Atheism vs Christianity: Atheism-vs-Christianity - 26 new messages in 12 topics

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
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: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:34 am
From: "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"

On Dec 1, 11:59 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 1:12 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > How are you able to tell whether you
> > worship the same God who said "You shall have no other gods before me"?
>
> The various philosophical proofs of God's existence can be helpful
> exercises in idol-smashing for the believer, and the atheist who is
> willing to suspend his unbelief for a bit.
>
> For example, consider the question: can God move? Well in order to
> move from A to B an entity must be at A and not at B. It must lack
> something. But God who is Infinite lacks nothing. It follows God has
> not the limits making movement necessary. Movement (and time, which is
> science says is relative to motion) is a /lack/ of being... even if
> movement and time always were and will be. God has not this limit
> making movement, space or time necessary.
>
> So if prior to this exercise I had thought of God as a body (like
> Thor, Zeus, and all the usual suspects mentioned), I am not thinking
> of God but something lesser god, unworthy of adoration.

The Bible portrays god as one who sits on a throne.
http://www.tribulation.com/throne.htm
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/t/throne_of_god.html
One who sits on a throne would have a body. Is this a lesser god? Does
the Bible mention a greater god who cannot sit on a throne, a god who
is everywhere?

> Even so, idol worship is a constant risk, since a man can make
> anything a god.

Anything or anyone. Such as Jesus.

> People who call themselves atheists often, for
> example, deify proof. We must never let proof be our master.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:42 am
From: Joe

How do you know you're not breathing the wrong air?

On Nov 29, 4:12 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 5:23 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > if you're going to ask for ironclad proof of God, then you'd have to
> > be able to suggest what type of proof would qualify.
>
> > Would God have to stand on the moon and wave?
>
> Even if God were to stand on the Moon and wave, we would not know that
> it is the God of the Bible who is standing on the Moon and waving; it
> might be Thor who is waving. How are you able to tell whether you
> worship the same God who said "You shall have no other gods before me"?

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:36 am
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Nov 28, 4:24 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> >wrote:
> > > Let's cut to the chase here: do you think that there can be a non-
> > > extremist religion?
> >
> > I think there are extremists in all religions.
>
> Do you think that there is any movement or philosophy of any
> importance that does not have extremists?

We are not talking about other movements or philosophies.

We debate religion on this site and frankly it's a nonsensical and childish
argument to say "well everyone else does it."

>
> > > Would you force us to give up our faith before you'd accept that we
> > > aren't extremists?
> >
> > I would expect all religious people who don't agree with Religious
> Extremism
> > to Acknowledge It and take a stand against it and stop trying to justify
> it.
>
> Can you give a specific action that we could take to show you that we
> are not trying to justify it?

You could stop giving silly arguments like "everyone else does it" to make
it seem justifiable.

>
>
> Note that you can't say "Give up your religion" because we think
> they're wrong about their interpretation of the religion.

I've never once asked anyone to "give up their religion" on this site.

In fact I've asked a few to make sure they continue practicing because they
believe they can't be good without it. That makes them sociopaths and I feel
a lot safer if they feel like their god makes them good people.

>
>
> And you can't say "Write books and papers and work to change the
> religion from inside", because many do.
>
> And you can't say "Be an activist" because most people aren't. I
> myself am not an activist about anything; you cannot demand that I
> change my personality over this.
>
> So, other than that, what actions are you expecting us to take?

You should acknowledge the reality of the consequences of your beliefs on
others and the rest of the world and stop making excuses for what the crimes
religion has committed in the past.

You should object to those who commit crimes in your god's name.

You should isolate the extremists and not go along with or accept what they
do in your gods name.

And you should support the fight to maintain a secular society.

>
>
>
> >
>

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

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:55 am
From: Treebeard

On Dec 2, 1:36 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 4:24 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> > >wrote:
> > > > Let's cut to the chase here: do you think that there can be a non-
> > > > extremist religion?
>
> > > I think there are extremists in all religions.
>
> > Do you think that there is any movement or philosophy of any
> > importance that does not have extremists?
>
> We are not talking about other movements or philosophies.

My point is that if all movements or philosophies may have extremists,
you didn't answer my question, which was if there can be a non-
extremist religion. Remember, your reply was that all religions have
extremists, and I was merely trying to ascertain if you thought that
made the religion itself extremist or not.

>
> We debate religion on this site and frankly it's a nonsensical and childish
> argument to say "well everyone else does it."

It is a perfect argument if you want to assert that extremism is a
quality of religion itself, which is what I objected to. If that was
not your intent, then we don't have much to talk about.

>
>
>
> > > > Would you force us to give up our faith before you'd accept that we
> > > > aren't extremists?
>
> > > I would expect all religious people who don't agree with Religious
> > Extremism
> > > to Acknowledge It and take a stand against it and stop trying to justify
> > it.
>
> > Can you give a specific action that we could take to show you that we
> > are not trying to justify it?
>
> You could stop giving silly arguments like "everyone else does it" to make
> it seem justifiable.

Again, I am merely claiming that religions are not inherently
extremist, and proving that by demonstrating other causes that are non-
religious but are or contain extremists. I replied to a comment you
made that, to me, stated precisely that. If that is not what you
meant, feel free to inform me of that.

>
>
>
> > Note that you can't say "Give up your religion" because we think
> > they're wrong about their interpretation of the religion.
>
> I've never once asked anyone to "give up their religion" on this site.

I never stated that you had; I am simply eliminating that as an option
because based on what I listed I cannot really see any other
alternative thing that is not already being done, but perhaps there
will be something in your list below.

> > And you can't say "Write books and papers and work to change the
> > religion from inside", because many do.
>
> > And you can't say "Be an activist" because most people aren't. I
> > myself am not an activist about anything; you cannot demand that I
> > change my personality over this.
>
> > So, other than that, what actions are you expecting us to take?
>
> You should acknowledge the reality of the consequences of your beliefs on
> others and the rest of the world and stop making excuses for what the crimes
> religion has committed in the past.

I merely claim that religion is no worse than anything else. That's a
logical position that you can oppose if you'd like. I do indeed
acknowledge that people can do bad things in the name of religion, but
quite reasonably refuse to accept the claim that those things would
not occur without religion.

>
> You should object to those who commit crimes in your god's name.

I do.

>
> You should isolate the extremists and not go along with or accept what they
> do in your gods name.

I do.

>
> And you should support the fight to maintain a secular society.

This depends on what you mean by "secular". If it includes the
elimination of religion or an insistence that even moderate religious
people cannot act on their religious beliefs, that is, obviously, a
step far too far.

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:37 am
From: Neil Kelsey

On Dec 2, 8:23 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 6:31 pm, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello, I am a Christian. An atheist friend of mine is here in Simi
> > Valley, California and challenged me to post here.
>
> > He's quite sure that I will be banned because of my education in
> > religious antiquity, so I accepted the challenge.
>
> > We're visiting a friend. Tomorrow, we're both going to separate
> > directions.
>
> Hi, Roger Pearse. You're really bad at spoofing. You will not be
> banned because of your education in religious antiquity. From what I
> recall you were banned from google groups for spoofing to begin with.
>
> Haven't learned your lesson, have you?

This is Roger Pearse? Are you sure?

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:42 am
From: Tertullian

On Dec 1, 5:57 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 5:18 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com
> > >wrote:
>
> > > > Hello, I am a Christian. An atheist friend of mine is here in Simi
> > > > Valley, California and challenged me to post here.
>
> > > > He's quite sure that I will be banned because of my education in
> > > > religious antiquity, so I accepted the challenge.
>
> > > Where in the bloody hell did you (or he) get the idea that was a bannable
> > > offense? I cannot fathom your (or his) thought process.
>
> > Well, maybe you're new here too?
>
> Yeah, I'm a green 3-year newbie.

No, 3-year veteran is more likely. Maybe I can talk to you more
someday.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:47 am
From: Tertullian

On Dec 2, 10:03 am, floyd_1977 <floyd_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 6:55 pm, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 1, 4:41 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > Tertuliian says here he IS Christian.
> > > Why did Tertullian post that he is BECOMING Christian and change it?
> > > Tertullian VERY SIMILAR to Christian LimaToo
>
> > If Liam is a Christian, yep we're brothers. I was an atheist not long
> > ago, but now a Christian.
>
> I doubt you were an atheist. "Not very religious" is not the same as
> atheist.

I guess so. Mao, Lenin and Stalin were not so religious either. But as
for me, I'm now very much religious.

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:41 am
From: Answer_42

On Nov 29, 7:26 pm, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > the question is not IF Jesus existed (He did)
>
> 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!

checkers, I must say that I called you a moron on a few occasions
lately, now, I am seriously rethinking that... Even though you are
still a piece of shit for making fun of people who write about their
mental health problems, this post of yours shows a certain honesty...

I guess I will upgrade you from "moronic piece of shit" to "piece if
shit."
_________________________________
I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
-- Ruth Hurmence Green

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 11:02 am
From: Tertullian

On Dec 1, 7:13 pm, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Suetonius and Pliny the Younger who all wrote about Christians.
>
> Writing about Christians is not the same as writing about some guy
> named Jesus.

Nope it's not, but that's a start.

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:46 am
From: checkers

On Dec 2, 8:20 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 9:53 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 7:24 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 2, 9:09 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 6:56 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 2, 8:36 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 2, 6:12 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 2, 2:04 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Dec 2, 8:51 am, Ruthie <willruthie1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > They don't love because they are scared into it. People get the idea
> > > > > > > > > that an atheist is a devil lover .Far from the truth. Atheist don't
> > > > > > > > > believe in god and definetly don't believe in Satan.
>
> > > > > > > > chx
> > > > > > > > not believing in satan does not let him go away . ;)
>
> > > > > > > Believing in Satan does not make him exist. +/-
>
> > > > > > chx
> > > > > > we have a stale mate, mate ;)
>
> > > > > No we don't. You need to show Satan exists for your claim to be true,
> > > > > and my claim is simply true.
>
> > > > chx
> > > > nope, actually not one of us made a positive statement at first, so we
> > > > are back to a stale mate ;)
>
> > > Nope, we both made positive statements, and it's irrelevant when they
> > > were made. +/- 000 @@
>
> > chx
> > both our comments were safe to a point
>
> non sequitur
>
> > > > oh! but then you go and say your claim is true. sorry dude, the onus
> > > > now rests on you to prove your claim. [chuckle]
>
> > > So you don't think your claim is true? [fart]
>
> > chx
> > neither our comments were 'true' per say
>
> Mine was, yours wasn't, per say
>
> > > As for my claim, get a dictionary and look up the word "belief." Then
> > > look up the word "exist." If you manage to read for comprehension, you
> > > too can figure out that existence does not hinge upon belief. That's
> > > perhaps giving you too much credit, but I'm not doing your Grade 5
> > > level homework for you.
>
> > chx
> > you are using a single word to make a point. look at it in context
>
> Can't count, either? "Belief" and "exist" are two words. You can look
> that up in a math book. Probably about a Grade 1 textbook would do,
> but possibly watching Sesame Street would be all you need.
>
> And until you understand what words mean in common English, I don't
> think you're going to understand context anyway. So we'll take these
> words one at a time, until you show that you're ready for complete
> sentences.
>
> > but wait, what have we here, a diversion?
>
> Yes! You have several, as a matter of fact...
>
> > > But I willl give you an example. People used to believe the world was
> > > flat.
>
> > chx
> > i glad you say 'people' and not theists so i will also keep it neutral
> > for now.
>
> Why would I say theists when everybody in general was ignorant of the
> world being a sphere?
>
> > > Then they found out the world is spherical. So, the flat world
> > > doesn't exist. This illustrates how believing in something doesn't
> > > make it exist. You believe in Satan. That doesn't make Satan exist.
>
> > chx
> > yep, the people held fast on the round world in spite of the dude
> > trying to convince them the world is flat around 1700 years ago
>
> non sequitur
>
> > > Now, show how "not believing in satan does not let him go away." Or
> > > admit that you don't believe your own bullshit. Or, as usual, dodge
> > > the request with another smirky irrelevant wild raving that is
> > > tantamount to admitting you're full of shit; I don't really give a
> > > fuck one way or the other.
>
> > chx
> > you mean like you just did here.
>
> non sequitur
>
> > believing or not believing does not affirm either way.
>
> Which makes my statement ("Believing in Satan does not make him
> exist") true and your statement ("not believing in satan does not let
> him go away") false. I'm glad you agree with me, even if it's by
> accident.
>
> > neither have
> > evidence nor proof or facts.
>
> Standard English dictionaries support my statement; simple logic
> proves yours false. The problem here is with your generally low level
> of comprehension.
>
> > once the word true in context come in,
> > the scenario changes. this be your dilemma. you claimed a truth not
> > me.
>
> I'll ask you again, because this is about the only semi-interesting
> point left to debate here:
>
> DO YOU NOT CONSIDER YOUR CLAIM* TO BE TRUE?
>
> * Your claim: "not believing in satan does not let him go away"

chx
hey, what's with all the _non sequitur_ these are all void. you could
just have left them unanswered.

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

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:52 am
From: Neil Kelsey

On Dec 2, 10:46 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 8:20 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 9:53 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 2, 7:24 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 9:09 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 2, 6:56 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 2, 8:36 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 2, 6:12 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Dec 2, 2:04 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Dec 2, 8:51 am, Ruthie <willruthie1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > They don't love because they are scared into it. People get the idea
> > > > > > > > > > that an atheist is a devil lover .Far from the truth. Atheist don't
> > > > > > > > > > believe in god and definetly don't believe in Satan.
>
> > > > > > > > > chx
> > > > > > > > > not believing in satan does not let him go away . ;)
>
> > > > > > > > Believing in Satan does not make him exist. +/-
>
> > > > > > > chx
> > > > > > > we have a stale mate, mate ;)
>
> > > > > > No we don't. You need to show Satan exists for your claim to be true,
> > > > > > and my claim is simply true.
>
> > > > > chx
> > > > > nope, actually not one of us made a positive statement at first, so we
> > > > > are back to a stale mate ;)
>
> > > > Nope, we both made positive statements, and it's irrelevant when they
> > > > were made. +/- 000 @@
>
> > > chx
> > > both our comments were safe to a point
>
> > non sequitur
>
> > > > > oh! but then you go and say your claim is true. sorry dude, the onus
> > > > > now rests on you to prove your claim. [chuckle]
>
> > > > So you don't think your claim is true? [fart]
>
> > > chx
> > > neither our comments were 'true' per say
>
> > Mine was, yours wasn't, per say
>
> > > > As for my claim, get a dictionary and look up the word "belief." Then
> > > > look up the word "exist." If you manage to read for comprehension, you
> > > > too can figure out that existence does not hinge upon belief. That's
> > > > perhaps giving you too much credit, but I'm not doing your Grade 5
> > > > level homework for you.
>
> > > chx
> > > you are using a single word to make a point. look at it in context
>
> > Can't count, either? "Belief" and "exist" are two words. You can look
> > that up in a math book. Probably about a Grade 1 textbook would do,
> > but possibly watching Sesame Street would be all you need.
>
> > And until you understand what words mean in common English, I don't
> > think you're going to understand context anyway. So we'll take these
> > words one at a time, until you show that you're ready for complete
> > sentences.
>
> > > but wait, what have we here, a diversion?
>
> > Yes! You have several, as a matter of fact...
>
> > > > But I willl give you an example. People used to believe the world was
> > > > flat.
>
> > > chx
> > > i glad you say 'people' and not theists so i will also keep it neutral
> > > for now.
>
> > Why would I say theists when everybody in general was ignorant of the
> > world being a sphere?
>
> > > > Then they found out the world is spherical. So, the flat world
> > > > doesn't exist. This illustrates how believing in something doesn't
> > > > make it exist. You believe in Satan. That doesn't make Satan exist.
>
> > > chx
> > > yep, the people held fast on the round world in spite of the dude
> > > trying to convince them the world is flat around 1700 years ago
>
> > non sequitur
>
> > > > Now, show how "not believing in satan does not let him go away." Or
> > > > admit that you don't believe your own bullshit. Or, as usual, dodge
> > > > the request with another smirky irrelevant wild raving that is
> > > > tantamount to admitting you're full of shit; I don't really give a
> > > > fuck one way or the other.
>
> > > chx
> > > you mean like you just did here.
>
> > non sequitur
>
> > > believing or not believing does not affirm either way.
>
> > Which makes my statement ("Believing in Satan does not make him
> > exist") true and your statement ("not believing in satan does not let
> > him go away") false. I'm glad you agree with me, even if it's by
> > accident.
>
> > > neither have
> > > evidence nor proof or facts.
>
> > Standard English dictionaries support my statement; simple logic
> > proves yours false. The problem here is with your generally low level
> > of comprehension.
>
> > > once the word true in context come in,
> > > the scenario changes. this be your dilemma. you claimed a truth not
> > > me.
>
> > I'll ask you again, because this is about the only semi-interesting
> > point left to debate here:
>
> > DO YOU NOT CONSIDER YOUR CLAIM* TO BE TRUE?
>
> > * Your claim: "not believing in satan does not let him go away"
>
> chx
> hey, what's with all the _non sequitur_ these are all void. you could
> just have left them unanswered.

Nah, I enjoy pointing out your fallacies. It's a hobby.

Now then, let's get back to my question, which you've avoided twice
now:

DO YOU NOT CONSIDER YOUR CLAIM* TO BE TRUE?

* Your claim is: "not believing in satan does not let him go away"

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:53 am
From: Drafterman

But one can negate.

On Dec 2, 12:45 pm, Mary Wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:
> You cannot override what has already been written in the Bible.
>
> Mary Wolls> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:05:46 -0800> Subject: [AvC] Re: Atheist are very loving people. They love because they feel love...> From: ipu.belie...@gmail.com> To: Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com> > > On Dec 2, 11:57 am, mary wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:> > Ruthie,> >> > How can you feel love without God? From what I have seen all the> > atheists feel is lust. Lust for the flesh, and lust for things. Only> > the higher things are pure. Love is purity, not corruption.> > I believe you are wrong here.> > Love can be defined in many ways.> You have chosen a very narrow way of defining it. In fact, only> christians use that definition.> > Here is the general definition from Merriam Webster:> "> 1 a (1): strong affection for another arising out of kinship or> personal ties <maternal love for a child> (2): attraction based on> sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3):> affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love> for his old schoolmates> b: an assurance of love <give her my love>> "> > According to that definition, anybody can feel love, no need for an> imaginary being.> > Of course, if one does not believe in a magical sky being, one does> not feel love for that being or one does not beleive that they are> being loved by that imaginary being.> However, that does not prevent one from feeling and giving love, as we> all do in our lives.> _________________________________> I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.> -- Ruth Hurmence Green> _________________________________________________________________
> Send e-mail anywhere. No map, no compass.http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_...

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:58 am
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 1:05 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

<snip>

> chx
> you don't get it. it was not embedded in a message from you, there was

No, YOU don't get it.

If you are too dumb and unable to see who posted a message by looking
at the handle name in the message list, it is not my problem.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Weird, yet strangely compelling French Army Cartoon
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/0c9a1bae0d243dcb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:49 am
From: Eris

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8e3_1228084617

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:59 am
From: "N.G.K."

Yes, strangely compelling.

On Dec 2, 10:49 am, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8e3_1228084617

==============================================================================
TOPIC: AMERICA: THE POLITICS AND CULTURE OF EMPTINESS - SEQUAL
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/43fb7c97a923b7bb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:50 am
From: Morpheal

AMERICA: THE POLITICS AND CULTURE OF EMPTINESS - SEQUAL

This is a sequal to the original article, considering some further
issues related to the fundamental principle of emptiness and its role
in Americanism.

EDUCATION as emptiness. I have made the point before that when the
need for prisons is seen as ever increasing and the prisons are
increasingly full, education has failed. That failure is a part of its
emptiness. Partly this divide between what is seen as being good and
evil tends to be closely related to the peculiar belief in
predestination. People are still seen as destined, prior to education
and life experience, to be what they become. This takes away a large
amount of the responsibility that ought to accrue to education. Partly
predestination, though ascribed an absolute religious value, supports
national claims as to rightness and primacy of leadership, as a
divinely chosen emissary of national policies and practices, at home
and in the world beyond. It also supports the importance of ancestral
lineage for those who can trace back their pedigree to the founding
fathers of the nation (the Puritan extremists who came to America
fleeing from socio-political progress in England). Similar to the
lineage of a monarchy, a Puritan lineage can confer special privilege,
of far more significance than formal education is able to offer.
Determinism also means that learning something does not confer the
right to pursue what is learned in a gainful or more meaningful way
within the society and culture. It does mean that education of that
sort can be entirely wasted, and the individual redirected, often in
accordance with whatever the ancestral role happened to be. If a man
studies to be a writer, and learns to write, he may find that he is
made into a soldier, because his father and grandfather before him
were professional soldiers. The question of choice in an education of
emptiness becomes a vital issue and was an issue deeply questioned in
human potential movement oriented 1960s, but less and less considered
and acted upon since. The battle against that type of emptiness is
being lost, not won.

Education as emptiness is also about lack of relevance. It is unlikely
that most workers, working at what is considered a non professional
level, and many of those who are working at that level, will ever use
any more of their formal school education, from years prior to
college, than approximately grade 4. The years following that are
revealed to have been little more than an imprisonment in learning
routines of attendance, and some skills of classroom deportment, in
preparation for the structuring that is found in the world of work.
Nothing much is learned about society and how it functions. Even less
as to the truth of the system. The facts presented have to be taken as
true, and largely only serve the more trivial function of providing
relatively bland content, avoiding controversy and and any real
questioning. The facts of education merely serve as busyness,
emulating some prevalent aspects of later life, so there are fewer
surprises as to the essential meaninglessness of many of its
routines. We might add that in those years relatively little is
taught and learned concerning the law, ethics, society, the world
beyond one's own immediate neighborhood, business practices, the role
of customary practices and traditions, or even the truth about health.
Mostly educational emptiness nurtures ignorance and hurls its victims
into the school of hard knocks where if they were not secretly
schooled by more knowing and experienced family relations, they are
more likely predestined to fail.

ACADEMIA of emptiness. The matter of education only becomes worse as
you advance beyond the public high school, and having learned to march
to the same drummer as everyone else. Academia has become largely the
emptiness of follow the leaders. The higher you climb the more this is
true. It is a system of emulation rather than innovation. It is a
system of faith rather than questioning. It is about regurgitating
rather than originality. It is about assimilating what are presented
as facts, but it is largely not about real intelligence. Critical
thinking is far from encouraged in most instances. The fundamentals of
what constitutes real knowledge and its logical, rational, reasoning
analysis are almost untaught to most of the disciplines. Instead the
system is one of marketing subject areas, where each area tends to be
dominated by ever changing fashionable trends. What was in vogue there
one year, is gone the next and replaced by something else, in a
somewhat fickle and random juke box like selection of a limited range
of tunes that can be played. You put your money in and you get to
learn the lyrics. If you can remember them and repeat them you get a
certificate that says that you passed. It hardly matters what it was
that was repeated. While specific practical skills fare somewhat
better, it only means that a doctor in medical school learns the
rudiments of surgery, and an engineer might learn how to actually
assemble a machine, but those technical manipulations are far removed
from what we can refer to as being academia. Academia typically offers
as much or more disconnection of its ivory towers from the real world
beyond its perimeter fence. In some regards its content is not meant
to be disseminated beyond that fence and what is outside is largely
not allowed in. It is a privileged preserve of largely disconnected
emptiness. In some ways that disconnected emptiness leaves the world
outside the fence to is irrational beliefs, and its unchallenged
reliance on religion. The system is largely structured in exactly that
way. That does not indicate that the beliefs inside the fence are more
true, than those outside. In some ways that very difference is
destroyed by the dysfunction of the system inside academia where
follow the leaders is the ticket to an advanced degree. Ultimately
inside functions on the basis of belief, as does outside, even if the
beliefs are different. When the beliefs inside academia are shown to
fail, they leave the beliefs that prevail outside strengthened, and so
the tendency is always to that failure. Academia must never do better
than naive faith. In fact it must do worse, in the final analysis. The
tree of knowledge must be poison, or it might not be tolerated as
such. So it seeks to preserve its own viability, by failing to
struggle against its own failings and thus against its own emptiness.

If we wonder how wrong the accumulation of facts and their
interpretation can become, inside the fence, versus the reality of
outside, and how this connects with the question of beliefs, we need
only consider a matter such as Soviet Studies in American Academia as
it was in the 1980s. Subsequent intelligence, analysis external to
academia, overturned most of Academia's beliefs as to the Soviet
Union. Of course, only those not indoctrinated into those beliefs, and
not from inside the academic system, could break the deadlock.

WORK as emptiness. The absolute importance of earning an income, from
work, tends to preclude any questioning and critical analysis of the
nature of work in America. Whatever it is it tends to be accepted. The
history of work in the 20th century was one where that very
questioning and critical consideration were labeled communist,
leftist, and we have seen the rise and decline of the big unions, as
corporations found ways to reduce union power. The idea that work
comes from God, not from humanity, as a gift of divine grace, not as
something earnable by effort still has a strong role, and in some
regards that role has covertly increased since the 1960s. Work has
become a means of social control, in many instances, but mostly a
mechanism to eliminate dissent and to discourage questioning the
system and its core beliefs. Work made into a political weapon has
become an increasing problem, but it has become a problem that has
tended to deny the right to question it as such, in terms of its own
evolution into the system that it has become today. Most of the
changes that have taken place, as to work and the environment of work,
have proven negative. Social interaction of workers has become more
and more formalized and limited. Depersonalization is the rule, not
the exception. Sameness, often disguised as fitting in, has become an
increasing worry for most, and offers little opportunity for any self
expression. Personalized social relations are largely frowned upon, or
punishable. The working social environment is no longer seen as an
appropriate place to form personal relationships extending outside the
formalism of the working environment. Consistent with that it has
become increasingly unacceptable to date and mate with co-workers, in
any area of work, and that increasingly seen as an extreme of
unprofessionalism. Workers increasingly avoid even the most
superficial casual discussion of anything pertaining to their personal
interests and lives outside of work, increasingly afraid that even the
mere mention might be a potential work threatening conflict, or a
source of fatal unpopularity. These trends have begun to take over non
paying areas of what could be considered work, as much as the paying
areas. The paying and non paying areas are becoming made more and more
similar. More formal. More rigid. More limited to non personal,
professionalized and quasi professionalized interactions.

It has become so extreme that some, and believed to be a growing
portion of those with power over the nature of work in today's
Americanized societies, believe that uprooting from any social
connections and relations, inclusive of any established relation to
any community outside of the formalized work environment is desirable
or even a necessity. The destruction of difference between outside of
the work environment and what is inside that environment seen as a
means for destroying perceptions of that difference, and in a
completely depersonalized, formalized, socially unattached and
disconnected world, the world of work is largely unquestionable as to
its practices. After all, when there is nothing else, then that social
regimentation has no contrast to be measured against. The emptiness
outside made even more severe, then the emptiness inside gains some
primacy. This is consistent with the religious trend to emptiness and
depersonalization, believed to be the counterpoint to increased
attention to the afterlife and its absolutes, in an emphasis of
otherworldliness, as the only available alternative to the alienating
and depersonalized experience of this world and its increase in
emptiness.

Of course the worker is increasingly encouraged to build and maintain
even more such depersonalized, formalized, relationships, even outside
the confines of the actual environment and duties of the work
performed for an employer. In such formal association the same social
limitations are extended nearly infinitely, offering no alternative
from their emptiness.

Of course there is the strand of thought that no one has any potential
outside of the definition of potential afforded to them by corporate
culture, and corporate association. That too is beyond comprehension
by any individual, but something to be accepted as a given, without
consideration of any rightness or wrongness from the individual
viewpoint. True wisdom, and the power to label and define, is from
above, emphasizing the similarity to religion where all such defining
is considered as coming from God, and requiring total submission
without questioning. The very validity of one's own understanding of
one's self, as opposed to what is imposed as given, is put into doubt.
Destiny and choice are no longer one's own locus of control, but that
too remains outside of dispute by a science that has largely
succumbed.

Added to this is the belief in stark, militarized, essentially shades
of battleship grey, work environs as the correct way to appoint and
decorate a work place. The work of sociology and psychology on this
subject has largely been discarded since the 1960s. The motives of
that ignorance of the truth of scientific research on the subject, are
clearly political and religious. They are willing to sacrifice worker
contentment and well being for the sake of promoting other
worldliness.

Factor in the increase in lack of job security, increased effects of
more rigid hierarchical "pecking orders" within structures filled with
increasingly insecure management, the increase in fear, the growing
lack of benefits, no holidays, few days off, long hours, to the
increasingly forced disconnection from place and anything personal
that is personally valued outside of work itself (whether outside
interests, personal achievements, other personal potential, non work
related talents, familiarity of geographic place, and ownership of
whatever might impede radical upheaval and dislocation from social and
geographic community contexts), and the emptiness is greatly
increased. The trend, despite a pool of workers out of work, has been
for those seeking employment to sign away most of what were once their
entitlements, including any limitations as to amounts of overtime and
statutory holidays. These sign offs of what were once "rights" have
gained legal force and are gaining in acceptability. In fact I recall
one American corporation that openly had the motto "your vacation is
your vocation". Nevertheless, the necessity of financial income is a
souce of blackmail in that it must take primacy above all else in a
society where nothing is possible without sufficient money. So the
losses can be made so severe that the gains are largely negated in
terms of the imposed conditions required of the individual to achieve
a condition of work being given, and achieving that gift, privilege,
and ultimately ascribed to divine grace. The religious language and
its application to what are often actually only the victimized and
systemic abused, becomes the justification valued above science and
any humanism of work.

COMMERCE of emptiness. Shopping as a pastime, encouraged for its own
sake is a made in America diversion. Even psychologists have begun to
teach patients that they should go shopping and buy themselves
something as a reward system. However, the personalized element of
human interaction has largely been eliminated, in favor of a
depersonalized experience. A lot could be added on this subject,
concerning the social evolution of the marketplace into more and more
depersonalized commerce of emptiness, diminishing the role of
traditional social interaction, and personal knowing. That and the
radical change in values that that tends to bring. The thing takes on
more value than the personal association with others which becomes
diminished by the extreme shallowness and formalism that have replaced
more satisfying social interaction. Personalizing becomes unacceptable
there too, as it too is a workplace for many, and the shopper is as if
a worker along with the staff. The work of shopping, assigned to all
who have money to spend, is made into a responsibility as important as
any other career or employment responsibility. To shirk it means an
imposition of guilt as to not acting responsibly. Psychologically it
becomes wrong to fail to reward one's self for work, and that means
buying something with one's income. This has tended to take the place
of all other forms of reward within the needs and wants hierarchy.
Divine grace ultimately means you can shop. If you cannot shop you are
socially marginalized, socially uncompetitive, don't rate, and have no
status. Shopping itself is a competitive task, and the need is further
excerbated by the fact that styles, fashions, trends, what is in and
what is out, are changing so rapidly that ever more money is needed to
be spent to keep up or gain status and social place. The very meaning
of gift, or talent, becomes the acquisition of the things that are
shopped for subverting its other meanings in a redefining of value,
and thus of belief. Prevalent religion has evolved to accomodate
this.

INFORMATION of emptiness. The flood of unfiltered, unverified and
often unverifiable information is an ever growing tidal wave of
emptiness. Misinformation, disinformation, mislead and eat up time to
the extent that finding anything out that is or might be of importance
tends to become a gargantuan task more daunting than Hercules having
to clean out the Stygian stables. Unless one is particularly
intelligent and trained in critical thinking, the matter is becoming
largely a lost cause. It cannot be done. Thus it is emptiness. The
tree of knowledge is now more poisonous than ever before. There is
increasingly no way to find one's way through the quagmire of ever
increasing data, inclusive of a never ending and always increasing
flood of deliberate scams, frauds, and con trickster solicitations.
The personal element having largely been removed from the scenario,
there is now only the depersonalized, pretense of the personal,
attempting to lure with lies, as if the entire system has become
possessed by the demons of hell themselves. The tendency is to want to
give up in utter hopelessness, leaving the bog of data, feeling
poorer, more lost, and more empty than when one arrived there. The
muck is too deep to wade through. The stench and soiling from it tends
to infiltrate every other form of relation, where it is regurgitated,
in near to academic style, by trivial pursuit players, who have no
idea, for the most part, as to truth or lie, but feel a necessity to
fill dead air time, with sounds filled with any type of information
gained from the new media explosion of endless data. So there is no
real escaping of that same emptiness. The social context, such as it
is, even in its increasingly depersonalized form, is saturated with
the same emptiness. Values and truths tend to be the first victims,
even in technical as well as the most vital matters pertaining to
life. The flood simply washes away the last semblance to any real
knowing.

CONCLUSION as to emptiness.

While we have not delved all that deeply, or all that thoroughly into
the subject of the increasing emptiness that comes from Americanism,
there is enough of a mustard seed in each segment of the two articles,
to lead a vast and critical inquiry, putting into question most of the
assumptions, presuppositions, and what is taken increasingly for
granted as given truth. There is enough of a mustard seed to
reconsider how all of the emptiness of Americanism, as it has evolved
to being now and in terms of its evident trends as to potential future
evolution, along that same path, is affecting values, and reducing
human relationships to merely randomized, shallow, formal interactions
of depersonalized commerce. How that emptiness is changing how people
understand themselves, and each other, within the context of the
"Brave New World" and "1984" of Americanism. (I highly recommend
reading Aldous Huxley's and George Orwell's writings.)

I am sure there are other areas of inquiry, but this concludes my
attempt to create a catalyst for renewed critical thought, and for
questioning what has happened, what is happening and where it is
headed, so that we can change the course of humanity to a better
future.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:54 am
From: "Trance Gemini"

Morpheal.

Are you posting here to just proselytize your particular belief system or
are you here to debate.

You have not responded to any comments made by members of this site.

This is considered spamming.

Please either participate actively in this site or stop posting here.

If you continue without actively participated you will be permanently banned
for spamming.

--Trance Gemini, Moderator, AvC.

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Morpheal <morpheal@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> AMERICA: THE POLITICS AND CULTURE OF EMPTINESS - SEQUAL
>
> This is a sequal to the original article, considering some further
> issues related to the fundamental principle of emptiness and its role
> in Americanism.
>
> EDUCATION as emptiness. I have made the point before that when the
> need for prisons is seen as ever increasing and the prisons are
> increasingly full, education has failed. That failure is a part of its
> emptiness. Partly this divide between what is seen as being good and
> evil tends to be closely related to the peculiar belief in
> predestination. People are still seen as destined, prior to education
> and life experience, to be what they become. This takes away a large
> amount of the responsibility that ought to accrue to education. Partly
> predestination, though ascribed an absolute religious value, supports
> national claims as to rightness and primacy of leadership, as a
> divinely chosen emissary of national policies and practices, at home
> and in the world beyond. It also supports the importance of ancestral
> lineage for those who can trace back their pedigree to the founding
> fathers of the nation (the Puritan extremists who came to America
> fleeing from socio-political progress in England). Similar to the
> lineage of a monarchy, a Puritan lineage can confer special privilege,
> of far more significance than formal education is able to offer.
> Determinism also means that learning something does not confer the
> right to pursue what is learned in a gainful or more meaningful way
> within the society and culture. It does mean that education of that
> sort can be entirely wasted, and the individual redirected, often in
> accordance with whatever the ancestral role happened to be. If a man
> studies to be a writer, and learns to write, he may find that he is
> made into a soldier, because his father and grandfather before him
> were professional soldiers. The question of choice in an education of
> emptiness becomes a vital issue and was an issue deeply questioned in
> human potential movement oriented 1960s, but less and less considered
> and acted upon since. The battle against that type of emptiness is
> being lost, not won.
>
> Education as emptiness is also about lack of relevance. It is unlikely
> that most workers, working at what is considered a non professional
> level, and many of those who are working at that level, will ever use
> any more of their formal school education, from years prior to
> college, than approximately grade 4. The years following that are
> revealed to have been little more than an imprisonment in learning
> routines of attendance, and some skills of classroom deportment, in
> preparation for the structuring that is found in the world of work.
> Nothing much is learned about society and how it functions. Even less
> as to the truth of the system. The facts presented have to be taken as
> true, and largely only serve the more trivial function of providing
> relatively bland content, avoiding controversy and and any real
> questioning. The facts of education merely serve as busyness,
> emulating some prevalent aspects of later life, so there are fewer
> surprises as to the essential meaninglessness of many of its
> routines. We might add that in those years relatively little is
> taught and learned concerning the law, ethics, society, the world
> beyond one's own immediate neighborhood, business practices, the role
> of customary practices and traditions, or even the truth about health.
> Mostly educational emptiness nurtures ignorance and hurls its victims
> into the school of hard knocks where if they were not secretly
> schooled by more knowing and experienced family relations, they are
> more likely predestined to fail.
>
> ACADEMIA of emptiness. The matter of education only becomes worse as
> you advance beyond the public high school, and having learned to march
> to the same drummer as everyone else. Academia has become largely the
> emptiness of follow the leaders. The higher you climb the more this is
> true. It is a system of emulation rather than innovation. It is a
> system of faith rather than questioning. It is about regurgitating
> rather than originality. It is about assimilating what are presented
> as facts, but it is largely not about real intelligence. Critical
> thinking is far from encouraged in most instances. The fundamentals of
> what constitutes real knowledge and its logical, rational, reasoning
> analysis are almost untaught to most of the disciplines. Instead the
> system is one of marketing subject areas, where each area tends to be
> dominated by ever changing fashionable trends. What was in vogue there
> one year, is gone the next and replaced by something else, in a
> somewhat fickle and random juke box like selection of a limited range
> of tunes that can be played. You put your money in and you get to
> learn the lyrics. If you can remember them and repeat them you get a
> certificate that says that you passed. It hardly matters what it was
> that was repeated. While specific practical skills fare somewhat
> better, it only means that a doctor in medical school learns the
> rudiments of surgery, and an engineer might learn how to actually
> assemble a machine, but those technical manipulations are far removed
> from what we can refer to as being academia. Academia typically offers
> as much or more disconnection of its ivory towers from the real world
> beyond its perimeter fence. In some regards its content is not meant
> to be disseminated beyond that fence and what is outside is largely
> not allowed in. It is a privileged preserve of largely disconnected
> emptiness. In some ways that disconnected emptiness leaves the world
> outside the fence to is irrational beliefs, and its unchallenged
> reliance on religion. The system is largely structured in exactly that
> way. That does not indicate that the beliefs inside the fence are more
> true, than those outside. In some ways that very difference is
> destroyed by the dysfunction of the system inside academia where
> follow the leaders is the ticket to an advanced degree. Ultimately
> inside functions on the basis of belief, as does outside, even if the
> beliefs are different. When the beliefs inside academia are shown to
> fail, they leave the beliefs that prevail outside strengthened, and so
> the tendency is always to that failure. Academia must never do better
> than naive faith. In fact it must do worse, in the final analysis. The
> tree of knowledge must be poison, or it might not be tolerated as
> such. So it seeks to preserve its own viability, by failing to
> struggle against its own failings and thus against its own emptiness.
>
> If we wonder how wrong the accumulation of facts and their
> interpretation can become, inside the fence, versus the reality of
> outside, and how this connects with the question of beliefs, we need
> only consider a matter such as Soviet Studies in American Academia as
> it was in the 1980s. Subsequent intelligence, analysis external to
> academia, overturned most of Academia's beliefs as to the Soviet
> Union. Of course, only those not indoctrinated into those beliefs, and
> not from inside the academic system, could break the deadlock.
>
> WORK as emptiness. The absolute importance of earning an income, from
> work, tends to preclude any questioning and critical analysis of the
> nature of work in America. Whatever it is it tends to be accepted. The
> history of work in the 20th century was one where that very
> questioning and critical consideration were labeled communist,
> leftist, and we have seen the rise and decline of the big unions, as
> corporations found ways to reduce union power. The idea that work
> comes from God, not from humanity, as a gift of divine grace, not as
> something earnable by effort still has a strong role, and in some
> regards that role has covertly increased since the 1960s. Work has
> become a means of social control, in many instances, but mostly a
> mechanism to eliminate dissent and to discourage questioning the
> system and its core beliefs. Work made into a political weapon has
> become an increasing problem, but it has become a problem that has
> tended to deny the right to question it as such, in terms of its own
> evolution into the system that it has become today. Most of the
> changes that have taken place, as to work and the environment of work,
> have proven negative. Social interaction of workers has become more
> and more formalized and limited. Depersonalization is the rule, not
> the exception. Sameness, often disguised as fitting in, has become an
> increasing worry for most, and offers little opportunity for any self
> expression. Personalized social relations are largely frowned upon, or
> punishable. The working social environment is no longer seen as an
> appropriate place to form personal relationships extending outside the
> formalism of the working environment. Consistent with that it has
> become increasingly unacceptable to date and mate with co-workers, in
> any area of work, and that increasingly seen as an extreme of
> unprofessionalism. Workers increasingly avoid even the most
> superficial casual discussion of anything pertaining to their personal
> interests and lives outside of work, increasingly afraid that even the
> mere mention might be a potential work threatening conflict, or a
> source of fatal unpopularity. These trends have begun to take over non
> paying areas of what could be considered work, as much as the paying
> areas. The paying and non paying areas are becoming made more and more
> similar. More formal. More rigid. More limited to non personal,
> professionalized and quasi professionalized interactions.
>
> It has become so extreme that some, and believed to be a growing
> portion of those with power over the nature of work in today's
> Americanized societies, believe that uprooting from any social
> connections and relations, inclusive of any established relation to
> any community outside of the formalized work environment is desirable
> or even a necessity. The destruction of difference between outside of
> the work environment and what is inside that environment seen as a
> means for destroying perceptions of that difference, and in a
> completely depersonalized, formalized, socially unattached and
> disconnected world, the world of work is largely unquestionable as to
> its practices. After all, when there is nothing else, then that social
> regimentation has no contrast to be measured against. The emptiness
> outside made even more severe, then the emptiness inside gains some
> primacy. This is consistent with the religious trend to emptiness and
> depersonalization, believed to be the counterpoint to increased
> attention to the afterlife and its absolutes, in an emphasis of
> otherworldliness, as the only available alternative to the alienating
> and depersonalized experience of this world and its increase in
> emptiness.
>
> Of course the worker is increasingly encouraged to build and maintain
> even more such depersonalized, formalized, relationships, even outside
> the confines of the actual environment and duties of the work
> performed for an employer. In such formal association the same social
> limitations are extended nearly infinitely, offering no alternative
> from their emptiness.
>
> Of course there is the strand of thought that no one has any potential
> outside of the definition of potential afforded to them by corporate
> culture, and corporate association. That too is beyond comprehension
> by any individual, but something to be accepted as a given, without
> consideration of any rightness or wrongness from the individual
> viewpoint. True wisdom, and the power to label and define, is from
> above, emphasizing the similarity to religion where all such defining
> is considered as coming from God, and requiring total submission
> without questioning. The very validity of one's own understanding of
> one's self, as opposed to what is imposed as given, is put into doubt.
> Destiny and choice are no longer one's own locus of control, but that
> too remains outside of dispute by a science that has largely
> succumbed.
>
> Added to this is the belief in stark, militarized, essentially shades
> of battleship grey, work environs as the correct way to appoint and
> decorate a work place. The work of sociology and psychology on this
> subject has largely been discarded since the 1960s. The motives of
> that ignorance of the truth of scientific research on the subject, are
> clearly political and religious. They are willing to sacrifice worker
> contentment and well being for the sake of promoting other
> worldliness.
>
> Factor in the increase in lack of job security, increased effects of
> more rigid hierarchical "pecking orders" within structures filled with
> increasingly insecure management, the increase in fear, the growing
> lack of benefits, no holidays, few days off, long hours, to the
> increasingly forced disconnection from place and anything personal
> that is personally valued outside of work itself (whether outside
> interests, personal achievements, other personal potential, non work
> related talents, familiarity of geographic place, and ownership of
> whatever might impede radical upheaval and dislocation from social and
> geographic community contexts), and the emptiness is greatly
> increased. The trend, despite a pool of workers out of work, has been
> for those seeking employment to sign away most of what were once their
> entitlements, including any limitations as to amounts of overtime and
> statutory holidays. These sign offs of what were once "rights" have
> gained legal force and are gaining in acceptability. In fact I recall
> one American corporation that openly had the motto "your vacation is
> your vocation". Nevertheless, the necessity of financial income is a
> souce of blackmail in that it must take primacy above all else in a
> society where nothing is possible without sufficient money. So the
> losses can be made so severe that the gains are largely negated in
> terms of the imposed conditions required of the individual to achieve
> a condition of work being given, and achieving that gift, privilege,
> and ultimately ascribed to divine grace. The religious language and
> its application to what are often actually only the victimized and
> systemic abused, becomes the justification valued above science and
> any humanism of work.
>
> COMMERCE of emptiness. Shopping as a pastime, encouraged for its own
> sake is a made in America diversion. Even psychologists have begun to
> teach patients that they should go shopping and buy themselves
> something as a reward system. However, the personalized element of
> human interaction has largely been eliminated, in favor of a
> depersonalized experience. A lot could be added on this subject,
> concerning the social evolution of the marketplace into more and more
> depersonalized commerce of emptiness, diminishing the role of
> traditional social interaction, and personal knowing. That and the
> radical change in values that that tends to bring. The thing takes on
> more value than the personal association with others which becomes
> diminished by the extreme shallowness and formalism that have replaced
> more satisfying social interaction. Personalizing becomes unacceptable
> there too, as it too is a workplace for many, and the shopper is as if
> a worker along with the staff. The work of shopping, assigned to all
> who have money to spend, is made into a responsibility as important as
> any other career or employment responsibility. To shirk it means an
> imposition of guilt as to not acting responsibly. Psychologically it
> becomes wrong to fail to reward one's self for work, and that means
> buying something with one's income. This has tended to take the place
> of all other forms of reward within the needs and wants hierarchy.
> Divine grace ultimately means you can shop. If you cannot shop you are
> socially marginalized, socially uncompetitive, don't rate, and have no
> status. Shopping itself is a competitive task, and the need is further
> excerbated by the fact that styles, fashions, trends, what is in and
> what is out, are changing so rapidly that ever more money is needed to
> be spent to keep up or gain status and social place. The very meaning
> of gift, or talent, becomes the acquisition of the things that are
> shopped for subverting its other meanings in a redefining of value,
> and thus of belief. Prevalent religion has evolved to accomodate
> this.
>
> INFORMATION of emptiness. The flood of unfiltered, unverified and
> often unverifiable information is an ever growing tidal wave of
> emptiness. Misinformation, disinformation, mislead and eat up time to
> the extent that finding anything out that is or might be of importance
> tends to become a gargantuan task more daunting than Hercules having
> to clean out the Stygian stables. Unless one is particularly
> intelligent and trained in critical thinking, the matter is becoming
> largely a lost cause. It cannot be done. Thus it is emptiness. The
> tree of knowledge is now more poisonous than ever before. There is
> increasingly no way to find one's way through the quagmire of ever
> increasing data, inclusive of a never ending and always increasing
> flood of deliberate scams, frauds, and con trickster solicitations.
> The personal element having largely been removed from the scenario,
> there is now only the depersonalized, pretense of the personal,
> attempting to lure with lies, as if the entire system has become
> possessed by the demons of hell themselves. The tendency is to want to
> give up in utter hopelessness, leaving the bog of data, feeling
> poorer, more lost, and more empty than when one arrived there. The
> muck is too deep to wade through. The stench and soiling from it tends
> to infiltrate every other form of relation, where it is regurgitated,
> in near to academic style, by trivial pursuit players, who have no
> idea, for the most part, as to truth or lie, but feel a necessity to
> fill dead air time, with sounds filled with any type of information
> gained from the new media explosion of endless data. So there is no
> real escaping of that same emptiness. The social context, such as it
> is, even in its increasingly depersonalized form, is saturated with
> the same emptiness. Values and truths tend to be the first victims,
> even in technical as well as the most vital matters pertaining to
> life. The flood simply washes away the last semblance to any real
> knowing.
>
> CONCLUSION as to emptiness.
>
> While we have not delved all that deeply, or all that thoroughly into
> the subject of the increasing emptiness that comes from Americanism,
> there is enough of a mustard seed in each segment of the two articles,
> to lead a vast and critical inquiry, putting into question most of the
> assumptions, presuppositions, and what is taken increasingly for
> granted as given truth. There is enough of a mustard seed to
> reconsider how all of the emptiness of Americanism, as it has evolved
> to being now and in terms of its evident trends as to potential future
> evolution, along that same path, is affecting values, and reducing
> human relationships to merely randomized, shallow, formal interactions
> of depersonalized commerce. How that emptiness is changing how people
> understand themselves, and each other, within the context of the
> "Brave New World" and "1984" of Americanism. (I highly recommend
> reading Aldous Huxley's and George Orwell's writings.)
>
> I am sure there are other areas of inquiry, but this concludes my
> attempt to create a catalyst for renewed critical thought, and for
> questioning what has happened, what is happening and where it is
> headed, so that we can change the course of humanity to a better
> future.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:52 am
From: Answer_42

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

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:54 am
From: Drafterman

And what are we to do before he enters our heart?

On Dec 2, 1:12 pm, Mary Wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:
> Woodbridge,
>
> When he enters your heart you will know.
>
> 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 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:57 am
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:49 AM, mary wolls <marywolls@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

Funny. When did you post last? I've been here a while and not come across
any of your posts.

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

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:58 am
From: rappoccio

That's wonderful poetry.

Actually, no, not really. It's just platitude.

From what I can see, there are few of the so-called "God's
representatives" here, and by that I mean Christians who can debate in
a reasonable and honest way. Certainly less than 5. Many atheists here
will put this number at "zero", but I've still got some hope for a few
of them, though, that they might see that it's only their arguments
that are deluded, but they're still generally decent people.

On Dec 2, 1:03 pm, Mary Wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:
> rappaccio,
>
> The faithful know them by their voice, there will always be wolves amongst the sheep until his return.
>
> Mary Wolls
>
> > Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:53:39 -0800> Subject: [AvC] Re: Congratulations> From: rappoc...@gmail.com> To: Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com> > > If "God's representatives" were a little better representatives, maybe> they would get better results?> > On Dec 2, 11:49 am, mary wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:> > ObservantEye,> >> > That has been my experience as well on this forum. You must have very> > thick skin to engage the atheists in this group because they are very> > angry. They have no peace with God, because they eschew his> > representatives.> >> > Mary Wolls> >> > On Dec 1, 11:17 am, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> > > I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would> > > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.> >> > > Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually> > > interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-> > > atheist into a flame war. There is SOME intelligent discussion here,> > > but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These> > > furious people know that they'll always win because the people they> > > wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful> > > language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture> > > you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers> > > hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes> > > through your keyboard with every angry jab.> >> > > The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't> > > arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than> > > agnostics.> >> > > Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider> > > that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did> > > you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?> >> > > Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,> > > because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not> > > enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the> > > hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at> > > their keyboards in their dark basements.> >> > > Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can> > > see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates> > > The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"> >> > > Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you> > > any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning Christian...> _________________________________________________________________
>
> Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills.http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Nicene Creed
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/0d394c723cc9d336?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:57 am
From: Tertullian

On Dec 1, 8:02 pm, Bob Crowley <bobcrow...@acenet.net.au> wrote:
> The church based in Rome used to have the epithet "Mother Church" or
> just "Church", but as a result of the Reformation, it wears the label
> "Roman Catholic" to distinguish it from all the other denominations.

Maybe you're not familiar with Ignatius of Antioch, who coined the
word Catholic, meaning universa, long before the Council of Nicaea.
The root word is katholikos which means, throughout the whole, that is
universal. He went on to say that the Catholic Church in Rome holds
the" presidency in love"

Tertullian also pointed out where the Catholic Church is, long before
the Council of Nicaea. He said that the Catholic and Apostolic Church,
is in Rome.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: YOUR HELPFUL SUGGESTIONS FOR R.B.D.P.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/63299bc2270a49ad?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:57 am
From: checkers

On Dec 2, 5:23 pm, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> =====YOUR HELP REQUIRE TO NEUTRALISE======
> ===THE WORST EFFECTS OF R. B. D. P.(Theists)===
>

-snip-

> offering a program devoid
> of violence, religion and religious literature, and all religious
> instruction, so that they may return to a normal human life
> within the realms of this world; without the incumbrance
> and or impediment of this religiously inspired brain

chx
what is a 'normal' human by your standards?

-snip-

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 11:01 am
From: Drafterman

On Dec 2, 1:57 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 5:23 pm, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > =====YOUR HELP REQUIRE TO NEUTRALISE======
> > ===THE WORST EFFECTS OF R. B. D. P.(Theists)===
>
> -snip-
>
> > offering a program devoid
> > of violence, religion and religious literature, and all religious
> > instruction, so that they may return to a normal human life
> > within the realms of this world; without the incumbrance
> > and or impediment of this religiously inspired brain
>
> chx
> what is a 'normal' human by your standards?
>
> -snip-

Don't worry. You fail.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: New "Conscience" Regulations Regarding Right to Object Outrageous
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/36247bc7cd8a3485?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:59 am
From: Drafterman

On Dec 2, 1:25 pm, "N.G.K." <Lilacs.and.Tatt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Before December 20, Bush, et al., plans to issue a new regulation
> providing that permitting medical facilities, doctors, nurses,
> pharmacists and other healthcare workers to refuse to participate in
> any procedure they find morally objectionable, including abortion and
> possibly even artificial insemination and birth control. This would
> apply to any facility that received federal tax dollars (our money).
>
> The justification is that "Doctors and other healthcare providers
> should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and
> violating their conscience. Freedom of expression and action should
> not be surrendered upon the issuance of a health care degree."
>
> Proponents, including the Christian Medical Assn. and the U.S.
> Conference of Catholic Bishops, say the rule is not limited to
> abortion. It will protect doctors who do not wish to prescribe birth
> control or to provide artificial insemination, said Dr. David Stevens,
> president of CMA.
>
> "The real battle line is the morning-after pill," he said. "This
> prevents the embryo from implanting. This involves moral complicity.
> Doctors should not be required to dispense a medication they have a
> moral objection to."
>
> In the Los Angeles Times today, it explained,
> "Last year, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology said a
> "patient's well-being must be paramount" when a conflict arises over a
> medical professional's beliefs.
>
> In calling for limits on "conscientious refusals," ACOG cited four
> recent examples. In Texas, a pharmacist rejected a rape victim's
> prescription for emergency contraception. In Virginia, a 42-year-old
> mother of two became pregnant after being refused emergency
> contraception. In California, a physician refused to perform
> artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. (In August, the
> California Supreme Court ruled that this refusal amounted to illegal
> discrimination based on sexual orientation.) And in Nebraska, a 19-
> year-old with a life-threatening embolism was refused an early
> abortion at a religiously affiliated hospital.
>
> "Although respect for conscience is important, conscientious refusals
> should be limited if they constitute an imposition of religious or
> moral beliefs on patients [or] negatively affect a patient's health,"
> ACOG's Committee on Ethics said. It also said physicians have a "duty
> to refer patients in a timely manner to other providers if they do not
> feel that they can in conscience provide the standard reproductive
> services that patients request."
>
> In my opinion, it is truly outrageous that the Bush administration
> would promulgate these last minutes changes, changes for which the
> justification is solely religious. But when has Bush ever stopped at
> doing the outrageous. This is just pure grandstanding by religious
> zealots, an attempt to throw a last minute stink bomb into Obama's
> assumption of office.
>
> Look, people have a right to act according to their conscience. But if
> you're going to accept a job in a federally funded institution, you
> should be required to perform that job fully and for everybody.
>
> If I have a right to health services, it's insane that a government
> paid doctor can refuse to treat me on ground's of his religious
> beliefs.
>
> *sigh* Just pisses me off.

So long as this is applied universally I have no problem with it. I
don't believe people should be forced to do what they perceive to be
objectionable (unless, of course, they've agreed to it). For example:
conscientious objection to a military draft. Granted, these doctors
are there of their own accord.

What confuses me is that I was unaware that doctors were required to
perform operations and prescribe medication that they disagreed with.
In the end, who would want to go under the knife of a surgeon who
disagreed with the operation in the first place? It's not like there
aren't any doctors that won't do these things.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 10:59 am
From: Drafterman

The "Western" world is more religious than the "Eastern" world. So
what, exactly, are you babbling about?

On Dec 2, 8:54 am, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
> LedZepp,
>
> What is needed is a revival of faith. For too long the western world
> has invested in the empty void of materialism, and even in the
> churches the taint of materialism stains the cup of the sacrament.
> From birth the children of the west are fed a steady diet of
> amusements, sugars, and fats, and no spiritual meat. Faith is the
> bread of life, and the mother's breast of the west has for too long
> been the dispenser of death. When you see a revival of faith in the
> west, then you see strong men and women once again proclaiming the
> glory of God, and the victory of Calvary. Then you will see
> Christians standing steafast against the forces of evil that corrupt
> the fabric of western culture.
>
> thomas
>
> On Nov 27, 11:49 am, LedZepp <FledZeppe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Wanderer then LiamToo, who would be next and why?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atheism vs Christianity

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Atheism-vs-Christianity - 26 new messages in 12 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links