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

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:20 am
From: dead kennedy

ive seen lying for jebus on this forum before but lying for another
banned poster is a new one on me!

On 3 Dec, 16:12, LedZepp <FledZeppe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Turner Hayes wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 1:29 AM, LedZepp <FledZeppe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 27, 7:50 pm, Ward Yung <wardeny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Could you explain to me what an anonymizer is and how it works? I know
> > > > what an IP address is, but I don't know how an anonymizer might work.
>
> > > Yeah, what is an anonymizer and why would people use that in a
> > > newsgroup? It sounds like one needs to spend money just to post.
>
> > Without divulging the name and thereby giving some dishonest thetards more
> > opportunity for mischief, there is a completely free anonymizer.
>
> Are you saying the Christian LiamToo is capable of doing just that. I
> don't hink so. He is savvy in computers, there's no question about it.
> He was a Systems Analyst of the US Department of Justice, then a
> Professional Printing business, before retiring at an Insurance and
> Investment business. To post here and be dishonest is not his
> character. He was educated in one of those high end universities in
> the Boston area.
>
> Now, Wanderer is another. He might have posted a complete name of a
> CEO, but still, that is not considered personal since the other poster
> is anonymous.
>
> They are both theists and intelligent and that's the real reason why
> they were banned.

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:41 am
From: Tertullian

dead kennedy wrote:
> ive seen lying for jebus on this forum before but lying for another
> banned poster is a new one on me!

Would you fancy to elaborate on that?

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:43 am
From: checkers

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:
>
> > 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.

> ____________________________________
> Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
> understand.
> -- Frederick the Great

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:44 am
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM, checkers <mkoneill@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>
>
>
> 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:
> >
> > > 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.

Oh man, this is fun. It's far too easy, too.

>
>
>
> > ____________________________________
> > Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
> > understand.
> > -- Frederick the Great
> >
>

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:46 am
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:12 AM, LedZepp <FledZeppelin@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Turner Hayes wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 1:29 AM, LedZepp <FledZeppelin@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Nov 27, 7:50 pm, Ward Yung <wardeny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Could you explain to me what an anonymizer is and how it works? I
> know
> > > > what an IP address is, but I don't know how an anonymizer might work.
> > >
> > > Yeah, what is an anonymizer and why would people use that in a
> > > newsgroup? It sounds like one needs to spend money just to post.
> >
> >
> > Without divulging the name and thereby giving some dishonest thetards
> more
> > opportunity for mischief, there is a completely free anonymizer.
>
> Are you saying the Christian LiamToo is capable of doing just that. I
> don't hink so. He is savvy in computers, there's no question about it.
> He was a Systems Analyst of the US Department of Justice, then a
> Professional Printing business, before retiring at an Insurance and
> Investment business. To post here and be dishonest is not his
> character. He was educated in one of those high end universities in
> the Boston area.

Not to toot your own horn, right Liam?

>
>
> Now, Wanderer is another. He might have posted a complete name of a
> CEO, but still, that is not considered personal since the other poster
> is anonymous.
>
> They are both theists and intelligent

HAHAHAHAHAHA

You have some low standards for intelligence, buddy.

> and that's the real reason why
> they were banned.

Now I'm fully convinced that you are Liam. Before I was just almost
convinced you were him.

>
> >
>

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:58 am
From: dead kennedy

i will leave the elaberation to you liam.

On 3 Dec, 16:41, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> dead kennedy wrote:
> > ive seen lying for jebus on this forum before but lying for another
> > banned poster is a new one on me!
>
> Would you fancy to elaborate on that?

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:59 am
From: Tertullian

Turner Hayes wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:12 AM, LedZepp <FledZeppelin@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Turner Hayes wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 1:29 AM, LedZepp <FledZeppelin@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 27, 7:50 pm, Ward Yung <wardeny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Could you explain to me what an anonymizer is and how it works? I
> > know
> > > > > what an IP address is, but I don't know how an anonymizer might work.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, what is an anonymizer and why would people use that in a
> > > > newsgroup? It sounds like one needs to spend money just to post.
> > >
> > >
> > > Without divulging the name and thereby giving some dishonest thetards
> > more
> > > opportunity for mischief, there is a completely free anonymizer.
> >
> > Are you saying the Christian LiamToo is capable of doing just that. I
> > don't hink so. He is savvy in computers, there's no question about it.
> > He was a Systems Analyst of the US Department of Justice, then a
> > Professional Printing business, before retiring at an Insurance and
> > Investment business. To post here and be dishonest is not his
> > character. He was educated in one of those high end universities in
> > the Boston area.
>
>
> Not to toot your own horn, right Liam?
>
>
> >
> >
> > Now, Wanderer is another. He might have posted a complete name of a
> > CEO, but still, that is not considered personal since the other poster
> > is anonymous.
> >
> > They are both theists and intelligent
>
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> You have some low standards for intelligence, buddy.
>
>
> > and that's the real reason why
> > they were banned.
>
>
> Now I'm fully convinced that you are Liam. Before I was just almost
> convinced you were him.

