I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of this group. growing up in the south
as i have, one is naturally expected to have some form of religion.   I
appreciate this group's attempts to dispel the superstition that is organized
religion


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more

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

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@y...>
wrote:

> Is it just me or are the muslims just as bad as the christians?


In that muslims, like christians, irrationally rely on faith as a
source of knowledge, and irrationally claim knowledge of something
outside of existence (the non-concept "supernatural"), then yes,
muslims are just as bad as christians.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@y...>
wrote:

> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, asawood <no_reply@y...>
> wrote:
> > How can you kill something that is not alive?

>
> By kill we mean get rid of.  Thats something that can happen with
> things that aren't alive.


The concept of "kill" does not mean "to get rid of."  When one kills
one does not negate the existence of that which has been killed.  I
can shoot and kill a man or a rabbit yet they remain, albeit dead on
the ground.  The man or the rabbit have not been "gotten rid of." To
kill or "cause death" is not that same as to "cause non-existence."
A stone is not alive and thus cannot be "caused to be dead."  One
cannot kill that which does not have life.

Because the original comment is made to the phrase "Death To
Religion", let me say this - the concept "religion" does not denote
an entity which has life in the biological sense, although those who
participate in religion can be said to be alive in that they have
biological life.  One can kill or cause death to the participants of
a religion but one cannot cause death to the religion, however, it
might be said that if a religion has no participants or believers it
is "dead."  The fact that a religion has no believers does not
negate the existence of that religion, however, without believers,
said religion would be irrelevant as would be its elimination as a
philosophy.  There are plenty of "dead" philosophies that exist, at
least in so much that they are outlined in writing.  "Death To
Religion" is really saying "Irrelevance To A Philosophy."  The first
is of course more catchy.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "nOd <maginoo2k@y...>"
<maginoo2k@y...> wrote:

> thier lives? lets not judge their opinion, thier views for them
> not to judge ours also? Why dont we just show them how good it is
> to be free.
>
> Nod


Not to judge would be a shutting down of the mind, a shutting off of
the senses, a shutting down of reason.  This is exactly what faith
is.  If you decline the use of faith as a source of knowledge, and
decline the belief in an unprovable "supernatural", then you accept
the premise that existence exists, that man exists, and you accept
the legitimacy of man's senses and his ability to reason.  If you do
this you have the choice to either acknowledge your mind and judge
that which is irrational or shut down your mind and accept any
fantasy as legitimate.  One has to judge to live.  A decision to not
judge is a decision to shut down the mind and negate the legitimacy
of one's life.  A decision to not judge is a decision to die.

It is right to judge those who cling to the use of faith as
knowledge and the belief in a "supernatural".  It is right to judge
and reject the irrational.  A failure to do so is in itself an
irrational act.  Failure to judge makes one as bad as the believer
in faith and the "supernatural."

> If you do
> this you have the choice to either acknowledge your mind and judge
> that which is irrational or shut down your mind and accept any
> fantasy as legitimate.

There is a third choice. You can accept your mind and your senses and
judge the irrational, but also acknowledge the possibility that the
conlcusions drawn by your mind are entirely wrong.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Ricky Barnes" <RickyBarnes1960@h...>
wrote:
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@y...>
> wrote:
>
> > Is it just me or are the muslims just as bad as the christians?
>
>
> In that muslims, like christians, irrationally rely on faith as a
> source of knowledge, and irrationally claim knowledge of something
> outside of existence (the non-concept "supernatural"), then yes,
> muslims are just as bad as christians.

It was an expression of annoyance at their attempt to 'convert' us that I was
refering to there.

Used to be christians that came in to try to brainwash us (they tended to fail
though).  Now it seems the muslims are the ones who are spreading their lies
online.  I wonder how long it'll take them to realise that we have a strong
memetic immune system and are resistant to attacks by most strains of the
B2^40god virus.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, eifion <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> There is a third choice. You can accept your mind and your senses and
> judge the irrational, but also acknowledge the possibility that the
> conlcusions drawn by your mind are entirely wrong.

A good comprimise between the "science as dogma" and pre-modernist[1] positions.
Sadly those two are the ones that are most often taught at schools and
universities (humanities faculties mostly).

I will however state that I don't think the poster you replied to was argueing
from either of those positions but was probably in fact using what you've
described (which does sound very similar to how science operates).

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

[1] Most pre-modernists call themselves post-modernists as they have a delusion
of figuring their belief system that everything is a social construct out
recently when it in fact pre-dates the 'modernist' scientific method by a couple
of kiloyears.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Ricky Barnes"
<RickyBarnes1960@h...> wrote:
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00
<no_reply@y...>
> wrote:
>
> > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, asawood <no_reply@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > How can you kill something that is not alive?
>
> >
> > By kill we mean get rid of.  Thats something that can happen with
> > things that aren't alive.
>
>
> The concept of "kill" does not mean "to get rid of."  When one
kills
> one does not negate the existence of that which has been killed.  I
> can shoot and kill a man or a rabbit yet they remain, albeit dead
on
> the ground.  The man or the rabbit have not been "gotten rid of."
To
> kill or "cause death" is not that same as to "cause non-
existence."
> A stone is not alive and thus cannot be "caused to be dead."  One
> cannot kill that which does not have life.
>
> Because the original comment is made to the phrase "Death To
> Religion", let me say this - the concept "religion" does not denote
> an entity which has life in the biological sense, although those
who
> participate in religion can be said to be alive in that they have
> biological life.  One can kill or cause death to the participants
of
> a religion but one cannot cause death to the religion, however, it
> might be said that if a religion has no participants or believers
it
> is "dead."  The fact that a religion has no believers does not
> negate the existence of that religion, however, without believers,
> said religion would be irrelevant as would be its elimination as a
> philosophy.  There are plenty of "dead" philosophies that exist, at
> least in so much that they are outlined in writing.  "Death To
> Religion" is really saying "Irrelevance To A Philosophy."  The
first
> is of course more catchy.

Does smite from existance count as an sufficient definition
for "kill" or "death"?

I should point out that if you were to erradicate all those that
believe in a given religion, then it is dead in the sense that it is
not practiced anymore, however, if you kill all those that are aware
of a given religion and destory every shred of evidence that it ever
existed, then you do succeed in eliminating it from existance. How
can you prove something existed when there is no evidence to suggest
such?

From: proleus

"Does smite from existance count as an sufficient definition
for "kill" or "death"?

I should point out that if you were to erradicate all those that
believe in a given religion, then it is dead in the sense that it is
not practiced anymore, however, if you kill all those that are aware
of a given religion and destory every shred of evidence that it ever
existed, then you do succeed in eliminating it from existance. How
can you prove something existed when there is no evidence to suggest
such?"


I see what your saying, however, "smite from existence" is colloquially used to
give the meaning of kill but is not an accurate definition of "to kill" or
"death."  To kill something is not necessarily to wipe it from existence and, as
I indicated before, death doesn't erase existence, it is simply the cessation of
life.  If I shoot a rabbit and kill it, I cause its death, yet the rabbit still
exists.  I "smite" its life but I do not smite it from existence.  If smite from
existence is what you mean then that is what you should say rather than kill. 
Kill is an inadequate term for what you want to say.  In the case of "Death To
Religion", I understand that what is meant is "Smite Religion From Existence",
however, a "dead" philosophy (in this case religion) is not a non-existent
philosophy if someone somewhere still has knowledge of it at least as a concept.

True, if you wipe out all traces of evidence that a religion ever existed (all
documentation, and all those who know of it - not an easy thing to do) you've
eliminated knowledge of it at least so far as others may be concerned, however,
if you were the one who eliminated all evidence, knowledge of the religion, at
least what's left, still resides with you as the eliminator so you'd have to
commit suicide to destroy the last vestiges of knowledge of the religion thus
eliminating the religion totally from existence.  Not a happy prospect for the
one who wants all knowledge of the religion expunged.

I agree totally with your last sentence.  It's the very essence of the atheist
viewpoint.  No evidence, no proof equals unsupported fantasy.



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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ricky Barnes" <RickyBarnes1960@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:53 AM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Death to Religion?


> Because the original comment is made to the phrase "Death To
> Religion", let me say this - the concept "religion" does not denote
> an entity which has life in the biological sense, although those who
> participate in religion can be said to be alive in that they have
> biological life.  One can kill or cause death to the participants of
> a religion but one cannot cause death to the religion, however, it
> might be said that if a religion has no participants or believers it
> is "dead."

Of course, god is dead, but religion is alive and well..

_____
"What if I told you insane was working fifty hours a week in some office for
fifty years, at the end of which they tell you to piss off; ending up in
some retirement village, hoping to die before suffering the indignity of
trying to make it to the toilet on time? Wouldn't you consider that to be
insane?" - Garland 'The Marietta Mangler' Green (from the movie Con Air)

- trips -

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Ricky Barnes" <RickyBarnes1960@h...>
wrote:
> True, if you wipe out all traces of evidence that a religion ever
> existed (all documentation, and all those who know of it - not an
> easy thing to do)

How to do exactly that (although I'd recommend against it).
  1: Find a nice big asteriod.
  2: Attach engines to said asteriod.
  3: Move said asteriod onto a collision course with earth (much easier
    then it should be really).
  4: Let asteriod hit then wait a while for the dust to settle.
  5: While waiting build as many nuclear bombs as possible.
  6: When dust settles use nuclear bombs to destroy as much as
     possible.  Cities, houses, everything you can target.  You'll have
     a very long time with which to do so since there aren't likely to
     be many people left alive and those left won't be able to put up
     much of a fight.
  7: Drop another asteriod just to be sure you've got everyone, then
     wait and nuke anything left behind after the first strike.
  8: Hope there aren't any aliens close enough to be able to actually
     get radio signals (this looks to be very likely).
  9: Kill everyone who helped pull this off.
10: Destroy all documentation of it.
11: Commit suicide (optional).

This would do a pretty good job of removing all evidence of religion
from existance.  For a bit of time there would still be evidence that
something happened but it wouldn't take too long for the radiation
levels to go down to the point at which no one would suspect nuclear
weapons use (OK maybe it'd take a million years but that's nothing
compared to the 13.7 billion year old universe, it's also nothing
compared with how long it takes to develop sentience).

I should also note that this would require whoever wants to eliminate religion
to be the first to be able to move asteriods around otherwise there'll be humans
in space that might survive a strike on the homeworld as well as the chance that
someone will decide to move the asteriod away from earth.  Moving asteriods
around is a major undertaking.

> you've eliminated knowledge of it at least so far as others may be
> concerned, however, if you were the one who eliminated all evidence,
> knowledge of the religion, at least what's left, still resides with
> you as the eliminator so you'd have to commit suicide to destroy the
> last vestiges of knowledge of the religion thus eliminating the
> religion totally from existence.  Not a happy prospect for the one
> who wants all knowledge of the religion expunged.

Personally I'd just keep living and not tell anyone about it, ever.

Another possible option would be to edit your memory to remove all references to
religion (it's harder then it sounds) since we might eventually get the
technology to do that.

Although I don't think all knowledge of religion should be eliminated. 
Afterall, those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.

Practise of religion I would like to see gone although I'd settle for making the
theistic viewpoint the minority (unless proof actually appears for the existence
of god(s)).

It is done, in less than 48 hours, hellfire the likes of which
mankind has never seen will rain down on Iraq and Bagdad like starved
locusts on a wheat crop.

George W. Bush is by far the crappiest president the United States
has ever had and his annoying tendancy to putting off decisions for
what seems like years is enough to want me to defect to canada.
However, I must say that I am satisfied with his decision related to
Iraq but not for it's agenda but on the sole fact that he finally
made a decision.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, proleus <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> It is done, in less than 48 hours, hellfire the likes of which
> mankind has never seen will rain down on Iraq and Bagdad like
starved
> locusts on a wheat crop.
>
> George W. Bush is by far the crappiest president the United States
> has ever had and his annoying tendancy to putting off decisions for
> what seems like years is enough to want me to defect to canada.
> However, I must say that I am satisfied with his decision related
to
> Iraq but not for it's agenda but on the sole fact that he finally
> made a decision.

Yes, I'm happy that Fundamentalist Bush went into Iraq too. Where it
is hoped that his Christian ass will be bogged down and fried
properly.  Of course the Iraqis are going to be beaten to a pulp, and
that's something Christians will be happy about.  Everyone is going
to enjoy this one in the next couple of years.

