Thursday, July 2, 2015

Re: [AvC] Re: Reality Check!



On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 6:30:28 PM UTC+10, LL wrote:







On Jul 1, 2015, at 12:28 AM, GT <greg....@gmail.com> wrote:



On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 7:24:34 PM UTC+10, LL wrote:







On Jun 29, 2015, at 9:12 PM, GT <greg....@gmail.com> wrote:



On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 3:01:46 AM UTC+10, LL wrote:







On Jun 26, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Answer_42 <ipu.be...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No one is born a Christian, or a Muslim, or an anything for that matter.
> One is born in a culture that has a predominant religion. Whether one becomes a believer of that religion is another matter.

Every child born is born an atheist. They remain atheists until they are completely indoctrinated with theism, which doesn't take root until the age of 7 or so.

LL

LL, we know you mean that every child is born a  'naturalist'.

No, I mean an atheist. No child is born with a belief in any god. 


But an atheist is someone who claims to have no belief. How then does a lack of belief explain our existence.

It doesn't. It simply rejects all unsupported claims. 

And accepts supported claims? Sorry! Atheism, as the term suggests, is saying nothing when it comes to supporting naturalism. Atheism is a non-belief in God, but it's not a belief in Nature (a naturally occurring universe).


That is it's an illogical position. We are all required to believe, be it in a God or a Natural event.

No belief is necessary. There are supported claims which it is rational to accept, and unsupported claims which are irrational to accept. 

LL

It's no more (less in fact) rational to accept that an entire universe, including all of life, all technology etc. sprang into existence from nothing.
 



And that would be because atheist, as the terms suggests, relates to theism, requiring every child being born to be aware of theism, and then being born opposed to it as well.

No one needs to be opposed to theism or even aware of it to not believe in it. Without acceptance of gods theism is impossible. 

How then did the word 'theist' become part of the title?
 


But as for us being born naturalists, even Dawkins himself concedes that this is not so. That is we have an inherent need to believe in a God.

Ok, I am ready for your objective evidence on that point. 

It's been posted here before. Why should I bother? But here it is anyhow: Google search results 'are we born to be religious'.


 

Any isolated non-religious group would eventually develop it's own deities as representations of a God for example.

There will always be the idea of gods being presented (or forced). It has no bearing on belief. There have  been godless groups since the beginning of humankind. And there have been atheists. 


Atheism is in effect a modern day thing. And it's not something that should be confused with 'non-belief' as non-believers we can not identify, whereas atheists, we can.  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: How much for two-bedroom unit?



On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7, LL wrote:
No matter how you look at it, real estate follows the principles of supply and demand. That's how capitalism works. The price of any real estate, whether bought and sold or rented, will be whatever the traffic will bear. Nobody is going to sell or rent his property for less than he can get on the open market. Only government subsidized projects bend this rule. 



The market has no intention of meeting the actual demand out there. It's chasing after the top dollar. The government facilitates that rule,  not bend it,  by providing  public housing to smooth out these contradictions,  but that housing will never be adequate as long as the government is controlled by the capitalist class,  rather than the working class.  You say this is how capitalism works as if there is no alternative. That's just not true. They would prefer that you believe that there is no alternative.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: How much for two-bedroom unit?



On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 6:21:18 AM UTC-7, Timbo wrote:

What "middle-class" products?  There's quality goods & shoddier goods. If somebody can't afford quality goods anymore then they've been down-sized & perhaps in denial about it. 

May I suggest researching the history of kitchen appliances and expand from there. From toasters to refrigerators and even recently water heaters, they have cut out the middle. It has it's own part in causing folks to waste money and slide down into lower classes.

Shoddy goods isn't what's driving people into poverty. It's declining wages. As a greater percent of one's income gets eaten up to do just basic things,  the standard of living falls. Arguably,  one can improve ones conditions under these circumstances by not falling prey to the lure of consumerism.






>> Obviously zoning less tax dollars per student in the inner city has a bad effect on education in those areas. 

Or equal funding of schools per student also has negative effect. Educating is work. The less educated requires more work.More work requires more funds.  

That sounds a little weird. Less privileged youth get less funds for their education in comparison to their wealthier &/or more privileged counterparts. At the starting gate,  how are the less privileged youth,  "less educated"?  Perhaps you mean that they get lesser education,  but it comes off sounding as if they have some "original sin",  or condition that renders them "less" from the start. That's all part of the system that tries to justify making less funds available in the first place. An idea to put forth out there to demoralize  the people whose tax dollars are being misappropriated by the wealthy &/or more privileged strata of society. All of that, to maintain a caste order. & that order,  a means to divide the working class from its best interests.   

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: USSC has ruled gay marrial legal in all states



On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 5:51:22 PM UTC+10, LL wrote:







On Jul 1, 2015, at 2:58 AM, GT <greg....@gmail.com> wrote:



On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 3:57:11 PM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 12:06:09 AM UTC-4, GT wrote:

It's the birth rate of males that will (eventually) be effected by allowing Gay marriage.  That is gay marriage will favor female offspring.

Why? And how? 


Once again, and ignoring the obvious, which is that two women can potentially have (at least) two children per year, two men have none. And that those two women can now make a selection, allowed by early gender detection, then apply the Roe V. Wade decision, allowing them to indiscriminately terminate a life, and by default allowing them to discriminate when terminating a life, this all of course backed up by the 'ethical' decision that a women should be raising girls, rather than boys.

But as I've already pointed out, this will be the slow path to gendercide. It's designer children, something just around the corner is this the godless new-age, that will be what really decimates the male population. And all of course made legal, not by the people, but instead by your friends, the activist judges.



And, are you going to be worried by this? I don't believe so. You already accept indiscriminate terminations. Why then should a lesser event, that discriminating against one gender involves, make any abortion worse than another?

Why should you be involved at all in a private decision. Do you ALWAYS stick your nose into other people's business, uninvited? 

What proportion of offspring are female in states that allow gay marriage? 

The difference would be undetectable. It's in the future that it's influence would show. There would however be a detectable, be it a negligible difference in the gender balance being brought about by that other arrangement also promoted by feminism.


This is another place where you are required to produce evidence. There is no evidence that gay couples would prefer one sex over the other. And since they aren't reproducing biologically except in special circumstances. It wouldn't make a difference. 



And that is of course single parenting (feminists will do their best to push arrangments that eliminate the male from the relationship). But the only way this would register would be if single parents were polled as to their course of action when faced with their pregnancies. That is whether they considered the option of termination based upon gender.

And that is your business exactly how? 


Now,doing this is something that is not in vogue yet admittedly, but let's face it designer children are just around the corner, as we know.

Designer children as you so crudely put it were invented by--you guessedit--HETEROSEXUALS. 



I mean US President Barrack Obama has okay-ed the kind of experimentation needed for this to happen, already. (which is really what it is all about, as all it takes is any mammal, which includes mice for example, for effectively 'all' beneficial genetic experimentation to be done and tested).  

Please explain exactly what Obama has done in this  area. Produce the specific law that would allow "any kind of experimentation." You obviously don't know the meaning of "beneficial," and you just as obviously don't know how laws are created in a democracy. How about getting a basic education? Start with government, move onto biology, if it's not too onerous. But you should really start with critical thinking  where you are seriously lacking. 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: Polygamy movement appropriates the term "marriage equality"



On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 6:02:33 PM UTC+10, LL wrote:







On Jul 1, 2015, at 2:29 AM, GT <greg....@gmail.com> wrote:



On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:17:15 PM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:
It's happening. Less than a week after the Supreme Court ruled that gays have the right to marry, the argument in favor of polygamy as the "next advance"(in the words of Fredrick DeBoer at Politico) in marriage equality is beginning to be deployed. As I wrote on Friday after the court's ruling, there may be more marriage equality today than there was yesterday, but there's still an untold number for whom marriage equality doesn't exist because of anti-polygamy laws on the books and because polygamists can't get marriage licenses.

DeBoer claims that because the moral reasoning against polygamy is close to the moral reasoning against gay marriage, which has been rejected, "progressives who reject the case for legal polygamy don't really appear to have their hearts in it."

http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/30/the-case-for-polygamy-begins-the-case-fo


If you're interested, logically, polygamy is wrong,


Ac ordingto whom? 

God! Life, then logic, we owe to God.  


and that's because we are (supposed to be) looking at these issues from a legal perspective. That is how they are legislated in relation to society's advancement. So it's not so much about what people simply want, instead. As, they for example could choose to live in practically any personal arrangement they wanted.

That's true and it's been true since the dawn of mankind. There is no absolute authority deciding what is right or wrong, no matter how much you want there to be such an authority. 

It's you that seams to believe our lives should be dictated by government.
 


But it's only when they want their particular situation legitimized, that there is an issue. In these instances the Government is obliged to act in society's favor, being as it is not a violation of anyone's physical rights at all to do so.

When the majority of a population wants something legitimized or de-legitimized in a democracy, they will have the ability to put that into effect. But there is no absolute authority to make that happen. You may be happier in an Islamic dictatorship, since you have shown yourself to have such a poor grasp of democracy. 


What in hell has democracy got to do with this. I mean, who actually voted for gay marriage! These laws are being decided by activist judges. And does what you say above mean you accept California's Proposition 8? It was after-all voted in by the people of that state.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: The Bible vs Richard Dawkins



On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 6:00:02 PM UTC+10, LL wrote:







On Jul 1, 2015, at 2:44 AM, lawrey <lawre...@btinternet.com> wrote:



On Wednesday, 1 July 2015 06:36:29 UTC+1, GT wrote:


On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 7:15:38 PM UTC+10, lawrey wrote:


On Tuesday, 30 June 2015 05:33:30 UTC+1, GT wrote:
 Who has the back-bone to put their beliefs, or lack of,  to the test? (And, having said that, a point being that Christians themselves are not obliged to allow their beliefs to be tested, as doing that might represent a challenge to their faith, something that would in effect exclude them from accepting the challenge in the first place) But it's still for a reasonable number from both sides to decide on this (If no one is interested then this issue will no longer have any relation to this forum).


                       GT,
                               Apart from the utter arrogance here displayed, you are either very Naive, or extremely stupid, or both; I make no judgement, the above utterance so void of profundity,
                               speaks for itself and points you out for the arrogant fool that you choose to depict for yourself.

Lawrey, it's not enough to have good word skills for you to be able to dismiss someone whose use of words are lacking, agreed? So, if I'm unable to make my points clearly because of not having a sufficient formal education (my excuse) then that of itself is not a reason to right off what I'm saying completely.

So if you bother to take a second reading of what I'm saying, you'll read different I'm sure. The point is that if some one is a challenger, then for sure they would need to provide answers when they them selves are challenged to do so. That is if I decided to challenge naturalism, as I have to some degree above, then it is for me to present a case. (Something that as part of the prosecution I intend to do). Now, theism  (with all respect to the English language, is, as we are both aware, not an entity of) itself, but is instead the 'belief' in there being a God or Gods, making it only in effect an opposition to what is the only possible alternative, naturalism. So being a theist does not of itself raise any risk of incurring any sort of charge being made against it. It is our right to believe. Naturalism, too, is a belief after-all. And it would be wrong for any persecution of any type being made against someone merely due to them having a belief. So no case to answer for being a theist. OK? But atheism, otoh, represents a challenge to belief, that is it is not a belief in itself. But is instead represented by those who are opposed to the belief in a God. I mean how else did it get that name, taking for granted that it is not a label applied by theists, or for that matter applied by any type of literal expert. That is atheist are in fact easily recognized. Richard Dawkins being the most well known member of your particular 'non-belief', that I can think of. 

So from this simple explanation of what I believe is the situation, and keeping in mind that a person is innocent until proven guilty, why then is it not right for Richard Dawkins to face his accusers. I mean it is he afterall that has chosen to make a crusade out of his supposed non-belief. It's been his choice doing this, and being a reasonable person, how then could he object to being expected to answer for his charges. One of them being for example that "God is a delusion".  A claim that clearly by itself slanders 'all' believers, making them as it doese appear to a degree as being delusional. And as it's not Christianity that's on trial, a situation that would represent a gross violation of our personal freedoms, if it were, then it needs to be those making the claim that there is something inferior in those having a belief in a God.


                              GT,
                                        With respect you appear to be labouring under some sort of impedimental misconception. Atheism cannot be challenged as you know it is simply: No Belief in gods.
                                        Theism on the other hand, by the very stance of its belief which is tantamount to a declaration, by default is immediately challenged. It has to produce evidence of
                                        fact. This we all know it cannot do; neither can it reasonably explain, save it be to cite the metaphysical unknown, it remains simply an unproven belief.
                                        When challenged with opposing evidence to the contrary, theism still relies entirely on its belief and if as theists say they really do still believe then in order so to do, they
                                        must  perforce  for themselves build a mind construct of the thing they imagine is a god In short they delude themselves into believing there is a god when no0ne such can be shown.
                               
                                       Does that make of them inferior beings? you are the one saying so not I. Christianity as long as it makes public declaration of gods, is making statements it cannot prove and as ;long
                                       as it continues so to do is making false statements and stand permanently on trial to acquit itself as do all individual theists, which it will never do, there being no god to produce for show.


l

 

                               Every one knows that belief cannot stand against knowledge (of that which is known).

We don't know that at all, as belief is held in the absence of knowledge. Your point being self refuting as a statement at least. And sure there is evidence supporting the naturalist's argument, which does provide admittedly a basis for the claim that there is knowledge enough to show a Natural universe has come into existence. But so what? Why should that be what decides all? Why is it that you atheist still fear being put to the test? Is it the realization that you would need to make a commitment to a particular position? Something that for example no theist baulks as doing, me included on that.

                                 > >          Where knowledge is available to the contrary, belief is null and void. What is being challenged here is not ATHEISM but the very truth that all knowledge relies upon.



                               There is no test to be had it has already been well established that the bible, is
                               nothing more that an ancient work of allegorical literature. Which bears no relation to accurate fact and or truth and as a reference of anything other than a record of
                               religious mumbo jumbo throughout the ages; has absolutely no relevance to honesty, truth and or integrity, of which it is totally void and worthless save to preach the
                               dogma to the masses; instilling fear and uncertainty and making money hand over fist for the churches that promote it.


Well, this is in-material now, as none of your people have been prepared to put their claims to the test. The fear of losing in any way scares the crap out of an atheist. Let's face it no atheist has ever been thrown to the lions ever.

                                      > >    Atheists are not making claims that is the whole point they simply respond to the claims of theism.
  

                               Your self appointment of  sole arbiter of what does and or does not have any relation to this forum is astounding and will be ignored by all I imagine.

The trial was my idea. If not enough here have the back-bone to accept it, then it remains my idea. 

                                      > .>  Your imaginary trial is unsupported and as such becomes defunct.



                                The bible book of stories, is nothing more than an ancient allegorical work of literature with a multitude of writers, which has been altered and edited many, many
                                times, to match the deceit of theistic dogma. We have actual proof of this and one such element of that is shown quite well in the post of Amos title "The annuls of Tacitus."

The Bible, from the perspective of a theist, as opposed to a Christian, is represented by the Old Testament mostly. A Christian, for example, need not necessarily believe in a God. But a theist needs to believe in a God, but on that basis does not need to be a Christian.

                                               > >  You cannot be a Christian without believing in Jesus as your Savior. ...Jesus according to theism was the christ son of the true god. Need we say more?
 

                                F Y I The bible is based upon and relies solely upon the existence of a god. There being no such thing shown and to the contrary actual historical evidence which indicates
                                that the notion of a god is indeed man made and inspired makes the bible null and void, as such worthless. The world at last is coming to see and understand that it has
                                for decades past been conned by religious sources of varying factions. The god that inspires Islam and Muslims to such atrocities as are at present being executed in its
                                name, is the same god of the original Torah of the Jews and the bible of the Christians and has lost its entitlement to any recognition outside of biblical text and the
                                heads of the simple - minded around the world. Including obviously you.

Well we shall see about this, and that's whether or not you atheists co-operate or not (does it make sense satanists wanting to co-operate with a theist! So, what a surprise your non-co-operation has turned out to be. Ha ha.).  

Oh, we're really scared now! Any more threats?

Threat? It's every right for a theist to back-up their beliefs. Why would that be a threat? 

And, LL, consider this, the position from which a person can insist that proof is shown to any particular belief, is one that is by default a superior position. That is you are in effect sitting in judgement of those professing those beliefs. Now, the problem with that is that you also 'claim' not to believe, making any potential outcome, based upon your insistence, invalid. I mean you are insisting we show proof to an argument from a lofty position, which from that position could never turn out to be right. That is if a theist were to prove to you a God exists, then the theist's position was always the superior one. Which in effect, and from the start, counters your right to have ever insisted that an explanation ever being given.  So, logically, atheism can never insist on anything from theism, that is with-out first revealing their underhandedness by doing so. So, I'll remind you, an atheist is not a scientist. These are two distinct terms.
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: Polygamy movement appropriates the term "marriage equality"

"There is no absolute authority deciding what is right or wrong"'? Who's your authority in that, Lois?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.