| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Les Hemmings" |
| Date: |
06 Jan 2006 04:25:39 PM |
| Object: |
Millitant Atheist Declaration |
We've been asked why?
Why do we want to leap in and denounce theist diatribes. Why should we
cut in between a group of theists and confront them with our rational,
atheistic logic? Many times we are confronted with a plaintive "Why can't we
agree to disagree and respect each others points of view?" I will try to
explain my own personal stance here.
Enough is enough! It's time to draw that line in the sand. For too long,
for millennia, since man first started to form societies we have had our
view of the universe tainted with religion. To say that theists have had a
fair crack at the whip would be understatement in the extreme. Theistic
dogma has caused more misery, more wars, more suppression and held back the
discovery of the universe we inhabit than any other invention. From the
indoctrination of generations of innocent, inquiring children in the home,
through schools and their mandatory acts of worship of fictitious, vengeful
gods, the foul distortions introduced by the likes of the Dover School
Board, the theft of a woman's right to control of her own body, the
intrusion of a false morality upon our daily lives and the stifling of
science. All these things must stop! It is no longer a matter of respect, of
tolerance or of agreeing to disagree. The stakes are far too high.
No! You cannot blow people up in the name of your mythical being. No!
You cannot kill doctors who choose to help women regain control of their
lives. No! You cannot divert money that should be healing the sick to spend
on your costumes and buildings. No! You cannot tell me how to think anymore.
No! You cannot claim that your damn stupid, lame, small minded little
creation myth has equal value to Darwin's evolution and modern cosmology.
The time has come to leave the nursery, cast off these childish, dangerous
stories and grow the ***** up!
Religion has sapped enough of mans resources. Time, money, effort,
emotion and whole damned races have been swallowed up by these deluded
zealots. Every theist that EVER went into battle always had a god on their
side. Every poor sap who worked till they dropped was promised their reward
after their death. The crippled, the sick, the outcast and the insane have
turned to religion and been rewarded with nothing except vacuous empty
promises.
It's time to stop the madness. It's time to confront this awful cancer,
this creeping, insidious lie. It's time to free humanity from the shackles
of the past. from the guilt. from the original sin. from the inferiority.
It's time to stop the killing. The gang mentality. Them and us. The threats
of heaven, the lure of hell, the hell of the faithful.
Theists, you've had your chance. You've had millennia of chances. Look
at the planet now. Is it better for religion or does the worlds major human
conflicts have their very basis in religion. Theism is a mind numbing death
shroud for humanity. It can not be allowed to continue. We have to stop
lying to our children. To ourselves.
This is why I leap in and denounce theists wherever I find them. If I
upset a few simpletons who cannot think outside their late bronze age
shackles then so be it. But your not going to poison this race forever. If
you theists have your way you will be the end as you always predicted. Self
fulfilling prophecy. I will do my level best to rid my race of this
handicap. The future of man lies in the stars. Our Earth is finite,
eventually our sun will leave the main sequence and go red giant. If we're
not out of here by then we, as a race. are doomed. It is science that is our
route to our true home in the universe. You can't pray your way out of this
one.
Les
--
Remove Frontal Lobes to reply direct.
http://armsofmorpheus.blogspot.com/
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Les Hemmings aa #2251 SA
aw Hellboy #003
.
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Millitant Atheist Declaration |
08 Jan 2006 12:09:59 PM |
|
|
"Les Hemmings" <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:428930F1hgq5oU1@individual.net...
We've been asked why?
Why do we want to leap in and denounce theist diatribes. Why should we
cut in between a group of theists and confront them with our rational,
atheistic logic? Many times we are confronted with a plaintive "Why can't
we
agree to disagree and respect each others points of view?" I will try to
explain my own personal stance here.
Enough is enough! It's time to draw that line in the sand. For too
long,
for millennia, since man first started to form societies we have had our
view of the universe tainted with religion. To say that theists have had a
fair crack at the whip would be understatement in the extreme. Theistic
dogma has caused more misery, more wars, more suppression and held back
the
discovery of the universe we inhabit than any other invention. From the
indoctrination of generations of innocent, inquiring children in the home,
through schools and their mandatory acts of worship of fictitious,
vengeful
gods, the foul distortions introduced by the likes of the Dover School
Board, the theft of a woman's right to control of her own body, the
intrusion of a false morality upon our daily lives and the stifling of
science. All these things must stop! It is no longer a matter of respect,
of
tolerance or of agreeing to disagree. The stakes are far too high.
No! You cannot blow people up in the name of your mythical being. No!
You cannot kill doctors who choose to help women regain control of their
lives. No! You cannot divert money that should be healing the sick to
spend
on your costumes and buildings. No! You cannot tell me how to think
anymore.
No! You cannot claim that your damn stupid, lame, small minded little
creation myth has equal value to Darwin's evolution and modern cosmology.
The time has come to leave the nursery, cast off these childish, dangerous
stories and grow the ***** up!
Religion has sapped enough of mans resources. Time, money, effort,
emotion and whole damned races have been swallowed up by these deluded
zealots. Every theist that EVER went into battle always had a god on their
side. Every poor sap who worked till they dropped was promised their
reward
after their death. The crippled, the sick, the outcast and the insane have
turned to religion and been rewarded with nothing except vacuous empty
promises.
It's time to stop the madness. It's time to confront this awful cancer,
this creeping, insidious lie. It's time to free humanity from the shackles
of the past. from the guilt. from the original sin. from the inferiority.
It's time to stop the killing. The gang mentality. Them and us. The
threats
of heaven, the lure of hell, the hell of the faithful.
Theists, you've had your chance. You've had millennia of chances. Look
at the planet now. Is it better for religion or does the worlds major
human
conflicts have their very basis in religion. Theism is a mind numbing
death
shroud for humanity. It can not be allowed to continue. We have to stop
lying to our children. To ourselves.
This is why I leap in and denounce theists wherever I find them. If I
upset a few simpletons who cannot think outside their late bronze age
shackles then so be it. But your not going to poison this race forever. If
you theists have your way you will be the end as you always predicted.
Self
fulfilling prophecy. I will do my level best to rid my race of this
handicap. The future of man lies in the stars. Our Earth is finite,
eventually our sun will leave the main sequence and go red giant. If we're
not out of here by then we, as a race. are doomed. It is science that is
our
route to our true home in the universe. You can't pray your way out of
this
one.
Les
I agree.....but will we have to wear khakis?
--
Kathryn
a.a # 2216
"We have toasters in this country...and they lie to us! Because it has
numbers from one to six and it lies to us!"
Eddie Izzard
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Millitant Atheist Declaration |
09 Jan 2006 02:05:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:09:59 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
"Les Hemmings" <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:428930F1hgq5oU1@individual.net...
[]
We have to stop
lying to our children. To ourselves.
This is why I leap in and denounce theists wherever I find them. If I
upset a few simpletons who cannot think outside their late bronze age
shackles then so be it. But your not going to poison this race forever. If
you theists have your way you will be the end as you always predicted.
Self
fulfilling prophecy. I will do my level best to rid my race of this
handicap. The future of man lies in the stars. Our Earth is finite,
eventually our sun will leave the main sequence and go red giant. If we're
not out of here by then we, as a race. are doomed. It is science that is
our
route to our true home in the universe. You can't pray your way out of
this
one.
Les
I agree.....but will we have to wear khakis?
No, but wearing BDU's would be a good idea.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Millitant Atheist Declaration |
06 Jan 2006 05:46:33 PM |
|
|
Les Hemmings wrote:
We've been asked why?
The shorter answer is that it's because you don't kill us any more.
If we don't keep talking you may regain that ability.
So we keep us alive and a huge number of you who will not pick the True
Version, aka the one that won.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hemmings" |
|
| Title: Re: Millitant Atheist Declaration |
06 Jan 2006 06:08:30 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:tjDvf.45808$BZ5.14295@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Les Hemmings wrote:
We've been asked why?
The shorter answer is that it's because you don't kill us any more.
If we don't keep talking you may regain that ability.
So we keep us alive and a huge number of you who will not pick the True
Version, aka the one that won.
I'm afraid the true version will win. You know that! I refuse to keep a
zoo of theists. Do we keep a zoo of Dianists? Your thought structure is an
endangered species. Enjoy it now.... you haven't much time :o)
Les
--
Remove Frontal Lobes to reply direct.
http://armsofmorpheus.blogspot.com/
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Les Hemmings aa #2251 SA
aw Hellboy #003
.
|
|
|
| User: "DaveJr" |
|
| Title: Re: Millitant Atheist Declaration |
06 Jan 2006 11:47:06 PM |
|
|
Les Hemmings wrote:
We've been asked why?
The shorter answer is that it's because you don't kill us any more.
If we don't keep talking you may regain that ability.
So we keep us alive and a huge number of you who will not pick the True
Version, aka the one that won.
I'm afraid the true version will win. You know that! I refuse to keep a
zoo of theists. Do we keep a zoo of Dianists? Your thought structure is an
endangered species. Enjoy it now.... you haven't much time :o)
Les
I completely agree with Les. Enough is ENOUGH! I too have had it.
Being to tolerant and to
respectful all this time has landed us squarely in the predicament that we
are in. The US has become
not only disliked by other nations, but laughed at. As Prof. Dawkins has
pointed out, there is no
two sides. And continuing the belief that there are is harmful. I
personally have lost a few friends
to 'the virus', and it's depressing. How long will this country put up
with this silly repressive nonsense?!
A longtime friend of ours(and fellow atheist) sent me this excellent
article from Edge.com featuring
Dawkins' take on I.D. It is a little lengthy, but very good indeed. Hope
you enjoy if you've never read
it.
Edge: ONE SIDE CAN BE WRONG by Richard Dawkins & Jerry Coyne
The seductive "let's teach the controversy" language still conveys the
false, and highly pernicious, idea that there really are two sides.
This
would distract students from the genuinely important and interesting
controversies that enliven evolutionary discourse. Worse, it would
hand
creationism the only victory it realistically aspires to. Without
needing
to make a single good point in any argument, it would have won the
right
for a form of supernaturalism to be recognised as an authentic part of
science. And that would be the end of science education in America.
ONE SIDE CAN BE WRONG [9.1.05]
by Richard Dawkins & Jerry Coyne
RICHARD DAWKINS is Charles Simonyi professor of the public
understanding
of science at Oxford University. His latest book is The Ancestor's
Tale: A
Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life.
JERRY COYNE is a professor in the department of ecology and evolution
at
the University of Chicago, and the author (with H. Allen Orr) of
Speciation.
ONE SIDE CAN BE WRONG
(RICHARD DAWKINS & JERRY COYNE:) It sounds so reasonable, doesn't it?
Such
a modest proposal. Why not teach "both sides" and let the children
decide
for themselves? As President Bush said, "You're asking me whether or
not
people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." At
first hearing, everything about the phrase "both sides" warms the
hearts
of educators like ourselves.
One of us spent years as an Oxford tutor and it was his habit to
choose
controversial topics for the students' weekly essays. They were
required
to go to the library, read about both sides of an argument, give a
fair
account of both, and then come to a balanced judgment in their essay.
The
call for balance, by the way, was always tempered by the maxim, "When
two
opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth
does
not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one
side
simply to be wrong."
As teachers, both of us have found that asking our students to analyse
controversies is of enormous value to their education. What is wrong,
then, with teaching both sides of the alleged controversy between
evolution and creationism or "intelligent design" (ID)? And, by the
way,
don't be fooled by the disingenuous euphemism. There is nothing new
about
ID. It is simply creationism camouflaged with a new name to slip (with
some success, thanks to loads of tax-free money and slick
public-relations
professionals) under the radar of the US Constitution's mandate for
separation between church and state.
Why, then, would two lifelong educators and passionate advocates of
the
"both sides" style of teaching join with essentially all biologists in
making an exception of the alleged controversy between creation and
evolution? What is wrong with the apparently sweet reasonableness of
"it
is only fair to teach both sides"? The answer is simple. This is not a
scientific controversy at all. And it is a time-wasting distraction
because evolutionary science, perhaps more than any other major
science,
is bountifully endowed with genuine controversy.
Among the controversies that students of evolution commonly face,
these
are genuinely challenging and of great educational value: neutralism
versus selectionism in molecular evolution; adaptationism; group
selection; punctuated equilibrium; cladism; "evo-devo"; the "Cambrian
Explosion"; mass extinctions; interspecies competition; sympatric
speciation; sexual selection; the evolution of sex itself;
evolutionary
psychology; Darwinian medicine and so on. The point is that all these
controversies, and many more, provide fodder for fascinating and
lively
argument, not just in essays but for student discussions late at
night.
Intelligent design is not an argument of the same character as these
controversies. It is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious
one. It might be worth discussing in a class on the history of ideas,
in a
philosophy class on popular logical fallacies, or in a comparative
religion class on origin myths from around the world. But it no more
belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class,
phlogiston in a physics class or the stork theory in a sex education
class. In those cases, the demand for equal time for "both theories"
would
be ludicrous. Similarly, in a class on 20th-century European history,
who
would demand equal time for the theory that the Holocaust never
happened?
So, why are we so sure that intelligent design is not a real
scientific
theory, worthy of "both sides" treatment? Isn't that just our personal
opinion? It is an opinion shared by the vast majority of professional
biologists, but of course science does not proceed by majority vote
among
scientists. Why isn't creationism (or its incarnation as intelligent
design) just another scientific controversy, as worthy of scientific
debate as the dozen essay topics we listed above? Here's why.
If ID really were a scientific theory, positive evidence for it,
gathered
through research, would fill peer-reviewed scientific journals. This
doesn't happen. It isn't that editors refuse to publish ID research.
There
simply isn't any ID research to publish. Its advocates bypass normal
scientific due process by appealing directly to the non-scientific
public
and - with great shrewdness - to the government officials they elect.
The argument the ID advocates put, such as it is, is always of the
same
character. Never do they offer positive evidence in favour of
intelligent
design. All we ever get is a list of alleged deficiencies in
evolution. We
are told of "gaps" in the fossil record. Or organs are stated, by fiat
and
without supporting evidence, to be "irreducibly complex": too complex
to
have evolved by natural selection.
In all cases there is a hidden (actually they scarcely even bother to
hide
it) "default" assumption that if Theory A has some difficulty in
explaining Phenomenon X, we must automatically prefer Theory B without
even asking whether Theory B (creationism in this case) is any better
at
explaining it. Note how unbalanced this is, and how it gives the lie
to
the apparent reasonableness of "let's teach both sides". One side is
required to produce evidence, every step of the way. The other side is
never required to produce one iota of evidence, but is deemed to have
won
automatically, the moment the first side encounters a difficulty - the
sort of difficulty that all sciences encounter every day, and go to
work
to solve, with relish.
What, after all, is a gap in the fossil record? It is simply the
absence
of a fossil which would otherwise have documented a particular
evolutionary transition. The gap means that we lack a complete
cinematic
record of every step in the evolutionary process. But how incredibly
presumptuous to demand a complete record, given that only a minuscule
proportion of deaths result in a fossil anyway.
The equivalent evidential demand of creationism would be a complete
cinematic record of God's behaviour on the day that he went to work
on,
say, the mammalian ear bones or the bacterial flagellum - the small,
hair-like organ that propels mobile bacteria. Not even the most ardent
advocate of intelligent design claims that any such divine videotape
will
ever become available.
Biologists, on the other hand, can confidently claim the equivalent
"cinematic" sequence of fossils for a very large number of
evolutionary
transitions. Not all, but very many, including our own descent from
the
bipedal ape Australopithecus. And - far more telling - not a single
authentic fossil has ever been found in the "wrong" place in the
evolutionary sequence. Such an anachronistic fossil, if one were ever
unearthed, would blow evolution out of the water.
As the great biologist J B S Haldane growled, when asked what might
disprove evolution: "Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian." Evolution,
like
all good theories, makes itself vulnerable to disproof. Needless to
say,
it has always come through with flying colours.
Similarly, the claim that something - say the bacterial flagellum - is
too
complex to have evolved by natural selection is alleged, by a
lamentably
common but false syllogism, to support the "rival" intelligent design
theory by default. This kind of default reasoning leaves completely
open
the possibility that, if the bacterial flagellum is too complex to
have
evolved, it might also be too complex to have been created. And
indeed, a
moment's thought shows that any God capable of creating a bacterial
flagellum (to say nothing of a universe) would have to be a far more
complex, and therefore statistically improbable, entity than the
bacterial
flagellum (or universe) itself - even more in need of an explanation
than
the object he is alleged to have created.
If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex
designer.
And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the
Intelligent Designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of
scientific
explanation. To do so would be to shoot yourself in the foot. You
cannot
have it both ways. Either ID belongs in the science classroom, in
which
case it must submit to the discipline required of a scientific
hypothesis.
Or it does not, in which case get it out of the science classroom and
send
it back into the church, where it belongs.
In fact, the bacterial flagellum is certainly not too complex to have
evolved, nor is any other living structure that has ever been
carefully
studied. Biologists have located plausible series of intermediates,
using
ingredients to be found elsewhere in living systems. But even if some
particular case were found for which biologists could offer no ready
explanation, the important point is that the "default" logic of the
creationists remains thoroughly rotten.
There is no evidence in favour of intelligent design: only alleged
gaps in
the completeness of the evolutionary account, coupled with the
"default"
fallacy we have identified. And, while it is inevitably true that
there
are incompletenesses in evolutionary science, the positive evidence
for
the fact of evolution is truly massive, made up of hundreds of
thousands
of mutually corroborating observations. These come from areas such as
geology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, physiology, biochemistry,
ethology, biogeography, embryology and - increasingly nowadays -
molecular
genetics.
The weight of the evidence has become so heavy that opposition to the
fact
of evolution is laughable to all who are acquainted with even a
fraction
of the published data. Evolution is a fact: as much a fact as plate
tectonics or the heliocentric solar system.
Why, finally, does it matter whether these issues are discussed in
science
classes? There is a case for saying that it doesn't - that biologists
shouldn't get so hot under the collar. Perhaps we should just accept
the
popular demand that we teach ID as well as evolution in science
classes.
It would, after all, take only about 10 minutes to exhaust the case
for
ID, then we could get back to teaching real science and genuine
controversy.
Tempting as this is, a serious worry remains. The seductive "let's
teach
the controversy" language still conveys the false, and highly
pernicious,
idea that there really are two sides. This would distract students
from
the genuinely important and interesting controversies that enliven
evolutionary discourse. Worse, it would hand creationism the only
victory
it realistically aspires to. Without needing to make a single good
point
in any argument, it would have won the right for a form of
supernaturalism
to be recognised as an authentic part of science. And that would be
the
end of science education in America.
Arguments worth having ...
The "Cambrian Explosion"
Although the fossil record shows that the first multicellular animals
lived about 640m years ago, the diversity of species was low until
about
530m years ago. At that time there was a sudden explosion of many
diverse
marine species, including the first appearance of molluscs,
arthropods,
echinoderms and vertebrates. "Sudden" here is used in the geological
sense; the "explosion" occurred over a period of 10m to 30m years,
which
is, after all, comparable to the time taken to evolve most of the
great
radiations of mammals. This rapid diversification raises fascinating
questions; explanations include the evolution of organisms with hard
parts
(which aid fossilisation), the evolutionary "discovery" of eyes, and
the
development of new genes that allowed parts of organisms to evolve
independently.
The evolutionary basis of human behaviour
The field of evolutionary psychology (once called "sociobiology")
maintains that many universal traits of human behaviour (especially
sexual
behaviour), as well as differences between individuals and between
ethnic
groups, have a genetic basis. These traits and differences are said to
have evolved in our ancestors via natural selection. There is much
controversy about these claims, largely because it is hard to
reconstruct
the evolutionary forces that acted on our ancestors, and it is
unethical
to do genetic experiments on modern humans.
Sexual versus natural selection
Although evolutionists agree that adaptations invariably result from
natural selection, there are many traits, such as the elaborate
plumage of
male birds and size differences between the sexes in many species,
that
are better explained by "sexual selection": selection based on members
of
one sex (usually females) preferring to mate with members of the other
sex
that show certain desirable traits. Evolutionists debate how many
features
of animals have resulted from sexual as opposed to natural selection;
some, like Darwin himself, feel that many physical features
differentiating human "races" resulted from sexual selection.
The target of natural selection
Evolutionists agree that natural selection usually acts on genes in
organisms - individuals carrying genes that give them a reproductive
or
survival advantage over others will leave more descendants, gradually
changing the genetic composition of a species. This is called
"individual
selection". But some evolutionists have proposed that selection can
act at
higher levels as well: on populations (group selection), or even on
species themselves (species selection). The relative importance of
individual versus these higher order forms of selection is a topic of
lively debate.
Natural selection versus genetic drift
Natural selection is a process that leads to the replacement of one
gene
by another in a predictable way. But there is also a "random"
evolutionary
process called genetic drift, which is the genetic equivalent of
coin-tossing. Genetic drift leads to unpredictable changes in the
frequencies of genes that don't make much difference to the adaptation
of
their carriers, and can cause evolution by changing the genetic
composition of populations. Many features of DNA are said to have
evolved
by genetic drift. Evolutionary geneticists disagree about the
importance
of selection versus drift in explaining features of organisms and
their
DNA. All evolutionists agree that genetic drift can't explain adaptive
evolution. But not all evolution is adaptive.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: AQOTM : Millitant Atheist Declaration |
06 Jan 2006 05:13:26 PM |
|
|
The stakes.
Nominated portion:
No! You cannot blow people up in the name of your mythical being. No!
You cannot kill doctors who choose to help women regain control of their
lives. No! You cannot divert money that should be healing the sick to
spend
on your costumes and buildings. No! You cannot tell me how to think
anymore.
No! You cannot claim that your damn stupid, lame, small minded little
creation myth has equal value to Darwin's evolution and modern cosmology.
The time has come to leave the nursery, cast off these childish, dangerous
stories and grow the ***** up!
Seconds?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "martin" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM seconded : Millitant Atheist Declaration |
06 Jan 2006 05:59:12 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
The stakes.
Nominated portion:
No! You cannot blow people up in the name of your mythical being. No!
You cannot kill doctors who choose to help women regain control of their
lives. No! You cannot divert money that should be healing the sick to
spend
on your costumes and buildings. No! You cannot tell me how to think
anymore.
No! You cannot claim that your damn stupid, lame, small minded little
creation myth has equal value to Darwin's evolution and modern cosmology.
The time has come to leave the nursery, cast off these childish, dangerous
stories and grow the ***** up!
Seconds?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM : Millitant Atheist Declaration |
08 Jan 2006 07:09:28 AM |
|
|
In article <SsqdnbbNA4MLZCPeRVn-jQ@io.com>,
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
The stakes.
Nominated portion:
No! You cannot blow people up in the name of your mythical being. No!
You cannot kill doctors who choose to help women regain control of their
lives. No! You cannot divert money that should be healing the sick to
spend
on your costumes and buildings. No! You cannot tell me how to think
anymore.
No! You cannot claim that your damn stupid, lame, small minded little
creation myth has equal value to Darwin's evolution and modern cosmology.
The time has come to leave the nursery, cast off these childish, dangerous
stories and grow the ***** up!
Seconds?
Ummm who wrote this?
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hemmings" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM : Millitant Atheist Declaration |
08 Jan 2006 04:13:55 PM |
|
|
*nemo* wrote:
Nominated portion:
No! You cannot blow people up in the name of your mythical
being. No! You cannot kill doctors who choose to help women regain
control of their lives. No! You cannot divert money that should be
healing the sick to spend
on your costumes and buildings. No! You cannot tell me how to think
anymore.
No! You cannot claim that your damn stupid, lame, small minded
little creation myth has equal value to Darwin's evolution and
modern cosmology. The time has come to leave the nursery, cast off
these childish, dangerous stories and grow the ***** up!
Seconds?
Ummm who wrote this?
Me...
Les
--
Remove Frontal Lobes to reply direct.
http://armsofmorpheus.blogspot.com/
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Epicurus
Les Hemmings a.a #2251 SA
a.w Hellboy #008
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM : Millitant Atheist Declaration |
08 Jan 2006 06:40:51 PM |
|
|
In article <42dh4nF1ibjjuU1@individual.net>,
"Les Hemmings" <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net> wrote:
Ummm who wrote this?
Me...
Thanks. I like to have my files as complete as I can manage.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "erikc" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM : Millitant Atheist Declaration |
07 Jan 2006 02:40:39 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 17:13:26 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
The stakes.
Nominated portion:
No! You cannot blow people up in the name of your mythical being. No!
You cannot kill doctors who choose to help women regain control of their
lives. No! You cannot divert money that should be healing the sick to
spend
on your costumes and buildings. No! You cannot tell me how to think
anymore.
No! You cannot claim that your damn stupid, lame, small minded little
creation myth has equal value to Darwin's evolution and modern cosmology.
The time has come to leave the nursery, cast off these childish, dangerous
stories and grow the ***** up!
Seconds?
Seconded. the whole damn thing.
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight (retired) | "The Truth against the World."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM : Millitant Atheist Declaration |
07 Jan 2006 03:14:58 PM |
|
|
"erikc" <firewevr@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:jp90s1tot3ejidp9545lg6rn0eob209dcf@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 17:13:26 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
The stakes.
Nominated portion:
No! You cannot blow people up in the name of your mythical being. No!
You cannot kill doctors who choose to help women regain control of their
lives. No! You cannot divert money that should be healing the sick to
spend
on your costumes and buildings. No! You cannot tell me how to think
anymore.
No! You cannot claim that your damn stupid, lame, small minded little
creation myth has equal value to Darwin's evolution and modern
cosmology.
The time has come to leave the nursery, cast off these childish,
dangerous
stories and grow the ***** up!
Seconds?
Seconded. the whole damn thing.
This is great stuff, Les.
It reminds me of Harry Enfield.
Oi!!!... Christian!!!!.... Noooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!
;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hemmings" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM : Millitant Atheist Declaration |
07 Jan 2006 03:39:20 PM |
|
|
"Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42apalF1i4evgU1@individual.net...
This is great stuff, Les.
It reminds me of Harry Enfield.
Oi!!!... Christian!!!!.... Noooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!
;-)
Thanks :o) Was sitting having a beer last night and it sort of popped
into my head. Said "I just have to write something before I forget it..."
and it appeared.
It really is time we stopped letting them "put both sides" or "give
equal resonance" to these theists. People can be wrong! This politically
correct "right to hold any view" and give them space to spout their
poisonous memes is a very bad thing. If something is wrong it's wrong and we
should say so. Loudly without worrying if they get their little theist
feelings hurt. 911 could not have happened without the belief in an
afterlife. This respecting of others views is leading us down the path that
means we get things like creationism taught to our children. Just because
someone holds a damn stupid idea as the central tenet of their lives doesn't
mean we should not denounce it, them and the effects of their delusions upon
our society.
Les
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM : Millitant Atheist Declaration |
07 Jan 2006 04:17:52 PM |
|
|
"Les Hemmings" <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:42aqo0F1gtvm4U1@individual.net...
"Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42apalF1i4evgU1@individual.net...
This is great stuff, Les.
It reminds me of Harry Enfield.
Oi!!!... Christian!!!!.... Noooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!
;-)
Thanks :o) Was sitting having a beer last night and it sort of popped
into my head. Said "I just have to write something before I forget it..."
and it appeared.
It really is time we stopped letting them "put both sides" or "give
equal resonance" to these theists. People can be wrong! This politically
correct "right to hold any view" and give them space to spout their
poisonous memes is a very bad thing. If something is wrong it's wrong and
we should say so. Loudly without worrying if they get their little theist
feelings hurt. 911 could not have happened without the belief in an
afterlife. This respecting of others views is leading us down the path
that means we get things like creationism taught to our children. Just
because someone holds a damn stupid idea as the central tenet of their
lives doesn't mean we should not denounce it, them and the effects of
their delusions upon our society.
And before they pipe up with squeals about censorship, we're not talking
censorship. We're just saying we're not going to shut up and let you walk
all over us.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hemmings" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM : Millitant Atheist Declaration |
07 Jan 2006 04:50:07 PM |
|
|
--
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:FM-dndXTOZqTo13enZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@io.com...
it, them and the effects of
their delusions upon our society.
And before they pipe up with squeals about censorship, we're not talking
censorship. We're just saying we're not going to shut up and let you walk
all over us.
Exactly... we reclaim the right to say "what you are saying is wrong,
unprovable and downright dangerous!"
Les
Remove Frontal Lobes to reply direct.
http://armsofmorpheus.blogspot.com/
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Epicurus
Les Hemmings aa #2251 SA
aw Hellboy #008 (ne003)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM : Millitant Atheist Declaration |
08 Jan 2006 02:01:37 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 21:39:20 -0000, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "Les
Hemmings" <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net>
"Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42apalF1i4evgU1@individual.net...
This is great stuff, Les.
It reminds me of Harry Enfield.
Oi!!!... Christian!!!!.... Noooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!
;-)
Thanks :o) Was sitting having a beer last night and it sort of popped
into my head. Said "I just have to write something before I forget it..."
and it appeared.
It really is time we stopped letting them "put both sides" or "give
equal resonance" to these theists. People can be wrong! This politically
correct "right to hold any view" and give them space to spout their
poisonous memes is a very bad thing. If something is wrong it's wrong and we
should say so. Loudly without worrying if they get their little theist
feelings hurt. 911 could not have happened without the belief in an
afterlife. This respecting of others views is leading us down the path that
means we get things like creationism taught to our children. Just because
someone holds a damn stupid idea as the central tenet of their lives doesn't
mean we should not denounce it, them and the effects of their delusions upon
our society.
Les
"Today 'equal time', tomorrow the world. Today it is our views on
science, tomorrow the way you dress and speak and behave. It is not
merely creationism that we are fighting in this matter. Behind it are
the old enemies of bigotry and darkness, and we must not complain
about this endless battle. The price of liberty, said Jefferson, is
eternal vigilance...
Science, education and individual liberties are the main targets of
creation science and their victories will be our losses" [Issac
Asimov, In 'Creation Science in Australia', Dr. A.G.Wheeler,
"Quadrant", March 1987, p. 61]
"Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to
ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through
all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these
ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most
unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders
of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us;
who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally
resent it bitterly..."
[Isaac Asimov, Canadian Atheists Newsletter, 1994]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM : Millitant Atheist Declaration |
08 Jan 2006 02:52:25 AM |
|
|
"Bonnie *****" <bonnieb@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
news:3mh1s1p0e1p5r4julfrtvcvbqias73an9n@fe04.buzzardnews.com...
On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 21:39:20 -0000, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "Les
Hemmings" <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net>
"Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42apalF1i4evgU1@individual.net...
This is great stuff, Les.
It reminds me of Harry Enfield.
Oi!!!... Christian!!!!.... Noooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!
;-)
Thanks :o) Was sitting having a beer last night and it sort of popped
into my head. Said "I just have to write something before I forget it..."
and it appeared.
It really is time we stopped letting them "put both sides" or "give
equal resonance" to these theists. People can be wrong! This politically
correct "right to hold any view" and give them space to spout their
poisonous memes is a very bad thing. If something is wrong it's wrong and
we
should say so. Loudly without worrying if they get their little theist
feelings hurt. 911 could not have happened without the belief in an
afterlife. This respecting of others views is leading us down the path
that
means we get things like creationism taught to our children. Just because
someone holds a damn stupid idea as the central tenet of their lives
doesn't
mean we should not denounce it, them and the effects of their delusions
upon
our society.
Les
"Today 'equal time', tomorrow the world. Today it is our views on
science, tomorrow the way you dress and speak and behave. It is not
merely creationism that we are fighting in this matter. Behind it are
the old enemies of bigotry and darkness, and we must not complain
about this endless battle. The price of liberty, said Jefferson, is
eternal vigilance...
Science, education and individual liberties are the main targets of
creation science and their victories will be our losses" [Issac
Asimov, In 'Creation Science in Australia', Dr. A.G.Wheeler,
"Quadrant", March 1987, p. 61]
"Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to
ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through
all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these
ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most
unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders
of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us;
who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally
resent it bitterly..."
[Isaac Asimov, Canadian Atheists Newsletter, 1994]
Wow! Nice quotes! That's a keeper!
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM : Millitant Atheist Declaration |
08 Jan 2006 07:11:27 AM |
|
|
In article <jp90s1tot3ejidp9545lg6rn0eob209dcf@4ax.com>,
erikc <firewevr@airmail.net> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 17:13:26 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
The stakes.
Nominated portion:
No! You cannot blow people up in the name of your mythical being. No!
You cannot kill doctors who choose to help women regain control of their
lives. No! You cannot divert money that should be healing the sick to
spend
on your costumes and buildings. No! You cannot tell me how to think
anymore.
No! You cannot claim that your damn stupid, lame, small minded little
creation myth has equal value to Darwin's evolution and modern cosmology.
The time has come to leave the nursery, cast off these childish, dangerous
stories and grow the ***** up!
Seconds?
Seconded. the whole damn thing.
Recorded, but I don't know for sure who wrote this.
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight (retired) | "The Truth against the World."
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM : Millitant Atheist Declaration |
08 Jan 2006 12:00:02 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>
wrote
on Sun, 08 Jan 2006 13:11:27 GMT
<nemo0037-1635D0.08092408012006@news.west.earthlink.net>:
In article <jp90s1tot3ejidp9545lg6rn0eob209dcf@4ax.com>,
erikc <firewevr@airmail.net> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 17:13:26 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
The stakes.
Nominated portion:
No! You cannot blow people up in the name of your mythical being. No!
You cannot kill doctors who choose to help women regain control of their
lives. No! You cannot divert money that should be healing the sick to
spend
on your costumes and buildings. No! You cannot tell me how to think
anymore.
No! You cannot claim that your damn stupid, lame, small minded little
creation myth has equal value to Darwin's evolution and modern cosmology.
The time has come to leave the nursery, cast off these childish, dangerous
stories and grow the ***** up!
Seconds?
Seconded. the whole damn thing.
Recorded, but I don't know for sure who wrote this.
"Les Hemmings" <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net>
Message ID: <428930F1hgq5oU1@individual.net>
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight (retired) | "The Truth against the World."
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
