the big question is just why are there any atheists left in the world!

[Chris]

Yeah that's right, I said it. A perfectly valid question.

You nuts go on and on how atheism represents a superior worldview.
But it's probably the biggest lie that has ever been propagated.

I can only suspect that they think if they keep spouting it - the BIG
LIE - it'll eventually be believed. Like the wonderful little
goosesteppers they are.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 3, 4:22 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>  Yeah that's right, I said it. A perfectly valid question.
>
>  You nuts go on and on how atheism represents a superior worldview.

Why is it okay for you nuts to go about how Christianity represents a
superior worldview, but it's not okay for us nuts to go on about how
atheism represents a superior worldview (not that "I think you're full
of shit" is what I'd call a "worldview")?

> But it's probably the biggest lie that has ever been propagated.

>  I can only suspect that they think if they keep spouting it - the BIG
> LIE - it'll eventually be believed. Like the wonderful little
> goosesteppers they are.

The Nazis were Christian.

[Chris]

SEE...THERE'S YOUR ANSWER. Rank stupidity and the willingness to
believe lies. That's why it still exists!!

It's *ok* for you to be a proponent of whatever the H* you want Neil.
It just stands to reason you should be right once in a while, God.

FOR INSTANCE, this annoying assertion that the Nazis were Christian.
Oh, ok. besides that notion smacking the average person in the face w/
it's brash lack of decency or credibility. It doesn't hold up under
the merest scrutiny. You can call yourself whatever you want, but if
you fail some basic tests, your pronouncement is rendered invalid. The
Nazis did call themselves Christians, but were in reality murderous
thugs. Does there actions in anyway, anyhow reflect the teachings of
Jesus Christ? Was the impetus for their actions found in his words, or
rather were in accord w/the insane rantings of their bloodthirsty
leader? Simply and emphatically, no, and yes to those questions.

So their claim, and yours, is shot to H*.

This is why there are atheists. They can't handle the truth, so
constantly resort to distortions and lies.

Wow, I'm glad that's over. Now we all know why!

[Duke of Omnium]

On Oct 3, 4:48 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> SEE...THERE'S YOUR ANSWER. Rank stupidity and the willingness to
> believe lies. That's why it still exists!!
>
> It's *ok* for you to be a proponent of whatever the H* you want Neil.
> It just stands to reason you should be right once in a while, God.

Says the clod who thinks his imaginary friend made the universe.

>
> FOR INSTANCE, this annoying assertion that the Nazis were Christian.

Sound the alert! Cynical disavowal of embarrassing co-religionists
about to begin!!

> Oh, ok. besides that notion smacking the average person in the face w/
> it's brash lack of decency or credibility. It doesn't hold up under
> the merest scrutiny. You can call yourself whatever you want, but if
> you fail some basic tests, your pronouncement is rendered invalid.

OK. So far so good.

> The
> Nazis did call themselves Christians, but were in reality murderous
> thugs.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

> Does there actions in anyway, anyhow reflect the teachings of
> Jesus Christ?

THEY thought so. Who am I to disagree?

> Was the impetus for their actions found in his words, or
> rather were in accord w/the insane rantings of their bloodthirsty
> leader?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

> Simply and emphatically, no, and yes to those questions.

Simply and emphatically, fallacious complex question; yes; and
fallacious complex question.

>
> So their claim, and yours, is shot to H*.

So you say. But I expect you to disavow embarrassing co-religionists.
You're merely living down to expectations.

>
> This is why there are atheists. They can't handle the truth, so
> constantly resort to distortions and lies.

That's as may be, but WE do not feel the disingenuous need to disavow
embarrassing co-religionists. YOU do. Think about it. If you can
think, that is.

>
> Wow, I'm glad that's over. Now we all know why!

Yes. You're a christian. I've said it before: Asking a christian to
be sensible is like asking a haddock to play the cello: he can't do
it, and if he could, he wouldn't be a fish.

[Bob T.]

On Oct 3, 4:22 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>  Yeah that's right, I said it. A perfectly valid question.

And I have a perfectly valid answer: as long as God does not seem to
exist, I will continue to be an atheist.

>
>  You nuts go on and on how atheism represents a superior worldview.
> But it's probably the biggest lie that has ever been propagated.

If God actually exists, then we atheists are mistaken. Of course, if
God actually exists most of you theists are mistaken, too.

>
>  I can only suspect that they think if they keep spouting it - the BIG
> LIE - it'll eventually be believed. Like the wonderful little
> goosesteppers they are.

You seem very angry these days. Why is that?

- Bob T

[Bob T.]

On Oct 3, 4:48 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> So their claim, and yours, is shot to H*.

I'm going to tell Jesus that the "H*" above means Hell, and you'll be
in trouble.

- Bob T

[Chris]

On Oct 3, 8:10 pm, Duke of Omnium <duke.of.omn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 4:48 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:> SEE...THERE'S YOUR ANSWER. Rank stupidity and the willingness to
> > believe lies. That's why it still exists!!
>
> > It's *ok* for you to be a proponent of whatever the H* you want Neil.
> > It just stands to reason you should be right once in a while, God.
>
> Says the clod who thinks his imaginary friend made the universe.

There just so happens to be a very large contingent of humanity that
believes in a higher power. Your attempt to belittle the bulk of
humanity's belief is just another example of your own brutishness. And
stupidity. Congrats. You all keep exemplifying this in every single
post. Keep on though.

> > FOR INSTANCE, this annoying assertion that the Nazis were Christian.
>
> Sound the alert!  Cynical disavowal of embarrassing co-religionists
> about to begin!!

Again if you fail some very basic tests (like no mudering, O my
dearest God), your claim to whatever is declared null and void.

More lies and stupidity. Thanks for solidifying my premise. Forging
right ahead...

> > Oh, ok. besides that notion smacking the average person in the face w/
> > it's brash lack of decency or credibility. It doesn't hold up under
> > the merest scrutiny. You can call yourself whatever you want, but if
> > you fail some basic tests, your pronouncement is rendered invalid.
>
> OK.  So far so good.
>
> > The
> > Nazis did call themselves Christians, but were in reality murderous
> > thugs.
>
> The two are not mutually exclusive.

Actually they are. It's clear to any reasonable human being. It's
simply your assertion that it's the same thing.

But do some reading on your heros like Stalin, Pol Pot, and Chairman
Mao. Then you'll find what ideology or what have you is quite in line
w/egregious crimes against humanity.

> > Does there actions in anyway, anyhow reflect the teachings of
> > Jesus Christ?
>
> THEY thought so.  Who am I to disagree?

No they didn't "think" so. They were told so. If they would have
thought about it, they would have done otherwise.

You have every right to disagree when someone makes a false claim.
Your unwillingness to do so is on account of the preponderance of lies
you constantly tell yourself. You can't or are simply unwilling to
deal honestly and render honest judgments.

> > Was the impetus for their actions found in his words, or
> > rather were in accord w/the insane rantings of their bloodthirsty
> > leader?
>
> The two are not mutually exclusive.

More senseless garbage. But what else can be expected?

> > Simply and emphatically, no, and yes to those questions.
>
> Simply and emphatically, fallacious complex question; yes; and
> fallacious complex question.
>
> > So their claim, and yours, is shot to H*.
>
> So you say.  But I expect you to disavow embarrassing co-religionists.
> You're merely living down to expectations.

LOL. They had no religion, just an empty claim. But as to disavowal
of co-genocidal maniacs, there isn't one atheist on this board who
isn't constantly guilty of that.

> > This is why there are atheists. They can't handle the truth, so
> > constantly resort to distortions and lies.
>
> That's as may be, but WE do not feel the disingenuous need to disavow
> embarrassing co-religionists.  YOU do.  Think about it.  If you can
> think, that is.

But as I stated your lot does it all the time. You refuse to accept
the obvious. Because you're simply a liar.

> > Wow, I'm glad that's over. Now we all know why!
>
> Yes.  You're a christian.  I've said it before: Asking a christian to
> be sensible is like asking a haddock to play the cello: he can't do
> it, and if he could, he wouldn't be a fish.

I'm being totally sensible. You can't lay claim to a religious
teacher's teachings if you do all the opposite. It's so basic and
reasonable it's silly.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 3, 4:48 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Oh man, you're almost as funny as thea.

[Duke of Omnium]

On Oct 3, 5:29 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 8:10 pm, Duke of Omnium <duke.of.omn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 3, 4:48 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:> SEE...THERE'S YOUR ANSWER. Rank stupidity and the willingness to
> > > believe lies. That's why it still exists!!
>
> > > It's *ok* for you to be a proponent of whatever the H* you want Neil.
> > > It just stands to reason you should be right once in a while, God.
>
> > Says the clod who thinks his imaginary friend made the universe.
>
>  There just so happens to be a very large contingent of humanity that
> believes in a higher power. Your attempt to belittle the bulk of
> humanity's belief is just another example of your own brutishness.

"A lot of people agree with me" isn't really much of an argument. Try
again, clod. Try harder.

> And
> stupidity. Congrats. You all keep exemplifying this in every single
> post. Keep on though.

What's next? "I know you are, but what am I"?

>
> > > FOR INSTANCE, this annoying assertion that the Nazis were Christian.
>
> > Sound the alert!  Cynical disavowal of embarrassing co-religionists
> > about to begin!!
>
>  Again if you fail some very basic tests (like no mudering, O my
> dearest God), your claim to whatever is declared null and void.

What kind of lying dolt tries to pretend that christians don't
murder?

>
>  More lies and stupidity. Thanks for solidifying my premise. Forging
> right ahead...
>
> > > Oh, ok. besides that notion smacking the average person in the face w/
> > > it's brash lack of decency or credibility. It doesn't hold up under
> > > the merest scrutiny. You can call yourself whatever you want, but if
> > > you fail some basic tests, your pronouncement is rendered invalid.
>
> > OK.  So far so good.
>
> > > The
> > > Nazis did call themselves Christians, but were in reality murderous
> > > thugs.
>
> > The two are not mutually exclusive.
>
>  Actually they are. It's clear to any reasonable human being. It's
> simply your assertion that it's the same thing.

No, it's "clear" to disingenuous christians. It's much more opaque to
others.

>
>  But do some reading on your heros like Stalin, Pol Pot, and Chairman
> Mao. Then you'll find what ideology or what have you is quite in line
> w/egregious crimes against humanity.

First of all, they aren't my heroes. I don't expect a turd like you
to grasp that.

But even disregarding that little tidbit, a tu quoque fallacy is --
well, a fallacy. I don't expect you to grasp that, either, but you
could look it up.

>
> > > Does there actions in anyway, anyhow reflect the teachings of
> > > Jesus Christ?
>
> > THEY thought so.  Who am I to disagree?
>
>  No they didn't "think" so. They were told so. If they would have
> thought about it, they would have done otherwise.

Thought so, told so; is there even a difference. And I assume you're
just reverting to comedian mode when you suggest that christians can
think about their beliefs.

>
>  You have every right to disagree when someone makes a false claim.

"False claim" begs the question, turd.

> Your unwillingness to do so is on account of the preponderance of lies
> you constantly tell yourself. You can't or are simply unwilling to
> deal honestly and render honest judgments.

Actually, turd, I just don't have the same emotional need to whitewash
christians' actions that you do. Must suck to find this much
dishonesty imposed on you.

>
> > > Was the impetus for their actions found in his words, or
> > > rather were in accord w/the insane rantings of their bloodthirsty
> > > leader?
>
> > The two are not mutually exclusive.
>
>  More senseless garbage. But what else can be expected?

It's not "senseless garbage" because you said so, turd.

>
> > > Simply and emphatically, no, and yes to those questions.
>
> > Simply and emphatically, fallacious complex question; yes; and
> > fallacious complex question.
>
> > > So their claim, and yours, is shot to H*.
>
> > So you say.  But I expect you to disavow embarrassing co-religionists.
> > You're merely living down to expectations.
>
>  LOL. They had no religion, just an empty claim. But as to disavowal
> of co-genocidal maniacs, there isn't one atheist on this board who
> isn't constantly guilty of that.

And then the imbecilic christian shows his fatuity by failing to
distinguish between a common lack-of-religion, and a shared moral
paradigm.

>
> > > This is why there are atheists. They can't handle the truth, so
> > > constantly resort to distortions and lies.
>
> > That's as may be, but WE do not feel the disingenuous need to disavow
> > embarrassing co-religionists.  YOU do.  Think about it.  If you can
> > think, that is.
>
>  But as I stated your lot does it all the time. You refuse to accept
> the obvious. Because you're simply a liar.

Sure, turd. You disavow embarrassing co-religionists, and *I* am the
liar.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

>
> > > Wow, I'm glad that's over. Now we all know why!
>
> > Yes.  You're a christian.  I've said it before: Asking a christian to
> > be sensible is like asking a haddock to play the cello: he can't do
> > it, and if he could, he wouldn't be a fish.
>
>  I'm being totally sensible. You can't lay claim to a religious
> teacher's teachings if you do all the opposite. It's so basic and
> reasonable it's silly.

