Atheism vs Christianity: Atheism-vs-Christianity - 25 new messages in 10 topics

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:03 pm
From: Multiverse

People like to undermine the role of violence in the
> success afforded to them, because it makes for a happier picture of
> humanity.

Good point. Take the case of journalistic censorship on the
battlefield. Not showing the lifeless bodies of the 18 year old
American boy on the battlefield helps. At last count there have been
more than 4800 US service-members killed in Iraq / Afghanistan. How
many dead American bodies have you seen on TV? Initially, the
military purposes for censorship are to protect against things like
protests on the home-front etc.... But as the victor writes the
history it definitely helps lessen the impact of the horrors of war.
It is not really hard to train someone to hold a rifle and march into
battle. It's much harder to get him to go back and do it again
although you won't have to wonder if he has sharpened his bayonet.
The happy picture for humanity ironically has more to do with
benefiting government power than humanity itself. This is evidenced
by the fact that it does nothing to prevent violence and it has been
practised vigorously regardless of political party. Although there is
the easy argument that if it helps the American war machine maintain
preparedness to go to war than it is necessary. After-all the Union
was formed in part to "provide for the common defence". It is
something we expect our tax dollars to be used for.

On Dec 2, 7:35 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 3:41 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > What really drives history?
>
> > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> > > didn't lose.
>
> > Hey Dev,
> > Technically the American Revolution would have been
> > unsuccessful without French help. So that's a good place to start.
> > Obviously many countries exist who sucked at violence but got help.
> > But I'm splitting hairs with the question obviously.
>
> No, that is completely relevant. The point is the initial point: the
> historical precedence for non-violence. If violence had a happy face,
> if violence was not sanctioned by the hegemony, whatever--not the
> issue. What has absolute pacifism accomplished mainly because of the
> weight of its own non-force?
>
> > I would not hazard a guess at your proportional question but attempts
> > at non violent success may have been historically more common than
> > known but had been quashed. History has been written by the victors
> > after all.
>
> Well...my question is pretty much how that last statement doesn't
> confirm what I or the author have said precisely. :)
>
> > -The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the
> > blood of patriots and tyrants,
> > Thomas
> > Jefferson
>
> > I guess nowadays we can't go spilling the blood of patriots and
> > tyrants.......Unless they are in another country of course. Non
> > violent success seems to have something to do with how much violence
> > is likely to be visited on the non violent.
>
> Yes. The example of the Civil Rights movement is relevant to this, if
> you read the article referenced. The non-violent success stories are
> largely myths. People like to undermine the role of violence in the
> success afforded to them, because it makes for a happier picture of
> humanity.
>
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 8:52 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually, book,
> > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples" that
> > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
> > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
> > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
> > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
> > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with human
> > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case, anyone--explain
> > > exactly how one explains the other).
>
> > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is of
> > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the proportion
> > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> > > didn't lose.
>
> > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > Let's go!
>
> > > > Martin Luther King.
>
> > > > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
>
> > > > Mahatma Gandhi.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > > > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
> > > > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > > > Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:06 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Dev <thedeviliam@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>
> On Dec 2, 5:04 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It'll be easier if I just summarize instead of dealing with specific
> points
> > but if I've missed something just ask and I'll comment on it.
> > 1. I know that the author is not supporting the British. My comments are
> > directed to the fact that his analysis of the situation is not correct.
>
> Okay, I suspected that you might have had that hunch only because my I
> don't think you never actually challenged anything the author said
> directly. You never called any of the actual facts he presented into
> question--please re-read the previous responses if you don't believe
> me. You did say "not true", but you didn't follow it with an actual
> refute of what the author was saying, which led me to believe that you
> misinterpreted his point.
>
> > 2. I use the term non-cooperation instead of pacifism because there were
> > situations for example where the British attacked people physically and
> in
> > other ways and people fought back physically and in other ways. That's
> not
> > pacifism but it is non-cooperation. It's also not using violence as a
> > strategy. It's defending oneself in the appropriate way.
>
> Okay, now, this is what I'm talking about: violence in self-defense is
> still violence. I thought you might have taken issue with his use of
> the term "terrorism", but he specifically qualified this with the
> reminder that it was not a term of condemnation. Neumann defines
> "terrorism" as violent attacks on technical "non-combatants". He
> believes there is a grey area

in terms of, for example, attacking a
> factory in which "non-combatants" are producing weapons. In any case,
> he does think it can be justified when a mortal threat to a people is
> immediate.
>

Nonsense. I don't agree with this at all.

It's just a cover for justifying in and engaging in terrorist acts.

If this is his argument then he is an extremist himself and advocating
terrorism.

I'm very familiar with these arguments.

They're used by every sleazy terrorist group to justify their terrorist
acts.

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

>
> > 3. I'm objecting to the use of violence as an offensive strategy. I'm not
> > saying that if someone physically attacks a person that person shouldn't
> > defend themselves.
>
> I'm going to take the liberty of speaking for the author's point,
> since I think I understand it and agree: "offensive" and "defensive"
> violence are hard to divide into a dichotomy. The main issue, as I
> think Neumann would agree, is who is actually in the right.

If you're in the "right" then the strategies you use when fighting for a
cause are ethical. If they're not then you're not in the "right" no matter
what your cause.

> Neumann
> mentions the Thomas Hobbes theory, in his book, that even a criminal
> may be justified in defending his own existence against law-
> enforcement officials. At least in how Neumann interprets and
> disagrees with Hobbes on this, I agree with Neumann: the serial killer
> would be wrong because he is not in the right in the actual dispute.
> Neumann believes that India was in the right against the British, thus
> he believes that even what he defines as "terrorism" was justified.
>

Indian Freedom Fighters engaged in very little terrorism. Their main goal
was to mobilize support for the cause. Mass mobilization.

>
> In any case, this is all getting pretty off-topic. Did the British
> leave more because of pacifism or actual violence, violence being
> defined as causing physical harm to human beings?

I am clearly stating:

1. There was very little violence of "terrorism" instigated by the Freedom
Fighters.

That, in and of itself blows your case out of the water.

2. Since there was very little violence, the cause had to be something else
that wasn't violence.

People can argue about what that specific cause was but it doesn't matter
because history and the facts agree that it wasn't violence.

> You are defending
> your case based on what I previously said was an argument from
> ambiguity,

No, it's an argument based on historical fact. The historical fact that the
Freedom Fighters engaged in very little violence. If violence was the reason
they left it had to have been significant and it wasn't.

> and you have confirmed this with your definitions here: you
> conflate violence in self-defense with "non-cooperation", which you
> won't call "pacifism" because you already understand that you are not--
> as per the title of this thread--establishing an historical precedent

I did. Historical fact supports my claim that the Freedom Fighters engaged
in very little violence.

This is the argument you're missing.

Their entire focus was to organize mass movements and mass mobilizations on
various issues.

>
> for non-violence with the Gandhi example. That's my point, which I
> think you kind of agree with but are grudgingly resisting.

Nope :-)

> You are
> defending violence as being justified, which in and of itself proves
> that India and Gandhi and the Great Partition are not an historical
> precedent for non-violence.
>

Nope again.

I'm saying that defending oneself is acceptable. Not some abstract concept
like the terrorists play games with but actual direct self defense.

That is very different from using violence as a strategy or as the main
strategy or as the only strategy.

That is also a key point that you're missing.

>
> > 4. The violence that occurred during the Independence movement was
> > insignificant compared to the many and creative ways that people simply
> > refused to cooperate with the state.
>
> Okay, this is an actual factual assertion that I'd want you to support
> unless you're still saying violence in self-defense is not violence,
> which is a weird definition to me.

1. Read ANY history book on Indian history. Sorry these are standard
historical facts.

2. I didn't say violence in self-defence is not violence.
I said using violence as a strategy is bad. Using violence to defend oneself
from direct violence is acceptable, not pretend, made-up threats like
factories making weapons.

>
>
> > 5. The British were not concerned about the violence which they used to
> > justify the most brutal suppression campaigns and massacres against the
> > people.
>
> You still seem to be on the defensive about how bad the British were,
> even though I thought you understood that _nobody_ is arguing that the
> British weren't the bad guys. Maybe the problem I'm having is that you
> are saying what they did was violence, but what was done in self-
> defense was not, which, like I said, is an unconventional way of
> defining violence.

You're missing my point. I'm giving you straightforward historical facts.
This is what happened.

Now I can sit here and name them all off and numbers of people etc.

There's no point to that and we're just going to get sidelined into a
discussion of Indian history.

Literally all you have to do is find any book on Indian history and it will
give you the facts.

>
> > 6. What little violence occurred, the British were happy about because it
> > gave them the justification to arrest and otherwise suppress masses of
> > people thus Weakening the Independence movement.
>
> Why, explicitly, do you think the British left, Trance? Was it because
> violence (or, I'll grant you, "non-pacifistic noncooperation") made
> their presence less manageable, or because they were like the Grinch
> who saw Gandhi and had his heart grow so big it exploded past the
> little outline of a heart?

I've told you several times.

1. There was political and social dissension in the way of mass movements on
various issues and against the British. Protests, etc.
2. This required resources to suppress and control
3. The British didn't have the resources. It's as simple as that.
4. If the British had the resources, no amount of violence would have
removed them.
5. The strategy of organizing mass movements against the British and their
rule was what removed them as well as not having the resources.

>
> > 7. The reason the Indians became too much trouble was that they simply
> > refused to go along with or cooperate with anything the British were
> doing.
>
> Trance...what's the real issue here? The definition of "violence" or
> the factual details? You already conceded that at least maybe most
> historians don't attribute the successes to Gandhi's campaign. What,
> explicitly, was it that the Indians were doing that was too much
> trouble?

> Was the threat of force that might cost human lives a factor
> or not?

No. The threat of force was not a factor.

I clearly stated that Gandhi's campaign contributed to it just like all the
other campaigns contributed. None of the campaigns used violence as a
strategy and that is my point. Gandhi initiated the non-violence.

There were many players in the Freedom Movement, not just one.

Through out my entire post I've been giving you the facts. I haven't given
you examples because they are readily available and this post will be
extremely long if I have to locate them and include them here.

>
>
> > 8. The British also used Religious strife to create a divide and rule
> > situation to also successfully weaken the Independence movement.
>
> Again, I don't see how this could be relevant.

It was in the article and I'm refuting this persons analysis.

Frankly Dev, the guy is an idiot and doesn't have a clue about Indian
history.

> The problem is that you
> say you know that nobody is saying the British were the good guys, but
> then you say this. This is why I'm not sure we're on the same page in
> terms of what we're actually arguing about. The only things you've
> said that I think might be incorrect factually are things that can be
> explained by the evidence that we are actually using different
> definitions of "violence" and "nonviolence".

No. There's one definition. Read my posts again if you think otherwise.

I think you are being
> more particular and subjective about it. I've hit a nerve with you,
> and that bothers me a lot, but I think we should clarify what we're
> talking about.

This is a topic I'm familiar with Dev. I know the facts here.

I don't recall the specific examples and would have to look them up to be
accurate. That will take a while.

It'll be a lot easier for you to just drop by a library and pick up a book
on it.

> I think we agree, but you don't want to put it in the
> terminology of "India kicked out the Brits because of violence". You
> gave a key statement that "pacifism" and "nonviolence" were two
> different things--I see them as more or less the same. We're mincing
> words, and I'm curious as to why.

Pacifism is never committing a violent act no matter what.

This is what Harris quite rightly criticized Gandhi for.

My key point which you're missing is that it's very different to use
violence as a strategy, the main strategy, the only strategy than it is to
use violence to defend oneself from immediate and direct threat.

I'm talking about how violence is used and not the definition of violence.

>
> > Their only problem was that it wasn't weakened enough for them to be able
> to
> > stay.
>
> Here I would suggest that you are actually agreeing with the
> definition of "weakness" as "inability to apply force". I think we do
> agree, but you want to use this linguistic thing to...I hate knocking
> you, Trance, by the former definition. :) Do you get what I'm saying
> or not?
>

Well so far the only aspect of your position that you've written here in
this thread is in the subject.

