Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
ATHEISM or RELIGION - which is the most harmful?
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Freedom Man
Apr 28, 2013, 10:37:44 AM4/28/13
to
Do people being agnostic or atheist offend you? No one is harmed by that.
But guess what - your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, free
speech censorship, child brainwashing, pedophilia by "priests," forcing
girls into arranged underage marriages, female genital mutilation, torture
of infants by circumcision without anesthesia, stoning to death, homophobia,
and rejection of science and reason offend us even more, and DO harm people!
But guess what - your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, free
speech censorship, child brainwashing, pedophilia by "priests," forcing
girls into arranged underage marriages, female genital mutilation, torture
of infants by circumcision without anesthesia, stoning to death, homophobia,
and rejection of science and reason offend us even more, and DO harm people!
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Apr 28, 2013, 11:57:04 AM4/28/13
to
because it, at least, implies a style of ridigness that encourages
fundamentalism through conformity.
Compared to religions, which tend to be misogynistic and/or sociopathic
(and use examples of and/or encourage psychopathic behaviour), a system
as deceptively tame as political correctness begets fundamentalist
conformity expectations that lead to outrageous ideas like censorship.
Religion is a side-effect of the desire to force conformity, just as
much as it is dangerous in its own reich (pun intended).
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit
atrocities."
-- Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet)
Stanislaus Stewart
Apr 28, 2013, 5:32:56 PM4/28/13
to
casey
Apr 28, 2013, 6:27:11 PM4/28/13
to
has done so badly at connecting with the people and
giving us a 12 billion dollar debt that it looks like
she may be swept away by Tony Abbot, a right wing
Catholic and his side kick Julie Bishop. Note their
last names!!
Stanislaus Stewart
Apr 28, 2013, 7:01:47 PM4/28/13
to
taken by men,
did she get the necessary co-operation that would be given a male PM?
casey
Apr 28, 2013, 7:17:22 PM4/28/13
to
don't believe being female was the reason for her
unpopularity.
She made the decisions that has left a 12 billion dollar hole
in the budget and that is increasing at a billion dollars a
month because they spend more than they take in which
is enough for me to vote her out although I am not sure
the replacement government will be any different.
I think her problem is an inability to relate to the electorate.
Some of her colleagues accuse her of having a tin ear.
When she makes speeches she sounds like a school
teacher talking to children.
felix_unger
Apr 28, 2013, 7:20:57 PM4/28/13
to
We have enough problems with our own atheist PM; the most dishonest,
distrusted, immoral, unethical, despised, self serving, and incompetent
leader this country has ever seen! We know she's lying when her lips are
moving! Atheist leaders we can do without, thank you!
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
http://theangryatheist.ausnet.info
felix_unger
Apr 28, 2013, 7:22:44 PM4/28/13
to
On 29-April-2013 8:27 AM, casey wrote:
> On Apr 29, 7:32 am, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
>> On 4/28/2013 10:37 AM, Freedom Man wrote:
>>
>>> Do people being agnostic or atheist offend you? No one is harmed by that.
>>> But guess what - your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, free
>>> speech censorship, child brainwashing, pedophilia by "priests," forcing
>>> girls into arranged underage marriages, female genital mutilation, torture
>>> of infants by circumcision without anesthesia, stoning to death, homophobia,
>>> and rejection of science and reason offend us even more, and DO harm people!
>> Time for some atheistic world leaders.
> Australia had a atheist and female Prime Minister who
> has done so badly at connecting with the people
What she has done so badly at is governing Australia!
> On Apr 29, 7:32 am, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
>> On 4/28/2013 10:37 AM, Freedom Man wrote:
>>
>>> Do people being agnostic or atheist offend you? No one is harmed by that.
>>> But guess what - your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, free
>>> speech censorship, child brainwashing, pedophilia by "priests," forcing
>>> girls into arranged underage marriages, female genital mutilation, torture
>>> of infants by circumcision without anesthesia, stoning to death, homophobia,
>>> and rejection of science and reason offend us even more, and DO harm people!
>> Time for some atheistic world leaders.
> Australia had a atheist and female Prime Minister who
> has done so badly at connecting with the people
> and giving us a 12 billion dollar debt
around $160 billion! we pay around $8 billion just in interest alone
annually.
" Labor has increased debt in every year they have been in office. ..
since Labor came to power Australia went from $44.8 billion in the black
for 2007-2008 to net debt for the last financial year coming in at $147
billion"
https://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/03/27/labor-must-recognise-facts-about-australias-record-debt
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/julia-gillard-to-leave-australians-in-165-billion-dollars-worth-of-debt-this-term-alone/story-fncynjr2-1226607170108
> that it looks like
> she may be swept away by Tony Abbot, a right wing
> Catholic and his side kick Julie Bishop. Note their
> last names!!
>
felix_unger
Apr 28, 2013, 7:27:17 PM4/28/13
to
casey
Apr 28, 2013, 7:31:23 PM4/28/13
to
On Apr 29, 9:22 am, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> On 29-April-2013 8:27 AM, casey wrote:
>
> > On Apr 29, 7:32 am, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
> >> On 4/28/2013 10:37 AM, Freedom Man wrote:
>
> >>> Do people being agnostic or atheist offend you? No one is harmed by that.
> >>> But guess what - your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, free
> >>> speech censorship, child brainwashing, pedophilia by "priests," forcing
> >>> girls into arranged underage marriages, female genital mutilation, torture
> >>> of infants by circumcision without anesthesia, stoning to death, homophobia,
> >>> and rejection of science and reason offend us even more, and DO harm people!
> >> Time for some atheistic world leaders.
> > Australia had a atheist and female Prime Minister who
> > has done so badly at connecting with the people
>
> What she has done so badly at is governing Australia!
>
> > and giving us a 12 billion dollar debt
>
> No that would be the current budget deficit. Current net govt debt is
> around $160 billion! we pay around $8 billion just in interest alone
> annually.
>
> " Labor has increased debt in every year they have been in office. ..
> since Labor came to power Australia went from $44.8 billion in the black
> for 2007-2008 to net debt for the last financial year coming in at $147
> billion"
>
> https://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/03/27/labor-must-recognis...
> On 29-April-2013 8:27 AM, casey wrote:
>
> > On Apr 29, 7:32 am, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
> >> On 4/28/2013 10:37 AM, Freedom Man wrote:
>
> >>> Do people being agnostic or atheist offend you? No one is harmed by that.
> >>> But guess what - your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, free
> >>> speech censorship, child brainwashing, pedophilia by "priests," forcing
> >>> girls into arranged underage marriages, female genital mutilation, torture
> >>> of infants by circumcision without anesthesia, stoning to death, homophobia,
> >>> and rejection of science and reason offend us even more, and DO harm people!
> >> Time for some atheistic world leaders.
> > Australia had a atheist and female Prime Minister who
> > has done so badly at connecting with the people
>
> What she has done so badly at is governing Australia!
>
> > and giving us a 12 billion dollar debt
>
> No that would be the current budget deficit. Current net govt debt is
> around $160 billion! we pay around $8 billion just in interest alone
> annually.
>
> " Labor has increased debt in every year they have been in office. ..
> since Labor came to power Australia went from $44.8 billion in the black
> for 2007-2008 to net debt for the last financial year coming in at $147
> billion"
>
>
> http://www.news.com.au/national-news/julia-gillard-to-leave-australia...
>
> > that it looks like
> > she may be swept away by Tony Abbot, a right wing
> > Catholic and his side kick Julie Bishop. Note their
> > last names!!
>
> and good riddance!
>
> --
> rgds,
>
> Pete
> -------http://theangryatheist.ausnet.info
So will the liberal party reign in the debt over it first term?
> > that it looks like
> > she may be swept away by Tony Abbot, a right wing
> > Catholic and his side kick Julie Bishop. Note their
> > last names!!
>
> and good riddance!
>
> --
> rgds,
>
> Pete
> -------http://theangryatheist.ausnet.info
felix_unger
Apr 28, 2013, 8:00:52 PM4/28/13
to
> So will the liberal party reign in the debt over it first term?
>
No, that's an impossible task. When Labor left us with $96 billion of
>
debt in 1996, it took the Howard/Costello govt (the Liberal and National
Party coalition) eleven years, until Rudd came to power in 2007, to pay
it off and create a $22 billion surplus; which Rudd then foolishly
squandered in his first term as PM. Now that we have a predicted $165
billion of net debt, it's anyone's guess how long it will take to reduce
that to realistic levels, let alone create a surplus! especially
considering that we are nowhere near as prosperous as a nation as we
were in the Howard years. And of course any debt reduction requires that
the coalition will continue in government. Labor governments have NEVER
created a surplus. They only only create debt. Look forward to paying of
Labors debt for many years to come!
_ please contribute. go ahead.. make yourself famous! :)
casey
Apr 28, 2013, 8:05:41 PM4/28/13
to
It interested me that it was the Republicans that put the USA into
debt.
It also seems from what I see on tv is that the Republicans want the
poor to pay for that debt while the rich continue unaffected.
>
> --
> rgds,
>
> Pete
> -------http://theangryatheist.ausnet.info
clairbear
Apr 28, 2013, 8:22:09 PM4/28/13
to
casey <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
news:21bd8be0-d733-4714...@l5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 29, 7:32�am, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
>> On 4/28/2013 10:37 AM, Freedom Man wrote:
>>
>> > Do people being agnostic or atheist offend you? No one is harmed by
>> > tha
> t.
>> > But guess what - your religious wars, jihads, crusades,
>> > inquisitions, f
> ree
>> > speech censorship, child brainwashing, pedophilia by "priests,"
>> > forcing girls into arranged underage marriages, female genital
>> > mutilation, tort
> ure
>> > of infants by circumcision without anesthesia, stoning to death,
>> > homoph
> obia,
>> > and rejection of science and reason offend us even more, and DO
>> > harm pe
> ople!
>>
>> � �Time for some atheistic world leaders.
answers
But lts lookat the nations who have had atheist based government China,
North Korea, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and others What aside from a lack
or religious based morality did the they have, Genocides, and other mass
murder, repression, no respect for human rights among other things.
Nation that embraced a radical religious bias IE most of the muslim
countries have faired little better. What is needed is tolerance on bot the
secular and religious communities.
As to religious wars who is waging a faith based war these days? Muslims
WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam Were not religious based. US involvement in the
'War on Terror' is not a religious based war on the part of the US and it's
allies although the other side it is motivated by radical islam.
news:21bd8be0-d733-4714...@l5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 29, 7:32�am, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
>> On 4/28/2013 10:37 AM, Freedom Man wrote:
>>
>> > Do people being agnostic or atheist offend you? No one is harmed by
>> > tha
> t.
>> > But guess what - your religious wars, jihads, crusades,
>> > inquisitions, f
> ree
>> > speech censorship, child brainwashing, pedophilia by "priests,"
>> > forcing girls into arranged underage marriages, female genital
>> > mutilation, tort
> ure
>> > of infants by circumcision without anesthesia, stoning to death,
>> > homoph
> obia,
>> > and rejection of science and reason offend us even more, and DO
>> > harm pe
> ople!
>>
>
> Australia had a atheist and female Prime Minister who
> has done so badly at connecting with the people and
> giving us a 12 billion dollar debt that it looks like
> she may be swept away by Tony Abbot, a right wing
> Catholic and his side kick Julie Bishop. Note their
> last names!!
>
>
Atheists do not have the answer just as those of faith do not have all the
> Australia had a atheist and female Prime Minister who
> has done so badly at connecting with the people and
> giving us a 12 billion dollar debt that it looks like
> she may be swept away by Tony Abbot, a right wing
> Catholic and his side kick Julie Bishop. Note their
> last names!!
>
>
answers
But lts lookat the nations who have had atheist based government China,
North Korea, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and others What aside from a lack
or religious based morality did the they have, Genocides, and other mass
murder, repression, no respect for human rights among other things.
Nation that embraced a radical religious bias IE most of the muslim
countries have faired little better. What is needed is tolerance on bot the
secular and religious communities.
As to religious wars who is waging a faith based war these days? Muslims
WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam Were not religious based. US involvement in the
'War on Terror' is not a religious based war on the part of the US and it's
allies although the other side it is motivated by radical islam.
felix_unger
Apr 29, 2013, 12:39:18 AM4/29/13
to
>>>> http://www.news.com.au/national-news/julia-gillard-to-leave-australia....
>>>>> that it looks like
>>>>> she may be swept away by Tony Abbot, a right wing
>>>>> Catholic and his side kick Julie Bishop. Note their
>>>>> last names!!
>>>> and good riddance!
>>> So will the liberal party reign in the debt over it first term?
>> No, that's an impossible task. When Labor left us with $96 billion of
>> debt in 1996, it took the Howard/Costello govt (the Liberal and National
>> Party coalition) eleven years, until Rudd came to power in 2007, to pay
>> it off and create a $22 billion surplus; which Rudd then foolishly
>> squandered in his first term as PM. Now that we have a predicted $165
>> billion of net debt, it's anyone's guess how long it will take to reduce
>> that to realistic levels, let alone create a surplus! especially
>> considering that we are nowhere near as prosperous as a nation as we
>> were in the Howard years. And of course any debt reduction requires that
>> the coalition will continue in government. Labor governments have NEVER
>> created a surplus. They only only create debt. Look forward to paying of
>> Labors debt for many years to come!
> :(
>
> It interested me that it was the Republicans that put the USA into
> debt.
>
> It also seems from what I see on tv is that the Republicans want the
> poor to pay for that debt while the rich continue unaffected.
>
I don't know much about American politics, but I'm told the ABC and CNN
>>>>> she may be swept away by Tony Abbot, a right wing
>>>>> Catholic and his side kick Julie Bishop. Note their
>>>>> last names!!
>>>> and good riddance!
>>> So will the liberal party reign in the debt over it first term?
>> No, that's an impossible task. When Labor left us with $96 billion of
>> debt in 1996, it took the Howard/Costello govt (the Liberal and National
>> Party coalition) eleven years, until Rudd came to power in 2007, to pay
>> it off and create a $22 billion surplus; which Rudd then foolishly
>> squandered in his first term as PM. Now that we have a predicted $165
>> billion of net debt, it's anyone's guess how long it will take to reduce
>> that to realistic levels, let alone create a surplus! especially
>> considering that we are nowhere near as prosperous as a nation as we
>> were in the Howard years. And of course any debt reduction requires that
>> the coalition will continue in government. Labor governments have NEVER
>> created a surplus. They only only create debt. Look forward to paying of
>> Labors debt for many years to come!
> :(
>
> It interested me that it was the Republicans that put the USA into
> debt.
>
> It also seems from what I see on tv is that the Republicans want the
> poor to pay for that debt while the rich continue unaffected.
>
news services are left wing biased, and only Fox reports conservative
policies
_please contribute. go ahead.. achieve international fame!
BJ
Apr 29, 2013, 2:21:02 AM4/29/13
to
Yap
Apr 29, 2013, 3:48:07 AM4/29/13
to
of granting wishes to the stupid or the incapable.
The lies, the wishes and the rules imposed by religion are all
harmful, apart from those wars/persecutions which killed numerous
human being in the past.
Yap
Apr 29, 2013, 3:53:40 AM4/29/13
to
to formulate decisions to benefit the nation.
She inherited the government and all the policies.
US has strong Presidents now and the past, but their economic does no
better than Aussie.
Yap
Apr 29, 2013, 3:56:46 AM4/29/13
to
What you described of her was outright lies, nothing but lies.
Yap
Apr 29, 2013, 4:01:38 AM4/29/13
to
day to manage.
Atheism promotes common sense, civil society governed by laws,
morality and honesty.
SkyEyes
Apr 29, 2013, 4:13:35 AM4/29/13
to
just don't know about them.
--
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
--
SkyEyes
Apr 29, 2013, 4:17:21 AM4/29/13
to
and MSNBC are the left-leaning stations, but even *they* have
conservative commentators and guests on thier shows.
SkyEyes
Apr 29, 2013, 4:28:31 AM4/29/13
to
public schools or at the hands of any other government agency. If you
don't have freedom *from* religion, you don't have freedom *of*
religion. Glad you agree with me, felix.
felix_unger
Apr 29, 2013, 6:27:22 AM4/29/13
to
On 29-April-2013 6:28 PM, SkyEyes wrote:
> On Apr 28, 4:27 pm, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> On 29-April-2013 12:37 AM, Freedom Man wrote:
>>
>>> Do people being agnostic or atheist offend you? No one is harmed by that.
>>> But guess what - your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, free
>>> speech censorship, child brainwashing, pedophilia by "priests," forcing
>>> girls into arranged underage marriages, female genital mutilation, torture
>>> of infants by circumcision without anesthesia, stoning to death, homophobia,
>>> and rejection of science and reason offend us even more, and DO harm people!
>> Beliefs become a problem if people seek to impose theirs on others.
> *Exactly* so. Which is why we don't want prayer and bible teaching in
> public schools or at the hands of any other government agency. If you
> don't have freedom *from* religion, you don't have freedom *of*
> religion.
That's actually quotable. :)
> On Apr 28, 4:27 pm, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> On 29-April-2013 12:37 AM, Freedom Man wrote:
>>
>>> Do people being agnostic or atheist offend you? No one is harmed by that.
>>> But guess what - your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, free
>>> speech censorship, child brainwashing, pedophilia by "priests," forcing
>>> girls into arranged underage marriages, female genital mutilation, torture
>>> of infants by circumcision without anesthesia, stoning to death, homophobia,
>>> and rejection of science and reason offend us even more, and DO harm people!
>> Beliefs become a problem if people seek to impose theirs on others.
> *Exactly* so. Which is why we don't want prayer and bible teaching in
> public schools or at the hands of any other government agency. If you
> don't have freedom *from* religion, you don't have freedom *of*
> religion.
http://www.theangryatheist.ausnet.info/quotes
> Glad you agree with me, felix.
>
> --
> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
> BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
> EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
> skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
> --
felix_unger
Apr 29, 2013, 6:36:12 AM4/29/13
to
On 29-April-2013 8:27 PM, felix_unger wrote:
> On 29-April-2013 6:28 PM, SkyEyes wrote:
>
>> On Apr 28, 4:27 pm, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>> On 29-April-2013 12:37 AM, Freedom Man wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do people being agnostic or atheist offend you? No one is harmed by
>>>> that.
>>>> But guess what - your religious wars, jihads, crusades,
>>>> inquisitions, free
>>>> speech censorship, child brainwashing, pedophilia by "priests,"
>>>> forcing
>>>> girls into arranged underage marriages, female genital mutilation,
>>>> torture
>>>> of infants by circumcision without anesthesia, stoning to death,
>>>> homophobia,
>>>> and rejection of science and reason offend us even more, and DO
>>>> harm people!
>>> Beliefs become a problem if people seek to impose theirs on others.
>> *Exactly* so. Which is why we don't want prayer and bible teaching in
>> public schools or at the hands of any other government agency. If you
>> don't have freedom *from* religion, you don't have freedom *of*
>> religion.
>
> That's actually quotable. :)
>
> http://www.theangryatheist.ausnet.info/quotes
darn!.. http://theangryatheist.ausnet.info/quotes
> On 29-April-2013 6:28 PM, SkyEyes wrote:
>
>> On Apr 28, 4:27 pm, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>> On 29-April-2013 12:37 AM, Freedom Man wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do people being agnostic or atheist offend you? No one is harmed by
>>>> that.
>>>> But guess what - your religious wars, jihads, crusades,
>>>> inquisitions, free
>>>> speech censorship, child brainwashing, pedophilia by "priests,"
>>>> forcing
>>>> girls into arranged underage marriages, female genital mutilation,
>>>> torture
>>>> of infants by circumcision without anesthesia, stoning to death,
>>>> homophobia,
>>>> and rejection of science and reason offend us even more, and DO
>>>> harm people!
>>> Beliefs become a problem if people seek to impose theirs on others.
>> *Exactly* so. Which is why we don't want prayer and bible teaching in
>> public schools or at the hands of any other government agency. If you
>> don't have freedom *from* religion, you don't have freedom *of*
>> religion.
>
> That's actually quotable. :)
>
> http://www.theangryatheist.ausnet.info/quotes
Uncle Vic
Apr 29, 2013, 3:03:12 PM4/29/13
to
felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in
news:au70p8...@mid.individual.net:
> On 29-April-2013 8:27 PM, felix_unger wrote:
>
>> On 29-April-2013 6:28 PM, SkyEyes wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 28, 4:27 pm, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 29-April-2013 12:37 AM, Freedom Man wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do people being agnostic or atheist offend you? No one is harmed
>>>>> by that.
>>>>> But guess what - your religious wars, jihads, crusades,
>>>>> inquisitions, free
>>>>> speech censorship, child brainwashing, pedophilia by "priests,"
>>>>> forcing
>>>>> girls into arranged underage marriages, female genital mutilation,
>>>>> torture
>>>>> of infants by circumcision without anesthesia, stoning to death,
>>>>> homophobia,
>>>>> and rejection of science and reason offend us even more, and DO
>>>>> harm people!
>>>> Beliefs become a problem if people seek to impose theirs on others.
>>> *Exactly* so. Which is why we don't want prayer and bible teaching
>>> in public schools or at the hands of any other government agency. If
>>> you don't have freedom *from* religion, you don't have freedom *of*
>>> religion.
>>
>> That's actually quotable. :)
>>
>> http://www.theangryatheist.ausnet.info/quotes
>
> darn!.. http://theangryatheist.ausnet.info/quotes
>
You have a lot of quotes by Fagsnatch, one of our more persistent
trolls, who professes to be an atheist, but I think he's just
anti-social.
--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA
AA Quotemeister
Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee
news:au70p8...@mid.individual.net:
> On 29-April-2013 8:27 PM, felix_unger wrote:
>
>> On 29-April-2013 6:28 PM, SkyEyes wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 28, 4:27 pm, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 29-April-2013 12:37 AM, Freedom Man wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do people being agnostic or atheist offend you? No one is harmed
>>>>> by that.
>>>>> But guess what - your religious wars, jihads, crusades,
>>>>> inquisitions, free
>>>>> speech censorship, child brainwashing, pedophilia by "priests,"
>>>>> forcing
>>>>> girls into arranged underage marriages, female genital mutilation,
>>>>> torture
>>>>> of infants by circumcision without anesthesia, stoning to death,
>>>>> homophobia,
>>>>> and rejection of science and reason offend us even more, and DO
>>>>> harm people!
>>>> Beliefs become a problem if people seek to impose theirs on others.
>>> *Exactly* so. Which is why we don't want prayer and bible teaching
>>> in public schools or at the hands of any other government agency. If
>>> you don't have freedom *from* religion, you don't have freedom *of*
>>> religion.
>>
>> That's actually quotable. :)
>>
>> http://www.theangryatheist.ausnet.info/quotes
>
> darn!.. http://theangryatheist.ausnet.info/quotes
>
trolls, who professes to be an atheist, but I think he's just
anti-social.
--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA
AA Quotemeister
Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee
Uncle Vic
Apr 29, 2013, 3:15:22 PM4/29/13
to
felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in news:au6bs1Fq3rhU1
@mid.individual.net:
> I don't know much about American politics, but I'm told the ABC and CNN
> news services are left wing biased, and only Fox reports conservative
> policies
Interesting. Does that mean Fox is always wrong? It seems that way from
what I see on TV.
@mid.individual.net:
> I don't know much about American politics, but I'm told the ABC and CNN
> news services are left wing biased, and only Fox reports conservative
> policies
what I see on TV.
clairbear
Apr 29, 2013, 5:28:11 PM4/29/13
to
casey <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
news:e4886a36-ee86-4f91...@lr6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
>> >>> � �that it looks like
you consider how much Obama and the dems controlling congress increased
the debtr only a fool would calim it was just the republicans
news:e4886a36-ee86-4f91...@lr6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
>> >>> she may be swept away by Tony Abbot, a right wing
>> >>> Catholic and his side kick Julie Bishop. Note their
>> >>> last names!!
>> >> and good riddance!
>>
>> > So will the liberal party reign in the debt over it first term?
>>
>> No, that's an impossible task. When Labor left us with $96 billion of
>> debt in 1996, it took the Howard/Costello govt (the Liberal and
>> National Party coalition) eleven years, until Rudd came to power in
>> 2007, to pay it off and create a $22 billion surplus; which Rudd then
>> foolishly squandered in his first term as PM. Now that we have a
>> predicted $165 billion of net debt, it's anyone's guess how long it
>> will take to reduce that to realistic levels, let alone create a
>> surplus! especially considering that we are nowhere near as
>> prosperous as a nation as we were in the Howard years. And of course
>> any debt reduction requires that the coalition will continue in
>> government. Labor governments have NEVER created a surplus. They only
>> only create debt. Look forward to paying of Labors debt for many
>> years to come!
>
>:(
>
> It interested me that it was the Republicans that put the USA into
> debt.
It took both republicans and democrats to build the level of debt When
>> >>> Catholic and his side kick Julie Bishop. Note their
>> >>> last names!!
>> >> and good riddance!
>>
>> > So will the liberal party reign in the debt over it first term?
>>
>> No, that's an impossible task. When Labor left us with $96 billion of
>> debt in 1996, it took the Howard/Costello govt (the Liberal and
>> National Party coalition) eleven years, until Rudd came to power in
>> 2007, to pay it off and create a $22 billion surplus; which Rudd then
>> foolishly squandered in his first term as PM. Now that we have a
>> predicted $165 billion of net debt, it's anyone's guess how long it
>> will take to reduce that to realistic levels, let alone create a
>> surplus! especially considering that we are nowhere near as
>> prosperous as a nation as we were in the Howard years. And of course
>> any debt reduction requires that the coalition will continue in
>> government. Labor governments have NEVER created a surplus. They only
>> only create debt. Look forward to paying of Labors debt for many
>> years to come!
>
>:(
>
> It interested me that it was the Republicans that put the USA into
> debt.
you consider how much Obama and the dems controlling congress increased
the debtr only a fool would calim it was just the republicans
> It also seems from what I see on tv is that the Republicans want the
> poor to pay for that debt while the rich continue unaffected.
So you believe the lies of th lame stream media
> poor to pay for that debt while the rich continue unaffected.
clairbear
Apr 29, 2013, 5:32:32 PM4/29/13
to
felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in
news:au6bs1...@mid.individual.net:
NBC and their cable outlet MSNBC are the biggest leftwing shill of the
mainstream media And many sheeple like Casey swallow their lies, half
truthes and left wing propaganda whole without any thought as to the
effect of media bias
news:au6bs1...@mid.individual.net:
mainstream media And many sheeple like Casey swallow their lies, half
truthes and left wing propaganda whole without any thought as to the
effect of media bias
clairbear
Apr 29, 2013, 5:34:21 PM4/29/13
to
Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote in
news:XnsA1B17CACB86...@216.196.121.131:
> felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in news:au6bs1Fq3rhU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>> I don't know much about American politics, but I'm told the ABC and
>> CNN news services are left wing biased, and only Fox reports
>> conservative policies
>
> Interesting. Does that mean Fox is always wrong? It seems that way
> from what I see on TV.
>
OOh the DNC has to love ill informed shills like you
news:XnsA1B17CACB86...@216.196.121.131:
> felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in news:au6bs1Fq3rhU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>> I don't know much about American politics, but I'm told the ABC and
>> CNN news services are left wing biased, and only Fox reports
>> conservative policies
>
> Interesting. Does that mean Fox is always wrong? It seems that way
> from what I see on TV.
>
Stanislaus Stewart
Apr 29, 2013, 6:11:38 PM4/29/13
to
felix_unger
Apr 30, 2013, 3:31:17 AM4/30/13
to
> one of our more persistent
> trolls,
> who professes to be an atheist,
> but I think he's just anti-social.
>
--
casey
Apr 30, 2013, 3:39:25 AM4/30/13
to
On Apr 30, 7:28 am, clairbear <clairb...@msn.com> wrote:
I wrote the Republicans *put* the USA in debt not that the
dems didn't add to the debt. To be critical of the dems for
increasing the debt seems a bit rich if they did the same.
>> It also seems from what I see on tv is that the Republicans want the
> > poor to pay for that debt while the rich continue unaffected.
>
> So you believe the lies of the lame stream media
I don't really take sides on these issues although I guess
I would tend to vote for a *responsible* reforming government.
In Australia I am against Labor (our dems) because they
continue to spend more than they tax.
dems didn't add to the debt. To be critical of the dems for
increasing the debt seems a bit rich if they did the same.
>> It also seems from what I see on tv is that the Republicans want the
> > poor to pay for that debt while the rich continue unaffected.
>
I don't really take sides on these issues although I guess
I would tend to vote for a *responsible* reforming government.
In Australia I am against Labor (our dems) because they
continue to spend more than they tax.
clairbear
Apr 30, 2013, 8:27:37 PM4/30/13
to
casey <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
news:821392c3-f4b5-4a08...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com:
>> innews:e4886a36-ee86-4f91-8968-deab4
> c96...@lr6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
Obviously your source of knowledge is not very complete
will still not come close to paying the debt
news:821392c3-f4b5-4a08...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com:
>> innews:e4886a36-ee86-4f91-8968-deab4
> c96...@lr6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> It also seems from what I see on tv is that the Republicans want the
>> > poor to pay for that debt while the rich continue unaffected.
>>
>> So you believe the lies of the lame stream media
>
> I don't really take sides on these issues although I guess
> I would tend to vote for a *responsible* reforming government.
> In Australia I am against Labor (our dems) because they
> continue to spend more than they tax.
>
Our dems do the same spend spend spend then try to tax at a rate that
>>> It also seems from what I see on tv is that the Republicans want the
>> > poor to pay for that debt while the rich continue unaffected.
>>
>> So you believe the lies of the lame stream media
>
> I don't really take sides on these issues although I guess
> I would tend to vote for a *responsible* reforming government.
> In Australia I am against Labor (our dems) because they
> continue to spend more than they tax.
>
will still not come close to paying the debt
felix_unger
May 1, 2013, 8:38:31 PM5/1/13
to
On 29-April-2013 8:27 PM, felix_unger wrote:
> On 29-April-2013 6:28 PM, SkyEyes wrote:
>
>> On Apr 28, 4:27 pm, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>> On 29-April-2013 12:37 AM, Freedom Man wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do people being agnostic or atheist offend you? No one is harmed by
>>>> that.
>>>> But guess what - your religious wars, jihads, crusades,
>>>> inquisitions, free
>>>> speech censorship, child brainwashing, pedophilia by "priests,"
>>>> forcing
>>>> girls into arranged underage marriages, female genital mutilation,
>>>> torture
>>>> of infants by circumcision without anesthesia, stoning to death,
>>>> homophobia,
>>>> and rejection of science and reason offend us even more, and DO
>>>> harm people!
>>> Beliefs become a problem if people seek to impose theirs on others.
>> *Exactly* so. Which is why we don't want prayer and bible teaching in
>> public schools or at the hands of any other government agency. If you
>> don't have freedom *from* religion, you don't have freedom *of*
>> religion.
>
> That's actually quotable. :)
>
> http://www.theangryatheist.ausnet.info/quotes
also.. "If you don't have freedom *for* religion, you don't have freedom
>
>> On Apr 28, 4:27 pm, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>> On 29-April-2013 12:37 AM, Freedom Man wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do people being agnostic or atheist offend you? No one is harmed by
>>>> that.
>>>> But guess what - your religious wars, jihads, crusades,
>>>> inquisitions, free
>>>> speech censorship, child brainwashing, pedophilia by "priests,"
>>>> forcing
>>>> girls into arranged underage marriages, female genital mutilation,
>>>> torture
>>>> of infants by circumcision without anesthesia, stoning to death,
>>>> homophobia,
>>>> and rejection of science and reason offend us even more, and DO
>>>> harm people!
>>> Beliefs become a problem if people seek to impose theirs on others.
>> *Exactly* so. Which is why we don't want prayer and bible teaching in
>> public schools or at the hands of any other government agency. If you
>> don't have freedom *from* religion, you don't have freedom *of*
>> religion.
>
> That's actually quotable. :)
>
> http://www.theangryatheist.ausnet.info/quotes
*of* religion
>
felix_unger
May 1, 2013, 8:44:54 PM5/1/13
to
wealth, and a more productive, prosperous society. All they know is to
take money from those who have it. ie. tax, tax, and more tax
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money" -Margaret Thatcher
casey
May 1, 2013, 8:56:29 PM5/1/13
to
On May 2, 10:44 am, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> On 30-April-2013 5:39 PM, casey wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 7:28 am, clairbear <clairb...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:e4886a36-ee86-4f91...@lr6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>> It interested me that it was the Republicans that put the USA into
> >>> debt.
> >> It took both republicans and democrats to build the level of debt When
> >> you consider how much Obama and the dems controlling congress increased
> >> the debtr only a fool would calim it was just the republicans
> > I wrote the Republicans *put* the USA in debt not that the
> > dems didn't add to the debt. To be critical of the dems for
> > increasing the debt seems a bit rich if they did the same.
>
> >>> It also seems from what I see on tv is that the Republicans want the
> >>> poor to pay for that debt while the rich continue unaffected.
> >> So you believe the lies of the lame stream media
> > I don't really take sides on these issues although I guess
> > I would tend to vote for a *responsible* reforming government.
> > In Australia I am against Labor (our dems) because they
> > continue to spend more than they tax.
>
> Not only that, but they have no capacity for promoting the generation of
> wealth, and a more productive, prosperous society. All they know is to
> take money from those who have it. ie. tax, tax, and more tax
They claim they are promoting the generation of
> On 30-April-2013 5:39 PM, casey wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 7:28 am, clairbear <clairb...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:e4886a36-ee86-4f91...@lr6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>> It interested me that it was the Republicans that put the USA into
> >>> debt.
> >> It took both republicans and democrats to build the level of debt When
> >> you consider how much Obama and the dems controlling congress increased
> >> the debtr only a fool would calim it was just the republicans
> > I wrote the Republicans *put* the USA in debt not that the
> > dems didn't add to the debt. To be critical of the dems for
> > increasing the debt seems a bit rich if they did the same.
>
> >>> It also seems from what I see on tv is that the Republicans want the
> >>> poor to pay for that debt while the rich continue unaffected.
> >> So you believe the lies of the lame stream media
> > I don't really take sides on these issues although I guess
> > I would tend to vote for a *responsible* reforming government.
> > In Australia I am against Labor (our dems) because they
> > continue to spend more than they tax.
>
> Not only that, but they have no capacity for promoting the generation of
> wealth, and a more productive, prosperous society. All they know is to
> take money from those who have it. ie. tax, tax, and more tax
wealth by paying teachers better wages and
handing out laptops and Julie Memorial Halls.
>
> --
> rgds,
>
> Pete
> -------http://theangryatheist.ausnet.info
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
May 3, 2013, 12:13:25 AM5/3/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:36:12 +1000
Nice web site! I just read your description of me (and others), and I
found it interesting. You may like to know that the meaning of my name
is to "disturb faith" and not to attack it.
I don't agree with all of your assessments of myself, although you got
some of it right (I'll leave it to you to figure out which parts), and I
also don't agree with at least some of your other descriptions of other
participants (I haven't read them all yet), but I do support your right
to express your views.
Perhaps some day there will be an entry about you on the FAQ (you're
not in there yet, but perhaps you have some suggestions?):
http://www.alt-atheism.org/atheism:trollpedia
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"At least Darth Vader saved his son's life when the Emperor was
torturing Luke to death. That makes Lord Vader way more respectable
than 'The Lord.'"
-- Alexandre Cross (April 18, 2013)
found it interesting. You may like to know that the meaning of my name
is to "disturb faith" and not to attack it.
I don't agree with all of your assessments of myself, although you got
some of it right (I'll leave it to you to figure out which parts), and I
also don't agree with at least some of your other descriptions of other
participants (I haven't read them all yet), but I do support your right
to express your views.
Perhaps some day there will be an entry about you on the FAQ (you're
not in there yet, but perhaps you have some suggestions?):
http://www.alt-atheism.org/atheism:trollpedia
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"At least Darth Vader saved his son's life when the Emperor was
torturing Luke to death. That makes Lord Vader way more respectable
than 'The Lord.'"
-- Alexandre Cross (April 18, 2013)
felix_unger
May 3, 2013, 3:29:21 AM5/3/13
to
On 03-May-2013 2:13 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:
You mean you've only just now seen it!!??! I'm flabbergasted! I thought
by know it would be famous worldwide (sigh)
> I just read your description of me (and others), and I
> found it interesting. You may like to know that the meaning of my name
> is to "disturb faith" and not to attack it.
as I said.. 'or similar' but thanks. I will make a correction.
>
> I don't agree with all of your assessments of myself, although you got
> some of it right (I'll leave it to you to figure out which parts),
well I take it you are referring to factual remarks. Otherwise it would
just be a matter of disagreement between your views of yourself and mine
(of you)
> and I
> also don't agree with at least some of your other descriptions of other
> participants
I do make the point that my comments are based on MY experience of/with
them. and of course your view is biased.
> (I haven't read them all yet), but I do support your right
> to express your views.
Oh, that is such a relief!. I have been in such distress not knowing. I
would be mortified if I didn't have your approval.
>
> Perhaps some day there will be an entry about you on the FAQ (you're
> not in there yet, but perhaps you have some suggestions?):
>
> http://www.alt-atheism.org/atheism:trollpedia
I did rate a mention on the fasgnadh page, but Scott removed the remarks
following some discussions that we had. He has (correctly) concluded
that I am not a troll, but just someone who seeks to discuss matters of
interest, and so I don't warrant inclusion
(please feel free to contribute)
wrote:
by know it would be famous worldwide (sigh)
> I just read your description of me (and others), and I
> found it interesting. You may like to know that the meaning of my name
> is to "disturb faith" and not to attack it.
>
> I don't agree with all of your assessments of myself, although you got
> some of it right (I'll leave it to you to figure out which parts),
just be a matter of disagreement between your views of yourself and mine
(of you)
> and I
> also don't agree with at least some of your other descriptions of other
> participants
them. and of course your view is biased.
> (I haven't read them all yet), but I do support your right
> to express your views.
would be mortified if I didn't have your approval.
>
> Perhaps some day there will be an entry about you on the FAQ (you're
> not in there yet, but perhaps you have some suggestions?):
>
> http://www.alt-atheism.org/atheism:trollpedia
following some discussions that we had. He has (correctly) concluded
that I am not a troll, but just someone who seeks to discuss matters of
interest, and so I don't warrant inclusion
(please feel free to contribute)
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
May 3, 2013, 10:54:47 PM5/3/13
to
On Fri, 03 May 2013 17:29:21 +1000
Actually, I vaguely recall seeing it quite some time ago, but perhaps
it presented less information at that time. Perhaps your web site will
gradually gain more popularity over time as you are hoping, and I
suggest that adding new content from time-to-time should prove helpful
to you in that endeavor as I suspect Google also calculates how active
each web site is shortly after every spider operation.
> > I just read your description of me (and others), and I
> > found it interesting. You may like to know that the meaning of my
> > name is to "disturb faith" and not to attack it.
>
> as I said.. 'or similar' but thanks. I will make a correction.
Thank you.
> > I don't agree with all of your assessments of myself, although you
> > got some of it right (I'll leave it to you to figure out which
> > parts),
>
> well I take it you are referring to factual remarks. Otherwise it
> would just be a matter of disagreement between your views of yourself
> and mine (of you)
Yes. I noticed that you combined your perspective with factual data.
> > and I
> > also don't agree with at least some of your other descriptions of
> > other participants
>
> I do make the point that my comments are based on MY experience
> of/with them. and of course your view is biased.
Are you referring to my bias toward impartiality? Here's a quotation
of something you wrote just over one year ago, which I most certainly
favour and appreciate, so I choose to not deny said bias:
"... you reduce everything to rationality, reason, and logic ..."
-- Felix Unger (April 10, 2012; analyzing Fidem Turbare)
> > (I haven't read them all yet), but I do support your right
> > to express your views.
>
> Oh, that is such a relief!. I have been in such distress not knowing.
> I would be mortified if I didn't have your approval.
Thank you for trusting me with that authority, but I won't accept it
because my work is abundant with such responsibility and authority (it's
a complicated position, which I'm not presently at liberty to describe).
> > Perhaps some day there will be an entry about you on the FAQ (you're
> > not in there yet, but perhaps you have some suggestions?):
> >
> > http://www.alt-atheism.org/atheism:trollpedia
>
> I did rate a mention on the fasgnadh page, but Scott removed the
> remarks following some discussions that we had. He has (correctly)
> concluded that I am not a troll, but just someone who seeks to
> discuss matters of interest, and so I don't warrant inclusion
Although I haven't completely ruled you out as a troll, I do respect and
defer to Scott's judgement regarding the Atheism FAQ. If indeed the two
of you came to an understanding, then I consider that to be "excellent."
--
traits."
-- Thom Madura (April 2, 2012)
it presented less information at that time. Perhaps your web site will
gradually gain more popularity over time as you are hoping, and I
suggest that adding new content from time-to-time should prove helpful
to you in that endeavor as I suspect Google also calculates how active
each web site is shortly after every spider operation.
> > I just read your description of me (and others), and I
> > found it interesting. You may like to know that the meaning of my
> > name is to "disturb faith" and not to attack it.
>
> as I said.. 'or similar' but thanks. I will make a correction.
> > I don't agree with all of your assessments of myself, although you
> > got some of it right (I'll leave it to you to figure out which
> > parts),
>
> well I take it you are referring to factual remarks. Otherwise it
> would just be a matter of disagreement between your views of yourself
> and mine (of you)
> > and I
> > also don't agree with at least some of your other descriptions of
> > other participants
>
> I do make the point that my comments are based on MY experience
> of/with them. and of course your view is biased.
of something you wrote just over one year ago, which I most certainly
favour and appreciate, so I choose to not deny said bias:
"... you reduce everything to rationality, reason, and logic ..."
-- Felix Unger (April 10, 2012; analyzing Fidem Turbare)
> > (I haven't read them all yet), but I do support your right
> > to express your views.
>
> Oh, that is such a relief!. I have been in such distress not knowing.
> I would be mortified if I didn't have your approval.
because my work is abundant with such responsibility and authority (it's
a complicated position, which I'm not presently at liberty to describe).
> > Perhaps some day there will be an entry about you on the FAQ (you're
> > not in there yet, but perhaps you have some suggestions?):
> >
> > http://www.alt-atheism.org/atheism:trollpedia
>
> I did rate a mention on the fasgnadh page, but Scott removed the
> remarks following some discussions that we had. He has (correctly)
> concluded that I am not a troll, but just someone who seeks to
> discuss matters of interest, and so I don't warrant inclusion
defer to Scott's judgement regarding the Atheism FAQ. If indeed the two
of you came to an understanding, then I consider that to be "excellent."
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Things that cannot be proven to exist cannot be proven to have any
traits."
-- Thom Madura (April 2, 2012)
felix_unger
May 4, 2013, 2:27:10 AM5/4/13
to
On 04-May-2013 12:54 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
I wasn't being serious. It's only a small website for a specific
purpose, and never intended for universal appeal.
>
>>> I just read your description of me (and others), and I
>>> found it interesting. You may like to know that the meaning of my
>>> name is to "disturb faith" and not to attack it.
>> as I said.. 'or similar' but thanks. I will make a correction.
> Thank you.
>
>>> I don't agree with all of your assessments of myself, although you
>>> got some of it right (I'll leave it to you to figure out which
>>> parts),
>> well I take it you are referring to factual remarks. Otherwise it
>> would just be a matter of disagreement between your views of yourself
>> and mine (of you)
> Yes. I noticed that you combined your perspective with factual data.
>
>>> and I
>>> also don't agree with at least some of your other descriptions of
>>> other participants
>> I do make the point that my comments are based on MY experience
>> of/with them. and of course your view is biased.
> Are you referring to my bias toward impartiality?
No, your bias toward the atheism
> Here's a quotation
> of something you wrote just over one year ago, which I most certainly
> favour and appreciate, so I choose to not deny said bias:
>
> "... you reduce everything to rationality, reason, and logic ..."
> -- Felix Unger (April 10, 2012; analyzing Fidem Turbare)
That was never intended as a compliment. I was alluding to your apparent
lack of emotion, feeling, and personable qualities. You tend to behave
more like a computer than a 'normal' person, analysing and responding in
a dispassionate manner- apart from the pre mentioned bias of course.
>
>>> (I haven't read them all yet), but I do support your right
>>> to express your views.
>> Oh, that is such a relief!. I have been in such distress not knowing.
>> I would be mortified if I didn't have your approval.
> Thank you for trusting me with that authority, but I won't accept it
> because my work is abundant with such responsibility and authority (it's
> a complicated position, which I'm not presently at liberty to describe).
no doubt you could tell me, but then you would have to kill me
>
>>> Perhaps some day there will be an entry about you on the FAQ (you're
>>> not in there yet, but perhaps you have some suggestions?):
>>>
>>> http://www.alt-atheism.org/atheism:trollpedia
>> I did rate a mention on the fasgnadh page, but Scott removed the
>> remarks following some discussions that we had. He has (correctly)
>> concluded that I am not a troll, but just someone who seeks to
>> discuss matters of interest, and so I don't warrant inclusion
> Although I haven't completely ruled you out as a troll,
typical suspicious atheist
> I do respect and
> defer to Scott's judgement regarding the Atheism FAQ. If indeed the two
> of you came to an understanding, then I consider that to be "excellent."
He simply concluded that I wasn't a troll based on my postings.. a
conclusion that should be obvious to any sensible person.
I wish there was more discussion here in alt.agnosticism. Fasgnadh seems
to have taken a sabbatical.
purpose, and never intended for universal appeal.
>
>>> I just read your description of me (and others), and I
>>> found it interesting. You may like to know that the meaning of my
>>> name is to "disturb faith" and not to attack it.
>> as I said.. 'or similar' but thanks. I will make a correction.
> Thank you.
>
>>> I don't agree with all of your assessments of myself, although you
>>> got some of it right (I'll leave it to you to figure out which
>>> parts),
>> well I take it you are referring to factual remarks. Otherwise it
>> would just be a matter of disagreement between your views of yourself
>> and mine (of you)
> Yes. I noticed that you combined your perspective with factual data.
>
>>> and I
>>> also don't agree with at least some of your other descriptions of
>>> other participants
>> I do make the point that my comments are based on MY experience
>> of/with them. and of course your view is biased.
> Are you referring to my bias toward impartiality?
> Here's a quotation
> of something you wrote just over one year ago, which I most certainly
> favour and appreciate, so I choose to not deny said bias:
>
> "... you reduce everything to rationality, reason, and logic ..."
> -- Felix Unger (April 10, 2012; analyzing Fidem Turbare)
lack of emotion, feeling, and personable qualities. You tend to behave
more like a computer than a 'normal' person, analysing and responding in
a dispassionate manner- apart from the pre mentioned bias of course.
>
>>> (I haven't read them all yet), but I do support your right
>>> to express your views.
>> Oh, that is such a relief!. I have been in such distress not knowing.
>> I would be mortified if I didn't have your approval.
> Thank you for trusting me with that authority, but I won't accept it
> because my work is abundant with such responsibility and authority (it's
> a complicated position, which I'm not presently at liberty to describe).
>
>>> Perhaps some day there will be an entry about you on the FAQ (you're
>>> not in there yet, but perhaps you have some suggestions?):
>>>
>>> http://www.alt-atheism.org/atheism:trollpedia
>> I did rate a mention on the fasgnadh page, but Scott removed the
>> remarks following some discussions that we had. He has (correctly)
>> concluded that I am not a troll, but just someone who seeks to
>> discuss matters of interest, and so I don't warrant inclusion
> Although I haven't completely ruled you out as a troll,
> I do respect and
> defer to Scott's judgement regarding the Atheism FAQ. If indeed the two
> of you came to an understanding, then I consider that to be "excellent."
conclusion that should be obvious to any sensible person.
I wish there was more discussion here in alt.agnosticism. Fasgnadh seems
to have taken a sabbatical.
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
May 6, 2013, 2:59:10 AM5/6/13
to
On Sat, 04 May 2013 16:27:10 +1000
Ha ha! Well, it's universally accessible, so if some find it appealing
then I suppose you'll be "out of luck" then, for the odds are stacked
against you!
> >>> I just read your description of me (and others), and I
> >>> found it interesting. You may like to know that the meaning of my
> >>> name is to "disturb faith" and not to attack it.
> >> as I said.. 'or similar' but thanks. I will make a correction.
> > Thank you.
> >
> >>> I don't agree with all of your assessments of myself, although you
> >>> got some of it right (I'll leave it to you to figure out which
> >>> parts),
> >> well I take it you are referring to factual remarks. Otherwise it
> >> would just be a matter of disagreement between your views of
> >> yourself and mine (of you)
> > Yes. I noticed that you combined your perspective with factual
> > data.
> >
> >>> and I
> >>> also don't agree with at least some of your other descriptions of
> >>> other participants
> >> I do make the point that my comments are based on MY experience
> >> of/with them. and of course your view is biased.
> > Are you referring to my bias toward impartiality?
>
> No, your bias toward the atheism
Well, I am an atheist, so I won't deny my personal bias toward being
"absent of belief in deities and supernatural agents," but it's also
important to understand that as an I atheist I'm not discriminating
against those who aren't atheists (particularly in my work), for to do
this would be anti-theistic of me.
In the context of this "alt.atheism" newsgroup, and other forums where
atheism is the topic at hand, or wherever else it's appropriate such as
to protect freedom of conscience (which depends on freedom of thought),
questioning or otherwise challenging the ideas put forth that have
their crosshairs aimed at atheism (or atheists for being atheists) is
not unreasonable or inappropriate. I regard it as something like an
invitation by others who participate in one of the said contexts to be
open to challenging social intercourse -- to not respond when an
atheist feels compelled or just in doing so would be to miss the point
of having such a forum in the first place.
> > Here's a quotation
> > of something you wrote just over one year ago, which I most
> > certainly favour and appreciate, so I choose to not deny said bias:
> >
> > "... you reduce everything to rationality, reason, and logic ..."
> > -- Felix Unger (April 10, 2012; analyzing Fidem Turbare)
>
> That was never intended as a compliment. I was alluding to your
> apparent lack of emotion, feeling, and personable qualities. You tend
> to behave more like a computer than a 'normal' person, analysing and
> responding in a dispassionate manner- apart from the pre mentioned
> bias of course.
I was "in the autism spectrum" when I was a young child, and to this
day I still have trouble picking up on humour and sarcasm, although
I'm getting better at it. Fortunately I've found the right niche to
use my skills and challenge my abilities, and engaging with people
here in this "alt.atheism" newsgroup is an enjoyable hobby for me that
compliments my career choices in a refreshing manner well because
diplomacy and political correctness can be entirely ignored here.
> >>> (I haven't read them all yet), but I do support your right
> >>> to express your views.
> >> Oh, that is such a relief!. I have been in such distress not
> >> knowing. I would be mortified if I didn't have your approval.
> > Thank you for trusting me with that authority, but I won't accept it
> > because my work is abundant with such responsibility and authority
> > (it's a complicated position, which I'm not presently at liberty to
> > describe).
>
> no doubt you could tell me, but then you would have to kill me
No. There would be no risk to you.
> >>> Perhaps some day there will be an entry about you on the FAQ
> >>> (you're not in there yet, but perhaps you have some suggestions?):
> >>>
> >>> http://www.alt-atheism.org/atheism:trollpedia
> >> I did rate a mention on the fasgnadh page, but Scott removed the
> >> remarks following some discussions that we had. He has (correctly)
> >> concluded that I am not a troll, but just someone who seeks to
> >> discuss matters of interest, and so I don't warrant inclusion
> > Although I haven't completely ruled you out as a troll,
>
> typical suspicious atheist
Given that "typical atheist" is a term that already lacks specificity,
I'm at a loss to understand the meaning of the term "typical suspicious
atheist" since that can only be a subset of the former term. If you
explain what a "typical atheist" is, then I'd be willing to explore
your assessment in more detail.
> > I do respect and
> > defer to Scott's judgement regarding the Atheism FAQ. If indeed
> > the two of you came to an understanding, then I consider that to be
> > "excellent."
>
> He simply concluded that I wasn't a troll based on my postings.. a
> conclusion that should be obvious to any sensible person.
"Should be" according to whom? Or are you using a subtle variation of
the "appeal to emotion" fallacy to try to sneak in a fallacious ad
hominem attack?
> I wish there was more discussion here in alt.agnosticism. Fasgnadh
> seems to have taken a sabbatical.
Fasgnadh bores me because he (or she) doesn't usually participate in a
meaningful way. You, on the other hand, engage in perspectives and
participate in ways that are thoughtful, intelligent, and meaningful.
--
guns, why should we let them have ideas?"
-- Joseph Stalin
then I suppose you'll be "out of luck" then, for the odds are stacked
against you!
> >>> I just read your description of me (and others), and I
> >>> found it interesting. You may like to know that the meaning of my
> >>> name is to "disturb faith" and not to attack it.
> >> as I said.. 'or similar' but thanks. I will make a correction.
> > Thank you.
> >
> >>> I don't agree with all of your assessments of myself, although you
> >>> got some of it right (I'll leave it to you to figure out which
> >>> parts),
> >> well I take it you are referring to factual remarks. Otherwise it
> >> would just be a matter of disagreement between your views of
> >> yourself and mine (of you)
> > Yes. I noticed that you combined your perspective with factual
> > data.
> >
> >>> and I
> >>> also don't agree with at least some of your other descriptions of
> >>> other participants
> >> I do make the point that my comments are based on MY experience
> >> of/with them. and of course your view is biased.
> > Are you referring to my bias toward impartiality?
>
> No, your bias toward the atheism
"absent of belief in deities and supernatural agents," but it's also
important to understand that as an I atheist I'm not discriminating
against those who aren't atheists (particularly in my work), for to do
this would be anti-theistic of me.
In the context of this "alt.atheism" newsgroup, and other forums where
atheism is the topic at hand, or wherever else it's appropriate such as
to protect freedom of conscience (which depends on freedom of thought),
questioning or otherwise challenging the ideas put forth that have
their crosshairs aimed at atheism (or atheists for being atheists) is
not unreasonable or inappropriate. I regard it as something like an
invitation by others who participate in one of the said contexts to be
open to challenging social intercourse -- to not respond when an
atheist feels compelled or just in doing so would be to miss the point
of having such a forum in the first place.
> > Here's a quotation
> > of something you wrote just over one year ago, which I most
> > certainly favour and appreciate, so I choose to not deny said bias:
> >
> > "... you reduce everything to rationality, reason, and logic ..."
> > -- Felix Unger (April 10, 2012; analyzing Fidem Turbare)
>
> That was never intended as a compliment. I was alluding to your
> apparent lack of emotion, feeling, and personable qualities. You tend
> to behave more like a computer than a 'normal' person, analysing and
> responding in a dispassionate manner- apart from the pre mentioned
> bias of course.
day I still have trouble picking up on humour and sarcasm, although
I'm getting better at it. Fortunately I've found the right niche to
use my skills and challenge my abilities, and engaging with people
here in this "alt.atheism" newsgroup is an enjoyable hobby for me that
compliments my career choices in a refreshing manner well because
diplomacy and political correctness can be entirely ignored here.
> >>> (I haven't read them all yet), but I do support your right
> >>> to express your views.
> >> Oh, that is such a relief!. I have been in such distress not
> >> knowing. I would be mortified if I didn't have your approval.
> > Thank you for trusting me with that authority, but I won't accept it
> > because my work is abundant with such responsibility and authority
> > (it's a complicated position, which I'm not presently at liberty to
> > describe).
>
> no doubt you could tell me, but then you would have to kill me
> >>> Perhaps some day there will be an entry about you on the FAQ
> >>> (you're not in there yet, but perhaps you have some suggestions?):
> >>>
> >>> http://www.alt-atheism.org/atheism:trollpedia
> >> I did rate a mention on the fasgnadh page, but Scott removed the
> >> remarks following some discussions that we had. He has (correctly)
> >> concluded that I am not a troll, but just someone who seeks to
> >> discuss matters of interest, and so I don't warrant inclusion
> > Although I haven't completely ruled you out as a troll,
>
> typical suspicious atheist
I'm at a loss to understand the meaning of the term "typical suspicious
atheist" since that can only be a subset of the former term. If you
explain what a "typical atheist" is, then I'd be willing to explore
your assessment in more detail.
> > I do respect and
> > defer to Scott's judgement regarding the Atheism FAQ. If indeed
> > the two of you came to an understanding, then I consider that to be
> > "excellent."
>
> He simply concluded that I wasn't a troll based on my postings.. a
> conclusion that should be obvious to any sensible person.
the "appeal to emotion" fallacy to try to sneak in a fallacious ad
hominem attack?
> I wish there was more discussion here in alt.agnosticism. Fasgnadh
> seems to have taken a sabbatical.
meaningful way. You, on the other hand, engage in perspectives and
participate in ways that are thoughtful, intelligent, and meaningful.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?"
-- Joseph Stalin
felix_unger
May 11, 2013, 9:26:07 AM5/11/13
to
On 06-May-2013 4:59 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
>>>> I do make the point that my comments are based on MY experience
>>>> of/with them. and of course your view is biased.
>>> Are you referring to my bias toward impartiality?
>> No, your bias toward the atheism
> Well, I am an atheist, so I won't deny my personal bias toward being
> "absent of belief in deities and supernatural agents," but it's also
> important to understand that as an I atheist I'm not discriminating
> against those who aren't atheists (particularly in my work), for to do
> this would be anti-theistic of me.
how noble of you..
> In the context of this "alt.atheism" newsgroup, and other forums where
> atheism is the topic at hand, or wherever else it's appropriate such as
> to protect freedom of conscience (which depends on freedom of thought),
> questioning or otherwise challenging the ideas put forth that have
> their crosshairs aimed at atheism (or atheists for being atheists) is
> not unreasonable or inappropriate. I regard it as something like an
> invitation by others who participate in one of the said contexts to be
> open to challenging social intercourse -- to not respond when an
> atheist feels compelled or just in doing so would be to miss the point
> of having such a forum in the first place.
well put
>>> Here's a quotation
>>> of something you wrote just over one year ago, which I most
>>> certainly favour and appreciate, so I choose to not deny said bias:
>>>
>>> "... you reduce everything to rationality, reason, and logic ..."
>>> -- Felix Unger (April 10, 2012; analyzing Fidem Turbare)
>> That was never intended as a compliment. I was alluding to your
>> apparent lack of emotion, feeling, and personable qualities. You tend
>> to behave more like a computer than a 'normal' person, analysing and
>> responding in a dispassionate manner- apart from the pre mentioned
>> bias of course.
> I was "in the autism spectrum" when I was a young child, and to this
> day I still have trouble picking up on humour and sarcasm,
I've noticed
> although I'm getting better at it.
that's good. you're becoming more like a normal person then. :)
> Fortunately I've found the right niche to
> use my skills and challenge my abilities, and engaging with people
> here in this "alt.atheism" newsgroup is an enjoyable hobby for me that
> compliments my career choicesin a refreshing manner well because
you seen it in the movies? looks like you need to do a bit more work on
your humour perception ability :)
>>>>> Perhaps some day there will be an entry about you on the FAQ
>>>>> (you're not in there yet, but perhaps you have some suggestions?):
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.alt-atheism.org/atheism:trollpedia
>>>> I did rate a mention on the fasgnadh page, but Scott removed the
>>>> remarks following some discussions that we had. He has (correctly)
>>>> concluded that I am not a troll, but just someone who seeks to
>>>> discuss matters of interest, and so I don't warrant inclusion
>>> Although I haven't completely ruled you out as a troll,
>> typical suspicious atheist
> Given that "typical atheist" is a term that already lacks specificity,
> I'm at a loss to understand the meaning of the term "typical suspicious
> atheist" since that can only be a subset of the former term. If you
> explain what a "typical atheist" is, then I'd be willing to explore
> your assessment in more detail.
suspicion is typically a characteristic of atheists, just like abnormal
thinking, as you demonstrate above and usually
>>> I do respect and
>>> defer to Scott's judgement regarding the Atheism FAQ. If indeed
>>> the two of you came to an understanding, then I consider that to be
>>> "excellent."
>> He simply concluded that I wasn't a troll based on my postings.. a
>> conclusion that should be obvious to any sensible person.
> "Should be" according to whom? Or are you using a subtle variation of
> the "appeal to emotion" fallacy to try to sneak in a fallacious ad
> hominem attack?
my gosh, you are such a complicated person. Isn't anything simple for
you? don't you ever take anything at face value? you would be very high
maintenance in a relationship. I'm simply saying that my postings give
no reason to conclude that I'm trolling. But of course suspicious
defensive atheists tend to see things that aren't there.
>
>> I wish there was more discussion here in alt.agnosticism. Fasgnadh
>> seems to have taken a sabbatical.
> Fasgnadh bores me because he (or she) doesn't usually participate in a
> meaningful way. You, on the other hand, engage in perspectives and
> participate in ways that are thoughtful, intelligent, and meaningful.
>
Well thanks for the compliment. You arouse my curiosity. I do wonder
what you do for a living, and what you look like. I imagine that you
wear glasses. people are never how we imagine them to be tho, are they.
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
theangryatheist.ausnet.info
>>>>>> http://theangryatheist.ausnet.info/quotes
>>>>> Nice web site!
