http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity?hl=en
Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Can Christians tolerate each other as well as Jews can? - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/1f898d2ae6259b6c?hl=en
* Historical Precedence For Non-Violence in the Face of Irrational Injustice -
2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/6e541b28803148ed?hl=en
* Moderation in AvC - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/673043bbcc4e3339?hl=en
* Mark Shea: Padding the Case for the New Atheism - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/7086bf6a6cf6d81e?hl=en
* How do Christians avoid worshipping the wrong god? - 7 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/6d788c3a77b4c371?hl=en
* A N S W E R - M E ! ! ! - THE ACTUAL BAD ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL SITUATION
AROUND THE WORLD is the begining of the END of The WORLD ? ? ? ? ? - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/063e4e98eabc4942?hl=en
* Historical Peter Parker - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/dfb77186035b2555?hl=en
* Richard Dawkins PROOVES Many Christians are hypocrites just by babies - 2
messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/4f094650ef116536?hl=en
* Dan R. Smedra: The redefining of tolerance - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/933a1bfb5dac7034?hl=en
* Faux Pas Tolerance: Many Christians Are Hypocrites and Violate Code Of
Conduct - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/10b5c64fbe191c3d?hl=en
* A little help from the theist side for Brock, Checkers etc in debating with
atheists - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/8bae88aebb09d12f?hl=en
* Schism! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/8abd798698d5604e?hl=en
==============================================================================
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 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 12:42 pm
From: thea
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:07 AM, ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com <
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 2, 8:27 pm, gousaphe <dangdang...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In my opinion, there aren't much to learn from the New Testament
> > beside the words of Christ. The rest of the New Testament contains
> > mainly Paul's teachings.
>
> Even if Paul's teachings are not the same as Jesus' teachings, it
> doesn't follow that there's nothing to be learned from them. Indeed,
> it would be if Paul's teachings were a replica of Jesus' teachings
> that there would be nothing to learn from them. Perhaps you mean that
> whatever there is to learned from Paul's teachings, you don't find it
> worth learning.
I am questioning what I am reading because the Apostle Paul said that we
would be judged on judgement day by HIS Gospel. So, I think it best to take
Romans 10:9 as my salvation. Ephesians 1 as my present place and position,
and Thessalonians as my homegoing.
It all makes good sense when I do.
>
>
> > Paul was Saul and Saul was a persecutor of
> > Christians and of Christianity.
>
> He wasn't a persecutor of Christians at the time he wrote his
> epistles. In his epistles, does he acknowledge having been a
> persecutor of Christians or does he only acknowledges being a great
> sinner? It's the author of Acts who calls him a persecutor of
> Christians.
>
> > Paul taught things that he did not comprehend,
>
> Whereas Jesus comprehended everything he taught?
>
> > that was because he was
> > made a slave of Christianity,
> > 'He committed sins become the slave of sins.'
> > No offense, but Paul's words are the words of a slave.
> >
> > There are much to learn from the words of the prophets of the Old
> > Testament.
> >
> > On Dec 2, 8:32 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > > On Dec 1, 6:20 pm, gousaphe <dangdang...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > A categorical no is the answer to your question.
> > > > For one, Jesus would not have in anyway tolerated hypocrites like the
> > > > Pharisees and the Sadducee.
> >
> > > There are no Christian Pharisees or Saducees. So, a diversity similar
> > > to the diversity in Judaism would not include Christian Pharisees or
> > > Saducees.
> >
> > > > He was too a Jew and they have never tolerated him, had they?
> > > > Two, one is Christian not because of idle belief but by learning and
> > > > doing the words of Christ.
> >
> > > Then, do you ignore the rest of the words in the New Testament? "Words
> > > of Christ" comprise a small fraction of the canonical gospels and the
> > > rest of the New Testament has no "words of Christ".
> >
> > > > On Dec 1, 6:00 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <
> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Can anyone picture Christians accepting each other as Christian,
> and
> > > > > wanting to identify themselves as Christian, in the face of such
> > > > > (below) diversity of belief?
> >
> > > > > Lack of belief in afterlife (as represented by Natalie Portman):
> > > > > On the concept of the afterlife, she comments "I don't believe in
> > > > > that. I believe this is it, and I believe it's the best way to
> > > > > live."[9] She has said that she feels more Jewish in the Holy Land
> and
> > > > > that she would like to raise her children in the Jewish religion:
> "A
> > > > > priority for me is definitely that I'd like to raise my kids
> Jewish,
> > > > > but the ultimate thing is to have someone who is a good person and
> who
> > > > > is a partner.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Portman
> >
> > > > > Reincarnation believing Rabbi revered:
> > > > > Rabbi Manasseh ben Israel (1604-1657), one of the most revered
> Rabbis
> > > > > in Israel, states in his book entitled Nishmat Hayyim: "The belief
> or
> > > > > the doctrine of the transmigration of souls is a firm and
> infallible
> > > > > dogma accepted by the whole assemblage of our church with one
> accord,
> > > > > so that there is none to be found who would dare to deny it ...
> > > > > Indeed, there is a great number of sages in Israel who hold firm to
> > > > > this doctrine so that they made it a dogma, a fundamental point of
> our
> > > > > religion. We are therefore in duty bound to obey and to accept this
> > > > > dogma with acclamation ... as the truth of it has been
> incontestably
> > > > > demonstrated by the Zohar, and all books of the Kabalists."
> (Nishmat
> > > > > Hayyim)
> >
> > > > > Ressurection belief:
> > > > > In contemporary Judaism, the traditional, mainstream view of
> > > > > resurrection is maintained by the orthodox, but generally not by
> the
> > > > > non-orthodox.
> >
> > > > > Belief in a soul:
> > > > > Outside the orthodox fold, ordinary believers often accept the
> notion
> > > > > of an immortal soul, not unlike the notion held by most Christians.
> >
> > > > > Lack of belief in afterlife:
> > > > > many secular and Reform Jews continue to view themselves as part
> of
> > > > > the tradition of Judaism, without adhering to any sort of afterlife
> > > > > belief.
> >
> > > > >http://www.near-death.com/experiences/judaism06.html
> >
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Historical Precedence For Non-Violence in the Face of Irrational
Injustice
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/6e541b28803148ed?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 12:43 pm
From: Lawrey
Trance,
In answer to and not avoiding the kick-backs, I think there is
not a shadow of doubt but that violence played a huge part in
Britains eventual withdrawl from India after the 2nd world war.
Sticking my neck out I know and this is a personal opinion
from what little I know of events: We have to travel back to
the interference of the eigth president of the United States.
He undermined the whole idea of the British Empire, but the
beginning of the end came by way of a decision by an
officer of high rank who became fearful of the riots that had
broken out in Amritsar in the Punjab, he oredered his
men to shoot on the rioters and 379 were killed and many
injured. From then on the writing was on the wall.
But violence yes had a big influence, and the religious
factions fighting for supremacy were the main cause.
It has taken me ages to write this so forgive the brevity
because I find it almost impossible to write on this page.
It keeps freezing. Does anyone else have this problem?
On Dec 2, 6:21 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The main point here is simply to answer the following question, Lawrey.
>
> Did the British leave India because of threat of violence?
>
> Or because they couldn't govern anymore due to non-cooperation?
>
> I'm saying non-cooperation played the key role and not violence.
>
> Not that I wouldn't love to divert this thread into a lively discussion of
> the Indian Independence Movement, but it's really besides the point.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Trance,
>
> > For your information:
>
> > In spite of you feelings to the contrary
> > and I use the term feelings ap' emotions.;)
>
> > The independence of india in August 1947 was the
> > result of a long process which started after the
> > First World War. Indeed in 1919 Parliament had
> > passed the Government of india Act which was
> > designed to organize provincial governments in
> > india. Then, before 1939 and the outbreak of the
> > Second World War, there were moves by Great
> > Britain to give more self-government to india.
>
> > Both major parties of the british National
> > Government were committed to giving more autonomy
> > to the eleven Indian Provinces through the 1935
> > Government of india Act. Even if the provincial
> > governments had more and more power, the essential
> > functions were still in hands of the british
> > Viceroy and the british government was still
> > responsible for foreign and defence affairs.
>
> > As Britain proposed a federal solution to india's
> > problems, independence movements – such as the
> > Congress with Gandhi at its head – asked for more
> > autonomy. But the Declaration of War in 1939 was
> > a crucial step towards independence of india.
> > Indeed the Congress Party together with
> > nationalists saw in the war the opportunity to
> > achieve their goals. They resigned from their
> > provincial governments, they refused to support
> > the Indian war effort and they claimed that india
> > must immediately be declared an independent nation.
> > Moreover the Muslim League demanded in 1937 the
> > creation of a separate Muslim state.
>
> > Yet Britain's refusal to do anything during the
> > war contrasted sharply with the separatists'
> > growing resolution to obtain the end of the
> > british rule. After the end of the war in May
> > 1945 and the General election in Great Britain,
> > the Labour government, with Clement Attlee as
> > Prime Minister, was committed to giving india
> > independence as quickly as possible. in spite
> > of his fear of seeing the partition of india,
> > Attlee announced that Britain would leave india
> > whatever happened in June 1948.
>
> > In fact independence was moved up to August 1947.
> > This raises an important issue: why did Britain give
> > india independence in 1947? why neither before nor after?
> > Yet india was not the only colony to obtain independence
> > since the post-war period was marked by the fall of the
> > british Empire everywhere in the world. So to answer that
> > question we have to take into account the particular
> > circumstances relating to Britain's situation in 1947.
> > Therefore we can find three main reasons for india's
> > independence in 1947.
>
> > On Dec 2, 1:54 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > Okay, I think this is a good counterargument to that--admittedly,
> > > > anticipated. Here's the source:
>
> > > >http://www.tamilnation.org/ideology/neuman_on_non_violence.htm
>
> > > > ---
>
> > > > Gandhi's nonviolence can't have been successful, because there was
> > > > nothing he would have called a success. Gandhi's priorities may have
> > > > shifted over time: he said, that, if he changed his mind from one week
> > > > to the next, it was because he had learned something in between. But
> > > > it seems fair to say that he wanted independence from British rule, a
> > > > united India, and nonviolence itself, an end to civil or ethnic strife
> > > > on the Indian subcontinent. What he got was India 1947: partition, and
> > > > one of the most horrifying outbursts of bloodshed and cruelty in the
> > > > whole bloody, cruel history of the postwar world. The antagonism
> > > > between Muslims and Hindus, so painful to Gandhi, still seems almost
> > > > set in stone. These consequences alone would be sufficient to count
> > > > his project as a tragic failure.
>
> > > The fact that bloodshed occurred and that antagonism existed has nothing
> > to
> > > do with whether the strategy of non-cooperation worked.
>
> > > It's quite well known by most Indians that the Religious strife that
> > > occurred during Partition was instigated by the British before they left.
>
> > > The British during their entire time in India played the Divide and Rule
> > > game in order to maintain control of the very large and diverse
> > population.
>
> > > What of independence itself? Historians might argue about its causes,
>
> > > > but I doubt any of them would attribute it primarily to Gandhi's
> > > > campaign.
>
> > > Of course not, but these policies of non-cooperation (some of which were
> > led
> > > by Gandhi) amounted to some very strategic fights which certainly
> > > contributed to the British leaving simply because they were not able to
> > > maintain control of a country where non-cooperation was the name of the
> > > game.
>
> > > However, that wasn't the only strategy used by the Indian Freedom
> > Fighters
> > > and the bombing of trains and other terrorist attacks didn't contribute
> > to
> > > the British leaving either.
>
> > > It contributed to and justified the large scale suppression and massacres
> > > that occurred by the British against the Indians though.
>
> > > And direct links can be shown historically.
>
> > > The British began contemplating--admittedly with varying
>
> > > > degrees of sincerity--some measure of autonomy for India before Gandhi
> > > > did anything, as early as 1917. A.J.P.Taylor says that after World War
> > > > I, the British were beginning to find India a liability, because India
> > > > was once again producing its own cotton, and buying cheap textiles
> > > > from Japan. Later, India's strategic importance, while valued by many,
> > > > became questioned by some, who saw the oil of the Middle East and the
> > > > Suez canal as far more important. By the end of the Second World War,
> > > > Britain's will to hold onto its empire had pretty well crumbled, for
> > > > reasons having little or nothing to do with nonviolence.
>
> > > Not true. Had India been easy to control like Canada was, the British
> > still
> > > had a lot to gain by staying.
>
> > > Because of all the dissension, the economic benefit was too small to
> > justify
> > > the military and other resources required to suppress and control these
> > > movements.
>
> > > > But this is the least important of the reasons why Gandhi cannot be
> > > > said to have won independence for India. It was not his saintliness or
> > > > the disruption he caused that impressed the British. What impressed
> > > > them was that the country seemed (and was) about to erupt into a
> > > > slaughter. The colonial authorities could see no way to stop it.
>
> > > Nonsense. The colonial authorities instigated it as I said it was part of
> > > British Divide and Rule policy which they had used consistently in India
> > > since their arrival.
>
> > > What
>
> > > > they could see was the increasingly violent antagonism between Muslims
> > > > and Hindus, both of whom detected, in the distance, the emergence of a
> > > > power vacuum they rushed to fill. This violence included the "Great
> > > > Calcutta Killing" of August 1946, when at least 4000 people died in
> > > > three days.
>
> > > This has nothing to do with whether the non-cooperation policies were
> > > successful.
>
> > > It has everything to do with the fact that the Colonial authorities
> > > instigated these situations in order to weaken the resistance against
> > their
> > > rule in India.
>
> > > > Another factor was the terrorism--and this need not be a term of
> > > > condemnation--quite regularly employed against the British. It was not
> > > > enough to do much harm, but more than enough to warn them that India
> > > > was becoming more trouble than it was worth.
>
> > > And yes this was a factor and he actually contradicts himself here
> > because
> > > the fact was that the British would have stayed if they had been able to
> > > easily control the population. Gandhis policies of non-cooperation
> > > contributed hugely to this.
>
> > > > All things considered,
> > > > the well-founded fear of generalized violence had far more effect on
> > > > British resolve than Gandhi ever did. He may have been a brilliant and
> > > > creative political thinker, but he was not a victor.
>
> > > He contradicts himself again because earlier he correctly states that the
> > > terrorism at the time was not wide-spread and inconsequential.
>
> > > It was the non-cooperation and the general resistance that was the
> > problem.
>
> > > Those who advocated violence in India accomplished nothing.
>
> > > Non-cooperation forced them out.
>
> > > Gandhi was only one player in the movement of the Indian Freedom Fighters
> > > and the one thing they all united on was non-cooperation.
>
> > > > ---
>
> > > > I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a
> > > > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material. I
> > > > predicted that the three examples he anticipated would, in fact, be
> > > > the only ones that initially emerged--which wasn't exactly a
> > > > Nostradamus-type prediction, because it does seem we are dealing with
> > > > modern mythology along the lines of "the Founding Fathers were
> > > > fundies" and "Hitler was an atheist". Maybe the revelation of the
> > > > source material will require others to become more creative, maybe the
> > > > source material itself will encourage some to provide compelling
> > > > counterarguments.
