From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 16:48:25 GMT

In article <BtnBK1.JG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>
>>  I should have said "destroy all life on the planet".
>
>If you're going to continue to take jabs at Christianity, expect to be
>taken literally each time.

I have never taken a jab at Christianity, as boxing is not my forte,
nor would I know what to punch if I were trying to punch something
as abstract as a belief system.  Perhaps you were not speaking literally?

>>Well, forgive me for being so blind.
>
>This blindness is what some other posters have been trying to point
>out to you this week.  You have my forgiveness.  "Go and sin no more."

Y'know something Gregg?  Once you've decided that 99.999999% of the
people on this planet are stark raving mad, you tend to pay much less
attention to whatever opinions they might hold, unless they can back
those opinions up with fact and reasoning.  Sure, I'll get accused
of being blind, and in some cases it will even be true.  But I think
that's a poor reason for not pointing out the blindness in others.  We
should all be trying to help each other become a little more sane.

>>  It doesn't really matter that
>>the population is growing out of control as long as those who are
>>responsible for it keep chanting "abstinence", is that right?
>
>No.  You simply asked how they "jive".  I explained how they can in

Are you picking on my illiteracy again?  As Jim Perry pointed out,
the word is "jibe."

>priciple.  In practice, of course, the combination is a failure,
>because something about humans makes abstinence difficult even for
>those who try it.  I will not defend this practice other than to say
>that it is rational.  Rational, but not practical.

Rational, but not practical eh?  Would you say the same for my
solution to food shortages? (People should stop eating)

>>Gregg, you know and I know that there are infinitely better solutions
>>to the population problem, right?
>
>Yes.
>
>>  So don't you think I'm justified
>>in saying that those who seek to prevent the implementation of those
>>vastly superior solutions seem to want to destroy life on the planet?
>
>No, I do not.  I think I can understand the point of view of those who
>choose this solution.  I can see their reasoning; it is rational.

Well, as long as it's rational, I guess nobody has the right to criticize
it.  You're an idiot Gregg.

>Their point of view does not seem to be one of wanting to destroy life
>on the planet, rather they seem to be interested in preserving it.
>They think their method is superior.  We disagree.  But none of us
>intends to purposefully destroy human life.

I don't think that there are many who consciously think up ways to cause
our extinction, but I do think that subconsciously, many Xians would like
to hasten the planet's destruction so that that Jesus fellow can drop by
again. Anyway, whether this is true or not, many of their policies seem
to serve no other purpose other than the destruction of life on the planet,
so I still think I'm justified in saying that they *seem* to want to
destroy life.  We may just have to agree to disagree on this.

>If you have now taken off
>your blinders to schools of though other than your own, you may begin
>to see this.

Like I said Gregg, you're an idiot.  I could rape your daughter and
concoct a "rational" explanation for it.  I just follow a different
"school of thought" ya know.  I hope when I do, that you're not so
blind that you won't be able to see my point of view.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc