Discussion:
'i don't know'
(too old to reply)
The Starmaker
2017-01-11 06:59:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Most scientist don't say...'i don't know', they usually come up with some sort of answer

Ask atheist is there a God, they don't say 'i don't know'

ask a religious person is there a God, they don't say 'i don't know'


is there a difference between all three? i don't know.

i don't see any difference...


except ..the atheist is fuckin lying!


no offence intended...

just observation.
Helmut Wabnig
2017-01-11 07:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 22:59:24 -0800, The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Most scientist don't say...'i don't know', they usually come up with some sort of answer
Ask atheist is there a God, they don't say 'i don't know'
ask a religious person is there a God, they don't say 'i don't know'
is there a difference between all three? i don't know.
i don't see any difference...
except ..the atheist is fuckin lying!
no offence intended...
just observation.
Everyone who drops his jaw saying "G A W D"
is a liar, atheist or believer.


w.
Dorothy J Heydt
2017-01-11 14:09:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Helmut Wabnig
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 22:59:24 -0800, The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Most scientist don't say...'i don't know', they usually come up with
some sort of answer
Post by The Starmaker
Ask atheist is there a God, they don't say 'i don't know'
No, no, that's an agnostic. My husband has a badge that he wears
to cons, reading "MILITANT AGNOSTIC: I DON'T KNOW AND YOU DON'T
EITHER."

The atheist says, "No, there isn't."
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Post by The Starmaker
ask a religious person is there a God, they don't say 'i don't know'
Ho, he says "Yes, there is," and if you persist, they'll start
telling you some of the things they believe about him.

[further silliness snipped]
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Greg Goss
2017-01-11 15:17:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
No, no, that's an agnostic. My husband has a badge that he wears
to cons, reading "MILITANT AGNOSTIC: I DON'T KNOW AND YOU DON'T
EITHER."
The atheist says, "No, there isn't."
I was a fundamentalist prosyletizing atheist in my younger days.
Nowadays, most Western theists are harmless.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Kevrob
2017-01-11 16:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Helmut Wabnig
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 22:59:24 -0800, The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Most scientist don't say...'i don't know', they usually come up with
some sort of answer
Post by The Starmaker
Ask atheist is there a God, they don't say 'i don't know'
No, no, that's an agnostic. My husband has a badge that he wears
to cons, reading "MILITANT AGNOSTIC: I DON'T KNOW AND YOU DON'T
EITHER."
The atheist says, "No, there isn't."
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Post by The Starmaker
ask a religious person is there a God, they don't say 'i don't know'
Ho, he says "Yes, there is," and if you persist, they'll start
telling you some of the things they believe about him.
[further silliness snipped]
All it takes to be an atheist is this: when the question about
ghod's existence is asked, the answer is 'We have no sufficient
evidence for that." If one wants to parse that as "I don't know,"
one could. What's important is, does the unconvinced person act
as if there isn't a ghod-thing or not?

Some agnostics say, not only that they don't know, but that it
isn't possible to come to a conclusion on the matter. It is
an interesting conundrum that, a theoretically all-powerful
being, or one so much more powerful than humans that it is near
to no difference, could have created the universe and us for who
knows what reason, and totally covered its tracks, so that no
conclusive evidence is available, and faith would be the only
way to really believe in it. But I'm getting into Oolong
Coluphid territory.

Since one can't prove a negative, proving that "there is no ghod"
is logically impossible. Definitions of the supposed beings are
equivocal, anyway. So "I don't know" is a perfectly cromulent response
to the question, if one has no faith.

Kevin R
Kevrob
2017-01-11 16:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
But I'm getting into Oolong Coluphid territory.
sp error: Oolon, not Oolong. If there were Oolong in h2g2, Arthur
wouldn't have been put through as much fuss after Terra was demolished.

http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Oolon_Colluphid

Kevin R
Jørgen Farum Jensen
2017-01-11 13:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Starmaker
Most scientist don't say...'i don't know', they usually come up with some sort of answer
Ask atheist is there a God, they don't say 'i don't know'
Wrong. The atheist says NO.
--
Jørgen Farum Jensen
"Science has proof without any certainty.
Creationists have certainty without any proof."
— Ashley Montagu
Greg Goss
2017-01-11 15:18:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jørgen Farum Jensen
Post by The Starmaker
Most scientist don't say...'i don't know', they usually come up with some sort of answer
Ask atheist is there a God, they don't say 'i don't know'
Wrong. The atheist says NO.
Um, read the statement you're replying to again.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
SteveGG
2017-01-11 13:45:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sorry...

NO : God, or Santa Clause or Tooth Fairy or etc. !

Get real; grow up !
Chrysi Cat
2017-01-12 10:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SteveGG
Sorry...
NO : God, or Santa Clause or Tooth Fairy or etc. !
Get real; grow up !
I have no idea why atheists are getting more and more obsessed with
preaching the Bad News and trying to convert religious believers these
days. Even if it were possible to prove God/dess's _non_existence, I
doubt it would be overly advisable.

A _lot_ of those people who still believe, also feel compulsions to do
objectively-evil things; and only don't act on those because they fear
earning eternal punishment. Take away the stick, especially while also
taking away the carrot, and you'll create a Hobbesian world again.

TLDR: no, outlawing religion won't get rid of hatred toward the
non-cishet and is unlikely to remove racism or sexism either. But if you
somehow manage to do it, you'll get a situation where a lot of people
who were acting morally but against their brain's drives (since, after
all, most of you also say we have no independent mind), will instead
turn into homicidal, thieving nihilists. And no, even if you believe
we're all merely organic computers, it's not possible to fix the
hardware in such a way as to run the software the way you want.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Kevrob
2017-01-12 13:14:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by SteveGG
Sorry...
NO : God, or Santa Clause or Tooth Fairy or etc. !
Get real; grow up !
I have no idea why atheists are getting more and more obsessed with
preaching the Bad News and trying to convert religious believers these
days.
It is a reaction to the traditionally religious folks' - a loud
sub-set of them, anyway - constant drumbeat to include recognition
of a deity (usually, their deity unless there's some pushback from
adherents to other faiths) into governmental activity, contrary
to the US First Amendment and similar clauses in state constitutions.
Some of the most strident English-language "new atheists" are
British (Dawkins.) Their queen is still nominally the head of a state
church! State churches still exist in the 21st century. {Boggle!}

"Fundamentalists" have tried to hijack science curricula in
government-owned school systems, which is a good reason to
divorce education from governments and decentralize it. That
way you could put your kids in schools run according to principles
you support, and no taxpayer has to subsidize that which he
disbelieves.
Post by Chrysi Cat
Even if it were possible to prove God/dess's _non_existence, I
doubt it would be overly advisable.
If it is the truth, a "noble lie" would be better?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie
Post by Chrysi Cat
A _lot_ of those people who still believe, also feel compulsions to do
objectively-evil things; and only don't act on those because they fear
earning eternal punishment. Take away the stick, especially while also
taking away the carrot, and you'll create a Hobbesian world again.
TLDR: no, outlawing religion
Only a radical few would "outlaw religion," a la attempts of
some 20th century dictatorships tried to do.
Post by Chrysi Cat
won't get rid of hatred toward the non-cishet
I'm a "statistically normal"* Caucasian, straight male. I know
what you mean by "cishet," but I find that neologism awkward,
ugly and redolent of an intent at what the modern left's
theorists call "othering." Its use is not appreciated.
Post by Chrysi Cat
and is unlikely to remove racism or sexism either. But if you
somehow manage to do it, you'll get a situation where a lot of people
who were acting morally but against their brain's drives (since, after
all, most of you also say we have no independent mind),
Ouch! Now nearly all atheists are determinists? Not this
fella!
Post by Chrysi Cat
will instead
turn into homicidal, thieving nihilists. And no, even if you believe
we're all merely organic computers, it's not possible to fix the
hardware in such a way as to run the software the way you want.
Odd that a "non-cishet" would denigrate changing the hardware.
Isn't that what sexual reassignment is all about? Making the
physical match the mental?

