Neurosurgeon Ben Carson: I don't have enough "faith "to believe in evolution

[jope]

http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html

"By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
morality and the basis of ethical behavior. For if there is no such
thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want. You make
everything relative, and there's no reason for any of our higher
values."

[Mr. B1ack]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:58 -0700 (PDT), jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>
> "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
>morality and the basis of ethical behavior.

Um ... so he's saying the natural world should warp
itself to ensure that (xian) morality and ethics are
preserved and amplified ?

What arrogance. What narcicissim.

What a pinhead.

[Terry Cross]

On May 24, 6:36 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:58 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>
> > "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
> >morality and the basis of ethical behavior.
>
>    Um ... so he's saying the natural world should warp
>    itself to ensure that (xian) morality and ethics are
>    preserved and amplified ?
>
>    What arrogance. What narcicissim.
>
>    What a pinhead.

What an off-the-wall interpretation. Obviously, this person does not
understand how civilization arose.

TCross

[Jope]

On May 24, 9:36 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:58 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>
> > "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
> >morality and the basis of ethical behavior.
>
>    Um ... so he's saying the natural world should warp
>    itself to ensure that (xian) morality and ethics are
>    preserved and amplified ?
>
>    What arrogance. What narcicissim.
>
>    What a pinhead.

Throughout history,religion has always been the traditional conduit
for moral values.I would like to see an atheist providing his
rationale for morality, besides a mere convenience.Most atheists get
to grow up in society already replete with religious morality.And
since they are in the minority,they try no to look to
threatening.But,once they reach a critical number,they will do their
best to discard those annoying christian values.The atheist is
essentially a moral time bomb.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:45:39 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On May 24, 6:36 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:58 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>>
>> > "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
>> >morality and the basis of ethical behavior.
>>
>>    Um ... so he's saying the natural world should warp
>>    itself to ensure that (xian) morality and ethics are
>>    preserved and amplified ?
>>
>>    What arrogance. What narcicissim.
>>
>>    What a pinhead.
>
>What an off-the-wall interpretation.

Not in the least. Indeed I was almost charitible ...

>Obviously, this person does not understand how civilization arose.

And deserves to be spanked for it .... not as if
the info wasn't out there after all .............

[Mr. B1ack]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:28:09 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On May 24, 9:36 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:58 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>>
>> > "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
>> >morality and the basis of ethical behavior.
>>
>>    Um ... so he's saying the natural world should warp
>>    itself to ensure that (xian) morality and ethics are
>>    preserved and amplified ?
>>
>>    What arrogance. What narcicissim.
>>
>>    What a pinhead.
>
>Throughout history,religion has always been the traditional conduit
>for moral values.

But there's nothing "natural" about it ... the universe is NOT
arranged to amplify anyones morality or ethics. People just
make this shit up to suit them.

Seems you want to suppress any knowledge or interpretation
of nature that does not suit YOUR particular ideals.

Nope.

Ain't happening.

>I would like to see an atheist providing his
>rationale for morality

Isn't any beyond "human nature" ... empathy.

This IS a common feature across people, civilizations
and time. It's how we're wired. We CAN put ourselves
in another persons shoes.

And it's the best way to encourage 'civilized' behavior.
The core stuff, the important stuff ... not micro-details.

> besides a mere convenience.Most atheists get
>to grow up in society already replete with religious morality.

Which one, rad Islam ?

Worship of Shiva ?

Bloody Woden ?

Abusive Baal ?

Capricious Yaweh ?

Zeus the lightning-bearer ?

The serene Buddha ?

So many ....

>And since they are in the minority,they try no to look to
>threatening.But,once they reach a critical number,they will do their
>best to discard those annoying christian values.The atheist is
>essentially a moral time bomb.

Many "christian values" being sold ain't particularly
"christian" in the first place ... but the works of self-
interested men and their institutions of power.

Dump 'em !

To start off ... "christianity" was the "new deal" ... so
be a 'christian' (rather broad def there) and tear that
old testament out of your book. :-)

[me]

whats random to you, is normal & natural for me. Any gay person will
assume that there is no morality or thought for the natural female
instinct to build, make, engender love between heterosexuals. Love :)

[Jope]

On May 25, 3:10 am, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:28:09 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>

What are you talking about?I am simply describing an historical
fact.

>Which one, rad Islam ?
>Worship of Shiva ?
> Bloody Woden ?
>Abusive Baal ?

>Zeus the lightning-bearer ?
>The serene Buddha ?
>So many ....

A religion may be false,yet still provide moral values.That
religion may still lead you to hell
Yet ,it will teach that murder ,adultery and homosexuality are
wrong.
As for the right religion,the truth is available to anyone who is
interested in the truth.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 09:36:34 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:

>On May 25, 3:10�am, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:

...

> >But there's nothing "natural" about it ... the universe is NOT
> >arranged to amplify anyones morality or ethics
> What are you talking about?I am simply describing an historical
>fact.
>
> >Which one, rad Islam ?
> >Worship of Shiva ?
> > Bloody Woden ?
> >Abusive Baal ?
> >Zeus the lightning-bearer ?
> >The serene Buddha ?
> >So many ....
> A religion may be false,yet still provide moral values.That
>religion may still lead you to hell
> Yet ,it will teach that murder ,adultery and homosexuality are
>wrong.
> As for the right religion,the truth is available to anyone who is
>interested in the truth.

How do you determine which religion is correct?

What evidence do you rely on?

[Bert]

In news:4fq1q8d3gtiim0ndl...@4ax.com Free Lunch

<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> How do you determine which religion is correct?

It's almost always the one you were born into. A strange coincidence,
but true nonetheless.

> What evidence do you rely on?

You try not to think about it.

Besides, asking for evidence is considered a sin in most religions.

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[Jope]

On May 25, 12:41 pm, Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> Innews:4fq1q8d3gtiim0ndl...@4ax.comFree Lunch

>
> <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > How do you determine which religion is correct?
>
> It's almost always the one you were born into. A strange coincidence,
> but true nonetheless.
>
> > What evidence do you rely on?
>
> You try not to think about it.
>
> Besides, asking for evidence is considered a sin in most religions.
>
> --

> b...@iphouse.com       St. Paul, MN

Just because there are many roads,does not mean that everyone of them
is worthless.
The religion which has the miracles and the manifest presence of God
is the one that is true.

"But if I do his work, believe in the evidence of the miraculous works
I have done, even if you don't believe me"
John 10v38

[Terry Cross]

On May 25, 12:00 am, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:45:39 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 24, 6:36 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:58 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>
> >> > "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
> >> >morality and the basis of ethical behavior.
>
> >>    Um ... so he's saying the natural world should warp
> >>    itself to ensure that (xian) morality and ethics are
> >>    preserved and amplified ?
>
> >>    What arrogance. What narcicissim.
>
> >>    What a pinhead.
>
> >What an off-the-wall interpretation.
>
>    Not in the least. Indeed I was almost charitible ...

Where does he say the "natural world" should be "warped"?

> >Obviously, this person does not understand how civilization arose.
>
>    And deserves to be spanked for it .... not as if
>    the info wasn't out there after all .............

Civilization was made possible in the West only when the horrors of
Jews and the Romans were corrected by Christianity. Later, Mohamed
brought the same to the Middle East.

TCross

[Mr. B1ack]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:53:11 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On May 25, 12:41 pm, Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> Innews:4fq1q8d3gtiim0ndl...@4ax.comFree Lunch
>>
>> <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> > How do you determine which religion is correct?
>>
>> It's almost always the one you were born into. A strange coincidence,
>> but true nonetheless.
>>
>> > What evidence do you rely on?
>>
>> You try not to think about it.
>>
>> Besides, asking for evidence is considered a sin in most religions.
>>
>> --
>> b...@iphouse.com       St. Paul, MN
>
>Just because there are many roads,does not mean that everyone of them
>is worthless.
>The religion which has the miracles and the manifest presence of God
>is the one that is true.

They ALL claim 'miracles'.

[Zerkon]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:58 -0700, jope wrote:

> "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
> morality and the basis of ethical behavior. For if there is no such
> thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want. You make
> everything relative, and there's no reason for any of our higher
> values."

What are random acts and higher values? Is water, given it's presence in
the human product, a random act? Does submitting to a moral authority
demonstrate a higher value or don't humans have a direct access to higher
values via individual determination?

By making things relative to say one's family and law you or we can not
just do anything we/you want.

This should read:

"By believing I am a product.... I eliminate my ethical basis.. I can do
anything I want.." etc




Q: What is the difference between God and a neurosurgeon?
A: God does not pretend to be a neurosurgeon

[Dare]

"Zerkon" <Zer...@Z.Zorg> wrote in message news:knt22p$krv$4...@dont-email.me...

>
> Q: What is the difference between God and a neurosurgeon?
> A: God does not pretend to be a neurosurgeon

Wow....that's perfect....and true.
(ouch)

[Jope]

On May 26, 2:00 am, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:53:11 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>

Not so.Christianity is based on miracles,matter of fact miracles.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 08:18:10 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:

Yes, the teachings claim that miracles happened, but there is no
evidence to support those claims.

[bil...@microsoft.com]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:53:11 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On May 25, 12:41�pm, Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> Innews:4fq1q8d3gtiim0ndl...@4ax.comFree Lunch

>Just because there are many roads,does not mean that everyone of them
>is worthless.

are worthless it is plural fool . it is always thye uneducated that
need to come here and rant about how good thier religon is . what they
dont realize every religon out there is bad

>The religion which has the miracles and the manifest presence of God
>is the one that is true.

fortunally There has never been a single miracle and god has never
manifest his presence to anyone or anything
so by that rationale there is no religon that is true which is what I
and alot of others have been saying now for quite some time
I just love it when these uneducated fake holy rollers try to post
something important and even breath taking only to have it thrown back
in thier face

[Terry Cross]

On May 26, 8:44 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 08:18:10 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote

Those who wrote about them happening provided their testimony. You
may not believe that testimony, but it is evidence, just as the
accounts of every other historian. History is NOT science. History
is not subjected to the rigors of laboratory proof. Historical proof
is more akin to courtroom proof where there are varying standards
applied.

In any case, "no evidence" is a patently dishonest statement.

Cross

[Terry Cross]

On May 26, 11:36 am, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:53:11 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On May 25, 12:41 pm, Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >> Innews:4fq1q8d3gtiim0ndl...@4ax.comFreeLunch
> >Just because there are many roads,does not mean that everyone of them
> >is worthless.
>
> are worthless it is plural fool . it is always thye uneducated that
> need to come here and rant about how good thier religon is . what they
> dont realize every religon out there is bad

You sound like the nouveau riche restaurant patron who declared, "All
flavors are bad. I just want it to taste good."

Atheists thrive on the virtues of others who constrain them to behave
morally. History has shown that when atheists are left without
restraint, they are horrors to behold -- like Natural Born Killers.

TCross

[Ralph]

First, you must identify the person who claimed this evidence. I'll be
waiting while you justify
testimony made by some unknown person.

[Terry Cross]

Christiaan Huygens, prior to Newton, had hypothesized that light was a
wave propagating through an aether, but Newton rejected this idea.
Hygens based his theory on observations of propagation, interference,
and refraction, published in 1690 in his Traité de la lumière
(Treatise on light).

Newton, however, preferred a corpuscular model of light, based on his
observations of polarization. In 1720 James Bradley carried out a
series of experiments that supported Newton's theory of corpuscular
light.

A century later, Young and Fresnel revived the wave theory of light
when they pointed out that light could be a transverse wave rather
than a longitudinal wave—the polarization of a transverse wave (like
Newton's "sides" of light) could explain birefringence, and in the
wake of a series of experiments on diffraction the particle model of
Newton was finally abandoned. Physicists assumed, morever, that like
mechanical waves, light waves required a medium for propagation, and
thus required Huygens's idea of an aether "gas" permeating all space.

TCross

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:00:08 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>On May 26, 8:44�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 08:18:10 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote
>> in alt.talk.creationism:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 26, 2:00�am, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:

...
>> >> � �They ALL claim 'miracles'.

>>
>> >Not so.Christianity is based on miracles,matter of fact miracles.
>>
>> Yes, the teachings claim that miracles happened, but there is no
>> evidence to support those claims.
>
>Those who wrote about them happening provided their testimony.

Please name the witnesses and what evidence we have that they were
indeed witnesses and the writers of the claimed work.

>You may not believe that testimony, but it is evidence, just as the
>accounts of every other historian.

Please name the historians who claim that there is direct testimony in
the Bible.

>History is NOT science. History
>is not subjected to the rigors of laboratory proof. Historical proof
>is more akin to courtroom proof where there are varying standards
>applied.

But courtrooms do not accept hearsay.

>In any case, "no evidence" is a patently dishonest statement.

Identify something that you consider to be solid, reliable evidence and
explain why. Don't make sweeping statements showing us that you take
offense that we are skeptical. Provide the evidence and the argument in
support of your assertion that it is evidence.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 14:58:27 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>and refraction, published in 1690 in his Trait� de la lumi�re

>(Treatise on light).
>
>Newton, however, preferred a corpuscular model of light, based on his
>observations of polarization. In 1720 James Bradley carried out a
>series of experiments that supported Newton's theory of corpuscular
>light.
>
>A century later, Young and Fresnel revived the wave theory of light
>when they pointed out that light could be a transverse wave rather
>than a longitudinal wave�the polarization of a transverse wave (like
>Newton's "sides" of light) could explain birefringence, and in the
>wake of a series of experiments on diffraction the particle model of
>Newton was finally abandoned. Physicists assumed, morever, that like
>mechanical waves, light waves required a medium for propagation, and
>thus required Huygens's idea of an aether "gas" permeating all space.

Are you telling us this because you know you have no evidence for any
special claim in the Bible?

[bil...@microsoft.com]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:07:13 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On May 26, 11:36 am, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:53:11 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 25, 12:41 pm, Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> >> Innews:4fq1q8d3gtiim0ndl...@4ax.comFreeLunch
>> >Just because there are many roads,does not mean that everyone of them
>> >is worthless.
>>

>You sound like the nouveau riche restaurant patron who declared, "All
>flavors are bad. I just want it to taste good."
>
>Atheists thrive on the virtues of others who constrain them to behave
>morally. History has shown that when atheists are left without
>restraint, they are horrors to behold -- like Natural Born Killers.
>
>TCross

oh my you are totally joking right? Do I have to do this again?
mention hitler that was a christian and the muslim suicide bombers and
the priests that molest children or how about the tv evanglists that
steal peoples money? Athesists are moral because they are human beings
and they see no reason to go around hurting other prople because it is
just wrong. That is what morals are . Not doing something because they
are afraid of going to hell is just fear it is not moral at all. and
it usually has the opposite effect as witnessed by almost every war
there has been
And lastly natural born killers is a movie you fucking dumbfuck. if
you want to mention movies lets talk about the huge number of nazi
movies oh what about the exeorcist and what about every other movie
that features some deamon or bad spirit killing someone. According to
you that is all gods handiwork since he created all the deamns. and
since god knows everything and knew hitler would come to power and
murder all the jews that would make god a mass murderer.
so next time when you think you know something just shut yout piehole
because in factg you know nothing

[Mr. B1ack]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 13:36:10 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:

>On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:53:11 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On May 25, 12:41 pm, Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>> Innews:4fq1q8d3gtiim0ndl...@4ax.comFree Lunch
>
>>Just because there are many roads,does not mean that everyone of them
>>is worthless.
>
>are worthless it is plural fool . it is always thye uneducated that
>need to come here and rant about how good thier religon is . what they
>dont realize every religon out there is bad

Well, "misinformed" ... not necessarily "bad".

The speed at which correct information penetrates a
culture can be uneven. There are still some bona-fide
flat-earthers out there, still an ardent "Moon-landings
faked" segment and "Microwave ovens emit nuclear
radiation" believers too. None of these people or their
clingy beliefs are automatically "bad" ... it's just gonna
take time and a larger mountain of evidence to
convince them.

Theism is a VERY clingy belief system ... indeed there
seem to be distinct brain sub-systems that latch on to
such modes of thinking - likely important for other basic
survival behaviors too, but got co-opted when someone
invented the idea of 'spirits' and 'gods'. As there's some
'hard wiring' involved, it's a real BITCH to get a theist to
actually consider a non-supernaturalist universe. The
longer they've been religious, the more of their world-
view that's been built with supernaturalist components
incorporated, the harder it is to get them to think
otherwise.

So there's little point in persistent or aggressive attacks
against the theists. All it does is make them dig in their
heels and protect the 'reality' they're vested in all the more.
That's another 'human nature thing'.

Better to teach by example and correct little errors in fact
or logic in the meanwhile. Some will then be able to find
their own way out of their demon-haunted dungeon. Some
never will. Oh well.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:07:13 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On May 26, 11:36 am, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:53:11 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 25, 12:41 pm, Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> >> Innews:4fq1q8d3gtiim0ndl...@4ax.comFreeLunch
>> >Just because there are many roads,does not mean that everyone of them
>> >is worthless.
>>
>> are worthless it is plural fool . it is always thye uneducated that
>> need to come here and rant about how good thier religon is . what they
>> dont realize every religon out there is bad
>
>
>You sound like the nouveau riche restaurant patron who declared, "All
>flavors are bad. I just want it to taste good."

? Que ?

>Atheists thrive on the virtues of others who constrain them to behave
>morally. History has shown that when atheists are left without
>restraint, they are horrors to behold -- like Natural Born Killers.

Un-believers tend to be the nicer people you'll meet - and
some of the worst are ardent theists.

An un-believer cannot rely on some supernatural force to make
things good and right - they know they have to DO IT THEMSELVES
if it's gonna get done. Theists can be lazy, just sit back, don't
care, and assume 'god' is gonna fix it all.

[bil...@microsoft.com]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:58:04 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 26 May 2013 13:36:10 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:53:11 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On May 25, 12:41 pm, Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>> Innews:4fq1q8d3gtiim0ndl...@4ax.comFree Lunch
>>
>>>Just because there are many roads,does not mean that everyone of them
>>>is worthless.
>>
>>are worthless it is plural fool . it is always thye uneducated that
>>need to come here and rant about how good thier religon is . what they
>>dont realize every religon out there is bad
>
>
> Well, "misinformed" ... not necessarily "bad".

no matter how ignorant any/every religon is, that doesnt mean that
that makes murdering innocent people right. that does not mean that
lying to the populace about false gods to make them selves rich is
right. I know all thesists must feel that ignorance is bliss but they
need to wake up and smell the shit they are putting out everyday.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:29:37 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:

>On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:58:04 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 26 May 2013 13:36:10 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:53:11 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 25, 12:41 pm, Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>>> Innews:4fq1q8d3gtiim0ndl...@4ax.comFree Lunch
>>>
>>>>Just because there are many roads,does not mean that everyone of them
>>>>is worthless.
>>>
>>>are worthless it is plural fool . it is always thye uneducated that
>>>need to come here and rant about how good thier religon is . what they
>>>dont realize every religon out there is bad
>>
>>
>> Well, "misinformed" ... not necessarily "bad".
>
>no matter how ignorant any/every religon is, that doesnt mean that
>that makes murdering innocent people right. that does not mean that
>lying to the populace about false gods to make them selves rich is
>right. I know all thesists must feel that ignorance is bliss but they
>need to wake up and smell the shit they are putting out everyday.

Ain't gonna happen.

Get used to it.

It is the unbelievers who will have to cope, who will
have to smell the bullshit every day. Even if every
current religion disappears there will be immediate
replacements. Religion and humans just plain go
together. Seeing through the BS is RARE, very rare,
and They don't LIKE it.

Can't beat 'em in the usual sense. So, gotta rely on
alternative tactics.

[Terry Cross]

On May 26, 11:09 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:29:37 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:

> >On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:58:04 -0400, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net>

> >wrote:
>
> >>On Sun, 26 May 2013 13:36:10 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>

> >>>On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:53:11 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>

> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>On May 25, 12:41 pm, Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Innews:4fq1q8d3gtiim0ndl...@4ax.comFreeLunch
>
> >>>>Just because there are many roads,does not mean that everyone of them
> >>>>is worthless.
>
> >>>are worthless it is plural fool . it is always thye uneducated that
> >>>need to come here and rant about how good thier religon is . what they
> >>>dont realize every religon out there is bad
>
> >>   Well, "misinformed" ... not necessarily "bad".
>
> >no matter how ignorant any/every religon is, that doesnt mean that
> >that makes murdering innocent people right. that does not mean that
> >lying to the populace about false gods to make them selves rich is
> >right. I know all thesists must feel that ignorance is bliss but they
> >need to wake up and smell the shit they are putting out everyday.
>
>    Ain't gonna happen.
>
>    Get used to it.
>
>    It is the unbelievers who will have to cope, who will
>    have to smell the bullshit every day. Even if every
>    current religion disappears there will be immediate
>    replacements. Religion and humans just plain go
>    together. Seeing through the BS is RARE, very rare,
>    and They don't LIKE it.
>
>    Can't beat 'em in the usual sense. So, gotta rely on
>    alternative tactics.

The flip side of religion is the faith that one's own ordure does not
stink. "Atheism" is a religion and faith in a process of evolving
truth emerging from the laboratories and observatories around the
world, so arranged that mistakes and frauds are naturally eliminated
and pure truth is drawn like spun gold from Rumpelstiltskin's spinning
wheel. No fraud or failure can mar this faith -- the fact that frauds
and mistakes often appear is somehow "proof" that the system is self-
correcting. Global catastrophes such as Communism notwithstanding,
Atheism is still the boast of Dr. Pangloss.

TCross

[bil...@microsoft.com]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 10:00:35 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On May 26, 11:09 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:29:37 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>> >On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:58:04 -0400, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >>On Sun, 26 May 2013 13:36:10 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>>
>> >>>On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:53:11 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
>> >>>wrote:
>>
>> >>>>On May 25, 12:41 pm, Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> Innews:4fq1q8d3gtiim0ndl...@4ax.comFreeLunch

>The flip side of religion is the faith that one's own ordure does not
>stink. "Atheism" is a religion and faith in a process of evolving

religion is a belief in supernatural beings - usually, but not always,
including gods
Atheistism is in NO way a religon
also being an atheist has NOTHING AT ALL WHATSOEVER to do with faith.

Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the
doctrines or teachings of a religion. It may also be belief that is
not based on proof.

Atheists dont have faith they have factual evidence. They are usually
educated and well informed and keep up with current articles related
to a broad array of subjects. They strive to better themselves in any
and every aspect of life that is open to them. An atheist knows that
when the electro chemical process in the brain ceases then life ends.
There is no afterlife because there are no faries there is no santa
claus there are no other creatures or monsters devila deamons imagined
or otherwise.

>truth emerging from the laboratories and observatories around the
>world, so arranged that mistakes and frauds are naturally eliminated
>and pure truth is drawn like spun gold from Rumpelstiltskin's spinning

and it is the theists that believe in the fairy tales

>wheel. No fraud or failure can mar this faith -- the fact that frauds
>and mistakes often appear is somehow "proof" that the system is self-

those lines just done make any sense what so ever

>correcting. Global catastrophes such as Communism notwithstanding,
>Atheism is still the boast of Dr. Pangloss.

atheistism has nothing whatsoever to do with communism

Where ever you copied this rubbish from you should at least cite the
web site so that others can read the entire article because it wouls
seem that what you copied and pasted was cut off so please cite your
sources.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 14:23:37 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:

>On Mon, 27 May 2013 10:00:35 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
><tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On May 26, 11:09 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:29:37 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>>> >On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:58:04 -0400, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net>
>>> >wrote:
>>>
>>> >>On Sun, 26 May 2013 13:36:10 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:53:11 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
>>> >>>wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>>On May 25, 12:41 pm, Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>> Innews:4fq1q8d3gtiim0ndl...@4ax.comFreeLunch
>
>>The flip side of religion is the faith that one's own ordure does not
>>stink. "Atheism" is a religion and faith in a process of evolving
>
>religion is a belief in supernatural beings - usually, but not always,
>including gods

>Atheism is in NO way a religon

>also being an atheist has NOTHING AT ALL WHATSOEVER to do with faith.

It is not a religion ... but, in practice out here in
the field, it CAN manifest 'religion-like' qualities ...
including the look and feel of "establishment"
in some instances.

Also it's an error to say atheism involves zero
percent 'faith'. SOME religion past present or
future just MIGHT get it right - so a tiny speck
of agnosticism has to be retained unless you
think you can predict 10^250 years worth of
the future.

Being practical though, saying a 0.00000001 percent
chance of any religion and its supernaturalism being
right is as good as NO chance and proceeding with
that assumption ... you have to willfully ignore that
speck of agnosticism and thus "take it on faith" that
there are NO gods/spirits/whatevers of "supernatural"
aspect.

Now those so inclined can subdivide these issues
and subdivide them again and again until there are
a million nits to pick ... thus justifying a job and
salary in someones philosophy department. Won't
prove a thing however, really won't leave us with
any more knowledge - just megavolumes of hot
air and bovine offal.

>Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the
>doctrines or teachings of a religion. It may also be belief that is
>not based on proof.
>
>Atheists dont have faith they have factual evidence.

Um ... actually a serious LACK of facts on the part
of the theists is a good enough reason to conclude
they're full of shit and adopt an atheistic position on
the subject.

The facts can be useful in debunking certain errors
contained within specific religions or "religion" in the
generic.

[Terry Cross]

On May 27, 12:23 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 10:00:35 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>

> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 26, 11:09 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:29:37 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> >> >On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:58:04 -0400, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net>
> >> >wrote:
>
> >> >>On Sun, 26 May 2013 13:36:10 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>
> >> >>>On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:53:11 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
> >> >>>wrote:
>
> >> >>>>On May 25, 12:41 pm, Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>> Innews:4fq1q8d3gtiim0ndl...@4ax.comFreeLunch
> >The flip side of religion is the faith that one's own ordure does not
> >stink.  "Atheism" is a religion and faith in a process of evolving
>
> religion is a belief in supernatural beings - usually, but not always,
> including gods

You cannot define supernatural, so you are stuck with an inoperable
definition. And you are just plain wrong, in any case. Religious
Humanism, Scientology, Confucianism, philosophical Taoism, and
Theravada Buddhism have no deities.

> Atheistism is in NO way a religon
> also being an atheist has NOTHING AT ALL WHATSOEVER to do with faith.

In practice, Atheism has everything to do with faith. It is also very
strong on dogma, prosecuting and executing heretics with unrivaled
viciousness.

> Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the
> doctrines or teachings of a religion. It may also be belief that is
> not based on proof.

That works. You have faith in what you are told and that someone
somewhere might be able to prove those things, given billions in
research and equipment and a lifetime of study in mystical studies.
But you have none of that, and you are quite happy to accept their
answers without proof. that is faith.

> Atheists dont have faith they have factual evidence.

You don't have the evidence. You have only the faith that someone
else has the evidence.


> They are usually
> educated


Much of modern education is destructive of rational thought. That is
why TeeVee advertising works -- public schools have reduced most
people to idiots. Very few scholars today are as accomplished as
scholars from a century ago. Most Americans speak only one language
and are incapable of understanding Shakespeare. Latin and Greek are
almost lost. Mental arithmetic is a lost art. Formal logic and
rhetoric is unknown. Few people learn music in their youth, and fewer
learn to draw or paint or dance. Poetry is all about ho's and pimps.

> and well informed and keep up with current articles related
> to a broad array of subjects.

Those who stay "informed" follow quite a narrow array. Most subjects
do not "evolve" constantly -- "current articles" restrict YOUR breadth
of consideration to an extreme minority. What do you know of weaving,
metallurgy, and trochaic verse? Have you seen any "current articles"
on those subjects lately?

> They strive to better themselves in any
> and every aspect of life that is open to them.

You mean, of course, every aspect of life that is on the approved
Atheist lexicon.

> An atheist knows that
> when the electro chemical process in the brain ceases then life ends.

If that why TeeVee thrives in America, and the average American
watches FIVE HOURS per day, on average?

> There is no afterlife because there are no faries there is no santa
> claus there are no other creatures or monsters devila deamons imagined
> or otherwise.

I'll go you one better: Under Atheist rule, there is NO LIFE period,
before or after death.

TCross

[bil...@microsoft.com]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 15:42:35 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>

wrote:

>On Mon, 27 May 2013 14:23:37 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 May 2013 10:00:35 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross


>

> It is not a religion ... but, in practice out here in
> the field, it CAN manifest 'religion-like' qualities ...
> including the look and feel of "establishment"
> in some instances.

No it does not atheists worship gods they done even worship the fact
that there is no god , Nor does it manifest anything that resembles a
religon. There is no established structure that athesist go to and
worship the lack of a god. sure there may be conventions or gatherings
of atheists but that is just to enjoy the company of others with
simular interests. It is kinda comic con, would you call that a
religon? Atheists do not worship or pray or teach to any god <or gods
if you are a christian>

>
> Also it's an error to say atheism involves zero
> percent 'faith'. SOME religion past present or
> future just MIGHT get it right - so a tiny speck
> of agnosticism has to be retained unless you
> think you can predict 10^250 years worth of
> the future.

dude seriously are you retarded? How are you going to tell every
atheist that they are not actually an atheist? I just posted something
in another thread that relates to this and it is
Atheism is NOT a belief. It is not something to be believed in. That
is like saying I believe in this chair. Theists everywhere just dont
have the mental apptitude to accept facts based on actual tests nor
can they accept life without some type of belief. They even have a
belief that everyone on this earth has a belief in a higher power.
Religon is much like the blind leading the blind.

This is why I say theists dont have the mental apptitude. You cant
accept the fact that some people have evolved past the need to have a
god. stephen hawking does not believe in a god nor did albert einstien
some of the signers of the decleration of independence did not.

>
> Being practical though, saying a 0.00000001 percent
> chance of any religion and its supernaturalism being
> right is as good as NO chance and proceeding with
> that assumption ... you have to willfully ignore that
> speck of agnosticism and thus "take it on faith" that
> there are NO gods/spirits/whatevers of "supernatural"
> aspect.

To be honest that just did not make much sense at all
I and other atheists take nothing on faith. I know there is no god. if
I though there was no way to prove god exists then I would be an
agnostic. But I am not. I am an atheist.

>
> Now those so inclined can subdivide these issues
> and subdivide them again and again until there are
> a million nits to pick ... thus justifying a job and
> salary in someones philosophy department. Won't
> prove a thing however, really won't leave us with
> any more knowledge - just megavolumes of hot
> air and bovine offal.
>
>>Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the
>>doctrines or teachings of a religion. It may also be belief that is
>>not based on proof.
>>
>>Atheists dont have faith they have factual evidence.
>
> Um ... actually a serious LACK of facts on the part
> of the theists is a good enough reason to conclude
> they're full of shit and adopt an atheistic position on
> the subject.

I am sorry dude you post is makin less and less sense. I dont know if
you are a supporter of religon or whatever. Your views seem to just
change every few sentences you type

> The facts can be useful in debunking certain errors
> contained within specific religions or "religion" in the
> generic.

also what you are not realizing is that religon itself is an error. I
mean the greek gods are pretty much the same as tghe christian gods.
Hercules and jesus are almost a mirror of each other. so as you said
something about religon getting it "right" in not going to be possible
when you get the same gods just different names. and of course the
facts are good for debunkin errors. but as far as theists are
concerned they are happy withg whatever doctrine they can follow that
causes them the least amount of fear
when copurnucis first said that the earth went around the sun and not
the other way around the people that were "religous" murdered him.

[Terry Cross]

On May 27, 3:26 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 15:42:35 -0400, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net>

> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 27 May 2013 14:23:37 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 27 May 2013 10:00:35 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> >   It is not a religion ... but, in practice out here in
> >   the field, it CAN manifest 'religion-like' qualities ...
> >   including the look and feel of "establishment"
> >   in some instances.
>
> No it does not atheists worship  gods they done even worship the fact
> that there is no god ,

Do Atheists learn English?

> Nor does it manifest anything that resembles a
> religon. There is no established structure that athesist go to and
> worship the lack of a god.

Religion is not exclusively about gods, and some religions do not
define a god.

Atheism is one of those.

TCross

[bil...@microsoft.com]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On May 27, 12:23�pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 10:00:35 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>>
>> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 26, 11:09 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:29:37 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:

>> religion is a belief in supernatural beings - usually, but not always,
>> including gods
>
>
>You cannot define supernatural, so you are stuck with an inoperable
>definition. And you are just plain wrong, in any case. Religious
>Humanism, Scientology, Confucianism, philosophical Taoism, and
>Theravada Buddhism have no deities.

well lets break it down shall we I am kinda bored.
Humanism and confucianism are not a religons it is a socio/political
ideology. in scientology humans are the immortal beings although I
have heard that some scientologists believe that aliens are thier
suprime being Taoist schools traditionally feature reverence for
Laozi, immortals or ancestors and I do believe that buddhists pray to
budda even though bunna is not considered a god.Theravada is just an
off shoot of buddahism

>
>
>> Atheistism is in NO way a religon
>> also being an atheist has NOTHING AT ALL WHATSOEVER to do with faith.
>
>
>In practice, Atheism has everything to do with faith. It is also very
>strong on dogma, prosecuting and executing heretics with unrivaled
>viciousness.

Say what? Give me one instance where an atheist murdered anyone
because they believed in a god <or gods if you are a christian>
you are seriously confusing atheism with christians

>
>
>> Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the
>> doctrines or teachings of a religion. It may also be belief that is
>> not based on proof.
>
>
>That works. You have faith in what you are told and that someone
>somewhere might be able to prove those things, given billions in
>research and equipment and a lifetime of study in mystical studies.
>But you have none of that, and you are quite happy to accept their
>answers without proof. that is faith.

I have faith that my favorite football team will win the BCS tournment
I hav faith that cops are good. but my football team does not always
win and cops are just as bad or worse in alot of cases than the rest
of the public
but that is about as far as it goes. Athesits dont believe in any
mythical studeis.. That is why it is called mythical <Myth>. sure
there has benn billions of dollars that have been poured into areas of
scientific research that did not have the desired results, but those
results were no worthless.
ya know I see where you are at <mentally>. You are placing your doubts
about your faith and religon on atheists. you previous rants just
described religon Exactly.

>
>
>> Atheists dont have faith they have factual evidence.
>
>
>You don't have the evidence. You have only the faith that someone
>else has the evidence.

no that is you. it is all you know. noone has the evidendce. the
evidence is public knowledge. or are you taking it on faith that the
earth is round and could maybe be flat? Do you even know that
everything you are saying is just so "out there" that you are sounding
like a 12 year old kid with a vivid imagination

>
>
>> They are usually
>> educated
>
>
>Much of modern education is destructive of rational thought. That is
>why TeeVee advertising works -- public schools have reduced most

actually it is religous dogma that wishes to dumb people down

>people to idiots. Very few scholars today are as accomplished as
>scholars from a century ago. Most Americans speak only one language
>and are incapable of understanding Shakespeare. Latin and Greek are
>almost lost. Mental arithmetic is a lost art. Formal logic and
>rhetoric is unknown. Few people learn music in their youth, and fewer
>learn to draw or paint or dance. Poetry is all about ho's and pimps.

I would agree on alot of what you just said. but then again what you
just said means nothing at all relevant to the post. The only reason I
can see that you posted it is because you dropped out of high school
and need to find reasons to degrade the education system.

>
>Those who stay "informed" follow quite a narrow array. Most subjects
>do not "evolve" constantly -- "current articles" restrict YOUR breadth
>of consideration to an extreme minority. What do you know of weaving,
>metallurgy, and trochaic verse? Have you seen any "current articles"
>on those subjects lately?

Again alot of typing yet saying nothing. just because being a tailor
or a blacksmith does not interest me doesnt mean alot.

>
>
>> They strive to better themselves in any
>> and every aspect of life that is open to them.
>
>
>You mean, of course, every aspect of life that is on the approved
>Atheist lexicon.

ya know if you want to go that route then so be it. only thing is IF
there was an atheist lexicon the it would contain every possible
subject. ya know I have often thougt about how great it would have
been to take a religous studies course in college.

>
>
>> An atheist knows that
>> when the electro chemical process in the brain ceases then life ends.
>
>
>If that why TeeVee thrives in America, and the average American
>watches FIVE HOURS per day, on average?

Again with the typing meaning nothing

>> There is no afterlife because there are no faries there is no santa
>> claus there are no other creatures or monsters devila deamons imagined
>> or otherwise.
>
>
>I'll go you one better: Under Atheist rule, there is NO LIFE period,
>before or after death.

That line is not even worth responding to

[Terry Cross]

On May 27, 4:07 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>

> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 27, 12:23 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> >> On Mon, 27 May 2013 10:00:35 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> >> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 26, 11:09 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:29:37 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> >> religion is a belief in supernatural beings - usually, but not always,
> >> including gods
>
> >You cannot define supernatural, so you are stuck with an inoperable
> >definition.  And you are just plain wrong, in any case.  Religious
> >Humanism, Scientology, Confucianism, philosophical Taoism, and
> >Theravada Buddhism have no deities.
>
> well lets break it down shall we I am kinda bored.
> Humanism and confucianism are not a religons it is a socio/political
> ideology.

They are religions. Regardless of your definition among your pub-
mates, they are religions. And Religious Humanism is of course
religious. Again, your private definitions are not interesting.
Scientology is classified as a religion by the IRS, though it does not
have a deity. Reality rules.

> in  scientology  humans are the immortal beings although I
> have heard that some scientologists believe that aliens are thier
> suprime being

That will teach you to listen at keyholes.

> Taoist schools traditionally feature reverence for
> Laozi,

Lao Tse is not a deity.


> immortals or ancestors


Again, not a deity.

> and I do believe that buddhists pray to
> budda even though bunna is not considered a god.Theravada  is just an
> off shoot of buddahism

Theravada is the original Buddhism, not an offshoot. Check it out.

>
>
> >> Atheistism is in NO way a religon
> >> also being an atheist has NOTHING AT ALL WHATSOEVER to do with faith.
>
> >In practice, Atheism has everything to do with faith.  It is also very
> >strong on dogma, prosecuting and executing heretics with unrivaled
> >viciousness.
>
> Say what? Give me one instance where an atheist murdered anyone

There are many thousands of cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union

Notably, Atheism used psychiatric punishment to discourage people from
moving away from the Atheist religion.

"Religious faith was determined to be a form of mental illness that
needed to be cured."

> because they believed in a god <or gods if you are a christian>
> you are seriously confusing atheism with christians

The Atheist civil rights record is far worse.

> >> Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the
> >> doctrines or teachings of a religion. It may also be belief that is
> >> not based on proof.
>
> >That works.  You have faith in what you are told and that someone
> >somewhere might be able to prove those things, given billions in
> >research and equipment and a lifetime of study in mystical studies.
> >But you have none of that, and you are quite happy to accept their
> >answers without proof.  that is faith.
>
> I have faith that my favorite football team will win the BCS tournment
> I hav faith that cops are good. but my football team does not always
> win and cops are just as bad or worse in alot of cases than the rest
> of the public
> but that is about as far as it goes. Athesits dont believe in any
> mythical studeis.. That is why it is called mythical <Myth>.

And that is called a semantic argument. I call them mystical because
you believe them even though you do not understand them. You
certainly cannot prove they are true.

TCross

[bil...@microsoft.com]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 15:38:01 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On May 27, 3:26 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 15:42:35 -0400, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 27 May 2013 14:23:37 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>>
>> >>On Mon, 27 May 2013 10:00:35 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>>
>> >   It is not a religion ... but, in practice out here in
>> >   the field, it CAN manifest 'religion-like' qualities ...
>> >   including the look and feel of "establishment"
>> >   in some instances.
>>

edited : No it does not, atheists do not worship  gods, they dont even

worship the fact
that there is no god ,
>
>
>Do Atheists learn English?
>
>
>> Nor does it manifest anything that resembles a
>> religon. There is no established structure that athesist go to and
>> worship the lack of a god.
>
>
>Religion is not exclusively about gods, and some religions do not
>define a god.
>
>Atheism is one of those.

re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded
as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and
worship.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion

[bil...@microsoft.com]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 16:30:22 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On May 27, 4:07 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>>
>> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 27, 12:23 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 27 May 2013 10:00:35 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>>
>> >> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On May 26, 11:09 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:29:37 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>> >> religion is a belief in supernatural beings - usually, but not always,
>> >> including gods
>>
>> >You cannot define supernatural, so you are stuck with an inoperable
>> >definition.  And you are just plain wrong, in any case.  Religious
>> >Humanism, Scientology, Confucianism, philosophical Taoism, and
>> >Theravada Buddhism have no deities.
>>
>> well lets break it down shall we I am kinda bored.
>> Humanism and confucianism are not a religons it is a socio/political
>> ideology.
>
>
>They are religions. Regardless of your definition among your pub-
>mates, they are religions. And Religious Humanism is of course
>religious. Again, your private definitions are not interesting.
>Scientology is classified as a religion by the IRS, though it does not
>have a deity. Reality rules.

socio/political ideologys are in no way religons
I dont go to pubs or bars or anything of that sort. and as far as
personal definitions I dont think http://en.wikipedia.org would be
classified as personal.
Scientology does have a deity. Because you are ignorant to that fact
you rant and spew useless garbage and lies
it is a sin to lie ya knoe. but then again the only sinners are the
theists

>
>> in  scientology  humans are the immortal beings although I
>> have heard that some scientologists believe that aliens are thier
>> suprime being
>
>
>That will teach you to listen at keyholes.

you idiot I have been to scientology conventions

>
>> and I do believe that buddhists pray to
>> budda even though bunna is not considered a god.Theravada  is just an
>> off shoot of buddahism
>
>Theravada is the original Buddhism, not an offshoot. Check it out.

now you are just picking nits. Theravada is a branch of buddahism
Therava-da is the oldest surviving Buddhist branch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada
buddahism is the tree Theravada is the branch making it an off shoot
<which is what a branch is>

>
>>
>>
>> >> Atheistism is in NO way a religon
>> >> also being an atheist has NOTHING AT ALL WHATSOEVER to do with faith.
>>
>> >In practice, Atheism has everything to do with faith.  It is also very
>> >strong on dogma, prosecuting and executing heretics with unrivaled
>> >viciousness.
>>
>> Say what? Give me one instance where an atheist murdered anyone
>
>There are many thousands of cases.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union

I will repeat what I said Give me one instance where an atheist
murdered anyone.

>
>Notably, Atheism used psychiatric punishment to discourage people from
>moving away from the Atheist religion.

I did not see that anywhere in the article and if you are reffering
to what joseph stalin May have done because he was an atheist then you
are just digging now. Stalin was a total nut job

Man debating with you is like arguing with a rock.. When you are ready
to stop lying to your self and finally admit that you have doubts
about your religon then I should be around to debate. but I can not
debate with people whom lie to themselves

[Terry Cross]

On May 27, 4:41 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 15:38:01 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>

The free dictionary is editable by anyone. It is hardly the best
source. This is more authoritative:

Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of
life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of
the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of
values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult),
established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of
these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion.
This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the
centuries. But through all changes religion itself remains constant in
its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.
http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I

Or you could try Merriam Webster:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
a : the state of a religious
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :
commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and
faith

Or you could try Longmans:
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/religion
1 [uncountable] a belief in one or more gods:
2 [countable] a particular system of this belief and all the
ceremonies and duties that are related to it:


Or you could try Randomhouse:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t
religion noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
universe, especially [but not exclusively] when considered as the
creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving
devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code
governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally
agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion;
the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and
practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

When you care, you research.

TCross

[bil...@microsoft.com]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 17:38:38 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On May 27, 4:41 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 15:38:01 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>>

well thank you but I already read amost all of those and I thought I
would post that which would jave been easiest for you to understand
bust since you helped let me highlight some points

>
>Or you could try Merriam Webster:
>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
> a : the state of a religious
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :
commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
>2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
>beliefs, and practices
>3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
>4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and
>faith
>

Althought everyone will have thier own definition this one seems the
most succint

[bil...@microsoft.com]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 17:38:38 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On May 27, 4:41 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 15:38:01 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>>
>> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 27, 3:26 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 27 May 2013 15:42:35 -0400, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Mon, 27 May 2013 14:23:37 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:

As I said before you are just picking nits now and you seem hell bent
in doing the same dance over and over so there is no point in
continuing.

[Terry Cross]

On May 27, 6:33 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 17:38:38 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>

> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 27, 4:41 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> >> On Mon, 27 May 2013 15:38:01 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> well thank you but I already read amost all of those and I thought  I
> would post that which would jave been easiest for you to understand
> bust since you helped let me highlight some points

All the dictionary entries I posted had definitions that did NOT
include a deity. You posted the FreeDictionary entry that applied
ONLY to deities, and your reasons are suspect.

TCross

[Mr. B1ack]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 17:26:00 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:

>On Mon, 27 May 2013 15:42:35 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 May 2013 14:23:37 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 27 May 2013 10:00:35 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
>
>>
>> It is not a religion ... but, in practice out here in
>> the field, it CAN manifest 'religion-like' qualities ...
>> including the look and feel of "establishment"
>> in some instances.
>
>No it does not atheists worship gods they done even worship the fact
>that there is no god , Nor does it manifest anything that resembles a
>religon. There is no established structure that athesist go to and
>worship the lack of a god.

Um ... clearly you don't "worship" non-godness anymore
than you "worship" that 2+2=4 or that oranges are orange.

However, unbelief *is* a belief - or at least an opinion or
philosophy about "religion" (specific or generic) - and as
such it IS quite possible to try and force that philosophy
upon others and/or actively seek to suppress alternative
or competing philosophies.

And thus there exists couple of "religion-like" aspects
to un-belief ... 'crusaderism' and 'establishment'. Both
of those are common to actual religions, indeed they
are the two most annoying/dangerous features of
both Islam and Christianity today.

By "religion-like" here I am not referring to the
theological/supernaturalist bits of any religion
but features of the nuts and bolts *practice* of
religions.

The old USSR (and to a lesser extent most other
'communist' nations) took seriously Marx's notion
that religion was something worth eliminating.
(Marx's reasons were centered on practical
revolutionary politics rather than theological
details). In any event the USSR put a lot of
effort into "establishing" un-belief and really
put the squeeze on the theists. It was a similar
case with Henry VIII pushing out Catholiism
and with endless popes squashing 'heretics'
of all flavors over the centuries. One religious
philosophy pushing out all competitors so it
could be THE belief, THE axis of power.

A-theism CAN be an 'establishment of religion'
even though it's not a religion. Forceully imposed,
the vaccuum it creates, the 'hole' where religions
existed, has the same look and feel and import
as that of any conventional religion imposing
itself and purging the infidels.

Remembe that in the hands of the politically
inclined, religion isn't REALLY "religion" but
a weapon of power. Un-religion can serve as
such too.

The current complaint in the USA is that
un-belief IS being used too aggressively
by the State, that it IS trying to become
the official (un)religion, that it IS being
'etablished'.

I tend to agree.

There's simple atheism and militant atheism
and the militants are the problem. It's un-religion
with political motives and ambitions underneath ...

[Mr. B1ack]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 16:30:22 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On May 27, 4:07 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross

>> well lets break it down shall we I am kinda bored.
>> Humanism and confucianism are not a religons it is a socio/political
>> ideology.
>
>They are religions. Regardless of your definition among your pub-
>mates, they are religions.

No, they aren't. They are "philosophies" - no supernaturalism
like "spirits or "gods''. Logical Positivism is not a religion.
Marxism is not a religion. Fascism is not a religion.

However the USA and some others do not try to keep
'religion' out of govt functions simply because they are
religions. It's what people commonly DO with religions
that's the problem. The various branches of Islam and
Christianity are very evangelial - to the point of doing
great violence upon those with the "wrong religion".
whilst believing they are serving a god in doing so.
What people will do to each other 'in the name of
gawd' ... very nasty and very well-documented.

Now, of course, philosophies can be forcibly imposed
upon the masses - Marxism and fascism too this
course. As religion may purge the heretics, aggressive
sociopolitical philosophies may persecute/prosecute/
purge the wrong-thinkers.

There is a fuzzy line beyond which a governments
quest to remove all 'religion' from its affairs may
take on all the essential, nasty, features of some
religion attempting to establish itself and spank
the infidels. I think this is what makes you say
that a-theism is a "religion" ... because in some
ways, in the hands of militant types, it tries to
crush religions and 'establish' its truths as THE
official Truth. The "look and feel" of miitant
a-theism can be difficult to distinguish from
that of religious zealots and jihadists.

Fortunately, so far, a-theism in govt circles tends
to STAY in govt-circles. It's a very limited 'crusade'
and, outside official govt functions, the State isn't
gonna come after you for just being religious. Alas
as we have to interact with govt fairly often, the
'establishment' of a-theism CAN become annoying
or feel repressive.

[Liberal Here]

On May 24, 11:28 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 9:36 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:58 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>
> > > "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
> > >morality and the basis of ethical behavior.
>
> >    Um ... so he's saying the natural world should warp
> >    itself to ensure that (xian) morality and ethics are
> >    preserved and amplified ?
>
> >    What arrogance. What narcicissim.
>
> >    What a pinhead.
>
> Throughout history,religion has always been the traditional conduit
> for moral values.I would like to see an atheist providing  his
> rationale for morality, besides  a mere convenience.Most atheists get
> to grow up in society already replete with religious morality.And
> since they are in the minority,they try no to look to
> threatening.But,once they reach a critical number,they will do their
> best to discard those annoying christian values.The atheist is
> essentially a moral time bomb.


Horse manure. Morality is based on.....get ready for it......PHYSICS!

Morality is a function of how a species lives. Humans are social
creatures (but not even pack animals...excluding, however,
conservatives, they are pack animals). Because we are social creatures
our interpersonal standards of behavior (aka: morality!) are what
makes survival of a group more probable.

But humans can justify violating genetically transmitted standards of
moral behavior (example: slavery!) because the sheer economic
advantage can create sufficient justification (cognitive dissonance).
Religion reduces the occurrences of such violations of standard
morality. When something like slavery occurs....religion itself
becomes a force in justifying those violations. It was okay to enslave
Africans because religion offered reasons why such slavery was the
proper "moral" course.

[Liberal Here]

On May 27, 6:26 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 15:42:35 -0400, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net>

B1ackwater kinda views himself as a looneytunarian god. His opinions
are always correct, never open to analysis, never open to mdification.

[Terry Cross]

On May 28, 7:21 am, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 16:30:22 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>

> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 27, 4:07 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> >> On Mon, 27 May 2013 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
> >> well lets break it down shall we I am kinda bored.
> >> Humanism and confucianism are not a religons it is a socio/political
> >> ideology.
>
> >They are religions. Regardless of your definition among your pub-
> >mates, they are religions.
>
> No, they aren't. They are "philosophies" - no supernaturalism
> like "spirits or "gods''. Logical Positivism is not a religion.
> Marxism is not a religion. Fascism is not a religion.
>
> However the USA and some others do not try to keep
> 'religion' out of govt functions simply because they are
> religions. It's what people commonly DO with religions
> that's the problem. The various branches of Islam and
> Christianity are very evangelial - to the point of doing
> great violence upon those with the "wrong religion".
> whilst believing they are serving a god in doing so.

Why do you exempt Judaism? Are you unaware of the religious
exterminations in Israel?

> What people will do to each other 'in the name of
> gawd' ... very nasty and very well-documented.

Not as bad as Communism, and as you point out, the motivation is
similar. Therefore, "the name of gawd" is not essential to the
phenomenon.

> Now, of course, philosophies can be forcibly imposed
> upon the masses - Marxism and fascism too this
> course. As religion may purge the heretics, aggressive
> sociopolitical philosophies may persecute/prosecute/
> purge the wrong-thinkers.

You are missing point. Philosophies are inquiries. Religions are
answers. Marxism, Atheism, Humanism, and the other things ARE
religions.

> There is a fuzzy line beyond which a governments
> quest to remove all 'religion' from its affairs may
> take on all the essential, nasty, features of some
> religion attempting to establish itself and spank
> the infidels. I think this is what makes you say
> that a-theism is a "religion" ... because in some
> ways, in the hands of militant types, it tries to
> crush religions and 'establish' its truths as THE
> official Truth. The "look and feel" of miitant
> a-theism can be difficult to distinguish from
> that of religious zealots and jihadists.

You make a distinction without a difference.

> Fortunately, so far, a-theism in govt circles tends
> to STAY in govt-circles. It's a very limited 'crusade'
> and, outside official govt functions, the State isn't
> gonna come after you for just being religious.

Not true. You are apparently unaware of the militant atheist movement
in public schools. Some argue that the primary purpose of modern
public schools is the inculcation of Atheism, since education is
obviously not the goal.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On May 27, 5:30 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 16:30:22 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross

> personal definitions I dont think  http://en.wikipedia.orgwould be

> classified as personal.
> Scientology does have a deity.

No, it does not. It has only a "place-holder" without a name, a
description, or anything else. Yet it is a religion.

> Because you are ignorant to that fact

I know quite a bit about it, in fact.

TCross

[Mr. B1ack]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:39:04 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On May 28, 7:21 am, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 16:30:22 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>>
>> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 27, 4:07 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 27 May 2013 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>> >> well lets break it down shall we I am kinda bored.
>> >> Humanism and confucianism are not a religons it is a socio/political
>> >> ideology.
>>
>> >They are religions. Regardless of your definition among your pub-
>> >mates, they are religions.
>>
>> No, they aren't. They are "philosophies" - no supernaturalism
>> like "spirits or "gods''. Logical Positivism is not a religion.
>> Marxism is not a religion. Fascism is not a religion.
>>
>> However the USA and some others do not try to keep
>> 'religion' out of govt functions simply because they are
>> religions. It's what people commonly DO with religions
>> that's the problem. The various branches of Islam and
>> Christianity are very evangelial - to the point of doing
>> great violence upon those with the "wrong religion".
>> whilst believing they are serving a god in doing so.
>
>
>Why do you exempt Judaism? Are you unaware of the religious
>exterminations in Israel?

The old book was replete with enslavements, massacres
and genocides - all in the name of Yaweh.

All the spin-offs of Zoroasterianism can be pretty harsh
with "heretics" and pretty free with the 'holy wars'. Just
look at what Henry VIII started ... two barely-discernable
sub-factions of Christianity at each others throats - with
the IRA still blowing up shit to this day in the name of
their gawd and pope.

Deciding NOT to have any 'offical religion' is a big step
forwards if you want a smoothly-running pluralistic
society. The USA probably couldn't have been formed
from the existing colonies if the protestants had been
free to 'establish' themselves over the catholics or
vice-versa.

Some people take their religion damned
SERIOUSLY (something I think most westerners
miss when they think about Islamic jihadists),
seriously enough to kill and die for. Seriously enough
to make massacres and genocide seem acceptable.

But working TOO hard to silence the theists, even if
just in the govt forum, can take on the feel of an
'established' religion oppressing its competitors.
They feel under-represented, 2nd-class, pissed-
upon .... and while we can nitpick and argue the
nuances and details that's not how the human
mind WORKS in these matters.

It IS "perception", emotive ... not some logical,
statistical proof of discrimination. If you FEEL you're
being 'established' against then you ARE ... and it
doesn't even matter if what's being 'established' is
a bona-fide 'religion' so long as it's AIMED at YOUR
religion.

This is why I discourage miliant atheism. It does
not improve things - it only makes enemies ...
and, of course, fame for the militants.

>> What people will do to each other 'in the name of
>> gawd' ... very nasty and very well-documented.
>
>
>Not as bad as Communism, and as you point out, the motivation is
>similar. Therefore, "the name of gawd" is not essential to the
>phenomenon.

I'd say "AS bad as communism sometimes". Maybe
a bit worse. After all, if you're working for GAWD then
you really have to do a good job of finding and screwing-
over the infidels, don't you ? Working for Lenin ... well ...
it's OK to let some stuff slide ....

Scale-wise, communism and fascism have a very
high body count - but only because the global
population has grown. The "little" holy wars of
centuries past, adjusted for population, were just
as lethal. If Israel and Iran or India and Pakistan
nuke each other ... wow ... religion will take the
lead again.

>> Now, of course, philosophies can be forcibly imposed
>> upon the masses - Marxism and fascism too this
>> course. As religion may purge the heretics, aggressive
>> sociopolitical philosophies may persecute/prosecute/
>> purge the wrong-thinkers.
>
>
>You are missing point. Philosophies are inquiries. Religions are
>answers. Marxism, Atheism, Humanism, and the other things ARE
>religions.

It DOESN'T *MATTER* if there are fine differences
between Marxism and Islam ... the EFFECT winds
up being very much the same - persecution, pogroms,
conversions at gunpoint and bullets through the head.
You're just as toasted if you're set on fire by a squad
of the Peoples Revolutionay Guard or by some guys
with purple crosses on their hats. "In the field", the
nuances between 'religion' and 'ideology' disappear.
Political/ideological fanatics can be every bit as
awful as religious fanatics.

>> There is a fuzzy line beyond which a governments
>> quest to remove all 'religion' from its affairs may
>> take on all the essential, nasty, features of some
>> religion attempting to establish itself and spank
>> the infidels. I think this is what makes you say
>> that a-theism is a "religion" ... because in some
>> ways, in the hands of militant types, it tries to
>> crush religions and 'establish' its truths as THE
>> official Truth. The "look and feel" of miitant
>> a-theism can be difficult to distinguish from
>> that of religious zealots and jihadists.
>
>
>You make a distinction without a difference.

Because I'm saying that there IS NO (practical)
difference. The consequences of energetic,
perhaps fanatical, "establishment are as bad
whether it's a political ideology or a religion or
even an un-religion. In the hands of zealots
ANYTHNG can suck.

>> Fortunately, so far, a-theism in govt circles tends
>> to STAY in govt-circles. It's a very limited 'crusade'
>> and, outside official govt functions, the State isn't
>> gonna come after you for just being religious.
>
>
>Not true. You are apparently unaware of the militant atheist movement
>in public schools. Some argue that the primary purpose of modern
>public schools is the inculcation of Atheism, since education is
>obviously not the goal.

They do seem to have given up on the 'education' bit ...
despite all the propaganda to the contrary. "Diversity"
has given way to "division" ... and everyone's got their
own plan. I don't think you CAN run a generalized public
education system with a divided population. You have
to water down things so much, dance lightly around
so many inflammatory issues, that you can't really
accomplish much. This is why private schools are
coming back into fashion - each catering to some
particular social/political/ethnic/religious factions
view on the Way Things Are and the Way Things
Ought To Be.

However the public schools don't really "teach
atheism" ... they just don't teach a lot of what
Religion A-Z likes to *believe* are truths. Science
classes stick to the facts - and you can't believe
'em away no matter how hard you try - while
history and 'social-studies' classes kinda
downplay the religious components of their
perview - which is NOT sticking to the facts.
The poor teachers are forever wandering in
a legal minefield, wondering who they'll
"grievously offend" next.

So, mostly, they teach leftist politics and
leftist "truths", the leftist way of looking at
things. Apparently THAT'S ok :-)

I'm old enough to remember "school prayer"
and "moments of silence" and that flag pledge
with "god" in it and invocations during major
events. As the cold war was on it wasn't
even unusual to hear some teacher maybe
overstep just a bit and tell us it was important
to be "christian" or tell us what "god" wanted
us to think and do.

Ya know what ... it didnt bother me - and
it didn't convert me either. Because I did
not pretend to be "greivously offended" or
oppressed or persecuted by the theists
I got along just fine with them. No biggie,
and this was Bible-Belt country.

As such I really dislike "militant athiests"
because they are intent on making trouble
and stirring up hatred and division where
there didn't need to BE any. Political
self-promotion and domination is the real
name of their game, not "truth" or "tolerance"
or the "American Way". You can't just demand
that religious people somehow flip a switch
and become 101% non-religious in every way
no matter what the venue.

I long since quit calling myself an 'atheist'
because the militants ruined the word.

The Founders "got it" - this is why there's
the 'establishment' bit AND the 'free
expression' bit in the SAME amendment.
They knew this would always be a dynamic
equation, an ever-shifting compromise,
something every generation would have
to work out for themselves - hopefully in
a sane and civil manner. No 'side' can
be allowed a total win.

[Mr. B1ack]

Actually, many 'social' animals are HORRIBLE to
each other ...

'Morality' is based on *empathy* ... something that's
univerally in our hard-wiring. It's why the 'Golden Rule'
has the right feel. If you can empathize with others
you're less inclined to be horrible towards them. It's
not a perfect technical fix for every possible wrong
people can do to each other - but it's a solid biological/
psychological foundation. Start with empathy and build
from there.

[Immortalist]

On May 24, 11:33 am, jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>
>  "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate

> morality and the basis of ethical behavior. For if there is no such
> thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want. You make
> everything relative, and there's no reason for any of our higher
> values."

So if it comes to truth vs moral order, you chose moral order and
discard truth?

Agent Smith and Cypher
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BuQFUhsRM

[bil...@microsoft.com]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:41:18 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On May 27, 5:30 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 16:30:22 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 27, 4:07 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 27 May 2013 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>>
>> >> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On May 27, 12:23 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 27 May 2013 10:00:35 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>

>No, it does not. It has only a "place-holder" without a name, a
>description, or anything else. Yet it is a religion.

Scientology believes that there are multiple gods and that some gods
are above other gods

Read more:
http://www.gotquestions.org/scientology-Christian-cult.html#ixzz2Uf9wZSyr

>
>
>> Because you are ignorant to that fact
>
>
>I know quite a bit about it, in fact.

obviously not enough

[Terry Cross]

On May 29, 12:05 am, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:41:18 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>

> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 27, 5:30 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> >> On Mon, 27 May 2013 16:30:22 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
> >> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 27, 4:07 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 27 May 2013 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> >> >> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On May 27, 12:23 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 27 May 2013 10:00:35 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> >No, it does not.  It has only a "place-holder" without a name, a
> >description, or anything else.  Yet it is a religion.
>
> Scientology believes that there are multiple gods and that some gods
> are above other gods
>

> Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/scientology-Christian-cult.html#ixzz2Uf9w...

You know Torah-Christians, Jews, and Muslims hate other religions --
that is how Moses laid the whole thing out. The more a person
subscribes to Moses, the crazier she gets about other religions.
Moses was a mass-murderer, a pedophile, and a monster of historic
proportions. Moses is what makes Judaism and Christianity so crazy
and violent. You do not ask a Torah-Christian about other religions.
Your choice of sources here is as crazy as asking a Jew to explain
Islam, or vice versa.

If you want to convince me of the basic beliefs of Scientology, find a
source within Scientology.

TCross

[Liberal Here]

Well, conservatives like you think everyone else is non-human.

>
>    'Morality' is based on *empathy* ... something that's
>    univerally in our hard-wiring. It's why the 'Golden Rule'
>    has the right feel. If you can empathize with others
>    you're less inclined to be horrible towards them. It's
>    not a perfect technical fix for every possible wrong
>    people can do to each other - but it's a solid biological/
>    psychological foundation. Start with empathy and build
>    from there.

Egad....are you really that incapable of following logic? Of what
survival value is "empathy"? I'm not arguing it has none, I asserting
***YOU*** aren't smart enough to grasp the consequences of what you
post. Humans are social animals, but not herd animals. A human, on his
own, without advanced weapons like a stone-tipped spear, was unlikely
to survive long on its own....and certainly not a female. The ability
to socialize meant more eyes to spot a danger, more hands to throw
rocks at the danger....

Empathy, and its resultant vehicle: morality, is the evolutionary
trait that enabled physically weak and powerless Homo erectus to
survive on African savannas

But why did I assert "PHYSICS* as the basis of the answer? Because the
energy cost to a single person to hunt or simply find food and still
reproduce is proportionately higher than sharing these functions in a
group. Energy budgets, statistically, are the determining factor to
species survival.

African lions evolved social instincts because, I suspect, Africa had
herd animals that provide food and these herd animals were physically
large, allowing one kill to feed many. India is different. Its tigers
are loners. Few examples of prey animals able to feed a pride of
tigers with one kill....thus no sociability. Plus, the terrain does
not lend itself to large herds of prey animals, ensuring the
probability of a kill. Lions stalk a target and will often drive it
towards a lion lying in wait or distract it until another lion is able
to get close, tigers ambush. Notice the difference in energy costs.

[Terry Cross]

]
Single people do NOT reproduce. Check your Bio 101 text.

TCross

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:56:10 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>On May 30, 10:50 am, Liberal Here <liberalh...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

>> Egad....are you really that incapable of following logic? Of what
>> survival value is "empathy"? I'm not arguing it has none, I asserting
>> ***YOU*** aren't smart enough to grasp the consequences of what you
>> post. Humans are social animals, but not herd animals. A human, on his
>> own, without advanced weapons like a stone-tipped spear, was unlikely
>> to survive long on its own....and certainly not a female. The ability
>> to socialize meant more eyes to spot a danger, more hands to throw
>> rocks at the danger....
>>
>> Empathy, and its resultant vehicle: morality, is the evolutionary
>> trait that enabled physically weak and powerless Homo erectus to
>> survive on African savannas
>>
>> But why did I assert "PHYSICS* as the basis of the answer? Because the
>> energy cost to a single person to hunt or simply find food and still
>> reproduce
>]
>Single people do NOT reproduce. Check your Bio 101 text.
>
>TCross

Nice to see you've given up on that silly claim about Jesus.

[bil...@microsoft.com]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:56:10 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross

that is funny I guess all those single parents out there are not
really single. maybe they have an invisible friend or something to
that effect

[bil...@microsoft.com]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 13:02:29 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

I am sorry but I got to take credit for that one LoL

[Terry Cross]

Again you remove the context to distort the subject. Does your mother
know you do this?

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On May 30, 11:02 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:56:10 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross

> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Jesus did not have children that we know of.

TCross

[bil...@m.nu]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 17:41:50 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On May 30, 11:02 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:56:10 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>>

>

>Jesus did not have children that we know of.
>
>TCross

actually he may have bonked that prostitute mary

[bil...@m.nu]

actually she died last year

[Terry Cross]

On May 30, 6:12 pm, bil...@m.nu wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 17:41:50 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>

> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 30, 11:02 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:56:10 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
> >> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
> >Jesus did not have children that we know of.
>
> >TCross
>
> actually he may have bonked that prostitute mary

Perhaps. Would an Atheist care? Does the thought make you squirm
around in your seat?

TCross

[bil...@m.nu]

no but it would confirm my thoughts about christianity and its lies

[Terry Cross]

You have changed the subject. Do you find it so hard to be critical
of Judaism?

> with "heretics" and pretty free with the 'holy wars'. Just
> look at what Henry VIII started ... two barely-discernable
> sub-factions of Christianity at each others throats -

Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this world." Paul reversed that
doctrine, with a resultant 1500 years of religious/political wars.

> with
> the IRA still blowing up shit to this day in the name of
> their gawd and pope.

You are mistaken. The English have persecuted the Irish for centuries
with NO religious motivation. The IRA is a political organization
that objects to British rule. They are not fighting for rule by the
Vatican. It was a political war, not religious.

> Deciding NOT to have any 'offical religion' is a big step
> forwards if you want a smoothly-running pluralistic
> society. The USA probably couldn't have been formed
> from the existing colonies if the protestants had been
> free to 'establish' themselves over the catholics or
> vice-versa.

There were not enough Catholics in the Colonies to worry about. Most
were different sects of Protestants. But if you read the texts of the
founding fathers, you will discover there was much deeper philosophy
at heart that just making the federation work.

TCross

[Liberal Here]

Are you too stupid to grasp my point or too stupid to not realize your
"joke" wasn't all that funny?

[Terry Cross]

> Are you too stupid to grasp my point or too stupid to not realize your
> "joke" wasn't all that funny?

It was both a joke and a fact. Your paradigms have been captured and
framed by movie dramas -- like "One Million BC" with Raquel Welch.

Further than that, of course, we know your overarching theory of life,
but it is not necessarily true, simply by your subscription.
Evolution may "explain" empathy in the tortured and exaggerated manner
of Evolutionary speculation, but speculation is not truth.

You realize that, right?

TCross

[Liberal Here]

Then what religious text explains how dogs can empathize with humans
who are in physical or mental pain?

you might try reading about "mirror neurons".

>
> You realize that, right?

Yet all religion is only exercise in speculation that the supernatural
exists and can explain what we don't understand.

Prove **YOUR** doG exists and Zeus does not. After all, Bullfinches'
Mythology "proves" Zeus exists.



>
> TCross

[Terry Cross]

Hold that thought, and let's look at the Atheist reader of Nature
Magazine. Somebody you don’t know in some place you’ve never been
says she proved something by some method you don’t understand and
haven’t a hope of duplicating – yet you believe it and you call that
“science.”

It is not Science -- it is just your FAITH.

> Prove **YOUR** doG exists and Zeus does not.

Uh, what are you basing THAT on? Quote my statement.

TCross

[Ralph]

Let's see Cross, someone once told us that if you split an atom of
certain isotopes of uranium that a huge explosion would occur.
The people who said that were not understood by the average person, used
unseen particles exploding, yet even as stupid as
you are, we wouldn't catch you at ground zero.

People in laboratories predicted the existence of chemical compounds
even though they hda never been seen, yet today we know they exist.
Yet in the instances above we call this science.

I also have little doubt that you wouldn't be able to understand
articles written in the journal "Nature".

Every month I get magazines that you wouldn't be able to understand. Is
what they write about an article of faith? I guess that the articles speak
great truths that will literally get your ass eliminated from this
earth, even one as big as yours.

[Terry Cross]

No they didn't. You were still a child in 1945.

> that if you split an atom of
> certain isotopes of uranium that a huge explosion would occur.
> The people who said that were not understood by the average person, used
> unseen particles exploding, yet even as stupid as
> you are, we wouldn't catch you at ground zero.

Are you saying the Atom bomb is your proof for Evolution, quarks,
black holes, gravitons, and Brontosauruses?

> People in laboratories predicted the existence of chemical compounds
> even though they hda never been seen, yet today we know they exist.
> Yet in the instances above we call this science.

The possibility of holographs is another spectacular example. Still,
they do not excuse the canals on Mars, the Piltdown Man, tetra ethyl
lead, thalidomide, Freon-12, DDT, the Brontosaurus, the endorsement of
tobacco, keeping small pox alive for bio-weapons, Avastin, Fen-Phen,
lead-based paint, arsenic pigments, dioxin, PCBs, and Chernobyl, which
was 100% Atheist science under 100% Atheist supervision.

> I  also have little doubt that you wouldn't be able to understand
> articles written in the journal "Nature".
>
> Every month I get magazines that you wouldn't be able to understand.

This is a goofy ad homenim. You have no knowledge of my education or
accomplishments. You know only that I disagree with you. And
incidentally, the information in magazines are not science unless you
a method for you to empirically and personally verify the claims
therein.

> Is
> what they write about an article of faith?

Maybe, maybe not. But YOUR belief in those magazines is willfully
blind faith.

> I guess that the articles speak
> great truths that will literally get your ass eliminated from this
> earth, even one as big as yours.

So far, your favorite cult has a lousy record.

TCross

[bil...@m.nu]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:37:34 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 3, 12:38�pm, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 6/3/2013 2:37 PM, Terry Cross wrote:

>they do not excuse the canals on Mars, the Piltdown Man, tetra ethyl
>lead, thalidomide, Freon-12, DDT, the Brontosaurus, the endorsement of
>tobacco, keeping small pox alive for bio-weapons, Avastin, Fen-Phen,
>lead-based paint, arsenic pigments, dioxin, PCBs, and Chernobyl, which
>was 100% Atheist science under 100% Atheist supervision.

dude you may think there are canals on mars and you may *think* other
people do but anyone who has been educated past the 10th grade knows
there are no canals on mars

>
>This is a goofy ad homenim. You have no knowledge of my education or
>accomplishments. You know only that I disagree with you. And
>incidentally, the information in magazines are not science unless you
>a method for you to empirically and personally verify the claims
>therein.
>

I have proof. it is simple . the fact that ytou keep repeating youself
as in other posts shows everyone that you have nothing, as in no
information.

>
>
>Maybe, maybe not. But YOUR belief in those magazines is willfully
>blind faith.
>

ya see there ya go again same argument different thread

>
>> I guess that the articles speak
>> great truths that will literally get your ass eliminated from this
>> earth, even one as big as yours.
>
>
>So far, your favorite cult has a lousy record.

you are confused on what a cult is

[Terry Cross]

On Jun 3, 2:59 pm, bil...@m.nu wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:37:34 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>

> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 3, 12:38 pm, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/3/2013 2:37 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
> >they do not excuse the canals on Mars, the Piltdown Man, tetra ethyl
> >lead, thalidomide, Freon-12, DDT, the Brontosaurus, the endorsement of
> >tobacco, keeping small pox alive for bio-weapons, Avastin, Fen-Phen,
> >lead-based paint, arsenic pigments, dioxin, PCBs, and Chernobyl, which
> >was 100% Atheist science under 100% Atheist supervision.
>
> dude you may think there are canals on mars

Notice that it is appears in a list with the Piltdown man and the
Brontosaurus and other discreditable claims of "science"?

> and you may *think* other
> people do but anyone who has been educated past the 10th grade knows
> there are no canals on mars

You're kinda slow, aren't you.

> >This is a goofy ad homenim.  You have no knowledge of my education or
> >accomplishments.  You know only that I disagree with you.  And
> >incidentally, the information in magazines are not science unless you
> >a method for you to empirically and personally verify the claims
> >therein.
>
> I have proof. it is simple . the fact that ytou keep repeating youself
> as in other posts shows everyone that you have nothing, as in no
> information.

And your endless repetition -- what does it indicate about you?

> >Maybe, maybe not.  But YOUR belief in those magazines is willfully
> >blind faith.
>
> ya see there ya go again same argument different thread
>
> >> I guess that the articles speak
> >> great truths that will literally get your ass eliminated from this
> >> earth, even one as big as yours.
>
> >So far, your favorite cult has a lousy record.
>
>  you are confused on what a cult is

The word has two meanings. I meant the second.

The first is a culture, a system of beliefs and principles.

The second is a body of "true believers" who don't understand what
they believe but demonstrate a fierce loyalty to it. A cult usually
often has spokes persons like Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking or L.
Ron Hubbard, but not always.

TCross

[bil...@m.nu]

stephen hawking? Richard dawkins? OMFG you are insane

[Terry Cross]

On Jun 3, 4:32 pm, bil...@m.nu wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:32:25 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>

> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 3, 2:59 pm, bil...@m.nu wrote:
> >> On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:37:34 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> >> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The second is a body of "true believers" who don't understand what
> >they believe but demonstrate a fierce loyalty to it.  A cult usually

> >has spokes persons like Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking or L.
> >Ron Hubbard, but not always.
>
> >TCross
>
> stephen hawking? Richard dawkins? OMFG you are insane

If you mean I am an Atheist infidel, you have that right. I do not
agree with you. And most Atheists like you, find that intolerable.
INTOLERABLE, I say!

We don't forget that "political insanity" (as they called it in that
late, great Atheist society, the USSR) is punishable by chemical and
surgical mutilation, incarceration, electrocution, and other
punishments extending over decades until the "patient" recants of the
heresies. The ferocity of Atheism exceeds the inquisition by
multiples.

TCross