What is it REALLY like to be an atheist?

[Dreamer In Colore]

It's like being the parent of an autistic child.

People give you strange sympathetic looks in the grocery store, but
there's no way that they can understand what you're going through
because they have no clue how to step out of their own biases and
prejudices.

When you explain the child's behavior to onlookers, they nod
sympathetically but it's entirely outside the realm of their
understanding.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Christopher A. Lee]

And that's the problem - the belief is such a major part of the
theist's identity they can't get their minds around atheism.

What bugs me most are the idiots who imagine Christianity gives them
hope, purpose, morality etc and imagine that atheists can't have any
of these - like Lt. Colonel Kauzlarich's sheer nastiness towards Pat
Tillman's family in an interview on ESPN.

"These people have a hard time letting it go. It may be because of
their religious beliefs" and "When you die, I mean, there is
supposedly a better life, right? Well, if you are an atheist and you
don’t believe in anything, if you die, what is there to go to?
Nothing. You are worm dirt. So for their son to die for nothing and
now he is no more... I do not know how an atheist thinks, I can only
imagine that would be pretty tough."

We've all been on the receiving end of something like that.

Greta Christina discusses this sort of thing at

http://www.alternet.org/belief/9-questions-atheists-might-find-insulting-and-answers?paging=off
Sadly, the people who need to read that sort of thing, never will.

[jgkj...@yahoo.com.au]

On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 15:13:32 UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> [...]

> What bugs me most are the idiots who imagine Christianity
> gives them hope, purpose, morality etc and imagine that

> atheists can't have any of these - [...]

It really doesn't bug me at all. It isn't that I lack
emotion it is just I have come to the conclusion we
are all wired up differently. All you can do is change
what you can change and have enough sense to know when
trying to change someone is a waste of time.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:52:09 -0700 (PDT), jgkj...@yahoo.com.au
wrote:

You can't change others. All you can do is inspire the desire to
change in others.

Recognizing that others are wired differently is a good first step,
but that's like diagnosing a software bug and leaving it unfixed. You
have to either excise the bug, or route around it so that the code
doesn't affect other parts of the program.

Recognizing that a great deal of the world is wired to accept
religious belief isn't enough.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[raven1]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:01:21 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

Depends on where you live. In New York, it would be considered odd to
even bring up the topic of religion in conversation.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:15:05 -0400, raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:01:21 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>It's like being the parent of an autistic child.
>>
>>People give you strange sympathetic looks in the grocery store, but
>>there's no way that they can understand what you're going through
>>because they have no clue how to step out of their own biases and
>>prejudices.
>>
>>When you explain the child's behavior to onlookers, they nod
>>sympathetically but it's entirely outside the realm of their
>>understanding.
>
>Depends on where you live. In New York, it would be considered odd to
>even bring up the topic of religion in conversation.

Even in England - Tony Blair kept quiet about religion until he became
Prime Minister and everybody realised he was a religious nutter.

If he'd been open about it he would never have got elected to
parliament in the first place, let alone become Prime Minister.

Especially if it were known he'd "consult God" before initialing a war
of aggression that was illegal under international law.

[Dakota]

If people are giving you strange sympathetic looks in the grocery
store, it's probably about something more conspicuous than your lack
of belief in a god. :)

[jgkj...@yahoo.com.au]

On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 16:03:11 UTC-7, Dreamer In Colore wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:52:09 -0700 (PDT), casey wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 15:13:32 UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> What bugs me most are the idiots who imagine Christianity
> >> gives them hope, purpose, morality etc and imagine that
> >> atheists can't have any of these - [...]
> >
> > It really doesn't bug me at all. It isn't that I lack
> > emotion it is just I have come to the conclusion we
> > are all wired up differently. All you can do is change
> > what you can change and have enough sense to know when
> > trying to change someone is a waste of time.
>
> You can't change others. All you can do is inspire the
> desire to change in others.
>
> Recognizing that others are wired differently is a good
> first step, but that's like diagnosing a software bug
> and leaving it unfixed. You have to either excise the
> bug, or route around it so that the code doesn't affect
> other parts of the program.

Bugs in society can be like bugs in M$ in that you don't
have the skills or access to the proprietary software to
bring about any change, you just have to live with it.

> Recognizing that a great deal of the world is wired to
> accept religious belief isn't enough.

But it is unclear what you can do about it. This group
isn't going to change anything and the theist posters
so far have shown that reasoning with them is equivalent
to banging your head on a brick wall. They have not
come here for a reasoned exchange of views.

Of course when it comes to social conflict I really
don't see religion as a cause rather it is an excuse
to do what they wanted to do anyway. If you want
something the other person has then religion is a
"good" excuse to dispose them. Religion is a tool,
along with culture in which religion is intimately
intertwined, to achieve some political outcome.

Cheers,
Casey


>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dreamer
>
> AA 2306

[Malcolm McMahon]

Well I think the majority of atheists of my acquaintance don't give it the least thought. They let people make whatever assumptions they are comfortable with, and don't discuss it unless directly questioned.

Religious people assume they are Christians or whatever the local default religion is (which allows them to believe _they_ are the norm).

Even on a survey they might put "Christian" if they were christened or whatever, their "official" religion.

They don't consider it a topic for polite conversation (and this group does suggest religion is not a topic which lends to politeness.)

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:06:43 -0700 (PDT), jgkj...@yahoo.com.au

Well said.

Theists also tend to be much better organized than atheists, who in my
experience are cats that walk by themselves. It's only been in the
last few years that large-scale atheism has taken root, and it'll just
be a few more years before the extent of the scale-tipping is fully
revealed.

I'm not so concerned with democratic countries; things tend to work
out in favour of economics there anyway. It's the theocracies that
worry me: big populations, hot tempers, access to nuclear weaponry...

And the theists that post in this newsgroup don't see the irony in
their own fanaticism. I'm not sure whether to be amused or horrified.
Most days it's a weird combination of the two.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Les]

To extend the analogy further it is the Christans who are the
ones infected with a virus. A virus that swept Europe 2000
years ago. The virus is passed from parents to childen but
thanks to the spread of education and increased scientific
discovery the infection seem no to be diminishing rapidy
those who us who no longer practise relgion will not be
passing on relgion to their children so the chain of infection
is broken

At one time we pioneers were in a minorty but as those of
us without religion now gradually approach a majority of the
population, and have exceeded it in some European nations we are the
ones who are normal and the Christans 'different' in that they are
still infected with Christianity. Survey and census data after data
show this and the that less that one third of Christians sitll
practise it leaving empty churches to close.


The fanatics and die hards tha visit our newsgroup are far from
being normal people, they hardly rate as norma Christian
since they are of filled with spite and hatred and obssessedwith
relgion to the point they have subsumed their entire life to it
and thin nothing bu relgion day and night

That is how I shall look it from now, we are the ones who are
normal and the Christians and other relgions 'different' so the
questions will increasingly be 'What is it like to have religion?',
do you have any morality, do you support charities like the rest
of us and so on.

Ater all we have no relgious beliefs to justify whilst they have.


--
Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

"In our more diverse and secular society, the place of religion has
come to be a matter of lively discussion. It is rightly acknowledged
that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing
and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals
and groups of all faiths and of none. "

- Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
- from a speech to the Synond of the Church of England in 2010

[Christopher A. Lee]

Perhaps.

But like a lot of things, religion has to adapt to threats and
survive. Even when the threats aren't deliberately against it, like
education, people not believing, etc.

For a loooong time its response to those threats was burning at the
stake. A horrible way to die, which didn't just punish the person but
also discouraged potential straying.

Christianity has become very good at surviving during the last
nineteen centuries.

The Vatican's response to the Reformation was to kill Protestants as
heretics. And the Protestants returned the favour.

Eventually there was an uneasy truce.

But since then all sorts of other branches of Christianity have
appeared.

Some of them have adapted to modernity by losing many of their earlier
beliefs in the light of progress.

Others have adapted to it by attacking it head on, like the American
fundamentalists who are using all sorts of means to impose their
beliefs.

>At one time we pioneers were in a minorty but as those of
>us without religion now gradually approach a majority of the
>population, and have exceeded it in some European nations we are the
>ones who are normal and the Christans 'different' in that they are
>still infected with Christianity. Survey and census data after data
>show this and the that less that one third of Christians sitll
>practise it leaving empty churches to close.

Depends where you are - but even in Britain, American-style
fundamentalism seems to be on the increase, with its followers going
on the attack, eg the religious loonie who heads the Boy Scouts.

Fortunately in England at least, religious loonies get treated as
loonies by most people and religion doesn't get the kind of deference
expected in the USA.

>The fanatics and die hards tha visit our newsgroup are far from
>being normal people, they hardly rate as norma Christian
>since they are of filled with spite and hatred and obssessedwith
>relgion to the point they have subsumed their entire life to it
>and thin nothing bu relgion day and night

I've seen plenty of it off the net.

>That is how I shall look it from now, we are the ones who are
>normal and the Christians and other relgions 'different' so the
>questions will increasingly be 'What is it like to have religion?',
>do you have any morality, do you support charities like the rest
>of us and so on.

We are.

But you don't live in a country where atheists are the least trusted
minority, Christian fundamentalists outnumber the more reasonable
ones, and we are expected to put up with all sorts of bigotry,
discrimination and slanderous nastiness because it comes from somebody
else's religion - did you see the link to Greta Christina's article?

http://www.alternet.org/belief/9-questions-atheists-might-find-insulting-and-answers?paging=off.

[John Locke]

...most theist children are imprinted from birth with the image that
atheists are satanically possessed minions of the devil.

[duke]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:01:21 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>It's like being the parent of an autistic child.
>
>People give you strange sympathetic looks in the grocery store, but
>there's no way that they can understand what you're going through
>because they have no clue how to step out of their own biases and
>prejudices.

Meaning, of course, that your own views are not biases and prejudices. Funny
that.

The sad part about you atheist wannabe's is that you don't see what we see - the
values of God in our lives every day.

>When you explain the child's behavior to onlookers, they nod
>sympathetically but it's entirely outside the realm of their
>understanding.
>
>Cheers,
>Dreamer
>AA 2306

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
Five major US scandals and still going strong:
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:25:37 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote
some bullshit.


None was read. All was snipped, and the newsgroup was a happier place.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[jgkj...@yahoo.com.au]

On Wednesday, 19 June 2013 12:25:37 UTC-7, duke wrote:
> [...]

>
> The sad part about you atheist wannabe's is that
> you don't see what we see - the values of God in
> our lives every day.

What are the "values of God" we don't see?

All the religious people I know vary from the
self indulgent crazy person to the kind caring
individual working in a soup kitchen. I have
not seen any relationship between good values
and a belief or not in a god.

My interest in the existence of a god or not
is like my interest in the existence of atoms
or Bill Jones down the road and I look for
similar evidence for the existence not only
of a god but of a particular god of which
there as many versions as there are religions.

You believe in your version of a god but are
an atheist to other gods and in that sense
are no different to the atheist posters in
that you feel there is no evidence the other
versions of god existing.

Say so is not sufficient evidence that someone
or something exists. A personal god would be
more than capable of showing his/her existence
right here and now. Yes you make up stories
why god hides, talk about his great plan and
what he believes etc. and you can't see that
would throw up the same kind of red flag to
a thinking person that would be thrown up if
someone claimed Bill Jones exists but is in
hiding because it is part of his plans and
he only talks to those who believe in his
existence. The stories have all the hallmarks
of an imaginary god invented by individuals
who want control and power over others.

Of course you like to proclaim one day Bill
Jones will reveal himself proving you were
right and still not get that even if that
happened you still would have given no real
evidence that Bill Jones did exist and a
disbelief in Bill Jones was reasonable until
he actually appeared in person.


==

[Syd M.]

On Jun 19, 3:25 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:01:21 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>

> <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >It's like being the parent of an autistic child.
>
> >People give you strange sympathetic looks in the grocery store, but
> >there's no way that they can understand what you're going through
> >because they have no clue how to step out of their own biases and
> >prejudices.
>
> Meaning, of course, that your own views are not biases and prejudices.  Funny
> that.
>
> The sad part about you atheist wannabe's is that you don't see what we see - the
> values of God in our lives every day.
>

If your behaviour here is a example of 'god's values,' then no fucking
thanks, since they haven't made you any nicer a person.

PDW

[Les]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:25:37 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:01:21 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>It's like being the parent of an autistic child.
>>
>>People give you strange sympathetic looks in the grocery store, but
>>there's no way that they can understand what you're going through
>>because they have no clue how to step out of their own biases and
>>prejudices.
>
>Meaning, of course, that your own views are not biases and prejudices. Funny
>that.
>
>The sad part about you atheist wannabe's is that you don't see what we see - the
>values of God in our lives every day.

Just lucky I guess

<smirk>

[jgkj...@yahoo.com.au]

On Wednesday, 19 June 2013 08:38:27 UTC-7, Les wrote:
> [...]
>
> To extend the analogy further it is the Christians

> who are the ones infected with a virus.

A meme?

> At one time we pioneers were in a minorty but as
> those of us without religion now gradually
> approach a majority of the population, and have
> exceeded it in some European nations we are the
> ones who are normal and the Christans 'different'
> in that they are still infected with Christianity.
> Survey and census data after data show this and

> the that less that one third of Christians still

> practise it leaving empty churches to close.

I don't know if religion is really on the decline
even though traditional religion may be struggling.
Popular TV shows are filled with the supernatural
so it must have a strong appeal.

Even if there were no religions I believe wars
would still continue unabated. Irrational thoughts
and behaviours are not limited to the religious
and indeed I believe the good and evil of religion
is simply a reflection of human nature which will
not change as it is innate.

[...]

[Uncle Vic]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:h914s8hmc4rngsa8c...@4ax.com:

> The sad part about you atheist wannabe's is that you don't see what we
> see - the values of God in our lives every day.

Oh that's right, you're a Cat'lick. That means you can see things that
normal people can't. Outside of your church, do you know what that is
called?

Insanity.

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA

AA Quotemeister

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

[SkyEyes]

On Jun 19, 3:48 pm, jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au wrote:

> I don't know if religion is really on the decline
> even though traditional religion may be struggling.
> Popular TV shows are filled with the supernatural
> so it must have a strong appeal.

Not only do shows with strong supernatural content have appeal, they
serve to reinforce people's superstitions. I know people IRL who
*insist* that ghosts are real, because of the "Ghost Hunters"
programs. Ditto psychics.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Wednesday, 19 June 2013 23:48:28 UTC+1, jgkj...@yahoo.com.au wrote:

>
> Even if there were no religions I believe wars
>
> would still continue unabated. Irrational thoughts
>
> and behaviours are not limited to the religious
>
> and indeed I believe the good and evil of religion
>
> is simply a reflection of human nature which will
>
> not change as it is innate.
>
>

Can you really picture, say, the conflicts of the Middle East based on a conflict 1,500 years back being pursued without a religion to keep the "memory"

[jgkj...@yahoo.com.au]

On Thursday, 20 June 2013 03:03:49 UTC-7, Malcolm McMahon wrote:

> On Wednesday, 19 June 2013 23:48:28 UTC+1, casey wrote:
> >
> > Even if there were no religions I believe wars
> > would still continue unabated. Irrational thoughts
> > and behaviours are not limited to the religious
> > and indeed I believe the good and evil of religion
> > is simply a reflection of human nature which will
> > not change as it is innate.
>
> Can you really picture, say, the conflicts of the
> Middle East based on a conflict 1,500 years back
> being pursued without a religion to keep the
> "memory"

We come into the world, fight over resources, and
then leave, the same as any other living creature.

The "will of god" or past grievances are just a
convenient excuse to hide the real reason people
fight for land, wealth and power. The same process
takes place within nations where those born with
wealth, good looks, healthy bodies, smart brains
find reasons they deserve a good life while the
less fortunate are clearly just lazy and stupid
and deserve what happens to them.

It is called cognitive dissonance.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:28:08 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Jun 19, 3:48 pm, jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>
>> I don't know if religion is really on the decline
>> even though traditional religion may be struggling.
>> Popular TV shows are filled with the supernatural
>> so it must have a strong appeal.
>
>Not only do shows with strong supernatural content have appeal, they
>serve to reinforce people's superstitions. I know people IRL who
>*insist* that ghosts are real, because of the "Ghost Hunters"
>programs. Ditto psychics.

I made the mistake of Watching Walker, Texas Ranger the other day.
Hulk Hogan was the guest star and they both spent most of the hour
telling kids how Jesus saved them.

[duke]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:22:46 -0700 (PDT), jgkj...@yahoo.com.au wrote:

>On Wednesday, 19 June 2013 12:25:37 UTC-7, duke wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> The sad part about you atheist wannabe's is that
>> you don't see what we see - the values of God in
>> our lives every day.
>
>What are the "values of God" we don't see?

"You" is the proper wording. God gives us 2 commands - love and obey him, and
love and serve our neighbor in need.

There's nothing else. That's it.

>All the religious people I know vary from the
>self indulgent crazy person to the kind caring
>individual working in a soup kitchen. I have
>not seen any relationship between good values
>and a belief or not in a god.
>
>My interest in the existence of a god or not
>is like my interest in the existence of atoms
>or Bill Jones down the road and I look for
>similar evidence for the existence not only
>of a god but of a particular god of which
>there as many versions as there are religions.

>You believe in your version of a god but are
>an atheist to other gods and in that sense
>are no different to the atheist posters in
>that you feel there is no evidence the other
>versions of god existing.

God's presence is our midst, put in one phrase, is "creation of the universe and
all in it." That's it. Do you realize that every one of man's inventions is
patterned around the human body. Do you realize that the universe started out
as a infinitely small point of mass of infinite density that appeared in
nothingness and proceeded to expand outward to form our universe and all in it
including all mass, energy, time and outer space (which was not there for the
point to appear in?)

>Say so is not sufficient evidence that someone
>or something exists. A personal god would be
>more than capable of showing his/her existence
>right here and now. Yes you make up stories
>why god hides, talk about his great plan and
>what he believes etc. and you can't see that
>would throw up the same kind of red flag to
>a thinking person that would be thrown up if
>someone claimed Bill Jones exists but is in
>hiding because it is part of his plans and
>he only talks to those who believe in his
>existence. The stories have all the hallmarks
>of an imaginary god invented by individuals
>who want control and power over others.
>
>Of course you like to proclaim one day Bill
>Jones will reveal himself proving you were
>right and still not get that even if that
>happened you still would have given no real
>evidence that Bill Jones did exist and a
>disbelief in Bill Jones was reasonable until
>he actually appeared in person.

[duke]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:10:50 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:25:37 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:01:21 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>It's like being the parent of an autistic child.
>>>
>>>People give you strange sympathetic looks in the grocery store, but
>>>there's no way that they can understand what you're going through
>>>because they have no clue how to step out of their own biases and
>>>prejudices.
>>
>>Meaning, of course, that your own views are not biases and prejudices. Funny
>>that.
>>
>>The sad part about you atheist wannabe's is that you don't see what we see - the
>>values of God in our lives every day.
>
>Just lucky I guess

Yep, your tough luck.

[duke]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:00:39 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:h914s8hmc4rngsa8c...@4ax.com:
>
>> The sad part about you atheist wannabe's is that you don't see what we
>> see - the values of God in our lives every day.
>
>Oh that's right, you're a Cat'lick. That means you can see things that
>normal people can't. Outside of your church, do you know what that is
>called?
>
>Insanity.

Then it's a good thing I can't see things that aren't there.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 05:15:50 -0700 (PDT), jgkj...@yahoo.com.au
wrote:

This does NOT explain Dork: not rich, not good-looking, not healthy
body, not smart brain.....

>It is called cognitive dissonance.

Ahhh. This does.

Excellent and concise analogy.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Dreamer In Colore]

You live in the UK... with choices like Python, The Goodies, Mr. Bean,
Prime Suspect, Cracker... and you watched "Walker Texas Ranger"?

You've been spending way too much time in alt.atheism, Christopher.
The second that Chuck Norris appears on the tv, that's a clue to flick
the channel button.

Were you somehow paralysed at the time?

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:03:33 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:14:49 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:28:08 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 19, 3:48 pm, jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't know if religion is really on the decline
>>>> even though traditional religion may be struggling.
>>>> Popular TV shows are filled with the supernatural
>>>> so it must have a strong appeal.
>>>
>>>Not only do shows with strong supernatural content have appeal, they
>>>serve to reinforce people's superstitions. I know people IRL who
>>>*insist* that ghosts are real, because of the "Ghost Hunters"
>>>programs. Ditto psychics.
>>
>>I made the mistake of Watching Walker, Texas Ranger the other day.
>>Hulk Hogan was the guest star and they both spent most of the hour
>>telling kids how Jesus saved them.
>
>You live in the UK... with choices like Python, The Goodies, Mr. Bean,
>Prime Suspect, Cracker... and you watched "Walker Texas Ranger"?

I'm English but have lived in the USA since 1989.

>You've been spending way too much time in alt.atheism, Christopher.
>The second that Chuck Norris appears on the tv, that's a clue to flick
>the channel button.

I'm involuntarily retired due to ill health, - nobody will employ an
old phart with a serious lung problem after the startup I was working
for was put out of business by one of the industry's major players
with phony lawsuits we couldn't afford to keep fighting.

I watch the American news at 10.00 am Pacific time from WGN Chicago -
it's their midday news because I'm not always up in time for the
morning news programs.

But I get my world news from the BBC via satellite radio in the car.

Walker is the show following the news - and yes, it's crap.

>Were you somehow paralysed at the time?

I was sitting on the sofa with a late breakfast in a tray on my knee,
and the cat was showing too much interest so I didn't want to move.

I've never liked Chuck Norris movies - apparatus from his fight with
Bruce Lee in Way Of The Dragon.

At least Sylvester Stallone makes movies like Demolition Man and Bruce
Willis like Whole Nine Yards.

>Cheers,
>Dreamer
>AA 2306

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:21:51 -0700, Christopher A. Lee

I apologize for the assumption.

I completely understand fighting a lawsuit: I just got out from a four
year old nightmare that crippled my company. Turns out that fighting
til the end because you believe in justice more often than not ends up
being a pyrrhic victory.

I grudgingly give a bit of respect to Chuck because his martial arts
training was real. The fight between him and Lee is a benchmark. I've
really only ever liked Sly in two movies: "Tango and Cash" and
"Copland"...

Willis hit his peak in the first couple of seasons of Moonlighting,
and then had a minor victory with The Sixth Sense. My wife likes the
Die Hard movies, but my son can't take the scenes where his feet
bleed.

Soooo... expat. Do you miss the UK? What do you like about living in
the U.S.?

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[jgkj...@yahoo.com.au]

On Thursday, 20 June 2013 10:22:59 UTC-7, Dreamer In Colore wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 05:15:50 -0700 (PDT), casey wrote:
> >On Thursday, 20 June 2013 03:03:49 UTC-7, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, 19 June 2013 23:48:28 UTC+1, casey wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Even if there were no religions I believe wars
> >> > would still continue unabated. Irrational thoughts
> >> > and behaviours are not limited to the religious
> >> > and indeed I believe the good and evil of religion
> >> > is simply a reflection of human nature which will
> >> > not change as it is innate.
> >>
> >> Can you really picture, say, the conflicts of the
> >> Middle East based on a conflict 1,500 years back
> >> being pursued without a religion to keep the
> >> "memory"
> >
> >We come into the world, fight over resources, and
> >then leave, the same as any other living creature.
> >
> >The "will of god" or past grievances are just a
> >convenient excuse to hide the real reason people
> >fight for land, wealth and power. The same process
> >takes place within nations where those born with
> >wealth, good looks, healthy bodies, smart brains
> >find reasons they deserve a good life while the
> >less fortunate are clearly just lazy and stupid
> >and deserve what happens to them.
>
> This does NOT explain Dork: not rich, not good

> looking, not healthy body, not smart brain.....

The crux of what I meant was we all strive to succeed
in some way and listed why some are more successful
than others. God can be used by the not so successful
as an illusionary success. Think how important people
who believe they are friends with an almighty creator
of the Universe must feel! It is like name dropping
in real life. It gives a false sense of confidence
that no matter what crap they post here they are in
some way right.

Religion can also be used by the successful to control
the gullible losers to fight for them by conning them
into thinking they are doing god's work. The suicide
bombers are an extreme example of this.

[jgkj...@yahoo.com.au]

On Thursday, 20 June 2013 10:12:43 UTC-7, duke wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:22:46 -0700 (PDT), casey wrote:
>
> >What are the "values of God" we don't see?
>
> "You" is the proper wording. God gives us 2 commands

> - love and obey him, and love and serve our neighbour
> in need.

Love is something you earn. You can't love someone
who only exists in the imagination of believers.
Nice to know you serve those in need I assume you
mean you give money to charity and/or your own
time to helping people.

> Do you realize that every one of man's inventions is
> patterned around the human body.

I didn't know we moved around with wheels or used
rotating wings or squirted fire out our bums to fly.
I thought we thought with neurons not logic gates.
Do we strike a finger on our palms to make fire?
And to think I thought we needed matches.

Of course given a similar problem a similar solution
is probably not a surprise, your point being?

The eye is similar to a camera lens but unlike the
human eye with the retina on back the front we can
improve on the design. The human body has all the
hallmarks of an evolved system resulting in body
issues that if we could have designed it ourselves
would not exist.

> Do you realize that the universe started out as a
> infinitely small point of mass of infinite density
> that appeared in nothingness and proceeded to expand
> outward to form our universe and all in it including
> all mass, energy, time and outer space (which was
> not there for the point to appear in?)

Wow. Is that description in the Bible? Yes I have
kept up with the latest theories in physics and I
know how you lot cherry pick and use your ignorance
of the subject to force fit it to your beliefs.

[John Locke]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:13:54 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:00:39 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>news:h914s8hmc4rngsa8c...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> The sad part about you atheist wannabe's is that you don't see what we
>>> see - the values of God in our lives every day.
>>
>>Oh that's right, you're a Cat'lick. That means you can see things that
>>normal people can't. Outside of your church, do you know what that is
>>called?
>>
>>Insanity.
>
>Then it's a good thing I can't see things that aren't there.
>

...funny, most theists I know DO "see things that aren't
there"...that's the whole basis for religion...and of course,
some people who don't conform to standard religious norms
have been committed to asylums.

"When many people suffer from a delusion it's called a Religion. When
one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity."

Robert M. Pirsig

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:40:42 -0400, Dreamer In Colore

Thanks.

>I completely understand fighting a lawsuit: I just got out from a four
>year old nightmare that crippled my company. Turns out that fighting
>til the end because you believe in justice more often than not ends up
>being a pyrrhic victory.

It was nineteenth century robber baron stuff.

When the grunts saw the list of patents we were supposed to have
infringed, they were things every computer manufacturer does including
Intel whose chips we used, They also accused us of "stealing" an
undocumented instruction we had merely implemented as an almost
no-operation which simply returned a canned string that the software
expected.

>I grudgingly give a bit of respect to Chuck because his martial arts
>training was real. The fight between him and Lee is a benchmark.

And it fitted the context.

The trouble with most American movies with martial arts heroes, is
that everybody is a black belt even if they should just be heavies
using roundhouse punches, the hero is just a bigger black belt.

Eg I liked Van Damme in movies where he competed in a championship -
everybody he fought would be a martial artist.

> I've
>really only ever liked Sly in two movies: "Tango and Cash" and
>"Copland"...

I haven't been to the movies for years. When I worked in Silly Cone
Valley I used to stop off at the Shoreline movieplex if the traffic
was heavy, but after I moved to up-state New York I only saw them
in-flight when I flew back to California for the weekend. Christmas
etc.

Which I stopped doing after my lung problem made it difficult to fly
(planes pressurized to 9,000 feet).

Now I'm back in California again I only see them on TV.

>Willis hit his peak in the first couple of seasons of Moonlighting,
>and then had a minor victory with The Sixth Sense. My wife likes the
>Die Hard movies, but my son can't take the scenes where his feet
>bleed.

I was never into Moonlighting, it was too formulaic. Little different
from Cat and Dog, Remington Steele and a whole slew of others. I liked
Cybille Shepherd though. Willis was just another pretty boy with a
head of hair he lost later.

Dempsey and Makepeace was just as formulaic though and silly because
the two used guns like American TV defectives - in London..

>Soooo... expat. Do you miss the UK? What do you like about living in
>the U.S.?

I've never really settled down in the USA, and even when I last went
back to Britain it had evolved since I left. It wasn't the same place
any more so I'm neither English nor American.

I came out on a serious promotion from a field engineer to work in my
employer's Silly Cone Valley HQ but they went under in 2000.

I miss British food. I miss British TV and radio without commercials -
BBC America is a commercial station. I miss the overall quality of the
programs although you get some on local public television, I miss good
public transport. I miss the NHS.

I missed British beer until I had to give up alcohol as part of
staying healthy after my lung problem.

I miss the British reserve. Americans can be very in-your face, and
not just about religion.

I miss British sport, Especially cricket.

They do play what they call soccer here, but even though there is a
league you don't get much on the regular TV channels because its
format doesn't fit American TV. When they held the World Cup here
they'd have a commercial break if the ball went behind for a goal
kick, and yes it was "welcome back the game, where you have just
missed a goal" - my aging memory tells me is was Germany and Brazil.

What do I like about it?

At one time there was so much money here so they had no problem
attracting superstars for concerts and other events, I went to see
Placido Domingo twice (in San Jose and San Francisco), Monserrat
Caballe (a world famous Spanish soprano, in Cupertino), Janos Starker
(a world famous Hungarian cellist) giving a concert at Stanford
university), etc.

In the San Francisco Bay Area there are highly educated immigrant
communities from all over the world, with their own shops and
restaurants. It's the melting pot they used to talk about.

My Lady Friend is also part of the melting pot, from India - she's one
of the reasons I like it here.

Cheap petrol. But because of the distances you often have to drive,
you can lose that advantage.

>Cheers,
>Dreamer
>AA 2306

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <r3n6s85liqckd0rjg...@4ax.com>,

Wow, somebody else who's actually heard of this show. Though it was Dog
and Cat, actually. My first exposure to Kim Basinger.

> Remington Steele and a whole slew of others. I liked
> Cybille Shepherd though. Willis was just another pretty boy with a
> head of hair he lost later.

I adore Willis. The silly adorable smirk of his.

> Dempsey and Makepeace was just as formulaic though and silly because
> the two used guns like American TV defectives - in London..

I actually bought the DVDs of this since US tv only showed Season 1. Do
you know that the 2 stars have been married to each other since 1989?

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Christopher A. Lee]

She was beautiful, and she kept her looks.

>> Remington Steele and a whole slew of others. I liked
>> Cybille Shepherd though. Willis was just another pretty boy with a
>> head of hair he lost later.
>
>I adore Willis. The silly adorable smirk of his.

I find it annoying.

>> Dempsey and Makepeace was just as formulaic though and silly because
>> the two used guns like American TV defectives - in London..
>
>I actually bought the DVDs of this since US tv only showed Season 1. Do
>you know that the 2 stars have been married to each other since 1989?

I knew they were married, that was news whwn the show first came out.

Prior to that she was Soolin in Blake's Seven and played Jane - based
on a WW2 and 1950s comic strip in the Daily Mirror.

I think the last time I saw her was in an episode of New Tricks, And
him in an episode of Jonathan Creek.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:40:41 -0700, Christopher A. Lee

Thank you, Christopher. Pleasure to meet you, in a virtual sense.

I miss the England I grew up in, but it's a mirage seen through 9 year
old eyes.

Still, there's a very good methodology in place for obtaining one's
Anglo fix in the rest of the world... so the melting pot works to
everyone's advantage.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[kmarti...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 6:01:21 PM UTC-4, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
> It's like being the parent of an autistic child.
>
>
>
> People give you strange sympathetic looks in the grocery store, but
>
> there's no way that they can understand what you're going through
>
> because they have no clue how to step out of their own biases and
>
> prejudices.
>
>
>

[Virgil]

Free from phony guilt and paranoid moral codes.
--

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:36:14 -0600, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

>Free from phony guilt and paranoid moral codes.

Nice! Concise and to the point. Well done, Virgil.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[kmarti...@gmail.com]

My personal opinion as an Atheist is that people who claim religious virtue do so out of fear. They cant fathom the idea that after life there may be the same outcome that we experienced before life - NOTHINGNESS.Some use the forgiveness of god to exorcise guilt for wrong doing. Atheist carry all burdens and it sometimes suks but which of the 2 is more likely to repeat sins?

Ive struggled with religion my entire life.At age 30 I became clean & sober after years of addiction 22yrs @ 30yrs old.I thought I'd found god as my higher power.Ive stayed clean & sober for 18 years so far.No matter how I tried to believe in god it was a lie because I couldnt convince myself of his existance so I stopped lying and have been Atheist ever since.My lie made me feel worse than drugs use to.The burden of faking "belief" made me decide to study Physics & chemistry I now consider my creator "god" to be the universe itself.Physics,chemistry,biology,cosmology,arithmatic all explain how everything was created. I believe in a differant creator who doesnt give me free will and become angry when I choose wrong. My creator leaves room for the atoms my body to be recycled eternaly and infinitely.
If im wrong and anger the Christian god enough to damn me to hell I simply want no part of that god.I would hope his judgement wouldnt be based on pety differances.If not at least Im not lying about my beliefs.

[jgkj...@yahoo.com.au]

On Thursday, 20 June 2013 21:47:08 UTC-7, kmarti...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]
> I’ve struggled with religion my entire life.

> At age 30 I became clean & sober after years

> of addiction 22yrs @ 30yrs old. I thought I'd
> found god as my higher power. I've stayed clean
> & sober for 18 years so far. No matter how I

> tried to believe in god it was a lie because

> I couldn’t convince myself of his existence so

> I stopped lying and have been Atheist ever

> since. My lie made me feel worse than drugs
> use to. The burden of faking "belief" made me

> decide to study Physics & chemistry I now
> consider my creator "god" to be the universe
> itself. Physics, chemistry, biology, cosmology,

> arithmetic all explain how everything was
> created. I believe in a different creator who
> doesn’t give me free will and become angry when

> I choose wrong. My creator leaves room for the

> atoms my body to be recycled eternally and
> infinitely.

The big question is who are -you- apart from
your body. That which awakes each morning.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:47:08 -0700 (PDT), kmarti...@gmail.com
wrote:

>
>My personal opinion as an Atheist is that people who claim religious
>virtue do so out of fear. They cant fathom the idea that after life
>there may be the same outcome that we experienced before life
>- NOTHINGNESS.Some use the forgiveness of god to exorcise
>guilt for wrong doing. Atheist carry all burdens and it
>sometimes suks but which of the 2 is more likely to repeat sins?
>

>Ive struggled with religion my entire life.At age 30 I became
>clean & sober after years of addiction 22yrs @ 30yrs old.
>I thought I'd found god as my higher power.Ive stayed clean
>& sober for 18 years so far.No matter how I tried to believe
>in god it was a lie because I couldnt convince myself of his
>existance so I stopped lying and have been Atheist ever
>since.My lie made me feel worse than drugs use to.
>The burden of faking "belief" made me decide to study
>Physics & chemistry I now consider my creator "god" to be
>the universe itself.Physics,chemistry,biology,cosmology,arithmatic
>all explain how everything was created. I believe in a differant
>creator who doesnt give me free will and become angry
>when I choose wrong. My creator leaves room for the
>atoms my body to be recycled eternaly and infinitely.

> If im wrong and anger the Christian god enough to damn
>me to hell I simply want no part of that god.I would
>hope his judgement wouldnt be based on pety differances.
>If not at least Im not lying about my beliefs.

First of all, thanks for that personal revelation. Took a lot of guts.

Second, I wouldn't worry so much about angering the Christian God or
any other sky pixie. Any entity capable of creating and forming entire
universes isn't going to worry too much about your personal feelings.

All you need to do is keep trying to make the world a better place.
One day at a time. Doesn't have to be huge.... just has to be
positive.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <b98a7080-dede-4124...@googlegroups.com>,

I send you my best wishes in your continued fight against addiction and
congratulate you on allowing yourself to live in reality.

[Malcolm McMahon]

But most people want a quiet life. and there's an instinct for cooperation as well as for competition.

Religious sectarianism (_especially_ within a broad religion), create fault lines on which a society can split. These weaken the forces of social cohesion.

If you take a country like Lebanon which has had a period of relative peace and the majority of whose citizens, I think, want nothing but a period of stability. Yet the Syrian conflict threatens to split the country again along the Shia/Sunni divide.

[Alex W]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:40:41 -0700, Christopher A. Lee

wrote:

>
> I miss the British reserve. Americans can be very in-your face, and
> not just about religion.
>
> I miss British sport, Especially cricket.

They do play cricket in the States, so you should be able to
amble along and catch a local one-day match. It may not be
the Ashes at the Oval, but it's better than nothing.

http://newyorkcricket.com/

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <be1280b8-787d-4a5e...@googlegroups.com>,

I'm wondering if we're reaching a tipping point, where enough people
will have educations and expect better and they can no longer be denied
freedom. Where the Stone Age attitudes of their leaders (both secular
and religious) can no longer be tolerated. When they will no longer
accept a life for their children in a war zone.

Yeah, I have a touch of utopianism. But I know it's delusional, so I'm
still okay.

[jgkj...@yahoo.com.au]

On Friday, 21 June 2013 03:14:39 UTC-7, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> [...]

> I'm wondering if we're reaching a tipping point, where enough people
> will have educations and expect better and they can no longer be denied
> freedom. Where the Stone Age attitudes of their leaders (both secular
> and religious) can no longer be tolerated. When they will no longer
> accept a life for their children in a war zone.

Education doesn't stop people being arse holes
they still grab what they can and to hell with
those who they reject as being losers.

> Yeah, I have a touch of utopianism. But I know it's delusional, so I'm
> still okay.

No Utopia without Utopians. Real societies
are made up of people who emotionally have
not changed since the stone age.

[Malcolm McMahon]

The trouble is that leaders, in most systems, self-select for sociopathy.

I think it was Plato that complained that the wise had no interest in leading, and needed to be forced to do so. Occassionaly we see an intelligent, decent man who becomes a leader more or less by accident. Mostly they are destroyed by the experience, but some go on to be major civilising influences.

You can't have the kind of life most people want good governance to make possible for them _and_ actually do the governing.

[vivapa...@aol.com]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:01:21 PM UTC-7, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
> It's like being the parent of an autistic child.
>
>
>
> People give you strange sympathetic looks in the grocery store, but
>
> there's no way that they can understand what you're going through
>
> because they have no clue how to step out of their own biases and
>
> prejudices.
>
>
>
> When you explain the child's behavior to onlookers, they nod
>
> sympathetically but it's entirely outside the realm of their
>
> understanding.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dreamer
>
> AA 2306

Confucius say: Man who knows ways of jackass knows ways of atheist.

[Alex W]

I don't think that education will be enough. It is not only
human but indeed rational and even logical for an individual
to accept the premise that he is part of a successful -- not
to say superior -- association (tribal, political, ethnic)
and to believe and support the resulting promises of
preferential treatment and material benefits.

Don't forget either the amazing capacity of the human mind
to recalibrate just about any set of circumstances as
"normality". Thus, people who have come to accept constant
tension interrupted by bouts of intense fighting and killing
as normal, they will not only perpetuate it but pass it on
to their children: "we have always feuded with the lot from
the next village over" means that education and expanded
horizons can only have a chance if there should ever be a
period of peace long enough for the mental calibration of
what is normal to be reset.

[duke]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:45:19 -0700 (PDT), jgkj...@yahoo.com.au wrote:

>On Thursday, 20 June 2013 10:12:43 UTC-7, duke wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:22:46 -0700 (PDT), casey wrote:
>>
>> >What are the "values of God" we don't see?
>>
>> "You" is the proper wording. God gives us 2 commands
>> - love and obey him, and love and serve our neighbour
>> in need.

>Love is something you earn. You can't love someone
>who only exists in the imagination of believers.

Yet God created and here we are now - thanks be to God.

>Nice to know you serve those in need I assume you
>mean you give money to charity and/or your own
>time to helping people.

Yep.

>> Do you realize that every one of man's inventions is
>> patterned around the human body.

>I didn't know we moved around with wheels or used
>rotating wings or squirted fire out our bums to fly.

Wheels are nothing more than a ball and socket. Your brain functions of tiny
electrical currents.

>I thought we thought with neurons not logic gates.
>Do we strike a finger on our palms to make fire?
>And to think I thought we needed matches.

Lightning took care of that.

>Of course given a similar problem a similar solution
>is probably not a surprise, your point being?

Isn't God great. We have our brain (computer), eyes to see (lenses), lungs to
transfer oxygen gases, hearts for pumps, kidneys for waste filters, stomach for
digestion, and on and on and on.

>
>The eye is similar to a camera lens but unlike the
>human eye with the retina on back the front we can
>improve on the design. The human body has all the
>hallmarks of an evolved system resulting in body
>issues that if we could have designed it ourselves
>would not exist.

Do you know why your eyes are separated?

>> Do you realize that the universe started out as a
>> infinitely small point of mass of infinite density
>> that appeared in nothingness and proceeded to expand
>> outward to form our universe and all in it including
>> all mass, energy, time and outer space (which was
>> not there for the point to appear in?)

>Wow. Is that description in the Bible?

Creation of all that is - yes.

>Yes I have
>kept up with the latest theories in physics and I
>know how you lot cherry pick and use your ignorance
>of the subject to force fit it to your beliefs.

When you can disprove my statement, let's see what you got.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
Five major US scandals and still going strong:
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************

[duke]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:21:52 -0700, John Locke <johnnyd...@demonmail.com>

wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:13:54 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:00:39 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>news:h914s8hmc4rngsa8c...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> The sad part about you atheist wannabe's is that you don't see what we
>>>> see - the values of God in our lives every day.
>>>
>>>Oh that's right, you're a Cat'lick. That means you can see things that
>>>normal people can't. Outside of your church, do you know what that is
>>>called?
>>>
>>>Insanity.
>>
>>Then it's a good thing I can't see things that aren't there.
>>
>...funny, most theists I know DO "see things that aren't
>there"...that's the whole basis for religion...and of course,
>some people who don't conform to standard religious norms
>have been committed to asylums.

That God is in our midst is a given. Either that or everything from the
universe to a germ is a pure accident. God created and turned it over to
evolution.

[Giorgos Tzampanakis]

On 2013-06-19, jgkj...@yahoo.com.au wrote:

> On Wednesday, 19 June 2013 08:38:27 UTC-7, Les wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> To extend the analogy further it is the Christians
>> who are the ones infected with a virus.
>
> A meme?
>
>
>> At one time we pioneers were in a minorty but as
>> those of us without religion now gradually
>> approach a majority of the population, and have
>> exceeded it in some European nations we are the
>> ones who are normal and the Christans 'different'
>> in that they are still infected with Christianity.
>> Survey and census data after data show this and
>> the that less that one third of Christians still
>> practise it leaving empty churches to close.

>
> I don't know if religion is really on the decline
> even though traditional religion may be struggling.
> Popular TV shows are filled with the supernatural
> so it must have a strong appeal.
>

> Even if there were no religions I believe wars
> would still continue unabated. Irrational thoughts
> and behaviours are not limited to the religious
> and indeed I believe the good and evil of religion
> is simply a reflection of human nature which will
> not change as it is innate.

I disagree. I believe that there is no better way to stop wars than
educating people and there is no better way to eradicate religion than
educating people. Take it from there :-)

--
Real (i.e. statistical) tennis and snooker player rankings and ratings:
http://www.statsfair.com/

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 22:31:55 +0000 (UTC), Giorgos Tzampanakis
<giorgos.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Real (i.e. statistical) tennis and snooker player rankings and ratings:
>http://www.statsfair.com/

Real tennis isn't what you think it is. It's an indoor game related to
squash or rackets....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_tennis

[hypatiab7]

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:13:54 PM UTC-4, duke wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:00:39 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>
> >news:h914s8hmc4rngsa8c...@4ax.com:
>
> >
>
> >> The sad part about you atheist wannabe's is that you don't see what we
>
> >> see - the values of God in our lives every day.
>
> >
>
> >Oh that's right, you're a Cat'lick. That means you can see things that
>
> >normal people can't. Outside of your church, do you know what that is
>
> >called?
>
> >
>
> >Insanity.
>
>
>
> Then it's a good thing I can't see things that aren't there.
>
>

Youre missing the point, as usual. You are seeing and hearing things
that aren't there. Why do you think people avoid you so much?

[jgkj...@yahoo.com.au]

On Saturday, 22 June 2013 11:16:21 UTC-7, duke wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:45:19 -0700 (PDT), casey wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, 20 June 2013 10:12:43 UTC-7, duke wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:22:46 -0700 (PDT), casey wrote:
> >>
> >> >What are the "values of God" we don't see?
> >>
> >> "You" is the proper wording. God gives us 2 commands
> >> - love and obey him, and love and serve our neighbour
> >> in need.
>
> >Love is something you earn. You can't love someone
> >who only exists in the imagination of believers.
>
> Yet God created and here we are now - thanks be to God.

Nope thanks be to your parents that got it together.
No god was observed in the process.

[snip what is clearly two conversations over each other]

[jgkj...@yahoo.com.au]

On Sunday, 23 June 2013 15:31:55 UTC-7, Giorgos Tzampanakis wrote:

Educated people will still make war they will just
be cleverer at it. We come into the world, fight
and negotiate over resources and then leave, like
every other living animal.

[kmarti...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 2:21:22 PM UTC-4, duke wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:21:52 -0700, John Locke <johnnyd...@demonmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:13:54 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:00:39 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>
> >>>news:h914s8hmc4rngsa8c...@4ax.com:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> The sad part about you atheist wannabe's is that you don't see what we
>
> >>>> see - the values of God in our lives every day.
>
> >>>
>
> >>>Oh that's right, you're a Cat'lick. That means you can see things that
>
> >>>normal people can't. Outside of your church, do you know what that is
>
> >>>called?
>
> >>>
>
> >>>Insanity.
>
> >>
>
> >>Then it's a good thing I can't see things that aren't there.
>
> >>
>
> >...funny, most theists I know DO "see things that aren't
>
> >there"...that's the whole basis for religion...and of course,
>
> >some people who don't conform to standard religious norms
>
> >have been committed to asylums.
>
>
>
> That God is in our midst is a given. Either that or everything from the
>
> universe to a germ is a pure accident. God created and turned it over to
>
> evolution.
>
>
>
> The dukester, American - American
>

> God is a invisible majician that believers can have a 1-way conversation with who made man in his image and provided us with the power of choice "free will". Hes provided mankind with rules that negate "free will". The punishment for disobedience depends on the degree of compliance an individual claims he has in his faith that god exist. If man "believes" he's permitted to sin & sin again. For all others God promises eternal torture. God is apparantly a sadist. What a crock of shit. Only idiots who want to sin without guilt would buy this demented myth.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 13:21:22 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:21:52 -0700, John Locke <johnnyd...@demonmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:13:54 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:00:39 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>>news:h914s8hmc4rngsa8c...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> The sad part about you atheist wannabe's is that you don't see what we
>>>>> see - the values of God in our lives every day.
>>>>
>>>>Oh that's right, you're a Cat'lick. That means you can see things that
>>>>normal people can't. Outside of your church, do you know what that is
>>>>called?
>>>>
>>>>Insanity.
>>>
>>>Then it's a good thing I can't see things that aren't there.
>>>
>>...funny, most theists I know DO "see things that aren't
>>there"...that's the whole basis for religion...and of course,
>>some people who don't conform to standard religious norms
>>have been committed to asylums.
>
>That God is in our midst is a given. Either that or everything from the
>universe to a germ is a pure accident. God created and turned it over to
>evolution.
>

Thank you for demonstrating your colossal ignorance of how evolution
works, you troglodyte.

You have no evidence for a supernatural being responsible for the
creation of the universe... just hearsay and a book that has been
revised several times to suit the purposes of the times.

Does it not bother you that the sky pixie created the universe and
then vanished, never to be heard from again? If this is your logic,
then I say a pink unicorn poofed the universe into existence out of
its own ass... and I say it's true! I've got a book!

See how dumb that sounds, troglodyte?

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 22:31:55 +0000 (UTC), Giorgos Tzampanakis
<giorgos.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

How do you get the education into people that live in theocracies that
don't support the notion? The grass roots efforts of the Arab spring
are a good start, but there will be much pain and suffering before
there is meaningful change.

I fully agree, by the way. Education's the key...

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Wisely Non-Theist]

In article <i3hfs8hu7878ccuqd...@4ax.com>,

Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 13:21:22 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> >That God is in our midst is a given.

It s only given to idiots.

Those who are not idiots can see that the world goes on quite nicely
without hypothesizing any particular deity, and n many ways far better
where there is little or no belief in or reliance on any deity.

>
> You have no evidence for a supernatural being responsible for the
> creation of the universe... just hearsay and a book that has been
> revised several times to suit the purposes of the times.
>
> Does it not bother you that the sky pixie created the universe and
> then vanished, never to be heard from again?

There is no reason to suppose any sky pixies were ever involved.

> If this is your logic,
> then I say a pink unicorn poofed the universe into existence out of
> its own ass.

makes morew sense than Duke's dodo.

[Alex W]

Is it?
Permit me to be more pessimistic.

Most wars are started by the ruling caste -- politicians,
the commercial classes, or the aristocracy. These are all
educated folk. In many cases, these wars are actively
supported by the educated classes in general. History,
then, does not appear to support the thesis that education
promotes peace.

As regards religion, centuries of secular education in
America has bred the planet's most exuberant materialistic
society but has not even begun to eradicate religion there
-- quite the contrary. Also bear in mind that terrorists,
as the most extreme representatives of a religion, do
surprisingly often hail from well-to-do families and had
expensive and extensive education lavished upon them.

Perhaps it is with religion as it is with scams in general:
there is no bigger fool than the educated fool.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <1tnbppq8vkdcs$.1xcxwejgivi82$.d...@40tude.net>,

Of course this is why the Republicans are trying to destroy public
education in this country. If the only educated folk are the elites,
they can play their stupid games with the people.

I was speaking of education for EVERYone, a good one.

No, it won't end all wars, but it'll certain make them harder to start
if the cannon fodder is well-educated.

> As regards religion, centuries of secular education in
> America has bred the planet's most exuberant materialistic
> society but has not even begun to eradicate religion there
> -- quite the contrary. Also bear in mind that terrorists,
> as the most extreme representatives of a religion, do
> surprisingly often hail from well-to-do families and had
> expensive and extensive education lavished upon them.

Yep, they're from the same elite as the Koch Brothers and Art Pope, who
don't want highly educated people among the masses thwarting their
ambitions.

> Perhaps it is with religion as it is with scams in general:
> there is no bigger fool than the educated fool.

The educated elites ain't the fools. They know how dangerous it is for
their agendas if the masses are educated enough not to believe their
bullshit.

[Dreamer In Colore]

Sure. I'm totally good with "English Devil's Advocate"... <grin>.

>Most wars are started by the ruling caste -- politicians,
>the commercial classes, or the aristocracy. These are all
>educated folk.

Bush Jr?

>In many cases, these wars are actively
>supported by the educated classes in general. History,
>then, does not appear to support the thesis that education
>promotes peace.
>

The invention of the printing press brought about the Renaissance. So,
more people got to read... and things changed.

More educated people brings about more change. Without that spark, we
get stagnant, and ruling castes just get to continue.

>As regards religion, centuries of secular education in
>America has bred the planet's most exuberant materialistic
>society but has not even begun to eradicate religion there
>-- quite the contrary.

Perhaps the quality of the secular education needs to be re-examined.
It's not hard to find statistics that demonstrate that American
education isn't what it used to be.

I'm not sure the big problem is with the education itself, though. I
think it's more the culture of entitlement that has been fostered over
the last few years.

>Also bear in mind that terrorists,
>as the most extreme representatives of a religion, do
>surprisingly often hail from well-to-do families and had
>expensive and extensive education lavished upon them.
>

True enough. They reject the premise of Western civilization as
decadent and corrupt, and they believe that steering planes into
buildings is an acceptable response. The people teaching them THAT
particular conceit are the ones to blame.... that's not the result of
a secular education at all.

>Perhaps it is with religion as it is with scams in general:
>there is no bigger fool than the educated fool.

There are some very charismatic religious leaders that tap into the
zeitgeist and produce some heinous results. Does this mean that you
abandon the idea of secular education? No... you have to keep
spreading the word that violence isn't a substitute for clear and
rational thinking.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Alex W]

See, that is where I am not sure that the historical
evidence supports you.

Take World War I: it was greeted with near-universal acclaim
and approval by all European nations, sporting not only a
powerful and extremely well-educated leadership but also a
general population that was in some respects better-educated
than today's right through the social classes. The cannon
fodder was well educated, and still they volunteered for the
trenches.

Germany on the eve of WWII had perhaps the best-educated
most advanced population of all participants. They were
world leaders in the arts and sciences -- all scientific
journals of the day that mattered were German, and
scientists who were serious about their careers all learned
German -- and their technology was at the cutting edge of
human knowledge. They had more theatres, opera houses,
museums, schools and universities per citizen than just
about anyone else. Literacy and numeracy were close to
unversal, and the schooling was as comprehensive and
thorough as the German mindset could make it. And yet they
willingly, joyfully threw themselves into the next war.

Or take Israel: most of their military operations are
supported and approved of by a majority of the population,
and the one thing you cannot say about Israelis without
lying is that they are not educated. There is an
un(der)educated class in Israel, and it is largely congruent
with Muslim and Christian residents and citizens. The
mainstream Israeli is quite possibly the best-educated
citizen in the world, and they tend to support the shooting,
even though universal military service means that their own
sons and daughters are in the front line.

>
>> As regards religion, centuries of secular education in
>> America has bred the planet's most exuberant materialistic
>> society but has not even begun to eradicate religion there
>> -- quite the contrary. Also bear in mind that terrorists,
>> as the most extreme representatives of a religion, do
>> surprisingly often hail from well-to-do families and had
>> expensive and extensive education lavished upon them.
>
> Yep, they're from the same elite as the Koch Brothers and Art Pope, who
> don't want highly educated people among the masses thwarting their
> ambitions.
>
>
>> Perhaps it is with religion as it is with scams in general:
>> there is no bigger fool than the educated fool.
>
> The educated elites ain't the fools. They know how dangerous it is for
> their agendas if the masses are educated enough not to believe their
> bullshit.

That's something I am not sure of, either. Take the
Nigerian "419" scams: they are practically as old as the
internet and one would think that only knuckle-dragging
morons fall for them. One would think wrong. A great many
victims turn out to be well-educated, smart people. These
are individuals who are used to being smarter than others
and so are often less on their guard, often overrate their
own expertise and ability, and very often respond
toego-massaging appeals to their superior position and
privilege. The same works in politics.

[Alex W]

One of my favourite games...
<BEG>

(.... well, not counting strip poker....)

>
>>Most wars are started by the ruling caste -- politicians,
>>the commercial classes, or the aristocracy. These are all
>>educated folk.
>
> Bush Jr?

Educated does not equate to smart.
Plenty of educated morons.

>
>>In many cases, these wars are actively
>>supported by the educated classes in general. History,
>>then, does not appear to support the thesis that education
>>promotes peace.
>>
>
> The invention of the printing press brought about the Renaissance. So,
> more people got to read... and things changed.

... and almost the first thing they did was to start wars
based on what they read. In terms of devastation and loss
of life as a percentage of the population, the worst war in
European history was the Thirty Years' War which was the
direct result of people reading the bible and making up
their own minds about what it should mean. Less education
would have meant less bloodshed.

>
> More educated people brings about more change. Without that spark, we
> get stagnant, and ruling castes just get to continue.

Is this where we get into a fundamental discussion on
sustainable levels and speeds of change?

>
>>As regards religion, centuries of secular education in
>>America has bred the planet's most exuberant materialistic
>>society but has not even begun to eradicate religion there
>>-- quite the contrary.
>
> Perhaps the quality of the secular education needs to be re-examined.
> It's not hard to find statistics that demonstrate that American
> education isn't what it used to be.

It may well be that American education is not as good as it
could be or should be or used to be. But it used to be
pretty darn decent, and universal schooling meant that the
whole population participated.

>
> I'm not sure the big problem is with the education itself, though. I
> think it's more the culture of entitlement that has been fostered over
> the last few years.

Which is another issue entiely, and not one worth debating
since I strongly suspect we'd agree.

>
>>Also bear in mind that terrorists,
>>as the most extreme representatives of a religion, do
>>surprisingly often hail from well-to-do families and had
>>expensive and extensive education lavished upon them.
>>
>
> True enough. They reject the premise of Western civilization as
> decadent and corrupt, and they believe that steering planes into
> buildings is an acceptable response. The people teaching them THAT
> particular conceit are the ones to blame.... that's not the result of
> a secular education at all.

The one question this is raises is that it does seem to show
up a certain shortcoming in the answers offered by our
secular materialist Western culture. I would not wish to
suggest that religion is the answer, but considering the
numbers who are not satisfied there may be points we would
do well to address more seriously.

>
>>Perhaps it is with religion as it is with scams in general:
>>there is no bigger fool than the educated fool.
>
> There are some very charismatic religious leaders that tap into the
> zeitgeist and produce some heinous results. Does this mean that you
> abandon the idea of secular education? No... you have to keep
> spreading the word that violence isn't a substitute for clear and
> rational thinking.

Although it must be said that clear and rational thinking,
along with its corollaries that preach education,
communication and discourse, are not a total substitute for
violence either. There are occasions when the judicious
application of violence is rational, sensible, satisfying
and the right choice.

[jgkj...@yahoo.com.au]

On Monday, 24 June 2013 07:23:38 UTC-7, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:40:00 +0100, Alex W wrote:
> [...]

> >Most wars are started by the ruling caste -- politicians,
> >the commercial classes, or the aristocracy. These are all
> >educated folk.
>
> Bush Jr?

Your assumption is that uneducated people are more likely
to violence then educated people and I would say that
is a generalization like saying atheist governments are
more likely to violence than a theist government.

Most humans are violent and education doesn't change that.
Look at the subject matter in a popular movie or in sport.
Look at the aggression shown in posts on the internet.
People who imagine themselves superior love to kick those
who they consider idiots. Think of the education required
to build atomic bombs and other killing machines.

[Giorgos Tzampanakis]

Indeed, I never knew about *that* tennis!

--

[hypatiab7]

Unless Earl's god is a voyeur.

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Monday, 24 June 2013 20:07:26 UTC+1, jgkj...@yahoo.com.au wrote:

> Most humans are violent and education doesn't change that.
>
> Look at the subject matter in a popular movie or in sport.

I think most _men_ have an appetite for destruction, but it's one impulse amongst many and can be controlled. I wouldn't claim to speak for women on this.

The problem comes when our ethical restraint isn't internal, and can be hijacked by some demagogue.

[Don Martin]

And a masochist. Imagine contemplating the Weber family's sexual excesses
for an eternity.

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[duke]

And why do you think the 2 chemicals, 1 each located in each adult, and brought
together in a moment of intense desire via mutually shaped organs results in the
procreation of a new human life that is neither mom's nor pop's right to murder.

[duke]

Evolution requires something first to start with. Thanks be to God.

[duke]

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 16:09:00 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7 <hypa...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Not at all. You are insanity.

[jgkj...@yahoo.com.au]

On Thursday, 27 June 2013 10:32:35 UTC-7, duke wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 16:48:39 -0700 (PDT), casey wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, 22 June 2013 11:16:21 UTC-7, duke wrote:
> >> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:45:19 -0700 (PDT), casey wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, 20 June 2013 10:12:43 UTC-7, duke wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:22:46 -0700 (PDT), casey wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >What are the "values of God" we don't see?
> >> >>
> >> >> "You" is the proper wording. God gives us 2 commands
> >> >> - love and obey him, and love and serve our neighbour
> >> >> in need.
> >>
> >> >Love is something you earn. You can't love someone
> >> >who only exists in the imagination of believers.
> >>
> >> Yet God created and here we are now - thanks be to God.
> >
> >Nope thanks be to your parents that got it together.
> >No god was observed in the process.
>
> And why do you think the 2 chemicals, 1 each located in
> each adult, and brought together in a moment of intense
> desire via mutually shaped organs results in the
> procreation of a new human life that is neither mom's
> nor pop's right to murder.

You will find some answers to that in biology books.

Cells share their DNA to increase the number of
variants among new cells or colony of cells which
makes it more likely there will be variants there
suited for any change in the environment.

You might like to learn about what we now know
about our immune system which must adapt to new
types of cells invading the colony of cells we
call bodies.

[Father Haskell]

On Thursday, June 27, 2013 1:33:36 PM UTC-4, duke wrote:
>
> Evolution requires something first to start with.

By that line of (cough) reasoning, so does god.

> Thanks be to God.

Thanks be to man.

[jgkj...@yahoo.com.au]

On Thursday, 27 June 2013 10:33:36 UTC-7, duke wrote:
>
> Evolution requires something first to start with.
> Thanks be to God.

So you agree that the biological system evolved given
the physical constituents required exists.

[Father Haskell]

On Thursday, June 27, 2013 1:32:35 PM UTC-4, duke wrote:
>
> And why do you think the 2 chemicals, 1 each located in
> each adult, and brought together in a moment of intense
> desire via mutually shaped organs results in the
> procreation of a new human life that is neither mom's
> nor pop's right to murder.

"Congratulations, Mrs. Dahmer. It's a boy."

[duke]

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:34:09 -0700 (PDT), jgkj...@yahoo.com.au wrote:

>On Thursday, 27 June 2013 10:32:35 UTC-7, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 16:48:39 -0700 (PDT), casey wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, 22 June 2013 11:16:21 UTC-7, duke wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:45:19 -0700 (PDT), casey wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thursday, 20 June 2013 10:12:43 UTC-7, duke wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:22:46 -0700 (PDT), casey wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >What are the "values of God" we don't see?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "You" is the proper wording. God gives us 2 commands
>> >> >> - love and obey him, and love and serve our neighbour
>> >> >> in need.
>> >>
>> >> >Love is something you earn. You can't love someone
>> >> >who only exists in the imagination of believers.
>> >>
>> >> Yet God created and here we are now - thanks be to God.
>> >
>> >Nope thanks be to your parents that got it together.
>> >No god was observed in the process.
>>
>> And why do you think the 2 chemicals, 1 each located in
>> each adult, and brought together in a moment of intense
>> desire via mutually shaped organs results in the
>> procreation of a new human life that is neither mom's
>> nor pop's right to murder.
>
>You will find some answers to that in biology books.

Actually you won't. God did it by plan, and I don't think a biology book would
say that.

>Cells share their DNA to increase the number of
>variants among new cells or colony of cells which
>makes it more likely there will be variants there
>suited for any change in the environment.

Sure, but why? God did it.

[duke]

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:38:16 -0700 (PDT), jgkj...@yahoo.com.au wrote:

>On Thursday, 27 June 2013 10:33:36 UTC-7, duke wrote:
>>
>> Evolution requires something first to start with.
>> Thanks be to God.
>
>So you agree that the biological system evolved given
>the physical constituents required exists.

Of course. God created and then turned it over to evolution. Men and women
carrying 50% of the procreation equation is thanks be to God.

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:24:17 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
alt.atheism:

>On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:34:09 -0700 (PDT), jgkj...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>
>>On Thursday, 27 June 2013 10:32:35 UTC-7, duke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 16:48:39 -0700 (PDT), casey wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Saturday, 22 June 2013 11:16:21 UTC-7, duke wrote:
>>> >> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:45:19 -0700 (PDT), casey wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >On Thursday, 20 June 2013 10:12:43 UTC-7, duke wrote:
>>> >> >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:22:46 -0700 (PDT), casey wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >What are the "values of God" we don't see?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> "You" is the proper wording. God gives us 2 commands
>>> >> >> - love and obey him, and love and serve our neighbour
>>> >> >> in need.
>>> >>
>>> >> >Love is something you earn. You can't love someone
>>> >> >who only exists in the imagination of believers.
>>> >>
>>> >> Yet God created and here we are now - thanks be to God.
>>> >
>>> >Nope thanks be to your parents that got it together.
>>> >No god was observed in the process.
>>>
>>> And why do you think the 2 chemicals, 1 each located in
>>> each adult, and brought together in a moment of intense
>>> desire via mutually shaped organs results in the
>>> procreation of a new human life that is neither mom's
>>> nor pop's right to murder.
>>
>>You will find some answers to that in biology books.
>
>Actually you won't. God did it by plan, and I don't think a biology book would
>say that.

I don't think that anyone who depends on evidence could honestly say

[Les]

Wow, you really do embrace ignorance and supersttion don't you?

>>Cells share their DNA to increase the number of
>>variants among new cells or colony of cells which
>>makes it more likely there will be variants there
>>suited for any change in the environment.
>
>Sure, but why? God did it.

Have you ever thought of dressing up as a Morris dancer complete with
little silver bells, a stick wrapped with ribbons and yokels straw
hat, and then daintly dancing in the middle of the village green
singing 'god did-it, why because I say-so'?

http://www.whiterosemorrismen.org.uk/
http://www.cotswolds.info/blogs/morris-dancers.shtml

I am sure you would attract an amused crowd

--
Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

"In our more diverse and secular society, the place of religion has
come to be a matter of lively discussion. It is rightly acknowledged
that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing
and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals
and groups of all faiths and of none. "

- Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
- from a speech to the Synond of the Church of England in 2010

[duke]

Then I leave it to you to clarify why 1/2 the procreation equation is located in
each of man and woman, and that these chemicals are mixed in a moment of passion
via mutually shaped organs.

[duke]

What's a morris dancer?

>
>http://www.whiterosemorrismen.org.uk/
>http://www.cotswolds.info/blogs/morris-dancers.shtml
>
>I am sure you would attract an amused crowd

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 08:12:43 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in

Not really, they are imperfect duplicates of each other. Some organisms
do well as haploid, others are diploid, others tetraploid. You make
assumptions about biology based on your ignorant understanding of it.
Loyola and FX have to be rolling in their graves over your ignorance.

>and that these chemicals are mixed in a moment of passion
>via mutually shaped organs.

Because that happens to be how sexual reproduction developed _over time_
for mammals. There are many organisms that reproduce sexually that do
not it the way mammals do.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 08:13:18 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
alt.atheism:

Not completely different from a Texas line dance.

[jgkj...@yahoo.com.au]

On Friday, 28 June 2013 15:24:17 UTC-7, duke wrote:
> [....]
> God did it.

And yet has never been observed doing anything
and thus a notion that adds nothing to our
understanding of the Universe we live in.

So far all the things we have discovered such
as the cause of earthquakes or thunder have
been understandable without any "god did it"
required. He is conspicuous by his absence
except as a thought in some people's heads

[duke]

But not human beings, the highest form of life created by God.

> You make
>assumptions about biology based on your ignorant understanding of it.
>Loyola and FX have to be rolling in their graves over your ignorance.

Maybe you are a praying mantis.

>>and that these chemicals are mixed in a moment of passion
>>via mutually shaped organs.

>Because that happens to be how sexual reproduction developed _over time_
>for mammals.

Haahaahaa. Did it ever dawn on you that mankind, not animals, are the only life
that makes love by election. Remember, when you mount your cow, you are chasing
tail, not trying to make love. Heeheehee.

>There are many organisms that reproduce sexually that do
>not it the way mammals do.

And God gave us dominion over all living things.

Genesis 1:26 (New International Version)
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so
that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the
livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move
along the ground.”

And so man is tasked with, and holds the ability to, elective procreation. All
other living things screw.

[duke]

What's different?

[duke]

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 14:52:38 -0700 (PDT), jgkj...@yahoo.com.au wrote:

>On Friday, 28 June 2013 15:24:17 UTC-7, duke wrote:
>> [....]
>> God did it.
>
>And yet has never been observed doing anything
>and thus a notion that adds nothing to our
>understanding of the Universe we live in.

Until you can tell me how creation of the universe came about 13.7 billion years
ago in a massive expansion of a infinite point of mass and energy not existing
before, quit wasting my time..

>So far all the things we have discovered such
>as the cause of earthquakes or thunder have
>been understandable without any "god did it"
>required. He is conspicuous by his absence
>except as a thought in some people's heads

The cooling mantle of the earth causes earthquakes, form mountains and valleys.
Why is it cooling other that it is intensely hot in the middle, a sure sign of
formation.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 09:39:00 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in

The music, the steps, the costumes.

[duke]

Where is there morris dancing?

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 17:54:54 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in

England, possibly Diskworld.

[hypatiab7]

Hey! Earl actually said 'God did it'!

[hypatiab7]

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 2:21:22 PM UTC-4, duke wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:21:52 -0700, John Locke <johnnyd...@demonmail.com>
>

> wrote:

>
>
>
> >On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:13:54 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:00:39 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>
> >>>news:h914s8hmc4rngsa8c...@4ax.com:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> The sad part about you atheist wannabe's is that you don't see what we
>
> >>>> see - the values of God in our lives every day.
>
> >>>
>
> >>>Oh that's right, you're a Cat'lick. That means you can see things that
>
> >>>normal people can't. Outside of your church, do you know what that is
>
> >>>called?
>
> >>>
>
> >>>Insanity.
>
> >>
>
> >>Then it's a good thing I can't see things that aren't there.
>
> >>
>

> >...funny, most theists I know DO "see things that aren't
>
> >there"...that's the whole basis for religion...and of course,
>
> >some people who don't conform to standard religious norms
>
> >have been committed to asylums.
>
>
>
> That God is in our midst is a given. Either that or everything from the
>

> universe to a germ is a pure accident. God created and turned it over to
>
> evolution.
>
Then, why is your god sneaking around invisible in our midst. Is it afraid
of questions?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <4217a38c-8bc4-492f...@googlegroups.com>,

<piggybacking>

Did dukie just admit to being a deist?

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden