Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 On 14 Maj, 09:51, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > On 13 May 2007 22:53:35 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > - Refer: <1179122015.696508.43...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> > > > > > > >On 13 Maj, 19:50, "Steve O" <spamh...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> "Free Lunch" <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > > >>news:9hce43dbse7m4t8bajuncat5nenvcqekil@4ax.com... > > >> > On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:03:18 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> > <Jason-1305070103180...@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >>In article <1179034223.273130.45...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, George > >> >>Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >>> On May 13, 1:43 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >>> > In article <1179021474.195725.219...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > >> >>> > Martin > > >> >>> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >>> > > On May 13, 4:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >>> > > > In article <hJSdnSrqr5mbn9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdn...@comcast.com>, John > >> >>> > > > Popelish > > >> >>> > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > >> >>> > > > > Jason wrote: > >> >>I would prefer paradise than to burn in Hell. > > >> > But there is no evidence that either exist. There is also no evidence > >> > that the religion you teach will allow you to go to paradise. > > >> He doesn't care. > >> It doesn't matter to him. > >> All that matters is that he believes it, and he has been taught, or has > >> taught himself to believe it. > > >And, of course, there is the fear of what will happen if one stops > >believing it. It is kind of like a small child hiding under his > >blanket from the monsters. What will happen if he takes the blanket > >off? The child's parents explain to him that the monsters are not > >real, but they also tell him that god and hell are real. > > A clear case of prosecutable child abuse. > Only in a rational world. We do not live in that world. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 On 14 Maj, 09:52, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > On 13 May 2007 23:04:31 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > - Refer: <1179122671.804711.243...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> > > > > > > >On 14 Maj, 07:16, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 14, 8:36 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > "Martin" <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >news:1179049190.870630.14250@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > >> > > On May 13, 5:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > >> When I was in college, I asked God to help me pass tests and > >> > >> exams. > > >> > > Must... resist... temptation... to... make... ad hominem. > > >> > I don't see how you resisted. I couldn't have done it :-). > > >> I was going to say "Because you knew you couldn't possibly have passed > >> without God's help." There. Now I must try to forgive myself for > >> having bad thoughts. > > >> Martin > > >If I understand it correctly, you will have to drink some blood first. > > And be a cannibal. > Pass the salt please. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 On 14 Maj, 09:52, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > On 13 May 2007 22:57:45 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > - Refer: <1179122265.561342.226...@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> > > > > > > >On 13 Maj, 19:55, "Steve O" <spamh...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1179077285.504028.178170@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > >> On 13 Maj, 10:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > In article <q45d431vks86e298qn47760v7sln8mh...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > On Sat, 12 May 2007 21:28:50 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> > > <Jason-1205072128500...@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> > > ><snip> > > >> > > >> > A programmed robot would do exactly what the robot was programmed > >> > > >> > to do. > >> > > >> > On the other hand, the people that God created had free will. God > >> > has free > >> > > >> > will. Neither God or people are robots. > > >> > > >> If God is omniscient then he can see the future. If he can see the > >> > > >> future then he can see what he will do tomorrow. If he can see what > >> > > >> he will do tomorrow then his actions are inevitable and he doesn't > >> > > >> have free will. If he _does_ have free will then the actions he > >> > > >> would > >> > > >> foresee himself doing would not be inevitable. Thus, your god cannot > >> > > >> have both free will and omniscience. It's a contradiction. > > >> > > >> Martin > > >> > > >Martin, > >> > > >God may have the power to see in the future related to his own actions > >> > > >but > >> > > >that does NOT mean that God does that. If he chose not to see in the > >> > > >future related to his own actions--the other issues you mentioned in > >> > > >the > >> > > >above post would not be a factor. > > >> > > If He doesn't know, whether by choice or not, He isn't omniscient. > > >> > Are you saying that an omiscient God has no control over it and has to > >> > exercise it every minute of every day. That does not make sense. It's my > >> > opinion that God has absolute control over his powers.- Skjul tekst i > >> > anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 On 14 Maj, 14:47, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > snip > > > > > I had some major problems with an atheist psychology professor that > > rediculed a fellow Christian and myself related to a situational ethics > > class. > > And so you judge all of us based on this incident? Nice. Not to mention that it is quite obviously fiction. Fundies are so desperate to believe that they are being persecuted, that they have to make up silly stories. > -- > Robyn > Resident Witchypoo > BAAWA Knight! > #1557 Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 On Mon, 14 May 2007 17:05:09 -0400, in alt.atheism , "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> in <3a42i.5031$ub.3065@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote: > >"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message >news:Xns992EC31A87EDdoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159... >> "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:NOj1i.547$Ta.298 >> @bignews5.bellsouth.net: >> >> > >> > "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message >> > news:es4a43d7h562rrvh5178c7mqbccfe33vg7@4ax.com... >> >> On 11 May 2007 17:58:04 -0700, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> - Refer: <1178931484.446237.115210@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> >> >> >On May 12, 12:35 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> : >> >> >> >> >> I do not see him as deliberately dishonest. Mistaken, but not >> >> >> dishonest. >> >> > >> >> >You're being naive. He should have known how thermodynamics relates >> >> >to open systems. If anything he was being dishonest in trying to >> pass >> >> >himself off as an expert and claiming he'd "proven" something. >> >> > >> >> >Martin >> >> >> >> Mr. Esque has demonstrated time and time again that he has no problem >> >> whatsoever with blatant fraudulent dishonesty, provided that it is in >> >> support of his infantile delusions. >> >> >> > It utterly impossible to express a difference of opinion from >> > the "self-righteous" hypocrites who make "authoritative" >> > pronouncements without being called a liar, dishonest, >> > deluded etc. >> >> Not true. >> >> >> But it IS utterly impossible to pass oneself off as an expert >> in some particular of physics and then pretend you were ignorant of it. >> Either the person passing themself off is lying about the expertise or >> about the physics. Possibly both. >> >Speaking for myself, I admit I not an expert , but I did take >one year highschool and two semisters of physics at college >level. So I do know a little about the subject. In studing >thermodynamics, I do not recall >anything regarding thermodynamics and living systems. Because there is no physics related difference. Biochem considers thermo in great detail and every reaction that takes place follows the same rules of thermo that non-living systems follow. That is, there are not template or purpose exceptions. >This >was a subject totally ignored. I still have my one of my old >thermo books. I think I sold the other books. >It's entitled "Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics." by >G.J. Van Wylen and R.E. Sonntag, 1986. In glancing through >this book and searching the subject index, there is nothing >about living systems, biology or any related topic I could >find. Ah, pre-Prigogine (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1977/index.html). Or, rather, likely before his work was incorporated into the curriculum. Physics courses tend to ignore biological systems because they are not as neat as ideal physics ones and because they tend to stay far from equilibrium. As Prigogine showed systems far from equilibrium, particularly those maintained there with continuous sinks and sources of energy, act in non-intuitive manners. Lets take a very simple system: a bit of liquid hydrogen in a little pot. (I'll wait while you go and get your own liquid hydrogen so you can follow along.) Put a bit of heat on the bottom of the pot and have the top a bit colder than the liquid. Do you know what happens? Rather than waiting for you to test this yourself (what? You don't have a supply of liquid hydrogen around? What is the world coming to?) I will give you the answer: you get convection cells. You get nice orderly hexagonal rotating cells. Not some disorganized flow of energy, but nice neat order. Order really does form naturally, without template, without purpose, with nothing but simple systems far from equilibrium. >Another book from the library at our recrecation center is >"thermodynamics" by Enrico Fermi, but it's the same story, >there is nothing pertaining to biology, entropy and living >systems, etc. Go here for some stuff to read on the subject: The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html >So, accept for biologist, I question whether >physic deals with any of this. And biologist definately >"have a dog in this fight". What do you mean a "dog in this fight"? Do you think that they are contesting thermodynamics with physicists? Do you think that they have a different set of definitions or that biologists, unlike physicists, want to argue against some "designers"? >> > These _dictatorial authorities_ will not tolerant another >> > viewpoint. But they will demand summission to their own >> > decrees, if one fails to yield or cowtails to their edicts then >> > the personal charges and character assination follows. >> > Fortunately, this is the extent of their power. >> >> Apparently you don't HAVE another viewpoint. >> >Actually I do have a different viewpoint where thermodynamics >and evolution is concerned. I totally disagree with Kim on this. >Evolution is a fact! I don't question this, but he raised the issue >of thermodynamics as it pertains to the origin or life. > >This I have problems with. I think he raised legimate issue on >this one point. He did not: he raised no legitimate thermodynamics issues. Go and read the beginning of your book again. All we care about in thermo, whether we are looking at biological systems or not, is the initial state and the end state. Thermo tells us how much free energy is needed to go from one to the other. So the thermodynamic aspect of abiogenesis is easy: what is the initial state ("dead" stuff), what is the end state ("living" stuff) and is there enough free energy to go from one to the other. The answer is trivially yes. That Sun is hot, that night is cold, and the flows between are more than enough to allow life. That is the only thermodynamic problem. The chemical problem is more complex. The path of how life formed is interesting, but it is not a thermodynamic question. > You just support the liars' right to lie and not be braced on it. >> I've got news for you. >> >You made my point. He voiced a different viewpoint from the >one you hold, therefore he is a liar. No room for disagreement In this case there really is no room for scientific disagreement. The issue is trivially obvious. If you know the relevant science then there is no problem. If you don't know the relevant science then it is rather dishonest to assert that you know enough. There is a burden upon people when they make such claims as Kim copied. [snip] -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 On Mon, 14 May 2007 08:47:39 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in <5ar430F2ptr47U1@mid.individual.net>: > >"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >snip >> >> I had some major problems with an atheist psychology professor that >> rediculed a fellow Christian and myself related to a situational ethics >> class. > >And so you judge all of us based on this incident? Nice. Based on some of Jason's prior assertions, I have no reason to accept his unsubstantiated claims about anyone who disagrees with his religious doctrines or his proselytizing. Quote
Guest Budikka666 Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 On May 11, 7:16 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1178923441.783791.47...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > > Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote: > > On May 11, 6:39 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > Please re-read your own words very carefully. My theory is that God > > > created life. Facts support my theory. > > > What a LIAR you are! You couldn't come up with even one supported > > fact for your case when I challenged you on it. You ran away. So why > > are you still telling this lie? > > > Post your supported "facts" right here or quit LYING. > > > Budikka > > The facts are in this book. If you choose not to read the facts--that's > not my fault: > > "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow > A thorough examination of all the pre-human fossils Two points that you simply are not grasping: 1. I already told you that this book is shown up for the trash it is right here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lubenow_cg.html 2. Even if I read the book it would not tell me what YOU are claiming are the killer arguments. Now either post a pr Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 14 Maj, 09:52, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: >> On 13 May 2007 23:04:31 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> - Refer: <1179122671.804711.243...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 14 Maj, 07:16, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On May 14, 8:36 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> "Martin" <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:1179049190.870630.14250@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> On May 13, 5:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>> When I was in college, I asked God to help me pass tests and >>>>>>> exams. >>>>>> Must... resist... temptation... to... make... ad hominem. >>>>> I don't see how you resisted. I couldn't have done it :-). >>>> I was going to say "Because you knew you couldn't possibly have passed >>>> without God's help." There. Now I must try to forgive myself for >>>> having bad thoughts. >>>> Martin >>> If I understand it correctly, you will have to drink some blood first. >> And be a cannibal. >> > > Pass the salt please. > And the ketchup as well, while you are at it. Blood without ketchup.... urgs Tokay -- "I meant," said Ipslore bitterly, "what is there in this world that truly makes living worth while?" Death thought about it "Cats," he said eventually, "Cats are Nice." Terry Pratchett, Sourcery Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 [snips] On Sat, 12 May 2007 13:05:02 -0700, Jason wrote: > dislike evolutionists or atheists--I just disagree with them. I don't > dislike the advocates for abortion--I just disagree with them. Advocates for abortion? Hmm, can't say I've ever met such a person - nor even heard of them until now. Could you perhaps offer a cite, someone actually advocating abortion? No, no, not advocating choice, we know about those, but advocating abortion, as you say above. -- Your own science has found fossilized fish on the tops of HIGH mountains. Do you think they took up mountain climbing some 70 gagillion years ago? - Greg Waggy (A New Age Creationist) Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 [snips] On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:39:13 -0700, Jason wrote: > And the people that respond to my posts seem to be impervious to change > their points of view. That's where you're wrong. Most of us rampant atheist types are fully willing, ready and able to change our points of view. However, we're not going to do so simply because you tell us something gives you the warm fuzzies; we expect evidence and support and reason . If those things are not brought forth to support a claim - whether that claim is God or Ra or Vishnu - there's also no reason for us to consider them as valid. It's really that simple: we're open to almost anything, if it is supported. If it isn't, why would anybody accept it? -- Practice random hickies and senseless acts of biting. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 [snips] On Sun, 13 May 2007 12:09:08 -0700, Jason wrote: > The reason is simple. I have noticed that many (but not all) of the > members of this newsgroup have a prejudice aganist Christians and/or the > advocates of Creation Science. Wrong; we have a prejudice - if you want to call it that - against all unfounded nonsense. Creationism. Atlantis. Nocturnal visits from aliens to investigate the backsides of country bumpkins. Whatever. Don't go confusing the issue. We don't really give a damn what you believe. However, if you want to claim it is real, or expect us to take it seriously, we expect the same thing from you we expect from anyone else making a claim they want us to take seriously: evidence. Got any? > that hurt them. One person told me that I was prejudice against > atheists. That is only partly true. I am prejudice against atheists that > redicule Christians or redicule me for being a Christian. Do you promote your views without providing solid evidence? If so, then you deserve ridicule. Do you worship a being of supreme hatred and evil, yet claim it is somehow a nice guy? Then you deserve ridicule. If you don't do this sort of thing, then no, you don't deserve it. Your call. > An example is > an atheist professor that asked for all Christians to raise their hands. > He told the rest of the class to take a close look at the Christians > that had their hands raised. He stated something like this, "See these > Christians--they are so stupid that they believe in a God that does not > exist. They probably also believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny." He went one step too far; he shouldn't have said "doesn't exist", merely "there's no reason to think it exists".0 > Needless to say, I am prejudiced against that professor and any other > atheist that redicules Christians or the advocates of Creation Science. There is no such thing as creation science. The closest they've come is a willful bastardization of science with the predetermined goal that creationism is the answer. That's not science. > Please check today's posts in this newsgroup and decide for yourself how > many of those people are rediculing me in their posts. Ask yourself how many posts ridiculing you were earned . -- Creationists: the ignorant telling scientists how science is done. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 15, 2007 Posted May 15, 2007 On Mon, 14 May 2007 17:50:38 -0700, Jason wrote: > In article <ko6nh4-9f4.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 13:05:02 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > dislike evolutionists or atheists--I just disagree with them. I don't >> > dislike the advocates for abortion--I just disagree with them. >> >> Advocates for abortion? Hmm, can't say I've ever met such a person - nor >> even heard of them until now. Could you perhaps offer a cite, someone >> actually advocating abortion? No, no, not advocating choice, we know >> about those, but advocating abortion, as you say above. > > Good point. Be honest. Does Planned Parenthood advocate abortion or do > they advocate adoption. Last I heard, neither. Their purpose is not to advocate - at least, not to the patient - but rather to provide the information and options and let the patient decide. > It's my guess that they advise most of the young > woman to have an abortion. Why would you guess that? On what basis do you determine whether they do this at all, let alone how frequently they do it in comparison to their total case load? > If so, they are advocates for abortion. They > make millions of dollars from abortions. Perhaps, but abortion accounts for a mere 3% of their provided medical services. If they lost those, they wouldn't be out much. Their clients, on the other hand, might not be so thrilled. > You are correct--the bumper > stickers always mention choice instead of abortion. I liked the prolife > bumper sticker that says: "My choice is Life--not abortion" And I like honesty. To call oneself "pro-life" is to imply that someone disagreeing is anti-life, which is bullshit. However, the pro-lifers have never been terribly interested in honesty, only in forcing their pet views on others. -- As you would expect, that lack of evidence leads to some disasterous choices. Randomly, you’d expect that on a globe of some 5 trillion people.... - Day Brown (Telling us the Earth’s population) Quote
Guest John Baker Posted May 15, 2007 Posted May 15, 2007 On Mon, 14 May 2007 13:55:59 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <5arp77F2q7c4jU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in >> >> snip >> , >> > Not all Christians agree related to these issues. Perhaps some Christians >> > do believe God is always watching over them and is concerned about >> > everything they do. I don't believe that. I do believe that God listens to >> > our prayers. When I was in college, I asked God to help me pass tests and >> > exams. >> >> Too lazy to study? > >No, I also studied but I do believe God also helped. Some of the rich >students hired tutors to help them but I was to poor to hire tutors. I saw >your post in the alt.athism newsgroup. I no longer subscribe to the >alt.religion.jehovahs-witn newsgroup. > >Do you believe that atheists HATE Christians. Do you believe that atheists >do not want to work with Christians? Do not answer until you read this >article: > > >Monday, May 7, 2007 2:06 p.m. EDT > >Professor Forced Out for Citing George Washington > >A tenured college professor is set to be fired for simply sending out an >e-mail to colleagues containing George Washington Quote
