Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required

Religions > Atheism > Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 2 of 13

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	25 May 2004 07:36:52 PM
Object:	Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required

"I came to carry out the struggle, not to kill people. Even now, and you can
look at me: am I a savage person? My conscience is clear."
- Pol Pot
Just gotta love those communists eh? Seriously, what has the whole atheist
thing brought to the world, other than maniacal mass murderers or witty
smart-asses?
H.B.
.

User: "Scott"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	01 Jun 2004 09:40:15 AM

"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94FA80AC57687LlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in
news:swmtc.1376$j%7.610@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:

"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message news:Xns94F6877ADDC7FLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in news:x66tc.1015$It2.388
@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/jun00/thomaslessl.html

Worthless apologetics. The statement about Bruno not being scientific
is particularly stupid. It is irrelevant why Bruno believed what he
did. His execution was unjust period!

*Relatively* speaking for the time and culture in which he lived it
was just! Good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust, are all
relative to the culture in question.

That doesn't mean we can't judge the actions of those in the past. Why
otherwise would the RC have apologised over their treatment of Gallileo.

If your premise is that of a moral relativist or subjectivist, it means your
judgment upon the past is worthless. It's worthless because it means you're
applying morals or mores from one unrelated culture to another's. IOW your
trying to judge two cultural standards who don't/didn't/can't share the same
sense of morality.
The Church OTOH is not relativistic. It holds to a belief of moral
objectivism based on a belief in Natural Law and that morality standards
transcends all cultures past and present. Realism. It's an altogether
different premise.
Materialism with it's amoral naturalism (Anti-Realism) rejects objectivism,
realism, and absolutism. Materialists usually refers to Natural Law as a
naturalistic fallacy. Your statement "His execution was unjust period!" has
all the earmarks of absolutism and/or ethnocentrism. A relativist who
actually understands his Relativism's premise would say your 20/20 hindsight
is a worthless and ethnocentric judgment put upon a past or different
culture - Cultural Relativism.
Scott
.

User: "Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	01 Jun 2004 06:17:43 PM

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in
news:jz0vc.2171$cA2.1772@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com:

"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message news:Xns94FA80AC57687LlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in
news:swmtc.1376$j%7.610@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:

"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message news:Xns94F6877ADDC7FLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in news:x66tc.1015$It2.388
@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/jun00/thomaslessl.html

Worthless apologetics. The statement about Bruno not being
scientific is particularly stupid. It is irrelevant why Bruno
believed what he did. His execution was unjust period!

*Relatively* speaking for the time and culture in which he lived it
was just! Good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust, are all
relative to the culture in question.

That doesn't mean we can't judge the actions of those in the past.
Why otherwise would the RC have apologised over their treatment of
Gallileo.

I said nothing about any premises. Your argument is a strawman. It is
quite easy to set up an objective system of judgement for any period
based on the concept of balance. That is why justice is often depicted as
a set of scales.
<SNIP>

The Church OTOH is not relativistic. It holds to a belief of moral
objectivism based on a belief in Natural Law and that morality
standards transcends all cultures past and present. Realism. It's an
altogether different premise.

Utter nonsense. In the past the various christian churches condoned and
commanded such activities as the burning of witches and heretics.
Kepler's mother only got off because Kepler had powerful friends (of
course the RCC had nothing to do with that particular case). None of
these activities would be acceptable to modern day mainstream christian
denominations so it looks like 'the church' is indeed guilty of moral
relativism.

Materialism with it's amoral naturalism (Anti-Realism) rejects
objectivism,
realism, and absolutism. Materialists usually refers to Natural Law as
a naturalistic fallacy. Your statement "His execution was unjust
period!" has all the earmarks of absolutism and/or ethnocentrism.

It was unjust because his punishement in no objective way balances even
his perceived crime.
Klazmon
<SNIP>
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	01 Jun 2004 10:08:52 PM

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:17:43 +1200 in episode
<Xns94FC72E6E3212LlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6> we saw our hero
Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net>:

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in
news:jz0vc.2171$cA2.1772@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com:

"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94FA80AC57687LlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in
news:swmtc.1376$j%7.610@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:

"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message news:Xns94F6877ADDC7FLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in news:x66tc.1015$It2.388
@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/jun00/thomaslessl.html

Worthless apologetics. The statement about Bruno not being
scientific is particularly stupid. It is irrelevant why Bruno
believed what he did. His execution was unjust period!

*Relatively* speaking for the time and culture in which he lived it
was just! Good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust, are all
relative to the culture in question.

That doesn't mean we can't judge the actions of those in the past. Why
otherwise would the RC have apologised over their treatment of
Gallileo.

I said nothing about any premises. Your argument is a strawman. It is
quite easy to set up an objective system of judgement for any period based
on the concept of balance. That is why justice is often depicted as a set
of scales.

<SNIP>

The Church OTOH is not relativistic. It holds to a belief of moral
objectivism based on a belief in Natural Law and that morality standards
transcends all cultures past and present. Realism. It's an altogether
different premise.

Utter nonsense. In the past the various christian churches condoned and
commanded such activities as the burning of witches and heretics. Kepler's
mother only got off because Kepler had powerful friends (of course the RCC
had nothing to do with that particular case). None of these activities
would be acceptable to modern day mainstream christian denominations so it
looks like 'the church' is indeed guilty of moral relativism.