>
> > > > In terms of Gandhi, I will also quote Sam Harris:
>
> > > > ---
>
> > > > The only way to rule out collateral
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:04 pm
From: Lawrey
Trance,
I love you more than ever !! Your suggestion of Firefox
solved the problem immediately. Grateful Thanks. ;)
On Dec 3, 8:43 pm, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Trance,
>
> In answer to and not avoiding the kick-backs, I think there is
> not a shadow of doubt but that violence played a huge part in
> Britains eventual withdrawl from India after the 2nd world war.
>
> Sticking my neck out I know and this is a personal opinion
> from what little I know of events: We have to travel back to
> the interference of the eigth president of the United States.
> He undermined the whole idea of the British Empire, but the
> beginning of the end came by way of a decision by an
> officer of high rank who became fearful of the riots that had
> broken out in Amritsar in the Punjab, he oredered his
> men to shoot on the rioters and 379 were killed and many
> injured. From then on the writing was on the wall.
> But violence yes had a big influence, and the religious
> factions fighting for supremacy were the main cause.
>
> It has taken me ages to write this so forgive the brevity
> because I find it almost impossible to write on this page.
> It keeps freezing. Does anyone else have this problem?
>
> On Dec 2, 6:21 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The main point here is simply to answer the following question, Lawrey.
>
> > Did the British leave India because of threat of violence?
>
> > Or because they couldn't govern anymore due to non-cooperation?
>
> > I'm saying non-cooperation played the key role and not violence.
>
> > Not that I wouldn't love to divert this thread into a lively discussion of
> > the Indian Independence Movement, but it's really besides the point.
>
> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > Trance,
>
> > > For your information:
>
> > > In spite of you feelings to the contrary
> > > and I use the term feelings ap' emotions.;)
>
> > > The independence of india in August 1947 was the
> > > result of a long process which started after the
> > > First World War. Indeed in 1919 Parliament had
> > > passed the Government of india Act which was
> > > designed to organize provincial governments in
> > > india. Then, before 1939 and the outbreak of the
> > > Second World War, there were moves by Great
> > > Britain to give more self-government to india.
>
> > > Both major parties of the british National
> > > Government were committed to giving more autonomy
> > > to the eleven Indian Provinces through the 1935
> > > Government of india Act. Even if the provincial
> > > governments had more and more power, the essential
> > > functions were still in hands of the british
> > > Viceroy and the british government was still
> > > responsible for foreign and defence affairs.
>
> > > As Britain proposed a federal solution to india's
> > > problems, independence movements – such as the
> > > Congress with Gandhi at its head – asked for more
> > > autonomy. But the Declaration of War in 1939 was
> > > a crucial step towards independence of india.
> > > Indeed the Congress Party together with
> > > nationalists saw in the war the opportunity to
> > > achieve their goals. They resigned from their
> > > provincial governments, they refused to support
> > > the Indian war effort and they claimed that india
> > > must immediately be declared an independent nation.
> > > Moreover the Muslim League demanded in 1937 the
> > > creation of a separate Muslim state.
>
> > > Yet Britain's refusal to do anything during the
> > > war contrasted sharply with the separatists'
> > > growing resolution to obtain the end of the
> > > british rule. After the end of the war in May
> > > 1945 and the General election in Great Britain,
> > > the Labour government, with Clement Attlee as
> > > Prime Minister, was committed to giving india
> > > independence as quickly as possible. in spite
> > > of his fear of seeing the partition of india,
> > > Attlee announced that Britain would leave india
> > > whatever happened in June 1948.
>
> > > In fact independence was moved up to August 1947.
> > > This raises an important issue: why did Britain give
> > > india independence in 1947? why neither before nor after?
> > > Yet india was not the only colony to obtain independence
> > > since the post-war period was marked by the fall of the
> > > british Empire everywhere in the world. So to answer that
> > > question we have to take into account the particular
> > > circumstances relating to Britain's situation in 1947.
> > > Therefore we can find three main reasons for india's
> > > independence in 1947.
>
> > > On Dec 2, 1:54 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > Okay, I think this is a good counterargument to that--admittedly,
> > > > > anticipated. Here's the source:
>
> > > > >http://www.tamilnation.org/ideology/neuman_on_non_violence.htm
>
> > > > > ---
>
> > > > > Gandhi's nonviolence can't have been successful, because there was
> > > > > nothing he would have called a success. Gandhi's priorities may have
> > > > > shifted over time: he said, that, if he changed his mind from one week
> > > > > to the next, it was because he had learned something in between. But
> > > > > it seems fair to say that he wanted independence from British rule, a
> > > > > united India, and nonviolence itself, an end to civil or ethnic strife
> > > > > on the Indian subcontinent. What he got was India 1947: partition, and
> > > > > one of the most horrifying outbursts of bloodshed and cruelty in the
> > > > > whole bloody, cruel history of the postwar world. The antagonism
> > > > > between Muslims and Hindus, so painful to Gandhi, still seems almost
> > > > > set in stone. These consequences alone would be sufficient to count
> > > > > his project as a tragic failure.
>
> > > > The fact that bloodshed occurred and that antagonism existed has nothing
> > > to
> > > > do with whether the strategy of non-cooperation worked.
>
> > > > It's quite well known by most Indians that the Religious strife that
> > > > occurred during Partition was instigated by the British before they left.
>
> > > > The British during their entire time in India played the Divide and Rule
> > > > game in order to maintain control of the very large and diverse
> > > population.
>
> > > > What of independence itself? Historians might argue about its causes,
>
> > > > > but I doubt any of them would attribute it primarily to Gandhi's
> > > > > campaign.
>
> > > > Of course not, but these policies of non-cooperation (some of which were
> > > led
> > > > by Gandhi) amounted to some very strategic fights which certainly
> > > > contributed to the British leaving simply because they were not able to
> > > > maintain control of a country where non-cooperation was the name of the
> > > > game.
>
> > > > However, that wasn't the only strategy used by the Indian Freedom
> > > Fighters
> > > > and the bombing of trains and other terrorist attacks didn't contribute
> > > to
> > > > the British leaving either.
>
> > > > It contributed to and justified the large scale suppression and massacres
> > > > that occurred by the British against the Indians though.
>
> > > > And direct links can be shown historically.
>
> > > > The British began contemplating--admittedly with varying
>
> > > > > degrees of sincerity--some measure of autonomy for India before Gandhi
> > > > > did anything, as early as 1917. A.J.P.Taylor says that after World War
> > > > > I, the British were beginning to find India a liability, because India
> > > > > was once again producing its own cotton, and buying cheap textiles
> > > > > from Japan. Later, India's strategic importance, while valued by many,
> > > > > became questioned by some, who saw the oil of the Middle East and the
> > > > > Suez canal as far more important. By the end of the Second World War,
> > > > > Britain's will to hold onto its empire had pretty well crumbled, for
> > > > > reasons having little or nothing to do with nonviolence.
>
> > > > Not true. Had India been easy to control like Canada was, the British
> > > still
> > > > had a lot to gain by staying.
>
> > > > Because of all the dissension, the economic benefit was too small to
> > > justify
> > > > the military and other resources required to suppress and control these
> > > > movements.
