Atheism vs Christianity: Atheism-vs-Christianity - 26 new messages in 15 topics

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: AMERICAS BIGGEST CONTRIBUTION TO AFRICA: SALESMANSHIP
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/48cea9e43476f25d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 12:23 am
From: Morpheal

Large parts of Africa, similarly to many other areas of the world,
have learned little more than the false religion of salesmanship.

That largely from America.

What we find is that selling an idea of how things are is often far
from the true facts. That is particularly true in Africa. The
realities of how things really are can elude a people for a very long
time. When the truth chances to be seen, usually because of some
sudden and unusually large change, it shocks the people. With each
such shock they become more and more disillusioned by failed
expectations build up by salesmanship. Eventually they stop believing
in anything or anyone.

That is America's biggest contribution to African politics.

Cheers.

Robert Morpheal

==============================================================================
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 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 12:50 am
From: philosophy

A red herring is when the person posing it is trying to
change the topic a little. They will put in a comment
(red herring) which may not actually be answering the
question. They may answer the question with a question
which has no real bearing on the initial question. Mind
you, you have to be aware that they may feel what they
are doing is quite justified, and is not a red herring.
It can all be in the eye of the beholder, so to speak.

On Dec 3, 10:34 am, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What a red herring.
>
> On Dec 1, 4:28 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Let's go!

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 12:58 am
From: philosophy

TG
They are doing what they do best - lying, cheating and scheming.
This is the sort of nonsense that is giving so-called Christians a
bad name, and annoys the ...... out of some atheists.
I mean, come on. If you've been banned under one name, why
come back? Because they don't learn. Some are as thick as
bricks, and worse than that, they seem to have a belief that they
are "God inspired". No different from radical Muslims, really.

On Dec 3, 9:56 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:23 AM, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 1, 6:31 pm, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Hello, I am a Christian. An atheist friend of mine is here in Simi
> > > Valley, California and challenged me to post here.
>
> > > He's quite sure that I will be banned because of my education in
> > > religious antiquity, so I accepted the challenge.
>
> > > We're visiting a friend. Tomorrow, we're both going to separate
> > > directions.
>
> > Hi, Roger Pearse. You're really bad at spoofing. You will not be
> > banned because of your education in religious antiquity. From what I
> > recall you were banned from google groups for spoofing to begin with.
>
> > Haven't learned your lesson, have you?
>
> Interesting. I would have sworn he was Liam because LedZepp vouched for him
> and I suspected LedZepp of being Liam.
>
> However, I do see your point. Tertullian combined with the first name Roger.
>
> Do you think Roger and Liam are both trying to sneak back in through the
> back door?
>
> They appear to have formed an alliance of sorts at any rate.
>
> What on earth are these assholes up to?
>
>
>
> --
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
> Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> Andromeda

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

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:03 am
From: philosophy

My goodness me, a semantic player.
This explanation is a typical Christian crappy ploy.
In other words, you feel love because you believe in God,
and anybody who doesn't believe the same way you do
is either a sinner and will go to hell.
How old are you?
You are a bigot. You are probably racist. You are
playing an unfortunate game or word play, and you
really need some strong self development in order
so you don't feel the need of this "divide and conquer" crap.

On Dec 3, 2:57 am, mary wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:
> Ruthie,
>
> How can you feel love without God? From what I have seen all the
> atheists feel is lust. Lust for the flesh, and lust for things. Only
> the higher things are pure. Love is purity, not corruption.
>
> Mary Wolls
>
> On Dec 2, 2:04 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 2, 8:51 am, Ruthie <willruthie1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > They don't love because they are scared into it. People get the idea
> > > that an atheist is a devil lover .Far from the truth. Atheist don't
> > > believe in god and definetly don't believe in Satan.
>
> > chx
> > not believing in satan does not let him go away ;)

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:04 am
From: philosophy

Wouldn't know where her arse was.

On Dec 3, 3:06 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 8:57 am, mary wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > Ruthie,
>
> > How can you feel love without God?
>
> Provide objective and verifiable evidence that God exists.
>
> > From what I have seen all the
> > atheists feel is lust.
>
> I feel slightly gaseous at the moment, so I guess you're wrong.
>
> > Lust for the flesh,
>
> mmmmmm...cannibalism.
>
> > and lust for things.
>
> mmmmmmm...things.
>
> > Only
> > the higher things are pure.
>
> What are the "higher things?" Ted Haggard? He was pretty high.
>
> > Love is purity, not corruption.
>
> I bet you're really fun in bed.
>
> > Mary Wolls
>
> > On Dec 2, 2:04 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 2, 8:51 am, Ruthie <willruthie1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > They don't love because they are scared into it. People get the idea
> > > > that an atheist is a devil lover .Far from the truth. Atheist don't
> > > > believe in god and definetly don't believe in Satan.
>
> > > chx
> > > not believing in satan does not let him go away ;)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:06 am
From: philosophy

Who would want to even read it?
Only people who can't think for themselves.
Having said that, I have read it a few times,
but nothing has really changed my mind -
just more realization that it really has nothing
to offer.

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

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:06 am
From: philosophy

Love deprived childhood, I would say.

On Dec 3, 3:45 am, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow. So no love on either side...
>
> On Dec 2, 11:32 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 2, 12:06 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > From what I have seen all the
> > > > atheists feel is lust.
>
> > > I feel slightly gaseous at the moment, so I guess you're wrong.
>
> > > > Lust for the flesh,
>
> > > mmmmmm...cannibalism.
>
> > > > and lust for things.
>
> > > mmmmmmm...things.
>
> > > > Only
> > > > the higher things are pure.
>
> > > What are the "higher things?" Ted Haggard? He was pretty high.
>
> > > > Love is purity, not corruption.
>
> > > I bet you're really fun in bed.
>
> > LOL
>
> > That was great... I wonder if she will recover!
> > _________________________________
> > I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
> > -- Ruth Hurmence Green

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:08 am
From: philosophy

I don't believe in Saints.
They are a man-made construction, just
like God is.

On Dec 3, 5:13 am, Mary Wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:
> Everyone herded goats back then. People had to eat. These were God-fearing men, who later became Saints.
>
> Mary Wolls
>
> > Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 11:04:34 -0800> Subject: [AvC] Re: Atheist are very loving people. They love because they feel love...> From: ipu.belie...@gmail.com> To: Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com> > > On Dec 2, 12:45 pm, Mary Wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:> > > You cannot override what has already been written in the Bible.> > I do not care one iota what is written in a book that was written by> neolithic goat herders from 2,000 to 3,000 years ago.> It is all fantasy and myths.> > When you have actual factual logical arguments, get back to us.> _________________________________> I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.> -- Ruth Hurmence Green> _________________________________________________________________
>
> Suspicious message? There's an alert for that.http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: are you an atheist by choice?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/c2b693c490978321?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:07 am
From: Observer

On Nov 29, 12:35 am, 29fan <go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Then a rational explanation of why the buy bull is so full of
> absurdities , contradictions, and errors which have been
> scientifically substantiated as such. How would one explain a god
> that
> had no knowledge of the universal laws by which his world functions.
> (read Genesis what a fucking worthless piece of shit that is to say
> nothing of the complete stupidity of the new testament and the
> promulgation of the hideously stupid ideas relating to metaphysics
> or
> the existence of any thing , place, creature, or condition relating
> there to. "
>
> So, why are you wasting so much time?

Observer
I do not waste my time I, in every way I can ,work to dispel the
filthy superstitions of the world.

Have you nothing to do? I
> have absurdities , every minute, it's part of life. A brilliant,
> goofy 10 yr old grandniece, who wants a dinosaur kit for Christmas.

Observer'
Give him one , enjoy him but do not abuse him by saddling him with
this dehumanizing meme of Christianity. Give the a chance in life
teach him to understand critical thought, help him learn of the modern
produce of scientific method and give him a chance to be productive
rather than a parasite on the social structure which through science
keeps him alive.

>
> "explain a god that had no knowledge of the universal laws by which
> his world functions. "

It should be obvious to you that who ever concocted that pitiful buy
bull had no knowledge of the laws governing the universe. You,
ignorant, Christians say that was your fictive god so viola a god
which has no knowledge of science.
Or rather NO god at all !
>
> Really?...you might want to think this out...God that has no
> knowledge?
>
> Find one...I'm sure you will...extrapolation ensues. Don't believe,
> no one cares, give it the fuck up.

Observer
Do all Christians take a vow to isolate themselves from the
necessities of education or just the ones who publish here?

Psychonomist

>
> On Nov 18, 9:13 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 5:04 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > peculiar question some might say. Let's phrase it differently - what
> > > would it take for you to believe in Christ.
>
> > Observer
> > First provide verifiable substantiating data for the existence of or
> > any act of any god ever.
> > Second provide scientifically verifiable substantiating data that the
> > god for which you supply the above substantiation is accurately
> > depicted by the buy bull.
> > Third provide scientifically verifiable substantiating data
> > establishing that this god depicted in the buy bull actually directly
> > had a causal/inspirational relationship to the production of the buy
> > bull.
>
> > NOTE : Chris scientifically verifiable data is that which will stand
> > up under the scrutiny of applied scientific method. You do know what
> > scientific method is , don't you Chris?
>
> > Then a rational explanation of why the buy bull is so full of
> > absurdities , contradictions, and errors which have been
> > scientifically substantiated as such. How would one explain a god that
> > had no knowledge of the universal laws by which his world functions.
> > (read Genesis what a fucking worthless piece of shit that is to say
> > nothing of the complete stupidity of the new testament and the
> > promulgation of the hideously stupid ideas relating to metaphysics or
> > the existence of any thing , place, creature, or condition relating
> > there to.
>
> > No problem Chris, if you believe in all this nonsense you surely have
> > the scientifically verifiable substantiating data at you finger tips.
>
> > No ? Well then it appears that you know not where of you speak and
> > that the objects of your belief are purely imaginary.
>
> > We await your proofs with great anticipation.
>
> > What would it take for you
>
> > > to become a professing believer in Jesus. There's a great deal of
> > > banter on this list. Some reasonable objections. But what is the real
> > > reason you're an atheist.
>
> > Observer
>
> > Chris I am an apatheist/atheist I care not in the slightest whether of
> > not there exists a god for it has left no footprint , has never
> > interacted with humanity. All delusional misinterpretations of the
> > production of endogenous opiates , hallucinations, and just plain
> > fucking lies not withstanding.
>
> > Psychonomist

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:29 am
From: Observer

On Nov 29, 12:03 am, 29fan <go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Chris I am an apatheist/atheist I care not in the slightest whether
> of
> not there exists a god for it has left no footprint , has never
> interacted with humanity. All delusional misinterpretations of the
> production of endogenous opiates , hallucinations, and just plain
> fucking lies not withstanding.
>
> Psychonomist"?
>
> Has never interacted with humanity? Really

If you think otherwise then by all means provide us with
scientifically verifiable substantiating that a god ever interacted
with any human ever.

You have personally
> spoken with all of us with whom God has interacted?

Observer
Here is a consideration wherein an education delving into the
neurological and biochemical process of a human would be of
edification to you. You would do your self a favor to study them and
better understand humanity and , the experience of endogenous
opiates ,and the commonality of hallucinations in the population in
general.

Like I said Get an education and you will find a wonderful world of
actualities in place of the sucking the tit of the long dead corps of
a filthy superstition.

Like when I was
> at the end of a work day, mysteriously drawn to a Boston hospital, to
> be sure I would be there, when my Irish twin died?

Observer
I guess it is too much to ask one who is so completely undereducated
to understand the concept of synchronicity.

Touch and go, for
> 3 years, it takes a toll on human and family life...but at least 15
> people there, and he knew....will you do as well when you die?

Observer
MY poor ignorant friend I am in the process of dying I have anywhere
from a day to a few months that I am expected to survive. I know much
about what goes with impending death. I am however not in the least
morose over the hole thing and every time I am hospitalized I speak
with my care takers to convince them of the stupidity of Christian
superstitious filth. Many there have given up their pretense to
superstition and are now of clean and healthy minds.

I hope
> to. I hope you do....but you got...nathing?

Observer
Poor stupid sap, I have damn near everything that any rational man
could want.
You on the other hand are befouled by superstitious filth to the point
that you can neither think of learn

Escape while you can. Get an education. Ditch that filthy
superstitious crap join the human race.

Regards

Psychonomist
>
> On Nov 18, 9:13 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 5:04 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > peculiar question some might say. Let's phrase it differently - what
> > > would it take for you to believe in Christ.
>
> > Observer
> > First provide verifiable substantiating data for the existence of or
> > any act of any god ever.
> > Second provide scientifically verifiable substantiating data that the
> > god for which you supply the above substantiation is accurately
> > depicted by the buy bull.
> > Third provide scientifically verifiable substantiating data
> > establishing that this god depicted in the buy bull actually directly
> > had a causal/inspirational relationship to the production of the buy
> > bull.
>
> > NOTE : Chris scientifically verifiable data is that which will stand
> > up under the scrutiny of applied scientific method. You do know what
> > scientific method is , don't you Chris?
>
> > Then a rational explanation of why the buy bull is so full of
> > absurdities , contradictions, and errors which have been
> > scientifically substantiated as such. How would one explain a god that
> > had no knowledge of the universal laws by which his world functions.
> > (read Genesis what a fucking worthless piece of shit that is to say
> > nothing of the complete stupidity of the new testament and the
> > promulgation of the hideously stupid ideas relating to metaphysics or
> > the existence of any thing , place, creature, or condition relating
> > there to.
>
> > No problem Chris, if you believe in all this nonsense you surely have
> > the scientifically verifiable substantiating data at you finger tips.
>
> > No ? Well then it appears that you know not where of you speak and
> > that the objects of your belief are purely imaginary.
>
> > We await your proofs with great anticipation.
>
> > What would it take for you
>
> > > to become a professing believer in Jesus. There's a great deal of
> > > banter on this list. Some reasonable objections. But what is the real
> > > reason you're an atheist.
>
> > Observer
>
> > Chris I am an apatheist/atheist I care not in the slightest whether of
> > not there exists a god for it has left no footprint , has never
> > interacted with humanity. All delusional misinterpretations of the
> > production of endogenous opiates , hallucinations, and just plain
> > fucking lies not withstanding.
>
> > Psychonomist

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hopefully with Mr Bush now firmly seated in the Whitehouse, America
will enter a new era of wholesome family entertainment and the Hollywood
pornographers will be claiming unemployment
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/e6ee90a2ad693f5e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:11 am
From: philosophy

What do you mean by a sin?

On Dec 3, 4:02 pm, I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN <X...@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote:
> On 2 Dec, 23:28, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > No, you have to be part of the Hitler Youth when you are a boy to be
> > Pope nowadays.
>
> > <yes, historical fact, the Pope was part of the Hitler Youth--live
> > with it>
>
> > On Dec 2, 5:54 am, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > isnt the challange: not get caught abusing the 8 year old boy? Then
> > > they get to be pope or sumpin?
>
> > > On Dec 1, 6:49 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> Homosexuals?
>
> OK
>
> Based on my religions beliefs, homosexual BEHAVIOR is a sin just like
> drinking booze or having sex outside of a marriage.
>
> I can not do anything to help sins against the teaching of the Bible
> thus I can not, based on my religous beliefs, allow any of these
> activities on my property, INCLUDING rental property I might own. The
> civil rights laws that say I would have to rent to drinkers, unmarried
> couples, or gays violate my right to live up to my religion thus such
> laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL
>
>
>
> > > > Have you heard of that new reality TV show on CBN? It's called the
> > > > "Hetero Challenge". If you can be locked in a room with a Bible, a
> > > > picture of Jesus, a wafer and an eight-year-old boy for 24 hours and
> > > > remain heterosexual you win a kabillion dollars. It's approximated to
> > > > be the most profitable TV show of all time.
>
> > > > On Nov 30, 10:02 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > wow,...that uh...sounds serious. does that work like the Richter
> > > > > scale? so the second "really" equates to like 10 times more gayness?
> > > > > I hadn't been aware of the classifications they use. Perhaps that's
> > > > > why, occasionally, a gay guy like him will think he has a good shot at
> > > > > getting my penis into his mouth just because I've had a few drinks.
> > > > > Next time I'll just say, no thanks, I am really, really, really,
> > > > > really heterosexual. That's gotta be a magnitude 10 or better!
>
> > > > > On Nov 30, 10:46 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I'm not sure there's such a thing as a guy having a "penis fetish".
> > > > > > The correct expression would just be "he's really, really gay".
>
> > > > > > On Nov 30, 8:44 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > why do you think this is an appropriate place to discuss your m d
> > > > > > > penis fetish?
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 30, 4:31 am, I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN <X...@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > When I go to the movies I want to be entertained. I don't want to see
> > > > > > > > Michael Douglas's aging erection. I am not a prude, but there is a
> > > > > > > > time and a place for everything, and the place for Michael Douglas's
> > > > > > > > penis is in his boxer shorts, not blown up to ludicrous proportions in
> > > > > > > > a movie theater. It was bad enough having to look at his flabby
> > > > > > > > buttocks in "Basic Instinct".
>
> > > > > > > > As if that wasn't bad enough, I predict that the ongoing pornoization
> > > > > > > > of Hollywood movies will lead to more expensive movie tickets, as the
> > > > > > > > big stars demand extra 'nudity money' to compensate them for
> > > > > > > > participating in the variety of depraved acts the perverted directors
> > > > > > > > dream up. After all, if full blown intercourse is allowed past the
> > > > > > > > censors, what next ? Teabagging ? Bagpiping ? Felching ? I don't even
> > > > > > > > want to think about it.
>
> > > > > > > > Before the moral collapse brought on by the liberal anything goes
> > > > > > > > 'free love' culture of the sixties, America's movies were governed by
> > > > > > > > something called the Hays Code. Amongst other things, this very fine
> > > > > > > > set of rules protected our children by mandating that certain levels
> > > > > > > > of decency prevailed on our screens. Here are some extracts to give
> > > > > > > > you an idea of the moral strength of the code:
>
> > > > > > > > # Excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive postures
> > > > > > > > and gestures, are not to be shown.
>
> > > > > > > > # Pointed profanity (this includes the words, God, Lord, Jesus, Christ
> > > > > > > > - unless used reverently - Hell, S.O.B., damn, Gawd), or every other
> > > > > > > > profane or vulgar expression however used, is forbidden.
>
> > > > > > > > # No film or episode may throw ridicule on any religious faith.
>
> > > > > > > > # The use of the Flag shall be consistently respectful.
>
> > > > > > > > # Impure love must not be presented as attractive and beautiful.
>
> > > > > > > > Nowadays, modern cinematographers seem to take the Hays code, and
> > > > > > > > invert it. They don't feel as if their movie is complete, unless it
> > > > > > > > has scenes of impure love, disrespect for the flag, and blasphemy.
> > > > > > > > This sorry state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue.
>
> > > > > > > > In conclusion, this increasing permissiveness will cause movie ticket
> > > > > > > > prices to rise, and you may be forced to view Michael Douglas's erect
> > > > > > > > penis enlarged until it is 10 meters long. Now you can understand why
> > > > > > > > the Hays code must be ressurected. Hopefully with Mr Bush now firmly
> > > > > > > > seated in the Whitehouse, America will enter a new era of wholesome
> > > > > > > > family entertainment and the Hollywood pornographers will be claiming
> > > > > > > > unemployment- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:38 am
From: I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN

On 3 Dec, 06:11, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> What do you mean by a sin?
>
> On Dec 3, 4:02 pm, I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN <X...@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> > On 2 Dec, 23:28, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > No, you have to be part of the Hitler Youth when you are a boy to be
> > > Pope nowadays.
>
> > > <yes, historical fact, the Pope was part of the Hitler Youth--live
> > > with it>
>
> > > On Dec 2, 5:54 am, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

not
>
> > > > isnt the challange: not get caught abusing the 8 year old boy? Then
> > > > they get to be pope or sumpin?
>
> > > > On Dec 1, 6:49 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Homosexuals?
>
> > OK
>
> > Based on my religions beliefs, homosexual BEHAVIOR is a sin just like
> > drinking booze or having sex outside of a marriage.
>
> > I can not do anything to help sins against the teaching of the Bible
> > thus I can not, based on my religous beliefs, allow any of these
> > activities on my property, INCLUDING rental property I might own. The
> > civil rights laws that say I would have to rent to drinkers, unmarried
> > couples, or gays violate my right to live up to my religion thus such
> > laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL
>
> > > > > Have you heard of that new reality TV show on CBN? It's called the
> > > > > "Hetero Challenge". If you can be locked in a room with a Bible, a
> > > > > picture of Jesus, a wafer and an eight-year-old boy for 24 hours and
> > > > > remain heterosexual you win a kabillion dollars. It's approximated to
> > > > > be the most profitable TV show of all time.
>
> > > > > On Nov 30, 10:02 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > wow,...that uh...sounds serious. does that work like the Richter
> > > > > > scale? so the second "really" equates to like 10 times more gayness?
> > > > > > I hadn't been aware of the classifications they use. Perhaps that's
> > > > > > why, occasionally, a gay guy like him will think he has a good shot at
> > > > > > getting my penis into his mouth just because I've had a few drinks.
> > > > > > Next time I'll just say, no thanks, I am really, really, really,
> > > > > > really heterosexual. That's gotta be a magnitude 10 or better!
>
> > > > > > On Nov 30, 10:46 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I'm not sure there's such a thing as a guy having a "penis fetish".
> > > > > > > The correct expression would just be "he's really, really gay".
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 30, 8:44 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > why do you think this is an appropriate place to discuss your m d
> > > > > > > > penis fetish?
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 30, 4:31 am, I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN <X...@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > When I go to the movies I want to be entertained. I don't want to see
> > > > > > > > > Michael Douglas's aging erection. I am not a prude, but there is a
> > > > > > > > > time and a place for everything, and the place for Michael Douglas's
> > > > > > > > > penis is in his boxer shorts, not blown up to ludicrous proportions in
> > > > > > > > > a movie theater. It was bad enough having to look at his flabby
> > > > > > > > > buttocks in "Basic Instinct".
>
> > > > > > > > > As if that wasn't bad enough, I predict that the ongoing pornoization
> > > > > > > > > of Hollywood movies will lead to more expensive movie tickets, as the
> > > > > > > > > big stars demand extra 'nudity money' to compensate them for
> > > > > > > > > participating in the variety of depraved acts the perverted directors
> > > > > > > > > dream up. After all, if full blown intercourse is allowed past the
> > > > > > > > > censors, what next ? Teabagging ? Bagpiping ? Felching ? I don't even
> > > > > > > > > want to think about it.
>
> > > > > > > > > Before the moral collapse brought on by the liberal anything goes
> > > > > > > > > 'free love' culture of the sixties, America's movies were governed by
> > > > > > > > > something called the Hays Code. Amongst other things, this very fine
> > > > > > > > > set of rules protected our children by mandating that certain levels
> > > > > > > > > of decency prevailed on our screens. Here are some extracts to give
> > > > > > > > > you an idea of the moral strength of the code:
>
> > > > > > > > > # Excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive postures
> > > > > > > > > and gestures, are not to be shown.
>
> > > > > > > > > # Pointed profanity (this includes the words, God, Lord, Jesus, Christ
> > > > > > > > > - unless used reverently - Hell, S.O.B., damn, Gawd), or every other
> > > > > > > > > profane or vulgar expression however used, is forbidden.
>
> > > > > > > > > # No film or episode may throw ridicule on any religious faith.
>
> > > > > > > > > # The use of the Flag shall be consistently respectful.
>
> > > > > > > > > # Impure love must not be presented as attractive and beautiful.
>
> > > > > > > > > Nowadays, modern cinematographers seem to take the Hays code, and
> > > > > > > > > invert it. They don't feel as if their movie is complete, unless it
> > > > > > > > > has scenes of impure love, disrespect for the flag, and blasphemy.
> > > > > > > > > This sorry state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue.
>
> > > > > > > > > In conclusion, this increasing permissiveness will cause movie ticket
> > > > > > > > > prices to rise, and you may be forced to view Michael Douglas's erect
> > > > > > > > > penis enlarged until it is 10 meters long. Now you can understand why
> > > > > > > > > the Hays code must be ressurected. Hopefully with Mr Bush now firmly
> > > > > > > > > seated in the Whitehouse, America will enter a new era of wholesome
> > > > > > > > > family entertainment and the Hollywood pornographers will be claiming
> > > > > > > > > unemployment- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:06 am
From: simonsaysbye

You posted this about a week ago, but I have only just stumbled across
it; I do not systematically read through all that is posted in this
forum (my bad). I don't know what psychological devices you are
employing to justify posting in this way, but to me it demonstrates a
singlular failure to understand the fundamentals that ground what I
consider to be a Christian morality; for example that regardless of
utility each person has equal value, and that no one is beyond
redemption.

In any case, it is moral illogical to criticise immorality in a form
that exemplifies the immorality in question: to castigate someone as a
'vehicle of hate' in this way makes yourself a vehicle of hate. Your
post both graceless and illogical, which is about as bad as it gets.

On Nov 30, 3:44 pm, I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN <X...@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote:
> On 30 Nov, 12:23, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Listen, take your love for Michael Douglas elsewhere.
>
> > On Nov 30, 4:31 am, I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN <X...@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> > > When I go to the movies I want to be entertained. I don't want to see
> > > Michael Douglas's aging erection. I am not a prude, but there is a
> > > time and a place for everything, and the place for Michael Douglas's
> > > penis is in his boxer shorts, not blown up to ludicrous proportions in
> > > a movie theater. It was bad enough having to look at his flabby
> > > buttocks in "Basic Instinct".
>
> > > As if that wasn't bad enough, I predict that the ongoing pornoization
> > > of Hollywood movies will lead to more expensive movie tickets, as the
>
> Dear hopelessly confused sucker of Satan's cock,
> YOU DISTURBED HATEMONGERING FUCK! THE DARK PRINCE HAS HIS HAND FIRMLY
> INSERTED INTO YOUR ANUS AND IS USING YOU AS A PUPPET TO SPREAD HIS
> FEAR AND ODIUM. DO THE UNIVERSE A FAVOR AND END YOUR MISERABLE,
> DISTORTED EXISTENCE BEFORE YOUR INIQUITY SEEPS INTO AN UNSPOILED MIND.
> YOU ARE A FUNDAMENTALLY CORRUPT VEHICLE OF HATE AND YOU ARE BEYOND
> REDEMPTION. KILL YOURSELF. KILL YOURSELF. KILL YOURSELF YOU ROTTEN,
> UNEDUCATED, DISGUSTINGLY TAINTED GRATIFIER OF ALL THAT IS IMPURE.
>
> > > big stars demand extra 'nudity money' to compensate them for
> > > participating in the variety of depraved acts the perverted directors
> > > dream up. After all, if full blown intercourse is allowed past the
> > > censors, what next ? Teabagging ? Bagpiping ? Felching ? I don't even
> > > want to think about it.
>
> > > Before the moral collapse brought on by the liberal anything goes
> > > 'free love' culture of the sixties, America's movies were governed by
> > > something called the Hays Code. Amongst other things, this very fine
> > > set of rules protected our children by mandating that certain levels
> > > of decency prevailed on our screens. Here are some extracts to give
> > > you an idea of the moral strength of the code:
>
> > > # Excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive postures
> > > and gestures, are not to be shown.
>
> > > # Pointed profanity (this includes the words, God, Lord, Jesus, Christ
> > > - unless used reverently - Hell, S.O.B., damn, Gawd), or every other
> > > profane or vulgar expression however used, is forbidden.
>
> > > # No film or episode may throw ridicule on any religious faith.
>
> > > # The use of the Flag shall be consistently respectful.
>
> > > # Impure love must not be presented as attractive and beautiful.
>
> > > Nowadays, modern cinematographers seem to take the Hays code, and
> > > invert it. They don't feel as if their movie is complete, unless it
> > > has scenes of impure love, disrespect for the flag, and blasphemy.
> > > This sorry state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue.
>
> > > In conclusion, this increasing permissiveness will cause movie ticket
> > > prices to rise, and you may be forced to view Michael Douglas's erect
> > > penis enlarged until it is 10 meters long. Now you can understand why
> > > the Hays code must be ressurected. Hopefully with Mr Bush now firmly
> > > seated in the Whitehouse, America will enter a new era of wholesome
> > > family entertainment and the Hollywood pornographers will be claiming
> > > unemployment

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Another Theist bites the dust.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/e4d18055d0abcf63?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:16 am
From: philosophy

And who is Tom Dierden?
Sounds like a Muslim convert.

On Dec 3, 8:54 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 3:29 pm, Tom Dierden <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Drafterman wrote:
> > > The "Western" world is more religious than the "Eastern" world. So
> > > what, exactly, are you babbling about?
>
> > > On Dec 2, 8:54 am, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> LedZepp,
>
> > >> What is needed is a revival of faith. For too long the western world
> > >> has invested in the empty void of materialism, and even in the
> > >> churches the taint of materialism stains the cup of the sacrament.
> > >> From birth the children of the west are fed a steady diet of
> > >> amusements, sugars, and fats, and no spiritual meat. Faith is the
> > >> bread of life, and the mother's breast of the west has for too long
> > >> been the dispenser of death. When you see a revival of faith in the
> > >> west, then you see strong men and women once again proclaiming the
> > >> glory of God, and the victory of Calvary. Then you will see
> > >> Christians standing steafast against the forces of evil that corrupt
> > >> the fabric of western culture.
>
> > >> thomas
>
> > >> On Nov 27, 11:49 am, LedZepp <FledZeppe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> Wanderer then LiamToo, who would be next and why?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > To Drafter and Turner,
>
> > The western world is in a Twilight Zone. The materialistic culture has
> > corrupted and infected every aspect of western life, science has
> > advanced beyond the boundaries of moderation and prudence, the way of
> > power has been overshadowed by the monolith of materialism and its
> > co-benefactor. It is the partnership of materialism and capitalism that
> > have taken control of God's creation and corrupted every aspect of life.
> > The Christian followers have lost their way under the heavy burden of
> > modern life. And western culture has infiltrated the church and the
> > pews, so that the church now is in partnership with the state. But many
> > are beginning to awaken and see the folly of the church state, and how
> > politics has allowed these modern twins to invade every aspect of life
> > and the church. The church must be free of the state, or there is a
> > cohabitation with mammon. Mammon now rules the churches in the western
> > culture.
>
> > thomas
>
> But Christianity doesn't exist much outside the west, so how do you
> judge that Christianity is corrupted? Perhaps this is what
> Christianity truly is?

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:18 am
From: philosophy

Have it your way Checkers - I don't agree with you.

On Dec 2, 7:25 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 10:51 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > "State" meaning community.
> > Wow, you are quick with your labels. No it's not a
> > communist thingy. Look chxs, if an organization in Aus has
> > tax exempt status, no one person or persons are allowed to
> > have control of that entity. People have to be elected into the
> > positions yearly, and all books audited, etc.
> > So, is this a communist thingy? No. It's a way to control
> > individuals from pushing their own barrow at the expense
> > of the community.
> > Why should religious institutions be dealt with any differently
> > than the rest of society?
>
> chx
> so what are you describing, an NGO. there be the permanent staff and
> the board. the board is voted in annually. NGO's here are not to show
> a profit. they must plough profit back into the community. this does
> not always happen as the 'profits' are awarded to the senior staff as
> *performance bonuses* even bi-annually.
>
> with churches i see them as 'clubs' where all members of that church
> pays in. i recon if there are 1000 members in that church, the first
> to benefit should be the member that looses his job and the poorer
> members. once a balance is found, the excess can go to the immediate
> community. if there is no needy then send it elsewhere where it is
> needed. if the state is in control, the money of that community will
> go who knows where?
>
> ok, the above is how i imagine it should work. how it actually works i
> have no clue.
>
> if the funds should work like taxes, well then, whats the point of
> paying in anything to ones own church.
>
> i'll demonstrate. a squatter camp develops overnight on the commune.
> the municipality gets funds from the government and the locals from
> rates and taxes. the municipality has many poor of it's own. they
> build houses and places the squatters in those homes. their own poor
> still have no homes. within 48 hours, the squatter camp is full again.
> this is interesting because they are brought in from rural areas by
> the bus load. more houses are build for them, the municipal poor are
> still homeless. this is repeated until the money runs out and new
> squatter camps pop up. why don't they build houses for their own poor?
> the government dictates who the funds are for. btw, the government
> provides the transport for the squatters, why? votes dude, VOTES!
>
> so to say the state must be in charge of funds of a community is bad,
> bad news. it be what happened in USSR = communist. next they will burn
> and destroy all churches or turn them into pubs etc. the community is
> uprooted and all caring goes for a shit...but then, that's the aim not
> so!
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 5:58 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 2, 1:53 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > Hi Obs, my responses:
>
> > > > On Dec 1, 8:43 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:> Why are you here supporting Christianity or positing an atheistic
> > > > > stance?
>
> > > > > If you are an atheist, do you want to see an end to Christianity?
>
> > > > In its current form - yes.
>
> > > > > I need not ask a corresponding question of Christians.
>
> > > > > What do you think of priests and preachers? Either group please
> > > > > respond.
>
> > > > I think they are mainly a scourge on the earth.
>
> > > > > How, should children be protected from the influence of Christianity?
>
> > > > That's hard. You can't do much in a free society with the parents if
> > > > they
> > > > choose to be Christians. But, I really don't think religion should be
> > > > taught in State run educational institutions.
>
> > > > > How, should, children be protected from the influence of atheism?
>
> > > > No differently from the above answer. The only time the concept of
> > > > atheism would be brought up is in response to religion. If that
> > > > isn't
> > > > taught, then neither would atheism be of concern.
>
> > > > > What do you think of the obscene wealth of churches while millions
> > > > > starve to death?
>
> > > > Obscene. Even if the churches were taxed the going rate, or even
> > > > half the going rate, and that tax given out as projects to society
> > > > etc.
> > > > we would have a very different world.
>
> > > > > If you are a Christian why do you believe that the bible is true?.
>
> > > > > If you are an atheist why do you not believe that the bible is true?
>
> > > > Because it's a collection of stories. Look, even if it were true -
> > > > why should I have to accept all that vengeful crap?
>
> > > > > Why do you believe that there is a god (don't quote the bible as it is
> > > > > the source of the myth)
>
> > > > > Why do you not believe that there is a god?
>
> > > > > Is religion harmful to the world? If so how do we stop its destructive
> > > > > force?
>
> > > > The first thing that must happen is that politics and religion must be
> > > > separated. Then the religious organizations need to be taxed. Get
> > > > rid of tax deductability for religious organizations. All religious
> > > > property
> > > > should be under state control.
>
> > > chx
> > > hang on here, you said church and state must be seperated and now you
> > > want the state to control. this is a communist thingy??
>
> > > > The only way you can stop it is by
> > > > hitting it in it's hip pocket. If you do that, then there would be no
> > > > telly evangelists etc. It must be run like a business, with all
> > > > profits
> > > > going to the community.
>
> > > > > If you believe that religion is good for the world how do you think it
> > > > > ought to be preserved.
>
> > > > > If you are an atheist are you completely out of the closet? If not.
> > > > > Why not?
>
> > > > I'm not sure I understand the question, but I think the answer to the
> > > > question is yes.
>
> > > > > If you are a Christian do you evangelize? If so why?
>
> > > > > What value do you personally receive from posting here?
>
> > > > I actually like debating with people from all walks of life, and
> > > > belief
> > > > systems.
>
> > > > > What are your responsibilities to your family, your community, and
> > > > > your country in relation to these issues?
>
> > > > My family is fairly non-existent, but for those I see, we tend to
> > > > agree
> > > > on the lack of necessity for religion. In the community I tend to
> > > > support those organizations, and work with those organizations which
> > > > do not push religion, or expect a prayer from the person being helped.
> > > > With my country, I support those who do not have an openly religious
> > > > affiliation, have a good environmental platform, and who are
> > > > independent.
>
> > > > > Regards to all
>
> > > > > Psychonomist- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:44 am
From: Observer

On Dec 2, 2:54 am, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 1 Dec, 10:43, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why are you here supporting Christianity or positing an atheistic
> > stance?
>
> spare time in work.
>
>
>
> > If you are an atheist, do you want to see an end to Christianity?
>
> no, i just want to see an end to theist influence in my life.
>
>
>
> > I need not ask a corresponding question of Christians.
>
> > What do you think of priests and preachers? Either group please
>
> theres good and bad, problem is that the automatic respect their
> congregation gives them and their hierarchy, means that the bad can be
> allowed to be very bad for a very long time.
>
> > respond.
>
> > How, should children be protected from the influence of Christianity?
>
> science education, that all it needs.
>
>
>
> > How, should, children be protected from the influence of atheism?
>
> science education again.
>
>
>
> > What do you think of the obscene wealth of churches while millions
> > starve to death?
>
> happy to be led by the implication in the question.
>
>
>
> > If you are a Christian why do you believe that the bible is true?.
>
> > If you are an atheist why do you not believe that the bible is true?
>
> "its the evidence stupid"
>
>
>
> > Why do you believe that there is a god (don't quote the bible as it is
> > the source of the myth)
>
> > Why do you not believe that there is a god?
>
> "i had no need of that hypothesis"
>
>
>
> > Is religion harmful to the world? If so how do we stop its destructive
> > force?
>
> "education, education, education"
>
>
>
> > If you believe that religion is good for the world how do you think it
> > ought to be preserved.
>
> > If you are an atheist are you completely out of the closet? If not.
> > Why not?
>
> metophorically have atheist sex in public.
>
>
>
> > If you are a Christian do you evangelize? If so why?
>
> > What value do you personally receive from posting here?
>
> I used to drop in on groups like alt.atheism but as im posting in the
> gaps between working i couldnt give it enough time for thought.
> Levels of theist knowledge on this group make them an easier target.
>
>
>
> > What are your responsibilities to your family, your community, and
> > your country in relation to these issues?
>
> we dont have the rabid "public" theists in UK, at least not nearly as
> much as in the USA and we are constantly working to stop Americans
> importing them with the bigmacs.
>
> My main responsibility is to be openly radically atheist, so that
> anybody in the "closet" can realise that the worst it gets you is a
> couple of funny looks and the occasional "conversation" with idiots
> that usually has me banging my head on anything to hand going;-
>
> "look we DONT come from monkeys ok, we share an historical ancestor
> with apes and thats why you wont see a monkey giving birth to a
> human,. Do you get it now?"
>

Observer
Thanks for the reply . Your sense of humor serves us all well.

