Atheism
Politics
Memes
Mind
Matters
String
Random
Interact
Feedback
Links
Debate
Home
I feel sorry for you
Why did you feel the need to send that message? To make me feel better? To improve my life? To educate me? Because your invisible friend told you to?
No sir, I can see you are educated, and i dont know your life, so how can i say it needs improving? and i dont know how that statement could make you feel better, but when I wrote it I was wondering what you went through to have that strong anti-Christ prospective
Do you have a strong anti-Zeus thing?
Would you have an anti-Zeus thing if everybody around you was banging on about Zeus and making out that because you didn't believe in Zeus you were evil, immoral, inacapble of making an ethical decision, had no business expressing any opinions and had no good reason not to kill yourself?
-- Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org
Who called you those things?
I don't think they were faithful followers of Zeus. Do you?
i dont think they were faithful followers of Jesus either
No, anybody who does anything you don't approve of isn't a True Christian. No matter what they say about the matter.
Do you ever tire of being right?
I just read a bit on the web about atheist protesting crosses dedicated to fallen troopers. OK, I hear and somewhat understand the seperation of state and religion but what is all this fuss about these days all of the sudden when historically, traditionally and always the US has and is associated with Christianity? I would have to guess it's the corporate culture that has led to the political correctness which is really leaving a nasty ugly trail in its wake. If atheist don't believe in any God and feel that this is the only life one has to live w/o penalty, what's the problem w/ others expressing their religion? I don't have an issue if you and others don't believe in a God. That's your problem. However, the MAJORITY of us do believe and we do believe in Jesus Christ. Of course, I'm sure you all think like these bastard lawyers...who cares about the rest and only focus on yourselves. If you don't believe in God, I'm guessing you all have to be very selfish people since there is no reprecussion to doing whatever you want in this life. Besides getting upset when I see such ignorance in this world, I honestly feel sorry for people like yourself who can be so naive as not to believe in a higher form of life. |
Would God be naive not to believe in a higher form of life?
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org
| your response, while a good one, shows how you can't accept God
as THE creator of all life and an "all knowing, all loving" God. Your
statement defies the very concept of God. It's like trying to
understand infinity...there are some things that we finite human beings
are not supposed and can't understand. Jesus Christ was here
to show us how to live our lives and answer many questions...it comes
down to blind faith. |
No. You have been told that there are things that
we are not supposed to understand. The entire concept of "supposed to" here
is entirely defined by your religion. You are incapable of thinking beyond
your belief and so you might as well not bother at all. Most Christians
don't.
I am not asking you to fathom how horrible my life must be. Stop patronizing
and insulting me. You might believe that your faith makes you superior but that
too is part of your faith. Believing that faith is a good thing is your prison.
I am not jealous of your faith, and any mental calmness that it might provide,
I find it totally pathetic and contemptible.
Don't bother sending anything to me unless it is original and spontaneous. I
haven't fobbed you off with anything second hand.
How about answering my question? Would God be naive not to believe in a higher
power? Would any god?
If you won't let your brain off the leash to address that one then don't bother
to reply at all. And don't bother to tell me Jesus loves me or to pray for me.
I don't care because I don't believe your myths.
A little tip: try to write the word god with a lower case G whenever it is appropriate.
It will help your thinking. Trust me on that. Better yet call your god by his
name, if this seems like too much for your error-check dangerous-thought-avoidance
protocols to handle then use "The Lord". Only use a capital G when you use the
word as the name of your god. The capital G trick and the use of a category
title (God) instead of a name has been a deliberate ploy to make monotheism seem
natural and the default belief. It is a cynical attempt to make thinking "wrong
thoughts" harder. Being an American Christian (hey, just a stab in the dark,
I can't see your biography although you could have checked out mine)
you are already at enough of a disadvantage without letting somebody else castrate
any more of your synapses.
| Wow, you are a really angry sick person. Read my email and
then yours and see how ugly and pathetic you come across. Wow,
what a way to waste a life that God
gave you. Unreal how closed you and the others can be. |
It really pisses me off when people assume I'm American.
