20news-bydate-test,alt.atheism,53068,From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) Subject: Re: about the bible quiz answers Organization: AT&T Distribution: na Lines: 18  In article <healta.153.735242337@saturn.wwc.edu>  healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) writes: >  >  > #12) The 2 cheribums are on the Ark of the Covenant.  When God said make no  > graven image  he was refering to idols  which were created to be worshipped.  > The Ark of the Covenant wasn't wrodhipped and only the high priest could  > enter the Holy of Holies where it was kept once a year  on the Day of  > Atonement.  I am not familiar with  or knowledgeable about the original language  but I believe there is a word for  idol  and that the translator would have used the word  idol  instead of  graven image  had the original said  idol.   So I think you're wrong here  but then again I could be too.  I just suggesting a way to determine whether the interpretation you offer is correct.   Dean Kaflowitz
20news-bydate-test,alt.atheism,53257,From: cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl) Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics Organization: University of New Mexico  Albuquerque Lines: 88 Distribution: world NNTP-Posting-Host: vesta.unm.edu  In article <timmbake.735265296@mcl>  timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu ( Clam  Bake Timmons) writes:  >  > >Fallacy #1: Atheism is a faith. Lo! I hear the FAQ beckoning once again... > >[wonderful Rule #3 deleted - you're correct  you didn't say anything >about > >a conspiracy] >  > Correction: _hard_ atheism is a faith.  Yes.   >  > >>Rule #4:  Don't mix apples with oranges.  How can you say that the > >>extermination by the Mongols was worse than Stalin?  Khan conquered people > >>unsympathetic to his cause.That was atrocious.But Stalin killed millions of > >>his own people who loved and worshipped _him_ and his atheist state!!How can     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^      > >>anyone be worse than that? >  > >I will not explain this to you again: Stalin did nothing in the name of > >atheism. Whethe he was or was not an atheist is irrelevant. >  > Get a grip  man.  The Stalin example was brought up not as an > indictment of atheism  but merely as another example of how people will > kill others under any name that's fit for the occasion.  No  look again. While you never *said* it  the implication is pretty clear. I'm sorry  but I can only respond to your words  not your true meaning. Usenet is a slippery medium.   [deleted wrt the burden of proof] >  > So hard atheism has nothing to prove?  Then how does it justify that > God does not exist?  I know  there's the FAQ  etc.  But guess what -- if > those justifications were so compelling why aren't people flocking to > _hard_ atheism?  They're not  and they won't.  I for one will discourage > people from hard atheism by pointing out those very sources as reliable > statements on hard atheism. >  Look  I'm not supporting *any* dogmatic position. I'd be a fool to say that in the large group of people that are atheists  no people exist who wish to proselytize in the same fashion as religion. How many hard atheists do you  see posting here  anyway? Maybe I'mm just not looking hard enough...  > Second  what makes you think I'm defending any given religion?  I'm merely > recognizing hard atheism for what it is  a faith.  I never meant to do so  although I understand where you might get that idea. I was merely using the 'bible' example as an allegory to illustrate my point.  >  > And yes  by  we  I am referring to every reader of the post.  Where is the > evidence that the poster stated that he relied upon?  Evidence for what? Who? I think I may have lost this thread...   [why theists are arrogant deleted] > >Because they say   Such-and-such is absolutely unalterably True  because >          ^^^^ > >my dogma says it is True.  I am not prepared to issue blanket statements > >indicting all theists of arrogance as you are wont to do with atheists. >  > Bzzt!  By virtue of your innocent little pronoun   they   you've just issued > a blanket statement.  At least I will apologize by qualifying my original > statement with  hard atheist  in place of atheist.  Would you call John the > Baptist arrogant  who boasted of one greater than he?  That's what many > Christians do today.  How is that _in itself_ arrogant?  Guilty as charged. What I *meant* to say was  the theists who *are* arrogant are this way because they say ...  Other than that  I thought my meaning was clear enough. Any position that claims itself as superior to another with no supporting evidence is arrogant. Thanks for your apology  btw.  > > > >> I'm not worthy! > >Only seriously misinformed. > With your sophisticated put-down of  they   the theists  _your_ serious > misinformation shines through.  Explained above.  >  > -- > Bake Timmons  III >  > --  ...there's nothing higher  stronger  more wholesome and more useful in life > than some good memory...  -- Alyosha in Brothers Karamazov (Dostoevsky)
20news-bydate-test,alt.atheism,53260,From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW] Organization: Mantis Consultants  Cambridge. UK. X-Newsreader: rusnews v1.02 Lines: 50  jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes: >In article <11847@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert >Beauchaine) writes: >>Bennett  Neil.   How BCCI adapted the Koran rules of banking .  The  >>Times.  August 13  1991. >  > So  let's see. If some guy writes a piece with a title that implies > something is the case then it must be so  is that it?  Gregg  you haven't provided even a title of an article to support *your* contention.  >>  This is how you support a position if you intend to have anyone >>  respect it  Gregg.  Any questions?  And I even managed to include >>  the above reference with my head firmly engaged in my ass.  What's >>  your excuse? >  > This supports nothing. I have no reason to believe that this is  > piece is anything other than another anti-Islamic slander job.  You also have no reason to believe it *is* an anti-Islamic slander job  apart from your own prejudices.  > I have no respect for titles  only for real content. I can look > up this article if I want  true. But I can tell you BCCI was _not_ > an Islamic bank.  Why  yes.  What's a mere report in The Times stating that BCCI followed Islamic banking rules?  Gregg *knows* Islam is good  and he *knows* BCCI were bad  therefore BCCI *cannot* have been Islamic.  Anyone who says otherwise is obviously spreading slanderous propaganda.  >                                      If someone wants to discuss > the issue more seriously then I'd be glad to have a real discussion  > providing references  etc.  I see.  If someone wants to provide references to articles you agree with  you will also respond with references to articles you agree with?  Mmm  yes  that would be a very intellectually stimulating debate.  Doubtless that's how you spend your time in soc.culture.islam.  I've got a special place for you in my...  ...kill file.  Right next to Bobby.  Want to join him?  The more you post  the more I become convinced that it is simply a waste of time to try and reason with Moslems.  Is that what you are hoping to achieve?   mathew