Atheism as ideology

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

An ideology is a set of beliefs shared by a group ("all atheists believe there are no deities"; "most atheists embrace Enlightenment ideals"). To the extent that atheists define themselves as a group ("we don't want you in this forum") in contrast to religious communities, atheism is an ideology. Of course, this contrasted comparison is problematic among atheists who believe that their worldview should be normative. Indeed, in local/regional contexts atheism is normative.

On a personal note, let me say that usenet in general and alt.atheism in particular REEKS of ideology.

[Joe Bruno]

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 1:09:33 PM UTC-7, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> An ideology is a set of beliefs shared by a group ("all atheists believe there are no deities"; "most atheists embrace Enlightenment ideals"). To the extent that atheists define themselves as a group ("we don't want you in this forum") in contrast to religious communities, atheism is an ideology. Of course, this contrasted comparison is problematic among atheists who believe that their worldview should be normative. Indeed, in local/regional contexts atheism is normative.
>
> On a personal note, let me say that usenet in general and alt.atheism in particular REEKS of ideology.

The atheists who post here lack the brains necessary to formulate an ideology.

[hhya...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 4:09:33 AM UTC+8, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> An ideology is a set of beliefs shared by a group ("all atheists believe there are no deities"; "most atheists embrace Enlightenment ideals"). To the extent that atheists define themselves as a group ("we don't want you in this forum") in contrast to religious communities, atheism is an ideology. Of course, this contrasted comparison is problematic among atheists who believe that their worldview should be normative. Indeed, in local/regional contexts atheism is normative.
>
> On a personal note, let me say that usenet in general and alt.atheism in particular REEKS of ideology.

So, you don't know what is the meaning of ideology???
No wonder you wrote senseless posts.....a troll.

[Wexford Eire]

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> An ideology is a set of beliefs shared by a group ("all atheists believe there are no deities"; "most atheists embrace Enlightenment ideals"). To the extent that atheists define themselves as a group ("we don't want you in this forum") in contrast to religious communities, atheism is an ideology. Of course, this contrasted comparison is problematic among atheists who believe that their worldview should be normative. Indeed, in local/regional contexts atheism is normative.
>
> On a personal note, let me say that usenet in general and alt.atheism in particular REEKS of ideology.

Only to morons like you. Atheists have no manifesto or set of beliefs held in common. There's no ideology. Go away now.

[Joe Bruno]

LOL!
How about these?

1. Jesus never existed
2. Moses never existed
3.All Catholic priests are pedophiles
4.All theists are brainwashed
5.This ng belongs to us atheists exclusively. Theists don't belong here.
6.All theists are ignorant and stupid
7.The bible is all lies

[Wexford Eire]

Repeat. There is no atheist platform, manifesto or common set of beliefs.

One can be an atheist and believe Jesus and Moses existed, the Exodus happened, and all sorts of other things that even some Theists question. Most don't because all of this is unproven, meaning not that there is scanty evidence, there is no evidence whatsoever.

Regarding brainwashing, of course all Theists are inculcated into religion. Children are born without beliefs. Religion is crammed into them for years and years. If religion were natural, that would't be necessary, one brand of Moslems (or Christians or Buddhists or whatever) would;t be murdering the other, and all people would believe the same things.

As for being ignorant and stupid, there isn't a theist who posts here who can provide a rational, cohesive argument for his or her beliefs.

Lies in the Bible? The Bible is a book of myths, unless, of course you really think snakes can talk, Noe could put in his boat two of some animals and seven of others until all species were included, and rivers can turn to blood.

[John Locke]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 13:09:30 -0700 (PDT), jackpi...@gmail.com
wrote:

>An ideology is a set of beliefs shared by a group ("all atheists believe there are no deities"; "most atheists embrace Enlightenment ideals"). To the extent that atheists define themselves as a group ("we don't want you in this forum") in contrast to religious communities, atheism is an ideology. Of course, this contrasted comparison is problematic among atheists who believe that their worldview should be normative. Indeed, in local/regional contexts atheism is normative.
>
>On a personal note, let me say that usenet in general and alt.atheism in particular REEKS of ideology.
>

On a personal note, let me say that Usenet in general and alt.atheism
in particular reeks of theist trolls who haven't got the common sense
to realize that they have no evidence for any god.

.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <c9db4153-62c6-4e70...@googlegroups.com>,

Wexford Eire <wexford....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 11:47:35 PM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 8:35:24 PM UTC-7, Wexford Eire wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > An ideology is a set of beliefs shared by a group ("all atheists
> > > > believe there are no deities"; "most atheists embrace Enlightenment
> > > > ideals"). To the extent that atheists define themselves as a group
> > > > ("we don't want you in this forum") in contrast to religious
> > > > communities, atheism is an ideology. Of course, this contrasted
> > > > comparison is problematic among atheists who believe that their
> > > > worldview should be normative. Indeed, in local/regional contexts
> > > > atheism is normative.
> > > >
> > > > On a personal note, let me say that usenet in general and alt.atheism
> > > > in particular REEKS of ideology.
> > >
> > > Only to morons like you. Atheists have no manifesto or set of beliefs
> > > held in common. There's no ideology. Go away now.
> >
> > LOL!
> > How about these?
> >
> > 1. Jesus never existed

There's no evidence that he did.


> > 2. Moses never existed

There's no evidence that he did.

> > 3.All Catholic priests are pedophiles

Nobody says that. What we do say is that the Catholic Church has been
covering up the problem for centuries and forcing that cover-up on
everyone by orders from the Vatican.


> > 4.All theists are brainwashed

There's no other way to believe in something that has no evidence.

> > 5.This ng belongs to us atheists exclusively. Theists don't belong here.

NOBODY says that. We have several theists here who participate quite
civilly here.

> > 6.All theists are ignorant and stupid

NOBODY says that, either. We do say that all of our theist trolls are
beyond ignorant and stupid. The non-ignorant and non-stupid theists
aren't interested in barging in where they're not wanted.

> > 7.The bible is all lies

Nobody says that, either. What we do say is that the bible is a book of
fiction, a book of mythology that, like all mythology, might contain a
few germs of reality.


I must say that you've created quite an extensive family of ridiculous
straw men. Couldn't you find a more productive use of your time?

> Repeat. There is no atheist platform, manifesto or common set of beliefs.
>
> One can be an atheist and believe Jesus and Moses existed, the Exodus
> happened, and all sorts of other things that even some Theists question. Most
> don't because all of this is unproven, meaning not that there is scanty
> evidence, there is no evidence whatsoever.
>
> Regarding brainwashing, of course all Theists are inculcated into religion.
> Children are born without beliefs. Religion is crammed into them for years
> and years. If religion were natural, that would't be necessary, one brand of
> Moslems (or Christians or Buddhists or whatever) would;t be murdering the
> other, and all people would believe the same things.
>
> As for being ignorant and stupid, there isn't a theist who posts here who can
> provide a rational, cohesive argument for his or her beliefs.
>
> Lies in the Bible? The Bible is a book of myths, unless, of course you really
> think snakes can talk, Noe could put in his boat two of some animals and
> seven of others until all species were included, and rivers can turn to
> blood.

