| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
16 Aug 2004 09:25:06 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
Graham Shevlin <graham.shevlin@comcast.net (44)> wrote in message news:<an4vh0t4siqlbef0j2k1sg5tr9g80dflf5@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 (MurphyInOhio) wrote:
Though advanced in years, the Holy Father is even more advanced in measuring
himself against Evolutionism and its Death Sciences: Abortion, Euthanasia.
Murphy, about time to knock off the horseshit. Since when have
abortion and euthanasia been death sciences? I see that you are
resorting to the classic technique of creating straw men.
If you are going to make that assertion, I will counter with one of my
own. Christianity is a death religion. It can be proven to have been
directly or indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands (probably
millions) of deaths over the centuries,
Atheism is a death religion. It can be proven to have been directly
or indirectly responsible for at least 50 million deaths during the
1900s.
Yahya and Koster on the use of fear and force
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030811.4e8cd1bd%40posting.google.com
Koster: scientific atheism is an idea whose time is gone
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406212033.90a39c1%40posting.google.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406230445.7cff0545%40posting.google.com
due to the tendency for
Christian extremists to attempt to exterminate other groups with whom
they have religious or value differences.
Now try to argue your way out of that.
.
|
|
| User: "Louis" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
17 Aug 2004 12:45:05 PM |
|
|
<snip>
Atheism is a death religion.
Do you not realise that (primarily) a totalitarian communist state
perptrated the atrocities to which you refer? Atheism and communism
have nothing to do with one another in a philosophical sense. You
might as well blame the fact that they were Russian, it's about as
relevant. But enough of your misdirection and strawmen (gosh who have
I said THAT to recently!?)
Atheism is demonstrably more life affirming a world view than
christianity. This is for the very, excruciatingly simple reason that
atheism forces one to value this life as opposed to some hitherto
unobserved afterlife. All of the ethics that flow from this and the
"golden rule" (which can easily be arrived at without recourse to a
divine mac-daddy wagging his finger at us) show us that treating
others as we wish to be treated and valuing the life we have now is a
sensible and socially useful method of acting. Within this framework
all the "good works" and "charity" of christian ethics can be
developed without reference to deities or some postmortem reward for
being nice.
Face it David, christians like you (and by no means are all christians
like you) are motivated to be nice by the promise of a reward when you
die (heaven) and the fear of punishment should you not comply (hell).
Atheists are motivated to be nice because it is a nice thing to do.
Admittedly, atheists don't HAVE (by divine law) to be nice, but look
around you, are all people nice all of the time? Nope, and least of
all those who think they have GAWD on their side. At least an atheist
being nice isn't being a sanctimonious, self-serving, smug prig merely
interested in scoring points with his imaginary friend.
Anyway, enough oversimplification.
Louis
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
20 Aug 2004 05:42:19 PM |
|
|
In article <761bf1a.0408170840.273bfd30@posting.google.com>,
(Louis) wrote:
<snip>
Atheism is a death religion.
Do you not realise that (primarily) a totalitarian communist state
perptrated the atrocities to which you refer? Atheism and communism
have nothing to do with one another in a philosophical sense. You
might as well blame the fact that they were Russian, it's about as
relevant. But enough of your misdirection and strawmen (gosh who have
I said THAT to recently!?)
Atheism is demonstrably more life affirming a world view than
christianity. This is for the very, excruciatingly simple reason that
atheism forces one to value this life as opposed to some hitherto
unobserved afterlife. All of the ethics that flow from this and the
"golden rule" (which can easily be arrived at without recourse to a
divine mac-daddy wagging his finger at us) show us that treating
others as we wish to be treated and valuing the life we have now is a
sensible and socially useful method of acting. Within this framework
all the "good works" and "charity" of christian ethics can be
developed without reference to deities or some postmortem reward for
being nice.
Face it David, christians like you (and by no means are all christians
like you) are motivated to be nice by the promise of a reward when you
die (heaven) and the fear of punishment should you not comply (hell).
Atheists are motivated to be nice because it is a nice thing to do.
Admittedly, atheists don't HAVE (by divine law) to be nice, but look
around you, are all people nice all of the time? Nope, and least of
all those who think they have GAWD on their side. At least an atheist
being nice isn't being a sanctimonious, self-serving, smug prig merely
interested in scoring points with his imaginary friend.
*
I believe that atheists are more moral than religious believers.
After all, they have less reason to be moral, having no belief in
the rewards and punishments that, according to the believer, occur
after death.
The atheist is moral without any personal, selfish incentive to be
moral.
Therefore his morality is higher.
earle
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
25 Aug 2004 10:20:10 AM |
|
|
In article <earle.jones-765443.15535420082004@netnews.comcast.net>,
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <761bf1a.0408170840.273bfd30@posting.google.com>,
thethinker111@hotmail.com (Louis) wrote:
<snip>
Atheism is a death religion.
Do you not realise that (primarily) a totalitarian communist state
perptrated the atrocities to which you refer? Atheism and communism
have nothing to do with one another in a philosophical sense. You
might as well blame the fact that they were Russian, it's about as
relevant. But enough of your misdirection and strawmen (gosh who have
I said THAT to recently!?)
Atheism is demonstrably more life affirming a world view than
christianity. This is for the very, excruciatingly simple reason that
atheism forces one to value this life as opposed to some hitherto
unobserved afterlife. All of the ethics that flow from this and the
"golden rule" (which can easily be arrived at without recourse to a
divine mac-daddy wagging his finger at us) show us that treating
others as we wish to be treated and valuing the life we have now is a
sensible and socially useful method of acting. Within this framework
all the "good works" and "charity" of christian ethics can be
developed without reference to deities or some postmortem reward for
being nice.
Face it David, christians like you (and by no means are all christians
like you) are motivated to be nice by the promise of a reward when you
die (heaven) and the fear of punishment should you not comply (hell).
Atheists are motivated to be nice because it is a nice thing to do.