I have been friends with an athiest for over 7 years now. At one time she believed in Buddism and then there was something else that I cannot remember. Now I don't consider myself an athiest or hard core christian but I do believe that I am a christian. I have questions I believe that we all do. I can sit down and talk with my good friend but we have never had to seriously argue at each other and force our beliefs on eachother at anytime during our friendship. We are human we grew up differently, we believe in different things so therefore we have different views. I do believe that we should never judge another person on their beliefs because who are you to judge someone on how they were brought up, on how they see their life. I think that on top of us believing what we will, we judge others because they don't see it our way and instead of talking alot of us argue and yell at eachother. (This goes for Christians as well) For years more than the twenty-six that I have lived we have had a such thing as Christianity. There are other religions such as Islam, Judaism, Buddism, etc.. but it seems that the Christians get the short end of the stick. We are the ones on the other side of the biggest debate this Country seems to face. So what if you don't believe in it, thats your choice, those are your beliefs but do you have to knock mine because I could care less to knock yours down and stomp all over it and look at it in disgust. I have an open mind about alot of things and I listen without speaking first because I love to learn about who I am and the people that walk this earth along side of me. The reason I have questions is the fact that for many years we have all celebrated the Christmas season, if it is Hanahkuh, Kwanza whatever we have celebrated our own Christmas season the way we have known it to be. If Athiest does not believe in the origination of Jesus Christ, God etc.. why celebrate Christmas you have not known it to be anything else but from its origination so why celebrate it and take away from it such as wanting to take (Christ) out of Christmas ??? Give me a break have Christians ever tried to take away from Kwanza believers and or Hanahkuh believers so again why do Christians get the short end of the stick? Why not bother other non-athiest they celebrate their holiday just as Christians do? But theres no debate against them or other religious believers why is that? There's definitely no such thing as St. Nick, or Santa Claus but if you actually believe that, why can't Christians believe in Jesus Christ??? Athiest just like any other non-believers I have to question why celebrate Christmas at all??? Why knock my beliefs, why change what I have known for twenty-six years for what you believe in or don't believe in, now you are forcing your beliefs on others and contradicting who you are as an Athiest and if you don't see it that way then that's the mark you are leaving on everyone regardless of their religious beliefs.
Why celebrate Christmas? Because it is a good time and the message of Peace on Earth and Goodwill to all Men is not and never has been a Christian monopoly. Why do you object to me celebrating it? What harm does it cause you? Is your attitude to me celebrating Christmas one you would like to have associated with the term Christianity?
Christmas has been used as a weapon by Christianity for a long time "Say your prayers or no Christmas for you laddie." It seems you want to continue with this excluding and shunning. But it isn't going to work. Christians don't own Christmas and they don't run the world. I am doing my bit to blunt the weapon of Christmas. If you want to sell Christianity you will have to do it with your myths and dogmas, not Christmas trees and parties. I am teaching people that anybody can have a good time at Christmas without guilt that they are not going to church or they don't believe a word of the myth.
Who is taking your Christmas? Nobody. If you want to run an exclusive Christmas for Christians only then don't leave church. Out in the outside world Christmas is not under anybody's control.
Christians left the martyrdom phase behind sixteen hundred years ago. For the newly ascendant religious right to making out that they are suffering from religious oppression as they are busy introducing their own Taliban regime is just obscene, it is as transparent nonsense as the idea that Hitler had to invade Poland because of the intolerable Polish aggression he faked. |
 |
Hullo,
I'm researching a story on animal abuse in rural Utah, about 30 miles
west of Salt Lake City, USA. Your website happens to be the top google
hit for "eat horses law". Congrats.
I read the whole dialog/debate regarding the ban of horse meat.
You might be interested to know/note (it was not in your debate) that abuse/neglect
of horses (in my community, at least) has already increased as a result of the
ban.
I spoke with a local veterinarian who said, "They just passed a bill where no
more horses can be slaughtered for human consumption ... without federal inspectors
the [horse meat packing] plants can't keep going ... there were three slaughter
houses and that meat went overseas ... [before the law passed] if they've got
an old horse that need to go, they could get a couple hundred bucks for 'em at
auction."
In the above quote, I believe he was saying "there were three slaughter houses
[in Utah]" but I have not clarified that with him yet.
He said, more less, that he's already noticed an increase in horse neglect because
farm/ranch families are confused as to what to do with their aged, useless work
horse. Slaughter houses have shut down because federal regulators of horse slaughter
have already been sacked. So there is no market for the old nags.
It costs money to use humane methods to put down the horse, and it costs money
to put the horse in the landfill. It doesn't cost anything, surely, to just shoot
the horse and bury it in the field, but either that seems like a lot of work
or just some sort of waste because hesitating to take that action is precisely,
the veterinarian said, what is leading to increased horse neglect.
So, where an old horse used to fetch a couple hundred bucks, it now sucks a couple
hundred out of the pocket book.
The bottom line is that horses that used to be sold to slaughter houses are now
being neglected. Perhaps this increase will dissipate as Americans adjust to
the ban and figure out they've just got shoot the damn things, but it sure seems
like a waste, or so it seems to me.
How come the so called horse lovers didn't have the common sense to work out what would happen? Doesn't anybody teach the basic concepts of economics in America? A horse doesn't kill and bury itself. Of course it makes more sense to sell a horse for slaughter than to have to pay somebody to dig a hole to bury the thing and have half its weight in flies emerge over the next few months. A meat trade ensures horses have a value, and things that have a value are obviously going to be better looked after than things which are simply liabilities. People look after horses because they are valuable to them, when they are no longer valuable to them it must be better for the horses that somebody finds they still have a value. |
Americans lacking horse-sense? |
I have read your comment that you believe that religion is unstoppable. You base this on the fact that, so far, the faithful have not turned away in spite of the advances of scinece and technology. I believe that the contrary is indeed true. While most people do have faith in a god of sorts, they are turning away from organized religion in droves. Memes like religion rely on organizations to reinforce and spread them, but the believers are leaving the means through which the memes are spread. Translation: the faith of the faithful is not unshakeable! It's already weakening. I just don't think that enough time has passed for them to realize that they infected with religious memes. With time, I'm sure that all will come around. Science may become the meme to replace religion (as religion replaced superstition, and as superstition replaced total indifference). Punisher |
Look at America, North and South. Look at Africa. Look at the Islamic world. Rationalism is gaining some ground in Europe but in many parts of the world faith in religion is as strong as ever. I can see religion being the preserve of the ignorant bigots with their fibreglass dinosaurs and Genesis theme parks and a tiny handful of paid stooges in universities. But I cannot see religion disappearing. Ever. Anywhere. Literally anywhere. Show me a country with no religious people. Just one. If this is an unstoppable trend that is well under way you should be able to give me one place where it has happened. I doubt you could even name me one university (a few thousand people) that didn't have religious people in it. |
Actually, here in the U.S. churches are shrinking. That's the reason why they are sending evangelists to campuses: the older generation of the religious faithful in this nation is falling away and they are having difficulty replacing those bodies in the pews! Churches are even compromising their doctrines in vain attempts to appeal to larger audiences (ideas fail when they give ground, especially ideas that present themselves as absolute truth). The complete implosion of religion in this country might not happen for a while (perhaps not even in your lifetime), but the ball has gained much momentum over the last half-century and, I'm convinced, keep gaining momentum. As for your comment on the fools with their Genosis theme-parks: let's see ho many visitors they get in the next few decades. These operations require finances to continue; if no one pays the admissions fees, they will in time whither and die. This will take time (seeing how there are still a considerable number of church-goers ready to support it), but when those pews empty these little operations will empty too. As for S. America, Africa, and the Isamofacists; I can't say we'll be rid of them anytime soon. But at least we can sweep our own boarders clean of religion in time. Well get to them in due time, even if we have to exterminate their religion by force... You asked me to show any place that has successfuly rid itself of religion. Well, I don't know if anyone has yet. Then again, the British monarchy made similair comments on the thirteen breakaway colonies and their intentions to start a functioning republic. Keep in mind that all ideas have a maximum lifespan and, sooner or later, will die. It may not have happened yet, but we are approaching such a thing everyday. After all, you can't expect ideas as entrenched as religion and morality to just disipate overnight, right? |
"Keep in mind that " is not an invitation to consider a new unsupported claim disguised as a jogging of the memory. I am not aware of any rule or natural law that says all ideas will die, and neither, I suspect, are you. Do not let wishful thinking cloud your perception of what is actually happening. You acknowledge that religion has not yet died anywhere and yet you are trying to tell yourself and me that its decline and death everywhere is inevitable. I do not for one moment suggest that religion is on the rise or is not in decline in many places. My assertion is that religion will always be able to evolve into a form which will ensure its survival. Both here on our planet and everywhere that communicating intelligences of a sufficient level of complexity exist. The Genesis theme parks illustrate part of the problem. The fight to preserve religion is a duty felt by many religious people, they represent a counter-attack paid for by religionists who feel wounded by science. In contrast there is very little money raised for any direct attacks on religion. Defending irrational belief is seen as a charitable cause, attacking it is seen as bad taste, political and not worthy of charitable status. Trying to kill religion (or a religion) by force is bound to fail,
they thrive on repression and martyrdom. The only prospect is to
blow people away with the power of your culture and then introduce
them to new beliefs. But how are you ever going to get a powerful
culture to become free of religion in the first place? I don't
know. I hope your optimism is right but I am not convinced. |
| I just feel there is no reason for a women to walk around with
the curve of waist and hips showing at belly button level or below |
Here's an experiment I'd like you to try, or imagine if you have a good imagination. Mark on your naked chest the area where breasts and cleavage would be if you were a woman, then try on your clothes. Do you own any clothes which cover most of your torso but expose parts of your breasts when worn in the normal way? Can you provide any evidence that any men own such garments? |
Dear Sir, Tim Surrency |
Josephus was not born until at least a year after the
latest date offered for the death of Jesus. Nobody can be a reliable
witness to something that happened when they were nothing more than a
twinkle in their father's eye.
An Arabic translation is better evidence in that it has probably not been through
Christian hands more recently but it does not overcome the fundamental obstacle
which is the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that the account of Jesus
in Josephus is anything other than a reporting of the word of Christians. If
the reports in Josephus had a clear anti-Christian bias or disputed or ridiculed
Christianity in some way that would be strong evidence but that is not what the
texts reveal. The texts show that Josephus has accepted, at least in part, the
version of the story told by Christians, therefore it cannot be good evidence
for a historical Jesus but only evidence that there was a belief put about by
Christians, at least to outsiders, that Jesus was historical.
Josephus clearly regarded Christians as a minority Jewish sect of no great significance
and not a major threat to Pax Romana. People do not tend to go out of their way
to ridicule the beliefs of relatively insignificant sects. I should know, I do
go out of my way to ridicule religions, but I don't bother with small insignificant
sects. Josephus giving the Christians the benefit of the doubt on the historicity
of Jesus as a man does not seem especially significant.
Sometimes I wonder about people like the author of "The Big Problem". How could he decide himself about his own justification for living on this gifted planet? Will he be thinking that his time will come to say that he should move on to make a space for some other folk who may be more able to do good at spreading his message? Is it true that some people are happy to hear that people in Africa are dying at a faster rate then they are bringing more healthy children into the world? Not good. This world is made for all of us. Honi soit qui mal pense! Kathryn Pollard Australia |
Is a life of utter misery worth starting to live?
I am not suggesting that anybody be killed, just that people (everybody,
equally) restrict breeding to sustainable numbers and yet some people
are so brainwashed that they see this as something terribly bad. Why
is it bad? Yes I know it seems heartless, but why is it bad?
If there is no population excess there will be no famine. It is a very simple
concept to understand. Why do you so easily grasp the wrong end of the stick
and start thrashing about with it?
The world is not made for all of us, and more world is not being made. Without
intelligent action to limit population there will always be a tendency for
more people to be born, a tendency which will not self-limit at the point of
sustainability. Ignoring this iron law of biology because you don't want to think about it is
evil, it ensures that the usual population limiting factors of starvation,
disease and war are left to do the job.
The world economy doesn't have any work for the current destitute and starving.
We don't have any more productive land to give them. There is room for billions
more (space for shacks and hovels) but the only work we have for them is begging
and looking miserable for the television cameras. You are not doing them any
favours by pretending that this is a sustainable strategy.
Unless you are fully prepared for yourself and everybody else to make do with
substantially less, every year, for ever, your I-don't-want-to-think-about-the-nasty-subject
strategy is fundamentally flawed.