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

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:28 am
From: Answer_42

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

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

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

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

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

== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:30 am
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 12:09 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

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

You really are the poster boy for atheism!
_________________________________
I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
-- Ruth Hurmence Green

== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:32 am
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 12:06 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > From what I have seen all the
> > atheists feel is lust.
>
> I feel slightly gaseous at the moment, so I guess you're wrong.
>
> > Lust for the flesh,
>
> mmmmmm...cannibalism.
>
> > and lust for things.
>
> mmmmmmm...things.
>
> > Only
> > the higher things are pure.
>
> What are the "higher things?" Ted Haggard? He was pretty high.
>
> > Love is purity, not corruption.
>
> I bet you're really fun in bed.

LOL

That was great... I wonder if she will recover!
_________________________________
I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
-- Ruth Hurmence Green

== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:42 am
From: checkers

chx
interesting, theultimatetruth used the exact same argument you are
doing right now. it might as well be him typing this reply it is so
identical. he returned under another name for one topic thread to
plead his case to no avail. i can link you to that thread as well if
you wish.

what is more, the post he impersonated Keith in was hidden on the
previous page and i guess Keith opened it and found this. if Keith did
not repost it, no one would have known it even happened. it was hidden
under -show quoted text-
even more, he did not even use keiths handle. he just made it look
like keith wrote it. you took this a step further.

On Dec 2, 7:23 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 11:29 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Answer_42, you have just impersonated me. you used my handle and wrote
>
> No, I did not use your handle.
> "Answer_42" can be clearly seen in the list of the messages, so
> anybody clicking on that message to read it will know it is from me.
>
> > something that if anyone sees it at a glance will think i wrote it.
>
> Again, at a glance, one can clearly see "Answer_42" in the message
> list.
>
> > this is in violation of Google rules.
>
> No, it is not.
> Making fun of somebody within the text of one's message is not against
> any rules.
> If I had changed my handle so as to post as if I were you, (i.e. if I
> had changed "Answer_42" for "checkers" in the message list) then you
> might have a case.
>
> > you gave no indication that you
> > are fooling or making a joke. nor do you indicate in quotation.
>
> What about the "ha ha ha" and the smiley?
>
> > this happened a little while back to Keith and the first to support
> > this was Bonfly, followed by Trance. soon Dev and everyone agreed and
> > the person was banned. once again i am not calling a ban because i
> > have fun with you. however, the moderators have their work cut out.
>
> No, they don't. There is no case to speak of.
>
> > consistancy is paramount based on history of AvG.
>
> True, it is important. But I used my own handle to post my message, so
> you have no case.
>
> And, finally, I posted in reply to one of your posts... If I had
> pretended to be you, I would have posted in reply to somebody else.
>
> <Irrelevant example snipped>
> _________________________________
> I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
> -- Ruth Hurmence Green

== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:45 am
From: Mary Wolls

You cannot override what has already been written in the Bible.

Mary Wolls> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:05:46 -0800> Subject: [AvC] Re: Atheist are very loving people. They love because they feel love...> From: ipu.believer@gmail.com> To: Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com> > > On Dec 2, 11:57 am, mary wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:> > Ruthie,> >> > How can you feel love without God? From what I have seen all the> > atheists feel is lust. Lust for the flesh, and lust for things. Only> > the higher things are pure. Love is purity, not corruption.> > I believe you are wrong here.> > Love can be defined in many ways.> You have chosen a very narrow way of defining it. In fact, only> christians use that definition.> > Here is the general definition from Merriam Webster:> "> 1 a (1): strong affection for another arising out of kinship or> personal ties <maternal love for a child> (2): attraction based on> sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3):> affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love> for his old schoolmates> b: an assurance of love <give her my love>> "> > According to that definition, anybody can feel love, no need for an> imaginary being.> > Of course, if one does not believe in a magical sky being, one does> not feel love for that being or one does not beleive that they are> being loved by that imaginary being.> However, that does not prevent one from feeling and giving love, as we> all do in our lives.> _________________________________> I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.> -- Ruth Hurmence Green> _________________________________________________________________
Send e-mail anywhere. No map, no compass.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_anywhere_122008

== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:45 am
From: ObservantEye

Wow. So no love on either side...

On Dec 2, 11:32 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 12:06 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > From what I have seen all the
> > > atheists feel is lust.
>
> > I feel slightly gaseous at the moment, so I guess you're wrong.
>
> > > Lust for the flesh,
>
> > mmmmmm...cannibalism.
>
> > > and lust for things.
>
> > mmmmmmm...things.
>
> > > Only
> > > the higher things are pure.
>
> > What are the "higher things?" Ted Haggard? He was pretty high.
>
> > > Love is purity, not corruption.
>
> > I bet you're really fun in bed.
>
> LOL
>
> That was great... I wonder if she will recover!
> _________________________________
> I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
> -- Ruth Hurmence Green

== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:53 am
From: checkers

On Dec 2, 7:24 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 9:09 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 6:56 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 2, 8:36 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 6:12 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 2, 2:04 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 2, 8:51 am, Ruthie <willruthie1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > They don't love because they are scared into it. People get the idea
> > > > > > > that an atheist is a devil lover .Far from the truth. Atheist don't
> > > > > > > believe in god and definetly don't believe in Satan.
>
> > > > > > chx
> > > > > > not believing in satan does not let him go away ;)
>
> > > > > Believing in Satan does not make him exist. +/-
>
> > > > chx
> > > > we have a stale mate, mate ;)
>
> > > No we don't. You need to show Satan exists for your claim to be true,
> > > and my claim is simply true.
>
> > chx
> > nope, actually not one of us made a positive statement at first, so we
> > are back to a stale mate ;)
>
> Nope, we both made positive statements, and it's irrelevant when they
> were made. +/- 000 @@

chx
both our comments were safe to a point

> > oh! but then you go and say your claim is true. sorry dude, the onus
> > now rests on you to prove your claim. [chuckle]
>
> So you don't think your claim is true? [fart]

chx
neither our comments were 'true' per say

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

chx
you are using a single word to make a point. look at it in context

but wait, what have we here, a diversion?

> But I willl give you an example. People used to believe the world was
> flat.

chx
i glad you say 'people' and not theists so i will also keep it neutral
for now.

> Then they found out the world is spherical. So, the flat world
> doesn't exist. This illustrates how believing in something doesn't
> make it exist. You believe in Satan. That doesn't make Satan exist.

chx
yep, the people held fast on the round world in spite of the dude
trying to convince them the world is flat around 1700 years ago

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

chx
you mean like you just did here.

believing or not believing does not affirm either way. neither have
evidence nor proof or facts. once the word true in context come in,
the scenario changes. this be your dilemma. you claimed a truth not
me.

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

== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:54 am
From: Woodbridge

Prove it

On Dec 2, 9:45 am, Mary Wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:
> You cannot override what has already been written in the Bible.
>
> Mary Wolls> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:05:46 -0800> Subject: [AvC] Re: Atheist are very loving people. They love because they feel love...> From: ipu.belie...@gmail.com> To: Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com> > > On Dec 2, 11:57 am, mary wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:> > Ruthie,> >> > How can you feel love without God? From what I have seen all the> > atheists feel is lust. Lust for the flesh, and lust for things. Only> > the higher things are pure. Love is purity, not corruption.> > I believe you are wrong here.> > Love can be defined in many ways.> You have chosen a very narrow way of defining it. In fact, only> christians use that definition.> > Here is the general definition from Merriam Webster:> "> 1 a (1): strong affection for another arising out of kinship or> personal ties <maternal love for a child> (2): attraction based on> sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3):> affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love> for his old schoolmates> b: an assurance of love <give her my love>> "> > According to that definition, anybody can feel love, no need for an> imaginary being.> > Of course, if one does not believe in a magical sky being, one does> not feel love for that being or one does not beleive that they are> being loved by that imaginary being.> However, that does not prevent one from feeling and giving love, as we> all do in our lives.> _________________________________> I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.> -- Ruth Hurmence Green> _________________________________________________________________
> Send e-mail anywhere. No map, no compass.http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_...

== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:05 am
From: checkers

On Dec 2, 7:28 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 -

chx
you don't get it. it was not embedded in a message from you, there was
no other message from you. the impersonation is stand alone below my
own post and started with CHX. since you never reply to me as chx you
cannot even use that excuse.

see, i enjoy debating with you or as you say, i cannot debate. that's
ok, call it anything you want. but i don't make the rules or the call.

i just want to know, is this some kind of impersonation week going on
here. Trog69 is doing the same thing. are the two of you in cahoots
here to make me look foolish? this is wrong and illegal

> posted with my handle - is against some rules, I will delete it.
> _________________________________
> I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
> -- Ruth Hurmence Green

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:37 am
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Dec 1, 5:10 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 1, 1:19 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I mean, come on, how can you respect yourself and believe you are a
> > > wretched
> > > > sinner who deserves nothing more than an eternity in hell at the same
> > > time?
> >
> > > *good* *point*
> >
> > > But most of the time I don't buy that they really see themselves as
> > > sinners.
> >
> > Probably not, but that belief is absolutely the core of Christianity (and
> > most religions, incidentally)--without that belief, the "sacrifice" of
> Jesus
> > is useless and meaningless (why do we need a savior if we're not
> "depraved",
> > as Brock so gleefully puts it). They like to say that their religion is
> all
> > about love and forgiveness and shit, but they're lying or mistaken. All
> that
> > "God's love" is pointless if we don't need it to live a good life/get
> into
> > Heaven. So, as much as the phrase "true Christian" get well-deserved flak
> > around here, I think you could argue that anyone who DOESN'T see himself
> as
> > a sinner isn't a "true Christian", in the sense that he does not ACTUALLY
> > believe the core tenets of Christianity.
>
> I agree with you, but I'm finding it weird that the ones who seem the
> loudest about being depraved sinners (e.g. Brock, e.g. thea. e.g.
> preachers) come across as being the most in love with themselves.

That's a good point. But then, we know from his behavior that Brock doesn't
actually believe what he says, and only says it in order to justify his
unjustifiable points.

>
>
> > > > Unless you twist the definition of "respect" extremely (which fits in
> > > with
> > > > the Christian, m.o., actually--see e.g. Christian "love").
> >
> > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Zing!
> >
> > > > > On Dec 1, 12:57 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > <snip troll shit>
> >
> > > > > > > Of course, no self-respecting Christian
> >
> > > > > > "self-respecting Christian"--that's a good one.
> >
> > > > > > > would waste his time on you
> > > > > > > any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning
> > > Christian...- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:47 am
From: Answer_42

I cannot vouch for the others, but I can safely assert that I am not
angry.

> They have no peace with God,

How can I have peace with a non-existent being?
Are you at peace with leprechauns?

> because they eschew his
> representatives.

How can a non-existent being have representatives?
And by responding to you I guess it is proof enough that I am not
eschewing anybody.
_________________________________
I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
-- Ruth Hurmence Green

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:53 am
From: rappoccio

If "God's representatives" were a little better representatives, maybe
they would get better results?

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

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:03 am
From: Mary Wolls

rappaccio,

The faithful know them by their voice, there will always be wolves amongst the sheep until his return.

Mary Wolls

> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:53:39 -0800> Subject: [AvC] Re: Congratulations> From: rappoccio@gmail.com> To: Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com> > > If "God's representatives" were a little better representatives, maybe> they would get better results?> > On Dec 2, 11:49 am, mary wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:> > ObservantEye,> >> > That has been my experience as well on this forum. You must have very> > thick skin to engage the atheists in this group because they are very> > angry. They have no peace with God, because they eschew his> > representatives.> >> > Mary Wolls> >> > On Dec 1, 11:17 am, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> > > I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would> > > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.> >> > > Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually> > > interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-> > > atheist into a flame war. There is SOME intelligent discussion here,> > > but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These> > > furious people know that they'll always win because the people they> > > wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful> > > language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture> > > you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers> > > hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes> > > through your keyboard with every angry jab.> >> > > The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't> > > arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than> > > agnostics.> >> > > Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider> > > that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did> > > you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?> >> > > Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,> > > because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not> > > enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the> > > hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at> > > their keyboards in their dark basements.> >> > > Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can> > > see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates> > > The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"> >> > > Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you> > > any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning Christian...> _________________________________________________________________
Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:46 am
From: LL

On Dec 1, 9:40 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

OK what I would like to know is what did you say to the Mormons! Any
words
> of wisdom that would have them wondering about their faith? You see when
> you are confronted by someone of another viewpoint, can get you get them to
> start the questioning process that leads to understanding, or do you leave
> them in their misery?

LL: I'm interested in what YOU would say to a Mormon who approached
you about Mormonism. If none ever has, just imagine what you'd say.
We pretty much know what atheists would say--if we wanted to get into
a discussion, we'd offer the arguments we do here. But I have no idea
what another theist would say. How would you argue that your brand of
theism is correct and theirs isn't. Help us out here, Thea.

**********************
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:20 AM, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I guess I post here because I've seen more than one group torn apart
> > by posts about religion. There are some real good folks in other
> > groups that are Christians and I really don't want to offend them with
> > my views about their wacky faith. Same with my friends and neighbors
> > around town. I think Christianity is a scourge that plagues humanity,
> > I'm shocked at all the innocent folks that have been drawn and
> > quartered and burned at the stake in order to spread the cursed faith
> > in Jesus, but I try to keep my views confined to this group. It's not
> > always easy. Just a few days ago I chased away a couple Mormons that
> > wanted to talk about Jesus. But Mormons are fair game. They're idiots.
> > Who are they trying to fool with their white shirts and ties? Dressing
> > like Young Republicans knocking on doors like it's their job. Morons,
> > that's what they are. Fair game.
>
> OK what I would like to know is what did you say to the Mormons! Any words
> of wisdom that would have them wondering about their faith? You see when
> you are confronted by someone of another viewpoint, can get you get them to
> start the questioning process that leads to understanding, or do you leave
> them in their misery?
>
> > On Dec 1, 6:55 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi Obs.
>
> > > Nice post!
>
> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:43 AM, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Why are you here supporting Christianity or positing an atheistic
> > > > stance?
>
> > > I was raised an atheist and when I did explore many different religions
> > and
> > > philosophies, including Christianity, I found no compelling reason to
> > > believe.
>
> > > > If you are an atheist, do you want to see an end to Christianity?
>
> > > Eventually, yes. But it will take a very long time for the human race to
> > > grow out of their need for superstition.
>
> > > Hopefully, in the meantime, lunatic End of Timers won't take it upon
> > > themselves to bring on their own Armageddon.
>
> > > It takes patience and education. Already we are seeing an exponential
> > > increase in atheism amongst the under-30s.
>
> > > I believe theism realizes this and this is why they are pushing so hard
> > to
> > > take us back into the dark ages of pre-secularism.
>
> > > > I need not ask a corresponding question of Christians.
>
> > > > What do you think of priests and preachers? Either group please
> > > > respond.
>
> > > They are pushing religion like drugs.
>
> > > > How, should children be protected from the influence of Christianity?
>
> > > Maintain complete separation of church and state. This concept is
> > > established in the US but is being weakened by constant violations. This
> > > needs to stop.
>
> > > Other countries to need to establish this as a fundamental requirement.
> > It
> > > currently isn't in many countries, allowing religion to encroach in areas
> > > they do not belong like education.
>
> > > People have every right to indoctrinate their children in their doctrine
> > of
> > > choice, but it should be done in the privacy of their own homes and not
> > > imposed on the rest of society.
>
> > > > How, should, children be protected from the influence of atheism?
>
> > > They shouldn't and atheism isn't an influence it's simply a lack of
> > belief.
> > > The influence comes from theism. If people are left alone and don't adopt
> > a
> > > theist belief system they are usually atheist.
>
> > > > What do you think of the obscene wealth of churches while millions
> > > > starve to death?
>
> > > Insane. They should be required to prove that their money goes to
> > charitable
> > > causes and those dollars that do not should be taxed.
>
> > > > If you are a Christian why do you believe that the bible is true?.
>
> > > > If you are an atheist why do you not believe that the bible is true?
>
> > > Because it isn't :-). There is little evidence to support the bible as a
> > > historical document. This would be required for it to be "true".
>
> > > > Why do you believe that there is a god (don't quote the bible as it is
> > > > the source of the myth)
>
> > > > Why do you not believe that there is a god?
>
> > > > There is no evidence to support this belief and therefore no compelling
>
> > > reason to believe.
>
> > > > Is religion harmful to the world? If so how do we stop its destructive
> > > > force?
>
> > > Yes. It's behind much of the strife, terrorism, and war in the world.
>
> > > Maintaining secular states and eliminating any influence of religion on
> > the
> > > state and it's policies.
>
> > > Religion can and should remain a personal choice, a personal belief and
> > > that's it.
>
> > > > If you believe that religion is good for the world how do you think it
> > > > ought to be preserved.
>
> > > > If you are an atheist are you completely out of the closet? If not.
> > > > Why not?
>
> > > No. I had a serious problem in one workplace because of it and now I
> > don't
> > > talk about it.
>
> > > > If you are a Christian do you evangelize? If so why?
>
> > > > What value do you personally receive from posting here?
>
> > > It's interesting. I enjoy debating. I learn a lot from the other
> > atheists.
>
> > > > What are your responsibilities to your family, your community, and
> > > > your country in relation to these issues?
>
> > > I think my responses above have covered these things.
>
> > > > Regards to all
>
> > > > Psychonomist
>
> > > --
> > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> > companion.
> > > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > > Andromeda

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:54 am
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 11:52 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> On 1 déc, 16:46, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > The invective and vitriol have not been welcome, but I frankly,
>
> >> Really?
> >> You are a dishonest biased prick about his, aren't you?
>
> I think my point has been clear, I don't welcome that kind of discourse.

Nobody stated you were welcoming it. Believe me, we know you don't
welcome it!
However, by pointing out that such discourse is unwelcome and negative
when atheists use it, and by ignoring such discourse only when it is
posted by people who happen to share your belief in your god you
simply prove that your are a dishonest biased prick is all.
_________________________________
I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
-- Ruth Hurmence Green

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Attention, Brock needed.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/e6ee90a2ad693f5e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:54 am
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Dec 2, 9:08 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 1, 10:48 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 30, 10:44 am, I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN <X...@OPERAMAIL.COM>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Dear hopelessly confused sucker of Satan's cock,
> > > > > YOU DISTURBED HATEMONGERING FUCK! THE DARK PRINCE HAS HIS HAND
> FIRMLY
> > > > > INSERTED INTO YOUR ANUS AND IS USING YOU AS A PUPPET TO SPREAD HIS
> > > > > FEAR AND ODIUM. DO THE UNIVERSE A FAVOR AND END YOUR MISERABLE,
> > > > > DISTORTED EXISTENCE BEFORE YOUR INIQUITY SEEPS INTO AN UNSPOILED
> MIND.
> > > > > YOU ARE A FUNDAMENTALLY CORRUPT VEHICLE OF HATE AND YOU ARE BEYOND
> > > > > REDEMPTION. KILL YOURSELF. KILL YOURSELF. KILL YOURSELF YOU ROTTEN,
> > > > > UNEDUCATED, DISGUSTINGLY TAINTED GRATIFIER OF ALL THAT IS IMPURE.
> >
> > > > Brock, you dishonest and deluded theist...
> > > > Where are you?
> > > > Why don't you tell him off the same way you tell off any atheist who
> > > > uses "invectives and vitriol"?
> > > > If atheists do it in order to propagate new atheism (according to
> > > > you), what does this theist do it for?
> > > > Why have you ignored the half dozen cases I highlighted since last
> > > > week or so?
> >
> > > I can't speak for Brock, but the big difference for me here is that as
> > > far as I know no one takes this poster seriously. And I don't mean
> > > that they think or do not think that his threats and invective is
> > > serious, but that engaging him is seen as a pointless waste of time
> > > and he is utterly incapable of any sort of rational discussion, even
> > > for a short period of time.
> >
> > Except that Brock never argued anything like that; he repeatedly,
> stupidly
> > argues that "invective and vitriol are part of the strategy of the new
> > atheism", without any reference to the perceived influence of the poster.
> >
> > By the way, you're still a paranoid nutjob for thinking that Dev is
> > inspiring an army of violent antitheists. You're also a hypocrite for
> > condemning Dev's violent fantasies but not having any problem with the
> tons
> > and tons of much worse things the Bible has being done to non-believers.
>
> And you have no patience; I will get around to that idiotic post of
> yours when I get the time (and can find it again).