Admittedly, atheists don't HAVE (by divine law) to be nice, but look
around you, are all people nice all of the time? Nope, and least of
all those who think they have GAWD on their side. At least an atheist
being nice isn't being a sanctimonious, self-serving, smug prig merely
interested in scoring points with his imaginary friend.
*
I believe that atheists are more moral than religious believers.
After all, they have less reason to be moral, having no belief in
the rewards and punishments that, according to the believer, occur
after death.
The atheist is moral without any personal, selfish incentive to be
moral.
Therefore his morality is higher.
earle
*
Action taken to secure a reward is not a moral act. So Christians cannot
act morally.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phÿltêr" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
21 Aug 2004 10:10:19 PM |
|
|
(david ford) astounded us with:
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408161835.1526a9ac@posting.google.com:
Graham Shevlin <graham.shevlin@comcast.net (44)> wrote in message
news:<an4vh0t4siqlbef0j2k1sg5tr9g80dflf5@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 (MurphyInOhio) wrote:
Though advanced in years, the Holy Father is even more advanced in
measuring himself against Evolutionism and its Death Sciences:
Abortion, Euthanasia.
Murphy, about time to knock off the horseshit. Since when have
abortion and euthanasia been death sciences? I see that you are
resorting to the classic technique of creating straw men.
If you are going to make that assertion, I will counter with one of my
own. Christianity is a death religion. It can be proven to have been
directly or indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands (probably
millions) of deaths over the centuries,
Atheism is a death religion. It can be proven to have been directly
or indirectly responsible for at least 50 million deaths during the
1900s.
You're a complete fucking idiot.
--
Phÿltêr
AA#1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://forums.clickhalah.com/index.php
Remove "s" to respond
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
17 Aug 2004 03:06:52 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408161835.1526a9ac@posting.google.com>...
Graham Shevlin <graham.shevlin@comcast.net (44)> wrote in message news:<an4vh0t4siqlbef0j2k1sg5tr9g80dflf5@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 (MurphyInOhio) wrote:
Though advanced in years, the Holy Father is even more advanced in measuring
himself against Evolutionism and its Death Sciences: Abortion, Euthanasia.
Murphy, about time to knock off the horseshit. Since when have
abortion and euthanasia been death sciences? I see that you are
resorting to the classic technique of creating straw men.
If you are going to make that assertion, I will counter with one of my
own. Christianity is a death religion. It can be proven to have been
directly or indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands (probably
millions) of deaths over the centuries,
Atheism is a death religion.
Atheism is by definition not a religion
It can be proven to have been directly
or indirectly responsible for at least 50 million deaths during the
1900s.
Christianity can be proven to have been responisble for millions of
deaths thoughout history. Ever read about the Crusades? Or the pogroms
against the Jews? Or the murderous wars between different Christian
sects?
Stop spouting *****.
RF
Yahya and Koster on the use of fear and force
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030811.4e8cd1bd%40posting.google.com
Koster: scientific atheism is an idea whose time is gone
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406212033.90a39c1%40posting.google.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406230445.7cff0545%40posting.google.com
due to the tendency for
Christian extremists to attempt to exterminate other groups with whom
they have religious or value differences.
Now try to argue your way out of that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
19 Aug 2004 08:11:01 AM |
|
|
(Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0408162334.1ae9aacd@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408161835.1526a9ac@posting.google.com>...
Graham Shevlin <graham.shevlin@comcast.net (44)> wrote in message news:<an4vh0t4siqlbef0j2k1sg5tr9g80dflf5@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 (MurphyInOhio) wrote:
Though advanced in years, the Holy Father is even more advanced in
measuring himself against Evolutionism and its Death Sciences:
Abortion, Euthanasia.
Murphy, about time to knock off the horseshit. Since when have
abortion and euthanasia been death sciences? I see that you are
resorting to the classic technique of creating straw men.
If you are going to make that assertion, I will counter with one of my
own. Christianity is a death religion. It can be proven to have been
directly or indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands (probably
millions) of deaths over the centuries,
Atheism is a death religion.
Atheism is by definition not a religion
There are many definitions of "religion." Atheism is according to
several definitions a "religion." According to several secular
humanists, secular humanism is a "religion."
It can be proven to have been directly
or indirectly responsible for at least 50 million deaths during the
1900s.
Christianity can be proven to have been responisble for millions of
deaths thoughout history. Ever read about the Crusades? Or the pogroms
against the Jews? Or the murderous wars between different Christian
sects?
Stop spouting *****.
Dr Forrest, how many individuals died in the Crusades?
How many individuals died in [DrRF]"the pogroms against the Jews"?
How many individuals died in [DrRF]"the murderous wars between
different Christian sects"?
Among all followers of Jesus Christ, what 3 followers of Jesus Christ
were responsible for the largest number of murders, and how many
murders did each of those 3 individuals personally carry out or give
orders for while they were followers of Jesus Christ?
What support, if any, is there within Christian doctrine for:
military Crusades to forcibly convert persons to Christianity?
[DrRF]"pogroms against the Jews"?
murdering individuals of [DrRF]"different Christian sects"?
Do you think that abortion performed for reasons of personal
convenience constitutes murder? If "yes," perhaps we can discuss the
atheists contributing to the appearance in the U.S. and Canada of
freely-available murder-by-abortion. Bette Chambers mentioned 3 such
individuals.
When we are done discussing murders attributable to Christianity and
Christians, I suggest we discuss murders attributable to atheism and
atheists such as Lenin, Stalin, China's MAO Zedong, Albania's Enver
Hoxha, Cambodia's Pol Pot, Cuba's Castro, and North Korea's current
leader.
Julian Huxley said in 1957,
Already some non-theistic belief systems have emerged to
dominate large sections of humanity. The two most
obvious are Nazism in Germany and Marxist Communism
in Russia. Nazism was inherently self-destructive because
of its claim to world domination by a small group. It was
also grotesquely incorrect and limited as an interpretation
of destiny, analogous to some of the primitive products of
the theistic type, such as deified beasts, bloodthirsty tribal
deities, or revengeful divine tyrants.
