 |
|
 |
|
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 14:53:34 -0700 (PDT), Jenny6833A <...@aol.com
If you were, your subject line would be different. Atheists are
without religious and gods-related beliefs.
<snip
This forum is for atheists to discuss atheism. Others who pose
questions are expected to have done their homework about atheism. If
they have, their questions are almost always answered calmly.
However, most theists just barge in with ludicrous lectures we've all
heard and responded to many times before.
Aren't the beliefs you speak of worthy of being belittled?
Eh?
I have no interest in offsetting Dawkins. He's 100% on target 99.999%
of the time.
:-)
Jenny
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 07:59:01 -0700 (PDT), "pba...@worldonline.nl" <...@worldonline.nl
Reacting on this opening post, I must say I disagree when you claim
Richard Dawkins to be arrogant. For a man with his capacities he is
not.
I do agree, that many an atheist on this Newsgroup behave as impolite
and emotinally as any odd theist trolling in here. Sometimes their
behavriour is justified by the outrages claims a theist makes,
sometimes I think it is not,
I personally try to refrain from such behaviour especially as it
confirmes the preconceived misunderstanding of the theist, who
wrongfully assumes all atheists are evil.
Love,
Peter van Velzen
June 2009
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:17:08 -0400, "Mr. B" <...@supplied.com
This is unfortunate, but it is probably a consequence of the nature of the
two sides of the argument. The arguments are usually between atheists and
fundamentalists (fundamentalists seem to be the only people who care enough
to argue with atheists). Atheists are unwilling to simply abandon logic and
accept whatever faith the fundamentalists push, and the fundamentalists are
absolutely committed in their faith and are unwilling to give up.
People just get frustrated. Most atheists just want to be left alone in
their atheism, but keep being harassed by theists who are convinced that
giving up on anyone is a sin. When both sides fail to get what they want,
they resort to shouts and insults.
Of course, there are also people like Richard Dawkins, who provoke arguments
with fundamentalists. I have not given enough thought about such people to
develop a decent opinion on it, so I'll just leave it as an open question.
-- B
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:26:43 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <...@optonline.net
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:17:08 -0400, "Mr. B" <...@supplied.com
Treating fundamentalists as aggressively stupid isn't insults. Nor is
calling them liars for their personal lies.
It's just just calling a spade a spade when the aggressively stupid
liars can't live and let live.
At which point they have forfeited any respect, especially when they
have shown none themselves. It's mere;y reaping what they sow.
Dawkins and other biologists don't do that. You have to realise that
they are responding to attacks on their professional integrity.
>-- B
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:05:59 -0400, "Mr. B" <...@supplied.com
True, but simply replying to a well known liar by calling them a liar
without proving that they did, in fact, lie, is just a simple insult. There
is a difference between calling someone a liar after demonstrating that they
lied, and just calling them a liar.
Dawkins is very careful to say that when he refers to theologians, he is
referring to fundamentalists and not common believers. However, he did
publish a book called "The God Delusion," and that title was not naïvely
chosen: it was intentionally provocative. Yes, the introduction makes it
clear that he has no grudge or problem with people who have personal faith
and keep their religion out of the public sphere, but very few people truly
refrain from judging a book by its cover (or title)...
I do not mean to criticize Richard Dawkins. Personally, I respect the man
both as a biologist and as a great mind, and I think that he makes a lot of
very valid, and very important points about religion. However, I do not
think it is unreasonable to suggest that he deliberately provoked
fundamentalists -- perhaps because of a frustration with the
fundamentalists' attempts to push their views on others, or their attacks on
biology and other sciences, but nevertheless he was being provocative.
-- B
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 08:56:14 +0200, "thomas p." <...@yahoo.com
"Mr. B" <...@news.gabrix.ath.cx...
Belief in god is a delusion, and it is a positive thing to point it out.
If you express a belief and insist that all are obliged to base their lives
on that belief, responses from those who disagree are to be expected.
Dawkins is unusually polite about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 04:18:43 -0700 (PDT), "L.Roberts" <...@yahoo.com
On Jun 5, 11:05 pm, "Mr. B" <...@supplied.com
Many theists are just plain insulting fucking bastards and I treat
them like I would any other insulting fucking bastards, I endeavor to
give them lessons in the art of being an insulting fucking bastard.
Fuck them mother fucking insulting fucking religi-idiotic bastards!
Ah, there! Now I feel better.
L.Roberts
aa # 2258
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:50:32 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <...@optonline.net
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 04:18:43 -0700 (PDT), "L.Roberts"
<...@yahoo.com
So what if he called it "The God Delusion"? How is it provoking to
give them a taste of their own medicine?
Amateur-psychologing to come up with something incorrect. Just as bad
as the fundies.
I think we've all lost theist friends who have felt they knew us well
enough to ask questions when they weren't weren't capable of accepting
the answers.
A question of "do they want the diplomatic answer they will filter
into something else, or the honest one that actually tells it as it
is?"
I had a friend stay with me a few of years ago from California who
asked how I came to my beliefs that God doesn't exist. So I explained
to him that it was simply somebody else's religion that I hadn't even
been raised in and I didn't have anything to believe doesn't exist.
After more and more detail about it simply not meaning to me what it
meant to him, "yes, but how did you come to that belief" again.
They simply can't think outside the box and it is impossible to get
through to them because what they don't understand that contradicts
them vanishes because it gets shut out.
The next step was C.S.Lewis and what made him convert. Exactly the
same thing happened - do you really think anybody who isn't a
believer already is going to equate morals with a god he doesn't
believe in? An atheist can always come up with other explanations that
don't need any god let alone his, Eg Hindus don't their morals from
hiis one. Again, more detail about how no atheist recognises Lewis as
an atheist because of the Christian stuff he already presumed that no
atheist does - with him explaining what one is from a Christian point
of view. But not from an atheist POV. Completely over his head.
Finally "but this is what converted Lewis". Everything completely
ignored.
It's infuriating. As well as un-necessary.
Even Dawkins doesn't mind what they believe as long as it doesn't
spill over from their churches, synagogs and mosques to impact others.
And whether they like it or not, it is a delusion to everybody else.
It's not our problem they fail to realise this. Or that they have to
be made to. Because until they realise this they will continue to make
obnoxious idiots of themselves.
We've all taken the time and trouble to explain to these idiots that
in the real world it's just somebody else's religious belief to
everybody else. And been treated like idiots for this for thinking
this even though that's how they see al the others.
Like the rest of us he is fed up with being expected to put up with
the pernicious effects of religion at so many different levels.
Perhaps if mainstream religionists did something about their more
extreme brethren, or if they had the common sense and courtesy not to
talk bullshit to people outside their religion, he (and we) might
react differently.
The problem is that it is impossible to get through to them in a
polarising situation they themselves created.
If Dawkins had called the book something else would it have had the
impact?
And they're not even the intended audience. Thyey don't read this kind
of book and rely on dishonest commentary from others who haven't read
it for comprehension either.
The rest of them shut out explanation, correction etc and get what
they deserve too. Especially when they bring it up in the first place
where should know it is inappropriate if they had more than two
neurons to rub together.
Both kinds have a sociopathic inability to grasp how to behave when
they put themselves in somebody else's personal space, just how
offensive they are, and any lack of respect on our part is a
reflection of how they treated us in the first place. In our space.
A recent well publicised example being the apologists for Cardinal
Cormac Murphy-O'Connor after he said we were less than human. Neither
he nor his supporters were capable of grasping just how offensive he
was.
And he wasn't even a fundamentist or creationist. Just an unthinking
religious loonie with a huge following.
They've had a free ride for too long and think it's theirs by right.
>aa # 2258
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 03:14:03 +0100, "Smiler" <...@Joe.King.com
Don't hold back. Tell it like it really is. :-)
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all individually made
to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 04:50:11 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <...@optonline.net
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:05:59 -0400, "Mr. B" <...@supplied.com
No.
They take no notice of what you say, no matter how often you repeat
it.
They get their chance and blow it.
One of the common tactics is to ignore it, then dismiss it as a
litanny when you repeat it.
They deserve everything they get.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:10:33 GMT, fasgnadh <...@yahoo.com.au
Exactly! And because atheists are pack hunting forgers and liars
themselves, [For evidence see below..] there mere assertions carry
no weight (except in their own incestuous, tool fondling and mutual
masturbation circles ;-)
Yes
That's because, as stated, you merely ASSERT a lie, and provide no
proof. Frequently the atheist assertion is itself a lie.
For example you pretended this person had been offensive
and that HIS offence (wishing all Seasons greetings) justified your
own offensive behaviour;
# From: "John Fraser" <...@ns.sympatico.ca# Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
# Subject: Merry Christmas
# Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:21:03 -0400
# Message-ID: <...@news.aliant.net#
# Hello Folks;
#
# I'd like to wish all of you a very Merry Christmas
# and a safe holiday season. Phil 4:8.
#
# Cheers,
# John
Now, these immoral atheists liars and hypocrites claimed that
pleasant greeting JUSTIFIED this violent psychosexual abuse;
# From: Christopher A. Lee <...@optonline.net# Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
# Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:24:01 -0500
# Message-ID: <...@4ax.com#
# "go fuck yourself with your crucifix in a drill chuck'.
Atheists are not merely militant, they are RABID! 8^o
So it is not a matter of what Chris THINKS they have done to deserve
his outrageous abuse, but how ridiculous he looks to others when
he does it!
It is not the person who is accused without proof who looks idiotic,
but you!
--
Further Evidence to support above allegations:
Others were having a meaningful, rational debate on a significant
issue, when Virgil, an atheist fraud, being unable to participate in
rational debate, forged a post so he could reply to himself: B^p
# From: fasgnadh <...@yahoo.com.au# Subject:Virgil demonstrates that atheists are liars and forgers,
# and the gutless ones are complicit
# Message-ID: <...@news-server.bigpond.net.au# Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:20:30 GMT
#
#
#
#
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
Virgil, a cyber-stalking liar, fraud and forger cannot rationally
debate another person, he created a strawman and mass-debated himself.
The text below was modified by Virgil and attributed to me.
# From: Virgil <...@nowhere.com# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion,aus.religion,aus.religion.islam,
# alt.religion.christianity,alt.politics.democrats,
# uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,alt.agnosticism
# Subject: Re: Al Qaeda joins Duke and fasgnadh in attacking
# Obama's M.E. Peace overture!
# Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:50:45 -0600
# Message-ID: <...@bignews.usenetmonster.com# Organization: Usenet Monster Unlimited - http://www.usenetmonster.com
#
#
# He didn't cause it, it happened under theist Bush's watch
# a product of theist Greed and the utter abandonment of prudent
# finance under the Merchant and Investment Banks which developed
# instruments allowing lenders and borrowers alike to pretend
# that risk did not exist.
In a predominately theist society, most of the good men will be theists
and most of the crooks will be theists, and most of the theists will
condemn the crooks.
In a cesspit like alt.atheism.. ALL OF THE ATHEIST MORAL SHITPIGS
are willing accomplices or cowardly and complicit.
As those atheist hypocrites say themselves:
# From: John Baker <...@bizniz.net# Newsgroups: alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: Are atheists too militant in support of their beliefs?
# Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 02:04:12 -0400
# Message-ID: <...@4ax.com#
# by not speaking out against those who *are* causing a
# problem, they're doing nothing to rectify it.
#
# The only complaint I have with those people is that, as I mentioned,
# by their silence they give tacit approval to the minority who *are* a
# problem.
Atheists are CHOKING on their lies and their hypocrisy.
Their Newsgroup if full of atheist forgers and their credibility
is less than the Usenet.Kooks! B^]
There is no significant debate in alt.atheism, just atheist
liars Mass-debating THEMSELVES like Virgil and his sockpuppets!
B^]
=========
Virgil is an atheist forger and thug who Cyber-stalks individuals.
From: Virgil <...@comcast.netSubject: Re: discussion and reason in alt.atheism
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 17:58:59 -0600
Message-ID: <...@bignews.usenetmonster.com#
#
# # # #
# You ..could remain safely unraped by staying in your own yards
In other words, this thug proposes that the solution to Cyberstalking
designed to silence the targets, is for those targets to fall silent!!
Anyone smell NKVD, Red Terror and the atheist gulags?
He does this with the full support, complicity and encouragement
of the atheist community in alt.atheism.
The tool he uses is
Usenet Monster Unlimited - http://www.usenetmonster.com
For $2.95 per month, far less than 30 pieces of silver,
the Usenet Monsters allow Spammers to impersonate other
Users Net Ids, to literally FORGE posts using those
fraudulent impersonations ...with a single intent..
it is not 'debate', it is not 'rational dialogue',
it is not 'logical argument' it is coercion designed to
stop their targets from posting in Usenet!!!
In Australia this is Cyber-stalking and it is a Crime.
" stop posting to alt.atheism, and we will stop"
- "Virgil" posting as "Chung" <...@cde.com "ABCHUNG" <...@def.ghi "hdangsaf" hdangsaf <...@ng.saf
Chung and ABCHUNG are Virgil's impersonations of
a Christian poster, who is apparently a doctor
and an Author in the US, and is fiercely debated.
I don't know the target personally, I don't believe we have
spoken or debated.. I merely observe the Cyberstalking..
Fierce debate is fine, but you put YOUR OWN views.. you
DONT POST YOUR POPPYCOCK UNDER THEIR STOLEN NETIDS!!!!
Disagreement is fine... the Impersonation, Cyberstalking
Net Forgery and fraud with the specific intent of
getting the victim to CEASE SPEAKING, is not!! B^[
It is a disgraceful attempt to REMOVE someone's free
speech by intimidation!
# From: ABCHUNG <...@def.ghi# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion,aus.religion,aus.politics,
# alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.democrats,uk.politics.misc
# User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X)
# Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:39:51 -0600
# Message-ID: <...@bignews.usenetmonster.com# Organization: Usenet Monster Unlimited - http://www.usenetmonster.com
# NNTP-Posting-Host: eea407f9.unlimited.usenetmonster.com
# X-Complaints-To: kill...@usenetmonster.com
# X-Trace:
DXC=;Xkm9VdMTXT<;jB0f=jVoU]fYQ;k92_9SOjD
# From: Chung <...@cde.com# Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,alt.christnet.christianlife,
# alt.messianic.yeshua,alt.christnet.theologyalt.atheism,
# Subject: Re: Theist Frauds and Forgers
# User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X)
# Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 17:37:23 -0600
# Message-ID: <...@bignews.usenetmonster.com# Organization: Usenet Monster Unlimited - http://www.usenetmonster.com
# NNTP-Posting-Host: 945ce08f.unlimited.usenetmonster.com
# X-Complaints-To: kill...@usenetmonster.com
# X-Trace:
DXC=8POfoXb;MN[kM93=S9_F^U]fYQ;k92_9SOjD
# From: hdangsaf <...@ng.saf# User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X)
# Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 21:12:48 -0600
# Message-ID: <...@bignews.usenetmonster.com# Organization: Usenet Monster Unlimited - http://www.usenetmonster.com
# NNTP-Posting-Host: a7605eb4.unlimited.usenetmonster.com
# X-Complaints-To: kill...@usenetmonster.com
# X-Trace:
DXC=6e]D<D]2OHbgAL\IhU
# From: A Nony Mouse <...@nowhere.com# Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.religion,alt.philosophy,alt.atheism.satire,aus.religion,alt.usen et.kooks
# Subject: Re: The Problem with atheism is that it has never had a
Reformation or needed one.
# User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X)
# Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 10:48:50 -0600
# Message-ID: <...@bignews.usenetmonster.com# Organization: Usenet Monster Unlimited - http://www.usenetmonster.com
# NNTP-Posting-Host: 729cae45.unlimited.usenetmonster.com
# X-Complaints-To: kill...@usenetmonster.com
# X-Trace:
DXC=:G?3WFZBFBHa`X@Z11hP1A]fYQ;k92_9COjD
Atheists impersonate an individual to DISCREDIT them with
WHAT THE ATHEISTS POST.. not by what the individual himself
has to say!
It is not MERE misrepresentation, most debates involve that,
It is FORGERY.. "This is X speaking.. FUCK YOU ALL"
Many people do not read headers carefully and will
assume the Impersonator or Forger IS the original.
This is simply dishonest slander by the atheist thugs.
But their admitted goal is to SILENCE their opponent,
by BURYING THEM In ATHEIST GENERATED SHIT.
If a hundred posts appear with YOUR name, no one will
be able to find the one or two from you.
Your rights to free speech will be REMOVED!
If you don't like a poster, or regard them as a spammer, killfile him.
That is LEGITIMATE use of freedom which respects the SAME right
for others!
To pretend to BE them, in order to DISCREDIT them,
is an indication that you FEAR THEIR SUPERIOR REASON.
End of story!
It is the atheist admission of DEFEAT
in the arena of HONEST RATIONAL DISCOURSE.
Howling that others are not rational will not change this fact,
that is merely the disagreement which debate seeks to settle.
FORGERY AND IMPERSONATION, CYBERSTALKING which targets INDIVIDUALS,
NOT IDEAS.. is fascism..
Big Shame Job for all the atheists caught up in it and exposed!
Stand back and watch them screech! B^]
A poster puts HIS views, others can put theirs,
agree disagree, parody, even frame their meaning..
IN YOUR OWN VOICE.. if their text is ambiguous ..
but they cannot FORGE POSTS in the name of others,
changing text attributed to others, AND IMPERSONATE
them, or CYBERSTALK their every posts with SPAM,
that is a disgrace;
# From: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <...@thetruth.com# Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 01:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
# Message-ID:
<...@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com# NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.166.29.78
And one of Virgil's sockpuppet IMPERSONATIONS replies with
abuse, slander and lies...
# From: ABCHUNG <...@def.ghi# Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,alt.christnet.christianlife,
# alt.messianic.yeshua,alt.christnet.theology,alt.atheism,
# User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X)
# Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 12:24:13 -0600
# Message-ID: <...@bignews.usenetmonster.com# Organization: Usenet Monster Unlimited - http://www.usenetmonster.com
# NNTP-Posting-Host: b5422141.unlimited.usenetmonster.com
# X-Complaints-To: kill...@usenetmonster.com
#
#
# A. B. Chung is really an atheist in drag.
And not a single atheist objects.. they are all too busy
pack hunting the target themselves!!!
Atheists should let let Usenet Monster Unlimited -
http://www.usenetmonster.com ..know that you appreciate their
support of atheist USENET parasites, spammers, impersonators
and forgers, enabling their Cyber-stalking of individual believers.
It is clearly a great aid to Atheist NewSpeak and the goal
of SILENCING your opponents who you cannot defeat in ARGUMENT!
If you can't win by FAIR means, you will win by FOUL!
I will try and make all the Religious NG's in Usenet aware of Usenet
Monsters support for atheist Cyber-stalking .. it will no doubt
impact on their commercial viability! B^]
# American Religious Identification Survey, Summary Report March 2009:
#
# "Self-identification of U.S. Adult Population by Religious Tradition
#
# 2001 2008
#
#
# Religious 167,254,000 (80%) 182,198,000 (80%)
#
# Agnostics 991,000 (0.5%) 1,985,000 (0.9%)
#
# Atheists 902,000 (0.4%) 1,621,000 (0.7%)
#
#
Do the math, Usenet Monsters!! B^]
You cannot allow self confessed Cyberstalkers who aim
to STOP OTHERS FROM EXERCISING their universal rights
to Freedom of belief and Freedom of Speech!!!
--
Atheists try to shut down rational debate any
way they can..historically this has included
religious persecution, forced indoctrination,
especially of children, torture, terror, the slaughter
of over 40,000,000 people in the Atheist holocausts of
the 20th century, and, when they have no power, as now,
by sophistry, slander, pogrom and pack-hunt, hypocrisy, lies,
forgery, impersonation and Cyberstalking.
# "The underlying theory of NewSpeak is that if something can't
# be said, then it can't be thought."
# This suits the totalitarian
# regime of the Party, whose aim is to make any alternative
# thinking — "thoughtcrime", or "crimethink" in the newest
# edition of NewSpeak — or speech impossible by removing
# any words or possible constructs which describe the
# ideas of freedom, rebellion and so on."
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_10018 74c.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:52:32 -0600, Virgil <...@nowhere.com
In article <...@news-server.bigpond.net.au fasgnadh <...@yahoo.com.au
.
--
Virgil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 03:58:36 +0000, Larry <...@home.com
fasgnadh <...@yahoo.com.auserver.bigpond.net.au:
How can anyone, including atheists, prove to you the Starship Enterprise
doesn't exist and is just a fantasy conjured up by a science fiction
writer?
How do I prove to you God is imaginary, when he does not exist?
However, if you insist the Starship Enterprise DOES exist, you'd be
required to PROVE it exists with PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, the ship.
No body...no murder! Prove I killed her if you can't find the body....same
idea in every courtroom.
--
-----
Larry
If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:02:40 -0500, Don Martin <...@comcast.net
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:05:59 -0400, "Mr. B" <...@supplied.com
Well, let them. Until and unless believers can come up with any credible
evidence for their deities, "god" is a delusion. As you present it, it is only
the shallow who are likely to be offended after they have judged the book by its
cover; those capable of actually _reading_ the thing tend to react less. Dawkins
is not writing for the blockheads: nobody (apart from scam artists) ever does.
-
aa #2278 If you can't be a dirty old man, what is the point of being an old man?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 07:57:48 -0700 (PDT), "pba...@worldonline.nl" <...@worldonline.nl
On 6 jun, 15:02, Don Martin <...@comcast.net
Reacting on this opening post, I must say I disagree when you claim
Richard Dawkins to be arrogant. For a man with his capacities he is
not.
I do agree, that many an atheist on this Newsgroup behave as impolite
and emotinally as any odd theist trolling in here. Sometimes their
behavriour is justified by the outrages claims a theist makes,
sometimes I think it is not,
I personally try to refrain from such behaviour especially as it
confirmes the preconceived misunderstanding of the theist, who
wrongfully assumes all atheists are evil.
Love,
Peter van Velzen
June 2009
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 04:06:44 +0000, Larry <...@home.com
"pba...@worldonline.nl" <...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
Very well said....and needed to be said.
--
-----
Larry
If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 07:12:50 -0700, chibiabos <...@nospam.com
In article
<...@hotmail.com
One of the problems here is that the atheists in this group have seen
all the arguments before. We get tired of explaining the rules of
reason, logic, fallacious mistakes, and (Chris take note) in-your-face
rudeness on the part of theists.
If a theist comes here with sincere questions, a desire to learn, or at
least not a desire to antagonize, with few exceptions (Chris take note)
we'll treat him or her well.
But if a theist comes in here with an attitude, mocking us, telling US
we are wrong without considering the possibility that THEY might be
wrong, quoting scripture and telling us we're all going to "hell."
Well, that person deserves nothing but scorn (Chris take note).
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 04:14:37 +0000, Larry <...@home.com
chibiabos <...@nospam.com:
But, if a theist doesn't have that "attitude", mocking us or not, he's in
terrible danger of starting to reason for him/herself, which is how most of
us came to be here, from our religious childhood. If there's the slightest
crack in their blind, unquestioning faith, religions, any religions, have
no chance of holding them in slavery, because none of the religions are
anything but a delusion in the first place. Start questioning that
delusion and you start looking in the mirror of reason to see how you've
been duped, sometimes all your lives.
It's very important for the delusion to be totally captivating, hence the
hell threats and burning. The weak don't dare look over that wall for fear
of finding there's nothing on the other side but empty space.....
--
-----
Larry
If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 05:27:17 +0000, Larry <...@home.com
gotm...@hotmail.com wrote in news:6df17a60-f4a3-4bca-9136-
6512...@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
A very excellent posting. Thank you for saying it.
About Dawkins, I've never met a tenure-protected professor who wasn't
quite arrogant. They live in an isolated world behind those walls, both
real and imaginary, isolated from world reality....oddly much like a
Jewish rabbi born in England whos English is heavily accented as if he
were born, raised and schooled in Tel Aviv. They both live in a world
apart from their surroundings.
That said, I haven't met the man but have read every word he prints and
heard most of his speeches. I don't find him "militant", which would
make him violent, which he certainly is not. "Staunchly opinionated",
as are most large university professors, I like better.
What draws me to Dawkins is his stand that to force the parents'
religion upon innocent children from birth, before they reach the "age
of reason" and can defend themselves from the dogma, lies and
indoctrinations, IS child abuse of a most henious nature. Of course,
without this abuse, religions could not exist as fresh meat of constant
supply is needed to fill the seats....and the coffers. It's why there
are so many religious schools to enhance the indoctrination.
Imagine the outcry if we started "The Charles Darwin Atheist School"
anywhere in America. We'd have to build it out of fireproof concrete
with no windows and 5 ft thick blast proof walls and have special bomb
proof entrances inside a compound that looks like Area 51 to protect the
children....
....We could accept unwanted children the Pro Lifer Christies saved that
noone wants....
Of course, the children would be taught Math, ENGLISH, SCIENCE without
the cloaking devices, Music, Art, Religion as a part of HISTORY not of
reality...much like Christies teach about Greek Gods, Egyptology,
etc.....as a MYTH not FACT. Thor, Zeus, Jesus, Yahweh, and all the
other mythical characters of the superstitions of ancient, simple
peoples....not as intellectuals with fake Doctor of Divinity degrees
riding around in fancy cars.
Our children would be the unsuperstitious scientists and engineers and
medical professionals, excelling in their chosen fields as, without the
dogma training, more time could be spent teaching real courses, not
imaginary ones.
.........just dreaming......it's late.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 19:06:13 GMT, Mike Jones <...@Arizona.Bay
Responding to Larry:
[...]
This is one of my pet rant subjects.
As long as children are subjected to the abuse you refer to here, there
will be a predictable presence in our communities of those convinced its
all true, and a smaller proportion of those who figured out it was all
just current mythology and are not living as recovering mythology addicts.
The other main problem is that myth-based laws will be not only
tolerated, but sought and promoted, in an age where reason should surely
have become the baseline for how we organise ourselves as nations, and as
a species.
But then those ever so profitable wars would become unreasonable.
--
*===( http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
*===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
*===( http://www.slackware.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 03:52:37 +0000, Larry <...@home.com
Mike Jones <...@Arizona.Bay:
I live in the heart of the Southern Bible Belt, in South Carolina. We have
an amazing array of myth-based laws to prevent evil still on the books from
ages gone long past. It is ILLEGAL in SC to sit in your kitchen with your
buddies and play Old Maid or Chutes 'n Ladders with your kids. This is
because card playing is a sin and is evil! Only the devil would cause
anyone to play cards. All gambling, of course, is evil, but with cards you
don't need to be gambling to be involved in evil. Cards themselves,
controlled by the devil because of the random way they turn up, are evil so
must be also made illegal.
Anal sex...ALL anal sex...is illegal, but to enforce it we'd have to arrest
around 85% of the males and 75% of the females so it's not enforced, not
because it's not illegal, but because it would cost MONEY, which is far
more important to theists and politicians than sin. Of course, any sex
that DOESN'T result in creating another child to abuse and brainwash into a
fundie must be stopped at all costs. "Go forth and multiply" and all that
nonsense that's overpopulating the planet so bad over 5500 die daily of
wars and starvation.
"War" actually serves a purpose and has an outcome. We haven't had a
"war" since the Armistices in 1945. Killing young Americans for profit is
what is done, now. It has no outcome so can't be "war"....especially when
noone has been attacked in the first place....
=======================================================================
Please everyone remember our murdered sailors on MONDAY June 8th, the 42
year anniversary of the dastardly attack by the State of Israel upon USS
Liberty GTR-5 in international waters. It was no accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 17:17:20 -0700 (PDT), TrekBear <...@gmail.com
No, I don't think atheists are necessarily militant. It's the
believers' unwillingness to accept that there are others with
philosophies that don't involve any deities.
Think of it this way, imagine you're totally committed to an idea and
some one or group comes along and states, mildly, that your idea isn't
worth warm spit. How are you going to react?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:12:24 -0400, "Mr. B" <...@supplied.com
I do not think it is right to group all religious people together in this
way.
That depends on your beliefs. A person who believes that they must spread
the "good news" and that only someone who is ungrateful would reject the
message would certainly be angry with an atheist. However, there are plenty
of people out there for whom religion is a source of personal inspiration
and hope, and who do not go out and try to force others to believe whatever
it is that they personally believe. Can you really say that you have a
problem with such people?
-- B
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:02:40 -0500, Don Martin <...@comcast.net
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:12:24 -0400, "Mr. B" <...@supplied.com
In the general and abstract, of course not. The majority of believers of any
religion tend to live and let live. But in practical terms, your position is
irrelevant. What sort of believer shows up on alt.atheism? The stupid ones,
ignorant ones. the fervent ones, the intolerant ones, the dishonest ones.
Grouping all religious people that we see before us here as unwilling "to accept
that there are others with philosophies that don't involve any deities" is not
at all unfair; it is simply the truth. Personally, I do not usually go so far as
calling them liars, but that is only because I think it more likely that they
are delusional to the point that they really believe their utterances to be The
TRVTH, and they so lack any education as to be unaware of logic. They tend to
see logical fallacies as knock down, drag out arguments for their cause, and
they cannot comprehend what genuine evidence might be.
Female mosquitoes need a blood meal in order to reproduce, and that overwhelming
biological need leads them to bite me. While I know it is not their fault that
they must land on my skin and commence drilling, they are annoying. And some of
them are dangerous carriers of diseases (as some "christians" carry guns in
defense of their faith). Yes, I have a problem with such people, and I have a
problem with any religion that considers such loons good representatives of the
faith. A sensible religion would get them off the street and into a safe haven
where they can no longer make the whole congregation look stupid.
-
aa #2278 If you can't be a dirty old man, what is the point of being an old man?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 02:04:12 -0400, John Baker <...@bizniz.net
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:12:24 -0400, "Mr. B" <...@supplied.com
Not all religious people fit 'TrekBear's' description, that's true.
However, the ones who don't fit that description also don't tend to
spend a lot of time and effort trolling Usenet, or trying to force
society at large to abide by their beliefs. They don't get a lot of
attention because they aren't causing a problem - although it could be
argued that by not speaking out against those who *are* causing a
problem, they're doing nothing to rectify it.
The only complaint I have with those people is that, as I mentioned,
by their silence they give tacit approval to the minority who *are* a
problem.
These people need to understand that if the fundies ever do gain the
political power they're striving for, it won't be just non-Christians
who'll be taking it up the arse. It'll be everyone who doesn't
subscribe to their particular brand of Christianity.
>-- B
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:36:13 GMT, fasgnadh- <...@yahoo.com
John Baker wrote whining about complicit behaviours:
Virgil, could not refute or rationally debate the text below,
so he fabricated it, falsely attributed to the person he
was replying to, and then mass-debated himself! B^D
@ Message-ID: <...@news-server.bigpond.net.au@ Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:20:30 GMT
@
@ He didn't cause it, it happened under Bush's watch
@ a product of Greed and the utter abandonment of prudent
@ finance under the Merchant and Investment Banks which developed
@ instruments allowing lenders and borrowers alike to pretend
@ that risk did not exist.
Virgil, a cyber-stalking liar, fraud and forger cannot rationally
debate another person, he created a strawman and mass-debated himself.
The text below was modified by Virgil and attributed to me.
Atheists support Virgil in his forgery, he's their SpokesOrc.
# From: Virgil <...@nowhere.com# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion,aus.religion,aus.religion.islam,
# alt.religion.christianity,alt.politics.democrats,
# uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,alt.agnosticism
# Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:50:45 -0600
# Message-ID: <...@bignews.usenetmonster.com# Organization: Usenet Monster Unlimited - http://www.usenetmonster.com
#
#
# # # # #
That is now a common tactic in alt.atheism, Syd does the same regularly
and no atheists protest, most then treat the fabrication as
if genuine and join the lie. No wonder atheists are despised.
In a predominately theist society, most of the good men will be theists
and most of the crooks will be theists, and most of the theists will
condemn the crooks.
In a cesspit like alt.atheism.. ALL OF THE ATHEIST MORAL SHITPIGS
are willing accomplices or cowardly and complicit.
As those atheist hypocrites say themselves:
# From: John Baker <...@bizniz.net# Newsgroups: alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: Are atheists too militant in support of their beliefs?
# Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 02:04:12 -0400
# Message-ID: <...@4ax.com#
# by not speaking out against those who *are* causing a
# problem, they're doing nothing to rectify it.
#
# The only complaint I have with those people is that, as I mentioned,
# by their silence they give tacit approval to the minority who *are* a
# problem.
Atheists are CHOKING on their lies and their hypocrisy.
Their Newsgroup if full of atheist forgers and their credibility
is less than the Usenet.Kooks! B^]
There is no significant debate in alt.atheism, just atheist
liars Mass-debating THEMSELVES like Virgil and his sockpuppets!
B^]
=========
Virgil is an atheist forger and thug who Cyber-stalks individuals.
From: Virgil <...@comcast.netSubject: Re: discussion and reason in alt.atheism
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 17:58:59 -0600
Message-ID: <...@bignews.usenetmonster.com#
#
# # # #
# You ..could remain safely unraped by staying in your own yards
In other words, this thug proposes that the solution to Cyberstalking
designed to silence the targets, is for those targets to fall silent!!
Anyone smell NKVD, Red Terror and the atheist gulags?
He does this with the full support, complicity and encouragement
of the atheist community in alt.atheism.
The tool he uses is
Usenet Monster Unlimited - http://www.usenetmonster.com
For $2.95 per month, far less than 30 pieces of silver,
the Usenet Monsters allow Spammers to impersonate other
Users Net Ids, to literally FORGE posts using those
fraudulent impersonations ...with a single intent..
it is not 'debate', it is not 'rational dialogue',
it is not 'logical argument' it is coercion designed to
stop their targets from posting in Usenet!!!
In Australia this is Cyber-stalking and it is a Crime.
" stop posting to alt.atheism, and we will stop"
- "Virgil" posting as "Chung" <...@cde.com "ABCHUNG" <...@def.ghi "hdangsaf" hdangsaf <...@ng.saf
Chung and ABCHUNG are Virgil's impersonations of
a Christian poster, who is apparently a doctor
and an Author in the US, and is fiercely debated.
I don't know the target personally, I don't believe we have
spoken or debated.. I merely observe the Cyberstalking..
Fierce debate is fine, but you put YOUR OWN views.. you
DONT POST YOUR POPPYCOCK UNDER THEIR STOLEN NETIDS!!!!
Disagreement is fine... the Impersonation, Cyberstalking
Net Forgery and fraud with the specific intent of
getting the victim to CEASE SPEAKING, is not!! B^[
It is a disgraceful attempt to REMOVE someone's free
speech by intimidation!
# From: ABCHUNG <...@def.ghi# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion,aus.religion,aus.politics,
# alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.democrats,uk.politics.misc
# User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X)
# Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:39:51 -0600
# Message-ID: <...@bignews.usenetmonster.com# Organization: Usenet Monster Unlimited - http://www.usenetmonster.com
# NNTP-Posting-Host: eea407f9.unlimited.usenetmonster.com
# X-Complaints-To: kill...@usenetmonster.com
# X-Trace:
DXC=;Xkm9VdMTXT<;jB0f=jVoU]fYQ;k92_9SOjD
# From: Chung <...@cde.com# Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,alt.christnet.christianlife,
# alt.messianic.yeshua,alt.christnet.theologyalt.atheism,
# Subject: Re: Theist Frauds and Forgers
# User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X)
# Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 17:37:23 -0600
# Message-ID: <...@bignews.usenetmonster.com# Organization: Usenet Monster Unlimited - http://www.usenetmonster.com
# NNTP-Posting-Host: 945ce08f.unlimited.usenetmonster.com
# X-Complaints-To: kill...@usenetmonster.com
# X-Trace:
DXC=8POfoXb;MN[kM93=S9_F^U]fYQ;k92_9SOjD
# From: hdangsaf <...@ng.saf# User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X)
# Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 21:12:48 -0600
# Message-ID: <...@bignews.usenetmonster.com# Organization: Usenet Monster Unlimited - http://www.usenetmonster.com
# NNTP-Posting-Host: a7605eb4.unlimited.usenetmonster.com
# X-Complaints-To: kill...@usenetmonster.com
# X-Trace:
DXC=6e]D<D]2OHbgAL\IhU
# From: A Nony Mouse <...@nowhere.com# Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.religion,alt.philosophy,alt.atheism.satire,aus.religion,alt.usen et.kooks
# Subject: Re: The Problem with atheism is that it has never had a
Reformation or needed one.
# User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X)
# Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 10:48:50 -0600
# Message-ID: <...@bignews.usenetmonster.com# Organization: Usenet Monster Unlimited - http://www.usenetmonster.com
# NNTP-Posting-Host: 729cae45.unlimited.usenetmonster.com
# X-Complaints-To: kill...@usenetmonster.com
# X-Trace:
DXC=:G?3WFZBFBHa`X@Z11hP1A]fYQ;k92_9COjD
Atheists impersonate an individual to DISCREDIT them with
WHAT THE ATHEISTS POST.. not by what the individual himself
has to say!
It is not MERE misrepresentation, most debates involve that,
It is FORGERY.. "This is X speaking.. FUCK YOU ALL"
Many people do not read headers carefully and will
assume the Impersonator or Forger IS the original.
This is simply dishonest slander by the atheist thugs.
But their admitted goal is to SILENCE their opponent,
by BURYING THEM In ATHEIST GENERATED SHIT.
If a hundred posts appear with YOUR name, no one will
be able to find the one or two from you.
Your rights to free speech will be REMOVED!
If you don't like a poster, or regard them as a spammer, killfile him.
That is LEGITIMATE use of freedom which respects the SAME right
for others!
To pretend to BE them, in order to DISCREDIT them,
is an indication that you FEAR THEIR SUPERIOR REASON.
End of story!
It is the atheist admission of DEFEAT
in the arena of HONEST RATIONAL DISCOURSE.
Howling that others are not rational will not change this fact,
that is merely the disagreement which debate seeks to settle.
FORGERY AND IMPERSONATION, CYBERSTALKING which targets INDIVIDUALS,
NOT IDEAS.. is fascism..
Big Shame Job for all the atheists caught up in it and exposed!
Stand back and watch them screech! B^]
A poster puts HIS views, others can put theirs,
agree disagree, parody, even frame their meaning..