>
> > > > > But this is the least important of the reasons why Gandhi cannot be
> > > > > said to have won independence for India. It was not his saintliness or
> > > > > the disruption he caused that impressed the British. What impressed
> > > > > them was that the country seemed (and was) about to erupt into a
> > > > > slaughter. The colonial authorities could see no way to stop it.
>
> > > > Nonsense. The colonial authorities instigated it as I said it was part of
> > > > British Divide and Rule policy which they had used consistently in India
> > > > since their arrival.
>
> > > > What
>
> > > > > they could see was the increasingly violent antagonism between Muslims
> > > > > and Hindus, both of whom detected, in the distance, the emergence of a
> > > > > power vacuum they rushed to fill. This violence included the "Great
> > > > > Calcutta Killing" of August 1946, when at least 4000 people died in
> > > > > three days.
>
> > > > This has nothing to do with whether the non-cooperation policies were
> > > > successful.
>
> > > > It has everything to do with the fact that the Colonial authorities
> > > > instigated these situations in order to weaken the resistance against
> > > their
> > > > rule in India.
>
> > > > > Another factor was the terrorism--and this need not be a term of
> > > > > condemnation--quite regularly employed against the British. It was not
> > > > > enough to do much harm, but more than enough to warn them that India
> > > > > was becoming more trouble than it was worth.
>
> > > > And yes this was a factor and he actually contradicts himself here
> > > because
> > > > the fact was that the British would have stayed if they had been able to
> > > > easily control the population. Gandhis policies of non-cooperation
> > > > contributed hugely to this.
>
> > > > > All things considered,
> > > > > the
>
> ...
>
> read more »
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Moderation in AvC
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/673043bbcc4e3339?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 12:43 pm
From: Answer_42
On Dec 3, 2:48 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> chx
> you knew you were wrong after i pointed it out to you. you even
> offered to delete your entry, why? because you knew. now you see that
> Rap is backing you, you are being tough.
And now you are either dishonest or lying.
IIRC, I stated that if it turned out that it was not allowed according
to Goolge, I would delete it myself (I am too titred to dig it up now,
heck, you made the claim, you prove me wriong right here).
Makiing fun of somebody in a post that bears your own name/handle is
not against any regulations, and certainly not illegal in any sense of
the term.
> in fact everyone knows this was impersonating someone
Right, so according to you, the whole cast of SNL and Mad TV should be
arrested becasue they have impersonated American an International
public figures, including Bush himself.
This must be treason.
No, you idiot. They cannot be arrested because it is clear they are
impersonating, they are not sitting in the oval office and making
actual decisions and phone calls as if they were the president. Just
like it is clear I am impersonating you when I post the message using
my OWN handle, you dim wit.
> and now selling
> all sorts of shit to make it go away. it is illegal.
If you believe that, you are retarded.
Now stop whining and wasting our time, you piece of shit who likes to
make fun of people who share their experiences with mental illnesses
(That is way more damnable than anything I did, and you claim that
there is a bias? The only bias I see is all those theists not saying
anything about your despicable behaviour back then, on that thread.)
_____________________________________________
Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
understand.
-- Frederick the Great
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 12:54 pm
From: checkers
chx
good, so let me share a secret with you since you have not done your
homework. but first i want to make sure of your knowledge on this
claim of deleting the post is firm.
how would you know if a post was deleted within a topic thread?
oh! don't bother wasting our time, i'll tell you to save youse days of
research.
it is like this...wait, i'll just paste it from Google help (i
stumbled apon it at one time, i have a good memory);
***
Why does it say there are more posts in a thread than there really
are?
In the Discussions section of each group, you'll see a list of recent
topics, along with the number of messages posted to each thread. Note
that if a message is deleted from a thread, the total message count
won't decrease. For example, if there are five posts in a thread and
you delete one, the message count will still show five posts even
though only four now appear in the thread.
So, if the number of messages you can see in a thread is smaller than
the number listed in the Discussions section, there's no need to get
out the magnifying glass; it's likely that someone posted a message
that was later deleted.
***
if you take the trouble to go check that topic thread you will find
exactly 451 posts as the number indicates. this proves no post was
deleted.
if you read carefully you would notice that Keith changed TU's handle,
nothing was said about that. in some other thread an atheist did same
to keith and he went nuts about it, again nothing happened. damn, i
have a good memory ;)
ok, so who is the next DONKEY. why won't the moderators show?
On Dec 3, 10:28 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2:42 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Bring it up with Google. No one is getting banned for making fun of
> > > what you said. Sorry.
>
> > chx
> > Rap, first of all, i was wandering who would be saddled for this job.
> > i see they saddled you as the donkey for the job and thats OK!
>
> > now let me point out that i followed that topic thread. this is why i
> > know about it. you did NOT delete the post you claim as it did NOT
> > exist. anyone is free to go to that topic and follow the coversation.
> > the story will unfold as it is read.
>
> > here is the link to the topic;http://groups.google.co.za/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_threa...
>
> > just go back to post 150 - 175 is where it all started. no one even
> > knew it happened as it was hidden text. Keith probabilly picket it up
> > by chance. he brings it up on the next page and still no one cared
> > until Bonfly mentioned it. this is where the landslide started.
>
> You are really slow, aren't you?
>
> The post rappoccio is referring to has been deleted. The one you use
> as evidence has not been deleted because it was not the actual reason
> for which that asshole got the boot for.
>
> Want ptoof of that?
>
> Here is what Keith wrote in post #156:
> "
> Thank you. And BTW I do not have an email address at
> we.hate.spammers.com
> I never had an email at that address, never authorized, received or
> sent an
> email at that dot com. I may report it to the FBI if the problem is
> not
> corrected. I am referring to "archiver mailfighters," where the
> fraudulent
> email address identifies my posts to this group as kmacnevins at
> we.hate.spammers
> "
>
> Here, Keith is telling us that this asshole spoofed him and used some
> made up email address that was made of Keith's name and the
> spammers.com bit.
>
> The post you pasted here does not show that email address.
>
> If I am wrong, rappoccio will clarify it, but this is ow I see it.
>
> Also, what I did is totally different.
>
> That asshole responded with his own text, but changed the quoted text
> to make it appear as though he was responding to what somebody else
> had written, as if he had nothing to do with that quoted text.
>
> I posted using my handle making fun of you, not even trying to
> disguise it, because it was a joke. Only you, with your limited brain
> capacity, due to a long lack of use caused by your deluded beliefs,
> can try to imagine that I actually earnestly pretended to be you.
> Why would I pretend to be such a low life?
>
> Anybody with half a brain would have seen that.
>
> Not my problem that you do not have a real sense of humour and enjoy
> playing at being victimized, or else, why would you over-react like
> that?
> Nobody going through the threads will ever think that messages from
> ME, with MY handle, were from you.
> If they did, they might ask for you to be banned for spoofing me!
>
> > Bonfly's comment post;
> > ***
> > I'd like to think I dislike Keith as much as - if not more than -
> > anybody on this site. Nonetheless, if that was a bullshit quote that
> > Keith never wrote then I support him on this and ultimatenutcase
> > should get the boot pronto.
>
> You are proudly stating that even Bonfly agreed with your assessment.
>
> Right here it says that he was reacting to the misquoting, not the
> spoofing, which was the ultimate reason for the banning.
>
> Find the email address that that asshole used that Keith
> mentioned, ... we.hate.spammers.com...
> All you can see are gmail addresses.
>
> You can't see it because it was deleted.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 3, 4:05 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > That is someone impersonating me. I wonder if it is an ultimatenutcase? Even
> > > the anti-theist moderator will not let you get away with that. Good-bye to
> > > you.
> > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Are you kidding me!