Are you genuinely ignorant of christianity's bloody history; or are
you simply lying? I mean, I'm accusing you of gross dishonesty, but
you sincerely may not know any better.

I've always said, a christian can be intelligent or a christian can be
honest, but a christian cannot be both at the same time.

[Chris]

laugh all you want Neil. But you should be crying.

What's the basis for debate? Atheists must lay claim to the worst
crimes in history. That fact is irrevocable. The argument is over.
Good night.

[Chris]

I've been far far angrier in the past dealing w/yahoos.

It's just my usual intolerance for lies. Nothing much has changed
there.

The debate is over, long over in fact. Still the cacophony of
distortions continues.

> - Bob T

[Bob T.]

Indeed, you still lie almost every time you post.

>
>  The debate is over, long over in fact. Still the cacophony of
> distortions continues.

Yes, but we tolerate you anyway.

- Bob T
>
>
>
> > - Bob T- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 3, 5:51 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> laugh all you want Neil. But you should be crying.
>
> What's the basis for debate?

What debate? You say something dumb, we point out that it's dumb, you
insult us for a while, then you run away. You don't debate.

> Atheists must lay claim to the worst
> crimes in history. That fact is irrevocable. The argument is over.
> Good night.

QED

> On Oct 3, 8:32 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 4:48 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > SEE...THERE'S YOUR ANSWER. Rank stupidity and the willingness to
> > > believe lies. That's why it still exists!!
>
> > > It's *ok* for you to be a proponent of whatever the H* you want Neil.
> > > It just stands to reason you should be right once in a while, God.
>
> > > FOR INSTANCE, this annoying assertion that the Nazis were Christian.
> > > Oh, ok. besides that notion smacking the average person in the face w/
> > > it's brash lack of decency or credibility. It doesn't hold up under
> > > the merest scrutiny. You can call yourself whatever you want, but if
> > > you fail some basic tests, your pronouncement is rendered invalid. The
> > > Nazis did call themselves Christians, but were in reality murderous
> > > thugs. Does there actions in anyway, anyhow reflect the teachings of
> > > Jesus Christ? Was the impetus for their actions found in his words, or
> > > rather were in accord w/the insane rantings of their bloodthirsty
> > > leader? Simply and emphatically, no, and yes to those questions.
>
> > > So their claim, and yours, is shot to H*.
>
> > > This is why there are atheists. They can't handle the truth, so
> > > constantly resort to distortions and lies.
>
> > > Wow, I'm glad that's over. Now we all know why!
>

> > Oh man, you're almost as funny as thea.- Hide quoted text -

[Observer]

On Oct 3, 4:22 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>  Yeah that's right, I said it. A perfectly valid question.

There are The highest figure we have for "Nonreligious" is 20% of the
world population, or about 1.2 billion: "Over 20 percent of the
world's population does not claim any allegiance to a religion. Most
are agnostics. Others are atheists, who deny the existence of
God." (O'Brien, Joanne & Martin Palmer. The State of Religion Atlas.
Simon & Schuster: New York (1993). Pg 41.) But such a high figure is
difficult to support with current country-by-country statistics, and
perhaps reflects Communist-era official government statistics. Most
current estimates of the world number of secular/nonreligious/agnostic/
atheist/etc. are between 800 and 1 billion.


The above serves to exemplify the quantity of rational persons who
reject the religions of the world.

67 percent of the worlds population reject christianity.


http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

>
>  You nuts go on and on how atheism represents a superior worldview.

Observer

All world views (model driven opinions) of actuality, are the produce
of fragmentary and insufficient data, misinterpreted human experience,
selective or less than accurate recall, a general reticence or
inability to apply critical thought, when choosing whether to invest
belief in propositions, and a failure to lend proper weight to
scientific method and the produce thereof.

These combined failures serve to produce overwhelming cognitive
bias , blinding the subject to what might otherwise produce a
reduction of their near infinite ignorance.

Observer

It is incumbent upon the peoples of the world to construct models of
reality conducive to testing,whereby the production of scientifically
verifiable substantiated data can and often does allow for accurate
prognostications and in turn to the manipulation of the physical
universe it's components, it's inhabitants, the interactions
therebetween, and the consequences thereof.

Such as the multiverse is the only verifiable set of actualities
presented to us.

To wit

I quote
The multiverse hypotheses in physics



Artistic impression of a level 2 multiverse.
Tegmark's classification
Cosmologist Max Tegmark has provided a taxonomy of universes beyond
the familiar observable universe. The levels according to Tegmark's
classification are arranged such that subsequent levels can be
understood to encompass and expand upon previous levels, and they are
briefly described below. [2][3]
Level I: Beyond our cosmological horizon
A generic prediction of chaotic inflation is an infinite ergodic
universe, which, being infinite, must contain Hubble volumes realizing
all initial conditions.
Accordingly, an infinite universe will contain an infinite number of
Hubble volumes, all having the same physical laws and physical
constants. In regard to configurations such as the distribution of
matter, almost all will differ from our Hubble volume. However,
because there are infinitely many, far beyond the cosmological
horizon, there will eventually be Hubble volumes with similar, and
even identical, configurations. Tegmark estimates that an identical
volume to ours should be about 1010115 meters away from us (a number
larger than a googolplex).[4][5] This estimate implies use of the
cosmological principle, wherein one assumes our Hubble volume is not
special or unique. By extension of the same reasoning, there would, in
fact, be an infinite number of Hubble volumes identical to ours in the
universe.
Level II: Universes with different physical constants


"Bubble universes": every disk is a bubble universe (Universe 1 to
Universe 6 are different bubbles; they have physical constants that
are different from our universe); our universe is just one of the
bubbles.
In the chaotic inflation theory, a variant of the cosmic inflation
theory, the multiverse as a whole is stretching and will continue
doing so forever, but some regions of space stop stretching and form
distinct bubbles, like gas pockets in a loaf of rising bread. Such
bubbles are embryonic level I multiverses. Linde and Vanchurin
calculated the number of these universes to be on the scale of
101010000000.[6]
Different bubbles may experience different spontaneous symmetry
breaking resulting in different properties such as different physical
constants.[4]
This level also includes John Archibald Wheeler's oscillatory universe
theory and Lee Smolin's fecund universes theory.
Level III: Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics
Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is one of several
mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics. In brief, one aspect
of quantum mechanics is that certain observations cannot be predicted
absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations, each
with a different probability. According to the MWI, each of these
possible observations corresponds to a different universe. Suppose a
die is thrown that contains six sides and that the result corresponds
to a quantum mechanics observable. All six possible ways the die can
fall correspond to six different universes. (More correctly, in MWI
there is only a single universe but after the "split" into "many
worlds" these cannot in general interact.)[7]
Tegmark argues that a level III multiverse does not contain more
possibilities in the Hubble volume than a level I-II multiverse. In
effect, all the different "worlds" created by "splits" in a level III
multiverse with the same physical constants can be found in some
Hubble volume in a level I multiverse. Tegmark writes that "The only
difference between Level I and Level III is where your doppelgängers
reside. In Level I they live elsewhere in good old three-dimensional
space. In Level III they live on another quantum branch in infinite-
dimensional Hilbert space." Similarly, all level II bubble universes
with different physical constants can in effect be found as "worlds"
created by "splits" at the moment of spontaneous symmetry breaking in
a level III multiverse.[4]
Related to the many-worlds idea are Richard Feynman's multiple
histories interpretation and H. Dieter Zeh's many-minds
interpretation.
Level IV: Ultimate Ensemble
The Ultimate Ensemble hypothesis of Tegmark himself. This level
considers equally real all universes that can be described by
different mathematical structures. This does not include different low-
energy physical laws not of our observable universe. Tegmark writes
that "abstract mathematics is so general that any Theory Of Everything
(TOE) that is definable in purely formal terms (independent of vague
human terminology) is also a mathematical structure. For instance, a
TOE involving a set of different types of entities (denoted by words,
say) and relations between them (denoted by additional words) is
nothing but what mathematicians call a set-theoretical model, and one
can generally find a formal system that it is a model of." He argues
this "implies that any conceivable parallel universe theory can be
described at Level IV" and "subsumes all other ensembles, therefore
brings closure to the hierarchy of multiverses, and there cannot be
say a Level V."[8]
Jürgen Schmidhuber, however, says the "set of mathematical structures"
is not even well-defined, and admits only universe representations
describable by constructive mathematics, that is, computer programs.
He explicitly includes universe representations describable by non-
halting programs whose output bits converge after finite time,
although the convergence time itself may not be predictable by a
halting program, due to Kurt Gödel's limitations.[9][10][11] He also
explicitly discusses the more restricted ensemble of quickly
computable universes.[12]
Cyclic theories
Main articles: Cyclic model and Oscillatory universe
In several theories there is a series of infinite, self-sustaining
cycles (for example: an eternity of Big Bang-Big crunches).
M-theory
See also: Introduction to M-theory, M-theory, Brane cosmology, and
String theory landscape
A multiverse of a somewhat different kind has been envisaged within
the multi-dimensional extension of string theory known as M-theory,
also known as Membrane Theory.[13] In M-theory our universe and others
are created by collisions between p-branes in a space with 11 and 26
dimensions (the number of dimensions depends on the chirality of the
observer);[14][15] each universe takes the form of a D-brane.[14][15]
Objects in each universe are essentially confined to the D-brane of
their universe, but may be able to interact with other universes via
gravity, a force which is not restricted to D-branes.[16] This is
unlike the universes in the "quantum multiverse", but both concepts
can operate at the same time.
Anthropic principle
Main article: Anthropic principle
The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain why our
universe seems to be fine-tuned for conscious life as we experience
it. If there were a large number (possibly infinite) of different
physical laws (or fundamental constants) in as many universes, some of
these would have laws that were suitable for stars, planets and life
to exist. The weak anthropic principle could then be applied to
conclude that we would only consciously exist in those universes which
were finely tuned for our conscious existence. Thus, while the
probability might be extremely small that there is life in most of the
universes, this scarcity of life-supporting universes does not imply
intelligent design as the only explanation of our existence.

end quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Multiverse_hypotheses_in_physics


Observer

The uneducated presume the reallocation of eternally existent
resources to be the creation of those same eternally existent
resources.

The omniverse is capable of authoring all phenomena ever having
existed or to in the future exist, eliminating the need for creation
or a creator/maintainer .

From the very simple is manifest the most complex to assume that the
extreme complexity (this fictive god thing) came first is preposterous
in light of recent scientific discoveries.

Learn to learn, please.

Should you wish references to read , I will be happy to supply such.

> But it's probably the biggest lie that has ever been propagated.

Observer

A comment emitted from blind ignorance and cognitive bias of horrific
consequence.

>
>  I can only suspect that they think if they keep spouting it - the BIG
> LIE - it'll eventually be believed. Like the wonderful little
> goosesteppers they are.

Observer

The village idiot relishes his mental infirmities , his/her ignorance
and decries all sound and useful education as sophistry.

Your model of the world is non productive of any practical
application as relates to the only set of actualities upon which we
are completely dependent for our very survival as a viable species.

Thus is extremely inferior to others which so do.

.

Were you a meaningfully educated man/woman this superstitious filth
would dissolve.

Such an education being inclusive of but not limited to an
understanding of critical thought the scientific method, and the
produce there-from extracted.

Please I beg you get a meaningful and utilitarian education.

As only the educated can help provide for the survival and well-being
of our species.


Poverty is the greatest of enemies with we must contend and ignorance
the most violence producing condition of all poverty

Please , please attempt to acquire a meaningful education and eschew
the superstitious filth of religious psychoses.

I wish you well but detest the psychotic , filth born of abject
ignorance, that has taken your mind and even our humanity from you.


Regards

Psychonomist.





.

[Drafterman]

On Oct 3, 7:22 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>  Yeah that's right, I said it. A perfectly valid question.

Because religion is not compelling.

>
>  You nuts go on and on how atheism represents a superior worldview.
> But it's probably the biggest lie that has ever been propagated.

A harsh accusation. A lie, of course, is to knowingly tell a
falsehood. If atheism is wrong, I don't know that it is. When I
support atheism, then, I'm not telling a lie, even if I'm wrong. If
you wish to support your accusation, you're going to have to prove
that I know that it is wrong.

>
>  I can only suspect that they think if they keep spouting it - the BIG
> LIE - it'll eventually be believed. Like the wonderful little
> goosesteppers they are.

Oh, you mean like how religion is propogated? (Consider Joes: Pray the
Rosary x infinity). No. We keep spouting it because we believe it to
be true, and we don't want our rights and lives trampled on as is
likely to happen if we remain silent. But nice to show your tyrannical
authoritarian colors, Chris.

Hm. Warm Christian love. Wait! That's not love!

[Drafterman]

Do YOUR actions, in any way, reflect the teachings of Jesus Christ?

[Walt]

The human mind can concieve of many things, which may or may not
exist. We presume something we conceive of does not exist unless
there is a basis to believe that it does exist. So atheism in itself
cannot be a lie, it's just the starting point of all sensible people.
A theist must make their particular argument for (their) God, and
atheists will then make their counter-arguments. I'll be happy to
consider your specific criticisms of the counter-arguments. But not
your apparently baseless, and thus apparently clownish, accusations of
dishonesty.

On Oct 3, 7:22 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Eris]

Would you be interested in some nice photographs of Adolf attending mass, kneeling and preying before a Crucifix, eating Christmas dinner, butt f*cking the current Pope? 

[Max]

I don't believe in Unicorns.

Am I a liar to say so?

[TLC]

the big question is just why are there any atheists left in the
world!? May be, there won't be if you can show your little invisible
god friends to us.

Or, produce one iota of evidence to show they, or it, ever
existed!

Evidently you are stupid or you would know that all the wonderful
little German goosesteppers were christians!

[Eris]

Irrevocable to you perhaps. But not to us.

Stalin would have become a Priest but could not come up with $35 dollars.

Hitler frequently Prayed, Attended Mass, Celebrated Christmas.

Pol Pot no one knows his beliefs.

Nice try.

[Alan Wostenberg]

Why are there any atheists? Some take great pride in their intellectual honesty and acuity in comparison to the unwashed masses who do believe. Pride goeth before this species of atheist. In stark contrast the humble atheist takes a more fruitful approach to the question of God. For the humble atheist knows living in truth is essentially an act of submission to something not manmade.

[Bob T.]

Similarly, the humble theist admits he doesn't really know whether or
not there is a God, and doesn't pretend that he knows how God wants us
to live our lives.

I have yet to meet a humble theist on this discussion group.

- Bob T

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 7, 7:38 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Gee, Alan Wormtongue, you've been around here for how many years and
you still don't know what an atheist is?

[Chris]

On Oct 3, 9:42 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 5:51 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > laugh all you want Neil. But you should be crying.
>
> > What's the basis for debate?
>
> What debate? You say something dumb, we point out that it's dumb, you
> insult us for a while, then you run away. You don't debate.

Neil, you know you're full of stuffing. I don't run away from
anything. And what did I say that was dumb?

Go ahead, ask me questions numbnutz. Let's see if I run from them. I
don't relish repeating myself 50,000,000,000 times, but in this life I
guess I'll have to.

I can't wait to get to heaven simply because there won't be any
atheists there! In reality I don't believe there are actually any
*here* either, but some people got to pretend.

[Chris]

On Oct 4, 8:36 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 7:22 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >  Yeah that's right, I said it. A perfectly valid question.
>
> Because religion is not compelling.

Adhering closely to a structured code of ethics, which will affect
superior lives for people in the now, and providing for superior
*living conditions* in the afterlife - not compelling. Well to some
degree you're right. But it's not because there isn't a valid basis to
follow Christianity, it's just that people are basically ignorant, and
willfully. Or just unwilling to commit to something worthwhile. Sure
committing to studies or even secular groups (that promote something
truly ethical) or friendships or marriage are good things. I'm sure
you'll agree. Christianity requires a deeper commitment, and that
oftentimes is somewhere people refuse to go. They have too much vested
in the things of this present world. They have a lack of scope.

> >  You nuts go on and on how atheism represents a superior worldview.
> > But it's probably the biggest lie that has ever been propagated.
>
> A harsh accusation. A lie, of course, is to knowingly tell a
> falsehood. If atheism is wrong, I don't know that it is. When I
> support atheism, then, I'm not telling a lie, even if I'm wrong. If
> you wish to support your accusation, you're going to have to prove
> that I know that it is wrong.

Every atheist on this forum is willfully ignorant of the harm atheism
has wreaked on humanity.

Try and try if you will to deny that on account of their atheism
communist regimes slaughtered millions of their countrymen. But the
facts don't agree with you.

Listen you can stay an atheist if you want. I strongly advise against
it. But someone is going to have to demonstrate why so called
Christian or religious regimes never came anywhere close to killing as
many people.

> >  I can only suspect that they think if they keep spouting it - the BIG
> > LIE - it'll eventually be believed. Like the wonderful little
> > goosesteppers they are.
>
> Oh, you mean like how religion is propogated? (Consider Joes: Pray the
> Rosary x infinity). No. We keep spouting it because we believe it to
> be true, and we don't want our rights and lives trampled on as is
> likely to happen if we remain silent. But nice to show your tyrannical
> authoritarian colors, Chris.

I'm tyrannical by simply advocating what I know is to be a superior
world view??? How do you figure? Every time some little Crustacean
shows up on this board, the vultures swoop down and attack. I've seen
it over and over again.

The atheists are the tyrants. It's laughable that you should try and
turn the tables the way you do.

> Hm. Warm Christian love. Wait! That's not love!

100% pure love in fact.

[Chris]

look exposing evil for what it is is at least somewhat in line with
Christian doctrine.

Who's teachings do your *actions* reflect? Karl Marx?

[Chris]

in the 20th century, what world view was responsible for more carnage.
Let's start there dude.

[Chris]

no I"ll pass. Thanks anyway.

[Chris]

On Oct 7, 5:25 am, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
> I don't believe in Unicorns.
>
> Am I a liar to say so?

The continual attempts to equate mythical creatures w/a higher
intelligence, the belief in which is entirely rational, is simply
pathetic.

[Chris]

To call yourself a Christian, legitimately, you need to demonstrate
that you're at least trying to adhere to Christian ethics. Hitler was
a raving madman. No one (except other raving madmen) deny this.

Always the same old nonsense. And in all likelihood the world would
have been much better of if Stalin acquired that 35$...

[Chris]

interesting. But deeming those humble ones atheists at all is
probably incorrect. They probably should be called agnostics.

[Chris]

smoke and mirrors. Or simply bullcrap. 100% pure in fact.

> The ...
>
> read more »

[Chris]

On Oct 3, 8:50 pm, Duke of Omnium <duke.of.omn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 5:29 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 3, 8:10 pm, Duke of Omnium <duke.of.omn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 3, 4:48 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:> SEE...THERE'S YOUR ANSWER. Rank stupidity and the willingness to

> > > > believe lies. That's why it still exists!!
>
> > > > It's *ok* for you to be a proponent of whatever the H* you want Neil.
> > > > It just stands to reason you should be right once in a while, God.
>

> > > Says the clod who thinks his imaginary friend made the universe.
>
> >  There just so happens to be a very large contingent of humanity that
> > believes in a higher power. Your attempt to belittle the bulk of
> > humanity's belief is just another example of your own brutishness.
>
> "A lot of people agree with me" isn't really much of an argument.  Try
> again, clod.  Try harder.
>
> > And
> > stupidity. Congrats. You all keep exemplifying this in every single
> > post. Keep on though.
>
> What's next?  "I know you are, but what am I"?

>
>
>
> > > > FOR INSTANCE, this annoying assertion that the Nazis were Christian.
>

> > > Sound the alert!  Cynical disavowal of embarrassing co-religionists
> > > about to begin!!
>
> >  Again if you fail some very basic tests (like no mudering, O my
> > dearest God), your claim to whatever is declared null and void.
>
> What kind of lying dolt tries to pretend that christians don't
> murder?

It's not impossible for a Christian to murder somebody. But that's a
big difference between killing millions fool.

> >  More lies and stupidity. Thanks for solidifying my premise. Forging
> > right ahead...

>
> > > > Oh, ok. besides that notion smacking the average person in the face w/
> > > > it's brash lack of decency or credibility. It doesn't hold up under
> > > > the merest scrutiny. You can call yourself whatever you want, but if
> > > > you fail some basic tests, your pronouncement is rendered invalid.
>

> > > OK.  So far so good.

>
> > > > The
> > > > Nazis did call themselves Christians, but were in reality murderous
> > > > thugs.
>

> > > The two are not mutually exclusive.
>
> >  Actually they are. It's clear to any reasonable human being. It's
> > simply your assertion that it's the same thing.
>
> No, it's "clear" to disingenuous christians.  It's much more opaque to
> others.

I don't know of anyone else, but atheists and crackhead liberals who
spout such nonsense.

> >  But do some reading on your heros like Stalin, Pol Pot, and Chairman
> > Mao. Then you'll find what ideology or what have you is quite in line
> > w/egregious crimes against humanity.
>
> First of all, they aren't my heroes.  I don't expect a turd like you
> to grasp that.
>
> But even disregarding that little tidbit, a tu quoque fallacy is --
> well, a fallacy.  I don't expect you to grasp that, either, but you
> could look it up.

>
>
>
> > > > Does there actions in anyway, anyhow reflect the teachings of
> > > > Jesus Christ?
>

> > > THEY thought so.  Who am I to disagree?
>
> >  No they didn't "think" so. They were told so. If they would have
> > thought about it, they would have done otherwise.
>
> Thought so, told so; is there even a difference.  And I assume you're
> just reverting to comedian mode when you suggest that christians can
> think about their beliefs.
>
>
>
> >  You have every right to disagree when someone makes a false claim.
>
> "False claim" begs the question, turd.
>
> > Your unwillingness to do so is on account of the preponderance of lies
> > you constantly tell yourself. You can't or are simply unwilling to
> > deal honestly and render honest judgments.
>
> Actually, turd, I just don't have the same emotional need to whitewash
> christians' actions that you do.  Must suck to find this much
> dishonesty imposed on you.

I've never whitewashed anything. Show me one example in 4 1/2 years
where I've whitewashed anyone's actions.

> > > > Was the impetus for their actions found in his words, or
> > > > rather were in accord w/the insane rantings of their bloodthirsty
> > > > leader?
>

> > > The two are not mutually exclusive.
>
> >  More senseless garbage. But what else can be expected?
>
> It's not "senseless garbage" because you said so, turd.

>
>
>
> > > > Simply and emphatically, no, and yes to those questions.
>

> > > Simply and emphatically, fallacious complex question; yes; and
> > > fallacious complex question.

>
> > > > So their claim, and yours, is shot to H*.
>

> > > So you say.  But I expect you to disavow embarrassing co-religionists.
> > > You're merely living down to expectations.
>
> >  LOL. They had no religion, just an empty claim. But as to disavowal
> > of co-genocidal maniacs, there isn't one atheist on this board who
> > isn't constantly guilty of that.
>
> And then the imbecilic christian shows his fatuity by failing to
> distinguish between a common lack-of-religion, and a shared moral
> paradigm.

History demonstrates that atheists in large number have no morality
whatsoever.

The thread was about world views in case you didn't notice.

> > > > This is why there are atheists. They can't handle the truth, so
> > > > constantly resort to distortions and lies.
>

> > > That's as may be, but WE do not feel the disingenuous need to disavow
> > > embarrassing co-religionists.  YOU do.  Think about it.  If you can
> > > think, that is.
>
> >  But as I stated your lot does it all the time. You refuse to accept
> > the obvious. Because you're simply a liar.
>
> Sure, turd.  You disavow embarrassing co-religionists, and *I* am the
> liar.
>
> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

>
>
>
> > > > Wow, I'm glad that's over. Now we all know why!
>

> > > Yes.  You're a christian.  I've said it before: Asking a christian to
> > > be sensible is like asking a haddock to play the cello: he can't do
> > > it, and if he could, he wouldn't be a fish.
>
> >  I'm being totally sensible. You can't lay claim to a religious
> > teacher's teachings if you do all the opposite. It's so basic and
> > reasonable it's silly.
>
> Are you genuinely ignorant of christianity's bloody history; or are
> you simply lying?  I mean, I'm accusing you of gross dishonesty, but
> you sincerely may not know any better.
>
> I've always said, a christian can be intelligent or a christian can be
> honest, but a christian cannot be both at the same time.

First off, you're demonstrating your ability to lie w/every sentence.
I do not deny what so called Christians have done through the
centuries. I have attempted to put some things in a different light,
outright condemned some things, but never ever denied what history
tells us. What I do continually draw attention to is the massive
amounts of carnage atheist regimes have perpetrated. For which there
is little basis for comparison. Even Islamic countries can't lay claim
to that amount of killing. Therefore atheism as a world view
represents a horrific failure. Unless you're world view just happens
to state that there are too many people.

[Bob T.]

Except, of course, for the obvious fact that Jehovah is a mythical
creature, and it is no more rational to believe in that deity than to
believe in Thor or Quetzalcoatl.

- Bob T

[Bob T.]

On Oct 7, 12:43 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 8:36 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 3, 7:22 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >  Yeah that's right, I said it. A perfectly valid question.
>
> > Because religion is not compelling.
>
>  Adhering closely to a structured code of ethics, which will affect
> superior lives for people in the now, and providing for superior
> *living conditions* in the afterlife - not compelling.

Since the afterlife is completely mythical, it is not at all rational
to base one's code of ethics upon it.

