Atheism vs Christianity: Atheism-vs-Christianity - 26 new messages in 14 topics

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Understanding revelations.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/92bafc67fc37cde3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:24 am
From: Lawrey

Ruthie,

I have had many discussions with Jehovah's Witnesses who
constantly tell of the signs of the end. they were and are
portents of ancient prophesies of John when he was isolated
on an island and half mad. I have met no-one who really
understands what he means, though many including JWs
imply that they do and have published volumes of literature
on the subject of armageddon and the end and the beginning
of the end as related in Revelations 16:16 The JWs have
predicted the end on four seperate occasions now, and they
have given up their predicting, but according to them all the
signs are now fulfilled. The one hundred and forty-four
thousand are gathered in several times over, and still they
wait for the one hundred and forty-four thousand, perplexed
as to the reason why the gods have not performed according
to scriptural prophesy.

What both you and they do not realise is that you are
predicating your beliefs on a non-existent superhuman myth.
The bible is the very last thing you should be reading. It is
chock-a-block full of inaccuracies and unadulterated lies.
which can be proven and have been proven.

And you believe that rather than the experience of life?
Shame on you, why do you live in your mind and the world
of belief and mystery? Come down to earth and see the tuth
for what it is and we can have knowledge of instead of drifting
in non-sense and belief.

On Dec 2, 4:51 am, Ruthie <willruthie1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If we start seeing the bible revelations come true,will this change
> the minds of all other religions? Of course christians will understand
> but what about other people?
>
> This as another question that is bothering me. I see signs of
> revelations happening but then I wonder ,how is it happening. Is it
> because we have the script for 2 thousand years? If the bible is
> true, there will be things happening that can't be explained. I have
> read the bible some. The bible says people,even non believers ,will
> be saved at the end of times.
>
> My other question, still not answered. Please christains what do you
> think about the myth of the saviours before Jesus.

==============================================================================
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 6 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:29 am
From: checkers

On Dec 2, 4:20 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 5:02 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > oh! come on Max. you don't need ghosts or goblins and you know it. you
> > guys have Dev. you love him...or else!!! Dev is your santa, if you are
> > good to him you get 5 stars. yuk yuk yuk
>
> chx
> Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> it, yuk yuk yuk
> Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)

Answer_42, you have just impersonated me. you used my handle and wrote
something that if anyone sees it at a glance will think i wrote it.
this is in violation of Google rules. you gave no indication that you
are fooling or making a joke. nor do you indicate in quotation.

this happened a little while back to Keith and the first to support
this was Bonfly, followed by Trance. soon Dev and everyone agreed and
the person was banned. once again i am not calling a ban because i
have fun with you. however, the moderators have their work cut out.
consistancy is paramount based on history of AvG.

here is the case the *** indicates the impersonation part;

from Keith;

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

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

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> Are you kidding me!

> On Feb 3, 3:37 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:

***
> > I am a homosexual who engages in ultimate butt sex with my boyfriend
> > so I have no worries about getting my lover pregnant or anything like
> that.
> > I love to kiss his big hairy balls and really get it on knowing that
> nothing
> > can go wrong inside his colon:
***

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

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

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

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:36 am
From: checkers

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 ;)

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:39 am
From: checkers

chx
oh, and as Medusa pointed out back then. it is not the content that
matters so much. just the fact that one is impersonated.

you could do this in other threads where i don't post and i won't even
be aware of it.

On Dec 2, 6:29 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 4:20 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 2, 5:02 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > oh! come on Max. you don't need ghosts or goblins and you know it. you
> > > guys have Dev. you love him...or else!!! Dev is your santa, if you are
> > > good to him you get 5 stars. yuk yuk yuk
>
> > chx
> > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
>
> Answer_42, you have just impersonated me. you used my handle and wrote
> something that if anyone sees it at a glance will think i wrote it.
> this is in violation of Google rules. you gave no indication that you
> are fooling or making a joke. nor do you indicate in quotation.
>
> this happened a little while back to Keith and the first to support
> this was Bonfly, followed by Trance. soon Dev and everyone agreed and
> the person was banned. once again i am not calling a ban because i
> have fun with you. however, the moderators have their work cut out.
> consistancy is paramount based on history of AvG.
>
> here is the case the *** indicates the impersonation part;
>
> from Keith;
>
> That is someone impersonating me. I wonder if it is an
> ultimatenutcase? Even
> the anti-theist moderator will not let you get away with that. Good-
> bye to
> you.
>
> On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> - Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Are you kidding me!
> > On Feb 3, 3:37 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ***> > I am a homosexual who engages in ultimate butt sex with my boyfriend
> > > so I have no worries about getting my lover pregnant or anything like
> > that.
> > > I love to kiss his big hairy balls and really get it on knowing that
> > nothing
> > > can go wrong inside his colon:
>
> ***
>
>
>
> > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Women do not have the right to choose to murder another human being,
> > > > except in evil societies controlled by Satan. Murder is just plain
> > > > wrong. And it doesn't matter how much you bullshit on and on with your
> > > > puffed up self important attitudes you are a freaking murdering pig
> > > > slut if you kill an unborn baby. You should be sent to the gas chamber
> > > > or whatever they kill murderers with in your country. Damn you
> > > > murdering bitches
> > > --
> > > Ambassador From Hell
> > > Keith MacNevins - Elk Grove Village, IL USA
> > > copyright- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:43 am
From: checkers

chx
you can search for *Abortions* in 'search this group' around page page
7 or 8.

On Dec 2, 6:39 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> chx
> oh, and as Medusa pointed out back then. it is not the content that
> matters so much. just the fact that one is impersonated.
>
> you could do this in other threads where i don't post and i won't even
> be aware of it.
>
> On Dec 2, 6:29 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 4:20 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 2, 5:02 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > oh! come on Max. you don't need ghosts or goblins and you know it. you
> > > > guys have Dev. you love him...or else!!! Dev is your santa, if you are
> > > > good to him you get 5 stars. yuk yuk yuk
>
> > > chx
> > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
>
> > Answer_42, you have just impersonated me. you used my handle and wrote
> > something that if anyone sees it at a glance will think i wrote it.
> > this is in violation of Google rules. you gave no indication that you
> > are fooling or making a joke. nor do you indicate in quotation.
>
> > this happened a little while back to Keith and the first to support
> > this was Bonfly, followed by Trance. soon Dev and everyone agreed and
> > the person was banned. once again i am not calling a ban because i
> > have fun with you. however, the moderators have their work cut out.
> > consistancy is paramount based on history of AvG.
>
> > here is the case the *** indicates the impersonation part;
>
> > from Keith;
>
> > That is someone impersonating me. I wonder if it is an
> > ultimatenutcase? Even
> > the anti-theist moderator will not let you get away with that. Good-
> > bye to
> > you.
>
> > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Are you kidding me!
> > > On Feb 3, 3:37 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ***> > I am a homosexual who engages in ultimate butt sex with my boyfriend
> > > > so I have no worries about getting my lover pregnant or anything like
> > > that.
> > > > I love to kiss his big hairy balls and really get it on knowing that
> > > nothing
> > > > can go wrong inside his colon:
>
> > ***
>
> > > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Women do not have the right to choose to murder another human being,
> > > > > except in evil societies controlled by Satan. Murder is just plain
> > > > > wrong. And it doesn't matter how much you bullshit on and on with your
> > > > > puffed up self important attitudes you are a freaking murdering pig
> > > > > slut if you kill an unborn baby. You should be sent to the gas chamber
> > > > > or whatever they kill murderers with in your country. Damn you
> > > > > murdering bitches
> > > > --
> > > > Ambassador From Hell
> > > > Keith MacNevins - Elk Grove Village, IL USA
> > > > copyright- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:56 am
From: Neil Kelsey

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.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:57 am
From: mary wolls

Ruthie,

How can you feel love without God? From what I have seen all the
atheists feel is lust. Lust for the flesh, and lust for things. Only
the higher things are pure. Love is purity, not corruption.

Mary Wolls

On Dec 2, 2:04 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 8:51 am, Ruthie <willruthie1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > They don't love because they are scared into it. People get the idea
> > that an atheist is a devil lover .Far from the truth. Atheist don't
> > believe in god and definetly don't believe in Satan.
>
> chx
> not believing in satan does not let him go away ;)

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:30 am
From: dead kennedy

oh i see you come from that side of the great spiderschism of 1957!

down with your heretical blasphemous church you red knee'd catholic!

On 2 Dec, 15:04, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 9:52 am, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On Dec 1, 6:50 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > > As an atheist, I believe in the historical Peter Parker. There's
> > > > overwhelming evidence that he existed. His swinging from webs though
> > > > is for Christians.
> > > > Are there any Christians here who does not believe that the man Peter
> > > > Parker existed?
>
> > > I have access to web sites, writer interviews, and even a DVD
> > > interview with Stan Lee describing how they invented Peter Parker/
> > > Spiderman and where the ideas came from.
>
> > > In addition, the comics themselves include a disclaimer that none of
> > > the characters therein are meant to be similar in any way to any real
> > > persons. The movies probably do somewhere as well; I haven't looked.
>
> > > That is more than sufficient evidence to conclude that Peter Parker is
> > > not a real person.
>
> > Prove historical Peter Parker is not real not SpiderMan is not real.
>
> The same disclaimer was in "Peter Parker, the Spectacular Spiderman".
> There is no other proposed Peter Parker that I know of that can spin
> webs, unless you have even a book reference about one ...
>
>
>
> > > None of this exists for God, as most atheists must
> > > concede.
>
> > NO God exist so no evidence
>
> Non sequitor.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:31 am
From: ynot

On Dec 2, 9:59 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It must lack something. But God who is Infinite lacks nothing.

Not true. Your god does not know the future.
Read my comments above, re. Abraham's test.

> So if prior to this exercise I had thought of God as a body

How did he then create Adam at his own image?

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

Isn't just that what man has been doing for thousands of years?
Gods out of nothing and out of everything?

> .....deify proof. We must never let proof be our master.

True, so true. Never let proof be in your way. Put it aside
as often as needed, to make your god look good.

ynot

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do theists do the scariest things?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/222031400f6d3dc5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:32 am
From: Neil Kelsey

On Dec 2, 3:17 am, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> reading through the responses to observers "A Gentle inquisition
> please tell us why ?" i noticed that the north american posters seem
> the most reluctant to openly state that they are atheists.

I'm Canadian, I've received no real grief telling people I'm an
atheist. I think being an atheist is mostly a social stigma in the US.

> Ive been openly atheist in the uk for years and the worst its got me
> is dealing with barroom drunks demanding i explain "how ALL THIS
> happened then?". The tactic ive developed is to say i will answer
> their questions if they answer mine. I often have to explain exactly
> what Deism or Pantheism is after one of these exchanges. And this in a
> land of Established Religion.
>
> so to the athiest :-
>
> Whats the worst thats happened to you at the hands of theists?
>
> ok chx, you can join in with all the stuff nasty atheists have done to
> your favourate teddy.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Theism and Special Privilege
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/3cc405563ba2a0ae?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:33 am
From: "Brock Organ"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Trance Gemini <trancegemini7@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 30, 11:59 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Theists. A question. Please read the following article.
>> >
>> > Now, please explain to me why this Texas man was sent to a psychiatrist
>> > for
>> > claiming that your god told him to hit this woman's car
>>
>> Check with the local district attorney who supervised the case for
>> more specifics.
>>
>> > and why Bush was not
>> > sent to a psychiatrist for claiming that your god told him to send the
>> > troops into Iraq?
>>
>> Check with your local constitutional attorney who has supervised the
>> case for more specifics.
>
> I would prefer your thoughts on the matter Brock.

Those are my thoughts on the matter. You asked the naive question,
and I answered by noting the legal contexts are different. If one
truly was interested in the specific nature of the differences, my
answer represents outstanding advice. If one simply wanted
affirmation for a pejorative pre-conception, then perhaps the answer
did not so accommodate.

> Not the attorneys and not
> the WCF :-) (which, by the way, is the human interpretation of an ancient
> superstition followed by a small cult 2000 years ago.)

I simply note:

6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible

Regards,

Brock

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:34 am
From: dead kennedy

" education in religious antiquity"

to quote an oxford Don

"is that even a subject?"

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

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:41 am
From: rappoccio

On Nov 28, 3:29 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 3:20 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 6:51 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 6:03 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > Truly shameless and yet very Christian behavior. In fact, this isn't limited
> > > > to Christians since you can see the same kind of behavior amongst those who
> > > > believe in the other Abrahamic religions which leads one to believe that
> > > > it's the biblical doctrine itself that's the source of this and not just
> > > > "bad" christians.
>
> > > Well, not really, since it seems to be very HUMAN behaviour:
>
> > >http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2008/11/22...
>
> > > Are you going to claim that those people targetting random and
> > > innocent religious people over the issue of same-sex marriage was
> > > spawned by the Bible, and that these people were following a Abrahamic
> > > religion in doing so?
>
> > Which ones? The ones denying civil liberties to the gay people who
> > retaliated, or the gay people?
>
> The ones beating the crap out of people and commiting violence against
> them in that article.
>
> My long rant to Trance should explain to you how I feel about
> religious people doing similar things ...

And how do you know these people weren't religious?

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:43 am
From: Treebeard

On Dec 2, 11:41 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 3:29 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 3:20 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 6:51 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 28, 6:03 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > > Truly shameless and yet very Christian behavior. In fact, this isn't limited
> > > > > to Christians since you can see the same kind of behavior amongst those who
> > > > > believe in the other Abrahamic religions which leads one to believe that
> > > > > it's the biblical doctrine itself that's the source of this and not just
> > > > > "bad" christians.
>
> > > > Well, not really, since it seems to be very HUMAN behaviour:
>
> > > >http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2008/11/22...
>
> > > > Are you going to claim that those people targetting random and
> > > > innocent religious people over the issue of same-sex marriage was
> > > > spawned by the Bible, and that these people were following a Abrahamic
> > > > religion in doing so?
>
> > > Which ones? The ones denying civil liberties to the gay people who
> > > retaliated, or the gay people?
>
> > The ones beating the crap out of people and commiting violence against
> > them in that article.
>
> > My long rant to Trance should explain to you how I feel about
> > religious people doing similar things ...
>
> And how do you know these people weren't religious?

If you want to seriously assert that the people targetting random
religions over gay rights did it because of their religion, I think I
need say no more ...

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:47 am
From: rappoccio

On Dec 2, 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?

Yes. There are no extremists in the group of people that wish to apply
reason and logic to their lives.

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

And they think you're wrong about the same thing, for equally poorly
founded reasons. Each of you must selectively ignore the other parts
of the religion you're following that don't agree with you. The
arbiter to society happens to be humanism, and that's when we know the
bat-shit crazies have gone too far. However, don't even PRETEND it has
anything to do with any one group having a dead-lock on the "true
meaning" of their religion.

> And you can't say "Write books and papers and work to change the
> religion from inside", because many do.

There are Catholics looking to get the Pope to stop saying that
abortion is murder?

News to me.

> 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?

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:50 am
From: rappoccio

On Dec 1, 8:37 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 10:49 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > "'When I began the suit, I just wanted to stop the religious services
> > at school, but I supported the idea of nonsectarian prayer in the
> > classroom during school,' McCord told the National Catholic Reporter.
> > 'Since I've seen what religion can do to a community, I don't support
> > any religious observance in school.'"
>
> As Augustine put it so well:
>
> "Hear the other side" (Audi partem alteram)
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

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."

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:53 am
From: Treebeard

On Dec 2, 11:47 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 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?
>
> Yes. There are no extremists in the group of people that wish to apply
> reason and logic to their lives.

*Snort*. Bwa-bwa-bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Bullshit.

>
>
>
> > > > 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?
>
> > Note that you can't say "Give up your religion" because we think
> > they're wrong about their interpretation of the religion.
>
> And they think you're wrong about the same thing, for equally poorly
> founded reasons. Each of you must selectively ignore the other parts
> of the religion you're following that don't agree with you.

This is an utterly crappy reply to a question of what moderate
religious people can do to show that WE DON'T AGREE WITH THE
EXTREMISTS. You are stating what here? That we might be wrong in our
interpretations? Utterly besides the point.

Seriously, man, you've really lost it ...

> The
> arbiter to society happens to be humanism,

No, it is not. The arbiter is effectively philosophy, and how we know
what interpretations follow from a text. Humanism says quite little
about that.

> and that's when we know the
> bat-shit crazies have gone too far. However, don't even PRETEND it has
> anything to do with any one group having a dead-lock on the "true
> meaning" of their religion.

I believe that I can prove it using the common texts. That is what
discussions of interpretations are about. Shame that you have no
knowledge or experience in dealing with such.

>
> > And you can't say "Write books and papers and work to change the
> > religion from inside", because many do.
>
> There are Catholics looking to get the Pope to stop saying that
> abortion is murder?
>
> News to me.

Why is the belief that abortion is murder necessarily extremist?
Disagreeing with what rappoccio or with naturalism is not the
criteria for extremism.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:56 am
From: "Brock Organ"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:50 AM, rappoccio <rappoccio@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

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:43 am
From: hucktunes

What I don't understand is the hip cat surfer dude talk. That made no
sense at all. It indicates that you are the one that has a problem
understanding posts. Rather than addressing a point you seem to want
to spin it in another direction.

On Dec 2, 12:19 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 5:25 am, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Not sure I quite understand your point, Checkers. I don't smoke the
> > stuff myself. Don't drink either. But living in Humboldt County you
> > can bet that most of my friends smoke lots of pot. And they all seem
> > to be Christians, too. They say some pretty wacky stuff concerning
> > Jesus, especially when they've been smoking pot. A real superstitious
> > lot. And then there's the ones with dreadlocks that seem to believe
> > that Haile Selassie is a god. Pretty wacky, eh?
>
> chx
> don't break your head understanding. it is interesting that your
> prisons are about 80% 'christian'
>
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 1:31 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 1, 10:47 pm, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > All I said to them was I don't want to talk to them about Jesus. They
> > > > asked if I knew Jesus. I told them no, go away. My pot smoking friend
> > > > sitting next to me on my front porch said that he knew Jesus. So I had
> > > > a discussion with him and discovered that he'd never read the Bible
> > > > and was a complete dummy when it came to history. He'd been introduced
> > > > to the Jesus myth while taking anger management classes to avoid going
> > > > to jail for domestic violence.
>
> > > chx
> > > hi huck. i'm gonna copy this post to my personal files. you said so
> > > much here.
>
> > > hey dude, did you know about 80% of jail visitors are 'christians' ;)
>
> > > bwooaahahahah - i luv you man. hey bro, if it wasn't that i'm off the
> > > stuff fer so long (30+ years), i'd say we share a slo' boat to
> > > china ;) Durban poison dude, snap crackle pop! 'up in smoke' has
> > > nothing on it dude. you should post more of this shit.
>
> > > > On Dec 1, 9:40 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:20 AM, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I guess I post here because I've seen more than one group torn apart
> > > > > > by posts about religion. There are some real good folks in other
> > > > > > groups that are Christians and I really don't want to offend them with
> > > > > > my views about their wacky faith. Same with my friends and neighbors
> > > > > > around town. I think Christianity is a scourge that plagues humanity,
> > > > > > I'm shocked at all the innocent folks that have been drawn and
> > > > > > quartered and burned at the stake in order to spread the cursed faith
> > > > > > in Jesus, but I try to keep my views confined to this group. It's not
> > > > > > always easy. Just a few days ago I chased away a couple Mormons that
> > > > > > wanted to talk about Jesus. But Mormons are fair game. They're idiots.
> > > > > > Who are they trying to fool with their white shirts and ties? Dressing
> > > > > > like Young Republicans knocking on doors like it's their job. Morons,
> > > > > > that's what they are. Fair game.
>
> > > > > OK what I would like to know is what did you say to the Mormons! Any words
> > > > > of wisdom that would have them wondering about their faith? You see when
> > > > > you are confronted by someone of another viewpoint, can get you get them to
> > > > > start the questioning process that leads to understanding, or do you leave
> > > > > them in their misery?
>
> > > > > > On Dec 1, 6:55 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Obs.
>
> > > > > > > Nice post!
>
> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:43 AM, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Why are you here supporting Christianity or positing an atheistic
> > > > > > > > stance?
>
> > > > > > > I was raised an atheist and when I did explore many different religions
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > philosophies, including Christianity, I found no compelling reason to
> > > > > > > believe.
>
> > > > > > > > If you are an atheist, do you want to see an end to Christianity?
>
> > > > > > > Eventually, yes. But it will take a very long time for the human race to
> > > > > > > grow out of their need for superstition.
>
> > > > > > > Hopefully, in the meantime, lunatic End of Timers won't take it upon
> > > > > > > themselves to bring on their own Armageddon.
>
> > > > > > > It takes patience and education. Already we are seeing an exponential
> > > > > > > increase in atheism amongst the under-30s.
>
> > > > > > > I believe theism realizes this and this is why they are pushing so hard
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > take us back into the dark ages of pre-secularism.
>
> > > > > > > > I need not ask a corresponding question of Christians.
>
> > > > > > > > What do you think of priests and preachers? Either group please
> > > > > > > > respond.
>
> > > > > > > They are pushing religion like drugs.
>
> > > > > > > > How, should children be protected from the influence of Christianity?
>
> > > > > > > Maintain complete separation of church and state. This concept is
> > > > > > > established in the US but is being weakened by constant violations. This
> > > > > > > needs to stop.
>
> > > > > > > Other countries to need to establish this as a fundamental requirement.
> > > > > > It
> > > > > > > currently isn't in many countries, allowing religion to encroach in areas
> > > > > > > they do not belong like education.
>
> > > > > > > People have every right to indoctrinate their children in their doctrine
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > choice, but it should be done in the privacy of their own homes and not
> > > > > > > imposed on the rest of society.
>
> > > > > > > > How, should, children be protected from the influence of atheism?
>
> > > > > > > They shouldn't and atheism isn't an influence it's simply a lack of
> > > > > > belief.
> > > > > > > The influence comes from theism. If people are left alone and don't adopt
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > theist belief system they are usually atheist.
>
> > > > > > > > What do you think of the obscene wealth of churches while millions
> > > > > > > > starve to death?
>
> > > > > > > Insane. They should be required to prove that their money goes to
> > > > > > charitable
> > > > > > > causes and those dollars that do not should be taxed.
>
> > > > > > > > If you are a Christian why do you believe that the bible is true?.
>
> > > > > > > > If you are an atheist why do you not believe that the bible is true?
>
> > > > > > > Because it isn't :-). There is little evidence to support the bible as a
> > > > > > > historical document. This would be required for it to be "true".
>
> > > > > > > > Why do you believe that there is a god (don't quote the bible as it is
> > > > > > > > the source of the myth)
>
> > > > > > > > Why do you not believe that there is a god?
>
> > > > > > > > There is no evidence to support this belief and therefore no compelling
>
> > > > > > > reason to believe.
>
> > > > > > > > Is religion harmful to the world? If so how do we stop its destructive
> > > > > > > > force?
>
> > > > > > > Yes. It's behind much of the strife, terrorism, and war in the world.
>
> > > > > > > Maintaining secular states and eliminating any influence of religion on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > state and it's policies.
>
> > > > > > > Religion can and should remain a personal choice, a personal belief and
> > > > > > > that's it.
>
> > > > > > > > If you believe that religion is good for the world how do you think it
> > > > > > > > ought to be preserved.
>
> > > > > > > > If you are an atheist are you completely out of the closet? If not.
> > > > > > > > Why not?
>
> > > > > > > No. I had a serious problem in one workplace because of it and now I
> > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > talk about it.
>
> > > > > > > > If you are a Christian do you evangelize? If so why?
>
> > > > > > > > What value do you personally receive from posting here?
>
> > > > > > > It's interesting. I enjoy debating. I learn a lot from the other
> > > > > > atheists.
>
> > > > > > > > What are your responsibilities to your family, your community, and
> > > > > > > > your country in relation to these issues?
>
> > > > > > > I think my responses above have covered these things.
>
> > > > > > > > Regards to all
>
> > > > > > > > Psychonomist
>
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > > > > > > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> > > > > > companion.
> > > > > > > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > > > > > > Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:45 am
From: dead kennedy

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...

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:49 am
From: mary wolls

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...

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:54 am
From: Neil Kelsey

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.

You sound angry about atheists.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bible Movie
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/d56c1d21db8e6745?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:46 am
From: "Brock Organ"

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:33 PM, scenario_dave <scenario_dave@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The essence of the medium contradicts this - if you intend to make a
> profit.

It contradicted regardless of whether the motive for profit was considered.

> If they are willing to
> make the bible on 100 or even a thousand 2 hour discs, they could make
> a movie

> and leave nothing out.

This is the point where I note the essence of the medium contradicts.

> My major question is, what would the reaction of theist be to making
> the bible more accessable to people?

Perhaps varied.

Regards,

Brock

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hypocrisy & Accountability
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/b002a76d9cfbb14e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:48 am
From: "Brock Organ"

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Dev <thedeviliam@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 6:56 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>> Borgan is BIG hypocrite saying nothing to Christian I AM TRU CHRISTIAN

Or not. :)

Regards,

Brock

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Awakenings
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/c7bcb4123e4127f1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:52 am
From: "Brock Organ"

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Dev <thedeviliam@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> Yeah, well, reasoning with them doesn't work. I guess we can either
> start killing them or forfeit.
>
> On Dec 1, 8:17 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1 déc, 16:46, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The invective and vitriol have not been welcome, but I frankly,
>>
>> Really?
>> You are a dishonest biased prick about his, aren't you?

I think my point has been clear, I don't welcome that kind of discourse.

Regards,

Brock

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Historical Precedence For Non-Violence in the Face of Irrational
Injustice
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/6e541b28803148ed?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:55 am
From: Lawrey

Trance,

For your information:

In spite of you feelings to the contrary
and I use the term feelings ap' emotions.;)

The independence of india in August 1947 was the
result of a long process which started after the
First World War. Indeed in 1919 Parliament had
passed the Government of india Act which was
designed to organize provincial governments in
india. Then, before 1939 and the outbreak of the
Second World War, there were moves by Great
Britain to give more self-government to india.

Both major parties of the british National
Government were committed to giving more autonomy
to the eleven Indian Provinces through the 1935
Government of india Act. Even if the provincial
governments had more and more power, the essential
functions were still in hands of the british
Viceroy and the british government was still
responsible for foreign and defence affairs.

As Britain proposed a federal solution to india's
problems, independence movements – such as the
Congress with Gandhi at its head – asked for more
autonomy. But the Declaration of War in 1939 was
a crucial step towards independence of india.
Indeed the Congress Party together with
nationalists saw in the war the opportunity to
achieve their goals. They resigned from their
provincial governments, they refused to support
the Indian war effort and they claimed that india
must immediately be declared an independent nation.
Moreover the Muslim League demanded in 1937 the
creation of a separate Muslim state.

Yet Britain's refusal to do anything during the
war contrasted sharply with the separatists'
growing resolution to obtain the end of the
british rule. After the end of the war in May
1945 and the General election in Great Britain,
the Labour government, with Clement Attlee as
Prime Minister, was committed to giving india
independence as quickly as possible. in spite
of his fear of seeing the partition of india,
Attlee announced that Britain would leave india
whatever happened in June 1948.

In fact independence was moved up to August 1947.
This raises an important issue: why did Britain give
india independence in 1947? why neither before nor after?
Yet india was not the only colony to obtain independence
since the post-war period was marked by the fall of the
british Empire everywhere in the world. So to answer that
question we have to take into account the particular
circumstances relating to Britain's situation in 1947.
Therefore we can find three main reasons for india's
independence in 1947.

On Dec 2, 1:54 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Okay, I think this is a good counterargument to that--admittedly,
> > anticipated. Here's the source:
>
> >http://www.tamilnation.org/ideology/neuman_on_non_violence.htm
>
> > ---
>
> > Gandhi's nonviolence can't have been successful, because there was
> > nothing he would have called a success. Gandhi's priorities may have
> > shifted over time: he said, that, if he changed his mind from one week
> > to the next, it was because he had learned something in between. But
> > it seems fair to say that he wanted independence from British rule, a
> > united India, and nonviolence itself, an end to civil or ethnic strife
> > on the Indian subcontinent. What he got was India 1947: partition, and
> > one of the most horrifying outbursts of bloodshed and cruelty in the
> > whole bloody, cruel history of the postwar world. The antagonism
> > between Muslims and Hindus, so painful to Gandhi, still seems almost
> > set in stone. These consequences alone would be sufficient to count
> > his project as a tragic failure.
>
> The fact that bloodshed occurred and that antagonism existed has nothing to
> do with whether the strategy of non-cooperation worked.
>
> It's quite well known by most Indians that the Religious strife that
> occurred during Partition was instigated by the British before they left.
>
> The British during their entire time in India played the Divide and Rule
> game in order to maintain control of the very large and diverse population.
>
> What of independence itself? Historians might argue about its causes,
>
> > but I doubt any of them would attribute it primarily to Gandhi's
> > campaign.
>
> Of course not, but these policies of non-cooperation (some of which were led
> by Gandhi) amounted to some very strategic fights which certainly
> contributed to the British leaving simply because they were not able to
> maintain control of a country where non-cooperation was the name of the
> game.
>
> However, that wasn't the only strategy used by the Indian Freedom Fighters
> and the bombing of trains and other terrorist attacks didn't contribute to
> the British leaving either.
>
> It contributed to and justified the large scale suppression and massacres
> that occurred by the British against the Indians though.
>
> And direct links can be shown historically.
>
> The British began contemplating--admittedly with varying
>
> > degrees of sincerity--some measure of autonomy for India before Gandhi
> > did anything, as early as 1917. A.J.P.Taylor says that after World War
> > I, the British were beginning to find India a liability, because India
> > was once again producing its own cotton, and buying cheap textiles
> > from Japan. Later, India's strategic importance, while valued by many,
> > became questioned by some, who saw the oil of the Middle East and the
> > Suez canal as far more important. By the end of the Second World War,
> > Britain's will to hold onto its empire had pretty well crumbled, for
> > reasons having little or nothing to do with nonviolence.
>
> Not true. Had India been easy to control like Canada was, the British still
> had a lot to gain by staying.
>
> Because of all the dissension, the economic benefit was too small to justify
> the military and other resources required to suppress and control these
> movements.
>
>
>
> > But this is the least important of the reasons why Gandhi cannot be
> > said to have won independence for India. It was not his saintliness or
> > the disruption he caused that impressed the British. What impressed
> > them was that the country seemed (and was) about to erupt into a
> > slaughter. The colonial authorities could see no way to stop it.
>
> Nonsense. The colonial authorities instigated it as I said it was part of
> British Divide and Rule policy which they had used consistently in India
> since their arrival.
>
> What
>
> > they could see was the increasingly violent antagonism between Muslims
> > and Hindus, both of whom detected, in the distance, the emergence of a
> > power vacuum they rushed to fill. This violence included the "Great
> > Calcutta Killing" of August 1946, when at least 4000 people died in
> > three days.
>
> This has nothing to do with whether the non-cooperation policies were
> successful.
>
> It has everything to do with the fact that the Colonial authorities
> instigated these situations in order to weaken the resistance against their
> rule in India.
>
>
>
> > Another factor was the terrorism--and this need not be a term of
> > condemnation--quite regularly employed against the British. It was not
> > enough to do much harm, but more than enough to warn them that India
> > was becoming more trouble than it was worth.
>
> And yes this was a factor and he actually contradicts himself here because
> the fact was that the British would have stayed if they had been able to
> easily control the population. Gandhis policies of non-cooperation
> contributed hugely to this.
>
> > All things considered,
> > the well-founded fear of generalized violence had far more effect on
> > British resolve than Gandhi ever did. He may have been a brilliant and
> > creative political thinker, but he was not a victor.
>
> He contradicts himself again because earlier he correctly states that the
> terrorism at the time was not wide-spread and inconsequential.
>
> It was the non-cooperation and the general resistance that was the problem.
>
> Those who advocated violence in India accomplished nothing.
>
> Non-cooperation forced them out.
>
> Gandhi was only one player in the movement of the Indian Freedom Fighters
> and the one thing they all united on was non-cooperation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ---
>
> > I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a
> > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material. I
> > predicted that the three examples he anticipated would, in fact, be
> > the only ones that initially emerged--which wasn't exactly a
> > Nostradamus-type prediction, because it does seem we are dealing with
> > modern mythology along the lines of "the Founding Fathers were
> > fundies" and "Hitler was an atheist". Maybe the revelation of the
> > source material will require others to become more creative, maybe the
> > source material itself will encourage some to provide compelling
> > counterarguments.
>
> > In terms of Gandhi, I will also quote Sam Harris:
>
> > ---
>
> > The only way to rule out collateral damage would be to refuse to fight
> > wars under any circumstances. As a foreign policy, this would leave us
> > with something like the absolute pacifism of Gandhi. While pacifism in
> > this form can constitute a direct confrontation with injustice (and
> > requires considerable bravery), it is only applicable to a limited
> > range of human conflicts. Where it is not applicable, it is seems
> > flagrantly immoral. We would do well to reflect on Gandhi's remedy for
> > the Holocaust: he believed that the Jews should have committed mass
> > suicide, because this "would have aroused the world and the people of
> > Germany to Hitler's violence." We might wonder what a world full of
> > pacifists would have done once it had grown "aroused"—commit suicide
> > as well? There seems no question that if all the good people in the
> > world adopted Gandhi's ethics, the thugs would inherit the earth.
>
> > ---
>
> > I realize how it seems like a cheap shot to cut and paste in response.
> > But why not? I read, I throw a little out there for you guys, it seems
> > like a good aid to the thinking process since I actually give a shit
> > and all. I'm not totally convinced about everything, and I want to
> > hear what is being offered in terms of actual, bona fide, human
> > thought when it isn't being retarded. With any luck, you'll find a
> > semblance of a counterargument written by someone else who hasn't read
> > the initial argument, and then we'll both be forced to do our own
> > homework and get to the bottom of this. This is, quite literally,
> > deadly serious. It isn't about who can be more liberal or politically
> > correct anymore--the status quo is stupid, and we should try to figure
> > out what's right.
>
> > Can nonviolence really, truly have been said to have accomplished
> > anything as anything but a happy face on violence or the threat of
> > violence? Even Hitler pretended it was all about "love". Shouldn't the
> > prospect that fighting your enemies is about anything but hate be
> > sinister and dubious by now?
>
> > On Dec 1, 6:00 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ghandi
>
> > > On Dec 1, 7:28 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > Let's go!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
> Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- 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 14 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links