Atheism vs Christianity: Atheism-vs-Christianity - 25 new messages in 11 topics

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:12 pm
From: Penfold

ynot,

A child has a horrible painful disease. Which would be the more
monstrous father, the one that resorts to euthanasia to immediately
stop the suffering, or the one that allows the child to endure a
painful operation in the knowledge that they will be completely cured
and go on to have a long and happy future?

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:23 pm
From: "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"

On Dec 3, 12:55 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 3:17 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 10:42 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > How do you know you're not breathing the wrong air?
>
> > The air in one place is typically as good as the air in any other
> > place. Is Asherah as good a goddess as any other divinity?
>
> I understand the definition of air. I understand the definition of
> God. Kindly define for me this word Asherah.

Glean a definition from this:

Though all three ancient Levantine great goddesses appear in the
Hebrew Bible, the Christian Old Testament, Asherah occurs most often:
forty times in nine books. The biblical texts are hostile witnesses,
for they either vilify the goddess or, more often, obliterate her
grammatically, for instance, by referring to her in the masculine
plural as "the asherahs." Until the Ugaritic tablets were deciphered
beginning in the 1930s, most scholars did not even speculate that "the
asherahs" might be obscuring a goddess(Hadley 2000:4). They
interpreted "the asherahs" as either wooden poles, cult objects from
Baal worship, or groves of trees. Only a brave few claimed that "the
asherahs" referred to a goddess citing such passages as I Kings 18, in
which "prophets of Asherah"(1) served Queen Jezebel(Binger 1997:111;
Yamashita 1963:126). The first detailed study of Asherah in the Hebrew
Bible after the Ugaritic discoveries concluded that "the asherah"
represented both a wooden cult object and a goddess (Reed 1949:37,
53), a position some scholars still hold today.

Unquestionably, "the asherahs" were usually wooden; they stood
upright, often beside altars, along with stone pillars. However, in at
least eight instances, they are described as carved(Pettey 1990:45).
Thus, far from being merely wooden "cult poles," they were probably
quite large carved images. As was the case with cult statues in other
areas of the Eastern Mediterranean, "the asherahs" almost certainly
would have been "animated" ritually (Walker and Dick 1999:57). Thus
they did not just represent the goddess, but actually were worshipped
as Asherah herself. Further, according to the Bible, a statue of
Asherah stood in the Solomonic temple in Jerusalem for about two-
thirds of its existence (Patai 1990:50). Asherah "must, then, have
been a legitimate part of the cult of Yahweh" (Olyan 1988:13).

The Hebrew Scriptures regularly pair Asherah's name, especially "the
asherahs," with Baal's, so that some scholars have wondered whether
Asherah had ousted Astarte as Baal's consort. In 1963 Yamashita noted
that most of the references to Asherah in the Hebrew Bible, including
those pairing Asherah with Baal, were associated with only one source
(1963:123-137). Later, Olyan argued very convincingly that the
biblical attacks on Asherah were "restricted to the Deuteronomistic
History"(2) and to texts exhibiting Deuteronomistic influence. For
instance, the numerous pairings of Baal with Asherah's "cult symbol,"
called "the asherah," are part of a reformist, monotheistic "anti-
asherah polemic" aimed at discrediting "the asherah" by associating it
with Baal and Astarte (Olyan 1988: 1, 3, 13-14). This polemic was
necessary because Asherah "had some role in the cult of Yahweh … not
only in popular Yahwism, but in the official cult as well" (Olyan
1988:74).

In addition to the testimony of the Hebrew Bible, there is also
considerable archaeological evidence that may throw light on the role
of Asherah in the religion of the early Israelites. First, a
considerable number of small, clay, female statuettes, which
archaeologists usually call "pillar figurines," have been unearthed
all over Israel. Dating to the eighth and early seventh centuries,
that is, to the height of the Israelite monarchy, they occur in almost
every excavation of the period (Kletter 1996: 4, 40-41).(3) So many
pillar figurines have been excavated in the heartland of Judah that
they are often regarded as "a characteristic expression of Judahite
piety" (Keel and Uehlinger 1998:327; Kletter 1996:45).

Relatively recently, startling archaeological discoveries in modern
Israel have strengthened the arguments that Asherah was the Israelite
god's consort (Hadley 2000: 86-102). One dig was in the heartland of
Judah, the other in the northern Sinai. Several blessing inscriptions
from the sites contain a controversial phrase possibly to be
translated as "Yahweh and his Asherah." Even more exciting are
drawings that accompany the inscriptions, especially those from the
Sinai site (Toorn 1998:88-89).

http://www.matrifocus.com/LAM04/spotlight.htm

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:28 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

C) The one who immediately removes the disease and stops the suffering so
that the child's long and happy future can start right away.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Penfold <com@quickbuilds.co.uk> wrote:

>
> ynot,
>
> A child has a horrible painful disease. Which would be the more
> monstrous father, the one that resorts to euthanasia to immediately
> stop the suffering, or the one that allows the child to endure a
> painful operation in the knowledge that they will be completely cured
> and go on to have a long and happy future?
> >
>

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:40 pm
From: Joe

Has nothing to do with me or my actions.

