Atheists 'hijack' Nativity display in Santa Monica, critics say

[Leroy N. Soetoro]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/12/atheists-hijack-christmas-
nativity-display-in-santa-monica-critics-say.html?track=lat-pick

Organizers of Santa Monica's well-known Christmas Nativity scene at
Palisades Park are accusing atheists of "hijacking" the tradition.

Atheist groups objected to use of the park by churches to espouse a
religious message and applied to the city of Santa Monica for their own
spaces.

Officials used a lottery to dole out spots in the prime location along
Ocean Avenue. The atheists turned out to be the lucky ones: Of the 21
plots in the park open for displays, they won 18. The Nativity story that
once took 14 displays to tell — from the Annunciation, continuing to the
manger in Bethlehem and onto infant Jesus' journey to Egypt and back to
Nazareth — had to be abridged to three and crammed into two plots.

PHOTOS: Battle over Christmas displays

"A small group of out-of-town atheists is trying to hijack Santa Monica's
nearly 60-year-long Christmas tradition," said Hunter Jameson, chairman of
the Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee, the group that works with more
than a dozen churches and civic groups to organize the display.

Jameson said he intends to keep the Nativity tradition many have enjoyed
since 1953 from being displaced. Palisades Park, he said, is the "historic
home where it really belongs."

"Their goal is getting rid of us, and squelching our 1st Amendment
rights," said Jameson, 65, who no longer lives in Santa Monica but still
worships at Lighthouse Church of Santa Monica.

Patrick Elliott, a lawyer for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said
tradition is no excuse for violating the boundaries between church and
state. "Just because they're long-standing doesn't mean they're right," he
said.

Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation,
said December is a busy time for the organization's attorneys, who
challenge the use of public spaces for religious messages.

"It's littering — literally, littering — these spaces," Gaylor said of
such displays, which she said are a "territorial attempt by Christians to
impose their beliefs in this season."

"That creates an atmosphere of intimidation," said Gaylor, who noted that
the organization's banner was destroyed by vandals after being hung in
Palisades Park. "Christians are the insiders, and everyone else is an
outsider."

In Santa Monica, atheist Damon Vix called national organizations seeking
help because he felt marginalized by the display, and tradition alone
didn't merit saving it. Vix, a 43-year-old prop maker from Burbank, said
the display "defines Santa Monica as a Christian city, and I feel very
excluded by that."

Last year, he put up a display of his own: signs with quotes from Thomas
Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln — quotes that his
opponents say are of dubious veracity. (It's worth noting that both sides
suspect the Founding Fathers would support them.)

Others have complained the atheists should at the very least come up with
something more than a sign attached to a chain-link cage, and use more of
the space they have been allotted. "I wish they had been more creative,"
one city councilman said.

The Rev. Keith Magee, pastor of Trinity Baptist Church, said the atheists
have deprived a coalition of Christian faiths (Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic
and others) and the community (doctors, real estate agents and the Santa
Monica Police Assn. are among the sponsors) of a tradition that allowed so
many to come together to celebrate a belief so important to them.



--
Obama's black racist USAG appointee.

Eric Holder, racist black United States Attorney General drops voter
intimidation charges against the Black Panthers, "You are about to be
ruled by the black man, cracker!"

Eric Holder, prejudiced black United States Attorney General settles the
hate crime debate, "Whites Not Protected by Hate Crime Laws."

Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact, to
former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel of New
York's million dollar tax evasion.

Barack Obama and Eric Holder, committed treason by knowingly and
deliberately arming enemies of the United States of America through
Operation Fast and Furious. Complicit in the murder of Federal employees
during the execution of their duties.



--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[MarkA]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:25:33 +0000, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:

>
> The Rev. Keith Magee, pastor of Trinity Baptist Church, said the atheists
> have deprived a coalition of Christian faiths (Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic
> and others) and the community (doctors, real estate agents and the Santa
> Monica Police Assn. are among the sponsors) of a tradition that allowed so
> many to come together to celebrate a belief so important to them.

This is the part that always tickles me. Like there isn't a single
fucking church in all of Santa Monica where they can "come together to
celebrate", and put up a nativity display if they wish.

Hello, Christians. The closet door is opening. You aren't going to be
able to close it again. Atheists have always been here, and now we're
coming out. It's time you learned how to share and play nice.

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[Frank]

Makes zero sense to me.

Came across this one the other day:

http://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/LanskeeShuru

If you don't believe in God, why promote it like a religion?

[Thomas]

"Christians are the insiders, and everyone else is an outsider."

Glad they've figured it out. :)

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"Thomas" <cano...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2e2881e1-5c23-4747...@t38g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

> "Christians are the insiders, and everyone else is an outsider."

I don't even go that far. Especially when many of these "Christians" are
nothing more than fox Christians.

--
I am a Fundamentalist Christian Pentecostal Warrior for the One lamb virgin,
Jesus Christ.

[Don Martin]

What you see as promotion, we see as resisting the promotions of theists;
please remember that there are always at least two possibilities in play
when one says, "Makes zero sense to me."

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

[JohnN]

Every Christian church will have a nativity either inside or outside.
No one stops them. Yet Christians cry a river about being persecuted
in America.

JohnN

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"JohnN" <jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f63e4fb1-685e-4bfd...@h3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

Fox Christians are the ones bitching. Real Christians build their own
nativity scenes and get on with their lives.

[MarkA]

When you are immersed in a culture that assumes God belief, it is very
lonely to feel that you are the only person who notices that the Emperor
has no clothes. Historically, atheists have not done a good job at
reinforcing and emotionally supporting each other. As a result, there are
many more atheists about than most people, including other atheists,
realize.

Only by being more open and overt, will the stigma dissipate.

Also, as the case in Santa Monica illustrates, Christians have been able
to violate the First Amendment with impunity for decades, for simple lack
of protest from non-Christians. Those days are over.

[Frank]

Still makes no sense. It's not like atheists are going around doing
what others may think are disgusting things. What's to hide?

Next thing you know, they will want to be a protected class.

[de...@dudu.org]

Atheists have nothing to hide. They just haven't felt the need to go
around jamming their beliefs down everyone's throats like the
Christians always have.

>
>Next thing you know, they will want to be a protected class.

We are a protected class. It's called the First Amendment. One the
Christians would happily discard if they could.

[Wayne]

"MarkA" wrote in message
news:pan.2011.12.16....@nowhere.invalid...

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:17:26 -0500, Frank wrote:

> On 12/16/2011 8:05 AM, MarkA wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:25:33 +0000, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The Rev. Keith Magee, pastor of Trinity Baptist Church, said the
>>> atheists have deprived a coalition of Christian faiths (Baptist,
>>> Lutheran, Catholic and others) and the community (doctors, real estate
>>> agents and the Santa Monica Police Assn. are among the sponsors) of a
>>> tradition that allowed so many to come together to celebrate a belief
>>> so important to them.
>>
>> This is the part that always tickles me. Like there isn't a single
>> fucking church in all of Santa Monica where they can "come together to
>> celebrate", and put up a nativity display if they wish.
>>
>> Hello, Christians. The closet door is opening. You aren't going to be
>> able to close it again. Atheists have always been here, and now we're
>> coming out. It's time you learned how to share and play nice.
>>
>>
> Makes zero sense to me.
>
> Came across this one the other day:
>
> http://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/LanskeeShuru
>
> If you don't believe in God, why promote it like a religion?

<When you are immersed in a culture that assumes God belief, it is very
<lonely to feel that you are the only person who notices that the Emperor
<has no clothes.

<snip>
There is a problem right there. Why do you get "lonely" if you don't
believe in God. Why not leave other people alone.

When someone says Merry Christmas to me, I smile and say "Merry Christmas to
you", and that's the end of it. Why be a dickhead about it?

[George Plimpton]

Actually, that's *exactly* what many of them do.

Atheists are divided into two classes: strong and weak atheists.
Strong atheists have religious faith: they believe there is no god.
Theirs is every bit as much a religious dogma as believers have.

Weak atheists don't believe there is a god. Theirs is not a dogmatic
position - it is based on an examination of evidence and concluding that
there is in fact no evidence to support a belief in god, so they don't
hold such a belief.

A belief that there is no god is not the same, logically, as not having
a belief in god.

The word atheist is really a misnomer with respect to strong atheists -
what they are really is antitheists. Weak atheists are the atheists.
Unfortunately, we're stuck with one word to describe both groups, so we
must modify it with strong or weak.

Antitheists do, indeed, try to jam their beliefs down the throats of
others - that's exactly what they're doing in Santa Monica. True
atheists - weak atheists - are tolerant and, as long as theists and
antitheists aren't trying trying to jam their respective beliefs down
anyone's throats, are content to live and let live.

[George Plimpton]

Like queers and cripples.

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:28:23 -0800, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote in alt.atheism:

>On 12/16/2011 9:18 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:11:56 -0500, Frank
>> <frankperi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> Still makes no sense. It's not like atheists are going around doing
>>> what others may think are disgusting things. What's to hide?
>>
>> Atheists have nothing to hide. They just haven't felt the need to go
>> around jamming their beliefs down everyone's throats like the
>> Christians always have.
>
>Actually, that's *exactly* what many of them do.

Given the level of proselytizing done by supposed Christians, you
clearly have a double standard about what is too much to suit you.

>Atheists are divided into two classes: strong and weak atheists.
>Strong atheists have religious faith: they believe there is no god.
>Theirs is every bit as much a religious dogma as believers have.

Yes, you keep saying that, but since there is absolutely no evidence
that any gods exist, why isn't it a reasonable conclusion that there are
no gods?

>Weak atheists don't believe there is a god. Theirs is not a dogmatic
>position - it is based on an examination of evidence and concluding that
>there is in fact no evidence to support a belief in god, so they don't
>hold such a belief.

Isn't this a distinction without a difference?

Why do you think that it is possible that leprechauns exist?

>A belief that there is no god is not the same, logically, as not having
>a belief in god.

There is a technical difference. As a practical matter, there is no
difference at all. Every god that is worshipped has been shown not to
exist as defined by the believers.

>The word atheist is really a misnomer with respect to strong atheists -
>what they are really is antitheists. Weak atheists are the atheists.
>Unfortunately, we're stuck with one word to describe both groups, so we
>must modify it with strong or weak.

Whatever.

>Antitheists do, indeed, try to jam their beliefs down the throats of
>others - that's exactly what they're doing in Santa Monica. True
>atheists - weak atheists - are tolerant and, as long as theists and
>antitheists aren't trying trying to jam their respective beliefs down
>anyone's throats, are content to live and let live.

Why should "true atheists" put up with the totally intolerant oppression
of "true Christians" or "true Moslems"?

[Jeff M]

On 12/16/2011 11:18 AM, Wayne wrote:
[snip]

> When someone says Merry Christmas to me, I smile and say "Merry
> Christmas to you", and that's the end of it. Why be a dickhead about it?

I've never understood why so many of us Christians like to pretend we're
victimized or oppressed in America, when the fact is that our belief
system, norms, values and practices dominate American culture, law and
society like the Colossus bestrode the harbor at Rhodes.

I'm also very puzzled by the strident defense of secular, commercial
holiday practices that have little or nothing to do with Christ, His
message, or the meaning of His birth to mankind, but are instead
practices borrowed from various Pagan or Druid wither festivals and the
like.

As a Constitutional student, I do understand the importance of avoiding
the appearance or form of governmental endorsement or advancement of
religion or any particular religion. But I also understand the other
side of that coin, the need for government to give due respect and
leeway for people's religious beliefs and practices. So I wouldn't
really want a creche erected on the courthouse lawn, but I'm not
offended is some court clerk has a miniature Christmas tree on her desk,
either.

There needs to be some balance, maturity, common sense and, most of all
mutual tolerance and understanding applied here. People need to learn
not to be so quick to take (or find, or even seek out) offense, and
understand that there is no actual known right not to be offended. And
in return, they need to learn that not every retailer that instructs
employees to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas, and not
every public facility that declines a demand to host their particular
brand of religious display is thereby stabbing Jesus in the heart.

[George Plimpton]

On 12/16/2011 9:51 AM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:28:23 -0800, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>> On 12/16/2011 9:18 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:11:56 -0500, Frank
>>> <frankperi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Still makes no sense. It's not like atheists are going around doing
>>>> what others may think are disgusting things. What's to hide?
>>>
>>> Atheists have nothing to hide. They just haven't felt the need to go
>>> around jamming their beliefs down everyone's throats like the
>>> Christians always have.
>>
>> Actually, that's *exactly* what many of them do.
>
> Given the level of proselytizing done by supposed Christians, you
> clearly have a double standard about what is too much to suit you.

I have no double standard at all.

>
>> Atheists are divided into two classes: strong and weak atheists.
>> Strong atheists have religious faith: they believe there is no god.
>> Theirs is every bit as much a religious dogma as believers have.
>
> Yes, you keep saying that, but since there is absolutely no evidence
> that any gods exist, why isn't it a reasonable conclusion that there are
> no gods?

Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Antitheists
want to assert that it is, and they're logically wrong.

>> Weak atheists don't believe there is a god. Theirs is not a dogmatic
>> position - it is based on an examination of evidence and concluding that
>> there is in fact no evidence to support a belief in god, so they don't
>> hold such a belief.
>
> Isn't this a distinction without a difference?

Not in the least. The antitheist holds his belief *irrespective* of
evidence, the same as the theist. Neither is concerned with evidence at
all, either for or against or no evidence at all. Both claim to *know*.
The (weak) atheist doesn't claim to know; his conclusion is more
tentative, more scientific.

>
> Why do you think that it is possible that leprechauns exist?

Can you make a logically compelling case that they *cannot* exist? Not
that they don't, but that it is *impossible* for them to exist, and
that's *why* there are none?

>
>> A belief that there is no god is not the same, logically, as not having
>> a belief in god.
>
> There is a technical difference.

You forgot to insert "merely" before "technical", didn't you?

> As a practical matter, there is no
> difference at all.

Of course there is a practical difference. It is absolutely a guarantee
that every one of those "atheist" displays put up at that street in
Santa Monica (I know the area quite well) was done by a "strong"
atheist, or antitheist. They want to proselytize you; weak atheists don't.

> Every god that is worshipped has been shown not to
> exist as defined by the believers.

That's a claim you cannot possibly support.

>> The word atheist is really a misnomer with respect to strong atheists -
>> what they are really is antitheists. Weak atheists are the atheists.
>> Unfortunately, we're stuck with one word to describe both groups, so we
>> must modify it with strong or weak.
>
> Whatever.

Concession noted and accepted.

>> Antitheists do, indeed, try to jam their beliefs down the throats of
>> others - that's exactly what they're doing in Santa Monica. True
>> atheists - weak atheists - are tolerant and, as long as theists and
>> antitheists aren't trying trying to jam their respective beliefs down
>> anyone's throats, are content to live and let live.
>
> Why should "true atheists" put up with the totally intolerant oppression
> of "true Christians" or "true Moslems"?

Where did I say they should? You've trotted out a shabby little straw
man there.

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
news:Kv6dnR5t1Zok4nbT...@giganews.com...

> On 12/16/2011 9:18 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:11:56 -0500, Frank
>> <frankperi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> Still makes no sense. It's not like atheists are going around doing
>>> what others may think are disgusting things. What's to hide?
>>
>> Atheists have nothing to hide. They just haven't felt the need to go
>> around jamming their beliefs down everyone's throats like the
>> Christians always have.
>
> Actually, that's *exactly* what many of them do.
>
> Atheists are divided into two classes: strong and weak atheists. Strong
> atheists have religious faith: they believe there is no god. Theirs is
> every bit as much a religious dogma as believers have.
>
> Weak atheists don't believe there is a god. Theirs is not a dogmatic
> position - it is based on an examination of evidence and concluding that
> there is in fact no evidence to support a belief in god, so they don't
> hold such a belief.
>
> A belief that there is no god is not the same, logically, as not having a
> belief in god.
>
> The word atheist is really a misnomer with respect to strong atheists -
> what they are really is antitheists. Weak atheists are the atheists.
> Unfortunately, we're stuck with one word to describe both groups, so we
> must modify it with strong or weak.

I told you that athiests hate God.

[George Plimpton]

On 12/16/2011 9:52 AM, Jeff M wrote:
> On 12/16/2011 11:18 AM, Wayne wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> When someone says Merry Christmas to me, I smile and say "Merry
>> Christmas to you", and that's the end of it. Why be a dickhead about it?
>
> I've never understood why so many of us Christians like to pretend we're
> victimized or oppressed in America, when the fact is that our belief
> system, norms, values and practices dominate American culture, law and
> society like the Colossus bestrode the harbor at Rhodes.

Because those norms, values and practices are, indeed, under assault by
militantly secular leftists.

> I'm also very puzzled by the strident defense of secular, commercial
> holiday practices that have little or nothing to do with Christ, His
> message, or the meaning of His birth to mankind, but are instead
> practices borrowed from various Pagan or Druid wither festivals and the
> like.

Who cares what their origins are? They've been adopted by religious
believers, and have meaning to them.

I'm more puzzled by the recent (last few decades) assault on public
expressions of religious belief by people claiming to represent those
who allegedly feel "oppressed" by such displays. For example, recently
Los Angeles County was forced to remove a tiny cross from the county
seal. You had to look hard even to see it, and it most emphatically was
*not* on the seal as an endorsement of Christianity, but rather for
historical reasons. It had been on the seal for over 50 years, and
non-Christians had live in L.A. County the whole time without feeling or
being "oppressed". Suddenly, the good-ol' shit-stirring ACLU came along
and started shrieking hysterically on behalf of some equally worthless
shit-stirring malcontents that the cross on the seal was "state support
of religious belief." Rather than waste money when money was scarce in
fighting it, the County threw in the towel and removed the tiny cross
from the seal. And what was the result? *NOTHING* - the status and
welfare of non-Christians in L.A. County didn't change one iota. They
weren't "oppressed" before the cross was removed, and they weren't freer
and less oppressed after it was removed.

These efforts to stamp out any public expression of religious faith are
nothing more than malcontents who are *looking* for things over which
they might claim offense.


>
> As a Constitutional student,

Ha ha ha ha ha! No, you're not, jeffy - you're a money-grubbing shyster
doing wills, probate, real estate,

[Sir Frederick Martin]

'Humans' need their stories. That need is 'built' in their brain, by
evolution or whatever, even stories as to what it is and means to be
'human', even stories about the mystery of existence. Many of those
stories 'personify' 'self, 'other selves', 'God' and 'gods'.To understand
this representational 'nature' of 'humans' can explain much, and must
be done to maintain the 'human race'.

[George Plimpton]

I've read some accounts in the popular press about that evolutionary
development ("god gene") that leads most people to harbor religious
belief, and I find it persuasive.

[George Plimpton]

On 12/16/2011 9:18 AM, Wayne wrote:
>
>
> "MarkA" wrote in message

>> Came across this one the other day:
>>
>> http://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/LanskeeShuru
>>
>> If you don't believe in God, why promote it like a religion?

Because to strong atheists, it *is* a religion, whether they want to
acknowledge it at such or not. They are not really atheists - they are
anti-theists.

>
> <When you are immersed in a culture that assumes God belief, it is very
> <lonely to feel that you are the only person who notices that the Emperor
> <has no clothes.
> <snip>
> There is a problem right there. Why do you get "lonely" if you don't
> believe in God. Why not leave other people alone.
>
> When someone says Merry Christmas to me, I smile and say "Merry
> Christmas to you", and that's the end of it. Why be a dickhead about it?

Exactly right. I'm someone who grew up in a not particularly devout
family who were adherents to a theologically liberal Protestant
denomination (Congregational; today the Congos are aggressively
politically liberal as well.) When I got to university, I discarded it
all pretty quickly - it just didn't make a bit of sense.

However, I always enjoyed the Christmas season, and that's what it is:
the Christmas season, not the "holiday" season. Despite not being a
religious believer, I prefer to hear "merry Christmas" rather than
"happy holidays." However, when someone wishes me "happy holidays", I'm
not a dickhead about that, either, so I thank him and respond "and to
you, too."

[George Plimpton]

You're an idiot.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:52:09 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>

And many more "agnostics" who THINK they are athiests.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:18:11 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:

Because for some people THAT is their "religion" - being obnoxious

[Michael Gordge]

On Dec 17, 3:18 am, "Zacharias Mulletstein"

<zachariasmulletst...@isalwaysright.com> wrote:

> I told you that athiests hate God.

Shrug, it is rational to hate an idea especially when that idea is
used to validate laws which force peaceful human beings to conform to
idiotic fucking nonsense.

MG

[Michael Gordge]

On Dec 17, 3:39 am, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:28:23 -0800, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

> >On 12/16/2011 9:18 AM, d...@dudu.org wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:11:56 -0500, Frank

> >> <frankperiodlogu...@comcast.net>  wrote:

A belief in embracing the benefits of the dollar is a rational belief,
god isn't.

MG

[Michael Gordge]

On Dec 17, 3:03 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

> Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes it is, burden of proof is always upon he/she who asserts the
positive, its not possible to prove a negative and its irrational to
demand it.

The concept of proof requires non-contradictory identification and
integration of sensory evidence, it is also correct to say, "ideas and
feelings exist", therefore, there being no sensory evidence ever
offered, even after 4,000 years of the god nonsense, it can be said,
indeed it must be said that, at very best, god exists as a feeling
about a feeling.

MG

[Sir Frederick Martin]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:53:09 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

>On Dec 17, 3:39 am, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com>
>wrote:

>>

>> 'Humans' need their stories. That need is 'built' in their brain, by
>> evolution or whatever, even stories as to what it is and means to be
>> 'human', even stories about the mystery of existence. Many of those
>> stories 'personify' 'self, 'other selves', 'God' and 'gods'.To understand
>> this representational 'nature' of 'humans' can explain much, and must
>> be done to maintain the 'human race'.
>
>A belief in embracing the benefits of the dollar is a rational belief,
>god isn't.
>
>MG

'Stories' need not be rational.
Consider the stories 'God', 'feelings' or 'red'.
None rational. Except in folk talk.

[John Locke]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:25:33 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
<leroys...@usurper.org> wrote:

>http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/12/atheists-hijack-christmas-
>nativity-display-in-santa-monica-critics-say.html?track=lat-pick
>
>Organizers of Santa Monica's well-known Christmas Nativity scene at
>Palisades Park are accusing atheists of "hijacking" the tradition.
>
>Atheist groups objected to use of the park by churches to espouse a
>religious message and applied to the city of Santa Monica for their own
>spaces.
>
>Officials used a lottery to dole out spots in the prime location along
>Ocean Avenue. The atheists turned out to be the lucky ones: Of the 21
>plots in the park open for displays, they won 18. The Nativity story that
>once took 14 displays to tell — from the Annunciation, continuing to the
>manger in Bethlehem and onto infant Jesus' journey to Egypt and back to
>Nazareth — had to be abridged to three and crammed into two plots.
>
..heh, heh. With Jeebus on their side, you'd have thunk that the
Christers would have won all the lottery spots. ..ooops, guess not.
Looks like their gods fell aslleep on that one ! ...or there ani't
nobody up there...I suspect the latter.

[George Plimpton]

On 12/16/2011 1:06 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
> On Dec 17, 3:03 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
>
> Yes it is,

No, it isn't.

> burden of proof is always upon he/she who asserts the
> positive, its not possible to prove a negative and its irrational to
> demand it.

That's not the issue.

[Michael Gordge]

On Dec 17, 6:41 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

> No, it isn't.

If there is no proof, (non-contradictory identification and
integration of sensory perceptions) then ewe have no choice but to
find another way to describe what is claimed to exist.

Theories, ideas and feelings exist, "theories" and "ideas" are based
rationally on at least something sensory, the lack of, the absense of
any sensory evidence leads the mind of reason no choice but to accept
that the god crap exists as, at very best, a feeling about a feeling.

>
> > burden of proof is always upon he/she who asserts the
> > positive, its not possible to prove a negative and its irrational to
> > demand it.
>
> That's not the issue.

Yes it is, there is no other issue when discussing the god crap.

MG

[Michael Gordge]

On Dec 17, 6:20 am, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com>
wrote:

What is needed is the abilty to know the difference between fact and
fiction, rational and irrational, -- mystics, socialists, communists,
fascists and tribalists all struggle with that ability.

MG

[George Plimpton]

On 12/16/2011 2:00 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
> On Dec 17, 6:41 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> No, it isn't.
>
> If there is no proof, (non-contradictory identification and
> integration of sensory perceptions) then ewe have no choice but to
> find another way to describe what is claimed to exist.

I'm not claiming anything exists.

[Sir Frederick Martin]

All 'humans' struggle with that. Evolution, hence
'humans' are based on pragmatics, not "fact and
fiction". Consider 'time', it is being considered by many
as a quale, an illusion, based on 'human' constraints and
pragmatics. Perhaps "fact" is beyond 'human' ken, yet 'we'
must continue 'our' fiction.
The question remains as to why there is anything at all,
including 'fictions'. Different people handle that question
differently, theists(all kinds) and atheists(both kinds) included.

[Michael Gordge]

On Dec 17, 7:31 am, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:05:17 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> >On Dec 17, 6:20 am, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:53:09 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 17, 3:39 am, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com>
> >> >wrote:
>
> >> >> 'Humans' need their stories. That need is 'built' in their brain, by
> >> >> evolution or whatever, even stories as to what it is and means to be
> >> >> 'human', even stories about the mystery of existence. Many of those
> >> >> stories 'personify' 'self, 'other selves', 'God' and 'gods'.To understand
> >> >> this representational 'nature' of 'humans' can explain much, and must
> >> >> be done to maintain the 'human race'.
>
> >> >A belief in embracing the benefits of the dollar is a rational belief,
> >> >god isn't.
>
> >> >MG
>
> >> 'Stories' need not be rational.
> >> Consider the stories 'God', 'feelings' or 'red'.
> >> None rational. Except in folk talk.
>
> >What is needed is the abilty to know the difference between fact and
> >fiction, rational and irrational, -- mystics, socialists, communists,
> >fascists and tribalists all struggle with that ability.
>
> >MG
>
> All 'humans' struggle with that.

So you're struggling as to whether that is fact or fiction?

MG

[Sir Frederick Martin]

My physical structure is that of 'human'.
I struggle with the finiteness, constraints,
and dissolution of that. The place is a
mystery, a fictional mystery. In 'fact', fraudulent.

[Dan]

On 12/16/2011 5:17 AM, Frank wrote:
> On 12/16/2011 8:05 AM, MarkA wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:25:33 +0000, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The Rev. Keith Magee, pastor of Trinity Baptist Church, said the
>>> atheists
>>> have deprived a coalition of Christian faiths (Baptist, Lutheran,
>>> Catholic
>>> and others) and the community (doctors, real estate agents and the Santa
>>> Monica Police Assn. are among the sponsors) of a tradition that
>>> allowed so
>>> many to come together to celebrate a belief so important to them.
>>
>> This is the part that always tickles me. Like there isn't a single
>> fucking church in all of Santa Monica where they can "come together to
>> celebrate", and put up a nativity display if they wish.
>>
>> Hello, Christians. The closet door is opening. You aren't going to be
>> able to close it again. Atheists have always been here, and now we're
>> coming out. It's time you learned how to share and play nice.
>>
>
> Makes zero sense to me.
>
> Came across this one the other day:
>
> http://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/LanskeeShuru
>
> If you don't believe in God, why promote it like a religion?

