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

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:57 am
From: mary wolls

Ruthie,

How can you feel love without God? From what I have seen all the
atheists feel is lust. Lust for the flesh, and lust for things. Only
the higher things are pure. Love is purity, not corruption.

Mary Wolls

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

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:05 am
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 11:57 am, mary wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:
> Ruthie,
>
> How can you feel love without God? From what I have seen all the
> atheists feel is lust. Lust for the flesh, and lust for things. Only
> the higher things are pure. Love is purity, not corruption.

I believe you are wrong here.

Love can be defined in many ways.
You have chosen a very narrow way of defining it. In fact, only
christians use that definition.

Here is the general definition from Merriam Webster:
"
1 a (1): strong affection for another arising out of kinship or
personal ties <maternal love for a child> (2): attraction based on
sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3):
affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love
for his old schoolmates> b: an assurance of love <give her my love>
"

According to that definition, anybody can feel love, no need for an
imaginary being.

Of course, if one does not believe in a magical sky being, one does
not feel love for that being or one does not beleive that they are
being loved by that imaginary being.
However, that does not prevent one from feeling and giving love, as we
all do in our lives.
_________________________________
I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
-- Ruth Hurmence Green

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:06 am
From: Neil Kelsey

On Dec 2, 8:57 am, mary wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:
> Ruthie,
>
> How can you feel love without God?

Provide objective and verifiable evidence that God exists.

> From what I have seen all the
> atheists feel is lust.

I feel slightly gaseous at the moment, so I guess you're wrong.

> Lust for the flesh,

mmmmmm...cannibalism.

> and lust for things.

mmmmmmm...things.

> Only
> the higher things are pure.

What are the "higher things?" Ted Haggard? He was pretty high.

> Love is purity, not corruption.

I bet you're really fun in bed.

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

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:09 am
From: checkers

On Dec 2, 6:56 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 8:36 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 6:12 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 2, 2:04 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 8:51 am, Ruthie <willruthie1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > They don't love because they are scared into it. People get the idea
> > > > > that an atheist is a devil lover .Far from the truth. Atheist don't
> > > > > believe in god and definetly don't believe in Satan.
>
> > > > chx
> > > > not believing in satan does not let him go away ;)
>
> > > Believing in Satan does not make him exist. +/-
>
> > chx
> > we have a stale mate, mate ;)
>
> No we don't. You need to show Satan exists for your claim to be true,
> and my claim is simply true.

chx
nope, actually not one of us made a positive statement at first, so we
are back to a stale mate ;)
oh! but then you go and say your claim is true. sorry dude, the onus
now rests on you to prove your claim. [chuckle]

- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:17 am
From: Woodbridge

On Dec 2, 8:57 am, mary wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:
> Ruthie,
>
> How can you feel love without God? From what I have seen all the
> atheists feel is lust. Lust for the flesh, and lust for things. Only
> the higher things are pure. Love is purity, not corruption.
>

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

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:23 am
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 11:29 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

<snip>

> Answer_42, you have just impersonated me. you used my handle and wrote

No, I did not use your handle.
"Answer_42" can be clearly seen in the list of the messages, so
anybody clicking on that message to read it will know it is from me.

> something that if anyone sees it at a glance will think i wrote it.

Again, at a glance, one can clearly see "Answer_42" in the message
list.

> this is in violation of Google rules.

No, it is not.
Making fun of somebody within the text of one's message is not against
any rules.
If I had changed my handle so as to post as if I were you, (i.e. if I
had changed "Answer_42" for "checkers" in the message list) then you
might have a case.

> you gave no indication that you
> are fooling or making a joke. nor do you indicate in quotation.

What about the "ha ha ha" and the smiley?

> this happened a little while back to Keith and the first to support
> this was Bonfly, followed by Trance. soon Dev and everyone agreed and
> the person was banned. once again i am not calling a ban because i
> have fun with you. however, the moderators have their work cut out.

No, they don't. There is no case to speak of.

> consistancy is paramount based on history of AvG.

True, it is important. But I used my own handle to post my message, so
you have no case.

And, finally, I posted in reply to one of your posts... If I had
pretended to be you, I would have posted in reply to somebody else.

