Re: Manners (was Re: Religious freedom)
On Sep 6, 2006, at 7:47 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's nice that this topic has attracted some interest and that people are giving some thought to the sickening poisonous evil filth of religion and the ghastly damage it causes individuals and society. However a number of people (you know who you are and I won't embarrass you by quoting you) have veered from the polite and civilised example I set when discussing this pernicious vileness and written some things that are simply gratuitously insulting or ad hominem attacks. Wow. I do have to admire your chutzpah.. I think this is my favorite one-line Brin-L Message of 2006. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Manners (was Re: Religious freedom)
On 7 Sep 2006, at 3:47AM, jdiebremse wrote: Wow. I do have to admire your chutzpah.. That's cute from the guy whose favourite topic reduces to accusing everyone who uses contraception of being a mass-murderer. Goose Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run out of things they can do with UNIX. - Ken Olsen, President of DEC, 1984. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Manners (was Re: Religious freedom)
On 9/3/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4 Sep 2006 at 0:41, William T Goodall wrote: It's nice that this topic has attracted some interest and that people are giving some thought to the sickening poisonous evil filth of religion and the ghastly damage it causes individuals and society. No, people are calling you a atheist zealot. There's a difference. However a number of people (you know who you are and I won't embarrass you by quoting you) have veered from the polite and civilised example I set when discussing this pernicious vileness and What, bigotry, intollerance, anti-sematism and police-state mentality? Yes, you givre a great civilised example - of precisely why laws against fanatics of any stripe should not mention religion, since you'd try to dodge on that basis. written some things that are simply gratuitously insulting or ad hominem attacks. Like the ones you constantly make against any beliver? I suggest those people stick their heads in a bucket of ice water until they regain their manners. I suggest that you use a few buckets of soap to wash your mouth out. I'm certainly not going to stop pointing out your blatent lies, distortions and intollerance of anything which you define as a religion (as YOU see fit). I agree with Goodall, us religious people are sickening poisonous evil filth. That is why we need the Atonement and forgiveness that can only come in one way. But I can see things from the atheist perspective too. Since all of us are nothing more than an accidental arrangement of atomic and subatomic particles, and such particles are of little intrinsic value any more than a fart, it would be morally acceptable for all of us to just slaughter anyone who doesn't agree with us about everything until none of us are left. Er... come to think of it, that is what we have been trying to do throughout human history. We just haven't been able to develop technology fast enough to get the job done. Kill everyone who doesn't agree with you. That's the solution to this meaningless mess. When we are all dead, we can stop fighting. Or course, that won't matter either. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Manners (was Re: Religious freedom)
On 6 Sep 2006, at 12:40PM, John W Redelfs wrote: I agree with Goodall, us religious people are sickening poisonous evil filth. That is why we need the Atonement and forgiveness that can only come in one way. But I can see things from the atheist perspective too. Since all of us are nothing more than an accidental arrangement of atomic and subatomic particles, and such particles are of little intrinsic value any more than a fart, it would be morally acceptable for all of us to just slaughter anyone who doesn't agree with us about everything until none of us are left. Er... come to think of it, that is what we have been trying to do throughout human history. We just haven't been able to develop technology fast enough to get the job done. Kill everyone who doesn't agree with you. That's the solution to this meaningless mess. When we are all dead, we can stop fighting. Or course, that won't matter either. That's very religious talk! Lots of killing and blood. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ If you listen to a UNIX shell, can you hear the C? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
Richard Baker wrote: Andrew said: Plenty which can be done. But someone who is dyslexic will allways make certain personally consistant spelling errors. That is not something which can be overcome, as stated. Does your mail client support the checking of spelling? Mail.app for OS X consistently underlines in red the spelling mistakes in those of your emails to which I reply. Rich Not every spellchecker has enough words in it. And telling the spellchecker to add a particular word doesn't help if you were misspelling it in the first place. So spellcheckers are of limited usefulness. Good tool, but it has to be used correctly, and a dyslexic who uses words not pre-loaded into the thing is going to have problems either way. [rant about the Orlando newspaper saved for a couple of weeks from now, if anyone asks then] Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Manners (was Re: Religious freedom)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's nice that this topic has attracted some interest and that people are giving some thought to the sickening poisonous evil filth of religion and the ghastly damage it causes individuals and society. However a number of people (you know who you are and I won't embarrass you by quoting you) have veered from the polite and civilised example I set when discussing this pernicious vileness and written some things that are simply gratuitously insulting or ad hominem attacks. Wow. I do have to admire your chutzpah.. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom, but not that stupid argument
On 5 Sep 2006, at 5:52AM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 04/09/2006, at 8:05 PM, Dan Minette wrote: 3) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. Now, #4 is consistent with Tom Cruise and Scientology, but it is also consistent with you and atheism. And number 3 is also consistent with scientology. Will is an atheist, but that's not religion. His militant antireligionism might be considered so. But I don't think so, any more than my anti-creationist policy can be - not every activity pursued with zeal is religious, even if religious wrongheadedness is the target. It's more of a hobby really. He's just baiting to and beyond the point of rudeness. If people espouse risible nonsensical religious views of their own free will then they are fair game for ridicule in my book. Invisible Pink Gods Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. - Bertrand Russell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 03/09/2006, at 4:30 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: And you know who fights them? Not your precious atheists, it's Christians and Jews. Sweeping statement. And utter bollocks. Your attitude towards atheism is hard to distinguish from Will's baiting about religion. How about you *both* cool off a bit? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 04/09/2006, at 6:44 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Really. So Keith Henson is not an atheist? I'd be surprised to learn that. Yes, there's allways the odd one. But in my experience, the people opposing Scientology are in the ratio of arround 20:1 theists:atheists. Maybe because the families of people affected are more often theists, maybe because there are just MORE theists than atheists in the first place? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 4 Sep 2006, at 3:20AM, Dan Minette wrote: We know that pedophiles like to get jobs that put them in contact with youth, like church youth workers, boy scout leaders, girl guide leaders, teachers, etc. This does not make any of these organizations inherently evil. Up until recently, most of these organizations didn't believe in such accusations. Society as a whole has been in denial about these occurances. Indeed, FWIW, psychoanalysis was started by Freud's denial of the prevalent of sexual abuse of girls. That old coke-snorting fraud! It's worse than that - he presented a paper about the prevalence of sexual abuse and got such an icy reception for it (because of the widespread denial in society) that he changed his tune and claimed the victims were making it up. Freudian analysis is clearly a religious movement. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religious freedom, but not that stupid argument
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Hobby Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 11:53 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: re: Religious freedom, but not that stupid argument Dan Minette wrote: ... Again, per my last email absolute rubbish. Scientology is a creed, a UFO cult set up to milk the members of cash. It is a business, not a religion. If I could step in here, I think this is part of William's point. From the outside, it's hard to tell one group that teaches nonsense and milks its members from another. : ) ... From an empirical point of view, it would be fairly easy to look at the operating differences between, say, the Catholic church and Scientology. Inside or outside of these organizations, a sociologist could easily point out how they differ. The only problem is if one has a different set of beliefs, and assume that they are facts...while other sets are nonsense. Dan-- I'm still not convinced. The easy way to tell that Scientology is not a real religion is to notice that it's devoid of spirituality. But doing so is not really Sociology, is it? Sure it is. Sociology of religion does included discussions of belief systems, as well as behavior. In a sense, while the beliefs are non-empirical...the written and stated beliefs are empirical. Since Scientology purports to deal totally with the empirical: historical visits by aliens from other planets, residual energy, etc. it is not dealing with the transcendental...the realm of religion. It's tenants fall more in the realm of UFO beliefs, which it includes, or JFK and 9-11 conspiracy beliefs than religious beliefs. As for the rest of the differences, they seem to me to be more differences of degree, rather than kind. : ) Hmm, but I guess you could say that about both boiler-room operations and real investment firms. It's true that there are groups, like the 700 club, that used religion as a means of simply taking money from people for personal wealth. But, there were also companies, like Enron, which were massive theft rings as well as real companies. Standard religious organizations, such as the Catholic church or mainline Protestant denominations, do not use strong arm tactics to raise funds. They do not use a significant fraction of the money providing creature comforts for those at the top. There is actual work that these churches do...which is generally in line with the beliefs of those who give money. So, it should be easy to tell the clear cases apart. Mixed cases exist, but they exist in a number of areas, and we don't say that businesses and pyramid schemes are just different in degree rather than kind. I don't think he is a troll in the classic sense of not believing what he writes. It is impossible, of course, for me to prove this, but his persistence over at least 5 years indicates to me that he sincerely believes in the evil of certain belief sets that are inconsistent with his own. He certainly uses inflammatory language to try to get a reaction. Doesn't that count as trolling? If it were just a game, like Erik played, then yea. Erik trolled. From the years of reading William, I'm guessing he actually believes in his inflammatory language. But, I could be wrong. While I have disdain for this particular use of Jesus' namefinding it blasphemous, actually.I'm not sure about how you make such a separation. For example, are all seminaries not real schools? Sorry, Dan, I don't see any mention of a certain Nazarene here. I guess I snipped too much? No, I saw part of the film that was referred to...and they preached an anti-Christian message in the name of Jesus. My point is that calling seminaries faith schools is already not a nice name for them. Here's a snippet from a random seminary I found online: While not my cup of tea, they do seem to have a range of topics. I imagine there's some meat in there someplace... A real faith school might be one where a student actually learns very little, possibly just memorizing holy books, but where their faith is strengthened. OK, fair enough. I asked the question because I didn't know where you were coming from in terms of substance. That division I can agree withexcept that I'd argue that folks who came out of this school have not really had much of a faith nurturing experience. So, theology and scripture study can be real meaty courses, while the nonsense taught by these people is a form of education that we both disdain. ---David Not that memorizing holy books is bad per se, but is it worth college credit? Well, there are people who think that learning==memorization and that we should get back to the 3 Rs in education and all would be right with the world. :-) It seems like a general fallacy...not just a religious one. Dan M
Re: Religious freedom, but not that stupid argument
(Oops, I had digital signing on when I first sent this.) On 4 Sep 2006, at 4:08PM, Dan Minette wrote: Sure it is. Sociology of religion does included discussions of belief systems, as well as behavior. In a sense, while the beliefs are non-empirical...the written and stated beliefs are empirical. Since Scientology purports to deal totally with the empirical: historical visits by aliens from other planets, residual energy, etc. it is not dealing with the transcendental...the realm of religion. It is not part of the necessary definition of a religion that it deal with the transcendental. You might wish it were so, but your wishes do not make it so. Your continuing attempts to redefine words to mean what you want them to mean are ridiculous. It's tenants fall more in the realm of UFO beliefs, which it includes, or JFK and 9-11 conspiracy beliefs than religious beliefs. Those mostly aren't religions because they do not have the organisational structure of a religion. An exception would be the Raelians. That is a UFO based religion. Tenets Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Most people have more than the average number of legs. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religious freedom, but not that stupid argument
