Allah, CREATED THE UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING
عبدلله‎
Allah, CREATED THE UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING
___________________________________________
With ample evidence discovered by science, the thesis of an "infinite
universe" was tossed onto the scrap-heap of the history of scientific
ideas. Yet, more important questions were forthcoming: what existed
before the Big Bang? What force could have caused the great explosion
that resulted in a universe that did not exist before?
There is a single answer to be given to the question of what existed
before the Big Bang: God, the All-powerful and the Almighty, Who
created the earth and the heavens in great order. Many scientists, be
they believers or not, are obliged to admit this truth. Although they
may decline to admit this fact on scientific platforms, their
confessions in between the lines give them away. Renowned atheist
philosopher Anthony Flew says:
Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin
by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by
the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the
cosmologists are providing a scientific proof of what St. Thomas
contended could not be proved philosophically; namely, that the
universe had a beginning. So long as the universe can be comfortably
thought of as being not only without end but also beginning, it
remains easy to urge that its brute existence, and whatever are found
to be its most fundamental features, should be accepted as the
explanatory ultimates. Although I believe that it remains still
correct, it certainly is neither easy nor comfortable to maintain this
position in the face of the Big Bang story. (Henry Margenau, Roy
Abraham Vargesse, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, La Salla IL: Open Court
Publishing, 1992, p. 241).
Some scientists like the British materialist physicist H. P. Lipson
confess that they have to accept the Big Bang theory whether they want
it or not:
If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms,
natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?… I think,
however, that we must…admit that the only acceptable explanation is
creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is
to me, but we must not reject that we do not like if the experimental
evidence supports it. (H. P. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution",
Physics Bulletin, vol. 138, 1980, p. 138).
In conclusion, science points to a single reality whether materialist
scientists like it or not. Matter and time have been created by a
Creator, Who is All-Powerful and Who created the heavens, the earth
and all that is in between: Almighty God.
It is God Who created the seven heavens and of the earth the same
number, the Command descending down through all of them, so that you
might know that God has power over all things and that God encompasses
all things in His knowledge. (Surat at-Talaq: 12)
___________________________________________________
THE PERFECT DESIGN IN THE UNIVERSE IS NOT BY CHANCE
____________________________________________________
Just think about the things you see from the moment you wake up in the
morning: the pillow under your head, the blanket over you, the alarm
clock that woke you up, the slippers you search for as soon as you get
out of bed, the window you open to get some fresh air, the clothes
hanging in your closet, the mirror you look into every morning, the
knife and fork you use for breakfast, the umbrella you take with you
when you leave the house, the elevator you get into, the key that
opens your car door, the traffic lights along the way, the billboards,
the pen, paper and other things on your desk at work...
Spend some time to consider, and it will no doubt occur to you that
each of these things was designed for a special purpose. No one would
say that it was a matter of chance that everything was where it should
be when you arose up in the morning. For example, who would claim that
merely by chance, your house key was cut exactly to fit the door? Or
that it ended up in your pocket by chance, in the first place? No one
would claim that the billboards along the road were put there by
chance, or that the meanings they intend came about by randomly
painted symbols.
By the same token, no one would deny that a staple—nothing other than
a specially shaped piece of wire on your desk—was bent and placed in
its dispenser in order to hold papers together. Each staple's metal
alloy, size, shape, and intended function show the evidence of
deliberate design. It was planned specifically to accommodate your
needs; and there's a particular reason why staples are so often found
in any office setting.
What about the people you see walking along the street? Or the trees
you pass by, the dog that runs out in front of you, the pigeons that
build their nests in the eaves of your house, the flowers on your
table, the sky above you? Could their existence be by chance, do you
think?
It would be nonsense to even consider this possibility! Everything
surrounding you, animate and inanimate alike, is too wonderful and
complex to be compared with man-made items or ever to be ascribed to
the operations of chance. Each is an example of a conscious creation,
requiring consummate intelligence and skill. Everyone who finds it
illogical to think that even a single staple came about by the proper
bending of a wire by chance, will see that it is even more impossible
that human beings, cats, birds, trees and the entire universe emerged
by chance.
But today, there are people who cannot see this clear reality. Or
rather they see it, but pretend not to. They claim that trees, birds,
clouds, houses, cars, you yourself, others around you—in short,
everything in the universe, animate and inanimate, is all the work of
blind chance.
These people, known as Materialist-Darwinists, maintain the
contradictory idea that chance occurrences can display supreme
intelligence; and that the sum total of millions of chance events,
occurring in sequence, can show creative power. According to
Materialist-Darwinists, chance events have greater intelligence than
every person in the world—no matter how many people have come and
gone. They claim that a genius called "chance" has shaped everyone's
brain, cognitive ability, judgment, memory, and countless other human
characteristics for hundreds of thousands of years.
Let us examine the irrationality of those who have entered the blind
alley of chance, ignoring the wondrous design that surrounds them as
well as the proofs of creation.
Chance Is Not A Deity: It Is God Who Is The Creator Of All That Exists
The theory of evolution puts forth the irrational claim that all
plants, animals and human beings are the result of blind, unconscious,
accidental events. Evolutionists believe that millions of years ago,
in the primal soup of the oceans or in pools of water, mindless atoms
with no knowledge, powers of reason came together in certain
proportions and later, by chance, formed the proteins and cells that
even today's scientists with the most advanced laboratory technology
have not been able to duplicate. They go so far as to say that these
cells, in their turn—and again by sheer chance—formed starfish, fish,
sparrows, hawks, seagulls, penguins, cats, lambs, lions, and even
human beings who possess the faculty of reason.
To demonstrate just how incredible the claims of evolutionists are,
let anyone who believes in the creative power of chance events take a
large barrel. Let them put into it however much material they believe
is required to form a living thing. For example, let them include all
the needed elements—carbon, phosphorus, calcium—as well as organic
compounds like amino acids, proteins, lipids, and carotene. Then let
them add to this mixture whatever outside influence they choose. For
example, heat or chill the barrel. Let it be struck by lightning or
apply electric current. Let them stir the mixture with whatever
advanced devices they may have. In addition, let them stand guard on
this barrel transferring this responsibility from father to son for
millions, even billions, of years. And so as to increase the chances
of success, let them control the mixing at every moment. Let them
consult with others; meet with the world's foremost biologists,
geneticists, physicists and experts on evolution. Leave them free to
produce whatever conditions they deem necessary to originate life.
Yet despite all this serious, conscious effort, they'll never be able
to produce anything like a living being in that barrel. No matter what
they do, they'll never be able to produce the living things pictured
in this book.
Let those atoms in that barrel perform any reactions they want; never
will they begin an "evolution" capable of producing brilliant
scientists
discoverers;scientists able to examine under
electron microscopes the molecules and atoms out of which they
themselves are composed; talented actors li celebrities
those who take pleasure in symmetry,
esthetics and harmonious colors; those able to design automobiles and
write books; thinkers with faculties of logic and judgment; human
beings able to retain in memory what they have learned, share
longings, feel excitement and pleasure; who are possessed with a sense
of love, mercy and compassion; who enjoy the taste of food and whose
appetite is stimulated by a cake baking in the oven; who laugh at
something funny and enjoy being with their friends; who can defend an
idea and carry on a discussion.
Bring unconscious atoms together in whatever way you prefer. Never
will they be able to bring about a single one of these living things,
or even one of their cells.
If so—if no living thing can ever be produced by human effort and the
whole pool of human knowledge—how can life be brought into being with
the aid of unconscious atoms and chance events? Any intelligent human
being of conscience can certainly understand that he—and other living
things—cannot be the result of chance events. Every intelligent,
unprejudiced person with a conscience knows that God has created all
these living things with His incomparable power.
Regrettably, a segment of the population has accepted this irrational
scenario throughout the 20th century. Professors, scientists and
teachers may ridicule the "primitive" beliefs of pagan societies,
while themselves accepting the nonsense of evolution. In this, they're
equally as benighted as those human beings who expect a wooden idol
can help them. God's Messenger, the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon
him, also reminded anyone afflicted with such blindness that the
greatest sin is associating His creatures with God:
The most severe sin is to associate partners with God, while He has
created you. (Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim)
In the Qur'an (29:17), God warns those who worship idols and invent
lies about them that their power is strong enough to do anything:
Al-Ankaboot
QUOTE
And verily we sent Noah (as Our messenger) unto his folk, and he
continued with them for a thousand years save fifty years; and the
flood engulfed them, for they were wrong-doers. (14) And We rescued
him and those with him in the ship, and made of it a portent for the
peoples. (15) And Abraham! (Remember) when he said unto his folk:
Serve Allah, and keep your duty unto Him; that is better for you if ye
did but know. (16) Ye serve instead of Allah only idols, and ye only
invent a lie. Lo! those whom ye serve instead of Allah own no
provision for you. So seek your provision from Allah, and serve Him,
and give thanks unto Him, (for) unto Him ye will be brought back. (17)
But if ye deny, then nations have denied before you. The messenger is
only to convey (the message) plainly. (18) See they not how Allah
produceth creation, then reproduceth it? Lo! for Allah that is easy.
(19) Say (O Muhammad): Travel in the land and see how He originated
creation, then Allah bringeth forth the later growth. Lo! Allah is
Able to do all things. (20) He punisheth whom He will and showeth
mercy unto whom He will, and unto Him ye will be turned. (21) Ye
cannot escape (from Him) in the earth or in the sky, and beside Allah
there is for you no friend nor helper. (22) Those who disbelieve in
the revelations of Allah and in (their) Meeting with Him, such have no
hope of My mercy. For such there is a painful doom. (23) But the
answer of his folk was only that they said: "Kill him" or "Burn him."
Then Allah saved him from the Fire. Lo! herein verily are portents for
folk who believe. (24) He said: Ye have chosen only idols instead of
Allah. The love between you is only in the life of the world. Then on
the Day of Resurrection ye will deny each other and curse each other,
and your abode will be the Fire, and ye will have no helpers. (25)
--------------------
What's The Purpose of life ?
Here you will get the answer :
http://www.islamtomorrow.com/purpose.htm
or
THE COLLAPSE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IN 20 QUESTIONS
http://newaninvitationtothetruth.blogspot.com/
OR
Islam Guide: A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam,
Muslims, & the Quran
or
The quran miracles encyclopedia
or
Islam house
http://aslam-ahmd.blogspot.com/
or
The Religion of Islam
or
converts
Lallia
> Allah, CREATED THE UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING
why can't you use the English, God, instead of Allah? I am 1/2
Algerian and come from a Moslem background. The Moslems would make
more friends by not shoving Islam down non-Moslem throats. Moslems
are in no position to make non-Moslems annoyed. please try.
Alia Khalfi
$Bill
In all fairness, you could say the same thing about either group.
Christians are probably the world's largest offenders when it
comes to trying to force their religion on others. Neither of
them has a leg to stand on and nobody with a modicum of intelligence
would listen to either of them when they're both spouting belief
in the supernatural.
Sports Fan
"$Bill" <ne...@SPAMOLAtodbe.com> wrote:
>Lallia wrote:
>> On May 14, 11:53 am, ?????? <thinker...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Allah, CREATED THE UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING
>>
>> why can't you use the English, God, instead of Allah? I am 1/2
>> Algerian and come from a Moslem background. The Moslems would make
>> more friends by not shoving Islam down non-Moslem throats. Moslems
>> are in no position to make non-Moslems annoyed. please try.
>
>In all fairness, you could say the same thing about either group.
>
>Christians are probably the world's largest offenders when it
>comes to trying to force their religion on others.
This is nothing but nonsense and distorting of facts.
You are basing your personal agenda and irrational hate for Christians
on what republicans are doing.
Republicans != Christians.
Not everyone who claims that he is a Christian is a Christian.
Funny thing is that neither the spammer, nor Lallia said anything about
Christians and yet you took the opportunity to go on a anti Christians
rant, and called it "fairness", really amazing how irrational hate
works.
> Neither of
>them has a leg to stand on and nobody with a modicum of intelligence
>would listen to either of them when they're both spouting belief
>in the supernatural.
According to you.
You have no faith, I have no problem with that, but do not talk about
things that you have absolutely 0 clue in and make a sweeping
generalizations like this.
$Bill
>
>> Christians are probably the world's largest offenders when it
>> comes to trying to force their religion on others.
>
> This is nothing but nonsense and distorting of facts.
> You are basing your personal agenda and irrational hate for Christians
> on what republicans are doing.
>
> Republicans != Christians.
> Not everyone who claims that he is a Christian is a Christian.
I don't recall mentioning republicans, nor did I say anything about
Christians individuals per se - only in the sense of the religion.
> Funny thing is that neither the spammer, nor Lallia said anything about
> Christians and yet you took the opportunity to go on a anti Christians
> rant, and called it "fairness", really amazing how irrational hate
> works.
I was just pointing out that the christian religion is just as bad as
islam - both are artifacts of the ignorance of the world 2000 years ago.
>> Neither of
>> them has a leg to stand on and nobody with a modicum of intelligence
>> would listen to either of them when they're both spouting belief
>> in the supernatural.
>
> According to you.
I'm not alone here and my opinion is as valid as any other including yours
and believe it or not, the only one that I listen to.
> You have no faith, I have no problem with that, but do not talk about
> things that you have absolutely 0 clue in and make a sweeping
> generalizations like this.
I have faith that there is no god and that the belief in the supernatural
is an archaic one at best. I have more than a clue and was brought up
as a christian - I'm one of many that early on figured out the hypocrisy
of it all. I feel free to berate any and all religions as is my inalienable
right to do so.
Sports Fan
"$Bill" <ne...@SPAMOLAtodbe.com> wrote:
>Sports Fan wrote:
>>
>>> Christians are probably the world's largest offenders when it
>>> comes to trying to force their religion on others.
>>
>> This is nothing but nonsense and distorting of facts.
>> You are basing your personal agenda and irrational hate for Christians
>> on what republicans are doing.
>>
>> Republicans != Christians.
>> Not everyone who claims that he is a Christian is a Christian.
>
>I don't recall mentioning republicans,
Neither the original poster mentioned Christians or Christianity nor
Lallia did, yet you went on a rant about them.
It is obvious how you measure Christians and Christianity, from the
actions of the Republicans and those who claim that they are Christians.
>nor did I say anything about
>Christians individuals per se - only in the sense of the religion.
>
Which is why you are confused.
So what exactly is wrong with Christianity, according to you?
It is the "Love each other", or the "Don't kill, don't steal" and other
commandments and principals?
Is it the "Do not repay evil by evil"?
I am sure you gonna take something out of context, interpret it as you
like and you will jump also into the actions of individuals who claim to
be Christians and then base your hate on that.
>> Funny thing is that neither the spammer, nor Lallia said anything about
>> Christians and yet you took the opportunity to go on a anti Christians
>> rant, and called it "fairness", really amazing how irrational hate
>> works.
>
>I was just pointing out that the christian religion is just as bad as
>islam -
Don't put them both in the same place.
They are not the same.
>both are artifacts of the ignorance of the world 2000 years ago.
Said the one who is ignorant about both of them.
>>> Neither of
>>> them has a leg to stand on and nobody with a modicum of intelligence
>>> would listen to either of them when they're both spouting belief
>>> in the supernatural.
>>
>> According to you.
>
>I'm not alone here
I never said that you were alone in that opinion, but I don't others
jumping in this thread to quickly divert it into Christian hate
propaganda.
> and my opinion is as valid as any other including yours
>and believe it or not, the only one that I listen to.
>
You're entitled to your opinion, just don't shove them down other
people's throat and make statements of your own opinion as if they were
facts.
>> You have no faith, I have no problem with that, but do not talk about
>> things that you have absolutely 0 clue in and make a sweeping
>> generalizations like this.
>
>I have faith that there is no god and that the belief in the supernatural
>is an archaic one at best.
In your opinion.
You attack people for their faith, yet you seem to allow yourself to
have your own faith.
>I have more than a clue and
I can assure you that you don't, and in fact, I am willing to be that
you probably do not even understand the basics of the Christian faith.
>was brought up as a christian
That's what you think.
> - I'm one of many that early on figured out the hypocrisy
>of it all. I feel free to berate any and all religions as is my inalienable
>right to do so.
>
So you feel free to attack and put down Christianity, yet you slam
Christians for attacking (according to you) your unbelief?
I am glad you mentioned hypocrisy.
This is the problem with you atheists and unbelievers.
You always think that you have the right to slam Christians and
Christianity and put them down, but no one, especially Christians have
the right to find flaws in your actions or in your unbelief.
Oh and not to mention that you are willing to put islam, a violent cult
and their hate and killing based so-called faith along with Christianity
that asks nothing from you except love in the same rank.
Shows how much you know of both.
$Bill
>
> Neither the original poster mentioned Christians or Christianity nor
> Lallia did, yet you went on a rant about them.
Didn't see the original post - not in my history. I can rant about
christians all I want though - it's more like ranting about christianity
rather than christians though.
> It is obvious how you measure Christians and Christianity, from the
> actions of the Republicans and those who claim that they are Christians.
Like I said, it has nothing to do with republicans, they may have more
than there share of hypocritical christians tough if that has any bearing.
> Which is why you are confused.
You seem to be the one confused - I'm doing fine here.
> So what exactly is wrong with Christianity, according to you?
It's just plain dumb to think that there are supernatural beings that
presumably built us humans. 2000 years ago, I might have some sympathy
for the ignorant, but what's the excuse today ?
> It is the "Love each other", or the "Don't kill, don't steal" and other
> commandments and principals?
I only have one principal - do unto others as you would have them do unto
you. Which by the way IS in the bible - but has no bearing on why that's
my one principal.
> Is it the "Do not repay evil by evil"?
No, I'm kinda against that one - evil shouldn't be allowed to flourish.
> I am sure you gonna take something out of context, interpret it as you
> like and you will jump also into the actions of individuals who claim to
> be Christians and then base your hate on that.
I have no problem with individuals - just the entire concept of religion
and I don't restrict it to christians.
> Don't put them both in the same place.
