Arguments with Theists to October 97


These are mostly from posts to atheist newsgroups. Some are email.

From randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net Tue Apr 22 14:04:21 1997
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: If You Were Dying...

In article , cef@geodesic.com says...
>
>
> d009872c@dc.seflin.org (Sam Lopez) wrote:
>
>>Question to atheists...
>
>>If you were dying, which would you pick?
>
>>a) to be treated in a hospital with all atheist staff?
>>b) to be treated in a hospital totally staffed by nuns?
>>
>The question is "If I were dying." not "If I had some chance." so I
>don't think its a stupid question at all. Given that choice I would
>pick atheists in a second because they would be more likely to respect
>my beliefs.

Very good point. As you said, I would like whatever parts of my corpse are 
useful to be used to help others. Also I would  like a shitload of narcotics if 
I suffer a lot of pain. In the end, I would probably like some assistance in 
ending my life at a time and under circumstances of my choosing.

Somehow I doubt a religious hospital staffed by nuns would go along with any of 
that.


randall g =%^)>


From randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net Wed Apr 23 22:13:51 1997 Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,talk.religion.misc,alt.blasphemy,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,alt.recovery.catholicism,tnn.religion.catholic,alt.illuminati,alt.religion.christian,alt.bible.prophecy,alt.slack,talk.religion.newage,alt.fan.jesus-christ Subject: Re: the latest Pope dope From: randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net (randallg) In article <01bc5051$c22048c0$dcb79ace@jblaha>, jblaha@tfs.net says... > >> With cloning, the Pope can now have it both ways. He can preach >> procreation and Chastity at the same time. Christians can then remain >> as pure as the Virgin Mary and still flood the world with Christians. >> Think about it, the clergy and even His Holiness can now add their >> genes to the gene cesspool without fornicating, at least with women. >> >> Of course there will still be a problem with all those horny >> teenagers. This however can be solved with radio transmitter chastity >> belts and a vigilant vice squad. For future insurance against >> fornication special attention can be given to cloning only the most >> chaste worshipers and upstanding moralists. > >Whoever you are, I find your sarcastic drivel repulsive and sickening. I thought it was great! >To >insult a man like John Paul II is past rude and pathetic, it's positively >evil. No doubt he would think so. However, John Paul II is the most evil human alive so his opinion is hardly relevant. >You cannot respect him even on a purely human level, Hell no. If any one person on earth could be held responsible for the destruction of the human species, it is John Paul II. >let along his >devotion to Christ and Catholicism. So the fuck what. This is alt.atheism, bonehead. >People like you need to screw your >heads back on and find out where you're going. Same place as you, bucko. >If you insist on trashing >Christians, please do it with your head in a bucket filled with Kleenex and >duct tape wrapped all around. I always do. Happy? >You look down on this evil hypocritical papist religion? Fuck yeah. Though I don't give a shit about the papist part, just the evil and hypocrisy. >Well I pity you and hope God will change your heart; Fat chance. Feel free to start braying into your folded hands on my behalf, I'm trying to catch up to Stix. >there >is nothing that sickens me more than a soul tortured with the hate of evil >and who feels he must spread it around. What's wrong with hating evil? This vile evil pope of yours should be killed before he can damage the planet any more than he already has. >On another topic, why is it that all Christian-haters are *always* >obnoxious and degrading? Study a little Christian history. We've had enough of that, thank you very much. >I think there's something there... Yes. Start with the Crusades and the Inquisition. Then we'll cover slavery and witch burnings. >Nick Blaha randall g =%^)>
From randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net Thu Apr 24 08:14:43 1997 Newsgroups: alt.atheism Subject: Re: The message of the Cross is foolishness From: randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net (randallg) In article <19970424051000.BAA14676@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jdwhitt@aol.com says... > >Dear Sir, > >Without preaching any particular religion, let me try to explain why >Christians often become overzealous in there evangelizing. Actually, we already know why, but go ahead... >The Christian has found the analogous cure for death. So he thinks, without a shred of objective evidence. >If you found the >cure for death, I would want you to be in my face about trying to give it >to me. If it could be demonstrated that I had the cure for death, I would be happy to share it with you. BTW, do you smoke? If so, I have some advice for you that really *will* help. >If Christians are correct then you are really stupid. Even if they are correct, we are still not stupid. If Christianity is true, then God has gone to extraordinary lengths to hide His existence from anyone with a rational mind. Whether Christianity is correct or not, it still takes a great deal of gullibility, ignorance and downright stupidity to believe it. >If they are >wrong, what harm are they doing by getting, "in your face," through >postings and e-mail? None, actually. It can be great sport. Many of them are actually doing Christianity a great disservice, by posting such utterly stupid easily-refuted nonsense that many "on-the-fence" observers are completely turned off by them. The amazing thing is that we know this and say it all the time, but they keep on posting! I for one have no problem with Christians posting their drivel here. I feel honoured to play a part in the downfall of religion. Alt.atheism is serving an important function in helping to bring this about. >Does it cause you physical pain? No. >Does it cause you great emotional distress, No. >or does it just bug you? Yes. But I get even by helping to destroy their religion. >If you atheists are the ones who have a corner on "real" reality, >shouldn't you be the ones who are considerate of those Christian >dillusions? Not at all. They are sentient beings and are responsible for their actions, and the subsequent reactions. Why should their delusions be given any consideration at all? Many of them are actually insane, but it is their choice to behave the way they do. You know, if they had their way, they would turn our country into a theocratic dictatorship (against the wishes of atheists, every other religion and many moderate Christians). I WILL NOT be considerate of these delusions when I know this is their ultimate goal. >I mean give the poor Christians a break. How can their >postings harm you? Like I said, they are harming themselves much more than they know. Heh heh heh. >Just some thoughts, > >John randall g =%^)>
At 05:13 PM 4/25/97 -0500, you wrote: >Dear Sir, > > Your characterization of yourself as an atheist and >"Christian-basher" is unfortunate. I do not characterize myself a "Christian-basher". Where did you get this idea? I don't recall ever saying this. If asked, I might admit to being an "obnoxious-evangelical-moronic-theist basher". This doesn't include most Christians, in my experience. Having perused your message, it doesn't include you. In any case, if you look at my web pages (net.wisdom link on my homepage) you will see very little bashing going on. There is a bit though... I'd like you to realize as well that I don't go out looking for bashing opportunities. *All* of my writing has been to atheist newsgroups, or responses to unsolicited email like yours. >However, in reading your "Standard >Response," I did find that at least there is a rationale for your >hostility and disbelief. The disbelief is obvious. My hostility is directed specifically to those evangelicals who want to subvert my government and establish a theocratic dictatorship, or those who simply are persistent, arrogant morons. >This is fortunate, since most people who >reject Christ do so, in my experience, on unreasonable grounds. Oho, this should be interesting. Forget all the philosophical stuff, what about the utter lack of evidence? That's reasonable grounds to reject *any* religion. > Your argument, correct me if I am wrong, runs like this: >1. God is supposed to be good and all-powerful. >2. This God made the earth and universe. >3. The world is full of suffering and evil. >4. Any God who would make such a world is neither good nor >all-powerful. This is only one argument; there are many. However this is one of my favourites. > The evil in the world is not, however, God's fault. Given the premises of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence, it can't be anything but His fault. >Is he all-knowing? Yes. Is he good? Yes. You have evidence of this, right? Thought not. >But here's the deal: a good God >must allow his creations free will. Unsupported assertion. Why do you think so? What has this got to do with being a "good" god? >People were created good, in other >words, without any wrongdoing on their record. I'm afraid that I don't accept that people were "created" at all. Frankly, the fossil record makes this notion absurd. Got any evidence? Thought not. >God did not create evil. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Isaiah 45:7 >God created men with free will, who had the option to choose to work >evil in the world. God did this to give men the opportunity to freely >choose good. Yes, I know what the myth says. Got any evidence? Thought not. >Good that is chosen by people is true goodness, good that >is forced upon people is tyranny. While this is such a generalization as to be virtually useless, I would say that *anything* forced upon people, beyond what is necessary to keep them from messing up other people, is tyranny. However if God had created His people without the *desire* to commit evil acts, that would hardly be tyrannical. They just wouldn't *want* to commit evil, which most people don't want to do anyway, even *with* this alleged free will. In any event, how much good or evil a person is *actually* responsible for is not even relevant in Christianity, is it? Repent and you're saved. Period. > Then there are natural "evils." I don't personally subscribe to the usual Christian concept of "evil". What happens in the natural world is simply natural: ie amoral. >Granted, I can see why this would >cause you a problem. A tornado takes out a schoolhouse full of kids: >how could there be a good God? But natural disasters are only "evil" >from our perspective. God is the Owner of life, not us. If God chooses >to allow a life to end, then it was the time for that life to end. And it is this absurd and unsupported rationalization that I find most abhorrent about Christianity. >Our >perception of death, even seemingly premature death, as evil is a result >of our mistaken concept of the personal ownership of our lives. It's not mistaken at all; it is an *axiom* of our lives. No person or myth has ownership of my life; only I do. And I will *not* pass that ownership to anyone, or anything, else. This rationalization is the sort of thing that kept slavery going as an accepted part of Christianity for nineteen centuries. If there is an evil concept around here this is it. >Human >pride, then, is the problem here... In no way does this follow from your above statements. Human pride can be earned and deserved. It's too bad you don't understand that. >not God's careful ending of the >lives that belong to Him. Careful ending of lives? It is to laugh. I'm sorry but this is really sick. >Even Adam and Eve would have died (imagine a >world where nobody physically died... impossible). Do you really believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans created approx 6000 years ago? Really? Utter nonsense. > Finally, stating that a ancient book is irrelevant to today is an >oversight. Not at all, it is the chronicles and rules of a small, vicious, nomadic desert tribe from several thousand years ago. These people had *NO* knowledge of science, technology or the workings of a sane, rational society where the rights of the individual have any importance. >Consider this: if there are actual, objective truths to be >known, then they are universally true at all times in all cultures. This is obvious. The fact that there *are* no actual objective truths common to all times and cultures should tell you something. I guess you could claim that all the non-Judeo-Christian cultures are simply unaware of these universal truths, but that's a rather unsatisfying and unsupportable view to me. >True, "Love your neighbor" in the first century in the Roman Empire >meant that you "greeted one another with a holy kiss." We don't go >around kissing each other any more, but the principle remains: greet >each other warmly, however friends greet one another in your culture. I'm not familiar with this "kissing upon greeting" thing but it's not what most Christians mean when they say "Love thy neighbour". They *usually* mean having some sort of *love* for everyone else, at least these days. This more modern concept was not invented by Jesus Christ or any authors of the Bible. Confucious and the Buddha are two documented examples. > Incidentally, using quotes from Christ to support Christian-bashing >seems a bit misguided. Why? Sometimes it seems that's all you can relate to. If the Bible supports my point, why not use it? You're the one who thinks it's infallible. >True, Jesus promoted love, peace, and >tolerance... but he did not tell his disciples to let their minds be so >open that their brains fall out. What on earth do you mean by this? I cannot recall anything in the Bible refering to brains falling out. >Understand that from Jesus' >perspective, and from a Christian perspective, any non-Christian >theology will send one to hell. I was a believing Christian for 17 years. I am well aware of this. It's just another sick thing about Christianity. >Love, then, means evangelization: >spreading the message of hope and the possibility of heaven and a better >life for those who believe. But to everyone else it looks like you're just being obnoxious. If only you had some *proof*. >It also means we have to tell people they >are wrong Yes, well this is the sort of thing that pisses me off. >(Notice I didn't say anything about killing skeptics or >burning people alive). Good. Also please try not to subvert the laws of my country to adhere to Biblical morality, thanks in advance. > Saying that God "demands worship" is a misguided statement as well. Really? What does the myth say He'll do to you if you don't? >Worship is the natural reaction to the goodness and life-transforming >power of God. If it was natural, I and billions of others wouldn't be non-Christians. Natural is what *actually happens*. >Worship is the fruit of the good seed God plants within >us, not the demand of an insecure deity. If He's not insecure, why the threats of eternal torture? >God's desire that we worship >him rather than other deities is simple to explain: there are no other >deities, thus people would be placing trust in a lie when the truth is >before them. This is the most absurd thing you've said yet. How in Hell do you know there are no other deities? Why are you so convinced that *your* religion is the only right one, and all the other ones and their countless billions of followers are *completely* wrong? This is the height of pride. Which god(s) do you think you'd be worshipping if you'd been born in Tehran, or Calcutta, or Beijing, or the New Guinea jungle? >This explains God's frustration with ancient idolatry, or >with the near-worship of modern materialism. Yes, well it would be a pretty simple matter for Him to correct this problem, wouldn't it? Then He wouldn't have to condemn billions of his beloved creations to everlasting torture. > I hope that I have answered some of your questions. Not really, I've heard it all before. Many times. Sorry. >Unfortunately, I >am aware that this letter may be publicly posted along with a few >inflammatory remarks by yourself against my "stupidity" or "ignorance" >or whatever. Not to worry. You weren't being an asshole. I think you knew that.
From randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net Sat Apr 26 18:10:45 1997 Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,talk.religion.misc,alt.blasphemy,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,alt.recovery.catholicism,tnn.religion.catholic,alt.illuminati,alt.religion.christian,alt.bible.prophecy,alt.slack,talk.religion.newage,alt.fan.jesus-christ Subject: Re: the latest Pope dope From: randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net (randallg) Organization: Telemark Systems Inc X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.8 (x86 32bit) References: <327240F2.7831@inetcom.com> <54u3m4$g7r@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <5515ck$86o@news.interlog.com> <5ao3dk$e36$1@cnn.ksu.ksu.edu> <32D06982.5ECF@netcore.ca> <5as17k$2s0_002@johnm89.airmail.net> <32D1E3FE.1515@wehi.edu.au> <5b2nqu$65@redqueen.wizard.com> <32D5E00B.6770@wehi.edu.au> <32DD6A06.5D16@courier8.aero.org> <32e12b2e.83338716@news.lightspeed.net> <32e83bdd.1122015@news.op.net> <32E76C93.606CE501@ocean.com.au> <335d36b0.7317925@news.interlog.com> <01bc5051$c22048c0$dcb79ace@jblaha> <5jmp44$1pi$1@news.bctel.net> <01bc5111$6f44b940$25dc02cf@jblaha> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII In article <01bc5111$6f44b940$25dc02cf@jblaha>, jblaha@tfs.net says... > > > >randallg wrote in article ><5jmp44$1pi$1@news.bctel.net>... >> In article <01bc5051$c22048c0$dcb79ace@jblaha>, jblaha@nope.net says... >> > >> >> With cloning, the Pope can now have it both ways. He can preach >> >> procreation and Chastity at the same time. Christians can then remain >> >> as pure as the Virgin Mary and still flood the world with Christians. >> >> Think about it, the clergy and even His Holiness can now add their >> >> genes to the gene cesspool without fornicating, at least with women. >> >> >> >> Of course there will still be a problem with all those horny >> >> teenagers. This however can be solved with radio transmitter chastity >> >> belts and a vigilant vice squad. For future insurance against >> >> fornication special attention can be given to cloning only the most >> >> chaste worshipers and upstanding moralists. >> > >> >Whoever you are, I find your sarcastic drivel repulsive and sickening. >> >> I thought it was great! >> > >> >To >> >insult a man like John Paul II is past rude and pathetic, it's >positively >> >evil. >> >> No doubt he would think so. However, John Paul II is the most evil human >alive >> so his opinion is hardly relevant. > >Where do you get this evil thing? Normal humans would say someone like >Hussein, Khevorkian, maybe (insert politician's name here), but the Pope? While probably a very nice chap in polite company, the Pope is in the unique position of being the direct voice of God to almost a billion humans, most of them poverty-stricken wretches in the third world. A major and apparently non-negotiable policy of this church is to *NEVER* allow the use of birth control. The RC church does everything it can to enforce this via whatever means possible, including political pressure on governments around the world, and regular indoctrination of these billion people from the pulpit. This is evil. The single biggest problem facing our planet and our species today is overpopulation. The Pope is the only man in the world who could actually do something to change this stupid, short-sighted and downright evil policy. He won't though because he is so thoroughly brainwashed himself that he really thinks God says birth control is a sin. I consider the Pope to be evil because of this. He could do a great deal to alleviate human misery just by changing this *one* stupid evil policy. Rather, he enforces it and therefore is personally responsible for the misery that results. Hitler, Stalin, Hussein and all the rest may never have committed the sheer volume of evil that the Pope is or will be responsible for, by the time the damage is tallied up. I assume you are an RC yourself so I expect this is falling on deaf ears. I hope however that others reading this may give it some thought. >> >You cannot respect him even on a purely human level, >> >> Hell no. If any one person on earth could be held responsible for the >> destruction of the human species, it is John Paul II. > >I guess I missed the destruction of homo sapiens. It hasn't happened yet, DUH. Our species will probably not be rendered extinct, but the planet may be rendered uninhabitable to a large degree, resulting in unimaginable misery in the future. >What do you propose to save us? Destroying the power of the Catholic church would be a good start. I'm doing my part, small as it is. >We're bad, we're really, REALLY bad, but there will be justice. Whatever justice there is we make for ourselves. Some mythical fairy tale big daddy up in the sky is not going to bail us out at the last minute. >You should pray for mercy. Bwaa Haa Haa Haaa !!! >> >let along his >> >devotion to Christ and Catholicism. >> >> So the fuck what. This is alt.atheism, bonehead. > >I would like to clarify this. The original "The latest Pope dope" was >posted on 10-15 newsgroups; when replying, I did not check the list and >thought it was only written to tnn.religion.catholic, where I read it. My >apologies, I am new at this, and I did not intend to initiate an argument >w/an atheist newsgroup, but I do intend to defend myself. Hopefully I will >not have to again, as I do not find this entertaining. Any further replies >will be directed only to alt.atheism and Randall. Again, I apologize. Don't apologize; I'm not. This happens all the time. Get used to it. Also, it's fine by me if you choose not to respond again. You have complete freedom of action as far as I am concerned, and I am not one of those who thinks a debate is won that way. >> >You look down on this evil hypocritical papist religion? >> >> Fuck yeah. Though I don't give a shit about the papist part, just the >evil and >> hypocrisy. > >Oh, so what's the deal with the evil pope? Or did you forget what you said >31 lines ago? When you used the adjective "papist" I assumed you were using it as a term of derision in the way that many protestants have often used that term when deriding or persecuting Catholics. As an atheist I don't give a flying fuck if your religion chooses to elevate one man to virtual godhood. No matter how much it bugs the protestants, it's just irrelevant nonsense to me. The evil and hypocrisy are much more important because it impacts *me*. For what it's worth, I am as disgusted by protestant persecution of Catholics (and it's happened a lot) as I am of any other religions persecution. >> >Well I pity you and hope God will change your heart; >> >> Fat chance. Feel free to start braying into your folded hands on my >behalf, I'm >> trying to catch up to Stix. > >So be it. I hope God will be more merciful that I would be. Yes, I'm well aware of how merciful you and many other Christians would be with someone like me who regularly commits heresy and blasphemy. Good thing you have no choice but to leave it up to God :) >> >there >> >is nothing that sickens me more than a soul tortured with hate >> >and who feels he must spread it around. >> >> This vile evil pope of yours should be killed before he can damage the >planet >> any more than he already has. > >Oh, like what? See above. Hopefully you get my point. >Praying novenas and preaching the truth of the Gospel? Except for the evangelism I don't give a flying fuck about that either. The problems occur when he (and his organization) use their power to try to force governments and people to adhere to their twisted ideas about morality. >Oh, >I guess I forgot to mention genocide and destruction of the free world >through socialism. Silly me. You're new here, so I'll go light on you this time. First of all most atheists around here are not particularly socialist and as far as I know none of us are communist. Humanistic and libertarian leanings are much more common, and many if not most of us consider the inherent rights of the individual as supremely important. Some of us, like me, consider communism to be every bit as evil as religion. Second, communism/socialism and atheism are not directly related. Lenin et al chose to suppress religion because they saw it (for good reason) as a competitor for the power over people that they coveted for themselves. They did *not* suppress religion just because they were atheists and thought it was incorrect. The communist dictators were driven by a lust for power, not a search for the truth. Please try and remember this. (side note: some of the few remaining communists today are RC priests - ever hear of liberation theology?) >> >On another topic, why is it that all Christian-haters are *always* >> >obnoxious and degrading? >> >> Study a little Christian history. >> We've had enough of that, thank you very much. > >I was talking to _you_. OK, _I've_ had enough of that, thank you very much. >I don't believe any true Christian was ever >recorded in the annals of history as being obnoxious and degrading. The obnoxious, degrading Christians weren't *true* Christians, right? >You, on the other hand... ...am obnoxious and degrading, I know... >And what is wrong with Christian history? I am not mistaken in thinking >that Christian history is not that much different that atheistic >history...unless we're not talking about the same planet here. There is no such thing as "atheist history". For one thing, atheism is extremely modern in terms of having a significant number of "adherents". For another thing, atheism is not a force that has power over world events, in the way the major religions, particularly Christianity, do. >Christian >history does not mean the history of Christianity, it is history from a >Christian point of view. What I meant by "Christian history" is "things that have happened in history as a result of the actions of the religion of Christianity". History itself is objective and there is no such thing as history "from a Christian point of view" or any other "point of view", unless you want to include propaganda as history. >> >I think there's something there... >> >> Yes. Start with the Crusades and the Inquisition. >> Then we'll cover slavery and witch burnings. > >The crusades began with the right purpose -- saving the Holy Land from >Muslim invaders. Every war begins with the right purpose, from someone's point of view. >(Speaking of Muslims, they can kill for God but no flames >from the likes of you!) I will mercilessly flame any Muslim who advocates killing for God. I've never actually seen a Muslim do that around here. Islam does not actually teach this despite lots of propaganda to the contrary (spread by guess who). Most of these debates concern Christianity because it's practically the *only* religion whose adherents find it necessary to evangelize on alt.atheism. >Only through *very erroneous* thinking did the >Crusaders resort to the pillaging and rape which occured. They had no >respect for other humans, much like other societies of that rather barbaric >time. They behaved like every other conquering army of those times. No big surprise there. My specific criticism is that they justified it with their religion, so they could feel good about all the killing, raping and looting, and do it with the blessing of the religious leadership. >Still nothing to do with John Paul II or today's religion. I will grant that today's RC church is unlikely to condone that sort of thing now. Still, the history is clear. >Sins of the father, huh? Not to me. I don't criticize today's churches and their members for those actions. I *do* criticize the religion because that is how such much evil has been, and sometimes still is, justified. Unlike your god, I don't believe in punishing the descendents of wrongdoers. I am criticizing the RC church of today for their actions *today*, while keeping in mind the historical perspective which shows how religion can be used to justify *anything* regardless of how objectively good or bad it is. >The Inquisition, or rather, the very few people who let >power get to their head, did things that were not advocated by *any* church >other than the fictional one they thought they belonged to. They were operating under clear instructions from the Vatican. The church did nothing to stop the atrocities while they went on for centuries. >As far as >slavery, it was caused by a lack of respect for God, and therefore man. Slavery was a totally acceptible thing in practically all cultures until only a century or two ago. I criticize Christianity because Jesus himself never condemned it, despite allegedly being the most perfect, loving and tolerant person ever to live, and in fact the Bible condones it in many places. Christians today are pretty much against it now, as they should be, but their own Prince of Peace didn't give them this idea, despite all the love and tolerance the religion pays lip service to. >We are God's creation and disrespect for it is disrespect for Him. Nonsense. >This lack >of respect was brought about by our Constitution -- which stated that >anything is OK as long as it's backed by majority rule. My understanding is that laws must adhere to the Constitution which contains specific protections for minorites against the majority, as well as expressly forbidding the establishment of laws that infringe upon a number of important personal freedoms. Regardless of what the majority wishes. >America was >brought up on the idea of religious freedom (which never really existed, >concerning the anti-Catholic prejudices and many others that existed up >through the 1850s), and several of the framers of the Constitution were >atheists or Deists (Thomas Jefferson, for example), Deism being the belief >that Christ had no divine nature and God did not care for man or Creation. >Really, the only mention of religion at all was in the Bill of Rights. >Only once was prayer suggested at the Constitutional convention (by Ben >Franklin, who did not believe in God) and that proposal was defeated. Not only am I aware of all this, but I am extremely impressed that you are. Good for you, I have gained a lot of respect for you. You wouldn't believe how many Christians think all the founders were staunch Christians and had intended to establish the US as essentially a Christian theocracy. Or maybe you would :) >Every >example you bring up disproves your point and emphasizes mine. Well, I don't agree with this. All the examples I gave were specifically ordered or condoned by the mainstream Christian churches of the time. >The witch >burnings were brought about by PURITANS, who hardly believed in Christ. In >case you're not familiar, Puritans basically believed that any speck of sin >on their soul would condemn them to Hell; this contradicts Christ's death >for our sins and His mercy for us. Christ did not really play a part in >their religion. So OBVIOUSLY they weren't Christian. Witches were burned for centuries all over Europe, mostly under orders of the Catholic church. The "Puritan" witch burnings pale in comparison. Please look at this web page which documents over 250,000 known victims, with the actual number likely being much higher. http://www.primenet.com/~ioseph/burnwitc.htm And you're wrong about the Puritans, according to Encarta'95: "Puritanism: a movement arising within the Church of England in the latter part of the 16th century, which sought to carry the reformation of that church beyond the point represented by the Elizabethan settlement (1559), an attempt to establish a middle course between Roman Catholicism and the ideas of the Protestant reformers (see CHURCH OF ENGLAND). It had a continuous life within the church until the Stuart Restoration (1660). ... Puritan theology is a version of Calvinism. It asserts the basic sinfulness of humankind; but it also declares that by an eternal decree God has determined that some will be saved through the righteousness of Christ despite their sins. ... Its influence has persisted, however, entering into Methodism in the 18th century and evangelicalism in the 19th." "Puritanism," Microsoft (R) Encarta. Copyright (c) 1994 Microsoft Corporation. Copyright (c) 1994 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation. Sounds Christian to me. >Again, deviation >from the true Christian doctrine and all Christ taught us and what He did >for us leads to a grave misinterpretation of life and how we are to live >it. I'll stick with humanism, thanks. It makes a shitload more sense. >> randall g =%^)> >Nick Blaha randall g =%^)> atheist #320 mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James (a band from England, not my name)
From randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net Sat Apr 26 19:09:14 1997 Newsgroups: alt.atheism Subject: Re: The person who says there is no library hasn't looked for one, either. From: randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net (randallg) In article <3362639E.47C1@frontiernet.net>, buddyb@frontiernet.net says... >Christopher Eric Hughes wrote: >> Please explain to me again just why I should bother giving your book >> of fairy tales any more credit for validity than I do Grimm's? At least >> Grimm's is entertaining. > >Evidently you have never been in a service where God manifests His >presence. All heaven breaks loose, and many physically, mentally and >emotional oppressed who are brought to the services are set free. I've seen it: a bunch of raving psychos yelling gibberish and frothing at the mouth. Truly horrifying. [ completely irrelevant newsgroups removed from header ] randall g =%^)> #320 mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James (a band from England, not my name)
At 09:39 PM 4/27/97 -0500, you wrote: >Dear Mr. Golhof, > Regarding your last reply to tnn.religion.catholic, I fell that I should >not continue with the debate beyond what I shall reply to today, though I >will be interested in your reply. I find "evangelism" of this sort tiring >and vexing to my spirit. By all means don't persist in that case. There are lots of other Christians who get a big kick out of it. I find it both intellectually stimulating and relaxing at the same time (one of those great mysteries :) Evangelizing to the atheists on the atheist newsgroups is quite a challenge, as most of the regulars are strong thinkers and have a lot of practice at this. >There is so much I can say to respond to your >arguments but what will it do? I know almost for a fact that it will not >affect your or your beliefs (for lack of a better word) and perhaps may >strenthen them. It is likely to do neither, unless you come up with something that I haven't considered before. This happens less and less often... >Whatever I (selectively) reply to, I do it only on the >basis of its importance and its relativity to me and my beliefs. I cannot >say that this exchange has not helped me, though -- I have found myself >looking up references in old Catholic history books, the Catechism, etc. >yet if I know there is no prospect of changing you, why should I continue? You probably shouldn't, if you're not getting anything out of it... Neither you nor any other evangelizer is likely to persuade me of the existance of any god, without any reliable evidence. As the years pass it becomes clearer to me that this evidence will never be forthcoming. >It could for all practical purposes go on forever. Take a quick look at my newsgroup, alt.atheism. It's full of this kind of stuff and you're right, it won't be stopping anytime soon. >I see you as a person >who believes there is nothing to believe in and, as I saw from your >website, are one who obviously has a reasonable explanation for your >atheology. I believe in lots of things, but I make an effort to keep the number of unsupported beliefs to a minimum. >Of course, I do not agree with it, but I find myself resigned >to the facts and (ugh, I never thought I would say it) respect >(aaaarrrgghhh!) your decisions. That was very liberal of me. Mostly, it is very mature of you. Always respect other peoples' rights to believe as they wish, and we can all get along. >As I have >found you are not especially welcoming of prayer requests, I will refrain. Thanks. >But please know that I will remember what you have said and use it to >further my Faith and hopefully foster new Christians (if that sounds to >"Star Wars," please ignore). Good luck! > On second thought, I do want to reply to what you said about >overpopulation. First of all, the majority of the third world nations >which are so overpopulated are not under the jurisdiction of the pope. >Catholic Mexico, etc. is an exception. The vast part of these >overpopulated places are either Africa, India, or other _pagan_ nations. Well, most of Latin and South America fall under Catholic sway, as well as some other countries like the Philippines. All of these are suffering population pressure and it is is only getting exponentially worse. >Hence there is no way the pope could take a stand on what they are doing >and have any influence. They will do what they want. I never meant to imply that the Pope could influence the entire third world, just that he is the single *most* influential person in the world, on the issue of birth control, and has political power which can influence first world governments when they design foreign aid and trade policies. >They continue having >babies not because JPII has said "don't use contraception, it is an abuse >of our God-given bodies" but because they want to continue having babies. No, it is mostly because they have no practical choice, and people will *never* give up having sex when they feel like it. Women are also in a powerless position in most places. Two things that would make a huge difference are education for women and freely available birth control, both of which the Catholic church uses its political power to work against, even in non-Catholic countries. >Second, the Catholic Church (and the pope) have taken their view because >they want to solve the problem by changing those people's behavior instead >of simply giving it a little pallative treatment (i.e. contraception). Nobody will ever convince people not to have sex when they feel like it. And the Catholic church has no intention of doing *anything* to alleviate the problem of overpopulation. It has always been policy encourage large families. In my opinion the leadership of the RCC does not believe there is a problem at all, or ever will be, and it is this willfull blindness that pisses me off. >To treat it in the way your propose is to take the easy way out. It is the *only* way out. Education and available birth control. >We come from >a spiritual standpoint; we want to convert them to the Faith. Anything >else is not enough. Yes, well we both know what I think about evangelism :) Anyway, the RC church is unlikely to convert Africa, India and China to Christianity anytime soon, and even if they did, it would only make the population problem worse than it already is. >A question for you: what about abortion? Isn't that unjustified killing? I don't think so. > Just because it keeps population down, do you support it? I support a woman's right to choose the procedure if she wants it. Women who make that choice do it for themselves, not to keep the population down. I don't *encourage* women to make that choice, but neither would I deny it to them. Frankly it's none of my business and I know it. Freely available birth control would be a far more effective solution for the overpopulation problem than abortion. Only a tiny minority of pregnant women ever do want an abortion, so it would have little effect on the birth rate even if it was freely available everywhere. >>Also, it's fine by me if you choose not to respond again. You have complete >>freedom of action as far as I am concerned, and I am not one of those who >>thinks a debate is won that way. > > I don't either. See above. > >>First of all most atheists around here are not particularly socialist and as >>far as I know none of us are communist. Humanistic and libertarian >leanings are >>much more common, and many if not most of us consider the inherent rights of >>the individual as supremely important. Some of us, like me, consider >communism >>to be every bit as evil as religion. > >My intent here was to give sarcastic exaggerated accusations of what the >pope had done (no foundation for them anywhere). I was not accusing you of >being a socialist/communinst. I didn't think you were referring to me specifically, but it is a favourite tactic of the evangelizers to blame atheism for the atrocities and failures of Communism. As if we don't know how stupid it is to do so. >>(side note: some of the few remaining communists today are RC priests - ever >>hear of liberation theology?) > > What you speak of is a liberal and completely heretical movement which >makes whatever RC priests who belong to it priests in name only. It has >been published by several authors of a conspiracy on the part of communist >governments to infiltrate Christianity from the inside and utterly destroy >it. There is a book called "AA-1025," which is very small, but very >informative, if you care. It is the journal of one of the thousands of >"Anti-apostles." As far as that goes, I have some respect for the liberation movement because they really are fighting for the oppressed for humanitarian reasons. As far as I can tell this is more like what Jesus was trying to do. Also, Jesus was a Communist in some significant ways too. Have you given all your possessions to the poor yet? Remember how easy it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? And I don't think right wing oppression is any better than left wing oppression. All oppression needs to be opposed. >>They behaved like every other conquering army of those times. >>No big surprise there. My specific criticism is that they justified it with >>their religion, so they could feel good about all the killing, raping and >>looting, and do it with the blessing of the religious leadership. > >The religious leadership supported it. The laymen supported it. The >Crusaders of course supported it. I know for a fact though, God did not >support it. Humans are imperfect creations, and they deviated from God's >will and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Yes, and the legacy is a black eye for religion which will never go away. >>>As far as >>>slavery, it was caused by a lack of respect for God, and therefore man. > >>Slavery was a totally acceptible thing in practically all cultures until >only a >>century or two ago. I criticize Christianity because Jesus himself never >>condemned it, despite allegedly being the most perfect, loving and tolerant >>person ever to live, and in fact the Bible condones it in many places. >>Christians today are pretty much against it now, as they should be, but >their >>own Prince of Peace didn't give them this idea, despite all the love and >>tolerance the religion pays lip service to. > >How can you say Jesus never spoke out on slavery? He mentioned it once or twice, but only to encourage masters to treat slaves reasonably, which is admirable, but I think slavery is such an obvious evil that I am amazed he didn't take a harder stance. >The Bible was not a >total synopsis of Christ's public life. There is no way to know what was >not included in the Bible. Like I said, slavery is such an obvious evil that if the Bible can record Jesus cursing a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season, he should have been very clear on slavery if he was so morally perfect. Frankly, slavery was so accepted that I don't think he thought there was anything wrong with it, and if he had preached against it, he would have been an even bigger troublemaker and the Romans probably would have killed him earlier than they did. >Most of the Gospels were written some forty >years after his death, most being transcriptions from oral tradition, taken >from many different sources. Yet, He did speak of it, in many of His >teachings -- "treat others as you would like to be treated," et al. > >Where does it condone slavery in the Bible? The old testament is full of rules for the treatment of slaves, and mentions many important Biblical figures being slave owners. Never is it comdemned as the evil that it clearly is. I'm not surprised by this because it was written by people of the times, but it sure doesn't cast this alleged god in a very good light today. >>>We are God's creation and disrespect for it is disrespect for Him. >>Nonsense. >Explain. There is no god. >>>America was >>>brought up on the idea of religious freedom (which never really existed, >>>concerning the anti-Catholic prejudices and many others that existed up >>>through the 1850s), and several of the framers of the Constitution were >>>atheists or Deists (Thomas Jefferson, for example), Deism being the belief >>>that Christ had no divine nature and God did not care for man or Creation. >>>Really, the only mention of religion at all was in the Bill of Rights. >>>Only once was prayer suggested at the Constitutional convention (by Ben >>>Franklin, who did not believe in God) and that proposal was defeated. > >>Not only am I aware of all this, but I am extremely impressed that you are. >>Good for you, I have gained a lot of respect for you. > >>You wouldn't believe how many Christians think all the founders were staunch >>Christians and had intended to establish the US as essentially a Christian >>theocracy. Or maybe you would :) > >How do you know of this, being a Canadian? Did you used to live in the >USA? Where were you educated? Born and educated in Canada, which means I know about as much about the US as most Americans, and a lot more about the rest of the world. And I have a lot of respect for the USA and the principles under which it was founded. >>Witches were burned for centuries all over Europe, mostly under orders of >the >>Catholic church. The "Puritan" witch burnings pale in comparison. Please >look >>at this web page which documents over 250,000 known victims, with the actual >>number likely being much higher. > >I refer you to the author of the web page's own words: "Note that this site >does not judge nor condemn Christianity, or any other Faith, for the past >misguided actions of a minority of its members. The idea of "permanent >collective guilt" is stupid. We present this list as historical data ...... >and as an object lesson in the results of intolerance and superstition." > >'Nuff said. Like I said, I don't blame contemporary Christian individuals for this sort of thing. It is too late to blame anyone, but we should never forget what happened and why. Just like with the Crusades. >>And you're wrong about the Puritans, according to Encarta'95: >> >>"Puritanism: a movement arising within the Church of England in the latter >part >>of the 16th century, which sought to carry the reformation of that church >>beyond the point represented by the Elizabethan settlement (1559), an >attempt >>to establish a middle course between Roman Catholicism and the ideas of the >>Protestant reformers (see CHURCH OF ENGLAND). It had a continuous life >within >>the church until the Stuart Restoration (1660). >> ... >>Puritan theology is a version of Calvinism. It asserts the basic >sinfulness of >>humankind; but it also declares that by an eternal decree God has determined >>that some will be saved through the righteousness of Christ despite their >sins. >> ... >>Its influence has persisted, however, entering into Methodism in the 18th >>century and evangelicalism in the 19th." > >Christ came to save all people, not just the "Elect." Puritanism states >that only a few will be saved, whether their life was virtuous or not. >Calvinism, as I'm sure you know, is far from Christian -- it professes >predestination as its creed. And don't get me started on how since God >knows everything and what will happen we are predestined. I will if you want. Hey, I grew up in a Calvinist church, and I'm pretty sure they were all convinced they were Christians :) Of course, I now think Calvin was an asshole. Also, I'd encourage you not to exclude large numbers of Christians from Christianity. Some of them might get upset :) If they subscribe to the Nicean creed, they fit the definition. Any differences in doctrinal detail are just that, details. It's only recently that any Catholics (Bishop Spong IIRC) even admitted that protestants can get into heaven at all, which I find hilarious. >>>Again, deviation >>>from the true Christian doctrine and all Christ taught us and what He did >>>for us leads to a grave misinterpretation of life and how we are to live >>>it. > >>I'll stick with humanism, thanks. It makes a shitload more sense. > >You, being a math and science scholar, should know more than anyone about >things that don't make sense. Science is inadequate to describe the >natural world; the atom and quantum mechanics, for instance. Inadequate? It works very well indeed, a lot better than religion. When did religious revelation build a bridge, or a computer, or cure a disease, or develop high yield agricultural crops, or send spacecraft to other planets? >Just because we cannot comprehend it does not mean it does not exist; Without any evidence, there is no *reason* to think something exists. >just because >something does not make sense most definitely does not mean it isn't true. Fair enough, common sense is definately *not* a very good guide to reality. Einstein couldn't accept quantum mechanics because it violated his common sense. He was wrong though. >What may be irrational to us is probably quite rational to the omnipotent >Father. That is what we believe. Yes, I know. I can't agree though. This Father of yours has carefully hidden his existence from all rational inquiry. And only reason has demonstrated a reliable ability to distinguish fact from fancy. We are left with no way to tell one religious myth from the next. You know the conclusion I draw from that. > Whew. > >Second, do you look down on Christianity or do you merely accept it as an >"evil" in the world? Both, I guess. I find the whole notion of original sin repugnant, and this is a cornerstone of Christianity. It is terrible to claim all men are inherently sinful and deserve eternal torture, when almost everyone leads a good, kind life regardless of their religious belief, and for the most part just wants to be left alone. >How do most atheists feel about this? I feel it is >pertinent. It varies a lot. We don't necessarily have much in common, besides the lack of belief in gods. I think most atheists don't give it much thought and just lead their own lives, in their own way. Most of us on the newsgroups are more outspoken than that though, and we tend to look down at Xtianity because we know there is a constant danger that the Christians want to take over politically (in the US at least) and have so much control over public policy. > >-- >"Indeed, the safest road to hell is the gradual one -- >the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden >turnings, without milestones, without signposts." > > --His Abysmal Sublimity Under- > secretary Screwtape, T.E., B.S., etc.
From randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net Thu May 01 17:47:47 1997 Newsgroups: alt.atheism Subject: Re: Do not ask for whom the Stix polls..... From: randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net (randallg) In article <3369af7d.1482755@news.ozemail.com.au>, stix@ozemail.com.au says... > >All in favour of gladys having successfully put ALL objections to rest say >"aye;" all opposed say "nay." AYE! You are all FOOLS for being unable to comprehend the elegant simplicity of Gladys' new discoveries in cosmology, physics, and philosophy. She is so far ahead of her time, that it may be decades, or even centuries, before our descendents will stumble accross her wisdom in the archives, and only then will they have the necessary combination of maturity, intelligence, spirituality and mysticism to be able to comprehend the utter obviousness of the simple propositision "the universe was either created or not created, and if created, it was by a goddess called Talula". Our descendents will then finally embrace Talula and suckle gently at her breast, and revere and protect every newborn child because any one of them may be Talula come to peer with them in human form, and they will revere the name of Gladys forever afterward, praising her for her groundbreaking wisdom, and deriding all those who dared call her wrong. I myself am guilty of having taunted her in the past, and my horrible words will remain, to my great shame, forever in the eternal Dejanews. I can only beg my future descendents to understand how misguided we were, for we were as mere children compared to Gladys, and to please forgive us for our unreason, stubborn-ness, and pretensions to wisdom and knowledge. >All who believe they'll eventually get sick of gladys' posts if she >continues on the way she is say "aye;" all opposed say "nay." NAY! I will never tire of Gladys. She brings a level of wisdom to this forum that I am only beginning to comprehend, and I suspect it will take several thousand more of her posts before I can consider myself even a novice initiate of the new philosophy which she has so gracefully brought to us. randall g =%^)> #320 mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James (a band from England, not my name)
From randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net Fri May 02 13:50:03 1997 Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,talk.religion.misc,alt.blasphemy,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,alt.recovery.catholicism,tnn.religion.catholic,alt.illuminati,alt.religion.christian,alt.bible.prophecy,alt.slack,talk.religion.newage,alt.fan.jesus-christ Subject: Re: the latest Pope dope From: randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net (randallg) In article <33675A27.5DD4@btg.com>, sfinlay@btg.com says... > >Jerome Fryer wrote: >> >> randallg wrote: >> >> > >> No doubt he would think so. However, John Paul II is the most evil human >> > >alive >> > >> so his opinion is hardly relevant. >> > > >> > >Where do you get this evil thing? Normal humans would say someone like >> > >Hussein, Khevorkian, maybe (insert politician's name here), but the Pope? >> > >> > While probably a very nice chap in polite company, the Pope is in the unique >> > position of being the direct voice of God to almost a billion humans, most of >> > them poverty-stricken wretches in the third world. >> > >> > A major and apparently non-negotiable policy of this church is to *NEVER* allow >> > the use of birth control. The RC church does everything it can to enforce this >> > via whatever means possible, including political pressure on governments around >> > the world, and regular indoctrination of these billion people from the pulpit. >> > >> > This is evil. The single biggest problem facing our planet and our species >> > today is overpopulation. The Pope is the only man in the world who could >> > actually do something to change this stupid, short-sighted and downright evil >> > policy. He won't though because he is so thoroughly brainwashed himself that he >> > really thinks God says birth control is a sin. > >To the earlier poster,randallg? >This is completely at odds with the facts. Oh it is, is it? Why don't you try showing me some of these facts it is at odds with. >Use this analogy: Organic >gardeners (like myself) refuse to use artificial & synthetic methods >of killing insects. We do however, regularly & with meticulous cunning >kill as many of the little monsters as possible. ?? Excuse me, is this relevant in any way at all? >The Catholic Church >forbids *artificial* birth control, not natural methods. What the FUCK is the difference? >While you >may not like those methods, they are effective. Huh? I'm in favour of ANY kind of birth control, as long as it is voluntary. >The point is that >artificial birth control, just like chemical insect control, has >consequences that extend far beyond their intended uses. No, it just prevents unwanted pregnancies. WHAT THE FUCK ELSE??? And don't give me a bunch of mumbo-jumbo shit about risking my eternal soul if I strap a condom to my dick. >You have >spoken out of misinformation when you claim that the Catholic Church >is the "problem" vis a vis birth control. It isn't. It is only ONE of the problems, and in my opinion, the biggest SINGLE ONE. Other problems in the third world include lack of education and opportunities for women, and lack of freely available birth control, both of which the Catholic church actively WORKS AGAINST. And what an incredibly stupid analogy. Feel free to try providing some FACTS next time. randall g =%^)> atheist #320 mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James (a band from England, not my name)
From randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net Fri May 02 15:19:05 1997 Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,talk.religion.misc,alt.blasphemy,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,alt.recovery.catholicism,tnn.religion.catholic,alt.illuminati,alt.religion.christian,alt.bible.prophecy,alt.slack,talk.religion.newage,alt.fan.jesus-christ Subject: Re: the latest Pope dope From: randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net (randallg) In article <3366C0E9.3858@ihug.co.nz>, jerome@ihug.co.nz says... > >randallg wrote: > >> >> No doubt he would think so. However, John Paul II is the most evil human >> >alive >> >> so his opinion is hardly relevant. >> > >> >Where do you get this evil thing? Normal humans would say someone like >> >Hussein, Khevorkian, maybe (insert politician's name here), but the Pope? >> >> While probably a very nice chap in polite company, the Pope is in the unique >> position of being the direct voice of God to almost a billion humans, most of >> them poverty-stricken wretches in the third world. >> >> A major and apparently non-negotiable policy of this church is to *NEVER* allow >> the use of birth control. The RC church does everything it can to enforce this >> via whatever means possible, including political pressure on governments around >> the world, and regular indoctrination of these billion people from the pulpit. >> >> This is evil. The single biggest problem facing our planet and our species >> today is overpopulation. The Pope is the only man in the world who could >> actually do something to change this stupid, short-sighted and downright evil >> policy. He won't though because he is so thoroughly brainwashed himself that he >> really thinks God says birth control is a sin. >That would make him mislead, not evil. I suppose it's valid to think of it this way. However due to the sheer volume of misery caused, and the complete obviousness of the stupidity, I cannot let the pope off the hook that easily. The pope is willfully ignorant, and this is an evil in a man so powerful. When history judges him, they will say HE KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. And he will be held responsible for his actions, whether evil or just misguided. >The biggest problem facing our planet today is IMHO greed. Greed unchecked is a problem. Greed within a working justice system is called free enterprise and works very well. I think stupidity causes more trouble. >Take a look at the USA for an example - the rich are >getting richer and the poor poorer. Support this amazing claim. After centuries of free market economy, most people are in a much better situation than in the past, or in most of the rest of the world. >If you are poor you do not have a social security net, so you must rely >upon your family. Is this something new? Anyhow I thought the US had a welfare system, and that a *lot* of people are collecting its benefits. >Since you also cannot afford medical care you will want to have a lot of >children. Are you still talking about the US here? >The best way to fight over-population is better distribution >of wealth. Who gets to decide how and from whom it is taken and to whom it is reallocated? I agree that the more wealthy everyone is, the better off they will be. But taking all the money from the world's millionaires and redistributing it to 5 billion poor people won't make much of a difference. Universal education and economic opportunity would work a lot better. Most people *want* to earn a decent, honest living, but too many are denied even this basic right. >> >> Hell no. If any one person on earth could be held responsible for the >> >> destruction of the human species, it is John Paul II. >> > >> >I guess I missed the destruction of homo sapiens. >> >> It hasn't happened yet, DUH. Our species will probably not be rendered extinct, >> but the planet may be rendered uninhabitable to a large degree, resulting in >> unimaginable misery in the future. > >Due to multi-national corporations and the depredations of the richest >countries. Hmm. Sounds pretty dogmatic, but can you deny that these corporations are giving people what they want? I would prefer a world where people can have what they want, but there aren't so many of them that it causes the planet to be destroyed. >> Whatever justice there is we make for ourselves. Some mythical fairy tale big >> daddy up in the sky is not going to bail us out at the last minute. > >You are correct that God will not intervene directly, unless He so >wishes. This is a tautology. God doesn't intervene except when He does? >It appears that He will allow us to destroy ourselves if we so desire. (I >am thinking here of wars, environmental degradation, etc.) Yes. What a bastard. Maybe we should ignore Him and work on solutions ourselves. >> Yes, I'm well aware of how merciful you and many other Christians would be with >> someone like me who regularly commits heresy and blasphemy. > >If they are Christians they won't do anything to you. (Maybe you should >take some anti-paranoia medication... ;) Maybe you should study some history. In any case, I'm not worried now, living in a free country etc etc... The fundinazies are unable to silence, imprison, torture, and/or burn me at the stake, much as some of them might wish to. >> >Oh, >> >I guess I forgot to mention genocide and destruction of the free world >> >through socialism. Silly me. >> >> You're new here, so I'll go light on you this time. >> >> First of all most atheists around here are not particularly socialist and as >> far as I know none of us are communist. Humanistic and libertarian leanings are >> much more common, and many if not most of us consider the inherent rights of >> the individual as supremely important. Some of us, like me, consider communism >> to be every bit as evil as religion. > >I'm both a Christian and a Socialist. Will I get twice the hate-mail? ;) Nope, you're still just a single moron ;) >> Second, communism/socialism and atheism are not directly related. Lenin et al >> chose to suppress religion because they saw it (for good reason) as a >> competitor for the power over people that they coveted for themselves. They did >> *not* suppress religion just because they were atheists and thought it was >> incorrect. The communist dictators were driven by a lust for power, not a >> search for the truth. > >Wrong! "Religion is the opiate of the masses." This means that >religion (all forms of religious belief) have no real benefit except to subdue >the common people and allow their exploitation. While I agree completely with this sentence, it doesn't make what I said above wrong. The communist dictators wanted to subdue the common people and exploit them *themselves* - ie they wanted to take this privilege from the churches. >I disagree with this analysis on the basis that Jesus was >an advocate of radical action and cared greatly about the poor (the rich >were not viewed favourably). So? What has this got to do with the power that religions, including Christianity, have to "subdue the common people and allow their exploitation" as you so ably expressed it. It's not like Christianity pays anything but lip service to the more radical (ie socialist) of Jesus' teachings. >> (side note: some of the few remaining communists today are RC priests - ever >> hear of liberation theology?) > >Good on them. They are at least trying to help their parishoners in a >practical way, are they not? Hey, I don't have a problem with that. Right wing oppression is no better than left wing oppression. All opppression needs to be opposed. Replacing it with the opposite isn't a great goal though. What's interesting is that I've corresponded with other staunch Catholics who think these priests are heretics. Go figure. >> >I don't believe any true Christian was ever >> >recorded in the annals of history as being obnoxious and degrading. >> >> The obnoxious, degrading Christians weren't *true* Christians, right? > >Right. Or, at least, they were not acting in a Christ-like manner. >Christians are not perfect either, you know. That doesn't leave very many *true* Christians. Unfortunately this renders the word "Christian" unusable. Now we need to find another word that describes people who believe Jesus Christ died for their sins. >> >Christian >> >history does not mean the history of Christianity, it is history from a >> >Christian point of view. >> >> What I meant by "Christian history" is "things that have happened in history as >> a result of the actions of the religion of Christianity". > >What has been blamed on Christianity, I assume you mean. No, what has been ordered or condoned by the Christian masters, as a result of well-documented policies of the the mainstream churches of the time. >Even Hitler claimed to be acting as a Christian, He sure did. I'm glad you realize that. Most Christians assume he was an atheist, because it's obvious only atheists could possibly be that immoral and evil. >and the RC church did nothing to oppose >Naziism (although individual priests did, and many payed with their lives). Yes, another big black mark for the Vatican. I have nothing but respect for those who opposed Hitler and paid for it. >> Most of these debates concern Christianity because it's practically the *only* >> religion whose adherents find it necessary to evangelize on alt.atheism. > >Would we do that? Yes. The evidence is all around you. >> Slavery was a totally acceptible thing in practically all cultures until only a >> century or two ago. I criticize Christianity because Jesus himself never >> condemned it, despite allegedly being the most perfect, loving and tolerant >> person ever to live, and in fact the Bible condones it in many places. >> Christians today are pretty much against it now, as they should be, but their >> own Prince of Peace didn't give them this idea, despite all the love and >> tolerance the religion pays lip service to. > >Jesus had to work in the society of his time. You will notice that it is made >very clear in his teachings that ALL people are considered equal by God. Jesus' >mission was not to establish social justice or right all of the wrongs in the >world - this should, however, be a legitimate concern of Christians. Good response, though I still fault Jesus for not mentioning it. He talked a *lot* about much more trivial matters. Still, slavery wasn't a concern of Christians for nineteen centuries. Why is it now? Did God change His mind? How do you know? It's not in the Bible. >> Not only am I aware of all this, but I am extremely impressed that you are. >> Good for you, I have gained a lot of respect for you. >> >> You wouldn't believe how many Christians think all the founders were staunch >> Christians and had intended to establish the US as essentially a Christian >> theocracy. Or maybe you would :) > >I was under that impression. Mind you, I've always thought that the US >of A was a screwed-up country in many respects What the HELL is wrong with acknowledging the inalienable rights of the individual? >- glad to see that you guys won't >be blaming God for your problems. ;) No danger of that :) >> I'll stick with humanism, thanks. It makes a shitload more sense. > >Could you suggest a good resource to find out about humanistic beliefs >etc.? Start with this: http://www.secularhumanism.org/ >Regards, > >Jerome 8) randall g =%^)> #320 mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James (a band from England, not my name)
From randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net Sat May 03 18:27:12 1997 Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism Subject: Re: Atheist numbering in sigs is not a good idea From: randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net (randallg) In article <2022.7061T667T1585@SPAMabarnett.demon.co.uk>, adrian@SPAMabarnett.demon.co.uk says... >> Ginny spake thusly :- >>Robert D Lamont wrote: >>> In article <5jimag$37p$1@nonews.col.hp.com>, Natalie Ramsey wrote: >>> >PKoeck@Primavera.com wrote: >>> >: 3+6+0 = 9 >>> >: 3+3+3 = 9 >>> >: 333*2 = 666, I will be the beast given a few years >>> >three digits in my number, 222. 222 * 3 = 666.... >>> |->218 <----------------------| >>> +448 >>> ____ >>> 666! >>multiply my #125 by churches add to product 41 get 666! >8 - 1x2 = 6 1+2 = 3 3 digits in 128... 3 6's = 666! atheist #320 - it cannot be converted to 666 by numerological means I AM NOT, NOR CAN I EVER BE, THE ANTICHRIST. Thank you. randall g =%^)>
From randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net Fri May 23 20:50:13 1997 Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: mindless Big Bang bashing--why? From: randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net (randallg) Organization: Telemark Systems Inc X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.8 (x86 32bit) References: <33824934.1AA1@visi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII In article <33824934.1AA1@visi.com>, rdwells@visi.com says... > >Jeremy Henty wrote: >> Jeremy Henty >> Atheist #152 > >Uh oh. When did they start numbering us? Over in alt.atheism, where all the fundamentalcases hang out, they were claiming that "there's only a few of you atheists". So someone decided to take a poll, and everyone who wanted was assigned a consecutive atheist number. It's over 500 now, but enrollment has slacked off a bit because everyone is waiting to pounce on #666. randall g =%^)> Atheist #320 mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James (a band from England, not my name)
From randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net Sat May 24 21:01:24 1997 Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.christnet.prayer,alt.christnet.christianlife,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.christnet,alt.bible,alt.bible.prophecy,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: 20 Proofs the Bible is God's Word -- They did decive themselves? From: randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net (randallg) Organization: Telemark Systems Inc X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.8 (x86 32bit) References: <336DFE42.7011@btg.com> <5kl3g4$s5t@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com> <5kl9ah$iik$1@nnrp01.primenet.com> <5km0eq$6f0@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <336F72FF.70AF@Sorry.Com> <5knufh$ish$1@news1.icx.net> <5kp0ut$6mq@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <3370A312.1824@ix.netcom.com> <33728062.3687@servtech.com> <337340C6.2C3C@ix.netcom.com> <337711d9.173360415@news.cp.duluth.mn.us> <3380A4AA.584D@primary.net> <01bc64b3$bfb3b380$92511ed1@murray> <33806053.1097@primary.net> <5lr825$dvb@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> <337E8410.2D40@osu.edu> <33808B07.5AEF@primary.net> <5ltino$htf@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com> <3381BBEE.6D60@primary.net> <5ltu3v$r0p@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> <33830FE5.54F3@primary.net> <5m0jbj$39v@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com> <5m484s$1ehd$1@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII In article <5m484s$1ehd$1@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>, redsox3@ibm.net says... >>2 Timothy 3:16 says that "All Scripture >>is inspired of God" So it is only appropriate that when quoting the >>bible we say "God said". > >Then why can't you attribute the many errors and contradictions in the Bible to >God as well, instead of blaming them on "faulty human authors"? Yeah, so God said insects have four legs, PI is equal to three, Judas died in two completely different ways. On and on and on like an ignorant, blind fool. God was wrong. Deal with it. Oh, and He said some other wrong garbage too, like some 2 bit ancient prophet was his literal son, that this son died for our sins, and that this son survived crucifixion and burial and was afterwords lifted up magically into the sky. All of it impossible. randall g =%^)> #320 mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James
From randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net Thu May 29 20:49:22 1997 Newsgroups: alt.atheism Subject: Re: Some famous christian quotes From: randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net (randallg) >Sam Lopez wrote: >> >> Capella, give it up and give yourself to the REAL FATHER you call imaginary! >> (Besides...He always answers all my prayers...I'm sure you have a >> fantastic explanation for that one, right? ...like imaginary answers >> backed up by real-time events... Hey Sammy, if this isn't an out and out lie, why don't you pray to God to convert Capella? Then when Capella publicly announces his reconversion to fundamentalist Christianity, you'll actually have some goddam evidence. randall g =%^)>
From fuck@off@spammers Sat May 31 19:43:02 1997 Newsgroups: alt.atheism Subject: Re: Some famous christian quotes From: fuck@off@spammers (randallg) In article <5mqjaj$le8@nntp.seflin.org>, d009872c@dc.seflin.org says... > >randallg (randallg@NOSPAMtelemark.net) wrote: > >: >Sam Lopez wrote: >: >> >: >> Capella, give it up and give yourself to the REAL FATHER you call imaginary! >: >> (Besides...He always answers all my prayers...I'm sure you have a >: >> fantastic explanation for that one, right? ...like imaginary answers >: >> backed up by real-time events... > > >: Hey Sammy, if this isn't an out and out lie, why don't you pray to God to >: convert Capella? Then when Capella publicly announces his reconversion to >: fundamentalist Christianity, you'll actually have some goddam evidence. > >Problem Randall, is that the area of praying for a person's conversion is >never a guaranteed thing by God Himself...unless you want a "robot." You said He always answers your prayers in the affirmative. >Love >is a choice. You cannot have love without also having the option to hate. What the FUCK has this got to do with your God answering prayers? >Capella has chosen the opposite of love. So God can't covert him then? I thought He was fucking OMNIPOTENT! >God answering prayers does not mean that He is your "water-boy" or that >He will always answer them in the affirmative (as some atheists push as a >straw man). Ya, like you having to pray for four fucking years for God to arrange a coincidental meeting with your old buddy from Germany. How many CENTURIES will it take your bumbling oaf of a God to convert us residents of alt.atheism, huh??? >Like I said, God always answers my prayers. Sometimes not in my way or my >time...but always answers. Sounds like he says "No, fuck off asshole I'm busy" a lot. "I'm trying to get the Pope to allow contraception and that'll keep me busy for a few more decades." randall g =%^)> #320 - only 346 short mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James (a band from England, not my name)
From fuck.off@spammers.com Sun Jun 01 22:06:06 1997 Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.christnet Subject: Re: Atheists and Fundamentalists: More alike than they'd like to think From: fuck.off@spammers.com (randallg) In article , daniel@kerbcrawler.demon.co.uk says... > >I almost feel guilty trying to persuade xtians they are wrong sometimes. >Its kind of like kicking a puppy in the head. I don't mean nutters like >Boatwhore, but those xtians who just write little puppy-sized innocent >little posts here occasionally. You know, the timid little xtians who >live all peacefully, and paste cutesie crosses etc into their sigs. You make a good point. I occasionally (ok, *very* occasionally) worry about this. I've probably insulted a few of these "cute" Christians with some of my posts. In a way, I feel a little nasty, but I remind myself this is a public forum, and they post their dreck with that knowledge. I don't speak to people in real life the way I'd rip apart their lies and nonsense on usenet. Hell, in real life, how often do you run into people so arrogant, persistent, and obnoxious? I don't know if I *ever* have. And after all, you reap what you sow. There are many theists here who don't get flamed and ridiculed mercilessly, because they aren't arrogant obnoxious assholes. >I just feel like I would be ruining their life if I proved them wrong. At first, you would be. However if they have the brains to chuck their childhood conditioning, they are likely to become just like most of us atheists - secure, happy, well-adjusted, and a credit the human species. (This is what the more intelligent leadership of the RR are so afraid of.) Hell, it's for their own good after all. Still, hardly any of them ever see reason no matter what people say. I think many of them do it to rack up martyr points so they can earn themselves a better spot in their respective mythical heavens. >Am I alone in this? Don't think so... >Have I been smoking too much pot for my own good? (alledgedly) Nope. Hey, don't Bogart that joint! ... pfffff...pfff...pfff...pf... 'ere >What do the rest of you guys feel? Don't worry about it. Things get better over time, and deconversion from religion is part of that universal process. randall g =%^)> #320 - only 346 short mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James (a band from England, not my name)
From fuck.off@spammers.com Sun Jun 01 22:19:05 1997 Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.christnet Subject: Re: Atheists and Fundamentalists: More alike than they'd like to think From: fuck.off@spammers.com (randallg) In article , capella@airmail.net says... > >Dan Rose wrote: >> > >> >> However, whether it's wrong or not to prove them wrong is a different >> story. If they want proof, and we provide it, then we've not only fufilled >> their request, we've helped them see truth. It doesn't ruin someone's life >> to be proved wrong, nor does it ruin a theist's life to become an atheist. >> Theists who converted to atheism, please verify that previous statement, >> if you can. > >I am an exchristian. I had to swallow my pride to a lot of people, >but it was among the best turning points in my life. I have been an >atheist now for 17 years. Hey what a coincidence! It's been about 17 years for me too. Best thing that ever happened to me, not including sex. That's just too impossible. There is a God after all! This is the proof! Only the omnipotent Christian creator-God could have arranged this! randall g =%^)> #320 - only 346 short mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James (a band from England, not my name)
From fuck.off@spammers.com Sun Jun 01 22:27:45 1997 Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.christnet Subject: Re: Atheists and Fundamentalists: More alike than they'd like to think From: fuck.off@spammers.com (randallg) In article <01bc6c22$396ec5a0$7e37369d@berrym>, berrymz@microsoft.com says... >Mike Secorsky wrote > >> Good news, to me, is learning >> more about the way life, the universe (etc.) works. > >And you think we don't learn about these things? I love studying science as >much as anyone. Oh, as much as your average biologist? I guess you have a reasonable layman's understanding of evolution then? Or by "anyone" do you mean "your average fundamentalist moron"? You have no understanding of the basic principles of science at all. Yet while taking advantage of all the fruits of scientific knowledge, you actually denounce it as useless and fraudulent, whenever it conflicts with the myths and legends written in an old book thousands of years ago by a tribe of ignorant savages. randall g =%^)>
From fuck.off@spammers.com Mon Jun 02 21:14:56 1997 Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.christnet,alt.atheism Subject: Re: Atheists: current crop would rather not face reality From: fuck.off@spammers.com (randallg) Berry spake thusly :- >And aftermuch thought and prayer, I have decided that I cannot leave after >all. But the kid gloves come off. Excellent! Up till now you've been too boring for my alt.atheism kooks page. > I will bluntly and completly expose >atheism for the fantasy it is and continue to hope that those who suscribe >to it will get their head out of the sand before it's too late. Perfect! Please make an *extra* effort to be really, really stupid, arrogant, conceited, holier-than-thou, irrational, moronic, imbecilic, dogmatic and downright insane. Never forget you are competing with real pros like Zoner, Wellington, gladys, Boatwright, Jahnu and Shit for Brains (bzzzzzzzz-zzzzz-zzz-zzz-zzzz-zzzzz). Do a good job and I'll put you near the top of the list! www.telemark.net/~randallg/aakooks.htm randall g =%^)> #320 - only 346 short mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James (a band from England, not my name)
From fuck.off@spammers.com Wed Jun 04 20:45:57 1997 Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.christnet,alt.atheism Subject: Re: Atheists: current crop would rather not face reality From: fuck.off@spammers.com (randallg) In article <01bc7102$efb374c0$7e37369d@berrym>, berrymz@microsoft.com says... > > > >Toby wrote in article >... > >> Don't you have a yet greater responsibility to demonstrate your myth's >> veracity? Because that's the only way we atheists can be made to believe. > >If the Israelites during the exodus, who did believe, strayed after seeing >direct actions of God. Why should we expect a non-believer to accept that >evidence without question. > >Seriously though, you will not get evidence of God from a human being, that >can only come from God Himself. And he'll come to you IF you'll look for >Him and on His schedule. > >Our responsibility is to inform, what you do with that information is your >choice. Berry, This just won't do. You have promised to "take the gloves off". This is *exactly* the same boring, pointless, unexciting dreck you've been posting for months! Still, there is time for you to become interesting. I have prepared an entry for you in the alt.atheism kooks page. You are at the bottom right now, because you have yet to demonstrate anything but simple boring pointless platitudes. Still, your tenacity is just about enough to get you into the list. However, if you want a better position - and *everyone* knows the exposure is best at the top of the page - you will have to TAKE THE FUCKING GLOVES OFF!!! I will remind you that while any inclusion in the alt.atheism kooks page is worth a basic 1000 martyr points, you receive *extra* martyr points which are awarded to you on Judgement Day, and are based on your position in the page ON THAT DAY according to the formula: 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 / ((rank in a.a kooks page)^10) There will probably be almost 10000000000000000000 entries by then so secure an early position now! See it at www.telemark.net/~randallg/aakooks.htm Here is what your entry looks like so far, in case you don't know how to use Microsoft Internet Explorer: *********************************************************************** Berry Religion: Fundamentalist Christian, sect unknown. Synopsis: Berry has been very boring up until now (June 4/97) and consequently not worth including in this web page, which is reserved only for the true masters. While posting in huge volume, everything she's said has been nothing but short petty homilies, pansy rebukes, and meaningless incredible assertions. However, she has recently promised the following: > I will bluntly and completly expose >atheism for the fantasy it is and continue to hope that those who suscribe >to it will get their head out of the sand before it's too late. so we are all hoping for great things. Berry, your entry awaits! Post away! Give us a taste of your madness! *********************************************************************** We're waiting! Don't disappoint us! randall g =%^)> #320 - only 346 short mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James (a band from England, not my name)
From fuck.off@spammers.com Sat Jun 07 17:59:16 1997 Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: Kubrick's "Paths of Glory" & religion From: fuck.off@spammers.com (randall g) Organization: Telemark Systems Inc X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.8 (x86 32bit) References: <5n16sq$lf2@omnifest.uwm.edu> <5n4fho$6ch@cheeez.rsn.hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII In article <5n4fho$6ch@cheeez.rsn.hp.com>, nospam@i.hate.spam says... > >In <5n16sq$lf2@omnifest.uwm.edu> croth@omnifest.uwm.edu (Chris Roth) writes: > >>Soon, I'll post to alt.atheism.moderated the production code dictates >>about religion. Here's a question for participants. What other films >>have unflattering portrayals of clergymen? The answer is: few. > >anyone out there seen the British film, >'The Devils'? Very unflattering portrayal of the inquisition (of course, >it strains the imagination to see how that could be done in a flattering >way... ;-)) I was just going to mention this one when I saw you'd brought it up. It's full name is "The Devils of Loudon" directed by Ken Russel (who has made many fine twisted films). Oliver Reed plays the head Catholic clergyman of the French town of Loudon, which the King of France thinks is too independent - the town has a good fortification and refuses to acknowledge the absolute monarchy. Reed is portrayed as a good guy who is betrayed by his own religious heirarchy which is working with the King. Vanessa Redgrave plays a deliciously twisted Mother Superior of a convent of nuns who engage in deviant sexual practices, and who lusts after Reed. Reed doesn't respond, being morally superior, and she plays a major part in his undoing. The Church sends a team of Inquisitors to Loudon to torture and kill him. There's a classic scene where the King and the top Archbishop are in the King's gardens (Tuleries?), and they have a conversation plotting against Loudon. Every once in a while a bunch of nearby courtiers let loose a prisoner, dressed up like a chicken and drive him towards the King with whips. When he gets near, the King pulls out a flintlock pistol and shoots him. The Archbiship grimaces but doesn't say anything. The film is a truly fine exploration of absolute power. And a true cult classic. Definately see it if you don't mind really cool, but somewhat disturbing films. randall g =%^)> #320 - only 346 short mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James (a band from England, not my name)
From fuck.off@spammers.com Sat Jun 07 18:32:46 1997 Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: Legalized Prostitution From: fuck.off@spammers.com (randall g) In article , pepke_NO_SPAM@scri.fsu.edu says... > >> nicholas.bone@merton.oxford.ac.uk (Nicholas Bone) wrote: >>> Eric Pepke wrote: >>> ... Finally, why exactly _would_ people "enjoy inflicting cruelty on people >>> they disapprove of"? On inspection, it seems like a remarkably daft >>>idea : not only do you waste time and effort on the task, you are in serious >>> danger if your victim decides to strike back. >Why do they do it? They do it for the same reason that they masturbate, >go on roller coasters, and watch football. There's a part of the brain >that really gets off on this sort of thing. Eric, I'd be quite interested in your thoughts on why this might be the case. I can see an evolutionary advantage in feeling exhilarated - either via contest or via fast movement etc. This gives individuals direct physical stimuli which rewards them for being strong, competent, trying new things, taking risks for gain and so on. It has to be carefully balanced with a sense of self-preservation of course. But inflicting suffering on members of your own species, social group, or even family is different, and as you note, it happens a lot. The motivation is almost never to kill and eat them, or take their women and property expecting to get away with it. And certainly all individuals get off on it, to a greater or lesser degree, whether they admit it or not. Obviously extreme cases are rare, but everyone has felt this to some extent, if small. I suspect that in some cases this can be an advantage, but I'm not clear on any major trend. Your thoughts? randall g =%^)> #320 - only 346 short mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James (a band from England, not my name)
From fuck.off@spammers.com Mon Jun 09 20:55:40 1997 Newsgroups: alt.atheism Subject: Re: [aa]Which made you leave theism... ritual or spiritualism? From: fuck.off@spammers.com (randall g) In article <2072.7099T578T2081@SPAMabarnett.demon.co.uk>, adrian@SPAMabarnett.demon.co.uk says... >> Joseph @ JSRT spake thusly :- >> >>I became an atheist ... >>I even contribute my professional services to >>a very progressive Catholic parish in my area --- I attended a service >>there and heard from the pulpit "As Catholics it is our DUTY to fight >>racism sexism and homophobia", and I knew that these were people I could >>support. > >Hmm... wonder if there'll ever be a female Pope? How about a woman PRIEST? What about BIRTH CONTROL? Fuck, if an atheist feels compelled to suport a CHURCH, why not pick a reasonably progressive one? There are some you know, I attended one for a while. But the RCC sure as hell doesn't count. randall g =%^)> #320 - only 346 short mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James (a band from England, not my name)
From fuck.off@spammers.com Mon Jun 09 21:00:24 1997 Newsgroups: alt.atheism Subject: Re: If HE showed up... From: fuck.off@spammers.com (randall g) In article <1026.7099T614T775@SPAMabarnett.demon.co.uk>, adrian@SPAMabarnett.demon.co.uk says... > >If God chose to manifest himself in such a way that could not be denied >by even the strongest atheist (e.g. the stars and galaxies quickly moved >positions to clearly spell out the Lord's Prayer in a hundred different >languages [1]), what would your reaction be? > >Would God command your undying respect and loyalty? No. >Would you bow down in worship? No. >Would you yawn and go back to reading your newspaper? I'd jump on my computer and read alt.atheism. I'd expect things to be getting incredibly interesting. >Would your life, in fact, be any different at all? Unlikely, unless God showed up personally to me and explained what He wanted me to do instead. randall g =%^)> #320 - only 346 short mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James (a band from England, not my name)
From fuck.off@spammers.com Mon Jun 09 21:13:35 1997 Newsgroups: alt.atheism Subject: Re: TBWFC archived at http://207.102.62.65:80/~randallg/capella From: fuck.off@spammers.com (randall g) In article <5nf9d9$4cn@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>, Joseph.Crea@worldnet.att.net says... > >Hello, Sam! > >d009872c@dc.seflin.org (Sam Lopez) wrote: >>Capella (capella@airmail.net) wrote: >>: Randallg has been kind enough to allow me to archive all of the >>: Bible Wisdom for christians on his website at: >> >>Thank You Randallg...for providing ONLY one side of the story! Sorry Sam, I forgot that I was obligated to provide all possible sides to a debate, regardless of how groundless, inane, illogical and infantile it may be. Seriously though, drop me a line when the hundreds of fundy xtian sites start presenting the rational, logical, scientific view as an alternative. >>besides...you should rephrase it as Atheist Reframing of the Bible >>according to their agendas, biases, and bigottry! That's right Sam. All the quotes are changed, right? A straightforward literal reading of the Bible leads to hundreds of atrocities, contradictions and errors. We've known this for centuries, and Capella is doing an admirable job of exposing your asinine foolishness. I am honoured to be providing webspace for such an effort. The free flow of information is going to exterminate your hateful ideology. Suck on that, god-moron. >>...oh yeah...I almost left it out (I know you know)...their anger! Ooooh you caught me Sam. God let my puppy dog get hit by a car when I was a child, and I have hated Him ever since. randall g =%^)> #320 - only 346 short mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James (a band from England, not my name)
From fuck.off@spammers.com Mon Jun 09 21:39:58 1997 Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: atheism From: fuck.off@spammers.com (randall g) In article <19970609041900.AAA13918@ladder02.news.aol.com>, dc91059@aol.com says... > >Atheism is a belief system dedicated to the non belief of believing. Look, you obviously haven't read the FAQ which is at: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/ >It >will attempt to describe a system of existense outside of that which you >reside. Actually, you have atheism confused with religion. Atheism does *not* attempt to describe any existence outside of perceivable reality. That is the domain of religion, and because it is outside of existence, they can make up any damfool nonsense they want! >It is a belief system that presupposes eternal existense in its >very nature and manifestation of ideas. I daresay most atheists don't anticipate a conscious existence after their own death. >You cannot separate >consciouseness from life or life from death if you are aware of your >present existence. This is trivially true, and it doesn't even apply only to those who are aware of their present existence. *Any* living being can perceive *nothing* after death, regardless of any abilities it may have had to perceive its own existence before death >If you believe that your life core began at a given >point in time and will end at a given point in time you are in error. >Consciouseness is eternal with no beginning and no end. Look, if you have some evidence of this, please present it right away! There are a *lot* of people who will be interested in analyzing it. >This is not a >christ or religious thing, it just is. What it *is* is a common religious belief which is held by *most* religious people. This is nothing new, we've seen it a million times before. Problem is, the forensic evidence suggests otherwise. >You create your own reality, >always have and always will !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, I can't type that many exclamation marks, so I guess you win. randall g =%^)> #320 - only 346 short mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James (a band from England, not my name)
From fuck.off@spammers.com Mon Jun 09 21:48:21 1997 Newsgroups: alt.athiesm,alt.christnet.atheism,alt.atheism,talk.atheism Subject: Re: Morals From: fuck.off@spammers.com (randall g) In article <339A5A44.15EC@flash.net>, -gagster@flash.net says... > >I am interested in how people of different, or no, faiths view >moral/ethical situations. Since christians frequently claim to have a >monopoly on morals, I'd like to see how their responses compare to the >responses of atheists and others in the following hypothetical >situation. > >A crazed killer with two hostages approaches you. He tells you that he >is going to kill one of his hostages in the next two minutes. Further, >he tells you to decide which one it will be. If you don't make a >decision, he'll kill them both. > >How do you decide which one to tell the killer to kill? Or, do you >refuse to choose knowing that then he'll kill them both? Please be sure >to state whether you're a christian, atheist, or something else. I need more information. Are either of the hostages a Nigger, or a Jew, or any other particular race? Homsexual? Fornicators? Failing that sort of distinction, I'd pick the woman. I am a fundamentalist Christian. >Greg the Reprobate >Ordained Minister randall g =%^)> #320 - only 346 short mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James (a band from England, not my name)
From fuck.off@spammers.com Mon Jun 09 21:57:28 1997 Newsgroups: alt.athiesm,alt.christnet.atheism,alt.atheism,talk.atheism Subject: Re: Morals From: fuck.off@spammers.com (randall g) In article , daniel@NOSPAM.earthling.net says... >In article <339A5A44.15EC@flash.net>, Gregory A Greenman >>How do you decide which one to tell the killer to kill? >5. I would charge him, and hope that the other two hostages would help me. Of course, now the Good Reverend will suggest that you are tied down, and so are the hostages, completely unable to move. HOW WILL YOU DECIDE??? YOU MUST ARBITRARILY CHOOSE TO KILL A PERSON!!! How realistic. What a jerk. randall g =%^)> #320 - only 346 short mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James (a band from England, not my name)
From fuck.off@spammers.com Mon Jun 09 22:21:22 1997 Newsgroups: alt.athiesm,alt.christnet.atheism,alt.atheism,talk.atheism Subject: Re: Morals From: fuck.off@spammers.com (randall g) In article <339A5A44.15EC@flash.net>, -gagster@flash.net says... > >How do you decide which one to tell the killer to kill? Or, do you >refuse to choose knowing that then he'll kill them both? Please be sure >to state whether you're a christian, atheist, or something else. Choose the way God does: pick an arbitrary combination of race, creed, and/or sex. >Greg the Reprobate >Ordained Minister I am an Ordained Mininster with the Ministry of Salvation Church. Greetings. Let us join forces in our struggle with the godless. randall g =%^)> #320 - only 346 short mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James (a band from England, not my name)
On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 18:05:11 -0700, "Joseph @ JSRT" wrote: >randall g wrote: >> >> In article <2072.7099T578T2081@SPAMabarnett.demon.co.uk>, >> adrian@SPAMabarnett.demon.co.uk says... >> >> Joseph @ JSRT spake thusly :- >> >> >> >>I became an atheist ... >> >> >> >> >>I even contribute my professional services to >> >>a very progressive Catholic parish in my area --- I attended a service >> >>there and heard from the pulpit "As Catholics it is our DUTY to fight >> >>racism sexism and homophobia", and I knew that these were people I could >> >>support. >> > >> >Hmm... wonder if there'll ever be a female Pope? >> >> How about a woman PRIEST? > >Working on it. Good luck. >> What about BIRTH CONTROL? > >Working on it. Good luck. >> Fuck, if an atheist feels compelled to suport a CHURCH, why not pick a >> reasonably progressive one? There are some you know, I attended one for a >> while. But the RCC sure as hell doesn't count. > >Who the fuck are you to question my doing so? Just me. But I meant to offend the Catholic church, not you personally. >I SAID (or typed) that it IS a progressive church WITHIN the RCC, and I >choose to support a movement for change *within* the RCC instead of >leaving it to the sexist homophobic bastards. That's one way that >change is acheived. Furthermore, this parish does important work in a >community areas which are important to me. Well, I have to admit that I see your point entirely. It's good to know that there are those within the RCC who are attempting to bring some reason into the organization. I am pessimistic that anything significant will change, anytime soon, though. These "progressive" measures are probably concentrated in some of the first world parishes, which is only a small part of the whole. In the rest of the world, the RCC has always had an institutional policy of encouraging overpopulation, ignorance and poverty. Plus, ole' JPII might be good for another decade or two, and *nothing* is going to change before he bites the dust.