Not all religions have a ghod. Buddhism doesn't require one,
there are alternatives such as Ethical Culture and the humanist
movement. One can ascribe to a moralizing philosophical system
without accepting the supernatural.

Kevin R

* not to be confused with "normal" as "normative," please.
Chrysi Cat
2017-01-12 13:42:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/12/2017 6:14 AM, Kevrob wrote:

<snip>
Post by Kevrob
Odd that a "non-cishet" would denigrate changing the hardware.
Isn't that what sexual reassignment is all about? Making the
physical match the mental?
Yes, it's about making the *physical match the mental*. It's quite
notably _not_ about making the mental match the physical, which either
is death of the original individual if we're soulless, or soul-rape if
we aren't. The hardware I was talking about in this case was, for lack
of a better analogy, mucking about with the motherboard. See the above
about 'death of the original individual'.
Post by Kevrob
Not all religions have a ghod. Buddhism doesn't require one,
there are alternatives such as Ethical Culture and the humanist
movement. One can ascribe to a moralizing philosophical system
without accepting the supernatural.
Kevin R
* not to be confused with "normal" as "normative," please.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Dimensional Traveler
2017-01-12 15:55:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
"Fundamentalists" have tried to hijack science curricula in
government-owned school systems, which is a good reason to
divorce education from governments and decentralize it. That
way you could put your kids in schools run according to principles
you support, and no taxpayer has to subsidize that which he
disbelieves.
Unfortunately doing this would make the problem worse. The
fundamentalists you are complaining about are able to make these kinds
of inroads _because_ school boards operate on the small scale.
--
Running the rec.arts.TV Channels Watched Survey.
Winter 2016 survey began Dec 01 and will end Feb 28
David DeLaney
2017-01-17 14:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
"Fundamentalists" have tried to hijack science curricula in
government-owned school systems, which is a good reason to
make sure it's widely and loudly known that public schools are run BY THE
GOVERNMENT, not by churches, and that you don't GET to keep your kids
ignorant of science and facts?
Post by Kevrob
divorce education from governments and decentralize it. That
way you could put your kids in schools run according to principles
you support, and no taxpayer has to subsidize that which he disbelieves.
Ew, no. Why in the WORLD would you want to tell people "Okay, if that's
what you believe, you get to bring your kids up that way, and you don't have
to pay taxes that go to how things actually work"? That's not a way to get
a functioning society, unless maybe the vast majority believes the same sort
of thing and are heavily invested in denial of what the observable facts are
telling them. But that could NEVER happen...
Post by Kevrob
Post by Chrysi Cat
won't get rid of hatred toward the non-cishet
I'm a "statistically normal"* Caucasian, straight male. I know
what you mean by "cishet," but I find that neologism awkward,
ugly and redolent of an intent at what the modern left's
theorists call "othering." Its use is not appreciated.
Mmmm. So what term _do_ you want to use to Other the default vision of 'person'
to match the degree of Othering that other visions get?
Post by Kevrob
Post by Chrysi Cat
and is unlikely to remove racism or sexism either. But if you
somehow manage to do it, you'll get a situation where a lot of people
who were acting morally but against their brain's drives (since, after
all, most of you also say we have no independent mind),
Ouch! Now nearly all atheists are determinists? Not this fella!
survey of quantum physics says: .... buzzz [X]
survey of people trying to establish what 'free will' might actually be says:
... reply hazy, ask again later
Post by Kevrob
Post by Chrysi Cat
will instead turn into homicidal, thieving nihilists.
Aw, no love for the angsting gothic nihilists who sit around smoking clove
cigarettes and writing bad poetry whilst drinking absinthe?
Post by Kevrob
Not all religions have a ghod. Buddhism doesn't require one,
there are alternatives such as Ethical Culture and the humanist
movement. One can ascribe to a moralizing philosophical system
without accepting the supernatural.
Sure - but, somehow, people find "follow THESE rules and no other, to be Good
People" easier to accept when the rules don't obviously come from Just Another
Person.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Kevrob
2017-01-17 16:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Kevrob
"Fundamentalists" have tried to hijack science curricula in
government-owned school systems, which is a good reason to
make sure it's widely and loudly known that public schools are run BY THE
GOVERNMENT, not by churches, and that you don't GET to keep your kids
ignorant of science and facts?
Luckily for me, in this case, I have no children. I still get stuck
paying to educate other people's kids, and no, my parents did not
avail themselves of the government school system when educating me
or my siblings, aside from state-mandated kindergarten, which
the private schools in our area did not have.
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Kevrob
divorce education from governments and decentralize it. That
way you could put your kids in schools run according to principles
you support, and no taxpayer has to subsidize that which he disbelieves.
Ew, no. Why in the WORLD would you want to tell people "Okay, if that's
what you believe, you get to bring your kids up that way, and you don't have
to pay taxes that go to how things actually work"? That's not a way to get
a functioning society, unless maybe the vast majority believes the same sort
of thing and are heavily invested in denial of what the observable facts are
telling them. But that could NEVER happen...
I think we should have competing schools, the way we have competing newspapers,
publishing companies, broadcasting stations and cable networks, etc.

We don't have 90% of books published by state publishing houses,
and 10% by a smattering of non-profits and a trace amount from for
profit houses.
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Kevrob
Post by Chrysi Cat
won't get rid of hatred toward the non-cishet
I'm a "statistically normal"* Caucasian, straight male. I know
what you mean by "cishet," but I find that neologism awkward,
ugly and redolent of an intent at what the modern left's
theorists call "othering." Its use is not appreciated.
Mmmm. So what term _do_ you want to use to Other the default vision of 'person'
"Kevin" will do for me.
Post by David DeLaney
to match the degree of Othering that other visions get?
Treat people as individuals. I don't care who anybody else screws,
basically, as long as I'm not forced to join in if I don't wanna.
I don't much care about "how," either.
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Kevrob
Post by Chrysi Cat
and is unlikely to remove racism or sexism either. But if you
somehow manage to do it, you'll get a situation where a lot of people
who were acting morally but against their brain's drives (since, after
all, most of you also say we have no independent mind),
Ouch! Now nearly all atheists are determinists? Not this fella!
survey of quantum physics says: .... buzzz [X]
... reply hazy, ask again later
Post by Kevrob
Post by Chrysi Cat
will instead turn into homicidal, thieving nihilists.
Aw, no love for the angsting gothic nihilists who sit around smoking clove
cigarettes and writing bad poetry whilst drinking absinthe?
OK, suicidal nihilists.
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Kevrob
Not all religions have a ghod. Buddhism doesn't require one,
there are alternatives such as Ethical Culture and the humanist
movement. One can ascribe to a moralizing philosophical system
without accepting the supernatural.
Sure - but, somehow, people find "follow THESE rules and no other, to be Good
People" easier to accept when the rules don't obviously come from Just Another
Person.
Hence, some people tend to elevate the buddha into de facto ghodhood.
Oh, yes.

Kevin R
David DeLaney
2017-01-18 03:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Kevrob
"Fundamentalists" have tried to hijack science curricula in
government-owned school systems, which is a good reason to
make sure it's widely and loudly known that public schools are run BY THE
GOVERNMENT, not by churches, and that you don't GET to keep your kids
ignorant of science and facts?
Luckily for me, in this case, I have no children. I still get stuck
paying to educate other people's kids,
Note that this is a Good Thing.

Think for a minute or two what society local to you would be LIKE if other
people's kids ran around uneducated. There are films about this sort of thing,
though these days they mostly star black folks, because of unfortunate gov't-
spending priorities in many USA inner cities...

Also think what the eventual and cumulative effect on the workforce would be
like. The jobs totally uneducated folks can _do_ have been evaporating very
very fast recently.
Post by Kevrob
Post by David DeLaney
Ew, no. Why in the WORLD would you want to tell people "Okay, if that's
what you believe, you get to bring your kids up that way, and you don't have
to pay taxes that go to how things actually work"? That's not a way to get
a functioning society, unless maybe the vast majority believes the same sort
of thing and are heavily invested in denial of what the observable facts are
telling them. But that could NEVER happen...
I think we should have competing schools, the way we have competing newspapers,
publishing companies, broadcasting stations and cable networks, etc.
Oh, sure. But don't try to choke off the gov't-run portion of it... and you
do NOT get to slip out of Federal regulations on _how_ kids get educated and
to what extent. That got stamped on VERY firmly by Brown v. Board of Education;
if you're gonna have competing schools, they have to INCLUDE everything the
public schools do and go beyond that. They're not allowed to be "escape
learning about this kind of art, these eras of history, and those segments of
science" schools.
Post by Kevrob
Post by David DeLaney
to match the degree of Othering that other visions get?
Treat people as individuals. I don't care who anybody else screws,
basically, as long as I'm not forced to join in if I don't wanna.
I don't much care about "how," either.
I actually violently agree, here ... but then what do we call a group
including you that all mostly match your details?
Post by Kevrob
Post by David DeLaney
Sure - but, somehow, people find "follow THESE rules and no other, to be Good
People" easier to accept when the rules don't obviously come from Just
Another Person.
Hence, some people tend to elevate the buddha into de facto ghodhood.
Oh, yes.
If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. Then invite him home for a nice
cup of tea.

Dave, maybe give him a kitten
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
J. Clarke
2017-01-18 09:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <166dnd2SEKOfdePFnZ2dnUU7-
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Kevrob
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Kevrob
"Fundamentalists" have tried to hijack science curricula in
government-owned school systems, which is a good reason to
make sure it's widely and loudly known that public schools are run BY THE
GOVERNMENT, not by churches, and that you don't GET to keep your kids
ignorant of science and facts?
Luckily for me, in this case, I have no children. I still get stuck
paying to educate other people's kids,
Note that this is a Good Thing.
Think for a minute or two what society local to you would be LIKE if other
people's kids ran around uneducated. There are films about this sort of thing,
though these days they mostly star black folks, because of unfortunate gov't-
spending priorities in many USA inner cities...
Also think what the eventual and cumulative effect on the workforce would be
like. The jobs totally uneducated folks can _do_ have been evaporating very
very fast recently.
Post by Kevrob
Post by David DeLaney
Ew, no. Why in the WORLD would you want to tell people "Okay, if that's
what you believe, you get to bring your kids up that way, and you don't have
to pay taxes that go to how things actually work"? That's not a way to get
a functioning society, unless maybe the vast majority believes the same sort
of thing and are heavily invested in denial of what the observable facts are
telling them. But that could NEVER happen...
I think we should have competing schools, the way we have competing newspapers,
publishing companies, broadcasting stations and cable networks, etc.
Oh, sure. But don't try to choke off the gov't-run portion of it... and you
do NOT get to slip out of Federal regulations on _how_ kids get educated and
to what extent. That got stamped on VERY firmly by Brown v. Board of Education;
if you're gonna have competing schools, they have to INCLUDE everything the
public schools do and go beyond that. They're not allowed to be "escape
learning about this kind of art, these eras of history, and those segments of
science" schools.
Well, it's clear that your education was
inadequate. You might want to find out what
Brown vs Board of Education was really about
instead of whatever some ignoramus told you it
was about, and how Federal influence on
education _really_ works (the motivator is uses
is the carrot, not the stick). Oh, and you
might want to look at the list of fastest-
growing occupations as well.

But no, you're going to go on believing that the
Feds micromanage every homeschool.
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Kevrob
Post by David DeLaney
to match the degree of Othering that other visions get?
Treat people as individuals. I don't care who anybody else screws,
basically, as long as I'm not forced to join in if I don't wanna.
I don't much care about "how," either.
I actually violently agree, here ... but then what do we call a group
including you that all mostly match your details?
Post by Kevrob
Post by David DeLaney
Sure - but, somehow, people find "follow THESE rules and no other, to be Good
People" easier to accept when the rules don't obviously come from Just
Another Person.
Hence, some people tend to elevate the buddha into de facto ghodhood.
Oh, yes.
If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. Then invite him home for a nice
cup of tea.
Dave, maybe give him a kitten
Kevrob
2017-01-18 12:46:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
In article <166dnd2SEKOfdePFnZ2dnUU7-
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Kevrob
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Kevrob
"Fundamentalists" have tried to hijack science curricula in
government-owned school systems, which is a good reason to
make sure it's widely and loudly known that public schools are run BY THE
GOVERNMENT, not by churches, and that you don't GET to keep your kids
ignorant of science and facts?
Luckily for me, in this case, I have no children. I still get stuck
paying to educate other people's kids,
Note that this is a Good Thing.
Think for a minute or two what society local to you would be LIKE if other
people's kids ran around uneducated. There are films about this sort of thing,
though these days they mostly star black folks, because of unfortunate gov't-
spending priorities in many USA inner cities...
Also think what the eventual and cumulative effect on the workforce would be
like. The jobs totally uneducated folks can _do_ have been evaporating very
very fast recently.
Post by Kevrob
Post by David DeLaney
Ew, no. Why in the WORLD would you want to tell people "Okay, if that's
what you believe, you get to bring your kids up that way, and you don't have
to pay taxes that go to how things actually work"? That's not a way to get
a functioning society, unless maybe the vast majority believes the same sort
of thing and are heavily invested in denial of what the observable facts are
telling them. But that could NEVER happen...
I think we should have competing schools, the way we have competing newspapers,
publishing companies, broadcasting stations and cable networks, etc.
Oh, sure. But don't try to choke off the gov't-run portion of it... and you
do NOT get to slip out of Federal regulations on _how_ kids get educated and
to what extent. That got stamped on VERY firmly by Brown v. Board of Education;
if you're gonna have competing schools, they have to INCLUDE everything the
public schools do and go beyond that. They're not allowed to be "escape
learning about this kind of art, these eras of history, and those segments of
science" schools.
Well, it's clear that your education was
inadequate. You might want to find out what
Brown vs Board of Education was really about
instead of whatever some ignoramus told you it
was about, and how Federal influence on
education _really_ works (the motivator is uses
is the carrot, not the stick). Oh, and you
might want to look at the list of fastest-
growing occupations as well.
You and I know that Brown, overturning Plessy v Ferguson,
ruled that states, or their creatures, local governments,
could nor run schools on a "separate but equal" basis.
It was not a grant of plenary power to the Federal government
to regulate education. That has never happened, and would
probably require a constitutional amendment.

As i recently wrote,in another group:

It is instructive that the "thin edge of the wedge" that allowed
the Feds to worm their way into funding, and by regulations attached
to the funding, to establish substantial influence over education
policy, was the grant of power to the Congress to fund the military.

The "land grant colleges" were a Civil War innovation, designed to make
state universities and a few other institutions especially designated
as recipients of funds, centers for training military officers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Land-Grant_Acts

The same sort of legerdemain was exercised in the case of elementary
and secondary education after the CCCP launched Sputnik: The
National Defense Education Act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Education_Act

The "reformers" knew that Federal funding for state and local schools
was constitutionally questionable, and used the need for the military
to have highly trained people, and for our defense industries to have
a skilled and knowledgeable workforce, to get a slice of the Federal
pie.

What is acceptable for the Federal government to do has changed,
for good or ill, since 1789. The Civil War caused government
expansion, as did the World Wars, the Great Depression, the Cold
War and the Infinite War on Some Terrorists. As Randolph Bourne
once wrote, "war is the health of the state."

Also:

As has been proven with the Federal Dept of Transportation making
highway aid dependent on the states' adopting 18-year old drinking ages,
which was upheld by the Supreme Court, "who takes the king's shilling
does the king's bidding" is, unfortunately, the current state of the
"law."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole

Theoretically, states could change their constitutions, removing
the guarantees of "free" public education, pull the charters of the
school districts and privatize the whole shooting match.

Just refusing the federal subsidies, which are less than 10%* of
total spending on el-hi education, the states could get out from
under restrictions that don't derive from cases like Brown.

Some school districts that were avoiding integration did shut their
schools, leaving private schools known as "segregation academies"
to take up the slack for white students.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregation_academies

I don't advocate schools like that, and since the state constitution
in places like Virginia did require public schools be available,
the states went too far, bany amendments.

* https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregation_academies

Moving from a 90% government system to private education would require
some transitional structure, such as vouchers, and no school that
discriminates could take part in a tax-funded scholarships, however
temporarily those taxes were dedicated to the program.

Kevin R
Post by J. Clarke
But no, you're going to go on believing that the
Feds micromanage every homeschool.
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Kevrob
Post by David DeLaney
to match the degree of Othering that other visions get?
Treat people as individuals. I don't care who anybody else screws,
basically, as long as I'm not forced to join in if I don't wanna.
I don't much care about "how," either.
I actually violently agree, here ... but then what do we call a group
including you that all mostly match your details?
Post by Kevrob
Post by David DeLaney
Sure - but, somehow, people find "follow THESE rules and no other, to be Good
People" easier to accept when the rules don't obviously come from Just
Another Person.
Hence, some people tend to elevate the buddha into de facto ghodhood.
Oh, yes.
If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. Then invite him home for a nice
cup of tea.
Dave, maybe give him a kitten
Kevrob
2017-01-18 13:11:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
bany amendments.
That should have been "barring any amendments."

Kevin R
Lynn McGuire
2017-01-18 21:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/18/2017 6:46 AM, Kevrob wrote:
...
Post by Kevrob
What is acceptable for the Federal government to do has changed,
for good or ill, since 1789. The Civil War caused government
expansion, as did the World Wars, the Great Depression, the Cold
War and the Infinite War on Some Terrorists. As Randolph Bourne
once wrote, "war is the health of the state."
We've always been at war with Eastasia.

Lynn
larry
2017-04-29 00:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
...
Post by Kevrob
What is acceptable for the Federal government to do has changed,
for good or ill, since 1789. The Civil War caused government
expansion, as did the World Wars, the Great Depression, the Cold
War and the Infinite War on Some Terrorists. As Randolph Bourne
once wrote, "war is the health of the state."
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
Lynn
If in fact Eastasia and Eurasia exist outside the Ministry
of Truth.

Ned Latham
2017-01-12 15:02:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by SteveGG
Sorry...
NO : God, or Santa Clause or Tooth Fairy or etc. !
Get real; grow up !
I have no idea why atheists are getting more and more obsessed with
preaching the Bad News and trying to convert religious believers
these days.
Read some history. Then *think*.

The prevalence of religion has blighted the lives of thousands of
millions of people over the ages. And as if that's not enough, it
has motivated regimes of utterly brutal torture, mass murder and
even genocide.
Post by Chrysi Cat
Even if it were possible to prove God/dess's _non_existence,
No Need. The theists claim that there is such a thing as a god,
Let them prove it.
Post by Chrysi Cat
I doubt it would be overly advisable.
"Overly"? What are you on about? *Nothing* is "overly" advisable.
Post by Chrysi Cat
A _lot_ of those people who still believe, also feel compulsions
to do objectively-evil things;
Such as exterminating "infidels"?
Post by Chrysi Cat
and only don't act on those because they fear earning eternal
punishment.
Rubbish. Human beings internalise moral strictures both religious
and non-religious. It's in their upbringing, not theur belief
system.
Post by Chrysi Cat
Take away the stick, especially while also taking away the
carrot, and you'll create a Hobbesian world again.
What "again"?

----further irrational babble snipped----
Siri Cruise
2017-01-12 16:51:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ned Latham
Read some history. Then *think*.
Yes, do.
Post by Ned Latham
The prevalence of religion has blighted the lives of thousands of
millions of people over the ages. And as if that's not enough, it
has motivated regimes of utterly brutal torture, mass murder and
even genocide.
Humans ran a couple experiments, one in the 19th century, a handful in 20th
century, with a few still running. They set up a few countries that did their
best to eradicate religion. It turns out they were regimes of utterly brutal
torture, mass murder and even genocide.

Based on experimental evidence religion is irrelevant to how nice a government
is.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Kevrob
2017-01-12 18:15:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Ned Latham
Read some history. Then *think*.
Yes, do.
Post by Ned Latham
The prevalence of religion has blighted the lives of thousands of
millions of people over the ages. And as if that's not enough, it
has motivated regimes of utterly brutal torture, mass murder and
even genocide.
Humans ran a couple experiments, one in the 19th century,
France? Substituted a "Cult of Reason." The extreme revolutionaries
who tried to outlaw the RCC tried to replace it with a substitute
precisely because they adhered to that "noble lie" excuse for the
masses. It was OK for Jean Philosophe to be a Deist, an agnostic or
even an atheist, but not some random villein or sans cullotte!
Post by Siri Cruise
a handful in 20th
century, with a few still running.>
You have to be referencing the totalitarian regimes of the fascists/nazis
and the marxists. There, too, they replaced religion with a mystical
or pseudo-mystical system of myth and philosophy, that made their ideologies
functionally equivalent to strict theistic religions. Just swap in crank
race theory and some Führerprinzip, mix with a cult of personality.
if you are out of race theory and Führerprinzip, class struggle and dialectical
materialism may be substituted. Shake well, kills millions.
Post by Siri Cruise
They set up a few countries that did their
best to eradicate religion. It turns out they were regimes of utterly brutal
torture, mass murder and even genocide.
Based on experimental evidence religion is irrelevant to how nice a government
is.
False comparison. Try pitting places where there is no compulsion in
religion nor any compulsion in political ideology to either the supposedly
non-theistic regimes you allude to. The former will come out better.

Again, the complaint isn't whether society has religious people or not,
or religious institutions or not, but whether non-religious people can
safely ignore them and refuse to pay for them.

Kevin R
John Halpenny
2017-01-13 04:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Ned Latham
Read some history. Then *think*.
Yes, do.
Post by Ned Latham
The prevalence of religion has blighted the lives of thousands of
millions of people over the ages. And as if that's not enough, it
has motivated regimes of utterly brutal torture, mass murder and
even genocide.
Humans ran a couple experiments, one in the 19th century,
France? Substituted a "Cult of Reason." The extreme revolutionaries
who tried to outlaw the RCC tried to replace it with a substitute
precisely because they adhered to that "noble lie" excuse for the
masses. It was OK for Jean Philosophe to be a Deist, an agnostic or
even an atheist, but not some random villein or sans cullotte!
Post by Siri Cruise
a handful in 20th
century, with a few still running.>
You have to be referencing the totalitarian regimes of the fascists/nazis
and the marxists. There, too, they replaced religion with a mystical
or pseudo-mystical system of myth and philosophy, that made their ideologies
functionally equivalent to strict theistic religions. Just swap in crank
race theory and some Führerprinzip, mix with a cult of personality.
if you are out of race theory and Führerprinzip, class struggle and dialectical
materialism may be substituted. Shake well, kills millions.
Post by Siri Cruise
They set up a few countries that did their
best to eradicate religion. It turns out they were regimes of utterly brutal
torture, mass murder and even genocide.
Based on experimental evidence religion is irrelevant to how nice a government
is.
False comparison. Try pitting places where there is no compulsion in
religion nor any compulsion in political ideology to either the supposedly
non-theistic regimes you allude to. The former will come out better.
Again, the complaint isn't whether society has religious people or not,
or religious institutions or not, but whether non-religious people can
safely ignore them and refuse to pay for them.
Kevin R
When I grew up, all of the bad things in the world were due to "Godless Commie atheists", and only Faith and apple pie could bring us the good things of life.

We now have the same story - only the labels have been changed.

John
David DeLaney
2017-01-17 14:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
False comparison. Try pitting places where there is no compulsion in
religion nor any compulsion in political ideology to either the supposedly
non-theistic regimes you allude to. The former will come out better.
Imagine there's no heaven / it's easy if you try-y
no Hell below us / above us only sky-y
imagine all the people / living life in peace...

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Greg Goss
2017-01-17 15:15:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Ned Latham
Read some history. Then *think*.
Yes, do.
Post by Ned Latham
The prevalence of religion has blighted the lives of thousands of
millions of people over the ages. And as if that's not enough, it
has motivated regimes of utterly brutal torture, mass murder and
even genocide.
Humans ran a couple experiments, one in the 19th century, a handful in 20th
century, with a few still running. They set up a few countries that did their
best to eradicate religion. It turns out they were regimes of utterly brutal
torture, mass murder and even genocide.
Based on experimental evidence religion is irrelevant to how nice a government
is.
The Nordic countries (Scandinavia and Iceland) are rapidly approaching
zero without torture and mass murder.

But then, you are claiming "irrelevant" rather than "contradicted", so
I guess I'm not arguing with you.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Ned Latham
2017-01-17 16:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Ned Latham
Read some history. Then *think*.
Yes, do.
Instead of the cheap shot, you should try doing it. Your "history"
is worthless.
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Ned Latham
The prevalence of religion has blighted the lives of thousands of
millions of people over the ages. And as if that's not enough, it
has motivated regimes of utterly brutal torture, mass murder and
even genocide.
Humans ran a couple experiments, one in the 19th century, a handful
in 20th century, with a few still running. They set up a few
countries that did their best to eradicate religion.
In no case was that the focus of the "experiment". OTOH, "experiment"s
set up during the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages *did* have a religious
focus, and were focused on, not its eradication, but its universal
enforcement.
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Siri Cruise
It turns out
they were regimes of utterly brutal torture, mass murder and even
genocide.
Yair, Funny that. All of them. And the common factor was the effort at
universal enforcement of some ideology.
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Siri Cruise
Based on experimental evidence religion is irrelevant to how nice
a government is.
False. Religion, specifically monotheist religion, was the sole
element of focus in the majority of those "experiment"s, and because
monotheism's institutionalised bigotry was the direct cause of the
"utterly brutal torture, mass murder and even genocide" that those
regimes engaged in, religion, specifically monotheist religion,
is very definitely relevant to how "nice" a government is.
Post by Greg Goss
The Nordic countries (Scandinavia and Iceland) are rapidly approaching
zero without torture and mass murder.
Check out how "nice" they were in the Middle Ages, when they were Catholic.
Post by Greg Goss
But then, you are claiming "irrelevant" rather than "contradicted", so
I guess I'm not arguing with you.
Christian apologists often "argue" with weasel words.

Ned
Siri Cruise
2017-01-17 17:19:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Ned Latham
Read some history. Then *think*.
Yes, do.
Instead of the cheap shot, you should try doing it. Your "history"
is worthless.
Because you don't like it.
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Siri Cruise
Humans ran a couple experiments, one in the 19th century, a handful
in 20th century, with a few still running. They set up a few
countries that did their best to eradicate religion.
In no case was that the focus of the "experiment". OTOH, "experiment"s
Actually it was. During the French Revolution that targetted the church to
eradicate it. Stalin, Beria, etc congratulated themselves on eradicating the
russian church. Eradicating religion was very much their focus.
Post by Ned Latham
False. Religion, specifically monotheist religion, was the sole
element of focus in the majority of those "experiment"s, and because
Your hate makes you stupid.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Kevrob
2017-01-17 18:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Ned Latham
Read some history. Then *think*.
Yes, do.
Instead of the cheap shot, you should try doing it. Your "history"
is worthless.
Because you don't like it.
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Siri Cruise
Humans ran a couple experiments, one in the 19th century, a handful
in 20th century, with a few still running. They set up a few
countries that did their best to eradicate religion.
In no case was that the focus of the "experiment". OTOH, "experiment"s
Actually it was. During the French Revolution that targetted the church to
eradicate it. Stalin, Beria, etc congratulated themselves on eradicating the
russian church. Eradicating religion was very much their focus.
Stalin trotted out the icons when the Wehrmacht was battering
the gates of his capital.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Ned Latham
False. Religion, specifically monotheist religion, was the sole
element of focus in the majority of those "experiment"s, and because
Your hate makes you stupid.
I don't understand why people can't figure out that SOMETIMES
politicians use religion as an all-encompassing ideology to
justify their rule, and sometimes they use SOME OTHER ideology,
to do things just as bad or worse.

You also have Quaker pacifists and non-violent atheists of all
stripes. It isn't all one thing or another.

Kevin R
Ned Latham
2017-01-17 21:04:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The dishobest christian apologist that sometimes calls
itself Siri Cruise wrote:

----Surreptitiouslu snipped content restored----
----marked with asterisks----
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Ned Latham
Read some history. Then *think*.
Yes, do.
Instead of the cheap shot, you should try doing it. Your "history"
is worthless.
Because you don't like it.
You got it wrong way around, idiot. I dislike it because it's worthless.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Siri Cruise
Humans ran a couple experiments, one in the 19th century, a handful
in 20th century, with a few still running. They set up a few
countries that did their best to eradicate religion.
In no case was that the focus of the "experiment".
Actually it was. During the French Revolution that targetted the
church to eradicate it.
Bullshit. Ir was just one element on their agenda.
Post by Siri Cruise
Stalin, Beria, etc congratulated themselves on eradicating the
russian church. Eradicating religion was very much their focus.
Larf. Stalin was a closet believer. A failed Russian Orthodox priest.
He kept priests on stipend, you fuckin' igorant clown.

* > OTOH, "experiment"s set up during the Dark Ages and the Middle
* > Ages *did* have a religious focus, and were focused on, not its
* > eradication, but its universal enforcement.

So you couldn't face this bit, you lying loon? Tell us how religion's
irrelevant to how "nice" the Spanish government was when it was burning
people to death on the Church's orders.

Remember what the feminist said about the witchhunts? "Six generations
of European children were forced to watch their mothers burn".

You got any comment on that, you murder-mongering maggot?
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Ned Latham
False. Religion, specifically monotheist religion, was the sole
element of focus in the majority of those "experiment"s, and because
* > monotheism's institutionalised bigotry was the direct cause of the
* > "utterly brutal torture, mass murder and even genocide" that those
* > regimes engaged in, religion, specifically monotheist religion,
* > is very definitely relevant to how "nice" a government is.
Post by Siri Cruise
Your hate makes you stupid.
Wrong again. lunatic. My intelligence makes me hate the evil you
defend.
Siri Cruise
2017-01-18 01:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ned Latham
Larf. Stalin was a closet believer. A failed Russian Orthodox priest.
He kept priests on stipend, you fuckin' igorant clown.
'nough said.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
h***@gmail.com
2017-01-17 23:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Actually it was. During the French Revolution that targetted the church to
eradicate it.
http://www.historytoday.com/gemma-betros/french-revolution-and-catholic-church
suggests that your summary is rather misleading.
Post by Siri Cruise
Stalin, Beria, etc congratulated themselves on eradicating the
russian church. Eradicating religion was very much their focus.
Rubbish, eradicating anything which would resist their control was very much their focus.
The Starmaker
2017-01-12 16:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by SteveGG
Sorry...
NO : God, or Santa Clause or Tooth Fairy or etc. !
Get real; grow up !
I have no idea why atheists are getting more and more obsessed with
preaching the Bad News and trying to convert religious believers these
days. Even if it were possible to prove God/dess's _non_existence, I
doubt it would be overly advisable.
A _lot_ of those people who still believe, also feel compulsions to do
objectively-evil things; and only don't act on those because they fear
earning eternal punishment. Take away the stick, especially while also
taking away the carrot, and you'll create a Hobbesian world again.
TLDR: no, outlawing religion won't get rid of hatred toward the
non-cishet and is unlikely to remove racism or sexism either. But if you
somehow manage to do it, you'll get a situation where a lot of people
who were acting morally but against their brain's drives (since, after
all, most of you also say we have no independent mind), will instead
turn into homicidal, thieving nihilists. And no, even if you believe
we're all merely organic computers, it's not possible to fix the
hardware in such a way as to run the software the way you want.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
It is not at all very complicated...

It Very Simple. God is Good, everthing else is Evil!


I'll give you an example..

you take a Murderer

he murders somebody..

he's in jail...


He's still a human person

He still has his Good side, and he has his Bad side.


Which side is the Murderer?



Which side is the Atheist??



Atheist are Evil, plain and simple.


Sure, there are a lot of religous people who believe in God who do bad things...

but it is all in the name of Good.


When an Israeli soldier kills a Palestian baby, it's in the name of Good.


might be a little hard for you to understand...
SteveGG
2017-01-13 14:09:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
There is no greater evil, than that perpetrated in the name of
religion ! e.g. Crusades, Islamic extremists, etc.
Kevrob
2017-01-13 15:05:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SteveGG
There is no greater evil, than that perpetrated in the name of
religion ! e.g. Crusades, Islamic extremists, etc.
No greater? Fair point. There are some just as bad from political
ideologies that are functionally equivalent to religious faiths:
Nazism and marxist totalitarianism.

It all boils down to "my view of the universe is right, everyone
else is wrong, and if you don't submit you'll be killed or enslaved."
Enslaved and worked until you die in harness was probably the
"most efficient" outcome for the tyrants, but they wouldn't flinch
if they felt like killing someone before they wrung the last erg
of work out of him.

If you can fool a person into buying the ideology or the faith,
you've tricked them into enslaving themselves!

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2017-01-13 19:07:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <4901c1bc-7fb5-400e-87d9-
***@googlegroups.com>, ***@my-
deja.com says...
Post by Kevrob
Post by SteveGG
There is no greater evil, than that perpetrated in the name of
religion ! e.g. Crusades, Islamic extremists, etc.
No greater? Fair point. There are some just as bad from political
Nazism and marxist totalitarianism.
It all boils down to "my view of the universe is right, everyone
else is wrong, and if you don't submit you'll be killed or enslaved."
Enslaved and worked until you die in harness was probably the
"most efficient" outcome for the tyrants, but they wouldn't flinch
if they felt like killing someone before they wrung the last erg
of work out of him.
If you can fool a person into buying the ideology or the faith,
you've tricked them into enslaving themselves!
Only if they also accept that the wannabee
master is in fact entitled to be their master.

It's more dangerous when the wannabee master
buys into it and uses it as an excuse to enslave
people who have no interest whatsoever in his
nutcake religion.
Kevrob
2017-01-13 21:08:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
In article <4901c1bc-7fb5-400e-87d9-
deja.com says...
Post by Kevrob
Post by SteveGG
There is no greater evil, than that perpetrated in the name of
religion ! e.g. Crusades, Islamic extremists, etc.
No greater? Fair point. There are some just as bad from political
Nazism and marxist totalitarianism.
It all boils down to "my view of the universe is right, everyone
else is wrong, and if you don't submit you'll be killed or enslaved."
Enslaved and worked until you die in harness was probably the
"most efficient" outcome for the tyrants, but they wouldn't flinch
if they felt like killing someone before they wrung the last erg
of work out of him.
If you can fool a person into buying the ideology or the faith,
you've tricked them into enslaving themselves!
Only if they also accept that the wannabee
master is in fact entitled to be their master.
It's more dangerous when the wannabee master
buys into it and uses it as an excuse to enslave
people who have no interest whatsoever in his
nutcake religion.
That's why the servus in the Stirling Draka books are so creepy.
They are bio-engineered to obey.

Many a rank-and-filer in a religious movement or political
order has been treated not much better than a slave, but because
they have bought into the idea that they are following ghod or
his prophet, joining with the vanguard of the revolution, or
forging their spirits in the tradition of their ancestors, they
don't consider themselves to be lowest on the totem pole. Many
a luftmensch felt himself a big macher in his SA uniform. (Excuse
the Yiddish.)

Kevin R
h***@gmail.com
2017-01-15 23:47:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by SteveGG
There is no greater evil, than that perpetrated in the name of
religion ! e.g. Crusades, Islamic extremists, etc.
No greater? Fair point. There are some just as bad from political
Nazism and marxist totalitarianism.
Germany was hardly a non-religious state during the 30s and 40s
Kevrob
2017-01-16 18:37:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by SteveGG
There is no greater evil, than that perpetrated in the name of
religion ! e.g. Crusades, Islamic extremists, etc.
No greater? Fair point. There are some just as bad from political
Nazism and marxist totalitarianism.
Germany was hardly a non-religious state during the 30s and 40s
No, it wasn't. But the cult of der Furher was considered idolatrous
by some Christians, and the state was trying to co-opt the churches.
In some ways it was just caesaropapism in new bottles.

Kevin R
Siri Cruise
2017-01-13 17:26:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SteveGG
There is no greater evil, than that perpetrated in the name of
religion ! e.g. Crusades, Islamic extremists, etc.
Don't forget the religion that created artificial famines to starve Ukrainians
into submission.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Ned Latham
2017-01-13 22:35:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SteveGG
There is no greater evil, than that perpetrated in the name of
religion ! e.g. Crusades, Islamic extremists, etc.
Wrong. There is no greater evil than monotheist religion.

¤ Religion is delusion: by definition, insanity;
¤ Organised religion demands and inculcates mass delusion;
¤ Monotheism adds institutionalised bigotry to the mix.
J. Clarke
2017-01-13 22:42:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by Ned Latham
Post by SteveGG
There is no greater evil, than that perpetrated in the name of
religion ! e.g. Crusades, Islamic extremists, etc.
Wrong. There is no greater evil than monotheist religion.
? Religion is delusion: by definition, insanity;
? Organised religion demands and inculcates mass delusion;
? Monotheism adds institutionalised bigotry to the mix.
You seem to have little knowledge of evil if you
rank that at the top.
Ned Latham
2017-01-14 15:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Ned Latham
Post by SteveGG
There is no greater evil, than that perpetrated in the name of
religion ! e.g. Crusades, Islamic extremists, etc.
Wrong. There is no greater evil than monotheist religion.
¤ Religion is delusion: by definition, insanity;
¤ Organised religion demands and inculcates mass delusion;
¤ Monotheism adds institutionalised bigotry to the mix.
You seem to have little knowledge of evil if you
rank that at the top.
Attacking my knowledge and judgemnent is an ad hominen attack, idiot.
Means only that you dislike the statements I made, but you're too
stupid to contest them.
J. Clarke
2017-01-14 16:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by Ned Latham
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Ned Latham
Post by SteveGG
There is no greater evil, than that perpetrated in the name of
religion ! e.g. Crusades, Islamic extremists, etc.
Wrong. There is no greater evil than monotheist religion.
? Religion is delusion: by definition, insanity;
? Organised religion demands and inculcates mass delusion;
? Monotheism adds institutionalised bigotry to the mix.
You seem to have little knowledge of evil if you
rank that at the top.
Attacking my knowledge and judgemnent is an ad hominen attack, idiot.
Means only that you dislike the statements I made, but you're too
stupid to contest them.
Hi, Rod. Bye Rod. <plonk>
Ned Latham
2017-01-14 20:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Ned Latham
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Ned Latham
Post by SteveGG
There is no greater evil, than that perpetrated in the name of
religion ! e.g. Crusades, Islamic extremists, etc.
Wrong. There is no greater evil than monotheist religion.
¤ Religion is delusion: by definition, insanity;
¤ Organised religion demands and inculcates mass delusion;
¤ Monotheism adds institutionalised bigotry to the mix.
You seem to have little knowledge of evil if you
rank that at the top.
Attacking my knowledge and judgemnent is an ad hominen attack, idiot.
Means only that you dislike the statements I made, but you're too
stupid to contest them.
Oops. I got that slightly wrong. Lemme try again:

Attacking my knowledge and judgemnent is an ad hominen attack, idiot.
Means only that you dislike the statements I made and you're too
stupid to contest them.
Post by J. Clarke
Hi, Rod. Bye Rod. <plonk>
What is it with these crospost retards that that keeps them
misidentifting people?
Siri Cruise
2017-01-14 17:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ned Latham
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Ned Latham
Post by SteveGG
There is no greater evil, than that perpetrated in the name of
religion ! e.g. Crusades, Islamic extremists, etc.
Wrong. There is no greater evil than monotheist religion.
€ Religion is delusion: by definition, insanity;
€ Organised religion demands and inculcates mass delusion;
€ Monotheism adds institutionalised bigotry to the mix.
You seem to have little knowledge of evil if you
rank that at the top.
Attacking my knowledge and judgemnent is an ad hominen attack, idiot.
Means only that you dislike the statements I made, but you're too
stupid to contest them.
No, this is an ad hominem:

You're an idiot. And you smell bad. Even over the internet.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Ned Latham
2017-01-14 21:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Ned Latham
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Ned Latham
Post by SteveGG
There is no greater evil, than that perpetrated in the name of
religion ! e.g. Crusades, Islamic extremists, etc.
Wrong. There is no greater evil than monotheist religion.
¤ Religion is delusion: by definition, insanity;
¤ Organised religion demands and inculcates mass delusion;
¤ Monotheism adds institutionalised bigotry to the mix.
You seem to have little knowledge of evil if you
rank that at the top.
Attacking my knowledge and judgemnent is an ad hominen attack, idiot.
Means only that you dislike the statements I made and you're too
stupid to contest them.
No,
You misspelt "Yes", moron.
Post by Siri Cruise
You're an idiot. And you smell bad. Even over the internet.
Ad hominem, yes. Also massively stupid. You must be one of
those Windows retards I keep hearing about. A delusional,
demented dipshit. Gates has much to answer for.
Kadaitcha Man
2017-01-14 22:34:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ned Latham, hag-seed hence. Thou art an unmuzzled ravenous tiger, a
rabid very shallow monster, a brainless base tike, a bulbous greasy
Post by Ned Latham
Attacking my knowledge and judgemnent is an ad hominen attack, idiot.
Means only that you dislike the statements I made, but you're too
stupid to contest them.
On the contrary. It could also mean you're a fuckwit, which is far more
likely than you having an uncontestable argument.
--
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents
and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
- Max Planck
Ned Latham
2017-01-15 10:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Well, I see the wannabe Kadaitcha Man's attention span as waning
again. Luckily, he has a diligent keeper, who reminds him to breahe
around 15 - 20 times a minute. And tries to help him with writing too,
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Ned Latham, hag-seed hence. Thou art an unmuzzled ravenous tiger, a
rabid very shallow monster, a brainless base tike, a bulbous greasy
Post by Ned Latham
Attacking my knowledge and judgemnent is an ad hominen attack, idiot.
Means only that you dislike the statements I made and you're too
stupid to contest them.
On the contrary. It could also mean you're a fuckwit,
Nope. A simple rebuttal of my statement might mean that. For example,
he could have tried with something he thinks might pass as more evil
than monotheism. But he didn't. He tried to be a smartarse.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
which is far more likely than you having an uncontestable argument.
LOL. Not even close, Gimpy.

But hey, if you think the point's arguable, go for it.
(Just don't go trippin' over those plates of meat you
blunder about on.)
Kadaitcha Man
2017-01-14 00:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ned Latham, ye lisp and wear strange suits. Ye are an abhorrent
depender on a thing that leans, an inane slug, an ugly footboy, a
Post by Ned Latham
Post by SteveGG
There is no greater evil, than that perpetrated in the name of
religion ! e.g. Crusades, Islamic extremists, etc.
Wrong. There is no greater evil than monotheist religion.
� Religion is delusion: by definition, insanity;
� Organised religion demands and inculcates mass delusion;
� Monotheism adds institutionalised bigotry to the mix.
By that definition, atheism is a monotheistic religion.
--
Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is
because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the
mystery that we are trying to solve.
- Max Planck
Ned Latham
2017-01-14 15:17:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
So. That deluded dimwit who *still* doesn't know
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Ned Latham, ye lisp and wear strange suits. Ye are an abhorrent
depender on a thing that leans, an inane slug, an ugly footboy, a
Post by Ned Latham
Post by SteveGG
There is no greater evil, than that perpetrated in the name of
religion ! e.g. Crusades, Islamic extremists, etc.
Wrong. There is no greater evil than monotheist religion.
¤ Religion is delusion: by definition, insanity;
¤ Organised religion demands and inculcates mass delusion;
¤ Monotheism adds institutionalised bigotry to the mix.
By that definition, atheism is a monotheistic religion.
Get yourself a distionary, idiot, and look the words ip.
Kadaitcha Man
2017-01-14 22:26:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ned Latham, so lust though to a radiant angel linked, will sate itself
in a celestial bed and prey on garbage. Thou art an accursed curtal
dog, a blue-haired filthy hag, a tickle-brained presumptuous dame, a
Post by Ned Latham
So. That deluded dimwit who *still* doesn't know
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Ned Latham, ye lisp and wear strange suits. Ye are an abhorrent
depender on a thing that leans, an inane slug, an ugly footboy, a
Post by Ned Latham
Post by SteveGG
There is no greater evil, than that perpetrated in the name of
religion ! e.g. Crusades, Islamic extremists, etc.
Wrong. There is no greater evil than monotheist religion.
� Religion is delusion: by definition, insanity;
� Organised religion demands and inculcates mass delusion;
� Monotheism adds institutionalised bigotry to the mix.
By that definition, atheism is a monotheistic religion.
Get yourself a distionary, idiot, and look the words ip.
"institutionalised bigotry"

HTH, you dumbfuck cunt.
--
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents
and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
- Max Planck
Ned Latham
2017-01-15 10:35:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
And yet again, the clumsy cretin whose closest approach to being
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Ned Latham, so lust though to a radiant angel linked, will sate itself
in a celestial bed and prey on garbage. Thou art an accursed curtal
dog, a blue-haired filthy hag, a tickle-brained presumptuous dame, a
Post by Ned Latham
So. That deluded dimwit who *still* doesn't know
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Ned Latham, ye lisp and wear strange suits. Ye are an abhorrent
depender on a thing that leans, an inane slug, an ugly footboy, a
Post by Ned Latham
Post by SteveGG
There is no greater evil, than that perpetrated in the name of
religion ! e.g. Crusades, Islamic extremists, etc.
Wrong. There is no greater evil than monotheist religion.
¤ Religion is delusion: by definition, insanity;
¤ Organised religion demands and inculcates mass delusion;
¤ Monotheism adds institutionalised bigotry to the mix.
By that definition, atheism is a monotheistic religion.
Get yourself a dictionary, idiot, and look the words ip.
"institutionalised bigotry"
Those are irrelevamt to your idiot assertion about atheism, clubfoot.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
HTH, you dumbfuck cunt.
Not even close, clubfoot. Atheism isn't insitutional.
Kadaitcha Man
2017-01-15 10:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ned Latham, thou dissembler. Ye sanctimonious grey-coated gnat, ye
Post by Ned Latham
And yet again, the clumsy cretin whose closest approach to being
On that point you keep trying to make, I happen to be koori.
Ngaanyatjarra to be precise.
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Ned Latham, so lust though to a radiant angel linked, will sate itself
in a celestial bed and prey on garbage. Thou art an accursed curtal
dog, a blue-haired filthy hag, a tickle-brained presumptuous dame, a
Post by Ned Latham
So. That deluded dimwit who *still* doesn't know
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Ned Latham, ye lisp and wear strange suits. Ye are an abhorrent
depender on a thing that leans, an inane slug, an ugly footboy, a
Post by Ned Latham
Post by SteveGG
There is no greater evil, than that perpetrated in the name of
religion ! e.g. Crusades, Islamic extremists, etc.
Wrong. There is no greater evil than monotheist religion.
� Religion is delusion: by definition, insanity;
� Organised religion demands and inculcates mass delusion;
� Monotheism adds institutionalised bigotry to the mix.
By that definition, atheism is a monotheistic religion.
Get yourself a dictionary, idiot, and look the words ip.
"institutionalised bigotry"
Those are irrelevamt to your idiot assertion about atheism, clubfoot.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
HTH, you dumbfuck cunt.
Not even close, clubfoot. Atheism isn't insitutional.
It is institutionalised in alt.atheism.

institutionalise : verb
past tense: institutionalised; past participle: institutionalised
1. establish (something, typically a practice or activity) as a
convention or norm in an organization or culture.

You were saying cuntlips?
--
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents
and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
- Max Planck
Ned Latham
2017-01-15 11:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The retarded lying cretin who *still* doesn't know
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Ned Latham, thou dissembler. Ye sanctimonious grey-coated gnat, ye
Post by Ned Latham
And yet again, the clumsy cretin whose closest approach to being
On that point you keep trying to make,
Trying? You moron. You could stop my niggling at yoiur claim by
showing something that really IS kadaitcha.

But in all this time, you've been able to show nothing; just
list a few well-known attributes.

You're a fake.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
I happen to be koori.
Oh. Victorian, huh?
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Ngaanyatjarra to be precise.
Oh. So not Victorian.

Why am I not surprised?
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Ned Latham, so lust though to a radiant angel linked, will sate itself
in a celestial bed and prey on garbage. Thou art an accursed curtal
dog, a blue-haired filthy hag, a tickle-brained presumptuous dame, a
Post by Ned Latham
So. That deluded dimwit who *still* doesn't know
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Ned Latham, ye lisp and wear strange suits. Ye are an abhorrent
depender on a thing that leans, an inane slug, an ugly footboy, a
Post by Ned Latham
Post by SteveGG
There is no greater evil, than that perpetrated in the name of
religion ! e.g. Crusades, Islamic extremists, etc.
Wrong. There is no greater evil than monotheist religion.
¤ Religion is delusion: by definition, insanity;
¤ Organised religion demands and inculcates mass delusion;
¤ Monotheism adds institutionalised bigotry to the mix.
By that definition, atheism is a monotheistic religion.
Get yourself a dictionary, idiot, and look the words ip.
"institutionalised bigotry"
Those are irrelevamt to your idiot assertion about atheism, clubfoot.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
HTH, you dumbfuck cunt.
Not even close, clubfoot. Atheism isn't insitutional.
It is institutionalised in alt.atheism.
That doesn't make IT instituional, moron.

And it's still irrelevant to your idiotic statement above about
atheism. Perhaps if I give you the words to look up?

"atheism", "monotheistic", "religion". HTH, you dumbfuck cunt.

<snigger>

----snip----
Post by Kadaitcha Man
You were saying cuntlips?
No, I was saying clubfoot, Gimpy.
Kadaitcha Man
2017-01-15 11:27:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ned Latham, not Hercules could knock out thy brains, for ye have
none. Thou art a crack-headed flapjack, a dizzy-eyed little peevish
boy, an eye-offending fusty plebeian, an errant spanish-pouch, ye
Post by Ned Latham
The retarded lying cretin who *still* doesn't know
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Ned Latham, thou dissembler. Ye sanctimonious grey-coated gnat, ye
Post by Ned Latham
And yet again, the clumsy cretin whose closest approach to being
On that point you keep trying to make,
Trying? You moron. You could stop my niggling at yoiur claim by
showing something that really IS kadaitcha.
Go and fuck yourself up the arse with a hot-running chainsaw.
Post by Ned Latham
But in all this time, you've been able to show nothing; just
list a few well-known attributes.
You're a fake.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
I happen to be koori.
Oh. Victorian, huh?
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Ngaanyatjarra to be precise.
Oh. So not Victorian.
Why am I not surprised?
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Ned Latham, so lust though to a radiant angel linked, will sate itself
in a celestial bed and prey on garbage. Thou art an accursed curtal
dog, a blue-haired filthy hag, a tickle-brained presumptuous dame, a
Post by Ned Latham
So. That deluded dimwit who *still* doesn't know
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Ned Latham, ye lisp and wear strange suits. Ye are an abhorrent
depender on a thing that leans, an inane slug, an ugly footboy, a
Post by Ned Latham
Post by SteveGG
There is no greater evil, than that perpetrated in the name of
religion ! e.g. Crusades, Islamic extremists, etc.
Wrong. There is no greater evil than monotheist religion.
� Religion is delusion: by definition, insanity;
� Organised religion demands and inculcates mass delusion;
� Monotheism adds institutionalised bigotry to the mix.
By that definition, atheism is a monotheistic religion.
Get yourself a dictionary, idiot, and look the words ip.
"institutionalised bigotry"
Those are irrelevamt to your idiot assertion about atheism, clubfoot.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
HTH, you dumbfuck cunt.
Not even close, clubfoot. Atheism isn't insitutional.
It is institutionalised in alt.atheism.
That doesn't make IT instituional, moron.
And it's still irrelevant to your idiotic statement above about
atheism. Perhaps if I give you the words to look up?
"atheism", "monotheistic", "religion". HTH, you dumbfuck cunt.
<snigger>
----snip----
Post by Kadaitcha Man
You were saying cuntlips?
No, I was saying clubfoot, Gimpy.
--
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents
and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
- Max Planck
Robert Carnegie
2017-01-15 16:01:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ned Latham
So. That deluded dimwit who *still* doesn't know
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Ned Latham, ye lisp and wear strange suits. Ye are an abhorrent
depender on a thing that leans, an inane slug, an ugly footboy, a
Post by Ned Latham
Post by SteveGG
There is no greater evil, than that perpetrated in the name of
religion ! e.g. Crusades, Islamic extremists, etc.
Wrong. There is no greater evil than monotheist religion.
¤ Religion is delusion: by definition, insanity;
¤ Organised religion demands and inculcates mass delusion;
¤ Monotheism adds institutionalised bigotry to the mix.
By that definition, atheism is a monotheistic religion.
Get yourself a distionary, idiot, and look the words ip.
I think the failure is in Kad's logic. What he's
done is like:

A fish can swim.
Socrates can swim. (Socrates usually is involved AIUI)
Therefore, Socrates is a fish.

Perhaps we are expected to assent to the premise
that "atheism is institutionalised bigotry as much
as religion is". Well, I don't. For me, as a
practiser, "atheism" means not worshipping gods.
And I don't.

On reflection, that in itself is less important
to me (although it's very important to gods most
of the time) than it's important that it's my free
choice, and is not a basis of persecution of me.

Gods, and people employed by or in debt to them,
seem to dislike that considerably.
Loading...