Atheism vs Christianity: Atheism-vs-Christianity - 26 new messages in 11 topics

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Best Impression of checkers
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/a003f66b3339fc76?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:19 am
From: Neil Kelsey

A $100,000 Post Rapture Grand Prize and a 3 week headlining stint at
the MGM in Las Vegas awaits the New Atheist with the best checkers
impression. A celebrity panel of has-beens will be judging the
contest, including Ted Haggard and Paula Abdul.

Proof of ID and legal drinking age required. Judges will ban and stone
contestants for impersonations.

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:20 am
From: Lawrey

LedZepp,

Your question while reasonable, is not one that can be
satisfactorily answered; the reason being there is so much
co-incidental evidence against a Jesus character but nothing
for it except via religious sources which cannot be trusted.
Nothing in the bible gives us a clue either. All the writings
are by unknowns who knew nothing of such a person and
probably wrote what they were told to write.

If you go to google and ask your question, you will see what
I mean. As I have already suggested there is NO secular
historical evidence at all. Much of the bible is based on
ancient pagan ritual even including the twelve apostles.
Wish I could be of more help.

On Dec 1, 10:28 pm, LedZepp <FledZeppe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 10:43 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > LedZepp,
>
> > This is not a question that anyone here can answer with any
> > certainty, because in-spite of what you say the evidence for
> > him is very sparce. except in the NT of course.
> > There is a brief uncomfirmed mention of a person called Jesus
> > at about that time mentioned in secular history but all it says
> > in essence and the way I interpret it is:
>
> > Jesus (c. 5 B.C.- 29 A.D.) [Nazareth ,Jerusalem ].
> > The Christian movement began not as a philosophical
> > doctrine but as a practical way of living and was based on an
> > intuitive belief in the character of a God as a benevolent ruler
> > of the universe, expressing its-self (supposedly), by
> > incarnation in the human form of Jesus. The Gospels relate
> > that Jesus, after a few years of teaching the doctrine of the
> > love of God and the obligation of kindliness on the part of man
> > toward man, suffered crucifixion through the intrigue of the
> > traditional Jewish leaders. The latter accused him of starting
> > a seditious movement against Rome.
>
> > I should make it clear however that such info' as we have is
> > probably taken from early religious belief rather than actual
> > hard evidence of the character.
>
> > Immediately you will observe we run into a rather grave and
> > embarrassing conundrum because Micah 5:2 predicted that out of
> > Bethlehem would "come the ruler of my people Israel" and of
> > course we know that the Gopels cannot agree. Because some
> > would have you believe he was a Nazarene we know many refer to
> > Jesus of nazareth.
>
> > But I personally have my doubts and it is my belief that an error
> > occured along the line when they tried to match prophesy to events,
> > and came unstuck.
>
> > On this theme, I want to cast further doubt by mentioning
> > something most people do not know and I will be surprised if you
> > do and that is that way back in c.2000 B.C. a chap called Ipuwer
> > of Egypt is recorded thus:
>
> > Ipuwer (1800 B.C.) [ Egypt ]. In "Admonitions of Ipuwer".
> > Ipuwer wished for the end of the human race. He wrote that
> > religious scepticism was rife; men were lazy. He believed a
> > shepherd was needed to guide his people and drive away all
> > evil. The Hebrews later took up this theme,
> > (from which, later the idea of Jesus developed).
> > And it was Micah who later prophesied: "Out of bethlehem would
> > come a ruler who will be shepherd of all my people Israel".
>
> > Ref:www.lawrenceelyot.co.uk"The Philosophy of One on the Many"
>
> > If we look carefully at history we cannot be blamed for
> > believing that the whole of the Jesus story was manufactured
> > and we can see from whence it was derived.
>
> What about the 1st century pagan, and Jewish writers, what were they
> saying?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:25 am
From: Tertullian

Lawrey wrote:
> LedZepp,
>
> Your question while reasonable, is not one that can be
> satisfactorily answered; the reason being there is so much
> co-incidental evidence against a Jesus character but nothing
> for it except via religious sources which cannot be trusted.
> Nothing in the bible gives us a clue either. All the writings
> are by unknowns who knew nothing of such a person and
> probably wrote what they were told to write.
>
> If you go to google and ask your question, you will see what
> I mean. As I have already suggested there is NO secular
> historical evidence at all. Much of the bible is based on
> ancient pagan ritual even including the twelve apostles.
> Wish I could be of more help.