Well I can say the same about LiamToo, not as detailed though but you
are not close to being certain. Unless you are buddies with LiamToo
and that should be a ground to be banned yourself, then you don't know
for sure.

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:22 am
From: rappoccio

Great post. Apparently if Brock isn't forcing his nutty religion down
someone else's throat, then he isn't able to practice it himself.

On Dec 3, 11:08 am, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good morning, Brock. I'm sure that you're aware that many of us
> atheists are rather fond of Mr. Condell, and we protested heavily when
> his video was pulled from Youtube.
>
> Could you maybe clear up something for me? What is the difference
> between atheism and the so-called New Atheism? Once I understand what
> you and others mean by this label, then perhaps I can respond
> accordingly.
>
> If "secular apathy" equals minding your own business in what other
> people do in the privacy of their bedroom, not forcing your religious
> beliefs to color the science taught in our public schools, voicing our
> concerns when it is reported that Christian "witch hunters" are
> sending their congregations out to kill Islamic students, Islamic
> armed forces taking over cities in Africa and imposing barbaric
> Wahhabi-style religious law, in one instance stoning to death a 13 yo
> girl for being raped, not sitting by and watching the Rev. John Hagee
> spout his hate-filled Zionist war-mongering against Palestinians,
> Iranians, Syrians and others, then I reckon you're right; Who gives a
> shit?
>
> On Dec 3, 8:39 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > from:
>
> >http://www.spectrummagazine.org/collegiate/2008/05/29/faux_pas_tolera...
>
> > interesting points:
>
> > "What the "New Atheists," and indeed post modern society, put forth as
> > "tolerance" is simply repackaged secular apathy. When we talk about
> > being religious without "imposing" your beliefs on others, or
> > practicing religion within the confines of one's on home, what we are
> > in effect saying is that these beliefs are not important and, since we
> > can't agree on what truth is, have no relevance to the grander world.
> > Unfortunately, religion is, like politics, a branch of philosophy,
> > which means that its entire point is to try and tackle the questions
> > of the world at large."
>
> > and:
>
> > "Why is it that secular humanism (Which entails the feeling that the
> > evolutionary picture has discredited conservative religion) holds a
> > privileged place? "Because it is backed by rigorous science," the New
> > Atheist would say, dismissing non-liberal religion as shallow dogma.
> > Liberal religion, too, is hardly more than a lukewarm fusion of
> > secular humanism and lip-service to belief, and as such many
> > Christians do not see a problem: one's religious world view is simply
> > not supposed to have impact on real life. You can believe it, so long
> > as it doesn't govern your actions, your business decisions, your
> > vote... the only accepted standard for action is humanism."
>
> > All in all, a thought provoking opinion piece from a computer science
> > and mathematics student.
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Brock

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:27 am
From: trog69

How dare we speak out against their God-given right to impose their
religious mores on the rest of society? Until Brock clears up my
misunderstanding, New Atheists just speak out more forcefully than the
good atheists who mind their own business, and bow their heathen heads
in deference when prayer time comes up.

On Dec 3, 9:22 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Great post. Apparently if Brock isn't forcing his nutty religion down
> someone else's throat, then he isn't able to practice it himself.
>
> On Dec 3, 11:08 am, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Good morning, Brock. I'm sure that you're aware that many of us
> > atheists are rather fond of Mr. Condell, and we protested heavily when
> > his video was pulled from Youtube.
>
> > Could you maybe clear up something for me? What is the difference
> > between atheism and the so-called New Atheism? Once I understand what
> > you and others mean by this label, then perhaps I can respond
> > accordingly.
>
> > If "secular apathy" equals minding your own business in what other
> > people do in the privacy of their bedroom, not forcing your religious
> > beliefs to color the science taught in our public schools, voicing our
> > concerns when it is reported that Christian "witch hunters" are
> > sending their congregations out to kill Islamic students, Islamic
> > armed forces taking over cities in Africa and imposing barbaric
> > Wahhabi-style religious law, in one instance stoning to death a 13 yo
> > girl for being raped, not sitting by and watching the Rev. John Hagee
> > spout his hate-filled Zionist war-mongering against Palestinians,
> > Iranians, Syrians and others, then I reckon you're right; Who gives a
> > shit?
>
> > On Dec 3, 8:39 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > from:
>
> > >http://www.spectrummagazine.org/collegiate/2008/05/29/faux_pas_tolera...
>
> > > interesting points:
>
> > > "What the "New Atheists," and indeed post modern society, put forth as
> > > "tolerance" is simply repackaged secular apathy. When we talk about
> > > being religious without "imposing" your beliefs on others, or
> > > practicing religion within the confines of one's on home, what we are
> > > in effect saying is that these beliefs are not important and, since we
> > > can't agree on what truth is, have no relevance to the grander world.
> > > Unfortunately, religion is, like politics, a branch of philosophy,
> > > which means that its entire point is to try and tackle the questions
> > > of the world at large."
>
> > > and:
>
> > > "Why is it that secular humanism (Which entails the feeling that the
> > > evolutionary picture has discredited conservative religion) holds a
> > > privileged place? "Because it is backed by rigorous science," the New
> > > Atheist would say, dismissing non-liberal religion as shallow dogma.
> > > Liberal religion, too, is hardly more than a lukewarm fusion of
> > > secular humanism and lip-service to belief, and as such many
> > > Christians do not see a problem: one's religious world view is simply
> > > not supposed to have impact on real life. You can believe it, so long
> > > as it doesn't govern your actions, your business decisions, your
> > > vote... the only accepted standard for action is humanism."
>
> > > All in all, a thought provoking opinion piece from a computer science
> > > and mathematics student.
>
> > > Regards,
>
> > > Brock