On Dec 3, 5:08 pm, ynot <ynotamil2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joe wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 4:23 pm, ynot <ynotamil2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > All just different names. It is like saying I breathe air while you
> > breathe atmosphere and someone else breathes oxygen and other gases.
>
> Why are you so hypocrit?
> Chistians kill muslins, catholics kill protestants, muslins kill
> hindus,
> christians kill CHRISTIANS ORTHODOX, just because all are one
> god with a different name?
> All that killing in the name of god!
> Not gold, nor silver or oil: in the name of G O D.
>
> ynot

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:42 pm
From: Answer_42

On 3 déc, 17:11, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> looks all nice and shiny in your minds. You remind me of those kids
> back in the 80's who used to sit around all day and night playing
> dungeons and dragons. What fun to bandy about with magical wizardry
> powers constrained only on their ability to think. Every time you get
> into a jam, whip out a magic spell and poof. All because you could

Blasphemy!

Fireball! (I take out my guano.)

<Damned, where are those 5 6d dice?>
___________________________________________
Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
understand.
-- Frederick the Great

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:43 pm
From: Joe

So essentially, Asherahs are pieces of wood. Should we worship a
piece of wood? Even if someone claims to receive prophecy from their
piece of wood?

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

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:14 pm
From: "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"

On Dec 3, 11:55 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2:47 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 11:40 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Oi vey. It's so bizarre that Wheaton, IL is right next to Fermilab,
> > > and yet be so backwards.
>
> > > Oh, wait... I lived in that area for three years. Yes I do. The
> > > Catholics there made me really want to not be Catholic, so in some
> > > sense I should thank them. :)-
>
> > That's a provocative statement...what sort of things did they do that
> > turned you off?
>
> - Made fun of scientists on a regular basis, saying that they aren't
> moral or ethical.

Did they have no parishioners who were scientists?

> - Pretended there was a moral decline in America, of course
> perpetrated by the atheists.

If moral values that they hold dear are successfully opposed, they
would naturally think that who ever opposes them are perpetrating
moral decline. Why do you think they pretend to think so?

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:15 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Medusa <Medusa4303@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> ObservantEye wrote:
>
> > Well, I can say without a doubt that at least that is getting better
> > for atheists. I know what it was like 30 years ago and you don't have
> > the personal crusaders beating your door down and I haven't seen
> > someone handing out religious literature at every store you go to near
> > as much as back then. Of course the times were different then, too,
> > such a short while ago.
>
> They're still out there, at least where I live. I usually don't
> amswer the door if I don't know who is out there. But I still get
> caught sometimes.
>
> > Of course, you have to agree with some of it. I mean, do you
> > seriously think no one should push for a law you're against?
>
> Of course not. And I do fight for what I believe should be a law or
> stay a law.
>
> > This is
> > democracy at it's best. Times have definitely changed enough that you
> > can try to banish any reminder of any Christian's faith, like
> > christmas trees, the ten commandments, etc. However, you don't see
> > the same language used against Islam, or any other sects, for fear of
> > being called a hate-monger. Any idea what that's about? Remember,
> > I'm observing and asking if anyone knows the answers, not disagreeing
> > with you or fighting you.
>
> I don't see people out there trying to convert me to Islam. though I
> did read just the other day about Google having a battle with an
> Islamic country. The country does not want anything that they don't
> like available anywhere in the world. So far, Google has not backed
> down.

Really? Way to go Google! Far too many times, our societies have capitulated
to offended Muslims. Do you have any links?

>
>
> My greatest fear of some religious sects is that their members are
> willing to die while attacking 'nonbelievers."
>
> IMO, the world has gotten scarier. Or maybe I'm just noticing it
> more.
>
> Medusa
>
> >
>

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:16 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:08 PM, checkers <mkoneill@telkomsa.net> wrote:

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

Oh, sorry, I keep mistaking you for a decent, law-abiding citizen. Won't
happen again, rest assured.

>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > this is what TG has to say about this;
> > > ***
> > > On Feb 3, 2:30 am, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I'm outa here. They can falsify your name but if you fight back they
> > > > cry foul. Unintelligent morons.
> > > > Bye all. And please don't kill your babies
> >
> > > Changing your name slightly is very different from actually
> > > impersonating someone and posting something that appears to come from
> > > them which is what you did in this post.
> >
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/ea7ca23004.
> ..
> >
> > > The reason that it violates Google's Terms Of Service is because it's
> > > illegal.
> >
> > > > _____________________________________________
> > > > Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
> > > > understand.
> > > > -- Frederick the Great
> > > ***
> >
> > > you will find the original post of TU as well.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:34 pm
From: checkers

On Dec 4, 12:16 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:08 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 11:40 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:21 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 3, 10:43 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 3, 2:48 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > chx
> > > > > > you knew you were wrong after i pointed it out to you. you even
> > > > > > offered to delete your entry, why? because you knew. now you see
> > that
> > > > > > Rap is backing you, you are being tough.
>
> > > > > And now you are either dishonest or lying.
>
> > > > > IIRC, I stated that if it turned out that it was not allowed
> > according
> > > > > to Goolge, I would delete it myself (I am too titred to dig it up
> > now,
> > > > > heck, you made the claim, you prove me wriong right here).
> > > > > Makiing fun of somebody in a post that bears your own name/handle is
> > > > > not against any regulations, and certainly not illegal in any sense
> > of
> > > > > the term.
>
> > > > chx
> > > > no problem, i don't balme you for having a poor memory of where you
> > > > saw or wrote something. here, i'll help you out;
> > > > ***
> > > > On Dec 2, 11:39 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > chx
> > > > > oh, and as Medusa pointed out back then. it is not the content that
> > > > > matters so much. just the fact that one is impersonated.
>
> > > > > you could do this in other threads where i don't post and i won't
> > even
> > > > > be aware of it.
>
> > > > Yes, you are right, if I had used your handle, you would have a case
> > > > and it would be serious.
> > > > However, I did not use your handle, I made no effort to hide the fact
> > > > that it was from me.
>
> > > > So, in short, you have no reason to complain.
>
> > > > If it turns out that making fun of you inside a message of my own -
> > > > posted with my handle - is against some rules, I will delete it.
> > > > _________________________________
> > > > I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
> > > > -- Ruth Hurmence Green
> > > > ***
>
> > > > > > in fact everyone knows this was impersonating someone
>
> > > > > Right, so according to you, the whole cast of SNL and Mad TV should
> > be
> > > > > arrested becasue they have impersonated American an International
> > > > > public figures, including Bush himself.
> > > > > This must be treason.
> > > > > No, you idiot. They cannot be arrested because it is clear they are
> > > > > impersonating, they are not sitting in the oval office and making
> > > > > actual decisions and phone calls as if they were the president. Just
> > > > > like it is clear I am impersonating you when I post the message using
> > > > > my OWN handle, you dim wit.
>
> > > > chx
> > > > it may have have been within your post, if that is what you mean, this
> > > > was the same with Keith and TU.
> > > > however, you did use my name directly above your text to appear as if
> > > > i wrote it. in fact all my writing will still appear the same under
> > > > your heading fool. you impersonated me.
>
> > > > > > and now selling
> > > > > > all sorts of shit to make it go away. it is illegal.
>
> > > > > If you believe that, you are retarded.
>
> > > > > Now stop whining and wasting our time, you piece of shit who likes to
> > > > > make fun of people who share their experiences with mental illnesses
> > > > > (That is way more damnable than anything I did, and you claim that
> > > > > there is a bias? The only bias I see is all those theists not saying
> > > > > anything about your despicable behaviour back then, on that thread.)
>
> > > > chx
> > > > what you wrote here is simply just expressing your foolish ideas etc.
> > > > it does not bother me. all it does is float your boat. impersonating
> > > > me by using my name above your deceiving message is illegal. that goes
> > > > for Trog69 and Turner. you are all three impersonating me by using my
> > > > name above your deceiving messages.
>
> > > I'd love to be a fly on the wall when checkers calls the cops to report
> > us.
>
> > chx
> > why would i want to do that Turner? is that what you would have done?
>
> Oh, sorry, I keep mistaking you for a decent, law-abiding citizen. Won't
> happen again, rest assured.

chx
no, you don't get it, i have morals and ethics that actually mean
something. i have compassion and feel for others. even if it was worth
the time taking this to the police i would not as no physical harm
will come of it. it is just a down right rotten act from you guys. it
can have negative effects and i guess this is why it is illegal.

it is better to prevent this from happening before it gets out of
hand. Trog69 was the first and the mods let it slide, then A42 picked
up on this and then you. if every one gets on the wagon it will get
real bad. is this what we want. is this what the moderators want? they
are slack in performing their duties as they are preoccupied with
their bias activities and don't see the fire spreading. this is my
deal and yes, Rap is on his knees blowing the fire with this and the
spam. he is giving his OK in both until a theist does it.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > this is what TG has to say about this;
> > > > ***
> > > > On Feb 3, 2:30 am, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I'm outa here. They can falsify your name but if you fight back they
> > > > > cry foul. Unintelligent morons.
> > > > > Bye all. And please don't kill your babies
>
> > > > Changing your name slightly is very different from actually
> > > > impersonating someone and posting something that appears to come from
> > > > them which is what you did in this post.
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/ea7ca23004.
> > ..
>
> > > > The reason that it violates Google's Terms Of Service is because it's
> > > > illegal.
>
> > > > > _____________________________________________
> > > > > Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
> > > > > understand.
> > > > > -- Frederick the Great
> > > > ***
>
> > > > you will find the original post of TU as well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:36 pm
From: Woodbridge

On Dec 3, 2:34 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 12:16 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:08 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 3, 11:40 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:21 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 3, 10:43 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 3, 2:48 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > chx
> > > > > > > you knew you were wrong after i pointed it out to you. you even
> > > > > > > offered to delete your entry, why? because you knew. now you see
> > > that
> > > > > > > Rap is backing you, you are being tough.
>
> > > > > > And now you are either dishonest or lying.
>
> > > > > > IIRC, I stated that if it turned out that it was not allowed
> > > according
> > > > > > to Goolge, I would delete it myself (I am too titred to dig it up
> > > now,
> > > > > > heck, you made the claim, you prove me wriong right here).
> > > > > > Makiing fun of somebody in a post that bears your own name/handle is
> > > > > > not against any regulations, and certainly not illegal in any sense
> > > of
> > > > > > the term.
>
> > > > > chx
> > > > > no problem, i don't balme you for having a poor memory of where you
> > > > > saw or wrote something. here, i'll help you out;
> > > > > ***
> > > > > On Dec 2, 11:39 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > chx
> > > > > > oh, and as Medusa pointed out back then. it is not the content that
> > > > > > matters so much. just the fact that one is impersonated.
>
> > > > > > you could do this in other threads where i don't post and i won't
> > > even
> > > > > > be aware of it.
>
> > > > > Yes, you are right, if I had used your handle, you would have a case
> > > > > and it would be serious.
> > > > > However, I did not use your handle, I made no effort to hide the fact
> > > > > that it was from me.
>
> > > > > So, in short, you have no reason to complain.
>
> > > > > If it turns out that making fun of you inside a message of my own -
> > > > > posted with my handle - is against some rules, I will delete it.
> > > > > _________________________________
> > > > > I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
> > > > > -- Ruth Hurmence Green
> > > > > ***
>
> > > > > > > in fact everyone knows this was impersonating someone
>
> > > > > > Right, so according to you, the whole cast of SNL and Mad TV should
> > > be
> > > > > > arrested becasue they have impersonated American an International
> > > > > > public figures, including Bush himself.
> > > > > > This must be treason.
> > > > > > No, you idiot. They cannot be arrested because it is clear they are
> > > > > > impersonating, they are not sitting in the oval office and making
> > > > > > actual decisions and phone calls as if they were the president. Just
> > > > > > like it is clear I am impersonating you when I post the message using
> > > > > > my OWN handle, you dim wit.
>
> > > > > chx
> > > > > it may have have been within your post, if that is what you mean, this
> > > > > was the same with Keith and TU.
> > > > > however, you did use my name directly above your text to appear as if
> > > > > i wrote it. in fact all my writing will still appear the same under
> > > > > your heading fool. you impersonated me.
>
> > > > > > > and now selling
> > > > > > > all sorts of shit to make it go away. it is illegal.
>
> > > > > > If you believe that, you are retarded.
>
> > > > > > Now stop whining and wasting our time, you piece of shit who likes to
> > > > > > make fun of people who share their experiences with mental illnesses
> > > > > > (That is way more damnable than anything I did, and you claim that
> > > > > > there is a bias? The only bias I see is all those theists not saying
> > > > > > anything about your despicable behaviour back then, on that thread.)
>
> > > > > chx
> > > > > what you wrote here is simply just expressing your foolish ideas etc.
> > > > > it does not bother me. all it does is float your boat. impersonating
> > > > > me by using my name above your deceiving message is illegal. that goes
> > > > > for Trog69 and Turner. you are all three impersonating me by using my
> > > > > name above your deceiving messages.
>
> > > > I'd love to be a fly on the wall when checkers calls the cops to report
> > > us.
>
> > > chx
> > > why would i want to do that Turner? is that what you would have done?
>
> > Oh, sorry, I keep mistaking you for a decent, law-abiding citizen. Won't
> > happen again, rest assured.
>
> chx
> no, you don't get it, i have morals and ethics that actually mean
> something.
Prove it Christian

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Richard Dawkins PROOVES Many Christians are hypocrites just by babies
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/4f094650ef116536?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:18 pm
From: checkers

chx
wow, is this woody or woody's daddy...or is it cut-n-paste?

On Dec 3, 8:54 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
>
> That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
>
> I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
>
> http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Wo...
>
> Christians should read this because it clearly prooves that babies are
> Atheists but are hidden because of Christian hypocrisy
> Many Christians are hypocrites.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:18 pm
From: checkers

ok, this is woody again

On Dec 3, 10:58 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 12:56 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com>wrote:
>
> > > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
>
> > > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
>
> > > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
>
> > >http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Wo...
>
> > > Christians should read this because it clearly prooves that babies are
> > > Atheists but are hidden because of Christian hypocrisy
> > > Many Christians are hypocrites.
>
> > Seems to me, beings I am a Christian, that the atheist are working awfully
> > hard to make themselves *non-believers* in something.
>
> Prove it- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:23 pm
From: Woodbridge

On Dec 3, 2:18 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> chx
> wow, is this woody or woody's daddy...or is it cut-n-paste?
>
wow, is this checkers or checker's mommy...or is it Christian
hypocrisy?
> On Dec 3, 8:54 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
>
> > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
>
> > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
>
> >http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Wo...
>
> > Christians should read this because it clearly prooves that babies are
> > Atheists but are hidden because of Christian hypocrisy
> > Many Christians are hypocrites.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:24 pm
From: Woodbridge

ok, this is checkers again

On Dec 3, 2:18 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> ok, this is woody again
>
> On Dec 3, 10:58 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 12:56 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com>wrote:
>
> > > > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > > > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > > > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > > > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > > > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > > > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > > > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > > > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > > > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > > > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > > > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > > > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
>
> > > > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > > > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > > > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > > > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > > > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > > > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > > > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > > > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
>
> > > > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > > > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > > > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > > > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > > > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > > > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > > > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > > > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > > > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > > > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > > > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > > > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
>
> > > >http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Wo...
>
> > > > Christians should read this because it clearly prooves that babies are
> > > > Atheists but are hidden because of Christian hypocrisy
> > > > Many Christians are hypocrites.
>
> > > Seems to me, beings I am a Christian, that the atheist are working awfully
> > > hard to make themselves *non-believers* in something.
>
> > Prove it- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Historical Peter Parker
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/dfb77186035b2555?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:21 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Penfold <com@quickbuilds.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
> > > Where is the flaw in my reasoning?
> >
> > There are many. For example, not contradicting yourself is not evidence
> of divine inspiration.
>
> Something like 40 different people from all different backgrounds,
> places and time physically wrote the words of the bible.

