talk.atheism

> I post this message before in talk origins, now I repost it here:
>
> I read one creationists literiture which I found to be quite
> interesting. In the literiture it says 92% of the past great
> scientists believed in God, such names include Albert Einstein,
> Micheal Faraday, Newton, Pascal Maxwell, Galileo, Kepler.
>
> My question is, is this riable? Or is this another piece of lie the
> creationists fed to us? Any reference on this? I mean, either the
> creationist claim's reference or the debunked ones.
>
> (I don't have the reference with me now..Sorry)

Of course it isn't reliable, look where it comes from. Second, even if it
were reliable what would it prove? Do we bow the knee to the beliefs of
Faraday and Newton when our 13 year olds are taught things those men did not
know?

Einstein did not believe in god in any meaningful way, at best he was a
pantheist, more likely a pragmatist who liked working in the USA and knew
which side his bread was buttered. If the Christians can claim Hitler
"wasn't a real Christian" then they certainly should admit that neither was
the secular Jew Einstein!

Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org/

alt.atheism

> I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. Whenever I drive around, I have
> the radio on to 105.3 FM. It's a standard 'modern rock' station. Most
> of the music is utterly generic and forgettable, but what the hell. I
> like the beat and they play the occasional gem.
>
> They also played Creed, a 'christian rock band'.
>
> UGH! Any of you ever heard of these jokers? To put it mildly, their
> music sucks. It is a pale imitation of Perl Jam (and I never liked Perl
> Jam much to begin with), and the music is all christian sermons put to
> song. I always turned off the radio when these jokers were played.
>
> Anyway. The other day I was driving along, minding my own business,
> when the station sprung their ear-catch station identification on me.
> It said, and I quote, "You're listening to another Creed-free hour on
> Live 105!" A few days later, they said it again.
>
> Now, this is great news, but I am rather confused. I do not object, but
> why stop playing Creed? When it comes to music news, I pay a bit less
> attention than I do to the latest developments of creation 'science'.
> That is to say, I actively ignore it.
>
> So anyone know what's up? Has Creed become persona non grata somehow?
> Caught in a gay scandal? Deconverted to atheism? Turned out to be the
> usual assholes that rock bands often turn out to be? What's up?
>

Perhaps they have simply been exposed as second rate and whoever was
previously pushing their stuff onto the station has been pushed out.

It does bring up another point, why does anybody take any notice of the
beliefs of musicians? I really respect and admire my dentist but I wouldn't
follow his advice on religion or politics, why should we assume that
musicians will influence us? Music is just a commodity, entertainment. It
isn't life itself and there is no correlation between musical ability and
general guru-worthiness. Musicians tend to be romantic hedonists with an
army of ego-masseurs who tell them they are god's gift to humanity and
deserving of every penny the massive following of their meagre talent
generates. Their perception of reality must be significantly wide of the
mark.

Have you ever seen those documentaries on MTV that show us mere mortals how
much we owe the talented ones? They make me want to vomit.

Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org/

It has begun!

> Let's pray that this will be quick, for the safety of our troops (from all
> nations of the Coalition), for the safety of the Iraqi people and that truth
> will finally come to light. When it does I suspect that many of the
> cockroaches that we've seen in these newsgroups over the last month or so
> will scurry for cover... until the next opportunity arises for them to spew
> their Anti-G.W. hatred in total disregard of any good but their own party's
> (in other words, the next time that George W. shows leadership without
> asking them or taking a poll to see what's popular rather than what's
> right!).
>

Let's hope that the war is quick and decisive and the tyrant is removed. Let
us also hope that just like in Britain at the end of the Second World War as
soon as the main force behind the war is up for election he is soundly
beaten.

Wars can be justified by the removal of tyranny but arrogant imperialist
actions never look healthy for democracies.

There is enough evil in the world without going out to stir it up. I'd much
rather put my trust in a man like Chamberlain who believed war was to be
avoided, but not at any cost, than a bloodthirsty battle greedy Churchill
figure who believes wars can bring glory to men and nations.

Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org/

> Uh, this is the same Martin Willet who just wrote a public lament of
> Britain's resistance against Nazi Germany?
>
> Yeah ... its an amazing fact of human nature ... once they start singing a
> tune, all the rest of the songs sound alike.
>
> Read on ... Thus sprake Sarah's rooster.

Are you that dumb by nature or do you take lessons? What I wrote was praise
of Britain's defiance and unity and the wisdom to ditch a warmonger when the
war was over. Britain was the most thoroughly committed nation involved in
the second world war with the possible exception of the Soviet Union.
Britain fought the war with great enthusiasm on all fronts and then at the
first available opportunity voted for a party which was committed to peace
and rebuilding. I hope the US does the same, getting rid of Saddam Hussein
and then voting the Republican hawks out of office for a generation.

War should be a last resort, not a strategy of choice.

Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org/

>> I am currently finishing up with high school and am coming dangerously
>> near that point in which I need to make some sort of career decision.
>> I have been doing some deep soul searching and have decided that I
>> would like to serve my country and its army to protect and uphold the
>> many liberties in which me and the people I love have enjoyed.
>> Actually, that's what I tell people.... Honestly, I'm an 17 year old
>> atheist entirely afraid of wasting his life away. I want to do
>> something more then sit behind a desk, If I can prevent one man from
>> going off to war or save one person's life then I will feel that I
>> have fulfilled my debt to mankind, and the obligation to myself.
>> Without religion I don't believe in a euphoric afterworld even for the
>> most pure in heart, and I have only one life and won't waste it. I
>> would go into war knowing that what lies ahead of me may be death, and
>> honestly the more I contemplate death the more I begin to fear it. The
>> more I fear death the more I turn away from everything I have believed
>> in. I'm afraid that faced with death I would turn to the comforts of
>> religion (and, or fear of no religion). World War II's most decorated
>> soldier Audie Murphy once said, "There are no atheists on the
>> battlefield" and I wonder is there a place on the battlefield for
>> atheists?
>
> I'm including everything you said above because I'm not that sure what
> you were asking.
>
> If you are concerned about serving your country, military service is
> not the only thing you can do.
>
> Spending some time with the ACLU would also qualify. You would then
> be helping to defend the constitution and protecting the work of
> others who died defending our freedoms. Given how our freedoms are
> under attack by both foreign terrorists and our own government, this
> would be a noble calling.
>
> You could also go straight into politics. Most politicians never tire
> of telling us how they serve the country.
>
> You could go work for a multi-national and help import pre-fabricated
> components for assembly in the US. Again, you would be serving the
> country by protecting jobs.
>
> Don't be suckered into believing that phrases like 'serving your
> country' and military service are synonymous. They are not.
>
> You don't need to worry about wasting your life away until you are
> least thirty nine. That still gives you a whole year to do something
> about it.
>
> If you are just worried about death, join the club. Everyone is.
> However, it is really a pointless concern because eventually it will
> catch up with you. Forget about it for now. It's not like hiding
> something valuable that you may never find again. Eventually, it will
> find you so don't waste time over it. Someone once said that only the
> living worry about dying.
>
> As for quoting Audie Murphy, this is what we call arguing from
> authority and as such has no logical validity. Murphy supposed
> (incorrectly) that everyone on the battlefield was so afraid of death
> that they deferred to god. He offers no evidence for this claim.
> Opinion is not fact, regardless of the assumed authority of the
> claimant.
>
> Gary
>

Quite right in just about everything you said.

There are no wishy-washy believers on the battlefield. A fear of death is no
more going to turn an atheist into a Christian that it would turn a Moslem
into a Jew. When people are in fear of their lives they are not in
possession of any new information, only their emotional state changes.
Atheists under fire remain atheists. I have been in discussion with at least
two atheist US marines who can confirm that. Fear of death focuses the mind,
it does not over-turn logic.

Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org/

> do you want to believe THAT much?
>
> sounds like you already believe to me
>
> y'just need to get it in perpsective
>
> to challenge God is to state belief in Him
>
> just that that belief is a little mis-shapen at the moment
>
>

Of course this is the classic "other people are really me but in denial"
syndrome. Sorry mate. I'm not you. I don't believe in God and I'm not sure
if I ever did.

I actually challenged several gods/deities: Odin, Zeus, Allah, Krishna,
Baal, Satan, Ganesh, Shiva, Jesus, Jehovah and a few others. (I didn't have
time for all the gods man has ever named, there are over 7,000 of them) I
don't believe in any of them, I'm an equal opportunities sceptic.

I faced them all down: the loving ones, the good ones, the evil ones, the
jealous ones, the nameless ones, the faceless ones, the caring ones, the
uncaring ones and the (many) Only Ones. All remained silent, my explanation
for that is very simple and consistent, how about yours?

Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org/

>> No matter how many times you recycle those lies and ask those same tired
>> questions again and again you are never going to appear bright.
>>
>> Ignorance is a process, it starts when you believe in religion.
>
>
> I do not appreciate being called ignorant, Mr Willett. Could you explain
> what I have said that makes you consider me so?
>

When you ignore something it takes an effort, that is the process of
ignorance, which can be distinguished from simply being unaware. Religion
teaches people to ignore any evidence which suggests that the articles of
faith of the religion are wrong or misguided.

It may be news to you but people who do not believe in the tenents of
religions often resent being called wicked heathens, wretched sinners (speak
for yourself!) infidels and gentiles. Do I take it that you think that
"atheism is a religion" is an idea that can only be used as a taunt and not
as a justification to allow atheists the immunity from criticism which you
seem to feel belongs to religions?

Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org/

>>> Even I don't believe that Martin Willet seriously thinks that if he
>>> issues a challenge to the Creator to 'smite him', and nothing
>>> happens, that this somehow disproves a supernatural Creator. Does Martin
>>> Willett paradoxically need Christians?
>>>
>>> Steve Wilson
>>>
>>
>> If there were no Christians or any other religious people I'd be
>> debating other issues more. I'm not one dimensional, I have several species of
>> bee in my bonnet. Given that Christianity exists it makes itself a target.
>>
>
> It seems to me Christianity receives more attention from you than other
> religions. And this appears to be the case even though you lump all
> religions, including Christianity into one amorphous lump labelled
> 'irrational'. I would happen to agree with you that all religions lack
> any kind of real evidence for what they claim; but with the exception of
> Christianity. Whether you actually believe or reject Christianity, it
> is accepted that it does offer evidence that are based in historical
> reality. Why then do you label it irrational and
> yet appear to give it such attention? Might I suggest that in labelling
> it as 'irrational' you conveniently dodge the necessity of having to
> engage with these claims? If it is true that you consider all religions
> including Christianity as 'irrational' why do you bother to engage more
> so with Christianity? Is the reality that the evidential claims of
> Christianity are a threat to what you believe and thus needs to be
> neutralised? An irrational religion is no threat at all, but one that
> can offer historical evidence is.

Christianity receives more attention from me for several rather obvious
reasons. First, I know much more about it than I do other religions and so I
can be very much more confident that the Emperor really is naked and it
isn't simply my ignorance that is causing the illusion of nudity. If I
started to attack Hinduism (a rich seam for ridicule surely, on the one hand
polytheism, on the other hand reincarnation, on the other other hand ... :-) )
I could so easily be silenced by my lack of knowledge of specific
dogmas and stories.

Secondly Christians are more numerous targets in newsgroups. There are
simply more of them to debate with.

Thirdly Christians tend to limit their wrath to praying that I burn for all
eternity in Hell, as a rule they don't involve themselves in fatwahs.
Christians are almost civilized. My commitment to atheism stops when
physical pain starts, I'll sign anything you want me to Mr Inquisitor...

I don't find any dogmatic religions are a threat to atheism. I happen to be
an atheist at the moment, it isn't the ultimate self-identity for me. If I
came across sufficient reasons to change my beliefs I would do so, this
process would not involve any loss of face on my part. I must make that
quite clear, I don't fear conversion, I just don't expect it.

You really flatter your cause if you think I will find the evidence for
Christianity so dangerously compelling. I have not closed my mind to the
possibility of there being some form of supreme power in the universe, a
creator force. It is a hypothesis that cannot be ruled out and it is one
which obviously has a lot of power to "explain" things which science cannot
yet fully explain. However there is a logical gulf as wide as an ocean
between the propositions "There must have been an initial uncaused cause
superior to the universe" to the idea "and his son's name was Jesus, now
join in hymn number 234"

>
>> Christianity is not simply about the supreme creator, Jesus did not
>> repudiate the scriptures and say all that went before was misguided
>> nonsense. You have to live with the God that hates, is jealous and
>> smites his enemies or you have to admit that you are not Christians but some
>> sort of Neo-Christians, which of course you are, there are no "real
>> Christians", there never have been.
>>
>> Martin Willett
>>
>
> The existence of a supernatural Creator is the core issue and always
> will be. The atheist says that the life came into being and evolved
> purely by chance through material means only; an actively involved
> Creator being wholly denied. You pick on a part of the
> superstructure, which in your superficial understanding looks
> ridiculous. Your 'Smitecam' stunt is no threat to Christians, it
> just demonstrates your contempt born of prejudice.
>
> It might be more helpful if you came up with specific incidences of
> where these words are used so that we could at least have an
> opportunity to address them in context. As it is, your blanket
> approach denies us this.
>
> Steve Wilson
>

The Smitecam always was meant largely as a cheap publicity stunt not a great
philosophical challenge to theism. My tongue was in my cheek throughout the
whole caper, in that respect it was very similar to the last coup de théâtre
on my website; the UFO page

I like to challenge people's thinking even if I don't change their minds. I
see stimulating thought as being a worthwhile exercise in and of itself.

There are plenty of reasons to explain why a man challenging the gods to
kill him will not be killed. Some of them are not even faintly laughable.

--
Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org/

> It might be 'tongue in cheek' to you but behind it is ridicule born of
> arrogance. I find this very un-becoming as it gives off the message
> that you are not a person with which a sensible exchange can be had.
> It indicates you have little respect for those who choose to
> disagree with your naturalistic philosophy.
>
> Personally I do not hold with the monist/pantheist worldview, but I
> most certainly respect the persons who hold to this philosophy and would
> never dream of ridiculing pantheism as it is one answer to the mystery
> of
> existence. My purpose is to both gain a deeper understanding myself
> and hopefully get the other to consider that the Divine essence is not
> bound up within the universe and that the Christian world-view offers
> a better answer.
>
>
> Steve Wilson
>
>

I find ridicule an interesting debating device at times. It may drive the
opponent to thinking new thoughts, which is always welcome.

I find the Christian faith to be profoundly arrogant, it declares it is the
truth and faith is the only proof that is needed.

I don't like to be too polite with people who think they have the answers to
life the universe and everything. Especially if they call their belief
system a religious faith and demand special rights for it.

There is no way that a debate can be fair with one party claiming to have
the ultimate answers all the time and disallowing any questioning of their
fundamental principles. We could debate for ever about the existence of God
and the meaning of proof but at all times faith will remain in place, no
evidence is necessary. Religious people are often quite happy to debate
because they are immune from disproof, they feel that they cannot lose.

I could strip away every pillar on which your belief system stood one by one
but the system would not collapse if you continued to have faith. Debate
with a man of faith is always asymmetrical. Faith is immune to logic, it
merely uses it as a weapon.

As the contest is unfair to start with I don't see why I should play by your
rules. I have found the best results come from varying my approach and
trying new arguments. The old arguments have been neutralized long ago,
which is not top say they have been answered, in most cases they have been
declared to be no balls. It only takes one concept to hit home to cause a
religious person to wobble and to notice the idiocy of many of the arguments
they have been using. That is why I sometimes seem to be erratic in my
attacks on religion, there is no point in using an argument or style that
has been heard before because the religious person will see the continuation
of his religion as being proof that the argument has already been countered,
when really all it proves is the existence of faith. Faith proves nothing.
Any flawed bunch of ideas can be immortal if it is protected by faith.

>> Today may be the last day of my life. I am going to stand up to God/the gods
>> and challenge him/her/them to smite me or prove their existence.
>
>"It is written, 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"--Matthew 4:7 >

Why is that? Because he always fails to show? It is also written that he is
jealous. I called upon a couple of dozen of the 7,000 or so gods that man
has created, none of them did a thing. No messages. No signs, no smiting.

Does your god wait until we are dead before confronting us with our
mistakes? Or does he wait until the end of time? Either way can you give any
reason why he would do this? My father told me when I was doing wrong and he
helped me to build up a good sense of morality. The stories he told me about
God didn't help because I didn't believe them. What good does it do to tell
your young people these stories? Belief in gods drives wars and hatred.
Teaching secular morality makes good moral citizens. Mixing morality with
religious lies does not strengthen either, both are weakened.

Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org/

> if you don't believe in them
> why do you waste your time talking to them?
> you are, by your own definition, talking to thin air

Ahh, but you will notice that I wasn't simple talking to thin air, I was
talking to thin air while being watched. Naturally talking to a god that
isn't there when I'm alone and unobserved would be a sign of madness. As it
was it was a stunt, a piece of theatre.

>
> and the simple answer is God does answer
> He's answered me before now
> not every time I speak to Him because He is after all, God, and is NOT at
> my beck and call
> but I have heard Him speak
>

Interesting. Have you ever sought treatment for this?

Has it ever occurred to you that God never speaks to people who don't know
who he is? I've never heard any stories of natives rushing out of the jungle
and asking the missionaries to show them the Bibles this God character has
been telling them about for so many years. I wonder why that is? My
explanation is perfectly simple, how weird is yours?

Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org/

alt.religion.christian.episcopal

>> My explanation for why this is the case is quite simple, what about
>> yours?
>
> A large part of the difference between us would appear to be this
> foolish notion of yours that having an explanation amounts to something.
>
> C. Wingate

Hang on, that's a bit Zen for an Episcopalian isn't it? Sorry, nobody's
going to out weird me and then claim they've won on points. Explain
yourself.

Martin Willett

> If you think that's zen, then you have not acheived enlightenment.
>
> And besides, what's there to win?
>
> C. Wingate

I thought so, a bluff. But an amusing one.

Debate is best played as a non-zero-sum game. For me to win it is not
necessary for you to lose, and to change an opinion is always a victory even
when it is yourself who changes. We have to allow for the slight theoretical
possibility of debate increasing error in both parties, but that's a risk we
take whenever we share ideas. On the whole the evidence suggests that free
exchange of ideas tends to have a mostly positive effect.

Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org/

>
> Ah, but what do you win? What is the prize?

You don't need a trophy to know you have won, the trophy merely represents
the victory. (This thought goes very deep, why do the cast of Friends demand
so much? Because they really need the money or because it is proof of the
leverage of their skills?) Forget trophies, people play to win, trophies
don't really matter. I debate with people to test my powers of debate, when
I'm outnumbered 50 to 1 I don't expect to be hailed as a winner but I know
if my performance was worthy.

>
> You have posited a God whom I do not believe in-- one who would consider
> "smiting" you an action which should be taken. Even on an intellectual
> level this is pretty bogus. It hardly defends atheism that you are still
> here; to be ruthlessly reductionist about it, it merely proves that your
> "smiting" was not caused, but leaves wide open all the possible causes
> of inaction.

The Smitecam stunt was designed to make a point. The God of the Old
Testament was a jealous god, a vicious god, a vengeful god. He called upon
"his people" to kill and often he killed people himself. He was a father
figure of a god quite suitable for somebody like Uday Hussein.

This god destroyed the whole population of the planet bar one small family.
Presumably drowning thousands of men women and children, maybe millions, who
knows? He also destroyed cities. He also ordered genocidal atrocities be
committed in his name.

This god was not a god any sane person would choose to have as a god or a
father. This is the God of the Bible. A dysfunctional god for a
dysfunctional world. Why do you need to be told this? You recite the bloody
evidence for it on a regular basis.

Is God what you perceive him to be or is he what you have been told he is?
Christians tell me the account of the Bible is the word of God. If that is
the case then God is a loving father figure in the style of Saddam Hussein
and Josef Stalin. He wants you to freely to choose to love him and he could
well murder you and your whole family anyway because he's God and he can do
what he bloody well likes.

Alternatively the Bible is not to be taken literally and God and truth is
revealed by the changing opinions and focus group activities of your wing of
the True Church of the Almighty God (as you see him) plus the writings of
clever and well meaning blokes brought up in the right traditions.

>
> Which brings us to the prize. If I "win", if I sway you away from your
> dogmatic atheism, or best of all, if I bring you back into the fold,
> then the prize would appear to be eternity. If you win sufficiently to
> cause me to lose faith, then all you gain is a moment of intellectual
> superiority, and I lose everything. And then shortly thereafter you will
> lose quite a bit more-- you do not appreciate the intellectual fury of
> my atheism, and I can assure you, every principle upon which you stand
> will be systematically demolished.
>
> I don't think any of this will happen, because (like most debates) this
> is all really quite a sham. The playing field is artificial and the
> rules slanted. (Indeed, if we took this seriously, we would never get
> out of the rules-setting business.) So we content each other with minor
> sniping-- which is all that your "smiting" is, after all.
>
>> On the whole the evidence suggests that free exchange of ideas tends
>> to have a mostly positive effect.
>
> But this is not the place where that can happen. I have a life to live,
> with three children to raise and a host of other responsibilities, and
> not enough time for this. Also, your commitment to your atheism impedes
> you at least as much as you believe my faith impedes me. I am not
> willing to engage you seriously because you don't really take me
> seriously. And I don't think you appreciate that one of the reasons I
> don't banter with you much is because I do take you seriously, but
> seriously in a way that I don't think you appreciate.
>
> C. Wingate

I know you love me. Would you think I was being sarcastic if I said I loved
you just as sincerely as you loved me? If you think I am being sarcastic
don't you think that makes you sanctimonious and patronising?

I don't worry about your soul, you haven't got one. When you die that's it.
But while you are alive you could be having a much better life if you were
not committing it to a lost cause, and also doing your best to continue the
damage done to you by inflicting it on the next generation.

Militant atheists are made by their societies. Without religion people would
be atheists because it is the default state. While I was at university my
atheism lay dormant, religion was scarcely a speck on the horizon. Everybody
was an atheist, obviously, except the nutters, you didn't have to ask.
Religious people were treated with all the trust and lack of concern of a
black Muslim in Cuban heels queuing at the El Al check-in desk.

It was the internet that turned me into a militant atheist. It was seeing
all the energy that was being put into the corpse of religion, I feared the
creation of a monster. That is why I devote time to spreading doubt among
the faithful. I find the concept of faith the most dangerous thought that
has ever formed in any mind. I know my life has no ultimate meaning, I have
no destiny, but I can choose to have a purpose.

I'll finish for now with a plea for any intelligent Christians reading this
who want to have a debate with some bright atheists to follow me into the
lion's den at:

http://mwillett.org/Debate/

where there is currently a vacancy for a visiting Christian, only literate
and coherent candidates need apply.

Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org/

> Martin Willett wrote:
>
>> I do this for fun, when it stops being fun I stop.
>
> I believe you have ratified my point.
>
> I at least am not willing to bet my salvation against your amusement.
> The stakes would not appear evenly matched.
>
> C. Wingate

It's always essential to form some sort of image of the person you are
debating with, for some reason I can't help but see this

http://www.muppets.com/profiles/sam.htm

when I think of you. It's not meant to be an insult, I hope you see the
funny side.

Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org/

> Such an authoritative statement-- and yet my mental image of some people
> is at decided variance with their actual appearance, even after I have
> met them.

That is evidence of prejudice, you seem to give greater weight to your own
prior judgement than to subsequent evidence. It is not something I would
admit to. After I meet somebody I usually find it next to impossible to
recall how I imagined them previously unless I had (as in this case) made a
specific point about noting it.

>
>> It's not meant to be an insult, I hope you see the funny side.

I was quite sincere about that hope. I found it rather amusing, a joke on
me. I don't know what you are really like, I can't, so this mental image
I've formed cannot be you, me admitting it is showing my weakness of
imagination.
>
> Amusement for you, perhaps. But it fails the basic test of morality. If
> you can't assent to the Golden Rule, then I have no use for you, for the
> Golden Rule represents the moral consensus of the centuries. But if you
> do assent to it, here you fail to execute it. And thus you demonstrate
> the reality of Sin. Simply asserting moral principles isn't sufficient,
> and in practice their execution is inevitably flawed, at best. More
> often they are from time to time simply swept away. The sinfulness of
> mankind, collectively and individually, is the one Judaeo-Christian
> doctrine that can be empirically demonstrated.
>
> The truth is that you are using me for your amusement, as you would use
> a toothbrush to clean your teeth or a piece of toilet paper to rub your
> bottom. I do not see that you respect me in any way as a human being. As
> a Christian I see another way of behaving, a way of respect for others,
> a way that may well involve being another's metaphorical toilet seat, as
> it were. After all, why should I tolerate the manner in which you treat
> me? I am not bound to respond to you or even to notice that you have
> written anything. But I tolerate it, with some small hope that you will
> take it seriously, and repent of your egocentric use of me and other
> people, and come back and know the God into whose death you were
> baptismed.
>
> But as it is, I see only a difference of degree between what you are
> doing and any other entertainment involving the torment and pain of
> others. You might as well attend a bullfight, or a public execution, or
> some other blood "sport".
>
> C. Wingate

Sorry to ruffle your feathers.

Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org/

> The miracle spin sells newspapers to morons. Would the morons
> believe you if you carefully explained that the parents of the thousands
> of other still missing, kidnapped, raped and murdered children also
> prayed for a miracle? Hell, no, and thus when a hundred die in a train
> crash and three survive, that's a miracle. I can be a god with job
> standards that low. I'd do a better job drunk on tequila, high on crack,
> with 3 quarters of my brain surgically removed and with my hands tied to
> my left testicle.
>

Nice mental picture of the almighty God. Perhaps he's just senile? What has
he done recently that smacks of competence? Maybe we should advertise for
his replacement? The hours are long, there's no pay but the fringe benefits
are out of this world, and as you point out even if you neglect all your
duties nobody seems to notice.

Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org/

Where did your authority come from to make up such a tale?

This bit of cerebral masturbation is exactly the same as all the books of
the Bible. An anonymous writer of dubious talent thinks up something and
puts it into writing and allows it to enter the public domain. At no point
is there given any explanation as to the source of the ideas or the
authority of the message.

The books of the Bible were created in just this fashion and later some
clerical figures decide which ones suit their purpose, at this point,
usually a generation after the writer has died, a little editing is done
(probably not the first) and a name is added to the work. In many cases it
is attributed to somebody who could not possibly have been the author or a
name is suggested that is ambiguous and designed to mislead, e.g. The
Rambling Dreams of John. (Which John? Ahhh!)

Then another committee of Holy Men decide this book is the Word of God and
make it part of the Bible. Although this final stage no longer happens,
ever, for some inexplicable reason, unless people want to found their own
cults.

How can anybody have self respect and at the same time accept the
anthologies of the deluded as being The Word of God? It really beggars
belief.

> The atheist was walking through the jungle when he saw a lion coming towards
> him. 'Oh, my God, help!' he cries. Whereupon a voice says "I cannot help you
> because you do not believe in me". The atheist agrees, but asks God if he can
> turn the lion into a Christian. "It is possible" says God. The atheist breathes
> a sigh of relief and looks around to see the lion sitting with it's two front
> paws together saying 'For what I am about to receive ........
>

Wow. I've never heard that one before. Yawn.

I once did a search on the internet for atheist jokes (and also for "athiest
jokes", as Christians are not the most literate species) and it was very
obvious that the commandment Thou Shall Not Steal wasn't interpreted to
include intellectual property. It seems most Christian websites are full of
borrowed and stolen material, you can even see the way they cut and paste
the stuff including the spelling mistakes.

The joke above can be found in dozens of variations, I suggest you search
for "athiest, bear" and see what I mean about Christian values.

--

uk.religion.pagan

>> You know, I agree with that sentiment. Jeez, to think that somebody dumb
>> enough to believe in a dead religion that has been dug up and re-animated by
>> a bunch of pretentious tossers actually agrees with some of my ideas...well,
>> it really bugs me, I can tell you.
>
> blink Are you referring to Christianity or Paganism? I subscribe
> to neither; I am, indeed, not a theist.
>
> Where did you get the idea I was from?
>
> ~R

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. Christ, if somebody thought I was a
Pagan I'd be bloody offended too. Deeply sorry, shooting from the hip,
insufficient research, posting while drunk etc. still, I'm really sorry.

Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org/

uk.religion.pagan

> Sweetie, he says himself that he's a troll But if you want to keep him
> as a pet, at least he seems a tad more house-trained than the last one Trin
> adopted, and I don't think ~R's quite finished taking him for walkies yet
> either. I vote we let him out of the pit on a long leash, and see how he
> shapes up, whaddya say?
>
> Jani
>

I've been making thought provoking posts on newsgroups for about four years
now. While I've been added to a few personal blacklists and killfiles I
don't think I've ever been banned by any groups. There isn't really a term
for this hobby of mine, trolling is something all together nastier, I'm more
of an annoyingly smart mass debater. I make people think about different
issues or about old issues from a new angle. I never try to win any
arguments, by that I mean debating until they admit they are wrong and I'm
right, that would be futile, it doesn't happen, even when they know I've
won. I also try to avoid making people look too silly in front of their
friends. That would be hurtful and I'm not a hurtful bloke. Don't think of
me like a bad tempered slow moving cave dweller with a club, I'm more like
one of those annoying waggy-tailed dogs that lick your face, sniff your
crotch and hump your leg. You might be tempted to kick me in the balls but
I'll probably be off somewhere else before you actually do it.

Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org/

uk.religion.pagan

> Hello. I'm Mad Witch aka bekithewitch. I hate to say it, because people I
> respect say that you're a troll, but in the last post you made there was
> very little you said that I could disagree with. I may be feeding a troll
> here, and I disagree with the website sentiments on black vs white
> differences which are palpably untrue,

Palpably untrue?

palpable // adj.
1 that can be touched or felt.
2 readily perceived by the senses or mind.
palpability // n.
palpably adv.
[Middle English from Late Latin palpabilis (as palpate)]

This suggests that you feel things rather than think about them.
It's a very fashionable idea but I strongly recommend you to instead think
rather than feel. The human body is equipped with sense organs and a brain,
it isn't equipped with any organ that can directly perceive truth passively,
without effort.

I have been interested in the differences between the races for many years
and I have been unable to discover any reason why they must be equal other
than a liberal notion that it's more polite to pretend that is what we think
is the case, even as we bury our doubts in the back of our minds. I find
that a horrifying way to think. I look at the evidence and I have found that
the races are different, but these differences are too minor to be used as a
legitimate reason for discrimination, either positively or negatively. The
races are not equal by definition or by godly fiat. There is widespread
variation in ability, talent and physique across our species, most of that
variation occurs as much between different racial groups as within them but
there is no mechanism that ensures that there is an equal number of tall
thin people in the Eskimo tribes as in the Massai tribes or that there will
be a potential Wimbledon champion in every inner city in Britain or that
every group of 10,000 people randomly picked from across the planet will
have exactly the same number of morons and geniuses as every other sample.
Reality isn't like that. Ever. Pretending that it is does nobody any
favours. Racism will never go away if liberally inclined people try to make
out that the reason that all 8 runners in the next Olympic 100 metres final
will be of largely West African racial origin is a coincidence or due to
racism in sports coaches, the racists will laugh their Doc Martens off at
that idea, they know there are differences between racial groups and they
just love it when the establishment tries to deny the patent truth because
that strengthens their claim that their lies about race are being stifled by
an evil conspiracy.

> and as a bisexual female who is
> perfectly happy to submit to a Dom male having been the "victim" of abuse
> as a child, I may just be the exception that "proves" your rule.

I'd be interested in knowing what you understand by the phrase "the
exception that proves the rule", so many people take it to mean that if
there is evidence that something is not the way it is usually defined that
makes the usual definition more true. e.g.

assertion: all prime ministers are men.

reply: Ah, but what about Maggie Thatcher?

She's the exception that proves the rule, so I'm right, all prime ministers
are men.

It doesn't make much sense when expressed like that, does it?

The phrase's original meaning was that the existence of an exception could
be used to prove that in other cases there was a rule, even if it was never
made explicit e.g. the existence of a rule that said a man cannot beat his
wife with a stick thicker than his thumb (the origin of the phrase "rule of
thumb") proved that otherwise the law must have allowed him to beat her with
a thinner stick even if it was never stated that he had such a right.

As I had not claimed that all bisexuality in women is caused by lesbians
taking advantage of other women's distrust for men I can't see how your case
proves anything. I only ever suggested that some women may not have been
naturally particularly bisexual but had been made susceptible to
"recruitment" by the ill fortune of being a previous victim of a predatory
male. And even if that was a factor in your bisexuality it would not
preclude the possibility that a skilled male could also use that
vulnerability to his advantage, I happen to believe that in some cases men
can be almost as clever as women even in these matters.

> but some
> of what you say makes sense to me.
>
> Be afraid. Be very afraid.
>

Oh don't worry, I'm afraid.

Martin Willett

>> Keep in touch with the new event on the home of live webcam smiting:
>
> Are sunglasses required ?
>

No, an elementary knowledge of physics will tell you that the strongest
light your computer screen is capable of displaying is white, (the same
colour as the background of this message in all probability), assuming you
are not wearing sunglasses now it should be perfectly safe to watch me being
turned into white-hot plasma by an heavenly thunderbolt. OK, you'll probably
flinch a bit, but neither your screen nor your eyes will be damaged. If I'm
wrong you can sue my ashes.

Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org/