifists, or liberals etc)
>
> > I think he misses the point that non violent strategies are really
> > only a recent phenomena, so the weight of historic evidence that
> > violent measures have worked clearly has held sway for millenia. It's
> > a flawed argument that one.
>
> > But yes, war, insurrection, violent opposition etc has it's place. I
> > certainly don't argue otherwise.
>
> > But if we as a species are to evolve towards some form of
> > enlightenment, surely there is a place in this world for non violent
> > protest and strive towards notions of understanding, empathy and a
> > brotherhood of man & (woman). I mean, the examples provided here
> > demonstrate that non violent protest does work, in certain
> > circumstances.
>
> > Religion has divided us, ideological dogma has divided us, colonialism
> > and imperialism has divided us, war has divided us and ignorance has
> > divided us.
>
> > It's time to move away from the paradigm of hostility to seize and
> > control what we want. Yes, defend ourselves against tyranny with
> > violence, individual or state sanctioned, but we should collectively
> > strive for understanding.
>
> > Too many people, like Dev only see things in absolute terms and
> > particularly with the view that they are right, absolutley. I mean who
> > writes this kind of thing other than a ideologue who figures every one
> > else is 'stupid' but fails to see that the status quo actually prefer
> > violence anyway.
>
> > "It isn't about who can be more liberal or politically correct
> > anymore--the status quo is stupid, and we should try to figure out
> > what's right."
>
> > Max
>
> > On Dec 2, 9:06 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > Dear Lady,
>
> > > > I thought I'd cover off some other "non violence in the face of
> > > > irrational injustice" success stories with you because I'm getting Dev
> > > > is getting violent with me again:) I'll try a non violent 'sit in'
> > > > with him going forward, but it will be difficult nonetheless. I didn't
> > > > realise that this thread was meant to discuss only what he wanted to
> > > > discuss. Silly me, wrong again!
>
> > > > I think the gay community has had some wins for community acceptance
> > > > particularly over the last 20 years or so (in western democracies
> > > > anyway) The participnats of the early gay pride parades must have had
> > > > the 'balls' to do what they did (pun intended). The 'struggle' still
> > > > ain't over as yet, but it's heading in the right direction
>
> > > > Going back further, the 'suffragettes' also, through a program of non
> > > > violence, really changed the paradigm that only the men had the right
> > > > to vote. Go girls!
>
> > > > There are many individual cases such as Rosa Parks, whose non violent
> > > > protest, kick started the media into looking squarely at the
> > > > injustices perpetrated both on her and the wider black community in
> > > > the US. From this 'spark' a fire then raged. Non violent
> > > > though..............and look where we are decades later.......an
> > > > African American US president.....That's one for democracy and non
> > > > violence eh!
>
> > > Exactly. The fact is that this approach is new but it's one that we know is
> > > working and for that reason it's becoming a favored approach.
>
> > > > There's more, but I'll leave it at this for the minute
>
> > > > Cheers
>
> > > > Max
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 12:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually, book,
> > > > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > > > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples" that
> > > > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
> > > > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > > > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
> > > > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
> > > > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
> > > > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with human
> > > > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case, anyone--explain
> > > > > > exactly how one explains the other).
>
> > > > > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human beings are
> > > > > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence in order
> > > > to
> > > > > resolve problems.
>
> > > > > I would think that was a good thing.
>
> > > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is of
> > > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the proportion
> > > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> > > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> > > > > > didn't lose.
>
> > > > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
>
> > > > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the existing
> > > > > circumstances.
>
> > > > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a War of
> > > > > Conquest a success.
>
> > > > > It depends on what the goals are.
>
> > > > > If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a problem,
> > > > > violence is rarely the right solution.
>
> > > > > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <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
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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 -
>
> > > --
> > > 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 -

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 3:49 pm
From: Medusa

Brock wrote:

> And thus is the futility of humanistic "verification" exposed. Of
> course, I like how the Confession puts it:

Somnium maximus!

Medusa

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 3:56 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:23 AM, rappoccio <rappoccio@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?

> >
>

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

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:03 pm
From: ObservantEye

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

What if you can't. What I'm asking is if the laws reflect your
ideals, you're happy. What if they didn't? What if you're the
minority and you wish to practice your own ethics? Are your ethics a
result of the laws or something you determined on your own
irregardless of law? So if you think it should be legal to grow pot,
do you do it? That's just an example, but do you get the idea of the
question?

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

I'm sorry, but I can't agree that ANY modern person--theist or
atheist--wants the Dark Ages back again. So far as the "Religious
Right" political statement, I'm not going to respond because I can't
stand either side's extremists and this isn't a political argument.
That could just blow up into a major thing. Concerning
steamrollering, I think there's enough coming and going from both
sides.

>
> > But again,
> > the actual events I think you're referring to had to do with a
> > governmentalized religion. That's just a nightmare in itself.
>
> That "governmentalized religion" was Christianity. The West is
> secularized largely because of the Christian nightmare it lived
> through.

You're right. Catholicism, specifically. We still have Islam and
many other religions in governmentalized religion now. I guess we at
least agree on this.

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

Surely you've seen the Days = Ages theories?

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

Conclusive proof? If we had that, we could trace exactly the
evolution of every creature out there. There's quite a few anomalies
hard to explain. We'd be able to do more than theorize. I have a
curious mind and have read many things and am asking you for a
discussion and this is what I get?

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

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

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

So far, I've not claimed any proof at all. I'm examining your proof
and it's mighty hard to get someone to just do that without calling me
names or simply turning everything I say into a challenge. I'm
looking for answers. Christians are very willing to give me theirs in
a matter-of-fact way. Please, stop trying to degrade me into
submission. Persuade me.

>
> I think you might be kidding yourself about yourself.
>
> > We have theories and we have scant evidence and we
> > have words written to a people very little like us.
>
> They were a lot like us. In fact, they were exactly like us. They were
> homo sapiens, so are we. We are the same species. I thought you said
> you have a curious mind.

You're stuck on that. Can't you simply answer the friggin questions
without a stab here and there? Am I dissing you? Am I getting
personal here? They were biologically like us. Sure. They wore
clothes that weren't manufactured; reading wasn't what the common man
was taught; their biggest concerns were mating and farming and hunting
and gathering, etc. If you were transplanted in time to their time,
you'd die. So would I. Any fantasies about becoming their ruler or
god is nothing more than that. How many of us would survive in that
world?

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

Basically, I'm saying that we've been able to scientifically disprove
many beliefs. I'm trying to get someone to talk. Not just get nasty
responses.

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

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:03 pm
From: ObservantEye

You people really are nice and helpful. Thanks!

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

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:05 pm
From: ObservantEye

Will do. Thanks.

On Dec 2, 4:21 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:10 PM, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I believe in Spiderman. Don't mess with Spidey. That's just war...
>
> > Then why the Atheist vs Christianity group? Why do you post here? Can
> > I get a thought-out, honest answer? I'd actually like to see
> > everyone's response to this one. Surely you have a purpose? Right?
> > There's actions you must wish for since you've taken the time for so
> > many words. I was told earlier in the thread that atheists want
> > nothing, but why waste your time? Should we start a new thread for
> > this? I know I'd learn a lot.
>
> "Why are you here?" threads come along about once every month or three. I'd
> look in the archives rather than start yet another thread if I were you. It
> gets tiresome answering the same questions over and over again.
>
>
>
> > Once more though--don't mess with Spidey.
>
> > On Dec 2, 3:47 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 2, 1:42 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Firstly, consider that everyone assumed that I was, what? Christian?
> > > > Islam? Whatever. That is when the remarks were made. They were
> > > > intended to be toward myself--at least most of them.
>
> > > > In hind-sight, I'll admit that my post probably guaranteed a flame war
> > > > and was probably taken as a flame. Also consider this before dropping
> > > > the gallows trap door: I'd never been to groups.google.com and I
> > > > joined this one because it was on the sign-on page and looked like a
> > > > place for learning. Note that immediately most of the titles are
> > > > flames to begin with. I ignored those and went to safe-looking
> > > > titles. Bile. Bile. Bile. From people who are claiming to be
> > > > loving, intelligent, and thoughtful. (yes, those claims were actually
> > > > made) I expected a battle ground of wit and instead, watched people
> > > > shooting fish in a barrel. Fun stuff. The joy I saw people getting
> > > > from outright meanness left me non-plussed and I shouldn't have posted
> > > > what I did the way that I did. My apologies for being disenchanted
> > > > with the language and heckling.
>
> > > > I have a question: From what I can tell, there's only two theists
> > > > posting regularly. Is there more? I'd like to hear both sides of
> > > > this, even though I was told that there were no sides.
>
> > > I told that there were no BOTH sides not no sides.If there is two side
> > > that says there is God prove that side.Otherwise anyone can say three
> > > sides with SpiderMan and no SpiderMan also.
> > > But to say three side we must give PROOF for SpiderMan YES?
> > > Same thing with God YES?
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 3:00 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 2, 3:05 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > Once more, a theist playing the victim and showing signs of having
> > > > > difficulties understanding simple sentences.
>
> > > > > > I mentioned the insults? So far, here's a description of me by our
> > > > > > peers here:
> > > > > > A dishonest biased prick.
>
> > > > > That was my comment, and
>
> > > > > 1) it was not an insult, just a fact.
> > > > > 2) not addressed at you, as you claim above.
>
> > > > > > I am still spewing your bullshit about "new atheism" (actually,
> > I've
> > > > > > never heard the term before this comment)
>
> > > > > Lifted from my post.
> > > > > I was merely repeating what a theist has claimed (except for the
> > > > > "spewing" and "bullshit" which are not really insults since "New
> > > > > Atheism" is bullshit, and it was not addressed at you anyway.)
>
> > > > > If you want to know about "new atheism", join the club! Ask Brock to
> > > > > explain it.
> > > > > The best he could do was produce a few web pages/blogs that used the
> > > > > term in their page title. He could never demonstrate that it was an
> > > > > actual movement/organization/philosophy/etc.
>
> > > > > > Then you are no self-respecting Christian. (apparently not)
>
> > > > > Where is the insult here?
>
> > > > > > arrogant prick
>
> > > > > Yep, that one is an insult!
>
> > > > > > I have apparently been suffering from Alzheimer's. (wow, didn't
> > see
> > > > > > that one coming)
>
> > > > > An wrong assessment?
>
> > > > > > I have an unremarkable life.
>
> > > > > Not insults.
>
> > > > > > I have no feelings, no brains, no consciences, no ethics,
> > absolutely
> > > > > > nothing that a human would call human. Period.
>
> > > > > A wrong assessment?
>
> > > > > > Wow, that one had a "Period." So why should I even continue? How
> > > > > > does one debate with that? I mean, I don't want to start with
> > debates
> > > > > > proving I have feelings, brains, conscience, ethics, and that I'm
> > > > > > human! I mean, I need to go find those groups first, I guess...
>
> > > > > So, you produced little evidence in lieu of actual insults that were
> > > > > actually addressed at you.
> > > > > But, considering that your OP was an open call for flaming how can
> > you
> > > > > be honestly surprised that you got what you were asking for?
>
> > > > > In case you try to disagree with me, here is a little reminder of
> > your
> > > > > opening statement:
> > > > > "
> > > > > have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> > > > > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
>
> > > > > Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> > > > > interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> > > > > atheist into a flame war.
> > > > > "
>
> > > > > Right off the bat you claim that 99% percent of atheist on this site
> > > > > are angry and do not want to intelligent discussions, so they must be
> > > > > stupid or something like that.
>
> > > > > Then you have the balls to state that the same atheists are only
> > > > > interested in flaming?
>
> > > > > "Arrogant prick" was too good for you, actual bona fide arrogant
> > > > > pricks the world over are offended that you were associated with
> > them.
> > > > > _________________________________
> > > > > I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
> > > > > -- Ruth Hurmence Green

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:06 pm
From: ObservantEye

Okay. But why? Why do you care what they think? Seriously...

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

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:08 pm
From: ObservantEye

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.

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

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:18 pm
From: ObservantEye

Well, I can say without a doubt that at least that is getting better
for atheists. I know what it was like 30 years ago and you don't have
the personal crusaders beating your door down and I haven't seen
someone handing out religious literature at every store you go to near
as much as back then. Of course the times were different then, too,
such a short while ago.

Of course, you have to agree with some of it. I mean, do you
seriously think no one should push for a law you're against? This is
democracy at it's best. Times have definitely changed enough that you
can try to banish any reminder of any Christian's faith, like
christmas trees, the ten commandments, etc. However, you don't see
the same language used against Islam, or any other sects, for fear of
being called a hate-monger. Any idea what that's about? Remember,
I'm observing and asking if anyone knows the answers, not disagreeing
with you or fighting you.

On Dec 2, 4:39 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ObservantEye;
>
> > It sounds like we had a similar upbringing. However, I recognized
> > that it was the _people_ that make the cage. The beliefs actually
> > seemed to have a good purpose and intent until people get hold of it.
> > I have to say that I think there's much to say _for_ religious
> > ideals. Accountability, striving to become better, helping your
> > neighbor, golden rule, etc. The ideals are great. It's always been
> > the people I've had a problem with. I don't think they understand/
> > interpret the intent of most of the stuff in the (insert religious
> > text title here).
>
> I believe it was George Bernard Shaw who said: "Christianity is a
> great idea, but, so far, it hasn't been tried yet." Some good ideas,
> but rarely carried out.
>
> > Question: Does atheist mean you're against religion of any kind?
> > Consider pantheism, Christianity, Islam, lucky rabbit feet, humanism,
> > etc. Does everyone here hate all religions or do we pick and choose?
>
> I am not 'against" any religion; I just don't believe in the dogma and
> the myths of any religion.
>
> However, I do _not_ like the way people try to impose their religious
> beliefs on others.
>
> That is the part of religons I detest. Ok, you don't like "A," so
> just don't do "A." But don't tell other people they can't do "A!"
>
> Medusa

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:23 pm
From: ObservantEye

Oh my. When in question of what I'm saying, you assume the worst? I
hated that I was apparently being dense again! geez Was this
response supposed to mean something? It sounds to me like you just
don't like someone or other. That's not typical of your responses.
Usually you offer some decent content with a jab, but umm, read that
out loud to yourself?

On Dec 2, 4:19 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> Why do you hate?
> Borgan says Dev is hater many times but not say I AM TRU CHRISTIAN is
> hater even ONCE because Dev is Atheist and I AM TRU CHRISTIAN is
> Christian.
> So Borgan is BIG hypocrite
>
> On Dec 2, 2:03 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I hate this. This is the second time I gotta be stupid today. What
> > in the name of Spiderman are you saying here?
>
> > On Dec 2, 3:56 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > Or Borgan is BIG hypocrite saying nothing to Christian I AM TRU
> > > CHRISTIAN
> > > On Dec 2, 12:46 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 3:40 PM, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Nope. No hate here!
>
> > > > What an ... um, observant eye you have, ... um, ObservantEye ... :)
>
> > > > Regards,
>
> > > > Brock
>
> > > > > On Dec 1, 6:42 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > >> What bad happens to the world when a Christian burns to death,
> > > > >> exactly?
>
> > > > >> Take flushing a public toilet as an example, if you like.

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:26 pm
From: ObservantEye

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY YOU PEOPLE!!!

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

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:03 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

Thanks. That was excellent.

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Dag Yo <sir_roko2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> And nicely reported on.
>
> http://www.yahoo.com/s/996016
> >
>

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:04 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Answer_42 <ipu.believer@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Dec 2, 2:21 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > And nicely reported on.
>
> 25%, wow!
> Sounds like Oregon and Washington State are nice places to be!

BC is 37% ;-)

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

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

Christ is King.

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

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:11 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Brock Organ <brockorgan@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemini7@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Brock Organ <brockorgan@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Trance Gemini <trancegemini7@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> 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
> >> >>
> >> >> Check with the local district attorney who supervised the case for
> >> >> more specifics.
> >> >>
> >> >> > and why Bush was not
> >> >> > sent to a psychiatrist for claiming that your god told him to send
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > troops into Iraq?
> >> >>
> >> >> Check with your local constitutional attorney who has supervised the
> >> >> case for more specifics.
> >> >
> >> > I would prefer your thoughts on the matter Brock.
> >>
> >> Those are my thoughts on the matter. You asked the naive question,
> >> and I answered by noting the legal contexts are different.
> >
> > And how are the legal contexts different?
>
> As I indicated above, specific legal questions are often best answered
> by a lawyer.

Non-answer noted.

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

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:16 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

This entire argument of yours is simply a typical theist dodge to avoid
dealing with the issue of theist extremists and damage that they do.
When you want to get around to dealing with the actual issue instead of
evading it feel free to let me know and we can discuss it.

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

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Atheist are very loving people. They love because they feel love...
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/e11e82fadbcfcef7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 4:24 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Dec 2, 8:57 am, mary wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:
> > Ruthie,
> >
> > How can you feel love without God?
>
> Provide objective and verifiable evidence that God exists.
>
> > From what I have seen all the
> > atheists feel is lust.
>
> I feel slightly gaseous at the moment, so I guess you're wrong.
>
> > Lust for the flesh,
>
> mmmmmm...cannibalism.
>
> > and lust for things.
>
> mmmmmmm...things.
>
> > Only
> > the higher things are pure.
>
> What are the "higher things?" Ted Haggard? He was pretty high.
>
> > Love is purity, not corruption.
>
> I bet you're really fun in bed.

I see you're on a roll tonight Neil. Thanks for a great laugh on two
different threads.

Too funny.

>
>
> > Mary Wolls
> >
> > On Dec 2, 2:04 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 2, 8:51 am, Ruthie <willruthie1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > They don't love because they are scared into it. People get the idea
> > > > that an atheist is a devil lover .Far from the truth. Atheist don't
> > > > believe in god and definetly don't believe in Satan.
> >
> > > chx
> > > not believing in satan does not let him go away ;)- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atheism vs Christianity

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Atheism-vs-Christianity - 25 new messages in 9 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links