It's easy to be somewhat consistent with each other when you have the
others' books.

> That they
> don't contradict each other supports their claim that they were
> writing God's words not their own.

They most certainly contradict each other. Just look at the two creation
stories in Genesis, for one example.

Of course, if experience teaches us anything, it's that you are going to use
some cop-out, like "it's metaphorical".

Also, way to ignore my other comments and questions.

>
>
> Eye witnesses to the same event often contradict each other because
> their perceptions are coloured by their own personalities and
> fallibilities.
> >
>

==============================================================================
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 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:22 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Dev <thedeviliam@fastmail.fm> wrote:

Funny ;-)

>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is
> of
> > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the
> proportion
> > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence
> more
> > > > > didn't lose.
> >
> > > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
> >
> > > :P
> >
> > > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the
> existing
> > > > circumstances.
> >
> > > :P
> >
> > > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a War
> of
> > > > Conquest a success.
> >
> > > :P
> >
> > > > It depends on what the goals are.
> >
> > > Trance, none of the "great nonviolent leaders" achieved anything
> > > historically without at least the threat of force behind them, and if
> > > they were sincere, then they failed because of it.
> >
> > > > If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a
> problem,
> > > > violence is rarely the right solution.
> >
> > > So you would argue that the minority of things in history that were
> > > accomplished against adversity were accomplished with violence or the
> > > threat of violence? Could you make, I dunno, lists to substantiate
> > > this with facts, counterarguments taken into account?
> >
> > > I hate being the bad guy with you, but goddamn. I think we have to
> > > start being realistic.
> >
> > > > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Let's go!
> >
> > > > > > Martin Luther King.
> >
> > > > > > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
> >
> > > > > > Mahatma Gandhi.
> >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > > > > > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> > > > > companion.
> > > > > > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance
> Gemini,
> > > > > > Andromeda
> >
> > > > --
> > > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > > > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> > > companion.
> > > > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > > > Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > --
> > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> companion.
> > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>

--
Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
"Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
Andromeda

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:29 pm
From: Multiverse

sorry max my focus has been poor at best. Trying to juggle to many
threads yesterday and all. I'll get to it after I get the kids to
bed.