> > > > On Feb 3, 3:37 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I am a homosexual who engages in ultimate butt sex with my boyfriend
> > > > > so I have no worries about getting my lover pregnant or anything like
> > > > that.
> > > > > I love to kiss his big hairy balls and really get it on knowing that
> > > > nothing
> > > > > can go wrong inside his colon:
> > > > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Women do not have the right to choose to murder another human being,
> > > > > > except in evil societies controlled by Satan. Murder is just plain
> > > > > > wrong. And it doesn't matter how much you bullshit on and on with your
> > > > > > puffed up self important attitudes you are a freaking murdering pig
> > > > > > slut if you kill an unborn baby. You should be sent to the gas chamber
> > > > > > or whatever they kill murderers with in your country. Damn you
> > > > > > murdering bitches
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ambassador From Hell
> > > > > Keith MacNevins - Elk Grove Village, IL USA
> > > > > copyright
>
> > ***
>
> > this is the point where all hell breaks loose and all the atheists
> > jumps on the wagon.
>
> Nope.
>
> It is the point where you confirm what we already suspected: You are a
> blabbering idiot.
>
> > now you tell me, WHAT did you delete. yep, the donkey always comes
> > short. not one moderator came forward as yet. they rather send a
> > donkey. you are welcome to read further. it flows perfectly without
> > signs of any post deleted.
>
> That does not prove anything.
> If the asshole had replied twice to the same message, and one of those
> were deleted, you would get what you see now.
>
> > do you see what you have become, need i say
> > it?
>
> No, you can keep your deluded illogical assumptions to yourself.
>
> > BTW, why say i should leave if i don't like the atheists unethical
> > ways?...or was that a wish for me to leave? am i too smart for youse?
>
> chx
> Me checkers... you evil satanists
> Me too intelligence... yuk yuk yuk
> ______________________________________________
> Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
> understand.
> -- Frederick the Great- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:03 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"
Patiently explaining anything to Checkers is a waste of time because as this
thread proves he's a fucking liar.
The irony is just too precious.
First he complains that we are not banning atheists for "impersonating" him
because we are "biased".
You explain that the history of the group shows we are not when complaints
are legitimate atheists as well as theists are banned.
Then Checkers uses the example of Keith to prove to everyone that he's a
liar.
Keith is a theist and the atheists defended his right not to be spoofed, not
a single theist spoke up in that thread against what ultimatetruth did. It
was the atheists who defended Keith, a theist whom we all disliked. This of
course means that we are biased according to Chx.
Now Checkers is whining that ultimatetruth shouldn't have been banned.
It would be nice if he was consistent and would make up his fucking mind on
which position it is that he's taking.
Essentially Checkers is a nasty piece of shit and a drama queen who
fabricates issues.
Ultimately it won't matter what the Mods do or say, Chx will find fault in
it.
If Chx thinks we're so terrible here I think he should leave.
I have no intention of wasting my time dealing with his incessant whining
and malicious lies.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:19 PM, rappoccio <rappoccio@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just an FYI:
>
> From
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonator
>
> An impersonator is someone who imitates or copies the behavior or
> actions of another. There are many reasons for someone to be an
> impersonator, some common ones being as follows:
>
> - Legally: An entertainer impersonates a celebrity, generally for
> entertainment, and makes fun of their recent scandals or known
> behaviour patterns. Entertainers who impersonate multiple celebrities
> as part of their act are typically called impressionists.
> - Illegally: As part of a criminal act such as identity theft. This is
> usually where the criminal is trying to assume the identity of
> another, in order to commit fraud, such as accessing confidential
> information, or to gain property not belonging to them. Also known as
> social engineering.
> - Political decoy, used as a form of protection for political and
> military figures. This involves an impersonator who is employed (or
> forced) to perform during public appearances, to mislead observers.
>
> The Google Terms of Service states:
>
> 6. Appropriate Conduct
> *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any
> author
> attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> material contained in a file that is Posted;*
>
> Clearly in the context of this, "impersonation" in terms of
> "impressionists" is perfectly acceptable, however "impersonation" in
> terms of "identity theft" (including spoofing) is not.
>
> End of story. Don't like it, either leave, or take it up with Google.
> Claiming bias? The moderators do the same thing to atheists that come
> here and spoof. It's happened in the past.
>
> Take it or leave it.
> >
>
--
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
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:21 pm
From: checkers
On Dec 3, 10:43 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2:48 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > chx
> > you knew you were wrong after i pointed it out to you. you even
> > offered to delete your entry, why? because you knew. now you see that
> > Rap is backing you, you are being tough.
>
> And now you are either dishonest or lying.
>
> IIRC, I stated that if it turned out that it was not allowed according
> to Goolge, I would delete it myself (I am too titred to dig it up now,
> heck, you made the claim, you prove me wriong right here).
> Makiing fun of somebody in a post that bears your own name/handle is
> not against any regulations, and certainly not illegal in any sense of
> the term.
chx
no problem, i don't balme you for having a poor memory of where you
saw or wrote something. here, i'll help you out;
***
On Dec 2, 11:39 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> chx
> oh, and as Medusa pointed out back then. it is not the content that
> matters so much. just the fact that one is impersonated.
> you could do this in other threads where i don't post and i won't even
> be aware of it.
Yes, you are right, if I had used your handle, you would have a case
and it would be serious.
However, I did not use your handle, I made no effort to hide the fact
that it was from me.
So, in short, you have no reason to complain.
If it turns out that making fun of you inside a message of my own -
posted with my handle - is against some rules, I will delete it.
_________________________________
I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
-- Ruth Hurmence Green
***
>
> > in fact everyone knows this was impersonating someone
>
> Right, so according to you, the whole cast of SNL and Mad TV should be
> arrested becasue they have impersonated American an International
> public figures, including Bush himself.
> This must be treason.
> No, you idiot. They cannot be arrested because it is clear they are
> impersonating, they are not sitting in the oval office and making
> actual decisions and phone calls as if they were the president. Just
> like it is clear I am impersonating you when I post the message using
> my OWN handle, you dim wit.
chx
it may have have been within your post, if that is what you mean, this
was the same with Keith and TU.
however, you did use my name directly above your text to appear as if
i wrote it. in fact all my writing will still appear the same under
your heading fool. you impersonated me.
>
> > and now selling
> > all sorts of shit to make it go away. it is illegal.
>
> If you believe that, you are retarded.
>
> Now stop whining and wasting our time, you piece of shit who likes to
> make fun of people who share their experiences with mental illnesses
> (That is way more damnable than anything I did, and you claim that
> there is a bias? The only bias I see is all those theists not saying
> anything about your despicable behaviour back then, on that thread.)
chx
what you wrote here is simply just expressing your foolish ideas etc.
it does not bother me. all it does is float your boat. impersonating
me by using my name above your deceiving message is illegal. that goes
for Trog69 and Turner. you are all three impersonating me by using my
name above your deceiving messages.
this is what TG has to say about this;
***
On Feb 3, 2:30 am, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I'm outa here. They can falsify your name but if you fight back they
> cry foul. Unintelligent morons.
> Bye all. And please don't kill your babies
Changing your name slightly is very different from actually
impersonating someone and posting something that appears to come from
them which is what you did in this post.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/ea7ca23004...
The reason that it violates Google's Terms Of Service is because it's
illegal.
> _____________________________________________
> Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
> understand.