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William T Goodall Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 10:52 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Religious freedom, but not that stupid argument It is not part of the necessary definition of a religion that it deal with the transcendental. You might wish it were so, but your wishes do not make it so. Your continuing attempts to redefine words to mean what you want them to mean are ridiculous. One of the ways that we differ is that I believe that definitions of words are set by those that use the language...while you believe that words mean what William Goodall want them to mean and that everyone else is wrong if they differ with you. The word that comes to mind here is narcissistic. Just to check, I found a common source for definitions I haven't used before, and now quote it's definition of religion: Answers.com And I quote: quote re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən) n. 1a) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 1b) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2) The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4) A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. end quote Now, #4 is consistent with Tom Cruise and Scientology, but it is also consistent with you and atheism. Indeed almost anything can qualify as a religion by definition #4...and I tend to think that's too broad of a category. I don't think most folks would consider golf or running a religion, although both are activities pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Thus, I think that these are religions only in the metaphorical sense. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 9/4/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 04/09/2006, at 6:44 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Really. So Keith Henson is not an atheist? I'd be surprised to learn that. Yes, there's allways the odd one. But in my experience, the people opposing Scientology are in the ratio of arround 20:1 theists:atheists. Maybe because the families of people affected are more often theists, maybe because there are just MORE theists than atheists in the first place? Charlie That first might be closer to the truth; I recall hearing that as a percentage of the population (willing to admit it to a pollster), atheists were not much above 10%, if that. ~maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
Andrew said: Plenty which can be done. But someone who is dyslexic will allways make certain personally consistant spelling errors. That is not something which can be overcome, as stated. Does your mail client support the checking of spelling? Mail.app for OS X consistently underlines in red the spelling mistakes in those of your emails to which I reply. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
Richard Baker wrote: Does your mail client support the checking of spelling? Mail.app for OS X consistently underlines in red the spelling mistakes in those of your emails to which I reply. When I use Linux KDE's kmail, it starts underlining every English word, until it reaches a point and it gives up - probably there's some maximum for wrong Portuguese words. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On Sep 3, 2006, at 2:30 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:09PM, Dave Land wrote: On Sep 3, 2006, at 12:18 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006, at 7:55PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be interested in seeing William provide evidence that the Catholic Church has been running a pedophile ring for centuries... It's common knowledge. There have been hundreds of news stories about the Catholic Church covering up abuse using bribes and intimidation and shuffling deviant priests around from place to place without punishing them or keeping them away from children. True, there have been hundreds of news stories about individual priests' pedophiliac predilections and their parishes and dioceses covering them up, So you agree it is common knowledge. I agree that is widely reported in recent years there has been an upswing in reportage of this form of child abuse. Whether it's been going on for a decade, a generation or centuries is for you to prove, which you have not. but this does nothing to prove your point about a centuries-old Catholic pedophile ring, How doesn't it? Haven't you just acknowledged the very definition of such a thing yourself? No. It's very common, it gets covered up with complicity running to high levels of authority and across countries and it's been going on for a very long time. Prove it. Document *Centuries* of pedophilia in the Catholic church or please shut the hell up. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 4 Sep 2006 at 0:30, David Hobby wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: ... Your basic lack of knowledge about dyslexia is glaring. It is not something which can be overcome by an educator. It is a literal perceptile gap on the part of the dyslexic person. Andrew-- Sorry about my Scientototology joke a couple days ago. On the other hand, why exactly can't you put things through a spell-checker? It won't catch everything, but it would have caught Scientotology... Because the latest security update to Pegasus Mail broke the plug-in spellchecker I use. And for casual usage I'm not going to run everything through Writer. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom, but not that stupid argument
On 4 Sep 2006, at 6:05PM, Dan Minette wrote: One of the ways that we differ is that I believe that definitions of words are set by those that use the language...while you believe that words mean what William Goodall want them to mean and that everyone else is wrong if they differ with you. One of the ways that we differ is that I believe that definitions of words are set by those that use the language...while you believe that words mean what Dan Minette wants them to mean and that everyone else is wrong if they differ with you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion Religion is a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen or imaginary being, or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought. It is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system[1], but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions. Just to save some more wasted time I point out that those lists are *OR*ed not *AND*ed. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who study history are doomed to repeat it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 4 Sep 2006, at 8:20PM, Dave Land wrote: Prove it. Document *Centuries* of pedophilia in the Catholic church or please shut the hell up. As has been established elsewhere in this thread I don't need to. They do it now, they did it fifty years ago and absent some reason why everything suddenly changed then it is entirely reasonable to assume the same things were going on back to the 800's or whenever it was priests stopped marrying. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. - Bertrand Russell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Word games (was Re: Religious freedom, but not that stupid argument)
On 4 Sep 2006, at 6:05PM, Dan Minette wrote: Just to check, I found a common source for definitions I haven't used before, and now quote it's definition of religion: Answers.com And I quote: quote re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən) n. 1a) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 1b) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2) The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4) A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This is just the same bone-headed nonsense the creationists try to pull with the definition of theory. It doesn't fool anybody and underlines just how weak you really think your arguments are if this is what you resort to. Round Again Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Aerospace is plumbing with the volume turned up. - John Carmack ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom, but not that stupid argument
On 04/09/2006, at 8:05 PM, Dan Minette wrote: 3) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. Now, #4 is consistent with Tom Cruise and Scientology, but it is also consistent with you and atheism. And number 3 is also consistent with scientology. Will is an atheist, but that's not religion. His militant antireligionism might be considered so. But I don't think so, any more than my anti-creationist policy can be - not every activity pursued with zeal is religious, even if religious wrongheadedness is the target. He's just baiting to and beyond the point of rudeness. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 2:30AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006 at 0:53, William T Goodall wrote: On 2 Sep 2006, at 10:10PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 2 Sep 2006 at 21:57, William T Goodall wrote: On 2 Sep 2006, at 9:34PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: No, the issue is that some people are blind bigots and others are not. It is a plain fact that scientology is not a religion. Andrew says, so it must be so isn't a form of argument that other people will necessarily find very convincing. I've explained why. Perhaps if you explained it again with actual arguments and evidence? The kind of stuff that people who aren't you might find credible :- Perhaps if you read the origional again? I gave plenty of evidence, which starts with the fact that they operate as whatever sort of organisation better suits the area. They not a religion, they are a form of organised crime (especially in America). You are assuming that being a form of organised crime precludes it being a religion? But many religions are organised and dupe people into giving them money by telling outrageous lies. What's that if it isn't organised crime? Hint: the links between the Catholic Church and the Mafia aren't an accident. And the Catholic Church is the largest pedophile ring in the world. That's pretty criminal and they've been covering that up for centuries. As for 'what suits the area' - Christian evangelists have a long history of representing themselves as language teachers or family planning advisors in countries where evangelism isn't welcome so I suppose that means Christianity isn't a religion by your broken definition. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 3:03AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Interesting. Why do you suppose you feel that way? Oh, I suppose I feel that way. Eliza Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006 at 8:31, William T Goodall wrote: Perhaps if you read the origional again? I gave plenty of evidence, which starts with the fact that they operate as whatever sort of organisation better suits the area. They not a religion, they are a form of organised crime (especially in America). You are assuming that being a form of organised crime precludes it being a religion? Right, so now you introduce another form of relationship which you can use to bash religion into your email and to try and distract from the real point. You are assuming that scientology is a religion, still. But many religions are organised and dupe people into giving them money by telling outrageous lies. What's that if it isn't organised crime? The people at the heads of a religion, BELIEVE. The heads of scientology use it as a tool to milk cash from the lower echelons. Let´s sell these people a piece of blue sky. - L. Ron Hubbard to an associate in 1950, soon after the opening of the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation. (Jon Atack, A PIECE OF BLUE SKY: SCIENTOLOGY, DIANETICS AND L. RON HUBBARD EXPOSED, Lyle Stuart/Carol Publishing Group. 1990) MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MORE MONEY. - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 9 March 1972, MS OEC 384 Hint: the links between the Catholic Church and the Mafia aren't an accident. The vast majority of upper echelons of the Catholic Church are believers. Also, there are far stronger Mafia links in every Italian government. Where is your rant against them? Oh, right, you're a selective biggot. And the Catholic Church is the largest pedophile ring in the world. That's pretty criminal and they've been covering that up for centuries. The stats really don't support that. It's more propaganda. As for 'what suits the area' - Christian evangelists have a long history of representing themselves as language teachers or family planning advisors in countries where evangelism isn't welcome so I suppose that means Christianity isn't a religion by your broken definition. Try going back and reading what I typed again. For reference, no, that's YOUR broken definition which you are applying to something entire other than what I actually typed. You're reading more into what I type than what is there. I don't mean a single thing more. This is deliberate - it avoids assumptions (it is designed, and was taught to me, for dealing with people from other cultures). You write in a way which is nothing but a structure of assumptions leaping off the others words. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 3:07PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006 at 8:31, William T Goodall wrote: Perhaps if you read the origional again? I gave plenty of evidence, which starts with the fact that they operate as whatever sort of organisation better suits the area. They not a religion, they are a form of organised crime (especially in America). You are assuming that being a form of organised crime precludes it being a religion? Right, so now you introduce another form of relationship which you can use to bash religion into your email and to try and distract from the real point. You are assuming that scientology is a religion, still. It is a religion, still. I'm pointing out the error in your argument not introducing a new one. But many religions are organised and dupe people into giving them money by telling outrageous lies. What's that if it isn't organised crime? The people at the heads of a religion, BELIEVE. The heads of scientology use it as a tool to milk cash from the lower echelons. Let´s sell these people a piece of blue sky. - L. Ron Hubbard to an associate in 1950, soon after the opening of the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation. (Jon Atack, A PIECE OF BLUE SKY: SCIENTOLOGY, DIANETICS AND L. RON HUBBARD EXPOSED, Lyle Stuart/Carol Publishing Group. 