But i'm the bad person

Religions > Atheism > But *i'm* the bad person

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 2 of 10

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"kathryn"
Date:	21 Apr 2005 02:03:06 PM
Object:	But i'm the bad person

Gotta love the warm snuggly christians - on this whole other forum
It's bigotted and intolerant of us for having a problem with a supposedly
secular site displaying a special notice that we're all really sad about
JPII dying (we are?!)
Me saying that there is no god is more insulting than a christian telling me
(when they know I'm an atheist) that "god loves me"
I'm confrontational for feeling (and not being able to hide) a slight
replusion for someone who thinks that the whole AIDS problem in Africa has
bugger all to do with the pope since all the folks have to do is stop having
sex and it's not his fault if the only part they listen to is the "don't use
condoms" bit.
Which was also basically the answer to my sarcastic comments on the
"success" of the abstinence only sex ed programmes. I suggest that taking
the moral high ground wasn't actually the most important thing.
they must think their god loves hypocricy.
.

User: "stoney"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	27 Apr 2005 01:27:37 PM

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:23:36 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:d0lq61t7esc57rlq2o2p4ja2onr36p6nlb@4ax.com...

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 03:01:16 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:r03o61dnc295t7oojk613gkniqmmcli022@4ax.com...

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 14:25:44 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:hn0m6116mut6ntpoj7r3i1nle0k4uckns4@4ax.com...

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 21:02:19 -0700, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:

DianaC wrote:

"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:acudna6Pv5Bk5vTfRVn-oA@comcast.com...

Tukla Ratte wrote:

[]

Saying that condoms don't help is like saying that seatbelts don't
help
when you're drinking and driving. Sure, it'll protect you in an
accident,
but it won't stop the car from being smashed into a tree.

So, what? Do we just stop using seatbelts, then, because it doesn't
fix
the problem?

So use condoms....but frankly, they are a little like equipping cars
with
airbags....and forgetting the brakes.

Yes. You need multiple sources of protection. Remove one and you're
in
a world of trouble.

Condoms + Education + Supervision + Raising Your Kids + Not allowing
televison to Raise Them = Moral and Healthy Child.

(Note: "Religion" is not in the above equation. You don't need
religion to be moral and healthy.)

All too often religion brings the opposite.

the same can be said for systems that do not recognize deity.

You do love your nonsequitors.

The problem lies, not in the religion/system, but in those who profess
to
believe in
them, but don't behave as if they do.

Now you're being disingenous. /cue Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph to name
two.

OK, who the flip are Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph?

Paul Hill-Christian who murdered a doctor
Eric Rudolph-Christian who bombed medical centres and the Atlanta
Olympics.

And did the belief systems they profess to follow advocate murdering and
bombing places?

Of course, your dishonesty raises its head once more. Do a search and
read their verbage for yourself.

Does Christianity recommend the bombing of places and the murdering of
doctors? You see anywhere in the NT where this was advocated?

You're really getting tiresome, Diana, with your knee-jerk *****.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	27 Apr 2005 03:20:33 PM

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:u5mv61h90incsj5d0vcapethmv4ouqsnut@4ax.com...

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:23:36 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

<snip>

Paul Hill-Christian who murdered a doctor
Eric Rudolph-Christian who bombed medical centres and the Atlanta
Olympics.

And did the belief systems they profess to follow advocate murdering and
bombing places?

Of course, your dishonesty raises its head once more. Do a search and
read their verbage for yourself.

Stoney. What the hell is dishonest about asking a question?
.

User: "Denis Loubet"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	21 Apr 2005 11:27:15 PM

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:h1Y9e.80598$B12.25113@trnddc09...

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:7oOdnRtQ4N5vh_XfRVn-2A@io.com...

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:T%T9e.65167$9i7.23155@trnddc04...

"kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote in message
news:d48td9$q0d$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

Define 'we'.

Atheists, I presume.

And doesn't the death of every human ilicit some sense of sadness?

Really? Are you saying there were no celebrations at the death of Hitler?

Well now, that's got to be the quickest use of the Hitler card I've seen
in awhile.

Irrelevant, the argument stands.

However, since you brought it up, are you saying that there was no-one who
mourned when Hitler offed himself?

You've moved the goalposts. The issue was not if SOMEONE felt sorrow, but
rather if EVERYONE felt some, if only very little. My point is that I
believe there were very many people who felt nothing but elation at the news
of Hitler's death. I put it to you that many felt no sorrow at all.

Are you saying that Pope John Paul II was the equivalent of Hitler?

No, I am establishing that the death of every human does NOT necessarily
elicit sorrow.
Do you surrender this point?

Me saying that there is no god is more insulting than a christian
telling me (when they know I'm an atheist) that "god loves me"

Good question, except the very existence of atheists says to the
Christian that there are some people (the atheists) who think they (the
theists) are deluded and wrong. That's the unfortunate implication of
skepticism of any sort.

Of course. But that doesn't mean that it's insulting.

Calling someone deluded, when one is not a mental health worker, is an
insult, plain and simple.

Why are you insulted if someone says 'God loves you'?

Because to accept it implies tacit approval that there's a god that loves
you, or tacit approval of unjustified beliefs.

Oh, talk about a double standard here; look either BOTH statements 'there
is no God' and 'God loves you" are insults, or neither are.

Nonsense. Insults are not absolute. One man's insult is another man's
compliment. To an atheist, the claim that there is no god is not an insult,
but to the theist, it is. And a theist behaving as if his audience of
atheists accepts his god belief is insulting to atheists, where it would be
acceptable among theists.
It seems we're BOTH leaping to assumptions, eh?

Because everything you say about 'God loves you', that accepting it
implies tacit approval of the sentiment, applies to accepting "There is no
God", doesn't it? If you are honor bound to be insulted by, or refuse to
accept gracefully, a statement like 'God loves you", then the theist has
every right to get just as ***** at you if you say 'there is no God'.
For exactly the same reason.

Agreed. This is not a paradox, this is to be expected. Both sides will be
insulted by the other side's comments.

And by the way, you really need to learn the meaning of accepting things
in the spirit in which they are offered. "God loves you" ?

If the person knows that his audience is atheist, then the spirit of such a
comment is a condescending self righteousness.

Why, say something like " well, thank you, that you would think one would
is a compliment". Which it is.

But it's not. The theist is basically saying that the atheist is wrong and
that the theist is right, and hiding this criticism within a thin film of
condescending politeness. It is a backhanded compliment at best.

Just like the theist should say in response to 'There is no God" something
like "well, I understand you think so, I believe that there is" and leave
it at that.

The theist is perfectly within his rights to do so.

Why should their opinion give you hives? It's not as if, according to
you, God COULD love you, is it?

To accept it is to be complicit.

Then you should understand that in the same spirit, to accept 'There is no
God" is being complicit in THAT opinion.

Yes. Exactly. Did you not know this?

Why should a theist put up with having to be nice to you when you say
that, but put up with your discourtesy in return?

I do not say they must.
But one who professes to be a Christian seems to have put himself in a
position where his behavior IS an issue with his god. If the god finds no
fault with lying and insult, then the theist is under no strictures, but I
have been led to understand that the Christian places certain restrictions
upon his behavior. Is this not so?

I'm confrontational for feeling (and not being able to hide) a slight
replusion for someone who thinks that the whole AIDS problem in Africa
has bugger all to do with the pope since all the folks have to do is
stop having sex and it's not his fault if the only part they listen to
is the "don't use condoms" bit.

Er, isn't that pretty much true, though? Just HOW many cases of AIDS are
NOT spread through sexual conduct?

Perhaps the confrontation has more to do with the deliberate missing of
the point. Like now.

Can you tell me, honestly, that if the folks in Africa who are getting
this very nasty disease would simply restrict their sexual encounters to
one other person and keep to that one other person, the AIDS epidemic
there wouldn't pretty much die out in a generation? And when you think
about it, hard as it is to deal with it, isn't that about the only way
it WILL be stamped out? This has nothing to do with morality or freedom
or anything else. This is just reality. AIDS is an STD. Sexually
transmitted disease. It doesn't matter what religion you are, or are
not; doesn't matter whether you think you are entitled to sleep with
every guy and his sheep. The virus doesn't give a damn. IT's not
listening. Sex spreads AIDS. Sorry about that.

Human nature is human nature. Something you are ignoring.

Human nature is going to get an entire population killed.

Then it will die.

Unless they do something about the activities that are killing them. Human
nature or not.

This is true. I fail to see a conundrum.

And I have news for you. It is quite possible to live a full and happy
life without having sex every other minute with myriad different partners
along the way.

Ah, I see that you know better than everyone else how everyone else should
live their lives.

It's even possible to have a happy and fulfilled (and considerably longer,
considering AIDS) life if you have sex with only one person and are very,
very careful about who that person is.

It is comforting to know that you have all the answers.
It's also possible for people to live their lives without stealing, without
murdering, and without cheating, but you must admit there's a LOT of it
going on anyway, and with clear and present repercussions fully known to the
perpetrators.
It doesn't seem to stop them. You won't stop anyone either.

And condom use helps. But it doesn't fix the problem.

But it HELPS.

But it doesn't fix the problem. But believe me, I'm all for condom use.

This is good.

Which was also basically the answer to my sarcastic comments on the
"success" of the abstinence only sex ed programmes. I suggest that
taking the moral high ground wasn't actually the most important thing.

they must think their god loves hypocricy.

Humans do not behave like the logical little black and white robots you
want them to be.

That's a lie. They CAN. They do. It's possible.

No, it's not.

It's a matter of getting them to see the choices, in real terms. You do
this, you ARE going to die. Rather nastily. You refrain, and you could
live a good, long, healthy life. Many, many human beings have made such
choices and been quite content with them.

Irrelevant. Human nature is such that you cannot remove sex. It is too
strong a drive.

Orange sandals is not an appropriate analogy. A more appropriate analogy
would be breathing.

*****. promiscuity is NOT required for life.

But people will do it regardless. It cannot be stopped.

IT's not required for happiness.

You do not get to tell other people what is required for happiness. Other
people have different ideas.

Indeed, being promiscuous is pretty much a gaurantee that you will NOT be
very happy.

This is nonsense.

The odds are huge that you will get some nasty disease. Your relationships
will suffer...you may not even be able to HAVE a long lasting and trusting
relationship.

You place arbitrary value on the long lasting and trusting relationship.
Others may have different desires and different values. Yours are not
universal.

Here's the thing; *I* think God loves you. If you are insulted by that,
that's not my problem.

Do you agree with the thing you worship that atheists DESERVE eternal
torture in hell?

Beg questions much?

Sometimes.

First, you might want to ascertain whether or not I believe that there is
a hell, that it is a place of eternal torture, and that atheists are going
there.

Granted. I begged the question to save time. Experience has taught me that
most Christians posting on aa have a fundamentalist belief in hell and
eternal torture. When another Christian enters the newsgroup, especially one
telling others how to live, I assume they are of that variety of Christian.
My apologies, but I am a human, humans have knees, and knees jerk, but not
entirely without justification.

Just to help you out here, the answers are yes, no and no. Wanna rephrase
that?

Your point is made. But now I must ask what hell is for.

That's a punishment I would not wish on my worst enemy, yet you
supposedly think I DESERVE it.

I do, eh? Like I said, beg questions much?

Yes, and usually it works.

Do you start to get a glimmer of how that might be insulting?

No. for one thing, the phrase 'God loves you" doesn't sound like a curse
to be damned to eternal hellfire. But that's just me.

It's not. It's a veiled criticism.

YOU think that there is no god. If I get insulted by that, (and I don't,
by the way) what difference does that make? I can tell you this; more
people are being sued for saying 'God loves you ' than are for saying
'there is no God'. Just in case you are going to pull the 'they are
forcing their beliefs down my throat' crap.

Yeah, we only think you're a little deluded. You think we DESERVE eternal
torture in a lake of fire.

I'd say the balances of courtesy tip way to one side, wouldn't you?

I think you need to stop making stupid assumptions, personally.

How long have you lurked in aa? Most of the Christians here believe in
eternal torture in hell. We get a bellyfull of it on a regular basis. I made
an assumption to save time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
You have my apologies.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	22 Apr 2005 02:06:09 AM

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:pbydnQeaP6eD4PXfRVn-hQ@io.com...
<snip to>

Well now, that's got to be the quickest use of the Hitler card I've seen
in awhile.

Irrelevant, the argument stands.

On what? Irrelevencies?
Argumentum ad Nazium?

However, since you brought it up, are you saying that there was no-one
who mourned when Hitler offed himself?

You've moved the goalposts. The issue was not if SOMEONE felt sorrow, but
rather if EVERYONE felt some, if only very little. My point is that I
believe there were very many people who felt nothing but elation at the
news of Hitler's death. I put it to you that many felt no sorrow at all.

Which is, of course, irrelevent to the thing. Just because you are using the
reducto ad Hitlerum fallacy...

Are you saying that Pope John Paul II was the equivalent of Hitler?

No, I am establishing that the death of every human does NOT necessarily
elicit sorrow.

Isn't it just too bad then, that by invoking Godwin's law, you have made the
possibility of reasonble discussion regarding this topic impossible.

Do you surrender this point?

You haven't made one.

Me saying that there is no god is more insulting than a christian
telling me (when they know I'm an atheist) that "god loves me"

Of course. But that doesn't mean that it's insulting.

Calling someone deluded, when one is not a mental health worker, is an
insult, plain and simple.

Is stating one's belief/opinion, 'there is no God' calling someone else
'deluded'?

Why are you insulted if someone says 'God loves you'?

Because to accept it implies tacit approval that there's a god that
loves you, or tacit approval of unjustified beliefs.

Oh, talk about a double standard here; look either BOTH statements 'there
is no God' and 'God loves you" are insults, or neither are.

Nonsense. Insults are not absolute. One man's insult is another man's
compliment. To an atheist, the claim that there is no god is not an
insult, but to the theist, it is. And a theist behaving as if his audience
of atheists accepts his god belief is insulting to atheists, where it
would be acceptable among theists.

Is saying 'God loves you' automatically assuming that the listener believes
that there is a God? How is that true any more than saying 'There is no God'
assuming that the listener agrees with that position?

It seems we're BOTH leaping to assumptions, eh?

I'm not. I'm saying that we own our own feelings; it is unreasonable of you
to take insult from 'God Loves You', and not understand why 'There is no
God' might be an insult to a theist, or by the same token, that 'God Loves
you" is NO MORE an insult than 'There is no God'. Either both are, or
neither are, no matter who is listening. Both statements are expressions of
opinion/belief by the speaker. What the listener does about it is his
problem. Both speakers are absolutely free to say what they think, that's
what 'freedom of speech' is about. Now if you want to choose to be offended,
fine, but I think life would be more enjoyable for you if you didn't.

Because everything you say about 'God loves you', that accepting it
implies tacit approval of the sentiment, applies to accepting "There is
no God", doesn't it? If you are honor bound to be insulted by, or refuse
to accept gracefully, a statement like 'God loves you", then the theist
has every right to get just as ***** at you if you say 'there is no
God'. For exactly the same reason.

Agreed. This is not a paradox, this is to be expected. Both sides will be
insulted by the other side's comments.

I'm not. Why do you assume that they WILL? Because I have news. Not all are,
by a very long shot.

And by the way, you really need to learn the meaning of accepting things
in the spirit in which they are offered. "God loves you" ?

If the person knows that his audience is atheist, then the spirit of such
a comment is a condescending self righteousness.

Or else it is simply an honest expression of belief. Which he is absolutely
entitled to, just as you are absolutely entitled to say 'there is no God'.

Why, say something like " well, thank you, that you would think one would
is a compliment". Which it is.

Y'know, that's theft. Stealing an insult when none is offered? I say God
loves you. I'm quite aware that you think that there isn't one. Well, I
think there is. And I believe He loves you. That's what I beleive. You don't
have to believe that. Nor is it meant to tell you anything but that I
believe He loves you. You are really searching for something to be offended
by here, having to invent something, even.
Of course, if you deliberately mean to insult and degrade the theist if you
say 'There is no God', (shrug) That's still your problem. I frankly don't
care what you believe one way or the other.

Just like the theist should say in response to 'There is no God"
something like "well, I understand you think so, I believe that there is"
and leave it at that.

The theist is perfectly within his rights to do so.

Indeed...and such a response would indicate a distinct lack of hurt
feelings/insult, wouldn't you say? Are you going to admit here that a theist
could actually be more courteous than you are?

Why should their opinion give you hives? It's not as if, according to
you, God COULD love you, is it?

To accept it is to be complicit.

Then you should understand that in the same spirit, to accept 'There is
no God" is being complicit in THAT opinion.

Yes. Exactly. Did you not know this?

No. Because it's not. Since when did acknowledging that other people have
different opinions than you do invalidate your own, or indicate that you buy
into their opinions? You DO realize that this is saying that nobody else has
any right to think differently from you? It's arrogant, it's controlling,
it's, well, rude.

Why should a theist put up with having to be nice to you when you say
that, but put up with your discourtesy in return?

I do not say they must.

You must like to shout a lot.

But one who professes to be a Christian seems to have put himself in a
position where his behavior IS an issue with his god. If the god finds no
fault with lying and insult, then the theist is under no strictures, but I
have been led to understand that the Christian places certain restrictions
upon his behavior. Is this not so?

Does not the humanist do the same thing? ARe you not bound by some ethical
system of your own?

Er, isn't that pretty much true, though? Just HOW many cases of AIDS
are NOT spread through sexual conduct?

Perhaps the confrontation has more to do with the deliberate missing of
the point. Like now.

Can you tell me, honestly, that if the folks in Africa who are getting
this very nasty disease would simply restrict their sexual encounters
to one other person and keep to that one other person, the AIDS
epidemic there wouldn't pretty much die out in a generation? And when
you think about it, hard as it is to deal with it, isn't that about the
only way it WILL be stamped out? This has nothing to do with morality
or freedom or anything else. This is just reality. AIDS is an STD.
Sexually transmitted disease. It doesn't matter what religion you are,
or are not; doesn't matter whether you think you are entitled to sleep
with every guy and his sheep. The virus doesn't give a damn. IT's not
listening. Sex spreads AIDS. Sorry about that.

Human nature is human nature. Something you are ignoring.

Human nature is going to get an entire population killed.

Then it will die.

And this by you is a good thing?

Unless they do something about the activities that are killing them.
Human nature or not.

This is true. I fail to see a conundrum.

Then why get all hot and bothered because those who understand this are
trying to get through to those who are dying?

And I have news for you. It is quite possible to live a full and happy
life without having sex every other minute with myriad different partners
along the way.

Ah, I see that you know better than everyone else how everyone else should
live their lives.

I know that if these people don't try it, they are going to die. Not 'go to
hell'. Not 'disppoint God'. Die. They are going to die. by the millions.
leaving children and destroyed nations. If you saw an alcoholic who was
homeless, suffering from a whole bunch of health problems, and in real
trouble because of his addiction, would you be judged as a 'know it all' or
"know better than everybody else" if you told him that if he doesn't quit
drinking, he will die? It doesn't MATTER that other people can drink
socially and not become alcoholic. It doesn't matter that other people can
eat what they want and not die where the diabetic will. It doesn't matter
that most people can stay skinny on 1200 calories a day and this very obese
woman cannot eat even that much. It's not about religion. It's not about
ethics. It's not about what I think or you think or the Pope thinks. It's
about what MUST be done if we want to eliminate AIDS.
And all I said was that it is possible to live a full and happy life with
out being promiscuous. I have every reason in the world to say that. If you
can't say the same, again, that's not my problem.

It's even possible to have a happy and fulfilled (and considerably
longer, considering AIDS) life if you have sex with only one person and
are very, very careful about who that person is.

It is comforting to know that you have all the answers.

You have a different one? You know another way to fix this? Nobody has been
able to come up with one yet, oh sarcastic one. So, unless you have some
miracle drug in your back pocket, I suggest you take your supercillius
attitude and.......put it on a shelf, because I'm not impressed.

It's also possible for people to live their lives without stealing,
without murdering, and without cheating, but you must admit there's a LOT
of it going on anyway, and with clear and present repercussions fully
known to the perpetrators.

Which of course is why people are dying. That doesn't change what must be
done, does it? Alcoholics will continue to drink. Diabetics will continue
to be stupid about what they eat. Fat people will eat more than is good for
them and excercise less. And AIDS patients will continue to have unprotected
sex and kill people.

It doesn't seem to stop them. You won't stop anyone either.

Well, YOU sure as hell won't. Or do you care?

And condom use helps. But it doesn't fix the problem.

But it HELPS.

But it doesn't fix the problem. But believe me, I'm all for condom use.

This is good.

How comforting to know you approve.

Humans do not behave like the logical little black and white robots you
want them to be.

That's a lie. They CAN. They do. It's possible.

No, it's not.

Yes. It is. Plenty of us do.

Irrelevant. Human nature is such that you cannot remove sex. It is too
strong a drive.

Where did I say 'remove sex'? What part of 'pick one partner who has sex
only with you" didn't you get? You know, MONOGOMY? One partner?

Orange sandals is not an appropriate analogy. A more appropriate analogy
would be breathing.

*****. promiscuity is NOT required for life.

But people will do it regardless. It cannot be stopped.

That's giving up. And people WILL die.

IT's not required for happiness.

You do not get to tell other people what is required for happiness. Other
people have different ideas.

Those other people are partying with lighted dynomite in their hands.

Indeed, being promiscuous is pretty much a gaurantee that you will NOT be
very happy.

This is nonsense.

Really? How many promiscuous people do YOU know who have good, long lasting
relationships, security in their families and trust in one another? Again,
this is not a matter of religion or even ethical systems. It too is a factor
of human nature and bonding.