> They are not the same.
Different but equally ignorant.
> I never said that you were alone in that opinion, but I don't others
> jumping in this thread to quickly divert it into Christian hate
> propaganda.
Not propaganda, not hate, just kinda a general disappointment with
my fellow human's ignorance.
> You're entitled to your opinion, just don't shove them down other
> people's throat and make statements of your own opinion as if they were
> facts.
Ah, so it's ok to send those missionaries to the third world where
people are a little less worldly and easier to convince, but you better
not talk bad about religion on usenet - right ?
> In your opinion.
> You attack people for their faith, yet you seem to allow yourself to
> have your own faith.
Whose attacking people - I'm expressing my distaste with religion.
> I can assure you that you don't, and in fact, I am willing to be that
> you probably do not even understand the basics of the Christian faith.
Oh for christ sake, my father was a parochial school teacher, my mother
a sunday school teacher, her father a protestant minister. I was brought
up for my first 128 years steeped in religion and went to a parochial
school to boot. I took my catechism lessons and did my perfunctory bible
reading.
> That's what you think.
Go screw yourself then - like you presume to know what my life is all
about and how everyone else in the world practices christianity.
> So you feel free to attack and put down Christianity, yet you slam
> Christians for attacking (according to you) your unbelief?
> I am glad you mentioned hypocrisy.
Payback's a bitch isn't it.
> This is the problem with you atheists and unbelievers.
> You always think that you have the right to slam Christians and
> Christianity and put them down, but no one, especially Christians have
> the right to find flaws in your actions or in your unbelief.
Well, if they would quit putting non-believers down, they sure would be
looked on nicer in the world.
> Oh and not to mention that you are willing to put islam, a violent cult
> and their hate and killing based so-called faith along with Christianity
> that asks nothing from you except love in the same rank.
Geez, like christains haven't done their share of killing through the
centuries.
> Shows how much you know of both.
Shows how much you don't know.
Dewey
1d0db4...@40g2000pry.googlegroups.com:
They are just following the example set by their christian equivalents.
--
"You are, number 6"
- The New Number 2
Dewey
news:64asu5lhtkn4me5ok...@4ax.com:
> In article <hsl8jo$l3g$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
> "$Bill" <ne...@SPAMOLAtodbe.com> wrote:
>
>>Lallia wrote:
>>> On May 14, 11:53 am, ?????? <thinker...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Allah, CREATED THE UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING
>>>
>>> why can't you use the English, God, instead of Allah? I am 1/2
>>> Algerian and come from a Moslem background. The Moslems would make
>>> more friends by not shoving Islam down non-Moslem throats. Moslems
>>> are in no position to make non-Moslems annoyed. please try.
>>
>>In all fairness, you could say the same thing about either group.
>>
>>Christians are probably the world's largest offenders when it
>>comes to trying to force their religion on others.
>
> This is nothing but nonsense and distorting of facts.
> You are basing your personal agenda and irrational hate for Christians
> on what republicans are doing.
>
> Republicans != Christians.
> Not everyone who claims that he is a Christian is a Christian.
>
> Funny thing is that neither the spammer, nor Lallia said anything
> about Christians and yet you took the opportunity to go on a anti
> Christians rant, and called it "fairness", really amazing how
> irrational hate works.
>
Christianity has long been self-defined as an evangelical faith. To
argue otherwise is truly an example of ignorance.
bozak
mental incapcitation comes to mind when i think of adults who have their own personal
santa claus...
Johnny
> Oh and not to mention that you are willing to put islam, a violent cult
> and their hate and killing based so-called faith along with Christianity
> that asks nothing from you except love in the same rank.
>
>
history, and one of the most violent, and I mean deadly violent. Just a
couple of a multitude of examples ought to suffice:
Look up the Saxon Wars and check out the Saxon Holocaust, when
Charlemagne, in cahoots with the Pope, converted the Saxon tribes to
Christianism at the point of his sword and under the blade of his ax,
and either mass murdered or sold into slavery tens of thousands of
Saxons alone (among many other European tribes) who didn't toe the
Christianist line. History is replete with examples of Christianist
intolerance and deadly forced conversions of "pagans," including wars
among different sects of Christianism and against Christianists the
Church labeled as heretics because they weren't Christianist enough to
suit the Pope.
The Crusades were more than merely attempts to regain the Holy Land
from the Muslims. Campaigns were also waged against Slavs, Balts, and
various other eastern European pagans, Jews and Gypsies, Russian and
Greek Orthodox Christians, and political enemies of the various Popes.
And then there was the Inquisition. And the Spanish conquistadors, and
the priests who accompanied them, who reduced the Native Americans to
peonage so absolute that entire tribes went extinct. I could go on and
on, I assure you.
And don't come back with any of that "ancient history" bullshit
excuse. The 20th century also saw religious wars involving
Christianism, including between Christianists. But be that as it may,
one thing is certain: There is no statute of limitations on murder, and
although the individuals who committed those murders in the name of
Jesus of Nazareth (The Prince of Peace, by the way, the gentle and
forgiving Lord of Brotherly Love Himself - what hypocrisy, what deadly
hypocrisy), are mostly long dead, they were agents of the Church,
ordered by various Popes to kill infidels, and they received indulgences
for their crimes against pagans and heretics. All Christianism now and
in the future must answer for the blood the Church shed by ordering its
agents to kill and forgiving them ab initio and nunc pro tunc.
The only way for the Church to absolve its current and future
members of the crimes committed in the name of their gods is to keep
their religionism entirely out of politics, refuse to kill or
participate in any way with the killing of anybody for any reason under
any circumstances, stop all moralizing, and practice their religionism
in private. The only religion I have ever had any respect for is the
Society of Friends, the Quakers. We could all learn a lot from the way
they handle their religion.
So don't come swaggering in here touting your self-proclaimed
knowledge of religion and deprecating that of anyone who dares to tell
the truth about that bloody cross you damned Christianistas like to wave
at non-believers. The blood on that cross is not that of your venerated
Messiah, it is the blood of the millions murdered in His name.
> Shows how much you know of both.
>
And as for your "faith" bullshit, pay attention: All anyone needs
to know about any religionism or religionism in general is that the
supernatural exists only the human imagination. Period.
Chainsaw
> On May 14, 11:53 am, عبدلله <thinker...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Allah, CREATED THE UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING
Shut up, towelhead.
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice,
but in practice there is.
bozak
> Sports Fan wrote:
>> Oh and not to mention that you are willing to put islam, a violent cult
>> and their hate and killing based so-called faith along with Christianity
>> that asks nothing from you except love in the same rank.
>>
>>
> Christianism is one of the most proselytizing religionisms in
> history, and one of the most violent, and I mean deadly violent. Just a
> couple of a multitude of examples ought to suffice:
>
> Look up the Saxon Wars and check out the Saxon Holocaust,
check out iraq and afghanistan...
Sports Fan
"$Bill" <ne...@SPAMOLAtodbe.com> wrote:
>Sports Fan wrote:
>>
>> Neither the original poster mentioned Christians or Christianity nor
>> Lallia did, yet you went on a rant about them.
>
>Didn't see the original post - not in my history. I can rant about
>christians all I want though - it's more like ranting about christianity
>rather than christians though.
>
Yes you can, but don't expect to be left ranting without answered.
>> It is obvious how you measure Christians and Christianity, from the
>> actions of the Republicans and those who claim that they are Christians.
>
>Like I said, it has nothing to do with republicans, they may have more
>than there share of hypocritical christians tough if that has any bearing.
>
There are hypocrites in all religions, and there are more hypocrites
among atheists than in any religion.
Singling out Christians means that you have irrational hate.
>> Which is why you are confused.
>
>You seem to be the one confused - I'm doing fine here.
>
If you say so.
>> So what exactly is wrong with Christianity, according to you?
>
>It's just plain dumb to think that there are supernatural beings
"Beings"?
God is ONE, and you claim that you were raised as Christian, yet do not
understand its fundamentals.
>that
>presumably built us humans. 2000 years ago, I might have some sympathy
>for the ignorant, but what's the excuse today ?
>
Yet again you seem to be confused and do not have facts to stand on.
Christianity as a religion is 200 years old, that doesn't mean that God
is 2000 years old.
Oh yeah, the "We evolved from monkeys, baboons, ..etc" is very credible.
I guess you believe that...
>> It is the "Love each other", or the "Don't kill, don't steal" and other
>> commandments and principals?
>
>I only have one principal - do unto others as you would have them do unto
>you.
And you seem not be following your own principle.
You'd like to rant about Christians and Christianity yet seem to be
offended when your atheism is challenged.
>Which by the way IS in the bible - but has no bearing on why that's
>my one principal.
>
So you admit that it is in the Bible and you go by it.
>> Is it the "Do not repay evil by evil"?
>
>No, I'm kinda against that one - evil shouldn't be allowed to flourish.
>
Did you understand that concept?
That will NOT allow evil to flourish.
Countering evil with evil will make it flourish.
>> I am sure you gonna take something out of context, interpret it as you
>> like and you will jump also into the actions of individuals who claim to
>> be Christians and then base your hate on that.
>
>I have no problem with individuals - just the entire concept of religion
That's because you got it backwards.
You SHOULD have a problem with anyone who claims to be Christian, yet
steals, with the priest that rapes a child, with the politician that
claims he is a Christian, yet lies through his teeth, ...etc.
That was NOT what his or her religion told them to do.
>and I don't restrict it to christians.
>
It seems that you do restrict it to Christianity.
In fact a thread started by a muslim promoting his "allah" got you going
on rant against Christianity.
>> Don't put them both in the same place.
>> They are not the same.
>
>Different but equally ignorant.
>
Said the person who is ignorant about them both.
>> I never said that you were alone in that opinion, but I don't others
>> jumping in this thread to quickly divert it into Christian hate
>> propaganda.
>
>Not propaganda, not hate, just kinda a general disappointment with
>my fellow human's ignorance.
>
It is hate and it is propaganda, all coming from ignorance about what
you hate.
>> You're entitled to your opinion, just don't shove them down other
>> people's throat and make statements of your own opinion as if they were
>> facts.
>
>Ah, so it's ok to send those missionaries to the third world where
>people are a little less worldly and easier to convince, but you better
>not talk bad about religion on usenet - right ?
>
What kind of logic is this (if I can even call it a logic)?
1. Missionaries do NOT force themselves on anyone, they preach and
people are convinced and convert to Christianity. Did you see them twist
anyone's arm?
2. I never said that you can't talk about religion on Usenet, I said do
not post sweeping generalizations, especially when you don't know what
you are talking about.
>> In your opinion.
>> You attack people for their faith, yet you seem to allow yourself to
>> have your own faith.
>
>Whose attacking people - I'm expressing my distaste with religion.
>
You are attacking.
I don't see any mention of Christianity in this thread before you went
on your rant about it.
>> I can assure you that you don't, and in fact, I am willing to be that
>> you probably do not even understand the basics of the Christian faith.
>
>Oh for christ sake,
And you say that you don't believe in him...
> my father was a parochial school teacher, my mother
>a sunday school teacher, her father a protestant minister. I was brought
>up for my first 128 years steeped in religion and went to a parochial
>school to boot. I took my catechism lessons and did my perfunctory bible
>reading.
>
That does not mean anything.
You could be the son of the Pope and still do not understand
Christianity, as witnessed by your earlier "beings" and the "2000 years"
statements.
>> That's what you think.
>
>Go screw yourself then -
Wow, thanks.
Sounds like you lost the argument and are now morally bankrupt.
Resorting to insults.
>like you presume to know what my life is all
>about and how everyone else in the world practices christianity.
I never said any of the above, quit lying.
>> So you feel free to attack and put down Christianity, yet you slam
>> Christians for attacking (according to you) your unbelief?
>> I am glad you mentioned hypocrisy.
>
>Payback's a bitch isn't it.
>
Once again, you are morally bankrupt.
>> This is the problem with you atheists and unbelievers.
>> You always think that you have the right to slam Christians and
>> Christianity and put them down, but no one, especially Christians have
>> the right to find flaws in your actions or in your unbelief.
>
>Well, if they would quit putting non-believers down, they sure would be
>looked on nicer in the world.
>
No one put them down.
Christians do not attack, they get attacked, as evidenced in this small
thread.
You want to attack but feel threatened when your actions are questioned.
That is a text book hypocrisy.
>> Oh and not to mention that you are willing to put islam, a violent cult
>> and their hate and killing based so-called faith along with Christianity
>> that asks nothing from you except love in the same rank.
>
>Geez, like christains haven't done their share of killing through the
>centuries.
>
Actions of individuals are not what the religion is about.
Read about islam, read their quran, and their so-called sunnah books,
read the Bible and then you will realize how foolish you sound.
>> Shows how much you know of both.
>
>Shows how much you don't know.
LOL.
I lived 33 years in an islamic country where their books are shoved down
your throat in schools, TV, radio, newspapers and everyday life, so
saying that I don't know what islam is makes you look foolish.
And I am a Christian and know the Bible by heart, read it, and
understand it, although I am human and not perfect, but I understand
Christianity very well, and certainly better than someone who thinks
that Christians say that there are more than one God or that humans were
created by "Gods" around "2000 years ago", really.
You don't even understand the religion that you claim were raised on in
your "first 128 years" of your life, let alone understanding islam, so
forget it boy, you are no match to me when it comes to understand both.
Sports Fan
Johnny <apt...@cox.net> wrote:
>Sports Fan wrote:
>> Oh and not to mention that you are willing to put islam, a violent cult
>> and their hate and killing based so-called faith along with Christianity
>> that asks nothing from you except love in the same rank.
>>
>>
> Christianism is one of the most proselytizing religionisms in
>history, and one of the most violent, and I mean deadly violent.
That's because you are an ignorant person who cannot tell the difference
between the religion and the actions of some who claimed to be its
followers.
Here is how deadly is Christianity.
Matthew 5
3Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
6Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for
they shall be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of
God.
10Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and
shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without
a cause shall be in danger of the judgment
38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth
for a tooth:
39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let
him have thy cloak also.
41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee
turn not thou away.
43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
and hate thine enemy.
44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do
good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use
you, and persecute you;
45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he
maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on
the just and on the unjust.
Matthew 7
1Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Yeah, for the ignorant, the hater, the hypocrite, the confused like
yourself, it is a violent religion as seen in the above verses which are
the heart and sole of Christianity.
Yet ignorant people like you feel comfortable calling it violent based
on the actions of few who used religion for their agenda, and based on
your irrational hate and ignorance that prevent you from relying on
facts.
<More nonsense and rants snipped>
You need to go and read history a bit as you are showing your ignorance.
Crusades, while not of the Christian spirit,were a direct result of the
islamic invasions of the holy lands and demolishing and burning churches
and mass killings of Christians in Jerusalem and other areas of what is
today modern Israel.
I suggest reading:
> So don't come swaggering in here touting your self-proclaimed
>knowledge of religion and deprecating that of anyone who dares to tell
>the truth about that bloody cross you damned Christianistas like to wave
>at non-believers. The blood on that cross is not that of your venerated
>Messiah, it is the blood of the millions murdered in His name.
>
Who are you to tell me what I can say or not?
I was here even before you were here.
So if you don't like what I post, you have 2 choices, kill file me, or
take a hike, but either way, it won't matter, as you soon shall find out
why.
What people do in the name of religion is not what I am interested in,
and you are, as expected, an ignorant person to measure a religion by
the actions of few who claimed to be its followers.
Go look at the billions killed in the name of anti religion.
Go and look how hundreds of Christian Copts in Egypt and Iraqi
Christains, Christians in middle east and Eastern Europe are being
murdered on daily basis in the name of islam, atheism and others.
Most of you non-believers are nothing but hypocrites liars and fact
twisting your way out any argument and supporters of murderers while
claiming that you are against it.
Yeah, Christians and Christianity murdered all those 5 million plus Jews
in the Holocaust or the 1.5 Million plus Armenians in the Armenian
Genocide, and Christians started and continued World War I and II,
right?
I guess you also think that Christians dropped the 2 nuclear bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Christians flew those airplanes into the twin
towers, ...etc.
You don't like Christianity and whine and claim that it is violent?
They get ready for islam, as muslims are coming, whether you like it or
not, and I will then see you being crushed to death by them, as opposed
to Christians who leave ignorant non-believers like you to rant and rave
like this.
And if you say that they are not coming, I suggest that you buy yourself
a clue.
Watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU
You do know what muslims do to non-believers, right?
Good luck, you and your likes will need it.
Only then you will realize the value of Christianity and Christians, who
let people like you do whatever they want and you, like spoiled brat,
repay them back with your ignorance.
>> Shows how much you know of both.
>>
>
> And as for your "faith" bullshit, pay attention: All anyone needs
>to know about any religionism or religionism in general is that the
>supernatural exists only the human imagination. Period.
According to you, but we have established in the past that you are an
ignorant person and not that bright.
Have fun believing that you were evolved from monkeys.
Don't bother responding, as I had enough of your ignorance and
arrogance.
Have fun in my kill file, where you belong and should have been there
long time ago.
*PLONK*
Johnny
> God is ONE, and you claim that you were raised as Christian, yet do not
> understand its fundamentals.
>
>
>
of Abraham), existential being (Jesus of Nazareth) or metaphysical
concept (the Holy Spirit)? Some Christianist sects are trinitarian, some
are unitarian (three in one, or sometimes just one), and at least one,
Liberal Quakers (not Evangelist Quakers, they are more Evangelist than
true Quakers), recognize only the Spirit as divine and reject the
mainstream Christianist idea of sola scriptura, that the Bible is God's
written word and therefore self-authenticating, clear, and its own
interpreter, and consider the Bible's scriptures, opinions, religion,
and judgments to be subject to test and trial according to light of a
personal, individual spiritual force within every person, and not
according to any creed, formal theology, theologian, preacher, or
prophet. You would do well to study the Liberal (not the Conservative,
they are pretty much mainstream Evangelists disguised as Quakers)
Religious Society of Friends, for they grasp the true meaning of Christ,
even those who are not really Christians in the strict sense, and
include and welcome among their congregations even Atheists. I am an
Atheist, and the Liberal Religious Society of Friends, true Quakers, is
the one and only religion I have any respect for, and I have the highest
respect for them and their common sense religion.
