Saturday, September 20, 2014

Re: [AvC] Marriage not about procreation or children, according to Jesus?



On Saturday, September 20, 2014 2:17:12 PM UTC-7, Alan Wostenberg wrote:
Alan: ..and the two shall become one flesh"..the marriage is consummated by the conjugal act -- not conceiving or giving birth


You sex fiends & your  writhing one flesh fixations. .What makes a good marriage goes beyond that & is not dependent on that. I know that's not a sexy way of looking at it but it happens to be true. 



--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: Questions for believers



On Thursday, September 18, 2014 7:39:04 PM UTC-7, Kurt wrote:
Nope, no Golden Rule before Leviticus, and no, "reciprocity" and the Golden Rule aren't the same thing. "Eye for an eye" is reciprocity,


No, it isn't.  Reciprocity is  "the practice of exchanging things with others for mutual benefit". The golden rule is just another expression of that.



 

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: OT: Ok, Here's a Strategy



On Saturday, September 20, 2014 11:27:03 AM UTC-7, Kurt wrote:
Imperialism has been dead for half a century moron. I DEFY you to point out one single solitary resource the US gets the slightest bit cheaper because of the US Military.


Imperialism is the "highest stage of capitalism". Global capitalism is more pervasive than ever.  I defy you to prove otherwise.



--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Is Obama an atheist?








On Sep 20, 2014, at 4:48 PM, Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> wrote:

Google will find it for you. I already know it.

Bush did not reveal his grades. He refused to reveal them.  New Yorker magazine revealed them (as I quoted in a previous post.) 

LL

On Saturday, September 20, 2014 3:56:30 PM UTC-4, LL wrote:







On Sep 20, 2014, at 11:19 AM, Kurt <passer...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, GW did publicize his grades, and they were better than his fellow Skull And Bones'r, John Kerry.

So you have a link you can send? I never saw anything about Bush publishing his grades. 

LL

On Friday, September 19, 2014 10:54:08 AM UTC-4, LL wrote:
Did Bush II publicize his grades? Did Bush I? Dis Reagan? Has any president ever been asked to publicize his grades? Has any president ever done it on his own?

LL






On Sep 19, 2014, at 6:06 AM, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:



On Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:04:01 PM UTC-7, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Thursday, September 18, 2014 6:55:54 PM UTC-4, Bob T. wrote:


On Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:13:02 AM UTC-7, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 8:38:06 AM UTC-4, Bob T. wrote:

 


To quote a great woman, what difference does it make?  Obama was in school a ,long time ago.

   It really was not that long ago.  The difference that it makes is the issue of this president's honesty regarding statements that he made during his campaign regarding his grade point average since there is contradictory evidence that points to his not being entirely honest regarding that. For example... with respect to his GPA at Occidental College, Obama said he was "goofing off for the first two years of college" and had a "lackadaisical approach to his [Occidental] studies.". One of his Occidental professors said that he was not a very serious student. and another that he was not a hard working student. When you consider his voting record in light of that information, it serves as a confirmation that what they said was in fact probably true. Obama claimed to have had a GPA of 3.7, yet he did not graduate with honors? How does that happen unless the number is something he pulled out of his head? To further bring his honesty into question his recent claims in the press that he never claimed that ISIS was a minor league player, when he clearly did, further confirms that Obama's honesty is MIA. His truthfulness is certainly relevant to his behavior today. The truthfulness of any statement of a candidate during his campaign is always a legitimate issue to raise. Was Obama honest regarding his academic record? Well, we don't know since we cannot get independent confirmation. Is that information a legitimate press question? Well according to Joe Biden...it is...he said as much.

  To destroy the confidence of a nation in its leadership through dishonesty of its leadership is to undermine the strength of that nation and thus making it more vulnerable to attacks both from without and within. Muslims pride themselves for their honesty. Wouldn't it be just more ammunition for the recruiting campaigns for the radicals among them to use to radicalize more Americans as well as foreign fighters to rally to their cause, if they could point fingers at the leadership of the great Satan, America, and show how morally corrupt it was from the head down? You dismiss serious matters too easily as being insignificant and inconsequential. Our enemies do not see it that way and are not making that same mistake. For a nation to retain its integrity it must follow the edict of "Know thine enemy". My own country learned that lesson long ago and that is why it won its war in 1991 in 10 days instead of slugging it out for 10 years. The trouble with America is that the results in its institutions of learning are reflected in how it deals with the rest of the world and it gets a failing grade in both institutions of learning. But like the president, it hides its grades and keeps fooling itself into a Pollyanna state and state of mind.



Oh, no, you're right!  What is our enemies discover Obama's grades and reveal them to the public?

   Bob, you're not an idiot. You know fully well what my argument really was...so stop playing at being an idiot...you know better than that.


Yarr, you're an idiot.  Your "real" argument makes no more sense than my pretend argument.


   First of all, there is no need for the personal attack. You might wish to get out of the rut of tolerance(as badly redefined as it is) nonsense and adopt civility as a virtue. Secondly, if you are right that my argument does not make any sense, you should be able to point out the logical flaws in it and not simply launch insults in my direction in hopes that such a smokescreen can shield you from the truth. If you have an argument to offer, present it...otherwise recuse yourself from the debate.


Your argument makes no sense.  Islamic terrorists don't care about Obama's grades.

Thank you Bob. If you think it makes no sense, why did you come up with it and claim that it was mine?  It smells like a smear campaign on your part. Would you care to defend yourself against that charge?


It's your claim, Yarr, defend it or don't.  Perhaps you'd like to explain again how Obama's grades in college are relevant to terrorists today?

- Bob T 

- Bob T
 
 

- Bob T 
 

--
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.
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.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: Edward Feser on why the natural sciences cannot give us a complete description of reality








On Sep 20, 2014, at 5:39 PM, mspmenge@comcast.net wrote:

And you know my views on secular Western Europe.  I think it had a good run but that its glory days are past.

What secular Western Europe? When has secularism ever outpaced religious belief in Western Europe? Name one place.

L.l

Matt

On Saturday, September 20, 2014 1:03:10 PM UTC-5, LL wrote:







On Sep 20, 2014, at 10:34 AM, mspm...@comcast.net wrote:



On Monday, September 15, 2014 10:28:35 AM UTC-5, Rupert wrote:
In Chapter 0 of "Scholastic Metaphysics: A contemporary Introduction", Edward Feser tries to argue that the natural sciences cannot give us a complete description of reality.

His argument is that the description of reality given by the natural sciences only covers those aspects of reality that are amenable to precise quantitative description. They exclude the qualitative such as sounds and colours, sensations of heat, and so on. He says that it will not do to identify those aspects of reality with quantitatively describable features of physical objects together with quantitatively describable brain processes in the brain of the perceiver of those objects, because this fails to capture any qualitative aspect of those phenomena and is tantamount to eliminativism, which is ultimately incoherent since it denies the reality of the very phenomena which are the ultimate source for all the evidence we have for the scientific world-picture in the first place.

I fail to see how Feser has shown in any non-question-begging manner why it is incoherent to suppose that such qualitative phenomena are ultimately reducible to phenomena which are describable in a purely quantitative fashion.

There is of course some subjectivity involved in science.  However, I would argue that what science really needs to be successful is a well-ordered society, and that is truly where religion comes into play.

So you think religion creates a well ordered society? Are you crazy? Give me a break! 

Has Islam created a well-ordered society? Has Christianity? I see no example of any religion  yhat has created a well-ordered society. Please present your evidence of any religion having created  a well-ordered society.  Also, what is your definition of a well-ordered society? Just so we understand what you are suggesting and we know it when we see it! 

LL

Matt

--
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.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: How many species do Biblical literalists believe were on the Ark?








On Sep 20, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> wrote:

A boat that size, there's room.

That really displays your ignorance. It's been proven over and over again that the ark couldn't have contained a fraction of the land animals it is purported to have contained, to say nothing of the various species--and, of course, none of those species could have evolved from the form that was supposed to have been on the ark. Evolution contradicts the creation story. 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 6:02:40 PM UTC-4, e_space wrote:
that'd be a big boat!

On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 3:44:59 PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
How many kingdoms? Of the kingdom covered by botany, how many species? Did plants come in 2s or 7s? As for the kingdom covered by zoology, the list below provides estimates of the number of species within various groups of animals. 


Animals: estimated 3-30 million species
|
|--Invertebrates: 97% of all known species
|   `--+--Sponges: 10,000 species
|        |--Cnidarians: 8,000-9,000 species
|        |--Molluscs: 100,000 species
|        |--Platyhelminths: 13,000 species
|        |--Nematodes: 20,000+ species
|        |--Echinoderms: 6,000 species
|        |--Annelida: 12,000 species
|        `--Arthropods
|            `--+--Crustaceans: 40,000 species
|                 |--Insects: 1-30 million+ species
|                 `--Arachnids: 75,500 species
|
`--Vertebrates: 3% of all known species
     `--+--Reptiles: 7,984 species
          |--Amphibians: 5,400 species
          |--Birds: 9,000-10,000 species
          |--Mammals: 4,475-5,000 species
          `--Ray-Finned Fishes: 23,500 species

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: Religion-Vs-Honesty, Integrity & Truth



On Saturday, September 20, 2014 12:40:18 AM UTC-7, LL wrote:







On Sep 19, 2014, at 11:17 PM, Loopflanger <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Thursday, September 18, 2014 3:24:33 PM UTC-7, LL wrote:


More than one factor is at work when a person can't seem to give up his or her religion or anything else he's been indoctrinated to.


They have to have a reason to give it up because obviously they have a reason to keep it.

They keep it because they can't give it up.


Evidently,  some people do end up disbelieving. So, it's not because people can't give it up. It's because they won't give it up. It takes will to believe or disbelieve. Then what about people who have equivocal approaches to this? They have a basis for belief & a basis for doubt. In the meanwhile,  they get a benefit from being in a community of believers or a community of  people who associate through  a theistic belief system who may also have equivocal attitudes towards it.   Maybe the thing here is belonging to a club,  not buying totally into a metaphysical view.  Or the point is to have a basis for unity for entirely secular reasons.



 
They are afraid [they] would  feel lonely and depressed without it.

It's not like nobody has no reason to be feel those things regardless of whatever form of escapism deployed to cope with it or not. 



 
You can't talk them into giving up [they] religion anymore than you can talk a crippled person out of his physical disability.

Belief isn't a physical disability. & evidently some people are deprogrammed from religious thinking.




 
To assume you or anyone can is fantasy.

With the right argument one can convince *some* people of *some* things. What's so grandiose about that?




 
To feel anger and impatience at the people who can't do it as if they were just being stubborn is cruel. 


You're the one here claiming  how futile it is to convince committed people of anything.  (& yet that's exactly what you're trying to do virtually every time you post here.)  Now,  it may be cruel to point out the absurdity of religion to people who so desperately want to shove it up other people's asses regardless,  but if you want to make an omelet,  you got to break some eggs.

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.