Guest John Baker Posted May 15, 2007 Posted May 15, 2007 On Mon, 14 May 2007 16:36:43 -0400, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >Anecdotal stories such as this are worthless as general evidence. I wouldn't believe a word Jason says in any case. > > Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 15, 2007 Posted May 15, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <ko6nh4-9f4.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 13:05:02 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >>> dislike evolutionists or atheists--I just disagree with them. I don't >>> dislike the advocates for abortion--I just disagree with them. >> Advocates for abortion? Hmm, can't say I've ever met such a person - nor >> even heard of them until now. Could you perhaps offer a cite, someone >> actually advocating abortion? No, no, not advocating choice, we know >> about those, but advocating abortion, as you say above. > > Good point. Be honest. Does Planned Parenthood advocate abortion or do > they advocate adoption. It's my guess that they advise most of the young > woman to have an abortion. You guess wrong. As usual you speak from deliberate ignorance born out of your bias. Here is the list of service that Planned Parenthood provides. It comes from their website, http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ ____________________________________________________________________________ Planned Parenthood health centers offer high-quality sexual and reproductive health care, including family planning, gynecological care, STI/STD testing and treatment, pregnancy testing, and abortion services. ____________________________________________________________________________ Note the sequence. They provide their services, regardless of income, to people who may not have access to information within their families or immediate communities. They could not provide their services if they did not respect the needs of their clients. Think about it. If so, they are advocates for abortion. They > make millions of dollars from abortions. You are correct--the bumper > stickers always mention choice instead of abortion. I liked the prolife > bumper sticker that says: "My choice is Life--not abortion" > That's their right - abortion should be a personal choice. They should just keep their personal choice away from my family and my college-aged daughter in particular. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 15, 2007 Posted May 15, 2007 In article <ko6nh4-9f4.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Sat, 12 May 2007 13:05:02 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > dislike evolutionists or atheists--I just disagree with them. I don't > > dislike the advocates for abortion--I just disagree with them. > > Advocates for abortion? Hmm, can't say I've ever met such a person - nor > even heard of them until now. Could you perhaps offer a cite, someone > actually advocating abortion? No, no, not advocating choice, we know > about those, but advocating abortion, as you say above. Good point. Be honest. Does Planned Parenthood advocate abortion or do they advocate adoption. It's my guess that they advise most of the young woman to have an abortion. If so, they are advocates for abortion. They make millions of dollars from abortions. You are correct--the bumper stickers always mention choice instead of abortion. I liked the prolife bumper sticker that says: "My choice is Life--not abortion" Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 15, 2007 Posted May 15, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <ds9nh4-9f4.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 14 May 2007 17:50:38 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >>> In article <ko6nh4-9f4.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> [snips] >>>> >>>> On Sat, 12 May 2007 13:05:02 -0700, Jason wrote: >>>> >>>>> dislike evolutionists or atheists--I just disagree with them. I don't >>>>> dislike the advocates for abortion--I just disagree with them. >>>> Advocates for abortion? Hmm, can't say I've ever met such a person - nor >>>> even heard of them until now. Could you perhaps offer a cite, someone >>>> actually advocating abortion? No, no, not advocating choice, we know >>>> about those, but advocating abortion, as you say above. >>> Good point. Be honest. Does Planned Parenthood advocate abortion or do >>> they advocate adoption. >> Last I heard, neither. Their purpose is not to advocate - at least, not >> to the patient - but rather to provide the information and options and let >> the patient decide. >> >>> It's my guess that they advise most of the young >>> woman to have an abortion. >> Why would you guess that? On what basis do you determine whether they do >> this at all, let alone how frequently they do it in comparison to their >> total case load? >> >>> If so, they are advocates for abortion. They >>> make millions of dollars from abortions. >> Perhaps, but abortion accounts for a mere 3% of their provided >> medical services. If they lost those, they wouldn't be out much. Their >> clients, on the other hand, might not be so thrilled. >> >>> You are correct--the bumper >>> stickers always mention choice instead of abortion. I liked the prolife >>> bumper sticker that says: "My choice is Life--not abortion" >> And I like honesty. To call oneself "pro-life" is to imply that someone >> disagreeing is anti-life, which is bullshit. However, the pro-lifers have >> never been terribly interested in honesty, only in forcing their pet views >> on others. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > There was one state--I don't remember which one--that passed a law that > required any woman that wanted an abortion to get a 3D ultrasound of her > unborn baby. That pregnant woman would have been required to look at the > ultrasound before she could have an abortion. I liked that law and wish it > was a law in every state. I seem to recall reading that Planned Parenthood > and ACLU are fighting that law in court. Do you approve of that law? > Jason I sure don't - it's the reproduction fascists trying to force the state to do their dirty work for them. These ghouls prey on women who are vulnerable, emotionally wrought up, and facing very difficult life choices. Rather than advocating helpful counseling they force their theology on people who may not necessarily share it. Let them force their daughters and wives into that position. They have not compassion, no empathy, no understanding, only dedicating to an abstract concept that they do not expect will affect them. > > Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 15, 2007 Posted May 15, 2007 In article <ds9nh4-9f4.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2007 17:50:38 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > In article <ko6nh4-9f4.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> [snips] > >> > >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 13:05:02 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> > >> > dislike evolutionists or atheists--I just disagree with them. I don't > >> > dislike the advocates for abortion--I just disagree with them. > >> > >> Advocates for abortion? Hmm, can't say I've ever met such a person - nor > >> even heard of them until now. Could you perhaps offer a cite, someone > >> actually advocating abortion? No, no, not advocating choice, we know > >> about those, but advocating abortion, as you say above. > > > > Good point. Be honest. Does Planned Parenthood advocate abortion or do > > they advocate adoption. > > Last I heard, neither. Their purpose is not to advocate - at least, not > to the patient - but rather to provide the information and options and let > the patient decide. > > > It's my guess that they advise most of the young > > woman to have an abortion. > > Why would you guess that? On what basis do you determine whether they do > this at all, let alone how frequently they do it in comparison to their > total case load? > > > If so, they are advocates for abortion. They > > make millions of dollars from abortions. > > Perhaps, but abortion accounts for a mere 3% of their provided > medical services. If they lost those, they wouldn't be out much. Their > clients, on the other hand, might not be so thrilled. > > > You are correct--the bumper > > stickers always mention choice instead of abortion. I liked the prolife > > bumper sticker that says: "My choice is Life--not abortion" > > And I like honesty. To call oneself "pro-life" is to imply that someone > disagreeing is anti-life, which is bullshit. However, the pro-lifers have > never been terribly interested in honesty, only in forcing their pet views > on others. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There was one state--I don't remember which one--that passed a law that required any woman that wanted an abortion to get a 3D ultrasound of her unborn baby. That pregnant woman would have been required to look at the ultrasound before she could have an abortion. I liked that law and wish it was a law in every state. I seem to recall reading that Planned Parenthood and ACLU are fighting that law in court. Do you approve of that law? Jason Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 15, 2007 Posted May 15, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 14 May 2007 18:20:22 -0700, Jason wrote: > There was one state--I don't remember which one--that passed a law that > required any woman that wanted an abortion to get a 3D ultrasound of her > unborn baby. That pregnant woman would have been required to look at the > ultrasound before she could have an abortion. I liked that law and wish it > was a law in every state. I seem to recall reading that Planned Parenthood > and ACLU are fighting that law in court. Do you approve of that law? Approve of a law that has _no_ purpose other than to further some group's agenda over the rights of the woman? Nope. Sorry. I'll take the so-called "pro lifers" seriously the minute they show a shred of interest in, support for and compassion for the pregnant woman, instead of treating her like a mobile petri dish for their bizarre breeding requirements. The "law" above does nothing along those lines. -- Indeed, if there were no God, I would _have_ to be selfish, I believe, because there would be no one else watching out for me, and no reason to put anyone or anything ahead of me. - Jesse C. Jones Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 15, 2007 Posted May 15, 2007 In alt.atheism On Mon, 14 May 2007 18:20:22 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <ds9nh4-9f4.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 14 May 2007 17:50:38 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > In article <ko6nh4-9f4.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> [snips] >> >> >> >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 13:05:02 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> > dislike evolutionists or atheists--I just disagree with them. I don't >> >> > dislike the advocates for abortion--I just disagree with them. >> >> >> >> Advocates for abortion? Hmm, can't say I've ever met such a person - nor >> >> even heard of them until now. Could you perhaps offer a cite, someone >> >> actually advocating abortion? No, no, not advocating choice, we know >> >> about those, but advocating abortion, as you say above. >> > >> > Good point. Be honest. Does Planned Parenthood advocate abortion or do >> > they advocate adoption. >> >> Last I heard, neither. Their purpose is not to advocate - at least, not >> to the patient - but rather to provide the information and options and let >> the patient decide. >> >> > It's my guess that they advise most of the young >> > woman to have an abortion. >> >> Why would you guess that? On what basis do you determine whether they do >> this at all, let alone how frequently they do it in comparison to their >> total case load? >> >> > If so, they are advocates for abortion. They >> > make millions of dollars from abortions. >> >> Perhaps, but abortion accounts for a mere 3% of their provided >> medical services. If they lost those, they wouldn't be out much. Their >> clients, on the other hand, might not be so thrilled. >> >> > You are correct--the bumper >> > stickers always mention choice instead of abortion. I liked the prolife >> > bumper sticker that says: "My choice is Life--not abortion" >> >> And I like honesty. To call oneself "pro-life" is to imply that someone >> disagreeing is anti-life, which is bullshit. However, the pro-lifers have >> never been terribly interested in honesty, only in forcing their pet views >> on others. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >There was one state--I don't remember which one--that passed a law that >required any woman that wanted an abortion to get a 3D ultrasound of her >unborn baby. That pregnant woman would have been required to look at the >ultrasound before she could have an abortion. Why should she have to? It's her body--her choice. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 15, 2007 Posted May 15, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 15 May 2007 00:54:55 +0000, cactus wrote: > I sure don't - it's the reproduction fascists trying to force the state > to do their dirty work for them. These ghouls prey on women who are > vulnerable, emotionally wrought up, and facing very difficult life > choices. Rather than advocating helpful counseling they force their > theology on people who may not necessarily share it. > > Let them force their daughters and wives into that position. They have > not compassion, no empathy, no understanding, only dedicating to an > abstract concept that they do not expect will affect them. I've asked before, and will ask again, the following questions of the "pro-lifers": how many of you have offered to have the fetuses transplanted into you (if you're female), so you can deal with carrying them? How many of you have offered to pay the medical and other expenses involved in the pregnancy, delivery and aftercare? How many unwanted children have you adopted, or are you happy to have children discarded, forgotten and ignored, as long as they're born? Hmm. Just did one quick, off-the-cuff search and found 3,707 children available for adoption. So much for any bullshit that "pro life" has anything to do with the children. Funny they're not sending their sisters, wives, daughters or themselves out to adopt, to offer womb space, to support, to pay for their own convictions. Funny how it is always "Do what we think is right... but you should bear the burden, not us." -- “What’s this brain doing on the sidewalk?” “Somebody found Jesus and just left it there.” --- Dave Hamilton Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 15, 2007 Posted May 15, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <sp4i43l8p7b1brvuc367o92792me93l47j@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Mon, 14 May 2007 18:20:22 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >>> In article <ds9nh4-9f4.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 14 May 2007 17:50:38 -0700, Jason wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <ko6nh4-9f4.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >>>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> [snips] >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 12 May 2007 13:05:02 -0700, Jason wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> dislike evolutionists or atheists--I just disagree with them. I don't >>>>>>> dislike the advocates for abortion--I just disagree with them. >>>>>> Advocates for abortion? Hmm, can't say I've ever met such a > person - nor >>>>>> even heard of them until now. Could you perhaps offer a cite, someone >>>>>> actually advocating abortion? No, no, not advocating choice, we know >>>>>> about those, but advocating abortion, as you say above. >>>>> Good point. Be honest. Does Planned Parenthood advocate abortion or do >>>>> they advocate adoption. >>>> Last I heard, neither. Their purpose is not to advocate - at least, not >>>> to the patient - but rather to provide the information and options and let >>>> the patient decide. >>>> >>>>> It's my guess that they advise most of the young >>>>> woman to have an abortion. >>>> Why would you guess that? On what basis do you determine whether they do >>>> this at all, let alone how frequently they do it in comparison to their >>>> total case load? >>>> >>>>> If so, they are advocates for abortion. They >>>>> make millions of dollars from abortions. >>>> Perhaps, but abortion accounts for a mere 3% of their provided >>>> medical services. If they lost those, they wouldn't be out much. Their >>>> clients, on the other hand, might not be so thrilled. >>>> >>>>> You are correct--the bumper >>>>> stickers always mention choice instead of abortion. I liked the prolife >>>>> bumper sticker that says: "My choice is Life--not abortion" >>>> And I like honesty. To call oneself "pro-life" is to imply that someone >>>> disagreeing is anti-life, which is bullshit. However, the pro-lifers have >>>> never been terribly interested in honesty, only in forcing their pet views >>>> on others. >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> There was one state--I don't remember which one--that passed a law that >>> required any woman that wanted an abortion to get a 3D ultrasound of her >>> unborn baby. That pregnant woman would have been required to look at the >>> ultrasound before she could have an abortion. >> Why should she have to? It's her body--her choice. > > > Because in that state--it's the law. Some laws are good. Some, such as this one, are not. It's my understanding the ACLU is > trying to get the law overturned. Do you "understand" this because you don't like the ACLU? Maybe NARAL or another organization is involved. Of course, if women wanted to get their > abortions in other states that do not have that same law--they would not > have to look at pictures of their babies. Right. This is a good thing. Believe it or not, back in the > 1960's (prior to ultrasounds), Planned Parenthood told the women that it > was just a "mass of tissue". They no longer tell that lie. They've wised up a bit, changed with the times. Some people and even organizations can do that. > Jason > > Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 15, 2007 Posted May 15, 2007 In article <sp4i43l8p7b1brvuc367o92792me93l47j@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Mon, 14 May 2007 18:20:22 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > >In article <ds9nh4-9f4.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 14 May 2007 17:50:38 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> > >> > In article <ko6nh4-9f4.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > >> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> [snips] > >> >> > >> >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 13:05:02 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > dislike evolutionists or atheists--I just disagree with them. I don't > >> >> > dislike the advocates for abortion--I just disagree with them. > >> >> > >> >> Advocates for abortion? Hmm, can't say I've ever met such a person - nor > >> >> even heard of them until now. Could you perhaps offer a cite, someone > >> >> actually advocating abortion? No, no, not advocating choice, we know > >> >> about those, but advocating abortion, as you say above. > >> > > >> > Good point. Be honest. Does Planned Parenthood advocate abortion or do > >> > they advocate adoption. > >> > >> Last I heard, neither. Their purpose is not to advocate - at least, not > >> to the patient - but rather to provide the information and options and let > >> the patient decide. > >> > >> > It's my guess that they advise most of the young > >> > woman to have an abortion. > >> > >> Why would you guess that? On what basis do you determine whether they do > >> this at all, let alone how frequently they do it in comparison to their > >> total case load? > >> > >> > If so, they are advocates for abortion. They > >> > make millions of dollars from abortions. > >> > >> Perhaps, but abortion accounts for a mere 3% of their provided > >> medical services. If they lost those, they wouldn't be out much. Their > >> clients, on the other hand, might not be so thrilled. > >> > >> > You are correct--the bumper > >> > stickers always mention choice instead of abortion. I liked the prolife > >> > bumper sticker that says: "My choice is Life--not abortion" > >> > >> And I like honesty. To call oneself "pro-life" is to imply that someone > >> disagreeing is anti-life, which is bullshit. However, the pro-lifers have > >> never been terribly interested in honesty, only in forcing their pet views > >> on others. > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > >There was one state--I don't remember which one--that passed a law that > >required any woman that wanted an abortion to get a 3D ultrasound of her > >unborn baby. That pregnant woman would have been required to look at the > >ultrasound before she could have an abortion. > > Why should she have to? It's her body--her choice. Because in that state--it's the law. It's my understanding the ACLU is trying to get the law overturned. Of course, if women wanted to get their abortions in other states that do not have that same law--they would not have to look at pictures of their babies. Believe it or not, back in the 1960's (prior to ultrasounds), Planned Parenthood told the women that it was just a "mass of tissue". They no longer tell that lie. Jason Quote
Guest John Baker Posted May 15, 2007 Posted May 15, 2007 On Mon, 14 May 2007 17:50:38 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <ko6nh4-9f4.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 13:05:02 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > dislike evolutionists or atheists--I just disagree with them. I don't >> > dislike the advocates for abortion--I just disagree with them. >> >> Advocates for abortion? Hmm, can't say I've ever met such a person - nor >> even heard of them until now. Could you perhaps offer a cite, someone >> actually advocating abortion? No, no, not advocating choice, we know >> about those, but advocating abortion, as you say above. > >Good point. Be honest. Does Planned Parenthood advocate abortion or do >they advocate adoption. It's my guess that they advise most of the young >woman to have an abortion. And like all of your "guesses", that one's worth precisely dick. Tell me, Jason. Have you ever been right about anything? And I don't mean in your opinion. I mean has anyone else ever thought you were right. Quote
Guest Charles & Mambo Duckman Posted May 15, 2007 Posted May 15, 2007 Jason wrote: > I noticed cameras mounted on the ceiling above each of the tellers. > Perhaps those cameras are just as effective as security guards in relation > to preventing bank robberies. Back in the 1950's, as far as I know, they > did not have a dozen cameras in each bank. Back in the 1950's and 1960's, > they did not have security devices attached to clothing or security > devices mounted in the doorways of large clothing stores and electronic > stores. They now have those security features in almost all large stores. I don't know whether to laugh or cry about this type of idiocy. Could it be that the reason "they did not have a dozen cameras in each bank" is because the cameras at that stage of the 50's technology would take up more space than the bank itself? And the reason that "back in the 1950's and 1960's, they did not have security devices attached to clothing" is because they would be a little heavy to wear what with weighing some 200 lbs +? -- Come down off the cross We can use the wood Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.