On Dec 3, 4:54 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Sorry Trance, I'm assuming you may have missed this post I offered
> after you also guided me on the Wise words of Wisdom from MV. Your
> thoughts? MV, somehow you missed it as well (A different post of
> course but the message was the same) Please, by all means, let me know
> your thoughts.
>
> Thanks Trance,
>
> But how do you appraise this comment after my initial non
> confrontational & pertinant post in this thread again;
>
> "Yeah, pooping on Max isn't violence either. I intended this thread
> for actual people who understood the issue. Drafterman and Trance both
> knew what I was talking about, which is why I'm debating them. You're
> retarded and don't understand the question. Go die somewhere."
>
> No 'matey' myopia now :)
>
> Max
>
> On Dec 3, 8:31 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 3, 8:31 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > >Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > > >Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> > > >to back his premise that
>
> > > Max,
> > > Most interesting threads that are worth responding to are a set up of
> > > sorts. You should know that. What would you think if Dev did not do
> > > his homework and devise a plan to flesh out some interesting stuff?
> > > Certainly you would go on about his unpreparedness. Properly done,
> > > the one who starts the thread should bear the burden of responding and
> > > working the thread. That means they should do their homework.
>
> > > But seriously Max,..you know that. Try to get over your tiff with
> > > Dev. We have all had em. He calls you a name and you write another
> > > book on his misgivings. You will contribute better here if you drop
> > > it. Of course it's none of my business really.
>
> > Wise words of Wisdom from MV.
>
> > Advice I agree with, Max.
>
> > > On Dec 2, 5:30 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > > > OK TG, I've looked at Dev's premise a bit more, ostensibly to look for
> > > > the key motivation behind it and the Ghandi example that you have been
> > > > discussing was really a manufactured argument from the start. Devy had
> > > > done some reading, threw the bait out with a fairly broad statement
> > > > knowing that Ghandi would appear from someone fairly early on in the
> > > > piece. (He acknowledged it later anyway)
>
> > > > Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > > > Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> > > > to back his premise that
>
> > > > "I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a
> > > > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material."
>
> > > > After a couple of exchanges, I'm sure you started feeling like this
> > > > was all a set up.
>
> > > > I think Dev sees most things in Black & White only. I mean reference
> > > > to the statement 'Non violence has never worked" Mmmmhh, very few
> > > > greys, so it seems.
>
> > > > He sees the 'pacifist, non compliant or non violent' approach to
> > > > dealing with problems of state, injustice etc as not a viable solution
> > > > and that regarding non violence as a valuable strategy is without
> > > > historical efficacy and is only supported by wooses. (Or more likely
> > > > churchy pacifists, or liberals etc)
>
> > > > I think he misses the point that non violent strategies are really
> > > > only a recent phenomena, so the weight of historic evidence that
> > > > violent measures have worked clearly has held sway for millenia. It's
> > > > a flawed argument that one.
>
> > > > But yes, war, insurrection, violent opposition etc has it's place. I
> > > > certainly don't argue otherwise.
>
> > > > But if we as a species are to evolve towards some form of
> > > > enlightenment, surely there is a place in this world for non violent
> > > > protest and strive towards notions of understanding, empathy and a
> > > > brotherhood of man & (woman). I mean, the examples provided here
> > > > demonstrate that non violent protest does work, in certain
> > > > circumstances.
>
> > > > Religion has divided us, ideological dogma has divided us, colonialism
> > > > and imperialism has divided us, war has divided us and ignorance has
> > > > divided us.
>
> > > > It's time to move away from the paradigm of hostility to seize and
> > > > control what we want. Yes, defend ourselves against tyranny with
> > > > violence, individual or state sanctioned, but we should collectively
> > > > strive for understanding.
>
> > > > Too many people, like Dev only see things in absolute terms and
> > > > particularly with the view that they are right, absolutley. I mean who
> > > > writes this kind of thing other than a ideologue who figures every one
> > > > else is 'stupid' but fails to see that the status quo actually prefer
> > > > violence anyway.
>
> > > > "It isn't about who can be more liberal or politically correct
> > > > anymore--the status quo is stupid, and we should try to figure out
> > > > what's right."
>
> > > > Max
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 9:06 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Dear Lady,
>
> > > > > > I thought I'd cover off some other "non violence in the face of
> > > > > > irrational injustice" success stories with you because I'm getting
> > > Dev
> > > > > > is getting violent with me again:) I'll try a non violent 'sit in'
> > > > > > with him going forward, but it will be difficult nonetheless. I
> > > didn't
> > > > > > realise that this thread was meant to discuss only what he wanted to
> > > > > > discuss. Silly me, wrong again!
>
> > > > > > I think the gay community has had some wins for community acceptance
> > > > > > particularly over the last 20 years or so (in western democracies
> > > > > > anyway) The participnats of the early gay pride parades must have had
> > > > > > the 'balls' to do what they did (pun intended). The 'struggle' still
> > > > > > ain't over as yet, but it's heading in the right direction
>
> > > > > > Going back further, the 'suffragettes' also, through a program of non
> > > > > > violence, really changed the paradigm that only the men had the right
> > > > > > to vote. Go girls!
>
> > > > > > There are many individual cases such as Rosa Parks, whose non violent
> > > > > > protest, kick started the media into looking squarely at the
> > > > > > injustices perpetrated both on her and the wider black community in
> > > > > > the US. From this 'spark' a fire then raged. Non violent
> > > > > > though..............and look where we are decades later.......an
> > > > > > African American US president.....That's one for democracy and non
> > > > > > violence eh!
>
> > > > > Exactly. The fact is that this approach is new but it's one that we
> > > know is
> > > > > working and for that reason it's becoming a favored approach.
>
> > > > > > There's more, but I'll leave it at this for the minute
>
> > > > > > Cheers
>
> > > > > > Max
>
> > > > > > On Dec 2, 12:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually,
> > > book,
> > > > > > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > > > > > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples"
> > > that
> > > > > > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the
> > > link,
> > > > > > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > > > > > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why
> > > are
> > > > > > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples?
> > > Is
> > > > > > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well,
> > > no--
> > > > > > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with
> > > human
> > > > > > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case,
> > > anyone--explain
> > > > > > > > exactly how one explains the other).
>
> > > > > > > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human
> > > beings are
> > > > > > > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence in
> > > order
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > resolve problems.
>
> > > > > > > I would think that was a good thing.
>
> > > > > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion
> > > is of
> > > > > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the
> > > proportion
> > > > > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives
> > > history?
> > > > > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence
> > > more
> > > > > > > > didn't lose.
>
> > > > > > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
>
> > > > > > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the
> > > existing
> > > > > > > circumstances.
>
> > > > > > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a
> > > War of
> > > > > > > Conquest a success.
>
> > > > > > > It depends on what the goals are.
>
> > > > > > > If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a
> > > problem,
> > > > > > > violence is rarely the right solution.
>
> > > > > > > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Let's go!
>
> > > > > > > > > Martin Luther King.
>
> > > > > > > > > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
>
> > > > > > > > > Mahatma Gandhi.
>
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > > > > > > > > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its'
> > > constant
> > > > > > > > companion.
> > > > > > > > > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:46 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

Here's a link on the Non-Cooperation Movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Cooperation_Movement

