Atheism vs Christianity: Atheism-vs-Christianity - 25 new messages in 9 topics

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 3 ==
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?

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:38 pm
From: Joe

It's funny how it's always someone else that made you not want to be
Catholic. You never own that decision as your own.

On Dec 3, 2:40 pm, 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. :)

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:43 pm
From: Woodbridge

It's funny how Catholics make decision as your own to remain in
Vatican church AFTER Vatican officially hides priests raping little
children instead of giving them to police
Also funny how such little children after growing up blame raping
priest for making them leave church and not want to be Catholic?
Also they never own that decision as your own?

On Dec 3, 1:38 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's funny how it's always someone else that made you not want to be
> Catholic. You never own that decision as your own.
>
> On Dec 3, 2:40 pm, 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. :)

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:23 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Penfold <com@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.
>
> 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?

Honestly? Possibly. Rationally? No.

>
>
> As an engineer when I examine nature I see clear evidence of design.
> Does your obviously having reached a different conclusion mean that I
> am ignorant or deluding myself?

Yes. What does it mean to say something "looks designed"? What would
something that looks undesigned look like?

>
>
> The Bible could be compared to a comic if it were simply fable. Some
> of the idioms found in the Bible can be amusing, but I think that can
> be forgiven of a two thousand year old book.

Not if that two thousand year old book is supposed to be the word of an
infallible God.

> For me the many examples
> of a higher source of wisdom found in the Bible,

Such as?

> it's internal harmony
> 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. Where is the
> flaw in my reasoning?

There are many. For example, not contradicting yourself is not evidence of
divine inspiration.

>
> >
>

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:41 pm
From: Penfold

Thanks for the reply Answer_42

> The only way to reach that conclusion is through willful ignorance.

On the contrary. Aged 17 I set out to confirm for myself what I had
been told; that there is compelling evidence that we evolved from
lower life forms, that our planet is much like all the others, that
living by the principles in the Bible only stifle your life.

That wasn't what I found, which miffed me for a while, but I do feel I
have benefited greatly by living by God's standards.

>> As an engineer when I examine nature I see clear evidence of design.
>Really? Provide some of that evidence.

All evidence has to be interpreted so that conclusions can be drawn
from the observations are made. I suspect that whatever conclusions I
may draw others could disagree. But since you ask here's one:

DNA/RNA is the basis for all known life. It is very complex and has to
interact perfectly to work. It is a mathematical impossibility that
any amount of amino acids and lightning acting in an uncontrolled way
over however millions of years could produce functioning DNA/RNA.

> you are deluding yourself because you are ignoring some facts

An example? One will do for starters.

> What makes you think that a 2,000 year old book has any relevance today?

It tells us where we came from, why everything is so messed up, what
the solution is, and what we need to do to benefit from it. I avoid a
great deal of bother by applying the lessons recorded for us. It was
written a long time ago, but the human condition and our creator has
not changed since then.

> Are you claiming that without that book you would not be able to live a good fruitful life?

My life has been greatly enhanced by the peace of mind from not having
to worry about what the future holds, not having to worry about fixing
this world, knowing the best way to live, what I ought to be doing
with my life.

>> a higher source of wisdom found in the Bible
>Such as?

The sanitation laws given to the Jews in the Mosaic law. Effective
methods of avoiding unnecessary disease in the camp. This was long
before the basics germs and infection were understood. It was a
standard of cleanliness way in advance of the surrounding nations of
the time.

> You mean after you ignore the thousands of errors/contradictions/ aberrations?
Such as?

>> the many prophecies that have come true
>Such as?

The detailed description of the fall of Babylon in the book of Isaiah,
written some 200 year in advance. Correctly foretold what nations, how
they'd do it, that it would fall without a fight, even named Cyrus.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:50 pm
From: Penfold

> > Where is the flaw in my reasoning?
>
> There are many. For example, not contradicting yourself is not evidence of divine inspiration.

Something like 40 different people from all different backgrounds,
places and time physically wrote the words of the bible. That they
don't contradict each other supports their claim that they were
writing God's words not their own.

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

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:01 pm
From: Woodbridge

On Dec 3, 1:50 pm, Penfold <c...@quickbuilds.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Where is the flaw in my reasoning?
>
> > There are many. For example, not contradicting yourself is not evidence of divine inspiration.
>
> Something like 40 different people from all different backgrounds,
> places and time physically wrote the words of the bible. That they
> don't contradict each other supports their claim that they were
> writing God's words not their own.
>
> Eye witnesses to the same event often contradict each other because
> their perceptions are coloured by their own personalities and
> fallibilities.