<Irrelevant example snipped>
_________________________________
I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
-- Ruth Hurmence Green

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:24 am
From: Neil Kelsey

On Dec 2, 9:09 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 6:56 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 8:36 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 2, 6:12 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 2:04 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 2, 8:51 am, Ruthie <willruthie1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > They don't love because they are scared into it. People get the idea
> > > > > > that an atheist is a devil lover .Far from the truth. Atheist don't
> > > > > > believe in god and definetly don't believe in Satan.
>
> > > > > chx
> > > > > not believing in satan does not let him go away ;)
>
> > > > Believing in Satan does not make him exist. +/-
>
> > > chx
> > > we have a stale mate, mate ;)
>
> > No we don't. You need to show Satan exists for your claim to be true,
> > and my claim is simply true.
>
> chx
> nope, actually not one of us made a positive statement at first, so we
> are back to a stale mate ;)

Nope, we both made positive statements, and it's irrelevant when they
were made. +/- 000 @@

> oh! but then you go and say your claim is true. sorry dude, the onus
> now rests on you to prove your claim. [chuckle]

So you don't think your claim is true? [fart]

As for my claim, get a dictionary and look up the word "belief." Then
look up the word "exist." If you manage to read for comprehension, you
too can figure out that existence does not hinge upon belief. That's
perhaps giving you too much credit, but I'm not doing your Grade 5
level homework for you.

But I willl give you an example. People used to believe the world was
flat. Then they found out the world is spherical. So, the flat world
doesn't exist. This illustrates how believing in something doesn't
make it exist. You believe in Satan. That doesn't make Satan exist.

Now, show how "not believing in satan does not let him go away." Or
admit that you don't believe your own bullshit. Or, as usual, dodge
the request with another smirky irrelevant wild raving that is
tantamount to admitting you're full of shit; I don't really give a
fuck one way or the other.

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:28 am
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 11:39 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> chx
> oh, and as Medusa pointed out back then. it is not the content that
> matters so much. just the fact that one is impersonated.
>
> you could do this in other threads where i don't post and i won't even
> be aware of it.

Yes, you are right, if I had used your handle, you would have a case
and it would be serious.
However, I did not use your handle, I made no effort to hide the fact
that it was from me.

So, in short, you have no reason to complain.

If it turns out that making fun of you inside a message of my own -
posted with my handle - is against some rules, I will delete it.
_________________________________
I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
-- Ruth Hurmence Green

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

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:57 am
From: "Brock Organ"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:49 AM, mary wolls <marywolls@live.com> wrote:
> That has been my experience as well on this forum. You must have very
> thick skin to engage the atheists in this group because they are very
> angry.

Good point, Mary. :)

Regards,

Brock

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:09 am
From: Drafterman

On Dec 2, 11:49 am, mary wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:
> ObservantEye,
>
> That has been my experience as well on this forum. You must have very
> thick skin to engage the atheists in this group because they are very
> angry. They have no peace with God, because they eschew his
> representatives.
>
> Mary Wolls

Because his representatives can give a single good reason to expect us
to believe the existence of whom the purport to represent.

>
> On Dec 1, 11:17 am, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
>
> > Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> > interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> > atheist into a flame war. There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> > but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These
> > furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> > wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> > language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture
> > you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> > hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> > through your keyboard with every angry jab.
>
> > The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> > arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> > agnostics.
>
> > Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
> > that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
> > you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
>
> > Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
> > because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
> > enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
> > hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
> > their keyboards in their dark basements.
>
> > Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
> > see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
> > The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
>
> > Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you
> > any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning Christian...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:19 am
From: dead kennedy

believe me lady, i aint eschewin anything. Last time i got a nasty
rash.

On 2 Dec, 16:49, mary wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:
> ObservantEye,
>
> That has been my experience as well on this forum. You must have very
> thick skin to engage the atheists in this group because they are very
> angry. They have no peace with God, because they eschew his
> representatives.
>
> Mary Wolls
>
> On Dec 1, 11:17 am, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
>
> > Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> > interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> > atheist into a flame war. There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> > but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These
> > furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> > wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> > language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture
> > you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> > hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> > through your keyboard with every angry jab.
>
> > The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> > arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> > agnostics.
>
> > Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
> > that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
> > you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
>
> > Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
> > because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
> > enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
> > hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
> > their keyboards in their dark basements.
>
> > Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
> > see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
> > The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
>
> > Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you
> > any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning Christian...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:20 am
From: Woodbridge