IN YOUR OWN VOICE.. if their text is ambiguous ..
but they cannot FORGE POSTS in the name of others,
changing text attributed to others, AND IMPERSONATE
them, or CYBERSTALK their every posts with SPAM,
that is a disgrace;
# From: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <...@thetruth.com# Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 01:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
# Message-ID:
<...@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com# NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.166.29.78
And one of Virgil's sockpuppet IMPERSONATIONS replies with
abuse, slander and lies...
# From: ABCHUNG <...@def.ghi# Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,alt.christnet.christianlife,
# alt.messianic.yeshua,alt.christnet.theology,alt.atheism,
# User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X)
# Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 12:24:13 -0600
# Message-ID: <...@bignews.usenetmonster.com# Organization: Usenet Monster Unlimited - http://www.usenetmonster.com
# NNTP-Posting-Host: b5422141.unlimited.usenetmonster.com
# X-Complaints-To: kill...@usenetmonster.com
#
#
# A. B. Chung is really an atheist in drag.
And not a single atheist objects.. they are all too busy
pack hunting the target themselves!!!
Atheists should let let Usenet Monster Unlimited -
http://www.usenetmonster.com ..know that you appreciate their
support of atheist USENET parasites, spammers, impersonators
and forgers, enabling their Cyber-stalking of individual believers.
It is clearly a great aid to Atheist NewSpeak and the goal
of SILENCING your opponents who you cannot defeat in ARGUMENT!
If you can't win by FAIR means, you will win by FOUL!
I will try and make all the Religious NG's in Usenet aware of Usenet
Monsters support for atheist Cyber-stalking .. it will no doubt
impact on their commercial viability! B^]
# American Religious Identification Survey, Summary Report March 2009:
#
# "Self-identification of U.S. Adult Population by Religious Tradition
#
# 2001 2008
#
#
# Religious 167,254,000 (80%) 182,198,000 (80%)
#
# Agnostics 991,000 (0.5%) 1,985,000 (0.9%)
#
# Atheists 902,000 (0.4%) 1,621,000 (0.7%)
#
#
Do the math, Usenet Monsters!! B^]
You cannot allow self confessed Cyberstalkers who aim
to STOP OTHERS FROM EXERCISING their universal rights
to Freedom of belief and Freedom of Speech!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Jun 6, 5:36 am, fasgnadh- <...@yahoo.com
snip
A priest, a rabbi, and an imam walk into a bar. The bartender looks at
them, and says, "..what's this? A joke?"
-PF, Atl.
etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 01:18:19 -0400, magicus <...@gmail.com
On Sat Jun 06 2009 21:19:09 GMT-0400 (EDT) pana...@hotmail.com typed:
Every time I have heard this joke it was a priest, a rabbi and a
penguin... (just sayin')
ciao,
f
--
The Bible is a chaotically cobbled together anthology of disjointed
documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by
hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and
mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries. This may explain
some of the sheer strangeness of the Bible. Unfortunately it is the same
weird volume that religious zealots hold up as the inerrant source of
our morals and rules for living.
-- Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 10:05:47 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason <...@gmail.com
Yer goddam right I'd have a problem with them.
There are two problems with such people. The first is the most obvious.
These are the folks, the Joe Sixpacks by and large, who adopt the easy
answer, the simple explanation, even when it answers or explains
nothing. These are the folks for whom "God dunnit" is sufficient,
despite not actually meaning anything.
On a *personal* level, that's not such an issue - if you want to accept
"God dunnit" as an answer to a question of, say, science that's up to you
- but when millions do this, it is no longer simply a matter of personal
belief, it is a belief which can sway entire nations, away from science
and towards superstition, not because they're actively trying to limit
science but simply because they produce a culture in which "God dunnit"
is seen as acceptable, sufficient, so why expend the extra effort?
The second is more problematic and insidious. By being "moderate", they
stay shy of the ire and direct criticism of the zealots, but in so doing
they promote an environment in which belief in unfounded nonsense is seen
as acceptable, and over time, seen as desirable.
In creating this climate of acceptance, however, they open the door to
other forms of unfounded nonsense. By making it acceptable or even
preferrable to hold belief over evidence, acceptance over analysis, they
open the door to those who believe uncritically, wholeheartedly,
absolutely - that is, they pave the way to fundamentalism, to radicalism,
to zealotry.
For an example of this, take any of several Muslim nations. Some of them
are truly off-the-wall in their zealotry, with more than their fair share
of psychotic fruit-loops strapping on bombs so they can get their 72
virgins by taking out a building full of heathen infidels.
We can presume that the equivalent of Joe Sixpack in those nations likely
_is_ a moderate - or at least, vastly more moderate than the bomb jockeys
are - yet those societies produced the bomb jockeys. Ask yourself
whether they would be as prevalent as they are if Joe Sixpack, in those
nations, responded to the whole notion of belief in gods with "What, are
you nuts? I don't buy stupid fairy tales" rather than calm acceptance of
the whole notion.
Do you think that if the general populace's reaction to religion was to
treat it like some sort of mental aberration, that those nations would
have developed the same sort of level of fundamentalist radicalism? I
certainly don't - the radicalism is not a product of moderate religion,
per se, but it is an expected consequence of it.
We see this "locally" too. Christians who kill abortion doctors, as an
example. Gay bashing, which is almost exclusively religiously
motivated. A number of other sorts of violent acts, ranging from the
relatively trivial to the fatal. Yet none of these would exist, or at
least, would be as prevalent, were it not for the "moderate" creating a
climate of acceptance, where unfounded nonsense is supposed to be
respected.
I - and others - lay the responsibility for the fanatics directly at the
feet of the moderates. They create the climate of acceptance which
permits the zealots to flourish, so why would we _not_ have a problem
with them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|