> Well to some degree you're right. But it's not because there isn't a valid basis to
> follow Christianity, it's just that people are basically ignorant, and
> willfully. Or just unwilling to commit to something worthwhile. Sure
> committing to studies or even secular groups (that promote something
> truly ethical) or friendships or marriage are good things. I'm sure
> you'll agree. Christianity requires a deeper commitment, and that
> oftentimes is somewhere people refuse to go. They have too much vested
> in the things of this present world. They have a lack of scope.

Or, alternatively, we're atheists because we don't believe your funny
stories about God, Jesus and eternal life.

>
> > >  You nuts go on and on how atheism represents a superior worldview.
> > > But it's probably the biggest lie that has ever been propagated.
>
> > A harsh accusation. A lie, of course, is to knowingly tell a
> > falsehood. If atheism is wrong, I don't know that it is. When I
> > support atheism, then, I'm not telling a lie, even if I'm wrong. If
> > you wish to support your accusation, you're going to have to prove
> > that I know that it is wrong.
>
>  Every atheist on this forum is willfully ignorant of the harm atheism
> has wreaked on humanity.
>
>  Try and try if you will to deny that on account of their atheism
> communist regimes slaughtered millions of their countrymen. But the
> facts don't agree with you.

The fact is, Chris, that communism is not the same thing as atheism.
Yes, Stalin was a monster who did not believe in God. Hitler was a
monster who did believe in God. Monsters in the 20th Century were
able to slaughter people in unprecedented numbers because of advances
in technology and the overall growth of human population. They were
not any more evil than monsters of other times, just more effective.

>
>  Listen you can stay an atheist if you want. I strongly advise against
> it. But someone is going to have to demonstrate why so called
> Christian or religious regimes never came anywhere close to killing as
> many people.

Except for the Christian regime of Nazi Germany of course - I can
truly understand why you prefer to pretend they weren't really
Christians.

>
> > >  I can only suspect that they think if they keep spouting it - the BIG
> > > LIE - it'll eventually be believed. Like the wonderful little
> > > goosesteppers they are.
>
> > Oh, you mean like how religion is propogated? (Consider Joes: Pray the
> > Rosary x infinity). No. We keep spouting it because we believe it to
> > be true, and we don't want our rights and lives trampled on as is
> > likely to happen if we remain silent. But nice to show your tyrannical
> > authoritarian colors, Chris.
>
>  I'm tyrannical by simply advocating what I know is to be a superior
> world view??? How do you figure? Every time some little Crustacean
> shows up on this board, the vultures swoop down and attack. I've seen
> it over and over again.
>
>  The atheists are the tyrants. It's laughable that you should try and
> turn the tables the way you do.

We're tyrannical by simply advocating what we know to be a superior
world view?? How do you figure?

>
> > Hm. Warm Christian love. Wait! That's not love!
>
> 100% pure love in fact.

Yeah, I can feel the love every time you compare me to Stalin.

- Bob T

[Duke of Omnium]

On Oct 7, 1:08 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 8:50 pm, Duke of Omnium <duke.of.omn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 5:29 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 3, 8:10 pm, Duke of Omnium <duke.of.omn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > What kind of lying dolt tries to pretend that christians don't
> > murder?
>
>  It's not impossible for a Christian to murder somebody. But that's a
> big difference between killing millions fool.

True. Most christians aren't clever enough to accomplish that. Some
are.

> > No, it's "clear" to disingenuous christians.  It's much more opaque to
> > others.
>
>  I don't know of anyone else, but atheists and crackhead liberals who
> spout such nonsense.

"I don't know" isn't much of a rebuttal, clod.

Right here, dungboy, when you pretend the Nazis weren't christians.
Duh!

>

>
>  History demonstrates that atheists in large number have no morality
> whatsoever.

That's EXACTLY how I feel about christians. And history bears me out.

>
>  The thread was about world views in case you didn't notice.
>

"Atheism" isn't a worldview, because a worldview would include a moral
paradigm. You genuinely do not seem sophisticated enough to grasp
this, but it's true nonetheless.

> > Are you genuinely ignorant of christianity's bloody history; or are
> > you simply lying?  I mean, I'm accusing you of gross dishonesty, but
> > you sincerely may not know any better.
>
> > I've always said, a christian can be intelligent or a christian can be
> > honest, but a christian cannot be both at the same time.
>
>  First off, you're demonstrating your ability to lie w/every sentence.
> I do not deny what so called Christians have done through the
> centuries. I have attempted to put some things in a different light,
> outright condemned some things, but never ever denied what history
> tells us. What I do continually draw attention to is the massive
> amounts of carnage atheist regimes have perpetrated.

And we keep pointing out the massive amounts of carnage that christian
regimes (e.g., the Nazis) have perpetrated.

For which there
> is little basis for comparison. Even Islamic countries can't lay claim
> to that amount of killing. Therefore atheism as a world view
> represents a horrific failure.

Atheism isn't a worldview. You're not terribly bright, are you?

[Max]

Why is it 'entirely rational' to believe in a 'higher
intelligence' (whatever that is) when you cannot provide any evidence
for this 'higher intelligence' whereas with other mythical entities
(such as unicorns) you can easily dismiss these constructs as simple
fabrications.

Also, try & consider this question as an entirely neutral commentator
would, not as an idealogue & then see what happens.

[LL]

LL. Or bricklayers?

......

[LL]

On Oct 7, 12:52 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:

LL. How is it rational? I see no more rationality in believing in a
god with no evidence than believing in any other mythical creature
with no evidence.

........

[Observer]

On Oct 7, 12:57 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> smoke and mirrors. Or simply bullcrap. 100% pure in fact.

Observer

It is a matter of fact that the contents of the human mind are
extrapolations based upon fragmentary data, oft miss-interpreted human
experiences, less than perfect recall (selective memory), a disregard
for, or a lack of understanding, as to the guidance provided by
critical thought as to which propositional data are worthy of an
investment of belief therein, the function of scientific method, and
the utility provided data provided thereby, and the horrific cognitive
bias resultant from all such human frailty.

See the following article for an aphoristic overview.



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


I suggest that a meaningful education would prove invaluable to
those
at present deprived of such. An area of human endeavor about which you
are poorly informed.


It is to the ennoblement of humanity to formulate * model driven*
opinions of actuality which provide for the formalization if testable
hypotheses ,which can and often do, lead to accurate prognostications
and thereby the manipulation of our environment for the security
and well being if the species.

What you consider" smoke and mirrors", or "bull shit", is of no moment
as you are unable to intelligently provide refutation thereof. Once
again is apparent that , at least a remedial education is in order.

I wish you well but detest the mindless superstitious filth which has
taken away your mind and even your humanity.

Psychonomist

> ...
>
> read more »

[Walt]

Marxism-Leninism, which includes atheism. That's a significant
argument that theism may be on the whole beneficial. (I say "on the
whole" since there are many examples since there are many examples in
history of theist world views causing carnage.) But in no way is it a
valid argument that theism is true.

[Observer]

On Oct 7, 12:43 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Oct 4, 8:36 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 3, 7:22 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >  Yeah that's right, I said it. A perfectly valid question.
>
> > Because religion is not compelling.
>
>  Adhering closely to a structured code of ethics

Observer

All ethical structures were evolved and codified in response societal,
economical, and security pressures of a those who had, thought they
had, or were able to convince others that they had the power to
enforce them (generally for in favor of their personal interests )


Ethics has entered into the realm of social science wherein advances
and errors can be scientifically evaluated and altered to the
production of formats which better reflect the needs of humanity and
eschew the superstitious filth of religions.

Yes I am calling christianity superstitious filth.

,

, which will affect
> superior lives for people in the now, and providing for superior
> *living conditions* in the afterlife - not compelling.

Observer

Not only is it not compelling but is altogether a vacuous concept.

Well to some
> degree you're right. But it's not because there isn't a valid basis to
> follow Christianity,

Observer
I notice that you failed to alert us as to just what such a "valid"
basis to follow christianity might be

.

it's just that people are basically ignorant, and
> willfully.

Observer

Christianity is , it's self the last best bastion of, ignorance based,
superstitious, filth The tenets there of being contrary to to reason-
ability, fail completely any positive assessment by the application
the application of critical thought, and fly in the face of scientific

method and the produce there of.

Or just unwilling to commit to something worthwhile.

Observer
Your opinion of "something worthwhile" can not be supported in light
of the sadomasochism , misanthropy, and hideous lies contained in the
primitive psychotic text from which are extrapolated the grievously
misconceptions which there from arise.

Sure
> committing to studies or even secular groups (that promote something
> truly ethical) or friendships or marriage are good things.

Observer

To what end state you such a superfluity and on what grounds do you
claim knowledge of what is truly ethical ? and do not friendships and
marriage sometimes lead to things that can be addressed in terms
malevolent alliances?

. I'm sure
> you'll agree. Christianity requires a deeper commitment, and that
> oftentimes is somewhere people refuse to go.

Observer



Quote


Religious commitment also frequently has its serious disadvantages,
since it tends to be obsessive-compulsive; and it may well interfere
with other kinds of healthy commitments—such as deep involvements in
sex-love relations, in scientific pursuits, and even in artistic
endeavors. Moreover, it is a commitment that is often motivated by
guilt or hostility, and may serve as a frenzied covering-up mechanism
which masks, but does not really eliminate, these underlying disturbed
feelings. It is also the kind of commitment that is based on
falsehoods and illusions, and that therefore easily can be shattered,
thus plunging the previously committed individual into the depths of
disillusionment and despair.

Not all forms of commitment, in other words, are equally healthy. The
grand inquisitors of the medieval catholic church were utterly
dedicated to their “holy” work, and Hitler and many of his associates
were fanatically committed to their Nazi doctrines. But this hardly
proves that they are emotionally human beings.


End quote





http://www.nasonart.com/personal/lifelessons/CaseAgainstReligion.html

They have too much vested
> in the things of this present world. They have a lack of scope.

Observer

A completely stupid statement requiring an unjustifiable assumption
that the psychotic filth of the bible truthfully projects the nonsense
of life after death. Angels,and demons, a devil and a god , Oh my!

<snipped mindless accusations that were many times successfully
refuted in the past.>


Psychonomist

[Eris]

Hitler was a Catholic who received the last rites and is not one of the more popular figures in Heaven

Pol Pot, no one knows what he was.

Stalin was a seminarian.

The religious nuts wiped out whole populations in North and South American, they are still digging up bodies of little Indian children  you assholes took away from their parents, tortured, raped and killed.

Then we have Africa, India, Australia and China, there's more asshole want me to go on?

[LL]

On Oct 9, 11:32 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Marxism-Leninism, which includes atheism.  That's a significant
> argument that theism may be on the whole beneficial.  (I say "on the
> whole" since there are many examples since there are many examples in
> history of theist world views causing carnage.)  But in no way is it a
> valid argument that theism is true.

LL. IMO, it isn't beneficial, either. Unless they think scaring
people into submission is "beneficial".

,,,,

[LL]

LL. It would have been helpful to know who you were responding to with
this post.

........

[TLC]

Walt,

I'm not sure I understand why you think "That's a significant argument
that theism may be on the whole beneficial."?

I do know that Marxism-Leninism is a big scary word for Americans, but
are you stating that the majority of mass murdering, unnecessary wars
ordered by Christian American Presidents and other religious leaders
of the world are "beneficial"?

Do you believe that the majority of arms traders and manufacturers,
all based in religious countries, and are friends of leaders who use
infantile words like, 'God Bless..', are on the whole beneficial? Is
this benefit because some manufacturers allow their workers to have
prayer meetings while making their killing machines!

In fact, since you know "there are many examples since there are many
examples in history of theist world views causing carnage.", can you
give me any examples of when theism was not causing carnage somewhere
in the World???

> > > > goosesteppers they are.- Hide quoted text -

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Oct 9, 10:40 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hitler was a Catholic who received the last rites and is not one of the more
> popular figures in Heaven
> Pol Pot, no one knows what he was.

Wiki says Pol Pot was a Theravada Buddhist. He was taught in a
Catholic school, where they did their usual brilliant job of
instilling their moral code. He hung with Communists while living in
Europe, so he was probably an atheist, but I don't know.

[Timothy 1:4a]

It's not surprising that Christians don't often give lectures on how
Hitler was a Christian - unpleasant topic, best forgotten - but you
don't often see well-informed Christians denying it either.

Here's an Anglican priest who thinks the Nazis were Christian heretics
- which would obviously still make them Christians.
http://frbkirk.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/a-letter-from-the-south-anglican-mainstream-south-africa/

Here's a right-wing Christian who insists Hitler was a Christian.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vyxo_NPiVhc

otoh, here's a Christian bishop who thinks Hitler was a Jew working as
part of a Zionist conspiracy. A whole new level of denial. You
sometimes see him labeled Hindu, too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DYeAv2vSIU

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 7, 12:31 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 9:42 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 3, 5:51 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > laugh all you want Neil. But you should be crying.
>
> > > What's the basis for debate?
>
> > What debate? You say something dumb, we point out that it's dumb, you
> > insult us for a while, then you run away. You don't debate.
>
>  Neil, you know you're full of stuffing. I don't run away from
> anything. And what did I say that was dumb?
>
>  Go ahead, ask me questions numbnutz.

Okay, dipshit.

Why do you think the Nazis weren't Christians?

> Let's see if I run from them.

You've already demonstrated this habit.

> I don't relish repeating myself 50,000,000,000 times, but in this life I
> guess I'll have to.
>
>  I can't wait to get to heaven simply because there won't be any
> atheists there!

Don't be so sure. If we're supposed to be punished in the afterlife
that would be the best way to do it.

> In reality I don't believe there are actually any
> *here* either, but some people got to pretend.

And you asked what you said that was dumb...

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Walt]

The point is that if you add up all the carnage of Maxist-Leninist
dictatorships in the 20th century, it exceeds that of governments that
were endorsed or at least not clearly condemned by Christianity.
Coincidence does not prove causality, but coincidence suggests
causality, so the argument is one to be taken seriously. But I don't
consider it to be conclusive by any means.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

On Oct 7, 10:38 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why are there any atheists? Some take great pride in their intellectual
> honesty and acuity in comparison to the unwashed masses who do believe.
> Pride goeth before this species of atheist. In stark contrast the humble
> atheist takes a more fruitful approach to the question of God. For the
> humble atheist knows living in truth is essentially an act of submission to
> something not manmade.

I'm sorry. How does this answer the question?

[Drafterman]

On Oct 7, 3:43 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 8:36 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > On Oct 3, 7:22 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >  Yeah that's right, I said it. A perfectly valid question.
>

> > Because religion is not compelling.
>

>  Adhering closely to a structured code of ethics, which will affect

> superior lives for people in the now, and providing for superior
> *living conditions* in the afterlife - not compelling.

Sorry, but what you described here isn't religion. Well, it's not
Christianity, at least.

> Well to some
> degree you're right. But it's not because there isn't a valid basis to

> follow Christianity, it's just that people are basically ignorant, and
> willfully.

Sure. I'll admit that I'm ignorant of any valid basis to follow
Christianity. Care to provide one?

> Or just unwilling to commit to something worthwhile.

Christianity isn't worthwhile.

> Sure
> committing to studies or even secular groups (that promote something

> truly ethical) or friendships or marriage are good things. I'm sure

> you'll agree. Christianity requires a deeper commitment, and that

> oftentimes is somewhere people refuse to go. They have too much vested

> in the things of this present world. They have a lack of scope.

Yes, I agree. Cults do require deeper commitments. The level of
commitment doesn't validate its existence.

>
> > >  You nuts go on and on how atheism represents a superior worldview.
> > > But it's probably the biggest lie that has ever been propagated.
>

> > A harsh accusation. A lie, of course, is to knowingly tell a
> > falsehood. If atheism is wrong, I don't know that it is. When I
> > support atheism, then, I'm not telling a lie, even if I'm wrong. If
> > you wish to support your accusation, you're going to have to prove
> > that I know that it is wrong.
>
>  Every atheist on this forum is willfully ignorant of the harm atheism
> has wreaked on humanity.
>
>  Try and try if you will to deny that on account of their atheism
> communist regimes slaughtered millions of their countrymen. But the
> facts don't agree with you.

What fact would that be? The communists killed in the name of
communism and power. Their atheism is tangential to that issue.

>
>  Listen you can stay an atheist if you want. I strongly advise against
> it. But someone is going to have to demonstrate why so called
> Christian or religious regimes never came anywhere close to killing as
> many people.
>

> > >  I can only suspect that they think if they keep spouting it - the BIG
> > > LIE - it'll eventually be believed. Like the wonderful little

> > > goosesteppers they are.
>
> > Oh, you mean like how religion is propogated? (Consider Joes: Pray the
> > Rosary x infinity). No. We keep spouting it because we believe it to
> > be true, and we don't want our rights and lives trampled on as is
> > likely to happen if we remain silent. But nice to show your tyrannical
> > authoritarian colors, Chris.
>
>  I'm tyrannical by simply advocating what I know is to be a superior
> world view??? How do you figure?

The only thing you're advocating is the oppression of atheists. Which
makes you tyrannical.

> Every time some little Crustacean
> shows up on this board, the vultures swoop down and attack. I've seen
> it over and over again.
>
>  The atheists are the tyrants. It's laughable that you should try and
> turn the tables the way you do.

I don't need to turn the tables because I know what words mean and how
to use them.

[Drafterman]

On Oct 7, 3:49 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> look exposing evil for what it is is at least somewhat in line with
> Christian doctrine.

The only evil you've exposed is your own.

>
> Who's teachings do your *actions* reflect? Karl Marx?

I don't model myself after any specific individual and I doubt I could
trace the origin of any specific action or behavior to a single
person. That's the benefit of being open minded and not revering
anyone as a savior or saint: you can evaluate teachings and behaviors
objectively and think about them critically. You take what's good and
you leave what's bad.

>
> On Oct 4, 8:37 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Do YOUR actions, in any way, reflect the teachings of Jesus Christ?

>
> > On Oct 3, 7:48 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > SEE...THERE'S YOUR ANSWER. Rank stupidity and the willingness to
> > > believe lies. That's why it still exists!!
>
> > > It's *ok* for you to be a proponent of whatever the H* you want Neil.
> > > It just stands to reason you should be right once in a while, God.
>
> > > FOR INSTANCE, this annoying assertion that the Nazis were Christian.
> > > Oh, ok. besides that notion smacking the average person in the face w/
> > > it's brash lack of decency or credibility. It doesn't hold up under
> > > the merest scrutiny. You can call yourself whatever you want, but if
> > > you fail some basic tests, your pronouncement is rendered invalid. The
> > > Nazis did call themselves Christians, but were in reality murderous
> > > thugs. Does there actions in anyway, anyhow reflect the teachings of
> > > Jesus Christ? Was the impetus for their actions found in his words, or
> > > rather were in accord w/the insane rantings of their bloodthirsty
> > > leader? Simply and emphatically, no, and yes to those questions.
>
> > > So their claim, and yours, is shot to H*.
>
> > > This is why there are atheists. They can't handle the truth, so
> > > constantly resort to distortions and lies.
>

> > > Wow, I'm glad that's over. Now we all know why!- Hide quoted text -

[OldMan]

On Oct 3, 4:22 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>  Yeah that's right, I said it. A perfectly valid question.
>

>  You nuts go on and on how atheism represents a superior worldview.
> But it's probably the biggest lie that has ever been propagated.
>

>  I can only suspect that they think if they keep spouting it - the BIG
> LIE - it'll eventually be believed. Like the wonderful little
> goosesteppers they are.

I am not an atheist, but I do understand to some extent their
position. Many atheists lack belief in God because of intellectual
reasons, there is no hard scientific evidence to support his existence
(see 1 Corinthians 1:22-24). In addition many are (or remain)
atheists because of the actions of those who claim to be followers of
Christ. Our words are too often unloving, hateful and foolish and our
actions do not conform with what we claim to believe. The wonder is
that there are not more atheists in the world today.

[LL]

LL. Well said, Old Man. You have an unusual ubderstanding of poth
atheism and theism.

..........

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Oct 4, 4:22 am, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>  Yeah that's right, I said it. A perfectly valid question.

Could it be because there's no one to strike them dead?

>  You nuts go on and on how atheism represents a superior worldview.
> But it's probably the biggest lie that has ever been propagated.

Quite! The truth is that gods and goddess do exist:->

>  I can only suspect that they think if they keep spouting it - the BIG
> LIE - it'll eventually be believed. Like the wonderful little
> goosesteppers they are.

That goddesses don't exist has been spouted by followers of male
monotheism for longer than it has been spouted by atheists. Fancy that!

[Ed Jarrett]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:11 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:

LL.  Well said, Old Man. You have an unusual ubderstanding of poth
atheism and theism.

It only makes sense that I would understand my own position.  But it also seems reasonable to me to understand the other side if I am going to engage in anything resembling intelligent conversation.

 

Ed Jarrett (OldMan)

http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

[LL]

On Oct 11, 6:52 pm, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:11 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > LL.  Well said, Old Man. You have an unusual ubderstanding of poth
> > atheism and theism.
>
> It only makes sense that I would understand my own position.  But it also
> seems reasonable to me to understand the other side if I am going to engage
> in anything resembling intelligent conversation.
>

LL. True, if you could only get other theists to take that position.
There are very few. You are a rare man.

.........
> Ed Jarrett (OldMan)http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

[Trance Gemini]

Interesting blog, Ed and ditto on the Welcome back!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--

"If you've got the truth you can demonstrate it. Talking doesn't prove it. Show people." -- Robert A. Heinlein.

Jubal Harshaw character in Stranger in a Strange Land

[Answer_42]

I would only add here that for many, if not most, atheists, being an
atheist is not the result of a choice as you sort of imply it is. For
instance, in may case, and I know many atheists are like me, I was an
atheist long before I even knew there was a word to describe how I was
vis à vis gods and religious beliefs.

[Ed Jarrett]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

Interesting blog, Ed and ditto on the Welcome back!

Thanks Trance

 

[Ed Jarrett]

That is a valid point.  We are all born without a belief in God. 

 

Ed Jarrett

http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

[Answer_42]

Exactly, and where do god beliefs come from?
From the human psyche, do they not?
Doesn't that tell us anything at all about the validity of such
beliefs (with regards to their relation to their truth value)? Unless,
of course, one can point to actual objective evidence residing outside
anyone's psyche that can be used to support those beliefs in the first
place.
I have not seen any yet, nor have I heard of any such evidence being
available anytime anywhere. This is why I think gods are fictional
characters, i.e. they stem from the human imagination, like all other
fictional characters. Gods just happen to be the first (probably) and
oldest such characters still active in the fictional realm.

[Chris]

On Oct 10, 3:37 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 12:31 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 3, 9:42 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 3, 5:51 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > laugh all you want Neil. But you should be crying.
>
> > > > What's the basis for debate?
>
> > > What debate? You say something dumb, we point out that it's dumb, you
> > > insult us for a while, then you run away. You don't debate.
>
> >  Neil, you know you're full of stuffing. I don't run away from
> > anything. And what did I say that was dumb?
>
> >  Go ahead, ask me questions numbnutz.
>
> Okay, dipshit.
>
> Why do you think the Nazis weren't Christians?

That's retarded. Why should I think them.

If I were to say I'm an Orthodox Jew, but have hotdogs hanging out of
my mouth 12 times a day, wouldn't you question the validity of my
claim???

> > Let's see if I run from them.
>
> You've already demonstrated this habit.

Yeah, I type best while jogging.

> > I don't relish repeating myself 50,000,000,000 times, but in this life I
> > guess I'll have to.
>
> >  I can't wait to get to heaven simply because there won't be any
> > atheists there!
>
> Don't be so sure. If we're supposed to be punished in the afterlife
> that would be the best way to do it.

What? Yeah I would definitely consider dwelling amongst atheists and
Canadians as punishment Neil. But I'm going to be rewarded. So in my
presence will be a Christian Neil Kelsey, or no Neil at all. Sorry.

> > In reality I don't believe there are actually any
> > *here* either, but some people got to pretend.
>
> And you asked what you said that was dumb...

you're just suffering from a defect. Hopefully it'll wear off.

[Chris]

On Oct 7, 5:34 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 12:52 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 7, 5:25 am, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
>
> > > I don't believe in Unicorns.
>
> > > Am I a liar to say so?
>
> >  The continual attempts to equate mythical creatures w/a higher
> > intelligence, the belief in which is entirely  rational, is simply pathetic.
>
> Except, of course, for the obvious fact that Jehovah is a mythical
> creature, and it is no more rational to believe in that deity than to
> believe in Thor or Quetzalcoatl.
>
> - Bob T

Which perfectly exemplifies your objectivity, or lack thereof rather.

There aren't many, if any, "strong" atheists on this board Bob. I
doubt you're one, although you are many things. The various
mythological creation stories are at best woefully ludicrous. "Gods"
defecating and thereby creating continents and whatnot. Silly, as I'm
sure you'd agree. Genesis stands in total contrast to crap like that.
You can regard it as merely a story or even allegory if you wish. But
I challenge you to construct a more suitable creation epic. Of course
the typical recalcitrant atheist is incapable of ever playing along,
so I guess it's worthless to even try.

[Chris]

On Oct 7, 7:45 pm, Duke of Omnium <duke.of.omn...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 7, 1:08 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 8:50 pm, Duke of Omnium <duke.of.omn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 3, 5:29 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 3, 8:10 pm, Duke of Omnium <duke.of.omn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What kind of lying dolt tries to pretend that christians don't
> > > murder?
>
> >  It's not impossible for a Christian to murder somebody. But that's a
> > big difference between killing millions fool.
>

> True.  Most christians aren't clever enough to accomplish that.  Some
> are.

You don't know when to quit friend. You're doing double duty when it
comes to showing how atheists are efficient at exterminating their
neighbors.

I should just sit back and just let you do all the work.

> > > No, it's "clear" to disingenuous christians.  It's much more opaque to
> > > others.
>
> >  I don't know of anyone else, but atheists and crackhead liberals who
> > spout such nonsense.
>

> "I don't know" isn't much of a rebuttal, clod.

Well I don't know of anyone else who makes such statements.

And for what it's worth you're as potent an atheist as one can
imagine. You actually defend, indirectly, the acts of atheists of a
bygone era. Wow

> > > >  But do some reading on your heros like Stalin, Pol Pot, and Chairman
> > > > Mao. Then you'll find what ideology or what have you is quite in line
> > > > w/egregious crimes against humanity.
>
> > > First of all, they aren't my heroes.  I don't expect a turd like you
> > > to grasp that.
>
> > > But even disregarding that little tidbit, a tu quoque fallacy is --
> > > well, a fallacy.  I don't expect you to grasp that, either, but you
> > > could look it up.
>

> > > > > > Does there actions in anyway, anyhow reflect the teachings of
> > > > > > Jesus Christ?
>

> > > > > THEY thought so.  Who am I to disagree?
>
> > > >  No they didn't "think" so. They were told so. If they would have
> > > > thought about it, they would have done otherwise.
>
> > > Thought so, told so; is there even a difference.  And I assume you're
> > > just reverting to comedian mode when you suggest that christians can
> > > think about their beliefs.
>
> > > >  You have every right to disagree when someone makes a false claim.
>
> > > "False claim" begs the question, turd.
>
> > > > Your unwillingness to do so is on account of the preponderance of lies
> > > > you constantly tell yourself. You can't or are simply unwilling to
> > > > deal honestly and render honest judgments.
>
> > > Actually, turd, I just don't have the same emotional need to whitewash
> > > christians' actions that you do.  Must suck to find this much
> > > dishonesty imposed on you.
>
> >  I've never whitewashed anything. Show me one example in 4 1/2 years
> > where I've whitewashed anyone's actions.
>

> Right here, dungboy, when you pretend the Nazis weren't christians.
> Duh!

That's not whitewashing genius. I'm stating their actions weren't
even close to being inline w/Christian doctrine. No way in Hell.

> >  History demonstrates that atheists in large number have no morality
> > whatsoever.
>

> That's EXACTLY how I feel about christians.  And history bears me out.

Anything you can drum up about "Christian immorality" pales in
comparison to what happened in the 20th century under atheist regimes.

And it's not at all about "feeling" anything. It's about facts.

> >  The thread was about world views in case you didn't notice.
>

> "Atheism" isn't a worldview, because a worldview would include a moral
> paradigm.  You genuinely do not seem sophisticated enough to grasp
> this, but it's true nonetheless.

Atheism at least in part always encompasses a world bereft of deity.
No escaping that.

> > > Are you genuinely ignorant of christianity's bloody history; or are
> > > you simply lying?  I mean, I'm accusing you of gross dishonesty, but
> > > you sincerely may not know any better.
>
> > > I've always said, a christian can be intelligent or a christian can be
> > > honest, but a christian cannot be both at the same time.
>
> >  First off, you're demonstrating your ability to lie w/every sentence.
> > I do not deny what so called Christians have done through the
> > centuries. I have attempted to put some things in a different light,
> > outright condemned some things, but never ever denied what history
> > tells us. What I do continually draw attention to is the massive
> > amounts of carnage atheist regimes have perpetrated.
>

> And we keep pointing out the massive amounts of carnage that christian
> regimes (e.g., the Nazis) have perpetrated.

They weren't Christian. They simply called themselves that. Their
actions demonstrated what they really were, or actually weren't.

> For which there
>
> > is little basis for comparison. Even Islamic countries can't lay claim
> > to that amount of killing. Therefore atheism as a world view
> > represents a horrific failure.
>

> Atheism isn't a worldview.  You're not terribly bright, are you?

Spoke to this above.

[Chris]

On Oct 8, 1:48 am, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
> Why is it 'entirely rational' to believe in a 'higher
> intelligence' (whatever that is) when you cannot provide any evidence
> for this 'higher intelligence' whereas with other mythical entities
> (such as unicorns) you can easily dismiss these constructs as simple
> fabrications.

It's always been my contention that this is just a juvenile atheist
tactic to equate belief in God w/belief in unicorns.

I don't reserve the right to believe in unicorns on the basis that
one day a unicorn's skeleton will be found. There is simply no need or
rational to accept that they exist or existed.

But on the other hand to ascribe all that's majestic in the world to
blind random chance is absurd. You say we can't see God, so therefore
he doesn't exist, or there's no reason to believe. But we see what's
all around us. And we see the way atheist have murdered millions. It's
quite elementary my dear Watson. Of course actually believing as a
Christian does is more about what's experienced in the inner man. But
as to the rational for purely assenting mentally to the existence of
God, come on, once you dispense w/the atheist games, it's all right
there.
We can't see morals or philosophy. But people prescribe to that like
crazy. Can't see them or touch them. But we're doomed w/o a lot of
that. And there's even the argument of morality that people like
Francis Collins and that author who's name escapes me at the moment
("Screwtape Letters" and all that) prescribe to.

> Also, try & consider this question as an entirely neutral commentator
> would, not as an idealogue & then see what happens.

An idealog is as I see it someone who holds to a set of beliefs
despite evidence to the contrary. I don't consider myself that. By
your reckoning 90% of the world holds to blind ideology. Only the
small paltry groups known as athiests don't. Come on.

[Chris]

read the reply I sent to Max.

On Oct 8, 11:56 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Oct 7, 12:52 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 7, 5:25 am, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
>
> > > I don't believe in Unicorns.
>
> > > Am I a liar to say so?
>
> >  The continual attempts to equate mythical creatures w/a higher
> > intelligence, the belief in which is entirely rational, is simply
> > pathetic.
>

> LL.  How is it rational?  I see no more rationality in believing in a
> god with no evidence than believing in any other mythical creature
> with no evidence.
>
> ........

[Chris]

I wouldn't be so sure. Inherent in Communism is not only a deplorable
social model but also an economic one.

you prescribe to all the wrong stuff and community suffers. I'd have
to do a bit more work on it, but I think it bespeaks volumes the way
atheists, in numbers, have wreaked havoc on societies.

On Oct 9, 2:32 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Marxism-Leninism, which includes atheism.  That's a significant
> argument that theism may be on the whole beneficial.  (I say "on the
> whole" since there are many examples since there are many examples in
> history of theist world views causing carnage.)  But in no way is it a
> valid argument that theism is true.
>
> On Oct 7, 8:50 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > in the 20th century, what world view was responsible for more carnage.
> > Let's start there dude.
>
> > On Oct 6, 3:08 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The human mind can concieve of many things, which may or may not
> > > exist.  We presume something we conceive of does not exist unless
> > > there is a basis to believe that it does exist.  So atheism in itself
> > > cannot be a lie, it's just the starting point of all sensible people.
> > > A theist must make their particular argument for (their) God, and
> > > atheists will then make their counter-arguments.  I'll be happy to
> > > consider your specific criticisms of the counter-arguments.  But not
> > > your apparently baseless, and thus apparently clownish, accusations of
> > > dishonesty.
>

[Chris]

On Oct 9, 10:40 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hitler was a Catholic who received the last rites and is not one of the more
> popular figures in Heaven
> Pol Pot, no one knows what he was.

> Stalin was a seminarian.
>
> The religious nuts wiped out whole populations in North and South American,
> they are still digging up bodies of little Indian children  you assholes
> took away from their parents, tortured, raped and killed.
>
> Then we have Africa, India, Australia and China, there's more asshole want
> me to go on?

I am no defender of the Catholic Church. I'm just curious why it took
8+ centuries for them to decide they wanted to commit genocide.

Hitler was not acting on orders of the CC. There are aspects of
Catholicism that are scary, no argument. They're not an apostolic
church, despite their claims.

Atheist have to allude to Hitler to attempt to draw attention away
from the crimes perpetrated by true athiests. Even non religious Jews
like David Berlinsky state that the Nazis were effectively atheists.
They didn't care about Christian morality, didn't care about
punishment for their actions. They didn't revere the bible, they just
cherry picked verses that they could skew to justify their actions.
Wow I've seen a lot of atheists skew portions of the bible too.

[Chris]

what do most Christians have in common w/Hitler? Do atheists these
days give lectures espousing Lenin and Stalin? Alright some do, but
the rubes on this list for the most part don't, or try to disguise it.

> Here's an Anglican priest who thinks the Nazis were Christian heretics

> - which would obviously still make them Christians.http://frbkirk.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/a-letter-from-the-south-angli...

Nope, more atheistic skewing of terms.

A heretic is a person who espouses anti-Christian doctrines. That's
why they're deemed anti-Christs by John and others.

> Here's a right-wing Christian who insists Hitler was a Christian.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vyxo_NPiVhc

A Neo-Nazi in other words.

> otoh, here's a Christian bishop who thinks Hitler was a Jew working as
> part of a Zionist conspiracy. A whole new level of denial.  You
> sometimes see him labeled Hindu, too!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DYeAv2vSIU

Hitler did have Jewish ancestry. And the swastika was imported from
India.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 12, 4:21 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 10, 3:37 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 12:31 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 3, 9:42 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 3, 5:51 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > laugh all you want Neil. But you should be crying.
>
> > > > > What's the basis for debate?
>
> > > > What debate? You say something dumb, we point out that it's dumb, you
> > > > insult us for a while, then you run away. You don't debate.
>
> > >  Neil, you know you're full of stuffing. I don't run away from
> > > anything. And what did I say that was dumb?
>
> > >  Go ahead, ask me questions numbnutz.
>
> > Okay, dipshit.
>
> > Why do you think the Nazis weren't Christians?
>
>  That's retarded. Why should I think them.

That doesn't make any sense.

>  If I were to say I'm an Orthodox Jew, but have hotdogs hanging out of
> my mouth 12 times a day, wouldn't you question the validity of my
> claim???

You didn't answer my question. Evasion is a form of running away. QED.

> > > Let's see if I run from them.
>
> > You've already demonstrated this habit.
>
>  Yeah, I type best while jogging.

Don't quit your day job.

> > > I don't relish repeating myself 50,000,000,000 times, but in this life I
> > > guess I'll have to.
>
> > >  I can't wait to get to heaven simply because there won't be any
> > > atheists there!
>
> > Don't be so sure. If we're supposed to be punished in the afterlife
> > that would be the best way to do it.
>
>  What? Yeah I would definitely consider dwelling amongst atheists and
> Canadians as punishment Neil.

No, genius. You're a Christian, you're not supposed to get punished.

Once again, atheist have to explain Christianity to Christians.

> But I'm going to be rewarded. So in my
> presence will be a Christian Neil Kelsey, or no Neil at all. Sorry.

And I'm going to be tortured, and I was offering some suggestions on
how you loons can improve your torture policy.

> > > In reality I don't believe there are actually any
> > > *here* either, but some people got to pretend.
>
> > And you asked what you said that was dumb...
>
>  you're just suffering from a defect. Hopefully it'll wear off.

I'm not defective; what you said really was dumb.

[Bob T.]

On Oct 12, 4:26 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 5:34 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 12:52 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 7, 5:25 am, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I don't believe in Unicorns.
>
> > > > Am I a liar to say so?
>
> > >  The continual attempts to equate mythical creatures w/a higher
> > > intelligence, the belief in which is entirely  rational, is simply pathetic.
>
> > Except, of course, for the obvious fact that Jehovah is a mythical
> > creature, and it is no more rational to believe in that deity than to
> > believe in Thor or Quetzalcoatl.
>
> > - Bob T
>
>  Which perfectly exemplifies your objectivity, or lack thereof rather.

I suppose you "objectively" evaluated all the religions of the world
and decided to pick Christianity?

>
>  There aren't many, if any, "strong" atheists on this board Bob. I
> doubt you're one, although you are many things. The various
> mythological creation stories are at best woefully ludicrous.

Exactly. Oh, wait, you don't realize that Genesis is one of those
mythological creation stories...

> "Gods" defecating and thereby creating continents and whatnot. Silly, as I'm
> sure you'd agree. Genesis stands in total contrast to crap like that.

Talking snakes, magical trees, people living for hundreds of years...
the contrast seems less than total ;-} But it's the mythology you
grew up with, so you can't see it.

> You can regard it as merely a story or even allegory if you wish. But
> I challenge you to construct a more suitable creation epic. Of course
> the typical recalcitrant atheist is incapable of ever playing along,
> so I guess it's worthless to even try.

"Our whole universe was in a hot, dense state..."

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

- Bob T

[Chris]

On Oct 11, 9:08 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 3:43 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 4, 8:36 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 3, 7:22 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >  Yeah that's right, I said it. A perfectly valid question.
>
> > > Because religion is not compelling.
>
> >  Adhering closely to a structured code of ethics, which will affect
> > superior lives for people in the now, and providing for superior
> > *living conditions* in the afterlife - not compelling.
>
> Sorry, but what you described here isn't religion. Well, it's not
> Christianity, at least.