So you haven't actually presented a position other than saying you agreed
with the article.

If you agree with the article then we don't agree.

> > So frankly I don't see any contradictions here. Perhaps I got lost in a
> > couple of points and didn't express my opinion clearly and so it got
> > misunderstood.
>
> I hope this post clarified a thing or two.
>
> > It was non-cooperation that worked. The violence was insignificant and
> the
> > British took advantage of it to weaken the movement.
> >
> > Hope that's clearer ;-)
>
> By your definition of "non-violence", _justified_ violence is not
> violence, and therefore non-violence. If "okay violence" is
> acceptable, then technically violence is always wrong, and killing
> fucking Max isn't violence. :)
>

Nope you got it all wrong ;-)

>
> Love you, too.
>

I do love ya.

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

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

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:13 pm
From: Dev

Did you read the article I linked to in response to Drafterman, that
kind of motivated this thread?

http://www.tamilnation.org/ideology/neuman_on_non_violence.htm

I'm pretty much agreeing with what he said: that there doesn't seem to
be an historical precedent for nonviolence working mainly on its own
merits in a serious conflict, and the few predictable examples
anticipated from posters on this thread are at best
oversimplifications.

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

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:18 pm
From: Multiverse

your right I've digressed way off topic. Give me a few to finish up
with it.

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

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:21 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

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.
>

And the author, in my opinion, was wrong.

>
> > 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.
>

Why is this a contradiction?

The point is that the police were violent and the protestors weren't and the
police looked like assholes for hitting people who were just sitting.

They actually stopped doing that in Canada, because it made them look so
bad.

That was a victory.

> > > 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?

Nope I'm not saying that. You are.

I'm saying that violence shouldn't be used as a strategy. Defending oneself
in the case of imminent and direct attack is, although as I showed you with
the sit-ins that there are circumstances where people don't even do that and
I consider that a victory that a lot of violence at these protests stopped
because of the sit-ins.

> 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.

Look I can dig up all kinds of specific examples if that will make you
happy.

It's taking a long time to respond to these posts so my choice right now is
respond or find the examples.

If that's what you want I'll do it on the weekend.

>
>
> > 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.
>

It depends on the situation. Give me a scenario that's realistic in your
mind.

Although frankly I'm sure if you gave it some serious thought you could come
up with better ones than I could.

>
> > And we need brilliant young minds like yours to work on this problem, not
> to
> > dismiss it.
>
> How is pacifism different from creationism?
>

Red Herring :-P Lol.

>
> > 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!

Like I said. If I have to give you examples (and frankly I shouldn't need
to) I will but you're going to have to wait until the weekend.

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:23 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:00 PM, thomas <tdierden@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> What relationship, if any, do coherency and sentence have in the same
> staement?

The fact that you have to even ask that question explains why your sentence
makes no sense.

>
>
> On Dec 2, 6:58 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > That wouldn't be coherent if it were a sentence.
> >
> > On Dec 2, 7:29 pm, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Preferably one you can make.
> >
> > > On Dec 2, 4:36 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> > > > I think the new rule shouldn't be "if you don't have anything nice to
> > > > say" but, instead, "if you don't have anything to say". Make a
> fucking
> > > > case, asshole.
> >
> > > > On Dec 2, 5:34 pm, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > What a red herring.
> >
> > > > > On Dec 1, 4:28 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Let's go!- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:25 pm
From: thomas

What makes no sense about it?

On Dec 2, 7:23 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:00 PM, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What relationship, if any, do coherency and sentence have in the same
> > staement?
>
> The fact that you have to even ask that question explains why your sentence
> makes no sense.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 6:58 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > That wouldn't be coherent if it were a sentence.
>
> > > On Dec 2, 7:29 pm, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Preferably one you can make.
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 4:36 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > I think the new rule shouldn't be "if you don't have anything nice to
> > > > > say" but, instead, "if you don't have anything to say". Make a
> > fucking
> > > > > case, asshole.
>
> > > > > On Dec 2, 5:34 pm, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > What a red herring.
>
> > > > > > On Dec 1, 4:28 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Let's go!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- 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 -

