Atheism vs Christianity: Atheism-vs-Christianity - 26 new messages in 8 topics

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 1:00 pm
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 3:05 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

Once more, a theist playing the victim and showing signs of having
difficulties understanding simple sentences.

> I mentioned the insults? So far, here's a description of me by our
> peers here:
> A dishonest biased prick.

That was my comment, and

1) it was not an insult, just a fact.
2) not addressed at you, as you claim above.

> I am still spewing your bullshit about "new atheism" (actually, I've
> never heard the term before this comment)

Lifted from my post.
I was merely repeating what a theist has claimed (except for the
"spewing" and "bullshit" which are not really insults since "New
Atheism" is bullshit, and it was not addressed at you anyway.)

If you want to know about "new atheism", join the club! Ask Brock to
explain it.
The best he could do was produce a few web pages/blogs that used the
term in their page title. He could never demonstrate that it was an
actual movement/organization/philosophy/etc.

> Then you are no self-respecting Christian. (apparently not)

Where is the insult here?

> arrogant prick

Yep, that one is an insult!

> I have apparently been suffering from Alzheimer's. (wow, didn't see
> that one coming)

An wrong assessment?

> I have an unremarkable life.

Not insults.

> I have no feelings, no brains, no consciences, no ethics, absolutely
> nothing that a human would call human. Period.

A wrong assessment?

> Wow, that one had a "Period." So why should I even continue? How
> does one debate with that? I mean, I don't want to start with debates
> proving I have feelings, brains, conscience, ethics, and that I'm
> human! I mean, I need to go find those groups first, I guess...

So, you produced little evidence in lieu of actual insults that were
actually addressed at you.
But, considering that your OP was an open call for flaming how can you
be honestly surprised that you got what you were asking for?

In case you try to disagree with me, here is a little reminder of your
opening statement:
"
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.
"

Right off the bat you claim that 99% percent of atheist on this site
are angry and do not want to intelligent discussions, so they must be
stupid or something like that.

Then you have the balls to state that the same atheists are only
interested in flaming?

"Arrogant prick" was too good for you, actual bona fide arrogant
pricks the world over are offended that you were associated with them.
_________________________________
I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
-- Ruth Hurmence Green

== 2 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 1:06 pm
From: Woodbridge

Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #2, 4:

"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 2, 10:12 am, Mary Wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:
> Woodbridge,
>
> When he enters your heart you will know.
>
Prove he exists to enter my heart
> Mary Wolls
>
> > Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:20:59 -0800> Subject: [AvC] Re: Congratulations> From: Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> To: Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com> > > prove there is God> > On Dec 2, 8:49 am, mary wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:> > ObservantEye,> >> > That has been my experience as well on this forum. You must have very> > thick skin to engage the atheists in this group because they are very> > angry. They have no peace with God, because they eschew his> > representatives.> >> > Mary Wolls> >> > On Dec 1, 11:17 am, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> > > I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would> > > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.> >> > > Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually> > > interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-> > > atheist into a flame war. There is SOME intelligent discussion here,> > > but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These> > > furious people know that they'll always win because the people they> > > wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful> > > language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture> > > you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers> > > hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes> > > through your keyboard with every angry jab.> >> > > The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't> > > arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than> > > agnostics.> >> > > Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider> > > that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did> > > you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?> >> > > Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,> > > because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not> > > enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the> > > hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at> > > their keyboards in their dark basements.> >> > > Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can> > > see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates> > > The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"> >> > > Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you> > > any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning Christian...> _________________________________________________________________
>
> Send e-mail anywhere. No map, no compass.http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_...

== 3 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 1:06 pm
From: Medusa

ObservantEye;

> You know, I don't think these guys are interested in Bible verses. I
> think you're just poking a bear in a cage when you do that...

Your first statement is correct. Most of us were raised in a
religion, and most of us have read the Bible. I even own two copies.

But I'm not angry; I have just rejected the cage religion had me in
for years.

Medusa

== 4 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 1:07 pm
From: Woodbridge

There are no both side since there is no God.
If you think there is God give proof

On Dec 2, 12:33 pm, 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/

== 5 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 1:13 pm
From: ObservantEye

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...

== 6 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 1:25 pm
From: ObservantEye

Who are you arguing with if there's no sides? Who are you trying to
convince?

On Dec 2, 3:07 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> There are no both side since there is no God.
> If you think there is God give proof
>
> On Dec 2, 12:33 pm, 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/

== 7 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 1:26 pm
From: Woodbridge

Christians

On Dec 2, 1:25 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Who are you arguing with if there's no sides? Who are you trying to
> convince?
>
> On Dec 2, 3:07 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > There are no both side since there is no God.
> > If you think there is God give proof
>
> > On Dec 2, 12:33 pm, 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/

== 8 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 1:27 pm
From: Dag Yo

So you don't have the tools to determine if something someone says is
right or logical?

Living in the world as a theist must be pretty scary, never knowing
what to think or who to trust, or why to believe something or
disbelieve something, never knowing how to look for evidence or think
critically; I suppose it's no wonder you believe the first guy who
comes along telling you that some crusty old book is true.

On Dec 2, 12:39 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You know what? I think you may be on to something here. I doubt it's
> right or logical, but it seems much more pleasant..
>
> On Dec 1, 4:58 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have to say this, and I know it'll clump your oats, but the reality
> > > is that atheism is just as much a religion as any other.
>
> > You're right it is a religion just like any other, but I think I'm
> > going to convert to a different religion pretty soon and I'm wondering
> > if you'd like to join me in becoming a convert. It's called aGenii-
> > ism, and the ONLY qualification for joining this religion is that you
> > don't happen to believe geniis exist -- in fact, if you don't happen
> > to believe that geniis exist then you're already part of this new
> > religion.
>
> > > I have to
> > > say, I've never seen anyone verbally fight for what they want near as
> > > furiously as I've seen atheists do.
>
> > Atheists don't "want" anything -- anti-theists, secularists, and
> > humanists might have a few things they want, but atheists don't.
>
> > > That may not fit the dictionary
> > > definition of religion, but it has all the same attributes. It's
> > > definitely a belief system, wouldn't you agree?
>
> > Oh yeah, it's definitely a belief system. Just like, "my hair isn't
> > on fire", "I don't believe unicorns exist", and "there isn't an
> > elephant sitting on me right now" are also belief systems. And
> > "system" is of course the key word here because there is obviously a
> > lot of different interconnected beliefs involved.
>
> > On Dec 1, 1:54 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 1, 2:57 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 1, 11:17 am, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:> I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> > > > > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
>
> > > > > Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> > > > > interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> > > > > atheist into a flame war. There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> > > > > but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These
> > > > > furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> > > > > wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> > > > > language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture
> > > > > you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> > > > > hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> > > > > through your keyboard with every angry jab.
>
> > > > I can kind of see how you might get that impression but sometimes when
> > > > the person you're chatting with keeps lying, changing the subject,
> > > > evading questions and generally acts like a prick, after a while it
> > > > can irk even the most pleasant of us, and bring us to the point at
> > > > which we'll use a bit of colorful language. I'd love an "intelligent
> > > > discussion" and regularly try to have them with newbies, but the vast
> > > > majority of theists newbies and old regulars alike really don't seem
> > > > to be anything more than dishonest assholes...and at some point you've
> > > > just got to call them on it -- if for no other reason that to attempt
> > > > to make them see their dishonesty and hope that they will change their
> > > > ways.
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> > > > Actually atheism and agnosticism describe different qualities and are
> > > > not mutually exclusive by any means.
>
> > > > > 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?
>
> > > > You actually need to use logic to make sense of the facts before you
> > > > -- thats why we use it.
>
> > > > > 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 it's a one-sided battle; when it comes to the God hypothesis
> > > > there isn't the slightest bit of evidence and the atheists aren't
> > > > making any unwarranted claims while theists are...
>
> > > I have to say this, and I know it'll clump your oats, but the reality
> > > is that atheism is just as much a religion as any other. I have to
> > > say, I've never seen anyone verbally fight for what they want near as
> > > furiously as I've seen atheists do. That may not fit the dictionary
> > > definition of religion, but it has all the same attributes. It's
> > > definitely a belief system, wouldn't you agree?

== 9 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 1:32 pm
From: ObservantEye

It sounds like we had a similar upbringing. However, I recognized
that it was the _people_ that make the cage. The beliefs actually
seemed to have a good purpose and intent until people get hold of it.
I have to say that I think there's much to say _for_ religious
ideals. Accountability, striving to become better, helping your
neighbor, golden rule, etc. The ideals are great. It's always been
the people I've had a problem with. I don't think they understand/
interpret the intent of most of the stuff in the (insert religious
text title here).

Question: Does atheist mean you're against religion of any kind?
Consider pantheism, Christianity, Islam, lucky rabbit feet, humanism,
etc. Does everyone here hate all religions or do we pick and choose?

On Dec 2, 3:06 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ObservantEye;
>
> > You know, I don't think these guys are interested in Bible verses. I
> > think you're just poking a bear in a cage when you do that...
>
> Your first statement is correct. Most of us were raised in a
> religion, and most of us have read the Bible. I even own two copies.
>
> But I'm not angry; I have just rejected the cage religion had me in
> for years.
>
> Medusa

== 10 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 1:36 pm
From: Woodbridge

On Dec 2, 1:32 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It sounds like we had a similar upbringing. However, I recognized
> that it was the _people_ that make the cage. The beliefs actually
> seemed to have a good purpose and intent until people get hold of it.
> I have to say that I think there's much to say _for_ religious
> ideals. Accountability, striving to become better, helping your
> neighbor, golden rule, etc. The ideals are great. It's always been
> the people I've had a problem with. I don't think they understand/
> interpret the intent of most of the stuff in the (insert religious
> text title here).
>
> Question: Does atheist mean you're against religion of any kind?

ATheist mean person not believe in god including ALL gods
> Consider pantheism, Christianity, Islam, lucky rabbit feet, humanism,
> etc. Does everyone here hate all religions or do we pick and choose?
>
Hating religion is like hating alchemy no sense hating alchemy YES?

> On Dec 2, 3:06 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ObservantEye;
>
> > > You know, I don't think these guys are interested in Bible verses. I
> > > think you're just poking a bear in a cage when you do that...
>
> > Your first statement is correct. Most of us were raised in a
> > religion, and most of us have read the Bible. I even own two copies.
>
> > But I'm not angry; I have just rejected the cage religion had me in
> > for years.
>
> > Medusa

== 11 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 1:40 pm
From: Neil Kelsey

On Dec 2, 12:50 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm mentally healthy and am an inquisitive child (at heart). As an
> atheist, how do you decide what is right and what is wrong? Is there
> a site or something I can see? I'm honestly curious here.

What do you mean, right and wrong as in "factually correct," or right
and wrong as in ethics? Because I value both. I'm not trying to avoid
your question. I'd say (to keep it managably short) the laws of the
modern secular democracies generally reflect my idea of ethical rights
and wrongs. I also think the more people get their facts straight the
better society will be - if most members of a culture believe the
other members of the culture are going to be tortured for eternity by
God then they might be inclined to treat the non-believers like crap
(history shows this is exactly what happens). So start by getting the
facts straight - does God even exist? Being right about this IS
important.

If you're an inquisitive child at heart (and I'm assuming you're a
Christian - forgive me if I'm wrong) then how do you reconcile, say,
evolution with Genesis?

