Atheism is Not Logical

[Jordan]

To all you Atheists out there!...(well the few of you..anyway, over
90% of the world is theistic)

I'm sure you have heard it all before, and most atheists I have talked
to can come up with ways of sidestepping the issue and bending
meaning, or some have resort to insults, I assume because they can't
have a polite logical discussion, and they think the more profanity
they use, the more right they are.

It would be easier if replies were against the actual points I will
mention and number rather than responding emotionally to the pre-amble
above.

1. Atheists claim there is no God, with certainty.
2. Christians claim there is a God, with certainty.
3. In order to claim the non-existence of something, absolute
knowledge is required.
4. In order to claim the existence of something, absolute knowledge is
not required, but only the knowledge of that which the claim is about.
5. By Atheists claiming there is no God, with certainty, is saying
that they have absolute knowledge, thus making themselves to be God,
because only God has absolute knowledge.
6. Atheists can't seem to grasp the fact that God, being so
immeasurably awesome would choose to reveal himself, on his terms, not
theirs. I.E. If God can't show up in the way that they think he should
then he just doesn't exist, period.

If you just don't know, but your open to finding oput the truth, that
makes you agnostic, not atheist.

7. Atheist's try to bend terms and talk about weak(soft) and
strong(hard) atheism. It's just a cop-out and shows they don't know
the true historicity of that which they so adamantly believe. That's
right, Atheism is a religion, it's just as much a faith, as any other
religion in the world, except that it is much smaller. Probably
becuase 90% of the world understand's these points.

8. If you say your agnostic and you just "don't know" I have a lot
more respect for you than anyone claiming to have absolute knowledge
and that there is no God.

9. The truth behind atheism is that they don't like the idea of
subjecting to atuhority, they want to be master's of themselves, and
accepting a God would demand responsibility. That's probably why
Atheism is predominantly western, where the individual rules.

10. Christianity has had a bad rep. However Atheism is much worse.
Hitler, Stalin, Mussollini. Massacred more than any Christian and they
were all atheist, following the teachings of Neitsche.

[Trance Gemini]

Well point 1 is wrong. Why should I assume the rest is correct?

[Jordan]

ok, let's look at point 1, which you say is wrong.

1. Atheists claim there is no God, with certainty.

how is this wrong?

[educated fool]

Most atheists wouldn't claim, with certainty that there is no god.

Also, Hitler, as will be pointed out, is better described as Christian
than an atheist.

[T]

first off, its Nietzsche. next, it isnt a matter of claiming absolute
knowledge but of having the courage to use ones natural logic in
breaking down the mental barriers placed over the course of ages of
barbarism , fear and intimidation

[Trance Gemini]

Watch this educational video on What an Atheist this and then rewrite
this post :)

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/aa170f4dc8d295ba#

Then maybe I can take you seriously ... Maybe.

[T]

its not a matter of claiming to have absolute knowledge but of having
the courage to accept ones natural logic

> > how is this wrong?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Dave]

On Nov 23, 2:14 pm, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> To all you Atheists out there!...(well the few of you..anyway, over
> 90% of the world is theistic)

Gee.... your first sentence contains a logical fallacy. I'd bet your
arguments go down hill from here. It's not very bright of you to show
your ignorance in your first sentence.

> I'm sure you have heard it all before, and most atheists I have talked
> to can come up with ways of sidestepping the issue and bending
> meaning, or some have resort to insults, I assume because they can't
> have a polite logical discussion, and they think the more profanity
> they use, the more right they are.

I doubt you have talked to any Atheists. You have no credibility.

> It would be easier if replies were against the actual points I will
> mention and number rather than responding emotionally to the pre-amble
> above.
>
> 1. Atheists claim there is no God, with certainty.

Not true. That's just a strawman argument, another logical fallacy.
That makes two.

> 2. Christians claim there is a God, with certainty.

I don't care.

> 3. In order to claim the non-existence of something, absolute
> knowledge is required.

The same for the positive claim.... which by the way carries the
burden of proof. I have no doubt you will try to dishonestly shift
that burden.

> 4. In order to claim the existence of something, absolute knowledge is
> not required, but only the knowledge of that which the claim is about.

Which would be absolute knowledge. You're playing sophomoric word
games isn't going to work.

> 5. By Atheists claiming there is no God, with certainty, is saying
> that they have absolute knowledge, thus making themselves to be God,
> because only God has absolute knowledge.

You claim there is a god, so you are claiming to be a god with
absolute knowledge. See.... your silly argument works both ways.

> 6. Atheists can't seem to grasp the fact that God....

Gods do not exist. Get over it. The rest seemed to be to childish to
bother with.

> 10. Christianity has had a bad rep

Liars usually do.

[Dave]

It's a lie. Why do you need to lie to promote your god beliefs?

[Dave]

On Nov 23, 2:59 pm, educated fool <mr.mattcoo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Most atheists wouldn't claim, with certainty that there is no god.

I do, and I have no reservations about it.

> Also, Hitler, as will be pointed out, is better described as Christian
> than an atheist.

They're in denial over that.

[hmrkkr@gmail.com]

Wow...Where do you come up with any of this complete crap that you're
spewing?
Here are the facts, and I'll try to use small words so that you can
follow along...

Man is older than Christianity.
More people are killed in the Bible by God than in both world wars
combined.
More non-Christians were killed in the Crusades, Inquisition and
various witch trials than in the Bible AND in both world wars all
together.
God was invented by people who wanted to explain their environment
(look up polytheism on wikipedia...it's ok, you can cut and paste so
that you don't have to spell it).
The Bible is a collection of stories, some fact, most fiction. Anyone
can invent a religion and have ridiculous fiction to back it up.
www.venganza.org
Last, but not least, you are a moron. "Historicity" is not a word.
Learn to speak English.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich"--Napoleon

[Dev]

On Nov 23, 3:14 pm, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> To all you Atheists out there!...(well the few of you..anyway, over
> 90% of the world is theistic)

Yup, appeal to the majority--sounds a lot like a threat. "There's more
of us than you, so your reason is marginalized." No matter how you
phrase it, when you emphasize your strength in numbers in place of an
actual argument you are emphasizing force over truth and reason. This
is why I believe atheists have a right to prepare militantly to fight
against shit like you and if necessary, crush your ugly face under
their boots. Atheists, being in the minority but having better
arguments, obviously would only have self-defense as a motivation to
resort to violence against violent retards like you. If you want this
to be a reasonable argument then let it. If you want to make it
strength in numbers than _any act of violence against you_ is
justified as self-defense.

> I'm sure you have heard it all before, and most atheists I have talked
> to can come up with ways of sidestepping the issue and bending
> meaning, or some have resort to insults, I assume because they can't
> have a polite logical discussion, and they think the more profanity
> they use, the more right they are.

Hypocrisy incarnate. I find this post insulting, I find your whole
religion insulting. You insulted me first so quit your bitching you
piece of garbage.

> It would be easier if replies were against the actual points I will
> mention and number rather than responding emotionally to the pre-amble
> above.
>
> 1. Atheists claim there is no God, with certainty.

With certainty, this gets explained away roughly fifty times a week on
this group ("atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods") so since
you're a regular either you are too stupid to read or you are
deliberately misrepresenting the viewpoint of the atheists or you're
completely out of it and insane. So what are the options?

(1) You're delusional.
(2) You're lying.
(3) You're retarded.
(4) You're delusional and lying.
(5) You're delusional and retarded.
(6) You're lying and retarded.
(7) You're delusional, lying and retarded.

So what is it? All signs point to number seven.

> 2. Christians claim there is a God, with certainty.

Based on nothing, so not logical.

> 3. In order to claim the non-existence of something, absolute
> knowledge is required.

No, you can just call something "fictional" because all evidence
points to it being made-up. If substantiation comes along, if it is
proven, and someone still rejects it then yes--it's illogical. Do a
survey and see if _one_ atheist here would still be an atheist if God
was proven to them. Good fucking luck. You're just a retarded
delusional liar--that's all.

> 4. In order to claim the existence of something, absolute knowledge is
> not required, but only the knowledge of that which the claim is about.

Pineapples, sponges, pirates, and The Ocean exist therefore there is a
Spongebob Squarepants. Pasta exists therefore there is a Flying
Spaghetti Monster. I already know this is your basic reasoning because
I have wiped ejaculate on socks smarter than you.

> 5. By Atheists claiming there is no God, with certainty, is saying
> that they have absolute knowledge, thus making themselves to be God,
> because only God has absolute knowledge.

Yeah, well--see, since you're making stuff up and "lack of belief"
only appears here all the time and God is always compared to unicorns
and stuff that obviously people _would_ believe in if there was any
evidence you are either talking our of your ass or your ass is putting
your foot in your mouth.

> 6. Atheists can't seem to grasp the fact that God, being so
> immeasurably awesome would choose to reveal himself, on his terms, not
> theirs. I.E. If God can't show up in the way that they think he should
> then he just doesn't exist, period.

And you can't seem to grasp this argument could be attributed to any
other fictional character _ever_. Because you aren't a person and you
don't have feelings or a brain.

> If you just don't know, but your open to finding oput the truth, that
> makes you agnostic, not atheist.

The terminology has been explained to you. Stop writing until you
learn to read. And until you learn to write, by the way "your open to
finding oput the truth"? I'm not a spelling Nazi and make mistakes
myself but what the fuck?

> 7. Atheist's try to bend terms and talk about weak(soft) and
> strong(hard) atheism.

It isn't bending terms if the terms are common to those who use them,
especially to identify themselves. Yes, atheists are a minority but
if, say, "Buddhism" was redefined by the majority to mean "pedophile"
and a Buddhist said "I'm a Buddhist" would it mean they were admitting
to pedophilia? Language is tricky. It is also situation-dependent.
Going to another country you can't just talk the way you usually do
most of the time and expect everyone to understand here. Here, on AvC,
in this context, it is _beyond_ clear that "atheism" means "lack of
belief in Gods". If you do the search it has been defined that way on
this group _well over 2000 times_. In other words, you have been
proven to be an illiterate retard over 2000 times. No other word has
been defined in one way so many times on this group. Do you think we
got together ahead of time offline and made this up? No. It is the
most common definition of "atheism" among atheists and if you want to
pretend we're saying something else than you are a stupid fucking
liar. This is what we mean. You know because we told you. So stop
pretending. Stop hoping some newbie will come along and think you're
talking about the actual situation.

> It's just a cop-out

You aren't allowed to say "cop-out" anymore, you cunt.

> and shows they don't know
> the true historicity of that which they so adamantly believe. That's
> right, Atheism is a religion, it's just as much a faith, as any other
> religion in the world, except that it is much smaller.

Not really. If you _did_ consider atheism to be a religion it would be
larger than most of them, especially if you consider different sects
in Christianity.

> Probably
> becuase 90% of the world understand's these points.

They understand's them? Really? If they think they do, global warming
_isn't_ a bad thing because we need more ocean to fucking drown them
in.

> 8. If you say your agnostic and you just "don't know" I have a lot
> more respect for you than anyone claiming to have absolute knowledge
> and that there is no God.

And this has been explained, but you can't read. Since you're
illiterate, I hope you don't drive because drivers need to read signs
and anyone who thinks you should be allowed to drive is effectively an
attempted child killer because children cross streets.

> 9. The truth behind atheism is that they don't like the idea of
> subjecting to atuhority, they want to be master's of themselves, and
> accepting a God would demand responsibility. That's probably why
> Atheism is predominantly western, where the individual rules.

Yeah, you're about responsibility now? Then take responsibility for
what your precious religion has done to the world like a grown-up, you
fuck.

> 10. Christianity has had a bad rep. However Atheism is much worse.
> Hitler, Stalin, Mussollini. Massacred more than any Christian and they
> were all atheist, following the teachings of Neitsche.

There is lots of evidence that Hitler was a theist, and none that he
was an atheist. Also, with a cult of personality (look it up) is it
really atheism? With Stalin or Mao or Mussolini basically being
deified, is that _really_ atheism? Oh, that's right. If it's a _human_
you deify than it's still atheism. So I guess anyone who believes in
the divinity of Jesus is an atheist.

[Dev]

Do a survey, Jordan. See how many self-proclaimed atheists here say
they wouldn't believe in God if they weren't given a good reason to.

[Bob T.]

On Nov 23, 5:25 pm, "hmr...@gmail.com" <martinandre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Wow...Where do you come up with any of this complete crap that you're
> spewing?
> Here are the facts, and I'll try to use small words so that you can
> follow along...
>
> Man is older than Christianity.
> More people are killed in the Bible by God than in both world wars
> combined.
> More non-Christians were killed in the Crusades, Inquisition and
> various witch trials than in the Bible AND in both world wars all
> together.

I don't think so. The number of people killed by the inquisition and
witch trials is rather small - perhaps in the thousands total. The
number killed in the Crusades was probably in the hundreds of
thousands (I'm not bothering to look it up.) The number killed in the
two World Wars was in the multiple millions each. I do believe you're
just wrong.

> God was invented by people who wanted to explain their environment
> (look up polytheism on wikipedia...it's ok, you can cut and paste so
> that you don't have to spell it).
> The Bible is a collection of stories, some fact, most fiction. Anyone
> can invent a religion and have ridiculous fiction to back it up.www.venganza.org
> Last, but not least, you are a moron. "Historicity" is not a word.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/historicity

'Noun: The characteristic of having existed in history.

"The historicity of Jesus is a matter of some debate among scholars."
'

> Learn to speak English.

Learn to look things up before you criticize. There are a lot of
things wrong with the original post, and yet you found two erroneous
ways to critique it.

- Bob T.

> > were all atheist, following the teachings of Neitsche.- Hide quoted text -

[Dev]

I've mostly ignored Jordan--I don't know if it's a dude or a chick--
but I recognized the name. Jordan knows what we mean by "atheism" now,
just like Keith and a lot of others know but continue to misrepresent
what has been said over and over. I search for "lack of belief"--in
quotes as one phrase, probably almost always referring to "atheism"--
on this group and got nearly 3000 matches. I was actually surprised
the number was so low because I seem to read it almost every day I
come here. Probably just a Google fuck-up. In any case, Jordan knows
better.

It's just really easy to criticize atheism when you pretend we have
"faith" in no God. I agree. If there was a compelling argument _for_
any God we didn't believe in, and we stubbornly still said no, it
would be stupid on our part. But there isn't. When we say "there is no
God" it is just like saying "there is no Ninja Turtles" or something--
it hasn't been _disproven_ but since there's a lot of evidence
pointing towards it being _made-up crap_ and no evidence to the
contrary and life is short it's pretty much assumed to mean that "it
would absolutely knock me on the ass if there was one thing, one
single thing, that made it look like any of these so-called deities
existed because it would be exactly the same as meeting Spongebob in
the flesh".

Do I "disbelieve in God"? I'll go for it and say yes, but I am open to
_not_ disbelieving in God because for _atheists_ we can change our
minds when the evidence available shifts for us. The fact that we are
so certain that it's never going to happen is another issue entirely.
Why?

Wait a second...new thread for this one...

[Medusa]

On Nov 23, 4:14 pm, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> To all you Atheists out there!...(well the few of you..anyway, over
> 90% of the world is theistic)
>
> I'm sure you have heard it all before, and most atheists I have talked
> to can come up with ways of sidestepping the issue and bending
> meaning, or some have resort to insults, I assume because they can't
> have a polite logical discussion, and they think the more profanity
> they use, the more right they are.

Insults have no place in a rational debate. In fact, I believe the
use of insults negates all points trying to be made. Insults are an
"ad hom" attack.

> It would be easier if replies were against the actual points I will
> mention and number rather than responding emotionally to the pre-amble
> above.
>
> 1. Atheists claim there is no God, with certainty.
> 2. Christians claim there is a God, with certainty.
> 3. In order to claim the non-existence of something, absolute
> knowledge is required.

No. I do not believe in faires, either. I am looking for evidence of
a god, and all I get are myths.

> 4. In order to claim the existence of something, absolute knowledge is
> not required, but only the knowledge of that which the claim is about.

Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence is needed to back up
extraordinary claims.

> 5. By Atheists claiming there is no God, with certainty, is saying
> that they have absolute knowledge, thus making themselves to be God,
> because only God has absolute knowledge.

No, I'm saying I have seen no evidence for the existance of any gods.

> 6. Atheists can't seem to grasp the fact that God, being so
> immeasurably awesome would choose to reveal himself, on his terms, not
> theirs. I.E. If God can't show up in the way that they think he should
> then he just doesn't exist, period.

The way the Christian God is presented in the Bible makes him sound
like a mythological character.

> If you just don't know, but your open to finding oput the truth, that
> makes you agnostic, not atheist.
>
> 7. Atheist's try to bend terms and talk about weak(soft) and
> strong(hard) atheism. It's just a cop-out and shows they don't know
> the true historicity of that which they so adamantly believe. That's
> right, Atheism is a religion, it's just as much a faith, as any other
> religion in the world, except that it is much smaller. Probably
> becuase 90% of the world understand's these points.

This makes no sense. Lack of belief in gods is lack of faih and
religion.

> 8. If you say your agnostic and you just "don't know" I have a lot
> more respect for you than anyone claiming to have absolute knowledge
> and that there is no God.

So?

> 9. The truth behind atheism is that they don't like the idea of
> subjecting to atuhority, they want to be master's of themselves, and
> accepting a God would demand responsibility. That's probably why
> Atheism is predominantly western, where the individual rules.

Nice try at analyzing a group of people, but sorry. I an am an aheist
because I see no proof of a god.

> 10. Christianity has had a bad rep. However Atheism is much worse.
> Hitler, Stalin, Mussollini. Massacred more than any Christian and they
> were all atheist, following the teachings of Neitsche.

Wrong. All of the above had professed a belief in God. Hitler was
the only admirer of Neitsche, and he misinterpreted much of that
philosopher's writings.

Medusa

AA #2281

[ZonkTheBear]

Best jordan.

Despite your poorly camouflaged patronizing tone, I am more than
willing to accept your challenge, but first, I will present an excerpt
from a previous post of mine with a few definitions.

If you do NOT agree on these definitions, please tell me which one(s)
and why.

If you DO agree on these definitions, please let me know which one(s)
of them you believe that describes you the best:


1) Openmindedness:
The ability to listen to ideas and points of views that differ from
your own and if ample evidence is given, being able to change your own
point of view

2) Closedmindedness:
The unability to listen to ideas and points of views that differ from
your own

3) Gullability:
The ability to accept any ideas and points of views without ample
evidence

4) Delusion:
The ability to listen to ideas and points of views that differ from
your own but in spite of ample evidence for the differing ideas, being
unable or unwilling to change your own point of view


As an atheist scientist, I consider myself belonging to category 1).
This even goes for my disbelief in any gods.

I believe that 2) is a good description of certain (slightly more)
fanatic religious beliefs and 3) and 4) are suitable descriptions for
religion in general.

After you have told me which one(s) of these groups you mean to belong
to, I will be more that happy to continue this debate as I will know
whether to expect sound logical arguments or unconfirmed, prejudiced
ranting.

Regards

ZtB

[Simpleton]

Let's count the number of times you are wrong.

On Nov 23, 2:14 pm, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> To all you Atheists out there!...(well the few of you..anyway, over
> 90% of the world is theistic)
>

That's 1. Lot fewer that 90% are theists.

> I'm sure you have heard it all before, and most atheists I have talked
> to can come up with ways of sidestepping the issue and bending
> meaning, or some have resort to insults, I assume because they can't
> have a polite logical discussion, and they think the more profanity
> they use, the more right they are.
>

No, I have not heard that before.

> It would be easier if replies were against the actual points I will
> mention and number rather than responding emotionally to the pre-amble
> above.
>
> 1. Atheists claim there is no God, with certainty.

That's 2. Many atheists do not claims that, much less with certainty.

> 2. Christians claim there is a God, with certainty.

That's 3. Most Christians, maybe nearly all claim that there is a
God, but fewer with certainty.

> 3. In order to claim the non-existence of something, absolute
> knowledge is required.

OK, then you accept that there is nothing can be claimed to not exist,
or that you have absolute knowledge.

> 4. In order to claim the existence of something, absolute knowledge is
> not required, but only the knowledge of that which the claim is about.

That's 4. You do not need knowledge to claim that something exists.
YOu can simply claim it.

> 5. By Atheists claiming there is no God, with certainty, is saying
> that they have absolute knowledge, thus making themselves to be God,
> because only God has absolute knowledge.

Only if they subscribe to your idea of logic.

> 6. Atheists can't seem to grasp the fact that God, being so
> immeasurably awesome would choose to reveal himself, on his terms, not
> theirs. I.E. If God can't show up in the way that they think he should
> then he just doesn't exist, period.
>

You do not grasp the simple fact that atheists lack a belief in God.

> If you just don't know, but your open to finding oput the truth, that
> makes you agnostic, not atheist.
>

Well I know that God does not exist in much the same manner that you
know God exists, then.

> 7. Atheist's try to bend terms and talk about weak(soft) and
> strong(hard) atheism. It's just a cop-out and shows they don't know
> the true historicity of that which they so adamantly believe. That's
> right, Atheism is a religion, it's just as much a faith, as any other
> religion in the world, except that it is much smaller. Probably
> becuase 90% of the world understand's these points.
>

That's 5 , 6, and 7, and a veiled repetition of an earlier one.

> 8. If you say your agnostic and you just "don't know" I have a lot
> more respect for you than anyone claiming to have absolute knowledge
> and that there is no God.
>

Your respect is worth nothing, so it makes little difference.

> 9. The truth behind atheism is that they don't like the idea of
> subjecting to atuhority, they want to be master's of themselves, and
> accepting a God would demand responsibility. That's probably why
> Atheism is predominantly western, where the individual rules.
>

Make that 8.

> 10. Christianity has had a bad rep. However Atheism is much worse.
> Hitler, Stalin, Mussollini. Massacred more than any Christian and they
> were all atheist, following the teachings of Neitsche.

Hitler was a Christian, as was Mussolini, and Stalin was educated in a
seminary, where he sang for the choir.


Make that 9.

Impressed, I was betting on you getting to 10.

[ROM 10:14]

Medusa;

You say Hitler misrepresented much of Friedrich Nietzsche's
works, and yet you think that he and the others mentioned didn't do
the same to the Bible?

[Dave]

On Nov 23, 4:00 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 5:25 pm, "hmr...@gmail.com" <martinandre...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Wow...Where do you come up with any of this complete crap that you're
> > spewing?
> > Here are the facts, and I'll try to use small words so that you can
> > follow along...
>
> > Man is older than Christianity.
> > More people are killed in the Bible by God than in both world wars
> > combined.
> > More non-Christians were killed in the Crusades, Inquisition and
> > various witch trials than in the Bible AND in both world wars all
> > together.
>
> I don't think so. The number of people killed by the inquisition and
> witch trials is rather small - perhaps in the thousands total. The
> number killed in the Crusades was probably in the hundreds of
> thousands (I'm not bothering to look it up.) The number killed in the
> two World Wars was in the multiple millions each. I do believe you're
> just wrong.

Many christians need to believe that. Tens of thousands died in the
many Inquisitions. 5000 in the first ten years of the Spanish
Inquisition. The Crusades, at least a dozen of them ranged from the
Middle East to Sweden and lasted for over 150 years. Millions were
killed. You really should look things up first.

> "The historicity of Jesus is a matter of some debate among scholars."

That means it's not a proven fact that he even existed. How come that
is one "controversy" that they don't want to teach?

[Keith MacNevins]

Educated but fool is still a fool. Most atheists would claim that there is no God. Otherwise they would be agnostic.

[Dave]

On Nov 23, 4:01 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> Do I "disbelieve in God"? I'll go for it and say yes, but I am open to
> _not_ disbelieving in God because for _atheists_ we can change our
> minds when the evidence available shifts for us. The fact that we are
> so certain that it's never going to happen is another issue entirely.
> Why?

There is no Invisible Pink Unicorn or FSM. Why is it PPC
(Philosophically Politically Correct) to say those two things do not
exist but it's not PPC to say that gods do not exist? Of course I am
as certain that no evidence will show up for gods as I am for the IPU,
FSM, or Pudd'Nhead Wilson. If evidence were to ever show up, I'd
graciously change my mind....but I ain't holding my breath or wasting
my life pretending there is a god.

We figured that out by our selves... why can't they?

[Dave]

On Nov 23, 4:16 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 4:14 pm, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > To all you Atheists out there!...(well the few of you..anyway, over
> > 90% of the world is theistic)
>
> > I'm sure you have heard it all before, and most atheists I have talked
> > to can come up with ways of sidestepping the issue and bending
> > meaning, or some have resort to insults, I assume because they can't
> > have a polite logical discussion, and they think the more profanity
> > they use, the more right they are.
>
> Insults have no place in a rational debate. In fact, I believe the
> use of insults negates all points trying to be made. Insults are an
> "ad hom" attack.

You also have to remember that some of their arguments are so inane
that it is an insult. Some of their "arguments" are a direct ad
hominem attack just masquerading as a question.... a loaded question;
"when did you stop beating your wife?"

If a christian comes up with something so stupid that it's insulting,
they'll get their insults returned.

[Simpleton]

On Nov 23, 5:59 pm, "ROM 10:14" <john.a.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Medusa;
>
> You say Hitler misrepresented much of Friedrich Nietzsche's
> works, and yet you think that he and the others mentioned didn't do
> the same to the Bible?
>

Well, the Church signed an accord with him so if he did misrepresent
the Bible, he was hardly without support in that.

[ROM 10:14]

Would you say that the pope and orthodox catholics misrepresent the
Bible? there are so many verses that they either choose not to
accept, or don't know exist. Most however would say that catholicism
is part of "the Church"

[Dev]

I personally don't think all this hard atheist/soft atheist/agnostic/
naturalist/pantheist thing is helping. Really, they all act the same
way towards sky fairies even if the semantics are different. If you
want to call The Universe "God" then fine--you're an atheist with a
metaphor. If you want to say "I don't believe in God" you are using a
different definition. If you say "I don't believe in God" or "I don't
know one way or the other" you aren't really saying two different
things--the second just _sounds_ more uncertain. But nobody who says
"Spongebob isn't real" is claiming that they're going to stick that
way in light of evidence to the contrary. It is _all_ semantic.
Atheists, agnostics, and most pantheists are pretty much the same in
terms of how they view God.

[Simpleton]

On Nov 23, 7:12 pm, "ROM 10:14" <john.a.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Would you say that the pope and orthodox catholics misrepresent the
> Bible?

In much the same manners that priests, nuns, and other Christians do.

> there are so many verses that they either choose not to
> accept, or don't know exist.

Which leaves them as Christians.

> Most however would say that catholicism
> is part of "the Church"
>

With a billion members, it'd be hard not to.

[Dave]

On Nov 23, 7:14 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> I personally don't think all this hard atheist/soft atheist/agnostic/
> naturalist/pantheist thing is helping. Really, they all act the same
> way towards sky fairies even if the semantics are different.

That's what I say. It's all meaningless pigeon holing. If Atheism is
simply a lack of belief in gods, then it does not matter how you got
to that point. That's why I like that definition, it brings us all
together. It's inclusive and not exclusive.

> If you
> want to call The Universe "God" then fine--you're an atheist with a
> metaphor.

I've heard Atheists doing that and I thought it was strange for an
Atheist to call anything a god.

> If you want to say "I don't believe in God" you are using a
> different definition. If you say "I don't believe in God" or "I don't
> know one way or the other" you aren't really saying two different
> things--the second just _sounds_ more uncertain. But nobody who says
> "Spongebob isn't real" is claiming that they're going to stick that
> way in light of evidence to the contrary. It is _all_ semantic.
> Atheists, agnostics, and most pantheists are pretty much the same in
> terms of how they view God.

As non existent... so why not admit it? Why placate come PPC fashion?
Is anyone "agnostic" about Spongebob?

[Keith MacNevins]

They misrepresent Christianity. Anyone can claim that they are a Christian. It doesn't mean that they are Christians, though. The Roman Catholic Church has not changed much from the days of the Spanish Inquisition. The pope puts the power of the Vatican and money above God, in case anyone was not aware. They are certainly thought of as an established church. But I happen to think that it is God's opinion that counts the most. I doubt very much that the The Roman Catholic Church -- The Mother of Harlots --  has God's blessing. But I do want to say that millions of people who are sincere, genuine Christians affiliate themselves with The Roman Catholic Church. It is unfortunate that they don't at least become protestants.

--
Keith A. MacNevins
Ambassador From Hell
Copyright

[Drafterman]

On Nov 23, 5:14 pm, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> To all you Atheists out there!...(well the few of you..anyway, over
> 90% of the world is theistic)
>
> I'm sure you have heard it all before, and most atheists I have talked
> to can come up with ways of sidestepping the issue and bending
> meaning, or some have resort to insults, I assume because they can't
> have a polite logical discussion, and they think the more profanity
> they use, the more right they are.
>

> It would be easier if replies were against the actual points I will
> mention and number rather than responding emotionally to the pre-amble
> above.

Ok.

>
> 1. Atheists claim there is no God, with certainty.

Incorrect. If you wish to talk about all atheists then you must use
only qualities all atheists adhere to. All atheists do not claim there
is no God, with certainty. The only thing all atheists adhere to, is
lacking a believe in a god, which is subtly different.

> 2. Christians claim there is a God, with certainty.

Ok.

> 3. In order to claim the non-existence of something, absolute
> knowledge is required.

True.

> 4. In order to claim the existence of something, absolute knowledge is
> not required, but only the knowledge of that which the claim is about.

Solipsism disagrees with this, but I'll let it slide.

> 5. By Atheists claiming there is no God, with certainty, is saying
> that they have absolute knowledge, thus making themselves to be God,
> because only God has absolute knowledge.

1 is false, thus 5 is false.

> 6. Atheists can't seem to grasp the fact that God, being so
> immeasurably awesome would choose to reveal himself, on his terms, not
> theirs. I.E. If God can't show up in the way that they think he should
> then he just doesn't exist, period.

Also false, atheists realize that a god could potentially do anything.
But a god that chooses to assume the properties of a non-existent
entity will be treated as such.

>
> If you just don't know, but your open to finding oput the truth, that
> makes you agnostic, not atheist.

Agnosticism is a subset of atheism.

>
> 7. Atheist's try to bend terms and talk about weak(soft) and
> strong(hard) atheism.

It isn't bending terms. They are qualifiers, more specific
definitions. For example, you have, in general, Christianity. You also
have Catholicism, Protestants, Lutherans, Calvinists, Mormons,
Puritans, Amish, Mennonites, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians,
Baptists, Orthodox. Then each of those have their sects and sub-sects,
and sub-subsects. Atheism pretty much has Implicit, Explicit, Weak,
and Strong. Can you provide some objective reason why it is perfectly
acceptable for Christianity to be divided into a multitude of sects,
but atheism cannot have more specific divisions?

> It's just a cop-out and shows they don't know
> the true historicity of that which they so adamantly believe.

What is the true history of atheism? The terms Weak and Strong came
from Negative and Positive atheism which are over 50 years old. They
aren't new terms atheists came up with to avoid your arguments. What
is your support that it is a cop-out? What evidence of history do you
have?

> That's
> right, Atheism is a religion, it's just as much a faith, as any other
> religion in the world, except that it is much smaller. Probably
> becuase 90% of the world understand's these points.

Atheism is not a religion. It does not adhere to any element commonly
associated with religion.

>
> 8. If you say your agnostic and you just "don't know" I have a lot
> more respect for you than anyone claiming to have absolute knowledge

> and that there is no God.

Ok. But agnosticism is a subset of atheism.

>
> 9. The truth behind atheism is that they don't like the idea of
> subjecting to atuhority, they want to be master's of themselves, and
> accepting a God would demand responsibility. That's probably why
> Atheism is predominantly western, where the individual rules.

China is atheistic. You were saying?

>
> 10. Christianity has had a bad rep. However Atheism is much worse.
> Hitler, Stalin, Mussollini. Massacred more than any Christian and they
> were all atheist, following the teachings of Neitsche.

Irrelevant.

[Dev]

Is anyone "agnostic" about Spongebob? Well, if you press someone with
no proof they might say, "OKAY, DAMMIT! OKAY! I HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT
SPONGEBOB LIVES IN NO PINEAPPLE UNDER THE SEA!" But does that mean you
convinced them of the likelihood of Spongebob? No. You just pressured
them into the technicalities of semantics. If you look at the way
language relates to religion, it proves how deception is a survival
mechanism of religion. Language is not perfect. It develops based on
agenda. And it never gets more ambiguous then when you discuss God.
There is a reason for that. Ambiguity is a theist's best friend.
That's why everything in The Bible gets to be taken however they want,
whenever they want, wherever they want, however they want. This is a
metaphor and that is the word of fucking God.

[LL]

On Nov 23, 8:35 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Dev: If you

> want to call The Universe "God" then fine--you're an atheist with a
> metaphor.

Dave: I've heard Atheists doing that and I thought it was strange for

an
Atheist to call anything a god.

LL: I prefer to call the Universe a Giant Leprechaun. ;-)

[Dev]

That is a great idea. :)

God=Leprechaun=Universe

Let's destroy the entire fucking English language. It obviously has
not served us well.

> > Is anyone "agnostic" about Spongebob?- Hide quoted text -

[LL]

On Nov 23, 2:14 pm, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> To all you Atheists out there!...(well the few of you..anyway, over
> 90% of the world is theistic)

LL: At one time nearly 100% of the world thought the world was flat
and the sun revolved around it. What does that prove?

>
> I'm sure you have heard it all before, and most atheists I have talked
> to can come up with ways of sidestepping the issue and bending
> meaning, or some have resort to insults, I assume because they can't
> have a polite logical discussion, and they think the more profanity
> they use, the more right they are.
>
> It would be easier if replies were against the actual points I will
> mention and number rather than responding emotionally to the pre-amble
> above.
>

> 1. Atheists claim there is no God, with certainty.

> 2. Christians claim there is a God, with certainty.

> 3. In order to claim the non-existence of something, absolute
> knowledge is required.

> 4. In order to claim the existence of something, absolute knowledge is
> not required, but only the knowledge of that which the claim is about.

> 5. By Atheists claiming there is no God, with certainty, is saying
> that they have absolute knowledge, thus making themselves to be God,
> because only God has absolute knowledge.

> 6. Atheists can't seem to grasp the fact that God, being so
> immeasurably awesome would choose to reveal himself, on his terms, not
> theirs. I.E. If God can't show up in the way that they think he should
> then he just doesn't exist, period.
>

> If you just don't know, but your open to finding oput the truth, that
> makes you agnostic, not atheist.
>

> 7. Atheist's try to bend terms and talk about weak(soft) and

> strong(hard) atheism. It's just a cop-out and shows they don't know
> the true historicity of that which they so adamantly believe. That's

> right, Atheism is a religion, it's just as much a faith, as any other
> religion in the world, except that it is much smaller. Probably
> becuase 90% of the world understand's these points.
>

> 8. If you say your agnostic and you just "don't know" I have a lot
> more respect for you than anyone claiming to have absolute knowledge
> and that there is no God.
>

> 9. The truth behind atheism is that they don't like the idea of
> subjecting to atuhority, they want to be master's of themselves, and
> accepting a God would demand responsibility. That's probably why
> Atheism is predominantly western, where the individual rules.
>

[Simpleton]

On Nov 23, 10:27 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2:14 pm, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > To all you Atheists out there!...(well the few of you..anyway, over
> > 90% of the world is theistic)
>
> LL: At one time nearly 100% of the world thought the world was flat
> and the sun revolved around it. What does that prove?
>

That Jordan longs for those Good Ole Days.

[Dave]

On Nov 23, 10:10 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Is anyone "agnostic" about Spongebob? Well, if you press someone with
> no proof they might say, "OKAY, DAMMIT! OKAY! I HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT
> SPONGEBOB LIVES IN NO PINEAPPLE UNDER THE SEA!" But does that mean you
> convinced them of the likelihood of Spongebob? No. You just pressured
> them into the technicalities of semantics.

That's my point. Do those that are PPC go around saying that you
cannot say that there is no Spongebob because you cannot prove he does
not exist? No, but they say that about gods.

> If you look at the way
> language relates to religion, it proves how deception is a survival
> mechanism of religion. Language is not perfect. It develops based on
> agenda. And it never gets more ambiguous then when you discuss God.
> There is a reason for that. Ambiguity is a theist's best friend.
> That's why everything in The Bible gets to be taken however they want,
> whenever they want, wherever they want, however they want. This is a
> metaphor and that is the word of fucking God.

They love that ambiguity, the dishonesty of it excites them. If they
refuse to define what their god is then you cannot say it doesn't
exist. Their dishonesty really comes out when they discuss the bible.
They can point to something in the bible that says the cattle should
be brought in at night and say; "See? God doesn't want you to wear
jewelry." How can one argue idiocy like that!

[Dave]

On Nov 23, 10:18 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 8:35 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Dev: If you
> > want to call The Universe "God" then fine--you're an atheist with a
> > metaphor.
>
> Dave: I've heard Atheists doing that and I thought it was strange for
> an Atheist to call anything a god.
>
> LL: I prefer to call the Universe a Giant Leprechaun. ;-)

But Leprechauns are real. They've spoken to me and I believe in my
heart.

[blitzkriege]

I claim that there exists three deep fried chickens in your rectal
cavity that exists as one entity which we will call 'Bombom'. I know
of this because Bombom gave me the knowledge of this claim in a dream.

Since you don't have absolute knowledge, you don't deny this, right?

So, does your butt hurt? Or is it a pain-pleasure thing?

On Nov 23, 2:14 pm, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Allan C Cybulskie]

On Nov 23, 5:14 pm, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> To all you Atheists out there!...(well the few of you..anyway, over
> 90% of the world is theistic)
>

> I'm sure you have heard it all before, and most atheists I have talked
> to can come up with ways of sidestepping the issue and bending
> meaning, or some have resort to insults, I assume because they can't
> have a polite logical discussion, and they think the more profanity
> they use, the more right they are.
>
> It would be easier if replies were against the actual points I will
> mention and number rather than responding emotionally to the pre-amble
> above.
>
> 1. Atheists claim there is no God, with certainty.

Probably not. Many of them TALK like they do, though ...

> 2. Christians claim there is a God, with certainty.

Not all of them. Myself, for example.

> 3. In order to claim the non-existence of something, absolute
> knowledge is required.

I doubt this. Surely if one has sufficient reason to know that
something cannot exist by the standards of knowledge, absolute
certainty would not be required.

> 4. In order to claim the existence of something, absolute knowledge is
> not required, but only the knowledge of that which the claim is about.

Actually, knowledge may not be required at all to make the claim that,
at least, you believe that something exists.

> 5. By Atheists claiming there is no God, with certainty, is saying
> that they have absolute knowledge, thus making themselves to be God,
> because only God has absolute knowledge.
> 6. Atheists can't seem to grasp the fact that God, being so
> immeasurably awesome would choose to reveal himself, on his terms, not
> theirs. I.E. If God can't show up in the way that they think he should
> then he just doesn't exist, period.

This is a valid complaint. It reminds me of a discussion I had once
about ghosts. She commented that she saw the "ghost" of her dead
father, but noted that her father disappeared half-way down the street
and didn't leave any footprints. Therefore, she concluded that she
was hallucinating and that it wasn't really a ghost. Problem: a ghost
should, in fact, have that behaviour. A real live person wouldn't.
You cannot hold a ghost to the standards of a real person and claim
that the ghost, therefore, wasn't really there.

A similar thing applies to God; if God doesn't want to give people an
obvious sign of his presence, looking for one and noting that its
absence is important is utterly pointless.

> 10. Christianity has had a bad rep. However Atheism is much worse.
> Hitler, Stalin, Mussollini. Massacred more than any Christian and they
> were all atheist, following the teachings of Neitsche.

Ultimately, humans will always use strong beliefs to commit
atrocities. This applies to any strong belief. Murdering in the name
of atheism or science is not impossible, and is quite likely to occur
if we didn't have alternatives.

[Allan C Cybulskie]

On Nov 23, 7:16 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 4:14 pm, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > To all you Atheists out there!...(well the few of you..anyway, over
> > 90% of the world is theistic)
>
> > I'm sure you have heard it all before, and most atheists I have talked
> > to can come up with ways of sidestepping the issue and bending
> > meaning, or some have resort to insults, I assume because they can't
> > have a polite logical discussion, and they think the more profanity
> > they use, the more right they are.
>
> Insults have no place in a rational debate. In fact, I believe the
> use of insults negates all points trying to be made. Insults are an
> "ad hom" attack.

You might want to look up the definition of "ad hominem" before making
such a claim ...

> > 4. In order to claim the existence of something, absolute knowledge is
> > not required, but only the knowledge of that which the claim is about.
>
> Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence is needed to back up
> extraordinary claims.

Define "extraordinary claim".

> > 10. Christianity has had a bad rep. However Atheism is much worse.
> > Hitler, Stalin, Mussollini. Massacred more than any Christian and they
> > were all atheist, following the teachings of Neitsche.
>
> Wrong. All of the above had professed a belief in God.

Stalin believed in God? Wow, he really DID betray Marxism ...

[blitzkriege]

Hi Allan.

A pretty well-reasoned response. However, I had a problem with one of
your points. You say that we cannot hold a god to the standards of a
real person. But then how can we keep on giving them the
characteristics of a real person?

God is just? - Characteristic of a real person
God is loving? - Characteristic of a real person
God is merciful? - Characteristic of a real person
God is caring? - Characteristic of a real person

If the characteristics are that of a real person, then shouldn't the
standards to judge those characteristics need necessarily be that of a
real person?

Christians interpret the bible as human beings, so how can they be
sure that the Christian God wanted to say exactly that... If 'God
moves in mysterious ways', then there is no chance of humanly
rationalizing any of God's desires or actions.

So please let me know when we can anthromorphize God and grasp him
with our logic, and when exactly it is that he becomes in no way 'like
a real person'? Because I am quite confused.

> A similar thing applies to God; if God doesn't want to give people an
> obvious sign of his presence, looking for one and noting that its
> absence is important is utterly pointless.

Just to show you why I am so confused - in the above statement you
first state that God does not share the standards of a real person,
and then go on to provide excuses for God by the standard of a real
person...

On Nov 24, 2:16 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

It's not PC to say that God is unknown or unknowable instead of God
doesn't exist, Dave, just more precise. In my opinion anyway. The end
result is that if christians want us to accept God they're going to
have to provide some scientific proof.

[Trance Gemini]

Exactly! Using invectives is not the only way to insult a person. In
fact it's far worse to insult a person's intelligence.

[Allan C Cybulskie]

On Nov 24, 5:43 am, blitzkriege <d.chatterj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Allan.
>
> A pretty well-reasoned response. However, I had a problem with one of
> your points. You say that we cannot hold a god to the standards of a
> real person. But then how can we keep on giving them the
> characteristics of a real person?

I'm going to ignore the specifics to focus on the main point, and I'm
going to use ghosts again to deal with it.

Take a traditional ghost claim. Now, do you think that ghosts can be
mean? Angry? Sad? Kindly? Well, by the claims, certainly. But
these are characteristics of real people, no? Fine, so now do you
think it is ALSO rational to say "I saw the ghost walk through a
wall. Real people can't walk through walls, so it couldn't be a ghost
(or real)". Well, no, because by the traditional definition of ghost
that is something that ghosts CAN do that real people can't. So how
can you justify judging them on the basis of what real people can do
in an area where they are DIFFERENT from real people? You can't, so
you shouldn't.

Note that some people -- Smith is one of them -- have tried to show
that God as conceived couldn't have those personality traits as well.
This is a better way to go about the comment you made here.

> Christians interpret the bible as human beings, so how can they be
> sure that the Christian God wanted to say exactly that... If 'God
> moves in mysterious ways', then there is no chance of humanly
> rationalizing any of God's desires or actions.

True. I don't think that we can be certain of God's motivations or
goals --- and Smith has argued that He can't have any.

> > A similar thing applies to God; if God doesn't want to give people an
> > obvious sign of his presence, looking for one and noting that its
> > absence is important is utterly pointless.
>
> Just to show you why I am so confused - in the above statement you
> first state that God does not share the standards of a real person,
> and then go on to provide excuses for God by the standard of a real
> person...

I hope I've cleared that up.

[blitzkriege]

So are your beliefs more along the lines of 'God's personality traits,
motives and actions are not explainable by human logic' a la Smith?

Or do you believe that, like ghosts, God has some human traits and
some other-worldly? And if so, then how do you decide when he's
showing human traits and when he is in the mysterious zone?

On another note, I take it that you believe in ghosts. Do you also
believe in alien abductions?


On Nov 24, 4:16 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

[Jordan]

This reply is to everyone,

I'm not trying to insult anyone. I apologize for any offenses. I come
on this site and it's christian bashing all-around. Let me say a few
words. Let's keep the foul language out, because it is an offense to
me.

As a Christian, my right is to speak on what I believe it's true sense
to be. Just as you have the right to talk about what "true" atheism
is.

I believe that the true Christianity is not a religion at all. I am
not religious, and I will never subscribe to any religion.
Christianity is a family. You have to be born into it, not physically,
but spiritually. This is why some christians talk about being born-
again. I had the born-again experience, I am a changed person. This is
the foundation of my belief, not any religion. Everything that has
contributed to my faith on the outside, has helped, but it hasn't been
the root of my faith. I could go on a bit more about the born again
experience if you want to know more about that just ask.

I am interested to answer every issue you have against Christianity,
one at a time. I don't claim to have absolute knowledge. It is also
very difficult to answer when there are many points.

A word about the burden of proof. I think a fair way to handle it is
whoever makes the claim, the burden of proof is theirs. It is not fair
claiming something if you don't have evidence to back it up. AND, when
you counter someone's claim, perhaps start by asking if they have any
evidence for what they are saying, rather than just discounting them
all together from the start, that goes nowhere.

Lastly I think that if we are going to get anywhere with this clear
definitions of acceptable evidence need to be defined, becuase in my
opinion, its not the lack of evidence for God, but the suppression of
it.

[bonfly]

On Nov 25, 2:11 am, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This reply is to everyone,
>
> I'm not trying to insult anyone. I apologize for any offenses. I come
> on this site and it's christian bashing all-around. Let me say a few
> words. Let's keep the foul language out, because it is an offense to
> me.

~ ~ Just what the fuck do you mean by "Let's keep the foul language
out, because it is an offense to me." Do you think anyone gives a
shit? Do you always try to set rules by declaring your unilateral
opinion on sites where you haven't even been a poster for two days?
The fucking hide of you!

> As a Christian, my right is to speak on what I believe it's true sense
> to be. Just as you have the right to talk about what "true" atheism
> is.
>
> I believe that the true Christianity is not a religion at all. I am
> not religious, and I will never subscribe to any religion.
> Christianity is a family. You have to be born into it, not physically,
> but spiritually. This is why some christians talk about being born-
> again. I had the born-again experience, I am a changed person. This is
> the foundation of my belief, not any religion. Everything that has
> contributed to my faith on the outside, has helped, but it hasn't been
> the root of my faith. I could go on a bit more about the born again
> experience if you want to know more about that just ask.

~ ~ Oh fuck off with your "I'm not religious, just spiritual" crap.
We've heard it all before, it's been debated dozens of times here and
its a lie.

> I am interested to answer every issue you have against Christianity,
> one at a time. I don't claim to have absolute knowledge. It is also
> very difficult to answer when there are many points.

~ ~ I don't know about others here, but I couldn't give a shit about
your smarmy opinions on anything, least of all your religion.

