Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge

Religions > Atheism > Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Carol Lee Smith"
Date:	18 Oct 2003 10:42:28 PM
Object:	Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003, Old GodsSoldier wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Old GodsSoldier wrote:

cs: What is a "fundamentalist" atheist?
cs: What are atheist "fundamentals" ?

GS: That would be a good question since I have never seen any document
that lists any fundamental belief for the Atheist. It seems that each is
welcome to make up any old thing as they go along.

Atheism only implies one is without theism.

The Fundamentalist Christian, or Conservative Christian, is often
compared to the Taliban of the Muslims by the Atheist community. I would
suggest that there are many in the Atheist community who are of the same
caliber.

Is this something you are making up, or do you have examples for us?
cs:<<Our government is a secular government. Are you suggesting a sectarian government? Would that be better? Why?>>

GS: No, and why would you think so?

Comments have been made disparaging secularists, that is why I think so.

To declare our form of government is
secular while denying the influence of religion, especially that of the
Christian, on that government is what I find dumbfounding.

Religion may influence individuals, but governmental agents should not be
permitted to force their particular belief system on the general populace
a la Roy Moore and his Alabamakabala.
GS: <<or humanism, which in, and of itself, could be defined as a
religion.>>
cs: Who says?>>>>>

GS: Is not a religion a system of beliefs?

I believe that in the morning when I awake, I will again see the effects
of sunlight. Is that a religion?

Religion, in and of itself, does not depend on a belief in God, or a god.

There are godless religions, to be sure.
But I don't think it is accurate to claim humanism is a religion, and it
is even less true to suggest it has taken over the government or is being
forced on public school students.
.

User: "Bill, The Avender"
Title: Re: Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge	19 Oct 2003 12:11:30 AM

<piggybacking>
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003, Old GodsSoldier wrote:
<snip>

Religion, in and of itself, does not depend on a belief in
God, or a god.

Additionally, religion in and of itself doesn't even depend on the
_existence_ of a god or gods. If there is a god, there is a god. But
if there isn't a god, we're too damned self-centered of a species to
not invent one.
--
L8r,
Avender
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - --
Common is the man who can be fashioned into a
reflection of the era in which he lives.
Rare is the man who can take the era in which
he lives, and fashion it into a reflection
of himself.
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - --
.

User: "Chris"
Title: Re: Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge	19 Oct 2003 12:30:02 AM

In article <3fa31bae.46239242@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,

(Bill, The Avender) wrote:

<piggybacking>

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003, Old GodsSoldier wrote:
<snip>

Religion, in and of itself, does not depend on a belief in
God, or a god.

Maybe there's some self-centeredness, but I think it's simply a quest
for understanding. Where did we come from? Why are we here? What happens
when we die? Religion starts as a quest for knowledge. That today's
organized religions go well beyond this and prescribe things you must do
or must not do, manipulate their followers, etc. is probably the
religious equivalent of political "empire." Get successful and powerful,
get arrogant, turn into a *****.
Chris
.

User: "Dr. DuFonet"
Title: Re: Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge	19 Oct 2003 08:36:25 AM

"Chris" <ihatespam@tinwhipme.com> wrote in message
news:ihatespam-E2C613.23300018102003@netnews.attbi.com...

In article <3fa31bae.46239242@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
Avender@SpamMeNot.com (Bill, The Avender) wrote:

<piggybacking>

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003, Old GodsSoldier wrote:
<snip>

Religion, in and of itself, does not depend on a belief in
God, or a god.

The belief in God was originally an attempt to control the arrogant behavior
of Alpha males, by inventing a higher power. It actually helped to create
social stability by opposing the absolute power of kings and chiefs. War was
only to be declared by the grace of God. Certain actions even of Kings were
frowned upon and censured. The rise of fundamentalism in the present time is
likely a nostalgia movement, to hark back to days of less world population.
Ironically the explosion of numbers of the human species is partly a result
of Judeo-Christian hegemony, with its extreme value placed on human life.
One reaction against overpopulation, was the initial succes of the Christian
Adolph Hitler, and his extermination of millions. totalitarian regimes,
secular as well as religious are seeking to reduce the world population by
killing as many people as they can get away with. The immense and banal
carnage of 2 world wars proved totally inadequate, but manking never stops
trying. The killing fields of Cambodia, the mass murder by Saddam Hussein
and many examples. Hopefully, a supervolcano will put an end to the ignorant
madness.
.

User: "Alun Harford"
Title: Re: Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge	19 Oct 2003 06:18:00 AM

"Chris" <ihatespam@tinwhipme.com> wrote in message
news:ihatespam-E2C613.23300018102003@netnews.attbi.com...

Religion starts as a quest for knowledge.

I would disagree. I would argue that religion is the END of a quest for
knowledge - religion is the result of giving up on that quest.
Alun Harford
.

User: "Russell Turpin"
Title: Re: Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge	19 Oct 2003 10:32:38 AM

Bill, The Avender:

Religion in and of itself doesn't even depend
on the _existence_ of a god or gods. If there
is a god, there is a god. But if there isn't
a god, we're too damned self-centered of a
species to not invent one.

Chris <ihatespam@tinwhipme.com> wrote

No. Religion starts as a quest for certainty,
to comfort, to engender loyalty to a culture or
people, to define meaning and draw the world to
fit, and to privilege certain ways of thinking
and living. The search for knowledge is a very
different kind of thing. Its answers are never
certain, and they put at risk the comfortable
verities of religion, culture, belonging, and
privilege.
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge	19 Oct 2003 10:07:16 PM

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 05:11:30 GMT,

(Bill, The
Avender) posted in alt.atheism:

<piggybacking>
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003, Old GodsSoldier wrote:
<snip>

Religion, in and of itself, does not depend on a belief in
God, or a god.

re�li�gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers
regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief
and worship.
IOW, religion *IS* belief in a god.
--
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge	20 Oct 2003 03:25:03 PM

(ambrose searle aka richard gardiner) wrote:

:|Carol Lee Smith <

> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.3.96.1031019210724.8087L-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>...
:|> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003, Old GodsSoldier wrote:
:|>
:|> > From:

The latter portion of this. [Jefferson, Founders, Madison]
From:

(

)
Subject: Re: USSC to rule on Pledge
Newsgroups: alt.atheism, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.education,
alt.religion.christian, alt.society.liberalism, misc.education,
alt.politics.usa.republican
Date: 2003-10-19 09:29:50 PST
http://snurl.com/2qi3

:|
:|And what of the Northwest Ordinance?:
:|
:|"Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government
:|and the happiness of mankind..."
:|
:|Is there any "suggestion" there that the founders believed that
:|government rests upon religion?

This might be a buddy of yours:
john.mcadams@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:

:|On 7 Aug 2003 16:15:27 -0400,

Some did, some didn't.
This didn't happen by accident:
A Simple Test
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/simptest.htm

:|Look at the Preamble to the Northwest Ordinance, for example, which
:|was passed by the same congress that passed the First Amendment.

SEE:
http://snurl.com/2qic
ALSO SEE MIDDLE SECTION OF
http://snurl.com/2qi3

:|And finally, what of the man who was the Chairman of the
:|Constitutional Convention? What did he "suggest"?
:|
:|He didn't think atheists were even trustworthy to testify on an oath!
:|
:|"Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the
:|sense of religious obligation desert the oaths.. reason and experience
:|both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in
:|exclusion of religious principle"
:|
:|Source: George Washington, Farewell Address of George Washington,
:|President of the United States, 1796 (Baltimore: George and Henry S.
:|Keatinge), pp. 22-23.

SEE MIDDLE PORTION OF
http://snurl.com/2qi3

As someone recently said to you
Grow up!

:|Searle aka gardiner

User: "ambrose searle"
Title: Re: Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge	20 Oct 2003 09:57:56 PM

wrote in message news:<o4h8pvon2leklc3ehlc6hbp446057adpr1@4ax.com>...

ambrosesearle@yahoo.com (ambrose searle aka richard gardiner) wrote:

This might be a buddy of yours:

john.mcadams@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:

:|On 7 Aug 2003 16:15:27 -0400,

Some did, some didn't.

McAdams is right, and your silly semantic games prove that you aren't
very straightforwardly honest.
You are right when you say that "some did, some didn't."
But it is also right to say that some Americans have walked on the
moon, and others haven't. But the literal truth of it doesn't change
the fact that it is misleading.
The tone is connotes a half-half distribution. McAdams says "a clear
majority did." We know this from the votes themselves (e.g.,
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/lljc/012/0100/01431001.gif)

:|Look at the Preamble to the Northwest Ordinance, for example, which
:|was passed by the same congress that passed the First Amendment.

Agreed.
Thanks
Searle
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge	21 Oct 2003 11:47:44 AM

(ambrose searle aka richard gardiner) wrote:
[included in this is a history lesson on the POINT OF BEGINNING, very much
connected to the Northwest Territory and in fact the whole of the United
States. ]

This might be a buddy of yours:
After all he is a Pol. Sci. Prof. at Marquette.

:|>john.mcadams@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
:|>>:|The Founding Fathers thought it was good that government *promote*
:|>>:|religion -- just not a particular denomination or sect.

[I had said]

:|>Some did, others didn't.

[McAdams said]

:|No, a clear majority did.

Some did, some didn't.
This didn't happen by accident:
A Simple Test
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/simptest.htm

:|Look at the Preamble to the Northwest Ordinance, for example, which
:|was passed by the same congress that passed the First Amendment.

It's been a long time since anyone has brought up the Northwest Ordinance
to me. A few years ago it was a regular event, weekly sometimes.
The Northwest Ordnance was passed July 13, 1787 by the Cont. Congress
meeting in NY at the same time the Convention to revise the Articles of
Confederation was meeting in Philadelphia.
The N. O. was passed again under the authority of the Constitution by the
First Session of the First Federal Congress. There were little if any
changes made to it. It was passed a second time to give it at least a stamp
of Constitutional approval.
*****************************************************************
BTW, FYI my home town is the "POINT OF BEGINNING"
and just about the same time they began the surveying at that "POINT OF
BEGINNING" my great, great, great great grandfather (same name as mine)
and Rev War vet moved him and his family to land only about 10 miles from
that "POINT OF BEGINNING," (and 10 miles from where I was born and raised,
I was born and rasied about 2 miles from the "Point of Beginning") from
Maryland where his ancestors had lived since the mid 1600s.
*******************************************************************
The preamble? You mean this:
THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCE
July 13, 1787 An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the
United States, North-West of the River Ohio.
Be it ordained by the United States in Congress assembled, That the said
territory, for the purposes of temporary government, be one district,
subject, however, to be divided into two districts, as future circumstances
may, in the opinion of Congress, make it expedient.
Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the estates, both of
resident and nonresident proprietors in the said territory, dying
intestate, shall descent to, and be distributed among their children, and
the descendants of a deceased child, in equal parts; the descendants of a
deceased child or grandchild to take the share of their deceased parent in
equal parts among them:
Or maybe you mean this:
Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good
government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education
shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed
towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from
them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty,
they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars
authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall
from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for
preserving peace and friendship with them.
If you mean the above, I offer this:
The Northwest Ordinance (1787-89
The Northwest Ordinance
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1.htm
The History of the First Sentence of Article III of the Northwest Ordinance
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1a.htm
The Northwest Ordinance does not violate the First Amendment
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1b.htm
The Northwest Ordinance did not require schools to teach religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1b1.htm
R. Freeman Butts on Minor v. Ohio
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwobutt.htm
The Northwest Ordinance did not provide non-preferential aid to the public
school
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1b2.htm
The first sentence of Article III of the Northwest Ordinance was a preamble
with few enforceable legal consequences
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1b3.htm
A note on "civilizing" the "American Indian"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwoind.htm
The Northwest Ordinance cannot be read as a commentary on the First
Amendment
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1c.htm
The Northwest Ordinance had no constitutional authority
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1d.htm
The framers of the Northwest Ordinance had no desire to aid religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1e.htm
The Northwest Ordinance: Course of Debate
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1785.htm
===================================
As for founders, I offer the following:
http://snurl.com/2qi3
The readers can decide who they feel made their case.
==========================================================
NOW FOR FUN;
Northwest Ordinance ( East Liverpool, Ohio was "The Point of Beginning")
The French first explored the area west of the Allegheny Mountains in the
mid-seventeenth century. Sieur de LaSalle is generally given credit for
the discovery and initial exploration of the Ohio River and the broad
expanse of territory traversed by its tributaries. English claims to the
area were based on their colonial charters and the activities of explorers
and traders in the area during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth
centuries. A series of wars between France and England dating from the late
seventeenth century culminated in 1763 with a British victory in the French
and Indian War and ultimate control of the Ohio country. With the French
eliminated from competition for the Ohio Valley, the British government was
free to tap the vast natural resources of the region.
The English, however, still faced the danger of Indian raids and were
unable to formulate a definite plan for settlement. In 1763 the Indians of
the region formed a confederation under Pontiac, chief of the Ottawa tribe,
in an all-out effort to drive the British settlers out. Following initial
victories by the Indians, royal troops were able to defeat them and end the
threat of Indian reprisals. Despite this success, the British crown, with
the establishment of the Proclamation Line in 1763, forbade settlement by
its subjects on land west of the Ohio River. It became immediately clear
that this attempt at restriction could not be effectively enforced. The
number of squatters in the Upper Ohio Valley and the rest of the Northwest
Territory continued to increase. A letter from Winchester, Virginia dated
30 April 1765 clearly illustrates the folly of such a policy. It stated
that "the frontier inhabitants of this colony and Maryland are moving fast
over the Allegheny Mountains in order to settle and live there."(6) On 18
June 1766 Thomas Hutchins, who served in the French and Indian War and
conducted many explorations in the region, left Fort Pitt for a journey
down the Ohio River. His maps and descriptions of the country, published as
a pamphlet in 1778, were instrumental in the opening of this area for
settlement.(7)
The defeat of the British and the subsequent Treaty of Paris in 1783 that
ended the American Revolution shifted control and the administration of the
area to the Continental Congress. To the many pioneers seeking land west of
the Ohio River; the government in charge mattered little. Many settlers
entered the area despite a Congressional ban on all settlement pending a
formal survey and public sale. As settlers continued to press into the
area, Congress also began to formulate a policy under which western lands
would be settled and formed into states. Numerous settlers, however, did
not wait and moved into the frontier.(8) The pace of settlement quickened
throughout the Ohio country following Wayne's victory over the Indians at
Fallen Timbers in 1794. With few exceptions, the Indian menace in the land
immediately west of the Ohio River had ended even prior to the end of the
American Revolution. As early as 1776 when Congress received a petition
from the "Inhabitants of the Country West of the Allegheny Mountains," it
was obvious that squatters were settling on the west bank of the Ohio in
the general vicinity of the future sites of Steubenville and Wheeling.(9)
In 1779 Ensign John Armstrong set out from Fort Pitt with a force of twenty
men to disperse the squatters and destroy their cabins. Between the point
of Ohio's present eastern boundary and Wheeling, a distance of
approximately fifty miles, he encountered six separate settlements, two of
which were in present-day Columbiana County.(10) On 29 October 1779 Colonel
Brodhead, also stationed at Fort Pitt, wrote to General Washington that on
the west bank of the river there were ". . . small improvements all the way
from the Muskingham River [Marietta] to Fort McIntosh & thirty miles up
some of the branches."(11) In 1786 Winthrop Sargent, a surveyor for New
Hampshire, noted in his diary the farm of a Mr. Dawson who was prepared to
supply milk, butter, and vegetables to surveyors who came down river."
It became clear that Congress could not effectively enforce its existing
settlement policies and that it needed a specific policy of control,
survey, and distribution of federal lands in the Northwest Territory. In
1785 Congress passed a land ordinance which provided for the rectangular
survey of public lands and the division of land into townships following
the system employed in New England.(13) This land ordinance established an
effective method by which the government could monitor settlement as well
as increase its depleted treasury.
The field survey of the first seven ranges of townships under the terms of
the new land ordinance began in September of 1785 at the "point of
beginning," a surveyor's mark on the Ohio River at the border of the states
of Pennsylvania and Ohio.(14) Thomas Hutchins, appointed geographer of the
United States, was to direct the work of the surveyors. The actual field
work, however, progressed much slower than original estimates because of
the rugged terrain in several sections and the threat from Indians still
lingering in the area. The area from which East Liverpool grew, First
Range, township 5 containing 4,229 acres, was surveyed in 1786 by Absolom
Martin of New Jersey.(15) It was two years before the entire survey was
completed, and it was not until 26 July 1788 that the final maps and notes
were submitted to the Board of Treasury. The total cost of the survey work
soared to almost fifteen thousand dollars; both the cost and the time
required to complete the survey were three times the original estimates. In
the late summer of 1787 the first and only sale of lands in the seven
ranges under provisions of the 1785 Land Ordinance was held in New York.
Less than one-third of the twenty-seven whole and fractional townships made
available were sold. . . At the same time Congress decided to sell large
unsurveyed tracts in the Northwest Territory to private investment groups,
such as the Ohio Company, and it reserved sections to satisfy bounties for
Revolutionary War veterans.
With the prospect of settlement in the Northwest Territory, Congress now
had to concern itself with making provisions for the governance of the
area. On 13 July 1787 Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance establishing
limited selfgovernment in the area and providing a system under which a
territory could attain statehood on an equal basis with the thirteen
original states. General Arthur St. Clair was appointed governor of the
Northwest Territory, and he established a system to administer the area.
The Land Act of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 made the orderly
settlement and development of the old northwest possible.(16)
6. Charles Henry Ambler, A History of Transportation in the Ohio Valley
(Glendale, California: Arthur H. Clark Co., 1932), p. 32.
7. Carl Wittke, gen. ed., The History of the State of Ohio, 6 vols.
(Columbus: Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1941; reprint
ed., Columbus: The Ohio Historical Society, 1968), vol. 1: The Foundations
of Ohio, by Beverley W. Bond, Jr., p. 193.
8. In October 1780, Congress passed a resolution proclaiming that all of
the North-West Territory would be formed into states having the same rights
of "sovereignty, freedom and independence as the other states." Cited in
Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, The Growth of the American
Republic, vol. 1 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962), p. 258. On 22
September 1783, Congress prohibited all persons ". . . from making
settlements on lands inhabited or claimed by Indians, without the
jurisdiction of any particular state." Quoted in William D. Pattison,
Beginnings of the American Rectangular Land Survey, 1784-1800 (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1957; reprint ed., Columbus: The Ohio
Historical Society, 1970), p. 110.
9. This petition was probably from the forty or so people that comprised
"Norristown," a village about ten miles down river from Steubenville. They
petitioned Congress for permission to remain at the site and were armed to
resist removal by troops. Pattison, p. 112.
10. Armstrong noted settlements on the Little Beaver and Yellow Creeks in
Columbiana County, two in Jefferson County at Mingo Bottom and
"Norristown," and two in Belmont County. Randolph C. Downes, "Ohio's
Squatter Governor: William Hogland of Hoglandstown," Ohio Archaeological
and Historical Publications xliii (1934): p. 278.
11. Fort McIntosh was between Fort Pitt and the present boundary of the
State of Ohio. Pattison, p. 112.
12. The Dawson farm was located near the present Ohio and Pennsylvania
border. Four other settlers and Cox's Fort, consisting of four or five log
cabins enclosed in a stockade, were also recorded above Wheeling by 1786.
Ibid, p. 111.
13. The provisions of the Land Ordinance of 1785 were summarized by James
Monroe in a letter to James Madison in May of 1785 shortly before its
passage by Congress. "[The territory] is to be survey'd in townships
containing abt. 26,000 acres each, each township mark'd on the plat into
lots of one mile square, and '/z the country sold only in townships and the
other in lots. 13 surveyors are to be appointed for the purpose to act
under the control of the geographer, beginning with the first range of
townships upon the Ohio and running north to the lakes from [a point due
north of] the termination of the line which forms Southern boundary of the
State of Pena., and so on westward with each range." Monroe continued by
saying that when seven ranges were completed, land was to be sold for not
less than one dollar per acre. From the Writings of James Monroe, vol. I,
page 77 and quoted in Ibid, p. 85.
14. Unless otherwise noted, the information ,presented on this topic is
taken from Pattison, passim. This excellent work is the best available on
the subject.
15. Undated map, manuscript collection of the East Liverpool Historical
Society, Ohio Historical Society's East Liverpool Museum of Ceramics
(hereafter cited as ELMC).
16. Morison and Commager, p. 261.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: THE CITY OF HILLS AND KILNS, Life and Work in East
Liverpool, Ohio. William C. Gates. The East Liverpool Historical Society,
East Liverpool, Ohio. (1984) pp 3-4, 429-30)
In addition to the above, in Stubenville, Ohio (birthplace of Jimmy "The
Greek" and Dean Martin, (LOL) they have restored a portion of Fort Stuben
as it appeared in the late 1700's I videotaped it as well. But haven't
copied it down from that marker yet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While on my trip back home at the end of April 2001, I managed to video
tape the marker (which is located on the border of Ohio and Penna in my
hometown) for the following
The metal type marker reads as follows
===============================================
The Point Of Beginning
No survey of the western lands of the United States could
be made as required under the Land Ordinance 1785 until
the surveyors for Pennsylvania and Virginia set a marker
on the north shore of the Ohio River. On August 20, 1785,
that marker was set. Concuded the north-south line between
the two states. The original marker long since lost, was
located 1112 feet south [that would have placed it on the
river bank which is approx 1112 feet south of the road
these markers are currently placed] of the plaque and was
also known as the "Point of Beginning" for the survey of
the western lands which had began on September 30, 1785
==============================================
A few feet from that is a stone marker and one side of it reads
=========================================
Erected in 1881 by a joint commission appointed by the
states of Pennsylvania and Ohio to re-survey and re-mark
the boundary line as established in 1786
Pennsylvania
=======================================
The other side of that same stone marker reads
=====================================
1112 feet south of this spot was the "Point of
Beginning" for surveying the public lands of the
United States. Then On September 30, 1785
Thomas Hutchins, first geographer of the
United States began the Geographers Line
of the Seven Ranges. This inscription was
dedicated September 30, 1960 in joint action
of The East Liverpool Historical Society
and the American Congress on Surveying
and mapping.
Ohio
East Liverpool, Ohio, is rich in history and today at the turn of
the 21st century you can still see homes and scenes from the 19th century.
Many scenes have changed or disappeared with the times.
East Liverpool in its earlier times was known by the native
inhabitants of the area, the Onandagas, Oneidas, Mohawks, Cayugas, Senecas
and Tuscaroras as a prime hunting ground along the Ohio River valley. Later
they were succeeded by the Delawares, Miamis and Shawnees.
A great treaty was made between the five nations on one side and
the eastern and western tribes on the other. This meeting took place at a
flat rocked area, on the beach of the Ohio River a short distance from the
mouth of the Little Beaver Creek. At this great council it was agreed that
war would cease and that peace would extend from the Alleghenys to the
Mississippi. To confirm the treaty each chief drew a symbol in the rock.
The Onandagas drew a spider, the Cayugas an eagle, the Oneidas a forked
stick, the Mohawks a bear, the Shawnees a turtle and the Senecas a wild
goose.
From the time of the treaty until 1775 this area was held by the Mingoes
and the Cayugas. In May of 1758 Col. George Washington captured Fort
Duquesne, renamed it Fort Pitt and later that year (June or July) made a
short voyage down the Ohio camping on what is now known as Babbs Island.
Stories say that encumbered with too many provisions he buried a barrel of
crackers there to keep them from falling into the hands of the Indians.
On October 17, 1770 George Washington again returned to the area, this
time camping on the upper east side. (It is believed this location was
close to the Museum of Ceramics).
East Liverpool sits on what is now the State Lines of Ohio, Pennsylvania
and West Virginia. This are was in 1787 "The Point of Beginning" for one of
the new nations most major undertakings- the survey of the territory west
of Pennsylvania and north of the Ohio River. This survey known as the
Northwest Ordinance was to have a major impact on the States now known as
Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin. The main idea behind the
survey was to bring government to the frontier country.
The first settlement in Columbiana County was made in1792 by John Quinn, a
hunter and trapper who built a cabin in the area now known as Calcutta. The
first settlement made in Liverpool Township was in 1795.In 1798 Thomas
Fawcett purchased 1,100 acres of land along the Ohio River, paying $3,651.
He believed that the area was a choice location and would attract settlers
because of the abundance of natural resources. (Which in time turned out to
be clay, thus turning East Liverool into the "pottery capital of the
world." ) He also laid out plans for St. Clair, named after Governor St.
Clair, which would become the foundation of the city we know today. The
residents renamed it Fawcettstown which it remained until 1816 when it was
changed to Liverpool. The town was eventually renamed East Liverpool when
it was incorporated on January 4, 1834 to prevent confusion with another
Ohio City called Liverpool.
================================
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge	21 Oct 2003 07:59:40 AM

(ambrose searle aka richard gardiner) wrote:

:|Carol Lee Smith <

> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.3.96.1031019210724.8087L-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>...
:|> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003, Old GodsSoldier wrote:
:|>
:|> > From:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DECEMBER 22, 1824
TO THE REVd. FREDRICK BEASLEY
MONTPELLIER, Va. Dec 22,
1824
The peculiarity in the Institution which excited at first most
attention, and some
animadversion, is the omission of a theological professorship. The public
opinion seems now lo have sufficiently yielded to its incompatibility
with a STATE [emphasis in original] Institution,
which necessarily excludes sectarian preferences. The best provision which
occurred was that of authorizing the Visitors to open the public rooms for
Religious uses, under IMPARTIAL [emphasis in original] regulations (a task
that may occasionally involve some difficulitites,) and admitting the
establishment of Theological Seminaries by the respective sects contiguous
to the precincts of the University, and within the reach of a familiar
intercourse disticnt from the obligatory pursuits of the students. The
growing villiage of Charlottesville, also, is nopt distant more than a
mile, anc contains already congregations and clergymen of the sects to
which the students will mostly belong.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Rev. Frederick Beasley from
James Madsion, December 22, 1824. Letters and Other writings of James
Madison, in Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B.
Lippincott & Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 474-475).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOVEMBER 20, 1825

*NOTE: Beasley had written to Madison requesting that he offer his opinion
on a pamphlet,
Vindication of the Argument a prior in Proof of the Being and Attributes
of God.
DEAR SIR I have duly reed the copy of your little tract on the
proofs of the Being & Attributes of God. To do full justice to it, would
require not only a more critical attention than I have been able to bestow
on it, but a resort to the celebrated work of Dr. Clarke, which I read
fifty years ago only, and to that of Dr. Waterland also which I never
read.
The reasoning that could satisfy such a mind as that of Clarke,
ought certainly not to be slighted in the discussion. And the belief in a
God All Powerful wise & good, is so essential to the moral order of the
World & to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be
drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the
different characters & capacities to be impressed with it.
But whatever effect may be produced on some minds by the more
abstract train of ideas which you so strongly support, it will probably
always be found that the course of reasoning from the effect to the cause,
"from Nature to Nature's God," Will be the more universal & more persuasive
application.
The finiteness of the human understanding betrays itself on all
subjects, but more especially when it contemplates such as involve
infinity. What may safely be said seems to be, that the infinity of time &
space forces itself on our conception, a limitation of either being
inconceivable; that the mind prefers at once the idea of a self-existing
cause to that of an infinite series of cause & effect, which augments,
instead of avoiding difficulty; and that it finds more facility in
assenting to the self-existence of an invisible cause possessing infinite
power, wisdom & goodness, than to the self-existence of the universe,
visibly destitute of those attributes, and which may be the effect of them.
In this comparative facility of conception & belief, all philosophical
Reasoning on the subject must perhaps terminate. But that I may not get
farther beyond my depth, and without the resources which bear you up in
fathoming efforts, I hasten to thank you for the favour which has made me
your debtor, and to assure you of my esteem & my respectful regards. . . .
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: TO FREDERICK BEASLEY FROM MADISON, NOVEMBER 20,
1825. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in Four Volumes,
Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott & Co.
Philadelphia, (1865), pp 503- 504) *James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 84-85)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:|But, ah, heck, who was James Madison, anyway? Why should his opinion
:|matter?

The latter portion of this. [Jefferson, Founders, Madison]
From:

(

This might be a buddy of yours:
john.mcadams@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:

:|On 7 Aug 2003 16:15:27 -0400,

Some did, some didn't.
This didn't happen by accident:
A Simple Test
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/simptest.htm

:|Look at the Preamble to the Northwest Ordinance, for example, which
:|was passed by the same congress that passed the First Amendment.

SEE:
http://snurl.com/2qic
ALSO SEE MIDDLE SECTION OF
http://snurl.com/2qi3

SEE MIDDLE PORTION OF
http://snurl.com/2qi3

As someone recently said to you
Grow up!

:|Searle aka gardiner

User: "Carol Lee Smith"
Title: Re: Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge	20 Oct 2003 04:29:26 PM

On 20 Oct 2003, ambrose searle wrote:

Are you suggesting that morality requires a religion?

I don't know what HE is suggesting,

Well, tell us what you think about it.

but James Madison "suggested" that morality requires belief in God:
"the belief in a God All Powerful wise & good, is so essential to the
moral order of the World & to the happiness of man, that arguments
which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources"
http://www.churchstatelaw.com/historicalmaterials/8_7_16.asp

I think there is adequate evidence to prove that the morality of his day
is different from the morality of today.
Slavery
Women's sufferage
Child labor
Indentured servants
etc.

But, ah, heck, who was James Madison, anyway?

He was the guy who said:
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality
of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to
Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished
in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10,
1822).
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on
unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other
or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded
against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any
way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and
protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others.
(Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

Why should his opinion matter?

Why, now should it? Tell us.

And what of the Northwest Ordinance?:

http://candst.tripod.com/nwo1d.htm
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcsm_gov_northwest.htm
Oh. but I already posted that url. Guess you didn't care to check it
out.

"Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government
and the happiness of mankind..."
Is there any "suggestion" there that the founders believed that
government rests upon religion?
What of John Adams? Did he think religion was necessary for moral
order and government?
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It
is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the
United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown,
and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.

What of Thomas Jefferson, an Enlightenment deist? He denied the divinity of Jesus, called Christianity "the most sublime
and benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man," and
wrote "the interests of society require the observation of those moral
precepts only in which all nations agree (for all forbid us to murder,
steal, plunder, or bear false witness,) and that we should not intermeddle
with the particular dogmas in which all religions differ, and which are
totally unconnected with morality."
http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/08/29/piety/index.html

And finally, what of the man who was the Chairman of the
Constitutional Convention? What did he "suggest"?
He didn't think atheists were even trustworthy to testify on an oath!
"Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the
sense of religious obligation desert the oaths.. reason and experience
both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in
exclusion of religious principle"
Source: George Washington, Farewell Address of George Washington,
President of the United States, 1796 (Baltimore: George and Henry S.
Keatinge), pp. 22-23.

We have come a long way since these men lived. And it is a good thing.

Ah, but what the heck, why should the leader of the Constitutional
Convention matter?

Why? We live entirely different lives than he did. Our false teeth may
be different too.
So what?

Why should Madison, the architect of the Constitution matter?

Why indeed?

Why should the Constitution matter?

Ask the Supreme Court.

Heck, hell
with the constitution, let's just perpetrate an atheist, Leninist
bloody revolution and murder all the Christians.

I know of no atheists who are interested in murdering anyone.
The unrest in our world today has nothing to do with atheism.
The perps of 9/11 had nothing to do with atheism.

Way to go, Carol.

I will leave the religious wars to the religious.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have
good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for
good people to do evil things, that takes religion." --Steven Weinberg
.

User: "ambrose searle"
Title: Re: Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge	20 Oct 2003 10:41:39 PM

Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.3.96.1031020160946.22601F-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>...

On 20 Oct 2003, ambrose searle wrote:

but James Madison "suggested" that morality requires belief in God:

"the belief in a God All Powerful wise & good, is so essential to the
moral order of the World & to the happiness of man, that arguments
which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources"
http://www.churchstatelaw.com/historicalmaterials/8_7_16.asp

I think there is adequate evidence to prove that the morality of his day
is different from the morality of today.

So. It doesn't change the fact that Madison believed that belief in
god was essential to morality.

But, ah, heck, who was James Madison, anyway?

He was the guy who said:

You quote, below, Madison's use of the Lutheran principle of
separating the spheres of civil and religious. Well, at least Madison
himself claimed that Luther was the pioneer of this idea:
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/madisonluther.html

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality
of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to
Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

Indeed, Madison was right about this Lutheran concept. Religion is
increased when free from the restraints of Government. When Government
steps in and begins to say "no religion here," then watch out!

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished
in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10,
1822).

"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on
unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other
or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded
against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any
way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and
protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others.
(Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

Why should his opinion matter?

Why, now should it? Tell us.

Because if we wish to understand the Constitution (the supreme law of
the U.S.), then we need to understand the men who wrote it.

What of Thomas Jefferson, an Enlightenment deist?

Trying to classify Jefferson as a deist is as silly as classifying him
as a Christian.
He was, as he insisted, a "sect of one."

And finally, what of the man who was the Chairman of the
Constitutional Convention? What did he "suggest"?

He didn't think atheists were even trustworthy to testify on an oath!

"Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the
sense of religious obligation desert the oaths.. reason and experience
both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in
exclusion of religious principle"

Source: George Washington, Farewell Address of George Washington,
President of the United States, 1796 (Baltimore: George and Henry S.
Keatinge), pp. 22-23.

We have come a long way since these men lived. And it is a good thing.

Ah, but what the heck, why should the leader of the Constitutional
Convention matter?

Why?

Because the Constitution his convention produced is still the Supreme
Law of the land.

So what?

Why should Madison, the architect of the Constitution matter?

Why indeed?

Because the constitution he architected is still the supreme law of
the land.
Searle
.

User: "Carol Lee Smith"
Title: Re: Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge	20 Oct 2003 10:55:24 PM

On 20 Oct 2003, ambrose searle wrote:

Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.3.96.1031020160946.22601F-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>...

Why should his opinion matter?

Why, now should it? Tell us.

Because if we wish to understand the Constitution (the supreme law of
the U.S.), then we need to understand the men who wrote it.

http://snurl.com/2qng
.

User: "Carol Lee Smith"
Title: Re: Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge	19 Oct 2003 09:32:52 PM

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003, Old GodsSoldier wrote:

<<<<<<<But I don't think it is accurate to claim humanism is a religion,
and it is even less true to suggest it has taken over the government or
is being forced on public school students.>>>>
GS: It is, it has, and it is

Prove it with examples and citations.

GS: That is what Franklin said, and it is true. But the question today
is should government "prop up" Atheism, secularism, or humanism. Can it
not "stand on its own"?

Perhaps you might want to give some examples of government propping up
atheism or humanism.
There you go again, using secularism in a way which obfuscates.
Our government is secular.
If you think it should be sectarian, perhaps you might want to try to make
a case--tell us why sectarian government would be desirable/better than
secular government?
.

User: "Carol Lee Smith"
Title: Re: Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge	19 Oct 2003 09:25:52 PM

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003, Old GodsSoldier wrote:

From:

(Carol=A0Lee=A0Smith)

cs: <<<<<Atheism only implies one is without theism.>>>>>>

GS: That is correct. It is without any means of support for any sense of
values, or morality. It has determined that each individual can make up
their own "code" as they go along the path of life.

Please provide proof that religion is necessary for morality.
Is this any religion?
Why can't one be moral or ethical if they believe in none of the above?

<<<<< gs: The Fundamentalist Christian, or Conservative Christian, is
often compared to the Taliban of the Muslims by the Atheist community. I
would suggest that there are many in the Atheist community who are of
the same caliber.
cs: Is this something you are making up, or do you have examples for
us?>>>>>>
GS: I guess you don't get out much. All you have to do is a simple
search. Try Conservative Christian and Taliban

Are you unable to support your claim? If that is the case, we know you
are just making it up.

But, here are a few examples for you:

=20

http://www.americasvoices.org/avarc2002/archives2002/ReynaldsJ/ReynaldsJ_=

011102.htm
"page cannot be found" message.

Well, what can you expect from the anti-religious left?"

Proof that the "left" is anti-religious?

http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tccn/2002/jan05.html

Jan. 5, 2002 =20
<<<<National Public Radio (aka National Pinko Radio) is accusing a
Christian group of mailing anthrax to liberal senators because the group
once circulated a press release critical of the lefties.=20
Traditional Values Coalition said in statement today:=20
NPR reporter David Kestenbaum called TVC's Andrea Lafferty Thursday
afternoon and asked, "Have you been contacted by the FBI yet?" Mrs.
Lafferty said her organization had not and asked why the FBI would contact
her. "Because of what's going on in the Congress with anthrax," she said
Kestenbaum responded.=20
Asked why the church group would be suspected of mailing anthrax,
Kestenbaum said he had seen a press release in which TVC criticized Sens.
Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., over their plan to drop the
phrase "so help me God" from the oath witnesses take before testifying in
a Senate committee. Kestenbaum, according to Mrs. Lafferty, deemed that
the press release made TVC and its 43,000 member churches suspect. >>>>
What ever came of this? Was NPR sued for libel? Slander?
No one HAS TO take a "so help me God" oath. The presendential oath
doesn't include "so help me god."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&ie=3DISO-8859-1&q=3Dconservati=

ve+christians+are+america%27s+taliban
So?

<<<<<Religion may influence individuals, but governmental agents should
not be permitted to force their particular belief system on the general
populace a la Roy Moore and his Alabamakabala.>>>>>>>
GS: And just how is that "forcing" anyone to believe as they do?

Read the decision.

<<<<<<GS: <<or humanism, which in, and of itself, could be defined as a
religion.
cs: Who says?
GS: Is not a religion a system of beliefs?
cs: I believe that in the morning when I awake, I will again see the
effects of sunlight. Is that a religion? >>>>>>>>
GS: You do seem to go to the extreme a bit don't you.=20

What is extreme about believing that when I awake I will again see the
effects of sunlight? What is religious about it?

But your response
does not relate to my answer.

Why should my response relate to your answer?
.

User: "Thales"
Title: Re: Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge	20 Oct 2003 05:57:10 PM

Carol Lee Smith <

> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.3.96.1031019210951.8087M-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>...

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003, Old GodsSoldier wrote:

From:

(Carol Lee Smith)

cs: <<<<<Atheism only implies one is without theism.>>>>>>

GS: That is correct. It is without any means of support for any sense of
values, or morality. It has determined that each individual can make up
their own "code" as they go along the path of life.

Please provide proof that religion is necessary for morality.

Is this any religion?

Why can't one be moral or ethical if they believe in none of the above?

Fundies dont know much science. If they did, they wouldnt be
fundies..~! We know that biology and genes are responsible for the
moral sense. Social structures like family, civic groups, government
and churches support the moral sense (sometimes perverting it with
primitive notions), and that support has been mired in distortions and
superstition in many societies. Genes and society are part of a
feedback loop.
Fundies, especially those backward creationists, dont understand
science. Like DPR, their knowledge is limited to how many fundy
articles they can repeatedly post.
BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF MORALITY
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98apr/biomoral.htm
http://www.nature.com/nsu/991021/991021-6.html
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/jeeves/lecture3.html
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge	21 Oct 2003 05:37:37 AM

(Thales) wrote:

:|Carol Lee Smith <

> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.3.96.1031019210951.8087M-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>...
:|> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003, Old GodsSoldier wrote:
:|>
:|> > From:

(Carol Lee Smith)
:|>
:|> cs: <<<<<Atheism only implies one is without theism.>>>>>>
:|>
:|> > GS: That is correct. It is without any means of support for any sense of
:|> > values, or morality. It has determined that each individual can make up
:|> > their own "code" as they go along the path of life.
:|>
:|> Please provide proof that religion is necessary for morality.
:|>
:|> Is this any religion?
:|>
:|> Why can't one be moral or ethical if they believe in none of the above?
:|>
:|
:|Fundies dont know much science. If they did, they wouldnt be
:|fundies..~!

You have to understand this particular "fundie" if you will
For anyone who is curious at all about this fool Ambrose Searle AKA Richard
Gardiner, his M.O. etc I offer the following as I depart the silliness with
him. You will see the exact same things you see here today, the same
EVERYTHING that you see today in the following.
You will also see just how many people trashed him and how the more he got
trashed the more he resorted to the tactics he is duplicating again today.

Gardiner <Gardiner@pitnet.net>
Searched Groups for author:Gardiner <Gardiner@pitnet.net.
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,640.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=author%3AGardiner+%3CGardiner%40pitnet.net&btnG=Google+Search
http://snurl.com/2lu6
Rick Gardiner <Gardiner@pitnet.net>
Searched Groups for author:Rick Gardiner <Gardiner@pitnet.net>.
Results 1 - 10 of about 653.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=author%3ARick+Gardiner+%3CGardiner%40pitnet.net%3E&btnG=Google+Search
http://snurl.com/2lub
Gardiner <ulsms@universitylake.org>
Searched Groups for author:Gardiner <ulsms@universitylake.org>.
Results 1 - 5 of about 27.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=author%3AGardiner+%3Culsms%40universitylake.org%3E&btnG=Google+Search
http://snurl.com/2lue
rgardiner@my-deja.com
Searched Groups for author:rgardiner@my-deja.com.
Results 1 - 10 of about 314.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=author%3Argardiner%40my-deja.com&btnG=Google+Search
http://snurl.com/2luf
ambrosesearle@yahoo.com (ambrose searle)
Searched Groups for author:ambrosesearle@yahoo.com (ambrose searle).
Results 1 - 10 of about 467.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=author%3Aambrosesearle%40yahoo.com+%28ambrose+searle%29&btnG=Google+Search
http://snurl.com/2lug
ambrosesearle@yahoo.com
Searched Groups for author:ambrosesearle@yahoo.com.
Results 1 - 10 of about 468.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=author%3Aambrosesearle%40yahoo.com&btnG=Google+Search
http://snurl.com/2luh
as of 9/25/2003
Now all you uns (north) you all (south) play nice together while I work on
some articles for the web site, including some on the DOI.
I'm not leaving the newsgroups, only becoming a bit more selective.
I prefer replying to those that offer some sort of challenge in the areas I
prefer posting in.
This idiot doesn't offer any challenge since this is merely a repeat of the
Mar 1999 to September 2000 time period and I trashed him enough back then.
Not my opinion, the opinion of others.
For those of you not present back then you might find some fun playing with
Searle/Gardiner for awhile yet.
But perhaps the comment to him to grow up sums it all up for the new crew.
.

User: "ambrose searle"
Title: Re: Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge	21 Oct 2003 02:22:35 PM

wrote in message news:<333apvk38jtebqjf5cj994t68m6991crba@4ax.com>...

Thales_Anaximander@msn.com (Thales) wrote:

Jim, you're again displaying your inability to follow a thread. Or,
are you now claiming that Ambrose Searle is also "GodsSoldier" the
person who was engaging in the thread that you have attributed to me?
Man, you really are paranoid. You see me or Gardiner in every other
posting identity. Was Raul Golden really Gardiner too?
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_467210804

:|Fundies dont know much science. If they did, they wouldnt be
:|fundies..~!

You have to understand this particular "fundie" if you will

For anyone who is curious at all about this fool Ambrose Searle AKA Richard
Gardiner, his M.O. etc I offer the following as I depart the silliness with
him. You will see the exact same things you see here today, the same
EVERYTHING that you see today in the following.

You will also see just how many people trashed him and how the more he got
trashed the more he resorted to the tactics he is duplicating again today.

Gardiner <Gardiner@pitnet.net>
Searched Groups for author:Gardiner <Gardiner@pitnet.net.
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,640.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=author%3AGardiner+%3CGardiner%40pitnet.net&btnG=Google+Search
http://snurl.com/2lu6

Rick Gardiner <Gardiner@pitnet.net>
Searched Groups for author:Rick Gardiner <Gardiner@pitnet.net>.
Results 1 - 10 of about 653.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=author%3ARick+Gardiner+%3CGardiner%40pitnet.net%3E&btnG=Google+Search
http://snurl.com/2lub

Gardiner <ulsms@universitylake.org>
Searched Groups for author:Gardiner <ulsms@universitylake.org>.
Results 1 - 5 of about 27.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=author%3AGardiner+%3Culsms%40universitylake.org%3E&btnG=Google+Search
http://snurl.com/2lue

rgardiner@my-deja.com
Searched Groups for author:rgardiner@my-deja.com.
Results 1 - 10 of about 314.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=author%3Argardiner%40my-deja.com&btnG=Google+Search
http://snurl.com/2luf

ambrosesearle@yahoo.com (ambrose searle)
Searched Groups for author:ambrosesearle@yahoo.com (ambrose searle).
Results 1 - 10 of about 467.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=author%3Aambrosesearle%40yahoo.com+%28ambrose+searle%29&btnG=Google+Search
http://snurl.com/2lug

ambrosesearle@yahoo.com
Searched Groups for author:ambrosesearle@yahoo.com.
Results 1 - 10 of about 468.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=author%3Aambrosesearle%40yahoo.com&btnG=Google+Search
http://snurl.com/2luh
as of 9/25/2003

Now all you uns (north) you all (south) play nice together while I work on
some articles for the web site, including some on the DOI.
I'm not leaving the newsgroups, only becoming a bit more selective.
I prefer replying to those that offer some sort of challenge in the areas I
prefer posting in.
This idiot doesn't offer any challenge since this is merely a repeat of the
Mar 1999 to September 2000 time period and I trashed him enough back then.
Not my opinion, the opinion of others.
For those of you not present back then you might find some fun playing with
Searle/Gardiner for awhile yet.

But perhaps the comment to him to grow up sums it all up for the new crew.

User: "Chris"
Title: Re: Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge	21 Oct 2003 09:48:11 PM

In article <528e05a5.0310201457.5690b24@posting.google.com>,

(Thales) wrote:

I think it is important to see religion as a double edged sword. It's
done a lot of good things in getting the human race where it is now and
I've heard of no one credible who can deny its value, or its attrocities.
Chris
.

User: "Carol Lee Smith"
Title: Re: Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge	20 Oct 2003 10:02:34 PM

On 20 Oct 2003, Thales wrote:

BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF MORALITY
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98apr/biomoral.htm

that is a most excellent article.
E.O. Wilson, humanist of the year 1999, is a hero.

http://www.nature.com/nsu/991021/991021-6.html

Every time I read about Phineas Gage I get goosebumps.

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/jeeves/lecture3.html

"It's as if the moral compass of these people has been demagnetised,
causing it to spin out of control (de Waal). He went on, somewhat
provocatively, what this incident teaches us is that conscience is not
some disembodied concept that can be understood only on the basis of
culture and religion.
"Morality, he claimed, is as firmly founded in neurobiology as anything
else we do or are. This tightening link between personality and emotion
and their neural substrates has been further documented in studies by Hare
and his colleagues of a series of imprisoned psychopaths."
.

User: "Carol Lee Smith"
Title: Re: Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge	21 Oct 2003 04:12:00 PM

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, M. Clark wrote:

alt.atheism removed.

alt.atheism restored.

Thales <Thales_Anaximander@msn.com> wrote:

Carol Lee Smith <

> wrote in message
Sun, 19 Oct 2003, Old GodsSoldier wrote:

From:

(Carol Lee Smith)

cs: <<<<<Atheism only implies one is without theism.>>>>>>

GS: That is correct. It is without any means of support for any sense of
values, or morality. It has determined that each individual can make up
their own "code" as they go along the path of life.

Please provide proof that religion is necessary for morality.
Is this any religion?
Why can't one be moral or ethical if they believe in none of the above?

This above URL goes in circles and doesn't really say anything.

A URL is only an address of sorts. They say nothing. Are you critical of
the article to which the URL leads you?
If so, be specific. Saying something goes in circles and doesn't really
say anything could be said about a lot of things.
Case in point: The Bible.
What bothers you about The JBiological Basis of Morality?

http://www.nature.com/nsu/991021/991021-6.html

The above URL essentially admits that it is nothing but conjecture.

So?
What specifically about it is conjecture?

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/jeeves/lecture3.html

The above URL is motion but with no real work being done.

Another comment which means absolutely nothing.
If you are critical about the article, be specific.

alt.atheism removed.

alt.atheism restored.
.

User: "M. Clark"
Title: Re: Fundamental beliefs of atheism? was: USSC to rule on Pledge	22 Oct 2003 11:00:29 AM

Carol Lee Smith <

> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, M. Clark wrote:

alt.atheism removed.

alt.atheism restored.

Thales <Thales_Anaximander@msn.com> wrote:

Carol Lee Smith <

> wrote in message

Sun, 19 Oct 2003, Old GodsSoldier wrote:

From:

(Carol Lee Smith)

cs: <<<<<Atheism only implies one is without theism.>>>>>>

GS: That is correct. It is without any means of support for any
sense of values, or morality. It has determined that each
individual can make up their own "code" as they go along the path
of life.

Please provide proof that religion is necessary for morality.

Is this any religion?

Why can't one be moral or ethical if they believe in none of the above?