Atheism vs Christianity: Atheism-vs-Christianity - 25 new messages in 14 topics

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:36 pm
From: thomas

Ranjit,

No. Christians are not a race. They will always fight and bicker.
Hence, the Gospel!

thomas

On Dec 1, 5:00 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Can anyone picture Christians accepting each other as Christian, and
> wanting to identify themselves as Christian, in the face of such
> (below) diversity of belief?
>
> Lack of belief in afterlife (as represented by Natalie Portman):
> On the concept of the afterlife, she comments "I don't believe in
> that. I believe this is it, and I believe it's the best way to
> live."[9] She has said that she feels more Jewish in the Holy Land and
> that she would like to raise her children in the Jewish religion: "A
> priority for me is definitely that I'd like to raise my kids Jewish,
> but the ultimate thing is to have someone who is a good person and who
> is a partner.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Portman
>
> Reincarnation believing Rabbi revered:
> Rabbi Manasseh ben Israel (1604-1657), one of the most revered Rabbis
> in Israel, states in his book entitled Nishmat Hayyim: "The belief or
> the doctrine of the transmigration of souls is a firm and infallible
> dogma accepted by the whole assemblage of our church with one accord,
> so that there is none to be found who would dare to deny it ...
> Indeed, there is a great number of sages in Israel who hold firm to
> this doctrine so that they made it a dogma, a fundamental point of our
> religion. We are therefore in duty bound to obey and to accept this
> dogma with acclamation ... as the truth of it has been incontestably
> demonstrated by the Zohar, and all books of the Kabalists." (Nishmat
> Hayyim)
>
> Ressurection belief:
> In contemporary Judaism, the traditional, mainstream view of
> resurrection is maintained by the orthodox, but generally not by the
> non-orthodox.
>
> Belief in a soul:
> Outside the orthodox fold, ordinary believers often accept the notion
> of an immortal soul, not unlike the notion held by most Christians.
>
> Lack of belief in afterlife:
> many secular and Reform Jews continue to view themselves as part of
> the tradition of Judaism, without adhering to any sort of afterlife
> belief.
>
> http://www.near-death.com/experiences/judaism06.html

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:27 pm
From: gousaphe

In my opinion, there aren't much to learn from the New Testament
beside the words of Christ. The rest of the New Testament contains
mainly Paul's teachings. Paul was Saul and Saul was a persecutor of
Christians and of Christianity.
Paul taught things that he did not comprehend, that was because he was
made a slave of Christianity,
'He committed sins become the slave of sins.'
No offense, but Paul's words are the words of a slave.

There are much to learn from the words of the prophets of the Old
Testament.

On Dec 2, 8:32 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 6:20 pm, gousaphe <dangdang...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > A categorical no is the answer to your question.
> > For one, Jesus would not have in anyway tolerated hypocrites like the
> > Pharisees and the Sadducee.
>
> There are no Christian Pharisees or Saducees. So, a diversity similar
> to the diversity in Judaism would not include Christian Pharisees or
> Saducees.
>
> > He was too a Jew and they have never tolerated him, had they?
> > Two, one is Christian not because of idle belief but by learning and
> > doing the words of Christ.
>
> Then, do you ignore the rest of the words in the New Testament? "Words
> of Christ" comprise a small fraction of the canonical gospels and the
> rest of the New Testament has no "words of Christ".
>
> > On Dec 1, 6:00 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Can anyone picture Christians accepting each other as Christian, and
> > > wanting to identify themselves as Christian, in the face of such
> > > (below) diversity of belief?
>
> > > Lack of belief in afterlife (as represented by Natalie Portman):
> > > On the concept of the afterlife, she comments "I don't believe in
> > > that. I believe this is it, and I believe it's the best way to
> > > live."[9] She has said that she feels more Jewish in the Holy Land and
> > > that she would like to raise her children in the Jewish religion: "A
> > > priority for me is definitely that I'd like to raise my kids Jewish,
> > > but the ultimate thing is to have someone who is a good person and who
> > > is a partner.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Portman
>
> > > Reincarnation believing Rabbi revered:
> > > Rabbi Manasseh ben Israel (1604-1657), one of the most revered Rabbis
> > > in Israel, states in his book entitled Nishmat Hayyim: "The belief or
> > > the doctrine of the transmigration of souls is a firm and infallible
> > > dogma accepted by the whole assemblage of our church with one accord,
> > > so that there is none to be found who would dare to deny it ...
> > > Indeed, there is a great number of sages in Israel who hold firm to
> > > this doctrine so that they made it a dogma, a fundamental point of our
> > > religion. We are therefore in duty bound to obey and to accept this
> > > dogma with acclamation ... as the truth of it has been incontestably
> > > demonstrated by the Zohar, and all books of the Kabalists." (Nishmat
> > > Hayyim)
>
> > > Ressurection belief:
> > > In contemporary Judaism, the traditional, mainstream view of
> > > resurrection is maintained by the orthodox, but generally not by the
> > > non-orthodox.
>
> > > Belief in a soul:
> > > Outside the orthodox fold, ordinary believers often accept the notion
> > > of an immortal soul, not unlike the notion held by most Christians.
>
> > > Lack of belief in afterlife:
> > > many secular and Reform Jews continue to view themselves as part of
> > > the tradition of Judaism, without adhering to any sort of afterlife
> > > belief.
>
> > >http://www.near-death.com/experiences/judaism06.html

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:07 pm
From: "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"

On Dec 2, 8:27 pm, gousaphe <dangdang...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In my opinion, there aren't much to learn from the New Testament
> beside the words of Christ. The rest of the New Testament contains
> mainly Paul's teachings.

Even if Paul's teachings are not the same as Jesus' teachings, it
doesn't follow that there's nothing to be learned from them. Indeed,
it would be if Paul's teachings were a replica of Jesus' teachings
that there would be nothing to learn from them. Perhaps you mean that
whatever there is to learned from Paul's teachings, you don't find it
worth learning.

> Paul was Saul and Saul was a persecutor of
> Christians and of Christianity.

He wasn't a persecutor of Christians at the time he wrote his
epistles. In his epistles, does he acknowledge having been a
persecutor of Christians or does he only acknowledges being a great
sinner? It's the author of Acts who calls him a persecutor of
Christians.

> Paul taught things that he did not comprehend,

Whereas Jesus comprehended everything he taught?

> that was because he was
> made a slave of Christianity,
> 'He committed sins become the slave of sins.'
> No offense, but Paul's words are the words of a slave.
>
> There are much to learn from the words of the prophets of the Old
> Testament.
>
> On Dec 2, 8:32 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 6:20 pm, gousaphe <dangdang...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > A categorical no is the answer to your question.
> > > For one, Jesus would not have in anyway tolerated hypocrites like the
> > > Pharisees and the Sadducee.
>
> > There are no Christian Pharisees or Saducees. So, a diversity similar
> > to the diversity in Judaism would not include Christian Pharisees or
> > Saducees.
>
> > > He was too a Jew and they have never tolerated him, had they?
> > > Two, one is Christian not because of idle belief but by learning and
> > > doing the words of Christ.
>
> > Then, do you ignore the rest of the words in the New Testament? "Words
> > of Christ" comprise a small fraction of the canonical gospels and the
> > rest of the New Testament has no "words of Christ".
>
> > > On Dec 1, 6:00 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Can anyone picture Christians accepting each other as Christian, and
> > > > wanting to identify themselves as Christian, in the face of such
> > > > (below) diversity of belief?
>
> > > > Lack of belief in afterlife (as represented by Natalie Portman):
> > > > On the concept of the afterlife, she comments "I don't believe in
> > > > that. I believe this is it, and I believe it's the best way to
> > > > live."[9] She has said that she feels more Jewish in the Holy Land and
> > > > that she would like to raise her children in the Jewish religion: "A
> > > > priority for me is definitely that I'd like to raise my kids Jewish,
> > > > but the ultimate thing is to have someone who is a good person and who
> > > > is a partner.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Portman
>
> > > > Reincarnation believing Rabbi revered:
> > > > Rabbi Manasseh ben Israel (1604-1657), one of the most revered Rabbis
> > > > in Israel, states in his book entitled Nishmat Hayyim: "The belief or
> > > > the doctrine of the transmigration of souls is a firm and infallible
> > > > dogma accepted by the whole assemblage of our church with one accord,
> > > > so that there is none to be found who would dare to deny it ...
> > > > Indeed, there is a great number of sages in Israel who hold firm to
> > > > this doctrine so that they made it a dogma, a fundamental point of our
> > > > religion. We are therefore in duty bound to obey and to accept this
> > > > dogma with acclamation ... as the truth of it has been incontestably
> > > > demonstrated by the Zohar, and all books of the Kabalists." (Nishmat
> > > > Hayyim)
>
> > > > Ressurection belief:
> > > > In contemporary Judaism, the traditional, mainstream view of
> > > > resurrection is maintained by the orthodox, but generally not by the
> > > > non-orthodox.
>
> > > > Belief in a soul:
> > > > Outside the orthodox fold, ordinary believers often accept the notion
> > > > of an immortal soul, not unlike the notion held by most Christians.
>
> > > > Lack of belief in afterlife:
> > > > many secular and Reform Jews continue to view themselves as part of
> > > > the tradition of Judaism, without adhering to any sort of afterlife
> > > > belief.
>
> > > >http://www.near-death.com/experiences/judaism06.html

