| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"loose cannon" |
| Date: |
05 Jun 2005 04:13:45 PM |
| Object: |
America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism? |
America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism?
[Excerpts reprinted with permission from Linda Kimball]
Once upon a time, not too awfully long ago, America was known as the
'shining city on the hill.' America, the most radical experiment
in the history of the world, was the only nation to which people
oppressed and repressed by old world systems of social classes and
castes could be free of the stifling bindings engendered by those man
created constraints. She was a Judao-Christian nation where God of the
bible, and not an elite ruling class, was sovereign over all.
America was the land of hope, promise and opportunity,
where not only all men were equal before God's eyes, but where all
human life from conception to natural death, was gifted by God with
intrinsic worth. Because our Founders believed in the existence of a
transcendent sovereign Creator, they declared that belief in the
Declaration of Independence where it is written that our rights are
endowed to us from our Creator and thus are inalienable, which means
not from man. Under the aegis of the Judao-Christian worldview,
Americans were able to work towards a civilization of excellence and
virtue wherein natural families and their children could grow and
thrive in safety and security. America was also a civilization where
individual liberty could be maximized to the fullest in the absence of
strangling webs of manmade laws since followers of Judao-Christianity
were guided by the Golden Rule and voluntarily exercised self-control
over destructive impulses for the common good of all. As Augustine
said, "Human law cannot punish or forbid all evil, since while doing
away with evils it would do away with many good things which would
hinder the advance of the common good."
Alas, America is no longer a shining city on the hill because under the
influence of militant atheism and transnational socialism fueled by
Darwin's theory of evolution, as well as Marx's influence, she has
been turning her back on God and the Judao-Christian moral principles
upon which she was founded. As a result, our once decent, orderly
civilization has regressed to a state of 'almost anything goes'
permissiveness and outright barbarianism where the common good has been
displaced by the demands and desires of the few. Human life is no
longer sacred and is now liberally aborted away even as militant
atheist bio-ethicists busily seduce Americans to accept the idea of
euthanasia, under the guise of quality of life. Where before our
Creator was understood to have endowed all human beings with a right to
life, secular militant atheists have taken away that right and very
predictably replaced it with the "right to die." Dostoevsky
predicted this would occur when he wrote, "If God is dead, then all
things are permissible." Nietzsche concurs: "God is dead...the
heroic individualist is no longer bound to a traditional slave
morality, but is creating his own."
Nietzschean secular humanists, socialists, and militant atheists who
call themselves 'free thinkers' are shaping our culture and
politics, and what they are determined to create is an atheistic
America. By definition, free thinkers are people who reject authority
and religion in favor of what they refer to as "rational inquiry and
speculation based upon science." But they have elevated science to a
philosophy (even a religion) and what they call reason is nothing but
the constantly changing fickle whims that arise from unbounded
self-idolization, selfish desires, and wishful thinking. In this way,
as in so many other ways, free thinkers have not risen one inch above
their ancient pagan ancestors. The free thinkers sitting on the U.S.
Supreme Court who have made highhanded rulings based on world law
rather than on American law provide a good example of capricious
decision making sans fixed moral ethics.
Richard Dawkins is one of the free thinkers 'leading lights,' and
in an ambiguous way, he alluded to whom he believes should be the
ultimate source of morality in his book When Religion Steps on
Science's Turf. He wrote, 'No civilized person uses Scripture as
ultimate authority for moral reasoning." He qualified this just a
bit, by saying that there is an alternate source: "That alternate
source seems to be some kind of liberal consensus of decency and
natural justice that changes over historical time, frequently under the
influence of secular reformists. Admittedly, that doesn't sound like
bedrock. In practice we more or less ignore Scripture, quoting it when
it supports our liberal consensus, quietly forgetting it when it
doesn't. And wherever that liberal consensus comes from, it is
available to us all."
What Dawkins is saying, in a vaguely worded manner, is that when it
behooves people like him to pretend to believe Scripture, they will do
so, but that in reality the real source of moral authority is people
like himself: "intellectually superior" human animals.
Dawkins' smug claim shines a light on the incoherency and
self-contradictory nature of scientific naturalism. By declaring
himself and those like him to be the source of moral authority, he
exempts himself and his cohorts from the framework they prescribe for
everyone else, implying that human beings are worthless matter
operating without reason or purpose, directed by (merely) natural
forces. Dawkins is obviously stating that he is a superior being
capable of rational thought, of free consideration, of formulating
theories, of recognizing objective truth, and of being morally
discerning. This places him and his fellow scientists outside and
above the mindless material causes which supposedly order of the rest
of us. But intelligence and ideas are not the result of mindless,
non-directed particles crashing into each other inside our brains. To
believe so is irrational.
