To be a theist requires belief in a god or gods for which there is no
credible evidence.  To be a Christian requires belief in a puerile fairy
story involving a person alleged to been fathered by the Holy Ghost and
born to a virgin who then was resurrected into an imaginary place called
heaven.  

The story line being a very obvious rehash of Greek myths of saviour
gods and mystery religions.   As there is no proof or even any credible
evidence to support the dogma the faithful have to rely on faith which
is really the ability to suspend disbelief.

Add to this belief in a book which is a rag bag of diverse opinions
written by many authors some of whom were psychopaths.  The extreme
theists or fundies go one further and hold that the bible is inerrant
which leads them to have to claim that the Earth is only a few thousand
years old and was created by a sky fairy.

They have to contend with clergy who claim to know what their imaginary
gods require of the faithful and promise everlasting life after death in
an imaginary place called heaven for full compliance.  That there are
people so gullible and astonishingly stupid that they are able to
swallow such rubbish is a source of continual amazement but presumably
it fills some need for those who crave support.

-- 
********
David WG
********

X-No-Archive: yes

"David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in message 
news:3130303031303439483557DF84@zetnet.co.uk...
> To be a theist requires belief in a god or gods for which there is no
> credible evidence.  To be a Christian requires belief in a puerile fairy
> story involving a person alleged to been fathered by the Holy Ghost and
> born to a virgin who then was resurrected into an imaginary place called
> heaven.
>
> The story line being a very obvious rehash of Greek myths of saviour
> gods and mystery religions.   As there is no proof or even any credible
> evidence to support the dogma the faithful have to rely on faith which
> is really the ability to suspend disbelief.
>
> Add to this belief in a book which is a rag bag of diverse opinions
> written by many authors some of whom were psychopaths.  The extreme
> theists or fundies go one further and hold that the bible is inerrant
> which leads them to have to claim that the Earth is only a few thousand
> years old and was created by a sky fairy.
>
> They have to contend with clergy who claim to know what their imaginary
> gods require of the faithful and promise everlasting life after death in
> an imaginary place called heaven for full compliance.  That there are
> people so gullible and astonishingly stupid that they are able to
> swallow such rubbish is a source of continual amazement but presumably
> it fills some need for those who crave support.


My take on some of this david is that the problem is not so much what people 
who attain the 'age of reason' decide to do - clearly some go for god 
belief, some come from god belief - but my instinct is that those numbers 
are small in comparison.
For me, the problem is that the church gets hold of children, mainly before 
they are able to make rational decisions, and promote as a matter of fact 
the existence of firstly jesus, then the miracles followed by god in heaven.
It was mentioned here recently but channel 4 did a nice expose of 
fundamental christians in the UK (somewhat scary in some respects...) where 
and independent school was filmed indoctrinating children as yound as 5 
years of age with this whole nonsense. Singing, hand clapping, praying and 
factual statements to these children about THE existence of  heaven and 
hell, serpents and storms is frightening.  I witnessed a classroom full of 
yound children who have almost no chance of growing up and not believing 
this rubbish.   The same authority figure that explains 2 + 2 = 4, that cat 
is spelt C A T  who then tells you that jesus exists is going to be believed 
and understood as being correct.  Remember , this is long before the age of 
reason.
This happened to be a private school (and certainly was not the normal 
practice  for state schools)  but nonetheless one questions just what 
safeguards are in place to prevent such  abuse of  the innocence of children 
..
It is clear to me, at least, that the cycle/circle has to be broken by 
preventing children of a certain age (..discussable, but around 11/12 years 
should do it..) from being taight these issues as a matter of fact, 
alongside other disciplines that are clearly fact  - maths, english etc.
The rights of the parent to buy into this type of education has to be 
carefully weighed against the rights of child to not be abused.
Interestingly, this week with all the fuss about the embryo/abortion issues 
going on the driving force behind these movements are often religiously led 
(indeed, the same programme had a Lawyer from the lawyers christian 
fellowship producing a draft amendment to the bill to norman "get on your 
bike" tebbitt who was going to present it in the house of lords...!!  - he 
didn't even have to write it, the christians did that for him)  but I see a 
delicious irony in that the same people who profess huge responsibility for 
human life (in the womb)  see no responsibility to that life after exiting 
the womb....!
The fundamentalists are here in the UK, they are being funded by US 
(fundamentalist christian) foundations and they are using US fundamentalist 
teaching materials in certain schools.
Clearly, as history has shown, cradle to grave policies of religious 
aspiration take some breaking down but, for me at least, I see challenging 
the teaching of religion to children as the first vital step in confronting 
this religious nonsense.

Mark

The message <Ou2dnewPzLjhE6jVRVnyggA@posted.plusnet>
from "mark"  contains these words:

> Clearly, as history has shown, cradle to grave policies of religious 
> aspiration take some breaking down but, for me at least, I see challenging 
> the teaching of religion to children as the first vital step in confronting 
> this religious nonsense.

I entirely agree that childhood indoctrination is bad.   However,  it is
not effective on many children and only one of my five was infected.  I
too endured a very religious education at both my prep school and my
secondary school which was a religious foundation.  Both were boarding
schools with as many as three chapel services a day.  I do not think I
ever believed but I enjoyed the music as I sang in the choir.  I soon
learned the technique of switching off and I do not think I have ever
heard the whole of a sermon.

-- 
********
David WG
********

On May 22, 5:24 am, David Wynne-Griffiths 
wrote:
> To be a theist requires belief in a god or gods for which there is no
> credible evidence.  To be a Christian requires belief in a puerile fairy> story involving a person alleged to been fathered by the Holy Ghost and
> born to a virgin who then was resurrected into an imaginary place called
> heaven.  
>
> The story line being a very obvious rehash of Greek myths of saviour
> gods and mystery religions.   As there is no proof or even any credible
> evidence to support the dogma the faithful have to rely on faith which
> is really the ability to suspend disbelief.
>
> Add to this belief in a book which is a rag bag of diverse opinions
> written by many authors some of whom were psychopaths.  The extreme
> theists or fundies go one further and hold that the bible is inerrant
> which leads them to have to claim that the Earth is only a few thousand
> years old and was created by a sky fairy.
>
> They have to contend with clergy who claim to know what their imaginary
> gods require of the faithful and promise everlasting life after death in
> an imaginary place called heaven for full compliance.  That there are
> people so gullible and astonishingly stupid that they are able to
> swallow such rubbish is a source of continual amazement but presumably
> it fills some need for those who crave support.
>
> --
> ********
> David WG
> ********

REPLY:  Belief in a personal Creator for this personal tweaked
Universe is very rationale, so much so that many atheist/agnostic
scientists/philosophers have made the switch.  Every example of design
down here on earth always requires a PERSON , but when the subject of
the entire Cosmos comes up, suddenly its encumbant to write off any
possibility of a Transcedent Infinite Creator. There is in fact plenty
of evidence for the Universes' personal Creator but athiests and
agnostics :  1. Dont want to go looking for the evidence , albiet all
around them.  2. They have resigned to natural causes for everything
even to what can only come about from a personal source. , thereby
being biased right from the start.  3.  They find a personal Creator
an affront to thier autonomy. 4.  They dont want to relinquish control
over thier own life (lifestyle choices). 5.  And they dont want to
surrender authority to anyone outside of themselves, ultimately.
Manmade philosophies of every sort will be readily believed on 'by
FAITH' , in a desperate attempt to nullify the only logical rational
summation for what we have :  A extremely powerful personal Creator
who loves his personal creation (us)  and who desires a real
relationship with us IF we will allow.  The FAITH of atheists is so
immense and unjustified , that one is  'an atheist' by label only and
never from a deep rational conviction.    To live ones life in denial
of the personal Creator leaves one unfulfilled and without hope on the
deathbed because ultimate purpose and reason for living has been
purposely shrugged off.

On May 22, 10:17 am, "mark"  wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> "David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in message
>
> news:3130303031303439483557DF84@zetnet.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > To be a theist requires belief in a god or gods for which there is no
> > credible evidence.  To be a Christian requires belief in a puerile fairy
> > story involving a person alleged to been fathered by the Holy Ghost and
> > born to a virgin who then was resurrected into an imaginary place called> > heaven.
>
> > The story line being a very obvious rehash of Greek myths of saviour
> > gods and mystery religions.   As there is no proof or even any credible
> > evidence to support the dogma the faithful have to rely on faith which
> > is really the ability to suspend disbelief.
>
> > Add to this belief in a book which is a rag bag of diverse opinions
> > written by many authors some of whom were psychopaths.  The extreme
> > theists or fundies go one further and hold that the bible is inerrant
> > which leads them to have to claim that the Earth is only a few thousand
> > years old and was created by a sky fairy.
>
> > They have to contend with clergy who claim to know what their imaginary
> > gods require of the faithful and promise everlasting life after death in> > an imaginary place called heaven for full compliance.  That there are
> > people so gullible and astonishingly stupid that they are able to
> > swallow such rubbish is a source of continual amazement but presumably
> > it fills some need for those who crave support.
>
> My take on some of this david is that the problem is not so much what people
> who attain the 'age of reason' decide to do - clearly some go for god
> belief, some come from god belief - but my instinct is that those numbers
> are small in comparison.
> For me, the problem is that the church gets hold of children, mainly before
> they are able to make rational decisions, and promote as a matter of fact
> the existence of firstly jesus, then the miracles followed by god in heaven.
> It was mentioned here recently but channel 4 did a nice expose of
> fundamental christians in the UK (somewhat scary in some respects...) where
> and independent school was filmed indoctrinating children as yound as 5
> years of age with this whole nonsense. Singing, hand clapping, praying and> factual statements to these children about THE existence of  heaven and
> hell, serpents and storms is frightening.  I witnessed a classroom full of
> yound children who have almost no chance of growing up and not believing
> this rubbish.   The same authority figure that explains 2  2 = 4, that cat
> is spelt C A T  who then tells you that jesus exists is going to be believed
> and understood as being correct.  Remember , this is long before the age of
> reason.
> This happened to be a private school (and certainly was not the normal
> practice  for state schools)  but nonetheless one questions just what
> safeguards are in place to prevent such  abuse of  the innocence of children
> ..
> It is clear to me, at least, that the cycle/circle has to be broken by
> preventing children of a certain age (..discussable, but around 11/12 years
> should do it..) from being taight these issues as a matter of fact,
> alongside other disciplines that are clearly fact  - maths, english etc.> The rights of the parent to buy into this type of education has to be
> carefully weighed against the rights of child to not be abused.
> Interestingly, this week with all the fuss about the embryo/abortion issues
> going on the driving force behind these movements are often religiously led
> (indeed, the same programme had a Lawyer from the lawyers christian
> fellowship producing a draft amendment to the bill to norman "get on your
> bike" tebbitt who was going to present it in the house of lords...!!  - he
> didn't even have to write it, the christians did that for him)  but I see a
> delicious irony in that the same people who profess huge responsibility for
> human life (in the womb)  see no responsibility to that life after exiting
> the womb....!
> The fundamentalists are here in the UK, they are being funded by US
> (fundamentalist christian) foundations and they are using US fundamentalist
> teaching materials in certain schools.
> Clearly, as history has shown, cradle to grave policies of religious
> aspiration take some breaking down but, for me at least, I see challenging> the teaching of religion to children as the first vital step in confronting
> this religious nonsense.
>
> Mark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

REPLY:  'but, for me at least, I see challenging
the teaching of religion to children as the first vital step in
confronting
this religious nonsense.
'

Indoctrinating them with atheistic philosophies without presenting any
other alternative due to philosophical bias, is very disengenuous.
And atheism..since it requires huge FAITH to practice/live it out...
is also a Religion .  We all ascribe to a Religion .

wrote the usual drivel: 
4c849c78-a1a1-4b29-9a3f-8a45bf0c523c@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 22, 10:17 am, "mark"  wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> "David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in message
>
> news:3130303031303439483557DF84@zetnet.co.uk...
>

<snip drivel>

wrote the usual drivel: 
fa9bd712-2a9d-4175-b5d1-26ceb80ed0e5@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On May 22, 5:24 am, David Wynne-Griffiths 
wrote:

<snip drivel>

On May 22, 9:02 am, "Trolling fuckwadd IlBeBa...@gmail.com"
 wrote MORE CRAP

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

> We all ascribe to a Religion .

Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is 
a hobby.

regards, Ian

On Thu, 22 May 2008 21:10:50 +0100, Ian Smith
 wrote:

>IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> We all ascribe to a Religion .
>
>Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is 
>a hobby.

Fundy mode: "So you think you speak for all atheists?"

>regards, Ian

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

> REPLY:  Belief in a personal Creator for this personal tweaked
> Universe is very rationale,

Only if believing in something that is supported by a complete 
absence of evidence is rational.

> so much so that many atheist/agnostic
> scientists/philosophers have made the switch.

Contrary to all the evidence?

According to the facts, religious belief is declining in the UK, 
Europe and the US, so how 'many' can have made the switch is 
something that you'd need to provide evidence for.

The decline in the UK is nothing short of catastrophic, with the 
large religions now in complete crisis...

CofE - now closing churches due to lack of funds (in Scotland also)
RC and CofE - can't recruit enough clergy to keep going

regards, Ian

X-No-Archive: yes


 wrote in message 
news:4c849c78-a1a1-4b29-9a3f-8a45bf0c523c@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 22, 10:17 am, "mark"  wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>


REPLY:  'but, for me at least, I see challenging
the teaching of religion to children as the first vital step in
confronting
this religious nonsense.



Indoctrinating them with atheistic philosophies without presenting any
other alternative due to philosophical bias, is very disengenuous.
And atheism..since it requires huge FAITH to practice/live it out...
is also a Religion .  We all ascribe to a Religion .



For the millionth time..........atheism is NOT a religion.

What is required is just facts, my friend, just facts.
We should not and must not educate children to actually believe that jesus 
existed and that god is in heaven.
We do not know that, there is no evidence, no proof and children CANNOT 
discern the difference between assertion of belief and assertion of 
fact.......  not until they achieve the age of reason.
It IS abuse of child life, is abuse of innocence and it is immensely 
hypocritical to fight for the rights of unborn life at the very same time as 
abusing, indoctrinating and taking away the rights of children to 
choose......
Belief is not sufficient in this matter.....there is no need to place 
contrary arguments to god belief, just no mention of god is suffice.
We do not have to explain to children how god DIDN'T do it...... we just 
have to teach children accuracy and reality.
The start point in all of this is that god does not exist  - not that he 
does and we have to prove he doesn't....!
If you have no evidence, other than belief, for your nonsensical assertions 
then let us not present that to our children.......or rather, perhaps, 
let's present the idea that there is no evidence....


Mark

Ian Smith wrote:
> IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> REPLY:  Belief in a personal Creator for this personal tweaked
>> Universe is very rationale,
>
> Only if believing in something that is supported by a complete
> absence of evidence is rational.
>
>> so much so that many atheist/agnostic
>> scientists/philosophers have made the switch.
>
> Contrary to all the evidence?
>
> According to the facts, religious belief is declining in the UK,
> Europe and the US, so how 'many' can have made the switch is
> something that you'd need to provide evidence for.
>
Now Ian; you know Dave doesn't need evidence to make his profound 
statements: So long as it's written down on ome crackpot fundy website he'll 
c&p anything in support of his hardline Christotaliban views - Evidence or 
not. (Usually not.)

> The decline in the UK is nothing short of catastrophic, with the
> large religions now in complete crisis...
>
> CofE - now closing churches due to lack of funds (in Scotland also)
> RC and CofE - can't recruit enough clergy to keep

-- 
http://www.kustomkomputa.co.uk
Personalised Desktop Computers

On May 22, 3:10 pm, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > We all ascribe to a Religion .
>
> Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is
> a hobby.
>
> regards, Ian

REPLY: Your atheism shapes the way you look at the universe, the
world, people, morals, etc... therefore, you practice a personal
religion like it or not. "Religion' does not only include faith in a
Theistic Creator ;  it also includes faith in materialism and
naturalism which is the opposite (for not wanting) to believe in a
personal Creator .

IlBeBauck@gmail.com (Troll) wrote:
The usual repetitive drivel.
-- 
http://www.kustomkomputa.co.uk
Personalised Desktop Computers

On May 22, 5:32 pm, "Dr.Hal0nf1r£$"
<fem...@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> REPLY:  Belief in a personal Creator for this personal tweaked
> >> Universe is very rationale,
>
> > Only if believing in something that is supported by a complete
> > absence of evidence is rational.
>
> >> so much so that many atheist/agnostic
> >> scientists/philosophers have made the switch.
>
> > Contrary to all the evidence?
>
> > According to the facts, religious belief is declining in the UK,
> > Europe and the US, so how 'many' can have made the switch is
> > something that you'd need to provide evidence for.
>
> Now Ian; you know Dave doesn't need evidence to make his profound
> statements: So long as it's written down on ome crackpot fundy website he'll
> c&p anything in support of his hardline Christotaliban views - Evidence or> not. (Usually not.)
>
> > The decline in the UK is nothing short of catastrophic, with the
> > large religions now in complete crisis...
>
> > CofE - now closing churches due to lack of funds (in Scotland also)
> > RC and CofE - can't recruit enough clergy to keep
>
> --http://www.kustomkomputa.co.uk
> Personalised Desktop Computers- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

REPLY: 'Now Ian; you know Dave doesn't need evidence to make his
profound
statements'      Sharron,  Ive listed evidence ever since i got on the
internet , plus, its as close as your fingers on your keyboard.  But
you see...its not about evidence and never has been for the
'atheist' ;   its about the WiLL --- the will not to surrender ones
authority to the Creator of the Universe who OWNS you .  I can
demonstrate this very simply by asking you the following question :
If you KNEW for sure that there was a personal Creator to this
Universe, would you bow your knee to him in humble submission and
love ?   THIS is the issue...and not evidence.  Youve got all the
evidence around you that you need and if it were any clearer, youd
object to it being too overwhelming and invasive .

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

> 
> REPLY: Your atheism shapes the way you look at the universe, the
> world, people, morals, etc... therefore, you practice a personal
> religion like it or not. "Religion' does not only include faith in a
> Theistic Creator ;  it also includes faith in materialism and
> naturalism which is the opposite (for not wanting) to believe in a
> personal Creator .

Well, making your silly contorted assertions convinces no-one, other 
than you are desperately scraping the barrel for anything to support 
your superstition.

The bottom line still remains - we have overwhelming evidence, you 
have none.

If you wish to further your hypothesis, then please provide the 
positive evidence for the existence of your god.

regards, Ian

> If you wish to further your hypothesis, then please provide the 
> positive evidence for the existence of your god.

You set him a hard task! for there is no such evidence either for any
form of god or for the completely fatuous concept of a personal creator
he keeps banging on about.

-- 
********
David WG
********

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 22, 5:32 pm, "Dr.Hal0nf1r£$"
> <fem...@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>> IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> REPLY: Belief in a personal Creator for this personal tweaked
>>>> Universe is very rationale,
>>
>>> Only if believing in something that is supported by a complete
>>> absence of evidence is rational.
>>
>>>> so much so that many atheist/agnostic
>>>> scientists/philosophers have made the switch.
>>
>>> Contrary to all the evidence?
>>
>>> According to the facts, religious belief is declining in the UK,
>>> Europe and the US, so how 'many' can have made the switch is
>>> something that you'd need to provide evidence for.
>>
>> Now Ian; you know Dave doesn't need evidence to make his profound
>> statements: So long as it's written down on ome crackpot fundy
>> website he'll c&p anything in support of his hardline Christotaliban
>> views - Evidence or not. (Usually not.)
>>
>>> The decline in the UK is nothing short of catastrophic, with the
>>> large religions now in complete crisis...
>>
>>> CofE - now closing churches due to lack of funds (in Scotland also)
>>> RC and CofE - can't recruit enough clergy to keep
>>
>> --http://www.kustomkomputa.co.uk
>> Personalised Desktop Computers- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> REPLY: 'Now Ian; you know Dave doesn't need evidence to make his
> profound
> statements'      Sharron,  Ive listed evidence ever since i got on the
> internet ,

Would you mind doing it online please; as you haven't listed any solid 
concrete evidence that I've seen; just hearsay backed up with lies and 
misquotes.

> plus, its as close as your fingers on your keyboard.  But
> you see...its not about evidence and never has been for the
> 'atheist' ;   its about the WiLL --- the will not to surrender ones
> authority

What are you rattling on about? - So you are saying Atheists deliberately 
refuse to surrender to your god even though they are sure without a shadow 
of a doubt that your god exists? What drugs have you been taking?! This is 
another example of your stubborn willful ignorance.

> to the Creator of the Universe who OWNS you .

I own me, not some figment of the imagination: If you don't have the 
self-confidence to take up ownership of your life and responsibilities then 
that's your problem: I want no part in it.

>  I can
> demonstrate this very simply by asking you the following question :
> If you KNEW for sure that there was a personal Creator to this
> Universe, would you bow your knee to him in humble submission and
> love ?

How does that prove anything; regardless of what my answer may or may not 
be?

>   THIS is the issue...and not evidence.

The issue is what you're avoiding: Where is the evidence?

>  Youve got all the
> evidence around you that you need and if it were any clearer, youd
> object to it being too overwhelming and invasive .

So where is it?

-- 
http://www.kustomkomputa.co.uk
Personalised Desktop Computers

David Wynne-Griffiths wrote:
>> If you wish to further your hypothesis, then please provide the 
>> positive evidence for the existence of your god.
> 
> You set him a hard task! for there is no such evidence either for any
> form of god or for the completely fatuous concept of a personal creator
> he keeps banging on about.
> 

Of course!

We know for certain that no such evidence exists. If the evidence 
did exist, then any or all of the number of the religions that come 
round knocking on my door would use it to deliver the knock-out blow 
to pull converts to their church.

Thus, those who believe in a god have reached their conclusion with 
no supporting evidence whatsoever. That is why the religions 
themselves make such an issue of "faith" - in this context it means 
"belief in the total absence of any evidence".

Which, take note Dave, is why atheists don't depend on faith and why 
atheism can't be a religion.

regards, Ian

Dr.Hal0nf1r£$ wrote:

> 
>>  Youve got all the
>> evidence around you that you need and if it were any clearer, youd
>> object to it being too overwhelming and invasive .
> 
> So where is it?
> 

Yes, Dave, where is the evidence?

Quit your "argument from ignorance" negative sniping at science and 
present the real positive, convincing evidence that a god exists.

regards, Ian

On 22/05/2008, David Wynne-Griffiths wrote:

> Add to this belief in a book which is a rag bag of diverse opinions
> written by many authors some of whom were psychopaths.

Can you identify these "psychopaths" and show how you arrived at a
clinical diagnosis, with clinical evidence?

It would be helpful in differentiating between a considered and
evidenced medical opinion, and mere opinionated rhetoric.


-- 

David Flechard

X-No-Archive: yes


"David Flechard"  wrote in 
message news:kK2dnRXbS4jW0arVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
> On 22/05/2008, David Wynne-Griffiths wrote:
>
>> Add to this belief in a book which is a rag bag of diverse opinions
>> written by many authors some of whom were psychopaths.
>
> Can you identify these "psychopaths" and show how you arrived at a
> clinical diagnosis, with clinical evidence?
>
> It would be helpful in differentiating between a considered and
> evidenced medical opinion, and mere opinionated rhetoric.



.....yes.   In the same way, perhaps, that most, if not all, religious 
devouts assert startling opinion as though it were a matter of fact...??
I see frequently  just that.......  religious opinionated rhetoric espoused 
without any scrap of evidence.
My....  there are some here who do just that....
David can easily speak for himself but I would offer you the notion that the 
bible is a complete and utter work of fiction, translated (..with errors), 
re-written numbers of times over millennia, sanitised and selected to suit 
the particular political and theological aspirations of the time, excluding 
of writings that did not fit the desired imagery, clearly humankind written 
with substantial errors (identified now by resultant scientific discovery) 
and many contradictions.
This piece of fabled nonsense is held by some to be (ludicrously...) 
literally true and by others to be at least *inspired* by god.......
Pyschopaths or not, it is clear that religion has indeed created such 
monsters in its sad and sullied history.
Worse...  it is used as a piece of reference to educate children as a 
factual discipline.  An utter disgrace to innocence, to humanity and to 
intellectual free will.

Mark

The message 
from "David Flechard" 
contains these words:

> Can you identify these "psychopaths" and show how you arrived at a
> clinical diagnosis, with clinical evidence?

> It would be helpful in differentiating between a considered and
> evidenced medical opinion, and mere opinionated rhetoric.

These people are long dead so the only evidence is what they wrote but
it is more than enough to conclude that many of them were insane.  

-- 
********
David WG
********

The idiot has been challenged to produce the evidence he says has for
the existence of his personal creator god.  

If he wants to be taken seriously it is up to him to produce that
evidence otherwise he identifies himself as yet another ignorant fundie
blabber mouth unworthy of our attention.

-- 
********
David WG
********

Ian Smith wrote:
> Dr.Hal0nf1r£$ wrote:
>
>>
>>>  Youve got all the
>>> evidence around you that you need and if it were any clearer, youd
>>> object to it being too overwhelming and invasive .
>>
>> So where is it?
>>
>
> Yes, Dave, where is the evidence?
>
> Quit your "argument from ignorance" negative sniping at science and
> present the real positive, convincing evidence that a god exists.
>
> regards, Ian

No answer: Well I'll be ......!

-- 
http://www.kustomkomputa.co.uk
Personalised Desktop Computers

Dr.Hal0nf1r£$ wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>> Dr.Hal0nf1r£$ wrote:
>>
>>>>  Youve got all the
>>>> evidence around you that you need and if it were any clearer, youd
>>>> object to it being too overwhelming and invasive .
>>> So where is it?
>>>
>> Yes, Dave, where is the evidence?
>>
>> Quit your "argument from ignorance" negative sniping at science and
>> present the real positive, convincing evidence that a god exists.
>>
>> regards, Ian
> 
> No answer: Well I'll be ......!
> 

Yes, I suspect that we can now consider that we have a demonstrable 
'win' over Dave and his superstitions in that he has repeatedly 
flunked providing support for his own position.

regards, Ian

On May 22, 11:48 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" 
wrote:
> On May 22, 3:10 pm, Ian Smith 
> wrote:
>
> > IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > We all ascribe to a Religion .
>
> > Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is
> > a hobby.
>
> > regards, Ian
>
> REPLY: Your atheism shapes the way you look at the universe, the
> world, people, morals, etc... therefore, you practice a personal
> religion like it or not.

That's defining religion too broadly. Here's a better definition:

"a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human
destiny."

This comes from Princeton wordnet and is a widely held 'strict'
definition. You are using religion in a metaphorical sense, which
allows statements like "football is my religion". This sense is
useless in philosophical debates. Please stick to the 'strict'
definition here, or you are really wasting everybody's time including
your own.

Atheism is not a religion because atheists, in general, do not have "a
strong belief in a supernatural power". Quite the opposite in fact!
Neither do materialists, by definition. Materialism is a
*philosophical* outlook, not a religious one.