Do you really think Coke is a religion?

Dan

[Michael Gordge]

On Dec 17, 8:06 am, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com>
wrote:

So you're not struggling as to whether or not that is fact or fiction?

> I struggle with the finiteness, constraints,
> and dissolution of that.

So why dont you use the same process that has enabled you to identify
you existing as the physical structure of 'human'?

MG

[Michael Gordge]

On Dec 17, 7:27 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

> I'm not claiming anything exists.

"Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." is what I am
responding to.

The concept "proof" (which neither you or Free Lunch have used)
requires non-contradictory identification and integration of sensory
perceptions (known as "evidence").

With the concept "proof" the "evidence" that is required is to be
sensory and non-contradictory.

The complete absense of any evidence (sense perceptions) -- meaning
there is no proof -- not to even mention all of the bizzare
contradictions in god's claimed identity, is all that is required to
state without reservation that god does not exist as anything but a
feeling about a feeling, " prefer, a load of fucking nonsense
responsible for more evil than good.

And as stupid as Free Lunch is, she is more correct than wrong and is
being rational when she asked you:

"....but since there is absolutely no evidence that any gods exist,

why isn't it a reasonable conclusion that there are
no gods?"

MG

[Sir Frederick Martin]

I do, but I am too ignorant to come up with the
'immortality treatment'. It is due about 2050, if the
culture lasts. Information structures such as Usenet
or books, though less mortal are only products, not 'me'.

[Michael Gordge]

On Dec 17, 8:56 am, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com>
wrote:

Soooooo why dont you have a crack at purging the scourge of ignorance
by the same means and method you used to purge the ignorance of your
physical structure?

MG

[George Plimpton]

How about "there is absolutely no evidence that intelligent life
elsewhere in the solar system exists - why isn't it a reasonable
conclusion that there is no intelligent life elsewhere in the universe?"

The mere fact there is no evidence of something doesn't mean it doesn't
exist. It may mean that it's very unlikely it exists, but it doesn't
mean you've *proved* that it doesn't exist.

[Sir Frederick Martin]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:01:43 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

>On Dec 17, 8:56 am, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com>
>wrote:
>
>>

>> I do, but I am too ignorant to come up with the
>> 'immortality treatment'.
>
>Soooooo why dont you have a crack at purging the scourge of ignorance
>by the same means and method you used to purge the ignorance of your
>physical structure?
>
>MG

OK.

[MarkA]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:12:53 -0600, Zacharias Mulletstein wrote:

>
>
> "JohnN" <jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f63e4fb1-685e-4bfd...@h3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

>> On Dec 16, 8:05 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:25:33 +0000, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>>>
>>> > The Rev. Keith Magee, pastor of Trinity Baptist Church, said the
>>> > atheists
>>> > have deprived a coalition of Christian faiths (Baptist, Lutheran,
>>> > Catholic
>>> > and others) and the community (doctors, real estate agents and the
>>> > Santa
>>> > Monica Police Assn. are among the sponsors) of a tradition that allowed
>>> > so
>>> > many to come together to celebrate a belief so important to them.
>>>
>>> This is the part that always tickles me. Like there isn't a single
>>> fucking church in all of Santa Monica where they can "come together to
>>> celebrate", and put up a nativity display if they wish.
>>>
>>> Hello, Christians. The closet door is opening. You aren't going to be
>>> able to close it again. Atheists have always been here, and now we're
>>> coming out. It's time you learned how to share and play nice.
>>>

>>> --
>>> MarkA
>>> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
>>> About eight o'clock
>>
>> Every Christian church will have a nativity either inside or outside.
>> No one stops them. Yet Christians cry a river about being persecuted
>> in America.
>
> Fox Christians are the ones bitching. Real Christians build their own
> nativity scenes and get on with their lives.

Amen, brother. Too bad there are so many Fox Christians!

--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.

[MarkA]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:18:11 -0800, Wayne wrote:

>
>
> "MarkA" wrote in message
> news:pan.2011.12.16....@nowhere.invalid...
>

> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:17:26 -0500, Frank wrote:

>
>> On 12/16/2011 8:05 AM, MarkA wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:25:33 +0000, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The Rev. Keith Magee, pastor of Trinity Baptist Church, said the
>>>> atheists have deprived a coalition of Christian faiths (Baptist,
>>>> Lutheran, Catholic and others) and the community (doctors, real estate
>>>> agents and the Santa Monica Police Assn. are among the sponsors) of a
>>>> tradition that allowed so many to come together to celebrate a belief
>>>> so important to them.
>>>
>>> This is the part that always tickles me. Like there isn't a single
>>> fucking church in all of Santa Monica where they can "come together to
>>> celebrate", and put up a nativity display if they wish.
>>>
>>> Hello, Christians. The closet door is opening. You aren't going to be
>>> able to close it again. Atheists have always been here, and now we're
>>> coming out. It's time you learned how to share and play nice.
>>>
>>>

>> Makes zero sense to me.
>>
>> Came across this one the other day:
>>
>> http://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/LanskeeShuru
>>
>> If you don't believe in God, why promote it like a religion?
>

> <When you are immersed in a culture that assumes God belief, it is very
> <lonely to feel that you are the only person who notices that the Emperor
> <has no clothes.
> <snip>
> There is a problem right there. Why do you get "lonely" if you don't
> believe in God. Why not leave other people alone.
>
> When someone says Merry Christmas to me, I smile and say "Merry Christmas to
> you", and that's the end of it. Why be a dickhead about it?

Ever hear the saying, "There's safety in numbers?" Now that the
Christians are losing their comfortable majority status, the bitching and
moaning begins.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

Athiests, by definition, believe there is no God. They are sure
wasting a lot of vitriol on something they claim does not exist.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:52:01 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
<mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

>On Dec 17, 7:27 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> I'm not claiming anything exists.
>
>"Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." is what I am
>responding to.
>
>The concept "proof" (which neither you or Free Lunch have used)
>requires non-contradictory identification and integration of sensory
>perceptions (known as "evidence").
>

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things
not seen.

[Michael Gordge]

On Dec 17, 9:33 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

> The mere fact there is no evidence of something doesn't mean it doesn't
> exist.

Burden of proof is always upon those who assert the positive, its not
possible to prove a negative and irrational to demand it.

Until proven, the assertion or claim made remains arbitrary nonsense
and is treated as anything but at man's peril.

>........ but it doesn't

> mean you've *proved* that it doesn't exist.

You are never called upon to prove a negative, its not possible to
prove a negative and its irrational to demand it, e.g. not even the
pope can prove he's not a closet pedophile and you can not prove you
have never killed anyone.

MG

[Michael Gordge]

On Dec 17, 11:17 am, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,

Nope, faith is the acceptance of an idea in the total absense of any
evidence, in the absense of any sensory evidence.

Whereas having a belief requires at least some evidence, sensory
evidence, existing.

MG

[Michael Gordge]

On Dec 17, 11:13 am, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:50:27 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
>

> <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> >On Dec 17, 3:18 am, "Zacharias Mulletstein"
> ><zachariasmulletst...@isalwaysright.com> wrote:
>
> >> I told you that athiests hate God.
>
> >Shrug, it is rational to hate an idea especially when that idea is
> >used to validate laws which force peaceful human beings to conform to
> >idiotic fucking nonsense.
>
> >MG
>
>  Athiests, by definition, believe there is no God.

What do you mean by God? There appears to be as many definitions for
god as there are religionists, 4,000,000,000 give or take a billion.
Have you never heard a couple of mystics describing their god to each
other?

MG

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

Every time you get into an elevator you are exercising faith. Every
time you sit on a chair, or turn on a light.Or step on the brakes of
your car.
Or get out of bed in the morning.

It is not a question of whether you have faith - but what you have
faith in.

Every atheist in the world lives his life almost exclusively on faith.
If nithing else, in faith that he is right.

[Michael Gordge]

On Dec 17, 12:06 pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> Every time you get into an elevator you are exercising faith.

Nope, the fact the elevator has just arrive at your floor enables you
to believe there's an excellent chance it will get to the next floor,
if it doesn't then a mechanical failure is the cause. And sometimes
shit happens, e.g. the other day lightning struck a high-rise not far
from here while four people were in an elevator and the elevator
stopped between floors, three of the people prayed, while the fourth
laughed at them and picked up the emergency phone, guess which one the
rescue squad responded to? clue, they didn't mention god.

> Every
> time you sit on a chair, or turn on a light.Or step on the brakes of
> your car.

Nope, you can test the chair's ability to carry your weight and you
can test the brakes just before you use them, if they dont work then
you can slam down through the gears and people can watch you test it.

Clue, NEVER drive a strange car more than two feet without checking
the brakes and ALWAYS give a little pump if you anticipate you're
going to need them.

Clue, there is no evidence that prayers can stop a car, but brakes
sure as hell can and even you can test them.

> Every atheist in the world lives his life almost exclusively on faith.

Nope, just like religionists, they rely 100% on sensory evidence, e.g.
testing brakes, using the emergency phone in an elevator rather than a
praying and being laughed at.

MG

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

OK - ley me put it in real simple terms.

An atheist "believes" there is no higher power - no "intelligent
design", and no ultimate definition of right and wrong

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

It's still faith. You have NO PROOF. You have FAITH the phone will
work. You have FAITH someone will answer it. You have FAITH in the
respondant's ability to find you and fix the elevator.

Just because the chair held the last person who sat on it is NO
GUARANTEE it will hold you this time. As proof, chairs break every
day.

Just because the brakes stopped the car last time you pressed the
brakes does not mean they will work this time. There can be NO PROOF
that anything will occur in the future. You take it all, strictly, on
FAITH.

Nobody said anything about GOD. We are talking about FAITH. And you
cannot deny even the most ardent atheist lives, to a large degree on
FAITH. Well - you CAN deny it - but you loose ALL CREDIBILITY if you
do.

Once you admit that even the things you "believe" are based on
"faith", your whole straw man argument falls apart.

[Michael Gordge]

On Dec 17, 12:32 pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> An atheist "believes" there is no higher power - no "intelligent
> design",

Do you believe there are pixies in your garden? Why not?

> and no ultimate definition of right and wrong

Sooo what do you believe is the ultimate definition of right and
wrong?

MG

[Michael Gordge]

On Dec 17, 12:40 pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> There can be NO PROOF
> that anything will occur in the future.

I'd suggest that you'd want people to believe that it takes a lot lot
more than you having a little faith that tomorrow you wont wake up as
a transvestite and or a pedophile.

> You take it all, strictly, on
> FAITH.

Nope, faith is the acceptance of an idea in the absense of any
evidence, accepting an idea without any sensory evidence offered for
the acceptance of that idea, whereas belief requires there to be at
least some evidence available, e.g. elevators travelling billions of
kilometers up and down day after day minute after minute, you can
believe the elevator will work just fine, no faith is required.

> Once you admit that even the things you "believe" are based on
> "faith", your whole straw man argument falls apart.

That doesn't make sense, where evidence exists you can believe, where
no evidence is offered then you can only have faith.

MG

[Michael Gordge]

On Dec 17, 12:40 pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

>  It's still faith.

Nope, faith is the acceptance of an idea in the absense of any
evidence, whereas belief requires at least some evidence and there is
plenty of evidence that the elevator wil work, therefore you are
justifed in believing it will work just fine, no faith is required nor
applicable.

> You have NO PROOF.

A million trips up and down in the same building, billions upon
billions of kilometers of elevator movements around the globe every
year, is plenty of proof that you can believe with utter confidence it
will get you to the next floor just fine.

In the unlikely even that it gets stuck, DONT WASTE ANY FUCKING TIME
PAYING because the building might be on fire, just pick up the phone
and someone will answer, if they dont you can sue the bastards.

>  Just because the chair held the last person who sat on it is NO
> GUARANTEE it will hold you this time. As proof, chairs break every
> day.

Shit happens, shrug.

MG

[Michael Gordge]

> On Dec 17, 12:40 pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>  It's still faith.

Nope, faith is the acceptance of an idea in the absense of any
evidence, whereas belief requires at least some evidence and there is
plenty of evidence that the elevator wil work, therefore you are
justifed in believing it will work just fine, no faith is required nor
applicable.

> You have NO PROOF.

A million trips up and down in the same building, billions upon
billions of kilometers of elevator movements around the globe every
year, is plenty of proof that you can believe with utter confidence it
will get you to the next floor just fine.

In the unlikely even that it gets stuck, DONT WASTE ANY FUCKING TIME

PRAYING because the building might be on fire, just pick up the phone

[George Plimpton]

On 12/16/2011 6:52 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
> On Dec 17, 9:33 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> The mere fact there is no evidence of something doesn't mean it doesn't
>> exist.
>
> Burden of proof is always upon those who assert the positive, its not
> possible to prove a negative and irrational to demand it.

Not the issue.

> Until proven, the assertion or claim made remains arbitrary nonsense
> and is treated as anything but at man's peril.

I'm not the one making the positive assertion. All I'm saying is that
absence of evidence to support the assertion doesn't mean it isn't true.

>> ........ but it doesn't
>> mean you've *proved* that it doesn't exist.
>
> You are never called upon to prove a negative,

I'm not saying you are. Of course, you *can* prove some negatives.

[Gunner Asch]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:11:56 -0500, Frank
<frankperi...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 12/16/2011 11:52 AM, MarkA wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:17:26 -0500, Frank wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/16/2011 8:05 AM, MarkA wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:25:33 +0000, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The Rev. Keith Magee, pastor of Trinity Baptist Church, said the
>>>>> atheists have deprived a coalition of Christian faiths (Baptist,
>>>>> Lutheran, Catholic and others) and the community (doctors, real estate
>>>>> agents and the Santa Monica Police Assn. are among the sponsors) of a
>>>>> tradition that allowed so many to come together to celebrate a belief
>>>>> so important to them.
>>>>
>>>> This is the part that always tickles me. Like there isn't a single
>>>> fucking church in all of Santa Monica where they can "come together to
>>>> celebrate", and put up a nativity display if they wish.
>>>>
>>>> Hello, Christians. The closet door is opening. You aren't going to be
>>>> able to close it again. Atheists have always been here, and now we're
>>>> coming out. It's time you learned how to share and play nice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Makes zero sense to me.
>>>
>>> Came across this one the other day:
>>>
>>> http://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/LanskeeShuru
>>>
>>> If you don't believe in God, why promote it like a religion?
>>
>> When you are immersed in a culture that assumes God belief, it is very
>> lonely to feel that you are the only person who notices that the Emperor

>> has no clothes. Historically, atheists have not done a good job at
>> reinforcing and emotionally supporting each other. As a result, there are
>> many more atheists about than most people, including other atheists,
>> realize.
>>
>> Only by being more open and overt, will the stigma dissipate.
>>
>> Also, as the case in Santa Monica illustrates, Christians have been able
>> to violate the First Amendment with impunity for decades, for simple lack
>> of protest from non-Christians. Those days are over.
>>
>
>Still makes no sense. It's not like atheists are going around doing
>what others may think are disgusting things. What's to hide?
>
>Next thing you know, they will want to be a protected class.

Atheism..just another faith based religious belief



One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

[walksalone]

cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote in news:ckune7dtulk6lf3qokiuk906hqsinbpm9a@
4ax.com:

Followup set to only group I read.

How very odd. I am an atheist, based on various reasons. Primarily,
lacka.
There are several subgroups in that genre.
But primarily, it is due to the lack of evidence for need. The universe
does not need a god, some humans do, but humanity does not.

Add to that, which god is it you are not an atheist to? Everyone to some
degree as an atheist, and the majority they claim to worship a god cannot
even define this god in terms so unambiguous that an eight-year-old child
who had never heard of the concept could understand it and agree with it.

Now, it's not that I do not believe there is no god. Unlike the bleater
brigade that I encounter on usenet, I could be wrong. But based on the
evidence on hand to include the bleater brigade, there is no reason to
conclude there is a god such as the ones they claim.

Here is a very short list of definitions are used when somebody says
What is a god, a short & incomplete list.

Requirements or attributes of the gods, goddesses & other
divinities of the human species. [Incomplete]

Anthropomorphic
A: Must be supernatural [applies to every divinity declared]
B: May or may not be able to have a visible body [Zeus & the
Greek pantheon as an example]
C: May or may not interfere in human activity or destiny.
D: May or may not be good, evil, or apathetic where humans are
concerned.
E: May or may not be a divine through their own will, may be a
victim
of apotheosis [the Chinese pantheon is a good example of these
types of gods.]
Demons: Now there is a thought, Demons as gods. Indeed, they are,
lessor gods to be sure, but more powerful than some gods, less
powerful than others.
Dwarves &/or Elves: Though two distinct races, dwarves are found in
worldwide mythology as well as European. Elves, tend to be Nordic &
Germanic in origin.
Fates: They are common to the classical myths as well as the
European ones.
Fairies, or the wee folk: A class of gods that include everything
from Brownies to Knockers & beyond. Some are good, & some like Red
Hat, are not.
Giants: though supernatural as understood in the myths of the
world, they are not necessary known to have god like powers as most
understand the term.
Gods & goddesses: I hope this class does not need more explanation.
Spirits: are all supernatural, even those that are the spirits of
humans or animals that have not went on to where good spirits are
entitled to go.
Animistic, all living creatures, including plant life
Astral/solar All heavenly bodies

Using the above list, only item A is universal. And when they get to
describing their pet god, it gets even more ridiculous. For example, the
followers of the revealed gods of the Middle East [by definition rather
puny gods] will claim that their gods are perfect. Yet if they are
perfect, why do they need the universe or even worse, worship by
humanity.

So no, it's not a questions of do I believe there is a god or there is no
god, it's a questions of show and tell. Until they can show reason to
take them seriously, there is no call for a thinking person who does not
need an emotional crutch to follow their somewhat erratically in regards
to the god questioned that is so important to so many, for reasons that
totally make no sense when they attempt to explain them.

HTH

walksalone who does understand the reason for the crossposting, it's
called flame bait. And as such, rarely receives any responses from me.
But then, I do understand that we all have equal rights under the
Constitution and that religious activity on public property is supposedly
denied to all religions equally. Yet, xians say they are the only ones
being picked on when it comes to their self proclaimed right to use
public property as they see fit in order to popularize their erroneous
claims of divine right to abuse others in the name of god.

The only difference between God and Adolf Hitler is that God is more
proficient at genocide."
Author unknown to me.

[walksalone]

cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote in news:ek1oe7t8jh095hidq3l1u8qlp7m5rri250@
4ax.com:

> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:58:53 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
> <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

snip, follwup set to only group I read.

>>Whereas having a belief requires at least some evidence, sensory
>>evidence, existing.
>>
>>MG
>>
>>
> Every time you get into an elevator you are exercising faith. Every
> time you sit on a chair, or turn on a light.Or step on the brakes of
> your car.
> Or get out of bed in the morning.

Faith, as in blind religious faith? Or faith based on evidence & past
experience? I suspect you conflate the two.

> It is not a question of whether you have faith - but what you have
> faith in.

Myself I have zero faith in the gods of humanity. It's that lacka thing.
No reason to avoid Occam's razor, nor pretend that the unfounded claims
of others are really important to me. When obviously, they are not. I
have enough concerns pof my own, & I have no need of the fears of
others.

> Every atheist in the world lives his life almost exclusively on faith.
> If nithing else, in faith that he is right.

I was unaware that you knew me persona;lly. Refersh my mewmory, where
did we meet/ For myself, I try & invoke the old ways of my elders.
Stand up for what is right or needed at the moment. Never believe you
have the right to speak for any other adult person, & above all, you
will make misatakes. Hopefully you will learn from them. But
somemistakes they feel so good, they are hard to recognise, or get rid
of. IOW, never forget you are human with all that implies.
Of course, YMWV.

walksalone who is some curious, did someone threaten the xians with a
good education or something?

No philosophy, no religion, has ever brought so glad a
message to the world as this good news of Atheism.
[Annie Besant,The Gospel of Atheism]

[Mitchell Holman]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:97moe71ge1hd13sel...@4ax.com:

Then why don't atheists get a religious tax exemption?




"We were convinced that the people need and require the
Christian faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight
against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with
a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
(Adolf Hitler, October 1933)

[George Plimpton]

On 12/16/2011 6:52 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
> On Dec 17, 9:33 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> The mere fact there is no evidence of something doesn't mean it doesn't
>> exist.
>
> Burden of proof is always upon those who assert the positive, its not
> possible to prove a negative and irrational to demand it.

Not the issue. If someone asserts something and doesn't support the
assertion, it doesn't mean the assertion is false; it just means it's
unsupported. It may be true, but the proponent hasn't shown it to be
true. That's *all* that absence of evidence means.

> Until proven, the assertion or claim made remains arbitrary nonsense
> and is treated as anything but at man's peril.

No, it just means it hasn't be supported. It may or may not be
nonsense; it's just unsupported.

[George Plimpton]

On 12/16/2011 6:13 PM, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:50:27 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
> <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 17, 3:18 am, "Zacharias Mulletstein"
>> <zachariasmulletst...@isalwaysright.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I told you that athiests hate God.
>>
>> Shrug, it is rational to hate an idea especially when that idea is
>> used to validate laws which force peaceful human beings to conform to
>> idiotic fucking nonsense.
>>
>> MG
> Athiests, by definition, believe there is no God.

No, that's not the definition.

Strong atheists, or anti-theists, believe there is no god. Weak
atheists, or just plain atheists, don't believe in god. There's a
crucial difference. Anti-theists have faith that there is - that there
*can be* - no god. Atheists just don't believe in one, but they don't
claim there can be none.

[George Plimpton]

On 12/16/2011 7:06 PM, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:58:53 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
> <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 17, 11:17 am, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>
>>> Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,
>>
>> Nope, faith is the acceptance of an idea in the total absense of any
>> evidence, in the absense of any sensory evidence.
>>
>> Whereas having a belief requires at least some evidence, sensory
>> evidence, existing.
>>
>> MG
>>
>>
> Every time you get into an elevator you are exercising faith.

No, you're acting on your confidence. Confidence and faith are not the
same thing. Confidence is based on logic and evidence; it is rational.
Faith is irrational - it's a belief in something *irrespective* of any
evidence for or against. Faith exists unaware even of the idea of evidence.

I have confidence that the engineers who designed, and the technicians
who installed, the elevator knew what they were doing and did it
according to documented principles of science and engineering. I have
evidence of this that supports my rational belief that the elevator will
work as claimed.

[George Plimpton]

Only strong atheists, who believe there is no god, base their belief on
faith. Weak atheists, who don't believe there is a god, base their
belief on a consideration of evidence and logic.

[RogerN]

As a side note: Now the Hitchens brothers agree, like Peter Hitchens,
Christopher Hitchens also now knows he was wrong all of his life and God is
great!

RogerN

The science to which I pinned my faith is bankrupt. Its counsels, which
should have established the millennium, have led directly to the suicide of
Europe. I believed them once. In their name I helped to destroy the faith of
millions of worshipers in the temples of a thousand creeds, and now they
look at me and witness the great tragedy of an atheist who has lost his
faith.
George Bernard Shaw

[Don Martin]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 21:13:14 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> Athiests, by definition, believe there is no God.

How often have we heard this inaccurate "definition" here? Apparently you have
not been paying attention. Most real atheists see no reason for belief in
supernatural beings, which is not the same thing as "believe there is no god."

Lack of belief =/= belief.

Incidentally, we don't hate god, either. For that to happen, you have to
believe in the god in question.

The believers, on the other hand, quite often piss us off. Particularly those
with a belief in a god so omni-impotent as to require propping up by mere human
governments to survive in their hearts and minds.

--

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

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 21:13:14 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Why are Christians such nasty, in-your-face personal liars?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:24:52 -0500, Don Martin
<drdon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 21:13:14 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>> Athiests, by definition, believe there is no God.
>
>How often have we heard this inaccurate "definition" here? Apparently you have
>not been paying attention. Most real atheists see no reason for belief in
>supernatural beings, which is not the same thing as "believe there is no god."

I've never understood the sheer, arrogant nastiness of these morons.

>Lack of belief =/= belief.
>
>Incidentally, we don't hate god, either. For that to happen, you have to
>believe in the god in question.
>
>The believers, on the other hand, quite often piss us off. Particularly those
>with a belief in a god so omni-impotent as to require propping up by mere human
>governments to survive in their hearts and minds.

If these pathologically sociopathic, almost unbelieveably stupid
people kept their beliefs where they are appropriate, ie inside their
religion, there would be no reaction - and they wouldn't need to lie
about that either.

Why even bother to show the arrogant, nasty, in-your-face stupid
personal liar the very courtesy she doen't show us?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:06:03 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:58:53 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
><mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 17, 11:17 am, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>
>>> Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,
>>
>>Nope, faith is the acceptance of an idea in the total absense of any
>>evidence, in the absense of any sensory evidence.
>>
>>Whereas having a belief requires at least some evidence, sensory
>>evidence, existing.
>>
>>MG
>>
>>
>Every time you get into an elevator you are exercising faith. Every
>time you sit on a chair, or turn on a light.Or step on the brakes of
>your car.
>Or get out of bed in the morning.

Liar.

Look up "equivocation" and stop being so dishonest.

You know perfectly well those are NOT faith, but expectation based on
a lifetime's experience.

You don't even fool yourself.

>It is not a question of whether you have faith - but what you have
>faith in.

Liar.

>Every atheist in the world lives his life almost exclusively on faith.

Liar.

>If nithing else, in faith that he is right.

Liar.

Why is it so hard for you rudely in-our-face, aggressively and nastily
stupid morons to grasp that all an atheist is, is somebody in the real
world beyond your religion, who doesn't happen to be any kind of
theist?

Why do you feel the need to lie about us to our faces?

What's wrong with you?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 07:18:09 -0800, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

In order to have the beliefs these nasty little shits attribute to us,
we would have to be inside their religious paradigm, seeing their god
in the same light they do.

Instead of merely somebody else's religious belief.

They're too stupid to understand that the presumptions they use to
invent positions we don't have, only apply inside their religion.

And we're outside that.

In the real world where theirs is merely one of hundreds of different
deity beliefs.

Not substantively different to Zeus, Odin, Krishna, Osiris and all the
others.

They only give a thought to one.

And we don't even give that one a thought.

Or we wouldn't if they had the common sense and courtesy to keep their
beliefs inside their religion.

[John Baker]

And if I say I believe you are both stupid and dishonest, that must be
FAITH too, right? Coudn't *possibly* be because your idiotic rants
have given me more than ample justification to think so.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 08:19:58 -0600, Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net>
wrote:

>>>
>>>Still makes no sense. It's not like atheists are going around doing
>>>what others may think are disgusting things. What's to hide?
>>>
>>>Next thing you know, they will want to be a protected class.
>>
>> Atheism..just another faith based religious belief
>>
>
>
> Then why don't atheists get a religious tax exemption?

Good question. Why dont I get a religious tax exemption?
Im Buddhist..and I dont get a break as a result.

Atheism..just another faith based religious belief

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 07:18:09 -0800, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

No, that is the definition of Agnostic. An Agnostic does not believe
(in god). To him, a God may or may not exist, but it is of no
importance to him ;nothing is known or can be known of the existence
or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena.
An Atheist believes there is no God, and will defend his position
with fundamentalist, evangelical fervour.
It is worth noting that the 'positive atheist' need not have certainty
that God doesn't exist: it is a matter of belief, not knowledge (i.e.
- cannot be proved). As such,Atheism is a RELIGION - closely
associated with HUMANISM (not to be confused with Humanist theology)
and believes Man is his own "god".

By contrast Nihilist doesn't believe in ANYTHING.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 07:21:04 -0800, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

>On 12/16/2011 7:06 PM, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:58:53 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
>> <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 17, 11:17 am, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,
>>>
>>> Nope, faith is the acceptance of an idea in the total absense of any
>>> evidence, in the absense of any sensory evidence.
>>>
>>> Whereas having a belief requires at least some evidence, sensory
>>> evidence, existing.
>>>
>>> MG
>>>
>>>
>> Every time you get into an elevator you are exercising faith.
>
>No, you're acting on your confidence. Confidence and faith are not the
>same thing. Confidence is based on logic and evidence; it is rational.

There is a whole lot of "irrational confidence" evident in todays
world.

> Faith is irrational - it's a belief in something *irrespective* of any
>evidence for or against. Faith exists unaware even of the idea of evidence.

I would dissagee with you on that score - The "evidence" is there,
but it cannot be quantified and proven, and neither can it be
disproven (so there is no "evidence--- against" any more than there is
"evidence for". The "evidence" that "a god" exists is just too
overwhelming to ignore. Whether "The GOD" of judeo-christian, muslim,
or any other "religion" exists as envisioned by that system of belief
MAY be open to question - which makes the Agnostic world view a whole
lot more tennable than the Atheistic world view.

>
>I have confidence that the engineers who designed, and the technicians
>who installed, the elevator knew what they were doing and did it
>according to documented principles of science and engineering. I have
>evidence of this that supports my rational belief that the elevator will
>work as claimed.

You have obviously never been stuck in an elevator that
malfunctioned, even after being installed and maintained "according to
the book". Nor have any elevators failed (on multiple levels -
including failure of the emergency over-ride brake).
You have never experienced, or even had first hand accounts of
"mechanical failure" causing automotive accidents, train wrecks,
aircraft crashes, and even ocean liner and ferry sinkings?

Man is FALLIBLE, and sciences and engineering are still, to some
degree, inexact - so you are putting FAITH in something or someone
that has been "proven" only to the extent that, to THIS POINT it has
not failed, or that it's failure rate is low enough that you TRUST it.


To THIS POINT in my life, GOD has not failed ME.

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:f3ipe71o14qh7chp3...@4ax.com...

Chris Lee calling somebody nasty is rich.

--
I am a Fundamentalist Christian Pentecostal Warrior for the One lamb virgin,
Jesus Christ.

[chibiabos]

In article <S82dnSMW0K6XFXbT...@giganews.com>, George
Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

> On 12/16/2011 9:51 AM, Free Lunch wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:28:23 -0800, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> > wrote in alt.atheism:

> >
> >> On 12/16/2011 9:18 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:11:56 -0500, Frank

> >>> <frankperi...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Still makes no sense. It's not like atheists are going around doing
> >>>> what others may think are disgusting things. What's to hide?
> >>>

> >>> Atheists have nothing to hide. They just haven't felt the need to go
> >>> around jamming their beliefs down everyone's throats like the
> >>> Christians always have.
> >>
> >> Actually, that's *exactly* what many of them do.
> >
> > Given the level of proselytizing done by supposed Christians, you
> > clearly have a double standard about what is too much to suit you.
>
> I have no double standard at all.
>
>
> >
> >> Atheists are divided into two classes: strong and weak atheists.
> >> Strong atheists have religious faith: they believe there is no god.
> >> Theirs is every bit as much a religious dogma as believers have.
> >
> > Yes, you keep saying that, but since there is absolutely no evidence
> > that any gods exist, why isn't it a reasonable conclusion that there are
> > no gods?
>
> Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Sometimes the absence of evidence can be so overwhelming that it's
foolish to believe something has any possibility of being true merely
because it can't be proven to be false.

There is absence of evidence for
. . . fairies, trolls and leprechauns . . .
. . . alien crop circles . . .
. . . weapons of mass destruction in Iraq . . .
. . . albino tigers living at the bottom of the Juan de Fuca ridge . .
.
. . . miracle healing and homeopathy . . .
. . . bug-free Microsoft products . . .
. . . UFOs . . .
. . . ESP, telekinesis, telepathy . . .
. . . gods . . .

You've convinced yourself that strong atheists have religious faith
when it simply isn't true. Their conviction (not faith) is built upon
the failure of an earnest, lengthy, and often grueling search for
evidence of any kind. This is not garden-variety lack of evidence, such
as the accusation of murder absent a body or a weapon. This is
world-shaking, civilization-breaking lack of evidence. The kind where a
strong atheist is justified in saying, "There is no god."

I agree that strong atheists (I am one) make a positive claim and are
therefore responsible for backing it up. I back up my claim as I did
above. The lack of evidence is so thoroughly compelling that no sane
person can reach any other conclusion.

If it walks like a duck . . . .

-chib

--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor

[Buddythunder]

On Dec 17, 4:06 pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:58:53 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
>

> <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> >On Dec 17, 11:17 am, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
> >> Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,
>
> >Nope, faith is the acceptance of an idea in the total absense of any
> >evidence, in the absense of any sensory evidence.
>
> >Whereas having a belief requires at least some evidence, sensory
> >evidence, existing.
>
> >MG
>

> Every time you get into an elevator you are exercising faith. Every

> time you sit on a chair, or turn on a light.Or step on the brakes of

> your car. Or get out of bed in the morning.

I always liked this dodge when I was in the church, it was an easy way
to rationalise an irrational stand. There is a grain of truth in what
you say, but it's a false equivalence. When we get into an elevator,
it could plunge to the basement, so we do exercise some faith.
However, we step into the lift in the knowledge that operating
elevators have to be maintained and inspected regularly to get their
certificates. We also know about the yoke system that brakes the
carriage when the cable breaks. We know about the muti-cable systems
that are used, we also know that such failures are extraordinarily
rare - when was the last time an elevator actually fell? How many
elevator trips are taken in an a city every day? However, there is an
infintessimal chance that it could fall, and yes, we do place a tiny
bit of faith in them.

The difference with religious faith, is that we have no evidence at
all to inform us. There are no heaven inspection certificates, no
salvation maintenance contracts, it all just has to be bought and sold
entirely on faith.

> It is not a question of whether you have faith - but what you have
> faith in.

And how much faith (and is the degree of that faith sensible for what
is known), and why in one particular field so much must be required of
us in the face of zero, or indeed contradictory evidence.

> Every atheist in the world lives his life almost exclusively on faith.

> If nithing else, in faith that he is right.

It doesn't take much faith to disbelieve extraordinary claims for
which there is no evidence. I am not certain that no gods exist (I
think it unlikely, but I'm open to persuasion), just that the gods I
know of are unbelievable.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 09:50:15 +0000 (UTC), walksalone
<spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:

>cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote in news:ckune7dtulk6lf3qokiuk906hqsinbpm9a@
>4ax.com:
>
>Followup set to only group I read.
>
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:50:27 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
>> <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>

>>>On Dec 17, 3:18 am, "Zacharias Mulletstein"

You may CALL yourself an Atheist, but according to what you just
wrote, you are NOT an Atheist. You are an Agnostic,

Totally a "horse of a different color"

[WhatMakesClareSo...@ssss.ss]

Fuck off and die, arrogantly stupid liar.

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
>
> Why are Christians such nasty, in-your-face personal liars?

They have to lower themselves to the level that your comfortable
with.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> Then why don't atheists get a religious tax exemption?

What do they do that deserves tax exempt status?

[John Baker]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 14:10:21 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 09:50:15 +0000 (UTC), walksalone
><spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>
>>cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote in news:ckune7dtulk6lf3qokiuk906hqsinbpm9a@
>>4ax.com:
>>
>>Followup set to only group I read.
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:50:27 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
>>> <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>>

>>>>On Dec 17, 3:18 am, "Zacharias Mulletstein"

You, Snookums, are an agnostic in the literal sense of the word.

>
>Totally a "horse of a different color"

And you are a horse of the same boring shade we see in every arrogant,
dishonest theist asshole who comes down the pike.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 15:28:47 -0500, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>

By their redefinion to tell us nastily that we're "really" agnostic
even though we've got nothing to be agnostic about, they're agnostic
themselves because they don't know - they only believe they do.

>>Totally a "horse of a different color"
>
>And you are a horse of the same boring shade we see in every arrogant,
>dishonest theist asshole who comes down the pike.

When I treated her as one she killfiled me - even though she had
crashed the group and isn't welcome.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 15:26:07 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
>>
>> Why are Christians such nasty, in-your-face personal liars?
>
>
> They have to lower themselves to the level that your comfortable
>with.

You must be a Christian, nasty in-your-face personal liar.

[Michael Gordge]

On Dec 18, 3:06 am, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> The "evidence" that "a god" exists is just too
> overwhelming to ignore.

Soooo stop your gloating and provide at least some of the evidence
that you're refusing to ignore, is it just one god existing and what
is it existing as? You should be able to describe it if the evidence
it exists is soooo oeverwhelming.