Regards

Psychonomist

>
>
> > Regards to all
>
> > Psychonomist

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Who's for banning LedZepp?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/e62147ab0129248c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:24 am
From: philosophy

Dev
If this wo/man is using all this technology, I, as an ignoramus
in such things, has to ask "Why?" Why is this person finding it
necessary to use these things? For what purpose is s/he using
it? I think it is all so unnecessary. However, if they are using it
for their own sick purposes, then the spirit of this group is
compromised, and s/he should go.

On Nov 28, 6:10 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> This post is a practical admission, beyond any reasonable doubt, that
> LedZepp is using an IP anonymizer. If you have been following his
> recent posts in which he emphasized different IP addresses as "proof"
> that Wanderer, Liam and LedZepp are not all one, it's especially
> obvious here that he's just thumbing his nose at the high standards
> generally required to ban a regular from AvC, all the while trying to
> disingenuously make this out as a witchhunt against theists. Liam
> would have been fine if he had learned his lesson about posting
> private information the first time he was banned, as Wanderer.
>
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to make a judgment call here, but I'm
> going to get some input here: who thinks LedZepp should be able to get
> away with whatever he wants while practically admitting what he's
> doing just because he has an IP anonymizer? Who thinks LedZepp should
> be _banned_, and anyone else we have good reason to think is Liam
> should be banned?
>
> On Nov 27, 12:37 pm, LedZepp <FledZeppe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I will be moving around the world, basically Germany, Canada and all
> > over the United States. My IP will be changing constantly.

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:38 am
From: dead kennedy

On 2 Dec, 20:05, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did I say I was arguing for theism? My argument was mainly that
> people here are more interested in being right than seeking truth

mmmm, theres a difference then.

"I am completely wrong but wrong for jebus...i am saved!"

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:41 am
From: dead kennedy

dont know about rappy but the majority of the atheists here have taken
the trouble to read the bible. Theistic enough for you?.

it hurt man! it was soooooo screwed up.

On 2 Dec, 20:33, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you know of, or have you read any books on the theist side? I'd
> like to see both sides and decide for myself, rather than only read
> the books that already agree with one side...
>
> On Dec 2, 2:10 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here's a better idea: Go to the library on Sunday. Or hell, today.
>
> > Check out a few books:
>
> >http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp...
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/Letter-Christian-Nation-Sam-Harris/dp/0307265773
>
> > and start reading.
>
> > On Dec 2, 2:18 pm, Mary Wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > Woodbridge,
>
> > > Go to church on Sunday. Then you will see.
>
> > > Mary Wolls
>
> > > > Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:52:07 -0800> Subject: [AvC] Re: Congratulations> From: ipu.belie...@gmail.com> To: Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com> > > On Dec 2, 1:12 pm, Mary Wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:> > > Woodbridge,> >> > When he enters your heart you will know.> > I saw this guy on YouTube who claims that the holy spirit enters> through a hole in the back of the head...> > I am confused now.> > I really really want this magical sky being to enter my body... But,> who to believe? Why?> _________________________________> I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.> -- Ruth Hurmence Green> _________________________________________________________________
>
> > > You live life online. So we put Windows on the web.http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032869/direct/01/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:46 am
From: dead kennedy

no i am happy to accept the existance of trolls. Im "conversing" with
one.

please try to resist being an idiot in the future.

On 2 Dec, 21:13, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Great, and you're an atroll, too? LOL Just kidding, couldn't resist.
>
> On Dec 2, 10:45 am, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > that was the politest, well considered, gramatically correct piece of
> > trolling ive seen in ages.
>
> > On 1 Dec, 19:17, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> > > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
>
> > > Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> > > interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> > > atheist into a flame war. There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> > > but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These
> > > furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> > > wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> > > language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture
> > > you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> > > hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> > > through your keyboard with every angry jab.
>
> > > The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> > > arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> > > agnostics.
>
> > > Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
> > > that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
> > > you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
>
> > > Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
> > > because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
> > > enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
> > > hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
> > > their keyboards in their dark basements.
>
> > > Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
> > > see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
> > > The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
>
> > > Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you
> > > any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning Christian...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:02 am
From: etienne

On 3 déc, 05:00, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:08 PM, etienne <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Well, the bible is objectively false
>
> >> The indictment may be easier to bring than the conviction.
>
> > Pi isn't 3.
> > The earth is not flat.
> > There is no being in the sky near which a resurrected jesus would be
> > able to seat.
> > And there is no beings, serving your imagined master, with wings to
> > avoid crashing on the ground who would help you.
>
> Faux Christian sock-puppet claims aside, you didn't even bother to
> bring the indictment. :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

I would like the name of the incompetent idiots who created you,
please.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dinosaurs & the Bible
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/ea1b75046a21902d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:06 am
From: Max

Brother Hayes, do you mock me. Oh brother, where art thou love. The
reality is for all to witness. I beseech thee, enter the world of
Christ and be reborn. Know that the lord and lordesses and horny
toads, and salmon and concreters and other less savoury types love
you, want you, caress you. Please come to our church next Tuesday
(cheaper rent for us on Tuesdays and it's too busy with those other
bastard apostates) and bring a sheckle or two, if you can.

Reach out o brother. Get God in your head

More God & more Head

In thy mercy

On Dec 3, 3:33 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ladies and gentlemen, this is what a Poe looks like.
> Yes, I know Max is an atheist and is being sarcastic, but my point is that
> if I didn't, I would have no idea if he was serious or not--in fact, I would
> probably think he was.
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > For too long now, non believing atheists have tried to peddle their
> > non belief to we believers, i.e. their beliefs as non believers, so we
> > believers must turn the tables on them and get people believing
> > again.
>
> > Clear....Good!
>
> > One of the big issues that that the lord has asked me to cover off
> > with you today regards the silly atheistic scientists who say that
> > dinosaurs were in existance millions of years ago. As if they found
> > labels on their bones saying how old they are. Ridiculous!
>
> > "The Bible also teaches us (in Genesis 1:29-30) that the original
> > animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There
> > were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was
> > no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals
> > (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants."
>
> > Get some sense into you now. Get God in your head. That's what you
> > need.
>
> > More God & more Head.....are you with me!
>
> >http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/2.asp

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:10 am
From: checkers

This is how it all materialized by date.

Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.

This is what he posted as if it was me;
> chx
> I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> would tell us to, if he were real.
> Now that's logical faith!

Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.

This is what he posted as if it was me;
> chx
> Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> it, yuk yuk yuk
> Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)

It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
Use

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;*

I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
even joked about the one.

On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.

Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
same infringement?

We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
infringements recently.
Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
illegal.
Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
he did the same.

Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules

All the above are undeniable facts.

Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: what if rapture occurs
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/0b67077a7af4af57?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:14 am
From: Max

Sister Ruthie..!!!! What if the rapture occurs.........don't you mean
'when' it occurs...............the lord has spoketh............the
time is nigh...........get thee to a nunnery and seek provisons at the
market.

Obtain, 15 bushels of wheat, 24 yards of sausage, 98 baby cheeses (not
baby Jesus's) 144 quarts of milk, 736 cases of Cab Sav, three years
subscription to 'We love Scouting' - The jamboree edition too please
and a few books. Try and get good ones that have plenty of good
stories and fables and make believe too.

In thy mercy

On Dec 3, 9:43 am, Ruthie <willruthie1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My question is to atheist. How will you respond if and when bible
> revelations start to take place? If the rapture occurs or two
> witness's who are performing miracles? I just want to understand.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why some reject the historical Christ.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/7eae8e28bf4a817b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:17 am
From: Maggsy

When did I say I wasn't aware of this.I am aware that allegedly some
books attributed to Paul are in doubt.
The books that I am using as proof texts though are Galatians and
Corinthians and there is no doubt about the authorship of these books.
So your point is irrelevant.

Please also provide evidence as to why your think that certain books
allegedly are not written by Paul.

