So it appears that Iran has ordered the Islamic Shiittes in southern
Iraq to help the united states oust Hussein if we go in after him. I
wouldn't be suprised if they let us use their air and ground bases.
This is grand news not only because it gives us even more certainty
of absolute victory but it is a sucker punch to Usama Bin Laden who
probably views bolth Iraq and Iran as allies.

Other News, The US congress has recently passed a bill that orders
the nations 3 nuclear laboratories (Livermore, Sandia, and Los
Alamos) to develop preliminary designs for a ground penetration
nuclear weapon. The beautiful thing about this is that those labs are
so advanced they could design, build and test the weapon virtually
without a single real test. If the moratorium on testing is lifted
main research will be into strengthening the power of hydrogen bombs
and creating lower yield weapons (perhaps equivalent to a yield of a
few hundred pounds of TNT). The national labs have also been given a
memorendum from the government to be ready to resume nuclear testing
with as little as 6 months notice. It should also be noted that the
government has begun to assess the quality of the current arsenal
because it has been neglected (so to speak) for about 10 years.

Nuclear buster bunker bombs are being considered because terrorist
organisations and rogue states are building bunkers too deep to be
hit by conventional bunker busters. It is viewed that nuclear force
is the only known method for delivering a kill to these facilities
that can be burried potentially hundreds of feet below the ground.

Don't you just love George W Bush (sic)

"I know I told you to put the world in a hand basket, but I never
told you to give it to hell..."

--- In deathtoreligion@y..., proleus <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> So it appears that Iran has ordered the Islamic Shiittes in southern
> Iraq to help the united states oust Hussein if we go in after him.

Iran and Iraq haven't liked each other all that much so it isn't that
suprising.  Remember the first gulf war was been Iran and Iraq with
the US supporting Iraq (then as happens so often it backfired).

Besides I don't think Iran really wants the US to invade it.

> I wouldn't be suprised if they let us use their air and ground
> bases.

That may happen but it wouldn't be neccessary.

> This is grand news not only because it gives us even more certainty
> of absolute victory but it is a sucker punch to Usama Bin Laden who
> probably views bolth Iraq and Iran as allies.

He would view Iraq as an ally but I think he'll reconsider Iran.  I
don't think he'll do anything to them though, he may understand that
they're just helping the US so they don't get bombed.

When I heard this on the AM radio news, I about ran off the road I was
laughing so hard:

http://www.gristmagazine.com/maindish/mckibben060501.stm

It's an anti-SUV campaign initiated by some religous leader types.
Personally though, I think Jesus would almost have to drive an SUV,
what with having to haul around all his disciples from show to show..

=====
"And so he says, 'Evil is okay in my book, what about yours?' And I go, 'Yeah,
baby, yeah yeah!'" - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight

- trips -

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

A better way to ban them would be to make people get a truck licence
to drive them.  They are trucks aren't they?  I don't think the
dealers are a problem themselves, it's more to do with the fact that a
lot of the people that buy such things tend to do it becasue they
can't drive properly (those that need them because they actually go
off-road should have one but those who don't).

As for whether jesus would have one if he existed now.  I would have
to say know since he'd need to carry 12 people around.  He'd want a
mini-bus instead (with a big bull bar on the front to remind people of
the buy bull).

--- In deathtoreligion@y..., Captain Trips <tripsbanzai@y...> wrote:
> When I heard this on the AM radio news, I about ran off the road I
> was laughing so hard:
>
> http://www.gristmagazine.com/maindish/mckibben060501.stm
>
> It's an anti-SUV campaign initiated by some religous leader types.
> Personally though, I think Jesus would almost have to drive an SUV,
> what with having to haul around all his disciples from show to
> show..

Recent post on neopets board:

"Now I beseech you, brethern, mark them which cause divisions and
offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid
them
For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own
belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the
simple.
Romans 16: 17-18

So for all you simple minded who want to believe in the words of
obvious satan worshipers I will pray for you. Witchcraft and Satan go
hand in hand. Who do you think the witches call on for their spells
but demons, and where do demons come from but Satan.

I am out of here, for the few that stuck up for me thank you. (That
means you Erin). I will take no part of anything where satans work is
spread and even stuck up for. I should have known that a group this
size and going so well had to have satan in its midst, because in
this world which is to end soon, the lost (those without Jesus) do
dominate, but when I die I will receive crowns that won't even matter
in the presence of my Lord and savior Jesus Christ.

If you have read this far then you are at least curious for the
truth, if you want to know the truth then you know how to find me."



This was after a link was posted with the word 'wicca' in it.  The
above poster then likened wicca to the church of satan, which riled
up some other members, thus leading to the above post.  Needless to
say, I've had my amusment for the day.

...my heart is like the ocean...
devas loves satan

Greatest trick religion ever pulled,was convincing the world its a
belief.

There has been some conversation lately about why we atheists
shouldn't
call ourselves "atheist" and/or why there's really no such thing as
"atheism." Those who hold this position seem to think that to call
oneself an "atheist" is to allow oneself to be defined by a negative
(i.e. the absence of god-belief). They argue that it is nonsensical
to
make a big deal out of something in which you don't believe.

Consider the following statement: łYou atheists say you donąt believe
in
gods. Well, most people donąt believe in pink elephants. I donąt see
them banding together to talk about why they donąt believe in pink
elephants.˛

The statement is true, as far as it goes. It just doesnąt go far
enough.
There arenąt people who call themselves apinkelephantists and talk
(or
write books) about their lack of belief in pink elephants. But there
don't seem to be any groups promoting the belief in pink elephants
either. There also aren't any efforts being made to promote belief in
pink elephants in the public schools or to encourage public school
children to pray to the pink elephant during school or at graduation
ceremonies and football games. When disaster strikes, no one
says "thank
the pink elephant for sparing me and my family," and I have yet to
hear
an athlete express gratitude to the pink elephant for his or her
success
in any sport.

Folks who believe in pink elephants don't form organizations or ask
for
special tax breaks, and they don't try to make belief in pink
elephants
the basis for all law and all morality in our society. They also
don't
try to force belief in pink elephants on anyone or criticize people
who
don't believe in pink elephants as being immoral or unprincipled. Nor
do
they attempt to demand that the government pay homage or give special
consideration to organizations that promote belief in the pink
elephant
or to the particular belief in the pink elephant that they accept.

The pink elephant is never invoked as the creator of everything that
exists and the various myths that have grown up around the various
versions of the pink elephant are never treated as anything more than
vestiges from our distant past that may provide some insight into
human
nature but certainly don't represent the absolute truth from some
absolute being.

Finally, those who don't believe in the pink elephant are rarely
treated
as second-class citizens by those who do and, in the course of human
history, have never ‹ as far as we can tell ‹ been killed or
imprisoned
for their nonbelief. Those who don't believe in pink elephants are
never
harassed at home, at school or at work, and they aren't constantly
pestered about why they don't believe in pink elephants by those who
do.
They never ... ever ... get asked why they waste their time not
believing in something that doesn't exist.

Now, if any of the conditions I have described existed, then I
suspect
there would be a recognition on the part of apinkelephantists that
they
had a problem and a desire to be able to identify and talk to one
another about how to function in a nation (the United States of
America)
in which belief in the various versions of the pink elephant was
promoted as the norm and anyone who didnąt believe in a pink elephant
was viewed as some sort of pariah.

I guess the message here is that "atheism" is a big deal because many
True Believers make it a big deal. Personally, I think we get
entirely
too hung up on labels. However, while it doesn't begin to define,
describe or limit me in any way, I find that "atheist" is a very
useful
word to use in certain contexts. It clarifies my position and removes
any ambiguity about it. It also tends to smoke out the willfully
ignorant and other devotees of the various cults of nonreason - in
that
respect using the word is a bit like lobbing a hand grenade into the
bushes to see what comes scurrying out.

Others may use whatever labels they choose to employ to describe
themselves. Certainly, that's a right we all share. I, for one, will
continue to use the words "atheist" and "atheism" with relish.

--
George Ricker

The most accurate way to spell "one nation under 'God'" is
T*H*E*O*C*R*A*C*Y.

REPLY

Well said.  I too, wear the title Atheist with pride.  Although I
come
down squarely on the side that agrees with the notion that there can
be
no such thing as "atheism", I generally don't object to use of the
term
when it is prudent to do so.

I see, however, a much more sinister motive from the godbots that I'm
forced to share the planet with.  The compulsive need to lie about
the
character of us atheists and the thinly veiled call to use violence
against us, with the sanction of the state, is, at best, alarming.
Having our character maligned, defamed, and scapegoated in the public
square should alarm most theists as well.  What if your particular
strain of the religion virus does not emerge as the one who would
dominate and control a future theocracy?  You would be in the same
boat
as the atheists, gays and other assorted minorities.  The motive of
the
godbots in the US is clear: creation of a theocratic x-tain
government
and subsequent cleansing of all nonbelievers.  This would be
accomplished in the most convenient method available.  Most likely
this
would be a violent affair.  For when religious folk are in power, and
when the state is armed with the power of a deity, violence always
follows in its wake.

We atheists should learn a few lessons from those who endured
persecution in recent times.  Namely, the Jews.  It is not possible
for
the number of atheists in the US to mount an effective counter to a
violent x-tian uprising.  Instead, individuals need to prepare in
other
ways.  Things like ensuring your education is complete and that you
have
more than one marketable skill, for example, is what would be
required.
    Next, securing portable finances that can be easily accessed and
taken when the need for flight arises.  All of these things are
lessons
learned by the blood of those who were not prepared, or did not see
the
thing coming.

We atheists have all the information right under our noses and will
have
no excuse when the day comes.  We are not represented in the current
political body.  We are maligned by the majority of the political
body.
   The current political body is fond of scapegoating and we are a
defenseless target that has not the resources, or the organization to
fight.  We are also a target of the enemies of the current political
body.  This complicates things immensely.  But, we know all this.  Or
we
SHOULD know all this.  We must be prepared.


--
That which does not kill me, has made its last mistake...
The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS# 8808
EAC Chairman, Division of Skydiving and Sushi consumption.
Founder, COO, Fans of Fellatio inc. (FoF), reception division.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Alec <crazyalecx@y...>"
<crazyalecx@y...> wrote:
> There has been some conversation lately about why we atheists
> shouldn't call ourselves "atheist" and/or why there's really no such
> thing as "atheism." Those who hold this position seem to think that
> to call oneself an "atheist" is to allow oneself to be defined by a
> negative (i.e. the absence of god-belief). They argue that it is
> nonsensical to make a big deal out of something in which you don't
> believe.

A lot of words with a- in front of them are seen in a negative light.

I think a bigger problem is in the way that believers define atheist to be
"someone who believes god that god does not exist" as opposed to the much more
accurate "someone who lacks a belief in god" defination.

May seem like only minor semantics but in reality it's quite an important
distiction since it is based directly on how one determines whether a god
exists.

> I guess the message here is that "atheism" is a big deal because
> many True Believers make it a big deal.

Yes.  If they'd just let us live without trying to force a god on us we wouldn't
really care about this.  But whilst I'm sure that most christians would be
willing to respect the rights of atheists to believe (even if they think we're
all deluded) there are many that don't seem to respect that right.

They seem to think the only right that exists is the right to worship gawd (or
at least their limited version of it).  Sadly they have the power.

> Personally, I think we get entirely too hung up on labels. However,
> while it doesn't begin to define, describe or limit me in any way, I
> find that "atheist" is a very useful word to use in certain
> contexts. It clarifies my position and removes any ambiguity about
> it.

Yes.  Saying atheist makes the other person instantly realise that you don't
believe in any god (as opposed to just their one).

> It also tends to smoke out the willfully ignorant and other devotees
> of the various cults of nonreason - in that respect using the word
> is a bit like lobbing a hand grenade into the bushes to see what
> comes scurrying out.

Yeah.  Just don't do it where a lot of people have guns (that means the US).

> The most accurate way to spell "one nation under 'God'" is
> T*H*E*O*C*R*A*C*Y.

Accurate.

> Well said.  I too, wear the title Atheist with pride.  Although I
> come down squarely on the side that agrees with the notion that
> there can be no such thing as "atheism", I generally don't object to
> use of the term when it is prudent to do so.

How can there be no such thing as atheism?

Are you trying to say it's impossible to lack a belief in god?

> I see, however, a much more sinister motive from the godbots that
> I'm forced to share the planet with.  The compulsive need to lie
> about the character of us atheists and the thinly veiled call to use
> violence against us, with the sanction of the state, is, at best,
> alarming.

Alarming would be an understatment.  Fortunently most people would be against
executions but then again, there'll always be those who'll glady carry them out.

> Having our character maligned, defamed, and scapegoated in the
> public square should alarm most theists as well.

Should.  But doesn't.

> The motive of the godbots in the US is clear: creation of a
> theocratic x-tain government and subsequent cleansing of all
> nonbelievers.  This would be accomplished in the most convenient
> method available.  Most likely this would be a violent affair.  For
> when religious folk are in power, and when the state is armed with
> the power of a deity, violence always follows in its wake.

Let's hope they don't get enough of a hold on the US to do that.

Afterall as well as causing a lot of problems there those of us outside the US
would also be stuffed since WWIII could easily start (and knowing how violent
christians are, it would).

We could lose the world to the christians if the US falls to them.

> We atheists should learn a few lessons from those who endured
> persecution in recent times.  Namely, the Jews.

I would say that avoidance is better then endurance.

> It is not possible for the number of atheists in the US to mount an
> effective counter to a violent x-tian uprising.

I have ideas on how it might be possible to counter one but it'd require quite a
bit of robotics technology to do and some pretty good AI (not human level, but
probably a bit better then computer game AI).

Whoever pulls it off though will basically rule the world.

> Instead, individuals need to prepare in other ways.  Things like
> ensuring your education is complete and that you have more than one
> marketable skill, for example, is what would be required.

This is a good idea even when not being persecuted.  Very good thing to do.

As well as that getting into areas of science with defence applications may
persuade a hostile theocracy to keep you alive (since about half of all
scientists are atheists and the ones at the top of their field are atheists to
an overwhelming majority) although this may raise some moral issues.

>    Next, securing portable finances that can be easily accessed and
> taken when the need for flight arises.

Drastic.  I'm sure most people will think the threat too small to do this. 
Sadly by the time they realise what's going on it'll probably be too late.

> All of these things are lessons learned by the blood of those who
> were not prepared, or did not see the thing coming.

Sadly if something like that happens again most people won't see it coming. 
Atheists in the US in particular since there is a general perception that the US
is the land of the free and that the religious reich could never get power to do
anything.  Sure they haven't got their power, but that doesn't mean they won't
get it.

> We atheists have all the information right under our noses and will
> have no excuse when the day comes.

Except that it looked like everything would sort itself out.

Atheists tend to be sceptical of paranoid conspircy claims and would probably
tend not to worry all that much about another holocaust occuring.

> Atheists tend to be sceptical of paranoid conspircy claims and
would probably tend not to worry all that much about another
holocaust occuring.

Bring it on! Oppress my people (athiests) and the Vatican and church
of Naitivity will seem all the more like prime targets for athiest
terrorist strikes (during christmas services or not, that is the
question...)

Are you saying there aren't pink elephants?  Oh, cruel world.

devas

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Alec <crazyalecx@y...>"
<crazyalecx@y...> wrote:
> There has been some conversation lately about why we atheists
> shouldn't
> call ourselves "atheist" and/or why there's really no such thing
as
> "atheism." Those who hold this position seem to think that to call
> oneself an "atheist" is to allow oneself to be defined by a
negative
> (i.e. the absence of god-belief). They argue that it is
nonsensical
> to
> make a big deal out of something in which you don't believe.
>
> Consider the following statement: łYou atheists say you donąt
believe
> in
> gods. Well, most people donąt believe in pink elephants. I donąt
see
> them banding together to talk about why they donąt believe in pink
> elephants.˛
>
> The statement is true, as far as it goes. It just doesnąt go far
> enough.
> There arenąt people who call themselves apinkelephantists and talk
> (or
> write books) about their lack of belief in pink elephants. But
there
> don't seem to be any groups promoting the belief in pink elephants
> either. There also aren't any efforts being made to promote belief
in
> pink elephants in the public schools or to encourage public school
> children to pray to the pink elephant during school or at
graduation
> ceremonies and football games. When disaster strikes, no one
> says "thank
> the pink elephant for sparing me and my family," and I have yet to
> hear
> an athlete express gratitude to the pink elephant for his or her
> success
> in any sport.
>
> Folks who believe in pink elephants don't form organizations or
ask
> for
> special tax breaks, and they don't try to make belief in pink
> elephants
> the basis for all law and all morality in our society. They also
> don't
> try to force belief in pink elephants on anyone or criticize
people
> who
> don't believe in pink elephants as being immoral or unprincipled.
Nor
> do
> they attempt to demand that the government pay homage or give
special
> consideration to organizations that promote belief in the pink
> elephant
> or to the particular belief in the pink elephant that they accept.
>
> The pink elephant is never invoked as the creator of everything
that
> exists and the various myths that have grown up around the various
> versions of the pink elephant are never treated as anything more
than
> vestiges from our distant past that may provide some insight into
> human
> nature but certainly don't represent the absolute truth from some
> absolute being.
>
> Finally, those who don't believe in the pink elephant are rarely
> treated
> as second-class citizens by those who do and, in the course of
human
> history, have never ‹ as far as we can tell ‹ been killed or
> imprisoned
> for their nonbelief. Those who don't believe in pink elephants are
> never
> harassed at home, at school or at work, and they aren't constantly
> pestered about why they don't believe in pink elephants by those
who
> do.
> They never ... ever ... get asked why they waste their time not
> believing in something that doesn't exist.
>
> Now, if any of the conditions I have described existed, then I
> suspect
> there would be a recognition on the part of apinkelephantists that
> they
> had a problem and a desire to be able to identify and talk to one
> another about how to function in a nation (the United States of
> America)
> in which belief in the various versions of the pink elephant was
> promoted as the norm and anyone who didnąt believe in a pink
elephant
> was viewed as some sort of pariah.
>
> I guess the message here is that "atheism" is a big deal because
many
> True Believers make it a big deal. Personally, I think we get
> entirely
> too hung up on labels. However, while it doesn't begin to define,
> describe or limit me in any way, I find that "atheist" is a very
> useful
> word to use in certain contexts. It clarifies my position and
removes
> any ambiguity about it. It also tends to smoke out the willfully
> ignorant and other devotees of the various cults of nonreason - in
> that
> respect using the word is a bit like lobbing a hand grenade into
the
> bushes to see what comes scurrying out.
>
> Others may use whatever labels they choose to employ to describe
> themselves. Certainly, that's a right we all share. I, for one,
will
> continue to use the words "atheist" and "atheism" with relish.
>
> --
> George Ricker
>
> The most accurate way to spell "one nation under 'God'" is
> T*H*E*O*C*R*A*C*Y.
>
> REPLY
>
> Well said.  I too, wear the title Atheist with pride.  Although I
> come
> down squarely on the side that agrees with the notion that there
can
> be
> no such thing as "atheism", I generally don't object to use of the
> term
> when it is prudent to do so.
>
> I see, however, a much more sinister motive from the godbots that
I'm
> forced to share the planet with.  The compulsive need to lie about
> the
> character of us atheists and the thinly veiled call to use
violence
> against us, with the sanction of the state, is, at best, alarming.
> Having our character maligned, defamed, and scapegoated in the
public
> square should alarm most theists as well.  What if your particular
> strain of the religion virus does not emerge as the one who would
> dominate and control a future theocracy?  You would be in the same
> boat
> as the atheists, gays and other assorted minorities.  The motive
of
> the
> godbots in the US is clear: creation of a theocratic x-tain
> government
> and subsequent cleansing of all nonbelievers.  This would be
> accomplished in the most convenient method available.  Most likely
> this
> would be a violent affair.  For when religious folk are in power,
and
> when the state is armed with the power of a deity, violence always
> follows in its wake.
>
> We atheists should learn a few lessons from those who endured
> persecution in recent times.  Namely, the Jews.  It is not
possible
> for
> the number of atheists in the US to mount an effective counter to
a
> violent x-tian uprising.  Instead, individuals need to prepare in
> other
> ways.  Things like ensuring your education is complete and that
you
> have
> more than one marketable skill, for example, is what would be
> required.
>    Next, securing portable finances that can be easily accessed
and
> taken when the need for flight arises.  All of these things are
> lessons
> learned by the blood of those who were not prepared, or did not
see
> the
> thing coming.
>
> We atheists have all the information right under our noses and
will
> have
> no excuse when the day comes.  We are not represented in the
current
> political body.  We are maligned by the majority of the political
> body.
>   The current political body is fond of scapegoating and we are a
> defenseless target that has not the resources, or the organization
to
> fight.  We are also a target of the enemies of the current
political
> body.  This complicates things immensely.  But, we know all this.
Or
> we
> SHOULD know all this.  We must be prepared.
>
>
> --
> That which does not kill me, has made its last mistake...
> The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
> AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS# 8808
> EAC Chairman, Division of Skydiving and Sushi consumption.
> Founder, COO, Fans of Fellatio inc. (FoF), reception division.

I really don't think we want to get into terrorism.

Lets not use violence unless we have a way to win.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, proleus <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Bring it on! Oppress my people (athiests) and the Vatican and church
> of Naitivity will seem all the more like prime targets for athiest
> terrorist strikes (during christmas services or not, that is the
> question...)

But violence is fun.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> I really don't think we want to get into terrorism.
>
> Lets not use violence unless we have a way to win.
>
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, proleus <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> > Bring it on! Oppress my people (athiests) and the Vatican and
church
> > of Naitivity will seem all the more like prime targets for
athiest
> > terrorist strikes (during christmas services or not, that is the
> > question...)

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, devas666 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> But violence is fun.

Only when we're doing the violence to them.

When they start using violence on us it isn't fun.  Let's just say that they
will.  We'd be better off not giving them yet another reason for it.

Unless of course we can through violence defeat them and remove their power (if
we can do that then let's start doing it).

I doubt we could remove their power, but it shorely would be fun
trying.

...they've even got your zipper between their teeth...
devas

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, devas666 <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> > But violence is fun.
>
> Only when we're doing the violence to them.
>
> When they start using violence on us it isn't fun.  Let's just say
that they will.  We'd be better off not giving them yet another
reason for it.
>
> Unless of course we can through violence defeat them and remove
their power (if we can do that then let's start doing it).

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> I really don't think we want to get into terrorism.
>
> Lets not use violence unless we have a way to win.


Naw, lets treat them the way the Romans used to... raping and
pillaging their cultural celebrations, oh the good ole times are back
again!

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, devas666 <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> > But violence is fun.
>
> Only when we're doing the violence to them.
>
> When they start using violence on us it isn't fun.  Let's just say
that they will.  We'd be better off not giving them yet another
reason for it.
>
> Unless of course we can through violence defeat them and remove
their power (if we can do that then let's start doing it).

What power, the church in the US seems to have given up any hope of
regaining political power and has actually joined forces with the
tree hugging hippies! tisk tisk...

Mmmmmm raping and pilaging...

devas

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, proleus <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00
<no_reply@y...>
> wrote:
> > I really don't think we want to get into terrorism.
> >
> > Lets not use violence unless we have a way to win.
>
>
> Naw, lets treat them the way the Romans used to... raping and
> pillaging their cultural celebrations, oh the good ole times are
back
> again!

Fucking communist hippies.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, proleus <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00
<no_reply@y...>
> wrote:
> > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, devas666 <no_reply@y...>
> wrote:
> > > But violence is fun.
> >
> > Only when we're doing the violence to them.
> >
> > When they start using violence on us it isn't fun.  Let's just
say
> that they will.  We'd be better off not giving them yet another
> reason for it.
> >
> > Unless of course we can through violence defeat them and remove
> their power (if we can do that then let's start doing it).
>
> What power, the church in the US seems to have given up any hope
of
> regaining political power and has actually joined forces with the
> tree hugging hippies! tisk tisk...

Mmmmmm, fucking communist hippies....

Oh the fun
devas, ohing


--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, devas666 <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> Fucking communist hippies.
>
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, proleus <no_reply@y...>
> wrote:
> > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00
> <no_reply@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, devas666
<no_reply@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > > But violence is fun.
> > >
> > > Only when we're doing the violence to them.
> > >
> > > When they start using violence on us it isn't fun.  Let's just
> say
> > that they will.  We'd be better off not giving them yet another
> > reason for it.
> > >
> > > Unless of course we can through violence defeat them and
remove
> > their power (if we can do that then let's start doing it).
> >
> > What power, the church in the US seems to have given up any hope
> of
> > regaining political power and has actually joined forces with
the
> > tree hugging hippies! tisk tisk...

So many christians.  So few lions.

As for the celebrations, we could always replace them with the original roman
ones.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, proleus <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Naw, lets treat them the way the Romans used to... raping and
> pillaging their cultural celebrations, oh the good ole times are
> back again!

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, proleus <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> What power, the church in the US seems to have given up any hope of
> regaining political power and has actually joined forces with the
> tree hugging hippies! tisk tisk...

Sadly they do have hope of regaining political power.  Not all that much now,
but then again Hitler was losing power before he took over and became dictator.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, devas666 <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> Mmmmmm raping and pilaging...
>
> devas

What???(sarcasm)

I wouldn't rape or pillage you, so you can stop hoping.

...baby it burns, to be your fire on the side...
devas

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, proleus <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, devas666 <no_reply@y...>
> wrote:
> > Mmmmmm raping and pilaging...
> >
> > devas
>
> What???(sarcasm)

So how long its gonna take people to realize religion is a
business,run by a con artists,using a 'belief' to justify money and
power?
How else would you explain religion?

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Alec <crazyalecx@y...>"
<crazyalecx@y...> wrote:
> So how long its gonna take people to realize religion is a
> business,run by a con artists,using a 'belief' to justify money and
> power?
> How else would you explain religion?

They already all know that. The problem is that they do not want to
make the connection so they ignore it. Those select few that donot
know it yet are probably to inept to figure it out anyways as they
are too stupid to tie their own shoes letalone tell the difference
between a true atempt at understanding the world and corporate entity
full of power hungry, greedy and egotistical individuals that care
nothing for the people that crave their words except how much
monetary contributions they can make...

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Alec <crazyalecx@y...>"
<crazyalecx@y...> wrote:
> So how long its gonna take people to realize religion is a
> business,run by a con artists,using a 'belief' to justify money and
> power?

Some of us already have.  Just that most people don't know, in much the same way
that con artists manage to convince people their get rich quick scheme it legal
and actually works (despite the mathematical impossibility).

Religion has been described as a trillion dollar fraud.  Maybe we should start
bringing fraud charges against churchs.

> How else would you explain religion?

As a way of controlling the masses.

As a mind virus that is out of control and needs to be eradicated.  I think we
need to develop a vaccine against religion and force it on all the world's
children (just like we should do with all our other vaccines, note to idiots,
Vaccines do *not* cause autism).

http://www.anti-religions.org/english/cascioli_livre.htm

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Alec <crazyalecx@y...>"
<crazyalecx@y...> wrote:
> http://www.anti-religions.org/english/cascioli_livre.htm

Interesting.  Let's hope they succeed (even though they're evidence is very good
and beyond reasonable doubt they will still have a hard time).

its great but...i dont know.

Hey this is my first post here,I've borrowed these word's from an
Anais Nin short story,somehow they seem applicable to this topic."I
am not concerned with the secret's,or the lie's,or the mysterie's.I
am concerned with what made them necessary".Regard's,Rob.