>>>> You mean you've only just now seen it!!??! I'm flabbergasted! I
>>>> thought by know it would be famous worldwide (sigh)
>>> Actually, I vaguely recall seeing it quite some time ago, but
>>> perhaps it presented less information at that time. Perhaps your
>>> web site will gradually gain more popularity over time as you are
>>> hoping, and I suggest that adding new content from time-to-time
>>> should prove helpful to you in that endeavor as I suspect Google
>>> also calculates how active each web site is shortly after every
>>> spider operation.
>> I wasn't being serious. It's only a small website for a specific
>> purpose, and never intended for universal appeal.
> Ha ha! Well, it's universally accessible, so if some find it appealing
> then I suppose you'll be "out of luck" then, for the odds are stacked
> against you!
It doesn't bother me who looks at it or why
>>>>> Nice web site!
>>>> You mean you've only just now seen it!!??! I'm flabbergasted! I
>>>> thought by know it would be famous worldwide (sigh)
>>> Actually, I vaguely recall seeing it quite some time ago, but
>>> perhaps it presented less information at that time. Perhaps your
>>> web site will gradually gain more popularity over time as you are
>>> hoping, and I suggest that adding new content from time-to-time
>>> should prove helpful to you in that endeavor as I suspect Google
>>> also calculates how active each web site is shortly after every
>>> spider operation.
>> I wasn't being serious. It's only a small website for a specific
>> purpose, and never intended for universal appeal.
> Ha ha! Well, it's universally accessible, so if some find it appealing
> then I suppose you'll be "out of luck" then, for the odds are stacked
> against you!
>>>> I do make the point that my comments are based on MY experience
>>>> of/with them. and of course your view is biased.
>>> Are you referring to my bias toward impartiality?
>> No, your bias toward the atheism
> Well, I am an atheist, so I won't deny my personal bias toward being
> "absent of belief in deities and supernatural agents," but it's also
> important to understand that as an I atheist I'm not discriminating
> against those who aren't atheists (particularly in my work), for to do
> this would be anti-theistic of me.
> In the context of this "alt.atheism" newsgroup, and other forums where
> atheism is the topic at hand, or wherever else it's appropriate such as
> to protect freedom of conscience (which depends on freedom of thought),
> questioning or otherwise challenging the ideas put forth that have
> their crosshairs aimed at atheism (or atheists for being atheists) is
> not unreasonable or inappropriate. I regard it as something like an
> invitation by others who participate in one of the said contexts to be
> open to challenging social intercourse -- to not respond when an
> atheist feels compelled or just in doing so would be to miss the point
> of having such a forum in the first place.
>>> Here's a quotation
>>> of something you wrote just over one year ago, which I most
>>> certainly favour and appreciate, so I choose to not deny said bias:
>>>
>>> "... you reduce everything to rationality, reason, and logic ..."
>>> -- Felix Unger (April 10, 2012; analyzing Fidem Turbare)
>> That was never intended as a compliment. I was alluding to your
>> apparent lack of emotion, feeling, and personable qualities. You tend
>> to behave more like a computer than a 'normal' person, analysing and
>> responding in a dispassionate manner- apart from the pre mentioned
>> bias of course.
> I was "in the autism spectrum" when I was a young child, and to this
> day I still have trouble picking up on humour and sarcasm,
> although I'm getting better at it.
> Fortunately I've found the right niche to
> use my skills and challenge my abilities, and engaging with people
> here in this "alt.atheism" newsgroup is an enjoyable hobby for me that
> diplomacy and political correctness can be entirely ignored here.
>
>
>
>>>>> (I haven't read them all yet), but I do support your right
>>>>> to express your views.
>>>> Oh, that is such a relief!. I have been in such distress not
>>>> knowing. I would be mortified if I didn't have your approval.
>>> Thank you for trusting me with that authority, but I won't accept it
>>> because my work is abundant with such responsibility and authority
>>> (it's a complicated position, which I'm not presently at liberty to
>>> describe).
>> no doubt you could tell me, but then you would have to kill me
> No. There would be no risk to you.
lol! I can't believe you took that seriously. It's a CIA thing. haven't
>
>
>
>>>>> (I haven't read them all yet), but I do support your right
>>>>> to express your views.
>>>> Oh, that is such a relief!. I have been in such distress not
>>>> knowing. I would be mortified if I didn't have your approval.
>>> Thank you for trusting me with that authority, but I won't accept it
>>> because my work is abundant with such responsibility and authority
>>> (it's a complicated position, which I'm not presently at liberty to
>>> describe).
>> no doubt you could tell me, but then you would have to kill me
> No. There would be no risk to you.
you seen it in the movies? looks like you need to do a bit more work on
your humour perception ability :)
>>>>> Perhaps some day there will be an entry about you on the FAQ
>>>>> (you're not in there yet, but perhaps you have some suggestions?):
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.alt-atheism.org/atheism:trollpedia
>>>> I did rate a mention on the fasgnadh page, but Scott removed the
>>>> remarks following some discussions that we had. He has (correctly)
>>>> concluded that I am not a troll, but just someone who seeks to
>>>> discuss matters of interest, and so I don't warrant inclusion
>>> Although I haven't completely ruled you out as a troll,
>> typical suspicious atheist
> Given that "typical atheist" is a term that already lacks specificity,
> I'm at a loss to understand the meaning of the term "typical suspicious
> atheist" since that can only be a subset of the former term. If you
> explain what a "typical atheist" is, then I'd be willing to explore
> your assessment in more detail.
thinking, as you demonstrate above and usually
>>> I do respect and
>>> defer to Scott's judgement regarding the Atheism FAQ. If indeed
>>> the two of you came to an understanding, then I consider that to be
>>> "excellent."
>> He simply concluded that I wasn't a troll based on my postings.. a
>> conclusion that should be obvious to any sensible person.
> "Should be" according to whom? Or are you using a subtle variation of
> the "appeal to emotion" fallacy to try to sneak in a fallacious ad
> hominem attack?
you? don't you ever take anything at face value? you would be very high
maintenance in a relationship. I'm simply saying that my postings give
no reason to conclude that I'm trolling. But of course suspicious
defensive atheists tend to see things that aren't there.
>
>> I wish there was more discussion here in alt.agnosticism. Fasgnadh
>> seems to have taken a sabbatical.
> Fasgnadh bores me because he (or she) doesn't usually participate in a
> meaningful way. You, on the other hand, engage in perspectives and
> participate in ways that are thoughtful, intelligent, and meaningful.
>
what you do for a living, and what you look like. I imagine that you
wear glasses. people are never how we imagine them to be tho, are they.
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
theangryatheist.ausnet.info
Ashton Crusher
May 11, 2013, 11:41:39 PM5/11/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:37:44 -0400, "Freedom Man"
<frees...@4eva.com> wrote:
>Do people being agnostic or atheist offend you? No one is harmed by that.
>But guess what - your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, free
>speech censorship, child brainwashing, pedophilia by "priests," forcing
>girls into arranged underage marriages, female genital mutilation, torture
>of infants by circumcision without anesthesia, stoning to death, homophobia,
>and rejection of science and reason offend us even more, and DO harm people!
>
Almost all the problems in the world are caused by religions.
<frees...@4eva.com> wrote:
>Do people being agnostic or atheist offend you? No one is harmed by that.
>But guess what - your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, free
>speech censorship, child brainwashing, pedophilia by "priests," forcing
>girls into arranged underage marriages, female genital mutilation, torture
>of infants by circumcision without anesthesia, stoning to death, homophobia,
>and rejection of science and reason offend us even more, and DO harm people!
>
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Jeanne Douglas
Jun 25, 2013, 7:54:00 AM6/25/13
to
In article <kqb2o...@drn.newsguy.com>, Nobody <nob...@no.spam>
wrote:
> Freedom Man Wrote:
> >
> >Do people being agnostic or atheist offend you? No one is harmed by that.
> >But guess what - your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, free
> >speech censorship, child brainwashing, pedophilia by "priests," forcing
> >girls into arranged underage marriages, female genital mutilation, torture
> >of infants by circumcision without anesthesia, stoning to death, homophobia,
> >and rejection of science and reason offend us even more, and DO harm people!
> >
> >
> Religions, communism, atheism all play some role in human evils because the
> real
> cause behind it all is Human Nature.
True.
Anything that leads people to think they have The Truth leads to evil.
Every single time.
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
wrote:
> Freedom Man Wrote:
> >
> >Do people being agnostic or atheist offend you? No one is harmed by that.
> >But guess what - your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, free
> >speech censorship, child brainwashing, pedophilia by "priests," forcing
> >girls into arranged underage marriages, female genital mutilation, torture
> >of infants by circumcision without anesthesia, stoning to death, homophobia,
> >and rejection of science and reason offend us even more, and DO harm people!
> >
> >
> real
> cause behind it all is Human Nature.
True.
Anything that leads people to think they have The Truth leads to evil.
Every single time.
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
0 new messages