> Yet again you seem to be confused and do not have facts to stand on.
> is 2000 years old.
>
>
At least one Christianist God made his first appearance in
Christianist mythology around 2000 years ago, although according to
Christianist mythology He was predicted earlier in Judeo-Christian
mythology as the Hebrew Messiah. Christianism was invented by Saul of
Tarsus (St. Paul to the Christianists) in the late 1st or early 2nd
century AD, and was created as an organized religion by the First
Council of Nicaea in AD 325.
> Oh yeah, the "We evolved from monkeys, baboons, ..etc" is very credible.
> I guess you believe that...
>
>
>
Well, anybody who thinks that Homo Sapiens evolved from any extant
species of the order Primates, including monkeys or apes, knows
absolutely zip about the evolution of the species. Humans have no
monkey or baboon ancestors, those are completely separate lines of
descent whose ancestors branched off many, many millions of years ago
from the line that led to modern Great Apes, of which H. sapiens is one
of six living species (the others are one species of Orangutan and two
species each of Gorillas and Chimpanzees - and, no, none of those
species evolved from any other of them, they all descended in separate
lines) and the most recent Ape ancestor of Humans went extinct a couple
of million years ago. The first Humans, Homo habilis, evolved from an
extinct African Ape, a species of Australopithecus, about 2 1/2 million
years ago.
That "monkey ancestry" talking point of anti-evolutionists is
unadulterated bullshit and anyone spouting it is either a total
ignoramus or knows better and is just a fucking liar trying to make
points with the total ignoramuses.
> so
> forget it boy,
>
>
Who're you callin' "boy," motherfucker? I've lived in neighborhoods
where that's a fighting word. And I think you know that, so that makes
your use if it nothing but fucking racial bigotry, a disease of the soul
that is quite common among Christianists, particularly the Evangelist
tribe. I don't know if you are a bigger ignoramus or a bigger asshole,
but you are certainly the giant size of both.
All you religionists of whatever faith need to peddle your apples
of immortality among your fellow ignoramuses, because the rationalists
and realists in my philosophical neighborhood aren't interested in your
delusions of life after death. You need to put your fear of dying
behind you and understand that when you die the electro-chemical
activity we call life stops, and the organic matter that is all we are,
ever were, or ever will be eventually returns to the elements of which
it is composed. No amount of faith in the supernatural will save you
from the unremitting natural evolutionary process of the Universe and
everything in it, including the miserable carbon-based organic life form
we call Humans.
With the possible exception of the Liberal Society of Friends,
which, strictly speaking, is not a true religion but more of a
metaphysical philosophy which considers Jesus to be more of a teacher
than the divinity that Christianists consider Him to be, religionism in
general, and Christianism in particular, rests on four pillars rising
from an imagined supernatural foundation: ignorance, superstition, fear
(mainly of dying), and guilt (imposed by charlatans for their own
selfish purposes). Therefore, all anyone really needs to know about
religion is that the supernatural exists only in the human imagination.
Period.
Johnny
> In article <UpzHn.12148$TL5....@newsfe24.iad>
> Johnny <apt...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Sports Fan wrote:
>>
>>> Oh and not to mention that you are willing to put islam, a violent cult
>>> and their hate and killing based so-called faith along with Christianity
>>> that asks nothing from you except love in the same rank.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Christianism is one of the most proselytizing religionisms in
>> history, and one of the most violent, and I mean deadly violent.
>>
>
> That's because you are an ignorant person who cannot tell the difference
> between the religion and the actions of some who claimed to be its
> followers.
>
>
Some? Who *claimed* to be Christians? We are talking about the
fucking Pope who promised Charlemagne a Holy Roman Empire if he
converted all Europe to Christianism if he had to kill half of the pagan
tribes to do it, and several later Popes who called for numerous
crusades with written orders to "kill infidels," and still later Popes
who called for the Inquisition to torture false confessions out of
anyone he accused of heresy (sorta like the Bush/Cheney dictatorship
ordering the torture of anyone they declared an "enemy combatant).
POPES, you imbecile. The fucking POPES. The infallible Vicars of Christ
Himself. Christ's one and only true representatives on earth.
Christianist numero fucking uno, you moron.
> Here is how deadly is Christianity.
>
>
> Matthew 5
>
>
> Matthew 7
>
>
>
> Yeah, for the ignorant, the hater, the hypocrite, the confused like
> yourself, it is a violent religion as seen in the above verses
>
>
Yeah, it's too bad the Popes mentioned above, and other
Christianists who to this very day consider themselves at war with the
religion which worships the same anthropomorphic deity they do but
disagree about who is His true prophet, didn't read more of the New
Testament's gentle, peaceful God of kindness and forgiveness, and less
of the angry, jealous, vengeful God of the Old Testament.
BTW, is it true, as I have often heard, that Satan can quote scripture
better than any theologian?
> You need to go and read history a bit as you are showing your ignorance.
> Crusades, while not of the Christian spirit,were a direct result of the
> islamic invasions of the holy lands and demolishing and burning churches
> and mass killings of Christians in Jerusalem and other areas of what is
> today modern Israel.
>
>
>
That is Christianist propaganda as history. The Crusades were
political wars to secure the Levant for the West when the fading
Byzantine Empire which was the caretaker of the holy places there was in
danger of losing it to the emerging Russian Empire. The Moslems, as
Muslims was then spelled, were actually quite tolerant of Jews and
Christians living in the Holy Land, including Jerusalem, and pilgrimages
were in no danger. In fact, when the first crusaders took Jerusalem
they indiscriminately killed Moslems, Jews, and Christians living
there. You are the one who needs a history lesson. I have a dual B.A.,
cum laude, in Political Science and History, including several courses
in religion and comparative religion, and have forgotten more religious
history than you have ever learned from your Christianist propaganda
sources.
And the only reason Evangelist Christianists give a shit about
modern Israel is because they need the Jews to be there for the second
coming and the end times so they can all go to their imaginary heaven
and laze around forever in a state of somnambulistic bliss.
>
>
>> So don't come swaggering in here touting your self-proclaimed
>> knowledge of religion and deprecating that of anyone who dares to tell
>> the truth about that bloody cross you damned Christianistas like to wave
>> at non-believers. The blood on that cross is not that of your venerated
>> Messiah, it is the blood of the millions murdered in His name.
>>
>>
>
> Who are you to tell me what I can say or not?
> I was here even before you were here.
> So if you don't like what I post, you have 2 choices, kill file me, or
> take a hike, but either way, it won't matter, as you soon shall find out
> why.
>
>
Huh? What is this alleged right of seniority you dragged out of
your ass and who established its validity? It's not that I don't "like"
your posts, moron, it's that they are stupid, and I don't mean ignorant.
We are all ignorant, only about different things. Ignorance is merely a
lack of information. Stupidity is a refusal to learn, and you are stupid.
And I'll tell you any damned thing I please and there is nothing you
can do about it because your killfile bullshit is nothing but the
commonplace empty threat of the totally mindfucked.
> What people do in the name of religion is not what I am interested in,
> and you are, as expected, an ignorant person to measure a religion by
> the actions of few who claimed to be its followers.
>
>
A *few* who *claim* . . . ? I repeat:
Some? Who *claimed* to be Christians? We are talking about the
fucking Pope who promised Charlemagne a Holy Roman Empire if he
converted all Europe to Christianism if he had to kill half of the pagan
tribes to do it, and several later Popes who called for numerous
crusades with written orders to "kill infidels," and still later Popes
who called for the Inquisition to torture false confessions out of
anyone he accused of heresy (sorta like the Bush/Cheney dictatorship
ordering the torture of anyone they declared an "enemy combatant).
POPES, you imbecile. The fucking POPES. The infallible Vicars of Christ
Himself. Christ's one and only true representatives on earth.
Christianist numero fucking uno, you moron.
> Go look at the billions killed in the name of anti religion.
>
>
Billions? anti-religion? Incredibly hyperbolic nonsense. You
cannot be serious.
> Go and look how hundreds of Christian Copts in Egypt and Iraqi
> Christains, Christians in middle east and Eastern Europe are being
> murdered on daily basis in the name of islam, atheism and others.
>
>
More unbelievably hyperbolic nonsense. Hundreds murdered daily?
And "in the name of . . . *atheism* and *others*" is truly pulled out of
your ass. You are totally bugfucking crazy talking like that. Besides,
the biggest killers in the Middle East in the last 60 years have been
the Israelis killing Palestinians. The biggest killers in Iraq in the
last ten years has been the U.S. military. As for Eastern Europe, the
biggest killers there lately have been Russians killing Chechnyans and
Georgians.
Oh, BTW, NATO had to intervene twice in the Balkans in the '90s to
keep Christianist Slavs from genociding Muslim Slavs. NATO - mostly us,
the good old "Christianist" U.S.A. killing Christianists to stop them
from killing Muslims. How did you bible-thumpers feel about that twist
on your beloved dogma of Christianism good, Islam bad?
> Yeah, Christians and Christianity murdered all those 5 million plus Jews
> in the Holocaust or the 1.5 Million plus Armenians in the Armenian
> Genocide, and Christians started and continued World War I and II,
> right?
>
Well, of course not, duh. Hitler vaguely claimed Christianism as
one of several excuses, but that was as much bullshit as all his other
excuses. What is that, a trick question of some kind or the attempt of
your feeble mind to be cleverly sarcastic? I can't remember anybody
seriously claiming that Hitler was waging a holy war in the name of
Christianism. His shtick wasn't religion, it was ethnicity. You
remember, don't you: the master race, Aryanism, �bermensch vs. the
sub-human Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs? (Coincidentally and ironically,
those three were also singled out for killing by the first crusaders on
the Pope's orders on the way to the Holy Land, remember?) And I don't
recall anybody claiming that the Armenian genocide was committed by
anyone other than Turkish Muslims. And I don't recall anybody claiming
that WWI or WWII was a religious war perpetrated by Christianists. You
are pulling this shit entirely out of your ass. Straw men to end all
straw men. Every word of that screech is false and you know it, and no
rational person has ever claimed that it is true, and you know that
too. Glenn Beck would be proud of that artifice.
I repeat, you must be bugfucking crazy to be talking like this.
> I guess you also think that Christians dropped the 2 nuclear bombs on
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Christians flew those airplanes into the twin
> towers, ...etc.
>
>
>
Well, as a matter of fact, Christianists did drop the A-Bombs on the
orders of a Christianist, but religion was a mere coincidence that had
nothing to do with the decision or its execution, and you damned well
know it. You also damned well know better than to think anyone ever
suggested that the Arabs who attacked on 9/11 were Christianists. This
is all just more moronic bugfucked raving about made up shit that has
nothing to do with anything. Man, I mean it: you are fucking talking
like someone who has lost touch with reality. That is commonly known as
being nuts. I am serious. You are sick in the head if you believe any
of that bullshit makes any point whatsoever. You are just tossing
irrelevant and wholly unsubstantiated, unsustainable, and
unfuckingbelievable insulting lies to the wind and hoping they blow
someone else's way.
> You don't like Christianity and whine and claim that it is violent?
> They get ready for islam, as muslims are coming, whether you like it or
> not, and I will then see you being crushed to death by them, as opposed
> to Christians who leave ignorant non-believers like you to rant and rave
> like this.
>
I'm ranting and raving? Do you read what you are posting? You talk
like a man with a paper hat. Are you so threatened by criticism of your
make-believe religionism fantasies that you lose the handle to reality?
Are you so emotionally committed to your fantastical dreams of eternal
life in some imaginary paradise and so afraid of your nightmares of an
endless stay in the infernal regions that you really, truly believe that
the supernatural figments of human imagination can physically interact
with the natural world? You are fucking crazy.
> And if you say that they are not coming, I suggest that you buy yourself
> a clue.
>
> Watch this.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU
>
>
> You do know what muslims do to non-believers, right?
> Good luck, you and your likes will need it.
>
> Only then you will realize the value of Christianity and Christians, who
> let people like you do whatever they want and you, like spoiled brat,
> repay them back with your ignorance.
>
>
>
"Be afraid, be very afraid. The bad guys are coming to get you.
They are going to kill you because they hate your freedoms. Our only
chance for the survival of Mom, the Flag, Apple Pie, and the good old
American Christian way is to go over there and kill as many as we can
before they can get over here and start killing our wives, children, and
poor old gray-haired grannies." Now where I have I heard that crap
before? Well, hotshot, I've got news for you and it's all bad. You can
let your priests and pundits and political masters scare you and use
your fear of death, threats of hell, and hopes of paradise to control
you, but nobody can scare me. I do not take counsel of my fears, I
control them using knowledge, reason, and just plain common sense. My
courage is not infected by ignorance and superstition. Just because you
are easily frightened does not mean that you can easily frighten others
unless they are as ignorant and batshit crazy as you. Why, you are
nothing but a damned coward. You are a fucking fraidy cat. A
chickenshit. You've got crap in your blood and leave a trail of yellow
behind you like a slime mold. You are a gutless weakling. You let a
few nutcases who got lucky and killed a few thousand people make you so
afraid that you want to kill the entire population of one of the largest
religions on the planet. That is just plain NUTS.
>>> Shows how much you know of both.
>>>
>>>
>> And as for your "faith" bullshit, pay attention: All anyone needs
>> to know about any religionism or religionism in general is that the
>> supernatural exists only the human imagination. Period.
>>
>
> According to you, but we have established in the past that you are an
> ignorant person and not that bright.
>
>
Yeah, that's it, alright. I better go right out and give back my
college history, political science, and law degrees. I am just
disgracing them trying to have a rational conversation with a fool like you.
> Have fun believing that you were evolved from monkeys.
>
>
Yeah, it's those damned monkeys again. We should have stayed up in
the trees with them where we belonged instead of trying to rise above
our ignorance and fears and start thinking beyond the end of our
stinking breath.
> Don't bother responding, as I had enough of your ignorance and
> arrogance.
>
>
I know how you feel. Frustrating, ain't it?
> Have fun in my kill file, where you belong and should have been there
> long time ago.
>
> *PLONK*
>
You won't put me on ignore. You're a four-flushing, tinhorn
bluffer. You're a big hat and no cattle, shiny spurs and no horse, fast
draw and no bullets. You are as phony as your religion. You are truly
an idiot, and getting your panties in a twist and frothing at the mouth
like a lunatic is just going to harm your health, so you really need to
lighten up with the religious crap and get centered and balanced. We
are all born to die, so get over it.
Terraholm
> Sports Fan wrote:
> there. You are the one who needs a history lesson. I have a dual B.A.,
> cum laude, in Political Science and History, including several courses
> in religion and comparative religion, and have forgotten more religious
> history than you have ever learned from your Christianist propaganda
> sources.
SF and his family were driven from their country whose Muslim culture
had turned to letting radicals kill Christians in the street for sport.
A generation before that his family was driven from another muslin
nation by the genocide and exile of his Christian ethnic group...
I am an atheist too, but I totally respect the part of religion that
gives strength to survive such horrible events.
And then the Muslim country SF left was invaded by a 'christian country'
who president claimed god told him to...
It is not the religions, it is the cultures that abuses them as
justifications for war and violence .
--
Laurel T
"The lives of cadis, scholars, shaykhs, Alids,
and Nestorian priests, and persons who do not
combat against us are safe from us."
Hulagu Khan's arrow message at the sack of Baghdad
Johnny
> Johnny wrote:
>> Sports Fan wrote:
>
>> there. You are the one who needs a history lesson. I have a dual
>> B.A., cum laude, in Political Science and History, including several
>> courses in religion and comparative religion, and have forgotten more
>> religious history than you have ever learned from your Christianist
>> propaganda sources.
>
>
> SF and his family were driven from their country whose Muslim culture
> had turned to letting radicals kill Christians in the street for sport.
> A generation before that his family was driven from another muslin
> nation by the genocide and exile of his Christian ethnic group...
>
> I am an atheist too, but I totally respect the part of religion that
> gives strength to survive such horrible events.
>
>
> And then the Muslim country SF left was invaded by a 'christian
> country' who president claimed god told him to...
>
> It is not the religions, it is the cultures that abuses them as
> justifications for war and violence .
>
I stand corrected.
Terraholm
Just giving you some background to see his perspective.
--
Laurel T
The United States of America have exhibited,
perhaps, the first example of governments
erected on the simple principles of nature....
[In] the formation of the American governments ...
it will never be pretended that any persons employed
in that service had interviews with the gods,
or were in any degree under the influence of heaven....
These governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
-- John Adams
bozak
> Johnny wrote:
>> Terraholm wrote:
>>> Johnny wrote:
>>>> Sports Fan wrote:
>>>
>>>> You are the one who needs a history lesson. I have a dual
>>>> B.A., cum laude, in Political Science and History, including several
>>>> courses in religion and comparative religion, and have forgotten more
>>>> religious history than you have ever learned from your Christianist
>>>> propaganda sources.
>>>
>>>
>>> SF and his family were driven from their country whose Muslim culture
>>> had turned to letting radicals kill Christians in the street for sport.
>>> A generation before that his family was driven from another muslin
>>> nation by the genocide and exile of his Christian ethnic group...
>>>
>>> I am an atheist too, but I totally respect the part of religion that
>>> gives strength to survive such horrible events.
>>>
>>>
>>> And then the Muslim country SF left was invaded by a 'christian
>>> country' who president claimed god told him to...
>>>
>>> It is not the religions, it is the cultures that abuses them as
>>> justifications for war and violence.
>>>
>>
>> I stand corrected.
>
> Just giving you some background to see his perspective.
his perspective should be religionistas are nutbars... no matter the religion...
insane or duped, neither is a good trait...