> On Dec 2, 12:33 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 9:37 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 1, 5:10 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 1, 1:19 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > I mean, come on, how can you respect yourself and believe you are a
> > > > > > wretched
> > > > > > > sinner who deserves nothing more than an eternity in hell at the same
> > > > > > time?
>
> > > > > > *good* *point*
>
> > > > > > But most of the time I don't buy that they really see themselves as
> > > > > > sinners.
>
> > > > > Probably not, but that belief is absolutely the core of Christianity (and
> > > > > most religions, incidentally)--without that belief, the "sacrifice" of
> > > > Jesus
> > > > > is useless and meaningless (why do we need a savior if we're not
> > > > "depraved",
> > > > > as Brock so gleefully puts it). They like to say that their religion is
> > > > all
> > > > > about love and forgiveness and shit, but they're lying or mistaken. All
> > > > that
> > > > > "God's love" is pointless if we don't need it to live a good life/get
> > > > into
> > > > > Heaven. So, as much as the phrase "true Christian" get well-deserved flak
> > > > > around here, I think you could argue that anyone who DOESN'T see himself
> > > > as
> > > > > a sinner isn't a "true Christian", in the sense that he does not ACTUALLY
> > > > > believe the core tenets of Christianity.
>
> > > > I agree with you, but I'm finding it weird that the ones who seem the
> > > > loudest about being depraved sinners (e.g. Brock, e.g. thea. e.g.
> > > > preachers) come across as being the most in love with themselves.
>
> > > That's a good point. But then, we know from his behavior that Brock doesn't
> > > actually believe what he says, and only says it in order to justify his
> > > unjustifiable points.
>
> > Exactly. Brock just wants to be seen as Jesus Junior, so he talks the
> > talk. That's my point. The only people that actually fall for the
> > "wretched sinner" bullshit are frightened children and the mentally
> > ill, it seems to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 12 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 1:42 pm
From: ObservantEye

Firstly, consider that everyone assumed that I was, what? Christian?
Islam? Whatever. That is when the remarks were made. They were
intended to be toward myself--at least most of them.

In hind-sight, I'll admit that my post probably guaranteed a flame war
and was probably taken as a flame. Also consider this before dropping
the gallows trap door: I'd never been to groups.google.com and I
joined this one because it was on the sign-on page and looked like a
place for learning. Note that immediately most of the titles are
flames to begin with. I ignored those and went to safe-looking
titles. Bile. Bile. Bile. From people who are claiming to be
loving, intelligent, and thoughtful. (yes, those claims were actually
made) I expected a battle ground of wit and instead, watched people
shooting fish in a barrel. Fun stuff. The joy I saw people getting
from outright meanness left me non-plussed and I shouldn't have posted
what I did the way that I did. My apologies for being disenchanted
with the language and heckling.

I have a question: From what I can tell, there's only two theists
posting regularly. Is there more? I'd like to hear both sides of
this, even though I was told that there were no sides.

On Dec 2, 3:00 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 3:05 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Once more, a theist playing the victim and showing signs of having
> difficulties understanding simple sentences.
>
> > I mentioned the insults? So far, here's a description of me by our
> > peers here:
> > A dishonest biased prick.
>
> That was my comment, and
>
> 1) it was not an insult, just a fact.
> 2) not addressed at you, as you claim above.
>
> > I am still spewing your bullshit about "new atheism" (actually, I've
> > never heard the term before this comment)
>
> Lifted from my post.
> I was merely repeating what a theist has claimed (except for the
> "spewing" and "bullshit" which are not really insults since "New
> Atheism" is bullshit, and it was not addressed at you anyway.)
>
> If you want to know about "new atheism", join the club! Ask Brock to
> explain it.
> The best he could do was produce a few web pages/blogs that used the
> term in their page title. He could never demonstrate that it was an
> actual movement/organization/philosophy/etc.
>
> > Then you are no self-respecting Christian. (apparently not)
>
> Where is the insult here?
>
> > arrogant prick
>
> Yep, that one is an insult!
>
> > I have apparently been suffering from Alzheimer's. (wow, didn't see
> > that one coming)
>
> An wrong assessment?
>
> > I have an unremarkable life.
>
> Not insults.
>
> > I have no feelings, no brains, no consciences, no ethics, absolutely
> > nothing that a human would call human. Period.
>
> A wrong assessment?
>
> > Wow, that one had a "Period." So why should I even continue? How
> > does one debate with that? I mean, I don't want to start with debates
> > proving I have feelings, brains, conscience, ethics, and that I'm
> > human! I mean, I need to go find those groups first, I guess...
>
> So, you produced little evidence in lieu of actual insults that were
> actually addressed at you.
> But, considering that your OP was an open call for flaming how can you
> be honestly surprised that you got what you were asking for?
>
> In case you try to disagree with me, here is a little reminder of your
> opening statement:
> "
> 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.
> "
>
> Right off the bat you claim that 99% percent of atheist on this site
> are angry and do not want to intelligent discussions, so they must be
> stupid or something like that.
>
> Then you have the balls to state that the same atheists are only
> interested in flaming?
>
> "Arrogant prick" was too good for you, actual bona fide arrogant
> pricks the world over are offended that you were associated with them.
> _________________________________
> I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
> -- Ruth Hurmence Green

== 13 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 1:44 pm
From: ObservantEye

So the hate I witness here is just for the people of religion, right?

On Dec 2, 3:36 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 1:32 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It sounds like we had a similar upbringing. However, I recognized
> > that it was the _people_ that make the cage. The beliefs actually
> > seemed to have a good purpose and intent until people get hold of it.
> > I have to say that I think there's much to say _for_ religious
> > ideals. Accountability, striving to become better, helping your
> > neighbor, golden rule, etc. The ideals are great. It's always been
> > the people I've had a problem with. I don't think they understand/
> > interpret the intent of most of the stuff in the (insert religious
> > text title here).
>
> > Question: Does atheist mean you're against religion of any kind?
>
> ATheist mean person not believe in god including ALL gods> Consider pantheism, Christianity, Islam, lucky rabbit feet, humanism,
> > etc. Does everyone here hate all religions or do we pick and choose?
>
> Hating religion is like hating alchemy no sense hating alchemy YES?
>
> > On Dec 2, 3:06 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > ObservantEye;
>
> > > > You know, I don't think these guys are interested in Bible verses. I
> > > > think you're just poking a bear in a cage when you do that...
>
> > > Your first statement is correct. Most of us were raised in a
> > > religion, and most of us have read the Bible. I even own two copies.
>
> > > But I'm not angry; I have just rejected the cage religion had me in
> > > for years.
>
> > > Medusa

== 14 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 1:47 pm
From: "Brock Organ"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 4:42 PM, ObservantEye <mike.shull@gmail.com> wrote:
> In hind-sight, I'll admit that my post probably guaranteed a flame war
> and was probably taken as a flame.

No not necessarily. It seems that the only requirement for a flame
war on this forum is to disagree positionally with an atheist. Of
course, its not the bedside manner they reject, rather, it is
Christian positions. Thomas Nagel said it so well:

"It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that
I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want
there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."

Regards,

Brock

== 15 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 1:47 pm
From: Woodbridge

On Dec 2, 1:42 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Firstly, consider that everyone assumed that I was, what? Christian?
> Islam? Whatever. That is when the remarks were made. They were
> intended to be toward myself--at least most of them.
>
> In hind-sight, I'll admit that my post probably guaranteed a flame war
> and was probably taken as a flame. Also consider this before dropping
> the gallows trap door: I'd never been to groups.google.com and I
> joined this one because it was on the sign-on page and looked like a
> place for learning. Note that immediately most of the titles are
> flames to begin with. I ignored those and went to safe-looking
> titles. Bile. Bile. Bile. From people who are claiming to be
> loving, intelligent, and thoughtful. (yes, those claims were actually
> made) I expected a battle ground of wit and instead, watched people
> shooting fish in a barrel. Fun stuff. The joy I saw people getting
> from outright meanness left me non-plussed and I shouldn't have posted
> what I did the way that I did. My apologies for being disenchanted
> with the language and heckling.
>
> I have a question: From what I can tell, there's only two theists
> posting regularly. Is there more? I'd like to hear both sides of
> this, even though I was told that there were no sides.
>

I told that there were no BOTH sides not no sides.If there is two side
that says there is God prove that side.Otherwise anyone can say three
sides with SpiderMan and no SpiderMan also.
But to say three side we must give PROOF for SpiderMan YES?
Same thing with God YES?