The odds are huge that you will get some nasty disease. Your
relationships will suffer...you may not even be able to HAVE a long
lasting and trusting relationship.

You place arbitrary value on the long lasting and trusting relationship.
Others may have different desires and different values. Yours are not
universal.

They kept me alive and AIDS free.

Here's the thing; *I* think God loves you. If you are insulted by that,
that's not my problem.

Do you agree with the thing you worship that atheists DESERVE eternal
torture in hell?

Beg questions much?

Sometimes.

I see that.

First, you might want to ascertain whether or not I believe that there is
a hell, that it is a place of eternal torture, and that atheists are
going there.

Granted. I begged the question to save time. Experience has taught me that
most Christians posting on aa have a fundamentalist belief in hell and
eternal torture. When another Christian enters the newsgroup, especially
one telling others how to live, I assume they are of that variety of
Christian.

"Telling others how to live"? Because I point out scientific fact? The
facts are simple. AIDS is spread by sex. The more people you have sex with,
the more likely you are to get AIDS. AIDS WILL kill you. Have I miss stated
anything so far? Condoms help, but condoms do not eliminate the risk.
Condoms leak. Condoms break. cheap condoms don't protect you much better
than no condoms, even if they DON'T break or leak. The only way to be
certain that you will not contract AIDS is to be monogomous with a partner
who is monogamous with you. Oh yeah, and don't share needles if you do
drugs.

My apologies, but I am a human, humans have knees, and knees jerk, but not
entirely without justification.

Just to help you out here, the answers are yes, no and no. Wanna rephrase
that?

Your point is made. But now I must ask what hell is for.

Hell is for those who don't want heaven. (shrug) simplistic, but that's the
gist.

That's a punishment I would not wish on my worst enemy, yet you
supposedly think I DESERVE it.

I do, eh? Like I said, beg questions much?

Yes, and usually it works.

And it bites you in the butt big time when it doesn't.

Do you start to get a glimmer of how that might be insulting?

No. for one thing, the phrase 'God loves you" doesn't sound like a curse
to be damned to eternal hellfire. But that's just me.

It's not. It's a veiled criticism.

(shrug) not from me. It's just a statement that I believe God loves you. How
is that a criticism of you in any way?

YOU think that there is no god. If I get insulted by that, (and I
don't, by the way) what difference does that make? I can tell you
this; more people are being sued for saying 'God loves you ' than are
for saying 'there is no God'. Just in case you are going to pull the
'they are forcing their beliefs down my throat' crap.

Yeah, we only think you're a little deluded. You think we DESERVE
eternal torture in a lake of fire.

I'd say the balances of courtesy tip way to one side, wouldn't you?

I think you need to stop making stupid assumptions, personally.

How long have you lurked in aa? Most of the Christians here believe in
eternal torture in hell. We get a bellyfull of it on a regular basis. I
made an assumption to save time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

You have my apologies.

I've been here quite awhile, actually. "Lurker" wouldn't be a real
descriptive word. I ***** off a lot of atheists, too, but not because I think
you are headed for eternal hellfire, or because I'm out to convert anybody.
And thank you.
.

User: "Del"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	22 Apr 2005 01:36:16 PM

DianaC wrote:

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:pbydnQeaP6eD4PXfRVn-hQ@io.com...
<snip to>

Well now, that's got to be the quickest use of the Hitler card

I've seen

in awhile.

Irrelevant, the argument stands.

On what? Irrelevencies?

Nice evasion. You said:
"And doesn't the death of every human ilicit some sense of sadness? "
....in response to the observation about a secular site
presuming to speak for all about being sad that the Pope
died. Your response was about as unthinking as the
original statement was and the counter example you were
offered deomonstates that point. But apparently you can't
acknowledge this so you try to evade it by inappropriately
invoking the tongue-in-cheek "Godwin's Law" as if it was
really more than a form of the ad hominem fallacy.

Argumentum ad Nazium?

And what did his counter example to your false conclusion
have to do with nazism? It appears, ironically, that it is
you who is doing what you falsely accuse your correspondent of.

However, since you brought it up, are you saying that there was

no-one

who mourned when Hitler offed himself?

You've moved the goalposts. The issue was not if SOMEONE f elt

sorrow, but

rather if EVERYONE felt some, if only very little. My point is that

believe there were very many people who felt nothing but elation at

the

news of Hitler's death. I put it to you that many felt no sorrow at

all.

Which is, of course, irrelevent to the thing.

No, actually it wasn't. Your original response was irrelevant,
however, since it didn't speak to the false presumption of
universal sorrow at the Pope's passing.
"And doesn't the death of every human ilicit some sense of sadness"
See? You subtly change the subject.

Just because you are using the
reducto ad Hitlerum fallacy...

As long as you are making up fallacies in order to evade
admitting you were wrong, why don't you make one up that
actually fits the situation? Something like the "Always Wrong"
fallacy: "Any argument that proves DianaC to be in error
is always wrong." Something like that.

Are you saying that Pope John Paul II was the equivalent of

Hitler?

No, I am establishing that the death of every human does NOT ne

cessarily

elicit sorrow.

Isn't it just too bad then, that by invoking Godwin's law, you have

made the

possibility of reasonble discussion regarding this topic impossible.

Hahahahahahahahaha! Go ahead, explain why it is
"impossible." What _is_ impossible, apparently, is
for you to admit that your trite defense of the claim of
universal sorrow over the Pope kicking the bucket was
clearly false. But that is a personl problem of yours.

Do you surrender this point?

You haven't made one.

Yes he has, at least to anyone with a rational frame of mind.

Me saying that there is no god is more insulting than a

christian

telling me (when they know I'm an atheist) that "god loves me"

Why would anyone think you were being insulting when you say

'There is

no god', unless you are doing it in a church during worship

services or

following "There is no god" with 'you moron' or something

similar? How

could your opinion about the existance of deity be insulting,

other

than the manner in which you express it? Your opinion is your

opinion.

Good question, except the very existence of atheists says to the
Christian that there are some people (the atheists) who think

they (the

theists) are deluded and wrong. That's the unfortunate implic

ation of

skepticism of any sort.

Of course. But that doesn't mean that it's insulting.

Calling someone deluded, when one is not a mental health worker, is

insult, plain and simple.

Is stating one's belief/opinion, 'there is no God' calling someone

else

'deluded'?

It is a statement that addresses the issue directly and thus
can be responded to directly--agreed or disagreed with--
which is in contrast to the statement "god loves you"
which is based on the hidden premise that a god exists.
When that assertion is knowingly directed at an atheist it
goes beyond implying that the atheist position is wrong.
It implies that the atheist position isn't even worth considering,
which is insulting, especially in this newsgroup. On the
other hand, for a believer to be insulted by the statement
"there is no god" in an atheist newsgroup is the acme of
petulance. Such is all too typical of the inclination
toward victimhood and expectation of special treatment
far too many Christians embrace.

Why are you insulted if someone says 'God loves you'?

Because to accept it implies tacit approval that there's a god

that

loves you, or tacit approval of unjustified beliefs.

Oh, talk about a double standard here; look either BOTH statements

'there

is no God' and 'God loves you" are insults, or neither are.

You make a lot of assertions but usually fail to explain
why they need to be taken seriously. You aren't claiming
that the two expressions are equivalent merely because
you proclaim them to be, are you? If not, then supply the
reasoning--if any--behind your conclusion. For the reasons
I stated above, "God loves you," when directed to an atheist
in this forum, is insulting while "there is no god" directed
to a theist in this forum is not. Deal with it.

Nonsense. Insults are not absolute. One man's insult is another

man's

compliment. To an atheist, the claim that there is no god is not an
insult, but to the theist, it is. And a theist behaving as if his

audience

of atheists accepts his god belief is insulting to atheists, where

would be acceptable among theists.

Is saying 'God loves you' automatically assuming that the listener

believes

that there is a God?

It is automatically assuming that the listeners opinion doesn't
matter. Duh. In order for one to disagree with it, requires the
listener to first make the other person's hidden premise explicit.
"There is no god" does not. One can directly disagree with it:
"sure there is." On the other hand "God loves you" begs the
question. "There is no god" does not. Get it yet?

How is that true any more than saying 'There is no God'
assuming that the listener agrees with that position?

Well now you know.

It seems we're BOTH leaping to assumptions, eh?

I'm not. I'm saying that we own our own feelings; it is unreasonable

of you

to take insult from 'God Loves You', and not understand why 'There is

God' might be an insult to a theist, or by the same token, that 'God

Loves

you" is NO MORE an insult than 'There is no God'. Either both are, or
neither are, no matter who is listening.

You keep saying this as if repetition will bestow additional
import upon your assertion. Why don't you try giving some
reasons for your assertions instead of merely proclaiming
those assertion true, or asserting how unreasonable it is to
disagree with you? I have, in fact, offered reasons why you
are wrong. So unless you offer some reasons for your
position then it is you who is unreasonable.

Both statements are expressions of
opinion/belief by the speaker.
What the listener does about it is his
problem.

That is true of any insult. What's your point?

Both speakers are absolutely free to say what they think, that's
what 'freedom of speech' is about.

Actually freedom of speech is about Congress and other
government entities not abridging the rights of citizens
and nothing to do with this subject.

Now if you want to choose to be offended,
fine, but I think life would be more enjoyable for you if you didn't.

I think life would be more enjoyable for you if you gave
up your childish fantasy that there is a creator of the
universe who wants to micro-manage your insignificant
life (while allowing innocent children to die horrible deaths).
I mean it must be at least occasionally irritating to believe
in this god and at the same time ignore most of what he tells
you believers to do. Or maybe it is just irritating when
people like me point out your rejection of Biblical precepts
such as your corruption of the Golden Rule here: "Why
should a theist put up with having to be nice to you when
you say that, but put up with your discourtesy in return?"
But either way I'm sure your life would be more enjoyable
if you weren't such a hypocrite.

Because everything you say about 'God loves you', that acceptin g

implies tacit approval of the sentiment, applies to accepting

"There is

no God", doesn't it? If you are honor bound to be insulted by, or

refuse

to accept gracefully, a statement like 'God loves you", then the

theist

has ever y right to get just as ***** at you if you say

'there is no

God'. For exactly the same reason.

Agreed. This is not a paradox, this is to be expected. Both sides

will be

insulted by the other side's comments.

I'm not. Why do yo u assume that they WILL? Because I have news. Not

all are,

by a very long shot.

And by the way, you really need to learn the meaning of accepting

things

in the spirit in which they are offered. "God loves you" ?

If the person kno ws that his audience is atheist, then the spirit

of such

a comment is a condescending self righteousness.

Or else it is simply an honest expression of belief.

Ah, when a fundy begs the question it is just an honest
expression of belief. You were saying something previously
about double standards?

Which he is absolutely
entitled to, just as you are absolutely entitled to say 'the re is no

God'.

Why, say something like " well, thank you, that you would think

one would

is a compliment". Which it is.

A complement! If God loves everybody how could saying
this be a complement? To come to this forum and say
this, is an insult and one that is intended to be taken as
such. It is saying "I have no respect for your position in
your own forum." It wouldn't be insulting to say "I believe
there is a god and that he loves you" since that acknowledges
the subject of this newsgroup and the position atheists take
instead of pretending that neither is worthy of consideration-
-as the vast majority of gutter sniping pseudo-Christians who
invade a.a. do.

But it's not. The theist is basically saying that the atheist is

wrong and

that the theist is right, and hi ding this criticism within a thin

film of

condescending politeness. It is a backhanded compliment at best.

Y'know, that's theft. Stealing an insult when none is offered?

How do YOU know none was intended? Why don't you explain
why pretending the atheist position doesn't exist or isn't worth
discussing--and doing it in alt.atheism--isn't insulting? Or maybe
you are saying that the average Christian is too stupid to
understand the implications of a ng with the name "alt.atheism"?

I say God
loves you. I'm quite aware that you think that there isn't one.

So why would you say that then unless your message is
that the atheist view need not be considered?

Well, I think there is.

And you and your opinion are what is really important
here in alt.atheism. You obviously assume that we should
care what you believe while you say that you don't care what
we believe. And in our newsgroup. Talk about hubrus.

And I believe He loves you.

Your parents obviously failed to teach you to respect the
opinions of people whose opinions differ. You go out of your
way to find a group who you know disagrees with you, join
that group and then smuggly behave as if what is really important
is what you believe.

That's what I beleive.

Why are we supposed to care what you believe? Have you tried
to rationally support what you believe? No. And yet obviously
you do think we should care. Why?

You don't
have to believe that.

That is damn generous of you. I guess you figure we should be
grateful since there was a time when your ilk would not be so
"generous."

Nor is it meant to tell you anything but that I
believe He loves you.

You, you, you. It's all about you, isn't it? How does one
get to be so self involved anyway?

You are really searching for something to be offended
by here, having to invent something, even.

Well if you don't like it, why don't you take a hike then? No
one invited you to alt.atheism and I'm sure I speak for all
when I say that no one will miss you when you are gone either.

Of course, if you deliberately mean to insult and degrade the theist

if you

say 'There is no God', (shrug) That's still your problem. I frankly

don't

care what you believe one way or the other.

Fact is that you care very much what we believe--or more
accurately--what we don't believe, or else you wouldn't be
here. Of course we see this all the time. Believers by the
metric ton go out of their way to come here in order to
posture self consciously how indifferent they are to non-
believers. It is very important to them that we "know" just
how unimportant our position is to them, how wrong we
are and how absolutely certain they are that "god" exists. It's
all a put on. An obvious one. Believers feel threatened-
-mightily so--by atheists. That's why they come here and I
doubt that you are the exception.
They--and you--don't come here to try to convert us. No
one but an utter fool believes anyone is going to be
persuaded to their point of view by insulting and attacking
the intended converts. So why do believers like yourself
flock to alt.atheism? Like I said, it is obvious.

Just lik e the theist should say in response to 'There is no God"
something like "well, I understand you think so, I believe that

there is"

and leave it at that.

The theist is perfectly within his rights to do so.

Indeed...and such a response would indicate a distinct lack of hurt
feelings/insult, wouldn't you say? Are you going to admit here that a

theist

could actually be more courteous than you are?

You being the exception you mean?

Why should their opinion give you hives? It's not as if,

according to

you, God COULD love you, is it?

To accept it is to be complicit.

Then you should understand that in the same spirit, to accept

'There is

no God" is being complicit in THAT opinion.

Yes. Exactly. Did you not know this?

No. Because it's not. Since when did acknowledging that other people

have

different opinions than you do invalidate your own, or indicate that

you buy

into their opinions? You DO realize that this is saying that nobody

else has

any rig ht to think differently from you? It's arrogant, it's

controlling,

it's, well, rude.

Hahahahahahaha! A textbook example of projection.

Why should a theist put up with having to be nice to you when you

say

that, but put up with your discourtesy in return?

I do not say they must.

You must like to shout a lot.

But one who professes to be a Christian seems to have put himself

in a

position where his behavior IS an issue with his god. If the god

finds no

fault with lying and insult, then the theist is under no

strictures, but I

have been led to understand that the Christian places certain

restrictions

upon his behavior. Is this not so?

Does not the humanist do the same thing?

LOL! Quick! Change the subject to humanists! Good idea.
This is called the tu quoque fallacy, btw. Instead of evading
the point--the one that you made germane--why don't you explain
why you believe that Christians are only obliged to behave at
the lowest common denominator level?

ARe you not bound by some ethical
system of your own?

I don't blame you for being embarrassed by your clear rejection
of the golden rule. However it is a bit dishonest to consciously
attempt to deflect attention away from it. Don't you think?
e
.

User: "kathryn"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	22 Apr 2005 01:16:07 AM

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:T%T9e.65167$9i7.23155@trnddc04...

"kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote in message
news:d48td9$q0d$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

Define 'we'.

Everyone on the site Im on

And doesn't the death of every human ilicit some sense of sadness?

Me saying that there is no god is more insulting than a christian telling
me (when they know I'm an atheist) that "god loves me"

Why would anyone think you were being insulting when you say 'There is no
god', unless you are doing it in a church during worship services or
following "There is no god" with 'you moron' or something similar? How
could your opinion about the existance of deity be insulting, other than
the manner in which you express it? Your opinion is your opinion.

Why are you insulted if someone says 'God loves you'? Why should their
opinion give you hives? It's not as if, according to you, God COULD love
you, is it?

Yeah see there's my point

I'm confrontational for feeling (and not being able to hide) a slight
replusion for someone who thinks that the whole AIDS problem in Africa
has bugger all to do with the pope since all the folks have to do is stop
having sex and it's not his fault if the only part they listen to is the
"don't use condoms" bit.

Er, isn't that pretty much true, though? Just HOW many cases of AIDS are
NOT spread through sexual conduct?

But the wives and husbands who are infected BY their partner not to mention
the children who are born infected or who are left as orphans deserve to be
punished as well.....gee you christians are such a loving bunch o folks

Can you tell me, honestly, that if the folks in Africa who are getting
this very nasty disease would simply restrict their sexual encounters to
one other person and keep to that one other person, the AIDS epidemic
there wouldn't pretty much die out in a generation? And when you think
about it, hard as it is to deal with it, isn't that about the only way it
WILL be stamped out? This has nothing to do with morality or freedom or
anything else. This is just reality. AIDS is an STD. Sexually transmitted
disease. It doesn't matter what religion you are, or are not; doesn't
matter whether you think you are entitled to sleep with every guy and his
sheep. The virus doesn't give a damn. IT's not listening. Sex spreads
AIDS. Sorry about that.

And condom use helps. But it doesn't fix the problem.

And you are getting a little weird. That's what I don't get about this
entire AIDS thing. If it were any other disease, that was being spread by,
oh, wearing orange sandals to more than one party, would you be protesting
because all people HAVE A RIGHT TO ORANGE SANDALS? Or would you accept
reality and say that yeah, if everybody just kept their sandals in the
closet, the disease would go away; whether you WANT to wear them to more
than one party or not, it's just not a good idea.

Here's the thing; *I* think God loves you. If you are insulted by that,
that's not my problem. YOU think that there is no god. If I get insulted
by that, (and I don't, by the way) what difference does that make? I can
tell you this; more people are being sued for saying 'God loves you ' than
are for saying 'there is no God'. Just in case you are going to pull the
'they are forcing their beliefs down my throat' crap.

And I think you're deluded. :)
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	22 Apr 2005 02:55:57 PM

"kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote in message
news:d4a4r7$q4j$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:T%T9e.65167$9i7.23155@trnddc04...

"kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote in message
news:d48td9$q0d$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

Define 'we'.

Everyone on the site Im on

And doesn't the death of every human ilicit some sense of sadness?

Me saying that there is no god is more insulting than a christian
telling me (when they know I'm an atheist) that "god loves me"

Yeah see there's my point

Please pardon me if I still don't get the point. Why should it insult you to
have someone say 'God loves you' any more than it bugs me to have someone
say 'Barbara Boxer is the best candidate for the 2008 presidencial
election"?

Er, isn't that pretty much true, though? Just HOW many cases of AIDS are
NOT spread through sexual conduct?

But the wives and husbands who are infected BY their partner not to
mention the children who are born infected or who are left as orphans
deserve to be punished as well.....gee you christians are such a loving
bunch o folks

This isn't about punishment, kathryn. It's about scientific reality. If
those husbands/wives who infected their spouses and children had stayed
monogamous, their families would still be healthy. Are you telling me that
the spouse with the first case of AIDS got it from eating fried chicken at
an outdoor fair booth or something?
It is NOT fair that the wifes/husbands/children suffer the consequences of
the stupidity of the one doing the sleeping around. But it is simply the way
the disease works. It's not a judgment. It's not about 'fair'. It's about
what IS. and what IS is this; the only way you are going to stop the spread
of AIDS and other STD's is to refrain from having sex with multiple
partners. Pick one. Stick with one. Period.
This is not going to change just because a theist points it out and that
makes YOU mad.

Can you tell me, honestly, that if the folks in Africa who are getting
this very nasty disease would simply restrict their sexual encounters to
one other person and keep to that one other person, the AIDS epidemic
there wouldn't pretty much die out in a generation? And when you think
about it, hard as it is to deal with it, isn't that about the only way it
WILL be stamped out? This has nothing to do with morality or freedom or
anything else. This is just reality. AIDS is an STD. Sexually transmitted
disease. It doesn't matter what religion you are, or are not; doesn't
matter whether you think you are entitled to sleep with every guy and his
sheep. The virus doesn't give a damn. IT's not listening. Sex spreads
AIDS. Sorry about that.

And condom use helps. But it doesn't fix the problem.

And you are getting a little weird. That's what I don't get about this
entire AIDS thing. If it were any other disease, that was being spread
by, oh, wearing orange sandals to more than one party, would you be
protesting because all people HAVE A RIGHT TO ORANGE SANDALS? Or would
you accept reality and say that yeah, if everybody just kept their
sandals in the closet, the disease would go away; whether you WANT to
wear them to more than one party or not, it's just not a good idea.

Here's the thing; *I* think God loves you. If you are insulted by that,
that's not my problem. YOU think that there is no god. If I get insulted
by that, (and I don't, by the way) what difference does that make? I can
tell you this; more people are being sued for saying 'God loves you '
than are for saying 'there is no God'. Just in case you are going to pull
the 'they are forcing their beliefs down my throat' crap.

And I think you're deluded. :)

I know that. ;-)
I think god loves you. :)
.

User: "Neil Kelsey"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	21 Apr 2005 05:25:16 PM

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:T%T9e.65167$9i7.23155@trnddc04...

"kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote in message
news:d48td9$q0d$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

Define 'we'.

I think you're being a bit disingenuous here. You are fully aware this is
alt.atheism

And doesn't the death of every human ilicit some sense of sadness?

Me saying that there is no god is more insulting than a christian telling
me (when they know I'm an atheist) that "god loves me"

I'm confrontational for feeling (and not being able to hide) a slight
replusion for someone who thinks that the whole AIDS problem in Africa
has bugger all to do with the pope since all the folks have to do is stop
having sex and it's not his fault if the only part they listen to is the
"don't use condoms" bit.

Er, isn't that pretty much true, though? Just HOW many cases of AIDS are
NOT spread through sexual conduct?

Can you tell me, honestly, that if the folks in Africa who are getting
this very nasty disease would simply restrict their sexual encounters to
one other person and keep to that one other person, the AIDS epidemic
there wouldn't pretty much die out in a generation? And when you think
about it, hard as it is to deal with it, isn't that about the only way it
WILL be stamped out? This has nothing to do with morality or freedom or
anything else. This is just reality. AIDS is an STD. Sexually transmitted
disease. It doesn't matter what religion you are, or are not; doesn't
matter whether you think you are entitled to sleep with every guy and his
sheep. The virus doesn't give a damn. IT's not listening. Sex spreads
AIDS. Sorry about that.

There is another way AIDs could be stamped out. That is if science discovers
a cure, as it has done for many other diseases.

And condom use helps. But it doesn't fix the problem.

You are correct to say that having one partner each would cure AIDs, but
THAT is not realistic. Partners die. People break up. What are they supposed
to do then? Become abstinate? Clearly there is a desire for people (not all)
of both sexes to have multiple partners. I don't think the rest of us should
just shrug them off and say (as you are implying) that it would be a good
idea for them to withdraw from the gene pool. The rest of us should be
supporting research for a cure and doing what we can in the meantime to make
sex safe, including accepting the use of condoms.

Here's the thing; *I* think God loves you. If you are insulted by that,
that's not my problem. YOU think that there is no god. If I get insulted
by that, (and I don't, by the way) what difference does that make? I can
tell you this; more people are being sued for saying 'God loves you ' than
are for saying 'there is no God'. Just in case you are going to pull the
'they are forcing their beliefs down my throat' crap.

Sources?
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	21 Apr 2005 08:16:39 PM

"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@telus.net> wrote in message
news:gLV9e.80474$7Q4.12227@clgrps13...

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:T%T9e.65167$9i7.23155@trnddc04...

"kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote in message
news:d48td9$q0d$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

Define 'we'.

I think you're being a bit disingenuous here. You are fully aware this is
alt.atheism

And believe me, if *I* were to lump all of you into one opinion, I would get
SOOOO tromped on....; how does kathryn know that everyone on alt.atheism has
a problem with a secular website expressing sorrow for JP's death? Is she
referring to all atheists, or all those who post on alt.atheism? I do not
think it's at all unreasonable to ask her to define 'we'.

And doesn't the death of every human ilicit some sense of sadness?

Me saying that there is no god is more insulting than a christian
telling me (when they know I'm an atheist) that "god loves me"

There is another way AIDs could be stamped out. That is if science
discovers a cure, as it has done for many other diseases.

Oh, really? Like herpes? Cancer? the FLU???
I mean, it wasn't so very long ago that everybody thought that the human
race had eliminated smallpox; so much so that nobody was being vaccinated
against it anymore; it was extinct.
yeah, right....

And condom use helps. But it doesn't fix the problem.

You are correct to say that having one partner each would cure AIDs, but
THAT is not realistic. Partners die. People break up. What are they
supposed to do then?

make certain that THEY don't carry the disease, and then make very certain
that their next partner doesn't either.

Become abstinate? Clearly there is a desire for people (not all) of both
sexes to have multiple partners. I don't think the rest of us should just
shrug them off and say (as you are implying) that it would be a good idea
for them to withdraw from the gene pool. The rest of us should be
supporting research for a cure and doing what we can in the meantime to
make sex safe, including accepting the use of condoms.

But they aren't doing the job, and an entire race of people is dying.
Becoming extinct. Entire nations are disintegrating; the black plague has
nothing on this.

Here's the thing; *I* think God loves you. If you are insulted by that,
that's not my problem. YOU think that there is no god. If I get insulted
by that, (and I don't, by the way) what difference does that make? I can
tell you this; more people are being sued for saying 'God loves you '
than are for saying 'there is no God'. Just in case you are going to pull
the 'they are forcing their beliefs down my throat' crap.

Sources?

You have got to be kidding.

User: "Neil Kelsey"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	21 Apr 2005 09:33:21 PM

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:XfY9e.80604$B12.12043@trnddc09...

"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@telus.net> wrote in message
news:gLV9e.80474$7Q4.12227@clgrps13...

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:T%T9e.65167$9i7.23155@trnddc04...

"kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote in message
news:d48td9$q0d$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

Define 'we'.

I think you're being a bit disingenuous here. You are fully aware this is
alt.atheism

And believe me, if *I* were to lump all of you into one opinion, I would
get SOOOO tromped on....; how does kathryn know that everyone on
alt.atheism has a problem with a secular website expressing sorrow for
JP's death? Is she referring to all atheists, or all those who post on
alt.atheism? I do not think it's at all unreasonable to ask her to define
'we'.

And doesn't the death of every human ilicit some sense of sadness?

Me saying that there is no god is more insulting than a christian
telling me (when they know I'm an atheist) that "god loves me"

Why would anyone think you were being insulting when you say 'There is
no god', unless you are doing it in a church during worship services or
following "There is no god" with 'you moron' or something similar? How
could your opinion about the existance of deity be insulting, other than
the manner in which you express it? Your opinion is your opinion.

Why are you insulted if someone says 'God loves you'? Why should their
opinion give you hives? It's not as if, according to you, God COULD love
you, is it?

Er, isn't that pretty much true, though? Just HOW many cases of AIDS are
NOT spread through sexual conduct?

Can you tell me, honestly, that if the folks in Africa who are getting
this very nasty disease would simply restrict their sexual encounters to
one other person and keep to that one other person, the AIDS epidemic
there wouldn't pretty much die out in a generation? And when you think
about it, hard as it is to deal with it, isn't that about the only way
it WILL be stamped out? This has nothing to do with morality or freedom
or anything else. This is just reality. AIDS is an STD. Sexually
transmitted disease. It doesn't matter what religion you are, or are
not; doesn't matter whether you think you are entitled to sleep with
every guy and his sheep. The virus doesn't give a damn. IT's not
listening. Sex spreads AIDS. Sorry about that.

There is another way AIDs could be stamped out. That is if science
discovers a cure, as it has done for many other diseases.

Oh, really? Like herpes? Cancer? the FLU???

You're being disingenuous again. You know perfectly well there are diseases
that science has discovered a cure for, and that there has been progress
made on the diseases you list here.

I mean, it wasn't so very long ago that everybody thought that the human
race had eliminated smallpox; so much so that nobody was being vaccinated
against it anymore; it was extinct.

yeah, right....

Well it ain't a gigantic problem now, and I'm sure vaccines will do the
trick once again. Which is a lot more help than prayer ever was, isn't it?

And condom use helps. But it doesn't fix the problem.

You are correct to say that having one partner each would cure AIDs, but
THAT is not realistic. Partners die. People break up. What are they
supposed to do then?

make certain that THEY don't carry the disease, and then make very certain
that their next partner doesn't either.

I agree. Which is suddenly different from your analogy above where you
suggest that "If everybody just kept their sandals in the closet, the
disease would go away..." That is abstinance.

But they aren't doing the job, and an entire race of people is dying.
Becoming extinct. Entire nations are disintegrating; the black plague has
nothing on this.

It does not help when you have the pope telling 1 billion people not to use
condoms. And plesae tell me which race is becoming extinct and which nations
are disintegrating due to AIDs. You sound a little hysterical. And the black
plague killed a higher ratio of people than AIDs has, atleast in Europe. By
the way, the plague is an example of a disease we have virtually elininated,
in case you didn't know.
I live in a city where we have provided safe injection sites for drug
addicts. It has really helped, the addicts are surviving, the drug problem
has been confined to a managable area, and drug related crime has been
reduced. This is because our mayor was realistic about drug use, i.e. some
people are going to use drugs (just like some people, if not most people,
are going to have sex with multiple partners), and he showed a little
compassion by creating this program. My point is that a religious approach
just makes the problem worse because it is not realistic, and that social
programs devoid of religion (e.g. scientific research, civic facilities,
politicians without an agenda) might have a fighting chance.

Here's the thing; *I* think God loves you. If you are insulted by that,
that's not my problem. YOU think that there is no god. If I get insulted
by that, (and I don't, by the way) what difference does that make? I
can tell you this; more people are being sued for saying 'God loves you
' than are for saying 'there is no God'. Just in case you are going to
pull the 'they are forcing their beliefs down my throat' crap.

Sources?

You have got to be kidding.

I'm not kidding. Tell me who is being sued for saying "God loves you." And
by the way, your American ethnocentricity is showing. You would be
persecuted in many parts of the world, and so would I.
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	22 Apr 2005 02:54:04 AM

"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@telus.net> wrote in message
news:RnZ9e.82542$7Q4.41666@clgrps13...
<snip to>

There is another way AIDs could be stamped out. That is if science
discovers a cure, as it has done for many other diseases.

Oh, really? Like herpes? Cancer? the FLU???

You're being disingenuous again. You know perfectly well there are
diseases that science has discovered a cure for, and that there has been
progress made on the diseases you list here.

Nobody has ever found a cure for a virus. And HIV is a virus. We can treat
the symptoms. We can cause remissions. But doctors don't even bother to
treat colds or the flu unless the symptoms become life threatening, and then
all they can do is attempt to alleviate those symptoms until our bodies
fight off the illness. That 'triple coctail' that HIV patients get is quite
effective; but you notice that the patients have to take it all the rest of
their abbreviated lives, because AIDS is 100% fatal.
Even the black plague only killed 90%...or was that 75%? Whatever...the
EBOLA virus, the one that is the topic of all the horror movies? YOu have a
chance of living through that if you catch it. You WILL die of AIDS if you
get it. No reprieve, because this virus affects the very immune system that
is supposed to be fighting against it. The only cure, and I do mean the ONLY
one we have, is prevention. There is no vacine for HIV. Nor is there likely
to be one any time soon.

I mean, it wasn't so very long ago that everybody thought that the human
race had eliminated smallpox; so much so that nobody was being vaccinated
against it anymore; it was extinct.

yeah, right....

Well it ain't a gigantic problem now, and I'm sure vaccines will do the
trick once again. Which is a lot more help than prayer ever was, isn't it?

We don't have enough vacine. Nor will we for quite awhile. And while I pray
for those who are facing this situation, I am also realistic. YOU, however,
are quite willing to throw these people away rather than admit that a theist
could be right about something.

And condom use helps. But it doesn't fix the problem.

You are correct to say that having one partner each would cure AIDs, but
THAT is not realistic. Partners die. People break up. What are they
supposed to do then?

make certain that THEY don't carry the disease, and then make very
certain that their next partner doesn't either.

I agree. Which is suddenly different from your analogy above where you
suggest that "If everybody just kept their sandals in the closet, the
disease would go away..." That is abstinance.

You were snipping something. The part about actually getting to wear them to
ONE party?

Become abstinate? Clearly there is a desire for people (not all) of both
sexes to have multiple partners. I don't think the rest of us should
just shrug them off and say (as you are implying) that it would be a
good idea for them to withdraw from the gene pool. The rest of us should
be supporting research for a cure and doing what we can in the meantime
to make sex safe, including accepting the use of condoms.

But they aren't doing the job, and an entire race of people is dying.
Becoming extinct. Entire nations are disintegrating; the black plague has
nothing on this.

Go here; http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/aids/ for a fairly good analysis
of what AIDS is doing to Africa.
And, er, the Black plague started in China and traveled slowly around the
planet over a period of 900 years. It is roughly figured that it took a
quarter of the population, about 25 million people all told, most of them in
the first epidemic waves when it reached Europe. How many people have died
of AIDS in the past twenty years? UNAIDS/WHO puts it at 20 million. With a
further 39 million people 'living with' AIDS, which as we know just means
they haven't died YET of it, but they will. Six thousand people are infected
every day.
In other words, AIDS has more than surpassed the Black Death; it took 900
years to take 25,000,000 people. AIDS will have done it in thirty. With the
Black Death they had a 60 to 75% chance of surviving. With AIDS you have NO
chance of surviving. Don't you think that it's a little late to be worried
about whether people can be monogamous, or whether it's fair to expect it of
them, or whether a theist says they should? The fact is, if they do not,
they will die.

I live in a city where we have provided safe injection sites for drug
addicts. It has really helped, the addicts are surviving, the drug problem
has been confined to a managable area, and drug related crime has been
reduced. This is because our mayor was realistic about drug use, i.e. some
people are going to use drugs (just like some people, if not most people,
are going to have sex with multiple partners), and he showed a little
compassion by creating this program. My point is that a religious approach
just makes the problem worse because it is not realistic, and that social
programs devoid of religion (e.g. scientific research, civic facilities,
politicians without an agenda) might have a fighting chance.

And one of those programs is going to have to be truth; you have sex with
multiple partners, you are playing Russion Roulette with all cylandars
loaded. You cannot win. You WILL die. And that doesn't change even if a
theist DOES say so.

Here's the thing; *I* think God loves you. If you are insulted by that,
that's not my problem. YOU think that there is no god. If I get
insulted by that, (and I don't, by the way) what difference does that
make? I can tell you this; more people are being sued for saying 'God
loves you ' than are for saying 'there is no God'. Just in case you are
going to pull the 'they are forcing their beliefs down my throat' crap.

Sources?

You have got to be kidding.

I'm not kidding. Tell me who is being sued for saying "God loves you." And
by the way, your American ethnocentricity is showing. You would be
persecuted in many parts of the world, and so would I.

Oh, just go to the ACLU 'Religious freedom' site and count. See how many
lawsuits there are against people who try to reference their beliefs in
valedictory addresses, or in voluntary student led prayer before events, or
voluntary community led prayer before community events, or clubs who have
the nerve to want equal access to school classrooms as permitted by the EEA
but who are forbidden such access because they are religious.
And then against those, see if you can find any that are against someone who
wants to say 'there is no god' anywhere at all.
Please pardon me if I don't hold my breath while you count.
.

User: "Neil Kelsey"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	22 Apr 2005 11:02:30 AM

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:w42ae.38600$hB6.15485@trnddc06...

"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@telus.net> wrote in message
news:RnZ9e.82542$7Q4.41666@clgrps13...
<snip to>

There is another way AIDs could be stamped out. Th