I found a further example of the incoherent and contradictory reasoning
of Dawkins "free thinking," on a secular humanist forum where they
had a "frequently asked questions" section. A questioner reverently
asked Dawkins if evolution has a purpose. Dawkins responded
emphatically, "[it] has nothing to do with survival of the species.
If anything it is the passing of genes. Really there is NO
purpose...It is simply that those genes that DO survive are the ones we
see...There is no higher purpose...The only higher purposes in the
universe are to be found in evolved brains such as our own when we have
conscious purpose to achieve...our brains are so accustomed to this
that they falsely...ascribe purpose where it doesn't exist."
Did you catch that clumsy verbal sleight of hand? Notice the initial
absence of purpose. Then, almost immediately there is a higher purpose
so long as it's for "evolved brains such as our own" that seek to
"achieve a purpose." Then to escape from the mess of
contradictions has he created, he does what all morally defective
narcissists do... he creates another incoherent contrivance. In
effect, Dawkins says that when the brain is consciously trying to
achieve a purpose, it's actually fooling itself into believing it is
achieving a purpose that it knows nothing about, since purpose has
never existed in the first place. This web-weaver of incoherency is a
leading light of academia?
Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist, is another secular human
leading light. Perhaps because he felt secure in speechifying before
some of his fellow cohorts, he decided to be forthcoming with the
truth, when he declared "many scientific theories are no more than
unsubstantiated just-so stories...in the struggle between science and
the supernatural [we] take the side of science because we have a prior
commitment to materialism."
In other words, hatred towards God and Christian-Judao morality is not
premised upon facts but on cobbled together contrivances. Lewontin
audaciously attests to this when he startlingly admits, "we are
forced by our a priori adherence
to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of
concepts that produce material explanation."
So, the science of secular humanism is quackery. Its authority is
nothing but a web of ideologically contrived deceptions presided over
by snake-oil salesmen pretending to be scientists.
These hateful, narcissistic frauds apparently believe that along with
Hitler, Mao, Marx, Stalin, and Lenin, they, instead of mankind's
Creator, are capable of being the earthly judge of right and wrong.
Two of the wrongs according to Dawkins are religion, which he terms an
intellectual virus, and parents having the right to instruct their
children in religious faith. Dawkins declares, "Society, for no
reason that I can discern, accepts that parents must have an automatic
right to bring their children up with particular religious opinions and
can withdraw them from say, biology classes that teach evolution."
It isn't enough that these self-worshipping tyrants have reduced all
Americans, excluding themselves, to nothing but worthless matter with
no reason or purpose to exist. Nor is it enough for them that by
unleashing the destructive effects of their hell-born ideology upon
America they have managed to bring her to the edge of the abyss. No,
these devils will not be satisfied until they have managed to leech
every last drop of good from America and have forced every American to
become as miserable and hateful as they themselves are.
Two astute statesmen from our past left these words of wisdom for us.
The first, Thomas Jefferson, warned us, "God who gave us life gave us
liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we
have removed their only basis, a conviction in the minds of people that
these liberties are the Gift of God?" The second, William Penn,
cautioned soberly, "If we will not be governed by God, we must be
governed by tyrants."
Let us choose wisely: choose God.
.
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism? |
05 Jun 2005 05:13:30 PM |
|
|
"loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1118006025.013271.114930@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism?
[Excerpts reprinted with permission from Linda Kimball]
Once upon a time, not too awfully long ago, America was known as the
'shining city on the hill.' America, the most radical experiment
in the history of the world, was the only nation to which people
oppressed and repressed by old world systems of social classes and
castes could be free of the stifling bindings engendered by those man
created constraints. She was a Judao-Christian nation where God of the
bible,
Nope.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism? |
05 Jun 2005 05:05:50 PM |
|
|
"loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> wrote in news:1118006025.013271.114930
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism?
[Excerpts reprinted with permission from Linda Kimball]
Once upon a time, not too awfully long ago, America was known as the
'shining city on the hill.' America, the most radical experiment
in the history of the world, was the only nation to which people
oppressed and repressed by old world systems of social classes and
castes could be free of the stifling bindings engendered by those man
created constraints. She was a Judao-Christian nation where God of the
bible, and not an elite ruling class, was sovereign over all.
America was the land of hope, promise and opportunity,
where not only all men were equal before God's eyes, but where all
human life from conception to natural death, was gifted by God with
intrinsic worth. Because our Founders believed in the existence of a
transcendent sovereign Creator, they declared that belief in the
Declaration of Independence where it is written that our rights are
endowed to us from our Creator and thus are inalienable, which means
not from man. Under the aegis of the Judao-Christian worldview,
Americans were able to work towards a civilization of excellence and
virtue wherein natural families and their children could grow and
thrive in safety and security.
The genocide of the indiginous people. Yeah really cool that.
Fucking religious *****, take your vile religion and shove it up your
arse.
Remaining hate-filled ***** cut.....
Let us choose wisely: choose God.
Nope, to chose wisely the vile concept of God has to be eradicated.
Christianity removes rights, not gives them.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism? |
05 Jun 2005 06:48:32 PM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:Xns966CEAF8F75BFhellward@216.196.109.145...
"loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> wrote in news:1118006025.013271.114930
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism?
[Excerpts reprinted with permission from Linda Kimball]
Once upon a time, not too awfully long ago, America was known as the
'shining city on the hill.'
Yeah, right. Especially among, say, the 3 or 4 million murdered Vietnamese
peasants, and the tens of millions of other Vietnamese who've tried to make
a life for themselves and their families in a country whose water, land,
food and gene-pool have all been irreparably polluted...
America, the most radical experiment in the history of the world, was the
only nation to which people
oppressed and repressed by old world systems of social classes and
castes could be free of the stifling bindings engendered by those man
created constraints.
Unless they were *black*...
She was a Judao-Christian nation where God of the
bible, and not an elite ruling class, was sovereign over all.
Oh, for *****'s sake! Can someone please enlighten this 'tard about the
nature of the Constitution; the inalienable right of Americans to pay
absolutely no fucking attention whatsoever to the cartoon-characters of
'Christianity', and the essential separation of Church and State....? I'd
love to go through it all myself; but I'm afraid my physician forbids me to
spend time responding to people with single-figure IQs...
Let us choose wisely: choose God.
Hang on - didn't I see that in *a film* somewhere...?
<cue 'Lust for Life' by Iggy Pop>
'Choose God'?
"Choose lies. Choose a Job. Choose a church. Choose a Holy Family. Choose a
fucking big Bible. Choose brain-washing machines, beliefs, compact *****
priests and electrical boy-openers. Choose 'good news', low intelligence,
and homophobia. Choose fixed-incest mid-west revivalists. Choose a stigmata
home. Choose your fiends. Choose creationism and matching rubbish. Choose
'ID' and wondering why the ***** you can't stay in bed on a Sunday morning.
Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing
televangelists, stuffing cheques in those envelopes. Choose praying
pathetically at the end of it all, pleading for 'more time' in a miserable
home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you
spawned because you couldn't fucking abort them. Choose a wholly imaginary
after-death 'future'. *Choose God!*... But why would I want to do a thing
like that? I chose not to choose God. I chose somethin' better. And the
reasons? There are plenty of reasons! There's *no fucking shortage* of
reasons when you've got ... *atheistic Darwinism*...!"
Isn't that how it went...?
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism? |
05 Jun 2005 08:26:45 PM |
|
|
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in message
news:kbMoe.1141$ls3.693@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
She was a Judao-Christian nation where God of the
bible, and not an elite ruling class, was sovereign over all.
Oh, for *****'s sake! Can someone please enlighten this 'tard about the
nature of the Constitution;
Unfortunately, no.
NeoChristians detest enlightenment, education and intelligence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism? |
05 Jun 2005 08:49:47 PM |
|
|
Insane crossposting pedophile IBenGetiner/JYoung forging as"loose cannon"
<looseaint@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1118006025.013271.114930@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism?
<JYoung/IBenGetiner's crap flushed>
<yawn>
Well, at least this troll knows who owns him:
From: "loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,tx.politics,soc.culture.jewish,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,seattle.politics
Subject: America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism?
Date: 5 Jun 2005 14:13:45 -0700
Message-ID: <1118006025.013271.114930@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.203
From: "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.penpals
Subject: Horton man charged with sodomy, rape
Date: 18 May 2005 22:21:02 -0700
Message-ID: <1116480062.219216.153450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.203
From: "IBen Getiner" <Lappcatt@AOL.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "Congress Shall Make No Law......"
Date: 13 Dec 2004 02:20:41 -0800
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.203
LC~ Anyone want him?
"anal stimulation with a ***** helps enhance the spanking experience."
From: (Jon Young), obviously looking forward to
another spanking.
Newsgroups: soc.sexuality.spanking
Subject: best done with help
Date: 5 Oct 2003 18:00:43 -0700
Message-ID: <567f3dc3.0310051700.31b4eb95@posting.google.com>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charlie Wilkes" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
05 Jun 2005 05:03:43 PM |
|
|
On 5 Jun 2005 14:13:45 -0700, "loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com>
wrote:
Let us choose wisely: choose God.
A bunch of lobsters sat in a tank at a fancy restaurant early one
Saturday morning. Most appeared sullen and unhappy. But in one
corner of the tank was a congregation of happy lobsters.
"Hallelujah!" they sang. "The Great Tongs is coming. Blessed be the
name of the Great Tongs. We gonna be saved for all eternity!"
At 6 p.m. the restaurant opened to serve dinner, and by midnight the
tank was empty, every lobster having been boiled and eaten.
So which is a better way to pass your time -- seeing the world for
what it is, like the sullen lobsters, or deluding yourself with
***** like the happy lobsters?
Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
05 Jun 2005 05:52:13 PM |
|
|
"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:vsr6a159tjqsn81ftsig6hc2pmhdibm9u3@4ax.com...
On 5 Jun 2005 14:13:45 -0700, "loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com>
So which is a better way to pass your time -- seeing the world for
what it is, like the sullen lobsters, or deluding yourself with
***** like the happy lobsters?
Seeing the world for what it is - and being happy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charlie Wilkes" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
05 Jun 2005 06:19:46 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:52:13 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:vsr6a159tjqsn81ftsig6hc2pmhdibm9u3@4ax.com...
On 5 Jun 2005 14:13:45 -0700, "loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com>
So which is a better way to pass your time -- seeing the world for
what it is, like the sullen lobsters, or deluding yourself with
***** like the happy lobsters?
Seeing the world for what it is - and being happy.
That works for some people. But people whose lives have been
disappointing can't be happy unless they can convince themselves the
whole thing is a proving ground for something better and more durable.
That is why Christianity is such a good social medicine -- it gives
losers a reason to show up for work on Monday morning with a smile
instead of a loaded gun.
Scientists have no such reassuring story to tell.
Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
05 Jun 2005 08:26:45 PM |
|
|
"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:3l17a1114pddm3f92jqltknvk54pd2e5es@4ax.com...
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:52:13 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
That works for some people. But people whose lives have been
disappointing can't be happy unless they can convince themselves the
whole thing is a proving ground for something better and more durable.
That is why Christianity is such a good social medicine -- it gives
losers a reason to show up for work on Monday morning with a smile
instead of a loaded gun.
Scientists have no such reassuring story to tell.
I like your style.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
05 Jun 2005 08:42:53 PM |
|
|
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:52:13 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman" <unsentt@kaufman.net>
wrote:
"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:vsr6a159tjqsn81ftsig6hc2pmhdibm9u3@4ax.com...
On 5 Jun 2005 14:13:45 -0700, "loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com>
So which is a better way to pass your time -- seeing the world for what
it is, like the sullen lobsters, or deluding yourself with *****
like the happy lobsters?
Seeing the world for what it is - and being happy.
That works for some people. But people whose lives have been
disappointing can't be happy unless they can convince themselves the whole
thing is a proving ground for something better and more durable.
So what? :-)
That is why Christianity is such a good social medicine -- it gives losers
a reason to show up for work on Monday morning with a smile instead of a
loaded gun.
Kinda like being stoned gives one a reason to post on usenet and ***** of
Xtians, right?
But seriously...
Scientists have no such reassuring story to tell.
They don't need one. They show up for work because they *love studying
things.*
--
"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats who don't know what's
going on." -- Robert Kennedy, Jr.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charlie Wilkes" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
06 Jun 2005 05:12:58 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 18:42:53 -0700, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
wrote:
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:52:13 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman" <unsentt@kaufman.net>
wrote:
"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:vsr6a159tjqsn81ftsig6hc2pmhdibm9u3@4ax.com...
On 5 Jun 2005 14:13:45 -0700, "loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com>
So which is a better way to pass your time -- seeing the world for what
it is, like the sullen lobsters, or deluding yourself with *****
like the happy lobsters?
Seeing the world for what it is - and being happy.
That works for some people. But people whose lives have been
disappointing can't be happy unless they can convince themselves the whole
thing is a proving ground for something better and more durable.
So what? :-)
It's my basic premise, Paul, that's "so what."
That is why Christianity is such a good social medicine -- it gives losers
a reason to show up for work on Monday morning with a smile instead of a
loaded gun.
Kinda like being stoned gives one a reason to post on usenet and ***** of
Xtians, right?
But seriously...
Scientists have no such reassuring story to tell.