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Afghanistan
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/544ee5e2660c0f01?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:37 pm
From: Eris

Didn't see any bible thumping in the combat, lots a people passing
around pills, blow, pot, and our old friend opium. Charlie kept us
well supplied anything we wanted. No one praising Jesus though. I
would periodically praise/curse Colt Arms.

Christians start wars, others fight them.
Who benefits from war?
The greedy and the pious.

This is Boots one one,
Request one round Willy Papa at wiskey romeo four seven eight three
niner fiveuh.

Shot over

Splash

Up five zero left two zero

Fire one six round hotel echo

Over.

You get compfy we will do the killin for ya.

On Dec 1, 7:37 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> truthfully, it sounds animalistic to me. People who brag about animals
> exploding. It's a sentient being, despite what you learned on Star
> Trek.
> And to top this off the individual has lived through and experience
> combat in a particularly harrowing war theater. And still he finds a
> thrill in blowing something to bits. Truly amazing. And disgusting.
>
> On Nov 29, 6:33 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > According to Star Trek animals are not sentient, ( I think that is the
> > correct word ). The pink mist of a varmint exploding at three hundred
> > yards is an incredible rush :-)
>
> > On Nov 29, 1:16 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 5:54 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 28, 8:06 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.co m> wrote:> well it remains to be seen what the person meant by denigrating the
> > > > > M16. You said no one aims in combat. So what's the benefit of an M16
> > > > > in combat then?
>
> > > > 820 rounds per minute IIRC, flat trajectory, damn thing used to jam a
> > > > lot and wear out barrels.
>
> > > > > do you experience anything in the way of compassion for the animals
> > > > > you kill?
>
> > > > No? Why would I? Varmints are varmints, Deer are large rats.
>
> > > So explain to me why humans are entitled to compassion then. Why
> > > isn't a person just a "grown rat"?

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:37 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Brock Organ <brockorgan@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Maybe Brock IS God?
>
> Jesus Christ is God. I'm just a sinner, saved by Christ's grace.

Ain't none of us buying what you're selling.

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

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:45 pm
From: "Brock Organ"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Turner Hayes <lordlacolith@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Maybe Brock IS God?
>>
>> Jesus Christ is God. I'm just a sinner, saved by Christ's grace.
>
> Ain't none of us buying what you're selling.

Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae

Regards,

Brock

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:40 pm
From: "Brock Organ"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:32 PM, xeno <69blacklab@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 1, 12:59 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
>>
>> > that's a pointless belief because you haven't demonstrated that what's
>> > within the bible is congruent with objective reality.
>
>> Or rather, I simply note that the objective nature of truth is
>> independent of humanistic verification.
>
> you can't have knowledge of something w/o knowledge of *that* thing,

Or rather, its objective truth is independent of whether a person has
knowledge of it or not. :)

> ok. you can signify that something can be true w/o verification but
> how could you know that it's true w/o some evidence?

Well, the point is that the standard that measures the standard is the standard.

> see, if you say
> the holy spirit told me so, the question is going to be, well how do
> you know it's the holy spirit & not just your own certitude pretending
> to stand outside of yourself.

Rather, by noting that the positions are not based on existential or
humanistic premises, the significant and notable subjectivity that
such premises typically incur are absent.

> there is evidence that people do things
> like that while on the other hand there's no evidence of any spirits.
> the bottomline though, is that you can't claim not to have some kind
> of verification,

I simply note that it is the objective nature of the truth that
establishes the verification, and not the converse. Or put another
way, essence precedes existence.

> regardless of any skepticism towards spirits. so why
> would you waste time noting that the objective truth is independent of
> verification?

I didn't note such, rather I indicated:

2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs

Regards,

Brock

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:48 pm
From: thomas

As I see it, Brock is saying, that he is objective, and that it is
true, and if you saw it his way, you would see it the same way too.

On Dec 2, 7:40 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:32 PM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 1, 12:59 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
>
> >> > that's a pointless belief because you haven't demonstrated that what's
> >> > within the bible is congruent with objective reality.
>
> >> Or rather, I simply note that the objective nature of truth is
> >> independent of humanistic verification.
>
> > you can't have knowledge of something w/o knowledge of *that* thing,
>
> Or rather, its objective truth is independent of whether a person has
> knowledge of it or not. :)
>
> > ok. you can signify that something can be true w/o verification but
> > how could you know that it's true w/o some evidence?
>
> Well, the point is that the standard that measures the standard is the standard.
>
> > see, if you say
> > the holy spirit told me so, the question is going to be, well how do
> > you know it's the holy spirit & not just your own certitude pretending
> > to stand outside of yourself.
>
> Rather, by noting that the positions are not based on existential or
> humanistic premises, the significant and notable subjectivity that
> such premises typically incur are absent.
>
> > there is evidence that people do things
> > like that while on the other hand there's no evidence of any spirits.
> > the bottomline though, is that you can't claim not to have some kind
> > of verification,
>
> I simply note that it is the objective nature of the truth that
> establishes the verification, and not the converse. Or put another
> way, essence precedes existence.
>
> > regardless of any skepticism towards spirits. so why
> > would you waste time noting that the objective truth is independent of
> > verification?
>
> I didn't note such, rather I indicated:
>
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

==============================================================================
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 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:43 pm
From: Multiverse

I would side with the author in principle assessment. I don't see the
civil rights movement as possessing the attributes of conflict to be
included in the grouping. Like the author points out the federal
government pursued it as a project. I would have to leave room for
Trance's viewpoint as she seems to possess a solid level of
familiarity on the details. Without a little homework I could not add
significantly more than has already been posted here.

