we are all atheists

[Khurram Chaudhry]

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

— Stephen Roberts

[Badger578]

You can't expect believers to understand that they are nearly
atheists, based upon the one fewer God piece of smug shite. You are a
turd and a smelly one at that for suggesting that believers should
countenance such a fuckwit argument. Obviously, they only need one
God, you twat.

[showmethehoney]

hmmm nice 'god' you must believe in ;-)

> > — Stephen Roberts- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Medusa]

On Nov 25, 5:07 pm, Badger578 <badger...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> You can't expect believers to understand that they are nearly
> atheists, based upon the one fewer God piece of smug shite. You are a
> turd and a smelly one at that for suggesting that believers should
> countenance such a fuckwit argument. Obviously, they only need one
> God, you twat.

Such lovely language. Civility and politeness will entice people to
actually think about your argument.

I did not read your post beyond the second sentence.

Medusa

>
> On Nov 25, 7:45 pm, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
> > you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
> > will understand why I dismiss yours.
>

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Nov 25, 2:45 pm, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
> you do.

Polytheists are monotheists. They just believe that their God is many
more than 3 persons.

[Khurram Chaudhry]

my point exactly.

everyone denies some god or another.

do theists not deny the gods of the greeks?

--

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-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[ornamentalmind]

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god

— Stephen Roberts”

This clever saying, oft quoted, has countless analogies. One is:

I contend that we are both ignorant. I just have attended one fewer
university than you have. When you understand why you dismiss all
other institutions of higher learning, you will understand why I
dismiss yours.

[Khurram Chaudhry]

yes but who wants to be ignorant?

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 3:38 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamen...@yahoo.com> wrote:

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god

than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
gods, you
will understand why I dismiss yours.

— Stephen Roberts”

This clever saying, oft quoted, has countless analogies. One is:

I contend that we are both ignorant. I just have attended one fewer
university than you have. When you understand why you dismiss all
other institutions of higher learning, you will understand why I
dismiss yours.

On Nov 25, 11:45 am, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
> you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
> will understand why I dismiss yours.
>
> — Stephen Roberts

[ornamentalmind]

“yes but who wants to be ignorant?” – KC

Apparently those who ask rhetorical questions, argue by slogans and/or
just plain use the fallacy of argument by question.

On Nov 26, 2:46 am, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yes but who wants to be ignorant?
>

> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 3:38 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
> > than
> > you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
> > gods, you
> > will understand why I dismiss yours.
> > — Stephen Roberts”
>
> > This clever saying, oft quoted, has countless analogies. One is:
>
> > I contend that we are both ignorant. I just have attended one fewer
> > university than you have. When you understand why you dismiss all
> > other institutions of higher learning, you will understand why I
> > dismiss yours.
>
> > On Nov 25, 11:45 am, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
> > > you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
> > you
> > > will understand why I dismiss yours.
>
> > > — Stephen Roberts
>
> > --
>
> > 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-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group at

> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -

[showmethehoney]

some say ignorance is bliss ... after all, mental institutions around
the world are full of bright eyed lunatics who dont have the emotional
capacity to absorb what they have learned. id rather be dumb and happy
than smart and unhappy, wouldnt you? look at observer who tells people
how dumb they are in virtually every post. also note how unhappy he
seems to be as evidenced by the hatred he continuously displays. imo,
being happy is MUCH more important than being smart

On Nov 26, 5:46 am, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yes but who wants to be ignorant?
>

> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 3:38 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
> > than
> > you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
> > gods, you
> > will understand why I dismiss yours.
> > — Stephen Roberts”
>
> > This clever saying, oft quoted, has countless analogies. One is:
>
> > I contend that we are both ignorant. I just have attended one fewer
> > university than you have. When you understand why you dismiss all
> > other institutions of higher learning, you will understand why I
> > dismiss yours.
>
> > On Nov 25, 11:45 am, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
> > > you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
> > you
> > > will understand why I dismiss yours.
>
> > > — Stephen Roberts
>
> > --
>
> > 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-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group at

[ynot]

There are no religions at a moment that are true monotheists. In any
case, you can not have a religion with one god only. Muslims and Jews
have 2 gods each and the Christians have 4 gods. They are all still a
long way before they drop all those gods, but eventually, as you said,
the vast majority of the world population will be atheists. It's a
question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see
that day.

Tony

[Treebeard]

So ... because I can't hold conflicting beliefs and so must dismiss
any contradictory God to the one I belief in explains or will help me
understand why an atheist -- who has no such belief -- dismisses my
God?

Oh, I see: he has a belief that conflicts with believing in ANY gods,
and so must dismiss them on that grounds. Fair enough. Of course,
that then means that the atheist should reveal and defend THAT belief
of theirs if they wish me to take the same stance.

Oh, is that not what he meant?

[Treebeard]

On Nov 25, 8:08 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 5:07 pm, Badger578 <badger...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > You can't expect believers to understand that they are nearly
> > atheists, based upon the one fewer God piece of smug shite. You are a
> > turd and a smelly one at that for suggesting that believers should
> > countenance such a fuckwit argument. Obviously, they only need one
> > God, you twat.
>
> Such lovely language.  Civility and politeness will entice people to
> actually think about your argument.

And, oddly enough, when theists complain that they don't want to
engage people who insult and swear and are not civil and are impolite,
many of the atheists here -- and they know who they are -- immediately
leap to the attack that that is simply dodging their supposedly real
arguments.

I don't see any such comments to your post here ...

[showmethehoney]

i disagree that most will be atheists. i just think most will simply
move away from religion which, despite their promotions of such, are
not representative of 'god'. religion is as separate from 'god' as
atheism is.

[Trance Gemini]

This is such hypocrisy and not surprising coming from TB.

TBs strategy is create Straw Men and argue those as he's done here.

Medusa isn't complaining that she doesn't want to engage in debate when there are insults like the theist whiners do. A ridiculous thing to whine about since all they have to do is *not engage* anyone they don't want to debate with.

Medusa is engaging him/her directly and simply making the point (sarcastically) that he isn't going to get anywhere by being abusive given that he made no argument.

Had he made an argument, knowing Medusa as I do, she would have responded to his argument.

It's noted that TB chose to attack Medusa for her legitimate (and unabusive) response to this abusive theist rather than criticize the abusive theist for his blatantly bad behavior.

This is called Bias and indicates an incapability for making objective assessments based on the facts.

--

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-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
High Priestess of Ribbonology
God Is A Ribbon!
All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Sky
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103

[ornamentalmind]

“…but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

population will be atheists. It's a
question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see
that day.” – Tony

Of course, for most rational thinkers, argument to the future is a
fallacy.

One example of iconoclasm demonstrating this fallacy is humorously
expressed here:
http://www.evilmilk.com/pictures/Virgins.htm

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Nov 26, 8:19 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2:45 pm, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
> > you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
> > will understand why I dismiss yours.
>
> > — Stephen Roberts
>
> So ... because I can't hold conflicting beliefs and so must dismiss
> any contradictory God to the one I belief in explains or will help me
> understand why an atheist -- who has no such belief -- dismisses my
> God?

In what way is Shamash contradictory to Yahweh? How would believing
that Shamash exists conflict with believing that Yahweh exists?
http://books.google.com/books?id=JCWDTTudNEgC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=shamash+yahweh&source=bl&ots=eCdhanXtQ_&sig=sVAlAuenqgRjfrnDNhzeib1wFog&hl=en&ei=ApYOS73zAcqYlAfIn4GeBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=shamash%20yahweh&f=false

[Treebeard]

On Nov 26, 9:55 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 8:19 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 25, 2:45 pm, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
> > > you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
> > > will understand why I dismiss yours.
>
> > > — Stephen Roberts
>
> > So ... because I can't hold conflicting beliefs and so must dismiss
> > any contradictory God to the one I belief in explains or will help me
> > understand why an atheist -- who has no such belief -- dismisses my
> > God?
>
> In what way is Shamash contradictory to Yahweh? How would believing

> that Shamash exists conflict with believing that Yahweh exists?http://books.google.com/books?id=JCWDTTudNEgC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=sha...

I'm not necessarily claiming they all are, but it is noted in general
that at most one of them can be right. Heck, the whole "Have no other
God before me" pretty much seals it for Christians. So your reply
here doesn't seem to be addressing the actual issue ...

>
>
>
> > Oh, I see: he has a belief that conflicts with believing in ANY gods,
> > and so must dismiss them on that grounds.  Fair enough.  Of course,
> > that then means that the atheist should reveal and defend THAT belief
> > of theirs if they wish me to take the same stance.
>

> > Oh, is that not what he meant?- Hide quoted text -

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Nov 26, 10:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 9:55 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 8:19 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > On Nov 25, 2:45 pm, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
> > > > you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
> > > > will understand why I dismiss yours.
>
> > > > — Stephen Roberts
>
> > > So ... because I can't hold conflicting beliefs and so must dismiss
> > > any contradictory God to the one I belief in explains or will help me
> > > understand why an atheist -- who has no such belief -- dismisses my
> > > God?
>
> > In what way is Shamash contradictory to Yahweh? How would believing
> > that Shamash exists conflict with believing that Yahweh exists?http://books.google.com/books?id=JCWDTTudNEgC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=sha...
>
> I'm not necessarily claiming they all are, but it is noted in general
> that at most one of them can be right.  Heck, the whole "Have no other
> God before me" pretty much seals it for Christians.

That's in the OT, not in Jesus' sayings, so how does it seal it for
Christians? The OT also has other commandments such as "when a donkey
has its first baby, either kill a lamb or break the baby donkey's
neck"; yet, Christian donkey owners do neither of these. Jesus heals a
centurion's servant and calls the centurion a man of faith without
asking which gods he worships.

>  So your reply
> here doesn't seem to be addressing the actual issue ...

I'm addressing the issue you seemed to raise - that believing in other
gods conflicts with believing in a certain god.

[Khurram Chaudhry]

two things to clear up hear.

firstly, being ignorant and wanting to be ignorant are two separate things. I am not discussing on who is ignorant. we are all ignorant if you know what body of knowledge to relate us with.

but do we want to be ignorant? that is a separate question.


secondly, we are all atheists, it only depends what god you are refering to. but persons such as me are atheist to all gods.


cheers!
خرّم چودہرے

[Treebeard]

On Nov 26, 11:41 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 10:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 9:55 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 26, 8:19 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 25, 2:45 pm, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
> > > > > you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
> > > > > will understand why I dismiss yours.
>
> > > > > — Stephen Roberts
>
> > > > So ... because I can't hold conflicting beliefs and so must dismiss
> > > > any contradictory God to the one I belief in explains or will help me
> > > > understand why an atheist -- who has no such belief -- dismisses my
> > > > God?
>
> > > In what way is Shamash contradictory to Yahweh? How would believing
> > > that Shamash exists conflict with believing that Yahweh exists?http://books.google.com/books?id=JCWDTTudNEgC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=sha...
>
> > I'm not necessarily claiming they all are, but it is noted in general
> > that at most one of them can be right.  Heck, the whole "Have no other
> > God before me" pretty much seals it for Christians.
>
> That's in the OT, not in Jesus' sayings, so how does it seal it for
> Christians?

We still hold the 10 commandments, and Jesus listed that one (I'm
pretty sure) as one of the top two in the 10 commandments that are
most important, so there you go ...

[Answer_42]

On Nov 26, 5:38 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
> than
> you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
> gods, you
> will understand why I dismiss yours.

> — Stephen Roberts”
>
> This clever saying, oft quoted, has countless analogies. One is:
>
> I contend that we are both ignorant. I just have attended one fewer
> university than you have. When you understand why you dismiss all
> other institutions of higher learning, you will understand why I
> dismiss yours.

Terrible analogy.

For starters, universities do exist, nobody claims they do not...
Also, one does not have to dismiss all other universities in order to
attend a particular one...
Also, people do not usually "dismiss" a university, except maybe this
one:
http://cienciaaldia.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/patriotuniversity2.jpg
_______________________________________________
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud and
the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
-- Francis Bacon

[Answer_42]

On Nov 26, 12:48 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > > > > I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
> > > > > > you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
> > > > > > will understand why I dismiss yours.
>
> > > > > > — Stephen Roberts
>
> > > > > So ... because I can't hold conflicting beliefs and so must dismiss
> > > > > any contradictory God to the one I belief in explains or will help me
> > > > > understand why an atheist -- who has no such belief -- dismisses my
> > > > > God?
>
> > > > In what way is Shamash contradictory to Yahweh? How would believing
> > > > that Shamash exists conflict with believing that Yahweh exists?http://books.google.com/books?id=JCWDTTudNEgC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=sha...
>
> > > I'm not necessarily claiming they all are, but it is noted in general
> > > that at most one of them can be right.  Heck, the whole "Have no other
> > > God before me" pretty much seals it for Christians.
>
> > That's in the OT, not in Jesus' sayings, so how does it seal it for
> > Christians?
>
> We still hold the 10 commandments, and Jesus listed that one (I'm
> pretty sure) as one of the top two in the 10 commandments that are
> most important, so there you go ...

How do you like them cherries?

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

Sure, but on what basis? BTW, in Exodus 34:1-4, God tells Moses that
he will write the commandments once again on stone and what does God
write again? One is "thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk."
If God was really writing the commandments AGAIN, then he must have
written that commandment the first time too, on the tablets that Moses
broke:-)

> and Jesus listed that one (I'm pretty sure)

Nope. "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not
kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy
father and mother." - Mark 10:19
As an exercise, try to figure out which commandments on Jesus' list
are on Christians' standard list of 10 commandments and which ones on
the standard list are not on Jesus' list.

> as one of the top two in the 10 commandments that are
> most important, so there you go ...

He lists 6 commandments above, so the commandment you allude to is not
on his top 6 and he lists 3 other commandments elsewhere only one of
which is on Christians' standard list, so this commandment is not on
his top 9 either and might not have been on his list of commandments
at all since he didn't mention on any occasion where he had the
opportunity to include it along with other commandments.

[ornamentalmind]

“Terrible analogy…” – 42

Yes it was. My intention was not in presenting an accurate analogy
though. My intention was irony…apparently not apprehended.

[Alan Wostenberg]

On Nov 26, 1:42 am, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> my point exactly.
>
> everyone denies some god or another.
>
> do theists not deny the gods of the greeks?

Those are not the gods that tempt the Christian away from God. The
gods of economic security, or health, are more typical, while the gods
of verification and evidence seem to call to internet atheists. Rare
is the person who truly dismisses /all/ the gods. We call them Saints.
Said one "God alone is enough. Let nothing upset you, let nothing
startle you. ... Whoever has God lacks nothing: God alone is enough."
http://bit.ly/6P9fE1

[Alan Wostenberg]

On Nov 25, 11:45 am, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
> you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
> will understand why I dismiss yours.
>
> — Stephen Roberts

By God's grace I do not believe in the gods because anything of which
there could be a plurality is for that very reason never all it can
be, so is not God, who lacks nothing.

[Drafterman]

He lacks a daughter.

[showmethehoney]

do you mean a wife?

[ynot]

On Nov 26, 4:18 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> “…but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world
> population will be atheists. It's a
> question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see
> that day.” – Tony
>
> Of course, for most rational thinkers, argument to the future is a
> fallacy.
>

Look who is talking. By discrediting my argument, you imply that
believes in gods and religions will be around in the future. The
problem with your fallacy is that all the current statistics are
against it; mine is supported by those stats. More and more rational
people are dropping believes in gods and abandoning religions. So, it
is logic to assume that in a not so distante future, the vast majority

of the world population will be atheists.

Tony

[showmethehoney]

abandoning religion has nothing to do with abanoning belief in 'god'

[Khurram Chaudhry]

you have a point there. religion has nothing to do with belief in a true god concept.

cheers!

[showmethehoney]

nice to see that finally someone gets it :-)

On Nov 27, 12:44 pm, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> you have a point there. religion has nothing to do with belief in a true god
> concept.
>
> cheers!
>

> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:34 PM, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com

>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > abandoning religion has nothing to do with abanoning belief in 'god'
>
> > On Nov 27, 12:00 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 26, 4:18 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > “…but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world
> > > > population will be atheists. It's a
> > > > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see
> > > > that day.” – Tony
>
> > > > Of course, for most rational thinkers, argument to the future is a
> > > > fallacy.
>
> > > Look who is talking. By discrediting my argument, you imply that
> > > believes in gods and religions will be around in the future. The
> > > problem with your fallacy is that all the current statistics are
> > > against it; mine is supported by those stats. More and more rational
> > > people are dropping believes in gods and abandoning religions. So, it
> > > is logic to assume that in a not so distante future, the vast majority
> > > of the world population will be atheists.
>
> > > Tony
>
> > --
>
> > 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-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group at

> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -

[Simon Ewins]

On 27/11/2009 12:44 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

you have a point there. religion has nothing to do with belief in a true god concept.

Um everything has something to do with belief of some sort.

Religion is simply formalized belief in something.

cheers!

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:34 PM, showmethehoney <alena...@googlemail.com> wrote:

abandoning religion has nothing to do with abanoning belief in 'god'

On Nov 27, 12:00�pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:18�pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ��but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> > population will be atheists. It's a
> > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see

> > that day.� � Tony

>
> > Of course, for most rational thinkers, argument to the future is a
> > fallacy.
>
> Look who is talking. By discrediting my argument, you imply that
> believes in gods and religions will be around in the future. The
> problem with your fallacy is that all the current statistics are
> against it; mine is supported by those stats. More and more rational
> people are dropping believes in gods and abandoning religions. So, it
> is logic to assume that in a not so distante future, the vast majority
> of the world population will be atheists.
>
> Tony

--

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-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--

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-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--

Virtual Gods: http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm

"Your work is to discover your world and then with all your heart give yourself to it."
[Buddha]

[Khurram Chaudhry]

No.

Religion is belief in what other people say..........about god.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/11/2009 12:44 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

you have a point there. religion has nothing to do with belief in a true god concept.

Um everything has something to do with belief of some sort.

Religion is simply formalized belief in something.

cheers!

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:34 PM, showmethehoney <alena...@googlemail.com> wrote:

abandoning religion has nothing to do with abanoning belief in 'god'

On Nov 27, 12:00 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:18 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > “…but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> > population will be atheists. It's a
> > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see

> > that day.” – Tony

[Simon Ewins]

On 27/11/2009 1:08 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

No.

Religion is belief in what other people say..........about god.

Nonsense. That makes atheism a religion which is ridiculous.

You need a new dictionary.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/11/2009 12:44 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

you have a point there. religion has nothing to do with belief in a true god concept.

Um everything has something to do with belief of some sort.

Religion is simply formalized belief in something.

cheers!

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:34 PM, showmethehoney <alena...@googlemail.com> wrote:

abandoning religion has nothing to do with abanoning belief in 'god'

On Nov 27, 12:00�pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:18�pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > ��but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> > population will be atheists. It's a
> > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see

> > that day.� � Tony

"The secret of health for both mind and body is not to mourn for the past, nor to worry about the future, but to live the present moment wisely and earnestly."
[Buddha]

[Khurram Chaudhry]

why would that make atheism a religion?

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/11/2009 1:08 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

No.

Religion is belief in what other people say..........about god.

Nonsense. That makes atheism a religion which is ridiculous.

You need a new dictionary.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/11/2009 12:44 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

you have a point there. religion has nothing to do with belief in a true god concept.

Um everything has something to do with belief of some sort.

Religion is simply formalized belief in something.

cheers!

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:34 PM, showmethehoney <alena...@googlemail.com> wrote:

abandoning religion has nothing to do with abanoning belief in 'god'

On Nov 27, 12:00 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:18 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > “…but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> > population will be atheists. It's a
> > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see

> > that day.” – Tony

[Simon Ewins]

On 27/11/2009 1:12 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

why would that make atheism a religion?

According to you "what other people say about gods" is a religion. Atheists lots about gods' non-existence.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/11/2009 1:08 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

No.

Religion is belief in what other people say..........about god.

Nonsense. That makes atheism a religion which is ridiculous.

You need a new dictionary.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/11/2009 12:44 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

you have a point there. religion has nothing to do with belief in a true god concept.

Um everything has something to do with belief of some sort.

Religion is simply formalized belief in something.

cheers!