> A word about the burden of proof. I think a fair way to handle it is
> whoever makes the claim, the burden of proof is theirs. It is not fair
> claiming something if you don't have evidence to back it up. AND, when
> you counter someone's claim, perhaps start by asking if they have any
> evidence for what they are saying, rather than just discounting them
> all together from the start, that goes nowhere.

~ ~ It's just easier to discount people like you up front rather than
wasting a week or two and then realising you may as well have been
discounting them from the start.

> Lastly I think that if we are going to get anywhere with this clear
> definitions of acceptable evidence need to be defined, becuase in my
> opinion, its not the lack of evidence for God, but the suppression of
> it.

~ ~ the evidence of God is being suppressed? What, in some sort of
malicious government conspiracy? You crazy christian.

[Dev]

On Nov 24, 9:11 am, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This reply is to everyone,
>
> I'm not trying to insult anyone. I apologize for any offenses. I come
> on this site and it's christian bashing all-around. Let me say a few
> words. Let's keep the foul language out, because it is an offense to
> me.

Who gets to define "foul language"? You? Can I still say "damn" and
"hell" because those are Bible words? Do you wonder _why_ Christians
get bashed? Because they lie, because they bullshit, because they act
like hypocrites and support nothing that comes out of their stupid
fingers as they hit the keyboard. If respect isn't earned it's
meaningless. Do something to earn it. Say something smart. Go ahead.
Try. Quoting an atheist or anyone else doesn't count.

> As a Christian, my right is to speak on what I believe it's true sense
> to be. Just as you have the right to talk about what "true" atheism
> is.

No, we're just discussing how language works. We know how Christian
language works. If someone does something good and says "Jesus" it's a
Christian, and if someone does something bad and says "Jesus" it's
not. It's like The Mafia. "That wasn't 'legitimate business' so it
wasn't da mob, senatah." Very convenient, to shut out those that don't
suit your personal agenda.

> I believe that the true Christianity is not a religion at all.

I've heard this. Garbage. No argument for it. Stupid. You're just
trying to separate yourself from the consequences of religion. Every
religion wants to think it is "special" and "different"--or not.
Liberal Christians like to say they're all the same--whatever. You
fuckers have slaughtered the English language to suit your own deadly,
dishonest, vile purposes and I wish there was a just and loving God so
he could torture you for it. Anyone with a conscience can see that you
deserve nothing but pain.

> I am
> not religious,

Bullshit.

> and I will never subscribe to any religion.

Christianity is a religion.

> Christianity is a family.

So in your family you rape your kids and kill people? Your family's
going to Hell.

> You have to be born into it, not physically,
> but spiritually.

Shut the fuck up.

> This is why some christians talk about being born-
> again.

I know. Because they're stupid bullshitters. If you guys have this
magical power to be "born again" at any time you must be fetuses, so
it isn't murder to kill you--it's abortion. I'm all for killing you,
so let's roll with it.

> I had the born-again experience, I am a changed person.

Not distinct from delusion in any way, everybody.

> This is
> the foundation of my belief, not any religion.

Okay--let's say your beliefs _aren't_ religious for no fucking reason
other than to prove that religious people are stuck in a little
Chinese finger trap where they pull both ways. Now, if you call it a
"religion" otherwise delusional beliefs are generally considered non-
delusional--it's a magical exemption that psychologists invented to
keep their jobs--but you're guilty of perpetuating the consequences of
said religion. If you say that Christianity _isn't_ a religion though,
guess what--you're insane. You don't get the magical religious
exemption no more. It's fucking gone because you aren't "religious"
and the magic "r-word" was the only thing that kept you from being
considered mentally ill, technically speaking.

Of course, in reality, you're all a bunch of stupid, dangerous
psychopaths.

> Everything that has
> contributed to my faith on the outside, has helped, but it hasn't been
> the root of my faith. I could go on a bit more about the born again
> experience if you want to know more about that just ask.

And my faith in Santa Claus came from nothing but The Holy Spirit.
Fuck off. You are a danger to _all_ people. You should be locked up or
killed. Anyone who cares about other people and isn't mentally ill
thinks you should be locked up or killed.

> I am interested to answer every issue you have against Christianity,
> one at a time.

No, you aren't.

> I don't claim to have absolute knowledge.

Yes, you do.

> It is also
> very difficult to answer when there are many points.

It is easier if you aren't stupid and crazy. Try that.

> A word about the burden of proof.

Just one?

> I

Yeah, you. I knew that's what it was all about. That was your word. Oh
wait, you have more?

> think a fair way to handle it is
> whoever makes the claim, the burden of proof is theirs.

I agree. Has God ever claimed existence? We're waiting, asshole.

> It is not fair
> claiming something if you don't have evidence to back it up. AND, when
> you counter someone's claim, perhaps start by asking if they have any
> evidence for what they are saying, rather than just discounting them
> all together from the start, that goes nowhere.

We _know_ you don't have evidence because no Christian _ever_ has
_ever_ had evidence. You aren't _new_. You're basically the same in
your arguments at their core. Is it possible that one Christian will
come up with some evidence? In theory, yes. In theory, a unicorn could
fly out of the sky. The latter seems a lot more likely.

> Lastly I think that if we are going to get anywhere with this clear
> definitions of acceptable evidence need to be defined, becuase in my
> opinion, its not the lack of evidence for God, but the suppression of
> it.

Yeah! Atheists are _hiding_ evidence like psychopaths claiming that
it's true which proves everything and old works of mythology that are
old so prove everything.

[Drafterman]

On Nov 24, 11:11 am, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This reply is to everyone,
>
> I'm not trying to insult anyone. I apologize for any offenses. I come
> on this site and it's christian bashing all-around.

No it's not. It's more stupidity bashing all around. I actually find
myself unable to address Christianity that much, since I spend most of
my time defending established scientific facts and theories, as well
as addressing the illogic in others' posts.

> Let me say a few
> words.

Who's stopping you?

> Let's keep the foul language out, because it is an offense to
> me.

Then leave.

>
> As a Christian, my right is to speak on what I believe it's true sense
> to be. Just as you have the right to talk about what "true" atheism
> is.

And a right to use the most foul, fucked-up, shit-smelling, bitch-
slapping language I can think of.

>
> I believe that the true Christianity is not a religion at all.

Define: "true Christianity". Support the definition.

> I am
> not religious, and I will never subscribe to any religion.
> Christianity is a family. You have to be born into it, not physically,
> but spiritually. This is why some christians talk about being born-
> again. I had the born-again experience, I am a changed person. This is
> the foundation of my belief, not any religion. Everything that has
> contributed to my faith on the outside, has helped, but it hasn't been
> the root of my faith. I could go on a bit more about the born again
> experience if you want to know more about that just ask.

And you accuse atheists of redefining words as a cop-out. Are you a
hypocrite?

>
> I am interested to answer every issue you have against Christianity,
> one at a time. I don't claim to have absolute knowledge. It is also
> very difficult to answer when there are many points.

No one forced you to start a topic, Cochise. Can complain about
getting wet when you open the flood gates.

>
> A word about the burden of proof. I think a fair way to handle it is
> whoever makes the claim, the burden of proof is theirs.

Well not shit. It has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do
with that being the definition of burden of proof.

> It is not fair
> claiming something if you don't have evidence to back it up.

Again: Duh!

> AND, when
> you counter someone's claim, perhaps start by asking if they have any
> evidence for what they are saying, rather than just discounting them
> all together from the start, that goes nowhere.

Ok. Evidence for God. Go!

>
> Lastly I think that if we are going to get anywhere with this clear
> definitions of acceptable evidence need to be defined, becuase in my
> opinion, its not the lack of evidence for God, but the suppression of
> it.

No one is suppressing anything. Suppression implies that someone is
forcefully preventing you from providing this evidence. Are you lying
or just being dramatic?

[Allan C Cybulskie]

On Nov 24, 7:35 am, blitzkriege <d.chatterj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So are your beliefs more along the lines of 'God's personality traits,
> motives and actions are not explainable by human logic' a la Smith?

Nope. I think Smith is wrong on that one, because his arguments make
a lot of assumptions that aren't particularly safe.

> Or do you believe that, like ghosts, God has some human traits and
> some other-worldly? And if so, then how do you decide when he's
> showing human traits and when he is in the mysterious zone?

Actually, I believe that God has some traits that we, as humans,
indeed share -- which wouldn't be surprising if it was true that God
made us in our own image.

(And before anyone else rants, yes, it would also be unsurprising if
we made God in our OWN image).

Thus, it becomes a matter of deciding what traits God has, not which
ones are "human" and which ones are "mysterious".

>
> On another note, I take it that you believe in ghosts. Do you also
> believe in alien abductions?

Why would you take it that I believe in ghosts simply from the fact
that I like to use them as an example when talking about supernatural
things?

I think that there's more to ghost experiences than simple lying or
hallucination. I do not know if there ever has been a ghost
experience that was actually a "disembodied spirit". I had a lovely
pet theory about how it could all be explained without a spirit, but
then noted that it didn't work for some of the reported instances.
That being said, I'm not sure about that anymore; the explanation
might still work.

At any rate, since the first part of your statement doesn't apply, do
I need to bother to answer the second? And why does it really matter?

[Dave]

On Nov 24, 2:16 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

> On Nov 23, 5:14 pm, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > To all you Atheists out there!...(well the few of you..anyway, over
> > 90% of the world is theistic)
>
> > I'm sure you have heard it all before, and most atheists I have talked
> > to can come up with ways of sidestepping the issue and bending
> > meaning, or some have resort to insults, I assume because they can't
> > have a polite logical discussion, and they think the more profanity
> > they use, the more right they are.
>
> > It would be easier if replies were against the actual points I will
> > mention and number rather than responding emotionally to the pre-amble
> > above.
>
> > 1. Atheists claim there is no God, with certainty.
>
> Probably not. Many of them TALK like they do, though ...

There is no god. Now prove me wrong..... or do you just talk like you
believe?

> > 2. Christians claim there is a God, with certainty.
>
> Not all of them. Myself, for example.
>
> > 3. In order to claim the non-existence of something, absolute
> > knowledge is required.
>
> I doubt this. Surely if one has sufficient reason to know that
> something cannot exist by the standards of knowledge, absolute
> certainty would not be required.

That's why the only logical stance on the existence of gods is that
they do not exist. No absolute knowledge is needed, just an honest
recognition that no evidence exists to support even a marginal belief
that some kind of god could possibly exist.

> > 4. In order to claim the existence of something, absolute knowledge is
> > not required, but only the knowledge of that which the claim is about.
>
> Actually, knowledge may not be required at all to make the claim that,
> at least, you believe that something exists.

Theists take that belief and reify it into a fact then act as if that
factoid were true.

> > 5. By Atheists claiming there is no God, with certainty, is saying
> > that they have absolute knowledge, thus making themselves to be God,
> > because only God has absolute knowledge.
> > 6. Atheists can't seem to grasp the fact that God, being so
> > immeasurably awesome would choose to reveal himself, on his terms, not
> > theirs. I.E. If God can't show up in the way that they think he should
> > then he just doesn't exist, period.
>
> This is a valid complaint.

It is a red herring.

> It reminds me of a discussion I had once
> about ghosts. She commented that she saw the "ghost" of her dead
> father, but noted that her father disappeared half-way down the street
> and didn't leave any footprints. Therefore, she concluded that she
> was hallucinating and that it wasn't really a ghost. Problem: a ghost
> should, in fact, have that behaviour. A real live person wouldn't.
> You cannot hold a ghost to the standards of a real person and claim
> that the ghost, therefore, wasn't really there.

Since ghosts do not exist, you can make up any behavior you want them
to have and then claim it's true. That's exactly what you've done here
and have done with gods.

> A similar thing applies to God; if God doesn't want to give people an
> obvious sign of his presence, looking for one and noting that its
> absence is important is utterly pointless.

See, you've just proven my point. You have absolutely no rational
backing for that claim, yet you pretend that it's the absolute truth.

> > 10. Christianity has had a bad rep. However Atheism is much worse.
> > Hitler, Stalin, Mussollini. Massacred more than any Christian and they
> > were all atheist, following the teachings of Neitsche.
>
> Ultimately, humans will always use strong beliefs to commit
> atrocities. This applies to any strong belief. Murdering in the name
> of atheism or science is not impossible, and is quite likely to occur
> if we didn't have alternatives.

You really should take off those rose colored glasses. Since mass
atrocities have occurred in the name of religions, mostly the
christian religion, and not in the name of Atheism or science, the
exact opposite of what you just said is the truth. Get rid of the
religions and the atrocities will stop.

[Keith MacNevins]

An atheist with a metaphor called God is not an atheist.

[Dave]

On Nov 24, 2:20 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

> On Nov 23, 7:16 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 4:14 pm, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > To all you Atheists out there!...(well the few of you..anyway, over
> > > 90% of the world is theistic)
>
> > > I'm sure you have heard it all before, and most atheists I have talked
> > > to can come up with ways of sidestepping the issue and bending
> > > meaning, or some have resort to insults, I assume because they can't
> > > have a polite logical discussion, and they think the more profanity
> > > they use, the more right they are.
>
> > Insults have no place in a rational debate. In fact, I believe the
> > use of insults negates all points trying to be made. Insults are an
> > "ad hom" attack.
>
> You might want to look up the definition of "ad hominem" before making
> such a claim ...

Insults are a form of ad hominem. You really should take a few college
courses in philosophy. You're not doing very good around here.

> > > 4. In order to claim the existence of something, absolute knowledge is
> > > not required, but only the knowledge of that which the claim is about.
>
> > Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence is needed to back up
> > extraordinary claims.
>
> Define "extraordinary claim".

That's basic English; Extraordinary: beyond what is ordinary or
usual, or in this case something that goes against common knowledge,
scientific evidence, or reality.

Quote; "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence for the
obvious reason of balance. If I claim that it rained for ten minutes
on my way to work last Tuesday, you would be justified in accepting
that claim as true on the basis of my report. But if I claim that I
was abducted by extraterrestrial aliens who whisked me to the far side
of the moon and performed bizarre medical experiments on me, you would
be justified in demanding more substantial evidence. The ordinary
evidence of my testimony, while sufficient for ordinary claims, is not
sufficient for extraordinary ones."
Source: http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html
Another source: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/extraproof.html

> > > 10. Christianity has had a bad rep. However Atheism is much worse.
> > > Hitler, Stalin, Mussollini. Massacred more than any Christian and they
> > > were all atheist, following the teachings of Neitsche.
>
> > Wrong. All of the above had professed a belief in God.
>
> Stalin believed in God? Wow, he really DID betray Marxism ...

Not if you actually have read anything about Marxism.

[Dave]

On Nov 24, 3:05 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not PC to say that God is unknown or unknowable instead of God
> doesn't exist, Dave, just more precise.

It's not precise at all. I see it as a dishonesty. Gods do not exist
so why is it wrong to say so? Are unicorns unknown or unknowable? Is
Zeus unknown or unknowable? Are any of the thousands of mythological
characters unknown or unknowable? Why give gods a special, protected,
category?

> In my opinion anyway. The end
> result is that if christians want us to accept God they're going to
> have to provide some scientific proof.

Since science does not deal with gods, there is no reason to come up
with scientific proof for, or against, gods.

[Dave]

On Nov 24, 3:07 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Exactly! Using invectives is not the only way to insult a person. In
> fact it's far worse to insult a person's intelligence.

Like I said, some of the arguments they come up with are an insult to
my intelligence.

[Dave]

On Nov 24, 4:16 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

> On Nov 24, 5:43 am, blitzkriege <d.chatterj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Allan.
>
> > A pretty well-reasoned response. However, I had a problem with one of
> > your points. You say that we cannot hold a god to the standards of a
> > real person. But then how can we keep on giving them the
> > characteristics of a real person?
>
> I'm going to ignore the specifics to focus on the main point, and I'm
> going to use ghosts again to deal with it.
>
> Take a traditional ghost claim. Now, do you think that ghosts can be
> mean? Angry? Sad? Kindly? Well, by the claims, certainly. But
> these are characteristics of real people, no? Fine, so now do you
> think it is ALSO rational to say "I saw the ghost walk through a
> wall. Real people can't walk through walls, so it couldn't be a ghost
> (or real)". Well, no, because by the traditional definition of ghost
> that is something that ghosts CAN do that real people can't. So how
> can you justify judging them on the basis of what real people can do
> in an area where they are DIFFERENT from real people? You can't, so
> you shouldn't.

The problem with that argument is that ghosts do not exist, but people
do. You can make up whatever you want as a definition of a ghost since
they are a total fabrication anyway. The same with gods.

> Note that some people -- Smith is one of them -- have tried to show
> that God as conceived couldn't have those personality traits as well.
> This is a better way to go about the comment you made here.

You misquote Smith, and present him as speaking for all of Atheism.
Two dishonesties in one sentence. As have all gods throughout all of
mythology, they have been anthropomorphic. Not surprising since humans
made them up. Of course gods will have the traits of their creators.

> > Christians interpret the bible as human beings, so how can they be
> > sure that the Christian God wanted to say exactly that... If 'God
> > moves in mysterious ways', then there is no chance of humanly
> > rationalizing any of God's desires or actions.
>
> True. I don't think that we can be certain of God's motivations or
> goals --- and Smith has argued that He can't have any.

Again with trying to claim that Smith speaks for all Atheists. Anyway,
since gods do not exist they cannot have any motivations or goals -
but the creators of those gods do.

> > > A similar thing applies to God; if God doesn't want to give people an
> > > obvious sign of his presence, looking for one and noting that its
> > > absence is important is utterly pointless.
>
> > Just to show you why I am so confused - in the above statement you
> > first state that God does not share the standards of a real person,
> > and then go on to provide excuses for God by the standard of a real
> > person...
>
> I hope I've cleared that up.

Not with anything meaningful, or honest.

[bonfly]

Jordan:

> I am interested to answer every issue you have against Christianity,
> one at a time.

Dev:
No, you aren't.

Jordan:

> I don't claim to have absolute knowledge.

Dev:
Yes, you do.


~ ~ That's right. Jordan is only interested in self-serving bullshit
propaganda and believes himself to have absolute knowledge of the
universe, despite the fact that he gets one of the most basic
realities of the universe wrong. It's "religious filth," (sometimes I
wish I could swear eloquently like Observer) and pollutes the mind
like Donny Osmond.

[Trance Gemini]

On Nov 24, 12:55 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 3:05 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's not PC to say that God is unknown or unknowable instead of God
> > doesn't exist, Dave, just more precise.
>
> It's not precise at all. I see it as a dishonesty. Gods do not exist
> so why is it wrong to say so? Are unicorns unknown or unknowable? Is
> Zeus unknown or unknowable? Are any of the thousands of mythological
> characters unknown or unknowable? Why give gods a special, protected,
> category?

We've had this debate a couple of times, so I probably shouldn't have
brought it up, but in my opinion, the fact that God is a recognized
metaphysical concept, differentiates it from Zeus and other
mythological gods and entities.

It's a concept that's not falsifiable, and so you're right, there is
no reason at this time for science to deal with the issue at all.

It's irrelevant.

I understand where you're coming from, but I personally, would not be
willing to unequivocally state he does or doesn't exist.

I would never say he existed without full detailed scientifically
verifiable data to support that.

[Dave]

n Nov 24, 8:11 am, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This reply is to everyone,
>
> I'm not trying to insult anyone.

Your first post in this thread was an obvious attack, and insult, on
those that do not believe as you do.

> I apologize for any offenses.

Sorry, I don't believe you.

> I come
> on this site and it's christian bashing all-around. Let me say a few
> words. Let's keep the foul language out, because it is an offense to
> me.

For some reason, I just don't believe you.

> As a Christian, my right is to speak on what I believe it's true sense
> to be. Just as you have the right to talk about what "true" atheism
> is.
>
> I believe that the true Christianity is not a religion at all. I am
> not religious, and I will never subscribe to any religion.
> Christianity is a family.

It is a religion. Trying to redefine religion is not a very honest
argument. Honestly, christianity is a mythology. It's gods and stories
are not true.

> I am interested to answer every issue you have against Christianity,
> one at a time. I don't claim to have absolute knowledge. It is also
> very difficult to answer when there are many points.

Instead of trying to dismiss all that we have to say about the
christian religion, why not pay attention and maybe actually learn
something?

> A word about the burden of proof. I think a fair way to handle it is
> whoever makes the claim, the burden of proof is theirs. It is not fair
> claiming something if you don't have evidence to back it up. AND, when
> you counter someone's claim, perhaps start by asking if they have any
> evidence for what they are saying, rather than just discounting them
> all together from the start, that goes nowhere.

You carry the burden of proof since you claim gods exist. You need to
provide that proof. We do not have any obligation to prove you wrong.
So far you, nor anyone else, has come up with any proof for a god. It
seems that you are the one automatically discounting anything from the
non believers.

> Lastly I think that if we are going to get anywhere with this clear
> definitions of acceptable evidence need to be defined, becuase in my
> opinion, its not the lack of evidence for God, but the suppression of
> it.

How can something that does not exist be suppressed?

[bonfly]

Jordan uses the word "suppression" to explain why there is no
compelling evidence for God: "Oh, the evidence is there alright, it's
just being _suppressed_"

[Keith MacNevins]

Correct. Did you ever read a mystery novel where they tell you the answers to all the questions on the first page? God is the author of our reality and he could write the script however he wants. If we had absolutely no questions, no doubts whatsoever about the absolutely proven existence of God then it would take away some of our freedom. We would feel compelled and not making choices due to free will. The world would be much different, and not necessarily better at this stage if there was no questioning, no searching for truth, no mystery about God, no reason to choose to do good because you wanted to.

[Simpleton]

On Nov 24, 8:11 am, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This reply is to everyone,
>
> I'm not trying to insult anyone. I apologize for any offenses. I come
> on this site and it's christian bashing all-around. Let me say a few
> words. Let's keep the foul language out, because it is an offense to
> me.
>

I suggest you find another group to peddle your wares. Insistence of
a supernatural entity with no evidence is an offense to reason.

> As a Christian, my right is to speak on what I believe it's true sense
> to be. Just as you have the right to talk about what "true" atheism
> is.
>

And no one is stopping you.

> I believe that the true Christianity is not a religion at all. I am
> not religious, and I will never subscribe to any religion.
> Christianity is a family. You have to be born into it, not physically,
> but spiritually. This is why some christians talk about being born-
> again. I had the born-again experience, I am a changed person. This is
> the foundation of my belief, not any religion. Everything that has
> contributed to my faith on the outside, has helped, but it hasn't been
> the root of my faith. I could go on a bit more about the born again
> experience if you want to know more about that just ask.
>

Go ahead, I always get a laugh or two from the experiences of born-
agains.

> I am interested to answer every issue you have against Christianity,
> one at a time. I don't claim to have absolute knowledge. It is also
> very difficult to answer when there are many points.
>

Start with proving compelling evidence that the Christian God exists.

> A word about the burden of proof. I think a fair way to handle it is
> whoever makes the claim, the burden of proof is theirs. It is not fair
> claiming something if you don't have evidence to back it up. AND, when
> you counter someone's claim, perhaps start by asking if they have any
> evidence for what they are saying, rather than just discounting them
> all together from the start, that goes nowhere.
>

http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/burden_of_proof.jpg

> Lastly I think that if we are going to get anywhere with this clear
> definitions of acceptable evidence need to be defined, becuase in my
> opinion, its not the lack of evidence for God, but the suppression of
> it.

You are mistaken, or in denial. Take your pick.

[Simpleton]

On Nov 24, 2:16 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

Since you made a well thought response so far, let me ask you this.

If you asked Hitler whether he was a Nazi or a Christian, what would
you think he'd respond?

If you asked Stalin whether he was a communist or a Christian, what
would you think he'd respond?


If you asked Mao whether he was a communist or a Christian, what would
you think he'd respond?

If you asked the popes of the Crusades whether they were Christians or
statesmen, what would you think they'd respond?

