Bishop Says Pro-Abortion Catholic Politicians Committing Heresy
J Young
the U.S. Supreme Court, should be the dominant power in American politics
today. Leaders like Bishop Robert F. Vasa need to be in the forefront of the
fight to make this a reality.
http://www.lifenews.com/state1439.html
Bishop Says Pro-Abortion Catholic Politicians Committing Heresy
Baker, OR (LifeNews.com) -- An Oregon bishop says politicians or voters who
maintain a pro-abortion position are committing a heresy against the
commandment against killing.
Bishop Robert F. Vasa of the Catholic diocese of Baker, Oregon, wrote in the
Catholic Sentinel newspaper, "There is a point at which passive 'tolerance'
allows misleading teachings to be spread and propagated, thus confusing or
even misleading the faithful about the truths of the Church.There is a very
strong word, which still exists in our Church, which most of us are too
'gentle' to use. The word is 'heresy.'"
The bishop's comments won praise from Marc Balestrieri, a canon lawyer and
president of a group called De Fide, which was founded in 2004 to fight the
pro-abortion "heresy" in the Catholic Church.
"Bishop Vasa is to be praised for his clear, courageous, and firm defense of
the integrity of the Fifth Commandment and the most innocent of human life.
It is the solemn duty of a bishop to fully disclose the exact gravity of
'choice' to his flock," Balestrieri said.
--
"Honesty, Integrity, Compassion, and Decency"
Parsifal
racists, bigots, liars and intolerants?
Mark Sebree
J Young wrote:
> American-Catholics, by their sheer numbers of voters and representation on
> the U.S. Supreme Court, should be the dominant power in American politics
> today. Leaders like Bishop Robert F. Vasa need to be in the forefront of the
> fight to make this a reality.
>
No, they should not. They need to be at the bottom power in politics,
because religion should stay out of politics all together in the first
place.
>
> http://www.lifenews.com/state1439.html
>
> Bishop Says Pro-Abortion Catholic Politicians Committing Heresy
Which means that he is lying. The Catholic Church has no right to
dictate what politicians do and vote on in the course of their jobs
representing all their constituents.
>
>
> Baker, OR (LifeNews.com) -- An Oregon bishop says politicians or voters who
> maintain a pro-abortion position are committing a heresy against the
> commandment against killing.
Which is a lie. Pro-choice position does not kill anyone. And the
commandment is against murder, as can be seen from all the laws in
Dueteronomy and Leviticus.
> Bishop Robert F. Vasa of the Catholic diocese of Baker, Oregon, wrote in the
> Catholic Sentinel newspaper, "There is a point at which passive 'tolerance'
> allows misleading teachings to be spread and propagated, thus confusing or
> even misleading the faithful about the truths of the Church.There is a very
> strong word, which still exists in our Church, which most of us are too
> 'gentle' to use. The word is 'heresy.'"
>
Wrong word. Better ones are "honesty" and "integrity". The
politicians are doing the jobs that they were elected to do. They
represent the people, not the oppresive Catholic church.
> The bishop's comments won praise from Marc Balestrieri, a canon lawyer and
> president of a group called De Fide, which was founded in 2004 to fight the
> pro-abortion "heresy" in the Catholic Church.
>
In other words, it was founded to fight nothing.
> "Bishop Vasa is to be praised for his clear, courageous, and firm defense of
> the integrity of the Fifth Commandment and the most innocent of human life.
In other words, they care nothing for the woman, and they want to
impose their viewpoint on everyone, especially non-Catholics.
> It is the solemn duty of a bishop to fully disclose the exact gravity of
> 'choice' to his flock," Balestrieri said.
>
In other words, the bishop will lie to "his flock". And he will seek
to impose the hierarchy's dictates onto non-Catholics in contravention
of US law, as well as seek to lobby and influence politicians via
blackmail and "guilt trips" to represent and vote in accordance the
Catholic church's dicates rather than for what is best for the
politician's constituents as a whole. They seek to make the politician
a puppet, to remove any honesty and integrity he has left.
>
> --
> "Honesty, Integrity, Compassion, and Decency"
Catholic politicians that are voting pro-choice are more honest than
the catholic hierarchy wants them to be, because those politicians are
doing the job that they were elected to do. They are protecting the
rights of ALL their constitutents, and not letting their religion or
religious "leaders" dicate what their responses should be to bills and
measures that affect the health and freedom of the people of their
districts and the USA.
That is not heresy. That is an example of "Honest, Integrity,
Compassion, and Decency" that you and the Catholic Church could learn
something from. Those politicians are more honest and honorable than
the Catholic Church can handle. And your attitude, as well as the
attitude that you have shown that your oppressive church displays, is
EXACTLY why your church should be prevented from interferring in
politics, be heavily fined by the IRS for its lobbying efforts, and why
the First Amendment was created in the first place. They should keep
their collective noses out of other people's business and stop trying
to impose their oppressive viewpoint on everyone else by influencing
the laws that are passed.
Mark Sebree
bam
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1140817861.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> J Young wrote:
>> American-Catholics, by their sheer numbers of voters and representation
>> on
>> the U.S. Supreme Court, should be the dominant power in American politics
>> today. Leaders like Bishop Robert F. Vasa need to be in the forefront of
>> the
>> fight to make this a reality.
>>
>
> No, they should not. They need to be at the bottom power in politics,
> because religion should stay out of politics all together in the first
> place.
A man with no religion is not fit to hold public office.
BAM
LC
Immoral and redundant troll "J Young" <youngo...@aol.com> wrote in
message news:qIqdnYDgn5U...@giganews.com...
> American-Catholics, by their sheer numbers of voters and representation on
> the U.S. Supreme Court, should be the dominant power in American politics
> today.
Except most Catholics are smart enough not to be led around by the nose on
matters of politics by their corrupt and 'frisky' clergy.
LC~ Laughs that prolific liar "J Young" dares refer to matters of morality.
"I ain't a Jesus freak... I love porn stars!God bless them."
From: jdyo...@volcanomail.com (J Young)
Message-ID: <25e1e54f.04042...@posting.google.com>
Mike Painter
Are you saying Bush has no religion?
Uncle Vic
(mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net) made the light shine upon us with
this:
Why?
That's like saying a man without hobbies is not fit to drive a bus.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
The Chief Instigator
>American-Catholics, by their sheer numbers of voters and representation on
>the U.S. Supreme Court, should be the dominant power in American politics
>today. Leaders like Bishop Robert F. Vasa need to be in the forefront of the
>fight to make this a reality.
Sorry, but the Constitution doesn't permit another Inquisition,
IBenWanderin'FartherAfieldOfReality...
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Iowa 3 (February 23)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, February 25 at Milwaukee, 7:05
The Chief Instigator
>> J Young wrote:
You don't make the laws, moron. (I don't campaign in your "church", so you'll
do me the courtesy of not preaching at my polling place.)
Colin Day
US Constitution?
Colin Day aa #1500
HotelCharlieOne
> American-Catholics, by their sheer numbers of voters and
> representation on the U.S. Supreme Court, should be the dominant
> power in American politics today. Leaders like Bishop Robert F. Vasa
> need to be in the forefront of the fight to make this a reality.
>
>
At least the bishop is showing his true colors, he's Catholic first,
American second.
--
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that may never be questioned."
Anon.
Scott
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1140817861.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<Snipping Mark's moral proclamations>
Materialism (physicalism, naturalism): Assumes the only things that are
objective are governed by E=mc^2. Materialism is equally a-theistic and
a-moralistic. Nature is amoral. Whether of being or quality, materialism
logically leads to a disbelief in anything said to be objective and
non-physical. Examples of beings: ghost, souls, angels, god(s), devils.
Examples of qualities: evil, virtue, moral truth, moral progress,
and...human rights.
Since materialism, then, rejects gods and morals as being objective (i.e.
real) it logically follows that self-proclaimed materialists should also
reject any proclamations of real gods and real morals.
To materialism god(s) and morals are only subjective inventions that people
makeup and live as though such *things* are real. Gods, then, are invented
deities to be worship and moralities, then, are invented codes of conduct by
which a society may choose relative to its member intersubjectivity- aka
Moral Relativism (aka moral anti-realism). Materialism rejects Moral
Realism.
Because to materialism morals subjective and relative to cultural
intersubjectivity, there can be no universal moral standards by which
cultures are subordinate to. Since civil rights (however they are defined)
are relative to culture, they are compatible with philosophical materialism.
Since Human Rights are universal and not supersede culture and individuals
they are not compatible with philosophical materialism.
Materialism (being both atheistic and amoralistic) not only invalidates
theology as being a viable study in and of itself it also, and equally so,
invalidates ethics as being viable in and of itself. They are only viable
within the social sciences such as anthropological studies of a cultural
mythologies.
In sum, the only factual theories about the nature of morality compatible
with materialism are the Moral Anti-realisms such as Moral Subjectivism and
Relativism.
Moral Subjectivism and Relativism:
http://phil-www.tamu.edu/~b-everman/victor/moral/Relativism_handout.pdf
<1st quote>
Is it possible for us to make general, objective oral assessments of these
cultural practices? Is there some objective, culturally independent
standpoint from where we can pass unbiased judgment? Moral theories purport
to do just that--to objectively assess the morality of actions and
practices, irrespective of culture. But if right and wrong is a matter of
cultural or subjective standards, the purpose of moral theories would be
undermined--there would be no possibility of objective moral assessment.
II. Subjectivism or Individual Ethical Relativism: ethical judgments are
the expressions of the moral outlook & attitudes of individual people.
-no person's moral beliefs are any better or more correct than any other,
for that would assume some objective standard against which those beliefs
can be assessed.
III. Cultural Relativism: ethical values vary from society to society and
the basis for moral judgments lies in social or cultural norms.
- a person must look to the norms of his or her culture to determine what
the right thing to do is.
-no society's views are better or more correct than any other's.
<end quote>
Mean what? It means that anyone's moral proclamations whether coming from a
priests, religions, Hitler, Nazis, Serbians, Saddam, atheists,
agnostics....or Mark Sebree has any more truth-value then the next
proclamation. Since Sebree's, anyone's, moral preferences are no better or
worst than the anyone else's moral progress is not factually possible since
that would mean at least one objective moral standard exists.
<2nd quote>
http://phil-www.tamu.edu/~b-everman/victor/moral/Relativism_handout.pdf
4. No moral progress: the notion of moral progress would not make sense
according to relativism. A society's views cannot improve because whatever
the society thinks is right at the time is right. Hence society could not
progress from a worse to a better position; the most we could say is that
the society's view had changed. This would mean that we didn't make progress
by ending slavery or giving women their rights.
<end quote>
If only one objective moral standard exist then it logically follows that
Materialism must be false.
Human Rights: To be universal and supersede culture, HR are necessarily
committed to moral realism. Materialism, to be a viable philosophy, must
reject the idea of human rights with it's universalism as being fallacious.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hum-rts.htm
"The doctrine of human rights has been subjected to various forms of
fundamental, philosophical criticism. These challenges to the philosophical
validity of human rights as a moral doctrine differ from critical appraisals
of the various philosophical theories supportive of the doctrine for the
simple reason that they aim to demonstrate what they perceive to the
philosophical fallacies upon which human rights are founded....Philosophical
supporters of human rights are necessarily committed to a form of moral
universalism. As moral principles and as a moral doctrine, human rights are
considered to be universally valid. However, moral universalism has long
been subject to criticism by so-called moral relativists. Moral relativists
argue that universally valid moral truths do not exist. For moral
relativists, there is simply no such thing as a universally valid moral
doctrine. Relativists view morality as a social and historical phenomenon.
Moral beliefs and principles are therefore thought of as socially and
historically contingent, valid only for those cultures and societies in
which they originate and within which they are widely approved. Relativists
point to the vast array of diverse moral beliefs and practices apparent in
the world today as empirical support for their position."
A claim/proclamation such as "everyone should be tolerant" not only begs the
question "tolerant of what?" it is also an attempted identification of a
universal, objective moral standard. Same for a term like oppresion.
<3rd quote>
http://phil-www.tamu.edu/~b-everman/victor/moral/Relativism_handout.pdf
The Issue of Tolerance: many people endorse relativism because they believe
it to be a more tolerant view. They reason that since each culture has its
own ethical standards, and there is no objective standard to speak of, one
culture cannot criticize another culture for having an inferior set of
values. But tolerance and relativism are in no way related. A cultural
relativist cannot insist that cultures be tolerant of one another because
tolerance might not be a value in those cultures. Indeed, if a culture
values intolerance, then the relativist must hold that such a culture must
be intolerant of others. In general, if the relativist says that we ought to
be tolerant of other cultures, she is being flagrantly inconsistent. She is
assuming that being tolerant is an objective moral principle to which
everyone should adhere.
<end quote>
For materialism to be a viable philosophy there not only can be no gods but
there also can be on standards at all for what makes any action good or
evil, moral or immoral, tolerent or oppresive .
<quote>
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/moral2.html
"...on a truly subjectivist account, there's no standard at all for 'what
makes an action moral' just as there's no standard for 'what makes art
beautiful'...
In a sense, if moral subjectivism is true, one cannot err morally; but one
cannot succeed morally either, because morality is akin to aesthetics. One
can judge a work of art as poor but we do not say they 'erred' simply
because we enjoy it. When we disagree about whether rock music is pleasing
we do not say that, because this is a matter of taste, we are therefore all
'aesthetically infallible' or that the idea that whether something is
aesthetically good or bad is a matter of taste does not constitute an
'adequate aesthetic theory'."
<end quote>
To reiterate, since a person/anyone cannot err morally or succeed morally
either the notion of moral progress makes no philosophical sense to
materialism. Moral progress along with human rights, and gods are the stuff
of illusion, fantasy, and myth - mythology.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_vitzthum/materialism.html
"On a materialist view, all codes of conduct must ultimately be man-made or
socially constructed; there are no objective moral laws existing
independently of sentient beings in the way that laws of nature do. Thus
there are no objective criteria for determining if human actions are right
or wrong. The objectivity of laws of nature is clear--our approximations to
them (laws of physics) are publicly falsifiable and can be corroborated by
empirical evidence. Moreover, unlike natural laws, moral laws can be
violated. But if what we call moral laws are really man-made inventions, our
ethical rules are arbitrary and thus individuals are not obligated to follow
them. Nothing makes an action objectively moral or immoral; individual and
social codes vary because ethics, like beauty, is in the eye of the
beholder. But then there are no compelling grounds for arguing that Aztec
human sacrifice, Nazi or Serbian genocide, or infanticide is really wrong."
Secular Humanism: holds to both philosophical materialism and the
philosophical universalism in human rights. One of those must be false.
So-called secular humanism is an oxymoron.
If a materialist makes statements like:
"They need to be at the bottom power in politics,
because religion should stay out of politics all together in the first
place."
"> Bishop Says Pro-Abortion Catholic Politicians Committing Heresy
Which means that he is lying. The Catholic Church has no right to
dictate what politicians do and vote on in the course of their jobs
representing all their constituents."
"Wrong word. Better ones are "honesty" and "integrity". The
politicians are doing the jobs that they were elected to do. They
represent the people, not the oppresive Catholic church."
It follows that the materialist who makes such statments doens't really
understand what philosophical materialism is. Statments like the above
indicate the person believes he is make truth statments. There are no moral
truths if materialism is the correct discription of reality.
Most atheist found their atheism upon materialism but how many actually
follow that belief by there argumentive actions? Since most seem to hold to
some kind of universal moral standard, not many in my observation. Not any
in Jonathan Dolhenty's observation http://radicalacademy.com/ethicsmyth.htm
Scott
Scott
"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
need to correct typos;
Since Human Rights are universal and supersede culture and individuals they
are not compatible with philosophical materialism <leaving out "not
supersede">
Douglas Berry
<mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> posting the following on Fri, 24 Feb
2006 17:51:56 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
>> No, they should not. They need to be at the bottom power in politics,
>> because religion should stay out of politics all together in the first
>> place.
>
>A man with no religion is not fit to hold public office.
Good thing the founding fathers realized that morons like you were
around.
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
or public Trust under the United States."
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Mark Sebree
He is far, far more fit than a man that lets a religious viewpoint
dictate dictate his votes.
And what makes you think that a person, man or woman, that is not
religious is not fit to hold public office? That statement makes no
sense. And given that there is no religious test required to hold any
public office by law, it is unenforceable.
Mark Sebree
J Young
"bam" <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:23MLf.57255$697....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> A man with no religion is not fit to hold public office.
>
I would say a man without morals and a sense of decency is not fit to hold
public office. Some people can fill that qualification without a religious
background.
David Jensen
to be religious and have not a shred of morality or sense of decency.
bowman
> Which means that he is lying. The Catholic Church has no right to
> dictate what politicians do and vote on in the course of their jobs
> representing all their constituents.
If the politician does not act in accord with his religious convictions,
what makes you think he will have sufficient backbone to stand up for his
constituents? Or if his religious convictions are not that strong, I'm sure
he could find a more liberal Christian sect.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Olrik
> How about people who call themselves christians but are nothing but
> racists, bigots, liars and intolerants?
You repeat yourself...
;-)
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Olrik
Would you support a [insert non-christian religion] president?
> BAM
bam
"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97749A75...@216.196.97.142...
> on 24 Feb 2006 in alt.atheism, dear sweet bam
> (mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net) made the light shine upon us with
> this:
>
>>
>> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>> news:1140817861.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> J Young wrote:
>>>> American-Catholics, by their sheer numbers of voters and
>>>> representation on
>>>> the U.S. Supreme Court, should be the dominant power in American
>>>> politics today. Leaders like Bishop Robert F. Vasa need to be in
>>>> the forefront of the
>>>> fight to make this a reality.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, they should not. They need to be at the bottom power in
>>> politics, because religion should stay out of politics all together
>>> in the first place.
>>
>> A man with no religion is not fit to hold public office.
>>
>> BAM
>>
>>
>>
>
> Why?
>
> That's like saying a man without hobbies is not fit to drive a bus.
After that analogy, I suppose no explanation is possible.
BAM
bam
"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
news:szku0ao...@fnord.io.com...
> "bam" <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> writes:
>
>>"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>>news:1140817861.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> J Young wrote:
>
>>>> American-Catholics, by their sheer numbers of voters and representation
>>>> on
>>>> the U.S. Supreme Court, should be the dominant power in American
>>>> politics
>>>> today. Leaders like Bishop Robert F. Vasa need to be in the forefront
>>>> of
>>>> the fight to make this a reality.
>
>>> No, they should not. They need to be at the bottom power in politics,
>>> because religion should stay out of politics all together in the first
>>> place.
>
>>A man with no religion is not fit to hold public office.
>
> You don't make the laws, moron. (I don't campaign in your "church", so
> you'll
> do me the courtesy of not preaching at my polling place.)
I guess we won't be voting for the same guy.
BAM
bam
"Colin Day" <cd...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pTNLf.50614$%84.4...@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Because they were a bunch of asshole deists and Protestants and thought one
man's opinion was as good as the next. Thus, no standards could be agreed
upon.
BAM
bam
"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:d6hvv1hcgi5ake7a7...@4ax.com...
> What's so funny about peace, love and "bam"
> <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> posting the following on Fri, 24 Feb
> 2006 17:51:56 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
>
>>> No, they should not. They need to be at the bottom power in politics,
>>> because religion should stay out of politics all together in the first
>>> place.
>>
>>A man with no religion is not fit to hold public office.
>
> Good thing the founding fathers realized that morons like you were
> around.
>
> "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
> the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
> Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
> be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
> religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
> or public Trust under the United States."
I'm a voter. I can make my own standards. And a man with no religion is not
fit to hold public office.
BAM
bam
>
> bam wrote:
>> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>> news:1140817861.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > J Young wrote:
>> >> American-Catholics, by their sheer numbers of voters and
>> >> representation
>> >> on
>> >> the U.S. Supreme Court, should be the dominant power in American
>> >> politics
>> >> today. Leaders like Bishop Robert F. Vasa need to be in the forefront
>> >> of
>> >> the
>> >> fight to make this a reality.
>> >>
>> >
>> > No, they should not. They need to be at the bottom power in politics,
>> > because religion should stay out of politics all together in the first
>> > place.
>>
>> A man with no religion is not fit to hold public office.
>>
>> BAM
>
> He is far, far more fit than a man that lets a religious viewpoint
> dictate dictate his votes.
A man with no religion is not fit to hold public office.
> And what makes you think that a person, man or woman, that is not
> religious is not fit to hold public office?
Because an atheist is his own god - and he will serve that god above all
others. He cannot be trusted for one second - and he cannot be held
accountable for his conduct, since he has no standards. He can take an oath,
and interpret it any way he wants. He can break it and merely say he changed
his mind. A man with no religion is a disaster.
That statement makes no
> sense. And given that there is no religious test required to hold any
> public office by law, it is unenforceable.
It's unenforceable now - but we're gaining ground.
BAM
bam
"David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:49pvv11t8fjn62ges...@4ax.com...
I'll give you that too.
I didn't say that having a religion qualifies one either. To me there are
numerous standards required to fill the position of a statesman.
BAM
bam
"Olrik" <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com> wrote in message
news:FeSLf.24858$W63.6...@weber.videotron.net...
> bam wrote:
>> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>> news:1140817861.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> J Young wrote:
>>>> American-Catholics, by their sheer numbers of voters and representation
>>>> on
>>>> the U.S. Supreme Court, should be the dominant power in American
>>>> politics
>>>> today. Leaders like Bishop Robert F. Vasa need to be in the forefront
>>>> of the
>>>> fight to make this a reality.
>>>>
>>> No, they should not. They need to be at the bottom power in politics,
>>> because religion should stay out of politics all together in the first
>>> place.
>>
>> A man with no religion is not fit to hold public office.
>
> Would you support a [insert non-christian religion] president?
Jew? Mayube
Muslim? Maybe
Hindu? Nah.
Buddhist? Nah
Wiccan? Not in this life.
BAM
bam
"Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:FcMLf.13327$rL5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
Bush is a Protestant millenialist, just like the whole line of militant
Protestants - from Jan Huss to the Puritans. Old Testament lovers. He's
caught up in this Jerusalem Temple thing and sees the Jewish thing as a sign
of Christ's return. Catholics believe that Jews are out of it; WE are the
new Israel - the Jews gave up their inheritance, though they're always
welcome to reclaim it.
BAM
Parsifal
any
*> public office by law, it is unenforceable.
*
*It's unenforceable now - but we're gaining ground.
I know: your country looks more and more like the religious
fanatics-led countries you're fighting against...How ironic...
The Chief Instigator
>>>> J Young wrote:
Probably not. Some of us would rather see the Constitution remain in force.
The Chief Instigator
Uncle Vic
Oh, grow a brain.
Ugly Anna
<mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
>> Then why did the Founding Father ban religious tests for office in the
>> US Constitution?
>
>Because they were a bunch of asshole deists and Protestants and thought one
>man's opinion was as good as the next. Thus, no standards could be agreed
>upon.
>
>BAM
>
You've never read the constitution, have you?
Mark Sebree
bam wrote:
> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
> news:1140836744.2...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > bam wrote:
> >> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
> >> news:1140817861.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > J Young wrote:
> >> >> American-Catholics, by their sheer numbers of voters and
> >> >> representation
> >> >> on
> >> >> the U.S. Supreme Court, should be the dominant power in American
> >> >> politics
> >> >> today. Leaders like Bishop Robert F. Vasa need to be in the forefront
> >> >> of
> >> >> the
> >> >> fight to make this a reality.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > No, they should not. They need to be at the bottom power in politics,
> >> > because religion should stay out of politics all together in the first
> >> > place.
> >>
> >> A man with no religion is not fit to hold public office.
> >>
> >> BAM
> >
> > He is far, far more fit than a man that lets a religious viewpoint
> > dictate dictate his votes.
>
> A man with no religion is not fit to hold public office.
>
Then, since a man or woman without religion is more fit to hold office
than one that lets his religious views dictate his votes, that means
that anyone that you favor is also likely to be unfit for office by
your own definition and a reasonable comparison.
> > And what makes you think that a person, man or woman, that is not
> > religious is not fit to hold public office?
>
> Because an atheist is his own god
Nope. An atheist has worships no deity at all, by definition. That
also means that he does not think that he is a deity.
> - and he will serve that god above all
> others.
You don't know anything about what you are talking about. By
definition, an atheist does not believe in any deities, and thus serves
no deity.
> He cannot be trusted for one second
He is more trustworthy than you are.
> - and he cannot be held
> accountable for his conduct,
Yes, he can. His is held accountable by the VOTERS that elected him or
her.
> since he has no standards.
Another lie. He has standards. Probably better standards than other
politicians. Since he has no religious agenda, he is more likely to
work for the betterment of his constituents, rather than follow the
dictates of a religious body, like the Catholic hierarchy wants
Catholic politicians to do.
> He can take an oath,
> and interpret it any way he wants.
Just like everyone else.
> He can break it and merely say he changed his mind.
You mean like all those currently in power, i.e. the republicans? An
atheist is more likely yo keep his oath than many politicians, since he
swears on his honor and his word, where as the so-called religious
politicians swear by an imaginary deity who's actions and opinions they
interpret anyway they like, or they follow the dictates of a religious
group rather than their constituents and good conscience for freedom
and equality.
> A man with no religion is a disaster.
And a man that has too much religion is a far bigger disaster. Just
look at the current Republican party for examples. A man would no
religion is probably just what this country needs right now. And given
all your misconceptions about atheism, you have no idea what to look
for.
>
> > That statement makes no
> > sense. And given that there is no religious test required to hold any
> > public office by law, it is unenforceable.
>
> It's unenforceable now - but we're gaining ground.
I seriously doubt it. What would you irrational and oppressive test be
and why? Why would you want to exclude people that do not follow any
religious beliefs from serving the people? How would you enforce this
ill-conceived test? How would you know that an atheist is not going to
an approved religious gathering for show only, and actually does not
believe a word of what is said? What would you do when it is revealed
that the politician is an atheist, ESPECIALLY if he is popular with his
constituents and is a positive force for change, for freedom, for
liberty, for equality, and for the people, just as a good politician
should be?
The type of hateful rule that you want to be put into place is simple
to circumvent, meaningless to the system, bigotrious to minorities and
atheists, and runs counter to everything that this country was founded
on and stands for.
Mark Sebree
>
> BAM
Mark Sebree
bam wrote:
> "David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
> news:49pvv11t8fjn62ges...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 23:19:06 -0500, in alt.atheism
> > "J Young" <youngo...@aol.com> wrote in
> > <jIadnSObq4g...@giganews.com>:
> >>
> >>"bam" <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
> >>news:23MLf.57255$697....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >>>
> >>> A man with no religion is not fit to hold public office.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>I would say a man without morals and a sense of decency is not fit to hold
> >>public office. Some people can fill that qualification without a religious
> >>background.
> >>
> > And we in the United States have plenty of elected politicians who claim
> > to be religious and have not a shred of morality or sense of decency.
>
> I'll give you that too.
That leaves you out.
>
> I didn't say that having a religion qualifies one either.
Yes, you did. Since you stated that "a man no religion is not fit to
hold public office", that means that having a religion is what
qualifies a man to hold public office.
> To me there are
> numerous standards required to fill the position of a statesman.
And, according to you, one of those "standards" is to be religious. In
fact, in another post, you made it clear that you advocate that there
be a religious test for those that want to hold a public office.
Whether or not a person is religious has no bearing on how fit the
person is to hold public office. An atheist can easily be a better
politician and statesman than someone that is deeply religious and does
what ever his religion wants. In fact, it is likely that the atheist
would be a better politician because his loyalties are not split.
Mark Sebree
>
> BAM
Mark Sebree
Why?
>
> Muslim? Maybe
>
Why?
> Hindu? Nah.
Why not?
>
> Buddhist? Nah
Why not?
>
> Wiccan? Not in this life.
Why not?
Interesting. You will support candidates from Abrahamic belief
systems, but not other systems, and you are completely against a
peaceful Nature religion.
Sounds like a lack of understanding of other religions and belief
systems, as well as a unhealthy dose of prejudice.
Mark Sebree
>
> BAM
Mark Sebree
> Mark Sebree wrote:
>
> > Which means that he is lying. The Catholic Church has no right to
> > dictate what politicians do and vote on in the course of their jobs
> > representing all their constituents.
>
> If the politician does not act in accord with his religious convictions,
> what makes you think he will have sufficient backbone to stand up for his
> constituents?
Because standing up for his constituents does show backbone by opposing
an oppressive religious hierarchy that he belongs to, even in the face
of illegal threats and blackmail. It shows honesty and integrity that
the Catholic Church would rather not see in its sheep.
The politician was elected to represent his constituents, their
interests, and to vote according to their desires and for their
betterment as a whole. He was NOT elected to represent any religious
body, or to favor any religious belief, especially his own, over the
general interests, freedom, liberty, and equality of the people that
elected him.
> Or if his religious convictions are not that strong, I'm sure
> he could find a more liberal Christian sect.
>
He would be better off by doing so.
Mark Sebree
bam
What do you care worm food? Have your fun short life and stay out of
politics. You're brainless.
BAM
bam
>
> bam wrote:
>> "David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
>> news:49pvv11t8fjn62ges...@4ax.com...
>> > On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 23:19:06 -0500, in alt.atheism
>> > "J Young" <youngo...@aol.com> wrote in
>> > <jIadnSObq4g...@giganews.com>:
>> >>
>> >>"bam" <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
>> >>news:23MLf.57255$697....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> >>>
>> >>> A man with no religion is not fit to hold public office.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>I would say a man without morals and a sense of decency is not fit to
>> >>hold
>> >>public office. Some people can fill that qualification without a
>> >>religious
>> >>background.
>> >>
>> > And we in the United States have plenty of elected politicians who
>> > claim
>> > to be religious and have not a shred of morality or sense of decency.
>>
>> I'll give you that too.
>
> That leaves you out.
>
>>
>> I didn't say that having a religion qualifies one either.
>
> Yes, you did. Since you stated that "a man no religion is not fit to
> hold public office", that means that having a religion is what
> qualifies a man to hold public office.
WHew!
Talk about false syllogisms........
BAM
bam
"Parsifal" <jeanpasc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140880739.8...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Why do I argue with punks? Edmund Burke said 200 years ago:
"Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be
placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be
without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of
intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
Contemplate that for the rest of your life.
BAM
bam
If he firmly believed in the Ten Commandments - but even Catholic
politicians lie like the devil.
>> Muslim? Maybe
>>
>
> Why?
Very reverent, God fearing (though possibly demented). It would be a long
shot.
>
>> Hindu? Nah.
>
> Why not?
Too risky. They're also bigots witht their caste system. And c'mon - sacred
cows?
>> Buddhist? Nah
>
> Why not?
It's a selfish religion. (if you could call it a religion at all).
>> Wiccan? Not in this life.
>
> Why not?
Because I'd rather kick his ass.
> Interesting. You will support candidates from Abrahamic belief
> systems, but not other systems, and you are completely against a
> peaceful Nature religion.
I'm all for nature and peace. But it's not at the top of the list.
> Sounds like a lack of understanding of other religions and belief
> systems, as well as a unhealthy dose of prejudice.
Sounds like you make unfounded judgements. Sounds like you have no standards
yourself. (except that there are no standards - right?)
BAM
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism
>American-Catholics, by their sheer numbers of voters and representation on
>the U.S. Supreme Court, should be the dominant power in American politics
>today. Leaders like Bishop Robert F. Vasa need to be in the forefront of the
>fight to make this a reality.
Gee, then they can buttfuck you on the Congression floor while in
session!
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism
>
>J Young wrote:
>> American-Catholics, by their sheer numbers of voters and representation on
>> the U.S. Supreme Court, should be the dominant power in American politics
>> today. Leaders like Bishop Robert F. Vasa need to be in the forefront of the
>> fight to make this a reality.
>>
>
>No, they should not. They need to be at the bottom power in politics,
>because religion should stay out of politics all together in the first
>place.
>
>>
>> http://www.lifenews.com/state1439.html
>>
>> Bishop Says Pro-Abortion Catholic Politicians Committing Heresy
>
>Which means that he is lying. The Catholic Church has no right to
>dictate what politicians do and vote on in the course of their jobs
>representing all their constituents.
Of course he's partaking deeply of the
Christian Sacarment of False Witness.
[]
stoney
alt.atheism
>
>"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>news:1140817861.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
><Snipping Mark's moral proclamations>
>
>Materialism (physicalism, naturalism): Assumes the only things that are
>objective are governed by E=mc^2. Materialism is equally a-theistic and
>a-moralistic. Nature is amoral. Whether of being or quality, materialism
>logically leads to a disbelief in anything said to be objective and
>non-physical. Examples of beings: ghost, souls, angels, god(s), devils.
>Examples of qualities: evil, virtue, moral truth, moral progress,
>and...human rights.
>
>Since materialism, then, rejects gods and morals as being objective (i.e.
>real) it logically follows that self-proclaimed materialists should also
>reject any proclamations of real gods and real morals.
Did you study to become this much of an idiot or did it come naturally?
stoney
alt.atheism
>Mark Sebree wrote:
>
>> Which means that he is lying. The Catholic Church has no right to
>> dictate what politicians do and vote on in the course of their jobs
>> representing all their constituents.
>
>If the politician does not act in accord with his religious convictions,
>what makes you think he will have sufficient backbone to stand up for his
>constituents? Or if his religious convictions are not that strong, I'm sure
>he could find a more liberal Christian sect.
Their superstitious convictions are irrelevant and immaterial.
stoney
<Hotel_Cha...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>"J Young" <youngo...@aol.com> wrote in
>news:qIqdnYDgn5U...@giganews.com:
>
>> American-Catholics, by their sheer numbers of voters and
>> representation on the U.S. Supreme Court, should be the dominant
>> power in American politics today. Leaders like Bishop Robert F. Vasa
>> need to be in the forefront of the fight to make this a reality.
>>
>>
>At least the bishop is showing his true colors, he's Catholic first,
>American second.
Tyrant first, second, and last.
The Chief Instigator
>On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:29:17 -0500, "J Young" <youngo...@aol.com>
>wrote in alt.atheism
>>American-Catholics, by their sheer numbers of voters and representation on
>>the U.S. Supreme Court, should be the dominant power in American politics
>>today. Leaders like Bishop Robert F. Vasa need to be in the forefront of the
>>fight to make this a reality.
>Gee, then they can buttfuck you on the Congression floor while in
>session!
Just one more reason for me not to watch EWTN...
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 3, Milwaukee 0 (February 25)
NEXT GAME: Sunday, February 26 at Milwaukee, 2:05
Scott
"stoney" <sto...@the.net> wrote in message
news:1jg302hkniknaq6md...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:05:20 -0600, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in
> alt.atheism
>
>>
>>"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>>news:1140817861.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>><Snipping Mark's moral proclamations>
>>
>>Materialism (physicalism, naturalism): Assumes the only things that are
>>objective are governed by E=mc^2. Materialism is equally a-theistic and
>>a-moralistic. Nature is amoral. Whether of being or quality, materialism
>>logically leads to a disbelief in anything said to be objective and
>>non-physical. Examples of beings: ghost, souls, angels, god(s), devils.
>>Examples of qualities: evil, virtue, moral truth, moral progress,
>>and...human rights.
>>
>>Since materialism, then, rejects gods and morals as being objective (i.e.
>>real) it logically follows that self-proclaimed materialists should also
>>reject any proclamations of real gods and real morals.
>
> Did you study to become this much of an idiot or did it come naturally?
sorry dude the totality of my argument has been backed up by PhD's who
personally told me it was all logically sound and very intelligent....you
know....PhD's....those people who must, by profession be proficient in
defend logical arguments to get the doctorates.
a materialist who *believes* and argues as though he is spouting moral
truth, as Sebree did, is someone who is ignorant of philosophical
materialism and what leads to in ethics.
He, Sebree, has his moral preferences and others have there's. They may
prefer to call a fetus a human being with personhood status where he may
not. He may have the law on his side, at the moment, but does that mean what
is legal is equated to what is moral? If it does then there is no such thing
as an unjust law. Hitler, too, had the law on his side when Nazi Germany
declared Jews had no personhood status either. To materialism, then, the
Jews were not persons and could be morally desposed of. To materialism Nazis
commetted an ethical act by gassing jews since the moral act of killing them
was relative to Nazi Germany's moral code. By that code, the jews were not
people anymore than a fetus is in your culture. There is no scientific test,
i.e. no materialistic test, for personhood. To materialism the term is
merely a social construct.
morality, and human rights, gets fried upon the skillet of
materialism....STS
Scott
> On 24 Feb 2006 13:51:01 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>>
>>J Young wrote:
>>> American-Catholics, by their sheer numbers of voters and representation
>>> on
>>> the U.S. Supreme Court, should be the dominant power in American
>>> politics
>>> today. Leaders like Bishop Robert F. Vasa need to be in the forefront of
>>> the
>>> fight to make this a reality.
>>>
>>
>>No, they should not. They need to be at the bottom power in politics,
>>because religion should stay out of politics all together in the first
>>place.
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.lifenews.com/state1439.html
>>>
>>> Bishop Says Pro-Abortion Catholic Politicians Committing Heresy
>>
>>Which means that he is lying. The Catholic Church has no right to
>>dictate what politicians do and vote on in the course of their jobs
>>representing all their constituents.
>
> Of course he's partaking deeply of the
> Christian Sacarment of False Witness.
So you, too, believe in moral truth. From an American civil rights argument
the Catholic Church *has* every right to dictate to Catholic politicians. It
has freedom of religion to do so and it has freedom of association to do so.
If a politician doesn't follow what his religious association dictates than
philosophically he is in heresy with that association. Moral dilemmas are
not uncommon. You believe in moral dilemmas? Since a person/anyone cannot
err morally or succeed morally the notion of moral dilemmas makes no
philosophical sense to materialism, either. A person who believes in moral
dilemmas is a person who believes there is a (morally) *real* right *thing*
to do. He just isn't sure were the moral truth lay in his decision.
Scott
"David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:49pvv11t8fjn62ges...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 23:19:06 -0500, in alt.atheism
>>
>>"bam" <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
>>news:23MLf.57255$697....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>public office. Some people can fill that qualification without a religious
>>background.
>>
> And we in the United States have plenty of elected politicians who claim
> to be religious and have not a shred of morality or sense of decency.
To materialism your argument makes no sense. Everyone has *their* subjective
moral *preferences* where each define their own "sense of decency". If your
statment does in *fact* (as in moral facts) make sense then as a
philsophical foundation for reality materialism must be false.
Scott
>
> bam wrote:
>
> Interesting. You will support candidates from Abrahamic belief
> systems, but not other systems, and you are completely against a
> peaceful Nature religion.
>
> Sounds like a lack of understanding of other religions and belief
> systems, as well as a unhealthy dose of prejudice.
Everyone has a prejudice. Just look at yourself in these threads. Is there a
*just* or an *unjust* prejudice? Nope....not if materialism is true there
ain't. Just like there can be no just or unjust laws there can be no just or
unjust prejudices, either, since that would mean there is some objective
standard by which to *judge* those prejudices to. In materialism there are
no real standards at all.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/moral2.html
"...on a truly subjectivist account, there's no standard at all for 'what
makes an action moral' just as there's no standard for 'what makes art
beautiful'...
In a sense, if moral subjectivism is true, one cannot err morally; but one
cannot succeed morally either, because morality is akin to aesthetics. One
can judge a work of art as poor but we do not say they 'erred' simply
because we enjoy it. When we disagree about whether rock music is pleasing
we do not say that, because this is a matter of taste, we are therefore all
'aesthetically infallible' or that the idea that whether something is
aesthetically good or bad is a matter of taste does not constitute an
'adequate aesthetic theory'."
Colin Day
> "Colin Day" <cd...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:pTNLf.50614$%84.4...@tornado.southeast.rr.com...>>> news:1140817861.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> J Young wrote:
>>>>> American-Catholics, by their sheer numbers of voters and representation
>>>>> on
>>>>> the U.S. Supreme Court, should be the dominant power in American
>>>>> politics
>>>>> today. Leaders like Bishop Robert F. Vasa need to be in the forefront
>>>>> of
>>>>> the
>>>>> fight to make this a reality.
>>>>>
>>>> No, they should not. They need to be at the bottom power in politics,
>>>> because religion should stay out of politics all together in the first
>>>> place.
>>>
>>>
>> Then why did the Founding Father ban religious tests for office in the
>> US Constitution?
>
> Because they were a bunch of asshole deists and Protestants and thought one
> man's opinion was as good as the next. Thus, no standards could be agreed
> upon.
>
> BAM
>
>
Oh, so obedience to some guy in the Vatican is a "standard". Get a clue!
Colin Day aa #1500
Scott
It's as good as any.....to materialism. A moral code can be based upon one
man's preference or the majority's. It makes no difference since there is no
right or wrong social moral codes. There are only codes.
David Jensen
"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in <dc6dnSmMd7j...@wcc.net>:
hand. I see no point in bothering to explain precisely exactly which
particular meaning of every word I use just because someone might, with
a great deal of effort, find a way to misinterpret it.
Ray Fischer
>American-Catholics, by their sheer numbers of voters and representation on
>the U.S. Supreme Court, should be the dominant power in American politics
>today.
But they're not, are they?
> Leaders like Bishop Robert F. Vasa need to be in the forefront of the
>fight to make this a reality.
Turn the US into another corrupt religious theocracy?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Mark Sebree
Because I want to enjoy life. And you are as much worm food as I am.
> Have your fun short life and stay out of
> politics.
I do have fun in my long life, and I have no interest in running for
office. However, thank you for indicating that I should enter
politics.
> You're brainless.
I have more brains that you. That is why I have been able to punch so
many holes in your statements and positions that you are reduced to
petty insults and running away.
Mark Sebree
>
> BAM
Mark Sebree
No. Straight deduction from your own words. So which statement is the
lie? That having a religion qualifies a man for office, or having no
religion disqualifies a man from office?
You have indicated that one of the basic things that qualifies a person
for office is having a religion (a lie, by the way.) You then said
that not having a religion does not disqualify someone. One of these
statements must be a lie, since they say the opposite things. So,
which statement is the lie?
Mark Sebree
>
> BAM
Mark Sebree
What should that have to do with anything, or his qualifications?
Being able to ignore one's religion and its dictates would mean that
one is better suited to be a politician.
>
> >> Muslim? Maybe
> >>
> >
> > Why?
>
> Very reverent, God fearing (though possibly demented). It would be a long
> shot.
>
Sounds more like a reason not to vote for him, since he would more
likely to vote according to his religious beliefs rather than what his
constituents want and what is best for them and for equality and
freedom in general.
>
> >
> >> Hindu? Nah.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Too risky. They're also bigots witht their caste system. And c'mon - sacred
> cows?
>
Not necessarily if he or she was born and raised in the USA. And there
is nothing wrong with believing in reincarnation, nor that cows are
sacred. The religion is older than Christianity in any case.
>
> >> Buddhist? Nah
> >
> > Why not?
>
> It's a selfish religion. (if you could call it a religion at all).
Christianity has shown itself to be more selfish. And it is a
religion. A better one than you follow.
>
>
> >> Wiccan? Not in this life.
> >
> > Why not?
>
>
> Because I'd rather kick his ass.
Why? They have done nothing to you. They do not try to force you to
follow their religion. They are more likely to work towards equality
and peace and liberty than most. They are generally highly intelligent
and well educated. And chances are, if you tried to kick his or her
ass, you would be the one lying on the ground in pain at the end of it.
>
>
> > Interesting. You will support candidates from Abrahamic belief
> > systems, but not other systems, and you are completely against a
> > peaceful Nature religion.
>
> I'm all for nature and peace. But it's not at the top of the list.
Perhaps it should be. But that is not what I said. I said that you
are completely against a peaceful Nature religion, not that you were
against nature and peace.
>
> > Sounds like a lack of understanding of other religions and belief
> > systems, as well as a unhealthy dose of prejudice.
>
> Sounds like you make unfounded judgements.
You just showed that my judgments are not unfounded at all.
> Sounds like you have no standards
> yourself. (except that there are no standards - right?)
I have very high standards, probably higher than yours. However, a
person's religious beliefs is generally a non-issue, ESPECIALLY when
voting for an elected official.
The "standards" that you propose tend to be narrow-minded and
prejudicial. That is why I reject them utterly. They are examples of
poor standards and low expectations. They would toss out many
eminently qualified candidates for no reason.
Mark Sebree
>
> BAM
bam
But that's all you are in your view. I'm a whole lot more.
>
>> Have your fun short life and stay out of
>> politics.
>
> I do have fun in my long life, and I have no interest in running for
> office. However, thank you for indicating that I should enter
> politics.
Apparently you interpret things as you see fit.
>
>> You're brainless.
>
> I have more brains that you. That is why I have been able to punch so
> many holes in your statements and positions that you are reduced to
> petty insults and running away.
Ain't running away Bub. Just know that arguing with an atheist dog has no
value.
BAM
bam
The first - which is the one you made up.
>
> You have indicated that one of the basic things that qualifies a person
> for office is having a religion (a lie, by the way.)
I said no such thing.
>You then said
> that not having a religion does not disqualify someone.
I said no such thing.
>One of these
> statements must be a lie, since they say the opposite things. So,
> which statement is the lie?
I don't care - they're your statements not mine.
BAM
bam
An atheist is one who cannot contol his impulses. And rather than ask God
for help, he denies God's existence. I don't want a punk like that in power.
In fact, he'd be better off in a nuthouse.
>> >> Muslim? Maybe
>> >>
>> >
>> > Why?
>>
>> Very reverent, God fearing (though possibly demented). It would be a long
>> shot.
>>
>
> Sounds more like a reason not to vote for him, since he would more
> likely to vote according to his religious beliefs rather than what his
> constituents want and what is best for them and for equality and
> freedom in general.
I like his religious beliefs. I like religion. I like religious people. I
like people who inflict goodness
on society. Not atheists who inflict death on society.
>> >> Hindu? Nah.
>> >
>> > Why not?
>>
>> Too risky. They're also bigots witht their caste system. And c'mon -
>> sacred
>> cows?
>>
>
> Not necessarily if he or she was born and raised in the USA. And there
> is nothing wrong with believing in reincarnation, nor that cows are
> sacred. The religion is older than Christianity in any case.
Yeah, right. Luckily there are only a few of you.
>
>>
>> >> Buddhist? Nah
>> >
>> > Why not?
>>
>> It's a selfish religion. (if you could call it a religion at all).
>
> Christianity has shown itself to be more selfish. And it is a
> religion. A better one than you follow.
First of all, I'm a Catholic - so leave the "Christian" stuff out. Those who
call themselvesChristians are mostly followers of heresies.
But a true Christian 1) loves God with all his heart, and 2) loves his
neighbor as himself. I wouldn't expect an atheist dog to understand that
these are the two highest virtues in all of creation.
>> >> Wiccan? Not in this life.
>> >
>> > Why not?
>>
>>
>> Because I'd rather kick his ass.
>
> Why? They have done nothing to you.
And I won't give em a chance.
They do not try to force you to
> follow their religion. They are more likely to work towards equality
> and peace and liberty than most. They are generally highly intelligent
> and well educated. And chances are, if you tried to kick his or her
> ass, you would be the one lying on the ground in pain at the end of it.
They're dogs.
>> I'm all for nature and peace. But it's not at the top of the list.
>
> Perhaps it should be. But that is not what I said. I said that you
> are completely against a peaceful Nature religion, not that you were
> against nature and peace.
Yes, that's true. Man is the highest life form. Anyone who subordinates our
freedom to nature is mentally sick.
>> Sounds like you have no standards
>> yourself. (except that there are no standards - right?)
>
> I have very high standards, probably higher than yours.
I don't believe you.
However, a
> person's religious beliefs is generally a non-issue, ESPECIALLY when
> voting for an elected official.
That's stupid.
BAM
Malcolm
"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote
> So you, too, believe in moral truth. From an American civil rights
> argument the Catholic Church *has* every right to dictate to Catholic
> politicians. It has freedom of religion to do so and it has freedom of
> association to do so. If a politician doesn't follow what his religious
> association dictates than philosophically he is in heresy with that
> association. Moral dilemmas are not uncommon. You believe in moral
> dilemmas? Since a person/anyone cannot err morally or succeed morally the
> notion of moral dilemmas makes no philosophical sense to materialism,
> either. A person who believes in moral dilemmas is a person who believes
> there is a (morally) *real* right *thing* to do. He just isn't sure were
> the moral truth lay in his decision.
party. I'm neutral on that one, but I'm not a US citizen. It might be the
best thing all round.
>
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $6.90 paper, available www.lulu.com
Ray Fischer
Looks like atheiests have little trouble controlling their impulses.
They don't need to religious bogeyman threatening them in order to
behave civilly.
> And rather than ask God
>for help, he denies God's existence.
Rather than ask God for help you use God to excuse your crimes.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Mark Sebree
Sounds more like you have trouble understanding him.
> And rather than ask God
> for help, he denies God's existence.
Why should he ask for help of something that does not exist? He has
the strength to rely on himself rather than to rely on something that
does not exist.
> I don't want a punk like that in power.
Why not? Because he is more honest and less prone to control by
religious factions? That sounds more like someone that you would want
in power.
> In fact, he'd be better off in a nuthouse.
No, that would be you. All you have done is show that he is much saner
than you.
>
> >> >> Muslim? Maybe
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Why?
> >>
> >> Very reverent, God fearing (though possibly demented). It would be a long
> >> shot.
> >>
> >
> > Sounds more like a reason not to vote for him, since he would more
> > likely to vote according to his religious beliefs rather than what his
> > constituents want and what is best for them and for equality and
> > freedom in general.
>
> I like his religious beliefs. I like religion. I like religious people. I
> like people who inflict goodness
> on society. Not atheists who inflict death on society.
>
Religion and religious fanatics has caused more death for more reasons
that you want to admit to yourself. The Crusades, jihads, pogroms,
witch burnings, the Inquisition, and general mayhem throughout the
years.
I do not know of any significant number of deaths caused by atheists,
and none by an organized group of atheists.
Sounds more like it is the atheists that inflict goodness on society,
and religions that inflict pain, death, and suffering.
>
> >> >> Hindu? Nah.
> >> >
> >> > Why not?
> >>
> >> Too risky. They're also bigots witht their caste system. And c'mon -
> >> sacred
> >> cows?
> >>
> >
> > Not necessarily if he or she was born and raised in the USA. And there
> > is nothing wrong with believing in reincarnation, nor that cows are
> > sacred. The religion is older than Christianity in any case.
>
> Yeah, right. Luckily there are only a few of you.
>
You think over a billion Hindi are "a few"? Or is it that you are
thankful that there are only a few people with the intelligence and
education to see through your narrow-mindedness?
> >
> >>
> >> >> Buddhist? Nah
> >> >
> >> > Why not?
> >>
> >> It's a selfish religion. (if you could call it a religion at all).
> >
> > Christianity has shown itself to be more selfish. And it is a
> > religion. A better one than you follow.
>
> First of all, I'm a Catholic - so leave the "Christian" stuff out.
Why? Catholics are Christians.
> Those who
> call themselvesChristians are mostly followers of heresies.
No, they are not. You are Christian yourself.
>
> But a true Christian 1) loves God with all his heart, and 2) loves his
> neighbor as himself.
Is that why you hate your neighbor so much? You must not be a "true
Christian" then.
> I wouldn't expect an atheist dog to understand that
> these are the two highest virtues in all of creation.
So, you express your love through hatred, and you love an imaginary
being.
I do understand those value better than you do. The first is a sham.
The second one I do. And part of that love is to make sure that he or
she has every right and freedom that I do. And that includes rights
such as abortion and marriage, including same sex marriage.
Since you are Catholic and believe in demigods that you call "saints",
how about looking up the Saints Serge and Bacchus, and what ceremony
your sect invokes them in.
>
> >> >> Wiccan? Not in this life.
> >> >
> >> > Why not?
> >>
> >>
> >> Because I'd rather kick his ass.
> >
> > Why? They have done nothing to you.
>
> And I won't give em a chance.
Why would they want to do anything to you? Is this an example of you
"loving your neighbor"?
>
> > They do not try to force you to
> > follow their religion. They are more likely to work towards equality
> > and peace and liberty than most. They are generally highly intelligent
> > and well educated. And chances are, if you tried to kick his or her
> > ass, you would be the one lying on the ground in pain at the end of it.
>
> They're dogs.
They are far better people than you are. You are the one that is
acting worse than any dog. All I have said is that they would not
force you to follow their religious beliefs as you want to force them
to follow yours, that they are intelligent and well educated, and that
they would defend themselves if attacked. That means that they act in
a more noble fashion than you do or want to. They are better people
than you are.
>
> >> I'm all for nature and peace. But it's not at the top of the list.
> >
> > Perhaps it should be. But that is not what I said. I said that you
> > are completely against a peaceful Nature religion, not that you were
> > against nature and peace.
>
> Yes, that's true.
Then you have much to learn.
> Man is the highest life form.
In your opinion.
> Anyone who subordinates our
> freedom to nature is mentally sick.
You are the one that wants to subordinate our freedom, not them. You
are the one that is mentally sick, not them. Man is a part of nature.
Nature religions are generally about man living in harmony with nature,
not being subordinate to you.
However, you want everyone to be subordinate to your hateful religion,
so I should not be surprised that you understand nothing about the
Wiccan beliefs.
>
> >> Sounds like you have no standards
> >> yourself. (except that there are no standards - right?)
> >
> > I have very high standards, probably higher than yours.
>
> I don't believe you.
I did not think that you would. That does not change the fact that I
do have very high standards that are probably higher than yours are.
And the more you write, the more certain that my standards are higher
than yours.
>
> > However, a
> > person's religious beliefs is generally a non-issue, ESPECIALLY when
> > voting for an elected official.
>
> That's stupid.
>
> BAM
If is far, far more intelligent than voting for someone based on their
religion, or excluding someone just because of their religion.
It is something that allows me to have friends from many different
backgrounds and beliefs, with many different interests. I am not so
narrow-minded as to exclude someone because I do not agree with his or
her religious beliefs, as long as he or she does not try to shove those
beliefs down my throat. I care more about the person as a person
rather than what he or she believes in.
Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
You mean that you cannot face the truth. You fear death. You are less
than me.
>
> >
> >> Have your fun short life and stay out of politics.
> >
> > I do have fun in my long life, and I have no interest in running for
> > office. However, thank you for indicating that I should enter
> > politics.
>
> Apparently you interpret things as you see fit.
Like everything else. Basically, I was telling you that you cannot
command me, and given your views, you are saying that the best thing
that I can do for people is to enter politics because you fear the good
I would do and the fact that your oppressive religion would have no
chance of controlling me.
>
> >
> >> You're brainless.
> >
> > I have more brains that you. That is why I have been able to punch so
> > many holes in your statements and positions that you are reduced to
> > petty insults and running away.
>
> Ain't running away Bub.
yes, it is. You cannot defend your position through logic, and you
cannot intimidate me, and I can see right through your lies and hatred.
You have nothing left.
> Just know that arguing with an atheist dog has no
> value.
And who would that be? I never claimed to be an atheist. And I am a
far better person that you are. That must mean that you are far lower
than any dog. A worm, perhaps. Or a snake, crawling on your belly for
your masters in your religion's hierarchy.
You are letting your hatred, your ignorance, and your narrow-mindedness
control you. Until you throw off those shackles that bind your heart
and your soul, you will never be able to rise above yourself and be
what you have the potential of being.
Mark Sebree
>
> BAM
Mark Sebree
The first is what you indicated from your words. Specifically "A man
with no religion is not fit to hold public office." So, you are now
saying that your statement was a lie, and that a man with no religion
is fit for public office. Which is what I have said all along.
Besides, the first statement and the second said pretty much the same
thing. If having no religion disqualifies a man from holding a public
office, then according to you, a man MUST have a religious belief to
qualify to hold a public office.
Having no religious beliefs does not disqualify a man or woman from
holding a public office in the USA because there can be no religious
test administered to qualify to hold an office by law.
>
> >
> > You have indicated that one of the basic things that qualifies a person
> > for office is having a religion (a lie, by the way.)
>
> I said no such thing.
Yes, you did. "A man with no religion is not fit to hold public
office." If having no religion disqualifies a person from holding a
public office, then having a religion must be something that qualifies
a person to hold public office. Your own words show that you did say
that.
>
> >You then said
> > that not having a religion does not disqualify someone.
>
> I said no such thing.
That statement was indicated by your statement "Talk about false
syllogisms........", which implies that I had something wrong. You
have been caught lying, one way or they other.
>
> >One of these
> > statements must be a lie, since they say the opposite things. So,
> > which statement is the lie?
>
> I don't care - they're your statements not mine.
They are your statements. You really should not lie so much,
especially when the evidence is in your previous posts.
Mark Sebree
>
> BAM
Colin Day
Are you saying that non-materialists could do better?
Colin Day aa #1500
Scott
>>> Oh, so obedience to some guy in the Vatican is a "standard". Get a clue!
>>>
>>> Colin Day aa #1500
>>
>> It's as good as any.....to materialism. A moral code can be based upon
>> one
>> man's preference or the majority's. It makes no difference since there is
>> no
>> right or wrong social moral codes. There are only codes.
>>
>>
>
> Are you saying that non-materialists could do better?
That's not the issue. If materialism is true there is no "better". That's a
factual theory about the nature of morality within philosophical
materialism. I'm only explaining to materialist what philosophical
materialism entails for moral beliefs. Aside from my thinking it's odd I'm
having to do that in the first place, its up to them to deal with the moral
implications of philosophical materialism. I can't help it if they don't
like the moral implications. Nature is morally neutral. If a person is going
to be a materialist, that person should not make statements that have a
universal objectivist meaning....as you implied or Sebree stated. There can
be no "better" moral standard since there would be no objectivity to measure
any standards to.
You said "Oh, so obedience to some guy in the Vatican is a "standard". Get a
clue!" To materialism all moral standards are subjective and have no
relation to an objective reality. In that sense then a standard can be based
upon the intersubjective majority, the imperatives from a pope or an M.L.
King, or from the dictates of a Saddam. To materialism, it makes no
difference since they are all of equivalent subjective value.
scott
Scott
Do you believe in philosophical materialism?
Scott
Scott
"Malcolm" <regn...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dttbna$3ei$3...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote
>> So you, too, believe in moral truth. From an American civil rights
>> argument the Catholic Church *has* every right to dictate to Catholic
>> politicians. It has freedom of religion to do so and it has freedom of
>> association to do so. If a politician doesn't follow what his religious
>> association dictates than philosophically he is in heresy with that
>> association. Moral dilemmas are not uncommon. You believe in moral
>> dilemmas? Since a person/anyone cannot err morally or succeed morally the
>> notion of moral dilemmas makes no philosophical sense to materialism,
>> either. A person who believes in moral dilemmas is a person who believes
>> there is a (morally) *real* right *thing* to do. He just isn't sure were
>> the moral truth lay in his decision.
> The state could say that, in its eyes, the Catholic church is a political
> party. I'm neutral on that one, but I'm not a US citizen. It might be the
> best thing all round.
No, that wouldn't hold up in any court. If a politician is associated with
the Church and he/she doesn't follow the Church's strongly held moral
beliefs that politician risk loosing that association. He doesn't risk his
political standing.
bam
You don't know anything.
>> Apparently you interpret things as you see fit.
>
> Like everything else. Basically, I was telling you that you cannot
> command me, and given your views, you are saying that the best thing
> that I can do for people is to enter politics because you fear the good
> I would do and the fact that your oppressive religion would have no
> chance of controlling me.
You need oppression.
>> Ain't running away Bub.
>
> yes, it is. You cannot defend your position through logic, and you
> cannot intimidate me, and I can see right through your lies and hatred.
> You have nothing left.
I don't need to defend - I'm an attacker.
>
>> Just know that arguing with an atheist dog has no
>> value.
>
> And who would that be? I never claimed to be an atheist. And I am a
> far better person that you are. That must mean that you are far lower
> than any dog. A worm, perhaps. Or a snake, crawling on your belly for
> your masters in your religion's hierarchy.
My master is God. Who's yours?
> You are letting your hatred, your ignorance, and your narrow-mindedness
> control you. Until you throw off those shackles that bind your heart
> and your soul, you will never be able to rise above yourself and be
> what you have the potential of being.
Now you sound like an old Bolshevik.
BAM
bam
You can't read.
>
> Besides, the first statement and the second said pretty much the same
> thing. If having no religion disqualifies a man from holding a public
> office, then according to you, a man MUST have a religious belief to
> qualify to hold a public office.
Among others things Mr. Dum Dum.
>
> Having no religious beliefs does not disqualify a man or woman from
> holding a public office in the USA because there can be no religious
> test administered to qualify to hold an office by law.
You mean according to the law. So what? Now you're arguing that anyone who's
not disqualified is qualified. That's stooooopid.
>> > You have indicated that one of the basic things that qualifies a person
>> > for office is having a religion (a lie, by the way.)
>>
>> I said no such thing.
>
> Yes, you did. "A man with no religion is not fit to hold public
> office." If having no religion disqualifies a person from holding a
> public office, then having a religion must be something that qualifies
> a person to hold public office.
Among other things. Get it?
>Your own words show that you did say
> that.
Wrong........
>> >You then said
>> > that not having a religion does not disqualify someone.
>>
>> I said no such thing.
>
> That statement was indicated by your statement "Talk about false
> syllogisms........", which implies that I had something wrong. You
> have been caught lying, one way or they other.
I said not having a religion DOES disqualify someone. Man, you need to have
yer head checked.
BAM
bam
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:440235d6$0$58083$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Do I? Am I a criminal? What law have I broken Ray?
BAM
bam
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote
> Religion and religious fanatics has caused more death for more reasons
> that you want to admit to yourself. The Crusades, jihads, pogroms,
> witch burnings, the Inquisition, and general mayhem throughout the
> years.
Religion was not the cause. Disagreements over religion may have been, but
if there's anything worth fighting for, that certainly is.
> I do not know of any significant number of deaths caused by atheists,
> and none by an organized group of atheists.
Then you need to land on planet earth and look at 20th century atheistic
Communism - they killed more than all people who have ever been killed by
anyone everywhere in all times.
> Sounds more like it is the atheists that inflict goodness on society,
> and religions that inflict pain, death, and suffering.
Of course, you're in charge as to what "good" means.
> You think over a billion Hindi are "a few"? Or is it that you are
> thankful that there are only a few people with the intelligence and
> education to see through your narrow-mindedness?
Thanks for all the choices.
>>
>> First of all, I'm a Catholic - so leave the "Christian" stuff out.
>
> Why? Catholics are Christians.
>
>> Those who
>> call themselvesChristians are mostly followers of heresies.
>
> No, they are not. You are Christian yourself.
You don't know what you're talkiong about.
>
>>
>> But a true Christian 1) loves God with all his heart, and 2) loves his
>> neighbor as himself.
>
> Is that why you hate your neighbor so much? You must not be a "true
> Christian" then.
You're full of accusations - it's a sign of deep rooted guilt.
>> I wouldn't expect an atheist dog to understand that
>> these are the two highest virtues in all of creation.
>
> So, you express your love through hatred, and you love an imaginary
> being.
So you know nothing.
> I do understand those value better than you do. The first is a sham.
> The second one I do. And part of that love is to make sure that he or
> she has every right and freedom that I do. And that includes rights
> such as abortion and marriage, including same sex marriage.
Punk.
>
> Since you are Catholic and believe in demigods that you call "saints",
> how about looking up the Saints Serge and Bacchus, and what ceremony
> your sect invokes them in.
Again - false accusations.
>> And I won't give em a chance.
>
> Why would they want to do anything to you? Is this an example of you
> "loving your neighbor"?
Yes - it's called tough love. Spare the rod and spoil the Wiccan.
>> > They do not try to force you to
>> > follow their religion. They are more likely to work towards equality
>> > and peace and liberty than most. They are generally highly intelligent
>> > and well educated. And chances are, if you tried to kick his or her
>> > ass, you would be the one lying on the ground in pain at the end of it.
>>
>> They're dogs.
>
> They are far better people than you are. You are the one that is
> acting worse than any dog. All I have said is that they would not
> force you to follow their religious beliefs as you want to force them
> to follow yours, that they are intelligent and well educated, and that
> they would defend themselves if attacked. That means that they act in
> a more noble fashion than you do or want to. They are better people
> than you are.
Once again, false accusations, and you make up your own definitions.
> Then you have much to learn.
>
>> Man is the highest life form.
>
> In your opinion.
Oh shut up. THis is too boring.
BAM
Ray Fischer
Mark Sebree
I am quite sure that I know more than you do.
> >> Apparently you interpret things as you see fit.
> >
> > Like everything else. Basically, I was telling you that you cannot
> > command me, and given your views, you are saying that the best thing
> > that I can do for people is to enter politics because you fear the good
> > I would do and the fact that your oppressive religion would have no
> > chance of controlling me.
>
> You need oppression.
Not a chance. Why would you think a stupid and idiotic thing like
that. I need FREEDOM, not oppression. Just as any sane man or women
does.
You show more and more that I am completely right about you, and that
your opposition to me entering politics is plenty of reason that I
should do so.
>
> >> Ain't running away Bub.
> >
> > yes, it is. You cannot defend your position through logic, and you
> > cannot intimidate me, and I can see right through your lies and hatred.
> > You have nothing left.
>
> I don't need to defend - I'm an attacker.
And you have no weapons to attack with. You are empty handed, and you
do not know how to fight. Your position has been assailed, and your
defenses destroyed. You have lost.
An attacker must also be able to defend himself, or he shall surely
lose.
>
> >
> >> Just know that arguing with an atheist dog has no
> >> value.
> >
> > And who would that be? I never claimed to be an atheist. And I am a
> > far better person that you are. That must mean that you are far lower
> > than any dog. A worm, perhaps. Or a snake, crawling on your belly for
> > your masters in your religion's hierarchy.
>
> My master is God. Who's yours?
Your masters are your bishops, archbishops, and the other members of
your religion's hierarchy. You do what they tell you to do, say what
they tell you to say, and believe what they tell you to believe. You
have been so brainwashed that you have lost the ability to think for
yourself. You have willingly lowered yourself to being a toady for a
corrupt and oppressive oligarchy.
I have no master, for I do not need to rely on fairy tales to keep me
from being afraid of the dark, and I can think for myself. I neither
want nor need other people telling me how to think and what to believe.
I am a free man.
And I was talking about your attitudes. You make yourself subservient
to your masters of your own free will, and then think others will enjoy
the restriction and oppression that you enjoy and revel in. Here is a
news flash for you, most people are not interested in the chains that
you have wrapped around your mind.
>
>
> > You are letting your hatred, your ignorance, and your narrow-mindedness
> > control you. Until you throw off those shackles that bind your heart
> > and your soul, you will never be able to rise above yourself and be
> > what you have the potential of being.
>
> Now you sound like an old Bolshevik.
I doubt it. You are out of ammo, so you are running away from the
facts and the truth about yourself. You cannot defend your position or
your agenda.
Mark Sebree
>
> BAM
Mark Sebree
bam wrote:
> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote
>
>
> > Religion and religious fanatics has caused more death for more reasons
> > that you want to admit to yourself. The Crusades, jihads, pogroms,
> > witch burnings, the Inquisition, and general mayhem throughout the
> > years.
>
> Religion was not the cause.
Yes, it is. There was no reason for most of these besides religious
beliefs.
> Disagreements over religion may have been, but
> if there's anything worth fighting for, that certainly is.
That means that religion is the cause. And usually, it was a case of
trying to force one's beliefs onto others.
>
>
> > I do not know of any significant number of deaths caused by atheists,
> > and none by an organized group of atheists.
>
> Then you need to land on planet earth and look at 20th century atheistic
> Communism - they killed more than all people who have ever been killed by
> anyone everywhere in all times.
Christianity and the Catholic Church has committed genocide and
attempted genocide on a number of occasions. And that is not county
many of the other things that I have mentioned. Per capita for the
times of the actions, I doubt that Communism has even come close.
Besides, technically, the American society and government is atheist as
well, since it recognizes no deity, religion, or belief system as being
above any other, nor does it make any religious belief necessary for
any job or position within the government.
>
>
> > Sounds more like it is the atheists that inflict goodness on society,
> > and religions that inflict pain, death, and suffering.
>
> Of course, you're in charge as to what "good" means.
>
Well, it is certain that you are not. I am certain that inflicting
pain, death, and suffering onto societies as religions want to do is
not considered a "good thing" by most people.
>
> > You think over a billion Hindi are "a few"? Or is it that you are
> > thankful that there are only a few people with the intelligence and
> > education to see through your narrow-mindedness?
>
> Thanks for all the choices.
>
You could have always added your own. However, you do not know how to
think for yourself, so I am not really surprised that you could not
come up with an intelligent response.
>
> >>
> >> First of all, I'm a Catholic - so leave the "Christian" stuff out.
> >
> > Why? Catholics are Christians.
> >
> >> Those who
> >> call themselvesChristians are mostly followers of heresies.
> >
> > No, they are not. You are Christian yourself.
>
> You don't know what you're talkiong about.
Actually, I do. Catholicism does not own Christianity, and it does not
have the authority to dictate what is and is not a heresy to other
religions. They can and do develop their own beliefs and
interpretations of the same texts as you use, and usually they are more
reasonable and intelligent than your interpretations are.
What's more, since Catholicism typically identifies itself with
following the "word of Christ" and "following what the Bible says",
that means that they are Christians, since that is the definition of
Christianity.
> >>
> >> But a true Christian 1) loves God with all his heart, and 2) loves his
> >> neighbor as himself.
> >
> > Is that why you hate your neighbor so much? You must not be a "true
> > Christian" then.
>
> You're full of accusations - it's a sign of deep rooted guilt.
Nope. I have nothing to be guilty of. I just caught you in an obvious
lie. You don't love your neighbor. In fact, you cannot stand him,
especially if he or she will have nothing to do with your belief
system, and feels no guilt about living as they see fit. This is
obvious in your posts.
>
> >> I wouldn't expect an atheist dog to understand that
> >> these are the two highest virtues in all of creation.
> >
> > So, you express your love through hatred, and you love an imaginary
> > being.
>
> So you know nothing.
>
I know more that you can handle. Your hatred and intolerance is
blindingly obvious, and you are calling it love. And I have yet to see
anyone present any objective evidence that your deity even exists, or
any logical argument that it is likely to exist. Everything that
people like you present presupposes that the conclusion is a given and
that the reviewer will reach the exact same conclusion that you started
with. I.e. the reviewer adheres to the same belief system that you
hold. This shows that the argument is subjective in nature rather than
objective, and thus worthless.
>
> > I do understand those value better than you do. The first is a sham.
> > The second one I do. And part of that love is to make sure that he or
> > she has every right and freedom that I do. And that includes rights
> > such as abortion and marriage, including same sex marriage.
>
> Punk.
Just telling you the truth. And you cannot seem to handle the truth.
>
> >
> > Since you are Catholic and believe in demigods that you call "saints",
> > how about looking up the Saints Serge and Bacchus, and what ceremony
> > your sect invokes them in.
>
> Again - false accusations.
Nope. Fact. You pray to your saints. You have ceremonies and feasts
dedicated to them. You have specific items that are supposed to
represent them. You erect statues of them in your temples and places
of worship. All the traits of deities. And since they are subordinate
with mostly limited fields of influence, "demigods" is certainly the
best description of them.
Changing the name does not change what they are.
And did you happen to look up those two saints? Or are you afraid of
what you will find?
>
> >> And I won't give em a chance.
> >
> > Why would they want to do anything to you? Is this an example of you
> > "loving your neighbor"?
>
> Yes - it's called tough love. Spare the rod and spoil the Wiccan.
Sounds more like hatred to me. And the Wiccans I know will turn your
rod back onto you. All you want is their misery and suffering. You
hate them so much that you must oppress them and force them to give up
their religion.
Perhaps someone should start using a rod on you, and make you give up
your religion for no good reason, since that is what you want to do to
them. Or are you forgetting something from your own mythology? "Do
unto other as you would have them do unto you"? If you try to force
them to give up their religious beliefs and practice a religious system
that they do not believe in, then you must want someone to force you to
give up Catholicism and practice a religious system that you do not
believe in. I think Buddhism or Hinduism would fit the bill nicely.
>
>
> >> > They do not try to force you to
> >> > follow their religion. They are more likely to work towards equality
> >> > and peace and liberty than most. They are generally highly intelligent
> >> > and well educated. And chances are, if you tried to kick his or her
> >> > ass, you would be the one lying on the ground in pain at the end of it.
> >>
> >> They're dogs.
> >
> > They are far better people than you are. You are the one that is
> > acting worse than any dog. All I have said is that they would not
> > force you to follow their religious beliefs as you want to force them
> > to follow yours, that they are intelligent and well educated, and that
> > they would defend themselves if attacked. That means that they act in
> > a more noble fashion than you do or want to. They are better people
> > than you are.
>
> Once again, false accusations, and you make up your own definitions.
Not at all. You have shown that what I have said is not false at all.
And my definitions are not necessarily my own. They would leave you
be, but you would harass them and make a nuisance of yourself because
you do not like how and whom their worship, nor do you like their
beliefs. That makes them better people than you. Their intelligence
and education is not in any doubt, since they can prove both on their
own quite easily. College degrees are common, to put it mildly. And
as far as them defending themselves, that speaks for itself, and it
would be appropriate for your method of attack.
You are act worse than any dog. You would attack them and harass them
for no reason. Dogs do not do that. That makes you worse than a dog.
>
> > Then you have much to learn.
> >
> >> Man is the highest life form.
> >
> > In your opinion.
>
> Oh shut up. THis is too boring.
No. I have as much right to speak as anyone. And I will continue to
tell you the truth, even if you don't want to hear it.
Perhaps you just cannot face what and who you really are.
By the way, since I doubt that you will have the courage to research
your own religion, here are some links about the saints I mentioned
earlier. For many more, simply do a Google search on "saint serge
bacchus".
http://www.lezbeout.com/ancientgaymarriageoftwomalesaints.htm
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/scotts/ftp/wpaf2mc/serge.html
http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html
http://www.christiangays.com/marriage/rite.shtml
Mark Sebree
>
> BAM
Mark Sebree
I can read just fine. And unlike you, I can think.
>
> >
> > Besides, the first statement and the second said pretty much the same
> > thing. If having no religion disqualifies a man from holding a public
> > office, then according to you, a man MUST have a religious belief to
> > qualify to hold a public office.
>
> Among others things Mr. Dum Dum.
And that list consists of only one item. Being a clergyman or woman of
any religion basically requires belief in that religion's principles
and beliefs. That is the ONLY thing for which religious belief is
something that a person must have to hold the position. There is no
requirement or reason that a person should have any belief in any
religious system to hold a public office.
>
> >
> > Having no religious beliefs does not disqualify a man or woman from
> > holding a public office in the USA because there can be no religious
> > test administered to qualify to hold an office by law.
>
> You mean according to the law.
Of course. That is the only yardstick that matters.
> So what?
So it is the only thing that makes sense.
> Now you're arguing that anyone who's
> not disqualified is qualified. That's stooooopid.
Not really. Anyone that does not meet a restriction of the office is
qualified to run for the office. He or she just has to be able to get
elected. For example, for President, the candidate must be an American
citizen born in this country, or born to American parents while the
parents were abroad (for example, a son or daughter of military parents
or American ambassador), and be at least 35 years old. That is pretty
much it. Therefore is no mention that the candidate must have any
religious beliefs. In fact, the Constitution expressly forbids any
religious test.
Just because you do not like someone or his beliefs or his background,
you cannot disqualify that person from running from office. And if you
cannot disqualify the person, then the person automatically is
qualified to run for office. Actually getting elected is another
matter.
>
> >> > You have indicated that one of the basic things that qualifies a person
> >> > for office is having a religion (a lie, by the way.)
> >>
> >> I said no such thing.
> >
> > Yes, you did. "A man with no religion is not fit to hold public
> > office." If having no religion disqualifies a person from holding a
> > public office, then having a religion must be something that qualifies
> > a person to hold public office.
>
> Among other things. Get it?
Yes. However, the criteria that you are presenting are not valid. A
person that has no religion is perfectly fit to hold a public office.
You have never presented any substantial reason that he is not/
>
> >Your own words show that you did say
> > that.
>
> Wrong........
>
Yes, you are wrong. as usual.
> >> >You then said
> >> > that not having a religion does not disqualify someone.
> >>
> >> I said no such thing.
>
> >
> > That statement was indicated by your statement "Talk about false
> > syllogisms........", which implies that I had something wrong. You
> > have been caught lying, one way or they other.
>
> I said not having a religion DOES disqualify someone.
Which mean that having a religion is something that qualifies a person
for office, and that is a false statement. You do not seem to
understand that your statement by its nature is an either/or
proposition. A person either has a religion, or he does not. It is an
either/or proposition. Therefore, if not having a religion
disqualifies a person from holding a public office, then having a
religion is something that qualifies him to hold a public office.
Which means that you will pass up the best person for the job because
of prejudice and narrow-mindedness, simply because the person is not
religious.
Very simply, not having a religion does not disqualify someone from
office. Whether or not a person is religious or follows any religion
has no bearing on his fitness to hold any particular public office.
> Man, you need to have
> yer head checked.
Why? Because I am more intelligent and better educated than you and
can outthink you without even trying? Because I can see the blindingly
obvious flaws in your position that you cannot or will not? Because
you cannot BS me, browbeat me, or get me to shut up?
Sounds more like you should get your head examined.
Mark Sebree
>
> BAM
bam
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote
>> You don't know anything.
>>
>
> I am quite sure that I know more than you do.
What a stupid remark.
>> You need oppression.
>
> Not a chance. Why would you think a stupid and idiotic thing like
> that. I need FREEDOM, not oppression. Just as any sane man or women
> does.
You mean sexual freedom. Because aside from that, you love laws - as long as
it doesn't interfere with your vices.
>> I don't need to defend - I'm an attacker.
>
> And you have no weapons to attack with. You are empty handed, and you
> do not know how to fight. Your position has been assailed, and your
> defenses destroyed. You have lost.
You're living in a dream world. First you cry about being oppressed, and now
you've just taken the hill. You're just full of nothing.
>> My master is God. Who's yours?
>
> Your masters are your bishops, archbishops, and the other members of
> your religion's hierarchy. You do what they tell you to do, say what
> they tell you to say, and believe what they tell you to believe. You
> have been so brainwashed that you have lost the ability to think for
> yourself. You have willingly lowered yourself to being a toady for a
> corrupt and oppressive oligarchy.
I told you who my master was. What makes you think you can tell me who I am
you punk?
> I have no master, for I do not need to rely on fairy tales to keep me
> from being afraid of the dark, and I can think for myself. I neither
> want nor need other people telling me how to think and what to believe.
> I am a free man.
You're a stupid lying atheist and you'll never be free;
"Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a
king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but, what is worse, as
many masters as he has vices."
- St. Augustine, City of God
BAM
Mark Sebree
bam wrote:
> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote
>
> >> You don't know anything.
> >>
> >
> > I am quite sure that I know more than you do.
>
> What a stupid remark.
>
Not at all. It is quite obvious that you do not know very much.
>
> >> You need oppression.
> >
> > Not a chance. Why would you think a stupid and idiotic thing like
> > that. I need FREEDOM, not oppression. Just as any sane man or women
> > does.
>
> You mean sexual freedom.
No, I mean freedom. Personal freedom, sexual freedom, religious
freedom, freedom of speech and the press, freedom to travel, and every
other freedom. You are the one that opposes freedom, so I am not
surprised that you do not understand what it means.
> Because aside from that, you love laws - as long as
> it doesn't interfere with your vices.
More like as long as the laws are not oppressive and seek to force
people to act in a manner that is prescribed by a religious belief
system as the only reason for the law. For example, the so-called
"blue laws".
And what vices do you think I have? I am willing to lay odds that you
are wrong, just as you have been wrong every time you have tried to
read my mind so far.
>
> >> I don't need to defend - I'm an attacker.
> >
> > And you have no weapons to attack with. You are empty handed, and you
> > do not know how to fight. Your position has been assailed, and your
> > defenses destroyed. You have lost.
>
> You're living in a dream world.
No, I am living in the real world, which is why you are having so much
trouble BSing me.
> First you cry about being oppressed,
No, I am not "crying about being oppressed". I am fighting an admitted
oppressor, and working to show his agenda under the bright light of
reason and showing it for what it is.
> and now you've just taken the hill.
Because you have refused to defend it. You have given up your right to
have the hill.
> You're just full of nothing.
And you are full of sh*t. However, I am not "full of nothing". I am
full of knowledge and determination that you cannot handle.
>
>
> >> My master is God. Who's yours?
> >
> > Your masters are your bishops, archbishops, and the other members of
> > your religion's hierarchy. You do what they tell you to do, say what
> > they tell you to say, and believe what they tell you to believe. You
> > have been so brainwashed that you have lost the ability to think for
> > yourself. You have willingly lowered yourself to being a toady for a
> > corrupt and oppressive oligarchy.
>
> I told you who my master was.
And you lied. I told you who your masters really are. An imaginary
being that does not exist in reality cannot be a master of anyone.
> What makes you think you can tell me who I am
> you punk?
Simple. You have made it clear who you are. You have resorted to
meaningless attacks and name-calling because you cannot browbeat me or
shut me up or BS me.
>
>
> > I have no master, for I do not need to rely on fairy tales to keep me
> > from being afraid of the dark, and I can think for myself. I neither
> > want nor need other people telling me how to think and what to believe.
> > I am a free man.
>
> You're a stupid lying atheist and you'll never be free;
>
I am more intelligent than you are, I am telling you the truth that you
cannot handle, and I am freer than you will ever be as long as you wear
the chains that bind you and you mind. You, however, have against
borne false witness against me.
> "Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a
> king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but, what is worse, as
> many masters as he has vices."
> - St. Augustine, City of God
>
> BAM
I am not a wicked man, thus the quote does not apply to me. And I have
no vices, thus they are not the masters of me. And since your beliefs
do not apply to me in the first place, your demigod's quote is
meaningless.
Did you ever look up the saints that I mentioned to you? Or are you
still afriad to look? They were Saint Serge and Saint Bacchus. They
are easy to find with a Google search.
Mark Sebree
Scott
>
>
> Your masters are your bishops, archbishops, and the other members of
> your religion's hierarchy. You do what they tell you to do, say what
> they tell you to say, and believe what they tell you to believe. You
> have been so brainwashed that you have lost the ability to think for
> yourself. You have willingly lowered yourself to being a toady for a
> corrupt and oppressive oligarchy.
>
> I have no master, for I do not need to rely on fairy tales to keep me
> from being afraid of the dark, and I can think for myself. I neither
> want nor need other people telling me how to think and what to believe.
> I am a free man.
Oh but you do believe in a fairytale. You've given me ever reason to think
you do. Secular humanism *is* a fairytale.
>>
>>
>> > You are letting your hatred, your ignorance, and your narrow-mindedness
>> > control you. Until you throw off those shackles that bind your heart
>> > and your soul, you will never be able to rise above yourself and be
>> > what you have the potential of being.
>>
>> Now you sound like an old Bolshevik.
>
> I doubt it. You are out of ammo, so you are running away from the
> facts and the truth about yourself. You cannot defend your position or
> your agenda.
I notice that you didn't defined yourself with mine.
Scott
>
> bam wrote:
>> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote
>>
>> >> You don't know anything.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I am quite sure that I know more than you do.
>>
>> What a stupid remark.
>>
>
> Not at all. It is quite obvious that you do not know very much.
>
>>
>> >> You need oppression.
>> >
>> > Not a chance. Why would you think a stupid and idiotic thing like
>> > that. I need FREEDOM, not oppression. Just as any sane man or women
>> > does.
>>
>> You mean sexual freedom.
>
> No, I mean freedom. Personal freedom, sexual freedom, religious
> freedom, freedom of speech and the press, freedom to travel, and every
> other freedom. You are the one that opposes freedom, so I am not
> surprised that you do not understand what it means.
>
>> Because aside from that, you love laws - as long as
>> it doesn't interfere with your vices.
>
> More like as long as the laws are not oppressive and seek to force
> people to act in a manner that is prescribed by a religious belief
> system as the only reason for the law. For example, the so-called
> "blue laws".
since all laws seek to control human acts, all laws oppress behavior.
Mark Sebree
Scott wrote:
> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
> news:1141025816.2...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >
>
> >
> > Your masters are your bishops, archbishops, and the other members of
> > your religion's hierarchy. You do what they tell you to do, say what
> > they tell you to say, and believe what they tell you to believe. You
> > have been so brainwashed that you have lost the ability to think for
> > yourself. You have willingly lowered yourself to being a toady for a
> > corrupt and oppressive oligarchy.
> >
> > I have no master, for I do not need to rely on fairy tales to keep me
> > from being afraid of the dark, and I can think for myself. I neither
> > want nor need other people telling me how to think and what to believe.
> > I am a free man.
>
> Oh but you do believe in a fairytale. You've given me ever reason to think
> you do. Secular humanism *is* a fairytale.
>
It is less of a fairytale than believing in an imaginary being. And it
is a lot more even handed than what he proposes.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> > You are letting your hatred, your ignorance, and your narrow-mindedness
> >> > control you. Until you throw off those shackles that bind your heart
> >> > and your soul, you will never be able to rise above yourself and be
> >> > what you have the potential of being.
> >>
> >> Now you sound like an old Bolshevik.
> >
> > I doubt it. You are out of ammo, so you are running away from the
> > facts and the truth about yourself. You cannot defend your position or
> > your agenda.
>
> I notice that you didn't defined yourself with mine.
Why would I defend (I assume that is the word you meant to write)
myself with your position and your agenda? I have no idea what it is.
Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
However, one must look at what is being "oppressed" and why. We have
laws that grant and guarantee freedom of speech and the press, which
means that people can speak up on any subject that they wish. What is
"oppressed" are the people that disagree with that speech and seek to
silence those people, even if the people speaking are in the minority.
We have laws that give spouses the right to visit their significant
others in the hospital. What is suppressed are hostile staff and
family members of the patient who would want to keep the two apart
because they do not approve of the union for some reason.
We have laws that grant and guarentee the right and priviledge to
worship any religion in any manner that we see fit, with minor
restrictions against things like human sacrifice, or no religion at
all. What is prevented is some people's desire to oppress religions
that they disagree with, especially fringe, minority, and non-Abrahamic
religions.
There are many more laws like these. The behavior that they "oppress"
is behavior that is oppressive in the first place. These types of laws
allow and promote freedom by taking away the limits on people's actions
that others would rather be limited. These laws harm nobody, and
actually prevent oppression.
Mark Sebree
bam
> More like as long as the laws are not oppressive and seek to force
> people to act in a manner that is prescribed by a religious belief
> system as the only reason for the law. For example, the so-called
> "blue laws".
Blue laws do not "force one to act". Can't you be accurate for once? And do
you think prohibiting commercial sales on Sunday is oppressive?
Perhaps you can name me a religious law that forces one to act.
> And what vices do you think I have? I am willing to lay odds that you
> are wrong, just as you have been wrong every time you have tried to
> read my mind so far.
I don't want to know anything about you. And I wouldn't take your word for
it if you said the sky was up and the floor was down.
> No, I am not "crying about being oppressed". I am fighting an admitted
> oppressor, and working to show his agenda under the bright light of
> reason and showing it for what it is.
Get a witness.
>> You're just full of nothing.
>
> And you are full of sh*t. However, I am not "full of nothing". I am
> full of knowledge and determination that you cannot handle.
You're a putz.
>> I told you who my master was.
>
> And you lied. I told you who your masters really are. An imaginary
> being that does not exist in reality cannot be a master of anyone.
Shatap.
>> What makes you think you can tell me who I am
>> you punk?
>
> Simple. You have made it clear who you are. You have resorted to
> meaningless attacks and name-calling because you cannot browbeat me or
> shut me up or BS me.
You do not hear the truth.
> I am more intelligent than you are, I am telling you the truth that you
> cannot handle, and I am freer than you will ever be as long as you wear
> the chains that bind you and you mind. You, however, have against
> borne false witness against me.
Get a witness.
> I am not a wicked man, thus the quote does not apply to me. And I have
> no vices, thus they are not the masters of me. And since your beliefs
> do not apply to me in the first place, your demigod's quote is
> meaningless.
No vices? WAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
> Did you ever look up the saints that I mentioned to you? Or are you
> still afriad to look? They were Saint Serge and Saint Bacchus. They
> are easy to find with a Google search.
Go try that lame bullshit on a dope like yourself.
"Being as one in their love for Christ, they were also undivided from each
other in the army of the world, united not by the way of nature, but in the
manner of faith, always singing and saying, "Behold, how good and how
pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" They were adept and
excellent soldiers of Christ, cultivating assiduously the inspired writings
to combat diabolical error, and fighting vigorously in battle to defeat the
enemy. "
"United not by the way of nature" - can you read and comprehend you
pinhead??
BAM
Mark Sebree
> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
> news:1141055298....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > bam wrote:
> >> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote
>
>
> > More like as long as the laws are not oppressive and seek to force
> > people to act in a manner that is prescribed by a religious belief
> > system as the only reason for the law. For example, the so-called
> > "blue laws".
>
> Blue laws do not "force one to act".
They do, however, force one to observe religious beliefs that are not
their own.
> Can't you be accurate for once?
I have been. You just don't like the fact that I am accurate.
> And do
> you think prohibiting commercial sales on Sunday is oppressive?
Yes. They are a specific implementation of a single religion's
beliefs, and they can be in contradiction of another's own beliefs and
can cause violation of those beliefs. For example, Jews and Seven Day
Adventists consider Saturday, not Sunday, to be their day of Sabbath.
According to Jewish belief, they are not supposed to work or travel on
Saturday, with the exception of for emergencies or specific jobs that
involve helping others or attending services. Therefore, they would do
their shopping and work on Sunday, especially if they are devout.
However, YOU would close down all the businesses that they would
frequent. This causes them great inconvienence, since it is harder to
shop at those businesses during the week if they close early. And if
the person actually owns or runs such a business, it can be even worse.
By repealing the Blue Laws, you are lifting those restricts and you no
longer are forcing your beliefs onto others. A person can observe
their day of worship if they wish on the day that he or she is supposed
to, and still be able to have a day of shopping on the weekend. You
let each person observe his or her beliefs in his or her own fashion
according to its dictates.
>
> Perhaps you can name me a religious law that forces one to act.
Blue Laws. You are forced to take Sunday off when your day of worship
and sabbath is Saturday, and you are prevented from shopping on the day
of the weekend you have available to do so. And as a store owner, you
are forced to be closed and lose the income that being open would
provide you on a day that would generate a signioficant quantity of
income.
>
> > And what vices do you think I have? I am willing to lay odds that you
> > are wrong, just as you have been wrong every time you have tried to
> > read my mind so far.
>
> I don't want to know anything about you. And I wouldn't take your word for
> it if you said the sky was up and the floor was down.
Your loss. You might learn something to your advantage. Besides, you
have not named any vices that you think that I have.
>
> > No, I am not "crying about being oppressed". I am fighting an admitted
> > oppressor, and working to show his agenda under the bright light of
> > reason and showing it for what it is.
>
> Get a witness.
>
I have everyone that reads both of our posts as witnesses. Both of our
posts are archived, and even if you have yours deleted, mine are not.
Besides, you were the one that said that I need to be oppressed. You
have also said that you would try to force Wiccans to give up their
religion. Your words were "Spare the rod and spoil the Wiccan" I
believe. That makes you and admitted oppressor, since you have stated
that you desire to oppress others.
> >> You're just full of nothing.
> >
> > And you are full of sh*t. However, I am not "full of nothing". I am
> > full of knowledge and determination that you cannot handle.
>
> You're a putz.
That makes you lower than a putz. Your name-calling only shows the
weakness of your position.
>
> >> I told you who my master was.
> >
> > And you lied. I told you who your masters really are. An imaginary
> > being that does not exist in reality cannot be a master of anyone.
>
> Shatap.
>
No. You are just demonstrating the weakness of your position.
> >> What makes you think you can tell me who I am
> >> you punk?
> >
> > Simple. You have made it clear who you are. You have resorted to
> > meaningless attacks and name-calling because you cannot browbeat me or
> > shut me up or BS me.
>
> You do not hear the truth.
You do not tell the truth. You cannot stand to hear the truth. And
you do not seem to understand the truth when it is presented to you.
All you can do is close your eyes, put your hands over your ears, and
shout "YA YA YA YA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" like a little child.
>
> > I am more intelligent than you are, I am telling you the truth that you
> > cannot handle, and I am freer than you will ever be as long as you wear
> > the chains that bind you and you mind. You, however, have against
> > borne false witness against me.
>
> Get a witness.
As witnesses, I have everyone that has read both of out posts. And
since they are archived, they can be pulled up again at need.
>
> > I am not a wicked man, thus the quote does not apply to me. And I have
> > no vices, thus they are not the masters of me. And since your beliefs
> > do not apply to me in the first place, your demigod's quote is
> > meaningless.
>
> No vices? WAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
You have not been able to name any. And I bet you would guess wrong if
your were to try.
>
> > Did you ever look up the saints that I mentioned to you? Or are you
> > still afriad to look? They were Saint Serge and Saint Bacchus. They
> > are easy to find with a Google search.
>
> Go try that lame bullshit on a dope like yourself.
So, you have not had the courage to learn about your own religion and
the lies that they tell you.
>
> "Being as one in their love for Christ, they were also undivided from each
> other in the army of the world, united not by the way of nature, but in the
> manner of faith, always singing and saying, "Behold, how good and how
> pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" They were adept and
> excellent soldiers of Christ, cultivating assiduously the inspired writings
> to combat diabolical error, and fighting vigorously in battle to defeat the
> enemy. "
>
> "United not by the way of nature" - can you read and comprehend you
> pinhead??
>
And whom is that quote from? And why should I care? Just because you
love a mythical and non-existant being does not make you a "good
person", it just makes you self-deluded.
Your insults only show the weakness of your position. You cannot best
me, so you try to insult me. So young child, is that the best you
have? Aping the words of your masters in your religion's hierarchy and
not understanding anything that you say?
I read and comprehend just fine. Better than you, in fact. The enemy
is yourself, and you refuse to recognise it. Armies are almost never
"unified by way of nature". They are unified by people paying them,
commanding their presense, or tricking them with propaganda. Songs,
stirring speeches, comeradery, and propaganda are tricks older than Sun
Tzu to hold armies together and get individuals to identify themselves
with the group as a whole. That quote is merely a description of using
song and propaganda to hold an army together.
Your faith is actually divisive. It is not a unifying prescence
because it seeks to tear apart anything that it does not agree with,
including other denominations of Christianity. It is oppressive and
its leaders do not appreciate the value in freedom, equality, and
liberty.
Mark Sebree
> BAM
Scott
Within materialism it makes no difference what if any moral reasoning you
give there is no moral truths in philosophical materialism. As far as
oppressing speach we have so-called liberals whating to suppress speach that
it deems politically incorrect - hate speach to use an example.
Johnny
"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:sDIMf.40921$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Kick his little bitch ass.
Thanks.
Scott
>
> Scott wrote:
>> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>> news:1141025816.2...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > Your masters are your bishops, archbishops, and the other members of
>> > your religion's hierarchy. You do what they tell you to do, say what
>> > they tell you to say, and believe what they tell you to believe. You
>> > have been so brainwashed that you have lost the ability to think for
>> > yourself. You have willingly lowered yourself to being a toady for a
>> > corrupt and oppressive oligarchy.
>> >
>> > I have no master, for I do not need to rely on fairy tales to keep me
>> > from being afraid of the dark, and I can think for myself. I neither
>> > want nor need other people telling me how to think and what to believe.
>> > I am a free man.
>>
>> Oh but you do believe in a fairytale. You've given me ever reason to
>> think
>> you do. Secular humanism *is* a fairytale.
>>
>
> It is less of a fairytale than believing in an imaginary being.
Let me reword what you just wrote: "my irrealism is more real than your
irrealism." What the heck is that suppose to mean?
> And it
> is a lot more even handed than what he proposes.
You most certainly believe in moral realism because this statement
indicates you do. "Even handed" implies an objective standard measurable by
your "more". We may dispute over the piticulars of that moral realism but
that's another argument.
>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > You are letting your hatred, your ignorance, and your
>> >> > narrow-mindedness
>> >> > control you. Until you throw off those shackles that bind your
>> >> > heart
>> >> > and your soul, you will never be able to rise above yourself and be
>> >> > what you have the potential of being.
>> >>
>> >> Now you sound like an old Bolshevik.
>> >
>> > I doubt it. You are out of ammo, so you are running away from the
>> > facts and the truth about yourself. You cannot defend your position or
>> > your agenda.
>>
>> I notice that you didn't defined yourself with mine.
>
> Why would I defend (I assume that is the word you meant to write)
> myself with your position and your agenda? I have no idea what it is.
I've said else where in this thread why I'm posting. I see so-called
materialists making moral proclamations all the time that either hint or
flatout state moral realism, "your religion *is* evil". If moral aren't real
(and they aren't in materialism) there is no such thing as evil, to use one
example.
All I'm doing is discribing the factual implications of morality within
philosophcial materialism. So, with you being agnostic, I either have to
assume that you are a believer in materialism and don't understand its moral
theory therein. Or you in fact reject materialism for some sort of
supernaturalism (as it may be called) with regards to your moral realism
beliefs.
Scott
You are arguing for tolerance for your moral preferences. That's the same as
saying tolerance is an objective moral standard (that you define) by which
everyone should adhere. I don't know if you realize it but you are arguing
against moral relativism and in do so you are also arguing against
materialsim. If tolerance is a moral fact by way a reason then mateialism is
false.
Colin Day
> "Colin Day" <cd...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:WtsMf.51073$%84.4...@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
>> Scott wrote:
>>> "Colin Day" <cd...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>>> Oh, so obedience to some guy in the Vatican is a "standard". Get a clue!
>>>>
>>>> Colin Day aa #1500
>>> It's as good as any.....to materialism. A moral code can be based upon
>>> one
>>> man's preference or the majority's. It makes no difference since there is
>>> no
>>> right or wrong social moral codes. There are only codes.
>>>
>>>
>> Are you saying that non-materialists could do better?
>
> That's not the issue. If materialism is true there is no "better". That's a
> factual theory about the nature of morality within philosophical
> materialism. I'm only explaining to materialist what philosophical
> materialism entails for moral beliefs. Aside from my thinking it's odd I'm
> having to do that in the first place, its up to them to deal with the moral
> implications of philosophical materialism. I can't help it if they don't
> like the moral implications. Nature is morally neutral. If a person is going
> to be a materialist, that person should not make statements that have a
> universal objectivist meaning....as you implied or Sebree stated. There can
> be no "better" moral standard since there would be no objectivity to measure
> any standards to.
And your claim that philosophical materialism is inconsistent with ethical
objectivity is true how? Why should a materialist accept that claim?
Nature may be morally neutral in the sense of not caring about us, but
is it neutral in the sense that our actions have no effect on it, and
therefore us?
>
> You said "Oh, so obedience to some guy in the Vatican is a "standard". Get a
> clue!" To materialism all moral standards are subjective and have no
> relation to an objective reality. In that sense then a standard can be based
> upon the intersubjective majority, the imperatives from a pope or an M.L.
> King, or from the dictates of a Saddam. To materialism, it makes no
> difference since they are all of equivalent subjective value.
>
What justification do you have to claim that? And how does this apply only
to materialists? What objective (as opposed to supernatural) basis does
the nonmaterialist have for ethics?
Colin Day aa #1500
Scott
"Johnny" <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%SIMf.63116$697....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
your welcome
very very very few people actually believe in moral relativism. Atheists
will *tell* you they think morals are subjective and relative but then they
fall back into an aboslutist, or objectivist reasoning in the *act* of
defend their moral positions. They do it all the time
http://radicalacademy.com/ethicsmyth.htm
Once you know how to pick up on their moral realism you can call them on it.
When ever their argument moves into the act of defending their moral
truths/realism they inadvertantly move to the position of rejecting
materialism. You rationally can't believe in both materialism and moral
realism at the same time but that is what secular humanists mistakenly do
when they say humans have human rights and reality is mateialistic. They
can't both be true at the same time.
Scott
Point to an objective moral. What's its chemical makeup? Or are objective
morals a part of electromagnetism?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_vitzthum/materialism.html
"On a materialist view, all codes of conduct must ultimately be man-made or
socially constructed; there are no objective moral laws existing
independently of sentient beings in the way that laws of nature do. Thus
there are no objective criteria for determining if human actions are right
or wrong. The objectivity of laws of nature is clear--our approximations to
them (laws of physics) are publicly falsifiable and can be corroborated by
empirical evidence. Moreover, unlike natural laws, moral laws can be
violated. But if what we call moral laws are really man-made inventions, our
ethical rules are arbitrary and thus individuals are not obligated to follow
them. Nothing makes an action objectively moral or immoral; individual and
social codes vary because ethics, like beauty, is in the eye of the
beholder. But then there are no compelling grounds for arguing that Aztec
human sacrifice, Nazi or Serbian genocide, or infanticide is really wrong."
>
> Nature may be morally neutral in the sense of not caring about us, but
> is it neutral in the sense that our actions have no effect on it, and
> therefore us?
Nature and materialism is both a-theistic and a-moralistic. You may grasp
the atheism of materialism but you have not come to grips (it seems) with
materialism's amoralism.
>
>>
>> You said "Oh, so obedience to some guy in the Vatican is a "standard".
>> Get a
>> clue!" To materialism all moral standards are subjective and have no
>> relation to an objective reality. In that sense then a standard can be
>> based
>> upon the intersubjective majority, the imperatives from a pope or an M.L.
>> King, or from the dictates of a Saddam. To materialism, it makes no
>> difference since they are all of equivalent subjective value.
>>
>
> What justification do you have to claim that?
easy. There can be no *real* standards since there could be no materialistic
standardards lending themselves to objectivity.
And how does this apply only
> to materialists? What objective (as opposed to supernatural) basis does
> the nonmaterialist have for ethics?
nonmaterialist obviously reject materialism for something else. For sure we
can say real morality (moral realisms/truths) have no material existence. To
materialism, what you say is moral or immoral, right or evil, has no more
factual reality than the gods materialism rejects.
A materialist who says he's *more* moral than a theist because he doesn't
rely upon some god is ignorant of philosophical materialism. "More moral"
implies an objective standard to measure some moral realism as being a
better discription.
bam
> bam wrote:
>> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>> news:1141055298....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > bam wrote:
>> >> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote
>>
>>
>> > More like as long as the laws are not oppressive and seek to force
>> > people to act in a manner that is prescribed by a religious belief
>> > system as the only reason for the law. For example, the so-called
>> > "blue laws".
>>
>> Blue laws do not "force one to act".
>
> They do, however, force one to observe religious beliefs that are not
> their own.
You can stay in bed all day you asshole. You don't have to "observe"
anything.
>
>> Can't you be accurate for once?
>
> I have been. You just don't like the fact that I am accurate.
Tooting your own horn.......
>
>> And do
>> you think prohibiting commercial sales on Sunday is oppressive?
>
> Yes. They are a specific implementation of a single religion's
> beliefs, and they can be in contradiction of another's own beliefs and
> can cause violation of those beliefs. For example, Jews and Seven Day
> Adventists consider Saturday, not Sunday, to be their day of Sabbath.
> According to Jewish belief, they are not supposed to work or travel on
> Saturday, with the exception of for emergencies or specific jobs that
> involve helping others or attending services. Therefore, they would do
> their shopping and work on Sunday, especially if they are devout.
> However, YOU would close down all the businesses that they would
> frequent. This causes them great inconvienence, since it is harder to
> shop at those businesses during the week if they close early. And if
> the person actually owns or runs such a business, it can be even worse.
Boo hoo. Tough to make a queer happy.
> By repealing the Blue Laws, you are lifting those restricts and you no
> longer are forcing your beliefs onto others.
All law is about beliefs about what's right and what's wrong.
Let that settle for awhile.
What you want is to deligitimitize any law that comes from God, and replace
them with laws that are created in the mind of an atheist. This is
revolutionary - start your own country - get out of ours. We believe in
God - and you are lucky we do, because if we didn't you'd be dead.
>A person can observe
> their day of worship if they wish on the day that he or she is supposed
> to, and still be able to have a day of shopping on the weekend. You
> let each person observe his or her beliefs in his or her own fashion
> according to its dictates.
Who are you to say what's right and what's wrong? You're headed for the
worm's gizzard - so shutup.
>> Perhaps you can name me a religious law that forces one to act.
>
> Blue Laws. You are forced to take Sunday off when your day of worship
> and sabbath is Saturday, and you are prevented from shopping on the day
> of the weekend you have available to do so. And as a store owner, you
> are forced to be closed and lose the income that being open would
> provide you on a day that would generate a signioficant quantity of
> income.
You're forced to take Sunday off? You're forced NOT to work. You are as
queer as Dick's hat.
BAM
bam
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote >>
>> > Did you ever look up the saints that I mentioned to you? Or are you
>> > still afriad to look? They were Saint Serge and Saint Bacchus. They
>> > are easy to find with a Google search.
>>
>> Go try that lame bullshit on a dope like yourself.
>
> So, you have not had the courage to learn about your own religion and
> the lies that they tell you.
>
>>
>> "Being as one in their love for Christ, they were also undivided from
>> each
>> other in the army of the world, united not by the way of nature, but in
>> the
>> manner of faith, always singing and saying, "Behold, how good and how
>> pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" They were adept
>> and
>> excellent soldiers of Christ, cultivating assiduously the inspired
>> writings
>> to combat diabolical error, and fighting vigorously in battle to defeat
>> the
>> enemy. "
>>
>> "United not by the way of nature" - can you read and comprehend you
>> pinhead??
>>
>
> And whom is that quote from?
Look it up you moron.
>And why should I care?
Because it proves your a dimwit.
>Just because you
> love a mythical and non-existant being does not make you a "good
> person", it just makes you self-deluded.
You are a zero. Nothing. A clod of dust.
>
> Your insults only show the weakness of your position.
I"m trying to help you with the truth
> You cannot best
> me, so you try to insult me.
I insult you because you're a scumbag.
Now tell me about our saints, you putz.
BAM
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism
>"bam" <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> writes:
>
>>"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
>>news:szku0ao...@fnord.io.com...
>>> "bam" <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> writes:
>
>>>>"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:1140817861.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>>> J Young wrote:
>
>>>>>> American-Catholics, by their sheer numbers of voters and representation
>>>>>> on the U.S. Supreme Court, should be the dominant power in American
>>>>>> politics today. Leaders like Bishop Robert F. Vasa need to be in the
>>>>>> forefront of the fight to make this a reality.
>
>>>>> No, they should not. They need to be at the bottom power in politics,
>>>>> because religion should stay out of politics all together in the first
>>>>> place.
>
>>>>A man with no religion is not fit to hold public office.
>
>>> You don't make the laws, moron. (I don't campaign in your "church", so
>>> you'll
>>> do me the courtesy of not preaching at my polling place.)
>
>>I guess we won't be voting for the same guy.
>
>Probably not. Some of us would rather see the Constitution remain in force.
But Diebold said; 'No' over six years ago.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
stoney
alt.atheism
>
>"Colin Day" <cd...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:QGkMf.51063$%84.1...@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
>> bam wrote:
>>> "Colin Day" <cd...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:pTNLf.50614$%84.4...@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
>>>> bam wrote:
>>>>> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1140817861.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> J Young wrote:
>>>>>>> American-Catholics, by their sheer numbers of voters and
>>>>>>> representation
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> the U.S. Supreme Court, should be the dominant power in American
>>>>>>> politics
>>>>>>> today. Leaders like Bishop Robert F. Vasa need to be in the forefront
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> fight to make this a reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, they should not. They need to be at the bottom power in politics,
>>>>>> because religion should stay out of politics all together in the first
>>>>>> place.
>>>>> A man with no religion is not fit to hold public office.
>>>>>
>>>>> BAM
>>>>>
>>>> Then why did the Founding Father ban religious tests for office in the
>>>> US Constitution?
>>>
>>> Because they were a bunch of asshole deists and Protestants and thought
>>> one
>>> man's opinion was as good as the next. Thus, no standards could be agreed
>>> upon.
>>>
>>> BAM
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Oh, so obedience to some guy in the Vatican is a "standard". Get a clue!
>>
>> Colin Day aa #1500
>
>It's as good as any.....to materialism.
Got it. The lack of morality is morality.
>A moral code can be based upon one
>man's preference or the majority's. It makes no difference since there is no
>right or wrong social moral codes. There are only codes.
There's much drooling idiocy as you demonstrate.
stoney
alt.atheism
>
>"Colin Day" <cd...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:WtsMf.51073$%84.4...@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
>> Scott wrote:
>>> "Colin Day" <cd...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>>> Oh, so obedience to some guy in the Vatican is a "standard". Get a clue!
>>>>
>>>> Colin Day aa #1500
>>>
>>> It's as good as any.....to materialism. A moral code can be based upon
>>> one
>>> man's preference or the majority's. It makes no difference since there is
>>> no
>>> right or wrong social moral codes. There are only codes.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Are you saying that non-materialists could do better?
>
>That's not the issue.
He's asking a question in search of information.
[]
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism
>"bam" <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> writes:
>
>>"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
>>news:d6hvv1hcgi5ake7a7...@4ax.com...
>>> What's so funny about peace, love and "bam"
>>> <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> posting the following on Fri, 24 Feb
>>> 2006 17:51:56 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
>
>>>>> No, they should not. They need to be at the bottom power in politics,
>>>>> because religion should stay out of politics all together in the first
>>>>> place.
>
>>>>A man with no religion is not fit to hold public office.
>
>>> Good thing the founding fathers realized that morons like you were
>>> around.
>
>>> "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
>>> the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
>>> Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
>>> be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
>>> religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
>>> or public Trust under the United States."
>
>>I'm a voter. I can make my own standards. And a man with no religion is not
>>fit to hold public office.
>
>...and anyone can ignore your opinions with impunity.
Yeah, we see how 'ethical' Christians in public office are.
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism
>*> sense. And given that there is no religious test required to hold
>any
>*> public office by law, it is unenforceable.
>*
>*It's unenforceable now - but we're gaining ground.
>
>I know: your country looks more and more like the religious
>fanatics-led countries you're fighting against...How ironic...
Since the US is mainly made up of craven cowards what else can be
expected? Freedom and Liberty require courage.