Or Borgan is BIG hypocrite saying nothing to Christian I AM TRU
CHRISTIAN

On Dec 2, 8:57 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:49 AM, mary wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:
> > That has been my experience as well on this forum. You must have very
> > thick skin to engage the atheists in this group because they are very
> > angry.
>
> Good point, Mary. :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:20 am
From: Woodbridge

prove there is God

On Dec 2, 8:49 am, mary wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:
> ObservantEye,
>
> That has been my experience as well on this forum. You must have very
> thick skin to engage the atheists in this group because they are very
> angry. They have no peace with God, because they eschew his
> representatives.
>
> Mary Wolls
>
> On Dec 1, 11:17 am, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
>
> > Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> > interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> > atheist into a flame war. There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> > but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These
> > furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> > wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> > language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture
> > you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> > hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> > through your keyboard with every angry jab.
>
> > The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> > arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> > agnostics.
>
> > Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
> > that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
> > you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
>
> > Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
> > because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
> > enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
> > hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
> > their keyboards in their dark basements.
>
> > Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
> > see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
> > The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
>
> > Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you
> > any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning Christian...

==============================================================================
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 9:00 am
From: Lawrey

Trance,

In haste link to why the rotten English were forced to leave India. ;)

www.oboulo.com/why-did-british-leave-india-in-1947-39444.html

On Dec 2, 1:54 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Okay, I think this is a good counterargument to that--admittedly,
> > anticipated. Here's the source:
>
> >http://www.tamilnation.org/ideology/neuman_on_non_violence.htm
>
> > ---
>
> > Gandhi's nonviolence can't have been successful, because there was
> > nothing he would have called a success. Gandhi's priorities may have
> > shifted over time: he said, that, if he changed his mind from one week
> > to the next, it was because he had learned something in between. But
> > it seems fair to say that he wanted independence from British rule, a
> > united India, and nonviolence itself, an end to civil or ethnic strife
> > on the Indian subcontinent. What he got was India 1947: partition, and
> > one of the most horrifying outbursts of bloodshed and cruelty in the
> > whole bloody, cruel history of the postwar world. The antagonism
> > between Muslims and Hindus, so painful to Gandhi, still seems almost
> > set in stone. These consequences alone would be sufficient to count
> > his project as a tragic failure.
>
> The fact that bloodshed occurred and that antagonism existed has nothing to
> do with whether the strategy of non-cooperation worked.
>
> It's quite well known by most Indians that the Religious strife that
> occurred during Partition was instigated by the British before they left.
>
> The British during their entire time in India played the Divide and Rule
> game in order to maintain control of the very large and diverse population.
>
> What of independence itself? Historians might argue about its causes,
>
> > but I doubt any of them would attribute it primarily to Gandhi's
> > campaign.
>
> Of course not, but these policies of non-cooperation (some of which were led
> by Gandhi) amounted to some very strategic fights which certainly
> contributed to the British leaving simply because they were not able to
> maintain control of a country where non-cooperation was the name of the
> game.
>
> However, that wasn't the only strategy used by the Indian Freedom Fighters
> and the bombing of trains and other terrorist attacks didn't contribute to
> the British leaving either.
>
> It contributed to and justified the large scale suppression and massacres
> that occurred by the British against the Indians though.
>
> And direct links can be shown historically.
>
> The British began contemplating--admittedly with varying
>
> > degrees of sincerity--some measure of autonomy for India before Gandhi
> > did anything, as early as 1917. A.J.P.Taylor says that after World War
> > I, the British were beginning to find India a liability, because India
> > was once again producing its own cotton, and buying cheap textiles
> > from Japan. Later, India's strategic importance, while valued by many,
> > became questioned by some, who saw the oil of the Middle East and the
> > Suez canal as far more important. By the end of the Second World War,
> > Britain's will to hold onto its empire had pretty well crumbled, for
> > reasons having little or nothing to do with nonviolence.
>
> Not true. Had India been easy to control like Canada was, the British still
> had a lot to gain by staying.
>
> Because of all the dissension, the economic benefit was too small to justify