> -- Frederick the Great
***
you will find the original post of TU as well.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Mark Shea: Padding the Case for the New Atheism
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/7086bf6a6cf6d81e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 12:46 pm
From: "Brock Organ"
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:38 PM, MEG <ekrubmeg@gmail.com> wrote:
> "greater tolerance for sexual diversity." or a love for playing
> 'literally' with someone else's shit. Yes, raise your children is a
> cess pool, just so they get the hang of it.
I think part of the point is that humanistically based ethics and
morality are simply subjective personal or corporate aesthetics, and
lack an objective basis with which to criticize other competing
beliefs.
Regards,
Brock
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 12:56 pm
From: Woodbridge
Prove it
On Dec 3, 12:46 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:38 PM, MEG <ekrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "greater tolerance for sexual diversity." or a love for playing
> > 'literally' with someone else's shit. Yes, raise your children is a
> > cess pool, just so they get the hang of it.
>
> I think part of the point is that humanistically based ethics and
> morality are simply subjective personal or corporate aesthetics, and
> lack an objective basis with which to criticize other competing
> beliefs.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How do Christians avoid worshipping the wrong god?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/6d788c3a77b4c371?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 12:46 pm
From: Penfold
> "The bible states that He is all powerul. So how can there be a devil he can't control?" - Harrry K
God has allowed the Devil free reign for a time to prove false his
claim that the Earth under his rulership would be better than under
God's. The big theme of the bible is that the Devil will be
permanently removed and the harm he has caused corrected by the
Kingdom Government of Christ.
> "There is no denying it Bob: your god did not know if Abraham obeyed him or not, so he had to test him. <snip> What a stupid story". - ynot
That's one that I find fascinating. If God foresaw the future of
everything that would be akin to predestination, which would make
personal responsibility and sin a nonsense. However God obviously can
see the future / direct events to fulfil his purpose as shown by all
those prophecies. It is reasonable then that he balances this ability
just as he does all his others. He could instantly smite everyone who
sinned, but he chooses not to. Same with his foresight, he uses it
selectively to the benefit of mankind.
God could know that Abraham would be faithful, but without requiring
him to demonstrate his faith, it would not have been possible to
record the faithful and trusting deeds of Abraham as an example for
other right down to our day. Abraham knew he was being given the
ultimate test, and assumed that God would resurect the young man (who
incidently could've easily escaped his elderly father if he'd wanted
too). Abraham set a fine pattern of trusting in God for Jacob to
follow.
> The Bible portrays god as one who sits on a throne. <snip> If the dreamer did make such a claim, why would anyone assume that he dreamt of something other than a literal throne? - Ranjit Mathews
John was given a vision of heaven. Since God/angels etc are invisible
spirit creatures without physical bodies, it was necessary for that
vision to be in a form that John and his readers could comprehend.
Therefore the representation of God sitting on a throne. That's kind
of obvious isn't it? The cool thing is that since this was a contrived
vision, everything that John saw must have some significance.
> Etienne:
"There is no being in the sky near which a resurrected jesus would be
able to seat. And there is no beings, serving your imagined master,
with wings to
avoid crashing on the ground" <snip>
See point above. Wings were the best way to convey the idea of
messengers with the ability to travel "up" to heaven to people in
ancient times, who were aware that what they saw was only a
representation of a powerful invisible spirit creature.
Great thread by the way gents.
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 12:51 pm
From: Multiverse
> Perhaps you might reconsider:
>
> "What is marvelous is how nakedly Hitchens reveals his own atheist
> convictions to be entirely faith-based and -- what is more -- based on
> faith in a mystical epiphany to a nine-year-old boy. All the massive
> artillery of his adult wit and eloquence is, in the final analysis,
> ranked and ranged to protect that boy and his emotional epiphany."
No, really...thanks but as you can see I am in the process of pinning
you. I am clearly up on points even if you won't tap. So I won't be
allowing any attempts to reverse the position. You would not get the
point anyway and all it does is run down the clock.
On Dec 3, 2:33 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> Pre-suppositions are a part of every epistemology. As Aristotle has
> >> famously articulated:
>
> > Pre suppositions are fine Brock. But to pre-suppose that something is
> > true or correct, no matter how much it has been proven to be incorrect
> > or unreasonable and downright kooky is the problem.
>
> Rather, the statement shows the axiomatic nature of such first
> premises. Or put another way, the standard that measures the standard
> is the standard.
>
> >> So there are first principles in metaphysics that act as unprovable
> >> starting points. Aristotle articulates "intuitive knowledge" as a
> >> justification or basis for these unprovable starting points. I
> >> disagree, since "intuitive knowledge" is highly existential and
> >> subjective. So my point is that the first principles should rely upon
> >> divine revelation and not intuitive knowledge, which is a profoundly
> >> non-solipsistic argument. So a modification to his position, that I
> >> believe is better (though of course, it isn't Aristotle's):
>
> > Aristotle was terribly wrong on lots. He did the best he could. You
> > know, gave it the old collage try.... But at the end of the day he
> > was wrong on plenty. So you switch out his "intuitive knowledge"
> > which is obviously flawed, for the term "divine revelation".
>
> I have a great respect for the classical way Aristotle framed the
> issue of first principles, and find that it is a great starting point
> for epistemological dialogue:
>
> http://www.friesian.com/arch.htm
>
> >> * Metaphysics involves divinely revealed knowledge of unprovable
> >> starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
> >> what follows from them.
>
> > And you have not noticed yet that their has been no demonstration of
> > anything that follows from your flawed logic?
>
> Rather, I might simply question the underpinnings of what might be
> used to evaluate such moral and ethical matters. In particular:
>
> Humankind is not the measure of all things.
>
> >> If you want to see an example of the blindness of faith, ask a
> >> humanist to justify (as an objective basis) the pre-eminence of human
> >> reason for morals and ethics.
>
> > no I think you guys have the market cornered on blind faith.
>
> Perhaps you might reconsider:
>
> "What is marvelous is how nakedly Hitchens reveals his own atheist
> convictions to be entirely faith-based and -- what is more -- based on
> faith in a mystical epiphany to a nine-year-old boy. All the massive
> artillery of his adult wit and eloquence is, in the final analysis,
> ranked and ranged to protect that boy and his emotional epiphany."
>
> http://www.mark-shea.com/pad.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 12:55 pm
From: Joe
On Dec 2, 4:27 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 8:42 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How do you know you're not breathing the wrong air?
>
> That is easy: there is only one air.
Exactly.
> The problem is, there are many gods and one can
> get mixed up.
Don't worship gods at all. Only worship God, since there is only one.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 12:55 pm
From: "Brock Organ"
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Multiverse <cutaway@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Rather, the statement shows the axiomatic nature of such first
>> premises. Or put another way, the standard that measures the standard
>> is the standard.
>
> your applying smoke here Brock.
> I will accept that you admit your
> flawed pre-suppositions.
No reason to accept what I do not admit. I simply note that as
classically articulated by Aristotle, first principles are axiomatic
in nature.
> Since that is the focus here and not "the
> standard that measures the standard".
>
> You allow yourself the flawed standard of not being able to apply
> standards to something that is clearly flawed based on the contents of
> that something. Flawed, Flawed, Flawed.
I thought it was very well phrased when Bahnsen noted (in the context
of his debate with atheist Dr. Gordon Stein):
"The problem arises when Dr. Stein elsewhere insists that every claim
that someone makes must be treated as a hypothesis which must be
tested by such evidence before accepting it. "There is to be nothing,"
he says, "which smacks of begging the question or circular
reasoning." This, I think, is oversimplified thinking and again
misleading, what we might call the Pretended Neutrality fallacy. One
can see this by considering the following quotation from Dr. Stein:
"The use of logic or reason is the only valid way to examine the truth
or falsity of any statement which claims to be factual."
One must eventually ask Dr. Stein, then, how he proves this statement
itself. That is, how does he prove that logic or reason is the only
way to prove factual statements? He is now on the horns of a real
epistemological dilemma. If he says that the statement is true by
logic or reason, then he is engaging in circular reasoning; and he's
begging the question which he [supposedly] forbids. If he says that
the statement is proven in some other
fashion, then he refutes the statement itself, that logic or reason is
the only way to prove
things."
>> I have a great respect for the classical way Aristotle framed the
>> issue of first principles, and find that it is a great starting point
>> for epistemological dialogue:
>
> Tricky tricky Brock. Now your using mirrors.
Nothing tricky about Aristotle's first principles. :)
> I accept you have no response that does not rehash your already proven
> flawed reasoning.
No reason to accept what I do not admit.
>> Rather, I might simply question the underpinnings of what might be
>> used to evaluate such moral and ethical matters. In particular:
>
> No you would not! You are not allowed to question it remember? "The
> truth of the bible is independent of your beliefs" remember Brock?
I think you make a forced and arbitrary distinction. For example, if
one notes that my testimony that "Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon
river" is only established because I say so or by humanistic premises,
I simply reply that it is objectively true that "Julius Caesar crossed
the Rubicon river" regardless of my testimony. So though I am a human
who makes the statement "Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon river", I
am not making a humanistic statement.
Similarly, the position:
1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
Accurately indicates what I mean to communicate, but to remove any
consideration that 1) is established by subjective existential or
humanistic premises, I also note:
2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
> You don't evaluate so why would you bother to "really" evaluate a
> system to evaluate?
>
>> Humankind is not the measure of all things.
>
> Not currently,.. just all things that have been measured. We will get
> there someday.
Its very interesting to hear a non-believer articulate what is, in
detail, a blind faith.
Regards,
Brock
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 12:55 pm
From: Joe
On Dec 2, 3:17 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 10:42 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How do you know you're not breathing the wrong air?
>
> The air in one place is typically as good as the air in any other
> place. Is Asherah as good a goddess as any other divinity?
>
I understand the definition of air. I understand the definition of
God. Kindly define for me this word Asherah.
> > On Nov 29, 4:12 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 18, 5:23 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > if you're going to ask for ironclad proof of God, then you'd have to
> > > > be able to suggest what type of proof would qualify.
> > > > Would God have to stand on the moon and wave?
> > > Even if God were to stand on the Moon and wave, we would not know that
> > > it is the God of the Bible who is standing on the Moon and waving; it
> > > might be Thor who is waving. How are you able to tell whether you
> > > worship the same God who said "You shall have no other gods before me"?
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 12:57 pm
From: Answer_42
On Dec 3, 2:33 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> premises. Or put another way, the standard that measures the standard
> is the standard.
> Humankind is not the measure of all things.
Bla Bla Bla I love jesus Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla The bible
is true Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla If you do not agree with
me Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla You will go to hell
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Fear god Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla I am right Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Objective truth of first principles Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla You are
wrong Bla Bla BlaBla Bla BlaBla Bla BlaBla Bla Bla Westminster
Confession Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Wikipedia Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Love god is not the same as poke out your eye with a pointed stick
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Cesar
crossed the Rubicon Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla BlaBla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla and 1.50$ will get you a coffee at most truck stops Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla I am never wrong Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla mankind is not the
measurement of all things Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Bla I tremble before my god Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Humans are born with sin Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Only Jesus can save you from yourself Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Or not :) Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Yes Brock, we know, we have heard it all before.
____________________________________
Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
understand.
-- Frederick the Great
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:03 pm
From: "Brock Organ"
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Multiverse <cutaway@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you might reconsider:
>>
>> "What is marvelous is how nakedly Hitchens reveals his own atheist
>> convictions to be entirely faith-based and -- what is more -- based on
>> faith in a mystical epiphany to a nine-year-old boy. All the massive
>> artillery of his adult wit and eloquence is, in the final analysis,
>> ranked and ranged to protect that boy and his emotional epiphany."
>
> No, really...thanks but as you can see I am in the process of pinning
> you.
Its probably much easier to say than do.
Regards,
Brock
==============================================================================
TOPIC: A N S W E R - M E ! ! ! - THE ACTUAL BAD ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL
SITUATION AROUND THE WORLD is the begining of the END of The WORLD ? ? ? ? ?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/063e4e98eabc4942?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 12:52 pm
From: thea
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:02 AM, rappoccio <rappoccio@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 2, 6:41 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 3:13 pm, arcangel <alien...@univision.com> wrote:
> >
> > > BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA: The begining of the Armagedon War.
> >
> > > With Barack Obama The Armagedon War begins soon, is a prophecy;
> > > thousands of millions will be dead, exterminated, but, don 't worry,
> > > be happy, good news, millions will stay alive forever, please; you
> > > only have to obey The Laws of God in the New Testament of The Holly
> > > Bible, and pray, visit the real christians, and read it !:
> >
> > YES! ARMAGEDDON IS COMING!! RUN!!!!!
> >
> > But before you do, it is best that you send your earthly belongings
> > and financial assets to the AvC Armaggedon Fund (Atheist Division) for
> > Post-Armaggedon safekeeping.
>
> Where do I sign up to be an administrator for these funds?
Very interesting theory. Seems no one has taken the time to read
Revelations with an eye as to what type of weapons they are talking about.
Horses????
The only way they would have to fight a war with horses, would be if the
*oil* ran out!!!
>
> >
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Historical Peter Parker
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/dfb77186035b2555?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 12:55 pm
From: Answer_42
On Dec 3, 2:43 pm, Penfold <c...@quickbuilds.co.uk> wrote:
> Your point is humorously made. Many Christians accept unthinkingly
> whatever their pastor tells them. A great many people in this world
> seem to be happy to drift through life without questioning the beliefs
> they inherited from their parents or their television.
Very true.
> I am a Christian, but not because of any mental laziness or blind
> acceptance of doctrine. Do you completely discount the idea that a
> person could objectively and without prejudice, weigh the available
> information, and honestly conclude that there is a creator?
Yes.
The only way to reach that conclusion is through willful ignorance.
> As an engineer when I examine nature I see clear evidence of design.
Really?
Provide some of that evidence.
> Does your obviously having reached a different conclusion mean that I
> am ignorant or deluding myself?
We do not claim you are deluding yourself because we have reached a
different conclusion.
We claim you are deluding yourself because you are ignoring some facts
and making wrong conclusions based on the observed reality that
surrounds you.
> The Bible could be compared to a comic if it were simply fable. Some
It is.
> of the idioms found in the Bible can be amusing, but I think that can
> be forgiven of a two thousand year old book.
Exactly. What makes you think that a 2,000 year old book has any
relevance today?
Are you claiming that without that book you would not be able to live
a good fruitful life?
> For me the many examples
> of a higher source of wisdom found in the Bible, it's internal harmony
Such as?
You mean after you ignore the thousands of errors/contradictions/
aberrations?
> despite the many different writers through the ages, the candid
> honesty of those writers and the many prophecies that have come true,
Such as?
> all serve as evidence of the Bible being the word of God.
Prove it.
> Where is the
> flaw in my reasoning?
All over, as demonstrated above.
_____________________________________________
Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
understand.
-- Frederick the Great
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Richard Dawkins PROOVES Many Christians are hypocrites just by babies
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/4f094650ef116536?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 12:56 pm
From: thea
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Woodbridge <Woodbridge@archaeologist.com>wrote:
>
> "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
>
> That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
>
> I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
>
>
> http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/2001-12-30morris_letter.shtml
>
>
> Christians should read this because it clearly prooves that babies are
> Atheists but are hidden because of Christian hypocrisy
> Many Christians are hypocrites.
Seems to me, beings I am a Christian, that the atheist are working awfully
hard to make themselves *non-believers* in something.
>
> >
>
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 12:58 pm
From: Woodbridge
On Dec 3, 12:56 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
>
> > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
>
> > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
>
> >http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Wo...
>
> > Christians should read this because it clearly prooves that babies are
> > Atheists but are hidden because of Christian hypocrisy
> > Many Christians are hypocrites.
>
> Seems to me, beings I am a Christian, that the atheist are working awfully
> hard to make themselves *non-believers* in something.
>
Prove it
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dan R. Smedra: The redefining of tolerance
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/933a1bfb5dac7034?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 12:58 pm
From: Woodbridge
Yes Christians do this many times
Also forget Christians break rules of Conduct many times
On Dec 3, 12:41 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> from:
>
> http://withchrist.org/tolerance.htm
>
> The author has many good points to note about how "tolerance", a value
> defined in a relativistic context, can be used to impose relativistic
> values in an absolute fashion:
>
> "Close-minded. Intolerant. Arrogant. All these words are frequently
> used to disparage and ridicule those who believe that absolutes exist
> and can be known; that there are moral rights and wrongs, and that
> some viewpoints are correct while others are wrong."
>
> and:
>
> "A growing number of people reject the idea of the absolute reality
> exists in favor of the philosophy of postmodern relativism. Today's
> relativism dogmatically asserts that nothing can be known with
> certainty, except the maxim of relativism. Yes, this position is
> self-contradictory. This dogmatism is similar to the atheist's
> emphatic assertion that God does not exist. They assert a universal
> axiom they cannot prove. According to relativism, positive knowledge
> is an impossibility; no viewpoint can legitimately claim to be
> superior, except of course relativism."
>
> The author tellingly notes:
>
> ""Relativism about truth does not lead to tolerance. Rather, it leads
> to the conclusion that social conflicts cannot be resolved by reason
> or even compromise, because there is no common reason that can unite
> groups that differ on fundamental questions." Thus, relativism leads
> to power struggles and in the end...violence."
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Faux Pas Tolerance: Many Christians Are Hypocrites and Violate Code Of
Conduct
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/10b5c64fbe191c3d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:03 pm
From: Joe
On Dec 3, 12:15 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> "Labeling Atheists
> Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
> morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
> categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
> categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
> Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
> For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
> statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
> same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
> irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
> either side of the argument of truth.
> Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
> through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
> conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
> have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
> I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
> it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
> cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
> addressed.
> So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
> doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and
> name-calling have no place in the discussion.
> Ignoring Atheists' Questions
> If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
> way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
> away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
> would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
> objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
> everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
> that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
> okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
> answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
> Stating that Atheism is a religion
> Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
> religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
> sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
> that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
> way."
> To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
> effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
> Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
> torture people."
That is something Christians here hear all the time from atheists
here. It is far more common than the reverse. So maybe the point of
your post should be that many atheists are hypocrites.
> The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
> that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
> effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much.
> Stating unsupportable facts
> No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
> reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
> Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
> have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
> occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your credibility. Of
> course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
> illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
> Never admitting when you are wrong
> Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
> It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
> Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
> If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
> courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
> mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
> error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
> wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
> never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
> anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
> respect of the one with whom you are debating."
>
> http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:04 pm
From: Woodbridge
On Dec 3, 1:03 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 12:15 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Labeling Atheists
> > Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
> > morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
> > categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
> > categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
> > Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
> > For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
> > statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
> > same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
> > irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
> > either side of the argument of truth.
> > Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
> > through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
> > conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
> > have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
> > I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
> > it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
> > cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
> > addressed.
> > So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
> > doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and
> > name-calling have no place in the discussion.
> > Ignoring Atheists' Questions
> > If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
> > way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
> > away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
> > would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
> > objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
> > everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
> > that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
> > okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
> > answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
> > Stating that Atheism is a religion
> > Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
> > religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
> > sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
> > that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
> > way."
> > To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
> > effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
> > Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
> > torture people."
>
> That is something Christians here hear all the time from atheists
> here. It is far more common than the reverse. So maybe the point of
> your post should be that many atheists are hypocrites.
>
No because many Christians are hypocrites.
VERY clear in title of posting
> > The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
> > that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
> > effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much.
> > Stating unsupportable facts
> > No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
> > reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
> > Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
> > have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
> > occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your credibility. Of
> > course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
> > illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
> > Never admitting when you are wrong
> > Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
> > It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
> > Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
> > If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
> > courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
> > mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
> > error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
> > wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
> > never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
> > anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
> > respect of the one with whom you are debating."
>
> >http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm
==============================================================================
TOPIC: A little help from the theist side for Brock, Checkers etc in debating
with atheists
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/8bae88aebb09d12f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:18 pm
From: zencycle
On Nov 11, 5:40 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:54 PM, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
>
> I simply note that the above dialog presents a humorous exchange that
> illustrates productive discourse is a two way street, and that a clear
> position of mine may not always be recognized as such by the OP for
> reasons that are less than commendable.
Productive discourse is a two way street...hmm.... is that why you
refuse to clarify your positions other than repasting the original
verbiage? If you were truly interested in constructive dialog, you
would seek to rephrase your positions that were misconstrued or
misinterpreted, rather than simply repeating yourself and having us
play a guessing game as to when we happen to stumble upon the correct
interpretation. That isn't constructive, brock, it's frustrating and
simply leads to us making assumptions about your position, which may
or may not be correct.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Schism!
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/8abd798698d5604e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:21 pm
From: Neil Kelsey
On Dec 3, 11:55 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2:47 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 11:40 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 3, 2:34 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Conservatives form rival to Episcopal Church
>
> > > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28033549
>
> > > > WHEATON, Ill. - Theological conservatives upset by the liberal views
> > > > of the Episcopal Church are forming a rival denomination.
>
> > > > The new Anglican Church in North America will include four Episcopal
> > > > dioceses that recently split from the U.S. church, along with
> > > > breakaway Anglican parishes from Canada.
>
> > > > The announcement Wednesday in Wheaton, Illinois, comes after decades
> > > > of debate over what Episcopalians should believe about issues ranging
> > > > from salvation to sexuality.
>
> > > > * end of item *
>
> > > > Oh goodie. Maybe North Americans can finally have its own "Troubles."
>
> > > Oi vey. It's so bizarre that Wheaton, IL is right next to Fermilab,
> > > and yet be so backwards.
>
> > > I just don't get it.
>
> > > Oh, wait... I lived in that area for three years. Yes I do. The
> > > Catholics there made me really want to not be Catholic, so in some
> > > sense I should thank them. :)-
>
> > ????
>
> > That's a provocative statement...what sort of things did they do that
> > turned you off?
>
> Oh, where should I start?
>
> - All but commanding their parishioners to vote Republican.
> - Never said a word criticizing George Bush while he blatantly lied to
> get the nation to go to war, but yet regularly railed against John
> Kerry (for instance) in every single thing he ever did.
> - Made fun of scientists on a regular basis, saying that they aren't
> moral or ethical.
> - Pretended there was a moral decline in America, of course
> perpetrated by the atheists.
>
> I'm not sure I should stop here, but any one of these is disgusting
> enough.
Weird that Catholics would have railed against John Kerry, no?
==============================================================================
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
0 comments:
Post a Comment