Re: Why Fear and Detest the Atheist?

On Jan 19, 9:42 am, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:

> Due to my dreadful circumstances out here I pulled out an old favorite I'm

> rather proud of to help illustrate a profound truth to a local minister.

>

> The following is a hypothetical, it is a 'thought' experiment that would

> allow each and every participant to understand just how much of the 'truth'

> about the existence of a 'God' they really want to know.

>

> Hypothetical scenario #1:

>

> Greywolf is given a DVD which, as it turns out, contains proof positive --

> and I mean 'no-doubt-about-it', undeniably conclusive proof -- and

> remember, this is a hypothetical scenario: that DVD has indisputable proof

> that there really and truly is a 'God'!

>

> What would one assume Greywolf would do with it? Hmm?

>

> Of COURSE I'd pop it into a DVD player and watch it! After that I'd slap

> myself upside the head (but not too strenuously) and mutter, 'How in the

> hell did I miss that ?!)

>

> Hypothetical scenario #2:

>

> Greywolf has in his possession a DVD, which, make no mistake about it,

> contains proof positive -- and I mean 'no-doubt-about-it', undeniably

> conclusive proof that indisputably proves that there really and truly is

> NO 'God' (or any sort of deity) and then hands it to a Christian to view.

>

> What do you all think that Christian going to do with that DVD?

>

> Judging from the comments I've received in the past, he or she will either

> destroy it or simply refuse to look at it on the grounds that they are

> absolutely certain that there is a 'God'. (Without bothering to examine the

> 'proof' here in this hypothetically 'real' scenario that that is not true.)

>

> Point here is that the overwhelming number of Christians confronted with

> such a choice would refuse to watch that DVD and thus render their hatred

> and contempt for the atheist hatred and contempt for its own sake -- not

> because we're 'evil' or anything of the sort. And seeing that this was a

> thought experiment that only the participant would know the honest answer

> to, the would be able to discern just how close-minded they are. It would

> also demonstrate that the 'I refuse to watch the DVD' type of Christian has

> no business being allowed standing room in any debate with non-believers.

> They will have proven to themselves that they are not really interested in

> the truth but, in effect, have prostituted their intellect in exchange for

> that warm and fuzzy feeling they enjoy through their completely

> unsubstantiated belief in deity.

>

> If one won't even look at the 'facts', how is one to debate them. Worse, how

> could one then turn around and treat another human being in the manner I've

> been treated (or any other human being for that matter!) for over three

> years now and continue to call oneself a 'Christian'?

>

> In the preceding thought experiment it really came down to whether or not

> the individual was willing to examine the truth. And that is the principal

> problem we face when dealing with our 'God believing', Holier than Thou,

> hateful opponents.

>

> Greywolf

I don't fear or detest my atheist friends Greywolf. I learn much from

them...they minister to me better than many of the priests used to

when I was a Catholic.

Someone once questioned a statement I had made when I wrote: "I am

grateful for my friends at alt.atheism. And if I can't study Buddhism

with Buddhists after they ban me from their forums, then I study

Buddhism with atheists."

They asked how I can study Buddhism this way.

Well, this is not problem at all.

A Buddhist practice in not in books or limited to any one sangha...a

successful Buddhist practice lies within our hearts.

(ooops...the atheists tell me that the heart is only a blood

pump...and they are right...so let's say the successful Buddhist

practice emanates from the fabric of our very being...but I guess the

atheists will argue we are not made of fabric either!)

Not only are the atheists excellent teachers at Buddhism, they are

also equally excellent teachers of the principles of Christianity.

Let me give you a couple of examples my atheist friends helped me

with, better than any church service I had ever attended in my prior

life when I was Catholic. The atheists were lecturing me on Charity

that day. (If you want the lesson in Buddhism then just substitute

compassion or metta for the word charitable.)

The atheists were not talking about donating money or giving food to

the poor, although such actions also fall under the title of being

charitable. The type of charity I am talking about is that of showing

simple kindness and courtesy to others.

We were discussing logic at alt.atheism and one of the participants

brought up the subject of being more charitable with kindness and

leniency when his feelings got hurt by some abusive words sent his

way.

Being charitable towards others is something we all seem to forget

when our ego gets injected into the equation, and this is especially

prone to happen on the net. When we communicate with emails we

sometimes write things we would never say in person. In addition, when

we write it uses a different part of our brain than when speaking. I

find the truth about 'who a person really is' comes out best when they

write as opposed to speaking. And to top it all off, we see no person

that we are hurting with our words, we only see a screen. If we can

slow down and review or writing for 'humility' and 'reciprocity' we

can sometimes avoid dispensing pain.

When we invest excessive time and energies in acquiring or building

attachments these attachments become veritable extensions of our being

and come to define us for ourselves as well as define who we are for

others. When these attachments take on this role we become susceptible

to pain via these extensions. If the person, place, thing or idea we

are attached to gets rebuked it is a personal rebuke on us, if they

get damaged or defaced so goes the defacement and damage to our very

being.

It is hard to become full detached to ideas, for if we did we would be

like a feather floating wherever the wind blew us and would pick up

any old idea with no firm grounding of what we perceive as right or

wrong. But, we can practice being open minded and look at ideas

without prejudice that we instinctively hit ideas with that does not

emanate from within our mind. We can take that first step in the

opposite direction that we have been heading in for so long by

learning to judge other less.

We especially do this with everyone we meet...they get categorized

with better or lesser than me type of thinking. When we limit

prejudice we can open our minds to truth and peace. And realize that

"All deities reside within the human breast," as Blake wrote and try

to show kindness and leniency towards others just as we would like it

bestowed on us by our judges.

Here is some background material on this topic of charity from the

alt.atheism discussion group.

V:

"How do you use logic to guide your life? I am not specifically

referring to logic in atheism, but logic in everyday life. Is logic

all that is needed in life? Or something else?"

J responds to V:

It's useful for thinking, not as a guide but a tool. Try thinking

without consciously or unconsciously using logic, and see if any

conclusions are justified. To deny logic is self-stultifying. A hammer

without a nail is useless. Logic without thought is useless. Nails

without a project are useless. Thoughts without a project are

useless. "project" in this case as used at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/

and other writings on existentialism.

G responds to J:

"You appear to be under the impression that the only use for a hammer

is for striking nails. And you expect everyone to follow the link and

dig through that enormous pile of crap, just to figure out what the

fuck you mean? Idiot. If you want people to understand what

definition of a word you're using, there are these things called

"dictionaries"....a number of which are online, even."

J responds to G:

"Of course, analogies are never perfect. I used a hammer two days ago

to help a neighbor get his garage door realigned. Do you think I'm an

idiot? But the analogy serves, for those who are more charitable than

you. Differences of opinion need not include calling people idiots.

<plonk>"

'J' brought up an important reminder to the tool of charitable

reciprocity that we can all apply in our lives to develop inner peace.

Reciprocity of charity is welcome by almost all people. who does not

like kindness bestowed on them? Yes, there are those individuals that

are of a sick mental nature that are hell bend for destruction. But if

we look at examples of flourishing human specimens, then they do not

gravitate towards having hatred and ill will being dished up to them.

When the subject turns to reciprocity, I am reminded of a religious

discussion I attended a few years ago where the group was composed of

a wide spectrum of theist to atheist. The atheists were lecturing on

prejudice and the golden rule that day. When the subject turned

towards morals and ethics, one atheist said he ran his life by the

golden rule. A theist piped up that the golden rule came from the

bible, which made the atheist wince. The atheist seemed to take pride

in his self sufficiency and did not like to run his life by anything

that came out of the bible. When another atheist said the concept of

golden rule came from an earlier source than the bible, then atheist

was relieved.

This was a good reminder to me to examine where my guiding light

resides?

Is it ego based or truth based?

When the guiding light of this atheist was not grounded in the bible

he was happy. But when it came from an area that he did not like, he

was upset. How can the same material be used to build a palace by one

man, yet only build a hovel for another?

By one spiritual practitioner seeing truth and applying it to live a

life at peace. And the other person only seeing prejudice and problems

and doing nothing.

Every religion was made by man and as such every religion is imperfect

as it is run by man. Despite these imperfections, each religion also

has many "perfection's" within it as well. We can still be open to

peace generating tools from any of the religions and spiritual

traditions that are available to us if we are serious about being at

peace. This requires us to run our life by truth and not by prejudice.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said: "Therefore, whatever you want

men to do to you, do also to them" (Matthew 7:12). Nowadays this verse

is commonly referred to as "The Golden Rule," and is more commonly

quoted as: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Here

are some of the earliest sources for this concept of reciprocity

~1970-1640 BCE "Do for one who may do for you, / That you may cause

him thus to do." - The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant 109-110, Ancient

Egypt, tr. R.B. Parkinson.

~700 BCE "That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another

whatever is not good for its own self." - Dadistan-i-Dinik 94:5,

Zoroastrianism.

? BCE "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others."

- Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29, Zoroastrianism.

~550 BCE "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your

countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD." - Tanakh,

new JPS translation, Leviticus 19:18, Judaism.

~500 BCE "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find

hurtful." - Udana-Varga 5:18, Buddhism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

Now, whether you believe in God or believe in Jesus or are an atheist

or Buddhist does this wisdom not apply to you? This truth is universal

in nature as it is based not on being of a certain religion, other

than that of the religion of humanity. In this case, you can adopt a

peace generating tool and apply it to your life irrespective of your

religious beliefs or lack thereof. I had to chuckle one time when an

atheists argued that the golden rule is not perfect, so he said he

does not follow it. When I questioned him about what he does follow as

well as the state of perfection that applied to his life, all he could

do was reply with ad hominem attacks.

If we are waiting for perfection when it comes to spiritual studies we

will always be disappointed. Before applying perfection to anything

outside of us, we should examine the perfection within us. The nature

of humans is that of imperfection, so we must always look towards

direction and forget perfection. I heard a story one time in a Yoga

lecture that illustrates this point. "Range is of the ego - Form is of

the soul." The only thing we need to be concerned with is how is our

form when it comes to our spiritual practice and our life.

Regarding the golden rule? It is more perfect than imperfect, so it is

a most useful tool to live a life at peace by. And when we combine it

with other tools such as universality, natural law, contrast the

greater good with the greater right, etc the synergistic effect is

close to perfection as humans can get with this subject. But it takes

some thinking and one will not see it without an open mind.

Wisdom for living a life at peace is all around us for the taking. I

have no trouble at all studying Christian or Buddhist concepts

wherever I find myself...even when the audience is 100% atheists. Many

of us get blinded with labels and personal prejudices. Whenever we

take it upon ourselves to beat down, we are headed in a direction of

destroying peace. We destroy our own peace as well as others peace. As

such, I practice from many religious and spiritual traditions without

problems or prejudices and readily look for such gifts irrespective of

what label they come under - on the contrary I am most grateful

wherever I find them. If I am not able to use a concept, I leave it

alone, but do not spend my time or energies to beat others down. Do we

like to be beaten down?

I saw some paintings in a Japanese museum that showed a cousin of the

Buddha being of great power and to show his strength he went up to a

baby elephant and pushed it down to the ground. A second painting

showed the Buddha helping this baby elephant back up to his feet and

the Buddha lifted the elephant high up over his head and said, "It is

much better to uplift - than to tear down." Whether this is a true

story or not I do not know. But we can all benefit from uplifting

rather than destroying.

I see this predisposition to destruction many times in responses I

receive from my posts. The critiques offer much in the line of 'no

goods' but they seldom do they offer any substantive tools to finding

peace. Maybe I do not have it '100% right' but I have it 'right

enough' to be able to be at peace if I apply these principles. If I

waited for perfection, I would never act. I use the tools at hand.

Aristotle ~ "It is the mark of an educated mind to rest satisfied with

the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not

to seek exactness where only an approximation is possible."

This being able to 'rest satisfied' is something the perfectionists

lack and why they will never be at peace until they stop collecting

concepts and start using the concepts of peace generations. The

atheist I mentioned above demonstrated this with his blanket dismissal

of the golden rule since it is not 100% perfect. He could offer no

substitutes for the golden rule, all he could do was succumb to

personal attacks on me.

We can examine our writing to see what useful tools for finding peace

we offer to others it also says a lot about our own practice of

generating inner peace. When you practice peace promotion with others

you will reap inner peace promotion. When you practice destroying

others peace, you will reap self destruction of inner peace.

We should always he interested in finding truth and peace. If our way

is not working then some other way may help. It is good to test and

see the results. The bible reminds us of this "Test everything; hold

fast to what is good; abstain from every form of evil," (1 Thess.

5:21) Even if you are an atheist, this concept of testing can be of

help to you. For with such tests, 'the proof of the pudding will be in

the eating' and decisions on how to live will not be left only to your

ego, but will be grounded in peace.

What benefits do we derive by being charitable to others?

As James Allen writes...when we hurt others we also hurt ourselves.

"Every thought seed sown or allowed to fall into the mind, and to take

root there, produces its own, blossoming sooner or later into act, and

bearing its own fruitage of opportunity and circumstance. Good

thoughts bear good fruit, bad thoughts bad fruit....Good thoughts and

actions can never produce bad results. Bad thoughts and actions can

never produce good results. This is but saying that nothing can come

from corn but corn, nothing from nettles but nettles. Men understand

this law in the natural world, and work with it. But few understand it

in the mental and moral world."

When you practice peace promotion with others you will reap inner

peace promotion...when you practice destroying others peace, you will

reap self destruction of inner peace...nothing can come from corn but

corn, nothing from nettles but nettles.

I hope you make it a point to practice charity in your life by not

forgetting to be charitable to others as you would appreciate charity

being bestowed on you.

Take care,

V (Male)

Agnostic Freethinker

Practical Philosopher

Futurist

Urban Homesteader

Agnostic minister of secular humanism to the mind manacled,

spiritually sick, defiance based atheist.

AA#2

A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist Stalin had

no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.

"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:HN2dnShCbJMXBQ_anZ2dnUVZ_qTinZ2d@comcast.com...

> Mr4701 said the following on 1/19/2008 4:26 PM:

>> A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist Stalin

>> had no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.

>

> And both are men. Therefore, men are just as bad as Osama bin Laden.

>

> ...right?

The point was it does not matter if they are God believes or Godless...

Mr4701 said the following on 1/19/2008 4:26 PM:

> A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist Stalin had

> no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.

And both are men. Therefore, men are just as bad as Osama bin Laden.

....right?

--

DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226

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

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act

of the whole American people which declared that

their legislature should make no law respecting

an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of

separation between church and state."

--Thomas Jefferson, 1802

Mr4701 said the following on 1/19/2008 4:42 PM:

> "DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:HN2dnShCbJMXBQ_anZ2dnUVZ_qTinZ2d@comcast.com...

>> Mr4701 said the following on 1/19/2008 4:26 PM:

>>> A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist Stalin

>>> had no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.

>> And both are men. Therefore, men are just as bad as Osama bin Laden.

>>

>> ...right?

>

> The point was it does not matter if they are God believes or Godless...

Your post belies that conclusion. You were intimating that atheists

were bad people, like Stalin.

I submit to you that it's a worldview of these folks, not their

religion, gender, or whatever. If they're religious, they use their

religion as a weapon and shield. If they're not, they'll find another

excuse to do their evil.

In fact, I submit to you that atheists are more moral than the religious

because they know of the real-world consequences of their actions. I

mean, if you look at the prison population, Christians are vastly

overrepresented in terms of percentages of the population than the

non-incarcerated population.

Atheists/non-believers make up between 4-10% of the US population but

make up less than 1% of the prison population. I wonder why...

--

DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226

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

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act

of the whole American people which declared that

their legislature should make no law respecting

an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of

separation between church and state."

--Thomas Jefferson, 1802

"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:r-mdnaDU5YKtBg_anZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@comcast.com...

> Mr4701 said the following on 1/19/2008 4:42 PM:

>> "DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:HN2dnShCbJMXBQ_anZ2dnUVZ_qTinZ2d@comcast.com...

>>> Mr4701 said the following on 1/19/2008 4:26 PM:

>>>> A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist

>>>> Stalin had no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama

>>>> Bin Laden.

>>> And both are men. Therefore, men are just as bad as Osama bin Laden.

>>>

>>> ...right?

>>

>> The point was it does not matter if they are God believes or Godless...

>

> Your post belies that conclusion. You were intimating that atheists were

> bad people, like Stalin.

No... I know plenty of good atheist... My point was in the eye of politics

or dictators or assholes... which i figure we can all agree is often the

main subject in here....

Mr4701 said the following on 1/19/2008 5:32 PM:

> "DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:r-mdnaDU5YKtBg_anZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@comcast.com...

>> Mr4701 said the following on 1/19/2008 4:42 PM:

>>> "DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:HN2dnShCbJMXBQ_anZ2dnUVZ_qTinZ2d@comcast.com...

>>>> Mr4701 said the following on 1/19/2008 4:26 PM:

>>>>> A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist

>>>>> Stalin had no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama

>>>>> Bin Laden.

>>>> And both are men. Therefore, men are just as bad as Osama bin Laden.

>>>>

>>>> ...right?

>>> The point was it does not matter if they are God believes or Godless...

>> Your post belies that conclusion. You were intimating that atheists were

>> bad people, like Stalin.

>

> No... I know plenty of good atheist... My point was in the eye of politics

> or dictators or assholes... which i figure we can all agree is often the

> main subject in here....

....so....only atheist politicians or leaders are...bad...?

You said "A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person." Do

you deny you said that, when it's right here in the thread? You're

comparing atheists with murderous dictatorial totalitarians is very

offensive and reprehensible.

--

DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226

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

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act

of the whole American people which declared that

their legislature should make no law respecting

an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of

separation between church and state."

--Thomas Jefferson, 1802

"Mr4701" <NoExists@Earth.net> wrote in message

news:fzwkj.1268$hk4.498@trnddc03...

>A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist Stalin

>had no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.

Idiot.

--

Robyn

Resident Witchypoo

BAAWA Knight!

#1557

>

>

On Jan 19, 7:26�pm, "Mr4701" <NoExi...@Earth.net> wrote:

> A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist Stalin had

> no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.

And Catholic Hitler had no more of a beef killing people than Atheist

Stalin or Christian Episcopalean.....George Bush

Most political and religious leaders throughout history have had no

troulble killing millions of people----especially religious leaders.

Religion has everything to do with terrorism Anyone who doesn't

understand that has never been exposed to a decent history course or

history book.

And we must not exclude the Jewish leaders---including the main Man

himself . G-d that is.

SEE Atrocities in the Bible. Shalom aleichem

http://thetruth.hypermart.net/bible/atrocities.htm

Also see:

http://www.geocities.com/shatila1982/masspictures.html

Catholics today all try to repudiate Adolf Hitler and deny that he was

a fellow Roman Catholic. But this was definitely not the case so long

as he was in power, In fact, Hitler could not have come to power

without the assistance of the Vatican and the German Catholic Church

So long as Adolf Hitler was in power, his Roman Catholic Church never

questioned his Catholicism - at least not in public - which is where

it mattered politically.--- just as no one questions GW Bush's

Christianity

--- at least not in public - which is where it matters politically.

A man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never

tolerant. At the least, he is to feel pity for the adherent of another

religion but usually it does not stop there. The faithful adherent of

a religion will try first of all to convince those that believe in

another religion and usually he goes on to hatred if he is not

successful. However, hatred then leads to persecution when the might

of the majority is behind it. In the case of a Christian clergyman,

the tragic-comical is found in this: that the Christian religion

demands love from the faithful, even love for the enemy. This demand,

because it is indeed superhuman, he is unable to fulfill. Thus

intolerance and hatred ring through the oily words of the clergyman.

The love, which on the Christian side is the basis for the

conciliatory attempt towards Judaism is the same as the love of a

child for a cake. That means that it contains the hope that the object

of the love will be eaten up...

Letter to Rabbi Solomon Goldman of Chicago's Anshe Emet Congregation.

"If I would follow your advice and Jesus could perceive it, he, as a

Jewish teacher, surely would not approve of such behavior."

Reply to a Roman Catholic student urging him to pray to Jesus Christ,

the Virgin Mary, and convert to Christianity.

--- Albert Einstein

". I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not

believe in God and suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And

if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that he would have such

an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt his existence."

--- Bertrand Russell

Let us prey

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:26:51 GMT, "Mr4701" <NoExists@Earth.net> wrote:

>A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist Stalin had

>no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.

Niether of them played the oboe.

So not playing the oboe makes you a KILLER!!!

Idiot.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:26:51 GMT, "Mr4701" <NoExists@Earth.net> wrote:

>A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist Stalin had

>no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.

Oh, shut the fuck up, shit-for-brains.

>

On Jan 19, 4:26 pm, "Mr4701" <NoExi...@Earth.net> wrote:

> A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist Stalin had

> no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.

I'm sorry but you're going to either have to prove this statement

logically or present evidence, statistical evidence.

By the way, I have tons of evidences that christians are bad.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:21:45 -0800 (PST), Limbaugh unhinges his jaw to

eat his own waste <goofindoo@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 19, 4:26 pm, "Mr4701" <NoExi...@Earth.net> wrote:

>> A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist Stalin had

>> no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.

>

>I'm sorry but you're going to either have to prove this statement

>logically or present evidence, statistical evidence.

>

>By the way, I have tons of evidences that christians are bad.

But because of their belief.

No one is bad because of a lack of a belief, which is exactly what

atheism is.

DanielSan wrote:

> Mr4701 said the following on 1/19/2008 4:42 PM:

>

>> "DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:HN2dnShCbJMXBQ_anZ2dnUVZ_qTinZ2d@comcast.com...

>>

>>> Mr4701 said the following on 1/19/2008 4:26 PM:

>>>

>>>> A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist

>>>> Stalin had no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama

>>>> Bin Laden.

>>>

>>> And both are men. Therefore, men are just as bad as Osama bin Laden.

>>>

>>> ...right?

>>

>>

>> The point was it does not matter if they are God believes or Godless...

>

>

> Your post belies that conclusion. You were intimating that atheists

> were bad people, like Stalin.

>

> I submit to you that it's a worldview of these folks, not their

> religion, gender, or whatever. If they're religious, they use their

> religion as a weapon and shield. If they're not, they'll find another

> excuse to do their evil.

>

> In fact, I submit to you that atheists are more moral than the religious

> because they know of the real-world consequences of their actions. I

> mean, if you look at the prison population, Christians are vastly

> overrepresented in terms of percentages of the population than the

> non-incarcerated population.

>

> Atheists/non-believers make up between 4-10% of the US population but

> make up less than 1% of the prison population. I wonder why...

BS statistic.

>

DanielSan wrote:

> Mr4701 said the following on 1/19/2008 5:32 PM:

>

>> "DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:r-mdnaDU5YKtBg_anZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@comcast.com...

>>

>>> Mr4701 said the following on 1/19/2008 4:42 PM:

>>>

>>>> "DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:HN2dnShCbJMXBQ_anZ2dnUVZ_qTinZ2d@comcast.com...

>>>>

>>>>> Mr4701 said the following on 1/19/2008 4:26 PM:

>>>>>

>>>>>> A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist

>>>>>> Stalin had no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist

>>>>>> Osama Bin Laden.

>>>>>

>>>>> And both are men. Therefore, men are just as bad as Osama bin Laden.

>>>>>

>>>>> ...right?

>>>>

>>>> The point was it does not matter if they are God believes or Godless...

>>>

>>> Your post belies that conclusion. You were intimating that atheists

>>> were bad people, like Stalin.

>>

>>

>> No... I know plenty of good atheist... My point was in the eye of

>> politics or dictators or assholes... which i figure we can all agree

>> is often the main subject in here....

>

>

> ...so....only atheist politicians or leaders are...bad...?

>

> You said "A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person." Do

> you deny you said that, when it's right here in the thread? You're

> comparing atheists with murderous dictatorial totalitarians is very

> offensive and reprehensible.

The atheist worships self... that behavior is 'overzealous' by definition.

Robibnikoff wrote:

> "Mr4701" <NoExists@Earth.net> wrote in message

> news:fzwkj.1268$hk4.498@trnddc03...

>

>>A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist Stalin

>>had no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.

>

>

> Idiot.

Moron.

Raymond wrote:

> On Jan 19, 7:26�pm, "Mr4701" <NoExi...@Earth.net> wrote:

>

>>A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist Stalin had

>>no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.

>

>

> And Catholic Hitler had no more of a beef killing people than Atheist

> Stalin or Christian Episcopalean.....George Bush

Hitler and stalin were and Bush is an atheist, self worshipers. How

people define themselves to the world is hardly ever the reality.

>

> Most political and religious leaders throughout history have had no

> troulble killing millions of people----especially religious leaders.

> Religion has everything to do with terrorism Anyone who doesn't

> understand that has never been exposed to a decent history course or

> history book.

Anyone who takes history courses and books at face value needs a

tutorial in reality.

>

> And we must not exclude the Jewish leaders---including the main Man

> himself . G-d that is.

Hmm... the obligatory anti God hysteria.

>

> SEE Atrocities in the Bible. Shalom aleichem

> http://thetruth.hypermart.net/bible/atrocities.htm

Absolute exploitative insanity.

>

> Also see:

> http://www.geocities.com/shatila1982/masspictures.html

Arab propaganda.

>

> Catholics today all try to repudiate Adolf Hitler and deny that he was

> a fellow Roman Catholic. But this was definitely not the case so long

> as he was in power, In fact, Hitler could not have come to power

> without the assistance of the Vatican and the German Catholic Church>

> So long as Adolf Hitler was in power, his Roman Catholic Church never

> questioned his Catholicism - at least not in public - which is where

> it mattered politically.--- just as no one questions GW Bush's

> Christianity

> --- at least not in public - which is where it matters politically.

Hitler could not have come to power without the support of the people,

no matter their religious or anti religious affiliations.

>

> A man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never

> tolerant. At the least, he is to feel pity for the adherent of another

> religion but usually it does not stop there. The faithful adherent of

> a religion will try first of all to convince those that believe in

> another religion and usually he goes on to hatred if he is not

> successful. However, hatred then leads to persecution when the might

> of the majority is behind it. In the case of a Christian clergyman,

> the tragic-comical is found in this: that the Christian religion

> demands love from the faithful, even love for the enemy. This demand,

> because it is indeed superhuman, he is unable to fulfill. Thus

> intolerance and hatred ring through the oily words of the clergyman.

> The love, which on the Christian side is the basis for the

> conciliatory attempt towards Judaism is the same as the love of a

> child for a cake. That means that it contains the hope that the object

> of the love will be eaten up...

You have just described the mental and physical behaviors of believers

in the atheist religion.

>

> Letter to Rabbi Solomon Goldman of Chicago's Anshe Emet Congregation.

>

> "If I would follow your advice and Jesus could perceive it, he, as a

> Jewish teacher, surely would not approve of such behavior."

>

> Reply to a Roman Catholic student urging him to pray to Jesus Christ,

> the Virgin Mary, and convert to Christianity.

> --- Albert Einstein

>

> ". I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not

> believe in God and suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And

> if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that he would have such

> an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt his existence."

> --- Bertrand Russell

Russel the moron.

>

> Let us prey

Amen.

Michael Gray wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:21:45 -0800 (PST), Limbaugh unhinges his jaw to

> eat his own waste <goofindoo@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>

>>On Jan 19, 4:26 pm, "Mr4701" <NoExi...@Earth.net> wrote:

>>

>>>A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist Stalin had

>>>no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.

>>

>>I'm sorry but you're going to either have to prove this statement

>>logically or present evidence, statistical evidence.

>>

>>By the way, I have tons of evidences that christians are bad.

>

>

> But because of their belief.

> No one is bad because of a lack of a belief, which is exactly what

> atheism is.

There is no such thing as 'lack of belief'.

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

> DanielSan wrote:

>> Mr4701 said the following on 1/19/2008 5:32 PM:

>>> "DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:r-mdnaDU5YKtBg_anZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@comcast.com...

>>>> Mr4701 said the following on 1/19/2008 4:42 PM:

>>>>> "DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:HN2dnShCbJMXBQ_anZ2dnUVZ_qTinZ2d@comcast.com...

>>>>>> Mr4701 said the following on 1/19/2008 4:26 PM:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist

>>>>>>> Stalin had no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist

>>>>>>> Osama Bin Laden.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> And both are men. Therefore, men are just as bad as Osama bin Laden.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> ...right?

>>>>>

>>>>> The point was it does not matter if they are God believes or

>>>>> Godless...

>>>>

>>>> Your post belies that conclusion. You were intimating that atheists

>>>> were bad people, like Stalin.

>>>

>>> No... I know plenty of good atheist... My point was in the eye of

>>> politics or dictators or assholes... which i figure we can all agree

>>> is often the main subject in here....

>>

>> ...so....only atheist politicians or leaders are...bad...?

>>

>> You said "A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person." Do

>> you deny you said that, when it's right here in the thread? You're

>> comparing atheists with murderous dictatorial totalitarians is very

>> offensive and reprehensible.

>

> The atheist worships self...

The atheist does? Wow, I never new that. You must have a pretty meaningless

definition of "worship".

> that behavior is 'overzealous' by definition.

Except the first part of your sentence doesn't work.

--

Perfect Islam

Roy Jose Lorr , 01.20.2008:

> There is no such thing as 'lack of belief'.

In your indoctrinated mind.

greets

richie

X'Posted to: alt.atheism,alt.politics,alt.philosophy

--

Lieblingsvideos auf youtube:

27) Jethro Tull - Locomotive Breath

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdz_G1VGJ4c&feature=related

Roy Jose Lorr , 01.20.2008:

> Hitler and stalin were and Bush is an atheist, self worshipers.

[...]

> Anyone who takes history courses and books at face value needs a

> tutorial in reality.

[...]

> Hmm... the obligatory anti God hysteria.

[...]

> Absolute exploitative insanity.

[...]

> Arab propaganda.

[...]

> Russel the moron.

[..]

> Amen.

So you have nothing to say at all exept of lies and lack of reality.

No proof, only empty phrases. Nobody needs that, go and pray a bit,

maybe your gawd sends you some contents.

greets

richie

X'Posted to: alt.atheism,alt.politics,alt.philosophy,alt.religion,alt.politics.republicans

--

We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have

therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and

that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped

it out. - Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 06:53:51 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>

wrote:

>Raymond wrote:

>

>> On Jan 19, 7:26?pm, "Mr4701" <NoExi...@Earth.net> wrote:

>>

>>>A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist Stalin had

>>>no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.

>>

>>

>> And Catholic Hitler had no more of a beef killing people than Atheist

>> Stalin or Christian Episcopalean.....George Bush

>

>Hitler and stalin were and Bush is an atheist, self worshipers. How

>people define themselves to the world is hardly ever the reality.

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of

the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am

fighting for the work of the Lord."

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a

fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by

a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned

men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a

sufferer but as a fighter."

Guess who said the above? There is as much evidence Hitler was a

Christian as that he was not. He does seem to believe in some type of

God so to profess that Hitler was an atheist is very dubious at best.

>> Most political and religious leaders throughout history have had no

>> troulble killing millions of people----especially religious leaders.

>> Religion has everything to do with terrorism Anyone who doesn't

>> understand that has never been exposed to a decent history course or

>> history book.

>

>Anyone who takes history courses and books at face value needs a

>tutorial in reality.

So you're going to rewrite history to rationalize your ignorance?

Figures!

>> And we must not exclude the Jewish leaders---including the main Man

>> himself . G-d that is.

>

>Hmm... the obligatory anti God hysteria.

Anti-God hysteria. The burden of proof is on the believers - not on

the non-believers. Now prove to us all that there is a God. Hint -

Kant couldn't and you can't.

>> SEE Atrocities in the Bible. Shalom aleichem

>> http://thetruth.hypermart.net/bible/atrocities.htm

>

>Absolute exploitative insanity.

Excuse me - it's in the Bible and isn't everything in the Bible God's

honest truth?

>> Also see:

>> http://www.geocities.com/shatila1982/masspictures.html

>

>Arab propaganda.

Yeah, right. And the Holocaust was Jewish propaganda foisted off by

the Rothschilds as truth. And the Inquisition was just a pop quiz. And

the Crusades a cruise on Holland-America. And pogroms were cheerleader

props. PS - you and the Muslims have the exact same God.

>> Catholics today all try to repudiate Adolf Hitler and deny that he was

>> a fellow Roman Catholic. But this was definitely not the case so long

>> as he was in power, In fact, Hitler could not have come to power

>> without the assistance of the Vatican and the German Catholic Church>

>> So long as Adolf Hitler was in power, his Roman Catholic Church never

>> questioned his Catholicism - at least not in public - which is where

>> it mattered politically.--- just as no one questions GW Bush's

>> Christianity

>> --- at least not in public - which is where it matters politically.

>

>Hitler could not have come to power without the support of the people,

>no matter their religious or anti religious affiliations.

Of course - your point is?

>> A man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never

>> tolerant. At the least, he is to feel pity for the adherent of another

>> religion but usually it does not stop there. The faithful adherent of

>> a religion will try first of all to convince those that believe in

>> another religion and usually he goes on to hatred if he is not

>> successful. However, hatred then leads to persecution when the might

>> of the majority is behind it. In the case of a Christian clergyman,

>> the tragic-comical is found in this: that the Christian religion

>> demands love from the faithful, even love for the enemy. This demand,

>> because it is indeed superhuman, he is unable to fulfill. Thus

>> intolerance and hatred ring through the oily words of the clergyman.

>> The love, which on the Christian side is the basis for the

>> conciliatory attempt towards Judaism is the same as the love of a

>> child for a cake. That means that it contains the hope that the object

>> of the love will be eaten up...

>

>You have just described the mental and physical behaviors of believers

>in the atheist religion.

Atheism is a religion? Beep - wrong. Nobody's out there signing up

converts.

>> Letter to Rabbi Solomon Goldman of Chicago's Anshe Emet Congregation.

>>

>> "If I would follow your advice and Jesus could perceive it, he, as a

>> Jewish teacher, surely would not approve of such behavior."

>>

>> Reply to a Roman Catholic student urging him to pray to Jesus Christ,

>> the Virgin Mary, and convert to Christianity.

>> --- Albert Einstein

>>

>> ". I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not

>> believe in God and suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And

>> if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that he would have such

>> an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt his existence."

>> --- Bertrand Russell

>

>Russel the moron.

Yup - Roy's the perfect ignorant Xtian - his mind's made up. Everyone

who doesn't believe in his brand of Xtianity is a moron. This includes

Russell, Kant, Einstein, Darwin, Galileo, and a cast of thousands.

Pretty good company. If there ever was a Jesus, (there's no proof of

his existence except for a footnote in an archaic text that refers to

a Christos) he'd be much more at home with those folks than with a

bunch of narrow-minded bigots.

WB Yeats

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 08:17:48 -0800, wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 06:53:51 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>

>wrote:

>

>>Raymond wrote:

>>

>>> On Jan 19, 7:26?pm, "Mr4701" <NoExi...@Earth.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>>A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist Stalin had

>>>>no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.

>>>

>>>

>>> And Catholic Hitler had no more of a beef killing people than Atheist

>>> Stalin or Christian Episcopalean.....George Bush

>>

>>Hitler and stalin were and Bush is an atheist, self worshipers. How

>>people define themselves to the world is hardly ever the reality.

>

>"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of

>the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am

>fighting for the work of the Lord."

>

>"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a

>fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by

>a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned

>men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a

>sufferer but as a fighter."

>

>Guess who said the above? There is as much evidence Hitler was a

>Christian as that he was not. He does seem to believe in some type of

>God so to profess that Hitler was an atheist is very dubious at best.

Hitler used the belief system held by most Germans to manipulate the

masses. A lot of folks that didn't believe in shit with their heart

had no problem using the beliefs of others in manipulative ways.

Hitler could have professed being a "Christian" all he wanted but to

commit genocide against "The Chosen" is something no true Christian

would even consider. Hitler pretty much made up his own religion, a

combination of Catholicism and Paganism, but he did so without

establishing any official church or religion. He kind of pushed it

out there over time. The quote above is an example of how he

bastardized Christianity by using the words "God" and "Christian"

mixed in with his messages of hate.

>

>>> Most political and religious leaders throughout history have had no

>>> troulble killing millions of people----especially religious leaders.

>>> Religion has everything to do with terrorism Anyone who doesn't

>>> understand that has never been exposed to a decent history course or

>>> history book.

>>

>>Anyone who takes history courses and books at face value needs a

>>tutorial in reality.

>

>So you're going to rewrite history to rationalize your ignorance?

>Figures!

>

>>> And we must not exclude the Jewish leaders---including the main Man

>>> himself . G-d that is.

>>

>>Hmm... the obligatory anti God hysteria.

>

>Anti-God hysteria. The burden of proof is on the believers - not on

>the non-believers. Now prove to us all that there is a God. Hint -

>Kant couldn't and you can't.

Only if the believers are trying to force their beliefs on you.

People are entitled to their beliefs and are not obliged to provide

any proof to anyone. After all it IS called "faith".

>

>>> SEE Atrocities in the Bible. Shalom aleichem

>>> http://thetruth.hypermart.net/bible/atrocities.htm

>>

>>Absolute exploitative insanity.

>

>Excuse me - it's in the Bible and isn't everything in the Bible God's

>honest truth?

>

>>> Also see:

>>> http://www.geocities.com/shatila1982/masspictures.html

>>

>>Arab propaganda.

>

>Yeah, right. And the Holocaust was Jewish propaganda foisted off by

>the Rothschilds as truth. And the Inquisition was just a pop quiz. And

>the Crusades a cruise on Holland-America. And pogroms were cheerleader

>props. PS - you and the Muslims have the exact same God.

>

>>> Catholics today all try to repudiate Adolf Hitler and deny that he was

>>> a fellow Roman Catholic. But this was definitely not the case so long

>>> as he was in power, In fact, Hitler could not have come to power

>>> without the assistance of the Vatican and the German Catholic Church>

>>> So long as Adolf Hitler was in power, his Roman Catholic Church never

>>> questioned his Catholicism - at least not in public - which is where

>>> it mattered politically.--- just as no one questions GW Bush's

>>> Christianity

>>> --- at least not in public - which is where it matters politically.

>>

>>Hitler could not have come to power without the support of the people,

>>no matter their religious or anti religious affiliations.

>

>Of course - your point is?

>

>>> A man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never

>>> tolerant. At the least, he is to feel pity for the adherent of another

>>> religion but usually it does not stop there. The faithful adherent of

>>> a religion will try first of all to convince those that believe in

>>> another religion and usually he goes on to hatred if he is not

>>> successful. However, hatred then leads to persecution when the might

>>> of the majority is behind it. In the case of a Christian clergyman,

>>> the tragic-comical is found in this: that the Christian religion

>>> demands love from the faithful, even love for the enemy. This demand,

>>> because it is indeed superhuman, he is unable to fulfill. Thus

>>> intolerance and hatred ring through the oily words of the clergyman.

>>> The love, which on the Christian side is the basis for the

>>> conciliatory attempt towards Judaism is the same as the love of a

>>> child for a cake. That means that it contains the hope that the object

>>> of the love will be eaten up...

>>

>>You have just described the mental and physical behaviors of believers

>>in the atheist religion.

>

>Atheism is a religion? Beep - wrong. Nobody's out there signing up

>converts.

Then what do you call all those little arguments presented by "The

American Atheists" and others that get very heated in their

presentations? What do you call it when atheists post all their

little messages to groups like alt.Christianity and others calling the

"believers" every name in the book while trying to convince them that

there is no God? If it were a minister doing the same thing you'd

call it "preaching".

When M M O'hare used to have her little cable show where they asked

for donations and such they sat and basically talked in the same

manner as religious types do on their little discussion programs.

Neither side has any upper hand on the other. Both are based

essentially on "faith" There is no proof of the existence of God

which is not evidence that one does not exists. And there is no proof

that there absolutely is not a God out there somewhere simply watching

which, also, is not evidence that there is one.

Both sides can claim that it is up to the other to prove them wrong.

Anecdotally speaking, I've had atheists get just as upset and angry

with me for not subscribing to their beliefs as I have 4 Square

Pentecostals for not believing in their insanity.

The beliefs are different but the attitudes are in the same vein.

>

>>> Letter to Rabbi Solomon Goldman of Chicago's Anshe Emet Congregation.

>>>

>>> "If I would follow your advice and Jesus could perceive it, he, as a

>>> Jewish teacher, surely would not approve of such behavior."

>>>

>>> Reply to a Roman Catholic student urging him to pray to Jesus Christ,

>>> the Virgin Mary, and convert to Christianity.

>>> --- Albert Einstein

>>>

>>> ". I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not

>>> believe in God and suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And

>>> if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that he would have such

>>> an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt his existence."

>>> --- Bertrand Russell

>>

>>Russel the moron.

>

>Yup - Roy's the perfect ignorant Xtian - his mind's made up. Everyone

>who doesn't believe in his brand of Xtianity is a moron. This includes

>Russell, Kant, Einstein, Darwin, Galileo, and a cast of thousands.

>Pretty good company. If there ever was a Jesus, (there's no proof of

>his existence except for a footnote in an archaic text that refers to

>a Christos) he'd be much more at home with those folks than with a

>bunch of narrow-minded bigots.

>

>WB Yeats

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:37:53 -0600, Starkiller

<NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 08:17:48 -0800, wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:

>

>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 06:53:51 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>

>>wrote:

>>

>>>Raymond wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Jan 19, 7:26?pm, "Mr4701" <NoExi...@Earth.net> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>A Godless person is just as bad as an overzealous person. Atheist Stalin had

>>>>>no more of a beef killing people than Islamofascist Osama Bin Laden.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> And Catholic Hitler had no more of a beef killing people than Atheist

>>>> Stalin or Christian Episcopalean.....George Bush

>>>

>>>Hitler and stalin were and Bush is an atheist, self worshipers. How

>>>people define themselves to the world is hardly ever the reality.

>>

>>"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of

>>the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am

>>fighting for the work of the Lord."

>>

>>"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a

>>fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by

>>a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned

>>men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a

>>sufferer but as a fighter."

>>

>>Guess who said the above? There is as much evidence Hitler was a

>>Christian as that he was not. He does seem to believe in some type of

>>God so to profess that Hitler was an atheist is very dubious at best.

>

>Hitler used the belief system held by most Germans to manipulate the

>masses. A lot of folks that didn't believe in shit with their heart

>had no problem using the beliefs of others in manipulative ways.

>Hitler could have professed being a "Christian" all he wanted but to

>commit genocide against "The Chosen" is something no true Christian

>would even consider.

Bullshit.

Why are so many Christians in denial about Christianity's bloody past?

Was Martin Luther a Christian?

Or Chrysostom?

Or any of the other church fathers who treated Jews as Christ-killers

and wrote telling their flock to do appalling things to them?

If you read Martin Luther you see that Hitler was simply carrying out

what he ordered.

> Hitler pretty much made up his own religion, a

>combination of Catholicism and Paganism, but he did so without

>establishing any official church or religion. He kind of pushed it

>out there over time. The quote above is an example of how he

>bastardized Christianity by using the words "God" and "Christian"

>mixed in with his messages of hate.

A standard in-denial canard. His anti-Semitism was part of Western

European culture going back 1900 years and fostered by the Church. It

lasted longer and was more extreme in Germany and Poland than in many

other countries.

He wasn't particularly manipulating the German population who were

Christian and also immersed in the same culture of anti-Semitism.

Whether you like it or not, they accepted his motivation/justification

and were equally culpable.

I've never understood why, but a lot of in-denial Christians imagine

Hitler must have known he was evil and that he lied to get the

pro-Semitic Christian population to carry out his orders.

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

> > ". I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not

> > believe in God and suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And

> > if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that he would have such

> > an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt his existence."

> > --- Bertrand Russell

>

> Russel the moron.

I take it then that you disagree with Russell and you believe that God

DOES, in fact, have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those

who doubt his existence?

> > Let us prey

Preying is for xians, mantis' and other insects.

> Amen.