From fuck.off@spammers.com Tue Jun 10 14:09:15 1997 Newsgroups: alt.atheism Subject: Re: My first geniune bible thumper From: fuck.off@spammers.com (randall g) In article , tchowa@sfu.ca says... > >On Fri, 6 Jun 1997, Claude Martins wrote: > >> If they're starting to invade Canada, I will be most displeased.... > >Starting? You mean you don't get them very much over there in York? > >Here in Vancouver, they're a regular sight (and sound) downtown. There's one guy who often hangs around on Granville St near the Stock Tower. He's unkempt, dirty, smelly and yells Biblical fire and damnation really loud. He is clearly insane, but apparently harmless, and all the people standing around waiting for buses just ignore him. When I walk by him I usually say something like "See you in Hell sinner." That usually gets a rise out of him. It's fun. Then of course, there's always some JW's around, who look very respectable and just stand aound silently holding up their Watchtower pamphlets in front of them like a shield. I just feel sorry for them. randall g =%^)>
From fuck.off@spammers.com Wed Jun 11 23:24:41 1997 Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: The strength of religion From: fuck.off@spammers.com (randall g) In article <219434899wnr@longevb.demon.co.uk>, John@longevb.demon.co.uk says... > >If you had the job of ridding the world of religion, what >would you do? (Remember violence has been tried and failed.) I would invent a world wide computer network that is cheap enough for anyone to access, and impossible to control. randall g =%^)> #320 - only 346 short mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James (a band from England, not my name)
From fuck.off@spammers.com Wed Jun 11 23:39:24 1997 Newsgroups: alt.athiesm,alt.christnet.atheism,alt.atheism,talk.atheism Subject: Re: Morals From: fuck.off@spammers.com (randall g) In article <33A009DE.7A07@cleveland.freenet.edu>, hq263@cleveland.freenet.edu says... > >Thomas Hall wrote: >> > There is a much better moral question gotten from this silly one. Which >> > one is actually receiving the greater gift: the hostage that lives or >> > the hostage that dies. >> >> Cool!!! That means we get to off the christian. As an atheist, it would >> cause me no psychological problems to be the survivor. Yippee! Everyone >> gets what he wants. >> >> Tom > >As much as I hate to agree with you, we christians are, after, the >followers of a martyr. So I guess I'll volunteer. BANG Hey, Vic, look, it was just a hypothetical question, completely unrealistic. There isn't even a crazed killer or any hostages here... Vic... Vic... VIC... Shit, somebody call 911. What a fucking mess. randall g =%^)>
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 13:09:45 GMT, mindray@ix.netcom.com (Victor A. Danilchenko) wrote: >On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:50:10 +0000, R Lawrence >wrote: > > > "Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's >consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, >desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things >are what they are--and that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive >reality, not to create or invent it." > > > This assertion may be granted with a stretch; however, while objective >reality may exist, there is nothing to say that we can perceive its true >nature -- a la the old "brain in a vat" thing. Well, the only alternative I can see is solopsism, and if that is your preference we may as well all shut up now. If we cannot grant the existence of objective reality (or at least that we have the means to detect it) then nothing can be known, nothing can be proven, and nothing can be shown to be true or false. All questions have the same answer: "I cannot know, because I am just a brain in a vat being fed unreliable sense data for an unknown or no purpose". > > "Man's reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, >the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the >material provided by man's senses. Reason is man's only means of acquiring >knowledge." Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or >feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that >certainty or knowledge is impossible). > > > Now THIS, combined with the first paragraph, leads to the foundation of >objectivist epistemology -- the assertion that we perceive reality as-is. >This is the foundation for her enitre metaphysics (or lack thereof), and is >quite obviously an assumption, and a baseless one at that. Thus, her >atheism is built on a rather shaky foundation. The assumption is not baseless because it can be shown to work - science and engineering depend on it, and they work very well. Nor is it particularly shaky; I am unaware of any philosophical system which is based on a stronger foundation than this. The assumption is that the universe exists, and it operates according to principles which apparently are consistent and repeatable, whether there are humans around to experience it or not. We can choose to attempt to learn about it, but it exists regardless. > Basically, Ayn Rand's philosophy is based on ASSUMPTION that we >perceive reality is it truly is. I e-mailed their "questions & answers" >address, asking why that assumption is made. The person who responded (at >quite some length!) was not able to provide a convincing argument for >accepting our perceptions as reality. I suspect there is no argument which could convince you of this. But you seem to think that Rand says all perceptions are real, which is clearly not the case. Rather, I think that objective reality can be experienced, and through corroboration and rational analysis, can be verified to the limits of measurement. Then we can determine how accurate our perceptions are, because the more accurate they are, the more *useful* they are. >>>I have nothing against atheism (hell, I like it), but I have a lot >>>against her brand of it -- Objectivism is just as dogmatic as the worst >>>religions. >> >>The same goes for this part. > > Note, that Ayn Rand apparently rejects agnosticism and skepticism She uses the word "skepticism" here in its strongest meaning - more commonly it means "a critical or doubting attitude", which is an attitude Rand herself undoubtedly had. One can be skeptical without claiming that knowledge is impossible. If we do not grant that it is possible to obtain knowledge, then we are left with solopsism, which is nothing but a dead end. >-- a >fact that leads me to say that objectivism is as dogmatic as any religion, >because the foundation of many intolerant religions is stating that "we >KNOW the truth, no doubt allowed". Objectivists do not claim to KNOW the truth - they simply say that it is possible to determine what the truth is, in at least some instances. As to what the truth ACTUALLY is, there is plenty of room for that debate in objectivism! In fact, if we ask questions and attempt to determine knowledge, objectivism just says which tools work best for that purpose but it does NOT say what that knowledge is. >This kind of attitude, also found in >objectivism, is what makes a set of beliefs/philosophical system/etc. >dogmatic. The only dogma is that there really is a reality, and that we have the ability to gain knowledge about it. This is such a weaker claim than that made by any religion that it is unfair to lump it in with them in the "dogmatic" pile. >She is basically saying "I am right, and no doubts are allowed" No she isn't. >-- and skepticism and agnosticism are the very basic (and strongest) forms >of doubting somebody's claims to The Truth (tm). Rand only claims that there is a Truth (tm), not what it is. When we need to guess what the Truth (tm) is, we turn to religion. When we need to *know* what the Truth (tm) is, we turn to reason. > Victor A. Danilchenko
From fuck.off@spammers.com Fri Jun 13 19:06:33 1997 Newsgroups: alt.atheism Subject: Re: ATHEISM IS NOW OFFICIALY DEAD unless... From: fuck.off@spammers.com (randall g) In article <01bc77a1$84a55900$c89951d1@JonahTDB.stratos.net>, JonahTDB@stratos.net says... > >Well, My friend sent me a message in the email with answers to many of the >arguments that you have been giving me. Your friend. The mysterious genious apologist with a 190 IQ, right? >He countered all of the arguments, >and no one responded. Unless some of you would like to counter his >arguments, Can't find'em. You've provided no clue as to his identity. >I would assume that you think he's right and don't want to mess >with him. Hmmmm... Which is it? There's a third alternative that you haven't considered: that you are an idiot. >If you are wondering, GENIUS APOLOGIST >STRIKES BACK is the post with his ideas. Hmm. A Christian apologist with a 190 IQ. I suppose you can tell us who this is. Wait a minute, I can guess. It's Zoner, right? >Try em on and see how they fit. No thanks, my feet smell bad enough as it is. randall g =%^)>
From fuck.off@spammers.com Sat Jun 14 12:10:47 1997 Newsgroups: alt.atheism Subject: Re: CHALLENGE TO ATHEISM Parth Deux Tickets on sale inside this thread From: fuck.off@spammers.com (randall g) In article <33A013C6.6045@cleveland.freenet.edu>, hq263@cleveland.freenet.edu says... > >Dave Haas wrote: >> > You never answered my question! Where your soul goes and proof of a >> > Higher Power aren't germaine in any way to what I asked you: why does >> > having an eternal soul make you life meaningful? >There's a couple of different answers. One is that we yearn to be part >of something larger and more important than we are, and as part of that, >something more permanent than mere mortals. Speak for yourself. I and many others are quite comfortable being part of this earth, society, family, whatever. There is no need to be part of something more "important" than that (whatever you mean by important). Of course, practically everyone wants to live longer than our alloted lifespan, but that is clearly not possible, so why agonize about it? >Why? Well I suppose because >life as it is appears dominated by chance and randomness. No it isn't. You have a great deal of control over your life, and if you are allowing "chance and randomness" to dominate it, you are in a pitiful state. >On the facts >alone, there appears to be little more to living than competing for >scarce economic resources. You have a very bleak view of existence. No wonder you need your fairy tale. >Unless you are satisfied with the world as it >is, simply eating, sleeping and procreating just isnt good enough. Good thing there's a hell of a lot more to our existence than that, huh? Oh right, you are unaware of all that. >I need more than that to get up in the morning. Obviously. It's sad, but hardly uncommon. >If everything you are and >everything you do will have simply vanished without a trace in 10 >billion years, what's the point? On a timescale of 10 billion years, there clearly is no point. So what? Why does that bother you? Why must you invent one? >But if some element of my present life >is eternal, then I have some connection, however tenuous, then what I do >now could have consequences for all time to come. That's something to >look forward to. So basically, because you feel so insecure, and that your existence is so pointless, you believe in evidenceless fairy tales, and therefore you can believe whatever the hell you want, and kid yourself that you are immortal. Your faith is clearly nothing more than a psychological delusion, which your mind has manufactured in order to give you a feeling of worth and purpose, that you should have developed as a child. randall g =%^)> #320 - only 346 short mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James (a band from England, not my name)
From fuck.off@spammers.com Sat Jun 14 12:24:22 1997 Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: Some say there are no bible conflicts.... well I say... From: fuck.off@spammers.com (randall g) In article <33A010D9.45F0@cleveland.freenet.edu>, hq263@cleveland.freenet.edu says... > >Michelle Malkin wrote: >> >> >> Thank you, Arn. I think the problem is that, although I meant it as a >> serious question, I did phrase it in sarcastic terms. But, considering the >> kind of messages we get from most of the theists who invade this group, >> this shouldn't come as any surprise. And, one theist did respond to the >> question. I asked how, if God doesn't have a face, can he speak. It's >> phrased pretty much the same way, but it was meant just as seriously. It's >> hard to ask a serious question of people who get all upset by the fact that >> we ask the question at all. >> >> Mickey >Faith is belief in something that cannot be proven by logic or fact. So are you able to demonstrate any good reason why anyone should ignore logic and fact, and use faith to understand reality? >To >a Christian who has faith in God, but doesnt believe in miracles, nor >interpretes the bible literally, God can only be seen, spoken to, heard >from, in a metaphorical sense. I daresay there's a lot of Christians around here who would deny that you are one of them. Why do you call yourself a Christian, if you don't literally believe that Christ was sacrificed by God to pay for your sins? Don't you believe you were born a heinous sinner and deserve everlasting death unless you have been saved by the grace of Jesus? What do you your touchy-feely new age good vibe beliefs have to do with Christianity? >There is something inside us that >responds to the idea of a creator. And when we were children, this "something" inside of us was fulfilled by our parents. Many do not grow out of this, and require a loving parental figure taking care of them for their entire lives, even if they need to invent it in their own minds. >The "evidence" is internal, >subjective, and cant be demonstrated to anyone else. That should tell you something very important about it. You may be happy in taking things like this seriously, or pretending that it's real, but if it is just a mental state in your own brain, why should anyone else take you seriously? >You are either moved, or you're not. You are either deluded, or not. randall g =%^)> #320 - only 346 short mailto:randallg@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me - James (a band from England, not my name)
On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 03:48:51 GMT, ccaumann@syr.edu (Christopher Aumann) wrote: >On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:40:57 GMT, malkinb7@mindspring.com (Michelle >Malkin) wrote: > >>38. Is there any religious concept that you, as an atheist, would like to >>believe in, even though you know it's probably not true? - Jeffrey R. >>Gutierrez I would like to believe that there really is a God of Love who actually is Omnipotent. I mean think about it. All that evil stuff that goes on would never happen. I'm not sure I agree with those who think there *needs* to be suffering for some obscure philosophical reason. Nobody suffering wants it to happen; that's the f*ing *definition* of suffering. The xtian apologist has to invent all kinds of metaphysical *reasons* why suffering is necessary, including ludicrous nonsense like our distant grandparents thousands of times removed committed petty theft apple, and so all their descendents forever are saddled with a level of sin and guilt that deserves eternal torture. (Which leads to the kooky fundies here on a.a who require suffering ridicule and derision in order to gain more martyr points for their respective mythical afterlives). >If I knew it were not true, I wouldn't believe in it, would I? > >>39. Has anyone experienced things which they could not understand and >>which science is at a loss to explain. If so, how do you reconcile this >>with atheism? - Claude Martins > >Yes. The creation of the Universe. The science is all theoretical. >But, there are no religions which provide a satisfactory explanation >either. > >>40. Have you ever considered cryonics? If you have and rejected it, why? - >>Cat Jesus > >It's a bad idea. Think about it. You are frozen 200 years to wake up >to a society much more technologically advanced than our own. You >would be as clueless as a retarded child. You would not be a >productive member of that society. I would not want to live that >life. > >>41.Has anyone really tried to accept God/Jesus/Buddha/whatever and failed? >>- Carl Cristensen > >I feel, you cannot "try" to believe. You either do or you don't. >Maybe you lie about it. > >>42.What was your religion, if any, before you became an atheist? -P. Koeck > >Roman Catholicism (is this a duplicate question?) > >>43. Are you married to or in a relationship with a theist? Are there any >>problems due to differences in belief or disbelief? - Marc Moreau > >I'm single! Wahoo! > >>44. Were you born into an atheist family or raised as an atheist? - >>Michelle Malkin > >No. > >>As I mentioned above, any new questions are welcome (even from theists, >>though they do have to be answered only by atheists). >> >>Michelle Malkin > >If I think of one worthy of discussion, I'll post it. > >Christopher Aumann > >(What a name for an atheist, eh?) -there's a question! Are you an >atheist with a religious name, and if so, do you desire to change it? > >
On 27 Jun 1997 03:47:19 GMT, bjf@planet.eon.net (p.s.) wrote: >In article <33b32fd5.17509211@news.capital.net>, Boy.do.I@Hate.spammers >(Dave Hitt) wrote: > >[snipped my explanation of religion, in my case: Jesus Christ's teachings] > >> And many of these time tested basic rules include killing anyone who >> disagrees. > >Christ told His apostles to go and spread His word, and those who disagree >to leave their city in protest but without engaging in violence. Yes, and in that same verse He said you evangelicals could drink poison and handle poisonous snakes, and that this would be proof of the correctness of His message. Yet every time I ask some believer to handle a water moccasin and drink sulphuric acid, they come up with some reason that it won't work, or doesn't apply. >Likewise >the concept of "loving even one's own enemies", "turning the other cheek", >and so on, completely negate the notion of "killing those who disagree". A couple of sentences from Jesus completely negate the centuries of atrocities and genocide documented in the Old Testament, commanded by YHWH for the benefit of His Chosen People? Right... >It is not man's purpose to battle flesh, but to battle principalities, >powers, etc... Meaning (for those atheists who missed the symbolic >meanings) again Jesus told His followers not to fight people, but instead >flawed values, and such. The "battleground" is in the realm of intangible >(like ideas), not tangible (like human beings). Actually Jesus was a lot less clear on this sort of metaphysics than you think. But even so, His teachings were mostly banal observations about morality and social issues, with a smattering of primitive Communism. Big deal, lots of ancient philosophers had things to say about that - and most of them more interesting and relevant than Jesus. >> You are right. I'll choose deduced knowledge versus revealed >> knowledge every time. Deduced knowledge has two big advantages: It's >> usually right, and when it's not right it's possible to prove it is >> wrong. Revealed knowledge has neither advantage. > >Correct revealed knowledge, the sort humanly impossible to deduce, also >has an advantage: it leads to eternal life, something humans can't do on >their own. Oh sure. And you know it's correct because ... ? You are obviously arguing for one particular religious myth - how do you explain or refute all the revealed knowledge of all the other, different religions, which have about as much subjective evidence for them as your particular beliefs. They differ not only in detail, but they differ greatly in their overall concepts. Loch Ness Monster? Two-Headed Space Alien Babies? Elvis? Leprechauns? UFO abductions? Without any evidence that can be corroborated by others, there is literally no way to tell all these different myths apart. Of course, since they all make claims that are impossible and absurd, it is clear that none of them are correct. However, since you are personally predisposed to believe in myths, if Islam is correct, you're off to a bad place, because elevating a human (ie Jesus Christ) to godhood is blasphemy of the worst kind. Good luck blasphemer, what are you going to tell Allah when you stand trembling before His Throne of Judgement? >Undoubtedly you will disagree, pointing out there is no proof >of this, but as a Christian I believe you will one day have your proof, so >there is no point squabbling over this matter now. Okey dokey? Okey dokey. In the meantime, please refrain from forcing your religion into my face and/or attempting to subvert my governments' laws to adhere to the demands of your sect. Thanks in advance. Okey dokey? >> We don't have a problem with other people doing that either. We >> simply choose to live with gaps rather than filling them with >> imaginary "revealed details." Of course, we may poke fun at those who >> chose to believe in imaginary things, but that's just human nature. >> > >And speaking of "imaginary" things - conceit, which creates the illusion >that human reason is sensible. Conceit? Illusion? The Christian inferiority complex raises its head yet again. Look, you may have been taught from birth that we are all worthless sinners with no redeeming value, but as a non-Christian I know that is bunk. Human reason *is* sensible. Show me an example where it isn't. >Of the most tyrannycal and insane regimes >of all time, all were based upon secular delusions of "modern, >intellectual, reasoned knowledge". What, the Christian theocracies of the European Middle Ages? Oh they're different - while being tyrannical and insane they *didn't* claim to be based on reason. Is it better that way? Seriously, speaking as a complete amateur, I can blow apart the so-called "reason" of the Marxist-Leninist ideology as practiced by the Communist regimes. (I am assuming that's what you are refering to). However your overall point, that atheism is not correct and Christianity is, fails in two important ways: - those regimes did not use "atheism" as their motive, rather power - their justifications for their actions were *not* reasonable as practically any atheist will agree The examples of these "atheistic" regimes in no way negates the utility of reason when used correctly. And just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean he can't be an evil bastard (as many religious people were and are). And there have been many mass genocides and other actrocities committed with the express *reason* that the victims were in some way not correctly observing the correct religion. >> Satan and God were arguing over the property line between heaven and >> hell. God said "I'll sue!" Satan laughed and said "Where are *you* >> going to find a lawyer!" > >I see even some atheists have a sense of humour, at least we have >something in common. Religious zealots are usually the humourless bunch. Get it ? :) >Actually, we have more in common, because I too agree >with much scientific evidence, and many subsequent conclusions and models, >I merely disagree with a HANDFUL of conclusions that deny God, which >almost amount to non-sequiturs, that's all. Let me guess: cosmology, evolution and anything else that conflicts with the Bible, right? Which means you disagree with not a HANDFUL of science, but the BASIS behind a whole lot of it, including the use of reason as a reliable tool for gaining knowledge.
On 29 Jun 1997 18:27:36 GMT, "Jonah the Demonburner" wrote: >1) It is possible that some sort of god or higher being created the >universe. Well, given the evidence available, it appears *extremely* unlikely. >2) the weight of proof lies on the theist in most cases, but not all cases. > (in the FAQ, which I tried to argue with.) Only if you make a positive claim... >And now for the new point which we shall argue about now > >3) Humans are not animals > >And the argument: > >Ok, some of you have said that humans are animals. I was trying to argue >something about morals, and the snappy answer for Mr./Ms. Atheist was that >the humans were animals. Well, without delving deeper into the subject, >let's argue: > >Humans are not animals. Our DNA is >98% identical to that of the great apes, and to some degree is similar to the DNA of every single life-form on this planet. *All* life has on this planet has evolved from a common ancestor, and our species fits neatly into the "animal" classification. Deal with it. >I'd like you to show me an animal that gives up on >life and kills itself. Show me a male animal that will "divorce" its mate >just because he doesn't like her attitude anymore. Show me the animal that >will get angry and kill its parents. What seperates us from animals is the >fact that we have emotions. We can look at something asthetically(major >sp?) and say, "I like that painting," "That mountain is beuautiful." It >is these emotions and feeling that seperate us. You're not entirely correct on all these points (I've had many pets who were definately capable of emotion), but I get your drift. So? Many other things separate us from other species as well, like our size, shape, colour etc. >True, we are a member of >the family Animalia, but human beings are above and beyond the other >animals. I guess, if that's how you want to characterize our superior intelligence and its manifestations. It's a common theist red herring to claim that these "higher" things are indicative of something more "divine" than all the other animals, but that does not necessarily follow, nor is there any evidence for it. >We are animals, scientifically, but only scientifically. What else? >Our minds are far more advanced than that of an animal. We have evolved more intelligence than the other animals. >Not only are we more >intelligent, but we have morals and a conscience and emotions. Sure, and other animal species exhibit these traits to various degrees, though not as much as humans. >We can fall >in love with someone. We can feel loyalty toward our family. We can >decide that life is not worth living. We can feel disgraced. We feel >shame. We feel loss. IF an animal loses its brothers, it is not going to >have to go to a mental asylum for counseling. It is these differences that >drastically change us from the animal. There is no doubt that our intelligence and social requirements have enabled us to experience depths of knowledge, understanding and emotion that is beyond what other animals experience. Well, we evolved that big brain/body mass ratio first! >They seem insignificant when looked >at individually, but when looked upon as a whole, they make a huge >difference. Due to our emotions, we create morals. We paint pictures. We >invent. We explore. Our society would not be without these asthetics. You have obviously put a lot of effort into detailing many of the things that humans experience, which (other) animals apparently do not. Very well, can't argue with that. However, this does not prove we are not animals, because all this is easily explained by the fact that we have evolved a level of intelligence and sentience that is beyond all the other animals. Well, good for us, now we get to run the planet. >I think I made my point. Find the holes in the logic and zap me. I can't >wait to get your responses! Your logic is mostly not bad in terms of the observations, but when you try to explain these things, you are making a huge leap if you claim that there is something "extra-supernaturally-special" about humans compared with all the other life on this planet. >SpudBoy Jonah The Demonburner (JDB Dragon)
On 26 Jun 1997 05:15:32 GMT, "Jonah the Demonburner" wrote: >This is only about ghosts. I was wondering what skeptical atheists think >about ghosts. How surprised would you be to hear that practically none of us believe they exist? >Basically, here's what happened. I was talking to a friend >of mine who said that her grandparent's house was haunted. Cool! >I went there >and was very surprised to see a cat levitate in mid air. Fuck, call the National Enquirer! They pay big bucks for stuff like that! >Suffice it to say that I left quickly. Why, did the suspended cat seem somehow dangerous? What kind of a wuss are you :) >HEY! I just thought of something. If there are >ghosts, then there must be a soul, and you could use that to prove god! There aren't any ghosts, Mr. Demonburner, therefore neither are there any gods. QED :) >SpudBoy Jonah The Demonburner (JDB Dragon)
On 29 Jun 1997 18:40:03 GMT, "Jonah the Demonburner" wrote: >Jeff Wilson wrote in article ><33b4625c.39271@207.126.101.77>... >> I'm surprised no thread on this has been started yet. It >> seems to me an event of particular interest to atheists. To >> my mind, it represents the state imposing a morality on the >> people at large. This I am very hostile to. It is one thing >> to regulate a person's actions when those actions impair >> the welfare of others, but it is quite another for the state to >> step in and tell a person how he must live his own life. >> >> To my mind, justifications for a state are that it be the >> servant of the people in preventing non-victiimless crime >> and invasion from abroad, in regulating commerce for >> mutual benefit, and perhaps in providing (but NOT >> dictating) health and welfare. The state is otherwise an >> unnecessary, burdensom and offensive intrusion into >> people's sovereignty over themselves. >> > >Ok, so are you saying that we should all just kill ourselves? Don't be a moron, Mr. Demonburner. I have higher hopes for you. >No, you're saying it's OK if we do so! Ultimately, no-one else is qualified to make that decision for you, unless perhaps you are mentally incompetent. Can you deny that there are situations for people with terminal illness, where a quick, painless death is preferable to a lingering, painful one? Who the FUCK are you to deny someone that control over their own life? >Here's one quick response to that. I have a >more involved response, but I'll withold it for now: Say I'm working on >the cure to cancer and am close to the answer. One day, my wife leaves me >and I get really sad. OH well, I'll just kill myself and stop the pain! >(Anyone else see the idiocy in this?) Of course, and so would any medical professional you approach to help you do it. Do you really think that legally allowing assisted suicide means that anyone who is sad is going to be able to check into a suicide centre and off himself with medical help? Since in your hypothetical case you are clearly severely disturbed, you won't get any help. However, you would free to kill yourself anyway, just like you are free to do so right now WITHOUT a legal right to assisted suicide. You'll just have to do it the old-fashioned way: by yourself. >The other argument comes from >utilitarianism and shows how doing this will lead to other things. >Basically, The Third Reich all over again. The old "slippery slope" huh? Not if the law requires informed consent it won't. Your argument is like saying that if we are allowed to eat chickens, then cannabalism can't be far behind...