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:34 PM, showmethehoney <alena...@googlemail.com> wrote:

abandoning religion has nothing to do with abanoning belief in 'god'

On Nov 27, 12:00�pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:18�pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > ��but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> > population will be atheists. It's a
> > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see

> > that day.� � Tony

"Ennui has made more gamblers than avarice, more drunkards than thirst, and perhaps as many suicides as despair."
[Buddha]

[Khurram Chaudhry]

well for me atheism is disbelief.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/11/2009 1:12 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

why would that make atheism a religion?

According to you "what other people say about gods" is a religion. Atheists lots about gods' non-existence.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/11/2009 1:08 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

No.

Religion is belief in what other people say..........about god.

Nonsense. That makes atheism a religion which is ridiculous.

You need a new dictionary.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/11/2009 12:44 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

you have a point there. religion has nothing to do with belief in a true god concept.

Um everything has something to do with belief of some sort.

Religion is simply formalized belief in something.

cheers!

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:34 PM, showmethehoney <alena...@googlemail.com> wrote:

abandoning religion has nothing to do with abanoning belief in 'god'

On Nov 27, 12:00 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:18 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > “…but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> > population will be atheists. It's a
> > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see

> > that day.” – Tony

[Simon Ewins]

On 27/11/2009 1:30 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

well for me atheism is disbelief.

And according to your definition it is a religion since it is what "other people say about god(s)".

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/11/2009 1:12 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

why would that make atheism a religion?

According to you "what other people say about gods" is a religion. Atheists lots about gods' non-existence.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/11/2009 1:08 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

No.

Religion is belief in what other people say..........about god.

Nonsense. That makes atheism a religion which is ridiculous.

You need a new dictionary.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/11/2009 12:44 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

you have a point there. religion has nothing to do with belief in a true god concept.

Um everything has something to do with belief of some sort.

Religion is simply formalized belief in something.

cheers!

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:34 PM, showmethehoney <alena...@googlemail.com> wrote:

abandoning religion has nothing to do with abanoning belief in 'god'

On Nov 27, 12:00�pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:18�pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > ��but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> > population will be atheists. It's a
> > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see

> > that day.� � Tony

"Those who are free of resentful thoughts surely find peace."
[Buddha]

[Khurram Chaudhry]

no. it is about disbelief in what other people say about god.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/11/2009 1:30 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

well for me atheism is disbelief.

And according to your definition it is a religion since it is what "other people say about god(s)".

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/11/2009 1:12 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

why would that make atheism a religion?

According to you "what other people say about gods" is a religion. Atheists lots about gods' non-existence.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/11/2009 1:08 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

No.

Religion is belief in what other people say..........about god.

Nonsense. That makes atheism a religion which is ridiculous.

You need a new dictionary.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/11/2009 12:44 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

you have a point there. religion has nothing to do with belief in a true god concept.

Um everything has something to do with belief of some sort.

Religion is simply formalized belief in something.

cheers!

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:34 PM, showmethehoney <alena...@googlemail.com> wrote:

abandoning religion has nothing to do with abanoning belief in 'god'

On Nov 27, 12:00 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:18 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > “…but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> > population will be atheists. It's a
> > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see

> > that day.” – Tony

[Simon Ewins]

On 27/11/2009 1:40 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

no. it is about disbelief in what other people say about god.

If six people express disbelief in a god then those six are "other people", and they say something about god (that it doesn't exist) which fits your definition of religion. ["Religion is belief in what other people say..........about god."]

That is why religion's actual definition incorporates the idea of formalization of ideas. This avoids the quagmire that your definition leads to.

The word religion is derived from the Latin noun religio, which denotes both earnest observance of ritual obligations and an inward spirit of reverence.

The philosopher of science, Robert Root-Bernstein might make a valuable contribution here...

Religious beliefs are:

(1) comprised of absolute knowledge ("Truth")
(2) concerning values and morals that
(3) direct universal aspects of human existence and
(4) emphasize the supernatural, either in time (e.g., afterlife) or in space (e.g., Heaven).

Religious explanations are stated in terms of a final cause (i.e., some sort of god). Because religious beliefs are absolute, and because
they are based upon supernatural (and thus unobservable) causes, religion promotes:

(5) faith in
(6) an orthodox doctrine that is
(7) established by reliance upon authority (e.g., a holy man, a sacred text, or a revelation)."

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/11/2009 1:30 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

well for me atheism is disbelief.

And according to your definition it is a religion since it is what "other people say about god(s)".

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/11/2009 1:12 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

why would that make atheism a religion?

According to you "what other people say about gods" is a religion. Atheists lots about gods' non-existence.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/11/2009 1:08 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

No.

Religion is belief in what other people say..........about god.

Nonsense. That makes atheism a religion which is ridiculous.

You need a new dictionary.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/11/2009 12:44 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

you have a point there. religion has nothing to do with belief in a true god concept.

Um everything has something to do with belief of some sort.

Religion is simply formalized belief in something.

cheers!

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:34 PM, showmethehoney <alena...@googlemail.com> wrote:

abandoning religion has nothing to do with abanoning belief in 'god'

On Nov 27, 12:00�pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:18�pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > ��but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> > population will be atheists. It's a
> > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see

> > that day.� � Tony

"To enjoy good health, to bring true happiness to one's family, to bring peace to all, one must first discipline and control one's own mind. If a man can control his mind he can find the way to Enlightenment, and all wisdom and virtue will naturally come to him."
[Buddha]

[showmethehoney]

what does knowledge have to do with belief?

On Nov 27, 12:57 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/11/2009 12:44 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:
>
> > you have a point there. religion has nothing to do with belief in a
> > true god concept.
>
> Um everything has something to do with belief of some sort.
>
> Religion is simply formalized belief in something.
>
>
>
>
>
> > cheers!
>
> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:34 PM, showmethehoney
> > <alenasha...@googlemail.com <mailto:alenasha...@googlemail.com>> wrote:
>
> >     abandoning religion has nothing to do with abanoning belief in 'god'
>

> >     On Nov 27, 12:00 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com
> >     <mailto:ynota...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >     > On Nov 26, 4:18 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com

> >     <mailto:ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> >     > > ��but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world
> >     > > population will be atheists. It's a
> >     > > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass
> >     before we see
> >     > > that day.� � Tony
>
> >     > > Of course, for most rational thinkers, argument to the future is a
> >     > > fallacy.
>
> >     > Look who is talking. By discrediting my argument, you imply that
> >     > believes in gods and religions will be around in the future. The
> >     > problem with your fallacy is that all the current statistics are
> >     > against it; mine is supported by those stats. More and more rational
> >     > people are dropping believes in gods and abandoning religions.
> >     So, it
> >     > is logic to assume that in a not so distante future, the vast
> >     majority
> >     > of the world population will be atheists.
>
> >     > Tony
>
> >     --
>
> >     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-...@googlegroups.com

> >     <mailto:atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>.

> >     To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >     atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com

> >     <mailto:atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

> >     For more options, visit this group at
> >    http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> > --
>
> > 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-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> --
>
> Virtual Gods:http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm
>
> "Your work is to discover your world and then with all your heart give yourself to it."

> [Buddha]- Hide quoted text -

[Khurram Chaudhry]

but they do not believe

cheers!

On Nov 27, 12:00 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:18 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > “…but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> > population will be atheists. It's a
> > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see

> > that day.” – Tony

[Simon Ewins]

On 27/11/2009 2:40 PM, showmethehoney wrote:
> what does knowledge have to do with belief?
>

Everything.

Knowledge is justified true belief tested with reliable methods.

> On Nov 27, 12:57 pm, Simon Ewins<sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 27/11/2009 12:44 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:
>>
>>
>>> you have a point there. religion has nothing to do with belief in a
>>> true god concept.
>>>
>> Um everything has something to do with belief of some sort.
>>
>> Religion is simply formalized belief in something.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> cheers!
>>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:34 PM, showmethehoney
>>> <alenasha...@googlemail.com<mailto:alenasha...@googlemail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> abandoning religion has nothing to do with abanoning belief in 'god'
>>>
>>
>>> On Nov 27, 12:00 pm, ynot<ynota...@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:ynota...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> > On Nov 26, 4:18 pm, ornamentalmind<ornamentalm...@yahoo.com
>>> <mailto:ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>

>>> > > ��but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

>>> > > population will be atheists. It's a
>>> > > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass
>>> before we see

>>> > > that day.� � Tony

"It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways."
[Buddha]

[Simon Ewins]

On 27/11/2009 2:57 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

but they do not believe

Sure they do. Everything is belief.

cheers!

On Nov 27, 12:00�pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:18�pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > ��but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> > population will be atheists. It's a
> > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see

> > that day.� � Tony

"I never see what has been done; I only see what remains to be done."
[Buddha]

[Khurram Chaudhry]

we do not know everything

cheers!

On Nov 27, 12:00 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:18 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > “…but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> > population will be atheists. It's a
> > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see

> > that day.” – Tony

[Simon Ewins]

On 27/11/2009 3:27 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

we do not know everything

We only know beyond doubt one thing. All else is varying degrees of substantiated beliefs.

cheers!

On Nov 27, 12:00�pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:18�pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > ��but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> > population will be atheists. It's a
> > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see

> > that day.� � Tony

[Khurram Chaudhry]

not true

cheers!

On Nov 27, 12:00 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:18 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > “…but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> > population will be atheists. It's a
> > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see

> > that day.” – Tony

[Simon Ewins]

On 27/11/2009 3:34 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

not true

Really? This is interesting indeed!

Please show me any knowledge that you have that has not been mediated by your mind and will not be mediated by mine upon reception.

I have searched for many years but can see no possibility of this at all, if you have a way to do this I would love to see how.

cheers!

On Nov 27, 12:00�pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:18�pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > ��but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> > population will be atheists. It's a
> > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see

> > that day.� � Tony

"It is better to travel well than to arrive."
[Buddha]

[Khurram Chaudhry]

atheists do not believe in religion nor god

cheers!

On Nov 27, 12:00 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:18 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > “…but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> > population will be atheists. It's a
> > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see

> > that day.” – Tony

[Simon Ewins]

On 27/11/2009 3:40 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

atheists do not believe in religion nor god

Well I certainly believe in religion, I see it all around me, I hear about it all the time. How one cannot is problematic.

As for god, please define it for me.

cheers!

On Nov 27, 12:00�pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:18�pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > ��but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> > population will be atheists. It's a
> > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see

> > that day.� � Tony

"Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others. He who envies others does not obtain peace of mind."
[Buddha]

[Khurram Chaudhry]

i never said YOU didn't beleve

cheers!

On Nov 27, 12:00 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:18 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > “…but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> > population will be atheists. It's a
> > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see

> > that day.” – Tony

[Simon Ewins]

On 27/11/2009 3:45 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

i never said YOU didn't beleve

"atheists do not believe in religion nor god"

You said atheists and I am an atheist so my beliefs are being included by you.

cheers!

On Nov 27, 12:00�pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:18�pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > ��but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> > population will be atheists. It's a
> > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see

> > that day.� � Tony

"We are formed and molded by our thoughts. Those whose minds are shaped by selfless thoughts give joy when they speak or act. Joy follows them like a shadow that never leaves them.[Buddha]

[Khurram Chaudhry]

and the blue shirt you wear is green?

cheers!

On Nov 27, 12:00 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:18 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > “…but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> > population will be atheists. It's a
> > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see

> > that day.” – Tony

[Simon Ewins]

On 27/11/2009 3:49 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:

and the blue shirt you wear is green?

No.

cheers!

On Nov 27, 12:00�pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:18�pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > ��but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> > population will be atheists. It's a
> > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see

> > that day.� � Tony

[rappoccio]

On Nov 26, 10:13 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 1:42 am, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > my point exactly.
>
> > everyone denies some god or another.
>
> > do theists not deny the gods of the greeks?
>
> Those are not the gods that tempt the Christian away from God. The
> gods of economic security, or health, are more typical, while the gods
> of verification and evidence seem to call to internet atheists. Rare
> is the person who truly dismisses /all/ the gods. We call them Saints.
> Said one "God alone is enough. Let nothing upset you, let nothing
> startle you. ... Whoever has God lacks nothing: God alone is enough."http://bit.ly/6P9fE1

Wait... economic security and health have been now made into deities?

Under what definition of "god" does this fall under?

[rappoccio]

On Nov 26, 5:38 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
> than
> you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
> gods, you
> will understand why I dismiss yours.
> — Stephen Roberts”
>
> This clever saying, oft quoted, has countless analogies. One is:
>
> I contend that we are both ignorant. I just have attended one fewer
> university than you have. When you understand why you dismiss all
> other institutions of higher learning, you will understand why I
> dismiss yours.

Of course, fundamentally a different sentiment is expressed. Attendees
of university do not contend that other universities are wrong, they
actually agree on most everything (you know, things like cosmology,
geology, evolution, thermodynamics, etc...). Adherents of different
religions, on the other hand, necessarily disagree with each other and
consider the other to be actually wrong.

>
> On Nov 25, 11:45 am, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
> > you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
> > will understand why I dismiss yours.
>
> > — Stephen Roberts

[ornamentalmind]

> “…but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> population will be atheists. It's a
> question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see

> that day.” – Tony

> Of course, for most rational thinkers, argument to the future is a
> fallacy.

“Look who is talking.” – T

Uhh, I take that as a swipe of some sort?

“By discrediting my argument, you imply that believes in gods and
religions will be around in the future.” – T

First, I do not discredit (reject as false; refuse to accept) your
argument. I don’t know about the future. I do know what the more
common fallacies are when applied to argumentation. And, by merely
pointing out one fallacy that is directly applicable to your
‘argument’, nothing about the future has been implied by me at all. In
fact, the opposite. What is being implied is that NO ONE can say what
will happen in the future that will support an argument. That is the
nature of the fallacy.:

• Argument To The Future:
arguing that evidence will someday be discovered which will (then)
support your point.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#future


In fact, I don’t care about the future in this sense.

“The problem with your fallacy is that all the current statistics are

against it; mine is supported by those stats. More and more rational

people are dropping believes in gods and abandoning religions.” – T

First, it is not my fallacy. It was you who made the claim and I
pointed to an already existent fallacy that has been used for longer
than I have been alive that addresses how you argued. The fallacy does
not say anything about the future. It does say something about your
argument. Perhaps you are not well versed in arguments? If not, a
quick check through the list and a little research can be quite
informative

So, statistics are just that … statistics. Statistics are not the
future. What is happening now may imply what might happen in the
future. However, this is not what you argued. You claimed a fact about
the future. Probability, associated with statistics, does not deal
with that type of fact. As such, the fallacy of making that sort of
argument is all that is the case here…at least for me.

I won’t cloud the current issue by pointing out in detail the new
fallacy you include in your last sentence above. Check with some of
these ‘rational people’ you know if you are interested. Or, if you
wish, searching that entire list might result in you finding the
additional fallacy.

“So, it is logic to assume that in a not so distante future, the vast
majority of the world population will be atheists.” - Tony

Well, one might create some form of logic to come to this conclusion.
However, we are not talking about logic. We are talking about stating
as fact what will be discovered in the future. To do so is a fallacy.
Again, as an atheist, I have no horse in this race about the future. I
don’t care. I do care about the present and in the present, a use of a
fallacy in an argument is a use of a fallacy!!!

On Nov 27, 9:00 am, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:18 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > “…but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> > population will be atheists. It's a
> > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see

> > that day.” – Tony

[ornamentalmind]

“…Attendees of university do not contend that other universities are
wrong, they actually agree on most everything…” – rap

Perhaps you haven’t attended university. I have attended 12. If you
have attended any, perhaps they didn’t have any sort of
intercollegiate competition. If they did, you would see how those of
other universities are derided and even attacked, being seen as
different as well as an enemy.

The main point you were making though, has already been addressed.

> > > — Stephen Roberts- Hide quoted text -

[ynot]

On Nov 27, 11:25 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > “…but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world
> > population will be atheists. It's a
> > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass before we see
> > that day.” – Tony
> > Of course, for most rational thinkers, argument to the future is a
> > fallacy.
>

> “Look who is talking.” – T
>
> Uhh, I take that as a swipe of some sort?
>

And you took it wrong, because I never intended that.

[showmethehoney]

that may be your description. belief to me indicates a lack of
knowledge, especially as it relates to religion, which is typically
the context by which the word is used in this forum.

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

>
> --
>
> Virtual Gods:http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm
>
> "It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways."

[Simon Ewins]

On 27/11/2009 6:25 PM, showmethehoney wrote:
> that may be your description. belief to me indicates a lack of
> knowledge,

How do you arrive at knowledge? Does it just pop into your head fully
formed and certain? Or do you start by believing something to be true
and then examining it until that belief is justified?

The main difference between secular beliefs and religious beliefs is
that religious beliefs incorporate a desire for the proposition, concept
or idea to be true. That is where faith comes in, faith incorporates desire.

Other than that beliefs are all the same and can be shown to have
variously greater and lesser degrees of certainty.

In order for a belief of X to become knowledge:

1) X must actually be true.
2) There must be justification for X being accepted as true.
3) The justification must be established as reliable.

"American philosopher Richard Kirkham has argued that the only
definition of knowledge that could ever be immune to all counterexamples
is the infallibilist one. To qualify as an item of knowledge, a belief
must not only be true and justified, the justification of the belief
must necessitate its truth. In other words, the justification for the
belief must be infallible."
[Richard Deans]

Note the application of belief.

> especially as it relates to religion, which is typically
> the context by which the word is used in this forum.
>

If more people understood that everything is belief and that belief has
degrees of discernible certainty then there would be more agreement and
less antagonism.

--

Virtual Gods: http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm

"A jug fills drop by drop."
[Buddha]

[Observer]

On Nov 25, 3:07 pm, Badger578 <badger...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> You can't expect believers to understand that they are nearly
> atheists, based upon the one fewer God piece of smug shite.

Observer
Like it or, not Khurram is correct on this issue . It is a shame that
you haven't the intelligence to understand the truth of what he is
saying .

I am at a loss in trying to understand just why you think that you
need to have a god to believe in. First of all science accounts for
the existence of the universe and all there in with out having to
resort to the villager idiots , belief in magic fetishistic magic and
the introduction of an imaginary creature even more complex then the
entirety thereof into the mix

Second the science and scientific method is sufficient to providing
scientifically verifiable substantiating data for every thing which
exists. In opposition to your simpleminded belief in a god thing for
which no scientifically verifiable substantiating data exists for
either it's existence of or any act thereof.

Third the only source for belief in this god thing is the hideously
stupid collection of idiotic myths contained in the buy bull. Never
was a more completely stupid collection of savage myths constructed
from the undisciplined handy work of more superstitious ,uneducated
and undisciplined minds than in the buy bull.

You are a
> turd and a smelly one at that for suggesting that believers should
> countenance such a fuckwit argument.

Observer
How very interesting that you resort the an ad hominem argument which
is a fallacy, though often an ad hominem attack is not even an
argument (but merely an insult).[2] Fallacious instances of the ad
hominem argument are presented below.

In informal logic

The term ad hominem has sometimes used more literally, to describe an
argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal
attack.[3] However, this is not how the meaning of the term is
typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and
logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use (equivocated
with "personal attack") is incorrect.


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


Obviously, they only need one
> God, you twat.

Observer
The need for only one god can not be established in as much as the
belief in such has not been shown to satisfy any need and even if it
did such a need would not serve to prove that the belief is justified
and that such as the actuality of a god can be proven.

Christians , just like all people formulate fictions as representative
of what they believe to be actualities in their world. From these
fictions are extrapolated belief systems (philosophies of as if ) upon
which they act as though such were representative of objective truth.
It is easily established , however that the only object truth
available to any person is the fact of his own existence. Everything
from that point on is representative of mental images (fictions) and
***philosophies of as if *** therefrom extrapolated. Christianity is a
giant fiction of extreme proportions which is not supported by any
product of scientific method.

In as much as we are all prone to living by our fictions as if they
were true I have chosen to live by the fictions which accompany
critical thought, an accumulation of scientifically verifiable
substantiating data and the prescription of scientific method from
which is produced the only consistently reliable and dependable
information available to humankind by which to adjust our fictions in
such a way as to provide new or altered fictions which more clearly
represent a nearness of truth.

We are on a journey from greater to lesser ignorance won't you join
us?

Your belief in the christian fictions provide only for the
perpetuation of ignorance, the deliberate self isolation from
education, and a rejection of scientific method it's self.

You see some fictions are far superior to others. The sadomasochism of
Christianity, the accompanying belief if fetishistic practice of the
dark art of magic, and necromancy along with the preposterous belief
in angels, ghosts, a devil, demons and other such nonsense are insults
to the beauty of human intelligence reason and of course the wonder
of scientific method.



So not only does you argument fail because it is ad hominem but
because there is no scientifically verifiable substantiating data
supporting the existence of or any act of a god thing.

You might also wish to consider that any subject which can not be
studied using scientific method and from which study no data can be
elicited for the purpose of making accurate forecasts renders such
irrelevant to human kind non existent or both.

The ignorant have not read science nor have they any understanding
there of.The viciously criminal disposition will not even try and
thereby makes of his life that of a parasite. Who's very life is
dependent upon those who read , apply, and produce the necessities of
life from the beauty of science and scientific method.

As it stands now , you owe, Khurram, an apology as you have behaved
poorly and needlessly defamed him.

Please try to acquire an education as your lack there of is an
embarrassment to us all.


I wish you well but hate the psychotic filth that is atrophying your
brain.


Psychonomist

[ornamentalmind]

"...And you took it wrong, because I never intended that. " - T

I'm glad that you at least appear to have taken the rest of the
information to heart since you didn't challenge it. However, perhaps
you are willing to share what you did mean by the comment about who is
talking?

> > fallacy in an argument is a use of a fallacy!!!- Hide quoted text -

[Alan Wostenberg]

Hi Rappo. Roberts quoted in the original post never defined his term,
so who knows what he means by 'the possible gods'? What the Christian
means by the gods is right there in the first commandment. A god is
anything a man cannot do without that is not God.

I confess that I am less than the perfect atheist with regards to the
god of economic security. I loose sleep over It. With Saint Theresa I
pray "God alone is enough. Let nothing upset you, let nothing startle

[STB]

Only a fool reasons out no god and no GOD for only a fool can't see
that Gods are built as the sum of lesser beings and so mankind is a
god searching for answers in all plaes in all ways in all times as all
gods do and fools god play ignorant ape (you).
"When you reason as a child, expect to be seen as one."
Peter

[dj Briscoe]

Now wait a min-nute of a minute---I think this: it also takes people (are God would be God alone) Why did God create man--?  First of all he said when he created man --he said this is good---Now you will say the usual prove it...Ok lets use this:  When man says I would like to find a mate(why) so he does not have to go it alone...so he proceeds to do so....finds one and than there are two...and later both decided to have a child--(why) because they want a little one just like them..and from these results their bloodline branches out..and their seed proceeds down the line...My point is God created man and we are made in his image and we do the same as how he did...we create and produce...to me this is evidence of where we come from...you will say no(why)because how do I know God created us (the evidence over powers in time and happening's over time for one thing...two because he sent us the Holy Ghost as a comforter which that is evidence ...he did not lie...

[Observer]

On Nov 28, 11:55 am, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now wait a min-nute of a minute---I think this: it also takes people (are
> God would be God alone) Why did God create man--?  First of all he said when
> he created man --he said this is good---Now you will say the usual prove
> it...Ok lets use this:  When man says I would like to find a mate(why) so he
> does not have to go it alone...so he proceeds to do so....finds one and than
> there are two...and later both decided to have a child--(why) because they
> want a little one just like them..and from these results their bloodline
> branches out..and their seed proceeds down the line...My point is God
> created man and we are made in his image and we do the same as how he
> did...we create and produce...to me this is evidence of where we come
> from...you will say no(why)because how do I know God created us (the
> evidence over powers in time and happening's over time for one thing...two
> because he sent us the Holy Ghost as a comforter which that is evidence
> ...he did not lie...

Observer
On thing that I will give christians is recognition that theirs id on
of the most hideously corrupt, method of believing in the voodoo
hoodoo of fetishistic magic ever contrived for the extremely stupid.
Just so as to have something for the frightfully perverted of you it
hinges on the need for such as you to engage in sadomasochism. How
ugly and perverse is it to worship at the feet of a the effigy of a
poor stupid itinerant preacher man being tortured to death.

And of course lets hear it for the idiots among you who believe in
angels, demons, a devil, a heaven, a hell and a god of love who has
the proclivity to torture people for eternity.

Oh and I guess I did not mention the stupidity of worshiping a fictive
god who your dumb ass book claims required it's self/ it's son to be
tortured to death to save us from its own wrath.

Now there is a real looser.

If you look up stupid in the encyclopedia there must be a picture of a
christian.

Psychonomist

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[dj Briscoe]

What I stated was very clear I do not see how you could even say what you did...is it not true that is the way it goes...and is it not like that in all people...this is far from stupid but is reality of a image that is of good there is no voodo in this or magic very in the very sense of God's image..of mankind.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[Observer]

On Nov 26, 4:02 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> some say ignorance is bliss ... after all, mental institutions around
> the world are full of bright eyed lunatics who dont have the emotional
> capacity to absorb what they have learned. id rather be dumb and happy
> than smart and unhappy, wouldnt you? look at observer who tells people
> how dumb they are in virtually every post. also note how unhappy he
> seems to be as evidenced by the hatred he continuously displays. imo,
> being happy is MUCH more important than being smart

Observer
Fuck you shit for brains . It is not as if you had a choice !
You are uneducated because you have no other choice .
Learning is far to difficult for the village idiot and you are
obviously the idiot of somebodies village.

Psychonomist


> On Nov 26, 5:46 am, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > yes but who wants to be ignorant?

>
> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 3:38 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > > “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
> > > than
> > > you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
> > > gods, you
> > > will understand why I dismiss yours.

> > > — Stephen Roberts”
>
> > > This clever saying, oft quoted, has countless analogies. One is:
>
> > > I contend that we are both ignorant. I just have attended one fewer
> > > university than you have. When you understand why you dismiss all

> > > other institutions of higher learning, you will understand why I
> > > dismiss yours.

>
> > > On Nov 25, 11:45 am, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
> > > > you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
> > > you
> > > > will understand why I dismiss yours.
>
> > > > — Stephen Roberts
>

> > > --
>
> > > 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-...@googlegroups.com.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> > > .
> > > For more options, visit this group at

> > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.-Hide quoted text -

[Observer]

On Nov 26, 2:46 am, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yes but who wants to be ignorant?

Observer

showmethehoney says he does and It is my guess that he achieved his
goal . What do you think?

Psychonomist

>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 3:38 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
> > than
> > you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
> > gods, you
> > will understand why I dismiss yours.
> > — Stephen Roberts”
>
> > This clever saying, oft quoted, has countless analogies. One is:
>
> > I contend that we are both ignorant. I just have attended one fewer
> > university than you have. When you understand why you dismiss all
> > other institutions of higher learning, you will understand why I
> > dismiss yours.
>
> > On Nov 25, 11:45 am, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
> > > you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
> > you
> > > will understand why I dismiss yours.
>
> > > — Stephen Roberts
>
> > --
>
> > 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-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Nov 28, 2:55 pm, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My point is God
> created man and we are made in his image and we do the same as how he
> did...we create and produce..

We create and produce the same way that God did?

> .to me this is evidence of where we come

> from...you will say no(why) because how do I know God created us (the

> evidence over powers in time and happening's over time for one thing ... two
> because he sent us the Holy Ghost as a comforter which that is evidence
> ...he did not lie...

If ex-theists have been comforted by the Holy Ghost, how were they
able to become atheist? A soldier comforted by Florence Nightingale
would not have been able to disbelieve in the existence of Florence
Nightingale.

[Observer]

On Nov 27, 12:34 pm, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> not true

Observer
Sorry , Khurram, but he is right.

No cigar this time.

Psychonomist

>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  On 27/11/2009 3:27 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:
>
> > we do not know everything
>
> > We only know beyond doubt one thing. All else is varying degrees of
> > substantiated beliefs.
>

> > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>  On 27/11/2009 2:57 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:
>
> >> but they do not believe
>
> >>  Sure they do. Everything is belief.
>

> >>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>  On 27/11/2009 1:30 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:
>
> >>>> well for me atheism is disbelief.
>
> >>>>  And according to your definition it is a religion since it is what
> >>>> "other people say about god(s)".
>

> >>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>>  On 27/11/2009 1:12 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:
>
> >>>>> why would that make atheism a religion?
>
> >>>>>  According to you "what other people say about gods" is a religion.
> >>>>> Atheists lots about gods' non-existence.
>

> >>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>  On 27/11/2009 1:08 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:
>
> >>>>>> No.
> >>>>>> Religion is belief in what other people say..........about god.
>
> >>>>>>  Nonsense. That makes atheism a religion which is ridiculous.
>
> >>>>>> You need a new dictionary.
>

> >>>>>>>> atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >>>>>>>> .

> >>>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> >>>>>>>  --
> >>>>>>> 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-...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >>>>>>> atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> >>>>>>>   --
>
> >>>>>>> Virtual Gods:http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm
>
> >>>>>>> "Your work is to discover your world and then with all your heart give yourself to it."
> >>>>>>> [Buddha]
>
> >>>>>>>   --
> >>>>>>> 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-...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >>>>>>> atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >>>>>>> .

> >>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> >>>>>>  --
> >>>>>> 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-...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >>>>>> atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> >>>>>>   --
>
> >>>>>> Virtual Gods:http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm
>
> >>>>>>  "The secret of health for both mind and body is not to mourn for the past, nor to worry about the future, but to live the present moment wisely and earnestly."
> >>>>>> [Buddha]
>
> >>>>>>   --
> >>>>>> 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-...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >>>>>> atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >>>>>> .

> >>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> >>>>>  --
> >>>>> 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-...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >>>>> atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> >>>>>   --
>
> >>>>> Virtual Gods:http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm
>
> >>>>>  "Ennui has made more gamblers than avarice, more drunkards than thirst, and perhaps as many suicides as despair."
> >>>>> [Buddha]
>
> >>>>>   --
> >>>>> 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-...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >>>>> atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >>>>> .

> >>>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> >>>>  --
> >>>> 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-...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >>>> atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>> For more options, visit this group at
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Observer]

On Nov 27, 11:40 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com>

wrote:
> what does knowledge have to do with belief?

Observer

You will never know

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Psychonomist

>
> On Nov 27, 12:57 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 27/11/2009 12:44 PM, Khurram Chaudhry wrote:
>
> > > you have a point there. religion has nothing to do with belief in a
> > > true god concept.
>
> > Um everything has something to do with belief of some sort.
>
> > Religion is simply formalized belief in something.
>
> > > cheers!
>
> > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:34 PM, showmethehoney
> > > <alenasha...@googlemail.com <mailto:alenasha...@googlemail.com>> wrote:
>
> > >     abandoning religion has nothing to do with abanoning belief in 'god'
>
> > >     On Nov 27, 12:00 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com

> > >     <mailto:ynota...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >     > On Nov 26, 4:18 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com

> > >     <mailto:ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> > >     > > ��but eventually, as you said, the vast majority of the world

> > >     > > population will be atheists. It's a
> > >     > > question of time; unfortunately many centuries will pass
> > >     before we see

> > >     > > that day.� � Tony

>
> > >     > > Of course, for most rational thinkers, argument to the future is a
> > >     > > fallacy.
>
> > >     > Look who is talking. By discrediting my argument, you imply that
> > >     > believes in gods and religions will be around in the future. The
> > >     > problem with your fallacy is that all the current statistics are
> > >     > against it; mine is supported by those stats. More and more rational
> > >     > people are dropping believes in gods and abandoning religions.
> > >     So, it
> > >     > is logic to assume that in a not so distante future, the vast
> > >     majority
> > >     > of the world population will be atheists.
>
> > >     > Tony
>
> > >     --
>
> > >     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-...@googlegroups.com

> > >     <mailto:atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>.

> > >     To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > >     atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com

> > >     <mailto:atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

> > >     For more options, visit this group at
> > >    http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> > > --
>
> > > 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-...@googlegroups.com.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> > > For more options, visit this group at
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> > --
>
> > Virtual Gods:http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm
>
> > "Your work is to discover your world and then with all your heart give yourself to it."

> > [Buddha]- Hide quoted text -

[Observer]

On Nov 26, 9:48 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 11:41 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
>
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 10:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 26, 9:55 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 26, 8:19 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > > > On Nov 25, 2:45 pm, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
> > > > > > you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
> > > > > > will understand why I dismiss yours.
>
> > > > > > — Stephen Roberts
>

> > > > > So ... because I can't hold conflicting beliefs and so must dismiss
> > > > > any contradictory God to the one I belief in explains or will help me
> > > > > understand why an atheist -- who has no such belief -- dismisses my
> > > > > God?
>
> > > > In what way is Shamash contradictory to Yahweh? How would believing
> > > > that Shamash exists conflict with believing that Yahweh exists?http://books.google.com/books?id=JCWDTTudNEgC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=sha...
>
> > > I'm not necessarily claiming they all are, but it is noted in general
> > > that at most one of them can be right.  Heck, the whole "Have no other
> > > God before me" pretty much seals it for Christians.
>
> > That's in the OT, not in Jesus' sayings, so how does it seal it for
> > Christians?
>
> We still hold the 10 commandments, and Jesus listed that one (I'm
> pretty sure) as one of the top two in the 10 commandments that are
> most important, so there you go ...

Observer
If I am going to live by a set of dumb ass rules then I want to be on
the rules comity.
That is one of the advantages of living in a Country which is governed
by laws and having an understanding ther of and how to chane add or
delete them.
Stick your big ten where the sun don't shine.

Psychonomist

[dj Briscoe]

There again is a excellent question and thought..if they did recieve the Holy Ghost and turn from God the word speaks of this and says then it would be harder seven fold to get back...not because God wanted it this way he knew how hard it would be..

[philosophy]

On Nov 29, 5:55 am, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now wait a min-nute of a minute---I think this: it also takes people (are
> God would be God alone) Why did God create man--?

> First of all he

May I suggest that first of all you provide us with proof that there
is
such a thing as a god, before you launch into this?

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[dj Briscoe]

The ten comandments is laid down as a guide line a very long time ago..then and today has stealing -liar's-adultrey- covenant breakers-tresspassing-not love God with all of your heart-not loving your neighbor(and someone ask Jesus who is my neghbor)the ones that do my will--honor your mother and father----you will not put no other God's before me--and the last is I think thy shall not fornicate---not all in order----I find nothing wrong with this is all good..

--

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-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[dj Briscoe]

Let me ask you a question can you say that there is not for sure without a doubt and if you are waiting for me to prove it than you have a doubt in your life that there is a chance this God may really exist...it is for you to seek out when in doubt and when the door of invitation to you is there and you don't walk in that door no one can make you...I will ask you this do you want to accept Jesus has your Savior for your life..and I will ask you to invite Jesus into your heart..

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[philosophy]

On Nov 29, 3:30 pm, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me ask you a question can you say that there is not for sure without a
> doubt and if you are waiting for me to prove it than you have a doubt in
> your life that there is a chance this God may really exist...it is for you
> to seek out when in doubt and when the door of invitation to you is there
> and you don't walk in that door no one can make you...I will ask you this do
> you want to accept Jesus has your Savior for your life..and I will ask you
> to invite Jesus into your heart..

Crap. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that:
1. The Abrahamic God does not exist.
2. That if Jesus existed he was a radical, and his sole purpose
was to make sure that the prophecies of the OT were fulfilled by
fair means or foul.
3. My heart is my own, nobody elses.
It is time you thought a little for yourself.
This muck has no bearing on my reality. It is something I totally
totally reject.

> > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>

[Khurram Chaudhry]

Atheism is about disbelief in god.

there are atheists who believe there is no god...now that is a belief system.

but Atheism is about disbelief. Atheism does not represent any belief system.

There are, however, people who believe sitting on both sides of the fence.

But my point is that there are those who do not believe.

Anything relating to belief on other topics is a discussion more onsemantics of belief.

I think the poster is again committing intellectual dishonesty.

We were referring to disbelief. We all have disbelief. The fact that we may not get away from having belief is irrelevant.

We are all ignorant about some body of knowledge or another. Does that mean that there will never be knowledge that we are actually aware of? Not at all.

Shape up and get back in line.

Cheers

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Nov 29, 12:09 am, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There again is a excellent question and thought..if they did recieve the
> Holy Ghost and turn from God the word speaks of this

In which verses? As far as I can see, it would be impossible to
experience the Holy Ghost and then stop believing the Holy Ghost. If a
Christian becomes atheist, that would seem to be evidence that he
never received the Holy Ghost.

> and says then it would
> be harder seven fold to get back...not because God wanted it this way he
> knew how hard it would be..

> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:56 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 2:55 pm, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > My point is God
> > > created man and we are made in his image and we do the same as how he
> > > did...we create and produce..
>
> > We create and produce the same way that God did?
>
> > > .to me this is evidence of where we come
> > > from...you will say no(why) because how do I know God created us (the
> > > evidence over powers in time and happening's over time for one thing ...
> > two
> > > because he sent us the Holy Ghost as a comforter which that is evidence
> > > ...he did not lie...
>
> > If ex-theists have been comforted by the Holy Ghost, how were they
> > able to become atheist? A soldier comforted by Florence Nightingale
> > would not have been able to disbelieve in the existence of Florence
> > Nightingale.
>
> > --
>
> > 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-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Nov 29, 12:20 am, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The ten comandments is laid down as a guide line a very long time ago..then
> and today has stealing -liar's-adultrey- covenant breakers-tresspassing-not
> love God with all of your heart-not loving your neighbor(and someone ask
> Jesus who is my neghbor)the ones that do my will--honor your mother and
> father----you will not put no other God's before me--and the last is I think
> thy shall not fornicate---not all in order----I find nothing wrong with this
> is all good..

How about the commandment "Thou shall break a first born baby donkey's
neck unless thou hast killed a lamb in its place" (Exodus 34)? Do you
find nothing wrong with it? Do you find it good?

[dj Briscoe]

No your right it does not mean that knowlege stops on  certain topics

[dj Briscoe]

I see that the new Testement made a difference in this...but how do we know it was God that ordered this and this is what he meant at the time?? or it was man's imput..instead of what God truly meant..

[thea]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 8:03 AM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Nov 29, 12:09 am, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There again is a excellent question and thought..if they did recieve the
> Holy Ghost and turn from God the word speaks of this

In which verses? As far as I can see, it would be impossible to
experience the Holy Ghost and then stop believing the Holy Ghost. If a
Christian becomes atheist, that would seem to be evidence that he
never received the Holy Ghost.

 

 

I agree with the above statement -- I wonder how many pastors, in how many churches have read where St. Paul says, *Do not be drunk with wine, but be drunk in the Spirit* -- I wonder

how many pastors even know what it is to be *drunk in the Spirit*.

 

 

 

 

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[thea]

I have stated that we cannot take one scripture out of context - that we (according to the fellow who translated the first English Bible) must take what comes before and what comes after a certain scripture in order to get the correct context.

What is quoted is Exodus 34:20.  In order to understand this scripture -- we need to see that we are talking about the feasts and the sabbaths and redemption for everything we own.

When Israel came out of Egypt, they learned that they had to have a sacrifice in order for the death angel to pass over them.  This scripture is in reference to the type of sacrifice which must be made for redemption.

[Observer]

On Nov 28, 8:49 pm, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I stated was very clear I do not see how you could even say what you
> did...is it not true that is the way it goes...and is it not like that in
> all people...this is far from stupid but is reality of a image that is of
> good there is no voodo in this or magic very in the very sense of God's
> image..of mankind.

Observer
You believe that god created the heavens and the earth ? Then you
believe that it did so by the use of magic. You believe that god
answers prayers , then you believe in magic. You believe that your
fictive god was so inept that it required it'e own/it's sons torture
death to save us from it's own wrath. That is belief in a stupid inept
god.

Why this sadomasochism which compels you to involve your self with an
imaginary psychotic monster (the god of love) which is said to have
the proclivity to torture trillions of people for eternity.

Please learn to gather your thoughts before you type such idiotic
nonsense as the trash above.

Your christian superstitious filth is nothing more than just that a
fiction accepted without benefit of any scientifically verifiable
substantiating data for the existence of or any act of the god thing
described in the buy bull.


What the hell is the matter with you freaks have you no intelligence ,
or education at all?

Why could you not have selected on of the worlds civilized
philosophies by which to guide your lives.

Psychonomist

> > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christia nity%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>

>
> >  > > .
> > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> > --
>
> > 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-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

[Observer]

On Nov 29, 11:12 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 8:03 AM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <

>
> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 12:09 am, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > There again is a excellent question and thought..if they did recieve the
> > > Holy Ghost and turn from God the word speaks of this
>
> > In which verses? As far as I can see, it would be impossible to
> > experience the Holy Ghost and then stop believing the Holy Ghost. If a
> > Christian becomes atheist, that would seem to be evidence that he
> > never received the Holy Ghost.
>
> I agree with the above statement -- I wonder how many pastors, in how many
> churches have read where St. Paul says, *Do not be drunk with wine, but be
> drunk in the Spirit* -- I wonder
> how many pastors even know what it is to be *drunk in the Spirit*.

Observer
Here Thea , learn about your nut case Paul.

Quote

Saul of Tarsus – a witness for Jesus?

One is informed by Acts that St Paul's early day stance was as "Saul,
the Christian persecutor". Yet if Saul really was a vigilante for
orthodox Judaism at the time of Stephen's stoning (Acts 7.58-8.3),
becoming the chief persecutor of Christians, no less – one wonders
just where was Saul, not long before, when a supposed radical rabbi
called Jesus was stirring up whole towns and villages?

Paul's role as religious policeman seems not to have awakened until
shortly after the godman's death. But in itself this suggests Jesus of
Nazareth had no great impact. After all, Saul was a contemporary of
Jesus in time and place, raised in Jerusalem ("at the feet of
Gamaliel" – Acts 22.3) at precisely the time the godman was
overturning moneychangers in the Temple and generally provoking
Pharisees and Sadducees.

Would not Saul, a young religious hothead ("exceedingly zealous of the
traditions" – Galatians 1.14) have waded into those multitudes to
heckle and attack the Nazarene himself? Would he not have been an
enthusiastic witness to JC's blasphemy before the Sanhedrin? And where
was Saul during "passion week", surely in Jerusalem with the other
zealots celebrating the holiest of festivals? And yet he reports not a
word of the crucifixion?

Paul, another "witness for Jesus", saw and heard nothing!



Two Pauls – One Illusion

The trail-blazing Christian missionary and apostle, St Paul, appears
nowhere in the secular histories of his age (not in Tacitus, not in
Pliny, not in Josephus, etc.) Though Paul, we are told, mingled in the
company of provincial governors and had audiences before kings and
emperors, no scribe thought it worthwhile to record these events. The
popular image of the saint is selectively crafted from two sources:
the Book of Acts and the Epistles which bear his name. Yet the two
sources actually present two radically different individuals and two
wildly divergent stories. Biblical scholars are only too familiar with
the conundrum that chunks of Paul's own story, gleaned from the
epistles, are incompatible with the tale recorded in Acts but live
with the "divine mystery" of it all. Perish the thought that they
might recognize the whole saga is a work of pious fiction.

Acts

The Paul of Acts is a team player. His conversion on the road to
Damascus is so important that it is repeated three times (son et
lumiere). From a previous state of error (as "Saul", the persecuting
Jewish zealot) he is brought into the loving embrace of the fledgling
church.

Now part of the brethren ("with them coming in and going out at
Jerusalem" - 9.28), he is "managed" by the elders. Disciples "took
him" from Damascus (9.25) and Barnabas "brought him" to the apostles
(9.27). They "brought him" to Caesarea and then they "sent him" to
Tarsus. Barnabas "brought" Paul back to Antioch (11.26) and then with
him was "sent" to Jerusalem with famine relief (11.30) – (as it
happens, a visit to Jerusalem completely unknown to Paul himself).

Eventually the brethren "send" Paul on his first missionary journey
(13.4). As a missionary, Paul is very much on the collective message:

"And as they went through the cities they delivered them the decrees
for to keep that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were
at Jerusalem. And so were the churches established." – Acts 16.4,5.


From Thessalonica, Paul is "sent away" to Berea by the brethren
(17.10). He is also "sent away" by sea and "brought" to Athens
(17.14,15). In Cenchrea, Paul even takes a Jewish vow and shaves his
head! (18.18).

Though his name is cited in Acts 177 times, "Paul" is never coupled
with the familiar honorific "apostle". The closest Acts comes to
bestowing the title is 14.14 where his name follows Barnabas and the
plural is used. In every other instance, Paul is an entity quite
separate from, and implicitly subordinate to, the apostles. The slight
is striking, given that Acts was supposedly written by Luke, Paul's
companion and admirer.

Epistles

In stark contrast, the Paul of the Epistles is a bombastic maverick,
representing no one but himself and under no one's direction. It is
Paul who is doing the directing. Full of his own importance, in all
his letters Paul hammers home the point that he is an apostle and that
his appointment comes directly from the divine. His "proof" of this is
his own success as a missionary (e.g. 2 Corinthians 2,3) – an argument
of dubious merit still used by churches today. Look at our success! We
must be right!

Paul makes no reference to a "Damascene road" conversion nor to an
origin in Tarsus (Jerome reported that Paul was from Galilee!). He
makes no reference to Cyprus and the battle with a rival magician, nor
does he refer to the edict from James on food prohibitions and
fornication. Paul, it seems, owes nothing to any man. A bad-tempered
bully, he wastes little sympathy on those who do not accept his point
of view. Thus when he loses the support of Peter and Barnabas over
eating with Gentiles, Paul rebukes Peter publicly and writes that he
has reneged out of "fear" and Barnabas has been naively "carried
away" (Galatians 2.12,13).



The Implausible Paul

It is curious that no Jewish rabbinic writings of the 1st or 2nd
century so much as mention a renegade student of Gamaliel who, having
studied under the master and vigorously enforced orthodoxy on behalf
of the high priests, experienced a life-changing vision on an away
mission. Not a word emerges from the rabbis about the star pupil who
"went bad", a heretic who scrapped the prohibitions of the Sabbath,
urged his followers to disregarded Judaism's irksome dietary
regulations, and pronounced the Law and circumcision obsolete. Surely
such a renegade could not have completely escaped the attention of the
scribes?

How likely is it that Paul really studied under the Pharisaic grandee
(Acts 22.3)? Paul clearly had difficulty with the Hebrew language: all
his scriptural references are taken from the Greek translation of
Jewish scripture, the Septuagint.

How likely is it that, as a young man, Paul – supposedly a Roman
citizen and from the Hellenised diaspora – even got the job as chief
policeman of the ultra-orthodox of Jerusalem? And if Paul really had
secured such a position, he surely would have had far bigger fish to
fry than a miniscule "Jesus group" in Damascus. We are told in Acts
that the apostles continued to preach in Jerusalem even after the
death of Stephen ("They all scattered abroad ... except the apostles."
– Acts 8.1,2). So why didn't Paul go for the ringleaders, closer to
hand?

"Nothing in his letters suggests that Paul had any official standing
in his treatment of Christians ... Hence, in opposition to what Luke
says, he could not have used arrest, torture or imprisonment as a
means of forcing Christians to recognize that they had been misled." –
Murphy O'Connor, Paul, His History, p19.


Given that the Jewish High Council (the Sanhedrin) had no authority to
empower a heresy hunter to operate in the independent city of
Damascus, Paul's road trip is even more implausible.



Where DID they get their ideas from?


Real earthquake – likely to do rather more than "loosen shackles and
open doors".

Josephus – betrayed by 'John', choses ally named 'Silas', makes
miraculous escape!
" But when John [of Gichala] was come to the city of Tiberias, he
persuaded the men to revolt from their fidelity to me ...

A messenger had come to me from Silas, whom I had made governor of
Tiberias ...

Upon the receipt of this letter of Silas, I took two hundred men along
with me, and traveled all night ...

Having dismissed the guards I had about me, excepting one, and ten
armed men that were with him,

I attempted to make a speech to the multitude ... But before I had
spoken ... to provide for my own safety, and escape my enemies
there ...

[I was] carried upon the back of one Herod of Tiberias, and guided by
him down to the lake, where I seized a ship, and got into it, and
escaped my enemies unexpectedly, and came to Tarichese."

– Josephus, Life 17

"But Paul thought not good to take John with them, who departed from
them from Pamphylia ...

And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren
unto the grace of God.– Acts 15.38,40

" And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God:
and the prisoners heard them.

And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of
the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and
every one's bands were loosed.

And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the
prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed
himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.

But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we
are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came
trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas".

– Acts 16.25,29



Convert?

How likely is it that Saul/Paul converted within a year or two of the
crucifixion (Irenaeus says eighteen months)? If he truly was a
precocious zealot of Judaism and was completely untouched by the
perambulations and miraculous deeds of the godman himself – short of
the supposed blinding "miracle" – why would he, of all people, so
readily embrace the heresy? The four Gospels neither mention nor even
hint at a pioneering apostle called Paul.

There is also a curious parallel between the alleged "persecution"
speech spoken by the celestial Christ to the blinded Paul ("Saul,
Saul ... ") and the persecution of Dionysius found in Euripides work
"the Bacchae" – and both use the word "goads".

If Paul (Saul) really had apostatised to the extent of joining (or
establishing) a radical new sect, how is it the rabbis did not
anathematize his name? To be sure, Jewish Christians (Ebionites) did
condemn Paul and did so in the harshest terms – even suggesting that
in reality he had been a malcontented Greek convert, whose ardour had
been rejected by the High Priest's daughter! (Epiphanius, Panarion,
16). But that was in the 2nd century, long after any life and death of
the apostle.

The "persecution" of the early church seems an extraordinarily
unlikely construct because once Saul, the "destroyer of the saints",
transforms into Paul the apostle, and is whisked away by the brethren
to safety in Caesarea and home to Tarsus, the persecution abruptly
stops. The "persecution" is entirely a one man circus.

" Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and
Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in
the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied." – 9:31


The entire pre-Christian "Saul, the scourge of the church" makes no
sense at all as history – but does make a great deal of sense as
theology. "Zealous Jew sees the light of Jesus, becomes Christian."
The theological purpose is as obvious as the historical vignette is
bogus.


End Quote

http://ss689.fusionbot.com/cgi-bin/ss_query?keys=paul&sitenbr=137881893

> > > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christia nity%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
>

> >  > > .
> > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> > --
>
> > 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-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

[showmethehoney]

thanks for supporting my point ;-)

> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[thea]

Observer:  Thanks for this.  I knew that it existed in somewhat this form someplace but had not been able to find a link.  Thanks.

I have been aware of this information since college days.  Ha ha - that's what Biblical Theology did for me -- caused me to question everything.

 

I found that when I started searching for the *truth* and asked God to show me the *truth* that I had to be willing to be out in left field all by myself if necessary.  Walking alone to find what the Bible really says is interesting to say the least.  15 years of hard studying to find the truth -- which is so simple:  Believe that *God raised Jesus from the dead*, and *God lives in the praises of His People.*  When I discovered the praise part of the equation, I discovered that I had found where the *power is* in Christianity.

 

So, you see even know I know the following which you gave me, I also have already discovered the *way of gladness, the way of joy, the relief from sadness, a happiness that cannot be explained to say -- Thank you, Jesus.*  thea

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[Answer_42]

On Nov 29, 10:55 am, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I see that the new Testement made a difference in this...but how do we know
> it was God that ordered this and this is what he meant at the time?? or it
> was man's imput..instead of what God truly meant..

Bingo!

You finally get it.

Now, tell us why you do not apply the same logic to the whole bible?
___________________________________________________
The wall of separation said to have been erected by the First
Amendment exists only in the mind or rather in the imagination of
legal students smoking the opium of secularism.
-- The Catholic World

[Observer]

On Nov 28, 9:30 pm, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me ask you a question can you say that there is not for sure without a
> doubt and if you are waiting for me to prove it than you have a doubt in
> your life that there is a chance this God may really exist..

Observer
A question of equal importance involves the giant blue frog who shit
out the universe a year ago and created all the false memories and
scientific data relating to its existence. How can you be sure that
the giant blue frog is not coming back to torture all who believe in
this lie about the Christ thing .

Come on are all christians totally bereft of any useful education,
logic, understating of critical thought, and scientific method that
such a dumb ass question would surface among you?

The real question at hand is . Can you supply us with scientifically
verifiable substantiating data for either the existence of or any act
of any god?

Of course the answer is NO! Thus leaving the god hypothesis
unwarranted, unsupported, and of absolutely no use.

.it is for you
> to seek out when in doubt and when the door of invitation to you is there
> and you don't walk in that door no one can make you...I will ask you this do
> you want to accept Jesus has your Savior for your life..and I will ask you
> to invite Jesus into your heart..

Observer
Thanks but no thanks . My heart exists only for the purpose of
supplying oxygenated blood to my body. In case you hadn't heard the
central nervous system including the brain is the part of our
physiognomy which produces the act of consciousness and handles the
creation of the fictions by which we live.

I have absolutely no use for any of the incredibly stupid story of
your poor imaginary god fraud, itinerant preacher and, executed
criminal .

The fictions by which I live are productive of consistently usable
and dependable information which are associated with critical
thought , scientific method , and the accumulation of scientific data
which permit me to constantly alter such fictions to more closely
represent the world around me.

The last thing I need is a nap sack full of stupid superstitious
nonsense with which to contaminate and adulterate my mind.

Psychonomist

> > > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christia nity%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
>

> >  > > .
> > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> > --
>
> > 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-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

[Observer]

On Nov 28, 9:20 pm, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The ten comandments is laid down as a guide line a very long time ago..then
> and today has stealing -liar's-adultrey- covenant breakers-tresspassing-not
> love God with all of your heart-not loving your neighbor(and someone ask
> Jesus who is my neghbor)the ones that do my will--honor your mother and
> father----you will not put no other God's before me--and the last is I think
> thy shall not fornicate---not all in order----I find nothing wrong with this
> is all good..

Observer
The most important commandment a god could issue would be to learn the
art of critical thought, apply it to the broadest spectrum of current
scientific data available and subject all to the process of scientific
method. In as much, however your god thing is fictive and the
commandments are have no divine source you can stick them where the
sun don't shine. !


Psychonomist

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[Observer]

On Nov 29, 7:55 am, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I see that the new Testement made a difference in this...but how do we know
> it was God that ordered this and this is what he meant at the time?? or it
> was man's imput..instead of what God truly meant..

Observer

What god?

Psychonomist
>
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 6:17 AM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <

>
>
>
> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 12:20 am, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The ten comandments is laid down as a guide line a very long time
> > ago..then
> > > and today has stealing -liar's-adultrey- covenant
> > breakers-tresspassing-not
> > > love God with all of your heart-not loving your neighbor(and someone ask
> > > Jesus who is my neghbor)the ones that do my will--honor your mother and
> > > father----you will not put no other God's before me--and the last is I
> > think
> > > thy shall not fornicate---not all in order----I find nothing wrong with
> > this
> > > is all good..
>
> > How about the commandment "Thou shall break a first born baby donkey's
> > neck unless thou hast killed a lamb in its place" (Exodus 34)? Do you
> > find nothing wrong with it? Do you find it good?
>
> > --
>
> > 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-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[dj Briscoe]

So you find That the Ten Comandments are not a good guideline ....and the New Testement also...I see their are no disscusions here on your part..

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[Observer]

On Dec 1, 10:31 pm, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So you find That the Ten Comandments are not a good guideline ....and the
> New Testement also...I see their are no disscusions here on your part..

I am the Lord your God preface

Observer
Right from the start we find our selves being directed to believe in a
fictive god for which no scientifically verifiable substantiating data
has ever been forthcoming as relates to its existence or any act there
of.


You shall have no other gods before me

Observer
I shall have no gods at all for which there exists no scientifically
verifiable substantiating data provide either it's existence of any
act thereof.


You shall not make for yourself an idol


Observer
I shall If I wish, and such as are made of the stuff of electrons we
shall call Icons and by their selection we shall initiate various
software packages. Perhaps even getting Windows seven to work
properly.
Further such images shall fill the art museums of the world and lend
us great appreciation to the beauty of the human mind and the
creativeness there of.


You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God

Observer
The only wrongful use of the name of any god is when it is coupled
with any words which are intended to produce belief is such as
representative of some reality.


Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy

Stupid ! and with out any value to any one.

Sabbath desecration was originally officially punishable by death
(Exodus 31:15).


Honor your father and mother

Observer
I honor what is admirable in all people but detest what represents
barbarism even in my parents.

More stupidity.

You shall not murder*

Observer
We have structured laws from our experience and rationality which
reflect such as being unacceptable and there is no reason for us to
pretend that an imaginary god thing first thought of it.

You shall not commit adultery

Observer
What great divine purpose could possibly be served from abiding by
such a commandment?

Especially since there exist nothing which could be properly described
as Divine?


You shall not steal***

Observer

Again such is not the product of some god thing but rather a
sociological agreement by which we are enabled to live better
together.

Commandments , my ass. Like I say if I am going to abide by rules then
I want to be on the rules committee .

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor

Observer
Well Duh!
Why in the hell would one need a god to determine that such was bad
behavior and unacceptable ?


If I live in your house I will will also refrain from shitting on your
dinner table again no fictive gods or commandments necessary.



You shall not covet your neighbor's wife .

Observer
That depends entirely upon the social environment within which you
live . Sharing of conjugal privileges in not unheard of in the social
structures of humanity.
Just what fucking business would such be of yours?

You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor .

Observer
Is that not what makes the economic world go around? Keeping up with
the Jones' ?

Now as for the hideous stupidity of the new testament ?

The shit for brains group who manufactured this filth belonged in a
mental institution along with poor Jesus the god fraud .

I can think of a no more heinous compilation of disgusting filth ever
to have been foisted upon human kind than the stories thereof.

Does that answer your question?


Ha Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha


Psychonomist

> > > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com><atheism-vs-christianit
> > y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com <y%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>

> > > > .
> > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> > --
>
> > 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-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

[Brock]

On Nov 25, 2:45 pm, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
> you do.

Consider instead:

* the objective truth of God's existence is independent of personal
beliefs

Regards,

Brock

[rappoccio]

On Nov 27, 10:35 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 1:01 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 26, 10:13 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 26, 1:42 am, Khurram Chaudhry <khurram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > my point exactly.
>
> > > > everyone denies some god or another.
>
> > > > do theists not deny the gods of the greeks?
>
> > > Those are not the gods that tempt the Christian away from God. The
> > > gods of economic security, or health, are more typical, while the gods
> > > of verification and evidence seem to call to internet atheists. Rare
> > > is the person who truly dismisses /all/ the gods. We call them Saints.
> > > Said one "God alone is enough. Let nothing upset you, let nothing
> > > startle you. ... Whoever has God lacks nothing: God alone is enough."http://bit.ly/6P9fE1
>
> > Wait... economic security and health have been now made into deities?
>
> > Under what definition of "god" does this fall under?
>
> Hi Rappo. Roberts quoted in the original post never defined his term,

Is it necessary to define commonly-used terms in every discourse?

I'm presuming that he's referring to the ordinary definition, you
know, the whole creator thingy who listens to your innermost thoughts
and has some care what you do with your life. Anything else, why call
it "God" to begin with?

Even expanding upon this to include what it seems you're defining here
as "something you worship", I don't worship economic security or
health, any more than I worship knowledge, sanity, clean water,
antibiotics, food without mold on it, or a warm place to live. This is
simply attempting to survive. We don't worship survival.

> so who knows what he means by 'the possible gods'? What the Christian
> means by the gods is right there in the first commandment.  A god is
> anything a man cannot do without that is not God.
>
> I confess that I am less than the perfect atheist with regards to the
> god of economic security. I loose sleep over It. With Saint Theresa I
> pray "God alone is enough. Let nothing upset you, let nothing startle
> you. ... Whoever has God lacks nothing: God alone is enough."http://bit.ly/6P9fE1

Have you ever tried doing this? I mean, REALLY doing it? Selling your
house, quitting your job, getting rid of your personal belongings, and
wandering the streets for God to take care of you?

I'm going to bet you a nickel you don't get too far.