The musician may not be talking about Christian sources. What about
Pontius Pilate himself? If you look at Origen's "First Apology" book
chapter 35, it talks about the "Acts of Pontius Pilate."

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:28 am
From: Tertullian

Tertullian wrote:
> Lawrey wrote:
> > LedZepp,
> >
> > Your question while reasonable, is not one that can be
> > satisfactorily answered; the reason being there is so much
> > co-incidental evidence against a Jesus character but nothing
> > for it except via religious sources which cannot be trusted.
> > Nothing in the bible gives us a clue either. All the writings
> > are by unknowns who knew nothing of such a person and
> > probably wrote what they were told to write.
> >
> > If you go to google and ask your question, you will see what
> > I mean. As I have already suggested there is NO secular
> > historical evidence at all. Much of the bible is based on
> > ancient pagan ritual even including the twelve apostles.
> > Wish I could be of more help.
>
> The musician may not be talking about Christian sources. What about
> Pontius Pilate himself? If you look at Origen's "First Apology" book
> chapter 35, it talks about the "Acts of Pontius Pilate."

Correction: That's Justin Martyr's "First Apology, 35" and not
Origen's.

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:20 am
From: Tertullian

Answer_42 wrote:
> On Dec 3, 12:40�pm, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > And another.
> >
> > > What the hell are you talking about, Liam?
> >
> > That a real anonymizer program takes minutes to load. Posting takes
> > minutes to hit the newsgroup. A real ISP takes seconds as I did.
>
> Strange that "Tertullian" has a strong
>
> 1) urge to praise LiamToo
> 2) interest in proving that Wanderer and LiamToo are not the same
> person
> 3) working knowledge of anonymizers...
>
> Just thinking out loud...

If you read Turner's post, I'm not even close to knowing anonymizers.
Why would anybody want use it anyway?

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:26 am
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com>wrote:

>
> Answer_42 wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 12:40�pm, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > And another.
> > >
> > > > What the hell are you talking about, Liam?
> > >
> > > That a real anonymizer program takes minutes to load. Posting takes
> > > minutes to hit the newsgroup. A real ISP takes seconds as I did.
> >
> > Strange that "Tertullian" has a strong
> >
> > 1) urge to praise LiamToo
> > 2) interest in proving that Wanderer and LiamToo are not the same
> > person
> > 3) working knowledge of anonymizers...
> >
> > Just thinking out loud...
>
> If you read Turner's post, I'm not even close to knowing anonymizers.

And yet you continue to insist you know what you're talking about. Are you
capable of being consistent between two posts, Liam?

>
> Why would anybody want use it anyway?

Yes, tell us, why would anyone want to use it, Liam?

>
> >
>

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:30 am
From: Tertullian

Turner Hayes wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> >
> > Answer_42 wrote:
> > > On Dec 3, 12:40�pm, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > And another.
> > > >
> > > > > What the hell are you talking about, Liam?
> > > >
> > > > That a real anonymizer program takes minutes to load. Posting takes
> > > > minutes to hit the newsgroup. A real ISP takes seconds as I did.
> > >
> > > Strange that "Tertullian" has a strong
> > >
> > > 1) urge to praise LiamToo
> > > 2) interest in proving that Wanderer and LiamToo are not the same
> > > person
> > > 3) working knowledge of anonymizers...
> > >
> > > Just thinking out loud...
> >
> > If you read Turner's post, I'm not even close to knowing anonymizers.
>
>
> And yet you continue to insist you know what you're talking about. Are you
> capable of being consistent between two posts, Liam?
>
>
> >
> > Why would anybody want use it anyway?
>
>
> Yes, tell us, why would anyone want to use it, Liam?