>
> > > ) were
> > > not in a position to know that the things they wrote about were true
> > > since we they give no indication that they personally witnessed those
> > > events,
>
> > Not true. John 21:24. And please don't say the Bible can't prove the
> > Bible again.
>
> Too bad, because i'm going to do it. I asked you a while ago in this
> thread if you could tell me why me writing down that Jesus existed
> counted as evidence that Jesus existed [in the context of discussing
> the reliablity of Josephus' supposed claims, given that it was
> impossible for him to have ever seen Jesus], and now i'm going to ask
> you a similar question and I expect an equal amount of acknowlegdement
> of this very good point of mine as you have given me in the past --
> which is of course none at all.
> Anyhow here is my new question for you:
> If I write down "my (now deceased) grandpa was once visited by extra-
> terrestrials", does that paper count as evidence that my grandpa was
> once visited by extra-terrestrials? Surely if you think that you can
> use the text of the bible as evidence that what it says in those texts
> is true (and lets not mince words here, that is EXACTLY what you're
> doing whenever you claim that anything in the bible actually happened,
> when there is not the tiniest bit of evidence that such a thing did
> happen), you must also believe that "my grandpa was once visited by
> extra-terrestrials" unless you're a complete hypocrite making absurd
> double standards because you wish the bible was true.

Yes I would if I put a gun to your head and you still insisted that
you had investigated the matter and then I put a gun to your
Grandfathers head and he was still insistent about what he had seen.
It would carry a lot of weight. Are you prepared to do this?

The disciples did die for what they saw not just their beliefs. There
is a big difference.

>
> > When Suetonius says he uses eye witness testimony nothing
> > is said about it being hearsay.
> > When Luke says accounts were handed down by eye witness accounts and
> > he had investigated matters he is accused of not being an eye witness.
> > this is double standards.
>
> By the way, I did write on a piece of paper that my "my grandpa was
> once visited by extra-terrestrials", also there were other witnesses,
> and also I did "investigate" (whatever the hell you think that means)

I like dictionary definitions.My dictionary says to examine
systematically in order to discover the truth.

> this matter myself.
>
> > And please don't say a higher standard is required because of Jesus
> > teaching. That is irrelevant. The topic under discussion is Jesus
> > existence not his divinity.
>
> So what Jesus are you positing that once existed? As I understand it,
> the name was not entirely uncommon at one point. Tell me about this
> specific Jesus you're trying to demonstrate existed.
>

The one that Josephus spoke about called the Christ. The brother of
James

> > they did have an agenda and some of those books were copied
> > > from other books.
>
> > Again what is your evidence for this? And please don't ignore the
> > question.
>
> Don't worry I won't ignore the silly question, it's not like i'm
> stumped by it or anything. Check out that wikipedia link, you'll find
> that books from both the old and new testament weren't always written
> by the people they were attributed to; so the question becomes: did
> everyone just forget who originally wrote those books because of
> magic, was this some sort of weird clerical error, or were these books
> written by humans who found it expedient to misappropriate authorship
> for the ends of some sort of agenda.

Just because allegedly there may be some doubt over the authorship of
some books doesn't prove an agenda. You haven't said what this agenda
is or provided any evidence.even if you could prove an agenda you
still have no evidence that it caused the writers of the New testament
to just make Jesus up.

To take this point a step
> further, surely you would agree that there is are plenty of members of
> the clergy around the world who do have agendas,

You have provided no evidence of this or what the agenda might be.

and surely you would
> agree that this isn't some sort of recent phenomenon that appeared in
> the last 5 years or so. Now if you would agree with this, why not
> tell me how far back you believe that clergy had some sort of an
> agenda, and when you get to the point at which you're sure that they
> didn't have any sort of agenda explain exactly why you think that
> point in time is so special and unique and what sort of scenario
> occurred to suddenly give everyone agendas.

You are the one making this assertion. Why don't you provide some
evidence of this agenda and provide evidence that this agenda
stretches back 2000 years and then provide evidence that this agenda
affected what was written by Paul and others about Jesus existing?

And (I know that this is
> sometimes a bit tough for you theists) don't forget to back up your
> claims with evidence that point to the veracity of your position.

You have just broke my irony metre. I have continually backed up my
position with evidence from wikipedia and other independent sources.
You have only just done it once as far as I can remember.

You have continually ignored the evidence and denied the evidence when
presented. This is not intellectually honest.

>
> > > And when it comes to the other of the 66 books, many of them are full
> > > of untruths,
>
> > Evidence please?
>
> > many of them reference those books that are full of
>
> > > untruths,
>
> > Evidence please?
>
> There was no flood.
>
> > > many of them don't in any way corellate the information
> > > presented in other books because they weren't written by people who
> > > could possibly know any of the other stuff from other books or simply
> > > because they don't say that there is anything about the other books.
>
> > Not true. The gospels do. It is the gospels that are primarily
> > relevant to the topic we are discussing.
>
> Yeah that's right, the gospels do correlate a bit (except for the
> obvious disparities between some of them) because some of them were
> copied from each other. And guess what, no one from the several
> decades after Jesus' death (when those books were written) was in any
> position to know that any of the shit in the old testament was true --
> not even Jesus.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On Nov 16, 6:50 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 9, 9:48 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 8, 12:49 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 2, 11:43 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 2, 8:49 am,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 3:40 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Oct 23, 4:51 am,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 20, 8:11 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Paul met Jesus on the Damascus road and also consulted with those who
> > > > > > > > > > > > had met him before his resurrection.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Paul supposedly had a vision of Jesus. You don't get to count as a
> > > > > > > > > > > meeting of the two people for the same reason that neither of us
> > > > > > > > > > > necessarily consider every vision that anyone has is necessarily
> > > > > > > > > > > evidence that such a thing actually happened. If you want it spelled
> > > > > > > > > > > out further, it's because you and I both know that people can
> > > > > > > > > > > sometimes have visions of things that aren't actually happening. Now
> > > > > > > > > > > this isn't the only thing wrong with the account but it's sufficient
> > > > > > > > > > > for getting neither of us to think that it's true.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Paul was instantly changed after this vision. Going from persecuting
> > > > > > > > > > the Church to preaching the Gospel and eventually being martyred for
> > > > > > > > > > this vision.That's pretty strong evidence that it was a real vision.
>
> > > > > > > > > Let me explain why none of this counts as evidence (and i'm just going
> > > > > > > > > to assume that Paul actually had a vision for the sake of argument):
> > > > > > > > > 1. Lots of people have visions. In fact we even know how to induce
> > > > > > > > > visions, and thanks to modern psychiatry we also know how to prevent
> > > > > > > > > visions from happening as well. Also, we understand quite well that
> > > > > > > > > visions, hallucinations, and what have you are not necessarily tied to
> > > > > > > > > actual reality, even if they think otherwise.
> > > > > > > > > 2. Sometimes people will change their minds about certain things
> > > > > > > > > change their lives and act differently. This is known to happen.
> > > > > > > > > It's also known to happen that sometimes people will have weird
> > > > > > > > > psychotic breaks, strange drug trips, or even for no well-understood
> > > > > > > > > reason at all start acting a lot differently.
> > > > > > > > > 3. People can also be wrong. And it's for this and the previous
> > > > > > > > > reason that this doesn't count as evidence. If I had a vision of
> > > > > > > > > Elvis, and he told me to change my life and act differently, you would
> > > > > > > > > not necessarily think that this vision of mine was necessarily
> > > > > > > > > representative of reality, no matter how much I changed my behavior.
> > > > > > > > > And this is true because a) as far as you know, Elvis is quite dead
> > > > > > > > > and b) changing my behavior doesn't mean that that it was Elvis. Face
> > > > > > > > > it, you're making an exception for Paul because you already believe it
> > > > > > > > > to be true that you WOULD NOT make for any similar case.
> > > > > > > > > 4. This is also important for me to point out. Martyrdom is not
> > > > > > > > > grounds for thinking that that someone was correct, honest, right, or
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:19 am
From: Maggsy