On Dec 2, 10:13 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Did you read the article I linked to in response to Drafterman, that
> kind of motivated this thread?
>
> http://www.tamilnation.org/ideology/neuman_on_non_violence.htm
>
> I'm pretty much agreeing with what he said: that there doesn't seem to
> be an historical precedent for nonviolence working mainly on its own
> merits in a serious conflict, and the few predictable examples
> anticipated from posters on this thread are at best
> oversimplifications.
>
> On Dec 2, 8:03 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > People like to undermine the role of violence in the
>
> > > success afforded to them, because it makes for a happier picture of
> > > humanity.
>
> > Good point. Take the case of journalistic censorship on the
> > battlefield. Not showing the lifeless bodies of the 18 year old
> > American boy on the battlefield helps. At last count there have been
> > more than 4800 US service-members killed in Iraq / Afghanistan. How
> > many dead American bodies have you seen on TV? Initially, the
> > military purposes for censorship are to protect against things like
> > protests on the home-front etc.... But as the victor writes the
> > history it definitely helps lessen the impact of the horrors of war.
> > It is not really hard to train someone to hold a rifle and march into
> > battle. It's much harder to get him to go back and do it again
> > although you won't have to wonder if he has sharpened his bayonet.
> > The happy picture for humanity ironically has more to do with
> > benefiting government power than humanity itself. This is evidenced
> > by the fact that it does nothing to prevent violence and it has been
> > practised vigorously regardless of political party. Although there is
> > the easy argument that if it helps the American war machine maintain
> > preparedness to go to war than it is necessary. After-all the Union
> > was formed in part to "provide for the common defence". It is
> > something we expect our tax dollars to be used for.
>
> > On Dec 2, 7:35 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 2, 3:41 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > What really drives history?
>
> > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> > > > > didn't lose.
>
> > > > Hey Dev,
> > > > Technically the American Revolution would have been
> > > > unsuccessful without French help. So that's a good place to start.
> > > > Obviously many countries exist who sucked at violence but got help.
> > > > But I'm splitting hairs with the question obviously.
>
> > > No, that is completely relevant. The point is the initial point: the
> > > historical precedence for non-violence. If violence had a happy face,
> > > if violence was not sanctioned by the hegemony, whatever--not the
> > > issue. What has absolute pacifism accomplished mainly because of the
> > > weight of its own non-force?
>
> > > > I would not hazard a guess at your proportional question but attempts
> > > > at non violent success may have been historically more common than
> > > > known but had been quashed. History has been written by the victors
> > > > after all.
>
> > > Well...my question is pretty much how that last statement doesn't
> > > confirm what I or the author have said precisely. :)
>
> > > > -The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the
> > > > blood of patriots and tyrants,
> > > > Thomas
> > > > Jefferson
>
> > > > I guess nowadays we can't go spilling the blood of patriots and
> > > > tyrants.......Unless they are in another country of course. Non
> > > > violent success seems to have something to do with how much violence
> > > > is likely to be visited on the non violent.
>
> > > Yes. The example of the Civil Rights movement is relevant to this, if
> > > you read the article referenced. The non-violent success stories are
> > > largely myths. People like to undermine the role of violence in the
> > > success afforded to them, because it makes for a happier picture of
> > > humanity.
>
> > > > On Dec 1, 8:52 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually, book,
> > > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples" that
> > > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
> > > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
> > > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
> > > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
> > > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with human
> > > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case, anyone--explain
> > > > > exactly how one explains the other).
>
> > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is of
> > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the proportion
> > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> > > > > didn't lose.
>
> > > > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Let's go!
>
> > > > > > Martin Luther King.
>
> > > > > > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
>
> > > > > > Mahatma Gandhi.
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > > > > > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
> > > > > > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > > > > > Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:41 pm
From: Max

Not clear from me perhaps, but what I was trying to get at was that if
the choice is available, utilise non violent aproaches (as some have
been proven to have some impact) but also if warranted, violence can
be a valid response as well.

The 'goal posts have moved' comment from me was in reference to the
topic moving towards issues of theistic recalcitrance etc. At the
time, I was working more on what I thought the discussion tenor was
about i.e. the broader 'non violence against injustice' issues, or so
I thought.

I can appreciate that striving for any understanding with theists is
practically impossible as their dogma disallows it, but my 'striving'
comment was more about humanity in general.

Max

On Dec 3, 1:30 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > 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)
>
> No shifting of goal posts. You brought up "collectively strive for
> understanding." and I'm speaking directly to that point.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Mental health abuse
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/e2b54ba1ea1ec4a6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:49 pm
From: Observer

On Dec 1, 6:45 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 28, 8:32 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:02 AM, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 27, 9:55 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 27, 10:57 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > <snip> they are human beings and that *there is no good
> > > > > > > in them.*
>
> > > > > > Well, fuck you too.
>
> > > > > I was quoting the Bible.
>
> > > > Observer
> > > > Are you so completely stupid that you fail to understand that bible
> > > > quotes , for people who understand that the bible is just a
> > > > compilation of primitive superstitious myths plagiarized from even
> > > > more ancient superstitious nonsense is disgusting and servers no
> > > > purpose but to demonstrate that you have so little understanding of
> > > > your hideous superstitious filth that you must quote rather than to
> > > > delineate with reason what the content of that stupid fucking book of
> > > > trash means?
>
> > > > Point of reference google 16 crucified saviors and you will see that
> > > > there are over 44,000 separate websites dedicated to the subject.
>
> > > This is where the book *The Two Babylons* is so good.
>
> > Observer
> > Why does it discuss the fact that the story of the new testament was
> > just plagiarized from previous superstitious filth and was never
> > actually a story which reflected any actualities related to the
> > mythical Jesus? Thea you are so fucking dimwitted that I am afraid
> > that Alzheimer's if eminent.
>
> > Yes, I know it was
> > > written by a pastor, but he presents all that you are telling me here.
> > > There will always be *false gods*, and one *true God*, which is the God
> > of
> > > Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who is the God that made the earth in the first
> > > place and *hung the world in space*.
>
> > Your poor demented preacher man is not only a purveyor of
> > superstitious filth but a hole in the fabric of human dignity ,
> > honesty, and our interrelated responsibilities to each other. This
> > hideously stupid man can apparently not make an honest living
> > providing usefully goods or services so he chose to fleece his friends
> > and neighbors by the use of incredible deception. The mentally
> > defenseless , such as you, are unable to avoid the hideous thrust of
> > his dishonesty.
>
> > How terrible it is that such scumb as this and all of the other liars
> > for Jesus and their own pocket books can not be made to pay for the
> > damage they do to what would have otherwise been decent human breings.
>
> > You , poor Thea , are not intellectually astute enough to have any
> > concept of the actualities of this world and have been mind fucked
> > into a stupor from which you will never escape . It is not to you that
> > I write but to those who read here so that they may avoid being
> > deceived into a life of drone like servitude to the mindless concepts
> > of Christian superstitious filth.
>
> > Psychonomist
>
> You are always so interesting to read Psycho - EGO EGO EGO!!!

Observer
Thea Please define Ego .
This ought to be interesting.

Psychonomist
>
>
>
> > > > I am sorry I didn't tell you where it said this --
> > > > > go look it up for yourself.
> > > > > In saying there is *no good in us*, it is because God said He had to
> > send
> > > > > Jesus in order to make us whole.
>
> > > > Observer
> > > > Please show us that quote directly from god.
>
> > > > You imbeciles can not even offer scientifically substantive data for
> > > > the existence of a god and you expect us to believe that you who know
> > > > what it would have said if it existed.
>
> > > Luke 18:19
> > > Jesus is talking with the rich young ruler and he says:
> > > *Why callest thou me good? None is good, [except] one, that is, God!!!*
>
> > > Psalms 86:5 - *For thou, Lord, are good, and ready to forgive, and
> > plenteous
> > > in mercy unto all those who call upon thee.*
>
> > > I'll take God up on this and call on Him, and let Jesus *direct my
> > paths*.
> > > It is more *joyous to dwell in the court yard of the house of God, than
> > in
> > > hell.*
>
> > > > To give us life. To get us to heaven by
> > > > > covering *our sins* with His Blood, so that God could not see our
> > > > > degradation and poverty of spirit.
>
> > > > Observer
> > > > A total lie fabricated by a bunch of uneducated pathological liars who
> > > > knew next to nothing of the world in which they lived. Such filth is
> > > > the produce of plagiarism,hatred of their fellow men, and fear of the
> > > > unknown.
>
> > > > Village idiots, those who are devoid of useful educations, psychotics
> > > > and those made gullible because of other pathological
> > > > considerations , believe such filth . It has become obvious that you
> > > > are a composite of all three.
>
> > > > > It's a neat way for us to only have to accept what Jesus did for us
> > when
> > > > He
> > > > > died in our place.
>
> > > > Observer
> > > > If Jesus ever lived at all , and any of that outragesously stupid
> > > > story was true he was a small time , rather dimwitted, criminal
> > > > executed for crimes against the state.
>
> > > > In fact, I believe that if you add anything, like trying
> > > > > to be *good enough*, you are making salvation null and void.
>
> > > > Observer
> > > > That from which people need salvation is the hideous fucking filthy
> > > > superstition to which norons, like you, are adicted by the production
> > > > of endogines opiats. You are no more than a fucking opiat junky
>
> > > > Psychonomist
>
> > > > > > _________________________________________________
> > > > > > The spectacle of what is called religion, or at any rate organized
> > > > > > religion, in India and elsewhere, has filled us with horror, and I
> > > > > > have frequently condemned it and wished to make a clean sweep of
> > it.
> > > > > > -- Jawaharlal Nehru- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:59 pm
From: thomas

Trance,

> Now, please explain to me why this Texas man was sent to a psychiatrist for
> claiming that your god told him to hit this woman's car and why Bush was not
> sent to a psychiatrist for claiming that your god told him to send the
> troops into Iraq?

Lunacy is contagious, just like the Nazi stormtroopers and
brownshirts, until they are defeated they will never wake up.

thomas

On Nov 30, 8:59 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Theists. A question. Please read the following article.
>
> Now, please explain to me why this Texas man was sent to a psychiatrist for
> claiming that your god told him to hit this woman's car and why Bush was not
> sent to a psychiatrist for claiming that your god told him to send the
> troops into Iraq?
>
> Exactly what is the difference between the two?
>
> In addition, please explain why there appears to be so many people out there
> committing crimes in the name of your god which lends a great deal of
> credence to the question, Which God Do You Kill For?
>
> Texas man says God told him to hit woman's car
> By ROBERT CROWE
> San Antonio Express-News
> Nov. 29, 2008, 12:15AM
>
> The driver of a pickup that struck a woman's car on San Antonio's
> South Side on Friday morning is being evaluated by psychiatrists
> because he thinks God told him to drive in excess of 100 mph to take
> the other car off the road, police said.
>
> The bizarre incident that shut down southbound U.S. Highway 281 above
> the Medina River happened about 7:25 a.m.
>
> "He just said God said she wasn't driving right, and she needed to be
> taken off the road," said Lt. Kyle Coleman of the Bexar County
> Sheriff's Office.
>
> The woman was driving her sedan northbound when the pickup rear-ended
> her vehicle. The pickup's driver told deputies that was driving in
> excess of 100 mph at the time, Coleman said. The impact caused both
> vehicles to spin across a median before they came to a stop along a
> barrier in the southbound lanes. No other vehicles were involved.
>
> Though both vehicles were badly damaged, the drivers suffered minor
> injuries.
>
> "God must have been with them, 'cause any other time, the severity of
> this crash, it would have been a fatal," Coleman said.
>
> The woman was taken to a hospital as a precaution, while the pickup
> driver was taken for psychiatric evaluation.
>
> Police did not find evidence of alcohol or drug use by either driver,
> nor did the pickup driver specify for police how the woman's driving
> was unsatisfactory.
>
> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6137502.html#
>
> --
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and
> assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech
> to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US
> Supreme Court Justice

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:28 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:59 PM, thomas <tdierden@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Trance,
>
> > Now, please explain to me why this Texas man was sent to a psychiatrist
> for
> > claiming that your god told him to hit this woman's car and why Bush was
> not
> > sent to a psychiatrist for claiming that your god told him to send the
> > troops into Iraq?
>
> Lunacy is contagious, just like the Nazi stormtroopers and
> brownshirts, until they are defeated they will never wake up.

Uh oh, Brock's got competition for the Non-Answer of the Week Award.

>
>
> thomas
>
>
> On Nov 30, 8:59 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Theists. A question. Please read the following article.
> >
> > Now, please explain to me why this Texas man was sent to a psychiatrist
> for
> > claiming that your god told him to hit this woman's car and why Bush was
> not
> > sent to a psychiatrist for claiming that your god told him to send the
> > troops into Iraq?
> >
> > Exactly what is the difference between the two?
> >
> > In addition, please explain why there appears to be so many people out
> there
> > committing crimes in the name of your god which lends a great deal of
> > credence to the question, Which God Do You Kill For?
> >
> > Texas man says God told him to hit woman's car
> > By ROBERT CROWE
> > San Antonio Express-News
> > Nov. 29, 2008, 12:15AM
> >
> > The driver of a pickup that struck a woman's car on San Antonio's
> > South Side on Friday morning is being evaluated by psychiatrists
> > because he thinks God told him to drive in excess of 100 mph to take
> > the other car off the road, police said.
> >
> > The bizarre incident that shut down southbound U.S. Highway 281 above
> > the Medina River happened about 7:25 a.m.
> >
> > "He just said God said she wasn't driving right, and she needed to be
> > taken off the road," said Lt. Kyle Coleman of the Bexar County
> > Sheriff's Office.
> >
> > The woman was driving her sedan northbound when the pickup rear-ended
> > her vehicle. The pickup's driver told deputies that was driving in
> > excess of 100 mph at the time, Coleman said. The impact caused both
> > vehicles to spin across a median before they came to a stop along a
> > barrier in the southbound lanes. No other vehicles were involved.
> >
> > Though both vehicles were badly damaged, the drivers suffered minor
> > injuries.
> >
> > "God must have been with them, 'cause any other time, the severity of
> > this crash, it would have been a fatal," Coleman said.
> >
> > The woman was taken to a hospital as a precaution, while the pickup
> > driver was taken for psychiatric evaluation.
> >
> > Police did not find evidence of alcohol or drug use by either driver,
> > nor did the pickup driver specify for police how the woman's driving
> > was unsatisfactory.
> >
> > http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6137502.html#
> >
> > --
> > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> > "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech
> and
> > assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of
> speech
> > to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis,
> US
> > Supreme Court Justice
> >
>

==============================================================================
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 8:13 pm
From: Multiverse

> Pre-suppositions are a part of every epistemology. As Aristotle has
> famously articulated:

Pre suppositions are fine Brock. But to pre-suppose that something is
true or correct, no matter how much it has been proven to be incorrect
or unreasonable and downright kooky is the problem.

> So there are first principles in metaphysics that act as unprovable
> starting points. Aristotle articulates "intuitive knowledge" as a
> justification or basis for these unprovable starting points. I
> disagree, since "intuitive knowledge" is highly existential and
> subjective. So my point is that the first principles should rely upon
> divine revelation and not intuitive knowledge, which is a profoundly
> non-solipsistic argument. So a modification to his position, that I
> believe is better (though of course, it isn't Aristotle's):

Aristotle was terribly wrong on lots. He did the best he could. You
know, gave it the old collage try.... But at the end of the day he
was wrong on plenty. So you switch out his "intuitive knowledge"
which is obviously flawed, for the term "divine revelation".
Obviously overlooking the fact that this term is a complete invention
from the bible itself. So you use a belief espoused in the bible to
allow yourself to never question the truth of the bible. Did they
sell you a bridge while they were at it?

> * Metaphysics involves divinely revealed knowledge of unprovable
> starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
> what follows from them.

And you have not noticed yet that their has been no demonstration of
anything that follows from your flawed logic?

Brock it seems like it would be so incredibly easy for you to see your
folly.

> If you want to see an example of the blindness of faith, ask a
> humanist to justify (as an objective basis) the pre-eminence of human
> reason for morals and ethics.

no I think you guys have the market cornered on blind faith.

On Dec 2, 10:07 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >>In particular, this rejects the erroneous humanistic
> >> claim that 1) is true "cuz I say so".
>
> > Ok. It's a shame though to see a person make obedient their sense of
> > reason, to a book that is as unreasonable as the bible,
>
> Pre-suppositions are a part of every epistemology. As Aristotle has
> famously articulated:
>
> "Metaphysics involves intuitive knowledge of unprovable
> starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
> what follows from them."
>
> So there are first principles in metaphysics that act as unprovable
> starting points. Aristotle articulates "intuitive knowledge" as a
> justification or basis for these unprovable starting points. I
> disagree, since "intuitive knowledge" is highly existential and
> subjective. So my point is that the first principles should rely upon
> divine revelation and not intuitive knowledge, which is a profoundly
> non-solipsistic argument. So a modification to his position, that I
> believe is better (though of course, it isn't Aristotle's):
>
> * Metaphysics involves divinely revealed knowledge of unprovable
> starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
> what follows from them.
>
> > through the
> > process of subjucating their sense of reason to the unreasonable.
>
> If you want to see an example of the blindness of faith, ask a
> humanist to justify (as an objective basis) the pre-eminence of human
> reason for morals and ethics.
>
> > What comes next? Food deprivation? Isolation?
>
> Worship, prayer, gratitude, fellowship, testimony; among other things.
>
> > Have you ever taken a look at how this stuff invades your life?
>
> Perhaps. :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:30 pm
From: Observer

On Dec 1, 6:48 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 5:43 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why are you here supporting Christianity or positing an atheistic
> > stance?
>
> Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae
>
> > If you are a Christian why do you believe that the bible is true?.
>
> I like how the Confession puts it:
>
> "yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the
> infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work
> of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our
> hearts."

Observer
In as much as the above represents the dregs of slovenly superstitious
filth and heinous stupidity , I am of necessity in disagreement with
it. I must further point out that your belief is such utter nonsense
affirms our opinion, that you are among the village idiots of the
world, is accurate.

Sorry , Brock but you are genuinely a third rate mentality . Oh don't
forget K mart boxer shorts.

Once again you serve to advance the cause of the atheists who wish to
show the world that Christianity is not only " hazardous to your
health " but that it's stories and precepts are utterly stupid.

Thanks , Brock

Psychonomist

.
>
> http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_I.html
>
> > If you are a Christian do you evangelize? If so why?
>
> It is my joy as a believer to have a very small small part in God's
> redemptive plan.
>
> > What value do you personally receive from posting here?
>
> Obedience to the wishes of my beloved Lord Jesus Christ.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:28 pm
From: Observer

On Dec 2, 6:51 am, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Observer,
>
> > If you are an atheist, do you want to see an end to Christianity?
>
> I am an atheist for Christ. All faiths must be unified under one
> church. Every knee should bow to Christ the King.

Observer
How very interesting , in as much as if the entirety of the phrases
purported to have been uttered by the mythical Jesus, were actually
his , the content would betray dimwittedness .

As Was said by Thomas Jefferson ,The man who wrote our constitution:

quote
"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and
doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and
such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of
other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause,
to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New
Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded
from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of
very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick
out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

>
> > I need not ask a corresponding question of Christians.
>
> The return of the King, will be the end of Chritiandom.
>
> > What do you think of priests and preachers? Either group please
> > respond.
>
> The first ammendment was written, and America established to defend
> it, so that priests and teachers could spread the gospel.

Observer
How does this answer answer my question? Nothing here reflects you
opinion of priests and preachers.

Incidentally you really need to read the first and fourteenth
amendment.

>
> > How, should children be protected from the influence of Christianity?
>
> Every ear must hear the gospel, there is no way to "protect" them.

Observer
Why should every ear hear this unmitigated superstitious filth for
which int one scintilla of scientifically verifiable substantiating
data exists? This in relation to the stupid concepts of things and
conditions which can only be described as metaphysical to wit demons,
a devil, angels, the fictive sadomasochistic monster you worship as a
god, ghosts, spirits, a heaven , a hell where in " your god of love" ,
it is claimed , will torture billions even trillions of people for
eternity.

> When they hear the gospel they hear the words of life.

Observer
Sorry , But hideous superstitious filth does not qualify as words of
life.
>
> > How, should, children be protected from the influence of atheism?
>
> They cannot understand the words of life without the influence of
> atheism, as much as we would llike to protect them from the devils
> voice.

Observer
You per superstitious schmuck . Please give us scientifically
verifiable substantiating data for the existence of a devil or admit
that you know not where of you speak.

Furthermore the words published by atheists here and generality are
the produce of rational thought based upon critical thought, the
understanding of up to date scientific data , and a good understanding
of scientific method. The very fact that you disapprove of them is
indicative of the fact that you lack any education encompassing the
above.

Get an education Please !

>
> > What do you think of the obscene wealth of churches while millions
> > starve to death?
>
> You cannot mix God and mammon. The wealth of the churches only
> highlights the spiritual nature of the gospel, and the wisdom of God.

The quote is "serve God and Mammon"

You really believe that the hundreds of trillions and billions of
dollars or horded wealth in the hands of these criminal organizations
is preferable to feeding the poor , funding medical research, housing
the homeless, and educating our children?
Well so much for brotherly love.
>
> > If you are a Christian why do you believe that the bible is true?.
>
> I believe it. That is what makes it true.

Observer
Wow , you display the symptoms of a pathological egomaniac. Only such
would state that because they believe something that act of
believing ,transforms superstitious filth into truth.
I would suggest a mental health evaluation by non biased professionals
with an MD behind their names in the advent that there is a need to
adjust your biochemistry.
>
> > If you are an atheist why do you not believe that the bible is true?
>
> We all start out as atheist. It is the devil who makes us blind and
> deaf to the truth.

Observers
I hear the the echoes contained in preaching of an other dimwitted ,
uneducated , preacher who , not being able to provide salient
qualifications for the job market has turned to fleecing his
neighbors ,for a living , by preaching what is dictated by The Liars
For Jesus Club.
This ignorant , brutish monster has done you no small disservice.

It is power of the word of God that causes us to
> oversome the devil in this realm of satan.

Observer
More of this utter stupidity of a Devil .
How Stupid.
>
> > Why do you believe that there is a god (don't quote the bible as it is
> > the source of the myth)
>
> Just look around you. Look up in the sky. Look at the beauty, and the
> power of the universe.

Observer
If you had an education you would understand that the produce of
scientific method accounts very well for the existence of and
evolution of the universe withour resorting to the Voodoo Hoodoo of
god magic. Have you not a Library card?

Look at the tragic drama of life and death
> spanning history and extending endlessly into time.

Observer
If there was, indeed, an omniscient,omnipotent ,omnipresent Deity
would such really be the case?

Look at the hatred
> that causes death and destruction and chaos

Observer
Have you no understanding of the history of the world and how the
derision produced of religions has caused slaughter, intimidation,
terrorism , and the endless religious wars which killed hundreds of
millions ,atrocities including the death of fifty million by torture ,
and the slaughter by the church of 700,000 men women and children in
Croatia while the christian nation of Germany joyously slaughtered ,
starved, and burned, six million Jews?

, and then see the spirit
> of the love of God that rallies the forces of good and overwhelms the
> spirit of darkness, and brings new life and a light that heals.

Observer
There are no forces of good save in the wonderful mind of educated
humans who work and participate in the process of using their
influence to gain for all humans what is to become the proper heritage
of our children.

This
> overpowering love brings a continuance of life once again to a world
> that haas fallen into decay and destruction.

Observer
You, Christian have not the foggiest concept of love.

How can you not see the
> etrernal struggle of good and evil that embroils human-kind, that
> falls into ruin and decay, and then from the asshes of fallen
> civilizations new life springs forth once again. It is this cycle of
> good and evil that is the witness of the word of God, of his truth and
> of his love.

Observer
Waxing poetic will never convert a subject matter of ignorance ,
brutishness, and superstition into truth.

Now learn to think and stop being satisfied with simply being told
what to think.

>
> > Why do you not believe that there is a god?
>
> When they do not believe in God it is because of the influences of
> evil in the world, the lies and terror that spread from evil and
> ensnares the good in a net, so that they cannot hear, speak of, or
> even see or Go'ds grace and goodenss.

Observer
Not a question for you to answer as you can not know the workings of
the millions of minds that have no belief in a god thing.

>
> > Is religion harmful to the world? If so how do we stop its destructive
> > force?
>
> Religion is harmful to the world, religion is the new world. The old
> world must be destroyed. There is no way to save the old world, only
> the souls that abide. There is no way to stop the gospel of Christ, it
> is of God.

When one of you maladroits can come up with scientifically verifiable
substantiating data for the existence and any action of any god ever
then there is cause to examine how to deal with such god as is
discovered. In the mean time the buy bull is first rate filth and
should be kept out of the hands of children as to give them such
amounts to child abuse.

Read the following;

This web site is designed to spread the vicious truth about the
Bible. For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored
the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes. The so called
"God" of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. This
God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-
murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing,
not to mention the killing of unborn children. I have included
references to the Biblical passages, so grab your Bible and follow
along. You can also follow along with on-line Bibles such as
BibleStudyTools.net or SkepticsAnnotatedBible.com.

It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of
innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said "Thou shall not
kill". For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David
ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the
destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He
orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city,
and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another
attack and the killing of "all the living creatures of the city: men
and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses" (Joshua
6). In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-
gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly
raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to
hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap
her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! Just about every
other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings
10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different
god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people
directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.

The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your
own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges
11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea
13:16 & Psalms 137:9).

This type of criminal behavior should shock any moral person.
Murder, rape, pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be
justified by saying that some god says it's OK. If more people would
actually sit down and read the Bible there would be a lot more
atheists like myself.

Jesus also promoted the idea that all men should castrate
themselves to go to heaven: "For there are eunuchs, that were so born
from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made
eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs
for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let
him receive it." (Matthew 19:12 ASV) I don't know why anyone would
follow the teachings of someone who literally tells all men to cut off
their privates.

The God of the Bible also was a big fan of ritual human sacrifice
and animal sacrifice.

http://www.evilbible.com/

>
> > If you believe that religion is good for the world how do you think it
> > ought to be preserved.
>
> You need not concern yourself with that question. God will preserve
> it. God takes care of his own.

What or which god?

>
> > If you are an atheist are you completely out of the closet? If not.
> > Why not?
>
> I am atheist in my understanding of the gospel. What so you think?

Observer
No, you poor ignorant dolt one can not be an atheist, and believe in a
god.

An atheist is by definition , "One who disbelieves or denies the
existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. "
>
> > If you are a Christian do you evangelize? If so why?
>
> I proclaim the glory of God, and offer them a place in his kingdom.

Observer
That , Christian, is a pretty stupid thing to do since you are unable
to substantiate that such as any god exists.

All you have is a book of Neolithic myths which are essentially
rehashes or superstitions form much earlier and the stories there in
have nothing to do with actuality then now or ever.

> > What value do you personally receive from posting here?
>
> The opportuninty to win souls to the almighty.

If you believe that your fictive god is too stupid to "win souls" then
I pity you.

Be for, however you respond to that , please give us verifiable
substantiating data for the existence of any soul ever.
>
> > What are your responsibilities to your family, your community, and
> > your country in relation to these issues?
>
> When you put the calling first, everything else falls into place.

That is precisely what Stalin , Hitler , Chairman Mao Zedong , and Pol
pot practiced . So also did the church when they tortured to death
fifty million people to save their souls.

None do evil so fluently and so easily as those convince that they are
doing work for a god or ideology.

>
> > Regards to all
>
> > Psychonomist
>
> Regards,
>
> thomas

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:38 pm
From: Observer

On Dec 2, 10:31 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2:43 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Ø Why are you here supporting Christianity or positing an atheistic
> stance?
>
> LL: I posit an atheistic stance because I'm an atheist and I'm true to
> my lack of belief in god. I see no reason to lie about it, but I also
> don't throw it in anyone's face. My only exception is if someone is
> throwing his religion in my face, unbidden.
>
> Ø If you are an atheist, do you want to see an end to Christianity?
>
> LL: I want to see an end to irrational thinking. If that ends
> Christianity--and I think it would--then you could say I want to see
> an end to Christianity--but only through the spread of rationality. I
> have no impossible expectations.
>
> Ø What do you think of priests and preachers? Either group please
> respond.
>
> LL:They are terribly misled. Many are delusional. They probably have
> been indoctrinated from a young age to the point where they can't
> think rationally about god or religion. At the same time I can say
> that many—perhaps most-- can't help their delusional state. I have
> known and still know many priests and preachers on a personal level. I
> would like to be able to speak to them directly about religion but
> seldom take the opportunity because it creates disharmony and bad
> feelings, which is counterproductive. I've always thought that you can
> catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. I always hope that I
> can plant some seeds of doubt—but I do it subtly.
>
> Ø How, should children be protected from the influence of
> Christianity?
>
> LL: It's hard to do with children (other than one's own). All we can
> do is try to spread rational thinking and how it's superior to theism
> in every way. It's hard with kids because you don't want to send them
> into despair because you are attempting to remove their mythical
> support system or encourage their parents to do something violent (all
> too common among fundamentalists of any stripe). I'd rather
> concentrate on adults, but I would also continue to argue against
> indoctrination in inappropriate places—such as public schools and the
> public square.
>
> Ø How, should, children be protected from the influence of atheism?
> N/A
>
> Ø What do you think of the obscene wealth of churches while millions
> starve to death?
>
> LL: As any rational being would view it—with horror, grief and
> despair.
>
> Ø If you are a Christian why do you believe that the bible is true?.
> N/A
>
> Ø If you are an atheist why do you not believe that the bible is true?
>
> LL: There is nothing in the bible that has been shown to be true when
> it comes to the supernatural. In fact, the bible doesn't even have the
> geography and much of the history right. But why should the writers of
> the bible have anything right? They were primitive, badly educated
> mythmakers who showed themselves to be incapable of rational thought
> and who were easily swayed toward myths and the idea of a being that
> created us and has control over our lives. Many lived too long ago to
> have been influenced by rational thought. It was not the zeitgeist in
> most circles, and certainly not in the Middle East.
>
> Ø Why do you believe that there is a god (don't quote the bible as it
> is
> the source of the myth)
>
> N/A
>
> Ø Why do you not believe that there is a god?
>
> LL: I have seen no evidence of any god. If there were evidence, no
> belief would be necessary. Since there is no evidence, any belief in a
> god is irrational. It's no different from believing in astrology.
>
> Ø Is religion harmful to the world?
>
> LL: You betcha! ;-)
>
> Ø If so how do we stop its destructive
> force?
>
> LL: If I knew the answer to that question I'd be famous, hailed far
> and wide as a hero and probably rich. We can only do what we can do to
> spread rationality and argue against irrationality. It will continue
> to be a very hard row to hoe. Theism is a powerful force that isn't
> going to go away easily, and perhaps not at all. We can only try our
> best.
>
> Ø If you believe that religion is good for the world how do you think
> it ought to be preserved.
>
> LL: N/A
>
> Ø If you are an atheist are you completely out of the closet? If not.
> Why not?
>
> LL: I am out of the closet in most situations, but I don't always
> speak of it. But if someone asks me directly whether I believe in god
> I usually say, without equivocation, that I do not. In some situations
> where I don't want to get into the subject (usually because it is not
> an appropriate time or place or my questioner seems to be bull-headed
> and/or simply unintelligent) I will say something along the lines of
> "I don't intend to talk about religion." But I won't imply that I am a
> theist under any circumstances.
>
> Ø If you are a Christian do you evangelize? If so why?
>
> N/A
>
> Ø What value do you personally receive from posting here?
>
> LL: I enjoy the debate, I enjoy presenting my own thoughts on the
> subject and hearing others' views (even theists'). I live in hope that
> something I say will have a positive effect on a believer.
>
> Ø What are your responsibilities to your family, your community, and
> your country in relation to these issues?
>
> LL: My responsibilities are the same for all. To be true to my
> position, but at the same time, not be so aggressive as to turn people
> off. Nothing is accomplished if I create a hostile situation. I try to
> find a balance and I try to be non-threatening.
> **************************************************************************************

Observer

Thank you for a most erudite response . Of course , I have come to
expect no less from you.