I'm done in this anonymizer subject.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:32 am
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com>wrote:

>
> Turner Hayes wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Answer_42 wrote:
> > > > On Dec 3, 12:40�pm, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > And another.
> > > > >
> > > > > > What the hell are you talking about, Liam?
> > > > >
> > > > > That a real anonymizer program takes minutes to load. Posting takes
> > > > > minutes to hit the newsgroup. A real ISP takes seconds as I did.
> > > >
> > > > Strange that "Tertullian" has a strong
> > > >
> > > > 1) urge to praise LiamToo
> > > > 2) interest in proving that Wanderer and LiamToo are not the same
> > > > person
> > > > 3) working knowledge of anonymizers...
> > > >
> > > > Just thinking out loud...
> > >
> > > If you read Turner's post, I'm not even close to knowing anonymizers.
> >
> >
> > And yet you continue to insist you know what you're talking about. Are
> you
> > capable of being consistent between two posts, Liam?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Why would anybody want use it anyway?
> >
> >
> > Yes, tell us, why would anyone want to use it, Liam?
>
> I'm done in this anonymizer subject.

You were done for when you started.

>
> >
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Indigenous culture and beliefs
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/2f29f31db899913a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:23 am
From: "Brock Organ"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:41 AM, trog69 <tom.trog69@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>This tolerance is unusual (from a historical
>> perspective) and in my opinion not to be taken for granted or taken
>> advantage of.
>
> Threats now, huh Brocky boy?

No threat at all in my statement:

"One generalization why Christians in some countries today are so easy
to mock and ridicule is because of their great tolerance and
compassion, there is comparatively little downside to expressing an
antagonistic position."

Regards,

Brock

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:31 am
From: Woodbridge

Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #4, 5:

"Labeling Atheists
Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
either side of the argument of truth.
Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
addressed.
So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and
name-calling have no place in the discussion.
Ignoring Atheists' Questions
If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
Stating that Atheism is a religion
Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
way."
To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
torture people." The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much.
Stating unsupportable facts
No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your credibility. Of
course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
Never admitting when you are wrong
Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
respect of the one with whom you are debating."

http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm

On Dec 3, 11:23 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:41 AM, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>This tolerance is unusual (from a historical
> >> perspective) and in my opinion not to be taken for granted or taken
> >> advantage of.
>
> > Threats now, huh Brocky boy?
>
> No threat at all in my statement:
>
> "One generalization why Christians in some countries today are so easy
> to mock and ridicule is because of their great tolerance and
> compassion, there is comparatively little downside to expressing an
> antagonistic position."
>

Prove it
> Regards,
>
> Brock

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Moral Hazard of Jesus Christ
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/24aba95c5f146acb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:24 am
From: zencycle

On Nov 8, 4:53 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2:25 pm, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 31, 1:40 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > that's something of a ruse if you ask me. There are always desperate
> > > situations leading up to a revolution.
>
> > So russia in 1916 was a happy christian land of milk and honey?
>
> Answer me honestly here - can you read? Did I in the preceding post
> or anywhere else say that life was perfect prior to 1917???

It's called 'begging the question'. You made an assertion that life
was so much more horrible after the russian revolution. I contend that
it wasn't much different. The only difference being that the russian
monarchy demanded obedience based on divine ordination, while the
soviets simply demanded obedience without the fantasy figure.

> But since corruption and abuses is antithetical to Christian
> doctrine, we''ll have to dispense w/deeming it a Christian nation.

wow, are you off base. Christianity by its hierarchical structure
lends itself to corruption and abuse, just like soviet communism. The
russian monarchy was inextricable tied to the russian orthodox church,
and by definition russia was a christian nation, regardless of whether
the russian monarchy passes the Chris test of true christians or not.

> while were on the topic, what was life like following the revolution?

Most of the peasants were happy, in contrast to before.

> Is that where you personally would feel more at home?

My personal preferences are irrelevant.

> You're going to
> have to be honest w/yourself and us and dispense w/these notions of
> what Christian society and gov't is in theory and practice and get to
> the heart of the matter,

I'm being quite honest. Your prejudice is simply clouding your ability
to see it.

>that being the amount of death perpetrated by
> those who cast off any semblance of Christian morality and embraced a
> God-less humanistic world view

I would if it were not for the FACT that christian nations are just as
likely to commit genocide based on their religious beliefs as non
christian nations.

> > Whole scale denial of
> > > human rights, freedoms.
>
> > Was that before, or after, the communist revolution?
>
> Uh swifty, far FAR much more after then before.

You would be wrong about that, too.

> Just a fact, this
> isn't a statement exonerating any so called *Christians* of their
> deeds.

And who are you to assert that people claiming to be christians are
not really christians simply due to their actions? Pope innocent the
3rd instructed his crusaders to 'kill tham all, god will know whose
heart is pure'. Hell, he was the fucking pope, about as christian as
you can get. I know _you're_ going to claim he wasn't, but it isn't
really up to you.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:25 am
From: zencycle

On Nov 5, 5:48 pm, Vaarsuvius <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 5:19 pm, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 28, 6:34 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > What proof are you
> > > prepared to present to demonstrate that a belief in the afterlife,
> > > even unconditional forgiveness (in _some_sense_ of the term NOT a part
> > > of Christian doctrine) is a framework whereby immoral, even maniacal
> > > acts are actively encouraged,
>
> > I never said any such activities were encouraged. I said they are
> > guaranteed to be forgiven.
>
> Except they aren't. The whole theory is based on REPENTING for your
> sins. Repenting is a heck of a lot more than simply saying "I'm
> sorry" in the manner a child does when told to by their parents.
> Repenting is really and truly realizing and feeling that it was wrong
> and feeling really badly for doing that action. Which is a lot more
> than "Do something and apologize later".

And who is the arbiter that decides whether your apology is sincere or
not?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Faux Pas Tolerance: New Atheism Fosters Misunderstanding
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/0a1034895f75bc9a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:30 am
From: Answer_42

On Dec 3, 10:39 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Comments pasted by a dishonest biased prick snipped
____________________________________
Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
understand.
-- Frederick the Great

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:38 am
From: "Brock Organ"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Turner Hayes <lordlacolith@gmail.com> wrote:
> Don't you just love Brock's conception of "objectivity"?

Clearly worth considering:

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

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

Regards,

Brock

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:41 am
From: Woodbridge

On Dec 3, 11:38 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Don't you just love Brock's conception of "objectivity"?
>
> Clearly worth considering:
>
No

> "In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true
> everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. For instance,
> it is true always and everywhere that 'in base 10, 2 plus 2 equals 4'.
> A subjective fact is a truth that is only true in certain times,
> places or people. For instance, 'That painting is beautiful' may be
> true for someone who likes it, but not for everyone."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)#Objectivity_and...
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:46 am
From: "Brock Organ"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:08 AM, trog69 <tom.trog69@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good morning, Brock. I'm sure that you're aware that many of us
> atheists are rather fond of Mr. Condell, and we protested heavily when
> his video was pulled from Youtube.

Nope, I was not aware of your disposition.

> Could you maybe clear up something for me? What is the difference
> between atheism and the so-called New Atheism?

Perhaps these resources from:

http://newatheism.org/

are helpful:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070625/aronson
http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp061201the_new_atheists
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/08/atheism.feature/index.html

Regards,

Brock

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:46 am
From: rappoccio

On Dec 3, 12:04 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 10:58 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 10:39 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > from:
>
> > >http://www.spectrummagazine.org/collegiate/2008/05/29/faux_pas_tolera...
>
> > > interesting points:
>
> > > "What the "New Atheists," and indeed post modern society, put forth as
> > > "tolerance" is simply repackaged secular apathy. When we talk about
> > > being religious without "imposing" your beliefs on others, or
> > > practicing religion within the confines of one's on home, what we are
> > > in effect saying is that these beliefs are not important and, since we
> > > can't agree on what truth is, have no relevance to the grander world.
> > > Unfortunately, religion is, like politics, a branch of philosophy,
> > > which means that its entire point is to try and tackle the questions
> > > of the world at large."
>
> > > and:
>
> > > "Why is it that secular humanism (Which entails the feeling that the
> > > evolutionary picture has discredited conservative religion) holds a
> > > privileged place? "Because it is backed by rigorous science," the New
> > > Atheist would say, dismissing non-liberal religion as shallow dogma.
> > > Liberal religion, too, is hardly more than a lukewarm fusion of
> > > secular humanism and lip-service to belief, and as such many
> > > Christians do not see a problem: one's religious world view is simply
> > > not supposed to have impact on real life. You can believe it, so long
> > > as it doesn't govern your actions, your business decisions, your
> > > vote... the only accepted standard for action is humanism."
>
> > > All in all, a thought provoking opinion piece from a computer science
> > > and mathematics student.
>
> > > Regards,
>
> > > Brock
>
> > Hey look, a Christian posts something to a Christian website and takes
> > offense to people who don't respect Christianity because they think
> > it's evil. And then takes offense that people don't want it crammed
> > down their throat. And completely misunderstands moral systems that
> > aren't based on pretending you have an imaginary friend and reading a
> > 2000-5000 year old piece of fiction written by neolithic goatherders
> > as absolute fact.
>
> > What a fucking shocker.
>
> > Not worth the paper it's printed on.
>
> There is a good point here: why is it okay to base things like your
> vote on humanism which is philosophically as justified as religious
> moralities,

Wrong. Humanism is justified from an evolutionary perspective. We know
evolution is true, and therefore humanism is objectively justified.
Religious "morality" (which is really "obedience") is justified by
nothing.

> when there is nothing in a democracy that states that one
> has to have ANY reason for voting the way one does?

Who said anything about restricting how people vote?

We're talking about the avoidance of the respecting of the
establishment of any religion. You're looking at the wrong clause in
the US Constitution.

> I have the right to act on my religion in public just as anyone else
> has the right to act on their secular beliefs in public. When it
> comes to laws, that's what democracy is for; the most votes wins.

Except when it breaks another law.

You don't get to vote to murder all the atheists on the planet. It's
illegal to do so.

You don't get to vote to require people to be religious to get
married. It's illegal to do so.

You don't get to vote to require people to give tax dollars to a
religious organization. It's illegal to do so.

You know... those whole "checks and balances" thing.

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:33 am
From: "Brock Organ"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Multiverse <cutaway@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Pre-suppositions are a part of every epistemology. As Aristotle has
>> famously articulated:
>
> Pre suppositions are fine Brock. But to pre-suppose that something is
> true or correct, no matter how much it has been proven to be incorrect
> or unreasonable and downright kooky is the problem.

Rather, the statement shows the axiomatic nature of such first
premises. Or put another way, the standard that measures the standard
is the standard.

>> So there are first principles in metaphysics that act as unprovable
>> starting points. Aristotle articulates "intuitive knowledge" as a
>> justification or basis for these unprovable starting points. I
>> disagree, since "intuitive knowledge" is highly existential and
>> subjective. So my point is that the first principles should rely upon
>> divine revelation and not intuitive knowledge, which is a profoundly
>> non-solipsistic argument. So a modification to his position, that I
>> believe is better (though of course, it isn't Aristotle's):
>
> Aristotle was terribly wrong on lots. He did the best he could. You
> know, gave it the old collage try.... But at the end of the day he
> was wrong on plenty. So you switch out his "intuitive knowledge"
> which is obviously flawed, for the term "divine revelation".

I have a great respect for the classical way Aristotle framed the
issue of first principles, and find that it is a great starting point
for epistemological dialogue:

http://www.friesian.com/arch.htm

>> * Metaphysics involves divinely revealed knowledge of unprovable
>> starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
>> what follows from them.
>
> And you have not noticed yet that their has been no demonstration of
> anything that follows from your flawed logic?

Rather, I might simply question the underpinnings of what might be
used to evaluate such moral and ethical matters. In particular:

Humankind is not the measure of all things.

>> If you want to see an example of the blindness of faith, ask a
>> humanist to justify (as an objective basis) the pre-eminence of human
>> reason for morals and ethics.
>
> no I think you guys have the market cornered on blind faith.

Perhaps you might reconsider:

"What is marvelous is how nakedly Hitchens reveals his own atheist
convictions to be entirely faith-based and -- what is more -- based on
faith in a mystical epiphany to a nine-year-old boy. All the massive
artillery of his adult wit and eloquence is, in the final analysis,
ranked and ranged to protect that boy and his emotional epiphany."

http://www.mark-shea.com/pad.html

Regards,

Brock

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:43 am
From: Woodbridge

Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #4:

http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm
On Dec 3, 11:33 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> Pre-suppositions are a part of every epistemology. As Aristotle has
> >> famously articulated:
>
> > Pre suppositions are fine Brock. But to pre-suppose that something is
> > true or correct, no matter how much it has been proven to be incorrect
> > or unreasonable and downright kooky is the problem.
>
> Rather, the statement shows the axiomatic nature of such first
> premises. Or put another way, the standard that measures the standard
> is the standard.
>
> >> So there are first principles in metaphysics that act as unprovable
> >> starting points. Aristotle articulates "intuitive knowledge" as a
> >> justification or basis for these unprovable starting points. I
> >> disagree, since "intuitive knowledge" is highly existential and
> >> subjective. So my point is that the first principles should rely upon
> >> divine revelation and not intuitive knowledge, which is a profoundly
> >> non-solipsistic argument. So a modification to his position, that I
> >> believe is better (though of course, it isn't Aristotle's):
>
> > Aristotle was terribly wrong on lots. He did the best he could. You
> > know, gave it the old collage try.... But at the end of the day he
> > was wrong on plenty. So you switch out his "intuitive knowledge"
> > which is obviously flawed, for the term "divine revelation".
>
> I have a great respect for the classical way Aristotle framed the
> issue of first principles, and find that it is a great starting point
> for epistemological dialogue:
>
> http://www.friesian.com/arch.htm
>
> >> * Metaphysics involves divinely revealed knowledge of unprovable
> >> starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
> >> what follows from them.
>
> > And you have not noticed yet that their has been no demonstration of
> > anything that follows from your flawed logic?
>
> Rather, I might simply question the underpinnings of what might be
> used to evaluate such moral and ethical matters. In particular:
>
> Humankind is not the measure of all things.
>
> >> If you want to see an example of the blindness of faith, ask a
> >> humanist to justify (as an objective basis) the pre-eminence of human
> >> reason for morals and ethics.
>
> > no I think you guys have the market cornered on blind faith.
>
> Perhaps you might reconsider:
>
> "What is marvelous is how nakedly Hitchens reveals his own atheist
> convictions to be entirely faith-based and -- what is more -- based on
> faith in a mystical epiphany to a nine-year-old boy. All the massive
> artillery of his adult wit and eloquence is, in the final analysis,
> ranked and ranged to protect that boy and his emotional epiphany."
>
> http://www.mark-shea.com/pad.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:33 am
From: Multiverse

sorry, I am not done with sister capitoff. You will have to settle
for Brother Cretin.

On Dec 3, 12:07 pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 10:26 pm, 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
>
> If it is all the same with you, I will take the 'more head' option.
>
> Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:34 am
From: Neil Kelsey

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."

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:40 am
From: rappoccio

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:42 am
From: checkers

On Dec 3, 8:14 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 12:35 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > sorry to dissapoint you Rap. firstly, your link refers to emails and
> > as you say, spoofing. however google clearly says impersonating
> > someone.
>
> Impersonating them is different from deliberately misquoting them.
>
>
>
>
>
> > now i will remind you that the same point was brought up in
> > the other instance of impersonating Keith. what you claim is not true.
> > here is the full post of the case;
>
> > ***
> > theultimatetruth;
>
> > Are you kidding me!
>
> > On Feb 3, 3:37 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > I am a homosexual who engages in ultimate butt sex with my boyfriend
> > > so I have no worries about getting my lover pregnant or anything like that.
> > > I love to kiss his big hairy balls and really get it on knowing that nothing
> > > can go wrong inside his colon:
> > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Women do not have the right to choose to murder another human being,
> > > > except in evil societies controlled by Satan. Murder is just plain
> > > > wrong. And it doesn't matter how much you bullshit on and on with your
> > > > puffed up self important attitudes you are a freaking murdering pig
> > > > slut if you kill an unborn baby. You should be sent to the gas chamber
> > > > or whatever they kill murderers with in your country. Damn you
> > > > murdering bitches
> > > --
> > > Ambassador From Hell
> > > Keith MacNevins - Elk Grove Village, IL USA
> > > copyright
>
> > ***
>
> This was NOT the post that was spoofed. There was a post (hence
> deleted) that was actually from theultimatetruth that looked like it
> came from Keith MacNevins, i.e. he was spoofed. Hence theultimatetruth
> was banned. I remember, because I did it myself.
>
> > here is the Google rule again. i higlight the part applicable.
>
> > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > *_impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any
> > author
> > attributions_,
>
> Impersonation doesn't include changing a quote in your own response.
> It clearly doesn't come from that person, and you can clearly look at
> the "sorted by thread" option to see the post the person replied to,
> and that they don't actually match. Ridiculing someone by mimicking
> them is NOT impersonation in the legal sense of the word. Clearly the
> intent of the statement is about actually impersonating the person
> involved, not simply making fun of them by quoting something they
> didn't actually say.
>
> It's that simple. If you don't like it, either leave, or bring it up
> with Google.
>
> > 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;*
>
> > as you can see he changed nothing at all. all he did was type a
> > message so as to look as if it was keith that wrote it. he did not
> > even use keith's name. even so, it is impersonating keith.
>
> And he also spoofed him. And that's why he was banned.
>
>
>
> > the members impersonating me did more, they inserted my name at the
> > biginning of the message implicating me writing those words. they are
> > quilty as one can get. this is illegal in most countries and in Google
> > Groups TOS. they are breaking a law.
>
> What law, specifically?
>
>
>
> > there is now three of them and this writing serves as a report to the
> > moderators to do what is expected of them.
>
> Bring it up with Google. No one is getting banned for making fun of
> what you said. Sorry.