Simply another of your useless assertions.

> > Well to some
> > degree you're right. But it's not because there isn't a valid basis to
> > follow Christianity, it's just that people are basically ignorant, and
> > willfully.
>
> Sure. I'll admit that I'm ignorant of any valid basis to follow
> Christianity. Care to provide one?

read the bible.

> > Or just unwilling to commit to something worthwhile.
>
> Christianity isn't worthwhile.

yet another useless assertion.

what the hell does stating your worthless opinion time and time again
do for the discussion???

> > Sure
> > committing to studies or even secular groups (that promote something
> > truly ethical) or friendships or marriage are good things. I'm sure
> > you'll agree. Christianity requires a deeper commitment, and that
> > oftentimes is somewhere people refuse to go. They have too much vested
> > in the things of this present world. They have a lack of scope.
>
> Yes, I agree. Cults do require deeper commitments. The level of
> commitment doesn't validate its existence.

Someone knock up Govnuh Perry's pastor. He needs to be informed that
now all Christianity is a cult!

Drafterman, you really are just so pathetic. I try to remain
respectable in hopes of something resembling a worthwhile conversation
with you. But you prove it to be a fruitless pursuit time and time
again.

> > > >  You nuts go on and on how atheism represents a superior worldview.
> > > > But it's probably the biggest lie that has ever been propagated.
>
> > > A harsh accusation. A lie, of course, is to knowingly tell a
> > > falsehood. If atheism is wrong, I don't know that it is. When I
> > > support atheism, then, I'm not telling a lie, even if I'm wrong. If
> > > you wish to support your accusation, you're going to have to prove
> > > that I know that it is wrong.
>
> >  Every atheist on this forum is willfully ignorant of the harm atheism
> > has wreaked on humanity.
>
> >  Try and try if you will to deny that on account of their atheism
> > communist regimes slaughtered millions of their countrymen. But the
> > facts don't agree with you.
>
> What fact would that be? The communists killed in the name of
> communism and power. Their atheism is tangential to that issue.

When you cross over a line in history and the other side is smeared
and stained w/human blood, one needs to ask what were the motivations
that led them to such evil.

They killed in the name of the state. But they killed an awful lot.
They had to be conditioned to turn on their countrymen to that degree.
Religion (i.e beliefs in God/s) were an impediment. It had to be
ousted.

Try and deny that renouncing faith and moral wasn't part and parcel
of Communism.

> >  Listen you can stay an atheist if you want. I strongly advise against
> > it. But someone is going to have to demonstrate why so called
> > Christian or religious regimes never came anywhere close to killing as
> > many people.
>
> > > >  I can only suspect that they think if they keep spouting it - the BIG
> > > > LIE - it'll eventually be believed. Like the wonderful little
> > > > goosesteppers they are.
>
> > > Oh, you mean like how religion is propogated? (Consider Joes: Pray the
> > > Rosary x infinity). No. We keep spouting it because we believe it to
> > > be true, and we don't want our rights and lives trampled on as is
> > > likely to happen if we remain silent. But nice to show your tyrannical
> > > authoritarian colors, Chris.
>
> >  I'm tyrannical by simply advocating what I know is to be a superior
> > world view??? How do you figure?
>
> The only thing you're advocating is the oppression of atheists. Which
> makes you tyrannical.

Wow. I've actually provoked ol' Draftypants to playing the
persecution card, that I thought Christians were supposed to be so
famous for.

Where have I advocated the oppression of anyone??? Name one example.

> > Every time some little Crustacean
> > shows up on this board, the vultures swoop down and attack. I've seen
> > it over and over again.
>
> >  The atheists are the tyrants. It's laughable that you should try and
> > turn the tables the way you do.
>
> I don't need to turn the tables because I know what words mean and how
> to use them.

You don't know diddly spit about words.

[Chris]

On Oct 11, 9:10 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 3:49 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > look exposing evil for what it is is at least somewhat in line with
> > Christian doctrine.
>
> The only evil you've exposed is your own.
>
>
>
> > Who's teachings do your *actions* reflect? Karl Marx?
>
> I don't model myself after any specific individual and I doubt I could
> trace the origin of any specific action or behavior to a single
> person. That's the benefit of being open minded and not revering
> anyone as a savior or saint: you can evaluate teachings and behaviors
> objectively and think about them critically. You take what's good and
> you leave what's bad.

This is actually becoming funny.

Why am I evil, and what good haven't I kept, and what bad haven't I
left???

[Bob T.]

On Oct 12, 4:35 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 7:45 pm, Duke of Omnium <duke.of.omn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 1:08 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 3, 8:50 pm, Duke of Omnium <duke.of.omn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 3, 5:29 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 3, 8:10 pm, Duke of Omnium <duke.of.omn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > What kind of lying dolt tries to pretend that christians don't
> > > > murder?
>
> > >  It's not impossible for a Christian to murder somebody. But that's a
> > > big difference between killing millions fool.
>
> > True.  Most christians aren't clever enough to accomplish that.  Some
> > are.
>
>  You don't know when to quit friend. You're doing double duty when it
> comes to showing how atheists are efficient at exterminating their
> neighbors.

Poor Chris - can't tell the difference between somebody calling him
stupid and genocide.

>
>  I should just sit back and just let you do all the work.
>
> > > > No, it's "clear" to disingenuous christians.  It's much more opaque to
> > > > others.
>
> > >  I don't know of anyone else, but atheists and crackhead liberals who
> > > spout such nonsense.
>
> > "I don't know" isn't much of a rebuttal, clod.
>
>  Well I don't know of anyone else who makes such statements.
>
>  And for what it's worth you're as potent an atheist as one can
> imagine. You actually defend, indirectly, the acts of atheists of a
> bygone era. Wow

Pointing out that Hitler was a Christian is not the same thing as
defending Stalin.

>  Spoke to this above.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Chris]

you're just a paragon of virtue om aren't you.

one can't help but become frustrated at times with people who solely
exhibit their bias. Of course we should love the best we can. But
we're still human.

All I see you doing is taking their side, time and time again. Is your
method going to lead to more atheists becoming Christian I might ask?

On Oct 11, 11:55 am, OldMan <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Chris]

an uberstanding of what??? just who are the Nazis here!!!

[Chris]

Hey buddy. Whatever lol

On Oct 11, 9:39 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

[Chris]

listen don't be a fool. It's not the acknowledgment that we can't see
or touch God physically. Everyone does that. It's the way these
sorcerers try to twist everything, because they don't want to believe.

[Bob T.]

On Oct 12, 5:25 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> one can't help but become frustrated at times with people who solely
> exhibit their bias.

You're right! People who constantly spout bigotry against gays,
Catholics and atheists are extremely frustrating.

- Bob T

[Chris]

perhaps Ed ultimately isn't concerned w/atheists becoming Christians.
Perhaps he's just interested in getting along.

[Chris]

iow you found a belief in God repugnant. You didn't want someone
staring at you when you were undressed, etc., and all other such
nonsense.

When I was in Catholic school a girl asked if God could see us when
we're naked. I thought that was the most horrendously stupid thing
anyone (even a child) could ask. It's indicative of a type of
paranoia. Poor Christopher Hitchens and Aldus Huxley don't want anyone
grading their actions either.

[Ed Jarrett]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Chris <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote:

you're just a paragon of virtue om aren't you.

Not really.

 

one can't help but become frustrated at times with people who solely
exhibit their bias. Of course we should love the best we can. But
we're still human.

We are.  But that is not really a good excuse to be hateful.

 

All I see you doing is taking their side, time and time again. Is your
method going to lead to more atheists becoming Christian I might ask?

I don't take their side, and we generally agree on little.  Because I understand their argument doesn't mean that I agree with it.  But I do take exception to people who bring disrepute to my Lord.

 

On Oct 11, 11:55 am, OldMan <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 4:22 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >  Yeah that's right, I said it. A perfectly valid question.
>

> >  You nuts go on and on how atheism represents a superior worldview.
> > But it's probably the biggest lie that has ever been propagated.
>

> >  I can only suspect that they think if they keep spouting it - the BIG
> > LIE - it'll eventually be believed. Like the wonderful little
> > goosesteppers they are.
>

> I am not an atheist, but I do understand to some extent their
> position.  Many atheists lack belief in God because of intellectual
> reasons, there is no hard scientific evidence to support his existence
> (see 1 Corinthians 1:22-24).  In addition many are (or remain)
> atheists because of the actions of those who claim to be followers of
> Christ.  Our words are too often unloving, hateful and foolish and our
> actions do not conform with what we claim to believe.  The wonder is
> that there are not more atheists in the world today.
 

Ed Jarrett (OldMan)

http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

[Ed Jarrett]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Chris <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote:

perhaps Ed ultimately isn't concerned w/atheists becoming Christians.
Perhaps he's just interested in getting along.

And maybe he believes that understanding their position is more effective than throwing foolish misunderstandings at them.  I would love to see our atheist friends here come to know the God I do.  But it is their choice to make and I choose to respect their right to make that choice.

 

[Bob T.]

On Oct 12, 5:28 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> listen don't be a fool. It's not the acknowledgment that we can't see
> or touch God physically. Everyone does that. It's the way these
> sorcerers try to twist everything, because they don't want to believe.

If I don't believe because I "don't want to", do you believe because
you do want to?

In reality, I dont believe in Jehovah for the same reasons I dont
believe in Thor.

- Bob T

>
> On Oct 11, 9:52 pm, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:11 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > LL.  Well said, Old Man. You have an unusual ubderstanding of poth
> > > atheism and theism.
>
> > It only makes sense that I would understand my own position.  But it also
> > seems reasonable to me to understand the other side if I am going to engage
> > in anything resembling intelligent conversation.
>

> > Ed Jarrett (OldMan)http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/- Hide quoted text -

[Max]

There probably are more atheists around than one would think
OM..............it's just a wee bit too dangerous to state as much in
many countries.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 11, 8:55 am, OldMan <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 4:22 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >  Yeah that's right, I said it. A perfectly valid question.
>
> >  You nuts go on and on how atheism represents a superior worldview.
> > But it's probably the biggest lie that has ever been propagated.
>
> >  I can only suspect that they think if they keep spouting it - the BIG
> > LIE - it'll eventually be believed. Like the wonderful little
> > goosesteppers they are.
>
> I am not an atheist, but I do understand to some extent their
> position.  Many atheists lack belief in God because of intellectual
> reasons, there is no hard scientific evidence to support his existence
> (see 1 Corinthians 1:22-24).

"For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ
crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to
those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God
and the wisdom of God."

Seems like a poor justification to continue believing that magical
invisible beings operate the universe in the face of hard scientific
evidence that they don't.

 In addition many are (or remain)
> atheists because of the actions of those who claim to be followers of
> Christ.  Our words are too often unloving, hateful and foolish and our
> actions do not conform with what we claim to believe.

It would be wrong to be an atheist because some Christians are
hypocrites.

[Max]

Thanks for responding Chris...see below

On Oct 13, 7:56 am, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 8, 1:48 am, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
>
> > Why is it 'entirely rational' to believe in a 'higher
> > intelligence' (whatever that is) when you cannot provide any evidence
> > for this 'higher intelligence' whereas with other mythical entities
> > (such as unicorns) you can easily dismiss these constructs as simple
> > fabrications.
>
>  It's always been my contention that this is just a juvenile atheist
> tactic to equate belief in God w/belief in unicorns.

No, not a tactic....an analogy whose purpose it is to demonstrate your
cognitive dissonance [which it has]

>
>  I don't reserve the right to believe in unicorns on the basis that
> one day a unicorn's skeleton will be found. There is simply no need or
> rational to accept that they exist or existed.

Imagine that you & I were around 500 years ago & living in say,
England. Let's say that I believed in mythical creatures I called
dinosaurs (I simply made the word up too). I don't have any physical
evidence or knowledge of their existance including say fossilised
remains to support my contention. I simply believe in them, that's
all.

Now, given that we know today [2011] that dinosaurs did in fact exist,
would my belief in dinosaurs back in 1511 have been valid?

No, because how could that belief be validly supported, unless I had
some supernatural ability to know something without any physical
evidence or an articulated theory or hypothesis at hand.

Not even you could have believed in Dinosaurs back in 1511 as there
was no mention of these creatures in the bible. I mean how could they,
they didn't appear in the ark did they?

So even if in 500 years from now, someone dug up the skeletal remains
of a unicorn, it still doesn't change the dynamic that the belief in
same [in 2011] is completely unfounded evidentially.


So.........................

>
>  But on the other hand to ascribe all that's majestic in the world to
> blind random chance is absurd. You say we can't see God, so therefore
> he doesn't exist, or there's no reason to believe. But we see what's
> all around us. And we see the way atheist have murdered millions. It's
> quite elementary my dear Watson. Of course actually believing as a
> Christian does is more about what's experienced in the inner man. But
> as to the rational for purely assenting mentally to the existence of
> God, come on, once you dispense w/the atheist games, it's all right
> there.