--

JD

"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

[hypatiab7]

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 11:09:36 PM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 1:09:33 PM UTC-7, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > An ideology is a set of beliefs shared by a group ("all atheists believe there are no deities"; "most atheists embrace Enlightenment ideals"). To the extent that atheists define themselves as a group ("we don't want you in this forum") in contrast to religious communities, atheism is an ideology. Of course, this contrasted comparison is problematic among atheists who believe that their worldview should be normative. Indeed, in local/regional contexts atheism is normative.
> >
> > On a personal note, let me say that usenet in general and alt.atheism in particular REEKS of ideology.

You say that like it's a bad thing. You really are a mental case.

>
> The atheists who post here lack the brains necessary to formulate an ideology.

Then HOW does it Reek of ideology?

[hypatiab7]

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 11:35:24 PM UTC-4, Wexford Eire wrote:
> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > An ideology is a set of beliefs shared by a group ("all atheists believe there are no deities"; "most atheists embrace Enlightenment ideals"). To the extent that atheists define themselves as a group ("we don't want you in this forum") in contrast to religious communities, atheism is an ideology. Of course, this contrasted comparison is problematic among atheists who believe that their worldview should be normative. Indeed, in local/regional contexts atheism is normative.
> >
> > On a personal note, let me say that usenet in general and alt.atheism in particular REEKS of ideology.

We can still have a personal philosophy. That's why I'm a Secular Humanist.

[hypatiab7]

They aren't ideologies; they're probably mostly facts.

hhya was right. You don't know what ideology means.

By the way, non-troll theists who want to learn and not convert are welcome.

[Joe Bruno]

You wouldn't know a fact if it crawled up your ass.
... and I've already posted proof that you're an habitual liar.

[hhya...@gmail.com]

Moron, those of yours are not ideologies, merely some facts we observed or collected/concluded over the years.

You are a confused moron.

[hhya...@gmail.com]

Moron, they are facts and not sort of ideologies. No atheist is a liar here....we have no con book to guide and learn.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 21:39:36 -0700 (PDT), Wexford Eire
<wexford....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 11:47:35 PM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
>> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 8:35:24 PM UTC-7, Wexford Eire wrote:
>> > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > An ideology is a set of beliefs shared by a group ("all atheists believe there are no deities"; "most atheists embrace Enlightenment ideals"). To the extent that atheists define themselves as a group ("we don't want you in this forum") in contrast to religious communities, atheism is an ideology. Of course, this contrasted comparison is problematic among atheists who believe that their worldview should be normative. Indeed, in local/regional contexts atheism is normative.
>> > >
>> > > On a personal note, let me say that usenet in general and alt.atheism in particular REEKS of ideology.
>> >
>> > Only to morons like you. Atheists have no manifesto or set of beliefs held in common. There's no ideology. Go away now.
>>
>> LOL!
>> How about these?
>>
>> 1. Jesus never existed

The obvious conclusion about something utterly irrelevant outside
these sociopathic morons' religion, not an ideology like the proven
serial liar has a psychological need for it to be.

And we wouldn't even reach that conclusion if these in-=your-face
morons kept their beliefs where they belong.

>> 2. Moses never existed

The obvious conclusion about something utterly irrelevant outside
these sociopathic morons' religion, not an ideology like the proven
serial liar has a psychological need for it to be.

And we wouldn't even reach that conclusion if these in-=your-face
morons kept their beliefs where they belong.

>> 3.All Catholic priests are pedophiles

A deliberate, stupid lie, Show us one atheist who has ever said that.

>> 4.All theists are brainwashed

The obvious conclusion. It happens in their earliest years and renders
them incapable of critical thinking about the stuff they wipe in our
faces.

And we wouldn't even reach that conclusion if these in-=your-face
morons kept their beliefs where they belong.

>> 5.This ng belongs to us atheists exclusively. Theists don't belong here.

The proven serial liar knows it was set up by atheists for atheists to
discuss our own business, not for bigoted, nasty, stupid liars like
him.

>> 6.All theists are ignorant and stupid

Theism destroys critical thinking when it comes to their religion.

The obvious conclusion about something utterly irrelevant outside
these sociopathic morons' religion, not an ideology like the proven
serial liar has a psychological need for it to be.

And we wouldn't even reach that conclusion if these in-your-face
morons kept their beliefs where they belong.

>> 7.The bible is all lies

Mostly.

It is a work of myths and legends with almost no basis in reality,
which only become lies when morons like this one insist that it is the
truth, forcing a dichotomy which leaves out what it actually is.

Again, this is the obvious conclusion about something utterly
irrelevant outside these sociopathic morons' religion, not an ideology
like the proven serial liar has a psychological need for it to be.

And we wouldn't even reach that conclusion if these in-=your-face
morons kept their beliefs where they belong.

>Repeat. There is no atheist platform, manifesto or common set of beliefs.

The seriously mentally ill, bullying, psychopathic, sadistic, coward
knows this.

Which is why he does it, hiding behind his computer.

>One can be an atheist and believe Jesus and Moses existed, the Exodus
>happened, and all sorts of other things that even some Theists question.
>Most don't because all of this is unproven, meaning not that there is scanty
>evidence, there is no evidence whatsoever.

Careful, the psycho will scream "liar" and insist that a mention in
Hellenic era literature of Moses and the Exodus more than a thousand
years after the supposed events, is some kind of evidence for them.

But in any case, the Israeli archaeologists who reached the conclusion
there was no evidence whatsoever for the exodus, not to mention all
the logistic and other difficulties which showed the story was false,
were Jewish.

So it is hardly the "atheist ideology" the deliberately nasty, proven
serial liar was lying about.

>Regarding brainwashing, of course all Theists are inculcated into religion.
>Children are born without beliefs. Religion is crammed into them for years
>and years. If religion were natural, that would't be necessary, one brand of
>Moslems (or Christians or Buddhists or whatever) would;t be murdering the
>other, and all people would believe the same things.

Exactly. This is hardly "atheist ideology" that the in-your-face liar
lies about.

>As for being ignorant and stupid, there isn't a theist who posts here who can
>provide a rational, cohesive argument for his or her beliefs.

Not to mention their inability to think outside their religion, to
discuss the nonsense they bring up, outside it.

For example, the current moron who imagines "you can't prove electrons
either" somehow discharges the burden of proof he assumed when he
talked about his religion's god as if it were real outside his
religion.

We observe this kind of stupidity all the time. It's not the "atheist
ideology" the proven serial liar lies about.

>Lies in the Bible? The Bible is a book of myths, unless, of course you
>really think snakes can talk, Noe could put in his boat two of some
>animals and seven of others until all species were included, and rivers
>can turn to blood.

Theists make it a book of lies when they force a true/false dichotomy
which excludes what you just described.

And that isn't the "atheist ideology" the proven serial liar pretends,
either.

[Tim]

Says the guy who claimed that quadratic equations have one solution and isosceles triangles have three equal sides.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

Wexford Eire

... . . . . . . . .....

Alt.atheism atheists do not share a set of beliefs? You enacted two of those beliefs - those identified as Other should be told to "go away" and should be called "moron", "idiot", etc.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

As for being ignorant and stupid, there isn't a theist who posts here who can provide a rational, cohesive argument for his or her beliefs.

.. .. . . . ... .....

The implied connection between "can't provide a rational argument for his beliefs" and "is stupid" I propose has an ideological basis. The repetition of a few derrogatives like "moron" "idiot" etc, aimed at the right enemy at the right time, constitutes membership into alt.atheism.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

As for being ignorant and stupid, there isn't a theist who posts here who can provide a rational, cohesive argument for his or her beliefs.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

hypatiab7

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 11:09:36 PM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 1:09:33 PM UTC-7, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > An ideology is a set of beliefs shared by a group ("all atheists believe there are no deities"; "most atheists embrace Enlightenment ideals"). To the extent that atheists define themselves as a group ("we don't want you in this forum") in contrast to religious communities, atheism is an ideology. Of course, this contrasted comparison is problematic among atheists who believe that their worldview should be normative. Indeed, in local/regional contexts atheism is normative.
> >
> > On a personal note, let me say that usenet in general and alt.atheism in particular REEKS of ideology.


You say that like it's a bad thing. You really are a mental case.

..... . . . . .. ....

You're right. Ideology is not bad. Everybody has one (many). Some folks would argue that it's not possible to think outside an ideological framework.

[Wexford Eire]

You identified yourself. I didn't, moron. Now, go away.

[Wexford Eire]

Is "ideological basis" your phrase of the day? To answer your assertion, "No." It's simply a rational response to an irrational allegation. As for epithetical insults, like "moron" and "idiot" they may be bunt but they make the point. Theists, you included, can't package an argument without resorting to sarcasm. straw men and fantasy, or by using the grand ketchup of "goddidit" as the final solution to things either they don't understand or science has not yet investigated to completely satisfactory degree.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

Wexford Eire
- hide quoted text -

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 2:37:17 PM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> As for being ignorant and stupid, there isn't a theist who posts here who can provide a rational, cohesive argument for his or her beliefs.
> .. .. . . . ... .....
>
> The implied connection between "can't provide a rational argument for his beliefs" and "is stupid" I propose has an ideological basis. The repetition of a few derrogatives like "moron" "idiot" etc, aimed at the right enemy at the right time, constitutes membership into alt.atheism.

Is "ideological basis" your phrase of the day? To answer your assertion, "No." It's simply a rational response to an irrational allegation.

..... . . . . ....

I thought we might have a discussion. I wasn't looking for a simple definitive answer. Carl Marx, for instance, wrote extensively on the subject of ideology. So have postmodern linguists.

> As for epithetical insults, like "moron" and "idiot" they may be bunt but they make the point. Theists, you included, can't package an argument without resorting to sarcasm. straw men and fantasy, or by using the grand ketchup of "goddidit" as the final solution to things either they don't understand or science has not yet investigated to completely satisfactory degree

... . . . . . ...

I don't think I've ever in my life said or even thought that ghod did something. Maybe as a child, but I don't remember.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

Wexford Eire
- hide quoted text -

... . ... . . . .. ...

Interesting. What did you see as me identifying myself?

[David Canzi]

On 04/16/16 14:37, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> As for being ignorant and stupid, there isn't a theist who posts here
> who can provide a rational, cohesive argument for his or her beliefs.

> ... .. . . . ... .....

>
> The implied connection between "can't provide a rational argument
> for his beliefs" and "is stupid" I propose has an ideological basis.
> The repetition of a few derrogatives like "moron" "idiot" etc, aimed
> at the right enemy at the right time, constitutes membership into
> alt.atheism.
>

In any social group, from a clique to a mass movement, there are social
rewards for demonstrating your loyalty to the group by going along
and social punishments for not going along. You have to be angry at
who they're angry at, and hate who they hate, in order to receive their
approval -- in order to belong.

Once, while listening to The Fool on the Hill, I realized the man the
Beatles were singing about was lonely, and had *chosen* to be lonely.
Or maybe I was just projecting.

--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 17:53:42 -0400, David Canzi <dmc...@uwaterloo.ca>
wrote:

>On 04/16/16 14:37, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> As for being ignorant and stupid, there isn't a theist who posts here
> > who can provide a rational, cohesive argument for his or her beliefs.
>> ... .. . . . ... .....
>>
>> The implied connection between "can't provide a rational argument
> > for his beliefs" and "is stupid" I propose has an ideological basis.
> > The repetition of a few derrogatives like "moron" "idiot" etc, aimed
> > at the right enemy at the right time, constitutes membership into
> > alt.atheism.
>>
>
>In any social group, from a clique to a mass movement, there are social
>rewards for demonstrating your loyalty to the group by going along
>and social punishments for not going along. You have to be angry at
>who they're angry at, and hate who they hate, in order to receive their
>approval -- in order to belong.

That's not why people here react negatively to theists who crash the
group - it was set up by atheists for atheists to discuss our own
business.

But almost from day one, it was a magnet for the loonier kind of
theists, who simply reap what they sow.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

David Canzi

... . . . . . . .....

Remember Two Minutes of Hate from Orwell?

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

Christopher A. Lee

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 17:53:42 -0400, David Canzi <dmc...@uwaterloo.ca>
wrote:

>On 04/16/16 14:37, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> As for being ignorant and stupid, there isn't a theist who posts here
> > who can provide a rational, cohesive argument for his or her beliefs.
>> ... .. . . . ... .....
>>
>> The implied connection between "can't provide a rational argument
> > for his beliefs" and "is stupid" I propose has an ideological basis.
> > The repetition of a few derrogatives like "moron" "idiot" etc, aimed
> > at the right enemy at the right time, constitutes membership into
> > alt.atheism.
>>
>
>In any social group, from a clique to a mass movement, there are social
>rewards for demonstrating your loyalty to the group by going along
>and social punishments for not going along. You have to be angry at
>who they're angry at, and hate who they hate, in order to receive their
>approval -- in order to belong.

That's not why people here react negatively to theists who crash the
group - it was set up by atheists for atheists to discuss our own
business.

.. . . . . .. . .. ..

That's not why, not even a little bit?

[Joe Bruno]

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 3:52:42 PM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 17:53:42 -0400, David Canzi <dmc...@uwaterloo.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >On 04/16/16 14:37, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> As for being ignorant and stupid, there isn't a theist who posts here
> > > who can provide a rational, cohesive argument for his or her beliefs.
> >> ... .. . . . ... .....
> >>
> >> The implied connection between "can't provide a rational argument
> > > for his beliefs" and "is stupid" I propose has an ideological basis.
> > > The repetition of a few derrogatives like "moron" "idiot" etc, aimed
> > > at the right enemy at the right time, constitutes membership into
> > > alt.atheism.
> >>
> >
> >In any social group, from a clique to a mass movement, there are social
> >rewards for demonstrating your loyalty to the group by going along
> >and social punishments for not going along. You have to be angry at
> >who they're angry at, and hate who they hate, in order to receive their
> >approval -- in order to belong.
>
> That's not why people here react negatively to theists who crash the
> group - it was set up by atheists for atheists to discuss our own
> business.
>

"Crash"??? The term applies to people who go to a party at a privately owned dwelling without being invited.

