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: A little help from the theist side for Brock, Checkers etc in debating
with atheists
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/8bae88aebb09d12f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:14 pm
From: Answer_42

On 3 déc, 18:06, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Its why I patiently and consistently reply to a large majority of
> follow ups, understanding that to reject implied or explicit premises
> are rarely well received by atheists, perhaps likely because they are
> not used to framing their positions outside such premises, or without
> additional pejoratives, ad hominem and invective.

> I take a lot of consideration to the limitations of the medium of
> internet forums in communications of this type. Frankly, I have taken

Bla Bla Bla I love jesus Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla The bible
is true Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla If you do not agree with
me Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla You will go to hell
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Fear god Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla I am right Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Objective truth of first principles Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla You are
wrong Bla Bla BlaBla Bla BlaBla Bla BlaBla Bla Bla Westminster
Confession Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Wikipedia Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Love god is not the same as poke out your eye with a pointed stick
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Cesar
crossed the Rubicon Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla BlaBla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla and 1.50$ will get you a coffee at most truck stops Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla I am never wrong Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla mankind is not the
measurement of all things Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Bla I tremble before my god Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Humans are born with sin Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Only Jesus can save you from yourself Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Or not :) Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla

Yes Brock, we know, we have heard it all before.
_____________________________________
Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
understand.
-- Frederick the Great

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:19 pm
From: furlan

Hi,

On Dec 2, 7:43 pm, Ruthie <willruthie1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> My question is to atheist. How will you respond if and when bible
> revelations start to take place? If the rapture occurs or two
> witness's who are performing miracles? I just want to understand.

In life understanding is the booby prize. :-P

just saying...

(for extra points what is the reference for this quote?)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Mark Shea: Padding the Case for the New Atheism
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/7086bf6a6cf6d81e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:21 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

Safer than allowing them near pedophiles like MEG.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:38 PM, MEG <ekrubmeg@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> "greater tolerance for sexual diversity." or a love for playing
> 'literally' with someone else's shit. Yes, raise your children is a
> cess pool, just so they get the hang of it.
>
> On Dec 3, 9:34 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > from:
> >
> > http://www.mark-shea.com/pad.html
> >
> > Against an untenable claim of "neutrality" of beliefs, the article
> > notes:
> >
> > "For the New Atheist is full of moral prescriptions and proscriptions:
> > We should be teaching children about Darwin. We should not be teaching
> > children religion. We should have greater tolerance for sexual
> > diversity. We should not be subjecting infants to circumcision. We
> > ought to be doing X, we ought not to be doing Y, etc."
> >
> > Against materialist claims he notes:
> >
> > "The problem is this: Trying to derive a moral universe -- any moral
> > universe at all -- of Should from a purely materialistic universe of
> > Is turns out to be impossible. The perfectly just outrage of a
> > Hitchens at some crime by a theist turns out -- if you grant the New
> > Atheists' materialism -- to be just one more biochemical reaction. And
> > privileging a biochemical reaction merely because it is a lot more
> > complex than, say, combustion is as crude a mystification as bowing
> > down to a rock because it's really really big."
> >
> > and in identifying the specific nature of blind faith frequently
> > employed in atheism:
> >
> > "What is marvelous is how nakedly Hitchens reveals his own atheist
> > convictions to be entirely faith-based and -- what is more -- based on
> > faith in a mystical epiphany to a nine-year-old boy. All the massive
> > artillery of his adult wit and eloquence is, in the final analysis,
> > ranked and ranged to protect that boy and his emotional epiphany."
> >
> > A very thoughtful piece that clearly illustrates many inadequacies
> > associated with the new atheism.
> >
> > 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 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:33 pm
From: Max

Thank you. (Again, I was unware that Dev had been 'told' to pull his
head in as well.)

Regards

Max

On Dec 4, 7:58 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Sorry Trance, I'm assuming you may have missed this post I offered
> > after you also guided me on the Wise words of Wisdom from MV. Your
> > thoughts? MV, somehow you missed it as well (A different post of
> > course but the message was the same) Please, by all means, let me know
> > your thoughts.
>
> > Thanks Trance,
>
> > But how do you appraise this comment after my initial non
> > confrontational & pertinant post in this thread again;
>
> > "Yeah, pooping on Max isn't violence either. I intended this thread
> > for actual people who understood the issue. Drafterman and Trance both
> > knew what I was talking about, which is why I'm debating them. You're
> > retarded and don't understand the question. Go die somewhere."
>
> > No 'matey' myopia now :)
>
> I guess I'm just saying that there's a time to make an issue out of things
> and time to just not worry about them.
>
> I said something along those lines to Dev too.
>
> You're both very bright guys and I like you both.
>
> So, I just hate to see this kind of thing happening.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Max
>
> > On Dec 3, 8:31 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 8:31 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > >Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > > > >Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> > > > >to back his premise that
>
> > > > Max,
> > > > Most interesting threads that are worth responding to are a set up of
> > > > sorts. You should know that. What would you think if Dev did not do
> > > > his homework and devise a plan to flesh out some interesting stuff?
> > > > Certainly you would go on about his unpreparedness. Properly done,
> > > > the one who starts the thread should bear the burden of responding and
> > > > working the thread. That means they should do their homework.
>
> > > > But seriously Max,..you know that. Try to get over your tiff with
> > > > Dev. We have all had em. He calls you a name and you write another
> > > > book on his misgivings. You will contribute better here if you drop
> > > > it. Of course it's none of my business really.
>
> > > Wise words of Wisdom from MV.
>
> > > Advice I agree with, Max.
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 5:30 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > > > > OK TG, I've looked at Dev's premise a bit more, ostensibly to look
> > for
> > > > > the key motivation behind it and the Ghandi example that you have
> > been
> > > > > discussing was really a manufactured argument from the start. Devy
> > had
> > > > > done some reading, threw the bait out with a fairly broad statement
> > > > > knowing that Ghandi would appear from someone fairly early on in the
> > > > > piece. (He acknowledged it later anyway)
>
> > > > > Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > > > > Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> > > > > to back his premise that
>
> > > > > "I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a
> > > > > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material."
>
> > > > > After a couple of exchanges, I'm sure you started feeling like this
> > > > > was all a set up.
>
> > > > > I think Dev sees most things in Black & White only. I mean reference
> > > > > to the statement 'Non violence has never worked" Mmmmhh, very few
> > > > > greys, so it seems.
>
> > > > > He sees the 'pacifist, non compliant or non violent' approach to
> > > > > dealing with problems of state, injustice etc as not a viable
> > solution
> > > > > and that regarding non violence as a valuable strategy is without
> > > > > historical efficacy and is only supported by wooses. (Or more likely
> > > > > churchy pacifists, or liberals etc)
>
> > > > > I think he misses the point that non violent strategies are really
> > > > > only a recent phenomena, so the weight of historic evidence that
> > > > > violent measures have worked clearly has held sway for millenia. It's
> > > > > a flawed argument that one.
>
> > > > > But yes, war, insurrection, violent opposition etc has it's place. I
> > > > > certainly don't argue otherwise.
>
> > > > > But if we as a species are to evolve towards some form of
> > > > > enlightenment, surely there is a place in this world for non violent
> > > > > protest and strive towards notions of understanding, empathy and a
> > > > > brotherhood of man & (woman). I mean, the examples provided here
> > > > > demonstrate that non violent protest does work, in certain
> > > > > circumstances.
>
> > > > > Religion has divided us, ideological dogma has divided us,
> > colonialism
> > > > > and imperialism has divided us, war has divided us and ignorance has
> > > > > divided us.
>
> > > > > It's time to move away from the paradigm of hostility to seize and
> > > > > control what we want. Yes, defend ourselves against tyranny with
> > > > > violence, individual or state sanctioned, but we should collectively
> > > > > strive for understanding.
>
> > > > > Too many people, like Dev only see things in absolute terms and
> > > > > particularly with the view that they are right, absolutley. I mean
> > who
> > > > > writes this kind of thing other than a ideologue who figures every
> > one
> > > > > else is 'stupid' but fails to see that the status quo actually prefer
> > > > > violence anyway.
>
> > > > > "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."
>
> > > > > Max
>
> > > > > On Dec 2, 9:06 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Dear Lady,
>
> > > > > > > I thought I'd cover off some other "non violence in the face of
> > > > > > > irrational injustice" success stories with you because I'm
> > getting
> > > > Dev
> > > > > > > is getting violent with me again:) I'll try a non violent 'sit
> > in'
> > > > > > > with him going forward, but it will be difficult nonetheless. I
> > > > didn't
> > > > > > > realise that this thread was meant to discuss only what he wanted
> > to
> > > > > > > discuss. Silly me, wrong again!
>
> > > > > > > I think the gay community has had some wins for community
> > acceptance
> > > > > > > particularly over the last 20 years or so (in western democracies
> > > > > > > anyway) The participnats of the early gay pride parades must have
> > had
> > > > > > > the 'balls' to do what they did (pun intended). The 'struggle'
> > still
> > > > > > > ain't over as yet, but it's heading in the right direction
>
> > > > > > > Going back further, the 'suffragettes' also, through a program of
> > non
> > > > > > > violence, really changed the paradigm that only the men had the
> > right
> > > > > > > to vote. Go girls!
>
> > > > > > > There are many individual cases such as Rosa Parks, whose non
> > violent
> > > > > > > protest, kick started the media into looking squarely at the
> > > > > > > injustices perpetrated both on her and the wider black community
> > in
> > > > > > > the US. From this 'spark' a fire then raged. Non violent
> > > > > > > though..............and look where we are decades later.......an
> > > > > > > African American US president.....That's one for democracy and
> > non
> > > > > > > violence eh!
>
> > > > > > Exactly. The fact is that this approach is new but it's one that we
> > > > know is
> > > > > > working and for that reason it's becoming a favored approach.
>
> > > > > > > There's more, but I'll leave it at this for the minute
>
> > > > > > > Cheers
>
> > > > > > > Max
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 2, 12:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article
> > (actually,
> > > > book,
> > > > > > > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for
> > easy
> > > > > > > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential
> > "examples"
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the
> > > > link,
> > > > > > > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was
> > actually a
> > > > > > > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth,
> > why
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent
> > examples?
> > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well,
> > > > no--
> > > > > > > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do
> > with
> > > > human
> > > > > > > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case,
> > > > anyone--explain
> > > > > > > > > exactly how one explains the other).
>
> > > > > > > > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human
> > > > beings are
> > > > > > > > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence
> > in
> > > > order
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > resolve problems.
>
> > > > > > > > I would think that was a good thing.
>
> > > > > > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the
> > proportion
> > > > is of
> > > > > > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the
> > > > proportion
> > > > > > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives
> > > > history?
> > > > > > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at
> > violence
> > > > more
> > > > > > > > > didn't lose.
>
> > > > > > > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
>
> > > > > > > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on
> > the
> > > > existing
> > > > > > > > circumstances.
>
> > > > > > > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning
> > a
> > > > War of
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:35 pm
From: Max

When you're ready!

Regards

Max

On Dec 4, 8:29 am, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> sorry max my focus has been poor at best. Trying to juggle to many
> threads yesterday and all. I'll get to it after I get the kids to
> bed.
>
> On Dec 3, 4:54 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sorry Trance, I'm assuming you may have missed this post I offered
> > after you also guided me on the Wise words of Wisdom from MV. Your
> > thoughts? MV, somehow you missed it as well (A different post of
> > course but the message was the same) Please, by all means, let me know
> > your thoughts.
>
> > Thanks Trance,
>
> > But how do you appraise this comment after my initial non
> > confrontational & pertinant post in this thread again;
>
> > "Yeah, pooping on Max isn't violence either. I intended this thread
> > for actual people who understood the issue. Drafterman and Trance both
> > knew what I was talking about, which is why I'm debating them. You're
> > retarded and don't understand the question. Go die somewhere."
>
> > No 'matey' myopia now :)
>
> > Max
>
> > On Dec 3, 8:31 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 8:31 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > > > >Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> > > > >to back his premise that
>
> > > > Max,
> > > > Most interesting threads that are worth responding to are a set up of
> > > > sorts. You should know that. What would you think if Dev did not do
> > > > his homework and devise a plan to flesh out some interesting stuff?
> > > > Certainly you would go on about his unpreparedness. Properly done,
> > > > the one who starts the thread should bear the burden of responding and
> > > > working the thread. That means they should do their homework.
>
> > > > But seriously Max,..you know that. Try to get over your tiff with
> > > > Dev. We have all had em. He calls you a name and you write another
> > > > book on his misgivings. You will contribute better here if you drop
> > > > it. Of course it's none of my business really.
>
> > > Wise words of Wisdom from MV.
>
> > > Advice I agree with, Max.
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 5:30 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > > > > OK TG, I've looked at Dev's premise a bit more, ostensibly to look for
> > > > > the key motivation behind it and the Ghandi example that you have been
> > > > > discussing was really a manufactured argument from the start. Devy had
> > > > > done some reading, threw the bait out with a fairly broad statement
> > > > > knowing that Ghandi would appear from someone fairly early on in the
> > > > > piece. (He acknowledged it later anyway)
>
> > > > > Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > > > > Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> > > > > to back his premise that
>
> > > > > "I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a
> > > > > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material."
>
> > > > > After a couple of exchanges, I'm sure you started feeling like this
> > > > > was all a set up.
>
> > > > > I think Dev sees most things in Black & White only. I mean reference
> > > > > to the statement 'Non violence has never worked" Mmmmhh, very few
> > > > > greys, so it seems.
>
> > > > > He sees the 'pacifist, non compliant or non violent' approach to
> > > > > dealing with problems of state, injustice etc as not a viable solution
> > > > > and that regarding non violence as a valuable strategy is without
> > > > > historical efficacy and is only supported by wooses. (Or more likely
> > > > > churchy pacifists, or liberals etc)
>
> > > > > I think he misses the point that non violent strategies are really
> > > > > only a recent phenomena, so the weight of historic evidence that
> > > > > violent measures have worked clearly has held sway for millenia. It's
> > > > > a flawed argument that one.
>
> > > > > But yes, war, insurrection, violent opposition etc has it's place. I
> > > > > certainly don't argue otherwise.
>
> > > > > But if we as a species are to evolve towards some form of
> > > > > enlightenment, surely there is a place in this world for non violent
> > > > > protest and strive towards notions of understanding, empathy and a
> > > > > brotherhood of man & (woman). I mean, the examples provided here
> > > > > demonstrate that non violent protest does work, in certain
> > > > > circumstances.
>
> > > > > Religion has divided us, ideological dogma has divided us, colonialism
> > > > > and imperialism has divided us, war has divided us and ignorance has
> > > > > divided us.
>
> > > > > It's time to move away from the paradigm of hostility to seize and
> > > > > control what we want. Yes, defend ourselves against tyranny with
> > > > > violence, individual or state sanctioned, but we should collectively
> > > > > strive for understanding.
>
> > > > > Too many people, like Dev only see things in absolute terms and
> > > > > particularly with the view that they are right, absolutley. I mean who
> > > > > writes this kind of thing other than a ideologue who figures every one
> > > > > else is 'stupid' but fails to see that the status quo actually prefer
> > > > > violence anyway.
>
> > > > > "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."
>
> > > > > Max
>
> > > > > On Dec 2, 9:06 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Dear Lady,
>
> > > > > > > I thought I'd cover off some other "non violence in the face of
> > > > > > > irrational injustice" success stories with you because I'm getting
> > > > Dev
> > > > > > > is getting violent with me again:) I'll try a non violent 'sit in'
> > > > > > > with him going forward, but it will be difficult nonetheless. I
> > > > didn't
> > > > > > > realise that this thread was meant to discuss only what he wanted to
> > > > > > > discuss. Silly me, wrong again!
>
> > > > > > > I think the gay community has had some wins for community acceptance
> > > > > > > particularly over the last 20 years or so (in western democracies
> > > > > > > anyway) The participnats of the early gay pride parades must have had
> > > > > > > the 'balls' to do what they did (pun intended). The 'struggle' still
> > > > > > > ain't over as yet, but it's heading in the right direction
>
> > > > > > > Going back further, the 'suffragettes' also, through a program of non
> > > > > > > violence, really changed the paradigm that only the men had the right
> > > > > > > to vote. Go girls!
>
> > > > > > > There are many individual cases such as Rosa Parks, whose non violent
> > > > > > > protest, kick started the media into looking squarely at the
> > > > > > > injustices perpetrated both on her and the wider black community in
> > > > > > > the US. From this 'spark' a fire then raged. Non violent
> > > > > > > though..............and look where we are decades later.......an
> > > > > > > African American US president.....That's one for democracy and non
> > > > > > > violence eh!
>
> > > > > > Exactly. The fact is that this approach is new but it's one that we
> > > > know is
> > > > > > working and for that reason it's becoming a favored approach.
>
> > > > > > > There's more, but I'll leave it at this for the minute
>
> > > > > > > Cheers
>
> > > > > > > Max
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 2, 12:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually,
> > > > book,
> > > > > > > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > > > > > > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples"
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the
> > > > link,
> > > > > > > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > > > > > > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples?
> > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well,
> > > > no--
> > > > > > > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with
> > > > human
> > > > > > > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case,
> > > > anyone--explain
> > > > > > > > > exactly how one explains the other).
>
> > > > > > > > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human
> > > > beings are
> > > > > > > > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence in
> > > > order
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > resolve problems.
>
> > > > > > > > I would think that was a good thing.
>
> > > > > > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion
> > > > is of
> > > > > > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the
> > > > proportion
> > > > > > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives
> > > > history?
> > > > > > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence
> > > > more
> > > > > > > > > didn't lose.
>
> > > > > > > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
>
> > > > > > > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the
> > > > existing
> > > > > > > > circumstances.
>
> > > > > > > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a
> > > > War of
> > > > > > > > Conquest a success.
>
> > > > > > > > It depends on what the goals are.
>
> > > > > > > > If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a
> > > > problem,
> > > > > > > > violence is rarely the right solution.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:53 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Max <amf6@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>
> Thank you. (Again, I was unware that Dev had been 'told' to pull his
> head in as well.)

*Asked*. I know better than to *tell* anyone on this group to do anything!
Lol.