>In article <01bc84bf$359c7fc0$e79a51d1@JonahTDB.stratos.net>, "Jonah the Demonburner" writes: >> I'm sure you've heard this before, but I need to hear it, so... >> >> The problem with both abortion and assisted suicide is that it leads to >> utilitarianism. Life is already utilitarian. Deal with it. >>Also, they both have inherent problems in and of >> themselves. LEt's take a look: Maam, your child has sinclorata (Made-up >> bad disease) There is no cure, let's abort it. Probably a good idea. Your point? >> OK. Day 2: Eureka, I've >> discovered the cure to sinclorata! How about the cure to all the *real* horrible debilitating genetic diseases? Any chance of those being cured once a baby is born with one of them? >> Example 2: Sir, I know you're dying of >> amblaba, it would be extremely painful for you to continue. Ok, call in >> Doc Kevorkian. DAy 2: Here's the cure to it. Yeah, in your dreams. This is way too hypothetical to be of any use as an ethical argument. >> As you can see, holding out >> till the last minute can have greate benefits. What are the odds again? In real life, I mean. >> If you could wait those >> last few hours, you might get the cure to whatever you have. Absurd. There ARE times when this clearly will not happen. >> And what >> about those so-called "miracle" recoveries. Some people that were near >> death have come back on an amazing recovery. What about them? It happens. What if someone has been praying constantly but *doesn't* get that one-in-a-million miracle? Your God lets an awful lot of people down that way, you know. Then He won't let them die gracefully, but insists they live their final time in physical and mental agony. What a Jerk. >>Some of you say that people >> should be allowed to die however they want. Ultimately, no-one else can make those decisions for you. >> So if I'm having a bad day, >> it'd be OK for me to jump out of a skyscraper? Sure, whatever. I don't care. >>I think not. That's why you haven't done it. >>You may say, >> "Just wait until you have a better day." More likely I might say "I won't help you kill yourself unless you're dying of a painful terminal illness." But ultimately, always, it is up to you, isn't it? You don't need anyone's permission to kill yourself. >>But isn't that what I was saying >> above? You NEVER know what the next day will bring. It could possibly >> bring the cure to whatever ailment you have. Yes, and the princess with the golden hair will suddenly think of Rumplestiltskin's name. >>Live as long as you can. Not if I'm in terminal agony, I won't. And keep your butt out of my business. >> That might happen, it could even be likely. Likely? Your examples are all astronomically unlikely. >>But any kind of killing that >> is not natural devalues life. According to fundamentalist Christianity perhaps. Humanists tend to think there is more to life than not being dead. >> If you can walk over and kill your baby for >> a dime and a nickel, look at the value that is being placed on life. Well, you can't do that without being charged with murder, can you? Besides, there already are people who kill their own babies. Clearly they don't value life like practically every other human. What's your point? >> People will pick up on this and stop caring about anyone else, because life >> means nothing. Anarachy erupts, end of world. Abortion and assisted suicide have been going on for much of human history. I don't see anarchy, and only you fundies think we're near the end of the world. >> Both these cases may be extreme, but they are distinct possibilities. While perhaps distinct, they are definately impossibly small. >> I'm >> sure there are tons of books that you can read on the subject of how one >> thing will lead to another. Yes. You should pick up a biology textbook. >>But it is in the moving toward these extremes >> that we will certainly see. IN progressing toward these endings, we will >> see the world become worse and worse. Sez you. We aren't moving to any extremes. >> Just a side note: These are the >> kinds of things that God supposedly sent the floods to destroy. Well, if you're lucky, maybe He'll send another one. O right, the rainbow was created as a godly promise that He wouldn't do that again. Kind of funny, right after God destroys mankind for being evil and wicked, we go right back to being evil and wicked again! Whatever, it's all a load of bunk anyway. But you knew we already know that, don't you? >>He also >> tried to stop his Nation from doing these things. No, He just killed everyone with no warning. >>Why? Because He is a dangerous insane psychotic. >>Because it was >> destroying them. Hey, maybe they were having a good time. How would you know? >>IT was destroying the people within it. Would you really >> like to live in a sex-filled, drug-filled, ill-moraled world? Err, don't ask me that. You might not like the answer :) Seriously, there is nothing wrong with sex and drugs. As long as people don't fuck other people up, I don't care what they do. >> Think of the >> way children would be raised. Rather a lot like they are now, I am sure. >>Things are outlawed for a reason. Not always. Sometimes it's just plain old historical dogmatism. >>If you >> start taking abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia, and even drugs, >> prostitution, and more and making them legal. Try to imagine the world we >> would be living in. Many of these are already legal, and frankly, I like this world just fine. Making the rest of them legal, and removing legal barriers to be responsible for ones self, will only improve matters. Abortion is legal. I don't see the terrible things you hint about. Legalizing assisted suicide would have little effect, because it is only applicable to those with terminal illness. Legalizing prostitution and drugs, however, would reduce the crime rate to a fraction of what it is. I can't understand how you fundies cannot see this. >> The direct effects would be disasterous, let alone the >> long term effects. Ha ha ha! What do you know? >>If you can imagine a world with these things in places >> and still see it as a peaceful world, you are CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!! Perhaps you are STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>I mean it. Oh I know. Fanatics always do. >> Try to imagine harder. THERE IS NO WAY THIS STUFF WILL LEAD TO A GOOD >> WORLD!!!!!! Abortion and assisted suicide are ALREADY HAPPENING! The world is NOT A DISASTER, and I cannot imagine a time or place where I would rather live.
On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 07:07:55 -0600, Diana Newman wrote: >das wrote: > >- >>>You are basically not even > >> -allowing the chance that God exists. >> >> I am completely open to that possibility. Atheists and agnostics, in >> general, are the most open minded group of people that exist. We HAVE >> no >> religion, so we look upon all of them without bias. > >oops. You were doing so well, too. ;-) > >Atheists, as a general rule, seem to have no 'general rule'--except one. >That one is not, as you think, a general lack of bias, but rather a >universal bias against religion and the idea of a deity. Bzzzt! Wrong! Atheists share a lack of belief in gods, and not necessarily anything else. There *are* religious atheists you know. I'll take your comments personally though, because in my case I *do* have a bias against religion and deities. I claim religion is a useless and harmful practice, and that no deity I have ever heard of really exists as described. (I'm not talking about things like the sun here, which obviously does exist - more accurately powerful beings who are in some kind of control over events here on earth.) >Theylook at a >theist of whatever stripe and see his inability to easily accept the >notion of a god different from his conception of Him, never mind the >idea that there is no god at all. They are right. Good for you! This is certainly the case. >That theist has >"proof" sufficient for his needs that *this* is so and *that* is not. Clearly the "proof" is sufficient for the theist's needs, even if it is actually nothing but childhood indoctrination, or worse, mere wishful thinking. >I look at atheists and see that exact sort of bias; an inability to >accept that there can be, legitimately, a deity who will not march to >their drum, and prove Himself according to their standards, but rather >provides His own. The problem is not that there "cannot" inherently be such a being, but that the *evidence* available does not support its existence, and for the most part *denies* the existence of such a fantastic creature, especially when you take into account the absurd and amazing details of the myths surrounding it. I'm not sure what you mean by "standards" but I suspect you refer to the inability of many of us to accept the Biblical morality laid down by the Judeo-Christian deity. The problem here is that these particular "standards" are clearly ridiculous and nonsensical, and it is obvious that no self-respecting omnipotent deity would be associated with them. >Now this is fine, actually. Very human of you. Thanks! I'm not sure you meant that as a compliment, but the ability to reason is particularly a human trait, here on this little insignificant planet in an unimaginably huge comsos. >However, the fact that >you (most of you) simply will not accept this idea as a possibility is >very indicative of bias. I'm sure this has been explained to you dozens of times, but for the benefit of anyone else reading this, THERE IS NO REASON TO ACCEPT THAT YOUR PARTICULAR MYTH IS A FACT! We atheists look around and see the many different and conflicting religious stories, and we look at the history of how they developed and the conditions at the time, and we realize THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE ! THEY ARE ALL NONSENSE, INVENTED BY PRIMITIVE STORYTELLERS ! Open your fucking eyes! How can you say your myth is correct and all the others aren't? They all have *EXACTLY* the same amount of evidence. NONE. That should tell you something! >Agnostics do accept this as a possibility, at least, the ones I know >do---they simply tell me that whatever method of *proof* God may >actually use hasn't been used on them yet. Putting aside your serious misuse of the word "agnostic", have you *really* met someone who said this? What are they waiting for? Sounds like they are really just doubting theists or weak atheists. >Now that, I think, is fair. Fair, maybe. Logical, not really. Which is more important? >As for faith.....(grin) you work on faith every day. Everyone does. >Everytime you act on something that someone else has told you, confident >in its veracity even though you don't have personal experience with the >truth of it, you are acting on pure faith. Why do you theists insist on misusing the word "faith" when you really mean "confidence"? I just don't get it. It must be some huge mental problem where you have to project your baseless beliefs on those who are demonstrably free of them. It bothers you immensely, so you have to pretend that we are just as stupid as you. Faith means ungrounded belief *without* evidence or reason. Confidence means you expect something *because* of reason. >The only difference between >atheists and theists is in where they place that faith. ;-) There is *way* more difference than that. I have no faith at all. Sorry to destroy your little myth ;-) >diana
On Fri, 04 Jul 1997 18:21:07 -0600, Diana Newman wrote: >randall g wrote: >> On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 07:07:55 -0600, Diana Newman >> >Atheists, as a general rule, seem to have no 'general rule'--except >> one. >> >That one is not, as you think, a general lack of bias, but rather a >> >universal bias against religion and the idea of a deity. >> >> Bzzzt! Wrong! Atheists share a lack of belief in gods, and not >> necessarily anything else. There *are* religious atheists you know. > >Let us set aside the Bhudists and similar religions just for the sake of >this particular conversation, shall we? No problem. I'm probably not much more familiar with those beliefs than you are - I was just making the point that your blanket assertions fail on the slightest scrutiny. >Religious atheists may not >believe in a particular deity, or indeed any deity at all, but they >definately believe in some sort of "something" that is spiritual, and >spiritually proven, rather than the physical only. Sure, atheism does not preclude the belief in fantastic things other than gods, such as leprechauns or Santa Claus. But we have agreed to set this aside now, of course. >However, I will admit >that you are right about atheists being religious. They are---at least, >the strong atheists are; Huh? I never said atheists are religious, just that there are some who are. But you are trying to tar critically explicit atheists such as myself with your religious brush, and up with that I will not put. >it's just that their religion Since you are such a fan of dictionary definitions I'll quote my dictionary's definition of religion: 1. the service or worship of God or the supernatural 2. devotion to a religious faith 3. an organized system of faith and worship 4. a cause, principle or belief held to with faith and ardor Note that there are four of them, all somewhat different. You *must* know that words in English commonly can stand for multiple (usually related) meanings. The meanings become less specific the further down the list you go. The first three meanings above do not apply to any atheist. The fourth might, if you also use the vaguest meaning of "faith". But then you have to accept that being a sports fan or a stamp collector is a religion too, which is too vague of a use of the word to be very useful. It is a common bleater tactic to use a word like "faith" or "religion" in its least strict meaning and then turn around and assume that all the other more specific meanings also apply equally. This is seriously intellectually dishonest. I'm kind of surprised you stoop to it, given your pretentions of intellectualism. But there you go. Theism is harmful and blinding. You know you have not got reason or logic on your side, even though you desperately wish you did, and the resulting cognitive dissonance makes you lie. >is based on a >conviction that there isn't a god, rather than a conviction that there >is. Either way, the "proof" is not complete, and so both positions are >the result of that five letter word so unloved by you, "faith". ;-) As an strong atheist I do not base any particular conviction on the fact that no gods exist. This is simply an observable fact, an operating assumption, and I do not need the same sort of fervent "belief-despite-evidence" that you theists do to sustain me in my day to day life. That is why it is not a religion. I'll cheerfully admit that if you could show me reliable evidence for the existence of your god, I'd become a theist just like you. I'm just not holding my breath. >To be honest, the only atheistic position that I respect is that of the >"weak" atheists, those that simply say, and then proceed to prove by >their words and actions, that they don't believe in a god because they >haven't seen any convincing evidence that there is one. It's kind of funny. You say you respect the "weak atheist" position because you think the strong atheist position, like the theist position, claims absolute knowledge of the existence or non-existence of god. If that is the case, how can you have any respect for the THEIST position which you yourself hold? You don't have absolute proof of god, and I don't have absolute proof of non-god. We are both unrespectably claiming knowledge we can't possibly have (according to you). >When they take >the next step and proclaim ( or show) that they firmly believe, or know, >that there isn't a god, they have become as religious as the most >fanatic of fundamentalists. Right... so anyone who firmly believes leprechauns or Santa Claus doesn't exist is "as religious as the most fanatic of fundamentalists." Don't you see how stupid this is? Problem is, your version of "know" and "firmly believe" is a completely dogmatic and baseless one, which you can only relate to in a theistic sense. Because the existence of your god is so obvious to you, and burned so strongly into your personality, you assume that anyone who denies it because of lack of evidence (or contradictory evidence) must be as strongly dogmatic as you are. The difference is that there is no evidence for your firmly held belief, and all the available evidence indicates we strong atheists are most probably correct. You are denying the evidence all around you, and I am not. That is why you are religious, and I am not. >Seems to me that the only difference between >the two is the choice of words used; the fundies threaten me with hell >and damnation, the faithful atheists use words that discribe body parts, >improbable sexual feats, and insults that, if I were male, would be >aimed at my mother. Wow. Now I'm intrigued. Like what ? :) Seriously, I don't tell you how to run your life, what you are allowed to do with your genitals, and other details about how to worship a fairy tale to avoid hell and damnation. If you receive insults, it's because you are being annoying and stupid. Deal with it. >Since I am female, I guess they think I'm strong >enough to handle my own insults, rather than needing my mommy to filter >them for me. Whatever. All I expect is that you defend the things you write. And if you are annoying and stupid, I may insult you, as you are free to do to me. And I *do* expect you to handle it, regardless of your sex, which is completely irrelevant to me. >> I'll take your comments personally though, because in my case I *do* >> have a bias against religion and deities. I claim religion is a >> useless and harmful practice, and that no deity I have ever heard of >> really exists as described. (I'm not talking about things like the sun >> here, which obviously does exist - more accurately powerful beings who >> are in some kind of control over events here on earth.) > >Thank you for making my point for me so eloquently. (G) Huh? Explain please, you are making an insinuation that what I said was so stupid that my comments support your position and not mine. Do you mean my use of the word "bias"? It's not dogmatic like your beliefs. I am willing to be convinced, but the older I get, the more life experience I gain, the more I realize how unlikely all this theist nonsense is. >> Clearly the "proof" is sufficient for the theist's needs, even if it >> is actually nothing but childhood indoctrination, or worse, mere >> wishful thinking. > >As your "proof" that no god exists is sufficient for yours---and with >the exact same amount of justification, seems to me. I know it seems that way to you, because you so fervently believe in things with no evidence that you cannot conceive that someone else might not. You are so convinced that you believe you have 100% proof necessary to convince you that your God exists. I do *not* believe I have 100% proof that god does not exist. Our levels of belief on this issue are qualitatively different, and this difference is what defines faith (in its less than uselessly general meaning). Belief without or despite reason. I believe there are no gods, but I reached that through reason. If reason ever indicates that I am wrong, I will change my mind. Unlike you. >> >I look at atheists and see that exact sort of bias; an inability to >> >accept that there can be, legitimately, a deity who will not march to >> >their drum, and prove Himself according to their standards, but rather >> >provides His own. >> >> The problem is not that there "cannot" inherently be such a being, > >Why not? Only your own standards dictact this stance----and the point >is that there may be a Being Who thinks that your standards of proof are >inappropriate; like requiring a lettuce plant to grow a pumpkin to prove >that it exists. I'm sorry but I cannot make sense of this paragraph. Please elaborate - apparently my IQ is much lower than yours. >> but >> that the *evidence* available does not support its existence, and for >> the most part *denies* the existence of such a fantastic creature, >> especially when you take into account the absurd and amazing details >> of the myths surrounding it. > >Ever try to figure out the reasoning behind "strange" quarks? Me? No, I'm not particulary interested or qualified. But I could, if I wanted to devote my career to it. Why have you dodged my point, which is a very serious and important one for your argument? I'll pose it again: "the *evidence* available does not support its existence, and for the most part *denies* the existence of such a fantastic creature, especially when you take into account the absurd and amazing details of the myths surrounding it." >> I'm not sure what you mean by "standards" but I suspect you refer to >> the inability of many of us to accept the Biblical morality laid down >> by the Judeo-Christian deity. > >No, amof, I'm not. In fact, I don't remember refering to any particular >flavor of theism at all. Well what the hell did you mean by "standards" then? If you're going to talk about the details of your god's standards, you must be refering to a god concept a little more specific than "big powerful force that created the universe". >> The problem here is that these >> particular "standards" are clearly ridiculous and nonsensical, > >Indeed? Are you even aware of what they all are? Now HERE I have to >retreat to my own brand of theism and tell you that I know at least one >"standard" that seems reasonable enough even for the most hide bound of >empiricists. If you mean Christianity, yes I do know. I was a believer for many years. The "standards" of the bible, when they make sense, are banal and found in cultures everywhere, and when they don't make sense, are inferior, pointless and often downright evil. >> and it >> is obvious that no self-respecting omnipotent deity would be >> associated with them. > >Really? How odd that you, very much not omnipotent, omniscient, or >omni-anything whatsoever, could decide what such a being would be >associated with. Just using common and obvious human social and moral values. I know how worthless you Christian think that is, and how you have to go on and on about how your god is so superior that its stupidities and atrocities are all justified in some sort of non-understandable holy cosmic way. >It amazes me no end that so many people have to define >a totally unbelievable and unacceptable god so that they can declare >their unbelief in him/her. You know the scenario; "What kind of a God >could a; let evil in the world, b; kill people, c. commit >genocide.....---a proper God wouldn't DO that, therefore I don't believe >in God." Well, obviously. >It never seems to occur to any of these people that God might >not be like that in the first place........... Fine. You're not a Christian then? What properties does *your* god have? >> >Now this is fine, actually. Very human of you. >> >> Thanks! I'm not sure you meant that as a compliment, but the ability >> to reason is particularly a human trait, here on this little >> insignificant planet in an unimaginably huge comsos. > >Weeellllllll, I will admit that we are better at it, but the ability to >reason is also found in other animals; chimps, dolphins, horses, >dogs.....and all down the line. Sure, to a much lesser degree. Wait a minute, you theists are usually the ones who need to "prove" that we aren't just animals and that there is some huge special cosmic difference... >> >However, the fact that >> >you (most of you) simply will not accept this idea as a possibility is >> >very indicative of bias. >> >> I'm sure this has been explained to you dozens of times, but for the >> benefit of anyone else reading this, >> >> THERE IS NO REASON TO ACCEPT THAT YOUR PARTICULAR MYTH IS A FACT! > >I think that there is. Duh. >Since I think that there is, then I will continue >to behave as if it is. Whatever, I don't care. >I don't particularly care if you do, or not. Then what the hell are you doing here on alt.atheism ??? >I >also don't give a hoot whether my belief is ever proven by your >standards or not. I harm no-one, I mock no-one, and I continue to be >happy. Then what the hell are you doing here on alt.atheism ??? >I only get up in arms when someone like you decides that his own >standards of "proof" are the ONLY standards possible, and mock me for >them. I get peeved. It is not my own standards of proof that are the point, but generally accepted *objective* standards of proof that anyone who wants to can use to verify a hypothesis. You theists seem to universally have no understanding of the process of using observation, reason and experiment to gain knowledge. Your theistic beliefs fall apart under such scrutiny, and are therefore entirely unconvincing. The more you bleat to rational atheists about it, the more stupid you will look. Deal with it. >I also get peeved when the ones doing the mocking >will not give my own "experiment" an honest try before telling me that I >am an idiot. Warning: standard bleater alert. Many of us here are ex-Christians and HAVE given your pointless little experiment a try, often for many years. That's why we are atheists *now*. >I don't expect to "convert" anyone. Good, because if you did, you'd end up like Zoner or nameless, wasting away your pointless life trying to convert the residents of alt.atheism, and just looking more stupid and moronic every day, getting some sort of twisted martyr satisfaction being the butt of our jokes. >I don't expect everyone >to get the same answer I did.....but I don't think it unreasonable to >ask that the experiment be tried before it is judged ridiculous. Of >course, that's just me. Been there, done that, it's all bullshit. >> We atheists look around and see the many different and conflicting >> religious stories, and we look at the history of how they developed >> and the conditions at the time, and we realize >> >> THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE ! >> >> THEY ARE ALL NONSENSE, INVENTED BY PRIMITIVE STORYTELLERS ! >> >> Open your fucking eyes! How can you say your myth is correct and all >> the others aren't? They all have *EXACTLY* the same amount of >> evidence. NONE. That should tell you something! > >Yep, true to the religious atheist form I discribed above. (shrug). That's right, dismiss it with a shrug. Don't deal with any of it. And you expect to get intellectual respect? I'll repeat the main points in small letters so you can handle it: There is not substantive difference. They are all nonsense, invented by primitive storytellers. >You >know, I realize that you will just come at me with another swear word >and a capitalized sentence FUCKSHITDAMNPISSMOTHERFUCKINGSONOFABITCH! Feel better? When will you address the argument? >shouting at me that atheism is not a >religion----- Well, some things peeve you too... >but I've been religious a long time, and have investigated >religions of all sorts, and I know one when I see one. (G) Then after all this explanation, I have no choice but to write you off as just another blinded moronic theist. They stream through our newsgroup by the thousands. Welcome. >It is true that weak atheism is not a religion. However, you are not a >"weak" atheist, are you? Nope, I'm a critically explicit atheist. From now on every time you call me religious, I will insult you, because you are now deliberately being annoying and stupid. >> >Agnostics do accept this as a possibility, at least, the ones I know >> >do---they simply tell me that whatever method of *proof* God may >> >actually use hasn't been used on them yet. >> >> Putting aside your serious misuse of the word "agnostic", have you >> *really* met someone who said this? What are they waiting for? Sounds >> like they are really just doubting theists or weak atheists. > >You are right. This is more like a weak atheistic position. However, >agnosticism and weak atheism are very close on the religious scale. Can be, especially when you're fast and loose with definitions. >> >Now that, I think, is fair. >> >> Fair, maybe. Logical, not really. >> Which is more important? > >This is an honest question? Being fair is always more important, even if >it were possible to be one without the other. This is probably the crux of your problem. The universe isn't fair, it just is, and when you blind yourself to reality I will not pretend that we start on an equal footing. Maybe that's not fair, but it is reality, which I at least can deal with. >> >As for faith.....(grin) you work on faith every day. Everyone does. >> >Everytime you act on something that someone else has told you, >> confident >> >in its veracity even though you don't have personal experience with >> the >> >truth of it, you are acting on pure faith. >> >> Why do you theists insist on misusing the word "faith" when you really >> mean "confidence"? > >Good grief. Do you have a definition of "faith" that DOESN'T mean >"confidence"? That's what faith is: confidence in the testimony of >others. Faith in God is simply confidence that He exists. Faith that >enables people to do things that seem impossible, that allows them to >persevere in the face of terrible things---it is confidence that God >exists, that life has worth, that there is meaning to things. >Confidence = Faith. Faith = Confidence. Synonyms. Yes, your problem is you like to use these words, which are different because they have subtle differences of meanings, in their most general sense. Eventually every one is a synonym for the rest. Then you assume that the specific meanings also apply. Problem is it makes dialogue difficult. >It doesn't matter >whether you are talking about faith in God or faith that your friend >will actually show up to go to the game with you as he promised; it's >all confidence in something you don't really know. As you are a brainwashed theist, I understand that you cannot see the difference between the two examples you just gave. You have illustrated your problem perfectly - you think that these two types of confidence are identical. >> I just don't get it. It must be some huge mental >> problem where you have to project your baseless beliefs on those who >> are demonstrably free of them. It bothers you immensely, so you have >> to pretend that we are just as stupid as you. > >Wanna trade IQ scores? (G) Nope. Our words speak for us, and even if yours was 500 it wouldn't change a thing. And everyone knows having a high IQ doesn't necessarily imply an ability to reason - look at some of the idiots on the mensa newsgroup... >No, I am not projecting a thing. Obviously you think so, but that is an inevitable trait of those who project. >You have >just as much confidence (faith.....) that there is no god as a whole >bunch of theists have that there is. No I don't. You are projecting your intellectual weaknesses over and over again. >The only difference is that theists >have some proof (whether you accept it as proof or not is beside the >point....THEY do) that God exists. I *know* theists have sufficient proof for their own purposes, this was never in doubt. It is not objective, and is therefore useless. Bear in mind that this so-called evidence supports hundreds of different and contradictory religions, and you have to explain why yours is correct and everyone else is mistaken. You dodged the issue above. Perhaps you could explain it now... ??? >You have based an equal confidence on >a total lack of any evidence that would satisfy you. I am not denying that this evidence is possible, but I am not holding my breath either. If you have such evidence, bring it hither with all speed, and make me a theist like you! >There's an old >saying, very popular in scientific and debating circles " Lack of >evidence is not evidence of lack". There is also another saying in scientific circles: "lack of evidence is evidence of lack". This one is more appropriate for the question of your god's existence, because if the Christian god really did exist there would be no such utter lack of evidence. >You are ignoring that. Now, which of >us is stupid? Well you are, obviously. >No, the "weak" atheistic stand is understandable, logical and >respectable. Yours is just as illogical and emotional as you claim >theism to be. Show me some evidence, Miss Intelligent. Unil you do, your god claims are just an nonsensical as all the other god claims. It's just somebody else's religion, and there are hundreds of them, all contradictory. Explain that. >> Faith means ungrounded belief *without* evidence or reason. > > > >Would you care to adjust your vocabulary to go along with the rest of >the English speaking world? Fine. Your prefered definition of the dozens available seems to be "relies on anything not directly perceived by the five senses". Fine, I have that kind of faith. Happy? Unfortunately that doesn't leave us a word we can use to describe *religious* faith, and I still don't believe any unevidenced nonsensical god myths. >> Confidence means you expect something *because* of reason. > > >As you can see, no, it does not. Shall we look up "confidence"? > >(also from Websters...) > >"Confidence: firm trust in, self-confidence: cf. F. confidence.] 1. The >act of confiding, trusting, or putting faith in; trust; reliance; >belief; -- formerly followed by of, now commonly by in. >2. That in which faith is put or reliance had. " > >Ooohh, theres the "f" word. ;-) Fair enough. I'll stop using the word confidence. Can you please suggest a word that distinguishes "faith that the sun will rise tomorrow" from "faith that a fantastic collection of unevidened ancient myths is true" Or do you *really* think these are exactly the same thing? Like I said above, if we use all these words in their most general of meanings, then we lose the ability to express subtle differences. What do you suggest? English is the most expressive language on earth, but if we can't distinguish between these sorts of different things why have all those different words? >> >The only difference between >> >atheists and theists is in where they place that faith. ;-) >> >> There is *way* more difference than that. >> >> I have no faith at all. Sorry to destroy your little myth ;-) > >You have a great deal of faith---just not in the same things I do.(grin) >you really need to read the dictionary, rather than write your own; you >communicate better. You know, it really doesn't much matter to me if you will not accept my own descriptions of how my own thought processes work. I can only assume you think I am lying or deluded, or that you have a dogmatic need to bring others down to your level. You apparently have a great deal of intelligence, but your blind theism forces you to project your inadequacies on others. >Diana
On 7 Jul 1997 03:42:22 GMT, lkuhelj@aol.com (LKuhelj) wrote: >>>>because of Jesus??? What did they have to gain for repeating >>the stuff?? Would you do such a thing??? I don't know anyone >>who'd be beaten or be put to death for a farse. > >every religion has martyrs. it does not make them true<< > > The difference was shown when Christians were thrown to the lions in >the arena, they were reported to face them while rejoycing and singing to >their God, even as they were mauled to death. I've already read several answers to your ignorant question, and it sums up to "just about every religion that ever existed". You neatly illustrate how you Christians are so institutionally deluded. You think your religion is *really* *really* *special*. You're taught lies like this from birth, and you become brainwashed that you possess the complete truth, because other Christians suffered for their beliefs and that is unique amongst religions. You are taught twisted shit, like it's the noblest thing possible to be killed for Jesus. Or Allah. Or what-the-fuck-ever-magic-sky-pixie. No wonder so many of you theists go so cheerfully off you your deaths. Is it possible that you could someday realize that you have been lied to big time? Naaaaaaahhhhhh........ Ignorant. Learn. Or piss off.