Best regards

Psychonomist

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:33 pm
From: harry k

On Dec 2, 10:17 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 7:24 pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 11:49 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 2, 6:10 am, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 1, 8:40 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 1, 5:52 pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 1, 1:34 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 1, 6:09 am, Ruthie <willruthie1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > nothing in the Bible is horrible or scary. natural 'disasters' are
> > > > > > > exactly that, natural.
>
> > > > > > <snips>
>
> > > > > > Hmmm...what about:
>
> > > > > > 7 plagues?
> > > > > > Kill every first born?
> > > > > > Murder every person in the world down to babies in wombs save 7?
> > > > > > Okay to rape?
> > > > > > Kill a wife if she isn't a virgin?
>
> > > > > > etc. for innumerable examples.
>
> > > > > chx
> > > > > you did not even read the book, what's the point discussing it with
> > > > > you. you are obviously going on hearsay...7 plagues, bah!
>
> > > > > > Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > I was heavily indoctrinated as a kid in that book but if you don't
> > > > want to answer pertinent questions that expose your error...
>
> > > chx
> > > if you were heavely indoctrinated, then how come your first point is
> > > wrong?
> > > there were 10 plagues not 7. the first born was #10. it was not magic,
> > > it in fact was a plague. the Jews cleaned their silos every year where
> > > the Egyptians did not. the first borns always received extra portions
> > > and was poisoned by the bacteria. my guess was that the others just
> > > felt ill of the bacteria. were there biologists back then to know of
> > > this? no! so the only one to know how this would work was God. the
> > > other 9 was just a show, a power play until the bacteria was good for
> > > the job.
>
> > > for the rest, they are all from the OT. Jesus made the NT call for us
> > > to follow. you should read the Book and then come play. i don't know
> > > the verses as some christians know them but i understand much.
>
> > > so much for pulling the 'indoctrinated authority' move, hahaha
>
> > So how much do you recall from a subject that you dropped 60 years ago
> > when you found out you had been lied to?
>
> > There may be some hope for you but not as long as you twist and
> > distort the bible to support you kooky beliefs.
>
> chx
> not twisted and distorted. what is written is sure not magic. those
> happenings all have some scientific solutions. one must just
> understand and research.
> did moses know about the bacteria in the rotting grain? no way, he was
> a leader, not a scientist. so who knew then??? who knew it would kill
> only the first born? Moses? never! who did know?? come, tell me. it is
> proven to be possible to have happened by science
> .
>
>
>

Twist and turn, twist and turn.

As a reminder here is what caused my first reply to you:

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

> nothing in the Bible is horrible or scary. natural 'disasters' are
> exactly that, natural.

<snips>

Hmmm...what about:

7 plagues?
Kill every first born?
Murder every person in the world down to babies in wombs save 7?
Okay to rape?
Kill a wife if she isn't a virgin?

etc. for innumerable examples.

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

To which you took the bible and claimed that 'kill the first born' was
a plague, number 10 to be exact. Note you did that while failing to
acknowledge your egregious error.

Now wout you care to show where in the bible it includes the 'kill the
first born' as a plague?

Feel free to continue to distort and twist bible verses to attempt to
show that bible says something it clearly does not.

You apparently also think that the OT doesn't apply any more. Could
you give us a list of those portions, chapters, verse's of the bible
that we should not pay attention to?

Harry K

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:55 pm
From: hucktunes

A curse? The apocalypse as reported in the book was supposed to have
happened in their lifetime. And it didn't.

On Dec 2, 6:56 pm, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ruthie,
>
> Revelations are self-fulfilling prophesies. The "book of Revelation"
> was a curse by John to save his churches in the East. This curse will
> continue until his (Christ)s return.
>
> thomas
>
> On Dec 2, 4:43 pm, Ruthie <willruthie1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > My question is to atheist. How will you respond if and when bible
> > revelations start to take place? If the rapture occurs or two
> > witness's who are performing miracles? I just want to understand.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:57 pm
From: mag

the rapture has begun, or second coming, whatever you want to call
that part of most religions. Atheists only ever discuss the parts of
manmade religion that are easy to dispell as untruths, they dont
discuss the parts that baffle even the most intelligent professor.
Atheists will go quieter than usual when they see the beginning of the
end of this world, i know from past experience because at this present
moment of time i have already convinced millions of people that i am
christ, mahdi, second coming, messiah, maitreya, The buddha, whatever
you want to call that person as mentioned in most religions i am that
guy. I and spirit like to use the title of, The New Key To
Enlightenment For All Atheists. People only have to pass me in the
street to find evidence and experience of my telepathic capabilities
but if i were to in this website give you the address of my online
free view to book and telepathic challenge id be banned from this site
for spamming.

On Dec 3, 12:43 am, Ruthie <willruthie1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My question is to atheist. How will you respond if and when bible
> revelations start to take place? If the rapture occurs or two
> witness's who are performing miracles? I just want to understand.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:31 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

Cue the nice young men in the clean white coats...

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:57 AM, mag <magnusrawstron@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>
> the rapture has begun, or second coming, whatever you want to call
> that part of most religions. Atheists only ever discuss the parts of
> manmade religion that are easy to dispell as untruths, they dont
> discuss the parts that baffle even the most intelligent professor.
> Atheists will go quieter than usual when they see the beginning of the
> end of this world, i know from past experience because at this present
> moment of time i have already convinced millions of people that i am
> christ, mahdi, second coming, messiah, maitreya, The buddha, whatever
> you want to call that person as mentioned in most religions i am that
> guy. I and spirit like to use the title of, The New Key To
> Enlightenment For All Atheists. People only have to pass me in the
> street to find evidence and experience of my telepathic capabilities
> but if i were to in this website give you the address of my online
> free view to book and telepathic challenge id be banned from this site
> for spamming.
>
> On Dec 3, 12:43 am, Ruthie <willruthie1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > My question is to atheist. How will you respond if and when bible
> > revelations start to take place? If the rapture occurs or two
> > witness's who are performing miracles? I just want to understand.
> >
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hopefully with Mr Bush now firmly seated in the Whitehouse, America
will enter a new era of wholesome family entertainment and the Hollywood
pornographers will be claiming unemployment
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/e6ee90a2ad693f5e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:02 pm
From: I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN

On 2 Dec, 23:28, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> No, you have to be part of the Hitler Youth when you are a boy to be
> Pope nowadays.
>
> <yes, historical fact, the Pope was part of the Hitler Youth--live
> with it>
>
> On Dec 2, 5:54 am, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > isnt the challange: not get caught abusing the 8 year old boy? Then
> > they get to be pope or sumpin?
>
> > On Dec 1, 6:49 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

Homosexuals?

Based on my religions beliefs, homosexual BEHAVIOR is a sin just like
drinking booze or having sex outside of a marriage.