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:30 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Max <amf6@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Dec 3, 8:26 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > OK TG, I've looked at Dev's premise a bit more, ostensibly to look for
> > > the key motivation behind it and the Ghandi example that you have been
> > > discussing was really a manufactured argument from the start. Devy had
> > > done some reading, threw the bait out with a fairly broad statement
> > > knowing that Ghandi would appear from someone fairly early on in the
> > > piece. (He acknowledged it later anyway)
> >
> > > Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > > Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> > > to back his premise that
> >
> > > "I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a
> > > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material."
> >
> > > After a couple of exchanges, I'm sure you started feeling like this
> > > was all a set up.
> >
> > Not at all. I knew where Dev was going with it.
>
> Well a an outsider, looking in, when you proposed Ghandi with two
> other suggestions as examples - one of which I also noted), I naively
> assumed he was actually looking for a breadth of examples, not to
> discuss the Ghandi thing exclusively.
>
>
> > I'm glad he brought the topic up so we can discuss it.
>
> No problem there.
>
> > Dev already knows my opinions on this topic so my comments were no
> surprise
> > to him either.
>
> Fine, but I was unaware of that based on the threads title
>
>
> > We've had this discussion privately as well so we both knew where this
> was
> > going to go.
>
> Again, not for me to know.
>
> > > I think Dev sees most things in Black & White only. I mean reference
> > > to the statement 'Non violence has never worked" Mmmmhh, very few
> > > greys, so it seems.
> >
> > Actually he doesn't. Not in my opinion anyway. He just makes his points
> > strongly and I guess it can look like that sometimes but I don't really
> see
> > that.
>
> I disagree.. If his statement is correctly restated; "Non violence has
> never worked" & the I provide examples that it has (or could be argued
> so) & he then immaturely dismisses them, with his poo on Max thing,
> what's the conclusion?
>
>
> > > He sees the 'pacifist, non compliant or non violent' approach to
> > > dealing with problems of state, injustice etc as not a viable solution
> > > and that regarding non violence as a valuable strategy is without
> > > historical efficacy and is only supported by wooses. (Or more likely
> > > churchy pacifists, or liberals etc)
> >
> > It's paragraphs like the above that get him pissed off at you (if you
> want
> > to know ;-)
>
> Why....unless I read it wrong, how is that not what he's saying. (Such
> a shame I have to ask you, as he won't converse with me maturely
> anymore)
>
>
> > > I think he misses the point that non violent strategies are really
> > > only a recent phenomena, so the weight of historic evidence that
> > > violent measures have worked clearly has held sway for millenia. It's
> > > a flawed argument that one.
> >
> > Well I wouldn't call it "flawed". It's an opinion.
>
> It's my opinion & I think his is flawed. It's like saying that people
> didn't fly aeroplanes in the 18th Century as well as people can fly
> them in the 21st Century. It just didn't happen in the 18th century,
> so how can one compare the efficacy of violent vs non violent protest
> then & now.
>
> > I happen to have a different assessment of that.
>
> Fine.
>
>
> > > But yes, war, insurrection, violent opposition etc has it's place. I
> > > certainly don't argue otherwise.
> >
> > Only rarely in extreme cases where there are no other options whatsoever.
>
> Agreed
>
> > > But if we as a species are to evolve towards some form of
> > > enlightenment, surely there is a place in this world for non violent
> > > protest and strive towards notions of understanding, empathy and a
> > > brotherhood of man & (woman). I mean, the examples provided here
> > > demonstrate that non violent protest does work, in certain
> > > circumstances.
> >
> > If it's necessary, yes.
>
> Agreed
>
> > It's a new approach and a new strategy and needs to have the bugs worked
> out
> > but in reality I'm not even talking about protest movements and
> brotherhood
> > when I discuss strategy.
>
> Now, this is the first reference to religion and atheism (apart from
> the Indian sectarian implications) in the context of the discussion
> (for me anyway)
>
>
> > I'm talking about atheists taking what's going on seriously from the
> > wealthiest to the poorest.
> >
> > Getting active and getting involved in the government, military, media,
> > social aspects of society.
> >
> > Be everywhere and get our policies implemented and our opinions heard.
> >
> > Influence is what we need.
> >
> > Why allow ourselves to be marginalized in the first place.
> >
> > The protest movement approach is one taken by marginalized people.
> >
> > The problem is that's how we see ourselves and so that's how we behave.
> >
> > We're reacting to things instead of taking charge of things.
>
> Yes, yes, & yes again. No issue here
>
> > > Religion has divided us, ideological dogma has divided us, colonialism
> > > and imperialism has divided us, war has divided us and ignorance has
> > > divided us.
> >
> > Well we can only take responsibility for ourselves we can't control how
> > theists react to these things and unfortunately they don't react in the
> most
> > intelligent manner no matter how intelligent they may be individually.
>
> OK, here's the introduction of the theists argument now. This is
> another issue, and again I have no problem so far.
>
>
> > > It's time to move away from the paradigm of hostility to seize and
> > > control what we want. Yes, defend ourselves against tyranny with
> > > violence, individual or state sanctioned, but we should collectively
> > > strive for understanding.
> >
> > Well that all sounds lovely but this is where you and some of the others
> > here lose people like Dev and me.
> >
> > I can't speak for Rapp but if he reads this I'm sure he'll jump in and
> > comment.
> >
> > The reason is that I don't believe theists want understanding. They want
> > conversion. Only the most liberal, and not even all of them, might be
> > willing to accept a limited truce on these questions.
>
> OK, the goal posts have moved. The Ghandi discussion (British
> colonialism and all my geo political examples) were not focussing on
> the theistic implications you're drawing attention to now (in the
> main)

No shifting of goal posts. You brought up "collectively strive for
understanding." and I'm speaking directly to that point.

>
> > Understanding isn't going to happen. On this I agree with Dev.
>
> Know thy enemy, but I do see what you're saying
>
> > Agreements can be made on certain issues.
>
> Sure
>
> > For example, atheists and some theists might agree that we both want
> > secularism or that we both want a certain level of human rights, etc.
> >
> > Other than that anyone who thinks that theists have any interest
> whatsoever
> > in building understanding, empathy, etc types of relationships with
> atheists
> > is delusional themselves in my opinion.
>
> Absolutely Trance, but where in hell is this issue part of this
> thread. If the thread was entitled, "what are the tactics we should
> employ that would best & most effectively marginalise world theism",
> well then, that'd bring out what you wanting here. Fine. But again, I
> saw this as something else.
>
> > The best we can have is agreements on specific issues.
> >
> > And this is precisely why the atheist solution has to be to get into
> > positions of influence and deal with issues directly instead of
> > marginalizing ourselves and then complaining when theists who are getting
> > themselves in positions of influence exercise their power.
>
> Yes, covered that
>
> > > Too many people, like Dev only see things in absolute terms and
> > > particularly with the view that they are right, absolutley. I mean who
> > > writes this kind of thing other than a ideologue who figures every one
> > > else is 'stupid' but fails to see that the status quo actually prefer
> > > violence anyway.
> >
> > > "It isn't about who can be more liberal or politically correct
> > > anymore--the status quo is stupid, and we should try to figure out
> > > what's right."
>
> >
> > > Max
> >
> > > On Dec 2, 9:06 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Dear Lady,
> >
> > > > > I thought I'd cover off some other "non violence in the face of
> > > > > irrational injustice" success stories with you because I'm getting
> Dev
> > > > > is getting violent with me again:) I'll try a non violent 'sit in'
> > > > > with him going forward, but it will be difficult nonetheless. I
> didn't
> > > > > realise that this thread was meant to discuss only what he wanted
> to
> > > > > discuss. Silly me, wrong again!
> >
> > > > > I think the gay community has had some wins for community
> acceptance
> > > > > particularly over the last 20 years or so (in western democracies
> > > > > anyway) The participnats of the early gay pride parades must have
> had
> > > > > the 'balls' to do what they did (pun intended). The 'struggle'
> still
> > > > > ain't over as yet, but it's heading in the right direction
> >
> > > > > Going back further, the 'suffragettes' also, through a program of
> non
> > > > > violence, really changed the paradigm that only the men had the
> right
> > > > > to vote. Go girls!
> >
> > > > > There are many individual cases such as Rosa Parks, whose non
> violent
> > > > > protest, kick started the media into looking squarely at the
> > > > > injustices perpetrated both on her and the wider black community in
> > > > > the US. From this 'spark' a fire then raged. Non violent
> > > > > though..............and look where we are decades later.......an
> > > > > African American US president.....That's one for democracy and non
> > > > > violence eh!
> >
> > > > Exactly. The fact is that this approach is new but it's one that we
> know
> > > is
> > > > working and for that reason it's becoming a favored approach.
> >
> > > > > There's more, but I'll leave it at this for the minute
> >
> > > > > Cheers
> >
> > > > > Max
> >
> > > > > On Dec 2, 12:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually,
> > > book,
> > > > > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for
> easy
> > > > > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples"
> > > that
> > > > > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the
> link,
> > > > > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually
> a
> > > > > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why
> are
> > > > > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples?
> Is
> > > > > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well,
> no--
> > > > > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with
> > > human
> > > > > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case,
> > > anyone--explain
> > > > > > > exactly how one explains the other).
> >
> > > > > > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human
> beings
> > > are
> > > > > > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence
> in
> > > order
> > > > > to
> > > > > > resolve problems.
> >
> > > > > > I would think that was a good thing.
> >
> > > > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion
> is
> > > of
> > > > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the
> > > proportion
> > > > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives
> history?
> > > > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence
> > > more
> > > > > > > didn't lose.
> >
> > > > > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
> >
> > > > > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the
> > > existing
> > > > > > circumstances.
> >
> > > > > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a
> War
> > > of
> > > > > > Conquest a success.
> >
> > > > > > It depends on what the goals are.
> >
> > > > > > If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a
> > > problem,
> > > > > > violence is rarely the right solution.
> >
> > > > > > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini"
> >
> > ...
> >
> > read more »
> >
>

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:03 pm
From: Dev

And I'll bet it is cray-zay! So crazy it's a big secret!

On Dec 2, 7:59 pm, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dev,
>
> And there is a reason, why they are not mentally ill.
>
> thomas
>
> On Dec 2, 6:55 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Theists aren't mentally ill. That's just a silly thing to say. Silly!
>
> > On Dec 2, 7:46 pm, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dev
>
> > > There is no way you can untangle yourself enough from the fear of
> > > death to know how I feel--whether I cower, or whether I stand before
> > > the very creator himself with impunity--without having walked in my
> > > path. How can you say I have not already faced [him] the creator, and
> > > am judging you right now?
>
> > > thomas
>
> > > thomas
>
> > > On Dec 2, 6:26 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > So you admit you're dangerously delusional because you're a coward.
> > > > Yay, theists make the world a better place and it's sad when they
> > > > die...
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 7:22 pm, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > No-one, can escape the fear of death.
>
> > > > > On Dec 2, 6:14 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > How can theists deny that their faith is based largely on the fear of
> > > > > > death when they admit it so openly?
>
> > > > > > On Dec 2, 7:12 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Brock wrote:
> > > > > > > > Facing death, however, is neither scary nor foreboding when you have
> > > > > > > > the concrete assurance that death opens the door to eternal life.
> > > > > > > > That s the difference that Jesus Christ made in our world."
>
> > > > > > > Yeah, we all know we're going to croak someday. However, the rational
> > > > > > > do not believe in eternal life. I live as full a life as I can and
> > > > > > > leave the Jesus fairy tales in the "myths" file.
>
> > > > > > > Medusa- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:13 pm
From: thomas

It is the same reason you are not mentally ill. At least not for this
issue.

On Dec 2, 7:03 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> And I'll bet it is cray-zay! So crazy it's a big secret!
>
> On Dec 2, 7:59 pm, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dev,
>
> > And there is a reason, why they are not mentally ill.
>
> > thomas
>
> > On Dec 2, 6:55 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > Theists aren't mentally ill. That's just a silly thing to say. Silly!
>
> > > On Dec 2, 7:46 pm, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Dev
>
> > > > There is no way you can untangle yourself enough from the fear of
> > > > death to know how I feel--whether I cower, or whether I stand before
> > > > the very creator himself with impunity--without having walked in my
> > > > path. How can you say I have not already faced [him] the creator, and
> > > > am judging you right now?
>
> > > > thomas
>
> > > > thomas
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 6:26 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > So you admit you're dangerously delusional because you're a coward.
> > > > > Yay, theists make the world a better place and it's sad when they
> > > > > die...
>
> > > > > On Dec 2, 7:22 pm, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > No-one, can escape the fear of death.
>
> > > > > > On Dec 2, 6:14 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > How can theists deny that their faith is based largely on the fear of
> > > > > > > death when they admit it so openly?
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 2, 7:12 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Brock wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Facing death, however, is neither scary nor foreboding when you have
> > > > > > > > > the concrete assurance that death opens the door to eternal life.
> > > > > > > > > That s the difference that Jesus Christ made in our world."
>
> > > > > > > > Yeah, we all know we're going to croak someday. However, the rational
> > > > > > > > do not believe in eternal life. I live as full a life as I can and
> > > > > > > > leave the Jesus fairy tales in the "myths" file.
>
> > > > > > > > Medusa- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:22 pm
From: "Brock Organ"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Dev <thedeviliam@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> How can theists deny that their faith is based largely on the fear of
> death when they admit it so openly?