On 9 Jul 1997 16:15:44 GMT, "Jonah the Demonburner" wrote: >You've heard it God knows how many times before. God doesn't know anything. >The entire Creation proves the creator theorem. >Well... I'm not using that. Good, it's a stupid lame argument that has been thoroughly trashed God knows how many times before. >I'm going on an >entire different route. Alright! Something new! >Check this out: A common disproof of God lies in >the omni-terms detailing his powers. Hmm. Maybe not. >you have said that it is >contradictory to be omnipotent. It is contradictory for It to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent at the same time, given any reasonable definition of these words. >He cannot create a rock that he cannot >lift. Now, You say that because of this, God does not exist. Actually, almost no-one uses this argument seriously. It's just an intellectual diversion with no meaning in reality. >Let me tell >you something about our universe: It is also CONTRADICTORY! I suppose you have an example of a single existing contradiction... >Upon >examination of Quantumn Mechanics, I have discovered that there are many >ideas and experiments that PROVE that two+ things happen/exist, but these >things cannot exist with each other. Perhaps you should study it a bit more. >One of which is (I might be wrong >about this example, I'm bringing it up from the cloudy depths of my memory) > the idea that an object can exist in two places at once. I believe they >showed this with electrons. It has a *probability* of existing in multiple places. Your point? >To digress: If the universe is contradictory, >then, does it not exist? Don't they teach QM in high school anymore? Ahhh, the sad state of our educational system. >The answer? Either it is contradictory and that >is the way of things, or we don't fully understand our results, we don't >fully understand the universe. Or Jonah the Demonburner only knows as much about quantum mechanics as his Christian masters want him to know. >Why can't this apply to God? What? Practically ALL theists claim God is contradictory and unknowable. That's why the claim is so stupid. This is a new argument? >Perhaps we >don't fully understand what his omnipotence actually means. Perhaps omnipotence is inherently contradictory. >Perhaps we >have the wrong idea of what God is. Well, if you've got the right one (finally!) bring it hither with all speed! >Perhaps he is simply contradictory, >and that is the way of things. Certainly the Christian god, on even a cursory examination, is contradictory. Are you suggesting contradictory things actually exist? Name one. Your electron example above isn't, and if you knew anything about quantum mechanics, besides what you read in Watchtower pamphlets, you'd know that.
On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 22:47:24 -0400, rreming327@aol.com (RReming327) wrote: >In article <5pvaa6$i4f@nyx.cs.du.edu>, karromde@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ken >Arromdee) writes: > >>Atheism does not mean "not self-worshipping and aggrandizing". It means not >>believing in gods. If they don't believe in gods, they're atheists. >> >>It's always possible that they might not be _nice_ atheists, but atheists >>they are. > >Nice has nothing to do with my doubt about the veracity of the claim to >atheism which Satanists make. An atheist who is so willing to accept >kinship with dogma such as that put forth in the Satanic Bible is a very >strange atheist. I'm no Satanist, but atheism isn't a club with elaborate rules for joining. There's only one, and as far as I can tell, most Satanists fit the bill. I'm afraid you're just going to have to deal with it. Joseph Stalin was an atheist, much nastier than any Satanist I've heard of - does that mean he gets disqualified too? >But, I have to to accept the fact that as long as a dogma rejects Christ, >parodys Christianity and upsets some Christians, I do these things all the time. Does that disqualify me from being an atheist? >this is all some atheists >require to welcome Satanists to the table, so to speak. Why do you think people need some sort of welcome or approval from atheists to be considered an atheist? So you don't approve of Satanists, big deal. Why does that matter at all? >To my mind, such atheists are mere poseurs and have little in common with >the school of Pyrrho of Elis and his proposition to "look carefully, >examine and consider." Perhaps they aren't, but in what way are they "poseurs?" Do they claim to be of the "school of Pyrrho etc?" I don't even know what you're talking about, so I suspect you would have to disqualify me from being an atheist on that basis. >A search for truth, to the 'good' of man is in the >spirit of classical Greek inquiry and of scepticism which is father to >atheism. No it isn't. Of course, many of us like to think *we* are engaged in such noble pursuit. >Atheism is more than a trendy rebellion of the mind, intellectual >chique, fashionable to the intelligentsia or any bright university student >who enjoys making parents and peers squirm. Actually atheism is less than all that. It's a lack of belief in gods, and without more adjectives you can't say more than that. I suppose that atheists who enjoy "making parents squirm" aren't really atheists, right? >There must be some intellectual accountability musn't there? Not at all. Why do you think so? >Or is atheism >like certain revisionist histories that seek to boost group esteem without >the messy and tiresome pursuit of intellectual rigor and peer review? There are a wide variety of reasons people have for being atheist. Although we usually like to think our reasons are rational and moral this certainly doesn't need to be the case. No atheist is expected to uphold his beliefs with the utmost philosophical rigour. >The refusal to accept a supreme being is at the heart of atheism. Why can't you think this clearly the rest of the time? Oh I know, you are about to equivocate on the meaning of "supreme being." >The >emphasis should be on the qualifier "supreme." It is this assertion to >supremacy that must always investigated and always questioned and, I >think, always opposed. Instead, Satanists distract inquiry away from the >supremacy that they assert with >emphasis on the "being." Considering oneself the "supreme being" does not mean you consider yourself a god, just that you are the most important thing to you. Inherent in this concept is the understanding that other Satanists consider *themselves* and not *you* as *their* very own supreme being. Everyone's supreme being is simply themselves, and there isn't any worship going on. >"We worship no being." they will say. So you think they are lying? Why would they bother? >I submit assertions to supremacy must be called into question if one is to >consider oneself at all a sceptic. Satanists and other religious, >national, racial, ethnic, class, and corporate based collectives have and >continue to assert such supremacy. They are clever. They are ubiquitous. Or you could simply realize that they are using the expression "supreme being" in a non-supernatural way. >They seize the collective imagination once held >by the Judeo-Christian God and substitute their ideology. What is it about trashing Judeo-Christian ideology that bothers you so much? In any event, you are vastly over-estimating their ability to "seize the collective imagination." >That, seemingly, is enough for some atheists who can't see past their own >intellectual arrogance, their own intolerance, their own class hatred, >their own racial predjudice, their own alienation. Wow. That's a hell of an accusation. Good thing it's all just windblown rhetoric and hot air. >Look carefully. >If as an atheist you can't recognize this, then you are blind. If as a >human being, >you can see only this much, then you can truly see everything. Mr Remington, having perused many of your articles I am beginning to suspect that you are an elaborate troll, pretending to be an atheist when you quite possibly really aren't one. I wonder why you are pushing this clique-ish and totally incorrect concept of atheism so hard? That if one doesn't have morally and philosophically pure motives then one cannot be a member of the clique. You treat atheism as if it were a religion, and you take great offence when some atheists trash everything Christians hold dear. One wonders about the motivation. Hmmmm..... >RRemington >___________________________________________________ >Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. >Men willingly believe what they wish. --Julius Caesar
On Sun, 13 Jul 1997 17:36:25 -0500, oyapomba@idt.net (Oya & Pomba) wrote: >As long as you guys are asking questions, I'd like to put a couple of my >own on the floor: > >1. Would you allow your child to practice some kind of religious path if >he/she seemed to draw some kind of spiritual strength from the practice >and that practice did not harm anyone or anything? Certainly I would. I would also make myself familiar with the details of this religion, and if I detected any bullshit I would explain it to my child. >2. Are science and religion necessarily mutually exclusive; if so, why? >If not, why not? Religions claim to have direct revealed knowledge that has no basis in objective evidence. Science is totally the opposite, and knowledge is only gained through objective, verifiable observation and experiment. These are completely different ways of acquiring knowledge, and only one of them can be shown to be correct. >3. Given that > a) the New Physics, the New Biology and other modern scientific >investigative trends seem to conclude that the physical and biological >world is made of interconnected and interdependent parts, and "New" physics and biology? Is that like "New" math? > b) none of the accepted societal (read "non-literalist") tenets of any >major religion in Western or Eastern thought (specifically, Hinduism, >Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, or the Bahai Faith) directly >challenge any proven scientific fact: You mean like slavery and subjugation of women, as in the Judeo-Christian religions? Science does not show that old white men are superior. > c) Question: is there a quantifiable difference between an >interdependent universe that developed at random, and the same universe >that developed because of some "intelligent" plan or blueprint? If so, >how does one measure the difference? If there is, no-one has ever been able to come up with some way of measuring the difference, and it's not for lack of trying. Traditonally, a majority of the scientists discrovering these things were white male Christians. This should tell you something. > In other words, (how) does one acount for the supposed presence or lack >of "God" (whatever that means) when one measures the structure of the >physical/biological universe? Since there is apparently a "lack" rather than a "presence" of such a deity, it is accounted for by simply assuming there aren't any, or if there are, they are having no effect on the "measurements" we can make of the universe. > I'm not trying to start a fight, I just am curious. Hey, that's a great reason for asking questions. >---Jon Frater > oyapomba@idt.net
Christopher A. Lee wrote: >Diana Newman drooled the following to alt.atheim: >>Christopher A. Lee wrote: >> >>>>Believers make a big thing about it, and assume that because >>>it's important to them it's equally relevant to us. But it isn't. >> >>(raising hand.....) Excuse me? > >Did you fart? It was a mind-fart, which doesn't smell so bad, but is just as obnoxious in its own way. >> May I point out that here on alt.atheism, atheists spend a great deal >>of time identifying themselves according to their religious beliefs Fuck, what a retard. Let's examine the damage theistic brainwashing can do to an otherwise intelligent and normal person. >What are *you* doing on alt.atheism? She is here to provide herself with the personal satisfaction that her intellectual superiors all share her own mental weaknesses. >>(claiming not to have any), and discussing things relevant to them >>directly because of their atheism. Now, I will freely admit that there >>are a great many atheists in the world to whom your statement above >>would apply. However, the moment you make "atheist" enough of an >>identifier for yourself that you feel called upon to comment upon it, >>your lack of belief becomes as important to you as many a theists' >>belief is to him---and can no longer claim that the idea of a deity is >>irrelevant. In fact, nobody on alt.atheism is can claim this. ;-) > >No. Our lack of belief in somebody else's deity only becomes relevant >when that somebody else tries to force their deity on us - and it's a >reaction to their negative actions on us, not their hypothetical deity. > >Why is this so difficult to understand? She has a major mental block. She is in a precarious and quite unusual position - she is a deeply brainwashed theist who is also naturally quite intelligent. This leaves her with a major amount of cognitive dissonance that she is unable to deal with alone (and her theistic companions are probably too stupid for intelligent conversation), so she comes here to convince herself that rational atheists suffer from the same problem. That's why she cannot allow herself to understand what we are all saying to her over and over again: it would destroy her self image and pretensions to intellectualism. Unlike Zoner, Nameless and their ilk, it bothers her immensely that she is forced to be irrational because of the conditioning. Instead of rationally examining and discarding the conditioning, she is forced to project these inadequacies on all of us. Cognitive dissonance city Arizona. I have never seen a better example of it. >>You simply cannot claim indifference while you are interested enough to >>post an article about it. According to Ms. Intelligent here, people who post to the model railroad group are religious too. >It has nothing to do with your god. But a heck of a lot to do with >correcting people when they get get the atheist/agnostic/non-believer >position wrong because they insist on mis-interpreting it according to >their theistic presuppositions. > >Try to understand what we've been telling you next time. Been there, done that, she's completely hopeless. Ha ha ha... Ask Jesus to forgive your sins. Better hurry. OOOOOPS, wrong kook. >>>Because he's not theist therefore he's atheist. It's just a convenient >>>label that's only meaningful in the context of a property that doesn't >>>describe the subject, and says > absolutely nothing about whatever >>>other properties he may or may not have. >> >>The trouble with this is that "theism", "atheism", "agnosticism", >>"deism", >>etc. are all terms that directly relate to specific beliefs about deity, > >So what? Anybody who isn't theist is atheist. > >Are you symmetric? Then you're asymmetric. Do a lot of symmetrical people >harangue you for not being symmetric? Do they try to define your position >about symmetry for you? > >Did you even try to understand what I wrote? She is incapable of understanding any of it, because her brainwashing is too severe. Talking to her is like talking to Zoner. Actually it's worse in some ways - recently Zoner is making efforts to address the arguments a lot more than he used to, and he's not stupid enough to keep blathering a completely stupid and insulting thing like "atheists are as religious as fundies." >>and cause great confusion when used casually and carelessly. Says she who thinks the words faith, confidence, religion, belief, and reason are all synonyms. >>There are, >>within the context of the idea, a great many gradations between "atheism" >>(strong and weak) and "theism"----and those gradations don't fit either >>end of the spectrum. To confine descriptions merely to those two ideas, >>like an on/off switch, is inaccurate, confusing and ultimately useless >>in understanding beliefs and for communication Right Diana, they are all "religion". Right? >Go back and re-read what I wrote. But this time try to understand it >without your theistic preconceptions. Ha ha ha... Better luck next time. >If you don't understand, ask for clarification next time instead of >mis-interpreting the atheists' position according to your preconceptions >and then telling us you know it better than we do ourselves. Diana doesn't need clarification, she has the huge advantage that all theists share: she *K*N*O*W*S* she is right (as you have so aptly put it). That is why she can completely disregard the reasoned arguments of all of us, because she *K*N*O*W*S* we are all wrong. >>>Most believers use the word agnostic as a sort of half-way house between >>>believing and not-believing in *their* deity (ignoring all the others >>>they don't believe in either). But this presupposes there is something >>>to not know whether it exists or not. The theist has this presumption but >>>the non-believer doesn't. >> >>Brother, is that circular. Of course the non-believer doesn't have >>the presumption that there is a god to not believe in. However, if the And of course, she cannot see the obvious point you made, which is that these so-called agnostics are torn between the god they were raised with, and non-belief. All the *other* gods are either unknown, or disregarded as irrelevant. Why is that? >Sister, actually it isn't circular. It's the root of the argument. *Y*O*U* >are defining our position for us in the light of your preconceptions - >which simply don't apply to us so you are getting it wrong. Yes, you either believe in some variant of YHWH, or you don't, or you're somewhere in between. No *other* gods are worthy of any consideration. >>non-believer can imagine and describe the concept in thought and word, >>then ta da! He now has a concrete "something" in which not to believe. > >Do I? That's news to me. Of course it is, but her mental problem makes her think that we are all specifically denying HER god (despite reams of evidence that only believers are privy to), and giving it a special place amongst all the other alledged gods. >Try to understand that there are people for whom "God" is just the deity >out of somebody else's religion and therefore irrelelevant. I know this >is difficult for you, but telling them/us/ME that your deity is more >important to them/us/ME than it actually is, is the height of arrogance. >You're not a mind-reader, so don't presume to tell them/us/ME what is >in their/our/MY mind. One of the main properties of the deeply religious is a complete lack of ability to empathize with others. We see this all the time. Diana cannot even begin to understand that someone else might have a very different mind set on this issue than she does herself. For her, it's "if you don't BELIEVE religiously, you must DISBELIEVE religiously (in my particular fairy tale of course), and the two positions are epistomologically EQUAL and EQUIVALENT." >>>At that level there's precious little difference between atheist and >>>agnostic. They're just non-believers. Being linguistically pedantic >>>atheist is a better word because it says which particular property is >>>absent: theism. Non-believer and agnostic skirt around it. >> >>True, and understandable----mostly because of a popular conception of > ^^^^^^^^^^ >Make that "misconception". I've already explained that this is a >definition by people who aren't atheists who don't actually know >what an atheist is, and explain it according to their preconceptions. > >>"atheist" as meaning "one who believes that there is no god", rather >>than "one who has no belief in god". The first is a religion (a belief system > >It's no more a religion that "there ain't no Santa Claus". Try to >take off your god-blinders and understand what we've been telling you. No no no! Never! Never give in to Satan! >>revolving around a concept of deity, in this case, there not being one) in > >Hardly. Why don't you ask AND ACCEPT THE ANSWERS instead of telling us >and getting it wrong? Oooooo! Don't use caps, it scares her! And don't tell her to accept anything an atheist might say about their own "beliefs" dammit. She's right, so just shut up. >>>> To further confuse matters, there is something called "Religious >>>>Agnosticism" that seems to claim that god exists but is not knowable. And >>>>you appear to use the term "agnostic" in this way. However, there is also >>>>"Secular Agnosticism", which appears to describe the position of those who >>>>don't know whether or not god exists. If I understand "Secular >> >>>Which still presupposes god in order to say they don't know whether or >>>not it exists. whereas it's not important enough to non-believers to make >>>that statement about it. >> >>Well, it may not be important enough for a bunch of non-believers, but >>you can't say that for yourself, having just made a statement about it. > >Actually I haven't: I WAS SIMPLY CORRECTING SOMEBODY WHO TOLD ME WHAT MY >POSITION WAS VIS A VIS YOUR GOD. Which word didn't you understand? Caps, remember? They frighten her, so she doesn't address points made in caps. Try repeating it in lower case. It never worked for me, but maybe you'll get lucky. >>>>Agnosticism" correctly, I'm claiming that Sagan was a secular agnostic. >> >>>I've never understood why so many people want to put labels on us and >>>define our position for us from that label. And Sagan certainty didn't >>>"know whether or not it exists" - it wasn't important enough for that. >> >>It was important enough for him to write books about it. > >Essays like "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection". Oh no! Sagan was as religious as any fundy! Let's completely ignore 99% of his writings! >>of a person without prejudice to whatever other properties that person >>may have, and help advance understanding and communication. "Atheist", >>when used properly to describe only a persons' understanding of the >>concept > >Bzzzztttttt. Wrong answer. You're not explaining what atheists are to >some fellow god-squadder. YOU ARE TELLING ATHEISTS WHAT OUR POSITION IS >AND GETTING IT WRONG. How else will she get this constant attention? >I am not theist. Theist is the property of having a belief system with a >god in it. I do not have that property. Therefore I am atheist. Yes, but you have "faith" and you are "religious" (right, Diana?) >>of deity, is a perfectly good label---as long as we all know exactly what >>we both mean when we say it. Therefore, I propose that we all learn the >>definitions and use 'em right. > >Why not ask atheists what our position is? That way you might get it right. >Don't you think atheists might actually know what their/our/MY position >is better than dictionary definitions written from theistic presuppositions? > >>I know, crazy idea, eh? Why, we just might avoid some interesting (if >>unendingly repetitive) arguments that way. Mustn't let that happen. > >So stop telling us what our position is and getting it wrong. She's on a mission from gawd. >>Diana >Christopher Lee
On 19 Jul 1997 05:34:39 GMT, hoonith@aol.com (Hoonith) wrote: >kerrd@hotmail.com wrote: > >>Personally, as an atheist, the significance in my life comes from my >>accomplishments, my friendships, and my love life. > >I as a Christian also share the same sentiments as above. I find >significance in accomplishing things and enjoying life such as: running a >faster 10K this time then last, watching a ball game, making new friends, >being in love. I suppose one of the only differences between me and him >is my faith in God. If I were to die and find out that my Christian >beliefs were all in vain, would I be any worse off than this fellow? Not at that time, but you would have spent your life on your knees, in subservience to a tyrannical insane monster. That is a very high price to pay. >Could he say the same if the reverse were true? If the Christians are right, he (and I and others) are damned to an eternity of agonizing torture. However the chance that they are right is nil.
On Tue, 22 Jul 1997 08:31:18 -0600, george@nishnabotna.com (Nishnabotna Bend) wrote: >In article <33D4A55A.4865@pop1.ibm.net>, bfelton@pop1.ibm.net wrote: > >> Yes indeed. >> And you will note that there is no insistence on the part >> of science that nonetheless some sort of "act" of "creation" >> 'occurred'. > >Obviously you don't study cosmology. Y'know, if I were you, I'd be a little less flippant with comments like this. But of course, I'm not you. >Cosmologists are still stumped as to >how the universe started (the "Big Bang" isn't a 100% acceptable model). About as stumped as civil engineers are on how to build a suspension bridge. >Why did the "Big Bang" occur? Who knows? Do you? >Is it cyclical? Maybe. >Why are the values just >what they are? Who knows? Do you? >There are a lot of questions regarding creation that >science just has no answers.... I sure hope you're not seriously suggesting that religion has been able to find more answers than science... >they may never find the answers. Maybe, maybe not... >> The *rational* conclusion is that any and all Christian >> doctrines of creation are nonsensical. > >Sorry, but what you state is 100% irrational. Given all of your logical failures, this statement is incredibly ironic. >or one, it isn't just >Christian doctrines, but ones shared by other religions. The Genesis creation myth isn't shared by any other than Judeo-Christian religions. >or another, >most of mainstream Christianity does not take the Genesis creation in a >literal sense. So you agree that Genesis cannot be taken literally, and that the Bible is not an accurate representation of the creation of Life, the Universe, and Everything? Why argue against evolution, then? >Your knowledge of both cosmological theory and theology seem highly deficient. His knowledge of cosmology surpasses yours, and who cares about someone's competence in theology?
On Tue, 22 Jul 1997 21:25:43 -0600, george@nishnabotna.com (Nishnabotna Bend) wrote: >In article <33e52d26.20513298@news.villagenet.com>, aklein@villagespam.com >wrote: > >However, please compare the >numbers for those religions to those of modern religions. If you argue by >numbers, the modern religions will win hands down. Well, then which one wins? I don't know the exact numbers, is it Buddhism or Christianity? I forget. What happens if the Moslems eventually outnumber the Christians (this is likely to happen quite soon.) >> Please look up "evidence". It helps if we all use the same >> definitions for the words we post. Testimony, assertion and belief >> are not evidence. > >Sorry, but I know what evidence is. I'm sure it will help your argument >if I accept your definition, but I'm not going to agree to it. Testimony >certainly is a form of evidence no matter how you slice it. You can call the rantings of mad persons evidence if you wish, but it isn't going to be acceptible to us anytime soon.
On 25 Jul 97 12:03:24 +0000, Adrian wrote: >I'm setting up a fundy/creationist dictionary and phrasebook, it's at >http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/dictionary.html >to help translate fundy-speak into english. > >There's only a few entries so far, and contributions are welcome. For 2nd Law of Thermo: A fundamental principle of science which says that all systems tend to disorder and chaos, and therefore biological evolution on earth (which is an increasing order in living systems) is impossible. Fundies can't resist the opportunity to use a scientific principle to prove evolution is impossible, but they completely misunderstand the principle. If their impression of the 2LOT was correct the entire universe would be a uniform temperature gas cloud, slowly cooling down. They ignore the fact that local systems can sustain an increase in order if a supply of useful energy is provided externally. They forget the sun, which pours trillions of useful watts of energy onto the earth's surface each second. (I forget the exact figure)
On 28 Jul 1997 21:24:11 -0700, shaad@leland.Stanford.EDU (Shaad M. Ahmad) wrote: > > In article <3.0.1.32.19970718205830.01265a40@telemark.net>, >randall g wrote: > >>>>2. Are science and religion necessarily mutually exclusive; if so, why? >>>>If not, why not? > >>>Religions claim to have direct revealed knowledge that has no basis in >>>objective evidence. Science is totally the opposite, and knowledge is only >>>gained through objective, verifiable observation and experiment. These are >>>completely different ways of acquiring knowledge, and only one of them can >>>be shown to actually work. > > kressja@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Kressja) responds in article ><26JUL199713224733@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu>: > >>Hmm. So any knowledge transmitted from one person to another, say by teaching, >>is invalid? Hmm. Where did I say anything of the sort? Methinks you are building a nice easy strawman so you can knock it down. Two scenarios: 1. I tell you "The Earth and all life was created 6000 years ago from nothing by a super powerful magic Pixie". You say "What? How do you know that?" I say "The Pixie revealed it to my religion's priest class 3000 years ago, and they wrote it down in our sacred scriptures. If you don't believe me you must pray to the Pixie for more faith." 2. I tell you "The Earth formed from a swirling gas cloud over 4 billion years ago, and life as we know it has evolved over the last several hundred million years." You say "What? How do you know that?" I say "Here are reams and reams of observation, evidence, theories to explain the evidence, and corroboration amongst many different branches of scientific knowledge, that ALL support it and NEVER contradict it. I can explain it to you to any level of detail you wish. And if you don't believe me check it out for yourself." Spot the difference. >Because, after all, engaging in direct observation is a >"completely different way of acquiring knowledge" than learning from >another, and only one of them can possible work. I hope you can understand that some things you are told CAN be verified objectively, if only you care to try, and some CANNOT. If someone feeds you bullshit and you check it out, you will eventually be able to realize it. > I don't claim to speak for Randall, but if this er, "knowledge", >"transmitted from one person to another" was never verifiable by objective >observations and experiments, then yes, it would be considered invalid. Exactly. That is the difference between teaching and preaching. Theists are trained from birth to assume the two are epistomologically equivalent. >This is not to suggest that we will all necessarily have the means to >verify and test each and every claim that we hear; Which is good, because we'd have to spend all our time proving all manner of trivia to ourselves :) >however, it does >point out some of the problems associated with "knowledge" of the sort >spread, even taught in Biology classrooms, by say, Creationist Bible- >-thumpers. Which of course, isn't knowledge at all, just unsupported revelation which directly contradicts observable reality. >>And here I'd always thought that knowledge was knowledge, regardless of the >>means by which it is acquired. Well, you could happen to guess the right answer, which may just happen to be objectively verifiable, but in general you can't rely guessing and revelation for *accurate* knowledge. > That I suppose would depend on how one defined knowledge in this >context. Personally, I have little use for "knowledge" that appears >inconsistent with empirical observations. To reiterate, that really isn't knowledge at all. >>I wonder whatever you can possibly mean by "only one of them can be shown to >>actually work"? Work for what? Aquiring *accurate* knowledge, if you must be a pill. >Acquiring salvation perhaps? Not my concern. I don't believe in a religion which claims this type of nonsense, and there certainly isn't any objective reason to think that "salvation" is necessary or even meaningful. >No, I suppose >that would generate the wrong answer. It would likely generate the wrong answer to any question except "How does one acquire salvation according to religion XYZ?" > I suppose Randall meant work in terms of providing concrete and >tangible results. Suppose Randall wanted to reach London within say six >hours; a plane built with knowledge derived (originally) from objective >observations and experiments would be far more effective than say, >praying to Jehovah, Brahma, or Allah. Well put! > Regards. > > shaad@leland.stanford.edu - Shaad - > http://cmgm.stanford.edu/~ahmad/ > the deviant biologist
On Thu, 07 Aug 1997 00:45:39 -0500, notdisclosed@netcom.ca wrote: >Katie wrote: >> >> I know all of you are interested in fairness and not insulting or offending >> anyone. Not at all. I love insulting idiots. >> Therefor, I am hereby asking you to write to ABC about an >> upcoming Fall program in which the title is totally insulting and offensive >> to a certain race of people. Bigot alert. >> I know you all will be consistant in your >> intolerance for such activities no matter what groupo is offended. Just like you, right? >> The >> program is called " Cracker " and it is offensive to White people. When I was a child I would lie awake at night crying about how all the non-capital-doubleyou-ites had called me "Cracker". >> As you >> know, " Cracker " regardless of it's stated meaning is a derogatory term >> used by Black people to insult and offend white people. Oh sure, I've heard this lots of times. NOT. >> Regardless of what >> anyone says, the term "Cracker " offends whites as Nigger offends blacks. Regardless of what I, a "White" as purebred as it gets, says? >> It isn't up to blacks to detirmine what whites should be offended by any >> more than it is up to whites to do same for blacks. It is merely up to >> blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc. to accept that it *is* in fact >> offensive to White people and showq respect and refrain from using or even >> showing indifference towards others who use this ugly and offensive word. Or, at least any random word that Mr. notdisclosed@netcom.ca here chooses to suddenly become offended by. >> So write ABC and request that they retitle this progran as to not offend an >> entire segment of American society because I know you're not selective in >> your disdain for racial intolerance. "Yes, everyone please display a level of idiocy almost unmatched in modern times, just like me." >> Thank you >> >> K
On Fri, 08 Aug 1997 12:31:22 -0400, Christopher Beattie wrote: >Doug Schiffer wrote: >> >> I love how the Catholic lie-factory spews out excuses and distortions, >> yet offers nothing in the way of an actual suggestion how to cure real >> human problems. > >I wouldn't say that the Church has offered nothing. Mother Theresa has >offered the best suggestion. Just help one person at a time. Is Mother Theresa making a dent in the problem? No. She's just stroking her ego, and piling up martyr points to get a good seat in heaven. Could the Pope make a dent in the problem by allowing birth control? Hell yes. He could help hundreds of millions of people at a time. But OH, it's more important to help just ONE. Makes good sense to me. Not. >> Ah, but one of the reasons *I* have a comfortable life is precisely that >> my wife and I control our fertility by the use of contraceptives. If we >> had 10 kids like the Pope-o-matic would want us to, we would be much >> poorer. > >Allow me to look into your statement a little further, and you will >see the Catholic position within your argument. The reason you >have a comfortable life (according to you) is that you control >your fertility, and I am assuming you want to control your fertility. The reason is that he doesn't have to support 10 children, and doesn't want to have that many anyway. Controlling one's own fertility is the right of every human. Oh, except to your stinking church of course. >You control your fertility by the use of contraceptives. In doing >so you acknowledge at least indirectly a seperation between sex and >the purpose of sex, or in the words of a 20th century song, "fun fun >fun, 'till my daddy takes my T-bird away." You can "control" your >fertility, but you cannot control your requirement for "fun." So? What's your point? Some people haven't been brainwashed into thinking sex shouldn't be fun. >On the other hand, the Church affirms that the procreative aspect >of the sexual function is the purpose of the sexual function, and >is something which is good. Who the fuck cares what your stupid church says? Especially when it's as moronic and nonsensical as this. None of this dogma has a basis in fact or reason. >In order to ensure the procreation of >men and women, (as a male I can't understand why any woman would >want to spend 9 months throwing up every morning and then going >into the torture of labor but many do) sex is pleasurable. >However, the total seperation of the pleasurable aspects of sex >from the procreative aspects of sex, greatly belittles and >insults the the true spirit of the secual function, degrading >it to nothing more than a pleasure drug which you take to get high. No it doesn't. You're just spouting the lies you've been brainwashed into believing as a child. There is nothing degrading about adults having consensual sex, however and whenever they wish. What a sick, twisted religion you've got there. No wonder you've got to wiggle and squirm trying to defend what is clearly a stupid, shortsighted and downright anti-human policy. >Now this does not mean that the Church wants everyone to have 10 >kids. The Curch has acknowledged that abstence is highly desirable >and that all Christians are called to chasitity. All because your precious St. Paul, who made up your religious dogma as he went along, was a sexual dysfunctional. >Married couples, >although not called to total abstance, are still called to a life >of chastity. What a totally idiotic thing to claim. Back this up using facts and reason. >Moreover, the Church acknowledges that God has given >woman periods of fertility and infertility, and that the proper >use of periodic abstance so that couples engage in sex during >these periods of infertility is acceptable, assuming that they >remain "open" to the true nature of this function and are not >using it as an easy out to seperate the procreative aspect >of sex from the pleasure aspect. Why do you twisted morons insist that these stupid rules your Christian masters made up from thin air actually apply to everybody? >Having said this somewhat longwinded statement, allow me to >close by saying that my parents were Catholic, and I am an >only Child. They did not use contraception. You know, bragging about your parents' chastity and abstinence isn't going to help your point. Not everyone is as repressed as that, or wants to be. >> Condoms and the pill lead directly to a better lifestyle. Someone who >> wants to ban contraceptives is promoting poverty and suffering. > >I have heard many reports of quite the opposite. In fact I >recall a few medical reports about the dangers of smoking >and the pill producing vastly increased chances of cancer, >for example. There are methods of contraception that have no side effects at all. How about allowing those? In any event, far more good than harm is the result. Most things we do come with some sort of risk attached. Do you have a high-fat diet? Do you drive a car? >The notion that condoms and the pill lead to a better >lifestyle is a modern myth that has no basis in reality. It has nothing BUT a basis in reality. You were given a personal example above which you have clearly ignored. Many many people's lives have been improved by available contraception. Sticking your fingers in your ears a nd saying "no no no" just makes you look like a moron. >> Had I spoke openly about your church in say Italy 1000 years ago, what >> would you estimate my life expectancy to be? > >You probably wouldn't be much liked by the secular authorities. >But you wouldn't be burned at the stake. How do you know? Lots of people were burned for that very reason. >> In addition, to fight against contraception today is tantamount TO >> GENOCIDE. > >Wow, that has got to be the best oxymoron I've seen all day. Then it is clear you didn't understand it. To fight against contraception is to be instrumental in promoting more poverty and starvation. You cannot escape that connection, even if you stick your fingers in your ears and say "no no no". WE know what you are doing even if your smug self righteous brainwashing will not allow you to understand. >> Face facts. Not dogma and superstition. > >Oddly enough I seem to see more dogma and superstition comming >from your side of the argument. That's right, claim your opponent suffers from your own weaknesses. There is no "dogma" or "superstition" here, just an acceptance of objective facts and a rational analysis of reality.