Be my guest. I'd love to see what kind of crap you come up with. I wasn't
saying you're still a paranoid hypocrite because you hadn't responded yet, I
was saying you're still a paranoid hypocrite because you display paranoia
and hypocrisy, as I explained above.

Don't think to hard about this, you'll get a headache.

>
>
>
> >
>

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:54 am
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 11:48 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Dec 1, 6:56 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> >> Borgan is BIG hypocrite saying nothing to Christian I AM TRU CHRISTIAN
>
> Or not. :)

Prove it.
_________________________________
I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
-- Ruth Hurmence Green

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hello
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/6d065aab595d7d5a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:58 am
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 11:34 am, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> " education in religious antiquity"
>
> to quote an oxford Don
>
> "is that even a subject?"

Exactly, it is like theology being a university subject... Might as
well have a department of leprechaun studies!
_________________________________
I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
-- Ruth Hurmence Green

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:03 am
From: floyd_1977

On Dec 1, 6:55 pm, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 4:41 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > Tertuliian says here he IS Christian.
> > Why did Tertullian post that he is BECOMING Christian and change it?
> > Tertullian VERY SIMILAR to Christian LimaToo
>
> If Liam is a Christian, yep we're brothers. I was an atheist not long
> ago, but now a Christian.

I doubt you were an atheist. "Not very religious" is not the same as
atheist.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:59 am
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 11:33 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible

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

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:02 am
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 8:30 am, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I have been assaulted, had my car vandalized (more than once), and
> been verbally accosted more times than I can remember.
> Out of all of those I'd have to say the vandalization of my car was
> the worse. The assault wasn't really much. I was told by some high and
> mighty theist that... "the only good atheist is a dead one." To which
> I replied, "fuck off". Then he punched me. Luckily for me, he hit like
> a school girl, unfortunately for him, I don't.
> My car on the other hand used to sport a Darwin fish on the back. I
> had my paint scratched up, a window busted and my Darwin fish
> destroyed. that was the first time. The second time I had my car spray
> painted with religious themed graffiti. Insurance only covered the
> window. The cops told me there was nothing they could do and told me
> it was basically my own fault for having an offensive decal on my car.

So much for freedom of speech...

> The Darwin fish is gone, but I replaced it with a rocket fish that
> says science in it. So far, no problems yet with that one.
_________________________________
I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
-- Ruth Hurmence Green

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:05 am
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 10:57 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs

Yes Brock, we know, we have heard it all before.
_________________________________
I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
-- Ruth Hurmence Green

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:06 am
From: rappoccio

On Dec 2, 11:53 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 11:47 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 2, 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?
>
> > Yes. There are no extremists in the group of people that wish to apply
> > reason and logic to their lives.
>
> *Snort*. Bwa-bwa-bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
>
> Bullshit.

Can you name one?