1990) MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MORE MONEY. - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 9 March 1972, MS OEC 384 I doubt that the heads of most religions believe. These are intelligent college educated people after all. Belief is what they use to gull money and power from the ignorant and superstitious people that they prey on. Hint: the links between the Catholic Church and the Mafia aren't an accident. The vast majority of upper echelons of the Catholic Church are believers. Also, there are far stronger Mafia links in every Italian government. Where is your rant against them? Oh, right, you're a selective biggot. So you approve of and support the Mafia as well as religion? And the Catholic Church is the largest pedophile ring in the world. That's pretty criminal and they've been covering that up for centuries. The stats really don't support that. It's more propaganda. There's a bigger one? Where? As for 'what suits the area' - Christian evangelists have a long history of representing themselves as language teachers or family planning advisors in countries where evangelism isn't welcome so I suppose that means Christianity isn't a religion by your broken definition. Try going back and reading what I typed again. For reference, no, that's YOUR broken definition which you are applying to something entire other than what I actually typed. You're reading more into what I type than what is there. I don't mean a single thing more. Or perhaps you don't mean a single thing? This is deliberate - it avoids assumptions (it is designed, and was taught to me, for dealing with people from other cultures). You write in a way which is nothing but a structure of assumptions leaping off the others words. I write in a way which uses evidence and logic. You use neither of these. And you can't spell either. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ if the bible proves the existence of god, then superman comics prove the existence of superman - Usenet ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
I would be interested in seeing William provide evidence that the Catholic Church has been running a pedophile ring for centuries... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 7:55PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be interested in seeing William provide evidence that the Catholic Church has been running a pedophile ring for centuries... It's common knowledge. There have been hundreds of news stories about the Catholic Church covering up abuse using bribes and intimidation and shuffling deviant priests around from place to place without punishing them or keeping them away from children. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religious freedom
Merging several posts on this subject: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of PAT MATHEWS Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 3:49 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Religious freedom TIME! Everything's been repeated - asserted, not debated - several times over and we're getting into battling assertions now with ad hominem trimmings. IMHO, that's not surprising when people are discussing sets of presuppositionsespecially when one of the people is convinced that his own set is Truth. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Hobby Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 3:08 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Religious freedom Again, per my last email absolute rubbish. Scientology is a creed, a UFO cult set up to milk the members of cash. It is a business, not a religion. If I could step in here, I think this is part of William's point. From the outside, it's hard to tell one group that teaches nonsense and milks its members from another. : ) Assuming, of course, that one's own presuppositions are just common sense, while those of others are nonsense. One of the problems I see here is that William has long written as though he is convinced that _he_ is personally authorative on questions of good/evil, right/wrong, and that differing with him on chosen subjects is differing with Truth. From an empirical point of view, it would be fairly easy to look at the operating differences between, say, the Catholic church and Scientology. Inside or outside of these organizations, a sociologist could easily point out how they differ. The only problem is if one has a different set of beliefs, and assume that they are facts...while other sets are nonsense. I'd be more than happy to rigorously investigate what is and what is not empirically based. But, I've seen little interest in that in various forums. Mostly, there is an appeal to obvious suppositions, and common sense, which is a shorthand appeal to common presuppositions. Some of thee, BTW, I hold, but I try to be fairly rigorous as to what is empirically based and what isn't. David also wrote: O.K., let's try this again: William-- You, sir, are trolling. I don't think he is a troll in the classic sense of not believing what he writes. It is impossible, of course, for me to prove this, but his persistence over at least 5 years indicates to me that he sincerely believes in the evil of certain belief sets that are inconsistent with his own. Look, I teach at a real school. The phrase Faith school already sounds pretty bad to me, as it indicates that nothing of substance is taught. Maru. While I have disdain for this particular use of Jesus' namefinding it blasphemous, actually.I'm not sure about how you make such a separation. For example, are all seminaries not real schools? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
The point is, If I presented a paper that, FREX, the Fyrd was a common element of the Anglo-norman army as common knowledge, I can guarantee I wouldn't make it too far. No, if you're going to make blanket statements, you should be prepared to back it up. I would want to see REAL evidence, analysis of this evidence, and perhaps a statistical incidence as well. ESPECIALLY regarding the statement of centuries. Saying its common knowledge is a non-answer, especially from a biased source such as you... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 20:18:29 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Religious freedom On 3 Sep 2006, at 7:55PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be interested in seeing William provide evidence that the Catholic Church has been running a pedophile ring for centuries... It's common knowledge. There have been hundreds of news stories about the Catholic Church covering up abuse using bribes and intimidation and shuffling deviant priests around from place to place without punishing them or keeping them away from children. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 8:28PM, Dan Minette wrote: Merging several posts on this subject: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of PAT MATHEWS TIME! Everything's been repeated - asserted, not debated - several times over and we're getting into battling assertions now with ad hominem trimmings. IMHO, that's not surprising when people are discussing sets of presuppositionsespecially when one of the people is convinced that his own set is Truth. I'm glad you're prepared to admit it Dan! The next step is to admit that perhaps you don't know the Truth after all. One step at a time Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 8:37PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The point is, If I presented a paper that, FREX, the Fyrd was a common element of the Anglo-norman army as common knowledge, I can guarantee I wouldn't make it too far. But I'm not presenting a paper. And since it is common knowledge the burden is on you to show it isn't so if you disagree . -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Every Sunday Christians congregate to drink blood in honour of their zombie master. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On Sep 2, 2006, at 10:20 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 15:49:52 -0700, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/2/06, PAT MATHEWS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TIME! Everything's been repeated - asserted, not debated - several times over and we're getting into battling assertions now with ad hominem trimmings. I resent that. I believe I wrote something original about pink unicorns. Stupid-face. They're not pink, they're invisible. How would you know they're pink when you can't see them? Oh, for Corns' sake, _when_ they appear to humans, which is only rarely, and then only to True Believers, they appear to be teal, due to limitations of human vision in the infraviolet and ultrared bands, as I have explained to my complete satisfaction in an earlier email. They are not invisible, they are highly _selective_ in making their appearances. They are not pink, they have monochromatic vision that makes everything appear -- to them -- in a calming shade of pink known only to them. They are not elephants, although some of them could certainly do to shed a few pounds. They do not hate you, even if you hate them and everyone who believes in them. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On Sep 3, 2006, at 12:18 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006, at 7:55PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be interested in seeing William provide evidence that the Catholic Church has been running a pedophile ring for centuries... It's common knowledge. There have been hundreds of news stories about the Catholic Church covering up abuse using bribes and intimidation and shuffling deviant priests around from place to place without punishing them or keeping them away from children. It's common knowledge was the proof offered by my racist father and his ilk that blacks (only he didn't use that word) were lazy and stupid. I'm all too familiar with that form of logic and the damage it does. It is a mental disease at least as virulent as you believe religion to be. You already show evidence of its deleterious effects: please turn away while you still can. True, there have been hundreds of news stories about individual priests' pedophiliac predilections and their parishes and dioceses covering them up, but this does nothing to prove your point about a centuries-old Catholic pedophile ring, and does plenty to underscore your reputation as an anti- religious bigot. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:09PM, Dave Land wrote: On Sep 3, 2006, at 12:18 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006, at 7:55PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be interested in seeing William provide evidence that the Catholic Church has been running a pedophile ring for centuries... It's common knowledge. There have been hundreds of news stories about the Catholic Church covering up abuse using bribes and intimidation and shuffling deviant priests around from place to place without punishing them or keeping them away from children. True, there have been hundreds of news stories about individual priests' pedophiliac predilections and their parishes and dioceses covering them up, So you agree it is common knowledge. but this does nothing to prove your point about a centuries-old Catholic pedophile ring, How doesn't it? Haven't you just acknowledged the very definition of such a thing yourself? It's very common, it gets covered up with complicity running to high levels of authority and across countries and it's been going on for a very long time. What else would you call it? An unfortunate coincidence? The shoe fits Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured [Hitler's] success, notably in Protestant areas. - Fritz Stern, professor emeritus of history at Columbia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
Let's put it this way: I flatly reject that it is common knowledge since I have NEVER heard of a centuries old Catholic Pedophile Ring. Irregardless, saying its common knowledge in no way makes it true. Let me be more blunt then: William, I think your statement is bull and I'm calling you out on it. I personally believe you are unable to support your position, and your statement that you are not writing a paper is in my opinion an excuse not to try to jusrtify your statements with real evidence. And since I am challenging YOUR statement, the burden of evidence is STILL yours. Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 21:48:02 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Religious freedom On 3 Sep 2006, at 8:37PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The point is, If I presented a paper that, FREX, the Fyrd was a common element of the Anglo-norman army as common knowledge, I can guarantee I wouldn't make it too far. But I'm not presenting a paper. And since it is common knowledge the burden is on you to show it isn't so if you disagree . -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Every Sunday Christians congregate to drink blood in honour of their zombie master. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006 at 21:45, William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006, at 8:28PM, Dan Minette wrote: IMHO, that's not surprising when people are discussing sets of presuppositionsespecially when one of the people is convinced that his own set is Truth. I'm glad you're prepared to admit it Dan! The next step is to admit that perhaps you don't know the Truth after all. One step at a time Maru That's right. I'm not convinced I know the universal Truth for everyone. I'm aware of what believe, and I have no intentions of forcing my beliefs on anyone. I used the word Crusade for what you do quite deliberately, the real loser of each Crusade was my people, and so they would be again if you had your way. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:45PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's put it this way: I flatly reject that it is common knowledge since I have NEVER heard of a centuries old Catholic Pedophile Ring. Irregardless, saying its common knowledge in no way makes it true. Let me be more blunt then: William, I think your statement is bull and I'm calling you out on it. I personally believe you are unable to support your position, and your statement that you are not writing a paper is in my opinion an excuse not to try to jusrtify your statements with real evidence. And since I am challenging YOUR statement, the burden of evidence is STILL yours. It seems pretty obvious to me, but it's not a subject I find important enough to put any extra effort into. If you want to prove me wrong go ahead and knock yourself out. Otherwise we'll just have to differ on the matter. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:45PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: And no, I can't spell. I'm dyslexic. Your point? It's harder to read your incoherent babbling when it's full of spelling mistakes. Good spelling is polite Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run out of things they can do with UNIX. - Ken Olsen, President of DEC, 1984. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
Oh, I had no real expectation that you would respond in any meaningful way, but I could not let such a statement of intellectual vacuum lay unchallenged. Since so far you are the only one making a statement of such belief, I can rest assured that there is no need to prove otherwise. Irregardless, I am not the one to prove you wrong since I was the one to challenge YOUR factless and itellectually lazy statement. Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 22:53:13 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Religious freedom On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:45PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's put it this way: I flatly reject that it is common knowledge since I have NEVER heard of a centuries old Catholic Pedophile Ring. Irregardless, saying its common knowledge in no way makes it true. Let me be more blunt then: William, I think your statement is bull and I'm calling you out on it. I personally believe you are unable to support your position, and your statement that you are not writing a paper is in my opinion an excuse not to try to jusrtify your statements with real evidence. And since I am challenging YOUR statement, the burden of evidence is STILL yours. It seems pretty obvious to me, but it's not a subject I find important enough to put any extra effort into. If you want to prove me wrong go ahead and knock yourself out. Otherwise we'll just have to differ on the matter. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:53PM, William T Goodall wrote: It seems pretty obvious to me, but it's not a subject I find important enough to put any extra effort into. If you want to prove me wrong go ahead and knock yourself out. Otherwise we'll just have to differ on the matter. Just to clarify that: since they are quite obviously an active and dangerous pedophile organisation *now* the only part you could disprove is that they were in the past also. Since it's a clear pattern of ongoing behaviour that's documented for the past half century or so as victims have begun to come forward you'd have to come up with some reason that pattern *shouldn't* be expected to continue further back into the past. Given the Church's ongoing efforts to cover up the issue any lack of published scandal prior to the well-known present day cases can't show that molestation wasn't going on then too. I really don't see how you could disprove it actually, but good luck. Smoke Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ if the bible proves the existence of god, then superman comics prove the existence of superman - Usenet ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 9/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be interested in seeing William provide evidence that the Catholic Church has been running a pedophile ring for centuries... There are many things that are true for which no evidence can be produced. In fact, I would suggest that no evidence can be produced for most of what is true. I've got two objects in my left, front pocket as I type this. What are they? You have no evidence at the moment to prove one way or another what I have in my left front pocket. Does that mean that nothing is there? No, it just means that there is not evidence, or at least no evidence that you have access to. This constant demand for evidence is unreasonable. It is narrow minded. A person who believes only the evidence doesn't believe much. This is especially true when it comes to religion. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 11:03PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, I had no real expectation that you would respond in any meaningful way, but I could not let such a statement of intellectual vacuum lay unchallenged. Since so far you are the only one making a statement of such belief, I can rest assured that there is no need to prove otherwise. Irregardless, I am not the one to prove you wrong since I was the one to challenge YOUR factless and itellectually lazy statement. See my other post. If nobody else has anything to add we can take it for established fact that the Catholic Church is a dangerous pedophile organisation that has been molesting children for centuries. That's apart from all the other criminal activities it is involved in. And don't get me started on nuns. History Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006 at 17:19, William T Goodall wrote: I doubt that the heads of most religions believe. These are intelligent college educated people after all. Belief is what they use to gull money and power from the ignorant and superstitious people that they prey on. There's only one response possible here: Heh. You are as allways assigning religions to a single block... Judaism has little hierarchy, no highly paid figures for their pastoral work alone, etc. So you approve of and support the Mafia as well as religion? So now the Mafia are a religion as well in your view now, noted. Or perhaps you don't mean a single thing? Well, not if you didn't read the origional, no. That would be crucial for understanding. I write in a way which uses evidence and logic. You use neither of these. And you can't spell either. You assume everything. Take the religious schools thread, you instantly call it a murder school. This has at least three assumptions in those words alone. And no, I can't spell. I'm dyslexic. Your point? AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 9/3/06, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And the Catholic Church is the largest pedophile ring in the world. That's pretty criminal and they've been covering that up for centuries. That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Dan posted a very clear analysis here during the height of the recent pedophilia scandal that showed that rates of pedophilia among Catholic priests was no higher than in the general population at large, and I seem recall reading somewhere else -- Time? Newsweek? -- that the rates are actually *lower* among Catholic priests than among the general public. So give us a citation to back up that libel, or lose what little credibility you still have. By the way, I'm not saying that the Roman Catholic church is any better than any other church or large social organization, just that your claim is verifiably wrong and beneath even you. -- Mauro Diotallevi Hey, Harry, you haven't done anything useful for a while -- you be the god of jello now. -- Patricia Wrede, 8/16/2006 on rasfc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
WTG wrote: And no, I can't spell. I'm dyslexic. Your point? It's harder to read your incoherent babbling when it's full of spelling mistakes. Thta's rude, William. Yuo can't bunr peopel at the steak for things they are born with! Ablerto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 9/3/06, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:53PM, William T Goodall wrote: It seems pretty obvious to me, but it's not a subject I find important enough to put any extra effort into. If you want to prove me wrong go ahead and knock yourself out. Otherwise we'll just have to differ on the matter. Just to clarify that: since they are quite obviously an active and dangerous pedophile organisation *now* the only part you could disprove is that they were in the past also. Since it's a clear pattern of ongoing behaviour that's documented for the past half century or so as victims have begun to come forward you'd have to come up with some reason that pattern *shouldn't* be expected to continue further back into the past. Given the Church's ongoing efforts to cover up the issue any lack of published scandal prior to the well-known present day cases can't show that molestation wasn't going on then too. I really don't see how you could disprove it actually, but good luck. I belong to a church that teaches a very strict Law of Chastity. And after my divorce when I was 23 years of age, I was celibate for 8 years while I tried desperately to find the wife that I have now been married to for 28 years. Anyone who has tried to live a perfectly chaste life after having once been sexually active, especially a young male as I was and as most priests are when they start out in their vocation, can tell you that such celibacy is extremely difficult to achieve and even more difficult to maintain. It is preposterous to suppose that the legions of Catholic priests are able to accomplish this. By enforcing a strict rule that Catholic priests must be celibate, the Catholic church virtually ensures that sexual hypocrisy will be the rule of the day among priests. I am dead certain that a great many of them are either misbehaving with young boys, other priests, nuns, or the wives of parishioners. Celibacy is simply too difficult to accomplish successfully for it to be effectively practiced on such a wide scale as many suppose. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
John, you are a (insert inflammitory accusation here) . I do not need evidence of this, because I cannot get the evidence I need to prove it. Nonetheless, because I believe it to be so, must MAKE it so. Damon, who does not ACTUALLY believe John is a murderer, etc, but is merely trying to make a point. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 14:15:08 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Religious freedom On 9/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be interested in seeing William provide evidence that the Catholic Church has been running a pedophile ring for centuries... There are many things that are true for which no evidence can be produced. In fact, I would suggest that no evidence can be produced for most of what is true. I've got two objects in my left, front pocket as I type this. What are they? You have no evidence at the moment to prove one way or another what I have in my left front pocket. Does that mean that nothing is there? No, it just means that there is not evidence, or at least no evidence that you have access to. This constant demand for evidence is unreasonable. It is narrow minded. A person who believes only the evidence doesn't believe much. This is especially true when it comes to religion. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
If you have no intention of pursuing this line of thought, why are you continuing to post on it? Your other post only illustrates you want to make conclusions based on belief, not on evidence. Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 23:15:17 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Religious freedom On 3 Sep 2006, at 11:03PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, I had no real expectation that you would respond in any meaningful way, but I could not let such a statement of intellectual vacuum lay unchallenged. Since so far you are the only one making a statement of such belief, I can rest assured that there is no need to prove otherwise. Irregardless, I am not the one to prove you wrong since I was the one to challenge YOUR factless and itellectually lazy statement. See my other post. If nobody else has anything to add we can take it for established fact that the Catholic Church is a dangerous pedophile organisation that has been molesting children for centuries. That's apart from all the other criminal activities it is involved in. And don't get me started on nuns. History Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 11:19PM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On 9/3/06, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And the Catholic Church is the largest pedophile ring in the world. That's pretty criminal and they've been covering that up for centuries. That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Dan posted a very clear analysis here during the height of the recent pedophilia scandal that showed that rates of pedophilia among Catholic priests was no higher than in the general population at large, But the general public isn't an organisation. *Even if* the rate is lower in individual priests than in the public at large the CC is *still* the largest organisation that harbours and covers up for pedophiles. I mean it's not something you hear about the Ford Motor Company. Even Enron didn't do it. Small Print Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured [Hitler's] success, notably in Protestant areas. - Fritz Stern, professor emeritus of history at Columbia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 11:33PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you have no intention of pursuing this line of thought, why are you continuing to post on it? I'll stop right now! Your other post only illustrates you want to make conclusions based on belief, not on evidence. You have mistaken me for Dan! Top posting is religious Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 11:23PM, John W Redelfs wrote: On 9/3/06, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given the Church's ongoing efforts to cover up the issue any lack of published scandal prior to the well-known present day cases can't show that molestation wasn't going on then too. I really don't see how you could disprove it actually, but good luck. I belong to a church that teaches a very strict Law of Chastity. And after my divorce when I was 23 years of age, I was celibate for 8 years while I tried desperately to find the wife that I have now been married to for 28 years. Anyone who has tried to live a perfectly chaste life after having once been sexually active, especially a young male as I was and as most priests are when they start out in their vocation, can tell you that such celibacy is extremely difficult to achieve and even more difficult to maintain. It is preposterous to suppose that the legions of Catholic priests are able to accomplish this. By enforcing a strict rule that Catholic priests must be celibate, the Catholic church virtually ensures that sexual hypocrisy will be the rule of the day among priests. I am dead certain that a great many of them are either misbehaving with young boys, other priests, nuns, or the wives of parishioners. Celibacy is simply too difficult to accomplish successfully for it to be effectively practiced on such a wide scale as many suppose. And since sexual abuse is generally recognised to be very significantly under-reported the true scale of this abominable religious evil can only boggle the mind! Boggled Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 11:19PM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: Dan posted a very clear analysis here during the height of the recent pedophilia scandal that showed that rates of pedophilia among Catholic priests was no higher than in the general population at large, and I seem recall reading somewhere else -- Time? Newsweek? -- that the rates are actually *lower* among Catholic priests than among the general public. Dan only told one side of the story (as to be expected from a dishonest religious apologist). Dan is not credible or trustworthy at all when it comes to matters of religion. He has an agenda and no interest in any facts or arguments that contradict it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_allegations Opinion is very divided on whether there is any connection between the Catholic institution of celibacy and the incidence of child abuse, for a number of reasons: there are relatively few statistical studies on the issue of sexual abuse among the clergy; sexual abuse rates among the general population are almost impossible to determine, since 90-95%[citation needed] of instances of child molesting go unreported; and many of the parties in the discussion are trying to further their own pro- or anti-celibacy agenda, regardless of statistical or factual evidence. Therefore, no consensus can be reported here. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Manners (was Re: Religious freedom)
It's nice that this topic has attracted some interest and that people are giving some thought to the sickening poisonous evil filth of religion and the ghastly damage it causes individuals and society. However a number of people (you know who you are and I won't embarrass you by quoting you) have veered from the polite and civilised example I set when discussing this pernicious vileness and written some things that are simply gratuitously insulting or ad hominem attacks. I suggest those people stick their heads in a bucket of ice water until they regain their manners. Sincerely Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Manners (was Re: Religious freedom)
On 4 Sep 2006 at 0:41, William T Goodall wrote: It's nice that this topic has attracted some interest and that people are giving some thought to the sickening poisonous evil filth of religion and the ghastly damage it causes individuals and society. No, people are calling you a atheist zealot. There's a difference. However a number of people (you know who you are and I won't embarrass you by quoting you) have veered from the polite and civilised example I set when discussing this pernicious vileness and What, bigotry, intollerance, anti-sematism and police-state mentality? Yes, you givre a great civilised example - of precisely why laws against fanatics of any stripe should not mention religion, since you'd try to dodge on that basis. written some things that are simply gratuitously insulting or ad hominem attacks. Like the ones you constantly make against any beliver? I suggest those people stick their heads in a bucket of ice water until they regain their manners. I suggest that you use a few buckets of soap to wash your mouth out. I'm certainly not going to stop pointing out your blatent lies, distortions and intollerance of anything which you define as a religion (as YOU see fit). AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:00, William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:45PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: And no, I can't spell. I'm dyslexic. Your point? It's harder to read your incoherent babbling when it's full of spelling mistakes. That's nice. I allready know you can't be bothered to read what I write, you're more interested in your self-centered crusade against anything which you don't like under the name of religion. Another excuse in a long line of excuses. Good spelling is polite Maru Not criticising people for disabilities is polite, as well. But given the propaganda you spew, I can't expect politeness from you. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:08, William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:53PM, William T Goodall wrote: It seems pretty obvious to me, but it's not a subject I find important enough to put any extra effort into. If you want to prove me wrong go ahead and knock yourself out. Otherwise we'll just have to differ on the matter. Just to clarify that: since they are quite obviously an active and dangerous pedophile organisation *now* the only part you could Okay, and given at least UK police officer was arrested in the past year for pedophilia, that is also an active and dangerous pedophile organisation. Nice reasoning. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
More to the point, pointing out spelling mistakes and bad grammer is an indication you have nothing better to say... Damon, posting from his Blackberry, where I can ONLY top post... Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 00:58:01 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Religious freedom On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:00, William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:45PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: And no, I can't spell. I'm dyslexic. Your point? It's harder to read your incoherent babbling when it's full of spelling mistakes. That's nice. I allready know you can't be bothered to read what I write, you're more interested in your self-centered crusade against anything which you don't like under the name of religion. Another excuse in a long line of excuses. Good spelling is polite Maru Not criticising people for disabilities is polite, as well. But given the propaganda you spew, I can't expect politeness from you. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 4 Sep 2006, at 12:58AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:00, William T Goodall wrote: Good spelling is polite Maru Not criticising people for disabilities is polite, as well. But given the propaganda you spew, I can't expect politeness from you. I'm being far politer to you than all the careless educators who couldn't be bothered to teach you the basics of thinking and writing because you had a handicap. Respect Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The surprising thing about the Cargo Cult Windows PC is that it works as well as a real one. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 4 Sep 2006, at 1:15AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: More to the point, pointing out spelling mistakes and bad grammer is an indication you have nothing better to say... Some posts have nothing in them worth replying to. Both my parents were teachers Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured [Hitler's] success, notably in Protestant areas. - Fritz Stern, professor emeritus of history at Columbia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:22, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Sep 2006, at 12:58AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:00, William T Goodall wrote: Good spelling is polite Maru Not criticising people for disabilities is polite, as well. But given the propaganda you spew, I can't expect politeness from you. I'm being far politer to you than all the careless educators who couldn't be bothered to teach you the basics of thinking and writing because you had a handicap. Your basic lack of knowledge about dyslexia is glaring. It is not something which can be overcome by an educator. It is a literal perceptile gap on the part of the dyslexic person. That you also link it to thinking is a another normal cheap shot you take, you simply cannot pass up an opportunity to be petty and bigoted. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
At 05:33 PM Sunday 9/3/2006, William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006, at 11:19PM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On 9/3/06, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And the Catholic Church is the largest pedophile ring in the world. That's pretty criminal and they've been covering that up for centuries. That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Dan posted a very clear analysis here during the height of the recent pedophilia scandal that showed that rates of pedophilia among Catholic priests was no higher than in the general population at large, But the general public isn't an organisation. Not relevant. If frex we are interested in the representation of a certain minority among the employees of a business, we generally ask if the fraction of the business's employees who are members of that minority is less than, equal to, or greater than the fraction of the local community who are members of that minority. *Even if* the rate is lower in individual priests than in the public at large the CC is *still* the largest organisation that harbours and covers up for pedophiles. Unless you consider marriage as an organization as well as an institution. Particularly re-marriage where the woman brings children from her earlier marriage(s) to the new marriage. I mean it's not something you hear about the Ford Motor Company. Even Enron didn't do it. AFAIK no one accused Ford or Enron employees in general of child abuse. For your remark to be relevant one would have to collect statistics on child abuse committed by the employees of those or other large corporations and compare it to the frequency of child abuse among the population as a whole. You do have a point in that a better comparison might be to school employees, as something schools and churches have in common (which large corporations like Ford or Enron do not) is that parents turn over their young children to both organizations for several hours at a time and generally trust that they will be properly treated and returned in as good shape as they were when they were dropped off. Small Print Maru Plain Test Only Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 4 Sep 2006, at 1:28AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:22, William T Goodall wrote: I'm being far politer to you than all the careless educators who couldn't be bothered to teach you the basics of thinking and writing because you had a handicap. Your basic lack of knowledge about dyslexia is glaring. It is not something which can be overcome by an educator. I guess my mother wasted her time getting those special teaching qualifications in dyslexia then. Nothing could be done for those kids. It is a literal perceptile gap on the part of the dyslexic person. That you also link it to thinking is a another normal cheap shot you take, Thinking is a skill that needs to be trained and reading is a vital part of that training. People with reading problems need extra help you seem to have missed out on. you simply cannot pass up an opportunity to be petty and bigoted. You are displacing the high anxiety level caused by your cognitive dissonance (due to your poor comprehension skills) by constantly blaming and attacking others. Predictable Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:27, William T Goodall wrote: Both my parents were teachers Maru Shame they didn't teach you the value of tolerence. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:51, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Sep 2006, at 1:28AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:22, William T Goodall wrote: I'm being far politer to you than all the careless educators who couldn't be bothered to teach you the basics of thinking and writing because you had a handicap. Your basic lack of knowledge about dyslexia is glaring. It is not something which can be overcome by an educator. I guess my mother wasted her time getting those special teaching qualifications in dyslexia then. Nothing could be done for those kids. Plenty which can be done. But someone who is dyslexic will allways make certain personally consistant spelling errors. That is not something which can be overcome, as stated. It is a literal perceptile gap on the part of the dyslexic person. That you also link it to thinking is a another normal cheap shot you take, Thinking is a skill that needs to be trained and reading is a vital part of that training. People with reading problems need extra help you seem to have missed out on. Yes, and you made the assumption I had reading issues. I do not, I had a reading age of 16+ at age 7. My issues are in the fields of writing (my typing is far better than a lot of people who are not dyslexic, my handwriting is terrible) and memory (I have a memory system which works fine). you simply cannot pass up an opportunity to be petty and bigoted. You are displacing the high anxiety level caused by your cognitive dissonance (due to your poor comprehension skills) by constantly blaming and attacking others. You are a narrow minded bigot who assumes things about others without knowing the first thing about them (see above, no reading difficulties). Your writing style is based entirely on these assumptions, and as stated before your parents did not educate you in the least about tolerance. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 04/09/2006, at 2:58 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:08, William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:53PM, William T Goodall wrote: It seems pretty obvious to me, but it's not a subject I find important enough to put any extra effort into. If you want to prove me wrong go ahead and knock yourself out. Otherwise we'll just have to differ on the matter. Just to clarify that: since they are quite obviously an active and dangerous pedophile organisation *now* the only part you could Okay, and given at least UK police officer was arrested in the past year for pedophilia, that is also an active and dangerous pedophile organisation. Nice reasoning. Did the UK police cover up his transgressions by moving him to another station? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Roots of evil (was Re: Religious freedom)
Perhaps inspired by today's pink unicorn sighting, allow me mumble a bit about evil and ethics (not just a county in England, as Tom Holt says). When I arrived at Kenyon College a couple of decades ago for my freshman year, one of the rites of passage was a talk by the provost, whose name I wish I could recall. He had been a spy during World War II and interviewed Nazi scientists at Nuremburg. He told us of some of the atrocities these men had committed. The one that stuck with me was their experiment of placing pregnant women (from Poland) in vats of water, then heating the water to see at what temperature they aborted. They were doing horrible, awful things, for years on end. Do you know what they said when I asked they why they did these things, the provost asked us? They did not say it was for Germany. They did not say it was for the Third Reich. They did not say it was for the Fuhrer. No, they said their work was done in the name of science, of learning. Religions of all sorts warn against the danger of greed for power and money. Further, most warn that the most dangerous people are those who use religion itself to accumulate power and money. It is easy to criticize religion based on the actions of those who use it to gain power or money (as we all do sometimes, I'm sure) and turn a blind eye to the warnings and criticism within religion to avoid that constant temptation. And I am sure that those who have had religious power used against them have the most difficult time seeing any good at all in religion. I can find in myself the attitude of the Nazi scientists -- let's do this just to find out, to learn, to educate ourselves because education and knowledge are good! But my faith pulls me in another direction, one that questions my intention, assumes that I am never of one heart, never of one mind, in a constant internal tug of war between my greedy selfish self, which is measurable via behavior, economic and biological sciences, v. the compassionate, accepting self, revealed by my charity... and charity, when measured, quickly stops being charity. Keeping score gets in the way of loving my neighbor. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religious freedom
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 8:44 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Religious freedom On 04/09/2006, at 2:58 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:08, William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:53PM, William T Goodall wrote: It seems pretty obvious to me, but it's not a subject I find important enough to put any extra effort into. If you want to prove me wrong go ahead and knock yourself out. Otherwise we'll just have to differ on the matter. Just to clarify that: since they are quite obviously an active and dangerous pedophile organisation *now* the only part you could Okay, and given at least UK police officer was arrested in the past year for pedophilia, that is also an active and dangerous pedophile organisation. Nice reasoning. Did the UK police cover up his transgressions by moving him to another station? This one, probably not. But, my wife...who's worked in sexual abuse for years, and has never been a Catholic has mentioned that denial has been typical of society. Back 30 years ago, sexual abuse of children was thought to be an extremely rare event. We now know it's quite common. Girls and boys who had the courage to speak out were, more often than not, punished for telling lies. This does not excuse the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. By protecting their own, usually by various forms of denial, they have betrayed those they have promised to nurture. That is a horrid act. But it is not a unique act. Most of the time, children are sexually abused by members of their own family. This does not support the conclusion that families are inherently evil. We know that pedophiles like to get jobs that put them in contact with youth, like church youth workers, boy scout leaders, girl guide leaders, teachers, etc. This does not make any of these organizations inherently evil. Up until recently, most of these organizations didn't believe in such accusations. Society as a whole has been in denial about these occurances. Indeed, FWIW, psychoanalysis was started by Freud's denial of the prevalent of sexual abuse of girls. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 9/2/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's just the best link again: http://www.xenu.net And you know who fights them? Not your precious atheists, it's Christians and Jews. AndrewC Really. So Keith Henson is not an atheist? I'd be surprised to learn that. ~maru http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson#Henson_versus_Scientology ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 9/2/06, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2 Sep 2006, at 11:49PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On 9/2/06, PAT MATHEWS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TIME! Everything's been repeated - asserted, not debated - several times over and we're getting into battling assertions now with ad hominem trimmings. I resent that. I believe I wrote something original about pink unicorns. Perhaps the pink unicorn is actually the elephant in the room that nobody talks about? Perhaps a pink elephant. Or an elephantine unicorn? Or some strange hybrid of unicorn and elephant? Perhaps an indeterminate number of them are performing a gavotte on the head of a pin? After all, nobody can prove a negative and it's all just a theory anyway... Third Policeman Maru -- William T Goodall Clearly that the pink unicorn is actually an Invisible Pink Unicorn, as no one can see it. ph34r t3h |_||\|1C0rN's |-|00\/3s! ~maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:38, maru dubshinki wrote: On 9/2/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's just the best link again: http://www.xenu.net And you know who fights them? Not your precious atheists, it's Christians and Jews. AndrewC Really. So Keith Henson is not an atheist? I'd be surprised to learn that. Yes, there's allways the odd one. But in my experience, the people opposing Scientology are in the ratio of arround 20:1 theists:atheists. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
Maru Dubshinki wrote: Clearly that the pink unicorn is actually an Invisible Pink Unicorn, as no one can see it. It surprised me that so many of you believe in this Pink Unicorn Myth. The ammount of people that believe in this is a strong evidence that They(tm) didn't disable the Orbital Mind Laser Satellites, who are active in creating those illusions for all that don't wear an alluminium helmet. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
Andrew Crystall wrote: ... Your basic lack of knowledge about dyslexia is glaring. It is not something which can be overcome by an educator. It is a literal perceptile gap on the part of the dyslexic person. Andrew-- Sorry about my Scientototology joke a couple days ago. On the other hand, why exactly can't you put things through a spell-checker? It won't catch everything, but it would have caught Scientotology... ---David Rounding to the nearest word, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
re: Religious freedom, but not that stupid argument
Dan Minette wrote: ... Again, per my last email absolute rubbish. Scientology is a creed, a UFO cult set up to milk the members of cash. It is a business, not a religion. If I could step in here, I think this is part of William's point. From the outside, it's hard to tell one group that teaches nonsense and milks its members from another. : ) ... From an empirical point of view, it would be fairly easy to look at the operating differences between, say, the Catholic church and Scientology. Inside or outside of these organizations, a sociologist could easily point out how they differ. The only problem is if one has a different set of beliefs, and assume that they are facts...while other sets are nonsense. Dan-- I'm still not convinced. The easy way to tell that Scientology is not a real religion is to notice that it's devoid of spirituality. But doing so is not really Sociology, is it? As for the rest of the differences, they seem to me to be more differences of degree, rather than kind. : ) ... William-- You, sir, are trolling. I don't think he is a troll in the classic sense of not believing what he writes. It is impossible, of course, for me to prove this, but his persistence over at least 5 years indicates to me that he sincerely believes in the evil of certain belief sets that are inconsistent with his own. He certainly uses inflammatory language to try to get a reaction. Doesn't that count as trolling? Look, I teach at a real school. The phrase Faith school already sounds pretty bad to me, as it indicates that nothing of substance is taught. Maru. While I have disdain for this particular use of Jesus' namefinding it blasphemous, actually.I'm not sure about how you make such a separation. For example, are all seminaries not real schools? Sorry, Dan, I don't see any mention of a certain Nazarene here. I guess I snipped too much? My point is that calling seminaries faith schools is already not a nice name for them. Here's a snippet from a random seminary I found online: The Master of Divinity (MDiv) is a professional degree designed to prepare students for pastoral ministry, as well as other ordained and non-ordained ministries, and offers students the greatest vocational flexibility. The MDiv is Covenant Seminary's primary and largest degree program, shaping the overall seminary environment. The curriculum may be completed in three years, although many students take four years due to family, church, and job responsibilities. Available MDiv concentrations include: Biblical Studies; Theology; Christianity and Contemporary Culture; Christian Education; Counseling; World Mission; Youth Ministry; or Church Planting, Growth, and Renewal. While not my cup of tea, they do seem to have a range of topics. I imagine there's some meat in there someplace... A real faith school might be one where a student actually learns very little, possibly just memorizing holy books, but where their faith is strengthened. ---David Not that memorizing holy books is bad per se, but is it worth college credit? Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:53PM, William T Goodall wrote: It seems pretty obvious to me, but it's not a subject I find important enough to put any extra effort into. If you want to prove me wrong go ahead and knock yourself out. Otherwise we'll just have to differ on the matter. Just to clarify that: since they are quite obviously an active and dangerous pedophile organisation *now* the only part you could disprove is that they were in the past also. Since it's a clear pattern of ongoing behaviour that's documented for the past half century or so as victims have begun to come forward you'd have to come up with some reason that pattern *shouldn't* be expected to continue further back into the past. Given the Church's ongoing efforts to cover up the issue any lack of published scandal prior to the well-known present day cases can't show that molestation wasn't going on then too. William-- I half-way agree with you about the burden of proof here. I don't think you've actually established that the Catholic Church is a pedophile organization. All you can get most of us to agree with is that there were/are pedophile priests, and that the Church used to be fairly systematic about covering this up. Reliable figures on incidence may be hard to get... I do agree that it's a fair assumption that the Church was at least as supportive of pedophilia in the past five centuries as it was in the last 50 years, and that if anyone wants to claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on them. ---David Suffer the little children, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 1 Sep 2006, at 7:10PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Aggressive atheists cannot be trusted since they believe right and
wrong are entirely relative and their ethics are based on no firm
principles except intolerance and the hatred of the religious.
Straw man. I don't know who you have in mind but *I* certainly am not
a relativist and my ethical principles have immovably solid foundations.
Religion on the other hand is built on sand - what an imaginary being
told a mythical person in a fable. In religion if you don't like what
it says on the {scrolls,tablets,gold plaques,laserdisc...}
that the {talking monkey,prophet,purple elephant,sacred
flamingo...} brought from the {sacred mountain,
beanstalk,ogre's castle, holy cruise ship...} you can just make
up another, more congenial, fable and believe that instead. If that's
too much effort you can find someone who has done it for you and join
their religion.
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are
the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006 at 16:54, William T Goodall wrote:
On 1 Sep 2006, at 7:10PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Aggressive atheists cannot be trusted since they believe right and
wrong are entirely relative and their ethics are based on no firm
principles except intolerance and the hatred of the religious.
Straw man. I don't know who you have in mind but *I* certainly am not
a relativist and my ethical principles have immovably solid foundations.
No, you do not. Your principles have no backing beyond what you feel.
Otherwise, you believe in a creed, and are putting your reliance on
an external force just as much as a believer.
Religion on the other hand is built on sand - what an imaginary being
told a mythical person in a fable. In religion if you don't like what
it says on the {scrolls,tablets,gold plaques,laserdisc...}
that the {talking monkey,prophet,purple elephant,sacred
flamingo...} brought from the {sacred mountain,
beanstalk,ogre's castle, holy cruise ship...} you can just make
up another, more congenial, fable and believe that instead. If that's
too much effort you can find someone who has done it for you and join
their religion.
Yes, amazing how different it is if you, say, follow the teachings of
say Marx, or L. Ron Hubbard, or your grandma... Oh wait, it's not.
And neither is the law society is driven by.
The ONLY given with a militant atheist is that he is driven by hatred
and intolerence. Whuch you are. You're no different from the person
round here who drew slogons in paint over the wall of someones house
recently, calling the occupier gay.
AndrewC
Dawn Falcon
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006, at 5:07PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Yes, amazing how different it is if you, say, follow the teachings of say Marx, or L. Ron Hubbard, or your grandma... Oh wait, it's not. You are saying Marx, L Ron Hubbard and my grandma all have the same 'teachings'? That seems a remarkable claim especially since AFAIK you didn't know either of my grandmothers (who were very different and wouldn't have had the same 'teachings' I think). And neither is the law society is driven by. The ONLY given with a militant atheist is that he is driven by hatred and intolerence. Whuch you are. You're no different from the person round here who drew slogons in paint over the wall of someones house recently, calling the occupier gay. Was that you? It's certainly not the sort of thing I approve of at all. But I'm ethical Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured [Hitler's] success, notably in Protestant areas. - Fritz Stern, professor emeritus of history at Columbia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006 at 17:29, William T Goodall wrote: On 2 Sep 2006, at 5:07PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Yes, amazing how different it is if you, say, follow the teachings of say Marx, or L. Ron Hubbard, or your grandma... Oh wait, it's not. You are saying Marx, L Ron Hubbard and my grandma all have the same 'teachings'? That seems a remarkable claim especially since AFAIK you didn't know either of my grandmothers (who were very different and wouldn't have had the same 'teachings' I think). No, of course they don't have the same teachings. That's the point - there are a variety of non-religious creeds which vary from Scientology to Communism and so on. Blaming religion and religion only, as you do, is no more than predudice. (And calling Scientology a religion is incorrect..it's a creed which operates as a personal improvement program and suchlike in several countries which react poorly to religious sentiment, such as Israel. That in itself quite clearly shows it's not a religion but a cynical creed...) And neither is the law society is driven by. The ONLY given with a militant atheist is that he is driven by hatred and intolerence. Whuch you are. You're no different from the person round here who drew slogons in paint over the wall of someones house recently, calling the occupier gay. Was that you? No, but you share the mindset of the person who did it. It's certainly not the sort of thing I approve of at all. Why not? You approve of hatred and intollerance against one group, what's people hating and being intollerant of another group? But I'm ethical Maru So you claim. See above. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006, at 5:42PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 2 Sep 2006 at 17:29, William T Goodall wrote: On 2 Sep 2006, at 5:07PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Yes, amazing how different it is if you, say, follow the teachings of say Marx, or L. Ron Hubbard, or your grandma... Oh wait, it's not. You are saying Marx, L Ron Hubbard and my grandma all have the same 'teachings'? That seems a remarkable claim especially since AFAIK you didn't know either of my grandmothers (who were very different and wouldn't have had the same 'teachings' I think). No, of course they don't have the same teachings. That's the point - there are a variety of non-religious creeds which vary from Scientology to Communism and so on. Scientology is a religion. Communism is a quasi-religion. Blaming religion and religion only, as you do, is no more than predudice. I don't *only* blame religion. One thing at a time. (And calling Scientology a religion is incorrect..it's a creed which operates as a personal improvement program and suchlike in several countries which react poorly to religious sentiment, such as Israel. That in itself quite clearly shows it's not a religion but a cynical creed...) And neither is the law society is driven by. The ONLY given with a militant atheist is that he is driven by hatred and intolerence. Whuch you are. You're no different from the person round here who drew slogons in paint over the wall of someones house recently, calling the occupier gay. Was that you? No, but you share the mindset of the person who did it. You are very confused. Perhaps you should seek therapy to get your beliefs to accord more closely with reality. It's certainly not the sort of thing I approve of at all. Why not? You approve of hatred and intollerance against one group, But I don't hate religious people. My 'intolerance' is for the false and evil beliefs that have led them astray. In fact it is because of my kind, compassionate and generous nature that I rail against religion. If I didn't have such a love for people I would just let everyone stew in the filthy evil poison of their superstitious garbage without saying anything. Saintly Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured [Hitler's] success, notably in Protestant areas. - Fritz Stern, professor emeritus of history at Columbia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
Andrew said: The ONLY given with a militant atheist is that he is driven by hatred and intolerence. Whuch you are. But am I? Rich GCU Tarred With The Same Brush ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006 at 18:17, William T Goodall wrote: No, of course they don't have the same teachings. That's the point - there are a variety of non-religious creeds which vary from Scientology to Communism and so on. Scientology is a religion. Communism is a quasi-religion. Again, per my last email absolute rubbish. Scientology is a creed, a UFO cult set up to milk the members of cash. It is a business, not a religion. Blaming religion and religion only, as you do, is no more than predudice. I don't *only* blame religion. One thing at a time. Heh. No, you are just giving yourself carte blanche to attack anything. Your very calling communism a quasi-religion illustrates this perfectly (And I freely admit that this was a verbal trap, into which you have outright run). Was that you? No, but you share the mindset of the person who did it. You are very confused. Perhaps you should seek therapy to get your beliefs to accord more closely with reality. If a simple statement based on your explict statements (that you support intollerence) makes you tell someone they need a therapist, then I'd suggest that I am not the one with the issues. Again, this is perfectly normal for someone following a miltant creed. Your answers are predictable. It's certainly not the sort of thing I approve of at all. Why not? You approve of hatred and intollerance against one group, But I don't hate religious people. My 'intolerance' is for the false and evil beliefs that have led them astray. In fact it is because of my kind, compassionate and generous nature that I rail against religion. If I didn't have such a love for people I would just let everyone stew in the filthy evil poison of their superstitious garbage without saying anything. But you do. You have time and time again posted attacks on religious people of any nature. There is no kindness in intollerance, there is no compassion in dictating what it is acceptable to think. Your generosity in telling others that they are wrong because they do not agree with self-selected discrimination is nothing short of generous, no. Further, when you mean superstitious garbage, as per you calling communism a quasi-religion above you mean anything which does not confirm to your narrow, bigoted worldview, which has no external referants. There is no difference between your slams on religion and the slams Stormfront and others make about the WHITE cliffs of dover in their anti-immigrant rants. Hatred and predudice are a problem which intelligence humans must combat, no matter what creed you claim to follow. Militant forms of zealotry - militant atheism among them - and free goverment are incompatible by the base principle, and I for one happen to take a stand against your intollerence and biggotry. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006 at 18:42, Richard Baker wrote: Andrew said: The ONLY given with a militant atheist is that he is driven by hatred and intolerence. Whuch you are. But am I? I don't see you posting constant slams and digs at the slightest opportunity against religious people, you don't make posts with titles which are propaganda pieces, and you act in a rational fashion. So...I clearly can't describe you as militant. There is nothing wrong with atheism, and your stance of this list is frankly not militant. It's when zealots of any stripe, as WTG clear is, push intollerence and bigotry that there are issues. To be clear, it is the militant stance and the intollerence which he pushes which are the issue. The atheism aspect simply..gives a lack of external reference to precisely how dangerous that bigotry is. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006, at 6:53PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Militant forms of zealotry - militant atheism among them - and free goverment are incompatible by the base principle, and I for one happen to take a stand against your intollerence and biggotry. So you're intolerant of my views then? And I gather from your preceding rants that you're bigoted as well. So I can conclude you are also a hypocrite... QED Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ And yes, OSX is marvelous. Its merest bootlace, Windows is not worthy to kiss. - David Brin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religious freedom
Andrew Crystall wrote: Straw man. I don't know who you have in mind but *I* certainly am not a relativist and my ethical principles have immovably solid foundations. No, you do not. Your principles have no backing beyond what you feel. Two things: How would you know? And, how about not just what a person feels but also what s/he thinks? Yes, amazing how different it is if you, say, follow the teachings of say Marx, or L. Ron Hubbard, or your grandma... Oh wait, it's not. Umm, why does one have to follow *anyone* to the letter? Why can't one just pick and choose? After all, no one is infallible, believer, agnostic or atheist, so why should people act as the others *are* infallible and obviously know better? Which is my basic problem with religion - God never came up to me and told me what She wanted me to do. Failing that, I can conceive of no reason why somebody else's interpretation of what She might or might not want should matter to me. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
Andrew Crystall wrote: On 2 Sep 2006 at 18:17, William T Goodall wrote: No, of course they don't have the same teachings. That's the point - there are a variety of non-religious creeds which vary from Scientology to Communism and so on. Scientology is a religion. Communism is a quasi-religion. Again, per my last email absolute rubbish. Scientology is a creed, a UFO cult set up to milk the members of cash. It is a business, not a religion. Andrew-- If I could step in here, I think this is part of William's point. From the outside, it's hard to tell one group that teaches nonsense and milks its members from another. : ) ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006 at 19:46, William T Goodall wrote: On 2 Sep 2006, at 6:53PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Militant forms of zealotry - militant atheism among them - and free goverment are incompatible by the base principle, and I for one happen to take a stand against your intollerence and biggotry. So you're intolerant of my views then? What views? That people should not have the right to have their own views? Opposing your view is tollerant, not intollerant. And I gather from your preceding rants that you're bigoted as well. Nope, not at all. Opposing bigotry is not bigotry, it's standing up against you and your militants forcing them into recanting their beliefs. So I can conclude you are also a hypocrite... I can conclude you can't even understand logic 101, let alone realise that you're just as much of a problem to todays society as any member of al-quaeda, the war you are openly calling for would create a police state beyond even most radical Muslem's imaginations, and based on entirely relative morals. You're dangerous like any fanatic, unable to even comprehend any viewpoint not the same as your own and unable to comprehend why other people consider you a danger to yourself and others, especially in the democracy you must crush for your goals to be realised. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006 at 16:08, David Hobby wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: On 2 Sep 2006 at 18:17, William T Goodall wrote: No, of course they don't have the same teachings. That's the point - there are a variety of non-religious creeds which vary from Scientology to Communism and so on. Scientology is a religion. Communism is a quasi-religion. Again, per my last email absolute rubbish. Scientology is a creed, a UFO cult set up to milk the members of cash. It is a business, not a religion. Andrew-- If I could step in here, I think this is part of William's point. From the outside, it's hard to tell one group that teaches nonsense and milks its members from another. : ) Well, I suggest you take that up with your government then. Because teaches nonsense and milks it members is a perfect decription of what THEY do. No, the issue is that some people are blind bigots and others are not. It is a plain fact that scientology is not a religion. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006 at 0:27, Ritu wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: Straw man. I don't know who you have in mind but *I* certainly am not a relativist and my ethical principles have immovably solid foundations. No, you do not. Your principles have no backing beyond what you feel. Two things: How would you know? And, how about not just what a person feels but also what s/he thinks? It's an accusation, and one WTG has not been able to refute. feels/thinks/whatever - their belief patterns. Yes, amazing how different it is if you, say, follow the teachings of say Marx, or L. Ron Hubbard, or your grandma... Oh wait, it's not. Umm, why does one have to follow *anyone* to the letter? Why can't one just pick and choose? After all, no one is infallible, believer, agnostic or atheist, so why should people act as the others *are* infallible and obviously know better? Someone can, it's not important to the argument I was making. What is important is the picking and chosing of groups selectively into catagories based on personal bias. Which is my basic problem with religion - God never came up to me and told me what She wanted me to do. Failing that, I can conceive of no reason why somebody else's interpretation of what She might or might not want should matter to me. Then that's your call and it's fine, as long as you don't try and tell me that your way is the one way. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006, at 9:34PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: No, the issue is that some people are blind bigots and others are not. It is a plain fact that scientology is not a religion. Andrew says, so it must be so isn't a form of argument that other people will necessarily find very convincing. In the nursery Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006 at 21:57, William T Goodall wrote: On 2 Sep 2006, at 9:34PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: No, the issue is that some people are blind bigots and others are not. It is a plain fact that scientology is not a religion. Andrew says, so it must be so isn't a form of argument that other people will necessarily find very convincing. I've explained why. You could read it if you wanted to, but you're more interested in your crusade. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 9/2/06, PAT MATHEWS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TIME! Everything's been repeated - asserted, not debated - several times over and we're getting into battling assertions now with ad hominem trimmings. I resent that. I believe I wrote something original about pink unicorns. Stupid-face. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 2 Sep 2006, at 11:49PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On 9/2/06, PAT MATHEWS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TIME! Everything's been repeated - asserted, not debated - several times over and we're getting into battling assertions now with ad hominem trimmings. I resent that. I believe I wrote something original about pink unicorns. Perhaps the pink unicorn is actually the elephant in the room that nobody talks about? Perhaps a pink elephant. Or an elephantine unicorn? Or some strange hybrid of unicorn and elephant? Perhaps an indeterminate number of them are performing a gavotte on the head of a pin? After all, nobody can prove a negative and it's all just a theory anyway... Third Policeman Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006 at 0:53, William T Goodall wrote: On 2 Sep 2006, at 10:10PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 2 Sep 2006 at 21:57, William T Goodall wrote: On 2 Sep 2006, at 9:34PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: No, the issue is that some people are blind bigots and others are not. It is a plain fact that scientology is not a religion. Andrew says, so it must be so isn't a form of argument that other people will necessarily find very convincing. I've explained why. Perhaps if you explained it again with actual arguments and evidence? The kind of stuff that people who aren't you might find credible :- Perhaps if you read the origional again? I gave plenty of evidence, which starts with the fact that they operate as whatever sort of organisation better suits the area. They not a religion, they are a form of organised crime (especially in America). The sort of evidence that any person who doesn't blind themselves to the evidence can clearly see there are differences, starting with the very definition of a cult vs a religion. Given you have stated you cannot see anything past religion is bad, of course you cannot understand the difference, and futher time wasted gathering evidence isn't going to convince you. Here's just the best link again: http://www.xenu.net And you know who fights them? Not your precious atheists, it's Christians and Jews. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
At 12:17 PM Saturday 9/2/2006, William T Goodall wrote: You are very confused. Perhaps you should seek therapy to get your beliefs to accord more closely with reality. Interesting. Why do you suppose you feel that way? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 15:49:52 -0700, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/2/06, PAT MATHEWS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TIME! Everything's been repeated - asserted, not debated - several times over and we're getting into battling assertions now with ad hominem trimmings. I resent that. I believe I wrote something original about pink unicorns. Stupid-face. They're not pink, they're invisible. How would you know they're pink when you can't see them? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On Aug 31, 2006, at 7:50 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On 8/31/06, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought it had been determined that they are teal . . . Take your fascist determination and get out of here! It is a basic human right for people to believe that the unicorns are whatever color they like. I mean whatever color the people like, not whatever color the unicorns like. Pink Unicorns are completely colorblind. Contrary to the idea of colorblindness that some people have, in which everything is believed to appear in shades of grey, these particular Unicorns see everything in shades of pink, (hence their name). When they appear to humans (which is exceedingly rare), they are reported have a teal hue (hence, the confusion as to their color) , but that is mostly due to our limited ability to see in the ultrared and infraviolet bands. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 1 Sep 2006, at 5:47AM, Ritu wrote: William T Goodall wrote: In rural India little girls are still sold to temples as sex slaves In rural India little girls are sold as maids/bonded slaves, Devadasis are well documented. See here for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/ 2071612.stm sex slaves to European paedophiles [a British guy was the latest one to be convicted]. Obviously, all Europeans are evil and must be eradicated. There's lots of evil in the world. I'm talking about the part that's caused by religion. and women still throw themselves on their husband's funeral pyres. Throw *themselves*? For shame! In the three documented cases in the last couple of decades, the Indian authorities have assumed that the fact that these women struggled and were forced back on the pyres actually meant that their in-laws compelled them to commit Sati. That is what these families were prosecuted for. Jumped or thrown makes no difference to my argument. It's still religion that killed them. That's religion despite the British Empire's attempts to suppress it. British Empire *never* tried to suppress religion. It was very much an evangelical Empire, and the incessant attempts to get the heathens to convert into Christianity were part of what sparked the Mutiny. I guess you are not terribly interested in India History, but you can try reading Flashman. Fraser's research is excellent, and after reading his books you'd never again make claims like 'British Empire tried to suppress religion'. I was referring to the Empire's actions to suppress things like Thuggee, Sati and child prostitution that are the symptoms of the pernicious obnoxious evil of religion. As for Indian history - I have read _Midnight's Children_ :- -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religious freedom
Ritu wrote: I guess you are not terribly interested in India History, Come on, please! 1 Giga people, millions of ethnicities, 6000 years of recorded history, some other thousand years of archeological history... It's _impossible_ for anyone to know India History. The better we can handle is a general idea. Don't blame WTG for not knowing some facts. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religious freedom
William T Goodall wrote: In rural India little girls are still sold to temples as sex slaves In rural India little girls are sold as maids/bonded slaves, Devadasis are well documented. See here for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/ 2071612.stm Oh, I wasn't denying their existence. One of my favourite movies deal with the issue, and I am avidly waiting for the English translation of a Tamil Devdasi's autobiography. sex slaves to European paedophiles [a British guy was the latest one to be convicted]. Obviously, all Europeans are evil and must be eradicated. There's lots of evil in the world. I'm talking about the part that's caused by religion. And I was merely pointing out that the same evil exists even without the trappings of religion. :) and women still throw themselves on their husband's funeral pyres. Throw *themselves*? For shame! In the three documented cases in the last couple of decades, the Indian authorities have assumed that the fact that these women struggled and were forced back on the pyres actually meant that their in-laws compelled them to commit Sati. That is what these families were prosecuted for. Jumped or thrown makes no difference to my argument. It's still religion that killed them. Jumped or thrown makes all the difference to my argument. Jumped would have supported your thesis and a disturbed mind, thrown means cold-blooded murder. And the murder wasn't committed by religion but by their in-laws. That's religion despite the British Empire's attempts to suppress it. British Empire *never* tried to suppress religion. It was very much an evangelical Empire, and the incessant attempts to get the heathens to convert into Christianity were part of what sparked the Mutiny. I guess you are not terribly interested in India History, but you can try reading Flashman. Fraser's research is excellent, and after reading his books you'd never again make claims like 'British Empire tried to suppress religion'. I was referring to the Empire's actions to suppress things like Thuggee, Sati and child prostitution that are the symptoms of the pernicious obnoxious evil of religion. Only a few aspects of one religion, and that too only after a lot of people of that religion petitioned the Governor-General to pass a law to that effect. Incidentally, Akbar was the one who started the attempts to outlaw child prostitution, child marriage, sati, and he was the founder of a religion. Apparently one doesn't have to be an atheist to recognise and try to stop perversions of the same. So if religion is evil because some can and do pervert it, surely it must also be good when some move to address these perversions? As for Indian history - I have read _Midnight's Children_ :- *g* And I have never been able to finish that book. I find Rushdie quite a pretentious bore. But I really can't recommend the Flashman series highly enough. They are laugh-out-loud funny, and Flashy certainly isn't a pretentious bore. :) And he mocks religion often enough to keep you happy... Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
