Joette:-->is Some Guy Out There the mystery poster we have known as Satan lately? To the "PSEUDO" posters, I think you are being awfully childish. The two being mocked this time around are more than capable of speaking for themselves. - 0:10:14 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I agree. Some previous "pseudo" were actually made just for fun I think and weren't made with the intention of bashing anyone but those who deserve it and we all know who those are. It really pisses me when someone posts behind something such as common as satan. I really prefer to converse with those who use their real names or at least their initials. Otherwise it seems they are hiding. Gotta give it the pray boy, even he uses his real name. I don't believe there is anyone here that doesn't use their own name or some form of it other that dingbats like Quake, who doesn't want to be known and Quietsun who's an idiot anyway. - 0:19:43 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..that's one of the things I like about this page, in that most of us use our names, no handles attached. On Theo Chat, many people there have ridiculous handles, and they take offense if you don't use one. What's the difference between being anonymous and having a made up name? It's good to hear you missed the storm, but too bad Jim is caught in the midst of it. We are enjoying +10 weather here, the sap is running, and there isn't a speck of snow to be seen. It is almost eerie how good the weather has been for us this year. BTW, were you following that case out east where the doctor who had the murder charged dropped when she euthanised a patient. First hemp, next legal euthanasia. Old Erika will be having a bird for sure! - 1:23:42 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:PapaSam; Poor OLD thing, you do err for I charge NO money for that which is of Christ. In fact ALL those who make money from the gospel shall indeed give account for they seek to make MERCHANDISE of the gospel. For of a truth did the Lord Jesus drive out those who had made HIS Father's house, an 'house of merchandise' how much more so for those who have made his gospel the gospel of LUCRE. ALL I have is free and I count not anything to be mine. You do err greatly for NOT knowing that the teaching of the Lord Jesus unto his own was 'freely you have received, freely give' I therefore refuse to sell that which I have been GIVEN, my treasure is in heaven where it abides eternaly. Do you think I would charge for the gospel, do you think I would teach tithing and such error to get rich at the expense of the sheep. Did not God rebuke the shepherds for their errors ? Ezekiel 34.Anyone charging for the gospel is anathema ! I have Godliness with contentment, this to me is great gain. ALL are welcome to download anything from my site, all is free and without charge. - 1:24:24 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:PSEUDO Steven; WRONG, for it was not those of CHRIST who killed 1000's in the past, for a MURDERER does NOPT inherit the kingdom of GOD. These were 'religious' and NOT of CHRIST; satan's sons and NOT sons of LIGHT. To be sure history recorods them as Christian ( so called ) but we who believe were not taught by the master to kill, but to love one another as he has loved us, for this is how ALL will know that we are his disciples, if we love one another. We see this contrast by the Lord's teaching at John 3:16 and at 1 John 3:16 the beloved disciple shows how we ought to walk before each other. Sorry but those of history were NOT Christians but murderers and sons of Satan, for Satan was a murderer from the beginning. - 1:31:12 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:PapaSam; Your 'BULL' is much, but no match for the LAMB OF GOD ! - 1:33:07 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:---RICHARD---Why aren't you in church now? - 1:38:09 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->RICHARD..I'm with Peter. Why aren't you remembering the Sabbath day, and keeping it holy? Are your friends with brains all busy today (betcha they are at church)? - 1:56:06 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

jaywilson--having passed the acid test--:JOETTE: I gave out that URL hoping that folks would bookmark and explore it. Is it "serious reading"? I thought so. Am I a disciple? Hell, no. - 2:10:55 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:I keep the 8th day, the day JESUS arose. - 2:12:44 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:I judge no man in respect of a 'sabbath' day, so long as he is NOT seeking to be justified by keeping it, for he is then he has fallen from grace. My rest is in Christ, who arose on the day after sabbath, the 8th day. The work of Calvary was completed before the sabbath, the resurrection after the sabbath, the 8th, on this day I gather with the saints. - 2:17:33 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:I do NOT 'go to church' that term is misleading, I am a member of the church, and we assemble. - 2:20:02 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:You ought to understand that the resurrection of Jesus on the 8th day prefigured that time to come ( OF NO COUNTING ) ie: eternity, which follows after the 7th DAY of rest for the creation, which will be ushered in when Jesus returns. After this 7th DAY or CHILIAD will come the 8th eternal DAY. That is the reason Jesus rose on the 8th day, he has made ALL things NEW. I HAVE ETERNAL LIFE NOW but I look ahead to that time of eternity. Faith therefore is the SUBSTANCE of things HOPED for, the EVIDENCE of things NOT seen. For many SEEING IS BELIEVING, but for me BELIEVING IS SEEING, therein is the difference between atheism and belief ! - 2:26:19 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:RICHARD-- What made you choose your particular religion over the others? If I may ask, what is your particular religion? - 2:38:57 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:Well, we've all heard of kangaroo court but kangaroo church..ooops "gathering". - 3:30:11 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Yes, I have been following the case and I say great! The pray boys and pray girls of the disabled are whining here though. I have no idea why as I don't see as it's a threat to them. The lady had cancer and wished to die. - 3:33:03 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

QuietSun:Marlene: If I'm an idiot, that would put your IQ dowwn around... say 50 points....since all you seem able to do is insult and swear at people..and even in that you're quite pathetic... - 3:41:14 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:RICHARD. You should send copies of your posting to Pat Robertson, Orel Roberts, and all the ministers and priests here in the USA. They probably skipped Ezekiel in their seminaries. AS for your kind and loving jesus, this is no BULL - This is a quote from your kind and loving LAMB: Luke 19-27. "But those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring them thither and slay them before me." Move over Satan, jesus is taking over. - 3:47:35 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. If the idiots don't answer my questions it doesn't bother me in the least. It just proves that they are unable to give me a logical answer. As for the glass ceiling, I have never been in a position to personally smash it. However, between my wife and I we raised four great kids three daughters and a son - all planned, by the way, and my wife set the number, as was her right. Our children are out there in the real world and are doing their bit. The day will come, not in my lifetime, but perhaps in theirs. As for my concern for women's health problems I put my money where my mouth is. I contribute regularly to many organizations among which are: Feminist Majority, Planned Parenthood, NOW Legal Defense Fund, Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, and NARAL, to name a few. Not great sums, but regularly. Do you? You seriously consider men inferior? How sad. Does your husband know this? "A woman can do very nicely her entire life without a man." However, you didn't choose to go that route. I seem to remember a talk you had with Marlene in which you said you didn't care for the terms 'husband' and 'wife' and preferred the word 'partner'. I also seem to recollect your stating you had a daughter. How many women do you know personally who have gone their entire lives without a man very nicely? As for me, I can't visualize what my life would have been wihout my wife of 46 years. Yes, I have voted for women. The only times I don't vote for them is when they are on the "Right to Life" line. I remember voting for Geraldine Ferraro for Vice President on the ticket with Walter Mondale. If you have any other questions I'll be glad to answer them. - 4:32:00 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--SAM--It's Oral Roberts, and Orel Herschiser - 5:13:25 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--Does fundieism create assholes, or does assholedom lead to fudieism? Or does assholedom and fundiesm survive on some kind of perpetual, inpenetrable, symbiotic and vicious circle? Should it be considered a form of mental illness? I'm sure there are psychiactric bodies that consider it as such. It is a form of mind-infection. Richard, do you know? Ever been chased by some burly people dressed in white? - 5:22:19 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--SAM--Of course they have no logical answer. Whenever one engages in a theistic/atheistic debate, it doesn't take long for the theist to attempt to discredit logic as being valid. They then assume their arguments are valid--but if they discredit the veracity of logic--they are discrediting the very faculty they must rely on to continue with the argument. One then just assumes then if logic doesn't count--their arguments won't either. And that also includes making the very statement that logic doesn't count. When this then is pointed out to the theist that it is self-contadictory to say "you can't always depend on logic"--you pour gasoline on the inferno of absurdity in their arguments. And it happens EVERY, EVERY time. - 5:32:20 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:PETER. That fundiesm -assholedom hit the nail squarely on the head. Your analysis was perfect. Do you think RICHARD preaches to the kangaroos? I think he'd have a hard time finding a human audience. - 7:38:33 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

SATAN:Marlene, I am hurt!!! You think my name is GENERAL??? I am SATAN... nothing general abou that!!! See you tomorrow night honey. - 11:13:59 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

VISIT:. - 12:27:17 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->SAM..yes, I do consider men to be weaker than women. Probably not a good choice of words when I said "inferior" because all homo sapiens are equal, although not always treated as such. And yes, my spouse is well aware of my views on this. - 14:10:07 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->obviously the Beatles had it right. There are "8 Days a Week"! - 14:12:44 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:PETER, PAPASAM, ---Attention, Science update! ---They've discovered new thought particles, existing in fundie's and causing assholedom, that are located between their ears. This particle causes actually cause "truth decay." This condition is incurable, but one can have a salutary effect by "mental flossing" twice a day. - 15:52:36 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:Should read, "These particles actually cause…" - 15:55:02 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:Fundie Absurdiveness Training Class starts tomorrow and the first topic will be: DON'T GET EVEN, GET ODD. - 16:00:49 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

jaywilson--sensing a breakdown in communication--:JOETTE: Explain what you mean by "weaker", please. - 16:08:00 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, Men are only weaker that women because, as I explained once before, nature shorted them on the total quantity of blood in the body for proper operation. When looking upon a pretty woman, a man's blood makes a quick exit from the brain for other vital body parts, thus rendering him confused, weak, and semi-conscious. - 16:12:50 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

jaywilson--Well, '98 is an erection year!:BILL: You're being too hard-on us guys. - 17:04:20 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

Bill feels a little fruity..:Erection year or not, us men ARE at a disadvantage to women because God commanded to men that, "Thy rod and thy shaft shall comfort you." Eve got to shop around and pick whatever fruit she wanted, while Adam was left with only a pealed banana; definitely a hard-on our gender. - 19:14:37 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--How can you fing a blind man in a nudist colony?----It's not hard. - 19:25:30 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->Suddenly the guys are all grabbing their crotches and chuckling together. Male bonding or what? JAY..because I don't know you, do not know your situation in life etc., I cannot give you a good answer to your question. I will say though I stand by what I said in my post to Sam yesterday, except as I mentioned this morning, I substitute "inferior" for "weaker". I do not use the word in a physical sense, but it is clear that physically most women are no match for a man when it comes to such things as baseball, football, basketball and all the other fun stuff in life, but in day to day living, a woman can multi-task much better than the men I know. I am in now wise belittling you or any other man, I just think (no, I know it) that women can persevere under difficult situations better than men. Now, I have to get back to work, and I hope you guys aren't being rendered useless because a pretty woman just walked by. - 19:34:54 on 1 Mar 98 GMT

PAPASAM:PETER. Re Oral and Orel - to paraphrase the Bard - "A stinkweed by any other name would smell as rank" - 1:52:47 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

jaywilson--vacuousness sucks--:JOETTE: To summarize, then: 1) You "stand by" your earlier comments that men are "inferior to" or "weaker than" women; 2) You cannot explain to me what you mean by either statement because you "don't know me" or "[my] situation that well"; 3) nevertheless, you "know" this alleged male inferiority to be true in "difficult situations". If this is your argument, then I must say you are the best refutation of its thesis. - 1:52:56 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. You should re-read my poem "An Atheist's Prayer" the part about women. "They would walk hand in hand with men, different but equal, in a natural symbiosis." - 1:57:03 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:JOETTE-- I think we can all agree on the disproportionate influence of sex drive on men's thinking. Do woman persevere under difficult situations better than men? Yes, I think so. Do women do better without men than the converse? Probably. Does this make women superior? Isn't this an arbitrary judgment because of the arbitrary selection of qualities to compare? Are these the most significant differences? We could take all the differences between men and women and average them. No, that wouldn't work; some differences are less significant than others so should be given less weight. We'll have to rate the differences as to significance, assign numbers, and average these numbers. Meanwhile, while we're arguing about what is important and who gets to rate significance, is it really any different for women to claim superiority over men than for a men to claim it over women? - 2:08:59 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->Jay...I obviously opened a can of worms here, without being to explain myself properly. Actually it can't be refuted, proved or anything else on this page because we are all in a make believe world here anyway. We could write whatever sounded good. Therefore, if you would like to discuss this privately let me know. Same goes for any of you. BTW..I wasn't avoiding anything here, it's just that I have been working for the last 10 hours, and I have many miles to go before I sleep. - 2:46:01 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT...I am not claiming women are superior. I claiming that women are generally stronger than men psychologically. You may all accuse me of making a broad generalization, but I speak from a not so micro-experience. - 2:48:13 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->SAM..believe me, I don't have to read your "prayer" again. - 2:49:08 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:NO SENSE here. - 10:35:32 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:PapaSam; I have absolutely NO time for any so called Christians who make MONEY from the gospel; I will not take money from the poor, I will NOTb take food from them,,but give to them instead, for Jesus taught us to GIVE, not take ! to TAKE is ANATHEMA. Now secondly the DAY will come when Jesus himself WILL SLAY 1000's of his enemies when he returns, and his garments will be drenched in their blood; see ISAIAH 63:1-4. Jesus when he read from ISAIAH 61:1,2; as recorded in the gospel of LUKE 4:16-21; stopped his reading in the middle of vs 2. He was sent to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord... the DAY OF VENGENCE is to come. Note how Jesus ceased reading when he got to the middle of ISAIAH 61:2. - 10:47:40 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:You people have been listening to the wrong message, you have got your eyes on those who seem to be ministers of righteousness but are SATAN's ministers. These get on TV and preach like there is NO tommorrow, then they hold out their hand for MONEY, they build CRYSTAL cathedrals, they love buildings and playgrounds, they love the admirations of men, but this is NOT CHRIST, this is NOT JESUS, this is NOT the SPIRIT OF GOD. Oh no, Jesus sent his people NOT to MAKE MONEY, but disciples; to baptise in his name and teach them of GOD, not how to INCREASE IN WEALTH, not how to murder and maime, and certainly NOT to seek the adulation of others!!!! WOE BETIDE any Christian who thinks that the gospel is the gospel of MERCHANDISE, woe betide any Christian who seeks to get GAIN from the gospel !! ALL such will know the fear of falling into the hands of the living GOD. It has been a long, long time since PETER said "SILVER AND GOLD HAVE I NONE" Acts 3:6; but he had that which is the wealth of GOD, he had the name of JESUS, by the which we are SAVED ! There was a man who sought to buy the holy spirit and he received BLINDNESS instead, for seeking to buy that of God, IMAGINE how much more SEVERE judgement will they come under who seek to make the gospel merchandise !!!! God have MERCY on them I pray. - 11:02:00 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:BILL; You need to learn to,TRUST in Jesus, you need to learn to trust in GOD mate. Then instead of being JUST a 'PARTICLE' you can become an ARTICLE, and ARTICLE belonging to GOD, he, he, he.... - 11:33:11 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Joette; You are NOT stronger than me, I do have a complex, I give people a complex, and I break anyone who plays mind games with me. I do NOT like MIND GAMES, but I break anyone who tries to play them with me. TWO women have found that out so far. Man is the head of the woman, and she is to obey her husband, that's it, there's NO more. - 11:38:27 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Women are NOT superior, they are subject to the man. - 11:40:41 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->RICHARD..so you beat your women up. That's mighty strong of you. You are so full of shit it's coming out your eyeballs. - 11:41:03 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Now that will give some of you rebellious fememists and lesbians ( if any )something to think about, something to harp about. You might think I'm a male PIG, if so; then let me assure you I know how to GRUNT !!! Any husband under the authority of his wife or children is a WEAKING and NOT worthy of his MANHOOD. - 11:43:51 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Joette (a perfect case in point for my argument):-->RICHARD..you are so bloody paranoid that if someone gave you a million dollars with no strings attached, you would still think they were playing mind games with you. I don't know how you would be able to recognize a mind game, since you probably shat your mind out a few years ago. You are a lunatic. - 11:45:10 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->RICHARD..what exactly is MANHOOD? Is it the right to slap women around if they have the audacity to disagree with you? Did you ever think it's because of your insanity that your women left you, or sought solace from a normal person? Have you ever looked at yourself? - 11:47:57 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Joette; No I do NOT beat up or hit women, I said if they play mind games then they lose, that does not mean I beat them up. Your response is EXACTLY what I mean, any man who does NOT LOVE his wife should be whipped, and any man who hits a woman should be whipped too. I said I do not like mind games, and I will break, anyone who tries them. BREAK did not mean assault as you in your weak response thought. ANY man who hits his wife is a BASTARD as far as I am concerned ! - 11:48:33 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Joette; YOU poor old thingy, you have NOT understood what I have said, your reaction is of interest though, YOU are an interesting STUDY in the 'ASSUMING MIND,' sorry you're WRONG again. - 11:51:45 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Joette; YOU poor old thingy, you have NOT understood what I have said, your reaction is of interest though, YOU are an interesting STUDY in the 'ASSUMING MIND,' sorry you're WRONG again. - 11:51:51 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:---RICHARD---Do you watch Australian Football? - 11:54:50 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Joette; YOU are a good example of the inability to READ and PERCEIVE what is said, do you suffer from DYSLEXIA ?? there is help available for you. - 11:56:44 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:PETER; I do not follow sport, I prefer to be a thinker, the RACE i run is for the resurrection from the dead. I have no time for 'sports' nor for men who hit women, the lash for them I say. - 11:58:49 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--RICHARD---Figures. Of course you don't--fundies rarely are sports fans. It involves activity that involves joining the real world. And I had no doubt that you didn't. You are not a man. Real men watch football. A thinker? I have yet to see any evidence that would remotely suggest you do. - 12:05:47 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:I would consider any man who hits his wife, who is his BELOVED, to be nothing more than scum to be wiped off the shoe. - 12:07:05 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->RICHARD..and there is help available for you too! (oh, that's right; you told that psychiatrist that you knew more than he did). I bet you did beat your wife up! And your children to right, mate? "Spare the rod and spoil the child". That's how your rod comforts you, I bet. - 12:09:13 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->RICHARD..what do you do? You don't follow sports..do you watch television? Do you know what year this is? - 12:11:32 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:PETER; REAL MEN do not need to watch football, in fact REAL MEN are those who know how to LOVE THEIR WIFE, REAL MEN do not hit their spouse, REAL MEN DO NOT treat the wife as DIRT. And as far as football is concerned, why should I watch a lot of men fondling each other ??? why should I WASTE my time watching a lot of CRAP ? I suppose YOU would want any son you have ( if any ) to play football ? it is better to train your son ( if any ) in the way he should go, in his talents. A MAIN reason for youth suicide is the downright SELFISH attitude of some father's who try to PUSH their chidren into some mould. - 12:13:58 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Joette; PSYCHIATRISTS ? why the LOT of them are MAD themselves, they formulated the idea of the FINAL SOLUTION ! Psychologists too are also AROUND THE TWIST, it is they who are responsible for a lot of the MISERY people suffer. ANd NO I do not beat women or children, YOU do ERR AGAIN, and have NOT read what I have said, and that is the great pity, for YOU assume. - 12:18:14 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--RICHARD--: YOU are not a real man. - 12:19:50 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->RICHARD..you can say whatever you want here, because I can't come there and see for myself. I think you are a liar though. YOU are the madman, and it is YOU and YOUR ILK that are responsible for most of the misery today, yesterday, and since the beginning of mankind. - 12:22:17 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:PETER; Before the foot-BALL there was the foot-HEAD, they kicked around a few heads back then; after cutting them off of course. If you wait long enough you can kick mine around, I will lose it under the ANTICHRIST, you will be on HIS TEAM no doubt. However I've read the BIBLE through and IN THE END THE CHRISTIANS WIN !! he, he, he... - 12:23:59 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->RICHARD..just so you don't think you have put me into submission, I have to go to work now, just like any good radical feminist would do. - 12:24:15 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:PETER; Those who believed on Christ Jesus are REAL MEN, they are COMPLETE MEN also, new creatures, who NEED NOT play football to prove themselves ! he, he, he... - 12:26:51 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Joette; You poor old thingy, once more you do err, now you assume me a liar, because I stand up for women, and oppose those ( real men/bastards ) who play FOOTBALL and beat their wife ! - 12:29:30 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Joette; The truth hurts you, yet it is you who hurt yourself in the end, you lose, like PETER for you both err in your HEART. - 12:32:27 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:A REAL MAN will die for his wife, a REAL MAN is described in EPHESIANS 5:21-33; something PETER and JOETTE will NEVER know, unless they learn to CRY ( before GOD ) but it is their PRIDE that keeps them from CRYING. - 12:35:29 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:RICHARD: Do you push your children into the mould of true christianity? No sport? What about Jesus? "He shoots, he scores, he SAVES!" - 12:39:33 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:RICHARD: Will a real man die for his wife, regardless of her sins? For better or for worse? Would you die for your divorced wife? - 12:44:14 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROB..I guess Jesus was Canadian then? - 13:10:52 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:RICHARD<<>>so what happens when your child decides they want to be an atheist? Or even better what if your child decides that Budha is his/her salvation? I bet anything you push christianity down their throat. - 13:36:12 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:---RICHARD---On what date does the 21st century begin? - 13:42:31 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:---I wonder if Jesus would have been as good as Dominic Hasek. - 13:45:20 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--RICHARD--Come to think of it, have you ever heard of "Rocket" Richard? --or Henri " the Pocket Rocket" Richard? - 13:47:57 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

RON...--->RICHARD...: Getting hot under the collar? Thought you xtian types didn't let that happen? Chill. Deep breath...explain to me what God is NOT. - 14:31:44 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Bill with a current affairs update..:I heard sometime yesterday that Bill Clinton admitted having a relationship with Lewinski, but it wasn't sexual! This bible totin' political public image leaves a lot to be desired. We always have to read between the lines on everything he says. What he may really be saying to the public is, "she only rolled it around in her mouth, but she didn't inhale!" For Corney's sake, if you're going to lie, lie; if you're going to tell the truth, tell the truth! But Mr. Clinton, at this stage in your life and political career, I strongly recommend that you do us all a favor; when it comes to your personal life, just don't open your mouth or anyone else's! - 14:40:43 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Joette: No, I think he played soccer for Juventus. Word has it he had a legendary cross which his supporters often tried to immitate (though most never got past the dribbling stage). - 14:44:43 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Bill defending the Mad psychologists...:Psychologists might say that Fundamentalists (fundie's) are emotionally, but not necessarily intellectually, challenged individuals. They have, in many cases, "experienced" or "caused" great personal pain in life and the "fear" or "quilt" of these experiences causes them to adopt an extreme position in life that serves several purposes: 1) This extreme position acts as an "ostrich barrier" (head in the sand) to future painful life experiences; 2) This extreme position allows the fundie to pay penitence for their past wrongs; 3) This position gives them a "warm fuzzy feeling," at the expense of others of course, by elevating themselves above others. I'm glad I'm Mad or a Psychologist! - 15:15:25 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:ALL<<>>Richard may have the mad cow disease! LOL - 15:23:44 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Last nite saw on some tv news journal a program on the effects of chemical warfare as it happened to the Iranians. In any case, it has some pretty dismal consequences. So, while SH has such chemical stuff, it is a terrible danger. But, what about the freeworld where for economic reasons freeworld chemicals are viewed as innocuous and accidental, which are compensated by cash? Is this really so different? - 15:38:03 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: That passage you mentioned of sparin'the rod, it is in the good book- the catholic one, "Spare the rod HATE the child". - 15:40:30 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Bill is NOT Mad...:Correction, my last post should have read, "I'm glad I'm NOT Mad or a Psychologist!" Just a little footnote on fundie's. Fun-da-mentalist---an oxymoron word for sure? Fundie's have a photographic mind---they use the negatives to develop their picture of life. To cure, I prescribe a good laugh-sitive twice a day, which will ensure regu-hilarity. - 15:41:02 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>yes Sadam has some chemical weapons. Would you say that Mr. Clinton is any more responsible or moral than Sadam? I would say not, but he has control of Nuclear Weapons. Pretty scarry huh. - 15:41:07 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:Real men do occasionally, but not in Richards case, cum from downunder. Just teasing Richard! - 15:52:11 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:STEVEN: Good ol'BC, he brings to mind the joke of Quail that if Bush died the order was shoot Quail, well BC is as confused as RICHARD but, since BC is in a powerful seat, if he goes for the hot button he needs to be stopped and strapped down. - 15:54:09 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--STEVEN--As much as Billy-boy like to play "hide the sausage"--I would not put him anywhere close to matching Saddam's moral shortcomings. remember, Saddam wanted the Kurds out of northeren Iraq, and implemented chemical attacks on them. That would be like Clinton deciding he didn't like the Cajun's down in Weezee-anna no more and dropped a few similar bombs on them. Despite his flaws, I don't see Clinton doing something like that. - 15:54:31 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, Generalized statements, comparing one gender weakness to another, are generally not safe to make. Psychology wise, I am the stronger, wiser, and more stable in my family…hahahaha…heheheheh…snort…burp! - 16:08:18 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:PETER<<>>I agree to a point. What no one seems to realize is that the Kurds have been rebelling and fighting the Iraq government for years. The Kurds were by no means innocent. I do not believe they deserved gas attacks, especially the innocents. I think the situation between Iraq gov. and the Kurds is similar to the US Army and the South Vietnamese/Vietcong problem. The US army had a difficult time telling who was an innocent S. Vietnamese and who was Vietcong. So we killed them all. I think this may be the Sadam is thinking. He is not able to tell who is the rebel and who isn't, so he bombs them all. From everything that I have read, it is not an ethnic cleasing thing. - 16:09:50 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: The thot hit me, that if I see you on the theochat site that I'd enter with the pseudonym- Apples. Then we'd begin a real theologic chat bereft of the harmless insignificant prayin'and blessin'bull shit now there. Those ignoramuses don't discuss theology because they, as that one name couldn't didn't, know a godthing to talk or write about. ANY, on the kurd thing, that was terrible, some of the pictures of the dead showed they just about dropped where they stood maybe grabbing at a loved one on the way down. Some of the yet living were in a terrible sad state, that I have to include that with the same disgust I hold of the freeworld's use of chemicals. - 16:12:49 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:PETER, STEVEN, I think we should do the rational thing and just NUKE EM till they glow in the dark. Remember survival of the fittest! Hahahah! - 16:13:21 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>have you ever seen pictures of Hiroshima? Have you ever seen the S. Vietnamese children killed by Napalm? - 16:18:16 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:STEVE: That is a very good point because the good ol'U.S.of A. would know about that kind of indiscriminant killing. And, if any here ought to laugh at BC- the USA representative, for decrying SH for not honoring his agreements, you can- what has the USA done about you pre-American USA types with whom certain agreements were made? Now would be a good time to settle with those pre-American USA people, hell, you folks only make .6 of 1% of the USA population. - 16:25:30 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:ANY<<>>I wonder if Napalm is considered a chemical weapon. - 16:25:56 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>the US was very thorough when it came to killun those there Injuns! - 16:29:10 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>I think that Sadam should be disposed of. However, I do not believe that US soldiers should die doing it. Let Jordan, Saudi, Kuwait, Israel, etc... take care of Sadam. They are the ones that have to deal with him. We just get to deal with oil prices going up and down. - 16:37:28 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..and all you other inferior man children...I am not making generalizations at all. I am speaking from the knowledge I have acquired while walking the earth, studying society. For those of you who share a relationship with a woman (sorry, Richard, you don't get to join)...ask HER who she thinks is the stronger of the two. I think your eyebrows may get raised, and your ego blown to smithereens (anybody who beats their female partner can't play because she wouldn't be able to give an honest answer). - 16:43:39 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Joette (back to work I go to push all these men around):-->ROB..everybody has their cross to bare! Good post..you be so funny mon! - 16:45:32 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:STEVEN, Napalm is a chemical mixture of gasoline and Styrofoam that sticks to the skin and burns one's body. I just love the smell of napalm in the morning! - 16:47:28 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:STEVE: Up until I saw what I considered was convincing proof I withheld any opinion of the SH matter, but now that fella he is just another Andrew Jackson, Adolf Hitler, Stalin, that philopino dictator, and if BC wants to do anything, then do what george did to noriega- kidnap SH. But, I am of the opinion this country means to have the arab's oil. I recall in an article that this country uses an outrageous amount of energy, something like over 80% of the total that the world uses. - 16:47:40 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, My wife admits I am emotionally, but not necessarily intellectually, stronger than her and, in the past, let me handle most of the high stress problems we encounter with my oldest kid say…. Courts/judges, psychiatrists, etc. She tends to take the ostrich approach when the stress becomes to great. - 16:57:08 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, Oh, I never beat my wife; but I'm not above some playful spankings from time to time. Lol! - 17:01:16 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, I think I know what you predilection may be; men are dogs/pigs (ha) and women are more sensitive, caring, enduring, multi-task, organized, hard working, and loving (mental of course)---right? Yes, I have seen these qualities a lot in women and they speak well for your gender. I still would be loath to make generalizations based on my "walking the earth, studying society" qualifications. As JW once ask, how would you define "weakness?" These generalizations are very arbitrary and subjective, IMO. - 17:25:23 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..I do not consider men dogs/pigs. I consider men to be the same as me, just not able to handle as much pressure as the superwoman of the 90's. - 20:56:48 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..so you are implying that any study I have done, any text books I have written, and any experiences I have had, or whom people I know have had, would still constitute generalizations? If that be true, then anything written, researched etc would have to be considered the same. Therefore, any comment you make regarding singularities would also have to be considered a generalization. - 22:00:10 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->that should read "read", not "written". I do poetry, not textbooks. I guess that will make me inferior to you all. - 22:02:02 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:RICHARD: Do you really have any reason to "believe" that your all, which is the sum total of your living experience, is the all, that it truely addresses the all of all that is? As you live and breath the moment that you read this is there anything that honestly and truely accounts for all that is? You would like to posit that some ideas written by some humans, who were barely not prehumans, who used their experience as a means to compose a book that accounts for this all, that you choose to "believe in". Does that really seem like to you a thinking man's proper response? - 22:07:20 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:RICHARD: I have been watching you in what appears to me to be, your travails as you want to promote your religeous myths and superstitions, that defy the human mind, upon the few nontheists here. I have inquired of other religeous believers to share what makes their godthing, whatever their mind thinks it is, or feels, and none have had anything to say that I did not already know of, so far. Do you have something knowledgeable to present or is this just some confusion of your inner outer inward outward comprehensions? If it is invisible that should not be a problem to you if it is true, here consider what Newton had to say to show his views, or Copernicus, what they sought to say was true and they showed their views to be so. Where is your godthing, jc, that ghost thing, any angel, any soul, the heaven or the hell, just prove where they are? If you can't then perhaps you should forthwith, stop your nonsense. - 22:38:24 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, Terms like "weakness," as applied to a whole gender, are "subjective" and until you define what you mean, your postings will remain as generalizations in my mind. I fail to see how this subjectivity is comparable to any objective scientific information that I have posted on here. I have produced, upon request, research or creditable authors to back up my posting. Unless you define your subjective terms and offer some research to back up your posting, they will remain somewhat dubious to me, but possibly not PS. - 23:39:46 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:PAPASAM, I am curious; what's your opinion on my discussion with Joette? - 23:41:00 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

James--->Steven...:For crying out loud Steven, get a grip. We killed them all because we could not tell friend from foe???? You watch to many movies! Try this link for info on the Vietnam policing action. - 23:52:39 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

Joette zzzzzzz:-->BILL..I am too tired to talk tonight (worked 36 hours in the last 3 days) so after I have had some much needed sleep, I will be back with both guns blazing. I would like to add though that I have never had to seek approval from another poster such as you just did. Makes you look fairly weak, doesn't it? - 23:58:45 on 2 Mar 98 GMT

James--->Joette...:Are these sexist rantings actually yours? Do you really want to have a discussion on which is the stronger sex? It took me a long time to decide that I would even comment on your original post of sort. These questions are all I could come up with. - 0:00:07 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, Referring to PS was not a weakness in my posting to you as he is a proclaimed atheists feminist and if anyone here supports your position it might be him. I definitely relate to long hours, so I'll let you off the hook till tomorrow; then I'm going to spank your feminist's ass! :~) - 0:30:58 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. Bill didn't ask for my approval. He asked for my objective opinion. You say that men cannot stand pressure as much as the superwoman of today. Do you mean all women or are you referring just to yourself? BILL. Each person, male or female, is a unique individual. I personally see no reason for antagonism between the sexes. As I've said before, to Joette's annoyance, I believe "men and woman should walk together, hand in hand, in a mutual symbiosis." As for determining the quality of an individual's Judgement, I would ask the following questions to start with. Are you married? If so are you happily married? Have you ever been divorced? If a person is unhappy in marriage or has been divorced it would imply poor judgement on that individual's part in choosing a mate. - 1:26:28 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:PAPASAM, I've only been married once and for 28 years and counting. You reflect my sentiments, as well, with your comment of walking hand in hand in mutual symbiosis. Of course I have used the terms "reciprocity and mutual respect" here many times in referring to healthy relationships whether they are marriage, business, or friendships. While I do recognize differences in gender, race, cultural, and generations, I see no sense in categorizing, generalizing, or stereotyping the strengths or weaknesses between them. Each person or relationship is unique to me and must stand on it's own ground. I know when to listen to my wife and she knows when to let me lead. We are equal partners and to be otherwise would cause migration of our healthy relationship towards conflict, sickness, and ultimate demise. My wife is the female that I admire most in the world, but then again it took me 28 years to get her just the way I want her, ha! - 2:16:55 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. Why do you work twelve hours a day? Are you the only one able to do the work, or is your boss too cheap to hire more help? I hope you're getting time and a half for overtime. - 4:28:22 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:CARL; Jesus is Lord, that is something you fail to comprehend, and Joette fails also, for she cannot admit that there are men who do NOT hit the wife; she suffers from the syndrome whereby ALL men must of necessity BASH their wife. I deny such thinking and believe that a husband should love his wife and NOT hurt her at all. Joette cannot handle this truth and so would of need call me ( liar ) thus her soma is confused; and she would rather have a husband who BEATS her, than one who loves her. She would feel justified if BEATEN, rather than loved. - 4:33:31 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Such is the way of psychology and psychologists, ALL these are MAD of course. The tenet of psychology denies the existance of God, and makes gods of men. Psychology was the founder of the FINAL SOULTION, it condones the killing of the aged and the infirm, and in the end ALL who oppose it. NO doubt the coming Antichrist will have psychologists as his main worshippers ! but we who belong to God will NOT worship such, for we see psychology for the GODLESS teaching that it is. Psychology has much to answer for, and the misery it has caused to many. - 4:38:44 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Psychologists therefore are of necessity the ENEMIES of God, their father is that great 'spiritual psychiatrist' SATAN, whose servants they are. No one knows my mind but the spirit that dwells in me, and on this matter I have the mind of Christ. - 4:44:23 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Ah to be sure the ways of the world are NOT the ways of God. The way of God ois so simple that you WISE of this world fail to perceive it, for in hearing you do not understand. - 4:47:37 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Looks like adulterer BILL CLINTON has missed his chance to bomb people ? there might be peace instead, shock, horror of it all, PEACE, what shall BILL do, he, he, he... - 4:50:09 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Jessica:RICHARD : Don't talk about things you know nothing about, psychology has done a lot of good for a lot of people and helped people who would have otherwise been left to a life of misery. Just because there is a culture in certain countries of "psychotherapy" being the in thing, and of everyone and their pet beig in counselling, that doesn't make the whole of psychology bullXXXX. Do your homework. - 11:22:47 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->PAPASAM..I don't know what my marital status has to do with my opinions, and if you were to read everyone's posts, you would know the answer to that one. As far as working 12 hours a day, again, if you read posts, you would know what I do for a living, and you know the cycle of the work I do. BTW, I am the boss. - 11:35:37 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->SAM..I would also like to inquire as to why your opinion is "objective" while my own is "subjective"? - 12:01:16 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:RICHARD: Do you dent there to be such a thing as mental illness (be it depression, schizophrenia, personallity disorders or whatever)? No catch here, just a straightforward question. - 12:24:28 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Rob (with the dental floss):Sorry- that should read "Do you deny" - 12:26:07 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:JAMES<<>>I think that if you had read my posts you would know that that is what I was saying. I don't need to read any website to know about Vietnam and the 'police' action. Tell the Vietnamese that we just dropped the Napalm for our little police action. We should have never been in Vietnam. Or will you argue that also James. - 13:58:36 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>>i hope you are jokeing about the super woman of the 90's stuff. - 14:05:34 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:RICHARD<<>>you need to look up the English word called 'clue', and then you need to get one. - 14:06:17 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Bill with his subjective psychological analysis... :Categorizing and stereotyping a "whole of anything" is generally not a safe practice. If someone says something like "all psychologist are MAD," then what he/she may be saying is: 1) I am MAD. 2) I am stupid. 3) I am of a weak and insecure mind. 4) I have low self-esteem. 5) Psychologists are a barrier to my ascendancy and autocracy within personal relationships and they must be discredited. 6) Psychologists have hurt me in the past! - 14:23:58 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:1-800-PSYCH Hello, Welcome to the Psychiatric Hotline. If you are obsessive-compulsive, please press 1 repeatedly. If you are co-dependent, please ask someone to press 2. If you have multiple personalities, please press 3, 4, 5 and 6. If you are paranoid-delusional, we know who you are and what you want. Just stay on the line so we can trace the call. If you are schizophrenic, listen carefully and a little voice will tell you which number to press. If you are depressed, it doesn't matter which number you press. No one will answer. - 14:55:06 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:At work recently I attended a class where the instructor said: "One out of every four people is suffering from some form of mental illness. Check three friends. If they're OK, then it's you." - 14:57:32 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--BILL--Also in the same vein, "I hate my life, I hate my mind--it is my greatest enemy,( As is my body which leads me to sin ) I am terrified to have any control over my mind, and I'll let what I presume is some some supernatural force control it,( which is attained by putting my mind in a fog ) because it doesn't function naturally in the natural world" - 15:03:12 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:PETER, I am reminded of someone saying once: "I may be schizophrenic, but at least I have each other!" - 15:26:27 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

George:RELIGION is a widespread form of mental illness. (S. Freud) It is a very lethal virus that attacks the mind and causes the inability to form rational thoughts and decisions for oneself. Religious indoctrinations wipe out peoples freethinking ability. - 15:29:29 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:RICHARD: Your deflections are nothing more than some man not wanting to say what you are or who you are. As I inquired what makes your all the all that is? This weakness of character, however, do you dare attribute it to your godthing or is the world the default factor? As for the blindness, perhaps it is only you who strive to create where there is nothing and for a null thing? Those two names I mentioned did not see the things they referred to but I am certain now, of those things they inscribed of are so, can you not do likewise for your godthing, if it is real or so simply great? Is it in the vastness of the outer all or is it in the vastness of one's mind? Where is it RICHARD? Or is it just you, who are just another human among many who prefer to say as you want, and that only for the sake of saying, perhaps it is like your scent mark, for that which yours? ANY, your zoological views that humans are only, seem apparent when seeing something someone like the religious believer RICHARD. - 15:37:53 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:JAMES: Your vietnam facts site is interesting and certainly appears favorable. Do you know of a site that portrays facts from the other side that is not kiss-ass like? I doubt one like westmoreland will say anything that might be detrimental to his place in history, the same might be said of any of the other references. But, I must withhold, for your sake, any opinion until I see more, afterall coverup action must necessarily include true facts in order for its proposed view to be digestible. I know some who served there and they did not have as rosy a view as that report might have one believe. They were there I was not, of such reports well, is this a question of, 'what do you WANT to believe?' - 15:55:57 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:RICHARD: Psychology..."makes gods of men." How did you arrive at that conclusion? Did you see that as a means to validate your genesis myth of a god-man creation, which sure seems to mean that humans are gods due to their parentage. Why? Well, black men produce black-like offspring, etc.etc. So gods must produce likewise, true? So does this not mean you religeous believers see yourself as godlike? Is this not your foremost objection to atheism, that such people deny, not so much the god thing as it is the denial of one to be godlike? The religeous believer does not want to be just a human with its finiteness you guys want to be as a godthing, but not the godthing itself, as that would be wanting too much. - 16:20:00 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: who here is gettin'a giddy feeling at being so near one who is so near the supernatural as the RICHARD? Is this guy nutz? Next, the RICHARD will be inscribing o'his mother the vm, and raisin the dead and partin'seas but, I bet he can't beat satan. Jokes aside, well there goes another religious believer who can't show me where is his/her god, so he/she is going over the edge instead. How frail are their minds, it is sad. - 16:50:44 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:Ah Karumba! I see you mens are pickin on us womens again! One of the greatest myths is that "women are the weaker sex". In the only area they may truly be weaker is the "muscle area" otherwise they have as much, if not more in some cases, fortitude as men. Strength comes in many forms, from the woman who leaves the security of her home due to abuse to the woman who does not leave the security of their home despite the abuse. It takes strength to survive no matter what the conditions. The myth that women are weaker is only a myth created by men as a type of psychological training. If one believes they are weak, then they will be. Within the last 100 years, the realization that the god-myth is man-made has caused a falling away from living by the standards of religious dogma enlightening people (both women and men) of the discrimination toward women in the judeo-xtain religions. With the "fear of the lord" taken care of, women can go back to being people. In some cases, I think, women may be even more agressive than men, most especially when it comes to the protection of the children. This may be pure instinct. - 18:24:52 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:MARLENE<<>>i am one who believes that in today's business world woman are as strong as men. However, if the world collapsed into anarchy, women would once again be the subservient of the two sex's. Not because women are not as intelligent as men, but because women are not as STRONG physically. There was a reason that woman had a lesser place in society in the past, it is called survival. The woman took care of the children because the men were fighting the wars, or earning the pay. In every culture, except for mabey one, the society was patriarchal. I think that you would agree that men are the stronger of the two sex's physically. Being strong physically was much more important in the past than it is today. In today's society it is not necessary for a man to hunt his prey, corner it and kill it. It is not necessary for a man to fight in wars which require swinging large weapons in hand to hand combat. It is not necessary for women to cook every meal, we have resteraunts and men that can cook just as well. It is not necessary for the women to exist just to breed. It is not necessary for women to be subservient in todays society, but if we were to regress then things would be different, for survival. It is not that males wished to keep women in there place, it was necessary for survival of the village, cave, etc... - 18:41:18 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: So far the issue from the male side seems to concern the elder male-statesmen of this site. As for the strength thing, both sides have their moments on some general matters, in some specific areas however, the views are different due to certain interests, but is this not so in all matters for all individuals, otherwise we'd all be just children of RICHARD's godthing. - 18:41:30 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:Now on the subject of psychology...I think the new psychology is as damaging as religion and may very well become a religion. I see nothing wrong with the more scientific practice and application of psychiatry(sp). I was watching a show on teens (who dress too provocatively). The run-of-the-mill, know everything (from book, and may be writing one besides), show sponsered psychologist was giving advice to these teens and their parents. There was little emphasis put on the behavior of the teen, drug use, lack of protection during sex etc.. The big deal was on how they dressed and that they were sexually active (which IMO is one of the most normal human behaviors there is). This psychologist was "in the standard psychologist uniform", suit with shorter skirt, big earrings, huge pearl-type necklace, pouffed short hair, silky type blouse and she said to the teen "you need to dress with self-esteem". Now wouldn't it look just peachy for these teens to wear zulu warrior jewelry and dress just like a psychologist! Who in hell cares what the kids wear!!! I care more if they are on drugs. Also she was trying to discourage them from being sexually active by getting them to follow their dreams. I agree with the "follow their dreams advice" but how would that curb their sexual activity. I would be more concerned that they be using protection. - 18:41:40 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- I wholly agree that divorce is a result of picking the wrong mate. I made a few poor choices in my time although I've finally picked properly this last time as we've been together for 15 years and will likely stay together. - 18:46:50 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:PRAY BOY aka Dicky Boid---Physical abuse isn't the only form of abuse. Your a master at mental abuse, I agree. To be clapping you grubby little hands with glee over your ex-wife's cancer diagnosis is proof of that. No doubt you figure your god had a hand in that as a reward to you for all your grovelling to him. The reality is that all the praying that you do to the mythical god seated in your controlling little mind had nothing to do with your ex-wife's misfortune (as if the poor woman likely didn't suffer enough with you). You obviously have a miserable exsistence and that's absolutely fitting for you. - 18:55:28 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN- I'm not so sure about that. Women aren't all that physically weak and I don't think that they would be unable to survive. In some cultures, it's the women who do the providing. I still believe that the oppression started with a mental thing rather than a physical one. - 18:58:19 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:MARLENE<<>>i don't know of, or have ever seen, a woman that could swing a 25 pound broad sword in battle for 8 hrs at a time. Along with wearing 100 pounds of armor and carrying a 20 pound shield. For that matter, there are not many women that can carry a 35 pound M-60 with 30 pounds of Ammo, along with 40-60 pounds of extra gear in a battle today. Sorry, majority of women could never do that. My wife is very strong for a woman. As a matter of fact my wife is stronger physically then 99.9% of the women I have ever met, but she doesn't even come close to the strenth that I posses. This is not a character flaw MARLENE this is nature. - 19:15:36 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:MARLENE<<>>Even in the US military women are not held up to the physical regimen that men are. Men are required to do 60 pushups in a required time, and women are required to do 30. It goes like this with EVERY physical requirment in the military. Why? Because women are weaker, period. There are also reasons why women do not serve, and should not serve, in combat divisions. - 19:18:48 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Joette B. Anthony:-->MARLENE..phew! I was beginning to think that you had deserted your baby sister here! Give 'em hell, Harriet! BTW, I agree STEVEN, that women would not always be able to swing 20 pounds swords while wearing 100 lb. if armour, but hey, if women were in power, there probably wouldn't be the need for al this aggressive military action. We would do coffee with our foes. - 19:53:04 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>>LOL! are you stereotyping again? - 19:56:58 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>>are you forgetting how bloodthirsty the male sex is? - 20:05:13 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene da mean:JOETTE and STEVEN- Yup! We'll have coffee, their treat of course, and offer them some home-baked cyanide-laced cookies. One of the adaptations we women have made to the survival of the fittest rule of thumb is "cunning" and we're good at it. BTW, put a strong endurance type man in a ring with a gorilla with the same club and see who comes out the winner. If the man does, then he's used his mind more than his strength,n'est pas? - 20:15:46 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:MARLENE<<>>I'll bet my life, and everything I own on the Gorilla! - 20:24:45 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: my money is on STEVEN, he is not the dumb animal. - 21:15:47 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:grrrrrrr! - 21:24:29 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN..accuse me all you want of stereotyping..I don't think that I am..my problem with this discussion is that I could use my own observations but I do not want to expose my life to the rest of the world. I have not yet had the time to dig deep into this matter so that I can quote the "experts" which seems to be a requirement here for some (I guess that means that some here aren't capable of original thought), but once I have all the documentation in order, I will treat everyone to some sociology lessons. - 21:31:36 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:STEVEN: had you uttered "duh" I'd have changed my wager. You'd kill. - 21:34:11 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN..on the weekend when this discussion started and I was accused of all kinds of things (being vacuous was the most distressing), I had mentioned before anyone that women are overall weaker physically, but the gist of my SUBJECTIVE (only men can be objective on this page) opinion is that women are stronger psychologically and in a crisis situation (even those of us with chronic clinical depression) - 21:36:51 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: have you read Otto Weininger "Sex and Character" it may be different, here - 21:47:13 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Joette (it's not just men that are blood thirsty):-->CARL..did you post that to piss me off, because you have succeeded. You, of all the men here, I thought had a bit more class than that. And Steven thinks his race has/had problems! - 22:02:28 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, Speaking only for myself and not the men and women of the world, I do not feel that I am psychologically weaker, in crisis situations, than the woman I personally know. I don't buy it, sorry! - 22:13:37 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, I'm going to have to agree with Steven's analysis of how the male, in general, evolved to become physically stronger that the female. No male here is trying to perpetuate, as you say, the greatest myth of all, which is "women are the weaker sex." My postings here are only ones that defend the position that I, as man, am "not" necessarily the "weaker sex" in the 90's. When you say, "I still believe that the oppression started with a mental thing rather than a physical one," aren't you suggesting that men in the past were somehow mentally stronger, and subsequently subjugated women???? - 22:15:42 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Josuffragette:-->BILL..so then why are you apologizing? LOL! - 22:16:06 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..why were men stronger mentally? Could it be because men were allowed to be educated, while women were expected to stay home and learn needlepoint? Why were women subservient? Because they were forced to be, that's why. It has nothing to do with the evolution of intelligence on the female's part. It has everything to do with a few women finally saying "enough". - 22:19:50 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: It has a view that sways and teeters. I read through what I guess was an abridged version, the full text is unavailable and if it includes something more, well it is not here. You are p.o.'ed? I can not see the why, can you explain? - 22:21:04 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..: I totally support women's rights of equality and have supported my wife (financially and emotionally) through her undergraduate, as well as, both masters' degrees. She is a district coordinator, national consultant, and author, and I am proud of her successes. I want her to be the entire woman that she is physically and mentally capable of being. Her position, salary, or accomplishments do not intimidate me --- if she gets out-ta line, I's be spanking that girl 'Gently of course'--- and I am far from being one of her minions. We are partners for the common wellbeing of, each other's personal needs, family, and community…. And we are living happily ever after. La-dee-dah-dee-dah! - 22:21:54 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..did you not read the sample writing? - 22:23:23 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Joette Steinem:-->BILL..that's awfully white of you "supporting women's rights"? Why do the rights of women have to be ackowledged at all? Why are they an issue at all? Why do "women's rights" have to be any different than "human rights". As an OBJECTIVE male, please explain this to me. - 22:26:11 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, I'm not condoning the past treatment of women by societies. Women have really been mistreated in the past and it has been a long hard struggle to overcome the past. I am only saying that I am not psychologically weaker in the 90's just because I am a man! - 22:27:07 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..oh yes you are! Prove that you aren't! LOL! - 22:29:46 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, Women's rights or human rights have to be acknowledged no less the same. I only want you to acknowledge my rights as a capable individual in crisis situations. - 22:34:36 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:If you keep messing with me woman, I am gonna kick you a--, lol! - 22:37:30 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, I wish I could have seen you in action when our submarine collided with and sank another submarine. We almost went down as well, as we flooded part of our sub. Of course, I saw grown men turn white with fear and sweat dripping from their brow. Men are not always the powerful warrior they pretend to be, but that's no reason to say we are weak in crisis situations in the 90's. - 22:44:32 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: I have read the book as it supposedly is or was. It isn't bad and at going into the body of thoughts I thought the author also rejected the "womanish thing", and meant to infer that the female in all and the male in all are useful, if known, together and that any overemphasis of either is detrimental to the individual. Try it. - 22:50:00 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

G.I. JOEtte:-->BILL..and I would have loved to be in that submarine, except I would have been relegated to the mess, or been the resident concubine. And if you kick me the ass, I will kick you in the family jewels. (and then who will be crying?) - 22:50:20 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Joette to CARL..this is what I am talking about...:Since the soul of man is the microcosm, and great men are those who live entirely in and through their souls, the whole universe thus having its being in them, the female must be described as absolutely without the quality of genius. . . . There is no female genius, and there never has been one . . . and there never can be one. Those who are in favour of laxity in these matters, and are anxious to extend and enlarge the idea of genius in order to make it possible to include women, would simply by such action destroy the concept of genius. . . . How could a soulless being possess genius? The possession of genius is identical with profundity; and if any one were to try to combine woman and profundity as subject and predicate, he would be contradicted on all sides. A female genius is a contradiction in terms, for genius is simply intensified, perfectly developed, universally conscious maleness. . . . - 22:56:27 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

Bill (what is long, black, hard, and full of semen?)..:JOETTE, You win; you're a genius; I'm not taking any chances on my family jewels, ha! You might have actually enjoyed a cruise on our submarine and we did sneak a girl on board once in a duffel bag. I walked not far behind the sailor that carried her aboard (his girlfriend of course). We were minutes away from leaving Hawaii for the Philippines. She was discovered hiding in the bow compartment right as they were about to drop the lines from the dock. - 23:16:42 on 3 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. Degrading womwn was based on religion, and to this day women are regarded as being subordinate to men. Atheist men don't have that point of view. But you can't make up for all those years that women have been demeaned by claiming that men are "psychologically weaker" than men today. It has as little basis in fact as the statement that "women are intellectually inferior". Each of us is a unique individual who will react to stress in his/her own way to a stressful situation. I have seen men die because they lacked the will to live while I and others survived. And stop venting your anger on Bill or Carl or Steven or me. We're on your side. - 1:38:41 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. That should read "than women" - 1:40:13 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->SAM..I will vent my anger on anyone whom I feel deems to be vented on, thank you very much. Speaking of broad generalizations, can you say, for a fact, that all atheist men do not share the view that women are lesser beings then men? A man could be the meanest son of a bitch towards women, and still not believe in a god. Freud was an atheist, and he considered women to be a lesser form of humanity than men. - 2:51:32 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->SAM..why are the points I have made (or not not made, being vacuous and all) perceived as anger? It's just like in the workplace. If a man is tough taskmaster, he is considered a good manager. If a woman is a tough taskmaster, she is considered a bitch. - 2:54:32 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:I thought a 'BITCH' was a dog ? ah well if women want to call themselves such they err, for a woman is in the image of God, for God created man in his image, male and female he created them, nothing about female dogs here. - 3:20:15 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

Jerrod Spaugh:All athiest are going to hell if they do not accept Jesus as there lord and savior - 3:41:22 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--Jerrod--"Judge not lest ye be judged"--watch your step or you'll be going to hell to. See ya there! By the way Jarrod, how old are you? - 3:59:23 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. Here are two of your posts. "I will vent my anger on anyone whom I feel deems to be vented on, thank you very much." -- "Why have the points I have made ---perceived as anger?" The first one answers your question in the second post." My statement about atheist men was poorly worded. I believe most atheist men believe women are equals. - 4:54:34 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:RICHARD. There are several things that bother me about your religion. Maybe you can answer some simple questions withour damning ne to eternal hellfire. I ask these questions in all seriousness and expect you to give me clear answers in plain and simple English. 1. Where did your god come from. Who were his parents and does he have any siblings? 2. What relation is god to jesus and who were jesus' parents. Does jesus have any siblings or a wife or children? 3. Explain angels to me. What sex or sexes they are. Are they only adults or do they come in all ages? Do they engage in sexual activity? Are they related to god or jesus and if so how? 4. Explain the devils to me. What are imps and what is the differnce between beezlebub and satan? Are there female devils and male devils and do they engage in sexual activity? 5. Explain the soul to me. What does it look like? Do babies have souls? Do fetuses have souls? I'm looking forward to your answers so that maybe you can show me the true path to righteousness and you won't have to threaten me with eternal damnation any more. - 5:16:05 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:BILL- In the beginning men likely used physical force to control women (and still try to in some cases). Once tamed and brainwashed with the dogma of the male god, they were subserviant out of fear. If they didn't fear man's stupid god then they were stoned. After generations of abuse, many women adapted. But, as the old saying goes "you can lead a old mare to water but you can't make her drink", so once the fear of god was removed, women smartened up. My theory and likely close to the truth too. PRAYBOY- If god looks like me then he's a lucky guy. - 6:27:56 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:JERROD- How can someone so young be so blind?? - 6:30:02 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..this will likely make em' mad:JOETTE- You really hit the proverbial nail on the head here. How do the pray gals and guys react when we disagree with their silly beliefs? They say we are "angry". Of course we aren't angry but many times amused but they are actually the ones who are angry because we question their antiquated beliefs. Do you think the mens of the discussion here are mimicking that behavior? Sounds like it to me. - 6:37:13 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

RON...--->My two cents...: I always find comfort in knowing that when I'm around a particularly bitchy co-worker female I could always leap over the table and snap her neck. Therefore; women do not intimidate me. - 15:06:02 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:RON<<>>wow, i hope you don't go postal! - 15:28:04 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Let me ponder your relation of profundity to woman and the converse of that for a bit more. But, it looks like P'SAM and STEVEN point to times when a woman was yoked with certain views of which the consequences were inhibitory on them. I'm certain, some of us at least, are familiar with the story of Hypatia the mathematician philosopher of Alexandria killed by religious believers and the resistance early xtian patriarchs had at accepting vm stuff in the church tales. That was[is?] the way as far as the western civilisation extensionally treats the female concept. Ever hear about those guys trying to get in touch w/their female side? - 16:00:39 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>all of the sensitive 90 guys are gone, they all have boyfriends. - 16:25:17 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:STEVEN: did they then move to SF or Dallas? - 16:32:39 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

RON...--->Steven....(!): HA HA HA..., "they all have botfriends", HA HA HA - 16:44:04 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

RON...I meant "boyfriends"...: HA HA HA.... - 16:44:55 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->why is it that you guys always have to be thinking with your penis instead of your brain????????? - 16:46:03 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->RON..women shouldn't intimidate you, and that's not what the discussion was about. However, if you are in a neck snapping mood, you certainly intimidate me. - 16:47:34 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:P'SAM: of the RICHARD, do you recall the Andy Taylor show "Mayberry"? One of the characters was 'Otis' the harmless drunk, it appears that the RICHARD is like that here, let him come in he knows how to lock himself in the jail cell, however, when clarity returned Otis left. He never answered any hard difficult query's cause he couldn't, neither will RICHARD in his preferred delirium. - 17:52:32 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Penis-passion is there a difference? Whatever that is some do so, much more so than others. That may be the why not that prostitution is viewed as it is, are these steared into the view that their passion is unbecoming, and as the RICHARD types tell it, sinful? Maybe instead, it is just passion an expression of passion for those as it may be for them as individuals? - 18:26:09 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: my point, when barriers are down is the brain really, is it ever involved? You ever see that book about a kind of chimpanzee that exercises a no boundaries kind o'sex world? - 18:42:54 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..I'm not quite sure what you were talking about, but I hope I didn't give you the impression I am trying to stop anyone from talking sex. - 19:44:15 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Not at all, and the "S" word was not the topic I thot, I thot the topic was more so than not grey matter biz? - 19:50:51 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

RON...--->Joette...:Women do not intimidate me. I look at it this way...Who ever is in the driver's seat, drives. If you want to be in the driver's seat, ask. If the opposite person says "no", go look for another bus. I would rather walk away than fight with another women again. I've seen where fighting does nothing but make lawyers comfortable and destoys families. - 19:51:16 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

RON...--->Joette...:I'd never snap your neck. You seem like the "break off the nose into the brain" kinda haveta do to, person. - 19:59:42 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

Jononose:-->RON..you've cut me to the quick! Why, I oughtta...... - 21:01:26 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

RON....--->Joenonose-limpneck...:If yas do, I'll leap over this table and make a pulping mess out-of-ya, wise guy. No broad (I really hate that term) 's gonna tulk to me like dat. - 21:30:28 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

RON...today's riddle....: What is plural for "ya'll"? - 21:31:30 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:RON<<>>yous talking to me. ya durty rat! - 21:47:38 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:RON<<>>ya'lls LOL - 21:48:03 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

RON...--->Steven...: Nope. Hey, yous looking at me? Try, "all ya'll"...HA HA HA... - 22:14:09 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Still lookin'at grey matter stuff, what about the good ol'USA rankin out at the bottom of the charts in math and science stuff? Is this a time when prayer and hope come in handy, what silliness. This makes me wonder what it will take for the USA to get into the learning mode again, since the commies are dead and rocketry is old stuff so what is next, contact? maybe. - 23:11:07 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: any anti-SH types here yet, check out this site, if I can get rite the first time. - 23:38:02 on 4 Mar 98 GMT

Bill on the topic of bitch..:RICHARD, Does the name "Pavlov" ring a bell? Don't pee on our legs and tell us it's raining! - 1:18:08 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:RON, You seem to be back to your old self…I love it. - 1:21:02 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, MARLENE, I hope all ya'lls females here don't think us mens' post are filled with Men-daciousness? - 1:31:59 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Bryan:Here is one response about religion.I do not think i believe in God or disbelieve in Him.It is just that the question of God is irrelevant to me - 3:19:26 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Len:Important announcement!.... I have been permanently ejected, thown out, removed, discarded, banned, and banished for a lifetime at least from Theology Chat..... Bet none of you people can say that!.... I feel so proud!.... Woopie!..... - 4:20:38 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:CARL. I don't expect Richard to answer too quickly. I understand he's interviewing Mary to find out if she was really a virgin. He's also having a problem checking out the sexual activity of the angels. After all, I did give him a big project so I guess I'll have to wait for his answers, ----and wait, and wait-----. - 4:41:13 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:CARL. Speaking of old TV shows brought Andy Griffith to my mind. He used to play a sheriff. More recently he played Ben Matlock, a lawyer who solved crimes. I wonder if we can get him to find out what makes Richard tick? - 4:50:11 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Len:........RICHARD called my wife a ''daughter of Satan'' some weeks ago..... She is still pissed! - 5:04:18 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:LEN- I'm prouder, they wouldn't even talk to me, and I was nice too! PRAY BOY aka Richard doesn't seem to like women much and I can only assume that kangaroos are more his style. I wouldn't take anything he says personally. The guy's bonkers. - 7:21:35 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Len; She is most likely annoyed because I was right. - 7:28:09 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Yep, the mind centered on the groin as the minds of most of you are, will only serve for you to see your rear ends better, not a very nice view, but the one you ALl prefer to seeing the truth. - 7:29:59 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Ifyour questions were not so 'fleah' centered and so worldly perhaps I might answer them, but your preconceived notions are nonsense. - 7:31:48 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

youngbill:In the begining there was in the Garden, ONLY 2. Adam & Eve. In the second, out of the Garden, there was ONLY 4 Adan & Eve and their sons, Cain & Able. In the third, both Cain & Able took unto theirself a WIFE!!! Now you know why Cain slew Able!!! - 7:41:16 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

JPCarnun:Peace=Death Death=Peace - 8:40:32 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:LEN: What did you do wrong? You always seemed fairly objective on there to me? RICHARD: I'm confused- you condemn others for their sexual interest, yet on your homepage (follow the link) you give a whole bible study to the topic of intercourse, and come out of it with the conclusion that if you are married you should be having sex ("marriage without intercourse is dead" as you put it). Isn't this sexual preoccupation, or was there an experience with your divorced wife that leaves you feeling this way? - 10:31:15 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROB..given Richard's low opinion of women overall, I am "agape" that he lets the woman have equality in bed. - 11:46:33 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->LEN..for those of us who lurked, but didn't write, you will be missed on Theochat. I think the regulars there will miss you too. What was the final straw that got you kicked off? - 11:48:40 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->JPCARNUN..is that a cry for help? Now, according to a theist, would there be peace after death, what with all those cherubs flying around playing their harps? - 11:50:52 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:RICHARD-- Since you seem to think we are not worthy of any answers to our questions, one has to wonder at your reason for posting here. Your modus operandi of merely repeating your beliefs without explanation as if they are self evident, and ridiculing all others leads me to believe that either you have taken upon yourself the impossible task of persuasion by ridicule and contempt or that this is some bizarre form of religious masturbation. - 13:14:14 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:GRANT<<>>when speaking of Richard, I vote for religious masturbation. - 13:30:02 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT..I personally believe that he is very lonely (is it any wonder?) and this his only social outlet (this and other pages). - 14:12:41 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:RICHARD: You would do well for yourself and your godthing, if it would it would say here I am- then prove it was the godthing, or you could point out where it is and prove that it was indeed your godthing then all this insanity of yours and your godthing would be over, belief would not be needed only knowing the unending would be left for all especially for you. So where is any godthing, show me so I can investigate and give it fair a consideration, because you ain't do it any good. - 15:41:52 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:LEN: I found their fear of maybe offending each other nauseating, none ever inscribed the word imaginary as a means of a self-check, none there probably have or dare to have a working definition of what that word may mean, and none ever really say how they know their ghosts and son of god[s] souls angels demons devils etc,etc. Except for the turmoil you may have presented to their thinking you have lost nothing. Somewhere in their supposed devinely inspired book it mentions forgiveness well, perhaps that word too is beyond them like so many other things that portray this world, so they choose to believe that which defys the human mind. Is not the mind all that is human? - 16:02:36 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..I don't know if you watch Biography on A & E, but this week they are doing a series called "Men Behaving Madly". Last night they did the biography of the Marquis de Sade, and they mentioned several times that his writings are still being published. Since you read more than anyone else on the planet, I was wondering if you have perchance come across any of his writings, and whether you would consider it more profound than profane? (I have never seen any of his writing, as I am sure that the Morality Cops in this here country wouldn't allow it). I'll be back in awhile, so don't think I've run away on you (I hate how work interferes with my personal life) - 17:37:36 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: I mean to watch that, and I have both volumnes that remain of his writings. According to the publishers of the volumnes most of MDS writings were burned and the few that missed out on the burning, were hidden away. I read these when about 12, the USA had just allowed its entry to this country and my father got it I read it. I have since picked up my own copies, and MDS's theme, seems to be freedom. But many others of his era in Europe were caught up in the same thoughts. - 17:55:18 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: an interesting addition to the publishers view, they included some court accounts when he was put on trial for assorted charges, these views included dates and places when MDS sought to put in action his writings with various females, the accounts have it that these females generally thought he was nutz, and did nothing but walk away from the MDS. I don't know what all the hoopla about the MDS might be, unless that freedom of mind and body that he wrote about is still a taboo. - 18:02:57 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:RICHARD. With all your ranting it is obvious that you are ignorant of your own religion. You state that our questions are too flesh centered and worldly, and that is why you won't answer them.Here are a few quotes from your bible. "--in my flesh shall I see god". "my flesh longeth for thee." "-for the flesh lusteth against the spirit--" In short, Richard, the reason you don't answer the questions is because you are unable to do so. You stated that women are descended from Satan. If such is the case then you are also descended from Satan on your mother's side, and are therefore a son of Satan. You are obviously also a cuckold and wear horns on your head. Get thee behind me, son of Satan. - 18:46:37 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:GRANT, STEVEN. Many years ago, when i was young, they used to warn about the perils of masturbation, saying it could lead to madness. We know that this is not the case, but is it possible that there is a rare exception to the rule in the case of religious masturbation, such as Richard? An interestingthought. - 18:59:31 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:PAPASAM<<>>i was brought to believe that masturbation was a sin agains jaaaaeeeezzzzuuuuss. I was instructed as a child that masturbation was a waste of seed, and that thinking about sex was a sin. Christians are fucked up. - 19:11:33 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:P'SAM: o'course RICHARD who as he inscibed yesterday, he has the mind of jc[two in one?] so he has a ghostly side[casper too?]to himself and, of course also, the RICHARD lacks coherent sanity. It is probably safe to say he can tie his shoes[or sandles since he's is a quasi jc] and he probably can cross the street at least as intelligently as a seeing-i-dog, and this last point is good, for as you hold- humans, e.g., RICHARD, are animals. - 19:15:48 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..the biography was really interesting. I have only known of him because his sexual practices were of great fame, but I didn't realize the hypocrisy involved with his imprisonments. Once, he was charged with beating a maid up till she was almost dead, but he was sentenced not for the beating, but because he happened to do it on Easter Sunday. Also, he beat another girl to a pulp, but he used various religious artifacts to do the beating with, and so he was charged for blasphemy, not for that beating. The list goes on and on, and although his fame derives from his sadism, he was sentenced to death (twice) because of his atheistic views. Did you read "120 Days of Sodom"? (I am going to see if I can find any copies of his work, but I am sure it is banned in Canada) - 21:31:18 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->Queensland has had terrible floods in the last few days because of the recent cyclone. Do you think Richard has gone there to practise walking on water? - 21:34:14 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Were those matters of the MDS part of that program? As for that piece, yes that is within the 2 volumnes. While it is easy to run with the MDS chosen presentation, sex, I found of it the interesting view that perhaps many would prefer that freedom of thought. Then perhaps issues like BC and his most favored intern would be nothing. RICHARD walkin'on H2O, I am sure he would love that kinda'power, to do as he may so want. It was mildly surprising to see in the Berkelyan an article about religious studies with the caption that, "You can't understand human culture without understanding religion." while it is a self serving bit of propoganda, I think it goes along with the academic air permeating the Berkeley area, again. This institution was for a brief bit drapped in a radical finery, but it has always been very very conservative in an old democratic way. - 22:05:43 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..that slogan is apt, although I would state it conversely. What radical bit of fame has that school enjoyed? - 22:17:04 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: I knew one of you here would see a simpler view and solution, if you don't mind JOETTE, I will e-mail a reply to its producers with that view as you put it? The bit o'fame was the student's free speech movement. From that the typical of then vietnam thing, a peoples park thing and even a third world college- now dead, - 22:36:56 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..so do you enjoy the occassional uprising (politically ;) ), or the current academic pursuits? I may be out to lunch, but I think politics should be left outside the campus. I am all for free speech, the right to gather and such, but I am also one who feels a person's educational pursuits should be honoured as well. I was just a babe during the Vietnam days, so maybe I don't understand the collective issue well enough. - 23:02:58 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: In regards to education, as you mention yes I read, this was an important aspect of my childhood rearing, two instructors said that one should learn for the sake of knowing. So that is what I have done do and will continue to do. I have met some very idiotic people with various levels of academic achievement to their credit. As for a revolution- your uprising, that is symbolic of change and it happens dispite the how of its terms of reference. I like change a lot, even as it means that one gets old and so on. So conservatism, it serves those preferring static states, the status quo, this is false to facts, IMHO be it ever soooo humble. I sent off the contrare view resetting the terms for the appropriate effects. - 23:39:45 on 5 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Well, I'm sure geeting it now from you folks, that is only because you cannot TAKE IT in return; but that's 'par for the course' I seek to answer your questions and in return you ridicule what I say. But that is also what I expect from Godless minds who ever seek to ruin anything that is good. - 4:51:25 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:You people are case studies in yourselves, you women must like to be bashed by men etc. I have taken the position that any man who hits a woman is a bastard, yet you women do not accept that, rather you want to be bashed to justify your stupid reasonings. None the less I will ever oppose any man who hits his wife etc. - 4:54:43 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:papaSAm; I have NEVER said that women were descended from Satan. You suffer from DYSLEXIA ? you cannot understand what you read ? - 4:57:10 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Carl is another who cannot understand what Is ay either, but that is also understood, for the natural mans cannot understand spiritual truth. - 4:58:52 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:youngbill; Cain slew Able becasue he was envious of him, I suggest you keep to reality and do not invent nonsense that has NO bearing at all. You people just love to imagine all sorts of nonsense for it takes away from the fact that you are all shut up as sinners who need salvation. You will NOT repent, but instead you hide from God even as Adam and Eve sought to hide from him, but in the END had to face God. You ought to come out from your hiding and meet the 2nd ADAM, even Jesus. For in the 1st Adam you are dead, but in the 2nd you will receive life ! - 5:03:58 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:PapaSAm; YOU ought to be in COMEDY, he, he, he.... - 5:05:14 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:PapaSam; The word 'flesh' in the NT is often used as a 'FIGURE,' but you fail to perceive that and so as usual you understand my use of the term 'flesh' to mean the body, you too are a poor old thing. WAKE UP ! - 5:07:55 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Carl; You say I lack coherent sanity, but is is you who lack a mind. - 5:09:59 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:---RICHARD--Do you remember "Twisted Sister"? - 5:11:07 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--RICHARD--What time is it now where you are? - 5:16:16 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:PETER-- Can't even get the time of day out of him. - 6:01:12 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

jessica:RICHARD: You obviously don't care about answering our questions and giving us knowledge, or you would have explained why the term "flesh" isn't used to mean the body rather than abusing people who don't understand. Being angry at people who don't believe in the same things as you won't get you anywhere, but unfortunately this seems to be the attitude of a lot of "evangelists" etc. I wonder why you bother posting to this page seeing as you think we are all mindless idiots who can't possibly understand your beliefs. Maybe that's because they're not even remotely coherent? - 11:31:47 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:Well, I thought it was interesting. - 14:23:27 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT..it IS interesting...I didn't have time to get all the way down to the bottom, so who is the author? Whoever it is must really be patting himself/herself on the back. - 14:52:42 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:RICHARD: if I ever thought one as you who believe in "tales" and things written by ancient men, formed by their imagination of things they did not understand and had no way to know about, then I could be offended by the likes of your post. But, you do not look at the religious matter for what it is. It is just your imagination that you yourself turn- reflexive thinking processes, ideas within your mind upon themselves and ignore that there is nothing outside your mind your being that is that thought exactly. I do not have that kind of mind, that is true. I choose not to believe only what I think if it is not relevant to an inner outer world. No RICHARD, you are still the drunk at this site who has not experienced a moment of clarity for a long time. But if you could answer some of the query's tossed at you, that might help you. - 15:41:10 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Any here have an opinion on the reports of ice on the moon? I URL'd a site on Iraq a few days ago, what annoyed me was that I could not log-in to the other sites there that were about Iraq. Is this an act by someone, or just a real electrical glitch. Such things, cause concern on my part about some people who mean to control and limit what one may know, this is not a good thing. - 15:47:54 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: within the MDS books I didn't see the title as you referred to it. - 16:23:05 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:GRANT: what does or did that writer think would be accomplished with that article? All it does is lay out the view that RICHARD exemplifies here, he says he answers things but he has yet to tell me where his godthing is. He inscribes of 'spirit' but what is that? The article merely explains how or why one as RICHARD takes the position of "I know you are but what am I?" kind of null mentality, which serves nothing. If RICHARD or anyone could show the godthing, that showing would not be contrary to any reasonable thinking human's mind. For my part at no point in time have I ever seen or felt or experienced anything that infers implys conveys or makes me in any way, say something supernatural exists. I don't yearn for even my deceased family members, tho'it saddens me to ponder their memories. That article seems but to explain the likes of RICHARD, et.el., as an outline for an innocuous exclusion of themselves from others who refrain from joining them. What does this "religious action" serve but to separate and divide humanity. Science, however, brings people together. - 16:56:35 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..I have the same opinion about the URL Grant posted. It's just another way to be a little lamb. This person is giving his/her "kind" the instructions to debate, so again, any original thought they may possess is put aside. As far as that title of MDS's, they kept referring to it as that, but maybe I misunderstood. BTW, did you read the books in the original Francais? (LOL!) - 17:35:22 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..enough with the Martha Stewart shit! Where are you already? - 17:39:21 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--GRANT--Checked out that site. Again. as laughable as it is pathetic. Like Carl mentioned, it just repeats the same blithering Richard is guilty of. In fact it is a perfect seeding ground for all the cliche arguments theists use to defend their position over and over again, and have trouble understanding, of just refuse to understand that these arguments are as fallacious and vacuousas the area between QUAKE'S ears. But WHY do the keep repeating them? Maybe because their own comfy uncritical minds bought it? - 17:53:31 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:RICHARD I have an excellent suggestion for you.Why don't you male a pilgrimage to the holy land and visit the river Jordan? You could have yourself baptized there. You could stick your head in the holy river three times and take it out twice. Then you would be in your heaven with jesus on your right side, god on your left side and the virgin(?) Mary on your lap. But keep your hands off her private parts. They're flesh. - 18:16:06 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: I've not seen the MDS stuff in its original language. In the books, references to that 120 day writing regularly appear, when I checked the Amazon.com site it was not among the MDS tiltes for sale. I must say PETER, that I think you have put forth the key thought for those guys, RICHARD QUAKE et.al., such prepackaged goods serve very well their uncritical minds, rigorous thinking is discomforting to them all, if there are exceptions among such believers, then they are in some closet. - 18:21:23 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:RICHARD: Unlike you religionut-believers, I can forgive you, I was gonna ignore you in your ignorance for the next few days, but that would be as to pick on some mental retard for its wierdness. In your 5:03:58 post to youngbill you refer to a fact and a sin but do not connect the propositions by any qualifying conjunction, so explain the meaning of that passage and if you really know what either term- fact sin, really means, what are they relative to as you inscribe them. Is the source of your meaning objectively valid? - 19:30:10 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--CARL--I have yet to see any either. To do so would be to undermine their own position. They have a tendency to sell their wares by the same method it was sold to them, make themselves a living example of how those methods worked so wonderfully for them( the Richard's and Quake )--not by reason--but emotion--often in the form of psychological intimidation and fear. It could be considered a form of mental terrorism. One also hears the old "Feel the Lord"--youc "Feel his Glory" approach. It is one great tactic. They then attribute any good feeling they may have to divine influence. This why the more outlandish a belief is presented, the more bombastic the presenter. And yes, critical thinking is their greatest enemy--of course only when applied to the question of God's existence. Their slothful use of science and philososophy is also a method of survival. They praise science, and its methods--UNTIL it contradicts one of their beliefs--thus rendering their view of science as inconsistent, and therefore out of its realm. A parameter for being scientific IS being consistent. - 19:31:15 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: An unavoidable first step that most pro-theism views mistakenly commit themselves to also taints their view in the wrong shade, as they entreat their scientific understanding as if it is in general, an absolute. This kind of absolutism of them, probably is attributable to their own absolutes of heaven and hell, good and evil, right and wrong and this list of dualism can go on and on, as in each instance it is an is. The dynamics of science and ones very pursuit of it, cannot be so reasonably comprehended by them when they believe in a world of static absolutes. For example, they may hold of the ageing process, that is what the bible and whatever passage says is so, so it is so. Accept jc and you go to heaven absolutely. Do not accept jc and you go to hell absolutely. Do these believers also say that the godthing's love is absolute? Everything to them, probably for the sake of their bs is or rather it has to be an absolute. So how can they- religious believers, give a Just consideration of a world, that in the all that is all, changes within the instant of an eyes blink? Their dialogue does not allow or even permit them to intelligently engage anybody in such a communication of science. Science seeks and changes with the changes. Maybe this is why I have seen them write that they "believe" in death. Death does not change. - 22:17:07 on 6 Mar 98 GMT

M.S. Martha Marlene:Hey! JOETTE! - I know, I know, I promise, promise, tomorrow I'll post some more. I just took a look at the site GRANT posted and it looks interesting so I saved it for reading with my coffee in the morning. Douchet(sp) was out in the west blabbering this week. He was on our local radio station this morning and I was listening as I was sanding, painting, sanding, staining..on and on and on....ANYWAY did you know that there is no such thing as a Canadian? - 3:28:23 on 7 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:OPEN-- What I thought interesting about the site I linked this morning: Though the title is "witnessing to atheists," it's kind of presented as a formula isn't it? It brought to mind a huddle of vacuum cleaner salesmen; an attitude of "how do we make this sale?" If they say x, I find y to be an effective marketing tool. I don't know who wrote it but I wondered if they had other chapters; "Marketing to Mormons" or "Selling the Scientologist." This was not the picture I had of "witnessing." - 3:50:10 on 7 Mar 98 GMT

James--->Richard and others...:I would like to make an attempt to help everyone understand more about where Richard seems to be coming from and of course tune in to a little bit of the conversation. I don't mean to speak for you Richard, and people, please, don't get the impression that I agree with all of the assumptions that Richard makes in my efforts to articulate some of his points and raise a few questions to Richard myself. Perhaps if we can narrow the discussion to a single point of contact for some basic questions and exploration as well as disarm everyone's posture, we might just find things a little easier to deal with for everyone. I also don't want anyone to get all boned up and think I'm telling you like it is because I think you can't figure it out. I know everyone pretty much feels they've sized Richard up and anything I might add is probably a mute point. Richard probably feels the same about us. None-the-less, give it a chance. Enough with the disclaimers! Anyway, Richard, rule NUMBER ONE, you must think for yourself. Thinking for yourself means using your own words, thoughts, hopes and beliefs, not the continued repetition of recorded scripture. For the sake of common ground and the benefit it tends to have in discussions of this sort allow me to offer some things we might agree on; it's probably safe to assume some posters here do as well. That is the idea of looking down on a woman or women as a gender is not inherent to Christian values, but that the text in which they cite as their proof does and does not due to its contradictory nature. I believe you believe that that is not what Christianity teaches us but that some people of the religious faiths based on the bible do. My observation is simply this. A simple inherent trait to mans (genderless) struggle to survive and to all species who live to survive, is the protection of their woman. Meaning, men are far more expendable than woman. One man can go amongst many woman and produce many children in a life time. However, a woman is physically limited to a certain amount of birthing in a lifetime. This simple rule keeps several species flourishing. Woman are the saviors of our future in many ways. Therefore, to do anything less than cherish, protect and respect them is absolutely wrong as a general rule and a personal virtue of my own. Many words, versus, chapters of the bible, and teachings of many religions, admittedly preach a different message. It is however, unfair to immediately presume that someone of Christian belief adheres to these beliefs, but inevitable if you cannot answer questions with words of your own instead of words from a book that say the opposite. Some of it is in the interpretation and some of it may be out of context, but many things seem different than what they are as described in the bible. Now, your first involuntary action is to say that the words of the bible were not meant for the non-spiritual and again, this to is spoken from the very book of subject. It does not work that way for someone really trying to examine what they believe. You must find a way to explain why you believe something. I think when you do, and when you can no longer say "because the bible tells me so"(song), you will open up to the possibility that that whole religious thing is wasted effort. That does not mean doing good deeds, love, compassion, all those things that keep us civil and benefit our survival are wasted effort, they are elements of what I think just makes good sense. I feel it comes to me without formal training (religion) ,rather real life and experience. Another area of agreement might include our positions on TV evangelist types and others who would prey on the weak and seemingly desperate people who gather at the stages, in the audience and at home. I cannot not say Satan will have anything to do with it, but a part of me really hopes they burn in hell, right next to the pick axe chick, for eternity should there be such a place. But then, alas, I am disheartened by the biblical fact that, because I do not profess to know and believe that such thing as Christ has actually walked on the earth. That furthermore, his father is the creator of the universe (if creation of the universe was required) who has given his only son as an offering for our imperfections to offer assurance of our salvation, hence everlasting life. I am disheartened because I am destined for the same place. Could I offer my sons life to save yours? No. It seems odd to me that anyone would even offer. In the same breath I understand that there are many things that I hope to be true. I for one hope to live forever. I hope to live to see my conscience raised to a level beyond human comprehension. I hope to rediscover what living can really mean outside of my physical existence. I hope to travel space and time in a thought. When I think of stories about what heaven might be like, these are the things I hope they are. Hope has to be enough until there is something a little more substantial then philosophy and the bible. Everyone should understand that if there were an omnipotent being who created the universe and all that's in it. If that God would be so inclined to discard that which was proclaimed to be sacred, the soul, on the basis of their inability as humans to recognize or glorify his hidden existence, then all my hopes are dashed. I want nothing to do with a God like that. Fine, burn the greedy hungry preachers, false prophets, sex addicted priest, pick axe murderers and such but leave the non-believers alone. Hell, wasn't it Jesus who said, "father forgive them for they know not what they do"? Does that make sense to you? How can we know? The bible tells us so? No one can be blamed for not believing and the way you present your case guarantees you'll never change their mind. If God is all knowing all caring and all loving, he will have me when I get there anyway. As long as I'm doing what I have to do to live with my fellow man(genderless) in an honorable way and if "there" is somewhere I'm supposed to be when this all ends, it's up to me to figure out how to get there and I'm not worried about it anymore. While you may feel that belief and faith in salvation through Christ gives you freedom or brings you happiness, I am here to contend that, if God is the seat of judgement ,and is the God of love and salvation, then a reasonably honorable life will be the only requirement and that that realization is the biggest step toward freedom I've taken in a long time. The nicest thing is that I've been able to do it without giving up my hope and I still respect most Christians I've known in my life. Anyway, I've said enough. I have obviously been holding back on this issue more than I thought. I apologize to everyone for the long post, but it just kinda poured out. - 4:54:31 on 7 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--JAMES--I like seeing a person examining the beliefs they once embraced honestly --in the manner you have. Bravo. AND it feels good, doesn't it? - 8:09:19 on 7 Mar 98 GMT

james--->Peter...:Yes Peter it feels good. There is a lot of self-inflicted pressure to maintain faith and struggle against your better judgement. Peer pressure adds to it as your whole life you surround yourself with people who feed off of each others faith not really knowing what they believe. You become convinced that your not supposed to question why, it is what it is just because it is. Escaping it's clutches is a difficult but not impossible task. Maintaining it is a constant burden, defending it is a blind quest and being offended when someone questions your reasoning is almost automatic. It's hard to stop long enough to ask yourself why. You have got to be able to answer yourself honestly when you ask the question and when you explore they "why" you have got to be willing to accept what the outcome ultimately is. The nice thing about hope is that once you've done all that, you find that you have no more reason to continually convince yourself your right. Just accept things as they are and hope all you want. Hope is much more important and meaningful than faith and does not demand absolutes when it comes to speculation about life or death. It was my hope for a better life in my youth that turned into the efforts that made it possible. That is why I can say that if God exist and is the loving, caring, and compassionate god he is purported to be, a reasonably honorable life is all that will be required. I don't have to kill myself with doubt about faith and the pressure it brings along, get myself all hung up on every word in the bible, become a member of some religious organization, continually worry about judgement day, I don't have to believe in Christ, etc etc. I can just live my life because what is honorable just makes good sense to me. I don't have to believe in any God, any gift of salvation or anything in particular to become a part of the "kingdom". If it's there I'll be there. If its not, I will not. The simplicity of it all relieves me of burdens I've inflicted on myself for years. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr. "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God, I'm free at last." - 19:43:49 on 7 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--JAMES--Now this makes sense to me, and I agree--I think again if a God did in fact exist he would be more interested in mankind growing and learning to live with himself, happily, peacefully--and being just to each other, rather than constantly kissing his ass. And I would think he would be pretty unfair if one lived a good peaceful life, and then was punished to an eternity of torture because he didn't "go through Jesus" to reach him. This scare tactic was obviously used by the ancients as a means of gaining power and control by means of intimidation, scare tactics--and taking full advantage of one's ignorance of explaining the occurences of their surroundings. What I find quite remarkable, is that millins uopn millions haven't even thought this through--they are too frightened, they are trapped. It's sad really. - 20:09:05 on 7 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:PETER; Those who are the overcomers and sons of God are those who confess that Jesus came in the flesh, no man is justified by the fact that he was kind or benevolent to others, that's how it should be anyway. It is the death of Christ, and the inherent righteousness of Christ which is the SOLE basis for God to justify the sinner. Romans 5:1-10 is my favourite text for it is the reality of what Paul wrote which dwells in me to life. God who is the creator is the very one who came into this world and dwelt among men. A man can know the Bible backwards yet not know God, it is the later that Jesus came to do, that we through him may KNOW God and his Son. It is the appropriation of the gospel that is the reality. I do NOT just bring the message of salvation in Christ Jesus the Lord, but the reality of it. This is why if you will believe on the Lord Jesus and be baptised you shall receive the GIFT of holy spirit, by which you shall KNOW those things that are freely given to you of God. I preach not myself but Jesus who died for our sins according the scriptures and was buried and was raised again the 3 rd day according to the scriptures, it is a FACT and not a theory, it is the truth and not a lie. Therefore all those who have faith in him have eternal life now and evermore, for that life is in him by the power of his resurrection. So that I can boldly say, that I no longer live, but that Christ lives in me, to will and to do God's good pleasure; for without faith it is impossible to please God, for those who come to him must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of all who believe. I have great joy and peace, but the gainsayers and mockers will ever deny that Jesus has come in the flesh and that Jesus is the Son of God, which thing I freely confess to you and all others as being true. The word to you is 'come' and see the goodness of God, 'come' and be set free from bondage to sin, for all who sin are servants to sin, and God has shut up ALL in sin for there is no person who has not sinned, except the SON of God, who came to do the Father's will and delighted in doing it. Behold those set free from sin by Jesus are free indeed and no longer under the bondage again to fear, they are no longer slaves to sin, but are made righteous in Jesus, for his righteouness is imparted to me and to all who would 'come' unto Jesus, who is not very far from any of us, even as a breath away. {{smile}} - 1:34:45 on 8 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:For of a truth if a man confess with his mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in his heart that God has rasied him from the dead he will be saved, for with the heart man believes unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. It is the truth. - 1:39:42 on 8 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Carl. All unrighteousness is sin. - 1:41:25 on 8 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:James; I do not speak of myself but I speak as of the ORACLES of God, for man does not live by bread alone but by every that comes from the mouth of God, that is how it ought to be. I need not speak but the words that the holy spirit speaks; that my words may be God's words that my thoughts may be God's thoughts, so that the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart might be acceptable in the sight of God. For I have the mind of Christ. If any man is in Christ he is a new creature. - 1:48:45 on 8 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->RICHARD..I'm beginning to think that you are convinced that you are the second coming of christ. You are a madman. - 4:06:37 on 8 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:RICHARD In the fullness of your knowledge you keep saying love jesus and god. How about some information on where god and jesus came from. Tell me about god first. Does he have a family, like a father and mmother or brothers and sisters? Where did he come from? And tell me about jesus' family and who his parents were and does he have any brothers or sisters. Is he married and does he have any children? You keep saying believe in them but how can I believe in something when I don't know anything about them? Please explain the family relationships clearly so I can understand. I have a lot more questions to ask but I would like these cleared up first. Thank you in advance. - 4:44:25 on 8 Mar 98 GMT

Jesus H. Christ, Oscy. I wish someone would invade this fucking island! - 20:58:31 on 8 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JAMES, I doubt that anyone here wishes their lives to end and never ever see their loved ones again. We are programmed to think "survival," whether it's in this life or some spiritual afterlife. I too hope I will live on in an afterlife free of pain and suffering, but I can't say that I know anyone who has or there is any conclusive evidence to support such an existence. If there is a Supreme Being, then he/she/it should have made everything simpler and self-evident. If I am incapable of understanding, then it's not my fault; I shouldn't have to accept anything on faith. I will live the best life I can with integrity and honesty, and let the chips fall where they may. I still maintain "no label" nor belong to any collectivist organizations, when it comes to my perceptions of life. I do boarder on agnosticism or pantheism. There is a determinism or objectivity in nature, which caused my existence. The only god (non-deity) I could imagine at this time is the universe itself. - 1:09:52 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:JAMES- You really have found freedom as compared to a few years ago! I'm glad so can feel more at peace with yourself. I can only imagine a hellish type of life having to always 'live up to" what many xtians believe their god wants. If there were a god and don't get me wrong, I'm still an atheist, lol, I would imagine that he/she/it would want to be the best empty-nest parent he/she/it could be. This includes letting them make mistakes and learn from them, not threatening and controlling them, letting his/her/it's creations be themselves. - 8:35:00 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- re-Prayboy..It may be a virus that the kangaroos pass on?..?? - 8:37:41 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:It's hard to believe that there are no major religious stories lately!! Are they all waiting for 2000? - 8:39:15 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..actually there is a major religious story happening as we speak...the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia are back at their favourite pastime of ethnic cleansing, but I fear that the rest of the world has become so complacent about the atrocities stemming from that part of the world that it just doesn't make headline news anymore. - 12:17:09 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:ANY<<>>we need to seriously think about calling someone to report RICHARD. It is people like him that mass murder in the name of god, or blow up abortion clinics etc... Should we contact his country, LOL. Mabey he is David Koresh's bro. - 14:32:45 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>>I agree, we have become conditioned to expect death in Ireland, Rawanda, and Yugoslavia/Serbia. I think we would rather know who won an emmy. - 14:35:23 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: The sun may be but yet a single digit in degrees above the horizon, while the incline is non-theistic this morn's posts have more of a theologic spin to it then the fabled theochat site ever has. JAMES, as for the madman RICHARD, his inscriptions at this site and those that appear at the various theo-type sites at some point in the illustration of their points for the god thing they say as RICHARD does above."..,christ lives in me, to will and do god's good pleasure, etc." when I ponder that and other likesame words, it has the trimmings of the deluded. The more often I see and read such inscriptions the more tenable becomes the position that these people want to be gods. That is the basis for any theologic preference, so on your one point that the madman has a preference that folks think for themselves, this naturally offends the god that the religious believer accord as dictating that there would not be allowed freedom of religion- see that anti-other god commandment. This kind of preference is not an offense to nothing/god, it simply offends those who would be gods themselves. It is not the god that is the issue, it those who want to "say" their parent is a god- see genesis. These folks know that their parents, who while just fucking each other silly made them(see the MDS), such things couldn't have really given them life. So they choose the myth and superstitions of the ignorant ancients. - 16:29:44 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN2: Before I opted for a touch of profanity, theists prefer the god thing over their parents because their parents can't give them what the ancient myth and superstitions tell of, and JAMES the madman, he is not really but for "his" godness he'll do whatever in written word, he must ask that you think for yourself. His tales of old as a source for his thinking cannot stand before all that has been written by humanity since his tales were first composed. I am of the opinion that madmen must deal with simple things. Complexity is to be controlled, but this is not "humanly" possible, it becomes possible only if one is godlike. So RICHARD types must prefer that others deny the wealth of humanity which can only be knowledge, and to handle this matter one must do so intelligently. Theist types however, Dice Primo Quod Credendum Est- learn first what is to be believed. is this insanity? - 17:04:30 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- A different spin on the god/parent thing. Small children rarely cling to the god myth as adults do. After all they have their parents as an authority/caregiver. Adults who cling so reverently to the god myth seem to still need that authority/caregiver in their lives. Are believers merely just immature adults? Seems that way to me. - 18:40:58 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Your right! That Serbian thing just disgusts me! It's no coincidence that the Serbs are jeee-zus followers. Just an excuse by greedy government to eliminate the muslims as they are not going to be controlled by the Serbs, IMO. I really think those in power are actually atheistic but love the control that religion has over the sheep majority. - 18:46:00 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN- Maybe he's already under some type of care. He seems to hate those who really could help him. Good thing he's over there and hopefully in the outback somewhere. - 18:48:26 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: It appears more so often than not- in recent times, that your 4:06:37 8 mar 98 post is a bullseye shot. Recall the theochat site how often after a series questions those pseudnyms also began quotin'passages as though they were the mindless vehicle of its utterance. These religious believers, I dare say, do not want to be responsible humans, they prefer the blameworthiness of a godthing. - 19:19:19 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Tam:I may be going off the topic a little, and I hope you can help me..I was just wondering what your opinion is on Satanism? - 20:26:38 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->TAM..satanism is the same as xtianity, buddhism, pink unicornism etc., as it is merely a belief in the supernatural. An atheist has no such belief in mythical characters, so please do not be putting atheists down as satan worshippers. - 20:38:02 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN..your post this morning is astute. Do you think our complacency is a defense mechanism from being bombarded with bad news incessantly, or is it because we just don't care? (I care, and I am sure most of us here care but I wonder about the majority) - 20:42:43 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:TAM- Basically my response is the same as Joette's concerning satanism. To add to that though, I do think it's even more perverted than xtianity since "evil" seems to be it's main theme. If there were no belief in god then there would be no satan therefor "no god is good". - 20:54:56 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: Last I read of the oracle thing, if the madman means to inscribe of that from his bible, if so does he realise it was a forgery of the greecian oracle thing taken in by the early patriarchs of the church for its scriptural needs? Now, don't nobody up and tell the madman-RICHARD, that his 'divinely inspired' book is only a complilation, some say it is mindless forgery, of assorted other myths and superstitions of many savage precivilised theologic tales. MARLENE, immature adults for sure, but they like it most if and when one refers to them as "children" of a godthing. - 21:00:31 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: The post wherein RICHARD claims for the second time that he has jc mindlikeness, well your referral point, if you don't mind will become that by which I will use in any reference to him- the madman. It is a bit more colorful than his other pseudonym, so there is now the quack and the madman. I like both as they are. - 21:13:45 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL...I still am sad when I read "the madman's" post, even though he would be the last person to look for sympathy (especially for the devil), because if ever there is a case of untreated mental illness, he is the textbook case. I am uncomfortable with his madness, and look at it as a very loud cry for help, but he has obviously shut out anyone in his life who may try to steer him in the direction of the nearest mental health facility. - 21:34:33 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>>i think it is a mixture of both. I think that the press constantly is looking for something to grab headlines. Simple ethnic cleansing just doesn't make the headlines. You need something to spice it up a bit. How about ethnic cleansing with chemical weapons, this is a headline grabber, mass murder by a unique means. Plus, I think that many christians could care less about how many muslims are killed. If it were the other way around (which it rarely is) I wonder what the reaction would be. - 22:01:59 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: The madman is an isolated case, and as P'SAM regularly posts, of the all it is the survival of the fit that is important, what saddens and concerns me most, are those that 'understand' what he inscribes when he claims that mindtype. It is that state of mental extension that causes me genuine discomfort. Such a collective of ignorance is dangerous to you and me, like when the theochat names can't handle too difficult a question or don't like something, they call for expulsion. That is dangerous. - 22:38:56 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..but given the sampling we have seen here, and the lack of patience his cronies on Theograbble extend to him, they also recognize that he is not "one of them". If they are to be a measure, he has gone off the scale. You mentioned the Quackster as well, and I find it amusing, because when he says he is preaching on the streets of Toronto, I have a vision of him being in downtown T.O., where the Clark Institute is, which is Canada's premiere mental facility. Those going by would just think he is on a pass from the hospital. - 22:47:51 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN- Although I think the muslims have had their days of "conversion by force", your right. Only if something as vile as chemical or biological weapons are used do we read it in the headlines. I think the west has been so well protected against attack that we have a really hard time actually relating to what is happening over the rest of the world. We. for instance, don't spend a lot of time worrying about some nutcase religious leader deciding to take over the west whereas a country in the Middle East is always in that state of awareness. - 23:02:03 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Maybe he is well aquainted with some of the residents, lol. Is he still babblering on theochat or has he disappeared again? I know someone who has more Canadian flags than they know what to do with today, lol. Maybe she could recyle the material for the flag she'd be proud to wave. It's coold here in the nort today, -20 the high and -30 (something) for the low tonight. I know, you have apple blossoms already! - 23:07:01 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:Joette mentioned that theists can't seem to agree on just how they follow the word of their god. IMO, their silly little manual tells them just how to do it. Guys like Prayboy and Quake actually do it right by having complete faith. I think most of the sheep are only half-assed xtians. They want the security but don't want the rules. In other words, "they aren't really christians". - 23:11:52 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: The institutional reference, that is amusing. Here, there are several preacher types who at noon mount the steps and begin to carry on. There is this one fellow called the hate man, used to be an editor for the NY times grad of Harvard, Princeton and so on, well he's an SSI nutcase- I guess on this point. They, preachers and the hate man who is anti-religious, make quite a spectacle. I oft times wonder if they are both on the University's PR payroll. Then too, there is elderly blackman, I have at times seen him huddled and prayin with some young xtian types, but when questioned/confronted he will leave. He asked me once about jc, I asked him if he was really ready to talk about that stuff. He wished me a good day. - 23:12:55 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:I was surfing the web and came across this on some guy's homepage as proof that god exsists. Anyone see any external proof here? ...."GEOLOGY & ARCHAEOLOGY: Dr. Charles Pellegrino, referred to by Stephen Gould as "the polymathic astro-geologist-nuclear physicist who happens to be the world’s first astropaleontologist,"26 insists that: "The stories of Exodus and Joshua, some will argue, are strictly `fairy tales.’ But geology and archaeology have begun to teach us that several major Old Testament events that seem utterly fantastical to us today—among them the parting of the Egyptian waters, the blotting out of the Sun, and the pillars of fire in the sky—are based upon some very real kernels of truth. The rocks and the ruins tell us so."27 " - 23:30:51 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..sorry, no apple blossoms. We have been advised to batten down the hatches for an impending blizzard. I hope I get snowed in for a week! About your last post, "kernel" should be the operative word, as it sounds mighty corny (not Corny) to me. Everything is open to interpretation, isn't it (BTW, I'm glad you are back) - 23:59:15 on 9 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..count down to quitting time? I was wondering if San Fran is getting any of the hoobly weather we keep hearing about in California? - 0:01:20 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I'm getting REALLY sick of playing Martha! I've decided to take out at least a half hour a day away from it! Along with the snow, I'll send you down some wicked temps. lol! Yup, kernel is the operative word here and this I know because "the Book of Kernels, tell us so". - 0:15:03 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:This storm has dumped many inches of rain on us and caused flooding on our rivers and waterways, causing me personal problems as I speak. The river still hasn't crested and I am monitoring it closely. The temperatures are going down in the +3 range at night this week, which is very cold for this time of year here but at least the torrential rain has stopped. - 1:41:36 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:ANYONE: Why are atheists usually so big on logical analysis? Do they not realize that logical "laws" are merely social conventions? Moreover, like Goedel showed so nicely, logical laws or mathematical laws cannot justify themselves? Do you not realize that when you appeal to logic you are just begging the question entirely since the only way to prove logic is to use logic(round and round and round we go.)? All of logic is, at best, nothing more than induction which is only based on probability and cannot be trusted as David Hume showed. Can the sentence, "this sentence cannot be proved", be proved? Yes or no? - 1:54:34 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CURIOUS..there is no one named "Anyone" here..why not use your real name so that we can take you seriously? Can you prove you exist? - 2:03:45 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

STILL CURIOUS:JOETTE: Do not answer a question with a question. I asked first, can the sentence, "this sentence cannot be proven", be proven? Please justify your use of logic in which you place your faith. - 2:22:15 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->STILL CURIOUS..how unlike you! You are usually just a drive by, never waiting around for answers. I do not put my faith in anything, as faith is a concept that is foreign to me. If you want to be logical, you have to tell me in what context the sentence has been written, and what measure of proof one would look for. - 2:49:06 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->just so you aren't waiting all night for anymore dialogue with me, I am signing off now, but please feel free to leave your information that I might apprise it at 6:00 a.m. - 2:51:19 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER:JOETTE: It is a simple sentence as any other sentence that is used in logic since logic is formulated in sentences. What kind of proof? The kind of proof you would demand of a theist I suppose. The sentence could be written this way: "this sentence is false". Joette, is that sentence true or false? - 2:54:36 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:CURIOUSER... Well this is a novel approach; word games as evidence of supernatural beings. You don't favor a systematic approach to thinking over a random one? Perhaps that explains the lack of relevance of your question. - 3:25:39 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:CURIOUSER... BTW, are you not attempting to use logic to discredit logic? If not, what exactly are you using, intuition? If so, isn't it kind of silly? - 3:46:45 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--CURIOUSER--Now what's this all about? Why does logic scare you? I may be jumping the gun here ( but I doubt if I am )but whenever I hear someome trying to discredit the veracity of logic--I see someone who is trying to open the door to some unintelligible method of proof that cannot be defended logically--namely, the existence of God. Am I correct? Well consider this: If your method was valid--all anyone could do is postulate the existence of ANYTHING, and then smugly assert that its existence is in fact a reality--BUT it cannot be demonstrated with a crude, man-made convention such as logic. It would be like being in a poker game with all the citizens of the world, and they all had different rules, and wild-cards. Is this what you really want to see? - 3:48:15 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

jaywilson--right hand man to Master Bates--:CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER: WANKER AND WANKER - 3:50:36 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--GRANT--Yes, that's exactly what he's doing. It's called the fallacy of the stolen concept. But I doubt if the indication of this to CURIOUSER will impress him much--logic doesn't count apparently. But speaking of "curiouser"--exactly what convention WOULD count? - 3:54:28 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

PYPA:why do yall think that man made himself - 4:45:16 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:PYPA- So..what do yall think? - 5:12:12 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene...and what world do you live in-->:CURIOUS- Since your down on logic, just how do you live your life. While it may be logical to pay your rent/mortgage on time, are you illogical enough to take that money and put it into illogical research, researching to produce illogical evidence on the subject of logic? If so, it goes to show just what a genius you really are! - 5:19:09 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:CURIOUS. You ask why atheists are so big on logical analysis. Stop generalizing. Atheists are varied in their ideas. We agree only on the fact that the belief in a mystic, mythical supernatural and all powerful being is a delusion. Just as you deists differ in some ideas, so do we. For example some christian deists, as in Yugoslavia, think that the only good muslim is a dead one and are doing their best to prove that point. Some muslims of course hold the opposite view of other religions and in Pakistan Hindus are fair game. Of course your first impulse will be to tell me about Joe Stalin, the former seminary student who turned atheist. He was an equal opportunity killer who didn't just specialize on believers. As for your questions, they are lacking in sense, and are the equivalent of oxymorons. It's like asking a single man "Are you still beating your wife?" and wanting a yes or no answer. "--Logic ---cannot be trusted --as David Hume showed." Well, it's logical to me to think that 2 + 2 = 4. Works for me every time. Maybe with a little help from your god you and David will be able to make it equal 5. All you need is a little faith. - 6:05:31 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:PYPA. Y'all left out the apostrophe in 'yall'. - 6:10:13 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Rob (can dough-doughs be proved?):CURIOUS: Sorry, that little question doesn't make sense to me. Prove the sentence is what? It can be proved to be existent, but I suspect you meant to ask whether "This sentence cannot be proved to be correct" can be proved, n'est-ce pas? - 9:33:44 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

the artist formerly known as jaywilson:This is not a post. - 10:21:54 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

All cretins are lawyers. - 10:23:38 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Oops, that was, "All Cretans are liars." - 10:25:10 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:ROB-- Perhaps we will be shown how the sentence can be proven/disproven without using logic. - 13:39:11 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:ALL<<>>i was visited last night by a travelling trio of christians. They nocked on my door at 8:30 in the evening with a survey. The asked me if I thought that American youth is becomeing more spiritual, the asked me if I prayed more than once a day (LOL), they asked me if I went to church etc... all of the questions of course I said no to. Then they attempted to bombard me with "would you like to hear about your eternal soul, and how we can help you save it", so barely holding back my mirth I proceeded to engage them in some religous discussion. Needless to say they left quit upset and a little frustrated. I was busting them with Old/New test. verses which point to the murdering, raping, incest haveing incidents in the bible. Then I proceeded to the genocide stuff, then right before they were about to leave I busted them on the inaccuracies in the bible. I told them that if (which I absolutely do not believe) a god exists, he could care less whether I believe in him or not. Also, I think they got a little upset when i said that if the christian god did exist, I want nothing to do with him/her. There were two women and a man. At the end of the talk the man said, "I do not think that brother Steven is ready for jaaaaeezzzzuussss", which I responded "I am not your brother, now please leave". - 13:55:47 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:GRANT: Who knows/cares? But I would argue that (at least in the cases I have seen) even theists rely on logic. The only difference is that they start from different premises, and are willing to make conclusions even when the argument is inconclusive. The logic comes in when they choose a religion/god based on what they perceive as admissable evidence (be it scripture, revelation, miracle etc), so if you abandon logic then there is no means of discrening which is the correct stance. (BTW, CURIOUS: I noticed you reformulated the question subsequently. In any case, the question is null and does not represent the question of god's existence). - 14:06:35 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

sp--->knocked - 14:09:30 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN..many people have a sign that reads "Beware of Dog". You should have one that reads "Beware of Atheist"! Anyway, it offends me to no end how these people feel it is perfectly within their rights to invade our privacy. Why is it that they have to go door to door like that? How would they like it if I showed up at their door unexpectedly, unannounced, and asked them to prove that a god exists. They would be calling the police. Mind you, it is fun to goad them on, isn't it? - 14:21:04 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Esteban:JOETTE<<>>yes, I enjoyed it thoroughly. - 15:31:25 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: For a brief bit in time the curious one, probably figgered their query was the apex of thoughtful questions. STEVEN, a few days ago some watchtower folks came to the door, I was not there but one of my offspring was and asked them some questions about things. They did not answer any one question so they were asked to leave. The reason given them was that since they didn't want to discuss anything then they surely didn't have anything we needed. - 15:38:06 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS(AND VERY AMUSED):GRANT:Using logic to discredit logic? Whose logic, Grant? Mine or yours? What is logic, Grant?MARLENE: What do you have to contribute to this conversation? Haven't all of the psychologists that you hold in such high esteem shown that women are more right brained and thus incapable of logical analysis? PETER: Oh, my, you must be Pangloss, the village philosopher of Candide fame. You, nor anyone else has answered the paradoxical sentence that I presented, so I am still waiting. Furthermore, if you knew anything at all about logic, then you would know that a person can use logic to prove the existence of anything. Your probably one of those naive people who still think that the axioms in euclidean geometry are self attesting. Havent you read Principia Mathematica, by Bertrand Russell? Get with it. Also, who made the fallacy of which you speak, a fallacy? PAPASDAMNED: In your gullibility you fail to show why 2+2=4. Is this a universal law? Please enlighten us. - 15:44:41 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:ROB: Why is the question null? Can you explain? - 15:45:40 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:CURIOUS- Firstly, if you've bothered to read the posts whilst you've been lurking, I do not hold psychologists in any type of high esteem. In fact, many remind me of theists. I think your broad and illogical(and proud you must be of it) statement that women are incapable of logical analysis only adds to your stupidity. And your right in one respect, I haven't much to add in regards to a conversation with you. - 15:58:54 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:CURIOUS: Did you have a particular in the Russell Whitehead book you liked, more so than another? They said a lot, you know. - 15:59:10 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--CURIOUS--That fallacy is really bugging you isn't it? I believe it was Ayn Rand who outlined the "Fallacy of the Stolen Concept" -which basically says that it is the fallacy of depending on a concept in an attempt to discredit it. Also, your own credibility will skyrocket exponentially if you stop behaving like an asshole. - 16:00:42 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene...:JAYWILSON- Once more, I almost choked on my toast and coffee. That was good! - 16:00:44 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE and STEVEN- I bet you had a ball with them! I think I'll make myself up a sign as Joette suggests, Beware of Atheists. LOL! - 16:02:16 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--GRANT--See? Didn't I say he wouldn't be impressed? I guess being like Pangloss also includes a talent for sooth-saying. - 16:04:29 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:HEY ROB! How's it in Jolly Old? I think that maybe theists use elementary logic. - 16:05:06 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--STEVE--Great "-thumper-home-encounter" story! I don't know why most people slam the doors in their faces--I LOVE to get in it with them--if I have the opportunity. - 16:14:08 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: Golly, Candide Panglos Russell the P.M. psychology, I'm gettin'that overwhelmed feelin'here. Lets see if curious ruins it all by claimin'a godthing is on his/her side. - 16:41:01 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Either the god thing or some other supernatural crapola. Some of these people go to a whole lot of trouble trying to justify their illusions. All it seems to take for them is a "kernel" of truth in a myth to justify it as factual evidence toward it's reality. - 16:51:30 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:PETER- I think most of the atheists here have read the theists manual to everlasting life, the bible. I went to bible classes with a friend for a short time sheperded by the pastor of her church. I was "curious" to see what they really learned at these bible classes. Not much! I kept asking the question "where is the ark of the covenant and where does it tell you that info in the bible". The pastor never answered the question nor did the rest. I could tell he really hated my disruptive presence but he was too xtian to expel me from the class. After all, he didn't want to give the rest of the sheep the impression that there really are people who could not be saved. I really enjoyed his squirming and continued to attend for about two months twice a week. I too brought up all the atroscites of the passages we were supposedly studying at the time. He made sure to select ones during that time that would cause conflict with his cause. - 17:00:23 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:PETER- That should have read "wouldn't cause conflict" - 17:03:18 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:I see England has imposed sanctions against Serbia and Canada is supposed to follow suit. The abassador for Albania is asking for the same strong-arm tactic from the UN that was held against Iraq in order to curb the Serbians. Too bad Albania didn't have some rich stores of oil. - 17:06:34 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:PETER: Oh, well, If Ayn Rand said it, it must be true. Ayn Rand knows everything, right Peter? So, how did she determine this to be a fallacy? Was it based on her own inner personal subjective experience? Oh, and I'll act like an asshole if I want to, thank you very much. Also, I cannot help myself as I tend to demonstrate characteristics of those I'm conversing with. CARL: Did not Russell admit to the fact that he could not reduce math to logic without self contradictory results, i.e. "This sentence is false" or things similar to this sort of result? Did he not mention in his "limits of human understanding that "naive realism if true, must be false"? Can anyone answer the paradoxical word puzzles that send logicians into panic attacks? "this sentence is false"...true or false? I'm still waiting. - 17:23:11 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:CURIOUS- If logicians can't answer "word" puzzles, can you? I haven't attempted to answer such a ridiculous sentence because I really couldn't f-in care less about it as is likely the sentiments of anyone else here. No one claims to be a genius here therefor you should feel very comfortable here as you are far from that mental ability as well. Have you anything to add to the discussion or do you just want to post copycat questions? - 17:58:07 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

--CURIOUS--Well as a matter of fact Ayn Rand ( as are all other philosopheres--if you in fact even consider her to be one) was wrong a lot of the time too. Also, does it relly MATTER which particular philosopher/logician-type in history outlined each particular logical fallacy? Do we base its legitimacy on the person who was able to achieve this, or do ad hominems not apply here as well? As far as the "Fallacy of the Stolen" concept is concerned I think it's self-validating. One could invalidate by being able to discredit the validity of a concept, while at the same time implementing that concept in the attempt of discrediting it. Or better yet, try to discredit the veracity of logic--by being illogical. - 18:06:34 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:CURIOUS: I don't recall that he ever said these shortcomings were "facts" but when I read Russell he gnerally says he does not know things or that they were beyond his ken. As for the wrestlin'match you want over logic, your query of what is true or false, is that not the greecian paradox thing? It is not really so much a paradox as it is a rhetorical thing like for matters of zero, "achilles was the strongest of all his enemies" - 18:09:00 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>good post man! - 18:34:26 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--Well so for from CURIOUS we got: Ayn Rand isn't necessarily legit--but oddly enough Bertrand Russell is. Hmmmmmmm....." Is this sentence false" is a meaningless statement. There is nothing in its contents that implies any degree of confirmation--nor is it referring to anything that could be true or false--other than its own meaningless. The answer would be ( if one wishes to go that far ) is "neither" it refers to nothing and is in the province of the arbitrary. It would be lkie asking "Is this sentence blue?" Actually a better question would be: " Everything I am about to tell you is a lie--am I telling the truth?" - 18:43:00 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:CURIOUS. I'll bet you were a precocious child. Where did you go wrong? You take a childish glee in quoting snatches from various authors as if to say "See how bright I am!" You should read Alexander Pope - "A little learning is a dangerous thing, drink deep or taste not the Pierian Spring, There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain ---". Lacking your self proclaimed intellectual ability I have never read "Principia Mathematica". You address me as PAPASDAMNED - what a brilliant display of creativity! Another of your many talents! "In your gullibility you fail to show why 2+2=4. Is this a universal law? Please enlighten us." What do you mean by "us"? No one else here seems to be in need of enlightment. You should really try to hold your ego in check. Your question by itself topples your house of cards on which you perched in your delusions of grandeur. If you don't know 2+2=4 you are really in sad shape. I suggest you dump your "Principia Mathematica" and go back to kindergarten. - 19:00:05 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:PETER- My point, a ridiculous question. - 19:00:25 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--MARLENE--Interesting story. Why is it that when defending theism, deception and ignoring counter-evidence seems to be the norm? CARL--Oh I'm sure the god/thing will soon come sliding in here with all its usual slimy flourish, being firmly attached with a life-support system of illogic, undigested slogans and platitudes, and just pure nonsense. And soon after its arrival the inevitable questioning and admonishment of one's moral base when one refuses to cower and listen to its seemingly endless flow of inanities. Oh fuck. - 19:00:38 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- Seems you and I are seeing the same personality traits in Curious. As Joette has pointed out, idiots like Curious are so terribly stupidly insecure that they fail to post under their actual names. Instead they use something as "creative" as Curious and then, as you point out, creatively(as they possibly can) alter our true names. Who's being honest here? - 19:04:46 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:PETER- I think he (and I say he as he finds women less than logical therefore he can't be a she) wanted us to think him ..(lol) intelligent..before he introduced his god. Since he's such a poor spokesman for is illusion, he'll likely refrain. - 19:08:52 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->I have hunch that CURIOUS is actually QUIETSUN. The verbage sounds almost identical. He has missed us, but since he told us that his work here was done, he can't come back under his other pseudonym. - 19:28:22 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I think you may have something there. Especially on his lack of originality. Remember he couldn't think of anything intelligent to say himself on his homepage so he cut and pasted posts from here on it. What a boring little man! - 19:42:48 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--JOETTE--If it is in fact Quiet Sun, he's trying to present his argument in a different sequence in hopes that it may work this time. Usually the theist at first makes the declaration he can prove God's existence logically--then when he is unable to accomplish anything logically--he attempts to discredit logic itself, totally unaware that he still needs it to prove his case. This time however, he's just discrediting logic itself from the get-go, perhaps to avoid contradicting himself by claiming he could accomplish his feat logically, and then abandoning it. Hoewver, by doing so, we can now be certain his arguments will go absolutely nowhere. - 19:55:20 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->PEEDUR...I am referring specifically to his attacks on certain of us. They ring a bell, especially the way he spoke first thing to Marlene. He'll come back under an even different pseudonym now that he has been exposed because he just likes us too much to stay away. - 21:01:30 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: If it is QS and the theochat site is generally how the religious believers carry on, then QS returned to us for life and of course sanity. - 21:37:49 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Yup! He likely secretly craves a little sanity,lol. - 22:12:23 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:CURIOUS: I'll have to respond at the weekend as I'm busy, but the problem you are talking of is one of sets. The statement not belonging to either of the sets of "true" or "false", thus it being meaningless to ask which it belongs to. In any case, how do you link this in with God? - 22:15:16 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..another one bites the dust:Another one down. Looks like the PK Prayboys are headed toward an early death. They no longer "charge" for their prayins and are no only accepting donations. Seems the prayboys thing home praying is cheaper. - 22:20:33 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: well, in any case QS or not, enough lines for the sanity of the curious one have been tossed out to'im, he can be nice and grab on or as other such believers refuse real help for imaginary pie-inna-sky stuff. - 22:33:42 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..the PK's haven't necessarily bit the dust, but rather the IRS. I read a report that shows that the millions and millions they have raised has disappeared. What do you think? They trying to get to heaven the way Mama T did? - 23:10:32 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Joette (curious, but not CURIOUS):-->TO ANY LURKING XTIANS OR DEISTS..I have on occassion heard a catchy tune called "God's Great Banana Skin". Can anyone tell me what the hell this is? - 23:14:05 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

jaywilson--that was now, this is Zen--:ROB: Howdy; I've missed you. Having fried my brain with Raymond Smullyan's brain teasers to the point that logic (especially R.S.'s) has become distasteful at times, I like to refer to the Buddhist "mu", which translates to "Un-ask the question." Language, like math, can become just another rope with which to pull ourselves up or hang ourselves trying. Sometimes it's good to "mu"-ve on. - 23:16:39 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

jaywilson--upon this rock and roll I build no church--:JOETTE: The tune is by Chris Rea from his album "Espresso Logic", and it concerns Rea's recent turn to humanistic pontificating ("Road To Hell" was his last hit a few years back), if there is such a thing. The 'banana skin' is representative of Rea's belief that God plays tricks on us to keep things dynamic--including a static faith, for which I give Rea some credit. He's concerned enough to speak out; however, he's mired enough to lose credibility. Check out his album "New Light Through Old Windows" for some finely crafted pop songs without the McXtian fast food for thought. - 23:24:51 on 10 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->jaywilson..thanks for the info. No one I know has heard that song, and I was beginning to wonder if I had only dreamt it several times. I will also look for that CD, as I enjoy hearing artists I am not familiar with. - 0:05:11 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->jaywilson...I am about to play devil's advocate. You have been posting here for quite some time, and maybe I missed it somewhere, but you have never really stated if you are a good witch, or a bad witch. By that I mean, you are an atheist aren't you? So far all I know about you is that you are a master of wordsmithing with children. When I was asked here about a year ago what my belief system is, I was hard pressed to answer, in that I do not believe "in" anything, and so far have been called a capitalist pig, an ebony lesbian (that I think was a joke, right Carl?), a feminist (not me Herc!), and a myriad of other labels. So, how's about you-mu? - 0:10:13 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->JW..that should read "master of wordsmithing" and that "you have children", not that you are a master of wordsmithing with children. DUH! - 0:12:34 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Actually they copied the song off of Corny. Mother T is not in heaven remember. Gabby mixed up the paperwork and now Stan is stuck with her. He's likely just crossing his fingers hoping that Gabby hasn't been hitting the angel dust when all those PK's bite the dust. - 1:14:01 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Bill lurking in for a moment...:CURIOUS, Your sentence is relative to the observer and both "true" and "false." It is "true" that the sentence exists, but it's "false" that it has any positive message. - 1:26:16 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:OH CURIOUS, How high is UP? - 1:34:54 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

BILL: Oh, keep the paradoxes coming as they show the limited nature of logic upon which the atheists base their faith. No positive message? Well, obviously thats a very subjective statement as what is positive can be negative to someone else, as I believe you said. Does the sentence then convey a negative message to you? ALL: Instead of trying to figure out who I may or may not be, why don't you deal with the sentence that I gave you? - 1:50:54 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

BILL: Oh, keep the paradoxes coming as they show the limited nature of logic upon which the atheists base their faith. No positive message? Well, obviously thats a very subjective statement as what is positive can be negative to someone else, as I believe you said. Does the sentence then convey a negative message to you? ALL: Instead of trying to figure out who I may or may not be, why don't you deal with the sentence that I gave you? - 1:50:57 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

BILL: Oh, keep the paradoxes coming as they show the limited nature of logic upon which the atheists base their faith. No positive message? Well, obviously thats a very subjective statement as what is positive can be negative to someone else, as I believe you said. Does the sentence then convey a negative message to you? ALL: Instead of trying to figure out who I may or may not be, why don't you deal with the sentence that I gave you? - 1:50:57 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

BILL: Oh, keep the paradoxes coming as they show the limited nature of logic upon which the atheists base their faith. No positive message? Well, obviously thats a very subjective statement as what is positive can be negative to someone else, as I believe you said. Does the sentence then convey a negative message to you? ALL: Instead of trying to figure out who I may or may not be, why don't you deal with the sentence that I gave you? - 1:50:58 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

BILL: Oh, keep the paradoxes coming as they show the limited nature of logic upon which the atheists base their faith. No positive message? Well, obviously thats a very subjective statement as what is positive can be negative to someone else, as I believe you said. Does the sentence then convey a negative message to you? ALL: Instead of trying to figure out who I may or may not be, why don't you deal with the sentence that I gave you? - 1:50:58 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

BILL: Oh, keep the paradoxes coming as they show the limited nature of logic upon which the atheists base their faith. No positive message? Well, obviously thats a very subjective statement as what is positive can be negative to someone else, as I believe you said. Does the sentence then convey a negative message to you? ALL: Instead of trying to figure out who I may or may not be, why don't you deal with the sentence that I gave you? - 1:50:58 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

BILL: Oh, keep the paradoxes coming as they show the limited nature of logic upon which the atheists base their faith. No positive message? Well, obviously thats a very subjective statement as what is positive can be negative to someone else, as I believe you said. Does the sentence then convey a negative message to you? ALL: Instead of trying to figure out who I may or may not be, why don't you deal with the sentence that I gave you? - 1:50:59 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Those last posts were from CURIOUS, not BILL. - 1:53:14 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

QuietSun:ALL: If I was to post here again, rest assured I would use the same name...your discussion about this was quite good and amusing, (except for Marlene's comments which I find neither amusing or clever). It *is* almost enough to make me come back.... - 1:56:22 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene in red:YUP! I gathered that. Only someone that stupid would hit the add button that many times. CURIOUS- Frankly prayboy, I do't give a damn who you are or about answering your f-in question. - 1:58:14 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:QUIETSUN- I see we feel the same about each other. My comments weren't posted to be clever nor to amuse you. In fact, none of them where directed to you at all. I think taking words that I have posted to a group and platering them all over your sorry home page is plagiarism and is actually against the law. Not very xtian of you but then again your lack of originality does become xtians on the whole. - 2:04:16 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:PETER: The fallacy is self validating? Peter, are the axioms of geometry self validating? ALL: Of course the sentence is ridiculous because you know it shows the limits of logic, but rather than admit this you call names and huff and puff like angry little atheists always do when they can't answer a question. I want to know, I want all of you espousers of logic to tell me EXACTLY what logic is. The fallacy of which you spoke, PETER, is it universal? Does it always apply in all cases? If so, WHY? Is this fallacy arrived through deduction? Please answer. You are BEGGING THE QUESTION by using this obscure russian peasant woman as your standard. YOU MUST JUSTIFY YOUR STANDARD, so do it and stop playing ring around the Rayndie. - 2:06:21 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:MARLENE: You are the quintessential irrational feminist. Keep talking as I need a good laugh - 2:08:15 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..sick of these nut cases! I really miss the days of Richard (the atheist) and NC:I'm SO sick of these self serving , swaggering idiots who deem themselves the messenger of god who is nothing but a sickness of a sorry mind....posting here. Who DO they think they are? - 2:10:45 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:MARLENE: I know you dont care about answering the "FF-in question because all you care about is going into little sunday school classes and challenging sunday school teachers, of course! You want to be with the little tadpoles because you know you will get swallowed up by the big sharks...CHOMP! - 2:11:47 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene who needs her bra:QUIETSUN- Didn't you just say that I wasn't amusing? Forgetful are you and also not too asute. Where have I ever posted anything relating to feminism? - 2:13:28 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:ANYONE: Can anyone here give a better argument than Marlene? She obviously trained at "The Dan Barker school of atheism". Marlene, were you once a preacher? - 2:14:35 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:Enough of this frivolity. Please use your infallible logic to answer this paradox: There is a barber in a village who shaves everyone who does not shave himself. Does the barber shave himself? - 2:17:42 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:CURIOUS- Tadpoles, sharks...different in body weight but both have less than adequate brains. Neither do well when out of their elements either. Reminds me of how well your faring here. - 2:17:47 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene the Dan Barker PHD:CURIOUS- Seems there's no one except you and me here, so...why not address me? - 2:20:39 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:CURIOUS- And stop with the kindergarden riddles...your boring us. - 2:22:05 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:MARLENE: You are addressed. What shall we do? - 2:22:37 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:CURIOUS- Back in a while. It's -30 here and I have to go out and stock up the fire in the greenhouse then I'm watching _Third Rock from the Sun_. Back at 9:00 EST. - 2:26:42 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:MARLENE: It seems that the only thing you do not find boring is insulting people who may believe in God. Yet when your own beliefs are challenged you refuse to do anything other than name call and pretend your a pop psychologist. What aspect of psychology do you like, Marlene? Or do you just talk in these ways to sound lofty? - 2:28:08 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette..loves a hearty guffaw...:-->QUIETSUN..it's pretty remarkable that you would show up at just the same time as the being known as CURIOUS also shows himself. You are one and the same, only as Quietsun maybe your are experiencing a fugue when CURIOUS comes forth. Would you call this coincidence, or divine intervention? - 2:29:00 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CURIOUS..so you do believe in a god? You hadn't mentioned that previously. - 2:31:18 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:JOETTE: Do I believe in a god? If I didn't now, I would after spending a few days at this site. - 2:34:07 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:After all, what is atheism? What word or CONCEPT is hopelessly attached to the title you give yourself? THEOS? What you deny seems to follow you wherever you go. Do you not find this unnerving? - 2:36:40 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CURIOUS..several of us have answered your question from last night, and in response you have done nothing but insult. Are you generally so sensitive, or do you just hate people, period? - 2:36:55 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CURIOUS/Quietsun...call me thick, but I am not sure what your post is trying to say. Could you be more specific please? - 2:39:19 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:JOETTE: Allow me to go back to past posts. I'll be back. - 2:39:30 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CURIOUS..I also noted that you skirted around my question regarding belief in a god. Is your belief something to be ashamed of? And if you believe in a god, is it "God the Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth"? - 2:41:18 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CURIOUS...being the detective I am, I would have solved your identity. If you had just recently started posting here, which seems to be the case, you would NOT KNOW HOW TO READ OLD POSTS AS THE INSTRUCTIONS ARE NOT WRITTEN ANYWHERE. But you put your foot in your mouth by admitting that you can go back and read the old posts. - 2:43:56 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:JOETTE: If you mean the response by PETER that was hardly an answer. He is wrong in saying that the sentence does not refer to anything since any sentence refers to something or else it wouldn't be a sentence. The sentence could refer to itself, but if that is unacceptable to you or Peter, then put in the form of an argument: All people named Peter are liars...my name is Peter...thus, I am a liar. Is this argument valid, Joette, Peter,Carl or anyone else? Joette, What is logic? Where did it come from? - 2:46:31 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CURIOUS/QuietSun..why did you deride Bill for using a paradox while you yourself seem so fond of them. I have been giving your latest a lot of thought, but the answer seems so obvious I would fear to be made to look silly in your eyes. - 2:48:06 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:JOETTE; Oh I guess I could not have learned how to do that through lurking, right? Elementary my dear, elementary. Moreover, why should I care if I'm guilty of having been here? What are you going to do, punish me? - 2:49:40 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CURIOUS..no, I was not referring to Peter's answer. I had asked you what measure there was to prove whether the sentence was false. Rob had the same inquiry, but you could not or would not give any more information, thus your little experiment was moot. My interpretation of logic differs from many here, and I am sure would differ from yours as well. I do not confuse logic with common sense. Do you appreciate the difference between the two? And while we're at it, what's the difference between a duck? - 2:52:21 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:JOETTE: I did not deride him, I applauded him, because you cannot deal with them. I like the way one logician put in one text that I read: "The resolution of paradoxes is often a very complicated matter, but we persist in FAITH that a resolution is possible" ("Logic for an overcast tuesday";by Robert Rafalko) - 2:53:11 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CURIOUS..that was a predictable answer, re the back posts. Will you answer my other questions as well? (if I were to punish you, it would have to be with whips and chains) - 2:54:29 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:JOETTE: Fine, have it your way, now deal with the argument that I just gave about all Peters being liars.Your interpretation of logic differs from someone elses? Really?? So how do we know which one is superior? - 2:56:04 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CURIOUS..who do you know what I can or cannot deal with? - 2:57:44 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

JOETTE: What question did I not answer? - 2:58:59 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CURIOUS..who's to know which is superior? And does one have to be superior to the other? - 2:59:16 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:JOETTE: I know by assessing your arguments. - 3:00:12 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

There are several that beg to be answered. Please read the posts more carefully. Afterall, I read every word you post. - 3:00:34 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:But I haven't been arguing, so I guess you just make your interpretations. - 3:02:12 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:JOETTE: That is my question to you. If this logic that you constantly talk about is so reliable, how do we know which one it is? Yours or Peter's? Mine or Ayn Rand's? How do we know? Or is logic not absolute? - 3:03:04 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CURIOUS..it is only my opinion that nothing is absolute, because everything changes. Some changes are subtle, some not so. What may be considered absolute logic at this point in time may not be considered so in 200 years, as we as animals evolve, as technology evolves etc. I will say that admire Ayn Rand very much though, but that does not necessarily mean that I live my life around all her philosophies, just as you obviously do not live your life around God, given the nasty nature you have displayed here. - 3:08:21 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:JOETTE: Yes, we all make interpretations don't we? Do I believe in God? Sure. - 3:08:36 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:JOETTE: Nasty nature? Is this an absolute affirmation? Logic changes? Has it always been true that God does not exist? - 3:11:49 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CURIOUS..logic must be connected to something, right? One cannot suddenly possess logic without applying it to something, correct? So, will you explain to me, logically, why you believe in a god, although there is no tangible proof of his/her/its existence? - 3:13:48 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:JOETTE: Has it ALWAYS been the case that there is no tangible proof for God? - 3:15:09 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CURIOUS/QuietSun..yes, from my lips to your ears, my assertion of you being nasty is absolute. Although you have only attacked me slightly, you have been having a heyday with others here. Is it that when you can not debate effectively, you resort to that sort of tactic? BTW, I have known some Peters who were liars. - 3:16:56 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:JOETTE; Logic need not be attached to anything in reality.Logic need not be in any way based on empirical matters. - 3:18:12 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:JOETTE: You said that nothing is absolute. - 3:19:22 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CURIOUS/QuietSun..I would appreciate it very much if you would answer the questions put forth without asking a question. Nothing gets shared, or learned that way. I asked you why you believed in a god even though there is no evidence. I would be most grateful for a concise answer to that. Thank you. - 3:20:10 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CURIOUS/QS..okay, you caught me. Nothing is absolute except my opinion of your nasty nature. - 3:21:55 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:JOETTE: Is it now no longer the case that I'm a nasty person or will it always be true that joette said curious was nasty at 3;08;21 on March 11? - 3:22:13 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CURIOUS..I'm sorry, but I find your assertion that logic need not be attached to anything in reality ridiculous. Logic can only be applied to reality. Unless of course you have someone else to quote to refute my claim. - 3:24:41 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CURIOUS..it will always be true that I made that statement, because it can be printed and saved for eternity. Maybe it will be the first line of a new "bible". - 3:26:35 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:JOETTE: What kind of evidence do you want? The same kind of evidence you've given me with regard to logic? Also, why spend time trying to figure out who anyone may or may not be on a web site???? For all we know you might be Peter in drag. Or perhaps all of us may be one very lonely and troubled person talking to himself. Who can really know? I could be QS/Marlene/peter/rob/jimmy swaggart/Benjamin Netanyahu. - 3:27:31 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CURIOUS/QS..I have enjoyed this tremendously, but I have things to do, so I shall bid you good night. Maybe some of the late night posters will be here to carry the torch. - 3:28:58 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:JOETTE: Sorry, Joette, your wrong about logic being based in reality. For example: If a is b and c is a then c is b. You can put ANYTHING from People to pink elephants in place of the letters and it still retains it's logical validity. - 3:31:31 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CURIOUS...I am not Peter in drag, but sometimes he is a drag (LOL!). Maybe you like to play tricks on the net, but it has been my experience on this site that the majority of people posting here (especially the atheists) have been who they say they are and are by and large forthright, honest people. If that has not been your experience, I feel sorry for you, and maybe you should re-evalute the type of people you consort with. Again, bon nuit! - 3:33:04 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:JOETTE: I should go as well. Until next time, good bye. - 3:34:56 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:CURIOUS-- You asked me what logic is. I consider it a a systematic approach to thinking with the intent of eliminating errors, contradictions, and unwarranted conclusions. How do you define it? - 3:35:37 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

jaywilson--who, me?--:JOETTE: You're very welcome; by the way, this "master [with children] of wordsmithing" liked your first stab at the job description, for it is in fact what I do for a living. And as for your "good witch/bad witch" question, I'm fond of the Bob Dylan line from the song "It Takes A Lot To Laugh, It Takes A Train To Cry:" "I wanted to tell everybody/But I could not get across." Or--from whom, I don't recall--"Everybody must believe in something; I believe I'll have another beer." To another point: yours is not the devil's advocacy, but more of an honest tendency toward neo-Platonist dialectic. Nothing wrong with that, whatever side of the fence one is on; in fact, I wish there were a lot more of it here. _Someone_ had better answer PapaSam's questions. - 5:47:53 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

jaywilson--a stop making sensei--:GRANT: Here's my own off-the-cuff (or -wall) definition of logic: A system of thought, usually ending in belief, which attempts the orderly experience or expression of time, matter, and energy. - 6:16:51 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:JAYWILSON-- Yeah, I like that. Do you think our curious fellow expected formal logic spoken here? - 6:19:46 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:ALL. Logic, as I see it, is the application of one's intelligence to resolve a question. Logic is a process. It may or may not be flawed when put to use. Attacking the process, rather than the premise, as CURIOUS does, indicates a shallowness of mind. CURIOUS. I suggest that you apply such little talent as you have to more mundane matters, such as the best way to clean toilet bowls. It would be a useful hands on experience for you and relieve the pressure on your brain, such as it is. - 6:56:28 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

jaywilson--holding a royal flush--:GRANT: No, not formal logic; his interest was to make one or more of us as crazy as he is--problem is, freethinkers don't believe _in_ anything, let alone word problems, so CURIOUS is just yanking his own chain. Speaking of pulling chains, perhaps PAPASAM is right, and CURIOUS should don a Mae West and work in the W.C. field(s). - 10:21:42 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->ANY..since we have often been treated to quotes from venerable scholars and such, I would like to add the quotes of my favourite philosopher. Hope you enjoy it! (I use at least one of his lines once a week) - 13:08:27 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:CURIOUS/QS<<>>I find it curious that you enjoy slamming people for useing logic. Mabey you can give us some historical proof that your myth is in fact reality. - 14:03:29 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:ALL<<>>I will be gone for a couple of days, for I will be skiing! YEEEESSSSSS. By the way, I had so much fun with the traveling thumpers, I am looking forward to the next encounter. I told the trio when they left, to sit down and read the bible that they put their faith in, from some one else's shoes, lets say a Hindu's (sp). I also said if they can read the bible and not be disgusted by the filth that resides within then they may need a shrink. This of course is after I lambasted them with their own bible verses. Why is it that most christians do not even know what is in their own bible. I pointed out Luke 27-29, and they were speechless. - 14:11:10 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:ALL<<>>I had a linguistics prof. who said that it is man's ability to use language that makes him the dominant species on the planet. That may be, but I think there is one other thing that seperates us from animals. We are not afraid of vacuum cleaners. - 14:25:41 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->ESTEFAN..where does someone from your warm climes go skiing? And I think you would be afraid of my vacuum cleaner when I am in one of my pissed off moods! - 14:58:15 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette...watching the wheels go round and round..:-->jaywilson...I am delighted to know that there is someone else out there that shares my opinion that one does not have to believe "in" anything. I took a lot of heat over that. I am slightly disappointed in your response to me though. You accused me of making a vacuous statement a couple of weeks back (which I cried about LOL!) and I had much the same impression in your response. Are you an atheist? - 15:03:02 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: How very kind and thoughtful of you to provide that site. It is very timely for me as I am in the beginning of forming a BB team of ages 15-16. The core group coming back makes me and them excited about gettin the season started. Last year our group was not the sweetheart group but we placed at 5th out of a tournament of 18 teams. The yogism's are always fun to toss into any BB hype talk. - 15:41:08 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: I recall an interesting term that, since the curious ones appearance, has gained a kind of substance. It is,"the Tyranny of Prejudice", does this phrase form bit by bit about the curious one? It appears that he will for the sake of his godthing, exact the view of the early xtian patriarchs who for their bs- they held that they would do ??? for It and by any means possible. This naturally means, does it not, that the battle between a godthing and humanity, it means that those preferring the godthing, instead of their biological makers their mindless lust engorged human parents, must "defy" all that is human, which is one's mind. The mind of course is another tale. So, what is the franticness of curious, it is that he must lean towards the terms that compose that very phrase in order to wager a contest against humanity. - 16:22:00 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>>we are going to visit some friends in Colorado. They live in Golden. I think I will be skiing Winterpark (yuck) and Breckenridge (ok). My favorite ski area is in Jackson Hole Wyoming, the Grand Tetons (big tits in Native, LOL). I have been skiing since I was five, it helped that I lived in Colorado from the ages of 5-9. Anyway I love to ski, and do not miss a season. - 17:00:31 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..the more I think about CURIOUS's posts (I've changed my mind, it could also be Farnes) the more I see a lack of substance. He seems embarrassed about believing in his god and so would rather just have discussion about nothing at all, just so that he can attempt to make us look foolish, but at the same time, he doesn't have anything to say himself. - 18:20:39 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN..thanks for the language lesson. Have a good time, and don't break anything! - 18:22:27 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: That embarrassment factor that you bring up, it invariably surfaces within any format or arena for any religious believer. They don't know and can't show a godthing so they opt-out of that line of thought for the jc myth whereof there are other accounts said by others- see Plutarchs lives; buddha; the savior story's outta'India, etc., as an instead of a godthing, for their supposed erudition- the coined phrase, of a belief system. I inscribe it as a supposed erudition because as the curious one exemplifies, that you so aptly point at, he is quietly embarrassed at having nothing of substance to inscribe "for" his godthing. - 19:28:04 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Rob (just passing/a close shave):CURIOUS: The barber BTW, must not have his hair shaven by anyone. - 20:04:58 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:ALL<<>> When Uncle Charlie died of old age, Bill was bequeathed his uncle's prized Amazon parrot. This parrot was fully grown -- with a bad attitude and a worse vocabulary. Every other word was an expletive. Those that weren't expletives were, to say the very least, extremely rude. Bill tried hard to change the bird's attitude and was constantly saying polite words, playing soft music -- anything he could think of to try and set a good example... Nothing worked. Exasperated, he yelled at the bird. But the bird just got louder. Then he shook the parrot. But the bird just got more angry and more rude. Finally, in a moment of desperation, Bill put the parrot in the freezer. For a few moments he heard the bird squawking, kicking, and screaming... Then, suddenly, all was quiet. Bill was frightened that he might have hurt his dead uncle's prized parrot and quickly opened the freezer door. The parrot calmly stepped out onto Bill's extended arm and said, "I am truly sorry that I might have offended you with my language and action and I humbly ask your forgiveness. I will now, from this day forth, endeavor to correct my behavior so that such an ill-perceived outburst never again occurs." Bill was completely astonished at the bird's change in attitude and was about to ask what had caused such a dramatic change when the parrot continued, "May I ask what the chicken did?" - 20:50:21 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette (and the turkey told him to fuck off..):-->STEVEN...hahahahahahaha! - 20:59:18 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

jaywilson:JOETTE: My atheism is a dog's atheism. - 23:03:09 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:--jaywilson...is there a joke in there somewhere that I missed? - 23:09:28 on 11 Mar 98 GMT

jaywilson:JOETTE: Not at all; I'm quite serious--for this moment, at least. - 1:02:25 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:CURIOUS, I don't see your sentence as being "ridiculous," as you say. It is, of course, relative to the observer… but not ridiculous! Your sentence is a positive assertion with a negative message. Once again I answer your questions to me with no answer from you of my question, "How high is UP?" - 1:24:21 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Angie Miller:I am doing a reasearch paper on religion and I need help on it if you have any information on Atheisim or any religion please e mail me BoBoFetz69@AOL.com - 1:54:04 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JW, Does your "dog atheism" imply that you are an atheist by default? - 1:56:00 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:Angie Miller, Just do a search on the net for any particular religion or type in "atheist" and you should find a plethora of information. - 1:59:18 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:CURIOUS- I KNOW we're not on the same playing field here but can you not READ??? Didn't I mention that I feel that psychologists and theists have too much in common for me to buy into that type of pseudo-science? Although you claim you are not "just posting" under another "creative" name, the drivel sounds familiar. Almost "staged", if you know what I'm saying. - 2:10:32 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..just Curious (original,huh?):JAYWILSON- Since you've answered Joette's question can you expand on "dog's atheism"?? - 2:14:00 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

jaywilson--appreciative of hip gnosis--:BILL: De credit be yours; default be mine. - 4:05:02 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:JAYWILSON- Does this mean you are atheist because you are unable to be anything else? Really, this reasoning is interesting. - 4:44:39 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--Hey BILL, did you get that word (plethora) from "The Three Amigos?" - 5:00:52 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Peter:--MARLENE--Makes sense to me. If there is no reason to believe in something--you do not believe--by default; an application of reason. - 5:10:16 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE, BILL, MARLENE. I think what jaywilson is saying is that all dogs are born atheists, as are all babies, but with the proper training, who knows --. - 6:04:37 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:For you LOT seeing is believing, for me believing is seeing. Don't strain yourselves too hard trying to understand. Faith is the ASSURANCE of things hoped for the EVIDENCE of things not seen. - 8:18:43 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:PapaSam; You must be the parrot of ATHEISM, how loud can you squawk ? POLLY IS AN ATHIEST, POLLY IS AN ATHEIST, POLLY wants a CRACKER for POLLY is CRACKED, he, he, he... - 8:21:29 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:PapaSam; Sorry about that, I just realised I should have said that you are the GALAH of ATHEISM. GALAH is more APT. - 8:22:51 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Steven is another one too, what 2 GALAH'S !! it's all too much - 8:25:19 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

jaywilson--spelled P-H-I-D-E-A-U-X--:Y'ALL: You got me. Thanks for caring. - 10:35:41 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Before more time goes by, I can't see and haven't seen anything determinable of females that prevents such creatures from being or becoming anything intellectual like that a female may so desire. Many male types get side-tracked by pursuing and having females, females are side-tracked by that very same game. I think of that female male thing now as only a difference for the purpose of the reproduction of the human life form. Here, if R.Dawkins is understood then that is what a life thing will do just because that is what life does in any form and maybe it just so the same, wherever else life may be found. Perhaps the 'you go girl' thing means at least that, I really don't know this kinda'stuff you know. - 15:41:34 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:BILL: I dont know, Bill, how high is up?GRANT: Is this systematic approach to thinking infallible and based on a universal law? You mentioned formal logic...is this approach to logic better or worse than the hundreds of other approaches(boolean,stoic,dialectic,symbolic,etc.)?Also, if there are so many forms of logic, how do we know that it yields any kind of certainty? In other words, how do we know that the laws of logic are any different than the axioms of euclidian geometry, which eventually were shown to be no better or worse than any other axiom that could be made into an axiom? The axioms of logic, like the axioms of geometry are arbitrary constructs. This being so, why use logic to show that god is non-existent when logic cannot even answer for itself? - 15:57:49 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:PAPASCAM: OK, 2 apples+2 apples=4 apples, right? But what are 2 and 4 apart from the apples? Your thinking too concretely.ALL: Everything I've said is a lie and everything else I've yet to say is also a lie including what I just said. Is what I've just said true or false? - 16:12:59 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS(AND ANOTHER THING!):Consider 2 arguments: 1. If I do a good job then I will get a raise...I did a good job...therefore, I got a raise. 2. If I get a raise then I will do a good job...I got a raise...so, I'll do a good job. Both of these arguments are valid, yet they work in opposition to each other, so how can they both be true? (I suspect a supervisor would prefer the 1st argument while the employee would like the second one. So, who would be right? The supervisor or the worker beneath the supervisor?).STEVEN: MYTH? Why is it a myth? C'mon , if you have all the answers! Why? You want to be logical? OK, you gave me a CONCLUSION. What are the PREMISES that will make your conclusion anything other than a product of your confusion? 1 MORE FOR PAPASCAM: You have alot of unresolved anger in your life, don't you? You can get help for this. You just have to WANT help. I'm sure that there is a nice Christian therapist somewhere near who will gladly assist you. - 16:26:26 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:MARLENE: If Psychology is drivethen why are you so fond of using words like, -delusion-? Do you really understand what this word means? - 16:32:20 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS(still on a talking jag):JOETTE: I would rather have a conversation about nothing at all, you say? Well, let me congratulate you on your acceptance of logic being nothing, since thats what I've been talking about. You go girl! - 16:38:14 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