Do you agree with Huxley that [Huxley]"non-theistic belief systems...
emerged" with the rise of [Huxley]"Nazism in Germany and Marxist
Communism in Russia"? If "yes," we can discuss Adolf Hitler in
addition to the individuals referenced above.
1957 Julian Huxley on _Religion without Revelation_
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407270344.53d3af56%40posting.google.com
Yahya and Koster on the use of fear and force
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030811.4e8cd1bd%40posting.google.com
Koster: scientific atheism is an idea whose time is gone
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406212033.90a39c1%40posting.google.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406230445.7cff0545%40posting.google.com
due to the tendency for
Christian extremists to attempt to exterminate other groups with whom
they have religious or value differences.
Now try to argue your way out of that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lieutenant Kizhe Katson" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
19 Aug 2004 01:43:37 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408190521.1f35e85e@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0408162334.1ae9aacd@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408161835.1526a9ac@posting.google.com>...
Graham Shevlin <graham.shevlin@comcast.net (44)> wrote in message news:<an4vh0t4siqlbef0j2k1sg5tr9g80dflf5@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 (MurphyInOhio) wrote:
Though advanced in years, the Holy Father is even more advanced in
measuring himself against Evolutionism and its Death Sciences:
Abortion, Euthanasia.
Murphy, about time to knock off the horseshit. Since when have
abortion and euthanasia been death sciences? I see that you are
resorting to the classic technique of creating straw men.
If you are going to make that assertion, I will counter with one of my
own. Christianity is a death religion. It can be proven to have been
directly or indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands (probably
millions) of deaths over the centuries,
Atheism is a death religion.
Atheism is by definition not a religion
There are many definitions of "religion." Atheism is according to
several definitions a "religion." According to several secular
humanists, secular humanism is a "religion."
It can be proven to have been directly
or indirectly responsible for at least 50 million deaths during the
1900s.
Christianity can be proven to have been responisble for millions of
deaths thoughout history. Ever read about the Crusades? Or the pogroms
against the Jews? Or the murderous wars between different Christian
sects?
Stop spouting *****.
Dr Forrest, how many individuals died in the Crusades?
How many individuals died in [DrRF]"the pogroms against the Jews"?
How many individuals died in [DrRF]"the murderous wars between
different Christian sects"?
Among all followers of Jesus Christ, what 3 followers of Jesus Christ
were responsible for the largest number of murders, and how many
murders did each of those 3 individuals personally carry out or give
orders for while they were followers of Jesus Christ?
What support, if any, is there within Christian doctrine for:
military Crusades to forcibly convert persons to Christianity?
[DrRF]"pogroms against the Jews"?
murdering individuals of [DrRF]"different Christian sects"?
Well, when I was a Christian I never thought there was -- but
apparently, lots of our predecessors in the faith thought so, and did
so. Their justification, apparently, was an over-zealous (in our
modern enlightened opinion) application of Christ's command to
evangelize, coupled with a feeling that the world would be a better
place if it were a primarily Christian place (and to mention only in
passing: a few verses that could be construed as charging the Jews
with deicide). That most Christians nowadays think it was all a
horrible mistake does not magically absolve Christianity, as an
historical tradition and institution, of the blame for those
atrocities.
Do you think that abortion performed for reasons of personal
convenience constitutes murder? If "yes," perhaps we can discuss the
atheists contributing to the appearanyou and Ice in the U.S. and Canada of
freely-available murder-by-abortion. Bette Chambers mentioned 3 such
individuals.
When we are done discussing murders attributable to Christianity and
Christians, I suggest we discuss murders attributable to atheism and
atheists such as Lenin, Stalin, China's MAO Zedong, Albania's Enver
Hoxha, Cambodia's Pol Pot, Cuba's Castro, and North Korea's current
leader.
Idiot. There is a difference between "atheism" as a general view and
"atheists" as individuals (just as there is difference between
"Christianity" and "Christian individual", or "liberalism" and
"liberal individual"). You can blame individual atheists for their
crimes, but if you're going to expand the blame to atheism-in-general,
then by symmetry Christianity-in-general gets to bear the blame for
crusades, pogroms, etc. And with more justification, as well: atheism
simply means absence of belief in God, but makes no other commitments.
OTOH Christianity, as I point out above, has elements within it that
can be (and were) exploited to produce the results we all mourn. Are
you sure you want to push this argument?
These modern despots did not murder because they thought there was no
God -- the murdered because their ideology told them that they were
serving the Greater Good -- just as the medieval Christians did.
Creating the proletarian paradise, giving the Christ-killers what's
coming to them, evicting the infidel from the Holy City, burning the
heretics who would spread misleading doctrine, the purification of the
Race -- with or without God, it's all the same. (And of course, there
were also those who murdered for personal gain, and cynically used the
Greater Good as the justification.)
Julian Huxley said in 1957,
Already some non-theistic belief systems have emerged to
dominate large sections of humanity. The two most
obvious are Nazism in Germany and Marxist Communism
in Russia. Nazism was inherently self-destructive because
of its claim to world domination by a small group. It was
also grotesquely incorrect and limited as an interpretation
of destiny, analogous to some of the primitive products of
the theistic type, such as deified beasts, bloodthirsty tribal
deities, or revengeful divine tyrants.
Do you agree with Huxley that [Huxley]"non-theistic belief systems...
emerged" with the rise of [Huxley]"Nazism in Germany and Marxist
Communism in Russia"? If "yes," we can discuss Adolf Hitler in
addition to the individuals referenced above.
Your quote even as given (and still less in the fuller version, below)
does not support your implied argument. Did you deliberately omit the
word "some" in the above paragraph? It rather changes the meaning
from Huxley giving examples, to implying that these were the first
examples. And BTW, it's a fallacy to go from Huxley's use of
"non-theistic" to implying that Hitler was an atheist.
1957 Julian Huxley on _Religion without Revelation_
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407270344.53d3af56%40posting.google.com
Yahya and Koster on the use of fear and force
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030811.4e8cd1bd%40posting.google.com
Koster: scientific atheism is an idea whose time is gone
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406212033.90a39c1%40posting.google.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406230445.7cff0545%40posting.google.com
due to the tendency for
Christian extremists to attempt to exterminate other groups with whom
they have religious or value differences.
Now try to argue your way out of that.
-- Kizhe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
19 Aug 2004 04:38:12 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408190521.1f35e85e@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0408162334.1ae9aacd@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408161835.1526a9ac@posting.google.com>...
Graham Shevlin <graham.shevlin@comcast.net (44)> wrote in message news:<an4vh0t4siqlbef0j2k1sg5tr9g80dflf5@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 (MurphyInOhio) wrote:
Though advanced in years, the Holy Father is even more advanced in
measuring himself against Evolutionism and its Death Sciences:
Abortion, Euthanasia.
Murphy, about time to knock off the horseshit. Since when have
abortion and euthanasia been death sciences? I see that you are
resorting to the classic technique of creating straw men.
If you are going to make that assertion, I will counter with one of my
own. Christianity is a death religion. It can be proven to have been
directly or indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands (probably
millions) of deaths over the centuries,
Atheism is a death religion.
Atheism is by definition not a religion
There are many definitions of "religion." Atheism is according to
several definitions a "religion." According to several secular
humanists, secular humanism is a "religion."
It can be proven to have been directly
or indirectly responsible for at least 50 million deaths during the
1900s.
Christianity can be proven to have been responisble for millions of
deaths thoughout history. Ever read about the Crusades? Or the pogroms
against the Jews? Or the murderous wars between different Christian
sects?
Stop spouting *****.
Dr Forrest, how many individuals died in the Crusades?
How many individuals died in [DrRF]"the pogroms against the Jews"?
How many individuals died in [DrRF]"the murderous wars between
different Christian sects"?
Why are the numbers involved relevant? If one person has ever killed
another under the guise of Christianity, that is enough to undermine
your point. And there have been millions.
<irrelevant ***** snipped>
RF
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
20 Aug 2004 01:43:17 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408190521.1f35e85e@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0408162334.1ae9aacd@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408161835.1526a9ac@posting.google.com>...
Graham Shevlin <graham.shevlin@comcast.net (44)> wrote in message news:<an4vh0t4siqlbef0j2k1sg5tr9g80dflf5@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 (MurphyInOhio) wrote:
Though advanced in years, the Holy Father is even more advanced in
measuring himself against Evolutionism and its Death Sciences:
Abortion, Euthanasia.
Murphy, about time to knock off the horseshit. Since when have
abortion and euthanasia been death sciences? I see that you are
resorting to the classic technique of creating straw men.
If you are going to make that assertion, I will counter with one of my
own. Christianity is a death religion. It can be proven to have been
directly or indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands (probably
millions) of deaths over the centuries,
Atheism is a death religion.
Atheism is by definition not a religion
There are many definitions of "religion." Atheism is according to
several definitions a "religion." According to several secular
humanists, secular humanism is a "religion."
It should be easy for you to quote a few of those many definitions of
"religion." And how does it make atheism a religions when "several
secular humanists" set up what they claim is a religion and call it
"Secular Humanist"?
It can be proven to have been directly
or indirectly responsible for at least 50 million deaths during the
1900s.
Christianity can be proven to have been responisble for millions of
deaths thoughout history. Ever read about the Crusades? Or the pogroms
against the Jews? Or the murderous wars between different Christian
sects?
Stop spouting *****.
Dr Forrest, how many individuals died in the Crusades?
Hundreds of thousands, at least. Also, the Crusaders often stopped
along the way to murder "infidels they found along the way; these
would be Jews.
How many individuals died in [DrRF]"the pogroms against the Jews"?
Millions.
How many individuals died in [DrRF]"the murderous wars between
different Christian sects"?
During the 30 years war alone, millions. For example, the population
of the Hapsburg Empire dropped from about 21,000,000 to 13,500,000.
[Really stupid rhetorical question snipped}
What support, if any, is there within Christian doctrine for:
military Crusades to forcibly convert persons to Christianity?
And what support, if any, is there within the written Atheist
doctrine, that all Atheist claim to live by, for the depredations of
Stalin and Mao?
[DrRF]"pogroms against the Jews"?
All four Gospels and certain passaged in other part of the New
Testiment. You've hear of the Bible-based accusation of deicide,
haven't you? It's been rather commonly held. One still hears it.
Mitchell Coffey
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C9xodus?=" |
|
| Title: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
20 Aug 2004 06:45:28 AM |
|
|
(Mitchell Coffey) wrote in message news:<a766a589.0408192254.43b4f105@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408190521.1f35e85e@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0408162334.1ae9aacd@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408161835.1526a9ac@posting.google.com>...
Graham Shevlin <graham.shevlin@comcast.net (44)> wrote in message news:<an4vh0t4siqlbef0j2k1sg5tr9g80dflf5@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 (MurphyInOhio) wrote:
Atheism is a death religion.
Atheism is by definition not a religion
There are many definitions of "religion." Atheism is according to
several definitions a "religion." According to several secular
humanists, secular humanism is a "religion."
I think that beeing an atheist means that you don't believe in "the
God". I have always wondered that how can anyone really believe a
story that came from a book. I don't blame them for wanting something
to believe in. The way things are going, the next generation won't
have much more than their faith. But still. If I would want to start a
religion, I would base it on Belgarion.(by David Eddings) After all,
he has a flaming sword, and he's almost immortal. Well, he's going to
live for a while... Anyway, this talk about Atheism beeing and not
beeing a religion is full of... Truth, yes, but crap too. "An atheist
always has someone other" (than God), like my dear father always says.
He believes in god, and he is okay with the fact that I don't.
So you, that don't like people beeing atheists: "Sure, you can be
scared, but there's no reason for hatred." ...My mum's, actually.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Double Felix" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
19 Aug 2004 08:48:53 AM |
|
|
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408190521.1f35e85e@posting.google.com>,
(david ford) wrote:
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0408162334.1ae9aacd@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408161835.1526a9ac@posting.google.com>...
Graham Shevlin <graham.shevlin@comcast.net (44)> wrote in message news:<an4vh0t4siqlbef0j2k1sg5tr9g80dflf5@4ax.com>...
If you are going to make that assertion, I will counter with one of my
own. Christianity is a death religion. It can be proven to have been
directly or indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands (probably
millions) of deaths over the centuries,
Atheism is a death religion.
Atheism is by definition not a religion
There are many definitions of "religion." Atheism is according to
several definitions a "religion."
My favorite quote on the subject:
"If atheism is a religion, then 'barefoot' is a kind of shoe."
According to several secular humanists, secular humanism is a "religion."
Who said anything about secular humanism?
- Felix
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
19 Aug 2004 08:55:30 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:48:53 +0000 (UTC), Double Felix
<nick@remove-backpack.com> wrote:
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408190521.1f35e85e@posting.google.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0408162334.1ae9aacd@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408161835.1526a9ac@posting.google.com>...
Graham Shevlin <graham.shevlin@comcast.net (44)> wrote in message news:<an4vh0t4siqlbef0j2k1sg5tr9g80dflf5@4ax.com>...
If you are going to make that assertion, I will counter with one of my
own. Christianity is a death religion. It can be proven to have been
directly or indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands (probably
millions) of deaths over the centuries,
Atheism is a death religion.
Atheism is by definition not a religion
There are many definitions of "religion." Atheism is according to
several definitions a "religion."
My favorite quote on the subject:
"If atheism is a religion, then 'barefoot' is a kind of shoe."
Atheism is not a religion, atheism is a religious view. Barefoot is
not a shoe, but it is a condition of foot covering. Bald is not a hair
color, it is character of head hair.
According to several secular humanists, secular humanism is a "religion."
Who said anything about secular humanism?
- Felix
--
Matt Silberstein
Do in order to understand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Double Felix" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
19 Aug 2004 09:11:39 AM |
|
|
In article <buc9i0d77400ntp1533gtv6oiagj4iv1sg@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:48:53 +0000 (UTC), Double Felix
<nick@remove-backpack.com> wrote:
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408190521.1f35e85e@posting.google.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0408162334.1ae9aacd@posting.google.com>...
Atheism is by definition not a religion
There are many definitions of "religion." Atheism is according to
several definitions a "religion."
My favorite quote on the subject:
"If atheism is a religion, then 'barefoot' is a kind of shoe."
Atheism is not a religion, atheism is a religious view. Barefoot is
not a shoe, but it is a condition of foot covering. Bald is not a hair
color, it is character of head hair.
Good, because if all religious views were tantamount to religions, then
Christianity would also entail:
"A-islamism"
"Ajudaism"
"Abuddhism"
"Ascientology"
All with capital A's, of course. For that matter, not believing in
leprechauns would be "Aleprechaunism."
- Felix
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
19 Aug 2004 09:26:14 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:11:39 +0000 (UTC), Double Felix
<nick@remove-backpack.com> wrote:
In article <buc9i0d77400ntp1533gtv6oiagj4iv1sg@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:48:53 +0000 (UTC), Double Felix
<nick@remove-backpack.com> wrote:
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408190521.1f35e85e@posting.google.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0408162334.1ae9aacd@posting.google.com>...
Atheism is by definition not a religion
There are many definitions of "religion." Atheism is according to
several definitions a "religion."
My favorite quote on the subject:
"If atheism is a religion, then 'barefoot' is a kind of shoe."
Atheism is not a religion, atheism is a religious view. Barefoot is
not a shoe, but it is a condition of foot covering. Bald is not a hair
color, it is character of head hair.
Good, because if all religious views were tantamount to religions,
Did I say that?
then
Christianity would also entail:
"A-islamism"
"Ajudaism"
"Abuddhism"
"Ascientology"
All with capital A's, of course. For that matter, not believing in
leprechauns would be "Aleprechaunism."
So? How about deal with the point rather than tell me it has bad
consequences. Is atheism (not that I can use a lower case 'a') a
religious position?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do in order to understand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Double Felix" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
19 Aug 2004 09:51:37 PM |
|
|
In article <cne9i05o94ngoljgitktfuukt4jfl7u0j6@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:11:39 +0000 (UTC), Double Felix
<nick@remove-backpack.com> wrote:
In article <buc9i0d77400ntp1533gtv6oiagj4iv1sg@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:48:53 +0000 (UTC), Double Felix
<nick@remove-backpack.com> wrote:
Atheism is not a religion, atheism is a religious view. Barefoot is
not a shoe, but it is a condition of foot covering. Bald is not a hair
color, it is character of head hair.
Good, because if all religious views were tantamount to religions,
Did I say that?
Nope, and I'm only reinforcing the point for those who might have
interpreted your comments that way.
then Christianity would also entail:
"A-islamism"
"Ajudaism"
"Abuddhism"
"Ascientology"
All with capital A's, of course. For that matter, not believing in
leprechauns would be "Aleprechaunism."
So? How about deal with the point rather than tell me it has bad
consequences. Is atheism (not that I can use a lower case 'a') a
religious position?
Only because the existence of god is a religious proposition.
Think of it this way: if the existence of "profit motive" is an economic
question, it's only because it is asked in an economic context. The same
goes for the existence of god, angels, heaven, hell, satan-- their
existence is only posited (or questioned) in a religious context.
Walking back up the thread so as not to lose the point, I would say that
atheism can be considered a religious view only because religion exists.
In the absence of religion, atheism is the default view and is hardly
even a topic worth discussing.
- Felix
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lieutenant Kizhe Katson" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
20 Aug 2004 08:17:41 AM |
|
|
Double Felix <nick@remove-backpack.com> wrote in message news:<nick-37EC64.20023619082004@news.west.cox.net>...
In article <cne9i05o94ngoljgitktfuukt4jfl7u0j6@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:11:39 +0000 (UTC), Double Felix
<nick@remove-backpack.com> wrote:
In article <buc9i0d77400ntp1533gtv6oiagj4iv1sg@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:48:53 +0000 (UTC), Double Felix
<nick@remove-backpack.com> wrote:
Atheism is not a religion, atheism is a religious view. Barefoot is
not a shoe, but it is a condition of foot covering. Bald is not a hair
color, it is character of head hair.
Good, because if all religious views were tantamount to religions,
Did I say that?
Nope, and I'm only reinforcing the point for those who might have
interpreted your comments that way.
then Christianity would also entail:
"A-islamism"
"Ajudaism"
"Abuddhism"
"Ascientology"
All with capital A's, of course. For that matter, not believing in
leprechauns would be "Aleprechaunism."
So? How about deal with the point rather than tell me it has bad
consequences. Is atheism (not that I can use a lower case 'a') a
religious position?
Only because the existence of god is a religious proposition.
Think of it this way: if the existence of "profit motive" is an economic
question, it's only because it is asked in an economic context. The same
goes for the existence of god, angels, heaven, hell, satan-- their
existence is only posited (or questioned) in a religious context.
Walking back up the thread so as not to lose the point, I would say that
atheism can be considered a religious view only because religion exists.
In the absence of religion, atheism is the default view and is hardly
even a topic worth discussing.
Ah, I see what you're getting at in your other post (about God being
an ontological, rather than religious, question). I would only say
that we at present inescapably live in a social context that includes
religion as a prominent element (and have done so since far into
pre-history). There exists no ideal philosophical vacuum in which we
can pose such questions free of their cultural entanglements.
-- Kizhe
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lieutenant Kizhe Katson" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
19 Aug 2004 01:05:14 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<cne9i05o94ngoljgitktfuukt4jfl7u0j6@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:11:39 +0000 (UTC), Double Felix
<nick@remove-backpack.com> wrote:
In article <buc9i0d77400ntp1533gtv6oiagj4iv1sg@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:48:53 +0000 (UTC), Double Felix
<nick@remove-backpack.com> wrote:
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408190521.1f35e85e@posting.google.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0408162334.1ae9aacd@posting.google.com>...
Atheism is by definition not a religion
There are many definitions of "religion." Atheism is according to
several definitions a "religion."
I would like to see David's definition of "religion" that includes
atheism. I do note, though, that religion as actually practiced by
humans over the centuries, is diverse enough to defy any simple
definition that takes in all the things conventionally classified as
such, without also pulling in items that don't belong.
My favorite quote on the subject:
"If atheism is a religion, then 'barefoot' is a kind of shoe."
Atheism is not a religion, atheism is a religious view. Barefoot is
not a shoe, but it is a condition of foot covering. Bald is not a hair
color, it is character of head hair.
Good, because if all religious views were tantamount to religions,
Did I say that?
then
Christianity would also entail:
"A-islamism"
"Ajudaism"
"Abuddhism"
"Ascientology"
All with capital A's, of course. For that matter, not believing in
leprechauns would be "Aleprechaunism."
So? How about deal with the point rather than tell me it has bad
consequences. Is atheism (not that I can use a lower case 'a') a
religious position?
I agree with what I take to be Matt's point, but there is still a
terminological ambiguity in the way he says it. "Religious view" can
be construed as synonymous with "religion" (in which case, I
disagree). However, I think it's clear he means something like "view
on a question pertaining to religion" (I hope we all agree that "Does
God exist?" qualifies as a question pertaining to religion). On this
construction, "religious views" are a superset of "religions" (just as
his other examples display the same subset/superset relation).
Atheism, encompassing as it does one answer to the question "Does God
exist?", is a religious view in this sense.
-- Kizhe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
19 Aug 2004 02:52:13 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:05:14 +0000 (UTC),
(Lieutenant Kizhe Katson) wrote:
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<cne9i05o94ngoljgitktfuukt4jfl7u0j6@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:11:39 +0000 (UTC), Double Felix
<nick@remove-backpack.com> wrote:
In article <buc9i0d77400ntp1533gtv6oiagj4iv1sg@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:48:53 +0000 (UTC), Double Felix
<nick@remove-backpack.com> wrote:
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408190521.1f35e85e@posting.google.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0408162334.1ae9aacd@posting.google.com>...
Atheism is by definition not a religion
There are many definitions of "religion." Atheism is according to
several definitions a "religion."
I would like to see David's definition of "religion" that includes
atheism. I do note, though, that religion as actually practiced by
humans over the centuries, is diverse enough to defy any simple
definition that takes in all the things conventionally classified as
such, without also pulling in items that don't belong.
My favorite quote on the subject:
"If atheism is a religion, then 'barefoot' is a kind of shoe."
Atheism is not a religion, atheism is a religious view. Barefoot is
not a shoe, but it is a condition of foot covering. Bald is not a hair
color, it is character of head hair.
Good, because if all religious views were tantamount to religions,
Did I say that?
then
Christianity would also entail:
"A-islamism"
"Ajudaism"
"Abuddhism"
"Ascientology"
All with capital A's, of course. For that matter, not believing in
leprechauns would be "Aleprechaunism."
So? How about deal with the point rather than tell me it has bad
consequences. Is atheism (not that I can use a lower case 'a') a
religious position?
I agree with what I take to be Matt's point, but there is still a
terminological ambiguity in the way he says it. "Religious view" can
be construed as synonymous with "religion" (in which case, I
disagree). However, I think it's clear he means something like "view
on a question pertaining to religion" (I hope we all agree that "Does
God exist?" qualifies as a question pertaining to religion). On this
construction, "religious views" are a superset of "religions" (just as
his other examples display the same subset/superset relation).
Atheism, encompassing as it does one answer to the question "Does God
exist?", is a religious view in this sense.
