hi ppl,
i m from India. as many of you know that it is not a developed
country, and how can it be with most of its population wasting time in
prayers and other religious activities. ppl here are so committed in
there religious acts that they will walk 25 Kms without stopping just
to have a glimpse of some stone. if they would have given just 10% of
commitment to their work, India would have been far ahead today.
If their is no rain for a few days ppl gather in temples to pray for
rain or gather on streets and dance to please rain gods. Why can't
they understand that their dance on street can't have effect on even
the next street, leave alone the weather.
According to me their is no God but even if he is their, he deserves
nothing more than hate as it is because of him that ppl can't live
normal lives.
ppl pray with full concentration but don't study with half of that. By
seeing the situation today i don't think that anything is gonna change
in near future as nobody is ready to hear anything against God.

It is said that India is a secular country but what if something is
holy in one religion which is taken in bad sense by the other. who
will be allowed to follow his religion?? If it is just the amount of
ppl following the religion decides what to do then how is India
secular???

Following one religion always make u hate the other religion. even if
u think that u don't think so just imagine if something considered
holy in your religion is considered as trash in other religion. i m
sure that u'll be feeling bad by just reading this. so it is very
clear that u start hating the other religion. no religion can be
called right or wrong as if u can believe in your religion the other
person also has right to believe in something even if u feel that it
is wrong.

and who can decide what is right or wrong??

if it is the religious leaders than i feel very sorry as if we look
deeply then we'll easily see that every religious leader has criminal
cases in his/her name, so are we to follow criminals??

i m fed up with all these religions and God as they are the only cause
of hatred among ppl and they deserve to be hated more than anything
else in this world. thay are the worst things available in this world.

--"harry" wrote:

>H:[...] if they would have given just 10% of commitment to their
work, India would have been far ahead today.

-M: Bullshit. British colonization and support of Gandhian anti-
industrial ideologies has led to the slow development.

>H:[...] Why can't they understand that their dance on street can't
have effect on even the next street, leave alone the weather.

-M: Can you prove this? Where are your statistical studies?

>H:[...]ppl pray with full concentration but don't study with half
of that.

-M: Bullshit. Prayer increases the ability to study, and Indians
tend to make good students.

>H: It is said that India is a secular country but what if something
is holy in one religion which is taken in bad sense by the other.
who will be allowed to follow his religion?? If it is just the
amount of ppl following the religion decides what to do then how is
India secular???

-M: Secular in this context means *interfaith*, which India is.

>H: Following one religion always make u hate the other religion.
[...] no religion can be called right or wrong as if u can believe
in your religion the other person also has right to believe in
something even if u feel that it is wrong. and who can decide what
is right or wrong??

-M: If I disagreed with you would I be right or wrong?
If I am right, then I am deciding what is right.
If I am wrong, then wouldn't this be you deciding that I am wrong?

>H: if it is the religious leaders...

-M: You are the leader of Harryism. The proof?
Your advocacy of Harryism right here on this post.

>H:...than i feel very sorry as if we look deeply then we'll easily
see that every religious leader has criminal cases in his/her name,
so are we to follow criminals??

-M: BS, few religious leaders have criminal records.

>H: i m fed up with all these religions and God as they are the only
cause of hatred among ppl and they deserve to be hated more than
anything else in this world. thay are the worst things available in
this world.

-M: And yet you hate religious leaders enough to lie about them, and
you will be a hypocrite by being the leader of Harryism in the
process of lying about them.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

moderator - you should remove mark from group. he contributes nothing
of value. harry - some great points by the way

I suppose you have contributed something of value?

devas

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "lord_damien2002"
<lord_damien2002@...> wrote:
>
> moderator - you should remove mark from group. he contributes nothing
> of value. harry - some great points by the way
>

--"devasma" wrote:

> I suppose you have contributed something of value?
> devas

-M: LOL! Lets see if he answers you,
or is the typical DODGE-MONKEY!

>--"lord_damien2002" wrote:

> > moderator - you should remove mark from group. he contributes
nothing of value. harry - some great points by the way

-M: 'Lord Damien' probably is also Harry as he already FAKED being
someone from India.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

um sorry - no i havnt contributed anything of value. i thought from
the name this was an atheist group but it would seem i was mistaken
and that its actually just a place for self proclaimed philosophers to
come together and try to continuously refute each other with
convoluted pseudo-intellectual rhetoric. accordingly id be grateful if
i could change my original request moderator and ask if you could
remove ME from the group. cheers.

Your post does indicate that Mark's presence here is putting off the
intended audience of this group so there may be some justficiation for
removing him (whether a mod does that or not is another matter).

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "lord_damien2002"
<lord_damien2002@...> wrote:
>
> um sorry - no i havnt contributed anything of value. i thought from
> the name this was an atheist group but it would seem i was mistaken
> and that its actually just a place for self proclaimed philosophers to
> come together and try to continuously refute each other with
> convoluted pseudo-intellectual rhetoric. accordingly id be grateful if
> i could change my original request moderator and ask if you could
> remove ME from the group. cheers.
>

--bestonnet_00 wrote:

>B: Your post does indicate that Mark's presence here is putting off
the intended audience...

-M: '...intended audience...' - lets examine that one:

This is from the front page:
--------------------------
Don't worry about the name.. we're quite tolerant here. (Speak for
yourself.-Devas) "Reason shapes the future, but superstition infects
the present."
--------------------------

I see key words here like 'tolerant' and 'reason'. I also see the
intention to *challenge superstition* here, which I do by challenging
the superstition of mythic-materialism.

>B:...of this group so there may be some justficiation for removing
him (whether a mod does that or not is another matter).

-M: I don't see any justification whatsoever.
Bestie, don't I give you good posts and responses?
Do you personally want me to leave?

> --"lord_damien2002" wrote:

> >LD: um sorry - no i havnt contributed anything of value. i thought
from the name this was an atheist group but it would seem i was
mistaken...

-M: Yes, you are mistaken. This group is for tolerant and rational
people who want to challenge superstition. Some can be atheists and
some can be theists like myself.

> >LD:...and that its actually just a place for self proclaimed
philosophers to come together and try to continuously refute each
other...

-M: What is the *test* of whether someone is a philosopher or not?
Isn't it debate? WTF is the problem?

> >LD:...with convoluted pseudo-intellectual rhetoric.

-M: Where? Not by me. If you think otherwise, feel free to make your
case.

> >LD:...accordingly id be grateful if i could change my original
request moderator and ask if you could remove ME from the group.
cheers.

-M: In my book, dodge-monkeys are more than welcome to excuse
themselves.

People, I will point out that this group has grown by several dozen
people since I have been here. And people do enjoy my posts.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

The group's description should lead one to expect both a tolerance
for viewpoints here as well as a challenging of them. You aren't
mistaken that this is an atheist group, but you *are* mistaken if
you think that your statements will go unchallenged.

This business of "self-proclaimed philosophers" and "convoluted
pseudo-intellectual rhetoric" itself needs your elaboration to
be of any value to me. Mark is the only member I've seen to proclaim
himself a philosopher, specifically the "number one philosopher
here." He's admitted to having no formal training in Philosophy,
and added that he considers himself to be a "philosophical
person."  He's clearly a philosophical person, whether or not
one agrees with him in general. He does belong in a group like
this which presumably favors reason over superstition and claims
to be tolerant. You don't have to respond to or read his posts.
Those who do have their reasons for doing so.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "lord_damien2002"
<lord_damien2002@...> wrote:
>
> um sorry - no i havnt contributed anything of value. i thought from
> the name this was an atheist group but it would seem i was mistaken
> and that its actually just a place for self proclaimed philosophers
to
> come together and try to continuously refute each other with
> convoluted pseudo-intellectual rhetoric. accordingly id be grateful
if
> i could change my original request moderator and ask if you could
> remove ME from the group. cheers.
>

My impression of the term - deathtoreligion - would be a group that
aims to cease religion. "were quite tolerant here - speak for
yourself devas - would imply to me that there is contention as to
whether "we" are tolerant at all and certainly a reasonable person
reading the title would at least expect a degree of intolerance. Im
sorry Mark - im quite a devout atheist - ive looked at all the
issues in depth and decided to pursue a stance that religion is
undesireable. I percieve your activities to be a theist attempt to
disrupt and discredit an atheist initiative - and whilst i can
accept there is a place for such discussion in numerous mediums - i
feel that when it occurs in a group proclaiming deathtoreligion and
being one of the most active groups on the internet - such
activities are detremental to the atheist cause. after all you have
learnt your rhetoric and convolution well and are able to confuse
and overwhelm many members - despite the fact that many im sure
cannot understand what you say. yes i know that your prescence here
has contributed to this being a succesful group - but that still
dosnt make it in atheist best interest. Mark - you are a theist
activist and your intention is to promote theism and disrupt atheist
activities. Id appreciate if you could refrain from calling me names
in the future also. very immature. perhaps you would be better in a
group proclaiming discussiononreligion rather than deathtoreligion -
you know - the sort of group we go to when we want to DISCUSS
religion and its merits
>
> --bestonnet_00 wrote:
>
> >B: Your post does indicate that Mark's presence here is putting
off
> the intended audience...
>
> -M: '...intended audience...' - lets examine that one:
>
> This is from the front page:
> --------------------------
> Don't worry about the name.. we're quite tolerant here. (Speak for
> yourself.-Devas) "Reason shapes the future, but superstition
infects
> the present."
> --------------------------
>
> I see key words here like 'tolerant' and 'reason'. I also see the
> intention to *challenge superstition* here, which I do by
challenging
> the superstition of mythic-materialism.
>
> >B:...of this group so there may be some justficiation for
removing
> him (whether a mod does that or not is another matter).
>
> -M: I don't see any justification whatsoever.
> Bestie, don't I give you good posts and responses?
> Do you personally want me to leave?
>
> > --"lord_damien2002" wrote:
>
> > >LD: um sorry - no i havnt contributed anything of value. i
thought
> from the name this was an atheist group but it would seem i was
> mistaken...
>
> -M: Yes, you are mistaken. This group is for tolerant and rational
> people who want to challenge superstition. Some can be atheists
and
> some can be theists like myself.
>
> > >LD:...and that its actually just a place for self proclaimed
> philosophers to come together and try to continuously refute each
> other...
>
> -M: What is the *test* of whether someone is a philosopher or not?
> Isn't it debate? WTF is the problem?
>
> > >LD:...with convoluted pseudo-intellectual rhetoric.
>
> -M: Where? Not by me. If you think otherwise, feel free to make
your
> case.
>
> > >LD:...accordingly id be grateful if i could change my original
> request moderator and ask if you could remove ME from the group.
> cheers.
>
> -M: In my book, dodge-monkeys are more than welcome to excuse
> themselves.
>
> People, I will point out that this group has grown by several
dozen
> people since I have been here. And people do enjoy my posts.
>
> shanti
> Mark, Seattle WA USA
>

a good atheist resource site is www.atheistactivist.org

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <parashakti108@...> wrote:
>
> --bestonnet_00 wrote:
>
> >B: Your post does indicate that Mark's presence here is putting off
> > the intended audience...
>
> -M: '...intended audience...' - lets examine that one:

Intended audience, i.e. atheists.

> This is from the front page:
> --------------------------
> Don't worry about the name.. we're quite tolerant here. (Speak for
> yourself.-Devas) "Reason shapes the future, but superstition infects
> the present."
> --------------------------
>
> I see key words here like 'tolerant' and 'reason'.

Yes.  But tolerance must have its limits and I think you've gone
beyond them.

> I also see the intention to *challenge superstition* here, which I
> do by challenging the superstition of mythic-materialism.

There are many people who would disagree with you on that.

> >B:...of this group so there may be some justficiation for removing
> > him (whether a mod does that or not is another matter).
>
> -M: I don't see any justification whatsoever.

Your posts are becoming an annoyance and could very well be preventing
others from bothering to discuss anything.

> Bestie, don't I give you good posts and responses?

I stopped responding to most of your posts because they just weren't
any good.

> Do you personally want me to leave?

I think we would be better off without you here.

> People, I will point out that this group has grown by several dozen
> people since I have been here.

Big Deal.  It would have grown by the same amount if you weren't here.

> And people do enjoy my posts.

I do not believe anyone will back you up on that.

--dantreble wrote:

>D: The group's description should lead one to expect both a tolerance for
viewpoints
here as well as a challenging of them. You aren't mistaken that this is an
atheist group,...

-M: Maybe the reason that the group is categorized under 'atheism' is that
because that is
the main demographic that would challenge superstition.
Maybe the main purpose of the group is to challenge superstition, thus making it
not an
(exclusively)atheist group.

>D:.. but you *are* mistaken if you think that your statements will go
unchallenged.
> This business of "self-proclaimed philosophers" and "convoluted
> pseudo-intellectual rhetoric" itself needs your elaboration to
> be of any value to me.

-M: Agreed.

>D: Mark is the only member I've seen to proclaim himself a philosopher,
specifically the
"number one philosopher  here." He's admitted to having no formal training in
Philosophy,
and added that he considers himself to be a "philosophical  person."  He's
clearly a
philosophical person, whether or not one agrees with him in general. He does
belong in a
group like this which presumably favors reason over superstition and claims
to be tolerant. You don't have to respond to or read his posts. Those who do
have their
reasons for doing so.

-M: Rock on. And Damien, Dan here is the top secularist on this group.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

> -- "lord_damien2002"  wrote:
> >
> > um sorry - no i havnt contributed anything of value. i thought from
> > the name this was an atheist group but it would seem i was mistaken
> > and that its actually just a place for self proclaimed philosophers
> to come together and try to continuously refute each other with
> > convoluted pseudo-intellectual rhetoric. accordingly id be grateful
> if  i could change my original request moderator and ask if you could
> > remove ME from the group. cheers.

--"lord_damien2002"  wrote:

>D: My impression of the term - deathtoreligion - would be a group that
> aims to cease religion. "were quite tolerant here - speak for
> yourself devas - would imply to me that there is contention as to
> whether "we" are tolerant at all and certainly a reasonable person
> reading the title would at least expect a degree of intolerance.

-M: WTF? You want intolerance?
  I'm here to make friends and debate out of love, brotherhood and respect.

>D: Im sorry Mark - im quite a devout atheist - ive looked at all the
> issues in depth and decided to pursue a stance that religion is
> undesireable.

-M: Then this is your secular-religion, (as opposed to a spiritual-religion).
Both are faith based worldviews.

>D: I percieve your activities to be a theist attempt to
> disrupt and discredit an atheist initiative...

-M: Yes. This is a problem? I am attacking mythic-materialist heresy.
I am challenging superstition and atheist's general WUSSIFIED approaches to
attacking
mythic-sucker-religions.

>D:... - and whilst i can accept there is a place for such discussion in
numerous mediums
- i  feel that when it occurs in a group proclaiming deathtoreligion and
> being one of the most active groups on the internet - such
> activities are detremental to the atheist cause.

-M: WTF is this cause? To attack superstition?
  If so, I have you all beat.

>D:...after all you have learnt your rhetoric and convolution well and are able
to confuse
> and overwhelm many members - despite the fact that many im sure
> cannot understand what you say.

-M: Maybe me challenging them makes them stronger.

>D: yes i know that your prescence here has contributed to this being a
succesful group -

-M: Your sporting acknowedgment of the truth is noted.

>D:..but that still dosnt make it in atheist best interest.

-M: How would this *best interest* be determined?
Through debate? This is what I do.

>D: Mark - you are a theist activist and your intention is to promote theism and
disrupt
atheist activities.

-M: 'promote theism' - I try to keep theism from being attacked; the only way I
know how
to promote theism is to encourage people to experiment with spiritual practice -
in that
case wouldn't that be the person promoting theism to themselves?

>D: Id appreciate if you could refrain from calling me names in the future also.

-M: Are you a DODGE-MONKEY?

If so, what are you going to do to change?

>D: very immature.

-M: I am a mind-control expert, this technique is just standard procedure.

>D: perhaps you would be better in a group proclaiming discussiononreligion
rather than
deathtoreligion -  you know - the sort of group we go to when we want to DISCUSS
religion and its merits

-M: You are discussing religion(either explicitly of implicitly) whenever ANY
topic is
discussed because formalized worlviews and their communiation methods are
faith-based
and are hence religious. And I probably will join the group that you suggested.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

> > --bestonnet_00 wrote:
> >
> > >B: Your post does indicate that Mark's presence here is putting
> off the intended audience...
> >
> > -M: '...intended audience...' - lets examine that one:
> >
> > This is from the front page:
> > --------------------------
> > Don't worry about the name.. we're quite tolerant here. (Speak for
> > yourself.-Devas) "Reason shapes the future, but superstition
> infects  the present."
> > --------------------------
> >
> > I see key words here like 'tolerant' and 'reason'. I also see the
> > intention to *challenge superstition* here, which I do by
> challenging
> > the superstition of mythic-materialism.
> >
> > >B:...of this group so there may be some justficiation for
> removing
> > him (whether a mod does that or not is another matter).
> >
> > -M: I don't see any justification whatsoever.
> > Bestie, don't I give you good posts and responses?
> > Do you personally want me to leave?
> >
> > > --"lord_damien2002" wrote:
> >
> > > >LD: um sorry - no i havnt contributed anything of value. i
> thought  from the name this was an atheist group but it would seem i was
> > mistaken...
> >
> > -M: Yes, you are mistaken. This group is for tolerant and rational
> > people who want to challenge superstition. Some can be atheists
> and some can be theists like myself.
> >
> > > >LD:...and that its actually just a place for self proclaimed
> > philosophers to come together and try to continuously refute each
> > other...
> >
> > -M: What is the *test* of whether someone is a philosopher or not?
> > Isn't it debate? WTF is the problem?
> >
> > > >LD:...with convoluted pseudo-intellectual rhetoric.
> >
> > -M: Where? Not by me. If you think otherwise, feel free to make
> your case.
> >
> > > >LD:...accordingly id be grateful if i could change my original
> > request moderator and ask if you could remove ME from the group.
> > cheers.
> >
> > -M: In my book, dodge-monkeys are more than welcome to excuse
> > themselves.
> >
> > People, I will point out that this group has grown by several
> dozen  people since I have been here. And people do enjoy my posts.
> >
> > shanti
> > Mark, Seattle WA USA
> >
>

That's was a well thought out post.  I am fairly new to the group, so I will
make an attempt to refrain from making any blanket assertions about this issue,
because of course, I am not familiar with the particulars.  When reading the
title of the group "death to religion" on its face it seems to be by the nature
of the title extremely intolerant of religious beliefs, although it is stated
otherwise.  I don't have an issue with that due to my atheist background.  I do
think that theist should be welcomed, because, if nothing else, their infusion
of their spiritual/religious perspectives (however
egregious/arrogant/irritating/nonsensical that they might be), would only
strengthen/validate the position of the non-believers within this group.  In my
opinion, it is healthy to be exposed to contrasting point of views because it
can help keep ideologies in perspective.

An atheist that refuses to have a reasonable discussion with a theist, is just
as close-minded as a religious fanatic who rants on and on with their circular
logic about the existence of "God" and their particular religions authenticity
over other religions.  Again, I am new, so perhaps I've unknowingly made some
assumptions, but I've felt compelled to add my "two-cents" in.  Feel free to
refute my position, if you feel it necessary.

I just think a group of this nature, on occasion needs an "antagonist" so to
speak.  I'm firm in my (non) beliefs, but it always is nice to hear/read/see why
I ceased believing in the first place.

I do wholeheartedly agree...religion is undesirable.


Message 3
     From: "lord_damien2002" lord_damien2002@...
     Date: Wed May 10, 2006 6:47pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Tolerant and rational people who challenge superstition.

My impression of the term - deathtoreligion - would be a group that
aims to cease religion. "were quite tolerant here - speak for
yourself devas - would imply to me that there is contention as to
whether "we" are tolerant at all and certainly a reasonable person
reading the title would at least expect a degree of intolerance. Im
sorry Mark - im quite a devout atheist - ive looked at all the
issues in depth and decided to pursue a stance that religion is
undesireable. I percieve your activities to be a theist attempt to
disrupt and discredit an atheist initiative - and whilst i can
accept there is a place for such discussion in numerous mediums - i
feel that when it occurs in a group proclaiming deathtoreligion and
being one of the most active groups on the internet - such
activities are detremental to the atheist cause. after all you have
learnt your rhetoric and convolution well and are able to confuse
and overwhelm many members - despite the fact that many im sure
cannot understand what you say. yes i know that your prescence here
has contributed to this being a succesful group - but that still
dosnt make it in atheist best interest. Mark - you are a theist
activist and your intention is to promote theism and disrupt atheist
activities. Id appreciate if you could refrain from calling me names
in the future also. very immature. perhaps you would be better in a
group proclaiming discussiononreligion rather than deathtoreligion -
you know - the sort of group we go to when we want to DISCUSS
religion and its merits
>
> --bestonnet_00 wrote:
>
> >B: Your post does indicate that Mark's presence here is putting
off
> the intended audience...
>
> -M: '...intended audience...' - lets examine that one:
>
> This is from the front page:
> --------------------------
> Don't worry about the name.. we're quite tolerant here. (Speak for
> yourself.-Devas) "Reason shapes the future, but superstition
infects
> the present."
> --------------------------
>
> I see key words here like 'tolerant' and 'reason'. I also see the
> intention to *challenge superstition* here, which I do by
challenging
> the superstition of mythic-materialism.
>
> >B:...of this group so there may be some justficiation for
removing
> him (whether a mod does that or not is another matter).
>
> -M: I don't see any justification whatsoever.
> Bestie, don't I give you good posts and responses?
> Do you personally want me to leave?
>
> > --"lord_damien2002" wrote:
>
> > >LD: um sorry - no i havnt contributed anything of value. i
thought
> from the name this was an atheist group but it would seem i was
> mistaken...
>
> -M: Yes, you are mistaken. This group is for tolerant and rational
> people who want to challenge superstition. Some can be atheists
and
> some can be theists like myself.
>
> > >LD:...and that its actually just a place for self proclaimed
> philosophers to come together and try to continuously refute each
> other...
>
> -M: What is the *test* of whether someone is a philosopher or not?
> Isn't it debate? WTF is the problem?
>
> > >LD:...with convoluted pseudo-intellectual rhetoric.
>
> -M: Where? Not by me. If you think otherwise, feel free to make
your
> case.
>
> > >LD:...accordingly id be grateful if i could change my original
> request moderator and ask if you could remove ME from the group.
> cheers.
>
> -M: In my book, dodge-monkeys are more than welcome to excuse
> themselves.
>
> People, I will point out that this group has grown by several
dozen
> people since I have been here. And people do enjoy my posts.
>
> shanti
> Mark, Seattle WA USA


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Since I'm not the tolerant one, maybe I should just remove you.
Although the group has gotten substantially more traffic since you
have been posting.  And I don't believe in censoring someones beliefs
and thoughts (atheist or otherwise).
Maybe if everyone is sick of you, they should stop responding, cuz
then I would see that as spam and would be forced to remove you.  But
until then, I don't give a fuck.

devas doesn't give a fuck
>
> This is from the front page:
> --------------------------
> Don't worry about the name.. we're quite tolerant here. (Speak for
> yourself.-Devas) "Reason shapes the future, but superstition
infects
> the present."
> --------------------------
>
> I see key words here like 'tolerant' and 'reason'. I also see the
> intention to *challenge superstition* here, which I do by
challenging
> the superstition of mythic-materialism.
>
> >B:...of this group so there may be some justficiation for removing
> him (whether a mod does that or not is another matter).
>
> -M: I don't see any justification whatsoever.
> Bestie, don't I give you good posts and responses?
> Do you personally want me to leave?
>
> > --"lord_damien2002" wrote:
>
> > >LD: um sorry - no i havnt contributed anything of value. i
thought
> from the name this was an atheist group but it would seem i was
> mistaken...
>
> -M: Yes, you are mistaken. This group is for tolerant and rational
> people who want to challenge superstition. Some can be atheists and
> some can be theists like myself.
>
> > >LD:...and that its actually just a place for self proclaimed
> philosophers to come together and try to continuously refute each
> other...
>
> -M: What is the *test* of whether someone is a philosopher or not?
> Isn't it debate? WTF is the problem?
>
> > >LD:...with convoluted pseudo-intellectual rhetoric.
>
> -M: Where? Not by me. If you think otherwise, feel free to make
your
> case.
>
> > >LD:...accordingly id be grateful if i could change my original
> request moderator and ask if you could remove ME from the group.
> cheers.
>
> -M: In my book, dodge-monkeys are more than welcome to excuse
> themselves.
>
> People, I will point out that this group has grown by several dozen
> people since I have been here. And people do enjoy my posts.
>
> shanti
> Mark, Seattle WA USA
>

I'm not sure anyone enjoys your posts.  They are quite repetitive and
boring.  Honestly people, just stop responding to Mark if you don't
want him in the group anymore.  Cuz frankly, he is annoying.

devas

> > > People, I will point out that this group has grown by several
> > dozen  people since I have been here. And people do enjoy my posts.
> > >
> > > shanti
> > > Mark, Seattle WA USA
> > >
> >
>

Mark, to avoid confusion please don't use "D" to abbreviate
"lord_damien."  Also, few posts ago you accidentally put a "D"
by something *you* wrote, not me. Try to be more careful with
that sort of thing.  Thanks.

Dan

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <parashakti108@...>
wrote:
>
> --"lord_damien2002"  wrote:
>
> >D: My impression of the term - deathtoreligion - would be a group
that
> > aims to cease religion. "were quite tolerant here - speak for
> > yourself devas - would imply to me that there is contention as to
> > whether "we" are tolerant at all and certainly a reasonable
person
> > reading the title would at least expect a degree of intolerance.
>
> -M: WTF? You want intolerance?
>  I'm here to make friends and debate out of love, brotherhood and
respect.
>
> >D: Im sorry Mark - im quite a devout atheist - ive looked at all
the
> > issues in depth and decided to pursue a stance that religion is
> > undesireable.
>
> -M: Then this is your secular-religion, (as opposed to a spiritual-
religion).
> Both are faith based worldviews.
>
> >D: I percieve your activities to be a theist attempt to
> > disrupt and discredit an atheist initiative...
>
> -M: Yes. This is a problem? I am attacking mythic-materialist
heresy.
> I am challenging superstition and atheist's general WUSSIFIED
approaches to attacking
> mythic-sucker-religions.
>
> >D:... - and whilst i can accept there is a place for such
discussion in numerous mediums
> - i  feel that when it occurs in a group proclaiming
deathtoreligion and
> > being one of the most active groups on the internet - such
> > activities are detremental to the atheist cause.
>
> -M: WTF is this cause? To attack superstition?
>  If so, I have you all beat.
>
> >D:...after all you have learnt your rhetoric and convolution well
and are able to confuse
> > and overwhelm many members - despite the fact that many im sure
> > cannot understand what you say.
>
> -M: Maybe me challenging them makes them stronger.
>
> >D: yes i know that your prescence here has contributed to this
being a succesful group -
>
> -M: Your sporting acknowedgment of the truth is noted.
>
> >D:..but that still dosnt make it in atheist best interest.
>
> -M: How would this *best interest* be determined?
> Through debate? This is what I do.
>
> >D: Mark - you are a theist activist and your intention is to
promote theism and disrupt
> atheist activities.
>
> -M: 'promote theism' - I try to keep theism from being attacked;
the only way I know how
> to promote theism is to encourage people to experiment with
spiritual practice - in that
> case wouldn't that be the person promoting theism to themselves?
>
> >D: Id appreciate if you could refrain from calling me names in the
future also.
>
> -M: Are you a DODGE-MONKEY?
>
> If so, what are you going to do to change?
>
> >D: very immature.
>
> -M: I am a mind-control expert, this technique is just standard
procedure.
>
> >D: perhaps you would be better in a group proclaiming
discussiononreligion rather than
> deathtoreligion -  you know - the sort of group we go to when we
want to DISCUSS
> religion and its merits
>
> -M: You are discussing religion(either explicitly of implicitly)
whenever ANY topic is
> discussed because formalized worlviews and their communiation
methods are faith-based
> and are hence religious. And I probably will join the group that
you suggested.
>
> shanti
> Mark, Seattle WA USA
>
> > > --bestonnet_00 wrote:
> > >
> > > >B: Your post does indicate that Mark's presence here is
putting
> > off the intended audience...
> > >
> > > -M: '...intended audience...' - lets examine that one:
> > >
> > > This is from the front page:
> > > --------------------------
> > > Don't worry about the name.. we're quite tolerant here. (Speak
for
> > > yourself.-Devas) "Reason shapes the future, but superstition
> > infects  the present."
> > > --------------------------
> > >
> > > I see key words here like 'tolerant' and 'reason'. I also see
the
> > > intention to *challenge superstition* here, which I do by
> > challenging
> > > the superstition of mythic-materialism.
> > >
> > > >B:...of this group so there may be some justficiation for
> > removing
> > > him (whether a mod does that or not is another matter).
> > >
> > > -M: I don't see any justification whatsoever.
> > > Bestie, don't I give you good posts and responses?
> > > Do you personally want me to leave?
> > >
> > > > --"lord_damien2002" wrote:
> > >
> > > > >LD: um sorry - no i havnt contributed anything of value. i
> > thought  from the name this was an atheist group but it would
seem i was
> > > mistaken...
> > >
> > > -M: Yes, you are mistaken. This group is for tolerant and
rational
> > > people who want to challenge superstition. Some can be atheists
> > and some can be theists like myself.
> > >
> > > > >LD:...and that its actually just a place for self proclaimed
> > > philosophers to come together and try to continuously refute
each
> > > other...
> > >
> > > -M: What is the *test* of whether someone is a philosopher or
not?
> > > Isn't it debate? WTF is the problem?
> > >
> > > > >LD:...with convoluted pseudo-intellectual rhetoric.
> > >
> > > -M: Where? Not by me. If you think otherwise, feel free to make
> > your case.
> > >
> > > > >LD:...accordingly id be grateful if i could change my
original
> > > request moderator and ask if you could remove ME from the
group.
> > > cheers.
> > >
> > > -M: In my book, dodge-monkeys are more than welcome to excuse
> > > themselves.
> > >
> > > People, I will point out that this group has grown by several
> > dozen  people since I have been here. And people do enjoy my
posts.
> > >
> > > shanti
> > > Mark, Seattle WA USA
> > >
> >
>

MARK - no im not a dodge monkey (whatever that is) although i probably
won't go to the trouble of responding to all your rantings - so really
the name calling isn't justified. I thought you would have had the
intellect to realise that most of the people here really aren't
interested in recieving your somewhat warped and self serving version
of love. Perhaps you would be kind enough to refrain from imposing it
upon us. ----- KEN ----- thanks for your post dude. Just one thought -
there are plenty of internet groups and other mediums where people get
together to discuss the merits of religion. Don't you think atheists
deserve a place where they can get together and discuss the
furtherance of their cause without constant interferance from theist
activists like mark. If you went into a church and started to disrupt
the procedings with atheist outbursts, you would rapidly be removed.
Cheers.

This ain't that place, lord. Not everyone sees Mark as "constant
interference." Ignore him if he bothers you. Or attack him--whatever
suits you.

About the group's name. Didn't you detect any irony in it?
I did. The "Don't worry about the name..." supported that
irony, as did the quote by Devas right after it. We had
a convicted church burner here last fall who was disgusted
by the lack of militancy here, and was probably attracted by
the cool name. It's a great name.

You are free to be as activistic as you want, but this group is
not a laboratory for atheist activism. Not yet, anyway.

If Devas holds to the idea that only spamming is cause for removal,
then this group will remain superior to what you have in mind--at
least potentially.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "lord_damien2002"
<lord_damien2002@...> wrote:
>
> MARK - no im not a dodge monkey (whatever that is) although i
probably
> won't go to the trouble of responding to all your rantings - so
really
> the name calling isn't justified. I thought you would have had the
> intellect to realise that most of the people here really aren't
> interested in recieving your somewhat warped and self serving
version
> of love. Perhaps you would be kind enough to refrain from imposing
it
> upon us. ----- KEN ----- thanks for your post dude. Just one
thought -
> there are plenty of internet groups and other mediums where people
get
> together to discuss the merits of religion. Don't you think
atheists
> deserve a place where they can get together and discuss the
> furtherance of their cause without constant interferance from
theist
> activists like mark. If you went into a church and started to
disrupt
> the procedings with atheist outbursts, you would rapidly be
removed.
> Cheers.
>


--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "lord_damien2002"
<lord_damien2002@...> wrote:
>
> MARK - no im not a dodge monkey (whatever that is) although i
probably
> won't go to the trouble of responding to all your rantings - so
really
> the name calling isn't justified. I thought you would have had the
> intellect to realise that most of the people here really aren't
> interested in recieving your somewhat warped and self serving
version
> of love. Perhaps you would be kind enough to refrain from imposing
it
> upon us. ----- KEN ----- thanks for your post dude. Just one
thought -
> there are plenty of internet groups and other mediums where people
get
> together to discuss the merits of religion. Don't you think
atheists
> deserve a place where they can get together and discuss the
> furtherance of their cause without constant interferance from
theist
> activists like mark. If you went into a church and started to
disrupt
> the procedings with atheist outbursts, you would rapidly be
removed.
> Cheers.
>

dantreble <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:    This ain't that place, lord. Not
everyone sees Mark as "constant
interference." Ignore him if he bothers you. Or attack him--whatever
suits you.

   LD - LOL - thats what im doing

About the group's name. Didn't you detect any irony in it?
I did. The "Don't worry about the name..." supported that
irony, as did the quote by Devas right after it. We had
a convicted church burner here last fall who was disgusted
by the lack of militancy here, and was probably attracted by
the cool name. It's a great name.

   LD - maybe a little too good for a non-militant group

You are free to be as activistic as you want, but this group is
not a laboratory for atheist activism. Not yet, anyway.

   LD - true - not yet

If Devas holds to the idea that only spamming is cause for removal,
then this group will remain superior to what you have in mind--at
least potentially.

   LD - ok

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "lord_damien2002"
<lord_damien2002@...> wrote:
>
> MARK - no im not a dodge monkey (whatever that is) although i
probably
> won't go to the trouble of responding to all your rantings - so
really
> the name calling isn't justified. I thought you would have had the
> intellect to realise that most of the people here really aren't
> interested in recieving your somewhat warped and self serving
version
> of love. Perhaps you would be kind enough to refrain from imposing
it
> upon us. ----- KEN ----- thanks for your post dude. Just one
thought -
> there are plenty of internet groups and other mediums where people
get
> together to discuss the merits of religion. Don't you think
atheists
> deserve a place where they can get together and discuss the
> furtherance of their cause without constant interferance from
theist
> activists like mark. If you went into a church and started to
disrupt
> the procedings with atheist outbursts, you would rapidly be
removed.
> Cheers.
>


--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "lord_damien2002"
<lord_damien2002@...> wrote:
>
> MARK - no im not a dodge monkey (whatever that is) although i
probably
> won't go to the trouble of responding to all your rantings - so
really
> the name calling isn't justified. I thought you would have had the
> intellect to realise that most of the people here really aren't
> interested in recieving your somewhat warped and self serving
version
> of love. Perhaps you would be kind enough to refrain from imposing
it
> upon us. ----- KEN ----- thanks for your post dude. Just one
thought -
> there are plenty of internet groups and other mediums where people
get
> together to discuss the merits of religion. Don't you think
atheists
> deserve a place where they can get together and discuss the
> furtherance of their cause without constant interferance from
theist
> activists like mark. If you went into a church and started to
disrupt
> the procedings with atheist outbursts, you would rapidly be
removed.
> Cheers.
>







   SPONSORED LINKS
         True religion   Religion   Religion book     Bad religion   Christian
religion   Beliefs

---------------------------------
   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


     Visit your group "deathtoreligion" on the web.

     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  deathtoreligion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------




Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--dantreble wrote:

-M: Roger Wilco.
My more recent post has *ld* instead of *D*.
I will try to continue with this protocal. shanti. Mark, Seattle

> Mark, to avoid confusion please don't use "D" to abbreviate
> "lord_damien."  Also, few posts ago you accidentally put a "D"
> by something *you* wrote, not me. Try to be more careful with
> that sort of thing.  Thanks.
>
> Dan
>
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <parashakti108@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --"lord_damien2002"  wrote:
> >
> > >D: My impression of the term - deathtoreligion - would be a
group
> that
> > > aims to cease religion. "were quite tolerant here - speak for
> > > yourself devas - would imply to me that there is contention as
to
> > > whether "we" are tolerant at all and certainly a reasonable
> person
> > > reading the title would at least expect a degree of
intolerance.
> >
> > -M: WTF? You want intolerance?
> >  I'm here to make friends and debate out of love, brotherhood
and
> respect.
> >
> > >D: Im sorry Mark - im quite a devout atheist - ive looked at
all
> the
> > > issues in depth and decided to pursue a stance that religion
is
> > > undesireable.
> >
> > -M: Then this is your secular-religion, (as opposed to a
spiritual-
> religion).
> > Both are faith based worldviews.
> >
> > >D: I percieve your activities to be a theist attempt to
> > > disrupt and discredit an atheist initiative...
> >
> > -M: Yes. This is a problem? I am attacking mythic-materialist
> heresy.
> > I am challenging superstition and atheist's general WUSSIFIED
> approaches to attacking
> > mythic-sucker-religions.
> >
> > >D:... - and whilst i can accept there is a place for such
> discussion in numerous mediums
> > - i  feel that when it occurs in a group proclaiming
> deathtoreligion and
> > > being one of the most active groups on the internet - such
> > > activities are detremental to the atheist cause.
> >
> > -M: WTF is this cause? To attack superstition?
> >  If so, I have you all beat.
> >
> > >D:...after all you have learnt your rhetoric and convolution
well
> and are able to confuse
> > > and overwhelm many members - despite the fact that many im
sure
> > > cannot understand what you say.
> >
> > -M: Maybe me challenging them makes them stronger.
> >
> > >D: yes i know that your prescence here has contributed to this
> being a succesful group -
> >
> > -M: Your sporting acknowedgment of the truth is noted.
> >
> > >D:..but that still dosnt make it in atheist best interest.
> >
> > -M: How would this *best interest* be determined?
> > Through debate? This is what I do.
> >
> > >D: Mark - you are a theist activist and your intention is to
> promote theism and disrupt
> > atheist activities.
> >
> > -M: 'promote theism' - I try to keep theism from being attacked;
> the only way I know how
> > to promote theism is to encourage people to experiment with
> spiritual practice - in that
> > case wouldn't that be the person promoting theism to themselves?
> >
> > >D: Id appreciate if you could refrain from calling me names in
the
> future also.
> >
> > -M: Are you a DODGE-MONKEY?
> >
> > If so, what are you going to do to change?
> >
> > >D: very immature.
> >
> > -M: I am a mind-control expert, this technique is just standard
> procedure.
> >
> > >D: perhaps you would be better in a group proclaiming
> discussiononreligion rather than
> > deathtoreligion -  you know - the sort of group we go to when we
> want to DISCUSS
> > religion and its merits
> >
> > -M: You are discussing religion(either explicitly of implicitly)
> whenever ANY topic is
> > discussed because formalized worlviews and their communiation
> methods are faith-based
> > and are hence religious. And I probably will join the group that
> you suggested.
> >
> > shanti
> > Mark, Seattle WA USA
> >
> > > > --bestonnet_00 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >B: Your post does indicate that Mark's presence here is
> putting
> > > off the intended audience...
> > > >
> > > > -M: '...intended audience...' - lets examine that one:
> > > >
> > > > This is from the front page:
> > > > --------------------------
> > > > Don't worry about the name.. we're quite tolerant here.
(Speak
> for
> > > > yourself.-Devas) "Reason shapes the future, but superstition
> > > infects  the present."
> > > > --------------------------
> > > >
> > > > I see key words here like 'tolerant' and 'reason'. I also
see
> the
> > > > intention to *challenge superstition* here, which I do by
> > > challenging
> > > > the superstition of mythic-materialism.
> > > >
> > > > >B:...of this group so there may be some justficiation for
> > > removing
> > > > him (whether a mod does that or not is another matter).
> > > >
> > > > -M: I don't see any justification whatsoever.
> > > > Bestie, don't I give you good posts and responses?
> > > > Do you personally want me to leave?
> > > >
> > > > > --"lord_damien2002" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >LD: um sorry - no i havnt contributed anything of value.
i
> > > thought  from the name this was an atheist group but it would
> seem i was
> > > > mistaken...
> > > >
> > > > -M: Yes, you are mistaken. This group is for tolerant and
> rational
> > > > people who want to challenge superstition. Some can be
atheists
> > > and some can be theists like myself.
> > > >
> > > > > >LD:...and that its actually just a place for self
proclaimed
> > > > philosophers to come together and try to continuously refute
> each
> > > > other...
> > > >
> > > > -M: What is the *test* of whether someone is a philosopher
or
> not?
> > > > Isn't it debate? WTF is the problem?
> > > >
> > > > > >LD:...with convoluted pseudo-intellectual rhetoric.
> > > >
> > > > -M: Where? Not by me. If you think otherwise, feel free to
make
> > > your case.
> > > >
> > > > > >LD:...accordingly id be grateful if i could change my
> original
> > > > request moderator and ask if you could remove ME from the
> group.
> > > > cheers.
> > > >
> > > > -M: In my book, dodge-monkeys are more than welcome to
excuse
> > > > themselves.
> > > >
> > > > People, I will point out that this group has grown by
several
> > > dozen  people since I have been here. And people do enjoy my
> posts.
> > > >
> > > > shanti
> > > > Mark, Seattle WA USA
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--"devasma" wrote:

>DE: [...]Although the group has gotten substantially more traffic
since you have been posting.  And I don't believe in censoring
someones beliefs and thoughts (atheist or otherwise).

-M: In one of my groups I had people talk smack about Muslims. If
people are going to be intolerant of others, they should back it up,
and I did threaten to temporarily remove someone if he didn't make a
case in his own defense. So in a sense, I am intolerant of
intolerant dodge-monkeys.

>DE: Maybe if everyone is sick of you, they should stop responding,
cuz then I would see that as spam and would be forced to remove you.
But until then, I don't give a fuck.
devas doesn't give a fuck

-M: Meaning that if I did preachy cold-posts that would be
considered 'spam'? Dr.Joseph Newton does preachy cold-posts. Are you
going to remove him?

shanti
Mark, who doesn't spam
Seattle WA USA

--KenSharp81@... wrote:

>K: [...]In my opinion, it is healthy to be exposed to contrasting
point of views because it can help keep ideologies in perspective.

-M: Rock on!

>K: An atheist that refuses to have a reasonable discussion with a
theist, is just as close-minded as a religious fanatic who rants on
and on with their circular logic about the existence of "God" and
their particular religions authenticity over other religions.

-M: Again, rock on!

>K:[...]Feel free to refute my position, if you feel it necessary.

-M: If someone tries, they will get creamed, as usual.

>K: I just think a group of this nature, on occasion needs
an "antagonist" so to speak.  I'm firm in my (non) beliefs,...

-M: You believe in your non-beliefs. You are a believer.

>K:...but it always is nice to hear/read/see why I ceased believing
in the first place. I do wholeheartedly agree...religion is
undesirable.

-M: You say this from a worldview that you hold in faith. This is
your religion.

And welcome to deathtoreligion! :-)

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

--"lord_damien2002" wrote:

>ld: MARK - no im not a dodge monkey (whatever that is) although i
probably won't go to the trouble of responding to all your rantings -

-M: 'rantings' -Doink! Unsubstantiated point.

>ld:...so really the name calling isn't justified.

-M: Your argument failed. Please try again.

>ld: I thought you would have had the intellect to realise that most
of the people here really aren't interested in recieving...

-M: Too bad. I will whup their dodge-monkey-asses out of love.

>ld:...your somewhat warped and self serving version of love.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to refrain from imposing it upon us.

-M: "...warped and self serving..." - Doink! More unsubstantiated
points. I will be so kind as to continue to whup your dodge-monkey
ass out of love.

>ld:----- KEN ----- thanks for your post dude. Just one thought -
there are plenty of internet groups and other mediums where people
get together to discuss the merits of religion. Don't you think
atheists deserve a place where they can get together and discuss the
furtherance of their cause...

-M: "...atheists...cause..." - what would that primarily be? The
attack on superstition? If so, I am here to HELP you all.

>ld:...without constant interferance from theist activists like mark.

-M: "...constant interferance..." - Doink! Unsubstantiated point.
I think that I am helping.

>ld: If you went into a church and started to disrupt the procedings
with atheist outbursts, you would rapidly be removed. Cheers.

-M: This is not a parallel. This group is not for exclusively
atheists, its for rational people who want to challenge
superstition, such as myself.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

--lord damien wrote:
> dantreble wrote:

>D: This ain't that place, lord. Not everyone sees Mark as "constant
interference." Ignore him if he bothers you. Or attack him--whatever
suits you.

>LD - LOL - thats what im doing

-M: LD attacks only when he thinks that he can get away with it, and
then he has the gall to say that he is not a dodge-monkey.

>D:[...]We had a convicted church burner here last fall who was
disgustedby the lack of militancy here,[...]

-M: I whupped his dodge-monkey ass for his own good. He left soon
after.(I wonder why?)

>D: You are free to be as activistic as you want, but this group is
not a laboratory for atheist activism. Not yet, anyway.

>   LD - true - not yet

-M: Its a laboratory to see if any of you suckers can keep from
being dodge-monkeys.

>D: If Devas holds to the idea that only spamming is cause for
removal, then this group will remain superior to what you have in
mind--at least potentially.

>LD - ok

-M: Yup. There are other groups are even more wussified than this
one.

And Dan, in post 10475 I said:
-------------------------
[...]
>ld: very immature.

-M: I am a mind-control expert, this technique is just standard
procedure.[...]
--------------------------

You usually don't let my more over-the-top statements get by.
Did you see this one? Is it funny?

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

Mark <parashakti108@...> wrote:    --"lord_damien2002" wrote:

>ld: MARK - no im not a dodge monkey (whatever that is) although i
probably won't go to the trouble of responding to all your rantings -

-M: 'rantings' -Doink! Unsubstantiated point.

   LD2- having just floundered through six rather boring posts from you i think
my assertion is justified

>ld:...so really the name calling isn't justified.

-M: Your argument failed. Please try again.

   LD2 - it hasnt failed yet

>ld: I thought you would have had the intellect to realise that most
of the people here really aren't interested in recieving...

-M: Too bad. I will whup their dodge-monkey-asses out of love.

   LD2 - what does whup mean - bore? - i havnt seen you "whup" anyone yet.
perhaps you suffer from delusions of grandeur

>ld:...your somewhat warped and self serving version of love.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to refrain from imposing it upon us.

-M: "...warped and self serving..." - Doink! More unsubstantiated
points. I will be so kind as to continue to whup your dodge-monkey
ass out of love.

   LD2 - your "love" is based upon a requirement that people serve your god,
although sometimes you convince yourselves that the process of religous
subversion is promoting or providing love

>ld:----- KEN ----- thanks for your post dude. Just one thought -
there are plenty of internet groups and other mediums where people
get together to discuss the merits of religion. Don't you think
atheists deserve a place where they can get together and discuss the
furtherance of their cause...

-M: "...atheists...cause..." - what would that primarily be? The
attack on superstition? If so, I am here to HELP you all.

   LD2 - no - the atheist cause would include (but not be limited to) the removal
of foolish mythology (M replies unsubstantiated hahaha), the prevention of
religous based violence and conflict, the removal of various forms of religious
persecution, opposition to the imposition of religion upon non believers

>ld:...without constant interferance from theist activists like mark.

-M: "...constant interferance..." - Doink! Unsubstantiated point.
I think that I am helping.

   LD2 - no doubt you do.

>ld: If you went into a church and started to disrupt the procedings
with atheist outbursts, you would rapidly be removed. Cheers.

-M: This is not a parallel. This group is not for exclusively
atheists, its for rational people who want to challenge
superstition, such as myself.

   LD2 - so you assert that churches are exclusively for theists? It is very
amusing that you claim to be a rational person who wishes to challenge
superstition - when you so blatantly appear to me to be an irrational person who
wishes to promote superstition. sorry to "whup" you so much by the way.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA






   SPONSORED LINKS
         True religion   Religion   Religion book     Bad religion   Christian
religion   Beliefs

---------------------------------
   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


     Visit your group "deathtoreligion" on the web.

     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  deathtoreligion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------




Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mark <parashakti108@...> wrote:    --lord damien wrote:
> dantreble wrote:

>D: This ain't that place, lord. Not everyone sees Mark as "constant
interference." Ignore him if he bothers you. Or attack him--whatever
suits you.

>LD - LOL - thats what im doing

-M: LD attacks only when he thinks that he can get away with it, and
then he has the gall to say that he is not a dodge-monkey.

   LD2 - unsubstantiated - ive only been here a few days - how do you know.
perhaps i just find many of your posts unworthy of reply

>D:[...]We had a convicted church burner here last fall who was
disgustedby the lack of militancy here,[...]

-M: I whupped his dodge-monkey ass for his own good. He left soon
after.(I wonder why?)

   LD2 - well i wasnt here so cant comment

>D: You are free to be as activistic as you want, but this group is
not a laboratory for atheist activism. Not yet, anyway.

>   LD - true - not yet

-M: Its a laboratory to see if any of you suckers can keep from
being dodge-monkeys.

   LD2 - when the majority of your posts are composed primarily of terms only you
understand - its little wonder you consider people fail to respond to them to
your expectations. perhaps you should consider the possibliity that no-one
actually comprehends your fabricated terminology

>D: If Devas holds to the idea that only spamming is cause for
removal, then this group will remain superior to what you have in
mind--at least potentially.

>LD - ok

-M: Yup. There are other groups are even more wussified than this
one.

And Dan, in post 10475 I said:
-------------------------
[...]
>ld: very immature.

-M: I am a mind-control expert, this technique is just standard
procedure.[...]
--------------------------

You usually don't let my more over-the-top statements get by.
Did you see this one? Is it funny?

   LD2 - nope its pathetic and embarrassing - once again i wonder if you suffer
from delusions of grandeur

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA







   SPONSORED LINKS
         True religion   Religion   Religion book     Bad religion   Christian
religion   Beliefs

---------------------------------
   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


     Visit your group "deathtoreligion" on the web.

     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  deathtoreligion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos – NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 7p a photo.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, KenSharp81@... wrote:
>
> That's was a well thought out post.  I am fairly new to the group,
> so I will make an attempt to refrain from making any blanket
> assertions about this issue, because of course, I am not familiar
> with the particulars.

The reason that I would actually be willing to consider banning Mark
is because he has taken over all the debate lately and is really just
continuing to sprout nonsense.

Basically: He won't be convinced and he seems unable to come up with a
convincing argument.  We should really look at giving someone else a
chance (or even just going back to the days in which there were almost
no messages).

> When reading the title of the group "death to religion" on its face
> it seems to be by the nature of the title extremely intolerant of
> religious beliefs, although it is stated otherwise.  I don't have an
> issue with that due to my atheist background.  I do think that
> theist should be welcomed, because, if nothing else, their infusion
> of their spiritual/religious perspectives (however
> egregious/arrogant/irritating/nonsensical that they might be), would
> only strengthen/validate the position of the non-believers within
> this group.

To a point.  In this case we've reached well beyond and gotten into
the area where nothing is really being done and no one is really
having their beliefs challenged in a way that hasn't already been
beaten to death.

You make a valid point.  And yes, I (or any other atheist) would probably be be
asked to be quiet or end up being promptly "escorted" from the services, if that
were the case.  However, I feel one element that separates an atheist from a
theist is that sort of rhetorical intolerance.  By the nature of their beliefs
(in general) I perceive theist to be closed-minded (they have to be to accept
precepts based on absolute 'faith'), but I, as an atheist feel that being
tolerant of such beliefs is a significant and symbolic distinction.  Now it is
an entirely different story if such a person is belligerent or overly aggressive
citing the same points of view ad nauseum, then it becomes
counter-productive...at this point I tend to find most debates with theist to be
fruitless.  I do acknowledge your perspective, and to that I say a post that you
feel is nonsensical shouldn't be validated with a response.



Message 7
     From: "lord_damien2002" lord_damien2002@...
     Date: Thu May 11, 2006 6:39pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Tolerant and rational people who challenge superstition.

----- KEN ----- thanks for your post dude. Just one thought -
there are plenty of internet groups and other mediums where people get
together to discuss the merits of religion. Don't you think atheists
deserve a place where they can get together and discuss the
furtherance of their cause without constant interferance from theist
activists like mark. If you went into a church and started to disrupt
the procedings with atheist outbursts, you would rapidly be removed.
Cheers.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]