Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

there is no atheism

Expand Messages
  • Alec <crazyalecx@yahoo.com>
    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
    Message 1 of 17 , Dec 9, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      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: ³You atheists say you don¹t believe
      in
      gods. Well, most people don¹t believe in pink elephants. I don¹t see
      them banding together to talk about why they don¹t believe in pink
      elephants.²

      The statement is true, as far as it goes. It just doesn¹t go far
      enough.
      There aren¹t 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 didn¹t 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.
    • bestonnet_00
      ... 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
      Message 2 of 17 , Dec 10, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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.
      • proleus
        ... 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
        Message 3 of 17 , Dec 10, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          > 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...)
        • devas666
          Are you saying there aren t pink elephants? Oh, cruel world. devas ... as ... negative ... nonsensical ... believe ... see ... there ... in ... graduation ...
          Message 4 of 17 , Dec 10, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            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: ³You atheists say you don¹t
            believe
            > in
            > gods. Well, most people don¹t believe in pink elephants. I don¹t
            see
            > them banding together to talk about why they don¹t believe in pink
            > elephants.²
            >
            > The statement is true, as far as it goes. It just doesn¹t go far
            > enough.
            > There aren¹t 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 didn¹t 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.
          • bestonnet_00
            I really don t think we want to get into terrorism. Lets not use violence unless we have a way to win.
            Message 5 of 17 , Dec 10, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              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...)
            • devas666
              But violence is fun. ... church ... athiest
              Message 6 of 17 , Dec 11, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                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...)
              • bestonnet_00
                ... 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
                Message 7 of 17 , Dec 11, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- 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).
                • devas666
                  I doubt we could remove their power, but it shorely would be fun trying. ...they ve even got your zipper between their teeth... devas ... that they will. We d
                  Message 8 of 17 , Dec 12, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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).
                  • proleus
                    ... Naw, lets treat them the way the Romans used to... raping and pillaging their cultural celebrations, oh the good ole times are back again!
                    Message 9 of 17 , Dec 13, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- 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!
                    • proleus
                      ... that they will. We d be better off not giving them yet another reason for it. ... their power (if we can do that then let s start doing it). What power,
                      Message 10 of 17 , Dec 13, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- 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...
                      • devas666
                        Mmmmmm raping and pilaging... devas ... ... back
                        Message 11 of 17 , Dec 13, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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!
                        • devas666
                          Fucking communist hippies. ... ... say ... of
                          Message 12 of 17 , Dec 13, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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...
                          • devas666
                            Mmmmmm, fucking communist hippies.... Oh the fun devas, ohing ... ... remove ... the
                            Message 13 of 17 , Dec 13, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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...
                            • bestonnet_00
                              So many christians. So few lions. As for the celebrations, we could always replace them with the original roman ones.
                              Message 14 of 17 , Dec 13, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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!
                              • bestonnet_00
                                ... 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
                                Message 15 of 17 , Dec 13, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- 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.
                                • proleus
                                  ... What???(sarcasm)
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Dec 14, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, devas666 <no_reply@y...>
                                    wrote:
                                    > Mmmmmm raping and pilaging...
                                    >
                                    > devas

                                    What???(sarcasm)
                                  • devas666
                                    I wouldn t rape or pillage you, so you can stop hoping. ...baby it burns, to be your fire on the side... devas
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Dec 14, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      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)
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.