ADAM Rockin' Robbin'ßßßßßßßßßß:Speaking of RobššššššHave you heard of the legend of Robin Scrod? He robs from the fish and gives to the porpoise.... - 0:51:18 on 1 May 98 GMT

ADAM MAYDAY, MAYDAY!:Did anyone notice that my first post in eons happened to be to first in May, GMT? A labor of love. Da' munt' a me boit'. - 0:54:53 on 1 May 98 GMT

Which Rob is which?:-->ADAM..those that arising to sing the songs of Mayday would call it a laboUr of love. - 1:41:25 on 1 May 98 GMT

Marlene:ADAM- Hey to you too! How's the new job? - 4:06:44 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:Das Gebaude Deines Stolzes ist abzutragen. Und das gibt furchtbare Arbeit.>>>"The edifice of your pride has to be dismantled. And that is terribly hard work.........'The greater purity of objects which don't affect the senses, numbers for instance."--L.Wittgenstein - 4:16:29 on 1 May 98 GMT

Marlene:May Day 1998 is not as much fun as May Day before the Puritians. Before those stick-in-the-muds decided to stick their noses into the holiday, it was a hell of a lot of fun. The tree planting wasn't the "big thing" it was the little sexual flings that were the main fun of the day. - 4:17:01 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:For all that, one need not embrace what Bertrand Russell stigmatizes as 'the cult of common usage'---muddle-headedness-some have taken over from common sense. - 4:35:50 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:OPEN... C.L. Stevenson, in his clear writings the school of language analysis, was not afraid to say that his concern is not to make ethical statements but to make statements about ethical statements. He is not, therefore, a moralist or a normative ethicist. Ethics, in his sense, does not teach us to be good; it may teach us about how people use ethical terms. Others can form whatever ideas--in this respect, as long as they remember that Stevenson was not preaching this or that ethical norm; he was analyzing ethical discourse. - 5:02:32 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:Stevenson also said that we use WORDS to give vent to our feelings (interjections), or to create moods, or TO INCITE PEOPLE to actions or attitudes. - 5:08:09 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:Stevenson translated ethical statements into statements WHOSE MAIN PURPOSE IS TO CREATE INFLUENCE. When I say "Murder is evil," what I seek to do is to INFLUENCE others around me so that they, too, may come to disapprove of murder. In saying 'Murder is evil,' I am not really describing a fact as in informative language-------------I AM USING LANGUAGE IN A DYNAMIC WAY IN ORDER TO MOVE THOSE WHO HEAR ME/ SEE IT ON THE PC INTO A PARTICULAR KIND OF ATTITUDE OR BEHAVIOR! - 5:24:23 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:Lastly another fine quote by Wittgenstein---"Der Kreis meiner Gedanken ist wahrscheinlich viel enger, als ich ahne">>>>>'My thoughts probably move in a far narrower circle than I suspect". As some implied that I am unbalanced/and/or a lithium freak>> my needs for these terms may be narrower than?????? - 5:41:10 on 1 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB...if you are using this machine to influence us, does this mean we have to learn to sprechen zie deutsch? LOL! I don't think anyone accused you of being unbalanced, and besides, being unbalanced isn't always a bad thing. It gives an excuse for odd behavioUr. - 10:25:36 on 1 May 98 GMT

Rob:Joette: Actually, twas me who made the unbalanced comment. Though it was not made for the purpose of labelling, but rather to draw attention to the manic flitting between cold thought and free association of our good friend, rOB: I agree the words can incite, but they require greater focus and clarity than you have used to be of any real manipulative power (as you appear to desire). For the greater the radius the thoughts move in, the weaker their concentration (and hence power). One faces a choice between the two. BTW, how does Stevenson deal with contemplative ethical ponderings? Is the author then seeking to influence himself? If so, what then does he do it in relation to? MARLENE: Looks like everything is coming up roses on this page... but here in England, I am fed up with the smell of manure. PapaSam: Thanks for the advice, but I am afraid I don't "know" Ann Landers or her twin sister. - 14:25:28 on 1 May 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: After I'd encountered this site one of the first names I ran into was R.Ingersol and then Whelan's criticisms of the bible. So whoever URL'd the Ingersol site, my appreciation is linked to it as it ought to be said, that he ought to be read by any and all if matters of religion ever really enter ones thoughts. I inscribe 'if ever' because the foremost and only means of the godthing becoming part of ones mind is when dear old mom and dad implant it in their offsprings head. This kind of displacement of parental responsibility is not good, but such irresponsibility typically begins by such means. - 15:29:05 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:JOETTE... NO, I am not using this machine to influence anybody>>just having some unbalanced fun. I agree being unbalanced is not ALWAYS bad. Really I am not or believe that I am some pampered , prestined>>>let us say COLLEGE educated WANKER. 'Your wanker-banker to influence--he understands>>>that's right --your wanker-banker to influence>>>she understands. - 15:34:26 on 1 May 98 GMT

Marlene:ROB of the ROSES- I too suggested some meds for rOB when he first started posting here, although I felt thorazine was in order, lol. But really, he has some good input aside from quotes. It's only MO of course as I hate quotes. - 15:40:41 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:Rob.. Everyone desires something(subconsciously etc.or otherwise) in their own little WARPED rose garden. In terms of influence>>we have freedom of choice but what of freedom FROM choice??? The unbalanced floodgtaes I am sure our open to this notion. Let us again have a lithium-free discussion on free-will??--hehe - 15:44:06 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:MARLENE.. Thank you and I will try to go the pharmacy today! - 15:47:16 on 1 May 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I was watching a special on HBO yesterday on "skinheads". A guy by the name of Riccio ran the group. He was about 35-40, I think and enticed kids anywhere from 9-21 to join the group. The kids said their parents were against the racial hate group but they felt that this Riccio was like their father. The interesting thing was that the guy encourged violence in the schools (all schools from elementary to high school) against blacks. I think maybe that it's a natural thing for young men to be "tough" and this guy takes total advantage of them. The bible also encourages this violent behavior. Maybe unconsciously, that's what people find enticing about it. This Riccio used the bible a great deal to influence the kids. - 15:48:48 on 1 May 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Children are easily directed and this ease may be that which frightens people after they have reproduced. Can you see them and how it could be for these new parents? They got a new borne and let out with a, Yowza! they ask, does this mean I'm responsible for this? What is an easy thing to do? Nothing is easiest, what do and why have I agreed with Annie Besant, who once said that to utter the sound g-o-d, is to say nothing of nothing. That is easiest of all just do nothing. Who loves the child more than ma and pa? Nothing does thats what. An example of how easy children are to direct happened yesterday. I was watching the 9th graders bb game. There is a 12th grader he's been struggling in the batters box, I tell him to change his foot placement and described some physical becauses. He says ok, goes up and clobbers the ball. Later he thanks me for the tip. That is how easy children are to direct. That Riccio like any irresponsible parent opts for the easiest way to direct children which is to tell them of nothing and how wonderful nothing is, and they know nothing just as that baseball player knew nothing of the muscle connections that I described to him. Ever see Pinocchio? - 16:16:16 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:Rob.. Stevenson reassures us that his aim is not different from that of other ethical philosophers, namely to know what the good is. He wishes to arrive at some relevant linguistic translation of this term in ordinary language. He finds that interest theories--such as Hume and Hobbes, are inadequate, inasmuch as they simply discuss psychological and/or democratic prejuidices. Stevenson wants to go beyond emotivism and is concerned with the discovery of a vital sense of the TERM 'good'. But, using Aristotle's language, should the point of ethics be merely to understand the meaning of ethical terms and utterances, or is it to become ethical ourselves(while at the same time influencing OURSELF and others). You are right when we talk of influence etc.--the manure of it starts to smell! - 16:26:32 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:One thing is quite clear, a glossy coat of paranoia lingers in the use of this little machine-communication box! Paranoia>self-destroyer---there is a little green man in my head>>Kinks--hehe! - 16:43:44 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:Nixon is truly not dead--a part of his paranoia breeds contempt within us! - 16:48:10 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:AS jaywilson once said that , I think , EVERYONE has their own plumbers (in more ways than one)! - 16:50:32 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:Rob.. Thoughts have no geometrical dimensions pinned, tagged, labeled to them--that in itself is influencing a sort of 'tangible jacket' to them! - 17:09:16 on 1 May 98 GMT

PETER--:--MARLENE--The Bible is like statistics, You can twist it around to make it support any pre-conceived notion. Dangerous book. In other words, if used craftily enough one could claim "The Bible says ( substitute ANY claim of your choice )" Trouble is, so many people will then assume if a claim is backed up by the bible--its true. - 17:33:03 on 1 May 98 GMT

Rob:rOB: Don't get me wrong- an unbalanced approach is by no means necesarily BAD, but does it acheive what you want it to (if indeed you know what that is?). In terms of freedom of/from choice, that would depend on how one define's freedom. Do you have a preferred interpretation (or one with which you would care to influence us?). I for one am happy to leave ethics at the psychological level, but then I for one am pretty amoral. Is your declaration of all thoughts as being devoid of geometrical dimensions more restrictive than my use of metaphor? Maybe so/not- but in any case does it matter? - 18:18:26 on 1 May 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: here, had any luck getting a-hold of the book "The True Authorship of the New Testament" by Abelard Reuchlin? If yes, pass on the pathway that you took, if still available. I'd appreciate it. - 18:42:21 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:Rob.. I was not the one who used concentration, radius etc. No, I do not think my statement on thoughts is restrictive at all; I was implying that they are limitless-let us say. Nothing ---in any case might not matter>>>>>>I agree with you on that. Don't get me wrong, I am not into preferred interpretation and such. I admire your honesty when you say you are pretty amoral, but does that sincere, honest statement influence you and others in some way? - 19:23:35 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:Rob.. I like your first name--truce & ROSES to you >> Dasein (being there -as Heidegger used) of same name but different category! - 19:50:22 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:It was interesting to see as Heidegger called --the temporal meaning of Dasein's everydayness--(the confusion/fighting between me & the other Rob). What this expression signifies at bottom when delimited ontologically, remains obscure...Just as obscure as all these theist statments posted here! - 20:03:53 on 1 May 98 GMT

Rob (appreciative of the sein-felt sentiment):rOB: Then let the war of the roses come to its natural terminus. Yes I was the one who mentioned radii and concentration, but then I was employing metaphor (the unashamed use of words to incite). I sense a desire in you to challenge the accepted, to broaden the horizons as it were, with which I empathise. If I have been keen to challenge then it is through my emotive reaction to the way in which your desires become manifest. My "amorality" may influence, but the question is of what consequence such a phenomena is to you. To me it is just psychological (negative?) feedback. - 20:28:46 on 1 May 98 GMT

RON...I am here...:Well...I've all but dumped Ms. Wonderful and have a date with another gal tonight, she's 25...when I called her tonight to firm up plans she told me she was up late reading...the bible. Thought I was going to loose it. I kept my calm and I'll eat her chicken, or possum, which ever she feeds me. I'll be online and watching for 30 minutes or so if ya'll want to gab....running a backup test on one of my corp. network sites. - 20:46:55 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:Rob>>>Oh, those damm consequences! And those unfinished outcomes--PEACE brother(not in the FREAKY religious way of course--brother of a different category)-hehe!!! BULLS ON PARADE! - 20:48:44 on 1 May 98 GMT

Marlene:HEY RON! Ahhhhh....the world of dating!!!! Have fun eating whatever! Don't forget to fill her in on the N's, lol! - 20:54:54 on 1 May 98 GMT

RON...I hate dating...where's the sex?..--->Marlene...: Hey, sweetheart! How's it hanging? I'm off to buy Cognac and glasses..(Brandy snifters)...to ensure we will have a good time. Oh yeah, we're going to have the Nephilim discussion...might as well clear the air. he he - 21:11:10 on 1 May 98 GMT

rob:Nymphomaniac and unbalanced ones need tons of hardcore sex! - 21:17:08 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:sorry that was rOB>>>> I NEED some loving and typing lessons! - 21:18:48 on 1 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROB. The two women I referred to (Ann Landers and Dear Abby) are actually twins anb]d both write "advice' columns inthe newspapers here in the US. They are widely syndicated. Typical questions are "My husband of 25 years has just told me - - - What should I do?" or "I have three teen aged children and I just found out - - - How should I handle it?" A typical answer might be "Go see your clergyperson - - - " "Ask yourself if you're better off wth him or without him - - - " I'm sure if you dash off a letter to the London Times that they will find a place for them next to the crossword puzzle. - 21:20:10 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:PapaSam.. I think it would be nice and honest if one went to the clergyperson/preacher and he/she said,"Don't have nothing for you,yes--don't have nothing for you". How about a nice game of chess instead! - 21:29:46 on 1 May 98 GMT

Joette....I'll drink to that (actually, I'll drink to anything):-->RON..okay big guy...it's May. Where are the aliens? Don't waste cognac on an xtian. Get some B & B and then she can at least feel good knowing that she is keeping the Benedictine monks in business. - 21:42:59 on 1 May 98 GMT

Joette...with this weeks "how low can you go" report:-->a priest in Toronto was put under "house arrest" today for having sex with a comatose 76 year old woman in a retirement home. He wasn't sent to prison because the judge felt that because he had lost his position in the church, that he was ashamed, and that his health isn't great that was punishment enough. Now, if this was some other pervert that didn't wear a collar, what do you think the punishment would be? It sure wouldn't be sitting at home, collecting a pension and watching Jerry Springer. Hmph! - 21:55:17 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:JOETTE.. Priests, I guess need sexual healing too...... Could you please tell me why RON believes in aliens? I missed that one---does he think they control NASSAU, governments etc. Thank you! - 22:00:26 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:NASSA--i MEANT - 22:01:14 on 1 May 98 GMT

Rob (never a cross word...):rOB: I'm sure some Feng Shui in the bedroom could cure that unbalanced sex ;) Either that or ask your clergy for some pawn. Papasam: Thank you for broadening my horizons. I guess I just don't read widely enough to appreciate your humor. - 22:01:25 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:I thought THE ARRIVAL was an interesting, good movie. BUT where are the alien-things--just like where is the god-thing? - 22:03:45 on 1 May 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Of the priest report, just another example that prayer doesn't work. - 22:09:45 on 1 May 98 GMT

Rob:CARL: More like "If all else fails, get down on your knees and prey". - 22:17:07 on 1 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB..that's NASA. I will let Ron explain his position on an alien invasion, as those of us who have been posting for along time are just waiting to pounce on him when nothing happens this month (except that he might finally get lucky). - 22:39:27 on 1 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROB ROSE..what is Feng Shui???? Good pray on words to Carl! - 22:41:41 on 1 May 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: What'bout the fellow who confessed on the i-net of burning his 5 yr.daughter to death? Sometimes maybe nothing is better than something? Rob, guess that priest just got tired of being unable to roll over in his sleep and figgered he'd solve that problem with or without the help o'his godthing. - 22:42:24 on 1 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..what a sad story! I heard that about 2,000 people read the message, and only 4 people contacted police. I think that's taking AA a little too far. - 22:55:09 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:Joette..Yes, those Nasssssa's were just other categories with I guess different spellings or maybe I finally contracted carpel-tunnel finger-movement loss or whatever. IF RON wants to explain his position on--- aliens---- I would be interested without bouncing on any ray guns. Hey--nobody better lay a FINGER on my BUTTERFINGER! - 22:55:50 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:Joette.. What is your thinking on the discovery of a permafrost on Europa and the luner ice-caps on our moon? - 23:00:18 on 1 May 98 GMT

Atheist Chats:Hey, I wanted to help promote this and other atheist chats and message boards, so I put up a web page linking to all of them. I'd like to hear what people think about it. Just follow the link! - 23:34:11 on 1 May 98 GMT

Rob:Joette: Seeing as you are I-Ching to know: Feng Shui is the Chinese art of charging people lots of money to tell them where to put their ironing board. rOB: I think the only Close Encounters Ron will be having this month are those of the bird kind (should he have his wicked way) - 23:41:35 on 1 May 98 GMT

Marlene:rOB- Since Ron rarely visits anymore due to his "romancing", I'll put you on the right track on his beliefs. Look up Zack Sitchin on the net and you'll learn all about the N's. I think he's written at least four books on it. A real quick lesson would be this: Aliens called N's, landed on Earth some years ago to mine it's minerals. They needed cheap labor so they created little no-mind creatures who would work for nothing and called them humans. After they mined out the Earth they left leaving these humans to survive on their own. They promised to return... Sound like a bunch od dead-beat gods to me, when they return, I think I'll sue their asses off. - 23:42:34 on 1 May 98 GMT

rOB:MARLENE... THANK YOU very much! I will look it up, and I must give RON--> a big "WOW". SO, all we really are according to some folks is "cheap labor"... I thought those poor people (working way under the minumum-wage) in the sweatshops have it tough! Again>>> "WOW"! I think I will rent out THE ARRIVAL AGAIN instead ! - 0:02:41 on 2 May 98 GMT

rOB:Rob... Yes, and if we are really only cheap labor maybe Ron does not have to pay for human copulation acts. Something wicked this way comes and it certainly isn't those alien>>N's! - 0:11:16 on 2 May 98 GMT

rOB:HEY, I wonder if those alien>>N's are into nymphomaniac and kinky sex. If they created us what about the shame of incestuous acts upon us? - 0:24:06 on 2 May 98 GMT

Rob:rOB: It makes sense though- mothership and going in to labour would sound alien to us unattatched men. - 0:24:38 on 2 May 98 GMT

rOB:Enough with the pouncing on RON'S alien N's----Joette is right about 'THE POUNCE'; the acts are as limitless as the Tony's thought-god! - 0:29:28 on 2 May 98 GMT

rOB:Rob... Hey, it is a bummer to stare into this machine-box on a Friday night! - 0:32:59 on 2 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB (trying saying that out loud)..haven't been thinking much about the permafrost and ice-caps except for some jokes I heard, but alas, you would have to be one of us Canucks from the Great White Nord to appreciate them (and have an understanding of how many stupid gits on snowmobiles meet their maker trying to cross lakes that aren't frozen). - 0:34:57 on 2 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB..don't get rosey Rob started LOL! BTW, since you watch movies too (you and I are alone on this methinks), have you seen "The Rapture" and/or "The Prophecy"? - 0:37:34 on 2 May 98 GMT

rOB:Joette.. I only saw a little bit of "The Rapture"... IS that where the woman became more and more god-intoxicated throughout the picture? Seeing delusional angels and the alike and becoming more subjective in the process. But didn't she have a tough life in the beginning of the picture? Doesn't everyone at one point in their lives. - 0:45:36 on 2 May 98 GMT

Rob:rOB: Yep, I guess when you take off the rose-tinted glasses then this machine-box is a poor consolation for the more love's labor's lost than you could shake a spear at. - 0:47:25 on 2 May 98 GMT

rOB:JOETTE.. Is 'THE PROPHECY' the one with that giant-salami bear-thing running in the woods with Tali Shire--I think? With the Indians and their rituals and the polluting of the lands?? - 0:49:37 on 2 May 98 GMT

rOB:Rob.. It is becoming a type of 'VIDEODROME' (another good flick) of the roseate ,influencing kind. Unfortunately one of my butterfingers remains dormant in BVD's. - 0:55:16 on 2 May 98 GMT

rOB:Rob.. Be careful when we take off those rose-colored glasses we might see aliens living amongst us!! It WAS JUST THE OPPOSITE when Roddy Piper in "THEY LIVE" put his sunglasses (SPECIAL ONES) on and saw all those aliens around. 'PUT THE GLASSES ON FRANK'--->everyone put them on! WE are being controlled---heheh! - 1:12:11 on 2 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB..you must watch the rest of "The Rapture"...it isn't what it appears until about half way through (did you like David Duchovney's bum? I did) The first time someone recommended "The Prophecy" I asked the same thing, only my words word "is that the one with the giant sausage trying to take over a town". NO! It is Christopher Walken in all his glory playing the part of the arch-angel Gabriel. Two enthusiastic thumbs up for both shows!! (The Rapture even made Siskel & Eberts top 10 list in the year it was made) Get thee to a video store! - 1:15:50 on 2 May 98 GMT

rOB:ATTENTION >>>all plantes of the solar federation>>we have assumed control>>>>>>>>>>>we have assumed control>>>>>>>>>>>>>we have assumed control>>>>>>>>>control! Remember none of this earthlings! - 1:18:56 on 2 May 98 GMT

rOB:JOETTE ...SEE, I made the same mistake about the giant salami-bear thing too>>>>>>shit was that movie horrible!! I did not know of the C.Walken one--thanks!! - 1:23:27 on 2 May 98 GMT

rOB:Joette. OH--- I did not know Duchovney was in 'THE RAPTURE'... He did not become a success until THE X-FILES started in 1993. I think 'THE RAPTURE' was made in 1991. I will have to watch it again and to make sure to look for the hobo! - 1:28:06 on 2 May 98 GMT

rOB:JOETTE... Did you see G.Romero's 'MONKEY SHINES'>>>>about a parapaplegic scientist who has this monkey whom basically becomes the greater part--let us say of this human. ELLA>>>>>I THINK THE MONKEY name was>>>>AN APPENDAGE FOR BETTER OR WORSE>>MADE IN 1988. - 1:36:10 on 2 May 98 GMT

rOB:I want to rent out 'MONKEY SHINES' AND 'ALLIGATOR' (1980)>>>>two good B (not BVD) movies that I have not seen in some time. - 1:41:43 on 2 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB..didn't watch that (I thought it was a take off on one of Stephen King's short stories?) but I sure did his enjoy NOTLD! et tu? - 1:41:45 on 2 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB..have you seen Plan 9? (Ed Woods super turkey?) I have watched it no less than 20 times, and I still find more mistakes! - 1:44:23 on 2 May 98 GMT

rOB:JOETTE.. You should rent out 'MONKEY SHINES'>>>but again it might be hard to get since it was not a blockbuster.. I did not read that King short story.. Though, I did like Pet Semetary >>> the movie. Herman Munster (FRED GYWINE)>>>>>saying 'Sometimes dead is better' is very funny. Pet SemetaryII ---was horrible though! - 1:48:44 on 2 May 98 GMT

rOB:JOETTE.... NO, I did not see PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE WITH THAT BALD-HEADED WRESTLER? THOUGH, I did see "ED WOOD" wtih Jonny Depp.. Excellent movie especially with Martin Landau's performance as a morphine addicted Beli-dracula. "REMBER THE MORPHINE (not blood) IS THE LIFE".--HEHE - 1:54:06 on 2 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB..didn't see Pet Sematary but I did read the book..King's books don't travel well to the screen (although being the Kubrick fan yadayadayadya The Shining) - 1:55:48 on 2 May 98 GMT

rOB:That is remember not any Rem sleep of any kind----those damm butterfingers! - 1:57:02 on 2 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB.."Nobody gives two fucks about Bela!" (or how about "pull da string"?) I will never forget those lines from Ed Woods. That was a superb movie. Too bad it didn't pique your interest in him because his movies are classics! You will be amazed at how bad they are, especially Plan 9 and Glen or Glenda. Have you ever seen the British movie "The Haunting"? (1963) IMHO the best horror movie ever made. Gotta go watch HOMICIDE to get some ideas for work LOL! - 2:01:02 on 2 May 98 GMT

rOB:JOETTE... 'CUJO' with that slobbering St. Bernard was not a bad version-to movie of King's work. Though, I did like 'MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE' which King directed himself.. I think just about everyone hated it except me!!!! You have to love killer lawn clippers and that huge Green Goblin Truck, See how these damm machines are taking over!! - 2:03:17 on 2 May 98 GMT

rOB:JOETTE.. NO I never saw 'THE HAUNTING' but I did see 'THE VANISHING'(1993 one). It was pretty good and Saundra Bullouch was one of the first to get kidnapped by pyscho-Jeff.Bridges. - 2:07:06 on 2 May 98 GMT

rOB:HI-- this is rOB Siskel and that was Joette Ebert and we'll see YOU at the movies! - 2:18:01 on 2 May 98 GMT

Marlene:Since we're talking movies, how about TV? Did anyone watch Millennium(sp)tonight? It was a good one. - 2:36:57 on 2 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB...I thought they did a really good job on CUJO too, until the damn hollywood movie. It pissed me off big time that they gave it a happy ending, while in the book it was NOT a happy ending. Come to think of it, CARRIE was done really well, and the final scene is a classic (I love to hear people in theaters screaming) - 13:27:28 on 2 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE...with the hockey playoffs on (yuck) the only thing I get to see is HOMICIDE, because there would be one in this house if I missed it. I noticed that they were really pushing MILLENIUM this week, so was it the season finale? - 13:31:28 on 2 May 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Once a year they have a Millenium that really makes fun of the theme of their show. I think you've heard me call Frank, sad-sack Frank? Well their were four devils discussing humanity and how they make their own hell. They felt Frank was depressing looking too, lol. And your right! Hollywood often screws up the whole point of a story giving it a happily ever after ending. - 13:48:10 on 2 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..I think Frank's "sad sackedness" was the reason I stopped watching the show (and the fact that his wife had to keep getting involved in every situation, which made it feel like "The Hardy Boys"). I found him to be the most humourless person in the world (except when the real guy was on a Seinfeld episode). Also, when I did watch it, they had some really good story lines about "evil" but they never continued from one story to the next, so some of the episodes just lay flat, which I found frustrating. In particular, there was one episode where young homosexuals were being lured to an old warehouse and murdered, and they got the guy, and Frank goes "I know who you are" (alluding to him being some sort of Satan or something) but they never followed up on it, and it bugged me, so I stopped watching. Did they ever address that guy again do you know? - 14:02:18 on 2 May 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I've missed so many episodes this year that I can't comment on the followups but it the past, all the stories tie in with each other somehow, something like the X-Files and Stephen King for that matter. It may just be a name or a phrase but they do tie in. - 16:42:54 on 2 May 98 GMT

test:test - 23:50:05 on 2 May 98 GMT

What we have heahre is a failure to commuuunicate - 3:09:22 on 3 May 98 GMT

rOB:axel rose and the color purple are not the only watchers of the machine box.......YES, it is real quiet here--->just as Real Quiet won the Kentucky Deby here in the USA. - 3:41:52 on 3 May 98 GMT

rOB:YES, coincidences occupy as do those damm consequences. - 3:46:03 on 3 May 98 GMT

rOB:YES, YES ---Marv Albert in drag! - 3:48:00 on 3 May 98 GMT

rOB:JOETTE.. CARRIE'S mother gives a whole new meaning to the notion that Joan Crawford has risen from the dead-heehe. A new HALLOWEEN 7 IS COMING out in October with Jamie lee Curtis for the 20th ann. of the original HALLOWEEN----> IMOP a classic horror movie along with the original texas chainsaw massacre. Nothing like home-made chili-->keep an eye out for the neighbors1 - 3:55:06 on 3 May 98 GMT

rOB:The night he came home and it is the night noone came here to chat! - 3:56:47 on 3 May 98 GMT

rOB:good-bye, I am off to make some chili! - 3:58:41 on 3 May 98 GMT

Dennis A.:Their is obvious evidence (precision of design,etc)that a supernatural entity or "God" initiated/created the visible universe we inhabit.......BUT, their is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that this "God" is basically good, and had the best interests of the human race in mind. All evidence points to a "God" with the characteristic's of an 8-year old spoiled brat with a perverted sense of cruel humor who was given a chemistry set to play with, when tired of his planet Earth toy...he will, like a bored restless child, send an asteroid to end it....As long as earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, serial killers, drive-by shooters, drunk drivers who run over 5 year old girls, many, many, diseases THAT RANDOMLY (Without an criteria) CLAIM innocent lives...This will always be my philosophy/religous belief.....I have no children and refuse to pass this sick gift of life on to another generation, I say "Bring the curtain down" Proudly signed: Dennis E. Anuszewski; Box 2647; Springfield, OHIO 45501.....Appreciate and will answer letters................thank you.... - 5:44:58 on 3 May 98 GMT

Dennis A.:This is me again, I just want to add that this very brief episode in space and time that we all participate in, namely "Life", is NOT AT ALL AN IMPROVEMENT, compared to that ignorance is blissfull timeless/spaceless nothingness inwhich we all arose from........The best that man can only hope for is the brief preservation of his tormented life, as he lives out his numbered days in his slowly dying body awaiting his grave while the random misfortunes (no respecter of wealth, power, good or evil conduct, sex, or age, etc) await him and/or his friends, relatives, or others. - 7:40:20 on 3 May 98 GMT

jaywilson:DENNIS A: Have a nice day. - 14:31:31 on 3 May 98 GMT

Marlene:SAD-SACK DENNIS- Sheesh! Aren't we depressing! What evidence of "intelligent design"? - 14:32:43 on 3 May 98 GMT

Marlene:JAYWILSON- I don't think Dennis likes "nice". - 14:34:04 on 3 May 98 GMT

jaywilson--tellin' the plane truth--:MARLENE: Well, if life is a short hop domestic flight--and most of us are riding in coach--then Dennis found the <I>terminal. - 15:12:31 on 3 May 98 GMT

jw--agin:that last word was <i>terminal<i>. - 15:14:25 on 3 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->DENNIS..unfortunately I sometimes share your view of life, but I do not agree that there is evidence that a god (whether he be malevolent of benevolent) exists. You will have to explain that position at greater length. - 15:20:23 on 3 May 98 GMT

jw--dagnabbit!--:one more try: <i>terminal. If not, then why can't I get italics? - 15:20:32 on 3 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB (aka lonely guy on a Saturday night)...a man after me own heart! Not only do you do movies, but I was stunned that you mentioned the Kentucky Derby. It is a HUGE deal for me, and thought it was a fine race this year. Notice that it is a Favorite Trick that the favorite rarely wins the race? (ever been to Churchill Downs?) - 15:23:28 on 3 May 98 GMT

rOB:JOETTE.. AS mentioned before, I am not into much sports-->watching people being controlled by the movement of a round ball or puck ,and joining the Roman crowds of conformity. Horse racing ,I watch a little bit (the big races -like the derby)..I was hoping Victory Gallop was going to get there in the end--a good try --he was in last place at one point (15 lenghts back I think).. Here in NY --people really GET INTO their sports--yankees, mets,etc.. That is their privilege---I do not think I could name 5 guys on the Mets squad. I guess I am a sad-sack when it comes to most sports... I am sure alot of people in Canada 'GET INTO' hockey? - 16:49:32 on 3 May 98 GMT

rOB:DENNIS.. No offense , you give the word depression a whole darker tone or outlook. Joette is right you must elaborate on your obvious evidence of a god-thing--what is obvious to one might be hidden to another (ex.-hidden in darker extremes etc.). - 16:56:36 on 3 May 98 GMT

rOB:OPEN.. Some religious peole think there is one kind of evidence which proves conclusively the truth of their beliefs: revelation, let us say. Are we to believe that a god exists because a book asserting his existence was revealed by him and therefore must be right? OR that jesus was god because jesus said he was, and if he was god he could not be wrong. Even if we assume that jesus made this claim--which is highly doubtful in view of the evidence--why should we believe him, unless it were because we think he really was god, which BEGS the question. Even if we grant, for the sake of the present argument, that god exists and sometimes reveals propositions to mankind, the two questions remain, which John Locke noted long ago---How do we know in any given instance whether what confronts us is a true revelation? and how do we know that we understand it right? The first of these questions, I guess, asks about criteria by which we can recognize trustworthy revelations and has never been answered at all adequately. - 17:13:53 on 3 May 98 GMT

rOB:Some can say--"Even if all possible arguments for my position shoud be quite untenable, I should not budge from my belief"'-----no doubt, we should feel free to seek the roots of his belief...One can see if a man supports his beliefs with arguments---of which to consider---> say Berkeley and his subjective idealism and now Dennis and --let us say his subjective, depressing non-idealism. - 17:22:50 on 3 May 98 GMT

rOB:JOETTE.. Was Spectacular Bid the last favorite to win the Kentucky Derby in 1979??? It shows to not go with the favorites in this particular race! Remember the wonder horse --Arazi, in 1991--a big flop! - 17:27:53 on 3 May 98 GMT

rOB:JOETTE.. NO , I have never been to Churchill Downs or Belmont here in Ny. Again the Roman crowds and that part 'church' makes me as depress as Dennis--hehehe - 17:39:34 on 3 May 98 GMT

rOB:search for church---would it be fun or a state of claustrophobia--- smell the smell -would it be fun if life is not an improvemnet--we might as well be all bedwetters!--hehe - 17:47:41 on 3 May 98 GMT

Marlene..some days are diamonds and some days are shit:rOB- I'll join the sad-sack sports suck club unless of course it's indoor sports, lol. Anyway, Dennis's outlook on life is very similiar to the godthing outlook. Maybe there is no purpose, maybe there is no reason for what happens to humans during their lives, in fact it's quite likely that there is no purpose (other than survival of the species) or their is no outside controlling factors. This is no reason not to love the life we have. We are the only creatures that we know of who can recognize past and future and can somewhat plan our destiny as a species. I don't find this at all depressing. In fact it's a rather positive quality of humanity. - 18:24:54 on 3 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..you prude! Those indoor sports are even better outdoors! - 19:14:31 on 3 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB...I think you are correct about Spectacular Bid. Yes, people in Canada love hockey, and with the playoffs happening now there are at least 2 games on each day, plus now the World Hockey Tournament is going on, so they interject regular programming for those games too. It sucks. Never have, never will take to hockey, but hockey players, hmmm..that's for another page. - 19:17:56 on 3 May 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- HuH! Me a Prude? I said I like indoor sports lol! - 20:41:18 on 3 May 98 GMT

Marlene..I sped read that one:JOETTE- Ooophs! Didn't read that right. Remember you live in balmy Southern Ontario, unlike me here in the nort. - 21:23:47 on 3 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:DENNIS. What you need is either some Prozac or some good sex, or maybe both. I advise trying sex first. - 5:36:38 on 4 May 98 GMT

Dennis A.:Hi all, I'm back...Dennis A....Several of you wanted me to elaborate on my "proof of a God"....Well I will give a couple of popular examples. (1) imagine a strong random tornado passes through a junk yard, pieces of debree and scrap metal get thrown up in the air, they land after the winds subside, neatly forming a Boeing 747. (2) Take a 100 trillion piece puzzle, while still randomly placed in the box, dump out the contents, and have it form a complete picture. (3) I can not accept that human thought, reason, intelligence, emotion, and the microscopic world of cellular development (especially the brain), and the world of quantum physics, arose from randomly exploding stars mixed with chance collisions. HOWEVER, i again state my belief as previously noted yesterday, that their is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that GOD IS GOOD. Infact all evidence points (By a detailed examination of the human condition) that GOD is actually a sick pervert with a cruel sense of humor....Dennis Anuszewski, Box 2647, Springfield, OHIO 45501 for feedback............ - 5:40:10 on 4 May 98 GMT

Grant:DENNIS A.-- Yes, the universe is a pretty complex thing. Hard to imagine how it got here. Too bad all we can manage to imagine is that something sorta like us only larger built it. - 5:51:21 on 4 May 98 GMT

rOB:With perfection and the ontological argument-->the greater the level of generality is, the less sense does it make to speak of perfection; and being is probably the most general term we have. One part of the ontological argument says that perfection entails existence. This usually means: perfection is the sum of all good predicates, and existence is one of these. To this, Kant objected that existence is evidently no real predicate, ie., a concept of a thing. The phrase "entails existence" is equivocal. There is a sense in which subjunctives and a point do not take up space, while pink elephants do. Nevertheless, the following syllogism is fallacious because it depends on equivocation: pink elephants take up space; whatever takes up space exists;therefore pink elephants exist. 'Take up space' in this syllogism is as equivocal as 'entails existence' in the ontological argument. There is a difference between a perfect being-whatever may be meant by that-thought of as existing and a perfect being which infact exists. From the definition of god we can ONLY LEARN HOW HE IS TO BE THOUGHT OF, NOT whether he exists. According to Dennis this god-thing is not Mr. Rogers. Martin Foss ,I think, said it nicely--"A perfect god...is an irreligious concept". - 6:56:06 on 4 May 98 GMT

rOB:Boeing 747's might have gremlins attached to the wings trying to disable the engines. Remember the Twilight Zone movie--John Lithgow was the ONLY one to see the gremlin. - 7:04:08 on 4 May 98 GMT

Dennis A.:Hi, i am back again for another entry, this will be my last one for a couple of days...Many of you called my belief (i.e. Their is a God but he has a twisted/cruel mind) DEPRESSING....Well people I wish i could cheer you up and say life is great and fair, but the reality contradicts this. My belief is not Depressing but only REALISTIC. Sorry but their is nothing cheerfull about random acts of nature, disease, drive-by shooters, when will the asteroid his us, and drunk drivers who run over 4 year old girls, or microscopic bugs (cancer) that don't care if they eat your grandma, mother, or child.....Sorry to Depress again...i will sign off whistling dixie, spinning around and eating a hotdog.....bye - 8:55:12 on 4 May 98 GMT

Rob:DENNIS: Without regurgitating the textbook rebuttals of the argument by design, a couple of points: I wasn't aware quantum mechanics came from stars exploding. Second, a jigsaw puzzle/747 can only be put together one way (ie there is a "correct" way)- the analogy with the universe does not hold. Thirdly, do you think evolution is a theory likely to be close to the truth? And last but not least, why do you talk about "random acts of nature" if god had everything planned? BTW, you might like "Order Out of Chaos" by the statistician Ilya Priogiene (sp?) - 9:55:52 on 4 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->DENNIS..tsk, tsk...we have heard that airplane analogy ad nauseum here. Hope you come back for some debunking, or some de-programming. - 10:53:00 on 4 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->PAPASAM...have you ever had the need to take Prozac? If yes, did it magically cure you, and if no, why would you make such a statement? There are some conditions in a person's psyche that sex and pills can't cure, and it irks me when people make such flippant remarks without first knowing what is going on with the receiver of such remarks. - 10:56:36 on 4 May 98 GMT

- 11:51:16 on 4 May 98 GMT

Rob (First no omnibenevolance, now not even omnipotence):PapaSam: That was a bit insensitive- not only as he may already be on anti-depressants, but there may be "technical difficulties" with regards to his being able to have sex. - 11:56:47 on 4 May 98 GMT

Grant on lame analogies:Did you see the headlines? "Strong random tornado passes through junk yard- leaves devastation and a Boeing 747 in it's wake." Turns out the 747 is useless though; too heavy to fly. Seems the junk yard didn't contain enough aluminum cans for the tornado to form the aluminum sheeting, so it had to use steel cans. Also, some of the plastic fold-down trays appear to be poorly molded. - 12:54:18 on 4 May 98 GMT

Rob (inebriated but still airborne):"This is your captain speaking. We shall be cruising at an altitude of 0 thousand feet. If you look from the window to your left you will observe we are swiftly passing over causal processes and slowly approaching deism. Please note the safety card located in the pocket of the seat in front of you, though we apologise for the lack of emergency exits and lifejackets owing to a sick, perverted boeing engineer with a cruel sense of humour. I wish you a pleasant flight and in the event of turbulence, please start copulating with one of the stewardesses located throughout the central corridor." - 13:23:57 on 4 May 98 GMT

Rob (always game for a laugh):100 trillion piece puzzle. Age: 0-15 billion years (pattern may vary from that on the box). Warning- contains small parts, keep away from children. - 13:32:17 on 4 May 98 GMT

Rob (in his Bowie 747):Hey Dennis, don't despair: "I had to phone someone so I picked on you Hey, that's far out so you heard him too! Switch on the TV we may pick him up on channel two Look out your window I can see his light If we can sparkle he may land tonight Don't tell your poppa or he'll get us locked up in fright There's a starman waiting in the sky He'd like to come and meet us But he thinks he'd blow our minds There's a starman waiting in the sky He's told us not to blow it Cause he knows it's all worthwhile He told me: Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie". - 13:50:37 on 4 May 98 GMT

Carl:NYNALL: That DENNIS is dourly pro-religious belief, aint'e? Of his imaginary problem, perhaps these five points may be considered: That the human body is such a wonderful organization because it is the product of the forces of creation, acting through millions of years of evolution; That its capacity for progress depends upon the maintenance of the unity resulting from this creative evolution and upon a conscious recognition of this unity; That this unity would not have been possible without the development of the nervouse system; That the conscious intelligent progress made by mankind could not have reached its present level until in the process of evolution a mechanism had been built up in the nervous system itself capable of recording the various impressions which the senses are constantly receiving; That the recording of past events, with the power of consciously recalling them for the solution of problems immediately confronting it, is absolutely essential to its development. This ditty was thunk up by a mechanical enginneer, I thought it good enough to share here. - 14:48:34 on 4 May 98 GMT

PETER:--CARL--Sounds good to me. This thing about the "tornado through the junkyard building a 747" argument, as you know has many variations. As much as I gnash my teeth every time i hear it, I also do love it when the theists bring this up, as it will clearly define the philosophical "haves" and the " have-nots". I am now discovering that this is one of the few junctures an atheist can really make a good argument, and similarly where the theist can really demonstrate that his embracing of a supernatural entity, is not done by reason--but by his unwillingness to abandon it at any cost; his beliefs are exteremely imporatant to him, and for one to epect that he abandons any of them, as the result of purely reasonable conclusions, is unrealistic. When the theists initially hear this argument, they love it, it wows them--and on the surface it sounds really convincing. As far as they are concerned it is incontrivertible logic to show that there is a God. However the test lies when it is shown to them that it is so logically erroneous, and childish--the atheist should anticipate that their reluctance to admit that they have "been taken" will come to the fore. As you know, this argument has been dealt with on this chat page--ad nauseum--so I feel it is unnecessary to repeat it now--that is unless one of these recent claimants ( i.e. Dennis )wishes to hear once again, how this "tornado" argument suffers from virtually countless logical flaws. To me, if they poo-poo the objections to this silly "tornado" argument--it gives a very clear indication of where the argument will go from that point--and to this factor--I find the "tornado' argument, has the potential of drawing the line in the sand, much like the creationist argument. If one continues with the "tornado' argument, I know that logic apparently doesn't matter anymore to that person. That's the beauty of it. - 16:56:15 on 4 May 98 GMT

rOB:DENNIS...We all no that life feeds on life (this is necessary)... Can a god with a cruel/twisted mind randomly/ consciously become a 'NICEY'--a gregarious giver of some Utopian form of the A. Huxley kind? Is your god-thing's mind itself a 100 trillion puzzle with many unsolved properties (no solutions) that lead to new offshoots of higher mind games -say chess( where the king (of perfection) is not the highest designed piece). - 17:13:36 on 4 May 98 GMT

rOB:Some say no to a nice world , and some KNOW how to dentonate---got my head start and wish sometimes for change! - 17:19:39 on 4 May 98 GMT

rOB-->the puzzle to muzzle :It is hard to find a will through self-denials of complicity--oh well, whatever, nevermind the next generating of children will not complete the unsolved puzzle. The mosquito-my libido--->the puzzle by Mattel -to the muzzle that gives NO/KNOW force motivating mental life. - 17:36:12 on 4 May 98 GMT

Rob:rOB: Dentontation? So there will be gnashing of teeth... "Smile!" - 17:47:43 on 4 May 98 GMT

rOB:The logical song by Supertramp.........Keats said"beauty is truth, truth beauty", that is all YE know on earth, and all ye need to know"> If these lines were beautiful, they would refute themselves; for Keats himself knew more than the phrase in quotes..Keats' assertion is half-truth and by specifying what truth there is in it. - 17:49:18 on 4 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. No, I never had to take prozac. Have you? Dennis seems quite capable of defending himself. There is nothing wrong with his psvche. He's just another theist peddling his wares. He's pulling your strings and you reacted nicely. - 17:50:42 on 4 May 98 GMT

rOB:Rob... Well, I use CREST but my AIM is not for Defcon4--hehe! - 17:51:24 on 4 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:DENNIS. You bring up the same old worthless argument used by your predecessors. You cannot accept the existence of the universe without a creator. This brings up the larger question - Where did this creator come from? What created your universe creator? This causes a dichotomy in your reasoning. Your reply, if it follows the usual theist course, is that "God can do anything". Your circular reasoning uses your own argument to back up our argument. Sorry, Dennis. Go back to the drawing board. - 18:01:47 on 4 May 98 GMT

rOB:Rob---here the bombs of depression-->the denotation of the detonation.. I think we can both hear the din of pefect design of manure. - 18:02:51 on 4 May 98 GMT

rOB:SPEAKING OF DIN---I need some din -din (lunch dinner). Sit boobo --sit boobo -good dog --ruff! - 18:06:46 on 4 May 98 GMT

PETER:--PAPASAM--Getting the theist to see, and then admit their circularity in this case is half the fun, isn't it? - 18:08:31 on 4 May 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: The religious believer must argue under the umbrella-concept of the "random", in order to counter atheism with their godthing. A common and regularly appearing idea I read, that rOB inscribes as "..life feeds on life, etc", and in those other accounts that rOB line is referred to as "a Non-Random action." With my every reading, the orderliness of living things seem simply-accountable, and of course at no phase of it can I see a supernatural involvement. But on the other hand, there are only the myths and superstitions of the religious believers, they have painted this kind of belief into\of the anti-untenableness, just because they don't know the is, that is religious belief. Awhile back to one of these creatures I put forth an example of what "belief" was to me, but they never yet identified the thing of their belief, consequently they cannot say what it is that they believe, true? They are between insane and unsane, not to be confused with a rock and a hard place. - 18:18:01 on 4 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->PAPASAM...actually, I have always been beyond Prozax. As a matter of fact, I take 30 ml of Paxil and 100 of Rivotril a day just to function. Are you happy now? - 19:59:49 on 4 May 98 GMT

Joette...pull da string...:-->rOB.."generating" of children? Will they be coming out of a sausage machine or something??? LOL! - 20:00:58 on 4 May 98 GMT

Rob (Out of his skin):Jo (fuhrer cheap laff): you mean like Brat-wurst? - 20:48:37 on 4 May 98 GMT

Joette..just home from mein kampf..:-->ROB ROSEY CHEEKS (or possibly a self induced flush?) - sometimes you are the wurst brat! - 21:14:39 on 4 May 98 GMT

cheap shot..:-->RAMBLIN' ROSE ROB...speaking of skin, were you golfing? - 21:16:37 on 4 May 98 GMT

Rob (the teasing Frankfurter):Jo: I hope you're not implying I'm one of the Tippler youth. CHEAP SHOT (now that sounds like a familiar birdie): Actually I was referring more to the 19th hole (though I admit I was being a little caddy). - 21:56:22 on 4 May 98 GMT

jaywilson of Hamburg, who mustard his talents and reprised his Oscar (Mayer)-nominated roll--t'was so well done--to ketchup with Rob in the weiners' circle--:ROB: Thought everything stopped for tee in England. You think you're a wee caddy, but remember: chicks love a Coop deVil-le. - 22:59:38 on 4 May 98 GMT

cheap shot:-->ROSEY..you missed the hole in one by a long shot. FORE! - 23:39:21 on 4 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. I would not be happy in the event you were ill. On the contrary, I wish you the best of health. I feel you tend to over react to some of the postings and take them personally when they contradict your feelings or beliefs. Each individual has the opportunity to state and to defend his or her ideas. They do not require a "pro bono" to speak up for them. - 0:49:17 on 5 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->PAPASAM..I didn't realize you were the page shrink. Over-react, yeah right. Ho hum. - 2:20:11 on 5 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB...remember, Keats was first and foremost a poet, and so would make statements such as the one you stated, but from an artistic view, not a philisophical position. (hope I'm being cool here, trying not to lose my head or anything) - 2:25:33 on 5 May 98 GMT

Marlene:WELL EVERYONE, the clock is still ticking and already a week of May has passed...WHERE ARE THESE ALIENS???? I am looking forward to meeting them. rOB- Don't over generate now... And where is Auntie Carrie??? - 4:53:01 on 5 May 98 GMT

rOB:JOETTE.. Most poets leave the impression of depression with as you say artistic views. With the generating of children--> as Dennis said that he does not want children because of our sick state (created by a BAD god-thing).. Someone has to ensure the survival of our species, but maybe life's puzzles never have to leave the Mattel box anyway because they are already solved--hehe. - 8:17:37 on 5 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB...Dennis' statement about not having children can be looked upon as selfish, don't you think? If the world is a terrible place, then wouldn't it be okay to have children in order "to teach them well"? - 11:07:30 on 5 May 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: The DENNIS character is probably in the same boat as that clergyman that had his way with that comatose female. Just before that clergyman dabbled, he was probably talking the sour grapes talk too! DENNIS ain't gettin'any either, so DENNIS probably would settle for anything with a pulse. - 14:56:32 on 5 May 98 GMT

Rob (soon to be Generation-ex?):rOB/Carl: I think we have been giving Dennis a bit of a hard time. I mean, just cos he doesn't want to bring his Tonka out to play doesn't mean he has designs on unconcious women. You know what they taught you in sunday school: "What comes around..." - 16:33:43 on 5 May 98 GMT

rOB:JOETTE.. Being selfish is part of the human condition. It is ok to generate new offspring and teach them the good moral behavior that the civilized society operates by---Dennis's philosophy on life is maybe even more pessimistic than Schopenhauers'. Schopenhauer painted a somber picture of human existence--->>egoism, defined as the urgent impulse to exist, and under the best circumstances, dominates the existence of every creature. I guess in the case of Dennis's form of nihilism(belief in the bad god-thing though--so it is not complete nihilism)--> there would be no new impules or circumstances because all the children are missing. Even Schopenhauer talked of compassion in humans; IN Dennis's thinking were all trapped in a sick perverted state with no children or even a bastard child like -freddy kruger(hehe). - 16:55:47 on 5 May 98 GMT

rOB:Rob.. Tonka--> Freud would of loved that one. Maybe for some guys the lincoln log just stays in the package. - 17:00:01 on 5 May 98 GMT

rOB:Rob.. "Nobody wants to play me"-->aka. J.Carey in Ace Ventura II. Did you see that truck he was driving? Now that is a big Tonka? At least Carey jokes around some in this sick perverted state of Dennis's 'BADY' deity. - 17:09:27 on 5 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:DENNIS. Despite the fact that you are a theist, as an atheist I agree with you on one thing. Don't procreate. One of you is enough. - 17:21:14 on 5 May 98 GMT

Steven:PETER<<>>looks like the Stars shall be playing the Oilers again. I hope it turns out better than the last playoff series they had with the Oilers. I can not believe that the Oilers came back from a 3-1 deficit. - 18:09:50 on 5 May 98 GMT

PETER:--STEVEN--Forsberg flops. Sakic sank. Watch out for the Edmonton's! Modano better get his head clared up, but quick. Stil, I pick the wings for all the marbles, over Buffalo--only thing is I'll have to see all those Buffalo sportscasters whine again--just like they did when the Bills lost four in a row. "Bills" stands for: Boy I Love Losing Superbowls. Serves them right--the whiners. - 18:20:18 on 5 May 98 GMT

RON...just jumping in for a few lines...: Hi guys, how's the discussion going? I'm in a Microsoft Word class, during a break, and thought of my MIMM buddies. Not much religious is going on in my world...haven't seen too much in the news and such. ... - 19:47:14 on 5 May 98 GMT

Carl:RON: The only religious like thing I heard of was about some vatican guard sending one or some on to meet their maker. I heard the guard wasn't feeling any appreciation or some such fragility of mind. - 20:24:46 on 5 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..I think the story is that some guy who attacked the Big Guy (pope) back in the early 80's was involved in a murder-suicide. - 20:55:15 on 5 May 98 GMT

Inquiring minds want to know...:-->RON..speaking of jumping, did your xtian date believe in pre-marital sex? - 20:57:05 on 5 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Inquiring...:Yes, she believes in pre-marital sex only if she is completely aware of her love for me...meaning, if she feels she is totally in love with me. Whatever that means...to her. - 21:05:50 on 5 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Inquiring...:It's been 8 weeks and no sex with this one...normally on the second date ...is naked time. - 21:07:27 on 5 May 98 GMT

Carl:RON: Just don't pray for it, a good thumb rule is- It is always that time, my fav o'course. - 22:28:14 on 5 May 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Just checked the CNN site went over the story there, that he is in a far better place of course, for his kind. His useful time was over and done he knew it so he just quit. - 22:56:00 on 5 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..I read an article about this murder-suicide thing at the vatican, and the article described what it takes to be one of the "almighty's" guardsmen: To be eligible, one must be a male from Switzerland, be under the age of 30, and be taller than 5'8". Now, these requirements have been in place for centuries, so I can't help thinking that whatever pope decreed these requirements, he had more on his mind that possible assassination attempts ;) - 0:03:50 on 6 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..lord tundering jesus bye, where you be at? - 0:05:56 on 6 May 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I be here...I asked Ron but I guess he had no time to answer, my question is..where be da aliens? - 3:16:25 on 6 May 98 GMT

Steven:MARLENE<<>>if you come down to Texas you will see lot's of alien's. - 13:04:45 on 6 May 98 GMT

Grant:STEVEN-- If Marlene goes to Texas she will Be an alien. Caught ya pal. :-) - 13:36:06 on 6 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT..are you trying to alienate Marlene? - 13:56:34 on 6 May 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: If the pope is on a godthings side and utterly the most favored of the now living, why guards of any particular sise? The religious believers are so deluded that they can't recognise even that for what it is, a godthing[?]- as nothing, helps nothing. - 14:22:27 on 6 May 98 GMT

Love:Based on my past dialogues and experience with athiests, I very much doubt that any of you reading this page I am linked to will read it objectively, weighing up the evidence, or putting aside your gross bias, but I ask you to anyway. - 14:24:06 on 6 May 98 GMT

. - 14:27:04 on 6 May 98 GMT

Love:Love - 14:27:55 on 6 May 98 GMT

Carl:LOVE: Not a very syntactically clean article, but maybe bravely written. - 15:19:30 on 6 May 98 GMT

Carl:LOVE1: I departed before I could thank you for another example of what a human will try in order to have "their way." I will match it with writings of humans I find and think to be good for other humans. The compilation I gather is titled "Intelligence versus Ignorance" and of course the reader chooses what kind of people to be part of. - 15:25:22 on 6 May 98 GMT

Steven:LOVE<<>>for someone with a call name LOVE, you sure are a brainwashed pessimistic ass. I am sorry that you feel so persucuted that you must continue to revel in your stupidity. As an atheist, I do not claim that something exists without some evidence. There is NOTHING that supports your silly beliefs, period. As a matter a fact, there is far more evidence that you are just another dupe along with millions of brainwashed dupes that believe in the christian fraud. If a god exists he hardly exists in the frame in which you put him. ROFL, it is so hard to keep from laughing at someone so obviously stupid. You may say this is petty, calling you names. However, I am not calling you a name, I am referring to you as a person. I honestly feel that you have a less than average intelligence. Mabey christianity is for you, for it requires someone to cast aside logic and intelligence to accept a myth given to you by less than intelligent people. Sorry, but what I read was nothing but a joke. - 15:59:53 on 6 May 98 GMT

PETER:--LOVE--Are you still with us here? - 16:06:21 on 6 May 98 GMT

Carl:STEVEN: Your post if it was for love it sure didn't sound to have a lot of love in it. Or was it your your love for a fellow human- delusional, that so fills you with a loving concern? - 16:11:45 on 6 May 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>hmmm, the love i feel is not for that individual, but a great love for the love of knowledge, hehe. No , I feel now warm feelings for LOVE. If anything I am a bit disgusted/humored. ROFL hehe! - 16:18:05 on 6 May 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>> now=no ahem, cough cough *puke* *snif* *snif* *ralf*. *sigh* - 16:19:35 on 6 May 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: I always find reading propaganda of any kind from any source for whatever reason, such a taxing effort. As I skipped thru the topic sentences of LOVEs article, I found it was just fluff. Invariably, writings of and for religion, as LOVES, no matter who might be the composer, they all leave one wondering, to which they end at then saying the, "Don't look behind the curtain, etc." I was just on the theo-chat place to ask a thing or two, where they too did the only other thing religious believers can do, saying, "you have to know, or you have to experience, or- I think one said, god must come to you." They still, however, don't know where it is. - 16:34:56 on 6 May 98 GMT

Marlene:Given the number of theists to atheists, maybe all we atheists are aliens, lol. - 16:38:11 on 6 May 98 GMT

--PETER--:--In realization that "hunches" are ultimately meaningless, it is my hunch--based on the contents of "Loves" website ( which contains nothing more than the same over-worked "anti-atheist" platitudes, smacking again of the same paranoia, and philosophical illiteracy--which could only convince one of a pre grammar-school education level ((i.e. kindergarten)) that he and "Quake" are one and the same. Again, this is only a hunch--but I am certain if it isn't Quake--he would certainly find the inanities of this web-site a work of genius. - 16:43:46 on 6 May 98 GMT

PETER:--CARL--Oh, yes "Unless you experience the glory of God,--blah blah blah blah". Then point out to them that to make a statement like this commits the logical fallacy known as "special pleading". It doesn't matter to them. And if what they say is logically in error--logic itself is questioned. What i anticipate here fro "Love" ( if he ever returns to defend this tripe ) is that regardless of how many logical errors are contained in that essay ( and there are the usual plethora of them ) --this is EXACTLY what "Love" will do. I see no evidence at all --again--of engaging in any logical debate here with this person--based solely on that essay's abundance of illogical conclusions, that apparently went by unnoticed, or are present in hopes of making a point. Either "Love" is stupid--or he actually is convinced that this garbage is a good argument.--or both - 16:55:11 on 6 May 98 GMT

Roving Rob:STEVEN/PETER/CARL/OTHER FANS OF CURIOUSA: I think a good exercise in cultural anthroplogy would be to read the personal testimony of that article's author, linked here. - 17:02:16 on 6 May 98 GMT

everyone must speak logically--is that clinging to a brainwashed mentality (just in a completely polar way as the religious believer clings to faith)... - 17:20:37 on 6 May 98 GMT

Carl:RRob: The personal testimony, Golly! I have never seen anything like that before. (Or, as one here said "Wait-a-minute, he had drugs women and money, what more did he want?") That drivel is as bad as that of br.TOM on the theology-chat site. I got a kick out of what I was able to read about the human god linkage. That composer musta'just seen some of the words someplace, that seemed to be about right for his\her purposes. Obviously that writer did not hold a clear thinking mind and saw only his/her objective, which was merely to compose that article. "Truth" "rigorous thought" "right/wrong" did that person ever doubt the religious inclinations? Probably not, such a search must mean good reading, which can be exhaustive for many, they just give up. They just figure, after awhile, that they have found what they want because more reading means more thinking which means more reading and thinking, and always there is understanding new and more and more. Religious belief ends all that, because, what else is there once one says that they know god? - 17:46:54 on 6 May 98 GMT

--PETER:--PERSON WHO DID NOT IDENTIFY HIMSELF at 17:20:37 May 6--If you are asking a question: No. Do yu have a point here as well, that you'd like to share with us. - 18:01:39 on 6 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->RICHARD VINCENT...try as you may, you'll never be Jim Morrison. Did your ancestors own slaves? Your little "Mr. Atheist" manifest is frightening. - 18:04:18 on 6 May 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Wow! After reading some more of RRob's URL, talk about drugs and how religion is the opiate of the mind, it is apparent why religious belief requires that one abstain from the material world. So the godthing is a paradox beyond human ken, but nonetheless it makes itself known to humans? What a strange twist of words and thought. Any kind sort of material acknowledgement, would disapate the religious world just as a wall disapates an exhaled smoke ring. This is just a quick note, reaction, to respond to what I have read of the RRob URL. So, all you gotta do is believe in and accept jc, etc.,etc., and that sort of talk and thinking can be mine or even yours too? Any takers, just let me know what you see and we'll go from there. - 20:05:37 on 6 May 98 GMT

Joette...with this week's "How low can you go" report...:-->Some of you may remember that from time to time I mention the antics of a local zealot who is desperately trying to recruit minions for her Moral Support Movement (a.k.a. Bowel Movement). I am going to give you one of her shorter samplings of writings, which appeared in our "Letters to the Editor" column a few days back: "The high court's decision in Alberta's gay activist Delwin Vrend's case was mind-boggling. Militant homosexuals are targeting Christian institutions and churches - demanding to teach and preach - and the Supreme Court of Canada defends this abominable trend as a human right. The Supreme Courts latest insanity is its decision to let gay rights take precedence over biblical laws. The Bible, with its moral statements, stands as a valid moral compass and it clearly forbids homosexuality. Obviously, Canada's high court decision in the Vrend case is a direct, frontal attack on Christianity and an effort to muzzle clergy and believers from proclaiming the Word of God. Are homosexuals trying to take control of Christian churches? The politically correct principle of tolerance towards homosexuality spells disaster for the churches and institutions that allow it. History teaches us that unless a society has strict moral laws it can't survive. Decline and, finally, the destruction of an amoral society is the inevitable result. Defending God's truth is the duty of each Bible-believing Christian in this new dark age." - 0:15:19 on 7 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->now, have you ever seen such a classic case of "slippery slope" paranoia. And since when is tolerance "politically correct"? - 0:17:59 on 7 May 98 GMT

Arnold:Oh dear, it appears that one of our fine U.S. religious nuts has managed to get exported over to Canada. So sorry about that. You guys really need to watch your borders a littlee better. Next thing you know, they will be knocking on your doors! - 3:29:04 on 7 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->ARNOLD..actually, she immigrated from Germany. And not to worry, we have our share of Mormons and Jobos knocking our doors too. As far as the borders go, it is your country watching the borders closely, as we evil Canucks have the audacity to do business with Cuba. - 3:37:36 on 7 May 98 GMT

LOVE:Hello, it is I, love!!! I love you all, especially you Carl, for some strange reason. I guess you are all right about that Mr. Atheist thing. Well, I suppose I'll have to stop believing in God now, you've all convinced me. In fact, I never really loved you all, I just pretended in the hope that I might win some of you over to my ignorant belief. But that's over now. So what do I do now? - 13:09:38 on 7 May 98 GMT

LOVE:Steven, could you pull your head out of you ass for just one second, friend, in the name of love! - 13:12:51 on 7 May 98 GMT

Grant:LOVE-- What is it that compells a certain type of arrogant ignorant Christian to campaign against atheism? You'd be more interesting if you first worked your way through atheim 101. - 13:29:16 on 7 May 98 GMT

Grant:And I'll work my way through spelling 101! - 13:30:42 on 7 May 98 GMT

RON...--->it's MAY 1998....:...I'll be speaking on this soon...towards the end of the month. Meanwhile I've found several good recipes for tortellini soup and I'll be cooking one of these three for my girlfriend tomorrow night. I wanted to share them with my buds. Also, I started Tie Chi classes last Saturday and I love it so far. I go Wednesday and Saturday. My previous athletic activities are paying off now because the stretching before Tie Chi is incredible. My instructor, Alice, can lay on her back and spread her legs perpendicular to her torso until her toes touch the floor..., without the assistance of her arms! I may be in love here....more later. Keep in touch people..and remember religion is wrong for humans. Peace. - 13:48:00 on 7 May 98 GMT

Marlene...atheist lurv:LOVE- Unlike you bible thumpers, most (if not all) the atheists here couldn't give a shit if you continue to live in your delusion until the day you die. If it turns your crank then go ahead and believe. It's only you delusional types that post your drivel here in a futile effort to "force" us into believing your delusion. Assimilation doesn't turn our crank. - 13:54:25 on 7 May 98 GMT

Grant:Wish I could stay around for more barking dog style evangelism. Sigh... - 13:55:45 on 7 May 98 GMT

Marlene:RON- It's about time you tell us about this event!!!! Are you attending classes to learn the art or watch the instructor do those neat things with her legs, lol? - 13:58:40 on 7 May 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I fail to understand why those xtians are so against homosexuality. If this jesus did live, the stories told about him rather give evidence to he, himself being a homosexual. You'd think those xtains would think homosexuality would be a "good sign" sent by their say-vior. - 14:03:32 on 7 May 98 GMT

Marlene:Another Canadian update---The Aboriginal people of Manitoba are sueing the Provincial Government as a result of abuse done to them when they were forced to attend residential schools in the province but besides sueing the province they are also sueing any churches that carried out the abuse. The RC church being the main one, of course. - 14:07:19 on 7 May 98 GMT

PETER:--LOVE--We've convinced you ? How? I don't recall anyone addressing any of those points specifically, other than criticizing it by means of an overview. Also, why make your grand entrance on this chatroom by means of insult? ( " I very much doubt that any of you reading this page I am linked to will read it objectively, weighing up the evidence, or putting aside your gross bias" ) Hmmmm. All this says to me is that you prejudge individuals--in this case atheists. How do you know we will not read it objectively? Do you know us all personally, and how we all approach literature which may attempt to discredit our line of reasoning? In my case, I actually am very interested in reading essays such as this--maybe, just maybe -for ONCE, a valid argument, which may mentally stimulate me, is present. If anything, objective reading in this instance is probably the least likely method by which anyone would find any of its contents valid. I am admittedly speaking boldly here, but if you like, I could go over and dissect that essay, paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence, word for word--objectively, and logically--and demonstrate that is as flawed an essay as I claim it to be. It just contains all the same nonsense that has convinced the theist, but it is so laughably sophomoric and flawed--and can easily be shown to be so, by anyone wih even mimimal critical-thinking skills. You also first say you love us all ( which is again pre-judging us all, not to mention reducing the concept of "love" to a triviality, then reverse your initial assessment and admit it was all just a ploy, you find it necessary, in order to make your case, to insult the assessment methods of atheists, and then you sarcastically declare--with no counter arguments offered, that you now deem the assertions which you initially stood by as unconvincing. Not a good start, Love. All this will do is make you look like a dang fool. Is this what you want? - 14:33:45 on 7 May 98 GMT

Carl:LOVE: Well, someday after I open an academe, I'll need examples of assorted extensions of minds, and that would be part of the files for the unsane. Since the evidence for a godthing is unavailable in any form outside of some human contrivance, the mr.atheist article would be for now, abstract psychology- the detached mind. - 14:34:57 on 7 May 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: I regularly show, some of our juicier and even the dumb theist things said here, to my offspring. They checked out the mr.atheist piece and asked why certain lines were said, what supports the thought, what does the writer really want, and so on. They are learning how to question things that is pleasing to all. But, they went over that article and the youngest said "it doesn't fit together." - 15:10:06 on 7 May 98 GMT

Steven:LOVE<<>>*yawn* *sigh*. I must have hit a button. hmmmm, truth hurt? - 15:10:21 on 7 May 98 GMT

Carl:RON: Do you know that Amy Gale? Allowing my imagination free rein I find the picture of her- certain details of it, enchanting. - 15:17:30 on 7 May 98 GMT

PETER:--CARL--Doesn't surprise me your youngest questioned the contents coherence--it's as bad an effort as any I have seen. - 16:35:50 on 7 May 98 GMT

Marlene:ROVING ROB - Thanks for that theocentric site and their government is godly ideas. - 17:16:17 on 7 May 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Some weeks ago one of you posted a comment agin'Bertrand Russell specifically his philosophical prowess, or so it seemed. Whoever that was would you be so kind as to direct me to any other such account of B.Russell. I have found one account anti-BR since the appearance of that post. It seemed to imply not so much a plagerism on his part- as regards the paradox attributed to him, as it might be some wider-depthier insight on his part. Unfortunately, what those earlier ideas were, were not presented. So if you could add to other views of BR that will be most appreciated. I'm gonna purchase his "Principles of Mathematics" and contray views will be but added value. I saw this ditty "To steal ideas from one person is plagerism, to steal from many is research." cute? - 18:48:20 on 7 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Marlene...:The instructor is kinda cute and in my age range...but I'm afraid of her...she's had 9 years of martial arts training. She does give me more attention than the other students...should I go there? To be or not to be...??? Anyway, she is definately limber. I will feel you in on May 1998 soon...I'm very disappointed in several powerful groups in America. - 19:40:42 on 7 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Carl...: Have no idea of Amy Gale...and stop touching yourself. - 19:41:47 on 7 May 98 GMT

Moral Support Movement lol!:-->RON..get your mind out of the gutter. I don't think Marlene wants you to "feel" her in. - 19:42:57 on 7 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Joette...(HA HA HA HA):...Joette, sweetheart, please descibe for me a "Militant homosexual", I can't seem to imagine such a person. Does this mean a rogue hairdresser of male origin? A pissed off Lesbian with a military M.O.S.? Your local idiot is quite a case....mental case. - 19:45:45 on 7 May 98 GMT

RON...--->HA HA HA HA...oops...:What a Freudian slip!!! Yup I meant "fill you in".....my mind is not in a gutter... - 19:49:46 on 7 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Love...: If you're stumped, needing something (or someone) to do...I could use some *Love* right about now. Are you free this weekend? - 19:54:37 on 7 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->RON..speaking of militant homosexuals... - 20:25:35 on 7 May 98 GMT

JESUIT:Oh my, how lucky I was to been able to hear the most recent attempt of an atheist in trying to debunk theistic beliefs. The latest futile attempt at this was from Antony Flew and in his debate with William Lane Craig it was obvious that Flew was out of his league. Craig demonstated the absolute irrationality of atheistic reasoning. I'm looking forward to the next futile atheistic attempt at justifying his faith so that I can once again see an atheist publicly humiliated by a theist. Speaking of humiliation in debates, do any of you at this site ever debate in public or over E mail? If so, I'll give my E mail address and we can take it from there. Or I can take a trip to your vicinity and debate you before a live audience. Either one will suffice. Gloria Patri. - 20:39:09 on 7 May 98 GMT

Rob (Dulce et decorum est... pro Patri amori):A case of one Flew over the cuckoo's nest, methinks? - 20:59:46 on 7 May 98 GMT

Carl:JESUIT: The BS is not at issue, any belief system can be what it is, its evidence tho', that separates a belief from reality. Do you mean that the contest ended with that pro-theist party finally telling all where the godthing of the theistic belief system could be found? If that person did so, do you now know where the godthing is? If so please tell at least me, here. I do not need any private visitations. Make it public. - 20:59:49 on 7 May 98 GMT

Carl:JESUIT1: The reason I point out that a belief system is not at issue is because I could "debate" anyone anywhere too, on the reality "to me", of an invisible pink unicorn. If I believe it, who are you and how do you show it not real? You can't, because it is just a BS. But evidence for a real belief system that means it is something of which neither you and I can have a disagreement. Nobody "won" or "lost" your supposed debate. There is still no evidence for a godthing here, is there any where you are that I can see or make out here? - 21:13:06 on 7 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->JESUIT...you name the date, and I am there...do you know where Kitchener, Ont. is? We are a fine, fine university town, and I think we could rustle about a few thousand academically minded folks. So, the ball's in your court now. I am looking forward to it! - 21:32:05 on 7 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->JESUIT...you threw down the gauntlet, I picked it up. I hope your sudden silence is due to the fact that you are busy checking your itinerary and looking on a map to see where we will be looking forward to your visit. - 22:13:52 on 7 May 98 GMT

Gavin:Atheism is really as unrealistic as faith. It seems to say in no uncertain terms that God does not exist. This is unreasonable. For Christians will always respond "Prove that He does not". Obviously insolvable. Agnosticism meanwhile, is far more reasonable. Saying we do not know. This is one with which i would closely associate - 22:28:01 on 7 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->GAVIN..you will be the only fence sitter here I'm afraid. If a person makes a positive assertion that something exists, then they bear the BURDEN OF PROOF. We denizens of this page will ask a theist to prove the existence of their god, and when they realize they can not, they then tell us that we must prove a god does not exist. Well, you can not prove a negative, according to a lawyer, a philosopher, a scientist or an accountant such as myself. How do you qualify your fence sitting? - 22:39:50 on 7 May 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: The black robed one, must be prayin' for a devine guidance. You realise o'course, you will be battlin'the jesuit and his godthing? Or, so the JESUIT hopes. That of course would prove outright that he speaks true which would be the only way- the godthings presence, it could happen in order to be true. O'course if the JESUIT begins to talk about the assistance of ghosts and god heads and sons o'god, and the virgin mary comin'to his aid, then that just means you get to use your imagination for assistance too! Facts, well they would no longer be applicable to your position and logic as such are to be discounted and utterly meaningless. Afterall, if the JESUIT plans on proving something like a theistic belief, that belief its basis must be verifable for his position. You and I both have seen how nobody visiting this site nor upon our visits to theistic chat sites, they cannot say where their godthing is, which if it is outside a human contrivance that it must be to be a thing to be believed in, they can simply show it so. Then the contest is at a conclusion. By the way, a conclusion is just the place where one got tired of thinking. - 22:48:38 on 7 May 98 GMT

PETER:--GAVIN--I see the point you are trying to make, however it suffers from your misidentification of the terms "atheist" and "agnostic". In the broadest sense of the term "atheist" it simply means a person who does not believe in the existence of God, and needs not entail the outright denial of a god--as many erroneusly assume. - 23:12:54 on 7 May 98 GMT

Arnold:Anthony Flew is a nice guy but he is not a very good debater. He doesn't seem to appreciate that in most public debates the one who "wins" is the one who captures the emotional support of the audience. The "classic" god arguments tend to be boring to most people, but quick wit, subtle sarcasm and an emotional appeal to the value of reason and freedom of thought (eg: Ingersoll) will appeal favorably to people's sentiments. Rest assured that any preacher who "wins" a debate with an atheist is using emotional and not logical arguments. - 23:17:28 on 7 May 98 GMT

PETER:--JESUIT--I am highly suspicious of those who make reports of a certain debate while hailing an obvious winner. My first question would be " Did the supporters of Flew view the results the same way?' Did either participant admit defeat? Is Flew now a theist? Is the transcription of the debate anywhere on the 'net? Also, this IS a chatroom that lends itself very well for such a debate. One can expound as long as he wishes, one can refer to other sources of literature within easy access; one can avoid these distracting and extremely unpleasant shouting and pointing finger exchanges and "effective interruptions" Quite frankly, I do not understand your reluctance to implement this site in this fashion. As Carl mentioned, please tell us here. - 23:33:12 on 7 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->JESUIT unfortunately appears to be one of the usual "fly throughs". He thinks he has castigated us, and is smugly thinking about how he let some atheists have it today. - 23:38:06 on 7 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:JESUIT. Since you term yourseslf JESUIT you are identifyng yourself both as a theist and as a Roman Catholic. Since such is the case I feel it is proper for me to question you about the 'god' you identify with. Obviously it is the god of the bible, both the old and the new testaments. The god of your bible is obviously a misogynist, and your church doctrine supports the concept. There are no women priests. All through the bible women are called unclean. Women are the source of sin, from Eve on down. They are usful only for the satisfaction of mens' lust and for breeding. Here are a few quotes. Corinthians 11: 7-9 "Man was not created for womens' sake, but woman for the sake of man." "Wives, obey your husbands --Let your womwn keep silence in your churches--" Good old Thomas Aquinas has this tosay "Woman is defective and accidental - - and misbegotten -- a male gone awry - the result of some weakness in the father's generative power." But I don't want the Protestant readers to feel left out. Here's a quote from good old boy Martin Luther, the poster boy for the Protestants. "God created Adam lord of all living creatures but Eve spoiled it all." Back to the old testament. Job laments "How can he be clean that is born of woman?" So. JESUIT, according to your own bible, you are a worthless piece of unclean garbage, born of sin. Your father fornicated with your mother and you are the result. How can you look yourself in the mirror knowing that? How low can a descendant from a handful of dust and a piece of rib get? Lucky for me I don't believe your fairy tales. I feel good about being human. - 0:29:52 on 8 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:JESUIT Back to your "god". Some simple questions. What is it, where did it come from, and what does it do? - 0:34:56 on 8 May 98 GMT

Adam AGNOSTICS ARE THE BIGGEST WIMPS!:Godmaybe Gavin¨¨¨¨¨¨† An agnostic is not exactly someone who doesn't know. An agnostic, while not discounting the possibility of god's existence, merely states that there can be no proof for or against the existence of god. Wow. Go way the hell out on that shaky limb. There is nothing worse for the level of intellectual discourse regarding deities than a goddamned agnostic. An agnostic is just an atheist with a yellow streak. Have some balls! Come out and say that there is no god, and if there was, he'd be scared shitless of me because I CAN KICK HIS ASS! My fellow page denizens are cool enough to call out Jesuit for a debate, but I call out the LORD GOD for a steel cage death match with Mike Tython as referee! God is scared of me, god always has been scared of me, and fif god knows what's good for god, for god's sake, he had better stay scared of me, because I can KICK HIS WIMPY DEITY DERRIÈRE! The most holy gutless wonder. No wonder the Vatican colors are white and yellow. White with fear and yellow bellied! Scaredy-cat savior! Christ the coward! Jeses of no-show-reth! Limp-wristed lord! The frightened father, the shivering son, and the horrified holymilquetoast ghost! I'll kick all three of their asses simultaneously, that terrified trinity! Behold, the King cowers hence! The Creator cringes! The ALL POWERFUL POLTROON! HAR! The divine dastard! Who wants more? Come on, I'll kick Allah's ass too! Bunch of gutless god-types. Sheesh! - 1:40:44 on 8 May 98 GMT

Adam SKEPTIC of the FUTURE¼¼¼¼¼:Jumpin Jesuits!………… Hey, can your so-called god core a apple? Va-va-va-voom! - 1:42:14 on 8 May 98 GMT

Arnold:Yep, ol' JESUIT is a familiar sort. We used to set up an atheist info booth at the Houston International Festival every year. Most religious people who stopped by either tried to "witness" to us, or debate (argue) with us. Then there were those who would pop in, say something like "God loves you", and then turn and walk away before we could respond. Naturally these folks probably preached to the choir about how they had "won" a debate with us. - 2:17:08 on 8 May 98 GMT

Marlene of no faith:Who or what is Gloria Patri?? No matter, ain't that christian of Jesuit to say "I'm looking forward to the next futile atheistic attempt at justifying his faith so that I can once again see an atheist publicly humiliated by a theist.". Only moronic xtians suggest that atheists have "faith". - 4:05:53 on 8 May 98 GMT

Marlene..don't buy it:JESUIT- Thanks but no thanks, we have enough bible thumpers in this area humiliating themselves, we don't need you doing it too. It's bad enough you've chosen to post your ridiculous opinion on an atheist discussion. I think YOU are out of your league. I'm not humiliable. To be "humble" is another psychological tactic used by religions to control. - 4:15:11 on 8 May 98 GMT

Marlene..to the guy on the fence:GAVIN- I am atheist. I do not accept a god/gods/goddess or anything else of a supernatural so-called exsistence. BUT..BUT..give me some concrete, tangible, objective evidence that the supernatural exsists then I'll examine it. Tell me, do you also retain the same position on blue fairies, elves etc.? - 4:21:08 on 8 May 98 GMT

1968--on my motorcycle........With satan's hog no pig at all, and the weather getting dry.......We'll head south from altamount in a cold-blooded travelled trance......So clear the road my bully boys and let some thunder pass.....We're pain, we're steel, a plot fo knives..We're transmaniacon MC.......Behind the pantry, behind the tree, the ghouls adopt that child......Whose name resounds forever, whose name resounds on terror.....And I'm no fool to call that hog, cause man I remember those who did resign their souls to transmaniacon MC..........And surely we did offer up behind the stage at dawn.......Beers and barracuda, reds and monocaine...Pure nectar of antipathy behind the stage at dawn....To those who would resign their souls to transmaniacon MC..........Cry the cable, cry the word, unknown terror's here...And won't you try this tasty snack, behind the scenes but the back....Which was the stage at altamount, my humble boys of listless power....We're pain,we're steel, a plot of knives...We're transmaniacon MC - 9:52:51 on 8 May 98 GMT

Steven:Adams back! in force...PETER<<>>did you watch the Stars luck out last night? - 12:56:53 on 8 May 98 GMT

RON...--->only the best will do.: You can read some of the world's finest bullshit here. Gosh, I love this place. BTW, FAITH is what you have when every other part of you tells you it's untrue. - 13:37:46 on 8 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Joette...: That wasn't very nice. - 13:38:38 on 8 May 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: So the black robe figgered he wanted to wrestle? His chosen pseudonym could be interesting but it is not, it is more childish than mature of thought. Kids like things of authority and even mystery, so the JESUIT opted for that image as at least a symbol of something that was linked to both. Not a real mind yet, was the JESUIT. Here is a site that we must have seen and lost track of, I did at least, but it includes debates and one of the sites even refers to the Antony Flew character. I read that one of the two things of logic, concerned "obedience" the other was senses. I'm checking on the details of that again, will get back to all. - 15:59:46 on 8 May 98 GMT

Steven:ANY/ALL<<>>Ok, I have a question/survey. How many in here believe that jesus was a literary construct (i.e. Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood)? or: How many believe that jesus was a real breathing human being? - 17:46:49 on 8 May 98 GMT

Carl:STEVEN: Literary "only". - 18:05:52 on 8 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Steven...:I believe a character called "Jesus" once walked the Earth. He was the last Nephilim constructed human. - 18:31:11 on 8 May 98 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN- There's no proof that such a person lived. As Carl, he may just be a literary entity. - 18:31:49 on 8 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN...I believe that a person named YESUS was a real live breathing person; a radical with a narcisstic attitude, no different than the Chicago 7, Eldrige Cleaver, Timothy Leary and so forth. A smooth talkin' son of a gun. - 18:37:36 on 8 May 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: If a real body, once upon a time, then is it also possible someone like a hercules, or an achilles, and so on also had a body that was an existant thing? If yes, then it is likely they were made "literary" heroes? If yes, then the aristotelian excluded middle is to be considered also, so it follows that his simple syllogistic account, is invalid? - 18:51:15 on 8 May 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN1: As far as various views go, it seems quite accurate that xtianity is logically based on Ari's logical system, the syllogism. But then, so is much if not all of the civilization of the western world. When atheism rejects theism to me that is the bottom line at which atheism can move towards. That is my kick at that thing I call, caveman thinking. If things like QP or QM are to be viewed, as BILL (where did he go?) so often put forth, these ideas "fly" into the face of reason as it is now bounded by aristotelian thought. To learn about such is difficult and rigorously time consuming, ergo, religion folk immediately cater to those preferring ignorance. - 19:12:43 on 8 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Carl...: Are you from this planet? I have the hardest time following you. - 20:47:58 on 8 May 98 GMT

Carl:RON: I had a thought or two and was putting it together when I it seemed I "had to respond" to this individual. Where I was going looks spacey to me too. But the other fellow fancies himself somehow akin to a buddha type. I'm still checkin'on some stuff, I'll clean up the mess, later. - 20:59:06 on 8 May 98 GMT

transmaniacon MC:satan's hog is not the concept or term for the red force with the horns or forked tail. happy rails - 0:25:18 on 9 May 98 GMT

Adam GODLESS AGAIN¶¶¶¶¶¶:Of course, god no-showed once more. What a pussy! (no offense, O Cat-in-Hat, for thou arst most holy). - 0:45:43 on 9 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->ADAM..god, schmod...I'm still waiting for Jesuit to show his chickenhead back here. (Hey, Jays - 3 in a row!) - 0:56:03 on 9 May 98 GMT

Arnold:All the important aspects of the "life" of the character Jesus are adaptations of previous mythologies (virgin birth, crucifixion, miracles, etc.). Even the name "Jesus" was a Jewish Gnostic "spiritual" entity. Take away all these features of the Jesus character and there is nothing left, therefore, I highly suspect that "he" is a pure construct. Also, the Jews under the rule of the Romans had a strong motive for inventing an archetypical martyr savior myth. I think they also wanted to lend credibility to their prophecies by trying to "make" some of them come true in much the same way that the nation of Israel was re-established for the purpose of fulfilling their own mythical prophecies. God couldn't make it happen, so they made it happen. - 1:56:28 on 9 May 98 GMT

transmaniacon MC:any-- whether god exists is all a matter of definition is just another sophistry/ not to be coy-it is important to some people - 2:23:25 on 9 May 98 GMT

transmaniacon MC:preconceptions linger as do any type of belief - 2:35:33 on 9 May 98 GMT

PETER:--The Jesus that the gospels refer to I think probably was a person--or a number of people, real and imagined. One must kkep in mind that the mtives of the Biblical authors was to compile a document which would present itself as soundingas convincing as possible to support the notion of a man on earth possessing divine attributes. Objectivity, accuracy, honesty, will inevitably be the first victims under these circumstances. For anyone to even suggest that historical events are being described accurately anywhere in the bible, is at best unrealistic, and at worst--preposterous. One may argue the Koran also refers to Christ--but again his name also does refer to a "type" of person--and outside these sources, no unapologetic records of Christ exist anywhere. To me, due to the countless opportunitiew for deception, fabrication, confusion with myths, renders his being some actual person as being practically unresolvable with the evidence which now exists. The ambiguity of the text, and countless "interpretations" alone which exist today, are more than enough to convince me that had Christ possessed all these woderful traits, the authors claimed he did--It would have been concise and profound. Christ actually said nothing that wasn't said before, in the Old Testament--or even in some other Eastern religions, so he wasn't being profound at all. And as far as being concise, it is about as inconcise a document imaginable. As Arnold suggests--the motivation for the Jews to make thing come true would be the far more likely explanation. And if they couldn't make some things happen ( or any of them for that matter ) they could just say some ( or all )things happened. What concerns me the most here is that in this day and age, the majority of the western world lends even a shred of credence to any divinity alluded to in the bible--based solely on the evidence of its contents. Mindboggling. - 4:25:55 on 9 May 98 GMT

rOB:STEVEN.... I would have to guess that there was a person named jesus. However, Arnold makes a good point in how groups have motives for making saving myths and a holy martyr (to bolster their traditions into neat resolutions). The Christians would add convenient neat package additions and the Catholic order (well the pope just ordained a rabbi into the order for the first time --IT fits nicely until the next loophole). - 4:37:13 on 9 May 98 GMT

PETER:--transmaniacon MC--Yes, God is important to many people. However, of what pychological benefit could it possibly be to encourage a belief by which every method of distinguishing truths from falsehoods are ignored, and if need be; looked upon contemptuously? It is my firm belief that mankind has nothing to gain--and eventually everything to lose by encouraging delusion, and avoiding reality--which is exactly what declaring "faith" ( which is the act of avoiding reality ) as a virtue. - 4:38:47 on 9 May 98 GMT

rOB:RON... I think what Carl was getttig at was that atheism can move in an honest direction without avoiding reality (when it pushes aside theism). When looking at quantum physics etc. , this is a major step for humans to harness different knowledge without religion hindering the process. It is a long process as Carl also pointed out. The laws of quantum theory are of a statistical character and allow us only to predict probabilities for future events---with Einstein's important steps. Many versions of unified theories were published---Schrodinger for example..THE TONY used Schrodinger's aspects and was still trapped in caveman thinking and worse of all using physics as part of his thought-god...A syllogism is for example-->all trees have roots; an oak is a tree; therefore an oak has roots ---that Christianity uses say--> all of jesus's apostles had spirits; st.john was an apostle; therefore st.john had spirits. - 5:27:40 on 9 May 98 GMT

rOB:PETER.. I agree with you that the declaration of religious faith one is avoiding reality in some regard. The process to avoid as we all know is to create false hopes and delusions,to foster the concept of the important one with subjectivity unbounded,etc. I think that people can practice their faith--but indoctrination itself festers, say the purity of the faith and act, as a consequence which is a difficult thing to contain. - 5:40:49 on 9 May 98 GMT

rOB:transmaniacon MC... I guess to preconceive restricts in some way. There are openings for new possibilities, I think also, but cases can be made for anything. - 5:54:17 on 9 May 98 GMT

Bruce:TEN STEPS TO CONVICTION The way to produce conviction in the heart of the sinner is to take him through the Ten Commandments. (See Exodus 20:1-17). As we do so, see if you could stay alive after each barrel blasts you; watch how the Law annihilates self- righteousness. 1. YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME. That means that we should love God with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength. Jesus brought out the essence of the command by saying, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26). This is what is commonly called a "hyperbole," i.e. contrasting love with hate for emphasis. Our love for our Creator, the One who gave us life, should be so great that all our other affections should seem as hate in comparison to it. Many years ago, I bought a color television so that my children could watch afternoon children's programs. The first day we had the set, I arrived home and noticed that my offspring weren't at the door to greet me. They were glued to the TV. My homecoming had become a non-event. I walked over to the television, turned it off, and said, "Kids, I bought that TV for your pleasure, but if it comes between you and your love for me, it's going. It's a wrong order of affections. You are setting your affection on the gift rather than the giver." In the same way, if we love husband, wife, child, boyfriend, girlfriend, car, sports, motorbike, music, or even our own life more than we love God, we are setting our affections on the gift rather than the Giver. It is a wrong order of affection, which the Bible calls "inordinate affec- tion." God is jealous of our love. He should be the focal point of our lives and affection. In my twenty-two years as a non-Christian, I certainly didn't love God with heart, mind, soul, and strength; in fact, His very name epitomized the word "boredom" to me. When the truth was shown to me, I knew I had miserably failed to keep the first commandment. 2. YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF ANY CARVED IMAGE. This speaks of those who "changed the truth of God into a lie" (Romans 1:25, KJV). Multitudes make God into their own image by saying, "My God is a God of love; He would never create hell." The irony of it is that they are right. Their god would never create hell, because he doesn't exist! He is a figment of their vain imagination, shaped to conform to their sins. Their gods don't have commandments or moral dictates because they are dumb. "Those who make them [idols] are like them; so is everyone who trusts in them" (Psalm 115:8). If a man walked down a railroad track, saw a train racing toward him, closed his eyes, and said, "I believe it's a marshmellow train," would it change reality? What he believes doesn't matter. What matters is that if he doesn't get off the track, he will be a marshmellow! The truth is that it doesn't matter what we believe about God. He says, "I am the Lord, I do not change" (Malachi 3:6). The Bible warns that idolaters will not inherit the kingdom of God (see 1 Corinthians 6:9). 3. YOU SHALL NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD YOUR GOD IN VAIN, FOR THE LORD WILL NOT HOLD HIM GUILTLESS WHO TAKES HIS NAME IN VAIN. Jesus said, "For every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment" (Matthew 12:36). I was once sitting at a restaurant counter near two young ladies who were talking. After about five minutes, I leaned across and offered one of the girls a booklet. She noticed that it was a Christian booklet and said that she was a Christian. I turned to her friend and said, "You're not, though, are you?" She replied, "Why do you say that?" I gently answered, "Because in the past five minutes, you've blasphemed God's name four times." She put her hand to her mouth and said, "God...I have!" To which I said, "Five!" I explained, "When a man hits his thumb with a hammer, he may express his pain and disgust by using a four-letter word. Then again, he may use the name of God. When he does, he takes the Name that is above every name, that holy name of his Creator and brings it down to the level of a four-letter filth word!" Then, in gentleness I said to her, "That's called 'blasphemy,' and I wouldn't be in your shoes on judgment day for all the tea in China!" She looked me straight in the eye and said, "You've ruined my day!" She was really upset. The work of the Law was written in her heart. 4. REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY TO KEEP IT HOLY. In retrospect, I failed to give God even one minute's worship in twenty-two years as a non-Christian, much less one day in seven. Even though He gave me eyes, ears, a mind, the power of reason, and life itself, I never bothered to say, "O God, You gave me life. What do you require of me?" 5. HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER. Who can say that he's kept this command? The word "honor" means to "value." God's idea of "value" and ours, no doubt, are poles apart. Ephesians 6:2 says this is the first commandment with promise. Therefore, if it is broken, all will not be well with you and your days will not be long upon the earth. God gave some stern warnings in the Old Testament to children who refused to honor their parents. If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall...say to the elders of the city, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil person from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear --Deuteronomy 21:18-21. The eye that mocks his father and scorns obedience to his mother, the ravens of the valley will pick it out, and the young eagles will eat it --Proverbs 30:17. 6. YOU SHALL NOT MURDER. Scripture says, "Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him" (1 John 3:15). The New Testament does not deal with just outward actions, but the inward motivations of our hearts. Jesus made this piercing statement: You have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not murder," and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, "Raca!" shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, "You fool!" shall be in danger of hell fire --Matthew 5:21,22. Hatred, unholy anger, and name-calling put us in danger of hell's fires as surely as if we had taken a gun and murdered the person. 7. YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. Like the above command, the New Testament reveals the essence of God's pure standards. Jesus said that "whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). In civil law, to conspire to commit a crime can be as much a transgression as the committal of the crime itself. God knows that he who lusts holds back from adultery not for conscience sake but for lack of opportunity. Adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God. (See 1 Corinthians 6:9.) 8. YOU SHALL NOT STEAL. No thief shall enter the kingdom of God. What do you have to steal to be a thief? A paperclip will do, or failure to pay taxes. If you have taken anything that doesn't belong to you, no matter how small, you won't enter the kingdom of God! (See 1 Corinthians 6:10.) Both Old and New Testaments describe not only sins of commission but sins of omission. If we have failed to meet a need with our resources, are we not as guilty as if we have stolen from the less fortunate? Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in the power of your hand to do so. Do not say to your neighbor, "Go, and come back, and tomorrow I will give it," when you have it with you --Proverbs 3:27,28. Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin --James 4:17. Stealing from the less fortunate by our inactivity is a crime in God's sight. Many people have never considered that their lack of generosity is also robbing God of what is rightfully His. Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, "In what way have we robbed you?" In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, for you have robbed Me, even this whole nation --Malachi 3:8,9. 9. YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST YOUR NEIGHBOR. This is more commonly known as telling "fibs" or "white lies." Lying also includes making exaggerated claims. Remaining silent to falsely take credit for the accomplishment of another is also wrong. A subtle change in tone, inflection, or expression can be as misleading and untruthful as the boldest lie. Anyone who lies sides with Satan himself--the father of lies. The Bibles says--and Scripture cannot be broken--"All liars shall have their place in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone" (Revelation 21:8). 10. YOU SHALL NOT COVET. This means not to be greedy or materialistic. The covetous will not inherit the kingdom of God. (See 1 Corinthians 6:10.) Instead of always grasping for more, the apostle Paul encourages us to be satisfied with what we have. "Godliness with contentment is great gain... And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content" (1 Timothy 6:6,8). "FOR WHOEVER SHALL KEEP THE WHOLE LAW, AND YET STUMBLE IN ONE POINT, HE IS GUILTY OF ALL" (James 2:10). Those who still cling to a few fig leaves of self-righteousness will despair of their efforts in light of this truth--the final nail in the coffin. You don't have to break ten civil laws to have the police after you. Just break one and you are a law breaker in debt to the law. - 12:17:44 on 9 May 98 GMT

QUAKE:MAKING GRACE AMAZING At the end of an article about a comprehensive study, which found that over 260,000 converts of a major denomination's one year's harvesting couldn't be accounted for, the author concluded his commentary by saying, "Something is wrong." It goes without saying that something is wrong, but it has been wrong for nearly one hundred years of evangelism, since the church forsook the key to the sinner's heart. When it set aside the Ten Commandments in their function to convert the soul (Psalm 19:7), and show us our true state, it removed the sinner's means of seeing his need of God's forgiveness. The Law cannot justify us, it wasn't given for that purpose. It is clearly evident from scripture that no one can be right with God through keeping the Law. Romans 5:20 tells us why it "entered" the scene: "Moreover the Law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." When sin abounds, Grace "much more" abounds; and according to Scripture, the thing that makes sin abound is the Law. We can see the work of God's Law illustrated in civil law. Watch what often happens on a freeway on which you are traveling. When there is no visible sign of the law, see how motorists transgress the speed limit. Everyone knows the maximum is 55 m.p.h., but watch how they all naturally flow together at an unlawful 70 m.p.h. It seems that the law has forgotten to patrol this part of the freeway. You are just "going with the flow." Besides, you are only transgressing the law by 15 m.p.h., and you are not the only one who is over the speed limit. Now, notice what happens when the law enters. He comes through on the fast lane with his lights flashing. Your heart misses a beat. You no longer feel secure in the fact that other motorists are also speeding; you know that you are personally as guilty as the next guy, and you could be the one the law pulls over. Suddenly your "mere" 15 m.p.h. transgression doesn't seem such a small thing after all. It seems to abound. Look at the freeway of sin. The whole world naturally goes with the flow. Who hasn't had an "affair" (or desired to) at one time or another? Who in today's society doesn't tell the occasional "white" lie now and then, or take something that belongs to someone else, even if it's just a "white collar" crime? They know they are "over the limit," but their security is in the fact that so many others are just as guilty. It seems God has forgotten all about sin and the Ten Commandments--"He has said in his heart, God has forgotten: He hides His face; He will never see it." Now watch the Law enter with lights flashing. The sinner's heart is stopped. He lays his hand upon his mouth. He examines the speedometer of his conscience. Suddenly it shows him the measure of his guilt in a new light, the light of the Law. His sense of security in the fact that there are multitudes doing the same thing becomes irrelevant, because he knows he is as guilty as the next person. Sin not only becomes personal, it seems to "abound." His mere lust becomes adultery of the heart (Matthew 5:27,28); his white lie, false witness (Revelation 21:8); his own way becomes rebellion; his hatred, murder (1 John 3:15); his "sticky" fingers make him a thief--"Moreover the Law entered that the offense might abound" (Romans 5:20). Without the Law entering, sin is neither personal nor is it severe--"For without the Law, the sense of sin is inactive" (Romans 7:8, Amplified Bible). It was the "Commandment" that showed Paul sin in its true light, that it is "exceedingly sinful" (Romans 7:13). Paul spoke from his own experience because he sat at the feet of Gamaliel, the great "teacher of the Law," and therefore saw sin in its true colors. The "Offense" and the "Foolishness" of the Cross According to Romans 3:20, "The real function of the Law is to make men recognize and be conscious of sin, not mere perception, but an acquaintance with sin which works towards repentance" (Amplified Bible). To illustrate this, imagine if I said to you, "I have some good news for you! Someone has just paid a $25,000 speeding fine on your behalf!" You would probably answer me with some cynicism in your tone, "What are you talking about? I don't have a $25,000 speeding fine!" Your reaction would be quite understandable. If you don't know you have broken the law in the first place, the good news of someone paying the fine for you won't be good news, it will be foolishness to you. My insinuation of unlawful activity will even be offensive to you. But if I was to put it this way, "Today the police clocked you traveling at 55 m.p.h. in an area designated for a blind children's convention. You totally ignored ten clear warning signs saying that the maximum speed was 15 m.p.h. What you did was extremely dangerous. The fine is $25,000 or imprisonment. The law was about to apprehend you, when someone you don't even know, stepped in and paid the fine for you. You are very fortunate." Can you see that telling you the good news of the fine being paid, without telling you that you have broken the law first, will leave you thinking the "the good news" as nothing but nonsense? To make known your transgression actually gives sense to the good news. An unclouded explanation of the law, so that you can clearly see your violation, helps you understand and also appreciate the good news. In the same way, to tell someone the good news that Jesus died for their sins makes no sense to them, "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing..." (1 Corinthians 1:18). It is quite understandable, if an unregenerate person is told that Jesus "paid the fine" for him (that He died for his sins), for him to say, "What are you talking about? I haven't got any 'sins.' I try to live the good life," etc. Your insinuation that he is a sinner, when he doesn't think he is, will also be offensive to him. But those who take the time to follow in the footsteps of Jesus, and open up the "spirituality of the Law," and carefully explain the meaning of the Ten Commandments, will see the sinner become "convinced of the Law as a transgressor" (James 2:9). Once he sees his transgression, the good news will neither be offensive nor foolishness, but the power of God to salvation. What "Sin" Are You Talking About? When David committed adultery with Bathsheba and killed her husband, God sent Nathan the prophet to reprove him. Notice the order in which the reproof came. Nathan gave David a parable about something he could understand--sheep. He began with the natural realm rather than immediately exposing the King's sin. He told a story of a rich man, who rather than take one from his own flock, killed a poor man's pet lamb to feed a stranger. David was indignant, and said that the guilty party would die for his crime. Nathan then exposed his sin of taking another man's "lamb," saying, "You are the man... Why have you despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in His sight?" (1 Samuel 12:9). When David showed signs of contrition, Nathan then gave him Grace and said, "The Lord has also put away your sin; you shall not die." Imagine if Nathan, fearful of rejection, changed things around a little and instead told David, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. However, there is something which is keeping you from enjoying this wonderful plan; it is called 'sin.'" Imagine if he had glossed over the personal nature of David's sin, with a general reference to all men having sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. David may have reacted with, "What sin are you talking about?" rather than admit his terrible transgression. Or he may have, in a desire to experience this wonderful plan, admitted that he, like all men, had fallen short of the glory of God. If David had not been made to tremble under the wrath of the Law, the prophet would have removed the very means of producing godly sorrow, which was so necessary for David's repentance. It is "godly sorrow" that works repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10). It was the weight of his guilt that caused him to cry out, "I have sinned against the Lord." The Law caused him to labor and become heavy laden; it made him hunger and thirst for righteousness. How true are the words once spoken by Charles Spurgeon (the Prince of Preachers), "The Law serves a most necessary purpose." He also said, "They will never accept Grace, until they tremble before a just and holy Law." Those who see the role of the Law will be sons of thunder before they are the sons of consolation. They know that the shoes of human pride must be removed before sinners can approach the burning bush of the Gospel. Paradox though it may seem, the Law does make Grace abound in the same way darkness makes light shine. It was John Newton (the writer of "Amazing Grace") who said that a wrong understanding of the harmony between Law and Grace would produce "error on the left and the right hand." I don't know if any of us could claim to have a better understanding of Grace than the one who penned such a wonderful hymn. The world will never clearly see the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, until the blackness of sin is explicitly painted on the canvas of a just and holy Law. When a Christian sees what he has been saved from, he will realize what he has been saved for. He will have a love for God, for the unspeakable gift of the cross. It will be a continual source of joy. Gratitude will motivate him to reach out and do the will of God, to seek and save that which is lost. That is the key to genuine church growth, and that is how to see revival. - 12:22:46 on 9 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->QUAKE...STILL a man of few words? Where are you preaching this weekend? I would like to come and listen. - 12:36:38 on 9 May 98 GMT

Marlene..finger on Page Down:Now, I wonder if Bruce is somehow related to Quack? - 12:38:58 on 9 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->BRUCE (and QUAKE)..nice copy and paste jobs. Try using the URL method next time so that we can exercise our "choice", because guess what, probably nobody read anything beyond the third line. - 12:40:06 on 9 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->good morning MARLENE! I had the same thought. - 12:43:44 on 9 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->BRUCE...one thing that always amazes me is the fact that certain of you will come here and start preaching, and post and article of someone else's interpretation of the bible, ten commandments or whatever. Nary an original thought, but you think you are doing us heathens some good. Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but the fact of the matter is, most of us probably know the "holy writings" better than you self-proclaimed judgers, so we don't need to have that information regurgitated. Instead, your own thoughts are most welcome, if in fact you have any. - 12:48:26 on 9 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->QUAKE..your cover is blown!! In your post, you mention that the speed limit is 55 mph. You should proofread these articles if you want people to believe they are your own thoughts. You live in Toronto, and the last time I checked, it was still in Canada, and we do not measure speed in MPH, but rather KPH, so on most highways our speed limit is 100 kph, so next time, make the necessary changes so you still don't come across as the idiot we all know you are. - 12:52:50 on 9 May 98 GMT

Rob (Your starter for ten...):BRUCE: As the quote goes: "It's YOUR god. They're YOUR rules. YOU go to hell." And on that note, which of the top ten did YOU last do? - 13:33:42 on 9 May 98 GMT

PETER:--QUAKE--You continue to be full-fledged, monumental asshole. - 15:30:01 on 9 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->ANYONE...Bruce uses the word "Raca!" in his post. Would some be able to enlighten me as to what that word means? Thanks. - 17:11:28 on 9 May 98 GMT

Robert T. Lee: -- DISPROVE THIS IF YOU CAN By Robert T. Lee http://www.tencommandments.org ******************************************************************************************** To all you heathen atheists, and non believers in God, particularly the so-called "educated." I hereby present a challenge to you. The challenge is this: There is no denying that the TEN COMMANDMENTS exist. Right? Since they exist, they had to have had an origin. Right? Therefore, tell me, what human authored the TEN COMMANDMENTS? What is his name? What year did he author them? If a human authored the TEN COMMANDMENTS, why is it that there has never been anyone who has known who did so? You know the names of the heathens who authored the heathen american constitution - you now the year in which it was authored. Other nations know the same about their charters. But there is no one on earth who can rightly name a human as the author of the TEN COMMANDMENTS. You know why don't you? Because no human authored them! I challenge you to intelligently dispute that fact. As you grope to do so, you will find that you cannot intelligently do so. Any disagreement with this fact, and any effort to try to disprove it will reveal that you are a fool. And you will prove to yourself that God does indeed exist. Try to disprove it and see. Post all you intelligent responses below ;-) ******************************************************************************************** --digsig Robert T. Lee 32bET1pN34HbDJ9hzITqseVX0v1k6R8ybxtVQr6nRfm S7Zjkw6NzdbS/D10ILGfYhlpsGU/zdJrKAWckYop 4GV8rlIYtC5NuXU8neiRv4sKhpVKwHhQsar3rb8P6 - 21:34:34 on 9 May 98 GMT

Grant:ROBERT T. LEE-- So God did the first "Kilroy was here?" I always wondered who came up with that. - 21:45:09 on 9 May 98 GMT

rOB:ROBERT T. LEE..If you want to call me an heathen etc. go right ahead--it is just another label. But ostensibly we are both human beings with limitations and faults.....THIS IS AN ANONYMOUS QUOTE---->"All this buttoning and unbuttoning"---> from a 18th Century suicide note. WE do not know the author's name though but we know that the note was written by some human. I guess one could say that a god wrote it also just like the ten commandments (who were just given to Moses--like flies to glue paper). One can SAY a lot of things and speculate indefinitely-->>which goes back to human limitations etc.. - 23:01:29 on 9 May 98 GMT

rOB:ROBERT T. LEE... Do you think that a god can telepathically relate ideas etc. (like the ten commandments given to Moses) to our minds? Do you think that the Hebrew god 'SPOKE' TELEPATHICALLY to Moses? Communication of one mind with another by means beyond what is ordinary or normal --->there is a lot of PLAY with this form of communication. - 23:14:02 on 9 May 98 GMT

rOB:QUAKE.. I wish I was blind for awhile so I would not have to read that long penetrating indoctrination. Helen Keller--man did she SEE things differently! - 23:29:27 on 9 May 98 GMT

rOB:ROBERT T. LEE...What entities there are, from the point of view of a given language, depends on what positions are accessible to variables in that language. What are fictions, from the point of view of a given language depends on what positions are accessible to variables definitionally rather than primitively. Shift of language ORDINARILY involves a shift of ontology. - 23:46:27 on 9 May 98 GMT

PETER:--ROBERT T. LEE--I will give you a responce if you can prove that you will return to this board--and stick around and listen to me completely demolish, blow by blow, how utterly juvenile, and hilariously asinine your allegations written above are. Unless you do so--I won't waste my time. - 0:15:27 on 10 May 98 GMT

Marlene..this guy's ship has sunk!:ROBERT P LEE- Now, aren't you a thinker..... - 1:17:22 on 10 May 98 GMT

Marlene:ALL- Let's bump that crap off the page! - 1:18:45 on 10 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROBERT TLEE..here we go again...do you honestly think that THOU SHALT NOT KILL was not already a law of the land? Do you believe that THOU SHALL NOT STEAL..was not a law of the land? Do you really believe that the commandments were the beginning of socially acceptable behaviour? If what you believe is true, then why did mankind survive before old Moses climed the mountain? Wouldn't man have destroyed itself prior to that event? Maybe you will answer this, as most theists avoid the question. - 1:54:55 on 10 May 98 GMT

Arnold:It is interesting that only the religionists themselves are able to find words adequate to describe how foolish they are. I could rack my brain for hours and never be able to explain pure nonsense as eloquently as has been expressed by the "Angels'Advocates" gracing our discussion board. I find it terribly funny and terribly tragic at the same time. - 2:21:29 on 10 May 98 GMT

PETER:--There has been a recent onslaught of christians suddenly espousing the profound morality described by God in the Ten Commandments. However, they often seem to ignore that these commandments were only a small part of what this alleged God gives Moses these commands by which he is to live by, and what fundamentalist christians consider infallible. The commandments first appear in Exodus 20:12--but if one reads further to Ex 20:2. God says "When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years"....Now, had this God been the epitome of morality would he not have sais something like " Thou shalt not practice slavery, nor SELL any person to another..Slavery is one of the most reprehensibly immoral acts in the history of mankind, and not only does God condone it, he makes up regulations for the slave-keepers!....God also says Ex21: 7--"If a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as slaves do." He even condones a parent selling his own children as slaves. This is beneath contemptible. Other goodies in this chapter : verse 15 " Whoever strikes their mother or father shall be put to death" Verse17" Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death" What a wonderful ethical guide this is. - 2:25:05 on 10 May 98 GMT

PETER:--ARNOLD--Believe it or not, once in a while a fundie will begin to think about the absurdities of their beliefs. It has happened here to a small degree just once. One cannot ignore reality indfinitely--but they sure can go on for a long time! I am often intrigued by the seemingly infinite evasive methods they seem to invent to suit every occaision--and how they quickly spread throughout their community. One of the more recent tactic they used was, by the use of some futile philosophical contortion, the insistence that the atheist assumes the burden of proof to DISPROVE their is a God. There was a whole raft of them here a few months back but...well I think they got the message. - 2:44:54 on 10 May 98 GMT

Arnold:Peter: - Yes, I too am fascinated by the inventiveness they show in avoiding reality. Another tactic I find kind of funny is their attempts to define atheists out of existence. "We must have faith (to eat our cornflakes, sit in a chair, etc.), therefore the atheist 'has faith' and is not an atheist." And they also change their definitions for words such as "religion", "God", "faith", and "spirit" in the middle of a sentence. Making sense out their beliefs is like trying to stick a wet noodle up a tiger's ass. - 4:07:20 on 10 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:BRUCE, QUAKE, ROBERT T. LEE et al. In the beginning god created pencils, pads, and a stenographer. And he did make them out of thin air. And lo, he gave the stenographer the power to see in the dark and to write shorthand and he then dictated the creation of the universe to the stenographer.and it has been debated by learned scholars whether the earth came first or the stenographer but god in his infinite wisdom has withheld the truth from men/women. And among other things god created was Spam, which tastes very good when fried with eggs, but does not belong on this site, so take thee all thineselves to thine own stinking holy roller sites and post thine abominations therein. And feast upon the fruit of the feces of Taurus, which some calleth bullshit. - 4:29:22 on 10 May 98 GMT

PETER:--ARNOLD--Often in these faith examples, the word "hope" or "trust" can be substituted for the word "faith"..... Here's one " It takes more faith to be an atheist than a christian" ( this is often said very soon after they extoll the virtues of faith, so by their reasoning, atheism would be more virtuous, would it not? ) Another one that kills me is " Christianity isn't a religion, but a relationship--with Jesus" But then see how angry they become when they hear that religious education will be taken out of the schools. Suddenly, christianity turns into a religion again. I often compare this to sixteen year-old calling themselves a child or an adult depending on the circumstances. - 4:43:51 on 10 May 98 GMT

rOB:PETER.. That faith is usually not supported by sufficient evidence to prove the truth---->some Christian writers have made this concession with an air of defiance or being smug about it(Kierkegaard that it was utterly absurd-become subjective ie..). The impression given is sometimes, in contemporary discussions too, that there is a virtue in believing without evidence. But this would open the floodgates to every superstition, prejuidice, and madness. With THIS VIRTUE, the Christians want to instill a certain type of grace-attachment to others --say prays in school. Again it is convenient for Christianity to become a religion at times to foster their great virtue (without the need for any reasonable evidence). Children ---you must say "the hail mary pray or the our father pray" to become more virtuous--->VERY FUCKING INDOCTRINATING AND NOT TO MENTION A FORM OF MADNESS! - 5:37:44 on 10 May 98 GMT

rOB:PapaSam... Is that birdshit on the Ford Tauraus model car--hehe? (fruit of the feces of the Tauraus--very funny). But then again a Christian might call you a demon worshipper for saying these things--well fuck them and their judgemental fingerpointing.. Some people drive Saturns too---'ALL hail Saturnos the winged-tire giver of drive-commands'---hehee! - 5:47:51 on 10 May 98 GMT

rOB:Going back to Robert T. Lee's questions about the the authorship of the ten commandments, one must remember that questions are in language. Language is learned by people, from people, only in relation, ultimately, to observable circumstances of utterance. The relation of language to observation is very devious or tricks, BUT observation is finally all there is for language to be anchored to. The question was whether there are questions-MEANINGFUL QUESTIONS- that man could in principle never answer. On this philosophy, the answer to this question is no. BUT again the theist insists that the ten commandments were a god-thing's imperatives. Just as other theists (Anselm) insist that a case can still be made for a god-thing from a ontological standpoint. The cases will always continue unfortunately. - 6:12:47 on 10 May 98 GMT

things that go BUMP in the night - 13:28:33 on 10 May 98 GMT

encore - 13:30:54 on 10 May 98 GMT

Marlene:Well BUMPED! - 16:34:37 on 10 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROBERT T. LEE. The various writers who put together the bible probably stole the idea from the Code of Hammurabi, who ruled Babylon around 1790 BC. There is a statue of him in the Louvre in Paris with the code carved in the base. Furthermore, people lived together and got along with each other before your mythological bible was ever written - 17:39:53 on 10 May 98 GMT

GOD..with a little test of my omniscience:For any of you who have been waiting anxiously for the big "SEIN-OFF" this week, here is how the final episode will go, even though it's been kept a big secret from you little guys (now, if I'm wrong, my followers will find an excuse for me, so there): Jerry will be offered a sit-com of his own, and he will move to L.A. He will take Elaine and George with him. While he is house hunting, the real estate broker (who is extremely wealthy) will ask Elaine for a date, which she accepts. George, meanwhile, meets a publisher who is a big fan of the New York Yankees, and after he tells of his work experience with the team, is hired as a TV critic, and so decides to stay in L.A. In the meantime, they go back to see Kramer, who has moved into Jerry's apartment, and who insists that he is too much of a New York Kind of Guy to move out west. Back in L.A., Jerry has become a huge superstar, Elaine and the real estate guy are in love and will probably marry, and because George is upset that his phone bills are so high because his parents keep calling collect, decides to move them out there. In typical Seinfeld tradition, the three are standing around in Jerry's new kitchen, when Kramer bursts in to announce that some producer had seen his bit part on Murphy Brown, and has offered him his own sit-com, and he announces that he has bought himself a house right across the street from Jerry. "If I'm not MUST SEE TV, then who is?" he asks his friends, which is an opening for a spin-off naturally. The show ends with the four of them arm in arm shuffling out of the room (ala MTM) to go see a movie. At the end of the program there will be a mail truck (containing you know who) slowly making its way towards L.A. - 17:46:09 on 10 May 98 GMT

----------------->:The list of commandments given in Exodus 20:1-17 (and repeated in Deuteronomy 5:6-21) is not referred to in the Bible as the ten commandments. However, Exodus 34:10-28 does contain a list of commandments that are specifically referred to by the Bible as the Ten Commandments. Read and compare Exodus 20:1-17 and Exodus 34:10-28. - 19:00:47 on 10 May 98 GMT

Joette....Marlene...a little bit of a Mother's Day laugh for you..:and I wonder what she'll have to say about Viagra! - 23:59:34 on 10 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham: Another marginally one sided site filled with all that same sense of smug superiority and certainty come that come from making immediately obvious and clear to the eye as virtual athiestic aricule of faith or knowledge as no doubt you people would claim though will never be able prove. Once again portaying the honestly relgious type and half mad bible frothing delutional maniac. To be laughed a when talking and pitied when not. Are well quite few thestic sites arn't much better, and some I will free admit are quite lot worse. - 0:06:43 on 11 May 98 GMT

Arnold:A NEW THREAD! - Years ago, when I first began trying to decide whether the religion I was being taught was true or not, I decided to "test" the effectiveness of prayer. Of course, I was not so bold as to suppose that an un-answered prayer of my own meant prayer didn't work. But what about the prayer of somebody more important. What about the prayers Jesus prayed? So I did an analysis of "The Lord's Prayer" to see if any of the requests made by Jesus had been fulfilled. Surely, if prayers actually worked, then at least a reasonable number of the heaven-sent requests made by Jesus would have come true. I will send the results of my analysis in the next post . . . (stay tuned) - 0:12:15 on 11 May 98 GMT

Arnold:Okay! An analysis of the "effectiveness" of "The Lord's Prayer": "Our Father, which art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name" - Is the "name" of the Christian God "hallowed"? True, Christians praise their god, but this is only to be expected. The alledged "names" of God (Jahoveh, Yahweh, I am that I am, etc.) are rarely even used. And the word "God" is probably used more as a profanity than anything else. "Thy kingdom come" - Has the "kingdom" of God come on earth? No. This is the fabled "second coming" of Jesus which the Christians are still waiting on. "Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven" - Is the "will" of God being done? Are the 10 Commandments being obeyed? How about all the other rules and instructions alledgedly given by the Christian god in the bible? I think we can safely answer "no" here. "Give us this day our daily bread" - An honest analysis will show that nobody is being "given" anything by a supernatural entity. All "bread" has to be worked for, or it is given by other people. After 2000 years of this prayer being prayed, we have more starving people than ever. "And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors." - Are debts being "forgiven" by Christians? The thought has occured to me that this is may be an inside joke. Perhaps what Jesus is saying is that he does NOT want God to forgive his debts. Of course, the question of whether God is forgiving the debts of Christians is problematic at best. "And lead us not into temptation" - A study of Christian literature and Christian tv programs reveal how they constantly complain about being beset "and lured into" temptation. "But deliver us from evil" - A study of the same literature and tv programs shows how they believe themselves to be thoroughly surrounded by and emersed in evil. "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever. Amen" - This is not a request, but is simply Jesus telling God what a swell guy he is. In short, this prayer as alledgedly presented by Jesus has been prayed more than any other prayer in the world for almost 2000 years and it cannot be shown that any request made in that prayer has been fulfilled. - 0:50:24 on 11 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->CHARLES GRAHAM...are you the same one I work with that has been suspended twice for tweeking girls' bums? - 0:57:19 on 11 May 98 GMT

PETER:--CHARLES--Of course it's one-sided, it's an atheist chat page, frequented mostly by atheists. Likewise, as you imply, a christian chatroom is one-sided to christianity. We get a continuous flow of theists attempt to debate the atheism/theism issue--but in varying time frames, inevitably lose every argument they initiate, never to return ( unless your name is "Quake", who is so incredibly stupid, he doesn't know when he is licked--and just copies and pastes these preposterous and irrelevant articles. Am I being smug? You're damned right I am--I'm right, and I am able to demonstrate I am. Everytime. - 1:19:54 on 11 May 98 GMT

PETER:--ARNOLD--Excellent work. The inevitable denials and rationalizations from any stray religionist who may happen upon it should be extremely interesting. ROB--I can see a faction of the psychiatric community someday make a move to have it declared a form of madness --and rightfully so, if they haven't already. - 1:36:34 on 11 May 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I bet she's just a prayin' that Jeff gets writer's cramp, lol! ARNOLD- As Peter said, good work! Remember, nothing fails like prayer. CHARLES- And are you The CRITIC? PAPASAM- Methinks your right, Hammurabi beat the writers of the bible to the punch with the "eye for an eye" thing anyway. Does anyone know what he had to say on sexuality? Or did he have any religion whatsoever in his laws? - 6:29:40 on 11 May 98 GMT

Bruce:Arnold..to answer your confusion, I will start by saying you are ignorant of spiritual truth. Our Father which are in heaven, is the first part, and yes he is the Father of Christians and we are His children, and he is in heaven. Hollowed be thy name, His name represents his character, and his virtue etc, he is the I am, and Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh. Because some choose to prophane God's name that is their own judgement, it has nothing to do with the prayer.Thy kingdom come, jesus prayed this before the Holy Ghost was poured out on all flesh, and the kingdom of God is righteousness, joy and peace in the Holy Ghost. Yet His physicall kingdom will also come one day. Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven, this is a prayer and a request for the will of God to go forth, and His will does goe forth every day. Also His will is done in His saints, and one day all things will be according to His will. So again you ahev errored in every point. Give us this day our daily bread, is a request from Christians to the father God, and he does give us our daily bread and he also gives us spiritual bread, that is the word of Godas we eat it spiritually as well, for man does not live by bread alone but by every word of God. And forgive us our debts, God does forgive us (Christians) who have asked him for forgiveness through his Son Jesus Christ.. And lead us not into temptation, God protects thoses who trust in Him and will give them eternal life,, But deliver us from evil God has and does do this for His children all the time. Foir thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever and ever. This is true for all times, God is the Lord and reigns all powerful, and you will stand in judgement day one day i hope you repent and believe the gospel. - 14:08:04 on 11 May 98 GMT

STeven:ROBERTELEE<<>>ROFL! - 14:14:41 on 11 May 98 GMT

PETER:--ARNOLD--See what I mean?--BRUCE---Nice try. STEVEN. Yeah, that is pretty funny isn't it? Don't like the Stars' chances. They remind me too much of the 60's and 70's version of the Blackhawks. Great regular seasons, and are frequently the favourites. Bomb in the playoffs. Actually when they did win it in '61, they were the 4th place team in the regular season. - 14:31:46 on 11 May 98 GMT

Carl:BRUCE: You inscribe such silly words, spiritual truth? Do you really mean to suggest that ignorance can be applied to such a notion, especially by the likes of one who invokes a "holy ghost"? Does this comment mean you believe in things that go Boo! and that can be seen and not occupy space? Heaven, where is that? Is it above the four cornors of the world just beyond the firmament that from which a godthing poured forth the waters of noah nythical flood? Do you mean such people who refer to such things that go along with querys as your's, they who are as you- are not the ignorant? - 14:47:55 on 11 May 98 GMT

Steven:BRUCE<<>>I wish I could count the number of times I have heard the same brainwashed drivel. I almost feel pity for you. The problem here, is that it is obvious that you have not actually read the murderous filth that is the bible. If you base your believes on that book (which is what christianity is) then you need to go back and read about pro-slavery, god sponsered and approved rape, god sponsered and approved murder, god sponsered and approved incest, etc. etc. etc. Then, after you have read all of that fun stuff, move on to the history. There you will read what christianity has done for mankind. The crusades, the inquisition, etc. etc. etc. And christians say that Yaweh is a god of love. - 14:50:26 on 11 May 98 GMT

PETER--:--BRUCE---Welcome the snake-pit. If thou wisheth some semblance of respect, please returneth and taketh thy lumps. - 15:56:00 on 11 May 98 GMT

Carl:STEVEN: Xtians can not as things living today, they cannot grasp and accept such history that is of themselves- which is/are their preferrence(s), as its of or for the godthing as it concerns them as religious believers of that thing. The godthing is in their realm and domain of the meaningless questions. I just tried to express a reflexive thinking process here the parts of which, the xtian must deny, in order to be true to themselves as religious believers of a godthing. Any immorality or inhumanity or any death dealing occurence at any time as these may concern that godthing, its also in the realm/domain of meaningless questions, and the reason for such meaninglessness, is simply that that meaninglessness was that very point, which is left over after the truthful observation of, there is no evidence for a godthing. - 18:08:30 on 11 May 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Just checkin'out Amazon.com there, I saw one of the books I wanted check out was called "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity" by Hyam MacCoby. Any here familiar with it? If yes, how was it and stuff? Is it worth buying? - 19:50:05 on 11 May 98 GMT

Carl:RON[?]: That was essentially my point of atheism, and yes- it will take a lot of time to rid humanity of the yoke the albatross the ball and chain of theism. This PC-gadget can be instrumental at bringing about that change, o'course probably not in our lifetimes, but, it is important that this gadget not be controlled by the theistic types as it- the desimination process of knowledge, so happened back in the earliest days xtianity. Control of information and knowledge as it is, must be protected. Otherwise the quacks and anselms and cdrake and nazi types can do- commit even greater crimes agin'humanity. - 20:22:35 on 11 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:Peter I rest my case smug bastard actually it would interesting to see what sort person it take to a pro-active athiest. If I was anthiest I would just get one with the 70 odd year of life I had left. Actually I am Christio - agnositc which maybe why I am here. Actually It almost unerving to discover that many atheists here probably have far greater knowledge of the bible than mosts christians?? very strange indeed. As well as bizzare attmepts by both side to define away god or in some way neciaitate him. But as I alway say " their no harm in try to prove good existance but don't get pissed of if you fail " the opposite would be true for you people Of indeed their have been attempt to define away beilfs or define away atheisism itself. Any esitimate for end Relgion HG wells estimated 2030 in 1933. any backs do I hear 2100 2300, at the second coming????? P.S Peter one never loses an arguement or will never admit to it " yourself not included or so you may thing". and for Tweeking girls bums are you feeling OK - 22:44:49 on 11 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:Peter I rest my case smug bastard actually it would interesting to see what sort person it take to a pro-active athiest. If I was anthiest I would just get one with the 70 odd year of life I had left. Actually I am Christio - agnositc which maybe why I am here. Actually It almost unerving to discover that many atheists here probably have far greater knowledge of the bible than mosts christians?? very strange indeed. As well as bizzare attmepts by both side to define away god or in some way neciaitate him. But as I alway say " their no harm in try to prove good existance but don't get pissed of if you fail " the opposite would be true for you people Of indeed their have been attempt to define away beilfs or define away atheisism itself. Any esitimate for end Relgion HG wells estimated 2030 in 1933. any backs do I hear 2100 2300, at the second coming????? P.S Peter one never loses an arguement or will never admit to it " yourself not included or so you may thing". and for Tweeking girls bums are you feeling OK - 22:45:25 on 11 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->CHUCKIE..you only have to post it once. Even after two times, I don't understand what you are saying. Are you illiterate, or are you from another country where English isn't the first language? - 22:52:06 on 11 May 98 GMT

Rob:Confuse-us say... - 22:56:22 on 11 May 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: As one I don't intend to nor mean to "define away" belief, a point I stress "belief" is a common quality of the thinking human. Its spectrum covers anything that a human can't always see like a wall behind you in your house or a stoplite. Belief is everywhere and all the time, it is those who prefer to separate themselves as if there were some supernatural thing that they "believe-in", for which the evidence of, remains outstanding. If something appeared and proved to me that it was supernatural, like make me supernatural too, it would have my vote. But definitly not, something composed by some guys that were little better than cavemen, or else why would they propose that ghosts are important to that thing? They just ignorant and superstitous, this is not for me. - 22:59:05 on 11 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:BRUCE. I hear many conflicting stories from christians about the nature of your theology. I would appreciate your clearing things up for me by answering the following questions. Where did your god come from and what is his genealogy? Does he have any siblings? Is he married and does he have children? Who were jesus' parents, and does he have siblings? What is the immaculate conception? What is the holy ghost and where did it come from? What does it take to become a saint and does it take any special training? What is a soul and what is heaven and hell? I know these questions will take time to answer but I don't mind waiting a little while. Just answer a couple at a time. Expectantly yours, - 0:02:51 on 12 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:CHARLES. You seem to have a problem expressing your thoughts clearly. I suggest you take some courses in English Composition. I'm sure Bruce won't mind taking up the slack in your absence. Please do not consider this as a personal attack or an attempt to demean you. I do respect your efforts but it appears to me that you are thinking in another language and translating them into English. - 0:15:30 on 12 May 98 GMT

QUAKE:PAPA SAM..MY GOD IS THE ALPHA AND TH EOMEGA, THE BEGINNING AND THE END, HE ALWAYS WAS AND ALWAYS WILL BE - 0:53:26 on 12 May 98 GMT

PETER:--QUAKE--First you say God is the end, then you say he will always be. Next time you repeat another one of these inane incantations, why don't you really read it and see what it REALLY says? Quake, not only are you an asshole, you are as stupid as a bag of hammers too. - 1:17:34 on 12 May 98 GMT

PETER:--BRUCE--Yes, I am a smug bastard. What is a Christio-agnostic. And, yes many atheists know more about the bible than most christians for several reasons. Atheists are generally more intelligent and well-read, many were Christians at one time and as a result of learning the contents of the bible in more depth than the average Christian, found atheism as the only reasonable conclusion. Also some atheists, like myself consider any belief in the supernatural as being ultimately harmful to mankind, and enjoy debating this issue. I find the bible as an invaluable reference to make those who accept its contents as the infallible truth continually put their collective feet in their mouths. And like you said, no one ever "admits defeat"--but their sudden disappearances pretty well tell the story. They are usually met and treated courteously ( unless your name is "Quake"), and when the insults start to fly, they invariably initiated by the christians --another good indication of one losing control. ) - 1:38:25 on 12 May 98 GMT

Melissa:I think Quack is one of those delusional people who feels that if no one agrees with him, it must mean he's right; if he draws out an insult through his inane chattering and repetitious rantings, it proves him superior and his opinions absolute truth. So this is his purpose in life, to offend as many as possible (as I understand it, no one likes him on TheoChat either), thus building his confidence in his own delusion and boosting a sadly low self-esteem. It's the only possible explanation for why he returns time and time again, screaming the same silly drivel. - 1:45:34 on 12 May 98 GMT

Melissa:PETER: A christio-agnostic is one who isn't sure if god exists but leans toward the possibility, the Christian possibility (how original!). - 1:47:11 on 12 May 98 GMT

PETER:--MELISSA--I see. But isn't this really just a christian position? As George H. Smith said "When stripped of its theological garb, the christian God emerges as the unknowable god of agnosticism" - 2:54:13 on 12 May 98 GMT

Marlene:I agree, Charles does seem to have a communication problem but then again he may understand what Quake meant by "TOMEGA".... - 3:43:39 on 12 May 98 GMT

rOB:CHARLES GRAHM... There is nothing wrong in trying to prove a god-thing's existence, but be wary of indoctrinating others in your process. I am not really sure I follow in some of the things you are saying (ie.--> Wells, those years, second coming time references etc.) Well , I bid you good luck in your process. Do you think objective truth and the means of attaining it annoy religious believers (OR it is to our advantage to become more subjective)???? Theology and any systematic discussion of god, was born as a defensive manueuver. It is the product of a distinctive historic situation. The word theology is encountered for the first time in Plato-at the point where he proposes to expurgate Homer's epics to rescue belief in the gods from the cynicism of the Greek enlightenment (Republic). The theologian defends his religious heritage by sacrificing its plain exoteric meaning. He says to the atheist: 'you are quite right to deny what you deny, but I deny it too; what you repudiate is indeed superstitious and wrong-but you are wrong, too. The situation would be simple if the theologian rebuked the atheist for taking literally what ought to be read as poetry. But in that case the infidel might well reply; we are agreed; I like to read the scriptures, too. The differences arise over the theologians' determined attempt to make univocal translations of essentially ambigious propositions. Most statements about god are esentially ambiguous--just look at what Quake rants about. - 6:10:42 on 12 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:QUAKE. How often do you talk to your god? Do you discuss other things besides religion? Does he like sports, and if so which are his favorites? Does he like opera or the ballet? If so, which are his favorites? Does he like the movies? The only reason I ask you these questions is because you're on such a chummy basis with him and I can't get the information anywhere else. If I weren't an atheist, I'd be jealous of your rapport with him/her/it. - 6:26:48 on 12 May 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: The words 'alpha' and 'omega' exclusive of whatever the quack's literary license means to want of them, what else are they? As I ponder either it seems that they are ideas meant to account for the limits of what one might can say of things. But is that not true for anyone at any point in their lifetime? As children none of us here could converse of science atheism theism etc., as we do now. In our beginning we could not say anything for ourselves and at of death we cannot say for ourselves anything again. If those old greek cavemen and those who thought and said of such ideas before the greeks, were honest observers, then the alpha and omega ideas once- must have been, meant to represent the ultimate restriction for anyone of communicating their living experience, but who twisted it from whatever it once meant into that thing that those as the quack would now want it to mean, that it implies that there is a supernatural godthing? Does that theist knave\representative have any ideas of his own of what they mean, do you QUAKE? - 14:49:21 on 12 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL...you know, when Quake first started posting here, we were able to catch a glimpse of the man behind the rantings, but since he has discovered the art of "copying and pasting", even that part of his humanity is gone. I think it is very sad. (BTW, how's the baseball star?) - 15:16:15 on 12 May 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Do you mean that the person that is/was the QUAKE has been assimilated? (His B.A.is 'round 500+) - 15:22:44 on 12 May 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>he was assimilated a long time ago. - 15:30:43 on 12 May 98 GMT

Marlene..:STEVEN- Do you think he ever was of his own mind? Maybe when he was two...CARL- What I think Quake was referring to with the alpha and "tomega" was his obsession with biblical drivel. Somewhere in the book of bullshit it says, god is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. - 15:52:05 on 12 May 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: individuals as the quack, are mental mutts- not a pedigree dog, when it comes to the matter of their religious belief. The more indefinable that they can render unto that thought process the better off they are. It is all they can do to but say that "they don't know". - 16:24:39 on 12 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL...maybe it's time NIKE looked him up? - 16:24:49 on 12 May 98 GMT

da motha from da nort:JOETTE- It be summer in Toronto town, do NIKE make sandals? - 17:01:55 on 12 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:QUAKE. A Greek friend of mine is pissed off at you because you used the Greek alphabet for your Alpha-Omega remark. He says the Greek alphabet belongs to the Greek god Zeus. He also says your god had to blow smoke up a virgin's vagina to get her pregnant. Big Deal!! Zeus gave birth to Athena who sprang fully grown from is forehead, without a mother. - 17:29:30 on 12 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:BRUCE. Are you working on my questions? Just a simple yes or no will do? - 17:31:39 on 12 May 98 GMT

Steven:PAPA<<>>asking the visiting theists (especially QUACK) to answer a quetion is fruitless. Even if you received an answer, it would probably be unintelligible and moronic. - 17:43:37 on 12 May 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>>do you play an online game called Ultima Online? I have been reading a chat page, that centers around the game, and a lady from Ontario, Canada posts there and her posts favor yours. I must apologize, I have forgotten in what part of the great country of Canada you reside. - 17:50:44 on 12 May 98 GMT

Joette:--->MOTHA..if was referring to Carl's baseball star son, not the Quackmeister. - 17:57:56 on 12 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN..no, I don't play any online games (quick, it's a slow day at work, so give me the address). I live in Kitchener, Ontario, about 1500 miles north of you, and east of Marlene, and 3500 miles west of Rosey Rob, and 3000 miles east of Grant and 3200 east of Carl and 300 some way tother from rOB, PAPASAM and Adam. Actually, I am 60 miles west of Toronto, and that is why I always threaten Quake that I will be coming to hear him preach. Where does the lady on the game hail from? - 18:01:16 on 12 May 98 GMT

motha from de nort..I be mistakin girl:JOETTE-Ooohhhhhh! I be thinkin it be da mon from Toronta-town you was talkin bout. - 18:14:31 on 12 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Hi guys...:I'm sitting in a server room in downtown Houston with my thumb up my arse waiting for this idiot to call me back. His company's DLT4700 tape backup device is a screaming cube of shit and I'm stuck with it. AHHHHGGGRRRR....I hate junkie computer equipment. Anyway, thought I'd sneak in and type a few hallowed words to my buds. STEVEN...Since our last conversation I've been looking into Ultima and I've heard it sucks. Too many cheats, holes in the program, and not enough action. New users have a difficult time getting started because the older entities robbing them blind...then killing them, of course. MARLENE...I'm at the end of my rope with women. What a bother...geezz...How's the great white north? Ever plant those seeds I sent you? They've come and gone here and all those wonder mothers have had pictures made with their children lying in fields of those wild flowers. QUAKE...your gawd is the beginning and the end...(of lies)...He is and always will be a method to robbing from the poor to supply the rich. Give it up. - 18:29:02 on 12 May 98 GMT

RON...--->rOB...: I have no doubt that atheism will push aside theism, humans will evolve and become more educated, lazy, and cultured. We'll have the time to reflect on our past and our future and realize, as one people, religion has been the bane of mankind. I hope to see it in this lifetime. Just think of what we could accomplish if we took all the resources of religion and pointed them to space or research....wow. - 18:37:20 on 12 May 98 GMT

RON...--->STEVEN...: What happened to the *believe in Jesus* questions? Did we have an outcome? Or, did you have a specific point to make? Did I win the door prize? - 18:39:23 on 12 May 98 GMT

Carl:RON: I listened to a radio program about religion in the USA. In the same breath came the news that church attendence is down by .5 million, but that 'spokesmen' for the various faiths say too, that the general enrollment[?] was 'up' by .5 million. The report included the cacophoney of reasons people "want" religion "in" their lives. One part even said that the bible still represents simple truths that can be applied to any and everybody's life, dispite its being written so long ago. I thot, obviously the kinds of people who spoke so, were of the old, the unemployed, the homeless, the unintelligent, the schemers, all liars, on death row (here, consider the number of prisons being built) and generally the irresponsible (those happy someone else died for them). These kinds would not know the difference between themselves in todays world and a story book of times long ago. - 19:02:46 on 12 May 98 GMT

Steven:RON<<>>I guess that Ultima has it's problems. However, I LOVE THE GAME. I have started newbies etc. and I have never had any problems. There are PKs, but I love PvP combat so I can not complain. OSI fixed all of the server side lag, the only problems are with Digex in Austin (routers) and they suck. I guess for the first game of this nature (excluding all of the text MUDs) and size, the problems are small. I have been playing for about 7 months and I am so addicted it is silly. There are quit many whiners, that complain about the game. OSI has also fixed most of the cheats/bugs (I think there may be an obscure house break in bug, which few know about) and they track people that use any know bugs and then ban them from the game YEESSSSSSSSS! I would suggest you put all the whiny opions aside, purchase the game, and go dragon hunting with us. If you recall, opionions are like assholes, everyone has one. My point is that out of the thousands that play the game there will always be someone that isn't pleased. I can seem to recall movie critics blasting Star Wars saying it was little better than a B movie, how wrong they were. Also, a new game is out called Myth, check it out, I think you would enjoy. The survey was more or less for my own info. I was reading an Atheist article that said that jesus was simply a literary construct and it peaked my intrest just enough to find out what others thought. :] - 19:27:48 on 12 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:Alpha and Ogma are the first and alst letter of the greek alaphbet. I agree Quake is a little weroid Yes am Dislexic is just the way god made me no sorry man or is that women, is this site sexist. Peter you say claim to be interllgent but that simply another sign of smugness here we go again. I certain you get sense of smug superiority when you have christian on the run of course, I myself do consider the bible absolute and total truth, and I myself am not stupid I.Q 139 that how I found out that I was dislexic 160 in place 110 in other sometimes lower if you must know like in spelling, and well read smug again ah well I have read more books than you have had hot dinners. Of course I could also say I am a christian with agnostist leanings occationally, but that the whole problem with words there are a lot interpretations of them and what they mean to different things to different people. For instance the word Jesus would get a lot negative reaction her despite the fact even from secular persective he said a lot of wise things. So anyone attempting to define abosulte true or aboslute falsity good Luck. Belief well of course is all very well trying to define beleif in god as nonsenical but evdience is very hard to come by in these matter. It also almost impossible to find evidence for most of non material thing you my beilvie truth juctice etc. I also think you are also getting the supernatural mixed up with metapysical. Super natural is out side nature meta phsicial is beyond Phyisics. Your claim that god ( or the possiblity of god ) is some how supernatural entity is debatable. I Do agree generally though " Belief in society at least until you mention god. Actually I once heard a ghost one day while I play Choas engine, with sound on full. While I was in my house alone it was very lond and quite close i.e not next door. After I heard it I went around looking for the person who made the noice thinking about a burglar. I found no one. However I can certain I can understand the idea of an atheist resisting te idea of ghosts despite fequent sitig from fequivent sighting from Iron skeptics like your selves, its open the whole existance after death question wide open. I have also heard first hand accounts of ghost from people I would trust I not saying that everything you hear on world of the strange is true but keep an open mind. Rob Indoctination is very dangerous word almost a accustion. Of course what you say is the truth while I am just indoctinating people, and I have always though of myself as a free thinker simply make my ideas known, but then again so do you. Will anyone not admit to not being a free thinker? Actually we are being indoctinated all the time though will probably don't releise it in many secular ways, Adveristing etc. In my econmics class we have a very large and vocal American teacher who is Keyensian socilist with strong poltical opinions. I once joked he Kulanising ( his isname Kulan ) us but he said "hey but this is truth isn't it. " Truth whose truth? No doubt people in my class would tun out with quiet different opioions had they had different monertrist or not quiet so vocal teacher. For instance is teaching people to Beilve in truth and juctice indoctination surely no comman sense. What about truth juctise and the American way how about truth juctice American way and manfest destiny ( excuse to get rid of Indians ) this sound more like indocination doesn't it after whose justice for who issue are ethic reilgion and are never very clear cut or simple. Is the peauading someone of existance of god indocination? the possibilty of the existance of god? the possiblity of the non exitance of god? the absolute certain unshakable non existance an impossibilty of god? soud the same as the first one Indeed the more one talk about something the more on beileves in it Hilter said say something enought and they beileive it he was almost right. I once did debate on caining an by the end of it I half convinced myself the cain really should come back " self indoctination " no doubt a simular process of under way here that include you Peter if your are so bright try taking up relgious perspective for a change doing your very best to defend it against someone else and dont just surrender after a few words. Reversing an opionion in its self is always interesting and often revealing. Objective truth are very hard to assign to god are very hard for instance saying that god had such and such and such powers means he has just very powerful being and so not god. And so one has to come up unimaginable word like oimiptiant and eternal which while they are words they are unimginable. Certainly relgion should not be afraid of objective truths. But any desicion on beleif in god or not is intensely subjective though no doubt you would say it is objective. Please forgive mistakes - 19:41:24 on 12 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->CHARLES...sorry to hear about the dylexia, but to help yourself, and those of us interested in reading your posts, maybe you could type your messages in a "word" program, do a spell check, and then copy and paste over here? It would help us all. (lots of us do that) - 19:57:44 on 12 May 98 GMT

Carl:CG: Per some jewish religious sites which I have visited, the wise saying of the xtian-jesus were things already said by others in jewish history- as it may be, and much of their "wise" sayings are rooted in africa. So what did that myth say? The answer is; it is just a story written and tuned to the times. Ingersol said that this "tuning" action by the religious believer is only that of resetting a slow running clock. Another wise thinker attributed that action to a thing referred to as just the human spirit, to that, I add it- that spirit, does so as it seeks to know and stay alive. - 20:11:53 on 12 May 98 GMT

Rob (I'll drink to that!):CHARLES: Are you sure it wasn't a toast you heard? - 20:13:33 on 12 May 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: What did you post that has brought CG's back hand upon you? Several of his posts to you have a smirkiness implied within them, why? CG says he's got some grey stuff stuck between his ears, but apparently you have managed to locate and hit on a raw nerve or sumthin'. - 20:46:31 on 12 May 98 GMT

Marlene:HEY RON- Yup! I planted those flowers in my greenhouse this year and I'll be putting them out in about two weeks. The weather be fine here in da nort. It was dry for a while but we've had rain for the last couple of days. Get out of town, tryin for these women is more than half the fun. - 21:00:41 on 12 May 98 GMT

Marlene..sucked right in:CHARLES- Shit! You could have fooled me! At 139, you still seem to be stupid! - 21:02:56 on 12 May 98 GMT

Marlene..slimmed, I'm sure:CHARLES- I forgot, BOOO! - 21:04:31 on 12 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:I feel some what out numbered here " a virtual daniel in lion den " as if one you guy had dropped in on the second vatican council and may have adondon effort due to lack of time and exam i.e every E - mail I send get at least 10 responces. It wasnt toast i heard I never toast bread and I in the was in house on my own in hoilday parents at work. Good Advice on Dylesia but remember it does'nt actually drecrease my intellgence just skew it so it mixed blessing or curse depend on circumstances. It must be remember that Juesus was building on Jewish routes and so not surprising that not everything he said was entirely orginal, and as for Afica well I know all about the Afica first lobby claims and while their is a lot truth in what they say. They do tend to try claim to much for them selves and black people. Everything from emotional coldness from the north and warm frinedship fom the south naturally enviromental conditioning despite the fact Siberains are friendly people, and fact Socrates was Black for absolutely no reason what so ever bases on no evidence. One greatest strenghts and weakness of jesus is his vaugness that mean that you can have wild interpetions, but it can also adapt to the times leaving as much open to indvidual as possible. Unlike say Islam that is more less set in rock and subsquently ossifing. I also doubt you can call Jesus just a story cristianity did'nt just materilis out of no where he was fact. Who and what he was is open for debate but it is streaching it with claim that Paul invented him christianity or anything else like that. - 21:05:55 on 12 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:Peter I only point it out because I some what unwise and incorrect to assume you are more intellegent than everyone else you talk to. Everyone natural find some people stupid some times in staight understanding of facts or life. But it take character and courage to reconize one own faults and weaknesses and when you are stupid for instance I hopless and languages and music and don't always make points clearly and could work harder. Maline I am some what unimpressed at your unstanbiated opioion, BOOO to you to well don't mean to be rude but..., I mean intially I did look for a Burglar but I mean I might doubt my self, if I was in dark room in thunder storm but playing the chaos engine shotting bad guys? - 21:17:14 on 12 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:Peter I only point it out because I some what unwise and incorrect to assume you are more intellegent than everyone else you talk to. Everyone natural find some people stupid some times in staight understanding of facts or life. But it take character and courage to reconize one own faults and weaknesses and when you are stupid for instance I hopless and languages and music and don't always make points clearly and could work harder. Maline I am some what unimpressed at your unstanbiated opioion, BOOO to you to well don't mean to be rude but..., I mean intially I did look for a Burglar but I mean I might doubt my self, if I was in dark room in thunder storm but playing the chaos engine shotting bad guys? - 21:18:12 on 12 May 98 GMT

Carl:CG: As for the Paul thing, are you familiar with that book i inquired of yesterday? "Christianity the making of a myth, etc." As for the factualness of the jc storybook character, so it is only that you say it was in fact a person. Was that jc thing like a mohamet guy? A real thing that circumstances have in time allowed to happen? You are not in some mythical lions den, you are however among folks who prefer to question, doubt and think. Lions den, what nonsense! - 21:26:36 on 12 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->CHARLES..so does this mean that every noise for which we do not find the source should be assumed to be a ghost? Should I laugh or cry? - 22:00:24 on 12 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:Carl I was just as joky reference biblical reference but you must admit, I am outnumbered. I heard about a debate on the Paul question apartently the Paul bloke put up a good fight but other wider basis guy had several point to counter everyone of the pro Paul bloke don't ask me about it I just heard about the debate it was some time ago maybe your book was written by him it just a point, nothing more not Torah but you sould accept that would'nt you. Momedamed yes he existed along with Budda Confisious etc but as to where he got Koran from whole different story. What do you claim Jesus is fictional character sorry who made him up mattew mark luke and john. Hey doubt is agonistism denial is atheism. i feeling I being accused of being interverted and small minded again. - 22:01:36 on 12 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL...I was watching a program about Paul on the History channel this weekend. Most interesting, and fortunately, they really showed how what is said about him in the bible is completely different from his own writings. - 22:03:35 on 12 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->CHARLES..please use "copy and paste" as I suggested, as you are opening yourself up to ridicule. Remember, God help those that help themselves. If you won't then you may have to explain certain things. For starters, who is "Momedamed"? (I think I know to whom you are referring, but I do not want to assume anything) - 22:11:24 on 12 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:No of course of not but in this case it was human and could have come from no other logical source. Any suggestions for your self are of course welcome. Unexplained is you see different from unexplainable. i.e fertitive movement in bushs is probably just a rabbit. A tap on the shoulder in locked and empty room is not. You see only when take out the impossible only what is left must be true. Of course if you have other possibles please tell me. PS it was not the TV from next door and Ok it not much of ghost sighting or hearing I admit but its first hand unlike other more dramatic experience. I respect an ardent skeptic but remember do not close your mind to the possibilties. laugh cry does it really matter?? - 22:12:17 on 12 May 98 GMT

Marline aka Marlene:IMO, Paul created xtianity, silly morals and all. CHARLES- Your about as entertaining as the guy with the holy keyboard, lol. - 22:12:24 on 12 May 98 GMT

Marlene:CHARLES- I have a suggestion. Maybe your huge 139 IQ'd brain is also creating surges of grossly overactive imaginings. - 22:15:18 on 12 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:I dispair we are getting in insult country now did'nt Paul say that when someone had lot the argument I thought you were doing so well. Well I am leaving bye guys and gals and keep thinking and not just in one direction. - 22:16:41 on 12 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->CHARLES...before you go, why do you assume it was the ghost of a human? Couldn't it have been the ghost of a pet dog or some such thing? I think you are taking the easy way out. "If I can't explain it, then it is supernatural, therefore there is a god". - 22:32:10 on 12 May 98 GMT

Arnold:This Just In - Reported in Anews listserv (American Atheists) from an article in Church & State magazine - Christians are organizing to oppose the gorgoyle craze. It seems that gorgoyles (like those put on old cathedrals) are becoming popular again. This is no doubt resulting from the Steven King, Ann Rice gothic silliness that is currently in vogue. A new store which was specializing in selling the gorgoyles got evicted from a mall due to pressure from Christian groups. Also, a planned library has been under pressure to change its design due to the plan to have gorgoyles as decoration. Gee, I know they look spooky but . . . - 22:32:33 on 12 May 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Its too bad that I missed that program! When I watch such stuff I like listening to the means and ways that interested partys try to pitch for their views. The politics of such presentations are always fun to watch take form. CG, your lighter side has been noted I'll match the graph and laugh as needed in the future. - 22:40:05 on 12 May 98 GMT

Marlene...:ARNOLD- Now don't be putting down Anne Rice or Stephen King! I read everything they write! I think those gorgoyles are rather cute and if they piss off the xtian community, I say, let's mass produce the things! CHARLES- Your better off with your ghosts. - 22:56:41 on 12 May 98 GMT

Melissa:CHARLES GRAHAM: IQ tests are a sham. And that's not an opinion. But I don't feel like wasting time proving it to you today (or shattering your confidence in your "high intellect"). 139 (oh, and 160 in some places)??!! Sorry, not too impressed. By the way, perhaps you should take the advice you gave Peter - don't assume you're more intelligent than everyone else. For example, your comment to Peter stating, "Well I have read more books than you have had hot dinners." That's an uninformed assumption, bucko. How do YOU know how many books Peter's read, or any of the people visiting this site for that matter? It seems to me YOU are the one who is "smug" and egomaniacal. Also, you make a lot of inane goddamned assumptions about the intelligence and opinions of most of the atheists on this site and it pisses me right off. For example you state, "But any desicion on beleif in god or not is intensely subjective though no doubt you would say it is objective." I don't know to whom the word "you" in this statement is referring, but I certainly do not claim belief in God or any god is NECESSARILY derived through objective means. On the contrary, belief in god can ONLY be attained through SUBJECTIVE means. An objective examination of reality does NOT suggest a god, so a subjective examination is the only route to heaven. So please, stop stereotyping and making blind assumptions that serve to inflate your already oversized ego. Come, join the rest of us here on earth, if the feel of the dew-stamped grass does not offend the righteous sensibilities of your bare foot. - 23:37:13 on 12 May 98 GMT

Rob (Why does the toast always land the wrong way??? Spooky...):CHARLES: 160 in some places? Like where, NewFoundland? ;) No, just kidding (as with the "toast", its just I am a bit cynical as I have had a lot of theists claim to be dyslexic -one even said he was blind- as if it excuses them from explaining thenselves, as there are ample means for correcting spelling errors). Anyway, what I want to know was what led you to the conclusion it was a human ghost. Did you just feel a tap or was there more??? - 23:58:38 on 12 May 98 GMT

Rob (small medium at large???):...I could be facetious and say how do you know it wasn't a sink ;) But I'm trying to be nice... - 0:02:44 on 13 May 98 GMT

Joette...O Canada:-->ROB..it's Newfoundland (no capital "F"), and leave our poor Newfies out of the conversation you bigot. - 0:16:01 on 13 May 98 GMT

jaywilson--Tut,Tut:ROB: Are those who study Egyptian plumbing known as Pharaoh Faucet Majors? - 0:49:21 on 13 May 98 GMT

Marlene:JAYWILSON- Flakey, Flakey, how about Canadian weatherman, Hank Snow OR Junk at the Pump, Volkswagon scrapdealer, Eddie Rabbit OR.. - 1:39:37 on 13 May 98 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- Very well said! - 1:41:01 on 13 May 98 GMT

Marlene..dyslex je vous:ROB- I was thinking the same thing. Who WAS that last dyslexic? - 1:43:51 on 13 May 98 GMT

James--->All...:Hey folks, hope you don't mind the hit and run hello, but as usual I have more things to do than can be done in a single lifetime and I am still hoping for another when I'm done with this one. Anyway, jumped a few more rungs on the latter recently and now my work/responsibility load is seemingly impossible. Good news is that I would not have it any other way. I love overcoming impossible odds. Bad news is that I have very little time to play. Seriously though, I've been looking to the skies waiting for the aliens, catching all the sci-fi flicks I can, and really getting pumped for the return of our creators. LOL. I don't know, is just me or does it make more sense that if we were genetically engineered to do hard labor in the mines, wouldn't our bodies have been made to be a little less fragile? And, haven't we proven that machinery is much more efficient? Oh well, some people have God, some people have aliens. Who are we to judge? Hope everyone is doing well. I'll check back in a bit. Have to scrub down the boys and get them to bed. Hey Ron, think you could snap that black belts neck? - 1:45:36 on 13 May 98 GMT

James--->All...:looks like I missed everyone...see ya soon and take care - 2:53:44 on 13 May 98 GMT

Marlene..:JAMES! Just logged on and now I bet I've missed you. As far as genetic engineering goes, I have to admit that it does make a little more sense than the idea of a god. Your right, though, if I were to create a miner, I would have made he/she/it more like a machine than a human. - 3:21:40 on 13 May 98 GMT

rOB:CHARLES.G...Do you think that morality was/is decisive with Jesus? But according to all the gospels, Jesus was exceedingly vague about the conduct required of man. Being vague is easy and convenient; is it fortuitous or does it somehow help or suit the one who is vague? With jesus and the heaven/hell notions--it remains deeply perplexing that he should have seen fit to give such equivocal directions (of the narrow path and the way to hell). Those disciples who heard his every word felt much less sure of what was wanted than did st. Paul, WHO HAD NEVER HEARD JESUS PREACH- and confronted with Paul's impassioned certainty they were uterly unable to present any clear alternative. Luther and others were able to say in all honesty that they thought Jesus' demands were meant merely to make man aware of his utter inability to do the good and to teach man that his only hope lay in faith. Why is jesus the moral genius when there is no agreement on his moral teachings, nor even on the question whether he thought that man could aspire to goodness at all?? Do we need a supernatural pat on the back or a kick to an uncomfortable place to reassure ourselves of this great moral genius?? Now with Paul, specific beliefs were moved into the center as requirements for salvation: DOGMA BECAME ESSENTIAL. DOGMA (dangerous---oppresive-grasable-mayhem-assimilation) might be well served to the subjective plates! - 8:31:13 on 13 May 98 GMT

rOB:CHARLES. G.. A full rigorism was attempted by Kierkegaard--> in his comments on Socrates' attitude toward the immorality of the soul, in his Concluding Unscientific Postscript. KIERKEGAARD'S FORMULA for this approach -'truth is subjective' which has been criticized--it would be far less misleading to say that truth is sacrificed to strong conviction.---this is my ethic, i feel deeply and strongly about it --therefore it must have been the ethic of jesus. How the subjective plate is always being filled WITH DECEPTION! - 8:44:45 on 13 May 98 GMT

Robert T. Lee: -- By Robert T. Lee------------ "Honor your father and your mother..." "You shall not murder." "You shall not steal." "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" (Exodus 20:12-13,15,16). Those are just four of God's holy TEN COMMANDMENTS which He has made every person of mankind responsible to obey (Romans 3:19). Atheists foolishly deny that God is the Author of the TEN COMMANDMENTS. They say that an human authored them. Some atheists even deny that the TEN COMMANDMENTS exist (Romans 2:14-15). So, lets assume (in order to prove a point here) that the atheists are right. If a human did author them (and I speak as if insane), then we know for sure that no atheist, agnostic nor any other unbeliver had sense enough to author them. Why is that so? Because atheists are OPPOSED to GOD and His Holy COMMANDMENTS. And again, they even say the TEN COMMANDMENTS don't exist. So if a human authored them, it was a person who had far more intelligence than any atheist, agnostic or unbeliever has. This proves again the Divine Authorship of the TEN COMMANDMENTS. ~~~~~~ "Atheists are like roaches. Any true Christian can always squish them by the things they take refuge under." (Robert T. Lee) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --digsig Robert T. Lee 32bET1pN34HbDJ9hzITqseVX0v1k6R8ybxtVQr6nRfm hS3UHCq78DEsv7oCC6PVllyiG9IsQeQuCYEnsDUJ 4BMEhQT74l+p90TLWmvOaDNFaZGyQ5VRTOWYwWxIg - 12:28:39 on 13 May 98 GMT

PETER:--Robert T. Lee--Are you going to return and perhaps engage in some discussion? To appear occaisionally, making bold statements as the one above only is poor reflection on your part. If you want to defend a position, stick around and defend it. Also, implying that atheists are fools only shows a prejudicial attitude on your part. I can assure you, statements such as these will not gain you any respect, if you show none to those who you address. If you decide to stick around and engage in some mature and intellectual discussion, you will find that there aren't many fools around here--that is if you take the time to discover this for yourself. - 13:17:14 on 13 May 98 GMT

Rob (There really is a Dog):JOETTE: I'm afraid I don't qualify for the status of bigot as they were not my prejudices that that comment subscribed to. I apologise for any spelling mistakes though, as my guide dog does all the typing (and I don't know what the Labrador Sea). Marlene: I think Mr "round-eyed pigs" might have been the last dyslexic theist here, though with him it may well have only been the language barrier. JAYWILSON: Talking of Egyptian plumbers, is it true that riddle of the Sphynx ends up in denile? - 14:13:40 on 13 May 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: who is the R.LEE that deposits here, such thoughtless compost? - 14:19:53 on 13 May 98 GMT

RON...--->STEVEN...: Since I have been ravaged by another divorce (last year) I no longer play games, or watch TV. When my subsciption to Computer Gaming World dies, so will my long running childhood. I am concentrating on ME and the things I always wanted to do. I'm having a blast living a full life learning with every step. I was the only person who could heal my wounds and I'm doing a good job (I think). I will be free.... - 14:30:08 on 13 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Carl...:I must agree, God loves the weak, the stupid, the broken hearted. - 14:35:01 on 13 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Marlene...: Great!! I'm glad you like them. Every place needs a little bit of Texas. I wish I could leave town....working on it. - 14:36:42 on 13 May 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: On a curious moment, of R.LEE's post since there is no such thing as a "true xtian"- because there is no evidence for a godthing nor certainty of a fabled jc nor a resurrection nor anything supernatural, an atheist need never be concerned at being squashed by an imaginary being such as a true xtian. - 15:22:48 on 13 May 98 GMT

Steven:RON<<>>I am glad things are looking up... Don't ever give up being a child. I think when you start saying your grown up and past having fun, life is over. :] - 15:36:31 on 13 May 98 GMT

Rob (Beware those men in tights..):CARL: You might like to check out this link to one of Mr Lee's children's sites. My fave is Commandment 6, subsection 22. - 16:56:30 on 13 May 98 GMT

Carl:ROB: If there is evidence of anything that site represents at least the beginning- alpha(?), for insanity- omega(?). - 17:29:19 on 13 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:Robert T lee Honestly insult really let down the side, I am sorry insult really won't gain a freind or adherents. I.Q test are limt yes but this onwas very proffesional an so better than most. Ok if you making if feel better i am really stupid. Rob : it seem I addressing you Kielguard point was far more attack on Cartiesin ( Decartes ) notion of reality attacking his basic foundation of Congentio Ego Sum by point out the conlfict between the actual and unrealised within the mind ( I work from memory here I may be wrong ) Hence point out the as all reailty is up to question on has to take certian " Beleif " in order to be certain of Chair and table let alone move on to god which I am sure you will scream is an entirely different matter. ( I not defining you away here ok by traping you in layers of belief ) Its also worth pointing out that objective truths are only just so until the a new piece of evidence has come out or new theory this no cristism of the sientific method though. Just pointing out some ojective truth for one era become sujective for another. Enistien partially overthrew the seemingly objective truths of Neuton that were find for people in the 19th C. Paul was a contempary of Jesus and was very much have access to far greater first hand information than others say today. So to say he entirely writing on his own is not true, certainly as he once point out I think to collsesion your not my follow but Jesus a worthy point that many religious leaders should try and remember. I do admit Paul does perhaps reflects some of his own consertive or at least contempary preduices in his letters like in his attitude to gays however this only a minor aspect. Of course any widely taken up subject or person has it interpetions and ideas like at look at Hegel leading 19c philospher - left hegelain right hegelian new hegelian etc and Marx too many intertation to mention just reel off few comminist leaders or intellecuals if you wish. Economics - Classical keyensian Monertrist, neo classical neo kenysian. I could go on as Christiaity has some 1.5 billion follows their bound to be disagreements. Or as some might LIKE ( though not you people )to put they are on different paths to the same truth. - 17:39:09 on 13 May 98 GMT

rOB:CHARLES... Yes with Paul, he brought much dogma into Christian beliefs by means of his subjectivity. With the Saul-to Paul transformation, is it not another vague and convenient working of spreading dogma? Yes , Kierkegaard said that subjectivity and by taking up the cross daily is the way to go Christians. Kierkegaard again and again speaks of propositions, and he is guilty of a multiple confusion. We can believe something sincerely and with certainty, and it may make us happy-and be FALSE.. Talk of subjective truth suggests that objective truth is , after all, not everything, and that is true enough. But objective truth it is all the truth there is. - 18:08:22 on 13 May 98 GMT

rOB:CHARLES.. What distinguishes knowledge is not certainty but evidence...Subjective truth means that something is true for me-->witness Kierkegaard writings. It is interesting the moving away or continuing disregad for objective truths of the religious, but that is their privilege...Subjectivity and objectivity are a part of the structure of us humans, but at least objective truths do not deceive in this day to day reality. Speaking of reality, jesus said that his kingdom is not of this world. Again an extremely vague statement which has limitless subjective interpretations. - 18:19:20 on 13 May 98 GMT

rOB:CHARLES............Kierkegaard said also that it was utterly absurd to base evidence on faith. But the impression given is that there is some sort of virtue in believing without evidence as such. BUT the doors are always open to superstition, madness etc. Spinoza once said that for him, who is truly wise, 'blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself'. I think that is as pure a statement on virtue one can make without fostering grace-attachment virtues on others in this life. - 18:33:15 on 13 May 98 GMT

Melissa:CHARLES GRAHAM: Somehow I knew you'd focus on my remark regarding IQ tests and ignore the real gist of my statement. I wasn't implying that you are stupid because IQ tests are not all that valid (even the really professional ones, whatever that means), so knock that chip off your shoulder. Yeah, it sounds like you've read a lot, especially a lot of philosophy. But have you CRITICALLY THOUGHT about everything you've read, or do you just assimilate the information and then spout it all out in an argument based on the assumption that it is all valid, then claim that all of these philosophers have great points and therein lies the dilemma, that the ways of the cosmos must therefore be unknowable? Then you claim there is no such thing as ABSOLUTE TRUTH, or OBJECTIVE TRUTH (whatever "objective truth" is), because all these guys see things different ways. You claim "objective truths are only just so until the a new piece of evidence has come out or new theory". Here's a concept for you: Science does not deal in truth, objective or otherwise. Science deals in facts, laws, theories, etc; and, yes, those facts, theories, laws, etc. are malleable, even quite squishy. And science does not guarantee that said facts, laws, theories were derived through objective means. It would like them to have been, sure, but when your scientists are human, i.e., highly subjective, well, you take what you get and hope the other humans are able to THINK FOR THEMSELVES OBJECTIVELY and find the errors, thus laying another stone in the road to that ABSOLUTE TRUTH (which is out there, somewhere). It seems to me you've got a bunch of gobbledegook in your head and you've yet to organize it into any comprehensible form. But, hey, maybe you like it that way. Mayhap chaos satisfies you, agnosticism is YOUR friend. Why, it precludes thinking for oneself, sifting through the crap to find the gem. I guess some people are just lazy that way. - 18:46:13 on 13 May 98 GMT

Melissa:ROB: "But objective truth it is all the truth there is" My point exactly (though I'd say "absolute" instead of "objective" as objective and subjective pertain to the human ways of gathering knowledge, while truth is truth is truth is truth). We may never know for ABSOLUTE certainty, but: either there is a god, or there is not; either I am or I am not; either the big bang theory and evolution explain the genesis and the propogation of life, or not. Such is the nature of ABSOLUTE TRUTH. All else in between is pure speculation on our part, all subjective. - 18:59:46 on 13 May 98 GMT

Carl:MELISSA: But to not say that they don't know, the religiously inclined make the noise g-o-d instead. Agnostics being whatever they are, go after the only option left to them and if they still hold an inclination for a godthing they muddleup whatever humanity says. Humans saying, is that not knowledge? Agnostics seemingly prefer to isolate aspects of things known of, and this is also interestingly typical of a religious believer! I think that such individuals, agnostics and theists, prefer similar mental acts of isolated thought processes just because it means they do not have exercise a rigorous thinking process. Say the word g-o-d or pick a particular area of thought and that is their vista for their existence. To be a religious believer, especially as that site ROB attributes to Mr.lee as evidence for preferences of mindlessness, religious believers must "want" to be as animals. As a teenager my morning and evening chores were to feed the animals, hell I musta'beena'god to the livestock. The cattle horses sheep and dogs "knew" that as long as they stayed in their pens and inside the fenced pastures and didn't pull free of their collars they'd be fed and treated right, just like havin'faith in a god, ain't it? - 19:15:05 on 13 May 98 GMT

RON...--->STEVEN...: Oh, I have only given up those habits which do not enlighten me, raise my awareness, or teach to me. I am on track for my M.C.S.E., I'm learning horse back riding again (I want to ride on the beach), Tie Chi, and I'm having a retired corporate president tutor me on life. I'm just broke. Brenda is teaching me a whole new meaning to patience. - 20:14:49 on 13 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Marlene...: HA HA HA..."are malleable, even quite squishy", HA HA HA...you kill me! Nice post though. - 20:25:10 on 13 May 98 GMT

Steven:RON<<>> Tie Chi will be great for you. If you have the opportunity, harders styles of martial arts work well with Tie Chi. Kempo, Kung Fu (Northern and Southern), etc. etc. I hope you are enjoying it. - 20:31:15 on 13 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham: Oh boy this get complex rob mesilina this get a little complex I think I may have take some time to mull over this but hey I have given up just 2 minutes ago, I thought up way round the absolute truth. - 21:02:57 on 13 May 98 GMT

RON...--->STEVEN...:Tie Chi is going well and my instructor has made comments as to how smooth I am for such an old fart (36). I have written previously about my other instructor (the female) she's a joy to watch during stretching. (WOW) - 21:18:05 on 13 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->RON..even with your own evolution, you are still a pig! - 21:45:39 on 13 May 98 GMT

Marlene:RON- Wrong person! I weren't me. Are you also stretching, hummmm??? - 22:09:13 on 13 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROBERT T LEE. Before we can discuss the ten commandmnts let's clear the playing field. I have a few questions. 1. How old is the earth and how old is the human race? 2. What do you believe is the origin of mankind? 3. Do you believe that dinosaurs once walked the earth and if so how long ago? Once you answer these simple basic questions we can go on from there. Frankly, I don't think you will answer them. Prove me weong. - 23:33:41 on 13 May 98 GMT

ANON:TEST - 9:42:26 on 14 May 98 GMT

Steven:ANON....is that a negative? - 12:46:48 on 14 May 98 GMT

-->E.T. (aka Rosey ROB)...PHONE HOME! - 14:23:56 on 14 May 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Having bookmarked the site of atheist chat and messages, its becoming apparent that the religonuts assume the position that they can say as they please due to the relatively recent appearance of science as it is now known, and just forty one years since the first so-called space flight. When the religious spokesman issues the view that humans are religious-like, naturally, perhaps they think so because upon a time comparison, 41 years of science to 15,000 of primitive savage time! So, is it any wonder that anybody, typically thr religious, can come up and promote a thing as "creation science"? These religous folks they mean to make sure that everyone stays in their pens, within their fenced pastures and for some, even a collar still in place, means everybody gets fed, i.e., what they want. - 14:46:37 on 14 May 98 GMT

"Now let me see," the Golux said. "If you can touch the clocks and never start them, then you can start the clocks and never touch them. That's logic, as I know and use it...." -- James Thurber, "The 13 Clocks" - 17:53:07 on 14 May 98 GMT

transmaniacon MC:By silverfish imperetrix, whose incorrupted eye Sees through the charms of doctors and their wives By salamander, drake, and the power that was undine Rise to claim Saturn, ring and sky By those who see with their eyes closed you'll know me by my black telescope Before my great conversion when the ridge was closed Before my visit to the workshop of telescopes - 18:06:20 on 14 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham: Carl you really are worse than relgious bigot well at least as bad as your are an athiest bigot well you seem to be. Further more your reasoning is flawed and limited as is your knowledge did sience start 40 years ago a primative steam engine was invented in 300BC the sientific methord 350 hundred years ago by Bacon and others before him. You are just so wrong its easy to laugh at you. My parent feed and look after me well for a few months more anyway and so according your reasoning as relgious person who want to be animal MOOOOOOO they must be my god???????? Has to occured to that it just as possible to be small mind dogmatic athiest as a small minded dogmatic relgious person. Robert E lee call you coach roach, and so you claim he wants to be an animal well insults aside this no way foward. You can be misguided mistaken even niave but when you say relgionious people must want to be animal you cross the line. Off course this might be not be true and don't want to offend you too much or get into a shouting match to come a conclution about you would be small minded of me. Now Rob Melsinna about your points. Acutally I havn't read that much mostly introductions to these people I only 18 after all! You say Paul is dogmatic well remember Dogmatic is just another ACCUSATION word used by people when applied to someone elses fixed tenants of life though often used in reglious context to attack relgion in general or another sect. Ones persons dogma is another person values in any case it so right even in secualar sence that one values sould disperce and reform and dance to the worlds fastionalbe moral tune is'nt their something to said for permenance and universals. Now about Aboslute truth Melsinna you claim that I guilty of not thinking critically or being orginal but here something entirely of my own. You assue that absolute truths are only truths their are. i.e objective truths like in siense or other fields do not exist and are merely conjecture and so currantly we have no truths and will never have any because absolute truths is impossible now follow as explain some objections to it. Aboslute truth requires total knowledge of all existance from the beginning to end of time and so we would only have absolute truth of all existance in the last non existant micro second of universe. In order to have absoltue truth you must have absolute knowledge. Now absolute knowledge would not fit on my hard disk a further more absolute knowledge requires a recording devise to collect it tranform the data to information from which this mythical truth can be obtain. It would have to many almost infinte number of time larger than the orginal object exisitance and so in order to have absolute knowledge you would need to know about your recording devise for which you would require something larger and so on etc. Further more absolute knowledge about some subject is impossible let take maths what is value of pie. Infinte of course like a dog chase it own tail such a value is impossible to reach and yet just like anything else it exists say it end a one zillion and their always the next number just waiting to be said. Another example is square route of two, and wider context is has already been demostrated by Easter in the mathermatics early in the century. Can one or course really ever reach a total truth about astetics and morals. Are these merely man made subjects that one can have no absolute truth about it one may be given a lot data but to say that X and Y = Z but it is a long way from saying john killed mathew and so john SHOULD values here. Further more abslute knowledge or truth is impossible for humans due to lack intellegence, creativity and memory of which we have limit resourses off. While their may be being with greater intellgence but their knowledge will of alway be limited. Of course their also the objections that a lot knowledge and data required for absolute truth has already gone by in the past and any attempt to observe it would destroy ourselves. So summerise Absolute truth is impossble because of. ( 1 ) It could only take place end of time. ( 2 )The oberver would have to be greater than oberved ( 3 ) Some questions have no final answers by definition ( Pie ). ( 4 ) Some questions have no answer becuase reach responce to it by essance subjective asthelic ethics it happens yes but is it god bueatiful right? ( 5 ) Humans and other beings are essentially limited and so can not reach absolute truth. Niether can anyone else, remember we don't know one millionith of one percent about anything. that was at turn of the centruy with total knowledge accessalbe doubling each year we now know even less. ( 6 ) Much knowledge and truth has already gone past. Already that six objection overthrow them and will go back drawing board and come up with some more I still have one or two left in reserve. Oh here another good one. How can one tell when you have reached aboslute truth when their might be another layer of reality and life when the meathofical scale will fall from our eyes. Of course the only person who could have absolute truth is er well god or being with gods power who would be er well God is this leading somewhere. So assume you are saying absolute truth is only sort of truth opinion is all we have left now and for ever as have proved in as much has anything can be. That leave Opinions and how do we form those. On the basis of our read and experiences and who and what we already are what we see and here on TV or in real life, which gives our our own UNIQUE and INDUVIDUAL views of life in such matter asathetic moral relgion, econmics, population managment, politics etc. Which is a SUBJECTIVE opinon/truth i.e based around the subject you or me. Of course somethings are of course more subjective than others. I would have a hard time arguing 2 + 2 + 4 an objective truth/opionon as this is based around very few varibles but as we lack absolute truth how can I be sure, but as to weather Bill Clinton is liar or Tony Blair is just a P.R job ( and then their the defintion of words what the abosulute truth behind P.R that is their a perfect idea of P.R ( hey here comes plato ) ) thse are questions based around so many different knowns and unknowns and many different processes lines of reasoning. Remember " THOSE WHO KNOW DO NOT SAY THOSE WHO SAY DO NOT KNOW " taoist saying if you must know. Well I think that enough for now. Now the odd and ends " my kingdom is not of this world " interesting I would have thought that it mean that he not Miltary Messiah leader some jews were looking for. Spinoza let see he was certain right about this, however when you attack Christian for merely being interested in getting into heaven, think how many secualar people a merely salving their secular coniousness or bathing in the glory a do gooder gets. Jesus have some good advice here make charitable donations in private. If you attack the grammer it mean you car't find anything better to attack. - 18:31:03 on 14 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Charles: "The bigger the explaination, the bigger the lie." -- Chinese Proverb - 20:01:37 on 14 May 98 GMT

PETER----Charles:--So if absolute truth is impossible, none of what you are saying is absolutely true then, is it? And if it cannot be shown to be true, how much of it IS true? By the the parameters you set, all knowledge will be unattainable...... Also, which of these statements is true? An atheist is (a) a person who does not believe in the existence of a god (b) a person who denies that that a god does or cannot exist ( c ) a person who doesn't believe that a god exists, but doesn't rule out the possibility that someone, someday, somehow, can show that a god does exist ( d ) Some one who has never heard of God, and therefore doesn't believe in one--just because he has no knowledge of the concept of God........ The reason I am asking this question is to save you from a lot of time, effort and embarassment while you needlessly beat a straw man to death here. - 20:35:33 on 14 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:Good point Y - It ( are you chinese? ) in certain cirstances but a few points. " I was explaining serveral points and questions not one " " Complex subjects require complex answers to cover complex positions " " How can I lie about something I myself am not certain about I present a opioion back it up with a few arguements and leave it to be challenged after all if I lie tell we where is you disagree argue if you do not understand ask me if you agree then that makes me happy " " I am not dogmatic in as much as anyone is. If I simply wanted to have my views confirmed why would I be here on athiest page " " The 20th century has been a time simple solution to complex questions " " Sound bites slogan catch phases, they can seem to say can so much and yet explain so little. " - 20:36:12 on 14 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:Peter no it isnt absolute trueful, but it trueful in as I can make it true. Melsissa point about absolute truth, makes making statement about truth virtually impossible. So by discounting absolute truth as aim were back with the old subjective objective truth/ opionin oe could start talk about reasonable doubt here. ( A )An athiest ( B ) A some what more dogmatic athiest I think this type go bit to far. ( C ) A agnotic learning on atheist. Other sort of agnotic can't quite belive in god or leave it open to question, their probably infinte number leval of doubt here. " ( D ) Someone not directly described by the relgious spectum of thought. Straw man? - 20:49:13 on 14 May 98 GMT

WORD, SPELL CHECK, COPY, PASTE...REPEAT AFTER ME - WORD, SPELL CHECK, COPY, PASTE - 22:20:56 on 14 May 98 GMT

go away go away go away go away - 22:30:02 on 14 May 98 GMT

Melissa:CHARLES GRAHAM: Well, I'm only 21 after all!! I remember when I was 18 I was a smidge pretentious also, but age is no excuse for ignorance. If you've only been introduced to the philosophies of these men, don't go repeating little maxims that caught your fancy without having a full understanding of the complete doctrine they preach. That's just damned irresponsible. If you haven't already, why don't you introduce yourself to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Of special interest may be _The Virture of Selfishness_. And while you're at it, introduce yourself to the book, _Atheism: The Case Against God_. Once you've gained some knowledge about the atheist position from sources other than Marx and Camus(and his existentialist buddies), then come back and preach your rhetoric. 'Til then, remember, you're only 18 and you don't know everything. - 22:55:36 on 14 May 98 GMT

PETER:--Charles--(A)Is actually the definition of an atheist, however,if A is true then so is B, C, and D. So, A,B,C,D are all descriptions of different atheists. (B) Is a critical explicit atheist (C) Is a non-critical explicit atheist and ( D ) is an implicit atheist. Charles, if you don't "agree" with these terms, as I know many do not because it contradicts what there idea has "always been" of an atheist ( as if this is a legitimate determining factor ) It's just that most people don't actually know the actual definition of one. These are the divisions as defined by the International Society of Philosophical Inquiry, and those are the ones I will use as well. - 22:56:05 on 14 May 98 GMT

PETER:--Melissa--At this time, I don't think I could recommend two better books for Charles to read. Also, Charles, if you feel ambitious, check out another Rand book, this one a novel--"Atlas Shrugged." Also, as Melissa points out--you don't know everything, and nor does anyone else--and the older I get, and the more I read--the more I realize all the things I DON'T know, and I'm in my 40's - 23:05:49 on 14 May 98 GMT

Melissa:CHARLES GRAHAM: Not done with you yet. You just don't get it do you?? I'll say it again, SCIENCE DOES NOT DEAL IN TRUTHS, OBJECTIVE OR OTHERWISE. There is TRUTH, of which we seek knowledge, and there are FACTS, LAWS, THEORIES, which we use as the stepping stones. Have you ever heard the proverb about the word "ASSUME"? It makes an "ass-" out of "u" and "me". So, stop assuming and READ what I am saying. You say I assume that absolute truths are the only truths, but this is not an assumption. In fact the phrase "ABSOLUTE truth" is redundant. Truth is truth is truth, period; it is by nature ABSOLUTE. It answers any question with a simple "yes" or "no", something either IS or it IS NOT. There is no grey area in truth. O.K., got it?? You claim that absolute truth requires knowledge of all existence from beginning to end. WRONG. That is a requirement of absolute KNOWLEDGE, not truth. Truth exists independent of any observer, any explorer. It doesn't care if you are trying to find it or not. So, now that this first ASSUMPTION (that word again!!) of yours is dismantled, the rest of your little speech is meaningless, though I agree, human beings will probably never gain enough knowledge to be able to claim they have touched the truth of all existence. But we can find the little truths here and there about bits and pieces of life. As far as morality, I think there is an ABSOLUTE, and that is based on the selfishness of DNA, or life in general. But that is a conversation for another time. P.S. I don't think Jesus had anything good to contribute to morals. The morals he preached were based on the doctrine of self-sacrifice and the denial of reality in preference of an afterlife where subjugation is a virtue. Thanks, but no thanks. - 23:22:28 on 14 May 98 GMT

Melissa:CHARLES GRAHAM: It is your own monologue about absolute truth that makes discussing truth impossible. You confuse absolute truth with absolute knowledge, thus confounding your own argument. I was merely distinguishing the difference between truth (being independent of a consciousness searching for it), and the tools of science: fact, theory, and law. They are not one in the same. - 23:28:45 on 14 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:PETER. a theist claims there is a supernatural being which he calls "God" who created the universe. An atheist is a person, such as myself, who refutes that claim. I see no purpose in using adjectives such as explicit or implicit. They add nothing to the basic definition. One is either an atheist or not an atheist. An agnostic is, on the other hand, a fence sitter who has not quite made up his mind. The fact that the International Society of Philosophical Inquiry uses those terms doesn't make them any more meaningful. There is no such thing as being a part time or 'maybe' atheist. It is similar to a woman saying she is a "little bit" pregnant. - 23:57:07 on 14 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROBERT T. LEE. All I did was to ask you three simple questions and you vanish from sight. It happens all the time. No deep philosophical questions, no discussion of the heavy tomes of the great minds past and present, just three lousy simple questions. I guess you were too embarrassed to answer them. - 0:09:54 on 15 May 98 GMT

PS..can you say "redundant"? - 0:31:40 on 15 May 98 GMT

PETER:--PAPA SAM--We have been over this before, and I have no interest in continuong this argument with. Oh, yes, I forgot you are over 80 years old, therefore whatever you have always thought what an atheist is--regardless of what the entire philosophical world accepts as true defintions--is correct. I apologize. - 2:16:08 on 15 May 98 GMT

Dave:Myself , an atheist don't much care for ann rand. - 3:54:08 on 15 May 98 GMT

dave:It's interesting to note that in the book'Why people believe weird things' objectivism is labeled the most unlikely cult.... - 4:20:45 on 15 May 98 GMT

Grant:DAVE-- Yeah, I read that too and was kinda surprised. What is it you don't like specifically? If people behave in a cult-like manner, does that have bearing on the philosophy? - 4:25:51 on 15 May 98 GMT

Dave :The author of the book, Mike Shermer sugest that ann rand is more concerned with her perscribed final answers than the process of attaining objective knowledge.--Thus may sence a personality cult. Your comments? - 4:35:45 on 15 May 98 GMT

Grant:DAVE-- I can see his point. I have a little problem with the attitude of having absolute answers. Her books were my introduction to reason in my teens, but I never thought she was very likeable as a person. Many of her views make a lot of sense to me though. One has to pick and choose, as always. - 4:41:04 on 15 May 98 GMT

Grant,please bear with me --this is the first time Iv'e tried out a chat room.At age 41, the word cult implies for me someone granting to much of their neocortical space to a manipulative person(s). I'd like to stick around, but I have to go to work shortly. - 4:48:47 on 15 May 98 GMT

Grant,please bear with me --this is the first time Iv'e tried out a chat room.At age 41, the word cult implies for me someone granting to much of their neocortical space to a manipulative person(s). I'd like to stick around, but I have to go to work shortly. - 4:48:50 on 15 May 98 GMT

Grant,please bear with me --this is the first time Iv'e tried out a chat room.At age 41, the word cult implies for me someone granting to much of their neocortical space to a manipulative person(s). I'd like to stick around, but I have to go to work shortly. - 4:48:51 on 15 May 98 GMT

Grant,please bear with me --this is the first time Iv'e tried out a chat room.At age 41, the word cult implies for me someone granting to much of their neocortical space to a manipulative person(s). I'd like to stick around, but I have to go to work shortly. - 4:48:52 on 15 May 98 GMT

Grant:Dave-- I think that a desire for absolute answers may be at the root of cultish behavior. Maybe it's natural for this to happen. I gotta go too. - 4:51:19 on 15 May 98 GMT

rOB:CHARLES...I was not in accusing mode; I merely stated that paul never heard jesus preach. I guess Christian dogmas were defined gradually as one controversy after another made it necessary to draw a line to guard against excessive disagreement. Convenience and ambiguity of dogma are essential for the fostering of it. I asked you what do you think of the Saul-to paul transformation ;IS this transformation already so vague even before Paul made his dogma attachments to jesus's teachings....AS others here told you to read Ayn Rand, another interesting book you should look at is her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. - 8:44:36 on 15 May 98 GMT

rOB:CHARLES... The beauty of that Spinoza quote that I mentioned does away with other peolpes interpretations of what virtue is! Spinoza stated that morality rests on a basis quite independent of the acceptance of the mind's Eternity. Virtue is its own reward, and needs no other.. His Tractatus Theologico-Politicus is an eloquent plea for religious liberty. True religion is shown to consist in the practice of simple piety. The elaborate systems of dogmas frammed by theologians ARE BASED ON SUPERSTITION, RESULTING FROM FEAR.... An atheist or whatever you want to call us CAN LIVE A MORAL LIFE IN THIS DAY TO DAY REALITY without believing in religious dogmas etc (by the moral codes of a civilized society). - 9:10:13 on 15 May 98 GMT

rOB:CHARLES.. The jesus dictum--> 'by their fruits ye shall know them'. Is that implied segregation a form of simple piety?? TO me it is a crude piece of apologetics. - 9:21:50 on 15 May 98 GMT

rOB:CHARLES.. Melissa brings up an excellent point on jesus and his teachings---->THE DENIAL OF REALITY! You seem to suggest other types of reality other than reality. jesus and his whole process of denying reality is an easy thing for a human to do. It requires really only what is needed or suited for that person to 'leave' reality in whatever degree of subjectiveness... Religiuos statements vary widely as is that jesus dictum I used, but REALITY ----well some like to deny it. - 9:35:15 on 15 May 98 GMT

rOB:CHARLES.. And one last thing , the beauty in being young (18) is that you have time to grow, learn, etc.. in reality - 9:41:15 on 15 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB...but Paul did hear Jesus preach. Before his transformation, while he was still SAUL, he was one of Jesus' most outspoken detractors. - 11:07:52 on 15 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->DAVE...so you don't care for Rand because some of those who follow her philosophies act in a cult-like manner? Given her writings, do you think she would encourage a collective following her? I think not. She can not be held accountable for the actions of others - afterall, she is dead. Do you watch Star Trek? Or enjoy Elvis Presley? I give these examples because the two have large cults of followers, and it doesn't take away from the INDIVIDUAL enjoyment of the aforementioned because others chose to act in a certain way. - 11:13:30 on 15 May 98 GMT

Joette..subjectivity versus objectivity:-->DAVE..is Michael Shermer the ultimate expert on Ayn Rand? I have read the book you mentioned, and although I didn't necessarily agree with him, I read it as ONE MAN'S opinion. Have you read anything by Leonard Piekoff? Or for that matter, what have you read of Rand's? - 11:23:05 on 15 May 98 GMT

PETER:--The "cult" stigma I think would always be a factor when any belief, or philosophy is outlined by anyone, regardless of how well-founded the arguments are. Let's say for instance someday someone is able to outline a philosophy that is so well supported ( although many have thought they have ), and suddenly many people will see it, and say "Yes!-That's It" Now, at what point would the followers of that philosophy be considered a cult? Will there ever be the "perfect philosophy" It is human nature to reject anything new, so I can never see this occuring in the philosphical community--especially, when the parameters of even "supporting arguments" is never universally agreed upon. In the case of Ayn Rand's objectivism, she makes a pretty good argument, I my opinion; but again here not all will agree upon the standard she sets for "proof" and "reality" Shermer is correct in saying many follow her in a cult like fashion, but he is mistaken when he says that no mral standard can be found. However he ignores the "man's life" is the moral standard of objectivism. As simple as this may seem, I find it rather profound. What else would it be? Also, he misses the point about objectivists claiming they can attain absolute Truth and knowledge through reason. All objectivism claim is that one can only recognize reality, by means of reason--and that reason is inescapable. That is the absolute. Shermer I think here is confusing a method of science which maintains that certainty of anything can never be fully realised. Schermer, then concedes that he agrees with much of the philosophy, and it has been my experience that this is the position most other people take who are familiar with it. Leonard Peikoff, the "official spokesman" for Objectivism is quite aware of Objectivism's cult-like allegations, and his response is " So what?--I am proud then to be associated with a cult whose central tenet is one of reason" - 13:14:07 on 15 May 98 GMT

Marlene..even he believes silly things:There is no question that some people have formed a cultish like following over Ayn Rand's objectivism but then again some people form a cult like group over Elvis. As for Micheal Shermer, did you know that he is a fidest? - 13:25:29 on 15 May 98 GMT

PETER:--MARLENE--That's HIS problem! LOL. Are you sure it was him? There was an article in "Skeptic" about some guy there associated with the magazine that was. If it's him....what a woos. Anyway, I think James Randi is tougher, better spoken and wittier than Shermer. I find a lot of Shermer's "de-bunking" arguments kind of weak and lame a lot of the time. A good de-bunking book is "Flim-Flam" by James Randi--which I think packs a way bigger wallop than "Why People believe In Weird Things" by Shermer - 14:05:11 on 15 May 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Looks like for awhile the point of issue here was, jc stuff? I ran into a book store downtown off Shattuck on Center (if you visit it reference point to the store is a BART station) it is loaded with some good books on philosophy and religion. Some are old appear in french, some latin and some mideast lookin'script. Of the religion books, there were several shelves on "church history". I didn't get to buy one but I thought it would be an interesting purchase. - 14:52:45 on 15 May 98 GMT

Carl:CG: A "bigot" am I? As for 'your beginnings of science', I picked and profiled the first man in space date because it was the culmination and application of scientific findings that enabled humans to get off the planet. And yes, I find the opinion that religious believers "want" to be as animals just because of their preference for ignorance and that they do not want to be responsible for themselves. Why the latter point, well if they were responsible for themselves, why do they say some mythical tale of someone dying, that mythical death "pays for their, or your sin"? Does that sound like someone who is responsible? My answer is No! What indicates a preference for ignorance, look at your own weak posts about something written by cavemen thousands of years ago these authors thought the world flat! Does that strike you as intelligent meaning you use your mind to disregard absurdity? If you want a a god think of a better one than that tale of many old storys, cripes! And I'm the bigot here, because I don't want to go along with you and such insanity? That is why they- religious believers, seem to be as any farm animal, being good in their pens and pastures "hoping" to be fed. But, I've sorta'wrestled with some here to, who prefer the zoological version for the human explanation. Both the zoological and your mythological view are false to facts as they refer to what is human. - 15:33:09 on 15 May 98 GMT

Dave:I'll have to admit you guys ask interesting questions--what is a cult? Some would describe it as a bizzare belief system. When it's accepted by mainstream society it becomes a religion. Evolution--which is into diversification and distribution perhaps established a nich for humans to do MUCH information proccesssing to replicate a particular genetic code. Perhaps "extra failsafe emotional antenae circuits" were added to better handle social behavior? Over 2 billion dollars spent yet some would contend that the U.S.is at best 10% scientifically litterate.Slill being passive is unacceptable I suppose. - 16:36:30 on 15 May 98 GMT

dave:I confess I've read little on ann rand. And now I'm feeling tired. 'see' ya later... - 16:41:14 on 15 May 98 GMT

PETER:--DAVE--It's "Ayn" dammit, not "ann". And the standard for being scientifically literate isn't any great shakes either. Simple things like the two elements in salt, and water,; whether stars and the moon rise and set like the sun, and if dinosaurs existed at the same time as human beings etc. Actually, the illiteracy rate is kinda scary. - 16:55:32 on 15 May 98 GMT

rOB:I could be wrong with the paul 'knowing' or hearing the words of jesus-Joette. I agree with Dave in exactly what is a cult, there are really no boundaries in a general sense.As Peter mentioned no matter how well the argument is, some will label it a form of cult collectivism. So some people like to stick with reason. Indoctrination of various forms occur every day and bring about herd mentality, especially in the illiterate. Also a new form of the cult that I find scary is the multitude of alien cults. What was does Ron say that we are Nephilien ? constructered beings?? used as cheap labor. Well up coming are the last days of May. Many cults like to be vague in their systems and then for change month to month for conveniency sake, but at least in the use of reason= conveniency is not relied upon(with a fickle frolic in the wind). - 17:29:10 on 15 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB...May 31st is supposed to be THE DAY...now, in the part of the world where I am, there has no talk whatsoever about an alien type activity, and am wondering if this is just some U.S. of A. type rumour? Any other of us "aliens" out here that haven't heard anything where they harken from? - 17:39:06 on 15 May 98 GMT

rOB:Joette.. There are alot of crazy cultist here in the US (Waco and the Heaven's Gate looking for. the mother ship behind the comet etc.) We also have so many military cults with political aims (IE. the Oklahoma city bombing). All these right to bear arms groups looking to move away rom the US governmement. Here in all the gossip Tv shows and papers , you see people speaking of alien abductions and bright triangles in the sky etc.. America land of the brave but also land of the messed up!--hehe - 17:48:23 on 15 May 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>>if you came down to Texas, would that qualify as an alien invasion? - 17:50:12 on 15 May 98 GMT

rOB:JOETTE.. look at Clinton--> he probably go along with a secret sultan cult (with all these allegations of affairs with other women). - 17:52:05 on 15 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN...well, not really an alien invasion, but would you take me to your leader? (if he isn't busy with some bit of squeeze?) - 18:00:26 on 15 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:Rob : Arh am so young so you are to be my guide into reality my elder ad wiser by same logic anyone older than you who is also relgious will be able to say the same thing and anyone who is atheist and older will be righter than him and so on clearly age holds no monopoly on the truth. I read quote last night which said that some thing become dogma when it first argued about, but you see it such accusatory word like supernatural god primitive supersition etc Of course if I could always address you as " heven scum " you would'nt like it either. But as I repeat Paul did " apparently " ( thanks Jolette it nice to have someone helping me out for once ) hear Jesus he was a contempary of his, and would have obviously had contact with people who did ( including himself ) he mentions a close freindship wih Luke who as author of a gospel could not have been that ignorant of the events. Of course if one accepts that Jesus does not lay down a code of life like mohamed but merely some good guide lines. Then its is alway possible for people intrepet this things in different ways. Indeed even the most lucid statement are interpetable in various way by determined take this example. 1 say he want a good thing X to be done to people 2 and 3. So 4 does a bad thing to 2 and 3 saying it way of getting to X. Witness some of the excess of communism which would have had Marx raging his grave the cult of future. So if on is to get anywhere a certain systemisation is perhaps required. Some such conclution based on relgion have I will admit been very negative of course no doubt you could regale me with some of these, slavery, divine right which more often are thinks that are done that require justication. Hence one has to dance a very fine line between sytemtisation deciding that is good and making sure they do it ( law is based around ). And telling people to be good and letting them decide for themselves ( freedom ) while attempting to guide them with suggestions. I dig for latter in almost all cases. To say you are entirely freed from dogma or thing like them is ridicious. No doubt you would Dogmatic defend the right to life or liberty or for people not to be put in exessive pain. But where do your moral belief come from social dogma, parental dogma, you freind dogma, TV dogma. What were your infulances obvious their is certain amount trial an error and comman sense but " oh dear I killed someone that appear to have bad consquences I will not do it again ". So say your supeirity is based on having invented or worked out your own morlity is some what falwed. " fear supersition " popular word in atheistic circles. Rob I do not deny reality or escape but attmept to expand your conception of the possibilties of reality are, including god. I am simply pointing out that simple minded statement like " I do not see god therefore he does not exist " are simplisitc its like saying " I have never seen Julius Ceasar therefore he does not exist " though perhaps the two are not really compaitible. Spinoza funny you should keep in quoting someone who beleives in god or a sort of god and a text I not entirely familer with so I work with one hand behind my back. I am certainly all for relgious freedom " hence lack " Heven scum " after every sentance. With a lot intolerance still being shown this is so true especialing Indonizia right now against Chinese who are mostly Christian and again in Pakisan where Christain morners at bishop funeral were attacked by a musilim mob. However us not forget athiest intolerance is not unknown. Like in Stalinist Russia or early 20th century Mexico, Carl seem pretty intolerent himself. Peter : A Cult of the objective what an interesting thought so what does that make you a " messiah of the age of sience ". Carl : You admit you are a bigot??? honest but ..... What you say is filled with a lot of hate and anger what at anyone in particular? that turned you out this way. A deeply relgious up bring which you revolted from dramatically. I could be quite wrong???? You seem like some sort of ranting athiest filling with fire and self rightiousness. I mean look at your words. " Abusrity " " Insanity " " seen as any farm animals " " preference for ignorance ". Of course I am responible for myself I have free will I chose myself my actions, my surrounding, accociate with what I chose, what to do with my life. I take also try to take responibilty for my own actions, in this world and to what ever comes after. If you mean't the culimation of sience why did'nt you say that? P.S In myalogical I assume you mean creationist and zoolgical and human? which one is evoltion and other other? please tell me. - 18:08:23 on 15 May 98 GMT

rOB:Charles.. I was not labeling or fostering any beliefs of logic on you , I actually meant it in a nice way. You are right truth has nothing to do with age either. - 18:12:02 on 15 May 98 GMT

rOB:Charles.... I am not your guide in anything and never stated that I am free of any type of dogma; I do not believe in universal free-will. Again I am not wiser than you because I am atheist. In fact I am JUST a little older than you and am still trying to learn and grow. - 18:20:32 on 15 May 98 GMT

rOB:CHARLES... I am also open to new possibilties as your self. Kai Nielson stated that a case can be still be made for a god etc... Another person here tried to make this ontological argument, but a case can be made for anything, I guess. IT opens the floodgates to madness and superstition, No? - 18:24:31 on 15 May 98 GMT

rOB:CHARLES... Be careful about assuming things about say Spinoza. He was labeled everthing there is under the sun; again I am not much for labeling . You should try to read some Spinoza , he DID NOT believe in the god you are shackled to. Someone asked Einstein about god, and he said if had to he would be believe in Spinoza's god. Spinoza teaches the philosopher how to become a nonphilosopher. - 18:31:58 on 15 May 98 GMT

Carl:CG: The bigotry phrase is of your post, intolerance- should I or anyone be tolerant of ignorance? The answer is no, ignorance is the most destructive thing to the human world as it was, is and may be known for. As for the "preference for ignorance" that term is what a religious belief that bases itself on compositions written by humans who once thought it appropriate to say of their godthing, that It would stop the revolution of the earth so a group of humans could wage war! That is simple caveman ignorance. The examples of this religious belief that bases its continuance on such ignorances, that that religion now refers the acceptance of such tales of ignorance as "faith", well this kind of action looks like the simple chosen preference for ignorance. As for your assumption either creation or zoological are just human ideas. That some humans mean to control, will both ideas be abused for such ends. For me, ignorance must be done away with, it is unworthy of any living human. Religious belief lives on such as it is within the human mind, religion needs and requires for itself that the human mind remain ignorant of all, especially of religion itself. - 18:42:14 on 15 May 98 GMT

rOB:CHARLES....Spinoza also said that it is part of a wise man not to bewail nor to deride, but to understand. Implying that his Ethics WAS NOT a flawless mass of irrefragable truth. Again the beauty of knowing your limitations. - 18:48:48 on 15 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:Well it did seem a little condensending but how old are you anyway or is to embrassing ( joke ). It is good that you acknoledge the possibility of god or new things at least. When we cease to question we die in a way, you never know maybe I am teaching you??? But what about superstition is it really so irrational. Many steady fast skeptic like your self see ghosts every year and it while is quite possible such thing exist on leval of understanding we can not reach yet or ever. While you are certainly right to question a person who is about to kill you say " the queen of the fairy told me ". However do not be so eager to laugh off every ghost sighting. P.S I am pretty sure horzopes are load of crap 12 fates for mankind each month 500 million random lives who happen to born in same month following exacually the same path, however I could be wrong but it seems unlikely. Of course how can one really classify madness Fouquet is good a person to look at here see " Beginner guide to Fouquet ". Who is mad after all in various times it has been suggest here that relgious beliver are in some way " delutional " " irrational " " escaping from reality " ( was that you ). Arther C Clack indirectly calls relgion the madness of mankind while an atheist would have no doubt been seen a mad in earlier centuries. Indeed we all suffer from little form of madness I am afraid of heights and slightly chrostrophobic. While 1/4 people will be mentally ill in a given year. Of course Fouquet points out the sane are always the majority who comment and write about the minority. The experts the doctor. The normal who attemept to change the abnormal or minoity to conform with their definition of normality " In victorian time womans who had sex before marraige were sometimes sent to a mental home ". Sometimes suggestion about rightiousness are based around simple numbers. There more right handers than left handers and so being right hander is good obviously. - 18:58:23 on 15 May 98 GMT

AGE - women rarely admit their age. Men rarely act their age. - 19:01:58 on 15 May 98 GMT

rOB:CARL... A very good point religion needs and requies things--- like doma as I mentioned about Paul's additions. The thing that really bugs me is that the people who believe in jesus--> believe that his morals are decisive and that is it for the rest of us. To ME it is very resticting and locking humans in denials of reality as Melissa mentioned. Do you see how Charles just says things can be interpreted differently by others (when I asked him about the easy vague statements jesus made). Conveniency unfortunately keeps man from growing. - 19:03:18 on 15 May 98 GMT

Robert T. Lee: -- 1 -- ATHEISTS, AGNOSTICS AND NON BELEIVERS ARE THE TRUE CRIMINALS OF THE WORLD COMMUNITY------------- By: Robert T. Lee ^v^v^v^v^v God commands all mankind in the TEN COMMANDMENTS to: "Honor your father and your mother," "You shall not murder," "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor," and etc, (Exodus 20:1-17). Is any atheist, agnostic or unbeliever foolish enough to publicly deny the decorousness of those laws? OK, there’s no disagreement with the fact that those Laws are righteous and therefore honorable. But since atheists say God does not exist, they don’t have the ability to realize that God is the Author of the TEN COMMANDMENTS. This forces them to attribute their authorship to a human. But since atheism is opposed to the decorous TEN COMANDMENTS, even while being force to deceptively think they were authored by a human, this is clear evidence that atheism is incapable of authoring, realizing and honoring such decorous and noble laws. If in the view of the atheist the TEN COMMANDMENTS were authored by a human, and it is rightly established that those laws are decorous and honorable, but are hated by atheists, and atheists comprise the most "educated" segment of the human race, then it would have taken a more decorous and honorable human to author them than even the most highly educated atheist. Atheism, by means of its opposition to the decorous TEN COMMANDMENTS is really none other than an antithetical principle to God and His Holy Law. This antithesis is really what is at the heart of atheism’s inability to love such decorous laws as : "honor your father and your mother," "You shall not kill," and etc. Therefore, it is right to conclude that atheism is none other than raw depravity - the diabolical principle at work in the people who dishonor their parents, who murder, who lie and deceive and etc. So we now realize that it is the atheists who are in favor of putting their "terminally ill" parents to death. It is the atheists who are in favor of murdering innocent human embryos and fetuses. It is the atheists who are perpetuating homosexuality, lesbianism, bestiality, pornography, pedophilia and etc. It is the atheists who are responsible for all the violence in the movie industry. It is the atheists who are responsible for all the smut on the web. It is the atheists who bear false witness against the exitence of God. It is the atheists who bear the false testimony that the earth came into being by a cataclysmic explosion. It is the atheists who bear the false testimony of evolution. It is the atheists who bear the false testimony that man descended from the ape. It is the atheists who worship the creature rather than the Creator. It is the atheists who are responsible for all the moral decline in America and the world community. Atheists, regardless of their level of "education" and position in the society are therefore the true criminals of the world community. ^v^v^v^v^v --digsig Robert T. Lee 32bET1pN34HbDJ9hzITqseVX0v1k6R8ybxtVQr6nRfm 8z8iF6UbX8RUeW6CHFv8dBY0B8Knq5Xy5IMhOs9L 4lIBQVfKkVF0MUlhpuWJLYYkD84VZnuOl+3T5vonj - 19:03:38 on 15 May 98 GMT

rOB:CHARLES... I am 25 and I am not putting madness into any classification just letting my subjective side come out some. I DID NOT SAY that you are mad or insane in any way. - 19:09:05 on 15 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:Carl : A bigotary = ignorance Because he not prepared to admit he might be quite ignorant. Robert E Lee : Go Away Go Away Go Away its hard out to out do Carl in bigotary but you have suceeded somehow and with disgusting style - 19:12:22 on 15 May 98 GMT

rOB:MAN DO YOU SEE THIS FINGERPOINTING!!! Self-appointed judges judge more than they have bought or sold!!!! - 19:13:25 on 15 May 98 GMT

rOB:CAHRLES..... ..Going back to Ayn Rand, she said that 'supernaturalism-in its avowed or secularized form-is not an objective basis for anything'. Both Platonoists and nominalists appeal to the distinction between the essential and the non-essential chararacteristics of an entity. Neither school provides an objective basis for the distinction between an entity's essential and non-essential characteristics. Neither explains why such a distinction is objectively required in the process of conceptualization.. This explanation is provided by Objectivism and exposes the basic error in the Platonic-nominalist position. - 19:27:10 on 15 May 98 GMT

rOB:SORRY I spelt your name wrong there, butterfingers-charles. - 19:28:42 on 15 May 98 GMT

Carl:CG: Ignorant of what? - 19:38:20 on 15 May 98 GMT

rOB:CHARLES.. LASTLY, I must go now, I would like to say that Spinoza said that men would never be superstitious, if they could govern all their circumstances by set rules, or if they were always favoured by fortune. AND also he said that anything which excites a person's astonishment , he believes it to be a portent signifying the anger of the gods or of the supreme being, and mistaking superstition for religion, account it impious not to avert the evil with prayer and sacrifice. Signs and wonders of this they conjure up perpetually, TILL ONE MIGHT THINK NATURE AS MAD AS THEMSELVES, THEY INTERPRET HER SO FANTASTICALLY!!! - 19:39:11 on 15 May 98 GMT

Carl:CG: per Webster's: Bigot- a narrow minded person who is intolerant of other creeds, opinions, etc. Ignorant- lacking knowledge or experience 2. caused by or showing lack of knowledge 3. unaware. Where do I fit in among these things? As for R.LEE, let him insribe what he can, that he does not think merely evidences my post that religious believers are ignorant and prefer the ways of the minds of caveman of bygone times. - 19:49:01 on 15 May 98 GMT

PETER:--ROBERT T. LEE----This is the third time. Atr you, Robrt T.Lee, going to return to defend your allegations. So far you seem totally disinterested in partaking in any verbal exchange, only to make bold statements, and then run away. Now you may want to call us criminals, because we belong to a large group of people you consider to be as suck ( thus committing the fallacies of division AND composition ), but from your actions, and your actions alone one could conclude easily, that you are a coward. Now, show us you aren't one, and stop posting these messages, that are virtually the same each time---not to mention extremely castigating as well. Now, if an athesit came to your chatroom, made derogatory statements about christians, wouldn't you want him to stick around and defend these allegations. Would you not think it would be cowardly for him to post, and then not return for days, and then make a similar statement, and then repeat this process a few times? If you claim to have the inside track to the ultimate moral guidance, would that not include "playing fair" and making broad, insulting general statements? Come on. - 20:09:52 on 15 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:Carl : Intolerant yes you bet you say your intolerant of ingorance your self. Narrow minded quite possibly as refuzal continace the fact you might be wrong or ingnorant. As for the knowledge based things how am I to judge ( good point Rob ). Carl : So you know everything? Carl the thing about you and Robert E lee is you use very simular language. Ann Ryan quoted never heard of before? So I afraid you lost me some where their with Ann Ryan. Of course their is possiblity of some relgion boardering on supersition like Voodoo. However I never said this was the case. I was merely pointing out that something we now count as supersitious todayy maybe I fact exist or have some existance in reality, though probably very few, so I would'nt stop walking under ladders or being non plussed by black cats. All I pointed out was it is easy to point a finger at centres of irrationality but when you look closer it not so clear. - 20:12:57 on 15 May 98 GMT

Melissa:CHARLES GRAHAM: I suggested you introduce yourself to Ayn Rand's _The Virtue of Selfishness_ as well as the book _Atheism: The Case Against God_ in a previous post. I also made many other points, but I fear you missed the posts cuz you came in after they'd left the page :( Oh, well. I still highly recommend you read these to get a perspective other than the statist doctrines to which you've already been introduced. Whether you agree with Rand's philosophy or not, it's good to hear the other side's arguments. And I repeat since you probably missed it last time - Jesus had nothing good to contribute to morality. He preached self-sacrifice, subjugation, the denial of reality, and many other unhealthy behaviors. (Thou shalt not kill, steal, etc., that was all Pre-Jesus. All he added was pacifism.) - 20:58:28 on 15 May 98 GMT

Carl:CG: Good enough, so give one or as many reasons as you can for anyone to "tolerate" ignorance. 'May be wrong' what does this mean? Do you think I am wrong attributing ignorance- as I have described it, to religion? And if I said I knew everything you might start prayin'to me! I know only what I know and such merely expands. So, what is so bad about being intolerant of ignorance except that it might make some religious types "feel" poorly'bout theirselfs. - 21:10:56 on 15 May 98 GMT

Melissa:Carl: CG seems to enjoy ignorance, or haven't you noticed yet. I have yet to figure out why he persists in calling you a bigot. I can only assume you said something that offended him and he's labeled you, ACCUSED you of bigotry, to satisfy his immature need to build-up a probably low self-esteem. I guess in his world its okay to accuse someone of bigotry, but to accuse them of being dogmatic, well, that's just crossing the line. I wouldn't expect him to make much sense. He hasn't yet. - 21:28:14 on 15 May 98 GMT

RON...--->ALL....: I must find the time to indulge myself to my own page. The topics are more deep and colorful... - 21:31:31 on 15 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Joette...: NO NO NO...supposed to happen by May 31st. Get it right! I'll have an observation for you by then. - 21:33:22 on 15 May 98 GMT

Carl:MELISSA: Excluding his own opinion, I'm awaiting something objective-like that others and myself too, might acknowledge as valid for his point of view. But if he can't do so- before much longer, he'll join the ranks of the quack, et.al. - 21:35:08 on 15 May 98 GMT

Melissa:ROBERT T. LEE -- And what about this lady here in Arizona who killed her six-year-old daughter because God's law demanded it?? The girl was conceived out of wedlock after all. The little girl deserved to die, right?? There is no commandment, Honor thy children, is there?? I think you should have your head checked out by the way. You sound like a paranoid schizophrenic to me. I bet you'll find inordinately high amounts of dopamine in your brain - or else you regularly consume amphetamines or cocaine. I only WISH there was an atheist conspiracy going on. Then there might be some hope. - 21:37:33 on 15 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->RON..so you mean, it could happen tonight? I'd sure like to get it over with. - 22:12:59 on 15 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->MELISSA..I had the very same thought of Robert T. Lee. I wonder if he keeps his curtains closed at all times, doesn't own a radio or television, and keeps himself completely ignorant of the world around him. His generalizations of atheists are ridiculous and not even laughable. - 22:18:34 on 15 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->since R. T.Lee doesn't answer questions here, maybe he will on his own chat page? - 22:40:38 on 15 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham: Yes I miss out on those points may be dissucussion board is too small don't blame me for that and you havn't however I would advice again merely read to back up your own opioion is some what lazy opition that simple confirms ones own opioion. I have been hear at of other side arguement here actually. " As you read though anne you think, how clevor how true, that rights, of course" Instead disagreeing completely and then having to think why. I am against all extreme and intolerant opioions from anyside including my own. Hence I say the Robert E Lee is worse than Carl. Maybe I am rushing to a conclution with the bigot charge, But did'nt Carl call himself that saying what wrong with being Bigoted again religion ( ignorance to him ) well I can't tell now I hope not. Of course is all very nice to rush to the defence someone who opioion you agree with Melissa and call me the small minded immature suffering from low self essetem ( enjoy ignorance ) etc all unfounded assumptions. Maybe its me or human, but it gets on my nerves when people start thowing around insults at people they disagree with it all seems so petty when on consider the proundness of the subject. I think would like declare peace with Carl now however it appraicate if called relgious people total misguided or mistaken rather than animals in the furture. Obviously I disagree with you Carl. Actually Carl just because you profoundly disagree with something does mean you have intolerant of it. Intolerance inplies a sort of peusecution and if want a plea for tolerance for the why not talk to Rob about Spinoza appeal for relgious tolerance Spioniza probably say it better than me. Indeed intolerence of anothers relgion philosphy country set of values history culture way of life etc, have brought some of worst suffering war peasuection plurges progon massares in history was Hitler being intolerent of Jews ingnorance???? Melissa you say I enjoy being ignorant, well what do you mean If I do not make sense point out where, if I lie tell me where if you disagree argue if you want something explained more clearly ask me If you agree well what makes me happy. Seems good guide lines for me Ignorance appears to any deviation from any athiestic beleifs at least around here id pro quo I am ignorant. - 22:47:36 on 15 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham: Yes I miss out on those points may be dissucussion board is too small don't blame me for that and you havn't however I would advice again merely read to back up your own opioion is some what lazy opition that simple confirms ones own opioion. I have been hear at of other side arguement here actually. " As you read though anne you think, how clevor how true, that rights, of course" Instead disagreeing completely and then having to think why. I am against all extreme and intolerant opioions from anyside including my own. Hence I say the Robert E Lee is worse than Carl. Maybe I am rushing to a conclution with the bigot charge, But did'nt Carl call himself that saying what wrong with being Bigoted again religion ( ignorance to him ) well I can't tell now I hope not. Of course is all very nice to rush to the defence someone who opioion you agree with Melissa and call me the small minded immature suffering from low self essetem ( enjoy ignorance ) etc all unfounded assumptions. Maybe its me or human, but it gets on my nerves when people start thowing around insults at people they disagree with it all seems so petty when on consider the proundness of the subject. I think would like declare peace with Carl now however it appraicate if called relgious people total misguided or mistaken rather than animals in the furture. Obviously I disagree with you Carl. Actually Carl just because you profoundly disagree with something does mean you have intolerant of it. Intolerance inplies a sort of peusecution and if want a plea for tolerance for the why not talk to Rob about Spinoza appeal for relgious tolerance Spioniza probably say it better than me. Indeed intolerence of anothers relgion philosphy country set of values history culture way of life etc, have brought some of worst suffering war peasuection plurges progon massares in history was Hitler being intolerent of Jews ingnorance???? Melissa you say I enjoy being ignorant, well what do you mean If I do not make sense point out where, if I lie tell me where if you disagree argue if you want something explained more clearly ask me If you agree well what makes me happy. Seems good guide lines for me Ignorance appears to any deviation from any athiestic beleifs at least around here id pro quo I am ignorant. - 22:47:37 on 15 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham: Yes I miss out on those points may be dissucussion board is too small don't blame me for that and you havn't however I would advice again merely read to back up your own opioion is some what lazy opition that simple confirms ones own opioion. I have been hear at of other side arguement here actually. " As you read though anne you think, how clevor how true, that rights, of course" Instead disagreeing completely and then having to think why. I am against all extreme and intolerant opioions from anyside including my own. Hence I say the Robert E Lee is worse than Carl. Maybe I am rushing to a conclution with the bigot charge, But did'nt Carl call himself that saying what wrong with being Bigoted again religion ( ignorance to him ) well I can't tell now I hope not. Of course is all very nice to rush to the defence someone who opioion you agree with Melissa and call me the small minded immature suffering from low self essetem ( enjoy ignorance ) etc all unfounded assumptions. Maybe its me or human, but it gets on my nerves when people start thowing around insults at people they disagree with it all seems so petty when on consider the proundness of the subject. I think would like declare peace with Carl now however it appraicate if called relgious people total misguided or mistaken rather than animals in the furture. Obviously I disagree with you Carl. Actually Carl just because you profoundly disagree with something does mean you have intolerant of it. Intolerance inplies a sort of peusecution and if want a plea for tolerance for the why not talk to Rob about Spinoza appeal for relgious tolerance Spioniza probably say it better than me. Indeed intolerence of anothers relgion philosphy country set of values history culture way of life etc, have brought some of worst suffering war peasuection plurges progon massares in history was Hitler being intolerent of Jews ingnorance???? Melissa you say I enjoy being ignorant, well what do you mean If I do not make sense point out where, if I lie tell me where if you disagree argue if you want something explained more clearly ask me If you agree well what makes me happy. Seems good guide lines for me Ignorance appears to any deviation from any athiestic beleifs at least around here id pro quo I am ignorant. - 22:47:58 on 15 May 98 GMT

Marlene:PETER- Yikes! Your right! It is Martin Gardner who claims to be a fidest and Shermer was the guy who spoke on a radio talk show here. He claims to be agnostic. Like you, I like Randi. - 23:14:38 on 15 May 98 GMT

Rob:ROBERT T LEE: May I ask you a question? How would you punish a child which insulted (cursed) their parent(s)? - 23:20:07 on 15 May 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Post ole Robert T Lee's site again. I get an error when trying to bring it up. - 23:21:44 on 15 May 98 GMT

Marlene:RON- Since your back, let's discuss who the N's of myth/history are. I watched an X-Files a few weeks ago and the N's were portrayed as disformed as well as autistic angels??? - 23:24:23 on 15 May 98 GMT

Robert T.Lee:Robert T. Lee: Rob you queried me in this fashion.---"-May I ask you a question? How would you punish a child which insulted (cursed) their parent(s)?" C'mon, you are more intelligent than that Rob. Which do you mean? How would I punish as a parent or how would i punish as a government official? - 23:31:14 on 15 May 98 GMT

Rob:ROBERT T LEE: Either (or preferably both). Also, did god chose what was right and wrong, or was he bound to chose that which is right/wrong? - 23:45:12 on 15 May 98 GMT

Rob:R T LEE: Sorry, I meant was he free to chose what is by definition right/wrong, or is what is right/wrong necessarily so? - 23:51:39 on 15 May 98 GMT

Robert T. Lee:I noticed you referred to a "god" with a little "g", I don't know which god you are refering to Since you don't believe in the true God , there are many creature gods. - 23:53:24 on 15 May 98 GMT

Rob (aw gee...):I am referring to the god which you believe to be the true one. - 23:56:37 on 15 May 98 GMT

Robert T. Lee:The GOD I serve is not bound by anything except His own will. And He does whatever He wants to when and however He wants to. - 0:08:10 on 16 May 98 GMT

Rob:ROBERT LEE: So aren't the 10 commandements really rather arbitrary then, since they are only "righteous" merely because god has chosen them as so at his whim? I have to go to bed now, but if you would care to answer this and the query about the naughty children, it would be appreciated. - 0:12:49 on 16 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROBERT T. LEE...how does one honour an abusive parent? - 0:13:57 on 16 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->CHARLES GRAHAM..if you find this page too small, could it be because of all the space you take up, especially when posting the same thing three times? If you want to see previous posts, go to the Location bar, and change the "30" to any number that suits your fancy. You can go back 2,000 posts if you want. - 0:21:42 on 16 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROBERTLEE...can you prove "that it is atheists that are responsible for all the smut on the internet"? - 0:24:26 on 16 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROBERT T LEE. Have you ever really read the bible? I doubt it. I'll help you along with a few quotes. You seem to be in love with the ten commandments. The first four merely tell how jealous your god is and how to worship him. I'll just cover two of the pthers. "Honor thy father and mother." When his mother tries to approach jesus, he tells her: "Woman, What have I to do with thee?" Tell me, Robert - would you talk to your mother that way? Being a follower of jesus, maybe you would. I being an atheist, would never dream of talking to my mother that way. "Thou shalt not kill." That's enough to drive a person into hysterical laughter. Here are a few examples where your murderous god orders wholesale slaughter. God to Moses: "-But of the cities of these people which god has given thee - - thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth-- thou shalt utterly destroy them - - as the lord thy god has commanded thee." Deut 20:12-17. Two princes challenge Moses' authority. God has their wives and children buried alive. Numbers 16:32-35. God oders an attack on the Midianites. Moses gives the order: "Kill all the males among the little ones and kill every woman not a virgin. Keep the virgins and the girl children for yourselves." Num 31. Jephtaph is forced by god to kill his only daughter. Judges 11-39. These barely scratch the surface. In short, Robert, your bible is a disgusting primer for evil. Your god condones slavery and incest. He brimstones Sodom burning all the inhabitants except Lot and his family because it was an evil city. I guess incest wasn't considered bad because when Lot and his daughters have sex later they do not get punished. He burned up all the others including the toddlers, suckling babes and fetuses. But that's small change compared to the flood. He drowns the whole world except for Noah and his family and some sets of animals. He sure showed those sinning little bastards, those toddlers and sucklings and fetuses. Talk about abortions, your god is the master abortionist of all time, according to your bible. And you have the balls to call atheists sinners. How stupid can you get? Read your bible!! I gave you chapter and verse. And how about your sweet jesus who doesn't seem to give a shit about hs mother, the "turn the other cheek" guy? "I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." Matthew 10:53-38. "And woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days" Math 24:19. Well Robert, you poor deluded bastard, your god and your jesus combined are a sickening pair and not worth an atheist's turd. As far as I am concerned you can take your mythology text book and its sickening bloodthirsty stories and throw it in a sewer. It should fit in nicely with the other garbage. - 0:53:47 on 16 May 98 GMT

rOB:ROBERT T. LEE.. You seem to suggest that your god of Judasism and Christianity is perfect and is only bound by HIS own will. As ROB is trying to get at is that your god is on the whimsical side. Can a whimsical entity be perfect simultaneously? The ontological argument tries to prove the existence of a perfect God but is fallacious. Kant, whose god is similiar to that of Judasim and Christianity, does not succeed in showing that reason demands his existence.... Yes, there are religious beliefs which contain no overt refrences to God and whole religions without god. I think Hinayana Buddhism is one religion considered atheistic? HIS WILL YOU TALKED OF makes the supernovae into the remnants of a smaller neutron star and which is seen as pulsars etc. and etc. So your god whimsically lets the universal laws of nature proceed? What are your views also on religious freedom? - 1:08:18 on 16 May 98 GMT

FlexNet, Inc. Support Staff:this is a test, getting emails that page is not working - 4:03:16 on 16 May 98 GMT

rOB:Flexnet... The page is working. - 4:23:14 on 16 May 98 GMT

Crumbs:CG: Where did you learn to write? Your writings prove everyone else's point of your ignorance. I also know first-hand of the ignorance in which you suffer. My wife was brought up in a Christian, moderately abusive family. She was brainwashed at an early age and taught not to think for herself or to question anything ( a fundamental principle in Christianity-the whole fruit of knowledge thing back in the garden). When we married she continued to go to church and occasionally I would go with her. But, the more time she spent away from her oppressors and the more I encouraged her to just think, the more she realized what a hunk of garbage the bible actually is. All you need to do is open your mind and investigate other possibilities. Christianity is not the only religion full of hypocrisies, holes and fairy tales. Just look around and see. But no matter what just be glad you live where you do, in many place you would be in jail, along with most of the posters on this page, for publicly expressing what you believe. The Freedom of religion is the greatest freedom of all. -Crumbs - 4:36:07 on 16 May 98 GMT

michael d at .net:I noticed (-: Although my opinons DO NOT represent the opions of FlexNet, Inc. or any of it related Corporations in any way shape or form. I like the site, been looking for a place like this for a while. - 4:40:09 on 16 May 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:SQUASH AN ATHEIST A MILLION TIMES AND HE WILL NEVER COME TO HIS SENSES. ALAS, THERE IS NO HOPE FOR THE ATHEIST. - 4:41:25 on 16 May 98 GMT

rOB:ROBERT T. LEE.. You seem to want to understand what you believe, BUT what you are following is less an attempt at a proof than an attempt to spell out in conceptual terms about what you believe about the god of whom your heart is full , down the line. Your statements about your god are charged with some emotion, but are also utterly vague. From the definition of god we can only learn how he is to be thought of, not whether he exists. It might be a possible definition of god that he is the incarnate triumph over man's inadequacies, THOUGHT OF AS EXISTING, that he is the embodiment of the state of being after which all men-or most men-aspire, thought of not as a logicl possibility but as existing. From this defintion, however we could not infer that god actually exists. - 4:44:50 on 16 May 98 GMT

Crumbs:->RTL.. Without an open mind how can one possess an open heart. - 4:57:34 on 16 May 98 GMT

Robert T. Lee:---Let me ask you roB, if the existence of God could be proved to you , would you believe it? - 4:59:04 on 16 May 98 GMT

David:I used to waste my time trying to tell religious people the truth. But most religious people are too blind or to ignorant. So I shall make this one small point quick... Do you really believe that morals were not around before the ten commandments... like though shall not kill... and if so I guess that you believe that rape is OK it is not one of the ten... Small issues for small minds, that need to invent gods to face live... And just for the record I know the bible very well but thankfully I know science as well. - 5:01:32 on 16 May 98 GMT

rOB:ROBERT.T.LEE. Also, it is not open-minded in another way to ask a question when questions were already asked of you. Hypothetical questions are limitless with a multitude of answers. - 5:03:10 on 16 May 98 GMT

ROBERT T LEE:David, what is the true origin of the name DAVID? - 5:05:27 on 16 May 98 GMT

rOB:RTL.. FOR EXAMPLE, I ASKED YOU awhile ago whether your god spoke or telepathically communicated the ten commandments to Moses... There is alot of play with this form of communication? DON'T YOU THINK??? - 5:07:29 on 16 May 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:To rOB---A wise man never answers a fool according to his folly. - 5:12:58 on 16 May 98 GMT

rOB:RTL.. Apparently you do not want to have a rational discussion and are reluctant to answers mine and other people's questions here. Well good luck to you and your beliefs, but indoctrination of any kind feeds on itself and it sometimes gets to be rather droll. - 5:18:44 on 16 May 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:----To rOB----May I ask thee questions, which I know you will agree are not a foolish : Why are you going to die - why does everyone die - why is there no cure for death? - 5:25:42 on 16 May 98 GMT

rOB:RTL... I think you know the answers to them already! - 5:31:59 on 16 May 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:----To rOB----But dost thou know the answer. If so, speak up you descendant of the ape ! - 5:36:26 on 16 May 98 GMT

rOB:RTL.. SORRY, I said good luck to you, but please I am not one for intimidating and indoctrinating games. Was there something about bearing false witness to whomever?? It was nice talking with you and your friendly answers, have a nice life! - 5:43:42 on 16 May 98 GMT

Grant:ROBERT T. LEE-- How fortunate for you that you found the God of Ignorance, and you serve him well. - 6:12:50 on 16 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:CRUMBS you really are mordertely offensive yes I am moderately dislexic but not stupid, I mentioned I.Q test some time ago but no seem to like it. Do I strike you someone who has been brain washed come from an abusive family have and I ever spoken out against freedom of relgion or try to brain wash anyone. Generally I find that when people give up aguing with they just call me ignorant and say I don't think for myself. Others continue to argue using aguements like Rob and I find talking them very rewarding. I do however find it some what sickening for people accuse me of these things as they have so little basis in reality. In fact I am thoughly against the intolerence of Carl and Robert E Lee. Remember it would be me not you who would be put in prison in early 20th century Mexcio or Stalin Russia or Mao china but me. Clearly directly anti - relgious attitudes tend to go with people who wish to impose their own personnal view of reality on the world and in theses case it was generally a perverted one. - 8:11:57 on 16 May 98 GMT

Rob:ROBERT T LEE: I think either you have confused rOB and I else you thought my questions foolish. As for yours, I believe I am going to die for the same reason monkeys, marsupials and amoebas will die. My body will eventually no longer be able to sustain the biological processes required to keep my brain functioning. The second question I would put down to us all being biological organisms subject to the aforementioned deterioration. And as for the third, I don't know that there is no cure for death, though I admit it does seem unlikely. And yes, if you could prove his existence to my satisfaction then yes I would believe he existed. But what about my questions of the cursing child and the arbitrarily good commandments? Speak up, you descandant of the dust particle! - 11:32:33 on 16 May 98 GMT

Rob:Addendum: Of course, amoebas don't have bodies/brains so in that case it is cells and nuclei - 11:34:51 on 16 May 98 GMT

Joette:--->RTL...I will ask you again, HOW DO YOU HONOUR ABUSIVE PARENTS? - 14:02:36 on 16 May 98 GMT

Joette...all we are is dust in the wind...:-->ROB...wouldn't death be caused by a shut down of the other organs first? Afterall, a body can live (by artifical means) once one is brain dead (there are one or two examples on this page), but if the heart goes, it's hasta la vista baby! - 14:06:42 on 16 May 98 GMT

PETER:--Since over-population seems to be an enviromental concern, it would not be advisable for mankind to attempt to extend longevity. Even if a person could live to be 200, a basic knowledge of exponents will clearly show overpopluation would destroy the earth within a century. - 17:57:23 on 16 May 98 GMT

PETER:--ROBERT T.Lee--I'd like you to respond to Papa Sam's allegations. You have been noticeably silent. Your next post consisted of nothing but again making bigotted statements to atheists, and has nothing to do with anything said to you. Is discourse a concept that you do not feel comfortable with? Are you not confident of being able to support your bold statements. Why not impress us with your insight, and ability to express yourself coherently, cofidently and in a mature manner, instead of once again showing this room, that the christian communicates his beliefs from a perspective of emotional outbursts consisting of nothing but the same over-worked and totally unsupported incantations, platitudes and cliches--often having little or no contextual assoiation to anything said before. Come on Robert, impress us all. If the 10 commandments are what you say they are--prove it, using a comprehensive structure--as you would have someone else do if called upon to prove a point. Up until now, you just are coming across as a raging lunatic, and I think you can do better. - 18:19:27 on 16 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROBERT T LEE. I have shown you by quotes from your own bible that yoour god is a vicious murdering god, and that his son jesus, as it says in your own bible, the source of your ten commandments, is cut from the same cloth. Go back and read my posting. Ignoring the facts won't make them go away. Read your bible!! I gave you chapter and verse. Your jesus rebuffs his mother. He wants to set father agains son, daughters against mothers, and so on. Your god sends down brimstone and a flood, killing millions of children including suckling babes, and master abortionist that he is, millions of fetuses. Read your bible!! This is the kind of god you worship? With a god like that who needs a devil? Would you follow your god's example and murder babies? I'll bet you picket abortion clinics, in the name of your god, conveniently ignoring the fact that your god was the prime example. I have yet to see you try to refute these facts. So Richard, what do you have to say about it? What defense do you have for your despicable duo? - 18:23:50 on 16 May 98 GMT

Rob (Anyone who had a heart...):JOETTE: Well I was trying to avoid the complexities of a discussion on the essence of being. I would point out though that in your example a person with an artificial heart would still be considered alive, no? In any case, whether we decide on psychological or bodily continuity as being essential for preservation of identity (and personally I regard it as a matter of degree), the point I was trying to make was that I consider death a biological phenonmenon. - 18:28:16 on 16 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROBERT T LEE Thinkest thou that using the biblical forms of speech that thou impresseth thy readers? If so, thou thinketh with thy head up thy ath. Read thou thy bible and learneth what is therein, for thou flaunteth thy ignorance. - 18:30:46 on 16 May 98 GMT

graycie:-+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ghj - 19:20:28 on 16 May 98 GMT

rOB:Emotional outburts are convenient for one to use as is the vague, ambigious statements about a god. Papasam mentioned that Jesus rebuffed Mary; he makes a good point about Jesus' obscure statements about coming back by division. The word 'division' can be made to have some ominous connotations associated in the way it is used. I think some believe that jesus's teachings basically abolished or negated everything previously, like the Old Testament. But there in one can see an array of confusion with this notion. On one hand, one of the ten commandments tells us to honor our parents and next Jesus turns away from his mother , says that families will also separate etc. Sometimes, I think vague religious satements when used for conveniency sake can also at times produced intended and UNINTENDED confusion. The division bell will unfortunately be always used by others. - 19:33:18 on 16 May 98 GMT

rOB:As mentioned before Jesus was the master of ambiguity. According to the Gospels, he loved to use hyperboles and parables. The history of Christianity bears witness that many of these usages are as some , for example, a Kafka parable: no single translation is convincing enough to reduce its many rivals to silence. Nor did all the writers whose books constitute the New Testament understand man in the same way. - 19:49:33 on 16 May 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE: -- ---TO Papa Sam---How dare you in your "educated" blindness and foolish haughtiness - a measly creature who has fallen to the lowest depths of depravity to become a willing and grateful slave of satan - sit on your excremental stool and try to judge the ALMIGHT GOD!!!!! It is no wonder you are condemned by HIM to eternal damnation. Atheism, synonymous to satanism does not allow you soul to understand what it means to be GOD. By what law will you judge the ALMIGHTY? Will you try to do so by the principles of the heathen and atheistic american constitution? Will you try to do so by "the law of sin"? (I realize that you know nothing about that law). But choose the most noble Law in the universe - the TEN COMMANDMENTS, and try to judge HIM by them. Is God a man that He can be judged by the Law He has given to creatures of dust? You really don’t know the ALMIGHTY, do you? The best of education has taught you nothing. It has only thrown sand in your eyes when you might otherwise be able to see. Have you taken the time to imagine what it means to be the ALMIGHTY? The ALMIGHTY GOD does whatever He does to whomever He does, whenever and however He desires, and there is no creature or law that can judge Him to be wrong. The ALMIGHTY GOD abides by no law except his own will. If He kills He can make alive; If he makes his creatures ill, He can make them well. If he allows injustice, He will soon bring justice; If He makes light He also made darkness; If he brings pain and suffering, He also makes pleasure. So quit you blind grumbling and blasphemous outburst of ignorance you "educated" descendent of the ape, and bow in awe to the ALMIGHTY GOD!!!!---------------- --digsig Robert T. Lee 32bET1pN34HbDJ9hzITqseVX0v1k6R8ybxtVQr6nRfm sSWRsaDIPbPm9Quyk0b7wzWGbQBTA2PzmwBWDfvZ 47tu2BrPH6AA5laDGBskJikQPkaO4PbtiuuE/ALMt - 20:04:45 on 16 May 98 GMT

rOB:The Gospels give the impression that Jesus had, and communicated to others, a very exalted conception of himself, though he was mysterious about it.. He said to his diciples' tell no man that I am the Messiah'. After his crucifixion, his disciples might have remained a Jewish sect, revering the memory of their master while giving up that for which he had been crucified; or, if they wanted to make this the rallying point, they must make the mystery of him more explicit. This is what Paul did in terms of a more elaborabte theology, and some fashion Christianity almost into a mysterious religion, complete with sacraments. A mystery is confusing too and convenient in its hiding underneath layers. - 20:13:30 on 16 May 98 GMT

rOB:Some believe we are bound to a perfect being , would it be more reasonable to say that we are bound to the universal laws of nature-through modern physics we are learning. - 20:30:58 on 16 May 98 GMT

rOB:A Kafkaesque nightmare, 'We feel as if we had to fix a torn spider web with our fingers'. When language idles and does not work. It is due to a queer use of language--words like odd recur often in Wittgensteinian philosophy--and the cure of the odd use of language is always the same. We ask how the key terms are used and how we acquired their use. - 20:47:47 on 16 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROBERT T LEE. I sit on my excremental stool and judge the feeble powered deity of your sick imagination because a toilet bowl is a fitting place to discuss such a sickening phenomen of your imagination. I have already told you what I think of any such vile god as you profess to worship. You claim that all powerful god of yours created the universe and all life in it. Surely he should have the power to make the whole universe disappear. Being all knowing, according to your specs, he knows that I think of him. So if that piece of shit had the power he could make me disappear from the face of the earth. However, I'm still here. Either your god doesn't have the power to blow his nose or he's getting a kick making you look like a jackass trying to defend the most powerful force in the universe, according to your own description. You and I are both piss ants in the universe. If it gives you pleasure to imagine yourself as a unique specimen descended from a speck of dust go right ahead. Just don't try to sell me your bill of goods. I won't even advise you to see a shrink. You're too far gone. - 20:57:29 on 16 May 98 GMT

Grant:ROBERT T. LEE-- If I believed in Satan that would make me a theist, but ya see, I'm an atheist. Do you understand this concept? Satan is part of YOUR religion, which the majority of the world's people don't believe in. Please tell me that you don't think everybody believes in your religion but just won't admit it, because that would mean that you are delusional, in my humble opinion of course. - 21:01:18 on 16 May 98 GMT

--PETER--(sigh):--ROBERT T.LEE--Gee, I'm disapointed. Rather than address Papa Sam's allegations, all you are doing is insulting him because he questions your beliefs as they are presented at face value. He has attacked the source of your beliefs, and you find it fitting to attack him personally, as well as all those whoalso maintain the same lack of belief as he does! What to you hope to accomplish by this demonstration? Sorry, Robert, you still sound like a incoherent, emotinally bombastic, out-ou-control, and extremely irrational raging lunatic. Now, are you going to eventually exchange in here in a mature, controlled and civilized manner--as I can surely tell you-the method you have thus far chosen will only garner lack of respect for you and your assertions as well as ridicule. Now, is this what you want? - 21:29:44 on 16 May 98 GMT

Marlene..the idiocy gene survives:RTL-IMO, your absolutely bonkers! Your only correct in one thing, I do not have a soul but then again neither do you. If you chose to live in your delusion, it's your choice but pa-leez don't try to make others swallow such idiocy. - 21:39:10 on 16 May 98 GMT

Joette...newsflash for..:-->rOB...REAL QUIET won the Preakness!! The Belmont is going to be some race! - 22:22:28 on 16 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROBBIE LEE...your God bears a striking resemblance to Saddam Hussein! (at least action wise) - 22:25:06 on 16 May 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:****PETER****Do you accuse me of insulting PapaSam because I called him a descendent of the ape? It is your own foolish doctrine that makes that claim about man's origin, not the HOLY BIBLE or my doctrine. Are you insulted by your own doctrine once it is applied to yourselves? Are you insulted because the application make you see how utterly untrue it is? If you and PapaSam think that is the source from which you descended, you ought to be proud when you are reminded of the mindless creature of instinct from which you feel you had your origin.----453*%&^#%@%!^! - 22:30:11 on 16 May 98 GMT

rOB:JOETTE.. Would you believe it , I forgot about the Preakness! Thanks for the update. The opportunity for the first triple crown winner since Spectacular bid. Who came in second place and how did Victory Gallop do--if he was in the race? - 22:39:28 on 16 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB..I would believe you forgot about it, because so did I! I was outside yammering with my neighbour when all of a sudden it dawned on me and I ran inside to see that it was all over, even the fat lady singing. So I don't know anything else except who won...this is the first time in many years I've missed it..must be this 35 degree weather! - 23:10:35 on 16 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:I fear Robert E Lee is not " helping the side. " While opioion on what I say maybe mixed and disagreed on, I certainly thought I was doing a better job than him. Well all seem to do is telling people who diagree with they are Ape ( a little like Carl ) telling them they will go to hell and generalling insulting them and occationaly well very rarely putting foward some rather lame arguments. You never know he could be atheist in disgise trying to secretly discredite relgion ( if so hes doing very good job ) but probably not. His web page is little more moderate but has large picture of an american flag and capitol hill and reference to considitution which means??? oh well I will let someone else work it out. Perhaps he From the far far far far etc relgious right, but then how can I tell I don't live their after all. - 23:10:40 on 16 May 98 GMT

Third time a charm? ROBERT TEE HEE LEE...DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT ANSWER SIMPLE QUESTIONS DIRECTED TO YOU?:Joette:--->RTL...I will ask you again, HOW DO YOU HONOUR ABUSIVE PARENTS? - - 23:13:36 on 16 May 98 GMT

Marlene..come from da jungle:RTL and CHARLES-- Firstly we ALL are Primates, secondly we are only but one kind of Great Ape. Although we are capable of higher learning we are also capable of living in delusion. I don't know of many chimpanzees or gorillas that are plagued with this vice. I'm not ashamed of being related to apes but it is emabarrasing that my fellow humans are delusional. - 23:27:11 on 16 May 98 GMT

rtlee:Charles Graham---You're drunk! - 23:42:32 on 16 May 98 GMT

Joette:--RTLEE...answer my question!!! Whattsa matta? Too difficult for ya? No interpretation in your little black book to lean on? You are a stupid, foolish, git! - 0:08:35 on 17 May 98 GMT

Rob (Not interested in this Gorilla warfare...):ROBERT T LEE: I'm sorry- I appear to have missed your response. I don't think I have insulted you (have I?). BTW, I believe we are descended from the primate family, so I am not insulted by such claims. Are you insulted by the claim that you are descended from dirt? Anyway, I just want to learn more about this god you claim deserves a capital "G", but you seem to be more interested in arguing with a select few. Why is that? It's just I'm sure I read somewhere that arguing is sinful (can't think where). - 2:13:18 on 17 May 98 GMT

Grant:ROB-- I had the same thought about arguing. Maybe it's from the same place as the thing about not hating anyone without reason. I always have a reason so I guess I'm OK on the one count, but isn't that a little like saying not to commit adultery unless you're horny? - 2:30:02 on 17 May 98 GMT

Marlene..does it say that???:GRANT- OOOOOOO!!! That was good! - 3:05:07 on 17 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROBERT T LEE. I don't feel the least bit insulted at the idea that our fellow primates, the great apes, are cousins, as evidenced by the study of our DNA. We are, after all, cousins in the chain of evolution. I don't think it bothers the chimpanzees either, although it seems to bother you a great deal. It seems to be a big comedown to you. Here you feel you are descended from a handfull of dust and a piece of rib by the grace of an anthropomorphic god and I show you that you are only another member of the animal kingdom. Cheer up. You could have evolved as a jackass - literally. - 3:51:36 on 17 May 98 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Aw shucks... Yes, his site is, um, really something, but this one is better. - 6:46:49 on 17 May 98 GMT

Concerned:Come now friends, settle DOWN!!! What exactly IS the point of this forum? The theists bash the atheists, and the atheists taunt the theists. Does the atheist think he can bring the theist out of his 'ignorance' by accusing him of bigotry and threatening to kill him? Does the theist attempt to convert the atheist to God by condemning him and becoming wrathful and angry toward him, with no show of love? Do any here attempt to UNDERSTAND the other? What, without rationality, is this room going to achieve other than spewing forth a whole lot of senseless gibberish and one-sided drivel? - 13:00:11 on 17 May 98 GMT

PETER:--ROBERT T LEE--Now come on, this certainly won't do. Calling my doctrine isn't going anywhere either. At this point, I could just as easily say it is your doctrine that is foolish, and so where does that leave us. Sadly, you are going in the direction, and attempting to debate using what I call the dreaded Pee Wee Herman "Yes-it-is-no-it's-not-yes-it-is, I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" technique, which resembles nothing more than some kind schoolyard level mentality that I am certainly not interested in partaking, and if you are--I am now gravely disapointing. If your doctrine is the one that best reflects reality, a well presented argument defending that doctrine would then clearly show that accepting my doctrine would be foolish. But just calling it foolish means nothing. - 14:16:15 on 17 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->CONCERNED...well, if you are really concerned about the type of discussion herein, why not stick around an enlighten us as to how to raise the level of debate to your liking? If you are able to do so, it would be refreshing. So, do what side of the fence to you sit on, and if you are a theist, do you have proof that a god exists? - 14:49:50 on 17 May 98 GMT

-- ------One very important fact which atheists are blind to and unwilling to admit is: Atheism imposes the most terrible type of bondage upon everyone of its adherents (slaves) from which not even the most "learned" of them can free themselves. One way to show evidence of this fact is to apply to the lives of atheists one of atheism’s own deceptive principles which is found in the satanic first amendment. One thing that atheists will agree on, though wrongly, is that the first amendment to the heathen american constitution gives people like myself the right and freedom to believe in God. Lets, for a moment, assume that is true. If it does give people like me the freedom to believe in God and we are able to exercise such freedom, even though it extends the same freedom to atheists, they are so bound by atheism that they do not have the ability to exercise such a freedom. Their own atheistic constitution extends a freedom to it most faithful adherents which they find impossible to exercise. True freedom is not freedom unless on has the power to exercise such freedom. A law that gives you the freedom to do that which you find immutably impossible to do extends no true freedom. If atheists were truly free, they would have the ability to both reject God or embrace Him. But there is not one atheist who has the latter ability. Let each one of them ca - 17:04:25 on 17 May 98 GMT

ROBERT T.LEE: -- ------One very important fact which atheists are blind to and unwilling to admit is: Atheism imposes the most terrible type of bondage upon everyone of its adherents (slaves) from which not even the most "learned" of them can free themselves. One way to show evidence of this fact is to apply to the lives of atheists one of atheism’s own deceptive principles which is found in the satanic first amendment. One thing that atheists will agree on, though wrongly, is that the first amendment to the heathen american constitution gives people like myself the right and freedom to believe in God. Lets, for a moment, assume that is true. If it does give people like me the freedom to believe in God and we are able to exercise such freedom, even though it extends the same freedom to atheists, they are so bound by atheism that they do not have the ability to exercise such a freedom. Their own atheistic constitution extends a freedom to it most faithful adherents which they find impossible to exercise. True freedom is not freedom unless on has the power to exercise such freedom. A law that gives you the freedom to do that which you find immutably impossible to do extends no true freedom. If atheists were truly free, they would have the ability to both reject God or embrace Him. But there is not one atheist who has the latter ability. Let each one of them carefully observe the diabolical workings of atheism in their lives. And let them in the secret of their hearts prove to themselves that atheism has stripped them of their own constitutional freedom which they think it has given to true Christians. Let them test this fact to see whether it is true by trying just for a moment in the secrecy of their hearts to believe in the existence of God and for once in their lives think positive about His wonderful ways. And as they seek to perform those most impossible actions, they will see that atheism rules them, and not they rule it. They cannot do but what their master atheism dictates. Atheism does not allow them the freedom that true Christians have. It will not even allow them to admit to the truth of this phenomenon. Prove me wrong. WHERE IS YOUR FREEDOM YOU ATHEIST???-------------- --digsig Robert T. Lee 32bET1pN34HbDJ9hzITqseVX0v1k6R8ybxtVQr6nRfm P/enURraBi1dT/BMCbMZc0VqZbGQkkzp0BxoW1DT 4dOd5kozyfrQRRB46ksHWx6t5TCxZSk2JVPFY/cje - 17:20:16 on 17 May 98 GMT

Grant:CONCERNED-- Interesting (and telling) choice of words: --"Does the atheist think he can bring the theist out of his 'ignorance' by accusing him of bigotry and threatening to kill him? Does the theist attempt to convert the atheist to God by condemning him and becoming wrathful and angry toward him, with no show of love?"-- I haven't noticed any threats toward anyone, let alone threats to kill them. I invite you to stick around and chat. Perhaps atheists are not quite the monsters you assume them to be. - 17:25:06 on 17 May 98 GMT

rOB -----> to whomever:True freedom , well --> Embrancing and rejecting simultaneously maybe reverts back to that there is no longer any difference between the concept and life. Maybe there was the composition or interweaving of the components already. - 17:27:37 on 17 May 98 GMT

Rob (...speechless!):First- NONAME, are you ashamed of putting your real name to such comments- it is understandable if you are. Second- "constitution" -Whassat? We don't have them here. Third, an atheist is no more bound to not believing in god than a theist is to believing one. Rejecting god is then merely something the theist may do based on his belief that such a being exists. You pilchard, these are merely the terms used to describe which particular decision a person has made with regards to the existence of a god, and a person is always at liberty to ammend that decision. - 17:29:00 on 17 May 98 GMT

Ro:Oops- He owned up (not that there's many who rant about the constitution in that incoherent tone). BTW, why is it that the last couple of lines of his always make the most sense??? - 17:33:51 on 17 May 98 GMT

rOB:GRANT.. That web site was interesting , but very much on the fanatical side. I do not think one can classify DEVO as a heavy metal band. I kind of like their music (extremely amusing but also intelligent lyrics). Some people like- TO WHIP IT GOOD- to suit their own beliefs AND RESTRICT others choice of taste in music. - 17:35:55 on 17 May 98 GMT

Rob (Get your evil rocks off):GRANT: My fave bit- at the top of the site you cited, "Here's a grate quote". Yep, the fire grate is straight where that quote is headed... - 17:41:07 on 17 May 98 GMT

Rob (...in the library with the candlestick):GRANT: Now I remember- it was law 6, subsection 1 on Mr Lee's kids' site, linked here. Apparently arguing is one of the first steps to murder... - 17:51:40 on 17 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROBERT T. LEE...one day you will look out your window and notice that not all citizens of the world are American. Your constitution means nothing to me, nor to the majority of persons in this world. You live in a democracy, so if you don't like your constitution, do something constructive to change it, instead of hiding behind a computer screen. You have been implored to have an intelligent dialogue, and it seems you are incapable of having such. Now, since you are the expert on the commandments, for the FOURTH TIME, I ask you: HOW DO YOU HONOUR ABUSIVE PARENTS? - 18:05:56 on 17 May 98 GMT

Joette...the sky is falling!>>>:-->ROB/rOB/GRANT..being the evil, satanic types that we are, anyone want to join me in ripping the head off a chicken and having a cuppa blood for tea? - 18:08:38 on 17 May 98 GMT

rOB: A person is saying that it is the will of his god which does etc.-->which is giving his god convenient human characteristics. Some people try to attempt to break the traditional link between freedom and will... When one conceives a god's freedom as that say of a tyrant or legislator, one ties it to a physical contingency, or to a logical possibility-->one thus attributes inconstancy to a god's power. - 18:13:16 on 17 May 98 GMT

rOB:Joette.. Maybe that is some whimsical type of behavior that a whimsical god allows us to whip it up good--heehe! - 18:16:09 on 17 May 98 GMT

Grant:rOB-- ROB-- The site is caricature. Not bad, eh? - 18:22:57 on 17 May 98 GMT

PETER:--ROBERT T.LEE--What then would you suggest as an alternative to the first amendment? If you would have written the constitution, what would you have in it's place, or anything at all? ..Also, your inability to prove your allegations is all one would need to prove you are wrong. And so far, you have proved nothing at all. - 18:24:34 on 17 May 98 GMT

Grant:JOETTE-- Thanks, but we already did the Ram thing. - 18:25:13 on 17 May 98 GMT

rOB:I have to go somewhere now, but I would like to say that Spinoza holds that freedom is never a property of the will--will cannot be called a free cause; the will, whether finite or infinite, is always a mode that is determined by a different cause, even if this cause is the nature of nature/or labeled god under the attributes of thought.. Freeedom is a fundamental illusion of consciouisness to the extent that the latter is blind to causes, imagines possibilities, and contingencies, and believes in the willful action of the mind on the body. - 18:27:34 on 17 May 98 GMT

Rob:GRANT: I can't believe that page isn't tongue-in-cheek, but it does have some gems: *Metallica is a Country and Western band! *Repetetive beats are bad... do you know of any other kind of beats?!? *Rap leads to "potty mouth langauge", "bad grammar" (unlike bad spelling, which is not so "grate") and oral sex! (admittedly I do think rap sucks) *This beautiful confession: "All of my porno collection is EXAMPLES to show SCIENCE FICTION WRITERS and other PERVERTS how SICK they are!" - 18:30:19 on 17 May 98 GMT

rOB:GRANT..YEAH,it really is to likes of Beavis -Butthead episode, well at least that doesn't take it self so seriously as a cartoon....man , i really must leave--later! - 18:32:29 on 17 May 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:---To PETER---I suggest the first command of the TEN COMMANDMENTS as the only alternative to the first amendment. The two are antithetical to one another. Since the Commandments are of God and the first amentdment is antitheical to the first Commandment, the first amendment is from satan. Anything that is antithetical to the TEN COMMANDMENTS is always from satan. - 18:35:01 on 17 May 98 GMT

Rob:GRANT: Yep- sorry. Missed your post -I kinda clicked about halfway down when I found a link to this page halfway down (love the animation on the Aqua CD!) - 18:36:00 on 17 May 98 GMT

Rob:MR LEE: Are you afraid of mine and Joette's questions? Maybe you prefer easier ones... I know: Does God love what is good? - 18:57:11 on 17 May 98 GMT

Melissa:CHARLES GRAHAM: You disgust me. Who the hell are you to be offended when people start throwing around insults??! As I recall, you have insulted both Peter and Carl, and made many uninformed assumptions of your own!! So don't go getting all high and mighty. I HAVE POINTED OUT PLENTY OF TIMES WHERE YOU MAKE NO SENSE, ARGUED THE POINTS YOU MAKE instead of calling you names and ripping on your spelling and grammar, yet you prefer to focus on my comments regarding IQ tests and anything else that might suggest you don't know exactly what you are talking about (thus, I conclude you have a fragile ego and are a smidge ignorant, because instead of explaining the fallacies you see in MY arguments, you defend yourself against accusations I really haven't even made, like that you are stupid). And you are right. I read Ayn Rand and I think, WOW!! How true!! How absolutely and devastatingly true!! Why can't anyone else understand these simple concepts - individual rights, the efficacy of man's mind and reason, the beauty of REALITY? And I refuse to disagree completely with reason and logic and reality, the foundations of Objectivism. If you consider that evil, then woe to you brother! But when I read Marx, Nietzse, Plato, etc. I think, How can anyone believe this shit?? How can any thinking person find virtue in the enslavement of the individual to the mob, the enslavement of the intelligent, of the genius, to the ignorant and mediocre?? How can anyone deny REALITY and call this good?? This is thinking on my own, this is seeing through the lies, the evil, the ploy of those who would become parasites and feed off the men and women of ability because they cannot, or will not if at all possible, do for themselves. Also, I never blamed you for missing my posts, I expected it, you are new here and don't know how to go back to old posts (though Joette did enlighten you I see, and now you have no excuse). Your assumptions are making me tired, and the size of your ego is suffocating any patience I might have left in me. I have several times pointed out the hypocrisy inherent in each of your tyrades, as well as your inability to focus on essentials, basic premises, and argue from these. Yet you fail to recognize these points, and instead dwell on either the first or last couple of sentences of my posts, which you would understand, if you were capable of retaining the gist of my argument, are not insults, but the only logical conclusion. P.S. It's funny how you preach tolerance for anything and everything, EXCEPT INtolerance, of which you are INtolerant. Kinda hypocritical, eh? - 19:39:22 on 17 May 98 GMT

Melissa:ROBERT T LEE: How does the first ammendment prohibit you from exercising your beliefs? There is a church on almost every street here in Phoenix, and I've gotten many knocks on my door inviting me to visit one of these churches or another? Are you really claiming that you are the member of a persecuted minority? And would you prohibit Jews and Moslems and Buddhists and Daoists and etc. from practicing their religion if you had a chance? How is that FREEDOM? Also, I believe if you read any history book you'll find that all mass murders, genocide, and crimes against life were committed in the name of God. For example: The Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, and how about the Catholic and Protestant war in Ireland? And what about the little girl I mentioned earlier - the one who's mother shot her in the head because she was conceived out of wedlock, and this is a sin? Who honors the children in your little world? - 19:50:22 on 17 May 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:---Melissa----Anyone who commits an act worthy of death in the sight of God Most High, such as lesbianism, adultery and etc., are high criminals of the world community, and therefore every sane government has been made responsible by God to put such criminals to death. No one on earth has any right to live and function on earth except the RIGHTEOUS. Criminals are supposed to lose their rights, even the right to life, by virtue of their criminality. - 20:10:25 on 17 May 98 GMT

Grant:ROBERT T. LEE-- But don't you recognize that the first ammendment gaurantees your rights as well? I'm sure you realize that some strongly oppose your views. Is it possible that you are taking on a little too much of God's work by your eagerness to deny the life and liberty of those who do not see God's desires as you do? Who has God chosen for judge and executioner, and by what criteria? - 20:17:48 on 17 May 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:---Grant---The american constitution and its amendments were inspired by satan. It is therefore a great mistake to think that the first amendment in truth gives anyone the right to truly serve God. It grants the so-called right for any person to follow any manmade or demonic ideology, philosophy or religion, but it never gives the right to anyone to truly worship God. One reason for this is because true worship of God destroys the works of the devil, and the first amendment is part of his works. The opposition true Christians receive in america is none other than the fruit of the american constitution a work in the lives of the people who makes the opposition. - 20:33:34 on 17 May 98 GMT

Grant:ROBERT T. LEE-- I don't understand how this can be so. If everyone is compelled to live a true Christian life as you see it, where is the test? What is the purpose of this life? If a person, for example a Jew sincerely believes that he is observing God's commandments, but he is forced to behave outwardly as a Christian, what purpose is served? Perhaps you could lay out your reasons for coming to these conclusions. How did you determine that the constitution was inspired by satan? - 20:54:14 on 17 May 98 GMT

ROBERT T.LEE:---Grant---Isn't every citizen rightly compelled to obey the righteous laws of the nation in which they reside? And if they fail to obey, isn't the goverment right in punishing all who disobey? So why do think it should be any different in God's Kingdom. God created this world, we are citizen of it, He is King of it, and therefore we are obligated to obey His moral Laws. If we disobey, He has all right to punish, because all His Laws are righteous. The american constitution is of satan because it inspires rebellion against God. - 23:56:51 on 17 May 98 GMT

Arnold:So, Robert T. Lee wants the 1st Commandment as the 1st Ammendment. Apparently he is naive enough to think that somebody else wouldn't gain controlling influence over the government and decide that his style of God belief was heresy. He forgets that this is exactly what has happened EVERY time that religion has been made the basis of government. It is ironic that if the Christian Right were to gain control of the US govt., it would be competing factions within the Christian Right itself who would be the first "heretics" placed in the stocks. - 0:21:52 on 18 May 98 GMT

Andrew Jackson,,:rtl, i think the ten commandments suck! hahahaha! - 0:34:17 on 18 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROBERT T LEE. You sure have a piss poor god. He can't seem to get anything right. First his angels give him the razzberries - and I do mean razz - and Satan seems to be kicking his ass all over the place, at least that's what you're telling us. Then he creates humans and he can't even control them. All he does is get you to complain and threaten us , the atheists, with hell. If he were the big shot you would like him to be he could de-create the universse and start over again. Your god doesn't have enough power blow his nose. As for your Ten Commandments. even his own son, jesus, ignores them. "Honor thy father and mother". Sure. . When his mother tries to approach your boy jesus, he tells her "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" Later: " I am come to set son against father, daughter against mother, - -" I suggest you read your bible, Robert, so you'll have some idea what you're talking about. You are wallowing in ignorance of your own source book. Maybe you should go shopping for another god' The one you've got now doesn't seem to be worth a shit. - 0:36:16 on 18 May 98 GMT

ROBERT T LEE. Your god is sure a self centered and selfish son of a bitch. Your first four commandments are "Me, me ,me and me. I'm number one. Love me and kiss my ass." Well, you go to it Robert. and get shit all over your nose. The term "Brown nosing" was invented to describe people like you. And now a little warning for you. Read your bible carefully, particularly those parts devoted to "Heaven".You will find that many are called and few are chosen, and you just might find yourself impaled on a pitchfork next to me in HELL. I look forward to seeing you. - 0:50:16 on 18 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROBERT T LEE. Your god is sure a self centered and selfish son of a bitch. Your first four commandments are "Me, me ,me and me. I'm number one. Love me and kiss my ass." Well, you go to it Robert. and get shit all over your nose. The term "Brown nosing" was invented to describe people like you. And now a little warning for you. Read your bible carefully, particularly those parts devoted to "Heaven".You will find that many are called and few are chosen, and you just might find yourself impaled on a pitchfork next to me in HELL.I look forward to seeing you. - 0:53:50 on 18 May 98 GMT

Melissa:ROBERT T LEE: NO, every citizen is NOT "rightly compelled to obey the righteous laws of the nation in which they reside". Would you say it was your duty to obey the laws of a government that held murder as a virtue, a necessity, the duty of every patriotic citizen? What if that government went further to claim that every citizen was compelled by law to kill every Christian he/she met? Would you obey that law?? Probably not. A government must have a justifiable moral basis for any law it enacts. If a law is evil, no citizen should be compelled to obey it. It is presicely for this reason that you are allowed (interestingly enough through the virtue of our first ammendment) to bash the Constitution as the work of Satan. Your statements are hilariously hypocritical. - 1:21:26 on 18 May 98 GMT

Grant:ROBERT T. LEE-- I don't see the government's role as "punishing" exactly, but as protecting the rights and property of the individual by assent of the people. It is not the government's proper or desired role to tell me or you or anyone else what to think, and it is not possible for it to do so. Would you alter your beliefs on the basis of government orders? Neither would anyone else. The government is intended (and rightly so) to be representative of the people. If there is a God, and he wishes to punish, it's different from you and other people wishing to punish. I don't recall it said that Jesus sent his disciples out to kill everyone who disobeyed God's laws, but rather he sent them out to preach and convert. As I recall, he prevented the stoning to death of an adulteress. Within the framework of Christianity I can't see how it is anyone else's place but God's to judge and punish. Within the framework of Christianity your position seems a dangerous one to take for your own sake. BTW, there are many religious beliefs. If you wish to convince anyone that yours are valid, you will need to subsantiate them, rather than merely state what they are. - 1:34:34 on 18 May 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:Alas, you blind people! I cry as I read the inverterate depravity you spew out from your hearts against your Creator. I have come to this site in effort to convince you to turn to Him. The reason I have done so is not to try to force my beliefs upon you, but to try to show you the way of truth. Salvation can only be found in God's Son. Therer is no salvation in atheism. There is only eternal damnation. But you have resisted and blashemed and have not considered yourselve worthy of God's grace. Therefore I am leaving this site and shall not return for a while. Your blood be upon your own heads, I am clean. I will go elsewhere to find people who are more sensible. - 1:48:49 on 18 May 98 GMT

Melissa:ROBERT T LEE: "No one on earth has any right to live and function on earth except the RIGHTEOUS." I thought at first that you meant this woman who shot her daughter in the head should be put to death. I concluded this because I couldn't imagine how anyone could possibly suggest that little girl deserved to die. Then I read your post again. It doesn't address the issue directly - you haven't the balls to say "Yes I believe that little girl deserved to die", you have to beat around the bush because you are not a man of integrity (as is obvious in your continuous evasion of the real issues posed by many on this site). So, now I understand. The little girl was conceived out of wedlock, which according to you is a sin punishable by death, therefore she deserved a bullet to the brain. Hurray for the mother!!! Let's forget the fact that this little girl had no choice in the matter. You'd probably have the mother put to death, too, since she committed the sin of fornication, NOT BECAUSE SHE MURDERED HER CHILD. Sir, YOU MAKE ME SICK! Yes, the mother should die. But that little girl, just because she wasn't, by your definition, one of the RIGHTEOUS??!! You are an evil, small-minded, pompous, pathetic specimen of a human being. You are not concerned with the welfare of mankind, the "redemption" of man, but with the possibility of your own political power. I spit on you and your "righteous morals". - 1:54:52 on 18 May 98 GMT

Melissa --> Robert T Lee:P.S. -- PLEASE keep that promise and LEAVE and NEVER EVER come back. - 1:58:08 on 18 May 98 GMT

Grant:MELISSA-- Well I'm not going to feel self concious about using the word "delusional" any more. - 2:07:47 on 18 May 98 GMT

- 2:08:14 on 18 May 98 GMT

Melissa:GRANT: nor do I feel it unnecessary to call him by his true names anymore, be they as vulgar and reprehensible as they are. - 2:09:29 on 18 May 98 GMT

Joshua:Robert: just give you a couple of followers and you could be the next Hitler. - 2:12:44 on 18 May 98 GMT

PETER:--GRANT--Excellent post--ROBERT T LEE--You say in your post "I have come to this site in effort to convince you to turn to God". Are you attempting to do this logically? - 2:13:13 on 18 May 98 GMT

PETER:---Robert T. Lee says :" I will go elsewhere to find people who are more sensible." Now if this isn't the most glaring example of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. - 3:27:42 on 18 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROBERT T LEE. Good riddance to bad rubbish.Don't feel too sad. Some other asshole will come along to take your place. - 4:14:16 on 18 May 98 GMT

Melissa:CHARLES GRAHAM: Is it the Robert T Lees of the world you wish us to tolerate? Is it their sack of shit morality you wish me to turn my back on? I hope you realize what ignoring a man who claims that the murder of an innocent six-year-old child is a virtue will lead to, especially when that man has obvious political aims (i.e., to abolish the Bill of Rights and replace them with the Ten Commandments). I refuse - as I am sure Carl does, as I am sure most thinking people do - to tolerate the psychotic delusions of this paranoid fanatic. P.S. I responded to your little tyrade of insults toward me in a previous post, which I see has left the page before you've had a chance to respond. Here's how to backtrack if you are interested -- where the URL says "show=30&user", change the 30 to a larger number, say 100 or 500, whatever. The page will reload with that number of posts available. The URL would then look like this --> "http://www.flex.net/~terran/cgi-bin/relig.cgi?show=100&user=&url=&short=&all= " If you're not interested, well, that's all right, too. - 6:24:41 on 18 May 98 GMT

courtney:unfortunately, you are right about robert leaving. someone will come along and take his place. i am a seeker of truth and would like someone to point me toward it. my e-mail is gte274d@prism.gatech.edu. feel free to e-mail me with what you THINK the truth is. I am open-minded and will take any ideas. thank you and have a good day. - 7:24:47 on 18 May 98 GMT

Steven:ALL<<>>Robert E Lee must be from Texas. This is the kind of freaks that we have in multitude down here in Tejas. I think Quack and Robert Lee need to get together and go bowling. Hey ROBERT E LEE, do you drink strychnin? Do you dance with Rattle Snakes? bahahahahahaha! - 13:08:18 on 18 May 98 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN- Did you forget Richard from downunder and the nutcase with the keyboard? They may like to join the party. - 14:28:21 on 18 May 98 GMT

Steven:MARLENE<<>>Richard was nuts, but he didn't come close to QUACK or this Robert dude. ROBERT T LEE is a shinning example of how easy it is for christians to justify murder/slaughter in the name of their god. He is exactly the kind of lunatic who burns witches, atheists, scholars at the stake. Once again, another court room case of someone who needs a padded cell, and no chance to propogate. Can you imagine what children from a freak like Robert E Lee would be like. Can you imagine the suffering, and the lack of personal freedom that a government run by a cultist like Robert would be like. It would be a nightmare of enormous preportions. - 15:15:05 on 18 May 98 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN- I can imagine! There are SO many of them too! As Papsam says, when he leaves there is always another asshole to take his place. - 15:22:18 on 18 May 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Looks like the thinkers here had a plague filled weekend of unkind religious non-thinkers. It seems that a typical course of interaction of the religious believer, that venture beyond the distinctive verbalism of their scriptures, they get ugly and mean of word. As long as they can play, like those at the "theology chat" who pray and bless and so on- each other, within the confines of "their" verbal distinctions (religious-belief words) that are without any essential correlation with the nature of thinking in the real world they can be "nice" of word. But, as soon as they- religious believers, begin to apply their "thnking processes" to the real world, an action they are unfamiliar with, they attack, much like any cornored animal, they bare their fangs and screech inanely. Just toss the animal a bone,i.e., their bible, to gnaw on,i.e., pacify them. - 15:28:16 on 18 May 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN1: per the CNN site, it looks as tho'the mormon god will have a change o'heart, possibly as soon as next month, and ok being black and mormon. What a swell god. - 18:05:34 on 18 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Courtney...: I know the truth. Can you handle the truth? How *open* is "open minded"? - 18:53:54 on 18 May 98 GMT

Marlene:RON- HA HA maybe not THAT open-minded! We're in a state of emergency here. We had so much rain in two days that the roads are flooded as well as many people's homes. Wierd weather! - 18:57:22 on 18 May 98 GMT

PETER:--RON--Does this include the "truth" about the aliens and their space ships? - 20:01:10 on 18 May 98 GMT

Rob:GRANT: In the vane of the "thou shalt not watch wrestling" commandment, I thought you might like this link: - 20:35:17 on 18 May 98 GMT

Rob:ROBERT T LEE: You might like this one - 20:36:28 on 18 May 98 GMT

Rob:ANY: And this one is a must for cultural anthropologists... - 20:46:04 on 18 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Marlene and PETER...: Hush. PETER, no aliens or spaceships, you spend too much time in front of your TV. Sitchin sells millions so, there must be a lot of open minded people somewhere. I know I believe his research. I'll drop COURTNEY a line and point her on the path to awareness. "Follow, follow, follow the yellow brick road!" - 21:16:45 on 18 May 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN2: Flitting about, a common point of the religious believers, has it that Atheists attack them. The closet action to an attack agin'theism that one said was an attack that I've recently made was agin'ignorance. That it so happens that adherents of religious b.s.fall into the definition of that notion- ignorance, in large numbers does not mean its an attack on them. But, they being ignorant do they know the difference? But, here and elsewhere, except maybe the WCS site, the general approach to theism has been one of query and doubt. Is this an attack? The closest to answering querys of theism was the TONY, and even he, as it seemed that his ideas began to sputter and fizzle, well where did he go? If that godthing were what they imagine it to be, I bet I'da seen by now and kno'it so. But, nada. - 22:48:37 on 18 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:Mellissa : One of vital componants of free speech is that you can say what you like within reason. i.e incitment to Murder is out. I myself certainly don't like the sort intolerance and simple mindness Robert E lee displays anymore than you do. As for contitution don't as me I am not American however I would consider the right to carry fire arms should be axed. But how do you shut him up are you for cencorship? If so who decided what is to be cencored, who stand a judge and jury over that what is acceptable in society. Who imposes what they consider to be their own cultural, social and politcal norm on society and ban all others. Will the atheist ban religion and theist than athisium. But who is cencor you me Robert E Lee Societies that banns free speech and certian line of thought, and are endless justifing themselves are often those with the most to hide. In Lockes essay on political freedom he pointed out, that while it could be argued that going to church of England was a good thing for the commanwealth. Just because it seem good did not mean the goverment, had to restrict freedoms on those alternatives it saw currantly as less perferable. I would expect you to extend to same curtasy in reverse to Robert E Lee you can still laugh at him though. Voltaire " I do not agree with what you are saying but I will defend to the death your right to say it " p.s Carl you havn't changed a bit now I feel this sudden urge naw a bible, any idea why??????? - 23:20:56 on 18 May 98 GMT

Melissa:CHARLES GRAHAM: Thank you for finally acknowledging my arguments and offering a counter. I must say also, your grammar and spelling have improved. There are two issues you bring up: cencorship directly and extremism indirectly. First I'll deal with censorship. You ask, "But how do you shut him up are you for cencorship? If so who decided what is to be cencored, who stand a judge and jury over that what is acceptable in society. Who imposes what they consider to be their own cultural, social and politcal norm on society and ban all others." This is an excellent question. The only "who" that has the ability to censor the expression of an idea is a government. This is because it is only a government, in a free society devoted to the protection of individual rights, that has a legal monopoly on the use of brute force, and it is only through brute force that one can effectively censor the expression of an idea in such a society. If an individual were to attempt to censor another individual through brute force - if the individual INITIATED the use of brute force to quiet another - the one being censored would have legal recourse agianst that individual, his rights would have been violated. Therefore, individual CENSORSHIP would be impossible in a society devoted to the protection of individual rights. However, if a government were allowed to violate an individual's right to hold his own convictions, and disallow the expression of those convictions, if the government were allowed to abuse its monopoly on brute force to this extent, this would be the correct definition of CENSORSHIP. The authors of the US Bill of Rights recognized the nature of government and so created the First Ammendment to protect an individual's right to express his own views (not necessarily to act on them mind you, merely to express them) without fear of government retaliation, i.e., prison, fines, or death. This Ammendment, however, does not protect an individual from the disagreement of other individuals and their RIGHT to NOT provide him with a platform. Now the problem we face with the Free Speech movements of today is that people are trying to equate government action with individual action and thus abolish an individual's right to disagree. They claim that, if a person disagrees with the views of another person and does not wish to support those views, in fact REFUSES to support those views and provide him with a platform, then that individual is guilty of censorship. But what right are these would-be "individual rights" activists denying by compelling a man to support the views of his enemy?? Whose rights are being subordinated now? No individual has the power to censor another's views, only the power to walk away, or, if the views are being shouted out on his private property, to demand the removal of his enemy from his property, or to refuse to provide his enemy with a platform. If Robert T Lee burst into your home and began spewing his evil into the ears of your children, can you honestly insist that this is his right? That you must indulge the whims of your enemy even if they invade the privacy of your own home? If you do, then you are no advocate of individual rights at all, because you deny your own, and your argument is senseless because you deny the basic premise upon which it is based. - 0:21:45 on 19 May 98 GMT

Melissa:CHARLES GRAHAM: P.S. That Voltaire quote, I agree with it. However, I would add, "but I will not fight for your right to say it at the expense of another man's rights to disagree with it." - 0:23:29 on 19 May 98 GMT

Melissa:CHARLES GRAHAM: Now for the subject of extremism. This whole battle against intolerance you have is essentially anti-extremism, and since I could not say it better or in a shorter space, I'll let Ayn Rand speak: "To begin with, 'extremism' is a term which, standing by itself, has no meaning. The concept of 'extreme' denotes a relation, a measurement a degree. The dictionary gives the following definitions: 'Extreme, adj. -- 1. of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average. 2. utmost or exceedingly great in degree.' It is obvious that the first question one has to ask, before using that term, is: a degree -- of what? To answer: 'Of anything!' and to proclaim that any extreme is evil because it is an extreme -- to hold the degree of a characteristic, regardless of its nature, as evil -- is an absurdity (any garbled Aristotelianism to the contrary notwithstanding). Measurements, as such, have no value - significance - and acquire it only from the nature of that which is being measured. Are an extreme of health and an extreme of disease equally undesirable? Are extreme intelligence and extreme stupidity -- both equally far removed 'from the ordinary or average' -- equally unworthy? Are extreme honesty and extreme dishonesty equally immoral? Are a man of extreme virtue and a man of extreme depravity equally evil? The examples of such absurdities can be multiplied indefinitely -- particularly in the field of morality where only an extreme (i.e., unbreached, uncompromised) degree of virtue can be properly called a virtue. (What is the moral status of a man of 'moderate' integrity?)" -- From _Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_, page 177-78, copyright 1967. What I essentially wish to point out, through both of these posts, is that every man judges an idea, based on his own moral code, to be right or wrong. He is the one who may be the "judge and jury" of an idea and refuse to support it or provide it with a platform, i.e., financial backing, or printing in a newspaper that he owns, or broadcasting it on a television or radio station that he owns. A government may not impede the free expression of ideas among free men, but it is an individual's moral RIGHT to refuse to support a particular idea. And it is ignorant to think that ONE man can stand in the way of the expression of an idea. There are all kinds of people out there with all kinds of ideas. If Mr. New York Times will not publish the Ku Klux Klan manifesto, somebody will. Intolerance by an individual of some doctrine does not paralyze that doctrine's ability to circulate in public among all other doctrines. So lighten up. - 0:51:46 on 19 May 98 GMT

Melissa:CHARLES GRAHAM: Sorry, I just noticed this. You said, "One of vital componants of free speech is that you can say what you like within reason. i.e incitment to Murder is out." I want to highlight "within reason". Within WHOSE reason? Who defines what falls within reason? And what constitutes "incitement" to murder? Aren't men to be held responsible for their own actions? Do you honestly consider a man to be a mindless automaton, ready to kill and maim at the whim of any "incitor"? Isn't this "within reason" just a disguised form of censorship? As long as the man is only EXPRESSING the idea of murder, for whatever reason, and not ACTING on it, what crime has he committed? And if others act on his mere expression of the idea of murder, why should he be held responsible for their insanity, as long as he did not participate in the ACT? And I must ask that you clarify "incitement", because the ACT of murder can include being an accomplice in the planning as well as the carrying out of a murder. So if "incitement" means merely saying "So-and-so should be shot", and the next day So-and-so is found shot, but the guy who said "So-and-so should be shot" is found to have no other connection to the death than this, well, go get the guys who shot So-and-so, and leave the so-called "incitor" alone. But if "incitement" means the calculated involvement in the murder of so-and-so, as well as saying "Shoot So-and-so", and So-and-so is found shot, and it can be proved the "incitor" was more involved than just expressing his wish that So-and-so were dead, then go after him as well, but not because he verbally expressed his opinion that So-and-so should be killed - do it because he helped in carrying out that desire. O.K. Sorry so long, but you got my juices going. - 1:09:45 on 19 May 98 GMT

Melissa:CHARLES GRAHAM: One more thing (short I promise): You said, "Just because it seem good did not mean the goverment, had to restrict freedoms on those alternatives it saw currantly as less perferable. I would expect you to extend to same curtasy in reverse to Robert E Lee". Why should I be expected to extend the courtesy that only a government can extend? I cannot ban Mr. Lee from coming here and expressing his views. Flex.net could, but I don't think they wish to, nor would I ask them to. But I'm glad he's gone. - 1:13:33 on 19 May 98 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- BRAVO! The manner in which you state an argument is meticulous. Are you studying law or economics? You've mentioned you are still quite young, do you plan to work in an area where you can use your talents? - 1:42:18 on 19 May 98 GMT

Marlene:ROB- HA! HA! I loved those sites! - 1:44:41 on 19 May 98 GMT

Marlene..no such luck:MELISSA- Remember RTL's last word's, he said he's only gone for awhile. - 1:51:47 on 19 May 98 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- We've had our shot at the "Truth." He'll only come back to kill us. - 2:01:21 on 19 May 98 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Yikes! - 3:02:42 on 19 May 98 GMT

rOB:The Ayn Rand quote of extremism that Melissa used ca be applied to humans, in ostensibly we do not 'stand still' as a term only. Maybe we all have some extremist 'tendencies' in some slight or great regard. Robert T. Lee manifested his leaning towards extremism on a blatant scale using this forum of discussion. It was sort of being hit repeatedly by some new/ but still old -age ten commandment manifesto. - 7:12:06 on 19 May 98 GMT

Melissa:MARLENE: I'm double majoring in psychology and english right now, hope to get a Ph.D. in neuroscience eventually. But I have been entertaining the idea of going into law lately - I don't know. CHARLES: Just thought of something I want to clarify: please don't infer from my last post that I think a government is extending a COURTESY by "allowing" free speech. A government cannot GRANT individual rights, only act as their protector. A man's life is his by virtue of his nature, being an independent, rational creature in Nature. His rights stem from this and should not be violated by another individual, and especially not by a group, e.g., a government. - 7:15:55 on 19 May 98 GMT

Carl:CG: perhaps you "want", subconsciously(?), to exist within what you imagine to be your postulated ideal of an animal? - 14:26:07 on 19 May 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: Two atoms are walking down the street and they run into each other. One says to other, "Are you all right?" The other says "No, I lost an electron!" One asks "Are you sure?" The other says "Yeah, I'm positive." - 17:26:01 on 19 May 98 GMT

Charles Again:Carl you have this thing about animals ( it was not a literal question ) Melissa good points I had think about quite hard. I seem to have dropped into one of your specilities, but I do not agree with Marlena entrely and as gifted ( hopefully ) amataer I can see quite their a few flaws in your arguement which my provibal trucks will not start driving though. Your point about the platform is flawed because this would give anyone in charge of good deal of media like Murdock the right of cencor over another views. One wide scale this give the elite ( those in charge of information services TV newspaper radio ) a great control over the masses. An elite whose views may be quite out concerance with the peoples and my be out to set thing up ensure their own position at any cost. This varys a great deal from society to scoiety. But a state run newspaper critising the state is a unusal thing. Hence the propitier of newspaper X has right to bann an articutle about pollution in an ICI plant in Sunderland because he owns some shares in the company which would fall if the scandel were exposed you would be surprised how much of this their is. Hence you seem to be for a sort of informal form cencorship where as in more more extreme example. The democracy activist in Burma have right to his opion and is able circualte his view around his village on rice paper, but he unlikly to get published in a serious way due the cencorship of the general who run the newspaper ( or refuzing to provide a platform as you would say ). You underesimate comman sense of people their intellergence, to accept or reject rational arguement or opioions. If Robert E Lee burst into my house I might hear him out and then politely ask him to leave then start getting angry if that did'nt work As I am only 18 children is not something I am very concerned about for now. Your example of Klan Klax manifesto is good on but not perfect, after all if they saw it they could see how ridicious their point of view. They could also surround it with counter arguements, to point out how crap it was. A good example of this was done in new statemen their 30 year on rivers of blood speech Enoch powel racist speech with comments from black people in media along side. True he is dead and the fact was 30 year old made it less exposvie but it was good start. Most media is very one sided. Surely in your world this would not happen. You glorify the goverment as supreme authority in these matter but the sum of it limited part and may not reflect the currant mood of soceity. The internet has done far more good in breaking down govermental barrier on expression and cencorship than anything. Those goverment that the goverment that already have no secret no hold bare have the least to lose from such a change the free an open minded have nothing to fear. Voltaire " quote " the expression of opposite and contary view does not surpess your or anyone else view, view it merely ampifies and but in sharper contrast and definition. Put in context and provide a opposite. How can my theism/ agonisism deny your right to athiesm. Would you as editor ( an example ) of athieism today denie the request of well respected theolgican to express his view in your paper as reply to on you articules. The new sientist write an aticule indirectly attacking relgion should the leacheur in seince and relgion be denied ( he wasn't fortuntely ) the right to answer the charges. As for Extremism this often denotes a sort of intolerance of other points of view. No one will admit their point of view is evil but right for different reasons. An extreme of virtue in pratical terms would lead to virtuous person trying to impose their view of virtue on the rest of society at any cost its not unknown. Communist end up using all the worse methords of their caplist competiton to try and make a square wheel roll and their virteous system work by destroy the idea of an alternative. Their is difference between extremely virteous and a extremist of virtue. That is where ann rand is wrong I think. If I say to a screaming lych mob " kill them kill them ". I am doing no wrong as I not directly in involved merely well reasoned opioion. I may be for free speech but their are limits to anything. I took this idea from salmun rushdie. - 17:50:55 on 19 May 98 GMT

--CHARLES--It's AYN Rand AYN Rand AYN Rand--NOT "ann" ( incidentally, she is NEVER wrong--ohhhh, she is NEVER wrong. Read her books. She is never wrong--she even says so!) - 18:23:48 on 19 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:P.S If some say they arn't wrong I does not mean they nessersarily are. ( e.g 2 + 2 = 5 i am alway right ) She ( it is a she? ) sounds talented but perfect? in making that claim for her self she is by definition wrong. - 19:18:50 on 19 May 98 GMT

CHARLES--Oh she may be wrong once in a while, of course, this was said with the tongue in the cheek. C'mon, Charles--I used the word "she" five times and the word "her" once, when making references to her. Would this not be sufficient to indicate Ayn Rand is a "she"? - 19:46:28 on 19 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:Who am I talking to? Ok my mistake I was wrong, an ambigious name though. It was of course strange that you asribed some of the qualitlies of god to her. Funny Melissa should accuse me quoting without understanding and then goes and quotes a whole page. But such is life. - 19:59:22 on 19 May 98 GMT

Marlene aka Marline aka Marlena:CHARLES- Do you go in and out of dyslexia, kind of like diversional dementia dyslexia? Maybe Melissa has some suggestions for you. - 20:22:42 on 19 May 98 GMT

Marlene:Holy Third World Country! I bought $85 worth of US money today and it cost me $125! Ohh! How free trade has helped our country! - 20:25:44 on 19 May 98 GMT

Melissa:CHARLES GRAHAM: I did not quote that page (incidentally it wasn't a WHOLE page, merely a couple of paragraphs) WITHOUT understanding it. I would never do such a thing. There you go making you goddamned assumptions again. - 22:20:08 on 19 May 98 GMT

Melissa:CHARLES GRAHAM: Now to attack, oh yes, ATTACK, your arguments one by one. Here goes --> You claim my point about the platform is flawed because this would give an individual in charge of a good deal of media control over which views are expressed in the forms of media he controls. First, what constitutes "a good deal of media". Second, are you claiming the only forms of media available to an individual are WEALTHY, SUCCESSFUL tv stations, radio stations, newspapers - only those with a substantially WIDE distribution area? What about pamphlets, speeches, the internet? Do you think that, with all the people in the world, one man will not be able to find another that will support his views? Thirdly, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, are you DENYING a man's right to control the products of his labors?? Do you think the men who own television and radio stations, newspapers and magazines, had the wide range of audience just HANDED to him?? No, he had to work his ass off, for years, to gain the readership or viewership or listenership that he has today. Are you claiming that his right to disagree with and therefore refuse to support an idea antithetical to his own convictions is subordinate to the wish of another individual to be heard?? Are you saying that he OWES this individual a platform which that individual did not earn, but he built up with the sweat of his own brow and the intelligence of his own mind?! If so you cannot claim to be a supporter of INDIVIDUAL rights, since by denying one man his right to use the products of his own labor to his own advantage you obliterate the concept at the start. You also say, " Hence the propitier of newspaper X has right to bann an articutle about pollution in an ICI plant in Sunderland because he owns some shares in the company which would fall if the scandel were exposed you would be surprised how much of this their is." No sir, I would not be surprised, but I would not demand that this proprieter give up his right to do with the products of his labor what he deems necessary. Why? Because the report of the pollution scandal WOULD get published in a different paper, probably with reference to that original proprieters bias, since there will always be another newspaper out there. Only if a government grants a newspaper a monopoly on information, as in your example of a STATE run newspaper, would there not be another forum, therefore making CENSORSHIP possible. And to speak of your state run newspaper - only a fascist, communist, or totalitarian government could do such a thing. A truly capitalistic government would have no control over the economy, i.e., any business whatsoever, including the press - therefore an idea would always have a forum. You claim I believe in an informal sense of censorship. I claim you haven't the ability to intergrate and retain concepts. I explained to you that only a government can CENSOR, it is not possible for an individual to do so, no matter how much "power", i.e. control of a portion of the media, you claim he has. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN CENSORSHIP. I BELIEVE IN AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF THE PRODUCTS OF HIS LABOR IN ANY FORM HE DEEMS NECESSARY. If a man wants a platform to express his views, and no one is willing to give him the one they own, he should go out and MAKE his own, CREATE his own platform, then he may use it to express his views. But that takes a lot of hard work, you say. It will be a difficult battle, you say. He should be able to dispose of the platform already built by Mr. X of XY Newspapers, you say. By what right??! You complain of the inability of the poor Burma man whose views of democracy won't get published on anything more than rice paper because a GENERAL (a military official with a gun, a government official with a gun - the power of brute force) won't allow it. You keep confusing two concepts: the actions of an individual and the actions of a government. They are not one in the same, as I explained before. The Burmese government is not democratic, they do not have a capitalistic economy, they do not support INDIVIDUAL rights. This is why this GOVERNMENT official can CENSOR him. Don't give me examples of government censorship to proclaim that an INDIVIDUAL has no right to refuse another a platform. The two phenomena are not one in the same. You claim I underestimate the common sense and intelligence of people in general, that they'll be able to sort out the rational from the irrational (I'd say you are proof that YOU OVERestimate them), but you are simply making another assumption. Nowhere have I based my argument on this concept. As a matter of fact, I find this concept absolutely irrelevant. On the Ku Klux Klan thing, again, you miss the basic premise from which I am arguing. You are correct, the owner of a newspaper could publish it and criticize it. But that is not the point. The point is, it is his RIGHT to CHOOSE not to do so if he feels that manifesto does not even deserve the acknowledgement of criticism. "Surely in your world this would not happen", i.e. the criticism. WRONG. This would happen only if the owner of the newpaper wanted it to, NOT because the KKK had some CLAIM to a "right" to that platform. And now I have to stop because I just read the next sentence and I realize you have understood NOTHING I said in my previous post on this subject. You say that I "glorify the goverment as supreme authority in these matter ". This statement shows that, contrary to the opening of your post, you did NOT think about what I said. If you had you'd have realized that I do NOT think the government SHOULD have supreme authority in these matters, that I ABHOR government involvement in business, especially the press, that I am glorifying INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, not GOVERNMENT "RIGHTS", as governments have no preordained rights, only individuals do, and the only "right" a government has is the right to use force to punish those who violate an individual right, and not by INITIATING force, but by using it AFTER it has been initiated by the perpetrator of a crime in order to STOP the perpetration of the crime. This incidentally is not a preordained government "right", but the right of the individual to defend himself, which, in a civilized society, the individual GRANTS the government so the government might act on his behalf to secure his rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (the PURSUIT of happiness, mind you, not happiness without the expenditure of effort required to gain it). Thus I come back to my original premise --> Your activist who wishes a platform on which to express his ideas has every right preordained to man via man's nature as a rational independent being, to PURSUE a platform, even build one himself (i.e., the right to pursue the happiness that having a platform will give him), but NOT the right to a platform built by someone else (i.e., the happiness at another man's expense). I hope I've clarified my points. Just to reiterate, you CANNOT equate government censorship (i.e., censorship at the point of a gun) with upholding one's convictions (i.e., the CHOICE of an individual to disagree). And you cannot, morally, give an individual the right to use the products of another man's labor WITHOUT the voluntary consent of that man. Every man has the right to his own life. But NO man has the right to the life of another. That is, pure and simple, SLAVERY. - 23:46:38 on 19 May 98 GMT

Melissa:CHARLES GRAHAM: Had to break this up. Now for your examples. You right to agnosticism does not deny my right to atheism. I never claimed it did. I say merely that your right to agnosticism does not preclude my right to deny you a platform to express that belief, if that platform was produced of my own labors, or is sustained by my labors. You keep confusing issues and relying on blind generalizations, coming to illogical conclusions. Personally, being the intelligent, reasonable, fair person that I am, I would most definitely print a respected theologian's thoughts on an article I had written. Another person, having no confidence in his own morals or convictions, might not. But that is his right, as editor or owner of the newspaper. The decision to do so would only serve to expose his self-doubt, but his right to do so remains. Should the lecturer you refer to be denied the "right" to answer the charges? The "right" to answer the charges, no. But he will envoke this "right" at whose expense? He can only answer the charges if he finds someone willing to publish his answer, or if he publishes it himself. As for your comments on extremism and communism and capitalism, you do not understand what you have read. You are failing to grasp the essentials and are focusing on the range-of-the-moment nonessentials. What Rand said was saying, ESSENTIALLY, is that "extremism" is a non-concept unless used in a specific context. You claim she doesn't distinguish between an extreme amount of virtue and someone's dogmatic belief in his own moral system (though you said it rather implicitly, in the language of someone unpracticed in being articulate). Well, this only proves you don't understand her point. Someone's dogmatic belief in his own moral system is extreme by definition, yes, but that, this extremism, is not what makes his dogmatism evil, it is the special characteristics of his moral system that will determine if his "extremism" is evil or not. As for your comment on communism and capitalism, "Communist end up using all the worse methords of their caplist competiton to try and make a square wheel roll and their virteous system work by destroy the idea of an alternative", it is very telling. You seem to be an advocate of communism. Tell me what are these horrible methods of capitalism of which you speak. Please, explain. And lastly, you say, "I may be for free speech but their are limits to anything. I took this idea from salmun rushdie." Salmun Rushdie is wrong. There can be no limits to the INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM of every man to choose his own course and convictions in life. - 23:47:51 on 19 May 98 GMT

Melissa:CHARLES: I posted this previously but I want to do so again to reiterate a point "CHARLES: Just thought of something I want to clarify: please don't infer from my last post that I think a government is extending a COURTESY by "allowing" free speech. A government cannot GRANT individual rights, only act as their protector. A man's life is his by virtue of his nature, being an independent, rational creature in Nature. His rights stem from this and should not be violated by another individual, and especially not by a group, e.g., a government. This includes his right to the products of his own labor, i.e., a radio, television station, a newspaper, a magazine, a farm, a market, an oil refinery, a coal mine, a software corporation, etc. etc. etc. - 7:15:55 on 19 May 98 GMT" ------------- - 23:56:43 on 19 May 98 GMT

Melissa:CHARLES GRAHAM: I'm sorry I just can't lay off. You are very condescending, as if you're the most intelligent and widely read individual on this site (at the ripe old age of 18, I might add; and after only having been INTRODUCED to Hegel, Marx, Keynes, etc. those anti-mind, anti-reality, confusion junkies). I found your comment, "If some say they arn't wrong I does not mean they nessersarily are" to be offensive, as I'm sure Marlene did as well. Can't you take a joke, buddy? Haven't we proven ourselves to be THINKING individuals? Don't you think we've realized this little piece of insight by now? Come on! Pick a better fight and lighten up . . . oh omniscient procurer of knowledge. - 0:05:55 on 20 May 98 GMT

Robert T. Lee:---DO YOU HAVE A PHOBIA TOWARDS GOD ? ***** The English language is rich with many words. But how do words make their way into the dictionary? Dictionary editors spend time reading primarily liberal publications of general and specialized interests looking for ways words are used. New citations of words are noted, along with as much of the context as is considered helpful in clarifying the meanings of the newly coined words. There is no particular number of times the words are to be cited, or any particular span of years for the words to be chosen for entry into the dictionary. The word "xenophobia" was coined around I903, and means "fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners, or anything that is strange or foreign." That word was likely coined by so-called influential "Jews" who experienced what they also coined as "anti-Semitism." The word "homophobia" was coined around I969, and means "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuals or homosexuality." That word was probably coined by influential homosexuals or the news media. But it conveys a highly deceptive idea. Its purpose is to make anyone who express the proper negative attitude and reaction towards homosexuality appear as wrong or as if they are manifesting a mental sickness - in essence making good appear evil and sane reactions appear as insanity. In the truest sense, its meaning is libelous. There are several words I coined a few years ago . Hopefully people who profess to be Christians who are aware of the phenomenons the words refer to will begin to use them in their conversations, speeches and writings. The words are: I. theosaphobia - irrational aversion to the true God, to Christ, or to the Holy Spirit (Ps. 35:19; 69:4; John 15:25). 2. moraliphobia - irrational fear of, aversion to, or rejection of truths of God's holy Scriptures or the perfection and righteousness of His moral Law - the Ten Commandments (Leviticus. 26:I5). 3. christianiphobia - irrational aversion to, discrimination against true Christianity or true Christians (John I5:18). Please note that these words do not convey deceptive concepts designed to mislabel and malign anyone. Proof of this is seen in the scripture passages supplied. - 0:15:59 on 20 May 98 GMT

PETER:--Robert L Lee---"theosaphobia - irrational aversion to the true God, to Christ, or to the Holy Spirit" This would only apply if God existed, and he had an aversion and a dislike and fear of what he heard in church, or read in the Bible--but still believed its contents to be true. It would not apply to an atheist. An atheist doesn't believe a god exists, so how could he have an aversion to this god? I think you are implying here that it is irrational to not believe in God, however I believe the exact opposite is true. I challenge you to demonstrate to me, using sound logic and reasoning that a god exists. If you are able to do so, you have done so rationally......"moraliphobia - irrational fear of, aversion to, or rejection of truths of God's holy Scriptures or the perfection and righteousness of His moral Law - the Ten Commandments"..... All religions, including christianity certainly have a vested interest in outlining morals. However, by its very nature, a christian doctrine actually makes morality impossible. Biblical morals aren't based in reality but are the alleged arbitrary command of a supernatural entity. Ethically speaking christian morals range from inadequate, to mistaken to disastrous. Robert, it is this area ( ethics )is where I have the highest level of expertise and where my objections to christianity are the most heart-felt, and I will discuss ( or debate if you wish ) this area with you, at anytime...." 3. christianiphobia - irrational aversion to, discrimination against true Christianity or true Christians ...I cannot argue with this one. Of course it would be prejudicial if one discriminates against someone, simply because he is a christian. However, Robert, this will also apply to anyone regardless of their beliefs; their philosophies. Buddhistphobia, Hinduphobia, Communistphobia, Toaistphobia, and Atheistphobia. I should also like to mention Robert, your coming in here, calling atheists "fools" and equating us to the symbol that you consider the embodiment of evil, wickedness and depravity ( Satan )--IS a flagrant act of "Atheistphobia", so by the parameters you set for those who share YOUR beliefs, you are violating that same parameter to those of other beliefs. Now, I will put your ethical knowledge as dictated by your faith to the test here. Hopefully you will not disapoint me, and my fellow atheists by including a statement or two containing a message which I feel is forthcoming. - 1:28:52 on 20 May 98 GMT

Melissa:I knew the hate-monger was merely waiting for the legitimate questions posted to him had left the page to come back. This way he could evade them and continue his barrage of nonsense. BTW ROBERT T LEE: I guess this means you found no "sensible" people out there. Maybe you didn't look hard enough and should continue the search . . . elsewhere. - 2:02:27 on 20 May 98 GMT

Melissa:ROBERT T LEE: on the etymology, or as you put it, "coin"age of new words: First I'd like to say that I am most definitely NOT an expert on etymology. However, I don't think you are either. I'd like to know from what source you get your info on the year these words, xenophobia and homophobia, were "coined". Also, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that most English words don't just fall out of the sky or pop into someone's head someday, then that person decides to use it in some sentence thus giving some crude way of defining it. Nope, most English words come from Latin or Greek stems. I don't know particularly which language xenophobia or homophobia came from, but I'd gander it was Latin. See, the words can be broken up into a stem and a suffix. "Xenophobia": stem - "xeno", meaning stranger; suffix - "phobia", meaning fear. "Homophobia": stem - "homo", meaning same; suffix - "phobia", meaning fear. So you see, these words didn't just appear out of nowhere in 1903 and 1969 for someone to start using and arbitrarily define. They came from ANCIENT languages with concrete definitions. And you CLAIM that one word was PROBABLY "coined" by Jews and another by homosexuals, each with a hidden agenda. But I could easily claim that "xenophobia" was coined by Europeans to describe the Japanese or Chinese who didn't want anything to do with the European market. Or "homophobia" was coined by white supremists to describe why a white woman would date a black man. But, by CLAIMING so, I only expose my own fears (BTW I do not hold any of the views I just exampled - i.e., I am not pro-european trade in China or Japan, nor am I anti-that, I really have no opinion - and I'm not anti-biracial couples - these are JUST examples to show the ludicrousness of RTL's position). Also, how does the word xenophobia mislabel or malign anyone? If someone is afraid of strangers (most children pass through a stage of xenophobia at an early age, then it passes) then that person is a xenophobe - it is not libelous to call him by his true nature. I've never heard it used by Jews, by the way. You can also use the word homophobia to describe another whole load of psychological fears - though you're right, its most popular use is to describe someone afraid of homosexuals. But is this really a mislabelling? If someone is afraid of homosexuals, isn't he afraid of homosexuals? This does't make him a bad person, it just describes his psychological state towards homosexuals. I'd say you attach more connotation to a word than it has, merely to further your own delusions of a conspiracy against what you deem morally correct. - 2:35:36 on 20 May 98 GMT

Marlene ...and the moron of the week award goes to--->:RTL- The "proper negative attitude toward homosexuality"???? Get a life! - 3:16:31 on 20 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROBERT T LEE I find your ignorance of your bible appalling! Your use of it as a source of morality is laughable. You cite the ten commandments, but your own god and his boy jesus don't seem to follow them. Your bible not only condones slavery, it lays down the rules for it. Is this your idea of morality? Your 'holy' book condones incest. Abraham was married to his half sister Sarah. Lot has sex with his daughters. No punishment Is incest your idea of morality? "Thou shalt not kill" What a joke. Most of the old testament has your ;god' giving instructions on how to kill. "Behold, I will punish them: The young men shall die by the sword and the daughters by famine" "And I will appoint over this people four kinds, saith the lord. The sword to slay, the dogs to tear, and the fowls and the beasts to devour and destroy them." "And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and of their dauthters.: "Slay utterly young and old, both maids and little children." "Honor thy father and mother." When jesus' mother approaches him he tells her: "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" Do you honor your mother that way, Robert? "I will turn sons against fathers, daughters against mothers, and daughters in law against mothers in law --" Is that teaching people to honor their parents? It's in your source book, Robert. One more commandment and I'll sign off. "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Unless you're one of my favorites) Abraham has a child with his wife's handmaiden, Hagar. (Then later he sends her and their son oui into the desert) Solomon not only had many wives, he had lots of concubines. David hits on Bathsheba. Saul gives David's wife Michel, to another man. READ YOUR BIBLE!! How can you possibly quote it as a basis for morality? You're either ignorant of the contents or your moral values are pretty damn low. The only other option is that you're a blithering idiot. - 5:23:47 on 20 May 98 GMT

Grant:Ever hear the story of the land of Instinctia? The first citizen we have record of was Pheel, son of Impulsa. We know precious little of Impulsa, except that he did pretty much as he pleased according to Pheel. Pheel wasn't the introspective type, but he did happen to notice that a few of the things that popped into his head turned out not to be very likely upon reflection. He began to have doubts. He cautiously approached Impulsa about this, who of course was irritated by this turn of events. "Doubt is good," he snapped, "when applied to doubt. 'Doubt your doubts' is my rule." Pheel was pretty pleased by this. "Of course," he thought. "Now why didn't THAT pop into my head?" Life was pretty good for the Instinctians for a while until their neighbors, the Testas invaded. They were smaller in number but their weapons seemed to be slightly more effective. - 5:49:00 on 20 May 98 GMT

Rob (Look Who's not Talking):GRANT: Didn't they all live happily ever after in Dementia? BTW, JOETTE: I think I know why Mr Lee won't answer my questions. This link shows secret camera footage of him when he couldn't find the answer in his little book (Click on the image when downloaded- it may take some time) - 10:53:51 on 20 May 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: R.LEE likes to play with words, or so it seems. Recall last year we here had a discussion about folks in history, they have always found words to be magical, in the early days of humanity. Individuals as R.LEE as they\he "coin" words, such efforts impress me that they really really want to say something about something. An example of really really wanting to say, identify, convey, to tell someone what is going on, is toothache. That word "toothache" is it the pain, no. Is it the "tooth", no. Is it where the pain is, no. It is just a word but the toothache that thing in ones head is definitely there, but It is not the word. That is the magical area of the mind whereat wherein religious folks want to dwell to exist, because it is not the pain not the tooth it is not the thing, so it must be about where their god is? I was wondering if R.LEE knows wheather or not, that humans are the apex, the pinacle point of all creation? Has creation ended and the only thing left is for things to be with his godthing? Are there any friends of Ishmael here? - 14:46:38 on 20 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROB..I couldn't download it. My computer says "plugin error" ;( - 15:04:22 on 20 May 98 GMT

Rob:Jo: It works on mine- I think you need to downlad the Quicktime3 viewer from this site: - 15:32:35 on 20 May 98 GMT

Melissa:PAPASAM: Have you ever heard a parent say, "Do as I say, not as I do"? I believe this is the perfect synopsis of RTL's "morality". He probably tells his kids the same thing. This is what allows him to worship a fickle and childish god, a god that would allow his own son to be crucified for the sins of others. RTL must do as his god says but not as his god does, unless his god tells him to. This is why RTL does preaches "Honor thy mother and father" but not "Honor thy children". The children are slaves unto their parents. And that's the way his god wants it. - 16:14:36 on 20 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:MESLISSA - Now I go on counter attack to knock down your arguments one by one. But first the accusations. lack of comman sense me a good example well I will ignore that for insult it was. And few point I have never claimed to be the most well read person or most intellergent person in the world, and repeatly told people I could be wrong. I have been pleasently surprised by sofistication of some of people on this site like your self and Rob. However I think it time you accept I am a thinking person as well, however of course by defintion someone with a belief in god is not. I find your attack on my age unaccetaple and simplistic niave. I as pointed out to Rob age has no monopoly on wisdom though it can help. Marx, Hegel, Keynes anti- reailty confustion junkies a vitrollic accusation unfounded in the evidence. Well Hegel was to much of Prussaian nationlist, and tried to say he understood everthing and locked into the simplistic syshasis anti-sythasis mechanism all to much, he all considered the norms of his time as perfect. Marx's econmic system was brillant if flawed, his ideas for dicatorship of polertarite was the creator of much misery, he also failed to work out how his system would work after the revoltion and let face comminism ulimately failed and has caused much suffering. He was however a idealistic and I respect that. Keynes was the most important econmist of this centuary however failed to take account of inflation, and the need correct market inefficencies though the supply side, but many of his idea have been included in the new sythasis of econmics. OK not perfect people but anti-reality confustion merchants and why these people, I mean I know of them but support them not really? ( I am not a communist ) later point will be dealt with later. - 16:21:49 on 20 May 98 GMT

Melissa:GRANT: I would say there's been a resurgence in the Instinctia population within the last century or so. They seem to be the most abundant form of life visible nowadays. Probably because the Testas' Industrial Revolution made the world a better place for the Instinctias to live. You know, gave them jobs, better medicine so their lives weren't so short, better preserved food so they didn't get sick all the time, better homes, etc. etc. I wonder what would happen if the Testas vanished and took all their ingenious toys and inventions away? Maybe the number of Instinctias would dwindle again, and the world might be a happier and more intelligent place to live. If only dreams came true. - 16:25:43 on 20 May 98 GMT

Melissa:Mr. GRAHAM: You once told Peter you had read more books than he'd had hot dinners. If that's not a claim of superiority I don't know what is. What was so brilliant about Marx?? He believed that man owed his life to society, to every other man but himself. This is the basic premise upon which his philosophy is built. That's not "brilliant", that's slavery. If you respect idealism, I suggest you read Ayn Rand. Marx claimed to be a humanist, but his doctrine was based on slavery, how can you reconcile the hypocrisy inherent in Marxism?? You may think that I idolize Ayn Rand, and while, yes, she is my hero, I don't worship her as a god. But hers is the first consistent philosophy I have ever encountered. She believes in a man's right to life, and every thing in her philosophy flowers beautifully, and CONSISTENTLY, from this concept. She values man's mind, his independence. None of your "brilliant" philosophers did. They either rejected reality or reason or both and claimed man was evil by nature or displayed some such tribal mentality. Why? Because they are afraid of men of ability, intelligence. They would leech onto these men and suck them dry of their souls, all in the name of "humanity" - but its just a disguise to hide their own ineptitude. As for the supposed flaws you pointed out in my arguments - they are not flaws, because each one is consistent with the other, the main premise underlying them being a man's right to his life and no one else's, and thus his right to the product of his own labors, but no one else's without voluntary consent. My arguments are, however, INconsistent with your own philosophy - that being the position that no man has complete authority over his own life, that any would be raider has more right to the products of his labor than he does himself. Our two views of man's rights are inconsistent, they are the antithesis of one another. Also, you fail to understand the distinction between government action and individual action, and their proper roles. A government has no rights qua rights, only an individual, by the nature of his individuality has rights qua rights. One of those rights is self-defense. Not the initiation of physical violence, but retaliation in order to STOP the attack. No human being has the right to INITIATE the use of force. In a civilized society, men create governments and delegate this right to self-defense to that government; and that is the ONLY proper function of a government. It should act only as a protector of individual rights, in the office of a policeman, soldier, and judge - to protect men from criminals, foreign invaders, and breaches of contract. A government should in no way get involved in the economy of the society. Economic power and political power are not one in the same. And political power getting involved in a country's economy can only corrupt and wreck that country's economy (read your history books and look at the US, who flowered into an economic giant after only a hundred years of quasi-laizzes faire-capitalism, then began its decline with the introduction of federal subsidies of the railroads and the consequential Sherman Anti-Trust Acts). And no proper government should have the power to oppress the expression of ideas. But men, as individual, thinking, rational beings - with no man owing his life to another - have the ability to work together VOLUNTARILY, or not. Each man has the right to refuse to work with another - and that means allowing another to express his ideas in a forum created by that man. I don't see how you can constantly deny an individual this right. If you can, then you are of the opinion that self-sacrifice, self-immolation, is a virtue. And this is where we disagree, and why you think you find "flaws" in my argument, but what you are really finding are INCONSISTENCIES with your anti-individualism doctrine, though you fail to see it is anti-individualism, thereby evading this inherent contradiction. If you can't realize this simple fact, then I can rightfully say you are most definitely NOT a "gifted" amatuer philosopher. It can only be either-or. Either you value individual rights or you value the slavery of man's mind to any lazy would-be looter. Pick one, or forever hold your peace. - 17:13:32 on 20 May 98 GMT

Melissa:P.S. - How can something be "brilliant yet flawed"? Wouldn't one characteristic nullify the other? - 17:19:14 on 20 May 98 GMT

Melissa:PP.S: I meant to include this example --> Let's say you buy some land with intentions of building a farm. You build a house and barn, buy the tools, till the land. You work for months at this until finally, the land is ready to sow. You want to plant corn - corn is your specialty. And just as you're about to plant the first seeds of corn, a man pulls up in a beat up old Chevy and stops you. He says he needs this farm to plant his tobacco in. He says you can't stop him because he needs land just as much as the next guy, and here's some that's all ready to go. He has a right to it. Well, let's say you don't like tobacco (I'm not implying you don't BTW, its just pretend), and you refuse to let him grow his plants on your farm. He didn't till the land after all. You'll probably concede that's all fine and dandy. So the tobacco grower leaves. Well, you continue your corn crop for years on this land and your farm grows, it becomes one of the biggest farms in the country, providing corn to all the corn-eaters of the world (and, consequently, allowing you to buy a yacht and cruise the Carribean). O.K. - so this tobacco grower comes back one day. He has yet to buy his own farm and grow his tobacco himself. He's been mooching off of other farmers (smaller than yourself) who don't mind growing tobacco with their own crops. This tobacco farmer sees you've grown so big, you must have great land or something, and there's a lot of it too. So he comes back demanding to use your land again. After all, there's so much of it, you've practically got a monopoly on land in this country (let's just pretend its a small island country, and you've amassed, through your own hard work, about 1/3 of the land). He demands that he has a right to a piece of that land, even though he never cultivated it himself, never offered an ounce of help toward building up your huge corn growing company. He demands it on the basis that, since he NEEDS land to grow his tobacco, and you've got so much of it, you owe it to him, even though he has contributed nothing to its nourishment, no back breaking labor. Do you, now that you have built a large, successful company, now OWE him a piece of that land, even though you despise his tobacco plants and they may rob your corn of some of their nutrients (I don't know if this is true, I'm only postulating) just because you happen to own, through the virtue of your own labor, 1/3 of the island's land? In a free society, where an individual's rights are valued, you do not. In a communist society, by Marx's definition of it, a man owes his life and the products of his labor to his community, and there is no such concept as private property, you'd have to give this man some of "your" land, his mere need of it would give him a right to it, he wouldn't be expected to go out and cultivate his own. In a fascist society, where a man owns private property, but does not own the products of his labor, it would be the state demanding your land, or an individual representing the state. In a totalitarian society, you'd never be allowed to grow so successful in the first place, it'd be a crime to do so (this is true of communism and fascism as well, no one can be better than everyone else at any one thing). So apply this to your wish to override a newspaper owner's right to refuse a man's wish to plant his ideas in the field he did not cultivate, i.e., the newspaper (for the metaphorically challenged), and maybe you'll get my point. Same basic premise, different business. - 17:47:09 on 20 May 98 GMT

PETER:--MELISSA--When I present some objectivist thought to one who is unitiated with it--it is invariably met with a great deal of confusion and objections. Many facets of objectivism are diametrically opposed to the traditional altruist ideals one hears on a daily basis in the news media, and as undigested bromides one hears from friend, co-workers etc. There just aren't many objectivist-based platitudes that are being bandied about in every day conversation. If anything, I feel Charles has fallen victim innnocently to this situation. As you have done, all one can really do is recommend some reading, but to expect any immediate acceptance would be rather unrealistic. As Rand herself suggests, most beliefs that one embraces have to regressed to their roots, in order for one to make the necessary alterations--and therein, on this recognition lies another one of the strengths of objectivism. Not many philosophers are bold enough to make a similar challenge. Incidentally, I feel you have done very well in applying objectivism to the pertinent area that Charles has addressed. - 18:05:42 on 20 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:Now for your other points well some of then I do have others thing to do, Lets see you say the I have just as much chances of get my point across as say Rupert Muchdock. ( he is a good example ) obvious his capcity is infintely larger point finished. Ok yes the internet does give great advance in freedom information however it must be remembered that most of information sourse run by such people as muchdock. You say a man has right to dispose of his own labour as he wishs. Well this itself has falws. " I conquered this country though own sweat and toil and blood and now I right to do with it was wish and deny the opposition a platform " I agree entirely normally. However it must be notes that muchdock group it not product of muchock himself, true he works very hard mostly on the phone and is talented, but in order to entirely run his empire he would have write on his own serveral newspapers and star write and act in dozens of TV programs. In asserting the right of the indviudual you assert the right of some the few over the others those not in control of the mean of production ( fair point Marx ). All equal are it seems equal but some more than others depending if they ave platform or not. I assert that a person like him the right to infulancial but not postively in control to create truth in their own personal and business image. But lets look more at these people. They are likely to be intellergent, very hard working and very amibtious and competetive willing to use almost any means increase their market share. Of course this can lead them to subvert the truth for their own ends for instance if your paper regualarly get adversitment from or company or person X then will they attack him. Of their are actual examples of this for instance Rupert Muchock made it know that China reporting was to cut down to foward his business interest their. In the times ( U.K ) after the hand over hong and their was conspicious lack reporting of this in the times this was on caught out on when a Times man defected and only because of this. During the Harper Collins scandel about Chris Paton his book and Harper Collins ( a book company own by Murdock ) again where was lack any reporting in the times. Of course in both again becasue so it was claim that they could not get the material in both case the telegraph ( rival ) had a feild day. But is their a crime that is always caught by definition well in pratice not contary to what you claim. He bound to have done this before a won i.e lose some you win some. Of course that assume that one person does not own all media which would happen " in truely capitist econmy " that you seem to be favour of ( like south Africa 1890 Cecil Rodes who own all the new paper ) Its not so much what is in the paper as what what is not in their. Look if you want someone to explain all this you better than me then try Chomsty I think thats the right spelling. He is a proffesor ligistic which you seem interested in at M.I.T. media criticism is very important side line. I admit I do entirely agree with him and have only read a beginner guide to him but it an eye openner I can tell you that. You also seem to suggest that if want to get my idea across I must create a media empire or kingdom at the very least for most people this isnt pratical or an impossiblity for an indian peasent, homeless man in brazil, will they be denied right to express their view points because existing channel happen not decide to give them a platform. O.k Burma poor example but the state in such a form is often no more than a company, or crinmal or crinmal gang who happens to run a country. I do not deny the right of media to reject point of view and articules, it does so every day and must their are so many of them. However I reject the need for then to keep in dogmatically with interests and view their owners. The right to not give a platform you see effectively open up limitless censorship for no good reason, it mean that gives opportunity for owner to tell the public what they want to hear for sales what the owner wants them to hear for his own benifit what companies advetising in his paper want to hear so they will continue to advertise in his paper etc etc not what they want and should ( this is a value judgement )know about a occationally things are that a distortion or striaght couprations of truth. Various american mission to restore democracy or right wing dictator in pratice I repeat Chomstry says all it all far better than me. OK I was Wrong about Rand I hav'nt read the book and it was late you cetain wrong about poltical beileif in saying I was communist I was say they were " trying to make a square roll this is impossible " i.e it was nice idea in some ways but ulimately impratically a lot peope got squashed trying to make it work. ( how do you define Dogmatic ) P.S try shortening yours points it takes a long time too go though your arguements. PP.S Would you consider your self an induvilist right wing and or very capitlist. ( just asking ) I hope I have address some of your points here, their were a lot of the. - 18:17:05 on 20 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:Now for your other points well some of then I do have others thing to do, Lets see you say the I have just as much chances of get my point across as say Rupert Muchdock. ( he is a good example ) obvious his capcity is infintely larger point finished. Ok yes the internet does give great advance in freedom information however it must be remembered that most of information sourse run by such people as muchdock. You say a man has right to dispose of his own labour as he wishs. Well this itself has falws. " I conquered this country though own sweat and toil and blood and now I right to do with it was wish and deny the opposition a platform " I agree entirely normally. However it must be notes that muchdock group it not product of muchock himself, true he works very hard mostly on the phone and is talented, but in order to entirely run his empire he would have write on his own serveral newspapers and star write and act in dozens of TV programs. In asserting the right of the indviudual you assert the right of some the few over the others those not in control of the mean of production ( fair point Marx ). All equal are it seems equal but some more than others depending if they ave platform or not. I assert that a person like him the right to infulancial but not postively in control to create truth in their own personal and business image. But lets look more at these people. They are likely to be intellergent, very hard working and very amibtious and competetive willing to use almost any means increase their market share. Of course this can lead them to subvert the truth for their own ends for instance if your paper regualarly get adversitment from or company or person X then will they attack him. Of their are actual examples of this for instance Rupert Muchock made it know that China reporting was to cut down to foward his business interest their. In the times ( U.K ) after the hand over hong and their was conspicious lack reporting of this in the times this was on caught out on when a Times man defected and only because of this. During the Harper Collins scandel about Chris Paton his book and Harper Collins ( a book company own by Murdock ) again where was lack any reporting in the times. Of course in both again becasue so it was claim that they could not get the material in both case the telegraph ( rival ) had a feild day. But is their a crime that is always caught by definition well in pratice not contary to what you claim. He bound to have done this before a won i.e lose some you win some. Of course that assume that one person does not own all media which would happen " in truely capitist econmy " that you seem to be favour of ( like south Africa 1890 Cecil Rodes who own all the new paper ) Its not so much what is in the paper as what what is not in their. Look if you want someone to explain all this you better than me then try Chomsty I think thats the right spelling. He is a proffesor ligistic which you seem interested in at M.I.T. media criticism is very important side line. I admit I do entirely agree with him and have only read a beginner guide to him but it an eye openner I can tell you that. You also seem to suggest that if want to get my idea across I must create a media empire or kingdom at the very least for most people this isnt pratical or an impossiblity for an indian peasent, homeless man in brazil, will they be denied right to express their view points because existing channel happen not decide to give them a platform. O.k Burma poor example but the state in such a form is often no more than a company, or crinmal or crinmal gang who happens to run a country. I do not deny the right of media to reject point of view and articules, it does so every day and must their are so many of them. However I reject the need for then to keep in dogmatically with interests and view their owners. The right to not give a platform you see effectively open up limitless censorship for no good reason, it mean that gives opportunity for owner to tell the public what they want to hear for sales what the owner wants them to hear for his own benifit what companies advetising in his paper want to hear so they will continue to advertise in his paper etc etc not what they want and should ( this is a value judgement )know about a occationally things are that a distortion or striaght couprations of truth. Various american mission to restore democracy or right wing dictator in pratice I repeat Chomstry says all it all far better than me. OK I was Wrong about Rand I hav'nt read the book and it was late you cetain wrong about poltical beileif in saying I was communist I was say they were " trying to make a square roll this is impossible " i.e it was nice idea in some ways but ulimately impratically a lot peope got squashed trying to make it work. ( how do you define Dogmatic ) P.S try shortening yours points it takes a long time too go though your arguements. PP.S Would you consider your self an induvilist right wing and or very capitlist. ( just asking ) I hope I have address some of your points here, their were a lot of them. - 18:17:09 on 20 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:Messlinna I point out that I was mostly cristizing the philophiers. not complementing them. Marx econmic anylsis of capitism system was flawed if Brilliant I did not comment on other his philosphy positively. and please tell why these people are quite such leechs, I mean hegel ( who I said nothing good about ) and Marx I can understand but Keynes??????? he was for freedom decocracy Diot a french mathatican answered a very dfficult question about three ramdom cirucalar bodies the answer was incorrect but was such good wrong answer and said so much that it virtually created chaos theroy. You should know that sience is based on wrong or partial theory. Marx said a lot that was true but much that was not like his theory on the movement of wages was incorrect. but his ideas about demand and wages were biting and are only now in west being appricated after end of end of cold war. P.s sorry about the repeating message my mistake. I am induvidualist but not your sort an probably not Rands, I define the indivudual differently. - 18:44:34 on 20 May 98 GMT

Charles Graham:Messlinna I point out that I was mostly cristizing the philophiers. not complementing them. Marx econmic anylsis of capitism system was flawed if Brilliant I did not comment on other his philosphy positively. and please tell why these people are quite such leechs, I mean hegel ( who I said nothing good about ) and Marx I can understand but Keynes??????? he was for freedom decocracy Diot a french mathatican answered a very dfficult question about three ramdom cirucalar bodies the answer was incorrect but was such good wrong answer and said so much that it virtually created chaos theroy. You should know that sience is based on wrong or partial theory. Marx said a lot that was true but much that was not like his theory on the movement of wages was incorrect. but his ideas about demand and wages were biting and are only now in west being appricated after end of end of cold war. P.s sorry about the repeating message my mistake. I am induvidualist but not your sort an probably not Rands, I define the indivudual differently. - 18:44:53 on 20 May 98 GMT

CharlesGraham:double up again their must be something wrong - 18:46:19 on 20 May 98 GMT

Melissa:PETER: You are right. He just doesn't get it. I give up. - 19:29:38 on 20 May 98 GMT

Melissa:GRAHAM: I'm sorry you find it difficult to assimilate all the information I present. I thought you'd read books. I guess you read only a couple paragraphs at a time. No I will NOT shorten my posts for you. I will keep them as long or as short as it takes to make my point. I consider myself pro-individualism (right wing? what is that? rather arbitrary designation) and pro-laissez faire-capitalism. This is the only TRUE form of Capitalism. - 19:37:21 on 20 May 98 GMT

Melissa:GRAHAM: Again I ask, what was good about Marx's philosophy? Also, if you read Ayn Rand, then I'll read Chomsky. And how do you define individualism - as merely a part of the whole (the whole being society) and therefore the means to a society's ends? Remember, a society is made up of individuals, yes, but every individual has different ideas. If you advocate majority rule, then you abolish the rights of some minority, and especially the rights of the individual because he IS the SMALLEST minority. I say it again, you CAN'T have it both ways, either you respect individual rights or you respect the "rights" of mob rule. - 19:43:30 on 20 May 98 GMT

Carl:MELISSA: Just to watch CG is very much like watching those creatures on the theo-chat site as there they play their word games blessin'and prayin' for each other. CG comes here and, for me, he finally tips his hand to why he plays his word game. In his post 18:44:34 on 20 may 98, in its 4th sentence he insribes,-"You should know that science is based on wrong or partial theory"- to me this explains why he has been hiding behind his self proclaimed problem to use assorted thinker writers to discredit things so known. Things so known, science based, look at and work within laws that it identifys and build upon. To CG a scientist or those holding to such preferences, are like the ancient Hawaiians who attempted to deal with the early xtians. They told the hawaiians that their laws were wrong and based on incorrectly, and so on, and said they- xtians, had a bigger law. So what that the xtian law allowed it allowed the xtian to do all things contrary and evil to the hawaiian law and seemed like no law at all. But the xtian law, unlike the hawaiian law, it had a prophet. The prophet said what could be done and why it could be done. That law-like matters are at issue here and CG means to apply that other law, non-scientific, in order to have his ignorant way, looks to be his only objective. Perhaps then, CG knows whether or not humans are the apex, the ultimate point of creation and that the only thing left is to be with or, to be a godthing. - 19:44:23 on 20 May 98 GMT

Melissa:P.S. about my long points again (you truly offended me with that comment): How bout YOU try dictating your posts to someone who can type with better grammar and better spelling. They're very difficult to understand. - 19:47:52 on 20 May 98 GMT

Melissa:CARL: Yeah, that whole science bit confused me, too. I wasn't sure exactly what he meant. - 19:51:25 on 20 May 98 GMT

Carl:MELISSA: CG like any other believer of antiquated superstitions and myths would have it that humans or religious believers especially, are not subject to such laws. That is about all that their godthing serves- does for them. Once that bit is in place the religious believer does not "have" to do anything not included within its "why" they can do things, ever heard o'the born again types? - 20:03:29 on 20 May 98 GMT

charles graham:Melssia : How bout bout bout BOUT BOUT try dicating you post etc ( joke ) This really take up to much time I was on the verge of surrender myself thats a time based surrender not because I had given up though. I will fully admit you had some good points and are better at putting them in order than he. How much Mellissa and how much Rand was their? I must revise for exams now see. However I was deeply offended at your attack on Keynes. I still have no idea who Rand is. Maybe I will look her up on the internet and see. Who is she what nationity name of books, Pulisher when written info would be appricated. Melissa I know my grammer is bad and it try improve it but this ins't permentance here its last about 24 a best and so it ins't really worth it slaving for 5 hours to get it just right it take that long for me well almost. O.K make as many long point as you like but ending summary would be helpful for dumb people like me understand you I have to print it out just to keep track of you. Carl I have nothing against sientists or sientific methord. I am merely pointing out sience progresses yesterdays fact are todays sientific history and theroy. Like solid earth theorys. But then again people could still be wrong about that but I doubt it. Relgion certainly should nothing to fear from the " objective " truths but must remember the impermenance of them. Every new fangled book proving or disproving the existance jesus should be taken with touch of skepism, after all there alway new things to uncover thing people have ignored. P.S Why Xtians is easiler to types or idilogical shortening. I not not ultiarian however it good principle. I thing it has balence it with juctice the right mix varies from person to person. actually i just riduides some one elses ultarianism so it poor charge. I could get into an arguement with you about with econmics and market faliure with you, but not for now maybe, Maybe I will give you doctor Kulan internet address and you can E - mail him and he will give you contary opinion he very peuswaive advocate of state internetist. However in principle I agree with you on lazziez faire. So signing off till 16th of June so please please no no replies. - 20:37:16 on 20 May 98 GMT

Melissa:CHARLES: that was s'posed ta be bout (forgot the ' --> 'bout) :) - 23:31:01 on 20 May 98 GMT

Melissa:CHARLES: I empathize with your dyslexia and that's why I never commented on it before. BTW I had to print out your posts, too. How much Rand and how much Melissa? I have to admit everything I've said stems from Objectivist theory. But I've been exposed to other philosophies as well, e.g., Plato, Marx, Nietsze, Hitler to name a few - and Rand's was the only one that made sense to me, the only one that valued what I valued, i.e., man's freedom. So that you might look her up - its best to do so in a library - her name is Ayn Rand, she was born in Russia and lived under communist rule, she moved to America I believe in her twenties (not absolutely sure), speaks eloquent English, died in 1982, was born in 1910's or 20's (can't remember), and is famous for the fictional works _The Fountainhead_, _Atlas Shrugged_, _We the Living_, and my favorite, a comparatively short book, yet beautifully written, _Anthem_. She also wrote many non-fiction books on Objectivism, the philosophy she created, e.g., _Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_, _The Romantic Manifesto_ (the only book I wasn't too fond of for many reasons - hey, there's some proof I think for myself), _The Virtue of Selfishness_ (the only thing I find wrong in this book is her premise that man is the ONLY rational animal, the ONLY one with culture, that passes down that culture from generation to generation - Chimpanzee societies have these qualities as well, just not to the degree, or EXTREME, that humans do) and the list goes on. - 23:44:58 on 20 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROB of the ROSES..finally got to see that site, and it is hilarious! It suits our Mr. Lee (or is it Weewee) perfectly! Thanks for the laugh! - 0:00:31 on 21 May 98 GMT

Adam I BELIEVE IT WAS GUMMO...:Marxlissaœœœœœœœœœ No socialist I, as I am sure the denizens of the M&M page will confirm, but Marx so succinctly pointed out that religion is the opiate of the masses. True more today than ever, perhaps. As for Marxism in general, I posit that no more than two people can remain committed to pure collectivism over the long haul, as invariably, one will feel more deserving than another in one or another respect. P.S. I can kick god's ass, and god knows it. - 0:23:24 on 21 May 98 GMT

Adam KICK ASSH!!!!:Hey, Mr. Jo-Hatte, the new season of Parque begins at 22:00 in New York. I'll let you know what I thought without ruining your Saturday delay. PS Religion is the great anchor on the ship of human intellectual progress. (Me) - 0:29:31 on 21 May 98 GMT

there's been enough hot air blowing around here to make Twister II - 3:14:17 on 21 May 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: The poster of 3:14:17 on 21 May 98, regarding "hot air" is he\she being overly sensuous- one enjoying the sense impressions more than a regular joe or joette? Some allow such sense impressions to progress and become thought processes you know. - 14:30:27 on 21 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Is it hot in here, or is it just me? - 16:14:35 on 21 May 98 GMT

PETER:--Something that I have noticed of late in the media is seeing stories of groups and individuals ( often celebrities ) going local charity work,which I have no problem with at all---but what has been rotting my socks is the ever-present comment "...and it's all for a good cause". The viewer is then left with this warm fuzzy feeling and the knowledge there are some people out there doing good. But if one stops and thinks, what is a "good" cause--as opposed to a "bad" cause? Would there be any causes out there that would be "bad" causes? The slothful substitution here is replacing and equating "needy" with "good". A much more accurate and fitting statement in my opinion would then be "It was the generous effort of these individuals who raised money for this needy cause". What I object to is the underlying implication that being "needy" is good, and that if one extends any effort for his own profit--it is not seen as being as even worthy of mention--and even looked upon contemptuously as "selfish". Generosity is certainly a virtuous action, and it IS being good, but one's generosity should be something one does voluntarily, and not dictated by what another "needs". As aresult, the media, and the general thinking of the public views helping the "needy" as being good, and helping yourself, or any other institution, person who IS NOT "needy" as being less honorable, and less deserving. - 17:07:57 on 21 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Melissa...: Humans are able to *pretend* most any situation to prove their points. Why go to such lengths? - 17:14:36 on 21 May 98 GMT

RON...--->PETER...:Aren't most of those individuals beyond helping themselves to the point where they have the time to help others? Or, are you speaking of the *well-to-do* soft criminals serving their community service? - 17:17:35 on 21 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Peter: I'm kind of confused about what you're saying. But my stab at it is that you don't like the fact that people are being forced to help the "needy". If this is the case, then the people are being forced because no one is voluntarily doing it. Everybody wants money for every action they do. My second guess at what you don't like is the fact that "good" is equated with helping the "needy". I agree with this statement for two reasons. One reason is that you could always do "good" by helping the public in general, and the second reason is that because you're helping the "needy" doesn't neccessarily mean its "good" help. You could have "good" intentions, but have a "bad" solution like helping out your neighbor by providing him/her with firewood, even when the house is burning down. - 17:21:28 on 21 May 98 GMT

RON...--->ALL...: NDE Workshop...I wonder what it would be like at this event? Should I go..??? - 17:29:29 on 21 May 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: For several monthes, several years back, I noticed a street person garbed in a long coat and what looked like several sweaters or something or other beneath that. Layered is what I heard a fashion mogul say of such. That garbed person also had scarves all about the head revealing only peering eyes, I thought the person some arab type. My spouse was with me one day spied that person and declared the individual to be a woman! I was somewhat surprised. Sometime later, I saw that same so garbed person with a protrubant belly, someone had knocked her up. Just a few days ago, I saw the same so garbed person and no child in tow. What happened? - 17:39:09 on 21 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->RON..sure you should go...maybe you can get lucky while someone is having an NDE and she'll never know what hit her! (she'll just think it was some sort of alien probe) - 17:43:47 on 21 May 98 GMT

rOB:Good and bad are doubly relative, and are said in relation to one another to an existing mode(affections of a substance-which is in something else and is conceived through something else).They are the two senses of the variation of the power of acting: the decrease of this power(sadness) is bad; its increase-joy- is good. Objectively, then everything that increases or enhances our power of acting is good, and that which diminishes or restrains it is bad; and we only know 'good and bad' through the feelings of joy or sadness of which we are conscious. Good and bad could express the encounters between--common order of nature, or fortuitous encounters etc. - 17:48:41 on 21 May 98 GMT

Y-It:RON: I don't know... it sounds like New-Age garbage to me. Most of those New Age religions are just as bad as Xtianity. Sure you might experience some strange and wonderful things when your near death because your brain is doing everything it can to survive. However, all that stuff about talking to your dead grandfather or Franco or anyone else beyond the grave is a bunch of wishful thinking. When you're dead, you're dead. You don't worry about being dead because it's hard to think about death when your dead brain can't experience death. - 17:51:57 on 21 May 98 GMT

rOB:RON.. Maybe some modern day Druids would like to go to this worshop, but the Druids like to keep to oral teachings to keep their secrets away from the written form--hehehe! - 17:54:20 on 21 May 98 GMT

Carl:PETER1: That person of layered fashion, perhaps, may be an example of that 'bad cause' kinda'person, lets say, in terms of the starving and homeless. Consider too, the local supermarkets have said that they throw chemicals on discarded produce that was not sold. The homeless and proclaimed starving street persons said they should eat of such rather than "waste the food". If altruistic positions or views or whatever that might be, is a humanitarian law, is it a good law? Is it a good law for the environment or the world, who or what is it good for? Are these in the area of your query? - 17:58:42 on 21 May 98 GMT

rOB:All relations of motion and rest agree with one another in the mediate infinite mode; but a body can induce the parts of my body to enter into a new relation that is not directly or immediately compatible with my characteristic relation:this is what occurs in death--oxygen depletion of the brain - 18:07:04 on 21 May 98 GMT

Y-It:rOB: Huh? Could you please elaborate on your run-on sentence? - 18:11:51 on 21 May 98 GMT

PETER:--CARL--The supermarkets own that food, and it is for them to decide how to dispose of it. They can sell, it give it away, whatever. However, it would be grossly unfair if ther law ordered them to "give it to the needy" based simply on the standard that "need" has some claim on someone else. If it were, the extreme result would be for everyone a community put themselves into position of being "needy", and then demanding they have a right to the inventory of the supermarket---not because they have earned money to compensate the store--no, because they "need" it. This would totally negate the concept of 'justice' and would do away with money--which is represents justice--and nothing else. - 18:13:36 on 21 May 98 GMT

rOB:Y-It .. Sorry for the run- on sentence, I was being cute when we were talikng about death. Oxygen (complete depletion ) happens and like you said we can not think about it as an after-thought---> dead is dead.....Or as one of the characters in the movie--Pet Semetary-- said, "Sometimes dead is better". - 18:22:11 on 21 May 98 GMT

Carl:PETER2: As far as I can the feeding and reproduction of humans disregard, almost disdainfully disregard the other, as humans blindly[?] enact either. Could anybody handle just allowing these individuals to starve to death? Or do humans continue to feed reproduce and simply increase the number of starving later. Consider, when the world population was just 3 billion many were starving, now the population is over 5 billion and more than many starve. How many will be starving when the world population is at 7 billion? What law will finally have is way, nature or a diety? Such was on my mind today. - 18:22:24 on 21 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Peter: So it seems you don't like the idea of being forced to help the "needy" for the "good". Well, I don't like the idea of laws forcing people to become volunteers, but refusing to give something you don't need to someone else is indeed selfish. By the way, once the food goes into the trash containers, its automatically considered "public property". This is why people can pick through other people's garbage to find secrets and get away with it. - 18:27:21 on 21 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Peter: Let me elaborate something. When I say it is selfish to refuse giving something away, I mean purposely sabotaging what you're giving away is selfish. Also, accidentally not giving away something you no longer need is not selfish; it's just accidental. When I mentioned this earlier, it might have seemed paradoxal that I don't want a volunteer law, yet I want people to give away things. It's totally natural for someone to live off of what other people don't need. What do you think scavangers are? - 18:39:44 on 21 May 98 GMT

rOB:CARL... Nature/substance, the universal laws of such is having its way continously. There is no really difference between the concept (say here starvation) and life. Thomas Malthus for example had his views on the concept of overpopulation/ starvation etc. and life goes on after his concept of this and his death. - 18:45:48 on 21 May 98 GMT

Carl:PETER3: I suppose here, that nature eventually will have its way. Altruism, really, what is that supposed to be if it can be taken beyond one's concern? Y-it seems to lead that initial personal concern into "public property" but does that not eventually take one into theism, where a super-natural godthing says the world is was made for and belongs to humans. If that view is specialised to xtians then the world was made for man. And the xtian man is subject to only some cacophony of god[s]. This does not fit within the parameters of nature, does it? So, are there any laws which will or might curtail human reproduction and food production? - 18:52:01 on 21 May 98 GMT

rOB:You do not know beforehand what good or bad you are capable of; you do not know beforehand what a body or a mind can do, in a given encounter, a given arrangement, a given combination. - 18:55:47 on 21 May 98 GMT

Carl:rOB: Of all the reading and browsing I've done T.Malthus is not in that group. Perhaps he is in a Cliffnote booklet that I can get at what he says without a lot o'fuss. - 18:57:15 on 21 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Carl: When I said that garbage becomes "public property", I was putting it in the context that it's not "private property", which is why I gave the example of finding secrets inside someone's trash. As far as I'm concerned, when something that is not needed is left behind, any living thing can use it, not just humans. - 19:07:32 on 21 May 98 GMT

rOB:CARL.. You can try reading his famous essay, which I did not look at in depth------> Essay on the Principle of Population. According to him , population increases geometrically---> in the order of 2, 4, 8, 16 and so on. However the food supply can only be increased arithmetically---> in the order of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and so on. Accordingly, a population would eventually outdistance a nation's food supply, with famine, war, disease as the inevitable consequences. - 19:16:25 on 21 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Carl & rOB: World population: 5,978,612,401 and counting... Suicides assisted by Dr. Kevorkian: 104 and catching up! (maybe) Statistics provided by our friends at the Church of Euthenasia. - 19:24:58 on 21 May 98 GMT

Hail Pope John Paul II! - 19:40:39 on 21 May 98 GMT

JPII:try this again - 19:42:18 on 21 May 98 GMT

rOB:Y-It.. We should also be wary of the CIA'S estimates also.. I find the one headed "Sleep is Practice" usuable in how concepts and life are really the same. There was already the interweaving of components__>>one line said that 'my last day will end in sleep,quiet reward for a busy life'. Maybe this so-called believed reward is really ultimately complete oxygen depletion of the brain--hehe! Whether a life is busy is again the interweaving of the concept 'busy' and life. Well, it is almost the last days of May, maybe sleep is really a necessary function of life - 19:43:36 on 21 May 98 GMT

Y-It:All hail the magical plastic grocery bag! (It's better than God!) - 19:44:07 on 21 May 98 GMT

Y-It:rOB: We should be wary of the CIA, PERIOD. - 19:46:47 on 21 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..re your question about laws governing reproduction. China is a perfect example, with the one child per household rule. Thus, if a woman delivers a baby, their rate of infanticide increases. They must have a son to carry on the family line, but without the females, how is this possible anyway? - 20:34:41 on 21 May 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: If a community reproduction plan\process can be made up of one female and fifty males or, one male and fifty females, which plan will allow that community to reach one hundred first? - 20:59:05 on 21 May 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE1: Does love and fun have to be reproductive, can one be responsible and non-reproductive, or does one go the route of the irresponsible, via chemical controls? - 21:03:27 on 21 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL...the one male/50 female community is the obvious response, but we don't want that scenerio in these times do we? (although it might be fun for the one male). Now, with respect to your other post, are you implying that by not procreating, one is being irresponsible? I don't think that's what you mean - maybe the wording is wrong? (or maybe the reading :o) - 21:18:56 on 21 May 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Actually, I bet an extra female or three would be better, for all concerned, than the use of chemicals as a birth control. That would be the better healthier natural arrangement. The alternative means abstention until reproduction objectives are held or the use of chemicals that are not of ones'body. Or, is this farfethched? - 21:42:09 on 21 May 98 GMT

Marlene:PETER- You've got a point. As you know, in Canada we donate blood and we don't receive payment for it. Today was donation day for me again. I donate because I feel it's something I can do to help others in need of a transfusion. - 21:57:19 on 21 May 98 GMT

Joette...I've got rythm...:-->CARL..there are non-chemical methods of birth control. - 22:11:55 on 21 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE...ever since the Krever Commission produced it's findings in the "Tainted Blood" scandal, I am officially boycotting the Red Cross. There should be a new agency taking it's place any day now. - 22:14:57 on 21 May 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: you got rythm, does that mean you kno'how go on pause then go resume? That brought a chuckle outta me, a lite moment. later. - 22:29:16 on 21 May 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I was asking one of the nurses about that. She said that all that's really happening for the majority of Red Cross staff is that the name of the outfit will be changed. I think she said that now it will be called "Canadian Blood Supply". - 23:00:26 on 21 May 98 GMT

Marlene:Y-IT- Atheist, I assume?? Good comments. - 23:01:50 on 21 May 98 GMT

Marlene:RON- We're all waiting for this revelation of yours!?!? - 23:02:53 on 21 May 98 GMT

Arnold:I think most of the population problem would be solved if we simply eliminated the prejudice against gays, against female children, and against those adults who willfully choose not to procreate. There is too much unnecessary pressure in our various cultures to raise families. We need to learn to accept alternative lifestyles. - 1:06:59 on 22 May 98 GMT

rOB:The Necessary is the only modality of what is; all that is is necessary, either through itself or through its cause. There is nothing contingent in Nature-- existences are not produced through the action of a divine will (god-thing) which, in the manner of a prince (jesus), could have chosen a different world and different laws. - 4:15:15 on 22 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->ARNOLD...is being homosexual an alternative lifestyle? Would not the word "alternative" connotate a choice? Does anyone choose to be homosexual? I don't think so. I can't believe anyone would choose to be discriminated against. - 10:47:09 on 22 May 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>> I agree wit ya, I don't think that being gay is a choice. - 13:34:22 on 22 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Steven & Joette: Apparently David from the Old Testament could help if he way gay...I Samuel 18:1 "And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." II Samuel 1:25,26 David speaking "How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places. I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." - 13:43:24 on 22 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Steven & Joette: Apparently David from the Old Testament couldn't help it if he was gay...I Samuel 18:1 "And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." II Samuel 1:25,26 David speaking "How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places. I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." - 13:43:55 on 22 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Steven & Joette: Apparently David from the Old Testament couldn't help it if he was gay...I Samuel 18:1... "And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." II Samuel 1:25,26... [David speaking] "How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places. I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." - 13:44:21 on 22 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Marlene...: Keep your insulated panties on...it's only the 22nd of May. - 14:06:26 on 22 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Ron & Marlene: What revelation are you talking about? - 14:10:08 on 22 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Y-It...: I don't buy it. John and David may be just good friends. I have always said, "Nothing should come between the friendship of two men, even one man's spouse should yield to that friendship". Meaning: Wives come and go, but a man's friendship with another man is everlasting. Can you understand that concept without putting a condom on it? - 14:11:58 on 22 May 98 GMT

RON...--->rOB, Y-It, Joette.: NO NO NO, I was thinking of going for the entertainment value. I would laugh my butt off while paying nothing to do so. And Joette, you are one sick puppy. Alien Probe? I got your alien probe....hanging. - 14:17:03 on 22 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Y-It...: Patience. - 14:17:53 on 22 May 98 GMT

Marlene:RON and Y-IT- Not only do I think Y-IT may be correct, I also think that the mythical jesus was bisexual, maybe even preferring men. In some cultures this wasn't a big deal. RON, the insulated panties came off a month ago, lol! - 14:22:50 on 22 May 98 GMT

Carl:Y-It: that was an interesting passage you located, pondered and brought to our attention here, was it your first time? Y-it, an also interesting pseudonym. Are you of that alternative lifestyle? As for y-it, for me nothing better than a soft warm female when we want to be away from the world and there is only us on our minds and before our eyes and of course our arms. - 14:28:08 on 22 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Ron: If marriage is supposed to be "until death do us part", or forever, and David's love for Johnathan surpassed that of his wives, then wouldn't David be technically married to Johnathan? - 15:37:31 on 22 May 98 GMT

Y-It:ALL: I'm sorry that I posted that Biblical quote three times. I kept trying to correct mistakes. I'm not obsessive. I'm not obsessive. I'm not obsessive. I'm not obsessive. I'm not obsessive. I'm not obsessive. - 15:39:23 on 22 May 98 GMT

Steven:ALL<<>>JOETTE<<>>did I say it is a choice, stone me dead, it isn't a choice, Geez what an error! - 15:40:39 on 22 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Carl: I'm straight, but not narrow. - 15:41:08 on 22 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Y-It...: You are speaking of *emotions*, therefore; there can be nothing technical about it. Also, what is the level of *technical* in the bible or of that time period yada yada years B.C.?? None. Anyway the answer is NO. The level of friendship between two men has diminished over the years because you needed *friends* just to survive back then but, I do agree that bi- or Homosexuality could've been more prevalent back then due to the lack of the now famous "moral handbook". Who's to say? You have one persons account of the emotional bond between two men...so what? Even though I am for the free willed choice of any human being, I can only see MARRIAGE between a male and female human. - 15:51:57 on 22 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Marlene...: Because of my Nephilim beliefs I must disagree with you. Jesus could not have been bisexual, and further, I believe he was incapable of the passion required for a sexual experience. He was, after all, an engineered drone. Sort of like a gelded Vulcan. - 15:55:48 on 22 May 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:-----VIOLENT YOUTHS----- I'm sure you are aware of how violent America's and the world's community of youths have gotten, even at very young ages. Consider the following cases: "A 15-year-old girl was strung up in a tree and a friend clubbed her to death with a rock for threatening to reveal plans by a group of teens to run away to Florida, police said. "Snitches get hurt," the friend told the victim, according to witnesses. Kimberly Jo Dotts' body was found by hikers Tuesday in a clearing called Gallows Harbor, named after a hanging in the 19th century. Her friend, Jessica Holtmeyer, 16, and Aaron Straw, 18, were arrested Wednesday, 10 days after the slaying. They were charged with homicide and are being held in the county jail. Police said more arrests were possible. An investigator said other teens were present during the attack but walked away. Police did get an anonymous call a few days before the body was found, but did not elaborate on what was said. 11 people - the two suspects, Kimberly Jo, her 24-year-old cousin, Tracy Lewis, and seven teenagers - were planning to run away to Florida, but got angry at Kimberly Jo when she backed out a! nd threatened to reveal their plans. The group toyed with Kimberly Jo by putting the noose around her neck, then removing it. At one point, she was dragged around the wooded clearing by her neck." InFoBeat News 5/22/98----- "Three sixth-grade boys had a "hit list" and were plotting to kill fellow classmates on the last day of school in a sniper attack during a false fire alarm, police said. The plan was modeled after a recent ambush at a Jonesboro, Ark., school that left five dead, Lt. Dave Todd said. Police learned of the plan after they responded to a fight at Becky Davis Elementary School in rural St. Charles County Thursday. Todd said what officers found was far more serious than a schoolyard brawl. The boys planned to pull a fire alarm and shoot students as they fled the school, Todd said. He said they got the idea from the March 24 incident in Jonesboro where an 11-year-old boy and his 13-year-old friend allegedly opened fire on classmates after pulling an alarm. Four pupils and a teacher were killed and 10 people were wounded. The sniper attack was to be carried out June 6, the last day of school." InFoBeat News 5/22/98------ Now do you realize who the people are who are responsible for children having gotten so violent? The answer is ATHEISTS. So you may ask how can this be? The reason why atheists are greatly responsible is because they hate God and they teach their children against God (which is the highest form of child abuse). For example: Atheists hate the TEN COMMANDMENTS because God is their Author. In the TEN COMMANDMENTS, God commands all mankind not to kill, not to steal, to honor our parents and so forth. Since atheists hate God and His Commandments, they teach their children and the children they have authority over against God and against His commandments. There is no other morality other than God's Moral Law. God is the Author of all morality. Since atheist teach children against God's morality, they have to in turn be teaching them to do the very things God says not to do.----- Some of the many ways atheists are doing this are through anti-God and anti-moral parental attitude, violence in the movie and music industries, anti-moral attidude on the web and etc. All the anti-God and anti-moral attitudes found in these fields comes from atheists and other non believers.---dig sigm18djhfyetwrwvbnc*&$$**@@!mvbc7645 - 16:28:25 on 22 May 98 GMT

Carl:RON: I think I have an understanding of your view. Friend- even as the human male go, appear among all male-like things. As for the homosexual love-like thing, I opt for the view that those human males "choose" that course of action. I prefer that view for its thinking process values as opposed to some biological thing, just because o'some nitwit like an R.Regan or a egomaniac like G.Bush or religious khomeni-like nut let loose in this country any one of which might figger they got a cure for that 'problem'. Again, as for that friendship thing, I have admired other men for what they were but I still cannot imagine that I needed any o'them stuck to my backside. - 16:35:21 on 22 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Robert T. Lee: Hmmm... the one billion believing and faithful Catholics on this planet are in BIG TIME violation of the second commandment: "Thou shalt not make any graven image of the Lord and bow thyself down before it, or serve it." Also, think of all the Christians now days violating the fourth commandment. - 16:39:10 on 22 May 98 GMT

Rob (smite be wrong):Sorry, Bobby-boy, that doesn't wash. Atheists cannot hate god as they don't believe he exists. Do you hate Santa Claus? As for child abuse, what about killing them if they swear at you? Sounds pretty abusive to me. There are moralities other than "God's moral law", even if you do not believe them as justified, they nonetheless exist. Tell me, if God commanded cruelty as being morally "good", would you still do it? As for anti-moral attitudes, what motive beneficial to atheists do you suggest is driving them to do this, huh? Love, Rob - 16:39:35 on 22 May 98 GMT

Rob (String me up nd get me stoned...):LEE RIDER: Sorry, forgot the big wet sloppy kiss (I am choosing to give you one) CARL:I think it may have been an interesting passage that David located, too. - 16:45:15 on 22 May 98 GMT

Carl:R.LEE: You hold confused views due to the "obedience" and non-thinking nature required by the xtian godthing. The mythical jc-thing also removes xtian adherents of being responsible for their actions. The history of xtians within just the past 1600 years present evidence that allow an unbiased thinker to say xtians hate humanity. I must say no to your view and suggest that the incidents of your post were more likely things done by the godfearing types. The history of the godfearing and the myths these kinds of humans prefer call for them to be ignorant of human things and describe a hatred for anything human. R.LEE, you err and are mistaken. Atheist hold that there is no evidence for a godthing, there are only humans and they are for me, my sole source for all that I experience that is good in this life. - 16:51:59 on 22 May 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:---Rob---Since you say there are other moralities, let us assume for a moment that is true. Tell me Rob (under this foolish assumption), does the "morality" you live by say "You shall not kill" or "You shall not steal" or "Honor your father and your mother? Please be bold enought to answer this question specifically. - 16:56:09 on 22 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROBERT T. LEE..you challenge ROB of the Roses to be bold enough to give you a straight answer. Last weekend, I asked your FOUR fucking times, and now this is the fifth, question: HOW DO YOU HONOUR ABUSIVE PARENTS???????????????????????????? Is a child supposed to honour someone who drinks the rent money away, only cares about their own hedonistic pasttimes, and likes to use their children as punching bags?????? ANSWER THIS YOU SELF-ABSORBED ASSHOLE!!!! - 17:08:51 on 22 May 98 GMT

Joette:--->CARL..no ad hominem intended, but for such a well-read person, you certainly have some old-fashioned views in regards to homosexuality. And like Rob, I am sending you big wet kiss. - 17:10:43 on 22 May 98 GMT

Carl:R.LEE: The morality point is not an argument of a godthing, it is merely an argument "FOR" a godthing. So simply say where you left it when you last saw and spoke to that thing. I would go there next, if you could say so, just to ask it to prove it was a godthing. By the way, how did it prove it was a godthing to you? - 17:14:31 on 22 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Joette: Don't forget to slip Rob & Carl some tongue! By the way, I think Robert T. Lee is too self absorbed to listen to you. Or either that, he's so full of shit that it's clogging his ears. (Yea! Ad Homimem attacks abound!) He didn't even notice my comment on Catholics violating the 2nd commandment and modern xtains violating the 4th commandment. - 17:16:47 on 22 May 98 GMT

Y-It:ALL: I think Robert T. Lee needs to take the Ten-Question Purity Test. - 17:20:09 on 22 May 98 GMT

Rob:R T LEE: Wow! An reply to a question! I never said I lived by a morality, but in any case, there are some moralities that value abstention from killing, stealing and in a round about way honouring parents. So what? Personally I find the concept of morals as somewhat superflous, merely describing behavioural tendancies/psychological preferences that have been elevated to the level of obligations (a view that is supported by my having lived with a medically psychopathic brother, where such obligatory feelings are virtually absent). Why were you unable to give me a straight answer in reply to the arbitrariness of the 10 commandments? And of my other questions, also. - 17:23:59 on 22 May 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: I see the human things in terms of a gene pool, since the theory of evolution is important to me. Guys and gals butt-fuckin and rubbin' pussies don't add to the gene-pool. That place is the only place I see and know of where you and I as time-binding creatures can pass on something of what we think and feel we are. If nothing is added to that pool why do either of us or anyone else now alive, do anything? Are we just animals, no, so we do what we do for whatever comes out of that pool. - 17:26:09 on 22 May 98 GMT

Rob:Y-It: Everyone knows Catholics aren't *real* christians LOL! It's true though, they are the most frequently disowned. - 17:28:57 on 22 May 98 GMT

PETER:--ROBERT T. LEE---If patience is a virtue; something that reflects a high moral standard, then I as an atheist should be commended here for displaying a king's ransom worth of patience with you. ..It saddens me to see you attack a group of people ( atheists ) simply because they do not share the same beliefs as you do. This is outright bigotry. It seems rather ironic that you condemn atheists for not practicing morality, when you yourself display one of the most reprehensibly immoral acts--practically everytime you post here. By this action alone, your credibility as a spokesman sinks to zero, but you actually make more statements which would also warrant little serious consideration. For one, there are countless belief systems which arrive at an atheistic position, so what an atheist actually believes could be practically anything. The only thing that connects one atheist with another, is his LACK of a belief. It would be just like grouping all the people who DON'T believe in Santa Claus as all believing in the same thing. As Rob mentioned, an atheist does not hate God--he cannot hate something that he believes does not exist. Inafar as "hating" the 10 commandments--again, I cannot speak for other atheists, but I certainly don't hate them. I find many of them irrelevant, and I find the whole thing incomplete. For instance, commandments 1-4 are just God trying to impress upon the jews how powerful he is--and he is not to be fooled with. "Honor thy Mother and Father"--yes of course one should do so ( unless they are abusive )--but why not "honor thy children" as well'? Or, why not just treat everyone with courtesy and respect? Why isn't that in there?...Thou shalt not kill(murder)" Of course not--but God turns around and commands Moses to form armies and slaughter every person inhabiting the "promised land". By what right? It seems the command about "killing" only applies in certain situations. The obvious explanation here is that Moses, or whoever wrote these commandments himself, and claimed it was from God, just so he could impose and inforce rules as he saw fit. "Thou shalt not commit adultery"--actually falls under "false witness" --"Thou shalt not steal"--of course not."Thou shalt not covet"--would be more of a recommendation on NOT how to perceive the possessions of others as it cause unecessary psychological problems. ...There are however some glaring ommisssions in the ten commandments....How wbout " THou shalt not engage in any form of slavery" or "Thou shalt not commit incest, physical force or violence in any form--whether it be a friend, stranger, spouse, sibling. Or how about " Thou shalt not discriminate due to age, sex, marital status, ethnic origin, and yes Robert-- SEXUAL ORIENTATION" ...What actually makes the ten commandments extremely weak as a whole is...no explanations are ever given as to WHY any of these rules exist. And even though a few are applicable --they are all arbitary. As Rob indicated, there are ethical systems that identify WHY certain standards are in place. WHY shouldn't we steal? WHY shouldn't we kill. These are the questions that are answered in the science of ethics. It's not WHAT moral guidelines should we follow that is answered--it is WHY should we HAVE these standards, that is answered. In the end, Robert the ten commandments contain, as I indicated a few applicable standards, but they are far far from being a complete treatize on moral activity, are presented, and defended archaically. They are like the blue-prints and plans to build a space shuttle containing only the words "Don't put anything together the wrong way, or it will blow up" And I'm not exaggerating. - 17:33:13 on 22 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Rob: Yes, after all, the founder of Catholisism is Paul (Saul), who is infamous for twisting Jesus's (Jeshua Ben Joseph's) religion into it's evil twin. Notice that the last 2/3 of the New Testament was written by Paul, a couple of generations after Jesus died. Also notice that Paul almost never quotes Jesus in all of these books of the Bible, and what Paul says often contradicts what Jesus says in the four gospels. - 17:35:41 on 22 May 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:----to the person who calls himself "Peter" ---- You betray your ignorance of the TEN COMMANDMENTS quite eloquently. However, I am glad to read that you perceive the decorousness of aleast some of the TEN COMMANDMENTS. - 17:47:52 on 22 May 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>I think you may be mistaken. Human beings are animals. A few more layers of brain cells and an apposable thumb does not remove the fact the we are animals. Animals with instincts etc. Or do you argue that human beings are not instinctual? If a human being, male or female, is born with the instinct or the natural attraction to the same sex, how is there any way to 'disagree' with it. I think that it is fairly common knowledge now that homosexuality is more or less something that a person is born with. Damn, got a call, gottttta to....... - 17:50:07 on 22 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Carl...: Excuse me while I laugh out loud....I'm glad you agree. I am fond of many males I've met throughout my life and I've had a few good mentors but, I don't require one stuck to my backside either.... - 17:52:26 on 22 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Steven...: I am sure you are wrong...we were engineered from animals. We share most characteristics of animals but we are above all animals. - 17:55:54 on 22 May 98 GMT

Rob:R T LEE: I answered your question. Are you bold enough to chance a reply? As for the commandments, are they decorous just because God authored them? Or should their decorousness be apparent independently? - 17:56:10 on 22 May 98 GMT

Steven:RON<<>>enineered? hmmmmm, wtf? - 18:01:35 on 22 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Ron & Steven: Actually, there are many recorded instances of animal homosexual behavour, going far back as the 1950's. However, most of these instances occured within a zoo, and very rarely in the wild. It has become accepted in zoology that when animals are penned up in tight conditions, they have a greater tendancy to become homosexual. Notice that most human homosexuals live in highly populated areas like cities. In conclusion, homosexuality seems to come from an instinct for population control, and cities are actually zoos for humans. I suggest you read "The Human Zoo" by Desmond Morris and the infamous "Science of Sex" issue of Discover magazine that came out five years ago. - 18:02:43 on 22 May 98 GMT

RON...--->PETER...: Answering the question "WHY?" would only have invited question onto those who made this bible crap up.... The commandments are dictated to humans as not to be questioned....And why not have a "Honor all positions of thy family"? I like that one. "Thy shall not put profit in front of friendship." - 18:05:03 on 22 May 98 GMT

Rob:P.S: Might I ask why there is no guestbook at your site? Are you afraid of what people might read? Also, as Peter suggests, are you unable to give any reason other than "because God says so" for the Commandments being observed? If not, then can you at least say why God's saying so is sufficient reason? CARL: Are you suggesting that all that matters is the gene-pool? If so, to what ends? - 18:07:07 on 22 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Steven...: Engineered..To alter or produce by methods of genetic engineering: "Researchers . . . compared insulin manufactured by bacteria genetically engineered with recombinant DNA techniques to the commercial insulin obtained from swine or cattle" (Fusion). As in...Enlil needed a beast of burden to mine the ancient mines of Africa. - 18:07:41 on 22 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Y-It...: Don't need to read anything on the homosexual subject...they don't bother me, I don't bother them. We are all human, no problems. - 18:09:09 on 22 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Ron: Oh yeah! A Nephilim response. Humans, like Jesus were genetically engineered from the Nephilims' intelligences. Hmmm... sounds like a crazy religion to me. - 18:11:54 on 22 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Rob...???: I'm not afraid of what anyone reads here. Why do I need a guest book? I don't need to show others a list of deep or profound thinkers lurk inside my bytes. I could care less. This site is for debate on the creation of man and the universe. What else matters? Some of the best discussion takes place here...people from all over the planet read and write here on a daily basis. Busy people with children and careers take precious time out of their lives to do research in order to keep up with the words you see before you. What must I do beyond that? I'm am flattered by the presense of you all...and honored to be here...now. - 18:14:51 on 22 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROBERT T LEE. You have a short memory. I've told you before and quoted your own source book, the bible, to show you that your god is a vicious murderous god and his boy jesus is a chip off the old block. Neither one of them follows the ten commandments. Their morality should be judged by their actions. Your god is a warlike god who encourages murder, rape and genocide throughout the Old testament. Quote: "The Lord is a man of war" Ex 15:3. To Jeremiah: "Behold, I will punish them: the young men shall die by the sword, their sons and daughters by the famine." "And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters" To Ezekiel: "Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children, and women." I've also told you about the Flood, wher your god drowned the whole world except for Noah and selected animals. He drowned everybody including toddlers, babes suckling at their mothers' breasts and, master abortionist that he is, the millions of fetuses in their mothers' wombs. So much for the commandment "Thou shalt not kill". Now to your boy jesus and the the commandment "Honor thy father and mother" His mother approaches him and he rebuffs her, telling her "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" John 2:1-4. "Think not that I have come to send peace on earth. I come not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance with his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." Matthew 10:33-36 Thou shalt not commit adultery" Unless of course, you're one of the big boy's favorites. Abraham begets a child by Hagar (and later sends her with her son out in the desert). Solomon, with all his wives, also has concubines, David and Bathsheba, and so on. In short, ROBERT T LEE, read your stinking bible!! It may be the sort of morality you condone as a christian, but I don't approve of mass slaughter, genocide and the butchery or drowning of babies. Do you approve of the drowning of babies and multi-abortions such as your god did with the flood? How about you answering that question? The human race evolved over many years and even primitive man had a code which enabled him to survive. It seems to have worked and civilizations flourished before your bible was 'invented'. Now makea hard copy of this posting and paste it by your computer so you (hopefully) won't post your repeat bullshit on this site again. - 18:15:40 on 22 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Y-It...:Ok, if you're going to attempt to insult me, get it right. The SHEM created humans, thousands of years later the SHEM slept with humans and created the Nephilim..(oh, they're in the bible). Jesus was the last engineered entity from the SHEM used as a means to communicate with humans. Jesus was the last message delivered directly from the SHEM...(or god as most see it). - 18:19:01 on 22 May 98 GMT

Rob:RON: Maybe you were being facteious but that comment was aimed at ROBERT T LEE! (It was a "P.S" from my previous post) - 18:19:46 on 22 May 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:---Rob---The TEN COMMANDMENTS are decorous only because God is their Author. They would not exist otherwise, particularly among atheist beause their atheism prevents them from rising to any level of intelligence wherein they can appreciate the TEN COMMANDMENTS. - 18:54:53 on 22 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->Y-IT...re your comments about homosexuality and cities. That is an interesting theory, although I would argue that it is possible that many homosexuals migrate to cities in order to be "with their own kind". As a group, gays are castigated, and I can't imagine anything more difficult for a homosexual "to come out" in a small town (speaking from experience - not me, but a sibling, who now lives in Canada's largest city). - 18:59:50 on 22 May 98 GMT

Carl:RON: Well, I try- try as I may, to contemplate that view in wider scope than just me. In order for someone to look at what went into a sum total for that particular expression- of mine, it budded forth after reading J.M.Burgers "Experience and Conceptual Activity" MIT Press 1965. This book in union with assorted other books, well that opinion most certainly seems to me, like an opinion worthy of public criticism. So there it was as I meant to view the topic outside and well before and, as best I could, a herefater of that which is me. I will be back 0514698, till then I'll be dismantling and renewing some automobile parts. til then,,, - 19:00:50 on 22 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROBERT T. LEE...about the abusive parents?????????? Some reason why you are avoiding this question? That's six times now. - 19:12:03 on 22 May 98 GMT

Y-It:"Weaving a net is better than praying for fish at the edge of the water." -- Chinese Proverb - 19:21:15 on 22 May 98 GMT

Steven:ROBERTELEE<<>>I can tell from how many hits your web page has gotten how popular your theories are. IMO posting to you is a waste of energy, so I won't post long. If I were you, I would look up "BRAINWASHING" in the dictionary, on the web, or in a library. After you have a full grasp of the concept, start looking into your religous beliefs, you may find a connection.... - 19:23:58 on 22 May 98 GMT

PETER:--ROB T.LEE---I really don't think you understood the thrust of my post. The Ten Commandments--regardless of who are what wrote them, hopelessly inadequate guide to ethics. If an all-knowing entity who has at least some interest in human welfare composed a set of morals--the citizens of the earth would have immediate knowledge of this doctrine-the all-knowing, all loving entity would see that they all would. However, the barbarism continued with seemingly little improvement after the commandments were presented. And this continued for thousands of years thereafter. The inadequacy of the commandments, and God's presentation and implementation of them had no global effect whatsoever. Even today, there are civilizations existing in barbarism--who have access to the ten commandments. Actually, the real turning point for mankind to even START acting civilized, honouring, justice, honesty, objectivity, was the advent of a document which you curiously hold on contempt because it was "anti-God"--The American Constitution. It seems that history clearly shows that an attempt to outline the laws of the land--based on human rights, reality, reason, and thinking minds --not arbitrary commands of an ancient, unidentified, unidentifiable supernatural entity--was just what the doctor ordered. The things that are keeping mankind from being entirely civilized are the very things that christianity and other religion espouses, or does not address. By holding "faith" as a "gift" and virtue--all this does in encourage mankind abandon the efficacy of his most important tool for survival--his mind. Also, bigotry runs rampant world-wide. This results in hate, injustice, violence. By your very actions on this chatpage, and your flagrant displays of bigotry against atheists, and homosexuals--one need not look further than this chatroom to see that adhering to christian beliefs is totally ineffective in showing any of its believers what the source and mechanics of bigotry consist of--but also fails in preventing its believers from practicing it shamelessly, reprehensiblely and contemptuosly. If its any consolation Robert--you aren't the only one who is guilty. - 20:02:28 on 22 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Peter: Good point about the Constitution cutting down injustice and dishonesty. By looking at his webpage, it seems that R.T. Lee wants to replace the Ten Bills of Rights with the Ten Commandments, because the Constitution is Godless. Who cares if it's not backed up by God or not. If it works, use it. If the Ten Commandments did work better than they did throughout history, then I would back them up. But after looking at the atrocities in the Bible, and the Medievil Period, when the Church ruled Europe, I don't want to back up this set of rules that failed throughout history. "Peace only comes when reason rules." -- Chinese Proverb - 20:15:37 on 22 May 98 GMT

PETER:--Y-It--Good proverb--too bad Red China doesn't follow it today. - 21:15:29 on 22 May 98 GMT

rOB: The rising of a body to a level to ' appreciate' another body (ten commandments) is a morality which always refers existence to transcendent values. RTL and others believe this morality is the judgement of a god, that this system of judgement must be appreciated-->the division bell rings again. In nature, there is an overthrowing of this system of judgement. The opposition of values (Good-Evil) is supplanted by the qualitative difference of modes of existence (good-bad). The illusion of values is indistiguishable from the illusion of consciousness. Because it is content to wait for and take effects, consciousness misapprehends all of Nature. Now, all that one needs in order to moralize is to fail to understand. It is clear that we have only to misunderstand a law for it to appear to us in the form of a moral "You must"----->recognizing this is more appreciative to us humans than a system of judgement. - 22:06:35 on 22 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROBERT T LEE. What did you give your mother for Mother's Day? A kick in the behind? Or did you just tell her to bug off, like your role model jesus did to his mother? - 23:33:31 on 22 May 98 GMT

rOB:I think a man cannot be ordered to be wise any more than he can be ordered to live and exist. Men, women and children are all alike able to obey by commandment, but not to be wise. If any tell us that it is not necessary to understand say--the divine attributes, but that we must believe them simply without proof, he is plainly trifling. For what is invisible and can only be perceived by the mind, cannot be apprehended by any other means than proofs; if these are absent the object remains ungrasped; the repetition of what has been on such subjects no more attains to their meaning than the words of a parrot speaking without sense or signification. I think polly really wants "another" cracker! - 23:34:49 on 22 May 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:---TO THE WORLD COMMUNITY--The best way to insure that the earth is never over populated is for sensible governments to clear all forms of atheism. RTL - 0:01:19 on 23 May 98 GMT

rOB:Names are a red herring. The use of alleged names is no commitment to corresponding entities. - 0:11:25 on 23 May 98 GMT

PETER:--ROBERT T. LEE---That is an original quote I must say, and probably accurate--but probably not for the reasons you wanted it to suggest. What you are probably suggesting is that because they have no mortal BECAUSE they are atheist, they will just go around killing each other with reckless abandon. Again you are making this embarassingly narrow-minded assumption that atheism equals no morals. Again wildly false. I am an atheist, and i know that from what I am hearing you go on about here, that evey atheist I know is more moral than you are. Overpopulating the earth is an increasing problem, and the solution could only be found through arduous research, testing. The world needs good clear minds devoid of superstition and pseudo-sciences, which is exactly what religions espuse. There is no room here for praying and hoping something will"just happen" and hope"that God will give us the answer"......Ironically, I hear a lot of christians speak of a world that will be the kindgom of Jesus--where there will never be death. If this were the case, it wouldn't take very long for ever sub-atomic particle in the universe to be used up as part of a human beings body--but of course it seems like the authors of the bible had no idea of exponential arithmetic.....On another note, this is a DISCUSSION page. The purpose of this page is to make a post, and then be prepared to discuss that point with someone else. That is why we come here. To discuss. However, you seem to have little interest in any discourse. Joette has asked you the same question six times--and even though it's a fair yet challenging question, you have chosen to ignore it. You have a tendency also to make a few bolds tatements, and then when they are being addressed, you simply ignore what has been said, and you agin make references to points without even acknowledging some very valid objections. It is certainly your prerogative to carry on like this, but I seriously doubt any one will take your comments very seriously. If your goal is to seek recruits and shed some light on a few of your beliefs, I couldn't imagine a less effective method than what you are implementing now......If it makes you feel better, Robert--you aren't the only one guilty of these actions. It seems it has to be brought to the attention of practically every person who has strong christian fundamentalist beliefs. - 0:32:24 on 23 May 98 GMT

rOB:PETER... RTL can make any statement here if he wishes, though the statements are somewhat analogous to parrot. The conveniency of not answering some questions here fits into his bold repetitious beliefs. I am in accord with Steven about RTL AND HIS brainwashing statements of obeying the ten commandments etc. - 0:46:24 on 23 May 98 GMT

Al:PapaSam: Nice job! Since the theists use blunt trauma as one way to exact revenge in the bible, it's only appropriate to bludgeon them with their own holy book. Until tomorrow :-) - 1:02:54 on 23 May 98 GMT

rOB:Ontology (RTL -god's perfect will gave Moses the ten commandments ie.) is , pending revision, more clearly in hand than what may be called ideology-the question of admissible predicates. - 1:17:56 on 23 May 98 GMT

rOB:Clearing say an associated term 'atheism' and people labeled as such is tyrant acting. The slave, the tyrant, and priest.....the moralist trinity. Since Epicurus and Lucretius, the deep implicit connection between tyrants and slaves has never been more clearly shown with this quote:"In despotic statecraft, the supreme and essential mystery is to hoodwink the subjects, and to mask the fear, which keeps them down, with the specious garb of religion, so that men may fight as bravely for slavery as for safety, and count it not shame but highest honor to risk their blood and lives for the vainglory of a TYRANT"...This is possible because the sad passon is a complex that join's desire's boundlessness to THE MIND'S CONFUSION, cupidity to superstition. - 2:04:35 on 23 May 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROBERT T LEE. The best way to reduce overpopulation is for all male christians to follow the suggestion of Paul and have themselves castrated. This would save them from lustful sinning and ensure their entrance into heaven. The christian women, being devoted followers of god would obey the commandment against adultery and would stop breeding. Why don't you set an example and be the first to have your testicles removed for the greater glory of god? Just think! The church might even canonize you. I can just see the headline in the papers: "St. ROBERT T LEE was named the patron saint of the castrati" What a way to go! - 4:22:57 on 23 May 98 GMT

HORNY:ALL CHRISTIAN WOMEN. I LIKE PAPASAMS IDEA. IF YOU WANT TO COMMIT ADULTERY I'LL BE GLAD TO HELP YOU OUT. VIRGINS WELCOME. - 4:28:44 on 23 May 98 GMT

rOB:HORNY... Though Robert T. LEE might call you a satan sex demon, to be cleansed or eradicated SENSIBLY. Let me repeat that word-->"sensible" - 4:38:20 on 23 May 98 GMT

rOB:PapaSam.. OUCH! Also , I don't think he would still be a tenor; his singing voice would have a new range certainly. - 4:44:55 on 23 May 98 GMT

rOB:I think RTL and his followers are interested in generating pseudorandom numbers with normal or exponential distributions as their judgemental system of ethics forces hope of jesus's otherwordly kindom.. Caution, some empirical testing of these new algorithms has been extremely limited. New algorithms for generating exponential variates -in composition with heavenly kindoms. The brainwashing with algorithms to form sensible ethics on others. - 4:59:24 on 23 May 98 GMT

rOB:Mathematicians expedite their special business by deviating from ordinary language. Each such departure is prompted by specific considerations of utility for the mathematical venture afoot.. Thus consider the mathematician's use of parentheses to indicate grouping. From his posting, RTL also likes to group people in convenient ways 'to do away with' for convenient purposes to support a judgemental system of ethics. - 5:13:11 on 23 May 98 GMT

rOB:TO ROBERT T. LEE.. I agree again with Steven that it is a waste of energy to have a rational discussion with you, but I could not resist this little saying for you-" No matter what you did, No matter who you are,In the faint light from the middle age star, You see every blemish, every sign of age and it's useless to whine and it's useless to rage". - 5:41:50 on 23 May 98 GMT

Rob:ROBERT T LEE: I suppose one question responded to out of ten is a start. First, you say such morals as in the 10 commandments could not come about from atheists because they are not intelligent enough. Are you really suggesting the atheist is incapable of elevating the concept of "not murdering" to a law? Second, if the commandments are only decorous because God says, then would you answer the rest of the question and tell us why we should obey such arbitrary commands. Also, you didn't answer whether if God had made cruelty "morally good", whether you would observe such a commandment. Oh, and could you explain why exterminating atheism would reduce overpopulation? I thought abortion, contraception and homosexuality all acted to keep the population down? - 13:08:33 on 23 May 98 GMT

James--->All...:Hey folks, I have a few moments this morning so I thought I'd post something that is on my mind. I understand that most of you feel that religion has been a negative factor in the development of human society. I think that most of you, knowing where I come from and how I got here, understand that I see it as a positive factor in my own development. Furthermore, collectively everyone who has felt the positive effects of religion in their lives has helped move society in the right moral direction contributing to its overall heath, well being and continued survival. At least what I perceive to be the right moral direction. Having said that, I heard something yesterday that someone said in response to the recent youth killing spree that took place here in the US. This person summed it up to a lack of God in our schools and parents who don't teach their kids the difference between right and wrong. Basically their position was that due to schools not being able to display the 10 commandments or being allowed to pray in school, we have allowed our children to stray from a moral baseline that may have otherwise prevented this tragedy. Of course my first response was what a bunch of crapola! But, after some self reflection I began to think that at a very basic level, there is some validity in this based on my own life experiences. Now, don't write me off yet, I'm going somewhere with this. Who would deny that not killing, not be adulterous, not steeling, not coveting, etc are good things to teach our youth? However, the no gods before me line seems to be completely out of place. Barring the few commandments that render this set of commandments to be religious in nature, the others, simple, direct and possibly common sense play a very real role in the positive development of youth. Sadly, for the most part, these common sense moral statutes seem only to be introduced in a religious setting and even that is happening less and less with nothing else to pick up the slack and a world full of icons, leaders and role models who illustrate a different message. Going beyond that, It is my feeling that the youth of today have been affected by a declining effort in parenting over several generations. I know and respect many people from the WW2 generation. On the other side of that, some of these people are the biggest bunch of racist assholes I've ever seen and being in their presence when they speak of other peoples makes me absolutely sick. Because many of these people still exist, and considering my relative youth, this is where I begin to trace the beginning of rotten parenting. These folks raised little racist who carried their hate forward. When I examine the times of the sixties I am appalled at the lack of self-discipline, strength of character and general resistance to a moral baseline. The whole free love and anarchy represented by this generation of ingrates makes me ill. Perhaps these offspring of racist WW2 types were in rebellion, but for the most part it was a selfish movement more concerned with self rather than the good of the whole. These folks had no clue how to raise children, nor did they believe that it was right to stand on principals that clearly defined right and wrong. They raised their children without discipline, without a work ethic, without a moral compass and turned to the television to entertain and educate their children. In current times, we all seem to be guided by a need for self worth, material wealth and status. The strength of our families is mistakenly tied to our financial well being as dictated by the resultant society of generations past. So here we are today, people die for tennis shoes, youth snipers and mass murders are becoming an almost daily occurrence. People look to others to take responsibility for them and continue to justify actions they know in their heart are wrong. I'm almost to the point, so bare with me. I hope no one is offended by my generalizations. I understand there are many exceptions to things I've stated and the people I speak of. However, I needed to state them in as brief a manner as possible. Anyway, back to the issue of is religion good or bad and how my own life experiences relate to that. I think my parents were rotten parents. My mom was an alcoholic who never once seemed motivated to improve herself and did a horrendous job of teaching her children how to behave in society or take care of themselves. My father served six combat tours in Vietnam came home to us when I was 7 years old and began a long period of abusive behavior toward myself up to and after the period where he basically lost his mind and believed he was a prophet. As I've said, at an early age (4-6) I spent some time in religious training. I knew what the 10 commandments where and what they meant. Through all the pivotal development stages of my life as a youth I had little or no guidance about right and wrong from my parents. Through periods of strife and self destructive behavior the one thing I could always go back to were the simple, direct common sense rules of the 10 commandments. Were there were no parents, no society (village) there were the 10 commandments. They above all else helped me to put value on life, both others and my own. Now of course I am much older and reasoning along with common sense are my guide. But then I was young, impressionable, lost, confused and seemingly hopeless. Yet, those simple 10 commandments helped to guide me and keep me from becoming so lost that I may have been much like many of the lunatics we have roaming our society today. Am I saying everyone needs to find religion at an early age? NO. But what I am saying is that in my case learning these simple statutes provided me guidance in my youth that I was not getting from my parents or anyone else in society. Was it a good thing? You bet your ass it was. Has it done the same thing for others? Probably. Do we need God in our schools? NO. Do we need to be teaching our children a moral baseline? You bet your ass. Do the 10 commandments help...well, most of them do. Would the world be a better place without religion? Not IMO. Would the world be a better place without religious fanatics who can't or won't think for themselves? You bet your ass. Well, that's all I have to say. Just some things that I've been rolling around in my mind that I wanted to put to text. I'll be around a little later to take my punishment, but I can't say that I will have the time required to properly debate and analyze my comments. It's more or less a rough draft approach to some things that were on my mind. Thanks for your time and to all the veterans of the struggle for liberty and freedom, Thank you! And I salute you! - 15:44:47 on 23 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->JAMES..a most eloquent posting of your personal reflections. My only problem with it is that the ten commandments should not be attibuted to religion. They are purely social mores, and were around before Moses climbed the mountain. It is not a god that need be followed in order for a person to be good. It is primarily innate. I know the difference between right and wrong, my child knows the difference between right and wrong. There is nothing religious, nor is it my upbringing that helps me deduce the difference between the two. I have my own struggles with morality, but it is my brain that tells me which way to act in accordance with society. - 16:10:03 on 23 May 98 GMT

Rob (Kepp taking the Tablets):JOETTE: Good point, which I wish to pose to ROBERT T LEE: Soceity- even if you think the world was only made 6000 years ago or whatever- was pretty similar before Moses got his pieces of stone, so what difference did the commandments make IYO other than to pick out a few morals that were already being exhibited by man? - 17:12:13 on 23 May 98 GMT

Rob (A Kepped man):Kepp?! For keep's sake! - 17:14:44 on 23 May 98 GMT

rOB:OPEN.. Joette made an excellent comment on how her moral consciousness is innate. Kant's postulate of god's existence shows a deep insight into a RELIGIOUS CONSCIOUSNESS. Kant claimed that reason demanded free will, the immortality of the soul, and the existence of god, although reason could not prove them and we could never know whether what reason demands is in fact the case. This type of religious consciousness facilitated the acceptance of belief in an afterlife among the Jewish people at the end of the Old Testament period, at a time when they successfully resisted many other Persian and Hellenistic notions. The religious consciousness which Kant portrays can be understood historically, BUT IT DOES NOT PROVIDE strong evidence for a god's existence. I guess what I am trying to ask IS WHY DO SOME PEOPLE THINK THEIR RELIGIOUS CONSCIOUSNESS PROVIDES EVIDENCE OF A GOD-THING? AND DOES THIS RELIGIOUS CONSCIOUSNESS PROVIDE A BASIS FOR THE FOSTERING OF RELIGIOUS FANATICS OF THE LIKES OF A RTLEE?? - 5:48:48 on 24 May 98 GMT

rOB:I think Kant also talked of the noumenal world, we can conceive of this realm, but we cannot know whether it exists. Kant's ethical theory asserts morality is not founded on religion, but religion on morality. We know of his formulation of the categorical imperative itself. What of the subjective maxim upon which our action is based? This is the form a general moral principle such as 'thou shall not kill' would take in characterizing a given moral situation. However , he stated, my action will have geniune moral value only if I act for the sake of duty, and not because I am inclined to do so(as rtl is inclined to clear all forms of atheism). There is some -if you want to say truth- here even if one might question the basis of Kant's postulates. Anything that lies beyond space and time, must be for Kant and us, an empty possibility. But some do live as though they were immortal. AT LEAST, we have our dignity as rational beings when we reject RTL'S SENSIBLE(WHAT HE CONVENIENTLY CALLS SENSIBLE) RELIGIOUS FANATICISM); I think this revelation can be appreciated in our day to day living. - 6:33:43 on 24 May 98 GMT

Grant:JAMES-- I wish we didn't need to be constantly confronted by this attitude regarding atheists and morals, especially from people such as you who have been exposed to the atheist protests for some time, but don't seem to hear them. You say: "Sadly, for the most part, these common sense moral statutes seem only to be introduced in a religious setting and even that is happening less and less..." Do you suppose that in the process of growing up and developing, atheists are incapable of noticing which types of behavior are successful and result in positive social responses? Do you assume that Christians don't learn in this way? Is it possible that atheists might notice that they are similar to other people and extrapolate that if they are deserving of decent treatment that others are as well? Why do you persist in clinging to this view that atheists have no morals and teach no morals to their children? Has personal experience with atheists born this out? Do you visualize us sitting down to coveting, stealing, murdering, and adultery lessons with our children? As to your observations about the WWII generation's racism and poor parenting skills, who do you think raised them? Do you think they broke with the long and honored tradition of open-mindedness and racial equality leading back to pre- Civil War times? They were the product of society, just as we are. They loved their children and wanted more and better for them just as we do. "The beginning of rotten parenting"? Give me a break. You say "The whole free love and anarchy represented by this generation of ingrates makes me ill. Perhaps these offspring of racist WW2 types were in rebellion, but for the most part it was a selfish movement more concerned with self rather than the good of the whole." This strikes me as pretty self-righteous James. First, the movement was far from universal. Second, the free love people and the anarchy people were not necessarily one and the same. Third, they were rejecting the values of their parents generation, including the importance placed on wealth, material possessions, and status that you are condemning in this generation. There were all kinds of people involved for all kinds of reasons, and I think your generalizations are unrealistic. For one thing idealism was rampant. I don't think you have a good understanding of what motivates people; any people. "Generation of ingrates", James? I find that ironic. - 6:55:00 on 24 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT...very well said and I agree with you. Generalizations are dangerous. If we are to view this generation of as a bunch of "ingrates", it must be our generation that taught them to be that way, and vis a vis our parents generation and so on. James was speaking from a personal perspective, and his post would have more weight if he were to use specific examples of how he formed his opinion. It is obvious that neither you or I can empathize with him, as our experiences have possibly been different, and so his statements are "scientifically" incorrect. - 11:54:57 on 24 May 98 GMT

PETER:--GRANT--Excellent post! Like a universal brainwash, the pervading attitide still exists that no religion=no morals. One does not need nether-world intimidation to keep himself in line. In fact, to base one's morals on this standard makes morality impossible--as Ayn Rand clearly explains in her essay " The Objectivist Ethics" ( As well as many others )Word has just got to get out--and it may take generations, if not centuries to de-program the world. - 14:37:57 on 24 May 98 GMT

Grant:For James - 14:42:46 on 24 May 98 GMT

Grant:JAMES-- For some reason that didn't link to " Morality." If you are interested select that link. - 14:45:13 on 24 May 98 GMT

tick . . . tick . . . tick . . . tick . . .:Hey Ronnie-poo! Only one week to go! - 14:47:56 on 24 May 98 GMT

PETER:--rOB--Due to a widespread lack of critical thinking skills-- lack which is the lifeblood of religious fanatacism--there are millions who are unwilling to accpet the fact that one's own brain activity is not a method of verifying existence outside their consciousness. They like the comforting feeling one gets when they believe they are wired in telepathically to some outer consciouness that will guide them through tough times. They are so reluctant and terrified to abandon this belief--hence their insistence that they have a cosmic hotline to God. This is usually explained to them at a very young age by others who have equally non-existent critical-thinking skills, and on it goes. If they insist this a "proof" that there is a God, and one poits out to them that this is nothing more than special pleading--they will invariably challenge the veracity of the fallacy of special pleading--and logic itself, even though they thought their original claim WAS logical, rather than questioning their own method of arriving at this conclusion. A few however do challenge this assumtion--and they become atheists, or at least are going in that direction. It is here where self-deception and dishonesty in religion become obvious factors, and it is here where the potential for disater of religious beliefs begin. I truly believe that most religious people are "good" people nevertheless, not because of their religious teachings, but despite them. - 15:05:18 on 24 May 98 GMT

Marlene..and I know none will be in agreement:JAMES- Not this again! How do you know that these kids that did the murdering weren't taught that it was wrong? How do you know if their parents were believers or not or if they taught their children to believe? It's my guess that these kids were taught the right things and that they knew that what they did was wrong. They were just self-centered enough to not care about the welfare of the victims they took their anger out on. IMO it's a lack of self-control and empathy toward others obliviated by self-centeredness that causes people to hurt others. Their parents maybe had done their best, who knows. I love children, but I personally have a problem of making them the center of the universe. IMO, the chidren of this culture are taught self-centeredness and it's this that I think is harmful. - 15:22:29 on 24 May 98 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- I'm in agreement. Even when we feel that our children are the center of the universe, I feel it's harmful to let on. :-) We are doing neither society or our children any favors by allowing our children to become self-oriented, IMO. - 16:06:59 on 24 May 98 GMT

rOB:PETER...Thank you for your insight! I agree that a person's brain 'surge' is not a method for arriving at a god's existence. Ayn Rand pointed out also that consciousness, being a state of awareness, is not a passive state, but an active process that consists of two important things: differentiation and intergration. I agree also with you that people who believe in a cosmic gateway are pleading (REALLY STUCK in a passive state) tirelessly without any logical conclusions. An active state of consciousness, hopefully, eventually directs us out of the passive 'quicksand' state of some direct cosmic hotline. - 16:38:51 on 24 May 98 GMT

James--->Joette...:I agree, they are for the most part purely social mores and existed long before this so called Moses climbed any mountain. None-the-less, the social mores must be taught. I do not agree that they come natural. You did not grow up in a vacuum. At some point, you were introduced to these principals and have likewise passed them down to your children. My only point is that what ever the vehicle was for passing these social mores down; religion, law, parental example, it seems hardly debatable in terms of its importance. My brain also tells me which way to act in accordance with society, but that brain required exposure to some moral baseline irregardless of the method in which it was delivered. - 19:00:43 on 24 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->JAMES..that is true. I didn't embellish my post as much as should have done. However, I am in agreement with Marlene in that it doesn't always have to be the fault of the caregiver, teacher, pastor or buggering priest. Are are those times when people do terrible things, regardless of what they have been taught. I would ask you though, if you were raised in a vaccuum, and then you were released into the real world, how would you feel if someone did something to you, such as steal from you, or physically harm you. Would you not feel violated? My point being, it is innate in most people, what is right and what is wrong. (or harmful/not harmful) - 19:39:39 on 24 May 98 GMT

James--->Grant...:Grant, it seems to me as though you missed the mark on my post by a long shot. My post had absolutely nothing to do with whether an atheist is capable of passing down a good moral baseline. Certainly I have been around long enough to understand the atheist protest therefore, yes, I do hear them. I will ignore the implied insult in your statement. I am hard headed, but not stupid. The key words that make the distinction in the excerpt you've quoted are "for the most part". No, I do not suppose that atheist are incapable of anything, nor was I trying to comment in that regard. My post dealt specifically with the vehicle of religion as a means of delivering moral teachings; Not that an atheist could not. If I felt an atheist could not, I would have stated so, plain and simple. Based on your misguided understanding of my post I see no need to comment on the rest. But, so that other people are not likewise misguided by your response, for the record, I feel atheist and theist alike are both capable of having morals and teaching their children what those morals are and what they mean. I persist to cling to nothing, and once again will ignore the implied insult. As for the WW2 generation; Again, you did not read my post well enough to understand that I understand that they were raised by parents with similar moral values. However, I have not known any of those people. I have meet people and do know people from the WW2 generation. I have not known or meet any of their parents as, most of them, if not all of them are dead. Because I am speaking only to my own experiences and relations in life, the people I have known and do know are all that were relevant to my thoughts. I hope this is making more sense to you now. With regards to rotten parenting and the generalizations I spoke of. Perhaps had I spent more than a few sentences to cover an obviously huge social change, I would have made my self more clear. Basically, I was just rattling off a few things that I feel have had a direct impact on how seriously people take their role as a parent today. Things like the divorce rate and others also point this out. Alas, this forum is a difficult place for such a task. Be that as it may, my point still stands. If we as parents do not pass a moral baseline down either by example or direct teachings; If we are to condemn religion because of its efforts to do what so many parents seem unwilling or incapable of; Then we should not be surprised when teenage youth, having no concept of the value of life, theirs or others, go on a killing spree. Your detailed points concerning my generalizations are valid and appreciated but, not relevant to the point I was making. I will take them into consideration and thank you for offering them. It is this type of discourse that allows one to more fully explore their views and perceptions. Perhaps I do not have a good idea of what motivates people. I suppose that by pointing out what you perceive to be a weakness of mine, you are implying that you do know what motivates people. I would be interested in your view on that subject and what in your life has shaped that understanding. Grant, I find your entire response to my post ironic. - 23:59:23 on 24 May 98 GMT

Arnold:The belief that following the 10 Commandments is going to improve our ethics is absurd. The first Commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." has been the source of more killing than just about any other idea in history. Like Einstein said, if we require rewards and punishments in order to me good, then we are a sorry lot indeed. I say it is the religionists (who are teaching children that they cannot be good without a devout god belief) who are in this way promoting the exact bad ethics they claim to be eliminating. It is the religionists that are convincing our children that people are inherently and necessarily evil. It is the god believers who teach us that we should try to be like a god who, according to their own holy books, solves his own problems through the use of violence. - 1:17:11 on 25 May 98 GMT

Grant:JAMES-- I'm thrilled that we have the capacity to ironicize each other. I actually managed to follow the point of your post. When I concentrate real hard I can actually read. You say your post had absolutely nothing to do with whether an atheist is capable of passing down a good moral baseline, yet you said in it that "...these common sense moral statutes seem only to be introduced in a religious setting ..." Is this statement off limits because it was not the main point of the post? How convenient. OK, you may not comment on my calling you on this because it wasn't my main point. Regarding the WWII generation as parents you say "However, I have not known any of those people. I have meet people and do know people from the WW2 generation. I have not known or meet any of their parents as, most of them, if not all of them are dead. Because I am speaking only to my own experiences and relations in life, the people I have known and do know are all that were relevant to my thoughts," but in the original post you said, " I know and respect many people from the WW2 generation. On the other side of that, some of these people are the biggest bunch of racist assholes I've ever seen and being in their presence when they speak of other peoples makes me absolutely sick. Because many of these people still exist, and considering my relative youth, this is where I begin to trace the beginning of rotten parenting. These folks raised little racist who carried their hate forward...." Which is it, or is this off limits, not being the main point? James, I don't consider you stupid, nor do I consider you an enemy. I called you on what I consider to be sloppy, insulting, unfair, ignorant, and inaccurate generalizations. If you are going to say something, take responsibility for it. Aside from that, the post was OK. - 1:43:52 on 25 May 98 GMT

To all you lucky people south of the border reposing in your beds while I slave away here at work....HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY!::) Joette - 12:36:08 on 25 May 98 GMT

Pathetic Loser believing that a memorial day is somethings special...:Rather like people who believe in a god. Equally pathetic. Different yardsticks, thats all. - 13:48:22 on 25 May 98 GMT

Ebenezer, is that you with all your merriment?:... - 14:30:58 on 25 May 98 GMT

James--->Grant...:If you managed to follow the point of my post then you realize that I was not really attempting to sum up any one generation. Rather, I was attempting to bring together several social shifts that I believe have resulted in what appears to me to be poor parenting in current times. The direct affect being a society where weirdoes and freaked out lunatics with no value of life are abundant. You further prove your inability and possibly unwillingness to comprehend what I am saying by again quoting me out of context. "Sadly, for the most part, these common sense moral statutes seem only to be introduced in a religious setting and even that is happening less and less with nothing else to pick up the slack…". Now, I even pointed out for you in my last post the key phrase in that quote. "For the most part"…That would indicate there is another part or parts required to make the whole. Put atheist in one of those parts. So again, because your premise is fundamentally flawed, your arguments to my point are irrelevant. I'm not sure I follow you on the WW2 generation. Basically what I am trying to say is my thoughts in my original post were limited to people I have known or do know. I have known people from the WW2 generation. I am not sure what you would call their parent in terms of a group, but I do know I have never meet one as most if not all are dead by now. Perhaps your confusion is in my use of pronouns, where they, in the context you have quoted, would have been the parents of the WW2 generation. I am sorry to have confused you. Like I said, it was a rough draft. I don't mind being called out on something. I even stated in my post that my generalizations were only for the sake of brevity. 100% of all generalizations are typically "sloppy, insulting, unfair, ignorant, and inaccurate", much like the constant use of the term Christian is inappropriately used in this forum. I have no problem taking responsibility for something I have said or done. I do think it is first important to understand what I am saying. - 14:34:34 on 25 May 98 GMT

James--->Pathetic Looser....:Memorial day is about paying tribute to the many people who have fought and died to bring you freedom and liberty. Freedom and liberty mean nothing if you are not willing to give your life for them. Today I will raise a new flag in their honor and my sons and I will recite the Pledge of Allegiance. This is a tribute that goes out to all the worlds heroes in this struggle. - 14:39:45 on 25 May 98 GMT

Grant:JAMES-- This has got to be tedious for anyone else. Visualize me biting my tongue. - 15:13:47 on 25 May 98 GMT

James--->Grant...:I guess so.....I don't know though, I think everyone here encourages anything we can do to further understand each others points of view. Lately I have been more interested in communicating my own take on things as seen through my own life experiences. It is a single point of view derived from my own interactions with people. Take it for what it's worth. I make no claim to superior intelligence or philosophical wit. But, from someone who has lived a fairly unique life, I want to offer what I have seen, lived and experienced. Nothing more. If it's helpful to others fine, if it's tedious, they can scroll down. - 15:35:43 on 25 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT..being the devil's advocate that I am, it isn't tedious for me! I love a knockdown, dragout as much as the next gal! This will make your holiday a MEMORIAL(able) one! - 15:46:14 on 25 May 98 GMT

fghfgh:fffghfh - 17:13:01 on 25 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->JAMES...I enjoy freedom and liberty, but I sure am not about to give up my life for them. I would be interested to know your age, and whether you were in Vietnam or not? And I was quite amazed that you said you didn't know anyone from WWII. Were your parents postwar children? Were your grandparents not of that generation? How can anyone go through life not having any exposure to someone who was involved in that war? About your sons, have you given them accurate history about the freedom and liberty they enjoy, or just the American view (which is somewhat skewed). - 20:55:12 on 25 May 98 GMT

Arnold:The Pledge of Scrutiny: "I pledge scrutiny to the policies of the United States of America (and all other countries too), and to any ideas we may promote. All nations must allow liberty and justice for all. - 23:50:21 on 25 May 98 GMT

Marlene..just thought this was rather cute:I was just reading _The Society of Mind_ by Marvin Minsky. On the subject of "soul" he had something interesting to say "What are those old and fierce beliefs in spirits, souls and essences? They're all insinuations that we are helpless to improve ourselves. To look for our virtues in such thoughts seems just as wrongly aimed a serch as seeking art in canvas cloths by scraping off the painter's works. - 3:05:55 on 26 May 98 GMT

Marlene:OOPS! "search" - 3:07:18 on 26 May 98 GMT

Arnold:Marlene, are you a trans-humanist? "The Society of Mind" deals with nano-technology, etc., just curious. - 4:17:56 on 26 May 98 GMT

Joette:-->ARNOLD..what is a "trans-humanist" and what is "nano-technology"? - 10:34:30 on 26 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Joette: "Nano-technology" is the latest trend in technological development. Basically, it is the development of what are called "micro-motors", or motors that are on a microscopic scale. So far, nano-technology was used in Germany to make a working model helicopter only a couple of centimeters long, and in Australia, engineers made a working model car about the size of a grain of rice. Engineers plan to use nano-technology in the future to create micro robots to inject in you body to do surgery, or to become "chemical factories" that will build complex chemicals from a pool of simple or "raw" chemicals. As for "trans-humanist", I'm not sure what that is either. - 12:56:26 on 26 May 98 GMT

Joette:Y-IT..thanks for the information. I actually saw a video clip of that grain-of-rice-sized car, but guess I missed the reference to the "nano" part. - 13:20:00 on 26 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Joette: I just found out what a "transhumanist" is. Basically, a "transhumanist" believes that the human being can be improved by being completely taken over by technology. They believe that we should "download" our consciousness, or entire brains onto a computer inside of a robot body. By doing this, they believe we could have pure "consciousness" and not be bothered by biological "inconviences" like eating, sleeping, shiting, and fucking. They probably don't want to be bothered by sleeping, because they never remembered having a dream, and they probably don't want to be bothered by sex, because they never got laid. They seem to forget that the one thing that is inherit in all technology is that IT BREAKS, and someone has to be there to FIX IT. I don't know, it sounds very scary to me. These people are the epitome of the "mad scientists" you see in those cheesy Sci-fi movies. - 13:37:49 on 26 May 98 GMT

Marlene:Y-IT- Nope! Not a transhumanist, just reading the book. ALL- We have a homosexual man running for mayor in Winnipeg and for the most part I think most people support him. You wouldn't believe the number of people though who ignore his leadership qualities and spout biblical drivel against his sexual orientation. This is "in the face" proof how one allows bibical drivel over-ride their common sense. - 14:04:04 on 26 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Marlene: Yeah, I think a lot of people here in the States know what you mean. A lot of Christian and "moral" fanatics focus on Pres. Clinton's womanizing sex life, and think that this is grounds for impeachment, but they completely ignore the good things he did in his presidency. - 14:36:49 on 26 May 98 GMT

Steven:JAMES<<>>exactly what war have we fought, since you have been alive, that had anything to do with 'our' freedom? American men and women have died is several wars, but none of them had anything to do with 'our' freedom. For that matter, what war has been fought by the grand 'ol USA that had anything to do with us, other than the Civil War, and mabey, yes mabey, the Mexican/American war. How many times has Canada attacked American soil? How big of a threat is Mexico? Hmmmm, you may say that WWII was protecting our supposed freedom, we PUSHED Japan into the war, right. Desert Joke, was about oil money, Vietnam=who knows (possible communist threat, I doubt it), Korea (the original communist threat, please). So, exactly what freedoms were being threatened James? - 15:26:50 on 26 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Steven: You seem to bring up a good point. The Romans were considered to be one of the most expansionist and violent civilizations. But not many people know that if you take all the wars and little conflicts the US initiated (little conflicts like Grenada and Panama in the 80's) and compaired them to all the wars and little conflicts that the Romans initiated, the US easily outnumbers the Romans. And the Roman civilaztion was around longer than the US has been by a few hundred years! It kind of makes you wonder, is the US really "defending" democracy or creating a global empire? - 16:04:42 on 26 May 98 GMT

rOB:Freedom is linked to essence and to what follows from it, not to will and to what governs it. - 17:11:47 on 26 May 98 GMT

rOB:The transhumanists who want 'PURE' consciousness are of the same degree as a religious fanatic; both want to clear other things out. Spinoza said that there is no need to know that one knows in order to know but that one cannot know without knowing that one knows. NATURE is say pure with all its impure modes. Well, let us be dammed if man can fix nature, of course he has to be around to repair his technology. The year 2000 with the changing of the computer systems can be shown as an example of how man will always have to fix something as he evolves. - 17:27:35 on 26 May 98 GMT

Y-It:rOB: Yeah, this is exactly the point I wanted to make about the transhumanists. When I first heard of these people about a year ago (I didn't know the name of their movement until today), I couldn't actually believe that people like this actually exitsted. I think the whole transhumanist thing came from New Age fanatisism. - 17:48:07 on 26 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Joette...: Not knowing what "nano-technology" is is a sin in itself. Beam me up Scotty....speaking of...tic tic tic...only time will tell. - 18:24:51 on 26 May 98 GMT

Marlene:ROB and Y-IT- Firstly, I agree, as I've said before, who cares who Bill is porking as long as he does his job. This transhumanist thing sounds like an extreme. I'm sure happy to see that the discussion has picked up on discussing other extremisms other than damn xtianity. Although the idea of putting a human brain into a mechanical body is rather inhuman, I have to applaud the technology which creates such devices as the pacemaker etc. I think technology can be an asset to medicine but then again, how much is too much? - 18:26:38 on 26 May 98 GMT

Marlene:HEY RON- Tic tic tic May 26\98 tic tic tic.... - 18:28:21 on 26 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Steven...: Oh shut up. Come on, Steven. How far left can a person go? If the Good Ole USA didn't whoop ass on the Germans you'd be speaking German right now. Be thankful the Vietnamese couldn't build large ships at the time or they would've come over here and whiped our fat asses out! I for one, like living in the USA ...ask the Serbs what it's like being over run year after year. Get a grip, put down the pipe. - 18:30:18 on 26 May 98 GMT

RON...--->Marlene...: Yeah yeah yeah...I'm cooking the crow now. That's the kitchen timer you hear...tic tic tic - 18:31:53 on 26 May 98 GMT

Y-It:ALL: Okay, what's up with this tic, tic, tic, tic...? - 18:40:24 on 26 May 98 GMT

Steven:RON<<>>hehe, if you are serious, then I am aghast! If you are jokeing then, hehe. How exactly do you think that Germany would have invaded the US with one battle ship, 0 aircraft carriers etc. etc. They didn't have the navel power in 1937 to take Mexico on, much less the task forces and carrier groups of the American Navy. I am not far left, i think measuring someone on a left/right scale is a bit ridiculous. I believe that the US as a World Power should maintain a strong military. I just don't see the justification for killing people to boost an economy, or to secure oil rights. Sorry, I cosider that a bit un-ethical. I don't see going to war over political philosophy any more of a jusification to go and kill a couple of hundred thousand people. If they have a government that is communist, who fucking cares. It doesn't have one thing to do with us, NADA. The serbs, moron are fighting a religous war. Let me say that again, and if I need to spell it out ask, "THE SERBS are FIGHTING A RELGIOUS WAR". It is not our frigging problem either. So, when one of these major threats hits our shores, then sure, blow the hell out of them. Please Ronny, telling me to shut up is quit sophmoric. - 18:52:21 on 26 May 98 GMT

Steven:RON<<>>hehe, if you are serious, then I am aghast! If you are jokeing then, hehe. How exactly do you think that Germany would have invaded the US with one battle ship, 0 aircraft carriers etc. etc. They didn't have the navel power in 1937 to take Mexico on, much less the task forces and carrier groups of the American Navy. I am not far left, i think measuring someone on a left/right scale is a bit ridiculous. I believe that the US as a World Power should maintain a strong military. I just don't see the justification for killing people to boost an economy, or to secure oil rights. Sorry, I cosider that a bit un-ethical. I don't see going to war over political philosophy any more of a jusification to go and kill a couple of hundred thousand people. If they have a government that is communist, who fucking cares. It doesn't have one thing to do with us, NADA. The serbs, moron are fighting a religous war. Let me say that again, and if I need to spell it out ask, "THE SERBS are FIGHTING A RELGIOUS WAR". It is not our frigging problem either. So, when one of these major threats hits our shores, then sure, blow the hell out of them. Please Ronny, telling me to shut up is quit sophmoric. - 19:11:29 on 26 May 98 GMT

Steven:oops - 19:11:53 on 26 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Steve & Ron: This whole thing about the US fighting enemies makes me think of something relevant to this discussion group; and that is religion and war. Common sense would tell us that the only purpose to fight a war is to get more land or natural resource. Yet, I think that a lot of the wars throughout history were fought over some religion or ideology. - 19:24:48 on 26 May 98 GMT

Steven:Y-IT<<>>I wonder if you would say that Macarthy-ism, or a deep rooted fear of communism, spawned from America's religous fears? In other words, did we fear those heathenous pinkies because they spurned the "religion" of the US? Was our government so frightened of a government that didn't recognize christianity as a driving force in their society? Mabey that is why the US can not keep from sticking our noses in the human rights of the population of China. As if anyone in the US are experts on what 'China' needs. Mabey they need a few more missionaries to screw up their society, throw a curve ball into their social structure. You know, I think relgion may have a lot to do with the bloodthirsty nation of the US of A. hehe - 19:37:41 on 26 May 98 GMT

Viagra Len:~~~~~ATTENTION:..... Please join us in a massive world-wide hunger-strike against Theo Chat for banning Mccoy and Farnes...... Thank you......... (Hunger strike to last until further notice)... Thank you twice. - 19:49:34 on 26 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Steve: Yes it's sad to see that the US was founded on secularism by a bunch of deists, and then it suddenly turns into a Xtian fanatic country. Out of all the industrialized nations, the US is one of the least secular. It is pretty much true about McCarthyism and the promotion of Xtianity. One of the biggest arguements for the Red Scare of the 50's and early 60's was to prevent "godless" Communism. Reagan gave an "Evil Empire" speech at some Baptist convention in Florida, I think it was it 1982 or 1983, where he (falsely) claims that America was founded on God, and that we must fight the "Evil Empire" of godless commies. - 19:49:43 on 26 May 98 GMT

Steven:VIAGRALEN<<>>hey, thats not fair, I was banned from the theo chat too. hehe!!!! - 19:52:22 on 26 May 98 GMT

>>>> Steven--It's "maybe"--not "maybey". There will be a test next week. - 19:52:53 on 26 May 98 GMT

Big Dick Len:~~~~~~In addition to the massive world-wide hunger strike against Theo Chat for banning mccoy and Farnes, please refrain from any sexual activity for the course of these trying days... If you keep on your hunger strike, sex will be the last thing on your minds anyway.... Thank you thrice. - 19:55:57 on 26 May 98 GMT

with love from Joette to..:-->RON...you think I'm a dolt for not knowing what "nano-technology is"?????? Well, my dear chaste (not by choice) friend, why don't you read a fucking history book sometime?????? The U.S. entered the war 3 years after everyone else, and only because of Japan. I am aghast at how little you know about the real world. - 19:56:46 on 26 May 98 GMT

Marlene..don't care, don't give a damn:NOW-POTENT LEN- You'd think Theo-chat would be hard up enough to keep Farnes. I don't miss dinner for anyone most especially anyone from Theochat. - 19:56:47 on 26 May 98 GMT

Steven:Y-It<<>>I guess some people put as much faith in the Red, White and Blue propaganda, as they do in the christian propaganda. You will find that most flag waving is done by god fearing christians. - 19:57:43 on 26 May 98 GMT

Marlene..not very good ideas:On this US involvement in EVERY country. I say, maybe they should clean up their own country before trying to force their ideas on others. In China is there kids shooting kids, not for food, not for shelter but ..just because they are pissed. - 20:00:47 on 26 May 98 GMT

Steven:To the poster who decided to correct my spelling. Look, sometimes the posts are typed fast, and sometimes they are not. My spelling has never been good, and on this forum I don't give a shit if I mispell MABEY (hehe) or if I mispell ayn't. I sometimes mispell 'the'. So, as you can see, I don't care. :] - 20:01:28 on 26 May 98 GMT

..........correct spelling is a sign of a troubled mind. - 20:05:02 on 26 May 98 GMT

Y-It:Marlene: You go girl! - 20:05:13 on 26 May 98 GMT

curekt speling is a sine of a trubld mined - 20:06:16 on 26 May 98 GMT

Y-It:corrct speling is the sign of an obsesive mind. correct spelling is the sine of a obsessive minde. correct spelling is the sine of an obsesive mindd. correctt speling is the sine off... aaargh! -