I can not do anything to help sins against the teaching of the Bible
thus I can not, based on my religous beliefs, allow any of these
activities on my property, INCLUDING rental property I might own. The
civil rights laws that say I would have to rent to drinkers, unmarried
couples, or gays violate my right to live up to my religion thus such
laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL
>
> > > Have you heard of that new reality TV show on CBN? It's called the
> > > "Hetero Challenge". If you can be locked in a room with a Bible, a
> > > picture of Jesus, a wafer and an eight-year-old boy for 24 hours and
> > > remain heterosexual you win a kabillion dollars. It's approximated to
> > > be the most profitable TV show of all time.
>
> > > On Nov 30, 10:02 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > wow,...that uh...sounds serious. does that work like the Richter
> > > > scale? so the second "really" equates to like 10 times more gayness?
> > > > I hadn't been aware of the classifications they use. Perhaps that's
> > > > why, occasionally, a gay guy like him will think he has a good shot at
> > > > getting my penis into his mouth just because I've had a few drinks.
> > > > Next time I'll just say, no thanks, I am really, really, really,
> > > > really heterosexual. That's gotta be a magnitude 10 or better!
>
> > > > On Nov 30, 10:46 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > I'm not sure there's such a thing as a guy having a "penis fetish".
> > > > > The correct expression would just be "he's really, really gay".
>
> > > > > On Nov 30, 8:44 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > why do you think this is an appropriate place to discuss your m d
> > > > > > penis fetish?
>
> > > > > > On Nov 30, 4:31 am, I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN <X...@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > When I go to the movies I want to be entertained. I don't want to see
> > > > > > > Michael Douglas's aging erection. I am not a prude, but there is a
> > > > > > > time and a place for everything, and the place for Michael Douglas's
> > > > > > > penis is in his boxer shorts, not blown up to ludicrous proportions in
> > > > > > > a movie theater. It was bad enough having to look at his flabby
> > > > > > > buttocks in "Basic Instinct".
>
> > > > > > > As if that wasn't bad enough, I predict that the ongoing pornoization
> > > > > > > of Hollywood movies will lead to more expensive movie tickets, as the
> > > > > > > big stars demand extra 'nudity money' to compensate them for
> > > > > > > participating in the variety of depraved acts the perverted directors
> > > > > > > dream up. After all, if full blown intercourse is allowed past the
> > > > > > > censors, what next ? Teabagging ? Bagpiping ? Felching ? I don't even
> > > > > > > want to think about it.
>
> > > > > > > Before the moral collapse brought on by the liberal anything goes
> > > > > > > 'free love' culture of the sixties, America's movies were governed by
> > > > > > > something called the Hays Code. Amongst other things, this very fine
> > > > > > > set of rules protected our children by mandating that certain levels
> > > > > > > of decency prevailed on our screens. Here are some extracts to give
> > > > > > > you an idea of the moral strength of the code:
>
> > > > > > > # Excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive postures
> > > > > > > and gestures, are not to be shown.
>
> > > > > > > # Pointed profanity (this includes the words, God, Lord, Jesus, Christ
> > > > > > > - unless used reverently - Hell, S.O.B., damn, Gawd), or every other
> > > > > > > profane or vulgar expression however used, is forbidden.
>
> > > > > > > # No film or episode may throw ridicule on any religious faith.
>
> > > > > > > # The use of the Flag shall be consistently respectful.
>
> > > > > > > # Impure love must not be presented as attractive and beautiful.
>
> > > > > > > Nowadays, modern cinematographers seem to take the Hays code, and
> > > > > > > invert it. They don't feel as if their movie is complete, unless it
> > > > > > > has scenes of impure love, disrespect for the flag, and blasphemy.
> > > > > > > This sorry state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue.
>
> > > > > > > In conclusion, this increasing permissiveness will cause movie ticket
> > > > > > > prices to rise, and you may be forced to view Michael Douglas's erect
> > > > > > > penis enlarged until it is 10 meters long. Now you can understand why
> > > > > > > the Hays code must be ressurected. Hopefully with Mr Bush now firmly
> > > > > > > seated in the Whitehouse, America will enter a new era of wholesome
> > > > > > > family entertainment and the Hollywood pornographers will be claiming
> > > > > > > unemployment- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:16 pm
From: ObservantEye

Read on. I've already pretty much responded to most of your
objections. Believe it or not, I even retracted. I even found people
willing to discuss rather than just cuss. (ain't I clever?)

On Dec 2, 8:13 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:17 PM, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
>
> Preconceived notions noted.
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Somewhat arrogant for a newbie. Care to provide evidence that 99% of the
> atheists on this and other groups are "angry" people?
>
> > There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> > but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it.
>
> Then, frankly why are you here?
>
> I have never been able to figure out why people go to the trouble of joining
> this group just so that they can insult it in their first post.
>
> Personally, if I felt that way about a group. I'd just move on.
>
> Feel free to explain.
>
> > These
> > furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> > wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> > language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades.
>
> Haha. This one is quite hysterical. Let me give you an example (apologies if
> someone beat to me to it.) of a Christian post :-). I have tons more. This
> site is full of examples like the following:
>
> May I introduce you to Manny (I affectionately call him Daffy :-)
>
> http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/5c76f806715...
>
> On Oct 29, 6:45 pm, manny <daf...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well did you enjoy it? if not, why don't you try to do it with your
> > sister, cause for you it's normal,
> > and then when you finish with her, try your brother ask for a blow job
> > from him. How do you like that, my level
> > enjoy it. I know you are not atheist you're a Jew, how hate jesus,
> > just like your encester before you HAHAHAHAHAH
> > and how about that old women, isn't this fun? you're defending a
> > Jew..
>
> The picture
>
> > you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> > hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> > through your keyboard with every angry jab.
>
> It takes two to tango, as the saying goes.
>
> And if you bothered to actually read the site for a while before jumping in
> with these clearly unwarranted conclusions you would have seen that most
> atheists are quite willing to and have intelligent discussion with those
> theists who wish to. There are far more theist trolls on this site than
> there are atheist ones. And they get exactly what they ask for.
>
>
>
> > The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> > arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> > agnostics.
>
> Did you ever ask them what the definition of an atheist/agnostic was because
> you're sentence indicates that you don't know.
>
>
>
> > Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
> > that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
> > you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
>
> Maybe you should try to get the facts first before jumping to these very
> silly conclusions of yours.
>
>
>
> > Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
> > because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
> > enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
> > hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
> > their keyboards in their dark basements.
>
> If that's what you believe then why would you even consider joining our
> group.
>
> Perhaps this is the wrong place for you.
>
> This kind of arrogance usually does get shot down so you shouldn't be
> surprised by the reaction you've already received.
>
>
>
> > Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
> > see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
> > The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
>
> > Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you
> > any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning Christian...
>
> Again, Why are you here flaming us then?
>
>
>
> --
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
> Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> Andromeda

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dinosaurs & the Bible
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/ea1b75046a21902d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:26 pm
From: Max

For too long now, non believing atheists have tried to peddle their
non belief to we believers, i.e. their beliefs as non believers, so we
believers must turn the tables on them and get people believing
again.

Clear....Good!

One of the big issues that that the lord has asked me to cover off
with you today regards the silly atheistic scientists who say that
dinosaurs were in existance millions of years ago. As if they found
labels on their bones saying how old they are. Ridiculous!

"The Bible also teaches us (in Genesis 1:29-30) that the original
animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There
were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was
no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals
(including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants."

Get some sense into you now. Get God in your head. That's what you
need.

More God & more Head.....are you with me!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/2.asp

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:33 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what a Poe looks like.
Yes, I know Max is an atheist and is being sarcastic, but my point is that
if I didn't, I would have no idea if he was serious or not--in fact, I would
probably think he was.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Max <amf6@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>
> For too long now, non believing atheists have tried to peddle their
> non belief to we believers, i.e. their beliefs as non believers, so we
> believers must turn the tables on them and get people believing
> again.
>
> Clear....Good!
>
> One of the big issues that that the lord has asked me to cover off
> with you today regards the silly atheistic scientists who say that
> dinosaurs were in existance millions of years ago. As if they found
> labels on their bones saying how old they are. Ridiculous!
>
> "The Bible also teaches us (in Genesis 1:29-30) that the original
> animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There
> were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was
> no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals
> (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants."
>
> Get some sense into you now. Get God in your head. That's what you
> need.
>
> More God & more Head.....are you with me!
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/2.asp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>

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

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 14 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links