Why do you ignore every thing what Turner said?
Maybe you are like Christian Borgan, YES?

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

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:23 pm
From: ynot

Joe wrote:
>
> Don't worship gods at all. Only worship God, since there is only one.

Wrong, you are not reading anything but the buybul.
You forgot , Allah, Annapuma, Balrma, Brahma, Dhumavat,
Durga, Jeovah, just to keep it below the letter "J" and many
thousands of others.
Check google or Wiki for many, many more.
Bilions of peope now a days believe in tose gods.

ynot

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:35 pm
From: Joe

On Dec 3, 4:23 pm, ynot <ynotamil2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>
> > Don't worship gods at all. Only worship God, since there is only one.
>
> Wrong, you are not reading anything but the buybul.
> You forgot , Allah, Annapuma, Balrma, Brahma, Dhumavat,
> Durga, Jeovah, just to keep it below the letter "J" and many
> thousands of others.
> Check google or Wiki for many, many more.
> Bilions of peope now a days believe in tose gods.
>

All just different names. It is like saying I breathe air while you
breathe atmosphere and someone else breathes oxygen and other gases.

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:55 pm
From: ynot

Penfold wrote:
> 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.

And in the process that monster of yours allows children, babies, to
die of hanger; by the millions a year.This just to prove that he is
better
then the forth god of christianity, the devil.
What a sick and sad story.

> > �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.

What? god asking a father to kill his son?
You must be as sadistic as your god.

> If God foresaw the future of everything that would be akin
> to predestination, which would make personal responsibility
> and sin a nonsense.

Because god does not foresee the future, you say that personal
responsibility and sin are not a nonsense.

> However God obviously can see the future / direct events

OK, make up your mind: just now he could not foresee the future,
but now he can! And because of that sin is a nonsense.

>to fulfil his purpose as shown by all
> those prophecies.

To get babies killed just because they have no food? Is that
the purpose of that monster of yours?

> He could instantly smite everyone who sinned, but he chooses
> not to.

He chooses not? What a bastard.
Why not do his job and smite the fucking fourth god os cristianity,
the devil, once and for all? Is that so difficult?

>Same with his foresight, he uses it
> selectively to the benefit of mankind.

That you, but no thanks. We had enough of that benefit.

> God could know that Abraham would be faithful, but without requiring
> him to demonstrate his faith,

So, as your buybull says, he needs proof, because he can not
see the future.

> Abraham knew he was being given the
> ultimate test, and assumed that God would resurect the young man

I knew it! That shit story is just a joke.
Well, that much, we (the atheists) already know. We have been
saying it for ages.

ynot

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:08 pm
From: ynot

Joe wrote:
> On Dec 3, 4:23�pm, ynot <ynotamil2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> All just different names. It is like saying I breathe air while you
> breathe atmosphere and someone else breathes oxygen and other gases.

Why are you so hypocrit?
Chistians kill muslins, catholics kill protestants, muslins kill
hindus,
christians kill CHRISTIANS ORTHODOX, just because all are one
god with a different name?
All that killing in the name of god!
Not gold, nor silver or oil: in the name of G O D.

ynot

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:11 pm
From: Multiverse

> Its very interesting to hear a non-believer articulate what is, in
> detail, a blind faith.

I see the grammatical typo Brock, thanks for pointing that out.

Change that to: I am sure we will probably get there.

See here is the rub Brock. This is what prevents you from letting
go. And if you pay attention you will note that I can do this without
referencing any notable literary works or otherwise appeal to the
authority of others.

It's obvious you have spent a great deal of time conceptualizing the
abstract. Toying with ideas like truth, reason, purpose, god, the
beginning, physical and non physical. Batting at them like a ball of
string. Obviously that's the short list. You fancy yourself a
connoisseur of some great philosophical system of truth. I am sure
its a blast to sip cognac with your chums and construct yourselves
some grammatically founded thought castle of spiritual truth that
looks all nice and shiny in your minds. You remind me of those kids
back in the 80's who used to sit around all day and night playing
dungeons and dragons. What fun to bandy about with magical wizardry
powers constrained only on their ability to think. Every time you get
into a jam, whip out a magic spell and poof. All because you could
think of a magic spell. You carry on in the same manner here Brock.
Whether its a hobby or a complete way of life for you, it might seem
like it sure would be a bummer to give it up huh? I mean if you admit
there is no god,... that would sure seem to take the purpose out of
your fanciful philosophy games. So its hard, I'm sure, to admit the
folly in the philosophical play. It's your comfort zone. But you
are conjuring up ideas that are no more a part of reality than some
wizard in D and D.

I hate to break it to ya kid,....but that's the way it is.

Realizing of cource that you are fond of the last word, remember your
typing it from a clearly pinned position.

On Dec 3, 3:55 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Multiverse <cuta...@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

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

ynot,

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

==============================================================================
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 1:29 pm
From: Woodbridge

Christian Borgan is not interested in dialog
So Borgan not answer questions and not give proof also but lie that he
already answered and already gave proof

On Dec 3, 1:18 pm, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
> 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: defeated Atheist - the subject they run from, because it is proof.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/c985fa0fdbf2aa9f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:33 pm
From: zencycle

> On Oct 20, 12:38 pm, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
>
> > Stoner, no one is running from you, we're laughing at you. It might
> > help if you were to (attempt to) explain what you mean by a 'child
> > god'. This is a new phrase being proffered, and it's up to you to
> > (attempt to) explain this new term.

On Oct 24, 10:22 pm, Stonethatbleeds <fb...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> ok, I never read this post..sorry for that! I don't know how it got
> passed me!

I do.

> 1) mankind has been called a child god for thousands of years and by
> definition mankind is a god.

I have never heard this before your rants. Cite your source, please?

> 2) scientist dared to look for God

No, scientists do not look for god. That's the philosophers job.
Scientists look for explanations about how things work.

> 3) level of evolution in science by scientist place mankind at level
> 0 to 1 and just becoming a 1 now because we see with machine eyes and
> go with machines into completely different environments and are
> masters of all life forms survival or extinction, as we proved we can
> make things extinct, willingly. We can seed worlds willingly and only
> to serve who? what? Life!

No scientist will ever think he is approaching '1', or wholeness. At
best, the more we learn, the more we realize we don't know.
What worlds have we seeded?

> 4) any life forms on other world found or not are as valid as a god as
> mankind is now

For that to be even plausible, god would have to be real.

> 5) any life form intelligent like mankind and doing the same SURVIVAL
> work of seeding worlds and maintaining worlds of life as one and only
> main function any being in the universe. Nothing is more important
> than seeding life or saving life or transposing life from harm.. there
> is work forever.

Basic survival instinct, hardly a 'godly' phenomenon.

> 6) as we meet other life forms of our level we instantly will want to
> share histories. The share of histories makes a greater power of both
> or more Gods meeting and so all together an even greater God we call
> "Father".

Until one of the theists decides that the other theist is the anti
christ and kills them.

>
> 7) The term not new, it is just a true term!

Wrong on both counts, it's new and it's bogus

>and the burden of proof
> is on the Atheist never on the theist side fro you need to prove
> simple basic things like mankind not a God and life not a god as up
> close examples of Gods in your life you can hide or run from or even
> die and get away

Wrong again, the proof lies with the person making the positive claim.
I am not a god, and no person I ever even heard of is a god. If you're
claiming we are all gods, you need to show how we have some sort of
supernatural ability. Not me, You.

... all is recorded now and all you say counts forever
> now...
> so what you have to claim against mankind and life being God...long
> before you can deal with the Father of all Gods as life itself all
> over the Universe.

babble, babble

> so I am sorry I missed that post but not that i mocked you

Right back atcha, big fella.

> you have one heck of a wall of reality to cross to claim atheist now.

I do.....right....

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:40 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:21 PM, checkers <mkoneill@telkomsa.net> wrote:

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

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when checkers calls the cops to report us.

>
>
> 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.
>
>
> >
>

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:00 pm
From: checkers

On Dec 3, 11:03 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Patiently explaining anything to Checkers is a waste of time because as this
> thread proves he's a fucking liar.

chx
back to this game. what lie, mind pointing it out?

> The irony is just too precious.
>
> First he complains that we are not banning atheists for "impersonating" him
> because we are "biased".

chx
yes, and...?

> You explain that the history of the group shows we are not when complaints
> are legitimate atheists as well as theists are banned.

chx
i still see no point...or lie!

> Then Checkers uses the example of Keith to prove to everyone that he's a
> liar.

chx
who, keith?

> 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.

chx
whahahaha, hilarious, you defended one theist against another
theist...wow!

> Now Checkers is whining that ultimatetruth shouldn't have been banned.

chx
huh!

> It would be nice if he was consistent and would make up his fucking mind on
> which position it is that he's taking.

chx
i think it is you that lost a few positions

> Essentially Checkers is a nasty piece of shit and a drama queen who
> fabricates issues.

chx
everthing i posted are fact in print within the archives, deary.

> Ultimately it won't matter what the Mods do or say, Chx will find fault in
> it.

chx
yes, so long as it bias i will. now how about some consistancy in your
judgement calls.