[Dave]

On Nov 24, 10:48 am, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> If you asked Hitler whether he was a Nazi or a Christian, what would
> you think he'd respond?

http://www.ushmm.org/lcmedia/photo/wlc/image/08/08024.jpg

[bonfly]

Not that the priests and bishops were in any way complicit in
nazism. : )

[Dave]

On Nov 24, 11:27 am, bonfly <anub...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
> Not that the priests and bishops were in any way complicit in
> nazism. : )

They were sure eager to take his money. It's scary to read up on the
National Socialist party. It's like the NeoCons copied all of their
ideas.

[genie]

hm, i would just like to comment that atheism and Nietzsche (misspelt
in the argument) are not directly linked; death of god is not what
atheists propagate. I believe that atheism in the past was a response
to corrupt religious institutions and not so much against believing in
'theo'. sincerely, Genie

On 23 nov., 23:14, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> To all you Atheists out there!...(well the few of you..anyway, over
> 90% of the world is theistic)
>
> I'm sure you have heard it all before, and most atheists I have talked
> to can come up with ways of sidestepping the issue and bending
> meaning, or some have resort to insults, I assume because they can't
> have a polite logical discussion, and they think the more profanity
> they use, the more right they are.
>

> It would be easier if replies were against the actual points I will
> mention and number rather than responding emotionally to the pre-amble
> above.
>
> 1. Atheists claim there is no God, with certainty.

> 2. Christians claim there is a God, with certainty.

> 3. In order to claim the non-existence of something, absolute
> knowledge is required.

> 4. In order to claim the existence of something, absolute knowledge is
> not required, but only the knowledge of that which the claim is about.

> 5. By Atheists claiming there is no God, with certainty, is saying
> that they have absolute knowledge, thus making themselves to be God,
> because only God has absolute knowledge.
> 6. Atheists can't seem to grasp the fact that God, being so
> immeasurably awesome would choose to reveal himself, on his terms, not
> theirs. I.E. If God can't show up in the way that they think he should
> then he just doesn't exist, period.
>

> If you just don't know, but your open to finding oput the truth, that
> makes you agnostic, not atheist.
>
> 7. Atheist's try to bend terms and talk about weak(soft) and
> strong(hard) atheism. It's just a cop-out and shows they don't know
> the true historicity of that which they so adamantly believe. That's
> right, Atheism is a religion, it's just as much a faith, as any other
> religion in the world, except that it is much smaller. Probably
> becuase 90% of the world understand's these points.
>
> 8. If you say your agnostic and you just "don't know" I have a lot
> more respect for you than anyone claiming to have absolute knowledge
> and that there is no God.
>
> 9. The truth behind atheism is that they don't like the idea of
> subjecting to atuhority, they want to be master's of themselves, and
> accepting a God would demand responsibility. That's probably why
> Atheism is predominantly western, where the individual rules.

[genie]

hm, Hitler had a very strong public persona, and a very weak intimate
one. i figure if you were miss Brown asking that, he would admit his
christian values.

[Medusa]

On Nov 23, 7:59 pm, "ROM 10:14" <john.a.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Medusa;
>
> You say Hitler misrepresented much of Friedrich Nietzsche's
> works, and yet you think that he and the others mentioned didn't do
> the same to the Bible?

Yes, they did also distorted the Bible and hisory for their own ends.
All of them were liars.

Medusa

AA #2281

[Dave]

On Nov 24, 11:39 am, genie <lidia...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> hm, i would just like to comment that atheism and Nietzsche (misspelt
> in the argument) are not directly linked; death of god is not what
> atheists propagate. I believe that atheism in the past was a response
> to corrupt religious institutions and not so much against believing in
> 'theo'. sincerely, Genie

You would be wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It is not a
reaction to, or against, any religion. It is insulting to suggest that
the only reason we do not believe in gods is because of some corrupt
religion. You are just as insulting as Jordan. Why do christians need
to be insulting?

[Dave]

On Nov 24, 11:46 am, genie <lidia...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> hm, Hitler had a very strong public persona, and a very weak intimate
> one. i figure if you were miss Brown asking that, he would admit his
> christian values.

I don't give a crap about any of his "personas". He claimed to be a
christian. He claimed to be doing what his god wanted. He invaded a
country that he claimed was a threat and was directly responsible for
the deaths of millions. So, now.... tell me.... how is he any
different than Bush? Why is Hitler a bad person for doing exactly what
a beloved christian is doing today?

[Medusa]

On Nov 24, 4:20 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

> On Nov 23, 7:16 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> > On Nov 23, 4:14 pm, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > To all you Atheists out there!...(well the few of you..anyway, over
> > > 90% of the world is theistic)
>
> > > I'm sure you have heard it all before, and most atheists I have talked
> > > to can come up with ways of sidestepping the issue and bending
> > > meaning, or some have resort to insults, I assume because they can't
> > > have a polite logical discussion, and they think the more profanity
> > > they use, the more right they are.
>

> > Insults have no place in a rational debate. In fact, I believe the
> > use of insults negates all points trying to be made. Insults are an
> > "ad hom" attack.
>

> You might want to look up the definition of "ad hominem" before making
> such a claim ...

It literally means "to the man." Insulting a person instead of
disproving an argument is making an "ad hominem" attack; an attack on
the person, not the argument.

> > > 4. In order to claim the existence of something, absolute knowledge is
> > > not required, but only the knowledge of that which the claim is about.
>

> > Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence is needed to back up
> > extraordinary claims.
>
> Define "extraordinary claim".

A claim that something exists beyond our senses, such a a claim that a
supernatural being exists is an "exraordinary claim." Others are out
there, such as the claim that beings from another planet have visited
the earth.

> > > 10. Christianity has had a bad rep. However Atheism is much worse.
> > > Hitler, Stalin, Mussollini. Massacred more than any Christian and they
> > > were all atheist, following the teachings of Neitsche.
>

> > Wrong. All of the above had professed a belief in God.
>
> Stalin believed in God? Wow, he really DID betray Marxism ...

Perhaps he didn't. Hitler said he did, as did Mussolini.

Medusa

AA #2281

[Simpleton]

On Nov 24, 2:20 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

>
> Stalin believed in God?


Certainly seems to have at least professed such a thing. He was
educated in a Christian seminary and sang in the choir.

Tiflis Theological Seminary, I believe. Now known as Tbilisi.
Russian Orthodox outfit.

A CS Lewis in reverse, if you can imagine.

>
> Wow, he really DID betray Marxism ...
>

Well, he is not alone. Plenty of Marxists in India, influencing state
and national politics who do so as well.

Maybe it is not a betrayal as much as it is unrelated, eh, Allan?
Maybe if you can explain this association you are hinting at, it might
become clear.

[Trance Gemini]

These kind of insults are so rude and indicate a complete lack of
respect.

[Trance Gemini]

Marxism as a philosophy doesn't recognize religion. However, communism
and communist organizations do not exclude people because they are
religious.

[Dave]

On Nov 24, 4:15 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> These kind of insults are so rude and indicate a complete lack of
> respect.

That's why I point them out whenever I see them.

[Medusa]

On Nov 24, 10:11 am, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> This reply is to everyone,
>
> I'm not trying to insult anyone. I apologize for any offenses. I come
> on this site and it's christian bashing all-around. Let me say a few
> words. Let's keep the foul language out, because it is an offense to
> me.

Sorry, we have freedom of speech. If it offends you, don't read it.

Medusa

AA #2281

[Simpleton]

On Nov 24, 4:17 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Marxism as a philosophy doesn't recognize religion.

Perhaps, but the relevance of The Marxist Manifesto to marxists is no
more relevant than that of the New Testament to Christians.

I do not recall Marxism singling out religion to be exterminated as
its foundations either.

The Russian Orthodox Church, IIRC, recognized Stalin's Soviet
government as legit. Does that mean that Russian Christians approved
of Stalinism?

> However, communism
> and communist organizations do not exclude people because they are
> religious.
>

Correct.

[Dev]

I think you're reading something incorrect into what Trance is saying.
Yes, God is fictional. Yes, Harry Potter and Spongebob Squarepants are
fictional. That really has nothing to do with whether or not they can
be disproven--they're as proven as everything that's known to be
fictional. If evidence came along, we would be smart to change our
minds--but our attitude should remain "come the fuck on--like that's
going to happen". Do we know that "God" (which means like a billion
different things) is unknowable? No--that is why I slightly prefer the
term "atheist" over "agnostic". Do we know that we've never met
someone who has had _any_ real, sane, rational evidence for the
existence of God? Unless we're stupid, we do know that. Zeus _is_
unknown but it possible to disprove Zeus? Probably not, but whatever.
The point is that they are all fictional--not disproven. You don't
have to disprove something for it to be fictional or a delusion.

Here is my motivation: don't open yourself up to the argument that
thetards make about "atheists have faith that there is no God which is
the same as having faith _in_ God". Granted, it is obviously
_unbelievably_ more likely that they're wrong--in fact, every
Christian I've debated religion with has proven their self wrong
_about_ religion in one way or another. But let''s just put it this
way: "fiction is fiction and no sane adult has a responsibility to
disprove it". That is a nice, indisputable way of saying basically the
same thing.

[ROM 10:14]

On Nov 23, 9:15 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 7:12 pm, "ROM 10:14" <john.a.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Would you say that the pope and orthodox catholics misrepresent the
> > Bible?
>
> In much the same manners that priests, nuns, and other Christians do.

Catholism and Christianity are way different, they even use different
texts.

>
> > there are so many verses that they either choose not to
> > accept, or don't know exist.
>
> Which leaves them as Christians.


>
> > Most however would say that catholicism
> > is part of "the Church"
>
> With a billion members, it'd be hard not to.

They are not Christian, they are catholic.

[ROM 10:14]

Christianity started circa 30 a.d. catolism started about 325 a.d.

On Nov 23, 9:15 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 7:12 pm, "ROM 10:14" <john.a.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Would you say that the pope and orthodox catholics misrepresent the
> > Bible?
>
> In much the same manners that priests, nuns, and other Christians do.
>

[Simpleton]

On Nov 24, 6:53 pm, "ROM 10:14" <john.a.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 9:15 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 7:12 pm, "ROM 10:14" <john.a.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Would you say that the pope and orthodox catholics misrepresent the
> > > Bible?
>
> > In much the same manners that priests, nuns, and other Christians do.
>
> Catholism and Christianity are way different,

LOL. Just like Lutheranism is different from Christianity?

> they even use different
> texts.
>

They both use the Bible, do they not?

>
>
> > > there are so many verses that they either choose not to
> > > accept, or don't know exist.
>
> > Which leaves them as Christians.
>
> > > Most however would say that catholicism
> > > is part of "the Church"
>
> > With a billion members, it'd be hard not to.
>
> They are not Christian, they are catholic.

A distinction without a difference. You too are not a Christian by
that definition. Instead you are just a member of one of the many
sects of Christianity.

[ROM 10:14]

> > 9. The truth behind atheism is that they don't like the idea of
> > subjecting to atuhority, they want to be master's of themselves, and
> > accepting a God would demand responsibility. That's probably why
> > Atheism is predominantly western, where the individual rules.
>

> China is atheistic. You were saying?


good point let's be communist! and murder anyone who doesn't agree or
challanges authority, in the US that would start with athiest. china
is not a good example of how to live. Christ is.

[Simpleton]

On Nov 24, 6:54 pm, "ROM 10:14" <john.a.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Christianity started circa 30 a.d. catolism started about 325 a.d.
>

Please provide proof that no one was a Catholic before 325 AD.

On second thoughts, do not bother. When did Lutheranism start?

[Simpleton]

On Nov 24, 6:57 pm, "ROM 10:14" <john.a.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 9. The truth behind atheism is that they don't like the idea of
> > > subjecting to atuhority, they want to be master's of themselves, and
> > > accepting a God would demand responsibility. That's probably why
> > > Atheism is predominantly western, where the individual rules.
>
> > China is atheistic. You were saying?
>
> good point

So you were wrong. That's all you had to say

[bonfly]

So if you want to turn this into a "how old is my religion" pissing
contest christianity doesn't even rate. By your convoluted logic that
makes worshippers of Mithra or Isis more correct than christianity
( ... which they are).

[Dave]

On Nov 24, 6:53 pm, "ROM 10:14" <john.a.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Catholism and Christianity are way different, they even use different
> texts.

That's right, the Catholics are the oldest, and therefore the most
pure, branch of the christian religion. The PROTESTents broke away
from the original because they found it inconvenient.

> They are not Christian, they are catholic.

I know it's difficult for you to understand, but catholics are the
main branch of christianity, your little PROTESTents came along later.
You are in a branch of the catholic religion.

Another thing that is seems you cannot understand is that neither of
those religions have the truth. Since gods do not exist, both are
entirely made up.

[Dave]

On Nov 24, 6:54 pm, "ROM 10:14" <john.a.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Christianity started circa 30 a.d. catolism started about 325 a.d.

The catholic religion was the first christian religion. Doesn't matter
though, the jesus they yammer on about did not exist.

[Dave]

On Nov 24, 6:57 pm, "ROM 10:14" <john.a.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> good point let's be communist! and murder anyone who doesn't agree or
> challanges authority, in the US that would start with athiest.

They should start cleaning their own house first. It seems bush has no
problem murdering millions of people for his ego.

> china is not a good example of how to live. Christ is.

Your god is a fake. China is real. I'd rather live in China than be
forced to believe in your inane and immoral gods.

[Fred Oinka]

I don't fall into either category one, or category 2.
But I also smoke, so I'll be outside anyway.

On Nov 23, 5:14 pm, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> To all you Atheists out there!...(well the few of you..anyway, over
> 90% of the world is theistic)
>
> I'm sure you have heard it all before, and most atheists I have talked
> to can come up with ways of sidestepping the issue and bending
> meaning, or some have resort to insults, I assume because they can't
> have a polite logical discussion, and they think the more profanity
> they use, the more right they are.
>

> It would be easier if replies were against the actual points I will
> mention and number rather than responding emotionally to the pre-amble
> above.
>
> 1. Atheists claim there is no God, with certainty.
> 2. Christians claim there is a God, with certainty.

> 3. In order to claim the non-existence of something, absolute
> knowledge is required.

> 4. In order to claim the existence of something, absolute knowledge is
> not required, but only the knowledge of that which the claim is about.

> 5. By Atheists claiming there is no God, with certainty, is saying
> that they have absolute knowledge, thus making themselves to be God,
> because only God has absolute knowledge.
> 6. Atheists can't seem to grasp the fact that God, being so
> immeasurably awesome would choose to reveal himself, on his terms, not
> theirs. I.E. If God can't show up in the way that they think he should
> then he just doesn't exist, period.
>
> If you just don't know, but your open to finding oput the truth, that
> makes you agnostic, not atheist.
>
> 7. Atheist's try to bend terms and talk about weak(soft) and
> strong(hard) atheism. It's just a cop-out and shows they don't know
> the true historicity of that which they so adamantly believe. That's
> right, Atheism is a religion, it's just as much a faith, as any other
> religion in the world, except that it is much smaller. Probably
> becuase 90% of the world understand's these points.
>
> 8. If you say your agnostic and you just "don't know" I have a lot
> more respect for you than anyone claiming to have absolute knowledge
> and that there is no God.
>

> 9. The truth behind atheism is that they don't like the idea of
> subjecting to atuhority, they want to be master's of themselves, and
> accepting a God would demand responsibility. That's probably why
> Atheism is predominantly western, where the individual rules.
>

[hmrkkr@gmail.com]

Take some of your own advice, Bob T. In the old testament, "God" wiped
out entire races, cities, called for the sacrifice of animals, made a
woman out of a man's rib, talked out of a burning juniper bush, and
allowed people to live for thousands of years. Stories. Killed more
people than BOTH world wars. I'm not counting the 6 million Jews
killed by the Nazis, so I apologize to you for not being more clear.

Ok, historicity is a word...Sorry, I must have mistyped something when
I looked it up. Accidents happen.

During the Crusades, Richard the Lionheated is reported, in Christian
literature, to have defeated and killed or "converted" as they say, in
the tens of thousands of savage Muslim nonbelievers. One guy and his
personal army spreading the peace and love of Christianity. It's
beautiful.

In colonial America, it's fairly easy to do a little typing and find a
minimum of 3,000 individual stories of people who were tried and
executed for heresy. How many more were not important enough to
document? Hmmm...The world may never know...

In addition, there's also a period in Europen history that lasted for,
oh, only about 250 years.

The Inquisition? Please.The Catholic church won't remove a priest that
molests children. Do you actually believe they would let you know how
many people they "converted or saved?"

Quoted from Wikipedia..."Although the Inquisition was created to halt
the advance of heresy, it also occupied itself with a wide variety of
offences that only indirectly could be related to religious
heterodoxy. Of a total of 49,092 trials from the period 1560-1700
registered in the archive of the Suprema, appear the following:
judaizantes (5,007); moriscos (11,311); Lutherans (3,499); alumbrados
(149); superstitions (3,750); heretical propositions (14,319); bigamy
(2,790); solicitation (1,241); offences against the Holy Office of the
Inquisition (3,954); miscellaneous (2,575).[citation needed]
This data demonstrates that not only New Christians (conversos of
Jewish or Islamic descent) and Protestants faced persecution, but also
many Old Christians were targeted for various reasons."

Again, how many more weren't documented?

Also remember that the Holocaust was ordered and carried out by people
claiming to be Christian. Mussolini was Catholic.

The Russians? Atheist. Our allies in WWII. Terrified for decades that
the Christian west would invade again.

Look, I personally don't care if you or anyone else is Christian. I
don't find anything wrong with faith in any god that is based in
compassion and understanding. But I personally have the balls to wake
up each day and ask myself what I believe and why, and the answers I
get, while they change on occasion, lead me to Naturalism., I don't
believe in god, satan, the spirit of the forest, the great pumpkin...I
believe that what I do makes the difference, not what some story book
character tells me to do. I leave that to the weak. They're the ones
that have to believe that grandma is looking down from a cloud and
their puppy went to live on a farm somewhere. I'll teach my kids to be
responsible for their own lives, respect the rights and beliefs of the
people in the world around them. If they want to believe in god, if it
makes them whole somehow, whatever, good for them. Maybe the
Christians around them might learn to do it, too.



On Nov 23, 6:00 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 5:25 pm, "hmr...@gmail.com" <martinandre...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Wow...Where do you come up with any of this complete crap that you're
> > spewing?
> > Here are the facts, and I'll try to use small words so that you can
> > follow along...
>
> > Man is older than Christianity.
> > More people are killed in the Bible by God than in both world wars
> > combined.
> > More non-Christians were killed in the Crusades, Inquisition and
> > various witch trials than in the Bible AND in both world wars all
> > together.
>
> I don't think so. The number of people killed by the inquisition and
> witch trials is rather small - perhaps in the thousands total. The
> number killed in the Crusades was probably in the hundreds of
> thousands (I'm not bothering to look it up.) The number killed in the
> two World Wars was in the multiple millions each. I do believe you're
> just wrong.
>
> > God was invented by people who wanted to explain their environment
> > (look up polytheism on wikipedia...it's ok, you can cut and paste so
> > that you don't have to spell it).
> > The Bible is a collection of stories, some fact, most fiction. Anyone
> > can invent a religion and have ridiculous fiction to back it up.www.venganza.org
> > Last, but not least, you are a moron. "Historicity" is not a word.
>
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/historicity
>
> 'Noun: The characteristic of having existed in history.
>
> "The historicity of Jesus is a matter of some debate among scholars."
> '
>
> > Learn to speak English.
>
> Learn to look things up before you criticize. There are a lot of
> things wrong with the original post, and yet you found two erroneous
> ways to critique it.
>
> - Bob T.
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich"--Napoleon

> > > were all atheist, following the teachings of Neitsche.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[art_classmn]

On Nov 24, 6:17 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Marxism as a philosophy doesn't recognize religion. However, communism
> and communist organizations do not exclude people because they are
> religious.

Of course Marx recognized religion. His intent was never to "not
recognize" it but point out how religion was being used to maintain
the stratification of power and wealth.

[art_classmn]

On Nov 23, 4:14 pm, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> To all you Atheists out there!...(well the few of you..anyway, over
> 90% of the world is theistic)

And almost 100% of the world is atheistic with respect to every god
but the one they choose to believe in.

[philosophy]

Thanks for the link Trance G, it was a very good video, I liked
it a lot.
Cheers

On Nov 24, 9:08 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Watch this educational video on What an Atheist this and then rewrite
> this post :)
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/...
>
> Then maybe I can take you seriously ... Maybe.

>
> On Nov 23, 5:14 pm, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > To all you Atheists out there!...(well the few of you..anyway, over
> > 90% of the world is theistic)
>

[philosophy]

No,
It's a choice of belief you made based on an experience you
had. It is your choice, and your belief. Hence, the burden
of proof is on you. You say that Christianity is not a religion
but a family.
I beg to differ. If we accept your claim that it's a family, then
it is both a religion and a family. But this again is your
belief - our choice.
Conversely, an Atheist chooses to believe there is not God.
Why? Usually because the Atheist has looked at the so-
called evidence, and found it lacking. It is the Atheist's
choice to choose a lack of belief in Gods.
Cheers

On Nov 25, 2:11 am, Jordan <jordan_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This reply is to everyone,
>
> I'm not trying to insult anyone. I apologize for any offenses. I come
> on this site and it's christian bashing all-around. Let me say a few
> words. Let's keep the foul language out, because it is an offense to
> me.
>

> As a Christian, my right is to speak on what I believe it's true sense
> to be. Just as you have the right to talk about what "true" atheism
> is.
>
> I believe that the true Christianity is not a religion at all. I am
> not religious, and I will never subscribe to any religion.
> Christianity is a family. You have to be born into it, not physically,
> but spiritually. This is why some christians talk about being born-
> again. I had the born-again experience, I am a changed person. This is
> the foundation of my belief, not any religion. Everything that has
> contributed to my faith on the outside, has helped, but it hasn't been
> the root of my faith. I could go on a bit more about the born again
> experience if you want to know more about that just ask.
>
> I am interested to answer every issue you have against Christianity,
> one at a time. I don't claim to have absolute knowledge. It is also
> very difficult to answer when there are many points.
>
> A word about the burden of proof. I think a fair way to handle it is
> whoever makes the claim, the burden of proof is theirs. It is not fair
> claiming something if you don't have evidence to back it up. AND, when
> you counter someone's claim, perhaps start by asking if they have any
> evidence for what they are saying, rather than just discounting them
> all together from the start, that goes nowhere.
>
> Lastly I think that if we are going to get anywhere with this clear
> definitions of acceptable evidence need to be defined, becuase in my
> opinion, its not the lack of evidence for God, but the suppression of
> it.

[philosophy]

Providing you are not a Chinese communist and
suggesting that Falun Gong is a religion.

[genie]

eh well, i am not insulting - and your reaction is that of an
'opposition' to what I have allegedly written, hm, it is actually your
assumption versus my opinion, dont, you agree? I dont think i neeg to
apologize for non-offensiveness in my opinion. sincerely, genie

[genie]

I wouldnt comment comparison between bush and hitler - you are trying
to bring up a discussion of comparing two biographies, and i wouldnt
do that because i know too little of the two persons mentioned here. i
wouldnt brag about my knowledge, anyways, my opinion is jus mine, and
hence it is not the universal truth. sincerely, genie

On 25 nov., 00:07, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 11:46 am, genie <lidia...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > hm, Hitler had a very strong public persona, and a very weak intimate
> > one. i figure if you were miss Brown asking that, he would admit his
> > christian values.
>
> I don't give a crap about any of his "personas". He claimed to be a
> christian. He claimed to be doing what his god wanted. He invaded a
> country that he claimed was a threat and was directly responsible for
> the deaths of millions. So, now.... tell me.... how is he any
> different than Bush? Why is Hitler a bad person for doing exactly what
> a beloved christian is doing today?

[genie]

I dont believe i wrote an insult - merely an opinion. and the real
question is - since when is an opinion a truth?? sincerely, genie

> > to be insulting?- Skrij navedeno besedilo -
>
> - Prikaži navedeno besedilo -