| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
On a lighter note ....
|
On a lighter note ....
On 12/23/2013 3:55 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
http://www.wimp.com/singssnow/ Wow, lot of frekin' work there.... |
On a lighter note ....
|
On a lighter note ....
On 12/23/2013 5:05 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/23/13, 4:04 PM, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 15:55:52 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: http://www.wimp.com/singssnow/ One for Harry and his atheist friends http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmaMfXwlq90 Only one of my friends is an atheist. I'm not an atheist. Perhaps in your retirement you might consider taking a reading for comprehension course, since I have stated here many times I am an agnostic. Or is it you don't know the difference between atheist and agnostic? That's it, isn't it? Your're all grown up now. Make up your mind already. -- Americans deserve better. |
On a lighter note ....
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/23/13, 5:31 PM, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:05:45 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Or is it you don't know the difference between atheist and agnostic? That's it, isn't it? You are actually a jew in denial from what I can tell but the difference is pretty much semantic. Ha. "From what you can tell" is...as usual...wrong. I grew up in a city dominated by Roman Catholics and Jews, and most of my friends were one or the other. Also, my wife got her doctorate at The Catholic University of America, which she chose because it has the best graduate school of social work in the D.C-Baltimore area for her area of concentration. I spent many hours at CUA while she was at classes and seminars, usually in the library working on stuff for my work, or in the student lounge, chatting with priests. There are a lot of Catholic institutions in the immediate area and therefore a lot of priests. I learned a lot about the culture of Catholics and Jews in my lifetime, and I also know quite a bit about Episcopalians, having had one as a college roomie who was preparing for the priesthood. Unfortunately, when we lived in the south, most of the "religion" I was exposed to directly and indirectly was of the southern baptist variety. I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps you'd care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you mean? Wow. That is impressive. Let's check how impressed everyone is: http://tinyurl.com/nmjrg7e John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
On a lighter note ....
|
On a lighter note ....
|
On a lighter note ....
On Monday, December 23, 2013 10:22:52 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Krause is a ****ing ASSHOLE...nothing less. |
On a lighter note ....
On 12/23/2013 10:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/23/2013 8:35 PM, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps you'd care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you mean? Not meant as a slam, simply an observation. Most agnostic/atheist/nihalist type folks I know have come from a mixed Jewish/Catholic background. Bill Maher is a classic case in the celebrity world. The difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly semantics. An agnostic is just an atheist who is not willing to commit. You have committed, you ridicule anyone who believes in any kind if deity or any religious belief so you are not agnostic. Harry strikes me more as being "irreligious". Being irreligious can include being agnostic, but it may also include having a degree of hostility towards religious beliefs as he has often demonstrated in this newsgroup. To me that's a little arrogant, since he calls himself an "agnostic" which simply means he doesn't know. Religion really has it's roots going back to primitive man. Early humans were individually no match for wild animals or the vigor's of climate and weather. They found that by banding together in tribes the chances of survival increased. Over time each tribe developed traditions or ways of living. The traditions took on a spiritual nature in time and conflicts with other tribes with different beliefs and ways developed. In many ways, things haven't changed much. We like to think we live in a world where we can choose our level of autonomy. TV, computers, cars, supermarkets and money give us the illusion of being capable of complete self-sufficient without much support or help from our fellow man. That is, until some natural disaster wipes out all the comfortable cushions or a modern foreign "tribe" comes along and attempts to wipe you out. Then, like our primitive ancestors, we will band together again with a common cause and common "beliefs". Until then, it's just too convenient, easy and safe to bitch, complain and criticize those who happen to *have* faith in something. Harry is a mess. Harry needs to go back to his beginning and reinvent himself. This might help. http://www.primaltherapy.com/SEO/pri...overview.shtml -- Americans deserve better. |
On a lighter note ....
On 12/23/13, 10:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/23/2013 8:35 PM, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps you'd care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you mean? Not meant as a slam, simply an observation. Most agnostic/atheist/nihalist type folks I know have come from a mixed Jewish/Catholic background. Bill Maher is a classic case in the celebrity world. The difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly semantics. An agnostic is just an atheist who is not willing to commit. You have committed, you ridicule anyone who believes in any kind if deity or any religious belief so you are not agnostic. Harry strikes me more as being "irreligious". Being irreligious can include being agnostic, but it may also include having a degree of hostility towards religious beliefs as he has often demonstrated in this newsgroup. To me that's a little arrogant, since he calls himself an "agnostic" which simply means he doesn't know. Religion really has it's roots going back to primitive man. Early humans were individually no match for wild animals or the vigor's of climate and weather. They found that by banding together in tribes the chances of survival increased. Over time each tribe developed traditions or ways of living. The traditions took on a spiritual nature in time and conflicts with other tribes with different beliefs and ways developed. In many ways, things haven't changed much. We like to think we live in a world where we can choose our level of autonomy. TV, computers, cars, supermarkets and money give us the illusion of being capable of complete self-sufficient without much support or help from our fellow man. That is, until some natural disaster wipes out all the comfortable cushions or a modern foreign "tribe" comes along and attempts to wipe you out. Then, like our primitive ancestors, we will band together again with a common cause and common "beliefs". Until then, it's just too convenient, easy and safe to bitch, complain and criticize those who happen to *have* faith in something. I don't confuse belief/non-belief in god with religion. There may or may not be a god. If there is a god, the entity certainly is not a creation of man, which is all that religion is, which is sort of what you said in your second paragraph. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/13, 12:11 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 21:26:05 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/23/13, 8:35 PM, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps you'd care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you mean? Not meant as a slam, simply an observation. Most agnostic/atheist/nihalist type folks I know have come from a mixed Jewish/Catholic background. Bill Maher is a classic case in the celebrity world. The difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly semantics. An agnostic is just an atheist who is not willing to commit. You have committed, you ridicule anyone who believes in any kind if deity or any religious belief so you are not agnostic. I only know one atheist. Among the handful of agnostics I know personally, one was Jewish and the other four or five were Protestants. Your understanding of the difference between atheists and agnostics is...humorous. An atheist denies or disbelieves the existence of a god. An agnostic believes the existence of a god is unknown and unknowable. Perhaps in your mind that means agnostics are "unwilling to commit," but the differences are far more complicated. You'd have to have taken a number of liberal arts courses to know that, of course. :) You're also wrong about what you think I believe. My problem is not whether there is or is not a creator. I don't know the answer to that, and I never will. My problem is with "organized" religion, which I think is pretty much a crock...especially the more fundamentalist, right-wing Protestant sects, which are loud, doctrinaire, and judgmental, and want to force their beliefs onto everyone. I agree with you on "brand loyalty" but I do not have the disrespect bordering on outright hatred you have for people who do believe. You represent yourself as agnostic but your statements here are straight out of the atheist handbook. I've not read the "atheist handbook." Which edition do you recommend? -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/2013 6:29 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/23/13, 10:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/23/2013 8:35 PM, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps you'd care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you mean? Not meant as a slam, simply an observation. Most agnostic/atheist/nihalist type folks I know have come from a mixed Jewish/Catholic background. Bill Maher is a classic case in the celebrity world. The difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly semantics. An agnostic is just an atheist who is not willing to commit. You have committed, you ridicule anyone who believes in any kind if deity or any religious belief so you are not agnostic. Harry strikes me more as being "irreligious". Being irreligious can include being agnostic, but it may also include having a degree of hostility towards religious beliefs as he has often demonstrated in this newsgroup. To me that's a little arrogant, since he calls himself an "agnostic" which simply means he doesn't know. Religion really has it's roots going back to primitive man. Early humans were individually no match for wild animals or the vigor's of climate and weather. They found that by banding together in tribes the chances of survival increased. Over time each tribe developed traditions or ways of living. The traditions took on a spiritual nature in time and conflicts with other tribes with different beliefs and ways developed. In many ways, things haven't changed much. We like to think we live in a world where we can choose our level of autonomy. TV, computers, cars, supermarkets and money give us the illusion of being capable of complete self-sufficient without much support or help from our fellow man. That is, until some natural disaster wipes out all the comfortable cushions or a modern foreign "tribe" comes along and attempts to wipe you out. Then, like our primitive ancestors, we will band together again with a common cause and common "beliefs". Until then, it's just too convenient, easy and safe to bitch, complain and criticize those who happen to *have* faith in something. I don't confuse belief/non-belief in god with religion. There may or may not be a god. If there is a god, the entity certainly is not a creation of man, which is all that religion is, which is sort of what you said in your second paragraph. I don't know how or exactly when the awareness of a supreme being, "god", gods or spiritual beliefs evolved in the human mind but according to researchers and scientists it happened eons ago when humans grouped as tribes. Perhaps it was "invented" to address questions of the unknown. Perhaps some form of external influence (extraterrestrial) delivered the message, a theory that I happen to be very open to in a curious sort of way. But one concept that I can understand and differentiate is that of faith versus proof. I don't condemn people for having faith. Faith is a personal thing to everyone and can't be logically explained, repudiated or attacked. |
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/13, 7:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 6:29 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/23/13, 10:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/23/2013 8:35 PM, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps you'd care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you mean? Not meant as a slam, simply an observation. Most agnostic/atheist/nihalist type folks I know have come from a mixed Jewish/Catholic background. Bill Maher is a classic case in the celebrity world. The difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly semantics. An agnostic is just an atheist who is not willing to commit. You have committed, you ridicule anyone who believes in any kind if deity or any religious belief so you are not agnostic. Harry strikes me more as being "irreligious". Being irreligious can include being agnostic, but it may also include having a degree of hostility towards religious beliefs as he has often demonstrated in this newsgroup. To me that's a little arrogant, since he calls himself an "agnostic" which simply means he doesn't know. Religion really has it's roots going back to primitive man. Early humans were individually no match for wild animals or the vigor's of climate and weather. They found that by banding together in tribes the chances of survival increased. Over time each tribe developed traditions or ways of living. The traditions took on a spiritual nature in time and conflicts with other tribes with different beliefs and ways developed. In many ways, things haven't changed much. We like to think we live in a world where we can choose our level of autonomy. TV, computers, cars, supermarkets and money give us the illusion of being capable of complete self-sufficient without much support or help from our fellow man. That is, until some natural disaster wipes out all the comfortable cushions or a modern foreign "tribe" comes along and attempts to wipe you out. Then, like our primitive ancestors, we will band together again with a common cause and common "beliefs". Until then, it's just too convenient, easy and safe to bitch, complain and criticize those who happen to *have* faith in something. I don't confuse belief/non-belief in god with religion. There may or may not be a god. If there is a god, the entity certainly is not a creation of man, which is all that religion is, which is sort of what you said in your second paragraph. I don't know how or exactly when the awareness of a supreme being, "god", gods or spiritual beliefs evolved in the human mind but according to researchers and scientists it happened eons ago when humans grouped as tribes. Perhaps it was "invented" to address questions of the unknown. Perhaps some form of external influence (extraterrestrial) delivered the message, a theory that I happen to be very open to in a curious sort of way. But one concept that I can understand and differentiate is that of faith versus proof. I don't condemn people for having faith. Faith is a personal thing to everyone and can't be logically explained, repudiated or attacked. It seems obvious to me that early man developed a belief in god(s) and religion in an attempt to explain and understand some of what he didn't know or could not understand. Look at all the gods of the ancient Egyptians, especially "Ra," the all-powerful sun god, who was given credit for light, for growth of crops, for warming the earth. When you don't know why something is happening, it is comforting, I suppose, to give credit or blame to an object or idea representing a god. In later beliefs, the concept of god and a better world awaiting after death was used to pacify the poor about their miserable plight and to prevent insurrection. Probably still is used that way. Look at all the hatred spread in the name of religion. Is there a god? I don't know and neither does anyone else. I've not seen any evidence one way or the other. Nothing in "religion" convinces me...in fact, just the opposite. If there is a god, why would that entity tolerate religion? :) -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/2013 7:40 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 7:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 6:29 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/23/13, 10:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/23/2013 8:35 PM, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps you'd care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you mean? Not meant as a slam, simply an observation. Most agnostic/atheist/nihalist type folks I know have come from a mixed Jewish/Catholic background. Bill Maher is a classic case in the celebrity world. The difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly semantics. An agnostic is just an atheist who is not willing to commit. You have committed, you ridicule anyone who believes in any kind if deity or any religious belief so you are not agnostic. Harry strikes me more as being "irreligious". Being irreligious can include being agnostic, but it may also include having a degree of hostility towards religious beliefs as he has often demonstrated in this newsgroup. To me that's a little arrogant, since he calls himself an "agnostic" which simply means he doesn't know. Religion really has it's roots going back to primitive man. Early humans were individually no match for wild animals or the vigor's of climate and weather. They found that by banding together in tribes the chances of survival increased. Over time each tribe developed traditions or ways of living. The traditions took on a spiritual nature in time and conflicts with other tribes with different beliefs and ways developed. In many ways, things haven't changed much. We like to think we live in a world where we can choose our level of autonomy. TV, computers, cars, supermarkets and money give us the illusion of being capable of complete self-sufficient without much support or help from our fellow man. That is, until some natural disaster wipes out all the comfortable cushions or a modern foreign "tribe" comes along and attempts to wipe you out. Then, like our primitive ancestors, we will band together again with a common cause and common "beliefs". Until then, it's just too convenient, easy and safe to bitch, complain and criticize those who happen to *have* faith in something. I don't confuse belief/non-belief in god with religion. There may or may not be a god. If there is a god, the entity certainly is not a creation of man, which is all that religion is, which is sort of what you said in your second paragraph. I don't know how or exactly when the awareness of a supreme being, "god", gods or spiritual beliefs evolved in the human mind but according to researchers and scientists it happened eons ago when humans grouped as tribes. Perhaps it was "invented" to address questions of the unknown. Perhaps some form of external influence (extraterrestrial) delivered the message, a theory that I happen to be very open to in a curious sort of way. But one concept that I can understand and differentiate is that of faith versus proof. I don't condemn people for having faith. Faith is a personal thing to everyone and can't be logically explained, repudiated or attacked. It seems obvious to me that early man developed a belief in god(s) and religion in an attempt to explain and understand some of what he didn't know or could not understand. Look at all the gods of the ancient Egyptians, especially "Ra," the all-powerful sun god, who was given credit for light, for growth of crops, for warming the earth. When you don't know why something is happening, it is comforting, I suppose, to give credit or blame to an object or idea representing a god. In later beliefs, the concept of god and a better world awaiting after death was used to pacify the poor about their miserable plight and to prevent insurrection. Probably still is used that way. Look at all the hatred spread in the name of religion. Is there a god? I don't know and neither does anyone else. I've not seen any evidence one way or the other. Nothing in "religion" convinces me...in fact, just the opposite. If there is a god, why would that entity tolerate religion? :) I think you are still confusing "faith". A particular religion is just a conduit for faith. |
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/13, 7:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 7:40 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/24/13, 7:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 6:29 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/23/13, 10:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/23/2013 8:35 PM, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps you'd care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you mean? Not meant as a slam, simply an observation. Most agnostic/atheist/nihalist type folks I know have come from a mixed Jewish/Catholic background. Bill Maher is a classic case in the celebrity world. The difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly semantics. An agnostic is just an atheist who is not willing to commit. You have committed, you ridicule anyone who believes in any kind if deity or any religious belief so you are not agnostic. Harry strikes me more as being "irreligious". Being irreligious can include being agnostic, but it may also include having a degree of hostility towards religious beliefs as he has often demonstrated in this newsgroup. To me that's a little arrogant, since he calls himself an "agnostic" which simply means he doesn't know. Religion really has it's roots going back to primitive man. Early humans were individually no match for wild animals or the vigor's of climate and weather. They found that by banding together in tribes the chances of survival increased. Over time each tribe developed traditions or ways of living. The traditions took on a spiritual nature in time and conflicts with other tribes with different beliefs and ways developed. In many ways, things haven't changed much. We like to think we live in a world where we can choose our level of autonomy. TV, computers, cars, supermarkets and money give us the illusion of being capable of complete self-sufficient without much support or help from our fellow man. That is, until some natural disaster wipes out all the comfortable cushions or a modern foreign "tribe" comes along and attempts to wipe you out. Then, like our primitive ancestors, we will band together again with a common cause and common "beliefs". Until then, it's just too convenient, easy and safe to bitch, complain and criticize those who happen to *have* faith in something. I don't confuse belief/non-belief in god with religion. There may or may not be a god. If there is a god, the entity certainly is not a creation of man, which is all that religion is, which is sort of what you said in your second paragraph. I don't know how or exactly when the awareness of a supreme being, "god", gods or spiritual beliefs evolved in the human mind but according to researchers and scientists it happened eons ago when humans grouped as tribes. Perhaps it was "invented" to address questions of the unknown. Perhaps some form of external influence (extraterrestrial) delivered the message, a theory that I happen to be very open to in a curious sort of way. But one concept that I can understand and differentiate is that of faith versus proof. I don't condemn people for having faith. Faith is a personal thing to everyone and can't be logically explained, repudiated or attacked. It seems obvious to me that early man developed a belief in god(s) and religion in an attempt to explain and understand some of what he didn't know or could not understand. Look at all the gods of the ancient Egyptians, especially "Ra," the all-powerful sun god, who was given credit for light, for growth of crops, for warming the earth. When you don't know why something is happening, it is comforting, I suppose, to give credit or blame to an object or idea representing a god. In later beliefs, the concept of god and a better world awaiting after death was used to pacify the poor about their miserable plight and to prevent insurrection. Probably still is used that way. Look at all the hatred spread in the name of religion. Is there a god? I don't know and neither does anyone else. I've not seen any evidence one way or the other. Nothing in "religion" convinces me...in fact, just the opposite. If there is a god, why would that entity tolerate religion? :) I think you are still confusing "faith". A particular religion is just a conduit for faith. I know plenty of people who have faith there is a god and who avoid "religion" like the plague. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
On a lighter note ....
|
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/2013 8:08 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 8:05 AM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 06:32:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I've not read the "atheist handbook." Which edition do you recommend? -- I am not an aficionado. It is the real religion of hate Really? Are there tribes of atheists running amok in the middle east, tossing bombs at buses full of school children, or are the atheists too busy flying drones into wedding parties? Oh, I know...it's the atheists shooting abortion doctors. The problem is that you athiests are too disorganized. You need to get together and draw up some guidelines and core values. Perhaps you could even have designated places where you can gather to teach and learn about atheism. -- Americans deserve better. |
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/2013 8:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 7:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 7:40 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/24/13, 7:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 6:29 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/23/13, 10:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/23/2013 8:35 PM, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps you'd care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you mean? Not meant as a slam, simply an observation. Most agnostic/atheist/nihalist type folks I know have come from a mixed Jewish/Catholic background. Bill Maher is a classic case in the celebrity world. The difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly semantics. An agnostic is just an atheist who is not willing to commit. You have committed, you ridicule anyone who believes in any kind if deity or any religious belief so you are not agnostic. Harry strikes me more as being "irreligious". Being irreligious can include being agnostic, but it may also include having a degree of hostility towards religious beliefs as he has often demonstrated in this newsgroup. To me that's a little arrogant, since he calls himself an "agnostic" which simply means he doesn't know. Religion really has it's roots going back to primitive man. Early humans were individually no match for wild animals or the vigor's of climate and weather. They found that by banding together in tribes the chances of survival increased. Over time each tribe developed traditions or ways of living. The traditions took on a spiritual nature in time and conflicts with other tribes with different beliefs and ways developed. In many ways, things haven't changed much. We like to think we live in a world where we can choose our level of autonomy. TV, computers, cars, supermarkets and money give us the illusion of being capable of complete self-sufficient without much support or help from our fellow man. That is, until some natural disaster wipes out all the comfortable cushions or a modern foreign "tribe" comes along and attempts to wipe you out. Then, like our primitive ancestors, we will band together again with a common cause and common "beliefs". Until then, it's just too convenient, easy and safe to bitch, complain and criticize those who happen to *have* faith in something. I don't confuse belief/non-belief in god with religion. There may or may not be a god. If there is a god, the entity certainly is not a creation of man, which is all that religion is, which is sort of what you said in your second paragraph. I don't know how or exactly when the awareness of a supreme being, "god", gods or spiritual beliefs evolved in the human mind but according to researchers and scientists it happened eons ago when humans grouped as tribes. Perhaps it was "invented" to address questions of the unknown. Perhaps some form of external influence (extraterrestrial) delivered the message, a theory that I happen to be very open to in a curious sort of way. But one concept that I can understand and differentiate is that of faith versus proof. I don't condemn people for having faith. Faith is a personal thing to everyone and can't be logically explained, repudiated or attacked. It seems obvious to me that early man developed a belief in god(s) and religion in an attempt to explain and understand some of what he didn't know or could not understand. Look at all the gods of the ancient Egyptians, especially "Ra," the all-powerful sun god, who was given credit for light, for growth of crops, for warming the earth. When you don't know why something is happening, it is comforting, I suppose, to give credit or blame to an object or idea representing a god. In later beliefs, the concept of god and a better world awaiting after death was used to pacify the poor about their miserable plight and to prevent insurrection. Probably still is used that way. Look at all the hatred spread in the name of religion. Is there a god? I don't know and neither does anyone else. I've not seen any evidence one way or the other. Nothing in "religion" convinces me...in fact, just the opposite. If there is a god, why would that entity tolerate religion? :) I think you are still confusing "faith". A particular religion is just a conduit for faith. I know plenty of people who have faith there is a god and who avoid "religion" like the plague. True. Like me. But there are also millions who find the conduit of religion to be helpful in the demonstration of their faith. I find nothing wrong with that and would never try to change their minds. |
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/13, 8:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 8:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/24/13, 7:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 7:40 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/24/13, 7:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 6:29 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/23/13, 10:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/23/2013 8:35 PM, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps you'd care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you mean? Not meant as a slam, simply an observation. Most agnostic/atheist/nihalist type folks I know have come from a mixed Jewish/Catholic background. Bill Maher is a classic case in the celebrity world. The difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly semantics. An agnostic is just an atheist who is not willing to commit. You have committed, you ridicule anyone who believes in any kind if deity or any religious belief so you are not agnostic. Harry strikes me more as being "irreligious". Being irreligious can include being agnostic, but it may also include having a degree of hostility towards religious beliefs as he has often demonstrated in this newsgroup. To me that's a little arrogant, since he calls himself an "agnostic" which simply means he doesn't know. Religion really has it's roots going back to primitive man. Early humans were individually no match for wild animals or the vigor's of climate and weather. They found that by banding together in tribes the chances of survival increased. Over time each tribe developed traditions or ways of living. The traditions took on a spiritual nature in time and conflicts with other tribes with different beliefs and ways developed. In many ways, things haven't changed much. We like to think we live in a world where we can choose our level of autonomy. TV, computers, cars, supermarkets and money give us the illusion of being capable of complete self-sufficient without much support or help from our fellow man. That is, until some natural disaster wipes out all the comfortable cushions or a modern foreign "tribe" comes along and attempts to wipe you out. Then, like our primitive ancestors, we will band together again with a common cause and common "beliefs". Until then, it's just too convenient, easy and safe to bitch, complain and criticize those who happen to *have* faith in something. I don't confuse belief/non-belief in god with religion. There may or may not be a god. If there is a god, the entity certainly is not a creation of man, which is all that religion is, which is sort of what you said in your second paragraph. I don't know how or exactly when the awareness of a supreme being, "god", gods or spiritual beliefs evolved in the human mind but according to researchers and scientists it happened eons ago when humans grouped as tribes. Perhaps it was "invented" to address questions of the unknown. Perhaps some form of external influence (extraterrestrial) delivered the message, a theory that I happen to be very open to in a curious sort of way. But one concept that I can understand and differentiate is that of faith versus proof. I don't condemn people for having faith. Faith is a personal thing to everyone and can't be logically explained, repudiated or attacked. It seems obvious to me that early man developed a belief in god(s) and religion in an attempt to explain and understand some of what he didn't know or could not understand. Look at all the gods of the ancient Egyptians, especially "Ra," the all-powerful sun god, who was given credit for light, for growth of crops, for warming the earth. When you don't know why something is happening, it is comforting, I suppose, to give credit or blame to an object or idea representing a god. In later beliefs, the concept of god and a better world awaiting after death was used to pacify the poor about their miserable plight and to prevent insurrection. Probably still is used that way. Look at all the hatred spread in the name of religion. Is there a god? I don't know and neither does anyone else. I've not seen any evidence one way or the other. Nothing in "religion" convinces me...in fact, just the opposite. If there is a god, why would that entity tolerate religion? :) I think you are still confusing "faith". A particular religion is just a conduit for faith. I know plenty of people who have faith there is a god and who avoid "religion" like the plague. True. Like me. But there are also millions who find the conduit of religion to be helpful in the demonstration of their faith. I find nothing wrong with that and would never try to change their minds. I don't have a problem with "the religious" so long as they don't try to shovel their beliefs in my path or impose them via governmental fiat. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
On a lighter note ....
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 07:13:06 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 12/24/2013 6:29 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/23/13, 10:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/23/2013 8:35 PM, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps you'd care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you mean? Not meant as a slam, simply an observation. Most agnostic/atheist/nihalist type folks I know have come from a mixed Jewish/Catholic background. Bill Maher is a classic case in the celebrity world. The difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly semantics. An agnostic is just an atheist who is not willing to commit. You have committed, you ridicule anyone who believes in any kind if deity or any religious belief so you are not agnostic. Harry strikes me more as being "irreligious". Being irreligious can include being agnostic, but it may also include having a degree of hostility towards religious beliefs as he has often demonstrated in this newsgroup. To me that's a little arrogant, since he calls himself an "agnostic" which simply means he doesn't know. Religion really has it's roots going back to primitive man. Early humans were individually no match for wild animals or the vigor's of climate and weather. They found that by banding together in tribes the chances of survival increased. Over time each tribe developed traditions or ways of living. The traditions took on a spiritual nature in time and conflicts with other tribes with different beliefs and ways developed. In many ways, things haven't changed much. We like to think we live in a world where we can choose our level of autonomy. TV, computers, cars, supermarkets and money give us the illusion of being capable of complete self-sufficient without much support or help from our fellow man. That is, until some natural disaster wipes out all the comfortable cushions or a modern foreign "tribe" comes along and attempts to wipe you out. Then, like our primitive ancestors, we will band together again with a common cause and common "beliefs". Until then, it's just too convenient, easy and safe to bitch, complain and criticize those who happen to *have* faith in something. I don't confuse belief/non-belief in god with religion. There may or may not be a god. If there is a god, the entity certainly is not a creation of man, which is all that religion is, which is sort of what you said in your second paragraph. I don't know how or exactly when the awareness of a supreme being, "god", gods or spiritual beliefs evolved in the human mind but according to researchers and scientists it happened eons ago when humans grouped as tribes. Perhaps it was "invented" to address questions of the unknown. Perhaps some form of external influence (extraterrestrial) delivered the message, a theory that I happen to be very open to in a curious sort of way. But one concept that I can understand and differentiate is that of faith versus proof. I don't condemn people for having faith. Faith is a personal thing to everyone and can't be logically explained, repudiated or attacked. Wrong. Harry attacks it with almost every post. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
On a lighter note ....
In article , says...
On 12/24/13, 8:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 8:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/24/13, 7:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 7:40 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/24/13, 7:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 6:29 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/23/13, 10:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/23/2013 8:35 PM, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps you'd care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you mean? Not meant as a slam, simply an observation. Most agnostic/atheist/nihalist type folks I know have come from a mixed Jewish/Catholic background. Bill Maher is a classic case in the celebrity world. The difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly semantics. An agnostic is just an atheist who is not willing to commit. You have committed, you ridicule anyone who believes in any kind if deity or any religious belief so you are not agnostic. Harry strikes me more as being "irreligious". Being irreligious can include being agnostic, but it may also include having a degree of hostility towards religious beliefs as he has often demonstrated in this newsgroup. To me that's a little arrogant, since he calls himself an "agnostic" which simply means he doesn't know. Religion really has it's roots going back to primitive man. Early humans were individually no match for wild animals or the vigor's of climate and weather. They found that by banding together in tribes the chances of survival increased. Over time each tribe developed traditions or ways of living. The traditions took on a spiritual nature in time and conflicts with other tribes with different beliefs and ways developed. In many ways, things haven't changed much. We like to think we live in a world where we can choose our level of autonomy. TV, computers, cars, supermarkets and money give us the illusion of being capable of complete self-sufficient without much support or help from our fellow man. That is, until some natural disaster wipes out all the comfortable cushions or a modern foreign "tribe" comes along and attempts to wipe you out. Then, like our primitive ancestors, we will band together again with a common cause and common "beliefs". Until then, it's just too convenient, easy and safe to bitch, complain and criticize those who happen to *have* faith in something. I don't confuse belief/non-belief in god with religion. There may or may not be a god. If there is a god, the entity certainly is not a creation of man, which is all that religion is, which is sort of what you said in your second paragraph. I don't know how or exactly when the awareness of a supreme being, "god", gods or spiritual beliefs evolved in the human mind but according to researchers and scientists it happened eons ago when humans grouped as tribes. Perhaps it was "invented" to address questions of the unknown. Perhaps some form of external influence (extraterrestrial) delivered the message, a theory that I happen to be very open to in a curious sort of way. But one concept that I can understand and differentiate is that of faith versus proof. I don't condemn people for having faith. Faith is a personal thing to everyone and can't be logically explained, repudiated or attacked. It seems obvious to me that early man developed a belief in god(s) and religion in an attempt to explain and understand some of what he didn't know or could not understand. Look at all the gods of the ancient Egyptians, especially "Ra," the all-powerful sun god, who was given credit for light, for growth of crops, for warming the earth. When you don't know why something is happening, it is comforting, I suppose, to give credit or blame to an object or idea representing a god. In later beliefs, the concept of god and a better world awaiting after death was used to pacify the poor about their miserable plight and to prevent insurrection. Probably still is used that way. Look at all the hatred spread in the name of religion. Is there a god? I don't know and neither does anyone else. I've not seen any evidence one way or the other. Nothing in "religion" convinces me...in fact, just the opposite. If there is a god, why would that entity tolerate religion? :) I think you are still confusing "faith". A particular religion is just a conduit for faith. I know plenty of people who have faith there is a god and who avoid "religion" like the plague. True. Like me. But there are also millions who find the conduit of religion to be helpful in the demonstration of their faith. I find nothing wrong with that and would never try to change their minds. I don't have a problem with "the religious" so long as they don't try to shovel their beliefs in my path or impose them via governmental fiat. Herein lies your biggest problem Harry, you do not practice what you preach. You attempt to shovel your belief system into others paths all of the time. Nobody is telling you that your belief system is wrong, get over it. |
On a lighter note ....
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 08:19:41 -0500, Hank© wrote:
On 12/24/2013 8:08 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/24/13, 8:05 AM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 06:32:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I've not read the "atheist handbook." Which edition do you recommend? -- I am not an aficionado. It is the real religion of hate Really? Are there tribes of atheists running amok in the middle east, tossing bombs at buses full of school children, or are the atheists too busy flying drones into wedding parties? Oh, I know...it's the atheists shooting abortion doctors. The problem is that you athiests are too disorganized. You need to get together and draw up some guidelines and core values. Perhaps you could even have designated places where you can gather to teach and learn about atheism. Well, it's not like Steve Martin hasn't tried to jump start them! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wogta8alHiU John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
On a lighter note ....
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 08:32:21 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/24/13, 8:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 8:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/24/13, 7:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 7:40 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/24/13, 7:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 6:29 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/23/13, 10:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/23/2013 8:35 PM, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps you'd care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you mean? Not meant as a slam, simply an observation. Most agnostic/atheist/nihalist type folks I know have come from a mixed Jewish/Catholic background. Bill Maher is a classic case in the celebrity world. The difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly semantics. An agnostic is just an atheist who is not willing to commit. You have committed, you ridicule anyone who believes in any kind if deity or any religious belief so you are not agnostic. Harry strikes me more as being "irreligious". Being irreligious can include being agnostic, but it may also include having a degree of hostility towards religious beliefs as he has often demonstrated in this newsgroup. To me that's a little arrogant, since he calls himself an "agnostic" which simply means he doesn't know. Religion really has it's roots going back to primitive man. Early humans were individually no match for wild animals or the vigor's of climate and weather. They found that by banding together in tribes the chances of survival increased. Over time each tribe developed traditions or ways of living. The traditions took on a spiritual nature in time and conflicts with other tribes with different beliefs and ways developed. In many ways, things haven't changed much. We like to think we live in a world where we can choose our level of autonomy. TV, computers, cars, supermarkets and money give us the illusion of being capable of complete self-sufficient without much support or help from our fellow man. That is, until some natural disaster wipes out all the comfortable cushions or a modern foreign "tribe" comes along and attempts to wipe you out. Then, like our primitive ancestors, we will band together again with a common cause and common "beliefs". Until then, it's just too convenient, easy and safe to bitch, complain and criticize those who happen to *have* faith in something. I don't confuse belief/non-belief in god with religion. There may or may not be a god. If there is a god, the entity certainly is not a creation of man, which is all that religion is, which is sort of what you said in your second paragraph. I don't know how or exactly when the awareness of a supreme being, "god", gods or spiritual beliefs evolved in the human mind but according to researchers and scientists it happened eons ago when humans grouped as tribes. Perhaps it was "invented" to address questions of the unknown. Perhaps some form of external influence (extraterrestrial) delivered the message, a theory that I happen to be very open to in a curious sort of way. But one concept that I can understand and differentiate is that of faith versus proof. I don't condemn people for having faith. Faith is a personal thing to everyone and can't be logically explained, repudiated or attacked. It seems obvious to me that early man developed a belief in god(s) and religion in an attempt to explain and understand some of what he didn't know or could not understand. Look at all the gods of the ancient Egyptians, especially "Ra," the all-powerful sun god, who was given credit for light, for growth of crops, for warming the earth. When you don't know why something is happening, it is comforting, I suppose, to give credit or blame to an object or idea representing a god. In later beliefs, the concept of god and a better world awaiting after death was used to pacify the poor about their miserable plight and to prevent insurrection. Probably still is used that way. Look at all the hatred spread in the name of religion. Is there a god? I don't know and neither does anyone else. I've not seen any evidence one way or the other. Nothing in "religion" convinces me...in fact, just the opposite. If there is a god, why would that entity tolerate religion? :) I think you are still confusing "faith". A particular religion is just a conduit for faith. I know plenty of people who have faith there is a god and who avoid "religion" like the plague. True. Like me. But there are also millions who find the conduit of religion to be helpful in the demonstration of their faith. I find nothing wrong with that and would never try to change their minds. I don't have a problem with "the religious" so long as they don't try to shovel their beliefs in my path or impose them via governmental fiat. ....like the Glibitzers (GLBTZ) do? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/13, 11:22 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 08:08:36 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 8:05 AM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 06:32:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I've not read the "atheist handbook." Which edition do you recommend? -- I am not an aficionado. It is the real religion of hate Really? Are there tribes of atheists running amok in the middle east, tossing bombs at buses full of school children, or are the atheists too busy flying drones into wedding parties? Oh, I know...it's the atheists shooting abortion doctors. You don't have to be violent to hate. People who take that much joy in ridiculing another's beliefs is hateful. Well, in that case all the christians who ridicule atheists, muslims, jews, gays, hindus, whatever, are hateful. That would include your buddies here in rec.boats. Yet another reason to find a cure for religion. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/13, 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:55:11 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 11:22 AM, wrote: You don't have to be violent to hate. People who take that much joy in ridiculing another's beliefs is hateful. Well, in that case all the christians who ridicule atheists, muslims, jews, gays, hindus, whatever, are hateful. That would include your buddies here in rec.boats. Yet another reason to find a cure for religion. That just reinforces my assertion that atheists are evangelicals of the belief in nothing. As I stated earlier, I know only one atheist, and he isn't pushing any legislative action to force his non-beliefs on anyone, unlike the christians, who try to use the legislature to force their believes on everyone. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/13, 12:31 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:11:46 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 12:02 PM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:55:11 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 11:22 AM, wrote: You don't have to be violent to hate. People who take that much joy in ridiculing another's beliefs is hateful. Well, in that case all the christians who ridicule atheists, muslims, jews, gays, hindus, whatever, are hateful. That would include your buddies here in rec.boats. Yet another reason to find a cure for religion. That just reinforces my assertion that atheists are evangelicals of the belief in nothing. As I stated earlier, I know only one atheist, and he isn't pushing any legislative action to force his non-beliefs on anyone, unlike the christians, who try to use the legislature to force their believes on everyone. It is a rare atheist who is not walking around town looking for something to be offended about at this time of year. You must know one hell of a lot of atheists to make a comment like that. I only know one atheist. The last time I was in "mixed company" during the Christmas holiday season, I was the lone agnostic lined up against a phalanx of southern christian protestant conservatives at a house party, who were getting off on a pretty snarly verbal attack on a catholic they all knew but I didn't. They were attacking his religion and the "fact" that he wasn't a *real* christian. I thought that was pretty disgusting, and I got up and left the room, saying "Jesus, the Jew, would be so proud of how well you are following his teachings." Gosh, I never got invited back to another of those house parties. My heart was unbroken. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/2013 12:41 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 12:31 PM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:11:46 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 12:02 PM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:55:11 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 11:22 AM, wrote: You don't have to be violent to hate. People who take that much joy in ridiculing another's beliefs is hateful. Well, in that case all the christians who ridicule atheists, muslims, jews, gays, hindus, whatever, are hateful. That would include your buddies here in rec.boats. Yet another reason to find a cure for religion. That just reinforces my assertion that atheists are evangelicals of the belief in nothing. As I stated earlier, I know only one atheist, and he isn't pushing any legislative action to force his non-beliefs on anyone, unlike the christians, who try to use the legislature to force their believes on everyone. It is a rare atheist who is not walking around town looking for something to be offended about at this time of year. You must know one hell of a lot of atheists to make a comment like that. I only know one atheist. The last time I was in "mixed company" during the Christmas holiday season, I was the lone agnostic lined up against a phalanx of southern christian protestant conservatives at a house party, who were getting off on a pretty snarly verbal attack on a catholic they all knew but I didn't. They were attacking his religion and the "fact" that he wasn't a *real* christian. I thought that was pretty disgusting, and I got up and left the room, saying "Jesus, the Jew, would be so proud of how well you are following his teachings." Gosh, I never got invited back to another of those house parties. My heart was unbroken. Must suck to be shunned by your wife's relatives. -- Americans deserve better. |
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/2013 12:41 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 12:31 PM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:11:46 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 12:02 PM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:55:11 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 11:22 AM, wrote: You don't have to be violent to hate. People who take that much joy in ridiculing another's beliefs is hateful. Well, in that case all the christians who ridicule atheists, muslims, jews, gays, hindus, whatever, are hateful. That would include your buddies here in rec.boats. Yet another reason to find a cure for religion. That just reinforces my assertion that atheists are evangelicals of the belief in nothing. As I stated earlier, I know only one atheist, and he isn't pushing any legislative action to force his non-beliefs on anyone, unlike the christians, who try to use the legislature to force their believes on everyone. It is a rare atheist who is not walking around town looking for something to be offended about at this time of year. You must know one hell of a lot of atheists to make a comment like that. I only know one atheist. The last time I was in "mixed company" during the Christmas holiday season, I was the lone agnostic lined up against a phalanx of southern christian protestant conservatives at a house party, who were getting off on a pretty snarly verbal attack on a catholic they all knew but I didn't. They were attacking his religion and the "fact" that he wasn't a *real* christian. I thought that was pretty disgusting, and I got up and left the room, saying "Jesus, the Jew, would be so proud of how well you are following his teachings." Gosh, I never got invited back to another of those house parties. My heart was unbroken. You certainly keep strange company. Never in my life have I encountered such a situation and I've been in many, many "mixed company" parties and/or events. One that I enjoyed very much was the first Seder I ever participated in. Again, mixed company represented by Jews, Protestants, Catholics and agnostics. Very interesting and fun. Everyone in attendance were respectful of the ceremony and participated in it. Maybe you just hang with the wrong crowd. :-) |
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/13, 1:28 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 12:41 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/24/13, 12:31 PM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:11:46 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 12:02 PM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:55:11 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 11:22 AM, wrote: You don't have to be violent to hate. People who take that much joy in ridiculing another's beliefs is hateful. Well, in that case all the christians who ridicule atheists, muslims, jews, gays, hindus, whatever, are hateful. That would include your buddies here in rec.boats. Yet another reason to find a cure for religion. That just reinforces my assertion that atheists are evangelicals of the belief in nothing. As I stated earlier, I know only one atheist, and he isn't pushing any legislative action to force his non-beliefs on anyone, unlike the christians, who try to use the legislature to force their believes on everyone. It is a rare atheist who is not walking around town looking for something to be offended about at this time of year. You must know one hell of a lot of atheists to make a comment like that. I only know one atheist. The last time I was in "mixed company" during the Christmas holiday season, I was the lone agnostic lined up against a phalanx of southern christian protestant conservatives at a house party, who were getting off on a pretty snarly verbal attack on a catholic they all knew but I didn't. They were attacking his religion and the "fact" that he wasn't a *real* christian. I thought that was pretty disgusting, and I got up and left the room, saying "Jesus, the Jew, would be so proud of how well you are following his teachings." Gosh, I never got invited back to another of those house parties. My heart was unbroken. You certainly keep strange company. Never in my life have I encountered such a situation and I've been in many, many "mixed company" parties and/or events. Try living in NE Florida. They're more plentiful than palmetto bugs. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/2013 11:55 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 11:22 AM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 08:08:36 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 8:05 AM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 06:32:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I've not read the "atheist handbook." Which edition do you recommend? -- I am not an aficionado. It is the real religion of hate Really? Are there tribes of atheists running amok in the middle east, tossing bombs at buses full of school children, or are the atheists too busy flying drones into wedding parties? Oh, I know...it's the atheists shooting abortion doctors. You don't have to be violent to hate. People who take that much joy in ridiculing another's beliefs is hateful. Well, in that case all the christians who ridicule atheists, muslims, jews, gays, hindus, whatever, are hateful. That would include your buddies here in rec.boats. Yet another reason to find a cure for religion. Could you point me to an example where anyone in rec.boats have ridiculed any of the above based on religious reasons? I don't like fundamentalist muslims who believe you either convert or lose your head. But that doesn't mean I don't like *all* people of the Muslim faith. I personally have a little trouble with gay marriages. I don't have any problem with civil unions. But, I don't despise or condemn gays just because they are gay or because our legal system has decided that gay marriages are ok. I can't recall anyone else here overtly engaging in ridicule of anyone's religious beliefs or lifestyles .... well, except one person ... you. |
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/13, 1:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 11:55 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/24/13, 11:22 AM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 08:08:36 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 8:05 AM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 06:32:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I've not read the "atheist handbook." Which edition do you recommend? -- I am not an aficionado. It is the real religion of hate Really? Are there tribes of atheists running amok in the middle east, tossing bombs at buses full of school children, or are the atheists too busy flying drones into wedding parties? Oh, I know...it's the atheists shooting abortion doctors. You don't have to be violent to hate. People who take that much joy in ridiculing another's beliefs is hateful. Well, in that case all the christians who ridicule atheists, muslims, jews, gays, hindus, whatever, are hateful. That would include your buddies here in rec.boats. Yet another reason to find a cure for religion. Could you point me to an example where anyone in rec.boats have ridiculed any of the above based on religious reasons? Just keep an eye on the posts of Herring and a few of the rest of your right-wing buddies. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
On a lighter note ....
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:39:02 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 09:40:11 -0500, John H. wrote: Well, it's not like Steve Martin hasn't tried to jump start them! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wogta8alHiU John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! Steve and Paul Simon with an old classic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0w_LniNMgA Crap. Even with headphones I could understand only about half the words. But, what I understood sounds like it could also be an atheist's (or ESAD's) theme song. I wonder how he decorates his Christmas tree? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/2013 1:34 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 1:28 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 12:41 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/24/13, 12:31 PM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:11:46 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 12:02 PM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:55:11 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 11:22 AM, wrote: You don't have to be violent to hate. People who take that much joy in ridiculing another's beliefs is hateful. Well, in that case all the christians who ridicule atheists, muslims, jews, gays, hindus, whatever, are hateful. That would include your buddies here in rec.boats. Yet another reason to find a cure for religion. That just reinforces my assertion that atheists are evangelicals of the belief in nothing. As I stated earlier, I know only one atheist, and he isn't pushing any legislative action to force his non-beliefs on anyone, unlike the christians, who try to use the legislature to force their believes on everyone. It is a rare atheist who is not walking around town looking for something to be offended about at this time of year. You must know one hell of a lot of atheists to make a comment like that. I only know one atheist. The last time I was in "mixed company" during the Christmas holiday season, I was the lone agnostic lined up against a phalanx of southern christian protestant conservatives at a house party, who were getting off on a pretty snarly verbal attack on a catholic they all knew but I didn't. They were attacking his religion and the "fact" that he wasn't a *real* christian. I thought that was pretty disgusting, and I got up and left the room, saying "Jesus, the Jew, would be so proud of how well you are following his teachings." Gosh, I never got invited back to another of those house parties. My heart was unbroken. You certainly keep strange company. Never in my life have I encountered such a situation and I've been in many, many "mixed company" parties and/or events. Try living in NE Florida. They're more plentiful than palmetto bugs. The Seder was in Jupiter, Fl. Not northeast, but there were a couple of bible thumpers in attendance who were our neighbors. They also participated and had respect for the ceremony. I'll concede that at another time they attempted to encourage Mrs.E. and I to attend their church services to which I politely declined. It's what they do. I understood that and they respected my lack of interest. We occasionally talked religion but it was always on a respectful and mature level. In fact, after getting to know them pretty well, they were the reason that, as a joke, I ordered a "deluxe" package on the internet and became an ordained minister. They both got a kick out of that and it was received in the light hearted manner in which it was intended. |
On a lighter note ....
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 12/24/2013 11:55 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/24/13, 11:22 AM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 08:08:36 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 8:05 AM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 06:32:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I've not read the "atheist handbook." Which edition do you recommend? -- I am not an aficionado. It is the real religion of hate Really? Are there tribes of atheists running amok in the middle east, tossing bombs at buses full of school children, or are the atheists too busy flying drones into wedding parties? Oh, I know...it's the atheists shooting abortion doctors. You don't have to be violent to hate. People who take that much joy in ridiculing another's beliefs is hateful. Well, in that case all the christians who ridicule atheists, muslims, jews, gays, hindus, whatever, are hateful. That would include your buddies here in rec.boats. Yet another reason to find a cure for religion. Could you point me to an example where anyone in rec.boats have ridiculed any of the above based on religious reasons? I don't like fundamentalist muslims who believe you either convert or lose your head. But that doesn't mean I don't like *all* people of the Muslim faith. I personally have a little trouble with gay marriages. I don't have any problem with civil unions. But, I don't despise or condemn gays just because they are gay or because our legal system has decided that gay marriages are ok. I can't recall anyone else here overtly engaging in ridicule of anyone's religious beliefs or lifestyles .... well, except one person ... you. I think the state should just not issue marriage licenses. Issue a civil contract or some such, and leave the marriage certificate to the church. Gets the state out of marriage management. |
On a lighter note ....
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 14:55:47 -0600, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/24/2013 11:55 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/24/13, 11:22 AM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 08:08:36 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 8:05 AM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 06:32:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I've not read the "atheist handbook." Which edition do you recommend? -- I am not an aficionado. It is the real religion of hate Really? Are there tribes of atheists running amok in the middle east, tossing bombs at buses full of school children, or are the atheists too busy flying drones into wedding parties? Oh, I know...it's the atheists shooting abortion doctors. You don't have to be violent to hate. People who take that much joy in ridiculing another's beliefs is hateful. Well, in that case all the christians who ridicule atheists, muslims, jews, gays, hindus, whatever, are hateful. That would include your buddies here in rec.boats. Yet another reason to find a cure for religion. Could you point me to an example where anyone in rec.boats have ridiculed any of the above based on religious reasons? I don't like fundamentalist muslims who believe you either convert or lose your head. But that doesn't mean I don't like *all* people of the Muslim faith. I personally have a little trouble with gay marriages. I don't have any problem with civil unions. But, I don't despise or condemn gays just because they are gay or because our legal system has decided that gay marriages are ok. I can't recall anyone else here overtly engaging in ridicule of anyone's religious beliefs or lifestyles .... well, except one person ... you. I think the state should just not issue marriage licenses. Issue a civil contract or some such, and leave the marriage certificate to the church. Gets the state out of marriage management. Love it. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/2013 1:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 11:55 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/24/13, 11:22 AM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 08:08:36 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 8:05 AM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 06:32:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I've not read the "atheist handbook." Which edition do you recommend? -- I am not an aficionado. It is the real religion of hate Really? Are there tribes of atheists running amok in the middle east, tossing bombs at buses full of school children, or are the atheists too busy flying drones into wedding parties? Oh, I know...it's the atheists shooting abortion doctors. You don't have to be violent to hate. People who take that much joy in ridiculing another's beliefs is hateful. Well, in that case all the christians who ridicule atheists, muslims, jews, gays, hindus, whatever, are hateful. That would include your buddies here in rec.boats. Yet another reason to find a cure for religion. Could you point me to an example where anyone in rec.boats have ridiculed any of the above based on religious reasons? I don't like fundamentalist muslims who believe you either convert or lose your head. But that doesn't mean I don't like *all* people of the Muslim faith. I personally have a little trouble with gay marriages. I don't have any problem with civil unions. But, I don't despise or condemn gays just because they are gay or because our legal system has decided that gay marriages are ok. I can't recall anyone else here overtly engaging in ridicule of anyone's religious beliefs or lifestyles .... well, except one person ... you. Well, John is having fun mocking gays lately... I deal with a lot of young folks and personally I find it pretty hateful and offensive... Mostly because it's deliberate and with obvious malice. |
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/2013 4:26 PM, KC wrote:
On 12/24/2013 1:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 11:55 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/24/13, 11:22 AM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 08:08:36 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 8:05 AM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 06:32:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I've not read the "atheist handbook." Which edition do you recommend? -- I am not an aficionado. It is the real religion of hate Really? Are there tribes of atheists running amok in the middle east, tossing bombs at buses full of school children, or are the atheists too busy flying drones into wedding parties? Oh, I know...it's the atheists shooting abortion doctors. You don't have to be violent to hate. People who take that much joy in ridiculing another's beliefs is hateful. Well, in that case all the christians who ridicule atheists, muslims, jews, gays, hindus, whatever, are hateful. That would include your buddies here in rec.boats. Yet another reason to find a cure for religion. Could you point me to an example where anyone in rec.boats have ridiculed any of the above based on religious reasons? I don't like fundamentalist muslims who believe you either convert or lose your head. But that doesn't mean I don't like *all* people of the Muslim faith. I personally have a little trouble with gay marriages. I don't have any problem with civil unions. But, I don't despise or condemn gays just because they are gay or because our legal system has decided that gay marriages are ok. I can't recall anyone else here overtly engaging in ridicule of anyone's religious beliefs or lifestyles .... well, except one person ... you. Well, John is having fun mocking gays lately... I deal with a lot of young folks and personally I find it pretty hateful and offensive... Mostly because it's deliberate and with obvious malice. I don't know. I confess that I don't read *every* post on this newsgroup anymore. Many of the discussions have become so ridiculous and childish that they aren't worth reading. |
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/13, 2:13 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 1:34 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/24/13, 1:28 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 12:41 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/24/13, 12:31 PM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:11:46 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 12:02 PM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:55:11 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 11:22 AM, wrote: You don't have to be violent to hate. People who take that much joy in ridiculing another's beliefs is hateful. Well, in that case all the christians who ridicule atheists, muslims, jews, gays, hindus, whatever, are hateful. That would include your buddies here in rec.boats. Yet another reason to find a cure for religion. That just reinforces my assertion that atheists are evangelicals of the belief in nothing. As I stated earlier, I know only one atheist, and he isn't pushing any legislative action to force his non-beliefs on anyone, unlike the christians, who try to use the legislature to force their believes on everyone. It is a rare atheist who is not walking around town looking for something to be offended about at this time of year. You must know one hell of a lot of atheists to make a comment like that. I only know one atheist. The last time I was in "mixed company" during the Christmas holiday season, I was the lone agnostic lined up against a phalanx of southern christian protestant conservatives at a house party, who were getting off on a pretty snarly verbal attack on a catholic they all knew but I didn't. They were attacking his religion and the "fact" that he wasn't a *real* christian. I thought that was pretty disgusting, and I got up and left the room, saying "Jesus, the Jew, would be so proud of how well you are following his teachings." Gosh, I never got invited back to another of those house parties. My heart was unbroken. You certainly keep strange company. Never in my life have I encountered such a situation and I've been in many, many "mixed company" parties and/or events. Try living in NE Florida. They're more plentiful than palmetto bugs. The Seder was in Jupiter, Fl. Not northeast, but there were a couple of bible thumpers in attendance who were our neighbors. They also participated and had respect for the ceremony. I'll concede that at another time they attempted to encourage Mrs.E. and I to attend their church services to which I politely declined. It's what they do. I understood that and they respected my lack of interest. We occasionally talked religion but it was always on a respectful and mature level. In fact, after getting to know them pretty well, they were the reason that, as a joke, I ordered a "deluxe" package on the internet and became an ordained minister. They both got a kick out of that and it was received in the light hearted manner in which it was intended. Pastor Luddite. Works for me. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/13, 3:55 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/24/2013 11:55 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/24/13, 11:22 AM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 08:08:36 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/24/13, 8:05 AM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 06:32:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I've not read the "atheist handbook." Which edition do you recommend? -- I am not an aficionado. It is the real religion of hate Really? Are there tribes of atheists running amok in the middle east, tossing bombs at buses full of school children, or are the atheists too busy flying drones into wedding parties? Oh, I know...it's the atheists shooting abortion doctors. You don't have to be violent to hate. People who take that much joy in ridiculing another's beliefs is hateful. Well, in that case all the christians who ridicule atheists, muslims, jews, gays, hindus, whatever, are hateful. That would include your buddies here in rec.boats. Yet another reason to find a cure for religion. Could you point me to an example where anyone in rec.boats have ridiculed any of the above based on religious reasons? I don't like fundamentalist muslims who believe you either convert or lose your head. But that doesn't mean I don't like *all* people of the Muslim faith. I personally have a little trouble with gay marriages. I don't have any problem with civil unions. But, I don't despise or condemn gays just because they are gay or because our legal system has decided that gay marriages are ok. I can't recall anyone else here overtly engaging in ridicule of anyone's religious beliefs or lifestyles .... well, except one person ... you. I think the state should just not issue marriage licenses. Issue a civil contract or some such, and leave the marriage certificate to the church. Gets the state out of marriage management. I have no problem with that. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:24 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com