> Yes, I'm happy that Fundamentalist Bush went into Iraq too. Where
it
> is hoped that his Christian ass will be bogged down and fried
> properly.  Of course the Iraqis are going to be beaten to a pulp,
and
> that's something Christians will be happy about.  Everyone is going
> to enjoy this one in the next couple of years.

At least it is keeping him preoccupied enough to ingore his domestic
policies thus keeping him from stripping any more freedoms from
anyone that doesn't share his beliefs.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, proleus <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I'm happy that Fundamentalist Bush went into Iraq too. Where
> it
> > is hoped that his Christian ass will be bogged down and fried
> > properly.  Of course the Iraqis are going to be beaten to a pulp,
> and
> > that's something Christians will be happy about.  Everyone is
going
> > to enjoy this one in the next couple of years.
>
> At least it is keeping him preoccupied enough to ingore his
domestic
> policies thus keeping him from stripping any more freedoms from
> anyone that doesn't share his beliefs.

Yes indeed, you got a good point. Is it my imagination or does he
looketh a bit peaked of late? I say, a good Prayer Breakfast with
Pat, Jerry and Condescending Rice Krispies will cheer the laddie up
mit Snap Krackel und Poppen.

Hi All:  (Tip)

        I'm new to this site and although I'm not particularly
religious, don't belong to any man made church, or fall to my knees
everytime a soubug or wolverine crosses my path, I don't mind if
those who do continue to exist; they give me pause to consider the
human mind and all its complexities.

    I'm 72 yrs old and will "buy it" soon, so I don';t give a whit
about the oncoming juggernaught of non existence, one way or
another. My former ocupation was in the US Military as an espionage
agent, and I made two missions to Soviet Russia in 1965 and other
commie nations later and earlier. The reason I am/was willing to
continually kick their butts until they lost it in 1991, wasn't that
they were athiests, but because the were/are "self declared" enemies
of all non communist countries, and the biggist reason is they
declared war on the USA, which I promised to defend with my life.

   Now I bounce my little grandspon Alexander, (7yrs old) on my knee,
buy him ice cream cones and write books about the middleast and
Spying. In my espionage activities inside the USSR I encountered a
puzzling thing; why did the Soviets take Sunday Off? (I will post a
photo-book cover in the pictures section, so you know what I write
about mostly)

   I stood on the roof of the KGB Spy Academy in Minsk (the region of
Belarus) and everyone, (except three military men) were gone
elsewhere, including the young 200 young trainees that lived there
during the week. We shot two of the three men in the "deeproom" and
made the other one talk about where the records were kept. I made
the old babushka mopping the floors downstairs, drink a half gallon
of vodka before we left. She was out of it, because I don't kill
women or children - unless they have a grenade in their hands.

   Although my big issue is to protect America, safeguard my wife and
family, and make sure my grandchildren have a place to rest their
heads at the end of their workday, I do find interesting, this issue
of where MORALITY,  GOOD, BAD and EVIL comes from and their
historical descriptions. I tend to think that MORALITY comes from an
inner desire to be faithful & constant to one's personally held
beliefs about what is best. I think that Evil is "An Intended
Injury", by anyone and that GOOD is that which we consider to be
beneavolent towards us, and BAD is an unhappy interlude in our
lives.

What think you brothers and sisters, Best regards to all..

Tip



















--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Ricky Barnes"
<RickyBarnes1960@h...> wrote:
> > True, if you wipe out all traces of evidence that a religion
ever
> > existed (all documentation, and all those who know of it - not
an
> > easy thing to do)
>
> How to do exactly that (although I'd recommend against it).
>  1: Find a nice big asteriod.
>  2: Attach engines to said asteriod.
>  3: Move said asteriod onto a collision course with earth (much
easier
>    then it should be really).
>  4: Let asteriod hit then wait a while for the dust to settle.
>  5: While waiting build as many nuclear bombs as possible.
>  6: When dust settles use nuclear bombs to destroy as much as
>     possible.  Cities, houses, everything you can target.  You'll
have
>     a very long time with which to do so since there aren't likely
to
>     be many people left alive and those left won't be able to put
up
>     much of a fight.
>  7: Drop another asteriod just to be sure you've got everyone,
then
>     wait and nuke anything left behind after the first strike.
>  8: Hope there aren't any aliens close enough to be able to
actually
>     get radio signals (this looks to be very likely).
>  9: Kill everyone who helped pull this off.
> 10: Destroy all documentation of it.
> 11: Commit suicide (optional).
>
> This would do a pretty good job of removing all evidence of
religion
> from existance.  For a bit of time there would still be evidence
that
> something happened but it wouldn't take too long for the radiation
> levels to go down to the point at which no one would suspect
nuclear
> weapons use (OK maybe it'd take a million years but that's nothing
> compared to the 13.7 billion year old universe, it's also nothing
> compared with how long it takes to develop sentience).
>
> I should also note that this would require whoever wants to
eliminate religion to be the first to be able to move asteriods
around otherwise there'll be humans in space that might survive a
strike on the homeworld as well as the chance that someone will
decide to move the asteriod away from earth.  Moving asteriods
around is a major undertaking.
>
> > you've eliminated knowledge of it at least so far as others may
be
> > concerned, however, if you were the one who eliminated all
evidence,
> > knowledge of the religion, at least what's left, still resides
with
> > you as the eliminator so you'd have to commit suicide to destroy
the
> > last vestiges of knowledge of the religion thus eliminating the
> > religion totally from existence.  Not a happy prospect for the
one
> > who wants all knowledge of the religion expunged.
>
> Personally I'd just keep living and not tell anyone about it, ever.
>
> Another possible option would be to edit your memory to remove all
references to religion (it's harder then it sounds) since we might
eventually get the technology to do that.
>
> Although I don't think all knowledge of religion should be
eliminated.  Afterall, those who forget history are condemned to
repeat it.
>
> Practise of religion I would like to see gone although I'd settle
for making the theistic viewpoint the minority (unless proof
actually appears for the existence of god(s)).

Hi All:  (Tip)

        This post is interesting because of its exceptional rancor
towards President Bush, but I wonder if the sentiment that you
suggest and hope, "He will get bogged down and get his Christian ass
fried properly" is a wish that Saddam Hussain will win over the US
Military?

Tip




--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, sal_69022 <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, proleus <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> > It is done, in less than 48 hours, hellfire the likes of which
> > mankind has never seen will rain down on Iraq and Bagdad like
> starved
> > locusts on a wheat crop.
> >
> > George W. Bush is by far the crappiest president the United
States
> > has ever had and his annoying tendancy to putting off decisions
for
> > what seems like years is enough to want me to defect to canada.
> > However, I must say that I am satisfied with his decision
related
> to
> > Iraq but not for it's agenda but on the sole fact that he
finally
> > made a decision.
>
> Yes, I'm happy that Fundamentalist Bush went into Iraq too. Where
it
> is hoped that his Christian ass will be bogged down and fried
> properly.  Of course the Iraqis are going to be beaten to a pulp,
and
> that's something Christians will be happy about.  Everyone is
going
> to enjoy this one in the next couple of years.

Hi All:  (Tip)

         Actually all man-made religions have done bad things that
can be cited, from the cloistered Catholic & Lutherin groups to the
Protestant groups led by Jim Jones, David Koresh et al. The Islamics
too have their baggage by forced conversions and by murdering all
those called infidels. The Witch Trials of Massachussetts are famous
for their hangings, burnings and the duck stool drownings. One
accused witch was even oressed to death by piling rocks on top od
his body till breathing was impossible.

    Religions becomne troublesome mostly when they begin to organize,
collecting money and power over the lives of humans they call
followers. Excercising authority over church members is impossible
in the US if the member gives the clerics a middle finger and steps
outside the door to complete freedom, but in the case of women, or
children the answer may not be so simple, given the "You are Mine"
attitudes of some husbands in the Mormon church or the Amish.

    Of course in the US there is always the election to use the
secular 'law" to put church clerics in their proper place, but their
real power over individuals comes from a clerical ability to
convince the church member that church discipline is "God's Will".

    I am not an atheist, but those that trust mankind, or clerics, to
know or say what god's will is, "is"  seriously misled. I hope
someday that people will stop giving money to churches until they
check out what they do with it; this should be done first, to make
sure they are not supporting things that you may not like. i.e.
Jessee Jackson supports his girl friend and his son, with monies
from the Rainbow Push Organization.

    Others of every color and stripe are also involved in illicit
church paid sex activities paid for by well meaning boobs that think
they are doing good, while supporting events that would turn youir
stomach. The recent Catholic Church scandal comes to mind with
priests that abuse young boys in homosexual ways. The fact that the
Pope never took any "Hands On" action tells me that his title "Holy
Father", is no longer justified!  My dad and Mom were raised as
Baptist & Methodist bu never pressed the issue with us at all. Mom
went to church most sundays, dad never went and we went if we felt
like it. They were both excellent parents!

Best regards,


Tip
















--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Ricky Barnes"
<RickyBarnes1960@h...> wrote:
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00
<no_reply@y...>
> wrote:
>
> > Is it just me or are the muslims just as bad as the christians?
>
>
> In that muslims, like christians, irrationally rely on faith as a
> source of knowledge, and irrationally claim knowledge of something
> outside of existence (the non-concept "supernatural"), then yes,
> muslims are just as bad as christians.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Don Tipton"
<gizzard2003@y...> wrote:
> Hi All:  (Tip)
>
>        This post is interesting because of its exceptional rancor
> towards President Bush, but I wonder if the sentiment that you
> suggest and hope, "He will get bogged down and get his Christian
ass
> fried properly" is a wish that Saddam Hussain will win over the US
> Military?
>
> Tip
>

Thanks for your comment.  As I rather clearly stated in my post, the
Iraqis are going to be beaten to a pulp (and a bloody pulp at that).
I'm referring to a religious fanatic in total charge of the world's
most powerful military engaged in unending war on behalf of Christian
Fundamentalism. Is there some point at which you would like to see
the SOB "bogged down", or would you prefer he continue to enrage two
billion Moslems and most of the civilised World with his prayer-
breakfast based policies?

Sal

Hi sal:  (Tip)
            NO!   As one who has a military background, I'm not so afraid of 2
billion anything. If anyone attacks America, they are gonna get it from us. The
2 billion Muslims might well get used to getting the crap beat out of them, if
they keep giving aid and comfort to our enemies and assisting them to hit
America.
     I am somewhat concerned about the theory held by some, that our military
forces should consider civilian populations that get in the way, or are put in
the way, as a "real impediment" to swift and sure destruction of our enemy, just
because of World Opinion".  The world can go hang itself. If a "ONe World
Government" ever raises its hoary head, to rule this planet then all populations
everywhere, will truly see an "Evil Empire", and one that cannot soon be
defeated. I don't condemn GWB because of his avowed religion, he has standards
that are good and our enemies have standards that allow them to put civilians in
front of their armies.
Best regards,
Tip





  sal_69022 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:--- In
deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Don Tipton"
<gizzard2003@y...> wrote:
> Hi All:  (Tip)
>
>        This post is interesting because of its exceptional rancor
> towards President Bush, but I wonder if the sentiment that you
> suggest and hope, "He will get bogged down and get his Christian
ass
> fried properly" is a wish that Saddam Hussain will win over the US
> Military?
>
> Tip
>

Thanks for your comment.  As I rather clearly stated in my post, the
Iraqis are going to be beaten to a pulp (and a bloody pulp at that).
I'm referring to a religious fanatic in total charge of the world's
most powerful military engaged in unending war on behalf of Christian
Fundamentalism. Is there some point at which you would like to see
the SOB "bogged down", or would you prefer he continue to enrage two
billion Moslems and most of the civilised World with his prayer-
breakfast based policies?

Sal


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
var lrec_target="_top";var lrec_URL = new Array();lrec_URL[1] =
"http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1705073859:H\
M/A=1508991/R=0/id=flashurl/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_06F/g22\
lp?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl";var link="javascript:LRECopenWindow(1)";var
lrec_flashfile =
'http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/1-/flash/expert_city/093002_weather300x250_\
06f.swf?clickTAG='+link+'';var lrec_altURL =
"http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1705073859:H\
M/A=1508991/R=1/id=altimgurl/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_06F/g2\
2lp?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl";var lrec_altimg =
"http://us.yimg.com/a/ex/expert_city/300x250_yh1.gif";var lrec_width = 300;var
lrec_height = 250;
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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

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

Hi Sal:
         My question had to do with whether YOU want our military to
lose, not whether you think they will win. I am puzzled at the
comment about an un-ending war for christian fundamentalism. I
thought the war was about the attack on vs America on 911 and taking
down any nation that supports our enemies. Iraq just happens to be
the first in a long line that harbors terrorists and terorism.