chx
Rap, first of all, i was wandering who would be saddled for this job.
i see they saddled you as the donkey for the job and thats OK!

now let me point out that i followed that topic thread. this is why i
know about it. you did NOT delete the post you claim as it did NOT
exist. anyone is free to go to that topic and follow the coversation.
the story will unfold as it is read.

here is the link to the topic;
http://groups.google.co.za/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/743501fcb11f50db/ca776615e858ca7e?hl=en&q=impersonate&lnk=nl&

just go back to post 150 - 175 is where it all started. no one even
knew it happened as it was hidden text. Keith probabilly picket it up
by chance. he brings it up on the next page and still no one cared
until Bonfly mentioned it. this is where the landslide started.

Bonfly's comment post;
***
I'd like to think I dislike Keith as much as - if not more than -
anybody on this site. Nonetheless, if that was a bullshit quote that
Keith never wrote then I support him on this and ultimatenutcase
should get the boot pronto.

On Feb 3, 4:05 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> That is someone impersonating me. I wonder if it is an ultimatenutcase? Even
> the anti-theist moderator will not let you get away with that. Good-bye to
> you.

> On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Are you kidding me!

> > On Feb 3, 3:37 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I am a homosexual who engages in ultimate butt sex with my boyfriend
> > > so I have no worries about getting my lover pregnant or anything like
> > that.
> > > I love to kiss his big hairy balls and really get it on knowing that
> > nothing
> > > can go wrong inside his colon:

> > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Women do not have the right to choose to murder another human being,
> > > > except in evil societies controlled by Satan. Murder is just plain
> > > > wrong. And it doesn't matter how much you bullshit on and on with your
> > > > puffed up self important attitudes you are a freaking murdering pig
> > > > slut if you kill an unborn baby. You should be sent to the gas chamber
> > > > or whatever they kill murderers with in your country. Damn you
> > > > murdering bitches

> > > --
> > > Ambassador From Hell
> > > Keith MacNevins - Elk Grove Village, IL USA
> > > copyright
***

this is the point where all hell breaks loose and all the atheists
jumps on the wagon.

now you tell me, WHAT did you delete. yep, the donkey always comes
short. not one moderator came forward as yet. they rather send a
donkey. you are welcome to read further. it flows perfectly without
signs of any post deleted. do you see what you have become, need i say
it?

BTW, why say i should leave if i don't like the atheists unethical
ways?...or was that a wish for me to leave? am i too smart for youse?

>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 3, 5:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > 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?
>
> > > The TOS are referring to actually spoofing another person's identity:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail_spoofing
>
> > > "E-mail spoofing is a term used to describe fraudulent e-mail activity
> > > in which the sender address and other parts of the e-mail header are
> > > altered to appear as though the e-mail originated from a different
> > > source."
>
> > > theultimatetruth was spoofing Keith MacNevins. He was banned for this
> > > reason.
>
> > > Woodbridge and Answer_42 have not spoofed you. Therefore they are not
> > > violating the TOS.
>
> > > There have been atheists who have spoofed others in the past, and they
> > > have been banned. I don't remember the guy's name, but he kept posting
> > > pornography to the website by spoofing other people. He was banned. I
> > > did it myself. He kept attempting to come back by posting from
> > > different IP addresses, and I spent the better part of a week deleting
> > > all his multiple personalities. It probably sank 3 hours of my life
> > > away that I'll never get back.
>
> > > So what was it you were saying about this great big atheist conspiracy
> > > to ban only theists?- 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 11:43 am
From: checkers

On Dec 3, 8:15 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did you miss the part where I said that we've banned atheists for
> doing the same thing, or are you deliberately ignoring that to feed
> your own delusions of persecution?

chx
name them and site the topics

>
> On Dec 3, 1:00 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > chx
> > no, the real guilty ones are the moderators for not stopping this. you
> > all see it as OK because the moderators are not moderating. they are
> > too busy being BIAS and are now loosing control over the members.
> > not long and everyone will be doing it. they are creating a precedent.
>
> > On Dec 3, 7:40 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:35 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > sorry to dissapoint you Rap. firstly, your link refers to emails and
> > > > as you say, spoofing. however google clearly says impersonating
> > > > someone. now i will remind you that the same point was brought up in
> > > > the other instance of impersonating Keith. what you claim is not true.
> > > > here is the full post of the case;
>
> > > > ***
> > > > theultimatetruth;
>
> > > > Are you kidding me!
>
> > > > On Feb 3, 3:37 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > I am a homosexual who engages in ultimate butt sex with my boyfriend
> > > > > so I have no worries about getting my lover pregnant or anything like
> > > > that.
> > > > > I love to kiss his big hairy balls and really get it on knowing that
> > > > nothing
> > > > > can go wrong inside his colon:
>
> > > > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Women do not have the right to choose to murder another human being,
> > > > > > except in evil societies controlled by Satan. Murder is just plain
> > > > > > wrong. And it doesn't matter how much you bullshit on and on with your
> > > > > > puffed up self important attitudes you are a freaking murdering pig
> > > > > > slut if you kill an unborn baby. You should be sent to the gas chamber
> > > > > > or whatever they kill murderers with in your country. Damn you
> > > > > > murdering bitches
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ambassador From Hell
> > > > > Keith MacNevins - Elk Grove Village, IL USA
> > > > > copyright
>
> > > > ***
>
> > > > here is the Google rule again. i higlight the part applicable.
>
> > > > 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;*
>
> > > > as you can see he changed nothing at all. all he did was type a
> > > > message so as to look as if it was keith that wrote it. he did not
> > > > even use keith's name. even so, it is impersonating keith.
>
> > > > the members impersonating me did more, they inserted my name at the
> > > > biginning of the message implicating me writing those words. they are
> > > > quilty as one can get.
>
> > > I admit it! I'm quilty! Quilty as the day is long!
>
> > > > this is illegal in most countries and in Google
> > > > Groups TOS. they are breaking a law.
>
> > > > there is now three of them and this writing serves as a report to the
> > > > moderators to do what is expected of them.
>
> > > > On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 3, 5:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > 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?
>
> > > > > The TOS are referring to actually spoofing another person's identity:
>
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail_spoofing
>
> > > > > "E-mail spoofing is a term used to describe fraudulent e-mail activity
> > > > > in which the sender address and other parts of the e-mail header are
> > > > > altered to appear as though the e-mail originated from a different
> > > > > source."
>
> > > > > theultimatetruth was spoofing Keith MacNevins. He was banned for this
> > > > > reason.
>
> > > > > Woodbridge and Answer_42 have not spoofed you. Therefore they are not
> > > > > violating the TOS.
>
> > > > > There have been atheists who have spoofed others in the past, and they
> > > > > have been banned. I don't remember the guy's name, but he kept posting
> > > > > pornography to the website by spoofing other people. He was banned. I
> > > > > did it myself. He kept attempting to come back by posting from
> > > > > different IP addresses, and I spent the better part of a week deleting
> > > > > all his multiple personalities. It probably sank 3 hours of my life
> > > > > away that I'll never get back.
>
> > > > > So what was it you were saying about this great big atheist conspiracy
> > > > > to ban only theists?- 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 11:45 am
From: checkers

chx
this is a wide turn, let us stick to Foogle and #6. Appropriate
Conduct. this is what it is about. not emails and politics

On Dec 3, 8:19 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.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 11:43 am
From: Penfold

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?

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?

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. For me the many examples
of a higher source of wisdom found in the Bible, 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,
all serve as evidence of the Bible being the word of God. Where is the
flaw in my reasoning?

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

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 11 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links