I tried to make it as clear as I could, but you do have my position
exactly right. Atheism, like Christianity, like Islam, like Hinduism,
is an answer to the question "Does God exist and, if so, what is the
nature of that God". The atheism answer, obviously, is "no". And then
there is no general agreement of any sort. Since the Christian etc.
answer is "yes", followed by some discussion of what God is and wants,
and so there is some general agreement on some other issues among
Christians.
To put this another way, the difference between atheism being a
religion and being a religious position is the difference between the
government saying there is no God and the government not mentioning
God. It would be quite wrong (and in the U.S. a violation of the 1st
Amendment) for government schools to teach there is no God. There is
nothing wrong with the schools not mentioning God.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do in order to understand.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
17 Aug 2004 05:52:18 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408161835.1526a9ac@posting.google.com>...
Graham Shevlin <graham.shevlin@comcast.net (44)> wrote in message news:<an4vh0t4siqlbef0j2k1sg5tr9g80dflf5@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 (MurphyInOhio) wrote:
Though advanced in years, the Holy Father is even more advanced in measuring
himself against Evolutionism and its Death Sciences: Abortion, Euthanasia.
Murphy, about time to knock off the horseshit. Since when have
abortion and euthanasia been death sciences? I see that you are
resorting to the classic technique of creating straw men.
If you are going to make that assertion, I will counter with one of my
own. Christianity is a death religion. It can be proven to have been
directly or indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands (probably
millions) of deaths over the centuries,
Atheism is a death religion. It can be proven to have been directly
or indirectly responsible for at least 50 million deaths during the
1900s.
"Proven," no less. I assume this is going to be another one of your
unsupported assertions.
Yahya and Koster on the use of fear and force
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030811.4e8cd1bd%
40posting.google.com
[snip]
Jeez, you're quoting Harun Yahya favorably now! Is Julius Streicher
next?
Mitchell Coffey
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lieutenant Kizhe Katson" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
18 Aug 2004 10:42:05 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408161835.1526a9ac@posting.google.com>...
Graham Shevlin <graham.shevlin@comcast.net (44)> wrote in message news:<an4vh0t4siqlbef0j2k1sg5tr9g80dflf5@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 (MurphyInOhio) wrote:
Though advanced in years, the Holy Father is even more advanced in measuring
himself against Evolutionism and its Death Sciences: Abortion, Euthanasia.
Murphy, about time to knock off the horseshit. Since when have
abortion and euthanasia been death sciences? I see that you are
resorting to the classic technique of creating straw men.
If you are going to make that assertion, I will counter with one of my
own. Christianity is a death religion. It can be proven to have been
directly or indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands (probably
millions) of deaths over the centuries,
Atheism is a death religion. It can be proven to have been directly
or indirectly responsible for at least 50 million deaths during the
1900s.
Sheesh, David. You really are determined to scrape the bottom of the
rhetorical barrel, aren't you? At one time, you had some superficial
pretense to intellectualism -- now it's clear you're just a
nasty-minded shameless little bigot.
Yahya and Koster on the use of fear and force
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030811.4e8cd1bd%40posting.google.com
Why the hell would anyone care what Yahya says? They represent the
fanatical end of Islam and deny the Holocaust -- basically,
fellow-travellers with the lot that perpetrated 9/11. You have to be
one sick puppy to quote them in support of your own position.
Koster: scientific atheism is an idea whose time is gone
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406212033.90a39c1%40posting.google.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406230445.7cff0545%40posting.google.com
Koster is a whining, lying propagandist. And now we see that you are
too.
due to the tendency for
Christian extremists to attempt to exterminate other groups with whom
they have religious or value differences.
Now try to argue your way out of that.
-- Kizhe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
17 Aug 2004 02:15:27 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408161835.1526a9ac@posting.google.com>...
Graham Shevlin <graham.shevlin@comcast.net (44)> wrote in message news:<an4vh0t4siqlbef0j2k1sg5tr9g80dflf5@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 (MurphyInOhio) wrote:
Though advanced in years, the Holy Father is even more advanced in measuring
himself against Evolutionism and its Death Sciences: Abortion, Euthanasia.
Murphy, about time to knock off the horseshit. Since when have
abortion and euthanasia been death sciences? I see that you are
resorting to the classic technique of creating straw men.
If you are going to make that assertion, I will counter with one of my
own. Christianity is a death religion. It can be proven to have been
directly or indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands (probably
millions) of deaths over the centuries,
Atheism is a death religion. It can be proven to have been directly
or indirectly responsible for at least 50 million deaths during the
1900s.
So why aren't you unable to present the evidence in the courts,
Christian fascist historian, David Ford?
Death by Government
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1560009276/
by R. J. Rummel
RJ Rummel
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22RJ+Rummel%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://news.google.com/news?q=%22RJ%20Rummel%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22RJ+Rummel%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22RJ%20Rummel%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=dg
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=RJ%20Rummel&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Atheism is just lack of belief in god(s). It says nothing particularly
about religion. Communism wants to control political and economic life
a country just like Christianity. Christianity is certainly relevant
to the discussions as several trillions of dollars in compensation to
the victims are still outstanding.
"The evils of Communism are the same as those that existed in
Christianity during the Ages Of Faith. The OGPU differs only
quantitatively from the Inquisition. Its cruelties are of the same
sort, and the damage that it does to the intellectual and moral life
of Russians is of the same sort as that which was done by the
Inquisitors wherever they prevailed. The Communists falsify history,
and the church did the same until the Renaissance. If the Church is
not now as bad as the Soviet government, that is due to the influence
of those who attacked the church; from the Council of Trent until the
present day, whatever improvements it has effected have been due to
its enemies."
[Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?", 1954; published
in a Swedish newspaper during the height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's
anti-communist hysteria]
"The Communist, like the Christian, believes that his doctrine is
essential to salvation, and it is this belief which makes salvation
possible for him. It is the similarities between Christianity and
Communism that make them incompatible with each other."
[Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?", 1954; published
in a Swedish newspaper during the height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's
anti-communist hysteria]
"The most dangerous features of Communism are reminiscent of the
medieval Church. They consist of fanatical acceptance of doctrines
embodied in a sacred book, unwillingness to examine these doctrines
critically, and savage persecution of those who reject them."
[Bertrand Russell, "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?", 1954; published
in a Swedish newspaper during the height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's
anti-communist hysteria]
Yahya and Koster on the use of fear and force
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030811.4e8cd1bd%40posting.google.com
Koster: scientific atheism is an idea whose time is gone
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406212033.90a39c1%40posting.google.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406230445.7cff0545%40posting.google.com
due to the tendency for
Christian extremists to attempt to exterminate other groups with whom
they have religious or value differences.
Now try to argue your way out of that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
19 Aug 2004 03:02:46 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:05:14 +0000 (UTC),
(Lieutenant Kizhe Katson) wrote:
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<cne9i05o94ngoljgitktfuukt4jfl7u0j6@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:11:39 +0000 (UTC), Double Felix
<nick@remove-backpack.com> wrote:
In article <buc9i0d77400ntp1533gtv6oiagj4iv1sg@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:48:53 +0000 (UTC), Double Felix
<nick@remove-backpack.com> wrote:
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408190521.1f35e85e@posting.google.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0408162334.1ae9aacd@posting.google.com>...
Atheism is by definition not a religion
There are many definitions of "religion." Atheism is according to
several definitions a "religion."
I would like to see David's definition of "religion" that includes
atheism. I do note, though, that religion as actually practiced by
humans over the centuries, is diverse enough to defy any simple
definition that takes in all the things conventionally classified as
such, without also pulling in items that don't belong.
He can't give one. Theism per se isn't a religion, it's the defining
property of a class of religions though.
Atheism per se is the absence of this defining property, Which makes
it a metaconcept WRT religion.
I don't see how anyone with two neurons to runb together, can imagine
atheism to be a religion.
It's not a belief however much theists like to imagine it is. It has
none of the trappings that go along with religion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Shevlin 44" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
16 Aug 2004 10:43:28 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 02:25:06 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
Graham Shevlin <graham.shevlin@comcast.net (44)> wrote in message news:<an4vh0t4siqlbef0j2k1sg5tr9g80dflf5@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 (MurphyInOhio) wrote:
Though advanced in years, the Holy Father is even more advanced in measuring
himself against Evolutionism and its Death Sciences: Abortion, Euthanasia.
Murphy, about time to knock off the horseshit. Since when have
abortion and euthanasia been death sciences? I see that you are
resorting to the classic technique of creating straw men.
If you are going to make that assertion, I will counter with one of my
own. Christianity is a death religion. It can be proven to have been
directly or indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands (probably
millions) of deaths over the centuries,
Atheism is a death religion. It can be proven to have been directly
or indirectly responsible for at least 50 million deaths during the
1900s.
Yahya and Koster on the use of fear and force
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030811.4e8cd1bd%40posting.google.com
Koster: scientific atheism is an idea whose time is gone
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406212033.90a39c1%40posting.google.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406230445.7cff0545%40posting.google.com
And the cites do not support your assertion. All you are posting are
fragmented portions of Usenet discussions. This does not form anything
approaching an argument.
Do you want me to start posting the references to religious
persecutions, wars and pogroms?
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
19 Aug 2004 08:17:45 AM |
|
|
Graham Shevlin <graham.shevlin@comcast.net (44)> wrote in message news:<c403i0pgh1aq8golb44goblk5kra82hed9@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 (david ford) wrote:
Graham Shevlin <graham.shevlin@comcast.net (44)> wrote in message news:<an4vh0t4siqlbef0j2k1sg5tr9g80dflf5@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 (MurphyInOhio) wrote:
Though advanced in years, the Holy Father is even more advanced in measuring
himself against Evolutionism and its Death Sciences: Abortion, Euthanasia.
Murphy, about time to knock off the horseshit. Since when have
abortion and euthanasia been death sciences? I see that you are
resorting to the classic technique of creating straw men.
If you are going to make that assertion, I will counter with one of my
own. Christianity is a death religion. It can be proven to have been
directly or indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands (probably
millions) of deaths over the centuries,
Atheism is a death religion. It can be proven to have been directly
or indirectly responsible for at least 50 million deaths during the
1900s.
Yahya and Koster on the use of fear and force
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030811.4e8cd1bd%40posting.google.com
Koster: scientific atheism is an idea whose time is gone
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406212033.90a39c1%40posting.google.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406230445.7cff0545%40posting.google.com
And the cites do not support your assertion. All you are posting are
fragmented portions of Usenet discussions. This does not form anything
approaching an argument.
See my just-posted reply to Dr Forrest.
Do you want me to start posting the references to religious
persecutions, wars and pogroms?
I posed some questions to Dr Forrest. Feel free to answer them, and
provide references in your responses.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hank" |
|
| Title: Re: Holy Father Stands Against Evolution Death Sciences |
18 Aug 2004 02:46:15 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Graham Shevlin <graham.shevlin@comcast.net (44)> wrote in message news:<an4vh0t4siqlbef0j2k1sg5tr9g80dflf5@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 (MurphyInOhio) wrote:
Though advanced in years, the Holy Father is even more advanced in measuring
himself against Evolutionism and its Death Sciences: Abortion, Euthanasia.
Murphy, about time to knock off the horseshit. Since when have
abortion and euthanasia been death sciences? I see that you are
resorting to the classic technique of creating straw men.
If you are going to make that assertion, I will counter with one of my
own. Christianity is a death religion. It can be proven to have been
directly or indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands (probably
millions) of deaths over the centuries,
Atheism is a death religion. It can be proven to have been directly
or indirectly responsible for at least 50 million deaths during the
1900s.
Why are all the YECs and anti-science whiners regurgitating this crap?
I've seen it from at least a dozen of them lately.
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