Until you provide me with a deed that proves you own this ng, all that crash talk is just bullshit.

If you intended these discussions to be only for atheists, you needed to
install a moderator to screen us out. If you need advice on moderation, ask a man named Don Black. He lives in West Palm Beach, FLA. He runs Stormfront.

[hhya...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 4:21:44 AM UTC+8, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> Wexford Eire
> - hide quoted text -
> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 2:37:17 PM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > As for being ignorant and stupid, there isn't a theist who posts here who can provide a rational, cohesive argument for his or her beliefs.
> > .. .. . . . ... .....
> >
> > The implied connection between "can't provide a rational argument for his beliefs" and "is stupid" I propose has an ideological basis. The repetition of a few derrogatives like "moron" "idiot" etc, aimed at the right enemy at the right time, constitutes membership into alt.atheism.
>
> Is "ideological basis" your phrase of the day? To answer your assertion, "No." It's simply a rational response to an irrational allegation.
> ..... . . . . ....
>
> I thought we might have a discussion. I wasn't looking for a simple definitive answer. Carl Marx, for instance, wrote extensively on the subject of ideology. So have postmodern linguists.

Atheism has no ideology. You can live with that, too bad.

>
>
> > As for epithetical insults, like "moron" and "idiot" they may be bunt but they make the point. Theists, you included, can't package an argument without resorting to sarcasm. straw men and fantasy, or by using the grand ketchup of "goddidit" as the final solution to things either they don't understand or science has not yet investigated to completely satisfactory degree
> ... . . . . . ...
>
> I don't think I've ever in my life said or even thought that ghod did something. Maybe as a child, but I don't remember.

Then why are you here to annoy the atheists who are merely non-believers of non-existing proto=pixie?????? You wish to be a troll????

[hhya...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 8:39:19 AM UTC+8, Joe Bruno wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 3:52:42 PM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 17:53:42 -0400, David Canzi <dmc...@uwaterloo.ca>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On 04/16/16 14:37, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >> As for being ignorant and stupid, there isn't a theist who posts here
> > > > who can provide a rational, cohesive argument for his or her beliefs.
> > >> ... .. . . . ... .....
> > >>
> > >> The implied connection between "can't provide a rational argument
> > > > for his beliefs" and "is stupid" I propose has an ideological basis.
> > > > The repetition of a few derrogatives like "moron" "idiot" etc, aimed
> > > > at the right enemy at the right time, constitutes membership into
> > > > alt.atheism.
> > >>
> > >
> > >In any social group, from a clique to a mass movement, there are social
> > >rewards for demonstrating your loyalty to the group by going along
> > >and social punishments for not going along. You have to be angry at
> > >who they're angry at, and hate who they hate, in order to receive their
> > >approval -- in order to belong.
> >
> > That's not why people here react negatively to theists who crash the
> > group - it was set up by atheists for atheists to discuss our own
> > business.
> >
> "Crash"??? The term applies to people who go to a party at a privately owned dwelling without being invited.

So, who has invited you idiot to come to AA?

>
> Until you provide me with a deed that proves you own this ng, all that crash talk is just bullshit.

You are a theist. Why would you want to hide in an atheist forum instead of the deluded groups?????

[David Canzi]

>Remember Two Minutes of Hate from Orwell?

I remember that the inner party members monitored the outer
party crowd for people who were not enthusiastic enough. I
don't remember if the members of the crowd also monitored
each other... It would be more chilling that way.

Google Groups indicates quoted text in followups correctly.
For some reason you defeat this, and use your own bizarre
quoting method, which is a botch. I repaired a lot of
damage in the quoted text above.

[Wexford Eire]

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 4:21:44 PM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> Wexford Eire
> - hide quoted text -
> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 2:37:17 PM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > As for being ignorant and stupid, there isn't a theist who posts here who can provide a rational, cohesive argument for his or her beliefs.
> > .. .. . . . ... .....
> >
> > The implied connection between "can't provide a rational argument for his beliefs" and "is stupid" I propose has an ideological basis. The repetition of a few derrogatives like "moron" "idiot" etc, aimed at the right enemy at the right time, constitutes membership into alt.atheism.
>
> Is "ideological basis" your phrase of the day? To answer your assertion, "No." It's simply a rational response to an irrational allegation.
> ..... . . . . ....
>
> I thought we might have a discussion. I wasn't looking for a simple definitive answer. Carl Marx, for instance, wrote extensively on the subject of ideology. So have postmodern linguists.
>

It's Karl Marx, and why should I care what the sick communist had to say? He also wanted to separate all children from their parents, do away with marriage entirely and have sex performed in a "pavilion of women" - a gigantic whore house. As for postmodern linguists, again, so what? Atheism isn't confined or wed to any particular ideology.

[Les Hellawell]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 17:06:18 -0700 (PDT), jackpi...@gmail.com
wrote:

I have noted that those who want to establish our absence of belief in
the existence of gods as an ideology have failed to include in their
list of things they claim we have in common is the one most inportant
factor that we all have in common.

Whenever this no longer fashionable 'out' crowd crash our newsgroup
to attack and try and get us to start believing in the existence of
their claimed gods we all demand they provide evidence of said god to
justify such a belief first (and everytime we do they fail).

Maybe that is something they would rather distract attention from
than directly address :-)



Les Hellawell
Grreting from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

Martin Luther wrote::
"Faith must trample underfoot all sense, reason and understanding

Which means that if Luther practised what he preached
nothing he ever said made any sense

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 1:09:33 PM UTC-7, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> An ideology is a set of beliefs shared by a group ("all atheists believe there are no deities"; "most atheists embrace Enlightenment ideals"). To the extent that atheists define themselves as a group ("we don't want you in this forum") in contrast to religious communities, atheism is an ideology. Of course, this contrasted comparison is problematic among atheists who believe that their worldview should be normative. Indeed, in local/regional contexts atheism is normative.
>
> On a personal note, let me say that usenet in general and alt.atheism in particular REEKS of ideology.

OK, that's good. Right out of the gate you let people know that you're a moron and don't know what words mean. Don't know if it will do any good to repeat this for the umteenth fucking time, but atheism is a non belief in God(s). That's it, there ain't no more. We are as different as any other group of people with only one thing in common.

You have my permission to fuck off and die.

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 8:09:36 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote:
> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 1:09:33 PM UTC-7, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > An ideology is a set of beliefs shared by a group ("all atheists believe there are no deities"; "most atheists embrace Enlightenment ideals"). To the extent that atheists define themselves as a group ("we don't want you in this forum") in contrast to religious communities, atheism is an ideology. Of course, this contrasted comparison is problematic among atheists who believe that their worldview should be normative. Indeed, in local/regional contexts atheism is normative.
> >
> > On a personal note, let me say that usenet in general and alt.atheism in particular REEKS of ideology.
>

> The atheists who post here lack the brains necessary to formulate an ideology.

Isn't it great that atheism isn't and ideology then?

The theists who don't belong here in the first place seem to have formed an ideology of let's be as annoyingly stupid as we can.

I like ours better.