> the military and other resources required to suppress and control these
> movements.
>
>
>
> > But this is the least important of the reasons why Gandhi cannot be
> > said to have won independence for India. It was not his saintliness or
> > the disruption he caused that impressed the British. What impressed
> > them was that the country seemed (and was) about to erupt into a
> > slaughter. The colonial authorities could see no way to stop it.
>
> Nonsense. The colonial authorities instigated it as I said it was part of
> British Divide and Rule policy which they had used consistently in India
> since their arrival.
>
> What
>
> > they could see was the increasingly violent antagonism between Muslims
> > and Hindus, both of whom detected, in the distance, the emergence of a
> > power vacuum they rushed to fill. This violence included the "Great
> > Calcutta Killing" of August 1946, when at least 4000 people died in
> > three days.
>
> This has nothing to do with whether the non-cooperation policies were
> successful.
>
> It has everything to do with the fact that the Colonial authorities
> instigated these situations in order to weaken the resistance against their
> rule in India.
>
>
>
> > Another factor was the terrorism--and this need not be a term of
> > condemnation--quite regularly employed against the British. It was not
> > enough to do much harm, but more than enough to warn them that India
> > was becoming more trouble than it was worth.
>
> And yes this was a factor and he actually contradicts himself here because
> the fact was that the British would have stayed if they had been able to
> easily control the population. Gandhis policies of non-cooperation
> contributed hugely to this.
>
> > All things considered,
> > the well-founded fear of generalized violence had far more effect on
> > British resolve than Gandhi ever did. He may have been a brilliant and
> > creative political thinker, but he was not a victor.
>
> He contradicts himself again because earlier he correctly states that the
> terrorism at the time was not wide-spread and inconsequential.
>
> It was the non-cooperation and the general resistance that was the problem.
>
> Those who advocated violence in India accomplished nothing.
>
> Non-cooperation forced them out.
>
> Gandhi was only one player in the movement of the Indian Freedom Fighters
> and the one thing they all united on was non-cooperation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ---
>
> > I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a
> > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material. I
> > predicted that the three examples he anticipated would, in fact, be
> > the only ones that initially emerged--which wasn't exactly a
> > Nostradamus-type prediction, because it does seem we are dealing with
> > modern mythology along the lines of "the Founding Fathers were
> > fundies" and "Hitler was an atheist". Maybe the revelation of the
> > source material will require others to become more creative, maybe the
> > source material itself will encourage some to provide compelling
> > counterarguments.
>
> > In terms of Gandhi, I will also quote Sam Harris:
>
> > ---
>
> > The only way to rule out collateral damage would be to refuse to fight
> > wars under any circumstances. As a foreign policy, this would leave us
> > with something like the absolute pacifism of Gandhi. While pacifism in
> > this form can constitute a direct confrontation with injustice (and
> > requires considerable bravery), it is only applicable to a limited
> > range of human conflicts. Where it is not applicable, it is seems
> > flagrantly immoral. We would do well to reflect on Gandhi's remedy for
> > the Holocaust: he believed that the Jews should have committed mass
> > suicide, because this "would have aroused the world and the people of
> > Germany to Hitler's violence." We might wonder what a world full of
> > pacifists would have done once it had grown "aroused"—commit suicide
> > as well? There seems no question that if all the good people in the
> > world adopted Gandhi's ethics, the thugs would inherit the earth.
>
> > ---
>
> > I realize how it seems like a cheap shot to cut and paste in response.
> > But why not? I read, I throw a little out there for you guys, it seems
> > like a good aid to the thinking process since I actually give a shit
> > and all. I'm not totally convinced about everything, and I want to
> > hear what is being offered in terms of actual, bona fide, human
> > thought when it isn't being retarded. With any luck, you'll find a
> > semblance of a counterargument written by someone else who hasn't read
> > the initial argument, and then we'll both be forced to do our own
> > homework and get to the bottom of this. This is, quite literally,
> > deadly serious. 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.
>
> > Can nonviolence really, truly have been said to have accomplished
> > anything as anything but a happy face on violence or the threat of
> > violence? Even Hitler pretended it was all about "love". Shouldn't the
> > prospect that fighting your enemies is about anything but hate be
> > sinister and dubious by now?
>
> > On Dec 1, 6:00 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ghandi
>
> > > On Dec 1, 7:28 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > Let's go!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
> Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:08 am
From: Lawrey

Trance,

And the tree reason were:

1. The situation of the British economy after the war:
severe financial crisis while the Labour government
tried to establish the Welfare State and to follow an
expensive policy of nationalization .

2. In 1947 India was on the verge of revolt because
of the growing independence movement .

3. The international situation : the position of
Britain in the context of Cold War and the general
anti-colonialist attitude throughout the world .

What about that then?

