Sort of Off Topic About Christians

[Lute]

In a couple of threads now, I've noticed that one or two people feel it
necessary to work in some way to bash Christians. The reasoning seems
to go something like this: Aces-over in 7-stud is a pretty good hand,
and therefore Christians are idiots.

So okay, whenever you wish to bash Christians, you pick out the worst
examples you can find and attack their hypocrisy. But I kind of notice
that no one ever levels their big guns against people like, for
example, the late Mother Teresa.

Condemning churches is sort of like bashing hospitals because there are
a lot of sick people in them.

Constructive criticism of Christians is sorely needed. Perhaps by
setting a good example for them, you might actually improve their
behavior. That old thing about lighting a candle instead of cursing
the darkness.

Then again, some people prefer the darkness.

[Sng]

Perhaps you should post a link to those topics that use bad examples to
bash Christians, so we can judge for ourselves.

[Lute]

Here's a link you asked for:

12 From: Tad Perry - view profile
Date: Fri, Oct 27 2006 2:30 pm
Email: "Tad Perry" <***@comcast.net>
Groups: rec.gambling.poker
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Hm.....my apologies then......as for IGotSkillz, its religious fanatics

like you

that are the problem with the United States. Has anybody seen the

documentary

"Jesus Camp"?

Even the trailer had me mad. It goes back to a question I have for
Evangelicals: how can you claim to follow a savior when you don't even
put
his words into practice?

(They like to say who's going to hell for instance, when Christ says:
"Do
not judge others." They like to pray out loud and in public and babble
on
like pagans, but Christ said "Don't make a public show out of your
prayer or
babble on like pagans." In fact, they screw up just about everything he
told
them.)


tvp

Perhaps you should post a link to those topics that use bad examples to
bash Christians, so we can judge for ourselves.

[Gary Carson]

He's specifically bashing Evangelicals as protrayed in a single documentary, and
his examples are all on target.

Post by Lute
"Do
not judge others." They like to pray out loud and in public and babble
on
like pagans, but Christ said "Don't make a public show out of your
prayer or
babble on like pagans." In fact, they screw up just about everything he
told
them.)

Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

[William Coleman]

"Lute" <***@msn.com> wrote in message news:***@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
: Here's a link you asked for:
:
: 12 From: Tad Perry - view profile
: Date: Fri, Oct 27 2006 2:30 pm
: Email: "Tad Perry" <***@comcast.net>
: Groups: rec.gambling.poker
: Not yet ratedRating:
: show options
: Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
: original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
:
:
: "ANTvenom13" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
:
:
: news:1161938035$***@recpoker.com...
:
:
: > Hm.....my apologies then......as for IGotSkillz, its religious fanatics
: like you
: > that are the problem with the United States. Has anybody seen the
: documentary
: > "Jesus Camp"?
:
:
: Even the trailer had me mad. It goes back to a question I have for
: Evangelicals: how can you claim to follow a savior when you don't even
: put
: his words into practice?
:
: (They like to say who's going to hell for instance, when Christ says:
: "Do
: not judge others."

Uhh, no. He never said that. What he said was -- Judge not, that you be
not judged.

If you are not afraid of judgement, then you are perfectly free to make all
the moral judgements about others that you want to.

I am not afraid of judgement. I have already been judged by the Virgin Mary
and been found worthy to be her High Priest on Planet Earth.

As long as I remain in Mother Mary's good graces, I welcome judgement. I
look forward to seeing arrogant self-righteous assholes like Irish Mike
being thrown into the Lake of Eternal Fire as they scream, "But, but, I am a
Christian."


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[A Man Beaten by Jacks]

Post by Lute
So okay, whenever you wish to bash Christians, you pick out the worst
examples you can find and attack their hypocrisy. But I kind of notice
that no one ever levels their big guns against people like, for
example, the late Mother Teresa.

Wanna bet? Read The Missionary Position by Christopher Hitchens.
(The guy described by George Galloway as a "drink-soaked former
Trotskyist popinjay.")

[Paul Popinjay]

Post by A Man Beaten by Jacks
(The guy described by George Galloway as a "drink-soaked former
Trotskyist popinjay.")

???

[FL Turbo]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 01:05:05 GMT, "Paul Popinjay"

Post by A Man Beaten by Jacks
(The guy described by George Galloway as a "drink-soaked former
Trotskyist popinjay.")

???

Surely, you must know about Christopher Hitchens?

Hey, you ain't some damn Trotskyist are you?

Agnostically,
FL Turbo

[Paul Popinjay]

Post by FL Turbo
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 01:05:05 GMT, "Paul Popinjay"

Post by A Man Beaten by Jacks
(The guy described by George Galloway as a "drink-soaked former
Trotskyist popinjay.")

???

Surely, you must know about Christopher Hitchens?
Hey, you ain't some damn Trotskyist are you?
Agnostically,
FL Turbo

I just "heard" someone say my name.

And no, I favored Stalin. And, of course, Enver Hoxha.

[A Man Beaten by Jacks]

Post by A Man Beaten by Jacks
(The guy described by George Galloway as a "drink-soaked former
Trotskyist popinjay.")

???

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1486417,00.html

Galloway and the Mother of All Invective

Whatever else you made of him, when it came to delivering sustained barrages of
political invective, you had to salute his indefatigability.

George Galloway stormed up to Capitol Hill yesterday morning for the
confrontation of his career, firing scatter-shot insults at the senators who had
accused him of profiting illegally from Iraqi oil sales.

They were "neo-cons" and "Zionists" and a "pro-war lynch mob", he raged, who
belonged to a "lickspittle Republican committee" that was engaged in creating
"the mother of all smokescreens".

Before the hearing began, the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow even had some
scorn left over to bestow generously upon the pro-war writer Christopher
Hitchens. "You're a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay," Mr Galloway in
formed him. "Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink," he added
later, ignoring Mr Hitchens's questions and staring intently ahead. "And you're
a drink-soaked ..." Eventually Mr Hitchens gave up. "You're a real thug, aren't
you?" he hissed, stalking away.

It was a hint of what was to come: not so much political theatre as political
bloodsports - and with the senators, at least, it was Mr Galloway who emerged
with the flesh between his teeth.

"I know that standards have slipped in Washington in recent years, but for a
lawyer, you're remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice," he told Norm
Coleman, the Minnesota Republican who chairs the senate investigations
committee, after taking his seat at the front of the high-ceilinged hearing
room, and swearing an oath to tell the truth.

"I'm here today, but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name
around the world without ever having asked me a single question."

The culture clash between Mr Galloway's bruising style and the soporific
gentility of senate proceedings could hardly have been more pronounced, and drew
audible gasps and laughs of disbelief from the audience. "I met Saddam Hussein
exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him," Mr Galloway went
on. "The difference is that Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns, and to
give him maps the better to target those guns."

American reporters seemed as fascinated as the British media: at one point
yesterday, before it was his turn to speak, Mr Galloway strode from the room,
sending journalists of all nationalities rushing after him - only to discover
that he was going to the lavatory.

By condemning him in their report without interviewing him, the senators had
already given Mr Galloway the upper hand. But not everything was in his favour.
For a start, only two senators were present, sabotaging Mr Galloway's efforts to
attack the whole lickspittle lot of them - and one of the two, the Democrat Carl
Levin, had spent much of his opening statement attacking the hypocrisy of the US
government in allegedly allowing American firms to benefit from Iraqi oil
corruption.

Even so, Mr Galloway was in his element, playing the role he relishes the most:
the little guy squaring up for a fight with the establishment.

For these purposes, Senator Coleman served symbolically to represent all the
evil in the world - the entire Republican party, the conscience of George Bush,
the US government and the British government, too: no wonder his weak smile
looked so nauseous.

"I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did
commit in invading Iraq ... senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned
out to be right and you turned out to be wrong," Mr Galloway told him.

And yet for all his anti-establishment credentials, Mr Galloway is as practised
as any of his New Labour enemies at squirming away from awkward questions. Under
scrutiny by Senator Levin, he deployed a classic example of the bait-and-switch
technique that is the government minister's best defence in difficult
questioning.

But Mr Galloway Goes To Washington had never really been an exercise in
clarifying the facts. It was an exercise in giving Norm Coleman, and, by
extension, the Bush administration, a black eye - mere days after the bloody
nose that the Respect MP took credit for having given Tony Blair. And it went as
well as Mr Galloway could have wished.

[FL Turbo]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 22:21:04 -0400, A Man Beaten by Jacks
<***@fool.foo> wrote:

Funny stuff, Jacks.
Almost as funny as a Monty Python routine.

Coleman should have set out a comfy chair for Galloway.

Priceless.

Post by A Man Beaten by Jacks
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1486417,00.html
Galloway and the Mother of All Invective
Whatever else you made of him, when it came to delivering sustained barrages of
political invective, you had to salute his indefatigability.
George Galloway stormed up to Capitol Hill yesterday morning for the
confrontation of his career, firing scatter-shot insults at the senators who had
accused him of profiting illegally from Iraqi oil sales.
They were "neo-cons" and "Zionists" and a "pro-war lynch mob", he raged, who
belonged to a "lickspittle Republican committee" that was engaged in creating
"the mother of all smokescreens".
Before the hearing began, the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow even had some
scorn left over to bestow generously upon the pro-war writer Christopher
Hitchens. "You're a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay," Mr Galloway in
formed him. "Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink," he added
later, ignoring Mr Hitchens's questions and staring intently ahead. "And you're
a drink-soaked ..." Eventually Mr Hitchens gave up. "You're a real thug, aren't
you?" he hissed, stalking away.
It was a hint of what was to come: not so much political theatre as political
bloodsports - and with the senators, at least, it was Mr Galloway who emerged
with the flesh between his teeth.
"I know that standards have slipped in Washington in recent years, but for a
lawyer, you're remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice," he told Norm
Coleman, the Minnesota Republican who chairs the senate investigations
committee, after taking his seat at the front of the high-ceilinged hearing
room, and swearing an oath to tell the truth.
"I'm here today, but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name
around the world without ever having asked me a single question."
The culture clash between Mr Galloway's bruising style and the soporific
gentility of senate proceedings could hardly have been more pronounced, and drew
audible gasps and laughs of disbelief from the audience. "I met Saddam Hussein
exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him," Mr Galloway went
on. "The difference is that Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns, and to
give him maps the better to target those guns."
American reporters seemed as fascinated as the British media: at one point
yesterday, before it was his turn to speak, Mr Galloway strode from the room,
sending journalists of all nationalities rushing after him - only to discover
that he was going to the lavatory.
By condemning him in their report without interviewing him, the senators had
already given Mr Galloway the upper hand. But not everything was in his favour.
For a start, only two senators were present, sabotaging Mr Galloway's efforts to
attack the whole lickspittle lot of them - and one of the two, the Democrat Carl
Levin, had spent much of his opening statement attacking the hypocrisy of the US
government in allegedly allowing American firms to benefit from Iraqi oil
corruption.
the little guy squaring up for a fight with the establishment.
For these purposes, Senator Coleman served symbolically to represent all the
evil in the world - the entire Republican party, the conscience of George Bush,
the US government and the British government, too: no wonder his weak smile
looked so nauseous.
"I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did
commit in invading Iraq ... senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned
out to be right and you turned out to be wrong," Mr Galloway told him.
And yet for all his anti-establishment credentials, Mr Galloway is as practised
as any of his New Labour enemies at squirming away from awkward questions. Under
scrutiny by Senator Levin, he deployed a classic example of the bait-and-switch
technique that is the government minister's best defence in difficult
questioning.
But Mr Galloway Goes To Washington had never really been an exercise in
clarifying the facts. It was an exercise in giving Norm Coleman, and, by
extension, the Bush administration, a black eye - mere days after the bloody
nose that the Respect MP took credit for having given Tony Blair. And it went as
well as Mr Galloway could have wished.

As a defender of the Terrorists and thugs like Saddam, Galloway has
very few equals.

[Gary Carson]

Post by Lute
So okay, whenever you wish to bash Christians, you pick out the worst
examples you can find and attack their hypocrisy. But I kind of notice
that no one ever levels their big guns against people like, for
example, the late Mother Teresa.

Since she worked for, and provided support to, a criminal organization in the
business of molesting children, I'll bash that worthless hypocrite.


 

Post by Lute
Constructive criticism of Christians is sorely needed. Perhaps by
setting a good example for them, you might actually improve their
behavior. That old thing about lighting a candle instead of cursing
the darkness.

Observing rational thought in others doesn't seem to provide anything to
Christian nutcases.

Post by Lute
Then again, some people prefer the darkness.

So it appears.

Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com

[As Always, Kadie]

some vanity fair writer "bashed" Mother Theresa already.  nothing serious, the
gist was she was an autocratic, to the manor born Kraut bitch.

Post by Lute
In a couple of threads now, I've noticed that one or two people feel it
necessary to work in some way to bash Christians. The reasoning seems
to go something like this: Aces-over in 7-stud is a pretty good hand,
and therefore Christians are idiots.
So okay, whenever you wish to bash Christians, you pick out the worst
examples you can find and attack their hypocrisy. But I kind of notice
that no one ever levels their big guns against people like, for
example, the late Mother Teresa.
Condemning churches is sort of like bashing hospitals because there are
a lot of sick people in them.
Constructive criticism of Christians is sorely needed. Perhaps by
setting a good example for them, you might actually improve their
behavior. That old thing about lighting a candle instead of cursing
the darkness.
Then again, some people prefer the darkness.

_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

[eleaticus]

Post by Gary Carson

Post by Lute
In a couple of threads now, I've noticed that one or two people feel it
necessary to work in some way to bash Christians. The reasoning seems
to go something like this: Aces-over in 7-stud is a pretty good hand,
and therefore Christians are idiots.
So okay, whenever you wish to bash Christians, you pick out the worst
examples you can find and attack their hypocrisy. But I kind of notice
that no one ever levels their big guns against people like, for
example, the late Mother Teresa.
Condemning churches is sort of like bashing hospitals because there are
a lot of sick people in them.
Constructive criticism of Christians is sorely needed. Perhaps by
setting a good example for them, you might actually improve their
behavior. That old thing about lighting a candle instead of cursing
the darkness.
Then again, some people prefer the darkness.

The Koran says do thou unto the infidel.

The Books of Moses says commit multiple acts of genocide and mass
infanticide.

The Gospels say don't be such an asshole.

Which do you think is most deserving of censure for the asshole behavior?

--
eleaticus
ee-lee-AT-i-cus

Post by Gary Carson
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

[FL Turbo]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:42:24 -0500, "eleaticus"

Post by eleaticus

Post by Lute
In a couple of threads now, I've noticed that one or two people feel it
necessary to work in some way to bash Christians. The reasoning seems
to go something like this: Aces-over in 7-stud is a pretty good hand,
and therefore Christians are idiots.
So okay, whenever you wish to bash Christians, you pick out the worst
examples you can find and attack their hypocrisy. But I kind of notice
that no one ever levels their big guns against people like, for
example, the late Mother Teresa.
Condemning churches is sort of like bashing hospitals because there are
a lot of sick people in them.
Constructive criticism of Christians is sorely needed. Perhaps by
setting a good example for them, you might actually improve their
behavior. That old thing about lighting a candle instead of cursing
the darkness.
Then again, some people prefer the darkness.

The Koran says do thou unto the infidel.
The Books of Moses says commit multiple acts of genocide and mass
infanticide.
The Gospels say don't be such an asshole.
Which do you think is most deserving of censure for the asshole behavior?

Uh, can I play?

I would say it is the religion that still does go out and commit
multiple acts of violence and terrorism in this, the 21st Century.

If you have a hard time finding reports on those multiple acts of
violence and terrorism, I would be glad to point you to a few examples
of the same that are now happening.


----------------------------------
Look around you, Boy.
It's bound to scare you, Boy.

[MrBookworm]

Post by Lute
So okay, whenever you wish to bash Christians, you pick out the worst
examples you can find and attack their hypocrisy. But I kind of notice
that no one ever levels their big guns against people like, for
example, the late Mother Teresa.

There is criticism of Mother Teresa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Theresa#Controversy_and_critics

The main complaint is that she didn't go out of her way to end human
suffering, rather she found the downtrodden a good source of converts.

Personally, I think mankind would be much better off if organized religion
had never been invented.

Dean

=============== My Affiliate Links ===============
---deleted----

---- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

[As Always, Kadie]

Hey, my fiancee's name is Dean too.  (And he loves wikipedia too!)  Not very
many Deans around these days (save for universities).  That being said...  as
there never have been a people without some form of religion, couldn't it be
that a religious impulse is in our hearts, souls, DNA, whatever...?

Post by MrBookworm

Post by Lute
So okay, whenever you wish to bash Christians, you pick out the worst
examples you can find and attack their hypocrisy. But I kind of notice
that no one ever levels their big guns against people like, for
example, the late Mother Teresa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Theresa#Controversy_and_critics
The main complaint is that she didn't go out of her way to end human
suffering, rather she found the downtrodden a good source of converts.
Personally, I think mankind would be much better off if organized religion
had never been invented.
Dean
=============== My Affiliate Links ===============
---deleted----

_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com

[MrBookworm]

Post by As Always, Kadie
many Deans around these days (save for universities).  That being said...  as
there never have been a people without some form of religion, couldn't it be
that a religious impulse is in our hearts, souls, DNA, whatever...?

How about I change your statement a little bit:

"as there never have been a people without some form of racism, couldn't
it be

Post by As Always, Kadie
that a racist impulse is in our hearts, souls, DNA, whatever...?"

And I would answer Yes, to both statements. That doesn't mean that either
religion or racisim or whatever is a good thing, only that we humans have
a tendency to gravitate to those types of institutions or thoughts. We're
seem to be slowly coming to realize that racisim is a detriment to the
advancement of human civilization. Again, my opinio is that I hope that
some day we get to that point with organized religion.

Dean

=============== My Affiliate Links ===============
---deleted----

_____________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

[KilgoreTrout]

Hey, my fiancee's name is Dean too. (And he loves wikipedia too!) Not very
many Deans around these days (save for universities). That being said... as
there never have been a people without some form of religion, couldn't it be
that a religious impulse is in our hearts, souls, DNA, whatever...?

People wanna figure things out. They look around, say WTF? They want
some kinda esssplanation. Physics wasn't around yet.

Post by MrBookworm

Post by Lute
So okay, whenever you wish to bash Christians, you pick out the worst
examples you can find and attack their hypocrisy. But I kind of notice
that no one ever levels their big guns against people like, for
example, the late Mother Teresa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Theresa#Controversy_and_critics
The main complaint is that she didn't go out of her way to end human
suffering, rather she found the downtrodden a good source of converts.
Personally, I think mankind would be much better off if organized religion
had never been invented.
Dean
=============== My Affiliate Links ===============
---deleted----

------- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

[Peg Smith]

Post by KilgoreTrout

Hey, my fiancee's name is Dean too. (And he loves wikipedia too!) Not very
many Deans around these days (save for universities). That being said... as
there never have been a people without some form of religion, couldn't it be
that a religious impulse is in our hearts, souls, DNA, whatever...?

People wanna figure things out. They look around, say WTF? They want
some kinda esssplanation. Physics wasn't around yet.

It isn't just that, I think they also want justice. If they're as good
as they can be and still suffer, and they see those badasses over
there getting by quite happily with their badness, they're comforted
to think that justice will be found in an afterlife. Otherwise, what's
the point of being good and enduring hardships and pain? To just die
and turn to dust? No, I don't think most people can handle that
destiny.

Peg

[Cecil B. DeMile]

Post by Peg Smith
To just die
and turn to dust? No, I don't think most people can handle that
destiny.
Peg

I don't think they have much choice, because that's all there is babe.

Cecil B. DeMile

--- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

[Peg Smith]

Post by Cecil B. DeMile

Post by Peg Smith
To just die
and turn to dust? No, I don't think most people can handle that
destiny.
Peg

I don't think they have much choice, because that's all there is babe.

You're preaching to the choir, son, I'm an atheist.

Peg

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Peg Smith

Post by Cecil B. DeMile

Post by Peg Smith
To just die
and turn to dust? No, I don't think most people can handle that
destiny.
Peg

I don't think they have much choice, because that's all there is babe.

You're preaching to the choir, son, I'm an atheist.
Peg

If the above is true (and I don't really know if it is), then I'm not
too sorry I raised hell for a few years after my sons were grown. I
didn't miss many of the major sins and managed to survive to old age.
Now I'm leading a quiet, virtuous (except for playing poker) life.

All in all, I think it worked out well for me. I had a friend the same
age as me who lived a virtuous, difficult life and died of cancer at
51, when she was finally in a financial position to start enjoying
herself a little.

For her sake, I do really hope there's a better place after we die.
People like her deserve it.

As for Mother Theresa, she was a good woman who devoted her life to
helping the poorest of the poor. She was no hypocrite either, as she
and her followers lived a life of simpllicity and poverty. They slept
on the floor and had no luxuries at all.

Once, in fit of spirituality, I considered joining her order, but my
friends laughed at me. They pointed out that fresh brewed coffee and
fresh squeezed orange juice weren't going to be served for breakfast in
the convent. Also, with my arthritis, sleeping on the floor was out of
the question. I admit, I do love to be comfortable and am very fussy
about what I eat. :)

Meanwhile, I've tried to make amends for some of my earlier sins by
leading a virtous and helpful life now. This might help me when I die
to go to a good place, assuming one exists.
If not, it helps me feel good about myself today.

Barbara Gallamore

[Peg Smith]

Post by Peg Smith

Post by Cecil B. DeMile
I don't think they have much choice, because that's all there is babe.

You're preaching to the choir, son, I'm an atheist.

BTW, I'm not your babe. I'm Wayno's babe.

Peg

[Susan]

ho

Post by Peg Smith

Post by Peg Smith

Post by Cecil B. DeMile
I don't think they have much choice, because that's all there is babe.

You're preaching to the choir, son, I'm an atheist.

BTW, I'm not your babe. I'm Wayno's babe.
Peg

[Edward]

Post by Peg Smith

Post by Peg Smith

Post by Cecil B. DeMile
I don't think they have much choice, because that's all there is babe.

You're preaching to the choir, son, I'm an atheist.

BTW, I'm not your babe. I'm Wayno's babe.
Peg

Internet sex is good!

[Cecil B. DeMile]

Post by Peg Smith

Post by Peg Smith

Post by Cecil B. DeMile
I don't think they have much choice, because that's all there is babe.

You're preaching to the choir, son, I'm an atheist.

BTW, I'm not your babe. I'm Wayno's babe.
Peg

You used to be mine, till I started posting under another assumed name ;o)

Wayno is a punk.

Cecil B. DeMile

------ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

[Peg Smith]

Post by Cecil B. DeMile

Post by Peg Smith

Post by Peg Smith

Post by Cecil B. DeMile
I don't think they have much choice, because that's all there is babe.

You're preaching to the choir, son, I'm an atheist.

BTW, I'm not your babe. I'm Wayno's babe.
Peg

You used to be mine, till I started posting under another assumed name ;o)

If that were true, you'd know me better than you indicated above.

Post by Cecil B. DeMile
Wayno is a punk.

So? Wayno's sent me his books, what've you sent me? :)

Post by Cecil B. DeMile
Cecil B. DeMile

Man, I really stink at these "guess who I am" posts. I'm a lousy
detective. The only one I ever figured out was Danny Negreanu's
anonymous post a few years ago (made via Robert Ladd), but that one
was pretty easy. Email me and tell me who you are, I promise I won't
rat you out to the group.

Peg

[Susan]

I think it's RazzO

Post by Peg Smith

Post by Cecil B. DeMile

Post by Peg Smith

Post by Peg Smith

Post by Cecil B. DeMile
I don't think they have much choice, because that's all there is babe.

You're preaching to the choir, son, I'm an atheist.

BTW, I'm not your babe. I'm Wayno's babe.
Peg

You used to be mine, till I started posting under another assumed name ;o)

If that were true, you'd know me better than you indicated above.

Post by Cecil B. DeMile
Wayno is a punk.

So? Wayno's sent me his books, what've you sent me? :)

Post by Cecil B. DeMile
Cecil B. DeMile

Man, I really stink at these "guess who I am" posts. I'm a lousy
detective. The only one I ever figured out was Danny Negreanu's
anonymous post a few years ago (made via Robert Ladd), but that one
was pretty easy. Email me and tell me who you are, I promise I won't
rat you out to the group.
Peg

[KilgoreTrout]

Post by Peg Smith

Post by KilgoreTrout

Hey, my fiancee's name is Dean too. (And he loves wikipedia too!) Not very
many Deans around these days (save for universities). That being said...

as

Post by Peg Smith

Post by KilgoreTrout

there never have been a people without some form of religion, couldn't it be
that a religious impulse is in our hearts, souls, DNA, whatever...?

People wanna figure things out. They look around, say WTF? They want
some kinda esssplanation. Physics wasn't around yet.

It isn't just that, I think they also want justice. If they're as good
as they can be and still suffer, and they see those badasses over
there getting by quite happily with their badness, they're comforted
to think that justice will be found in an afterlife. Otherwise, what's
the point of being good and enduring hardships and pain? To just die
and turn to dust? No, I don't think most people can handle that
destiny.
Peg

You make a good point. Although I often think it has less to do with
"justice" and more to do with the fear of eventual "nonexistence".

I might also point out that some form of creation mythology is basically
ubiquitous across religions; not so sure about the whole afterlife thing.

Cheers.

--- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

[Tom White]

On Oct 27 2006 11:01 PM, Peg Smith wrote:
+ It isn't just that, I think they also want justice. If they're as good
+ as they can be and still suffer, and they see those badasses over
+ there getting by quite happily with their badness, they're comforted
+ to think that justice will be found in an afterlife. Otherwise, what's
+ the point of being good and enduring hardships and pain? To just die
+ and turn to dust? No, I don't think most people can handle that
+ destiny.

KilgoreTrout <***@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
+ You make a good point. Although I often think it has less to do with
+ "justice" and more to do with the fear of eventual "nonexistence".
+
+ I might also point out that some form of creation mythology is basically
+ ubiquitous across religions; not so sure about the whole afterlife thing.

What's so puzzling to me about so many of the irreligious is
their refusal to evaluate the relative utility of Christendom
v Islam to a pleasant way of life. The irreligious display
more interest in theology than all but the most fervently
religious; their theological studies have informed them that
all religions are crap, none deserving of any support at all.
Mark Steyn finds that at least one humanist now realizes that
an irreligious culture is not in the cards for Europe:

The invaluable Brussels Journal recently translated an
interview with the writer Oscar van den Boogaard from the
Belgian paper De Standaard. A Dutch gay "humanist" (which is
pretty much the trifecta of Eurocool), van den Boogaard was
reflecting on the accelerating Islamification of the
Continent and concluding that the jig was up for the Europe
he loved. "I am not a warrior, but who is?" he shrugged. "I
have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good
at enjoying it."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/114966,CST-EDT-steyn29.article

I have the sinking feeling that, were the question put to
van de Boogaard directly - "Christendom or Islam?", he'd
still reply "six of one; half dozen of the other".

[da pickle]

"Tom White"

Post by Tom White
The invaluable Brussels Journal recently translated an
interview with the writer Oscar van den Boogaard from the
Belgian paper De Standaard. A Dutch gay "humanist" (which is
pretty much the trifecta of Eurocool), van den Boogaard was
reflecting on the accelerating Islamification of the
Continent and concluding that the jig was up for the Europe
he loved. "I am not a warrior, but who is?" he shrugged. "I
have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good
at enjoying it."

I remember being in uniform from the middle 60's through the 70's and all
that means to my observations of popular culture. I also remember seeing
the wonderful rock musical "Hair" several times in different venues
including New York, San Francisco and Dayton, Ohio, as well as others ...
all with significantly different core audiences. There is one moment when
the draftee (I think it is Claude) falls through the hole in the flag ... I
think the song is Don't Put it Down ... he actually falls onto the flag and
there were gasps from even the most liberal audiences at the disrespect for
the flag at that time in our history. Crazy for the red white and blue were
most of the lyrics.

But then, there is a line where he says:

I don't want to go over there and fight, I want to stay here and enjoy what
they are over there fighting for ... or words to that effect.

This always got the most applause, sometimes a standing ovation. I was
impressed that the writers and the cast were able to present such a show
with something for everyone at such a difficult time in our history.
Sometimes times don't change that much after all.

[KilgoreTrout]

Post by Tom White
+ It isn't just that, I think they also want justice. If they're as good
+ as they can be and still suffer, and they see those badasses over
+ there getting by quite happily with their badness, they're comforted
+ to think that justice will be found in an afterlife. Otherwise, what's
+ the point of being good and enduring hardships and pain? To just die
+ and turn to dust? No, I don't think most people can handle that
+ destiny.
+ You make a good point. Although I often think it has less to do with
+ "justice" and more to do with the fear of eventual "nonexistence".
+
+ I might also point out that some form of creation mythology is basically
+ ubiquitous across religions; not so sure about the whole afterlife thing.
What's so puzzling to me about so many of the irreligious is
their refusal to evaluate the relative utility of Christendom
v Islam to a pleasant way of life.

I quite agree. They are too caught-up in what happened centuries ago.
You hit the nail on the head, friend, and the word "utility" is key.

The irreligious display

Post by Tom White
more interest in theology than all but the most fervently
religious; their theological studies have informed them that
all religions are crap, none deserving of any support at all.

Well, this means they are just as prone to drawing unsupported conclusions
as the theists. This has always been my problem with atheism. The only
logical position, based on physical fact, is that of the agnostic.

Post by Tom White
Mark Steyn finds that at least one humanist now realizes that
The invaluable Brussels Journal recently translated an
interview with the writer Oscar van den Boogaard from the
Belgian paper De Standaard. A Dutch gay "humanist" (which is
pretty much the trifecta of Eurocool), van den Boogaard was
reflecting on the accelerating Islamification of the
Continent and concluding that the jig was up for the Europe
he loved. "I am not a warrior, but who is?" he shrugged. "I
have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good
at enjoying it."
http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/114966,CST-EDT-steyn29.article
I have the sinking feeling that, were the question put to
van de Boogaard directly - "Christendom or Islam?", he'd
still reply "six of one; half dozen of the other".

Well, if I absolutely *had* to choose, the choice would be obvious. I
would still prefer to live in a country that isn't heavily influenced by
either, though. Of course, I don't have a problem with sexuality or dirty
words...

If the bigwig American Christ-followers seemed even slightly interested in
following the teachings of Christ rather than using them to further a
puritanical agenda, I wouldn't have any real problem with 'em at all.

______________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

[Gary Carson]

Post by KilgoreTrout
Well, this means they are just as prone to drawing unsupported conclusions
as the theists. This has always been my problem with atheism. The only
logical position, based on physical fact, is that of the agnostic.

That's just not true.

 

Post by KilgoreTrout

Post by Tom White
I have the sinking feeling that, were the question put to
van de Boogaard directly - "Christendom or Islam?", he'd
still reply "six of one; half dozen of the other".

Well, if I absolutely *had* to choose, the choice would be obvious. I
would still prefer to live in a country that isn't heavily influenced by
either, though. Of course, I don't have a problem with sexuality or dirty
words...

Which Christian God is the obvious choice?

According to South Park the right answer is Mormans.

 
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com

[KilgoreTrout]

Post by Gary Carson

Post by KilgoreTrout
Well, this means they are just as prone to drawing unsupported conclusions
as the theists. This has always been my problem with atheism. The only
logical position, based on physical fact, is that of the agnostic.

That's just not true.

I assume you are referring to the mythical razor?

Because that's the only argument I have heard about atheism that "gets off
the ground", so to speak. I don't think it's a good argument, mind you,
but I will concede that it is one worth considering.

Post by Gary Carson

Post by KilgoreTrout

Post by Tom White
I have the sinking feeling that, were the question put to
van de Boogaard directly - "Christendom or Islam?", he'd
still reply "six of one; half dozen of the other".

Well, if I absolutely *had* to choose, the choice would be obvious. I
would still prefer to live in a country that isn't heavily influenced by
either, though. Of course, I don't have a problem with sexuality or dirty
words...

Which Christian God is the obvious choice?

My choice was between living in a Christian nation, or a Muslim nation. I
wasn't asked to pick a particular Christian sect.

Post by Gary Carson
According to South Park the right answer is Mormans.

While they are all equally deluded, I find the Mormon mythology to be
particularly silly (up there with the Scientologists). However, I must
concede that most of the Mormons I have known are unusually good people.
Wasn't it Howard Hughes who surrounded himself with Mormons?

OTOH, the stories I have heard about how they treat a segment of their
youth in SLC is particularly horrifying.

Post by Gary Carson
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com

---- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

[Peg Smith]

Post by KilgoreTrout
While they are all equally deluded, I find the Mormon mythology to be
particularly silly (up there with the Scientologists).

In keeping with your stance of agnosticism vs. atheism, wouldn't it be
better to say, "While *I suspect* they are all equally deluded...."?

Your contentious pal,

Peg

[KilgoreTrout]

Post by Peg Smith

Post by KilgoreTrout
While they are all equally deluded, I find the Mormon mythology to be
particularly silly (up there with the Scientologists).

In keeping with your stance of agnosticism vs. atheism, wouldn't it be
better to say, "While *I suspect* they are all equally deluded...."?

Good catch. Although, one could argue in the following manner: there is
some dude that insists aliens have been visiting Earth for years... you
know, those little gray dudes with the big eyes.

He has no evidence, he just *knows* it's true.

In fact, he's a total head-case.

Come to find out, there *are* little gray dudes with big eyes who have
been visiting the Earth for years.

Is his accidental description of truth evidence that he wasn't deluded in
the first place?

Post by Peg Smith
Your contentious pal,
Peg

Just another argumentative prick,
kt


PS: You're quite right, though. I should have added that qualifier.

______________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

[Gary Carson]

Post by KilgoreTrout

Post by Gary Carson

Post by KilgoreTrout
Well, this means they are just as prone to drawing unsupported conclusions
as the theists. This has always been my problem with atheism. The only
logical position, based on physical fact, is that of the agnostic.

That's just not true.

I assume you are referring to the mythical razor?
Because that's the only argument I have heard about atheism that "gets off
the ground", so to speak. I don't think it's a good argument, mind you,
but I will concede that it is one worth considering.

What arguement?  There is no arguement.  Just like there is no God.

There is nothing rational about thinking that there "might be a God".  It's not
even a meaningful thing to say.  Which God might there be? 


 

Post by KilgoreTrout

Post by Gary Carson

Post by KilgoreTrout
Well, if I absolutely *had* to choose, the choice would be obvious. I
would still prefer to live in a country that isn't heavily influenced by
either, though. Of course, I don't have a problem with sexuality or dirty
words...

Which Christian God is the obvious choice?

My choice was between living in a Christian nation, or a Muslim nation. I
wasn't asked to pick a particular Christian sect.

So you think there's no difference between an Amish nation and a Catholic
nation?  You're an idiot.

Post by KilgoreTrout

Post by Gary Carson
According to South Park the right answer is Mormans.

While they are all equally deluded, I find the Mormon mythology to be
particularly silly (up there with the Scientologists). However, I must
concede that most of the Mormons I have known are unusually good people.
Wasn't it Howard Hughes who surrounded himself with Mormons?
OTOH, the stories I have heard about how they treat a segment of their
youth in SLC is particularly horrifying.

They should just send them off to be altar boys in Boston.

 
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com

[KilgoreTrout]

Post by KilgoreTrout

Post by Gary Carson

Post by KilgoreTrout
Well, this means they are just as prone to drawing unsupported conclusions
as the theists. This has always been my problem with atheism. The only
logical position, based on physical fact, is that of the agnostic.

That's just not true.

I assume you are referring to the mythical razor?
Because that's the only argument I have heard about atheism that "gets off
the ground", so to speak. I don't think it's a good argument, mind you,
but I will concede that it is one worth considering.

What arguement? There is no arguement. Just like there is no God.
There is nothing rational about thinking that there "might be a God". It's

not

even a meaningful thing to say. Which God might there be?

Great argument. I concede. You have no idea what razor I am speaking of,
do you?

Post by KilgoreTrout

Post by Gary Carson

Post by KilgoreTrout
Well, if I absolutely *had* to choose, the choice would be obvious. I
would still prefer to live in a country that isn't heavily influenced by
either, though. Of course, I don't have a problem with sexuality or dirty
words...

Which Christian God is the obvious choice?

My choice was between living in a Christian nation, or a Muslim nation. I
wasn't asked to pick a particular Christian sect.

So you think there's no difference between an Amish nation and a Catholic
nation? You're an idiot.

Thanks! Now all you have to do is indicate where I claimed "there's no
difference between an Amish nation and a Catholic nation". Good luck!

Post by KilgoreTrout

Post by Gary Carson
According to South Park the right answer is Mormans.

While they are all equally deluded, I find the Mormon mythology to be
particularly silly (up there with the Scientologists). However, I must
concede that most of the Mormons I have known are unusually good people.
Wasn't it Howard Hughes who surrounded himself with Mormons?
OTOH, the stories I have heard about how they treat a segment of their
youth in SLC is particularly horrifying.

They should just send them off to be altar boys in Boston.

Yeah, we all get it Gary. You were molested by a Catholic priest.

If you makes you feel any better, my dog was abused by her breeder (a man
with a mustache). Now, she tries to attack any mustached man who enters
the house.

So, you two have that in common.

Cheers.

Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com

---- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

[William Coleman]

"KilgoreTrout" <***@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message news:***@recgroups.com...
: On Oct 29 2006 7:47 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
:
: > On Oct 29 2006 7:37 PM, KilgoreTrout wrote:
: >
: > > >
: > > > > Well, this means they are just as prone to drawing unsupported
: conclusions
: > > > > as the theists. This has always been my problem with atheism. The
only
: > > > > logical position, based on physical fact, is that of the agnostic.
: > > >
: > > > That's just not true.
: > > >
: > >
: > > I assume you are referring to the mythical razor?
: > >
: > > Because that's the only argument I have heard about atheism that "gets
off
: > > the ground", so to speak. I don't think it's a good argument, mind
you,
: > > but I will concede that it is one worth considering.
: >
: > What arguement? There is no arguement. Just like there is no God.
: >
: > There is nothing rational about thinking that there "might be a God".
It's
: not
: > even a meaningful thing to say. Which God might there be?
: >
: >
:
: Great argument. I concede. You have no idea what razor I am speaking of,
: do you?

Of course he doesn't. You are obviously referring to Occam's Razor -- Do
not multiply entities without necessity. This is actually one of the
strongest arguments for atheism. Two alternatives --

The universe has always existed and was not created.

God has always existed and created the universe.

Obviously the first alternative is the simplest, and the second alternative
doesn't really explain anything.

Or, as the great French astronomer and mathematician, Laplace, told
Napoleon, when asked why there was no mention of God in Laplace's
masterwork, System of the World --

I find no need for that hypothesis.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

:
: >
: >
: > > > >
: > > > > Well, if I absolutely *had* to choose, the choice would be
obvious. I
: > > > > would still prefer to live in a country that isn't heavily
influenced
: by
: > > > > either, though. Of course, I don't have a problem with sexuality
or
: dirty
: > > > > words...
: > > >
: > > > Which Christian God is the obvious choice?
: > > >
: > >
: > > My choice was between living in a Christian nation, or a Muslim
nation. I
: > > wasn't asked to pick a particular Christian sect.
: >
: > So you think there's no difference between an Amish nation and a
Catholic
: > nation? You're an idiot.
:
: Thanks! Now all you have to do is indicate where I claimed "there's no
: difference between an Amish nation and a Catholic nation". Good luck!
:
: >
: > >
: > > > According to South Park the right answer is Mormans.
: > > >
: > >
: > > While they are all equally deluded, I find the Mormon mythology to be
: > > particularly silly (up there with the Scientologists). However, I must
: > > concede that most of the Mormons I have known are unusually good
people.
: > > Wasn't it Howard Hughes who surrounded himself with Mormons?
: > >
: > > OTOH, the stories I have heard about how they treat a segment of their
: > > youth in SLC is particularly horrifying.
: >
: > They should just send them off to be altar boys in Boston.
:
: Yeah, we all get it Gary. You were molested by a Catholic priest.
:
: If you makes you feel any better, my dog was abused by her breeder (a man
: with a mustache). Now, she tries to attack any mustached man who enters
: the house.
:
: So, you two have that in common.
:
: Cheers.
:
: >
: >
: > Gary Carson
: > http://www.garycarson.com
:
: ----
: looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
:
:

[Gary Carson]

Post by KilgoreTrout

Post by KilgoreTrout

Post by Gary Carson

Post by KilgoreTrout
Well, this means they are just as prone to drawing unsupported

conclusions

Post by KilgoreTrout

Post by Gary Carson

Post by KilgoreTrout
as the theists. This has always been my problem with atheism. The only
logical position, based on physical fact, is that of the agnostic.

That's just not true.

I assume you are referring to the mythical razor?
Because that's the only argument I have heard about atheism that "gets off
the ground", so to speak. I don't think it's a good argument, mind you,
but I will concede that it is one worth considering.

What arguement? There is no arguement. Just like there is no God.
There is nothing rational about thinking that there "might be a God". It's

not

even a meaningful thing to say. Which God might there be?

Great argument. I concede. You have no idea what razor I am speaking of,
do you?

Just because I don't think it's relevant doesn't mean I don't know what you're
talking about.

You fucking idiot.

There is no rational arguement for god.  None.  Period.  There is no need to
compare competing arguments.   There is no need to make an arguement that
there's no God.

You worthless empty headed shit.

Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com

[KilgoreTrout]

Post by Gary Carson

Post by KilgoreTrout

Post by KilgoreTrout

Post by Gary Carson

Post by KilgoreTrout
Well, this means they are just as prone to drawing unsupported

conclusions

Post by KilgoreTrout

Post by Gary Carson

Post by KilgoreTrout
as the theists. This has always been my problem with atheism. The only
logical position, based on physical fact, is that of the agnostic.

That's just not true.

I assume you are referring to the mythical razor?
Because that's the only argument I have heard about atheism that "gets off
the ground", so to speak. I don't think it's a good argument, mind you,
but I will concede that it is one worth considering.

What arguement? There is no arguement. Just like there is no God.
There is nothing rational about thinking that there "might be a God". It's

not

even a meaningful thing to say. Which God might there be?

Great argument. I concede. You have no idea what razor I am speaking of,
do you?

Just because I don't think it's relevant doesn't mean I don't know what you're
talking about.

You don't think it's relevant? That's interesting. I assume it's because
you have a stronger argument to present...

Post by Gary Carson
You fucking idiot.

Is that it?

Post by Gary Carson
There is no rational arguement for god. None. Period. There is no need to
compare competing arguments. There is no need to make an arguement that
there's no God.

First, we would have to define what one means by god/God. Then, we could
talk about the myriad of rational arguments for or against ver existence.
Then, we could talk about the rationality of the agnostic position.

These questions have occupied the minds of the greatest human thinkers for
millennia.

But, I suppose we could all just take yer word for it, and call it a day!

Post by Gary Carson
You worthless empty headed shit.

Ah! How clever! You are obviously implying that I simply do not exist,
by referencing the work of Descartes.

Very well-played, sir. I'll have to get back to you on that.

Post by Gary Carson
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com

________________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

[The WJR22]

ow they treat a segment of their

Post by Gary Carson

Post by KilgoreTrout
youth in SLC is particularly horrifying.

They should just send them off to be altar boys in Boston.
 
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com

Frankly, Having a priest put his cock in your kid's mouth is not
nearly as great a crime as the shit they put in his head.

WJR

[As Always, Kadie]

CLASSY!  (and that's not a word I use often...)

Post by KilgoreTrout
ow they treat a segment of their

Post by Gary Carson

Post by KilgoreTrout
youth in SLC is particularly horrifying.

They should just send them off to be altar boys in Boston.
 
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com

Frankly, Having a priest put his cock in your kid's mouth is not
nearly as great a crime as the shit they put in his head.
WJR

_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

[Tom White]

On Oct 29 2006 9:22 AM, Tom White wrote:
+ The irreligious display
+ more interest in theology than all but the most fervently
+ religious; their theological studies have informed them that
+ all religions are crap, none deserving of any support at all.

KilgoreTrout <***@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
+ Well, this means they are just as prone to drawing unsupported conclusions
+ as the theists. This has always been my problem with atheism. The only
+ logical position, based on physical fact, is that of the agnostic.

A theist will claim his knowledge that God exists comes from
his own direct perception or the reported direct perceptions
of others. An agnostic can complain about the testability
of those perceptions and refuse to use them to add to his
own knowledge, but he shouldn't complain about the general
method of adding to one's knowledge via perception.

Seems to me a fair agnostic would only charge a theist with
drawing inadequately supported conclusions.

[William Coleman]

"Tom White" <***@bulldogcountry.c0m.com> wrote in message news:ei5sj8$4rv$***@chessie.cirr.com...
: On Oct 29 2006 9:22 AM, Tom White wrote:
: + The irreligious display
: + more interest in theology than all but the most fervently
: + religious; their theological studies have informed them that
: + all religions are crap, none deserving of any support at all.
:
: KilgoreTrout <***@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
: + Well, this means they are just as prone to drawing unsupported
conclusions
: + as the theists. This has always been my problem with atheism. The only
: + logical position, based on physical fact, is that of the agnostic.
:
: A theist will claim his knowledge that God exists comes from
: his own direct perception or the reported direct perceptions
: of others. An agnostic can complain about the testability
: of those perceptions and refuse to use them to add to his
: own knowledge, but he shouldn't complain about the general
: method of adding to one's knowledge via perception.
:
: Seems to me a fair agnostic would only charge a theist with
: drawing inadequately supported conclusions.

Do you know of anyone who believes in God as a result of logical reasoning?

Those who believe in God do so either because of a theophany, or because of
faith. Those who rely on faith alone are the true saints of this world.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[Tom White]

"Tom White" <***@bulldogcountry.c0m.com> wrote in message
+ A theist will claim his knowledge that God exists comes from
+ his own direct perception or the reported direct perceptions
+ of others. An agnostic can complain about the testability
+ of those perceptions and refuse to use them to add to his
+ own knowledge, but he shouldn't complain about the general
+ method of adding to one's knowledge via perception.
+
+ Seems to me a fair agnostic would only charge a theist with
+ drawing inadequately supported conclusions.

William Coleman <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
+ Do you know of anyone who believes in God as a result of logical reasoning?
+
+ Those who believe in God do so either because of a theophany, or because of
+ faith. Those who rely on faith alone are the true saints of this world.

I wasn't going that far; I was stopping at Aristotle's
"knowledge begins with sense-experience" where a mind
receives sensory stimuli then matches the stimuli to a
pattern.

And I wasn't debating Divine existence, either. What I was
disputing was the atheist's contention that theists have a
mental defect. That contention has lately been expanded
to include agnostics, too. I now understand why an atheist
sees theists and agnostics that way; an atheist's mind must
contain at least one pattern that no possible set of sensory
stimuli can match.

Theists and agnostics left wondering "Wow, how can you
tell?" are in real danger of being sent to Iraq if they
don't wise up. I'll take an unmatchable John Kerry pattern,
if they're not all gone.

[William Coleman]

"Tom White" <***@bulldogcountry.c0m.com> wrote in message news:eiah4k$nhj$***@chessie.cirr.com...
: "Tom White" <***@bulldogcountry.c0m.com> wrote in message
: + A theist will claim his knowledge that God exists comes from
: + his own direct perception or the reported direct perceptions
: + of others. An agnostic can complain about the testability
: + of those perceptions and refuse to use them to add to his
: + own knowledge, but he shouldn't complain about the general
: + method of adding to one's knowledge via perception.
: +
: + Seems to me a fair agnostic would only charge a theist with
: + drawing inadequately supported conclusions.
:
: William Coleman <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
: + Do you know of anyone who believes in God as a result of logical
reasoning?
: +
: + Those who believe in God do so either because of a theophany, or because
of
: + faith. Those who rely on faith alone are the true saints of this world.
:
: I wasn't going that far; I was stopping at Aristotle's
: "knowledge begins with sense-experience" where a mind
: receives sensory stimuli then matches the stimuli to a
: pattern.

Ahh, but where does the pattern come from?

: And I wasn't debating Divine existence, either. What I was
: disputing was the atheist's contention that theists have a
: mental defect.

There is something seriously wrong with Atheists who feel the need to trash
and insult Theists. They are obviously very insecure about their beliefs.
Trashing organized religion? Sure. I still do that, even though I am a
Christian. See "The Roman Catholic Church is the Mother of Whores, and her
daughters, the Protestant Churches, are all whores."

But when I was an Atheist, which was most of my adult life, I never saw the
need to demean or denigrate others for believing in God. Nor do I see the
need now to bitchslap Atheists because they do not believe in God.

: That contention has lately been expanded
: to include agnostics, too. I now understand why an atheist
: sees theists and agnostics that way; an atheist's mind must
: contain at least one pattern that no possible set of sensory
: stimuli can match.

I do not understand exactly what you are trying to say here.

: Theists and agnostics left wondering "Wow, how can you
: tell?" are in real danger of being sent to Iraq if they
: don't wise up. I'll take an unmatchable John Kerry pattern,
: if they're not all gone.

Fuck John Kerry. He seems determined to throw another election to the
Republicans. It is obvious he was referring to George Bush when he said
"you will get stuck in Iraq." So why didn't he explicitly say that, instead
of making an ambiguous statement which gives Rush Limbaugh and company
plenty of ammunition to distract voters from the real issues and portray
Democrats as not supporting the troops?


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[Tom White]

"Tom White" <***@bulldogcountry.c0m.com> wrote in message
+ That contention has lately been expanded
+ to include agnostics, too. I now understand why an atheist
+ sees theists and agnostics that way; an atheist's mind must
+ contain at least one pattern that no possible set of sensory
+ stimuli can match.

William Coleman <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
+ I do not understand exactly what you are trying to say here.

"Hey, let's put on a show!"

THEIST - (describes his encounter with the Divine.)

AGNOSTIC - "I'm into horticulture; may I have a look at the
loquacious flaming plant?"

ATHEIST - "You mental defects. My brain has a pattern that
would recognize the sensory stimuli produced by any Divine
entity, but I'm smart enough to know that such stimuli cannot
occur.

THEIST and AGNOSTIC - "Dang, why couldn't we have been born
with good brains?"

[da pickle]

"Tom White"

Post by Tom White
THEIST and AGNOSTIC - "Dang, why couldn't we have been born
with good brains?"

You a funny guy!

[The WJR22]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:14:59 GMT, "William Coleman"

Post by William Coleman
: + The irreligious display
: + more interest in theology than all but the most fervently
: + religious; their theological studies have informed them that
: + all religions are crap, none deserving of any support at all.
: + Well, this means they are just as prone to drawing unsupported
conclusions
: + as the theists. This has always been my problem with atheism. The only
: + logical position, based on physical fact, is that of the agnostic.
: A theist will claim his knowledge that God exists comes from
: his own direct perception or the reported direct perceptions
: of others. An agnostic can complain about the testability
: of those perceptions and refuse to use them to add to his
: own knowledge, but he shouldn't complain about the general
: method of adding to one's knowledge via perception.
: Seems to me a fair agnostic would only charge a theist with
: drawing inadequately supported conclusions.
Do you know of anyone who believes in God as a result of logical reasoning?
Those who believe in God do so either because of a theophany, or because of
faith. Those who rely on faith alone are the true saints of this world.
William Coleman (ramashiva)

Religious faith is basically an attemt to make ignorance look like an
accomplishment.

WJR

"Faith is a wondrous thing; it is not only capable of moving
mountains, but also of making you believe that a herring is a race
horse." - Arthur Koestler.

"The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of
bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience
merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be
believed only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called
"faith". --Robert G. Ingersoll

[Omaha8_Beach]

One of the most common criticism of Mother Teresa, (which of course is
also a criticism of the Catholic Church) is her stance on birth
control. By promoting birth control methods outside those sanctioned
by the Catholic Church, she could have decreased some of the human
suffering in the world during her lifetime.

Ken

Post by MrBookworm

Post by Lute
So okay, whenever you wish to bash Christians, you pick out the worst
examples you can find and attack their hypocrisy. But I kind of notice
that no one ever levels their big guns against people like, for
example, the late Mother Teresa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Theresa#Controversy_and_critics
The main complaint is that she didn't go out of her way to end human
suffering, rather she found the downtrodden a good source of converts.
Personally, I think mankind would be much better off if organized religion
had never been invented.
Dean
=============== My Affiliate Links ===============
---deleted----
----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

[OrangeSFO]

Post by Lute
In a couple of threads now, I've noticed that one or two people feel it
necessary to work in some way to bash Christians.

Well you can blame the nutjob evangelical wing of American Christianity
which has made it its mission to cheapen the concept of spiritual
faith.

They've brought it on themselves...and you.

[The WJR22]

Post by OrangeSFO

Post by Lute
In a couple of threads now, I've noticed that one or two people feel it
necessary to work in some way to bash Christians.

Well you can blame the nutjob evangelical wing of American Christianity
which has made it its mission to cheapen the concept of spiritual
faith.
They've brought it on themselves...and you

Christains don't seem even a little reluctant to bash everyone else.
In fact, they make their livings by telling us that every person God
ever created was fit to be damned the moment he was born.
It never fails to amaze me as to how ignorant believers are of their
own "most cherished" beliefs.

Here are a few of dozens of examples:

PSALMS: Chapter 14
1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt,
they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

DEUTERONOMY:Chapter 13

6 If thy BROTHER, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter,
or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul,
entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which
thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him
to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

Here's the advice of The Prince of Peace Himself.

LUKE: Chapter 19

27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over
them, bring hither, and SLAY them before me.

Jesus, no doubt because of His infinite mercy, is also kind enough to
give us the following gem:

MATTHEW:Chapter 10

34 Think not that I am come to send PEACE on earth: I came not to send
PEACE, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her
mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

This is probably the only Biblical prophecy that actually did come
true. The funny thing is that they call this "The Good News."

WJR