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 8:47:35 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote:
> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 8:35:24 PM UTC-7, Wexford Eire wrote:

> > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > An ideology is a set of beliefs shared by a group ("all atheists believe there are no deities"; "most atheists embrace Enlightenment ideals"). To the extent that atheists define themselves as a group ("we don't want you in this forum") in contrast to religious communities, atheism is an ideology. Of course, this contrasted comparison is problematic among atheists who believe that their worldview should be normative. Indeed, in local/regional contexts atheism is normative.
> > >
> > > On a personal note, let me say that usenet in general and alt.atheism in particular REEKS of ideology.
> >

> > Only to morons like you. Atheists have no manifesto or set of beliefs held in common. There's no ideology. Go away now.
>

> LOL!
> How about these?
>
> 1. Jesus never existed

> 2. Moses never existed

> 3.All Catholic priests are pedophiles

> 4.All theists are brainwashed

> 5.This ng belongs to us atheists exclusively. Theists don't belong here.

> 6.All theists are ignorant and stupid

> 7.The bible is all lies

That's a very nice list. Some of it is actually true and represents what some atheists have said, which is what you usually do, mix in a bit of truth with some lies and hope nobody notices, but they always do.

Nobody says that number 3 is true, or number 7.

That's not an ideology, it's just a recitation of facts. Care to prove any of them wrong?

I didn't think so.

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 12:25:35 AM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 12:05:09 AM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote:

> > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 11:47:35 PM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 8:35:24 PM UTC-7, Wexford Eire wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > An ideology is a set of beliefs shared by a group ("all atheists believe there are no deities"; "most atheists embrace Enlightenment ideals"). To the extent that atheists define themselves as a group ("we don't want you in this forum") in contrast to religious communities, atheism is an ideology. Of course, this contrasted comparison is problematic among atheists who believe that their worldview should be normative. Indeed, in local/regional contexts atheism is normative.
> > > > >
> > > > > On a personal note, let me say that usenet in general and alt.atheism in particular REEKS of ideology.
> > > >
> > > > Only to morons like you. Atheists have no manifesto or set of beliefs held in common. There's no ideology. Go away now.
> > >
> > > LOL!
> > > How about these?
> > >
> > > 1. Jesus never existed
> > > 2. Moses never existed
> > > 3.All Catholic priests are pedophiles
> > > 4.All theists are brainwashed
> > > 5.This ng belongs to us atheists exclusively. Theists don't belong here.
> > > 6.All theists are ignorant and stupid
> > > 7.The bible is all lies
> >

> > They aren't ideologies; they're probably mostly facts.
> >
> > hhya was right. You don't know what ideology means.
> >
> > By the way, non-troll theists who want to learn and not convert are welcome.
>
> You wouldn't know a fact if it crawled up your ass.
> ... and I've already posted proof that you're an habitual liar.

And you do the same for yourself every day.

[Cloud Hobbit]

Only the persons who have to keep making ridiculous statements and posting stuff that has been debunked, sometimes multiple debunkings of the same subject in one month. I don't know what you call those people other than trolls, idiots and morons. They are obviously not that smart if they don't think we see through is same old crap.

When there are serious questions for discussion regarding theism, those people would not be subject to any kind of rudeness since they are not being rude.

The others can fuck off and die.

[Joe Bruno]

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 7:29:37 PM UTC-7, hhya...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 4:21:44 AM UTC+8, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Wexford Eire
> > - hide quoted text -
> > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 2:37:17 PM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > As for being ignorant and stupid, there isn't a theist who posts here who can provide a rational, cohesive argument for his or her beliefs.
> > > .. .. . . . ... .....
> > >
> > > The implied connection between "can't provide a rational argument for his beliefs" and "is stupid" I propose has an ideological basis. The repetition of a few derrogatives like "moron" "idiot" etc, aimed at the right enemy at the right time, constitutes membership into alt.atheism.
> >
> > Is "ideological basis" your phrase of the day? To answer your assertion, "No." It's simply a rational response to an irrational allegation.
> > ..... . . . . ....
> >
> > I thought we might have a discussion. I wasn't looking for a simple definitive answer. Carl Marx, for instance, wrote extensively on the subject of ideology. So have postmodern linguists.
>
> Atheism has no ideology.

You misspelled that. It should read "Atheists have no ideas."
> >

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <e002fd17-608c-4683...@googlegroups.com>,

Wexford Eire <wexford....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 4:21:44 PM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Wexford Eire
> > - hide quoted text -
> > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 2:37:17 PM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > As for being ignorant and stupid, there isn't a theist who posts here who
> > > can provide a rational, cohesive argument for his or her beliefs.
> > > .. .. . . . ... .....
> > >
> > > The implied connection between "can't provide a rational argument for
> > > his beliefs" and "is stupid" I propose has an ideological basis. The
> > > repetition of a few derrogatives like "moron" "idiot" etc, aimed at the
> > > right enemy at the right time, constitutes membership into alt.atheism.
> >
> > Is "ideological basis" your phrase of the day? To answer your assertion,
> > "No." It's simply a rational response to an irrational allegation.
> > ..... . . . . ....
> >
> > I thought we might have a discussion. I wasn't looking for a simple
> > definitive answer. Carl Marx, for instance, wrote extensively on the
> > subject of ideology. So have postmodern linguists.
> >
>
> It's Karl Marx, and why should I care what the sick communist had to say? He
> also wanted to separate all children from their parents, do away with
> marriage entirely and have sex performed in a "pavilion of women" - a
> gigantic whore house.

Ouch. That's some serious misogyny there.

--

JD

"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

David Canzi

- hide quoted text -

- hide quoted text -

--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go

...... . . . . . ....

My quotes are messed up because I'm using the mobile site for Google Groups, which doesn't quote.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

Les Hellawell

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 17:06:18 -0700 (PDT), jackpi...@gmail.com
wrote:

- show quoted text -

> I have noted that those who want to establish our absence of belief in
the existence of gods as an ideology have failed to include in their
list of things they claim we have in common is the one most inportant
factor that we all have in common.

... .. . . .. . ........

Notwithstanding the first sentence of my original post, which explictily states "no deities".

> Whenever this no longer fashionable 'out' crowd crash our newsgroup
to attack and try and get us to start believing in the existence of
their claimed gods we all demand they provide evidence of said god to
justify such a belief first (and everytime we do they fail).

.... .. . .. . . . ....

Again, you are not describing this post. At least nothing I've said. Instead, I would point to the "we/they" orientation of your comments as an indication of ideology.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

hypatiab7

- hide quoted text -

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 11:47:35 PM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 8:35:24 PM UTC-7, Wexford Eire wrote:

> > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > An ideology is a set of beliefs shared by a group ("all atheists believe there are no deities"; "most atheists embrace Enlightenment ideals"). To the extent that atheists define themselves as a group ("we don't want you in this forum") in contrast to religious communities, atheism is an ideology. Of course, this contrasted comparison is problematic among atheists who believe that their worldview should be normative. Indeed, in local/regional contexts atheism is normative.
> > >
> > > On a personal note, let me say that usenet in general and alt.atheism in particular REEKS of ideology.
> >
> > Only to morons like you. Atheists have no manifesto or set of beliefs held in common. There's no ideology. Go away now.
>

> LOL!
> How about these?
>
> 1. Jesus never existed
> 2. Moses never existed
> 3.All Catholic priests are pedophiles
> 4.All theists are brainwashed
> 5.This ng belongs to us atheists exclusively. Theists don't belong here.
> 6.All theists are ignorant and stupid
> 7.The bible is all lies

They aren't ideologies; they're probably mostly facts.

hhya was right. You don't know what ideology means.

... . . . . . . . .....

hhya said that to Joe Bruno. You, though, are responding to Jack.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

Cloud Hobbit

... . . . . . ......

Here you echo the tone, message, and word choice ("moron") of the other alt.atheism in-group.

[hhya...@gmail.com]

Well, it is not too wrong to say that either....atheists have no idea about how a proto=pixie can be believed when it is non-existent.

How crazy is that....
> > >

[hhya...@gmail.com]

You are purposely wanting to misguide yourself into thinking in that direction. Please try to consult dictionary or wiki or encyclopedia on the meaning of atheism before you dig too deep into your own mud pit.

Can you do that and come back????

[hhya...@gmail.com]

Ya, you find anything wrong with my opinion?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 01:20:24 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <e002fd17-608c-4683...@googlegroups.com>,
> Wexford Eire <wexford....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 4:21:44 PM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Wexford Eire
>> > - hide quoted text -
>> > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 2:37:17 PM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > As for being ignorant and stupid, there isn't a theist who posts here who
>> > > can provide a rational, cohesive argument for his or her beliefs.
>> > > .. .. . . . ... .....
>> > >
>> > > The implied connection between "can't provide a rational argument for
>> > > his beliefs" and "is stupid" I propose has an ideological basis. The
>> > > repetition of a few derrogatives like "moron" "idiot" etc, aimed at the
>> > > right enemy at the right time, constitutes membership into alt.atheism.
>> >
>> > Is "ideological basis" your phrase of the day? To answer your assertion,
>> > "No." It's simply a rational response to an irrational allegation.
>> > ..... . . . . ....
>> >
>> > I thought we might have a discussion. I wasn't looking for a simple
>> > definitive answer. Carl Marx, for instance, wrote extensively on the
>> > subject of ideology. So have postmodern linguists.

There's nothing to discuss.

>> It's Karl Marx, and why should I care what the sick communist had to say? He
>> also wanted to separate all children from their parents, do away with
>> marriage entirely and have sex performed in a "pavilion of women" - a
>> gigantic whore house.
>
>Ouch. That's some serious misogyny there.

And atheism still isn't an ideology, no matter how many idiots
demand we "debate" it as such.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 07:13:21 +0100, Les Hellawell <l...@shant.tell>
wrote:

And that's when they usually turn dishonest, nasty, or both.

Like the recent idiot who said nobody had ever seen an electron,
either, but we "believed" in them.

[Joe Bruno]

In your case, that's true. You don't have the mental capacity to formulate an ideology.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 00:00:13 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
<youngbl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 11:27:37 AM UTC-7, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Wexford Eire
>> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > An ideology is a set of beliefs shared by a group ("all atheists believe there are no deities"; "most atheists embrace Enlightenment ideals"). To the extent that atheists define themselves as a group ("we don't want you in this forum") in contrast to religious communities, atheism is an ideology. Of course, this contrasted comparison is problematic among atheists who believe that their worldview should be normative. Indeed, in local/regional contexts atheism is normative.
>> >
>> > On a personal note, let me say that usenet in general and alt.atheism in particular REEKS of ideology.
>>
>> Only to morons like you. Atheists have no manifesto or set of beliefs held in common. There's no ideology. Go away now.
>> ... . . . . . . . .....
>>
>> Alt.atheism atheists do not share a set of beliefs? You enacted two
>> of those beliefs - those identified as Other should be told to "go away"
>> and should be called "moron", "idiot", etc.

The in-your-face, stupid, deliberately nasty, sociopathic liar knows
perfectly well these aren't "atheist ideology", just the natural human
reaction to the neverending stream of unsolicited rudeness and
stupidity that his kind of theists imagine we should put up with.

>Only the persons who have to keep making ridiculous statements
>and posting stuff that has been debunked, sometimes multiple
>debunkings of the same subject in one month. I don't know what
>you call those people other than trolls, idiots and morons. They
>are obviously not that smart if they don't think we see through is
>same old crap.
>
>When there are serious questions for discussion regarding theism,
>those people would not be subject to any kind of rudeness since they
>are not being rude.

Unfortunately, even "those people" usually have no idea how talk about
it outside their religion, and they don't actually have anything to
say because the putative existence of the god from somebody else's
religion isn't even an issue for us.

It's very rare for them to take the hint.

[Ted&Alice]

Wouldn't that depend on how the women were treated?

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

hhya...@gmail.com

- hide quoted text -

. . . . . . ... .. .....

Oh the world is so much more interesting and full of meaning than can be glossed from an encyclopedia.

For example, I am an athiest, yet the regular atheists here have identified me as one in the out-group and demand I 'go away' and 'leave'. Why? I haven't violated the singular tenet of atheism - proposing that god exists.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 8:20:40 AM UTC-4, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 00:00:13 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
> <youngbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 11:27:37 AM UTC-7, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Wexford Eire
> >> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > An ideology is a set of beliefs shared by a group ("all atheists believe there are no deities"; "most atheists embrace Enlightenment ideals"). To the extent that atheists define themselves as a group ("we don't want you in this forum") in contrast to religious communities, atheism is an ideology. Of course, this contrasted comparison is problematic among atheists who believe that their worldview should be normative. Indeed, in local/regional contexts atheism is normative.
> >> >
> >> > On a personal note, let me say that usenet in general and alt.atheism in particular REEKS of ideology.
> >>
> >> Only to morons like you. Atheists have no manifesto or set of beliefs held in common. There's no ideology. Go away now.
> >> ... . . . . . . . .....
> >>
> >> Alt.atheism atheists do not share a set of beliefs? You enacted two
> >> of those beliefs - those identified as Other should be told to "go away"
> >> and should be called "moron", "idiot", etc.
>
> The in-your-face, stupid, deliberately nasty, sociopathic liar knows
> perfectly well these aren't "atheist ideology", just the natural human
> reaction to the neverending stream of unsolicited rudeness and
> stupidity that his kind of theists imagine we should put up with.

My kind of theists? I rejected theism and the supernatural as a child. Who do you imagine you're arguing with here?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<1014922515482588653.716...@news.alt.net>,

Surely you don't think Marx was speaking of empowered women sex slaves?

[Joe Bruno]

That senile old fart doesn't know who he's talking to.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

I'd be interested in the source of this information about the Marx sex slave thing.

[Ted&Alice]

Hmm. Of course any sort of sex slavery would be misogyny, but isn't it
possible that he was thinking of just altering people's living
arrangements? I don't know much about Marx, but I'd guess he at least
had moral motives.

[raven1]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:07:21 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"

>arrangements? I don't much about Marx, but I'd guess he at least
>had moral motives.

Motives are often irrelevant to outcomes. As the saying goes, when
you're up to your ass in alligators, it doesn't matter that your
original intent was to drain the swamp. Or, as Catholics put it, the
road to Hell is paved wth good intentions.

[Ted&Alice]

Oh yeah, that's true.

[David Canzi]

What I know, up to this point, is what some anonymous usenet
poster says that Karl Marx said. I haven't managed to find
anything on the web that verifies it. It may exist but be
hard to find, because an expression in Marx's writings that
one person translated into English as "pavilion of women"
might have been translated differently by others.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

raven1

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:07:21 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"

- show quoted text -

>arrangements? I don't much about Marx, but I'd guess he at least
>had moral motives.

Motives are often irrelevant to outcomes. As the saying goes, when
you're up to your ass in alligators, it doesn't matter that your
original intent was to drain the swamp. Or, as Catholics put it, the
road to Hell is paved wth good intentions

.... .. . . . . .....

It's hard to apply what you say to Marx without some reference to his works.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

Ted&Alice

...... . . . . .......

Sex slavery of males would not be.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

David Canzi

... .. . . . . ..........

There's a lot of half-baked b.s. said and repeated about Marx and Marxism.

[Ted&Alice]

LOL! True. :)

[Wexford Eire]

> --
>
> JD
>
> "If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
> your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
> the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

The veneration of Marx is one of the things that always astounded me. In the Communist Manifesto, which I read for the first time in high school, Marx poo-poos abjections to his proposed "pavilion of women" (presumably all women would be drafted into service there), by stating that at present the evil capitalists can make whores of whomever they please, that they take their pleasures with their workers as they desire and with impunity. I've spoken with feminists who were working on a fusion of feminist theory and Marxism and pointed this out only be shown the door. Ideologies make idiots of their adherents. The principal thing I like about atheists and atheism is that there is no ideological bias or basis to it, no one is looking for ideological purity or adherence to some superman theoretician. Compromise and reason are possible with people who haven't divided the world into good, meaning my beliefs, and evil, meaning any beliefs other than mine.

[Wexford Eire]

Communist manifesto. It's an easy read. One thing is the pavilion of women, which was bad enough, even worse was the idea that children would be taken from their parents and raised by the state.

[Wexford Eire]

I read him so many years ago I unintentionally misquoted him. He refers to a "community of women," not a "pavilion of women." His remarks are so confused, it's difficult to determine what he was getting at, although to me his Manifesto reads like the raving of a lunatic. If you can find anything remotely good in his cal for the abolition of the family, let me know. The man was obviously nuts. Here's the section I was thinking-of:

"Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private."

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

Wexford Eire

On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 9:18:00 AM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 9:02:48 AM UTC-4, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article
> > <1014922515482588653.716...@news.alt.net>,
> > Ted&Alice <ted.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <e002fd17-608c-4683...@googlegroups.com>,

. . . .. . . . .....

Well, since I'm a grad student, all of my reading energy is already spoken for. But I do need to get around to Marx sooner or later. Probably much later.

I can also tell you that in some schools of academic thought, "ideology" is not necessarily laden with negative connotations. Some folks would say that it's impossible to think outside ideology.

[%]

yea but those guys are on drugs

[dmc...@uwaterloo.ca]

I'm trying Google Groups mobile site. This has to be on the top
10 list of the world's worst user interfaces.

As you (Jack Pine) said, it doesn't include the quoted text of the
message I'm replying to. There is no button that looks like I can
use it to request GG to include
quoted text. So if you want to
Include text you have to cut and paste it, which means it doesn't
get quoted in accordance with the quoting conventions used by almost
all other newsreader software, including GG's desktop site.

There is more to hate about GG's mobile site but I've suffered
long enough from this terrible user interface so I'll stop writing now.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <9at1sr....@news.alt.net>,

And in his time, women were the property of their fathers and then their
husbands, with no power over their own lives and bodies. (Just as they
still are in Sharia countries.) Women were either whores or virgins or
wives & mothers.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

Jeanne Douglas
In article <9at1sr....@news.alt.net>,

...... . .. . .. .....

Was this true across classes? Central to what Marx was saying is that the rules were differnt among the lower classes.

[hypatiab7]

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 2:39:13 PM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> hypatiab7
> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 11:09:36 PM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:

> > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 1:09:33 PM UTC-7, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > An ideology is a set of beliefs shared by a group ("all atheists believe there are no deities"; "most atheists embrace Enlightenment ideals"). To the extent that atheists define themselves as a group ("we don't want you in this forum") in contrast to religious communities, atheism is an ideology. Of course, this contrasted comparison is problematic among atheists who believe that their worldview should be normative. Indeed, in local/regional contexts atheism is normative.
> > >
> > > On a personal note, let me say that usenet in general and alt.atheism in particular REEKS of ideology.
>
>

> You say that like it's a bad thing. You really are a mental case.
> ..... . . . . .. ....
>
> You're right. Ideology is not bad. Everybody has one (many). Some folks would argue that it's not possible to think outside an ideological framework.

Why? Are you unable to study all sides of an issue?

[hhya...@gmail.com]

Then why do you define atheism as ideology?
When you are confused yourself and regard your brand of atheism as ideology, do not pull us in....we don't need that sort of treatment.

[hhya...@gmail.com]

Now I understand why you are so funny.
Being a student, there are a lot you need to know about atheism since it is not an ideology. Is there a stupid theist lecturer who taught you that atheism is an ideology?

Otherwise, you have a new brand of atheism....

[hypatiab7]

On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 9:02:48 AM UTC-4, Jeanne Douglas wrote:

How about if the ladies in the Pavillion of Women only accepted men of
their own choice and told the rest to take a hike?

[hypatiab7]

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 3:25:35 AM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 12:05:09 AM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote:
> > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 11:47:35 PM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 8:35:24 PM UTC-7, Wexford Eire wrote:

> > > > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > An ideology is a set of beliefs shared by a group ("all atheists believe there are no deities"; "most atheists embrace Enlightenment ideals"). To the extent that atheists define themselves as a group ("we don't want you in this forum") in contrast to religious communities, atheism is an ideology. Of course, this contrasted comparison is problematic among atheists who believe that their worldview should be normative. Indeed, in local/regional contexts atheism is normative.
> > > > >
> > > > > On a personal note, let me say that usenet in general and alt.atheism in particular REEKS of ideology.
> > > >

> > > > Only to morons like you. Atheists have no manifesto or set of beliefs held in common. There's no ideology. Go away now.
> > >

> > > LOL!
> > > How about these?
> > >
> > > 1. Jesus never existed
> > > 2. Moses never existed
> > > 3.All Catholic priests are pedophiles
> > > 4.All theists are brainwashed
> > > 5.This ng belongs to us atheists exclusively. Theists don't belong here.
> > > 6.All theists are ignorant and stupid
> > > 7.The bible is all lies
> >
> > They aren't ideologies; they're probably mostly facts.
> >
> > hhya was right. You don't know what ideology means.
> >
> > By the way, non-troll theists who want to learn and not convert are welcome.
>
> You wouldn't know a fact if it crawled up your ass.
> ... and I've already posted proof that you're an habitual liar.

Tsk. Astroboi would call that an emotional outburst.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Where did the proven serial liar do that?

>Tsk. Astroboi would call that an emotional outburst.

We're not the one who inflated his qualifications to try and lend
bogus authority to transparent nonsense, and who demands the same
evidence over and over again when it is provided regularly.

We're not the one who is so stupid he imagines a mention more than a
thousand years after the supped events, is somehow evidence for Moses
and the exodus.

We're not the one who posts the standard list of"evidence" for Jesus
that doesn't even mention him apart from the obvious later Christian
insertion in Josephus.

Etc.

[jackpin...@gmail.com]

I am not proposing that 'atheism as ideology' is some sort of absolute truth. I'm not sure there's anything to the idea at all. I am interested in the concept of 'ideology as necessary for thought'. I offer it as a topic of discussion. I thought it was interesting.

It is not always easy to find folks who know how to investigate topics that threaten their. . . existing worldview (I will decline to use the i-word here.)

[Joe Bruno]

On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 7:13:49 AM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 3:25:35 AM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 12:05:09 AM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 11:47:35 PM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 8:35:24 PM UTC-7, Wexford Eire wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > An ideology is a set of beliefs shared by a group ("all atheists believe there are no deities"; "most atheists embrace Enlightenment ideals"). To the extent that atheists define themselves as a group ("we don't want you in this forum") in contrast to religious communities, atheism is an ideology. Of course, this contrasted comparison is problematic among atheists who believe that their worldview should be normative. Indeed, in local/regional contexts atheism is normative.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On a personal note, let me say that usenet in general and alt.atheism in particular REEKS of ideology.
> > > > >
> > > > > Only to morons like you. Atheists have no manifesto or set of beliefs held in common. There's no ideology. Go away now.
> > > >
> > > > LOL!
> > > > How about these?
> > > >
> > > > 1. Jesus never existed
> > > > 2. Moses never existed
> > > > 3.All Catholic priests are pedophiles
> > > > 4.All theists are brainwashed
> > > > 5.This ng belongs to us atheists exclusively. Theists don't belong here.
> > > > 6.All theists are ignorant and stupid
> > > > 7.The bible is all lies
> > >
> > > They aren't ideologies; they're probably mostly facts.

I was right about you atheist slimeballs. You are propagandists who don't care about the truth. Thanks for the confirmation.
> > >

[Ted&Alice]

So that might just have been his viewpoint. I see what you mean.

[Joe Bruno]

RIGHT HERE,FRUITCAKE:

me (Joe Bruno change)

11:25 AM (4 hours ago)


On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 11:24:34 AM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote:
> Lies Told By Atheists on Alt.atheism
>
> By Hypatiab
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.atheism/hypatiab$2C$20lies/alt.atheism/4gHgFgF4zag/M2vaKr61WA4J
>
>
> By Lee:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.atheism/lie$2C$20lee/alt.atheism/BXN1nLgPImQ/692HiJKMAQAJ
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.atheism/lies/alt.atheism/jfDkGDSXq6c/H1CNrhj6AQAJ

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <6606a85f-bab9-4134...@googlegroups.com>,

If they have to stay in the Pavillion and can't travel outside of it,
it's still slavery.

--

JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.

[jackpin...@gmail.com]

Jeanne Douglas
In article <6606a85f-bab9-4134...@googlegroups.com>,

- show quoted text -

If they have to stay in the Pavillion and can't travel outside of it,
it's still slavery

........ ....... ..

Now you're inventing rules for something out if Wexford's misrememberance.

[jackpin...@gmail.com]

Jeanne Douglas
In article <6606a85f-bab9-4134...@googlegroups.com>,
- show quoted text -

If they have to stay in the Pavillion and can't travel outside of it,

[jackpin...@gmail.com]

Jeanne Douglas
In article <6606a85f-bab9-4134...@googlegroups.com>,
- show quoted text -

If they have to stay in the Pavillion and can't travel outside of it,

[hhya...@gmail.com]

Then you can file a topic on ideology for discussion.
Why should atheism be dragged in when it has no ideology?

>
> It is not always easy to find folks who know how to investigate topics that threaten their. . . existing worldview (I will decline to use the i-word here.)

You need to segment the stupid theists from us.

[Wexford Eire]

How about if the police took your children and put them in state school, didn't let you acknowledge them and taught them that love of parents was a bourgeois lie. Love of state and party is all that matters.

[Mitchell Holman]

Joe Bruno <ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:7b1eeb79-72af-41cf...@googlegroups.com:

You are not Joe Bruno, you are Art Tandy.

[jackpin...@gmail.com]

Wexford Eire

How about if the police took your children and put them in state school, didn't let you acknowledge them and taught them that love of parents was a bourgeois lie. Love of state and party is all that matters

....................

Well, if you cannot afford private school, and cannot afford to educate them yourself, your children are forced by the state to attend public school. In the U.S. anyway.

[jackpin...@gmail.com]

............

Then you dismiss, out of hand, the idea that ideology is necessary for thought.

>
> It is not always easy to find folks who know how to investigate topics that threaten their. . . existing worldview (I will decline to use the i-word here.)

You need to segment the stupid theists from us

..............

You have a lot of rules for a free thinker. You do consider yourself a free thinker?

[hhya...@gmail.com]

Ideologies are essentially thoughts, while atheism is not involved in a thought process for a proto=pixie.

>
>
> >
> > It is not always easy to find folks who know how to investigate topics that threaten their. . . existing worldview (I will decline to use the i-word here.)
>
> You need to segment the stupid theists from us
> ..............
>
> You have a lot of rules for a free thinker. You do consider yourself a free thinker?

I do consider myself a free thinker...a person who tries to use his brain in a sensible way.

[Wexford Eire]

That easily has to be the most moronic response I've read this month. Don't you wingers ever grow out of your crude and predictable repetition of tiresome exaggerations? You don't like the idea of kids going to public school? You think it's tantamount to sacrificing your children to a national orphanage where they'd be raised by the state and you'd lose contact with them forever? How stupid are you?

[Wexford Eire]

On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 6:55:44 AM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> Cloud Hobbit
> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 1:09:33 PM UTC-7, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > An ideology is a set of beliefs shared by a group ("all atheists believe there are no deities"; "most atheists embrace Enlightenment ideals"). To the extent that atheists define themselves as a group ("we don't want you in this forum") in contrast to religious communities, atheism is an ideology. Of course, this contrasted comparison is problematic among atheists who believe that their worldview should be normative. Indeed, in local/regional contexts atheism is normative.
> >
> > On a personal note, let me say that usenet in general and alt.atheism in particular REEKS of ideology.
>
> OK, that's good. Right out of the gate you let people know that you're a moron and don't know what words mean. Don't know if it will do any good to repeat this for the umteenth fucking time, but atheism is a non belief in God(s). That's it, there ain't no more. We are as different as any other group of people with only one thing in common.
>
> You have my permission to fuck off and die.

> ... . . . . . ......
>

> Here you echo the tone, message, and word choice ("moron") of the other alt.atheism in-group.

And you're a right wing freak who dropped in here to pick a fight, but you haven't the intellectual horsepower so you just sit there and pout. Go away, little man. You've become a bore.