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:34 am
From: dead kennedy

I hate those Old Atheists with their "we lack belief in gods", it
time they were pushed aside in favour of people who are prepared to
say "we lack a belief in gods"!

Brothers and sisters (and members of the transgendered community) the
new atheist revolution start here!

On 3 Dec, 16:27, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How dare we speak out against their God-given right to impose their
> religious mores on the rest of society? Until Brock clears up my
> misunderstanding, New Atheists just speak out more forcefully than the
> good atheists who mind their own business, and bow their heathen heads
> in deference when prayer time comes up.
>
> On Dec 3, 9:22 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Great post. Apparently if Brock isn't forcing his nutty religion down
> > someone else's throat, then he isn't able to practice it himself.
>
> > On Dec 3, 11:08 am, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Good morning, Brock. I'm sure that you're aware that many of us
> > > atheists are rather fond of Mr. Condell, and we protested heavily when
> > > his video was pulled from Youtube.
>
> > > Could you maybe clear up something for me? What is the difference
> > > between atheism and the so-called New Atheism? Once I understand what
> > > you and others mean by this label, then perhaps I can respond
> > > accordingly.
>
> > > If "secular apathy" equals minding your own business in what other
> > > people do in the privacy of their bedroom, not forcing your religious
> > > beliefs to color the science taught in our public schools, voicing our
> > > concerns when it is reported that Christian "witch hunters" are
> > > sending their congregations out to kill Islamic students, Islamic
> > > armed forces taking over cities in Africa and imposing barbaric
> > > Wahhabi-style religious law, in one instance stoning to death a 13 yo
> > > girl for being raped, not sitting by and watching the Rev. John Hagee
> > > spout his hate-filled Zionist war-mongering against Palestinians,
> > > Iranians, Syrians and others, then I reckon you're right; Who gives a
> > > shit?
>
> > > On Dec 3, 8:39 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > from:
>
> > > >http://www.spectrummagazine.org/collegiate/2008/05/29/faux_pas_tolera...
>
> > > > interesting points:
>
> > > > "What the "New Atheists," and indeed post modern society, put forth as
> > > > "tolerance" is simply repackaged secular apathy. When we talk about
> > > > being religious without "imposing" your beliefs on others, or
> > > > practicing religion within the confines of one's on home, what we are
> > > > in effect saying is that these beliefs are not important and, since we
> > > > can't agree on what truth is, have no relevance to the grander world.
> > > > Unfortunately, religion is, like politics, a branch of philosophy,
> > > > which means that its entire point is to try and tackle the questions
> > > > of the world at large."
>
> > > > and:
>
> > > > "Why is it that secular humanism (Which entails the feeling that the
> > > > evolutionary picture has discredited conservative religion) holds a
> > > > privileged place? "Because it is backed by rigorous science," the New
> > > > Atheist would say, dismissing non-liberal religion as shallow dogma.
> > > > Liberal religion, too, is hardly more than a lukewarm fusion of
> > > > secular humanism and lip-service to belief, and as such many
> > > > Christians do not see a problem: one's religious world view is simply
> > > > not supposed to have impact on real life. You can believe it, so long
> > > > as it doesn't govern your actions, your business decisions, your
> > > > vote... the only accepted standard for action is humanism."
>
> > > > All in all, a thought provoking opinion piece from a computer science
> > > > and mathematics student.
>
> > > > Regards,
>
> > > > Brock- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:22 am
From: trog69

> And don't forget me, on December 3rd!

I guess that makes us alterboys (alterpersons?)

On Dec 3, 9:03 am, "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?

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:36 am
From: checkers

On Dec 3, 5:35 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 5:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is how it all materialized by date.
>
> > Trog 69 impersonated me on the 30th Nov.
>
> > This is what he posted as if it was me;
>
> > > chx
> > > I will say nonsense like this, even though throughout the years of
> > > commenting here, I, nor anyone else posting here, ever, have produced
> > > sufficient evidence of Jesus Christ's actuality. I don't know why Dev
> > > sounds so disgusted with us Christians, we HAVE to lie, or the
> > > atheists will win. They are forcing us with their "prove it" BS and
> > > their "evolution" to fight the truth to the death. Just like Jesus
> > > would tell us to, if he were real.
> > > Now that's logical faith!
>
> > Answer_42 impersonated me on 2nd Dec.
>
> > This is what he posted as if it was me;
>
> > > chx
> > > Hello, my name be checkers, ar!
> > > I make fun of people who have had mental illnesses and who speak about
> > > it, yuk yuk yuk
> > > Oh, I forgot, be nice to me, I be only 8 years old ha ha ha
> > > Atheists be scarier than Satan himself :)
>
> > It is not so much the content that matters. It is the fact that they
> > impersonate others that is the infringement to Google Groups Terms Of
> > Use
>
> > 6. Appropriate Conduct
> > *impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author
> > attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary
> > designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other
> > material contained in a file that is Posted;*
>
> > I have pointed this out in those threads. The moderators saw it as Dev
> > even joked about the one.
>
> > On 2/2/08, theultimatetruth impersonated Keith and was banned without
> > hesitation. Almost all the atheists called for the ban.
>
> > Now this becomes interesting as theultimatetruth is a Christian
> > whereas Trog69 and A43 are atheists. Are the rules in AvC used to ban
> > theists and the same rules are ignored when atheists are guilty of the
> > same infringement?
>
> > We also see how quick theists are banned for other so called
> > infringements recently.
> > Wanderer was banned for supposedly posting personal information.
> > Google clearly states email addresses and names of people are not
> > illegal.
> > Liamtoo was banned because they think he is Wanderer but hastily add
> > he did the same.
>
> > Woodbridge and A42 are spamming the same posts across multiple threads
> > and are ignored. This is a violation of AvC rules
>
> > All the above are undeniable facts.
>
> > Are all atheists and theists happy with this situation?
> > What about the moderators, what are your ruling/stance to this?
>
> Hi Checkers,
>
> My kudos to you for taking the time to document these issues in depth
> and detail and in a balanced fashion, and I am interested to see how
> the moderators respond. My hope is that they would see merit in your
> analyses and act responsibly.

chx
they say christians lack morals and ethics, i see different here
today. what they accuse you christians of are just words. their action
proves different. this action is the evidence i was looking for in my
journey to wherever i am going. the evidence is adding up daily.

it's like this. i ask, what are you? i don't care what you answer. i
stand back and watch your actions for a while and then i know what you
are. by the actions of stalin, mao, hitler and mugabe i can tell they
are atheists. why? their action is the same i see here. cheating and
knifing with lack of morals and ethics.

not a single atheist had the guts to stand up for what they claim to
believe in. it proves they never had those beliefs to start with, just
empty words i read.
they were all quick to jump on the band wagon to ban a theist. when
their own are guilty, they all hide in the DARK...all of them! this is
true saying they don't like the light - no place to hide.

could i be wrong generalising? somehow i don't think so.

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:47 am
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:22 AM, trog69 <tom.trog69@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > And don't forget me, on December 3rd!
>
> I guess that makes us alterboys (alterpersons?)

Uh oh, then we'd better stay away from checkers. You know how he gets around
altar boys.

>
>
> On Dec 3, 9:03 am, "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?
> >
>

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:25 am
From: dead kennedy

yeah actually string theory opens some interesting posibilities, the
idea of infinate time for example could ...HAHA who am i trying to
kid!

Klytu old chap, who is it your responding to here?

if its to me then look at the para after the one you've snipped.

On 3 Dec, 14:41, klytu <jazzyjef...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 9:53 am, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:> On 2 Dec, 11:58, klytu <jazzyjef...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 1, 5:43 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Why are you here supporting Christianity or positing an atheistic
> > > > stance?
>
> > > In searching for truth, I believe it's important to start with a clean
> > > slate; with as few preconceived notions as possible. It's difficult
> > > for me to do that at times because I was brought up in a Christian
> > > family; but I think taking a rational, atheistic position is a first
> > > step in clearing my mind of non-sensical preconceived notions.
>
> > late at night i sometime have doubts about my atheism, i look at the
> > universe and wonder did this really come from nothing?"
>
> Interesting. Were you raised in a religious family? As a child, when I
> was told that God created everything, I used to ask "Where did God
> come from?". The ensuing conversations rarely got anywhere. I can
> see how it might be simpler and more emotionally satisfying for many
> people to just accept that everything came from God and give up
> asking.
>
> For me, as I grew older the question of "where did the universe come
> from?" became less and less important. Now when I think about such
> things, my thoughts are more along the lines of "what is really out
> there ?". What is the underlying substance of reality that we try to
> comprehend based upon our sensory impressions and rational
> interpetations of those?
>
> About two years ago, I read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene.
> Real possibilities tied to string theory in physics include the idea
> that our universe may be part of a "multiverse" that includes multiple
> dimensions. I think that the real possibilities being uncovered by
> science are far more interesting and wondrous than the creation myths
> developed by people over the years.

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:37 am
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 4:42 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Firstly, consider that everyone assumed that I was, what? Christian?
> Islam? Whatever. That is when the remarks were made. They were
> intended to be toward myself--at least most of them.
>
> In hind-sight, I'll admit that my post probably guaranteed a flame war
> and was probably taken as a flame.

Glad to see that some of the results you complain about was your own
doping.

Now, as soon as you noticed that, the sensible thing would have been
to apologized and to start over in a new thread.
What do you think?

> Also consider this before dropping
> the gallows trap door: I'd never been to groups.google.com and I
> joined this one because it was on the sign-on page and looked like a
> place for learning. Note that immediately most of the titles are
> flames to begin with.

I strongly disagree.
Please give evidence of that.
Most titles I can see now, and that I have seen recently, are not
"flaming" titles.

> I ignored those and went to safe-looking
> titles. Bile. Bile. Bile. From people who are claiming to be
> loving, intelligent, and thoughtful. (yes, those claims were actually
> made) I expected a battle ground of wit

It is often the case.
But, if someone starts by flaming or if people are willfully ignorant,
it can be difficult to get to that level.

> and instead, watched people
> shooting fish in a barrel. Fun stuff. The joy I saw people getting
> from outright meanness

Two very subjective words here: joy and meanness.

> left me non-plussed and I shouldn't have posted
> what I did the way that I did. My apologies for being disenchanted
> with the language and heckling.
>
> I have a question: From what I can tell, there's only two theists
> posting regularly. Is there more? I'd like to hear both sides of
> this, even though I was told that there were no sides.

Yes, there are more.
____________________________________
Religion is the idol of the mob: it adores everything it does not
understand.
-- Frederick the Great

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:42 am
From: "Turner Hayes"

Oh no! What are we going to do without your insightful commentary!?
Chin up, my good compatriots. Onward, atheist soldier and all that.

NOTE TO ALLAN: WHEN I SAY "ATHEIST SOLDIER", I DO NOT ACTUALLY MEAN THAT ANY
OF US ARE PART OF AN ARMY OF ATHEISTS RECRUITED TO KILL ALL THEISTS.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:36 AM, ObservantEye <mike.shull@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I tried. I really did. I was convinced that maybe 99% was a little
> high, but not by much. Since the original post, I've admitted I
> shouldn't have started this thread the way I did. I've asked honest,
> non-insulting (I hoped) questions. Too many here seemed to TRY to
> prove my original post right. Neil, thanks for your thought-out
> posts. There were a couple of others, but overall, the very things I
> saw theists condemned for were shown to be the same here. Don't
> respond to this. I'm out of this group in a couple minutes.
> Everything I've posted was taken in the worst possible light and
> attacked. Few had any interest in my quest for knowledge, but had
> only time for insults and outright meanness.
>
> Those of you who simply wanted to call names, degrade me, and tell me
> what I can do to myself: You're very sad people. I am ashamed for my
> atheist friends that I know in real life because of what people like
> you do for the atheistic community is make them look like bigots. I
> know that few I've met in real life had half the bile you have
> spewed. They believe it, but don't think they have to demean anyone
> who thinks differently. How are you different that the Christians?
> You act the same as you told me they've treated you. Does that make
> you a better person when you treat others the same? Is that the real
> difference? You don't want to have to strive to be better? Where are
> you people in real life? The only place I've seen people like you is
> in the news, which kinda took away from the reality of your existence
> for me. Interacting with you has convinced me that you're really out
> there. That frightens me more for my childrens' future than
> Christians do.
>
> Well, I'm out of this group, and I can only imagine the replies to
> this that'll colorfully and effectively say, "good riddance." But
> running the undecided out like this isn't exactly the way to convince
> people that you're a better option than any other theism. All you've
> shown me is what you're NOT. I wanted to know who you ARE. I don't
> want to be remembered for what I'm not. I'm not a zebra. I'm not
> mineral. I'm not plant. (have fun with that one, you predictable
> people).
>
> I hate to part with the few of you that actually spoke, but I can't
> deal with the rest of them. I think we had potential to learn from
> each other.
>
> Remember: the original post wasn't about theism or atheism. It was
> about the people here. I hope I or mine never meet most of you in
> real life.
>
> On Dec 3, 4:54 am, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > hi turner, i couldnt be arsed going back an replying to this directly
> > sorry.
> >
> > On 3 Dec, 02:11, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 7:08 PM, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > Do any of them do more than post those giant cut/pastes from whatever
> > > > site that is? Holy cow, what is that about? I can't even get myself
> > > > to read it since it represents no thought from the minds here...
> > > > Plus, it looks like something my lawyer vomited.
> >
> > > And you wonder why we atheists are frustrated and angry at them?
> >
> > exactly.
> >
> > he demanded we read something from the other side.
> >
> > Well ive read the babble and it took me almost 3 weeks. i took plenty
> > of time off and had the occassional dip into "100 days of sodomy" 'cos
> > i wanted to read something less sexually violent for a bit.
> >
> > then all we do is post a link to a web site and its
> >
> > " I can't even get myself
> >
> > > > to read it since it represents no thought from the minds here"
> >
> > so iobserveaoneeyedtrousersnake...go fuck yourself.
> >
> > chin chin
> >
> >
> >
> > > > On Dec 2, 4:19 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 4:42 PM, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Firstly, consider that everyone assumed that I was, what?
> Christian?
> > > > > > Islam? Whatever. That is when the remarks were made. They were
> > > > > > intended to be toward myself--at least most of them.
> >
> > > > > > In hind-sight, I'll admit that my post probably guaranteed a
> flame war
> > > > > > and was probably taken as a flame. Also consider this before
> dropping
> > > > > > the gallows trap door: I'd never been to groups.google.com and
> I
> > > > > > joined this one because it was on the sign-on page and looked
> like a
> > > > > > place for learning. Note that immediately most of the titles are
> > > > > > flames to begin with. I ignored those and went to safe-looking
> > > > > > titles. Bile. Bile. Bile. From people who are claiming to be
> > > > > > loving, intelligent, and thoughtful. (yes, those claims were
> actually
> > > > > > made) I expected a battle ground of wit and instead, watched
> people
> > > > > > shooting fish in a barrel. Fun stuff. The joy I saw people
> getting
> > > > > > from outright meanness left me non-plussed and I shouldn't have
> posted
> > > > > > what I did the way that I did. My apologies for being
> disenchanted
> > > > > > with the language and heckling.
> >
> > > > > > I have a question: From what I can tell, there's only two
> theists
> > > > > > posting regularly. Is there more? I'd like to hear both sides
> of
> > > > > > this, even though I was told that there were no sides.
> >
> > > > > Off the top of my head, there's
> >
> > > > > Brock Organ
> > > > > Checkers
> > > > > Alan Wosterburg (or something like that)
> > > > > Allan I-forget-his-last-name a.k.a. Vaarsuvius a.k.a. Treebeard
> > > > > Bob Crowley
> > > > > thea
> > > > > simonsaysbye comes around sporadically
> > > > > I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN is probably actually a troll, but posts as a
> > > > Christian
> >
> > > > > Am I forgetting anyone?
> >
> > > > > > On Dec 2, 3:00 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Dec 2, 3:05 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > <snip>
> >
> > > > > > > Once more, a theist playing the victim and showing signs of
> having
> > > > > > > difficulties understanding simple sentences.
> >
> > > > > > > > I mentioned the insults? So far, here's a description of me
> by our
> > > > > > > > peers here:
> > > > > > > > A dishonest biased prick.
> >
> > > > > > > That was my comment, and
> >
> > > > > > > 1) it was not an insult, just a fact.
> > > > > > > 2) not addressed at you, as you claim above.
> >
> > > > > > > > I am still spewing your bullshit about "new atheism"
> (actually,
> > > > I've
> > > > > > > > never heard the term before this comment)
> >
> > > > > > > Lifted from my post.
> > > > > > > I was merely repeating what a theist has claimed (except for
> the
> > > > > > > "spewing" and "bullshit" which are not really insults since
> "New
> > > > > > > Atheism" is bullshit, and it was not addressed at you anyway.)
> >
> > > > > > > If you want to know about "new atheism", join the club! Ask
> Brock to
> > > > > > > explain it.
> > > > > > > The best he could do was produce a few web pages/blogs that
> used the
> > > > > > > term in their page title. He could never demonstrate that it
> was an
> > > > > > > actual movement/organization/philosophy/etc.
> >
> > > > > > > > Then you are no self-respecting Christian. (apparently not)
> >
> > > > > > > Where is the insult here?
> >
> > > > > > > > arrogant prick
> >
> > > > > > > Yep, that one is an insult!
> >
> > > > > > > > I have apparently been suffering from Alzheimer's. (wow,
> didn't
> > > > see
> > > > > > > > that one coming)
> >
> > > > > > > An wrong assessment?
> >
> > > > > > > > I have an unremarkable life.
> >
> > > > > > > Not insults.
> >
> > > > > > > > I have no feelings, no brains, no consciences, no ethics,
> > > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > nothing that a human would call human. Period.
> >
> > > > > > > A wrong assessment?
> >
> > > > > > > > Wow, that one had a "Period." So why should I even continue?
> How
> > > > > > > > does one debate with that? I mean, I don't want to start
> with
> > > > debates
> > > > > > > > proving I have feelings, brains, conscience, ethics, and that
> I'm
> > > > > > > > human! I mean, I need to go find those groups first, I
> guess...
> >
> > > > > > > So, you produced little evidence in lieu of actual insults that
> were
> > > > > > > actually addressed at you.
> > > > > > > But, considering that your OP was an open call for flaming how
> can
> > > > you
> > > > > > > be honestly surprised that you got what you were asking for?
> >
> > > > > > > In case you try to disagree with me, here is a little reminder
> of
> > > > your
> > > > > > > opening statement:
> > > > > > > "
> > > > > > > have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it
> would
> > > > > > > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
> >
> > > > > > > Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't
> actually
> > > > > > > interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a
> non-
> > > > > > > atheist into a flame war.
> > > > > > > "
> >
> > > > > > > Right off the bat you claim that 99% percent of atheist on this
> site
> > > > > > > are angry and do not want to intelligent discussions, so they
> must be
> > > > > > > stupid or something like that.
> >
> > > > > > > Then you have the balls to state that the same atheists are
> only
> > > > > > > interested in flaming?
> >
> > > > > > > "Arrogant prick" was too good for you, actual bona fide
> arrogant
> > > > > > > pricks the world over are offended that you were associated
> with
> > > > them.
> > > > > > > _________________________________
> > > > > > > I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an
> atheist.
> > > > > > > -- Ruth Hurmence Green- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> >
>

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:41 am
From: trog69

>This tolerance is unusual (from a historical
> perspective) and in my opinion not to be taken for granted or taken
> advantage of.

Threats now, huh Brocky boy? Well fuck you, and all your intolerant
asshole co-delusional fuckheads too. What, are you chafing to start up
a new inquisition to protect your lying-ass church? Bring it on
fuckers; We're not backing down anymore from you cocksuckers and your
religious dogma police. So, go ahead, let's see some real non
tolerance from all you mouth-breathers instead of your smug platitudes
hiding bigotry and hatred for all who dare challenge your authority.

On Dec 3, 9:17 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:55 am
From: dead kennedy

weirdly i was having similar thoughts today about the legasy of
postmodernism (probably the spliff i had last night)

Having been through the UK schooling system 70's-80's i have great
difficulty shaking the relitavist thing. I think that the problem is
that the original postmodernism became fetishised by people who didnt
understand it properly (they then left university and became our high
school teachers).

respecting other peoples cultures is fine in there original setting.
If an aboriginal believe that the great world snake chased a dingo
into a cave, which became a pool of fresh water- great, especially if
the story helps him find the water at a later date.

if your stood in an office an he believes that the great world snake
ect and formed a water cooler, then the bloke is fair game for
ridicule.

and before christians jump on me for fair treatment for their own
silly myths remember the original setting bit.

We in the first world have had almost 500 years of enlightened thought
and a printing system to diseminate it, still believing in a god is
like trying to find a dingo under a water cooler.

On 3 Dec, 10:36, 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

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:42 am
From: "Turner Hayes"

Aw, man! I always get gored, though!

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:15 AM, trog69 <tom.trog69@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> You shall go out back to the corral, and help repair the triceratops'
> harnesses and halters. Mercy!
>
> On Dec 3, 8:02 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You're right. My behavior was unbecoming of a Servant of Christ. What
> shall
> > I do to make amends to Our Lord and Savior?
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:06 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Brother Hayes, do you mock me. Oh brother, where art thou love. The
> > > reality is for all to witness. I beseech thee, enter the world of
> > > Christ and be reborn. Know that the lord and lordesses and horny
> > > toads, and salmon and concreters and other less savoury types love
> > > you, want you, caress you. Please come to our church next Tuesday
> > > (cheaper rent for us on Tuesdays and it's too busy with those other
> > > bastard apostates) and bring a sheckle or two, if you can.
> >
> > > Reach out o brother. Get God in your head
> >
> > > More God & more Head
> >
> > > In thy mercy
> >
> > > On Dec 3, 3:33 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Ladies and gentlemen, this is what a Poe looks like.
> > > > Yes, I know Max is an atheist and is being sarcastic, but my point is
> > > that
> > > > if I didn't, I would have no idea if he was serious or not--in fact,
> I
> > > would
> > > > probably think he was.
> >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > > > For too long now, non believing atheists have tried to peddle their
> > > > > non belief to we believers, i.e. their beliefs as non believers, so
> we
> > > > > believers must turn the tables on them and get people believing
> > > > > again.
> >
> > > > > Clear....Good!
> >
> > > > > One of the big issues that that the lord has asked me to cover off
> > > > > with you today regards the silly atheistic scientists who say that
> > > > > dinosaurs were in existance millions of years ago. As if they found
> > > > > labels on their bones saying how old they are. Ridiculous!
> >
> > > > > "The Bible also teaches us (in Genesis 1:29-30) that the original
> > > > > animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian.
> There
> > > > > were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there
> was
> > > > > no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and
> animals
> > > > > (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only
> plants."
> >
> > > > > Get some sense into you now. Get God in your head. That's what you
> > > > > need.
> >
> > > > > More God & more Head.....are you with me!
> >
> > > > >http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/2.asp
> >
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nice.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/91d6751736ff8cb2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:49 am
From: trog69

That reporting sounded kinda alarming to me. Slippery slope; What'll
go up next, an abortion in a manger? Scaaaary, kids!

On Dec 2, 12:21 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And nicely reported on.
>
> http://www.yahoo.com/s/996016

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:51 am
From: trog69

That's two times you made me laugh out loud this morning. Knock it
off!

On Dec 2, 7:40 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Priests ask me this sometimes, and I say they're on their own at this
> point.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:57 am
From: Neil Kelsey

On Dec 2, 4:43 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.