CURIUOS(winding down):MARLENE: I never claimed that I've never posted here. As far as sounding stagey I really resent that, since I am a thespian and seek to convey reality on stage. Oh well, back to Stanislavski and Strasberg, I suppose. - 16:40:50 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

PETER---CURIOUS: "This being so, why use logic to show that god is non-existent when logic cannot even answer for itself?" Your words. Interesting words. now let's say i made aclaim that the "Little Blue Invisible Fairy" that lives on my shoulder controls all the weather patterns on earth. Of course, you would challenge my assertion and then demand I prove it. But we have a problem here. According to you, logical explanations seem to carry little weight, so I could present an argument--which may have no association whatsoever with any traditional logic that is universally agreed upon, isist that that the methods I use to prove the fairy's existence are just as valid as any other, and then declare success of proof--based solely on any dissenter's inability to DISPROVE my assertion within the logical framework that I implemented to prove my argument. As I have stated previously, anyone in the world could do what I have done within the parameters which you seem to think are valid. however--if human beings on earth will ever be able to determine falsehoods from what is true, they must be able to identify a starting-point which is self-evident and universally incontrivertable. doing otherwise, no consciousness ( whether it be by a human being-or any other onsciousness--would be incapable of gaining any knowledge whatsoever. But this is obviously is not the case, and this is self verifying, as you yourself obviously possess SOME knowledge. This is self-validating because you obviously have some knowledge of English vocabulary, sentence stucture, and a knowledge of being able to operate a computer. Now let's bring in the old "Fallacy of the Stolen Concept" in here once again. In order for you to refute what I have said so far you must do it from the perspective of possessing no knowledge at all. You must possess knowledge of some kind to even reply to this post. To challenge this ( what I consider) a necessary process would again force you to implement the very faculties you are attempting to demolish. If you do reply at all, this then wopuld clearly show you do possess knowledge, and you have made conclusions. Correct? Now, by what pricess did you gain this knowledge, and make these conclusions? Are some them made syllogistically? ( i.e. two premises forming a conclusion ) or are some of these conclusions made outside the province of logic? ( again, two premises leading to conclusion ). Do you suddenly know what a " Bankahahhaa" is-without knowing WHAT it could be? In fact if you attempt know any the nature or contents of what ANYTHING is, and NOT ask the questions -why?, who? when? where? how? because of? -then you will arrive at knowledge--by means of NOT being logical. Now think of anything you think is true. Now did you arrive at that conclusion WITHOUT using any of there processes? If you declare "YES!" at this point, you are now ecountering another problem. By which process will you verify it--to yourself or someone else? If you do not--then it is nothing but a meaningless floating abstraction--which will give you ( or anyone else ) no other option than to subject that conclusion to some kind of context--as a means of verification. As soon as this ineviatble measure is taken--logic is pre-supposed, regardless or what premises are used--if the attempt to prove ANYTHING involves two premises two form a conclusion--you have--and cannot escape logic. - 16:54:27 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:JOETTE: -Embarrassed to speak of my belief in God-? Oh, how wrong you are, my dear lady. Why would I be embarrassed to share this with anyone? False assumptions, false assumptions. I knew eventually that I would have to talk about my belief in God, because God knows that if atheists love to talk about anything, it's definitely God! I think it's what gives meaning to your life, is it not? - 17:01:07 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:PETER: Are these axioms like the axioms in euclidian geometry or the axioms of mathematics? - 17:05:41 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:...Or are they axioms of some unknown origin?Are they absolute? - 17:06:46 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:Objectivistic Epistemology is nothing but the manifestation of another arbitrary construct. Sorry. - 17:09:10 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--TO ALL--Oh no, here it comes--the inevitable appearance of CURIOUS' manifestation of what 'God' is/isn't/was/wasn't/could be/couldn't be/is responsible for/isn't responsible for/does do/doesn't do/ wishes to do/chooses not to do/did this/didn't do this/knows/chooses to ignore......and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on ......CURIOUS---please excuse me from being extremely prejudicial and cynical here--but this better be REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY,REALLY, REALLY good ( and somethib=ng we haven't heard over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over again--or else you are going to be fried--on a skewer--and basted unmercifully ( ultimately all for your own benefit of course. This is not because we reject without even hearing your arguments first--its because they are so sloppily, and ineptfully presented with the same ridiculous platitudes( within some kind of attempted yet undetectible philosophical framework ). At least you seem to have some semblance of inteligence, so I'm hoping for-as a minimum--some interesting arguments. However, your entrance which attemped to discredit logic right off the bat--was a very very poor poor move on your part--and if you persist with it--well let's see what happens..... - 17:26:14 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--CURIOUS--Oh here we go again with the objectivist stuuff. Ok, let's do that. What ARE the three primary axioms of objectivism? - 17:28:52 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:CURIOUS: Perhaps you somehow or other disassociate the godthing from atheistic chat in order to make it the object of their views(so it is you doing this). Speaking for myself alone, that is false. I address only other humans who inscribe such words for that belief system. It is only to them, as you exemplify, that I address. If you who inscribe there is a godthing could show me where it is then I would address it instead. You would have to show me that thing, for the very reasons that compose PETERs'explanation using the elf, because I have never seen or known such godstuff. Unlike you, I dare say, I like the way my parents made me and prepared me for things and I need nor want nothing more than what happened when and how they made me. Again I inscribe of your "supposed erudition",i.e., your religious belief system, it is only you. You sure compose things like someone else that regularly sought to deny and argue against humanity for a godthing, who are you? - 17:31:55 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:CURIOUS: You ought also to know that the position I hold, that anything you say for a godthing or against human endeavors that I comfortably can see what you do or insribe of just because you are only another human creature. Try as you might in any way you choose you can ascribe to nothing that none can know. Your argument against PETERs'position has all the earmarks of the typical church patriarchs who neutered anything human for the furtherance of their belief system. One of the more shameless but definitly not thoughtless contemporary such views for that belief system appears in Plantingas' article "Advice to Christian Philosophers" what an extrapolation for such a terrible end, its'only comparison is surely Mein Kampf. So curious one, you speak only your mind and you mean only to have "your" way, a godthing, you actually don't even wish that such a thing is, we both honestly know something that fantastic is as for us to know the ends of the universe, this is beyond us both. You mean just to have your way. - 18:39:27 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..repeat, repeat:CURIOUS- I think I have also mentioned that psychiatry is an area of medicine that I agree with. - 18:58:10 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:PETER- You were right, I was wrong, he did finally get around to yapping about his god. - 19:02:48 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:CURIOUS- The lack of meaning in a theist's life really does help me to realize the meaning I have in mine. Actually I'm really tired about talking about your god. There are so many other nutty supernatural beliefs that infect people's minds through out the world. I'd rather talk about them but the subject de jour seems to be stuck on the god myth. - 19:06:35 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--CARL--Makes sense to me. Methinks Curious' goal here is to first to discredit any universal method of verification BEFORE he presents his case. This then opens the door ( so he may think ) to present any number of outlandish claims, and suggest they are not suseptible to any human form of verification. Trouble is--he cannot escape the fact the he, and we ARE all human. This seems to be on of the more recent tactics used by theists when dealing with atheists ( Anselm, QuietSun, Quake and the like ). They seem to think presenting their case in this manner is as profound as it is effective--but in a way I think its kind of neat because I know he is going to be even worse than wrong--even before he presents his case--it will be simply irrelevant--as he has discredited the very method by which one can determine wheter something is right or wrong. The standards of proof will be rendered meaningless thus rendering any argument within those parameters the same. - 19:19:34 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: One of the truely great benefits of this PC thingy, none of us including the curious one has to exist in only our own fishbowls. That however is what the religious believer with words based on ancient views that is what they mean to have for the existence of others. While I buy numerous books, this is my form of wealth, this gadget brings to any mind what those religious folks block out and utilise. They have for the most part lost their mystery and enchantments with the PC-accessibility of knowledge. I am sure that it requires a great effort for folks as curious to disregard so many views, and if one could or can read other nonenglish words then that effort at blocking out other views increases exponentially. This is why I am pretty sure that one as curious means to batter down the things that people can reasonably and logically say. Here is one of my pet ideas that we all recieve and understand the outer world logically, where those as curious go awry is confusing of their abstraction processes of the stuff recieved. But this is another thing. The curious one and others as this person, they one and all know they just imagine and wish and they enjoy it when we tell them so. The enjoyment-they can imagine again, and again, and again. - 19:49:50 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:PETER: You didn'tanswermy question about the axiomsof euclidian geometry.Asforthe 3 axiomsof objectivistic epist. I would render them in the same category unless you can show me why I shouldnt. You say I'm using logic to discredit logic? Well,aren't you using logic to demonstrate the validity oflogic,i.e. reasoning in a circle? Both are fallacies from a logical point of view(whatever that is exactly) so why should your fallacy be accepted while mine results in you berating me? Who made theserules? Do these 3 axioms sum up all of logical thinking? Also,yes I am using premises and conclusions just as all of us do, but this does nothing to prove the absolute infallibility of logic. It has it's limitations and paradoxes are but example of this fact. Bertrand Russell spent alot of his time trying to figure out such paradoxes. He introduced set theory in an attempt to solve them ,but this introduction itself resulted in a major paradox, the "paradox of non-self-membered sets". In his autobiography he tells how he kept a pencil and paper on his table. He sat at the table each morning, pondering the problem. When he left the table at the end of each day, the sheet of paper remained blank. Peter, you said that my sentence, "this sentence is false" was meaningless. OK,well what about this one:(and please answer it)FIGURE 1: the statement in figure 2 is false. FIGURE 2:The statement in figure 1 is true. We'll see if you fare any better than Bertie Russell did.CARL: Your far too complacent in your beliefs.You really need to investigate deeper into these matters. - 21:17:12 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:PETER: Ooooh, I almost missed that part about my statements being part of an "undetected philosophical framework", or some such nonsense. My, my, my, I guess I'm in real potential trouble. I'm finding it hard to type with my fingers shaking so. When you talk in that way, it's rather hard to keep from laughing. Stop trying to make yourself into something to be feared because it's obvious...your nobody. As for "philosophical frameworks"...again,I guess I just fail to see the seriousness of this, because everyone knows that philosophers don't know anything , and philosophers know it too if they are honest about their field. Philosophers are the most confused people on the planet, Peter,don't you know that? Or are you like the teenage girl who just needs someone,anyone to look up to and so you pick a teen idol to adulate without really knowing anything about him or her. This is dangerous thinking,Peter. Let it go. Philosophers don't agree about anything...INCLUDING LOGICAL LAWS. But,of course Peter's philosophy is THE philosophy to end all philosophies,right? Hahahahahaha, how gullible. - 21:39:29 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:RICHARD. You are fluctuating between calm delusions and feverish bouts bordering on hysteria. I suggest you see a doctor. Perhaps an antibiotic can help. - 21:44:26 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:-CURIOUS--No, I am not using euclidean nor mathematical axioms. Now, what are the objectivist axioms" How does one in fact verify an axiom to actually BE an axiom? ( You should know this--you've done it already, seemingly without you even realising it. ) - 21:45:02 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--CURIOUS--You needn't answer my last question if you so wish. So for I have been extending myself inasfar as your rude, obnoxious behavior is concerned, which seems to think that making personal attacks makes your arguments more valid. To me, someone who sees fit to resort to these methods is not interested in civilzed discussion, and lacks confidence that his arguments cannot stand on their own merit-- an you have clearly demostrated this with posts you've made to me--and others. I am not interested in spending any time conversing with a person who behaves in this manner. From this point forward I will not engage in any discourse with you. The conversation between you and I is over. - 21:55:13 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:CURIOUS: Why do you want know about the flat geometry of euclid? Non-eulidean geometry has been around for a long time. Lets move on. - 21:55:14 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:CURIOUS: Investigate deeper? Is this one those how high is up, or whatever queries? for awhile I thot you unsane, but you moved up on the scale, you're just silly now. - 22:01:22 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Emil Zola:-->CURIOUS/Quietsun/TONY/FARNES..or whoever the fuck you are...(too afraid to tell us your name makes you really credible)(maybe your name really is PeeWee Herman)..I find it amusing that the traits you accuse Peter of possessing are inherent in yourself. J'accuse of being a Bertrand Russell groupie, j'accuse of being a dimwit who is probably not even aware of what you are talking about, j'accuse of being a self-centered god hating asshole. Take your Bertrand Russell and stick up that large asshole of yours (I guess it would be hard to find, because your asshole is probably the only thing evident about you, and you wouldn't know exactly where to place it) - 22:05:42 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:AMENDS: what a chuckler! that should have been, "Why do you want to know about the flat world geometry of Euclid?", etc. - 22:06:22 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:PETER- Good idea! Since we are all "nobodys", why does he bother? It's like a bizarre black comedy how these theists elevate themselves above others. - 22:09:29 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:CARL: Silly and insane, I like it. My question about geometry is a manifestation of my curiousity about so called logical laws. I want to lnow what makes a logical law, a law? At one time people thought euclidian geometry to be an infallible axiom much in the same way that Peter thinks his axioms are. Whose to say that those axioms won't be replaced by other axioms down the road? PETER: Suffice it to say you are a crybaby. Couldn't handle the paradoxes with your arbitrary axioms? Well as soon as you take the pacifier out of your mouth and stop pouting we can see if you'll eventually be able to handle them.You must have been very spoiled as a child. - 22:13:12 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:ZOLA: Get a real vocabulary and maybe I'll talk to you - 22:15:24 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

ZOLA must have wandered in from atheist teen chat - 22:17:03 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

EZ:CURIOUS..I have not intention of talking to you, so fuck off. Your ramblings have been enough to make me puke. You are an embarrassment to the human species. - 22:19:10 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:CURIOUS. It's nice of you to concede that 2+2=4. A small victory for logic. I'm sure that with some hard work on your part you will be able to learn the multiplication tables. It won't be easy, but eventually it will sink in. As to your true and false questions, you will learn,as you advance in knowledge, that multiple questions require multiple answers. We worked that out when I was in fifth grade. Be patient and perhaps you'll get there. Your raise/good job arguments conveniently overlook the fact that while both conclusions are valid they are not the only conclusions. Good work doesn't always get one a raise and getting a raise does not always result in good work. Your statement that "axioms in geometry are arbitrary" Of course they are. They work, don't they? As to comparing the laws of logic to the axioms of geometry, your own reasoniing would imply that since the axioms of geometry wwork, so should the laws of logic. Your name droppings fail to impress me. Your attempts at being condescending are ludicrous, considering the source. With all your verbosity and numerous postings you still haven't had the guts to state your own beliefs. You tell Joette "Why would I be embarrassed to share them (my beliefs) with anyone? But you do not share them. I can respect an individual who states "I am a Christian. I believe in a god. I believe jesus christ is the son of god. I believe in the bible as a book of truth." Your postings are replete with obfuscation and evasion. You don't have the courage to state your convictions and raise numerous unrelated subjcts to avoid giving an answer. This is the time for you to state honestly and openly what your religious beliefs are. I don't think you will answer. One more thing. I have no repressed anger. I have been very fortunate in my life and personal relationships. I was happily married for 46 years. My wife and I raissed four great kids, three daughters and a son. My four children are all happily married. They were raised in an atmosphere of love and have passed it on to their own children. To this day when my children or grandchildren come to visit me they never fail to say "I love you" and to kiss me goodbye. What do you have? Do you have to look in the mirror to see someone who loves you? Put your tail between your legs and crawl off to your kennel. Maybe you'ld better run or some atheist dog will beat you to it, raise up his hind leg, and piss on your icon. - 22:20:54 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

EZ:CURIOUS: I walked in from a teen chat page just as much as you walked in from your local mental health facility. - 22:21:56 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:EZ: What is the human species but a bunch of evolved apes destined only for destruction? What is the human species that I should be guilty of embarrassment to them and furthermore, what have you to do with the human species? - 22:23:50 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:PAPASAM: Nice diatribe, but you failed to answer my question: What are the numbers 2 and 4 apart from apples or any other piece of concrete reality? - 22:27:14 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:PAPASAM: So do we use the laws of logic only because they work? - 22:28:10 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:P'SAM: Looks like you picked that vacuousness too, mentally; curious is still tied to home via the apron string. - 22:28:39 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS.. u r boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, nobody likes you, boring, boring, boring, everybody hates you, boring, boring, boring, boring, why don't you kill yourself, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, BORING - 22:31:33 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:PAPASAM: Also, can you present more conclusions that follow logically from the premises with regard to the good job/get a raise arguments?Of course you can. There are a multitude of arguments that could be used, all logically valid yet in opposition. What does this prove? If logic can yield 2 opposing arguments that are at the same time logically valid, I'd say we have a real limitation to logic. - 22:32:08 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:NONAME: Boring is relative to the observer, just like logic is relative to the times. - 22:33:56 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:Well, must go catch the autobus. Keep working on those paradoxes, okay? - 22:35:52 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->CURIOUS..if you have stated your case on logic, and feel that you have us all on bended knee, why do you continue to drone on about your dislike for logic? It's getting tired my man, and it would be refreshing to discuss other things, such as the wonderful asteroid hurtling towards earth. Or is it possible that you have been so busy here insulting and deriding that you forgot to watch or read the news today? - 22:38:33 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:CURIOUS: In looking at your philosophic gyrations you use 'valid' a lot, does this mean you are aware of 'invalid'? What about true false, facts and factors, asymmetry or symmetry, these are all Russell fav's you know. So, can you put together a more complete picture to address, or do you leave them out to fuel your next position? - 22:40:35 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: It appears that the curio has not discerned that an atheists foremost objection to theism is the lack of fact. The curio appears here and places his propositions and does not say what of them he says is true or false, or fact or fiction, etc. When I query theists I put forward that their scripture is forgery and fraud. I put forth dates and places for my position. The curio however, has been leaving open ended his position and wants a specific reply, is this not wrong for the purposes of an intelligent communication? - 22:59:36 on 12 Mar 98 GMT

Peter:--CARL--I would say so. - 0:08:22 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:CURIOUS. You ask "What are the numbers 2 and 4 apart from apples or any other piece of concrete reality?" The answer is "The numbers 2 and 4." You seem to have lost touch with concrete reality to ask such an idiotic question. "Do we use the laws of logic only because they work?" The answer is yes. Do you, in the fullness of your wisdom (sic) have you a better reason? "If logic can yield 2 opposing arguments thaat are at the same time logically valid, I'd say we have a real limitation to logic." I'd say YOU have a real mis-understanding of logic, and based on your postings here it is logical to assume that you don't have any idea what you're talking about. So tell us, what do you believe in, besides talking like an idiot? Ashamed to tell those nasty old atheists. Don't bother. Frankly, Idon't give a shit. - 0:32:59 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:CURIOUS, The answer to the question "How high is up" is quite simple and is, "As high as one wants, or can imagine, it to be!" I'll give you one more try with a parallel question, "What is a personal God?" - 0:35:49 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:PETER, I'm not sure where I heard the word. PAPASAM, I don't think you can be an atheist as an animal or small child. One would have to first be exposed to the idea of God, and make a conscious choice to reject this idea, before becoming an atheist. - 0:43:52 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:CURIOUS. You ask "What is the human soecies but a bunch of evolved apes - - - - what is the human species that I should be guilty of embarrassment to them--" I see that you dis-associate yourself from the human race. Please accept my apologies for thinking you were a human. I now realize that you are a jackass. - 0:50:50 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--BILL--Ho boy, here we go again with the definitions. To be classified as an atheist, one must not believe in a God. A child or dog or whatever that has no knowledge of the notion/concept of what God is, or is supposed to be, and has no familiarity with it--and therefore has no actual belief in one is calledan "implicit" atheist. Persons ( or any conscious being ) that gas knowledge of the notion/concept of God--and does not believe in the existence of a God--is called an "explicit" atheist. - 2:43:16 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Bird:For a person to be an atheist, s/he must believe that there is no God, no Creator, no personal origin to the universe. Can a baby, dog, machine or inanimate object understand and communicate this thought? No. If a baby is not an atheist, then what is s/he? - 4:51:33 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:BIRD- Definately not a bible thumper as it hasn't learned to read. Correction on the atheist term, an atheist does not believe in the supernatural, period. That also includes elves and fairies. - 5:01:55 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--MARLENE--Now why on earth do people constantly question these definitions? I just don't get it? "MY baby is no atheist!!" ( That's gotta be it ) - 5:30:25 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Grant: CURIOUS-- The systematic approach to thinking of which I speak is: No, not infallible: No, not based on a universal law. For you see, what it is, is a systematic approach to thinking. Is it better or worse than numerous systems of logic? It is the means by which these systems were developed, and the means by which they are evaluated and sometimes discarded. These systems are presented as guidelines for clear thinking. When better ways are developed the old ones get replaced. It is the opposite of random thinking or emotional thinking or intuition. It is the opposite of religious thinking which is resistant to change regardless of bald faced evidence. Are you intentionally trying to misunderstand or just disregarding everything that doesn't mesh with your preconceptions? Are you about to tell us that you don't need to think clearly because you rely on direct revelation from God? Consider this: For the sake of argument, lets say there is no god. What would our best hope of understanding reality be; emotion, intuition, superstition, or a systematic, critical, skeptical, disciplined method of thinking? Which method would bring us science and which method would bring us you? - 5:32:50 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:BILL. When I say a child is born an atheist, it is a figure of speech. It implies that a child was born with an uncluttered mind. One has to be exposed to the 'god' virus and reject it before one can be an atheist. - 5:35:06 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Peter:--BIRD--That is one only one variety of an atheist. "Atheist" simply means "without God" --meaning any person who does not believe a god exists--period. Atheist is an ABSCENCE of a belief--it is NOT a positive belief. One cannot say an atheist believes in "x"--but one can say, and atheist does NOT believe in "x". - 5:41:42 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--PAPASAM--You did it again. A baby ( or anyone who doesn't know what god is )is an "implicit atheist", dammit. Now smarten up, and read my posts! ( Christ, and you're even an atheist!) - 5:48:08 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Rob (because the hair doesn't always beat the tautologous):CURIOUS: As I said about the barber, he must not then have his hair shaved by anyone. The response to the liar statement you made as you phrased it, BTW, is that it is false, and as for the raise/work harder paradox, I fail to see the opposition. If A implies B and B implies A then could we not just have a case of positive feedback? A or B could initiate the process (which would blow up unless some other limiting variables came into play, like not being able to work any harder). Then you cite this statement #1/#2 paradox (basically A implies B, B implies not A). Personally this does not concern me too much, as (unless you can enlighten me) it does not reflect any physical situation, but only an abstract construct (a bit like the square root of -1) (and BTW, does it fulfil the identity requirements of Boolean logic?). What you seem to be saying is that because you can construct a pardoxical statement then all logic is completely discredited. For me the logic merely exposes the paradox that lies within the statement, not within logic itself. And in any case, if there were a flaw in the logic then could that not be down to the incompleteness of our formulation of it? Now perhaps you could move on to the next stage of your discussion (assuming there is one), though I feel I should clear up a few points regarding your apparent opinion of all atheism/logic. I do not claim that logic can be used to show the non-existence of god/gods, and I don't claim logic to be no sacred cow (no mooleans here). But as far as I am concerned, it is the most reliable method I have for analysing what I perceive of the world. Yes, so I may have been tricked by the Cartesian demon, but as Morrissey put it "in my heart, it was so real". Logic certainly gives the impression of reflecting an objective set of laws for how the world behaves, and if you disagree with this or with employing induction then I challenge you here and now to drink some bleach (I mean, just because it has always done nasty things in the past doesn't mean it won't be a pleasurable experience this time, does it?). - 9:14:15 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Rob (with the freshest breath in town):Jay: Nice to "see" you too. I'm sorry I haven't writ too often lately- I'll drop a line soon. - 9:18:29 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROB..not fair re the hare! There should be a rule that no dictionaries need be employed before 7:00 a.m.! - 12:15:28 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Joette...my car is an atheist...:-->BIRD..have you been trying to get machines and inanimate objects to understand the concept of god? Your post made more sense until you included that part. - 12:23:44 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:PETER, Sorry, I don't buy the "explicit/implicit atheist" terminology. When you say ** "Atheist" simply means "without God" --meaning any person who does not believe a god exists--period.**, the key words here are "not believe." To "not believe" in something is to not have confidence in the reliability of a particular thought or rationalization. Only "secondary intelligence" life forms (ie human) have the ability to analyze thoughts or rationalizations. Babies, animals, and lesser-developed life forms do not operate on an ego or superego (secondary intelligent) mind level; they operate on an ID or (primary intelligent) mind level. Where would you stop the atheists orbit??? A baby, animal, jellyfish (nervous system with no brain), rock, etc.? - 13:27:38 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:BIRD, You ask, "If a baby is not an atheist, then what is s/he?". See my post to Peter. I would only add that the process of "micro-evolutionary determinism" is the driving force in nature to organize the universe to overcome entropy (disorganization/decay). In other words this "objectivity" of nature is nothing more than "primary intelligence." Humans have evolved to a higher mind level "secondary intelligence" (ego/superego) and on this level there exists, relative to the observer, "subjectivity." ONLY on this level is there a concept of a "personal God" or a concept of "no personal God" (ie theists or atheist). So a baby or animal would just simply be "primary intelligence." - 13:28:24 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:JOETTE: Sorry if early morning wordplay Bugs ya... perhaps you could ask Yo-semiteSam to give you the jewsy Daffynitions over a cup of rabbi tea (just kidding Papa- we know you're really infideller on the roof). BTW Jo, does your car run on unlead petrol? - 13:41:01 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:CURIOUS, I await your answer to my question. In the mean time, since you seem to like paradoxes, let me give you a real paradox to chew on. An omnipotent God creates a universe that comprises of both "micro-evolutionary determinism" (see post above to Bird) and "entropy." What we refer to as "good" or "evil" is, IMO, just a denizen of these two determinates. As the asteroid heads toward earth, why would an omnipotent God create such a universe and thus create "good" and "evil?" - 14:24:01 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:CURIOUS, If you want a clearer definition of micro-evolutionary determinism it would simply be: "Evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species, determined and exemplified by the resoluteness of natural laws." - 14:46:18 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--BILL--Really. I don't give a flying fuck if you don't buy into it or not. These are simply "textbook" definitios I gave you. If you kbew something about atheism/theism, you would know what I'm talking about. If you don't believe me, check out a reference book that defines philosophical terms. If you went to university where the professor was talking about atheism and you said "implicit atheist" he would give you the definition I gave you. It's like me saying to you "Bill, I don't agree with the term "secondary intelligence". Bill--that's just the name it's given--and we have been over this before. You can call it something else if you want, but that won't change the "official" name for it. Bill, I am not presenting an argument here, and this goes no farther. I was presenting a fact. - 14:52:03 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:GRANT: Your post is reasonable and sensible, but curious will not and can not accept either for his better being because it must in someway, anyway actually, be of that relation which curious 'believes' he has with some godthing. The curious one could be playing the role of a sophist and for that he utilises what reading and scholarship of which he has acquaintance. His plea to know the "law" could just as well be his plea for a godthing, but "Man is the measure of all things" Protagoras. - 15:58:16 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:PETER, I still don't buy it! - 16:30:39 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:PETER, Any term I use is up for debate or clarification. If we never question our textbooks, definitions, or paradigms, we would only grow in parroting other people's knowledge. This "may" or "may not" help us to grow in understanding. I've heard---here in fact---references to "original thought." So what's wrong with re-thinking terms? And, once again, in reference to "implicit atheist," where would you stop the atheist orbit??? A baby, animal, jellyfish (nervous system with no brain), rock, etc.? - 17:03:33 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--BILL--OK fine--call it what you want--or re-define it if you like. Call the state where you live "Sometimes Frozen-Peach country when there is an El Nino" instead of Georgia. Call the country you live in "Very Large Land South of Canada and North Of Mexico" intead of the USA if you want... I was just giving you the words for these things. This is what they are called. Like rabbits. And oceans. And moutains. And Islands. Call a baby a "person who does not yet know what a God is therefore he is not an atheist" if you want. Go ahead. Write a fucking research paper and submit it to some philosophical body. Fuck, you're an asshole. - 17:48:09 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: He does get a muleheadedness I agree. Could you imagine him with a bible under his arm? He'd be the devil hisself. - 17:59:14 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:PETER, You're missing the point and I think your post speaks for itself! Oh, I live in Southern Canada in a place commonly known as Florida! - 17:59:57 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--BILL--I hope you understand what is going on here. I am not presenting an argument. I am just stating a fact. Anything that is not aware of what a God is --is called an "Implicit Atheist" that is the name for it. Bill, some things are not suseptible to argument. Your name is Bill, isn't it? I don't for the sake of argument disagree with that do I ? My name is Peter. Do you diagree with that too? You come on here with all these Freudian "id" and "primary inteligence" and "secondary itelligence" as if they are some kind of given terms. Well. I accept that--because those are the names given to those things. You know what would really be nice and very refreshing, especially coming from your mouth? If you would have come on today and said--"Gee, Peter. I wasn't aware there were actual names given to people like that. Thank you for that information" - 18:04:54 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:PETER, So a jellyfish is an "implicit atheist?" - 18:09:08 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--CARL--I normally do not rely on other opinions to support mine--but I appreciate your comments. I was beginning to wonder if I was starting to exist in some kind of never-never land, where my ( what i thought were perfectly reasonable )explanations seemed to just fly into void. I appreciate your perspective of what I thought was one of reality. - 18:13:02 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:Fundamentalism can come in many forms whether you're a "jellyfish atheist" or a "steeple neck" religionist, the end result is the same: No brain at the top! - 18:16:32 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--BILL--Premise(1) Does a jellyfish know about a God? No. Premise(2)Does A JELLYFISH believe a god exists? No. Therefore the jellyfish is an atheist. An implicit atheist. If one chooses to make the distinction whether a conscious entity is an atheist--or a theist, he cannot be a theist because he does not believe in a God. Since he has an ABSCENCE of a belief in God--he is then an atheist. Since he has no knowledge of what a god is or is supposed to be--he is an "implicit" ( wheteher you like it or not ) atheist. - 18:23:00 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:PETER, Therefore, some atheist have NO brains, and does this apply to rocks as well??? - 18:27:01 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Joette...SERENITY NOW!!!!!:-->BILL..since when is Florida in Southern Canada...rule of the day: when trying to be an upstart, please proofread your posts. And sorry guy, but me thinks Peter has you on this one. You are arguing semantics, not laws of the universe. - 18:38:35 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:BILL: I said that I din't know with regard to your question, so what is the answer? Also, why would an omnipotent God create this sort of a universe? With entropy + determinism? Good question. By the way, are all of these things, "dualisms"? - 18:44:22 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, I disagree with you and yours, but how's the weather up there? - 18:46:10 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

The Incredible Hulk:Superman was sitting in his apartment one Saturday night, and decided he would like to go out for a beer with one of his buddies. He phones Batman and says "Hey Batman, how about you and I going out for a beer or two?" But Batman replies "Hey Superman, I'd like to, but Robin and I have to fix the Batmobile." Not discouraged, Superman calls up his friend Spiderman "Hey Spiderman, how about you and I going out for a beer and maybe picking up some women?" Spiderman replies "Gee Supe, I'd love that, but I have to fix my web tonight." Superman decided that since his friends were busy, and because he was Superman anyway, he'd just go fly around the city by himself and see what might transpire. So he jumped out his window and flew around, when lo and behold he spies Wonder Woman lying stark naked on top of an apartment building. He starts thinking to himself "hmmm, I could fly done there, boff her a good one, and take off even before she knows whats happening" and that's exactly what he did. Suddenly Wonder Woman cries out "What was that?" and the Invisible Man says, "I don't know, but it hurt like Hell!" - 18:47:26 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..you disagree that Florida isn't in sourthern Canada? - 18:48:26 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--BILL--You are oddly catching on here, surprisingly. Either something believes something is true--or they do not. This is usually applied to conscious entities, as they are the only ones that can make that choice--usually human beings. However, if one wishes to make this distinction--let's apply it to a rock. Does the rock believe a god exists? No. Would he have any knowledge of a god? No. ( Negative responses bases soley on the assumption that a rock has no consciousness) Therefore a rock would be an implicit atheist--and so would anything else ( besides a human being ) be an implicit atheist. But since it is of no consequence as to whether a rock is an atheist or not--I don't think this possibility is addressed too often. In other words, Bill, a rock is definitely NOT a theist--so it has to ( by only one other alternative ) --an atheist. - 18:48:28 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:CURIOUS, Briefly, as I need to go do some work, I posted the answer to my question and you must have missed it. Just go back and re-read the old post. If you need help on doing that just ask someone here. I will respond more to you later, bye! - 18:49:49 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:PETER, Self proclaimed pope of atheism. Who gave you the authority to decide that your point of view is the one that must be accepted? "Read my posts!' I've read them and the only thing that impresses me about them is the size of your ego. Whether you created the term "implicit atheist" or bought it from a professor of philosophy does not matter. Your definition does not hold water. Effect follows cause. Atheism is, so to speak, the effect of theism. If no one had invented a god there would be no atheists. I have no particular respect for philosophers as such. The halls of academe are filled with PhDs, including Georgetown, Fordham , St. John and other Catholic universities. As an atheist, I find that a PhD awarded to someone who has spent years sudying the history of the saints or other of his religion's niceties is worthless. However, that's their business and they ar surely not about to close up shop. - 18:52:37 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

ROB: How can something that is totally abstract give you any reliable information about the objective world? If the sentence was, as you said,"totally abstract" (which puzzles me because any sentence is a subjective entity turned objective), how then do we determine a totally abstract sentence from one that is objective? Is sentence construction reducible to mathematical construction, and if it is do we not run into the same problems that Godel revealed. In other words is language totally formal? - 18:52:44 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--BILL--What do you mean "disagree"? You truly baffle me--after all my analogies and explanations you still think you can "disagree" with something that just simply has a name for it. - 18:54:39 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:GRANT: If logic progresses then could we realistically say that it is possible that some day in the future it may be logical to affirm that God exists? Has it ever been acceptable to say that, "my car is in the garage yet it is not the case that my car is in the garage"? - 18:56:02 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:ROB: That last post to you was from me. - 18:56:38 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:BILL: "What is a personal God"? I don't know that one either, Bill, but I'll bet you do, so I'll await enlightenment. I am, after all, merely a sponge soaking up information. - 19:02:24 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:PAPASAM: The numbers 2 and 4 are not concrete realities, my friend. They are abstract(non material entities) applied to concrete entities. Your obviously still stuck in Piaget's concrete-operational stage. Alot of adults are like that. - 19:05:24 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM and PETER- I'm atheist, self-appointed too! To solve all problems with just what "kind" of atheist one is, I suggest it be defined as "someone (not a rock or a kangaroo either)" who does not accept the supernatural based on the lack of evidence of the supernatural exsisting. It covers it all, gods, fairies, little green men etc. If it so happens that tangible evidence can be presented on such beings exsisting then they would no lonfer be supernatural, non? - 19:07:19 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:CURIOUS: If you're going to use quotation marks, at least quote what I said. While you are at it, are you going to respond to the rest of my post (and have you drunk that bleach yet?) - 19:10:41 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Yiddish man:ATHEISM PRESUPPOSES THEISM. ATHEISM IS DEPENDENT ON THEISM FOR IT'S VERY EXISTENCE. CO-DEPENDENCY IS A HORRIBLE THING. - 19:12:10 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:YIDDISH MAN: Ok then, how's about we abolish both! - 19:14:32 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:ROB: Sorry, I misquoted you. Did I change the entire meaning of your statements? If not, please give an answer to my last post. - 19:14:49 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:YIDDISH MAN: Does that apply to man and woman being co-dependent? - 19:16:09 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:CURIOUS: You did change the meaning- I said the sentences in question (IMO) represented an abstract situation. - 19:19:04 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:YIDDISH MAN: Theism and atheism if this were a math equation would it be 0 = 0? and would its vice versa stand? - 19:20:30 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--BILL, PAPASAM--Before you continue with your offensive motions challenging these terms concerning this matter which you have assumed to this point are corrct--(, mostly dictated by the the theistic community in an attempt to avoid the moral implications of being an atheist ) do one thing: Look into this matter more deeply. If I have to I can quote from a number of philosophical textbooks--but I have a feeling this will for some reason not impress either of you. You two just haven't heard this term before, and you automatically reject it--and assume I'm being a smartass and just making these terms up myself. Well I am not. These are universally accpeted terms just like "thermodynamics", "neurosis" "alpha particles" "molecular structure" . I presented this post yesterday to offer an insight into the terms given to certain degrees of atheism--and the specific terms given to ceratain degrees of atheism. However, I am somewhat baffled by both of your reactions here by your simple doubting and disagreeing with these terms-which I interpret as you questioning my knowledge of such matters--and I would have thought that at this point my word on this topic word have some semblance of reliability. You may not like these "definitions"-that's fine--But For the last time THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE CALLED FOR CHRIST SAKES.--And Sam--TYou sarcastically refer to me as a "Pope" of atheism--and I am disappointed by hearing you make this reference. Again, I thought by now I would have gained a little more respect inasfar as being somewhat of a reasonably well-informed spokesman concerning the subject of atheism/theism. You obviously just concluded my explanation about implicit atheists as invalid--without actually looker deeper into a term that you were yet familiar with. If it matters, I am truly upset, and bewildeed by both you and Bill's reaction here and am saddened and hurt by the fact that my explanations are automatically given zero credibility. - 19:21:19 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:ROB: It sounds as if your confusing logic and empiricism. Furthermore, my question concerning the get raise/work harder arguments centered around my wondering how reliable logic can be when it can yield 2 valid arguments and yet at the same time work in opposition. I still fail to understand this. I can LOGICALLY deduce that logic is illogical. 1)Any unprovable method is illogical. 2)logical analysis is an unprovable method. 3)Logical analysis is illogical. Again, what does this method prove? Why use it to prove anything? - 19:24:43 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:YIDDISH MAN: In other words theism has zero substance and that is all atheism says is, no god ergo no believe. Or do you know where the god stuff can be found? Now before you decide to respond, if you can or dare to, the credulous and gullible qualities of religious belief do not exist here, in me that is to say for sure. - 19:28:58 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:ROB: Figure 1) The statement in figure 2 is false. Figure 2) The statement in figure 1 is true. Do these sentences represent a totally abstract situation, and if so why is it that we can see them objectively? Moreover, any concept taken from material reality is an abstraction. Does this mean that our everyday experiences go beyond logic? Logic itself is abstract. What do you think logic is? - 19:29:24 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--MARLENE--That is usually the process by which one arrives at atheism, but this does account for the nut-bars out there who may not believe in a god, but swallow all this other stuff like astrology, psychic phenomena etc. The term "atheism" only applies specifically to the subject dealing with whether a god exists or not ( It means " not a theist" ). However, in most cases, if one does reject god-he will reject any form of the supernatural--but this may not necessarily be the case however. Again, before you start too--I am just giving a definition, and I am actually beginning to become paranoid here for doing so recently. - 19:31:29 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:ANYONE: Is logic an empirical entity? - 19:31:46 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:CURIOUS: Do you really see that empiricism and logic are separable things, does this mean that you see a toothache and its pain as two? - 19:32:53 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:CARL: If a is b and c is a, then c is b. Is this based on empirical reality? - 19:36:01 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:CURIOUS: are you going through your Russell book? Hangon, I'll head over to the library and pick up his "Principles of Mathematics" and you might do yourself a god turn and pickup Poincares' "The Foundations of Science" might fill in some gaps for you. - 19:45:55 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:CARL: That would be helpful. Thanks.(No, I'm not going through any of Russell's books. I'm going by memory so if I misquote something, that would be why. I haven't read Principia Mathematica nor human knowledge; It's scope and limitations in quite some time. While I may have forgotten some of the info., I think I've retained the essentials). - 20:28:32 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:PETER- Hey! I'm not fighting with you! Just trying to make things a little easier. While on this subject though, none of the theists have defined their god. At least in history gods have been representative of something like rain god, snow god etc. but the xtian god has yet to be really defined. IMO gods, fairies, forces like astrology etc. are all supernatural therefor all the same thing to me but of course, that's my opinion. - 20:41:15 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

The Dramatist:All: Here is a little skit that portrays the typical mindset of an atheist: (Sid and Jon are waiting for the bus. They do not know one another. Sid is an atheist and Jon is not. Jon decides to strike up a conversation) Jon: Hello. Sid:Hi there. Jon:Beautiful day, isn't it? Sid: Certainly is...do you believe in God? Jon: I don't know.Haven't really thought about it. Sid: (disappointed) Oh. Jon: The nice weather probably won't last. Sid: Yeah.Do you believe in God? Jon: Uh...my names Jon, and you are? Sid: Never mind that! Do you think there is a God? Jon:Uh...Maybe(tries to change subject) Do you work around here? Sid: Do you believe in God??? Jon: Well, I really try to stay away from religious... Sid: ANSWER ME!!! IS THERE A GOD!? TELL ME, TELL ME, TELL ME!!! Jon: Can we talk about something else? Sid:NO!!! I don't believe in God, do you? Do you? DO YOU?!!!??? Jon: Perhaps you should see a therapist, I know of one that can... Sid: Does he believe in God? Do you believe in God? Do I believe in God? NO! Is there a God? Jon: Would you like a valium? Sid: STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT!! I must talk about God! I will not talk about anything else! Jon: Here comes my bus. Sid: I dont care about your stupid bus.Where's the evidence? I WANT PROOF!! Jon: It's right down the street. Sid: Do you believe in God? ANSWER ME!ANSWER ME! Jon: My bus is here. I have to go.(he steps on the bus...Sid follows, Jon sits down) Bus driver: (looking at Sid who looks very deranged) You gonna pay the fare or what? Sid: Do you believe in God? Bus driver: Get outta here, you religious nut! (Sid, dejected, steps out of the bus and watches as it drives off. Suddenly, he takes off running while at the same time he screams repeatedly, "there is no God, there is no god! hahahahahahaheeheeheeheeheeheeheehoohoohoohoohooheeheeheeheeheeheehahahahahahahahheeheeeheeeheeheeheehahahaha!!!!). The End - 21:28:21 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Fundamentalism can come in many forms whether you're a "jellyfish atheist" or a "steeple neck" religionist, the end result is the same: No brain at the top! - 21:49:29 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: then there is this, Three nuns die and go to heaven where they are met by St.Peter at the pearly gates. St.Peter says,"Ladies, you all led such wonderful lives, I'm granting you six monthes to go back to earth and you can be anyone you want." The 1st nun says,"I want to be Bo Derek." and Poof! she's gone. The 2nd says,"I want to be Madonna." and Pooh! she's gone. The 3rd says."I want to be Sarah Pepalini." St.Peter looks perplexed. "Who?" he says. "Sarah Pepalini." replies the nun. St.Peter shakes his head and says,"I'm sorry, that name just doesn't ring a bell." The 3rd nun then takes a newspaper out of her habit and hands it to St.Peter. He reads the paper and starts laughing. He hands it back to her, still chuckling, he says,"No sister, this says Sahara Pipeline laid by 500 men in 7 days!" - 21:54:18 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:CURIOUS. If someone gave you two concrete kicks in the ass would you still think the number 2 is abstract? - 23:00:40 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:DRAMATIST. I suggest you give up dramatizing forsome other line of work. - 23:01:58 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

The name for this page should be changed to "Who Has the Biggest Ego?" - 23:32:36 on 13 Mar 98 GMT

James--->Curious...:What kind of God would a God be if we could prove he/she/it existed? Not much of a God at all if you ask me. - 1:19:22 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

James--->Nameless Poster:I would have to say no one has an ego like the God of the Judeo Christian Bible. - 1:21:43 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

James--->Peter...:Sounds like you need a good old fashion cry. If it makes you feel any better, I think you are an excellent spokes person for atheism. - 1:24:31 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

PapaBam:PETER. Don't bother quoting from philosophers' text books. You speak of "universally accepted terms". How can they be universally accepted if we question them? You mention "degrees of atheism". That's like saying a woman is "a little bit pregnant". A woman is either pregnant or she is not. A person is either an atheist or not. There are no degrees, and don't tell me a woman can be more or less advanced in her stage of pregnancy. You know what I mean. Again, you say you are "baffled by both your reactions here". That's why I called you the 'pope'. Why should anyone doubt you? You're infallible. Did you ever stop to think -" If people disagree with me, maybe I'm wrong?" You feel that you should have gained respect as a reasonaly well informed spokesman on the subject. What's there to be informed about? The definition of the term atheist is very simple. Does reading the works of a hundred philosophers give you a better definition? I was an atheist before I ever heard of any of the "great thinkers of the ages". Speaking for myself, I find most of them boring. I think they make great soporifics for insomniacs. - 1:51:32 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:CURIOUS. Here are three statements. 1. It is logical to think you are a ball buster. 2. It is empirical to know, from your postings, that you are an ignnorant jackass. 3. Based upon the self evident facts in 1 and 2 above, it can be logically and empirically seen that you are a ball busting and ignorant jackass. I'll add a 4th statement. You're boring. - 2:00:42 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

James--->Peter...:There is nothing wrong with your succinct definition of an atheist. I think we have all covered this a hundred times. I see no need to redefine the term. It has nothing to do with the supernatural rather it applies specifically to the disbelief/non-belief in an omnipotent God. While it is sometimes argued that God is the essence of the supernatural, the supernatural must be considered in a broader context. Other forms of supernatural, astrology, psychic phenomena, afterlife, etc. need not be connected to beliefs in God. We meet these subjects with extreme skepticism and are extreme skeptics as a result. My confusion on the issue revolves around the question of whether atheist also reject the possibility of supernatural things like God, god, telepathy, out of body, and etc.? Recently I noticed some of you folks using the term "if". In this manner I don't see myself much different from you. I can't say I believe because I have nothing to go on, by the same token, there are so many variables in life I can't close the door on IF. Furthermore, I am far too humble to say that something is not possible, especially things of the supernatural flavor. I think I can be open to possibility without inheriting the fallacies of faith, or absolutism. It seems further true that openness to possibility is key to hope. Meaning if something is believed to be impossible; why hope for it? So to not believe in possibility is to be hopeless. This attachment I seem to have to both possibility and hope are why I cannot call myself an atheist, though I do not believe in a God or Gods, but I do consider myself somewhat of a skeptic to put it mildly. - 2:05:33 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

monitor:Papasham: you sound like you are so full of envy of anyone who may have made it a bit further in life than you did. You scoff at a person with a PHD? Is that jealousy rearing its ugly green head? If you had the discipline to earn a PHD you would be singing a different tune. Only an uneducated person scoffs at an educated person. Do you get out much? Probably not, because your head probably can't fit through any normal size door. From here on in, for every insult you cast, you will get thrice in return, no matter to whom it is directed. If you have nothing constructive to say, keep your flapping gums shut. - 2:25:17 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--JAMES--Thank you--I appreciate your comments. - 2:39:05 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--SAM--I still cannot comprehend your obstinace and resistance to accept these simple terms, and why you seem so hostile to me because I have knowledge of these terms. They are universally acceptable. You can question them all you want--but that is the term given to that "kind" of atheist. If one does not have a belief in a god--he is an atheist. That is the citeria for being an atheist. BUT If he has knoweledge of the concept of god--and then rejects it--he is an explicit atheist ( And this category is sub-divided into a "critical" and "non-critical atheist". HOWEVER if he has no knowledge of what the concept of God is--he cannot possible believe in him--he is by definition also atheist an "implicit" atheist. Now, how could this simple fact put you in such a tither, is beyond me. And why you would want to challenge it only says to me is that you just assume the definition of an atheist you have assumed to be true all these years is correct. Wel Sam--I don't think it is--or else you wouldn't be having such a hard time accepting just something that is. Now have YOU ever thought to stop a nd think " Hey, maybe my definition of an atheist all these years isn't exactly correct after all, and maybe there is a little bit more to this than I thought" I'm not here to "show anyone up"--only to exchange knowledge and ideas with others--but when I offer some information I think is legitimate and relevant, and then being attacked for being "egotistical" seems so baffingly unfair, uncalled for and suspiciously resentful in kind of a childishly enviable way. I would have expected an attitude which would demonstrate one of interest, respect and keenness, especially from someone of your years and intelligence, sir--but right now you sound like some snotty sixteen year old kid who has reached that magic moment in his life when he feels he "suddenly knows it all"--andwhenever anyone says something different from what he thinks is true--is automatically wrong. Grow up, Sam. - 3:18:03 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:JAMES- Don't include me in agnostics and god has everything to do with the supernatural. Once again, it depends on which dictionary one uses when it comes to definitions. As you know, I also can't accept afterlife, fairies, elves etc. as well as god. God is the same damn thing. - 6:41:24 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:HE WHO THINKS HE'S a DRAMATIST- Something is very wrong with you little story. Atheists don't go to xtian chat rooms and push their lack of belief on believers but believers DO come to atheist chats and push their delusions on atheists. I think you have gotten mixed up with the character traits. - 6:45:12 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:YIKES! the MONITOR is sounds a whole lot like the xtian god with that "thrice payback" thing. - 6:48:38 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..now cut that out!:QUESTION--Why is everyone taking other people's comments as fact. Every comment here is merely someone's opinion. Now back in the good old days when James and I got to bickering we at least had fun at it. Right James? - 6:53:51 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Where are you today? I miss someone posting to me!! - 6:56:19 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:monitor. Defender of the ph(d)aith. There PhD's and there are PhD's There are shoemakers and there are shoemakers. Have you ever heard of the Bell curve? It applies to PhD's and shoemakers and every field of endeavor. The curve represents 100% of a given group. When compared with each other from 1 to 100 somebody has to be on the bottom. Even PhD's fit into the pattern. Far be it from me to scoff at education. I recommend education. As a matter of fact, I recommend that you go back to school to study vocabulary and English composition. First of all, you used the term "jealousy" The proper word is "envy". A person is jealous of that which he possesses. "He guarded his jewels jealously" A person is envious of that which others possess."John was envious of Frank because of his wealth." Now on to sentence structure. "From here on in, for every insult you cast, you will get three in return, no matter to whom it is directed." What you should have said is "From here on in, for every insult you cast, no matter to whom it s directed, you will get thrice in return." By the way, you don't happen to have a PhD in English, do you? I'm having my doorways widened. Why don't you have yours narrowed? - 7:40:24 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:monitor. Was my posting constructive enough? - 7:43:44 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:CURIOUS-- You asked "If logic progresses then could we realistically say that it is possible that some day in the future it may be logical to affirm that God exists?" I would say that it would be possible to logically affirm God's existence at any time if direct physical evidence or convincing circumstantial evidence could be produced that would counter more reasonable explanations concerning human nature and human propensity to believe in things supernatural regardless of whether or not such things exist. IMO, the question points to the pitfalls of assuming one's conclusions. I think it is meaningless to work backwards from a conclusion because only evidence that supports the conclusion is sought and such things as looking for loopholes in logic that can still allow the conclusion to be valid are routinely practiced. This is the problem with "creation science," in my view. This is the context in which such things as the possibility of logically coming to an incorrect conclusion can be viewed as evidence that logic is without merit, as in your other question, "Has it ever been acceptable to say that, 'my car is in the garage yet it is not the case that my car is in the garage?'" I think you're asking if perfect logic can lead to an incorrect conclusion. The answer is yes, but again only in the context of assuming your conclusion would this be considered grounds for dismissing logic wherever it does not support your beliefs. - 8:46:35 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:PETER-- It is not your imagination. This room gets strange! - 8:49:23 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:CURIOUS: First about the empiricism- What I am saying is that just because you can conceive (or read) of a paradoxical situation (irresistable force/immovable object type scenario), doesn't mean the logic doesn't work. If the sentences don't represent an empirically observed situation, are they not then propositions? If so then the abdsurdity of the conclusion of the logical analyses would constitute a disproof of the form "reductio ad absurdum", no? (I am relying on you correcting any mistakes as my logic here, as I didn't do the logic course). Then back to this raise/work scenario- I'm afraid you stilll haven't conveyed to me what it is that bothers you so. How exactly do they "work in opposition"? Also this logical deduction of illogic- I disagree with the premises. One can argue that unprovable methods can be logical, for example by inductive inference (I think I've avoided circularity here, haven't I?). I'll talk more later, where I will be interested to see if you have responded to anything else in my original post (particularly the question of why you wont drink bleach). PETER: Those definitions sound both valid and useful, though you say to be explicit atheists we have to have knowledge of the concept of god -but doesn't this raise some counter-intuitive results (not that that means they are a "wrong" convention)? I mean, it sounds like a matter of degree as to how well we know the concept of god, and there are also many different concepts (so we may be implicit atheists w.r.t one god and explicit atheists w.r.t another). - 9:37:06 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:PETER, Don't take these postings here from me so personal. I am only giving you my personal opinion here. I don't think you are just making up your definition and I am sure you have atheist and philosophical writings that validate your definition. I have heard of your definition of "implicit atheist," more than once in fact, before and the concept sounded hokey then to me, as it does now. In my view, an atheist is a human for christ sake! Whatever atheist, or philosopher, first envisioned the idea of "implicit (implied) atheist," to encompass the entire frickin' universe, had to be one insecure individual, IMO! - 13:14:25 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:ROB, You bring to mind a good point when you say, "so we may be implicit atheists w.r.t one god and explicit atheists w.r.t another." The idea of "implicit" and "explicit" applies only to humans! - 13:19:37 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:CURIOUS, When you were playing with paradoxes and I ask you, "how high is UP?" and answered by saying "as high as we want, or can imagine, it to be!" This was to emphasize the "relativity" and "subjectivity" of the observer. I followed by asking you "what is a Personal God?" I was trying to convey the "relativity" and "subjectivity" of the observer in this area as well. People, IMO, create personal God's in their own image to comfort them and relieve them of the fear of death. That's why there are soooo many different religions and personal Gods in the world today and throughout history. Logic would tell, any rational individual, that somebody's WRONG! - 13:32:51 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

monitor:Papascum: last night you used the analogy of a "woman being pregnant" (a common analogy that uneducated people use when they can't think of anything more original) to refute an argument you were having with PETER. Obviously you have no knowledge of the process one undertakes to earn a PHD. Can you give an example of when someone earned a PHD (other than those handed out like candy to certain celebrities) whereby they bluffed their way to earn it? It is commendable that you recommend education, but it is obvious that you would only recommend it if it was in a subject that you believe you know it all (that would be a limited ciriculum). - 16:13:47 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--BILL--Your penchant for missing the point, and then beating a straw man--sometimes I think deliberately is mind-boggling. Of courseinanimate objects are not referred to as "implicit atheists" simply because the question of them being an atheist or not is inapplicable and irrelevant. However, since they neither believe on a god-nor know of them ( the two necessary criteria )if one for some outlandish reason wishes to make that distinction--that would be the proper conclusion. However, other than applying human beings, the term wouldn't really be applicable in the first place. It would be like calling the Skydome "Canadian" (--but it would certainly be more so Canadian than "Mexican" or " Brazilian". Bill, inasfar as you "disagreeing" with this term--I find it remarkable you do not understand my frustration here. It be like you showing me the first compact disc and me asking what it was. After you tell me its a CD, I would say "Well, I disagree with that"--You'd look at me funny and just tell me that is what they are. I would argue, that I don't think it's THAT compact, and could be a lot more compact, and probaly will be moreso in the future. and blah blah. You would just insist to me and say "But Peter, this is what it is called by those in the industry!" but I would continue," That's probably true, but I just think it should be called a disk--and I do not agree with the term "compact disc" that's all!!" Now if you could possibly envision the frustration you would feel at that point--that is exactly the same frustration I am feeling right now when I hear your preposterous "objection" to this term! - 16:45:19 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--BILL--( In reference to your post to Rob ). This is typical of your method of discussion. Originally, I referred to the term "eplicit" and "implicit" atheists with the implications that it dealt only with human beings, and I used the "rock" example only as an example of something that meets the two premises of implicity. Now you suddenly seem to be able to recognize that distinction in your last sentence in that post! So, what you are doing is (a) disagreeing with my original assertion (b)forcing me to delve into reams of explanations analogies and examples (c) disagreeing with a non-applicable I made, by taking it out of context and assuming that was my original assertion (d) finally, agreeing and being cognizant with my initial proposal ( with another party ), as a counterargument to my extreme example ) Bill, do you do this just to infuriate? Just to( God forbid )avoid the possibilty of losing argument (which you initiated--when an argument didn't even exist in the first place ) You may think your actions initiate interesting conversation and discussion--but to me I certainly do not. I see it none other than act of antagonizing, and taking some perverted delight into seeing how frustrating your actions can be to others. - 17:13:00 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--BILL--And to further: there is a very applicable word that describes a person like this--and you know what it is ( I used it yesterday in reference to your character, that may give you clue )---but I don't think there is really any need for me to say it, as I feel it wouldn't have any short, or long term effect on a person who is, in effect, one of those people - 17:21:08 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:PETER, Again when you use words like "believe" or "not believe" you are only dealing in the realm of human consciousness, and these words can never be applied to inanimate objects! Concerning your frustrations, there is a difference in identifying something (ie dog), which is universally accepted, rather than identifying a concept, ideology, or philosophy. Now if I look into my dictionary, I can find the word "implicit" and I can find the word "atheist." Each of these words has an identifiable meaning that no one questions. But where in my dictionary can I find "implicit atheist?" You have moved beyond identifying words and into the realm of atheist philosophy; which I might remind you, not all atheist here agree with this concept! So how's the weather up there today? - 17:43:46 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:PETER, Can we discuss something else? - 17:48:59 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

Joette...next stop, basket weaving..:-->MARLENE..I have been attempting to stay out of the fray herein, as I am currently not enjoying a bout with my manic depression (or in polite terms, bi-polar depression) and so I am jumping from the moon to a coma every few minutes and have nothing to contribute, except to say this: maybe Adam was right about Dr. Seuss. This page of late could easily have been scripted by the good Dr., in that it shows in a comically, yet depressing way, how easy it would be for a war to start. The tetesterone levels here are far beyond my comprehension, and event those that offer impartial views, like Rob, are using arguments that I can not understand at this moment in time. So, better I stay in my bedroom staring at the ceiling. - 18:22:38 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:monitor. When speaking to simple minds one must use simple analogies. It suddenly dawned on you that some PhD's are "handed out like candy to certain celebrities>" How many years of torturous soul searching did it take to make this not so startling discovery? So how much is such a PhD worth? I have a great deal of respect for those PhD's who have struggled for years to earn - and I mean earn - their Masters degree and eventually go on to their PhD in some scientific endeavor. I have no particular admiration for anyone earning a PhD in studying the lives of the saints because I consider it a waste of time that could have been better used shoveling manure. I have seen no complaints from any PhD's here, probably because they don't visit here. Most of the posters here are atheists, except for the usual sneaky theist such as yoursself,posting under a pseudonym, who try to create dissension in the ranks. You never state your true beliefs, hiding your theism behind a continuous barrage of questions. Why don't you come out from hiding and say "I believe there is a god and you atheists are wrong" You won't. You will crawl back behind the woodwork, find a new identity and like a true theist termite, try to bore your way into our atheist site. Go to it, QUAKE, QuietSun, or monitor - whatever you choose to call yourself. You're as transparent as glass. - 19:13:01 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:PETER. We are all entitled to our opinions. If you choose to develop a theory about degrees of atheism and use the adjectives implicit and explicit to describe it that is your privilege. However, it does not mean that we must accept it. You make the mistake of saying "universally accepted" when two people out of three in our circle of discussion disagree with your premise. There is nothing wrong with creative thinking, but in this case I disagree with the concept. Let's not use our differences as the basis of a personal attack. I bear you no animosity. I do feel that you are guilty of faulty reasonng/ - 19:29:46 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

James--->Marlene...:Right. - 19:50:39 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:SO! JAMES- To keep in the mood here, what do ya want to fight about? - 21:01:37 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..nothing like the Ontario Shuffle:JOETTE- I really don't know why everyone is getting huffy over each other's opinions when it only comes to simple word definitions. Like you say, must be the T hormone. To hell with the ceiling, go out dancing or something. Tis Saturday night! - 21:05:59 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:BILL--You can really outdo yourself, you know. Amazing. Trulremarkable. Now you revert to step ( e) which is now after accepting the terms to a third party, again deny them as valid to me, the party who initially made the claim. Then step (f) propose we kind of sweep it under the carpet and leave it unresolved. However, my contention fro the beginning was there is nothing here to resolve at all-my argument has always been that there is no argument here. I was stating a fact of what exists as a name of some person who fits two simple criteria--and are referred to that by those oncerned--SAM and BILL--You know what I'd really like to do, I am going to take a rock--a piece of sedimentary rock, as opposed to igneous or metamorphic rock-- actual terms I don't "agree" with, because I have a right to my own opinion-because I think a rock is a rock is a rock, and if I look in the dictionary I see the word "rock" and then the word "sedimentary" ( but where do I find the word "sedimentary rock?" Its not in the dictionary--which I consider the only really reliable reference boook, and if its not there, I guess there is no such thinng. Oh, it's in science book? But that isn't a reliable source--we're moving into the world of science now! HA HA!! Nice try, but no cigar! Well, let's decide on whther there really is such a thing as this by TAKING A VOTE ON IT! If every one "AGREES" then I guess that will settle it. Now why don't we do this to everybody here that introduces a term, not everyone is familiar with? ( And if most people aren't, that means it isn't "universally accepted" We will determine its validity depending on how many votes it gets, OK? Alright how about the terms "Id" primary intelligence" "secondary intelligence" for starters? .....Any way getting back to the piece of what some people in their "opinion" call sedimentary rock ( a term I don't agree with ) and crak it over your skulls, and then seeing if my prediction is correct--which is, both your heads will be harder. They have to be. - 21:47:42 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:PETER, I disagree! - 22:30:49 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--BILL--at least you can be funny sometimes. - 22:35:58 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

but that, of course, would not be universally accepted. - 22:37:33 on 14 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:PETER, My boss along time ago said, "be careful of the toes you step on today, As they may be connected to the ass, that I might have to kiss tomorrow." Of course I never got promoted; then again, he gone and I'm still there! - 0:16:19 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I thought your last post was very good. It's evidence that's lacking. Corny exsists under my printer only. If asked to give evidence of it's exsistence, I couldn't. Corny is subjective and doesn't exsist outside my mind. Same story with god. BTW, I accept Corny is a delusion. - 5:51:54 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..never to hot in the kitchen because something interesting is always cooking:How come when there is a disagreement, which BTW is allowed and common here, everyone scatters? What's interesting about this disagreement is that it's a three way split and everyone has some good points IMO. I know, who in hell cares about my opinion. Goodnight atheists! - 5:56:53 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, I care about your opinion. Can I believe in your Corny too? You will have to bring it out from under your printer and to the kitchen first though; I'm hungry! - 12:52:29 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, Disagreement is healthy, IMO, and I don't think anyone is really getting worked up here. If I ever get worked up though, I just start saying my Serenity Prayer: Grant me the serenity To accept the things I cannot change, The courage To change the things I cannot accept, And the wisdom To hide the bodies of those people I had to kill today because they pissed me off. Hahaha! - 12:56:06 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, Do you think Quake-er-oats would go good with Corny? Might taste kinda like grits! - 13:02:59 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, Or would it just put a gritty taste in our mouths? - 13:11:27 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..w.r.t. your comment about everyone scattering, I put it down to the same behaviour we see from theists. There are certain amongst who believe they know it all, and refuse to concede anything, at anytime, even when it is obvious they are out in left field. Of course, several of you "won't agree" with this statement. - 14:15:31 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

mccoy:Marlene and Joette, I can't resist including Charles Pelligrino's comments to this thread..."Looking back across time, I am able to glean a lesson and a simple proposal, if not a symbol, from our mitochondrial mother. Perhaps we should push for a United Nations resolution requiring those nations that are most vigoroursly fouling the planetary nest, and those in possession of nuclear arsenals, to be governed only by women with young children. Two million years of reinforced instinct cannot possibly be wrong. Women, with young children live, more than anyone else, in the future. They understand, without being told, how far civilization has come and how high the stakes are." - 15:46:44 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

mccoy:Boys! They'd be funny if they weren't so dangerous.... - 15:48:05 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

Grant- Radical masculinist:Yes, we men are such emotional creatures. Wish we could be calm and detached like women. Can you say "double standard?" Forgive me, but the testosterone talk has stuck in my craw. - 16:07:40 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->mccoy...would that you were here two weeks ago when Marlene and I made the exact assertion. Not quite so eloquently I'm afraid. - 16:12:09 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT...to quote you "fuck you". LOL! - 16:14:52 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:JOETTE-- Well put!!! LOL - 16:25:41 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT..since you read a lot, I was wondering if you have read a book called "The Gospel According to the Son" by Norman Mailer? I picked it up yesterday (I think Mailer is a genius) and haven't started it, but I would like to hear from you or anybody who may have read it. - 16:29:15 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:JOETTE-- No, but I shall seek it out. - 16:32:01 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

Joette..beware the Ides of March..:-->GRANT..don't seek it out until I have read it. It may not be that good - I find it intriguing because Mailer is writing about Jesus in the first person. Maybe it will turn out to be like "The Last Temptation", which I also found to be very interesting. Have you read any of Mailer's works? I am sure all the men here must have read "Tough Guys Don't Dance" LOL! - 16:37:00 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:JOETTE-- I heard an interview with Mailer on NPR about this book. It sounds pretty good. I'll see if I can locate the interview in their archives later. Gotta go. - 16:39:48 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:MARLENE. I appeal to you as the voice of reason to help me in my quandary. Jesus threatens my soul with eternal damnation because I don't accept him. Peter threatens my body with a rock to my head because I don't accept him. (How easily they could change places!) What should I do? Should I by some strange dichotomy accept both? - 18:37:15 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

monitor:No Poopysam...why don't you just find some octegenarian site where they think you have some sort of valuable insight to spew. Is the childishness you just displayed a senile regression? - 19:58:38 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

lurker,:Papa: Peter is the Pope with no cloths, and that makes him only a disciple. - 20:00:45 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--SAM--This has nothing to do with "acceptance". I cannot fathom someone who in one breath defends logic to the death, and then just arbitrarily denies the existence of two terms he is not familiar with--and then refuses to listen to any attmpts of allowing me to show that in fact they do exist in any philophy textbook that deals with this matter. It would be like if you talked about cars and mentioned "low-compression" and "high compression" engines--and then I just arbitrarily disagreed with those terms, refuse to accept the fact they existed and told you "not to bother quoting from any source, mechanical textbook which refers to them and explains them!" Yes, Sam, that is REALLY logical. - 20:57:23 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

QuietSun:PETER: Now you know how all the theists have felt when trying to reason with the SAMster...I really enjoy it when all you atheists fight amongst yourselves... you get a tasted of what's it like when "the wagons aren't circled"...I also enjoy it when you answer to what you *think* are my questions, when I haven't even asked any....quite funny! by the way, I got a mysterious email the other day, I think it was from the poster here known as "Curious". If indeed I'm right, you are correct in assuming it is someone you debated in the past, but you are wrong if you think it's me! - 21:57:48 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

Ooops..meant to say a taste of what is like when the wagons *ARE* circled (something only theist experience! - 22:00:20 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:Hello QUIETSUN-- You almost had me feeling remorse there, 'til I remembered it was you who caused the wagons to be circled! :-) - 22:57:20 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->QUIETSUN..if you feel so persecuted, why do enter fronts where that persecution is possible. Would you not be more sensible to stay within the enclave of your wagons? - 22:58:00 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:monitor. Onc again you expose your less than masterly grasp of English. '---where they think you have some valuable insight to spew." One does not spew valuable insight. One spews vomit. You are an excellent example. I find your pathetic attempts to defend your ideas and cover yourlanguage defects by ad hominem methods amusing. I suggest you take your skills, as implied by your pseudonym, back to the halls of your parochial school. You can look for the kids sneaking smokes or who spit on the floor and turn them into the priest. I'm sure he will be proud of you. He might even reward you with a pat on the ass. - 23:04:58 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->PAPASAM..your insults towards everyone are causing me to spew. Do you think you could ever have something new to say? - 23:07:09 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->and monitor just might pick up on your own less than masterly command of the English lanquage. There is an "e" at the end of the word "once". - 23:10:02 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:PETER. We are not dealing with physical facts. We are talking about an idea which you present. An atheist is one who refutes the statement made by a theist that there is a 'god'. I think you agree with me so far. You then advance the idea of an 'implicit' atheist. I do not accept it. I have not ignored your reasoning behind it. I do not accept it. It's as simple as that. I know that we will probably not sway each other to change, but a free exchange of ideas is always healthy. - 23:17:24 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

Joette..not my fight, but I'm sick and tired of it all, and wish you would all just shut the fuck up...:-->PAPASAM..you haven't exchanged any ideas. All of you have done is refute with nothing to back it up except "you don't buy it". Like I have said before, you reason about as well as a fundamentalist christian. - 23:20:40 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:Quietsun. You'ld better hurry back home or you'll be late for vespers and god will be mad at you. - 23:21:00 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--SAM--Your definition "An atheist is one who refutes the statement made by a theist that there is a 'god'" Certainly describes a type of atheist ( explicit )--but that is not the definition of what an atheist is. An atheist is simply any person who does not believe in the existence of a God--or rather is NOT a theist. In other words a person who does NOT BELIEVE in the existence of a God. This entails any person who outright DENIES that any such thing is possible, or just thinks the evidence is non-existent to support his existence ( critical explicit and non-critical explicit respectively )--or that he doen't believe in a God--because he cannot simply because he has never heard or even thought of one himself ( implicit atheist ) Now again , refer to any philosophical textbook that deals with this matter, and this is what you will see these terms used just as freely as the terms "sedimentary rock" and "spiral galaxy" are used in science texts. My bafflement here has been with you and Bill, for some ineplicable reason, just denied that these terms existed, and poo-pooed any attempt I may make BEFORE I even did so, and you even said you "Didn't care what those books said" These terms DO exist and they do regardless of anyone "agreeing" with them or not--and to define them out of existence would be to assert that as soon as every baby was born--he has knowldege of God--and therefore the distinction between explicit and implicit isn't necessary. But no baby does....Now if you don't "gei it" anow...too bad. I refuse to go over this again. - 23:45:28 on 15 Mar 98 GMT

Atheists are rocks and have rocks in their heads, he he he - 0:58:33 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

If you say so, he he he - 1:06:33 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

To above anonymous poster--:--apparently--some of them do. - 1:47:35 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Ignorance of God and his Christ abound here. Those like Joette. PapaSam. Peter and others show the ignorane that have regarding God by the stupid things they say. - 3:35:00 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:I do NOt forget Marlene either, she too is ignorant of Christ also. - 3:36:07 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:The atheist denies that God is, and are FOOLS fo the doing so. So all you denying fools had betterw ake up to the truth that God IS and that he sent his Son to die for your sin, he was buried and rose again the third day. The Son will also judge the world and all you poor deluded atheists, for (I PITY YOU) will one that DAY know that God IS as you face Him who you deny to exist. You will then konw the meaning of " A FOOL SAYS IN HIS HEART, THERE IS NO GOD" - 3:44:25 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:I LAUGH at the atheists, the psychologists, and all who deny God and his Christ, these are ALL fools who think they KNOW something when they really KNOW NOTHING, he, he, he.... - 3:47:42 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:I tell other Christians to come here too, to get a good laugh, after reading the nonsense the atheists come up with. - 3:49:06 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:PapaSam, Joette, Marlene, Peter: ALL ARE FOOLS, he, he, he.... - 3:51:59 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Most of them can't talk excepot to use blasphememy and cursing, such a waste of breath; but that is their mentality, a very samll mentality, a very mediocre mentality. - 3:53:43 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:The only answer these FOOLS will get from me will be the oracles of God, The 'man does not live by bread alone but by every word that is 'God breathed' the scriptures are indeed 'GOD BREATHED' and it is a 'FOOL' who does NOT heed what GOD has said. - 3:57:38 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Joette; You would be better off to red the REAL gospel and NOT SOME LIE. But then you are A FOOLISH one, and not given to WISDOM of God, which the true gospel is. - 3:59:24 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:It's really interesting how the ATHEISTS like to read those books which speak against the TRUTH, they uphold the writings of IDIOTS as heroes. They love the MIRE and the eating of VOMIT, more than the treasures of GOD and his CHRIST. - 4:01:56 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:Joette; YOU are a champion of NONSENSE, he,he... - 4:03:44 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:I'll leave now, and give you FOOLS time to respond. - 4:05:11 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:PapaSam; You haven;t got rocks in your head, rather you have 'NOTHING' in your head, he, he, - 4:07:06 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:RICHARD--I thought christians are supposed to be kind, gentle and forgiving folk full of love and warm and to 'do unto others as they would do unto you' and 'judge not let ye be judged' and ' let he without sin cast the first stone'... Being hopelssly unable to prove any of these beliefs to be true, all you have done is insult and belittle everyone who doesn't share your beliefs. Gee. you aren't even warning us of the impending doom when we refuse to accept as true, nor kiss the ass of your wimpy, useless imaginary friend who does dick-all. And you know why he does dick-all? Because HE IS imaginary. - 4:26:13 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--RICHARD--And yes, sometimes I do argue vehemently with some other 'non-believers' here, and question their thought processes along the way--but you know something?--As soon as you re-appear they all once again look like towering intellectual giants again, when I again reminded how nonsensical and irrational a person can become--and despite all my attacks on them--it all now looks so mild and insignifigant in comparison. - 4:31:56 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:PETER. In the interest of fairness I will read the books you mentioned. Give me the names of the authors and the titles of the books and I will get back to you and continue our discussions. - 5:19:32 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:PETER. I realize I have been a little stubborn in refusing to refer to your philosophical text books, so in the interest of fairness I will do so. Please give me the names of the authors and the titles and I will make it my business to get them and read them. - 5:28:42 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:RICHARD-- Blasphemy, and it's cousin "blasphememy," though almost always inappropriate elsewhere are probably an absolute requirement on an atheist chat page, especially by your definition, which I would guess encompasses pretty much everything you don't explicitly agree with. Perhaps we could work together to find you a new place (without an annoying diversity of thought) to express your primitive piety . - 5:30:08 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:PETER. I realize I have been a little stubborn in refusing to refer to your philosophical text books, so in the interest of fairness I will do so. Please give me the names of the authors and the titles and I will make it my business to get them and read them. - 5:34:38 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:PETER. I realize I have been a little stubborn in refusing to refer to your philosophical text books, so in the interest of fairness I will do so. Please give me the names of the authors and the titles and I will make it my business to get them and read them. - 5:45:06 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:PETER. I realize I have been a little stubborn in refusing to refer to your philosophical text books, so in the interest of fairness I will do so. Please give me the names of the authors and the titles and I will make it my business to get them and read them. - 5:48:19 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:PETER. I realize I have been a little stubborn in refusing to refer to your philosophical text books, so in the interest of fairness I will do so. Please give me the names of the authors and the titles and I will make it my business to get them and read them. - 5:53:00 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:PETER. I realize I have been a little stubborn in refusing to refer to your philosophical text books, so in the interest of fairness I will do so. Please give me the names of the authors and the titles and I will make it my business to get them and read them. RICHARD. Do you believe your god is all knowing, all powerful and perfect? If you really believe that such is the case,how can you mock his creations? Don't you realize that if your god didn't want atheists he wouldn't have created them? He could make us all vanish instantly. With his powers he could make us priests. If you really respected your god as you claim to, you wouldn't be trying to usurp his authority. - 6:10:14 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:All. My apologies for the repeats on my posting. It was due to a glitch in my equipment. - 6:17:56 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. I don't know what's troubling you but I hope you get over it quickly. I suggest you take a sabbatical from the site for a while since it seems to be aggravating your condition. My sincere best wishes for a speedy recovery. - 6:24:04 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:RICHARD. I'm sure if one of your neighbors crucified, tortured and murdered his son you would be horrified. Apparently, you view it differently when your god does it. In my opinion he's not setting a very good example. I know I wouldn't do it to my son. Would you do it to yours? Not only do you worship such a god, you practice ritual cannibalism every tim you take your 'holy communion'. "This is my blood, this is my flesh". Yuch! How disgusting. - 6:36:07 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:PapaSam; Your heights of IGNORANCE do justice to your IGNORANCE of the gospel. YOu reamin a FOOL - 7:22:29 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:PETER; You too show a remarkable IGNORANCE also, and remain a fool too. - 7:24:16 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:PETER; You really are a NONSENSE, a real DUMMY. - 7:25:19 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:PETER; Your ARGUMENTS are TRASH; JESUS is LORD and nothing changes that, the Godpel is the power of God unto salvation unto all who believe, nothing alters that either,. You PUNY MINDED ATHEISTS, what FOOLS you all are. - 7:28:17 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

RICHARD:PapaSam; FOOL you are and FOOL you shall ever be. - 7:29:55 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

Jeff:Richard: Does it not say somewhere in the Bible not to call other people fools? - 7:55:33 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

jaywilson--Good morning!--:Jeff: Nope. There is something about casting the first stone--but RICHARD's so far gone, he's lost count. - 10:59:02 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->PAPASAM..until you came along a sabbatical from this site would never have been necessary. You are not only rude, but I agree with Richard that you are a fool. - 12:01:49 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->RICHARD..if you are suggesting I read your writings instead of the bible, let me put your mind at ease. I have read both, and found them both to be nonsense, although the bible tells the story a tad more succinctly. Are you forming your own religion down there? Are you the Australian version of David Koresh, or Jimmy Jones? Are building an arsenal? - 12:06:31 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--RICHARD--being called a fool by someone who to me exemplifies, escapulates a living art-form of a fool means nothing. SAM--Just go to your local library to the reference section, and seek out ANY tome which outlines philosophical terms which may be present and look up the terms the terms you seem to want to hold in question ( for what reason is beyond me )--and they will be there--and they will be outlined and defined just as a simalar book that deals with astronomical terms would deal with "globular clusters" and "spiral galaxies". - 16:21:56 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Some minds can and do relate to a wider arena area than the minds of others. RICHARD is surely not unsane but has crossed over that line into that of the insane. What honest thinking individual in connection with their environment would dare think to refer to others as something like the word fool? Since being here, for a coupla years, it has become my opinion that the controversy is not a matter of yea/nay godstuff. It is contesting the individual who carry on against others as does the RICHARD. It seems to me that while we see things uniquely to ourselves we understand that whatever, generally so amongst ourselves and when we expand that understanding via learning, the sphere of myth and superstition lessens by as much. What is the RICHARD doing, perhaps some rethinking would help, he has said nothing of anything none here do not already know of have at least an opinion. - 16:54:19 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:PETER. I am unable to go to the library. However, I do have access to Amazon books on the internet. If you will be good enough to give me the names of the authors and the titles I will order them. Thank you. - 18:27:39 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. For domeone who had the arrogance to tell everyone to "fuck off" and find other subjects to talk about on a site devoted to one subject - religion versus atheism -, calling me rude is commparatively mild. What would you call your attitude, other than arrogant? You resent my presence on the site and wish to engage in a personal vendetta, as though I were an upstart daring to challenge your authority. You are not the queen of "Man is man made" and I am not your whipping boy. The fact that you agree with Richard that I am a fool doesn't bother me in the least. I consider the source. - 18:37:54 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--I'm a fool, and don't I know it--but a fool can have his charms! ... Oh the fool on the hill sees the sun going down --and the eyes in his head see the wooo-oorld spinning 'round...( I never thought of me as being one since Richard told me I was--Well, I guess it's really not that bad afterall! ) - 19:04:16 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: I sneak a peek at the theochat site, and sometimes they say things that I can't resist at registering a comment. Last week one of them said that the intellect was not the way to their godthing. That proved irresistible so into the fray I went. After awhile when they began to respond to real chat stuff they actual began to lose the prayin'& blessin'nonsense. I say this now in relation to your seein'the spinnin'world, some folks like the RICHARD, the quack, et.el., they have to force themselves to not see or talk about the world out there as it is for the sake of their godthing. I am of the very even actual opinion that there is no possible such thing as a theochat. All it reduces to is someone or somebody as RICHARD to stand forward and try to say things for that nothingness. They must deny the world and most important of all they must deny the deeds of humanity for the godthing. Nowadays, it seems more so than before that the theotypes are the archtypes of reductionists, preferring nothing over all. - 19:36:41 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:HEY PRAYBOY- Long time, no listen to your bullshit! Joette has mentioned that you may be the Koresh of Auzzieland but I wouldn't give you that much credit. If there are any fools here at all, it's you Prayboy. - 20:26:59 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--CARL--Oh yes, knowledge, and all its methods by which man attains it is the greatest enemy of theology. Why do you think "Curious" made his entrance here with both barrels just a firing away at the very method which man can verify any information? Even though he never really reached the point of defending the existence of a God--this was obviously his sole purpose for attempting to discredit the veracity of logic. The very thing that stands in his way of supporting his argument--which ironically is the very thing by which an argument is supported upon!! - 21:08:22 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Last wk.I read an article o'Unsolvable questions. Up to then I needed, I was in need of an article to compare to the article of the xtian philosopher thing. What a contrast, the xtian thing was heavyhanded and laidout a plan for a them versus us 'crusade'. It was simply disgusting to the intelligence of anyone. The unsolvable questions article spread out a potpouri of ideas and various opinion view of things, all on consciousness and the universe. It was fun to read and ponder. I suppose, however, to the unread or marginally learned religious believer the philosophy for xtians thing might make everything and the all comprehensible, though that means ignoring the gravity implied by its onerous negativity. When I get its URL I'll post it for your perusal. - 22:22:51 on 16 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:RICHARD, You left me out. Am I not a fool as well? - 0:36:10 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:BILL:"People invent personal god's out of their fear of death and someone HAS to be wrong", you say. Is this conclusion based totally on your totally subjective and relative opinion and if so, number 1, how can anything in your subjective world yield any sort of objective truth and number 2, what is your conclusion and all other religious people's conclusions relative to? ROB:I haven't drank the bleach because it's harmful. I'm not denying the basic reliability of sense data, what I'm questioning is the infallible nature of logic when it comes to showing any proposition to be false. Does a proposition have to correspond to the empirical world in order for it to be tested logically? This is not my understanding of logic. I know it CAN be applied to the empirical, but it doesn't have to be,and if it doesn't have to be,then why employ logical arguments to refute any ideology? The problem I'm having with the raise/work scenario is this: If I am a supervisor, I will want my employee to do a good job before I give him a raise. It's logical to me that this be the case. To my employee, however, it's logical that he get the raise first and then he'll do a good job. Both parties can give valid logical arguments for their case, yet both cannot be true. How can they both be logically true while at the same time yield results that are contradictory to the interested parties? It's strange. The law of non-contradiction can be applied to tell me that they cannot both be true. I use 1 logical law to tell me that. Yet it was supposedly a logical deduction that led to these conflicting conclusions thereby showing that logical necessity brought me to a point where I had to use another logical necessity in order to show that they can't be simultaneously true. Logic vs. logic. - 1:59:12 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:PAPASAM: What is a number? JAMES: If you were a true skeptic then you would question your skepticism. Skepticism sounds very noble but it's actually a very arrogant position. It's also a very EASY position. Get off the fence, James. Stand up for something other than your skepticism. Your starting to sound like a philosopher and who listens to philosophers in this day and age? Philosophers are as anachronistic as cavemen, dinosaurs and disco. They are relics. Philosophers are a dying breed because they don't agree about anything. Of course, a philosopher would disagree with this, but that's to be expected. It's amusing to note that there are a few clownish ones, like the russian woman who espouses the infallible objectivistic philosophy along with her few cult members, who believe that they have discovered an infallible epistemology. This movement was a response to Hume and Kant who wrote many pages about why they were right and everyone else was wrong. It's madness, James. Bertrand Russell once described Mathematics as, "that subject that we know nothing about", or something to that effect. Philosophy should have been included in his assessment. Don't get sucked into it, James. It will only make you sound confused. - 2:26:17 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

curious...what do you stand for? - 2:47:00 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:GRANT: Now, I'm really confused. You say that there could be some time in the future that it could be possible to logically affirm god's existence IF there were empirical evidence attached. Aren't you mistaking empiricism for logic? The rationalists thought that they could prove the existence of god through logical necessity. The empiricists said no, becuase truth is attained through sense experience. Then Kant confused everyone by saying that we Kant know true empirical reality because we only know it through our after it has passed through our nasty filters. Where do you stand. Must we always combine logic with sense data and if so, since logic is relative aren't we still going to have the same problems with knowing what we know? Empiricism would seem to be a better test for truth, but...wait a minute. I can't use empirical means to determine if I'm using logic because logic isn't an empirical entity. This being so, how can I use empiricism to know logic? Also' you'll have to help me out with the notion of perfect logic leading us to imperfect conclusions. How can it be perfect in this case? I don't get it. - 2:55:04 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

--Kant? Oh fuck. - 3:00:25 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

NONAME: I stand for people asking me what I stand for, among other things. I stand for love and kindness to people and animals. I stand for questioning dogmatic assertions. - 3:01:58 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

no God to defend? curious - 3:10:27 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:I also stand for really cheesy and sugary occasions where people get together, hold hands and sing kumbaya. Noname, it really depends on what mood I'm in. I'm very temperamental. So, I guess I also stand for moodiness and eccentricity. Will there be anything else? - 3:11:25 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

no, you may go. - 3:14:11 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:NONAME: What is this obsession with God!!?? Are you asking this because it's meaningful to you or what. I'm very curious. And if I had a God to "defend" (interesting image), how could I defend it? Empirically? Logically? Mathematically? Induction or deduction? The scientific method? - 3:15:02 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Well..this is a place for debate of religious matters to some extent....curious. Does your stand include some sort of belief in a creator?or is being kind to animals and people and teaching the world to sing in perfect harmony enough for you? - 3:22:47 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:NONAME: I do believe in God, yes. What comes next? - 3:27:23 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

A definition of your God? description...evidences..you know the drill..... - 3:32:12 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:NONAME: That's a good question. God is the being that created and sustains the universe. - 3:38:03 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

and you know this for certain? - 3:40:12 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:NONAME: With absolute certainty, no. But I should add that I know very little with absolute certainty. - 3:41:53 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

only fools and fanatics are sure of themselves as Russell would say. What has led you to this belief that there is a God who created and sustains the universe? - 3:45:56 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:NONAME: It's based on a pervasive and constant awareness of my own finitude and the temporal nature of life. I did not ask to be born, yet I'm here. I did not ask to die, yet I will. I am, as Heidegger put it, "the thrust one", thrust into a play through no wish of my own destined toward a fate that is also beyond my control. Did the universe come to be in the same way? If it did, then it is equally out of control of it's coming to be and it's passing away and to me, this makes nonsense out of my existence. I admit that this is very existential, and the reason for that is because my belief in God is based primarily on existential reasons. - 3:53:12 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:NONAME: Unfortunately, it's late and I need to go to sleep. I hope to talk with you more, later. Until then, good night. - 3:57:01 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

So, a belief in a creator helps you to swallow the fact that you exist? - 3:57:42 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:CURIOUS-- You have asked me questions, which I have answered. In return, I have asked you questions, none of which you have answered. What's in it for me? You asked me what logic is. I said "I consider it a systematic approach to thinking with the intent of eliminating errors, contradictions, and unwarranted conclusions." Are you suggesting that we shouldn't think systematically about the empirical? If we do it is not logic? I've asked you how you define logic. You're still playing word games. - 4:25:29 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:There's that fucking world according to the exhalted Bertrand Russell showing its face again. - 4:33:19 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..re:local locust leader:PETER- Exactly! Is Bertrand posting here or the unknown comic, Curious. Typically xtian, of course. Not an original thought in his head. Noname-Nobrain must be his grasshopper. - 5:16:08 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:CURIOUS. If you don't know what a number is you're in sad shape. I found your admonition to James that he's "starting to sound like a philosopher" amusing. Try reading your own postings, and check a good dictionary for the definition. You fit the bill perfectly. You quote Hume, Kant, Russell and even a Russian cultist, giving your own (philosophical) critique. You ramble on about logic, empiricism, and being skeptical about skepticism. Yes, CURIOUS, you are a true specimen of a philosopher and as unintelligble as most of them. - 5:22:59 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Curious sounds, as Joette has suggested, Farnsy, to me. Too many spotlights and curtain calls (never mind the few snorts between) have likely burnt out all capabilities toward "logical" discussion. You know...like.."to be or not to be" is not a logical question. - 5:23:50 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- I agree! I think one can go completely overboard with this philosophy thing. Although some people have had and do have some interesting observations on humanity, no philosopher brings me to orgasm. - 5:27:41 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:CURIOUS. Back to basics. Now that we have buried the subject of philosophy (I hope) we can return to the "raison de etre"of the site. You stated that "God created and sustains the universe". To what extent does he sustain us? Is he an all knowing and all powerful god who monitors all the daily activities of every living thing, or just human beings? Do you believe in the bible as the revealed word of your god? I hope you will answer these questions honestly without any evasions. I have a lot more to ask you. - 5:37:38 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..hell, I didn't know this!:I've just been reading _Zolar's Encyclopedia of Ancient and Forbidden Knowledge_. What a treasure trove of bullshit, lol! For example, did you know that we do not continue to "evolve spiritually" on this planet? Nope we go on to Mars, Venus, Saturn etc. He says that the reincarnationists of the east are "spiritually sick" and that the hebrew letters of the alphabet are the breath of god. Hummm...I will "enlighten" you tomorrow on more about "Nature". - 5:38:00 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..being kind to the spiritually sick":PRAYBOY- How's you and the 'roo, mate? - 5:39:23 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:CURIOUS- BTW is that handle representative of being nosy or being odd? Nevertheless James-Za is anything but a fence-sitter IMO and I've known him for awhile. Nor is he an actor nor a fraud. He has always been completely honest in what he has to say. I doubt you have any of those virtues going for yourself. BTW JAMES- I'm not defending you but pointing out the qualities in you that I admire as opposed to the lack of such of our resident ostrich, Curious. - 5:48:47 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..abuse, another thing taken away overboard!:On a different note, looks like poor Willy has now got himself into another pickle. Imagine the abuse charges Kennedy would have been plagued with in today's vitimized society?!?! These poor helpless damsels! Don't get me wrong, I don't like Bill much at all but why not expose his poor political prowness rather than his stupid little affairs. - 5:55:18 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- I've never admitted this, but philosophy DOES bring ME to orgasm, well, it makes me feel pretty good. - 6:11:12 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Yea, the hell with the Sear's catalogues---just gimme a copy of "The Republic", some kleenex, and I'm all set! - 6:20:37 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:Some of those captions in the Sear's catalog seem sorta philosophical, no? - 6:36:10 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

SKIPPY SKIP:It would be great to know everything--all answers-- to become god-like. Man is imperfect so he will never know. Keep on thinking and enter the flaming telepath realm! - 9:46:12 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

SKIPPY SKIP:It would be great to know everything--all answers-- to become god-like. Man is imperfect so he will never know. Keep on thinking and enter the flaming telepath realm! - 9:46:34 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

SKIPPY SKIP:It would be great to know everything--all answers-- to become god-like. Man is imperfect so he will never know. Keep on thinking and enter the flaming telepath realm! - 9:47:23 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

SKIPPY SKIP:It would be great to know everything--all answers-- to become god-like. Man is imperfect so he will never know. Keep on thinking and enter the flaming telepath realm! - 9:48:16 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

SKIPPY SKIP:It would be great to know everything--all answers-- to become god-like. Man is imperfect so he will never know. Keep on thinking and enter the flaming telepath realm! - 9:48:34 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

SKIPPY SKIP:It would be great to know everything--all answers-- to become god-like. Man is imperfect so he will never know. Keep on thinking and enter the flaming telepath realm! - 9:50:10 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

SKIPPY SKIP:It would be great to know everything--all answers-- to become god-like. Man is imperfect so he will never know. Keep on thinking and enter the flaming telepath realm! - 9:50:30 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:Verbal language tricks man and controls him as do other forms of man-made communication (machine communication ). The comfort of the Big Bang Theory will soothe the flesh needs! - 10:01:45 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:Verbal language tricks man and controls him as do other forms of man-made communication (machine communication ). The comfort of the Big Bang Theory will soothe the flesh needs! - 10:05:21 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

- 10:06:41 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip: Imprisoned by your flesh and the thought of what to do? -- to know the ways of the universal expansion. Kierkegaard is riding on an unphysical boundary. Untap the physical cerebrum. AH- the easy questioning of the imperfect. - 10:22:55 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Imprisoned by your flesh and the thought of what to do? -- to know the ways of the universal expansion. Kierkegaard is riding on an unphysical boundary. Untap the physical cerebrum. AH- the easy questioning of the imperfect. - 10:23:11 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

The purity of not knowing all The flesh ages and dies - 10:28:27 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:Get a grip, Skip. - 13:52:36 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:ANY<<>>I'm back and a my damn nose is sunburned! - 14:09:16 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:SKIP<<>>lay off the coffee and quit spamming the damn site. - 14:09:57 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--STEVE--Looks like SKIP is another one of those fanatics who recognizes that man's ability to gain knowledge will ultimately lead him to realizing the notion of God existing is nothing more than fantasy and wishful thinking--so he attacks this process at its source. Man apparently is incapable of attaining the knowledge of the very thing that he should revere and fear--while shaking his finger in our faces like an old crabby teacher. So in the end--We are apparently capable of gaining knowledge-but not knowledge of something that nobody is capable of knowing--but he apparently DOES know, but how can he, if he says we are not able to? Somewhere along the line here something just doesn't add up. Now I wish these people who defend this line of thinking--or non-thinking--is totally meaningless. If it were ( and how many times have I said this?) anyone could claim the existence of anything at all--regardless of how ridiculous the claim may be ( which God coincidentally is )--and then insist that it cannot be verified through conventional means -and then smugly sit back and feel that they have made an air-tight case. - 14:42:06 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: You and me must have been in the same cosmic shower down-pour, on the way to work I too wondered how anyone like xtians could say to any others that they know something beyond the knowable. Anything knowable is known in "humanterms" for its being as humans percieve it that make it so, no perceptions well, imagination wishes hope, etc., are this. Yes, the xtian does portray a smugness, and may I toss in that it is replete with a thoughtless mind. - 15:36:29 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:PAPASAM: I obviously don't know what a number is so please give me some of your infinite wisdom and define the concept for me. Returning to the "raison de etre" of the site and your existence for that matter is a great notion. This pleases you obviously. I also like all of your loaded questions that you ask. If there is a God, I would say that this God sustains the universe by being that which has always been. I see this as more plausible than thinking thae universe, which by all appearances seems to be totally dependent, brought itself into being. As Sartre said,"a self caused entity is impossible". The universe consists of parts, like us, that are born and die. If whatever caused the universe to be is in the same finite position, then there was once a time when this something, like us, didn't exist. That would mean that something came out of nothing, and that to me, quantum theory and the Tao of physics to the contrary notwithstanding, seems like a stretch. The universe needs some force to ground it's being. I believe that the Bible gives a fair representation of what God would be like if God existed. If I created something, I would want to reveal myself to humanity in history. I have alot more to ask you too, daddio, so I hope your not evasive either. The number question still remains. Also, I'm quite certain that if neither of us can answer any of the questions to the other's satisfaction, then what we're espousing is nonsense, right? Or wrong? Hope I haven't been too unintelligible, but if I have...oh, well. NONAME: If there is a God, yes, I think it makes more sense out of existence than if the contrary was true. If there is no God, then the question of why anything at all exists remains unanswered. Do you find this odd? Probably so. So what's wrong with everybody that they would even question these things. If there is no mind behind the universe, it would seem that the fact that we even talk about these things is in the great scheme of things, meaningless. Why do you and everyone else in this room insist on talking about something that is ultimately meaningless? And why do it so meaningfully if it's meaningless? It doesn't make sense to me. - 15:39:02 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:STEVEN: Last eve I watched the start of the movie "Pillars in the Sky" a flick o'the us cavalry and oregon indians. It was made in the 50's i guess, so it lacked the contemporary hypersensitive dialogue. But, a xtian pastor or whatever it was character, was scripted in and I got a kick outta'the part where the bibleman had renamed all his "flock" with the hebrew names of the bible. I smiled and thought of you and your travails. I didn't watch the whole thing but I periodically peeked in for a chuckle. I wondered how much such thinking has changed, and until I saw the skip thing, I was gonna vote it did, but I now figger I best withhold my vote - 15:51:19 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:GRANT: Sure, I think that we should think systematically about the empirical. I think we do it everyday. But to say that and say that logical deductions apply to the empirical world are 2 different matters. Furthermore, if logic, as you say, "changes", then how can we use it to expose errors or contrsdictions when the notion of an error or contradiction could change somewhere down the road. I'm not sure HOW to define logic, Grant, and the opposing viewpoints I receive from people who use this "universally accepted" method of proving things, doesn't help any. Your definition could differ from mine, Joette's, and everyone elses. Are we using logic to arrive at all of these differing conclusions about logic? Again, is it a case of logic vs. logic? If logic is so reliable in refuting errors, number 1, which logic would it be(the logic used centuries ago, the logic used now or the logic that might be popular a year from now?) and number 2, if logic leads to inescapable conclusions then what do I do with the inescapable conclusions that show logic to be at odds with itself? - 15:55:21 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:CURIOUS: you err already, "everyone" which includes me, and I do not address an ultimately meaningless topic, i address those- as you, who carry-on about that topic. I see you figger you have asked some really important point on or about what is a number, there are a few definitions which do you like dislike or intend to contest. Some definitions were weak and others still have more relevance, what did you desire? - 16:00:04 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:MARLENE: You speak of logic? Please enlighten me as I am trying to learn everything I can about it. I assume that people who talk about it all the time can give me a UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED definition of it, so please do so. I have to say that I find this unlikely since logicians differ among themselves with regard to the definition of logic and they're supposedly the professionals! Does anyone really know anything of which they speak, myself included? Probably not. But at least I'm honest about it. Marlene, can you prove that I or anyone else exists? Do share. - 16:00:56 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:CARL: I'll get back to you. - 16:02:13 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..more odd than nosy, methinks:CURIOUS- I know you exsist if only to f-in irritate everyone on this discussion! I can agree with you on one thing, you have no inkling of logic. - 16:50:08 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:CARL: If there is no God, then how is it meaningful to talk about it continually. What a waste of precious time. Why aren't more people devoting websites geared toward debating the consequences of believing in Santa clause or the tooth fairy? What is it about this God thing that makes people devote hours of their life either to refute it or avow it? I'm not saying this is a proof for God. What I'm saying is that it makes atheists AND theists look like they're a little off, mentally speaking. A delusion is a delusion, right? If God is a delusion , why doesn't everyone just forget about the whole thing? Why give publicity and attention to belief in God, which is what you do when you devote websites to the concept, or start organizations opposed to it. It seems that if the God thing was such nonsense, it wouldn't take up so much of our conversations. Did I get a definition of number? I didn't think I did, so there is nothing to like or dislike by way of that. I desire to know how certain people are with regard to the methods they use in proving the validity of ideologies. How secure are you when it comes to showing the validity of the very methods that you use to show the validity of your own beliefs? - 17:03:37 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:MARLENE: Nor do logicians have any inkling of what logic is. Do you know more than they do? Please show us the immense inklings of knowledge that you have concerning this topic that people have disagreed about for centuries. Teach me, oh great one. - 17:07:42 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

RAVING NOMINALISTS:PETER,PETER AYN RAND READER...: Concepts have no objective basis.The source of concepts is a subjective human decision! Get out of your fantasy world and join the real world of arbitrary constructs. I know it hurts at first, but in the end you'll be glad you did it. - 17:16:32 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:GRANT: By the way, what are logic and mathematics but massive word games, arbitrarily constructed so as to lead to an "inescapable conclusion". To speak of infallible axioms in logic and math is like speaking of absolute moral standards. - 17:25:58 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:-RAVING NOMINALIST--As soon as you even press on key on your computer--you have proven Rand to be correct everytime. That's the beauty of it, and it drives her straw-man beating dissenters nuts. This may hurt ( I don't know why--maybe because the concept of "God" isn't reconciliable with it--and it blows all this Kantian crap out of the water )--but you'll be glad to know that you and I are both real. - 17:28:36 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:GRANT: ARE there absolute objective moral standards? If not, then why are these discounted while the laws of logic aren't? If so, How are these abstract notions objective and absolute while the laws of logic aren't? Who makes these rules? Us? Philosophers(yeah, right)? Our parents? Gremlins? Evolutions? Pick a card, any card! Is logic absolute today? Yes?! Oh, good! What about tomorrow? No??? Awwwwwww,darn it all. - 17:32:34 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

RAVING NOMINALIST:PETER: Correct in what sense? The absolute sense? How do you prove this? Aren't you confusing the ANALYTIC and SYNTHETIC dichotomy? - 17:35:27 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:PETER: "A is A"? Which A? Yours or mine? Is A, A when a person is taking L.S.D.? Or drunk? Or having a vision? When you dream is it a case of A is A in every case and every circumstance? A is A only if our senses are totally reliable. Are yours always reliable? Here...test the law of identity on this sentence: "I am lying". Am I or not? - 17:42:13 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--NOMINALIST--Thanks once again for proving Rand's axioms correct. By the way, do you know what they are? - 17:42:24 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:RAVING NOMINALIST: Didn't you know that the infallible notions of Kant have been overruled by the infallible axioms of Ayn Rand? The analytic/synthetic notion has been cleared away by today's logic. As for tomorrows logic? Well, we'll just have to stay tuned. The history of Philosophy has shown that these infallible axioms come in stages, all of which are as infallible as the previous or yet to come infallible axioms. Aren't philosophers great? - 17:48:25 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

RAVING NOMINALIST:PETER: Identity, existence and consciousness. - 17:50:08 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

RAVING NOMINALIST:PETER: Do you use Rand's axioms to prove Rand's axioms? - 17:51:14 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:CURIOUS must have multiple personality disorder. What do the rest of you think? - 17:54:14 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--NOM'--Very good--I don't have to "prove them" as they prove themselves--they are the starting points of cognition, on which all proofs depend. Any attempt to prove anything by my or you, or anyone pre-supposes these axioms. Now, in order to deny these axioms, you must reply next time from the perspective of non-existence, unconsciousness, and not identifying anything ( which would be kind of difficult if you don't exist )... - 18:05:19 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:CURIOUS: Since inter-relating with the godthing over the past coupla of years, the view and opinion has been spreading that the issue is not as your statement tells it- that it is in the minds on the lips of all. At one time the xtian types- as an example, they called for ignorance as it was considered by the religious types to be the mother of devotion, so in those times your statement is on target. Nowadays, I see more and more that it is possible to make change the minds and opinions and views of humanity in the the terms that you seek here to deflate, reason and logic. I posted the other day the quote of Protagoras as it is as true as ever. -Man is the measure of all things- or something so, anyway the idea therein seems to hold the view I now have of you religious believers. Out of humanity's past one day long ago, when ignorance was the prevailing state of the human mind as it measures to what I know, then your view was correct. In my opinion when you make that statement, it means to me that you would hold that in your opinion humans are still that ignorant. And, true some are some more so than others and you would have your godthing view prevail upon them and their minds, as it may be. My contest is with the likes of you, for someone like you would eventually go so far as to argue\propose that there was a goodness- of some kind, during the european dark ages. Per Draper and White, that 1000 years was directly attributed to xtians. Belief? That gets me across a street through the pedestrian walk zone, I "believe" the person in control of 2.5 thousand pounds of metal understands the meaning of a stoplite. Does my safe arrival on the other side of the street serve as a validation of that belief? - 18:14:13 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--MARLENE--I just think he is an asshole who is totally unfamiliar with even the minimal etiquette requirements for civil discussion. Not only that--he knows such a startlingly tremendous amount of dick-all, he feels he must use his obnoxious, infantile, taunting and even condescending? style to compensate for the poorly presented, researched and argued posts--in EVERY area he has chosen to address. - 18:15:06 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>missionaries are still sent out every day. The continue to destroy cultures and to press their beliefs on ignorant people. It makes me sick. My wife has an Aunt who is a missionary in China. This of course is illegal, and if she is caught she could face death (IMO that is what she deserves). I happen to like her personally, it is what she does for a living that angers me so. She is over officially as an English teacher. She does her missionary work behind the scenes, kind of James Bondish. Anyway, did you see the new press relief by the Vatican concerning the concentration camps during WWII. Some fairly intresting stuff. The Vatican, it seems, is apologizing for running concentration camps during the war. They will not admit however, that the Pope who authorized the camps was in the wrong, because a Pope is inspired by yaweh and cannot be wrong (LOL). - 18:50:03 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:PETER: Your beginning to sound like an imitation of yourself and your hardly tolerable the first time. MARLENE: Answer the questions please and stop being silly. For all I know you might not be Marlene but rather Micheal or Mitch or Madalyn. Anyone can be anyone someone wants to be. This really bothers you doesn't it? - 18:58:12 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Steven is the missionary for atheism, the smallest religion in the world. Maybe with a little more work, you can help it to grow into something as big as christianity or islam. But, I doubt it. - 19:02:13 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:STEVEN: The only reason religious believers retort that their godthing is not wrong is that it means nothing. To borrow A CURIOUS phrase, religious stuff is the "massive word game" for the people of that sort of preferred thinking. Those folks, the theochat types as an example, say and inscribe the words that they are not responsible for anything because they have been saved. What inna'fuck duz'that mean? Nothing of course, but to their preferred thinking, and if enough people get together and today "say" that nothing is meaningful in their existence well they next gotta give it a name, ergo, god. How does any argue anything in anyway against nothing? So, the pope as an example of godtypes, in view of these folks desire to be gods- see genesis the parent breath blowing creation of man, who would dare to speak ill of such a parentage? These folks like CURIOUS can't say ill of such a beginning. They do not like atheism for the simple idea that it-atheism, means to deny them that parentage and that end. - 19:21:50 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:CURIOUS. Little by little, grudgingly, we draw the truth out of you. It took many postings and much questioning to get you to admit that you believe in your 'god'. Later, "I believe the bible gives a fair representation of what god would be like if god existed". Why the "if"? You have already stated you DID believe. Are you trying to impress us with a thin veneer of impartiality? It doesn't work. Why don't you have the guts to come out of your closet and say honestly "I am a christian fundamentalist and I believe the bible is the word of god." As for all your talk about how there has to be a god to explain the existence of the universe and to "sustain" the universe, how about trying to explain where this god of yours came from.After all, it's your argument that everything must have had an origin, so tell me, what is your god's origin? Did a supergod give birth to him? As to what is a number, look it up in the dictionary. That goes for the letters of the alphabet as well. I ask my self "How stupid can CURIOUS get?" You then go on to show me there is no apparent limit. You ask Marlene how she can prove you're alive. I'll leave that to her to answer but I will vouch for one thing. You are dead from the neck up. - 19:40:45 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:PAPASAM: Get lost. Your obviously suffering from the myopia complex. I'm trying to have regular discourse with you and you make some stupid remark at the end of your paragraph about my being dead from the neck up. I vacillate between pitying you and wanting to call you the cantankerous and miserable old sot that you are. Obviously, I'm not quite as dogmatic about my belief in God as you are about your atheism. Speaking of fundamentalists, you'd make a great one judging from your despotic attitude. You lack any talent to communicate rationally and so you resort to pounding your pulpit and blabbering nonsense. Sphew your vomit toward someone else. One last thing: Do you see it as your duty to attack people who may or may not believe in God? It's as if that's the main thing you've been waiting for and now,"OH BOY!!! He talked about God, he talked about God!!!" Does your life revolve around God? I wasn't talking about God at all, until people asked me what I believed. You ask, I answer and then you berate for talking about it. Is your life so miserable that this is all you have to look forward to? Do you live only to show people their wrongheadedness with regard to their belief in God? If ever I affirm the truth of atheism, I hope that I'm not the kind of atheist that you are. You remind me of the underground man in Dostoyevsky's "Notes from the underground". - 20:33:26 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:NONAME<<>>i am not a missionary for atheism. I do however, believe in educating people so they make their own choice. If they have any kind of rational thought patern, they will see xtianity for the fraud that it is. All it takes is patience and a little research and you will see for yourself that you put faith in a myth. - 20:39:45 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

CURIOUS:CARL: What gives life meaning? Is this a relative thing like logic? - 20:41:46 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

STEVEN: If someone wants to believe a myth and they're not harming anyone in the process then why should you care? - 20:47:46 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:CURIOUS: The meaning of life? It seems more so than before that, that very query makes sense to religious types with their heaven and hell and for some others it is the idea of evolution, in my view either imply that the "meaning", as humans understand it, is that life must go on. Religious types "believe" they do that in heaven or hell. At one time before people who needed to control all, as it appears you so desire, ruined its simplicity, it may have been as is the whereabouts of that unspeakable knowledge of things as they are, is so. Evolution- as I see it, addresses life as a thing, one view that I found appreciation for- said it is conceptual at its most rudimentary point of existence, and humanity is one form of life. Logic, that choice is yours because you choose, always. Didn't someone once say, do so wisely. - 21:12:31 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:NONAME:::that has never been a policy that christians adhere to. The reason for this is the bible. The bible is a twisted and disgusting piece of literature. If you think that christians have never harmed anyone then you have no concept of history. One problem with christianity is that they think that everyone must believe as they do, just look at the laws etc. in the USA. You can look to history to see that christianity will not suffer anyone believing differently then they. The inquisition, crusades etc.. are just small examples of how christianity will not suffer any other belief. I can list hundreds of verses from the 'bible' which list the murdering of entire cities, countries, armies etc... because they did not believe in yaweh. Christianity is a deadly virus because it prevents man from useing their brain. Knowledge is evil to the christian, and to the religion of christianity. - 21:32:29 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--'NOM--Gee, I think NOM is finding it kinda tough to deny existence from a perspective of non-existence, and deny consciousness from a perspective of being unconscious. Hmmmmmm........ - 21:33:17 on 17 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:CURIOUS. Your statement "obviously I'm not as dogmatic aout my belief in god as you are in your atheism." You said in a previous posting "I believe in god". You also said that you thought he would be like the god in the bible. Make up your mind. You either believe or you don't. You sound as though you want to believe in it on an emotional basis but your reason says it isn't so. I stand firm in my belief that your god is a delusionary figment of your imagination. However, I don't go to any theo sites to challenge them. If it makes them happy to believe, let them believe. So can you. But YOU came to an atheist web site to preach and, hopefully, to convert. You're doing a lousy job. You resort to inanities such as "what is a number? Is A always A? How do you know 2+ 2 = 4?" and so forth. You go to your library's philosophy section, pick out a few names, snatch a few phrases and imagine yourself to be a great philosopher. You are a sad case. Why don't you set up a web site of your own? Just think of the throngs flocking to hear your words of wisdom. How sad that you limit your genius to a few recalcitrant atheists. - 1:07:57 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:CURIOUS, There is no concrete reality, short of an observer. This is why I have problems with philosophic axioms such as "existence exists." The relativity of an observer can observe a macro object, a micro molecular structure, or a virtual vacuum---inside of an atom---all by observing different parts of the same macro object . Wheeler's modification of the Young's two-split experiment reveals that an observer today can be made partially responsible for generating the reality of the remote past. So to answer your questions; there is no objective universal "truth" any more than there is a "universal present time," in the subjective relative world of the observer. This subjectivity, to me, only applies to the higher human mind levels (secondary intelligence---ego/superego). On this level man creates God's in mans own subjective image to help him survive, IMO (subjective of course). However, "primary intelligence"---Id levels of the human brain---is a determinant (objective) of nature which encompasses survival, organization, and pro-creation. This is accomplished by the process of micro-evolution. Of course this is only one of the determinants of nature, as we discussed before, the other is entropy. Does this make any sense? - 1:21:40 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene...back to arguements among atheists:OH- OH! Here we go again with the words that make this discussion go buzz. This time..micro-evolution. Take your shot Peter, lol! - 3:13:57 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene...where Do these acts come from???:CURIOUS- Papasam has come to the same conclusion as the rest of us. We all think your dead from the neck up. Notice that we've all come to this conclusion by observing your behavior then logically coming to this conclusion. It's unamimous, BUZZZZZZ..your off the stage! - 3:17:49 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Almost unanimous. Dare I say it? I think CURIOUS has made some valid points. I would say he is pretty intelligent. As with many before him, I don't like his approach, but he has not elected to clear it with me first. I think antagonism is likely to be met with hostility, whoever happens to be involved, human nature being what it is. It's only logical. - 3:40:21 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--MARLENE--Oh sigh. What's the point? - 3:55:58 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:Every knee shall bow and every tounge confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, that my friends I can promise you. Don't sound like you have alot to live for if you deny Christ. How can anyone look around this world and see creation as something that just happened by chance, you may deny the work and creation now, but there will be consequences. - 5:48:40 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

tiggermac2:This is tiggermac with a question for ya, Lets just say for a sec that all of us christians were wrong... was our life a waste helping out our fellow man a nd covering ourselves just in case there is an afterlife? We christians are better off if we are wrong or right. Christanity, if it is a waste of time, arnt we better off helping out eachother than living for ourselves, and if there God, than we will be welcomed in as good and faithful, and you will be too busy burning to kick yourself in the butt for wasting your life on yourself... im outtie - 5:56:17 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:For how the flesh wants to know and how the imperfection of man reigns. The flesh wants more and more and until it succumbs to the inevitable. Death makes slaves of us all! - 6:55:18 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:The cult of trickery language thrives in this medium- it grasps the physical cerebrum from anew. Humans ponder their physical forms as their flesh decays. Oh- how droll it is to be mortal! - 7:11:47 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:RICKY. "I promise you - - -" Don't make promises you can't keep. And please stop threatening us with "the consequences". TIGGERMAC2. What happened to Tiggermac 1? When you talk about christians helping out your fellow man are you referring to the inquisition or the mass burnings of witches during the Dark Ages when the Christians ruled Europe? Then agqin, maybe you're thinking of the Crusades. Do me a favor. Don't offer me any of your christian help. SKIPPY SSKIP. How does death make slaves of us? THE THREE OF YOU Why don't you three form your own holy trinity? You all have holes in your heads!! - 7:21:17 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:PapaSam--- You know the answer! Death comes! Can you avoid it? If not-- then you are enslaved to it. It is right here or maybe it will call upon you in 5 years. Death comes! Heidegger is not far off when he says that language is the master of man. How the flesh questions and wants to know everything in its imperfection. "Many a man would be quite capable of killing another, simply to rub his boots over with the victim's fat " -----Schopenhauer. Humans are the slave-victims of death. I am a mere mortal. - 8:08:56 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:CURIOUS-- How do you come to infer that logical deductions cannot apply to the empirical (physical) world? You seem to be going to great lengths to define logic in such a way that you can condemn it. Logic is a tool used to think with more precision. It is not a religion. why should it not change or be improved upon. It is a process that can be demonstrated and repeated and criticised on it's own merits unlike religious beliefs, which can only be taken on faith. You seem to be implying that because atheists can't prove beyond any doubt that God doesn't exist then he must exist. If you have a better tool for figuring out reality than logic and reason, I would like to know what it is. You're not really saying that because we can't know anything we might as well choose to believe in God, are you? Because that's not much of an argument for a particular god, or any god. If you think like that then what would be wrong with choosing atheism? Why is logic suspect because it has changed while religious beliefs are not, though they change far more? Why don't you turn that critical eye that you have for logic upon emotionalism, or whatever it is that has made you believe in the supernatural? - 8:55:27 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:ANY<<>>great, why must the kiddies on spring break share how brainwashed they are with all of us Satan worshiping atheists, LOL. Geez, wake up. - 13:32:18 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

PETER ( With two token responses to two posters who more than likely will never return ):Ricky-You refer to us as "friends" and then continue with some crude form of psychological intimidation to believe. Then you offer the same circular "design" argument that obviously was effective in convincing you of this myth--but if you were to sit down and examine this alledged explanation for God's existence honestly and thoroughly-the flaws of it should be obvious. However, there are other warnings associated with your religion which will frighten you enough to avoid this action. This will result in you being separated from what is real. That is your choice. TIGGERMAC2--Must one be a christian to motivate them to help their fellow man? If so--does nobody help each other in non-christian countries? - 13:53:41 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--GRANT--And the thing that makes me shake my head is that it is so obvious that the same buttons seem to be pressed to control these poor kids, over and over again. - 13:59:08 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:PETER-- During my religious upbringing (somewhere in the shady past) we were taught that too much education was a bad thing. Reading of non-religious books was discouraged. It was said that too much knowledge leads to pride and arrogance, and the feeling that one doesn't require God. Ironic, don't you think? - 14:10:36 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--GRANT--..and keeping one in the dark prevents one from recognizing that irony. They know damn well that faith goes hand-in-hand with force and control, and knowledge being the greatest enemy of faith. They sell the masses to evade knowledge by warning of the dire consequences that follow--the worst one being the declaration of " Hey, I don't believe in God anymore" which then opens the box for one to encounter every imaginable evil fate not only in our lives here on earth but for FOREVER in the after-life. No wonder they're scared. - 14:25:56 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:GRANT and PETER- I was SOOOOOO lucky to have been raised with a mediocre(sp) religious family. The only "control" I experienced was my uncle saying "Get your ass out there and clean the barn!". BTW, Grant, I see no great intelligence in QS/Curious. All I see is someone who is going to great lengths to defend his silly belief. If the great lengths had any merit though, we'd be convinced by now, or at least ask, "where Do you get your superior knowledge?". But we know where, of course, the xtain creation homepage. - 15:01:20 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:STEVEN: recall several weeks past I brought to your attention that passage from A.Whites'book, well in the March Berkeleyan issue another like-article appears, it reports that Linguists say of pre-american people 1, '...N.American language families would have required at least 35000 years to develop." 2,"This indicates a common history of a people so ancient that we cannot hope to trace their linguistic decent." 3,"Many linguists, noting the number and variety of lang.fam.in the new world, have concluded that human habitation is older than archeological evidence would suggest." I thought you might like that for reasons surely unique to you. So now I must wonder if the writers of of the xtian bible did not know of such people and developments when they devinely composed their 'inspired' accounts of humanity. Inspire you know means breath of god. The several religious believing visitors of this MMM site, what would they think if they took time to read and know about other things? - 15:57:40 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>thank you for the information. I will now attempt to access the magazine so that I can read a little more. I also wish to purchase the book by A. White. What is the name of the book? and what is the authors full name? The majority of visiting theists here are looking for an avenue to make themselves feel better about believing in something that doesn't make any sense. I think that the more a theists stays on the page, the more they have to think about their beliefs the more likely the are to reject them. - 16:19:21 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>i went and read the article that you refered to. Most interesting, remember that theology indicates that the earth is only 6,000 yrs old, LOL hahah hehehe hohoh! - 16:51:45 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>i went and read the article that you refered to. Most interesting, remember that theology indicates that the earth is only 6,000 yrs old, LOL hahah hehehe hohoh! - 16:53:23 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:STEVEN: Since you or any other can access this campus site, once you do so then select "News and Events" then select "Berkeleyan Campus Newspaper" that will get one to it and even the archived stuff. The author is Andrew White the book title is "The Warfare of Science With Theology". "The search for truth should be the goal of our activities; it is the sole end worthy of them." this the first line of Poincares' "Value of Science" - 16:55:39 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

RON...--->PLEASE STAND BY....:For MIMM page maintenance.... - 16:58:46 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:Well, Papa Sam, you tell me, why is'nt there any other book in the world that can even come close in the accuracy of history, remaining in curculation and obtain 69 books within a book that never contridicts itself from names right on down to even dates starting from the beginning of time up to 2000 years later, never making an error in any of the writtings?......WHAT IF THE REAL TRUTH LIES WITHIN THIS BOOK CALLED THE HOLY BIBLE? - 17:22:54 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Garona Noordhuis:Ricky, I find it just as hard to believe that "someone" created all this. It raises just as much if not more questions to me. The hardest thing in life is to just live it, it's also the most facinating thing I have ever done sofar. I don't want to say that I do not believe, I just don't know. However, God's existance isn't any more logical to me than him not existing. I'd like to takl about this with you,if you like. But I do have my own opinion. Garona Noordhuis. Email:amadeo@freemail.nl - 17:26:45 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--RICKY--Good to see you make a return. I hope you stay with us for a while! Tell us a bit about yourself, and why you feel so adamantly about your beliefs! If they are perfectly legitimate and inerrant, you shouldn't have any problem defending them. - 17:34:20 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:Garona, I'd like to chat with you and will get back with you, hope I can explain to you how God intered my life and what He's doing for me. Email: rsexton@roanokebible.edu - 17:37:44 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:Peter, I'd like that very much, and I'll be back on this line later, I'm a student at Roanoke Bible College and have a 1:00 class to get to, but look forward to shareing my beliefs with you , see ya later! - 17:41:45 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Garona.:Ricky, I've been raised as a Jehovah's Witness and what you say realy sounds very fermiliar (sorry for any spellingmistakes,I'm a dyslectic who's native language isn't English,so I'm just doing the best I can) I left the Jehovah's Witnesess because there were many things I could not agree with. I am afraid that I do have some "allert" for the "one and only truth". I would like to point out to you that your belief nomatter how serious I would like to take it is your belief. Would you please try to see it from my point of view? Not denial but sceptism, that's all. I find it too easy to say that all those that have a different opinion on this matter are just denying the existance of God. Or the Bible for that matter. For one thing, I am not so sure about the creation (Genisis). I even believe that Evolution and God can go hand in hand. They're not two opposites to me, as they seem to be to you. Maybe God did create the world but he didn't tell us how, why should he? What's your opinion on all this? - 17:42:07 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:-STEVEN--In a way it's kind of humorous that there are millions on the earth who honestly think the earth is only 6000 years old--but conversely I find it also frightening that there are so many people out there who haven't got a even the faintest clue in the area of how to process information they hear, see, read etc. --and how to distinguish a falsehood from reality. Until man is able to reach this pinnacle--the prospect of him living in a totally civilized manner is something that will never occur--unless he abandons these hideous assumtions that are motivated by the widespread insistence that fear and ignorance dictate one's beliefs. - 17:46:23 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:RICKY: I have read studys of egyptology that deal with writing\linguistics that conclude it unlikely that the jews were slaves of pharaoh, as neither the ancient semitic language nor any of its roots appear in any of the hieroglyphs that made the egyptian language what it was. I will have to check the article again so I now merely recall that the semitic, pre-hebraic, language was a product of an upper-nile to lower nile progression. This will mean your position of historical accuracy is false. I will get the site for your perusal. You will note it was not USA nor jewish affiliated so its research was not swayed by any prevailing interest, which makes it something else different, wouldn't you think? - 17:48:13 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:After this message , I really have to go , but let me say this one last thing, you got it wrong, I don't believe, or worship or go to church because of fear, or because of the horrows of Hell, I go and worship my God because I love, honor, and adore Him, He's my savior, my hope, and my creator, I get great benefits out of worshiping Him, Its out of love for Him that I do what I do, knowing I can never live a perfect life, but I can live a life trying my very best to follow His plan of salvation, through His Inspired Word, the Bible, friends, I have to run, but I'll be back latter! - 17:54:44 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Garona:Ricky, As I am living in the Netherlands, times are different here (it's 6:45 PM here). I have people over to my place later on the evening so I may not be here when you come out of your 1:00 class. I have included my email adress though. Usually I am here (behind the computer that is) quite often, especially around this time. (everybody is having dinner at this time and it's not as crowded) I usually can stay untill about 10:00 PM (my time) wich would be 4:00 PM your time (if my calculation hasn't failed me). So when I know you're "online", at say 2:00 PM your time on a specific day, I'll make sure to be there at 8:00 PM my time. (than we can chat.) you can drop me a line on this by email if you like. Again, my email is:amadeo@freemail.nl I have written down yours myself. - 17:55:56 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Garona:Carl, I am intrested in what you've read, What was the title (if you remember),I'd like to read it too. - 17:59:55 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Garona:Hello Carl, Are you still there? - 18:06:52 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:Garona: I do not have the sites'URL immediately available, but on the 'morrow I'll have it along with some other URLs. - 18:18:53 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:SKIPPY SKIP. We agree on one thing. We're both going to die. The difference is that I do not fear death. You don't want to die so you have grasped at the concept of an afterlife and bought into the religious beliefs that go with it. Sorry about that. The plain facts are that we will both end up as fodder for the worms, bugs and bacteria that will feast on our decaying corpses. The little beasties won't know or even care which one of us was the atheist. I can visualize you cringing at the thought. Have a nice day. - 18:33:43 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

garona:Thanks Carl. Could you mail it to me? amadeo@freemail.nl I have to go now myself. - 18:55:26 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky, Feel free to mail me, I've got to go now. Carl, Bye! - 18:57:32 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:Oh, oh, Papa Sam, I can't wait to die, because my worm eaten body will have already have been transformed to a Holy Temple of God to remain in the presence of Almighty God forever and ever while your soul will finnally reliazed that you were saddly wrong and remain in tourment forever!!!!! - 19:16:28 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:RICKY. Who wrote thefirst bible and how did he find our about how the whole business was created? Did god dictate it to him? Obviously he must have done so because there were no witnesses. According to your bible, if I remember correctly, it says "In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth. And there was darkness on the face ot the earth. And god said let there be light and there was light." So where did the light come from? Did he turn on an electric light bulb? He didn't create the sun, moon and stars until a few days later. Do you believe that god created Adam by blowing on a handfull of dust? And that he broke off a piece of Adam's rib to creat Eve ? If your god is all powerful and creates whole universes and all the life forms on them why did he have to play parlor tricks to create the human race? Have you ever seen or heard of a talking snake except in your favorite mythology? Have you ever had a conversation with a burning bush? Do you realy believe Jonah had a suite in the belly of a whale complete with room service? The fact that people believed this nonsense for so many years is a tribute to their ignorance and the fear of punishment if they dared question it.Look what happened to Galileo. I could go on and on but I don't believe it would make a dent in your brainwashed faith. It was science which brought us the world we live in, for better or worse. I dpn't remember reading of any inventions in the bible. I do know that the comfortable life style many enjoy is based on scientifc and mechanical discoveries. When the pope flies to his faithful followers in all corners of the world he doesn't use angel's wings. He uses an airplane. He drives around in his popemobile and returns to a magnificient structure in the vatican. The same is true of most of his religious counterparts. These are all creations of modern technology. What did the bible create? Your entire belief is based on a blind unquestioning faith. If it were not for the questioning doubters you would be still be living in the Dark Ages waiting for the next black plague to descend on you. - 19:22:53 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:RICYY<<>>if you believe the bible is historically accurate, and has no contradictions, you truly need to seek help. The bible is a frigging joke, just read it objectivly and you will find out for yourself. The bible is worse than other mythologies when it comes to historical accuracies. The bible is a man made story book full of hate and filth. If you are going to defend your mythology, then you had better throw the bible out of the picture, wait if you do that you will have to throw your entire religion out because it is a fraud also. I don't know what kind of 'learning' you are goin threw but it is not teaching you anything but a fantasy. If anything take your bible, jump up and down on it, then start a fire with it. The only thing that a bible is worth is useing it to start a fire. - 19:24:08 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:PETER<<>>RICKY<<>>or the next inquisition! - 19:28:18 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:shit that should have said PAPASAM - 19:30:17 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..getting discouraged:GEEEZ, may as well rename this site, theo-chat. Anyone know of a board not yet taken over by theists? - 19:33:14 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:MARLENE<<>>your bud's are here, don't sweat it. The visiting theists will soon get frustrated, as they always do. - 19:57:29 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: If the Ricky pseudonym tells true, he's a stu.at a bible college, it might be an interesting if he can speak\relate his teachings as an outer stimulus or will his efforts be to merely reconvey it here? If that collection of people- the bible school instructors etc.,are mad with power and authority as is typical of religious tendencies- believe or no god; believe what we say as we say or go to a hell, I'd wager that this student will regurgitate the propaganda typical of that kind of mindlessness. It is mindless RICKY, because it is as a propagated myth a prepackaged bundle of bright glass trinkets, sugar stuff and small mirrors for the gullible and the credulous human. This brings to thought the line from a flick, "How do you trap a monkey?" Ricky you are trapped with "your desire" for eternal life. Your teachers at that college know you are but a monkey. But if you are a good one you might be a pope and bring in more money and riches. Life? What about evolution? It implys life goes on, your reproductive ability serves life that end, does it not? Or, do you have just your life in mind? - 20:01:48 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

David:The bible is the most inaccurate book ever written on history, anyone that has ever studied history call tell you that. It is full of contridictions within and against itsels... As far as the exodus out from Egypt goes, sorry... the exodus was out from Babylon and so begot the tower of babble, which was the bastardization of the holy temple of babylon. And did you really think that man could have changed so much, in so short of time to become so different in physical characteristic, attributes, and appearance. But enought of this crap...... I was really writing to call attention to the fact that man is just an animal... So if man is self-aware of his existence,then so too are the other animals of our world. The only reason people can't believe this fact, is because the bible tells us that man has a soul. So as long as man thinks himself greater than all other life. To coin a bad phrase ( god help us all ) enought said. - 20:15:35 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Don't mean to say, believe as I believe or you're going to hell, there are many, many religious faiths, Babtist, Methodos, Christian, Church of Christ, Holliness, which all differ in certain aspects of religion, but still ALL recognize that we all have the one important thing in common, that we worship the same, the one and only Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and that being the most important thing, recognizing God for who and what he is,. There is a thing called faith, and faith being that there is going to be an after life. If I"M right, I'll be in heaven one day, if I'm wrong, my life as I have lifed it will be no waist, On the other hand if you're right, we'll all just rot when we die and that will be it, If you're wrong, you figure it out!!!!!! - 20:23:54 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:DAVID<<>>how about the opposable thumb, LOL! - 20:33:22 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:DAVID<<>>how about the opposable digit, LOL! - 20:33:41 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:NONAME<<>>those are all from the same religion dumbass. Try Hindu, Budha, etc... Geez! So you have your little security blanket, do you feel better, LOL what a stupid fuckhead! ahhhh, I feel better! - 20:36:54 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:NONAME<<>>those are all from the same religion dumbass. Try Hindu, Budha, etc... Geez! So you have your little security blanket, do you feel better, LOL what a stupid fuckhead! ahhhh, I feel better! - 20:38:17 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

StEvEn sIcK oF FuCkInG xTiAnS:AnY<<>>sorry for the double posts, something is buggy with my browser today. - 20:40:52 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:Sorry David, but you historical studies have surely misguided you, man , I agree is alot like an animal, we are part of the animal kinkdon, but what makes us differ is the fact that we have been given a thing called , CHOISE, we get to choose between wright and wrong, red or black in or out, on the other hand, the animal kingdom was given a thing called Instink, sorry for the mispelling, that they have no choice in what they do, certain birds, for example, migrate South for the winter, not they decide too, but nature through the way God made them, causes them to do so, We go South for the winter because we simply choose to do so. - 20:42:26 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

StEvEn sIcK oF FuCkInG xTiAnS:AnY<<>>sorry for the double posts, something is buggy with my browser today. - 20:44:51 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:RICKY<<>>look up brainwashing! for the definition fits you perfectly.\ Your little piece of literary garbage is full of contradictions and inaccuracies. I, and many on this page can list them for you, and will if you continue attempting to press your mythology on us. Perhaps we should, for you will never leave the umbrella of brainwashing unless someone points the damn things out. As I have said, read all about the murders, rapes, incest in your bible and tell me it is a book for good. - 20:50:03 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:RICKY<<>>a little history wouldn't hurt either. For history proves that your bible is make believe stories created by MAN. Your death god does not exist, it is only in your imagination. This is called delusion. Your bible was written 425-450 yrs after the death of a person that history has no record of. Please try to tell us you believe the earth is only 6000 yrs old, we all need a good laugh. - 20:54:46 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

TJ:I will be the frist one to tell you I dont know how old the world is, you don't know either. Have you heard of faith both you and me go by this. Because, we go by date that man came up with can you tell me how you come up with your dates.....? - 21:06:48 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:RICKY<<>>tell us somemore about lakes of fire, LOL LOL Hahahahahahahhhehehehehehhohohohoh! - 21:07:28 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:TJ<<>>what the fuck are you talking about. Could you explain the last statement please. - 21:16:34 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:Thanks, T.J., and yes, Steven, so far as my studies go, the world as so far as I know, is about 6,000 years old. , and history does record such a man coming and being raised from the dead on the third day, The book of matthew, mark , luke, which by the way was a doctor, and the appositle john, all record the life of Jesus, just as the Old Testament profhets talked of hundereds of years before he came, Saying he would be born of a vergin, oh, I almost forgot, you don't believe in certain history books, such as the .............., however, you tell me about evelution, so I can get a laugh!!!!!!!!! - 21:16:52 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:RICKY: obviously your godthing won't allow you to speak on its behalf because that bit of writing has to be one of the weakest I have seen any of your ilk attempt for a godthing. Nevertheless, what lofty things do you have any reason to make in your daily toils? How are these choices meaningful, such as do you brush your teeth because if not your godthing will rot them out, since it made nature so, or if you choose not to use toilet paper does your god make you odorous? So what important choices do you make in a days'time, that are somehow for any something outside nature, i.e., supernatural? And, how do you know it is from the supernatural, you that was nothing before the reproductive action of parents. - 21:19:59 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:TJ<<>>faith is not a required human condition. Why do xtians feel that everyone must have FAITH in something that doesn't exist? - 21:22:37 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

TJ:yes I will explain Steven, do you get your dates form the "GEOLOGIC COLUMN" or "C 4 DATING" or what??? - 21:24:58 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

TJ:yes I will explain Steven, do you get your dates form the "GEOLOGIC COLUMN" or "C 4 DATING" or what??? - 21:25:06 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:RICKY<<>>man I am astounded with your complete ignorance. Do you wish to be this brainwashed? There are civilizations that are far older than 6000 yrs. The earth itself is millions of years old. Hell, every science on the planet agrees that the earth is millions of years old. What about dinosaurs? Oh, let me guess, Satan planted dino bones to make us sway from the truth. Either you are stupid or ignorant, either way you need to study something other than the bible. The bible by no means, is any kind of history. It is a mythology, look up the defintion, it should sound familiar. - 21:26:56 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:TJ<<>>i will list one science that proves that the earth is older than 6000 yrs, when I could list them all. To idiots such as yourself, knowledge is evil. So, check out linquistics. It is the science of language. Ask a linguist how long it takes to develope a spoken language. Oh, I forgot, yaweh did it in a day right. He said "i guess these humans should be able to speak so *poof* now you can speak", LOL - 21:36:13 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:Carl, explain to me how a lady went to a Doctor in Plymouth, N. C. and after being diognosed with brest cancer went to a cancer researce center in Greenville, to three top specialist in that field, took more test, concluded that the cancer was there and the breast would have to be removed, was sceduled for surgery, the next week, six days latter, but in the operating room, following the request of the lady, was tested one more time, doctors were amazed to find NO TRACE of cancer . There were prayer groups praying for this lady in her local church and a 24 hour prayer fidual going on during her operation attemtp by the doctors there, You want proff, Go to any hospitle and ask a doctor which does he have better success with, Believer or Nonbelivers?????, The facts might just suprise you, That a thing called faith, thats what you might just consider a miricle. That's why I believe what I believe, Been there, seen it with my own eyes, Don't know obout your's, but my God is just as alive today as he was 2000 years ago, Back then, he performed miricles, people couldn't believe what they saw, today some people still don't believe what they see. I've seen, I've been touched by God myself, I shouldn't be alife today, and wouldn't if not for the healing power of God! - 21:36:46 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:RICKY<<>>ever heard of voodoo? 95% of all illness's are psychosomatic. If a person BELIEVES that they are sick, they become sick. If a person believes in a curse, then the curse can become real to them. Check it out.\ Believers in voodoo do not put faith in your mythology, they have created their own, just like the cult of christianity did 1500 yrs ago. - 21:46:16 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

that nice Steven where are the dates.......? Yes Ricky, That is right pray works. There are studies going on now in the US that shows proof that prayer works so if people are not praying to GOD then what is going on? - 21:48:00 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

TJ:that nice Steven where are the dates.......? Yes Ricky, That is right pray works. There are studies going on now in the US that shows proof that prayer works so if people are not praying to GOD then what is going on? - 21:48:13 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

TJ:i'll be back i'm going to eat, when i come back have me your proof of your dates of how old earth is, steven - 21:58:20 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:RICKY: You weakly resort to a tactic all religious believers childishly employ, that is to believe them- first. You are not very old as you are gullible- see hospital tale. You are not well educated- see your 6000 yr.reference. You are not a rigorous thinker- see your last sentence. You do not understand what it means to prove anything- see your ask any hospital. There is nothing religion likes more than a child, they easiest of all, learn first what is to be believed. - 22:01:20 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

DON'T THEY TEACH SPELLING AT BIBLE COLLEGE? GOOD GRAMMAR AND PROPER SPELLING WILL GET YOU A LOT FURTHER IN LIFE THAN YOUR FAITH! - 22:25:32 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:Death comes! The verbal tongue soothes imperfection. - 22:27:20 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:STEVEN: Upon further review of the RICKY, his apparent verb oriented syntax makes me wonder if he is not of Asian descent? At noon today folks of that ancestry were performin on he plaza steps for a godthing. - 22:30:37 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene from da devil:OH FOR JEEZUSS SAKE! Now I KNOW we can all learn something from these idots, how to be utterly clueless!!! Like da..after I eat, I'll come back and prove how old the scab on the pimple on my ass is too. I'll look in my book of F-in Faith Healing! - 22:55:07 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:No, actually, I'm of German on my mothers side and Indian on my fathers side, and I'm probable old enough to be your daddy, and I've heard that wisdom comes with age, I didn't believe in God up until about 6 years ago when He made Himself known to me. I might not can spell or even write very good, but I'd sure like to study some of the books you guys have been reading. About the man being eat by the whale, well not to long ago, a man was swallowed by a shark, and after a couple of days, he excaped, but he did loose all his hair, and turned completely white, funny I should say, after Jona was swallowed, the Bible says he stood on the shores and appeared as white as snow!!!!! - 22:57:46 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene, sounds as if you're headed to Hell too! We don't care about the sores on you hinney, maybe you need a vodoo doll to heal them! - 23:02:40 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..Nuts! These guys are NUTS!:RICKY- Bet that story was from the _National Enquirer_, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLL! - 23:02:43 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:To WHOEVER is too chicken shit to leave a name******No, not going anywhere but up in smoke. And I certainly care about the pimple on my ass. It's as subjective to me as your delusions are to you. - 23:05:07 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: that is the last word for sure, and do they ever lack a good readin'at least. The curio ought to run a Russell thing by these folks, it could only help them and fill the curios'desire for power and authority. - 23:10:18 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:RICKY: Indian as in Hinduesque? - 23:12:15 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..back later..after I eat, lol:LOOK, WHOEVER, I have friends here that do care about the pimple on my ass, so instead of "we" maybe you should have written "I". Speaking of friends, where's dat girlfriend, Joette, be hidin'? - 23:12:52 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:No, wasn't from the inquirer, wasn't a story, it was from a Christian lady that when she knew something was wrong with her physical body, went to seek medical help, but wound- up causing her 2 children to be drawn to Christ because they too, were some-what like you, until they wittnessed this miricle themselves, you see, God has purpose in everything He does, and by His healing this God fearing woman, caused not only her faith to be stronger, but caused her children to believe also. - 23:17:49 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Tiggermac2:This is Tiggermac2, and I also besides a christian, am a science buff. Did you realize that they have found fossils with dinosaur and human tracks together, are the rocks mysteriously from two diffrent ages, or.. mabye God created both Man and dinosaur together. We Christian scienctists look at the same fossil record as you, and frankly, our explination fits the records found much better than evolution. - 23:29:14 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

tiggermac2:or, are they from a acient relitive we have yet to find? - 23:35:16 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:T2: If you mean those in Texas? - 23:36:31 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:T2: if yes, that has since been determined to be an act of fraud, but some of you types accept it as thoughtlessly as those perpetrators expected would happen among your ilk, or "flock" as you folks like it said. - 23:40:50 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

tiggermac2:have you heard of circular reasoning? The fact that they use carbon dating to prove the Geologic column and the geologic column to prove carbon dating is a little odd to me - 23:43:48 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--I am aghast. Where does one even start? Why even bother? - 23:44:06 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

tiggermac2:also, do you have any human missing links that havnt been proven false also? - 23:45:01 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

tiggermac2:aghast at what, that I have a different faith in my bias than yours? - 23:46:24 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

carl:PETER: Very likely these religious believers got bored and tired of being blessed and prayed for and loved at the drop of a hat, all the time. They come here for a dose of life. Nothing like a dose of its reality for them to be reminded they just wish they had a godthing. - 23:53:33 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

tiggermac2:Grin, no, I just enjoy watching all you people trying to get the better of us with the same response as everyone else, which is confusion. I have a better, more uplifting event to go to, so ill leave it at this, I guess we'll all find out whose right when we die, I have my faith, you have yours, and ill pray that if Im right, that you might see the error of yunz ways before you join darwin and all the others in the burning flames of hell, and ill sit at the chasams edge and wish that you would have listened when you had the chance Im Outtie - 23:58:25 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:tiggermac--Oh no you don't. I don't play on that field--don't drag me onto it. I have no faith in anything. - 23:58:42 on 18 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--tiggernaut2--You're coming out of the starting gate here in an especially sloppy manner. It seems if I am to continue discuusing this issue with you, it looks like I am going to have to spend an inordinate amount of time and patience just addressing what I anticipate to be a steady flow of wild misconceptions you hold. "You people"? What precisely are "Us people?" Addressing this board as if it were one distinct entity with the assumption that thinks a certain way is as much a self-defeating approach I could conceive of. Also, be very wary of just spouting a series of fundamentalist platitudes that are nothing but undigested slogans, which have convinced you the validity of your belief. I can assure you-they have ALL been heard over and over again--and the liklihood of you being called on them is inevitable. Also, so I don't have to witness the embarassing behaviour that so many other theists resort to upon happening on this site--I enjoy a good discussion as much as the next person, but I can assure you, if your methods of defence are on a high-school level mentality--you will be made to look extremely foolish, very quickly. - 0:19:13 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--RICKY--My above post to "tiggermac" applies to you as well. - 0:26:10 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:TJ, RICKY, TIGGERMAC 2. If prayer works, how come you haven't converted the heathen atheists here? If I were your god I would have fired you a long time ago. You sure are piss poor representatives for a supposedly all powerful god. Personally, I wouldn't hire you to sell bananas for me, let alone a mythical concept. Why don't you try praying for a higher level of intelligence? It would be just as fruitless, but it would at least show that you recognize your needs. - 1:15:20 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:Believe in nothing; beliefs limit the mind. Untap your waiting cerebrum! Human brains are not totally used. - 1:27:35 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

- 1:27:59 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:RICKY. It's bad enough when you believe the bible sstory about Jonah, but when you swallow the story, wherever it came from, of a shark swallowing a man for two days and regurgitating him live, I doubt that even your own colleagues, TJ and Tiggermac would buy that. When asked for the source of your story you talk about a woman going to a doctor and how she and her 2 children found Jesus. So what's the connection? The only thing it proves to me is that your delusions are spreading and you are losing your grip on reality. I urge you to see a doctor. You need help before our condition deteriorates further. - 1:28:52 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:TIGGERMAC 2. I thought christian scientists were followers of Mary Baker Eddy. Now that you have shown me otherwise, I know better Actually, the term "christian science" is an oxymoron. There is no science in christianity. Since the scientist part of your dichotomy acknowledges the existence of dinosaurs perhaps you can tell me from the biblical side how Noah managed to get the dinosaurs on board the ark. According to the biblical account of the number of cubits of lumber used it would have been impossible to fit even one dinosaur aboard, let alone pairs of all the varieties. I look forward to your explanation. I would like a lucid one, but any explanation would be nice. Thank you. - 1:44:57 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:A non-functioning mind is clinically dead--- beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. Religions are created to pacify man's fear of the unknown. He ponders until death sets in. - 2:02:46 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:SKIPPY SKIP. "Death comes. The verbal tongue soothes imperfection." We have already decided that we will all be food for the worms. No need to repeat yourself. As to the last half of yur message, you seem to have confused "verbal tongue" with sandpaper. I have news for you. Your literary skills leave something to be desired. Shakespeare can rest easy in his grave. You may try to sound like him but his writings made sense. - 2:04:10 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:I am a mere mortal and human to boot. - 2:08:46 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

- 2:09:03 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:I have limitations because I am imperfect. The verbal tongue is a lying machine as it tricks man into set mode patterns. God is dead but one could still work on being humble. - 2:16:13 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:The verbal tongue attacks in many ways. The attack gains false sublimity. Man-made language is man's subterfuge as fear grows. His lofty pride greets the master. Death awaits and bows for noone. Do not place me on the cross of trickery language. - 2:29:17 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:If you say God is dead, then are you admitting there was a God? - 2:30:14 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:SEE how language traps and tricks man--- - 2:33:32 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:I guess, when one has no faith in anything, do you guys believe in living for the moment? Stealing, robing, rape, screwing anybody out of anything you could use personally, because if I didn't, I'd sure be that way!, - 2:34:40 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:I guess, when one has no faith in anything, do you guys believe in living for the moment? Stealing, robing, rape, screwing anybody out of anything you could use personally, because if I didn't, I'd sure be that way!, - 2:34:41 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:What's the trick, Skippy Skip, must I quote you? " God is dead but one could still work on being humble". - 2:38:20 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:What's the trick, Skippy Skip, must I quote you? " God is dead but one could still work on being humble". - 2:38:20 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:NO! I am dead. Language games- I am dead but I also witnessed the last supper. I am dead again and will be reborn. Just paraphrasing NIIETSCHE. - 2:39:13 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

ric:Man, my mouse is jumpy, guess He's trying to tell me something! - 2:39:58 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

ric:Brain dead maybe! - 2:41:20 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Jesus Christus Fidelius:In those days, I was the one who came down from Nazareth to be baptized by John in the River Jordan. And the Gospel of Mark would declare that on my immersion, the heavens opened and I saw "a spirit like a dove descending". A mighty voice said: "you are My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Then the Spirit drove me into the wilderness, and I was there for forty days and was tempted by Satan. While I would not say that Mark's gospel is false, it has much exaggeration. And I would offer less for Matthew, and for Luke and John, who gave me words I never uttered and described me as gentle when I was pale with rage. Their words were written many years after I was gone and only repeat what old men told them. Very old men. Such tales are to be leaned upon no more than a bush that tears free from its roots and blows about in the wind. So I will give my own account. For those who would ask how my words have come to this page, I would tell them to look upon it as a small miracle. (My gospel, after all, will speak of miracles). Yet I would hope to remain closer to the truth. Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were seeking to enlarge their fold. And the same is true of other gospels written by other men. Some of these scribes would speak only to Jews who were ready to follow me after my death, and some preached to gentiles who hated Jews but had faith in me. Since each looked to give strength to his own church, how could he not fail to mix what was true into all that was not? But then all these churches one prevailed, and it chose four gospels, condemning the others for placing "immaculate and sacred words" next to "shameless lies." It also true that whether four gospels had been favored or forty, no number would suffice. For where the truth is with us in one place, it is buried in another. - 2:43:01 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:A PERSON CAN BE MORAL IN A SOCIETY WITHOUT RELIGION! - 2:43:06 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->SKIPPY...that is very true, that one can be moral without religion. However, those of us who profess to be atheist face persecution because many theists equate atheism with satanism, which is ridiculous. They also believe it to be true that morals are based on the ten commandments, but anyone with any sort of intelligence knows that morals were around before Moses, otherwise the human race would have been wiped out almost before it began. - 2:49:44 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:Syphilitic infection of the brain - witness NIETZSCHE! Mortals hoping to know all. Thus Spoke Zarathustra! - 3:08:16 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

tiggermac2:I never said that athiests are satanists, and if i came off that way, im sorry, however, the fact remains in my christian faith that God is going to save ONLY those who serve him faithfully. Your faith says you dont have to worry about it, no matter what you tend to follow, wether athism, christiandom, or neodarwinism, your view is held in faith. and to the question about the ark, it is 450' long, 75'high, and 45' wide, perfectly big enough for all of Gods creature to fit in. It is how you beleive how God sent those animals to the ark is your limitation. say that god sent young animals, before grow to large, is that not room enough for them? - 3:10:38 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:PapaSam -- Death calls you and me as the free-floating carbons increase. - 3:14:12 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

tiggermac2:ohh, and , papasam, payer can only work in those who are willing to belive, im not calvinistic, i belive we choose to be saved, and all the prayer and all the calling that god is doing is not going to do any good if you are not willing to accept and belive in him - 3:17:36 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

If Noah's time of flooding is not true then why every culture on earth has a story about the flood. Also the US gov't has files labled Noah's ark from spy satalites(sp?) over Turkey on Mount Arrat. - 3:25:23 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

tiggermac2:hey tj, I guess theyve gone to bed, good night and god bless... or for you is it good night, and thanx to randomness Ü - 3:36:17 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:As Bertrand Russell has said, to sing hymns in praise of Him and hold his hand throughout all eternity would be sheer boredom. What of the joys of the flesh, the excitement and turnmoil of pleasure and passion- will these be vanquished in the immortal life? The cemeteries are filled with the corpses of those who bartered their souls in anticipation of promises that were never fulfilled... The promise that the sun wil die and obliterate all flesh to free-floating carbon is known through science. - 3:37:10 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

tiggermac2:... thanx to darwin for setting us free (snicker) thanx shirly McClaine for opening our minds (LOL) thanx chance for our abilty to live (ROFL) - 3:39:20 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

tiggermac2:hmmm, kinda sounds like the end of the earth descibed in revelation, fire coming down from the heavens. All things being burned in fire, yup, sounds like revelation to me. :) - 3:41:40 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

tiggermac2:to those who think its sheer boredom, the other alternitive, buring in a lake of flaming sulpher, i think the first sounds like alot of fun - 3:53:24 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:I'm with you, tiggermac, I think of Heaven as no more sickness, no headachs, no pain, rejoicing in the Lord, Singing praises to his Holy Name, and walking the streets of gold, sounds like fun to me, especially when you compare it to the screaming and nashing of teeth of a firey hell and brimstone! Give me Heaven anytime, Praise God, Praise God, Praise His Holy and Marvelous name, forever and ever AMEN . - 4:10:21 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

tiggermac2:good night, little non-belivers, im gonna play some games on kahn, join me... if you dare!!! Love ya, Tiggermac2 - 4:12:08 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--Some assert that it is possible to be moral outside enbracing religious beliefs. Not only is this true--I'll take it even a step further. Religion and ethics are not only two distinct spheres--a theological approach to ethics, a moral theory based on divine will, is inimical to human life and happiness--and thus actually negates any possibility for forming a foundation of rational ethics IMPOSSIBLE. Depending on the use of 'faith' to gain knowledge is a call to abandon the faculty to which one recognizes reality. One can only solve problems within the parameters of what is real One cannot in a dreamworld that one just hopes exists--and will perform the necessary epistimological steps necessary to convince themselves that their dreamworld is in fact reality. And this is precisely the life-blood christianity. - 4:18:53 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:Papasam, I'm going to start praying for you this week and continue prayer for 7 days, I'll pray that God comes into your life with conviction, so that you experience His mighty power, and sometimes He'll bring us to our knees to get our attention. See, I was sort of like you not so many years ago, but because of prayer, God come calling, come looking and I ran from Him. But I found out the hard way, just as Adom did in the garden, you can't hide from God. Something is going to take place in your life in the very near future that will cause you to question yourself and your faith, hope God don't have to take you down to far to make you look up. With Christian love, my brother, Ricky PS Give me a call in a week or so at EMAIL: rsexton@roanokebible.edu - 4:21:28 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:The cerebrum wants to be untapped. Free from limiting religious dogmas. The letting off bombs and killing people in the name of god----beliefs are dangerous. My cerebrum hears and senses the fear of the unknown. - 4:27:03 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:Ricky--Streets of gold? Why? Gold has value on earth due to its scarcity. However, if it is plentiful enough to make a system of streets, it's value would be as much as asphalt is on earth. Also, using giold to make a street would be extremely impractical. The traction would be poor, it would be hot on the feet and reflect too much light in your eyes.....This just again smacks of one not giving any thought whatsoever to any implications of religious claims. Life was miserable in biblical days, and people yearned for a better place--couldn't see one in their lifetime--and imagined one after death where all their dreams came true, and one of them would be to live like a king AND be in the company of their loved ones AND in the company of this loving entity who will love unconditionally, regardless of how much people on earth disliked them They envisioned themselves existing in an environment which epitomized the best life imaginable. And people are still doing it--including yourself. - 4:33:46 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky--:--Ricky--This thing you are doing with PapaSam sounds interesting. However, would you be willing to concede, if Sam felt no change whatsoever as a result of your praying--that God is nothing more than a figment of your imagination? - 4:40:55 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

PETER---Ricky--:My apologies--that was from me---You weren't talking to yourself unknowingly. - 4:46:39 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:Would you die for Him? Don't you fucking lie! Leave some space on the cross for another martyr! The dying of the limited neuron. Pain and comfort within you----relax-----oh , the limiting desensitization everyday! - 5:09:34 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:That will be God's choise, but I feel certain Papp. will experience something that he will at least make him think. Don't get me wrong, I'm not wishing something bad to happen or he lose a love one nothing like that, even sometimes we have to get knocked down hard before we realize that someone is tring to tell us something. I will tell you this and I know you are just going to laugh, but about six years ago, God spoke to me , not so you could record his voice, but through an inner soul which I didn't even know exested at the time, but He gave me a choise, life or death, eternal life or death, and I was forced into a decision. I had the whole world, wealth, money, new vehichels, home, had it all. Before I would listen to what God had to tell me, I lost it all. Not because God didn't love me, because he wanted me to serve Him, not the worldly things I was serving, After running and hiding and refusing to obey him, I was brought to my knees, and by the way, I still don't have the wealth I lost, or the worldly things I once posessed, but I am much better off, much happier, and content with my life, hope you are getting the picture. - 5:16:13 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:Skippy answering your question, yes, I have already died in Christ and am now a new creature in Christ, however, I would lay down my physical life for Him without question - 5:22:41 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:The angel of the lord came to me while disturbing my REM sleep. He said that today is harvest day. I can hear the screams of the carrots! They have a life--- let the rabbits wear glasses! Can I get a big AMEN! Your wallowing in your own chaotic delusions. Stand above the crowd and free your cerebrum from stagnation. - 5:24:39 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:TIGGERMAC 2. Given the dimensions of your ark it won't work out. Do you know how many dinosaurs there were? Even using babies would more than fill the boat. Think of the logistics involved. Just one question. How would you feed the carnivorous animals? From a frozen food locker? You'd need some live animals to feed them. There goes your two by two. Feeding all that livestock and cleaning up after them with the few humans there - never happen. While we're on the subject of the flood, I have a question. According to the biblical account god could only find one lousy family who deserved to live. So he drowned everybody else.He drowned the children including the toddlers, the babies suckling at their mothers' breasts, and the fetuses in their mothers' wombs. What wickedness did they do to deserve that? Since you seem to be very knowledgeable about the flood I look forward to your answer. I hope I won't wait in vain. - 5:29:15 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

David:I read the dimensions that you described for Noah's ARK, and NO. it was not big enought to hold all the creatures of the earth. Do you even have the slightest idea of just how many different creatures exist, or how much food it would talk to feed all of them. and second... every culture has a story about local floods. But science tells us that there never was a great world wide deluge. - 5:35:42 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:RICKY. Isn't your god supposed to be omnipotent? Why doesn't he use his powers to just turn a lousy few atheists into true believers? Would it be because your boss only has the power over you? Don't bother praying for me. Prayer is a waste of time, except for the satisfaction one gets from the act. if a group of 100 people with cancer all pray to be cured and 99 die and one has a natural remission the survivor will say his prayer was answered. If the families of the 99 are all religious people they will say "God must have wanted him/her very much." Couldn't he have waited till they died natural deaths? Were they so important to him? I'm sure you will be able to rationalize some answer to suit yourself. - 5:50:09 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:Fear of the unknown grows in the puny minds of man as much as the weather changes day to day. Religious beliefs compound the growing fear of the unknown. The bondage to religion becomes larger as do the graveyards for mortals. I need not open my third eye; it sees the lies of the verbal tongue and its trappings of trickery. - 5:50:31 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:Yes, pappasam, I was atheist for thirty years and God chose a nonbeliever to change, and because of that change I'm what i am today, a God fearing, servent of the Almighty, and I'm proud of it. I pray you will discover Him as I did, so you can tell Steven, wouldn't that be great, in two weaks, Steven could be calling you a waco.!!!!!!!!! - 6:04:27 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:Life presents opportunities for us to seize and act upon. Beliefs are for the mystics; believe in nothing. Anti-matter of the black-hole is the black horizon where all free-floating carbons vanish. - 6:09:37 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

David:Sounds like revelation...... Isn't it funny how bible thunpers twist thing in their favor... They don't believe in billions of years and yet they can say the the sun going nova, in apx 5 billion years, sounds like revelation..... I guess that they don't really believe what they profess to believe ( the bible ) it either says something or it dosen't, but they do like to change it to fit into any meaning that they can make it fit. Or should I say ( fake it ). - 6:11:25 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:well, it's 1:00 in the morning and I'm getting sleepy, so I wish all you little atheist buddies of mine a good night and a change of heart and mind, Dear God, May you bless them by letting them feel your presence and may they repent before it is everlasting to late. Amen - 6:13:32 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:David, all people that claim to be Christians don't make them Christians just as going to MacDonalds don't make you a hamburger. Likewise, going to church don't make you a true Christians, but there are true Christians out here, you have to judge the tree by the fruit it bears. - 6:17:07 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:I repeat-- Would you die for Him? Don't you fucking lie! I wish you well-- you must be crucified to live. But you exist now-- eager to identify? Get off your cross --- lost no-- but alive today in the days of March! - 6:22:00 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:Lighten up buddy-- nothing seems to satisfy INCLUDING religious beliefs. Deep within the crevices of the unused mind, there is knowledge building there as the skin sheds. Fuck your short-term memory! - 6:36:09 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:You know that one out of three Americans dies out of cancer and that you may be one of them. Live NOW -- the cemeteries are getting crowded. I--mortal- therfore I die! The snake behind me hisses as my flesh decays-- Die Eier von Satan. - 6:43:36 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

David:Ricky: I once knew a woman who professed to be an atheist. but in the long run learned that she always believed in god, but she heated herself and the world that she lived in, so when she was able to love herself once more, she attributed this miracle to a god... A true atheist, one who has studied the bible, science, history et. and has very good morals. Will never believe in that what dose not exist. I find myself torn into three feelings on religion. 1ST, a fear that I am living in a world full of Neanderthals... 2ND, ashamed that if there is any intelligent life out in space and I hope that their is, that they will not show themselves to us until the earth has rid itself of this god disease, henceforth it may corrupt their own worlds. and 3RD, I fell pity for you because you are wasting your life believing in nothing, for their is no god. - 6:47:18 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:Yes we are a sad lot. Schopenhauer once said that many a man would be quite capable of killing another, simply to rub his boots over with the victim's fat. OH- the regression back to the quatraped ape-like ways. One can have compassion in this life even if he has no religious beliefs. - 6:58:22 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:So many stars-the odds favor e-t- intelligence. The technology to travel so many light years is the key. OH-- that technology must be marvelous. - 7:03:44 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip: As Heidegger once stated that man thinks he is the master of language, while in fact language is the master of man. Language can have duplicity in it at times--there is no purity in man. - 7:15:09 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:SKIPPY SKIP- Lithium is supposed to work well. - 7:35:05 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:Most humans are spoiled and full of their self-limiting egos. Do we really know what is really in our subconscious--- oh - to untap it! Labeling people into different groups like pagans feeds into the trickery of man-made language. SO if I do not believe in your god than I will be cast into Hades. Lighten up and free the potentiality of your mind! Again putting labels on people as it is to tag and release a fish. - 7:37:33 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:DAVID- You silly man! All the "facts LOL" are on the christian science site. Even the most recent "scientific LOL" discovery, the man with his pet dinosaur photo...or maybe they copied that one from the Flintstones? What do you think? - 7:38:30 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:PETER- You right! Why bother, lol! A dead horse is a dead horse. - 7:40:31 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..looking forward to some easy cash here:PAPASAM-If you "feel" any different from Ricky layin all that prayin on ya, let us know. Maybe we can send the story to that same publication he got the "man swallowed and spit out by shark then his hair turns white" story. - 7:43:27 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..pure as the driven snow:SKIPPY SKIP- Maybe not man but hell women are a 100 proof. - 7:45:57 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..Bill has been with an alienette??:Now on the US government X-ing the files on that photo of the ark on Mt. Arrat. AGAIN they do this! It's not enough that they hide out all those aliens at Area51 and coverup the alien involvement in the Kennedy assasination but NOW they pull this OFF! Terrible, just terrible! - 7:50:28 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:Drugs taint the mind into false feelings of hope. All hail the wonder drug -god and its slavery of the human flesh. The shaking hands of addiction bekons! - 7:50:30 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..it'll feel good to get out of the rain:SKIPPY SKIP- But lithium works Skip! I don't know what it does for the shaking though, that's a dead horse of a different color, and name. - 7:54:43 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:The labeling of languge continues. What a beautiful subterfuge! - 7:56:01 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:Goodnight atheists! - 7:56:43 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->RICKY..you describe your social decline, and then your rebirth in Christ. Your story is that of most fundamentalists, who when faced with adversity, are afraid to stand on their own two feet and try to work things out for themselves. Instead of using your own courage, you have to find a cloak to hide behind. Others would use drugs or alcohol. There is no difference. - 12:09:57 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:Sorry, Joette, been there done that, Cocain acid pot mda,lsd,jack daniels and don't leave out the wild turkey, none by the way works, unless you're looking for a hangover, and by the way don't feel sorry for me David, I'd rather be a true Christian any day than thay "A" word you possess to be! - 13:40:01 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:Afraid, want to hide?, NO NO NO< not me , no, Shippyskip, I'm not afraid to lay down my life for Christ, "Who shall ever lay down his life for Me shall live forever", sorry, I believe that with all my heart! Almost time to go to class, but I'll be back my unbelieving friends, from wherever you are from! - 13:49:28 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:Pappasam, You see, I want you to understand something, God does not need you, God hasn't even got to have me, it's you and me that needs God. I found Him, and will try to show Him to you, if you don't except Him, thay won't make Him any less or any more than He already is,Sit back and enjoy, you might turn out to be the best witness for God this country has ever experienced yet,,, it could happen!!! - 13:55:00 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:A proposal for an eleventh commandment: (Just for formality sake) 11. Thou shalt be smug and self-righteous. - 14:03:20 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:SKIPPY<<>>nice quotes from TOOL! - 15:13:13 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:RICKY<<>>don't bother praying for me either, you will only be wasteing energy. I would suggest a little research. - 15:19:06 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:RICKY<<>>you may be experiencing a flashback, but the god you think you know is only in your mind. - 15:42:50 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: The preponderance of a certainty that these visiting religeous believers appears to be the complete spectrum of human futility before mere existence, so they opt for the convenience and simplicity of a godthing. These visitors'see the light'because they for the most part give-up! The effort to comprehend the things of the all, for them has proven much too exhaustible and confusing to their minds. They have sought comfort in their imagination, which if not relevant- it is of a nothing. There is, they say, salvation in nothing. Neat! huh? - 15:55:30 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:RICKY<<>>the name is atheist, look it up. - 16:50:53 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

David:Ricky: Every generation with loving intentions brainwashes their children into believing the god thing... I commend you for those years that you tried to be an atheist, for in those years you fought back against this disease to become a free thinker in life, but at last, in some cases, the mind gave way to the hollow feeling that were taught to you as a child, and the memory and the habit of all that programming forced on you by others creeps back and distorts reality, for they love you and you love them... but just as there is no Santa Claus and no tooth fairy, UNDERSTAND. Sometimes I start to believe in the tooth fairy LOL... Lucky for me, in my case I started realizing that there was no god when I was very young, when the answers to my questions about god, were well, such silly unrealistic things... and I do feel pity for you living in your demon haunted world. - 16:52:13 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Your right. Many people who buy into god seem to lack self-esteem. Only the god in their mind gives them the courage to involve themselves in life. Many times we hear from people who have had addiction problems, family problems etc. and in order to handle these problems they substitute them with god. If only they would realize that it is they alone who is succeeding in conquering their problems, not the delusion in their minds. They are actually quite strong people but feel guilty about giving themselves credit. Humbleness, another control-demand from the bible. And people say, let them believe what they want, it doesn't hurt anyone, well that's just one example. - 16:56:03 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:DAVID- It's good to know that there are others who didn't buy into the god thing since a young age. Many people don't become atheists until they are much older. I don't know why exactly that I've never bought into it as I was dragged to church like most others. I attribute it a bit to being totally bored in church and my ADD kicking in. - 17:00:28 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

David:Marline: thanks, it’s just that when I look into the eye of ignorance, it is hard for me not to teach. - 17:01:51 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:DAVID<<>>you will see that every visiting theist that comes here is ignorant and mislead. Teaching them does little good, they hold on to their fantasy's with furver. All we can hope to do is plant the seed of doubt in their minds and hope they discover the truth for themselves, through research and useing their minds (which is difficult because they are taught that knowledge is evil, for with knowledge they will know that their religion is a fraud).. - 17:18:19 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

David:Let us not forget that the bible is the most destructive book ever written, for it teaches us that man is a higher animal than all the rest of life and so can destroy that which is lesser than man, and then again man learned from religion that man believing in god is better than man non believer, if you don’t know this just read up on history and do take a good look around the world as it today. People say, that the proof of god is all around you, just look. Well I looked and did not like what I saw. man killing man, and animals killing other creatures babies so that they can feed their own babies. What kind of a sick god would make a world like this. I looked and saw nothing god-like about it. Don’t take me wrong. I love life and I believe that man will in time learn and evolve, but no intelligent god could have made this world. - 17:24:17 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

David:Steven: You are absolutely right. I hope that some can look through their blinders. - 17:28:29 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:DAVID- Right! Only man does designing. Nature is only designoid and that's "nature" with a small "n". - 17:36:41 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN and DAVID- I don't think anything we say will have an effect on people who live in their delusions. This is why I rarely post with some type of rehab in mind. My only concern is that these theists don't get their delusional selves elected into government or anything to do with controlling others. - 17:39:40 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:Gotta go, back this afteroon. - 17:40:46 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: The idea that has become clearer to me nowadays, since I don't do the herd in the pasture as often, is that of thinking and rigorous thinking. Through their combination one learns how to ask questions that one can handle. If one asks themselves how did all begin, that is an unsolvable question. Those burdened with problems as those examples you noted, they too ask themselves an unsolvable question. And, again as you point out their self esteem is nearly dry, empty of themselves, and they don't know what to do. If one does not treat themselves nicely they batter and beat themselves with such questions and instead of becoming drug addicted and others problematic things about their questions, they opt for religious belief. And, as you post, they say, "..it doesn't hurt anyone." This is illusory as the question and answer are of nothing. - 17:51:19 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Your voice from God:Sounds like you're the ones with the worped mindes, no self esteem, why I'm on "fire" !, I'm wide open, I am more excited about whats to come after death on this earth than a child at Christman, you're the one with no reason to live, sounds to me like, Let me see if I've got this right, don't believe in nothing but that the world is millions of years old, we come into being from a monkey of some sort, one day after the dino"s all died, monkeys started loosing their tails and began to speak english, well, to me , my theory holds as much water as the tiny holes in your heads! I'm back, Ricky - 17:52:48 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:David, thats not God, Thats Satin, you know, the little fellow with the horns and the pitchfork! - 17:54:58 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:Carl, I'm a long way from being empty, and it sounds like your tank is full also, but of a different substance, some call it "HOCKEY" - 17:58:54 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

RON...Hi All...: Welcome, all you newbies, fundies, and xtian pukes. Hi to all my old web buddies of no faith. Life is much more fun for me now. I acutally have a life now complete with love chases and all. I smile now and am generally pleasant. How's it hanging with y'all. - 18:03:10 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:RICKEY: don't play that sport, so again you pose the incorrect answer. - 18:06:30 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--DAVID--interesting point you made about living entities preying on each other vs, the sanctity of life as espoused by the bible. It does seem rather curious that the survival of every animal on earth rests on its having to destroy another life in order to survive. Actually, as odd as it may seem, the fact that plants are in fact a form of life wasn't known up until a few hundred years or so--and there is nothing in the bible which addresses the fact that plant life is constantly being destroyed in order to keep human beings and animals alive. I would think that this action would be addressed if there is some importance mentioned to the sanctity of preserving life in general. But no mention is made at all as to how it is permissible to destroy another life to sustain another. Of course the biblical writers were not aware of plants being a form of life, and this is painfully obvious in the Noah story for example. if all plants would have beensubmerged for as long as they would have been--none would have survived, and no consideration of this is even alluded to inscripture. Some accomodating non-theist refer to the Noah story as only a myth--and at best--it could be no more. I just like referring it to being by far the biggest tall tale that exists in print--which so many people think is true. I find this mindboggling--at frightening. - 18:12:48 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:Just maybe old Noah carried with him a big ol sack of Seed! - 18:17:51 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--RICKEY--The occaisional typo I can handle--I commit many myself. However, any credibility you my be able to muster will be multiplied signifigantly with an obvious abscence of even the the most common words being misspelled. Grab yourself a dictionary, man. - 18:20:29 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:-Ricky--Ad hoc assumption. No mention of this is made in the Bible. However, one would think something so ecologically crucial would be addressed in the Bible. One may argue the Bible isn't ascience book--but they for some reason assume it is when describing the creation account. One would otherwise assume then Noah he planted all these seeds around the world, and they all grew to a point where they could be eaten ( when often it requires years ) Even if there were millions working on such a project--it would never happen . The world's ecology could never be continued if ALL the plant life vanished. If you ever get a chance get a hold of the book " The Creationist's Upside-Down Pyramid" --and finally discover how utterly , utterly impossible it was for the creationist's account to have occured. It's embarassing. - 18:30:49 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:CARL-- Well maybe there is a god because Ricky is happy; deliriously happy, and he's sure he's right. What more evidence could one ask for? I really don't mind the Quietsun and Curious types but these guys not only don't have the answers, but don't know the questions. - 18:31:56 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:VOG: You err in your information, what you purport is false to the known terms utilised of the various sciences, it necessarily follows that you should put your views through another "rethink" process. If you can do this without confusing terms and facts and factors then you might appropriately reword a point of view that merits a discussion. try again. - 18:33:29 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:RICKY. If you're not afraid to lay down your life for christ, why don't you, as the saying goes, put your money where your mouth is? Go to Afghanistan and preach your gospel there. Just think of the glory of being beheaded for your lord jesus christ! A true martyr, maybe even sainthood. Can't you just see a church named after you? The church of "St. Ricky tthe Martyr". Don't walk, run to your airport. Better still, take a taxi. - 18:34:20 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Stdven:GRANT<<>>well said! - 18:39:16 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: was it not Augustine that laid out the devine view that, "I believe because it is impossible."? This was uttered upon querys of the dogma factors of the church. - 18:39:35 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:PAPASAM<<>>a least we could help pay for RICKYS experiment. LOL - 18:40:58 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:RON<<>>I always found that getting laid helps the depression considrable. - 18:42:46 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--"Just maybe's"? Sorry, but this just won't cut it when one is attempting to demonstrate the existence of anything. You are claiming that existence ( God)--and for that you require solid evidence to prove your claim. To be given any serious consideration, your must adhere to these parameters, just as anyone else would have to when making any claim. However, when another party is assessing your claims critically--the "just maybe's" can be suggeted throughout--as possible alternatives and explanations that may be perfectly plausible. However--if you are attempting to demonstrate something and PROVE it exists--"just maybe's" prove nothing. In other words. an atheist is pefectly and rationallly within his rights to use this phrase--a theist when making his case cannot. - 18:43:45 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--CARL--I think what you are alluding to is actually Tertullian who said" And the son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was buried and rose again; the fact is certain because it is impossible" Could that be it? - 18:49:17 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:ST. Augustine said that to reach god is happiness itself. I say when I urinate that is happiness! What a relief! Your happiness is to feel something now not in delusions. - 18:49:29 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:VOICE FROM GDD. If you're so excited about what's to come after life on earth, what are you waiting for? It seems to me you have a great reason not to live. Personally, I'd jump at the chance to raise my standard of living. I think most people would. - 18:50:46 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:Would you die for Him! Don't you fucking lie! Leave a space on the cross for another martyr! Eager to identify in this life? I wish you well--to be crucified to live. But you live now. Feel the brainwaves. Lemmiings follow the death of flesh. The neuron wants more knowledge! - 19:03:44 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: Who the source for such insanity might be does not matter, the best possible outcome would be that it be forgotten and disappear in the passage of time. Dang! P'SAM do you mean to see a head roll today or what'sup? But, if they feel that strongly about that and they truely think such religious views are true, then by all means, do it and do it now, why make the godthing wait? - 19:03:58 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:PopaSam, I die a little every day because of nonbelievers like you, but that gives me the reason for lifing so that I can have chance to save poor lost souls through the word of God brfore its to late for them, far as I'm concerned I'm ready to go now, but there's still work left on earth for me to do! - 19:10:49 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:Waves of cerebral juice intermingle in random neurotransmitters. The zest for new knowledge and the stripping away of false idols grows. Searching my the thimble Looking for a pistol To way you out it looks like a key-hole I adjusted my key back seamless and whole NO MORE idols , I got my own self-control - 19:13:45 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

David:I find it most amusing how even after the world wide united council of churches admitted 5 years ago that the story on Noah and the flood was just a moral story and never really happened that so many people who claim to know so much about god, don’t know this, and so still believes it to be real. Faith can be a ignorant thing. - 19:13:52 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:Faith is not tangible; you can not touch it. I can touch my neighbor and help him without believing in the mystics. What does religion have to do with being kind and compassionate in this life? - 19:20:33 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

- 19:21:03 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:David, the world wide united councle of churches are just as lost as you are, Their faith is just another one of those who want to believe what they want to instead of what the scriptures say, who can say that during the flood, God didn't cause the tempature to drop to the point that plants went into a dormant stage, and that dino's and other big fur-bearing animals didn't hybernate? - 19:22:02 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:Iridium in limestone- not what scripture say. Poor lemmings-- you must find a way to persuade! - 19:26:11 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:RICKY<<>>I am the worst spelling person on this planet with a college degree. You however have surpassed even my terrible spelling. Peter is right, get a dictionary. The learn how to study history and science. - 19:39:44 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--Consider: the calculated amount of water in the atmosphere required to cover the earth to the highsect mountain tops is 501,000 times more than the saturation on point of water vapour the earth's atmosphere can absorb. Also, there is no place for this water to go to once it has fallen. If any planet were at one time covered entirely by water--it would reamain so. If it was absorbed by earth itself--where is it now? Ground water only acounts for a tiny percentage of the total water on earth--which reamains constant within a .1% range. There would have to be apprximately five times as much water absorbed under the surface of the earth that there is covering the earth--but groundwater. It's just not there. The creationist's books just don't balance - 19:41:41 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:Herd mentality and herd poisoning are dangerous as are religious beliefs. Religious beliefs foster cults; there is the language cult of duplicity. OH-- how precious the sodomized state of the religious! I need not open my third eye to the blindness of religion. My eyes see now in the last days of March. - 19:47:42 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:The perma-frost on Jupiter's moon Europa is no religious dogma. There is also a noaha's ark stuck in the lunar ice caps-- a chuckle-- let us swim for more knowledge. - 19:54:26 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: Perhaps thr RICKY encountered and read- doubtful, the "Talmajian Catechism" because in that piece the religious character held to the scripture in any way, the most ridiculous utterance was not beyond that character's effort to preserve his view of the bible. Perhaps this individual knows of it so why not try it here, he may think without a second thought. - 20:00:34 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--RICKY--May I remind you of something you are persisting in doing here. it is you that is making the case for God's existence. "Coulda's, woulda's shoulda's, or "Who's to say God didn't..." are totally meaningless in your case. Look at yourself as the prosecution in a court of law. Your are claiming the existence of something--as they would be ( which is proving occurences to be true which lead to a conviction. The defense ( which the atheists are here ) need only demonstrate that other series of events are possible within the parameters of the evidence demonstrated. If the defence is able to cast doubt on the prosecution case--they win the case. It is up to the prosecution to demonstrate that only ONE series of events is possible with the avaailible evidence--so any insistence by them such as " Well, its just possible the accused did ,,......" --which you are doing by saying things like "Well. maybe God did....or....." You are not making a case here. You need strong, incontrivertible evidence to make a case --and is the ONLY possible alternative, within reason, with the evidence you can present. So in summary, any pleas by you, or anyone attempting to prove the existence of anything--that resemble, "We;; who's to say God did this, or didn't do this..." are of no use to you when you are trying to show that he does in fact, exist - 20:01:21 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

David:This is the second time that I am writing this... I don’t remember the question that invoked this answer but part of my response went like this. I have been told that the proof of god’s existence is all around us, all one has to do is open your eyes. Well I have taken a good look around, and I see no such proof. I see animals killing other animals babies so to feed their own babies. I see wars and natural disasters. And worst of all I see man doing what the bible teaches, and what it teaches is that man is higher than the other animals and so he has a god given right to kill and abuse them. this has gone father within religion, that man who is a believer is better than man who is a non believer, a divine right to kill and war. The bible is the worst book ever written and if you do not believe me then go out and read history. No I do not see proof of a god but rather proof that no intelligent entity would be so sick ( let us not forget the game of god versus Satan, the great joke with man caught up in the middle ) and therefore dose not exist. ( NOTE: if there was a devil and he knew god, then surely he would not have challenged him for the rights to rule over man, for if he truly saw god then how could he think that he could have any chance of winning. So surely Satan must have gone insane, and god should have cured him and there would have been no need for this great game to continue )... Don’t take me wrong. I love life and I believe that man will in time evolve to learn the truth. Don’t hurt others, man or otherwise, for we are all part of the total story of life, and you would only be hurting yourself. - 20:03:39 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

David:Ricky: the waters according to the bible covered the mountain tops. So no place for animals to hibernate, sleep whatever... Plants drowned.... and there was no dinosaurs during that time period. they died out over 65 millions years ago... - 20:07:09 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:Too bad the therapod flesh-eating dinos like the raptors did not develop a more erect bi-pedal locomotion and especially LARGER brain capacities. The earth might be run by some dinosaurioun intelligent life form. - 20:13:32 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:NEW POSTERS-- I don't know if you know how to access the older posts. Click on the "add" button below the text box. The page will reload. There will be a 30 in the location or address box. change it to a higher number, say 80, and hit the return. - 20:16:49 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: That plant "life" as life not picked up for the ark boat ride, most bible humpers just can't see it. In their bible humped(doggy style stuff) state of mind upon that question, they find themselves in an amorphous like state 'cuz they share in the ignorance of the bible composers and don't realise it. One should be wiser in what one exposes to their brain work, - 20:56:21 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:HEY RON! Good to hear everything is going good! - 20:59:33 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:Would you believe....now Manitoba children will have to stand up again for that redundant "God Save the Queen" tune. It's on the books that it is the law and now some bible thumper figures that this will bring some respect for god and the queen back to this country. More than likely kids will be more pissed off than gain any "respect". - 21:03:02 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:MARLENE<<>>when did that stupid law pass? - 21:24:55 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:Are you entirely blind to your own decadence as you are to the absence of a god who had certified your spiritual and vital poverty. Nietzsche said that the values of Christianity are life-denying values. He states also that death of the fabrication of the Christian god is a great event, if also a dangerous challenge. Possibilities exist now in this life. - 21:40:08 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:ANY<<>>i was kicked off of the theo chat zone. Geez, just for saying jerkoff, LOL. You would think an adult could handle jerkoff. I guess asshole and fuckwit were a little strong for their delicate sensibilities. Marlene, they sure like to make fun of you on the site. Some guy name mccoy and Len were laughing and calling you a fern sniffer. WTF? - 21:41:35 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->SYEVEN..take heart, if they let Len back on, they'll let you back on. Fuckwit is such a good word! I am much chagrined at mccoy talking about Marlene that way. I hope you are joking about that. - 21:51:06 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:If I use a curse word I will be censored by some in their delusions of sulfer-fire burning the flesh. Fuck your short-term memory! - 21:52:12 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Joette with an URGENT message for RON:-->are you still giving the page up at the end of the month???????? - 21:52:32 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Joette...point of order please..:-->SKIPPY...whenever I see your name, I have flashbacks to the show "The L'il Rascals". While appreciate and agree with many of your comments, it would be nice if you lose that silly handle and let us know your real name (all apologies if your parents thought they were giving you a cute name if Skippy is your name) - 21:55:34 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->RICKY...was it a Freudian slip when you said you have a reason for "lifing"? You said you have done the drug and other low life sort of thing, so does this mean you are in prison? (besides being a prisoner to the supernatural?) - 21:57:36 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:Joette-- NAMES are irrelevant and fleeting . No offense, they are labels in the man-made structures of things. My name could be Jane in this medium but again names are meaningless in the universal plane. My name could be mud as in the PRIMUS song. - 22:03:37 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:Death is easy though as it washes away man's flesh. The free-floating carbons increase as delusions fold and dissipate into black-holes. - 22:10:57 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--Skippy Skip--I'm with Joette on this one. Although it certainly isn't mandatory--if you don't seem to talke yourself too seriously, why should anyone else? Leave the cutesy handles for the fundies - 22:20:56 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip: I name myself the Saturnos god; IT is just a label of the trickery of man-made language. I feel the stagnation and yet the questioning of the puny mind-- expand those neurons. The verbal tongue is a lying machine as human egos drip from the saliva. MACHINE communication increases the trickery of language. - 22:23:50 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:Peter SEE the egos drip from the mouth in the attack mode. It is human to question and I do take myself seriously. I use cute phrases and mocking to get hopefully some of my points across. SEE the beauty in the duplicity of it all. - 22:31:49 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

- 22:32:30 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:As an atheist-- I could say there is no god -- da --what do you think? HOW FUCKING BLAND AND BANAL! - 22:36:04 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

- 22:36:34 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Grant- Bland is grand.:SKIPITY SKIP--Form isn't everything, though nice in the company of content. Clarity through vaguery and romanticism? "as human egos drip from the saliva?" - 22:45:24 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN and JOETTE- I somewhat remember "maccoy" and "len" but I have no idea why they would label me a fern-sniffer. It's a description of someone into the new age crap. In fact, I'm the one who actually started using this word about a year ago at least. If they really are making fun of me there then they are wimps. If they want to face my wrath they can come here. I visited that stupid site only once and I'm not about to go back. - 22:45:37 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Skippy Skip:My REAL NAME IS ROB! HOW IS THAT -- to pacify! I will use Rob to soothe the trickery of language - 22:46:15 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN- The _God Save the Queen_ thing has been law as long as I can remember but almost all shools dropped the singing of it about 20 years ago. Since it is still law, schools can be forced to pick it up again. - 22:48:44 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:ROB- That's a hell of a lot shorter and easier to use than "Skippy Skip". Actually I bet Steven King would do justice to the Skippy Skip handle. - 22:50:42 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:It feels good to get rid of the title Skippy Skip. If you do not think I am an atheist then you can go FUCK YOURSELVES YOU ARROGANT BASTARDS. Fuck your short-term memory also. - 22:51:15 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

peter:--skippy skip--suit yourself - 22:53:07 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:On a more mellow note -- maybe not-- a huge asteriod or the such is coming to hit earth some day. One a few years back crashed into Jupiter. Can a all-powerful god stop it with a snap of his fingers. Oh the puny mind trapped in false hope! - 23:03:40 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:SEE how death is easy and man's fears grow. He then produces in his mind some divine entity that will save him from the other lot. Nobody is going to save you. Rest assurred, death comes to the arrogant and the ignorant. - 23:09:31 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Who are you to judge me you are playing the same game as the Christians. At least the Christians are drunk with a god. Bitterness grabs the ego. - 23:13:48 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:You think you take yourself serious you do not even know what is in your subconscious. The untapped portion of your mind cries for freedom form your arrogance. How we label each other like herds of sheep! The stifiling process continues and it gets to be fucking droll. - 23:20:18 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROB..settle down! I am glad you are here...it's like deja vu all over again..one Rob leaves, another one comes. - 23:23:46 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROB..so maybe you could enlighten us? Not all of us are arrogant, although I have been accused of being the Queen of the Page. - 23:26:24 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->and again to ROB..w.r.t. the asteroid. We have 30 years to worry about it, so I am sure NASA will come up with a nice little deployment machine. However, the xtians will say that their god gave scientists the knowledge to this, as their god must be given credit for everything. - 23:28:27 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Peter your an arrogant fuck to label people so quick! See through the trickery and duplicity of language. Your assumptions are rash like an impending tornado! It appears you judge quicker than the Christians. How is your short-term memory doing? Do you rehash it or label it away because it does not suit your ego now! I sense the egos growing including mine. I am a mere mortal. - 23:34:45 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:STEVEN: Did I read that you were booted from the theology(what a joke!) chat site? That place is the last place where any might learn anything about any theistic ideas. They refuse to accept a theistic historical development and formation as it correlates to humanity, they fail to appreciate the theistic mythical influence on humans- they choose to think it true, the names at that site do not clearly, as far as I can tell, understand what supernatural might mean and for sure they can't even begin to wrestle with ideas of the superrational, all this as the human creature is concerned. Did they say they would pray for you or see that you would be blessed, what rot and weakness of mind. They can not even begin to speak or think of or for a godthing as such a fantastic idea should deserve. Some of us here toy with the idea of coming up with a religion, and we always say like the early church patriarchs did, we gotta dumb it down, nothing they the religious believer can't grasp and understand with a simple yes. That would be easy, I just smile and shake my head at a "theology chat-site", what a joke. - 23:38:00 on 19 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Arrogance holds man captive in his little shell of self-esteem. Nietzshe considered that the truth in any case to be a kind of lie that serves the Will to Power. Oh- how the senses perceive the egos piling on self-esteem power. There is truth in the Will of the Cerebrum. The truth of taking one serious or not is like fudge sticking to the untapped subconscious. - 0:05:24 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Joette The idea is to deflect the incoming asteriod. Though small fragments sprayed over the earth could choke the atomosphere and the alike. - 0:12:23 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:But this is all a god's will. A detructive asteriod just to cleanse the sins of humans-- bullshit--prozac anybody! - 0:15:22 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Though drugs have done some good things in society, others taint the mind into false feeling of divine salvation. Walk the plank to the fiery flames--there are just blackholes to engulf you. - 0:19:23 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Peter How is your REM sleep? Do you twitch involuntarily like a dormant demon waiting for the light to hit the back of your retina. The sleep mode will sustain and ease in its repitions. - 0:28:11 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROB..thanks, but I'll stick to my Paxil. Exactly what has made you decide that we are all a bunch of arrogant fucks? - 0:34:17 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:SKIPPY SKIP/ROB OR WHATEVER YOU CHOOSE TO CALL YOURSELF. You seem to be choking on your own bile as a result of your self induced rage. You are hung up on some pet phrases such as "verbal tongue" and "free floating carbons" as well as the thought of death. You exhibit YOUR arrogance by putting yoursself in the seat of judgement to accuse others of arrogance, as well as showing us how you have mastered the word "fuck". Here are your own words. "Peter your an arrogant fuck to label people so quick." 23:34:45 on 19 Mar 98. "Fuck you you arrogant bastards---fuck your short term memory." 22:51:15 on 19 Mar 98. {""fuck your short term memory" (You're repeating yourself) 21:52:12 on 19 Mar 98. From your ramblings it's hard to tell if you are an atheist. If you are, please try to be more rational in your postings. - 0:41:20 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:CASE IN POINT --the labeling continues! - 0:42:47 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:PapaSam - your short-term memory is that precise. Good you get cookie! - 0:44:44 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. Hi. Nice to see you back. I hope you succeed in calming SkippySkip/Rob down. LOL. - 0:49:21 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:Latest medical news: Electro-magnetic therapy to the front left lobe of the brain (30 minutes a day) cures depression and last for months. Also there is a new break through in curing impotency in men; a pill that is suppose to cure about 70% of impotent males. May be approved in a matter of weeks. - 0:50:45 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--Rob--How incredibly observant of you. Yes, I am an extremely arrogant "fuck" -if you will. and if you plan on hovering about this site--get used to it. I am somewhat surprised that you felt in necessary to make an assessment of my character, and then make some juvenile schoolyard-type attempt at an insult. Are we anticipating Pee Wee Herman style of "you are-no you are-no YOU are " exchange here? Again, save that shit for the fundie-forum. Also it's "You're a" or "You are a"--not "Your a" - 0:53:40 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:PETER, you're not arrogant, you just like to fuck, right? lol - 0:57:37 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:ROB:::fuck you asshole. As if we all needed a fucking dumbass christian to come here and tell us anything. Go fuck yourself! - 1:02:13 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:ROB:::whooo, just letting off steam. Does it sound familiar, *snore* Primus is cool, put some Jesus Lizard on and I'll meet ya in da pit. - 1:07:35 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:muaahahahahahaha their is more than one lound obnoxious jerk in this chat zone! We can all say things cute. By the way the older stuff is better:Ministry, Black Flag, Minor Threat, NIN, SOD, Fugazi, Butttthhhhoollllee Sufers, Misfits, Skinny Puppy, etc etc etc... - 1:11:53 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

I think I had to much coffee - 1:13:03 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:I am not a Christian! Why are you so involved in language games. I am just pointing out how man-made languge can trick man sometimes. - 1:13:20 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:So I repeat myself sometimes- that is not a sin because sins are made-made help signs. I urinate everday too; so what? We are all arrogant at times. I do not fear the fuck word-- it just helps with the emotion process. - 1:21:05 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..point me to your sources about the depression cure. Did you read it, hear it, or what? Is it in the New England Medical Journal? Cite the sources please. And let us know if that impotency pill works (LOL!) - 1:21:30 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->Rob..so what makes these people arrogant fucks? - 1:25:09 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:PapaSam --you are judging me now! IT is a vicious cycle is it not just like our evolving brains! IT is a lovely thing-- get use to it. But I WILL NOT SAY THE FUCK WORD NOW; MY ARROGANCE displays itself in the machine communication mode. ONE can not know a person's true intelligence by the words he uses like --"fuck". Again there is duplicity here--get use to it. JUST SIMPLE MIND GAMES THAT IS ALL! - 1:28:42 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Joette it is part of human nature. WE all do it at certain times just like urinating. - 1:31:25 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROB..I don't see your point. Urinating is a requirement of our physical being; everyone with healthy kidneys does it, while others with unhealthy kidneys need help to do it. However, not everyone is arrogant, and I ask you to tell me if you can why you have ascertained that those of us here are arrogant. (btw, I am not arrogant - I am perfect) - 1:36:23 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Peter Yes I like to hover just as much as PEE-WEE likes to "JERK OFF" in the movie theater. I also like the "NEW ZOO REVUE". In your own words- "get use to it". The beauty of the ego filling with self-powerful pus. - 1:43:25 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, I heard both on ABC news. Electro-magnetic therapy is very promising and has no apparent negative short-term effect. They are not sure about the negative long-term effects though. Tim Johnson (medical editor) said that the pill to cure impotency might be the biggest development since the birth control pill, as it is not invasive like the current remedies. Supposedly, only about 5% of males opt for the current remedies. In addition, it doesn't matter if it's a physical or psychological problem. And no, I don't have a psychological or physical problem; I exercise and eat low fat---(it's all blood flow you know) lol! - 1:50:51 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..amazing how new words make a treatment seem more attractive. You realize of course that "electro-magnetic therapy" is exactly what is referred to in the Cuckoo's nest as shock treatments. It is merely a revisiting of old therapies. They are using them again because there are some cases where little jagged pills just don't do the trick. - 2:03:37 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Farnes:Hi! - 3:04:45 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, It's not the same as shock treatments, which involves passing an electrical current through the head of a patient. Electro-magnetic therapy involves placing, essentially, a magnet over the front left lobe of the brain. The magnetic lines of flux pass through the brain, and it's painless---unlike shock treatments! - 3:12:37 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--BILL--I don't agree with it. - 3:25:01 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:A temporal plate to the head--keep the current flowing through the brain. - 3:37:48 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:A temporal plate to the head--keep the current flowing through the brain. - 3:38:11 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

James--->All...:What would you think of a filter that prevented the use of certian known ofensive curse words from being posted on the page? - 3:53:03 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Religions do not so much offer truths as a common language in which to express truths as well as superstitions. Religion offers man a way out of his solitude. Religion offers man a language which makes real loneliness impossible. He belongs. Religion is an attempt to make bliss enduring, and ritual is frozen rapture. - 3:55:19 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

David:Peter: Why would you, being a good man want to be a part of a religion that only got so powerful by calling over 50 crusades to do youthenasia against any smaller religious belief, they killed every man, woman, child and baby.... If a man refused to go, the church would take away everything he owned, including his family.. He would even be wiped or burned at the stake.... But if he did go, he was told to kill all and that he had god’s blessing... and you want to be a part of that... Once again I urge you to study history. You may still believe in a god, but I am sure that you being a good man will no longer want to be called a Christian... - 4:19:32 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:JAMES- No censoring!!! - 4:20:41 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Satayana thought that at their best religion and poetry become one: religion is simply the most grandiose poetry that deals with the most serious themes. Religion is nourished by mysticism and inspiration and holds out similiar experiences to those who are loyal to it, but the ritual, too, aims to transform man's life. When religion mistakes itself for some science, it is closer to poetry. - 4:21:00 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:DAVID- I think you've misunderstood Peter, easy to do with so many nutcases visiting. He likely posts making fun of their posts. Peter's atheist. - 4:22:34 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

David:Peter: I meant to send that last note to Ricky not you... sorry... and I for one am glad that religious people our on this line, else it get boring... - 4:28:05 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

David:I guess that I did... - 4:29:15 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

PETER ( who apparently now is a christian--:--David--You are correct. Why would I?........ Thanks Marlene :-) - 4:30:53 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--DAVID--You are forgiven. I think Ricky lost his number ( you gotta be old to get that one )...... "Youthenasia"? Is this the American spelling? - 4:34:21 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

David:I am not a good speller, so that word I did look up. and I don't know what country the spelling is from. - 4:44:32 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:The Egyptians had the most elaborate concern with the after-life ever known to man. The Egyptians had a profusion fo gods-- some half-man and some half-animal. The Hebrews ( came from a subdivision group of Canaanites) felt the house of bondage and Moses said " YE shall be unto me a kingdom of priests". PERHAPS this was the most revolutionary idea of world history. The HEBREW/CANAANITE god sprang forth and it sprang forth later the CHRISTIAN god. ALL from a disgruntled group of Hebrews who at first splitered from a group of Canaanites-- who some Christians call pagans. Interesting the revolving symmetrical ways of creating religions. - 4:45:56 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

David:P.S. I got that one...( S.D. ), I suppose I should get going for now.... and you are welcome. - 4:49:25 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

David:One last thing.. What god of war's name did the canaanites use for their one true god... hint, it was a god long before the babylon empire. and second that god had a female conterpart that became the holy gost. ??? It is so easy that it could bite you... And what ever happened to the one true god's wife...??? Shouldn't christians belive in two gods...not one.... Got to run... - 4:58:05 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:IT is ODD to find Jesus hailed as a moral teacher when there is no agreement on his moral teachings. Buddha and other would -be David Koresh's told parables too. I can formulte clear dogmas as well, but no it is mumbo-jumbo for the sheep masses! - 5:01:38 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROB. A statement of facts is purely objective. Those were your words I quoted. According to my Webster's Collegiate dictionary arrogance is described as "A feeling or an impression of superiority manifested in an OVERBEARING MANNER or presumptuous claims." If you re-read your old postings you should agree that you fill the bill. I do not question your intelligence. You express yourself very well when you care to do so. As you say, you are "Playing simple mind games". However, I don't think you will find any simple minds here, except for some visiting theists. - 5:07:55 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:David, where in the world did you did that up from, Christians don't do that kinda stuff - 5:42:51 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:JAMES-- Perhaps you could ask people to refrain from using such words first. I'm not sure it would work, but I view censorship as a pretty negative thing. Having freedom of speech unless you abuse it is not really the same as having freedom of speech. - 5:45:14 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:PapaSam I also do not question your intelligence. Secondly, why should I agree to another's opinion-about me fitting the "bill" label. Opinions cut so much deeper than knives. - 6:34:00 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:The world is full of opinions. I need a lozenge to clear that bile from my esophagus! Mentos anyone! - 6:42:54 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Censorship in any form is a dangerous path. It comes full circle to opinions. My opinion that this should be erased, but that is ok---- oh , the knife is dull where is the cutting board! - 6:51:00 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Words are categories not only insofar as " tiger and table" denotes classes of objects but also in the more important sense that we understand the world in terms of words. - 6:59:02 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. In line with what Bill told you, here is an item from 'Science News' Jan 3, 1998. The title is "Magnetic Mood Brightener" 'A pilot study shows that magnetic stimulation of the brain might replace drugs as a treatment for depression. Magnetic impulses applied to the left side of the brain apparently stop neuron activity for a short time. It is not kown why this treatment is able to improve patients' moods. - 7:59:07 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:The people with depression have low levels of the brain-chemical seritonin ( not sure of spelling). They need the extra amount to feel ,well, giddy. Why would you want to stop neuron activity even if it is curt? - 8:38:16 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:To suspend the brain mass is like sticky playdo in the hands of a child. The globs fracture and become placid residue. - 8:50:13 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROB..people suffering from depression do not take anti-depressants to feel giddy. They take them to feel "normal". There is a difference. - 11:59:30 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->JAMES..I think it would be a travesty if you were to start censoring us. The certain words which you declare as offensive may seem so to some, but not to others. For instance, I find the word vacuous far more offensive than the word fuck. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but where I hail from, we use expletives at will. Bad enough that we have editors, publishers, etc. mandating what we will read or see, but to add that type of muzzle to us here would be a loss of our freedom of speech. - 12:03:26 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

James--->All...:OK....no filter, though I am concerned about liability issues and the legal implications of some material being exposed to children. - 12:35:54 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:PETER, If you don't agree with me, it's your privilege! JAMES, Are you hosting this board now? - 13:35:39 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:I have always felt that religion has evolved in higher mind level species (humans) and is a direct result of "survival" instincts in nature. I am certainly not promoting religion here, and claim no label or religion myself, but the latest research shows that religious people tend to live longer than non-religious people do (less stress apparently). Any comments? - 13:53:31 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:This information was from ABC news and I might add that I personally feel content not making up some imaginary "teddy bear" friend (personal God) just to relieve me of stress. I feel that progress/discovery has to be reality based and we have to be honest with ourselves regardless of the potential additional stress. - 14:07:37 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JAMES, Censorship is not a good thing. Certain words that have been used here lately (ie fuck) actually are, and you dictionary doesn't say this, acronyms. I think this word originated in Europe, when they used to hang signs around people's necks---when on public display---for committing a sin. The "F" stands for "fornicating," I think, but I'm not sure about the rest. Does anyone know about the rest? I can find out if anyone wants to know! - 14:28:01 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:BILL<<>>I thought the word fuck came from the German word 'frickon'. JAMES<<>> I think if you decided to censor this page, you woulnd't be any different from the christian fucks on the theo chat. If children do not like it, they can fucking leave. If adults don't like it, they can fucking grow up. Godamn, I think your pretty much a shit head, but if you censor the page you are more like a fuckwit. In all seriousness are you going to bow down to the republican reactionary christian assholes who want to burn anything with bad language, or subversive material. Some of them would want this page cesored just because it is an ATHEIST page. Please, save us from your own failings and let people discuss things in an open forum without BIG BROTHER. - 14:51:09 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--BILL--Human beings are the only living species that know that they will die. Since this naturally frightens them, they find ways to eleviate this fear. In christianiy for instance, the moral code as outlined by God and Jesus are for not for the achievement of happiness while living on earth--in fact misery, poverty, meekness, self-abnegation are actually given special consideration, and encouraged-- but for the sole purpose of earning one's ticket to get into a place which is the embodiment of a perfect world to get in--AFTER death. And the embodiment of the worst possible ETERNAL punishment imaginable if one disobeys the commands of these entities. The fact that religious peolple live longer due to less stress only spells to me that less awareness leads to less anxiety. However, many thrive on the challenges life has to offer, and find living without a certain degree stress, mundane, and not really "living". - 14:56:35 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Censorship, next thing you know the only acceptable avenue of communication will be prayer and the passing on of blessings and love. As for the kid thing, typical ploy just for someone to control things. I have taught my own offspring that the only thing bad or evil is in the minds of others, the "salvation" of my offspring they think lay in their ability to think and intelligently communicate their minds. Sometimes a derogatory four letter word says exactly and clearly that thing one wants or means to communicate. Hell, anyone setup a thing for anykind of censorship here, I'll have to setup my own site. If one thinks anything and has whatever to say then do it. The body of thought as such would clense itself, i'd bet. Or I could just continue to wander about, later all. - 15:38:13 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:PETER, I agree; can we all say, "Ignorance/Unawareness is bliss?" Do you think the "Laws of Moses/Old Testament" evolved as a result of survival of the masses---to keep individuals from destroying each other; or were they not just a way for a dictator to control the masses? The "pie-in-the-sky" seemed to have evolved later with the New Testament type teachings, etc! - 15:39:16 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:Some individuals have to pay the price and depart from the "choir of consensus" (ie Galileo), and experience the stress of mass rejection, in order for progress to manifest itself. - 15:55:27 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--BILL--Can you think of a better way to control and exert power if you are able to convince the masses you have a direct line to the almighty, infiite power who allegedly controls the unknown, who can zap anyone at his whim if this power feels they step out of line? The best thing to do is listen to the man who has that contact, so one can learn what so pleaseth the Lord, and not fall victim to his wrath. Moses could then just pretty well write up any rule that pleases him, and backs them up with the Lord's wrath as a scare-tactic. - 16:05:10 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:PETER,All of nature seems to be motivated/driven by the two determinants. These determinants are "entropy and organization"; or in other words, "fear of loss and hope of gain." Religions in the world seemed to have manifested these determinants in the most extreme ways (heaven and hell). - 16:34:04 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Indoctrination creeps into your life everday; dictataors use the process in a more forceful format. - 16:36:05 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Does a tornado "hope to gain" something by killing five people in a local town? The tornado is a random act of nature; it does not seek any fulfillment. - 16:45:57 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->BILL...as far as I have been told, fuck is the acronyn for "for unlawful carnal knowlege", which was a no no back in the dark ages. - 16:57:42 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:The stress of mass rejection is interesting, but you are accepting and rejecting thoughts subconsciously. You can not feel the rejection or acceptance though it exist. Outward expressions--like saying that I do not believe in a god-- sure produces stress. That type of stress is good even though it could be detrimental in a physical sense to the entity saying it. - 17:11:09 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Anselm:My,My,it seems as if this site has taken a slight turn for the worst in the time of my absense. ROB/SKIPPY: It's obvious from your postings that your mind has been warped through existentialism. Nietzche and his surrogate daddy,Schopenhaur tended to argue in a most illogical way,opting for an emotional style of argumentation which served only to demonstrate their lack of cogent thinking ability. BILL: How does your own religious belief fit into these 2 determinants which obviously are inescapable. By the way, are these 2 dualities an absolute truth? - 17:12:41 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Anselm:Just because words are typed in this machine medium--- they do not have to express the person's true emotions or arguments. I could say that I am a god,that is an emotional statement. But do I TRULY mean it--no! So what if my mind is warped somewhat by anything! Can you say that your mind is tainted ? IF YOU SAY NO --THEN truly you are some sort of god! But your brain ages everday just like mine! - 17:28:57 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:SORRY ROB WROTE THAT LAST ONE TO Anselm - 17:30:18 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Anselm:ROB: Well, then are the words that you just expressed a product of a warped mind? Were your statements an expression of a true emotion or argument, or does the opposite hold true? You'll have to help me in discerning what you honestly mean from what you TRULY don't mean. Is my mind "tainted" by what, exactly? Clarify. Tainted and warped are not necessarily the same thing. - 17:42:49 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:ROB, I guess you are talking to me? A tornado, of course, would fall under the category of "entropy" (destruction/decay), not organization" on a human mind level (hope for gain). I wasn't clear enough when I moved from the determinants in nature (universe) to the determinants within humans which evolved from this nature. A human mind encompasses both of these determinants as well. One might classify these determinants under the category of "good" and "bad (evil)". Additionally, I don't totally discount the possibility of a creator…. I just have had no personal experiences that would lead me to believe those Personal Gods are real. They are all different due to the subjectivity of humans anyway. I have to have something more than just "faith" Rob. It seems to me that personal Gods are nothing more than man creating God, in Man's own image for the sake of comfort and survival. I still hope for an afterlife, like James, as it's only natural to want to survive, even in spiritual form. If God does exist, then I should have the ability to experience he/she/it without faith! It may be possible that the universe created itself, without a human like deity, and there is an afterlife in the way of human consciousness (soul), but I have no experience, knowledge, or logical reason to believe that even this is possible. I hope it will be so, Rob! - 17:44:00 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:ANSELM -- What IS THIS EXISTENTIALISM LABELING CRAP! I could have been on drugs when I made those comments. You do not know-- you just see what is typed. I do not enjoy being labeled by anyone-- so much for cognition! - 17:44:13 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob: Anselm -- I repeat is your mind tainted or warped? Does it have limitations--if it does then it is tainted in some way. IF it is tainted in some way could it also be warped in some way? - 17:49:06 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, You are probably right, thanks! ANSELM, I don't really want to be stigmatized by a label, so I don't consider myself to have a "religious belief." I have only said that my current thinking is similar to pantheist, but I don't even claim that as a label. I want the ability to change at a moment's notice when personal evidence or experience suggest that I should change. To answer your second question, I see this duality of nature as the only real absolute or truth, at this time. What do you see as an absolute truth? - 17:53:30 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Anselm:BILL: Why is "faith" such a distasteful term for you? We exercise faith everyday. The question is , is it baseless faith? If it is, then this is reducible to credulity which is a distasteful term(to me anyway). If I marry someone that I deeply love, I should have a guarantee that she will not stop loving me? Should my marital experience be based upon 100% guarantees, or is there an element of faith at work there? Furthermore, with regard to the universe creating itself, this seems totally incomprehensible to me. This would mean that the universe would have had to have been prior to it's own existence. How can this be? Also, arm waving about quantum particles won't help the matter. Anything that has the POTENTIAL to exist needs something to actualize it into an existent state, something necessary and from the looks of the universe and judging from entropy and the big bang, the universe didn't have to be and it eventually will not be. How can this type of finite entity bring itself into being? - 17:57:16 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Anselm:ROB: If you mean by "tainted", tainted by time, then yes it's tainted. Does it logically follow from this that my mind is warped. Does tainted necessitate warped? Also, are you labeling me as one who labels other people? - 18:00:27 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Anselm:ROB: So sorry for formulating a judgement based on your written words. Is there a more adequate method of communicating that you would like to present? I'm assuming that your formulating opinions based on what I'm writing, are you not? - 18:04:52 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Anselm:BILL: An absolute truth is something that is true for all times and all places. Also, if personal god's are a product of survival how do we explain the atheist who doesn't believe in God yet who is at the same time surviving. How do you account for this? - 18:12:51 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:ANSELM<<>>you could use the same chicken and egg arguement for your ridiculous beliefs. I love how you ASSUME that the universe could not be created by itself, but then you ASSUME that your mythological god created himself/herself. Please tell us what or whom creatd your mythological diety. - 18:13:31 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

STEVEN: No Steven, a self caused anything is incoherent. God is defined as uncaused, not self caused. Also what created your mythological belief that the universe just happened without intelligence? You like the word, "myth", obviously so please convince me that your naturalistic or materialistic philosophy itself is not a myth. - 18:18:10 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Anselm:Steven: Last post was from me. - 18:19:25 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:ANSELM, The word "faith" is distasteful to me because I associate the word with religious fundamentalism, both past and present. Maybe this is not justified. I like the word "hope" better because it implies "maybe/maybe not." Most people that "hope" don't claim to know for sure. Obviously, there has to be some "vision" for progress; there has to be some "hope" for gain. I've talked to you before about your second question and will address it some later but I have to go now. Wife's home from out-ta-town, bye! - 18:21:18 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:ANSELM<<>>that is interesting, something that has always been and has no beggining. I think most people (at least non-christians) find that completly absurd. I consider theories such as the 'Big Bang' etc. just what they are, theories. I do not posit as to whether the universe was created by intelligence, because I just don't know, and neither do you. I do know that the christian religion/faith is a man made fraud. I also cosider all beliefs in supernatural beings as delusional because the beliefs CAN NOT be proven. In other words, I do not see the logic in putting faith into something that is a security blaket, e.g. "Well I cant explain it so god must have done/made it". This reasoning is more or less stupid. If a 'god', or intelligent being exists then IMO he/she/it wouldn't give one fucking rats ass if I was laid 1000 times all by different woman when I was 16 while I was high on lsd and smokeing pot. The christian mythology is full of absurdities, like hell. The idea of hell is so stupid it is laughable. The idea that someone puts faith in a book is also way out there. - 18:33:05 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Anselm --Labels are restrictive. Do you worship the Christian god-- who sprang forth from a CANAANITE "pagan" god. CAN you call yourself a pagan.?? Those labels come around full circle. - 18:40:23 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

ROB:Anselm -- NIETSCHE LATER IN LIFE DEVELOPED SYPHILIS! Maybe that could have explained his warped mind. SCHOPENHAUER was called a pessimist along with his philosophy-- again to restrict by labeling. - 18:46:04 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:Steven, I wonder that when you die, and then realize that Hell is real, what will you think then? Hi, Ricky's back! - 18:52:42 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Anselm:STEVEN: I appreciate the auto-biographical information,but it's philosophically trivial. Why is an uncaused being absurd? I'm more interested in the premises laeding to your conclusions than I am in your premiseless unsupportable conclusions. Futhermore,I find your delusion that my belief is a delusion highly suspect. ROB: Obviously you received this bogus historical information in the midst of one of your drug related experiences,but of course I won't know this for sure until you show me how to discern your true statements from your false ones. Thank you for the great example of the fallacy of diversion. Shall we return to the tainted/warp debate or have you decided to give up on that? - 18:52:56 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Anselm:STEVEN: Tis certainly a pity to be suffering from the delusion that I'm suffering from a delusion. This line of argumentation is getting you nowhere. It's as if your punching yourself in the nose. Would you like to try something else? - 18:56:08 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Steven -- I agee that with the idea that someone who puts faith in a book is " kind of warped ". Were these writers hitting the wine too much or that a god inspired them to write. - 18:56:45 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:If you study the Bible, it makes more since in it's description of creation than any of the "Scientific" claimes that we came from monkeys, or other such animals, futhermore, how is life worth living under ath. belief that there is no after life, we just rote with no soul, no eternal life, I'd see this lifestyle as useless, without any reason for morals, just an empty life, searching, but refusing to see what you find to be true in the end! - 19:02:26 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:ALL. I am opposed to censorship in all forms. I find it amusing that people will see nothing wrong with using the terms "making love", "having sex"and other euphemisms but recoil in horror at the word "fuck". The same applies to "feces" and "shit" and the sexual organs. How can they justify such hang-ups? - 19:04:11 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Ricky:Show me a single book that has remained steadfast through the years, the thousands of years, without contriduction within itself, a book that can explain where we come from, why we are hear and where we're heading, and I"ll except your beliefs. - 19:06:43 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:RICKY Dinosaurs ruled the earth way before man; their lives had no reason for morals. Humans now can have morals in a society without believing in a religion. - 19:08:29 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:BILL. If the statistics on life expectancy of atheists versus believers are true, (How do you question a corpse?) there are at least two possible reasons. One is the stress put on atheists so that so many of them have to go in the closet, The other is that the true believers kill them off. (just kidding) - 19:10:56 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:ANSELM. Would you believe you wern't missed? I'll accept your statement that your mind is warped. Based on your admission I don't think we can give much credence to what you say. But don't worry. In the long tuen the worms feeding on our decomposing brains won't mind the warpage in your brain or the lack of warpage in mine. - 19:16:45 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:ANSELM. You ask "How can this finite entity (the universe) bring itself into being?" I personally haven't the vaguest notion. An honest and open answer. I confess my ignorance. Now let me ask you a similar question? How did your "god" entity bring itself into being, or did it have a mother and father? No evasions or vaccilations please. Give me the same type of honest and open answer I gave to you, even if you too must confess your ignorance. - 19:25:27 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:ANSELM: The word 'Belief' has been discussed and as you say it is an everyday affair. But, religious hucksters attach their views to this natural state of the human's limited experience of existence for the purposes of their schemes, that is the issue with what and where you eventually want to go with the idea conveyed by that word. And, as i am a reasonable fellow, show me the godthing so I can ascertain for myself if it is such a thing. You nonsense as it appears here serves nothing. Furthermore, since up to the time of this post nobody claiming to believe or say they know of that godthing has not as yet pointed out where it is I must say that in my experience to now, it your godthing has no existence. - 19:25:54 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:ANSELM, I'm back for a little while (wife's gone to work…lets have a moment of silence please). So according to your definition of "absolute truth," do you also agree that natures' two determinants are "absolute truths?" If these are absolute truths to you, then would it be logical to say that these truths were god (non-deity)? How would it be OK for "God" (deity) to not need a prior cause, verses the "universe?" Atheists, IMO, do have a God; it's their own mind and reason. This is what they rely on for survival. Morals, IMO, have evolved as a result of survival. To kill, is to be killed by others; and thus, not survive as long. - 19:32:27 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:PAPASAM, HAHAHA! - 19:34:33 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: All, here we were in our sandbox having fun even that of playing with the toad named RICKY, we has our neat little sand castles and roads in the sand all set up and just right for our toys. Then comes the neighborhood retard ANSELM, who just kicks down our neat sand castles and trashes our fun roads and designs in the sand and says, see! thats what my godthing can do whenever it wants, and anytime too! Well, I don't see a godthing and ANSELM is still just messin'up our sandbox. He is strange, at least that much we can, I can tell. - 19:37:22 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:ANSLEM<<>>once again you are useing, to borrow a phrase from PETER, pee wee herman logic. I am not claiming a belief, you are. Therefore it is up to you to PROVE (which no one has ever been able to do) that this figment of your imagination (i.e. god) exists. If this god thingy you say exists is real, and he/she/it created the entire universe, then why would he give a rats ass what we do or do not do on this speck of dust called earth. What makes your mythology any different from the hundreds of mythologies on the planet. You would think that if a 'christian god' existed he would be a little more intelligent. No you are delusioned because you put faith into something that does not exist, exept in you mind. I could just as easily come up with a cult called 'the cult of the omnipotent green man'. I then could ask you, "well you can't prove he exists, so he must" or "i don't understand what made the universe, so the green man must have done it" . Please use your head, geeez! - 19:38:02 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:RICKY<<>>reading posts by someone as obviously stupid as you are does nothing but but give me a headache. There will always be weak, gullible, and stupid people such as yourself to feed the pockets of the ones attempting to keep you brainwashed. Fortunatly for the clergy of this country, you could throw a rock and hit seven people equally as stupid as you are, so they have no fear of going broke. - 19:46:08 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Jerry:(Interesting chatroom) Anselm >>>If God is said to be "uncaused' by what agent qualifies it for this status? If God can be uncaused, why then cannot the universe be caused? One must be able to be able to identify certain traits in God which would lead up to concluding it possesses this attribute. To me your reasoning is: 1)The universe must "come from" something or be" made to exist" 2)Something cannot make itself appear-in the natural world anyway Conclusion--Soething outside nature must cause it. This may appear to solve the first question, but just opens up a bigger can of worms, and the unanswered questions now become virtually endless. If this God did it--you have no method to connect it with the alleged entity that exists in any religious doctrine. You have no way of knowing this entity still exists--If this supernatural agent exists, it too must have a cause. Putting into the realm of the supernatural does not disqualify it from existing--so the same rules apply--but you haven't described any attributes of that supernatural agent--so in the end what you have done here is philosophical suicide, that being solving a mystery with a mystery. Other than it being nothing more than wild and unqualified speculation at best, and may make interesting conversation with some pool-side cocktails--this explanation is meaningless outsice that - 19:49:13 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:JERRY<<>>good to have ya! - 19:53:02 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--Ricky--Aesop's fables. - 19:53:11 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:RICKY<<>>the thought that someone has read the bible (which you may claim you have, but it is obvious you haven't) and does not notice the glaring contradictions is disturbing. I do believe that PETER pointed the very first contradiction out to you. In Genesis it is said that god created light on the 2nd day, but he didn't create the sun and moon until the fourth day, LOL. Please put an imaginative spin on this contradiction RICKY-TICKY-TAVY! - 19:57:44 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--Jerry--Have you been here before? I agree with your post. However, an argument very similar to yours has been used before-more than one--to the concerned party, with little results. Getting someone to concede on "the net" is virtually impossible--even with a solid argument like yours. I don't even waste my time with this individual. - 20:00:53 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:RICKY<<>>why do you need a book, could it be you need some kind of security blanket? - 20:01:19 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

PETER< PETER, the "fundie-eater":--RICKY--In case you didn't see this a couple days ago ( And it appears you did not ), I will reprint a portion of a post I addressed to Tiggermac, and refered you to it immediately after......"Also, be very wary of just spouting a series of fundamentalist platitudes that are nothing but undigested slogans, which have convinced you the validity of your belief. I can assure you-they have ALL been heard over and over again--and the liklihood of you being called on them is inevitable. Also, so I don't have to witness the embarassing behaviour that so many other theists resort to upon happening on this site--I enjoy a good discussion as much as the next person, but I can assure you, if your methods of defence are on a high-school level mentality--you will be made to look extremely foolish, very quickly." - 20:12:18 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--STEVE--Ewwww! Even though this points out the obvious chronological implausibility, this never impresses the fundies. They just sit back and with that usual smugness one associates with clear, decisive victory: " GOD, is the light" Case closed. There you go Ricky, I saved you the trouble of going through your bank of "Fundamentalist Christian cliche arguments for all occaisions"--and I'll bet I've even heard more than you have! - 20:19:17 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: It has become my opinion of RICKY, he is not that thing of his claims. I have seen some strange but poorly written things appear here, I have never seen evidence though, of the acceptance of anyone whose writing skills are as poor as that of RICKYs'. What kind of institution would select one so unskilled? So either he's playing here, some religious types figgur that if you ain't with'em then you're agin'em. Or instead, if his thinking is in line with his writing then he may honestly but nonetheless ignorantly think just as he inscribes. If the former- playing, then he lacks honesty and/or is confused when it comes to matters of dealing with other people. - 20:32:55 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:MARLENE, JOETTE<<>>uhhhh, where the heck are ya? - 20:53:59 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

RON...more suggestions for the evolution of MIMM....: And don't ya just love evolution???...anyway...kinda kicking around a *private room* idea with a bud of mine and would like to hear some input from the people...The idea is to keep this current forum and label it the "Public Room" where all the general banter would continue but, create a "Private Room" for those small groups that want to discuss, debate, scream at each other on pointed subjects for periods of a few days. I would hope no one stays in the private room and all are encouraged to dwell in the public room. The "Private Room" would be password protected (to keep out drive-by B.S.) and you'd have to request an I.D. and password via email...therefore; you have to reveal yourself to us in order to have access. We are also looking into having more fun in the private room, ie, posting images, maybe voice forum, etc..etc,...What do you guys think? Let me know. - 21:16:09 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

RON...--->Steven...:Where's my fucking "NO GOD is GOOD" bumper sticker??? - 21:18:15 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Steven:RON<<>>uhhhhh, i think I lost it. I did pick up one on Co. this weekend. It says: WARNING--->NOTHING IN THIS CAR IS WORTH YOUR LIFE. - 21:25:25 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:RON: What might be the expense? Engineering such is never a problem, but once that was done and after its monetary measures are in place the next consideration, participation? In our rooms we might end up posting mostly to ourselves, as it seems CDrake does at her site, last I looked. So, if the bucks ain't a prob and peoplein'the affairs ain't a prob it could be a cheers. - 21:32:16 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

RON...--->Carl...:The object is content not making money. We have good friends with the abilities to do as we wish with MIMM, so if I must throw them a buck or two, it's worth it. I don't believe it would be a problem. - 22:09:11 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Carl:RON: With that minor thing out of the way, good, what about categories within the public site? As opposed to only a general landin'site? One might be of Evolution, theology, materialism, etc.etc., as a means to focus that room[?]on particular topics. Then too would be or could be the private room setup,i.e., password or whatever. Once before, it was mentioned that certain books read be as a setup as a method for weeding out those preferring ignorance from those wanting to expand or add to their what'nall. For these public rooms these books could be listed as recommended aids to a discussion therein. I have looked at several such things for such a site myself, just to see if it might fly. I'm sure some of the regulars of this site could and would like to give a hand at making this a state of the arts site for atheism. It should not be a place that is as a contrary to the blessin'and lovin'and prayin'places which some might sterotypically see as a negative and dour place. Nothing makes me laugh daily regularly more often than these religious believers in their "demon haunted worlds" when they drag that leaking colostomy-like bag here. - 22:52:14 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

James--->Bill...:No, I am not hosting the page. - 23:29:55 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

James--->Steven...:Still the thick headed foul mouth idiot I see. I think you missed my point completely. First I said there would be no filter. But I guess you missed that because your head is still up your ass and it is difficult to see through all the shit. Secondly, that is why I asked. I wanted to know what you folks think. You were excused from supplying your input because we all understand how difficult it is for you to think. Thirdly, my intent is not to censor ideas, rather to block the usage of some words that have caused other Web site owners legal grief. Not from children, rather their parents. Additionally, it seems likely that these freaked out religious types you speak of could use the bad language as reason to sue the owner of the page with the intent of shutting down the page. So, the filter would have been in place to show that the owner is making some attempt to keep offensive material out of the eyes of children. Thereby relieving him/her from liability. I know it is a lot to expect you to understand considering your savage nature, but try just for a moment to understand this from a legal point of view. As for your ignorant Republican ranting. It is the Demoncrats of this country looking to censor movies, have the vchip in your televisions and put ratings on television programs you ignorant FUCK! Dumbass liberals like yourself make me want to puke far more then Christ's herd. Maybe you should stop breaking those bricks with your head which is probably hard to do anyway considering it is still up your butt. - 23:43:27 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

James--->All...:Has everyone heard the good news? God is coming Garland Texas. I've seen the spot on the local news twice now. Seems this group, and I can't remember their name, is preparing to greet him/her/it next month. They are an oriental religious group, but beyond that I know very little. If I get some more details I'll let you in. - 23:48:54 on 20 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:JAMES- Bet the Hill's will be there along with Dale and his "son LOL". Dale's wife will be off with Chief Whathisface doing the new age thing and I don't mean sniffing ferns either! - 0:38:50 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:RON. Ring of Fire enterprises carries a line of merchandise from sweat shirts to bumper stickers. I don't know if the have the particular one you want but you can call them for a free catalog at 1-800-676-1445. I know they have Darwin fish and other similar items. - 1:25:57 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:RICKY. You seem to have a problem with evolutionary thinking. I won't argue with you about that. But tell me - do you really believe you are sescended from some dust and a piece of rib? As to your other questions, I don't have to look for pie in the sky. I have my pie here quite frequently, with or without ice cream. As for morals without religion, I treat people with decency and respect because I feel it's the right thing to do, not because I look forward to some mythical afterlife. Now your god may be all powerful or kind and loving, but he is certainly not both. A kind and loving god would not allow evil to exist. It stands to reason that yur god wants to stop evil and can't, or he can stop it and doesn't want to. You tell me which. - 1:37:17 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:ANSELM. You haven't come back to answer my question about your god. Are you researching his/hers/its genealogy? - 1:40:19 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:RON-- I sorta like the current informal nature of the page. There is already the Internet Infidels board for more structured discussion. Improvements that I would be appreciative of would be the capability of using a small amount of HTML for new paragraphs and italics, and a more intuitive way or instructions for new posters to see older postings. - 4:19:06 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..lambkins aren't wide-eyed innocent these days:GRANT- Good suggestions! RON- I agree with most here that the more informal this site is, the less intimidated someone will be to post. Some people don't have a formal education nor are they well read but this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are atheist. For some damn reason some think that only well-educated, well-read people should be atheist. Maybe they hate school or reading but they can still feel comfortable here. As for the kiddies, my long lost son has come back to the nest for a little while (only because he hasn't many choices right now lol), anyway he was looking up an actresses name the other day, one most kids would look up and voila! a porno page. He was looking up a rap group, one most kids would look up and our language is very tame compared to the language on those pages. Adults have their heads in the 1800's if they think language is disturbing to 20th century kids. - 5:15:08 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Now if the smaller meat-eating theropod dinosaurs had not died out and through evolution developed a more erect bi-pedal locomotion and especially larger brain capacities-- would that of been interesting. After that -- developing larger social units and with their ever-larger brain structures developed some sort of verbal and written communication. With their written communication--later they developed a dinosaurian religion of some form and a dino-bible called -- UM- THE CULTERSAURAS ERECTUS or whatever. Interesting how a religion can form from a hypothetical highly intelligent evolving species. I personally would love to have a Deinonychus as a pet. - 6:45:20 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Why should one "request" an ID or password. It is structured curtailment and a slight form of oppression. - 7:02:27 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:The origin of most religious faith can be viewed as follows: the child begins by acting like the grownups who believe, and soon believes himself. The proofs come later, if at all. Religious belief generally starts as make-believe. How convenient it is to prove something later! - 7:39:23 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:RON, I was going to suggest, but Grant already did, that you write instructions beside the posting box as to how to retrieve old posts. Additionally, I would change the title to "God is Man-made" (some, possible Simon, would not agree though). Other rooms would be all right, but I don't know how much they would be used. - 13:30:14 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:It's Spring Break weekend here; the sun is shining, and I have four days off. I wonder what kind of trouble I can get into over on the beach? - 13:48:23 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

James--->Billl...:Speaking as a self made man, I like the title Man is Man-made. - 13:57:59 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

Grant:Have a look... - 14:25:40 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->Grant...that is a great site! - 15:09:48 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

Josnowman:--->BILL...lucky you. We are in the throes of a mother of storms. We have had about a foot of snow overnight, and the wind is howling. Doesn't look like it's about to let up anytime soon either. Figures, we don't have snow all winter, and then as soon as spring has sprung, we get it. Go figure. - 15:12:26 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:JAMES. Without going into the merits of your arguments with Steven, I find it amusing that you call Steven foul mouthed. If you're not his equal you're a close second. - 18:35:26 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Some use "god fearing " as a password to create trepidation. When one creates any type of a password, one is moving , however slight, into the realm of the fundamentalist. I resent having to accept any type of password or giving an ID ( like revealing a person's name--hark back to the skippy skip post). How ironic and to pacify a person's curiosity. Why should I have to pacify anyone's curiosity. IT limits "my being" JUST AS ACCEPTING god fearing slogans. - 18:55:12 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Some suggest cloning people for food to abate future starvation epidemics, especially in third-world countries. - 18:59:05 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

James--->PapaSam...:I'll accept that. However, my usage of foul language in that post was intended to show Steven, specifically, how nasty it sounds. I do not resort to it regularly, nor is it a part of my everyday vocabulary and dialect on this page. Steven on the other hand is determined to curse in every post he makes to this page. He seems further inspired to insult me with his vulgarities until I am manipulated into responding in kind. It pains me to loose that moment of control and relinquish the reciprocating remarks in question. But, being called something like a fuckwit (whatever it means) triggers an involuntary need to respond, just as harshly. I'm working on that weakness, but Steven was responding to a question I asked in a manner that illustrated extreme ignorance. The very implications he got himself so wound up about had been negated by the fact that everyone seems in consensus on the issue of censoring (filter). He either had not read back a few posts, or just didn't get it. Either way his post to me was way out of line in every respect. It did nothing to emphasize his points and the passion and emotion he wished to express in his choice of words, could have been accommodated in other creative ways. Mine was out of line in terms of my choice to use similar language. Perhaps if Steven has it directed at him enough, he will begin to see that it has no value and we can all see how it brings the level of conversation on the page to a pitiful low. Anyway, it seems to be a consequence we are all willing to live with. I'll try to do my part and keep it to a minimum. - 19:35:19 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

jaywilson--a future denizen of Munch-kin Land?:ROB: Check out Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" or, if video rental is more opportune, rent "Soylent Green." Lends a whole new twist to the "Eatin' ain't cheatin'" debate. - 19:39:59 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--I say let one express themselves as they see fit. I personally don't impliment obscenities here, or in everday conversation, other than for emphasis purposes. If others wish to obliterate their language with this type of language, thus making them look more like a boor rather than enjoying any leverage inasfar has being able to impliment these words for emphasis sake--let the chips fall where they may. One does get a better idea of another's personality when his vocabulary is uncensored. - 20:17:08 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:PETER. I agree with you.I feel that Steven is free to express himself in any language he sees fit. I feel it his way of venting his rage, which is based on how his ancestors were treated. I can not fault him for his feelings. We hear too often of people going on killing sprees to avenge wrongs which they perceive to have been worked on them. I prefer Steven's method of verbal attack. It harms no one, and hopefully, it makes him fel better. - 21:28:03 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- Double Ditto!!! I don't care what language is used as long as it's honest communication. JAMES- Pained? Avil maybe, lol! I'm in a totally pissed mood today. It's my birthday tomrrow and my honey is supposed to be taking me out (I think) but MEN'S have this little problem when it comes to the choice between women and cars. He's been outside all day playing with his Jewels (and I don't mean his bodily ones either) and hasn't mentioned a thing about going out. Tis' going to be a cold night tonight, lol! - 21:52:11 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..feeling a little guilty:Well.....he did buy me roses. - 21:53:52 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Why in hell would people have to clone people to eat? What's wrong with cloning rabbits or goats or something similiar? Or is this another wild idea put out by the xtian science homepage to ban cloning? - 21:56:15 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- We're still quite fortunate here, no big snows and the temps have come back up to normal. Manitoba has benefited from El Nino, one of the few places that have I suppose. I just knew you'd get tired of looking at those ceilings! What's Erica been up to lately? - 22:00:45 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..sad-sack Black:JAYWILSON..What!, you buy into Frank's "Soylent Green is People"? - 22:02:52 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

Marlene..Sybils' suck:Isn't it stange that Curious left and Farnes showed up to say "Hi"? I wonder what alter personality will stage itself next time. - 22:06:01 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

PETER:--MARLENE--Oh please, let sleeping dogs lie. SAM--Yes, I too rather enjoy Steve's "pit-bull" approach at times. - 23:37:37 on 21 Mar 98 GMT

PapaSam:MARLENE. Happy Birthday! Keep those juices flowing for many years to come. LOL - 1:51:10 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

James--->Marlene...:Happy Birthday! - 2:35:26 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, Sorry about all the snow up there; it's still a little cool here and I didn't make it to the beach today---it's supposed to be a little warmer tomorrow---and the wife wanted to visit, go shopping, to a movie, and out for drinks and supper. I loved the movie (Good Will Hunting) staring Robin Williams; it even brought a tear to my eye. Have you seen it? It's about an abused genius, who was having trouble getting over his anger and becoming a success in life. This move was very entertaining and touching and will probably win some awards Monday night at the Oscars. What a nice day it was! - 3:22:41 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

MARLENE***Men and their Jewels, are a sight to behold. Working and slaving, all day in the cold. My Birthday wish, is for my Honey to see. The only Jewel he needs…. Is ME!***Happy Birthday Marlene! - 3:37:15 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, That last post was from your truly! - 3:38:53 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:MARLENE--- I am for all cloning, the more evolved species the better nutrients. Man's meat would yield an abundance of protein. The clones could be stored in a freezer-type warehouse. - 5:44:21 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Chimps eat columbus monkeys for nice protein but in some instances contract the ebola virus from them. In turn the local tribe eats the chimps and also contract ebola ( see GABON ) Therefore in the cloning routine , it will take many years and test runs to have the least tainted meat. - 6:00:07 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:The columbus monkeys contracted the ebola by eating leaf-hopper insects; studies have found traces of the virus in the insects blood. But the main host is still unknown; it is such a stable virus that it kills itself off so quick. Once the ZAIRE-STRAIN mutates and becomes air-born, it leads to new opportunities. - 6:11:03 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:jaywilson---- I personally like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. NOTHING LIKE HOME-MADE CHILI---YUMMY! - 6:17:18 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Why does morality have to be decisive with just one man like Jesus. Human beings should be able to expand and improve themselves. I think one way to improve ourselves is by cloning people. - 6:42:33 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:STEVEN --- Use the fuck-word as much as you like; it does not make you like a boor. Your fighting for your being and that is good. Do not let others persuade you to do otherwise. It does not obliterate the language; the language remains. WHO knows ---- using the fuck-word a 100 years from now will be just like urinating----so relieving!! - 7:01:02 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:and peolpe who think it is beneath them to use the fuck-word are sort of snobbish--well suit themselves. BUT THEY at times want to use it--because they have no clue what is in their subconscious. Oh how regal! COME ON BABY -- YOUR SUBCONSCIOS--???????? - 7:15:17 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:Where the FUCK is somebody? OH -no I am obliterating our language. Yes-- we are a spoiled lot-----suit themselves in their kingly attitudes - 7:21:41 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Rob:When someone states, "Yes, I too rather enjoy Steve's "pit-bull" approach at times ", that could be the subconscious at work. If this be the case, I find the subconscious at play enjoyable. - 7:46:07 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

qwqw:qww - 11:06:09 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..Happy birthday to you, Happy Birthday to you, Happy Birthday you terrible atheist person, Happy birthday to you! - 12:39:49 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:ROB, Steve amuses me, as well, with his "blowing steam" approach…, but I'm not usually the one on the other end of his spurious tirades, ha! In remembrance of Steve and to answer your question above, Most people Fuckin' sleep between midnight and sunrise; unless that is, you want to talk to the "steeple neck" down under in Auzzie-never-never land! Get a life man…Lol. - 13:04:30 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..you should qualify that post by saying most people posting on this page sleep at the times you mentioned. Rob may not be aware of the fact that the majority of us are in North America. So, why don't you get a life, man LOL - 13:10:54 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

James--->All...:Alright, alright, Steve can say what ever the fuck he wants to say however the fuck he wants to say it gawd damn it. How eloquent! What's the next fucking subject? - 13:42:39 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->JAMES..how about someone being open and honest about who will be taking the page over from Ron? - 13:47:20 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

James--->Joette....:Nothing has been settled on that subject. - 13:58:56 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JAMES, Another change, while we are on the topic of time, might be to changes the posting' times on MM to one that is in North America, since most people that post here are from this continent. I doubt that Simon would be too upset! What topic would you like to talk about? - 14:09:12 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->BILL/JAMES..one change I would like to see is the capability of reviewing your post in its entirety before adding it. Currently, all you can do is scroll back, and it is obvious that most of miss our typos and such. For example, when Bill described the movie "Good Will Hunting", he mentioned that it was staring Robin Williams. While we all know he meant to say starring, I have visions of some popcorn eyed Robin Williams who didn't blink throughout the entire movie. Is there an oscar category for staring? LOL! Or are we just supposed to stare at him and nothing else during the movie? LOL! - 14:17:31 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

James--->Joette...:Why does it matter to anyone. Ownership could change with no changes in page structure and functionality. If this were the case why would it matter who is hosting it? And, why does everyone feel the need to know the host? I can see someone wanting to contact the host from time to time, but that can be accomplished with a "mailto" link that does not specify the hosts identity. In the time I 've spent on this page I have had zero need to contact the host. Before Ron took over, it meant nothing to me that I did not know who the host was. It also seems to me that if the host were a regular poster his/her objectivity would be shadowed by suspicion. Hypothetically, if I were the host and a regular poster, it would be difficult to prove that I am not an atheist. I truly attempt to avoid taking a side, but to host a page such as this makes it difficult to maintain objectivity in the eyes of others. I wish to converse these issues without that stigma, without others believing I have already made up my mind and it can't be changed. In this way I am somewhat sure that I am getting the best others have to offer in regards to their arguments. Anyway, I am undecided on the whole issue and the time to decide has yet to come about. I am however, decided on my resolve to help keep the page alive. If Ron goes and can no longer support the page, I am ready to step in with no changes except for the URL. That does not make me the only choice of hosts but it is a rather short list. - 14:26:26 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, Alright, alright; and while we are on the above topics, I'm not perfuck! Pleeeesse give me a damn blink, and quiet starring at me poostings, limpneck! Lol. - 14:26:35 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..you enquired as to what old Erika has been up to (for those of you who don't know about this lady, she is a local fundie who has started and organization called Moral Support Movement, and she finds every opportunity to use the media to spread her message of hate, prejudice and plain old bible thumping sillines)..well, I am happy to report that she is the one taking the heat right now. Recently she showed up at a local pool where women were swimming topless (as is their right in this province) clutching a megaphone and screaming about the decay of family values and social morals. As usual, the television cameras were there, and when they made their news report, they showed her frothing at the mouth tactics, but she also made the mistake of wearing a full length mink coat. So, nowadays the animal rights activists are on her case about how she is so willing to let animals die so she can look good. Of course, she claims god tells people it is okay to wear fur, so in her mind, she is completely justified. She must have been some hot wearing a mink in an indoor swimming facility. - 14:29:30 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->JAMES...there is always that fear of offending the host, and being booted off. - 14:32:13 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..I don't know what a limpneck is, and would appreciate a definition. I was using your post as an example only, and it was not meant to be an attack on your literary skills. I would think you would realize that. - 14:34:09 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

James--->Bill....:Nice idea. The problem with that is that this is a global forum. GMT time is a good baseline for everyone. I like having to calculate what time it was, my time, when someone else posted. But, why not both. Gets kind of tricky though. Soon we'll have to provide a page for every time zone and in several different languages just like our voting ballots here in the US. Maybe that's our next subject. Should immigrants be made to learn a country's language or should the country be forced to publish everything in 15 different languages? Not very religious, but controversial none-the-less. Or, maybe we can discuss Plato's argument of the inherent need to have absolute morals in a civilized society. Furthermore, who is qualified to determine these absolutes of right and wrong? Do we do this individually? No, that is chaos! Do we rely on religion? Don't bother, I know the answer to that one. What then, was Plato wrong? I don't think so. Just as I spoke of GMT being a good baseline, so must morality have a good baseline. Who draws it and what does it look like? - 14:41:55 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

James--->Joette...:I think Bill was having fun with you and understood what you were saying. - 14:52:41 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, "Limpneck" was just a joke in reference to Ron's past post to you about leaping across the counter and snapping your neck. I know you weren't attacking me, and I didn't take it that way; I thought it was funny! So much for joking around; onto the topic of "public nudity." It's against the law to sun bathe in the nude around here (with the exception of the two nudist colonies in the county), but it still occurs. I was riding in my boat last weekend and this young couple was skinny-dipping. She did have a "tong bottom" on though; as I noticed, when she emerged from the water. Around the corner was "ski beach" and I stopped to talk to friends. This couple then canoed around by "ski beach" and we all clapped, as they passed. Also there is a military reservation (Eglin) over on the Gulf of Mexico, where anyone can go to sunbathe in the buff. Every now and then they crack down (no pun intended) and arrest people when the "steeple necks" raises cane. This is not a public beach, and one has to park their car and walk quite a ways onto the reservation to get to this area, so I see no harm in allowing it to continue. It's just fun (and natural) to take it all off in the warm sunshine, sand, and ocean! - 14:54:22 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

James--->Joette...:Seeing your post in its entirety would help but, think of the input screen you would need to see some of mine in their entirety. I cheat by typing long post in Word, then pasting them into the input box. It also keeps a convenient log of what I've said. - 14:58:45 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Bill..:JAMES, As far as the language problem goes, I think computers and "voice recognition" software will convert each language to one's own familiarity. Morals are very subjective, so I see no absolute need here. "Being offended," IMO, is not "just cause" for legislating laws or morals. We have laws already that prevent discrimination, harassment, or otherwise violating other people's civil rights. There is a time and a place for everything, and those who want to sunbathe in the buff, IMO, should be allowed in certain non-public places…etc. - 15:14:56 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

James--->Bill...:Sorry to cut this short, but I have to mow the lawn. We'll talk later. - 15:23:17 on 22 Mar 98 GMT

Bil