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Dev <thedeviliam@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>
> On Dec 2, 5:13 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 1, 7:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> > > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually,
> book,
> > > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples"
> that
> > > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
> > > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
> > > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
> > > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
> > > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with
> human
> > > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case,
> anyone--explain
> > > > > exactly how one explains the other).
> >
> > > > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human beings
> are
> > > > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence in
> order
> > > to
> > > > resolve problems.
> >
> > > > I would think that was a good thing.
> >
> > > Okay. But for a truly nonviolent campaign to work, wouldn't that mean
> > > it worked with no threat of violence?
> >
> > And many have. That doesn't mean that violence didn't occur but violence
> was
> > not the strategy.
> >
> > For example, the Protest Movement of the 1960s started having sit-ins,
> > bed-ins (Lennon) and be-ins (Vancouver/Frisco).
> >
> > These were peaceful protests.
>
> Yes, but the point of the author is that the apparent effects of these
> were contingent on non-pacifistic associations.
>
> > That didn't stop the police from charging in with billy clubs to drag
> off,
> > arrest protestors and charge the protesters with "assault".
>
> You seem to contradict yourself with this. Let me state again: by
> saying nonviolence did not make certain movements work, I am by no
> means _defending_ the cocksuckers. Read the title of this thread
> again.
>
> > > The three (and only three,
> > > versus like thousands of major historical examples where violence
> > > works) examples of whether nonviolence works exclusively all have, I
> > > think, substantial arguments that the "non-cooperation" encompassed
> > > riots and threats at the bare minimum, state force sometimes. So.
> > > Three disputable examples of nonviolence versus three-hundred-thousand
> > > of violence works, nonviolence wins?
> >
> > Numbers aren't the issue.
> >
> > This is a new strategy. It's one that was developed in the last century
> as
> > an alternative to violence and wars. So far, it's effect is being seen.
>
> No, it hasn't. It isn't substantiated, is the problem. We have three
> (3) examples--let's call them the "prototypes for the miracle of
> nonviolence"--and all of them are essentially defended with...oh,
> saying justified violence isn't actually violence and shit? Dubious,
> mythological examples that even neither you or Drafterman can really
> defend with facts that a third grader can divide into twelve versus
> the actual history of the entire human race.
>
> > We have to get better at it and more strategic about it instead of
> tossing
> > it out just because it hasn't proven to be perfect yet.
>
> Explain a non-violent strategy that you perceive as effective.
>
> > And we need brilliant young minds like yours to work on this problem, not
> to
> > dismiss it.
>
> How is pacifism different from creationism?
>
> > Violence as a strategy doesn't benefit anyone except, as I said before,
> in
> > Wars of Conquest.
>
> But...but facts and history and stuff, as opposed to hippie rock
> music!
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is
> of
> > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the
> proportion
> > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence
> more
> > > > > didn't lose.
> >
> > > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
> >
> > > :P
> >
> > > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the
> existing
> > > > circumstances.
> >
> > > :P
> >
> > > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a War
> of
> > > > Conquest a success.
> >
> > > :P
> >
> > > > It depends on what the goals are.
> >
> > > Trance, none of the "great nonviolent leaders" achieved anything
> > > historically without at least the threat of force behind them, and if
> > > they were sincere, then they failed because of it.
> >
> > > > If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a
> problem,
> > > > violence is rarely the right solution.
> >
> > > So you would argue that the minority of things in history that were
> > > accomplished against adversity were accomplished with violence or the
> > > threat of violence? Could you make, I dunno, lists to substantiate
> > > this with facts, counterarguments taken into account?
> >
> > > I hate being the bad guy with you, but goddamn. I think we have to
> > > start being realistic.
> >
> > > > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Let's go!
> >
> > > > > > Martin Luther King.
> >
> > > > > > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
> >
> > > > > > Mahatma Gandhi.
> >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > > > > > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> > > > > companion.
> > > > > > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance
> Gemini,
> > > > > > Andromeda
> >
> > > > --
> > > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > > > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> > > companion.
> > > > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > > > Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > --
> > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> companion.
> > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:23 pm
From: Bob Crowley

I'd ignore Woodbridge if I were you Brock. Every post I've seen from
him is the same old pile of cut and paste. Don't bother - you're
wasting your time.

On Dec 4, 5:31 am, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #4, 5:
>
> "Labeling Atheists
> Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
> morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
> categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
> categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
> Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
> For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
> statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
> same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
> irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
> either side of the argument of truth.
> Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
> through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
> conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
> have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
> I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
> it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
> cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
> addressed.
> So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
> doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and
> name-calling have no place in the discussion.
> Ignoring Atheists' Questions
> If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
> way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
> away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
> would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
> objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
> everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
> that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
> okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
> answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
> Stating that Atheism is a religion
> Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
> religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
> sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
> that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
> way."
> To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
> effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
> Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
> torture people." The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
> that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
> effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much.
> Stating unsupportable facts
> No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
> reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
> Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
> have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
> occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your credibility. Of
> course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
> illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
> Never admitting when you are wrong
> Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
> It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
> Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
> If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
> courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
> mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
> error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
> wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
> never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
> anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
> respect of the one with whom you are debating."
>
> http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm
>
> On Dec 3, 11:23 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:41 AM, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>This tolerance is unusual (from a historical
> > >> perspective) and in my opinion not to be taken for granted or taken
> > >> advantage of.
>
> > > Threats now, huh Brocky boy?
>
> > No threat at all in my statement:
>
> > "One generalization why Christians in some countries today are so easy
> > to mock and ridicule is because of their great tolerance and
> > compassion, there is comparatively little downside to expressing an
> > antagonistic position."
>
> Prove it
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Brock

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:26 pm
From: Woodbridge

Christian Borgan cannot ignore my truth.

On Dec 3, 2:23 pm, Bob Crowley <bobcrow...@acenet.net.au> wrote:
> I'd ignore Woodbridge if I were you Brock. Every post I've seen from
> him is the same old pile of cut and paste. Don't bother - you're
> wasting your time.
>
> On Dec 4, 5:31 am, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #4, 5:
>
> > "Labeling Atheists
> > Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
> > morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
> > categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
> > categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
> > Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
> > For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
> > statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
> > same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
> > irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
> > either side of the argument of truth.
> > Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
> > through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
> > conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
> > have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
> > I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
> > it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
> > cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
> > addressed.
> > So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
> > doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and
> > name-calling have no place in the discussion.
> > Ignoring Atheists' Questions
> > If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
> > way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
> > away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
> > would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
> > objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
> > everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
> > that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
> > okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
> > answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
> > Stating that Atheism is a religion
> > Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
> > religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
> > sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
> > that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
> > way."
> > To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
> > effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
> > Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
> > torture people." The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
> > that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
> > effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much.
> > Stating unsupportable facts
> > No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
> > reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
> > Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
> > have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
> > occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your credibility. Of
> > course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
> > illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
> > Never admitting when you are wrong
> > Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
> > It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
> > Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
> > If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
> > courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
> > mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
> > error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
> > wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
> > never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
> > anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
> > respect of the one with whom you are debating."
>
> >http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm
>
> > On Dec 3, 11:23 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:41 AM, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>This tolerance is unusual (from a historical
> > > >> perspective) and in my opinion not to be taken for granted or taken
> > > >> advantage of.
>
> > > > Threats now, huh Brocky boy?
>
> > > No threat at all in my statement:
>
> > > "One generalization why Christians in some countries today are so easy
> > > to mock and ridicule is because of their great tolerance and
> > > compassion, there is comparatively little downside to expressing an
> > > antagonistic position."
>
> > Prove it
>
> > > Regards,
>
> > > Brock

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:30 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

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.

While that's true, that doesn't really answer my question.

>
>
> 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: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:38 pm
From: Joe

Your thread title is misleading. You aren't talking about "Theism and
special privilege," since obviously Bush and the irate driver are both
theists. Bush gets special privilege because he's "The Decider," not
because he's a theist.

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

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:49 pm
From: Joe

On Dec 3, 4:04 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 1:03 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 12:15 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Labeling Atheists
> > > Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
> > > morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
> > > categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
> > > categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
> > > Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
> > > For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
> > > statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
> > > same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
> > > irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
> > > either side of the argument of truth.
> > > Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
> > > through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
> > > conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
> > > have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
> > > I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
> > > it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
> > > cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
> > > addressed.
> > > So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
> > > doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and
> > > name-calling have no place in the discussion.
> > > Ignoring Atheists' Questions
> > > If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
> > > way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
> > > away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
> > > would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
> > > objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
> > > everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
> > > that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
> > > okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
> > > answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
> > > Stating that Atheism is a religion
> > > Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
> > > religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
> > > sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
> > > that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
> > > way."
> > > To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
> > > effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
> > > Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
> > > torture people."
>
> > That is something Christians here hear all the time from atheists
> > here. It is far more common than the reverse. So maybe the point of
> > your post should be that many atheists are hypocrites.
>
> No because many Christians are hypocrites.
> VERY clear in title of posting
>

And contradicted by the preponderance of atheistic postings more or
less exactly like that which you cite just above.

> > > The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
> > > that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
> > > effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much.
> > > Stating unsupportable facts
> > > No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
> > > reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
> > > Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
> > > have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
> > > occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your credibility. Of
> > > course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
> > > illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
> > > Never admitting when you are wrong
> > > Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
> > > It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
> > > Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
> > > If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
> > > courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
> > > mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
> > > error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
> > > wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
> > > never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
> > > anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
> > > respect of the one with whom you are debating."
>
> > >http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:55 pm
From: Medusa

Answer_42 wrote:

> On Dec 2, 10:22�pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Christianity is not a "get out of hell free" card, it is a new
>
> Bla Bla Bla I love jesus Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla The bible
> is true Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla If you do not agree with
> me Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla You will go to hell
> Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Fear god Bla Bla Bla
> Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla I am right Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
> Objective truth of first principles Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla You are
> wrong Bla Bla BlaBla Bla BlaBla Bla BlaBla Bla Bla Westminster
> Confession Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
> Wikipedia Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
> Love god is not the same as poke out your eye with a pointed stick
> Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Cesar
> crossed the Rubicon Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla BlaBla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
> Bla Bla and 1.50$ will get you a coffee at most truck stops Bla Bla
> Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla I am never wrong Bla Bla Bla
> Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla mankind is not the
> measurement of all things Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
> Bla Bla Bla Bla I tremble before my god Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
> Bla Bla Humans are born with sin Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
> Bla Bla Bla Only Jesus can save you from yourself Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
> Bla Or not :) Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla

BRAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

You always make me laugh when you reply to Brock.

Medusa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atheism vs Christianity

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Atheism-vs-Christianity - 25 new messages in 11 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links