Joette:-->TO ALL..sorry to be droning on the subject, but I am trying to deal with an inordinate amount of anger today (probably because my heartless corporation had me working today and again tomorrow..). The Diana coverage is all that seems to be on and I have this comment to make: The "nice" media (CBC, CTV, NBC, CNN, ABC, CBC and on and and on) seem to be reporting as though they are above it all, as if they have never purchased a film or photograph in order to undermine someone. In my opinion, they are all in bed with each other, and I would like to wipe their smug looks off their faces! If Diana had been killed in an accident not involving the "papparzi", the pictures would have been on the air in no time flat. Now they are tyring to pretend they have ethics and refuse to show any of the pictures that are up for sale. Bets are on that they already have them! They are all the same, whether it is the New York Post or the goddamn Globe. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to rant. - 0:23:11 on 1 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:The primacy of motivation, that lead to the tragic events of Diana's death, was the endearment of "In Greed We Trust," not "In God We Trust" … IMO. All life is sacred and special regardless of status, but what seems to be really important is, not the death so much but, the love that is lost as a result of the death. Diana I think gave much love, to all people, and the world will surly miss her! - 0:30:35 on 1 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..I hope you mean "surely", although I am feeling rather surly today. - 1:22:22 on 1 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..me again. Are you finally admitting that you trust in god? - 1:23:46 on 1 Sep 97 GMT

Joette (no it's not pms, I'm just mad at the world today):-->BILL..if you truly believe that all life is sacred, then why did you pull out a gun at your son's party earlier this year? Is your property more sacred than human life? - 1:26:30 on 1 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, What parts of my post suggest that I trust in God? The information I had at the party was that the kids were killing each other and, after calling the police, I made the best judgement that I could at the time. I have never done this before in the past and don't plan to ever do it again in the future but sometimes "shit happens!" On top of work today, my hot water heater went out and leaked all over so I am currently working on draining and disconnecting everything. Do you feel better now? - 2:14:24 on 1 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->BILL (and to everyone in the world!@!!)..there is no such thing as a hot water heater. If the water is hot, why would you have to heat it? It is a water heater, period. Also, in your previous post, you said the primary cause of the accident was "in greed we trust" instead of "in god we trust" so that is the part of the post which implied that you trust in god. I don't think that is hard to figure out. And no, I don't feel better, because in about an hour, I have to take my daughter to the hospital, and I will have to sit in an emergency room that resembles Ellis Island, and somehow the thought of waiting for hours in that environment does not appeal to me, especially since by the time I finish there, I am going to have to go to work again. I am labouring away my Labour Day. - 2:43:30 on 1 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, Picky, picky, picky…. Now that you are an authority on "water heaters," surely you will come here and fix this 'durn' thing for me? Besides its not, "If the water is hot," as you suggest, but "If the water were hot." Please be careful, I am easily offended by the technicality of you're writings :~). Concerning my previous comments about "In Greed We Trust" and "In God We Trust," I only made those in reference to the comments that you and Peter were making about the accident. I was in fact disagreeing with Peter when he associated the death of Diana on religion and agreeing with you, in relation to it being motivated because of capitalism. Now don't you feel bad Joette? I'll see you in the morning, OK? - 3:12:28 on 1 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I'm sorry to hear that your daughter isn't well and I hope she feels better soon. Otherwise, you made my day with the hot water heater comment!! Sharp Joette, sharp. Also very sharp on picking up Bill's comment, I would have missed that one. Anger brings out the best in us sometimes, most especially in women, I think. You go girl!!! PETER- I don't know that I agree with you on the "religion" thing unless your saying that idolizing is anti-mind. With that I agree! BILL- Pulling a gun on someone is just plain stupid!!!! - 3:44:37 on 1 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..thanks for the support. TO ALL..Diana update..the "nice" media have taken it upon themselves to show an "amateur" video of the accident. I was watching in the wee hours of the morning, and lo and behold, there it was. Now how is this different than showing the "paparrazzi" (sp) pictures? They are ALL sleaze balls! - 11:57:12 on 1 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, I didn't point a gun at anyone. I intended only shoot into the air, if need be, to break up a brawl. People in Canada were handed their freedom on a silver platter and they never have had to fight and die for it, as we did in the US. We have had a long history of standing up and defending our rights down here and we are still ready to fight and die for principles if need be. Our defeat of the British over two hundred years ago helped paved the way for you're easy freedom of what, thirty years ago? Lastly, how can any action that leads to the cessation of fighting and ends well be considered "stupid?" - 12:09:12 on 1 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, You are not here to fix my cold water heater. Just so I won't disappoint Peter and in line with my natural predilection to "bridge" from apples to oranges, is not a "hot" water heater just simply one that is functioning normally, and a "cold" water heater one that's broke? - 12:10:07 on 1 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:I hope everything turned out OK with you're daughter. I know how bad things can get when it comes to kids. - 12:14:50 on 1 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:BILL- Lest you forget, the Brits and French settled North America. Your war was a civil one and had nothing at all to do with Canada. We've always had freedom in Canada, I don't know where your coming from with that one. A gun is a weapon, unless your willing to use it as a weapon it's stupid to use it otherwise. Those who caused the ruckess could have easily taken it away from you and used on you and your family. You wouldn't have been much of a hero if that had happened. The police are in place for a reason and it would have been wise to call them to handle the situation. And back to this "Canada was handed to us on a silver platter", Canada is owned by it's people and our ancestors as well as our selves have worked hard to make it a country to be proud of. Although I at times complain, we have one of the best standards of living in the entire world. No one dies because they have no health insurance, none of our prime ministers have been killed by the people they represent, we try to avoid war and violence whenever possible so that our young people's lives are not wasted over politics, our laws on gun control help to prevent gang killings on a daily basis, our lack of the death penalty has saved more than one innocent man, ........do you need more examples of our own road construction to aid you in recognizing that you haven't "paved" a single damn thing???!! - 15:39:37 on 1 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:Now for the latest on the accident in Paris. It turns out the driver's blood showed that it contained above the legal limit of alcohol. Another factor in an accident that could have been prevented! - 15:47:11 on 1 Sep 97 GMT

Bill...:MARLENE, I hardly call our war of independence in 1776, and subsequent actions like the Boston Tea Party in 1773 against British taxation, a civil war. It was the American colonies against Great Britain. Agreed our war, at that time, had nothing to do with Canada, but weren't Canadians handed full autonomy about 30 years ago from the British? Don't you think that defeating the British over 200 years ago has had a positive effect on many countries gaining their freedom from British rule? Of course the Irish are another story. About guns, why conjecture about what could have happened? We could have lost our war with Britain and still been paying them taxes but we are not; so what's the point in conjecturing? Some kid could have been killed as this gang of rednecks was kicking my son's friends, one at a time, in the face as they got them on the ground by first hitting them over the head with beer bottles and chairs. Maybe I couldn't wait! I'm sorry but kids kill each other around here, from time to time, and its not just the big bad bully boys either. You don't live with these people, I do; You can't possible make a judgement on what I should have done on that particular night. And yes if kids were being killed, I would have used my gun without reservation or hesitation. As far as you're health care goes, why do older Canadians cross the boarder into our country for operations that will save their lives because you're socialized medical system puts them too far down the list and operates on the younger first? Why does Joette have to wait all night at an Ellis Island facility to get her kid some help? Our medical system is second to none, in the world, for quality. Unfortunately not everyone has medical insurance here but they have to be accepted when showing up at the hospital emergency rooms. The very old have Medicare and the poor have Medicaid. Sure we have a lot of room for improvement here but neither is Canada a panacea. Our two countries have two totally different historical backgrounds and unless you have lived both these different pasts, I don't see how either of us can really cast judgement on the other. The important thing is that we learn from each other and improve what we currently have. Concerning the Paris accident, don't you think that the driver of Diana's car is responsible for speeding and causing their accident? They didn't have to run! - 16:57:39 on 1 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..you make me proud to be a Canadian! Let's remind Bill that we beat the Americans in the War of 1812! - 16:59:17 on 1 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:--->BILL...history continued, as I am still in a snit today...what year did America enter World War 2??? Let me think, was is 1942???? When did the war start? September, 1939. When did Canada declare war on Germany? Gee, I think it was September, 1939, just one day after Britain declared war. Where were the big G.I. Joe heroes for the first 3 years? Hiding their head in the sand. "Oh my, it isn't our war now is it?" "Oh gee, someone bombed Pearl Harbour, so maybe we better do something about that.." And then you have the audacity to think that your country is the big freedom fighter. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. You may pledge allegiance to your flag everyday, but you are fed nationalistic propaganda every day that really has you believing that your country helped the cause of freedom for the rest of the world. Well, most of us aren't fooled, and maybe it's because we are forced to study world history, and we know what has gone on outside our borders, and yours too. The nationalism displayed by an American is exactly the same as someone worshipping god. I am finished now, and I should get back to work! - 17:06:01 on 1 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:BILL- War just isn't glorious, nor is any type of force. Canada just may have taken a little longer and paid a little more tax but in the end, separated from England with dignity and grace. It's bad enough that kids kill kids without regressing to adults killing kids. Is there some type of proof that you have that our medical system rejects older patients in favor of younger ones? Although it may seem sensible, I have yet to witness this type of action with our medical system. Older people sometimes have more money enabling them to buy their health care somewhere else. Not everyone is that fortunate. Our medical system serves all of Canada and not only the wealthy. As for the judgement issue, it is you who feel that your war with England had an effect on other countries, not I. - 18:54:53 on 1 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, I agree you're still in a snit today! Did you're history also talk about Canada shielding all the American defectors during the time of Viet Nam? - 19:46:39 on 1 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, I don't have time to produce proof of Canadians crossing the border to receive health care, but its been reported in our news media that it is so and as being a negative to socialized medicine. Clinton tried to get socialized health care for every American when he first got elected and failed, part due to the fear of health quality dropping. I agree that war is not a glorious thing and should be avoided but not at the loss of freedom. At what date did Canada officially receive its freedom from Great Britain? - 19:47:04 on 1 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:BILL- Viet Nam........what an f-in waste of lives and for what Bill???? Xtian capitalist democracy? Even the people of Nam realized how contradictory these three adjectives of the American Dream really are!!! - 19:54:40 on 1 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:BILL- The Constitution Act of 1982 verified our independence from England. Once again, this was an agreement between the people of Canada and the people of England not a release from slavery. This was done with integrity and harmony. We as Canadians still have great respect for our English colonial roots. BTW, your "news media" as well as our own and others, leave much to be desired in the way of truth. - 20:30:30 on 1 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:--->BILL...Canada, Spain, England, France and a host of other countries had defectors during the Vietnam War, which you lost by the way, and if any of your people were found to be working illegally in Canada, they were given the heave ho. We did not shield anyone. It is no different than the "aliens" working in your country without proper visas, although many of your employers feed off these people and pay them poverty wages in sweat shops. We have had autonomy from England since 1867, and our constitution was signed, sealed and delivered in 1982 as a formality. Back in 1867, we did not require muskets and cannonballs to gain our independance as you did. Now, shall we talk about the War of 1812????? If you nothing about this particular war, then you don't know very much about your own history. Mind you, it was a war that was lost, so maybe it isn't on the propaganda agenda of your educational system. - 0:36:10 on 2 Sep 97 GMT

Grant:OPEN-- Yeah, yeah, our own team, school, town, country, always happens to be the "best" one. ---AP carried a story about how the TV networks had to scramble to cover the crash story, then a story on how Time and Newsweek had to stop the presses, pull their cover stories, wait as long as possible for developements,(deaths) etc. Journalism is hard work, and much good reporting is done, but is this really news- reporting on reporting? - 12:27:02 on 2 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, JOETTE, I agree with Grant that each one of us is always going to think that our home or country is the best in the world, and it's a waste of time to drag up old junk from the past and argue it further. Besides MY Daddy is Bigger than yours! So there, nah! Ha! Thanks for the information on you're country's independence, as I wasn't sure. JOETTE, I dumped my old "cold" water heater and picked up a new "hot" water heater. Smirk! Hehehehe! Sorry, I couldn't resist! I haven't installed it yet though. Is it true that women in general just can't stand to take cold showers? I took one yesterday and felt invigorated but, after encouraging my wife to do likewise, she said that women HATE cold water. Further, to add insult to injury, she said, "Our love life doesn't need cold showers." So to ameliorate the situation, I suggested that we go out to the beach to eat seafood and drink beer. I just couldn't labor the entire "Labour Day" without doing something fun and relaxing. What a nice afternoon we had. The beach has a way of making time stand still, especially when you're drunk (ha!), and restores peace to one's state-of-mind. My wife told me a joke she got in her email, while we were walking on the beach. It is as follows: This young blond woman got into the elevator with this handsome young male executive. As they were riding down together, she turned to him and said, T_G_I_F. He looked at her and said, S_H_I_T. Startled, and unsure of his response, she once again said, T_G_I_F. Again he repeated, S_H_I_T. Now she became indignant and said to him, "Don't you know that T_G_I_F means, 'Thank God Its Friday'?" Why are you responding to me by saying, S_H_I_T? The handsome young executive said, "Sorry Honey Its Thursday!" Bye, I got to go get busy on, "you know what." - 13:46:22 on 2 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:ANY: well, i see we are somewhat concerned about the USA and wars, once before i mentioned the book "America, a country made by war", the reader would\might have to sit back and ponder a thing or two. Or, one could pick-up a few copies on manifest destiny, this pertains to the greedi character within humanity, and lets not lose sight of the capitalistic composition that motivates the USA. As for the reference to the priciples of this country i have seen that notion logically broken down, analysed, to the point that those 'principles' are merely political postulates; for example happiness, what is that? A response probably won't have an ultimate truth but will be directed at a comparatively instant effectiveness. - 15:00:09 on 2 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:OPEN: on the D.Spencer topic, the press or some othe ineterested party will not let it out that the all four in the car were intoxicated. But, as some people want to promote some idealism, D.Spencer's humanitarian acts that may have been part of her war with the monaechy, that bit of information wont appear just yet. Why were they intoxicated? Do we allow ourselves do any of us permit our safety and continued existence into the care of a drunk, or an idiot like some priest or other such? I don't. They were all snockered. - 15:23:04 on 2 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:&gtCARL, How do you view people like Bill Clinton. He goes to church, prays, and believes in a higher power. Being an atheist, would you characterize him as being anti-mind, irrational, unintelligent, deceived, unstable, or just out-of-touch with reality? - 22:35:20 on 2 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:GRANT, Stephen Covey, America's dream-boy success consultant, was published in last Sunday's "Weekender." Did you read about him? His new book, to be released soon, will be on, "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Families." I'm afraid its too late for me and my family. - 22:36:21 on 2 Sep 97 GMT

Grant...:BILL-- I wasn't exactly taking your side. The U.S. is what it is. Anti U.S. bias may hinder understanding, but so might pro U.S. bias. I just didn't see objectivity running rampant. (What do I know?) BTW, I don't think it's a waste of time to drag up old junk from the past. I'm very fond of old junk from the past. As to Stephen Covey; not my cup of tea. Your question to Carl is exellent, but maybe reveals more about you than you intend? - 4:49:55 on 3 Sep 97 GMT

Grant...:CARL-- I don't see relevance to who was or wasn't drinking. Is there a rule that celebrities can't drink? What is the implyed crime, drunken passengering? - 4:56:11 on 3 Sep 97 GMT

Grant...:Oops. Missed the c in excellent. (I'm so ashamed.) - 4:59:53 on 3 Sep 97 GMT

Bill...:GRANT, I know you weren't taking my side but I agreed that its only natural to think that our own home or country is the best. I know we can learn from the past and its good to review the past once in awhile, but we have to let it go and move on. I'm not a big fan of the Viet Nam War, or a lot of the things that the US has done in the past, but I feel that people should work within their countries to make their systems better. If there is a lesson to be learned from past events then OK, but then move on. And my question to Carl was an effort to move the discussion back to "religion" which is what we are suppose to be discussing here. I am tolerant of religious people that aren't fundies, but don't read too much into my question to Carl that may apply to me. I have been very open with my perspective here, I think? - 13:01:42 on 3 Sep 97 GMT

Grant...:BILL-- Fair enough. Since you ask, no, I don't think you have been open with your perspective here. You are evasive enough to preclude taking you at face value IMHO. - 13:33:11 on 3 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:GRANT: since that post, more has since come into the light, but, my inscription was motivated by an early reporter's view that now she, D.Spencer, was sure to be or become or somehow or other "a saint", thereafter reports included a royal this and that and so, all i saw planes, a place tat the planes had to land, a car and so on. The reference to the intoxication factor means she was just a woman, a pretty blonde one and beyond that now deceased. No seat belts, she and her man were probably caught up in some heavy back seat pettin' and stuff, this means too, they were just people, nothing inordinary. - 14:36:37 on 3 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:GRANT, I suppose you're correct. I don't get emotionally caught up in, "This is the way it's got to be." I see everything as being relative to the observer, and have no problem with accepting people like Bill Clinton and his supposed religious reality. I just can't accept atheist positions, for myself personally, that all religions or beliefs are bad. We should only judge our own position and not others whether we are atheists or believers. Self-interests, self-focus, and self-reliance, is where our individual attention should be. And the first thing we need to do is eliminate self-persecution. If we persecute ourselves, then we will persecute others. I think Rand would agree with this. I just don't see one concrete objective reality short of the observer, and maybe that's why I don't have a concrete position on, "This is the way it's got to be." A lot of my interaction here is pure entertainment (like a game of chess, its fun and challenging) or simply to just improve my writing skills. I don't really take myself too seriously and try to enjoy life each day. Those who take themselves too serious are in for an unhappy life, IMO. Things that I see that are "anti-mind" are not so much religion in general, but thoughts and feelings like "guilt" and other forms of "self-persecution." I have, through sever problems with my son, pretty much eliminated guilt and self-persecution from my daily thoughts. No matter how bad I am criticized here, I never feel guilty or bad about whom I am as a human. Life is like a game so let's just play and be happy! - 15:09:27 on 3 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:CARL, While I hate to see someone so young die, I just don't see why so many people's happiness is tied to human heroes. Why do people idolize people to the extent that they have Diana? When their hero falls, then unhappiness and pain are the results. Shouldn't people just simply be happy just by accepting who and what they are today? - 15:14:32 on 3 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:BILL: While none ever see reports nor know for certain what individuals like B.Clinton are motivated by to do what they do, in particular his pious public image, it is done to be appealling. Remember the 95% figure? Perhaps in this regard, recall in an earlier post i said how one religious-type school for kids was saying of math that it was "god's greatest gift", well Clinton as a politician like any theist both will, for their ends "by any means necessary" do or say whatever whenever wherever and so on. The by 'any means' appears in a book i own about the Spanish inquisition said by one of the early popes. O', the early church viewed democracy and assorted freedoms as anti-their god. So do you BILL really accept Clinton's pious acts, especially since he is supposed to be among the intellectually brilliant folks. I don't imagine someone as he not being familiar with the information that i am, B.Clinton is just a politician and just a man. - 15:15:37 on 3 Sep 97 GMT

Bill...:CARL, Observing Bill Clinton, as being one of the most brilliant politicians of my generation, I would have to be naïve to think that he was totally sincere in his religious beliefs. I do think that, and for the sake of discussion, he has some degree of spirituality or religious beliefs. He is one that has overcome severe adversity in life and I think his inner beliefs sustain him and keep him on track. Do you CARL really believe that Clinton has absolutely NO sincerity in his religious beliefs and actions that he projects? - 16:59:53 on 3 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:CARL, Do you have any comments on my post prior to yours? - 17:01:40 on 3 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:BILL: As i ponder your query i find the thought that most commoners can't handle the ever-going transformations of existence, and between change and pemanence, dead heroes are permanent fixtures for those who find favor in matters outside themselves. On the matter of D.Spencer i have been posturing so as to not see that former live as anything other than what she once was, just another female. In regards to Clinton and his spiritual beliefs, both words are of course not understood by me as theistic matters. Matters being connotation, denotative and such. Such theism is to steer one at unknowns, but as i continue to study on these things, the words belief and spiritulisms to me both refer instead to things not present that we know knew or anticipate. These notions best fit with rigorous thinking, which is always ever-going too. - 18:05:48 on 3 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:CARL, I think we view the Diana death similarly. People in my view shouldn't look outside themselves for heroes, but rather inside themselves for heroes. Also we shouldn't allow others to manipulate our feelings of self-worth based on their particular judgements or observations. We should focus on ourselves and make ourselves something that we're proud of regardless of their view of us. Do you have any comments, with reference to my last post to Grant, concerning in particular, "Self-interests, self-focus, and self-reliance, is where Our individual attention should be."? This to me, and in line with our discussion on idolizing Diana, is a very important issue that becomes the source of much grief and problems in the world as one follows a particular belief system that is focused externally. And I agree also with you're other comment fitting the idea of beliefs or spiritualism to the notion of ever-going rigorous thinking. Its something we should hold open for further thought I think. - 19:05:59 on 3 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:hello - 19:36:23 on 3 Sep 97 GMT

Joette :-->Hello Steven - 20:06:48 on 3 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Somehow I just don't think that I see a similarity in your and Bill's views other than Diana was simply human. HI STEVEN! - 22:22:35 on 3 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:BILL: one of my favorite targets are usually directed at such people because they seemingly have those very qualities that you mention. What it appears you refer to is the contrary of atheism, that very same contrainess i see as attractive, theism is not so inclined. It is, the points you mention go against the unupdated notions of theism. Again, remember the 95% figure? Theists like the pope and clinton want more of that number because rigorous thinking means the end of their deceitful ways, perhaps when folks wise up people like clinton will be honest and clergy held estates will pay their taxes and other assorted unleachlike ways will end. Alright, that was soap-boxin', briefly, but the point relates to your post to GRANT. In short, the selfishness you mention serve well interests like clinton and i tossed in theism as the flip side of atheists, atheists see the world at least along the lines you mention and for myself i see more in the ever-going state of thought. Theism does not do so, if their history speaks true of them, this makes them dangerous, here consider O.Roberts, et.al. - 22:29:25 on 3 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:BILL: awhile back while perusing a site for the philosophical substantiation of thiesm, i saw a term i thought would be fun to ponder it was "the unyielding natural materialism" state of mind. That notion and its components whatever it may include, has me reviewing reading again stuff, as i wonder what that meant. - 23:02:39 on 3 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:CARL, I'm not sure I fully understand you're post, but I agree that we need to be more honest and less political. The faithfully deceived do play well into the hands of the establishment. Everything should always be up for review and subsequent change when logic and critical thinking proves the "status quo" to be wrong. People who are "unyielding" in their views are insecure people, that because of their fears, refuse to face reality. "Selfishness" sounds like the wrong word to describe what I am trying to say in my previous post. It's not that a person doesn't care for others, but rather his responsibility rest only with himself. We should only control one person, and that should be "ourselves." Our only enemy is ourselves and overcoming our fears I think. Why should we focus elsewhere? GRANT, Where are you? - 0:08:24 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:OPEN, Last night in the news I heard that the school superintendent in the adjoining county had approved the issuing of bibles to kids in their public schools. A local church is giving them away and the school system is allowing the church members to stand outside the doors of the schools and give away a "permission slip" for kids to take home and have their parents sign for permission to receive a bible as a gift. It's supposed to be legal? I am against this sort of thing and one of my many dreams last night was related to this. I dreamed that I was standing out in my front yard beside my Mercedes (which I don't really own of course. It must be Diana's, ha!), and these school kids came by and were running around my car putting bibles everywhere…on my car tires and under my front bumper, etc. I called the adult in the crowd over and ask him, "Don't you know that these bibles will only fall into the road when I drive? I don't want them on my car and please remove them at once." Crazy huh? - 0:24:44 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..have you been reading Ayn Rand? She would be very proud of your last post. - 0:55:50 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..I wrote my post before you described your dream...I was referring to the one before it re Ayn Rand...and yes, that was a crazy dream..too bad you don't own a Mercedes...I really enjoy mine...one of the perqs of corporate America - 0:59:42 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

Adam THEY'RE BAAACK!!:Sorry to all that I just got sick & tired of reading old posts (I went back 100). Here's a potpourri of comments for sum of U_________Jo-Bet..."Proofreading" is one word; I can understand your problem with DEAD BIRDS; You WILL be seeing Princess Die on the news every night; by the way, what do the Princess and the Blue Jays have in common?.......Zon: shut the f*** up already......Bill: for all your glorification of Deming and the Japanese, the papers are now strewn with articles on how the Japanese have become the very model of bloated, inefficient payrolls and uncompetitive corporations; I disagree with your use of "benevolent", as all apparently charitable or conscienscious acts of corporations--which are amoral--are self-interested.......Peter: Your limerick was SO apropos; 'twas a boring tome with spelling woes. I'm referring to Zon (pray to god that he's gone!), who downloaded stuff we all know. - 1:15:30 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, I have always agreed with much of what Rand has said particularly on the topic of self-interests. While I am just a "working boy" I do (well my wife really) has an Acura Legend. Does that count? ADAM, Welcome back! Will talk more tomorrow. - 2:13:20 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene :And I have a John Deere tractor that goes Bang-bang-bang-band..Bang-bang-bang-bang. Huh? Bangnight?? Muffler's a little rusty but she runs like a deer (as intended)! That tractor is proof that god does not exsist for if it did it wouldn't have created something that would paint the thing yellow and green! - 3:20:31 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

Grant...:CARL-- Good stuff today. As to "dead heroes are permanent fixtures for those who find favor in matters outside themselves," heroes, saints, god, etc. may be characters in a romanticized "reality" that makes more sense to some than that other purposeless and indifferent reality. I entirely missed your point about the drinking, obviously, but do agree. - 5:04:42 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

Grant...:BILL-- My brand of tolerance differs from yours. A universal trait of religion is intolerance. Tolerance for religion is tolerance of intolerance. On an individual level freedom of thought must be tolerated. An individual is not responsible - 5:40:27 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

Grant:Oops!-- An individual is not responsible for the harmfullness of religion, but religion is harmfull. I know you've heard this all before- blah, blah, blah. I don't wish to harp on the objective reality thing either, but I do have a problem with reality being relative to the observer, despite what the physics books say. What is the mechanism by which reality knows when you are looking. (What is the mechanism by which the universe knows that a black cat has crossed your path, and that you have some bad luck due?) Blah, blah, blah. I also differ about the self self self stuff. I think it's important to look at the world outside oneself as it is, without regard to how it relates to "me." Of coarse this won't work without objective reality. - 6:07:45 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

RON...--->BILL...: I enjoyed reading your post on feelings of self worth. Over the last few weeks I've questioned my ability to be a loving partner and father. My first wife set me straight saying if we were living in the same area and we were both single, she would come after my love in a heart beat. This ugly journey I'm traveling has made me aware of many things in my life, things, emotions, people I've overlooked in the last few years. I realize now my stress from the last job caused me to overlook all the people I love, including me. I'm 35 years old and have never been on vacation. I overlooked the worry, depression, guilt, and pain my wife was going through the last 14 months. These difficult times have made me realize the blessings in my first marriage, how much I love my daughter. Since my wife left (5 weeks ago) I have begun to go back to who I was before I was ever married and I like what I see. Bill, I rely on yours and Simon's emails to keep me sane. They seem to arrive when I most need them. Thanks. - 12:27:30 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

On my tv screen, a woman stands in front of Buckigham palace, sobbing away over the tragic death of the Princess of Wales. Poor and honest she looks. Displaying the true and honest anger and sadness of the people. She felt so close to Di, as her sobbing proves, had followed her every step, felt happy with her in the arms of Dodi the fairy tale millionaire in her thoughts, knows all the childhood illnesses of the little princes. So close to this woman who doesn't even know her, only the cameras she sent. It's all the paparrazi's fault. Because they prefer money over everything. It's all the editors' fault. because they give such enormous sums for paparazzi pics. It's all the readers' and tv-viewers' fault. For where else would the editors get the money the pay the photographers with? But of course the readers and tv-viewers are only so sensation-horny because they are being influenced and corrupted by the media. Of course, thank god, not all journalists are like those paparazzi who prefer money over everything, and who were certainly glad about the terrible accident because they could earn even MORE money with it. Who took pictures instead of helping. No. Thank god, they are not all like that. There's the good ones, too. The ones who had hour-long specials on this dark Aug. 31 to criticize this terrible kind of sensation journalism that killed poor Di. The good ones criticized the bad ones all day that day...in hour long specials...and BOY must they have made money with it. ::cut:: A picture of Diana in a fitness studio plops up on the public channel screen. Close-up on her wrinkled thighs. A voice from the off says: "The paparazzi even chased Diana down in a fitness studio and were not ashamed to sell the pictures of Diana's wrinkled thighs." bad, bad. Diana's bother's head plops up on the tv screen and says: "I knew the media were eventually going to kill her with their continuous invasion of her private space. But i didn't think they were going to kill her so literally". Maybe they should have shut up. Blank screens and white pages might have saved their integrity. But of course no-one would have understood this gesture. (Silence pretends not to speak). Di and Dodi dead. It's a sad, sad postmodern world. And i feel like getting drunk. Maybe on vodka. ABSOLUT Di. Somehow, in those regions of my brain where deep perversions lurk, behind the walI of left-wing intellectualism that doesn't give a shit about the royals anyway, i wish i could feel really sorry for her poor sons.. instead of regarding this all as an interesting case study of the negative sides of postmodernity. But of course, the media are trying to make me feel sorry for her poor sons already. If i were sorry, i would not really be sorry. If i wanted real feelings, i wouldn't have any, because Di, and her sons, and all the shit, would not be in my head. Blankness might be the only bastion of the Real that we still have. As long as it is not being marketed. Guess i'm glad after all that they didn't opt for the blank screen version of shockedness today. What is a journalist to do? How does one possibly criticize a 'crime' (?) if ones very criticism makes one a collaborator? There is no 'metalanguage' here for what happened, no way to step out of the media circus, leave the game, and get honest and real (even if, of course, the media work precisely by continually pretending that.). To play the game openly and thus pervert its very premises from within would have been the only way for people to save face here. "But Di is dead!" yells the sad sobbing lady and shakes her fists at me. "Her death is real. It is not a postmodern game!". Di's death is as real as her wrinkled thighs, i try to explain to her. Not more. Her real death, as Borges' tiger, is the unsayable that refuses to be locked into these pictures on this screen. But the voice from the off does not listen, and the sobbing lady does not read this here, and she doesn't know Borges anyway. more vodka. The truth is out there. (not in here.) Fox Moulder sez: "There were signs for it from the start. Lady Di... Lady Die....Lady, die! she was meant to die from the beginning on. And then this Dodi.. how much clearer could it get? Do di.... do die. Do die, Di! Now! It was all meant to happen. The CIA is involved in it (because the CIA is involved in everything), and Queen Mom. It is just TOO suspicious that no-one talked about Queen Mom today (this only member of the royal familiy who still has the guts and high moral standards of Henry VIII). She never liked Di...especially after the divorce. Because Charles couldn't become the next King with a lover and an ex-wife and her lover, which would have been against the moral standards of the people . He could only spread his ears and fly away to unpolluted environments without journalists, or ride away on a horse that would have looked like Camilla. With DI and Do DI Dead, everything is settled. Queen Mom is in it for good..... and she paid the CIA with gin so they shut up. Queen Mom is an alien." - 13:19:42 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

...how so utterly profound!.... - 14:00:04 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:--->Looks like we are back to the idiot zone.. - 14:21:55 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:BILL: the 'selfishness' term was not to infer a process that might lead one to or towards solipsism. It was the easier perhaps even most direct thought to convey that any learning of matters outside us, its intake is selfishness and not bad or negative. The utterance of that which we take-in leads one along our assorted roadways (i can see that is corny and horse-droppings like but..) individuals like clinton, fundamentalist leaders- these types or not unlearned, these sorts don't function by invariant disciplines. On this point, earlier i mentioned how thiests, as an example, direct the word-notions of belief and spiritualism at unknowns, which they conveniently trailer in to be their god. Must one here exercise tolerance? The term 'unyielding' was made by a jc-type person, with philosophical concerns of thought posturing so as to espouse theism. It conveyed a kind of frightfulness like the franticness we might show when awakened by an alarm clock in the morning, their's is fright because they have to reset their clock of theism. - 15:27:55 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I can tolerate other people's beliefs and habits BUT only to the point of when they start to effect me or someone I love. Xtianity infringes on my space every damn day. Now the local school PTA have voted in the morning prayer again. To me, a public school has no business preaching such silliness. Why not include a prayer to the easter bunny and santa claus or for those into wicca, the witch of the west! As for Bill Clinton, he's going to do what makes him popular IMO. - 18:17:58 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:I would like to bring a subject up that disturbed me greatly yesterday. I was having a rather tense discussion with a very brain washed christian. To make a long story short, we were having a discussion concerning, of course, the existence of a God and evidence for or against. The discussion then lead to the debate between theist and atheist on the age of the earth The person whom I was debating with decided to inform me that dinosaur bones were planted by satan to sway believer's from the truth. This person honestly believes that the earth is a mere 6,000 years old. It mattered little that the facts show otherwise. This person is so brain washed that he believes in any garbage that the church he attends decides to spew. This is, in my mind, compl etly unacceptable. After several hours of useless banter, I explained to him that attempting to convince someone as thoroughly ignorent as he is of the factual proof that the earth has existed for many millions of years was useless. It only causes headaches. - 18:36:38 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: more often than not, nowadays i find me seeing most of that 95% figure as those who simply do not want or choose not to be responsible for themselves or even their very own-existence. A recent example is the religious philosophy article i studied then as a common apparatus of measure, i used from the 'Editing' book of the "Strunk and White" collection. Its' many open ended and unsupported 'claims' make it appear unphilosophic. it could be seen as just ones' personal opinion and nothing else. If merely ones' opinion then that would easily explain STEVE's predicament and surely your situation. Some folks just like ignorance and or myth. i got a charge out of the article on christian philosophy as it intermixed other words and its' far fetched ideas as "truth", it was nonesense and nothing more. - 19:13:44 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:I thought that prayer in school was voted unconstitutional around 1962. How could something that the Supreme court deigned unconstitutional be voted on? Wait, Marlene did this happen in England or US? - 19:55:58 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN- No this happened in a rural school in Manitoba. Actually and unfortunately, if the parents vote it in the school puts it back in. What pisses me off is that while this prayer is being said, non-paricipating students have to leave the room!!! As to the conversation with the brain-dead xtian, I had a very similiar experience yesterday during a radio talk show. CARL- Dwayne Gish is a real good one for that. I don't know if I've spelled his name right. Have you heard his explanations? JOETTE- Yup! I paged down too. - 20:09:04 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN...you must have a great deal of perseverance to argue the existence of a god for hours. I personally let them have their say, and then tell the conversation is over. It's fun to watch them standing their with their mouth hanging open! - 21:59:35 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..I am upset about the prayer going back into schools in your province. In Newfoundland they finally took the control of the education away from the churches, and now it's coming back in the west. I'll have to start advocating to make sure it doesn't cross our mutual border. Has this been brought up in your legislature at all? - 22:03:52 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: just did a quick search for "Duane Gish" and read a page or two where the topic was the age of the universe and so on. the article tells he has a phd.outta' CAL, well stanford still has shockley so things are worse elsewhere. But even so, gish is a weirdo for sure. The only other piece i have that exemplifies theism is the piece titled the "Talmajian Catechism." the priest of that article surely was not a product of a liberal education. gish though, is such. when they said 'don't give the indians whisky' the gish affect is what they feared. - 22:15:01 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I'm not sure but I'll check that out. The "big news" was in the local paper. I'll try calling my MP to check that out. - 22:17:22 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:CARL-To witness a real brain-drain, now look up Tipler!!!! - 22:19:28 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

Adam PAINFUL||||||||:To the Wall of Jerich-Jo: You never tried to answer the Princess Die - Blue Jay riddle. The answer is that they were both just crushed on the road. - 23:59:27 on 4 Sep 97 GMT

Adam ADVICE to the FAITHLORN:"Hey Steve's," I Scream: If your theistic opponent insists upon invoking voodoo to counter every rational argument, you may want to fight hellfire & brimstone with the same. Suggest that Satan wrote the bible to delude assholes into thinking there is a legitmate basis for ignoring reality. And don't forget the ever-important commandment: "REMEMBER THE HOTBATH, AND KEEP IT BUBBLY." - 0:05:33 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Adam THE BOOK of CANUCK++++++:To Marlene & Jo, re:, mi and the battle of Ontario: Whatja' expect with a prime minister named Xtien? Messiah's coming to Moosejaw, Mary was spotted in Medicine Hat and the Monks have recaptured Moncton. Oy veysmir, Canada! To the ramparts, we washed, 'till the highlights were gleaming. The lord is my Cybil Shepherd, I shall not watch sitcoms, except for reruns of Moonlighting. - 0:14:20 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:RON, Thanks for you kind words. Sounds like you're dealing with everything one day at a time. ADAM, The Japanese have been the country to compete against in the last couple of decades, but I agree with you to some extent that they may be sliding. I think the country to watch out for in China. Do you see them becoming the Wal-Mart of the world in the next century? - 0:16:21 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:GRANT, I agree with you when you say, "On an individual level freedom of thought must be tolerated." I only respond in an intolerant way when others step on my personal rights as an individual. I cannot allow someone to influence me in such a way as to my agreeing with them to diminish my integrity or character. I have worked too hard to build my self-esteem to the point that I like who I am. I have been very critical of myself in years past and there is absolutely NO good what so ever in self-diminution. To diminish myself would not be fair to me, or those individuals who have to live and work around me. As far as religion being harmful goes, we can't control the intended harmful effect of religious people, but we can control ourselves and not allow ourselves to be caught in it's negative grip. I just don't feel like a helpless victim anymore. I respect those individuals who use religion for their own personal betterment without the personal need to evangelize. CARL, See my post to Grant on tolerance. - 0:18:32 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..well, in this century, they are the suppliers for Wal-Mart. - 0:44:07 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->JOETTE.."use religion for personal betterment" is an oxymoron. Let's not forget this is an atheist page... - 0:47:31 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:---it's been a long, long day for moi..that post was supposed to be addressed to Bill. - 0:49:06 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->ADAMET...your joke was in very poor taste...but I loved it! - 0:50:52 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Adam ANTIVANGELISTA:GRANT me some slack and BILL me later: I must throw in my two shekels here, it what is essentially a throwback to a discussion of about two weeks ago. I pointed out then that some of you are ATHEISTS period. Others of us, however, cross the line of mere Atheism and progress into the realm of ENEMIES of RELIGION. To members of this latter group, the issue is not simply one of whether religion is momentarily intruding on our liberties (although I would agree with an earlier post that the intrusion is incessant), but rather that RELIGION IS PER SE HARMFUL; it is the leading cause of homicide in human history and will continue as such until majority attitudes change; and offers no INHERENT good. Any benefits that individuals derive from religion can be derived outside of religion, and it is the intellectual weakness of the individual beneficiary that subscribes the benefit as an exclusive reward of religion. I posit that many children benefit from the carrot-and-stick legend of Santa Clause as an incentive toward moral behavior. Presumably, however, they reach an age at which the myth no longer is plausible and is, indeed, unnecessary, as the tendency not to commit egregious wrongs become more innate, at least in the overwhelming majority. There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between the Santa Clause legend and the myth of a deity---indeed, they serve precisely the same purposes---yet in the latter case, not only are individuals not encouraged to drop the fairy tales and behave morally out of respect for the social contract, but are encouraged to embrace the myth by large and wealthy institutionalized cults. I don't imagine that we ATHEISTS think of ourselves as maverick visionaries, but in the scheme of things, what we regard as simple reliance on reason and fact is actually a courageous and taboo rejection of the unquestionable. Make no bones, religion ought to be opposed at every turn, for it is truly an evil and incidious human instinct that can be so easily overcome by the individual human intellect. And yet, it maintains an embarrassing stranglehold over the hordes of our brethren. What will we say eventually to the intelligent alien who asks why such an evolved species still clings to prehistoric, paternalistic mythologies? "Well, Meepsorp, I AM a homo sapiens, I guess, but I'm not really with THEM." - 1:43:24 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM Taste Eternity, The Swords Sing````````:Blues for Allah, in sh'Allah.......There's Jo, Accounting for Taste: Funny is funny, and nothing is off limits per se. As you know, taste is in the eye of the bud-holder. - 1:48:10 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

RON...--->BILL... :Simon is helping too. He emails me everyday and supports me also. I hope to meet him one day and give his British ass a big hug. - 2:03:34 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Grant:ADAM-- You make me want to take remedial English, or get a thesaurus or something. Anyway, that was purdy. Brung tears to my eyes. I once lost a job that I needed the day after the boss asked me if it was true that I was an atheist. (He also asked if I was a communist.) At one time none of the local kids were allowed to associate with my kids because of my atheism. This when I was on my best behavior! I fear to contemplate my fate were I to declare war on the buggers. Isn't it enough to just harbor ill feelings toward them? I always figured it wasn't their fault, it was like color blindness. Do you not feel powerless against them? - 3:19:20 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:ADAMANTINE fortitude of a true atheist! And I agree with you and JOETTE, betterment can be derived outside of religion , more than likely with more sucess in the long term. - 4:14:56 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Was it a Tipler the mathematician from tulane? The few articles located were about something he called an omega point? His concern was whether the universe is a closed or open system? These were hilites but i did not see anything, yet, that might make him other than a lost relative of Gyro Gearloose. His floppy lookin hair even resembles that possible relative. - 15:15:19 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:BILL: while considering your post to GRANT on tolerance, perhaps your position might become tenable, as in something we can grasp, if we could also consider whether or not your theism views the mind, the brain running, as an open or closed system? On this matter i dare guess they, contemporary theists, would respond that it is open, despite that passage in Ecclesiates about all things just happening again and again. i don't now recall the words exactly, but its there. For my part i see it as closed and in that regard do i see of those their shortages and of others things worthy of emulation. The notion of tolerance, beyond its medical incentives, has a basis as have the words 'belief' and 'spirits', an assorted religious import. As such to me, its like saying to someone, "thats ok, just say your prayers and jc will make everything better etc.etc.." Here, as i've seen many others say in various ways, hands together praying do nothing. if someone has a problem fix it, but since we ain't all Einsteins nor Carl Lewis, lets just do it to the best of our ways. Any work is good for one. Tolerance is just good in medicine. - 16:00:57 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:It has to be difficult to say "let the religious person lie in his/her own ignorance, it does no harm". I on the other hand tend to agree with ADAM. The belief in a nonexistant being or group of beings is very harmfull to soceity. There are two camps of Atheist. Those who feel that each person is entitled to believe as they wish, and those who find it necessary to be a harbinger of doom to the religious community. The problem with being passive is that nothing is accomplished. The religious community continues to brainwash our young into believing their own brand of BS. I do not know if our world will ever be religion free (probably not), but without people saying "WAKE UP YOU BRAINWASHED SHEEP" the largest majority of people will still need their security blanket. I for one believe that the need to believe in a God is strong because the majority of people are afraid to accept lifes trials without being able to have to put it off on their God. For example "Oh, I didn't pass the test, I guess God had other plans". Or "princess soandso died and has gone to a better place" or "I'd like to thank god for all my wonderful friends" etc.. etc... This to me is very harmfull. These so called believers do not believe that they can accomplish anything without some devine help. Along with the millions of deaths that just the belief in christianity has directly caused, how can any atheist just sit by and say "oh, let them believe what they want it does me no harm". Quit the contrary, I does unbelievable harm. Sorry for any mispelling. - 19:38:47 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Adam WHATCHA GOT, GOD?:####### If god's got a problem with anything I said, let him show himself. Of course, he won't, 'cause he knows I'll kick his voodoo ass! - 19:43:08 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:I have said often that if a christian god does exist, I do not want anything to do with him or his heaven. Pardon the lack of a better phrase, but I might have to tell god to "blow me" if he did exist. It's kind of offensive even pretending that such a ludicrous idea as god has any validity. It is far more ludicrous to believe that a being such as satan exists. - 20:02:08 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN/CARL/ADAM..me thinks most of us here agree that religion is anti-mind. Religion should not be tolerated. I don't know if any of you watched the Queen's address today, but she wanted thank god for allowing herself to know Diana (I am sure that wasn't what she thought when they had to come up with a fair divorce settlement). Anyway, the point is: it infringes on every facet of our everyday lives and it rankles me and mine. - 20:03:32 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN..let's not be exclusive about god being xtian. - 20:08:21 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I like to read essays written by Victor J. Stenger when it comes to guys like Tipler trying to blend religion with science. He's one of his essays. - 20:28:47 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:CARL- OOPS! Forgot one important part of that address. Here it goes again. - 20:32:06 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I spent the morning in court (there to support a family member) watching and listening to someone "swearing on the bible" that they were telling the truth. WELL! every second word was an obvious lie as that person told the court one thing then five minutes later said another. A pissed off judge aquitted the family member of the charge. NOW if that were a born-again xtian judge would he have been so wise as to realize the swearing on the bible meant nothing to the lying individual???? It's one of our "Filmon Fridays" so I couldn't find anyone who would give me the info about this prayer thing being voted in. Monday I suppose!! - 20:38:59 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Is them saucers still hovering over Mt. Rainer?? Well motherT will now find out that the kiss of jesus was as real as life after death. It still pisses me that she won that peace prize. What peace do people in pain have? Right all that pain is the kissing of jesus. - 20:43:42 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:I did not mean to be exclustive to just xtians. The problem is from my viewpoint is that the two most harmfull religions in the world are xtians and islams. They are the institutions which say "you believe as I do or else". Where I live their are very few islamic people, but a great quanity of xtians ( baptist, church of christ, catholic etc..). I guess it is easier for me to have angst toward these groops because they most directly affect my life. - 20:47:08 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:RON- After a lot of self-examination you'll feel much better. A friend of mine was native and we were visiting her mother after my divorce. This is what she said to me "Come on eh, there's lots of pebbles on the beach". The native version of "fishes in the sea". I thought it was really cute and one of the things that cheered me up the most. - 20:47:26 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN- You forgot the father of them all, judaism! Same god, same violence, same herder of sheep. - 20:50:46 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene :ADAM- God did post here at one time but is very busy trying to keep up with Gabby's misdeeds. Last I heard they were attending some type of gay parade in Paris. God was less than happy with Gabby's pink feathered tutu. - 20:56:13 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:Speaking of lambs, we did have a religion teacher posting here who had the stupidity to expose his little lambkins to atheists. You really missed out on that one! They responded like they were one person, creepy!! If anyone has ever watched Star Trek, these kids reminded me of the "Borg". - 20:59:29 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:The borg were created to represent what christianity is attempting to do to mankind. - 21:04:00 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Adam WHAT YOU TALKIN' ABOUT, STEVE?:Whoa, let's not go overboard. Satan exists. I'm him. No wait, I forgot. I..........AM.........KEE-ROCK!!!!!!!!! - 21:06:43 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Adam AND YER OUT!!!:***** Good weekend, godless heathens can wait! I'm out to see Jimmy Key v. Andy Petitte and the house that Ruth Buzzi. DIE YANKEE SCUM, and take god with ya. KEEEEE-ROCK!!!! - 21:09:54 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Adam Parting Shot to left-center:%%%% Hey, Jo-still-ain't-won-yette: Can't even beat the Rangers at home in da dome? Guess they really hit the glass this time. Sprague the Lord!!! - 21:12:01 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Merci', canadian right, that article was one that i breesed over, of interest perhaps for you too is on the dawkins site where an article appears by Horgan who hawks the idea that science is dead. He has some points that he uses to spin his tale but the more interesting idea was his reference to those in science who dabble with it, science, that he calls 'ironic science.' Within this term he included such as some freudian stuff, marxism, the gaia thing and others that he said were the science's last acts of desperation in that it is in a state of a terminal illness. Tipler's omega stuff would clearly be part of this kind of group, if that view is valid. - 21:37:49 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I don't know if I've seen that site. Link it for me, okay? ADAM- WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Merci is NOT Canadian!!!!!!! Howard Stern will tell you that! - 21:50:31 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:OOPS! Lots of screwups today. That last statement should have been directed to CARL. - 21:51:46 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:CARL- If you don't know how to do this, just print up the address in the URL box, - 21:53:26 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Marleem Al Atheist:ALL- Ben Yahoo is accomplishing just what he set out to do, no? - 21:55:32 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: just playin around, and here the Dawkins named site. - 22:22:12 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:--MARLENE..don't you mean "non"? I think he is the biggest a****** on the planet at the moment. I am also chargined that these horrific events happening in the middle east are being reported as little 3 line articles at the back of newspapers because it might take up too much Diana space. Enough already! - 22:47:23 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

RON...--->Marlene...: Sweetheart I have "let go" of the emotions and baggage that make up my wife. I saw her yesterday and she looks like shit. She's gained 20-25 pounds, no longer wears makeup or jewerly and has the thighs of a water buffalo. She's greatly drepressed and will not seek help for herself. When I saw her the only thought I could muster when I said "hi" to her was, "I deserve better". Later a friend commented to me that I cannot save her, she can only save herself. I know she doesn't have the will for self preservation. So, late last night I wrote her my final email and made it very short, "This is what you wanted, I'm letting go". This morning when I awakened I was a new man. I smiled all day long and I feel good about the world and myself. I'm a young, horny, good looking, Italian man with lotsa time and the hunt begins next weekend....GGGGRRRROOOOWWWLLLL!! - 23:05:06 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- By the biggest******, do you mean Stern or Yahoo? - 23:12:57 on 5 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..Benji of course. I found Stern's comment about French Canadians being scumbags rather refreshing. - 1:21:50 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

Grant:STEVEN-- There's another point to consider, which is whether or not it is possible to change anyone's mind about religion. It's one thing to decide not to tolerate religion, but actually having an effect on it is another matter. In the numerous cases where Xtianity has been imposed on various aboriginal peoples, the native religion often doesn't die but is incoporated into xtianity, or is hidden. The former Soviet Union was unable to suppress religion, as we now know. Though I've never found anyone who agrees with this, it may be that superstious people are just going to behave in a superstitious manner, like it or not. Also there is the freedom of thought question. Most people resist changing their beliefs. What would it take for someone to convert you to xtianity? (excluding miracles) Remember, psyhcologically and emotionally we are all pretty much the same. Xtians are not a subspecies. As far as anyone can judge, the 95%/5% ratio of believer to atheist is pretty much constant despite improvements in science, education, etc. - 2:48:57 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I'm in full agreement! Refreshing???? I love that!! - 2:52:22 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene..just a thought:GRANT - I think there may be another reason people have invented a god and with that a "set of rules" so to speak. Almost everyone is raised by a mother or father or both. This is normally a loving authority figure. As adults these believers may be craving that loving authority figure so the replacement may be god, something bigger, stronger, wiser etc. just like their parents were. - 2:57:32 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

Joette (one person who will not be staying up to infringe on a family's suffering...):-->MARLENE..but aren't most believers brought up by parents who also believe? Your point is well taken in the case of "born agains", as most of them have had negative experiences and they use hayzeuz as a crutch to leave reality behind. - 3:51:36 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Mixed feelings about Mother Teresa. On the one hand- clearly fundamentalist. Had no desire to alleviate pain or to cure. She said that her goal was simply to care for the world's poorest and most destitute people. To give them some dignity. She felt that this was to live with Christ. On the other hand it seems that those she cared for were better off than they otherwise could have been. She lived a selfless life. The world is a little better for her having lived which is more than I can say for myself. - 7:15:08 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

RON...--->GRANT...: I look at Mother Teresa as a selfess human. She lived for others lesser than her and enjoyed giving all of her self. Even though she lived for christ, she will be missed and the world is a darker place without her. On another loss...It will take awhile for me to let go of my desires for Princess Di. - 10:52:38 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

RON...--->Joette...: (sincerely) Are you happy with life? - 10:53:56 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:RON, One of the most empowering things I did through all the years of trouble with my son was to "let him go" and go on with my life. He had just started college and got himself locked up two weeks from the end of his first semester and I basically let him know I cared and would visit on weekends but he would have to figure out how to get out. As much as I wanted to bail him out and pretend it never happened, I detached emotionally from this negative situation and with every ounce of energy I had I was determined to go on with my life and enjoy myself. It was a turning point when he realized he could no long manipulate my emotions and my co-dependency with him was coming to an end. Sometimes loving is letting go. After three and a half months in jail he managed to get out, and I have not had any problems with him since (four years now and counting). - 12:39:36 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:I just finished watching Diana's funeral in Westminster Abby. If you haven't seen it, try to catch a re-run of Elton John's song, "Candle in the Wind" and Earl Spencer's speech. Very worthy and honest indeed. The rest I have already forgotten and kinda reminds me of my wife's reaction when we toured there in 95'. She kept sneezing and in general was allergic to all the dust in there. I told her it's all those dead bodies buried there over the last thousand years. Graves in the floor walls alter and even ostentatious sepulcher such as King Henry the VII's on the far end. Of course his son is not buried there, ha! In fact you can still see some of the desecration that was done by his followers who were of the Protestant Church of England following. Most of the important people wanted to be buried near the alter so they would be first in line when they ascended into heaven, ha! Will respond more later as I have got to get busy cleaning up my garage. - 12:40:06 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:Mother T brought a whole lot of cash in for the vatican and the catholic church in general. Did she really aleviate suffering? If the proper medications were given to those who were suffering in pain then I would say "yes she helped" but the truth be told she didn't. In fact she told her suffering patients that the pain and suffering were the kisses of jesus. There was more than enough money collected to use drugs but she refused to use them making decisions for her victims of jesus all by herself. It didn't matter that India has an overpopulation problem, she encouraged the people to keep multiplying. I, personally, do not miss her at all and hopefully there will not be another. She was a fox in sheep's clothing who really pulled the wool over the eyes of the many sheep in the flock of jesus. - 13:48:17 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene :Now about Princess Di's funeral. I for one would not watch it. Where is the televised funeral to pay last respects for the boy who was shot as a result of a gang fight, for the six-year-old child who died of cancer, for one of mother T's patients who died a very painful death due to the kisses of jesus. What a bunch of phony asses who pay such respect to a celebrity and completely forget about or don't want to know about the ordinary person. - 13:56:49 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, I understand where you're coming from as I was bothered by the lack of headlines, compared to Di's death, that 300 villager's deaths in Algiers received about the same time. But I am curious as to how you view Diana? Do you view her similarly to mother T as you said, "I, personally, do not miss her at all and hopefully there will not be another."? - 14:39:29 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:OPEN, As far as the tolerance issue goes, in reference to religion, it is doubtful that despite you're best efforts you will hardly dent the 95% in the next 10 generations. Why does one have to concern oneself with taking an active roll in trying to change others from their supposed delusions? Is this not the same as being trapped into a co-dependency relationship with a negative situation? Shouldn't one detach, as I did with my son, and go on with one's life a set a proper example that others would then come to admire and follow? Why go down with a sinking ship when all one has is a small bucket? - 14:53:54 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:BILL- No, Di did things because she, personally, wanted to, not in the name of jesus, nor to raise money to empower a religion. Although I think she did many good things, she is, after all, just a human like the rest of us. Now to your question of let sleeping dogs lie. The problem here, Bill, is that religion is NOT a sleeping dog, in fact it is very active in our laws, our own personal business (ie abortion) and hoarding money in the name of jesus that could very well be spent to ease the suffering of those in need. There are those who sit on the fence (like yourself), those who go to war (like CDrake) and those who are trying to educate by being there at PTA meetings, or bringing a subject like prayer in schools to their government to argue that it's unconstatuional. It's not the fence sitters or the war mongers that get something done, it those who quitely but methodically try to change things. - 15:25:16 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

James-->All:I think there is something to be said of someone who gives up every material pleasure life offers to dedicate herself to caring for people in need. More than someone who just talks about it and makes the occasional cameo appearances for posterity, Ms. Teresa was a person truly committed to the ideals of pure love. The kind of unconditional love we all new as infants and lost in our maturity and sense of self-preservation. The kind of love that true Christians and every human being can only aspire to achieve. In her words, she states that her goal everyday is to love the next person god puts in front of her. As utopian as it may seem, can you imagine what kind of world we would live in if EVERYONE felt this way? If everyone gave up their search and desire for material wealth and success and redefined success along the lines of love for mankind what, would be the effect? Isn't this the lesson, the only lesson that one needs to extract from the words of the bible or our faith in god? Isn't this the answer to the universal question of why we were born? What is our purpose in life and why do we exist? If it is not to love others and overcome our own selfish wants and desires then what is the point of living? To live out a brief existence in the span of seemingly infinite time? I don't think so. There is purpose to this life and that purpose leads us to something larger than our physical existence on this measly little planet. Obviously this belief is not without its presuppositions. Obviously there is less logic than emotion and feeling in this line of thought. None-the-less it is faith in this belief that inspires my quest to become more god like. It is not fear of hell or lack of courage to face the world and reality. It is a dream. It is a goal. Jesus once told a rich man that he must give up everything he owns and follow him. That is easier for a camel to get through the eye off a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven. Rich being a very relative term and the eye of the needle being known as a hole in a wall surrounding some of the cities of that time. Meaning that it was not impossible for a camel to get through the hole, just very difficult. Still, the point is that heaven is not a place, it is a state of mind. A state of mind that exist only in an environment of pure love. Material wealth, the desire to obtain it, skewed definitions of success, unnatural behaviors, selfish wants, self preservation, self-destructive life styles and etc. etc. all stand in the way of achieving the state of pure love we had even prior to exiting the womb. As for the Princess, I tend to agree with Marni. Where is the media and love for the 10 year old that got hit by a stray bullet? Where is his televised funeral procession? My heart goes out to her children who will not know the love of their mother in the many trying years ahead of them. I too do indeed feel a sense of personnel lose in her death though I am not sure why. However, now that I think about it, just about any tragic event causes me to feel personnel lose. The senseless death of children who die from heat exhaustion after being locked in a car by parents going shopping, the death of a child after enduring months of abuse from adults. The death of a 4yr old boy dropped from a building by a 10yr old boy. The senseless killing of a mother and her babies by deranged ex-husbands or boy friends, and the tragic loss of millions of human babies in the name of convenience and self-preservation. I could go on, but the more I think about all the things that I hear in our world which cause me grief, the sadder I am about the human condition. The more pessimistic I become about our world ever becoming the environment of unconditional love required for our survival as a race. Well, that is about all I have to add today. BTW, hello to all my close acquaintances. Hope you are not sore at my occasional hit and run posting habits. I've been really busy and barely have time to read the page much less post. This morning I decided to interrupt my lot clearing plans for a few moments at the computer. I choose to spend those few moments with you. I really enjoy the conversation and hope I can get back to some regular posting habits. I'm sure that will please many of you :-) - 15:37:14 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->TO ALL..did anyone catch "Biography" last night? They covered Mother Theresa of course. If anyone watched it, did you note that people who knew her made it clear that she had the deepest love for "the almighty god", and as a result she was a strict disciplinarian, with no friends, who would let no one stand in her way in order for her to achieve her own personal goals? She sounds mighty human to me. I am with Marlene on this issue. I encourage everyone to do some research on this "saint" who is truly one of "hell's angels". - 17:07:46 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->RON...may I enquire as to why you have singled me out to find out if I am happy with life? Do my posts divulge an attitude other than cynicism? - 17:11:19 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

RON...--->Bill...: I envy you for finding the strength to handle such a situation as with your son. Must have been difficult for you. I wish we could transfer wisdom (from experience) from one person to another. Why is it when we are young we don't listen the people we love? What makes humans so stubborn? Time seems to stand still for me now. I've cleaned the entire house, inside-out, top to bottom and it's just now noon. I've been up since 4:30am and I seem I've expired an entire weekend. Time is my enemy. I will adjust. The rage in me wants to slay the planet because the pain was so great only a few days ago. Now I must find balance, peace. I'm looking for joy because I know outside of the birth of my children, falling in love again is the most intoxicating emotion we can experience. I hope I am able to love again with trust.... - 17:35:20 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

RON...--->Joette...: If you would like a more personal arena to express your inner most feelings, please email...walker@flex.net I would like to know more about you, you're an interesting person. Lately, I've enjoyed listening and learning from other people I feel important and have respect. I would like to learn from you. Women usually have to most profound view of the world and I'd like to hear from you.... - 17:40:29 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->RON..thanks for the offer, but I have already had a very bad experience from speaking privately as a result of this page, and so I am mistrustful. Believe me, and profundity that I may possess will be aired on this venue. I enjoy my private chats that include baseball, movies, and girl talk, but I try never to discuss the heavier issues of my life with people I have never met. This is in no way an affront, and I hope you take it in the spirit has been offered. - 19:24:31 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:JAMES- As ever, your drivel about the lord leaves me speechless (smirk!!). - 19:35:27 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

RON...--->Joette...: It's ok, I'm becoming quite the ambassador to rejection. (smirk) - 19:52:07 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:RON, You will amaze yourself with just how much you can handle. After all you really have no choice, right? Unfortunately one has to deal with his situation alone for the most part. I use to find myself almost laughing each time something else went wrong. It all seemed so bizarre and seemed to last for some period of time and then, almost overnight, it's gone! I just stayed busy with exercise and other constructive things (as much as I could) and just waited it out. Sometime we have to let fate just play it's dirty little role and try to keep on smiling. - 21:02:03 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, Go for it! Meanwhile, I enjoyed a most beautiful day riding in my boat and finding a private sandbar in which to spend some time with my wife and a six pack of beer. No clouds, no wind, no heat, and no phone calls. Things just seem too perfect right now (maybe because I'm still high, ha!) and I hope it's not a harbinger of potential disaster, with a hurricane looming in the Caribbean. No, it's going to go up into the Atlantic; I just know it. We had all our hurricanes two years ago and now we will have to wait 69 years, as we did before the last two hurricanes, before we have another one. It's only fair, right? And we know life is always fair, right? Well….burp!…time for some more fun, bye! - 21:03:30 on 6 Sep 97 GMT

Grant:JOETTE-- What was the bad experience? (If it's something you care to talk about here.) - 5:02:09 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Always figured the best I could do was to demonstrate that atheists are not demons etc., but I think your approach is better. - 5:04:59 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:GRANT, It's probably with kid conversations with me which regrettably I may have misunderstood her intent. - 12:41:34 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:RON, I don't think anyone is totally satisfied and happy with his or her life. Despite one's accomplishments or accouterments, we are all searching for ways to improve our happiness, fulfillment, and quality of life. One has to be creative and persistent! - 12:58:01 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT..sorry, I can't tell you publicly. I know that the particular person is still lurking, and I suspect he is the one who posts persona non-grata. - 13:01:18 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

RON...--->BILL...: I disagree. I've been to the point (twice) where I've sat down and thought about my accomplishments, happiness, and position in life, and told myself "I'm happy with the way things are". Big mistake. If you ever sit down and settle with your life as it is at that moment, you're doomed. Both times I "was happy" were just before the storms of my divorces. When we both settled for life as it were we became unhappy, empty, with goal or purpose. We should never be satisfied with our lives. - 13:24:13 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

RON...: I'm thinking about adding another Live Discussion page to my web site where broken hearts can go and chat with others who've been through these times. A meeting place where other people can deal with the pain I'm going through. I wonder if my counselor is on line? - 13:32:10 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->RON..that's a good idea... - 15:21:53 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:JAMES--So service to others should be one's only justification for his existence? Is self-sacrifice man's highest moral duty virtue and value? Does he have right to exist for his own sake? Your and others like you who condone and live by the standards you outline in your post holds death as its ultimate goal and standard of value--you implicate that renunciation of one's life values, and virtues, his resignation, self-denial and every other form of suffering, including self-destruction, are the virtues you ultimately advocate. These are the only things that practitioner of taltruism ( which is precisely what you advocate ) have achieved, and what are achieving now. - 15:39:20 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

PETER..correction:..taltruism should ALTRUISM - 15:59:10 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->BILL...although I did not want to be part of the morbid curiousity of the funeral yesterday I could not escape parts of as it was aired on almost every channel I can get (70 of them); unlike you, I found Charles Spencer's eulogy entirely inappropriate for the most part. If he wants to take issue with the royals, he has the world eating out of his hand, and hostility such as he displayed at no place at Westminster Abbey. It was classless. - 16:02:36 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:--PETER..I agree wholeheartedly. If someone wants to give their life to helping others, let it be so, but they in turn should not be out seeking personal recognition for what they are doing. Most people try to help their fellow man without it being deemed necessary by fairy tales. - 16:05:14 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..have you heard the name of the newest hurricane? ERIKA! How appropriate. Take heart Bill, you aren't the only one having to deal with a blow hard named Erika! - 16:07:11 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- A blowhard indeed! But unlike the hurricane she is predictable. For every issue, I'd put my money down on what her comments would be. They're all the same in the flock of jesus. - 18:29:17 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, I thought parts of Earl Spencer's speech were "unfair," but you got to admit he was pretty candid and didn't even try to be political. That's why I used the word "honest" to describe his speech. He certainly got his direct shots in at the press and a couple less direct shots at the monarchy. Of course he made Diana out to be a saint by overlooking her faults, when we all know her entourage was drinking/drunk and "only" the survivor had his seat belt on. How can the paparazzi's or the monarchy be totally to blame? Diana enjoyed the high life style, including her $200,000 plus friendship ring she received that fateful night. But who cares if Earl's hostility is displayed at Westminster Abby or elsewhere. He has a right to his opinion, and I have to admire him for being honest in front of all those stuffy people. But more importantly, how did you like Elton John's song, "Candle in the Wind"? I just loved it! It was very moving. He left the church to go to a recording studio, so that the song can be recorded as a tribute to Diana, and all the proceeds can go to her main charities. Of course I have always liked Elton John! - 18:34:02 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

Grant:JOETTE-- ANY-- Should you wish to exchange e-mail with someone, but remain insulated, you can open a free e-mail account with hotmail or rocketmail using any name you wish. If the exchange becomes unpleasant, simply close the account. I occasionally post elsewhere using polokov@hotmail.com. I have recieved some very hostile e-mail there. - 18:44:23 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

RON...Simon says...:Simon is kind enough to construct a broken/lonely hearts page for me using the man-made model. It should be up soon. - 19:26:08 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

James-->Peter:One's only justification for existence? Probably not, sometimes service to your self is more beneficial to others. In which case, the immediate reaction to give self for another's benefit makes no sense. But, like I said: as utopian as it sounds, if everyone, meaning the human race as a whole, embraced the ideals of service to others, we could eliminate most if not all hunger and homelessness, a lot of disease, greed would not exist, money would have no value, no need for crime, the list goes on. The power of the cumulative race to do for each other would be over whelming. Therefore, yes you do have the right to live for your own self. Death as its ultimate goal? That view seems short sighted from my point of view. Death is but a doorway.. I do not implicate the renunciation or avocation of anyone's virtues. Rather, I narrow the definition of a virtue to a tighter standard. Achieving this virtue is the higher level human being I struggle to acquire. The problems you point out, regarding the lack of success of altruism, can be attributed to further evidence which reflects how few people in the world really understand what the concept of pure love can mean. Additionally, it shows exactly how unrealistic and utopiananistic an idea it is. - 19:53:58 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

Bill...:RON, I'm never happy with the gains I have made, and I try never to sit down; I always want to do and get more. And before I judge someone, I always try to walk a mile in their shoes…. Then I'm a mile away from them, AND I have another pair of shoes! Smirk! - 21:59:24 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

RON...--->BILL...: You made me laugh, thank you. I have learned that I was becoming a person I disliked. Now I'm going back to the way I was before marriage, thin, striving, eager, hungry, passionate male. I missed "me". I'm looking for a over 30, white (sorry), Italian (yes!), professional, loving, passionate, single (I don't go after married women), short (under 5'-5), dark hair (brown), olive skinned, athletic, sexy in panties and a T shirt, loves to read, pretty not beautiful, woman in the Houston area. Kids or not. I want a woman who snuggles and grabs my ass in public, burps out loud when we're alone, kisses me before the day begins and when the day ends. I don't care if she can cook. Intelligent and wise. Street smart and savvy. Small breasts are just fine, I don't care for big busted figures. Does anyone know this person? I want her phone number! - 22:13:53 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:--->BILL..you made me laugh too! I am going to borrow your "mile in the shoes" schtick! - 22:38:26 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:--->RON..a little while ago, I would jump on you for political correctness, but one night I had an epithany, and realized that by imploring us all to be politically correct, I was in fact trying to censor what was being said here. So to Bill, Grant and others of whom I have castigated, I apologize. Instead, I will shoot straight from the hip (which might resemble a water buffalo's for all I know)....please, please do not go on about the physical aspects of your ideal woman. I do not feel threatened personally, as I am highly voluptuous, but your insults directed towards your wife were hurtful, and now your quest for a new love has no mention at all whether she should require a use of the gray matter found within her skull..... - 22:44:26 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->RON..sorry, I just re-read your message and saw the quick reference to intelligent and wise. Obviously that attibute is low on your list of priorities. - 22:48:24 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:JAMES--There are so many areas that you are addressing that need much further and closer attention, and I am not going to address them all. I'll stick to one. You mention that in this utopian society you envision money has no value. James, what exactly IS money. What is the use of it? Why does it exist at all? And if it were to have no value, how would this aid in a utopian civilization? And what exactly is "greed" in your eyes? - 23:07:31 on 7 Sep 97 GMT

RON...--->Joette...: OUCH! My description of her declining attributes is because of her deep depression she's going thru and will not recognize. Trust me I love me wife but, i have to come to the conclusion she doesn't want to be in a relationship. She's closing in on herself. i wish I could help her. I really do. I find it perfectly alright to write what I would enjoy in a woman I would share time with. I like large triceps on a woman too. Does this make me a pig? - 1:10:59 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

RON...(gosh)...--->Joette...: A year and a half ago I accused MARLENE of being a bon-bon eating female and she has never forgiven me for it after begging her to all this time. Please don't take the water buffalo thighs personally. My wife and I met in an aerobics class that SHE was teaching. She used to have legs of a lioness. Now, nope. Do you see why I'm so shocked to see her this way? She taught aerobics for 3 years. And was in fine shape until 5 weeks ago. The changed has terrified me. - 3:51:36 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, Glad you enjoyed my joke. Nobody's perfuck here and no apologies are needed. Just testing the waters for political correctness, ha! - 13:02:34 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:RON, I'm glad you didn't take my little joke personal. When I felt hopeless in trying to make my son's situation better, and through that week of family counseling, I realized that I could only control and make myself better. When I finally concentrated on improving myself, while still caring for my son, it freed me from my co-dependency with his negative state of affairs. He then became empowered to "sink or swim," and subsequently started improving himself as he realized that I was going on with my life regardless of what he chose to do with his. As a co-dependant to his negative situation, I was just as sick as he was. I feel reasonable sure that if you make yourself as good as you can, you will not have to search for that ideal woman, but rather it will come naturally or maybe she will just find you out. - 13:02:56 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Grant:JOETTE-- ...And I thought you were joking. A problem with the whole "political correctness" thing is that causing people to use different words is not the same as causing them to have different thoughts. It only makes them hide those thoughts from you. An example: We are expected now to say "African American." I don't mind using this, but my mind is thinking "Black," because African American doesn't make sense to me. Should we use "African Canadian"' "African Australian", etc.? Do we have to use "European American?" "Middle Eastern American?" Who makes the rules? What if Blacks in France don't want to be called "African French?" If I'm wrong about this, making me say "African American" will not change me. Someone would have to explain and convince. - 13:11:23 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT..I have had the same quandary about what to call certain ethnic groups in various countries. I am glad to know that I am not the only with this concern. By the way, wouldn't it be "African Francais"? hahaha - 13:17:04 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, GRANT, OTHERS, Speaking of stereotyping and political correctness, I refer to "African Americans" as "brothers." Aside from Marlene and Ron (they know for sure, so no fair asking), how would any of you here know that I am white, or at least "not black?" If I told you that I am an African American, what is it that I have said in the past that would indicate otherwise? - 14:08:48 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Grant:BILL-- That's a good thing about the internet. One's words must stand on their merits. Nothing else matters. Gotta go. - 14:27:47 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Good point! Political correctness does not eliminate thought. Yes, in Canada here, because we are termed a cultural mosaic we do say French Canadian, English Canadian, Aboriginal Canadian, Polish Canadian, etc. etc. The politically correct term for someones culture isn't the only terms that we get bashed if we don't use them. For instance, instead of waitress, serving personal etc. Of course, this IMHO ties into the new psychology and is just as scary. Anything to keep the people of one mind. - 14:34:31 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:RON- If you recall, you weren't the only one calling NC and I bon-bon eaters. It was James who actually wrote it and yourself and Bill who had a hayday with it. As you know, it bothered me in the least. Although I thought it very chauvanistic of you guys considering NC and I were the only women on the discussion at that point. I have to agree with Joette, if the wife does want to live up to the ridiculous model type image that our society worships, I say "you got girl!". For most women it isn't even healthy to be thin and as we get older we need the fat that stores the body's estrogen. It isn't natural to "diet" all the time! I know some people who can eat all the time and stay thin and others who do not overeat and eat the right things who are considered by society to be overweight. I think maybe your wife is making a statement here, not only to you but to society in general. - 14:45:43 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:RON- Of course that statement to the wife should have read "You go girl!". - 14:47:55 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:ANY: while i almost had to watch the funeral, i don't have cable tv of which i rarely watch, but i got a kick outta the numbers the tv folks crowed about. In my case it was just a matter of being a captive-type audience. Elsewhere, there were probably many others in that same kind of boat. i mention this because B.Graham was making his pitch, in one of the points he referred to he said tv was clearly mentioned in the bible and was to be the means by which all the world would know of jc. I thought, in view of what the controlling tv people did for the funeral thing, they could just as easily do for him and his ilk. i say "they" control because several weeks ago a local newsman while doing an on-site report someone heldup a sign denouncing disney and something else right behind that reporter so that the sign appeared on tv. When the story was done the reporter ran after and beat the sign holder. The buzz about has it that, that matter is being shutout everywhere, what is going on? - 14:48:17 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene only the west, you say?:ALL- The reports from India on mama T death don't reflect a huge amount of sympathy from a country who's population is so explosive. In fact, the reports state that only 10's of thousands are present which would be a very small fraction of the population. In those 10"s of thousands would be the groupies from the rest of the world so that cuts that fraction down a little more. More people tha that show up for a football game. - 14:53:44 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:CARL- What matter is being shut out? The view behind the reporter or the fact that the reporter beat up on the guy? - 14:59:28 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Peter----->>>>:--Funny you should mention Billy Graham, CARL. Of all the evangelists seen on TV, I always looked at him as being the most down to eath and realistic of the bunch. As I was channel-surfing a few days ago, I saw his visage on the screen, and I listened to him for about 30 seconds or so. He is a good speaker, uses his facial expressions effectively, but said something so preposterous, I was just ranting for hours later. He described the world as it would be when Jesus ruled it, and said .."there would be no death"...Now, how utterly stupid is this man, and does he really think we are as so incredibly mathematically, logistically, and biologically uneducated as he is? Here is a man seen as one the most respected individuals globally, who can say stuff like this ( without any of his followers even batting an eyelash, or giving it a second thought ) which yntil now, is the stupidest thing I have ever heard anyone say. - 15:24:35 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: the fellow the reporter whipped can not get anybody yet to listen, legal hearing, what happened. The chase and thrashing was videod but as i said the buzz in that town, nothing will be done. also a whats goin' on, last week a professor was reprimanded for saying "disparaging" and "insensitive" remarks regarding Di's demise. The prof was making a point that the media had a significant role in shaping peoples perception of D.Spenser. That seems like a valid view, beyond mere opinion. I see someone mentioned her being just a good woman, which is probably a sober view, any good hearted woman given the resources and opportunity would do thing very like D.Spencer once did. History books furthermore disclose very favorable views of anyone who helps the poor and downtrodden, this lot of humanity has always been around to serve these "altruists". RON, your preferred female ideals warm the heart now i'll have to review some of the poems i've written for my 'sounds of silence', but happily married females ought not be so cavalierly discounted, most of my female friends are happily married and, no threat. - 15:36:24 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, Please, while I don't mine being associated with Ron and James, I did not coin the term "Bon-bon eater;" nor did I have a field day with you and NC over this term. You have exacerbated the negativity of this term and perpetuated its longevity far more than I could have ever imagined. This is not to say that, in my past participation in posting here though, I am totally innocent of a little "hay-day sniffing" along the way. :~)…It just gives me that "warm fuzzy feeling." - 16:27:18 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:PETER: you mention B.Graham's image and general effectiveness as an orator, well, awhile back I saw a book in a bookstore on speaking, that i did not purchase, and in its various illustrations it had pictures of B.Graham in assorted poses and had the likesame pictures of A.Hitler next to his pic's. They both, apparently did the same stuff and things according to the pictures anyway, so may it be posited that B.Graham is in good company? - 17:04:49 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene, lest you forget!:BILL- It isn't I who brought up the term, is it? No, you never coined the term. As far as I'm concerned I think the term rather humorous taking into account who coined it. You, yourself were much more insulting when you accused NC of being a negative, unhappy person because she didn't buy into your warm-fuzzy, fern sniffing crap! - 17:17:25 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:--CARL---Very good company indeed. Now if one attempts to tell this to a fundie, watch the end result of a mind at work which Graham and those like him have achieved their goal. Humanity gas a long, long way to go, and it's sad. - 17:57:22 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:----MARLENE---You go girl! - 18:05:08 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, Them ferns are pretty good sometimes, as we both should know, coming from the sixties, right? What ever happened to NC? Do you still email her? - 19:19:03 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:ANY: In a quasi-like wonderment, yesterday i saw some newslike tv program outta' DC, one of its participants was a DC pundit named Will somethin' or other, his comments and querys of 'what' US citisens were doing as regards the D.Spenser thing. The US got rid of that kind reverence w/the revolutionary war, or so i also thought. Or too, like MARLENE, who points out the insignficance of the numbers out of India for Mutha'T, so is it for the 3000 Di backers out of 3 million in the SF area. But, the Will pointed out 'how' none of the people in this country ever met Di, did not know her, had never seen her alive, never spoke to her, etc., except on tv. So, how can any of us, as BILL, concern ourselves with fair or unfair for "monarch" types, whatever in the hell that word is supposed to be. Except for the theists among us who might refer to monarchs as god preferred, what weakness in or of us ourselves would want to be the "subject" of royalty? heck! i think most cops are just goons licensed to kill. - 19:33:54 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:BIll- Actually NC and I are very good friends. Besides friend talk we also discuss books. She posts her comments on a chapter then I post mine on the next chapter. As well, we also keep in touch with Richard. They are two very intelligent people and I miss their comments. In fact Richard recently did an interview on Australian radio on church finances. - 20:19:27 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:--CARL..in Canada we have much more exposure to the monarchy as we still have the Queen's representatives federally and provincially, our money has the Queen's mug plastered on it, and at least once a year our taxes are spent on entertaining the royals. I did wonder though what the big deal was for the U.S., as it was my understanding that there is no love lost between the Americans and the British.... - 20:23:04 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:BILL, BTW much more was happening in the sixties than fern-sniffing, something, like religion that seemed just to much of a waste. - 20:23:54 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER & CARL- Loose the mustache and we'd likely have twins! JOETTE- I agree. But who else's mug deserves to be on our money taking into account what it's actually worth?? Please don't suggest Anne Murray, the Wayne Newton of Canada, ha ha! - 20:28:42 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: second mistake i made w/you northern lites, but in any case generally speaking 99.95% of you, don't really hold that monarchy stuff as a serious kind of relationship to one's existence, true? G.Will directed his very comments at the point[s] you mention. - 22:10:09 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Adam BACK ON THE JAMMEE:¡¡¡¡¡TWO WALL: Yesterday's NY Times: ALGIERS, Sept.6---Assailants killed at least 80 people overnight in a western suburb of the capital, slitting their throats and mutilating their bodies...100 others were injured...two political parties said many more people died...Muslim fundamentalists are seeking to oust the military-backed Government and create an Islamic state based on their interpretation of the Koran. More than 60,000 people have died in the violence since 1992.¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Chalk up a mere pittance more on the number of people who would not have suffered violent homicides if nobody believed in this god bullshit. I iterate my warning to the passivist ATHEISTS that religion is not merely something that you reject and others accept; it is an INCIDIOUS, EVIL, HALLUCINOGENIC PALL cast over the overwhelming majority of our so-called fellow homo sapiens that should be opposed at every turn. I think that there should be a divide in the nomenclature to distinguish the true homo sapiens from the homo hallucinogens. Does anyone know where I can get a Paparazzi pizza delivered QUICKLY? The last one I hadf was a real eye-opener, and I shutter to think that I will never be exposed to that culinary pleasure again. I think I'm developing a real craving here. - 23:00:18 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene with a news release!!!:ALL- The latest concerning the coming of jeez-zus. Out of Siberia, Russia. A preachin profit has announced that within the next two years, before the coming of jEEZ-zus, that the earth will fall off it's axx-zus by 30 degrees. All will be a mess except Siberia. But don't give up yet, xtians, space ships sent by jEEZ-zus will pick up all the believers and transport them to the paradise of Siberia. - 23:06:51 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

The Grade Three Teacher:-->ADAM..were you asleep when we discussed the Algiers event earlier? - 23:44:13 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->CARL: a short history lesson on the monarchy in Canada. Even though we were allowed to have our own constitution in 1982, we have not completely seceeded from the United Kingdom. Our Governor-General (Romeo Leblanc) is Queen Lizzie's top most representative. The Governor-General is not an elected official, but hand picked by Buckingham Palace. The G-G has the ultimate say on what happens in our country, must sign any bills that are passed through parliament, and has veto power, although no G-G has used the veto power since 1932. Our provinces have Lieutenant Governer-Generals, and they sign any provincial legislation, and have the same authority as the big guy when it comes to provincial matters. So, even though we don't pay very much attention to Leblanc and minions, we are still very much a monarchist country. Our parliament is almost identical to that found in England, complete with Senate (another waste of money!), although we have "The House of Commons" whereas England has "The House of Lords". I hope this hasn't bored you, but rather helped you understand our country a little bit better. - 23:52:07 on 8 Sep 97 GMT

James-->Any:Hey, what happened to the show old function? I thought I could scroll back about 100 post? - 0:03:33 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->BILL...if you refer to others as "brothers" even though you are not related, you could also be a collectivist (union, church goer etc.) and not necessaily someone who has darker skin pigmentation than others. Besides, I don't know about anyone else here, but who gives a flying F*** what colour your skin is? - 0:07:33 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Grant...:Hello JAMES-- When you post, the URL changes. Save the new URL as a bookmark. Whenever you want to look at older postings use that bookmark, and change the 30 to whatever. - 1:22:11 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, Sorry the beach called me one last time before I go back to work tomorrow. I got to body surf some but, I am trying to be a little more cautious as I dislocated my left shoulder three years ago when I got body slammed on a sandbar which also popped my neck…. Stupid, huh? Beer and beach are not always a good combination. I guess I am just not 25 any more or voluptuous, ha! Concerning the "brothers" comment, I got used to calling the blacks at work "brothers" because that is what they refer to each other as. I like it better than African American too. Also I refer to their wives as "sisters," as they do. It would be nice I suppose to not have to distinguish between races, but I think people are naturally proud of their heritage and want some distinction, from a cultural standpoint at least. I do talk openly with the some of the brothers about race and culture, and I think they respect me even though they tend to be religious in my work group, and scratch their heads a lot with some of my non-standard view points. Oh well, we must be honest to others and ourselves no matter what, right? That was interesting about the monarchy Joette. I didn't know you were still so tied to England, on paper at least. - 1:34:41 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, I still occasionally email and talk with Richard, but not NC, as she never volunteered her email to me. NC always made me think though with her post, as did Richard, and I agree they were very well educated. I've never met anyone that I have talked to here but wouldn't mind. Have you or will you ever meet them? - 1:35:10 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:ADAM, I think its more than religion that causes these slaughters throughout the world. It's a power, culture, group, and greed thing. Dictators like Suddam in Iraq use religion to maintain his power and control over the people. Would you say he is a religious person, or just a power hungry dictator? - 2:02:50 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

RON...--->JAMES...: You have to hit the "show old" button then change the number in the "Address" line at the top. - 2:45:38 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Grant:RON-- I didn't know that. - 3:44:12 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Grant:RON-- At the risk of sounding stupid, doesn't the same thing happen when you click 'add,' whether or not you check 'show old?' Am I missing something? - 12:32:31 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Grant:RON-- While on the subject of the board's underside, is it possible to access older postings? Are they archived? - 12:50:11 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- JOETTE-- The Mother T. myth making has begun in earnest. The latest: Princess Di became altruistic after being touched by Mother T. (gag) - 13:34:40 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT..to see the old posts, hit the add button, and then at in the location box, just change the "30" to whatever number of posts you want to see...that way you can pick and choose which posts you want to save. - 14:19:26 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Is it not strange that while the Canadian gov't appears different in the telling to the legislative process that i'm familiar, none of those folks mean a thing if you and i just say no. I've been involved w/local things and what works best sure seems to be the clearer rhetoric. When it perse doesn't work, such 'leaders' are but rubber stamps, like it appears must be your beloved G-G. The G-G therefore accounts for that .05 outstanding balance? - 14:41:16 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:GRANT: Lets consider that old dead female in another light, disregard religion and the catholics as just later things. Also, lets disregard feminist views and other similar extremist views. Lets just look at her as a woman who in her begining made some choices. Whatever her thoughts might have been none knew, but then do any 'know' their thoughts? Her choices eventually led her into those areas of religion etc., and again her decisions were not bound by a truth that is in mind and outside of it. But, i'd bet cold cash she always had to have the only 'say' in weightier matters. I have read some accounts of her in action. The impression was that she was a matter of fact type person. Factual things tend to disturb folks, she probably understood this in some manner, so she 'tolerated' that ignorance of people by feeding them or some of us the opiate that made those of us feel no longer responsible. In her private mind she was probably an angry atheist but there are always those in abundance who want to think someone else will die for them etc., and just don't want to be responsible for themselves. The Di thing is probably whoever just throwing in whatever, afterall, who really thinks? - 16:19:21 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:GRANT--Oh grant, please do not confuse altruism with being generous and/or charitable. Lady Di certainly was charitable, but to be altruistic is to live by a code of putting others before oneself, and that sacrificing oneself for the sake of others is their sole reason for existing. She certainly was charitable, but I think she took care of herself first, before helping other causes. But then, maybe not.... - 16:40:54 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER- I don't think that there is any true altruism practiced by humanity. - 16:53:19 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:MARLENE--Of course not, it's impossible, but many strive for this as some sort of ideal--like Christians for instance! - 18:25:09 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Tupelo:Atheism is yet another religion of blind faith. The universe screams that there is God, in spite of religion. Its important not to connect God to religion. A person doesn't have to stop believing in God to realize that conventional religion is wrong, or that we are responsible for ourselves and our actions. - 18:35:48 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:TUPELO- Show me this god! I'm not deaf and I hear no screaming. - 18:42:34 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:TUPELO- BTW, I'm not capable of blind faith. - 18:44:27 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:TUPELO: okay, lets go along with what you are saying without the expletives of blindness and screams. Instead, lets work with your idea of connections. Here, we can proceed with the X and Y of matters of fact as an approach to the unknown, if you agree that the approach to the unknown is best done via what we know. This would be the proverbial "chipping away at" or the way we would eat an elephant, "one bite at a time" that is how that would be done. Are you really ready for this, it could be fun, or what do you really want? - 19:42:56 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->TUPELO..if you are still around after putting in your two cents worth...not including god in religious is a ridiculous statement..do you say "I believe in god, but I'm not religious?" The word religion can be used for any interest (e.g. baseball) or belief system, but the over usage of the word is just a tidbit of the new psychology. - 20:58:11 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:ANY: Just left "http://cnnplus.cnn.com/community/message/" after reading some of the condolences for M.teresa, it was simply regrettable that anyone would spend such energy thinking to inscribe the things i saw. One of folks suggested a raid well, it is a thought... - 22:31:28 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..I'll go first! Anybody else up to it??? - 22:50:32 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: have you seen that site? not only for the topic i menton but any others? it is an open message-chat like site. - 22:54:52 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Just read the message, you go girl! I'll send the address along to the other girlfriend. - 23:21:41 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Adam:To Grade Three Teacher (Grade A Prick)...Obviously, I was not online and yes, quite possibly sleeping, you *&%$^&. - 23:29:06 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->CARL/MARLENE..phew! I felt like I was stealing a candy bar from the corner store. I am sure that I am going to get lots of angry e-mail now.... - 23:29:13 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Adam:Jo-firmative action: My skin is green, for I am KEE-ROCK! Yo, where are the purple bitches at? - 23:32:45 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

PETER:TUPELO---Your post is one that is very often heard as some attempt to turn the tables on the non-believers. It has become an extremely widely-used platitude which is completely fallacious. Religion is a series of specific beliefs which identify that particular religion from other religions. Atheism is simply a LACK of a belief. It is no more a religion than not believing in Santa Claus, magic elves, boogey-men, pink unicorns, dragons in the garage etc. Also, "faith" when used in the religious sense, means to believe in something in spite of evidence, or the lack of it. Since no logical sequence of premises have ever been able to form a conclusion that would support the existence of a God--one logically concludes then to believe in the existence of such a being is unreasonable--so atheism logically follows. Atheism is an application of reason--meaning there is no room for faith, simply because as soon as faith is applied to a belief--it no longer remains reasonable. Reason hung out the "NO Vacancy" sign long ago. - 23:59:28 on 9 Sep 97 GMT

Adam BILL ME LATER////:I'm just a BILL, sittin' here on Capitol Hill...I'm suggesting that the very idea of a superior being necessarily causes some people to believe that certain unconscionable acts are forwarding god's will, and others to claim a "hot-line" to god as a basis for inciting others to act in inhumane or oppressive ways. I iterate my observation that no one has ever murdered in the name of atheism (again, atheists like the Stalinists murdered, but as a means of quelling dissent, not to promote atheism). The canned respnse is that "You can't indict all religious people for the acts of a craven few who obviously misinterpret the lord's word." My kick in the can is that although not all religious people are evil, a necessary outgrowth of the concept of "higher authority" will ALWAYS be some percentage of the flock using the name of god to kill and oppress (and, by the way, all religious people ARE deluded). As for your assertion that those who commit evil in the name of god would do so under some alternative guise at the drop of a mad hatter, it is well-taken and, yet, may be simply making a distinction without a difference, to wit: if they would commit harm anyway, then religion is of no benefit, and is harmful in that it serves as a justification that will convince others to participate or at least lokk the other way. And, of course, so much atrocity is attributable to religious indoctrination and WOULD NOT EXIST OTHERWISE (for example, the islamic suicide bombers who actually believe they will catch the express train to allah's good graces, regardless of prior transgressions, if the kill the "infidel" in a jihad). Using that example to loop back, the necessary consequence is the declaration of false jihads by evil individuals (see, e.g., Khomeini's pronouncement of a death penalty upon Rushdie, which was roundly criticized by islamic scholars throughout the world as antithetical to Koranic teachings). - 0:05:16 on 10 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM ATTACK!!!:Carl for the Incursion...If you are referring to the site raid, that was my idea and I still advocate it as part goof and part slap in the faith. - 0:21:33 on 10 Sep 97 GMT

Adam:Prudence, Peter: I simply will not tolerate this blasphemy of dragons in the garage. Nonbelieve what you will, but the asphalt screams the existence of dragons in the garage. Don't make me and my fire-breathing bruthas come over there and torch your Tupelo-tanglin' ass! - 0:31:42 on 10 Sep 97 GMT

Adam Maybe Elvis was God; we all Mississippi him:Hey, Stupelo, I figured out your error: What you thought was the universe screaming "God" was actually just the wind crying "Mary". Dah dah dah, dah-dah DAH! - 0:44:11 on 10 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene ...them's wild ferns!:ADAM- Elvis ain't dead. He's singin down at Teddy-Bob's in L&A, Manitoba. - 1:04:31 on 10 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->madam my name is ADAM...well, the opportunity is ripe for a raid. According to Linda Cross on the Mama T condolence page (see Carl's post for the address), I am an idiot not to be taken seriously. How did she know? She must have been given the kiss of jesus! Okay guys, ranty raid! - 1:09:50 on 10 Sep 97 GMT

Adam Au Contraire:Suspicios Lies, Marlene...Elvis is as dead as god. Learn it. Live with it. It's Tom Carvel who's not really dead. Love, Cookie Puss. - 1:12:48 on 10 Sep 97 GMT

ERRADAM<<<:Er, SUSPICIOUS (with a "SHUSS") Love, Fudgie the Whale - 1:14:13 on 10 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Next time Linda Cross gets sick, let's all chip in send her to one of mamma T's so-called hospitals. - 1:44:52 on 10 Sep 97 GMT

Grant:CARL-- You have to wonder what life must have been like for Mother T. She was old enough to remember the French revolution and shit (Though she was just a kid), but was surrounded by younger devotees who probably have only seen a few thousand painful deaths. I can't imagine anyone ever questioning her authority. Who wants to burn in hell forever for telling M.T. to make her own damned breakfast? World leaders came to her and treated her with great deference. Wouldn't you be thinking "boy, people are dumb. It's only me."? Maybe in all those years of dealing with death and disease she noticed that God wasn't being particularly omnipresent. But if she had doubts, who could she tell them to? Maybe she and the pope laughed about "...and when you stop and turn around, they all pile up." Anyway, the point is that since she had power, and no one to answer to, she probably did exeactly what she thought she should do. Maybe most to her credit is the fact that she didn't abuse her power more. One thing that bothers me though, is her sending millions of dollars to Rome. People where donating to the poor. (they thought) If she didn't need the money shouldn't she have suggested that the donors send the money to the pope themselves? Wasn't she really raising money for the Vatican under false pretenses. I guess the end justifies the means, even for "saints." - 13:35:36 on 10 Sep 97 GMT

Grant:PETER-- Those weren't my words, but they withstood the true test of truth. They were in the media. I wonder if an altruistic person would become famous. Surely it is possible to avoid fame and glory? One doesn't hear much about people accidently becoming famous. - 13:40:21 on 10 Sep 97 GMT

Grant:JOETTE-- I was talking about the really old posts. How long has this board been running anyway? - 13:41:32 on 10 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT..good post about Mother Theresa. There are many altruistic sorts out there that do not seek publicity for themselves, and there also those that are generous without being altruistic but are just people who on a micro level try to alleviate suffering. I have grave concerns about money being raised and not going to where it is supposed to go, and so I am very careful about the organizations I support. If enough was reported about Mother Theresa's financial dealings, the media would not have created this saint. - 14:13:45 on 10 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: So your primary experience was that of an easiness, well, whenever i exchange words and ideas with theists it always seems to me as such an unfair meeting of minds. Even when speaking to a clergyman they too, get a look in their eyes that can only be described as a child holding his hands over his ears so as to not hear mom and dad arguing. Well, you saw some of the inscriptions and to me they were engaged in giving a presence to absurdities. I don't know about you, but i am pretty certain existence in general is by any measure much to short-for me, to waste on stuff like "condolences" to mother t. She as a living human creature did what any ought to do, in ways they can. - 15:59:43 on 10 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:ADAM: the raid thought, good idea, i have ventured into their minds before and have been unfortunately unimpressed. A typical tactic theists practice is to steadily issue/respond with their placebo of jc's love. I have yet to see or hear a theist utter a substantive thought on behalf of their whatever. - 16:13:37 on 10 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:GRANT: since i don't plan on studying that person because living is for the living. As far as i know she did nothing that advanced or enhanced the mental well being of humanity. But, jc types want themselves to feel good because she was supposedly one of their ilk who did what they should have been doing anyway, they didn't so they also did not take any direct responsibility for the downtrodden. They still do not want to be responsible in any way so they-jc types, are going to continue "using" mt, by proclaiming her some title, like the old romans once did. Any here see the program "I-CLAUDIUS". These jc types do not want to "work", to make the world a better place for humanity. Somewhere they began to think they-jc types, were to make it better for their whatever, who along the lines of thought that you introduced with the "omni-" thing. Even just trying to put their-jc types, message in words it suffers confusion. jc types are truely idiotic. - 17:12:17 on 10 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..I have, on occassion, ventured into the forays of xtian chat lines and they are really something! It always amazes me how spiteful and arrogant some can be when confronted by a question that may have to be answered contrary to "the good book". After posting on the CNN message board last night, someone named Siddhartha (shades of Hermann Hesse) has decided that he has the right to infringe on my privacy and has sent a couple of silly e-mails. You would think that I had insulted his own mother! - 17:53:40 on 10 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:----->GRANT--Sorry for tagging you with those words. Jesus was the embodiment of pure altruism. He was seen as the ideal man who was sacrificed to human depravity. The highest, noblest, most perfect man was willing to sacrifice himself and die in agony for the sake of persons who are low, inoble, sinful and evil. The morally superior chose to be immolated for the sake of the morally inferior. And he is arguably the most famous person in the history of the western world, if not the entire earth. - 18:05:39 on 10 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER- HUH?????? If this person lived at all???????..he died but claimed he's be back...building his popularity if you ask me..what's altrusitic about that? CARL- I loved _I Claudius_! - 18:50:26 on 10 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: I enjoyed the I-Claudius program a lot, what i relate the 'mt' thing to, maybe even dead di too, were the parts where the romans went about declaring themselves gods, living or deceased. Male or female living or dead now or whenever, who does any know, saint or man/womangod too, that practiced not the good regular favors of some Charmin? These jc folks and their efforts to avoid responsibility by creating saints and the sort, brings to mind the article on Hegal, was he a christian or atheist? They- jc types are weird. - 20:44:54 on 10 Sep 97 GMT

Bill...EARTH to ADAM What about SADAM???:While I can agree with some points, please allow me to "role-play" the Devil's advocate (ha!), so we can expand our thoughts further here as I think this a very worthy topic to dissect. I have two points: 1- You say that, "no one has ever been murdered in the name of atheism." Atheism is simply a "lack" of belief in god/gods, so how can anyone be murdered in the name of something that "isn't?" In order to murder in the name of "atheism" it would have to be elevated to "ATHEISM." Then this lack of belief "passive" has been elevated to an "active" level which then becomes a collectivists ideology belief system--not much unlike any other religion, BTW-- that groups together, takes up money, creates an agenda, and becomes aggressive. The agenda might then become one of "group preservation" and "group expansion." Anyone who cross this agenda would then be deal with severely, right? Point number 2- As Lucifer once pointed out here, religion is a creation of "secondary intelligence" (ego, superego, etc), and not apart of the human's "primary intelligence" (ID…stimulus/response, etc). Do you think that maybe religion is not the "primary" cause of humans' killing? Our basic instincts for survival are rooted in primary intelligence. Do you not think that Hitler (supposed christian), King Henry VIII (split from the catholic church and created a Protestant religion), Khomeini (Islamic fundamentalists), and SAD-ADAM of Iraq (Holy war's) are all driven by their lust for power, greed, and survival? Is not religion used in a "secondary" manor-- to manipulate, control, and appease others etc-- as an excuse for those listed above to act out their basic instincts? - 0:34:24 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Bill...:On the topic of Mommy T, I think her energies would have been more salutary, had they been focused on BIRTH CONTROL… - 0:38:05 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:A quote from Mutha T "I should not allow any child entrusted to my care, be adopted by a woman who has had an abortion or used contraception. Such a woman is incapable of love". IMHO, she was full of shit and had much too much power. Adoption of children should not be left up to a woman who wants nothing more than the tainted love of her mythical jesus. - 1:00:11 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene again:AND TO ADD TO THAT, what would be better, the hugs and kisses that were comforting from a woman who took the pill or pain and sufferring from what she calls the "kisses of jesus"? I'm glad this woman is a gonner! IMO, she was a nut case. - 1:03:59 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE...right on sister! (in the venacular of Bill). Apparently from the age of 12 she had an insatiable love for the almighty god, and nothing would deter her from that. If she has had her way, she is probably giving him a BJ right now (I know that's crude, but since you have educated me so well, I am pissed off at the deception she carried on in the name of caring). - 1:15:39 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:--BILL..congratulations! You were obviously listening to the rest of us when Carrie Drake was here (I am referring to your first point). As to your second point, keep my beloved Henry out of arguments about the like of Hitler and Saddam. He was not of the same cloth. - 1:18:18 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Bill...:JOETTE, Concerning King Henry, "Have you lost your head?" - 1:37:15 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Bill...:That comment to Marlene concerning Motha T (tongue-in-cheek), was a "low blow" girl! - 1:42:09 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- More than likely she fell in love with the romance associated with Fatima. As Carl pointed out, her caring was nothing more than the caring any human has for a member of their own species. BTW PETER- I'm still going......huh..???????? - 1:46:19 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:MARLENE--Even if he didn't exist, that's not really relevant. The fact that billions accept the notion of what he represented is what is relevant here. Since he is the ultimate advocate of altruism, those that support his philosophy just pine away for him to return just so he can drive it all home again for those who have not heeded his supposed words of wisdom the first time. J.C. also depends on one to have "faith" --which goes hand-in-hand with force, so with the sword( his first words in the Bible) he shall do his thing again! However,correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it his followers moreso than Jesus says himself in the bible that are getting all pumped about his return? However this time, he is supposedly going to rule earth for 1000 years ( This alledged occurence has always baffled me. Does this mean that all forms of governments, judicial systems be redundant and unecessary? How about taxes, or even money for that matter? Can one become wealthy? Will we work? Who will make the cars? The Nestle's Quik? Build the houses?....)) - 3:03:59 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER- I agree with what your saying other than the use of the word "altrusim". Ley's suppose he did live (of course we can also suppose so did the IPU) what if anything was altruistic about his supposed actions? Did he not carry out all the actions of the prophesied messiah. Would he have not done this to gain attention for himself to push his version of "the father"? What is so very different between jesus's faction and the suicide bombers faction. Are these bomber's practising altrusim? - 3:21:42 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER- BTW, didn't he have a tax collecter among his merry men? And he was a carpenter, no? Hey, this is rather coincidental! Can anyone else think of any one of his groupies who may have had experience in government and the judiciary? How about Quick? Don't tell me Nestle was given the devine recipe in vision of the Suzy Homemaker of the time, the BVM, herself! - 3:28:57 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:MARLENE--Now you're getting it! Yes, suicide bombers are the result of altruism run amok. They are sacrificing themselves--to the extreme--and sacrificing others( whoever he lands on)--to the exreme--supposedly for supposed benefit the of the others he wants to "save" ( his countrymen ). Look at Mother Teresa. She is sacrificing herself ( while at the same time feeling what she is doing is "honourable" and "virtuous" ) for the benefit of those who do not "earn" the fruits of her efforts, but "need" them. What she values is death, disease as requirements in order for her to put forth any effort. If there were no victims--she'd be out of a job--she values a zero. And she EXPECTS and looks upon it as immoral, for those who are "haves" to sacrifice what they have to carry out her mission. Look where it got her. - 10:54:49 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Grant:PETER-- I don't follow that last sentence. ALL-- I'll be gone until the 29TH. Save my spot. - 12:19:50 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:GRANT---Please allow me to elaborate, and sum this whole thing up once and for all. What I am trying to say here is what if all the citizens of the earth practiced Mother Teresa's actions? What would the condition of the earth be? What the world needs is minds that create jobs, and get people working and be productive. ie, the Bill Gates of the world. He, and others like him--high-powered businessmen are cursed, assumed corrupt and evil, and even called the anti-christ by some fundamentalist groups--yet, he has done more for mankind than a thousand Mother Teresa's in that by his own mental efforts has created thousands and thousands of jobs for people--all through voluntary trade, where no one is sacrificed for the sake of others by his creation of WEALTH--and not by selling himself dime by dime for the rotting sores of those who hold them to his face as some inexplicable claim on him. Yet, it is the Mother Teresa's of the world that are looked upon as an "angel", simply by their "unselfish sacrifices". I can't find a spoon big enough to gag on when I hear this platitude banied about freely as if it is some type of understood acclamation. - 13:33:06 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER- Agreed! So in other words, xtianity is a death cult. - 13:38:35 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER- But..but...but, this is not altruism! All this "giving of one's self" is done as a prerequisite in order to be with her husband, jesus, after her death. She ends up with what she perceives as the ultimate reward. This isn't altruism because when all is said and done, it is not done selflessly. - 13:56:12 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Grant:PETER-- I agree. Mr. Gates could learn from the Catholics though. They take payment now but don't have to deliver until the afterlife. Gotta go. - 14:17:34 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:ANY: sort of pertaining to BILL's collective proposition, again disregarding his chosen nomenclatures, instead, i'll address a view of responsibility-again, or more precisely and simpler, the relative. The collective, like theists, jc types particularly, merely bypass themselves and whoever or whatever they are to be of that collective. For example, i work with a fellow who may be described as independent and holds certain values that he regularly enacts. When he runs out of energy and takes a day off, i jest with him that he decided to be as his colleagues-the collective, who are out and off for regular occurences of which he and i look forward to with excited anticipation. But this has not happened yet. I tell him that he must have let go of "himself" and joined the collective so "he" was no longer responsible. Of the BILL proposition, its premises appear as though, [i have misread these things before so jump in and check me pleeze] to say "atheists" as a "collective" to survive also effectively let go of "themselves" in just being a BS, and here it appears that naturalism is brought in as a forebearance. In this manner the imagination of theism and its' relevant supernatural as BS may be considered ok, afterall we all will kill to survive. Is this supposed to be just a black pot and kettle thing? - 15:24:23 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:MARLENE--Yeah, but death is her way, and an altruist's way to achieve her own selfish goals--the ultimate sacrifice. Like you said--christianity a death cult. That is why one must live a life of service to others, and the God in order to reach a place where all is well--heaven--but only AFTER you die. - 16:23:48 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM AHOY MISMO!:Grant & Grave-----It IS possible to avoid fame & glory, but stop calling me "Shirley." - 16:51:39 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM AGGRESSOR:YAZ, CARL, there IS a SANTA MONICA[][][][] Keep in mind that the raid I envisioned was not merely a bunch of people going over to argue with theists. It involved one principal ATHE-PROTAGON-IST and several "shills" who claim to be believers and who get slowly persuaded that the ATHEIST has a legitimate point, and start asking "fellow theists" why they insist on not addressing the Atheist's legitimate assertions. A shill would claim to be an intelligent theist who is willing to hear what the Atheist has to say and, while respectfully disagreeing with the Atheist, becomes increasingly enraged at the fellow theists who fail to clash in bona fide debate. My thesis is that it will really burn believers' butts (and perhaps bump-start their brains) when one or two of "them"---the shills---acknowledge that no one on their side is actually engaging the Atheist, but rather merely regurgitating the same old pope-pap over & over ad nautical. - 17:04:27 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Adam GETTIN FUGLY:Jo Get 'em---I have seen Sid's mom. She's a (&*^% pig and a whore. - 17:07:04 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:ADAM: oh! that is enlitening, it would call for some preparation, perhaps this would need someone skilled in regurgitation, maybe even a somebody disinterested who might ask other questions of the intuitive nature. Some givens might be that theists are sensitive and imaginative but lack conceptual skills. We the athe-protagon-ists, have all three qualities. And of course none of us is a techno-freak someone who lacks senstivity but this would be an interesting character. It could be fun. - 17:22:00 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Adam ATHEIST:Still just a Bill//// Point one: disagree. If an atheist killed theists qua theists---that is, because they believed in a deity---that would be killing in the name of Atheism. Why is that hard to grasp? Anyway, it doesn't happen, whereas killing in the name of God happens daily in mass quantities, Billdar. Point, too: Yes, to some extent, as I mentioned in the post to which you responded. That being the case, religion is harmful because it serves as a plausible excuse for many. Moreover, much of the evil is perpetrated SOLELY because of religion (e.g. bombing/shooting @ abortion clinics). Thus religion, as raîson de la mort or as mere facade de la mort, still kills or helps to do so. We ATHEISTS have no such cross to bear. CAUTION: BEAR CROSSING AHEAD. By the way, I also redux soup to my distinction between pacifist atheists and affirmative enemies of religion; I am proud to be a member of the latter, and see nothing wrong with an organization or movement of like-minded individuals. The fact that their rallying call is opposition to belief rather than a belief is of no relevence. I'm talkin' turkey salad here, and you're about the fifth poster boy who's pulled the dictionary definition of "atheist" out of his butt. With individual variances, we are of a common belief-----that religion is for shitheads----and we are to that extent superior in our beliefs, the fact that it's technically "nonbelief" is of no cross bearing. I'm also having a ball making these sundry puns. BALL BEARING CROSS. I think Atheism eventually will win out in the marketplace of ideas. CROSS to BEAR MARKET. I think the battle between religious idiots and the enlightened few of us should be seen very much like a prize fight. RIGHT CROSS BEARER TO THE JAW. I could go on and on with this stuff. OH GOD, I COULDN'T BEAR THAT; IT WOULD MAKE ME EVER SO CROSS. - 17:29:21 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Adam BLAS-FROM-ME:How Jo Can You Go???? I believe the act of the holy blow-man empire is referred to as a "BJC" - 17:44:47 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Peter, Pall & Merry>>>>> At the risk of reviving one already used.....Given that christ is a carpenter, upon taking office as head of the world, could he not, then, build his own cabinet? - 17:49:10 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM DOGGIN' YA':GRRRRRR, GRANT;;;;; I never relaized Spot was in jeopardy. If so, shouldn't you have used an exclamation point? Christ, I didn't even know you had a dog. - 17:52:45 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM Plan 9 From In Your Face!:Carl-conspirator:::: All that is required is to decide who's going (I suggest three is the minimum); what site is the raidee-whip; who will be the fly in the ointment; and what names everyone is using, so that the Athe-antagonist can tell the shills from the shitheads. I figure the level of sophistication on this page is high enough that we can wing the rest. I think the Atheist role in the raid is easy---just say what you would ordinarily to rebut religion (we've heard it all a million times: the goof book is not gospel; how can you have a "day" before the sun was created; how do you explain the carbon-dating of fossils and rocks to billions of years, etc.). I would want to be a shill---a skillful shill----it requires you to come off as a bona fide believer who wants to hear what the Atheist has to say, and respond accordingly without giving up the fact that you agree wholeheartedly. In essence, it requires acting. - 18:05:55 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Adam NAILED:Oh, Wood, I?}}}}} The anonymous cabinet joke was from me, and not someone in the closet splinter-group. I guess I just got board. Case closed. - 18:10:37 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:How can people think that Jesus purposely fulfilled prophesies? How can one determine where one will be born? The fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem was prohpesied, how could he purposely be born there? How could he make the soldiers cast lots for his clothing? or make a soldier stick a spear in his side while he was on the cross? Those were prophecies, how could he control them? Or how about the fact they didn't break his legs like they usually broke a crucified person's legs? That was prophecy! could he control things like that if he wasn't God? - 19:23:16 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Miah:Athiesm is for cowards. People who don't want to be accountable for their actions turn to atheism, people who are afraid they might have to change their actions turn to atheism, people who don't want to give up control of their lives turn to atheism. Atheism is empty. Some Day EVERY knee shall bow, and EVERY tongue confess that Jesus is lord! (yes, even you athiests) - 19:29:32 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Adam MAMA MIAH!:Say what???? It takes COURAGE to stand up as an an ATHEIST and say "I am not encumbered by mythological beliefs." RELIGION is for cowards; people who are afraid of death create a fantasy afterlife; people who are afraid of not understanding things, like the workings of the cosmos, resort to cowardly adoption of a god, which they create in their own images, to serve as a father figure and to "explain" everything that they can't come up with a rational explanation for out of their narrow life experiences. Hey, Miah Narrow, show me this tough Son of a bitch god of yours....I'll kick his ass right now! - 20:00:38 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Adam I AMIE to PLEASE:Oh Amie Aimless++++++ I must confess, not that jesus=lord, but that I have no idea what you're talking about. Is that called speaking in tongues? Please clarify, or forever hold your peace on earth. What is your basis for concluding that all these event were prophesies? And why do you assume that everything that you don't understand (I venture that's a great deal) is the work of the lord? If you were a cavewoman, you wouldn't know what caused lightning, so you'd assume that god was throwing lightning around out of "anger." Now you know that's not true, but there's still plenty of stuff you don't know. And rather than being rationbal and say, "I haven't figured that out yet," you childishly attribute everything to an omnipotent daddy figure. Why do you do that? Is it the bible? Have you ever considered that that was a book containing a mixture of history and legend recorded over a long time by old men? The Cat in the Hat is a book also---do you think Dr. Seuss was a prophet? - 20:12:07 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Adam MIAH CULPA!!!!:Hey Mia, I just checked out the link to your page, and I must say, that was five miles of ugly road on the information superhighway! - 20:16:10 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MIAH: what else do you know about, other than what you have read that, by the way, has been written and proof read by other humans. Nothing godlike was ever involved. Just some learned people working on an agenda of somekind, more than happy are these other people to have some doofus like you become their fodder cast upon thrust on those of us who see these people for what they are, greedy and inhumane, etc. - 20:23:21 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene O boy! an xtian!:MIAH- I agree with Adam's explanation above so there is really no sense repeating it. What is brave about believing in myth? I can think of many people who are religious who aren't responsible for their actions so don't give me the shit that they are because jesus is in their lives. Don't you even suggest that "they are not really xtians" because to enter the house of your lord is not done by ones works so you are told. Why would I want to give up control of my life? It's mine and I'm responsible for it. If you've given up control, you've contradicted yourself by being irresponsible yourself. My knees bow for no one, maybe my partner once in a while but most certainly not for a mythical character. - 20:24:04 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene .....duh!:AMIE- What came first , the man or the myth. He (if he even lived) had the script. Give me a prophecy and I'll work it or I'll find some event or place to make it work. - 20:31:38 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Adam JESUS MIAHSS!: The intellectually meek shall abandon the truth. Psalm & Dave 39:95 plus tax and dealer prep. - 20:32:01 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->TO ALL...it is such a pleasure when "the other side" shows up here, but they are so unsure of their own beliefs that they never stay around long enough to rebutt anything we have said. Therefore, until these two chicken shits come back, I shall keep my forked tongue quiet on the matters they have presented. - 20:51:30 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM'S FOR-PROPHET VENTURE:==== Let he who is without sin get a freakin' life already. GENERICS 54:40 or fight! - 20:57:15 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: remember how as kids we covered our ears and hummed loudly to block out other sounds, that is what those two have done, then ran to their rooms. They are both pleased they got to say something to the savages and they were not ravaged and raped, they thank the whatever. Some humans are funnier and sillier than others. - 21:08:20 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

----PETER---( Who is in a "Howard Stern" mood )---Miah, Amie--Youra Amie, We're Alla Amie:----So why is the world such a bad place? Well, I'll tell ya why because there are morons like you that still walk the earth, that's why. Behaving as if flagrant ignorance is some type of "virtue" you spout your nonsensensical illogical claptrap in hopes of finding another equally moronic nit-wit like yourselves who will buy this dough-head shit. Also, we "cowards" on this chat page are becoming more and more cynical and impatient with you dolts, because, as previously mentioned-you make one idiotic post and then not willing to stick around and defend your load of crap, run awy like the the chicken-shits you are. So, come back you yellow-bellied, self-righteous couple of ding-dong, wing-ding fuck-heads--stand here and take your lumps that you and ones like you so justly deserve. - 21:52:39 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Adam FUNSILI w/ SUNDRIED TOMATO:Karl ('s re) Marx-----> Am I funnier and sillier? - 22:02:39 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Adam The road less traveled....:Has anyone else clicked on her link. A vomitorium! Welcome to Miah Nightmare. - 22:04:12 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Adam SPARE CHANGE?:How many freakin' jokes are contained in those two goofball posts? I'll tell ya', their concise and confounded, but every time I read 'em again I find more logical butchery! Look at the second clause of Miah's second sentence---what the @%^*% does that mean? Hey, Miahthead, I'm afraid I might have to change my underwear. Can I turn to god for that? After all, he full of *&(@^&. - 22:09:38 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM PROVERBS, BUT LIKE ADJECTIVES EVEN MORE:The lord giveth a false sense of security, and the lord taketh away thine ability to reason. DEUTREADONME 23:Skidoo - 22:15:18 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Adam YOUR POINT BEING...?:He who liveth by the sword shall be stucketh. ARMAMENTS 30:08 - 22:23:07 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Peter: ADAM---Yeah, now that'cha mentioned it, "prohpesied" is a new one on me. It sounds like some crude type of medieval form of torture. But what do expect when it's written by a moron? Actually historians now have pretty well established that this guy was born in Nazareth ( You know, like "Cheeses of Nazareth" )Ewwwwww! Aren't we atheists an uncharitable bunch! - 22:47:44 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene who also reads the good book:ADAM- Yup! I visited miah and jerry-miah's page. Lack of imagination, boar-ring! He that hit'ith and run'ith shall be a coward in the eyes of the atheist..GOTYANUMBA 1:101 - 22:58:44 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa: ALL:I can understand the Xtians' tendencies to post and run on this page. First as you all pointed out, they can't argue logically. Just spout bible verses. But most of you are guilty of the same flaw. I don't see how ad hominem attacks can prove a point. Atheists are supposed to be more logical than Xtians and other theists, yet this group seems to be spiraling toward the same pole I once thought reserved for ignorance and fear. If you really want them to hang around, which I greatly doubt, calling them chicken shits and dumb fucks won't encourage them. Granted, they are a frustrating bunch, probably not even warranting your attention. No I'd say DEFINITELY not warranting your attention. So why fan their flames? Why lower yourselves to their level, name-calling and what-not? It accomplishes . . . what? - 23:39:38 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa: To Dear Miah, if your still around:Explain to me how giving up control of your life is synonomous with taking responsibility for your actions? I ask because in your one and only post (in case you've forgotten) you claim that atheists are "cowards . . . who don't want to be accountable for their actions." That "poeple who don't want to give up control of their lives turn to atheism." Therefore, by your own "logic" (do you abhorr logic? Most theists do) responsibility = giving up control. How can you be responsible for situations and actions not under your control? How do you, personally, mend that gaping hole of ill logic in your mind? Have you ever heard of Doublethink? You are committing it. - 23:51:46 on 11 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa: Peter:Yes, "prohpesied" is a new word for me as well. But doesn't the sentence "But what do expect when it's written by a moron" include a new grammatical rule - namely, subjects are no longer required to construct a coherent sentence? And ADAM: from "spare change" post, since when is it acceptable to substitute "their" for "they're" in the clause "their concise and confounded"? While I'm on this subject I'll save you all the time of pointing out my own mistake in my post to Miah, when I used "your" instead of "you're" in the headline. Now isn't it just a bit childish, really quite annoying, to nit-pick TYPOS, to call a person a "moron" for making one. This is something I've noticed you guys do a lot when confronted when an opposing view point. Well, if that's the definition of a moron, then we are all morons. - 0:31:15 on 12 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:that's "confronted WITH an opposing view point" not when. - 0:33:13 on 12 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->MELISSA...and now that you have decided to honour us with your presence after several months, you may have missed certain venaculars that have been borne of this page. Go back about 1,000 posts and catch up, and then please feel free to admonish us if you feel it is necessary. - 0:49:32 on 12 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa---Ad hominem, AD SCHMONINEM---:---I've been on this page for quite a while ( I've seen you here a couple times before )and have attempted to handle these individuals presenting what I considered well crafted and logical arguments ( from an objectivist perspective, incidentally ). I've presented a whole array of philosophical mumbo-jumbo --with special attention to avoiding logical fallacies ( to the 5% of them who make more than one post ) and it went in one ear and out the other. So now many of us, are just saying "Fuck them all"--and letting them have it right between the eyes with the most concentrated assault of insults, in an attempt to communicate in a manner they will understand immediately, and not raising any doubts on how we view thier banal beliefs. Of course we are "lowering ourselves" to their level--it's the only way we can find a common ground with them. Now get off your high horse before you get a load of it yourself. Incidentally, it was not because ofAmie's typo I called her a moron, it's because of her beliefs. She is a moron. - 1:07:37 on 12 Sep 97 GMT

Peter--:---Melissa-->>That previous message was posted directly at you. - 1:11:32 on 12 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER & MELISSA- Don't you share something in common? I know Peter reads a lot of Ayn Rand, if I remember that far back, so does Melissa. BTW Melissa, don't slap my hand for what I post and I won't slap your's. - 3:36:34 on 12 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:MARLENE: yes, you remember correctly, I enjoy Ayn Rand, and have enjoyed some of Peter's posts. I don't recall slapping anyone's hand. I just don't think it's necessary to even ACKNOWLEDGE the theists in any way shape or form. Perhaps one post intelligently questioning their positions and if they fail to reply, don't even give them the courtesy of negative attention. Is that so wrong? PETER: High horse, eh? Pile it on . . . if you can throw that high. You only demean yourself in doing so. And as an Objectivist I would think you'd have a little more respect for yourself. Oh, that's right, Ayn Rand wasn't so innocent of ad hominem herself, though not as nonchallant about it as yourself. JOETTE: Fuck you. Is that language you can understand? Is that the vernacular of choice now? Fine, I can speak that language, too. - 5:02:45 on 12 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:It's funny how defensive some of you get when someone who doesn't share your own sense of joviality and spunk challenges your methods of argument. If one does not adhere to the present structure of commentary or put down, and, yes, admonishes you for your method, that person is then considered self-righteous, pretentious. Perhaps you can dish it but you can't take it? Is that the problem? "Walk a mile in my shoes", is that the advice Joette, read a thousand posts, then come back and bash? Somehow, I don't think even that would be enough. No, you seem to want conformity to some little clique you've all formed, and I've watched progress for several months. No need to back track. This page has become a sort of collective dictatorship. If your beliefs (not strictly religious ones) do not fit into this puzzle then blast you and the horse you rode in on. Even to each other you are sometimes cruel, and point out typos to discredit another's statements. Don't think so Joette, Peter? Go back about a thousand posts, catch up on the lingo then come back to me and tell me your stories. - 5:15:55 on 12 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa: BTW:I do want to thank you all for one thing. One of you pointed me to an article on the internet describing some of Ayn Rand's faults. It was connected with Skeptic magazine somehow I think. It was an eyeopening article, one that released me from the chains of idolatry. Also, someone suggested I pick up a copy of Skeptic magazine a while back. Again a wonderfully life changing experience. There is a reason I like this site and come back occasionally. Because I know you're all pretty intelligent and a good resource of interesting subjects. Don't bash me because I don't agree with your vernacular or methods of debunking the theists. I am human, more than they, and proud of my mind and opinions, just as the rest of you. As John Stuart Mill said, never try to suppress the opposing view, embrace it and learn from it, for it can strengthen both when right and wrong. - 5:22:42 on 12 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:MELISSA--Do you have a husband? - 12:29:03 on 12 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- Forgive me for I have misunderstood. It's good to hear that you did pick up _Skeptic_. I beg to differ on one of your claims. Anyone wishing to stay here has all the opportunity they could want to do so. If they don't like the heat then stay out of the kitchen. - 14:07:26 on 12 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->PETER..lose the Howard Stern bit; your last post is ridiculous unless everyone knows what you are trying to do. - 14:29:28 on 12 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MELISSA: don't remember you, but i liked the MILL phrase you mention, i have seen it referred to or used by several kinds and sorts of writers. i'd like to drop a name or two but i don't have the wherewithal handy for that end. You seem like one with serious leanings towards the practice of self-discipline. - 14:49:41 on 12 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:PETER: No husband. But a very steady boyfriend for the last five years whom I live with and who shares my views of the world . . . mostly. MARLENE: Thank you. It's nice to finally break through the wall and be understood. I agree, if you can't STAND the heat, leave . . . but I don't have to LIKE it, or agree with its usage. CARL: Most of the writers that I know of who wrote with Mill's philosophy in mind were the writer's of the U.S. Constitution, namely Jefferson and Franklin; on the other hand, Locke was the most influencial writer in that circle, and Mill's views seem to parallel his, so perhaps the previous similarity is a coincidence by association. BTW: Did any of you know that, while Jefferson and Franklin were opposed to slavery, both believed blacks were inferior to whites? Franklin even thought they should be sent back to Africa so as not to pollute his almost Nietzschian view of the perfect (white) society. Nobody's perfect I guess. - 16:07:34 on 12 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MELISSA: most o'those ol'boys including mill probably did not reasonably see beyond their own anthill-like concerns. I have a deferential preference for the things conveyed by mathematic types who even tho'their concerns may have been not more than one like mill, franklin or others- so moved, the pure to application connection of math-like thought is the line of my post. As for theists, a session of question for question would be interesting once the session gets by the superficial kid stuff. - 16:54:36 on 12 Sep 97 GMT

PETER:JOETTE---Ok, no more Howard Stern, I'll let him do it. MELISSA: Thank you for answering my question, but please disregard this line of questioning. TO ALL---Hey look! Notice who HAS NOT returned to the page--as we so accurately predicted. But that wasn't such a tough call now really, was it? The workings of fools can so easily be foreseen. - 23:01:33 on 12 Sep 97 GMT

Adam FOR THE DEFENSE:----Melissa of Retroactive Morality...At the time of Jefferson and Franklin, black inferiority was the overwhelmingly accepted viewpoint. It is common practice nowadays to impose the present state of knowledge upon historical figures, completely removing these individuals from historical context. I'd hate to see you jump on that bandwagon. As for the vitriol in the responses to the god-squaders, I do not purport to speak for the denizens of this page, but only for myself, and in that regard, it was me who first responded to them, and without going back to review the posts, I am confident that the primary thrust of my messages was to convey the basis of atheist thought and level a SUBSTANTIVE attack on religious thinking. I do not apologize, however, if that substance additionally happens to be laced with a degree of invective against a dominant belief structure that is truly insipid and damaging, both to its followers and others. To be sure, moreover, more than a modicum of sarcastic wit will be interposed---as that is my M.O.---but no more toward the religious snipers than anyone else. At any rate, I don't feel that (as I believe Marlene may have pointed out) anything said was intended to, nor had the effect of, discouraging intelligent repartie. Part of what comes across as a wolfpack response is attributable merely to the aggregation of individual reactions to the pair of divine interventionists, as all of us have a hard time believeing that anyone really buys that stuff---and the conglomeration of single responses sounded like a chorus. As for typos, my brief experience on the Man-as-M&M site has been that generally they are disregarded, unless there is something particularly humorous or ironic about them. That's my approach, anyhooo. "For many are called names, but few are frozen like deer in the headlights." RICH CORINTHIANS LEATHER 007:License to Chill - 0:18:37 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM Then again, we could be in for it...:Of course, god, being a selfish and pigheaded deity, may not have given our vatican-ationers the intelligence to fire back at us, preferring instead to save the fun of retaliation for his omnipotent, obnoxious self: "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." ROMANS POLANSKI Under 21 (Please NOTE: unlike my previous satirical scripture citations, this one is real, except for the "Polanski" and the "Under."....That being the case, Melissitor General, perhaps we were all just being very godlike, albeus wittier]). - 0:27:55 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Bill feeling a little goofy...:RON…. Where are you? I'll try to get on AOL tomorrow morning and answer any messages. TGIF…. Or is it SHIT (sorry honey its Thursday). I've been Soooo… Con@%^#fused this week, after taking a week off last week, trying to play catch-up with co-ordinating this big project at work. The only way I could have accomplished more this past week would have been to, "Have shoved a broom up my ASS and swept the floor when I walked, ha!" Speaking of corporations (and with special thoughts of your last job), how's your new job coming? Remember as one slides down the Professional CAREER Banister's (PCB's…sounds somewhat carcinogenic, huh?) of life, one is occasionally annoyed by the little PRICKS along the way that try to personally affect one's CA-REAR. However, one's DEEPEST concern must always be of the proximity of this corporate woody, from whence one's support lies, that can, at a moment notice, turn one's CA-REAR into a CA-REAM! CHEERS, my good friend, the weekend is here! - 0:31:42 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Adam Time for a system crash^^^^^:Speaking in tongues of the bible, I assume that everyone knows the difference between Princess Di and the wife of Lot, yes? - 0:31:59 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Bill...:AHHH MELISSA, Since I have been here longer than anyone, that is currently posting, I do remember you well from a year and a half ago. You are the Native American who once severely admonished me for asking the good christian "Lorraine" (after she dumped on me and then claimed she was an Oxymoron), "What part of Oxy-moron are you?" I'll admit that comment wasn't in good taste. I took your good advice then and have tried to be more tolerant here with both atheists and christians. It's good to read your sensible wisdom, and I totally agree that its not good to pa-ron-atize (eat alive) other posters. Welcome back! - 0:32:30 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:ADAM, I will have to review and answer your most respected post tomorrow when I'm in a more logical mood! - 0:33:07 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

RON...--->BILL...: Work is great. At Baker Oil Tools we have the very best people. They are very supportive of me during these shitty days of divorce. I love my job. I'm a V.I.P. here and I'm listed at the top of my department's food chain. Susan has agreed to join me in counseling and we have to work hard to save our marriage. I know I'll be working hard to do so. I love my wife and will pluck the stars from the night sky for her. I will save or marriage...how do you show the woman you love that you love her? She thinks my words are crap. How do I show her I love her? - 1:57:35 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:ADAM- That quote from the scriptures "For many are called names, but few are frozen like deer in the headlights" RICH CORINITHIONS LEATHER 007: Licence to Kill is actually another version of "their faces are like the contenance of that of the cow watching a passing train" RON-OMENS :6:66 - 3:09:06 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:RON- It's really good to hear that you and sue are trying to work things out! Ian will be a happy little boy! Just thought I would let Adam know that the "cow thing" was a Ron-omen original. - 3:14:22 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:ADAM- Mean Marlene (according to Melissa) wants to know how Lot's wife and Dianer are the same??????? - 3:16:54 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene :PETER- The only xtian that returns again and again is saint James. He takes a licking and keeps on ticking, he never waivers. JOETTE- Where is you girl??? - 3:20:53 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:ADAM: RETROACTIVE MORALITY?!! I am not an imbecile you jackass. I am well read enough that I've realized black inferiority was a common ideal in those days. That ideal being shared by Jefferson and Franklin was merely knowledge recently acquired by me, knowledge I thought I'd share, interesting knowledge, nothing more. I still regard both men with high esteem and admiration. That ideal is still wrong, it was wrong then just as it is wrong now. Nothing can change that. You see, that's the great thing about being human, we learn from our mistakes. We can look back and say, "Wow, did I really believe that? Then again I didn't have the information then that I have now." If that's retroactive morality, then Dog bless retroactive morality! If we don't look back on history and remember past wrong thinking, then we are destined to repeat it. I believe you've heard that before, most have. Besides, did I bash them for that belief, or was I merely relating some information? Look again, see if you can tell. I said nobody's perfect, but that's hardly admonition, now is it? - 3:46:43 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:MARLENE: Did I call you mean? As I recall, I thanked you, even agreed with you about the kitchen heat issue. Dog, selective memory is wonderful for the selector. - 3:48:44 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:BILL: You remember correctly. But I'm not complete Native American, only 1/8th, just so you don't picture Pocahontas. I guess I've always been irked to no end by the name calling. Perhaps I have no sense of humor. I just think it's childish. Sorry, all. I do remember you Bill. You share some of my own interests, I believe. Neuroanatomy, -chemistry, and such, if I remember right. As well as physics, to which I have just begun to take a liking. - 3:58:59 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa: a pretty poem for you all:Meditation at Lagunitas By Robert Hass All the new thinking is about loss. In this it resembles all the old thinking. The idea, for example, that each particular erases the luminous clarity of a general idea. That the clown- faced woodpecker probing the dead sculpted trunk of that black birch is, by his presence, some tragic falling off from the first world of undivided light. Or the other notion that, because there is in this world no one thing to which the bramble of blackberry corresponds, a word is elegy to what it signifies. We talked about it late last night and in the voice of my friend, there was a thin wire of grief, a tone almost querulous. After a while I understood that, talking this way, everything dissolves: justice, pine, hair, woman, you and I. There was a woman I made love to and I remembered how, holding her small shoulders in my hands sometimes, I felt a violent wonder at her presence like a thirst for salt, for my childhood river with its island willows, silly music from the pleasure boat, muddy places here we caught the little orange-silver fish called pumpkinseed. It hardly had to do with her. Longing , we say, because desire is full of endless distances. I must have been the same to her. But I remember so much, the way her hands dismantled bread, the thing her father said that hurt her, what she dreamed. There are moments when the body is as numinous as words, days that are the good flesh continuing. Such tenderness, those afternoons and evenings, saying blackberry, blackberry, blackberry. - 5:00:38 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:It's too bad you can't post poems in the form they're written, with their breaks and italics and such. The affect seems lost without them. Oh well. - 5:03:31 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->MELISSA..if you are so irked by the name calling, where do you get off calling Adam a jackass? Also, if you want to share your poetry selections, why not use an URL so that those interested will see it in its original form? - 11:29:33 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:ADAM, I think we basically agree on point 2 that religion is apart of secondary intelligence and is not necessarily always responsible for the murders that people commit. I would have to be very bold to say that religion has not played any role in humans committing murder. Our primary intelligence (ID) and evolutionary instincts for survival and reproduction are deterministic and beyond reason. Religions, based in the reasoning ego/superego portions of the brain, do play a part in the survival instinct of higher intelligence by ameliorating one's "fear of loss" and "hope for gain." In other words religions can lend supposed moral justification and comfort for our evil deeds, from which the bases is survival through expansion and groupism (religions, dictatorships, gangs, etc) or collectivism. But is every aspect of religion bad? On point 1, while I try not to label people, I see atheists falling into three categories: 1- Passive atheists (in the closet so to speak) that basically live and let live until cornered and then are forced to express their beliefs or maybe not. 2- Active atheists (out of the closet) that are not collectivists but yet are very involved and vocal (most that post here I think) in educating others in their beliefs and their personal rights. 3- Lastly atheists that are collectivists (C Drake) and want to form coalitions and groups (not much unlike any other religion I think) to attack and destroy other ideologies or religions. If you see coalitions like religions as bad then why do you not see atheists' coalitions as bad? And thinking that an atheist like Stalin, who murdered tens of thousands of his own people, were not killing in the name of atheism is to me in error. Even though he did not support an atheist collectivist organization, atheism was a part of his psychic (secondary intelligence) and had to have played some role in the acts that he committed. - 13:07:54 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:I received an interesting email this morning: >>>Date: August 14 >>>Subject:Thermodynamics of Hell >>> >>>Guys, hot or cold, it will be a lonely place without G-d. >>> >>>Exothermic or Endothermic? >>> >>>A true story: A thermodynamics professor had written a take-home exam >>>for his graduate students. It had one question: "Is hell exothermic or >>>endothermic? Support your answer with a proof." Most of the students >>>wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law or some variant. One >>>student however wrote the following: >>> >>>First, we postulate that if souls exist they must have some mass. If >>>they do, then a mole of souls must also have mass. So, at what rate are >>>souls moving into hell, and at what rate are souls leaving? I think we >>>can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave. >>> >>>Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering hell, let's look >>>at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these >>>religions state that if you are not a member of their religion you will >>>go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people >>>do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people >>>and all souls go to hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we >>>can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially. Now, >>>we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle's Law states >>>that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same >>>the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant. >>> >>>1. So, if hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which >>>souls enter hell, than the temperature and pressure in hell will >>>increase until all hell breaks loose. >>> >>>2. Of course, if hell is expanding at rate faster than the increase of >>>souls in hell, than the temperature and pressure will drop until hell >>>freezes over. >>> >>>So which is it? If we accept the postulate given me by Therese Banyan >>>during freshman year, and take into account the fact that I still have >>>not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then #2 cannot be >>>true, and hell is exothermic. >>> >>>The student got the only A. - 13:09:42 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene in the artisitc:JOETTE- Do you like this, roses are red,violets are blue, hey, I'm just a poet, what can I do?..... - 13:11:10 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..do you really believe that being an atheist had anything to do with Stalin's actions? I really like your "hell" post. - 13:18:47 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:--MARLENE..very clever. Now, if god is dog, does that mean that dogs are gods? Good thing I have cats! - 13:20:53 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Bill...:RON, I'm not a marriage counselor but, I think when you focus on loving yourself and your life-- which must include her in your activities--, then that natural past attraction may be rekindled. Putting restrictions or conditions on one's relationship, in a codependency type manor, can give good reason to divide I think! JOETTE, Yes! - 14:42:50 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:--->BILL..sorry sugarplum, but Stalin did not kill because he was an atheist. He was a criminally insance despot, terribly afraid that someone would take the reins of power away from him. He was not terribly selective in his massacre selections, not because people practised religion. He was a communist. A communist has not religious doctrine. They are born and raised not to consider religion period. - 18:56:18 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:I apologize for the length of this post, but I found it to be an interesting rebuttal from an atheist perspective, on the "PASCAL'S WAGER" argument which is implemenyed by many theists to defend their beliefs. It is written by George H. Smith who also wrote "Atheism: The Case Against God" As one final argument or satire on an argument, you may have heard of Pascal's wager at some point. Blaise Pascal was the famous French mathematician, philosopher, and theologian. He came up with this argument which consequently became quite famous, which went something as follows. Reason can't prove or disprove the existence of God. Weigh the odds. If the atheist is correct, we're going to die, nothing will happen, and nothing is lost. But if the Christian is correct, the nonbelievers are going to believe in Hell for eternity. So it seems like the practical odds would lie with Christianity. We would wager on Christianity because the practical odds are so important. If you wager on Christianity and there is no god, you don't lose anything. The first obvious problem with this is it completely shoves aside the whole issue of intellectual integrity, as if you can just do a complete turn-about in your beliefs willy-nilly without suffering any psychological damage, which simply isn't possible. It would require such a gross miscarriage of intellectual integrity to do this kind of thing that it's inconceivable that someone with Pascal's kind of mind would even offer it. But I want to offer you a kind of counter-wager, called the "Smith's wager." Here are the premises of my wager: 1. The existence of a god, if we are to believe in it, can only be established through reason. 2. Applying the canons of correct reasoning to theistic belief, we must reach the conclusion that theism is unfounded and must be rejected by rational people. Now comes the question, "But what if reason is wrong in this case?", which it sometimes is. We are fallible human beings. What if it turns out that there is a Christian god and He's up there and He's going to punish for eternity for disbelieving in Him. Here's where my wager comes in. Let's suppose you're an atheist. What are the possibilities? The first possibility is there is no god, you're right. In that case, you'll die, that'll be it, you've lost nothing, and you've lived a happy life with the correct position. Secondly, a god may exist but he may not be concerned with human affairs. He may be the god of traditional Deism. He may have started the universe going and left it to its traditional devices, in which case you will simply die, that is all there is to it, again, and you've lost nothing. Let's suppose that God exists and He is concerned with human affairs -- He's a personal god -- but that He is a just god. He's concerned with justice. If you have a just god, he could not possibly punish an honest error of belief where there is no moral turpitude or no wrongdoing involved. If this god is a creator god and He gave us reason as the basic means of understanding our world, then He would take pride in the conscientious and scrupulous use of reason the part of His creatures, even if they committed errors from time to time, in the same way a benevolent father would take pride in the accomplishments of his son, even if the son committed errors from time to time. Therefore, if there exists a just god, we have absolutely nothing to fear from such a god. Such a god could not conceivably punish us for an honest error of belief. Now we came to the last possibility. Suppose there exists an unjust god, specifically the god of Christianity, who doesn't give a damn about justice and who will burn us in Hell, regardless of whether we made honest mistakes or not. Such a god is necessarily unjust, for there is no more heinous injustice we could conceive of, than to punish a person for an honest error of belief, when he has tried to the best of his ability to ascertain the truth. The Christian thinks he's in a better position in case this kind of god exists. I wish to point out that he's not in any better position than we are because if you have an unjust god. The earmark of injustice is unprincipled behavior, behavior that's not predictable. If there's an unjust god and He really gets all this glee out of burning sinners and disbelievers, then what could give him more glee than to tell Christians they would be saved, only to turn around and burn them anyway, for the Hell of it, just because he enjoys it? If you've got an unjust god, what worst injustice could there be than that? It's not that far-fetched. If a god is willing to punish you simply for an honest error of belief, you can't believe He's going to keep his word when He tells you He won't punish you if you don't believe in Him because He's got to have a sadistic streak to begin with. Certainly He would get quite a bit of glee out of this behavior. Even if there exists this unjust god, then admittedly we live in a nightmarish universe, but we're in no worse position than the Christian is. Again, if you're going to make the wager, you might as well wager on what your reason tells you, that atheism is correct, and go that route because you won't be able to do anything about an unjust god anyway, even if you accept Christianity. My wager says that you should in all cases wager on reason and accept the logical consequence, which in this case is atheism. If there's no god, you're correct; if there's an indifferent god, you won't suffer; if there's a just god, you have nothing to fear from the honest use of your reason; and if there's an unjust god, you have much to fear but so does the Christian. We come back full-circle to our original point, that atheism must always be considered within the wider context of the respect for reason and the respect for truth. I think that, as atheists, when you try to communicate the atheistic message this is the central point you should hammer home again and again. - 19:11:01 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

RON...--->Marlene...: My sife is dead set on divorcing me. I'm dead set on saving our marriage. I'm going to counseling to work out our problems with the end being she comes back home, she's going because she wants us to be friends after the divorce for Ian's sake. I have my work cut out for me. She displays many signs of her love for me, jealousy, starting to tell me her feelings about various personal issues, beginning to work with me in some fashion, and we have opened a dialog again. My hopes are high and I will win, or die. - 20:43:48 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

RON...oops...: "sife" was to be "wife". I have a lot on my mind. - 20:44:36 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Bill...:JOETTE, Please don't reject me so! Let me be on top, just once! I agree that atheism was probably not his primary reason for committing all those murders. He was paranoid and wanting to hold on to power at any cost (survival instincts). Do you relate to the three types of atheist that I posted on earlier? He may not have been an active atheist that went after christians just because they were christians, but he was still an atheist with no belief in god. This non-belief had to be apart of his psychic, no? Any secondary intelligent belief, whether it's a belief in god or not, would have to have some secondary affect on your actions, no? - 22:31:33 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:PETER, I enjoyed your post and I really don't have much of a differing viewpoint from you on this. Your post seemed very logical and rational without emotion. Nobody really knows for sure what the afterlife will bring. You at least use the words IF "this" or "that" god exists then…. and the only thing I have held open is this possibility. It is for this reason that I don't attack or judge other people unless they first dump on me. I don't personally practice a religion. My mother came over today and brought me lunch. She wanted to say the blessing and I said, out of love and respect for her, "sure mom go ahead." My wife and I don't say the blessing, but what is the harm if she wants to? What am I suppose to tell this woman, who loves me so much, "No mom this is my house and don't you know that blessings and such are anti-mind?" She's like a little child and I wouldn't try to change her for the world. - 22:32:05 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:MELISSA, I know you're not Pocahontas, as I remember teasing you about being a "want-a-bee." And you're still going with that same guy too; It must be love! Have you lurked here much this year? - 22:40:18 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:JOETTE: I guess you guys are rubbing off. Besides I don't find occasional name calling offensive, just the overused and abused kind. And I got the poem from a book. I don't LIVE on the computer, so I don't have a URL. Sorry some of us have lives. (Note to self: refrain from sharing pretty things with Joette.) - 23:54:47 on 13 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->MELISSA..do you think you could be any more petty or are you going to attempt to be a tad more childish before you disappear for another few months? I don't have an URL for myself either, but I do know how to attach one which contains articles that may be of interest to others. You are a belligerent know it all, and I would appreciate it if you not refer any of our postings to me in the future. - 0:15:09 on 14 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->MELISSA..the page cop...the above post should read "your", not "our". - 0:16:48 on 14 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..I can not agree with you about atheism playing a part in Stalin's actions. He was not an atheist, as I someone on this page may be an atheist. As I mentioned previously, he was raised with no religion. Therefore he would not consider himself an atheist, as he would have no need to label himself in a religious society. Therefore, it would not be part of his secondary intelligence, as it would not occur to him, or any other pure communist. I maintain that there was no blood shed over his being an atheist (not an ATHEIST). - 0:21:27 on 14 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..and another thing (just joking)! You have brought up a good point when you talked about your mom visiting. It would be interesting to hear how others handle the same situation.... - 0:23:45 on 14 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:BILL--I realize I could have clarified that post a bit better, but those were not my words. Immediately after I mention the title of Smith's book is where his essay begins. No, I wouldn't have objected to my mother in the situation you mentioned either, but I certainly would on another occaision, quietly--yet very firmly-- mention to her( and anyone else for that matter) that in my home I do not practice nor do I approve of any religious practice, and I would appreciate this to be respected in the future. This can be done diplomatically, and without confrontation--I have done it myself. - 0:45:31 on 14 Sep 97 GMT

Bill...:JOETTE, You probably know more about Stalin's history than I, but it's hard for me to imagine someone not being exposed to religion and not having to make the conscious choice to say no. I suppose I should just defer judgement on this one. Do you see atheists as falling into three categories? How do you handle personal family religious situations? It doesn't bother me at all to go through the motions for someone you care about. PETER, How does you family take your atheism? - 1:39:54 on 14 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->BILL...I like the categories you have put atheists into. I believe Marlene had also mentioned them at one point. As far as my family goes (what is left), I a sister who is a devout Mennonite on Sundays (and one heck of a beer drinking dart player every other day), and she just does not understand atheism. I try to avoid conversations with her about religion as she is very vocal, and is sure I will go to hell. Mind you, sometimes I enjoy going to church with her, but mostly for social reasons, as I was brought up in the Mennonite faith, as well as Lutheran. I have two brothers who are also atheist, so there is never a problem there. My in-laws, well that is a different story, and I will never, ever enter into a discussion with them, but they understand that in my home there are no religious observances (e.g. "grace" (except that is my cat's name)) - 3:05:28 on 14 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:BILL----They weren't happy about it at first, but its been at 20 years since I told them. ( Parents, brothers and sisters--all of whom are theists). I avoid getting into debates with them as nothing gets resolved and hard feelings are usually the result--and it's something that is best to be avoided. In my own home, both my daughter and wife are atheists, so we's cool here. - 3:19:34 on 14 Sep 97 GMT

Guess who:JOETTE: I'm a belligerent know it all and need to leave? What the hell are you my dear? Saint Joette can dish it but she can't take it? I think you have me greatly misunderstood, otherwise, you'd be aware that I would never point out your typos, except to make a point about the stupidity of doing so. Didn't I speak of the intelligence of the people who so regularly post on this page, on how much I learn by visiting? O ye of selective memory do squeeze my heart hard. - 16:17:56 on 14 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:JOETTE: Hear me out one more time and I'll leave you alone: I was reading Bill's post regarding Peter's on Pascal's Wager. In it he said he doesn't attack or judge another unless he's dumped on first. It occurred to me you feel I dumped on you when I made known my objections to the ad hominem and trivial typo attacks some used against Miah and Aimee. Interpreting my posts that way, you and several others became immediately defensive and let go your wild dogs upon me, forever after searching for the "page cop" mentality with which you knighted me in every post I made thereafter. It's a common psychological phenomenon to see only evidence in support of preconceived ideas even in the presence of evidence to the contrary, one I've noticed myself falling prey to as well. After your first post to me, which was laden with sarcastic witticisms - such as "Since you've decided to honor us with your presence" - I then read every post you directed to me with that same tone implied, by myself if not by you. And I reacted with the same defensiveness with which you first did after assuming I had dumped on you. Let me assure you, I don't consider myself superior to any of you (which seems to be what you all think) I simply don't understand why you'd rather acknowledge the theists with negative attention than simply ignore them unless they show interest in a real conversation. I AM more interested in intelligent conversation than the derogation of one another. I noticed I've been doing the latter, a left over from, yes, my childishness, for I am a child. I am trying to grow . . . so I apologize for the derision, but not for my initial opinion. - 16:46:52 on 14 Sep 97 GMT

Bill...:PETER, Your post was clear, I just scanned right through the part when you said, "It is written by George H. Smith." How do you view the different categories of atheists? I not sure why this is important to me; I suppose I am just trying to understand how everything fits into my logic and reason of why things are the way they are. With your family so well rooted into theism, you must have been rooted pretty heavily once yourself? It good that your immediate family all see's things from the same perspective though. - 17:34:50 on 14 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, I couldn't get on Man-made this morning for sum"…speacking of tiepo's, ha!" reason. Every now and then Ron must cut me off, ha! Since you mentioned Stalin, I was thinking that really there must be four categories of atheists instead of three. How about the "Atheist by default?" Would this not include all children as well who have no religion? You use to be a Mennonite!!! Gosh you really did grow up in a strict religion. Of course Lutheran isn't so bad. Is your husband an atheist? I really float amongst it all (church with mom or wife occasionally) and don't allow anything to affect my true inner beliefs and values. It's all secondary intelligence "stuff" and really not that important to me. Humans create it after birth and I noticed when my dad lay dying he (as a very religious man) threw it all away in the end. He resorted back to his primary intelligence and basic instincts the two weeks he hung on before he died. What's most important to me is that which is rooted in primary intelligence. My mother's love means so much more to me than any secondary intelligence formality (going to church with her, blessings, etc). My present inner security I know has to be rooted in her overwhelming love for me when I was a child. This basic primary intelligent reality just seems to make all else so trivial. I guess we are all (sister's family, mother, and meee's family) going to go on a picnic this afternoon, but I will try to read or post tonight, Cheers! - 17:35:24 on 14 Sep 97 GMT

FYI ----->:Joe Stalin was a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. He was training to be a priest and was expelled from the seminary for missing an examination. The World Book Encyclopedia (1988 edition) at page 825 includes the following: "In 1888, at great sacrifice, Stalin's mother sent him to a little church school in Gori. He spent five years there and was a bright student. He then received a scholarship at the religious seminary in Tbilisi. He soon became known among his classmates for reading, debate, and good schoolwork. Some of his classmates later remembered that Stalin held grudges and seldom forgave people who opposed him. Stalin studied for the priesthood in the Georgian Orthodox Church. But he was repeatedly punished at the seminary for reading forbidden books. These books included Victor Hugo's novels about social conditions in France, and about French revolutionary movements. Stalin became interested in the ideas of Karl Marx, a German social philosopher. . . In 1898, Stalin joined a secret Marxist revolutionary group. The Tbilisi seminary, like many Russian schools, was a center for the circulation of forbidden revolutionary ideas. In May 1899 [which means in his SIXTH year of studying Jesus at the seminary in Tbilisi !] Stalin was expelled for not appearing for an examination. His interest in Marxism probably played a part in his dismissal. " - 17:42:58 on 14 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->MELISSA..never once in any post have I seen a request for you to leave. Why put words in people's mouths? - 19:25:14 on 14 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->MELISSA..never once in any post have I seen a request for you to leave. Why put words in people's mouths? - 19:26:44 on 14 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:BIll--Your categories of atheists are OK. I have heard of atheists divided into two larger groups being (a) An IMPLICIT atheist--a person who does not believe in a god, but who has not explicitly rejected or denied the truth of theism and (b) the EXPLICIT atheist as one who rejects belief in a God. Your categories are sort of a subdivision of these two; (a) would be like your #1, and (b)would be like #2 and #3. You have in the latter instance used the individualistic/collectivist comparison to divide it in two, but one could use different criteria as well such as former religious backgrounds, or what philosophical/psychological/scientific platform was utilized to arrive at an atheistic position etc--and these could also be applied to your #1 category as well etc. In the end, it just comes down to what criteria one choses when attempting to categorize. - 19:52:27 on 14 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:BILL---Yes, I did attend church and Sunday school at a young age, and even ( at a weak moment )went through the motions of accepting Jesus as my own personal savior--but there always was this voice in a corner of my mind " I don't believe any of this ". However, ypung christians are made to feel frightened of such thoughts--to looked upon as rejecting God, and being evil. However when I reached adulthood, I did some critical research into the matter and...Ta--DAHHH, guess what I found out? I do not hesitate to express how proud I am to have taken this step, because there are so many ingrained ( from the religion itself ) psychological and social pressures which discourage such ventures, and this is probably why few people take this step--which is inarguably a step FORWARD. No doubt about it,IT IS SCARY! Occaisionally I'll run into a theist who learns of my atheism, and they usually say something like " Oh well, some day you'll learn". I just smile and say to myself "For the sake of the future of the human race, I hope YOU and those like you will someday learn." I have on occaision said something like this to them, but they just become to belligerent, dumbfounded--often screaming and frothing--so its not worth it anymore. - 20:12:01 on 14 Sep 97 GMT

TOLSTOY frowning and scratching his beard::Yes yes yes to above post. Gimme a good answer to relentless Xtians doing the "We can all see you are searching for Somethang ...". Oh Hi I'm Tolstoy. - 21:18:03 on 14 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:PETER, I don't think I want to get too carried away with these atheist categories. I feel comfortable with these four that I have mentioned, but I'm not sure why I feel the need to differentiate. I guess it's because it seems to be an ongoing thing about atheism being like religion, but I think that is only true in the "collectivist category." Do you see the collectivist category of atheists as being similar to any other religious group (i.e. coalitions, members, money, agenda's, etc)? - 22:53:03 on 14 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, So in reference to FYI, would you agree that Stalin's atheism was tied to religion and apart of his secondary intelligence and thus his psychic? And if theists are held accountable for murder -- because they are theists -- , then would not atheists similarly have be held accountable, such as Stalin, because he was atheist? I still seem to be comfortable with the four categories though, as there are children or humans, as you brought to my attention, that are totally unaware of any religion. Welcome TOLSTOY! - 22:54:14 on 14 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:JOETTE: Fine, so you didn't, I misremembered, you merely suggested I would leave for a few months again. Point conceded. But why are you so nit-picky, only focusing on this mistake and using it as an opportunity to deride? Is it so hard to call a truce? To agree to disagree on certain points of posting-to-xtians ettiquette? - 23:08:30 on 14 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:JOETTE: almost forgot: If you wouldn't mind, could you enlighten me on how to attach a URL, as I like to share poetry (one of my greatest loves) and such and wouldn't want to litter the page with nonsense if possible to make it appear in original form, also so as not to bother those uninterested. Thanks if you can find it in your heart to reply positively. - 23:13:24 on 14 Sep 97 GMT

RON...--->Melissa...: Just copy the URL from the "address" line of your favorite page and then paste it into the URL box at the bottom of this page. Include your name in the name box and you can also write a message too. - 1:00:21 on 15 Sep 97 GMT

RON...--->ALL...: Has anyone here ever had a relationship with a person with no self esteem, no self confidence, doesn't believe you give a poop about them, and claims you have been unfaithful, and also is being totally defensive about feelings? I need to show this person I love her and am not doing a good job.....yes, I'm off topic and will be for another six weeks. This is the hardest thing I've ever done and worth every minute to me. - 1:05:01 on 15 Sep 97 GMT

PETER:RON---I think it could be potentially disastrous to seek such help here amongst non-professionals. You need to ask someone who is trained in dealing with matters such as these. Any such person who I've had dealings with says that asking friends and aquaintances for "advice" only results in them saying things that they think you want to hear rather than a concise and well-though out action plan, based on well researched findings. We of course all hope things work out for you, but I for one feel this is the best advice at could give to you, or anyone else , in times such as these. All the best to you, Ron. - 2:31:07 on 15 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:----TOLSTOY---Try this ( it may feel funny at first, but it works ): Establish eye contact if possible immediatly after they say it, then at that point say " I think we all search for things until our dying day" Then continue to look directly at them, grinning slightly, and until THEY begin to feel uncomfortable and look away. They will usually talk about something else. Playing "comparitive philosophical judo" can be such a futile exercise, especially with a theist. - 2:40:00 on 15 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:BILL---Collectivist atheist organizations, I think are doomed right at its roots--look at Carrie Drake. As I unsuccessfully tried to explain to her, there are infinite ways to arrive at a atheistic position, since it is an abscence of a certain belief. It would be like trying to organize a collective based on those who do not believe in Santa Claus. There are organizations looking for members who are atheistic, and feel it would be better to society as a whole if theism was abandoned, but their atheism is a result of a much broader interest such as SCICOP, Skeptics of America, Humanists etc. As far as organizations such as these are concerned, their interest isn't in the strength of numbers--as a collective is, but just more as a society for members who have something in common and can discuss ideas. Most philosophers have some type of organization or club ( including Ayn Rand )and from what I know about them, they are built along the same lines. - 2:55:51 on 15 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene :FYI- That was informative! I as well have been reading a bit on Stalin. PETER and BILL- How about this division, I'm an atheist who does not accept the supernatural PERIOD! That goes for gods, goddesses, elves, fairies, bvm's, flying turtles..etc. BILL- Your still trying to attach a BS to an atheist. People have killed because they believe god wants them to do so. Atheists may kill because they want to OR for a cause but most definately not because they reject the supernatural. RON- I think Peter's advice is the best. A trained councellor can help you to stand back and look at the whole picture. Right now your standing too close to it to appreciate Sue's problems as well as yours. JOETTE- What has Erika had to whine about lately? MELISSA- To embrace the xtian's belief is giving them mixed message that your ready for conversion. - 3:08:13 on 15 Sep 97 GMT

PETER:----MARLENE---Yes you, like myself, are a very, very EXPLICIT atheist( or "critical" atheist ) which is defined further as "one who rejects the idea of God or any supernatural being" :o) - 3:18:59 on 15 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:While on the topic of religious moms and child atheists. My mom is a educated lady, a teacher for 25 years and a principal for 10, now retired but still tutoring. About a month ago, she and my sister-in-law came to visit. My mom isn't super religious, raised anglican, still anglican but still figures that some things are "god's way". All three of us were having coffee and she mentioned that a relative who had cancer was dying, it was "god's way". Of course I asked "why do you say this?" She knows I'm atheist and should have known not to go there! My sister-in-law also asked "Why?". My poor mom didn't have an answer. But..But...she was quite interested when I explained my opinion. But..but..she had that frightened look about her. I think she was fearful that if there was a god he would punish her in the afterlife for doubting his exsistence. BUT,,at least she was thinking. Peter made a very good point, people are afraid to doubt god's exsistence. - 3:22:13 on 15 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:MARLENE: I didn't say embrace them, I said ignore them. I find xtians ignorant and not worth talking to. They are nearly incapable of rational thought, and don't seem to understand they're own philosophy. They try to offer "evidence" of some supernatural existence with bible quotes or by trying (feebly) to debunk evolution and carbon dating. Most of them don't understand the fundamental tenet of religion is that it requires no proof of existence for believers, only faith. They don't understand that we need more proof than the bible or koran or whatever, real physical proof. So its useless to argue with them, and I don't like to feed their preconceived misconceptions of atheists with derision. It's funny, my own grandfather wants me to read books by converted agnostics (notice they claim agnosticism not atheism), and I told my mom I would so long as their conversion was dependent upon scientific proof or a really good critique of carbon dating and evolution, but no bible quoting. She was hurt, even after all our talks, she still doesn't understand this necessity of hard core facts. No I hardly Embrace xtians, unless its my mom. - 7:10:10 on 15 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:RON: Thanks. So if this is my favorite page, then I copy the URL, then give name and message and I'm set? - 7:12:14 on 15 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- We're at an understanding! I think it was Richard who refused to acknowledge first time posting xtians. If they continued then he blasted them. Your right, only agnostics (fence sitters) can get into myth. I can imagine atheist doing this. It would be like learning to unlearn reading. - 12:30:15 on 15 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- The should have read "I can't imagine an atheist doing this". - 13:00:15 on 15 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MELISSA: in the area of your post of scriptural sources as evidence of supernatural contact, i encountered a quite interesting thing. While reading a book copyrighted in 1913, the author referred to "Discrimination,as the 'proverb' rightly teaches, is the beginning of mind", so, i check the bible i have, its' copyrighted in 1970, and its' ot proverbs does not include that word. It would be very interesting to get ahold of a bible copyrighted around that time or earlier. May one suppose that sometime in the current century the supernatural got socially sensitive, and updated his/her/its' vernacular in the records? - 15:05:02 on 15 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Perhaps your early thiestic relationship can help here, in the Random house dictionary it attributes the Augsberg confessions to lutheranism in the 1500's. I read that document when i found it at a site named catholic historical doc's or something like that. i'll look around but i saw your revelation above and saw no harm in asking you about that stuff. - 15:19:01 on 15 Sep 97 GMT

Adam They're BACK!!!:BILL;;;;; I think you inferred what I did not imply. I am not against religions as coalitions---indeed, people of like minded beliefs OUGHT to, and naturally will, gravitate into groups. I'm against religion on the basis of the substance of the beliefs......MELISSA the DISSAH':::: Actually, I do think that your statement about certain founding faddahs went beyond mere observation and into the sphere of indictment. After all, if it was merely a non-editorial observation, then I would characterize it as information we all possess already. Thus, for an observer to conclude that it was a knock---even if not of the worst sort (Get It? KNOCKWORST?)---would be reasonable. In addition, your retort may have been overly offensively defensive; I didn't level any sort of outright accusation, but rather opined that I'd hate to see you jump on what I consider to be an unfortunate PC-driven bandwagon. As for your first-strike expletive assault, I defer to my Strategic Joette Initiative (a.k.a. "Skydome Technology"), who took the words right out of the jackass' mouth....ALL::: expect to see a series of responses from me to stuff posted on the weekend, as has become my vice of verse every Monday. - 20:05:34 on 15 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM Riddle Redux:Marlene, What'd I mean? It was the DIFFERENCE between DI & Lot's wife, not the SIMILARITY. - 20:07:17 on 15 Sep 97 GMT

Adam:BILLSHEVIK---- I really don't think Stalin had any interest in killing theists qua theists; he was an equal-opprtunity oppressor seeking to squelch all potential sources of dissent, the church being among 'em. - 20:10:04 on 15 Sep 97 GMT

Adam PET PEEVES:Best Pet, Jo-ette...Should've known you were a cat purrson. Scratch up another thing we have in common. - 20:13:52 on 15 Sep 97 GMT

Adam REAL PET PEEVE:Marlene]]]] Thanks for bringing up Agnostics. They are the lowest intellectual scum! Recall the "debate" raised by Miah Culpa over whether Atheist or theists are cowards. There is nothin' yellower than a woosie agnostic! - 20:32:10 on 15 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:Okay ADAM-ant, what is the difference????? I know, they both turned into pillars, na..that was a tunnel..I dunno! - 21:50:03 on 15 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:Or they were both the salt of the earth? - 21:55:41 on 15 Sep 97 GMT

Adam Wit da Ansa'////:Marlene gets 0.5, Joette 0.3///// The difference between the princess and Lot's wife was that Diana was turned into a pillar of reinforced concrete. - 22:30:07 on 15 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:MARLENE: Your mother and my mother seem very much the same. In one conversation she grasped my philosophy and pretty much admitted at least the possibility of no god. But in defense of her belief she asked, if there is no god, what does it hurt to worship one? I explained she'd be deluding herself, damaging the sanctity of her mind. This is where she got defensive. She's started taking my brother and sisters to church and has asked me not to influence them (I don't comply) on matters of religion. (My little sister says she saw Jesus in the clouds, that he's cute. This scares me more than a little.) Yet, she keeps urging me to read the books of converted "nonbelievers". I explained she was being hypocritical. She quickly feigned urgency to leave and hung up. I think if she would just stop and think she might come to the same conclusion as myself, she's a smart woman. I think this is what she is afraid of. - 23:49:31 on 15 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:ADAM: You are right. I was overly defensive and needlessly offensive. I apologize to you as I did to Joette for the derision. But is there something wrong with thinking that the philosophy of white superiority, or black superiority, or asian superiority, etc. is wrong in any time period? I realize it was the sign of the times, and as I said it doesn't diminish my respect for those men considerably. Heck, they also believed in a supernatural being, not a xtian god, but something beyond human comprehension, and I don't let that get in the way either. I just assumed that if one was against slavery it would follow that the reason was because they didn't see blacks as inferior, but equal, if not somewhat primitive. Granted faulty logic was at play. However, I was shocked to read some of their letters, and see those words flowing from the hands of people I respected. Just as I was shocked to find out Ayn Rand was a hypocrite, though I still agree with her philosophy. I think I understand what you are saying though. For most people, morality is relative, to the person or the times or whatever, so to judge is a bit presumptuous. But that's how the human mind works. We judge every day, right from wrong, reality from fantasy, and we can only judge based on past and present experiences, and we are also blessed because we are social animals and share our mistakes with one another, whether we realize they're mistakes or not, and can learn, by judging, from others actions. Am I right when I assume retroactive morality is an extension of the presumption of absolute morality, and you do not believe in absolute morality? - 0:07:39 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->MELISSA..would you please expand and your assertion that Ayn Rand was a hypocrite? - 0:13:02 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:--ADAM..that was the worst Diana joke I've heard yet! (next to the "left her prince behind") - 0:15:16 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->TO ALL..an observation. Last week there was a lot of chattering about Diana's funeral, but no one has mentioned anything about Mama T's rites of passage. Wasn't anyone interested in a high mass which was spoken in the language of Calcutta? Or, is it, that most people really didn't care about it (I am not just talking about we here). I was up all of Friday night, and almost all the channels I receive were showing it, but I preferred to look at the TV guide channel to paying homage to this "little saint". - 0:18:46 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:CARL: very funny. I think most orthodox bible bangers would say yes, god needed to make the bible more approachable by the public and so divinely intervened and whispered into the ears of the editors that they need to change a few things in the next edition. Its too bad too, I like that saying, "Discrimination is the beginning of mind". Its very scientific. Of course I don't mean discrimination in its most popularized meaning as malignant prejudice. But more in the scientific, or, perhaps more appropriately, skeptic sense. Maybe that's why it was ommitted, because of the changing numinosity of the word. - 0:18:54 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->TO ALL..I wasn't here last year, and I am wondering if anyone here celebrates xmas? - 0:20:49 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, PETER, I am back to three categories, as I don't see how anyone could be considered an atheist that had no concept of god. Whether that person was an adult or child or dog, they would first have to be able to conceptualize a "god" in order to make a rational decision to reject god, no? Also in thinking about the other three categories, passive (closet), active, and collectivists, I tend to currently see them in terms of psychology. Psychologists have divided human personalities up into 16 categories based on the Myers-Briggs indicator. This personality indicator (test) has been around for decades and is widely accepted by professionals in psychology and corporations. Are you guys familiar with it? Basically half of the categories fall on the "introvert" side and the other half on the "extrovert" side. So the "passive" (closet) atheist is really nothing more than an "introverted" atheist and the "active" category is really nothing more than the "extroverted" atheist. You guys are definitely "explicit" extroverts! A "collectivist" would just be those "introverts" and "extroverts' that just had to join forces in a group! - 0:24:47 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:ADAM, MARLENE, Stalin's atheism was tied to religion and apart of his "secondary intelligence" and thus apart (conscious or otherwise) of his psychic? And if theists are held accountable for murder -- because they are theists -- , then would not atheists similarly have be held accountable, such as Stalin, because he was atheist? - 0:25:40 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:MARLENE: Did you know that Michael Shermer, the editor-in-cheif of _Skeptic_ claims agnosticism and doesn't like atheists because he says they are too dogmatic? Chalk up another fallen hero for me. ADAM: Is this retroactive morality at work as well? Or is it o.k. because I'm judging in the present time? No mean-spiritedness here, just pure curiosity. - 0:28:03 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->>>>>>>>>>>BILL, BILL, BILL..as I mentioned, Adam concurred and I am sure the history books will tell you that Stalin was selective in his habitual murder plots in that if any one person, or group of persons, was thought (by him) to be a political threat to him, he would make them disappear. Can anyone here possibly educate me as to any examples of slaughters performed by his regime because of religious beliefs? - 0:32:16 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:BILL: I'm majoring in psychology right now and am familiar with Meyers-Briggs. I always score way on the introvert side of that thing. I've only recently gotten up the balls to tell the xtians who knock on my door or stop me in the halls of school to invite me to their churches that I am an atheist. I never cared much before to enter into the discussion that would ensue. I like your division of atheists based on this scale. But an atheist is an atheist is an atheist. Atheism is simply the absence of a belief in the supernatural, period. It really has no moral implications, as many atheists follow different moral tenets. I've found this is the point confounded in most non-atheist and several atheist minds. So, on Stalin, his being an Atheist had nothing to do with his being a serial killer. The one didn't lead to the other. He's simply a megalomaniacal personality who acheived power in history, as did Hitler and George Bush. Accident of circumstance. - 0:37:49 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:JOETTE: I celebrate xmas, though it annoys the hell out of my boyfriend. And I'd be glad to expand on Ayn Rand's hypocrisy. I wish I could find the document I printed out so I could be more specific and give more examples (its been a year) but here goes: What stuck with me was that she first of all demanded that everyone have the same taste in art, music, literature, everything that she had. If you disagreed with her on a certain point you were out of her circle. Basically, conform or be shunned. And yet, she was a proponent of individualism and preserving the sanctity of one's mind, of rational thought and deliberation, not blind subservience. Also, she was married and had an affair with her protege, Nathaniel Branden, and convinced her husband and his wife that this was o.k. Yet, if you read one of the short stories she wrote "The Husband I Bought", where the main character's husband has fallen in love with another woman; that husband does not follow his impulses and go after the woman, but loves her from afar, still faithful, if not emotionally, to his wife. According to Ayn Rand, her stories depict worlds as she thinks they SHOULD be. So she thinks one should remain faithful till his/her partner lets him/her go. Which the wife does in the story, because she loves him so much she'd rather see him happy. O.K. now the last part of Ayn Rand's hypocrisy -- Nathaniel Branden fell in love with another woman. Ayn Rand became furious with him and severed all ties. Now, according to her own philosophy, shouldn't she have let him go gracefully? She talked the talk, but she hardly walked the walk. - 0:53:03 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:MELISSA, ADAM, But atheist are human and thus have morals (well most anyway, ha!) so therefore it's a part of their psychic. Joette's friend, King Henry, also killed people on both sides of the religious fence (as did Stalin). This brings me back to my original assertion; Most murders are committed as a result of "primary intelligence" (ID level survival instincts) and not "secondary intelligence" concepts (i.e. religion/atheism) based on the ego and superego levels of the psychic. - 1:06:23 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:--MELISSA..I know about the Nathaniel Branden affair (which should not diminish his own accomplishments; I think he's one smart cookie), but I am surprised that she required people to have the same artistic tastes. I know that she was very opinionated in those matters, and would always be able to provide solid critiques of same. If you can find that article, I would be very interested in reading it. - 1:18:41 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Joette (am I missing something here?):-->BILL..now you have me thoroughly confused...I thought that you said that religious beliefs were part of the secondary intelligence, and that the lack of the beliefs (being atheism) could be the cause of mass murders, wars etc. Isn't that how this conversation first got started. Now you state that the inclination to murder would be from the Id. I would buy that if I were a bear, lion or other predator, but for people, murdering is not somethin innate. It comes as a result of life's experiences. (IMHO) - 1:22:55 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:JOETTE: I agree, Nathaniel Branden is not at fault, I sympathize with him completely. I, on the other hand wasn't surprised to find out she required everyone to like what she liked. After reading _The Romantic Manifesto_, then reading this article, it made complete sense. She is very explicit in her requirements for good music and art and such, believes that if a great mathmetician sat down and studied music for a few decades, he'd find out all good music conforms to some complicated mathematical sequence. That intelligent and Randian people prefer this mathematically complicated music to what she calls pure noise (probably rock and roll), and the lazy mind will prefer the noise. My preferences are heavy metal (and some thunderous opera and classical as well as Chopin), so you can imagine how devestated I was to learn I didn't conform to the Randian definition of an intelligent person, at least in this sense. I've sense gotten over that. Anyway, when I get a chance I'll look through either my stuff or really old posts, as I've got a lot of "stuff" and see if I can find it for you. (I doubt it's still on the internet, but you never know. - 1:40:03 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:BILL--Just when I thought there was hope for you, you are again reverting to your old style of fingers-across-the-blackboard style of debate. I haven't participated at all in the Stalin thing at all, because from its inception, I recognized the futility of this endeavor. Melissa, Adam, Marlene and Joette have defended their position better than you have. Give it up. Its becoming boring. You have lost the argument. For the sake of all our patience, please concede. Now this thing with the atheist categories, we all said yours were fine. I presented the categories which are recognized in the philosophical community. I wasn't arguing with you on this one, but for some odd reason you are starting one. OK, fully defined an IMPLICIT atheist is "a person who does not believe in a god, but who has not explicitly rejected or denied the truth of theism. Implicit atheism does not require familiarity with the idea of a god". One could draw mant sub-categories from these two, but these are the main two as of now.And another thing( while I'm on a roll )--You repeatedly refer to the super-ego, Id etc. as some proven set of categories which make up the human consciousness, as if they are proven and universally andapplicable. But the trouble is--they are not. Many still defend the TABLA RASA theory--( for one )so using these divisions, as you have to prove this Stalin thing is like a christian using the Bible to prove a certain point. - 1:51:58 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:BILL: are you referring to the Freudian ID? If so, I have to say, I can't stand Freud. But, I can relate to what your saying by referring to the more neurophysiological concept of ID, namely the Limbic system. This is the most primitive part of the human brain and links us back to the reptiles, and well, all animals. It is the house of the "survival instinct" and emotions. Looking at your statement from this point of view, I could see your logic. Stalin could have mass murdered people because, due to some chemical imbalance possibly, he thought it necessary for his survival. Dissenters posed a threat to his survival and so must be extinguished. It still has nothing to do with his being an atheist. You could argue the same for the Inquistition. Theists desired propogation of their kind, pagans were viewed as a threat, so kill 'em all, but convert 'em first to pacify the conscience. But this is all theory. No one really knows WHY people kill other people, not in the mass murder sense. I have to agree with Joette on this one, there has to be something more involved, or we'd all be out there killing our rivals. I don't think religion plays a part at all, except perhaps as an excuse on the theists part. - 1:55:07 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:MELISSA--Like all philosophies, they eventually break down at a cetain point. When Rand starts into this "art" thing, she makes some good points, but she misses on many as well. When I lend out my copy od " Objectivism:The Philosophy of Ayn Rand " ( Peikoff) I tell the ptential reader to take the last chapter about art with a grain of salt. I too started to read the "Romantic Manifesto", but her methods of defending her arguments were becoming very drawn out and very weak, often indistinguisable from her own personal prejudices--rendering it an interesting; but lacking signifigance. - 2:06:55 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

MAXWELL TO ALL: The Antichrist will persecute the saints The antichrist will sell his Arab, Muslim brothers on the re-establishment of daily sacrifice by the Jews in the interest of "brotherhood." It will appear briefly that peace can come to the Middle East, and make the central figure appear to be a miracle worker, or God himself. The true Christians, versed in the Scriptures, and leaning on the Holy Spirit, will not be fooled, and will refuse their allegiance. Organized Religion will accept the "One World Religion." The world position will be "we have endured 3,500 years of war in the Middle East, and now that we have peace, there exists 'a radical element' of Christianity that does not want peace." This "radical element" is the true church, the Bride of Christ. Scripture has proven that persecution can start instantly. Acts 8:1 (NIV) And Saul was there, giving approval to his death. On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Some of the "radical element" will be viewed by Organized Religion as "unlearned" and "ignorant." Acts 4:13 (KJV) Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. The educated members of the "radical element" will be viewed as "insane." Acts 26:24 (NIV) At this point Festus interrupted Paul's defense. "You are out of your mind, Paul!" he shouted. "Your great learning is driving you insane." Even Jesus' family thought He was out of His mind: Mark 3:20-21 (NIV) Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind." As in Jesus' day, it will be alleged that this "radical element" is "demon possessed." Matthew 10:24-25 (NIV) "A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household! Matthew 11:18 (NIV) For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' John 8:48-49 (NIV) The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?" 49 "I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. This "radical element" will be hated by Organized Religion and the world. 1 John 3:12-13 (NIV) Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you. John 15:18-19 (NIV) "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. John 17:14 (NIV) I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. Proverbs 29:10 (NIV) Bloodthirsty men hate a man of integrity and seek to kill the upright. Matthew 10:22 and Mark 13:13 (NIV) All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. Luke 6:22 (NIV) Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. How long has it been since someone in Organized Religion had enough zeal and intensity in the Holy Spirit to be hated by the world? Christian Organized Religion, to its detriment, and as proof of its decadence and deviation from Jesus Christ, has become totally acceptable to society. The world, including Organized Religion will attempt to bring this "radical element" under control by extermination. The saints will be persecuted for three and one half years. Matthew 24:9-10 (NIV) "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, Matthew 10:21-22 (NIV) "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. John 16:1-4 (NIV) "All this I have told you so that you will not go astray. 2 They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. 3 They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. 4 I have told you this, so that when the time comes you will remember that I warned you. I did not tell you this at first because I was with you. Daniel 7:20-22 (NIV) I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell--the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully. 21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom. Daniel 8:12-13 (NIV) Because of rebellion, the host of the saints and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground. 13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, "How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled--the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?" Daniel 8:23-25 (NIV) "In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a stern-faced king, a master of intrigue, will arise. 24 He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy the mighty men and the holy people. 25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power. Daniel 12:7 (NIV) The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, "It will be for a time, times and half a time. When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed." Psalms 79:1-11 (NIV) A psalm of Asaph. O God, the nations have invaded your inheritance; they have defiled your holy temple, they have reduced Jerusalem to rubble. 2 They have given the dead bodies of your servants as food to the birds of the air, the flesh of your saints to the beasts of the earth. 3 They have poured out blood like water all around Jerusalem, and there is no one to bury the dead. 4 We are objects of reproach to our neighbors, of scorn and derision to those around us. 5 How long, O LORD? Will you be angry forever? How long will your jealousy burn like fire? 6 Pour out your wrath on the nations that do not acknowledge you, on the kingdoms that do not call on your name; 7 for they have devoured Jacob and destroyed his homeland. 8 Do not hold against us the sins of the fathers; may your mercy come quickly to meet us, for we are in desperate need. 9 Help us, O God our Savior, for the glory of your name; deliver us and forgive our sins for your name's sake. 10 Why should the nations say, "Where is their God?" Before our eyes, make known among the nations that you avenge the outpoured blood of your servants. 11 May the groans of the prisoners come before you; by the strength of your arm preserve those condemned to die. Revelation 13:7 (NIV) He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. Revelation 13:10 (NIV) If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints. Daniel 7:25 (NIV) He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time. Revelation 6:9-11 (NIV) When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10 They called out in a loud voice, "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" 11 Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had been was completed. Revelation 7:9-14 (NIV) After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. 10 And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb." 11 All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12 saying: "Amen! Praise and glory and wisdom and thanks and honor and power and strength be to our God for ever and ever. Amen!" 13 Then one of the elders asked me, "These in white robes--who are they, and where did they come from?" 14 I answered, "Sir, you know." And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Revelation 20:4-5 (NIV) I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection The persecution of the saints will be physical only. The antichrist will not be able to touch our spirit or soul. Romans 8:35-39 (NIV) Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Daniel chapter 3 is a fore glimpse of the Tribulation period. Nebuchadnezzer symbolizes the false prophet in setting up an image and requiring worship by all men. Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego are symbolic of the Bride of Christ in refusing to worship the image. The fire that is "seven times hotter" is symbolic of the seven year Tribulation period. The Bride of Christ will go through the fire, but the Holy Spirit will be with them. Daniel 3:24-25 (NIV) Then King Nebuchadnezzar leaped to his feet in amazement and asked his advisers, "Weren't there three men that we tied up and threw into the fire?" They replied, "Certainly, O king." 25 He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods." No one without the power of the Holy Spirit will be able to resist the antichrist. Revelation 13:8 (NIV) All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. Revelation 13:16-18 (NIV) He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17 so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. 18 This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666. Do not delude yourself into thinking you can delay making a decision for Jesus Christ and then at the crisis moment be able to resist the "mark of the beast." Jeremiah 12:5 (NIV) "If you have raced with men on foot and they have worn you out, how can you compete with horses? If you stumble in safe country, how will you manage in the thickets by the Jordan? If you do not have the courage to bow your head in the public and thank God for your food, where there is religious freedom, how will you ever take a position for Jesus when you stand before the devil incarnate? The Word of God states that at the crisis moment, like Peter, you will fail! (Matthew 26:31-45, 69-75; Mark 14:27-31, 66-72; Luke 22:31-34, 54-62; John 13:31-38, 18:15-18, 25-27) The great difference is that Peter had time for repentance, YOU WILL NOT! If you cannot resist sin, you will never be able to resist the Man of Sin. If you do not have the power through the Holy Spirit to totally abstain from sin, you will not have the power to totally abstain from the Man of Sin. "Calvinists" or people who are deceived into believing in "Eternal Security" will rationalize and justify accepting the "Mark of the Beast" just as they rationalize and justify their sin. They believe that they are eternally secure, If they are eternally secure, when they get hungry, there will be no reason not to accept the Mark of the Beast. If you sin every day in word, thought, and deed, the sin of acceptance of the Mark of the Beast is simply one additional sin in a lifetime of sin. If you believe, as John Calvin taught, that your are predestined by God to accept or not accept Jesus Christ, when you get hungry you will rationalize that you never had a chance of salvation, and will simply accept the Mark of the Beast. Revelation 14:9-12 (NIV) A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, 10 he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." 12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus. Revelation 16:2 (NIV) The first angel went and poured out his bowl on the land, and ugly and painful sores broke out on the people who had the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. Revelation 19:20 (NIV) But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. Revelation 20:4 (NIV) I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The tragedy of the confusion put forth by Satan to deceive people concerning the Second Coming of Jesus Christ is that some "Christians" have hidden behind the lies that state that they will not be persecuted, and have become convinced that they will have an easy route to heaven. Jeremiah 14:13-14 (NIV) But I said, "Ah, Sovereign LORD, the prophets keep telling them, 'You will not see the sword or suffer famine. Indeed, I will give you lasting peace in this place.'" 14 Then the LORD said to me, "The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds. People have played fast and loose with God, not preparing themselves for the persecutions that will come. When the persecutions do come, their initial reaction will be shock and disbelief, confusion and anger directed toward God, and Christian Organized Religion. In most cases, it will take a period of time before they realize that God through His Holy Word never lied to them. They believed the teachings of man, and never judged the teachings by the Word of God. Unfortunately, during their emotional instability, without the power of the Holy Spirit, they are no match for the devil, and will accept the mark of the beast, and be DAMNED FOREVE The Colosseum in Rome where many Christians were fed alive to lions as sport after they refused to recognize the Roman Emperors as god. This is a fore glimpse of the persecution of the Christians under the false prophet (Pope-Rome) for refusing to recognize the antichrist as God. The power of the Roman Empire became the power of Organized Religion under Constantine in 323 A. D., and that lineage has descended and is alive today in the Roman Catholic Church. - 13:17:28 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Peter--:Maxwell sure has a lot to say-----He gave us a whole crock to read today---He quotes from the Bible---But all of the while---We all hope he just goes away. - 13:40:24 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:--->MAXWELL...and your point is? - 14:28:48 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MAXWELL: in addition to what's your point, what are you? You seem like one insane. - 14:51:49 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MELISSA: i liked the joke a mixture of myth and truth, but back to that possible proverb, you trailer in a good point. The point itself you waffle about as if to be politically correct. I have read elsewhere a short piece titled "Our Postmodern disease" its' first line is 'The very roots of rationality are under attack in this age, and unfortunately reason is loosing the battle.' An aquaintance thinks his gran'pa may have an old bible, so he's gonna check its' contents. If that interpolation was done it would be in line with contemporary things as they are and that action may represent one of the early vesitages for confusion. BILL's syntax seems off track as he goes from imagination- his god, to conceptualization- this requires symmetry of thought, so if he would be good enough to show some connections, prove that god is clearly a approved concept, clarity will prevail. - 15:45:18 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

test - 16:29:33 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- I know!!! Shermer was on our local radio station being interviewed by an asshole talk show host about Shermer latest book _Why People Believe Silly Things_. Another fence sitter! Sheesh! I wrote him off! Few make my list in the first place. On this Rand thing, I think NC had some arguments on that, no? I'll ask he if she recalls any. More than likely she's got them at her finger tips! JOETTE- I agree, Adam's joke is a sick one but I like sick jokes. I really miss Larson! MAXWELL- Is an idiot! - 18:50:04 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:How nice of you people to sit here and call Maxwell names because he expressed his opinions. I guess thats what you do when you have no argument against what he said. - 19:20:23 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:I challange you folks to read just one book from the Bible - With An Open Mind- and ponder it. I am a Christian, and I spend much time reading athiest views, and resources just to "know my enemies argument." Im not afraid to do this becuase I know that there is nothing people can do or say that disproved Jesus is THE Lord. - 19:24:33 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Rob:AMIE: Actually, Maxwell has not expressed his opinions, he has just regurgitated others'. Furthermore, Maxwell was responded to (quite adequately) around 6 months ago, when he last sent that exact same "opinion" to this page, so I seriously doubt his credibility. ALL: Hi, me (Rob) again. I have conned my brother into lending me his computer for a couple of days, so hopefully I might interact this time... speak to me! - 19:55:09 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:AMIE: I for one saw no opinion only references by MAX to things written by others. I am but one among others here who have read that book, in addition to it, the versions not chosen to be part of it. I read it not to know an enemy-people, only to be familiar with non-thinkers. Why would someone as i an atheist be your enemy, surely not because of a pre-scientific book written by ignorant people who wanted as now only to control me and mine. Surely that is not you too? I for one also won't concern your nonsense jesus in any discussion, only you and then only if you can think, do you have any ideas on space or the universe, or do you too just forward to its mythical destruction as about all you can say. That too is of the insane. - 19:55:37 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

----Peter-----:--AMIE--What do you consider an "open mind"? Do you mean to grant plausibility to any passage regardless of how utterly implausible it might be, or to consider everything said with honest yet critical scrutiny? With regards to Maxwell's post and the fact no one has been able to "argue against it". The explanation here is simple. He hasn't presented anything that come anywhere close to a comprehensive argument. His post is far too long, is convoluted to the point of incomprehensibility, not to mention its inability( now speaking for myself) to create any interest to the reader. You will also discover, if you ever plan to visit this page occaisionally, most of the people here are very well-versed inasfar as Biblical scripture is concerned--and I personally have read the entire Bible on three occaosions, and the New Testament dozens of times--in its entirety. I may also add this: Assuming there is a God, and the motivation here for Maxwell was to either, scare us, or inform us, and ultimately convince us--do you actually think for one moment that God would endorse this method Maxwell used today as an effective approach to getting His message across, and "selling" it to this uninformed? Has it occured to you may be the reason why the responses to your post, and Maxwell's post are ones which reflect a total lack of serious consideration, and are looked at as a joke? I can promise you that this reaction will never change, and will actually escalate into complete ridicule, if your approach remains on the same level. Care to try again? - 20:00:52 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Rob:AMIE (again): So you say you read this atheist stuff because you know there is nothing that can be done or said to disprove Jesus is THE lord. Methinks you are a little hypocritical to turn around and tell us to "read with an open mind". I nearly forgot- MAXWELL: Find somewhere else to empty your hard-drive, please (pretty please). - 20:05:43 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->ROB..do what xtians think we atheists do...steal your brother's computer so you can stay here! I am so happy to hear from you (the real England's rose). - 20:44:43 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Rob:JOETTE: Well I would steal it, but I am back in Oxford on October 8th (by some administrational blunder they let me back in). Funny you should mention the rose- I went to the same school as dear ole Elton, but fortunately I do not share his taste in hairpieces [8) - 21:08:36 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

ABSOLUT ADAM (Screw you, driver)....:Moralissa______ I don't suppose I've ever pondered the concept of "absolute morality," but now that you raise that highball, I figger I never thought about it because it never ocurred to me as an ATHEIST. What a twist! I mean, from whence would such absolut tonic emanate? Then again, without defining precisely the boundaries of the moral code imposed under the "social contract," (a basis for law and morality to which I subscribe, despite those annoying renewal notices that keep falling out of the contract into my lap), it is clear that many types of behavior---to be sure, all your garden-variety criminal activity, including 1st-degree pruning---are "immoral" without debate under the contract. In that sense, I would call them "universally accepted" rather than "absolute," a term so cloaked in religious overtones that I suppose I have a problem with it in most contexts, with notable exceptions, such as "the Blue Jays ABSOLUTELY suck." The grey penumbra-type of morality calls---for example, as brought out in the Princess Die case, the amount of risk or burden one must undertake to rescue others---necessarily must be subjective calls, even if the law understandibly must draw bright lines at times..........it also is interesting that you raise religion in the context of retroactive judgment. Prior to your return to La Page Aux Folles, I had described the ludicrous nature of religion in terms of the arrival of an intelligent alien who wants to know how our civilization can be in the infancy of space exploration, and in the process of examining both the origins of the universe on one hand and the nature of sub-sub-sub-atomic particles on the other, can comprise over 95% of individuals who adhere to essentially the same mythological fantasies as their cave-dwelling forebearers. I suggest that in the future, when most inhabitants of developed nations finally have abandoned religion, the natural question will be how we in this time, as such benficiaries of logic and science, could be under such mythological strangleholds, my prospective answer will be the same as the handful of lunatics who spoke out so vehemently against slavery in the 17th century: "The overwhelming majority of my contemporaries are woefully misguided fools." - 22:06:14 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM Aquittal never wins...:This BILL'S overdue: This gulag of a conversation about Stalin (which has brought out some interesting info, so a I am not attempting to surpress it) arose from my using the Staliminator as a pre-emptive example of the postulate that "no one has ever been killed in the name of Atheism." I think the tangents really have veered off to Vladivostok on this one. No one would suggest that atheists are not accountable for their actions, comrade! The point is that the fiction of a deity necessarily will lead to many individuals, either deluded or manipulative, to kill in the name of god. I posit again that no one has ever been killed in the name of Atheism, whereas death on behalf of the deity is a dirty deed done daily. In that Volga-vein, I say that Stalin never killed FOR Atheism, although he did kill theists as a potential source of dissent. Just wanted to get that straight for the bolshoi masses who have no idea what this five-year plan is all about. - 22:20:54 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Adam AT PRESENT:Melissa: Judging contemporaries who are not deprived of access to more or less the same knowledge base as the critic is hardly retrocative. - 22:23:26 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Adam LET'S NOT BEAT AROUND THE BUSH:DEFA-Melissa-MATION: By what measure, pray tell, is George Bush a megamaniacal personality? - 22:26:15 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Adam BOY AM I BEATle+++++:Bang, bang, Maxwell's scripture hammer came down upon my head. OUCH - 22:33:04 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM AIMING to PLEASE REASON!:Angelic Amie: You are correct: nothing will disprove the status of Christ. Now, I'd like to get you to understand why we all laugh at such a statement. You see, in logic, the most preposterous thing anyone can do is demand that an opponent prove a negative existence. The examples that follow are precisely analogous to the numbed logic that you just offered. In the law, one party to a suit claims to have mailed some letter or other piece of evidence to the other on some prior date. The purported recipient claims to have never received it. How should the court set the burden of proof on the issue---you be the judge. If you are like millions of rational people, you would demand that whoever sits in judgment require the party MAKING the assertion to offer proof of that assertion---that is, the mailing party must show a postal receipt, or at least bring forth a witness to the mailing. What you are doing is coming before the court and saying, "I definitely mailed it, and although I have no proof that I mailed it, neither do you have proof that I did not." OF COURSE WE HAVE NO PROOF YOU DID NOT. That is why the burden of proof is on YOU to support your assertions. When we Atheists make assertions, we are prepared to back them up with evidence (which you may then rebut or otherwise challenge as not credible). Thus, we say, there is a load of evidence supporting evolution of species (feel free to rebut our evidence), and as evidence of the BIG BANG origin of what we refer to as the universe, I offer the observation that ALL telescopic observations indicate that the farther the way a celestial object is from us, the faster it is receding from us. Think about that---the only logical conclusion is that everything originated from a single point (feel free to rebut this evidence). But don't you dare expect to be treated as credible by popping in and offering "You can't prove that I never mailed the letter." I hope you will respond to this post specifically, and tell me why god is any different than the easter bunny, or the great pumpkin or the tooth fairy---EACH OF WHOM MUST EXIST ACCORDING TO YOUR REASONING, AS NOTHING WILL EVER DEFINITIVELY DISPROVE THEIR EXISTENCES. If your evidence is the scriptures, I think I speak for the page when I say that yes, indeed, that is evidence of god, but we challenge the veracity of the evidence, to wit: how can you convince me that the bible is anything more than a collection of questionably reliable histical events combined with preposterous legends, all authored by men for various self-serving purposes, not the least of which was to quell challenges to their authority and legitimize their subjugation of people? I beg you to address the substance of this post. - 23:00:46 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:---AMIE---You claim to have read atheists views, I would assume then you are well versed in the art of rational debate. But are you? You say " I know that there is nothing people can do or say that disproved Jesus is THE Lord." Hmm, interesting. Now answer this question: when an atheist and a theist debate whether God exists or not, who assumes the burden of proof? The theist, or the atheist, or both? - 23:01:54 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM ALCOHOL:And if I (hic!) may sum up what Melissa, Peter and others are shaying in one swell foop, it ish "ABSHOLUT MORALITY IS A 100 PROOF BURDEN." How dry my jokes... - 23:10:46 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

RON...(he he)...: I love this page... - 23:11:48 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

PETER:--ADAM----Aww darn it, ya beat me to it! - 23:14:51 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->MAXWELL..an interesting thing you quoted was Jesus' family questioning his mental stability. Several of us have discussed this very point on this very page. It is my opinion that he may very well have had the same effect on people as...say...Charles Manson. - 23:27:20 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM: throwing George Bush's name up there with Stalin and Hitler was an attempt at humor. George Bush doesn't think atheists should be considered citizens of the United States because of their atheism. - 23:41:22 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

NONAME: Why does that make him a megalomaniac? - 23:44:51 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:ADAM: Have you read _The Virtue of Selfishness_ (of course by Ayn Rand)? It offers support of an absolute morality from an atheist viewpoint, pretty persuasive evidence I think. I'm not saying I've bought into the whole thing, I need to read it again with more of an open mind (before I believed everything Rand wrote was like gospel). But there is also an essay that can be found in _Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_ (again Rand) titled "Man's Rights" which I think ties in with her philosophy of absolute morality. I agree with you though, the term "absolute morality" carries a lot of religious baggage with it. And while I don't think Rand ever thought of herself as a god in the supernatural sense, I get vibes from her writing suggesting she did in the all-knowing sense. ---- I think I understand your definition of retroactive morality now: Don't judge those who did not have the same collection of information to examine as I have now. ---- Also, what do you think it will take for the majority of those 95% of misguided fools to abandon the belief in the supernatural and psuedosciences? I fear education is not the answer, for most of our educated elite still believe in the divine. Yet, education is the only answer I ever come up with, as it is what deterred myself. - 23:58:17 on 16 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:SORRY: noname was me. I didn't say it made him megalomaniacal -- It was an attempt at humor. I think the fact that the once-upon-a-time leader of a nation of diversified religions, ethnicities, social ethics, ideas in general should choose one minority, probably totaling less than 5% of the nation, to exclude from citizenship. I was greatly offended. I didn't know citizenship depended upon religious affiliation - at least it doesn't according to the law - and his suggestion that it did disgusted me, scared me, yes scared me. He ranks on my hate meter up there with Stalin and Hitler. Doesn't mean in reality he is megalomaniacal. - 0:06:25 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:ON BUSH THE MEGALOMANIAC: I guess I was humoring myself more than trying to humor you guys. Inside joke type stuff. - 0:14:18 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:ALL, I know my post may have seemed somewhat circuitous this past week, but I was just exploring some confusing and debatable areas. I don't wish to convert or bore anyone here and maybe this will be my last post on these topics. The areas of concern to me were: 1- How can I classify and identify, for my personal understanding, the various atheist here that I have encountered, and do any of these classifications act in the same way as religionists? 2- Exploring the postulation that heinous crimes (murder) are primarily a manifestation of primary intelligence (survival) and not religion. Religion plays a less role in the totality of numbers of all heinous crimes, in my mind, than does our basic survival instincts, which are the same in all humans including atheists. While I know you all don't agree, or totally relate to my probing, I am satisfied with the feedback I have gotten and I won't pursue these topics any further at this time. Thanks! CARL, I don't have a personal God! - 0:14:30 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:CARL: Were you implying I was being politically correct? I think so. I wasn't being politically correct, I revile PC. But the word "discrimination" has taken on a socially malignant meaning. I know whenever I hear the word "discrimination" thoughts of "discrimination in the workplace, retail establishment, housing, etc." dance through my head before its older definition of "the ability or power to see or make fine distinctions." I don't agree with the philosophy behind the first definition but do with the philosophy implied by the second. That's not PC, its just me. - 0:23:36 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:ADAM- Princess Die, geezz! Good post on the never changing earthlings. Reminds me of a song from my long, long, long,....long ago past called _The Planet Earth_. JOETTE- I thought your royality jokes were better until I read Adam's last. MAXWELL and AMIE- (BTW, the one in the same mormon Amie?) I will respond to Max's dreary, redundant biblical babble when in the mood. CARL- Do they not understand, we've read it, chewed it up and spit it out! ROB- I have relatives in England, by Jove! I think they fled from Kent to become rich in the limestone rush of Manitoba. - 0:56:22 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->MELISSA..I hope your disallusionanment (sp???) with Ayn Rand was borne of other writings than the one we talked about last night. I am fortunate in that I am well acquainted with a professor who's first field research included working with Ms. Rand. In discussing Rand and her philosophies with this person has led me to realize how human Rand was, and not as tyrannical as you have seemed to imply. Have you read any of her personal collections of letters? I find them most enjoyable, especially when she was have Frank Lloyd Wright design a house for her (another of my mentors). - 1:27:36 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Joette (designer labels only please):--->BILL...many times you have stated that you do not like to be labelled, but for the past few days you have wanted to "classify" all of us. Pourquoi mon ami? - 1:32:25 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, It's OK I think to classify those who choose labels for themselves, especially when I am asking for input from those in that group, no? Good night! - 2:00:49 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:JOETTE: I don't mean to imply she was tyrannical, I still have a very soft place in my heart for Ms. Rand. I have noticed a certain tendency of mine to search for heroes and place them, once found, on pedastals of perfection. Then upon finding out they have flaws, are "human", am crushed. I've pretty much gotten over this. This document, which was really about the cultishness of Rand's Objectivist circle, was simply the bullet in my heart. I've noticed, just by reading many of her works that she is somewhat dogmatic, but I don't think its bad in the context she uses it. I don't see anything wrong with trying to be perfect, the best human you can be, which is the essential plug of her philosophy. Use your mind, never violate the sanctity of rational thought with inconsistencies, and always strive to better yourself in all things. And above take responsibility for your own actions!!! I love Ayn Rand, her philosophy, and her humanness. I may give my daughter (if I have one) Ayn as her middle name. I wish I could say I have the book with her collection of letters in my bookcase, but as yet I have not been able to afford it. I have a couple of books ABOUT Rand but have yet to read them. They are _Ayn Rand the Russian Radical_ by Sciabarra, and _The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand_ by Del Uyl and Rasmussen. I have yet to read them, so yes that document is my main source of info on this subject. I wish I could find the damn thing. I do know the Skeptical Society was affiliated with it, which is why I lend it a modicum of credibility. But it must be absolutely fascinating to have a professor who had the fortunate circumstance to work with her. The one professor I had who was familiar with her work was of Platonic philosophies (the habinger of the Dark Ages damn him!) and thought of her as merely amusing. I must say I made an ass out of myself in his class, as my learnings were not as sophisticated at the time, and my understanding of Randian philosophy not complete (still isn't). Anyway, anyway, anyway . . . I digress as usual. I still like Aynnie, just am stung by having my childish need for a perfect human idol violated. - 4:49:04 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:You guys should check out my other favorite web site www.suck.com. It's an on-line magazine that today had a wonderful article on veganism and animal rights activists and the like called "Pleased to Meat You" I think. Hilarious. But its a daily so it might be different tomorrow. - 5:01:01 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:AIMEE IF YOU'RE STILL LURKING: You say we are your enemy. Now, an enemy is someone who poses a threat to you, yes?? But how, oh how, dear aimee, do we pose a threat to you as mere atheists? For, you are safe so long as you believe in your god, no? So, why do you care about us? We certainly don't care about you. We let you worship your god in peace and quiet, lest you attack us first, which you did. Why won't YOU let US alone? - 6:17:08 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:I was not able to read the posting by AIMEE. Could someone please reprint what it was that she said. - 13:56:07 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Rob:MARLENE: I can sypathise with your ancestors- you have a beautiful country (They must have been a little thick going all the way to Manitoba for limestone though- Kent lies on a big lump of chalk ;) P.S: What are all these Di jokes I've been missing out on? Didn't you think it was deeply funny when her hearse had to put the windscreen wipers on because of all the flowers >:) Spooky though- I was listening to "The Queen is Dead" by The Smiths when I heard she died.... - 14:11:15 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MELISSA: you are on target, i had the impression you were being pc, good enough, you say you are not. I have seen some very good books on black thoughts after the u.s. civil war i guess. It is a collection of somekind and i guess too that it is not just those black thinkers u.s. historically acceptable, i hope. Air-brushed stuff is untrue? I inscribe that to finally say of the "malignancy" you refer to, that it is simply said, stupidity. Why air-brush it by implying it contrarily? - 14:41:38 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:OPEN: My vague references to MELISSA, were but to mention the TX law prof's remarks of who can and can't study law. If one might speak of one good thing about affirmative action, the one prevailing good thing about it, it made it so that people were nice, just nice to other kinds. That prof's words were genrally just mean, said by a race in charge. Spanish speakers,et.al., are gonna be fecthin' glasses o'water before long. i mention this as one not numbered in that 95% figure. Stupidity like a fire or a house divided, destroys the house. - 15:37:01 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:STEVE---This is what Aimee said:........Amie:How nice of you people to sit here and call Maxwell names because he expressed his opinions. I guess thats what you do when you have no argument against what he said. - 19:20:23 on 16 Sep 97 GMT Amie:I challange you folks to read just one book from the Bible - With An Open Mind- and ponder it. I am a Christian, and I spend much time reading athiest views, and resources just to "know my enemies argument." Im not afraid to do this becuase I know that there is nothing people can do or say that disproved Jesus is THE Lord. - 19:24:33 on 16 Sep 97 GMT Steve, if you ever want to go back and check posts that are no longer on the page, go to the "Location" box ( which contains the website address) and change the "30" to 50, or 60 or whatever, and that number will indicate how many messages will appear on the page. After you change the number, the whole page will reload to the amount of posts that you request. In Aimee's case here, she was referring to a lengthy post made by "Maxwell" which was a few posts before hers, but for fear of being keel-hauled, I did not reprint his post. - 15:52:06 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Unlike many, I didn't admire Princess Di, nor did I feel she got a "raw deal" from the monarchy. Although, I have sympathy for her family, most especially her children, I feel she thrived on attention. Yup! my poor ancestors were fairly thick when they figured Manitoba was a paradise. My grandmother was born in England and moved to Manitoba with her mother, father and 12 sisters. She's 92, still in her own little apartment and quite sound. - 15:59:13 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:CARL...I believe that you are misinformed about what exactly that prof. in Texas was saying. It seems to me that you are believing whatever the media has said about "that prof in Tx". Are you one of the many sheep who believe anything they read in the News. Come on CARL, wake up. The media and black leaders such as the ridiculous Jesse Jackson are attempting to crucify this man for making a statement of fact. The prof. is not a racist. Why is it that a person cannot say something concerning race or culture without automatically being offended. What he said was not mean, try doing a little research instead of shooting you mouth off about something you know very little about. - 16:03:14 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:Thank you Peter. - 16:05:00 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:- IMHO,in this day and age, the only race that should refer to people is the human one. - 16:33:26 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:STEVE: good, you stand for and with this controversy, if you read clearly what i inscribed i brought in nothing about the media nor the dark ones, only that the prof said some can while others cannot "Study law". That prefaced a general opinion on the affirmative action stuff which was only that it allowed for people to be nice to each other. Such talk as the prof's, now that your response lets it be said, allows for stupidity to grasp things like what that person said, to feed to the "sheep" you mention. And to say again somewhat differently than i previously ended, "X" out the fetchin' water and race in charge jests, one apparently got you "feeling" something, consider instead like that prof shoulda', everyone is not einstein-like nor an olympian-like athlete. Perhaps you like the christians ought to look closer, just a bit. They don't and they are irksome. - 16:47:47 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Rob:MARLENE:I pretty much share your view on Diana. What peeved me were the flocks of emotional leeches who only became interested when they saw it had turned into a national event. I have respect for life, but not death. - 17:14:39 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:I believe the prof was talking culture, not race. The reason for the comments directly stemmed from the affirmative action debate. Affirmative action is a racialy biased policy that needs to be eliminated completly. A person should receive a job, entrance into a school, etc.. for their qualifications regardless of race. The prof at UT stated that their are many cultures competing for a limited amount of resources. The culture that makes knowledge and the persuit of academic excellence a priority, is the culture that will possess the largest amount of resources. He simply stated the facts, that a few cultures do not consider academic excellence a priority. To steer the conversation elsewhere, does anyone know the reason for the extensive media coverage concerning the prof of brainwash, mother teresa. - 18:14:13 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Adam ANTIVANGELISTA:Multiple 4 Melissa...I've never read rand, although any number of people who know me assume that I have. I don't recall hearing about the Bush comment on Atheists. If he said it, I find it hard to believe that he really meant it, and I would assume that it was a stupid off-the-cuff remark from an otherwise underrated president. For all his shortcomings as a campaigner and communicator, he was a bona fide statesman, with perhaps the best presidential résumé entering office in history. Alas, the American people replaced a statesman with a snake-oil salesman. I do not, of course, know how to lift the veil of ignorance from the overwhelming majority of humanity in won swell foop, but because the pervasiveness of religious beliefs is, I believe, the single most glaring blemish on the credibility of us as a purportedly "evolved" species, and because I consider such belief a wholesale abdication of the complex reasoning of which individuals are capable, increasingly I have been devoting myself to trying as best as possible. Thge most important thing in the short term, however, is to fight for our freedom from religious incursion---an intellectual rebellion of the highest order, as it were---and in the process maybe trigger discussion that might rattle the faith of some of the mythologically encumbered masses. I have railed repeatedly on this Sage Page against the pacificism of most atheists, and proudly number myself among the more militant Enemies of Religion (and I tell people that when belief comes up: "I am an Atheist and enemy of religion.") Given that nothing triggers greater intellectual passion in me than this issue, I expect to be devoting more energy to the cause as time goes by. - 18:15:21 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Adam Credit Where Credit is Die...:Hey Jo-Plager-ette: You haven't been recycling Die jokes conveyed via grail mail to Marlene without giving credit, have you? - 18:19:03 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

BELIGER-ADAM-ANT:Mélée before mush, Meliss....Of course we are not Amie's Enemies (See, e.g. anemone), but we are (or ought to be) enemies of her beliefs, which are causing death, oppression and hardship all over the globe. I don't want them to leave us alone. I want the engagement---indeed the clash---which ultimately must result in their philosophy collapsing before the marketplace of ideas under the tremendous weight of its own intellectual bankruptcy. She, certainly, is not the enemy, but she carries a harmful yet curable disease of the mind. The fact that she would, if possible, infect others, makes her dangerous to them. This is, of course, not her fault---she is a threat to free though only to the extent that she has been deprived thereof; like those who carry verereal diseases, a threat only to the extent and as long as she is a victim. - 18:29:50 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Affirmative Adam:Carl, can I quota you???? It is my understanding that the Longhorn Law prof. asserts that his comments were taken out of context, and that he was offering possible explanation for why certain minority groups were performing poorly on LSATS. Of course, most of the newsroom here would not accept this, attributing the comments first and foremost to racism, but what would you expect from New York journalists (need I clue you in to the liberal:conservative ratio around here?). The prof, of course, said that all are WELCOME at law school. - 18:36:29 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Yes I am still "Lurking". And if you noticed I put the word enemie in quotations implying that I was using a quote to get my point across not that I literally think of athiests as my enemy. and Hurrah to George Bush who has the guts and the backbone to make a statement like he did. We need more leaders who will stand up like that. America was founded on GOD, we deserve to stay that way. - 19:05:55 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Many people are sheep! Anyway...I really would like to respond to the Amie and Maxwell clones but there is supposed to be frost in paradise tonight so I'm clearing out garden and trying to can tomatoes at the same time so it will have to wait till the next hit and run. - 19:10:23 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:Very well stated BELIGER. Comparing xtianity with a virus is a very good analogy. A good title for a book would be "christianity the deadly virus". I also am a enemy of religion. There is no possible way to have an open mind about something as destructive as religion. - 19:10:47 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:My beliefs do not cause oppresion or death in this world! The only things I have done personally becuase of my beliefs are help others, I've went across the world to Haiti (were most people dare not go) to lend a helping hand to those people who live in poverty! I gave two weeks of my life to them! I work with children, I visit people on my campus who nobody else will talk to! If that, my friends, does that sound like "death" or "oppresion to you?" - 19:11:18 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Fancy words and phrases do not make a person intellectual, perhaps its only a symptom that hes trying to mask a lack of it. - 19:14:16 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:Amie, I am Native American (Cherokee) and the thought that this nation was founded on GOD is a notion that makes me sick to my stomach. Beside my racial origin the thought that any sheep could believe that this nation was founded on the corrupt concept of a GOD is ludicrous. The foundation of this very corrupt nation was a government that where there is a split between state and government. Your evil GOD was the main reason that the US seperates church and state. Here is some information for you brainwashed mind. The US and the religion you believe in did everything they could to attempt to terminate my culture and race. Not only did your government and religion steal our lives, lands and culture they continually attempt to soil our minds with that evil garbage and lies that you call CHRISTIANITY. Save your BS for someone who is as mislead as you are and do a little research. - 19:18:28 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:NO Steven, my God is not responsible for that! Men are responsible for that maybe they used religous principles and twisted them out of context, but no my God is NOT in any way responsible. and I am married to a native american, and funny he doesn't view it like that. The fact is that our country we live in now (not the land) was founded on Godly principles from the Bible! and the founders of this country used "separation of Church and State" so that the state could not interfere with the church NOT vice versa - 19:24:34 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:bahhh, bahaha, bahhh. You sounnd like the thousands of sheep that live in this country. Seperation of church and state works both ways. If you did a little research you would find that the largest majority of the people that signed the declaration of Independence were not even christian. Please exlain to all of us uninformed atheist how you bible was written 500 years after the death of your "savior". Explain to us how many times the bible has been rewritten to satify those in power. Explain to us how many human beings have been slaughtered because they were heathen barbarians. Amie, your beliefs are what hold the world back, attempting to keep us in the dark ages. How can you believe in something that offers no proof of it's own existence. Oh, wait that is what belief is right. Your religion, your God, and your beliefs are evil. How can you, with any knowledge of the history of this country, defend what those of your faith did to conqure my people. If your husband is Native American and believes in your God then he is beyond hope. Someday all the hate and mistrust that christianity has spawned and it will come back to them like a hammer. I AM THE ENEMY TO ANYONE WHO HOLDS THE BELIEF IN A CHRISTIAN GOD (or any god). believe that - 19:37:33 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Okay Steven, you sound more bitter that the bitterst person I know! Maybe you need to check your facts again, nearly everyone of the founders of this country (excepte two) were ACTIVE members in their churches! Why is it that ever since American's started taking God out of everything, our countries morals and values have since declined? Did you know that MILLIONS of Christians have been killed this century for their beliefs? Jesus said the world will hate Christians so your attitute is to be expected. How do you feel about that? You, by declaring yourself an enemy of Christianity, are fulfilling a prohpecy of Jesus! - 19:47:17 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:and I would like to add that I am PROUD and honored to be a sheep as long as Jesus is my shepard! - 19:52:36 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Brian:Steven how do you know the 2+2=4 it's because on faith, you have been told that 2+2=4 and you believe them don't you? So if people want to believe in a god then let them be and stop being a empty can! - 19:54:58 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:--->AMIE..I am right there with Steven in his opinion that your country was not found on godly principles. What principles are they? Are you referring to the "ten commandments" (why did god have to command, why couldn't he just ask nicely?) Please tell us about god's wonderful principles, and by the way, I do not live in the United States, but I think I know your consitution better than you do. You should read it sometime, instead of making false suppositions of what it contains. - 19:57:42 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Brian:even the Cherokee believed in the great spirit so what is your problem? - 19:57:51 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:--Amie--My goodness, I certainly am delighted that you have decided to return and are giving us just so much juicy fodder for us to jump all over. Yesterday you certainly came through, and today, you have even surpassed yesterday's contributions. However, I'm not going to be a hog, and let some of the others here get their licks in, as I am sure they are just so anxious to do so..... Assuming Bush made that statement you referred to, do you then endorse he make dicriminatory statements against a segment of Americans, based solely on their lack of a certain belief, regardless of how law-abiding, productive and peaceful they may be? What if he made this comment about a certain ethnic group based solely on they came from. This is a blatant act of bigotry, and to condone, and applaud it, makes you an accessory to bigotry. You certainly are ACTING like a christian, that is for certain--and good for you, I hope that you, and those who think like you are proud of yourselves. And then you wonder why there is such immoral behavior in your country. Take a look in the mirror, and there is your answer. You are a bigot. ADAM--You ought to know this. Where in the American Constitution does it say that the United States of America is founded on God? Also, make sure you use no big words or fancy phrases! We certainly do not want to confuse and dazzle our "enemie" - 19:58:32 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

it's shepherd.....not shepard (as in sheep herder) - 19:59:16 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Almost every person in the past who has dedicated their life to disproving God, ended up being the strongest Christians! So I encourage you to all go ahead and dig dig dig for evidence, put all your energy into it, because God is their and sooner or later you will run into Him. - 19:59:21 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->BRIAN..why don't we let Aimee be for her beliefs? Why don't we let Timothy McVeigh be because of his beliefs? - 20:01:16 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

brian:Joette did not the phello - 20:01:28 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:It sure would be nice if you could travel back in time and see what the morals of my ancestors were. I seem to remember that my ancestors had never heard of you religion. If you would take a little time to investigate what I am going to say then you may be enlightend. Christianity is the mix and match of several different religions: Hindu, Judaism, the pantheons of Rome and Greece, Babylonian, Persian and many other. I could direct you to many web sites that will point this out to you. By the way, did you know that that the meaning of Barabas is a Hebrew word for "the son of god". Hmmm, interesting. Do you know how many different religions have parables that the writters of the bible stole. Such as the birth a god through a virgin mother etc... One thing that you must understand, I know your bible inside and out. There is not one sentence in that man made book that has any validity. Did you know that of all the writers in that time period, not one reports even the existance of a Jesus. During that time period the punishment by the Jewish people for blasphemy was stoning to death. Do you not find it odd that Jesus was not stoned to death. Do you find it odd that the Roman records show that 1400 men\ were sent to arrest Jesus, that they report a scirmish and then the arrest. If Jesus existed he was not a prophet of any sort or else the Jewish people would have terminated him themselves (the Romans would not have even been involved). Ahhh, I guess you will need to wake up by yourself. It seems that once your brainwashed it is very difficult to wake up. - 20:01:37 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Im not a bigot, when I became a Christian, the first thing I did was admit how big of a sinner I was, and I still am a sinner, I never claim to be perfect. I just rely on God's forgivness. He helps me day by day to live more like he wants me to. Christians aren't Perfect, they have just accepted forgivness from God. - 20:02:06 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Brian:because if we doin't we will be next and then there will be no one left - 20:02:21 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:--->AIME...where's the proof? Adam and Peter both asked you last night if you give us proof that your god exists. Why have you not acknowledged this? - 20:04:13 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Steven, I assume you have faith that I know nothing about history or religions! The things you say are not true! Many people wrote about Jesus. I will look them up and put them on here sometime. I have to go know. But again, I encourage you to dig dig dig for proof against God. - 20:04:22 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Joette, Give me proof he doesnt! - 20:05:01 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Steven, for you info. the Jewish people did terminate Jesus! I thought you knew the Bible inside and out! - 20:05:53 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:--->AIME...most of us here don't need a crutch. - 20:06:34 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Steven, its the Jews who demanded Jesus' crucifiction. - 20:06:45 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

brian:if god is a lie then so be it let the people live on and the lives be fofilled in any way that they wish - 20:06:48 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:--->BRIAN..what is that message with my name and the word phello supposed to mean? - 20:07:46 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:BRIAN, the belief in the Great Spirit is not a belief that the Cherokee believe in. That title was given to the beliefs that the Cherokee at that time had by white men who could not understand what the believe. The belief that what we do to nature will eventually be done to man is what is important. The belief in a Great Spirit never allowed for greed. The problem with christians is that everyone has to believe as they do or they will kill you. - 20:07:46 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Joette Im not ashamed to say I rely on God. Im sorry you can't do the same. Only foolish people think they can do it on their own. - 20:07:54 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

brian:love is the thing that will bring use together goo bye and good luck - 20:08:28 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Nice chatting I have to go, class is over. I will be back, im not afraid of you people! - 20:08:34 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:Were you there Aime. I don't think so. The Romans had no jurisdiction when religious crimes were commited. - 20:12:06 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:OPEN: I go out for a few things and i missed the war! - 20:15:37 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Adam DA FOUNDING FODDER:WILD & WOOLY//// Rather than get into a protracted shouting match of intolerance and sheep (and, even as an enemy of religion, which is indeed an incidious and harmful human foible, I cannot endorse all of the comments made by my mates against mysticism in this latest flurry of fury), I would rather get down to the brass tax. AMIE of AMAZIN' GRACE: why is it, exactly, that you believe that there is a god, and why is your religion the only thing that motivates you to do "good deeds"? PETER RABID: Indeed, there is no mention of god in the U.S. Constitution. The reference to religion is short and sweet (and certainly open to interpretation, as was the deliberate intent of the drafters in not being detailed about most things). Religion and the state is one of the four pillars of the First Amendment (the others being speech, association and the press), and is addressed in two clauses, the interpretation of which is the root of all litigation over religion & constitutionality. HERE GOES----> "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEROF...(the 14th amendment then expanded "Congress" to mean all levels of government.----The so-called Establishment Clause, as generally interpreted, was a reaction to experience under the British crown (as is most of the Bill of Rights). Its fundamental purpose is to prohibit an official state church, à la the C.O.E. Centuries of judicial interpretation have widened its purview to a prohibition on excessive government entanglement with or support of religion, even well short of establishing a state church. Thus, it presently is unconstitutional to institute prayer in the public schools, although advocates are attempting to get the issue reheard by the US Supreme Court. The "Free Exercise" clause cuts the other way, and prevents unreasonable government meddling in religious affairs. Thus, you're both half right (or half wrong); the Constitution protects individuals from religious incursion by the government both in the form of government favoritism for religion and government opposition to it. BRIAN (which, you will note, is a scrambled "brain"):::: We know that 2+2=4 because if you take two of something and add two more, you will have four. You can count 'em. You can prove it. Everyone watching will agree that there are four things there. Please tell me why you think there is a deity. - 20:31:37 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:go adam, go adam, go adam. Go get em'. - 20:36:30 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Peter: ADAM--well that post you made yesterday ( which I thought was excellent ) certainly went over somebody's head didn't it? She even committed the logical fallacy which I call " argumentum ad gooblygookium" which is one often made by christians especially which deem any argument as invalid and unimportant simply because they don't understand the big words used. - 20:39:10 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:STEVEN: have you read the book "Lies my Teacher Taught Me" you could find it interesting. AMIE: have you read Thomas Paine, anything at all, and you are correct your god did nothing because as nothing but your imagination no such thing is possible but evil christian people like g.bush, junipero serra, ralph reed, a.hitler etc. - 20:45:23 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Adam WIT ANSWER:Amie----in terms of higher authority, we're ALL doing it by ourselves. Your problem is that you're either scared of the responsibility for controlling your own actions, or scared of not being able to explain everything in terms simple enough for you. Thus, you have fabricated a god for yourself to tell you how to behave and to serve as an explanation for everything you don't understand. It is amazing to me that you would demand that Joette prove that god doesn't exist after reading my post of yesterday (you did read it, no) pointing out how childish and irrational it is to demand that an opponent prove a negative. You keep saying, "sticks and stones can't hurt me, 'cause I know Jesus is the lord." Aside from the invective that has been leveled at you, we repeatedly ask you to explain WHY you hold these beliefs, and you have offered nothing in that vein. Maybe there would be fewer Atheists if theists could offer a reasonable basis to support their beliefs. As everyone on this page will agree, they rarely do, and when they do, they never stand up to logical inquiry. This is why many of us devolve so rapidly into sheer belittlement of the pap you rap. - 20:48:32 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->ADAM...re royal jokes...all credit was given to you and your clearing house. - 20:49:54 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Rob:JOETTE: Tell me these jokes, pretty please. - 21:03:24 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Rob:ADAM: perhaps I should ask you (seeing as you were so defensive earlier, I guess you must have made them up), what are these jokes - 21:06:42 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->ROB..do you have an e-mail address so that I can send them to you? - 21:09:14 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:JOETTE, please send the jokes to me if you could. My e-mail adress is >>>> marley@intur.net <<<< - 21:15:04 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Rob:JOETTE: My Uni address is "robert.knowles@university-college.oxford.ac.uk" but I wont be there for a while. If you are sending before tommorow, then use Sknow99999@aol.com Thanx - 21:24:41 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

test - 21:41:22 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:ANY: except for the fun o'pickin on the likes o'AMIE, it is easy for anyone to disregard the humanity of the things that appear in the bible. It is as good to read for its' mythological stuff as any of the other tales out of olden times. As most herein know, that book was and is nothing but the cumulative effort of mostly now dead people. But, the same very few of us also know that many like AMIE choose to become cannon fodder for the likes of someone like r.reed, o.roberts, et.al., who hold destructive goals. Something i try not to forget is the point i've made once or twice, that is many are they who can not conceptualise the significance of an f(x) nor are they olympic athletes, but neither does it mean they should want me to think as they do, which i'm certain is their desire. - 21:41:57 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Adam ALL MUST DIE:Error SPRAGUE===== Well, I'm still fond of "What's the difference between Princess Die and the Toronto Blue Jays?" - 21:44:23 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Adam AVERICE:Hey, Jo-pirette%%%%%%% You realize, of course, that I'm entitled to "royalties," Si? - 21:49:59 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Adam Getting TESTY:Hey "test", YOU SUCK! - 21:51:09 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Adam NEWS of MY DEMISE IS PARLY EXAGGERATED:Correction Corpse Calling Carl, Come on Down, Carl€€€€€ "Mostly now dead people?" Now, that's what I'd call a one-foot-in-the-grave grammatical error. - 21:54:50 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->ADAM..quit sulking! Rob and Steven will both enjoy your flair for wit and humour, and YES, they will give you CREDIT for same. I forgot the Blue Jays joke, as it is meant for a selective audience. Besides, as you did with my transmission joke (which I sent unabridged), I have had to edit it a bit to make it more humoUrous. - 21:56:13 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM addenda:That should read "PARTLY exxagerated." Just when I was about to parlay some humor. Parlez-vous typographique? - 21:56:20 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:Amie- Your just plain stupid! Steven and many native people of lands raped by the jesus feaks have every right to be angry. You have your f-in nerve! And you and your freakin brothers and sisters are still raping them. Now the husband is one of the flock, we hope he's not poisoning his brothers and sisters. - 21:58:41 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Adam WHADDAYATAWKINABOWT?:Hey, Jokette¶¶¶ What, pray tell, led you to infer that I was sulking? Besides I think the Blue Jays/Die joke would be all the rage on da page. - 22:00:58 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Rob:JOETTE: Cheers- I like the BMW joke best. D'you know they asked Elton John to sing at mother T's funeral! I think Crocodile Rock would have gone down a treat. I Di-gress... "The Queen is dead boys, and it's so lonely on a limb" - 22:07:11 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Rob:JOETTE: BTW, did you hear about all the middle-aged French women scraping up Diana's remains after the crash -They had heard royal jelly was good for the menopause (copyright Rob'97) - 22:23:48 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:ADAM: errare humanum est, sometimes i make me laugh too. - 22:30:30 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Adam Enough to make you FLIP SIDE:ROB & ROLL ROCKET MAN.....I beg to differ. A more apropos tune would have been "Goo Bye Yellow Brick Road," don't you think? (Afficionados: note that Adam cleverly stuck in a discreet snipe at Brian's typo. Did you catch it?) - 22:41:24 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Adam THE WHIPPING BOYS of SUMMER:PIE in the SKYDOMEºººººº For those interested, the difference between Princess Die and the Toronto Blue Jays is that when the Jays got crushed on the road, they were in NEW YORK. - 22:47:18 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Adam It's U.S. AGAINST ANTHEM™™™:Onward, Holy Hosers, eh? Does it bother any of you Johnny Canucks that your national anthem refrains a prayer to the big goalie is the sky? - 22:52:02 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->ADAM...yeah, yeah...I've been advocating to have that changed. Johnny Canuck? C'est Jacques Canuck! Now I'll get childish and tell you that when I sing the Star Spangled Banner it bothers moi that it glorifies the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air, I'll check for gun to make sure it's still there... - 23:10:46 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:ROB: Elton John songs that were considered but not used for various funeral themes: "Someone Didn't Save My Life Last Night", "Saturday Night is Allright for Dying", "Your Gone", "Getting a Picture Seems to Be the Hardest Thing", "From Airhead to Saint Overnight". - 23:22:47 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Adam ANTHEM there was ONE:Jo, say does that SSB yet wave? Guess again, Toronto toots! The song is all about the flag (not one with a big piece of syrup-laded vegetation, mind you), and the lyrics, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO CARE TO CHECK EM OUT BEFORE JUMPING TO OUTRAGEOUS CONCLUSIONS, is "the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air, GAVE PROOF THROUGH THE NIGHT THAT OUR FLAG WAS STILL THERE." Must I do this? OK. F.S.Key (no, not Jay-jumpin Jimmy Key) is saying---and boy, were you off-Key (HAR!)---that even though it was the wee hours of the morning, barely enough light to see by, the additional light from the multitude of missile explosions made it possible to behold Ol' Betsy still waving over Fort McHenry in lower Baltimore harbor (ironically, Baltimore, now the home of Jay-Jumpin' Jimminy, supra). I believe you will concede your error in somehow interpreting that as "The rockets were, uh, like, pretty cool, uh-huh, uh-huh-huh, uh-huh. Yeah, yeah, that's pretty cool. FIRE! FIRE! Whoa, you can, like, see the flag and stuff when the bombs go off, uh-huh-huh, uh-huh. Yeah, yeah, not like that Canada flag with a big leaf on it. Yeah, that flag sucks! Uh-huh, uh-huh-huh, uh-huh." Oh and BMW, shouldn't that be Blaque Jacque Shellaque? Dam! (HAR!) - 23:52:29 on 17 Sep 97 GMT

Adam Adding Insult to Icebergs:ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ Oh, Canaduh, I say "en garde" to thee. Whatsamatter? Can't protect yourselves without God around, eh? Oh, God keep our land glorious and free, 'cause we can't do it ourselves. Help, God, help!! Satan's coming to set up shop in Saskatoon! Beezelbub in Berlin, Ontario! Evil lurks in Edmonton! One big formerly frozen Hell from Halifax to Hecate Strait!!! - 0:23:58 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Adam AIM HIGH §§§§:Oh, Canada, BMW, I don't think god must've missed the "glorious" part, and as for "free," you probably couldn't expect to charge much anyhow, especially in "cold" hard cash. - 0:27:44 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:ADAM- Lurved that rendition of Oh Canaduh! You forgot Manipogo who lurks in Lac Manitobah. - 0:35:30 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->ADAMPEDANTIC...like, no kidding, eh? - 0:43:00 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Adam Putting the Invective on Ice:Hey, Zam-Jo-Ni: Do you also root for Toronto in Hawkee? - 0:47:00 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->ADAM...do you still pledge allegience everyday? You should move to Atlanta so you can really be from the home of the Braves! - 0:50:00 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Adam:I called, but got Jo answer...Why didn't you answer my question? I'm curious about the Toronto kockey club. Are they just so stupid that they think "Maple Leafs" is a correct plural, or are they worried that if they change to "Toronto Maple Leaves," the fans will think the team has departed and will turn around and go home? - 1:10:49 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:--ADAM..sorry, I must have missed the question. What inquiry are you referring to? As far as the Maple Leafs go, (by the way, I got to see most of them almost naked this week, and I am in love), we, in many parts of our very large, full of natural resources country, refer to them as the Maple Laughs. - 1:58:50 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->ADAM...sorry, I was watching the Jays die on the road again, and so missed your reference to hawkee. Nope, I do not follow hockey, nor do I pay any attention to football or basketball. I love baseball, but in the winter I follow figure skating. Go figure. - 2:09:06 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:Boy a lot happens when you go to work for six hours. - 2:12:53 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Joshua:Hi everyone, I've been reading this site every now and then for the past few months, and I would like to say . . . HI. - 2:15:54 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:HI AMIE!! do you realize how childish you sound when you say, "The things you say are not true! Many people wrote about Jesus. I will look them up and put them on here sometime. I have to go know. But again, I encourage you to dig dig dig for proof against God. - 20:04:22 on 17 Sep 97 GMT" Like a little kid just being told Santa Clause doesn't exist. Matter of fact that's just how I reacted when, because of financial hardships, my parents explained to me the Jolly old man living in the Artic Ocean was really them. Took me another year and a half to finally give in. I think that's when I decided god was a joke too. Anyway, you wouldn't know the proof you're seeking if it smacked you in the face and said Here I am!! BECAUSE YOU DONT WANT THAT KIND OF PROOF. NOT REALLY. IT WOULD HURT TOO MUCH. THATS WHY YOU IGNORE IT, DONT LISTEN TO IT, SAY SO WHAT IF GOD DOESNT EXIST, WHAT DOES IT HURT TO BELIEVE??? PLEASE TELL ME WHAT DOES IT HURT TO BELIEVE??? perhaps nothing. perhaps everything. - 2:40:25 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

PETER:--MELISSA--There is no such thing as "proof against God" other than the theists inabilty to furnish any proof. If you read Adam's post yesterday, he explains quite suucintly that is the the person who makes any claim that assumes the burden proof. This was the point that Aimee either did not understand or chose to ignore. Yes, she is childish, not well versed in the laws of logic ( among other things ) and don't waste your breathe on her right now--it would seem she only has access to a computer at around 2-4 PM EST, this is when she seems to make her appearances, spouting the same, almost cliche claptrap that is typical of someone who shares her beliefs. Oh, yes she also adds, in case you missed it that she "isn't scared of us" I cannot figure out in my wildest dreams why she should be! I guess she may fear the thought she may learn something? - 2:58:08 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:You missed the point PETER. She said she's not afraid of us because she IS afraid of us and what we stand for. That was the point. Not that there is proof AGAINST god, for how can there be proof against a negative. Then again how can adam call it a negative. This suggests non-existence, which if I'm correct in assuming so, that old addage "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" would suggest the labeling of existence or non-existence absurd. Which in the end makes the whole argument absurd. - 5:00:29 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Joshua - first real post:Since most of the people involved in the disscusions of this page seem to be anti-thiest, and a few agnostic. I would assume you all think a bit deeper, save joette, than the average pathetic thiest dope on the street, so I propose a question. If you had the responsiblity of raising a child (and I'm sure some of you do or did) and you wanted your child to grow up with a firm grasp of logic, which would enable the kid to think on his own, would you tell your child that there is not a god, or would you simple teach him the fundamentals of structured thought and allow him to come to his own conclusions? The reason I ask this, is because this has been a subject that has arose a number times in the past between myself and other people. I'm just a little curious, now that I found some intelligent life. I personally don't think a parent has to, but then again kids can pick ideas up from anywhere. Or even worse you might get stuck in the SANTA CLAUS dilemma, and if you think sitting down an 11 or 12 year old kid to tell him Santas not real, imagine telling him "Honey, you know all those things you hear about angels, spirits, heavens, and, um, god, well . . .", the chances are he would probably think you were more insane than he would cry. I know it's a bit off the subject (which I can't quite figure out except Aime is trying to defend, GULP, god, and Melissa is ripping her) but I just wanted to ask. - 6:14:36 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:___>JOSHUA...thank you very much for the introductory insult. An eye for an eye: why would anyone have to sit an 11 or 12 year old child down and inform him/her that there is no santa claus. Do you not think a child of that age would not already have that information? You are not giving children credit. At that age, they not only know that santa claus is a myth, but by that time they would have already begun to question the existence of a god. If you are not a parent yourself, you should not be attempting to dole out advice to those that are. - 11:13:12 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:MELISSA--Precisely, but what point did I miss? Ohhhhh, I didn't miss anything here, I can assure you. - 11:23:15 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:Melissa--Adam can call it a negative, as the demand by the theist ( Aimee) was: There is no proof that Jesus was NOT God.) This is clearly a demand to furnish information regarding the non-existence of something. In other words, trying to prove a negative. - 11:32:16 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:JOSHUA, why would you not raise your child to understand all of the pantheons of all the major religions past and present. Teach your child the Greek, Egyptian, Jewish, Christian mythology's so that the child realizes that religions are made up beliefs for people who need a security blanket. - 13:32:21 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN- Good point! When addressing the content of the school's "religion class" at our local school, I always brought this up. If they insist on teaching xtianity then teach all myths. All I got for my effort was glares, mostly from the herd of born agains who insisted on a religion class. It's lonely to be atheist! JOSHUA- I'm sure Joette's walls won't crumble because of your loud mouth insults. I agree with her, by the time kids are that age, the last thing they are interested in is santa or god. One of my kids believes in a god the other doesn't, one is fairly secure and the other isn't, parents can provide the tools of learning and encourage the use of them. Children will decide on their own which ones they will use if they decide to use them. - 14:06:09 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Steven :MARLENE>>one of the scariest things in the world for me would be if my child was ever lead to believe in any kind of god. It frightens me to no end. I agree that you must let your child discover what they believe for themselves. My problem will be that I am so adamently against any belief in a god, that I will not be able to allow my child to choose for himself. - 15:06:43 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

joette: I really don't think I was dishing out advise. It's sorta difficult to dish out advise about the same subject your questioning, and I know my girlfriend didn't find out about the SANTA MYTH until she was 12. She took it pretty hard, and she IS an atheist. You know as hard as a parent works to mold a child, shit can still happen. STEVEN and MARLENE: Can either of you tell me a good reason to teach ANY RELIGION, I can understand teaching the history of the culture that existed in the region and during the time of that religion, but to waste your time on their BOOKS, or allow some other person to teach religion in class would be plain stupid. And I won't settle for my child to use religion as a security blanket, that is a weak reason, and I would demand more. - 15:09:04 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

JOSHUA:Last post was mine - 15:09:53 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Joshua:It's difficult sometime for me to look at a thiest in the eyes and see an intelligent person. I don't want the same reaction toward my child. Maybe I'm just to hard on the little people, but I think any logical human would see it the same way. The only thing I can compare to having a god loving child is maybe, um, a bullet in the head. - 15:20:16 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:ANY: It is unfortunate that people of the western world and philosophy, as the visiting theist, don't go to any nearby university type library in order to study or read about that stuff. If they did they'd see as STEVEN's post mentions that it began long before there was jew thing. Does anyone know when or how that word came to be? Anyway, after just reading some of these numerous and assorted works one as that visiting theist could not help but thereafter "have" an open mind. A good way to see someone as that visitor might be that, the expanse of theist thinking is roughly just the length of any spoon that feeds them. - 15:31:04 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:JOSHUA, as a child I was taught greek mythology. This subject was taught as stories. The stories were great, lots of death, sex, political turmoil, lightning bolts, war stories etc... The bible and the Koran etc. are no different. The stories in the bible and koran are not any different than the greek mythology's. If they are taught as stories (that are not real) and some kind of entertainment is gained from them, then there is little harm. The problem with christians etc. is that they take the bible as fact. They also believe in yawe as a real and functioning entity. Imagine, believing that Zues, Thor, Apollo, Isis, etc. were actual living beings. The thought is ludicrous. - 15:31:24 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:JOSHUA and STEVEN- Although I agree, religion(the belief in god or gods) should NOT be taught in schools, the sorry fact is that it is and in some areas returning with much more support than say ten years ago. Since we can't totally rid the school system of it then I suggest we at least teach all myths, of course AS myths. Hopefully students will realize the contradictions, similiarities, violence, lack of evidence toward, insecurity of believers, limiting dogma, etc. etc. My hobby is reading about and learning about all religions, both ancient and present day. After reading and learning about the whole of the religions how could one even consider they are nothing but myth. Hopefully our children will also come to this conclusion. It's not the religions class but the content of it that I totally object to. - 15:35:34 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:One thing has happened in the Winnipeg 1, school division over the last few years. Their religion class teaches the aboriginal beliefs. Although this may be the most beautiful of mythology, very close to nature and respectful of it, some is still mythology. I personally think it is 99.99% better than the god of the jews, and more apt in the long run, be turned into just the respect of the other things on this planet rather than the supernatural. Another very interesting aspect of the teaching of aboriginal beliefs is a return to the self-esteem of the decendents of the brave and proud people who lived here before the rape committed by the xtian european nations. I don't know about the US but in Canada we have had many kids of native ancestory abused by priests and pastors on the reserves. I live in an area where friends are Metis and they attended schools run by abusive nuns. - 16:43:55 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Peter ( in a holding pattern anticipating Amie's most anticipated return ):---Marlene---Now you certainly are not by any means the first person I've heard to relate a horror-story about these nuns. while they shroud themselves in this mysterious fog of some benevolent existence, they are the most irresponsibly abusive monsters that walk on this planet. Although not a Catholic myself, ANY catholic person I have met has some "nun horror story" they are eager to relate, whether it be from school or church. These are bitches who hate the world, they hate their life, could never get laid, and then make everyone they come into contact pay for their inadequacies, all "in the service of our Lord". Yeah, right. - 17:16:12 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

JOETTE (and a tooth for a tooth):--->joshua...your last post directed at me re: advice...was it not you that stated that the subject had been broached between you and others. You ask for information regarding how people should teach their children well, when all you are doing is looking for a place to vent. Do you have children, or are you a first year college student? - 17:38:28 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: I have been pondering the means of that aboriginal instruction you mention, i can not make the connections of aboriginal source to teaching. According to the book i mentioned to the STEVEN party, its' sources had that author saying almost all N'american aboriginals were destroyed. I being sceptical about any and all things have considered that, if that destruction- means a culture and language are no more, is accurate, then who was the source for that teaching? Mind you now, i'm just thinking things thru and it seems like the formula is missing something. - 18:47:41 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:hmmmmm - 18:55:10 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Brian:Good Afternoon - 19:17:27 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Brian:Well this is fun? - 19:19:16 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Brian:Anyway there are many people that love the fact that there are things out there that are bigger then themselves such as Any kind of Science the only differnece is that those that have fath in humans and those that have fath in the sperit of man which do you have fath in? - 19:21:54 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Brian:sorry, the spirit of man - 19:22:51 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Brian:anyone out there??? hellooooooooooooooo - 19:23:30 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Well it's nice to know that you people like to talk about me even when Im not here! I would like to bring up some points that people were saying yesterday...Now everytime I bring up God...everybody starts telling me how my "evil God" is responsible for killing and oppressing people all over the world. Now let me ask a question. If I write a book, and people take my words out of context or distort the true meaning, and use my book to oppress, kill or do whatever...does that mean I don't exist?!? I recall a comment earlier where someone said "Its difficult for me to look into the eyes of a theist and see a intellegent person". Is that person saying that only the 3-7% of the pop. who doesn't believe in some form of God are the only smart people? How absurd! Some of the greatest minds in the world have believed in God! Albert Einstein believed in God! He was Jewish! Is somebody going to tell me Einstein was intelligent? And also yesterday Steve said that the Bible was written 500 years after Jesus! Actually, there are more than 500 copies of the Bible found BEFORE A.D 500. One is even dated back to around A.D 30! And also I recall a comment regarding my lack of logic. Does it mean I am illogical because I look around me and see such an awesome world and creation that I assume there must be an intelligent mind who created it? If I see a beautiful painting, I naturally assume a talented artist painted it. Is that illogical? You yourselves say over and over that you cannot DISPROVE God, well is it illogical to believe in one? Has anyone ever read C.S Lewis's Mere Christianity? Well he says there is not desire man can have that cannot be fulfilled. A baby is born with a desire to eat, well there is food to eat. A man has a desire for sex, well there is sex..and so on. Well if I desire something greater than this world...than there must be another even better! - 19:23:54 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Adam SMOKE GETS IN YOUR ICE ªªªª :Say, Jo-Camel-Ette, will figure skating undergo much change now that the Camel is outlawed? - 19:25:25 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Adam Just JOSHIN':Oh my Gosh...It's Josh! HOWDY - 19:26:49 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Brian:ERRRRRRR???? - 19:27:13 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Brian:Hello???? - 19:34:07 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Adam Arctic Exposition:Folle de Mar-lene? I didn't know Kris Kringle lived in the ocean. Is there a Santa sub that I don't know about? Could Rudolph actually be a red-nosed red snapper? Are the elves (or, in Toronto, elfs) actually sea monkies? - 19:44:28 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:AIME:: it seems to me that anyone who believes in a mythology has 1> either never studied the facts or 2> is hopelessly brainwashed beyond help. The stories of your bible are more or less fables. Not any different from any of the hundreds, perhaps thousands of other and/or different religions. Religion is a man made obsession. When people in the past could not explain something, they went to their priest, witch doctor, shaman, whatever to get some sort of answer. The priest etc.. would then explain it in terms that were comforting to the easily swayed, very ignorant person. It was easy to believe in the bible for fact when there were no facts to present against it. Now there are. Evolution, the age of the earth, the fallacy of religios documents, the wars and death, etc... and on and on are what the facts are. It is time the people of this planet put behind their childish ways and start believing that their actions are what shape the world and the universe. Not the actions of some mythological being.. The sooner man learns that he is on his own. That the universe - 19:50:06 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:--Amie--OK. let's try this once more. You say God exists. We say he does not exist. You are making the claim that something exists. We are not. In any LOGICAL debate ( as Adam pointed out two days ago ) it is the one who makes the claim that assumes the burden of proof. In this case , that is you--NOT the atheist. If, in your attempt to do, are inable to rationally demonstrate His existence, then atheism naturally follows. But you have not even reached this point yet. When you refer to God, an intelligible description must be made of the entity which you claim exists. Unless this is done first, any references to "God" or the "lord" is to communicate nothing at all; it is if nothing has been said. So,what is itfor which you are claiming existence? If you ignore this preequisite for intelligibility,any attempt at proof is logically absurd. Atheism is not a belief--it is a LACK of a belief. Atheism is simply the application of reason. Now, as you have been repeatedly asked--demonstrate rationally, and logically that God exists. Unless you do this, you will not be taken seriously, and you will be made to look very foolish very quickly. So the choice is yours. Yes Amie, you are illogical. You are a showpiece; a monument of being illogical. - 19:54:04 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Well I guess nobody is around now, too bad. I'll be back. Remember If you want proof for God, its in your hearts (if your not afraid to look.) God draws near to those who draw near to Him. You can ask him any questions, you can even doubt his existence, but once he answers you have to be willing to listen. I would also like to say that I am a junior in college (with good grades) just in case any of you think Im an uneducated hick believes in God because my parents and my grandparents did. I believe in Him because since he revealed himself in me, my life has never been the same again! There was a time I didn't believe in God, I looked for proof anywhere that he didn't exist but the truth is I wasn't satisfied untill I found Him. And one last point, people who don't believe in God, usually just turn science into their god. Science is just another religion, you need just as much faith to believe in it than you do to believe in God. Jesus Rules! I lift my eyes to the hills; where does my help come from? My help comes from the Lord, Maker of Heaven and Earth. Psalm 121:1-2 - 19:54:51 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Adam CAN I INTERVENE:A miss by Meliss...The entire discussion about proving a negative has nothing to do with existence (other than the fact that it arose in the context of god). It refers to argument and debate. A classic faux pas in logic is to demand that an opponent prove that what you offer is NOT true without first creating a prima facie case that it IS true (that is, by offering a minimum level of support for your proposition---enough that, if it went wholly unrefuted, would establish the basis for your position). In U.S. law (and I assume Canada as well, as both derive from English common law), there is the classic filing by the defendant to a suit called "Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted." In the Federal Rules of civil procedure, it's a §12(b)(6) motion. It basically says that the plaintiff has not even offered the minimum to make out a case, so before I counter the plaintiff's evidence with my own, I ask the court to assume that everything the plaintiff offers is all that there is, and rule that I still win. That is what I specifically raised in the legal analogy posted two days ago, a post, as Peter Piper proficiently pointed out, Amie apparently missed or dissed. It was not "negative existence"; rather, "negative assertion." In fact seasoned debaters sometimes try, though complex argument and deception, to lead the discussion around to a point at which they can contend that their opponents are, in essence, demanding that a negative be proven. When it works, it's a killer, not unlike a safety blitz in football. - 20:04:58 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:Amie, can you say cult. So 1000 years from now when the now wide spread davidian religion is taking over what will your ancestors think. Amie, in the dictionary there is a term call "brainwashing". Please pull out a dictionary and commit the term to your mind. Once you have done this look in the mirror and you will see your definition in flesh. - 20:06:56 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Adam:Josh: I do not have children, but have contemplated the question in the context of possibly marrying a theist. I think it improper to indoctinate a child against religion, for that regresses to the level of religious indoctrination (and face it, most people belong to the cult or, more genteelly put, "sect", that they belong to because it is the cult of their parents). A child should be aware that most people believe in god, and given as full an explanation as can be understood why the atheist parent thinks that they are wrong, and even harmful. I can't imagine forbidding the child from---indeed, I would encourage---exploring religion and returning with questions. The worst possible course is censorship. - 20:12:49 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Adam:Steven: As per my last post, censorship cannot be condoned, and is very likely to be counterproductive. At some given age, a child becomes a consumer in the marketplace of ideas. Your success lies in offering a superior good. - 20:17:59 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:BRIAN: Do you mean to separate things that are in fact inseparable? Humanity is as natural to nature as is nature to you and me. the thing it appears you seek to do is a throwback to Aristotelianism. That thinker separated and ID'ed things. Science, humans did it, Gods, human made them all any exchange you have with me or us here is man-made. - 20:20:23 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Adam:Steven: Keep in mind, of course, that the bible, koran and similar offerings are to some degree codifications of historical events. To be sure, they are to varying degrees deliberately or unintentionally altered and blurred, and enourmous swaths of the "gospel" are preposterous legends (e.g.; genesis and Noah's arc), but there is a wealth of real history in these scriptures. Of course, the extent of distortion is virtually impossible to pin down. - 20:23:50 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:--->ADAM...for fear of being maligned for being unintelligent, I will throw in my two cents here...there is always discussion about science versus religion, and you have hit the magical word when it comes to the good books so many people rely on for their daily spiritual sustenance. If more people would take history more seriously, and actually studied the events which transpired in ancient civilizations, they may have a clearer understanding of the legends recorded in said tomes. I personally, even though I am very stupid person, endeavouring to learn as much about the ancient greeks, romans, etc., as they have laid the foundations of our present society. - 20:36:11 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:--Amie...I have looked in my heart, and all I see are ventriculs, auricles, valves, one huge muscle, and lots of blood going in and out. There is no room for some old guy to hide in there. Although you maintain that you are not an uneducated hick, you will one day look back on this and realize how little you do know at this station in your life. I thought I was pretty hot stuff back then but I had, and still have, a lot to learn. So please don't think that your college education will stand you in better stead when it comes to your religious views. - 20:43:26 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Adam:Amie: Yes indeed, it IS illgogical to assume an intelligent creator merely from the observation of awe and beauty. Logic is grounded in CONCLUSIONS, not assumptions, and conclusions can be drawn from series of facts that naturally lead to them with no other equally plausible explanations. What you have done is this: (1) Observed existence; (2) properly found it to be immense and complex by human standards; (3) concluded (properly again) that you can't imagine anything on a human scale that could have produced it; (4) ASSUMED (improperly) that there must be a human-style planning and manufacture of what you observe, only on a much larger scale; and (5) conjured up the image of a "super-human"---that is, a god of infinitely greater capability than you, but who is motivated by precisely the same type of stimuli, and goes about things in way exactly similar to you. Do you see your error? You cannot possibly grasp the nature of the forces that could have produced what you observe, so you ASSUME---not CONCLUDE---that it was created in the same way you would create it had you that much power. This is known as PROJECTION. It is the self-centered and narrow process of attributing your feelings, experiences, and knowlegde outward upon the entire universe, and it stems from your discomfort with not being able to explain what you observe in simple terms. The atheist is much more at peace with the concept that he or she has not yet enough information to conclude form whence the origin arose. However, the Big Bang IS a logical conclusion, for it rests on observation that leads to no other plausible explanation. Of course, the bible does not contemplate this big bang, which occurred tens of billions of years ago. Our solar system (including the earth) required an earlier generation of stars to form, bur n out and die violently in supernovae in order to create and distribute the heavier elements of which the earth, and all forms of life thereon, are made. - 20:43:59 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Adam:Addenda to Amie: I think I speak on belhalf of many, if not all, when I describe your contention that desire in itself gives rise to things desired is completely preposterous, and if you stand by it, I have little doubt that thinking people will afford you scant credibility. I ask you to withdraw that one. You can't possibly belive that desire creates things (technically speaking, you have confused correlation with causation---a common logic error. The mere coexistence of A and B is not evidence, without more, that A gave rise to B or vice-versa.) - 20:48:57 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Adam:I'm about to leave for Yankee stadium (Go Tigers!). I ask that denizens of the page opt for intellect over invective in the posts that Surely Temple will follow. - 21:11:03 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:ADAM: one might think it was a nigh-noon response that you inscribed for the theist. Poor thing, nothing will register for that theist. As someone else in a prior post put it, that as that individual suffers a serious lack of intellectual powers, and its' unworthy of communication. - 21:40:05 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

test - 22:19:11 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:ADAM: I just wanted to make a statement about your hero George Bush I neglected to make yesterday. First, I think you're blinded by idolatry. Do you honestly think, in his position at the time, that the qualification of certain persons for citizenship based on their religious affiliation is a matter to joke about? If the man is going to make such statements they better be serious, damn serious, no joking aloud in this arena --- in my opinion anyway. Also, a war hero does not a great man make. This is the man who also instituted the "Gag Rule" for doctors, prohibiting them from discussing abortion with their patients, where and how and when to get it. What gives this man the right to infringe on doctor-patient privilege? Or tell medical professionals, as a non-medical professional, how to do their jobs? His god? His war medallions? What if a woman should consider an abortion because having the child would be life threatening? What if this woman has is poor, has no information on the option of abortion, that it could save her life? The doctor could, if she so wished, help her find a place to have the operation, so saving her life. But our hero bush would have her die. Well I say Fuck Mr. Bush, fuck his god, and fuck his purple heart. He has no right, no matter how "great" a guy he is to tell a doctor how to treat his patient. Period. You can have your precious Bush, take him somewhere far far away, tape his mouth shut, bind his hands together and never let him go. The world will be a much better place. - 22:30:34 on 18 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:--MELISSA..this "gag rule" is something I have never heard about. Do you mean that doctors are actually censored as to what they can say to their patients? Is this still in effect now that Bush is no longer in office? If it is as restricting as you say, I think it is a horrible infringement of doctor's and patients rights. - 0:04:27 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- I agree! But then again, I have yet to see a political leader that doesn't put his personal ideas into action. Maybe one man should not rule the country. Maybe it should be a group of individuals who represent their peers. Rather like a jury. Of course, an atheist/scientist, should be included in the group even though the percentage of peers would be low. Their input would add some sensibility to government. But again that answer would just be too simple. - 14:28:28 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:ALL- As the old saying goes there is a shepherd for every flock. The master of deceptive shepherdism is the one and only Joseph Smith. His followers, the most simple-minded American sheep to roam the country! What is more ridiculous than an American home-grown middle-eastern religion???? Smith translated this "gold tablet" that he found under a rock then when asked where it went, "moroni winged it back to heaven"! Nuts, I say! - 14:36:43 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Peter------Amie---:---First of all, I must once again apologize to all for this lengthy post, but there were things you said yesterday that I feel need to be addressed---and as you will see, I still haven't addressed all the assertions you made. Yesterday you told us that you "allowed God to come into your heart " ,as proof that he does in fact exist. What you are attempting to prove is some philosophical point with reference to personal experience of some kind. The first problem with this argument is that it is not really an argument. An argument presumably has some sort of premises, follows a chain of reasoning, and has a conclusion. This "argument" is simply a bald assertion. It's not an argument at all. I might just as well say that there exists invisible fairies in this room because I've had personal experience with them. Or there's an invisible green elf sitting on my shoulder because I've had personal experience of it. In other words, once you resort to this balderdash you can "prove" or argue anything. This is the complete abandonment of any kind of rational criteria. To attempt to make a philosophical point about the existence of something simply by referring to some kind of internal experience, a feeling just doesn't cut it. There have been a number of attempts to defend this kind of argument. One of is that this feeling is unique. The religionists cannot communicate his experience because it's so unique it cannot be communicated. To this I would answer that every experience is unique. Every experience you have is unique. There is no one experience you have that is totally like any other experience you have. The point is you have a mind, you have the ability to conceptualize, and this is what conceptualization all about. Concepts enable us to ferret out the differences among our experiences and focus on the most common elements and communicate among ourselves. This is what concept-formation consists of; this is how we reason. I think it would be more accurate to say that your experience is simply unintelligible. You don't understand what it is or why it occurred, so you make up a reason that suits your purpose. Referring to Adam's post yesterday--you are making an assumption--not a conclusion. I've heard many lerned theists --and philosophers ( although they should know better )attempting to defend this "feeling" with the relation to ordinary man as a sighted man is in relation to a blinded man. . We're sometimes given the illustration that if a sighted person went among a race of blind persons and he tried to convince them of what the world was like, they would say he's irrational and deny that such things exist. Of course, the theist wants to put himself in that same category. "I have a special intuitive faculty" or "I have a special hotline with God" and this enables him to have a special knowledge that mere mortals are not capable of having. There are many, many problems with this so-called "argument;" I'll point out just a couple. First, it's true that there is a difference between sighted persons and blind persons, but this difference is attributed to some kind of difference in physical capacity. We can explain why -- physically - a sighted person is able to have sense perceptions whereas a blind person is not. There is nothing mysterious about it, whereas this is not at all the case with the mystic. The theist is claiming some kind of intuitive or special physical capacity -- a new sense? If he is, let him provide us with some information about it so we can test it out. Second, the sighted person does not claim access to an inaccessible, supernatural realm. The sighted person is dealing with the same world as the blind person. He simply has an added sense ability that the blind person does not. I do not have to contradict the present knowledge of a blind person to explain what I see. He can test out independently, in his own way, the claims that I make. If I say to the blind person, "There is a wall immediately in front of you," he doesn't have to take my word for it. He can reach out and he can touch it, feel it, sense it, using the sense modalities that are open to him. This is another crucial point to keep in mind in regard to this argument. It's not that the blind person and the sighted person are dealing in two separate worlds; the blind person does have a means of checking out our verifying the claims of the sighted person. Unfortunately, again, we do not have this opportunity when it comes to the claim of the theist. What types of verifiable procedures or tests can we bring to bear on the mystic's claim that he experiences some ineffable, supernatural realm? There is no way whatsoever because he not only claims to have a special sense, power, or ability, but that he claims to sense or know something that lies in another realm altogether. This is totally arbitrary, indefensible, and insupportable. There are a number of other things we could point out here as well, such as the fact that the blind man does not use different standards of knowledge than the sighted man does. They simply have different means of gathering evidence, whereas the theist would require us to abandon many of the current standards of knowledge that we presently use.........You also claim ( and I have heard this regularly from theists ) That it takes as much faith to believe in science. It has become a platitude ( that is usually not contested )--and is a totally false staement. All this shows to me that you have no knowledge at all of the cognitive methods demanded by scientific method in order to qualify itself as science. To have "faith" is to accept a claim as being true regardless of the lack of evidence, or despite it. Science cannot accept these methods, because if they did--it no longer would be science. Evidence must be demonstratable, and be able to withstand rigorous scrutiny--hardly the prerequisites of believing something on "faith". In short , scientific cognition is actually the complete OPPOSITE of religious cognition--i.e. "faith" .......Amie, I am pleased that you have decided to return to this page on several occaisions--and I certainly hope you do learn something. as we all do here regularly. But you will find very soon, that the arguments you have presented here may convince many of those around you, but they will have to be supported entirely before anyone is going to buy them here. I can most definitely assure you, you WILL NOT get away with the reasoning you have used to convince us of anything. - 14:54:24 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: as the christian a.hitler supposedly uttered as well as more than several christians also said fantastic things, 'pious frauds' simple deceptions that can only be intended for the likes of pitiable AMIE who says she benefits from being deceived and also, it especially strengthens her religious beliefs. Does not the definition of pious fraud fit the visiting theist better than a glove? I merely inserted her part into the definition and it seems to work. - 15:13:48 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:CARL-Ureka! Voila! How deception can enhance the deceived is beyond me????? - 15:50:43 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:ANY: Ever read the book "The Ugly American"? well, be that as it may, if one goes along with the media and some gov't reports then you've heard it said the USA has a drug problem. Ok? Noriega suffers for this country's weakness, now per news reports this country will go after some Mexicans in Mexico because they too, provide for the weak of the USA, the druggies. Hooray, right? In the distance we hear in congress laughter and mirth, it resounds to the foundations of the house itself, they the legislators are entertained by a fellow identified by the laws of four countrys as a criminal, he owes France $56Million, ok? The USA so bound by righteousness, law and order some legal agency will immediately turn that fellow over to the country's that want him, right? On that, we will see. Something here just isn't right, or is this one of those land mine affairs, others gotta do whats right but not the USA, its' got "interests" at stake. I am just amusing me and sharing a view, and it could be wrong by some terms but, - 16:16:16 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

carl:MARLENE: sorry about leaving the hitler line open ended, but i was gonna mention that he and the catholics held a good number of similar interests. "Big lies" served both and still do the catholics an ok deal. Germany however, did you see that J.Travolta a scientologist was calling for congress to stepin on behalf of religious freedoms "for" Germans just because that gov't won't let his movies or something into germany! When i see that kind of thing going on, the idiocy and stupidity of religious thinking grows ten-fold. By the way as i pondered this entry i looked up the definition for "belief" happened to see Fraud, where i saw Pious Fraud that you read. Anyway, look up Belief and note how it arbitrarily includes "religious belief" without any relative account. It is amusing, not as in funnny just something that requires some thought. If the definition of that word would be made part of the current era, then it would probably say something that has an inclusion of relativity. just a thought. - 16:55:22 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Hi Everybody Im back again. As most of you will recall the other day, sombody told me that Jesus is not recorded anywhere other than the Bible. I said I would list some places where he has been recorded. The following people were 1st Century SECULAR Historians and Authors who have recorded Jesus in their writings. I would like to point out that they were not Christians, and they had nothing to benefit for mentioning Jesus. Most were indifferent about him or considered him a sort of rebel: Cornelius Tacitus (Roman Historian) Lucian of Samosata Flavius Josephus (Jewish Historian) Phlegon (1st Century Historian) These are JUST A FEW. I can go on. However I just wanted to correct whoever assumed that Jesus is ONLY mentioned in the Bible. Also if this is not proof enough, look in the 15th Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (under Jesus Christ) where is says..."These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and one inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century." Again look these up yourself if you don't believe. Also I would like to address whoever told me the other day that Christianity is made up of stolen parts of different myths. The fact is that CHRISTIANITY predates almost every one of the myths! And the ones that it doesn't come from Jewish beliefs. This seems to indicate that the other mythes copied Christianity, not vice versa. After Jesus died, Christianity exploded across the continents, and these other "cults" took parts of it to attract people to themselves. Like they still do today. I would also like to mention some things from the Bible that have archaeological Evidence to support them: Hittites David's Conquest of Jerusalem The book of Daniel Ebla The Mari Tablets The Nuzi Tablets Laban's Stolen Images Doors in Sodom The Five cities of the Plain An extra Biblican Tenth Centruy B.C Reference to Abraham Historicity of Joseph The Amarna Tablets The Lachish Letters The Gedaliah Seal The Cyrus Cylinder Of course everybody knows the Dead Sea Scrolls. Those of you who claim to know your Bible "inside and out" will know what these things are or mean, otherwise just ask! - 17:24:21 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:I would like to apologize for my lack of commas when I listed the things their are archological evidence for. If there is any confusion just ask. - 17:26:36 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:If drugs were legal and safe we wouldn't have these problems. - 17:26:56 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:And I would like to add one more thing...the evidence I mentioned is ONLY for the Old Testament, I can make a whole new list for the New Testament. - 17:27:52 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:AIME, please give a listing of all the religions that existed before the joke of a religion christianity. Christianity was a tool created by whomever to help bring down the Roman Empire. Guess what, it's just what happened. The creators of the bible knew that no earthly power would be able to bring down the Roman empire, so they needed to create something that would destroy it from the inside out. The next major ancient historian who supposedly mentions Jesus, and thus provides us with evidence that he was an historical character is Tacitus. Cornelius Tacitus wrote his Annals after 117 A.D. Their exact date of composition is not know, but we do know that it was at least 70 years after Jesus' supposed crucifixion. Jesus is not mentioned by name anywhere in the extant works of Tacitus. There is one mention of "Christus" in Book XV, Chapter 44, as follows: "Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated by the people for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race." (D.R. Dudley's) translation) While we know from the way in which the above is written that Tacitus did not claim to have firsthand knowledge of the origins of Christianity, we can see that he is repeating a story which was then commonly believed, namely that the founder of Christianity, one Christus, had been put to death under Tiberius. There are a number of serious difficulties which must be answered before this passage can be accepted as genuine. There is no other historical proof that Nero persecuted the Christians at all. There certainly were not multitudes of Christians in Rome at that date (circa 60 A.D.). In fact, the term "Christian" was not in common use in the first century. We know Nero was indifferent to various religions in his city, and, since he almost definitely did not start the fire in Rome, he did not need any group to be his scapegoat. Tacitus does not use the name Jesus, and writes as if the reader would know the name Pontius Pilate, two things which show that Tacitus was not working from official records or writing for non-Christian audiences, both of which we would expect him to have done if the passage were genuine. Does it look anything like this AIME - 17:37:48 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:--Amie-->>. OK, lets extend to you that this man did in fact walk the earth. So what if he did? ....Despite what others have said here also, the gospels of the New Testament were written between 40-60 years after the death of Christ. Also, If you repond directly to one person, this is far more effective than addressing us as a whole. Do not assume we all believe the same things, so what you say to one person may be irrelevant to another. Why don't you start by giving us an intelligible description of what "god" is? ( as I requested yesterday, and attempted to convey to you how crucial this is of YOU to do.) - 17:41:47 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:AIME, please understand that you are BRAINWASHED. Unitl you speculate and discover for yourself this fact, there is little or anything that we can say to disuade you from believing the lies that you confess to. Please keep on the site and do a little more research. It will only be for your benefit if you do awaken to the fact that you are being mislead. - 17:42:53 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:Ahhh, human christian candles. It is a thought provoking idea. hahahaha - 17:59:02 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:AIME, I think Peter asked you a question! Would you be kind enough to respond? - 18:00:13 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:ANY: the visiting theist is clearly insane, has she never heard about "interpolations" perhaps it would do her with her "open mind" and all, some good to read some of Ingersol's research on her religious fanaticism. Her claims and references appear in Ingersols inscriptions as simple untruths. Whoever came up with the definition that MARLENE and i chuckle about surely musta'seen one as goofy as the jc type visitor. Has she seen the account that tell of the four gospels as preferred by four different groups of pre-christians and with Constantine's 'needs' he arranged for the 4 groups to aid him in his war by agreeing to include all 4 versions in his new "faith' that he thereafter called, christians. Constantine existed about 325AD. there is more of course. - 18:33:31 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:So you can attempt to discredit ONE of those writers? How about the others I mentioned? Or what about Plinius Secundus, Suetonius, Tertullian, or Thallus? God is an all-knowing, all powerful spiritual being. - 19:21:06 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:the fact that the gospels were written years after Jesus' death is a null point. That is like saying somebody can't write an accurate biogrophy of JFK, or Martin Luther King today because they have been dead for years! - 19:23:40 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Has anybody here heard of Sir William Ramsay? He is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologista ever to have lived. He believed that the Book of Acts was a product of the mid-second century A.D. After studying Asia Minor he did a complete reversal of opinio. Afterwards he said this about the author Luke "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians!" He changed his mind because all archaeological evidence supported the Book of Acts. - 19:28:55 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene :AMIE- That's right, today we can bring up documents, videos etc. that we can use to write about people who have died recently. These people have left, not only, written documents to prove they did exsist but actual pictures of themselves some of them painted portraits. There were artists and means of to write in your jesus's day, where are his writings, his pictures ???????? - 19:30:21 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Jesus left something even more important, His teachings. They are all recorded in the Bible. - 19:33:48 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:In those days it wasn't common to write, specially to someone in such humble circumstances as Jesus. - 19:35:39 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:In order for you athiests to say such a thing as there is no such thing as God, you would have to know the universe in its entirety and to possess ALL knowledge. Since nobody is all-knowing, you cannot make a dogmatic statement on God's existence. All you can really say is that you are UNCERTAIN whether or not there is a God, and this view is agnosticism. So I guess there really is no such thing as a real Athiest. By a logical standpoint anyways. - 19:39:26 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:AMIE, you could present 1,000 documents to prove that this person named jesus existed, but there is not one document that will provide any proof that this person was a diety. What makes him a God AMIE. Better yet what makes him the son of God. Who is God anyway. If god designed this world, and if he can see and hear everything, and has the power to change the evil and does not, then he is not only stupid, but evil as well. The concept of a god is man made.MAN MADE. This means AIME that little people such as yourself could not understand the things surrounding them, so they created an avenue to secure their fears. Why AIME only 2% of the world population even believes in your brand of hate. Please argue this point, it pleases me to no end when people such as yourself decide that they need to prove something that doesn't exist. Another good question to you would be "Are you a montheist". Meaning do you believe in one god. If you are christian you actually believe is several god's. jesus, god, angels, satan, virgin mary etc.. There are many gods to your religion. The more you think about it, your religion sounds very similar to the greek religions. Shall I take some of the greek mythology and compare them to the christian mythology. I get so worked up my thoughts tend to go everywhere. I could write a million page essay on the greatest heap of bullshit ever to hit mankind 'the bible'. - 19:44:15 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:You are wrong. Christians do not have MANY gods! Jesus and God the Father are one in the SAME. Angels are NOT gods, they are God's messengers. In the Bible, angels would NOT allow anybody to worship them! Mary is not a god either, she is simply a Jewish women who gave birth to Jesus! I only worship ONE God, I don't know where you got your facts from. Just like in a kingdom their is only one KING, however he has many servants, and messangers but they are not the King! I don't understand where people can say Christianity is full of hate. Jesus said that the world will know His diciples by their LOVE for one another. His commandment is to LOVE thy neihbor as you would love thyself! Does that sound like hate? You can't blame God if man doesn't obey. And God gave people a free will because he loves us so much, if he forced us to obey Him and not sin than we would be robots not the special individuals that He created us to be. If you have a pet and you "force" it to obey you, is that Love? - 19:51:05 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:AIME, the burden of proof lies on you. We have no need to prove that he doesn't exist because there is not one single thing to point to that proves that there is a god. NOTHING. Nothing you can smell, hear, see, taste or touch. Nothing in history, nothing in the present, nothing. I could write a book that says that states that Bill Clinton is the savior reborn. If I did what could you do to prove that he isn't the son of god. What made your jesus anymore the son of god than David Coresh. Nothing. There are some interesting documents that point to jesus as being nothing more than a rebel leader attempting to drive Rome out of Israel. Examples, when jesus entered bethleham why did the people lay down palm leaves in his path, why was he on a dokey, why was he annointed. This is what the did for the kings of israel. The romans may have killed jesus because he was attempting to start a rebellion. Why were his diciples armed when they attempted to arrest him, I believe your book of bs even says that john cut the ear off of a roman centurion. The romans only killed prisoners for rebeling against the state, not for blasphemy. The romans could have cared less about someone prancing around saying he was the son of god. The jews on the other hand would have. The jewish people would have stoned him to death, as was the common punishment for blasphemy at that time. I do not know if i believe this rendering of history but is a lot more plausible than what your bible states as history. - 19:56:36 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:AMIE: Still on just the 4 gospels, of them two use the word belief 2 and 3 times, only the john version goes bonkers with the use of that word. interestingly enough it just so happens to be the one the pope regularly refers to as that version brings up the notion of beleiving not in some god, but jc and his priestly order. Jews did not even have a common old testament, but as paul went bonkers and constantine became a military force in addition having the sole source of the then intelligentia of rome at his disposal the jews had to go on record just to maintain their god and his scriptures for them. This clearly means that the christian thing is probably not judeo-christian and is more greco roman-christian. here to, only the romans wanted to dominate the world as they did the old world and as christians like r.reed, b.graham and others now say so. At some point if you have any honesty and intelligence in you, anywhere, then you will renounce the falseness of christianity as it has no foundation in fact or philosophy. that thing you want so badly is only of your imagination, live in the real world and start thinking of real things. - 20:06:43 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Joette (looking for concise answers to clear questions):-->AMIE..we have all asked you direct questions, and like most other theists, you avoid answering questions as you would avoid the bubonic plague. Now answer this question: were the 10 commandments created by god? Or were people more or less humane at the time, and someone was just trying to reinforce common law? Also, if we do not know for sure if there is a god because we do not have all the knowledge of the universe, is this true for you as well. What evidence do you have that there is a god that you would like to share with us, other than your faith, or feelings. If you do not possess all the knowledge of the universe, that would make you equal to us in this matter. We (including yourself) must be uncertain of the existence of a god. - 20:13:54 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Why dismiss faith and feelings as evidence? Have you ever seen the wind? How do you know that there is wind? Becuase you can A.) Feel It, and B.) You can see evidence of it (leaves and grass moving ,ect.) - 20:32:36 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Thats why I believe in God. Becuase A.) I can feel Him working in my life, and B.) I can see the evidence of Him working in the lives of others and myself. I know people who accepted Jesus a year ago, today they are not the same person! The changed in their life are awesome! This is evidence of God working. - 20:35:43 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Athiests don't believe their isn't a God becuase they are smarter or "more intelligent" than others, its because there is a reason they don't want to! Its a "crutch" for them just like you tell me God is a "crutch" for me! - 20:37:32 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:You all refer to evil, so you must believe their is such a thing as evil. But where did our sense of "right" and "wrong" come from? We all have a sense of justice in us, where did that come from? If you hear about a child-molester you are enraged! Where does that rage come from? Your sense of justice! But where does the sense of justice (that crosses the boundries of culture and society) come from? God! He installed it in us. My parents didn't have to teach me that its wrong to kill somebody! - 20:42:14 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:And yes God did create the ten commandments! Think about this, what would we have if every man, women and child followed those commandments? We would have a PERFECT world. Only God has that standards that high that he could write those commandments. - 20:44:02 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:years ago when my husband was in High School, He ripped his ac ligaments in his left knee. His doctor made an appointment for the next week so he could come in for surgery. Now my husband could hardly even walk, much less run. After he went to church that night and had the elders pray over his knee (like the Bible says to do) He was 100% fine! He could run perfectly and all of a sudden the surgery wasn't necessary! Sounds like God to me. - 20:49:52 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:If any of you have ever ripped a ligament in you knee you would understand the awesomeness of this. - 20:50:54 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Everybody can say im illogical or Im not intelligent. But thats a cop out, you just can understand how somebody can believe in God, so you naturally assume im stupid,un-educated and illogical. Dismiss me as stupid if you want, but talk to anybody who knows me and you'll find thats not true. - 20:54:56 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:AMIE: Now on the count of the jew thing, i've read more than a few accounts that they- jews, had to come up with their version of an o.t. just because in addition to paul's insanity and all, he and other pre-christian types were going around doing all kinds of foolish things in the name of a god, supposedly the return of theirs, one of the things they- jews, added in their torah was that miracles portended false messages. That called for the pre-christian types to respond with the anti-semitism that you read in your god inspired bible. That jc type god hates them, it says so, does it not? Burn your bible for your own sake. - 20:56:52 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:I do enjoy coming here, as the Bible says "as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another". You people make it possible for me to sharpen my debating skills, and everytime I come here I leave even happier that I have a personal realtionship with the creator of this world. Every body has a God-shaped vaccuum in their soul, and you can try to fill it with drugs, sex or science or anything...but only God fits. - 20:58:22 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:The new testament is NOT anti-sematic. In fact the N.T writers speak very highly of the Jews. They realized that it was necessary for Jesus to be rejected by the Jews in order to die thus giving salvation. - 21:01:08 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:READ your Bible...for your own sake. (If you can handle full fledged Truth) - 21:02:16 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:JOETTE: If I'm correct in my recent history, I believe that once Clinton became president (not that it was he that did it) the "gag rule" was overturned or extinguished or whatever. Though I could be wrong. THIS IS FOR ADAM: " While campaigning for his first term, George Bush said "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots."[1]Bush has not retracted, commented on, or clarified this state- ment, in spite of requests to do so. According to Bush, this is one nation under God. And apparently if you are not within Bush's religious beliefs, you are not a citizen. Federal, state, and local governments also promote a particular religion (or, occasionally, religions) by spending public money on religious displays. Governments also establish religion via blue laws, which set Sunday as a special day on which business is prohibited or limited. http://www.ktn.net/~bigfoot/bor1.htm" Pretty sickening, eh? AMIE: What if Bush had said this about Mormons (Assuming you are one) or whatever religion you are affiliated with? Would you so readily shower him with praise? I don't think so. You really need, as a human being, to shed your biases, step back and THINK. Don't feel AIMEE, THINK. Don't react, take a breath, THINK. - 21:09:01 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:AMIE: I've read it and as for your ignorance of what it says i'll get you the appropriate passage, then i expect you to be honest and truthful to yourself, and see that book for what it is, it is man-made, that is the full fledged truth. - 21:10:17 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:AMIE: still on truths, does your bible have a copyright inscribed in it? where do you suppose that came from or who put it there, or better yet who or what presented it at the desk for that recording process, a god or a man? - 21:17:17 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene , humble is no excuse!:AMIE- WRONG! In fact your jesus was, according to unreliable sources, a member of the essenses who actually were have to have taken part in writing the scrolls. - 21:17:39 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:JOETTE & MARLENE: re: your posts to Joshua about a child being aware of non-existence of Santa Claus by 11 or 12. It wasn't until I was 11 that I gave up the belief in Santa, this after 2 years of my parents trying to convince me he wasn't real. Every time they mentioned it, I'd run away crying . . . I know he exists! You can't tell me he doesn't! So don't go assuming children all children are as skeptical as you'd like to think. I think his question was very relevant and intriguing, as I don't have children myself and am constantly wondering how I'll handle this particular arena of life. JOETTE: I don't think he was giving advice, I think he was just putting down his own thoughts on the subject for you all to scrutinize and give HIM advice on. Don't let the rather harsh criticism of yourself blind you to a call for help. - 21:17:59 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:PETER: Re: proving a negative. I guess you and adam are right. I think I kinda got confused and was trying to staighten it out in my head, for a few moments the definitions seemed to not connect, I mean don't you have to have a positive to have a negative? But then . . . oh well, perhaps just wrong thinking on my part, happens all the time. - 21:20:46 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:There is no hope. She is beyond any means of help. That is the very reason I consider chrisianity a virus. What you don't understand AMIE is I and mabey others were raised in "the church" I know for a fact that I can debate any passage in that book as well as you or better. You can feel christ all you want, but the only thing your feeling is yourself. Explain to us how 98% of the world either believes in a different form of religion than you do, or they don't believe at all. I do not believe these religions have any more relevance than yours. Or mabey you can explain how my ancestors who were around thousands of years before jesus had no knowledge of your insane religion until they were slaughtering us. Evil is a state of wrongness. Evil may even be a poor chose of a word. Mankind has managed to live and prosper in many different cultures and ages without the aid of your religion or bible. The christian faith will one day be eradicated. When that day comes mankind shall rejoice. All those of your ilk need to be hunted and exterminated because of your many past evils and your ongoing need to have everyone to believe as you do. The day will come AIME, I hope by that time you have thought about the virus you believe in. One day the majority of people will wake up and throw the yoke we call religion off our backs. - 21:24:10 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:That may have been a little extreme. Sorry, sometimes I loose control. sighhh - 21:29:02 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:AMIE: feeling the wind and "feeling" god are two different phenomena. You feel the wind by physical sensation. God is felt through emotions. You can't compare the two, they are felt on different levels. Personally, I don't think your debating skills have gotten any better. You still haven't given any proof, the type we demand, of god, you just keep quoting the bible and referring to your "feelings" and "faith". When are you going to get it through your skull that we deny the credibility of the bible on the basis of human intervention - and on that basis anything dreamed or imagined can be written down a worshipped without being the true nature of reality - and the use of feeling and whatever that daemon Faith is as knowledge of god. There are those that feel it in their bones that the Holocaust never happened, have Faith that white men are superior to women and any colored race under the sun. The feel these things and have faith in these things in the face of blatant facts to the contrary. As soon as you give up these tactics you'll realize they're all you have, and debate is futile. And you'll have to either give up your religion or acknowledge that your belief is most likely a piss warm security blanket, a delusion, a nothing and no one. - 21:31:25 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:AIME, aren't angels, satan etc.. supposed to live forever and have powers other than human. Look up the definition of diety. By the way, from what I remember jesus while hanging on the cross, did he not pray to his father. This seems to indicate more than one god. hmmmmm - 21:34:14 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:AIME, do you think the budist (sp), the muslim, the shaman, the hindu, the mormon etc.. feel their gods as much as you do? Please think about this for your sake. - 21:36:41 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- I have two children who, of course, are no longer children but adults. The santa thing myth was found out when they were 9 and 10, my daughter hanging on a little longer. I don't know about yourself but I know it was over for me at about age 9 also. Kids in this area average about 9 or 10 also. - 21:47:06 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:FOR AMIE: a quote from _Atheism: The Case Against God_: "An agnostic is a person who believes that something is inherently unknowable by the human mind. When applied to the sphere of theistic belief, an agnostic is one who maintains that some aspect of the supernatural is forever closed to human knowledge." You suggest that we are not true atheists. Perhaps, perhaps not. But I would suggest that, when it come to your Christian God, or the Jewish God, or the Muslim Allah, all essentially the same - the proclaimed atheists on this site are TRUE ATHEISTS in reference to this particular deity. You see the fact that your Bible was written by human beings, the fact that the Earth is billions of years old, not thousands, the fact that living organisms evolved from a little scrap of protien that learned how to replicate itself BILLIONS of years ago, weren't spontaneously generated a few thousand years ago, very strongly suggests, no PROVES, your god, YOUR GOD AMIE, DOES NOT NEVER DID NEVER WILL EXIST. period. it is a figment of men's minds, like Zeus, like Quetzoquatil (sp?), like Ra. Now unless you can produce significant evidence against evolution and carbon dating, you'll never convince us otherwise. - 21:48:27 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene who prefers factory installations!:AMIE- In reference to your claim that xtianity was original in it's myth, NAY, actually if you would bother to read anything other than that offered by Smith, you would discover that xtianity borrowed much from hinduism which is much older than any judiac religion. I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW THAT YOUR god DID NOT DO ANY INSTALLATION ON ME!! That was on MARY, you silly goose! - 21:54:35 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:AMIE- Now on the feeling wind thing. All of this could be standing together and we would all at the same time feel the wind if it were blowing at 20kmph. No we can not see it but we can feel it. At the same time, only you seem to feel your god. The odds aren't there Amie. - 21:59:18 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:GENERAL; after watching the AMIE party for several days it looked to me as though she was just out for fun. So, while she like any other such theist can not directly answer "show me" query's, i figuered to join her in her fun. Surely she is better than the drivel she posted here. MARLENE, glad you posted the Essene thing, that is the name Constantine changed to christian because of someone those ol'timers called christus. Something like that is how it read. - 22:09:16 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN- I agree, the word "evil" has seemed to have taken on a supernatural factor so I, too, don't like the word. World-wide there are a few things that humanity agrees on that are not acceptable or contributing to society, one is murder and the other causing physical and or mental injury. Who needs a religion to recognize that these things are unacceptable in society?????? Amie seems to. Just where would we be as a race if we needed a mythological character to tell us what is obvious. Only in xtianity or judaism or islam can one kill over a piece of land or a train of thought, or use physical or mental abuse to shepherd the masses. - 22:09:51 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Sadly, I don't think Amie is having fun with us at all. From what she's been saying, I think Steven has her pegged, brainwashed. I can't imagine anyone ever doing this to me without a great amount of insecurity on my part or a great amount of physical injury toward me on their part. YICK! Steven's right, it's a virus! Or maybe a Dawkin meme???? - 22:14:45 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene eyes glued to Friday night TV!:Well, this is boring! Amie has likely gone off to her church to pray over someone's sprained ankle. And maybe to contribute some very real installments to the church kitty. Does anyone like sci-fi here? The pilot of _The Visitor_ is on FOX tonight. I just love it when they mix up aliens, religion and modern day issues like govt. coverup and cloning all into one show. I just love sci-fi but BEWARNED! I've heard it's "from the devil". Stan could never be this creative! - 23:04:54 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene still rambling because she's already seen that episode of COPS:AND I'm thinking, but Joette, Carl or Adam won't be watching because they are likely catching a baseball game. Ever notice that the only sci-fi involving sports was that movie where the main line was "build it and they will come"? - 23:08:49 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Lurker...:I had a busier week, this past week, than a ONE-LEGGED MAN AT AN ASS KICKING CONTESTS! :~) - 23:28:56 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Adam ALWAYS AMAZED^^^ :Medusa... I would say you went off the deep end in your Bush post in several respects. I never said he was my "hero", but a "stasteman." I never asserted that he was joking, but rather that he made a stupid remark. It is quite clear that you've assumed that my determination that he had the best presidential resume in history was premised exclusively on his military service, when in fact that hadn't even crossed my mind when I made the statement. As for the gag rule, I'm pretty sure it applied---indeed, COULD only apply---to physicians receiving federal funds. Without broaching the topic of the merits of the abortion debate, I would think it plausible and consistent for an abortion opponent to attempt to deny federal funding for all promotion of the practice, although the legality of the policy is questionable if not shaky. As for your vitriolic voice and expletive execution, well, say what you will. I certainly had my policy disagreements with GB, but all in all, he was head & shoulders above the racketeer who blemishes the WHite House today. - 23:33:54 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Adam IN & OUT:PETER, PETER PANSY MEETER? I'd be very interested in hearing more about your fairy experiences. - 23:37:12 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Adam---->CARL:You do agree, right, that scientologists ought not be censored and, regardless of the lack of merit of the tenets of that or any cult, that Germany ought not be barring movies. - 23:44:48 on 19 Sep 97 GMT

Adam--->Amie:We can and do say that god does not exist in the absence of proof to the contrary. Again, by your "logic"---and a point raised days ago that you never addressed---YOU can't say with any certainty that there is no tooth fairy, right, but merely that you are uncertain as to the tooth fairy's existence. By the way, given that I have seen any number of writings mentioning the tooth fairy, I have corroborated not only that the tooth fairy exists, but incisively (HAR!) that the tooth fairy is the one and only daughter of MOLAR of GINGIVIIS, master of the Great Cavity and holder of the omnipotent Crest. In addition, in the corroborated Book of Tooths, the great prophet Enamuel wrote of the afterlife in Heaven, beyond the Pearly White Colgates manned by Saint Plaquer, which shall open only for those who have accepted the Holy Tricuspid: The Father, the Daughter and the Holy Crown. You can read about this in any Dentist's office. So it must be true. - 0:02:15 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

Adam----> Amie:I assume that the crusaders must have been pretty down on themselves, the way they loved their neighbors (they were fond of flaying---removing the skin of live prisoners, and sending the same to the flayees' families). - 0:06:33 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

Adam Point of Natural Order:Amino-melissa-acids: I know this is picayune, but the protein garnered the ability to replicate by accident, and became fruitful (no offense intended, Peter). As in all evolution, there is no "learning." Anyone catch that Amie said that god "INSTALLED" morality? I said I only jump on grammaticals when there's something particularly funny or ironic, and chef boy-oh-boy ar dee, the image of installing a memory board in a machine (dare I say "robot"?) was conjured right quick. - 0:22:45 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

Adam---SORRY!:I'm doing 32 hours of ketchup (catsup?), and my install routine (HAR!) above was posted before reading Marlene's quip, supra. - 0:24:52 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

Adam---Marlene:Field of broken dreams---YER OUT!!! Angels in the outfield and Damned Yankees are two of a modest bunch of Beezel-ball-bub type offerings. - 0:29:32 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Well its interesting to see the only thing most of you can jump on is a simple typo I made! - 0:34:33 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:You people will never understand how it feels to know and feel God untill you experience it. And someday each and every one of your knees will be bowing and every one of your tongues WILL confess that JESUS is Lord! Hopefully in this lifetime, because if not your in trouble. And I would like to add that a good debater never has to resort mocking, calling names or the such. And I offered lots of proorf today, however I noticed most of it went unrefuted. And as for everyone who keeps telling me to prove God exists...well that is a cop out. You have nothing else to say, its like like kids arguing and when one is running out of points they cross their arms and say "Prove it!" Every point I made today that you could not refute has just been ignored. I offered tons of archeological evidence (not even all of it) and nobody could touch it, I offered lots of secular authors who wrote about Jesus, nobody replies. Granted, these things don't prove God exists but they could of gone somewhere, intead they were just ignored. And also my husband miracle...nobody can refute that so lets just mock it! And that is not the only miracle I have seen. I have prayers answered every day. I have a real life relationship with a personal and living powerful God who cares about me (and every one of you too, like it or not) I have a peace inside ME that nobody else except other Christians have. You people think your too smart or "logical" to believe in God. You talk to me like im stupid and abhor logic, well I don't. Im a very logical person, God made me that way. Im sure if any of you get into serious trouble, or a life/death situation you will find room in your logical minds to pray to God. And the good news for you is that he will answer you because he loves you. Imagine (for all you parents) if your own children one day denied you exist ! Imagine how much you love them and how much that would hurt if they decided to deny you were their parent or that you even existed because they couldn't imagine how its possible that you could concieve them or give birth to them. See you all next week. - 1:12:46 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

Adam--->Amie:Seem to me that most of us ask for reasoning, whereas the use of "install" was the basis merely for two humorous posts. A neutral third-party observer would be astonished that your selectively exclusive determination is that all most of us did is jump on the typo. I'd really like you to tell me why you've ignored my tooth-fairy routine. Aside from its biting wit and incisive cleverness, it was intended to illustrate to you how silly you sound to us. Can you tell me why the tooth fairy is not your god or even, assuming that you do not believe in the almighty TF, why not? Do you have proof that TF is not the tooth, er, I mean, trooth? Can you put a "dent" in the analogy rather than just flossing over it? Can you "pick" it apart in a brush with true reasoning? I am trying to get to the root of your belief structure. If you just disregard my post, well, then you've got some nerve. The ending. - 1:15:19 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

Adam GREY on ANATOMY:You mean ALL my knees and tongues? How many knees do I need, and do I speak with forked tongue? Again, I challange your god to a duel right now! Why is your god such a chicken shit? Maybe in his omniscience, he already knows I'll plant my bended knee right upside his blessed butt! - 1:18:53 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM Parting Shot:¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ Jo knows baseball: Hey, loved the return of the Rocket's Red (Sox) glare to Fort McFenway. Or, should I say, the bombs bursting in air? Oh, Jays, does that no-run-support Rocket yet win, when at home in the Sky Dome, or away, in Bos-tin! Thank you all. See everyone Monday, Monday. - 2:08:24 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:---Amie--You mentioned something about honing your debating skills here. However, all you have don eis make a series of unrelated, unsupported claims which we all have heard variations of over and over and over again. In your mind you feel you are debating, but this is as much as the antithesis of debate I have ever witnessed in recent memory. Many of us. have offered you an opportunity to place yourself in the realm of rationality, but you,as most theists sadly have done as well, is either fail to acknowledge the basic fundamentals required for such a discussion. It is difficult to take your posts seriously, and you are sounding more childish, unfocused, and foolish with each post as you are nowhere close to conducting anything like a rational discussion. We are not concerned with typographical errors--we all make them--and it is embarassingly naive for you to think this is the case. I have noticed also you have yet to make a direct post to me or practically anyone else. Do you in fact UNDERSTAND what we are saying to you. Your refusal to answer simple questions seems to indicate you rarely do, and you consider many of our posts making invalid and unimportant points, simply because you have difficultyunderstanding them if you do. just ask. I can assure you you will respected far more as a "worthy opponent" in debate--and you may learn a few things as well.....ADAM---Blue Faiies, Invisible Dragons, and Unicorns, Tooth fairies---hey they are all there. - 3:25:37 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:AMIE- Stan damn and I didn't get to wish you a MIRACULOUS weekend! - 3:30:40 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene rambling, must be tired!:PETER- I supposed I've long ago abandoned trying to reason with theists like Amie. Because Orwell wrote of Bigbrother does that prove Bigbrother exsists? Because double-speak has been recognized since 1984 does this prove Bigbrother exsists. Because Dale of King of the Hill is sure that there is a government conspiracy does this make him a prophet? Take out the names and put god as Orwell, Bigbrother as satan and poor ole Dale as jesus and we have a religion. Nonsense, absolutely! But not any worse than Amie has been coming across! - 3:42:01 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:AMIE- I don't apologize for jumping on the "installed" typo. Considering your other posts, it was the highlight of the day. Well, goodnight and may gabby lure maroni down Rue Hades! - 3:47:48 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene :BILL- I see your down in the foxhole! - 3:49:10 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, I am more than down in a foxhole; I am deeper than whale sh*t! I may be lurking more for awhile, during the week especially. I volunteered to be a project co-ordinator, for a particular project at work, and it's going to take several months to get on the down side. I hate it when I get bored and then just volunteer to jump off the deep end…. Actually I like a little stress every-now-and-then! I wish Amie would send me a miracle, but unfortunately I have found, through life's experience, that "hard work" is directly proportional to "success." - 12:44:31 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:--MARLENE---I think by now that Amie is beginning to realise that she may be in way over her head here. She--as well as most other theists--is incapable of forming supported premises into valid conclusions (i.e. logic ) She now has resorted to bald assertions, wild stabs at attempting to "prove", all doused with pre-suppositons. I don't think she really understand most of the analogies many of the atheists made here--as she often persued an area many had previously shown was illogical, thus invalid. I suppose I was being overly optimistic with Amie in that she may possess even minimal knowledge of the basic fundamentals of rational debate--due to the fact she posted more than the usual one time. However, she demonstrated by her irrationality--stating that what she was saying was adequate proof, once again shows that one must completely abandon reason to believe and support religious beliefs. - 13:56:19 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:---ADAM---Well I certainly enjoyed your tooth-fairy routine!! - 14:00:38 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:ADAM- Same goes for me. And the tooth fairy gives real rewards too! But alas, I failed to use Crest so I'm doomed to never experience the nashing of teeth....sigh! - 14:29:20 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:ADAM: I don't believe I went off the deep end in response to your defense of George Bush at all. I went back and looked at your post and, indeed, you didn't say it was a joke but a "stupid off-the-cuff remark". Fine. I don't think a man in his position has the luxury of making such off the cuff remarks, and the fact that he hasn't retracted suggests it was more than that. I mentioned his military career because it is the only thing, as far as I am concerned that should earn him any respect whatsoever. As for his statesmanship, I don't give a damn. The man is evil, a danger to man's rights. I thought you were an enemy of religion, and the dopes that worship a god any god. But George Bush is permitted to do as he pleases with his federal funds, and its ok because there is nothing wrong with a political leader supporting his beliefs even if those beliefs are connected to his religious beliefs, the religious beliefs of which you are an enemy. Your statements don't mesh. You should be an enemy of Bush's just as you are an enemy of Amie's. Went over the deep end? Maybe, but as Steven said in one post - "That may have been a little extreme. Sorry, sometimes I loose control. sighhh - 21:29:02 on 19 Sep 97." But I don't apologize for it. I will never respect Bush, or anyone who chooses to ignore the two most blatant violations of individual rights I've ever encountered. 1) the suggestion of excluding a group from citizenship based on religious affiliation - offthecuff remark or not, 2) interfering with the medical community in an area that has already been deemed a legal practice. BTW: Let's say you're right. He was just referring to physicians receiving federal funds (I'm not sure if this is so or not and it would be interesting to find out). Doesn't the fact that the Supreme Court ruled abortion legal in Roe v. Wade prohibit him from such an action, it is FEDERALLY legal after all. I'm not versed in law as you seem to be so I could be wrong. Regardless the act in itself adds to his bad reputation in my own books, and I'll stop now as this is getting rather long winded. - 18:51:07 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:ADAM: as far as the LEARNING protien goes, sorry, bad word choice - Of course I completely understand how evolution works and may have mislead dear Amie. I'll watch my word choice in the future. Regardless, my point was that in light of recent scientific discoveries, there is no way her Biblical Christian god could possibly exist. A Creator in general perhaps -- though I strongly doubt even this phenomenon. But Yahwe, Allah, God -- no way no how. - 18:55:58 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:AMIE: not only did you ignore Adam's poigniant toothfairy example, you ignored my request for proof AGAINST evolution and carbon dating and the actual age of the earth (billions not biblical thousands of years), as these are the bases of my own rejection of a Christian God. I don't recall mentioning any typos, by the way. You suggest we read your bible with an open mind. Been there done that. Now I suggest you read MY bible with an open mind. It is _Athiesm: The Case Against God_, by George H. Smith, published I believe in the 70's as was my own copy of the Holy Bible. Now remember to keep an Open Mind, if you dare read it. - 19:08:16 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa: Joette and Adam if intersted:I checked and you were right, Adam, it was a rule gagging physicians receiving Title X federal funds. The article about it is an interesting one located at: http://family.hampshire.edu/capf92.html - 19:21:15 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa: Sorry just one more thing:Clinton did reverse the policy his first week in office. (mind you this doesn't mean I'm a Clinton fan, Adam. I don't like most of the politicians we have to choose from nowadays.) - 19:25:33 on 20 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:--->TO ANYONE INTERESTED: a medical case has been much in the news here in Canada this week. A team of doctors performed what is being called "The Lazarus Procedure", wherein the induced the death of a patient to repair what was, until then, an inoperable brain aneurism in a 54 year old man. The patient was clinically dead for 18 minutes, with no brain, heart or any other type of physical function. The operation was a success, and upon being interviewed, the patient was asked if remembered anything, or what it felt like to be dead. He said that he couldn't remember a thing, and in his own words he stated: "I guess when you're dead, you're dead. There is nothing else." So, how will the "life after death" believers going to discount this first hand death experience? - 18:13:45 on 21 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:--Joette--Of course this will prove nothing to the theists. I can almost hear them now saying things like " Well that doesn't prove anything, God KNEW that the plan was to revive him, so why would he begin the 'post-life package' with him" So no matter what happens, the theists put themselves in a "win-win" situation. Only two things could have happened, either he had a "post death experience" or he didn't. If he did, all the theists would say "See, that shows there is a God ( which it really wouldn't )--and in this case he did not, so they come up with the aforementioned excuse. - 19:05:07 on 21 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE and PETER- Ahh! How refreshing a "back from the dead truthsayer"! I've read quite a bit on this so called "beyond and back" experience. Although I'm not saying these people do not experience nothing, what they experience is more than likely hallucinations caused by a lack of oxygen to the brain. There is a doctor in Ontario (can't remember her name??) that has done a lot of research into this. Then another doctor, (can't remember his name either???) showed that while doing some brain surgery on a patient (patient is conscious, of course) when a certain area in the brain is triggered the patient felt that he was outside his body. Going back to the female doctor, a lack of oxygen to the brain can also trigger a hallucination of light. I was watching this on the _Learning Channel_, which I'll be subscribing to next month since they decided to scramble and there was also a piece on it on the _Discovery Channel_. I'm just SOOOO excited! Tonight, new episodes of The Simpsons, my favorite King Of the Hill and hopefully a new X-Files. - 21:21:11 on 21 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:One of the morning news shows here in phoenix had a guest speaker on one morning discussing precisely this subject. Don't remember his name, but he's written a book on Life after death experiences and mentioned this argument, the hallucination thing, as an alternative to an afterlife. However, he claims it doesn't make sense because people who have this experience always see dead relatives, dead not living. And if it were really an hallucination, there would be no selectivity in who'd be visiting you. I'd suggest he's being selective in the cases he chooses to present: those that support his own theory. - 23:07:41 on 21 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->MELISSA...I think you are right. Last night I had a dream about two people very close to me, and both are now dead. My dream and a pseudo after death experience have a lot in common. I have no more selectivity in my dreams as people who are hallucinating do. - 23:43:43 on 21 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:--I recently read a book by a prominent Canadian christian author Tom Harpur entitled "Would You Believe", and he said that if someone dreams about a dead person, that is probably that dead person's way of trying to communicate with the person having a dream!! This is a perfect example of how a writer of this type just perpetrates this kind of balderdash to the believers. Notice the theists have an affection for furnishing evidence of any claim that could never be subjected to any type of test or experiment. Of course no one would dare question him making a completely unsupported claim like this, because this is not a requirement for theistic beliefs. What if one dreams about someone who is still alive. Why then would this not be a way of those people trying to communicate with the "dreamer". I've dreamt about my wife thousands of times, and sometimes when I wake up I tell her that she told me to buy a new car or something in my dreams---but she'll say something like " I just didn't want you to steal all the blankets!". - 0:01:40 on 22 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:I'm SOOOOOO disappointed!!! X-Files was a repeat! Bobby loves guns and Homer hates New York....Anyway, that guy just may have something Peter> last night I dreamt of my Nanna giving me grief over my stealing 7 cents for a popsicle out of the UNICEF box I took around at Hal-o-ween. She was shaking her finger at me and also at a picture of the White House. - 3:19:49 on 22 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene who has the strangest dreams:THEN.....would you believe????...That Kennedy was saying to Clinton "You go boy!" CAUSE, you know that line I'm famous for, "Ask not what..blah blah blah...", it wasn't kosher either! - 3:23:37 on 22 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:While on this subject, many people who have died and supposedly seen god, the big kahuna, or something similiar have made a real point in living a more productive life after such an experience. If it were I, I'd likely think that I've taken my life for granted and apreciate life more. Would this not be most people's outlook??? What is so amazing about someone appreciating life a little more when face with the reality of losing it. - 3:32:20 on 22 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene ...to tell the truth:Actually, I've been there and I experienced nothing but a greater appreciation of life. The really neat thing that happened for me, was that I went into shock. I was aware of what was going on around me but I felt no pain when I should have been in great pain and I was so relaxed. At that point I hadn't been given any drugs nor did I have any medical attention at that point. The brain can do amazing things! - 3:39:52 on 22 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:OPEN: back to see how things go, been away reading n/stuff, looks like the theist is here yet, apparently she has not seen the Joseph Wheless site about "the forgery in christianity." Upon review of that site i got to wondering about the 'origins of christianity' site. What is most difficult when theists try to argue for their god or anyone's god, they loose sight that its for human interests that is the whatever "for the discovery of truth and emlarging the bounds of knowledge, is the highest form of human activity." That's a quote of Keyser, - 15:05:09 on 22 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:AMIE: The response for the anti-semitism points, will do one other thing besides illustrate anti-semite stuff. It will also show the passages were inscribed by non-jews. If you would go to Mt.xxviii, 15; Mk.vii, 3; John ii, 6 & 13; John iii, 1; John v, 16; John vi, 4; John xix, 40, and there are more. Generally these passages are said with a sense of racial hatred and contempt, this kind of conveyance is probably akin to the black american's who sense something in the H.Finn & T.Sawyer books and want both at least censored. (perhaps, if i were jewish such would be my point of contention to keep the bible out of public affairs.) Anyway, those passages were written by greeks because the text clearly are said by those unfamiliar with jewish customs etc. They(?) were 'selling' the good news to the ignorant and superstitious people of the times, are you either one or both? Why greeks, all known scripture is written in greek, jc and his followers were of the unlearned and ignorant(probably didn't know how to write) not of the educated or learned of those times. - 17:36:34 on 22 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:AMIE: if you appear again, what does John xx,9 mean, especially he "As yet, etc..." I don't mind saying that i am using the findings of other heretics- this means 'choice' for those who choose what they will believe or whether they will believe at all. The bible's forged gospels are merely anti-heretical documents put in place by the priestly order et.al. Anyway, why waste energy on something that like your bible it is obviously a fraud and forgery. Of that point, consider, in 1930 the pope, etc., was concerned about the passage in Exodus xx, 5 it goes 'for i the lord thy god am a jealous god, visiting the inequities of the fathers upon the children,etc.' he/they said it was really 'for i, the lord thy god, am a god of loving kindness and mercy, considering the errors of the father as mitigating circumstances in judging the childen, etc' instead. I post this because in one o'your posts you said something or other was loving. Just in your dreams. - 19:16:15 on 22 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:MARLENE & JOETTE: This is my greatest love: the complexity of the human brain. I will one day, after many years of schooling, be a neurochemist/pharmacologist. It is amazing to me that, in light of the abundant literature on neurochemical and neuroelectrical processes and their complexity that people, especially knowledgable people, could assert that there is something more here at work than chemical/electrical chaos. Actually I find it interesting that this modern "Lazarus" experienced NOTHING. I would expect at least a bright light hallucination or something. I have a little theory though. Most likely he was anesthetized before being de-lifed. Perhaps the anesthetic numbed or made impossible whatever mechanism is at work when people die outside of a controlled medical environment. Yes, even when people die inside hospitals they experience LAD, but then again, they aren't in the exact situation this man was, a controlled death. It would be interesting I think to bring back Kevorkian's (sp?) patients and ask them if they had an LAD experience. These types of deaths, controlled and physician implemented, I think offer the strongest evidence supporting an hallucination hypothesis for LADE's: the lack of an LAD in the presence of an anesthetic would suggest the mechanism for the hallucination is being impaired. WHAT DO YOU THINK AMIE? - 19:24:34 on 22 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:PETER: Your post about Tom Harpur reminds me of a famous psychological theory of which I'm very fond. It states that people will search for and notice evidence in support of preconceived notions while ignoring huge blaring evidence to the contrary. In the epistemological arena I believe its called tenacity, flows from a priori beliefs. It is the most commonly used way of learning for theists and bigots (what a coincidence). Supposedly there is a way to counteract this phenomenon, I believe by asking the subject to read a certain article in support of the opposite side as if that person were of the same opinion as the opposite side, basically role-reversal. Its supposed to work, they can see the validity of the other side's points. As far as I know, however, this has only been done with economic, social, and political issues, not religion or bigotry -- though I could be wrong. I can't help but wonder, would this tactic work for a theist or a bigot? It doesn't seem to have worked with amie. But maybe she's the exception. We can only hope. - 19:45:00 on 22 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene..:MELISSA- Although I'm not really learned in the chemical reactions of the brain, I'm really interested. I was thinking along the same lines in reference to the case Joette presented. What actually happens in the brain when one is given an anesthetic?? - 19:52:15 on 22 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..I will definitely defer to Melissa on that one, especially since she is studying pharmaceuticals, but I will tell you, I had to have surgery awhile back, and I was given literature on exactly what drugs would be used when I was going to be anestisized (sp?) and exactly what effect it would have on my mind, and it scared the bejesus out of me. In fact, I demanded they do the surgery while I was awake! (they wouldn't though...) - 20:44:52 on 22 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MELISSA: see your recommended book for the theist, may i recommend another available on AMAZON.COM for thirty buc's titled Forgery in Christianity. It is pretty good stuff. later, - 21:27:10 on 22 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:---MELISSA---Oh the theists just love to do this in various forms. Initially they arbitrarily connect unrelated causes to an effect ( post hoc ergo propter hoc ) --and also ignoring the principle of parsimony ( which says th most likely ans simple explanation is the most likely one )continue on to connect causes with desired effects--in order not to contradict their vested interest in a certain belief. Amie's posts are such incredibly good examples of this, they are worthy to be included in university textbooks. But as you say, this is the only method that rascists and theists can use to convince others of their beliefs. However, since the majority of mankind is incapable of rational critical thinking, ( which can easily detect the fallacious nature of this "reasoning )the majority of mankind will buy it. A more widespread knowledge of critical thinking is a vital necessity for mankind--and here's a perfect example why. - 22:39:37 on 22 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:PETER: How sad it all is. How utterly and tragically sad. Because if those 95% had this critical thinking ability (don't they try to teach that in elementary school? I seem to remember special questions labeled "Critical Thinking" in my textbooks. Alas, these could only be approached by the smartest of the smartest of the class), then perhaps they'd realize how truly precious life is, not death and some Afterlife, which is what they live for, but life and every action one takes from day to day, what one makes of it, and the necessity of not kidding yourself, not voluntarily believing a lie, a myth. Perhaps they wouldn't be so bitter, concern themselves with others' lives. I wonder sometimes what it is that has made me stray from the masses, what is it I learned or happened to me that didn't happen to them? After all, I also rarely cared to think about those critical thinking questions way back when. - 0:50:16 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

RON...it's almost over...: Susan is now the meanest, most hurtful, childish person I know. My lawyer and I are making her a final offe to end this attack on my heart. I'm looking forward to getting on with my life and discussing what most (if not all of you) will find very interesting. My son is the most important person in my life now. I'm his father and no amount of lying will take that from me. I love MYSELF now. Break open the gates, and let loose the dogs of war!! - 0:59:55 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Adam, Embarking on my Monday-night array of ketchup posts:Melissa---> Insofar as there are no openly atheist politicians---indeed, they would be unelectible---then I suppose you would make all of them my enemies. However, politics---particularly U.S. politics---is based on large coalitions, and although I will be engaged in Athe-activism henceforth, I cannot make the country Atheist overnight, and must decide on one or another major party affiliation, individual issue differences notwithstanding. So although I despise the "religious" or "moral" right, I am most strongly aligned with the libertarian wing of the GOP. If you're a Democrat, you have your left-wing looneys that you are "aligned" with. Goes with the turf. I will not pillory G. Bush---indeed, not any officeholder---for merely being wrong (even egregiously so) on a single issue (even one I hold dear). I iterate my position that he is a true statesman and was infinitely more trustworthy and competent a leader (not, mind you, politician) than his embarrassment of a successor, who apparently turned the DNC into a racketeering organization. As for Bush's resume before taking office, he was a Congressman, a Senator from one of the largest and demographically diverse U.S. States, head of the CIA, and ambassador to China and to the United Nations. To be sure, he was an awful campaigner and a lackluster mass communicator, and made some unforgivable domestic policy compromises with Democratic congressional leadership. He was a foreign policy master, however, who virtually single-handedly turned the United Nations briefly into the body it was meant to be--a collective security vehicle--as no one else before or since has done....Just because something is legal does not require the taxpayers to fund it. Thus, for example, agencies under Clinton have exercised their authority to curtail smoking, although it is clearly legal. I think every administration will bring its substantial administrative rulemaking and enforcement weight to bear for or against specific policies without infringing the other branches' lawmaking and dispute resolution authorities....As for Roe, it is a pet peeve of mine that it is so commonly referred to as the "decision that legalized abortion" (you and the NY Times are but two of many who have useed this mischaracterization), when in fact it was the decision that prevented state governments from imposing restrictions on abortion based on which trimester the pregnancy happened to be in. Abortion was legal almost everywhere before Roe, and if it should be overturned, abortion will be legal in the overwhelming majority of states. I could go on and on about why Roe was one of the single most misguided rulings in the history of the Court, for any number of reasons, but this already is a massive post. - 1:03:06 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:JOETTE & MARLENE: I wish I could explain what happens when the brain is anesthetized, but I haven't quite reached that point of my studies yet. I'm only in the beginning stages of an eventual B.S. in psych, then Ph.D. in neurosciences. But you guys have given me the perfect subject for not only my PSY 290 project this semester, but more than likely my Honors Thesis as well, something I was having a hell of a time coming up with. Thanks immensely and for an eternity for that. I bet if Richard were still hanging around he'd know the answer to that one, though. CARL: I will look that up. Thanks. I think your previous queries have fallen on deaf ears. Amie seems to have returned to Never-Never Land. - 1:03:08 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Peter :---MELISSA---All the info is out there. That 95% ( are you sure its THAT high. I know in Canada its about 80%--but that's still mindbogginly high )has been so intimidated into believing what they do--the old faith and force go hand in hand thing--any doctrinte that says otherwise is taboo, regardless of how reasonable it may be. Carl Sagan and Ayn Rand were proponents of critical thought--but watch how the theists seethe when they hear those names. You are correct, it is sad. - 1:11:43 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Mere Mortal ADAM---->Marlene:Re: near-death. Everyone knows that in the passage between unconsciousness and consciousness is a semi-dreamlike state in which very real stimuli, such as sounds and odors, are incorporated into the false reality of the dream. It happens everytime a noise is incorporated into your dreams before it becomes loud or persistent enough to wake you. Looking back at this dreamlike state, those already afflicted with the delusion of god's existence are prone to describe the state of semi-consciousness in terms that support their preexisting beliefs. Thus, no true Atheist will experience the "hey, god, howya doin'?" scenario that is so much ballyhooed on shlock TV "news" magazine programs. - 1:11:48 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Adam, whose anasthetic of choice is hard cider‚‚‚‚‚:Marcus Melissa, M.D.: Why not do a thesis on the intellectual anasthesia known as religion? - 1:23:27 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Adam BADBALL REDUX---:Hey, Jo runs, Jo hits, Jo errors----> Must say the Blow Jays were mighty pathetic vs. the antichrist Yankees this weekend. Severe choke-O-rama. I was rootin' for 'em, too. - 1:27:14 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:ADAM: Thank you for the enlightenment. As I said before I am woefully underversed in matters of the law. And I'm sure you are aware how the media compartmentalizes (I'm not sure if that's the right word) political and especially legal issues for easier mass consumption, and they're my only source of this sort of knowledge right now, as I have no time (excuses, excuses) to dig deeper into the issues. Let me assure you I am not a democrat. I refuse to politically categorize myself since my politicoeconosocial views vary equally from republican to democratic to libertarian, but never communistic or socialistic. I guess I can see your point. Bush has a respectable resume. I just get a little hyperbolic when those two issues are raised -- yes they were raised by myself, and initially to humor myself. - 1:27:19 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM: I agree with your semi-consciousness post and would go further to suggest dreams themselves are merely the brain trying to process outside stimulii into coherent visual stimulii while the eyes are out of commission. You know, blind people don't have visual dreams, they have audio dreams, which seems to support this hypothesis. However your assertion that "everybody knows that . . . " is way off base. There are still those supposedly learned people out there who think dreams are symbolic, or can be predictive of future events, and all manner of illogical mumbo jumbo. And these people have Ph.D.'s. These are the experts used to collaborate the LADE spiritual causation hypothesis. It's unfortunate, but in the science of the mind, real scienctific speculation is hard to find. - 1:36:54 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:Noname was me. - 1:38:02 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Adam Just Jawin':Peteriodontist & Marlene Dentene: Thanks for saying so. I had always been taught to try to present arguments with teeth. If I do say so myself, the best line was "the prophet Enamuel." - 1:41:06 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:P.S. ADAM: to be more specific to your semi-conscious state statement: some Ph.D.'s don't admit to the seemingly obvious fact that external stimulii is just being incorporated into the false reality of the dream at this point. PETER: The 95% figure came from the movie "Contact". It could be, probably is (Law of Probability) closer to 80 or 85%, since that's what it is in Canada. But as you said, that's still a scary helluva lot. - 1:44:58 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Adam A ROOTIN', TOOTIN', HALLUCINATIN' TIME:===Morpheus Melissa: When I said "everyone knows," I meant that everyone is familiar with that transitional phase in which someone speaking, or your alarm clock or, in my ¹hood, the sound of wailing sirens, are incorporated into the "plot" of a dream before they wake you up. I didn't mean that everyone has rational conclusions as to the nature of dreams. I usually try to be precise with words, but I got lax in the course of all these mustard posts. If I'm not mistaken, BMW, it is a prevailing theory (if not widely accepted) that at least one function of dreams is to "dump" the overwhelming majority of sensory images that are stored in short-term memory in the course of the waking day (as almost all of these are unnecessary, even trivial). In the process, longer-term memories are cemented into place. This is why dreams so often are melanges of recognizable images (people, places, etc.) in improbable combinations or sequences, and also why they frequently involve current or recent crises or other events (e.g., pressures in the workplace). - 1:54:23 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:---MELISSA---Has Amie ever LEFT never-never land? - 2:41:05 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

rush :hello - 2:53:38 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

i am here to tell you that god is real and that the path to god is based on science - 2:55:30 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene hummmmm...:RUSH- Wrong stop, keep surfin! PATHetic! - 3:31:08 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:RUSH: ok, so present your system or 'the' system of postulates that make it so. - 14:30:46 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:RUSH, you will have to say more than that. You must be joking. Right? - 14:30:51 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:RUSH: If it does then included with that thing are the scientific contradictions? Or do you plan to spin off into good and evil sciences? - 15:04:45 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:---Marlene,Steve, Carl---"rush" just said "hello" --that post just behind it was made by an unidentified surfer, who more than likely was " rush" but if we ourselves are to adhere to scientific inquiry, we are not qualified to make this assumption with the evidence at our disposal. So lets try this ( if for no other reason than confirming our suspicions ) RUSH--Was it in fact YOU that asserted "god" was real and that the path to Him is based on science? Oh, I would just LOVE to hear this one!! Let'er rip!! - 15:19:20 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:PETER: perhaps it was a carry over of our piranha-like frenzy of treating the more recent theist. you know how it can go with the thrill of fresh blood in the mouth and not yet dry on the lips and still stirrin up the doin's of the brain, remindin it of the times of long ago... - 16:41:43 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:PETER: in regards to the 95% figure, while it appears significant, it is that way perhaps because some theistic agency did the legwork. Politician's like that sort of number for the same reason theists like it,(nobody is responsible nobody is home) as both sides easily refer to imagination or disregard it, as needed. Consider, in SF there is an issue of a cross on public land, the public proprietors due to relevant supreme court decisions sold the land that it stood upon to a private interest. The private party now says it commemorates events that happened elsewhere at some past-time, the public proprietors- politicians, discount the assertion that the sale was only a sham by simply saying the matter was 'merely' the transfer of title. The issue looks to be over and done, it was easy, my point since nothing "real" was being risked by any concerned, so likewise is the 95% thing. As for a remedy, something like ADAM desires- a war of sorts, is needed. The cross thing may have served that sort of goal. It is true that some theists are ignorant and even superstitious, i know one person who does not accept the moon trips. The "war" is essentially a matter of meaning. Theists 'hope' the 95 thing is meaningful just because nobody with a healthy brain fears thunder in the clouds nor see in lightning in the sky a mystery as in the times of long ago. - 18:43:44 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:PETER: or in a nut shell, it is to say that one's subjective construction- as a theist, creates verbal fiction- as when "belief" means theology. - 19:35:37 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:---CARL--Ahh yes, I can identify with that. Some will always remind me of the futility involved when debating with the theist--and they are correct to certain point in that the theist will NEVER say, after tooth-and-nailing it in the trenches: Hmmmm... You know, maybe you ARE correct and I'm wrong. Tell me more about htis atheism stuff. It will never happen. But the satisfaction I get out of it is knowing I have not stood by silently while the theist attempts to defend thier beliefs. I will not tolerate unreason. And if I can at least put even a tiny tiny flame into one of these individuals mind to at least reconsider some of their beliefs, I feel my mission is accomplished in fighting this philosophical war. Doesn't surprise me that the theists came up with this 95% thing. Its another attempt to reassure believers, and threat those who may have doubts that they may be "left out"--and be part of that mysterious and rebellious, misguided 5%. It's like them saying "Hey, 95% of the earth's population can't be wrong!" The trouble is, probably that many people wouldn't recognize the "argumentem ad populum" blatantly used here, and accept this as a perfectly logical line of reasoning. - 19:49:11 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:PETER>>>CARL, could you please clarify what 95% is. - 19:58:33 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:STEVEN: 95% = people that believe in a god in the USA, according to a recent poll. - 20:55:13 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Adam Start the Rush'n Revolution Without Me---:The path to god is paved with good dementia. - 22:56:58 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM Lies, Damned Lies, & Statistics....:I do not think the 95% figure is substantially off-base. Maybe it includes the "probable believers", agnostics (i.e. weasels) and similar "vagues." Let's turn it around: do you agree that the percentage of Ahteists---that is, those with unwavering affirmative denial of the existence of higher order---cannot possibly exceed 10%, and likely is more like 5%? That is, continue to point out what an exclusive intellectual elite we are, while perhaps not adding more to the "affirmative theists" than may be accurate. - 23:05:41 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:RUSH: Are you my lab partner (supposing the noname post was you)? ALL: This appearance of rush is kind of eerie. See, today I explained my idea for our PSY 290 project prompted by JOETTE'S canadian Lazarus to my lab partner. Of course I had to ask her what her opinions were on the subject, if she was comfortable with it. She said she believed in a heirarchy of religions -- at the bottom of the rung there are the organized religions, their irrational believers; on the middle rung are the atheist-scientists (us); on the top rung are the enlightened people, those who realize there are phenomena beyond science's grasp at the moment, but science can be used to explain their existence. She says she occupies this rung. She thinks there is something beyond . . . this, but doesn't know what. Now I didn't delve deeper for lack of time, and she didn't seem to want to get into it too deep herself. Anyway, I was wondering, if anyone knows, is this what scientology is? It sounds L.RonHubbardish. - 23:14:18 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- Sounds rather unscientific to me! Maybe your lab partner should consider theology? ALL- Miss Canada has been decrowned BECAUSE she posed for an advertisement for Hooters. The president of the modeling association, Michelle somebody, said that the photo was sexist and that people need someone to look up to so she found that Miss Canada wasn't being a "proper" role model. I SAY..Isn't it terribly sexist of Michelle whoever to consider girls who work for Hooters as "not someone to look up to". - 23:47:16 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene still riled1:Continuing on this subject that reeks morals rather than sexism, I suppose prostitutes need not apply either. I wonder is Michelle an xtian by any chance? - 23:51:49 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:Correction on the last post which should have read "xtian morals". There are morals and then there are xtian morals. - 23:55:54 on 23 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:And still on the subject, if Miss Canada had her picture taken with the pope, a man associated with a religion that supports over-population, would she be decrowned? Would it be good role-modeling for education? IMHO religious education is an oxymoron. - 0:04:01 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE...settle down there girlfriend. It was actually Miss Canada International, which is a contest done for and by modelling agencies. Remember, our government does not sanction beauty contests and so there is no longer an actual Miss Canada. This newest decrowned queen comes from the same corral as last year's pick, who was decrowned for having a barroom brawl with her boyfriend's former girlfriend. Nevertheless, anyone should be able to endorse any product they want without being censored. We all gotta pay the rent! - 0:17:27 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->MELISSA..does your lab partner have such a high opinion of herself in all other matters? Her explanation certainly smacks of the same smugness theists display when they can't come up with anwers to reasonable questions. - 0:20:59 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:--Melissa--Unlesss your lab partner can support her position, her claim is a meaningless utterance. Remember, as George H. Smith says in his "bible" -unless an intelligible description of "God" first given, any further references to "god" are nothing more than a meaningless statement ( pp 30 ). Hold her up to it. Amie didn't seem to grasp this concept either. - 0:33:14 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I hate pagents and never watch them but "I didn't know tha there were no more Miss Canada thingys!". The article I read just said Miss Canada. When did this change? I heard about the barroom brawl thing last year but then again, I thought it was THE Miss Canada again. Am I behind the times! Nevertheless, I still feel that Hooters is no worse or better than Smitty's. - 0:44:57 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Adam HEY, Miss Soginist!:Marlene's No Helen Reddy, already....BINGO! One of the fundamentally fatal flaws of fastidious femisists is that they do not truly want to maximize opportunities and choice for women, but rather only to maximize opportunitites in traditionally male endeavors. Any woman who achieves a high level of personal satisfaction from maintaining a household and family, or finds emotional and financial reward in traditonal physical enticement roles (be that prostitute, stripper, porn star, what have you), is a "victim" under feminazi philosophy. - 1:30:46 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Adam BY YOUR LEAF...:Is that how Marla Maples got her start???? I know this is no trump card, but did Miss Canada model in just a maple leaf, by chance? - 1:33:59 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Joette (hear me roar!):-->ADAM...spoken like a man.... - 1:44:17 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..it's been a least three years since the Canadian government supported a beauty pagent. They (and I) feel it is a very regressive activity and does nothing to enhance the status of women (yes Adam, we are still a minority). - 1:47:07 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

RON...(he he)...: I want to marry Ally McBeal. (yes, I've lost my mind) - 2:11:26 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- YIKES! We don't agree on this one! I personally view sex in the same manne as I view eating, relaxing, or anything else that causes a pleasurable sensation in humanity. There is no argument that the first factor in proceeding to engage in the sexual act is the attractiveness of one party to the other. I see nothing wrong with this at all although I personally would not have a swarm of males around me. Beauty, of course, is in the eye of the beholder so I'm lucky enough to have attracted at least a few males. Males will always be attracted to people who cause a pleasurable effect on them as will females even if it happens to be the same sex. I don't feel that this is regressive but natural. Of course, after the initial physical attraction it's nice to discover that person also has other talents that are attractive. - 14:12:02 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MELISSA: the individual referred to musta' read of late the myth of the cave. - 14:30:25 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene who realized that even twirpy men have something to say:ADAM- No, I don't feel that women are victims. I feel equal to any other male or female. If others don't then I suggest they examine their view of themselves and learn to gain some self-esteem. Here's a little story from MY past. Married twice and still not "getting it" why my relationships didn't work out, I signed up for some councelling. Upon entering the office for my first session, I met a twirpy, geeky guy who introduced himself as my councellor. I proceeded to inform him of my plight, what the ex's did to me no matter what I had done for them..blah blah blah blah blah. He stopped me after five non-stop minutes of vitimizing myself and said "they did nothing to you that you didn't allow them to do". WELL I figured what an unsympathetic ass and made a note to ask for another councellor. The more I fumed about what he said, the more I realized that he was absolutely right. After a few more sessions, I had self-esteem. Point is, whether one is man, woman, white, red, yellow, black or gay, if one victimizes themselves one will be a vistim of his own doing. - 14:32:01 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:Anyone hear about the legislation passed in Russia on the feedom of religion? I understand the missionaries are whining that it makes the religious minorities second class citizens but they are always good at whining. I haven't been able to find out the wording of the bill. - 14:36:25 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:--MARLENE--Many people go to councillors looking for sympathy, reassurace etc.. But they can always get that from their loved ones. It's refreshing to see that you realized they are there to help you SOLVE YOUR PROBLEMS, and this inevitably involves saying things the patient may not want to hear, and what may be construed as "stepping on the toes" of the patient--is the path to solving those problems. Bravo! - 15:30:25 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER- BTW that was 17 years ago. The relationship I'm in now has lasted 15 years. The key component, respect for each other. Did you hear anything about this new Russian bill? - 15:50:05 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:Found something on the Russia and religion subject. - 16:14:44 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: but change is good, its' only shortfall is when it's not fun. - 16:16:31 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I don't think the 95% is too far out either. It would be interesting to measure the number of people who believe in the supernatural in a country such as Russia. This would not only include relgions but other supernatural beliefs such as ESP and the like. - 16:19:04 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:RON, what if Ally McBeal is already married? - 16:25:25 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: checked your Russian topic, reviewed their constitution, and the vp is wrong on the matter of his involvement. It could be said that he has an ulterior objective. That is of course, that 95 number of the USA. Somebody has got to start callin' a spade a spade! Theists choose ignorance and superstition, the rigors of work and thought are the source of remedy for any social ill. Prayer is like that speck atop a chicken droppings, its crap too. The russians seem to have clue on matters, humanity is social first and an individual derivatively. Theist preferences for a personal god is a false to facts of nature orientation. this is o'course a gut response, i'm still lookin'. - 16:51:03 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

MADAM I'M ADAM...:...MACH-Jo MAN: A man? A plan? A canal! PANAMA!!! - 20:53:12 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Adam Aceski...:+++ Marlene MIP: As I understand it from general news reports, the bone of contention in Russia is the favoritism afforded the Russian Orthodox church. Everyone else has to "prove" they're not cults. As much as I despise religion, I do not want governments making those decisions, as the IRS does in the United States. What balls! They declared Rev. Moon's group a non-tax-exempt cult. How do they know he's not the messiah? - 21:15:28 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

RON...--->Marlene...: Ally McBeal is a new television program on FOX. I doubt if it's married. She's so cute and semi-honorible. HEY!!! I have a BLIND DATE for Friday night... YES YES YES!! - 21:40:11 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene :RON- Blind date??? YIKES! ADAM- Agreed! - 21:46:21 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

RON...--->Marlene...: Yes, a blind date. I've been out of this dating thingy for too many years. I have a good friend I trust (she knows what I like) set us up. I trust her judgement, besides, I'd execute her if she set me up with a Janet Reno type. But, alas, I am excited to spend some time with a female I have to learn eveything about. I'll actually get to spend time listening to a female tell me about herself and she won't be crying, what a concept. - 21:58:04 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:RON! I like Janet Reno!!! - 22:50:21 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM Attorney Gargoyle™™™:...Janet Reno is SOOO ugly that when she was born, the doctor slapped her mother. If she had an ounce of integrity, she'd appoint a special percolator to find out what's brewing with Clinton, Gore and the RICO known as the DNC. I've got nothing against her based on looks, but it is nice to know that some prominent office-holder makes Jeanne Kirkpatrick look like BABE-raham Lincoln. - 23:20:29 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Adam and Dropov===:Moscow on the Marlene---By the way, the "MIP" in that earlier post to which you've acceded is in Russian and should be pronounced "MEER," although this is not to suggest that you are plagued by potentially catastrophic malfunctions as a matter of routine. - 23:24:25 on 24 Sep 97 GMT

Adam WHATEVER HAPPENED TO MY QUOTE-DU-JOUR?:To all you blobs of protoplasm: WHO SEDDIT? "TO ME IT SEEMS THAT MANKIND CAN NEVER ACHIEVE ITS HIGHEST POTENTIALITIES TILL IT HAS THROWN OFF THE INCUBUS OF HISTORIC (AND PREHISTORIC) RELIGION..." I was remiss in not posting this yesterday, the 141st anniversary of his birth. - 1:11:48 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

RON...--->Marlene...:I like Janet Reno too but, would you kiss her? I wouldn't. - 2:26:16 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:RON- No! Yuck! Where in hell does Adam find these atheist quotes, I'm still searching. ADAM- wild guess, same guy as last time , Thomas Paine?????? - 2:34:24 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:RON- BTW did you watch the first run of _The Visitor_? Old Frank on _The Millennium_ is still as much fun as a hornet at afternoon tea. I don't know how such a sad-sack character can be so popular???? - 2:39:58 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene :I guess maroni has told our Amie that we atheists just aren't from the same clone as mormon species. Amie Bo-Peep will have to search in other places for lost sheep. - 2:44:54 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene...missing..:MELISSA and JOETTE- Where are you?????? Is there a baseball game on tonight? - 2:47:11 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:ANY; of wise sayings we atheists ought to hold "The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." for the sake of our amusement. - 14:24:23 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

testtest:test - 15:11:39 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: lite-weights and shallow types like the most recent theist or even CD don't last long. I will admit sometimes i can get in a rush and at other times post unusual and irregular ideas, but if farfetched say or i'll see it so tomorrow. then i'll fix it. - 16:01:11 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:--CARL--...and I don't they leave because we aren't nice either. It seems that direct questions put a lot of them in a tither, and it dawns on them that their method of illogical argument just isn't going to cut it in here. Am I being a tad self-congratulatory here? Well, yes, I am, but I can do so with absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. BILL- --C'mon I know it's you with these "testing" posts. - 16:26:23 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:Janet Reno is fugly. It would take a large bottle or two of tequila even to hug Reno. uggg, she is foul. She was beat with a large ugly stick. Reno and Thatcher need to go bowling. - 17:07:28 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:Janet Reno is fugly. It would take a large bottle or two of tequila even to hug Reno. uggg, she is foul. She was beat with a large ugly stick. Reno and Thatcher need to go bowling. - 17:08:32 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN- I think we get the message! Although these thesists are at a loss for answers to our questions, I don't think that is what cuases them to diappear. I still think they make a mission to covert we infidels. When they run out of tactics and or possible converts they retreat for awhile. As soon as Amie recognizes some new posters, she'll be back. Theists are truly convinced of their nonsense. - 18:36:38 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:MARLENE, when I was seven I was convinced that Santa existed. I compare xtianity with a virus. Parents from birth take their children to church three days a week until they are 18. This is the beginning to the brainwashing. These people are so infused with the xtian mythology by their 18th birthday it never occurs to them that they believe in a myth. This is why xtians start them off early. They go to chuch, bring in a friend, that friend starts going to church, and then he/she brings in a friend etc...It's a deadly cycle. How do you stop it. Xtians believe because they have always believed. They believe because their parents to believe. As to those who are reborn into the church, they need a security blanket because they are not secure enough with themselves to believe in themselves. My favorite are these people that have a horrible accident, their wife dies, their child dies, they have a car accident, they pull a muscle, they have a really painfull hangnail. These people feel they need to have faith because they are not strong enough to pull through it themselves. Ahhhh, i could go on and on..... - 19:00:13 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:---MARLENE---J'a think so? I don't think Amie understood the concept of there being different people posting here, as she did not ONCE address anyone by name, nor did she ever connect any one person with any particular argument--and therin was her downfall, as she failed repeatedly to answer direct questions.( As is the case for the majority of these poor misguided souls). It was always "you people" like there was just this one immmovable blob that didn't budge due to the invalidity of her arguments, and in so doing. It would be interesting if she did return and aim her attention at some new posters. - 19:02:37 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Sorry, I guess you guys are all wrong about me. I didn't come here to "convert" anybody. And I didn't shy away because you guys are just "too logical and smart for me." I do have a life besides the internet and I only come in here during a class that I have which was cancelled for two days. I do have more important things to do than spend my time in internet chat rooms. - 19:06:59 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Some of you people do go on a level which I refuse go...bashing people. I don't resort to name calling or saying demeaning things about others because they don't believe what I do. - 19:09:13 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:PETER: theist types can't sustain their positions because, very likely, their approach their decision is\was thoughtless, and after they summarily accepted the theological view of "a god created me and that god says since i accepted the words then too i'm going to heaven." With that thougtht/feeling in place- they got a begining and they got a place to go, they figure they know the answer[s] for anything. The only source though, that these folks have to support themselves after that choosing much to their eventual dismay, is the bible. Talk about a rude awakening! So, like someone here posted at the recent theists' departure, it was off to never never land. - 19:28:49 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Adam on Absences\\\:Marlene the Truant Officer...Joette could be in morning following the firing of the Blew Jays' manager and his replacement with a member of the royal family. - 19:31:15 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Have you ever taken time to read the Bible? Just like the BIBLE says "the word of God is living and active, sharper than a double edged sword..." Most people can't take the Bible becuase its too much truth for them. - 19:31:19 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:AMIE, we do not insist on believing in a misquided, man made mythology. I have never called you a name. By saying that you are ignorant and misquided, mabey brainwashed, is not calling you names. It is not as if I am calling you a frigging Christian, which to me is an insult beyond possible measure. We (the people in this chat room) have asked you repeatedly to answer several questions which you apparently refuse to do. We mearly ask for some intelligent debating from someone who professes to believe in a childish mythology. Please save the wind (air) argument for a child who doesn't know any better. - 19:32:41 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:And Christians are not brainwashed. In fact some of the strongest Christians I know were not raised in the church. - 19:33:32 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Adam sorry to be a Paine...:Marlene Going To Great Paines: Quote guess WRONG! Answer anon, as soon as I post my ketchups. - 19:33:40 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Adam---->Carl::So who said that? athe-nonymous? Abbie Normal? - 19:35:18 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:AMIE, please check out and read this site, it should give you some insite to the truth: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in _christianity/ - 19:36:18 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:If your going to give me other sites to check out than please allow me to do the same. - 19:38:14 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Adam----Shampoo on You!:Steven: ...and they'll tell two friends, and so on, and so on... (am I dating myself here?) - 19:39:12 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Adam ERRATA:Marl: The post on Jo should read "mourning." I must've got up on the wrong side of bedlam. - 19:43:05 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:and so on and so on and so on. Shampoo back to ya - 19:43:38 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Here is a site that you can check out some of my view points, since I don't have time to tell them all now. - 19:45:39 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:sorry, that one wasn't right, here it is. - 19:46:38 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:What is the site going to tell us, read the bible. You misunderstand I was brainwashed for 17 yrs by my parents and family. I was forced to go to a christian High School, where I studied the bible in bible class every damn day for four years. Not to mention chapel etc... I know the fucking bible better than you ever will. One could make an argument against the beliefe in a God just from the many times the bible contradicts itself. The bible it is proven was written many hundreds of years after the death of that waste of skin jesus. The original church couldn't even agree on which bullshit to put in the bible. Have you ever heard of Mithras. Mithras was a god that the Roman soldiers believed in and spread throughout Europe around the same time that jesus was parading around. A large part of the Mithras mythololy was plegerized by the authors of the christian faith. The only reason that Mithrasism is not the dominant religion of today is because some jerk off roman emperor decided that xtianity was the new religion of state around 300ad and that anyone who professed their belief in Mithras was executed. Check you history Amie. Or, if it pleases you, continue your life believing in a fraudulent mythology. - 19:54:48 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM Unabashed on bashing>>>:Amie: I can't endorse every single post made by the M&M denizens, but it appears that most comments directed ACHOO! were based on the merits (or lack thereof) of your posts. For example, you just suggested that we read the bible. For one thing, any number of the no-god squad have demonstrated substantial familiarity with the text. Second, you still haven't explained why the bible should be accorded any deference. Do you understand that we consider it just a book comprising a melange of historical events and a bunch of legends. Why have you not derived religious beliefs from the koran, the kama sutra (at least that's WAY more fun) or the Cat in the Hat? They're just books written by men, and the bible contains a substantial amount of "spin" of the authors. IT IS NOT GOSPEL! Unless you can convince me that it is, you get absolutely NOWHERE trying to cite it. I can offer you any number of books by the man who said the QUOTE DU JOUR, and reveal his name in a subsequent post (in case anyone is still guessing). No book has inherently more validity than another; their authority must derive from the merits of their contents. You offer the bible, which includes the story of Noah and the ark. You can't actually believe that that is a literal depiction of an event, can you? - 19:57:39 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Scott:Is it true that god (lowercase was no mistake) was created by man to explain the unexplainable? - 19:59:50 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Adam---dumping waste on the superhighway is a felony:Amie----> I'd prefer that you post OTHER sites. I think I've seen enough of YOUR views to confirm what I already know to be true. I would, however, love to check out other sites at which I can spread the Word. - 20:02:47 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Adam AHOY, MISMO!:Hey Scott, Tissue? ('tis you?). If it is, did you get a roger on that Merrick rail? - 20:07:48 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

scott on amie:I would like to know if Amie would be available for an evening of cow tipping? There is nothing in the bible that speaks against this activity, is there? - 20:08:30 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

scott:Yes i did, bud. - 20:09:39 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:AMIE: I've seen that before and it still calls on you the reader to accept what some person has written. A good question appears at the site STEVEN gave directions; it has to do with the inspirational aspect of those writings, did that god use the inspired one as a tool? did the god thing flood the brain of the inspired one with a different synaptic process? did the god thing guide the hand of the inspired one so that that individual watched his hand seemingly just function on its' own? The single unimpeachable truth of your nonsense bible is that some human wrote it. By the way did you find a copyright number in your bible? You understand the legalities of the copyright number, correct? - 20:10:32 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:SCOTT, cow tipping is cool, huh huh. he said tipping - 20:12:40 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:Is there anybody out there. hello hello hello is there anybody in there, just smile if you can see me, is there anyone home. - 20:15:52 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM with the ANSWER to the GREAT QUESTION of the UNIVERSE:----The answer is 42! Yes, Scott, god occupies the realm of all that cannot be explained in simple terms for simple minds. So, at one time, nobody knew what lightning & thunder were, so the assumed it was a human-like (but much bigger) power getting pissed off and throwing a tantrum, the way human in their own experience throw china around the cave. Know, of course, we know that as thunderclouds grow, electric charge tends to build up negatively on the top of the cloud and positively on the bottom. This is usually resoved by intra-cloud lightning with electrons flowing from the top to the bottom of the cloud. However, sometimes, as the absence of electrons at the cloud base draws electrons into tall structures on the ground (i.e., induces a negative charge in these structures), there is a sudden discharge of electrons from one or more of these structures to the cloud---what we call (incorrectly) cloud-to-ground lightning. Thuinder of course, is the sonic boom caused when the stream of electrons surpasses the speed of sound, creating an enormous shock wave. The point is that we no longer attribute such phenomena to god, at least not in advanced cultures. However, there is still much unexplained (e.g. where did the universe come from) in simple enough terms for simple minds, who attribute the unexplained realm to "god"---a human-like figure, with human-like emotions ("I am a jealous God"-Spartacus 9, Romans 7) and human-like motivations, only bigger. The atheists, of course, are not intimidated by the unknown to the point of manufacturing ridiculous answers. - 20:20:56 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Adam with the Answer to QUOTE-DU-JOUR posted yesterday (see supra, about 45 posts back)...:The greaat Atheist who said "TO ME IT SEEMS THAT MANKIND CAN NEVER ACHIEVE ITS HIGHEST POTENTIALITIES TILL IT HAS THROWN OFF THE INCUBUS OF HISTORIC (AND PREHISTORIC) RELIGION..." was William Archer, who would have turned 141 last Tuesday were it not for his intervening death. He wrote Dean Inge's Apology for Christianity and Surrendering to Catholocism. The quote is from Is the Battle Won? Next quote later on. - 20:28:35 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Steven:I went and read about two paragraphs from that site that amie pointed to. Guess what, I read the same horseshit that xtians have been spewing for years. They will never get it will they. Will there always be religions that attempt to keep man ignorant. Lies, lies, lies. - 20:32:31 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

test - 21:55:23 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:Stephen--I read a book recently ( The name escapes me now ) written by a scientist de-bunking the entire creationist position--and in the appendix he has a list of all the creationist arguments' cliches e.g.: ( No.16 )"evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics" ( Yes, they STILL use this one!!) and was in the process of forming a standard universal cataloguing of "Fallacious Creationist Arguments" ( and they are ALL fallacious. I don't know if he ever got it off the ground, but it was an interesting endeavor I thought! - 22:08:22 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:That "test" was me. Needed to do that to catch up on posts. STEVEN- Waste of skin?? HA! HA!, haven't heard that one before but very appropriate! AMIE OF THE XTIAN BORG- As though I haven't read the before, RE'LEE! ADAM- If you post something spoken by Paine, I promise, I'll get it right! Ahhhh! So! that's why Joette hasn't posted! CARL- As you pointed out, theists have answered all their questions with god. That's it, they don't have to think anymore! - 22:11:19 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: On the test thing, do you mean that you can reveiw prior post, if yes then plz.tell me how to, o'clever one. - 22:18:45 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:ANY: I'm gonna speculate here, this theist just back, ain't really convinced but she does like to say her mind, as in depositing her words afterwhich she'll run. She likes to leave behind assorted religious cliches, just like the site she hilited on her name. That too is unoriginal and quite thoughtless. She does not read and definitely, it may be safely urged that she does not rigorously think. - 23:03:53 on 25 Sep 97 GMT

Adam SHARP WIT:Amie, on the cutting edge+++ Why would a double-edged sword necessarily be particularly sharp? Is the degree of sharpitude multipled by the number of edges. I think your god is not only scared of me, but is duller than my "Good News" disposable razor AFTER I've trimmed my beard with it TWICE. - 0:06:29 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Adam----> Marlene:...If you want to update messages without testing, just change or refresh the "show=" number in the Location line and hit "enter". It will show an up to date page. - 0:27:49 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Adam Aches & Paines:Marlene: Does your single-minded quote guessing evidence a chronic Paine? - 0:30:16 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Adam DAILY ATTRIBUTION ¾¾¾¾ :This ground breaking Atheist would have turned 164 tomorrow (9/26) had he not croaked and rotted rather than achieving the Great Beyond. Yes, it was 133 years ago when he pointed out that "ATHEISTS WOULD TEACH MEN TO BE MORAL NOW, NOT BECAUSE GOD OFFERS AN INDUCEMENT REWARD BY AND BY, BUT BECAUSE IN THE VIRTUOUS ACT ITSELF IMMEDIATE GOOD IS INSURED TO THE DOER AND THE CIRCLE SURROUNDING HIM." Who wuzzy when he wasn't fuzzy, was he? Can you git THIS one, keen Marlene, quizzing queen? (By the way, don't mention "queen" to Joette)? - 0:39:09 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->ADAM..I am a sick puppy today, so I won't be venturing any guesses about your words of wisdom...but...you mentioned today that maybe I am in mourning over Cito Gassedton..well, he's been with the club for 16 years, and I have had the privilege of meeting the man, and yes, I feel like I have lost a member of my family. I know it was time for him to go, but just like in corporate America, he is just the little sacrifical frog in the a great big pond. Now, if they would divulge themselves of Gord Assh, I would be elated. - 1:06:55 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->RON..a word of advice before you go on your blind date. DO NOT use Marv Albert as your romantic mentor! - 1:08:39 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:CARL- after http://.flex.net/~terran/cgi-bin/relig.cgi?=(50 or whatever number higher than 30 you want to put). I did do this, this afternoon but for some reason it didn't want to work. It normally does. - 4:09:40 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I hope your feeling better! There is a wicked virus going around here, I had it yesterday. Good advice to Ron! Can you believe that guy! Waste the taxpayer's money then say "okay, I'm guilty". I thought this was only done in Canada! ADAM- Let me guess, Paine??? - 4:26:39 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:OPEN: At reviewing again the site referred to by STEVEN, and this time also J.Wheless' other book, it causes me to wonder about anyone who can think or want to tell anyone that they are a christian. In more writings than just Wheless have i read numerous other writer thinkers not treat that thing as if it were really meaningful. Except for writers like that AMIE the gentile referred to as an example, those theist types can ask that you the reader just accept what they write. While it is apparent why such as AMIE the gentile can get hooked on any version of theology because such people in control must ask for one to prefer ignorance for the sake of their words- which are only products of their thinking, or if they lack originality then you the reader must be seriously inclined to accept superstitions of old. Eventually, i will purchase both Wheless books just so I do not have to waste time pondering a response to such nonsense. - 15:21:01 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:I just want everybody to know that I don't "post my thoughts and run". Maybe ,unlike some of you, I don't have a lot of time to sit in front of the internet and wait for you to respond so that I can respond back. I do have a life which includes a job, college, and a husband. So if I can not respnd to every post here please don't attribute it to fear or ignorance but rather I only have a few minutes per day to come in here so I use them wisely. - 16:41:03 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

PETER:---Amie---Whether you "have a life" or not--or whether any of us do or not has bearing at all on anyone's arguments. You say you have a life. That is good to hear. However, as someone who has said they are interested in learning effective debating skills, I have given you some small suggestions as how to argue here more effectively, and how to be taken more seriously-- but again you either haven't seen them, or you wish to ignore them. I have looked at your posts, and even after I suggested you address one person at a time, you have yet to post to one person directly--and often used to the term "you people" and then made a blanket statement which again may or may not apply to everyone. Amie, we, as you, are all individuals here, not some collective tribunal out for your blood, or anyone else's. We all have different beliefs, backgrounds, education etc. You must keep in mind that any argument must consist of demonstraable premises forming a conclusion. All you have done is present a presupposed conclusion, and then challenge ( again "You people") to furnish premises that would form a conclusion different than yours. This is the type of "reverse circular reasoning" is used and accepted in theist circles--but as it has been said often here, it will not be in a forum of rational discussion. You claim to be logical as well, and claim you are presenting arguments which go unrefuted. Again it seems you are not reading our posts to you carefully enough, or you are not seeing or ignoring them. You are repeatedly presupposing the existence of God in your arguments--- as Adam has made this crystal clear in his posts. I have repeatedly stated that YOU must present an intelligible description of "God" is a necessary PREREQUISITE for intelligibility, not an optional chore to be done at your convenience, Now to add to the presuppositions you constantly make, another one you made last Friday is the assumption that no one here was a believer at one time. I, for one belonged to the Church of God for years. I am quite familiar with this "feeling" you speak of that follows what appears to be divine experience--I was a fundamentalist Christian, but I slowly gained knowledge that my beliefs, one by one were shown to be invalid, until atheism was my only reasonable alternative. In my case, atheism was not a lack of knowledge with a god, but a STEP FORWARD. And no I didn't feel miserable, lost and empty either--as many theists assume atheists feel, I felt I suddenly woke up and realized I was a human being who was finally alive and in touch with REALITY--and I finally gained the tools necessary to recognize reality--which far surpassed any "religious" experience I ever had. You also allude to the fact we will be "in trouble" if we do not bow before Jesus, believe in him etc. This is a common method used by theist attempting to intimidate others into believing. All it is however, is an admission of not being able to demonstrate using reasonable methods why one should believe. Unless backed up by threats of physical force --again, ones that are never clearly defined or explained-- reminiscent of Henny Penny calling to Chicken Little-- the province of "faith" is rendered powerless, and you just gave as good as an example of this as I have ever seen: Believe--or else!........ Last Friday you posted ":In order for you atheists to say such a thing as there is no such thing as God, you would have to know the universe in its entirety and to possess ALL knowledge. Since nobody is all-knowing, you cannot make a dogmatic statement on God's existence. All you can really say is that you are UNCERTAIN whether or not there is a God, and this view is agnosticism. So I guess there really is no such thing as a real Atheist. By a logical standpoint anyway"........ You are correct, no one is all knowing, and that includes you as well, Amie. But as Joette implied, if what you state here is the criterion for knowing FOR SURE that there is no God, then it applies as well to those who claim that there IS a God. In your claiming that you know that God exists, ( whatever "God" is ) you are then claiming omniscience. Since ,as you stated earlier, you cannot be omniscient, by using this particular argument, your very own beliefs cannot be anything more than agnostic as well......... I feel it also necessary to clarify to you what the definition of an atheist is: It is anyone who does not believe in the existence of God, as it is outlined in any of the world's religions. Period. This has no bearing whatsoever on how much he thinks it is "possible" or not for him to exist. In other words, if you ask someone if he believes that God exists, and he says "NO", then he is an atheist. As many believe, atheism is does not necessarily mean any person who denies outright that there is no God--this is only a DEGREE of atheism......Also this claim you make which involves faith healing is an extraordinary one for sure, however, the more extraordinary a claim is, the more extraordinary the evidence for it must be as well, and again here, all you have done is asserted a conclusion, posited premises to suit your own purposes ( defence in the existence of God ) and then demanded "we" come up with a different set of premises to form a conclusion. Again Amie, you are guilty of "circular reasoning" is this instance--which is a logical fallacy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - 17:04:29 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER- Well said! AMIE- Unlike Peter, I have NEVER believed in a god. Like you, I also have a life. Unlike you, I don't waste my time praying to a mythological god so therefore I have time to talk to some real people via the internet. The threats you make in the name of your jesus, makes the guy sound like some kind of leader of a street gang. Your tactics, Amie, will not win converts for your jesus. And IF, your jesus ever did exsist, is this the way he would want you to handle we infidels? - 17:44:36 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM has this recurring PaineŒŒŒ:Perry Marlene, Esq....Hold on there re: Marv. He was facing potential life in prison and was fighting for acquittal when, apparently, his legal team thought his chances of conviction increased sharply (no pun, Amie) after the unexpected "toupee testimony." At that point, he pleaded down to a much less egregious offense. Can't say there's anything untoward about that. And as for your guess on today's atheist birthday boy.....WRONG! I'll give the answer a tad later. - 17:45:14 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:ADAM- I just can't seem to muster any sympathy for ole Marv. Now on the subject of religion in Siberia, does this bill provide for a percentage of donations to the orthadox church be taxed? Yeltsin would be a fool if he didn't get in on the revenue. - 17:54:02 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Adam--->Peter Prosecutor:Two items in fairness to Amie, although certainly not in defense of her groundless beliefs: (1) A number of M&M denizens, Carl and me among them, have been as guilty as Amie in characterizing individual opponents as generic members of a collective, unenlightened mass. (2) In that regard, it should be pointed out that, to a true theist, we ARE to some extent all afflicted with the same malady, our individual characteristics and backgrounds notwithstanding, in precisely the way that we would characterize all xtians, or all theists, as afflicted with a uniform delusion. - 17:55:15 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:PETER: The entirety of your post exceeds the span of wise-time the gentile alots for reading, geez! I have accepted that this individual holds certain beliefs about herself, in much the same way racist bigot like a klansman holds themselves superior to whatever. They also have selectiveness innate to that kind of endeavor, it can only feed their presumptions of "their" truth. Amie the gentile has already taken the position that she will stay ignorant for the sake of the old superstitions of her bible, to see it for what it is, is pick from its tree of knowledge. Thats a bad thing to do. So PETER, leave her alone she likes superstition and if ya gotta be ignorant for it so be it. - 17:57:48 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Joette:-->AMIE..a simple question: has anything directed towards you given you food for thought? - 18:10:39 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

RON...--->Joette...: HA HA HA HA...Marv Albert is neither my hero, mentor, or role model. - 18:38:17 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

RON...--->Amie...: Hang in there. This site is well worth the visits from you. Things will cool off soon. - 18:39:45 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:PETER: I fear your post may have been too long for dear AMIE. I don't think she's interested enough in our side of the argument to read too much on it. And since she doesn't respond to the reasonable posts directed at her, only the ones expressing frustration at her simplemindedness, she appears to be a reactionist only. I don't think she hangs out here to get into disussions, but only to get the kind of satisfaction reactionists get from blindly confronting the opposition. She stabs and stabs and stabs at the atheists on this page with what she thinks is a sharply honed ice pick, thinks she's drawing blood, sees the screen turn read with every xtian cliche she espouses . . . but its all a subconsciously voluntary hallucination that her survival instincts have devised to protect her from reality . . . because reality is scary, and AMIE might perish without the support group that is her church. - 18:42:23 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:AMIE: I know this is long, but hang in there and read to the end, I think this'll be beneficial to you. In your defense: Perhaps, since you don't get a chance to visit often (I know what that's like) you only get to see the scraps left after, oh, the fifty to a hundred posts after your last, the ones where people have gotten frustrated at not being answered. Well, how could you answer if you hadn't seen the questions, correct? If this is the problem, not what most have assumed is a runaway case of myopia, you can get past the deluge of insults by changing the number of posts that appear on the page. The default is 30 posts, but 100 can go by easily in one day. In order to read further back and find where people are intelligently countering your arguments and asking questions, go to the address for this site on your browser and find where it says show=30&user -- change 30 to a higher number, say 50 or 100 and press enter. Keep going higher until you find your last post, then read from there. If show=30&user does not show in your address box when you first enter the page (as it doesn't for me), just go to the message box and hit ADD without entering your name or a message, the page will refresh and a longer address including show=30&user will appear in the address box. Hopefully you'll come back before this post leaves the 30 count and we can hope to hear some intelligent responses or arguments from you, instead of "I have a life besides the internet" (you pulled a melissa on that one) and you-people-this and you-people-that. If previouspost absence is the problem, you've missed some very good questions and enlightening arguments. - 19:05:45 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:STEPHEN: How have your parents reacted to your atheism? I was brought up in a very religious family -- my grandfather is a mechanical engineer by weekday and preacher by Sunday -- and they keep trying to convert me, my mom thinks she must've done something wrong in raising me. I'll tell you what she did wrong, she taught me how to read and to love it. - 19:12:19 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Maybe if some of you would quite talking about me like im just a stupid, ignorant person, our discussions would get somewhere! You would not appreciate if I consistently belittled and demeaned you now would you? And you probably would not be interested in arguing with anybody who treated you like that would you? And PETER, if you ever did give me any debating tips, I appreciate that, but I can honsestly say I have never seen them. and MELISSA, by implying that Peter's post was too long for me too read or handle, is insulting my intelligience. If you are interested in a real debate your first step could be to treat me like a person who just happens to believe in God. I come here not to "Convert" people. I believe the only way to influence people is to just be friend. For instance, my freshman roomate, came to school the biggest athiest I knew. I never once "preached to her" or tried to "convert" her. However, she IS a Christian today simply because she saw something in my life that she didn't have, and she wanted. I don't come here to try to convert people. I come here becuase I believe in God, and most people who visit this page Don't believe in God and Im interested in debating certain points about that. Now everybody keeps telling me I have to define God. Well here is My definition God, the God I defend: God is an all-powerfull, all-knowing, spiritual being, who created man in his likeness. - 19:19:44 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Melissa, thank you for the instructions, that will help me out a lot. - 19:21:44 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Joette, in response to your earlier question, the page has never shaken my Faith in God. There are certain things that are said, that I jot down on my list to research. I do love researching things so If you tell me about a certain person or event or allegation, chances are I will look it up. - 19:36:53 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:I would like to apologize to those who I frustrated by not answering your questions. Chances are I didn't see them, but now I know how to scroll back and read them so you will get answers, maybe a little late but they will eventually get here. - 19:38:44 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:--Amie--Is God composed of matter, or is he purely spiritual i.e. Is he just pure consciousness? Also, by saying he is "all-powerfull, all-knowing, does this mean you are saying he is both omnipotent AND omniscient? Also, most people sacrifice reason for the comfort of christianity when having to commit themselves to either, and this is what happened to your roomate. - 19:40:04 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:--Amie--I may also add that it commendable of you to now addressing each person individually. - 19:43:00 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:God is a purely spiritual being, However he did once pour himself into a Human body, alas Jesus. Yes I am saying He is Omnipotent and omniscient. I don't agree that once has to sacrifice reason for Christianity. - 19:47:22 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

PETER:---Amie--And now to address the contents of the website you refered us to yesterday, as briefly as possibe: At no other time does the theist who defends the infallibility of biblical scripture look more misinformed, narrow minded and well--just so utterly foolish than when he attempts to bring the "non believers" into a creation/evolution debate. Most scientists don't even bother to even discuss it, as for the most part it is just a waste of time, an insult to their intelligence, and by the fact at its very roots, the creationist argument is flawed--rendering it not even a scientific argument at all. It still rests on the PRESUPPOSITION OF GOD'S EXISTENCE TO EXPLAIN CERTAIN EVENTS, and then just attempts to plow through anything that gets in the way, regardless of the illogical deceitful, unscientific methods used. It works just like you debate here Amie. First form a conclusion, with no premises, and then attempt to form premises to support that conclusion, and DEMAND that others form others to come to different conclusions--and they do--and it supports evolution. The creationist argument also rests on attempting to discredit any claim made by those who support evolution--and this too is based on false logic ( the fallacy of the false dilemma ). Even if the creationist was able somehow to logically demonstrate that the entire evolution model was false--this would not advance the creationist position WHATSOEVER. The creationist assumes, that once evolution is discredited, his position naturally follows but what the creationist offers no scientific evidence to support his position-( because none exists.) And to make the claim--or any claim --that something happened or exists, they must furnish evidence to support it. There could be endless explanations for the history of the universe, but science--formulated act as IMPARTIAL judge of demonstrated FACTS--must support evolution --because that is what the evidence supports. Amie, what other arbitration body would you suggest finally decide who is correct between these two sides? Man has been able to formulate a method which is self-monitoring insofar as being fair, impartial and only interested in FACTS--and THAT is what science is--and that is why science supports evolution--and NOT biblical creation. Another aspect of science that is ignored by creationists is that all claims must be testable and falsifiable. This is not the case at all with creationists. Even Duane Gish, one of the pioneers of scientific creation ( a contradiction in terms ) concedes this point--which immediately renders creation unworthy of serious consideration. Even though all the objections to evolution the creationist has is false--this still makes no difference at all to the creationist. His "faith" demands he believe in the biblical accounts, so regardless of any counter-evidence, the creationist will stick to their guns, looking more ridiculous with every point of his being shown scientifically to be false. I can easily prove this point by asking you the question: "Amie, what event, or series of events--and what evidence would you have to see to make you see that the creationist account in Genesis is false? " But it doesn't end there--the creationist unable to make a dent in the scientific community--due to the unscientific nature of creation, and that it cannot withstand the rigorous scientific scrutiny which ALL claims are subjected to--it sells its product to the layman thorough twisted logic, bombastic preaching, intimidation, misrepresentation--and just out and out lies-- to the unsuspecting and gullible public who is not capable of critical examination and thought--the same public that the scientific community tries to protect from misinformation, falsehoods, and deceit. Then , when this is indicated to the creationist--he then attempts to discredit the scientific community , scientific methods, often accusing evolution as some kind of a "atheist conspiracy to rule the world". Even though on matters not related to evolution he does not hesitate to show support for science. Unfortunately. it is one or the other--you can't have it both ways. So Amie you have a choice--you can either support non-scientific creation--which would then put you, and all those who believe what you do outside the realm of scientific method--or you could recognize how crucial science is in our lives and support its methods--and science supports evolution. Take you pick. - 19:49:21 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Amie:Actually Peter, I have many Christian friends who do believe in evolution. I personally believe that evolution poses no threat to the belief in the existence of God. And although I don't have the time or resources right now. (class is over) I would love to resume this on Tuesday. - 19:54:36 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Peter--:---Amie--I assume you are talking to me ( you are doing it again. If God was pure consciousness before anything else existed, what was he conscious of? TO BE "conscious"--something must exist to be coscious OF. In other words, a copnsciousness without existence is a contradiction in terms. Also the concepts of omniscience and omnipotence actually contradict each other. If God knows the future with infallible certainty, he cannot change it--in which case he cannot be omnipotent. If God can change the future, however, he cannot have knowledge of it prior to its actual happening--in which case he cannot be omniscient. You do not agree that one must sacrifice reason to be a christian? If I you stick around here long enough, and I can demonstrate logically, reasonably and rationally that every method that is used to support the existence of God is results in a contradiction and is ultimately FALSE, will you then admit that to believe in Him is unreasonable? - 20:00:55 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:Hummm.....it's the first time I ever heard of a belief called evolution.... - 20:02:14 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Adam WHAT'S THE POINTS?:Melissa...Maybe her ice pick would be sharper if it were double-edged. - 20:23:32 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Adam--->Melissa:My dad is like your mom, and no single thing pisses me off about him more (not that he's like your mom, but rather that he thinks my atheism is his personal failing). The logical implication would be that I have no independent critical intelligence. I dare say F$^# THAT! My mom is so much cooler, and more or less abandoned organized religion (although she may not be an Atheist) once she realized her kids didn't give two sh%^$ about it. - 20:29:29 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Adam Au Contraire, AMIE:By contrast, man is an insecure and self-centered being who created god in his own likeness. - 20:33:57 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: while i seriously doubt that the gentile knows of the point, the connection of belief and evolution, was and as i see it now its'merely an insertion to times past, some folks then called such folks, Hegelian evolutionists. In order to anticipate where this theist will go it is safe expect that she will bring baggage from the past. I repeat again nothing original will appear. Outside of and beyond her thoughts there is no diety. But, if she can bewilder and replace ones' clear thinking with an emotional response that she'll recognise in the words- of course, that the bewildered might utter, as just like her internal experience then they two would so know their god. I won't of course see it nor know of it, but they do. Confusion must be a truly wonderful thing, say, is this that thing called blissful? - 20:36:14 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Adam AT A LOSS...:Omnipresent Peter: I'm not knocking you in general, but I can't be the only one who thought your question, to wit:"all-powerfull, all-knowing---does this mean you are saying he is both omnipotent AND omniscient?" was preposterous! By saying something is stupid, does that mean you're saying that it lacks intelligence? See SYNONIMOUS. - 20:40:09 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:ANY: Where is BILL and his computer talk of primary and secondary intelligence. I'd bet cold cash he could cut through the theists talk of god and consciousness as one and the same, that to is an old position, from the late 1800 and early 1900's, that the relation between the knower and the known is fundamental. While she may seek to impress with discarded philosophic notions, she still has not read the likes of the 'Selfish gene' in order to better understand and articulate an intellectual view of evolution. - 21:26:49 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:I simply stumbled upon this site and may be somewhat "out of the loop" when it comes to the latest discussion, but must admit the title peaked my interest. If it is that man is man-made then does that mean that an infinite regression of causes is possible? For to say that man is man-made seems to imply this. I for one do not know how (understanding the lunacy of infinite set theory) infinite regress could be possible. To simply ask, how is man man-made? - 21:59:27 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Carl:MIKE: i'm about to depart, but is not your query but to affix a mathematic term to humans? hope you hang around. - 22:06:33 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:Possibly so, but affix whatever term. How is infinite regression possible? - 22:08:55 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Adam HAPPY BIRTHDAY, DEAR ATHEIST...:Here's the BIG BIG answer to the quote-o-rama (and for Marlene, it's NO PAINE, NO GAIN----HAR!!!)...133 years ago, in "A Plea for Atheism," he said "ATHEISTS WOULD TEACH MEN TO BE MORAL NOW, NOT BECAUSE GOD OFFERS AN INDUCEMENT REWARD BY AND BY, BUT BECAUSE IN THE VIRTUOUS ACT ITSELF IMMEDIATE GOOD IS INSURED TO THE DOER AND THE CIRCLE SURROUNDING HIM." This English Atheist organizer and Member of Parliament edited freethought newspapers and founded the National Secular Society. He also wrote Humanity's Gain from UnBelief. Had he not fallen victim to a case of terminal loss of life, he would've turned 164 TODAY! If he had survived, he would've died today blowing out his candles (or, they could've caused global warming)! Let's all give it up and lose our religion for the one, the only, the incomparable, the NOT TOM PAINE..........ladies and gentlemen (and Carl, too)....CHARLES BRADLAUGH!!!!!! - 22:11:39 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM on new MATH:Let's get Mikey (he hates everything)...Center-stage awn the MIKE: I myself have ruminated more than once that the site should be "GOD is man-made." Your point is picayune and technical, yet, nevertheless absoltement correct-a-mundi. - 22:14:45 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

ADAM on liquor:Oh, and Mike, don't feel bad. When I have a couple of sixes of cider---nectar of the godless---I simply stumble myself. - 22:17:05 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:What point is technical? I simply am making a brief observation that even a young child has the capability of grasping. - 23:10:15 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:--ADAM--Yes, I know it was redundant--but in light of Amie's previous posts, I really wasn't sure if SHE even knew what these words MEANT--and I just wanted to confirm this before I "set her up" for my response. I just prefered to use the term "omniscient and imnipotent" in my argument. As you know, when debating with theists, its crucial to plug any holes this slippery types like to slide into BEFORE they have the opportunity to do so. Ya just never know. You have to admit though I trapped her but good, EH? - 23:34:07 on 26 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:MIKE- I also would suggest that god is man-made but I didn't write the script. I really couldn't care less what it's called, I just love the place. Been here two years this winter. - 0:16:30 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:Pardon me for listening in Peter, but how is it an atheist can criticize the coherentness of theism from within a theistic framework? You don't have any reference point with which to criticize do you? Why is it that omnipotence seems for you to be a trap - when speaking within the framework of theism - you haven't properly defined your own understanding of the word (most likely because you don't understand the word) so why see it as a trap? I don't know Aimee or her quarrels with you, but I do know this, there is no question that most people (theists and "atheists" alike) don't understand what omnipotence means - they assume a definition but do not logically struggle with what that definition may be. I truly wonder what definition you have of omnipotence, because it is certainly not to be used as a trap by an "atheist" who has no reason to question something that is completely outside his/her worldview framework. - 0:16:46 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:---MIke---OK, why don't YOU tell me what it is--and I'll tell you if I concur, or if it is what I perceive omnipotence to be? Also , regardless of what one's worldview framework may be, the definition should apply to both. There must be a common point of reference. And there is no such thing as a "atheist" worldview, other that "not the theists"--as atheism is not a "belief" but an abscence of a belief. - 0:32:48 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:For starters it is ludicrous for you to say that atheism is the absence of belief. If that is the case then this sentence is not even coherent at any level. As you said, it really does not matter whether you concur on what omnipotence means, because it has only one true meaning. We apply false assumptions to what it means. Let me explain: To say that a supreme being, i.e., God, is omnipotent does not necessitate that "God" can do anything. Even within the Christian framework, there would not be one to "concur" that God can do anything. There are many things within the Christian framework that God can not do. For example, God can not lie, sin, or change His will. Also there are other things as well that God can not do. He can not do certain things that are logically impossible. God can not make two mountains with no valley between or make a rock so big even He can't move it (how stupid). This is true for the simple reason that God can not make Himself not exist. This mind you has been explained from a Christian worldview. You really should stick to attempting make yourself feel big and intelligent by "trapping" someone about as naive as yourself - for you to even try to say that atheism is the absence of belief is hilarious. - 2:21:16 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene who has no idea why Mike thinks the lack of belief is funny???:BROTHER MIKE- You, unlike Sister Amie, have now told us that your god is limited. Amie insists that he/she/it is limitless. Which is it????? - 3:37:08 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:---Mike--Your description of omnipotence is so full of ad hoc assumptions, it renders the word " omnipotence, a meaningless concept. Its identical to saying "God can do anything, but.....". The word "omnipotent" cannot be applied here at all--only something like " He can do a lot more things than a mortal man i.e., some kind of "Cosmic Superman" Of course atheism is an abscence of a belief. An atheist not primarily a person who BELIEVES that a god does NOT exist; rather, he does NOT BELIEVE in the existence of God. If something then is thought not to exist, there can be no belief in it. And Mike, lose the ad hominems too--they go nowhere. - 3:41:41 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:BTW, Mike, to suggest one is omnipotent is to suggest one is boundless. Which is it? If your god is boundless, why can't he/she/it make two mountains without a valley in between?? If he can't, as you suggest, then he works within bounds. If he/she/it has limitations and boundries then what make he/she/it anymore powerful than me? - 3:44:55 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:MIKE: are you one of the ENLIGHTENED? there seems to be a lot of those popping up lately. - 3:57:34 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- My thoughts exactly! - 4:01:15 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:The problem you seem to have is that you are unable (apparently) to understand that I never asserted, not once, that God can do anything. Hey Marlene, SISTER, I am not Aimee. Aimee's statements about God have nothing to do with mine. I think you have fallen into a hole that you can't seem to pick yourselves out of, let me help, God can't do anything He wants - so what? Is this problematic for me or you? It certainly is not problematic for me, but it apparently is for you. In it being a problem for you, you have displayed your true ignorance of a Christian theistic worldview. And let me try to get this atheist not believing thing straight: Is it that you don't believe in God, or you have no belief in anything? (This is a serious question, because Peter's first response was what made me question). And Peter, don't be so touchy, whatever happened to friendly debate? I'm not the boogyman you know. - 4:09:30 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:---Marlene, Melissa---Well lets see exactly how enlightened Mike REALLY is. Amie.s spouse?...Hmmmm..Amie's roomate? ...Hmmmmm....Grimwood? ...Hmmmm. Shall we start a pool? - 4:10:26 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:Actually Peter my name is Michael Demastus. I am a minister in a rural congregation in Illinois - the USA. I have no earthly idea who Aimee is and probably never will but you got my attention by your treatment of her. She seems to be a good person who truly is seeking answers, which is something of a rare occasion in this intellectually puffed world. - 4:14:27 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:--Mike--My post to Amy about the omniscient-omnipotent contradiction was in response to her attempt to give an intelligible description of god. She was attempting to do so because I wanted to know what was it for she was claiming the existence of. And I will tell you what I initially told her: If a theist talks about "God", they must make an intelligible description of it--or else any attempt at proof is logically absurd. Defining the concept of god is not an optional chore to be undertaken at the theist's convenience. It is a necessary prerequisite for intelligibility. Assuming that the atheist does not believe his theism to be nonsense, he has the responsibility of explaining the content of his belief. Failing this, to state tha "god exists" is to communicate nothing at all; it isas if nothing has been said. - 4:25:12 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:MIKE: I must also ask, since yer jumpin' on definitions here, what is your definition of "believe" and "atheist". And why do you put "atheist" in quotes and not "theist"? My dictionary, _The American Heritage College Dictionary, pub. 1993, defines "believe" as: 1. To accept as true or real 2. To credit with veracity 3. To expect or suppose; think -inter. 1. To have firm faith, esp religious faith 2. To have faith, confidence, or trust. 3. To have confidence in the truth or value of something. 4. To have an opinion; think. Now, as far as these definitions go, with the exception of the first #3 and -inter.#4, I don't think Peter was incorrect in saying atheism is the absence of belief, i.e. the absence of acceptance as true the tenets of theism, the absence of a willingness to credit as true the tenets of theism, etc. Do you not agree with these definitions of believe? If so, where do you get yours from? Atheism in my dictionary = 1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods 2.(my favorite) Godlessness; immorality. O.K. now disbelief = Refusal or reluctance to believe in; same dictionary. I'd suggest this definition of atheism is somewhat biased considering it presupposes the existence of God or gods. Perhaps this is the way your own definition of "atheism" works, mike? - 4:27:53 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:woops!! that mike post was me, sorry!! - 4:30:45 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:To the contrary Peter there are many logical concepts and precepts that humanity as a whole accepts entirely without as you "making a description of it". The fact that something is not described does not in and of itself mean anything at all as to whether something exists or does not. For example, I have not laid descriptions out of the language constructs which I am using to communicate with you now, nor have done so for the rational thought process which is occurring to make it possible. According to you, before we could make any headway in discussion, we would have to define or describe everything - at least that is if you are consistent in your "belief" or "unbelief" or what ever. Also Mike (nice name), I don't rely to much on college dictionaries either - full of bias as you found out. I prefer etymology and linguistics as a much more sound and reasonable way at determining definitions. - 4:37:58 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:--Mike---Well, you sound much kinder now, at least the way one would associate with a man of the cloth. What denomination is your church? Also, the snide remark I made to Adam was perhaps uncalled for, but I knew she was no longer was present, and would not return until Tuesday, so there was no possibility of her seeing it. And exactly what is "intellectually puffed"? Is it a bad thing to use one's mind to its fullest capacity? I think what the world really needs is a lot more use of one's mind, and looking at gaining knowledge as a virtue--not a vice. - 4:39:10 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:Minister Mike, I believe in nothing supernatural. I believe that science can show us how the universe works, eventually, maybe how it began, maybe not. I believe science has already proven that the Christian god is ludicrous, man-made. The Bible is a bastard of human production, not divine scripture, the earth is billions not thousands of years old, and if god made adam and eve as first man and woman, with two children cane and abel, where the hell did his wife come from? I think you read to much into Peter's statement that atheism is the absence of belief. He, I think (can't speak for 'im miself), was referring to the absence of belief in god. I'm sure he believes in reality. - 4:41:40 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:It certainly is not a bad thing to use one's mind to the fullest capability, but it is a bad thing to have those who take joy in "bashing the naive". I don't consider myself a "man of the cloth" just a seeker who is still in process. I may have said something in a way unpleasing and apologize if offense was taken. I preach at a Christian Church, which is actually not associated with any denomination. We claim ourselves not the only Christians, but to be Christians only. Denominationalism is evil in my opinion. And whoever asked earlier, I certainly don't consider myself "enlightened" because if I was I'd be letting alot more people know than I am presently. - 4:46:50 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:MIKE: when it comes to the word "god" it is not unreasonable to ask for a definition, as there are many different gods in the world today -- Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, New Age, etc. Yes, sometimes logical inquiry and argument demands definitions of many terms -- I like to call them operational definitions, from my experimental psych class. Only certain words however, not every one in a sentence, being extremist about it is committing some logical fallacy, I'm not sure what its technical name is. The MIKE with the college dictionary was me. - 4:47:39 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:Melissa you seem to have many things figured out. Thats great. I'm glad you have put so much faith in something that is so reliable as science. For you and I know that it is as reliable as the Pope himself. I wonder how it is that something that works from a framework of empirical testing and hypothesizing can prove the existence/nonexistence of such a thing as God. You'll have to let me in on that one. I never said anything, anywhere about the Bible - you've peeked my curiosity, why then attack its reliability with me? What method did you use to determine that that Bible is or is not reliable? - 4:52:34 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:Melissa I never said it was not unreasonable to ask for a definition of "god" (as you put it), I simply am making the itty-bitty call for consistency. Which is not possible, necessary or even relevant. It is extremely possible to make claims without making descriptions first - you do it, I do it and we're no different than our human race. - 4:56:31 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:--MIKE--The claim of the existence of God as I have heard it--is an extaordinary one indeed. Yet--I really have no idea what exactly it is, so yes--if you were to atteempt to prove god exists--you must first give an intelligible description of it first. If not you could arbitrarily apply or delete any quality to god, just to support your argument to prove god exists. All these claims must be able to be subjected to any test--or else anyone could claim the existence of anything, and then do the same thing and ( adding or deleting qualities ) to suit their needs. Insofar as your argument is concerned about comparing this to language, and anything else does not apply here. All these thing are easily identifiable by our senses and susceptible to rational scrutiny. - 4:57:26 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:By the way Melissa, you still have a nice name. - 4:57:50 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:Peter, Peter, Peter how is it that "all these things are easily identifiable by our senses"? Is evil not real? Is it empirically identifiable? Is it properly defined - by the way, as an "atheist" you would not have the privilege of determining evil then would you? For there can be no evil if your view is to remain consistent. I wonder do you deny the existence of evil? - 5:02:21 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:---Mike--In defence of Melissa--it is up to the theist to demonstrate that the Bible is valid--not her to show it is not. The same applies to anyone who claims that anything exists. He assumes the burden of proof. So, if a theist says that a "God" exists he must---AFTER and intelligible description of it is made--assumes the burden of proof to support that claim. If he cannot, atheism naturally follows. - 5:04:26 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:MIKE: I think science is much more reliable than religion in describing the universe in that it is a self-correcting source of knowledge. Of course we get things wrong in our scientific inquiry, we are human, fallible, but we trudge on, and little by little we uncover the mystery, and the reality of it all turns out to be much more interesting, much more beautiful, much more grand than our wildest dreams. Religion is either stagnant water or it changes to suit the latest trends, to appeal to the changing multitudes, it is, like us, adaptable . . . BECAUSE WE MADE IT. It is a human convention to explain the unexplainable. Science admits fallibility, but demands objectivity. Religion professes its leader's infallibility (at least the three major religions of the world do) and subjugates itself to the whims of the masses, for religion must be marketable and people will choose the religion that suits their own personalities and lifestyles. This is why I choose religion over science. And I think you are wrong about our understanding of the Christian worldview. Many of us were raised with it, ask Stephen. It is because we understand it so fundamentally that we reject it. I know you didn't mention the bible, I mentioned it because the rejection of it was the basis of my rejection of the existence of god. Now I ask you, in what respect religion reliable? - 5:11:43 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:And nihilism flows naturally after atheism is seen flawed. - 5:13:10 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:--Mike--Of course the concept of "evil" is real. Can it be empirically defined?--Certainly. Any living organism which considers any negative influence on its life, or any life he may consider as a value--is evil. The concept of evil can only apply to a living organism. Since one can only be an atheist if he is a living organism, then of course he can determine what evil is. - 5:14:06 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:Melissa religion isn't reliable. It too, like science is "run by men" so its got problems. You still didn't answer the one thing I want to know how can something that works from a 100% empirical framework prove/disprove anything about God or how life began or man's purpose (I've got one at least - do you?). Let me answer it for you, it can not. Also since you threw out the comments about the Bible, let me throw out some about science's Bible. Evolution is NOT science - I would love to see the day when you prove that one. Evolution is philosophy. - 5:19:21 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:MIKE: the concept of evil is a moral one. atheism is merely the denial of the existence of god. It has no moral implications. Many atheists subscribe to different morals. Marx's views for instance are morally inconsistent with my own views. This is why atheists get such a bad rap, because theists don't understand how one can have morals without gods direction. Have you read Ayn Rand's _The Virtue of Selfishness_? - 5:19:41 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:----MIKE--The only way atheism can be seen as flawed is when theism can be shown not to be. Nihilism as I understand it is to believe in nothing--if it was shown to me that any theistic claim can be shown to be valid--what logical series of events would then have to take place for me to be a nihilist. This post I am now referring to just sounds like some undigested slogan; a platitude that you have been spouting. Come on. - 5:22:15 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:Peter it is interesting to me that you say evil can be empirically defined within the parameters of something being a living organism - you might want to get a bit more specific, my 3 year old son's box turtle is not able to determine evil. How is it that you, an atheist, can say the word value? What standard do you use? Where is your framework? Now if you are consistent, and I would hope you try to be, then the act of Timothy McVeigh on blowing up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK is not evil - for he considered that not to be a negative influence in or on his life. If anything you should applaud his freedom of expressing his atheism if he is were an atheist. You see my point is this: You can not consider something to be a negative influence on your life for to do that you need to be able to say that some things are ABSOLUTELY wrong and some things are ABSOLUTELY right. As of now, you have no right to determine what is right or wrong - because it is simply not in your framework of "unbelief". - 5:27:32 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:WHOA BUDDY! Philiosphy? Evolution is evident in fossil samples, DNA, the Galapagos Islands. Creationism is evident in . . . ? Can science PROVE the existence or non-existence of god? what is god? A creator? Maybe, maybe not. It's really too soon to say. But I'd guess not. You see god has this unique quality called incomprehensibility, so the question can science understand god is somewhat of an oxymoron, yes? But so what? Can YOU prove god? no, you choose to believe in its existence, I choose not to. More than likely we'll never know. So why waste my time? It is not science's job to prove man's PURPOSE. That is an independent, moral, philosophical decision mande by each man of his own conscience. - 5:31:35 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:Melissa I am familiar with Rand's book (although it currently lines the bottom of my bird cage) - Again what is selfish/unselfish? Who makes the determination? You? Me? I sure hope not, we'd have this world even more screwed up than it is already. - 5:31:44 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:---MIKE---Science needs not to "disprove" anything, other than demonstrating the claims made by anyone about anything cannot be rationally demonstrated --and that includes God. Again, if your reasoning was correct, I could say I have a little green elf living on my shoulder, whose existence cannot be verified empirically, and then claim victory for his attempt at proving that claim.--and so could anyone else. - 5:34:45 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:Melissa I seem to have touched a nerve by calling into question your infallible god of evolution. Well I really hop you don't put your trust in the fossil record to prove evolution. BY THE WAY, DON'T ASSUME THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE EARTH IS YOUNG. If the fossil record is reliable, we have transitional species problems that even troubled Darwin who posed the question himself asking, "Why if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not EVERYWHERE see numerous transitional forms?" (Emphasis mine). The answer was troubling to Darwin. Well we could say this. In Darwin's day paleontology was young. There was so much virgin earth to be dug that it would soon begin to develop the way the theory espouses. But unfortunately the fossil record is evolution's greatest enemy. Another couple thoughts Melissa: Explain the evolution of two things for me - the wing and the eye. How is it that such complex organisms develop according to surivial of the fittest. BY THE WAY I DO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, JUST NOT THE SAME AS YOU I ASSUME. - 5:42:25 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:Peter understanding science at a grade school level, you should have been taught that science is that which is OBSERVED, TESTED AND PROVED. How is it then, that science can make claims about something which can not be observed? I again am simply calling for consistency with in one's each respective framework. - 5:45:20 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:---MIKE---Let's try this, slightly reworded, and I will attempt to be a bit more succint. The standard of by which one judges what is good or evil--is MAN'S Life.or: that which is required for man's survival QUA man. One may wish to extend this standard into the animal kingdom, but you should get the idea....This has nothing to do, as Melissa has stated with NOT believing in God. An atheist can have varying degrees of ethical standards, but they are not bound by his theistic beliefs. - 5:45:58 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:MIKE: perhaps a turtle doesn't understand the WORD, a human convention, "evil", but I'd debate it certainly understands the CONCEPT: pain = evil, threat to survival = evil. Your argument of ABSOLUTE morality is a familiar one, most theists argue it. God gives you an ABSOLUTE morality to work from. So where does that leave us? Its a question I have a hard time resolving myself. I'd suggest the "Thou shalt not kill" "Thou shalt not steal" essentially "Thou shalt not harm another of your kind"-type morality can be derived from evolutionary explanations. E.G., humans are social animals, in the early days of human existence, to harm another man would jeopardize the society by weakening a link, and so indirectly harm the individual. To kill meant lesser numbers, to steal violated the trust, etc. In essence these morals were derived to aid survival of the species, or "evolved" to aid the survival of the species. So they are innate, as they are with most animals (yes there are some exceptions). Theists merely attribute them to divine intervention. But they have always been there, even before the 10 commandments. Those societies that didn't implement them didn't survive. - 5:47:09 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:Peter now you're talking. You are right that atheists can have "varying degrees of ethics" which means the child molester is just as justified as the one who cheats on his taxes (women would never do such a thing). And it would be WRONG for anyone to judge either individual who is simply expressing his/her atheism to its fullest potential! - 5:50:19 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:Melissa if morals are derived from evolution, then doesn't evolution have forward process in mind for species propogation? How is that this would explain gratuitous evil? Maybe Jeffrey Dahmer is the missing link? - 5:53:33 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:---Mike, so we are to believe, since we cannot observe the past , in something which is completely inconsistent with all the evidence that CAN BE OBSERVED such as atomic decay ( the same technology used in nuclear power ), fossils etc. and dismiss it all as unscientific, and believe a story written by virtual savages thousands of years ago who also didn't witness the past before THEM? Come on, Mike. - 5:55:13 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Peter:--No Mike, they would not be expressing their atheism to its fullest. It would be their particular code of ethics. Atheism does not infer any particular positive beliefs. It is just NOT theism. - 6:01:07 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:MIKE: Just as you do not put much faith into college dictionaries, I do not put much faith into grade school teachings. They told me Columbus discovered America. Well, he came close, he discovered the Carribean Islands, but Amerigo Vespucci discovered the continents, that's why they're the America's. Grade schools tend to simplify concepts too much. For example, when in third grade I asked one of the teacher's of my gifted classes if you can divide fractions. He said no. Well, he's essentially right, all you really do when you divide fractions is multiply the reciprocal of the denominator by the fraction in the numerator. But did he attempt to explain this to me? No, he assumed my third grade mind, even though it was supposedly "gifted" couldn't comprehend it. So in short, don't go espousing the pros of grade school science. Science isn't about proving theories, its about disproving them. You test and test a theory trying to disprove it and if you fail to disprove it then your outcomes support it, but never PROVE it. But its absurd to ask science to prove the existence of god. It is not a theory accessible to testers, it is a philosophy. Evolution on the other hand is scientifically testable. And it is not my god and it is not infallible. I know there are many flaws in scientific theories, I believe I mentioned this is the difference between religion and science: Science admits its fallibility. The Theory of Relativity is fallible at the point of a singularity, but it explains the motions of large bodies relatively well. Still, evolution is not a PHILOSOPHY it is a scientific THEORY that, perhaps like relativity falls short at certain instances. But its claims, unlike religion's, are scientifically testable. - 6:01:18 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:MIKE: Perhaps you don't understand evolution as much as you claim. Evolution does not exclude the possiblity of mutations which are harmful to the species or the individual. As a matter of fact, the law of probability dictates that the mutations would, most of the time, produce behaviour or chemical processes MALIGNANT to the species or individual -- e.g. heart malfunctions and cancer. So, speaking morally, evolution would predict that some individuals would be born that would possess, whether through chemical imbalance or a messed up lifestyle during the maturation years or whatever it is that might cause it, some deviant behaviour that is detrimental to the species or individual. This behaviour would then be deemed immoral. Cannabalism is acceptable in some civilizations, but they are not the most prominent civilizations now are they? - 6:10:52 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:The conservation is rather two-fold right now, morality and science/philosophy. Melissa if you did not here me say it earlier, I'll be repititious, religion too is fallible. But with in the framework of a particular religious system, there are many aspects of it that can be "tested" and shown to be true. In effect, the "golden rule". You are dead wrong about evolution being able to be tested and observed. Considering that we get specific because we were discussing the fossil record - lets keep our thoughts focussed on macro-evolution and not micro. So again I ask how is macro-evolution not philosophy? It does not fit the parameters of science at all. I am wondering, as an aside, are you familiar with the work of Frank Tipler - since you brought up relativity? - 6:12:45 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:Melissa then I am to assume then you would say the reason that gratuitous evil has been around since the beginnings of humanity (and hasn't evolved out) is that we humans are still young? - 6:15:11 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:MIKE: also, as Peter pointed out, you are doing it again: "And it would be WRONG for anyone to judge either individual who is simply expressing his/her atheism to its fullest potential!" Humans judge, be they theist or atheist, because humans have morals, period. It is human to believe in right and wrong. You derive your morals from your religion, I devise mine from a respect for human life taught me by my parents, perhaps evolutionarily ingrained in my being. Just because I do not believe in the existence of god does not mean I give up the right to decide the difference between right behaviour and wrong behaviour, and apply it to real life situations. - 6:17:30 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:Oh Melissa I still am curious about the eye and the wing. But when ever you have time. - 6:17:46 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:Melissa how is it "WRONG" for me to say that it would be wrong for a person to molest my son? - 6:21:07 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Melissa:MIKE: sure, that works for me, perhaps it won't "evolve out". We have created a world where the weak survive and criminals propogate. I'm afraid I, like the human race am young, and unable to deeply discuss macro-evolution, whatever that is, or the theory of relativity. I have a peripheral comprehension of both subjects as I just started reading on them within the last few months. Tipler sounds familiar, was he the one who pushed the making of the hydrogen bomb? - 6:23:48 on 27 Sep 97 GMT

Mike:Tipler is a student of Hawking. I would encourage you to read his work (If you like lots and lots of heavy math) called: The Physics of Immortality. And, um, I'm sorry I don't accept your neat and tidy package of the evolution of morality. I