>
>
> Regards
>
> Max
>
> On Dec 4, 7:58 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry Trance, I'm assuming you may have missed this post I offered
> > > after you also guided me on the Wise words of Wisdom from MV. Your
> > > thoughts? MV, somehow you missed it as well (A different post of
> > > course but the message was the same) Please, by all means, let me know
> > > your thoughts.
> >
> > > Thanks Trance,
> >
> > > But how do you appraise this comment after my initial non
> > > confrontational & pertinant post in this thread again;
> >
> > > "Yeah, pooping on Max isn't violence either. I intended this thread
> > > for actual people who understood the issue. Drafterman and Trance both
> > > knew what I was talking about, which is why I'm debating them. You're
> > > retarded and don't understand the question. Go die somewhere."
> >
> > > No 'matey' myopia now :)
> >
> > I guess I'm just saying that there's a time to make an issue out of
> things
> > and time to just not worry about them.
> >
> > I said something along those lines to Dev too.
> >
> > You're both very bright guys and I like you both.
> >
> > So, I just hate to see this kind of thing happening.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Max
> >
> > > On Dec 3, 8:31 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 3, 8:31 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > >Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > > > > >Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source
> material
> > > > > >to back his premise that
> >
> > > > > Max,
> > > > > Most interesting threads that are worth responding to are a set up
> of
> > > > > sorts. You should know that. What would you think if Dev did not
> do
> > > > > his homework and devise a plan to flesh out some interesting stuff?
> > > > > Certainly you would go on about his unpreparedness. Properly done,
> > > > > the one who starts the thread should bear the burden of responding
> and
> > > > > working the thread. That means they should do their homework.
> >
> > > > > But seriously Max,..you know that. Try to get over your tiff with
> > > > > Dev. We have all had em. He calls you a name and you write
> another
> > > > > book on his misgivings. You will contribute better here if you
> drop
> > > > > it. Of course it's none of my business really.
> >
> > > > Wise words of Wisdom from MV.
> >
> > > > Advice I agree with, Max.
> >
> > > > > On Dec 2, 5:30 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > > > > > OK TG, I've looked at Dev's premise a bit more, ostensibly to
> look
> > > for
> > > > > > the key motivation behind it and the Ghandi example that you have
> > > been
> > > > > > discussing was really a manufactured argument from the start.
> Devy
> > > had
> > > > > > done some reading, threw the bait out with a fairly broad
> statement
> > > > > > knowing that Ghandi would appear from someone fairly early on in
> the
> > > > > > piece. (He acknowledged it later anyway)
> >
> > > > > > Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear
> ol'
> > > > > > Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source
> material
> > > > > > to back his premise that
> >
> > > > > > "I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann
> makes a
> > > > > > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source
> material."
> >
> > > > > > After a couple of exchanges, I'm sure you started feeling like
> this
> > > > > > was all a set up.
> >
> > > > > > I think Dev sees most things in Black & White only. I mean
> reference
> > > > > > to the statement 'Non violence has never worked" Mmmmhh, very few
> > > > > > greys, so it seems.
> >
> > > > > > He sees the 'pacifist, non compliant or non violent' approach to
> > > > > > dealing with problems of state, injustice etc as not a viable
> > > solution
> > > > > > and that regarding non violence as a valuable strategy is without
> > > > > > historical efficacy and is only supported by wooses. (Or more
> likely
> > > > > > churchy pacifists, or liberals etc)
> >
> > > > > > I think he misses the point that non violent strategies are
> really
> > > > > > only a recent phenomena, so the weight of historic evidence that
> > > > > > violent measures have worked clearly has held sway for millenia.
> It's
> > > > > > a flawed argument that one.
> >
> > > > > > But yes, war, insurrection, violent opposition etc has it's
> place. I
> > > > > > certainly don't argue otherwise.
> >
> > > > > > But if we as a species are to evolve towards some form of
> > > > > > enlightenment, surely there is a place in this world for non
> violent
> > > > > > protest and strive towards notions of understanding, empathy and
> a
> > > > > > brotherhood of man & (woman). I mean, the examples provided here
> > > > > > demonstrate that non violent protest does work, in certain
> > > > > > circumstances.
> >
> > > > > > Religion has divided us, ideological dogma has divided us,
> > > colonialism
> > > > > > and imperialism has divided us, war has divided us and ignorance
> has
> > > > > > divided us.
> >
> > > > > > It's time to move away from the paradigm of hostility to seize
> and
> > > > > > control what we want. Yes, defend ourselves against tyranny with
> > > > > > violence, individual or state sanctioned, but we should
> collectively
> > > > > > strive for understanding.
> >
> > > > > > Too many people, like Dev only see things in absolute terms and
> > > > > > particularly with the view that they are right, absolutley. I
> mean
> > > who
> > > > > > writes this kind of thing other than a ideologue who figures
> every
> > > one
> > > > > > else is 'stupid' but fails to see that the status quo actually
> prefer
> > > > > > violence anyway.
> >
> > > > > > "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."
> >
> > > > > > Max
> >
> > > > > > On Dec 2, 9:06 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > Dear Lady,
> >
> > > > > > > > I thought I'd cover off some other "non violence in the face
> of
> > > > > > > > irrational injustice" success stories with you because I'm
> > > getting
> > > > > Dev
> > > > > > > > is getting violent with me again:) I'll try a non violent
> 'sit
> > > in'
> > > > > > > > with him going forward, but it will be difficult nonetheless.
> I
> > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > realise that this thread was meant to discuss only what he
> wanted
> > > to
> > > > > > > > discuss. Silly me, wrong again!
> >
> > > > > > > > I think the gay community has had some wins for community
> > > acceptance
> > > > > > > > particularly over the last 20 years or so (in western
> democracies
> > > > > > > > anyway) The participnats of the early gay pride parades must
> have
> > > had
> > > > > > > > the 'balls' to do what they did (pun intended). The
> 'struggle'
> > > still
> > > > > > > > ain't over as yet, but it's heading in the right direction
> >
> > > > > > > > Going back further, the 'suffragettes' also, through a
> program of
> > > non
> > > > > > > > violence, really changed the paradigm that only the men had
> the
> > > right
> > > > > > > > to vote. Go girls!
> >
> > > > > > > > There are many individual cases such as Rosa Parks, whose non
> > > violent
> > > > > > > > protest, kick started the media into looking squarely at the
> > > > > > > > injustices perpetrated both on her and the wider black
> community
> > > in
> > > > > > > > the US. From this 'spark' a fire then raged. Non violent
> > > > > > > > though..............and look where we are decades
> later.......an
> > > > > > > > African American US president.....That's one for democracy
> and
> > > non
> > > > > > > > violence eh!
> >
> > > > > > > Exactly. The fact is that this approach is new but it's one
> that we
> > > > > know is
> > > > > > > working and for that reason it's becoming a favored approach.
> >
> > > > > > > > There's more, but I'll leave it at this for the minute
> >
> > > > > > > > Cheers
> >
> > > > > > > > Max
> >
> > > > > > > > On Dec 2, 12:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <
> thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article
> > > (actually,
> > > > > book,
> > > > > > > > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online
> for
> > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential
> > > "examples"
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for
> the
> > > > > link,
> > > > > > > > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was
> > > actually a
> > > > > > > > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern
> myth,
> > > why
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent
> > > examples?
> > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans?
> Well,
> > > > > no--
> > > > > > > > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do
> > > with
> > > > > human
> > > > > > > > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case,
> > > > > anyone--explain
> > > > > > > > > > exactly how one explains the other).
> >
> > > > > > > > > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that
> human
> > > > > beings are
> > > > > > > > > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to
> violence
> > > in
> > > > > order
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > resolve problems.
> >
> > > > > > > > > I would think that was a good thing.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the
> > > proportion
> > > > > is of
> > > > > > > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the
> > > > > proportion
> > > > > > > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really
> drives
> > > > > history?
> > > > > > > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at
> > > violence
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > didn't lose.
> >
> > > > > > > > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
> >
> > > > > > > > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based
> on
> > > the
> > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > circumstances.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers
> winning
> > > a
> > > > > War of
> >
> > ...
> >
> > read more »- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- 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

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:00 pm
From: Dev

So I should have titled the thread "Good, Substantial Historical
Precedence for Pacifism"? Sorry, I sincerely did think it was implied
that I wanted _good_ precedence.

On Dec 3, 6:29 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then I would say I misunderstood the original question. I thought you
> were just looking for examples period, not necessarily examples that
> conclusively, without any doubt what-so-ever worked in an undeniable
> manner.
>
> On Dec 2, 10:13 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Did you read the article I linked to in response to Drafterman, that
> > kind of motivated this thread?
>
> >http://www.tamilnation.org/ideology/neuman_on_non_violence.htm
>
> > I'm pretty much agreeing with what he said: that there doesn't seem to
> > be an historical precedent for nonviolence working mainly on its own
> > merits in a serious conflict, and the few predictable examples
> > anticipated from posters on this thread are at best
> > oversimplifications.
>
> > On Dec 2, 8:03 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > People like to undermine the role of violence in the
>
> > > > success afforded to them, because it makes for a happier picture of
> > > > humanity.
>
> > > Good point. Take the case of journalistic censorship on the
> > > battlefield. Not showing the lifeless bodies of the 18 year old
> > > American boy on the battlefield helps. At last count there have been
> > > more than 4800 US service-members killed in Iraq / Afghanistan. How
> > > many dead American bodies have you seen on TV? Initially, the
> > > military purposes for censorship are to protect against things like
> > > protests on the home-front etc.... But as the victor writes the
> > > history it definitely helps lessen the impact of the horrors of war.
> > > It is not really hard to train someone to hold a rifle and march into
> > > battle. It's much harder to get him to go back and do it again
> > > although you won't have to wonder if he has sharpened his bayonet.
> > > The happy picture for humanity ironically has more to do with
> > > benefiting government power than humanity itself. This is evidenced
> > > by the fact that it does nothing to prevent violence and it has been
> > > practised vigorously regardless of political party. Although there is
> > > the easy argument that if it helps the American war machine maintain
> > > preparedness to go to war than it is necessary. After-all the Union
> > > was formed in part to "provide for the common defence". It is
> > > something we expect our tax dollars to be used for.
>
> > > On Dec 2, 7:35 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 3:41 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > What really drives history?
>
> > > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> > > > > > didn't lose.
>
> > > > > Hey Dev,
> > > > > Technically the American Revolution would have been
> > > > > unsuccessful without French help. So that's a good place to start.
> > > > > Obviously many countries exist who sucked at violence but got help.
> > > > > But I'm splitting hairs with the question obviously.
>
> > > > No, that is completely relevant. The point is the initial point: the
> > > > historical precedence for non-violence. If violence had a happy face,
> > > > if violence was not sanctioned by the hegemony, whatever--not the
> > > > issue. What has absolute pacifism accomplished mainly because of the
> > > > weight of its own non-force?
>
> > > > > I would not hazard a guess at your proportional question but attempts
> > > > > at non violent success may have been historically more common than
> > > > > known but had been quashed. History has been written by the victors
> > > > > after all.
>
> > > > Well...my question is pretty much how that last statement doesn't
> > > > confirm what I or the author have said precisely. :)
>
> > > > > -The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the
> > > > > blood of patriots and tyrants,
> > > > > Thomas
> > > > > Jefferson
>
> > > > > I guess nowadays we can't go spilling the blood of patriots and
> > > > > tyrants.......Unless they are in another country of course. Non
> > > > > violent success seems to have something to do with how much violence
> > > > > is likely to be visited on the non violent.
>
> > > > Yes. The example of the Civil Rights movement is relevant to this, if
> > > > you read the article referenced. The non-violent success stories are
> > > > largely myths. People like to undermine the role of violence in the
> > > > success afforded to them, because it makes for a happier picture of
> > > > humanity.
>
> > > > > On Dec 1, 8:52 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually, book,
> > > > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > > > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples" that
> > > > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
> > > > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > > > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
> > > > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
> > > > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
> > > > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with human
> > > > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case, anyone--explain
> > > > > > exactly how one explains the other).
>
> > > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is of
> > > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the proportion
> > > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> > > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> > > > > > didn't lose.
>
> > > > > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Let's go!
>
> > > > > > > Martin Luther King.
>
> > > > > > > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
>
> > > > > > > Mahatma Gandhi.
>
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:50 pm
From: Dev

It's a shaky slope, of course. We can eliminate the accusation of
'theist bias' since the only account of someone being banned for this
did this against the least liked poster in the history of, possibly
not just this group, but any group (what did he leave with? like 13000
ratings at a one-star average?). And he was a theist, the epitome of
theism.

The ultimatetruth banning was controversial. I supported it.
Afterwards, I'll admit I realized that I felt a little misled--he only
used the quote header and didn't actually post under the address.
Still, I figured we were obviously in grey territory, and since both
theists and atheists thought this threatened the integrity of the
limitations of the e-world (actually, it was mainly atheists who
voiced objections) I supported the decision of the mods of which I was
not a member at the time.

You're just so dishonest, checkers, you just have it in for everyone
who cleans up spam on this group for you and want special treatment
for theists so bad--of course we aren't taking you seriously. You're
trash. Maybe, if you were honest and had a conscience, we would take
you more seriously. It isn't our fault you are what you are, and we
are under no obligation to pretend you're something you clearly
aren't--namely, an honest human being.

On Dec 3, 10:49 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> i did not forget about you. look at this. it apears as though i posted
> it. it maches with my style of posting. YOU are impersonating me and
> this is ilegal.
>
> ***
> On Dec 3, 6:13 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 10:59 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (this you wrote)
>
> > > chx
> > > see i knew you had something against me.
> > > nobody likes me, it must be because they are jealous of my intelligents. har
> > > [chuckle]
>
> (here A42 replies to _me_)
>
> > Come on checkers, nobody dislikes you.
> > Thinking you are a piece of shit (because you like to make fun of
> > people who share their experiences with mental illnesses) is not the
> > same as disliking you.
>
> (here is my reply)
> chx
> i did not post that! this person impersonated me. i will report him
> to
> the moderators and then report it to google as it is an infringement
> of Google Groups TOS and it is illegal in SA to impersonate someone
> and in most countries.
>
> ***
> you guys have free reign to do this in all topics without me knowing
> and this is ilegal. poeple like you should be banned to protect the
> others from this dangerous act as per Google Groups TOS. this is why
> Google deems this illegal conduct.
>
> On Dec 3, 6:03 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:10 AM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > This is how it all materialized by date.
>
> > > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
>
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > chx
> > > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > > Now that's logical faith!
>
> > > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
>
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
> > > > chx
> > > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
>
> > And don't forget me, on December 3rd!
>
> > > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > > Use
>
> > > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
>
> > > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > > even joked about the one.
>
> > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
>
> > > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > > same infringement?
>
> > > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > > infringements recently.
> > > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > > illegal.
> > > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > > he did the same.
>
> > > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
>
> > > All the above are undeniable facts.
>
> > > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:51 pm
From: Dev

I wonder if the FBI is after checkers just like it's after Chris, by
his own admission.

On Dec 3, 3:16 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:08 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 11:40 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:21 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 3, 10:43 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 3, 2:48 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > chx
> > > > > > you knew you were wrong after i pointed it out to you. you even
> > > > > > offered to delete your entry, why? because you knew. now you see
> > that
> > > > > > Rap is backing you, you are being tough.
>
> > > > > And now you are either dishonest or lying.
>
> > > > > IIRC, I stated that if it turned out that it was not allowed
> > according
> > > > > to Goolge, I would delete it myself (I am too titred to dig it up
> > now,
> > > > > heck, you made the claim, you prove me wriong right here).
> > > > > Makiing fun of somebody in a post that bears your own name/handle is
> > > > > not against any regulations, and certainly not illegal in any sense
> > of
> > > > > the term.
>
> > > > chx
> > > > no problem, i don't balme you for having a poor memory of where you
> > > > saw or wrote something. here, i'll help you out;
> > > > ***
> > > > On Dec 2, 11:39 am, 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.
>
> > > > Yes, you are right, if I had used your handle, you would have a case
> > > > and it would be serious.
> > > > However, I did not use your handle, I made no effort to hide the fact
> > > > that it was from me.
>
> > > > So, in short, you have no reason to complain.
>
> > > > If it turns out that making fun of you inside a message of my own -
> > > > posted with my handle - is against some rules, I will delete it.
> > > > _________________________________
> > > > I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
> > > > -- Ruth Hurmence Green
> > > > ***
>
> > > > > > in fact everyone knows this was impersonating someone
>
> > > > > Right, so according to you, the whole cast of SNL and Mad TV should
> > be
> > > > > arrested becasue they have impersonated American an International
> > > > > public figures, including Bush himself.
> > > > > This must be treason.
> > > > > No, you idiot. They cannot be arrested because it is clear they are
> > > > > impersonating, they are not sitting in the oval office and making
> > > > > actual decisions and phone calls as if they were the president. Just
> > > > > like it is clear I am impersonating you when I post the message using
> > > > > my OWN handle, you dim wit.
>
> > > > chx
> > > > it may have have been within your post, if that is what you mean, this
> > > > was the same with Keith and TU.
> > > > however, you did use my name directly above your text to appear as if
> > > > i wrote it. in fact all my writing will still appear the same under
> > > > your heading fool. you impersonated me.
>
> > > > > > and now selling
> > > > > > all sorts of shit to make it go away. it is illegal.
>
> > > > > If you believe that, you are retarded.
>
> > > > > Now stop whining and wasting our time, you piece of shit who likes to
> > > > > make fun of people who share their experiences with mental illnesses
> > > > > (That is way more damnable than anything I did, and you claim that
> > > > > there is a bias? The only bias I see is all those theists not saying
> > > > > anything about your despicable behaviour back then, on that thread.)
>
> > > > chx
> > > > what you wrote here is simply just expressing your foolish ideas etc.
> > > > it does not bother me. all it does is float your boat. impersonating
> > > > me by using my name above your deceiving message is illegal. that goes
> > > > for Trog69 and Turner. you are all three impersonating me by using my
> > > > name above your deceiving messages.
>
> > > I'd love to be a fly on the wall when checkers calls the cops to report
> > us.
>
> > chx
> > why would i want to do that Turner? is that what you would have done?
>
> Oh, sorry, I keep mistaking you for a decent, law-abiding citizen. Won't
> happen again, rest assured.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > this is what TG has to say about this;
> > > > ***
> > > > On Feb 3, 2:30 am, theultimatetruth <theultimateknowle...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I'm outa here. They can falsify your name but if you fight back they
> > > > > cry foul. Unintelligent morons.
> > > > > Bye all. And please don't kill your babies
>
> > > > Changing your name slightly is very different from actually
> > > > impersonating someone and posting something that appears to come from
> > > > them which is what you did in this post.
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/ea7ca23004.
> > ..
>
> > > > The reason that it violates Google's Terms Of Service is because it's
> > > > illegal.
>
> > > > > _____________________________________________
> > > > > Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
> > > > > understand.
> > > > > -- Frederick the Great
> > > > ***
>
> > > > you will find the original post of TU as well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:18 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:34 PM, checkers <mkoneill@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Dec 4, 12:16 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:08 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 3, 11:40 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:21 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Dec 3, 10:43 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 3, 2:48 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > chx
> > > > > > > you knew you were wrong after i pointed it out to you. you even
> > > > > > > offered to delete your entry, why? because you knew. now you
> see
> > > that
> > > > > > > Rap is backing you, you are being tough.
> >
> > > > > > And now you are either dishonest or lying.
> >
> > > > > > IIRC, I stated that if it turned out that it was not allowed
> > > according
> > > > > > to Goolge, I would delete it myself (I am too titred to dig it up
> > > now,
> > > > > > heck, you made the claim, you prove me wriong right here).
> > > > > > Makiing fun of somebody in a post that bears your own name/handle
> is
> > > > > > not against any regulations, and certainly not illegal in any
> sense
> > > of
> > > > > > the term.
> >
> > > > > chx
> > > > > no problem, i don't balme you for having a poor memory of where you
> > > > > saw or wrote something. here, i'll help you out;
> > > > > ***
> > > > > On Dec 2, 11:39 am, 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.
> >
> > > > > Yes, you are right, if I had used your handle, you would have a
> case
> > > > > and it would be serious.
> > > > > However, I did not use your handle, I made no effort to hide the
> fact
> > > > > that it was from me.
> >
> > > > > So, in short, you have no reason to complain.
> >
> > > > > If it turns out that making fun of you inside a message of my own -
> > > > > posted with my handle - is against some rules, I will delete it.
> > > > > _________________________________
> > > > > I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an
> atheist.
> > > > > -- Ruth Hurmence Green
> > > > > ***
> >
> > > > > > > in fact everyone knows this was impersonating someone
> >
> > > > > > Right, so according to you, the whole cast of SNL and Mad TV
> should
> > > be
> > > > > > arrested becasue they have impersonated American an International
> > > > > > public figures, including Bush himself.
> > > > > > This must be treason.
> > > > > > No, you idiot. They cannot be arrested because it is clear they
> are
> > > > > > impersonating, they are not sitting in the oval office and making
> > > > > > actual decisions and phone calls as if they were the president.
> Just
> > > > > > like it is clear I am impersonating you when I post the message
> using
> > > > > > my OWN handle, you dim wit.
> >
> > > > > chx
> > > > > it may have have been within your post, if that is what you mean,
> this
> > > > > was the same with Keith and TU.
> > > > > however, you did use my name directly above your text to appear as
> if
> > > > > i wrote it. in fact all my writing will still appear the same under
> > > > > your heading fool. you impersonated me.
> >
> > > > > > > and now selling
> > > > > > > all sorts of shit to make it go away. it is illegal.
> >
> > > > > > If you believe that, you are retarded.
> >
> > > > > > Now stop whining and wasting our time, you piece of shit who
> likes to
> > > > > > make fun of people who share their experiences with mental
> illnesses
> > > > > > (That is way more damnable than anything I did, and you claim
> that
> > > > > > there is a bias? The only bias I see is all those theists not
> saying
> > > > > > anything about your despicable behaviour back then, on that
> thread.)
> >
> > > > > chx
> > > > > what you wrote here is simply just expressing your foolish ideas
> etc.
> > > > > it does not bother me. all it does is float your boat.
> impersonating
> > > > > me by using my name above your deceiving message is illegal. that
> goes
> > > > > for Trog69 and Turner. you are all three impersonating me by using
> my
> > > > > name above your deceiving messages.
> >
> > > > I'd love to be a fly on the wall when checkers calls the cops to
> report
> > > us.
> >
> > > chx
> > > why would i want to do that Turner? is that what you would have done?
> >
> > Oh, sorry, I keep mistaking you for a decent, law-abiding citizen. Won't
> > happen again, rest assured.
>
> <snip incomprehensible whining>

chx
i am a good christin
mocking me is illegal
but i don't report illegal activity yuk yuk yuk

>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > this is what TG has to say about this;
> > > > > ***
> > > > > On Feb 3, 2:30 am, theultimatetruth <
> theultimateknowle...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > I'm outa here. They can falsify your name but if you fight back
> they
> > > > > > cry foul. Unintelligent morons.
> > > > > > Bye all. And please don't kill your babies
> >
> > > > > Changing your name slightly is very different from actually
> > > > > impersonating someone and posting something that appears to come
> from
> > > > > them which is what you did in this post.
> >
> > > > >
> http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/ea7ca23004.
> > > ..
> >
> > > > > The reason that it violates Google's Terms Of Service is because
> it's
> > > > > illegal.
> >
> > > > > > _____________________________________________
> > > > > > Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
> > > > > > understand.
> > > > > > -- Frederick the Great
> > > > > ***
> >
> > > > > you will find the original post of TU as well.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:42 pm
From: Dev

Lie. Fuck off.

On Dec 3, 8:57 am, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> rappoccio wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 5:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > This is how it all materialized by date.
>
> > > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
>
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
>
> > > > chx
> > > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > > Now that's logical faith!
>
> > > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
>
> > > This is what he posted as if it was me;
>
> > > > chx
> > > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
>
> > > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > > Use
>
> > > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
>
> > > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > > even joked about the one.
>
> > > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
>
> > > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > > same infringement?
>
> > > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > > infringements recently.
> > > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > > illegal.
> > > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > > he did the same.
>
> > > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
>
> > > All the above are undeniable facts.
>
> > > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
>
> > The TOS are referring to actually spoofing another person's identity:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail_spoofing
>
> > "E-mail spoofing is a term used to describe fraudulent e-mail activity
> > in which the sender address and other parts of the e-mail header are
> > altered to appear as though the e-mail originated from a different
> > source."
>
> > theultimatetruth was spoofing Keith MacNevins. He was banned for this
> > reason.
>
> > Woodbridge and Answer_42 have not spoofed you. Therefore they are not
> > violating the TOS.
>
> > There have been atheists who have spoofed others in the past, and they
> > have been banned. I don't remember the guy's name, but he kept posting
> > pornography to the website by spoofing other people. He was banned. I
> > did it myself. He kept attempting to come back by posting from
> > different IP addresses, and I spent the better part of a week deleting
> > all his multiple personalities. It probably sank 3 hours of my life
> > away that I'll never get back.
>
> > So what was it you were saying about this great big atheist conspiracy
> > to ban only theists?
>
> They banned Wanderer and then recently LiamToo. LiamToo, as I
> gathered, did not post any personal information, but the mods thought
> that he is the same as Wanderer.
>
> How did they came up of this? Because they sounded the same.
>
> Preposterous indeed!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:56 pm
From: Answer_42

On 3 déc, 11:43, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> > > chx
> > > see i knew you had something against me.
> > > nobody likes me, it must be because they are jealous of my intelligents. har
> > > [chuckle]
>
> > Come on checkers, nobody dislikes you.
> > Thinking you are a piece of shit (because you like to make fun of
> > people who share their experiences with mental illnesses) is not the
> > same as disliking you.
>
> chx
> i did not post that! this person impersonated me. i will report him to
> the moderators and then report it to google as it is an infringement
> of Google Groups TOS and it is illegal in SA to impersonate someone
> and in most countries.

You did not!
Are you sure?
It reads as if it were from you, there are no clues that it cannot be
from you!

Wait.. ah shit, Turner, you scallywag!
Fooled me!

checkers, are you saying that in your country there are no
impersonators on TV, they have all been arrested?
Really?
_____________________________________
Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
understand.
-- Frederick the Great

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:56 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Joe <thelemiccatholic@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Your thread title is misleading. You aren't talking about "Theism and
> special privilege," since obviously Bush and the irate driver are both
> theists. Bush gets special privilege because he's "The Decider," not
> because he's a theist.

Ah. So it's okay for "The Decider" to be crazy as a loon but no the driver?

>
>
> 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 and why Bush was
> not
> > sent to a psychiatrist for claiming that your god told him to send the
> > troops into Iraq?
> >
> > Exactly what is the difference between the two?
> >
> > In addition, please explain why there appears to be so many people out
> there
> > committing crimes in the name of your god which lends a great deal of
> > credence to the question, Which God Do You Kill For?
> >
> > Texas man says God told him to hit woman's car
> > By ROBERT CROWE
> > San Antonio Express-News
> > Nov. 29, 2008, 12:15AM
> >
> > The driver of a pickup that struck a woman's car on San Antonio's
> > South Side on Friday morning is being evaluated by psychiatrists
> > because he thinks God told him to drive in excess of 100 mph to take
> > the other car off the road, police said.
> >
> > The bizarre incident that shut down southbound U.S. Highway 281 above
> > the Medina River happened about 7:25 a.m.
> >
> > "He just said God said she wasn't driving right, and she needed to be
> > taken off the road," said Lt. Kyle Coleman of the Bexar County
> > Sheriff's Office.
> >
> > The woman was driving her sedan northbound when the pickup rear-ended
> > her vehicle. The pickup's driver told deputies that was driving in
> > excess of 100 mph at the time, Coleman said. The impact caused both
> > vehicles to spin across a median before they came to a stop along a
> > barrier in the southbound lanes. No other vehicles were involved.
> >
> > Though both vehicles were badly damaged, the drivers suffered minor
> > injuries.
> >
> > "God must have been with them, 'cause any other time, the severity of
> > this crash, it would have been a fatal," Coleman said.
> >
> > The woman was taken to a hospital as a precaution, while the pickup
> > driver was taken for psychiatric evaluation.
> >
> > Police did not find evidence of alcohol or drug use by either driver,
> > nor did the pickup driver specify for police how the woman's driving
> > was unsatisfactory.
> >
> > http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6137502.html#
> >
> > --
> > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> > "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech
> and
> > assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of
> speech
> > to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis,
> US
> > Supreme Court Justice
> >
>

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:04 pm
From: Saint Onan

On Dec 1, 3:59 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 and why Bush was not
> sent to a psychiatrist for claiming that your god told him to send the
> troops into Iraq?
>
> Exactly what is the difference between the two?

No difference. God's fessed up, Trance. He really did tell that guy to
hit the woman's car.

http://stuffgodhates.com/?p=769

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:24 pm
From: Max

Bob, thank you for your input. I'll omit to comment on the
'demonically affected' Vietnamese girl and speaking in tongues issues
other than to say, that yes, I agree it does sound like chicanery &
silliness. Much the same as the 'supernatural' claims made by
thousands of deluded people found in every nook & cranny around the
world.

However the issue of mocking belief was what I wanted to address I
suppose.