On Dec 2, 4:55 pm, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Trance,
>
> For your information:
>
> In spite of you feelings to the contrary
> and I use the term feelings ap' emotions.;)
>
> The independence of india in August 1947 was the
> result of a long process which started after the
> First World War. Indeed in 1919 Parliament had
> passed the Government of india Act which was
> designed to organize provincial governments in
> india. Then, before 1939 and the outbreak of the
> Second World War, there were moves by Great
> Britain to give more self-government to india.
>
> Both major parties of the british National
> Government were committed to giving more autonomy
> to the eleven Indian Provinces through the 1935
> Government of india Act. Even if the provincial
> governments had more and more power, the essential
> functions were still in hands of the british
> Viceroy and the british government was still
> responsible for foreign and defence affairs.
>
> As Britain proposed a federal solution to india's
> problems, independence movements – such as the
> Congress with Gandhi at its head – asked for more
> autonomy. But the Declaration of War in 1939 was
> a crucial step towards independence of india.
> Indeed the Congress Party together with
> nationalists saw in the war the opportunity to
> achieve their goals. They resigned from their
> provincial governments, they refused to support
> the Indian war effort and they claimed that india
> must immediately be declared an independent nation.
> Moreover the Muslim League demanded in 1937 the
> creation of a separate Muslim state.
>
> Yet Britain's refusal to do anything during the
> war contrasted sharply with the separatists'
> growing resolution to obtain the end of the
> british rule. After the end of the war in May
> 1945 and the General election in Great Britain,
> the Labour government, with Clement Attlee as
> Prime Minister, was committed to giving india
> independence as quickly as possible. in spite
> of his fear of seeing the partition of india,
> Attlee announced that Britain would leave india
> whatever happened in June 1948.
>
> In fact independence was moved up to August 1947.
> This raises an important issue: why did Britain give
> india independence in 1947? why neither before nor after?
> Yet india was not the only colony to obtain independence
> since the post-war period was marked by the fall of the
> british Empire everywhere in the world. So to answer that
> question we have to take into account the particular
> circumstances relating to Britain's situation in 1947.
> Therefore we can find three main reasons for india's
> independence in 1947.
>
> On Dec 2, 1:54 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > Okay, I think this is a good counterargument to that--admittedly,
> > > anticipated. Here's the source:
>
> > >http://www.tamilnation.org/ideology/neuman_on_non_violence.htm
>
> > > ---
>
> > > Gandhi's nonviolence can't have been successful, because there was
> > > nothing he would have called a success. Gandhi's priorities may have
> > > shifted over time: he said, that, if he changed his mind from one week
> > > to the next, it was because he had learned something in between. But
> > > it seems fair to say that he wanted independence from British rule, a
> > > united India, and nonviolence itself, an end to civil or ethnic strife
> > > on the Indian subcontinent. What he got was India 1947: partition, and
> > > one of the most horrifying outbursts of bloodshed and cruelty in the
> > > whole bloody, cruel history of the postwar world. The antagonism
> > > between Muslims and Hindus, so painful to Gandhi, still seems almost
> > > set in stone. These consequences alone would be sufficient to count
> > > his project as a tragic failure.
>
> > The fact that bloodshed occurred and that antagonism existed has nothing to
> > do with whether the strategy of non-cooperation worked.
>
> > It's quite well known by most Indians that the Religious strife that
> > occurred during Partition was instigated by the British before they left.
>
> > The British during their entire time in India played the Divide and Rule
> > game in order to maintain control of the very large and diverse population.
>
> > What of independence itself? Historians might argue about its causes,
>
> > > but I doubt any of them would attribute it primarily to Gandhi's
> > > campaign.
>
> > Of course not, but these policies of non-cooperation (some of which were led
> > by Gandhi) amounted to some very strategic fights which certainly
> > contributed to the British leaving simply because they were not able to
> > maintain control of a country where non-cooperation was the name of the
> > game.
>
> > However, that wasn't the only strategy used by the Indian Freedom Fighters
> > and the bombing of trains and other terrorist attacks didn't contribute to
> > the British leaving either.
>
> > It contributed to and justified the large scale suppression and massacres
> > that occurred by the British against the Indians though.