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > 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?
>
> > > Note that you can't say "Give up your religion" because we think
> > > they're wrong about their interpretation of the religion.
>
> > And they think you're wrong about the same thing, for equally poorly
> > founded reasons. Each of you must selectively ignore the other parts
> > of the religion you're following that don't agree with you.
>
> This is an utterly crappy reply to a question of what moderate
> religious people can do to show that WE DON'T AGREE WITH THE
> EXTREMISTS. You are stating what here? That we might be wrong in our
> interpretations? Utterly besides the point.

No, actually, that IS the point. The entire point is that NONE of you
have any better "interpretations" than any of the rest, even ASSUMING
that God exists. Nothing whatsoever makes your "faith" any more
founded than that of Osama Bin Laden. You selectively disagree with
parts of your religion that you find distasteful, but don't actually
admit that this is what you're doing. Does this mean your religion is
good, or that you're just good at ignoring the bad?

> Seriously, man, you've really lost it ...

I beg to differ.

>
> > The
> > arbiter to society happens to be humanism,
>
> No, it is not. The arbiter is effectively philosophy, and how we know
> what interpretations follow from a text. Humanism says quite little
> about that.

Really? So you can't really tell whether or not Osama bin Laden is
actually justified in murdering human beings? His philosophy is based
on an interpretation from a text. So does yours. What exactly makes
his interpretation worse than yours?

>
> > and that's when we know the
> > bat-shit crazies have gone too far. However, don't even PRETEND it has
> > anything to do with any one group having a dead-lock on the "true
> > meaning" of their religion.
>
> I believe that I can prove it using the common texts. That is what
> discussions of interpretations are about. Shame that you have no
> knowledge or experience in dealing with such.

Really?

"Slay [infidels] wherever ye find them and drive them out of the
places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than
slaughter." - Koran 2:191

"Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion
reigns supreme" - Koran 8:39

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put
to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
Leviticus 20:13

"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and
the woman must be put to death." Leviticus 20:10

Want to prove that God doesn't want you to slay infidels wherever ye
find them, or murder homosexuals? Give it a shot.

But let's be clear here: You using the common texts to show that these
are wrong, means that you've shown to be wrong that text that you use
to show them that they are wrong.

Now who's losing it, Allan?

>
>
>
> > > And you can't say "Write books and papers and work to change the
> > > religion from inside", because many do.
>
> > There are Catholics looking to get the Pope to stop saying that
> > abortion is murder?
>
> > News to me.
>
> Why is the belief that abortion is murder necessarily extremist?
> Disagreeing with what rappoccio or with naturalism is not the
> criteria for extremism.

Ahhh, I see.... whatever you say isn't extremism, isn't extremism? If
everyone is an extremist, does that mean there are no extremists?

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:06 am
From: rappoccio

On Dec 2, 11:43 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 11:41 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 3:29 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 3:20 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 28, 6:51 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 28, 6:03 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > > > Truly shameless and yet very Christian behavior. In fact, this isn't limited
> > > > > > to Christians since you can see the same kind of behavior amongst those who
> > > > > > believe in the other Abrahamic religions which leads one to believe that
> > > > > > it's the biblical doctrine itself that's the source of this and not just
> > > > > > "bad" christians.
>
> > > > > Well, not really, since it seems to be very HUMAN behaviour:
>
> > > > >http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2008/11/22...
>
> > > > > Are you going to claim that those people targetting random and
> > > > > innocent religious people over the issue of same-sex marriage was
> > > > > spawned by the Bible, and that these people were following a Abrahamic
> > > > > religion in doing so?
>
> > > > Which ones? The ones denying civil liberties to the gay people who
> > > > retaliated, or the gay people?
>
> > > The ones beating the crap out of people and commiting violence against
> > > them in that article.
>
> > > My long rant to Trance should explain to you how I feel about
> > > religious people doing similar things ...
>
> > And how do you know these people weren't religious?
>
> If you want to seriously assert that the people targetting random
> religions over gay rights did it because of their religion, I think I
> need say no more ...

Indeed you need not, since it would clearly demonstrate our point.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:07 am
From: rappoccio

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

Firstly: Thomas Jefferson disagrees with you.

Secondly: Where are the words "freedom of religion" in the US
Constitution?

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

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 11 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links