Me a hypocrite..........perhaps. Socialised to not disrespect
indigenous beliefs. Most certainly. So why would I be reluctant to
mock indigenous beliefs publicly? Probably because their beliefs do
not affect me or my community, unlike rabid christians who attempt to
impose non secularism on us, affecting decisions on embryonic stem
cell research, political lobbying to legislate restrictions on same
sex relationships, lobbying for religious interferance re: Intelligent
design in school caricullum and many other issues.

Indigenous beliefs (albeit useless to explain our natural
surroundings) do not attempt to do what institutional monotheism does
& as a result, are impotent in the scheme of things. Interestingly
though, indigenous cultural sensitivities must be taken into account
for mining companies & I wonder if there is a cynical play on beliefs
to get a 'piece of the action' from some quarters so to speak.

I mean, Christian institutions have been greedily squeezing humanity
for millenia, so why not a few indigenous people too.

If it were so, then I'd be into 'em like a rat up a drainpipe I
suppose. Mocking or in all seriousness.

Max

On Dec 3, 11:43 pm, Bob Crowley <bobcrow...@acenet.net.au> wrote:
> I'm a Christian, without formal training in Christian apologetics, but
> having done sufficient reading to accept scholarly comments on
> Christ's undoubted existence, to say nothing of personal spiritual
> experiences. Others have them also. I've never "spoken in tongues"
> myself, due to a reluctance to hand mind over to another spiritual
> reality. But I recently met an electrical engineer, fellow Christian,
> who speaks Japanese fluently (and, no, he's not Japanese. He's white
> Australian). He wants to be a missionary to the Japanese. However he
> was struggling to learn the language, but told me that after an
> episode of "speaking in tongues", the very next day he found he was
> speaking the language quite fluently.
>
> However the devil can do something similar. I was watching a DVD of
> an old retreat by Bishop Fulton Sheen, who stated that a priest friend
> of his dealt with a young Vietnamese girl who was demonically
> affected. He found himself speaking perfect Latin, French and Spanish
> with the girl, but she'd never had any training in any of the
> languges. After exorcism, she no longer spoke a word of any of them.
> Tha'ts why I'm a bit wary of sticking my neck out on "tongues". But
> I'm digressing.
>
> In the case of indigenous beliefs, you are correct in saying that
> you've been trained to respect their beliefs as part of political
> correctness, in much the same way Pavlov's dogs were trained to
> salivate at the ringing of a bell.
>
> As to whether you'd be game to challenge their beliefs .... ? I think
> that would depend on context. If you were by yourself in Bourke,
> Western NSW, you'd be a brave, and stupid, man if you stood in the
> main street and verbally ridiculed their beliefs. If on the other
> hand you were in a debate with aboriginal academics, using restrained
> language, you'd probably be prepared to challenge them, and then share
> a politically correct goanna burger afterwards. They might even
> invite you to blow on their sacred Didgeridoo.
>
> In other words, you're a bit of a hypocrite.
>
> On Dec 3, 8:36 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dawkins outlines a view in conjunction with Kim Sterelny (philosopher)
> > in his book 'The God Delusion' pointing to a dramatic contrast in our
> > lives. Sterelny asserts that "intelligent as our species might be, we
> > are perversely intelligent".
>
> > Using the case in point with Australian Aboriginals, Dawkins continues
> > "The very same peoples who are so savvy about the natural world and
> > how to survive in it, simultaneously clutter their minds with beliefs
> > that are palpably false and for which the word 'useless' is a generous
> > understatement."
>
> > As a fairly comfortable westerner able to converse and discuss this &
> > that, I did get the sqeamish self conscious feeling that yes, I could
> > easily mock, berate and challenge the beliefs of monotheists (under
> > the correct cicumstances) but I would find it almost 'impossible' to
> > do the same to indiginous peoples beliefs. Why, I thought? Is this
> > hypocrisy or is it misplaced respect?
>
> > Is my view just political correctness gone mad or in fact is it me
> > just too reluctant to disrespect an indigenous peoples beliefs;
> > largely due to the social mores of my own socio economic grouping.
> > Even though I recognise that indiginous peoples don't ram their
> > beliefs down my throat. in my opinion, their beliefs are just as silly
> > and wacko as the christians and their beliefs.
>
> > I wonder if I would have the balls to tell an Australian Aboriginal or
> > any other indigenous person that their beliefs are shit, silly and
> > stupid. I wonder if I could be so 'out there'.
>
> > Do others here have similar concerns or would they feel no reluctance
> > to mock or denigrate indigenous peoples beliefs?
>
> > Max- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:34 pm
From: Max

Yeah, I agree. On the surface, it does look like a bit of hypocrisy
going on here (I'm speaking for myself only). Perhaps their beliefs
are so much part of their culture (which I 'spose the monotheists can
claim as well) which in our world, demands we respect these cultural
sensitivities.

It's a funny one. I'm still not 100% sure how to reconcile it, but the
disparity in approach could be justified as per the reasons I gave Bob
in a resposne to his post.

But in the final analysis, if a loon christian is affecting me & the
wider community, I'll parody their lunacy without compunction, but if
an Aboriginal mother was teaching her Dreamtime stories to her
children, I'd just shut up.

Thanks

Max

On Dec 4, 1:58 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:36 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Dawkins outlines a view in conjunction with Kim Sterelny (philosopher)
> > in his book 'The God Delusion' pointing to a dramatic contrast in our
> > lives. Sterelny asserts that "intelligent as our species might be, we
> > are perversely intelligent".
>
> > Using the case in point with Australian Aboriginals, Dawkins continues
> > "The very same peoples who are so savvy about the natural world and
> > how to survive in it, simultaneously clutter their minds with beliefs
> > that are palpably false and for which the word 'useless' is a generous
> > understatement."
>
> > As a fairly comfortable westerner able to converse and discuss this &
> > that, I did get the sqeamish self conscious feeling that yes, I could
> > easily mock, berate and challenge the beliefs of monotheists (under
> > the correct cicumstances) but I would find it almost 'impossible' to
> > do the same to indiginous peoples beliefs. Why, I thought? Is this
> > hypocrisy or is it misplaced respect?
>
> > Is my view just political correctness gone mad or in fact is it me
> > just too reluctant to disrespect an indigenous peoples beliefs;
> > largely due to the social mores of my own socio economic grouping.
> > Even though I recognise that indiginous peoples don't ram their
> > beliefs down my throat. in my opinion, their beliefs are just as silly
> > and wacko as the christians and their beliefs.
>
> > I wonder if I would have the balls to tell an Australian Aboriginal or
> > any other indigenous person that their beliefs are shit, silly and
> > stupid. I wonder if I could be so 'out there'.
>
> > Do others here have similar concerns or would they feel no reluctance
> > to mock or denigrate indigenous peoples beliefs?
>
> I know just what you mean. And yes, I think it is just political correctness
> (I think the "gone mad" is a bit redundant). It's the same sort of thing as
> what we see when people look at Muslims issuing death threats over cartoons
> and say "Well, you know, this is really OUR fault". I probably would be
> uncomfortable mocking indigenous peoples' beliefs, but only because I've had
> that state of mind hammered into me my whole life. Kind of an involuntary
> "white liberal guilt".
>
>
>
>
>
> > Max- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:51 pm
From: Max

On Dec 4, 2:17 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 5:36 am, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > As a fairly comfortable westerner able to converse and discuss this &
> > that, I did get the sqeamish self conscious feeling that yes, I could
> > easily mock, berate and challenge the beliefs of monotheists (under
> > the correct cicumstances) but I would find it almost 'impossible' to
> > do the same to indiginous peoples beliefs. Why, I thought? Is this
> > hypocrisy or is it misplaced respect?
>
> Perhaps its because you don't feel similarly threatened by those
> indigenous people's beliefs.

Yes, that may well be right. Not threatened personally, but in a macro
sense. No effect on my community.

> > I wonder if I would have the balls to tell an Australian Aboriginal or
> > any other indigenous person that their beliefs are shit, silly and
> > stupid. I wonder if I could be so 'out there'.
>
> One generalization why Christians in some countries today are so easy
> to mock and ridicule is because of their great tolerance and
> compassion, there is comparatively little downside to expressing an
> antagonistic position. This tolerance is unusual (from a historical
> perspective) and in my opinion not to be taken for granted or taken
> advantage of.

Ah Brock, be careful here. Christian tolerance & compassion???? The
overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise. Yes, Mrs Magillicutty who
attends the church fete and is the sweetest little lovey, would
probably demonstrate all those characteristics, you would like to
think all christians manage as well, maybe even you.

Look, just start at the OT with all the deaths, killings, rapings,
warnings, blah blah. Your god and his earthly apparachicks have
predominantly been vengeful, nasty, maniulative, greedy and all the
rest of it.

Don't get lost in your 'cause celebre' that is not in fact what you
would wish thesism to be.

> > Do others here have similar concerns or would they feel no reluctance
> > to mock or denigrate indigenous peoples beliefs?
>
> I would simply question why you find virtue in "mocking" or
> "denigrating" peoples beliefs. This is not the same as agreeing with
> such beliefs. I clearly do not agree with atheism, but I don't
> ridicule people who hold such a position. I simply try to patiently,
> clearly and consistently share my contrasting positions, and to answer
> questions related to the positions to the best of my ability.

Virtue.....well from many atheists perspective (I can only speak for
myself though), institutionalised monotheism and all that it
represents has had 2000 years to entrench itself with all it's
falsehoods, mostly for the advantage of the powerful within.

Atheism, although not a new concept, has gained considerable ground in
the last 100 years or so and this has largely been as a result of
scientific discovery, democracy, education and free thought.