> If Chx thinks we're so terrible here I think he should leave.

chx
what! i must leave because YOU are teribble as a moderator, duh!

> I have no intention of wasting my time dealing with his incessant whining
> and malicious lies.

chx
i bet you cannot find a single lie in this thread from me. spelling
and grammar yes, but no lie. this post of yours has lies from you. you
accusing me falsely of lying is a lie by you. you accusing me of
posting archive facts as being fabricated is a lie from you.

>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:19 PM, rappoccio <rappoc...@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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:08 pm
From: checkers

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

chx
why would i want to do that Turner? is that what you would have done?

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

==============================================================================
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 5 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:54 pm
From: Max

Sorry Trance, I'm assuming you may have missed this post I offered
after you also guided me on the Wise words of Wisdom from MV. Your
thoughts? MV, somehow you missed it as well (A different post of
course but the message was the same) Please, by all means, let me know
your thoughts.

Thanks Trance,

But how do you appraise this comment after my initial non
confrontational & pertinant post in this thread again;

"Yeah, pooping on Max isn't violence either. I intended this thread
for actual people who understood the issue. Drafterman and Trance both
knew what I was talking about, which is why I'm debating them. You're
retarded and don't understand the question. Go die somewhere."

No 'matey' myopia now :)

Max

On Dec 3, 8:31 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:54 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Max <amf6@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>
> Not clear from me perhaps, but what I was trying to get at was that if
> the choice is available, utilise non violent aproaches (as some have
> been proven to have some impact) but also if warranted, violence can
> be a valid response as well.
>

I agree. I'm not an absolute pacifist by any means. I agree with WWII for
example. It was necessary. So there are times when it's the right thing but
as we've already agreed those times are quite rare.

Other approaches need to be utilized first and foremost and I think we agree
on that too.

>
> The 'goal posts have moved' comment from me was in reference to the
> topic moving towards issues of theistic recalcitrance etc. At the
> time, I was working more on what I thought the discussion tenor was
> about i.e. the broader 'non violence against injustice' issues, or so
> I thought.
>
> I can appreciate that striving for any understanding with theists is
> practically impossible as their dogma disallows it, but my 'striving'
> comment was more about humanity in general.

Ah, okay. I misunderstood then. I thought you were specifically talking
about theists. Apologies.

We always get it right eventually ;-)

>
>
> Max
>
> On Dec 3, 1:30 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 3, 8:26 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > > > OK TG, I've looked at Dev's premise a bit more, ostensibly to look
> for
> > > > > the key motivation behind it and the Ghandi example that you have
> been
> > > > > discussing was really a manufactured argument from the start. Devy
> had
> > > > > done some reading, threw the bait out with a fairly broad statement
> > > > > knowing that Ghandi would appear from someone fairly early on in
> the
> > > > > piece. (He acknowledged it later anyway)
> >
> > > > > Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > > > > Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source
> material
> > > > > to back his premise that
> >
> > > > > "I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes
> a
> > > > > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source
> material."
> >
> > > > > After a couple of exchanges, I'm sure you started feeling like this
> > > > > was all a set up.
> >
> > > > Not at all. I knew where Dev was going with it.
> >
> > > Well a an outsider, looking in, when you proposed Ghandi with two
> > > other suggestions as examples - one of which I also noted), I naively
> > > assumed he was actually looking for a breadth of examples, not to
> > > discuss the Ghandi thing exclusively.
> >
> > > > I'm glad he brought the topic up so we can discuss it.
> >
> > > No problem there.
> >
> > > > Dev already knows my opinions on this topic so my comments were no
> > > surprise
> > > > to him either.
> >
> > > Fine, but I was unaware of that based on the threads title
> >
> > > > We've had this discussion privately as well so we both knew where
> this
> > > was
> > > > going to go.
> >
> > > Again, not for me to know.
> >
> > > > > I think Dev sees most things in Black & White only. I mean
> reference
> > > > > to the statement 'Non violence has never worked" Mmmmhh, very few
> > > > > greys, so it seems.
> >
> > > > Actually he doesn't. Not in my opinion anyway. He just makes his
> points
> > > > strongly and I guess it can look like that sometimes but I don't
> really
> > > see
> > > > that.
> >
> > > I disagree.. If his statement is correctly restated; "Non violence has
> > > never worked" & the I provide examples that it has (or could be argued
> > > so) & he then immaturely dismisses them, with his poo on Max thing,
> > > what's the conclusion?
> >
> > > > > He sees the 'pacifist, non compliant or non violent' approach to
> > > > > dealing with problems of state, injustice etc as not a viable
> solution
> > > > > and that regarding non violence as a valuable strategy is without
> > > > > historical efficacy and is only supported by wooses. (Or more
> likely
> > > > > churchy pacifists, or liberals etc)
> >
> > > > It's paragraphs like the above that get him pissed off at you (if you
> > > want
> > > > to know ;-)
> >
> > > Why....unless I read it wrong, how is that not what he's saying. (Such
> > > a shame I have to ask you, as he won't converse with me maturely
> > > anymore)
> >
> > > > > I think he misses the point that non violent strategies are really
> > > > > only a recent phenomena, so the weight of historic evidence that
> > > > > violent measures have worked clearly has held sway for millenia.
> It's
> > > > > a flawed argument that one.
> >
> > > > Well I wouldn't call it "flawed". It's an opinion.
> >
> > > It's my opinion & I think his is flawed. It's like saying that people
> > > didn't fly aeroplanes in the 18th Century as well as people can fly
> > > them in the 21st Century. It just didn't happen in the 18th century,
> > > so how can one compare the efficacy of violent vs non violent protest
> > > then & now.
> >
> > > > I happen to have a different assessment of that.
> >
> > > Fine.
> >
> > > > > But yes, war, insurrection, violent opposition etc has it's place.
> I
> > > > > certainly don't argue otherwise.
> >
> > > > Only rarely in extreme cases where there are no other options
> whatsoever.
> >
> > > Agreed
> >
> > > > > But if we as a species are to evolve towards some form of
> > > > > enlightenment, surely there is a place in this world for non
> violent
> > > > > protest and strive towards notions of understanding, empathy and a
> > > > > brotherhood of man & (woman). I mean, the examples provided here
> > > > > demonstrate that non violent protest does work, in certain
> > > > > circumstances.
> >
> > > > If it's necessary, yes.
> >
> > > Agreed
> >
> > > > It's a new approach and a new strategy and needs to have the bugs
> worked
> > > out
> > > > but in reality I'm not even talking about protest movements and
> > > brotherhood
> > > > when I discuss strategy.
> >
> > > Now, this is the first reference to religion and atheism (apart from
> > > the Indian sectarian implications) in the context of the discussion
> > > (for me anyway)
> >
> > > > I'm talking about atheists taking what's going on seriously from the
> > > > wealthiest to the poorest.
> >
> > > > Getting active and getting involved in the government, military,
> media,
> > > > social aspects of society.
> >
> > > > Be everywhere and get our policies implemented and our opinions
> heard.
> >
> > > > Influence is what we need.
> >
> > > > Why allow ourselves to be marginalized in the first place.
> >
> > > > The protest movement approach is one taken by marginalized people.
> >
> > > > The problem is that's how we see ourselves and so that's how we
> behave.
> >
> > > > We're reacting to things instead of taking charge of things.
> >
> > > Yes, yes, & yes again. No issue here
> >
> > > > > Religion has divided us, ideological dogma has divided us,
> colonialism
> > > > > and imperialism has divided us, war has divided us and ignorance
> has
> > > > > divided us.
> >
> > > > Well we can only take responsibility for ourselves we can't control
> how
> > > > theists react to these things and unfortunately they don't react in
> the
> > > most
> > > > intelligent manner no matter how intelligent they may be
> individually.
> >
> > > OK, here's the introduction of the theists argument now. This is
> > > another issue, and again I have no problem so far.
> >
> > > > > It's time to move away from the paradigm of hostility to seize and
> > > > > control what we want. Yes, defend ourselves against tyranny with
> > > > > violence, individual or state sanctioned, but we should
> collectively
> > > > > strive for understanding.
> >
> > > > Well that all sounds lovely but this is where you and some of the
> others
> > > > here lose people like Dev and me.
> >
> > > > I can't speak for Rapp but if he reads this I'm sure he'll jump in
> and
> > > > comment.
> >
> > > > The reason is that I don't believe theists want understanding. They
> want
> > > > conversion. Only the most liberal, and not even all of them, might be
> > > > willing to accept a limited truce on these questions.
> >
> > > OK, the goal posts have moved. The Ghandi discussion (British
> > > colonialism and all my geo political examples) were not focussing on
> > > the theistic implications you're drawing attention to now (in the
> > > main)
> >
> > No shifting of goal posts. You brought up "collectively strive for
> > understanding." and I'm speaking directly to that point.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Understanding isn't going to happen. On this I agree with Dev.
> >
> > > Know thy enemy, but I do see what you're saying
> >
> > > > Agreements can be made on certain issues.
> >
> > > Sure
> >
> > > > For example, atheists and some theists might agree that we both want
> > > > secularism or that we both want a certain level of human rights, etc.
> >
> > > > Other than that anyone who thinks that theists have any interest
> > > whatsoever
> > > > in building understanding, empathy, etc types of relationships with
> > > atheists
> > > > is delusional themselves in my opinion.
> >
> > > Absolutely Trance, but where in hell is this issue part of this
> > > thread. If the thread was entitled, "what are the tactics we should
> > > employ that would best & most effectively marginalise world theism",
> > > well then, that'd bring out what you wanting here. Fine. But again, I
> > > saw this as something else.
> >
> > > > The best we can have is agreements on specific issues.
> >
> > > > And this is precisely why the atheist solution has to be to get into
> > > > positions of influence and deal with issues directly instead of
> > > > marginalizing ourselves and then complaining when theists who are
> getting
> > > > themselves in positions of influence exercise their power.
> >
> > > Yes, covered that
> >
> > > > > Too many people, like Dev only see things in absolute terms and
> > > > > particularly with the view that they are right, absolutley. I mean
> who
> > > > > writes this kind of thing other than a ideologue who figures every
> one
> > > > > else is 'stupid' but fails to see that the status quo actually
> prefer
> > > > > violence anyway.
> >
> > > > > "It isn't about who can be more liberal or politically correct
> > > > > anymore--the status quo is stupid, and we should try to figure out
> > > > > what's right."
> >
> > > > > Max
> >
> > > > > On Dec 2, 9:06 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Dear Lady,
> >
> > > > > > > I thought I'd cover off some other "non violence in the face of
> > > > > > > irrational injustice" success stories with you because I'm
> getting
> > > Dev
> > > > > > > is getting violent with me again:) I'll try a non violent 'sit
> in'
> > > > > > > with him going forward, but it will be difficult nonetheless. I
> > > didn't
> > > > > > > realise that this thread was meant to discuss only what he
> wanted
> > > to
> > > > > > > discuss. Silly me, wrong again!
> >
> > > > > > > I think the gay community has had some wins for community
> > > acceptance
> > > > > > > particularly over the last 20 years or so (in western
> democracies
> > > > > > > anyway) The participnats of the early gay pride parades must
> have
> > > had
> > > > > > > the 'balls' to do what they did (pun intended). The 'struggle'
> > > still
> > > > > > > ain't over as yet, but it's heading in the right direction
> >
> > > > > > > Going back further, the 'suffragettes' also, through a program
> of
> > > non
> > > > > > > violence, really changed the paradigm that only the men had the
> > > right
> > > > > > > to vote. Go girls!
> >
> > > > > > > There are many individual cases such as Rosa Parks, whose non
> > > violent
> > > > > > > protest, kick started the media into looking squarely at the
> > > > > > > injustices perpetrated both on her and the wider
> >
> > ...
> >
> > read more »- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>

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

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:58 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Max <amf6@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>
> Sorry Trance, I'm assuming you may have missed this post I offered
> after you also guided me on the Wise words of Wisdom from MV. Your
> thoughts? MV, somehow you missed it as well (A different post of
> course but the message was the same) Please, by all means, let me know
> your thoughts.
>
> Thanks Trance,
>
> But how do you appraise this comment after my initial non
> confrontational & pertinant post in this thread again;
>
> "Yeah, pooping on Max isn't violence either. I intended this thread
> for actual people who understood the issue. Drafterman and Trance both
> knew what I was talking about, which is why I'm debating them. You're
> retarded and don't understand the question. Go die somewhere."
>
> No 'matey' myopia now :)
>

I guess I'm just saying that there's a time to make an issue out of things
and time to just not worry about them.

I said something along those lines to Dev too.

You're both very bright guys and I like you both.

So, I just hate to see this kind of thing happening.

>
> Max
>
> On Dec 3, 8:31 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 3, 8:31 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > > >Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > > >Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> > > >to back his premise that
> >
> > > Max,
> > > Most interesting threads that are worth responding to are a set up of
> > > sorts. You should know that. What would you think if Dev did not do
> > > his homework and devise a plan to flesh out some interesting stuff?
> > > Certainly you would go on about his unpreparedness. Properly done,
> > > the one who starts the thread should bear the burden of responding and
> > > working the thread. That means they should do their homework.
> >
> > > But seriously Max,..you know that. Try to get over your tiff with
> > > Dev. We have all had em. He calls you a name and you write another
> > > book on his misgivings. You will contribute better here if you drop
> > > it. Of course it's none of my business really.
> >
> > Wise words of Wisdom from MV.
> >
> > Advice I agree with, Max.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 2, 5:30 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > > > OK TG, I've looked at Dev's premise a bit more, ostensibly to look
> for
> > > > the key motivation behind it and the Ghandi example that you have
> been
> > > > discussing was really a manufactured argument from the start. Devy
> had
> > > > done some reading, threw the bait out with a fairly broad statement
> > > > knowing that Ghandi would appear from someone fairly early on in the
> > > > piece. (He acknowledged it later anyway)
> >
> > > > Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > > > Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> > > > to back his premise that
> >
> > > > "I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a
> > > > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material."
> >
> > > > After a couple of exchanges, I'm sure you started feeling like this
> > > > was all a set up.
> >
> > > > I think Dev sees most things in Black & White only. I mean reference
> > > > to the statement 'Non violence has never worked" Mmmmhh, very few
> > > > greys, so it seems.
> >
> > > > He sees the 'pacifist, non compliant or non violent' approach to
> > > > dealing with problems of state, injustice etc as not a viable
> solution
> > > > and that regarding non violence as a valuable strategy is without
> > > > historical efficacy and is only supported by wooses. (Or more likely
> > > > churchy pacifists, or liberals etc)
> >
> > > > I think he misses the point that non violent strategies are really
> > > > only a recent phenomena, so the weight of historic evidence that
> > > > violent measures have worked clearly has held sway for millenia. It's
> > > > a flawed argument that one.
> >
> > > > But yes, war, insurrection, violent opposition etc has it's place. I
> > > > certainly don't argue otherwise.
> >
> > > > But if we as a species are to evolve towards some form of
> > > > enlightenment, surely there is a place in this world for non violent
> > > > protest and strive towards notions of understanding, empathy and a
> > > > brotherhood of man & (woman). I mean, the examples provided here
> > > > demonstrate that non violent protest does work, in certain
> > > > circumstances.
> >
> > > > Religion has divided us, ideological dogma has divided us,
> colonialism
> > > > and imperialism has divided us, war has divided us and ignorance has
> > > > divided us.
> >
> > > > It's time to move away from the paradigm of hostility to seize and
> > > > control what we want. Yes, defend ourselves against tyranny with
> > > > violence, individual or state sanctioned, but we should collectively
> > > > strive for understanding.
> >
> > > > Too many people, like Dev only see things in absolute terms and
> > > > particularly with the view that they are right, absolutley. I mean
> who
> > > > writes this kind of thing other than a ideologue who figures every
> one
> > > > else is 'stupid' but fails to see that the status quo actually prefer
> > > > violence anyway.
> >
> > > > "It isn't about who can be more liberal or politically correct
> > > > anymore--the status quo is stupid, and we should try to figure out
> > > > what's right."
> >
> > > > Max
> >
> > > > On Dec 2, 9:06 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Dear Lady,
> >
> > > > > > I thought I'd cover off some other "non violence in the face of
> > > > > > irrational injustice" success stories with you because I'm
> getting
> > > Dev
> > > > > > is getting violent with me again:) I'll try a non violent 'sit
> in'
> > > > > > with him going forward, but it will be difficult nonetheless. I
> > > didn't
> > > > > > realise that this thread was meant to discuss only what he wanted
> to
> > > > > > discuss. Silly me, wrong again!
> >
> > > > > > I think the gay community has had some wins for community
> acceptance
> > > > > > particularly over the last 20 years or so (in western democracies
> > > > > > anyway) The participnats of the early gay pride parades must have
> had
> > > > > > the 'balls' to do what they did (pun intended). The 'struggle'
> still
> > > > > > ain't over as yet, but it's heading in the right direction
> >
> > > > > > Going back further, the 'suffragettes' also, through a program of
> non
> > > > > > violence, really changed the paradigm that only the men had the
> right
> > > > > > to vote. Go girls!
> >
> > > > > > There are many individual cases such as Rosa Parks, whose non
> violent
> > > > > > protest, kick started the media into looking squarely at the
> > > > > > injustices perpetrated both on her and the wider black community
> in
> > > > > > the US. From this 'spark' a fire then raged. Non violent
> > > > > > though..............and look where we are decades later.......an
> > > > > > African American US president.....That's one for democracy and
> non
> > > > > > violence eh!
> >
> > > > > Exactly. The fact is that this approach is new but it's one that we
> > > know is
> > > > > working and for that reason it's becoming a favored approach.
> >
> > > > > > There's more, but I'll leave it at this for the minute
> >
> > > > > > Cheers
> >
> > > > > > Max
> >
> > > > > > On Dec 2, 12:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article
> (actually,
> > > book,
> > > > > > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for
> easy
> > > > > > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential
> "examples"
> > > that
> > > > > > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the
> > > link,
> > > > > > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was
> actually a
> > > > > > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth,
> why
> > > are
> > > > > > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent
> examples?
> > > Is
> > > > > > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well,
> > > no--
> > > > > > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do
> with
> > > human
> > > > > > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case,
> > > anyone--explain
> > > > > > > > exactly how one explains the other).
> >
> > > > > > > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human
> > > beings are
> > > > > > > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence
> in
> > > order
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > resolve problems.
> >
> > > > > > > I would think that was a good thing.
> >
> > > > > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the
> proportion
> > > is of
> > > > > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the
> > > proportion
> > > > > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives
> > > history?
> > > > > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at
> violence
> > > more
> > > > > > > > didn't lose.
> >
> > > > > > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
> >
> > > > > > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on
> the
> > > existing
> > > > > > > circumstances.
> >
> > > > > > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning
> a
> > > War of
> > > > > > > Conquest a success.
> >
> > > > > > > It depends on what the goals are.
> >
> > > > > > > If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving
> a
> > > problem,
> > > > > > > violence is rarely the right solution.
> >
> > > > > > > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <
> thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Let's go!
> >
> > > > > > > > > Martin Luther King.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
> >
> > > > > > > > > Mahatma Gandhi.
> >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > > > > > > > > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its'
> > > constant
> > > > > > > > companion.
> > > > > > > > > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts."
> --Trance
> > > Gemini,
> > > > > > > > > Andromeda
> >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > > > > > > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its'
> constant
> > > > > > companion.
> > > > > > > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance
> > > Gemini,
> > > > > > > Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > > > > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> > > companion.
> > > > > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance
> Gemini,
> > > > > Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > --
> > 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 5 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:59 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Lawrey <lawrenceel@btinternet.com> wrote:

>
> Trance,
>
>
> I love you more than ever !! Your suggestion of Firefox
> solved the problem immediately. Grateful Thanks. ;)

Glad to hear that Lawrey :-)

>
>
> 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 »
> >
>

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:09 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Lawrey <lawrenceel@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?

Okay well I guess we're going to get into a lively debate about the Indian
Independence Movement. Lol.

You're so wrong Lawrey. Sweet... but wrong!

If you are talking about Jallianwalla Bagh.

There were no riots.

There *were* peaceful meetings and gatherings held in defiance of the law
imposed by the British which Banned gatherings of any kind and which was
intended to suppress the Freedom movement.

This was one of the non-cooperation strategies applied by the Freedom
Fighters.

Therefore when they occurred the British used violence to shut them down.

Jallianwalla Bagh was a meeting which was deliberately organized in defiance
of British law.

It was held in a courtyard which was completely closed and had 4 small
doorways through which people entered.

In the center of the courtyard was a well.

The British heard about the meeting.

They blocked all four entryways and lined up soldiers around the courtyard
and on the walls.

The soldiers massacred every single person in that courtyard. The few who
survived the massacre did so by jumping into the well.

Of course the people who jumped into the well first died when others jumped
in on top of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

Dev. This is my first actual example to start supporting my case.

>
>
> 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 -
> >
>

==============================================================================
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 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:55 pm
From: Neil Kelsey

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.

Way to miss the point, as always.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:00 pm
From: Medusa

ObservantEye wrote:

> Well, I can say without a doubt that at least that is getting better
> for atheists. I know what it was like 30 years ago and you don't have
> the personal crusaders beating your door down and I haven't seen
> someone handing out religious literature at every store you go to near
> as much as back then. Of course the times were different then, too,
> such a short while ago.

They're still out there, at least where I live. I usually don't
amswer the door if I don't know who is out there. But I still get
caught sometimes.

> Of course, you have to agree with some of it. I mean, do you
> seriously think no one should push for a law you're against?

Of course not. And I do fight for what I believe should be a law or
stay a law.

> This is
> democracy at it's best. Times have definitely changed enough that you
> can try to banish any reminder of any Christian's faith, like
> christmas trees, the ten commandments, etc. However, you don't see
> the same language used against Islam, or any other sects, for fear of
> being called a hate-monger. Any idea what that's about? Remember,
> I'm observing and asking if anyone knows the answers, not disagreeing
> with you or fighting you.

I don't see people out there trying to convert me to Islam. though I
did read just the other day about Google having a battle with an
Islamic country. The country does not want anything that they don't
like available anywhere in the world. So far, Google has not backed
down.

My greatest fear of some religious sects is that their members are
willing to die while attacking 'nonbelievers."

IMO, the world has gotten scarier. Or maybe I'm just noticing it
more.

Medusa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atheism vs Christianity

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Atheism-vs-Christianity - 25 new messages in 9 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links