Terraholm
It is the culture not the religion. If not religion for an excuse some
other rationalization is used. The experiments in artiest governments
were no better.
bozak
culture is another form of religion imo... i was born ten thousand years to early...
we are in the early stages of assimilating into what we will finally become...
its a pity i wont be here to see my beige universe...
well, provided man doesnt do something stoooooooooooopid like untap an oil
source and not have a fucking idea of how to fix it and contaminates the planet
and kills us all... :-(
Terraholm
> Terraholm wrote:
>> It is the culture not the religion. If not religion for an excuse some
>> other rationalization is used. The experiments in athiest governments
>> were no better.
>
> culture is another form of religion imo...
ahhhh...Huh?
i was born ten thousand years to early...
> we are in the early stages of assimilating into what we will finally become...
>
> its a pity i wont be here to see my beige universe...
>
> well, provided man doesnt do something stoooooooooooopid like untap an oil
> source and not have a fucking idea of how to fix it and contaminates the planet
> and kills us all... :-(
Or yellowstone blows
bozak
> bozak wrote:
>> Terraholm wrote:
>
>>> It is the culture not the religion. If not religion for an excuse some
>>> other rationalization is used. The experiments in athiest governments
>>> were no better.
>>
>> culture is another form of religion imo...
>
> ahhhh...Huh?
take sagging for instance... when i grew up pretty much the only people who wore
sagging pants were either in the bloods or the crips... now damn near every wanna be
kid from the burbs to the hood are wearing sagging pants... its like a friggin religious
experience for some of these clowns...
in search of cool is just as much a religion to me as being in search of jesus...
it either exists or it doesnt... if you have to do something to be cool you arent,
if you think you are going to find your way into the farce known as heaven by
chasing jesus, that pretty much unlikely as well, to put it as nice as i can...
>
> i was born ten thousand years to early...
>> we are in the early stages of assimilating into what we will finally become...
>>
>> its a pity i wont be here to see my beige universe...
>>
>> well, provided man doesnt do something stoooooooooooopid like untap an oil
>> source and not have a fucking idea of how to fix it and contaminates the planet
>> and kills us all... :-(
>
> Or yellowstone blows
my money is on man fucking up nature before nature fucks up man...
although nature will last no matter what, not the case with man... :-(
Terraholm
> Terraholm wrote:
>> bozak wrote:
>>> Terraholm wrote:
>>>> It is the culture not the religion. If not religion for an excuse some
>>>> other rationalization is used. The experiments in athiest governments
>>>> were no better.
>>> culture is another form of religion imo...
>> ahhhh...Huh?
>
> take sagging for instance... when i grew up pretty much the only people who wore
> sagging pants were either in the bloods or the crips... now damn near every wanna be
> kid from the burbs to the hood are wearing sagging pants... its like a friggin religious
> experience for some of these clowns...
Culture is merely a description of whatever exists in human society that
ties a group together or the subcultures within that group.
The various subcultures of the same religion rationalized it to invade
countries, for genocide of the Jews, subculture sects to fight each
other in Ireland also is a large part of the cultures that refuse
violence as a solution like the Amish or were victimized.
It is theocracy gained by religious radicals like the taliban or more
often the ones in power that use them where the real danger lies.
The counties involved have for the most part over the centuries returned
to a secular society. Including Iraq several times.
>
>>> well, provided man doesnt do something stoooooooooooopid like untap an oil
>>> source and not have a fucking idea of how to fix it and contaminates the planet
>>> and kills us all... :-(
>> Or yellowstone blows
>
> my money is on man fucking up nature before nature fucks up man...
Oh we have already been there big scale, creating deserts and changing
the earths rotation... and small... turning wolves into Pekingese for
instance... ;-/
>
> although nature will last no matter what, not the case with man... :-(
Exactly... earth will not care what dies when the sun does if there is
not total extinction long before that.
bozak
> bozak wrote:
>> Terraholm wrote:
>>> bozak wrote:
>>>> Terraholm wrote:
>>>>> It is the culture not the religion. If not religion for an excuse some
>>>>> other rationalization is used. The experiments in athiest governments
>>>>> were no better.
>>>> culture is another form of religion imo...
>
>>> ahhhh...Huh?
>>
>> take sagging for instance... when i grew up pretty much the only people who wore
>> sagging pants were either in the bloods or the crips... now damn near every wanna be
>> kid from the burbs to the hood are wearing sagging pants... its like a friggin religious
>> experience for some of these clowns...
>
> Culture is merely a description of whatever exists in human society that
> ties a group together or the subcultures within that group.
exactly... sagging pants, ear rings, and thuggery was part of a gang culture...
Johnny
> Johnny wrote:
>>
>>
>> I stand corrected.
>
> Just giving you some background to see his perspective.
>
I said I stand corrected. I did not argue with you about it. Do
you want to let it go at that or not?
Johnny
> Terraholm wrote:
>
>> bozak wrote:
>>
>>> Terraholm wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is the culture not the religion. If not religion for an excuse some
>>>> other rationalization is used. The experiments in athiest governments
>>>> were no better.
>>>>
>>> culture is another form of religion imo...
>>>
>> ahhhh...Huh?
>>
>
> take sagging for instance... when i grew up pretty much the only people who wore
> sagging pants were either in the bloods or the crips... now damn near every wanna be
> kid from the burbs to the hood are wearing sagging pants... its like a friggin religious
> experience for some of these clowns...
>
> in search of cool is just as much a religion to me as being in search of jesus...
>
>
Bingo! I saw the same thing in a different style in my generation
(pre baby boom) involving Mexican-American punk gangsters called
Pachucos (who were pretty bad hombres, btw). Pretty soon the White,
Middle Class kids were sporting black peggers, pointed-toe shoes,
tattooed crosses between the thumb and forefinger, Catholic religious
icons (whether they were Catholic or not), high pompadour duck tailed
hair (many dyed their hair black, too. Elvis Presley's early hair style
was Pachuco influenced.), stiletto switchblades (which they had neither
the skill nor the guts to use), talking the Tex-Mex slang, etc. The
real bad asses just laughed at them.
Terraholm
I was not correcting you.
Johnny
Sigh. I guess not, but I'm going to leave it alone anyway. See you around.
Sports Fan
Terraholm <terrahol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Johnny wrote:
>> Sports Fan wrote:
>
>> there. You are the one who needs a history lesson. I have a dual B.A.,
>> cum laude, in Political Science and History, including several courses
>> in religion and comparative religion, and have forgotten more religious
>> history than you have ever learned from your Christianist propaganda
>> sources.
I don't care what you claim that you have of any credentials.
When you attack a religion without knowing its basics and then blame it
for the actions of few who used it as an excuse, you lose all
credibility.
Which is why you are now in my kill file, enjoy being an ignorant hater.
>SF and his family were driven from their country whose Muslim culture
>had turned to letting radicals kill Christians in the street for sport.
>A generation before that his family was driven from another muslin
>nation by the genocide and exile of his Christian ethnic group...
True.
All in the name of islam and selectively killing Christians.
>I am an atheist too, but I totally respect the part of religion that
>gives strength to survive such horrible events.
>
>
>And then the Muslim country SF left was invaded by a 'christian country'
>who president claimed god told him to...
>
>It is not the religions, it is the cultures that abuses them as
>justifications for war and violence .
True.
Thanks for being reasonable.
I have no problem with anyone's belief or disbelief, in fact lots of my
friends, close ones are atheists, never had any problem with them as we
agree to disagree respectfully, but the likes of Johnny attack out of
pure hatred based on ignorance, and $Bills falls into that category too.
Terraholm
> In article <859c7c...@mid.individual.net>
> Terraholm <terrahol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> SF and his family were driven from their country whose Muslim culture
>> had turned to letting radicals kill Christians in the street for sport.
>> A generation before that his family was driven from another muslin
>> nation by the genocide and exile of his Christian ethnic group...
>
> True.
> All in the name of islam and selectively killing Christians.
>
>> I am an atheist too, but I totally respect the part of religion that
>> gives strength to survive such horrible events.
>>
>>
>> And then the Muslim country SF left was invaded by a 'christian country'
>> who president claimed god told him to...
>>
>> It is not the religions, it is the cultures that abuses them as
>> justifications for war and violence .
>
> True.
> Thanks for being reasonable.
A line from "40 days at Musa Dagh"
"The sporadic flames of past religious hatred had been skillfully fanned
into the cold, steady flare of nationalism"
That sums up the reason for a multitude of the world's wars,
insurrections and mass murders...
True for the very secular Iraq I am sure.
I am about a third of the way though the book. Been too busy at work to
read much lately. And with reading a book written before other
entertainment it is wordy. Like my mother once described Ben Hur. "Two
men meet in the desert and it takes three pages to describe their
sandals". I remember the first time I read it, while I was in junior
high, I kept looking for that exact scene not knowing she was
exaggerating.
>
> I have no problem with anyone's belief or disbelief, in fact lots of my
> friends, close ones are atheists, never had any problem with them as we
> agree to disagree respectfully,
Has not been long in America where people could dare to admit to being
an atheist. That is a minority that still can not get elected to the
higher offices. There have been a couple of congressmen but they got
elected long before "coming out". Peke Stark was the first a couple of
years ago but is pushing 80 and has been serving for about 4 decades.
>but the likes of Johnny attack out of
> pure hatred based on ignorance, and $Bills falls into that category too.
Johnny is not ignorant, often just trolling. I sometimes wonder if he
used the same style arguing cases in court...nah..
On Bill you are right. He is a bigot on everything from Arabs to
Microsoft. In Bill's world there is never more than one way to do
anything right. =)
Sports Fan
Terraholm <terrahol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>A line from "40 days at Musa Dagh"
>
>"The sporadic flames of past religious hatred had been skillfully fanned
>into the cold, steady flare of nationalism"
>
>That sums up the reason for a multitude of the world's wars,
>insurrections and mass murders...
>True for the very secular Iraq I am sure.
>
>
>I am about a third of the way though the book. Been too busy at work to
>read much lately. And with reading a book written before other
>entertainment it is wordy. Like my mother once described Ben Hur. "Two
>men meet in the desert and it takes three pages to describe their
>sandals". I remember the first time I read it, while I was in junior
>high, I kept looking for that exact scene not knowing she was
>exaggerating.
If my father was alive, he would have personally thanked you for reading
this book.
He was a genocide survivor and my grandmother (step grandmother)
witnessed her own husband and four children slaughter in front of her
while they were rounding women up in her village to rape and kill them,
she managed somehow to escape taking her close relative and started a
long journey walking all the way to Deir al-Zur in Syria on her feet,
while her cousin died during this horrible trip.
It was there after a year or so, she married my grandfather (a genocide
survivor himself along with his children, my father included) who needed
a wife to look after his children since my grandmother was sick and
didn't survive the evacuation and deportation from Musa Dagh.
She always used to cry for hours remembering her murdered children and
could never stand seeing a turk on TV.
My father always had the 40 Days Of Musa Dagh book with him along with
"Ambassador Morgenthau's Story" by Henry Morgenthau, Sr. the American
Ambassador to Turkey, 1913-1916 who was an eye witness for what happened
there and the US government did not pay attention to his warnings of
what was happening at that time until it was late.
>Johnny is not ignorant, often just trolling. I sometimes wonder if he
>used the same style arguing cases in court...nah..
Well, he sure holds lots of anger and hate.
If he is as knowledgeable as he claims, he should learn to find facts
and not blame the religion on the actions of the some who claim to be
its followers.
>On Bill you are right. He is a bigot on everything from Arabs to
>Microsoft. In Bill's world there is never more than one way to do
>anything right. =)
While I disagree with Bill's views on religion, which I agree with you
him being a bigot in that, I don't have a problem with him otherwise.
We are all humans, everyone of us have his or her flaws.
Johnny
{([Shhh. Ixnay on the olltray ingthay.])} Half of a
closing argument in a trial is presentation. Judges have
heard the same arguments over and over and get bored if you
don't keep their attention. Jurors get bored because most
trials are boring, and average jurors have been exposed to
so much courtroom melodrama in the popular media that they
are disappointed if you don't toss in some flamboyance.
Especially in criminal cases, where the judge will give you
a lot of room. The classic in the O.J. trial, "If the glove
don't fit, you must acquit," was pure theater.
mayner
wrote:
But you, and many other religionists, are bigoted towards agnostics
and atheists.
'splain that, Lucy!
And regarding Johnny, he just got done reciting his curriculum vitae
and you, apparently, didn't even read it. I do not doubt at all his
assertion he studied religion in college. Why do you dismiss it? Have
you ever even entertained the notion that there may be no god/gods or
a hereafter?
Just askin' ;-)
Dewey
news:9s5ov59b600f82lvl...@4ax.com:
This thread serves as a timely reminder that Osama bin Laden does not
believe in Evolution.
--
"You are, number 6"
- The New Number 2
Terraholm
> In article <862af3...@mid.individual.net>
> Terraholm <terrahol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> A line from "40 days at Musa Dagh"
>>
>> "The sporadic flames of past religious hatred had been skillfully fanned
>> into the cold, steady flare of nationalism"
>>
>> That sums up the reason for a multitude of the world's wars,
>> insurrections and mass murders...
>> True for the very secular Iraq I am sure.
>>
>>
>> I am about a third of the way though the book. Been too busy at work to
>> read much lately. And with reading a book written before other
>> entertainment it is wordy. Like my mother once described Ben Hur. "Two
>> men meet in the desert and it takes three pages to describe their
>> sandals". I remember the first time I read it, while I was in junior
>> high, I kept looking for that exact scene not knowing she was
>> exaggerating.
>
> If my father was alive, he would have personally thanked you for reading
> this book.
I thank you for pointing me to it. Besides being a very good read, it is
a part of the turkish genocide story I had not even heard about. Too bad
the attempts to make a good movie have been blocked.
I am going to watch the old movie, it is posted on youtube in 7 parts,
but not until after I finish the book.
I am very glad this all came up again and I was able to straighten out
the context in that long ago post...
>
> He was a genocide survivor and my grandmother (step grandmother)
> witnessed her own husband and four children slaughter in front of her
> while they were rounding women up in her village to rape and kill them,
> she managed somehow to escape taking her close relative and started a
> long journey walking all the way to Deir al-Zur in Syria on her feet,
> while her cousin died during this horrible trip.
> It was there after a year or so, she married my grandfather (a genocide
> survivor himself along with his children, my father included) who needed
> a wife to look after his children since my grandmother was sick and
> didn't survive the evacuation and deportation from Musa Dagh.
>
> She always used to cry for hours remembering her murdered children and
> could never stand seeing a turk on TV.
>
> My father always had the 40 Days Of Musa Dagh book with him along with
> "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story" by Henry Morgenthau, Sr. the American
> Ambassador to Turkey, 1913-1916 who was an eye witness for what happened
> there and the US government did not pay attention to his warnings of
> what was happening at that time until it was late.
>
A history lesson for all of us. That it is still going on at some levels
in Turkey and the US siding with Turkey over the Kurds also, is an
ongoing outrage. The one hope I had for the Iraq war was that the
largest ethnic group with no country would get what was left of their
homeland. I worry that remaining part of Iraq just sets up other civil
war down the road.
Laurel T
"The lives of cadis, scholars, shaykhs, Alids,
and Nestorian priests, and persons who do not
combat against us are safe from us."
Hulagu Khan's arrow message at the sack of Baghdad
"Our military operations have as their object
defeat of the enemy and the driving of him
from these territories. In order to complete
this task, I am charged with absolute and
supreme control ...but our armies do not come
into your cities and lands as conquerors
or enemies, but as liberators
...F.S. Maude, British governor of Iraq on March 19, 1917
The United States finds the present Iranian
regime's intransigent refusal to deviate
from its avowed objective of eliminating
the legitimate government of neighboring
Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms
of behavior among nations."
...State Department spokesman
John Hughes, March 5th 1984
"Bring them on."
George W. Bush
Terraholm
> Terraholm wrote:
>
>> Johnny is not ignorant, often just trolling. I sometimes wonder if he
>> used the same style arguing cases in court...nah..
>>
>
> {([Shhh. Ixnay on the olltray ingthay.])} Half of a closing
> argument in a trial is presentation. Judges have heard the same
> arguments over and over and get bored if you don't keep their
> attention. Jurors get bored because most trials are boring, and average
> jurors have been exposed to so much courtroom melodrama in the popular
> media that they are disappointed if you don't toss in some flamboyance.
> Especially in criminal cases, where the judge will give you a lot of
> room. The classic in the O.J. trial, "If the glove don't fit, you must
> acquit," was pure theater.
Reminds me of another Mencken Quote:
The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in jail; if it
were not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence.
Johnny
Just for the record, I took 3 courses on religion. Two as
part of my history major: A History of Christianity
(including sections on historicity and historiography) and
a Comparative Religion course comparing and contrasting
several major ancient mythologies, including
Judeo-Christianity; and one in my philosophy minor: a
Philosophy of Religion course focusing on Western religions
past and present as philosophies rather than mythologies.
Of course, religion has been a major player throughout
history, so I encountered various aspects of its role in a
number of courses including history, sociology, cultural
anthropology, and literature courses.
Dewey
news:U6WKn.40527$wV.2...@newsfe11.iad:
>
> Just for the record, I took 3 courses on religion. Two as
> part of my history major: A History of Christianity
> (including sections on historicity and historiography) and
> a Comparative Religion course comparing and contrasting
> several major ancient mythologies, including
> Judeo-Christianity; and one in my philosophy minor: a
> Philosophy of Religion course focusing on Western religions
> past and present as philosophies rather than mythologies.
> Of course, religion has been a major player throughout
> history, so I encountered various aspects of its role in a
> number of courses including history, sociology, cultural
> anthropology, and literature courses.
>
I took Comparative Theology in college - covered everything from pre-
Judeo polytheism to gnosticism, Christianity and Islam. Also covered
non-Abrahamic religions like Buddhism and Hinduism. Barely touched on
Shito however.
Sports Fan
mayner <jeffm...@USCNumberOne.com> wrote:
>
>But you, and many other religionists, are bigoted towards agnostics
>and atheists.
>
> 'splain that, Lucy!
