> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 1:22:55 PM UTC-7, Observer wrote:
> > On Aug 5, 8:14 am, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 4, 2012 8:01:37 PM UTC-7, Observer wrote:
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > Atheism.
> > > > > > > > > > I wonder whether this counts as naturalism (it could be
> > > > > > interpreted as
> > > > > > > > > > an alternation between big bangs and big crunches)
> > > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_evolution > > > > > > > > > > ‘There comes a time, Vasettha, when, sooner or later after
> > a
> > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > period this world contracts. At a time of contraction,
> > beings
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma world. And there they
> > > > dwell,
> > > > > > mind-
> > > > > > > > > > made, feeding on delight, self luminous, moving through
> > the
> > > > air,
> > > > > > > > > > glorious—and they stay like that for a very long time. But
> > > > sooner
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > later, after a very long period, this world begins to
> > expand
> > > > > > again. At
> > > > > > > > > > a time of expansion, the beings from the Abhassara Brahma
> > > > world,
> > > > > > > > > > having passed away from there, are mostly reborn in this
> > > > world.
> > > > > > > > > I think that Buddhism fails for the same reason. It is
> > simply
> > > > > > > > inconsistent
> > > > > > > > > with the basic nature of Atheism if we are to think of
> > Atheism
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > We are called atheists, the meaning of which differs in the
> > minds
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > men and women according to their convictions there about . The
> > > > label
> > > > > > > > makes little difference as does the meaning attached there to
> > . We
> > > > are
> > > > > > > Let's see if you are able to respond to a question with a
> > simple
> > > > yes
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > Do you think that there is no empirical evidence available that
> > > > > > Scientology
> > > > > > > has any basis in history?
> > > > > > Observer
> > > > > > Responding to such a question has no bearing on the dumb ass ideas
> > set
> > > > > > forth in christian mythology nor the piece I wrote on atheism.
> > > > > > Are you altogether unable to stay on topic?
> > > > > Well if mentioning atheism and a reasonable historical argument
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > same breath is going off topic about the reasonableness of atheism,
> > then
> > > > > you are working hard to prove my point for me. I am baffled that you
> > > > would
> > > > > be eager to do that since it is like taking a gun to your head and
> > > > pulling
> > > > > the trigger.
> > > > Observer
> > > > As usual you are unable to pull your fragmented thought processes
> > > > together or to grasp any understanding of the fact that, we atheists,
> > > > have no fear of your fictive god thing.
> > > Atheism says nothing about not being afraid about the "god thing" as a
> > > good thing.
> > Observer
> > Even a village idiot would understand that on can have no fear of
> > which is thought (and with good reason ) to be fictive.
> How can a reason be good on the idea that there is no god?
> So what if one has no fear of which is thought to be fictive? Why is that
> something desirable or good based on there being no god?
> I need the rationale behind this and you are not providing any.
> > Damn ,. son , you are in deed a rather ignorant and or stupid chap ,
> Is that a compliment or an insult? On the basis of there is no god, I
> cannot determine which it is that atheism would hold that as being.
Observer
Were you an educated man or not stupid you could easily understand
that atheism "holds nothing" as such is just a label used to describe
who think that the idea of a god thing (in this case the fictive idea
of a god concocted in the idiotic texts of the so called "bible" can
not be shown to exist and therefor an idea that is meaningless.
> > not to be able to understand such a simple proposition.
> I don't understand how any standard of goodness or lack thereof can be
> based on a statement that there is no god. Can you? If so, how do you go
> about it?
Observer
Of course you don't . You are ill equipped to understand ( due to your
refusal to educate your self) that what can not be substantiated, with
reasonable certainty using logic, reason, scientific method, the
produce thereof and of course the rules of critical thought has such
little probability of being an actuality that it is virtually
meaningless . ( not worthy of consideration)
> > > So, why should you care if anyone is afraid of it or not? It doesn't
> > matter
> > > from the perspective of the statement which defines atheism...i.e. "God
> > > does not exist."
> > Observer
> > I have challenged you repeatedly to provide the following in
> > accordance with logic, reason, scientific
> What good are those things based on a statement that there is no god?
Observer
No , my stupid friend, it is those tools and the application thereof
which shoe that the concept of a god thing , peculiar only to
christian ideologues, is meaningless and not the concluded results
there of which are the bases for them or which lends them value
(making of them something good) .
Why
> would one need those things at all on what atheism has been described to
> me to be?
Observer
Those who refuse to educate themselves are not exempt from the need to
understand how to use the tools of cognition they rather, much like
the village idiot, decry all who labor to more correctly understand
the world in which they live and thereby adequately participate as a
useful member of a society, in dire need of an intelligentsia adequate
to the task of achieving for one and all a set of beneficial living
conditions and perhaps, even the very survival of the species.
I mean, even if I did what you asked...how does that come out of
> the statement that there is no god?
No No stupid it is a rational understanding that the god peculiar to
christian ideologues is meaningless which comes from the application
of these vital tools of cognition.
Dan son , You are an ignorant oaf.
That statement says absolutely nothing
> to the effect that logic, reason, or the scientific are worth anything.
Okay back to the earlier assessment that you are indeed a " dumb
fuck !
You should know that in spite of the name calling ( descriptive of
your performance) I do wish you well. It is the superstitious nonsense
that has stolen your mind and diminished your humanity that I decry.
On Aug 5, 4:34 pm, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 1:22:55 PM UTC-7, Observer wrote:
> > Even a village idiot would understand that on can have no fear of
> > which is thought (and with good reason ) to be fictive.
> How can a reason be good on the idea that there is no god?
> So what if one has no fear of which is thought to be fictive? Why is that
> something desirable or good based on there being no god?
> I need the rationale behind this and you are not providing any.
You have shown no belief in genies, so you apparently either don't
believe they exist or do believe that they don't exist. Now, here's a
line of attack comparable to the one you're employing:
1) What is your rationale for why it is good to not fear genies?
2) How can your standard of goodness be based on non-existence of
genies?
3) What good is anything based on a statement that there are no
genies?
> I don't understand how any standard of goodness or lack thereof can be
> based on a statement that there is no god. Can you? If so, how do you go
> about it?
> What good are those things based on a statement that there is no god? Why
> would one need those things at all on what atheism has been described to
> me to be? I mean, even if I did what you asked...how does that come out of
> the statement that there is no god? That statement says absolutely nothing
> to the effect that logic, reason, or the scientific are worth anything.
> On Saturday, August 4, 2012 1:33:03 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:
> > On 3 Aug., 22:08, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 3, 2012 11:31:01 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:
> > > > On 3 Aug., 14:32, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:59:26 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > On 3 Aug., 13:49, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 1, 2012 8:59:14 AM UTC-7, LL wrote:
> > > > > > > > LL. I don't know how the author came up with the term "new
> > > > atheism,"
> > > > > > > > but it is a complete misnomer and shows he doesn't have a clue
> > as
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > what atheism is. This premise has nothing to do with atheism
> > and,
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > fact, it is a ridiculous term on its face. There can be no
> > new or
> > > > old
> > > > > > > > atheism. There is only atheism and it means only one thing.
> > > > Atheism
> > > > > > > > never takes a position on anything but the existence of
> > god(s).
> > > > > > > Well, the problem with that is that taking a position on
> > either
> > > > side
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the god existence equation, effects how many other things are
> > > > actually
> > > > > > > perceived. So, you kind of have to take positions that are
> > > > consistent
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > your particular view of the existence/non-existence of god.
> > Atheism
> > > > > > > necessitates, as does theism, espousing certain positions that
> > are
> > > > > > related
> > > > > > > to the view on existence of god. So, atheism actually
> > establishes
> > > > > > certain
> > > > > > > positions based on its understanding of the existence of god. I
> > > > think to
> > > > > > > claim otherwise is just an intellectual cop-out.
> > > > > > Atheism does not "necessitate" naturalism. It may motivate it and
> > be
> > > > > > correlated with it.
> > > > > If it doesn't necessitate it, what's the alternative to naturalism
> > > > that
> > > > > is consistent with Atheism?
> > > > Atheistic Cartesian dualism, various forms of atheistic
> > > > supernaturalism, atheism combined with belief in objective moral
> > > > values, atheism combined with realism about abstract objects... the
> > > > list is endless.
> > > These are examples of illegitimate borrowing and attaching parts to
> > > atheism that are not an natural outgrowth of it. As such, when given
> > close
> > > examination, they are found to be inconsistent and at odds with
> > Atheism.
> > Why?
> Well, as one example, what does atheistic super-naturalism have to do with
> the position that there is no God? I can see the position of there being a
> supernatural God having a natural outgrowth of believing in the
> supernatural. But there is nothing about believing that god does not exist
> that would lead one to the conclusion that there is any such thing as a
> supernatural. Simple reasoning. So, it is as I said...illegitimate
> borrowing and attachment without any reasonable rationale for doing so.
Observer
There has never been any successful argument structured using logic ,
reason , scientific method , the produce there of and of course
critical thinking in favor of any thing , condition , or being which
is "supernatural".
> On Friday, August 3, 2012 1:55:25 PM UTC-7, Dingbat wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 1:16 pm, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 3, 2012 9:50:44 AM UTC-7, Dingbat wrote:
> > > > On Aug 3, 12:33 pm, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > Are you going to deny that Atheism has a core of rational and
> > > > > critical thought and its child is evidential method of determining
> > > > > the truth of a thing?
> > > > Well, even if there are atheists who may be described as rational and
> > > > critical thinkers, they need not be the norm.
> > > I think it is more of a question of what is normative, not the norm.
> > One
> > > would not expect an atheist to intentionally embrace irrational ideas
> > and
> > > that is simply because Atheism does not claim irrationality for itself
> > as
> > > its core, quite the contrary.
> > > > My first introduction to
> > > > atheism was in the context of studying Buddhism and Jainism. As far as
> > > > can tell, neither of their founders (Gautama "the Buddha" and
> > > > Vardhamana "the Mahavira") offers evidence about origins that would
> > > > satisfy a disinterested (roughly meaning impartial) scientist.
> > > On this point you are correct.
> > > When it comes to Guatama's teachings, is it rational to think that
> > the
> > > only reality to something is produced by the mind. Does that mean that
> > if
> > > all minds were removed from this planet, there would be no planet here?
> > Is
> > > that a rational concept and does it square up with reality as perceived
> > > through the critical lens of Atheism?
> > I'm not sure that Gautam would agree with this description of his
> > explanation but this seems less rational than theistic explanations.
> > > Personally, I don't think so and on
> > > that basis I have called it inconsistent with Atheism.
> > It is consistent with atheism in the sense that gods have been removed
> > from the explanation.
> > > I think that Atheism
> > > is actually much closer to the true world view than Buddhism.
> > Atheists who lived at the same time as (and who had the same knowledge
> > as) authors of scripture would not have been able to produce better
> > explanations than theistic ones, except, perhaps, if they resorted to
> > the explanation that it was yet to be determined. That is, theistic
> > explanations were coherent with what was known about nature by the
> > authors of scripture. The apologetic explanation for scripture's
> > deviations from modern knowledge of nature this is that scripture was
> > authored for people of a past era for a purpose other than scientific
> > exposition of origins. This suggests that scientific exposition is
> > outside the domain of scripture. If this is so, scientists should have
> > the floor in a scientific exposition of origins and there should be no
> > belly-aching about what scientists say on the subject. Yet, there's
> > plenty of belly-aching about deviations from scripture in what
> > scientists say even when the scientists don't mention or put down
> > scripture. Why?
> > > > So, I don't see how you
> > > > are able to assert that atheism has a core of rational critical
> > > > thought at least in the matter of origin of energy, matter and life.
> > > As always, I must fall back on what atheists claim is their view. Who is
> > > better qualified than an atheist to tell me his view of the world and
> > what
> > > he bases that view on and it is that explanation on his part that
> > > identifies the core elements of Atheism. The charge that theists are
> > not
> > > rational in their claims in the matter of origin would seem to point to
> > > rationality being terribly important to just about anything that an
> > Atheist
> > > might consider above the level of myth. Am I wrong in my analysis and if
> > > so, where did I go wrong?
> > Not all uses of rationalism show that rationality is very important to
> > one. I've heard Christians use rationalism to debunk pagans' beliefs -
> > in one instance, it was a debunking of a pagan method of driving away
> > evil spirits, in another instance. it was a debunking of a pagan's
> > claim of knowledge obtained by astral travel and in a 3rd instance, it
> > was a debunking of the notion that Kali is a goddess. There have, I
> > suspect, been antiCatholic Protestants who used rationalism to debunk
> > transubstantiation. Do these uses of rationalism show with certainty
> > that rationality is important to Christians?
> It is important to Christianity. I know that is distinct from what
> Christians might hold, but I think that we can apply my view to both
> Atheism and Christianity and say that both hold rationality as a binding
> glue of each world-view. I speak strictly regarding how they perceive it
> from each of their points of view, not dealing with the issue of who's
> right and who's wrong. So, I would have to say that rationality is
> important to Christianity and rationality is important to Atheism.
Observer
Rationality is not enough . Perfect reason applied to faulty premises
produces only faulty conclusions. With a combination of reason, logic,
scientific method , the produce thereof one is equipped to select more
reliable premises from which to reason further in the quest to
understand objective reality.
> On Aug 5, 1:34 pm, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 5, 2012 1:22:55 PM UTC-7, Observer wrote:
> > > On Aug 5, 8:14 am, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, August 4, 2012 8:01:37 PM UTC-7, Observer wrote:
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > Atheism.
> > > > > > > > > > > I wonder whether this counts as naturalism (it could be
> > > > > > > interpreted as
> > > > > > > > > > > an alternation between big bangs and big crunches)
> > > > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_evolution > > > > > > > > > > > ‘There comes a time, Vasettha, when, sooner or later after
> > > a
> > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > > period this world contracts. At a time of contraction,
> > > beings
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma world. And there they
> > > > > dwell,
> > > > > > > mind-
> > > > > > > > > > > made, feeding on delight, self luminous, moving through
> > > the
> > > > > air,
> > > > > > > > > > > glorious—and they stay like that for a very long time. But
> > > > > sooner
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > later, after a very long period, this world begins to
> > > expand
> > > > > > > again. At
> > > > > > > > > > > a time of expansion, the beings from the Abhassara Brahma
> > > > > world,
> > > > > > > > > > > having passed away from there, are mostly reborn in this
> > > > > world.
> > > > > > > > > > I think that Buddhism fails for the same reason. It is
> > > simply
> > > > > > > > > inconsistent
> > > > > > > > > > with the basic nature of Atheism if we are to think of
> > > Atheism
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > We are called atheists, the meaning of which differs in the
> > > minds
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > men and women according to their convictions there about . The
> > > > > label
> > > > > > > > > makes little difference as does the meaning attached there to
> > > . We
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > Let's see if you are able to respond to a question with a
> > > simple
> > > > > yes
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > no.
> > > > > > > > Do you think that there is no empirical evidence available that
> > > > > > > Scientology
> > > > > > > > has any basis in history?
> > > > > > > Observer
> > > > > > > Responding to such a question has no bearing on the dumb ass ideas
> > > set
> > > > > > > forth in christian mythology nor the piece I wrote on atheism.
> > > > > > > Are you altogether unable to stay on topic?
> > > > > > Well if mentioning atheism and a reasonable historical argument
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > same breath is going off topic about the reasonableness of atheism,
> > > then
> > > > > > you are working hard to prove my point for me. I am baffled that you
> > > > > would
> > > > > > be eager to do that since it is like taking a gun to your head and
> > > > > pulling
> > > > > > the trigger.
> > > > > Observer
> > > > > As usual you are unable to pull your fragmented thought processes
> > > > > together or to grasp any understanding of the fact that, we atheists,
> > > > > have no fear of your fictive god thing.
> > > > Atheism says nothing about not being afraid about the "god thing" as a
> > > > good thing.
> > > Observer
> > > Even a village idiot would understand that on can have no fear of
> > > which is thought (and with good reason ) to be fictive.
> > How can a reason be good on the idea that there is no god?
> > So what if one has no fear of which is thought to be fictive? Why is that
> > something desirable or good based on there being no god?
> > I need the rationale behind this and you are not providing any.
> > > Damn ,. son , you are in deed a rather ignorant and or stupid chap ,
> > Is that a compliment or an insult? On the basis of there is no god, I
> > cannot determine which it is that atheism would hold that as being.
> Observer
> Were you an educated man or not stupid you could easily understand
> that atheism "holds nothing" as such is just a label used to describe
> who think that the idea of a god thing (in this case the fictive idea
> of a god concocted in the idiotic texts of the so called "bible" can
> not be shown to exist and therefor an idea that is meaningless.
> > > not to be able to understand such a simple proposition.
> > I don't understand how any standard of goodness or lack thereof can be
> > based on a statement that there is no god. Can you? If so, how do you go
> > about it?
> Observer
> Of course you don't . You are ill equipped to understand ( due to your
> refusal to educate your self) that what can not be substantiated, with
> reasonable certainty using logic, reason, scientific method, the
> produce thereof and of course the rules of critical thought has such
> little probability of being an actuality that it is virtually
> meaningless . ( not worthy of consideration)
> > > > So, why should you care if anyone is afraid of it or not? It doesn't
> > > matter
> > > > from the perspective of the statement which defines atheism...i.e. "God
> > > > does not exist."
> > > Observer
> > > I have challenged you repeatedly to provide the following in
> > > accordance with logic, reason, scientific
> > What good are those things based on a statement that there is no god?
> Observer
> No , my stupid friend, it is those tools and the application thereof
> which shoe that the concept of a god thing , peculiar only to
> christian ideologues, is meaningless and not the concluded results
> there of which are the bases for them or which lends them value
> (making of them something good) .
> Why
> > would one need those things at all on what atheism has been described to
> > me to be?
> Observer
> Those who refuse to educate themselves are not exempt from the need to
> understand how to use the tools of cognition they rather, much like
> the village idiot, decry all who labor to more correctly understand
> the world in which they live and thereby adequately participate as a
> useful member of a society, in dire need of an intelligentsia adequate
> to the task of achieving for one and all a set of beneficial living
> conditions and perhaps, even the very survival of the species.
> I mean, even if I did what you asked...how does that come out of
> > the statement that there is no god?
> No No stupid it is a rational understanding that the god peculiar to
> christian ideologues is meaningless which comes from the application
> of these vital tools of cognition.
> Dan son , You are an ignorant oaf.
> That statement says absolutely nothing
> > to the effect that logic, reason, or the scientific are worth anything.
> Okay back to the earlier assessment that you are indeed a " dumb
> fuck !
> You should know that in spite of the name calling ( descriptive of
> your performance) I do wish you well. It is the superstitious nonsense
> that has stolen your mind and diminished your humanity that I decry.
Why do you want atheism to include only a 18th century meaning of a
disbelief in god/s, when Atheists today tend to be skeptical of all
supernatural claims because no evidence exists for them?
If any atheists disbelief in god/s, but believe in spirits, or other
supernatural Woo Woo's it shows that the rational they use for
disbelief in god/s is absent when considering other supernatural
claims and I've never met any atheists who can divide their brain in
two so they can accept other supernatural Woo Woo's.
Although, I have met some who mistakenly think they are atheists but
only concerning some types of god/s while believing in other
supernatural crap.LOL
Atheists are people who believe that god or gods (or other
supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths and legends and
who believe that these concepts are not meaningful.
On Aug 7, 3:11 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 6:23 AM, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Trance,
> > On your part "Being an atheist has nothing to do with rationality",
> > but for most of us atheists it does.
> Which doesn't mean it does for ALL atheists. Sheesh TLC. Exactly how many
> times does this have to hammered into that skull of yours.
> Atheism is someone with NO GOD BELIEFS.
> There are a gazillion reasons why someone might be an atheist including not
> being indoctrinated and not being interested.
> > Also, your dogmatic claim that "FreeThinkers can be theists" if they
> > do not belong to a religion, is saying FreeThinkers can be theistic
> > bigots in their thinking. Is that really freedom of thought?
> Where did I say that "FreeThinkers can be theistic bigots"?
> Oh. I didn't. I pointed out that theists who are NOT RELIGIOUS and don't
> follow religious doctrines or dogmas like Deists could be FreeThinkers like
> the Founding Fathers were.
> Do you really think this demagoguery of yours is going to fly?
> You, on the other hand have said that anyone who doesn't agree with your
> dogma of atheistic doctrine isn't a true atheist.
> That is bigotry.
> <snipped deceptive demagoguery, straw men, and other bullshit and personal
> insults>
> --
> "To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."
> --Susan B. Anthony
> "Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a
> fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 3:35:35 PM UTC-7, Observer wrote:
> On Aug 5, 1:34 pm, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, August 5, 2012 1:22:55 PM UTC-7, Observer wrote:
> > > On Aug 5, 8:14 am, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, August 4, 2012 8:01:37 PM UTC-7, Observer wrote:
> > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > Atheism.
> > > > > > > > > > > I wonder whether this counts as naturalism (it could > be > > > > > > > interpreted as > > > > > > > > > > > an alternation between big bangs and big crunches) > > > > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_evolution > > > > > > > > > > > ‘There comes a time, Vasettha, when, sooner or later > after > > > a > > > > > long > > > > > > > > > > > period this world contracts. At a time of contraction, > > > beings > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma world. And there > they > > > > > dwell, > > > > > > > mind- > > > > > > > > > > > made, feeding on delight, self luminous, moving > through > > > the > > > > > air, > > > > > > > > > > > glorious—and they stay like that for a very long time. > But > > > > > sooner > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > later, after a very long period, this world begins to > > > expand > > > > > > > again. At > > > > > > > > > > > a time of expansion, the beings from the Abhassara > Brahma > > > > > world, > > > > > > > > > > > having passed away from there, are mostly reborn in > this > > > > > world.
> > > > > > > > > > I think that Buddhism fails for the same reason. It is > > > simply > > > > > > > > > inconsistent > > > > > > > > > > with the basic nature of Atheism if we are to think of > > > Atheism > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > We are called atheists, the meaning of which differs in > the > > > minds > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > men and women according to their convictions there about . > The > > > > > label > > > > > > > > > makes little difference as does the meaning attached there > to > > > . We > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > Let's see if you are able to respond to a question with a > > > simple > > > > > yes > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > no. > > > > > > > > Do you think that there is no empirical evidence available > that > > > > > > > Scientology > > > > > > > > has any basis in history?
> > > > > > > Observer
> > > > > > > Responding to such a question has no bearing on the dumb ass > ideas > > > set > > > > > > > forth in christian mythology nor the piece I wrote on atheism.
> > > > > > > Are you altogether unable to stay on topic?
> > > > > > Well if mentioning atheism and a reasonable historical > argument > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > > same breath is going off topic about the reasonableness of > atheism, > > > then > > > > > > you are working hard to prove my point for me. I am baffled that > you > > > > > would > > > > > > be eager to do that since it is like taking a gun to your head > and > > > > > pulling > > > > > > the trigger.
> > > > > Observer
> > > > > As usual you are unable to pull your fragmented thought processes > > > > > together or to grasp any understanding of the fact that, we > atheists, > > > > > have no fear of your fictive god thing.
> > > > Atheism says nothing about not being afraid about the "god thing" > as a > > > > good thing.
> > > Observer
> > > Even a village idiot would understand that on can have no fear of > > > which is thought (and with good reason ) to be fictive.
> > How can a reason be good on the idea that there is no god? > > So what if one has no fear of which is thought to be fictive? Why is > that > > something desirable or good based on there being no god? > > I need the rationale behind this and you are not providing any.
> > > Damn ,. son , you are in deed a rather ignorant and or stupid chap ,
> > Is that a compliment or an insult? On the basis of there is no god, I > > cannot determine which it is that atheism would hold that as being.
> Observer
> Were you an educated man or not stupid you could easily understand > that atheism "holds nothing"
Then an atheist cannot hold anything to be true. There is nothing that actually corresponds to reality.
> as such is just a label used to describe
A label to describe what? It does not describe someone who holds to the view that there is no god.
It describes the statement "there is no god" by displaying it and nothing more. It doesn't even describe what that actually means.
> who think that the idea of a god thing (in this case the fictive idea > of a god concocted in the idiotic texts of the so called "bible" can > not be shown to exist and therefor an idea that is meaningless.
> > > not to be able to understand such a simple proposition.
> > I don't understand how any standard of goodness or lack thereof can be > > based on a statement that there is no god. Can you? If so, how do you go > > about it?
> Observer > Of course you don't . You are ill equipped to understand ( due to your > refusal to educate your self)
I've got plenty of education.
> that what can not be substantiated, with > reasonable certainty using logic, reason, scientific method, the > produce thereof and of course the rules of critical thought has such > little probability of being an actuality that it is virtually > meaningless . ( not worthy of consideration)
So, you can't then. Ok. You have not given me a single clue as to why you think that the above listed things are actually good things that should be pursued instead of bad things to be avoided. You have not shown me how you cam to the conclusion that critical thought, logic, reason, or the scientific _methods_ (yes there is a plurality of them a whole constellation of methods depending on branch of science in view which apparently your logic, reason, scientific method have been inadequate tools to discern as evidenced by your inaccurate use of the term in the singular) are things to be strived for.
> > > > So, why should you care if anyone is afraid of it or not? It doesn't > > > matter > > > > from the perspective of the statement which defines atheism...i.e. > "God > > > > does not exist."
> > > Observer
> > > I have challenged you repeatedly to provide the following in > > > accordance with logic, reason, scientific
> > What good are those things based on a statement that there is no god?
> Observer
> No , my stupid friend,
There's another word you don't seem to know the meaning of. Oh well.
> it is those tools and the application thereof > which shoe that the concept of a god thing , peculiar only to > christian ideologues, is meaningless and not the concluded results > there of which are the bases for them or which lends them value > (making of them something good) .
> Why > > would one need those things at all on what atheism has been described > to > > me to be?
> Observer
> Those who refuse to educate themselves are not exempt from the need to > understand how to use the tools of cognition they rather, much like > the village idiot, decry all who labor to more correctly understand > the world in which they live and thereby adequately participate as a > useful member of a society, in dire need of an intelligentsia adequate > to the task of achieving for one and all a set of beneficial living > conditions and perhaps, even the very survival of the species.
The survival of the species is a bad thing. Prove me wrong.
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 3:54 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 4, 2012 8:36:53 AM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:34 AM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 4, 2012 8:19:31 AM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 7:36 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com>wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:19:56 PM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com>wrote:
>>>>>> <snipped>
>>>>>>> Atheistic Cartesian dualism, various forms of atheistic
>>>>>>> supernaturalism, atheism combined with belief in objective moral
>>>>>>> values, atheism combined with realism about abstract objects... the
>>>>>>> list is endless.
>>>>>>> These are examples of illegitimate borrowing and attaching parts
>>>>>>> to atheism that are not an natural outgrowth of it. As such, when given
>>>>>>> close examination, they are found to be inconsistent and at odds with
>>>>>>> Atheism. Thus they do not provide an answer to my challenge.
>>>>>> They are inconsistent and at odds with materialism, naturalism,
>>>>>> rationalism, etc.
>>>>>> They are perfectly consistent with not having any god beliefs. That's
>>>>>> all atheism is. Nothing more.
>>>>> Then Atheism explains nothing. It only makes an assertion and then
>>>>> refuses to provide any support for it. How is that even sane?
>>>> It doesn't even make an assertion.
>>> What is the following statement "There is no god". If it is not an
>>> assertion, what is it?
>> Rational atheists make no such assertion.
> Excuse me? I will offer you three statements and I would like for you to
> evaluate each and tell me which one of them an atheist holds to be true.
> 1. There is no god
And idiotic, irrational atheist will make this claim.
Not a rational atheist.
A rational atheist will respond to the theist claim that there is a god by
saying provide me with evidence and if you can't I don't believe or accept
your claim as true.
Other than that the rational atheist has no interest in god concepts and
makes no claims about alleged gods one way or the other.
If you had said, There is no God (meaning the Abrahamic God) then the
rational atheist would present you with a case for why the Abrahamic God is
logically impossible and can't exist.
> 2. One cannot know if there is or is not a god.
How does one falsify a concept or create a model that fits with reality? By
having evidence. There is no evidence to support claims that gods exist and
the concept of generic gods is unfalsifiable therefore we cannot know.
If you said "One cannot know if there is or not God" then the rational
atheist will present you with a case for why the Abrahamic God is logically
impossible and can't exist therefore we *can* know.
> 3. There is a god.
Since atheists don't have god beliefs it's unlikely that any atheist
(rational or irrational) will accept this statement as true.
4. I don't believe theist claims that such a thing as gods exist.
All atheists will say that statement 4 is true both rational and irrational.
--
"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."
--Susan B. Anthony
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a
fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
>> > > Atheistic Cartesian dualism, various forms of atheistic
>> > > supernaturalism, atheism combined with belief in objective moral
>> > > values, atheism combined with realism about abstract objects... the
>> > > list is endless.
>> > These are examples of illegitimate borrowing and attaching parts to
>> > atheism that are not an natural outgrowth of it. As such, when given
>> close
>> > examination, they are found to be inconsistent and at odds with
>> Atheism.
>> Why?
> Well, as one example, what does atheistic super-naturalism have to do
> with the position that there is no God? I can see the position of there
> being a supernatural God having a natural outgrowth of believing in the
> supernatural. But there is nothing about believing that god does not exist
> that would lead one to the conclusion that there is any such thing as a
> supernatural. Simple reasoning. So, it is as I said...illegitimate
> borrowing and attachment without any reasonable rationale for doing so.
The point that both you and the irrational atheists keep missing is that
supernatural beliefs aren't just restricted to god beliefs.
There are many supernatural beliefs that exist which don't include gods.
--
"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."
--Susan B. Anthony
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a
fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:44 AM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 3:15:39 PM UTC-7, Ian wrote:
>> This Atheist hold that in 70 years I am yet to discover evidence
>> that supports that there is a God/s so I take the position there is No God
> Fine. You are affirming something to be so in the above statement. That
> is in fact the definition of an assertion. I have been taken to task for
> calling it what it is and slew of denials have been hurled at me that
> atheists do not make such assertions.
Actually what I said was RATIONAL atheists do not make such assertions. I
have consistently admitted that IRRATIONAL and IDIOTIC atheists DO make
such baseless and bizarre assertions.
Congratulations you just found one.
There is no requirement that atheists be rational and atheists are not
necessarily rational even though most of those who self-identify as
atheists are rational.
And there is nothing rational about that claim as you noted. It's a bare
assertion and quite unsupportable.
--
"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."
--Susan B. Anthony
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a
fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:59 AM, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can you produce one iota of evidence, (not blind belief), that proves
> the position there is No God is wrong?
> Of course you can not.
> On Aug 6, 11:44 am, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 5, 2012 3:15:39 PM UTC-7, Ian wrote:
> > > This Atheist hold that in 70 years I am yet to discover evidence
> > > that supports that there is a God/s so I take the position there is No
> God
> > Fine. You are affirming something to be so in the above statement.
> That
> > is in fact the definition of an assertion. I have been taken to task for
> > calling it what it is and slew of denials have been hurled at me that
> > atheists do not make such assertions. You can never make your position
> > clear to anyone unless you make an assertion in a statement that
> describes
> > what that position is. So, if you were an atheist that made no
> assertions,
> > no one could ever know you were an atheist apart from yourself. Since I
> am
> > aware that there are atheists, it is clear that they have made assertions
> > that affirm what they are convinced is so. This is so basic and patently
> > obvious that I don't understand why anyone denied it here.
> > > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 8:54 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com>
> wrote:
> > >> On Saturday, August 4, 2012 8:36:53 AM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
> > >>> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:34 AM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com
> >wrote:
> > >>>> On Saturday, August 4, 2012 8:19:31 AM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
> > >>>>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 7:36 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com
> >wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:19:56 PM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com
> >wrote:
> > >>>>>>> <snipped>
> > >>>>>>>> Atheistic Cartesian dualism, various forms of atheistic
> > >>>>>>>> supernaturalism, atheism combined with belief in objective moral
> > >>>>>>>> values, atheism combined with realism about abstract objects...
> the
> > >>>>>>>> list is endless.
> > >>>>>>>> These are examples of illegitimate borrowing and attaching
> parts
> > >>>>>>>> to atheism that are not an natural outgrowth of it. As such,
> when given
> > >>>>>>>> close examination, they are found to be inconsistent and at
> odds with
> > >>>>>>>> Atheism. Thus they do not provide an answer to my challenge.
> > >>>>>>> They are inconsistent and at odds with materialism, naturalism,
> > >>>>>>> rationalism, etc.
> > >>>>>>> They are perfectly consistent with not having any god beliefs.
> > >>>>>>> That's all atheism is. Nothing more.
> > >>>>>> Then Atheism explains nothing. It only makes an assertion and
> > >>>>>> then refuses to provide any support for it. How is that even sane?
> > >>>>> It doesn't even make an assertion.
> > >>>> What is the following statement "There is no god". If it is not an
> > >>>> assertion, what is it?
> > >>> Rational atheists make no such assertion.
> > >> Excuse me? I will offer you three statements and I would like for you
> to
> > >> evaluate each and tell me which one of them an atheist holds to be
> true.
> > >> 1. There is no god
> > >> 2. One cannot know if there is or is not a god.
> > >> 3. There is a god.
> > >> Which?
> > >>> --
> > >>> "To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of
> freedom..."
> > >>> --Susan B. Anthony
> > >>> "Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it
> in
> > >>> a fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
> > >>> --
> > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
> > >> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > >> To view this discussion on the web visit
> > >>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/atheism-vs-christianity/-/4ldlv8uLySMJ > .
> > >> To post to this group, send email to
> > >> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > >> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > >> For more options, visit this group at
> > >>http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
> > > --
> > > Ian
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
--
"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."
--Susan B. Anthony
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a
fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:17 AM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
<snipped>
> Granted that it may be consistent with there is no god, but there are
> supernatural beings. I must however state that if there are supernatural
> beings then why would one deny the possibility of the existence of god?
Who knows why irrational people believe in one superstition and not another
and yet they do. Some people believe that ghosts exist but not gods. Weird
I agree but it's a fact.
--
"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."
--Susan B. Anthony
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a
fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
TLC. I don't want atheism to be anything other than what it is. A
descriptor of people who aren't theists.
You apparently want your Bible of Atheism accepted as Dogma amongst all
True Atheists and anyone else can't possibly be what you, Atheist Doctrine,
assert an Atheist to be.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 6:15 AM, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Trance,
> Why do you want atheism to include only a 18th century meaning of a
> disbelief in god/s, when Atheists today tend to be skeptical of all
> supernatural claims because no evidence exists for them?
> If any atheists disbelief in god/s, but believe in spirits, or other
> supernatural Woo Woo's it shows that the rational they use for
> disbelief in god/s is absent when considering other supernatural
> claims and I've never met any atheists who can divide their brain in
> two so they can accept other supernatural Woo Woo's.
> Although, I have met some who mistakenly think they are atheists but
> only concerning some types of god/s while believing in other
> supernatural crap.LOL
> Atheists are people who believe that god or gods (or other
> supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths and legends and
> who believe that these concepts are not meaningful.
> On Aug 7, 3:11 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 6:23 AM, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Trance,
> > > On your part "Being an atheist has nothing to do with rationality",
> > > but for most of us atheists it does.
> > Which doesn't mean it does for ALL atheists. Sheesh TLC. Exactly how many
> > times does this have to hammered into that skull of yours.
> > Atheism is someone with NO GOD BELIEFS.
> > There are a gazillion reasons why someone might be an atheist including
> not
> > being indoctrinated and not being interested.
> > > Also, your dogmatic claim that "FreeThinkers can be theists" if they
> > > do not belong to a religion, is saying FreeThinkers can be theistic
> > > bigots in their thinking. Is that really freedom of thought?
> > Where did I say that "FreeThinkers can be theistic bigots"?
> > Oh. I didn't. I pointed out that theists who are NOT RELIGIOUS and don't
> > follow religious doctrines or dogmas like Deists could be FreeThinkers
> like
> > the Founding Fathers were.
> > Do you really think this demagoguery of yours is going to fly?
> > You, on the other hand have said that anyone who doesn't agree with your
> > dogma of atheistic doctrine isn't a true atheist.
> > That is bigotry.
> > <snipped deceptive demagoguery, straw men, and other bullshit and
> personal
> > insults>
> > --
> > "To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."
> > --Susan B. Anthony
> > "Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a
> > fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
--
"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."
--Susan B. Anthony
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a
fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
> In his new book “Where the Conflict Really Lies,” Alvin Plantinga > levels a devastating critique against the “new atheism” espoused by > thinkers such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.
Here's the description from the amazon.com page:
"This book is a long-awaited major statement by a pre-eminent analytic philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, on one of our biggest debates -- the compatibility of science and religion. The last twenty years has seen a cottage industry of books on this divide, but with little consensus emerging. Plantinga, as a top philosopher but also a proponent of the rationality of religious belief, has a unique contribution to make. His theme in this short book is that the conflict between science and theistic religion is actually superficial, and that at a deeper level they are in concord.
Plantinga examines where this conflict is supposed to exist -- evolution, evolutionary psychology, analysis of scripture, scientific study of religion -- as well as claims by Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Philip Kitcher that evolution and theistic belief cannot co-exist. Plantinga makes a case that their arguments are not only inconclusive but that the supposed conflicts themselves are superficial, due to the methodological naturalism used by science. On the other hand, science can actually offer support to theistic doctrines, and Plantinga uses the notion of biological and cosmological "fine-tuning" in support of this idea. Plantinga argues that we might think about arguments in science and religion in a new way -- as different forms of discourse that try to persuade people to look at questions from a perspective such that they can see that something is true. In this way, there is a deep and massive consonance between theism and the scientific enterprise."
>> In his new book “Where the Conflict Really Lies,” Alvin Plantinga
>> levels a devastating critique against the “new atheism” espoused by
>> thinkers such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.
> Here's the description from the amazon.com page:
> "This book is a long-awaited major statement by a pre-eminent analytic
> philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, on one of our biggest debates -- the
> compatibility of science and religion. The last twenty years has seen a
> cottage industry of books on this divide, but with little consensus
> emerging. Plantinga, as a top philosopher but also a proponent of the
> rationality of religious belief, has a unique contribution to make. His
> theme in this short book is that the conflict between science and theistic
> religion is actually superficial, and that at a deeper level they are in
> concord.
> Plantinga examines where this conflict is supposed to exist -- evolution,
> evolutionary psychology, analysis of scripture, scientific study of
> religion -- as well as claims by Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Philip
> Kitcher that evolution and theistic belief cannot co-exist. Plantinga makes
> a case that their arguments are not only inconclusive but that the supposed
> conflicts themselves are superficial, due to the methodological naturalism
> used by science. On the other hand, science can actually offer support to
> theistic doctrines, and Plantinga uses the notion of biological and
> cosmological "fine-tuning" in support of this idea. Plantinga argues that
> we might think about arguments in science and religion in a new way -- as
> different forms of discourse that try to persuade people to look at
> questions from a perspective such that they can see that something is true.
> In this way, there is a deep and massive consonance between theism and the
> scientific enterprise."
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/atheism-vs-christianity/-/k-59vJu5fRQJ.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
This like to tell you this, but atheism does not have a bible.
Atheists are just individual people who believe, because there is not
one iota of evidence for them, that god or gods (or other supernatural
beings) are man-made constructs, myths and legends and who believe
that these concepts are not meaningful and often damaging to people
and society.
To claim that, "An atheist is simply anyone who isn't a theist." is
YOU saying ignorant blind faith people who believe in supernatural
spirits and other Woo Woo beings are atheists. Stop being so
ridiculous!
Also, atheists are not bigots, in that we are not prejudiced nor
intolerant to supernaturalists claims as long as they can produce real
evidence of what they believe in.
Bigotry is one of the qualities you display when people disagree with
your personal mish-mash of ideas.
On Aug 8, 4:49 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> TLC. I don't want atheism to be anything other than what it is. A
> descriptor of people who aren't theists.
> You apparently want your Bible of Atheism accepted as Dogma amongst all
> True Atheists and anyone else can't possibly be what you, Atheist Doctrine,
> assert an Atheist to be.
> An atheist is simply anyone who isn't a theist.
> Whether your bigotry likes it or not.
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 6:15 AM, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Trance,
> > Why do you want atheism to include only a 18th century meaning of a
> > disbelief in god/s, when Atheists today tend to be skeptical of all
> > supernatural claims because no evidence exists for them?
> > If any atheists disbelief in god/s, but believe in spirits, or other
> > supernatural Woo Woo's it shows that the rational they use for
> > disbelief in god/s is absent when considering other supernatural
> > claims and I've never met any atheists who can divide their brain in
> > two so they can accept other supernatural Woo Woo's.
> > Although, I have met some who mistakenly think they are atheists but
> > only concerning some types of god/s while believing in other
> > supernatural crap.LOL
> > Atheists are people who believe that god or gods (or other
> > supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths and legends and
> > who believe that these concepts are not meaningful.
> > On Aug 7, 3:11 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 6:23 AM, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Trance,
> > > > On your part "Being an atheist has nothing to do with rationality",
> > > > but for most of us atheists it does.
> > > Which doesn't mean it does for ALL atheists. Sheesh TLC. Exactly how many
> > > times does this have to hammered into that skull of yours.
> > > Atheism is someone with NO GOD BELIEFS.
> > > There are a gazillion reasons why someone might be an atheist including
> > not
> > > being indoctrinated and not being interested.
> > > > Also, your dogmatic claim that "FreeThinkers can be theists" if they
> > > > do not belong to a religion, is saying FreeThinkers can be theistic
> > > > bigots in their thinking. Is that really freedom of thought?
> > > Where did I say that "FreeThinkers can be theistic bigots"?
> > > Oh. I didn't. I pointed out that theists who are NOT RELIGIOUS and don't
> > > follow religious doctrines or dogmas like Deists could be FreeThinkers
> > like
> > > the Founding Fathers were.
> > > Do you really think this demagoguery of yours is going to fly?
> > > You, on the other hand have said that anyone who doesn't agree with your
> > > dogma of atheistic doctrine isn't a true atheist.
> > > That is bigotry.
> > > <snipped deceptive demagoguery, straw men, and other bullshit and
> > personal
> > > insults>
> > > --
> > > "To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."
> > > --Susan B. Anthony
> > > "Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a
> > > fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
> --
> "To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."
> --Susan B. Anthony
> "Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a
> fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 7:55 AM, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Trance,
> This like to tell you this, but atheism does not have a bible.
No atheism doesn't have a bible. It's just anyone who isn't a theist.
TLC has an Atheist Bible with an Atheist Dogma and Doctrine which alleges
that the only True Atheists in the Universe are those who agree with him
and meet his requirements.
This Dogma is a rather bigoted one because it excludes huge numbers of
people who aren't theists but hold other supernatural beliefs.
In reality, anyone who isn't a theist is an atheist. A person without
theism. A person without god beliefs.
Atheism says nothing about superstition.
--
"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."
--Susan B. Anthony
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a
fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 7:55 AM, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Trance,
> > This like to tell you this, but atheism does not have a bible.
> No atheism doesn't have a bible. It's just anyone who isn't a theist.
> TLC has an Atheist Bible with an Atheist Dogma and Doctrine which alleges
> that the only True Atheists in the Universe are those who agree with him
> and meet his requirements.
> This Dogma is a rather bigoted one because it excludes huge numbers of
> people who aren't theists but hold other supernatural beliefs.
> In reality, anyone who isn't a theist is an atheist. A person without
> theism. A person without god beliefs.
> Atheism says nothing about superstition.
> --
> "To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."
> --Susan B. Anthony
> "Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a
> fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
As an Atheist I look on all believers with a benign amusement. For anyone
with a thinking brain to live life through the bible stories seem such a
waste to me.
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:55 PM, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Trance,
> This like to tell you this, but atheism does not have a bible.
> Atheists are just individual people who believe, because there is not
> one iota of evidence for them, that god or gods (or other supernatural
> beings) are man-made constructs, myths and legends and who believe
> that these concepts are not meaningful and often damaging to people
> and society.
> To claim that, "An atheist is simply anyone who isn't a theist." is
> YOU saying ignorant blind faith people who believe in supernatural
> spirits and other Woo Woo beings are atheists. Stop being so
> ridiculous!
> Also, atheists are not bigots, in that we are not prejudiced nor
> intolerant to supernaturalists claims as long as they can produce real
> evidence of what they believe in.
> Bigotry is one of the qualities you display when people disagree with
> your personal mish-mash of ideas.
> On Aug 8, 4:49 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > TLC. I don't want atheism to be anything other than what it is. A
> > descriptor of people who aren't theists.
> > You apparently want your Bible of Atheism accepted as Dogma amongst all
> > True Atheists and anyone else can't possibly be what you, Atheist
> Doctrine,
> > assert an Atheist to be.
> > An atheist is simply anyone who isn't a theist.
> > Whether your bigotry likes it or not.
> > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 6:15 AM, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Trance,
> > > Why do you want atheism to include only a 18th century meaning of a
> > > disbelief in god/s, when Atheists today tend to be skeptical of all
> > > supernatural claims because no evidence exists for them?
> > > If any atheists disbelief in god/s, but believe in spirits, or other
> > > supernatural Woo Woo's it shows that the rational they use for
> > > disbelief in god/s is absent when considering other supernatural
> > > claims and I've never met any atheists who can divide their brain in
> > > two so they can accept other supernatural Woo Woo's.
> > > Although, I have met some who mistakenly think they are atheists but
> > > only concerning some types of god/s while believing in other
> > > supernatural crap.LOL
> > > Atheists are people who believe that god or gods (or other
> > > supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths and legends and
> > > who believe that these concepts are not meaningful.
> > > On Aug 7, 3:11 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 6:23 AM, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Trance,
> > > > > On your part "Being an atheist has nothing to do with rationality",
> > > > > but for most of us atheists it does.
> > > > Which doesn't mean it does for ALL atheists. Sheesh TLC. Exactly how
> many
> > > > times does this have to hammered into that skull of yours.
> > > > Atheism is someone with NO GOD BELIEFS.
> > > > There are a gazillion reasons why someone might be an atheist
> including
> > > not
> > > > being indoctrinated and not being interested.
> > > > > Also, your dogmatic claim that "FreeThinkers can be theists" if
> they
> > > > > do not belong to a religion, is saying FreeThinkers can be theistic
> > > > > bigots in their thinking. Is that really freedom of thought?
> > > > Where did I say that "FreeThinkers can be theistic bigots"?
> > > > Oh. I didn't. I pointed out that theists who are NOT RELIGIOUS and
> don't
> > > > follow religious doctrines or dogmas like Deists could be
> FreeThinkers
> > > like
> > > > the Founding Fathers were.
> > > > Do you really think this demagoguery of yours is going to fly?
> > > > You, on the other hand have said that anyone who doesn't agree with
> your
> > > > dogma of atheistic doctrine isn't a true atheist.
> > > > That is bigotry.
> > > > <snipped deceptive demagoguery, straw men, and other bullshit and
> > > personal
> > > > insults>
> > > > --
> > > > "To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of
> freedom..."
> > > > --Susan B. Anthony
> > > > "Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it
> in a
> > > > fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
> > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > > For more options, visit this group at
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
> > --
> > "To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."
> > --Susan B. Anthony
> > "Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a
> > fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 1:34 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 1:22:55 PM UTC-7, Observer wrote:
>> On Aug 5, 8:14 am, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > On Saturday, August 4, 2012 8:01:37 PM UTC-7, Observer wrote:
>> > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > Atheism.
>> > > > > > > > > I wonder whether this counts as naturalism (it could be
>> > > > > interpreted as
>> > > > > > > > > an alternation between big bangs and big crunches)
>> > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Buddhism_and_evolution<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_evolution>
>> > > > > > > > > ‘There comes a time, Vasettha, when, sooner or later
>> after a
>> > > long
>> > > > > > > > > period this world contracts. At a time of contraction,
>> beings
>> > > are
>> > > > > > > > > mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma world. And there they
>> > > dwell,
>> > > > > mind-
>> > > > > > > > > made, feeding on delight, self luminous, moving through
>> the
>> > > air,
>> > > > > > > > > glorious—and they stay like that for a very long time.
>> But
>> > > sooner
>> > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > later, after a very long period, this world begins to
>> expand
>> > > > > again. At
>> > > > > > > > > a time of expansion, the beings from the Abhassara Brahma
>> > > world,
>> > > > > > > > > having passed away from there, are mostly reborn in this
>> > > world.
>> > > > > > > > I think that Buddhism fails for the same reason. It is
>> simply
>> > > > > > > inconsistent
>> > > > > > > > with the basic nature of Atheism if we are to think of
>> Atheism
>> > > as
>> > > > > > > We are called atheists, the meaning of which differs in the
>> minds
>> > > of
>> > > > > > > men and women according to their convictions there about .
>> The
>> > > label
>> > > > > > > makes little difference as does the meaning attached there to
>> . We
>> > > are
>> > > > > > Let's see if you are able to respond to a question with a
>> simple
>> > > yes
>> > > > > or
>> > > > > > no.
>> > > > > > Do you think that there is no empirical evidence available that
>> > > > > Scientology
>> > > > > > has any basis in history?
>> > > > > Observer
>> > > > > Responding to such a question has no bearing on the dumb ass
>> ideas set
>> > > > > forth in christian mythology nor the piece I wrote on atheism.
>> > > > > Are you altogether unable to stay on topic?
>> > > > Well if mentioning atheism and a reasonable historical argument
>> in
>> > > the
>> > > > same breath is going off topic about the reasonableness of atheism,
>> then
>> > > > you are working hard to prove my point for me. I am baffled that
>> you
>> > > would
>> > > > be eager to do that since it is like taking a gun to your head and
>> > > pulling
>> > > > the trigger.
>> > > Observer
>> > > As usual you are unable to pull your fragmented thought processes
>> > > together or to grasp any understanding of the fact that, we
>> atheists,
>> > > have no fear of your fictive god thing.
>> > Atheism says nothing about not being afraid about the "god thing" as
>> a
>> > good thing.
>> Observer
>> Even a village idiot would understand that on can have no fear of
>> which is thought (and with good reason ) to be fictive.
> How can a reason be good on the idea that there is no god?
Observer
It might indeed be well if in any attempt you might make to acquire an
education, that the use of the English language be included. Not only are
your thought processes faulty but you lack enough understanding of English
grammar to succinctly state what you mean to say.
> So what if one has no fear of which is thought to be fictive? Why is that
> something desirable or good based on there being no god?
An oxymoron by implication and a grammarly incorrect in structure.
I need the rationale behind this and you are not providing any.
Observer
There is no rational to be provided for such a inept and ill-constructed
bit of gibberish.
>> Damn ,. son , you are in deed a rather ignorant and or stupid chap ,
> Is that a compliment or an insult? On the basis of there is no god, I
> cannot determine which it is that atheism would hold that as being.
Observer
You are far to uneducated and or stupid to appreciate or understand either.
>> not to be able to understand such a simple proposition.
> I don't understand how any standard of goodness or lack thereof can be
> based on a statement that there is no god. Can you? If so, how do you go
> about it?
Observer
The statement that the god thing conjured by primitive uneducated
primitives in a collection of superstitious myths is the product of
applied reason, logic, scientific method, the produce there of, and the
application of the rules of critical thinking is fictive needs no
explication to one who is grounded in these vital tools of cognition.
No indication of what is either goodness or lacks such is implied nor
claimed based upon such a determination.
Goodness and badness are purely of human construct in bringing to bear
the lucid and combined use of such tools of cognition in , evaluating
the interactions and interdependence between sentient creatures and
determining which tend to serve to provide for succor , sustenance,
security and well being to the participants with due consideration given to
, education based rational empathy as opposed to those which threaten such.
>> > So, why should you care if anyone is afraid of it or not?
Observer
Why are you so insistent that fear of what is considered
nonexistent even possible? Rather stupid is it not?
> It doesn't matter
>> > from the perspective of the statement which defines atheism...i.e. "God
>> > does not exist."
>> Observer
>> I have challenged you repeatedly to provide the following in
>> accordance with logic, reason, scientific method , the produce there of
>> and critical thinking a case for the existence of the god thing , peculiar
>> to only to christian ideologues, or any act ever committed in or on the
>> universe by such,
> And then of course it will be necessary to establish, equally, the
>> veracity of the myths/ folk lore, within which such were concocted. (the
>> bible)
> What good are those things based on a statement that there is no god? Why
> would one need those things at all on what atheism has been described to
> me to be? I mean, even if I did what you asked...how does that come out of
> the statement that there is no god? That statement says absolutely nothing
> to the effect that logic, reason, or the scientific are worth anything.
Observer
It doesn't.
Yep " dumb fuck " and uneducated are proper descriptions for your inept
mentality .
Have you ever considered seeking out professional help from professional
cognitive therapists?
What have you against becoming a functional , educated and useful member of
the species?
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
-- Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving
safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in
sideways, body thoroughly used up,totally worn out,screaming "WOOHOO What A
Ride"
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 12:54 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 4, 2012 8:36:53 AM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:34 AM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 4, 2012 8:19:31 AM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 7:36 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com>wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:19:56 PM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com>wrote:
>>>>>> <snipped>
>>>>>>> Atheistic Cartesian dualism, various forms of atheistic
>>>>>>> supernaturalism, atheism combined with belief in objective moral
>>>>>>> values, atheism combined with realism about abstract objects... the
>>>>>>> list is endless.
>>>>>>> These are examples of illegitimate borrowing and attaching parts
>>>>>>> to atheism that are not an natural outgrowth of it.
Observer
Atheism is a conclusion drawn , that any god thing and all god things are
meaningless, in that there exists no scientifically
verifiable substantiation therefor , further reason , logic and the rules
critical thinking in combination with scientific method do not
even remotely infer that such is a useful assumption.
> As such, when given close examination, they are found to be inconsistent
>>>>>>> and at odds with Atheism. Thus they do not provide an answer to my
>>>>>>> challenge.
Observer
You and others of profound ignorance, due to a refusal to educate your
selves, claim that the god thing, peculiar to christian ideologues and
conjured in the preposterous myths of contained in the so called "bible" is
an actuality.
I know that you are unable to grasp the long list of logical fallacies used
in conjunction with such unfounded claims but I shall refer them to you in
the hope that there remains some glimmer of human intelligence at your
disposal.
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/atheism-vs-christianity/-/4ldlv8uLySMJ.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
-- Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving
safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in
sideways, body thoroughly used up,totally worn out,screaming "WOOHOO What A
Ride"
On Saturday, August 11, 2012 10:28:27 AM UTC-7, Observer wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 1:34 PM, yar...@aol.com <javascript:> < > yar...@aol.com <javascript:>> wrote:
> Observer
> The statement that the god thing conjured by primitive uneducated > primitives in a collection of superstitious myths is the product of > applied reason, logic, scientific method, the produce there of, and the > application of the rules of critical thinking is fictive needs no > explication to one who is grounded in these vital tools of cognition.
> No indication of what is either goodness or lacks such is implied nor > claimed based upon such a determination.
> Goodness and badness are purely of human construct
If they are....then you should have no objection to theists believing in a God and Christians actively seeking converts. Such things are neither good or bad, they simply are and thus, I must ask you why you are bothering to even have this back and forth with me? What's the point of you telling me about superstitions, which are neither good or bad, or applied reason, which is neither good nor bad and all the other things that you list? These things are mere human constructs that have no actual value, only falsely perceived values that deceive. Are you working very hard to make sure you are deceived all the time about everything? Why on earth would you do that?
On Monday, August 6, 2012 8:35:32 AM UTC-7, Dingbat wrote:
> On Aug 6, 7:55 am, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, August 5, 2012 5:07:13 PM UTC-7, Dingbat wrote: > > > On Aug 5, 6:42 pm, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 5, 2012 1:55:11 PM UTC-7, Dingbat wrote: > > > > > On Aug 5, 3:42 pm, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > The opposite of knowledge is ignorance and > > > > > > ignorance can be cured.
> > > > > I can't believe in Nessie because I have no knowledge of Nessie. > > > > > Neil Kelsey can't believe in God because he has no knowledge of > God. > > > > > Can either of us be cured of our ignorance?
> > > > As always, exposure to evidence and a willingness to honestly > consider > > > > it objectively, casting aside any bias.
> > Fair enough. Let's reduce the Hinduism to the bare essentials and see > how > > it fares against reality. The notion in Hinduism is that our environment > is > > nothing more than an illusion (Maya). It is not really there. So, how > can > > we get true and reliable information from something that does not exist?
> You obviously didn't learn about maya from a Hindu. The current > standard explanation is that our perception (maya) comes from our > senses and therefore might not accurately represent reality. Foir > example, if you have bad eyesight. then objects looking crooked or > blurry is an illusion, not reality. Even if you have good eyesight, > what you perceive might still be an illusion - one you perceive as a > pleasant young man might actually be a serial murderer.
And you learned this from a Western Hindu? It was interesting how things change when they make it out to the west just like it did with transcendental meditation.
> > On their view, Krishna only came to save the righteous and a reflective > > Hindu can come only to a conclusion of despair as he realizes that he > > cannot attain to righteousness. Hinduism does not provide forgiveness,
> Bollocks! Look up punya.
Always going, never getting there is what punya describes. That is why there is an endless cycle of reincarnation. Since there are several folks out there claiming to be reincarnations of Jesus, who was without flaw some 2000 years ago, it would seem that if he doesn't have a chance of escaping this cycle, what chance does any of us who are way, way, way far from that kind of perfection have? Never mind the problem with credibility of having multiple reincarnations of the same person at the same time.
> > Christ does. It is the message of forgiveness that turns > > Hindus to Christianity.
> Just like it was the message of forgiveness* that sent Nazis to S > America? > * i.e. - the message that they could escape prosecution in S America
No idea what you are responding to.
> > Paul Gupta, who was a high cast Hindu in India, is one such example and > it > > is he that is my source of the claim I have just made who converted to > > Christianity. He sacrificed his high caste status and the wealth that > came > > with it and served Christ.
> This is like claiming that Jewish bankers in pre-Nazi Germany got > their status and wealth from their high caste. Gupta's family's wealth > came from his father's money lending business, not from his high > caste.
On what basis do you make the claim that his father even being in that business wasn't due to the high caste?
> His high caste also possibly came from his family's having been > in that business for generations.
Thank you for proving my point. Having been born into that cast that afforded him a money lending business. You are lending credibility to my claims. Thank you.
> > He founded the Hindustani Bible Institute. > > Hinduism claims to be a religion of tolerance, but in practice this is > > simply not true as Christians are ostracized, especially those who > convert > > to Christianity from Hinduism.
> What evidence have you found that those who convert to Christianity > from Hinduism are ostracized?
> If a Christian converts to Hinduism and > consequently no longer gets invited to baptisms, then is he/she > ostracized?
You can find ways to give the wrong impression of what I said without redefining words to the point where they tumble out of dictionaries. So, why don't you?
> > So much for their claims that they accept > > other religions. They philosophically affirm tolerance of other > religions, > > but practice intolerance in opposition to that affirmation.
> If apostates from Hinduism are allowed to live in a Hindu society, it > follows that they are tolerated at least to some extent.
Check out the link I gave and you tell me how tossing people into jail and beating them or keeping them from a job because of their Christian faith is an expression of tolerance of other religions.
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 3:47 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 11, 2012 10:28:27 AM UTC-7, Observer wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 1:34 PM, yar...@aol.com <yar...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Observer
>> The statement that the god thing conjured by primitive uneducated
>> primitives in a collection of superstitious myths is the product of
>> applied reason, logic, scientific method, the produce there of, and the
>> application of the rules of critical thinking is fictive needs no
>> explication to one who is grounded in these vital tools of cognition.
>> No indication of what is either goodness or lacks such is implied nor
>> claimed based upon such a determination.
>> Goodness and badness are purely of human construct
> Observer
You presumably truncated my statement because you could not deal with with
it's entirety.
But then you write so poorly, that there is never anything of value in your
dimwitted posts.
> If they are....then you should have no objection to theists believing
> in a God and Christians actively seeking converts.
According to this statement the fact of being of human construct signifies
yo your scrambled and fragmented little brain that such is therefore should
be presumed to be permissible.
Are you so stupid that you have not yet grasped the definition of
an oxymoron?
> Such things are neither good or bad, they simply are and thus, I must ask
> you why you are bothering to even have this back and forth with me?
Observer
I care deeply for all sentient creatures and it is a crime against humanity
to perpetuate ignorance to be used against their well being.
> What's the point of you telling me about superstitions, which are neither
> good or bad, or applied reason, which is neither good nor bad and all the
> other things that you list?
Observer
The perceived goodness or badness of any act or omission lies in the damage
inflicted on self and others by such.
It is vitally important that humankind gain the wisdom necessary to apply
education based rational empathy in the full understanding of the
interdependence, of the one for the many , the many for the on to the end
that all are as best as possible kept safe, allowed to share in mutual
abundance, and to take what joys they might from living in sociological
structures designed to provide the best opportunities for all.
> These things are mere human constructs that have no actual value, only
> falsely perceived values that deceive.
Observer
Now you claim that all that is of human construct has no intrinsic value?
Damn son you are indeed a fucking clod!
> Are you working very hard to make sure you are deceived all the time about
> everything? Why on earth would you do that?
Observer
Only one bereft of the tools of the cognoscente fails to understand their
vital importance and only the religious/ superstitious are so callused as
to the welfare of their fellows. Christians are a savage lot.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
-- Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving
safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in
sideways, body thoroughly used up,totally worn out,screaming "WOOHOO What A
Ride"