> On Dec 2, 3:00 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 2, 3:05 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Once more, a theist playing the victim and showing signs of having
> > difficulties understanding simple sentences.
>
> > > I mentioned the insults? So far, here's a description of me by our
> > > peers here:
> > > A dishonest biased prick.
>
> > That was my comment, and
>
> > 1) it was not an insult, just a fact.
> > 2) not addressed at you, as you claim above.
>
> > > I am still spewing your bullshit about "new atheism" (actually, I've
> > > never heard the term before this comment)
>
> > Lifted from my post.
> > I was merely repeating what a theist has claimed (except for the
> > "spewing" and "bullshit" which are not really insults since "New
> > Atheism" is bullshit, and it was not addressed at you anyway.)
>
> > If you want to know about "new atheism", join the club! Ask Brock to
> > explain it.
> > The best he could do was produce a few web pages/blogs that used the
> > term in their page title. He could never demonstrate that it was an
> > actual movement/organization/philosophy/etc.
>
> > > Then you are no self-respecting Christian. (apparently not)
>
> > Where is the insult here?
>
> > > arrogant prick
>
> > Yep, that one is an insult!
>
> > > I have apparently been suffering from Alzheimer's. (wow, didn't see
> > > that one coming)
>
> > An wrong assessment?
>
> > > I have an unremarkable life.
>
> > Not insults.
>
> > > I have no feelings, no brains, no consciences, no ethics, absolutely
> > > nothing that a human would call human. Period.
>
> > A wrong assessment?
>
> > > Wow, that one had a "Period." So why should I even continue? How
> > > does one debate with that? I mean, I don't want to start with debates
> > > proving I have feelings, brains, conscience, ethics, and that I'm
> > > human! I mean, I need to go find those groups first, I guess...
>
> > So, you produced little evidence in lieu of actual insults that were
> > actually addressed at you.
> > But, considering that your OP was an open call for flaming how can you
> > be honestly surprised that you got what you were asking for?
>
> > In case you try to disagree with me, here is a little reminder of your
> > opening statement:
> > "
> > 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.
> > "
>
> > Right off the bat you claim that 99% percent of atheist on this site
> > are angry and do not want to intelligent discussions, so they must be
> > stupid or something like that.
>
> > Then you have the balls to state that the same atheists are only
> > interested in flaming?
>
> > "Arrogant prick" was too good for you, actual bona fide arrogant
> > pricks the world over are offended that you were associated with them.
> > _________________________________
> > I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
> > -- Ruth Hurmence Green

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 1:03 pm
From: Woodbridge

On Dec 2, 12:26 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 3:05 PM, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 2, 2:22 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:07 PM, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Dec 2, 11:56 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:50 AM, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Thomas Jefferson put it better:
>
> >> >> > "[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious
> >> >> > worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced,
> >> >> > restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall
> >> >> > otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but
> >> >> > that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain,
> >> >> > their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no
> >> >> > wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
>
> >> >> Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion.
>
> >> >> Regards,
>
> >> >> Brock
>
> >> > Firstly: Thomas Jefferson disagrees with you.
>
> >> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> >> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> >> Rights"
>
> > "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
> > people which declared that their legislature should "make no law
> > respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
> > exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church &
> > State."
>
> Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.
>

So freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from speech Yes?
Judaists can put megaphone in your ear in your house and yell
"Christian Borgan is hypocrite" Yes?

> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
>
> >> > Secondly: Where are the words "freedom of religion" in the US
> >> > Constitution?
>
> >> Right next to the words "checks and balances", I might suppose. ;D
>
> > So you admit they're not actually there, then?
>
> > So you admit you interpreted what was in the Constitution to mean you
> > have "freedom of religion"?
>
> Rather, I note that in the same way one cannot wish away the premises
> of "checks and balances" or "separation of powers"[1] from the
> Constitution simply because its text does not explicitly incorporate
> them similarly does a disservice here.
>
Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #2, 4, 5: