| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"BTR1701" |
| Date: |
26 Jul 2003 08:52:37 PM |
| Object: |
Re: => Kobe Propaganda machine attacks Rape Victim ...! |
In article <uz2dnXrB1s50kL6iXTWJkg@comcast.com>, "Chas"
<c.clements@XXXcomcast.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@austin.rr.com> wrote
......> > Obviously, your simple assertion is no longer acceptable;
produce your proofs that you didn't steal it from someone.
Okay, see this is the sort of delusion that religions inspire. The idea
that I can take someone's conscience from them... wow. I bet you still
believe taking a photo of someone captures their soul, too, huh?
Can't produce one, eh?
Neither can you. Of course you just duck and evade that little detail
every time.
If you can't produce your conscience, or proofs that you have one,
the question begs.
Not really. You just can't prove your case so this is the best you can
do.
We'll never know as long as you can't convince us you're not lying again.
Who is us? Are you experiencing voices in your head now?
I frankly don't care if you trust it or not but I'm objectively no more
or less likely to lie than a religious person.
Who would know?
Who would know if you routinely lie. All we have is your word also.
In fact, history is
replete with the atrocities of the religious so evidence would point to
me being more trustowrthy merely on that basis alone.
Far more irreligious are known for lying;
Proof? Or is this just another unsupported assertion based on your
feelings?
why should you be any different?
Or you?
Couple that with your profession, your trade, and your lack of a soul,
and there's no reason to trust anything you say.
Or you.
So only oaths by law enforcement officers count now?
Insofar as the part about 'enforce the law without fear or favor to rich
or poor'
Where does that quote come from?
How about the oath a juror takes?
yup.
Or the oath a witness takes?
sure.
Do those not count because they aren't law enforcement officers?
Not at all.
I see. That's a bizarre little reality you've contructed for yourself.
What color is the sky in your world, just out of curiosity?
Just a different subject, or at least a sub-thread.
I hold them to their holy oaths; damned right I do.
So what happens if an admitted atheist is called as a witness is a
murder trial, refuses to take the "holy" oath and takes the affirmation
that all state courts offer instead?
Do we lock him/her up for perjury immediately after testifying since--
as you claim-- all atheists are intrinsically liars?
Does the judge instruct the jury that they are to assume everything the
witness says is more likely than not a lie since the witness is an
atheist?
I don't enforce the law by sworn obligation- my conscience is a moot
question as regards my profession/trade.
Well, what do you do? Enlighten us and we'll see if having a conscience
makes any difference in your job.
I'm a skilled craftsman. Mostly I do sophisticated techniques and
patternmaking in a variety of materials. I also do production and
performance in some video things; martial arts mostly- we sell them.
So you sell things. And a conscience isn't necessary when dealing with
money? And a conscience isn't necessary when contructing and
manufacturing things for other people? No work ethic is necessary to
give the customer and/or your employer the best product and best work
you're capable of for their money?
I wonder if your co-workers and/or superiors know you have this attitude.
.
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: => Kobe Propaganda machine attacks Rape Victim ...! |
27 Jul 2003 09:20:31 AM |
|
|
In article <1oSdnfJm1O7M0r6iXTWJjg@comcast.com>, "Chas"
<c.clements@XXXcomcast.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@austin.rr.com> wrote
(consciences)
I wish you well in the Void.
Which void is that? And offer some proof that I'm going to a void,
please.
Not that it applies at all.
We'll never know as long as you can't convince us you're not lying again.
Who is us? Are you experiencing voices in your head now?
We, your reading audience.
So far it's only you in this particular audience. It's interesting that
you suddenly starting throwing in the "we".
Who would know if you routinely lie.
My God.
And who is that?
All we have is your word also.
He has my oath; any assurances to you are gratis.
Who has your oath? This god? How do you know it's a he?
Does it have a penis? If so, why? Does this god of yours urinate? Does
the fact that your god is male and possesses a penis imply that there's
some complementary holy vagina out there for it to procreate with?
In fact, history is
replete with the atrocities of the religious so evidence would
point to me being more trustowrthy merely on that basis alone.
Far more irreligious are known for lying;
Proof? Or is this just another unsupported assertion based on your
feelings?
It's that replete history you were talking about.
Believe me, or don't, there's enough history to go around.
So basically no proof, then. I see.
Insofar as the part about 'enforce the law without fear or favor to
rich or poor'
Where does that quote come from?
One of the more common oaths given law enforcement officers; there are
several models.
Must be since that wasn't included anywhere in mine.
Does the judge instruct the jury that they are to assume everything the
witness says is more likely than not a lie since the witness is an
atheist?
Sure is a piece of information the jury should be aware of, isn't it?
Nope.
Goes to credibility.
Only in your sick little mind.
So you sell things.
Actually, far more often I allow people to buy things.
Hell of a difference, ma'am.
Ah, we're reduced to semantics games now, I see. Things are winding down
for you.
And a conscience isn't necessary when dealing with
money?
Why? Simple transaction; You give me the money,
take your goods and go away.
What's the matter for conscience?
You'd have done well at Enron.
And a conscience isn't necessary when contructing and
manufacturing things for other people?
Nope; you just do what you do- again, no matter for conscience.
No work ethic is necessary to
give the customer and/or your employer the best product and best work
you're capable of for their money?
A work ethic is a matter for conscience?
Well, yeah, actually. It's amusing that you don't realize you just shot
your entire position down in flames.
I have neither.
And my conscience is clear about it.
Yeah, you and Ken Lay both sleep like babies. Kudos.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: => Kobe Propaganda machine attacks Rape Victim ...! |
27 Jul 2003 10:49:49 PM |
|
|
In article <AGydnX-6pN1Fab6iXTWJjw@comcast.com>, "Chas"
<c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@austin.rr.com> wrote
Who has your oath? This god? How do you know it's a he?
'He' is a more polite usage than 'It'; no gender implication, ma'am.
So you're just being polite to your god? The thing is really an "it"?
Exactly which god is this, anyway?
Sure is a piece of information the jury should be aware of,
isn't it?
Nope.
Sure; you'd want them to know if the witness was a Neo-Nazi, a
Flat-Earther, an episodic psychotic- same with being an atheist.
Nope.
Actually, far more often I allow people to buy things.
Hell of a difference, ma'am.
Ah, we're reduced to semantics games now, I see. Things are winding
down for you.
No semantics game; I have no need to *sell*- my work is desireable enough
that people take a place in line for about six months to get stuff from
me, paid in full in advance.
I might have questions of conscience if I was pushing my work, but none
if there's no need. See?
No, you still sell things to people, no matter what spin you want to put
on it.
What's the matter for conscience?
You'd have done well at Enron.
Nah; they were probably a bunch of atheists/secular humanists.
Actually, the top management was a bunch of devout Southern Baptist
bible-thumpers.
Nice try, though you really should do some research before making
comments like that so you don't end up looking like such an *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: => Kobe Propaganda machine attacks Rape Victim ...! |
28 Jul 2003 12:55:12 AM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@austin.rr.com> wrote
.....> > 'He' is a more polite usage than 'It'; no gender implication, ma'am.
So you're just being polite to your god?
Sure.
Seems appropriate.
The thing is really an "it"?
Actually, more like an 'us'; 'gender' idenfication is pointless.
Exactly which god is this, anyway?
The Only One.
No, you still sell things to people, no matter what spin you want to put
on it.
You wanted to make it a matter of some question of conscience- I have no
questions of conscience about being paid for my goods. I don't hawk them on
the streetcorner; very simple transaction- no moral questions.
Nah; they were probably a bunch of atheists/secular humanists.
Actually, the top management was a bunch of devout Southern Baptist
bible-thumpers.
Yeah; those guys are often infiltrated by frauds because they're so easy.
They trust easily, they stand by their own word, they're generous and
charitable. It's a good front to hide behind for frauds.
Nice try, though you really should do some research before making
comments like that so you don't end up looking like such an *****.
That was why I said 'probably'.
Nothing about their public face is trustworthy; nor does it reflect on the
group they professed. They were obviously looking for credentialing for
trustworthiness, and who better to mimic than people who actually *are*
trustworthy.
Notice they didn't profess their amorality to the world. They couldn't have
been believers, they would have known there was no where to hide their
fraud.
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "= Vox Populi ©" |
|
| Title: Re: => Kobe Propaganda machine attacks Rape Victim ...! |
28 Jul 2003 01:46:51 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <7Z2cnSw35YRWMbmiXTWJiw@comcast.com>, "Chas"
<c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@austin.rr.com> wrote
The thing is really an "it"?
Actually, more like an 'us';
So you're polytheisitc?
Exactly which god is this, anyway?
The Only One.
And which one is that? Or us? Or whatever?
No, you still sell things to people, no matter what spin you want to
put on it.
You wanted to make it a matter of some question of conscience- I
have no questions of conscience about being paid for my goods. I
don't hawk them on the streetcorner; very simple transaction- no
moral questions.
I never said it was a moral question. But you still sell stuff to
people.
Nah; they were probably a bunch of atheists/secular humanists.
Actually, the top management was a bunch of devout Southern Baptist
bible-thumpers.
Yeah; those guys are often infiltrated by frauds because they're so
easy. They trust easily, they stand by their own word, they're
generous and charitable. It's a good front to hide behind for frauds.
Ah, the old "they can't be real Christians if they do bad things"
argument.
Nice try, though you really should do some research before making
comments like that so you don't end up looking like such an *****.
That was why I said 'probably'.
And that's why you still looked like an *****.
Does your Criminal Boss, GW Bu$h know of your profound Atheistic views?
If he did, that Babble-Thumping imbeciles in the Bu$h Crime family surely would
have you terminated ...
---
When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice
president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At
O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I.
Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by
the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press
corps covering the national candidates had the following exchange with then Vice
President Bush.
Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are Atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the Atheist community. Faith in god is
important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans
who are Atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor
should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional
principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high
on Atheists.
On October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane, cochairman
of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. This concerned a law-suit Mr. Sherman
had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School District 21 (Chicago,
Illinois, suburb) from forcing his first-grade Atheist son to pledge allegiance
to the flag of the United States "one nation under God" (Bush's phrase). The
following conversation took place.
Sherman: American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday.
Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?
Murnane: It's *****.
Sherman: What is *****?
Murnane: Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is *****.
Sherman: Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush
campaign is on this issue.
Murnane: You're welcome
This suit, now in federal district court for over three years, is not considered
to be ***** by the federal judge before whom it is pending. During the time
it has been in the federal court, Robert Sherman's son, now age nine, has been
physically and psychologically brutalized in his school for refusing to pledge
to a "nation under God."
After Bush's election but before his taking office, American Atheists wrote to
Bush asking that he consider being sworn into office on the Constitution instead
of the Bible and also asking him to retract his August 1987 statement. Bush had
his White House buddy, C. Boyden Gray, counsel to the president, reply on White
House stationery on February 21, 1989, stating that substantively Bush stood by
his original statement.
"As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism
nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the
government."
American Atheists had not asked Bush to either "unnecessarily" or even
"necessarily" encourage or support them. All they wanted was an apology for the
insult. Many Atheists wrote to Bush over the issue and Nelson Lund, the
associate counsel to the president, found it necessary to reply on April 7,
1989, directly to the American Atheist General Headquarters, Inc. This letter
from the White House said that Mr. Gray was adhering to his statements in the
February 21, 1989, letter. On May 4, 1989, Jon Murray, the president of
American Atheists, again wrote to President Bush demanding a clarification of
and an apology for his statement that Atheists "should not be considered as
citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." Bush ignored the letter, as
did Gray and Lund. Mr. Murray also asked for an appointment so that a group of
representatives of American Atheists could meet with Bush.
Mr. Joseph W. Hagin 11 responded on May 25, 1989, again on White House
stationery. He stated that the president "appreciated your taking the time to
write and your willingness to share your thoughts" but that "due to heavy
commitments on his official calendar" the president could not meet with
representatives of American Atheists. On January 9, 1990, George Bush, in
signing a proclamation for the Martin Luther King holiday, had the gall to
remark that "bigots" must be brought to justice. Again, American Atheists threw
his words back in his face, asking what his designation of Atheists as being
unworthy of citizenship was. On February 5, 1990, Mr. Nelson Lund replied again
on White House stationery--stating
"We believe that our position has been adequately explained in previous
correspondence."
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: => Kobe Propaganda machine attacks Rape Victim ...! |
28 Jul 2003 07:55:54 PM |
|
|
In article <PrmcncqUFKsEo7iiXTWJhw@comcast.com>, "Chas"
<c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@austin.rr.com> wrote
Exactly which god is this, anyway?
The Only One.
And which one is that? Or us? Or whatever?
How many 'One's' do you think there are?
I don't know. You're the one who keeps mixing his singular and plural
pronouns. You tell me.
You wanted to make it a matter of some question of conscience- I have
no questions of conscience about being paid for my goods. I don't hawk
them on the streetcorner; very simple transaction- no moral questions.
I never said it was a moral question.
For what do you use your purported conscience, if not moral questions?
Non-response. I never said this particular issue (whether you sell
things to people or let them biy them from you) is not a moral question,
merely your semantic gamesmanship.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