    I suppose GWB is a christian but that doesen't automatically make
him inelgible to lead this coalition or America. Whether I agree
with Mr. Bush about religion, that fact alone will not undo my
support of his administration in the war on terror. There are
certain questions I have formulated for his administration though,
and am not in favor of turning the other cheek to France, Germany,
Russia, China, Belgium or the UN. In fact when I was active as a US
Military espionage Agent, we never turned the other cheek or our
back on the enemies of ou country.

Best regards,

Tip




--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, sal_69022 <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Don Tipton"
> <gizzard2003@y...> wrote:
> > Hi All:  (Tip)
> >
> >        This post is interesting because of its exceptional
rancor
> > towards President Bush, but I wonder if the sentiment that you
> > suggest and hope, "He will get bogged down and get his Christian
> ass
> > fried properly" is a wish that Saddam Hussain will win over the
US
> > Military?
> >
> > Tip
> >
>
> Thanks for your comment.  As I rather clearly stated in my post,
the
> Iraqis are going to be beaten to a pulp (and a bloody pulp at
that).
> I'm referring to a religious fanatic in total charge of the
world's
> most powerful military engaged in unending war on behalf of
Christian
> Fundamentalism. Is there some point at which you would like to see
> the SOB "bogged down", or would you prefer he continue to enrage
two
> billion Moslems and most of the civilised World with his prayer-
> breakfast based policies?
>
> Sal

Come off it, the only people who really are spies are the ones who
don't talk about it and have innocuous job titles like 'junior
diplomatic atache' or something.

> In fact when I was active as a US
> Military espionage Agent

Hi eifion:
               The US Agents that "are" spying don't talk about it now. The ones
that "were spies" write about it when they are old coots like me. It doesn't
bother me whether you think so or not!  Of course if you "have" or ever "had"
any background in Military Intelligence you could challenge me or others on a
point by point basis, which you haven't offered yet.  Therfore we must conclude
that you are another loudmouth liberal out to put down the USA.   Oh yeah,
"Stick it"
Tip
  eifion <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Come off it, the only people who really
are spies are the ones who
don't talk about it and have innocuous job titles like 'junior
diplomatic atache' or something.

> In fact when I was active as a US
> Military espionage Agent


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
var lrec_target="_top";var lrec_URL = new Array();lrec_URL[1] =
"http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1705073859:H\
M/A=1508991/R=0/id=flashurl/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_06F/g22\
lp?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl";var link="javascript:LRECopenWindow(1)";var
lrec_flashfile =
'http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/1-/flash/expert_city/093002_weather300x250_\
06f.swf?clickTAG='+link+'';var lrec_altURL =
"http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1705073859:H\
M/A=1508991/R=1/id=altimgurl/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_06F/g2\
2lp?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl";var lrec_altimg =
"http://us.yimg.com/a/ex/expert_city/300x250_yh1.gif";var lrec_width = 300;var
lrec_height = 250;
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.





---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

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

>we must conclude that you are another loudmouth liberal out to put
>down the USA.

Your conclusions are incorrect sir, I'm a very quiet liberal and have
no desire to put down the USA, in fact, I think the US's handling of
the Iraq situation is commendable in the face of an incipid and
inefectual UN

>Oh yeah, "Stick it"
My word, what an articualte and intelligent argument. Given that
comment I'm starting to believe you may have worked for US
military 'intelligence'

*******************************************************************


Dear friends,

If you can read Spanish, there is a new area (group) for debates
on atheism and religion that has some very interesting and
enlightening postings because believers are allowed to join
and they are constantly trashed about by very knowledgeable people,
go and see for yourselves

    http://groups.yahoo.com/ateismohispano/


in their "Files" section they have a book on atheism as well
as many very interesting texts IN ENGLISH written by an atheist,
they debate morals, the bible, the nature of the universe, etc.
and atheism emerges looking VERY good !!!

Cheers,

Martin

*****************************************************************

IT SHOULD BE:


  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ateismohispano/


IT HAS IN FILES VERY GOOD ITEMS ******IN ENGLISH*******


MARTIN

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Tipton" <gizzard2003@...>

> Spying. In my espionage activities inside the USSR I encountered a
> puzzling thing; why did the Soviets take Sunday Off? (I will post a

I'm no history major, but my guess would be that they adopted the custom
from the same culture that the christians adopted it from.

_____
"It would be a mistake for the United States Senate to allow any kind of
human cloning to come out of that chamber." - George W. Bush

- trips -

Don't yell.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "martsego" <martsego@y...> wrote:
>
>
>
> IT SHOULD BE:
>
>
>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ateismohispano/
>
>
> IT HAS IN FILES VERY GOOD ITEMS ******IN ENGLISH*******
>
>
> MARTIN

Hi All: (Tip)

        It is an interesting thing to see all the posts about
religion and those opposed to the very existence of any faith,
religious, philosophical or cultic. As one who studied religions
associated with historic events, it is my opinion that there is
reason enough to discuss the aspects of religion without so much
rancor. The reason we don't discuss the aspects of atheism is that
there is only one view to espouse, "We don't believe in a god,or
gods, miricals and or a spiritual existence at all".

    Although my view is not as an atheist, I don't believe in
miracles either, nor the existence of many gods, (polytheism) and my
view is that god probably isn't too concerned with the human
failings of being PRAISED, ADORED, or even LISTENED TO, by mortals.
These are all human traits, and ascribing them as God's traits, is
called "Anthropomorphism", or saying that god has the character of
men. If that be true, we are all doomed!

   Religious infidelity is prevalent in every man made faith there
is, including baleful lies, murder, hate, and deceptions of
monumental proportions. Be that as it may, I still believe in the
creation theory and simply say that "We are in a schoolroom, to
learn good from bad, the real differences and to learn the
consequences of our acts on earth.

   Why should god put his finger on the earth to mitigate the bitter,
heart rendering, and wisdom provoking, lessons we learn here? Wisdom
is defined as "The Correct use of information". If we survive these
lesssons in mortality, without losing our humanity, there may be
something positive left when we pass on.

Best regards to all,


Don Tipton





--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, proleus <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Ricky Barnes"
> <RickyBarnes1960@h...> wrote:
> > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00
> <no_reply@y...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, asawood
<no_reply@y...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > How can you kill something that is not alive?
> >
> > >
> > > By kill we mean get rid of.  Thats something that can happen
with
> > > things that aren't alive.
> >
> >
> > The concept of "kill" does not mean "to get rid of."  When one
> kills
> > one does not negate the existence of that which has been
killed.  I
> > can shoot and kill a man or a rabbit yet they remain, albeit
dead
> on
> > the ground.  The man or the rabbit have not been "gotten rid
of."
> To
> > kill or "cause death" is not that same as to "cause non-
> existence."
> > A stone is not alive and thus cannot be "caused to be dead."
One
> > cannot kill that which does not have life.
> >
> > Because the original comment is made to the phrase "Death To
> > Religion", let me say this - the concept "religion" does not
denote
> > an entity which has life in the biological sense, although those
> who
> > participate in religion can be said to be alive in that they
have
> > biological life.  One can kill or cause death to the
participants
> of
> > a religion but one cannot cause death to the religion, however,
it
> > might be said that if a religion has no participants or
believers
> it
> > is "dead."  The fact that a religion has no believers does not
> > negate the existence of that religion, however, without
believers,
> > said religion would be irrelevant as would be its elimination as
a
> > philosophy.  There are plenty of "dead" philosophies that exist,
at
> > least in so much that they are outlined in writing.  "Death To
> > Religion" is really saying "Irrelevance To A Philosophy."  The
> first
> > is of course more catchy.
>
> Does smite from existance count as an sufficient definition
> for "kill" or "death"?
>
> I should point out that if you were to erradicate all those that
> believe in a given religion, then it is dead in the sense that it
is
> not practiced anymore, however, if you kill all those that are
aware
> of a given religion and destory every shred of evidence that it
ever
> existed, then you do succeed in eliminating it from existance. How
> can you prove something existed when there is no evidence to
suggest
> such?

Hi Everyone:

              I invite everyone that wants to debate the WAr in Iraq,
to visit my site:  indefenseofamerica@yahoogroups.com  Either side
of this debate can post and welcome. Beforehand I will tell you that
I support our president and the war in Iraq. This discussion will be
interesting, se nice eh?


Best regards,

Tip