They don't need one. They show up for work because they *love studying
things.*
No, but the essay that started this thread, for all its low-brow
hostility, makes a valid point. Christianity is an important element
of western culture. In contrast, the universe described by science
doesn't come with a built-in morality. Nor does it come with any
eternal rewards. It's pretty much a platform for self-indulgent
nihilism.
Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
06 Jun 2005 01:05:27 PM |
|
|
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 18:42:53 -0700, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
wrote:
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
[..]
Scientists have no such reassuring story to tell.
They don't need one. They show up for work because they *love studying
things.*
No, but the essay that started this thread, for all its low-brow
hostility, makes a valid point. Christianity is an important element of
western culture. In contrast, the universe described by science doesn't
come with a built-in morality. Nor does it come with any eternal rewards.
It's pretty much a platform for self-indulgent nihilism.
No, Charlie, that's not true. Science is a platform for understanding
the world. It doesn't lay claim to moral certainty.
Furthermore, religion through the ages has been a platform for
self-indulgence and even nihilism. Human beings have a remarkable
ability to self-justify their self-indulgence. Even in the context of
religion, they're capable of saying their will is God's will, no matter
what horrors they're perpetrating.
The *only* platform for a selfless morality is a combination of humility
and compassion. One can gain this kind of self-discipline from religion,
just as one can gain it from studying the universe scientifically. But
one has to set out on that path of one's own volition; otherwise it
won't happen just because you go to church every Sunday or whatever. You
have to *want* to be a moral being, and it is painfully apparent that
this is not the goal of most people in the world. Especially those who
complain the loudest about the alleged moral corruption of America.
And, beyond that, in order to make a point about the moral vacuum of
science, you're citing an essay that is openly hostile to moral people,
calling them 'militant atheists' who want to take over America and
dictate a certain morality to everyone, which is not only a hostile
characterization but a lie, as well. That's why the essay is *****:
It is an *example* of the moral relativism it seeks to criticize. It's
rhetoric whose goal is to take over America and dictate a certain
morality to everyone, the very thing it criticizes in others.
With cites like that, you can't hope to make your point.
--
"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats who don't know what's
going on." -- Robert Kennedy, Jr.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
06 Jun 2005 03:09:59 PM |
|
|
You are an idiot -- the world would have been much better off without
the false pagan idol-worshipping religion of christianity.
"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:e248a1t65solaia31s1m0015782lbsjr1c@4ax.com...
: On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 18:42:53 -0700, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
: wrote:
:
:
: No, but the essay that started this thread, for all its low-brow
: hostility, makes a valid point. Christianity is an important element
: of western culture. In contrast, the universe described by science
: doesn't come with a built-in morality. Nor does it come with any
: eternal rewards. It's pretty much a platform for self-indulgent
: nihilism.
:
: Charlie
:
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charlie Wilkes" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
06 Jun 2005 07:28:06 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 23:09:59 +0300, "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton"
<riain@zion.org.il> wrote:
You are an idiot -- the world would have been much better off without
the false pagan idol-worshipping religion of christianity.
Bah. Save the spewage for someone who might be offended. My point is
that science doesn't leave much room for hope, if you are one of those
people who would like to think your life means something.
Charlie
"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:e248a1t65solaia31s1m0015782lbsjr1c@4ax.com...
: On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 18:42:53 -0700, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
: wrote:
:
:
: No, but the essay that started this thread, for all its low-brow
: hostility, makes a valid point. Christianity is an important element
: of western culture. In contrast, the universe described by science
: doesn't come with a built-in morality. Nor does it come with any
: eternal rewards. It's pretty much a platform for self-indulgent
: nihilism.
:
: Charlie
:
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
06 Jun 2005 09:26:51 PM |
|
|
"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:f1q9a1h0q15cdbrhn02g69rkdiko97fims@4ax.com...
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 23:09:59 +0300, "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton"
<riain@zion.org.il> wrote:
You are an idiot -- the world would have been much better off without
the false pagan idol-worshipping religion of christianity.
Bah. Save the spewage for someone who might be offended. My point is
that science doesn't leave much room for hope, if you are one of those
people who would like to think your life means something.
That's horseshit too, Chux.
Religion is no more necessary for "meaning" than morality.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charlie Wilkes" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
06 Jun 2005 10:42:26 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 19:26:51 -0700, "Clave"
<ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote:
"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:f1q9a1h0q15cdbrhn02g69rkdiko97fims@4ax.com...
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 23:09:59 +0300, "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton"
<riain@zion.org.il> wrote:
You are an idiot -- the world would have been much better off without
the false pagan idol-worshipping religion of christianity.
Bah. Save the spewage for someone who might be offended. My point is
that science doesn't leave much room for hope, if you are one of those
people who would like to think your life means something.
That's horseshit too, Chux.
Religion is no more necessary for "meaning" than morality.
Jim
Then why has some form of religion been nearly universal throughout
human history? What about all the religious buildings and shrines
that have been erected at great expense? Religion must be necessary
for something.
Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
06 Jun 2005 11:59:37 PM |
|
|
"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:6v4aa11ank24pufhtc1qel22b67qr9mksf@4ax.com...
<ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote:
Then why has some form of religion been nearly universal throughout
human history? What about all the religious buildings and shrines
that have been erected at great expense? Religion must be necessary
for something.
Some form of murder has been nearly universal throughout human history too.
By your twisted logic, murder is necessary and good.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
06 Jun 2005 10:52:30 PM |
|
|
"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:6v4aa11ank24pufhtc1qel22b67qr9mksf@4ax.com...
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 19:26:51 -0700, "Clave"
<ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote:
"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:f1q9a1h0q15cdbrhn02g69rkdiko97fims@4ax.com...
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 23:09:59 +0300, "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton"
<riain@zion.org.il> wrote:
You are an idiot -- the world would have been much better off without
the false pagan idol-worshipping religion of christianity.
Bah. Save the spewage for someone who might be offended. My point is
that science doesn't leave much room for hope, if you are one of those
people who would like to think your life means something.
That's horseshit too, Chux.
Religion is no more necessary for "meaning" than morality.
Jim
Then why has some form of religion been nearly universal throughout
human history? What about all the religious buildings and shrines
that have been erected at great expense? Religion must be necessary
for something.
Something can serve a purpose without being necessary for it.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
06 Jun 2005 11:43:46 PM |
|
|
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in
news:6v4aa11ank24pufhtc1qel22b67qr9mksf@4ax.com:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 19:26:51 -0700, "Clave"
<ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote:
"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:f1q9a1h0q15cdbrhn02g69rkdiko97fims@4ax.com...
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 23:09:59 +0300, "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton"
<riain@zion.org.il> wrote:
You are an idiot -- the world would have been much better off
without the false pagan idol-worshipping religion of christianity.
Bah. Save the spewage for someone who might be offended. My point
is that science doesn't leave much room for hope, if you are one of
those people who would like to think your life means something.
That's horseshit too, Chux.
Religion is no more necessary for "meaning" than morality.
Jim
Then why has some form of religion been nearly universal throughout
human history? What about all the religious buildings and shrines
that have been erected at great expense? Religion must be necessary
for something.
Charlie
It's been necessary for the religious leaders & politicians to control,
indoctrinate and fleece the masses.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
06 Jun 2005 11:52:05 PM |
|
|
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns966E80FC4F67wodencharternet@69.28.186.121...
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in
news:6v4aa11ank24pufhtc1qel22b67qr9mksf@4ax.com:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 19:26:51 -0700, "Clave"
<ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote:
"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:f1q9a1h0q15cdbrhn02g69rkdiko97fims@4ax.com...
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 23:09:59 +0300, "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton"
<riain@zion.org.il> wrote:
You are an idiot -- the world would have been much better off
without the false pagan idol-worshipping religion of christianity.
Bah. Save the spewage for someone who might be offended. My point
is that science doesn't leave much room for hope, if you are one of
those people who would like to think your life means something.
That's horseshit too, Chux.
Religion is no more necessary for "meaning" than morality.
Jim
Then why has some form of religion been nearly universal throughout
human history? What about all the religious buildings and shrines
that have been erected at great expense? Religion must be necessary
for something.
Charlie
It's been necessary for the religious leaders & politicians to control,
indoctrinate and fleece the masses.
Hence the outrage over scientific advances.
I'd still argue the "necessary" part -- it's been useful, I won't argue that.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
07 Jun 2005 07:12:30 AM |
|
|
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in
news:WtednZBhT_TwujjfRVn-uQ@cablespeedwa.com:
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns966E80FC4F67wodencharternet@69.28.186.121...
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in
news:6v4aa11ank24pufhtc1qel22b67qr9mksf@4ax.com:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 19:26:51 -0700, "Clave"
<ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote:
"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in
message news:f1q9a1h0q15cdbrhn02g69rkdiko97fims@4ax.com...
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 23:09:59 +0300, "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton"
<riain@zion.org.il> wrote:
You are an idiot -- the world would have been much better off
without the false pagan idol-worshipping religion of christianity.
Bah. Save the spewage for someone who might be offended. My
point is that science doesn't leave much room for hope, if you are
one of those people who would like to think your life means
something.
That's horseshit too, Chux.
Religion is no more necessary for "meaning" than morality.
Jim
Then why has some form of religion been nearly universal throughout
human history? What about all the religious buildings and shrines
that have been erected at great expense? Religion must be necessary
for something.
Charlie
It's been necessary for the religious leaders & politicians to
control, indoctrinate and fleece the masses.
Hence the outrage over scientific advances.
I'd still argue the "necessary" part -- it's been useful, I won't
argue that.
I guess some of those religious and political leaders might argue that it
was "necessary" for them to achieve their fame & fortune.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
07 Jun 2005 07:12:50 AM |
|
|
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in
news:WtednZBhT_TwujjfRVn-uQ@cablespeedwa.com:
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns966E80FC4F67wodencharternet@69.28.186.121...
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in
news:6v4aa11ank24pufhtc1qel22b67qr9mksf@4ax.com:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 19:26:51 -0700, "Clave"
<ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote:
"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in
message news:f1q9a1h0q15cdbrhn02g69rkdiko97fims@4ax.com...
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 23:09:59 +0300, "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton"
<riain@zion.org.il> wrote:
You are an idiot -- the world would have been much better off
without the false pagan idol-worshipping religion of christianity.
Bah. Save the spewage for someone who might be offended. My
point is that science doesn't leave much room for hope, if you are
one of those people who would like to think your life means
something.
That's horseshit too, Chux.
Religion is no more necessary for "meaning" than morality.
Jim
Then why has some form of religion been nearly universal throughout
human history? What about all the religious buildings and shrines
that have been erected at great expense? Religion must be necessary
for something.
Charlie
It's been necessary for the religious leaders & politicians to
control, indoctrinate and fleece the masses.
Hence the outrage over scientific advances.
I'd still argue the "necessary" part -- it's been useful, I won't
argue that.
I guess some of those religious and political leaders might argue that it
was "necessary" for them to achieve their fame & fortune.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
09 Jun 2005 09:25:10 AM |
|
|
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in
news:6v4aa11ank24pufhtc1qel22b67qr9mksf@4ax.com:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 19:26:51 -0700, "Clave"
<ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote:
"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:f1q9a1h0q15cdbrhn02g69rkdiko97fims@4ax.com...
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 23:09:59 +0300, "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton"
<riain@zion.org.il> wrote:
You are an idiot -- the world would have been much better off
without the false pagan idol-worshipping religion of christianity.
Bah. Save the spewage for someone who might be offended. My point
is that science doesn't leave much room for hope, if you are one of
those people who would like to think your life means something.
That's horseshit too, Chux.
Religion is no more necessary for "meaning" than morality.
Jim
Then why has some form of religion been nearly universal throughout
human history? What about all the religious buildings and shrines
that have been erected at great expense? Religion must be necessary
for something.
Yip. Control of the population, based on fear.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'- Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charlie Wilkes" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
10 Jun 2005 12:22:18 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:25:10 -0500, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in
news:6v4aa11ank24pufhtc1qel22b67qr9mksf@4ax.com:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 19:26:51 -0700, "Clave"
<ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote:
"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:f1q9a1h0q15cdbrhn02g69rkdiko97fims@4ax.com...
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 23:09:59 +0300, "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton"
<riain@zion.org.il> wrote:
You are an idiot -- the world would have been much better off
without the false pagan idol-worshipping religion of christianity.
Bah. Save the spewage for someone who might be offended. My point
is that science doesn't leave much room for hope, if you are one of
those people who would like to think your life means something.
That's horseshit too, Chux.
Religion is no more necessary for "meaning" than morality.
Jim
Then why has some form of religion been nearly universal throughout
human history? What about all the religious buildings and shrines
that have been erected at great expense? Religion must be necessary
for something.
Yip. Control of the population, based on fear.
It is better than lying to the population by telling them marijuana is
medicine.
Have you ever seen "Wild in the Streets" with Hal Holbrook? It is a
cautionary tale about what would happen if the druggies took over.
Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
10 Jun 2005 02:50:36 AM |
|
|
"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:gs8ia1thp7dins8bkeq2asobbv267muqr7@4ax.com...
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:25:10 -0500, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
<...>
Yip. Control of the population, based on fear.
It is better than lying to the population by telling them marijuana is
medicine.
You can't be this bored.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
10 Jun 2005 11:09:34 AM |
|
|
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in
news:gs8ia1thp7dins8bkeq2asobbv267muqr7@4ax.com:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:25:10 -0500, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in
news:6v4aa11ank24pufhtc1qel22b67qr9mksf@4ax.com:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 19:26:51 -0700, "Clave"
<ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote:
"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:f1q9a1h0q15cdbrhn02g69rkdiko97fims@4ax.com...
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 23:09:59 +0300, "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton"
<riain@zion.org.il> wrote:
You are an idiot -- the world would have been much better off
without the false pagan idol-worshipping religion of christianity.
Bah. Save the spewage for someone who might be offended. My point
is that science doesn't leave much room for hope, if you are one of
those people who would like to think your life means something.
That's horseshit too, Chux.
Religion is no more necessary for "meaning" than morality.
Jim
Then why has some form of religion been nearly universal throughout
human history? What about all the religious buildings and shrines
that have been erected at great expense? Religion must be necessary
for something.
Yip. Control of the population, based on fear.
It is better than lying to the population by telling them marijuana is
medicine.
Cannabis, IS a medicine. That a fucking twat like you doesn't agree is
meaningless.
The IDF agrees :
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?
pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1091589016749
http://makeashorterlink.com/?S2A116B3B
Have you ever seen "Wild in the Streets" with Hal Holbrook? It is a
cautionary tale about what would happen if the druggies took over.
LOL, your ignorance just keeps shining through 'Druggies'.
Just ***** will ya, moron ? Your clueless, and not worth the effort of
typing to.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
10 Jun 2005 01:53:56 AM |
|
|
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:25:10 -0500, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in
news:6v4aa11ank24pufhtc1qel22b67qr9mksf@4ax.com:
[..]
Then why has some form of religion been nearly universal throughout
human history? What about all the religious buildings and shrines that
have been erected at great expense? Religion must be necessary for
something.
Yip. Control of the population, based on fear.
It is better than lying to the population by telling them marijuana is
medicine.
Why do you believe it's better?
--
"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats who don't know what's
going on." -- Robert Kennedy, Jr.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charlie Wilkes" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
10 Jun 2005 05:30:28 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 23:53:56 -0700, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
wrote:
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:25:10 -0500, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in
news:6v4aa11ank24pufhtc1qel22b67qr9mksf@4ax.com:
[..]
Then why has some form of religion been nearly universal throughout
human history? What about all the religious buildings and shrines that
have been erected at great expense? Religion must be necessary for
something.
Yip. Control of the population, based on fear.
It is better than lying to the population by telling them marijuana is
medicine.
Why do you believe it's better?
Have you ever seen "Wild in the Streets" with Hal Holbrook? The
hippies take over and herd everyone over the age of 30 to internment
camps, where they are given huge doses of LSD.
That is secular humanism in a nutshell. Control the public with
pleasure. Tell them recreational drugs are good medicine.
Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
10 Jun 2005 11:10:33 AM |
|
|
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in
news:1cqia15godsb8j0ubcjltq764aqtmseb57@4ax.com:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 23:53:56 -0700, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
wrote:
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:25:10 -0500, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in
news:6v4aa11ank24pufhtc1qel22b67qr9mksf@4ax.com:
[..]
Then why has some form of religion been nearly universal
throughout human history? What about all the religious buildings
and shrines that have been erected at great expense? Religion
must be necessary for something.
Yip. Control of the population, based on fear.
It is better than lying to the population by telling them marijuana
is medicine.
Why do you believe it's better?
Have you ever seen "Wild in the Streets" with Hal Holbrook? The
hippies take over and herd everyone over the age of 30 to internment
camps, where they are given huge doses of LSD.
That is secular humanism in a nutshell. Control the public with
pleasure. Tell them recreational drugs are good medicine.
LOL, seems you can't tell the difference between FICTION and life !
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Otis B. Driftwood" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: Sullen Lobsters or Happy Lobsters? |
10 Jun 2005 05:36:18 AM |
|
|
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 23:53:56 -0700, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
wrote:
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:25:10 -0500, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in
news:6v4aa11ank24pufhtc1qel22b67qr9mksf@4ax.com:
[..]
Then why has some form of religion been nearly universal throughout
human history? What about all the religious buildings and shrines that
have been erected at great expense? Religion must be necessary for
something.
Yip. Control of the population, based on fear.
It is better than lying to the population by telling them marijuana is
medicine.
Why do you believe it's better?
Have you ever seen "Wild in the Streets" with Hal Holbrook? The
hippies take over and herd everyone over the age of 30 to internment
camps, where they are given huge doses of LSD.
That is secular humanism in a nutshell. Control the public with
pleasure. Tell them recreational drugs are good medicine.
Is that your actual belief? Humanism is based, in part, on human
rights, so internment camps are definitely out in humanism. And if you
mean drugs are forced on people, that, too, is definitely out in
humanism. There isn't really any truth at all in what you wrote, so if
that is what you really believe, you are really wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