If you wanted to understand you wouldn't be asking questions like
these.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:57 am
From: trog69

Um, I'd like to buy Grabthar's Hammer, but I need to know some of the
stats. I need haste and power rating enhancements attached to it,
please.(A good Warlock can probably enchant the hammer, or priests
can imbue. Whichever.)

On Dec 3, 6:17 am, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> By Grabthar's hammer, by the suns of Warvan, Ruthie you shall be
> avenged!
>
> What is this heresy you utter, oh warlord of atheistic damnation, so
> called Observer! The fires of hell will sweep you up, in a whirlwind
> of horror, so be warned.
>
> But in the meantime, would you like a copy of our educational booklet,
> the Blossoms of Life. A wonderful tale of brotherly love, happiness
> and life to be lived with our lord. Could I interest you in two copies
> perhaps. No you say............
>
> Well then devil Observer, evil incanter of foul mouthed terror. Die
> before me, before my lord, die and never get up again, 'cause we just
> don't like you really.
>
> Get god in your head
>
> More God & more Head
>
> In thy mercy
>
> On Dec 3, 4:52 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 2, 4:43 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.
>
> > I am more concerned as th what will happen when the giant grean flea
> > that shit out the universe comes back to suck the blood out of his
> > creatures because the Christians pissed him off.
>
> > It Just so happens that I have a bottle of frog magic holey oil for
> > sale, to protect you from this horrible fate. It is made of the green
> > blood of the off spring of the giant frog , you know the one that was
> > sacrificed for the giant frog leg dinner last week. Any way just send
> > a dollar two ninety eight to the mighty Amphibian in the order of
> > Anura, 000 nuttin Street , Some where in the bible belt zip 00000.
>
> > Your order will be promptly shipped , Expect delivery within fourteen
> > billion seven hundred years.
> > Just a coincidence that is how long ago the giant frog shit out the
> > universe.
>
> > Hallelujah , Praise the Great Green Frog for he gave you life and is
> > coming back to suck out your blood. Damn Those pesky Christians for
> > pissing him off.
>
> > Regards
> > To the morons of the world
>
> > Psychonomist

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:58 am
From: trog69

Sorry, almost forgot. Praise Agnes Morehead, and her tender mercies.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:55 am
From: Alan Wostenberg

Ranjit I agree one who sits on a throne would have to have a body.
This contradicts what we know from philosophical reasoning that God is
not a body, since any body is limited by being here not there, and God
is Unlimited Being.

When reading any book -- Bible included -- we must read for author's
intent. To do otherwise is to fail in one's duty as a reader. For
example I read in my daily newspaper when sunrise will occur. Does
this mean the journalists at the Times endorse geocentrism? No. They
use a turn of phrase we know to be at variance with modern science.
If interpret them as promoting flat earth, I've failed my duty as a
reader to read for author's intent.

Apply this principle to reading that passage in Revelation you quoted
about the throne of God. Did the author of Revelation intended a
literal throne? Or is he using poetic language to communicate a
truth?

On Dec 2, 10:34 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 11:59 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 1:12 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > How are you able to tell whether you
> > > worship the same God who said "You shall have no other gods before me"?
>
> > The various philosophical proofs of God's existence can be helpful
> > exercises in idol-smashing for the believer, and the atheist who is
> > willing to suspend his unbelief for a bit.
>
> > For example, consider the question: can God move? Well in order to
> > move from A to B an entity must be at A and not at B. It must lack
> > something. But God who is Infinite lacks nothing. It follows God has
> > not the limits making movement necessary. Movement (and time, which is
> > science says is relative to motion) is a /lack/ of being... even if
> > movement and time always were and will be. God has not this limit
> > making movement, space or time necessary.
>
> > So if prior to this exercise I had thought of God as a body (like
> > Thor, Zeus, and all the usual suspects mentioned), I am not thinking
> > of God but something lesser god, unworthy of adoration.
>
> The Bible portrays god as one who sits on a throne.http://www.tribulation.com/throne.htmhttp://www.pantheon.org/articles/t/throne_of_god.html
> One who sits on a throne would have a body. Is this a lesser god? Does
> the Bible mention a greater god who cannot sit on a throne, a god who
> is everywhere?
>
> > Even so, idol worship is a constant risk, since a man can make
> > anything a god.
>
> Anything or anyone. Such as Jesus.
>
> > People who call themselves atheists often, for
> > example, deify proof. We must never let proof be our master.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:57 am
From: Drafterman

On Dec 3, 10:43 am, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Answer_42 wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 10:29 am, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I know. He must be somebody really good. Too bad he's gone, I was
> > > looking forward to debating with him and obtaining more information on
> > > religious antiquity.
>
> > Strange how these "new" members like LedZep and Tertullian are signing
> > the praises of LiamToo, while the rest of us know he is just an
> > ignorant little liar!
>
> > I wonder why that would be?
> > I am sure there is no bias at work here!
>
> I have read his numerous posts and they are intelligent and full of
> insights. How can I not praise him?

Easy! Shut the fuck up, that's how!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atheism vs Christianity

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

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

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links