Despite the propaganda to the contrary, history is quite clear that the
"church" has been as morally relative as the rest of us.
This is probably why christianity has historically been hostile to
education, they don't want anybody noticing...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.

User: "Editor of EvilBible.com"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	01 Jun 2004 10:14:07 AM

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:jz0vc.2171$cA2.1772@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...

"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94FA80AC57687LlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in
news:swmtc.1376$j%7.610@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:

"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message news:Xns94F6877ADDC7FLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in news:x66tc.1015$It2.388
@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/jun00/thomaslessl.html

Worthless apologetics. The statement about Bruno not being scientific
is particularly stupid. It is irrelevant why Bruno believed what he
did. His execution was unjust period!

*Relatively* speaking for the time and culture in which he lived it
was just! Good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust, are all
relative to the culture in question.

That doesn't mean we can't judge the actions of those in the past. Why
otherwise would the RC have apologised over their treatment of Gallileo.

If your premise is that of a moral relativist or subjectivist, it means

your

judgment upon the past is worthless. It's worthless because it means

you're

applying morals or mores from one unrelated culture to another's. IOW your
trying to judge two cultural standards who don't/didn't/can't share the

same

sense of morality.

The Church OTOH is not relativistic. It holds to a belief of moral
objectivism based on a belief in Natural Law and that morality standards
transcends all cultures past and present. Realism. It's an altogether
different premise.

Materialism with it's amoral naturalism (Anti-Realism) rejects

objectivism,

realism, and absolutism. Materialists usually refers to Natural Law as a
naturalistic fallacy. Your statement "His execution was unjust period!"

has

all the earmarks of absolutism and/or ethnocentrism. A relativist who
actually understands his Relativism's premise would say your 20/20

hindsight

is a worthless and ethnocentric judgment put upon a past or different
culture - Cultural Relativism.

Scott, Does the following paragraph describe a person who believes in moral
relativism or moral objectivism?
"Precisely inasmuch as every human act belongs to the subject who acts,
every individual conscience and every society chooses and acts within a
determined horizon of time and space. To truly understand human acts or
their related dynamics, we need therefore to enter into the world of those
who did them. Only in such a way can we come to know their motivations and
their moral principles."
.

User: "Scott"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	01 Jun 2004 01:49:05 PM

"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:tomdnYv9HOHMACHdRVn-jg@adelphia.com...

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:jz0vc.2171$cA2.1772@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...

"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94FA80AC57687LlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in
news:swmtc.1376$j%7.610@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:

"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message news:Xns94F6877ADDC7FLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in news:x66tc.1015$It2.388
@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/jun00/thomaslessl.html

Worthless apologetics. The statement about Bruno not being

scientific

is particularly stupid. It is irrelevant why Bruno believed what he
did. His execution was unjust period!

*Relatively* speaking for the time and culture in which he lived it
was just! Good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust, are all
relative to the culture in question.

That doesn't mean we can't judge the actions of those in the past. Why
otherwise would the RC have apologised over their treatment of

Gallileo.

If your premise is that of a moral relativist or subjectivist, it means

your

judgment upon the past is worthless. It's worthless because it means

you're

applying morals or mores from one unrelated culture to another's. IOW

your

trying to judge two cultural standards who don't/didn't/can't share the

same

objectivism,

realism, and absolutism. Materialists usually refers to Natural Law as a
naturalistic fallacy. Your statement "His execution was unjust period!"

has

all the earmarks of absolutism and/or ethnocentrism. A relativist who
actually understands his Relativism's premise would say your 20/20

hindsight

is a worthless and ethnocentric judgment put upon a past or different
culture - Cultural Relativism.

Scott, Does the following paragraph describe a person who believes in

moral

relativism or moral objectivism?

"Precisely inasmuch as every human act belongs to the subject who

acts,

every individual conscience and every society chooses and acts within a
determined horizon of time and space. To truly understand human acts or
their related dynamics, we need therefore to enter into the world of those
who did them. Only in such a way can we come to know their motivations and
their moral principles." {......."}

:^ You forgot ......." I added it for you
quoting out of context, Baba? ......."This must be said without prejudice to
the solidarity that binds the members of a specific community through the
passage of time.
c. The principle of "paradigm change." While before the Enlightenment there
existed a sort of osmosis between Church and State, between faith and
culture, morality and law, from the eighteenth century onward this
relationship was modified significantly. The result was a transition from a
sacral society to a pluralist society, or, as occurred in a few cases, to a
secular society. The models of thought and action, the so-called "paradigms"
of actions and evaluation, change. Such a transition has a direct impact on
moral judgements, although this influence does not justify in any way a
relativistic idea of moral principles or of the nature of morality itself.
The entire process of purification of memory, however, insofar as it
requires the correct combination of historical evaluation and theological
perception, needs to be lived by the Church's sons and daughters not only
with the rigor that takes account of the criteria and principles indicated
above, but is also accompanied by a continual calling upon the help of the
Holy Spirit. This is necessary in order not to fall into resentment or
unwarranted self-recrimination, but to arrive instead at the confession of
the God whose "mercy is from age to age" (Lk 1:50), who wants life and not
death, forgiveness and not condemnation, love and not fear. The quality of
exemplarity which the honest admission of past faults can exert on attitudes
within the Church and civil society should also be noted, for it gives rise
to a renewed obedience to the Truth and to respect for the dignity and the
rights of others, most especially, of the very weak. In this sense, the
numerous requests for forgiveness formulated by John Paul II constitute an
example that draws attention to something good and stimulates the imitation
of it, recalling individuals and groups of people to an honest and fruitful
examination of conscience with a view to reconciliation. ,<end quote>
Objectivist.
Scott
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	01 Jun 2004 10:07:21 PM

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 14:40:15 +0000 in episode
<jz0vc.2171$cA2.1772@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com> we saw our hero "Scott"
<scott@nospam.net>:

"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94FA80AC57687LlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in
news:swmtc.1376$j%7.610@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:

"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message news:Xns94F6877ADDC7FLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in news:x66tc.1015$It2.388
@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/jun00/thomaslessl.html

Worthless apologetics. The statement about Bruno not being scientific
is particularly stupid. It is irrelevant why Bruno believed what he
did. His execution was unjust period!

*Relatively* speaking for the time and culture in which he lived it
was just! Good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust, are all
relative to the culture in question.

That doesn't mean we can't judge the actions of those in the past. Why
otherwise would the RC have apologised over their treatment of Gallileo.

If your premise is that of a moral relativist or subjectivist, it means
your judgment upon the past is worthless. It's worthless because it means
you're applying morals or mores from one unrelated culture to another's.
IOW your trying to judge two cultural standards who don't/didn't/can't
share the same sense of morality.

The Church OTOH is not relativistic. It holds to a belief of moral
objectivism based on a belief in Natural Law and that morality standards
transcends all cultures past and present. Realism. It's an altogether
different premise.

Materialism with it's amoral naturalism (Anti-Realism) rejects
objectivism,
realism, and absolutism. Materialists usually refers to Natural Law as a
naturalistic fallacy. Your statement "His execution was unjust period!"
has all the earmarks of absolutism and/or ethnocentrism. A relativist who
actually understands his Relativism's premise would say your 20/20
hindsight is a worthless and ethnocentric judgment put upon a past or
different culture - Cultural Relativism.

Scott

The "church" is as morally relative as anybody. The moral standards of
christianity have changed with the cultures the religion inhabits. That
there is no such thing as "objective morality" is an *observation of
anthropology. Despite all the squawking by the alleged "objective
morality" folk, it's true. Morals change over time and between cultures.
That's just reality.
And the "church" has changed as well. The claim of "objective" or
"absolute" morality in christianity is nothing but propaganda.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.

User: "Scott"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	02 Jun 2004 09:19:17 AM

"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.06.02.03.07.17.817122@hoo.com-amikchi...

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 14:40:15 +0000 in episode
<jz0vc.2171$cA2.1772@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com> we saw our hero "Scott"
<scott@nospam.net>:

"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94FA80AC57687LlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in
news:swmtc.1376$j%7.610@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:

"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message news:Xns94F6877ADDC7FLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in news:x66tc.1015$It2.388
@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/jun00/thomaslessl.html

Worthless apologetics. The statement about Bruno not being

scientific

is particularly stupid. It is irrelevant why Bruno believed what he
did. His execution was unjust period!

*Relatively* speaking for the time and culture in which he lived it
was just! Good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust, are all
relative to the culture in question.

That doesn't mean we can't judge the actions of those in the past. Why
otherwise would the RC have apologised over their treatment of

Gallileo.

If your premise is that of a moral relativist or subjectivist, it means
your judgment upon the past is worthless. It's worthless because it

means

you're applying morals or mores from one unrelated culture to another's.
IOW your trying to judge two cultural standards who don't/didn't/can't
share the same sense of morality.

The Church OTOH is not relativistic. It holds to a belief of moral
objectivism based on a belief in Natural Law and that morality standards
transcends all cultures past and present. Realism. It's an altogether
different premise.

Materialism with it's amoral naturalism (Anti-Realism) rejects
objectivism,
realism, and absolutism. Materialists usually refers to Natural Law as a
naturalistic fallacy. Your statement "His execution was unjust period!"
has all the earmarks of absolutism and/or ethnocentrism. A relativist

who

actually understands his Relativism's premise would say your 20/20
hindsight is a worthless and ethnocentric judgment put upon a past or
different culture - Cultural Relativism.

Scott

No such thing as moral objectivism? Oh bull *****! I have it on good
authority from Chirs Baba (aka Editor of Evil Bible) that there is TOO such
a thing as objective morality. He's explained to me over and over, and he
also said moral relativism is absurd. I'm just too stupid to see his OM.
Despite all the squawking by the alleged "objective

morality" folk, it's true. Morals change over time and between cultures.
That's just reality.

Moral Objectivism believe there is a moral truth. That doesn't mean anyone
knows what that truth is with any certainty, however, but it holds that
moral progress possible.

And the "church" has changed as well. The claim of "objective" or
"absolute" morality in christianity is nothing but propaganda.

Scott
.

User: "Editor of EvilBible.com"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	02 Jun 2004 10:38:51 AM

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Fllvc.2348$XD5.1688@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...

"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.06.02.03.07.17.817122@hoo.com-amikchi...

No such thing as moral objectivism? Oh bull *****! I have it on good
authority from Chirs Baba (aka Editor of Evil Bible) that there is TOO

such

a thing as objective morality. He's explained to me over and over, and he
also said moral relativism is absurd. I'm just too stupid to see his OM.

Mark, Scott has consistently lied about, and distorted, my opinions. I
have tried to correct him many many times, but he still lies and distorts my
statements. Please don't respond to his distortions of my statements as I
don't feel like wasting any more time correcting him when it is apparent
that he will not be corrected.
If you want to respond to his statements that's fine. If you want to
respond to my statements then you should respond to my direct statements,
not to Scott's distortions of my statements.
---Thanks
Chris Baba
Editor of EvilBible.com
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	02 Jun 2004 10:44:57 AM

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:38:51 -0400 in episode
<XuKdnUI0rK8-aSDdRVn-vg@adelphia.com> we saw our hero "Editor of
EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com>:

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Fllvc.2348$XD5.1688@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...

"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.06.02.03.07.17.817122@hoo.com-amikchi...

No such thing as moral objectivism? Oh bull *****! I have it on good
authority from Chirs Baba (aka Editor of Evil Bible) that there is TOO

such

a thing as objective morality. He's explained to me over and over, and
he also said moral relativism is absurd. I'm just too stupid to see his
OM.

Mark, Scott has consistently lied about, and distorted, my opinions. I
have tried to correct him many many times, but he still lies and distorts
my statements. Please don't respond to his distortions of my statements
as I don't feel like wasting any more time correcting him when it is
apparent that he will not be corrected.

If you want to respond to his statements that's fine. If you want to
respond to my statements then you should respond to my direct statements,
not to Scott's distortions of my statements.

Actually, I was only fascinated by his claim of:

The Church OTOH is not relativistic. It holds to a belief of moral
objectivism based on a belief in Natural Law and that morality standards
transcends all cultures past and present. Realism. It's an altogether
different premise.

Which I find amusing. An "objective" and "absolute" standard which has
changed over time.
His claims about what *you say aren't interesting to me. After all, if I
want to know what you say, I kinda already know where to find you. <g>
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.

User: "Scott"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	02 Jun 2004 11:13:36 AM

"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.06.02.15.44.56.582067@hoo.com-amikchi...

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:38:51 -0400 in episode
<XuKdnUI0rK8-aSDdRVn-vg@adelphia.com> we saw our hero "Editor of
EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com>:

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Fllvc.2348$XD5.1688@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...

"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.06.02.03.07.17.817122@hoo.com-amikchi...

The "church" is as morally relative as anybody. The moral standards

christianity have changed with the cultures the religion inhabits.
That there is no such thing as "objective morality" is an

*observation

of anthropology.

No such thing as moral objectivism? Oh bull *****! I have it on good
authority from Chirs Baba (aka Editor of Evil Bible) that there is TOO

such

a thing as objective morality. He's explained to me over and over, and
he also said moral relativism is absurd. I'm just too stupid to see his
OM.

Mark, Scott has consistently lied about, and distorted, my opinions. I
have tried to correct him many many times, but he still lies and

distorts

my statements. Please don't respond to his distortions of my statements
as I don't feel like wasting any more time correcting him when it is
apparent that he will not be corrected.

If you want to respond to his statements that's fine. If you want to
respond to my statements then you should respond to my direct

statements,

not to Scott's distortions of my statements.

Actually, I was only fascinated by his claim of:

The Church OTOH is not relativistic.

Has morality changed? Yes it has. By this Church OTOH is not relativistic I
meant holds to a philosophy of moral realism. It believe moral progess is
possible.
Where moral philosophy is subjective and relative there are no *true*
standards for which morality can be compared to and so no moral progress can
be made.
It holds to a belief of moral

objectivism based on a belief in Natural Law and that morality standards
transcends all cultures past and present. Realism. It's an altogether
different premise.

Which I find amusing. An "objective" and "absolute" standard which has
changed over time.

not so. The church holds a position of moral progress
http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1999/jul1999p13_332.html

His claims about what *you say aren't interesting to me. After all, if I
want to know what you say, I kinda already know where to find you. <g>

So read him for yourself:
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=2c68d44e.0405251347.84848be%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3D2c68d44e.0405251347.84848be%2540posting.google.com
Scott
.

User: "George Tirebiter"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	02 Jun 2004 08:54:29 PM

In article <Fllvc.2348$XD5.1688@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>,
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:

Moral Objectivism believe there is a moral truth. That doesn't mean anyone
knows what that truth is with any certainty, however, but it holds that
moral progress possible.

If it's possible, then why haven't catholics shown any progress?
.

User: "Scott"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	03 Jun 2004 10:28:01 AM

"George Tirebiter" <Tirebiter7@nospam.netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Tirebiter7-710179.20542802062004@individual.net...

In article <Fllvc.2348$XD5.1688@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>,
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:

Moral Objectivism believe there is a moral truth. That doesn't mean

anyone

knows what that truth is with any certainty, however, but it holds that
moral progress possible.

If it's possible, then why haven't catholics shown any progress?

Why, George, you don't really believe in moral progress do you? You be'n a
relativist an all.
Hmm. let's see. Here we have George, an atheist, who rejects materialism and
is a moral relativist who believes humans have inalienable, universal rights
by virtue of be'n human and whose rights are still deemed *natural*. You is
one mixed up MF, George.
.

User: "George Tirebiter"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	03 Jun 2004 12:57:21 PM

In article <5sHvc.2275$MA6.1457@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:

"George Tirebiter" <Tirebiter7@nospam.netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Tirebiter7-710179.20542802062004@individual.net...

In article <Fllvc.2348$XD5.1688@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>,
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:

Moral Objectivism believe there is a moral truth. That doesn't mean

anyone

knows what that truth is with any certainty, however, but it holds that
moral progress possible.

If it's possible, then why haven't catholics shown any progress?

Why, George, you don't really believe in moral progress do you? You be'n a
relativist an all.

Hmm. let's see. Here we have George, an atheist, who rejects materialism and
is a moral relativist who believes humans have inalienable, universal rights
by virtue of be'n human and whose rights are still deemed *natural*. You is
one mixed up MF, George.

No, you're just confused by someone who isn't a simple minded moron like
yourself.
.

User: "Scott"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	03 Jun 2004 01:36:09 PM

"George Tirebiter" <Tirebiter7@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Tirebiter7-2B1895.12572103062004@individual.net...

In article <5sHvc.2275$MA6.1457@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:

"George Tirebiter" <Tirebiter7@nospam.netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Tirebiter7-710179.20542802062004@individual.net...

In article <Fllvc.2348$XD5.1688@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>,
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:

Moral Objectivism believe there is a moral truth. That doesn't mean

anyone

knows what that truth is with any certainty, however, but it holds

that

moral progress possible.

If it's possible, then why haven't catholics shown any progress?

Why, George, you don't really believe in moral progress do you? You be'n

relativist an all.

Hmm. let's see. Here we have George, an atheist, who rejects materialism

and

is a moral relativist who believes humans have inalienable, universal

rights

by virtue of be'n human and whose rights are still deemed *natural*. You

one mixed up MF, George.

No, you're just confused by someone who isn't a simple minded moron like
yourself.

See? No denial from you about your mixed up beliefs. Unlike your brains
having gone through a blender every one's mind is comparatively simple.
.

User: "George Tirebiter"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	03 Jun 2004 01:57:35 PM

In article <tcKvc.2553$fg5.1451@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>,
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:

"George Tirebiter" <Tirebiter7@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Tirebiter7-2B1895.12572103062004@individual.net...

In article <5sHvc.2275$MA6.1457@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:

"George Tirebiter" <Tirebiter7@nospam.netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Tirebiter7-710179.20542802062004@individual.net...

In article <Fllvc.2348$XD5.1688@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>,
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:

Moral Objectivism believe there is a moral truth. That doesn't mean

anyone

knows what that truth is with any certainty, however, but it holds

that

moral progress possible.

If it's possible, then why haven't catholics shown any progress?

Why, George, you don't really believe in moral progress do you? You be'n

relativist an all.

Hmm. let's see. Here we have George, an atheist, who rejects materialism

and

is a moral relativist who believes humans have inalienable, universal

rights

by virtue of be'n human and whose rights are still deemed *natural*. You

one mixed up MF, George.

No, you're just confused by someone who isn't a simple minded moron like
yourself.

See? No denial from you about your mixed up beliefs. Unlike your brains
having gone through a blender every one's mind is comparatively simple.

My views are not mixed up. You THINK they are mixed up because they don't
conform to your simplistic views. That is a distinction you will never
understand.
.

User: "Scott"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	03 Jun 2004 02:23:59 PM

"George Tirebiter" <Tirebiter7@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Tirebiter7-8A530B.13573503062004@individual.net...

In article <tcKvc.2553$fg5.1451@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>,
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:

"George Tirebiter" <Tirebiter7@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Tirebiter7-2B1895.12572103062004@individual.net...

In article <5sHvc.2275$MA6.1457@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:

"George Tirebiter" <Tirebiter7@nospam.netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Tirebiter7-710179.20542802062004@individual.net...

In article <Fllvc.2348$XD5.1688@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>,
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:

Moral Objectivism believe there is a moral truth. That doesn't

mean

anyone

knows what that truth is with any certainty, however, but it

holds

that

moral progress possible.

If it's possible, then why haven't catholics shown any progress?

Why, George, you don't really believe in moral progress do you? You

be'n

relativist an all.

Hmm. let's see. Here we have George, an atheist, who rejects

materialism

and

is a moral relativist who believes humans have inalienable,

universal

rights

by virtue of be'n human and whose rights are still deemed *natural*.

You

one mixed up MF, George.

No, you're just confused by someone who isn't a simple minded moron

yourself.

See? No denial from you about your mixed up beliefs. Unlike your brains
having gone through a blender every one's mind is comparatively simple.

My views are not mixed up. You THINK they are mixed up because they don't
conform to your simplistic views. That is a distinction you will never
understand.

A moral relativist who believes in inalienable, universal natural rights is
mixed up.
A person who says he can't give proof nor empirical evidence for things he
calls inalienable rights but says they exist by virtue of being human and
then goes on to say he is being rational is mixed up.
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	02 Jun 2004 10:34:22 AM

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:19:17 +0000 in episode
<Fllvc.2348$XD5.1688@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com> we saw our hero "Scott"
<scott@nospam.net>:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.06.02.03.07.17.817122@hoo.com-amikchi...

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 14:40:15 +0000 in episode
<jz0vc.2171$cA2.1772@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com> we saw our hero "Scott"
<scott@nospam.net>:

"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message news:Xns94FA80AC57687LlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in
news:swmtc.1376$j%7.610@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:

"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message news:Xns94F6877ADDC7FLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in news:x66tc.1015$It2.388
@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/jun00/thomaslessl.html

Worthless apologetics. The statement about Bruno not being

scientific

is particularly stupid. It is irrelevant why Bruno believed what
he did. His execution was unjust period!

*Relatively* speaking for the time and culture in which he lived it
was just! Good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust, are all
relative to the culture in question.

That doesn't mean we can't judge the actions of those in the past.
Why otherwise would the RC have apologised over their treatment of

Gallileo.

If your premise is that of a moral relativist or subjectivist, it
means your judgment upon the past is worthless. It's worthless because
it

means

you're applying morals or mores from one unrelated culture to
another's. IOW your trying to judge two cultural standards who
don't/didn't/can't share the same sense of morality.

The Church OTOH is not relativistic. It holds to a belief of moral
objectivism based on a belief in Natural Law and that morality
standards transcends all cultures past and present. Realism. It's an
altogether different premise.

Materialism with it's amoral naturalism (Anti-Realism) rejects
objectivism,
realism, and absolutism. Materialists usually refers to Natural Law as
a naturalistic fallacy. Your statement "His execution was unjust
period!" has all the earmarks of absolutism and/or ethnocentrism. A
relativist

who

actually understands his Relativism's premise would say your 20/20
hindsight is a worthless and ethnocentric judgment put upon a past or
different culture - Cultural Relativism.

Scott

No such thing as moral objectivism? Oh bull *****! I have it on good
authority from Chirs Baba (aka Editor of Evil Bible) that there is TOO
such a thing as objective morality. He's explained to me over and over,
and he also said moral relativism is absurd. I'm just too stupid to see
his OM.

So what he says that?

Despite all the squawking by the alleged "objective

morality" folk, it's true. Morals change over time and between cultures.
That's just reality.

Moral Objectivism believe there is a moral truth. That doesn't mean anyone
knows what that truth is with any certainty, however, but it holds that
moral progress possible.

People believe a lot of things.
Morals have been observed to be relative. That's where the idea came from.
There may be human universals but pinning them down has been difficult.
And human universals probably wouldn't fit what people who want to believe
in "objective" and "absolute" morality are thinking.
Anyway, even the religions claiming to have "objective" and "absolute"
morals have changed over time. With is a funny kind of absolute...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.

User: "Scott"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	02 Jun 2004 10:57:45 AM

"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.06.02.15.34.21.96248@hoo.com-amikchi...

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:19:17 +0000 in episode
<Fllvc.2348$XD5.1688@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com> we saw our hero "Scott"
<scott@nospam.net>:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.06.02.03.07.17.817122@hoo.com-amikchi...

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 14:40:15 +0000 in episode
<jz0vc.2171$cA2.1772@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com> we saw our hero

"Scott"

<scott@nospam.net>:

"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message news:Xns94FA80AC57687LlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in
news:swmtc.1376$j%7.610@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:

"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message news:Xns94F6877ADDC7FLlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...

"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in news:x66tc.1015$It2.388
@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/jun00/thomaslessl.html

Worthless apologetics. The statement about Bruno not being

scientific

is particularly stupid. It is irrelevant why Bruno believed what
he did. His execution was unjust period!

*Relatively* speaking for the time and culture in which he lived

was just! Good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust, are all
relative to the culture in question.

That doesn't mean we can't judge the actions of those in the past.
Why otherwise would the RC have apologised over their treatment of

Gallileo.

If your premise is that of a moral relativist or subjectivist, it
means your judgment upon the past is worthless. It's worthless

because

means

you're applying morals or mores from one unrelated culture to
another's. IOW your trying to judge two cultural standards who
don't/didn't/can't share the same sense of morality.

The Church OTOH is not relativistic. It holds to a belief of moral
objectivism based on a belief in Natural Law and that morality
standards transcends all cultures past and present. Realism. It's an
altogether different premise.

Materialism with it's amoral naturalism (Anti-Realism) rejects
objectivism,
realism, and absolutism. Materialists usually refers to Natural Law

a naturalistic fallacy. Your statement "His execution was unjust
period!" has all the earmarks of absolutism and/or ethnocentrism. A
relativist

who

actually understands his Relativism's premise would say your 20/20
hindsight is a worthless and ethnocentric judgment put upon a past or
different culture - Cultural Relativism.

Scott

No such thing as moral objectivism? Oh bull *****! I have it on good
authority from Chirs Baba (aka Editor of Evil Bible) that there is TOO
such a thing as objective morality. He's explained to me over and over,
and he also said moral relativism is absurd. I'm just too stupid to see
his OM.

So what he says that?

That's what his trolling is all about.....to turn theists to the true
morality.

Despite all the squawking by the alleged "objective

morality" folk, it's true. Morals change over time and between

cultures.

That's just reality.

Moral Objectivism believe there is a moral truth. That doesn't mean

anyone

knows what that truth is with any certainty, however, but it holds that
moral progress possible.