When you are driving a car and test your brakes, to eliminate belief
and provide some certainty that you will stop when required, say while
approaching a set of traffic lights which you can believe are about to
change, you will actually feel the brakes grab and see your speedo
drop and if your window is down you will hear less wind noise and you
may even possibly hear the brakes squeaking or grabbing on the car's
brake discs, all pretty overwhelming evidence that the brakes can and
will stop you at or before the red light and lines on the road, just
be even surer you push a little harder on the peddle because the light
changes orange and now you're 99.9999999999999999% certain its about
to turn red, and the above slowing down sensations become even more
evident, sooooo is the evidence you have of your god as overwhelming
and if so then why the heck are you keeping it to yourself?

>  To THIS POINT in my life, GOD has not failed ME.

How exciting for you, no seriously I mean it, its now time to stop
your gloating and explain exactly how others can have a life where
everything they wish and hope for can not fail them. btw, are you sure
it was god and not something else, e.g. another person or the
mechanical man made brakes that didn't fail you?

MG

[George Plimpton]

On 12/17/2011 10:06 AM, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> The "evidence" that "a god" exists is just too overwhelming to ignore.

There's no such evidence. Irrational believers claim there is, but
there isn't. Their belief is held *irrespective* of evidence.
Irrational believers don't care about evidence, either for or against.
If they start blabbering about evidence, it's because they're
embarrassed when their irrationality is pointed out and mocked.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 14:10:21 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote in
alt.atheism:

>On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 09:50:15 +0000 (UTC), walksalone
><spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>
>>cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote in news:ckune7dtulk6lf3qokiuk906hqsinbpm9a@
>>4ax.com:
>>
>>Followup set to only group I read.
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:50:27 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
>>> <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>>

>>>>On Dec 17, 3:18 am, "Zacharias Mulletstein"

Theism and gnosis are two separate lines of discussion.

The orthodox doctrine in Christianity is that one cannot know that God
exists, only that one can believe, that is agnostic, but Christians are
still very much theist.

[Michael Gordge]

On Dec 18, 3:11 am, chibiabos <c...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Sometimes the absence of evidence can be so overwhelming that it's
> foolish to believe something has any possibility of being true merely
> because it can't be proven to be false.

You are only ever required to prove a positive, its not possible to
prove a negative and irrational to demand it, e.g. there is no god, no
prove me wrong.

Can you prove you have never killed anyone?

MG

[Paul David Wright]

Frank <frankperi...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:jcfu4u$762$1...@dont-email.me:

> Still makes no sense. It's not like atheists are going around doing
> what others may think are disgusting things. What's to hide?
>

> Next thing you know, they will want to be a protected class.
>

Oh, good... Another theist liar.

--
PDW

Check out my blog:
http://corneliusaddaptionproject.blogspot.com/
And my books:
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/pdwright42

[Paul David Wright]

George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote in

news:Kv6dnR5t1Zok4nbT...@giganews.com:

> Path:
> news.albasani.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!
newsfeed.hal
> -mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
Xl.tags.giga
> news.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!
local2.nntp.dc
> a.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:28:25 -0600 Date: Fri, 16 Dec
> 2011 09:28:23 -0800 From: George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105
> Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups:
> alt.california,alt.philosophy,rec.crafts.metalworking,alt.atheism,alt.
r
> eligion.christian Subject: Re: Atheists 'hijack' Nativity display in
> Santa Monica, critics say References:
> <Xns9FBCEE4C8A...@202.177.16.121>
> <pan.2011.12.16....@nowhere.invalid>
> <jcfgd6$965$1...@dont-email.me>
> <pan.2011.12.16....@nowhere.invalid>
> <jcfu4u$762$1...@dont-email.me>
> <47vme7l66sv13jk3u...@4ax.com> In-Reply-To:
> <47vme7l66sv13jk3u...@4ax.com> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Message-ID: <Kv6dnR5t1Zok4nbT...@giganews.com>
> Lines: 36
> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
> X-Trace:
> sv3-
HQiI8WJytH7N/o21PA4XIRrb9D1Sp3uqrvnKXS6vOdYGABQ7y2EH/k9Y79PXCZpHxJ9
> iUPg6evmU97+!
Ablcte+rPJ29FY098OXhofQ7GwOTiqh7vn2o5cKpaTQgLZzBvCAyye5ztj
> /zje7DlTtDMZFlDiE3 X-Complaints-To: ab...@giganews.com
> X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
> complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
> X-Original-Bytes: 3098
> Xref: news.albasani.net alt.california:392196 alt.philosophy:485506
> rec.crafts.metalworking:1166375 alt.atheism:2264870
> alt.religion.christian:639828

>
> On 12/16/2011 9:18 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:11:56 -0500, Frank
>> <frankperi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>

>>> Still makes no sense. It's not like atheists are going around doing
>>> what others may think are disgusting things. What's to hide?
>>

>> Atheists have nothing to hide. They just haven't felt the need to go
>> around jamming their beliefs down everyone's throats like the
>> Christians always have.
>
> Actually, that's *exactly* what many of them do.
>

Snipping at the first lie.

[Paul David Wright]

"Zacharias Mulletstein" <zachariasm...@isalwaysright.com> wrote
in news:jcg22f$1i4$1...@dont-email.me:

>
>
>
> "George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
> news:Kv6dnR5t1Zok4nbT...@giganews.com...

>> On 12/16/2011 9:18 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:11:56 -0500, Frank
>>> <frankperi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Still makes no sense. It's not like atheists are going around
>>>> doing what others may think are disgusting things. What's to hide?
>>>
>>> Atheists have nothing to hide. They just haven't felt the need to
>>> go around jamming their beliefs down everyone's throats like the
>>> Christians always have.
>>
>> Actually, that's *exactly* what many of them do.
>>

>> Atheists are divided into two classes: strong and weak atheists.
>> Strong atheists have religious faith: they believe there is no god.
>> Theirs is every bit as much a religious dogma as believers have.
>>

>> Weak atheists don't believe there is a god. Theirs is not a dogmatic
>> position - it is based on an examination of evidence and concluding
>> that there is in fact no evidence to support a belief in god, so they
>> don't hold such a belief.
>>
>> A belief that there is no god is not the same, logically, as not
>> having a belief in god.
>>
>> The word atheist is really a misnomer with respect to strong atheists
>> - what they are really is antitheists. Weak atheists are the
>> atheists. Unfortunately, we're stuck with one word to describe both
>> groups, so we must modify it with strong or weak.

>
> I told you that athiests hate God.
>

Say it all you like; You're still wrong.

[Paul David Wright]

George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote in

news:K8CdnYZBjb1lPXbT...@giganews.com:

>
> On 12/16/2011 9:18 AM, Wayne wrote:
>>
>>
>> "MarkA" wrote in message

>
>
>>> Came across this one the other day:
>>>
>>> http://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/LanskeeShuru
>>>
>>> If you don't believe in God, why promote it like a religion?
>

> Because to strong atheists, it *is* a religion, whether they want to
> acknowledge it at such or not. They are not really atheists - they
> are anti-theists.
>
>

And you are still wrong.

[Michael Gordge]

On Dec 18, 3:49 am, Buddythunder <davidarthu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> When we get into an elevator,
> it could plunge to the basement, so we do exercise some faith.

Nope, you exercise "belief" that it wont plunge, humans travel
millions of kilometers each and every day without plunging and as you
say there's 100's of mechanical safe-guards, that's a massive
difference to faith.

Belief and faith do not and never do equate to each other, they're two
totally seperate concepts, even though religionists and socialsts
equate them to each other, I presume because they want to believe it
was their faith in god and politicians and all their praying wishing
and hoping that causes earth-quakes and socialist politicians to act
in humanities best interests, as against their own personal.

> The difference with religious faith, is that we have no evidence at
> all to inform us.

Faith is faith, e.g. mystics have faith they wont wake up tomorrow as
an athiest and you can only ever have faith that a conservative,
republican or demcratic politician will do something good for anyone
else but themselves and their family while they're in office.

MG

[Michael Gordge]

On Dec 18, 3:49 am, Buddythunder <davidarthu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It doesn't take much faith to disbelieve extraordinary claims for
> which there is no evidence. I am not certain that no gods exist (I
> think it unlikely, but I'm open to persuasion), just that the gods I
> know of are unbelievable.

Of any position on the idiotic nonsense of the god crap, the agnostic
is the least tennable by a country mile, they're firmly impaled on the
coward's fence of evasion with a fence post rammed up their date-
hole.

Agnostics are cowards through and through, at very very best, they're
mystics in waiting with their feet dangling on the side of the mystic
ready to pounce right on into the mystic's camp.

The position of the agnostics is one of evasion, what fucking cowards,
at least the mystic, as irrational and as silly and as laughable as
their postion is, at least they have the balls to state it.

MG

[Michael Gordge]

On Dec 18, 12:16 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

> Not the issue.  If someone asserts something and doesn't support the
> assertion, it doesn't mean the assertion is false;

If its unsupported then its subjective arbitrary fucking nonsense, to
be treated as mumbling piffle and trash and such nonsense is given any
value or virtue at man's peril, telling the promoter of unsupported
crap to fuck off and get a life is perfectly rational behaviour.

MG