102334.12@compuserve.com (Mark Johnson) posted the following to alt.atheism: >randallg@nospam.com (randall g) wrote: >>want to have that many anyway. Controlling one's own fertility is the >>right of every human. Oh, except to your stinking church of course. >If I may, there, 'Randal g'. Of course you may. There is no censorship here, despite what some people may wish. >I take it you hate not only The Church, but Catholics, too? OK, this is the first incorrect assumption of, as I peruse ahead, a long series of incorrect assumptions, blatant assertions, gratuitious personal insults, dodging of the issues, and NO FACTS OR REASON to back up anything you say. To answer your question, I hate certain parts of the Catholic dogma. Many Catholics reject much of the stuff I hate and get my respect. The rest, who are brainwashed, deserve only pity. Your stupid, stupid attempt at a gratuitous and unfounded insult is noted. I know you'd really like to think that I hate all Catholics, that I am sitting here seething with hate and resentment. Sorry bucko, wrong. You are wrong a lot. >and particularly because The Church still stands >up for the proper sense of human dignity, and the true purpose of >life? Ya, so they claim. And in the process of persuing these lofty (and unsupportable) goals they are or will be instrumental in destroying the lives of billions. That is what I hate. >Is your hatred borne of ignorance do you think? No. I am well acquainted with the dogma of the Catholic church. It is borne of the opposite of ignorance: knowledge. >Isn't bigotry and hatred most always? Bigotry may be, but that isn't happening here. Any "hatred" I have is directed towards policies, not individuals. I have no wish to harm anyone. So "hatred" is really too strong a word to use in this instance, but it is obvious you are relying on the sensational and emotional effect of strong words. Bigotry and hatred have historically been an almost exclusive domain of religions. Your church has been the largest, most oppressive force in human history for the promotion of ignorance. You should talk. >>Some people haven't been brainwashed into >>thinking sex shouldn't be fun. >Sex as recreation and pasttime, you mean? Sure. Make it sound trite if you wish, but it is still a loving, emotional expression between people, regardless of whether a child is conceived. >Cut off from its procreative purpose, you mean? Yes. Exactly. Now you're getting it. Why should anyone care if sex is being used for procreation or not? THIS IS THE QUESTION YOU MORONS CANNOT ANSWER. >Fun because it 'feels good', and the human animal >must always seek to satisfy whatever urges to him feel good? If there are no victims, there is no problem. What business is it of anybody else? >Is that it? How is "fun", in other words, an argument here for anything? It is only an argument to show that billions of people are going to be doing it a lot, no matter what your stupid church says or wants. >Isn't it fun for some people to beat up others? Isn't it fun for some people >to play even dangerous practical jokes on others? Isn't is fun for >some people to make their employee's lives miserable? Isn't it fun for >some uncoordinated and mechanically ignorant folks to go 'speed >racing' next to the local shopping mall when it's still open? And so >on. Fuck, why do you morons always trot out this tired old nonsense. These things all create unwilling victims, so there is no analogy. Nobody consents to be a victim. WHY CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS??? >>Who the fuck cares what your stupid church says? >Are you going to surprize me by confessing to an American public >school education? No joke. I just wonder. Now here we have another miserable attempt at a gratuitous personal insult. I asked a perfectly valid question, which you have completely ignored. Clearly you have no reason WHY anyone should care what the fuck your stupid church says. So in order to score a debating point (if I can call it that) you hint that I have a lousy education. Address the issue. Just once. Please. >> None of this dogma has a basis in fact or reason. >Then such would not be found in law, today, however much diluted and >corrupted. It may. Not all laws are reasonable. For instance, sodomy is still illegal in some places. >Your objection is childish, isn't it? No, it's very adult. Children believe whatever they are told, no matter how nonsensical. >It's it rather your >hatred, your delusion, here, that has NO basis in "fact or reason," as >you phrase it. You have yet to point out any delusion I may have. Wanna know why? Because I don't *have* any delusions. Unlike you, I don't have to suck up to a Magic Sky Pixie fairytale, and uncritically accept all the superstitious irrational dogma of the Christian masters. *I* am free to observe the facts and rationally analyze the consequences of various actions. This is a freedom which is denied to you and your ilk, and I genuinely pity that. That is the main reason I waste my time in this way - to show people that they won't be tortured by a sky monster if they think for themselves. >>into believing as a child. There is nothing degrading about adults >>having consensual sex, however and whenever they wish. >Of course there is, even by _your_ standards if that "consensual sex" >is degrading, even to your standards. I don't think *any* sex is degrading if it is consensual. And if it isn't consensual, it is rape, which I am *not* condoning. So your assertion about my standards is shown to be just that: another stupid baseless assertion. >There are some nasty thing >people do in lust. Really ugly. Be honest here. It's where you raise >the bar to, basically. Like what? We need facts here! Examples! Show us some of this "really ugly" stuff. What? You don't have any? What a surprise. Your argument is, once again, clearly nothing but baseless assertions. >>What a sick, twisted religion you've got there. No wonder you've got >>to wiggle and squirm trying to defend what is clearly a stupid, >>shortsighted and downright anti-human policy. >What you suggest, above, is "anti-human", again to use your term. Then why are you unable to demonstrate this? Baseless assertion. >People are who they are, man or woman. That's our nature. It's mine >and yours. To deny that is inhuman. Err, I never denied that. Why is your grasp of reality so shaky? Oh right, superstitious dogmatic brainwashing, almost forgot. >The demons, which you may _claim_ >not to believe in (and I probably wouldn't believe you), Not only do I not believe in your demons, but I *know* it is nothing but superstitious codswallop designed to keep morons like you under control. And whether you believe what I state about my own beliefs is not my concern. >may not >possess gender, and may not understand it or care about it. It's not >in _their_ nature. It is in ours. They just want to 'get the >experience'. We, as people, can't help but get the experience, because >we're people. Don't be mislead by 'whisperings' in your ear. >Conscience is better, even if it makes you unfortable - it should. I'll give that a 4 on the drooling rant and rave scale. Rather a pathetic attempt really. If you had brought up Hell or the imminent Apocalypse you would have gotten more points. >>All because your precious St. Paul, who made up your religious dogma >>as he went along, was a sexual dysfunctional. >Public college here, or high school? What to guess. Oh guess what? You haven't addressed the issue ONCE AGAIN! Another gratuitous attempt to insult my education level! Whaddaya know! I just love backing you morons into corners. I guess that's my biggest weakness, because it is so easy. Perhaps I should take more pity. Naaaaw. ADDRESS THE ISSUE: St. Paul made up your dogma as he went along. St. Paul was a sexual dysfunctional. As a result your church now has an evil, anti-human policy to ban contraception. Deal with it. >>Why do you twisted morons insist that these stupid rules your >>Christian masters made up from thin air actually apply to everybody? >They don't. Not everyone is repentant. Not everyone is a superstitious moron either. >Many will suffer the pains of >God's indifference in hell for eternity. Absolute rubbish. There is no hell. Your stupid fairy tale doesn't scare me. >This life is nothing - 70, >80, maybe for a few, some more years. But nothing. It certainly isn't enough, but you stupid superstitious bleaters have got to convince yourselves and us that it's NOTHING! No wonder you and your church want people to be miserable - this life is NOTHING so it DOESN'T MATTER! Assholes. You can and have justified all manner of atrocities this way. THIS is the best example of anti-humanism you have given yet! >Just enough time to >repent and try to get right with God through the Sacraments of The >Church and a change of heart. You're not even at the starting gate, >here. You think you're going to live forever, rather than die forever. Nope, I'm going to die forever, just like you and the Pope will, and Jesus Christ already has. No fairy tale can change that, though medical technology might. Which of course your stupid anti-human church would attempt to repress. >>You know, bragging about your parents' chastity and abstinence isn't >>going to help your point. Not everyone is as repressed as that, or >>wants to be. >You mean those who cheat on their spouses, who 'play around', or who >still frequent the bath houses, or this or that? That sounds repressed >to me. The previous poster was proud that his parents abstained from sex WITH EACH OTHER, moron. What the Hell is the justification for that kind of repression? Cheating on your spouse creates a victim, which I do not condone. >>There are methods of contraception that have no side effects at all. >They prevent conception. Duh. That's the *definition* of contraception. >They keep people from being born. So obviously it is be a good idea, if you DON'T WANT TO BEAR CHILDREN! >Only >someone who hates humanity, who hates people, who loathe that more >people be born; thinking perhaps they would 'steal scarce resources' >from his grocery store shelves of something. Nice strawman, but it's just too stupid to convince anyone. Going for the emotional poetics for effect. I am perfectly in favour of people being born TO PARENTS THAT WANT THEM! Moron. Insinuating that I hate humanity and people because I think contraception is a good idea. That doesn't follow at all, except to your twisted superstitious mind. >>In any event, far more good than harm is the result. Most things we do >>come with some sort of risk attached. Do you have a high-fat diet? Do >>you drive a car? I note that, as usual, you are about to completely avoid my point. >Or do you proudly and ignorantly It is not ignorant. >contemn The Church, Catholics and all >what they stand for, I only condemn stupid superstitious evil anti-human dogma, and the Christian masters who use it to control the ignorant. >as if you had all the time in the world to mess >around. What business is it of yours how I spend my time? >That's risky, too, isn't it? Not at all, unless the Vatican sends some thugs around to shut me up. You aren't insinuating that I have anything to fear, are you? >>example above which you have clearly ignored. Many many people's lives >>have been improved by available contraception. >They could have more sex, but not more babies, right? That's what they want, right? >And their lives >are better because there are fewer babies, or because they had fewer >babies? They had the precise number of babies THAT THEY ACTUALLY WANTED! Fancy being able to decide that for oneself! Quite an alien thought to you, isn't it! >Or are fewer babies really what you think makes things so much >better? It can for many people. Who the hell are you to claim otherwise? >>Sticking your fingers >>in your ears and saying "no no no" just makes you look like a moron. >Does it really? Sure does. And it's all you can do. Moron. >>To fight against contraception is to be instrumental in promoting more >>poverty and starvation. >I suppose promoting better roads is the sure way to kill a donkey, >too, because his owner won't feed him? Whaddaya know. More stupid unapplicable analogies. I've examined this one and can't see any connection at all. >People are in poverty because >they are kept there, I think, because opportunities are actually >denied, not just somehow lacking; That is certainly one reason. I am against the repression of peoples by their governments every bit as much as I am against the repression of peoples by religions. >cause some mover n shaker types get >off on making people's lives miserable, I think. Like the Pope, for one. Bet he masturbates thinking about it. >People starve because >they don't have enough to eat, even while the local warehouses out at >the port are full of donations from around the world. That's how it >works. While this has certainly happened, I do not believe it is the general case. Indeed, most of the world is *not* starving, at this time, which despite a record number of people to feed, indicates the the distribution is working quite well. Another 15 billion humans, though, and the problem will *not* be one of distribution. I suppose you think Jesus will return and save the faithful before then, right? And the other 90% of us will be in Hell, where we won't need food anyway. >You've been fed a load of . . . education, I guess. I am well aware of the Catholic Church's historical aversion to educating the laity. Fuck ya if ya don't like it. >>are doing even if your smug self righteous brainwashing will not allow >>you to understand. >You're trying to break out from behind the mirror which traps you, >aren't you? This is meaningless nonsense. I am speaking out against an evil, anti-human policy promulgated by your church and its brainwashed minions such as yourself. >>That's right, claim your opponent suffers from your own weaknesses. >But I'm not really trying to do that, least not to the same degree. No, you are just making baseless assertions and gratuitous insults. The previous poster was doing that, which you'd know if you'd read it. >>There is no "dogma" or "superstition" here, just an acceptance of >>objective facts and a rational analysis of reality. >Napolean is still locked in a padded cell, and nobody is more >'rational' than he. You clearly have no idea what 'rational' means. You have it confused with 'insanity'. You are a perfect example of what superstition and ignorance does to a person. >You were right the first time, reason. And what >you say, above, just isn't very reasonable. Sez you. Next time back it up. Empty assertions may work from the pulpit, but I won't let you get away with it here. >Peace. Not bloody likely. Not while you and your church are trying to force more teeming billions into abject poverty, and call it "dignity". What a load of bullshit. Look at the damage you are doing, and it's getting worse. How can you ignore it? We hardly have 6 billion people now. How dignified do you think most people's lives will be when there are 20 billion people? And more? Do you think God will send manna from heaven to feed them? Not bloody likely. You have to be challenged, debated, ridiculed. Your nonsense has to be stuffed in your faces until some of you begin to understand. Those watching must see how your beliefs fall apart like the house of cards they are. So your post and the one I originally replied to are the best Catholic theology has to offer? Bring on the Pope. Let's see if he can do a better job.
On 3 Sep 1997 09:14:06 GMT, "Colin Montoya-Lewis" wrote: >Hi Folks, > >Please excuse my irreverance, but.... > >I'm quite new to this group, and I guess, as a newbie, I've been doing >more than my share of blathering. I did read the FAQ, at least. > >At any rate, I'm curious about whether this group does more than simply >defend itself against poorly constructed apologies for Christianity. It's >beginning to feel a bit like teasing monkeys at the zoo. Surely there must >be intelligent Christians about. Do they ever appear here to engage in >serious debate? This is something I have often wondered about. It seems that the xians who come here (both the reasonable ones and the obnoxious ones) are all theological "amateurs". That is, they are not professional theologians, ministers, priests or whatever. They are lay-people in that sense, with varying degrees of knowledge about their own religion (and other ones). Now why is that? Could it be that the great minds who are employed by the theological institutions are unaware of the existence of Usenet and particularly the atheism groups? I doubt it. Many of them must know by now. These are the people who *define* the religions. They are the ones who invent the dogma that gets fed to their flocks. You'd think they would see this as the greatest opportunity of all time to convince the world of the correctness of their religions. I am assuming that they necessarily think their own religions are correct of course. Who do they debate with? Each other? They universally revile the atheist and yet apparently never engage in debate with us. So do they read alt.atheism and watch their sheep get slaughtered? Why do they not join in? I think they are chicken. I think they know they will be roasted just as easily as the stupidest fundy, and if that happens publicly, they will be discredited. And that is something they will never be willing to let happen. Their cushy jobs and perks are at stake. So they keep their yellow traps shut, and I think they always will. Kind of sad in a way, but I think they are helpless, and they know it. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. I get quite a giggle imagining a gaggle of theologians, in some ivory tower, watching alt.atheism help erode away superstition and mysticism, and knowing there isn't a damn thing they can do about it. Heh heh heh :) >And, on a more internal note, what constitutes a discussion about atheism, >sans Christians? The FAQ is pretty much a dialogue between an imaginary >Christian and an imaginary atheist, and this form would lead one to believe >that this is all the group is about: responding to Christians. Surely >there must be more to it than that? Don't get me wrong, I realize that, >were it not for theists, there wouldn't be much need to define oneself as >an a-theist, so theism sort of gives a reason d etre for this group. But >is there nothing more than simply this opposition to discuss? I suggest you check out alt.atheism.moderated >-Colin
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 12:42:50 +0100, Ida Nozon III wrote: >Those atheists really hated her guts. They're glad she's dead. "Mother >Turdesa" they're calling her. It's true. The world became a better place the day she died. India in particular. >So was Mother Teresa really that bad? Absolutely. She was a ghoul who fed on the suffering of others. >Or is there something wrong with the alt.atheism crowd? Only if you consider thinking for yourself, and worrying about the state of humanity on this planet, to be wrong. >Speaking for myself, Teresa made a better impression on me than does the >typical atheist. That's because you have swallowed the carefully constructed myths about her. Also, you probably know very little about atheists. Check out these websites: The Nation - Minority Report 3/17/97 http://www.thenation.com/issue/970317/0317hitc.htm Mother Teresa In Theory And Practice http://www.users.bigpond.com/Atheist_Australia/teresa.htm Interview With Christopher Hitchens http://www.SecularHumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html Open Letter To Mother Teresa http://members.aol.com/achatte218/chat/index.htm
On 10 Sep 1997 08:58:10 GMT, "Colin Montoya-Lewis" wrote: > > >Jay L Cole wrote in article ><5v54j6$df4@camel12.mindspring.com>... >> > > >> No I am saying in any infrastructure, if every person produces enough >> for them to survive, then your system is not needed. Only when there >> is stragglers do you need to depend on others to 'give each according >> to his need.' For, if 'need' <= 'production' you do not have to rely >> on the masses. You don't give anything but cursory treatment to this >> stuff do you? >> > >Howdy. Sorry to pull just this one thing out of your conversation, but I >just had to comment on it. Jay is the one defending capitalism, right? >Perhaps I've missed something in the thread, but this would seem to be an >anti-capitalist remark. Surplus goods are a necessary element in >capitalism. "[I]f every person produces [just] enough for them to survive" >then there would be nothing to sell. "Stragglers" are essential because >they are the customers. I don't think you quite get it. In this generalization, a person does not produce exactly the goods that he needs to survive. That would be subsistence farming or hunter-gathering. What a person does is work to produce something that others are willing to pay for, and then use the money he receives from that to purchase what he needs or wants from others. If a person is unwilling or unable to personally produce enough to earn the money required to purchase the goods and services he needs, this is what is meant by "straggler". That person does not have the means to purchase another person's surplus, and will end up being a parasite of some sort who exists on the efforts of others. Such a straggler is a customer to no-one. Of course, if everyone produced just the amount required to support themselves at a basic level, then there would be no surplus above that level, and no money to purchase it anyway. Happily, it is not hard for a person, especially with the help of civilization and technology, to produce more than necessary for bare survival, and is thus able to use his surplus to purchase other surplus stuff from others and in that way live comfortably, or better.
On 11 Sep 1997 00:16:04 GMT, "Colin Montoya-Lewis" <#colinml@rt66.com> wrote: >randall g wrote in article ><341ee9ed.690702978@news.bctel.net>... >> >> I don't think you quite get it. In this generalization, a person does >> not produce exactly the goods that he needs to survive. That would be >> subsistence farming or hunter-gathering. What a person does is work to >> produce something that others are willing to pay for, and then use the >> money he receives from that to purchase what he needs or wants from >> others. > >Right. I'm with ya. Division of labor. And it's important to keep in mind the incredible efficiencies that result, so that a single person's efforts can easily be magnified far beyond a subsistence level of production. >> If a person is unwilling or unable to personally produce enough to >> earn the money required to purchase the goods and services he needs, >> this is what is meant by "straggler". That person does not have the >> means to purchase another person's surplus, and will end up being a >> parasite of some sort who exists on the efforts of others. Such a >> straggler is a customer to no-one. > >To venture from definitions to opinion, I guess the part that sticks for me >is that one must do *more* than produce just enough for himself in order to >avoid being considered a "straggler" in a capitalist framework. If one did just enough to support oneself, then you would not be a "straggler" because you would not be living off the efforts of others. That is the crucial distinction. >> Of course, if everyone produced just the amount required to support >> themselves at a basic level, then there would be no surplus above that >> level, and no money to purchase it anyway. > >And I guess that's the thing: If *everyone* were producing just enough to >meet their own needs, then it would be absurd to call them all parasites. If if if. Turns out that ever since the beginnings of civilization it has been possible for most people to produce more than the bare minimum to meet their needs, due to the efficiences provided by increasing knowledge, organization and technology. Rand's ideas are not very meaningful in a non-civilized, non-technological, non-organized environment. >But since some (note: not all, not even most) are able to produce surplus, Disagree, I think the vast majority are able to do so to at least some extent. >the rest are parasites. Most people in the world live close to subsistence >level. Sad but true. What they need is a civilized, technological framework and an regulatory environment that allows them to keep the fruits of their own labour. However even most of them are not parasites, or frankly they would mostly have starved to death by now, because there simply isn't enough wealth around to support that many parasites. >I work hard, but I imagine that most people in the world work >harder. You are probably right. See how the efficiencies of your environment magnify your efforts? >Somehow, in a capitalist framework, though, this hard work becomes >irrelevant. Huh? Are you starving to death? Do you live in poverty? Are most people around you in that state? Or do you think you deserve better than you have? >And, in fact, if the hard work doesn't produce surplus, or >enough surplus, these people are considered "stragglers" or "parasites" by >those who have been fortunate enough to have had the right circumstances to >succeed in a capitalist framework. I think you vastly exaggerate. The only parasites are those who exist on the efforts of others, which is no more than a small minority of the world's population, even in the third world. >Personally, I don't have a better solution than capitalism, but this >contradiction bothers me. When we look at capitalism, on the surface, we >would think that, if you work hard, you will reap reward, and if you don't >work hard, you don't deserve sucess. That's basically how I understand it. >Fair enough. But, unfortunately, >this doesn't seem to be the case at all. If not, whose fault is it? What do you think can be done? >If so many people can work so >hard and still not suceed in producing enough surplus, then hard work would >seem to be an element not so crucial. I think if they worked less hard they would live considerably worse, so the work is certainly crucial. I think they mostly understand that. >There must be something else. >Perhaps it's education about how to work smart. Perhaps it's start up >capital. Perhaps it's the availability of resources. Perhaps it just >means we need more capitalism. Perhaps it's any one of myriad things >outside the control of the individual. Perhaps a government that doesn't take a huge slice of the producers' income and waste it. One that doesn't restrict the activities of the best producers, who invariably take their employees along with them through their efforts. >> Happily, it is not hard for a person, especially with the help of >> civilization and technology, to produce more than necessary for bare >> survival, and is thus able to use his surplus to purchase other >> surplus stuff from others and in that way live comfortably, or better. > >And that's where I think the problem is. It is easier than it was 200 >years ago, but it is still impossible or almost impossible for the majority >of the population of the planet to produce surplus. So the problem is that the environment most conducive to this process has not spread around the world yet. I am impatient too. >I think that, >considering this, it's important not to simply describe these people as >parasites, but to figure out how to afford them the same opportunity. Once again all those people in the poor parts of the world are not parasites, or they would be dead. >I >realize that you were only trying to define terms, so your use of the word >"parasite" may not have been intended to describe your political position. I hardly even have a political position :) I just try to be pragmatic. >But the fact is many do use the word and intend it with this conotation: >lazy, undeserving. There are those kind of parasites, and there are parasites who are simply not able to support themselves for various reasons, such as physical or mental handicaps. I have never gotten a satisfactory answer from Rand's work about how to deal with that. >There is something plainly incorrect about saying that >a farmer in Asia, who toils from sun-up till sun-down and, yet, can only >produce enough to survive is a "parasite of some sort who exists on the >efforts of others." I think the problem here is that you think anybody says this :) Whose efforts do you think they are existing on, besides their own? Nobody's. >But the following sentance, that "[s]uch a straggler >is a customer to no-one" belies the true meaning. There is no compulsion for anyone to be a customer of another, and no shame or negativity if someone chooses that. Parasites as I understand it cannot even support themselves and so must rely on the efforts of others to live, and in the extreme case (viz Atlas Shrugged) by force. >It isn't hard work that >defines the sucess, it's sucess that defines sucess. That is, unless you >*buy* something from me, you're a parasite. Not at all. Trade is entirely a free choice. >The next logial step, it seems to me, is to facilitate success, and this, >in a capitalist framework, of course, means capital. And yet, as a cursory >examination of the political climate in the United States will reveal, >people aren't generally interested in the welfare of the poor. Of course. Of what possible benefit could that be to a particular individual? >And, more >importantly, they aren't interested in providing them with assistance. Of course. Of what possible benefit could that be to a particular individual? >So, >what then? I suppose we just go on thinking of ourselves are hard working, >and those who aren't able to produce surplus as "parasites." I guess so, sad as it is. (I mean parasite as someone who exists on the efforts of others, NOT those who simply don't produce much surplus.) >But secretly, >we will hope that they don't simply go away, because we want people around >who will work for low enough wages to insure our own surplus is even >greater. Not me. I think we are all better off, the more people are able to magnify their efforts and produce more. There is no limit. Wealth is not a zero sum game. >-Colin
On 7 Sep 97 13:16:55 GMT, redsox3@ibm.net (Wayne Delia) wrote: >Incidentally, Jeffrey is dead now, having been killed in prison. In >his criminal trial, he swore under oath that he accepted the Lord >Jesus as his savior and that he rejected the authority of the court >as being lower than the authority of Jesus. (The strategy didn't >work, as he was rather quickly convicted.) Assuming what he >professed was his true belief, is Dahmer in heaven now? With his >victims? Quite probably not. There is a good chance that none of his victims happened to observe the correct version of Christianity, so it is quite likely that they are all burning in Hell. Along with all the Jews that Hitler had exterminated.
On 11 Sep 1997 06:44:43 GMT, "Pangea" wrote: >That's right folks. I have managed to have a personal interview with the >Almighty himself. Here is a transcript of my interview with him: Brilliant! However since God chose not to respond to any of your questions I have taken the liberty of passing your questions on to God's chosen mouthpieces, the local rabid fundamentalist kooks. >Q: Hi God, how have you been lately? A (Chorus): Pissed. Real Pissed. >Q: I see, well ok, let's get down to business. God, please tell me >about your plans for the Second Coming. Can you give us a hint as to > when we might expect it? A (ElijahYahoo): March 24 1997. >Q: Oh I see, don't want to ruin the surprise eh?!? That's perfectly >understandable. Well fine, let's move on then. Tell me God, what is it in >the world today that most annoys you? A (Jahnoooo the Blue Smurf Eater): All these amoeba that grew legs and learned to talk. They are so lame. >Q: Uuummm, you know, something that really grinds your gears and makes >you want to unleash your wrath! Anything at all? A (Zoner): Especially fags. I can't stop thinking about them. I can't wait to visit my wrath upon them. Over and over again. Hot and sweaty like. >Q: Ok, I see this is not going to be easy. I know you work in >mysterious ways but they never told me you'd be so shy. How about another >question? Tell me, do you think today's Christian movement is effective >enough to generate sufficient numbers of conversions to Christianity? A (BriceW Man of God!): Absolutely! My teenage virgin daughters especially, as I have personally inspected them for virginal purity and will continue to do so until God forgives me and restores my left testicle. >Q: Guess I'll have to just wing it. Ok, how about this: Reflecting >back on the six days of creation, do you wish you had done it in such a way >so that it didn't appear that things had actually evolved? I mean, as you >are aware most of the scientific world accepts evolution as the mechanism >by which we came to be and this must bring you a bit of discontent right? A (John P. Boatwright): The universe actually was created many billions of years ago, shortly after the earth, as the six God days are each worth 1.84 billion years which it clearly states in Genesis. So there is no conflict, science is wrong, God made it all, Jesus died for your sins, better hurry, ha ha ha. >Q: I guess you are angry aren't you?!?! I know how you feel. When >I mess something up I tend to just keep quiet about it to. Ok, next >question. When you sent your son down to save us did he know for sure he >was going to have to die? I ask this because while he was hanging there he >asked you why you had forsaken him. This leads me to believe that he was >counting on you to bail him out. A: (silence from all) >Q: I think I get the picture. I know that was a sensitive question. > Let's try another. Tell me, the bible has lots of accounts, especially in >the Old Testament that give testimony to you killing scores of people out >of anger. For instance when you torched Sodom and Gommorah. That must >have been one helluva conflagration! It says you also commanded several >people to kill others. What I'm wondering is what prompted such virulent >hatred in you and how can you justify all the innocent babies and women who >surely were killed in your name? A (Sam Lopez): Yes, God did indeed commit all these atrocities. However what you angry atheists never understand is that God has the *right* to treat, torture and dispose of His creation, and all its sentient beings, as He sees fit. This is Moral, Just and Loving, because the definition of Moral, Just and Loving is "anything God did as literally revealed in the Christian Bible." >Q: Geez, I'm terribly sorry Lord. I should have had better sense >than to ask such a thing. I know that is something you probably don't like >to discuss. Forgive me. So far this interview is not turning out how I >had expected. Let me soften up a bit. First though just one more question >that is really bothering me. Why is it you depend on such ignorant, >bigoted, fanatical, and hypocritical people to get your message out? Why >is it that you don't call upon credible thinkers and scientists to spread >the gospel? You'd probably have a lot better returns with those types of >people since they have shown how effective they can be at providing us with >such grand knowledge. Any specific reason you chose the fundamentalist >types? A (Jim Nichols): The Truth is only revealed to those of significantly lower intellectual ability. I was an intellectual once, but now I am saved. God has sanctified the atheists and skeptics for an especially nasty burning in Hell. That is their purpose. >Q: Fine, forget I asked. Ok, look, I didn't want to do this >interview, I got pressured into it but I'm here and the least you can do is >say something, anything! Oops, sorry to get angry, please don't punish me. > All right, just one more question and we'll be done. Do you know who >created you? A (Chorus): As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be. World without end. Amen. Amen. >Q: No?? A (Chorus rather sheepishly): Ah, err, well no. >Q: Lord please!! Just answer one question! I feel like I'm talking >to a wall here! Lord? A (Sam Lopez): God doesn't NEED to answer you - I have the truth! A (Diana Newman): No you don't I do! My underpants say so! A (luh2314): Diana, you're a teenage boy with a Satan Rulz Tshirt! A (Nameless): What about the chariot parts! Hey! Stop ignoring me! A (Riley Sinder): Bzzzzt. Sputter. Snap. Clank clank wheeze. Pffftt... A (Gladys): You're all inferior! I am the Great Philosopher Gladys! A (Frank the Fundy): Take that you whore! And our fundies fall upon each other in a final apocalyptic conflaguration, just like they've all been yearning for. >Q: That's it, I quit! Interview over!! > >At this point it was obvious that you cannot interview that which does not >exist. Silly me. > >Pangea
On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 11:31:43 +1000, Paul Cook wrote: >You mean that you chose long ago to reject Christ because he has not >thrown lightening bolts at your enemies from the heavens or he has not >parted the atlantic ocean. Or shown any trace of itself whatsoever. >I tell you this, he shall never do such a >thing. I kind of figured that. That's why I'm an atheist. >And because of this, you shall probably never believe, and will >not be saved. Whatever, Mr Mindless Bleater. >If your existance is not enough to prove that a superior >being exists (Our Heavenly Father), then you're overlooking more than >you know. Sez you, without any reasoning. How typical. >What is true? Not sure. How about we try and find out? I'll use facts and reason. What will you use? >You could try to tell me what the truth is, but you don't >know either. Some things are clearly true, others are likely, and a lot of things are unlikely. If you have a brain, you can learn how to gauge these probabilities. >Do you believe that something has to be proved to be true? Depends what you mean by "true". I'll accept overwhelming evidence, without requiring a rigorous mathematical proof. >I tell you now, the proof that the big bang theory (which is stupid) >ever happened cannot be proved, nor disproved. Heh heh. Somehow I get the impression that you know nothing about it. >The proof that God exists >cannot be proved, nor disproved. Perhaps not, but the probabilities point overwhelmingly in only one direction. >It is a matter of belief. Belief can be based on evidence, or not. There is a difference, though it may be too subtle for you. >Believe what >you will, but if you believe in the "big bang", you believe you're >*magic* (in the words of many evolutionists) Ch'yeah right. Name one, liar. >and that you're on this >planet to live and then to die. Sounds pretty pointless and depressing >to me. No doubt it does. Hey, why not pretend you'll live forever? Maybe you won't be so depressed. >Alot of people will try to disprove Creation and all that it is. Why? Because it's a load of mystical, mind-stagnating crap. Oh, and it's trivially simple to disprove, to boot. >They have no capacity to believe that something made them, and that they >are special to someone. Wrong, they have the capacity to accept and understand the reality around them. I don't expect you can comprehend this. But that's OK, some people have a deep, psychological need for a big daddy in the sky who monitors their every thought and keeps them in line. Whatever floats your boat. >They want to avoid the thought of having a >superior being rule over their lives, Avoid the thought? I used to believe this crap. It's just nonsense, that's all. >and not being able to rightly say >that they are "correct" that there is a God. True enough. I try not to make ridiculous, unsupportable statements too. >Science, however, can prove >things. Not really. However science can quantify probabilities. >How is it then, that we are blind to see what we are proving? Dunno, you're the one spinning the fantasy... >Science today is proving more for creation than it ever did. Heh heh. Like what, dork? Ring sections from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Crossbeams of Noah's ark on Mt Ararat? Bits of brimstone from Sodom and Gomorrah? Chariot parts in the Red Sea? >Why did >Darwin tell us before he died that he believed in Creation? Well, IF he said such a thing, which I doubt, he was a theist, and evolution does not rule out a god or creation. >His >_theories_ were outrageous, thats why. His theories were almost completely bang on, actually, and he never renouced his work. You display your ignorance to the world. Check out www.talkorigins.org >Every time an evolutionist proves >something on this planet, more and more questions are raised, but there >is only one who knows the true answer to everything. Let me guess. You, right?
On 13-Sep-97 00:31:19, Speedbyrd :> said in alt.atheism: > I never said anything existed. I merely said I believe...doesn't make it > so or not so. BTW, if a unicorn is invisible, how would you know it was > PINK? We know she is invisible because we cannot see her. We know she is pink because we have FAITH!
On Sun, 14 Sep 1997 05:04:40 -0400, mike morris wrote: >makani wrote: >> >> If you want to recognize Mother Teresa as a Saint than go head and do >> it. If your not a Catholic, you shouldn't worry about their protocol. >> Why not petition the head of your church to recognize her as a saint, or >> does your church only recognize their own members. > >I am no longer a catholic but protestant, but I am indeed worried about >the effects that catholic protocol has on the members of its church. Oh dear. Sounds a bit sinister. >My >church recognizes that everyone who enters the kingdom of heaven is a >saint, What are the other 99% ? Demons ? >where as catholics only see certain "chosen" few, might I add >that only if they are from the catholic faith. Well Duh. What does your church think dead Catholics are? >Who gave the catholic >hierarchy this power to over ride biblical truths??? Are you kidding? They can make up any damn thing they wish, just like your church. It's not like any of you are constrained by reality.
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:43:03 GMT, Jahnu@wineasy.se (Jahnu) wrote: >On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 02:36:41 GMT, (Stix),wrote: > >>> They want to make the human being the supreme controller. >> >>We *are* the supreme controllers - at least of this planet. > >You are so pathetic, Stix. You can't even controll the weather. You >can't controll your happiness and distress. You can't even control >when you want to pass stool. When you have to go you have to go. What >do you think you can controll? Sounds like Janooo-baby has a major incontinence problem. I can just picture Janooo in the midst of a croud of orange chanting morons in the airport, all of a sudden being unable to control when he passes his stool.... must be the colon-blasting diet he's on... >いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい >"Never was there a time when I did not wish to >feel your turgid member pounding my delicate asshole >over and over again in cosmic ecstacy." >いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい >(Krishna to Arjuna before the battle)
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:43:02 GMT, Jahnu@wineasy.se (Jahnu) wrote: >On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:06:02 +0100, June Gill ,wrote: > > >>Is this character a replacement for Nameless, Mickey? (You fickle >>hussy!) You certainly know how to pick them, don't you? ;) > >Pick them??!! She hasn't got laid the last ten years. Kind of funny coming from a blue smurf worshipper who thinks everyone should not only live in abject poverty, but be celibate too. Pretty attractive religion you've got there... >いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい >"Hey Arjuna, I'm tired of this celibacy thing. >Never was there a time when I did not want >your delicious semen dripping from all my orifices." >いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい >(Krishna to Arjuna before the battle)
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 11:38:27 GMT, xae16@dial.pipex.com (Robin Aldersey-Taylor) wrote: > >Name one universal desire, for which there is no actual object. > >Hunger? Nope - food. >Thirst? Nope - water. >Companionship? Nope - friends. >Sex? Nope - women. >Appreciation? Nope - parents, wife, children. >Contribution? Nope - work. ok.... except: >God? Nope - God. Robin, you've been posting here for a while, and you *know* there are a lot of people for whom this desire does not exist. I'd also suggest that most theists don't have this desire either - they just believe what they were brainwashed as a child and never question it. There are a lot of "lukewarm" theists and you know that too. Hardly universal.
Jahnu The Master Chanter To The Blue Multi-Appendaged Smurf wrote: >My only frustration lies in the fact that I'm still attached to the >material world of bodily enjoyment and therefore cannot surrender >fully to Krishna. You know Jahnu, there's no reason to continue to torture yourself like this. Drink the magic kool-aide! Have the applesauce! Join your smurf behind the magic comet! You shall soon be one with Krishna! Oommmmm Oommmmm Oommmmm gasp wheeze thump... >いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい >"Never was there a time when I could expect >to receive so much anal sex, from so many >different, vibrant, hot, sweaty men." >いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい >(Krishna to Arjuna before entering the bath house)
On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:40:43 +0100, Edge wrote: >Steven Wright wrote: > > But a leap of faith is like being told to jump over a canyon >blindfold. > > You don't even know if there is an other side, let alone if you can > > reach it or if you are jumping in the right place. It should be >about > > doing good and behaving properly, not jumping into the darkness. If > > sombody said that they would do just what I described at the start, >you > > qwould call them dumb, wouldn't you. Well, how do you think I view > > theists? > >Aren't you going to die sooner or later, anyway? If you don't confront >the void, the void will confront you. Of course. So it makes sense to avoid that leap into death as long as possible. >If you make the leap, you have no >way of knowing it will be worth it. If you don't, you'll never know >what you may have missed out on. Either way, you make a choice, and >take your chances. When your "alternative" is clearly impossible, it is not a chance. It is just mindless stupidity. >In the meantime, a meaningless life is a measure of darkness. Like >death, but to a lesser degree. Perhaps. Are you suggesting that the life of an atheist is necessarily meaningless? >There's no compelling reason to go either way. But there is a >precedent: those who take great risks in this life may accomplish great >things in this life, while those who don't never amount to much. Sure. There're lots of examples of this. >And >there's an intuition, that this law may somehow extend beyond death. However, here the metaphor breaks down. Risks in life of the type you are talking about can be understood and quantified. Intuition on matters of reality is not always accurate. >It all depends on how bold you are. You can stand pat, take what >pleasure you can, forego the uncertain promise of real meaning. Well, here you are becoming just another arrogant theist asshole. You think that real meaning only comes with god-belief. Piss off. Or try to understand. >You'll >live a while, and then you'll die. Or you can take the chance, risk all >this in the hope of something more worthwhile. > >Do you have the guts to believe? About as much as I have the guts to perform a self-lobotomy.
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 13:31:23 +0100, Edge wrote: > >Jim Sarbeck wrote: > > : > > : Do you have the guts to believe? > > > > Excuse me but did I miss something or is it implicit that the only >way to > > a meanignful life is via belief; and could you be more explicit or >repeat > > what it is that is to be believed? > >1) Do you have a better idea? Absolutely. Try to understand reality as best you can, and ignore the unsubstantiable ravings of mystics. >2) One step at a time. I'm not telling you how to place your bet. By insinuating that it takes "guts" to believe [ie whatever theism you practice] you insinuate you *know* what the right answer is [ie the way to place the bet]. Don't be coy. It just looks stupid. Your agenda is clear. >That's your problem. I'm telling you you can't quit the game without >forfeiting. What game? Is that what you think it is? To the mystic everything imaginable is equally probable. Pfeh.
On 17 Sep 97 15:15:30 -500, Beth Wise wrote: >On 17-Sep-97 09:59:41, Jay L Cole said in alt.atheism: >> mccoy@sierra.net (John McCoy) wrote: > >> I knew if I made fun of nameless, he would be back. It's like a >> mental disease for them. They can't stay away from alt.atheism for >> long. They need that martyr complex in their life :) > >Aha... So this is nameless? I'd been wondering who it was I should ignore, >but I couldn't figure it out 'cause no one would say his name. :) Beth, don't ignore Nameless. He's one of the most entertaining theists we get here. He goes to all kinds of effort to claim he has physical evidence of the happenings in the earliest part of the Old Testament, like chariot parts in the Red Sea from pursuit of the Hebrew slaves by Egypt, or bits of brimstone from Sodom and Gomorrah. Crossbraces from Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat. Stuff like that. Also he always seemed to retain a sort of cheerful but woefully pathetic manner. Well anyway, what I meant was don't ignore Nameless *AT FIRST*. He's worth a few chuckles before being cast into the killfile void. Definately one of the more interesting kooks around here. unofficial alt.atheism kooks page: http://www.telemark.net/~randallg/aakooks.htm
On 18-Sep-97 14:45:58, Diana Newman said in alt.atheism: > inky@csrlink.net wrote: > Trouble is, I don't see that the "children" have much mercy at all. When WE > kill, we do it not knowing whether that life is ended utterly, or if there > is an afterlife, precisely what it will be like. When God does, He at least > knows where these people are going. Christ Himself said that the most wicked > people in Sodom were going to be in better shape than the people who > actually saw and heard HIM and yet didn't believe----so something tells me > that the vast majority of the Sodomites are going to be fine. Wow, this sort of statement really gives me the creeps. It can be used to justify anything at all, any amount of mass murder, genocide, whatever your twisted mind can dream up, in the name of your GOD. All you need is to hear, or to convince yourself that you hear, your GOD whispering in your ear to kill people for whatever reason you want to dream up. Then WOW!! Instant knowledge! Kill the Sinner! After all, if we slice up a bunch of innocent babies in the process, GOD will make sure that they are taken care of!!! KILL KILL KILL!!! No reason not to.
On 20 Sep 1997 18:26:17 GMT, "Frank Schierenberg" wrote: >randall g wrote in article ><342cf3db.889859640@news.bctel.net>... >> >> On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 11:31:43 +1000, Paul Cook >> wrote: >> >> >You mean that you chose long ago to reject Christ because he has not >> >thrown lightening bolts at your enemies from the heavens or he has not >> >parted the atlantic ocean. >> >> Or shown any trace of itself whatsoever. >> Whatever, Mr Mindless Bleater. >> > It's you now who is "mindless" Randy. Wow, you sure make a lot of baseless assertions don't you. I also notice you didn't respond to 98% of my post. Figures, you have no reasonable argument do you. You are only here to rack up more martyr points to buy yourself a better position in your mythical afterlife. >I have no idea what the term "God" might >mean, I am refering to the Christian god. The previous poster specifically mentioned "Christ". You've heard of that particular god haven't you? You go on about it long and hard. >but you seem to know enough about God to speak of "no trace of itself" as if >you know what you are "bleating" about? Correct. What I know is that this super powerful magic space pixie thingy is unable or unwilling to affect reality in any way. Which as far as I'm concerned is equivalent to non-existence. And it isn't a bleat. A bleat is the sound a sheep makes - the same sound, over and over again, as it was taught to do, and never understands or questions. > Tell us Oh Smart One, what is that "it" you don't believe in? Every single god concept I have ever heard about. >Let me guess, you >don't believe in "Sky Daddy", right? That is certainly one of them. Is that your favourite version? >Well, good for you, Randy, you've got a lot of >company there. Yes I do. And the company is growing all the time. Your religion is toast, god boy. >At least we recently had Mother Theresa, who lived to prove HER >belief that GOD=LOVE (1 John 4:8). MT was a ghoul whose dogmatic religious blindness caused and will continue to cause far more suffering than her personal efforts could possibly have balanced. Look, you're a fundy, but not a Catholic, right? Do you agree with her persistent and effective efforts to prevent the use of birth control worldwide? Do you think those efforts were misguided? Do you think her personal "niceness" makes up for it? You're lying anyway. Your GOD!=LOVE, unless you ignore almost every other verse in your paper idol. >Now, what is your definition? My definition of "god" is some sort of intelligent, supernatural being worshipped by religious people. Your "god" is only one of them. I do not include common human emotions in the definition, nor does any dictionary of the English language. >Or should I say: >What does YOUR life prove YOUR God to be? I have no god. That is why I am an atheist. Which words in the above line do you not understand? >Is it your highly esteemed SELF perhaps, >your crotch, money? Tell us, and don't be shy, we won't laugh, I promise. Heh heh. OK Frank, I admit it. My GOD is my self, my crotch, and money. I go to the church of Me, My Crotch and Money every week and pray to them, and ask them to forgive my sins, so that I will receive life everlasting from their Grace. Feel better?
Frank, the Hit and Run fundy, cowering in front of his computer, once again ignored practically everything I wrote and chose only to address the following: >randall g wrote in article ><34318bb9.1649664161@news.bctel.net>... >> >> >At least we recently had Mother Theresa, who lived to prove HER >> >belief that GOD=LOVE (1 John 4:8). >> >> MT was a ghoul whose dogmatic religious blindness caused and will >> continue to cause far more suffering than her personal efforts could >> possibly have balanced. > > Regardless whether you regard her efforts misguided or not, she comforted the >dying poorest of the poor, the abandoned, those without friend or family. Big deal. So do thousands and thousands of others. I don't see you endlessly praising any of them to the heavens. Guess it's not worth hitching up to their bandwagons because they don't get any media exposure, huh? >Besides >badmouthing all those who try their best to do good and to support those doing >good, Heh heh. I only badmouth MT, because she is a media darling whose mighty and tireless efforts to make the world a worse place somehow go unexamined and uncommented on. You haven't seen me badmouth anyone for their *good* works. To say I badmouth "all those who try their best..." is a lie, Franky. What does your paper idol have to say about that, O Liar for the Lord? >what have you contributed to the betterment of the world, Randy? I have been instrumental in deconverting a number of Christians into atheists. Choke on that, god boy. >You give you >money to charity Randy? Sure, battered womens' shelters and abortion clinics. >Pray for the sick and lonely? Not bloody likely. What good is mumbling into my folded hands going to do for the sick and lonely? >Tell us Randy, you must be >good for something, I'm sure? I'm pretty damn good at paying taxes. Lots. How about you Franky? Why don't you tell us all about how bloody wonderful you are? On second thought don't bother. We already know you'll do anything to buy a place in heaven.
On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 11:27:57 -0600, Diana Newman wrote: >randall g wrote: > >> On 18-Sep-97 14:45:58, Diana Newman said in >> alt.atheism: >> > inky@csrlink.net wrote: >> >> > Trouble is, I don't see that the "children" have much mercy at all. When WE >> > kill, we do it not knowing whether that life is ended utterly, or if there >> > is an afterlife, precisely what it will be like. When God does, He at least >> > knows where these people are going. Christ Himself said that the most wicked >> > people in Sodom were going to be in better shape than the people who >> > actually saw and heard HIM and yet didn't believe----so something tells me >> > that the vast majority of the Sodomites are going to be fine. >> >> Wow, this sort of statement really gives me the creeps. >> >> It can be used to justify anything at all, any amount of mass murder, >> genocide, whatever your twisted mind can dream up, in the name of your >> GOD. > >Oh, go back and reread the above, in context. What I said was the exact opposite; >that ONLY God could do this, that no man on earth has the right to do it. Period. >No "in the name of", nothing. WE HUMANS DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MURDER!!!!! Well I'm glad that you personally have the strength of character to not go off the deep end like that. It's happened lots of times though, for the reasons I described. And you rationalize away all the pain, suffering and evil just like the insane ones do. >Strong enough for you? I have no doubt that you personally wouldn't harm a fly. By no stretch do you speak for all Christians now and back in history. >Or are you so damned determined to read into everything any theist says precisely >what you want them to say to justify your own prejudice that you are blind to >simple statements? Nope. Your statements about being so confident in the goodness of your god, even in the face of clearly evil acts, really does give me the creeps. There is no end to this sort of rationalization, which was the point of my post. Try not to take it personally. >> All you need is to hear, or to convince yourself that you hear, your >> GOD whispering in your ear to kill people for whatever reason you want >> to dream up. Then WOW!! Instant knowledge! Kill the Sinner! > >Tell me, did you see anything in there where I said anything of the kind? I was extrapolating. It is a logical progression and one which has been and will continue to be made many times. It starts with nice people like you strenuously condoning the most hideous evils, and ends with killing, war, genocide, armies of morally right brainwashed minions marching off to kill. >> After all, if we slice up a bunch of innocent babies in the process, >> GOD will make sure that they are taken care of!!! >> >> KILL KILL KILL!!! No reason not to. > >Oh, go paint a placard----and go back and learn to read. Like I said, don't take it personally. I don't think *you* would act like Hitler. >Diana
On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 12:06:59 GMT, Jahnu@wineasy.se (Jahnu) wrote: >>いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい >>"Never was there a time when I could expect >>to receive so much anal sex, from so many >>different, vibrant, hot, sweaty men." >>いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい >>(Krishna to Arjuna before entering the bath house) >Not a chance. Krishna is Krishna, and I am me. We will never become >one. Love is only possible as an exchange between _two_ entities. > >The verse from Bhagavad Gita, that I have in my sig. confirms this. >You might have noticed that if you weren't so busy with your infantile >tampering with it. Jahnu, haven't you realized this is your purpose? To be ridiculed publicly in front of the entire planet on alt.atheism? Clearly Mr. Krishna hasn't informed you yet. You have several million more matras to recite before that knowledge will be granted to you. Frankly I'm not surprised - I've heard about some of the sick things you did in your previous lives. Shame on you. >いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい >Never was there a time when I could imagine >the universe did not pop out of a point, nor >that an amoeba did not grow legs and learn to talk. >いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい >(Krishna to Arjuna before the science exam)