Well, Lucy, can you point to me a SINGLE instance where I showed bigotry
towards anyone here or in real life?
Did you read what you just replied to?
Obviously not.
I just said, right in this thread, that many of my close friends are
atheists and we have no problem as we agree to disagree respectfully.
And right in the post that you replied to, Lucy, I said:
"We are all humans, everyone of us have his or her flaws."
So how did this make me " bigoted towards agnostics and atheists"?
So I guess you don't read what you reply to and just post sweeping
generalizations like this.
I don't care if you came across few who pretend to be following a
religion and then you base your hate for that religion on the actions of
these people.
Have you even noticed that this whole thing started when your fellow
atheist $Bill attached Christianity while the thread started by a muslim
promoting his own religion and there was nothing Christians or
Christianity did here?
But $Bill felt comfortable turning it into one of his usual boring anti
Christianity rants.
Funny, I don't see you going after him for that.
Could it be because you have double standards?
Nah, it is too obvious. ;-)
>And regarding Johnny, he just got done reciting his curriculum vitae
>and you, apparently, didn't even read it. I do not doubt at all his
>assertion he studied religion in college. Why do you dismiss it?
He is in my kill file.
That is why I don't see his garbage or claims.
Next time before you jump into a thread, read in it a bit.
If he had studied religion as he claimed then he would have known its
basics, which he is missing.
His claims of studying religion in college is as credible as Bush's
claim of God speaking to him.
>Have you ever even entertained the notion that there may be no god/gods or
>a hereafter?
>
>Just askin' ;-)
Have you entertained the opposite?
Just asking. ;-)
Sports Fan
Terraholm <terrahol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I thank you for pointing me to it. Besides being a very good read, it is
>a part of the turkish genocide story I had not even heard about. Too bad
>the attempts to make a good movie have been blocked.
>I am going to watch the old movie, it is posted on youtube in 7 parts,
>but not until after I finish the book.
>
I haven't see the movie so far, but from what I heard, it is not that
good.
I'll make an attempt to get my hands on a copy of it.
>I am very glad this all came up again and I was able to straighten out
>the context in that long ago post...
No problem, misunderstandings happen.
Thank you.
Terraholm
> In article <862ne2...@mid.individual.net>
> Terraholm <terrahol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I thank you for pointing me to it. Besides being a very good read, it is
>> a part of the turkish genocide story I had not even heard about. Too bad
>> the attempts to make a good movie have been blocked.
>> I am going to watch the old movie, it is posted on youtube in 7 parts,
>> but not until after I finish the book.
>>
>
> I haven't see the movie so far, but from what I heard, it is not that
> good.
> I'll make an attempt to get my hands on a copy of it.
>
The guy's You Tube channel seems to have 2 different movies, each
uploaded in 7 parts.
$Bill
Geez, a bit of stretch there. I despise all religions - not the ignorant
believers in such. And the only thing I said about Arabs is there are
a lot of ugly ones (much like I said about the inbred ridge runners) and
I believe for the same reason. All that is relative to the current
ideal of good looks of course and all that coming from a fellow atheist. :)
Next thing you know, you won't be able to say Bush is a faggot without
getting pounded for it.
And you're right about M$ - corporate thieves they are. :)
> While I disagree with Bill's views on religion, which I agree with you
> him being a bigot in that, I don't have a problem with him otherwise.
> We are all humans, everyone of us have his or her flaws.
I don't have a problem being called a bigot, since it means nothing
more than zealously attached to a belief/opinion. I contend you are
also a bigot using that same definition.
$Bill
> In Bill's world there is never more than one way to do
> anything right. =)
Yet I do most of my programming in a language whose motto is:
"There's more than one way to do it."
$Bill
>
> Have you even noticed that this whole thing started when your fellow
> atheist $Bill attached Christianity while the thread started by a muslim
> promoting his own religion and there was nothing Christians or
> Christianity did here?
> But $Bill felt comfortable turning it into one of his usual boring anti
> Christianity rants.
You missed my point - it wasn't just an anti-christian rant, it was
equally an anti-muslim rant. All religions deserve some ranting as
you put it - we've been forced to put up with religious proselytizing
for centuries. It's time we came out of the dark ages and forget
about ghosts, spirits, hobgoblins, magic, gods and all things
supernatural and looked at things with an open/logical mind.
Current 'believers' have dismissed the prior beliefs in Ra, Thor,
Zeus, etc and found them to be false and attached themselves to yet
another baseless belief in JC/Allah/etc. All they did was upgrade
to a newer premise instead of asking why should I listen to what
my parents/teachers are telling me instead of what is logical.
It's time for the next religious revolution into logic.
Time for the logical/practical atheists to start proselytizing a
bit now isn't it - I think it's our turn to try to shed some light
on the insanity of religious belief.
Terraholm
>
> I don't have a problem being called a bigot, since it means nothing
> more than zealously attached to a belief/opinion.
Gee Bill you do not even know the meaning of the word?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own
opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the
members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/bigot
Bigot \Big"ot\, n. [F. bigot a bigot or hypocrite, a name once
given to the Normans in France. Of unknown origin; possibly
akin to Sp. bigote a whisker; hombre de bigote a man of
spirit and vigor; cf. It. s-bigottire to terrify, to appall.
Wedgwood and others maintain that bigot is from the same
source as Beguine, Beghard.]
[1913 Webster]
1. A hypocrite; esp., a superstitious hypocrite. [Obs.]
[1913 Webster]
2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of
religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or
opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable
or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is
intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in
politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to
his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
[1913 Webster]
bigot - Jargon File (4.4.4, 14 Aug 2003) :
bigot
n.
[common] A person who is religiously attached to a particular
computer, language, operating system, editor, or other tool (see
religious issues). Usually found with a specifier; thus, Cray
bigot,
ITS bigot, APL bigot, VMS bigot, Berkeley bigot. Real bigots can be
distinguished from mere partisans or zealots by the fact that they
refuse to learn alternatives even when the march of time and/or
technology is threatening to obsolete the favored tool. It is truly
said "You can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much."
Sports Fan
Sports Fan
"$Bill" <ne...@SPAMOLAtodbe.com> wrote:
>> While I disagree with Bill's views on religion, which I agree with you
>> him being a bigot in that, I don't have a problem with him otherwise.
>> We are all humans, everyone of us have his or her flaws.
>
>I don't have a problem being called a bigot, since it means nothing
>more than zealously attached to a belief/opinion. I contend you are
>also a bigot using that same definition.
If it makes you happy.
I am not a bigot, never was, never will.
If you want to call me a bigot just because I am Christian then you
prove that you are the bigot, just like what was said about you.
Sports Fan
"$Bill" <ne...@SPAMOLAtodbe.com> wrote:
>You missed my point -
I don't think so.
>it wasn't just an anti-christian rant, it was equally an anti-muslim rant
Only if you say so.
You tuned a mini advise given by an ex-muslim (Lallia) who knows what
she is talking about to a muslim who was spamming this newsgroup (and
tons of others) into an anti Christianity rant.
Christianity was never part of the thread hating it or supporting it
until you posted your rant.
If you want to argue against those facts, then I feel sorry for you.
$Bill
It really doesn't matter - both religions suck - we can leave it at that.
Terraholm
Bigoted generalizations suck. Do you hate the christian based YMCA, The
Salvation Army and the Red Cross? Terrible that their religion has them
out helping others regardless of religion.
Dewey
news:863d66...@mid.individual.net:
Barely makes up for the inquisitions and crusades though.
Terraholm
It is not the religions, it is the cultures that misused them.
Sports Fan
"$Bill" <ne...@SPAMOLAtodbe.com> wrote:
It does.
It shows your irrational hatred based on nothing but total ignorance.
> - both religions suck -
Don't put both in the same rank just because you know squat about them.
Christianity sucks for you because you have no idea about it.
>we can leave it at that.
You can leave it at that.
Everytime you attack Christianity expect to hear back from me.
Sports Fan
Terraholm <terrahol...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yep, he also hates the unselfishness of the Christian reachout
organizations that visit and help terminally ill people for nothing, and
expect nothing in return, the groups that help the homeless and feed
anyone who knocks their door, ...etc.
He bases his hate on some of those who use religion for their personal
agenda.
Sports Fan
Terraholm <terrahol...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ahh, the vast knowledge of Branden strikes again.
Were these stated in the Bible?
Did Moses or Christ order them?
Can you see the difference between HUMAN abuse of power and the religion
itself?
Apparently not.
>
>It is not the religions, it is the cultures that misused them.
Absolutely.
If judging something is by the way it was used by humans who claimed to
be a part of it for their own agenda is the standard, then everything is
bad and everything sucks.
Johnny
>
>
> I just said, right in this thread, that many of my close friends are
> atheists and we have no problem as we agree to disagree respectfully.
>
>
if you are going to keep repeating it I must ask if it is
also true that many of your close friends are _________
(fill in the blank, e.g., Black, Gay, Native American,
Women, Liberals, Endangered Species, Fuzzy Stuffed Animals,
etc.)? This old familiar one-size-fits-all specious,
spurious, self-serving, fabricated offer of credentials of
tolerance, empathy, and civility is so phony that you have
to be pretty stupid to think you can fool anybody but other
fools with it.
   And as long as I am asking questions, I have one that I
have been putting off concerning all the hard times you have
had:Â Are you looking for sympathy or just feeling sorry for
yourself? In either case let me offer you a little mantra that
might help you keep even the toughest times in perspective
and not use them as leverage:Â "I had the blues 'cause I had
no shoes, 'til one day in the street I met a man with no
feet."
$Bill
>
> Bigoted generalizations suck. Do you hate the christian based YMCA, The
> Salvation Army and the Red Cross? Terrible that their religion has them
> out helping others regardless of religion.
I said the religions suck. I mentioned nothing else and you know that.
We could talk about pedophile priests and all kinds of other things,
but what I'm talking about is an ignorant belief - nothing else.
Quit trolling.
$Bill
>
> It does.
> It shows your irrational hatred based on nothing but total ignorance.
It shows your blind belief in the supernatural and a god that doesn't exist.
Sports Fan
"$Bill" <ne...@SPAMOLAtodbe.com> wrote:
>Terraholm wrote:
>>
>> Bigoted generalizations suck. Do you hate the christian based YMCA, The
>> Salvation Army and the Red Cross? Terrible that their religion has them
>> out helping others regardless of religion.
>
>I said the religions suck.
Which is a bigoted generalization.
>I mentioned nothing else and you know that.
>We could talk about pedophile priests and all kinds of other things,
>but what I'm talking about is an ignorant belief - nothing else.
>Quit trolling.
You are the one who is trolling.
Those pedophile priests are (surprise) humans, they are not following
their religion which specifically says whoever harms a child is a
sinner.
Most of you haters know nothing about the religion you hate.
Quit blaming the actions of humans on the religion itself.
For that matter, are you saying that there are no pedophiles among
atheists?
Also you call anyone who believes an ignorant, which means the majority
of the humans living on Earth today.
Yeah, they are all ignorant, just you and the few who know nothing about
the religion that they attack are the bright ones.
Sure, you convinced me.
Sports Fan
"$Bill" <ne...@SPAMOLAtodbe.com> wrote:
>Sports Fan wrote:
>>
>> It does.
>> It shows your irrational hatred based on nothing but total ignorance.
>
>It shows your blind belief
On the contrary.
I believed after carefully reading and examining the facts.
>in the supernatural and a god that doesn't exist.
Doesn't exist because you say so?
That's hardly convincing.
But don't let me stop you from hating.
Johnny
All anyone needs to know about religion is that the supernatural
exists only in the human imagination.
Terraholm
> Terraholm wrote:
>>
>> Bigoted generalizations suck. Do you hate the christian based YMCA,
>> The Salvation Army and the Red Cross? Terrible that their religion
>> has them out helping others regardless of religion.
>
> I said the religions suck. I mentioned nothing else and you know that.
And I asked a question you are unwilling to even acknowledge. Do those
religious organizations 'suck'?
> We could talk about pedophile priests and all kinds of other things,
You think absence of religion or a belief in a god eliminates pedophilia
and the 'other things'? A pretty much atheist religion is the
dominate one in Thailand where pedophilia is a major business. Secular
and declared atheist governments do not commit atrocities and invade
countries? Tell it to Tibet.
> but what I'm talking about is an ignorant belief - nothing else.
You are lumping together religions and faith in a supernatural creator
type god. Buddhism is an organized religion without one and many deists
and christians I know do not believe in organized religion.
> Quit trolling.
Quit trying to bail with yet other sorry generalization about billions
of people.
--
LT
When I feed the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have
no food, they call me a communist. --Dom Helder Camara, Archbishop of
Recife
mayner
wrote:
>In article <9s5ov59b600f82lvl...@4ax.com>
>mayner <jeffm...@USCNumberOne.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>But you, and many other religionists, are bigoted towards agnostics
>>and atheists.
>>
>> 'splain that, Lucy!
>
>Well, Lucy, can you point to me a SINGLE instance where I showed bigotry
>towards anyone here or in real life?
>Did you read what you just replied to?
>Obviously not.
>
>I just said, right in this thread, that many of my close friends are
>atheists and we have no problem as we agree to disagree respectfully.
>
>And right in the post that you replied to, Lucy, I said:
>
>"We are all humans, everyone of us have his or her flaws."
so, you think that not believing in a supreme being is a "flaw"?
>
>So how did this make me " bigoted towards agnostics and atheists"?
>
>So I guess you don't read what you reply to and just post sweeping
>generalizations like this.
>
Well, pot/kettle/black.
>
>I don't care if you came across few who pretend to be following a
>religion and then you base your hate for that religion on the actions of
>these people.
>
Hate?
>
>Have you even noticed that this whole thing started when your fellow
>atheist $Bill attached Christianity while the thread started by a muslim
>promoting his own religion and there was nothing Christians or
>Christianity did here?
>But $Bill felt comfortable turning it into one of his usual boring anti
>Christianity rants.
>
Bill is equally dismissive of all religions. You, on the other hand,
are dismissive of all religions not christian.
>Funny, I don't see you going after him for that.
>Could it be because you have double standards?
>Nah, it is too obvious. ;-)
No, I don't "go after" any of it. I comment on a lot of it when it's
presented in a forum , a DISCUSSION forum by the way.
>
>
>>And regarding Johnny, he just got done reciting his curriculum vitae
>>and you, apparently, didn't even read it. I do not doubt at all his
>>assertion he studied religion in college. Why do you dismiss it?
>
>He is in my kill file.
>That is why I don't see his garbage or claims.
But there you go again. Garbage or claims. WTF?
>
>Next time before you jump into a thread, read in it a bit.
>
>If he had studied religion as he claimed then he would have known its
>basics, which he is missing.
How so?
>
>His claims of studying religion in college is as credible as Bush's
>claim of God speaking to him.
>
How so?
>
>>Have you ever even entertained the notion that there may be no god/gods or
>>a hereafter?
>>
>>Just askin' ;-)
>
>
>Have you entertained the opposite?
>Just asking. ;-)
Been there, done that. Unlike you, and yes, I noticed you did not
answer the question, I have studied, observed, read about, and
discussed religion vs atheism vs agnostics, etc. I've come to my own
conclusion and that it's all a crock. Now, understand that my wife is
a born again christian and we have had, in the 26 years we've been
together, many many discussions on the subject. I don't try to
dissuade her and she doesn't try to proselytize to me. It works for
her and I can see that. As long as somebody doesn't shove it in my
face I have no problem at all.
Why do you have a problem with simple questions? Are you not strong
enough in your faith that you feel you have to defend your position
even when no one is attacking it?
mayner
wrote:
>In article <hti65k$1c1$2...@news.eternal-september.org>
>"$Bill" <ne...@SPAMOLAtodbe.com> wrote:
>
>>Sports Fan wrote:
>>>
>>> It does.
>>> It shows your irrational hatred based on nothing but total ignorance.
>>
>>It shows your blind belief
>
>On the contrary.
>I believed after carefully reading and examining the facts.
What facts? I really want to know. I'd like to read the research that
went into developing your theory.
>
>>in the supernatural and a god that doesn't exist.
>
>Doesn't exist because you say so?
>That's hardly convincing.
Doesn't exist because never in history has it been reliably
demonstrated that their is a god or a hear after.
>
>But don't let me stop you from hating.
Disbelief in blind faith is not hating.
Sports Fan
mayner <jeffm...@USCNumberOne.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 May 2010 15:46:29 -0700, Sports Fan <spo...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <9s5ov59b600f82lvl...@4ax.com>
>>mayner <jeffm...@USCNumberOne.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>But you, and many other religionists, are bigoted towards agnostics
>>>and atheists.
>>>
>>> 'splain that, Lucy!
>>
>>Well, Lucy, can you point to me a SINGLE instance where I showed bigotry
>>towards anyone here or in real life?
>>Did you read what you just replied to?
>>Obviously not.
>>
>>I just said, right in this thread, that many of my close friends are
>>atheists and we have no problem as we agree to disagree respectfully.
>>
>>And right in the post that you replied to, Lucy, I said:
>>
>>"We are all humans, everyone of us have his or her flaws."
>
>
>so, you think that not believing in a supreme being is a "flaw"?
>
Awesome reading skills dude, go back and read the context in which that
was said.
Now answer the question and quit dancing around it.
How do these statements make me a bigot?
And go ahead a provide a proof that I showed bigotry against ANYONE here
or in real life.
Remember it was YOU who claimed that I am " towards agnostics and
atheists.", so go ahead and prove it, or apologize for your
generalization and unfounded accusation.
Or if you can't do the right thing, just shut it then.
>>So how did this make me " bigoted towards agnostics and atheists"?
>>
>>So I guess you don't read what you reply to and just post sweeping
>>generalizations like this.
>>
>
>Well, pot/kettle/black.
yeah, when you find yourself in a corner...
>>
>>I don't care if you came across few who pretend to be following a
>>religion and then you base your hate for that religion on the actions of
>>these people.
>>
>
>Hate?
Yes, hate.
You are among those who hate Christians for no apparent reason.
As seen in your unwarranted attack on my posts without even reading the
context in which they were posted in.
>>
>>Have you even noticed that this whole thing started when your fellow
>>atheist $Bill attached Christianity while the thread started by a muslim
>>promoting his own religion and there was nothing Christians or
>>Christianity did here?
>>But $Bill felt comfortable turning it into one of his usual boring anti
>>Christianity rants.
>>
>
>Bill is equally dismissive of all religions. You, on the other hand,
>are dismissive of all religions not christian.
>
You are wrong as usual.
I have almost equal respect for Judaism, as it is the base of
Christianity.
I dismiss violent and man made cults like islam.
Do you even know what is islam?
Have you read their books or teachings?
Or you are just yet another "I hate it because someone told me so"
person?
Here is some information for you.
I was born and raised in an islamic country and lived there for 33
years, where their religion is shoved down your throat on TV, on the
radio, in the newspaper, in school, in your daily life, whether you like
it or not, and was part of the school curriculum until college,
therefore when I speak about islam I know exactly what I am talking
about, unlike 99% of the people here.
To put it down in few words, the so-called religion that says kill all
Christians and Jews if they do not convert to islam and you will go to
heaven where you will have sex all day with 72 maids and 28 young boys
and rivers of wine will be flowing for you drink from as a reward for
killing others and kill yourself in the process is not a religion, it is
just another man made cult.
This is only one of thousands of evidence of islam being a hate cult
that lives on killing of others.
>>Funny, I don't see you going after him for that.
>>Could it be because you have double standards?
>>Nah, it is too obvious. ;-)
>
>No, I don't "go after" any of it. I comment on a lot of it when it's
>presented in a forum , a DISCUSSION forum by the way.
>
Yet you chose to pick on my post while I responded to someone who
attacked my faith.
Very selective, don't you agree?
You wine about Christians yet you have no problem when they get
attacked.
>>
>>
>>>And regarding Johnny, he just got done reciting his curriculum vitae
>>>and you, apparently, didn't even read it. I do not doubt at all his
>>>assertion he studied religion in college. Why do you dismiss it?
>>
>>He is in my kill file.
>>That is why I don't see his garbage or claims.
>
>But there you go again. Garbage or claims. WTF?
>
Yes garbage.
And you still cannot address the point.
How would I see his posts if he is in my kill file?
Answer that question, Lucy.
>>
>>Next time before you jump into a thread, read in it a bit.
>>
>>If he had studied religion as he claimed then he would have known its
>>basics, which he is missing.
>
>How so?
>
Well for starters, he claims Christianity is a violent religion, which
CLEARLY makes him an ignorant in its basics.
>>His claims of studying religion in college is as credible as Bush's
>>claim of God speaking to him.
>>
>
>How so?
>
See above.
>>
>>>Have you ever even entertained the notion that there may be no god/gods or
>>>a hereafter?
>>>
>>>Just askin' ;-)
>>
>>
>>Have you entertained the opposite?
>>Just asking. ;-)
>
>Been there, done that.
And what was the result of your "consideration"?
Please feel free to share with the rest of us.
>Unlike you,
Once again, you prove that you are incapable of reading.
Do you suffer from short memory span problems?
I just posted saying that I CHOSE Christianity after careful studying of
the Bible and facts.
I was, at one point in my life, with doubts.
But unlike you, you never took the time to read the Bible, yet you are
willing to dismiss Christianity based on what you were told and what you
hear from others.
>and yes,
Yes what?
Yes that you don't know about Christianity?
In that case, I agree.
>I noticed you did not answer the question,
The question was answered before in this thread, and several times in
the past.
If you can't read, that is not my fault and I am not interested in
repeating what I said millions of times just because you can't follow
discussions.
>I have studied, observed, read about, and
>discussed religion vs atheism vs agnostics, etc.
What did you study?
I am willing to be that you will fail to answer a simple question about
the Bible.
> I've come to my own conclusion and that it's all a crock.
Shows how much you "studied", really.
>Now, understand that my wife is
>a born again christian and we have had, in the 26 years we've been
>together, many many discussions on the subject. I don't try to
>dissuade her and she doesn't try to proselytize to me. It works for
>her and I can see that.
Well, good for you.
A true Christian (not someone who is using it for some agenda) will NOT
force anyone to believe.
If you studied Christianity as you claim and read the Bible that was the
first thing Jesus said to his Disciples before sending them to the Jews
in Israel.
> As long as somebody doesn't shove it in my face
>
I don't know who is shoving it in your face, but preaching the Gospel
does not twist your arm.
> I have no problem at all.
It seems that you do.
You just jumped on my post defending my faith when it was attacked,
unprovoked.
>Why do you have a problem with simple questions?
Dude, what questions?
Your friends attacked Christianity based on ignorance, and I responded
with facts, and I don't see an answer to my points, now you suddenly
claim that I am not the one who is answering the questions.
You are "Johnny come lately" to this thread.
I suggest that you go back and read it from the start and see how this
all came up.
>Are you not strong enough in your faith
Thanks for the laugh, but I have seen better jokes.
>that you feel you have to defend your position
Not my position.
I feel that I need to respond to bigots and people who post sweeping
generalizations based on ignorance.
>even when no one is attacking it?
Huh?
Are you incapable of reading or just trolling now?
How are Bill's and Johnny's posts not attaching Christianity?
Go buy yourself a clue, after you read the thread from its start, or
stay out of it if you are incapable of following discussions.
Sports Fan
mayner <jeffm...@USCNumberOne.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 May 2010 21:07:47 -0700, Sports Fan <spo...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <hti65k$1c1$2...@news.eternal-september.org>
>>"$Bill" <ne...@SPAMOLAtodbe.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Sports Fan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It does.
>>>> It shows your irrational hatred based on nothing but total ignorance.
>>>
>>>It shows your blind belief
>>
>>On the contrary.
>>I believed after carefully reading and examining the facts.
>
>What facts?
There are plenty.
Which one you want to start with?
The FACT that thousands saw Jesus healing the sick?
That is one of them.
> I really want to know. I'd like to read the research that
>went into developing your theory.
Try that for starters.
>>
>>>in the supernatural and a god that doesn't exist.
>>
>>Doesn't exist because you say so?
>>That's hardly convincing.
>
>Doesn't exist because never in history has it been reliably
>demonstrated that their is a god or a hear after.
>
So how you think this world existed?
You're seriously not going to say "I don't know, but I know that God
does not exist" nonsense?
Or do you honestly believe that the world goes with no controlling
power?
Or the laughable "We evolved from baboons or monkeys"?
Please.
I think that I am much smarter than someone selling the evolution
nonsense and the "I don't know" tactics for me.
If you believe that, then I am selling the Brooklyn bridge if you are
interested.
>>But don't let me stop you from hating.
>
>Disbelief in blind faith is not hating.
There is no blind faith, I said that dozens of times, why can't you
read?
That's a basic requirement for someone who thinks he is smart enough to
disprove religion, don't you agree?
And yes, when you pick Christians of all people, that is hating.
$Bill
> In article <hti62i$1c1$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
> "$Bill" <ne...@SPAMOLAtodbe.com> wrote:
>
>> I said the religions suck.
>
> Which is a bigoted generalization.
No more bigoted than a christian telling an atheist that there is a god.
> You are the one who is trolling.
I gave an opinion that muslims and christians weren't so different.
If that's trolling, so be it.
> Those pedophile priests are (surprise) humans, they are not following
> their religion which specifically says whoever harms a child is a
> sinner.
I was trying to point out that for every good thing you can come up
with, I can probably find a bad thing to counter with.
> Most of you haters know nothing about the religion you hate.
> Quit blaming the actions of humans on the religion itself.
I was brought up in that religion - I know enough.
> For that matter, are you saying that there are no pedophiles among
> atheists?
Not about pedophiles - you just aren't getting it.
> Also you call anyone who believes an ignorant, which means the majority
> of the humans living on Earth today.
Yes, a majority of the humans on earth are truly ignorant to
believe in something they've been told and not verified. Now if
you did that at work, you probably get fired.
> Yeah, they are all ignorant, just you and the few who know nothing about
> the religion that they attack are the bright ones.
> Sure, you convinced me.
You still don't get it do you - you don't have to know anything special
about the religion past the fact that they believe in the supernatural.
Terraholm
> In article <12cpv5h7vk44flikq...@4ax.com>
> mayner <jeffm...@USCNumberOne.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 25 May 2010 21:07:47 -0700, Sports Fan <spo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <hti65k$1c1$2...@news.eternal-september.org>
>>> "$Bill" <ne...@SPAMOLAtodbe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sports Fan wrote:
>>>>> It does.
>>>>> It shows your irrational hatred based on nothing but total ignorance.
>>>> It shows your blind belief
>>> On the contrary.
>>> I believed after carefully reading and examining the facts.
>> What facts?
>
> There are plenty.
> Which one you want to start with?
> The FACT that thousands saw Jesus healing the sick?
> That is one of them.
Odd that they never wrote home about it at the time...
I have been meaning to read "A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical
Jesus" ( It is by a priest scholar) or at least the first volume of it.
``suppose that a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, and an
agnostic...hammered out a consensus document on who Jesus of Nazareth was.'
>> I really want to know. I'd like to read the research that
>> went into developing your theory.
>
> Try that for starters.
I have read the bible and the history, and parts of the koran and the
'secret history of the mongols' (humans were originally a cross between
a grey wolf and a fallow deer) and some about the life of Siddhartha
Gautama... and the Haida story of how Raven created the earth and finds
the First Men...and the book of morman which has no backing historically
(the first Scifi/fantasy best seller?) Why is it god keep writing stuff
in stone and men keep losing them anyway?
And yet a man in the 20th century struggling to make a living selling
his scifi works can declare he is going to write a book instead to start
a new religion/cult and makes his fortune... and sells his book and
creates the religion with blind faith followers...
>>>> in the supernatural and a god that doesn't exist.
>>> Doesn't exist because you say so?
>>> That's hardly convincing.
>> Doesn't exist because never in history has it been reliably
>> demonstrated that their is a god or a hear after.
>>
>
> So how you think this world existed?
Nature
> You're seriously not going to say "I don't know, but I know that God
> does not exist" nonsense?
I know nature exists. I do not need a supernatural answer. Nature is
pretty awesome on it's own.
> Or do you honestly believe that the world goes with no controlling
> power?
Gravity, nature. If a god actually controls the details of human lives
he is one sick puppy IMO...
> Or the laughable "We evolved from baboons or monkeys"?
> Please.
That evolution is dismissed with a misstatement of the science does not
make evolution science and the evidence laughable.
That people who need strict faith in every word of the bible try to back
engineer all the sciences to fit ancient mythology and call it a science
is rather amusing though. That is the opposite of the definition of
science.
> I think that I am much smarter than someone selling the evolution
> nonsense and the "I don't know" tactics for me.
There are a long list of the unexplained given a supernatural/god
explanation, but the list keeps shrinking. Rain, fertility, wolves,
volcanoes, lightning and thunder, hunting prowess, who wins the battle
in war, the moon and sun rising and setting, the seasons, dragon bones
found...coyote and raven...now for most, even deists, it is pretty much
down to the creation of the universe and even that is fading. I do not
know, but scientific theory showing a natural cause seems more likely
than any of the hundreds of creation mythologies...
> If you believe that, then I am selling the Brooklyn bridge if you are
> interested.
It is made from natural stuff too. =)
>
>
>
>>> But don't let me stop you from hating.
>> Disbelief in blind faith is not hating.
>
> There is no blind faith, I said that dozens of times, why can't you
> read?
Is not all faith in a supernatural god blind? You need no faith to
believe in what you can see...
(Now I am likely back on your shit as a 'hater' list too.)
--
Laurel
"Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not
worth knowing."
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
$Bill
>
> And I asked a question you are unwilling to even acknowledge. Do those
> religious organizations 'suck'?
Only if they proselytize. I'd much rather see a non-religious counterpart
though. How about the YW/MA, Army Against Poverty and the Red Circle of Help ?
> You think absence of religion or a belief in a god eliminates pedophilia
> and the 'other things'? A pretty much atheist religion is the
> dominate one in Thailand where pedophilia is a major business. Secular
> and declared atheist governments do not commit atrocities and invade
> countries? Tell it to Tibet.
What ever gave you that idea ? I was only pointing out that as often
as you list the good, I can list some bad.
> You are lumping together religions and faith in a supernatural creator
> type god. Buddhism is an organized religion without one and many deists
> and christians I know do not believe in organized religion.
If they don't believe in organized religion, than by definition they
aren't a member of that group.
I making this as simple as I can - if you believe in the supernatural,
you're just a plain ignorant follower. Doesn't matter what the religion
is.
Johnny
>
> So how you think this world existed?
Unlike the supernatural world, whose existence is entirely imaginary and
based on faith alone, the natural world, which exists independently of
human cognition, perception, imagination, or, indeed, existence, is
based on scientifically demonstrable facts that science, humbler than
most religions, calls theories even after their validity has been
established beyond a reasonable doubt.
> . . . do you honestly believe that the world goes with no controlling
> power?
The "controlling power," if you want to call it that, in the
universe is the natural evolutionary process of the universe itself and
everything in it.
> Or the laughable "We evolved from baboons or monkeys"?
> Please.
>
general, would suggest, even to show sarcastic scorn as you do with that
statement, that apes, including those in the genus Homo, evolved from
monkeys. The line of descent that eventually led to monkeys and the line
of descent that eventually led to apes, including humans, evolved
separately from a common ancestor many, many millions of years ago.
Millions of years later, the line that evolved into lesser apes,
Gibbons, split off from the ape line that led to humans. Millions of
years after that, the lines of non-human great apes began to split off
from the line that led to humans, first Orangutans, then Gorillas, and
finally Chimpanzees went their own way. The most recent ancestor of the
genus Homo, which consists of numerous extinct human species and one
surviving species, modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens, is one of
several species of an extinct African ape of the genus Australopithecus.
In short: We did not evolve from monkeys or from any living species
of ape, and neither monkeys nor any living species of ape evolved from
us or from any other living species of monkey or ape. Living species of
monkeys and apes, including human apes, all evolved independently from
long-extinct common ancestors. To suggest otherwise or to suggest that
others think otherwise is rank ignorance of evolution. You need to
google "human evolution" and brush up on the advances in scientific
knowledge since the Dark Ages before you address how nature works, draw
conclusions about it, or make assumptions about what others know about
it.
> I think that I am much smarter than someone selling the evolution
> nonsense . . . .
>
>
Let us address that representation with this premise: Ignorance and
stupidity are different concepts. We are all ignorant, only about
different things. Ignorance is lack of information or absence of
knowledge. Stupidity is the inability to learn, either because of
insufficiently developed or physically injured natural intelligence or a
stubborn refusal to process information, to accept demonstrable
knowledge, and to learn. If you think evolution is nonsense, either you
are ignorant of the scientifically demonstrable knowledge establishing
its validity or you are too stupid to recognize and understand such
knowledge.
You need to study Nature before you dismiss it as being impossible
without a supernatural force, just as I studied the supernatural before
concluding that it does not exist in nature. You see, all religion
rests on a supernatural foundation and is supported by four pillars:
Ignorance, superstition, fear (mainly of death), and guilt. Primitive
humans invented religion to provide supernatural answers to questions
about the natural world that at the time were thought to be
unanswerable. Science has since demonstrated that there are no
unanswerable questions, there are merely questions yet to be answered,
the pursuit of which is a constant process of learning. Religion has
long been a barrier to science because it was invented before science
was discovered, and the supernatural grew so powerful that religion
insists on surrendering to superstition rather than surrender its
superstitions to scientific knowledge. If science had been developed
before religion, there would be no religion and the concept of the
supernatural would be relegated to abstract metaphysics, where it belongs.
You are so full of the talking points of the scientifically
ignorant, philosophically misled, intellectually suppressed, and
psychologically malconditioned that you really need to start getting
your information from facts rather than Fox, your knowledge from
teachers rather than preachers, your wisdom from the informed rather
than the ignorant, and your guidance from men of integrity rather than
hucksters who thump the Bible in order to fill their collection plates.
Open your mind, you will be astonished at what is in there when you
free it, and elated at what you can do with it unbound by superstition.
-30- See you around . . . and good luck.
$Bill
>
> There are plenty.
> Which one you want to start with?
> The FACT that thousands saw Jesus healing the sick?
> That is one of them.
Bull, I can show you hundreds of faith based charlatans they
can fake the same stuff. You would rather believe what was
written 2K years ago and suspiciously assembled by the RCC
into a book as fact when it has never been proven and could
be nothing more than a parable. That's not a fact.
> So how you think this world existed?
Exists not existed.
> You're seriously not going to say "I don't know, but I know that God
> does not exist" nonsense?
No, there is no proof of a god or ghosts, hobgoblins, spirits or
even aliens (which have a much higher likelihood of existing).
> Or do you honestly believe that the world goes with no controlling
> power?
There is a controlling power - like gravity, strong/weak nuclear
forces, etc. They actually exist and have proof unlike gods/spirits.
> Or the laughable "We evolved from baboons or monkeys"?
Everything evolved from amino acids in the oceans. There's nothing
laughable about it - there is actually evidence of these various
lifeforms (unlike god) that have existed through the millennia.
There is actually some proof of evolution unlike god.
"If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures
are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex
forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler
forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other
way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have."
You cannot prove otherwise.
> Please.
> I think that I am much smarter than someone selling the evolution
> nonsense and the "I don't know" tactics for me.
> If you believe that, then I am selling the Brooklyn bridge if you are
> interested.
Well, I believe it, but that doesn't make me as gullible as you.
> There is no blind faith, I said that dozens of times, why can't you
> read?
If you can't see it, it's blind.
> That's a basic requirement for someone who thinks he is smart enough to
> disprove religion, don't you agree?
Not possible to disprove that which has never been proven.
> And yes, when you pick Christians of all people, that is hating.
I pick on christians because I was one - you talk about what you know.
Hate the religion not the ignorant believer (I was one once).
$Bill
>
> How are Bill's and Johnny's posts not attaching Christianity?
I believe we're attacking the validity of christianity not the
religious society itself and the sheeple involved.
Terraholm
> Terraholm wrote:
>>
>> And I asked a question you are unwilling to even acknowledge. Do those
>> religious organizations 'suck'?
>
> Only if they proselytize.
So the good they do is wiped out by a Xmas bell ringer handing you a
card with a prayer on it? The alms and their work and effort no longer
feed the poor and they suck?
>I'd much rather see a non-religious counterpart
> though. How about the YW/MA, Army Against Poverty and the Red Circle of
> Help ?
It is their belief system that dedicates them to the work. If the jesus
of the bible existed he was a socialist after all...
>
>> You think absence of religion or a belief in a god eliminates
>> pedophilia and the 'other things'? A pretty much atheist religion
>> is the dominate one in Thailand where pedophilia is a major business.
>> Secular and declared atheist governments do not commit atrocities and
>> invade countries? Tell it to Tibet.
>
> What ever gave you that idea ?
And you are claiming pedophilia is part of the dad religion how?
> I was only pointing out that as often
> as you list the good, I can list some bad.
And you certainly were not planning any balance...instead you generalize
it is all bad with... religions 'suck'...
>
>> You are lumping together religions and faith in a supernatural creator
>> type god. Buddhism is an organized religion without one and many
>> deists and christians I know do not believe in organized religion.
>
> If they don't believe in organized religion, than by definition they
> aren't a member of that group.
Buddhists belong to an organized religion that is basically atheist. It
is sort of the worlds biggest self help group teaching how to be the
best person possible. Anyone can be 'buddha'...
So they 'suck' because?
>
> I making this as simple as I can - if you believe in the supernatural,
> you're just a plain ignorant follower. Doesn't matter what the religion
> is.
Different views is not ignorance. There is a Catholic priest and scholar
that has written volumes on the historical on concept of jesus. He does
not need to believe in the biblical historical jesus to maintain his
faith. In fact he says it has strengthened it. chew on that for awhile.
$Bill
>
> So the good they do is wiped out by a Xmas bell ringer handing you a
> card with a prayer on it? The alms and their work and effort no longer
> feed the poor and they suck?
Why are you harping on a couple of organizations that might do some good
that happen to be started by christians - who cares ? It doesn't change
a thing about believing in the supernatural/god.
> It is their belief system that dedicates them to the work. If the jesus
> of the bible existed he was a socialist after all...
'If' being the definitive word. I don't have a problem with charities regardless
of who started them. Believe it or not, there are charities that are not
faith-based and we're not talking about them either.
> And you are claiming pedophilia is part of the dad religion how?
I have no idea what you're asking there.
> And you certainly were not planning any balance...instead you generalize
> it is all bad with... religions 'suck'...
Geez, a little generalization isn't any big deal - I don't think it's
necessary to go into a detailed diatribe on some off the wall religion
that doesn't believe in god. I thought it was obvious from the discussion
that we are talking about god believing religions. Does suck imply bad ?
I don't think so - just one with a bunch of ignorant followers.
> Buddhists belong to an organized religion that is basically atheist. It
> is sort of the worlds biggest self help group teaching how to be the
> best person possible. Anyone can be 'buddha'...
> So they 'suck' because?
You just aren't getting it are you. Stop trolling for a minute and
think 'religions that believe in the supernatural/god' - all discussions
have/will pertain to that subject.
> Different views is not ignorance. There is a Catholic priest and scholar
> that has written volumes on the historical on concept of jesus. He does
> not need to believe in the biblical historical jesus to maintain his
> faith. In fact he says it has strengthened it. chew on that for awhile.
OK, I just spat it out. What does that have to do with believing in the
supernatural/god ?
Dewey
news:5b1pv5lf723fpeda8...@4ax.com:
Religion is a creation of men designed to control other men (and women)
period. Humanists do just as much good as religious groups (probably a
lot more) and they don't wage wars, torture "heretics" (or "suspected
terrorists") or force people into second class status based on their
sexual orientation. That is the state of your glorious religion today.
Right now. Religion is the greatest scourge on Mankind in all of
history.
Chim Chim
"Dewey" <dewey3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D84619625969de...@130.133.4.11...
I agree, look at what it did to Obama.
Although I do find his religious mentors quite amusing, it's not very funny
that he did take it serious himself. As a result he is just a boat without a
rudder.
It's also very unfortunate that people could not see that before hand and
voted for him. That's why I like this group, it's full of intellectual and
independent thinkers who would never fall into that trap. :)
Terraholm
> Terraholm wrote:
>>
>> So the good they do is wiped out by a Xmas bell ringer handing you a
>> card with a prayer on it? The alms and their work and effort no longer
>> feed the poor and they suck?
>
> Why are you harping on a couple of organizations that might do some good
> that happen to be started by christians - who cares ? It doesn't change
> a thing about believing in the supernatural/god.
Because you do not separate the idea from the religions.
We believe in nature. Is nature all good to humankind? Obviously not.
Does nature then 'suck'? Or the people that make nature a religion?
>
>> It is their belief system that dedicates them to the work. If the
>> jesus of the bible existed he was a socialist after all...
>
> 'If' being the definitive word. I don't have a problem with charities
> regardless
> of who started them. Believe it or not, there are charities that are not
> faith-based and we're not talking about them either.
>
>> And you are claiming pedophilia is part of the religion how?
>
> I have no idea what you're asking there.
You said twice used pedophilia as one of the bad things about religion.
What part of the christian/catholic religion supports
pedophilia?
>
>> And you certainly were not planning any balance...instead you
>> generalize it is all bad with... religions 'suck'...
>
> Geez, a little generalization isn't any big deal
A little?
- I don't think it's
> necessary to go into a detailed diatribe on some off the wall religion
> that doesn't believe in god.
Buddhism is 'some off the wall' religion? 400 million people to 15
million for Judaism. Throw in another 400 million for Confucianism/Taoism.
But certainly you do not have any interest in those facts, no effort
needed to paint religion with a brush covering 3 billion people...
> I thought it was obvious from the discussion
> that we are talking about god believing religions. Does suck imply bad ?
> I don't think so - just one with a bunch of ignorant followers.
So why claim 'bad' things like pedophilia from priests to prove your point?
>
>> Buddhists belong to an organized religion that is basically atheist.
>> It is sort of the worlds biggest self help group teaching how to be
>> the best person possible. Anyone can be 'buddha'...
>> So they 'suck' because?
>
> You just aren't getting it are you. Stop trolling for a minute and
> think 'religions that believe in the supernatural/god' - all discussions
> have/will pertain to that subject.
Why? You have not done so. You claim you are only talking about
supernatural belief but then use human misuse of their religions to
support why that is 'all' bad, why religions 'suck'... while the vast
majority of humans that use the same religion to help themselves and
others have no redeeming feature.
Humans can twist any knowledge to good or bad uses, that does not have
to come from religion or belief in a supernatural god.
Look at what has been done in the name of science. Does that means
science sucks?
>
>> Different views is not ignorance. There is a Catholic priest and
>> scholar that has written volumes on the historical on concept of
>> jesus. He does not need to believe in the biblical historical jesus to
>> maintain his faith. In fact he says it has strengthened it. chew on
>> that for awhile.
>
> OK, I just spat it out. What does that have to do with believing in the
> supernatural/god ?
Yes...really over your head there...
--
LT
"To learn and from time to time to apply what one has learned, isn't
that a pleasure? ... Learning without thought is labor lost; thought
without learning is perilous." (Confucius, Analects).
Terraholm
> "Dewey" <dewey3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> I agree, look at what it did to Obama.
> Although I do find his religious mentors quite amusing, it's not very funny
> that he did take it serious himself. As a result he is just a boat without a
> rudder.
>
> It's also very unfortunate that people could not see that before hand and
> voted for him. That's why I like this group, it's full of intellectual and
> independent thinkers who would never fall into that trap. :)
>
>
You must have voted for this guy...
On why an invasion would trigger a civil war 3 Iraqis spent some time
explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam and they
would be at war with each other...to which the President responded, �I
thought the Iraqis were Muslims!�
Now there was an intellectual president with a rudder...and he plowed
the ship of state straight ahead into the quagmire...
--
LT
"I speak of these New American Century men who
have taken our beloved country and all it
stands for it and thrown it down into the mud.
You will note that I did not name George W. Bush,
for blaming Bush for the gross misadministration of
this government is like blaming Mickey Mouse when
Disney screws up." William Rivers Pitt
Dewey
news:864tu9...@mid.individual.net:
> Chim Chim wrote:
>> "Dewey" <dewey3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>
>> I agree, look at what it did to Obama.
>> Although I do find his religious mentors quite amusing, it's not very
>> funny that he did take it serious himself. As a result he is just a
>> boat without a rudder.
>>
>> It's also very unfortunate that people could not see that before hand
>> and voted for him. That's why I like this group, it's full of
>> intellectual and independent thinkers who would never fall into that
>> trap. :)
>>
>>
>
> You must have voted for this guy...
>
> On why an invasion would trigger a civil war 3 Iraqis spent some time
> explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam and
> they would be at war with each other...to which the President
> responded, �I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!�
>
> Now there was an intellectual president with a rudder...and he plowed
> the ship of state straight ahead into the quagmire...
>
"I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and
fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would
tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."
Chim Chim
"Terraholm" <terrahol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:864tu9...@mid.individual.net...
> Chim Chim wrote:
>> "Dewey" <dewey3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>
>> I agree, look at what it did to Obama.
>> Although I do find his religious mentors quite amusing, it's not very
>> funny that he did take it serious himself. As a result he is just a boat
>> without a rudder.
>>
>> It's also very unfortunate that people could not see that before hand and
>> voted for him. That's why I like this group, it's full of intellectual
>> and independent thinkers who would never fall into that trap. :)
>
> You must have voted for this guy...
>
> On why an invasion would trigger a civil war 3 Iraqis spent some time
> explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam and they
> thought the Iraqis were Muslims!�
>
> Now there was an intellectual president with a rudder...and he plowed the
> ship of state straight ahead into the quagmire...
Why does any criticism of Obama always seem to get deflected back to Bush no
matter what the subject is?
The current captain is driving the ship into field of icebergs and it has a
hole in it.
The last captain of the same ship drove the same ship into a hurricane on
the last journey.
I suppose as a passenger of the current ship you can mock the last captain
and how stupid he was to drive the ship into a hurricane.
The fact is though, the ship you are on is sinking and all you can do is
focus on the last journey and its captain. Good luck with that logic and
outcome.
mayner
As far as this thread goes, I concur. See you in the Laker threads,
Sporty, I hope.
Jeff
Chim Chim
"forgiveness for my sins and flaws, which are many, the protection of my
family, and that I'm carrying out God's will, not in a grandiose way, but
simply that there is an alignment between my actions and what he would
want." He sometimes reads his Bible in the evenings, a ritual that "takes me
out of the immediacy of my day and gives me a point of reflection."
-Obama-
So looks like Obama is on a mission from God as well. Super.
I'm sure you guys already knew that, you closet Christians :)
mayner
He's talking about in his personal life you deliberately obtuse ninny.
Bush was talking about killing 100's of thousands because his god told
him to do it.
You can't see the difference?
May god have mercy on your sole.
Dewey
news:hssqv5de4iaqlo64r...@4ax.com:
Chum Chum is actually more obtuse than Goldberg.
Sports Fan
"$Bill" <ne...@SPAMOLAtodbe.com> wrote:
>Sports Fan wrote:
>> In article <hti62i$1c1$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
>> "$Bill" <ne...@SPAMOLAtodbe.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I said the religions suck.
>>
>> Which is a bigoted generalization.
>
>No more bigoted than a christian telling an atheist that there is a god.
>
Huh?
So if I am a believer, and tell you that there is God, that is bigotry?
WOW!
That means if a scientist explains something he discovered, that is
bigotry.
Yep, you just proved how you understand all this, really.
>> You are the one who is trolling.
>
>I gave an opinion that muslims and christians weren't so different.
Which is based on ignorance.
>If that's trolling, so be it.
>
Yes that is trolling.
>> Those pedophile priests are (surprise) humans, they are not following
>> their religion which specifically says whoever harms a child is a
>> sinner.
>
>I was trying to point out that for every good thing you can come up
>with, I can probably find a bad thing to counter with.
>
No you can't, you have couple of straws to hang on, that's it.
>> Most of you haters know nothing about the religion you hate.
>> Quit blaming the actions of humans on the religion itself.
>
>I was brought up in that religion - I know enough.
>
You still don't get it.
Christianity is not inherited or given by birth.
You claim you was brought up in it, yet think that there are "gods" and
previously you claimed that God could be a female, and so on of your
pathetic understanding of Christianity.
Yeah, you sure know enough.
>> For that matter, are you saying that there are no pedophiles among
>> atheists?
>
>Not about pedophiles - you just aren't getting it.
>
You are the one just not getting it.
You try to hang on straws,and completely miss the fact that everything
you accuse some Christians of doing it exists more among non believers.
>> Also you call anyone who believes an ignorant, which means the majority
>> of the humans living on Earth today.
>
>Yes, a majority of the humans on earth are truly ignorant to
>believe in something they've been told and not verified.
Yeah, billions are ignorant and few thousands are the bright ones.
You sure convinced me.
>Now if you did that at work, you probably get fired.
>
Blah blah blah.
>> Yeah, they are all ignorant, just you and the few who know nothing about
>> the religion that they attack are the bright ones.
>> Sure, you convinced me.
>
>You still don't get it do you - you don't have to know anything special
>about the religion past the fact that they believe in the supernatural.
You are the one who still doesn't get it.
You need to know about something before dismissing it.
And yes, you're still a bigot.
Terraholm
> "Terraholm" <terrahol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> On why an invasion would trigger a civil war 3 Iraqis spent some time
>> explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam and they
>> would be at war with each other...to which the President responded, �I
>> thought the Iraqis were Muslims!�
>>
>> Now there was an intellectual president with a rudder...and he plowed the
>> ship of state straight ahead into the quagmire...
>
> Why does any criticism of Obama always seem to get deflected back to Bush no
> matter what the subject is?
He is the one that invaded a country on invented excuses because god
told him to while not understanding at all what the fuck he was taking
us into. Ignorant of the culture and religion and ignored the predicted
results... and spent thousands of lives and a trillion dollars plus
interest for his small minded mission.
Obama was not my first choice, but I sure as hell was not voting for the
even worse idiots who planned to stay another century...Obama should get
the heel out of Afghanistan too.
Now Daddy Bush did his war right. For the right reasons, a legal war
under international law and had the Arab countries pay 95% of the bill.
Last I knew daddy bush is a republican.
> I suppose as a passenger of the current ship you can mock the last captain
> and how stupid he was to drive the ship into a hurricane.
He drove it into a desert...
>
> The fact is though, the ship you are on is sinking and all you can do is
> focus on the last journey and its captain. Good luck with that logic and
> outcome.
He has a lot of holes to fill, Mcpalin would have it on the bottom of
the ocean called Iran by now...
"WAR is a racket. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable,
surely the most vicious.
It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the
losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something
that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small
"inside" group knows what it is about.
It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the
very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
Major General Smedley D. Butler (Dual Metal of Honor winner)
--
LT
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired
signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not
fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not
spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the
genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way
of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it
is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, April 16, 1953
Dewey
news:865cnm...@mid.individual.net:
> Chim Chim wrote:
>> "Terraholm" <terrahol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>> On why an invasion would trigger a civil war 3 Iraqis spent some
>>> time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam
>>> and they would be at war with each other...to which the President
>>> responded, �I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!�
>>>
>>> Now there was an intellectual president with a rudder...and he
>>> plowed the ship of state straight ahead into the quagmire...
>>
>> Why does any criticism of Obama always seem to get deflected back to
>> Bush no matter what the subject is?
>
Because your alleged criticism of Obama is misplaced. It's like blaming
Gasol because Kobe took 48 shots and missed 40. Bush fucked up MMS, FEMA
and generally raped all the regulatory regimes and it's much easier to
tear things down than build them back up.
> He is the one that invaded a country on invented excuses because god
> told him to while not understanding at all what the fuck he was taking
> us into. Ignorant of the culture and religion and ignored the
> predicted results... and spent thousands of lives and a trillion
> dollars plus interest for his small minded mission.
>
> Obama was not my first choice, but I sure as hell was not voting for
> the even worse idiots who planned to stay another century...Obama
> should get the heel out of Afghanistan too.
>
> Now Daddy Bush did his war right. For the right reasons, a legal war
> under international law and had the Arab countries pay 95% of the
> bill. Last I knew daddy bush is a republican.
>
>
>> I suppose as a passenger of the current ship you can mock the last
>> captain and how stupid he was to drive the ship into a hurricane.
>
> He drove it into a desert...
>
>>
>> The fact is though, the ship you are on is sinking and all you can do
>> is focus on the last journey and its captain. Good luck with that
>> logic and outcome.
>
Bush and the Dick were driving the car straight at a cliff at 240 mph.
As much as the loopy left wanted Obama to yank the wheel all the way to
the left, that's just asking for more trouble as you skid over the edge.
Personally, I think Obama has been far, far too cautious but I never
expected him to be a liberal's liberal because he's never been that.
He's been just what he was in the Senate: a moderate. And while he
hasn't turned the car around, he has stopped the headlong rush for
oblivion. And to make it even more difficult, the repubes are riding
shotgun and trying to grab the wheel from him as often as they can. They
are the ones who are keeping their foot on the gas making that much
harder to change course.
> He has a lot of holes to fill, Mcpalin would have it on the bottom of
> the ocean called Iran by now...
>
> "WAR is a racket. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most
> profitable, surely the most vicious.
> It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and
> the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as
> something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people.
> Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about.
> It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the
> very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
> Major General Smedley D. Butler (Dual Metal of Honor winner)
>
>
--
Sports Fan
Terraholm <terrahol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Sports Fan wrote:
>> In article <12cpv5h7vk44flikq...@4ax.com>
>> mayner <jeffm...@USCNumberOne.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 25 May 2010 21:07:47 -0700, Sports Fan <spo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <hti65k$1c1$2...@news.eternal-september.org>
>>>> "$Bill" <ne...@SPAMOLAtodbe.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sports Fan wrote:
>>>>>> It does.
>>>>>> It shows your irrational hatred based on nothing but total ignorance.
>>>>> It shows your blind belief
>>>> On the contrary.
>>>> I believed after carefully reading and examining the facts.
>>> What facts?
>>
>> There are plenty.
>> Which one you want to start with?
>> The FACT that thousands saw Jesus healing the sick?
>> That is one of them.
>
>Odd that they never wrote home about it at the time...
>
>I have been meaning to read "A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical
>Jesus" ( It is by a priest scholar) or at least the first volume of it.
>
>``suppose that a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, and an
>agnostic...hammered out a consensus document on who Jesus of Nazareth was.'
Huh?
That was recorded in the four Gospels and dozens of apocryphas along
with thousands believing in Jesus just because of that, and others
accusing him of sorcery because of that.
>
>>> I really want to know. I'd like to read the research that
>>> went into developing your theory.
>>
>> Try that for starters.
>
> I have read the bible and the history, and parts of the koran and the
>'secret history of the mongols' (humans were originally a cross between
>a grey wolf and a fallow deer) and some about the life of Siddhartha
>Gautama... and the Haida story of how Raven created the earth and finds
>the First Men...and the book of morman which has no backing historically
>(the first Scifi/fantasy best seller?) Why is it god keep writing stuff
>in stone and men keep losing them anyway?
>
Depends on what you read and how objective the reading was.
Question, what parts of the quran you read?
I am curious.
>
>And yet a man in the 20th century struggling to make a living selling
>his scifi works can declare he is going to write a book instead to start
>a new religion/cult and makes his fortune... and sells his book and
>creates the religion with blind faith followers...
>
Well, impostors and liars exist throughout history, what's your point?
Do not equate that with true religions.
>>>>> in the supernatural and a god that doesn't exist.
>>>> Doesn't exist because you say so?
>>>> That's hardly convincing.
>>> Doesn't exist because never in history has it been reliably
>>> demonstrated that their is a god or a hear after.
>>>
>>
>> So how you think this world existed?
>
>Nature
>
That is not an answer.
>> You're seriously not going to say "I don't know, but I know that God
>> does not exist" nonsense?
>
>I know nature exists. I do not need a supernatural answer. Nature is
>pretty awesome on it's own.
>
So who created nature?
Did it exist out of the blue?
Still no answer.
>> Or do you honestly believe that the world goes with no controlling
>> power?
>
>Gravity, nature.
How did they exist?
When? Where?
Who created them?
Answer those questions please.
>If a god actually controls the details of human lives
>he is one sick puppy IMO...
>
That's your opinion.
>> Or the laughable "We evolved from baboons or monkeys"?
>> Please.
>
>That evolution is dismissed with a misstatement of the science does not
>make evolution science and the evidence laughable.
>That people who need strict faith in every word of the bible try to back
>engineer all the sciences to fit ancient mythology and call it a science
>is rather amusing though. That is the opposite of the definition of
>science.
>
That still does not answer the question.
>
>> I think that I am much smarter than someone selling the evolution
>> nonsense and the "I don't know" tactics for me.
>
>There are a long list of the unexplained given a supernatural/god
>explanation, but the list keeps shrinking. Rain, fertility, wolves,
>volcanoes, lightning and thunder, hunting prowess, who wins the battle
>in war, the moon and sun rising and setting, the seasons, dragon bones
>found...coyote and raven...now for most, even deists, it is pretty much
>down to the creation of the universe and even that is fading. I do not
>know, but scientific theory showing a natural cause seems more likely
>than any of the hundreds of creation mythologies...
>
Creation is not a myth.
The theory of evolution is.
>
>
>> If you believe that, then I am selling the Brooklyn bridge if you are
>> interested.
>
>It is made from natural stuff too. =)
>
Sure. :-)
>>
>>
>>>> But don't let me stop you from hating.
>>> Disbelief in blind faith is not hating.
>>
>> There is no blind faith, I said that dozens of times, why can't you
>> read?
>
>Is not all faith in a supernatural god blind?
No.
>You need no faith to believe in what you can see...
No.
Looks can be deceiving.
>(Now I am likely back on your shit as a 'hater' list too.)
No.
Remember, Jesus did NOT hate non believers, why should I?
I said it before, I can disagree with someone and still co-exist.
I have several close friends who are atheists, never had a problem with
them.
You showed that you are a reasonable person, too bad that you are an
atheist,but that is your personal choice and I have no control over it,
nor it is my business.
Sports Fan
"$Bill" <ne...@SPAMOLAtodbe.com> wrote:
>Sports Fan wrote:
>>
>> There are plenty.
>> Which one you want to start with?
>> The FACT that thousands saw Jesus healing the sick?
>> That is one of them.
>
>Bull, I can show you hundreds of faith based charlatans they
>can fake the same stuff. You would rather believe what was
>written 2K years ago and suspiciously assembled by the RCC
>into a book as fact when it has never been proven and could
>be nothing more than a parable. That's not a fact.
>
LOL.
Typical response.
Once you could not argue that fact, you went into a off tangent rant.
It is a FACT.
Thousands saw him, recorded in 4 Gospels and dozens of apocryphas.
Hundreds accused him of sorcery because of that.
>> So how you think this world existed?
>
>Exists not existed.
>
That does not answer the question.
But that is not exactly news.
>> You're seriously not going to say "I don't know, but I know that God
>> does not exist" nonsense?
>
>No, there is no proof of a god or ghosts, hobgoblins, spirits or
>even aliens (which have a much higher likelihood of existing).
>
As usual, you post a generalization.
Must be a life style for you.
>> Or do you honestly believe that the world goes with no controlling
>> power?
>
>There is a controlling power
Good start.
> - like gravity, strong/weak nuclear
>forces, etc. They actually exist and have proof unlike gods/spirits.
>
So who created those?
You're not that stupid to tell me that they existed on their own.
>> Or the laughable "We evolved from baboons or monkeys"?
>
>Everything evolved from amino acids in the oceans.
And the proof?
And the question is still not answered.
Who created whatever you think that you evolved from?
Still no answer.
>There's nothing
>laughable about it - there is actually evidence of these various
>lifeforms (unlike god) that have existed through the millennia.
>There is actually some proof of evolution unlike god.
>
Who created whatever you think that you evolved from?
Still no answer.
>"If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures
>are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex
>forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler
>forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other
>way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have."
>
Who created whatever you think that you evolved from?
Still no answer.
>You cannot prove otherwise.
The burden of the proof of evolution is on you.
You say there is no God, then the burden of proof becomes on you.
>> Please.
>> I think that I am much smarter than someone selling the evolution
>> nonsense and the "I don't know" tactics for me.
>> If you believe that, then I am selling the Brooklyn bridge if you are
>> interested.
>
>Well, I believe it, but that doesn't make me as gullible as you.
>
You are gullible, as evidenced in your "everything evolved from
something but I have no clue how that something did exist" statements.
>> There is no blind faith, I said that dozens of times, why can't you
>> read?
>
>If you can't see it, it's blind.
>
You still can't read.
>> That's a basic requirement for someone who thinks he is smart enough to
>> disprove religion, don't you agree?
>
>Not possible to disprove that which has never been proven.
It was proven throughout history.
But as usual you chose to ignore facts.
>> And yes, when you pick Christians of all people, that is hating.
>
>I pick on christians because I was one -
You never were one.
That is not a birth right nor inherited.
>you talk about what you know.
And you talk about what you don't.
We agree on this part.
>Hate the religion
Because you know nothing about it.
>not the ignorant believer (I was one once).
You never were.
Sports Fan
"$Bill" <ne...@SPAMOLAtodbe.com> wrote:
Read AGAIN, maybe you get it this time.
Your and Johnny's posts ARE attacking Christianity no matter how you try
to justify it.
Sports Fan
mayner <jeffm...@USCNumberOne.com> wrote:
<Snip rants from Johnny>
Sorry, not interested in reading anything from the likes of Johnny.
>As far as this thread goes, I concur. See you in the Laker threads,
>Sporty, I hope.
Yes, we can always agree to disagree.
Like I said before, I have no problem with atheists or others, as long
as they respect my rights as I do respect theirs.
See you in Lakers threads.
Terraholm
Witnesses apparently did not write home about it "at the time".
If anyone went to a scribe and sent a shard to get poor crippled aunt
ruth to town to see this guy that cures diseases it is odd none have
been found? Others found are writing exercises, tags with letters or
names, contracts,tax receipts, and inventories and accounts of other
events. No jesus...
Can any of the historic existence of jesus (let alone the supernatural
aspects of the story) be proven archaeologically?
No... so you have to have faith in antecedol evidence only and call it
'fact'.
> That was recorded in the four Gospels and dozens of apocryphas along
> with thousands believing in Jesus just because of that, and others
> accusing him of sorcery because of that.
By his follows. Decades later it was first written down by paul who was
not a witness... Why did Thomas leave out the most amazing stuff? Is it
not thought his gospel predated canonical Gospels?
When are the outside earliest historical records? 90 something AD
Josephus?
How long does it take to invent a mythology and have faithful followers?
Look at Scientology and Mormons who just added another mythology to the
jesus story...
>
>
>>>> I really want to know. I'd like to read the research that
>>>> went into developing your theory.
>>> Try that for starters.
>> I have read the bible and the history, and parts of the koran and the
>> 'secret history of the mongols' (humans were originally a cross between
>> a grey wolf and a fallow deer) and some about the life of Siddhartha
>> Gautama... and the Haida story of how Raven created the earth and finds
>> the First Men...and the book of morman which has no backing historically
>> (the first Scifi/fantasy best seller?) Why is it god keep writing stuff
>> in stone and men keep losing them anyway?
>>
>
> Depends on what you read and how objective the reading was.
I read them as history. And compare the bible to other older histories.
I can read norse tales and extract the history without believing in thor...
> Question, what parts of the quran you read?
> I am curious.
I do not remember much. It was a very long time ago. Likely mid 1960s.
Being involved in Arabian horses I was interested in Bedouins.
I remember the Arabian creation myths:
The Bedouins say God first created the mare, and afterwards the
stallion. And to create the mare God spoke to the South Wind:
'I will create from you a being which will be a happiness to the good
and a misfortune to the bad. Happiness shall be on its forehead, bounty
on its back and joy in the possessor.'
"I create thee, Oh Arabian. To thy forelock, I bind Victory in battle.
On thy back, I set a rich spoil and a Treasure in thy loins. I establish
thee as one of the Glories of the Earth... I give thee flight without
wings."
Another:
"I call you Horse; I make you Arabian and I give you the chestnut
color of the ant; I have hung happiness from the forelock which hangs
between your eyes; you shall be the Lord of the other animals. Men shall
follow you wherever you go; you shall be as good for flight as for
pursuit; riches shall be on your back and fortune shall come through
your meditation."
>
>> And yet a man in the 20th century struggling to make a living selling
>> his scifi works can declare he is going to write a book instead to start
>> a new religion/cult and makes his fortune... and sells his book and
>> creates the religion with blind faith followers...
>>
>
> Well, impostors and liars exist throughout history, what's your point?
> Do not equate that with true religions.
2000 years from not it or mormons may be the dominate religion.
>
>
>>>>>> in the supernatural and a god that doesn't exist.
>>>>> Doesn't exist because you say so?
>>>>> That's hardly convincing.
>>>> Doesn't exist because never in history has it been reliably
>>>> demonstrated that their is a god or a hear after.
>>>>
>>> So how you think this world existed?
>> Nature
>>
>
> That is not an answer.
It absolutely is. The other choice is outside of nature.
>
>>> You're seriously not going to say "I don't know, but I know that God
>>> does not exist" nonsense?
>> I know nature exists. I do not need a supernatural answer. Nature is
>> pretty awesome on it's own.
>>
>
> So who created nature?
I do not know what past current scientific theory... 'who' does not come
into it. No reason anything past a natural occurrence was needed to
create the natural universe.
> Did it exist out of the blue?
> Still no answer.
That humans on a flywheel in a tiny speck of it do not know the answer
does not mean it has to be an answer outside of nature.
>
>>> Or do you honestly believe that the world goes with no controlling
>>> power?
>> Gravity, nature.
>
> How did they exist?
Gravity exists because matter was not uniform...nature is nature.
Natural. You do believe nature exists I assume?
> When? Where?
15 billion years ago...At the center of the current universe
> Who created them?
Why "Who"? Who created your god?
> Answer those questions please.
>
>> If a god actually controls the details of human lives
>> he is one sick puppy IMO...
>>
>
> That's your opinion.
Yes. So if evolution does not exist your god created HIV and new strains
of Antibiotic resistant TB and flesh eating bacteria and a new strain of
flu viruses deadly to children over the last few decades because he
loves the human race?
>
>>> Or the laughable "We evolved from baboons or monkeys"?
>>> Please.
>> That evolution is dismissed with a misstatement of the science does not
>> make evolution science and the evidence laughable.
>> That people who need strict faith in every word of the bible try to back
>> engineer all the sciences to fit ancient mythology and call it a science
>> is rather amusing though. That is the opposite of the definition of
>> science.
>>
>
> That still does not answer the question.
To maintain you faith in the creation myth you have to deny the facts
produced from the evidence in real science. There is no answer to a
question there is denial a question exists.
>
>>> I think that I am much smarter than someone selling the evolution
>>> nonsense and the "I don't know" tactics for me.
>> There are a long list of the unexplained given a supernatural/god
>> explanation, but the list keeps shrinking. Rain, fertility, wolves,
>> volcanoes, lightning and thunder, hunting prowess, who wins the battle
>> in war, the moon and sun rising and setting, the seasons, dragon bones
>> found...coyote and raven...now for most, even deists, it is pretty much
>> down to the creation of the universe and even that is fading. I do not
>> know, but scientific theory showing a natural cause seems more likely
>> than any of the hundreds of creation mythologies...
>>
>
> Creation is not a myth.
But there are hundreds of myths about creation. That it happened is
fact. That is was a supernatural cause is
> The theory of evolution is.
It is science. With enough evidence it takes a vast faith in some
creation myth to deny it. According to religion not that long ago the
sun and universe revolved around the world because god made us the
center of everything. The faithful believed that myth too.
>
>>
>>> If you believe that, then I am selling the Brooklyn bridge if you are
>>> interested.
>> It is made from natural stuff too. =)
>>
>
> Sure. :-)
>
>>>
>>>>> But don't let me stop you from hating.
>>>> Disbelief in blind faith is not hating.
>>> There is no blind faith, I said that dozens of times, why can't you
>>> read?
>> Is not all faith in a supernatural god blind?
>
> No.
How so?
>
>> You need no faith to believe in what you can see...
>
> No.
> Looks can be deceiving.
So you do not believe in nature? The earth and universe?
>
>
>> (Now I am likely back on your shit as a 'hater' list too.)
>
> No.
> Remember, Jesus did NOT hate non believers, why should I?
Would he have hated Moslem's ?
>
> I said it before, I can disagree with someone and still co-exist.
> I have several close friends who are atheists, never had a problem with
> them.
Does not mean you wanted to argue religion with me and yet I dove in.... =)
$Bill
>
> So looks like Obama is on a mission from God as well. Super.
>
> I'm sure you guys already knew that, you closet Christians :)
There's a big difference between a believer and someone like Bush who
is obviously insane since he actually converses with god (or whatever
part of his brain he thinks is god).
Dewey
september.org:
Most people who claim the talk directly to God get locked up, not
elected.
$Bill
>
> So if I am a believer, and tell you that there is God, that is bigotry?
> WOW!
Of course. If I tell you there is no god and I'm labeled a bigot for
that, then the reverse must also be true.
> That means if a scientist explains something he discovered, that is
> bigotry.
Guess what - nobody has discovered a god to date.
> Christianity is not inherited or given by birth.
What are you, nuts ? You don't inherit beliefs, you have to be taught
them by parents, teachers, etc. Where do you come up with these idiotic
statements ?
> You claim you was brought up in it, yet think that there are "gods" and
> previously you claimed that God could be a female, and so on of your
> pathetic understanding of Christianity.
I was brought up to believe in one god. That god has always been represented
in a male form. However, they have no idea if god has a form or whether it
be male or female. I often use the feminine form to stress that.
> Yeah, billions are ignorant and few thousands are the bright ones.
> You sure convinced me.
That's always been true. There a so many more followers than leaders.
VicXnews
september.org:
> Chim Chim wrote:
the amygdala...
$Bill
>
> We believe in nature. Is nature all good to humankind? Obviously not.
> Does nature then 'suck'? Or the people that make nature a religion?
I don't have Johnny's command of the English language. I think deep down
that you know what I mean and you just troll anyway. The belief in the
supernatural/god sucks (and by association the religion that supports
that belief).
> You said twice used pedophilia as one of the bad things about religion.
> What part of the christian/catholic religion supports
> pedophilia?
I never said it was a bad thing about a religion - just a bad thing that
was covered up by the RCC. That was just to offset your comments about
the good things from religion and you knew that.
> But certainly you do not have any interest in those facts, no effort
> needed to paint religion with a brush covering 3 billion people...
OK, if you don't like my generalizations on religions, how would you state
religions that believe in the supernatural/gods ? We'll use your definition
then and try to keep it down to 3 or 4 words so we don't spend all day typing.
>> I thought it was obvious from the discussion
>> that we are talking about god believing religions. Does suck imply bad ?
>> I don't think so - just one with a bunch of ignorant followers.
>
> So why claim 'bad' things like pedophilia from priests to prove your point?
Again, that was just counteracting your off subject YMCA stuff.
Stop the trolling and put the right words into the discussion that we
can use and I believe we can end this.