On Nov 24, 9:22 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 7:25 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 6:59 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Yes we have this. The gospels and Paul.
>
> > > > > Sorry Mags, using the existence of the Bible to prove that what the
> > > > > bible says is true is a fallacious argument.
>
> > > > I've answered this at least twice now, but it keeps being ignored.The
> > > > Bible is 66 different books.If we take all roman historical works and
> > > > put them in one book, could we not then use one Roman document to
> > > > confirm another Roman document.
>
> > > Besides the issue of the "biblical writers with an agenda" that A42
> > > brought up, you seemed to be pretty confused as to what the point of
> > > multiple authors and corellating sources in history really is. The
> > > point is to provide bits of evidence of a particular set of events, as
> > > written by people who would be in a position to be aware of such
> > > things. The authors of the gospels and the author of Paul (which
> > > weren't authored by the people whose names were attached to them
>
> > What is your evidence of this?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_of_the_Bible
> ...and do be sure to actually open your bible and see if there is any
> sort of preface to it, most bibles these days have something that
> explains that the books aren't written by the people's whose names
> appear in the beginning of each section. I'm surprised you weren't
> aware of this.
>
> > > ) were
> > > not in a position to know that the things they wrote about were true
> > > since we they give no indication that they personally witnessed those
> > > events,
>
> > Not true. John 21:24. And please don't say the Bible can't prove the
> > Bible again.
>
> Too bad, because i'm going to do it. I asked you a while ago in this
> thread if you could tell me why me writing down that Jesus existed
> counted as evidence that Jesus existed [in the context of discussing
> the reliablity of Josephus' supposed claims, given that it was
> impossible for him to have ever seen Jesus], and now i'm going to ask
> you a similar question and I expect an equal amount of acknowlegdement
> of this very good point of mine as you have given me in the past --
> which is of course none at all.
> Anyhow here is my new question for you:
> If I write down "my (now deceased) grandpa was once visited by extra-
> terrestrials", does that paper count as evidence that my grandpa was
> once visited by extra-terrestrials? Surely if you think that you can
> use the text of the bible as evidence that what it says in those texts
> is true (and lets not mince words here, that is EXACTLY what you're
> doing whenever you claim that anything in the bible actually happened,
> when there is not the tiniest bit of evidence that such a thing did
> happen), you must also believe that "my grandpa was once visited by
> extra-terrestrials" unless you're a complete hypocrite making absurd
> double standards because you wish the bible was true.
>
> > When Suetonius says he uses eye witness testimony nothing
> > is said about it being hearsay.
> > When Luke says accounts were handed down by eye witness accounts and
> > he had investigated matters he is accused of not being an eye witness.
> > this is double standards.
>
> By the way, I did write on a piece of paper that my "my grandpa was
> once visited by extra-terrestrials", also there were other witnesses,
> and also I did "investigate" (whatever the hell you think that means)
> this matter myself.
>
> > And please don't say a higher standard is required because of Jesus
> > teaching. That is irrelevant. The topic under discussion is Jesus
> > existence not his divinity.
>
> So what Jesus are you positing that once existed? As I understand it,
> the name was not entirely uncommon at one point. Tell me about this
> specific Jesus you're trying to demonstrate existed.
>
> > they did have an agenda and some of those books were copied
> > > from other books.
>
> > Again what is your evidence for this? And please don't ignore the
> > question.
>
> Don't worry I won't ignore the silly question, it's not like i'm
> stumped by it or anything. Check out that wikipedia link, you'll find
> that books from both the old and new testament weren't always written
> by the people they were attributed to; so the question becomes: did
> everyone just forget who originally wrote those books because of
> magic, was this some sort of weird clerical error, or were these books
> written by humans who found it expedient to misappropriate authorship
> for the ends of some sort of agenda. To take this point a step
> further, surely you would agree that there is are plenty of members of
> the clergy around the world who do have agendas, and surely you would
> agree that this isn't some sort of recent phenomenon that appeared in
> the last 5 years or so. Now if you would agree with this, why not
> tell me how far back you believe that clergy had some sort of an
> agenda, and when you get to the point at which you're sure that they
> didn't have any sort of agenda explain exactly why you think that
> point in time is so special and unique and what sort of scenario
> occurred to suddenly give everyone agendas. And (I know that this is
> sometimes a bit tough for you theists) don't forget to back up your
> claims with evidence that point to the veracity of your position.
>
> > > And when it comes to the other of the 66 books, many of them are full
> > > of untruths,
>
> > Evidence please?
>
> > many of them reference those books that are full of
>
> > > untruths,
>
> > Evidence please?
>
> There was no flood.

So you say .Evidence please? Saying so is not evidence.

>
> > > many of them don't in any way corellate the information
> > > presented in other books because they weren't written by people who
> > > could possibly know any of the other stuff from other books or simply
> > > because they don't say that there is anything about the other books.
>
> > Not true. The gospels do. It is the gospels that are primarily
> > relevant to the topic we are discussing.
>
> Yeah that's right, the gospels do correlate a bit (except for the
> obvious disparities between some of them)

Evdience please?

because some of them were
> copied from each other.

Evidence please?

And guess what, no one from the several
> decades after Jesus' death (when those books were written) was in any
> position to know that any of the shit in the old testament was true --
> not even Jesus.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On Nov 16, 6:50 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 9, 9:48 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 8, 12:49 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 2, 11:43 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 2, 8:49 am,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 3:40 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Oct 23, 4:51 am,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 20, 8:11 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Paul met Jesus on the Damascus road and also consulted with those who
> > > > > > > > > > > > had met him before his resurrection.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Paul supposedly had a vision of Jesus. You don't get to count as a
> > > > > > > > > > > meeting of the two people for the same reason that neither of us
> > > > > > > > > > > necessarily consider every vision that anyone has is necessarily
> > > > > > > > > > > evidence that such a thing actually happened. If you want it spelled
> > > > > > > > > > > out further, it's because you and I both know that people can
> > > > > > > > > > > sometimes have visions of things that aren't actually happening. Now
> > > > > > > > > > > this isn't the only thing wrong with the account but it's sufficient
> > > > > > > > > > > for getting neither of us to think that it's true.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Paul was instantly changed after this vision. Going from persecuting
> > > > > > > > > > the Church to preaching the Gospel and eventually being martyred for
> > > > > > > > > > this vision.That's pretty strong evidence that it was a real vision.
>
> > > > > > > > > Let me explain why none of this counts as evidence (and i'm just going
> > > > > > > > > to assume that Paul actually had a vision for the sake of argument):
> > > > > > > > > 1. Lots of people have visions. In fact we even know how to induce
> > > > > > > > > visions, and thanks to modern psychiatry we also know how to prevent
> > > > > > > > > visions from happening as well. Also, we understand quite well that
> > > > > > > > > visions, hallucinations, and what have you are not necessarily tied to
> > > > > > > > > actual reality, even if they think otherwise.
> > > > > > > > > 2. Sometimes people will change their minds about certain things
> > > > > > > > > change their lives and act differently. This is known to happen.
> > > > > > > > > It's also known to happen that sometimes people will have weird
> > > > > > > > > psychotic breaks, strange drug trips, or even for no well-understood
> > > > > > > > > reason at all start acting a lot differently.
> > > > > > > > > 3. People can also be wrong. And it's for this and the previous
> > > > > > > > > reason that this doesn't count as evidence. If I had a vision of
> > > > > > > > > Elvis, and he told me to change my life and act differently, you would
> > > > > > > > > not necessarily think that this vision of mine was necessarily
> > > > > > > > > representative of reality, no matter how much I changed my behavior.
> > > > > > > > > And this is true because a) as far as you know, Elvis is quite dead
> > > > > > > > > and b) changing my behavior doesn't mean that that it was Elvis. Face
> > > > > > > > > it, you're making an exception for Paul because you already believe it
> > > > > > > > > to be true that you WOULD NOT make for any similar case.
> > > > > > > > > 4. This is also important for me to point out. Martyrdom is not
> > > > > > > > > grounds for thinking that that someone was correct, honest, right, or
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

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 - 26 new messages in 15 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links