Christianity is not a "get out of hell free" card, it is a new
spiritual life that God's Holy Spirit creates, as John Owen notes:

"The unregenerate are in a state of spiritual death. To be made
alive, they need a powerful, effective work of the Holy Spirit done in
their souls. This work is spiritual regeneration."[1]

So for a person to suppose they can choose to be a Christian "to get
out of the penalty of hell" is a misunderstanding of the nature of the
new life, as Owen notes:

"It does not matter how powerfully we are motivated and encouraged,
without regeneration we can do no good works which are pleasing and
acceptable to God. A religious, decent, moral life, derived from self
and not 'born of God' is as sinful as the worst of sinful lives."[1]

Regards,

Brock

[1] John Owen, The Holy Spirit. Abridged by RJK Law. ISBN-10:
085151698X (Ch 11)

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:06 pm
From: thomas

Dev

> Maybe now you should convert to Christianity and start defending
> how everyone who doesn't believe in your Sky Pixie deserves to burn
> forever while simultaneously nailing yourself to a cross because
> someone said something mean to you on the Internets.

You don't have to convert to Christianity to do that.

thomas

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

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:07 pm
From: "Brock Organ"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Multiverse <cutaway@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>In particular, this rejects the erroneous humanistic
>> claim that 1) is true "cuz I say so".
>
> Ok. It's a shame though to see a person make obedient their sense of
> reason, to a book that is as unreasonable as the bible,

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

"Metaphysics involves intuitive knowledge of unprovable
starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
what follows from them."

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

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

> through the
> process of subjucating their sense of reason to the unreasonable.

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

> What comes next? Food deprivation? Isolation?

Worship, prayer, gratitude, fellowship, testimony; among other things.

> Have you ever taken a look at how this stuff invades your life?

Perhaps. :)

Regards,

Brock

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:10 pm
From: "Brock Organ"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:31 PM, LL <llpens@aol.com> wrote:
>> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
>> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>
> LL: Please explain how this objectiveness works.

Consider:

"In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true
everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. For instance,
it is true always and everywhere that 'in base 10, 2 plus 2 equals 4'.
A subjective fact is a truth that is only true in certain times,
places or people. For instance, 'That painting is beautiful' may be
true for someone who likes it, but not for everyone."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)#Objectivity_and_subjectivity

Regards,

Brock

==============================================================================
TOPIC: shame there isnt a hell 'cos all the christians here would be on their
way there!
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/f276cf83843a1623?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:11 pm
From: thomas

Dev,

I agree. If you start from the premise that there is no God--"hey, no
prob! I think we can work this thing out"! The rub comes in when you
have this tradition of "theism" spanning several thousands of years.
You can't just rub out cultures.

thomas

On Dec 2, 6:41 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> I disagree with some atheists in that I like the idea of a smart,
> benevolent God and a Hell. That way, I don't have to kill all the
> theists, He will, and they'll all fucking burn in Hell. La.
>
> On Dec 2, 7:00 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > dead kennedy;
>
> > Now you've just ripped off one of my favorite insults: I wish there
> > were a hell for you to go to! ;-)
>
> > Medusa- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:15 pm
From: "Brock Organ"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:14 PM, xeno <69blacklab@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 1:04 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > infinite beings can't have complete self-knowledge.
>>
>> Consider instead, that God who possess all knowledge
>
> he can't possess all knowledge if he is infinite. that's because
> infinity is immeasurable. insisting otherwise is like insisting that
> he can make a square circle.

Rather, I'm simply noting that His knowledge is not bounded or limited
by issues of quantity or cardinality over any particular domain.

Regards,

Brock

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:17 pm
From: "Brock Organ"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe Brock IS God?

Jesus Christ is God. I'm just a sinner, saved by Christ's grace.

Regards,

Brock

==============================================================================
TOPIC: USA going to be forced to drop Capitalism and give back stolen rights!
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/43e1a31ac17fa3d8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:16 pm
From: thomas

There are lunatics on both sides of the pale.

On Dec 2, 6:36 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Yeah, you see what I'm saying...theists understand shit.
>
> On Dec 2, 7:33 pm, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I agree,
>
> > Only God will validate this country.
>
> > thomas
>
> > On Dec 2, 6:18 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > Whheeeee--AHHHHHH! Boogeyboogeyboogeyboo! I love you, Stoney.
>
> > > On Dec 1, 3:12 am, Stonethatbleeds <fb...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > Yes the USA will be forced soon to
> > > > 1) Change to metric
> > > > 2) give people the cities they want that are free of products like
> > > > tobacco, booze or bad medical products or coffee, any combination or
> > > > all so the children be never exposed to such terrible things. freedom
> > > > is not to even know it existed or does out there in some city.
>
> > > > The USA discriminates against children women races religions and all
> > > > kinds of hum rights all in the boast of freedom and democracy!
> > > > In the USA you do not have the right to live a city of
> > > > Gays and just gays
> > > > medical people and just medical people
> > > > a race of people and just a race of people
> > > > a set mix of races of people
> > > > a set goal of breeding for specific attributes.
> > > > a complete city with no children and no breeders.
> > > > a complete city that has no money or need of money.
> > > > A communist city
> > > > a socialist city
> > > > A city of just one religion
>
> > > > USA discriminates against just about all kind of tribal slants
> > > > possible for the most dysfunctional one of Capitalism and elections
> > > > that make no sense, and are not even close to have morals or logic to
> > > > them to serve the people.
>
> > > > USA is Broke and is a country that betrays its own People by refusing
> > > > any kind of freedom other than the random and ext6remes of Capitalism
> > > > that never in history has worked for Humanity to do anything but war
> > > > and cheat each other to cause wars.
>
> > > > No freedom to be what you are in your own city that is apart of the
> > > > others, then the USA discriminates against you all, and you are all
> > > > too blind to know what you don't have. Ape Humans simply are too blind
> > > > to know what is missing of the puzzle they never could and can't
> > > > solve.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:19 pm
From: Dev

Yeah. Keep us away from them lunatics, thomas.

On Dec 2, 8:16 pm, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are lunatics on both sides of the pale.
>
> On Dec 2, 6:36 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yeah, you see what I'm saying...theists understand shit.
>
> > On Dec 2, 7:33 pm, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I agree,
>
> > > Only God will validate this country.
>
> > > thomas
>
> > > On Dec 2, 6:18 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > Whheeeee--AHHHHHH! Boogeyboogeyboogeyboo! I love you, Stoney.
>
> > > > On Dec 1, 3:12 am, Stonethatbleeds <fb...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > Yes the USA will be forced soon to
> > > > > 1) Change to metric
> > > > > 2) give people the cities they want that are free of products like
> > > > > tobacco, booze or bad medical products or coffee, any combination or
> > > > > all so the children be never exposed to such terrible things. freedom
> > > > > is not to even know it existed or does out there in some city.
>
> > > > > The USA discriminates against children women races religions and all
> > > > > kinds of hum rights all in the boast of freedom and democracy!
> > > > > In the USA you do not have the right to live a city of
> > > > > Gays and just gays
> > > > > medical people and just medical people
> > > > > a race of people and just a race of people
> > > > > a set mix of races of people
> > > > > a set goal of breeding for specific attributes.
> > > > > a complete city with no children and no breeders.
> > > > > a complete city that has no money or need of money.
> > > > > A communist city
> > > > > a socialist city
> > > > > A city of just one religion
>
> > > > > USA discriminates against just about all kind of tribal slants
> > > > > possible for the most dysfunctional one of Capitalism and elections
> > > > > that make no sense, and are not even close to have morals or logic to
> > > > > them to serve the people.
>
> > > > > USA is Broke and is a country that betrays its own People by refusing
> > > > > any kind of freedom other than the random and ext6remes of Capitalism
> > > > > that never in history has worked for Humanity to do anything but war
> > > > > and cheat each other to cause wars.
>
> > > > > No freedom to be what you are in your own city that is apart of the
> > > > > others, then the USA discriminates against you all, and you are all
> > > > > too blind to know what you don't have. Ape Humans simply are too blind
> > > > > to know what is missing of the puzzle they never could and can't
> > > > > solve.- 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: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:22 pm
From: thomas

I wish I could.

On Dec 2, 7:19 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Yeah. Keep us away from them lunatics, thomas.
>
> On Dec 2, 8:16 pm, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > There are lunatics on both sides of the pale.
>
> > On Dec 2, 6:36 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > Yeah, you see what I'm saying...theists understand shit.
>
> > > On Dec 2, 7:33 pm, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I agree,
>
> > > > Only God will validate this country.
>
> > > > thomas
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 6:18 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > Whheeeee--AHHHHHH! Boogeyboogeyboogeyboo! I love you, Stoney.
>
> > > > > On Dec 1, 3:12 am, Stonethatbleeds <fb...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Yes the USA will be forced soon to
> > > > > > 1) Change to metric
> > > > > > 2) give people the cities they want that are free of products like
> > > > > > tobacco, booze or bad medical products or coffee, any combination or
> > > > > > all so the children be never exposed to such terrible things. freedom
> > > > > > is not to even know it existed or does out there in some city.
>
> > > > > > The USA discriminates against children women races religions and all
> > > > > > kinds of hum rights all in the boast of freedom and democracy!
> > > > > > In the USA you do not have the right to live a city of
> > > > > > Gays and just gays
> > > > > > medical people and just medical people
> > > > > > a race of people and just a race of people
> > > > > > a set mix of races of people
> > > > > > a set goal of breeding for specific attributes.
> > > > > > a complete city with no children and no breeders.
> > > > > > a complete city that has no money or need of money.
> > > > > > A communist city
> > > > > > a socialist city
> > > > > > A city of just one religion
>
> > > > > > USA discriminates against just about all kind of tribal slants
> > > > > > possible for the most dysfunctional one of Capitalism and elections
> > > > > > that make no sense, and are not even close to have morals or logic to
> > > > > > them to serve the people.
>
> > > > > > USA is Broke and is a country that betrays its own People by refusing
> > > > > > any kind of freedom other than the random and ext6remes of Capitalism
> > > > > > that never in history has worked for Humanity to do anything but war
> > > > > > and cheat each other to cause wars.
>
> > > > > > No freedom to be what you are in your own city that is apart of the
> > > > > > others, then the USA discriminates against you all, and you are all
> > > > > > too blind to know what you don't have. Ape Humans simply are too blind
> > > > > > to know what is missing of the puzzle they never could and can't
> > > > > > solve.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:17 pm
From: Dev

If you tied a couple traffic cones to a pillow, he'd think it was a
pretty little girl. But he'd probably try and flip it over and use it
like a pretty little boy.

On Dec 2, 8:03 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > I don't think so. You haven't seen that horny motherfucker fight for
> > that goat.
>
> Given how easily deceived he is (what with thinking that merely signing his
> name in a post will completely fool people into thinking it was his
> writing), we could probably tie a couple of traffic cones onto a large
> pillow and he'd fuck it without knowing the difference.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 7:45 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 12:01 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 30, 2:26 am, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > the question is not IF Jesus existed (He did)
>
> > > > > chx
> > > > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > > > would tell us to, if he were real.
>
> > > > > Now that's logical faith!
>
> > > > chx
> > > > what is this...impersonation week??? you are the second one to do
> > > > this. i thought it was AIDS week. this is bullshit i say and must be
> > > > rooted out. the first one i could say OK, but this is now ridiculous
> > > > and MUST STOP. i don't even think it is funny. you are misleading the
> > > > others into thinking i am false in what i stand for. this is more
> > > > serious than i first thought.
>
> > > Wow, I never knew it was this easy to get checkers' goat. This could be
> > fun!
>
> > > > good bye to you.
>
> > > > > On Nov 29, 2:36 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 29, 11:17 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 4:15 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <
>
> > > > > > > ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 29, 12:28 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 29, 3:14 pm, LedZepp <FledZeppe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > As an atheist, I believe in the historical Jesus. There's
> > > > overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > > evidence that he existed. His divinity though is for
> > > > Christians.
>
> > > > > > > > > What is the "overwhelming" evidence?
>
> > > > > > > > If no one named Jesus existed, from where do we get the name
> > Jesus?
>
> > > > > > > A Mexican guy ;-)
>
> > > > > > > I believe that was an extremely common name at the time.
>
> > > > > > > Somewhat like being called Bob in North America.
>
> > > > > > chx
> > > > > > the question is not IF Jesus existed (He did) the question is; was
> > He
> > > > > > who He claimed to be and could He do what they claimed He did. most
> > > > > > scholars are in one that Jesus did exist.
>
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> > > > > > > "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free
> > > > speech and
> > > > > > > assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function
> > of
> > > > speech
> > > > > > > to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D.
> > > > Brandeis, US
> > > > > > > Supreme Court Justice- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:34 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

I'm trying to decide if kiddie fucking is a step up from bestiality or a
step down. I guess it's a step laterally.

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Dev <thedeviliam@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>
> If you tied a couple traffic cones to a pillow, he'd think it was a
> pretty little girl. But he'd probably try and flip it over and use it
> like a pretty little boy.
>
> On Dec 2, 8:03 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think so. You haven't seen that horny motherfucker fight for
> > > that goat.
> >
> > Given how easily deceived he is (what with thinking that merely signing
> his
> > name in a post will completely fool people into thinking it was his
> > writing), we could probably tie a couple of traffic cones onto a large
> > pillow and he'd fuck it without knowing the difference.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 2, 7:45 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 12:01 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Nov 30, 2:26 am, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > the question is not IF Jesus existed (He did)
> >
> > > > > > chx
> > > > > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years
> of
> > > > > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have
> produced
> > > > > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why
> Dev
> > > > > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > > > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS
> and
> > > > > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like
> Jesus
> > > > > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> >
> > > > > > Now that's logical faith!
> >
> > > > > chx
> > > > > what is this...impersonation week??? you are the second one to do
> > > > > this. i thought it was AIDS week. this is bullshit i say and must
> be
> > > > > rooted out. the first one i could say OK, but this is now
> ridiculous
> > > > > and MUST STOP. i don't even think it is funny. you are misleading
> the
> > > > > others into thinking i am false in what i stand for. this is more
> > > > > serious than i first thought.
> >
> > > > Wow, I never knew it was this easy to get checkers' goat. This could
> be
> > > fun!
> >
> > > > > good bye to you.
> >
> > > > > > On Nov 29, 2:36 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Nov 29, 11:17 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 4:15 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <
> >
> > > > > > > > ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 29, 12:28 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 29, 3:14 pm, LedZepp <FledZeppe...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > As an atheist, I believe in the historical Jesus.
> There's
> > > > > overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > > > evidence that he existed. His divinity though is for
> > > > > Christians.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > What is the "overwhelming" evidence?
> >
> > > > > > > > > If no one named Jesus existed, from where do we get the
> name
> > > Jesus?
> >
> > > > > > > > A Mexican guy ;-)
> >
> > > > > > > > I believe that was an extremely common name at the time.
> >
> > > > > > > > Somewhat like being called Bob in North America.
> >
> > > > > > > chx
> > > > > > > the question is not IF Jesus existed (He did) the question is;
> was
> > > He
> > > > > > > who He claimed to be and could He do what they claimed He did.
> most
> > > > > > > scholars are in one that Jesus did exist.
> >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> > > > > > > > "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of
> free
> > > > > speech and
> > > > > > > > assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the
> function
> > > of
> > > > > speech
> > > > > > > > to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D.
> > > > > Brandeis, US
> > > > > > > > Supreme Court Justice- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:31 pm
From: thomas

Christ is far beyond any care of this world.

On Dec 2, 4:31 pm, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Christ is King.
>
> On Dec 2, 11:21 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > And nicely reported on.
>
> >http://www.yahoo.com/s/996016- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:32 pm
From: "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"

On Dec 1, 6:20 pm, gousaphe <dangdang...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A categorical no is the answer to your question.
> For one, Jesus would not have in anyway tolerated hypocrites like the
> Pharisees and the Sadducee.

There are no Christian Pharisees or Saducees. So, a diversity similar
to the diversity in Judaism would not include Christian Pharisees or
Saducees.

> He was too a Jew and they have never tolerated him, had they?
> Two, one is Christian not because of idle belief but by learning and
> doing the words of Christ.

Then, do you ignore the rest of the words in the New Testament? "Words
of Christ" comprise a small fraction of the canonical gospels and the
rest of the New Testament has no "words of Christ".

> On Dec 1, 6:00 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Can anyone picture Christians accepting each other as Christian, and
> > wanting to identify themselves as Christian, in the face of such
> > (below) diversity of belief?
>
> > Lack of belief in afterlife (as represented by Natalie Portman):
> > On the concept of the afterlife, she comments "I don't believe in
> > that. I believe this is it, and I believe it's the best way to
> > live."[9] She has said that she feels more Jewish in the Holy Land and
> > that she would like to raise her children in the Jewish religion: "A
> > priority for me is definitely that I'd like to raise my kids Jewish,
> > but the ultimate thing is to have someone who is a good person and who
> > is a partner.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Portman
>
> > Reincarnation believing Rabbi revered:
> > Rabbi Manasseh ben Israel (1604-1657), one of the most revered Rabbis
> > in Israel, states in his book entitled Nishmat Hayyim: "The belief or
> > the doctrine of the transmigration of souls is a firm and infallible
> > dogma accepted by the whole assemblage of our church with one accord,
> > so that there is none to be found who would dare to deny it ...
> > Indeed, there is a great number of sages in Israel who hold firm to
> > this doctrine so that they made it a dogma, a fundamental point of our
> > religion. We are therefore in duty bound to obey and to accept this
> > dogma with acclamation ... as the truth of it has been incontestably
> > demonstrated by the Zohar, and all books of the Kabalists." (Nishmat
> > Hayyim)
>
> > Ressurection belief:
> > In contemporary Judaism, the traditional, mainstream view of
> > resurrection is maintained by the orthodox, but generally not by the
> > non-orthodox.
>
> > Belief in a soul:
> > Outside the orthodox fold, ordinary believers often accept the notion
> > of an immortal soul, not unlike the notion held by most Christians.
>
> > Lack of belief in afterlife:
> > many secular and Reform Jews continue to view themselves as part of
> > the tradition of Judaism, without adhering to any sort of afterlife
> > belief.
>
> >http://www.near-death.com/experiences/judaism06.html

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

Ranjit,

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

thomas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atheism vs Christianity

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Atheism-vs-Christianity - 25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links