>
> > And direct links can be shown historically.
>
> > The British began contemplating--admittedly with varying
>
> > > degrees of sincerity--some measure of autonomy for India before Gandhi
> > > did anything, as early as 1917. A.J.P.Taylor says that after World War
> > > I, the British were beginning to find India a liability, because India
> > > was once again producing its own cotton, and buying cheap textiles
> > > from Japan. Later, India's strategic importance, while valued by many,
> > > became questioned by some, who saw the oil of the Middle East and the
> > > Suez canal as far more important. By the end of the Second World War,
> > > Britain's will to hold onto its empire had pretty well crumbled, for
> > > reasons having little or nothing to do with nonviolence.
>
> > Not true. Had India been easy to control like Canada was, the British still
> > had a lot to gain by staying.
>
> > Because of all the dissension, the economic benefit was too small to justify
> > the military and other resources required to suppress and control these
> > movements.
>
> > > But this is the least important of the reasons why Gandhi cannot be
> > > said to have won independence for India. It was not his saintliness or
> > > the disruption he caused that impressed the British. What impressed
> > > them was that the country seemed (and was) about to erupt into a
> > > slaughter. The colonial authorities could see no way to stop it.
>
> > Nonsense. The colonial authorities instigated it as I said it was part of
> > British Divide and Rule policy which they had used consistently in India
> > since their arrival.
>
> > What
>
> > > they could see was the increasingly violent antagonism between Muslims
> > > and Hindus, both of whom detected, in the distance, the emergence of a
> > > power vacuum they rushed to fill. This violence included the "Great
> > > Calcutta Killing" of August 1946, when at least 4000 people died in
> > > three days.
>
> > This has nothing to do with whether the non-cooperation policies were
> > successful.
>
> > It has everything to do with the fact that the Colonial authorities
> > instigated these situations in order to weaken the resistance against their
> > rule in India.
>
> > > Another factor was the terrorism--and this need not be a term of
> > > condemnation--quite regularly employed against the British. It was not
> > > enough to do much harm, but more than enough to warn them that India
> > > was becoming more trouble than it was worth.
>
> > And yes this was a factor and he actually contradicts himself here because
> > the fact was that the British would have stayed if they had been able to
> > easily control the population. Gandhis policies of non-cooperation
> > contributed hugely to this.
>
> > > All things considered,
> > > the well-founded fear of generalized violence had far more effect on
> > > British resolve than Gandhi ever did. He may have been a brilliant and
> > > creative political thinker, but he was not a victor.
>
> > He contradicts himself again because earlier he correctly states that the
> > terrorism at the time was not wide-spread and inconsequential.
>
> > It was the non-cooperation and the general resistance that was the problem.
>
> > Those who advocated violence in India accomplished nothing.
>
> > Non-cooperation forced them out.
>
> > Gandhi was only one player in the movement of the Indian Freedom Fighters
> > and the one thing they all united on was non-cooperation.
>
> > > ---
>
> > > I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a
> > > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material. I
> > > predicted that the three examples he anticipated would, in fact, be
> > > the only ones that initially emerged--which wasn't exactly a
> > > Nostradamus-type prediction, because it does seem we are dealing with
> > > modern mythology along the lines of "the Founding Fathers were
> > > fundies" and "Hitler was an atheist". Maybe the revelation of the
> > > source material will require others to become more creative, maybe the
> > > source material itself will encourage some to provide compelling
> > > counterarguments.
>
> > > In terms of Gandhi, I will also quote Sam Harris:
>
> > > ---
>
> > > The only way to rule out collateral damage would be to refuse to fight
> > > wars under any circumstances. As a foreign policy, this would leave us
> > > with something like the absolute pacifism of Gandhi. While pacifism in
> > > this form can constitute a direct confrontation with injustice (and
> > > requires considerable bravery), it is only applicable to a limited
> > > range of human conflicts. Where it is not applicable, it is seems
> > > flagrantly immoral. We would do well to reflect on Gandhi's remedy for
> > > the Holocaust: he believed that the Jews should have committed mass
> > > suicide, because this "would have aroused the world and the people of
> > > Germany to Hitler's violence." We might wonder what a world full of
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:01 am
From: checkers

On Nov 30, 2:26 am, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > the question is not IF Jesus existed (He did)
>
> chx
> I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> would tell us to, if he were real.
>
> Now that's logical faith!

chx
what is this...impersonation week??? you are the second one to do
this. i thought it was AIDS week. this is bullshit i say and must be
rooted out. the first one i could say OK, but this is now ridiculous
and MUST STOP. i don't even think it is funny. you are misleading the
others into thinking i am false in what i stand for. this is more
serious than i first thought.

good bye to you.

>
> On Nov 29, 2:36 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 11:17 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 4:15 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <
>
> > > ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 29, 12:28 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 29, 3:14 pm, LedZepp <FledZeppe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > As an atheist, I believe in the historical Jesus. There's overwhelming
> > > > > > evidence that he existed. His divinity though is for Christians.
>
> > > > > What is the "overwhelming" evidence?
>
> > > > If no one named Jesus existed, from where do we get the name Jesus?
>
> > > A Mexican guy ;-)
>
> > > I believe that was an extremely common name at the time.
>
> > > Somewhat like being called Bob in North America.
>
> > chx
> > the question is not IF Jesus existed (He did) the question is; was He
> > who He claimed to be and could He do what they claimed He did. most
> > scholars are in one that Jesus did exist.
>
> > > --
> > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> > > "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and
> > > assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech
> > > to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US
> > > Supreme Court Justice- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Would anyone like to answer a few questions to help me with an
assignment?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/a75af2e0fdb0a477?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:08 am
From: dead kennedy

only to match the walls.

On 2 Dec, 11:53, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >How is
> > it that they allow you so much computer time are the Doctors not
> > watching you ?
>
> Do they have rubber keyboards where Stoney posts?
>
> On Dec 1, 6:47 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 2:21 am, Stonethatbleeds <fb...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
> > > If you are too stupid to answer the 20 questions and need to play fool
> > > and post... we note your low IQ and ways.
>
> > Observer
> > FYI My I.Q. is in the upper 2 percentile of the human population . How
> > about yours the low 40th percentile ? Or don't they give I. Q. Tests
> > in homes for the mentally retarded and the criminally insane. How is
> > it that they allow you so much computer time are the Doctors not
> > watching you ?
>
> > > On Dec 1, 2:36 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 30, 9:15 pm, "kosterbran...@gmail.com"
>
> > > > <kosterbran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hi, I'm new and I need to interview a non-Christian using the 20
> > > > > questions I posted in the files section. I will use your responses to
> > > > > write a paper. You can just give your response in the document and
> > > > > send it it me if you like.
> > > > > Thanks for the help,
> > > > > Brandon
>
> > > > What dim witted uneducated member of the priest craft structured such
> > > > crap for you? Would it not have been more direct to simply ask ,Are
> > > > you a believer in Christianity or not.
>
> > > > I will swiftly answer No ! It is based on the most completely stupid
> > > > story of the most stupid book ever written (that is plagiarized) by
> > > > Neolithic goat herders.
>
> > > > Psychonomist- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hypocrisy & Accountability
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/b002a76d9cfbb14e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:11 am
From: Woodbridge

Or Borgan is BIG hypocrite saying nothing to Christian I AM TRU
CHRISTIAN

On Dec 2, 8:48 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 6:56 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> >> Borgan is BIG hypocrite saying nothing to Christian I AM TRU CHRISTIAN
>
> Or not. :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:14 am
From: Woodbridge

On Dec 2, 8:56 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:50 AM, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thomas Jefferson put it better:
>
> > "[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious
> > worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced,
> > restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall
> > otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but
> > that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain,
> > their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no
> > wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
>
> Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion.
>

So freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from speech Yes?
Judaists can put megaphone in your ear in your house and yell
"Christian Borgan is hypocrite" Yes?

> Regards,
>
> Brock

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:15 am
From: Woodbridge

Prove it

On Dec 2, 8:52 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, well, reasoning with them doesn't work. I guess we can either
> > start killing them or forfeit.
>
> > On Dec 1, 8:17 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 1 déc, 16:46, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > The invective and vitriol have not been welcome, but I frankly,
>
> >> Really?
> >> You are a dishonest biased prick about his, aren't you?
>
> I think my point has been clear, I don't welcome that kind of discourse.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:16 am
From: Woodbridge

Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #2, 4:

"Labeling Atheists
Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
morally void. Though there may be some atheists who

fit these categories (as would many in the general population),
atheists are not categorically stupid, devil-worshipping,

degenerates with no morals. Many of them are fine citizens, honest,
caring, loving, and patient. For a Christian, or anyone

for that matter, to make a blanket statement about atheists in a
derogatory manner is wrong. It is the same thing atheists

sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being irrational,
psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on either

side of the argument of truth.
Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
through their position over a long period of time and

arrive at conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in
religious homes, have seen what religion has to offer, and

have rejected it. Of course, I think that atheists have drawn
incorrect conclusions about God, but it doesn't mean they are

dumb. Some atheists have presented very cogent arguments against the
existence of God, which need to be addressed.
So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid.

Labeling and name-calling have no place in the discussion.
Ignoring Atheists' Questions
If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive

will not make it go away. If an atheist asks a question and you
ignore it repeatedly, it would be fair for him to conclude

you were incapable of answering the objection. Of course, this does
not mean you have to always answer everything because

dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important that you face issues.
If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's okay.

It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an answer. Go
study and get an answer and get back to him.
Stating that Atheism is a religion
Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
religion almost always is defined to include belief in

a deity of some sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't
necessarily a "belief that there is no God," (though it can

be)but is "not believing either way."
To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
effective communication. It would be like someone

saying to a Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who
likes to torture people." The Christian would simply

roll his eyes and think that the person doesn't know what he's talking
about. So, how much effective conversation could

there be in either instance? Not much.
Stating unsupportable facts
No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything

said. Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is
good to have the documentation at the tip of your tongue

-- at least occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your
credibility. Of course, you don't have to document

everything, but if you have some illustrious fact to use, try and have
it documented.
Never admitting when you are wrong
Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no

place in the Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being
prideful. If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong

is something, be kind and courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go
on. Everyone makes mistakes, even atheists. There is

nothing wrong with admitting an error. It no more proves you are
wrong about Christianity than being wrong about the color

of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you never admit when you
are wrong, you will not be able to convince anyone in a

discussion of your position. You will simply lose the respect of the
one with whom you are debating."

http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm

On Dec 2, 8:33 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 30, 11:59 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Theists. A question. Please read the following article.
>
> >> > Now, please explain to me why this Texas man was sent to a psychiatrist
> >> > for
> >> > claiming that your god told him to hit this woman's car
>
> >> Check with the local district attorney who supervised the case for
> >> more specifics.
>
> >> > and why Bush was not
> >> > sent to a psychiatrist for claiming that your god told him to send the
> >> > troops into Iraq?
>
> >> Check with your local constitutional attorney who has supervised the
> >> case for more specifics.
>
> > I would prefer your thoughts on the matter Brock.
>
> Those are my thoughts on the matter. You asked the naive question,
> and I answered by noting the legal contexts are different. If one
> truly was interested in the specific nature of the differences, my
> answer represents outstanding advice. If one simply wanted
> affirmation for a pejorative pre-conception, then perhaps the answer
> did not so accommodate.
>
> > Not the attorneys and not
> > the WCF :-) (which, by the way, is the human interpretation of an ancient
> > superstition followed by a small cult 2000 years ago.)
>
> I simply note:
>
> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:16 am
From: Woodbridge

Prove it

On Dec 2, 8:46 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:33 PM, scenario_dave <scenario_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The essence of the medium contradicts this - if you intend to make a
> > profit.
>
> It contradicted regardless of whether the motive for profit was considered.
>
> > If they are willing to
> > make the bible on 100 or even a thousand 2 hour discs, they could make
> > a movie
> > and leave nothing out.
>
> This is the point where I note the essence of the medium contradicts.
>
> > My major question is, what would the reaction of theist be to making
> > the bible more accessable to people?
>
> Perhaps varied.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT. 13 Days of Christmas Campaign Against Child Abuse
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/6a8110621f5d13ba?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:18 am
From: Woodbridge

Or Borgan tolerates priest raping little children

On Dec 2, 8:24 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> But why Borgan does not say YES?
>
> > Good Question ;-)
>
> >> Because he tolerates priest raping little children
>
> Or not. :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:20 am
From: dali_70

Dk, Im from a small city in NY. My experiences aren't really typical
and those events happened well over a decade long period. The fight
was way back in the early 90's and it's the only time I've actually
had someone take a swing at me for being an atheist. I don't take any
shit from anyone, and Although I have been threatened with violence
on a few other occasions, they just didn't have the balls to back it
up. The car incidents happened a few years ago and were almost a year
apart. I was living about a block down the street from the local
catholic school. The neighborhood used to be predominetly Irish and a
few Italian catholics back in the day. Nowadays there's more student &
low income housing in the neighborhood, so the LDS Morons and the
Jahovah's Idiots have been knocking on doors at least once a week for
as long as I can remember. I actually attended that catholic school
for a few years as a kid. That experience helped move me from an
agnostic/deist position closer to an agnostic/atheist. I took several
more years and few Carl Sagan books before I truly became an atheist.

==============================================================================
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 9:24 am
From: harry k

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.

Harry K

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atheism vs Christianity

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

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

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links