I've taken college sociology. What you're saying is old hat for me.
Scott
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	26 May 2004 07:05:36 PM

On 25-May-2004, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:

An atrocious period of history, but motivated mostly by politics.

Nonsense., Medeival times were sructured wholly around the church, the
cross
and faith in going to heaven. It was the politicians who had no choice
but to
accept the bishops and their flock otherwise they would be fibnished off
by the
populace. Learn your history

The 'politicians' had to weigh the Church's words quite heavily, that's
true, but glory, plunder, and new fiefdoms awaited them on the march
eastward...

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to
claim
that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine,
[1615, during the trial of Galileo]

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with
sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use."
- Galileo Galilei
He was right of course... Has the Church learned it's lesson?
"One Galileo in two thousand years is enough."
- Pope Pius XII
Along with a pardoning by John Paul II... who himself said:
"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can
purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other
into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish�We need each other to
be what we must be, what we are called to be."
.... and it's case closed.
H.

.

User: "Enkidu"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	25 May 2004 09:59:58 PM

In article <FrCdnUzxQ8rpnCndRVn2hw@giganews.com>,

says...

On 25-May-2004, Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:

Communists do not = atheists.

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless
world - It is the opium of the people."

-Karl Marx

Just because Karl was sometimes wrong does not mean he was always wrong.
Argue against his point, don't assume he's proven wrong because he's
Karl Marx.

Among the gifts this religion thing has brought to the world:

Crusades

An atrocious period of history, but motivated mostly by politics.

Burned in the name of God. That politics was involved is small comfort
to the dead, especially when it was church politics.

Inquisitions

In the entire 350 year history of the Spanish inquisition, about 30,000
people died, less than 100 a year. A good ol' atheist boy like Stalin killed
that many before breakfast.

Stalin studied for the priesthood. He learnd well from the masters.
And remember, it was Marx who claimed religion was the opiate of the
masses, not Stalin. Stalin didn't want any competition for power. The
church was another authoritarian organization not under his control.

Pogroms

Most of which were politically motivated... and the worst of which were
carried out by the communists... er... like Pol Pot.

No, they were religiously motivated. By separating humanity into "us"
and "them", with "them" always lesser humans, religion was the direct
cause of the pogroms, the justification for all that has ever been done
to "them" by "us".

Holocausts

I assume you mean 'the' holocaust. Now, the National Socialist Party (Nazis)
was hardly a religious organization, but a decidedly atheist one.

No, they were religious. "God is with us" was the SS motto.

Sexual (and other) abuse of children by the clergy.

Which occurs FAR less often than abuse in secular society.

That is a flat out lie. The per capita pedophile rate is MUCH higher in
the Catholic church than in the general population. Was it 3 to 5
percent? Anyone remember that stat?

9/11

I can't speak for Islamic fundamentalists, but fundamentalism of any sort is
bad. (As we have seen...)

Then why do you apologize for the extremes fornamentals have gone to?
You argue that what they've done is not really all that bad,
considering. It is all that bad. You link communism with atheism, as
if the two were inseparable, but expect us to separate non-
fundamentalist religion from fundamentalist religion. I can't do it.
You are ALL fundamentalists. You all base your judgement of good and
evil, moral and immoral on a book of bad fiction written and compiled
1,600 to 1,850 years ago by nameless men.

"Where reason cannot wade, there faith may swim."
-Thomas Watson

In other words, "Faith - realm of the irrational." Irrational means,
literally, "without reason".

"Credo ut Intelligam." (I believe in order to understand.)
-St. Augustine

Have you actually tried to read anything by St. Augustine? Not a single
thing he ever said has stood the test of time. Asian horses impregnated
by the wind, dead peacocks don't rot, etc.

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge in the field of Truth and
Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
-Albert Einstein

Good advice. That's why we look to the evidence, we modify our beliefs
based on the evidence of our eyes. If we stuck with you, blacks would
still be slaves, children and women would be stoned to death for minor
infractions.

"It's knowledge has reached the limits of this universe and it must evolve.
What is requires of it's God is the answer to it's question. 'Is there
nothing more?'"
-Spock ;)

From the Bible to Star Turk. Old fiction to new. Neither supports your
God.
--
Enkidu - AA# 2165
"Today is a fine day for reality . . ."
.

User: "Mark Richardson"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	25 May 2004 10:15:25 PM

On Tue, 25 May 2004 19:59:58 -0700, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:

In article <FrCdnUzxQ8rpnCndRVn2hw@giganews.com>,

says...

On 25-May-2004, Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:

Communists do not = atheists.

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless
world - It is the opium of the people."

-Karl Marx

Just because Karl was sometimes wrong does not mean he was always wrong.
Argue against his point, don't assume he's proven wrong because he's
Karl Marx.

Was he wrong?
People get no comfort from religion?
You sure of that?
You never heard of *anyone* saying something like:
"My baby died and I would have been destroyed had it not been for my
faith in Jesus!" ?
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.

User: "Enkidu"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	25 May 2004 10:29:16 PM

In article <tp28b0dffdqievq9fndpdq06q34i8obu2n@4ax.com>,
mark.richardson@die.spammers.die says...

On Tue, 25 May 2004 19:59:58 -0700, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:

In article <FrCdnUzxQ8rpnCndRVn2hw@giganews.com>,

says...

On 25-May-2004, Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:

Communists do not = atheists.

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless
world - It is the opium of the people."

-Karl Marx

Just because Karl was sometimes wrong does not mean he was always wrong.
Argue against his point, don't assume he's proven wrong because he's
Karl Marx.

1) I never said Marx was wrong. In fact, I don't believe his economic
theory has been disproven, as it has never been tried. Of course, it
has never been proven either.
2) So? That doesn't make it true. And I have heard the two survivors
of a school bus crash call it a "miracle" that they survived, and than
God for protecting them. It was a trip to a Christian summer camp, so I
wondered why God didn't see fit to extend the miracle a few feet in
either direction as save a few more kids.
Religion is an explanation which explains nothing.
--
Enkidu - AA# 2165
"Today is a fine day for reality . . ."
.

User: "Mark Richardson"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	25 May 2004 11:04:39 PM

On Tue, 25 May 2004 20:29:16 -0700, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:

In article <tp28b0dffdqievq9fndpdq06q34i8obu2n@4ax.com>,
mark.richardson@die.spammers.die says...

On Tue, 25 May 2004 19:59:58 -0700, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:

In article <FrCdnUzxQ8rpnCndRVn2hw@giganews.com>,

says...

On 25-May-2004, Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:

Communists do not = atheists.

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless
world - It is the opium of the people."

-Karl Marx

Just because Karl was sometimes wrong does not mean he was always wrong.
Argue against his point, don't assume he's proven wrong because he's
Karl Marx.

1) I never said Marx was wrong. In fact, I don't believe his economic
theory has been disproven, as it has never been tried. Of course, it
has never been proven either.

Because you said "Marx was sometimes wrong" immediately after the
quote by Marx - I assumed your comment pertained to that particular
quote.
I was jumping to conclusions - i apologize.
Marx wasn't talking about God doing anything - he was saying people
turn to religion to ease their pain.
I think that was one of the things he was right about.

Religion is an explanation which explains nothing.

I agree.
But there are many explanations as to why humans create gods and
religion.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.

User: "Enkidu"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	25 May 2004 11:19:17 PM

In article <pd58b0h7cb9h1phct8ndgtbljj6ldueja3@4ax.com>,
mark.richardson@die.spammers.die says...

But there are many explanations as to why humans create gods and
religion.

The study of religion should really be carried on by psychologists.
--
Enkidu - AA# 2165
"Today is a fine day for reality . . ."
.

User: "David V."
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	26 May 2004 09:01:41 AM

Enkidu wrote:

mark.richardson@die.spammers.die says...

But there are many explanations as to why humans create
gods and religion.

The study of religion should really be carried on by
psychologists.

It has been, long ago. Read The Future of an Illusion by
Freud. It's about the only thing he got right.
--
David V.
UDP for WebTV
.

User: "bob young"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	26 May 2004 12:27:25 AM

Mark Richardson wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2004 19:59:58 -0700, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:

In article <FrCdnUzxQ8rpnCndRVn2hw@giganews.com>,

says...

On 25-May-2004, Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:

Communists do not = atheists.

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless
world - It is the opium of the people."

-Karl Marx

Just because Karl was sometimes wrong does not mean he was always wrong.
Argue against his point, don't assume he's proven wrong because he's
Karl Marx.

True, a bit like the farmer in Afganistan about 16 years ago, his whole village
was wiped out includung his wife and family. asked for his thoughs about him
suviving he said "It was the will of allah" religion is mass hypnosis. Yes it
does good and attracts many good people, but at the end of the day it is pure
mythology, it is now 2004!

Mark.

--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau

Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)

-----------------------------------------------------

User: ""
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	26 May 2004 05:52:44 PM

On 25-May-2004, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:

True, a bit like the farmer in Afganistan about 16 years ago, his whole
village
was wiped out includung his wife and family. asked for his thoughs about
him
suviving he said "It was the will of allah" religion is mass hypnosis.
Yes it
does good and attracts many good people, but at the end of the day it is
pure
mythology, it is now 2004!

Ah. He had faith and hope! What wonderful, comfort- ...oops, sorry, I
forgot, those are *bad* things. I'll just shut up right now, yep.
.

User: "Paul Duca"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	26 May 2004 09:19:16 PM

wrote:

On 25-May-2004, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:

True, a bit like the farmer in Afganistan about 16 years ago, his whole
village
was wiped out includung his wife and family. asked for his thoughs about
him
suviving he said "It was the will of allah" religion is mass hypnosis.
Yes it
does good and attracts many good people, but at the end of the day it is
pure
mythology, it is now 2004!

Ah. He had faith and hope! What wonderful, comfort- ...

Alcohol does a better job of temporary escape from miserable
reality...
Paul
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	26 May 2004 09:22:51 PM

On 26-May-2004, Paul Duca <tomservo@comcast.net> wrote:

Alcohol does a better job of TEMPORARY escape from miserable
reality...

emphasis mine.
H.
.

User: "Paul Duca"
Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required	27 May 2004 07:13:59 PM

wrote:

On 26-May-2004, Paul Duca <tomservo@comcast.net> wrote:

Alcohol does a better job of TEMPORARY escape from miserable
reality...

A good drunk lasts longer than a church service...
Paul
.

Page 2 of 13