Turner made a great observation when he mentioned the use of cartoons
to highlight the foul thinking and behaviours of some monotheistic non
secular states. Parody, ridicule and mirth often provides a fantastic
vehicle to allow many to see the stupidity and danger and illogic with
what some would try to impose on us.

A virtue.....yes Brock.....in the face of what is quite dangerous and
fallacious.

Regards

Max

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why do we have proof of Herod the Great?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/b5232c75cf9605f9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:37 pm
From: Ruthie

Why do we have books that were published around the time of Jesus but
have no original bible that was published? We have proof of all these
people, who were around when Jesus was performing miracles but we have
no one writing about these events. I would think if it was dark for 40
days, like the bible said,there would be someone documenting this
amazing event.

Whenever you look for facts,you come up with no answer.

In 325 A D Constatine ordered a meeting at the council of Niceae ,so
all these different religions would decide what was christian
doctrine. Why would these religions have to come together and decide
on doctrine that was already supose to be the truth from the bible.

This shows me they came together and chaged the bible and made it fit
their agenda.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The good life
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/2fdf103aa3f1dd09?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:38 pm
From: xeno <69blacklab@gmail.com>

On Dec 2, 7:40 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > you can't have knowledge of something w/o knowledge of *that* thing,

> Or rather, its objective truth is independent of whether a person has
> knowledge of it or not. :)

but you can't know the objective truth w/o knowledge of it.

> > see, if you say
> > the holy spirit told me so, the question is going to be, well how do
> > you know it's the holy spirit & not just your own certitude pretending
> > to stand outside of yourself.

> Rather, by noting that the positions are not based on existential or
> humanistic premises

it's human interest & values that conjures the notion of spirits, (w/o
any *real* evidence of any such things), as a way of dealing with
humanity's existential problems. iow, these positions which you
espouse are based on "existential" & "humanistic premises".

> the significant and notable subjectivity that
> such premises typically incur are absent.

that assertion belies the evidence.

> I simply note that it is the objective nature of the truth that
> establishes the verification, and not the converse. Or put another
> way, essence precedes existence.

i didn't say verification establishes the objective truth. i'm saying
verification establishes that knowledge reflects the objective truth.
see, your problem is that you merely assume that your fundamentalism
is based on the objective truth but that belief is subjective because
you can't legitimately establish that is is. all of that is because
your fundamentalism is based on fidiesm. giving lipservice to
objectivism doesn't make it any less fidiesm. look at what you repeat
over & over again: you believe such & such & presto chango, what you
happen to believe is really the case, independent of your belief. & on
top of that, if anybody bothers to point out the specious line you're
weaving here, you start babbling abt "humanistic premises", "man's
sinful nature". all of that would explain your own agenda. how ironic.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:41 pm
From: xeno <69blacklab@gmail.com>

On Dec 2, 7:48 pm, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I see it, Brock is saying, that he is objective, and that it is
> true, and if you saw it his way, you would see it the same way too.

if i had his particuliar subjectivist view, i would. it's true brock
is saying that he is objective. so what? that doesn't demonstrate that
he is in fact objective.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:49 pm
From: xeno <69blacklab@gmail.com>

On Dec 2, 6:00 pm, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you look at the span of 2000 years, he is correct We, have a
> priori knowledge of short and long term (business=5years, economics=20
> years), but there are other traditions (his) that looks at the history
> cycle quite differently, a traditition that measures time in epochs
> rather than increments.

fuck tradition. let's deal with reality. homo sapiens as a species
have been around for at least 100,000 years. in the course of all that
time, people have been trying to figure out what the world is really
abt, that is, what it is, & how things works & so on. while that's
been going on in increments, people have made up explanations to deal
with their anxiety abt
mortality, scarcity & conflict with others. deities & spirits are
projections of all of that. we invented them because we insist that
there has to be some grand purpose to everything. but really the world
is what we make it & what it makes of us in a natural process. there's
no big ego directing everything. all of that is just a figment in
people's heads.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:55 pm
From: Joe

On Nov 21, 2:40 pm, Ward Yung <wardeny...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We all know that the existence of God cannot be proven one way or the
> other, since God cannot be examined by definition. Therefore the
> choice remains of either the theistic lifestyle, or the atheistic
> lifestyle, and how to obtain that way of life. Now the irony of all
> this is, that while the theistic lifestyle is invalid, they control
> the government.

"We all know that the existence of God cannot be proven one way or the
other."

"The theistic lifestyle is invalid."

Your two statements appear contradictory.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Can Christians tolerate each other as well as Jews can?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/1f898d2ae6259b6c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:51 pm
From: gousaphe

If only Paul's were teaching something akin to a replica to Jesus'
teachings. His, however, is not. Paul was a twisted mind admirer. When
he taught Christianity, his brand of Christianity is without a command
of Christ and is fooled.

On Dec 2, 11:07 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 8:27 pm, gousaphe <dangdang...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In my opinion, there aren't much to learn from the New Testament
> > beside the words of Christ. The rest of the New Testament contains
> > mainly Paul's teachings.
>
> Even if Paul's teachings are not the same as Jesus' teachings, it
> doesn't follow that there's nothing to be learned from them. Indeed,
> it would be if Paul's teachings were a replica of Jesus' teachings
> that there would be nothing to learn from them. Perhaps you mean that
> whatever there is to learned from Paul's teachings, you don't find it
> worth learning.
>
> > Paul was Saul and Saul was a persecutor of
> > Christians and of Christianity.
>
> He wasn't a persecutor of Christians at the time he wrote his
> epistles. In his epistles, does he acknowledge having been a
> persecutor of Christians or does he only acknowledges being a great
> sinner? It's the author of Acts who calls him a persecutor of
> Christians.
>
> > Paul taught things that he did not comprehend,
>
> Whereas Jesus comprehended everything he taught?
>
> > that was because he was
> > made a slave of Christianity,
> > 'He committed sins become the slave of sins.'
> > No offense, but Paul's words are the words of a slave.
>
> > There are much to learn from the words of the prophets of the Old
> > Testament.
>
> > On Dec 2, 8:32 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 1, 6:20 pm, gousaphe <dangdang...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > A categorical no is the answer to your question.
> > > > For one, Jesus would not have in anyway tolerated hypocrites like the
> > > > Pharisees and the Sadducee.
>
> > > There are no Christian Pharisees or Saducees. So, a diversity similar
> > > to the diversity in Judaism would not include Christian Pharisees or
> > > Saducees.
>
> > > > He was too a Jew and they have never tolerated him, had they?
> > > > Two, one is Christian not because of idle belief but by learning and
> > > > doing the words of Christ.
>
> > > Then, do you ignore the rest of the words in the New Testament? "Words
> > > of Christ" comprise a small fraction of the canonical gospels and the
> > > rest of the New Testament has no "words of Christ".
>
> > > > On Dec 1, 6:00 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Can anyone picture Christians accepting each other as Christian, and
> > > > > wanting to identify themselves as Christian, in the face of such
> > > > > (below) diversity of belief?
>
> > > > > Lack of belief in afterlife (as represented by Natalie Portman):
> > > > > On the concept of the afterlife, she comments "I don't believe in
> > > > > that. I believe this is it, and I believe it's the best way to
> > > > > live."[9] She has said that she feels more Jewish in the Holy Land and
> > > > > that she would like to raise her children in the Jewish religion: "A
> > > > > priority for me is definitely that I'd like to raise my kids Jewish,
> > > > > but the ultimate thing is to have someone who is a good person and who
> > > > > is a partner.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Portman
>
> > > > > Reincarnation believing Rabbi revered:
> > > > > Rabbi Manasseh ben Israel (1604-1657), one of the most revered Rabbis
> > > > > in Israel, states in his book entitled Nishmat Hayyim: "The belief or
> > > > > the doctrine of the transmigration of souls is a firm and infallible
> > > > > dogma accepted by the whole assemblage of our church with one accord,
> > > > > so that there is none to be found who would dare to deny it ...
> > > > > Indeed, there is a great number of sages in Israel who hold firm to
> > > > > this doctrine so that they made it a dogma, a fundamental point of our
> > > > > religion. We are therefore in duty bound to obey and to accept this
> > > > > dogma with acclamation ... as the truth of it has been incontestably
> > > > > demonstrated by the Zohar, and all books of the Kabalists." (Nishmat
> > > > > Hayyim)
>
> > > > > Ressurection belief:
> > > > > In contemporary Judaism, the traditional, mainstream view of
> > > > > resurrection is maintained by the orthodox, but generally not by the
> > > > > non-orthodox.
>
> > > > > Belief in a soul:
> > > > > Outside the orthodox fold, ordinary believers often accept the notion
> > > > > of an immortal soul, not unlike the notion held by most Christians.
>
> > > > > Lack of belief in afterlife:
> > > > > many secular and Reform Jews continue to view themselves as part of
> > > > > the tradition of Judaism, without adhering to any sort of afterlife
> > > > > belief.
>
> > > > >http://www.near-death.com/experiences/judaism06.html

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Christians, please define what you mean by God.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/6e79397d59ea1ce0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:53 pm
From: xeno <69blacklab@gmail.com>

On Dec 2, 7:15 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > he can't possess all knowledge if he is infinite. that's because
> > infinity is immeasurable. insisting otherwise is like insisting that
> > he can make a square circle.

> Rather, I'm simply noting that His knowledge is not bounded or limited
> by issues of quantity or cardinality over any particular domain.

that's *simply* impossible if objective reality is inexhaustible. the
issue here is that it's impossible for god to have complete knowledge
of himself if he is infinite. you are *simply* ignoring what infinity
means.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 5:58 pm
From: xeno <69blacklab@gmail.com>

On Dec 2, 5:59 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > he can't possess all knowledge if he is infinite. that's because
> > infinity is immeasurable. insisting otherwise is like insisting that
> > he can make a square circle.
>
> Brock also thinks God is "incomprehensible" (that's what his
> Westminster Confession claims), so I'm not really too sure how he know
> all this other crap about God too.
>
> Maybe Brock IS God?

well, the matter is, that position can't be held by anybody because
god is an impossible being. an infinite being can not be omniscient. a
being that creates the basis of suffering can not be omnibenevolent. &
a being that is obiliged to dole out
eternal punishment can't be omnipotent or omnibenevolent.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:04 pm
From: Joe

You are confounding nastiness and vengefulness with holiness and
righteousness. God is holy; therefore He hates nastiness such as
humans display. He is righteous; therefore He punishes the wickedness
of humans. He has a right to vengeance, since it is He whom humans
have offended by their sins. He created us with rationality, and He
gave us rational commands, that lead to Life. Yet when we disobey Him
and find death, you are surprised and call Him nasty and vengeful.
Look within yourself for the source of the nastiness.

You fail to comprehend God's punishing of sin because to you, sin is
not that big of a deal. That is because it is not you who is offended
by your sins. If it were something that offended you personally, you
would make a much bigger deal out of it. Yet you object when God
takes sin seriously enough to punish it.

On Dec 1, 6:10 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> Joe
> your logic does not compute with me, but then I am not a
> Christian. Look, first you talk of God being the ultimate
> mystery, and now you talk of Love being the ultimate
> mystery. There are so many sorts of love.
> However, you have now defined the type of love you are
> talking about, and you say Love equates to God's will.
> It is obvious to me that God's will in the OT is vengeful,
> where he visits destruction on the third and fourth
> generations etc. Now, in my little brain, if a creator
> so hates his creation that he needs to play Hitler
> like that, then that can't be love, no matter how you
> define it. Sorry Joe. You must be prepared to accept
> the good with the bad. So, assuming you are, then you
> have to accept that the other "face" of God is nasty and
> vengeful.
>
> On Dec 2, 7:53 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Properly, Love means God's Will.
>
> > Love means that condition of the universe that He who is maximal
> > goodness intended for it when He created it. Love is the situation we
> > would be in perpetually were there no evil, and it is the situation
> > God will bring about along with the complete banishment of evil.
>
> > In particular individual situations that arise, love is God's Will for
> > those situations.
>
> > We can know God is Love by coming to Him and coming to know Him. Love
> > is the ultimate mystery, but it is also known to those who love. How
> > something can be known and still be a mystery is a mystery known to
> > those who love.
>
> > On Dec 1, 3:36 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > Joe
> > > What do you mean by Love?
> > > If you're talking about the love God shows in the Old T, I'll pass.
> > > That's not love.
>
> > > If God is the ultimate mystery, then you can't know he is love,
> > > surely?
>
> > > On Dec 1, 7:50 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 30, 3:16 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > So what you are saying is that you get "glimpses of God"
> > > > > but you don't know who or what God is for sure -
>
> > > > No, what I am saying is that I know for sure God is Love, and Love is
> > > > infinite, and I experience the infinity of Love as ever-increasing
> > > > love in me. To increase without bound is actually the definition of
> > > > infinity.
>
> > > > > all you
> > > > > know is that this being/entity is all powerful and all
> > > > > encompassing and has the ability to do what it will
> > > > > with you. It also likes to be glorified.
>
> > > > That is a human guess at what God "likes" according to a human
> > > > perspective.
>
> > > > I would say, rather, that God deserves to be glorified, and when a
> > > > finite being encounters Him, that finite being's natural reaction is
> > > > to give Him glory, or else to hate Him if the being hates Love.
>
> > > > > Still, with all of this
> > > > > it remains a mystery?
>
> > > > Infinity cannot be rendered comprehensible to a finite being. God is
> > > > the ultimate Mystery.
>
> > > > > On Nov 30, 5:21 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 28, 7:32 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Actually Joe, I was using it purely as a definition.
> > > > > > > It seems to me that when people believe in God, God is different
> > > > > > > for every person who believes in him/her. Some people believe
> > > > > > > God is a person and has human form. Others say, no, God is a
> > > > > > > spirit, and the third lot suggest that God is both.
> > > > > > > Then there is the metaphysical side of things, where people don't
> > > > > > > relate to God as anything like a human entity, but more like the
> > > > > > > power of life, or the consciousness of the universe, the oneness
> > > > > > > of all life, etc. My question was limited to asking what Christians
> > > > > > > thought their God was, hence my asking for a definition from
> > > > > > > them. There is no ulterior motive - just being respectful of
> > > > > > > something I can't relate to, or believe in.
>
> > > > > > I wold say that all the above descriptions are limited ideas of
> > > > > > attributes of God. Limited ideas are the only ideas we can have, of
> > > > > > an infinite Entity, so I prefer to acknowledge that for the most part
> > > > > > God is Unknown. I believe He has revealed Himself to us in Jesus
> > > > > > Christ, as previously as the Word to the prophets of old. I believe
> > > > > > the Word remains with us, in the Holy Eucharist, so that there is no
> > > > > > limit to how much Love will reveal both now and forever, and yet
> > > > > > everything He has revealed at any time will still be nothing compared
> > > > > > with the infinity that lies still hidden in Love. He will always be
> > > > > > for the most part Unknown to us as the Infinite Mystery, but He has
> > > > > > revealed enough for us to know Him as Love, and that is Enough, for
> > > > > > Love is Infinite. And the infinity of Love is Incarnate, in the
> > > > > > Eucharist.
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 29, 5:28 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> No, it is your move. Where do we go with this?
>
> > > > > > > > Or did you actually only honestly want to know what God is?
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 27, 12:01 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > So far?
> > > > > > > > > Do you want more?
> > > > > > > > > If so, please add.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 27, 1:10 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 26, 5:42 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Okay Joe
> > > > > > > > > > > Let's try and get some sense here.
> > > > > > > > > > > So, your definition of God is going to be:
> > > > > > > > > > > God is:
> > > > > > > > > > > Unique (in that there is only one God).
> > > > > > > > > > > Universal (in that he is the God of All).
> > > > > > > > > > > Life-generating (in that he is the Origin of all life).
> > > > > > > > > > > Personal (in that he may be characterized as a Person rather than an
> > > > > > > > > > > impersonal force or principle.)
> > > > > > > > > > > Omnipotent (in that he is able to exercise power over any part of the
> > > > > > > > > > > universe or over the universe as a whole.
> > > > > > > > > > > Benevolent (in that god is Kind to His children.)
> > > > > > > > > > > Incomprehensible (in that he is infinite).
> > > > > > > > > > > In short, Joe is postulating:
> > > > > > > > > > > God is the unique, universal, all-powerful, benevolent Person
> > > > > > > > > > > who is the source of all life.
> > > > > > > > > > > Have I got this right Joe, or have I got it wrong?
>
> > > > > > > > > > So far, so good.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 27, 5:53 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> First of all, I am amazed to see some possible progress in a thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > like this. Bravo to you both, philosopher and Alan, for bringing it
> > > > > > > > > > > > this far. My hope is restored!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > I too was struck by the nearness of the miss in the opening post.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > "the big Skydaddy who rules over all."
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Skydaddy is a common derogatory form of "Heavenly Father." The
> > > > > > > > > > > > thought is that "Heavenly Father" sounds too normal, since we often
> > > > > > > > > > > > pray to our heavenly Father, in fact, Our Lord began the Lord's Prayer
> > > > > > > > > > > > with "Our Father who art in Heaven." Had His words instead been
> > > > > > > > > > > > historically rendered into the common English as "Our Daddy who art in
> > > > > > > > > > > > the Sky," no doubt atheists would choose a different phrase to mock
> > > > > > > > > > > > that. Maybe philosopher would have said, "I understand him to be the
> > > > > > > > > > > > big Cloud Stud. . ." or something that sounds equally mocking.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > But I understand that to be cursed with atheism is to suffer a social
> > > > > > > > > > > > handicap, so I'll let it slide. After all, there isn't anyone here
> > > > > > > > > > > > more socially backwards than yours truly --- ask any atheist.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, analyzing phil's phrase for content, I find, mocking
> > > > > > > > > > > > phraseology aside, he has done a passable job.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > "the" not "a" --- indicating this entity is Unique.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > "big" not "small" --- indicating this unique entity is important
> > > > > > > > > > > > rather than inconsequential.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Skydaddy" --- a compound we should break down:
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Sky" --- indicating that this entity is associated with the vastness
> > > > > > > > > > > > of the universe rather than just the local planet.
> > > > > > > > > > > > "daddy" --- indicating that this entity has the power to generate new
> > > > > > > > > > > > life.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > "who" --- indicating a Person rather than an impersonal force or
> > > > > > > > > > > > principle.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > "rules" --- indicating that this unique, important, universal, life-
> > > > > > > > > > > > generating Person has the power of control.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > "over" --- a preposition joining said power of control with its object
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > "all" --- the object-set over which the entity has control --- in this
> > > > > > > > > > > > case, what is being asserted is omnipotence, "power over all."
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > So we have a pretty good picture of God, from an atheist. Not bad.
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Big" seems redundant given omnipotence. But God, according to this
> > > > > > > > > > > > understanding is:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. unique --- there is only one God.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. universal --- He is the God of All.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3. life-generating --- He is the Origin of all life.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4. personal --- He may be characterized as a Person rather than an
> > > > > > > > > > > > impersonal force or principle.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 5.
>
> ...
>
> read more »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atheism vs Christianity

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

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

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links