.............the analogy [unicorns or dinosuars back in 1511] is the
same as any unfounded or evidentially bereft contention' Just because
you logically can't know something is magically answered by your
desire to have those questions answered by something..........even if
that something cannot be proven nor is supported by evidence.

That's why they call it faith.

>  We can't see morals or philosophy.

So are you saying that God is a 'moral' or a 'philosophy' then, you
know a human contruct?

But people prescribe to that like
> crazy. Can't see them or touch them. But we're doomed w/o a lot of
> that. And there's even the argument of morality that people like
> Francis Collins and that author who's name escapes me at the moment
> ("Screwtape Letters" and all that) prescribe to.
>
> > Also, try & consider this question as an entirely neutral commentator
> > would, not as an idealogue & then see what happens.
>
>  An idealog is as I see it someone who holds to a set of beliefs
> despite evidence to the contrary.

Not really, an idealogue is someone [from Merriam Webster dictionary]
who is "[a] blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular
ideology.

As there is no evidence to suggest that God does not exist [like I
can't prove that the unicorn never existed], then an ideologue
[religious in this case] is one that fits the above description.

Contrastingly, Old Man as a theist is not an ideologue. He rationally
accepts that his belief is faulty and of course, he does not
demonstrate blind obedience to a dogma.

I don't consider myself that. By
> your reckoning 90% of the world holds to blind ideology. Only the
> small paltry groups known as athiests don't. Come on.

Argumentum ad populum.

[Max]

Sorry Chris,

I assumed something and didn't read you last paragraph carefully
enough. I should have remarked that atheism is not a 'blind' ideology.
Any atheist worth their salt would welcome any evidence to support the
notion of a God or gods. Bring it on.

Atheists are not blind. They seek evidence to support their position.

Theists already have the answers apparently. No further learning
required. All done & dusted. Deal done. It's in the bible.

Pity that the bible is just a mish mash of fairy stories though.

don't consider myself that. By

> your reckoning 90% of the world holds to blind ideology. Only the
> small paltry groups known as athiests don't. Come on.

Argumentum ad populum.

[Ed Jarrett]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:

Contrastingly, Old Man as a theist is not an ideologue. He rationally
accepts that his belief is faulty and of course, he does not
demonstrate blind obedience to a dogma.

Actually, I do not accept that my belief is faulty.  If I did I would change it.   

 

[Max]

OK OM, but I do seem to recall past statements from you saying that
your faith based beliefs cannot be supported rationally, but you
continue to believe in your God anyway.

Does that not make your belief system 'faulty'? I'm not arguing that
you not aware of the atheist's position, simply that you do
acknowledge some incongruity in your belief system.

You see, if the basis for your belief in God is without fault, surely
it would need to be a rational belief system to be so, however as your
belief is intellectually irrational [and you acknowledge same] your
belief system is therefore [ipso facto] faulty.

Cheers

[Drafterman]

On Oct 12, 8:22 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 9:08 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 3:43 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 4, 8:36 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 3, 7:22 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >  Yeah that's right, I said it. A perfectly valid question.
>
> > > > Because religion is not compelling.
>
> > >  Adhering closely to a structured code of ethics, which will affect
> > > superior lives for people in the now, and providing for superior
> > > *living conditions* in the afterlife - not compelling.
>
> > Sorry, but what you described here isn't religion. Well, it's not
> > Christianity, at least.
>
>  Simply another of your useless assertions.

It's an observation. I observe that your response has nothing to do
with religion and, thus, is off-topic.

>
> > > Well to some
> > > degree you're right. But it's not because there isn't a valid basis to
> > > follow Christianity, it's just that people are basically ignorant, and
> > > willfully.
>
> > Sure. I'll admit that I'm ignorant of any valid basis to follow
> > Christianity. Care to provide one?
>
>  read the bible.

Sorry, apparently you missed the word "valid."

>
> > > Or just unwilling to commit to something worthwhile.
>
> > Christianity isn't worthwhile.
>
>  yet another useless assertion.

Sorry, but it is immensly useful to note that something isn't
worthwhile. That way I don't waste my time committing to do.

>
>  what the hell does stating your worthless opinion time and time again
> do for the discussion???
>
> > > Sure
> > > committing to studies or even secular groups (that promote something
> > > truly ethical) or friendships or marriage are good things. I'm sure
> > > you'll agree. Christianity requires a deeper commitment, and that
> > > oftentimes is somewhere people refuse to go. They have too much vested
> > > in the things of this present world. They have a lack of scope.
>
> > Yes, I agree. Cults do require deeper commitments. The level of
> > commitment doesn't validate its existence.
>
>  Someone knock up Govnuh Perry's pastor. He needs to be informed that
> now all Christianity is a cult!

This is hardly news. Just look up the definition of the word.

>
>  Drafterman, you really are just so pathetic. I try to remain
> respectable in hopes of something resembling a worthwhile conversation
> with you. But you prove it to be a fruitless pursuit time and time
> again.

You've never been respectful in your entire time here, Chris. I have
an entire thread highlighting this. Do I need to bring it out again?

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > >  You nuts go on and on how atheism represents a superior worldview.
> > > > > But it's probably the biggest lie that has ever been propagated.
>
> > > > A harsh accusation. A lie, of course, is to knowingly tell a
> > > > falsehood. If atheism is wrong, I don't know that it is. When I
> > > > support atheism, then, I'm not telling a lie, even if I'm wrong. If
> > > > you wish to support your accusation, you're going to have to prove
> > > > that I know that it is wrong.
>
> > >  Every atheist on this forum is willfully ignorant of the harm atheism
> > > has wreaked on humanity.
>
> > >  Try and try if you will to deny that on account of their atheism
> > > communist regimes slaughtered millions of their countrymen. But the
> > > facts don't agree with you.
>
> > What fact would that be? The communists killed in the name of
> > communism and power. Their atheism is tangential to that issue.
>
>  When you cross over a line in history and the other side is smeared
> and stained w/human blood, one needs to ask what were the motivations
> that led them to such evil.

I agree. The motivation was power and communism.

>
>  They killed in the name of the state. But they killed an awful lot.
> They had to be conditioned to turn on their countrymen to that degree.
> Religion (i.e beliefs in God/s) were an impediment. It had to be
> ousted.

Yes, an impediment to loyalty to the state. It wasn't an issue of
theism, it was an issue of power.

>
>  Try and deny that renouncing faith and moral wasn't part and parcel
> of Communism.

Ok. I deny it. What now?

>
>
>
>
>
> > >  Listen you can stay an atheist if you want. I strongly advise against
> > > it. But someone is going to have to demonstrate why so called
> > > Christian or religious regimes never came anywhere close to killing as
> > > many people.
>
> > > > >  I can only suspect that they think if they keep spouting it - the BIG
> > > > > LIE - it'll eventually be believed. Like the wonderful little
> > > > > goosesteppers they are.
>
> > > > Oh, you mean like how religion is propogated? (Consider Joes: Pray the
> > > > Rosary x infinity). No. We keep spouting it because we believe it to
> > > > be true, and we don't want our rights and lives trampled on as is
> > > > likely to happen if we remain silent. But nice to show your tyrannical
> > > > authoritarian colors, Chris.
>
> > >  I'm tyrannical by simply advocating what I know is to be a superior
> > > world view??? How do you figure?
>
> > The only thing you're advocating is the oppression of atheists. Which
> > makes you tyrannical.
>
>  Wow. I've actually provoked ol' Draftypants to playing the
> persecution card, that I thought Christians were supposed to be so
> famous for.

Just calling a spade a spade, Chris.

>
>  Where have I advocated the oppression of anyone??? Name one example.
>
> > > Every time some little Crustacean
> > > shows up on this board, the vultures swoop down and attack. I've seen
> > > it over and over again.
>
> > >  The atheists are the tyrants. It's laughable that you should try and
> > > turn the tables the way you do.
>
> > I don't need to turn the tables because I know what words mean and how
> > to use them.
>
>  You don't know diddly spit about words.

Except what they mean.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Hm. Warm Christian love. Wait! That's not love!
>

> > > 100% pure love in fact.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

On Oct 12, 8:24 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 9:10 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 3:49 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > look exposing evil for what it is is at least somewhat in line with
> > > Christian doctrine.
>
> > The only evil you've exposed is your own.
>
> > > Who's teachings do your *actions* reflect? Karl Marx?
>
> > I don't model myself after any specific individual and I doubt I could
> > trace the origin of any specific action or behavior to a single
> > person. That's the benefit of being open minded and not revering
> > anyone as a savior or saint: you can evaluate teachings and behaviors
> > objectively and think about them critically. You take what's good and
> > you leave what's bad.
>
>  This is actually becoming funny.
>
>  Why am I evil, and what good haven't I kept, and what bad haven't I
> left???

I have a whole thread about your faults Chris. I've brought it out
from time to time. I'd be more than happy to trudge it out again, but
you'll have to admit that you're such a stupid fuck that I have this
permanent ace card I can play whenever I want.

The slate doesn't get wiped clean everytime you disappear and decide
to come back, Chris.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > On Oct 4, 8:37 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Do YOUR actions, in any way, reflect the teachings of Jesus Christ?
>
> > > > On Oct 3, 7:48 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > SEE...THERE'S YOUR ANSWER. Rank stupidity and the willingness to
> > > > > believe lies. That's why it still exists!!
>
> > > > > It's *ok* for you to be a proponent of whatever the H* you want Neil.
> > > > > It just stands to reason you should be right once in a while, God.
>
> > > > > FOR INSTANCE, this annoying assertion that the Nazis were Christian.
> > > > > Oh, ok. besides that notion smacking the average person in the face w/
> > > > > it's brash lack of decency or credibility. It doesn't hold up under
> > > > > the merest scrutiny. You can call yourself whatever you want, but if
> > > > > you fail some basic tests, your pronouncement is rendered invalid. The
> > > > > Nazis did call themselves Christians, but were in reality murderous
> > > > > thugs. Does there actions in anyway, anyhow reflect the teachings of
> > > > > Jesus Christ? Was the impetus for their actions found in his words, or
> > > > > rather were in accord w/the insane rantings of their bloodthirsty
> > > > > leader? Simply and emphatically, no, and yes to those questions.
>
> > > > > So their claim, and yours, is shot to H*.
>
> > > > > This is why there are atheists. They can't handle the truth, so
> > > > > constantly resort to distortions and lies.
>
> > > > > Wow, I'm glad that's over. Now we all know why!- Hide quoted text -
>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Answer_42]

On Oct 12, 8:33 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> iow you found a belief in God repugnant.

So you did not understand one single word I posted.

<Dumb irrelevant comments snipped>

[Ed Jarrett]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:

OK OM, but I do seem to recall past statements from you saying that
your faith based beliefs cannot be supported rationally, but you
continue to believe in your God anyway.

I don't recall saying that.  I will admit that my beliefs are faith based, but to me they are rational and not at odds with observation of the natural world.

 

Does that not make your belief system 'faulty'? I'm not arguing that
you not aware of the atheist's position, simply that you do
acknowledge some incongruity in your belief system.

You see, if the basis for your belief in God is without fault, surely
it would need to be a rational belief system to be so, however as your
belief is intellectually irrational [and you acknowledge same] your
belief system is therefore [ipso facto] faulty.

Cheers

 

[thea]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:55 AM, OldMan <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 3, 4:22 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>  Yeah that's right, I said it. A perfectly valid question.
>

>  You nuts go on and on how atheism represents a superior worldview.
> But it's probably the biggest lie that has ever been propagated.
>

>  I can only suspect that they think if they keep spouting it - the BIG
> LIE - it'll eventually be believed. Like the wonderful little
> goosesteppers they are.

I am not an atheist, but I do understand to some extent their
position.  Many atheists lack belief in God because of intellectual
reasons, there is no hard scientific evidence to support his existence

(see 1 Corinthians 1:22-24).  In addition many are (or remain)

atheists because of the actions of those who claim to be followers of
Christ.  Our words are too often unloving, hateful and foolish and our

actions do not conform with what we claim to believe.  The wonder is

that there are not more atheists in the world today.

You really have a way of *hitting the nail on the head.*
Thanks

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Answer_42]

On Oct 13, 11:19 am, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
> > OK OM, but I do seem to recall past statements from you saying that
> > your faith based beliefs cannot be supported rationally, but you
> > continue to believe in your God anyway.
>
> I don't recall saying that.  I will admit that my beliefs are faith based,
> but to me they are rational and not at odds with observation of the natural
> world.

The key words being "to me"...
Faith-based beliefs, by definition, are not based on reason. If they
were, they would not be faith-based now, would they? What you mean is
that you, like many other theists, have found a way to reconcile the
tiny irrational part in your life with the mainly rational one in a
manner that satisfies your overall need for rationality that you use
in all other aspects of your life. In other word, for you, it is
rational to accept irrational beliefs as "rational"... In that
respect, you are very much like Treebeard (not the LOTR character...).