Discussion:
The destruction of Hindu temples to build Churches-my final comments
(too old to reply)
Vivek
2006-07-02 20:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Dear mario:
I dont think there were any absurdities in my post.
What i wanted to convey was that "evidence" as Gilbert
and others demand for the atrocities committed on
native population during the inquisition is very hard
to find.

Francis Xaviers letters provide a insight into his
bent of mind and his intolerant nature.You are welcome
to read them and decide for urself.

I have no idea what a cafteria catholic is and in my
opinion one doesnt have to be religious in order to be
of upright moral nature.

I will let you have he last word on this one
-vivek

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Mario Goveia
2006-07-04 16:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vivek
I dont think there were any absurdities in my post.
What i wanted to convey was that "evidence" as
Gilbert and others demand for the atrocities
committed on native population during the
inquisition is very hard to find.
Mario responds:
Vivek,
The absurdities I referred to in your post involved
your demand for evidence for things like sati,
untouchability, the Holocaust, Osama's involvement in
9/11, etc. I understand you were trying to illustrate
the problems with providing evidence. However, I
think that Gilbert has shown with facts and sequential
logic that many of the claims on the issue of
destruction of Hindu temples in order to build
Churches are not what everyone thinks.
Post by Vivek
Francis Xaviers letters provide a insight into his
bent of mind and his intolerant nature.You are
welcome to read them and decide for urself.
Mario responds:
Again, Gilbert has clarified this issue and you need
to respond to his comments directly.
Post by Vivek
I have no idea what a cafteria catholic is and in my
opinion one doesnt have to be religious in order to
be of upright moral nature.
Mario responds:
A cafeteria Catholic is one who disagrees with the
official Church's religious "menu" in certain specific
areas. These tend to be interpretations developed by
church officials over the years, or wholesale
concoctions by church officials, and are not part of
the basic rock-solid tenets of the religion.
For example, I support the use of condoms as a means
of birth control, the Church officially opposes this.
I would lose no sleep if priests and nuns were allowed
to marry. The Church wants to rehabilitate and
forgive all pedophile priests. I would also forgive
them but execute the worst ones if I could. The
current Pope wants to "fast-track" Pope JP-II towards
sainthood. I strenuously oppose this for a variety of
reasons that I have detailed in previous posts and in
letters to the Vatican. Things like that.
You are absolutely correct that one can be of upright
moral character without being religious. We all know
that some of the biggest scroundrels around, like the
Mafia and Hitler, pretended to be religious while
violating every Christian precept ever written. On
the other hand some of the even bigger scroundrels,
with a far higher "body count", like Lenin, Stalin,
Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, Fidel Castro, were or are
atheists.
I just read an amusing post by Cornel, who also says
that all scientific knowledge is like silly-putty,
where he says, "Atheists (who share the philosophy of
atheism) have never fielded armies to fight others."
I guess Cornel completely forgot about the Communists,
for whom atheism is a central tenet. The Communists
of the old Soviet Union and China, North Korea and
Cuba and others, have all fielded armies unbeknownst
to Cornel. They have all brutalized and subjugated
their own people and menaced their neighbors, and
Stalin and Mao are credited with massacres of their
own people totalling some 50 million lives, which
would make Hitler, whom atheist activists like to
paint as a Christian because of some of his
self-serving comments, but who violated every single
tenet of the rock solid Christian moral code, seem
like a Boy Scout leader.
My only point has been that when one signs on as a
member of a group that has certain published
standards, developed over millenia of experience,
carrying consequences within the group that go beyond
the civil or criminal law, there are far more checks
and balances and public and private pressure on that
member to conform to the moral rules of that group.
Hitler may have called himself a Christian when it
suited him, but, since he violated every tenet that he
may have signed on to, his claim was hollow and
everyone knew it - other than those atheists that are
anti-Christian and refer to him as a Christian.
On the other hand, none of the Communists had signed
on to any moral code, so what moral standard could
anyone hold them to, other than local and
international law?
An individual non-religious person may have excellent
moral standards, but who knows what those are, and
there is less pressure and no consequences other than
the law on exceptions that they may take when their
backs are to the wall, or even when convenience
dictates.
Thus, I will accept a conditional moral equivalency,
but not a general across-the-board moral equivalency.
Post by Vivek
I will let you have he last word on this one
Mario says:
Thank you Vivek, and for your civil discourse as well.
I hope I was able to clarify my very specific and
nuanced comments, which some have erroneously
interpreted as an indictment of the moral code of all
atheists, which would be a false interpretation. If
not, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
cornel
2006-07-05 08:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Vivek
True to character, Mario decides that the guys like Hitler, Stalin those in
the Mafia etc all brought up in his rock solid Christian morality swapped
sides to become atheists and then became the orgres they were. The point I
was making was that, clearly the rock solid Christian moral code was not
particularly solid and has never been so.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] The destruction of Hindu temples to build
Churches-myfinal comments
Post by Mario Goveia
Post by Vivek
I dont think there were any absurdities in my post.
What i wanted to convey was that "evidence" as
Gilbert and others demand for the atrocities
committed on native population during the
inquisition is very hard to find.
Vivek,
The absurdities I referred to in your post involved
your demand for evidence for things like sati,
untouchability, the Holocaust, Osama's involvement in
9/11, etc. I understand you were trying to illustrate
the problems with providing evidence. However, I
think that Gilbert has shown with facts and sequential
logic that many of the claims on the issue of
destruction of Hindu temples in order to build
Churches are not what everyone thinks.
Post by Vivek
Francis Xaviers letters provide a insight into his
bent of mind and his intolerant nature.You are
welcome to read them and decide for urself.
Again, Gilbert has clarified this issue and you need
to respond to his comments directly.
Post by Vivek
I have no idea what a cafteria catholic is and in my
opinion one doesnt have to be religious in order to
be of upright moral nature.
A cafeteria Catholic is one who disagrees with the
official Church's religious "menu" in certain specific
areas. These tend to be interpretations developed by
church officials over the years, or wholesale
concoctions by church officials, and are not part of
the basic rock-solid tenets of the religion.
For example, I support the use of condoms as a means
of birth control, the Church officially opposes this.
I would lose no sleep if priests and nuns were allowed
to marry. The Church wants to rehabilitate and
forgive all pedophile priests. I would also forgive
them but execute the worst ones if I could. The
current Pope wants to "fast-track" Pope JP-II towards
sainthood. I strenuously oppose this for a variety of
reasons that I have detailed in previous posts and in
letters to the Vatican. Things like that.
You are absolutely correct that one can be of upright
moral character without being religious. We all know
that some of the biggest scroundrels around, like the
Mafia and Hitler, pretended to be religious while
violating every Christian precept ever written. On
the other hand some of the even bigger scroundrels,
with a far higher "body count", like Lenin, Stalin,
Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, Fidel Castro, were or are
atheists.
I just read an amusing post by Cornel, who also says
that all scientific knowledge is like silly-putty,
where he says, "Atheists (who share the philosophy of
atheism) have never fielded armies to fight others."
I guess Cornel completely forgot about the Communists,
for whom atheism is a central tenet. The Communists
of the old Soviet Union and China, North Korea and
Cuba and others, have all fielded armies unbeknownst
to Cornel. They have all brutalized and subjugated
their own people and menaced their neighbors, and
Stalin and Mao are credited with massacres of their
own people totalling some 50 million lives, which
would make Hitler, whom atheist activists like to
paint as a Christian because of some of his
self-serving comments, but who violated every single
tenet of the rock solid Christian moral code, seem
like a Boy Scout leader.
My only point has been that when one signs on as a
member of a group that has certain published
standards, developed over millenia of experience,
carrying consequences within the group that go beyond
the civil or criminal law, there are far more checks
and balances and public and private pressure on that
member to conform to the moral rules of that group.
Hitler may have called himself a Christian when it
suited him, but, since he violated every tenet that he
may have signed on to, his claim was hollow and
everyone knew it - other than those atheists that are
anti-Christian and refer to him as a Christian.
On the other hand, none of the Communists had signed
on to any moral code, so what moral standard could
anyone hold them to, other than local and
international law?
An individual non-religious person may have excellent
moral standards, but who knows what those are, and
there is less pressure and no consequences other than
the law on exceptions that they may take when their
backs are to the wall, or even when convenience
dictates.
Thus, I will accept a conditional moral equivalency,
but not a general across-the-board moral equivalency.
Post by Vivek
I will let you have he last word on this one
Thank you Vivek, and for your civil discourse as well.
I hope I was able to clarify my very specific and
nuanced comments, which some have erroneously
interpreted as an indictment of the moral code of all
atheists, which would be a false interpretation. If
not, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
cornel
2006-07-05 08:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Vivek
True to character, Mario decides that the guys like Hitler, Stalin those in
the Mafia etc all brought up in his rock solid Christian morality swapped
sides to become atheists and then became the orgres they were. The point I
was making was that, clearly the rock solid Christian moral code was not
particularly solid and has never been so.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] The destruction of Hindu temples to build
Churches-myfinal comments
Post by Mario Goveia
Post by Vivek
I dont think there were any absurdities in my post.
What i wanted to convey was that "evidence" as
Gilbert and others demand for the atrocities
committed on native population during the
inquisition is very hard to find.
Vivek,
The absurdities I referred to in your post involved
your demand for evidence for things like sati,
untouchability, the Holocaust, Osama's involvement in
9/11, etc. I understand you were trying to illustrate
the problems with providing evidence. However, I
think that Gilbert has shown with facts and sequential
logic that many of the claims on the issue of
destruction of Hindu temples in order to build
Churches are not what everyone thinks.
Post by Vivek
Francis Xaviers letters provide a insight into his
bent of mind and his intolerant nature.You are
welcome to read them and decide for urself.
Again, Gilbert has clarified this issue and you need
to respond to his comments directly.
Post by Vivek
I have no idea what a cafteria catholic is and in my
opinion one doesnt have to be religious in order to
be of upright moral nature.
A cafeteria Catholic is one who disagrees with the
official Church's religious "menu" in certain specific
areas. These tend to be interpretations developed by
church officials over the years, or wholesale
concoctions by church officials, and are not part of
the basic rock-solid tenets of the religion.
For example, I support the use of condoms as a means
of birth control, the Church officially opposes this.
I would lose no sleep if priests and nuns were allowed
to marry. The Church wants to rehabilitate and
forgive all pedophile priests. I would also forgive
them but execute the worst ones if I could. The
current Pope wants to "fast-track" Pope JP-II towards
sainthood. I strenuously oppose this for a variety of
reasons that I have detailed in previous posts and in
letters to the Vatican. Things like that.
You are absolutely correct that one can be of upright
moral character without being religious. We all know
that some of the biggest scroundrels around, like the
Mafia and Hitler, pretended to be religious while
violating every Christian precept ever written. On
the other hand some of the even bigger scroundrels,
with a far higher "body count", like Lenin, Stalin,
Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, Fidel Castro, were or are
atheists.
I just read an amusing post by Cornel, who also says
that all scientific knowledge is like silly-putty,
where he says, "Atheists (who share the philosophy of
atheism) have never fielded armies to fight others."
I guess Cornel completely forgot about the Communists,
for whom atheism is a central tenet. The Communists
of the old Soviet Union and China, North Korea and
Cuba and others, have all fielded armies unbeknownst
to Cornel. They have all brutalized and subjugated
their own people and menaced their neighbors, and
Stalin and Mao are credited with massacres of their
own people totalling some 50 million lives, which
would make Hitler, whom atheist activists like to
paint as a Christian because of some of his
self-serving comments, but who violated every single
tenet of the rock solid Christian moral code, seem
like a Boy Scout leader.
My only point has been that when one signs on as a
member of a group that has certain published
standards, developed over millenia of experience,
carrying consequences within the group that go beyond
the civil or criminal law, there are far more checks
and balances and public and private pressure on that
member to conform to the moral rules of that group.
Hitler may have called himself a Christian when it
suited him, but, since he violated every tenet that he
may have signed on to, his claim was hollow and
everyone knew it - other than those atheists that are
anti-Christian and refer to him as a Christian.
On the other hand, none of the Communists had signed
on to any moral code, so what moral standard could
anyone hold them to, other than local and
international law?
An individual non-religious person may have excellent
moral standards, but who knows what those are, and
there is less pressure and no consequences other than
the law on exceptions that they may take when their
backs are to the wall, or even when convenience
dictates.
Thus, I will accept a conditional moral equivalency,
but not a general across-the-board moral equivalency.
Post by Vivek
I will let you have he last word on this one
Thank you Vivek, and for your civil discourse as well.
I hope I was able to clarify my very specific and
nuanced comments, which some have erroneously
interpreted as an indictment of the moral code of all
atheists, which would be a false interpretation. If
not, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
cornel
2006-07-05 08:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Vivek
True to character, Mario decides that the guys like Hitler, Stalin those in
the Mafia etc all brought up in his rock solid Christian morality swapped
sides to become atheists and then became the orgres they were. The point I
was making was that, clearly the rock solid Christian moral code was not
particularly solid and has never been so.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] The destruction of Hindu temples to build
Churches-myfinal comments
Post by Mario Goveia
Post by Vivek
I dont think there were any absurdities in my post.
What i wanted to convey was that "evidence" as
Gilbert and others demand for the atrocities
committed on native population during the
inquisition is very hard to find.
Vivek,
The absurdities I referred to in your post involved
your demand for evidence for things like sati,
untouchability, the Holocaust, Osama's involvement in
9/11, etc. I understand you were trying to illustrate
the problems with providing evidence. However, I
think that Gilbert has shown with facts and sequential
logic that many of the claims on the issue of
destruction of Hindu temples in order to build
Churches are not what everyone thinks.
Post by Vivek
Francis Xaviers letters provide a insight into his
bent of mind and his intolerant nature.You are
welcome to read them and decide for urself.
Again, Gilbert has clarified this issue and you need
to respond to his comments directly.
Post by Vivek
I have no idea what a cafteria catholic is and in my
opinion one doesnt have to be religious in order to
be of upright moral nature.
A cafeteria Catholic is one who disagrees with the
official Church's religious "menu" in certain specific
areas. These tend to be interpretations developed by
church officials over the years, or wholesale
concoctions by church officials, and are not part of
the basic rock-solid tenets of the religion.
For example, I support the use of condoms as a means
of birth control, the Church officially opposes this.
I would lose no sleep if priests and nuns were allowed
to marry. The Church wants to rehabilitate and
forgive all pedophile priests. I would also forgive
them but execute the worst ones if I could. The
current Pope wants to "fast-track" Pope JP-II towards
sainthood. I strenuously oppose this for a variety of
reasons that I have detailed in previous posts and in
letters to the Vatican. Things like that.
You are absolutely correct that one can be of upright
moral character without being religious. We all know
that some of the biggest scroundrels around, like the
Mafia and Hitler, pretended to be religious while
violating every Christian precept ever written. On
the other hand some of the even bigger scroundrels,
with a far higher "body count", like Lenin, Stalin,
Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, Fidel Castro, were or are
atheists.
I just read an amusing post by Cornel, who also says
that all scientific knowledge is like silly-putty,
where he says, "Atheists (who share the philosophy of
atheism) have never fielded armies to fight others."
I guess Cornel completely forgot about the Communists,
for whom atheism is a central tenet. The Communists
of the old Soviet Union and China, North Korea and
Cuba and others, have all fielded armies unbeknownst
to Cornel. They have all brutalized and subjugated
their own people and menaced their neighbors, and
Stalin and Mao are credited with massacres of their
own people totalling some 50 million lives, which
would make Hitler, whom atheist activists like to
paint as a Christian because of some of his
self-serving comments, but who violated every single
tenet of the rock solid Christian moral code, seem
like a Boy Scout leader.
My only point has been that when one signs on as a
member of a group that has certain published
standards, developed over millenia of experience,
carrying consequences within the group that go beyond
the civil or criminal law, there are far more checks
and balances and public and private pressure on that
member to conform to the moral rules of that group.
Hitler may have called himself a Christian when it
suited him, but, since he violated every tenet that he
may have signed on to, his claim was hollow and
everyone knew it - other than those atheists that are
anti-Christian and refer to him as a Christian.
On the other hand, none of the Communists had signed
on to any moral code, so what moral standard could
anyone hold them to, other than local and
international law?
An individual non-religious person may have excellent
moral standards, but who knows what those are, and
there is less pressure and no consequences other than
the law on exceptions that they may take when their
backs are to the wall, or even when convenience
dictates.
Thus, I will accept a conditional moral equivalency,
but not a general across-the-board moral equivalency.
Post by Vivek
I will let you have he last word on this one
Thank you Vivek, and for your civil discourse as well.
I hope I was able to clarify my very specific and
nuanced comments, which some have erroneously
interpreted as an indictment of the moral code of all
atheists, which would be a false interpretation. If
not, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
cornel
2006-07-05 08:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Vivek
True to character, Mario decides that the guys like Hitler, Stalin those in
the Mafia etc all brought up in his rock solid Christian morality swapped
sides to become atheists and then became the orgres they were. The point I
was making was that, clearly the rock solid Christian moral code was not
particularly solid and has never been so.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] The destruction of Hindu temples to build
Churches-myfinal comments
Post by Mario Goveia
Post by Vivek
I dont think there were any absurdities in my post.
What i wanted to convey was that "evidence" as
Gilbert and others demand for the atrocities
committed on native population during the
inquisition is very hard to find.
Vivek,
The absurdities I referred to in your post involved
your demand for evidence for things like sati,
untouchability, the Holocaust, Osama's involvement in
9/11, etc. I understand you were trying to illustrate
the problems with providing evidence. However, I
think that Gilbert has shown with facts and sequential
logic that many of the claims on the issue of
destruction of Hindu temples in order to build
Churches are not what everyone thinks.
Post by Vivek
Francis Xaviers letters provide a insight into his
bent of mind and his intolerant nature.You are
welcome to read them and decide for urself.
Again, Gilbert has clarified this issue and you need
to respond to his comments directly.
Post by Vivek
I have no idea what a cafteria catholic is and in my
opinion one doesnt have to be religious in order to
be of upright moral nature.
A cafeteria Catholic is one who disagrees with the
official Church's religious "menu" in certain specific
areas. These tend to be interpretations developed by
church officials over the years, or wholesale
concoctions by church officials, and are not part of
the basic rock-solid tenets of the religion.
For example, I support the use of condoms as a means
of birth control, the Church officially opposes this.
I would lose no sleep if priests and nuns were allowed
to marry. The Church wants to rehabilitate and
forgive all pedophile priests. I would also forgive
them but execute the worst ones if I could. The
current Pope wants to "fast-track" Pope JP-II towards
sainthood. I strenuously oppose this for a variety of
reasons that I have detailed in previous posts and in
letters to the Vatican. Things like that.
You are absolutely correct that one can be of upright
moral character without being religious. We all know
that some of the biggest scroundrels around, like the
Mafia and Hitler, pretended to be religious while
violating every Christian precept ever written. On
the other hand some of the even bigger scroundrels,
with a far higher "body count", like Lenin, Stalin,
Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, Fidel Castro, were or are
atheists.
I just read an amusing post by Cornel, who also says
that all scientific knowledge is like silly-putty,
where he says, "Atheists (who share the philosophy of
atheism) have never fielded armies to fight others."
I guess Cornel completely forgot about the Communists,
for whom atheism is a central tenet. The Communists
of the old Soviet Union and China, North Korea and
Cuba and others, have all fielded armies unbeknownst
to Cornel. They have all brutalized and subjugated
their own people and menaced their neighbors, and
Stalin and Mao are credited with massacres of their
own people totalling some 50 million lives, which
would make Hitler, whom atheist activists like to
paint as a Christian because of some of his
self-serving comments, but who violated every single
tenet of the rock solid Christian moral code, seem
like a Boy Scout leader.
My only point has been that when one signs on as a
member of a group that has certain published
standards, developed over millenia of experience,
carrying consequences within the group that go beyond
the civil or criminal law, there are far more checks
and balances and public and private pressure on that
member to conform to the moral rules of that group.
Hitler may have called himself a Christian when it
suited him, but, since he violated every tenet that he
may have signed on to, his claim was hollow and
everyone knew it - other than those atheists that are
anti-Christian and refer to him as a Christian.
On the other hand, none of the Communists had signed
on to any moral code, so what moral standard could
anyone hold them to, other than local and
international law?
An individual non-religious person may have excellent
moral standards, but who knows what those are, and
there is less pressure and no consequences other than
the law on exceptions that they may take when their
backs are to the wall, or even when convenience
dictates.
Thus, I will accept a conditional moral equivalency,
but not a general across-the-board moral equivalency.
Post by Vivek
I will let you have he last word on this one
Thank you Vivek, and for your civil discourse as well.
I hope I was able to clarify my very specific and
nuanced comments, which some have erroneously
interpreted as an indictment of the moral code of all
atheists, which would be a false interpretation. If
not, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
cornel
2006-07-05 08:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Vivek
True to character, Mario decides that the guys like Hitler, Stalin those in
the Mafia etc all brought up in his rock solid Christian morality swapped
sides to become atheists and then became the orgres they were. The point I
was making was that, clearly the rock solid Christian moral code was not
particularly solid and has never been so.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] The destruction of Hindu temples to build
Churches-myfinal comments
Post by Mario Goveia
Post by Vivek
I dont think there were any absurdities in my post.
What i wanted to convey was that "evidence" as
Gilbert and others demand for the atrocities
committed on native population during the
inquisition is very hard to find.
Vivek,
The absurdities I referred to in your post involved
your demand for evidence for things like sati,
untouchability, the Holocaust, Osama's involvement in
9/11, etc. I understand you were trying to illustrate
the problems with providing evidence. However, I
think that Gilbert has shown with facts and sequential
logic that many of the claims on the issue of
destruction of Hindu temples in order to build
Churches are not what everyone thinks.
Post by Vivek
Francis Xaviers letters provide a insight into his
bent of mind and his intolerant nature.You are
welcome to read them and decide for urself.
Again, Gilbert has clarified this issue and you need
to respond to his comments directly.
Post by Vivek
I have no idea what a cafteria catholic is and in my
opinion one doesnt have to be religious in order to
be of upright moral nature.
A cafeteria Catholic is one who disagrees with the
official Church's religious "menu" in certain specific
areas. These tend to be interpretations developed by
church officials over the years, or wholesale
concoctions by church officials, and are not part of
the basic rock-solid tenets of the religion.
For example, I support the use of condoms as a means
of birth control, the Church officially opposes this.
I would lose no sleep if priests and nuns were allowed
to marry. The Church wants to rehabilitate and
forgive all pedophile priests. I would also forgive
them but execute the worst ones if I could. The
current Pope wants to "fast-track" Pope JP-II towards
sainthood. I strenuously oppose this for a variety of
reasons that I have detailed in previous posts and in
letters to the Vatican. Things like that.
You are absolutely correct that one can be of upright
moral character without being religious. We all know
that some of the biggest scroundrels around, like the
Mafia and Hitler, pretended to be religious while
violating every Christian precept ever written. On
the other hand some of the even bigger scroundrels,
with a far higher "body count", like Lenin, Stalin,
Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, Fidel Castro, were or are
atheists.
I just read an amusing post by Cornel, who also says
that all scientific knowledge is like silly-putty,
where he says, "Atheists (who share the philosophy of
atheism) have never fielded armies to fight others."
I guess Cornel completely forgot about the Communists,
for whom atheism is a central tenet. The Communists
of the old Soviet Union and China, North Korea and
Cuba and others, have all fielded armies unbeknownst
to Cornel. They have all brutalized and subjugated
their own people and menaced their neighbors, and
Stalin and Mao are credited with massacres of their
own people totalling some 50 million lives, which
would make Hitler, whom atheist activists like to
paint as a Christian because of some of his
self-serving comments, but who violated every single
tenet of the rock solid Christian moral code, seem
like a Boy Scout leader.
My only point has been that when one signs on as a
member of a group that has certain published
standards, developed over millenia of experience,
carrying consequences within the group that go beyond
the civil or criminal law, there are far more checks
and balances and public and private pressure on that
member to conform to the moral rules of that group.
Hitler may have called himself a Christian when it
suited him, but, since he violated every tenet that he
may have signed on to, his claim was hollow and
everyone knew it - other than those atheists that are
anti-Christian and refer to him as a Christian.
On the other hand, none of the Communists had signed
on to any moral code, so what moral standard could
anyone hold them to, other than local and
international law?
An individual non-religious person may have excellent
moral standards, but who knows what those are, and
there is less pressure and no consequences other than
the law on exceptions that they may take when their
backs are to the wall, or even when convenience
dictates.
Thus, I will accept a conditional moral equivalency,
but not a general across-the-board moral equivalency.
Post by Vivek
I will let you have he last word on this one
Thank you Vivek, and for your civil discourse as well.
I hope I was able to clarify my very specific and
nuanced comments, which some have erroneously
interpreted as an indictment of the moral code of all
atheists, which would be a false interpretation. If
not, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
cornel
2006-07-05 08:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Vivek
True to character, Mario decides that the guys like Hitler, Stalin those in
the Mafia etc all brought up in his rock solid Christian morality swapped
sides to become atheists and then became the orgres they were. The point I
was making was that, clearly the rock solid Christian moral code was not
particularly solid and has never been so.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] The destruction of Hindu temples to build
Churches-myfinal comments
Post by Mario Goveia
Post by Vivek
I dont think there were any absurdities in my post.
What i wanted to convey was that "evidence" as
Gilbert and others demand for the atrocities
committed on native population during the
inquisition is very hard to find.
Vivek,
The absurdities I referred to in your post involved
your demand for evidence for things like sati,
untouchability, the Holocaust, Osama's involvement in
9/11, etc. I understand you were trying to illustrate
the problems with providing evidence. However, I
think that Gilbert has shown with facts and sequential
logic that many of the claims on the issue of
destruction of Hindu temples in order to build
Churches are not what everyone thinks.
Post by Vivek
Francis Xaviers letters provide a insight into his
bent of mind and his intolerant nature.You are
welcome to read them and decide for urself.
Again, Gilbert has clarified this issue and you need
to respond to his comments directly.
Post by Vivek
I have no idea what a cafteria catholic is and in my
opinion one doesnt have to be religious in order to
be of upright moral nature.
A cafeteria Catholic is one who disagrees with the
official Church's religious "menu" in certain specific
areas. These tend to be interpretations developed by
church officials over the years, or wholesale
concoctions by church officials, and are not part of
the basic rock-solid tenets of the religion.
For example, I support the use of condoms as a means
of birth control, the Church officially opposes this.
I would lose no sleep if priests and nuns were allowed
to marry. The Church wants to rehabilitate and
forgive all pedophile priests. I would also forgive
them but execute the worst ones if I could. The
current Pope wants to "fast-track" Pope JP-II towards
sainthood. I strenuously oppose this for a variety of
reasons that I have detailed in previous posts and in
letters to the Vatican. Things like that.
You are absolutely correct that one can be of upright
moral character without being religious. We all know
that some of the biggest scroundrels around, like the
Mafia and Hitler, pretended to be religious while
violating every Christian precept ever written. On
the other hand some of the even bigger scroundrels,
with a far higher "body count", like Lenin, Stalin,
Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, Fidel Castro, were or are
atheists.
I just read an amusing post by Cornel, who also says
that all scientific knowledge is like silly-putty,
where he says, "Atheists (who share the philosophy of
atheism) have never fielded armies to fight others."
I guess Cornel completely forgot about the Communists,
for whom atheism is a central tenet. The Communists
of the old Soviet Union and China, North Korea and
Cuba and others, have all fielded armies unbeknownst
to Cornel. They have all brutalized and subjugated
their own people and menaced their neighbors, and
Stalin and Mao are credited with massacres of their
own people totalling some 50 million lives, which
would make Hitler, whom atheist activists like to
paint as a Christian because of some of his
self-serving comments, but who violated every single
tenet of the rock solid Christian moral code, seem
like a Boy Scout leader.
My only point has been that when one signs on as a
member of a group that has certain published
standards, developed over millenia of experience,
carrying consequences within the group that go beyond
the civil or criminal law, there are far more checks
and balances and public and private pressure on that
member to conform to the moral rules of that group.
Hitler may have called himself a Christian when it
suited him, but, since he violated every tenet that he
may have signed on to, his claim was hollow and
everyone knew it - other than those atheists that are
anti-Christian and refer to him as a Christian.
On the other hand, none of the Communists had signed
on to any moral code, so what moral standard could
anyone hold them to, other than local and
international law?
An individual non-religious person may have excellent
moral standards, but who knows what those are, and
there is less pressure and no consequences other than
the law on exceptions that they may take when their
backs are to the wall, or even when convenience
dictates.
Thus, I will accept a conditional moral equivalency,
but not a general across-the-board moral equivalency.
Post by Vivek
I will let you have he last word on this one
Thank you Vivek, and for your civil discourse as well.
I hope I was able to clarify my very specific and
nuanced comments, which some have erroneously
interpreted as an indictment of the moral code of all
atheists, which would be a false interpretation. If
not, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
cornel
2006-07-05 08:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Vivek
True to character, Mario decides that the guys like Hitler, Stalin those in
the Mafia etc all brought up in his rock solid Christian morality swapped
sides to become atheists and then became the orgres they were. The point I
was making was that, clearly the rock solid Christian moral code was not
particularly solid and has never been so.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] The destruction of Hindu temples to build
Churches-myfinal comments
Post by Mario Goveia
Post by Vivek
I dont think there were any absurdities in my post.
What i wanted to convey was that "evidence" as
Gilbert and others demand for the atrocities
committed on native population during the
inquisition is very hard to find.
Vivek,
The absurdities I referred to in your post involved
your demand for evidence for things like sati,
untouchability, the Holocaust, Osama's involvement in
9/11, etc. I understand you were trying to illustrate
the problems with providing evidence. However, I
think that Gilbert has shown with facts and sequential
logic that many of the claims on the issue of
destruction of Hindu temples in order to build
Churches are not what everyone thinks.
Post by Vivek
Francis Xaviers letters provide a insight into his
bent of mind and his intolerant nature.You are
welcome to read them and decide for urself.
Again, Gilbert has clarified this issue and you need
to respond to his comments directly.
Post by Vivek
I have no idea what a cafteria catholic is and in my
opinion one doesnt have to be religious in order to
be of upright moral nature.
A cafeteria Catholic is one who disagrees with the
official Church's religious "menu" in certain specific
areas. These tend to be interpretations developed by
church officials over the years, or wholesale
concoctions by church officials, and are not part of
the basic rock-solid tenets of the religion.
For example, I support the use of condoms as a means
of birth control, the Church officially opposes this.
I would lose no sleep if priests and nuns were allowed
to marry. The Church wants to rehabilitate and
forgive all pedophile priests. I would also forgive
them but execute the worst ones if I could. The
current Pope wants to "fast-track" Pope JP-II towards
sainthood. I strenuously oppose this for a variety of
reasons that I have detailed in previous posts and in
letters to the Vatican. Things like that.
You are absolutely correct that one can be of upright
moral character without being religious. We all know
that some of the biggest scroundrels around, like the
Mafia and Hitler, pretended to be religious while
violating every Christian precept ever written. On
the other hand some of the even bigger scroundrels,
with a far higher "body count", like Lenin, Stalin,
Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, Fidel Castro, were or are
atheists.
I just read an amusing post by Cornel, who also says
that all scientific knowledge is like silly-putty,
where he says, "Atheists (who share the philosophy of
atheism) have never fielded armies to fight others."
I guess Cornel completely forgot about the Communists,
for whom atheism is a central tenet. The Communists
of the old Soviet Union and China, North Korea and
Cuba and others, have all fielded armies unbeknownst
to Cornel. They have all brutalized and subjugated
their own people and menaced their neighbors, and
Stalin and Mao are credited with massacres of their
own people totalling some 50 million lives, which
would make Hitler, whom atheist activists like to
paint as a Christian because of some of his
self-serving comments, but who violated every single
tenet of the rock solid Christian moral code, seem
like a Boy Scout leader.
My only point has been that when one signs on as a
member of a group that has certain published
standards, developed over millenia of experience,
carrying consequences within the group that go beyond
the civil or criminal law, there are far more checks
and balances and public and private pressure on that
member to conform to the moral rules of that group.
Hitler may have called himself a Christian when it
suited him, but, since he violated every tenet that he
may have signed on to, his claim was hollow and
everyone knew it - other than those atheists that are
anti-Christian and refer to him as a Christian.
On the other hand, none of the Communists had signed
on to any moral code, so what moral standard could
anyone hold them to, other than local and
international law?
An individual non-religious person may have excellent
moral standards, but who knows what those are, and
there is less pressure and no consequences other than
the law on exceptions that they may take when their
backs are to the wall, or even when convenience
dictates.
Thus, I will accept a conditional moral equivalency,
but not a general across-the-board moral equivalency.
Post by Vivek
I will let you have he last word on this one
Thank you Vivek, and for your civil discourse as well.
I hope I was able to clarify my very specific and
nuanced comments, which some have erroneously
interpreted as an indictment of the moral code of all
atheists, which would be a false interpretation. If
not, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
Mario Goveia
2006-07-05 15:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by cornel
Vivek
True to character, Mario decides that the guys like
Hitler, Stalin those in the Mafia etc all brought
up in his rock solid Christian morality swapped
sides to become atheists and then became the orgres
they were. The point I was making was that, clearly
the rock solid Christian moral code was not
particularly solid and has never been so.
Mario responds:
Cornel,
I wish you would wake up and read my posts a little
more carefully, even though you consider everything to
be provisional, before embarrassing yourself like
this.
I never said that the Mafia and Hitler became
atheists. I said that they pretended to be Christians
when it suited them but broke every tenet of the
rock-solid Christian moral code, which made their
claims hollow as every rational person would know.
However, their claims of being Christians are useful
to anti-Christians like yourself.
The point you were making is absurd on it's face. A
rock-solid moral code doesn't become less so just
because some "malcreades" choose to ignore them.
Compare this with the home-made moral codes of
unorganized individual atheists where, a) no one knows
what these may be, and b) no one knows when they may
make exceptions based on convenience or pressure,
unless they get themselves arrested.
Besides, you also made the most comical statement
since Goanet was formed when you said, "Atheists (who
share the philosophy of atheism) have never fielded
armies to fight others."
Vivek
2006-07-02 20:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Dear mario:
I dont think there were any absurdities in my post.
What i wanted to convey was that "evidence" as Gilbert
and others demand for the atrocities committed on
native population during the inquisition is very hard
to find.

Francis Xaviers letters provide a insight into his
bent of mind and his intolerant nature.You are welcome
to read them and decide for urself.

I have no idea what a cafteria catholic is and in my
opinion one doesnt have to be religious in order to be
of upright moral nature.

I will let you have he last word on this one
-vivek

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Mario Goveia
2006-07-04 16:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vivek
I dont think there were any absurdities in my post.
What i wanted to convey was that "evidence" as
Gilbert and others demand for the atrocities
committed on native population during the
inquisition is very hard to find.
Mario responds:
Vivek,
The absurdities I referred to in your post involved
your demand for evidence for things like sati,
untouchability, the Holocaust, Osama's involvement in
9/11, etc. I understand you were trying to illustrate
the problems with providing evidence. However, I
think that Gilbert has shown with facts and sequential
logic that many of the claims on the issue of
destruction of Hindu temples in order to build
Churches are not what everyone thinks.
Post by Vivek
Francis Xaviers letters provide a insight into his
bent of mind and his intolerant nature.You are
welcome to read them and decide for urself.
Mario responds:
Again, Gilbert has clarified this issue and you need
to respond to his comments directly.
Post by Vivek
I have no idea what a cafteria catholic is and in my
opinion one doesnt have to be religious in order to
be of upright moral nature.
Mario responds:
A cafeteria Catholic is one who disagrees with the
official Church's religious "menu" in certain specific
areas. These tend to be interpretations developed by
church officials over the years, or wholesale
concoctions by church officials, and are not part of
the basic rock-solid tenets of the religion.
For example, I support the use of condoms as a means
of birth control, the Church officially opposes this.
I would lose no sleep if priests and nuns were allowed
to marry. The Church wants to rehabilitate and
forgive all pedophile priests. I would also forgive
them but execute the worst ones if I could. The
current Pope wants to "fast-track" Pope JP-II towards
sainthood. I strenuously oppose this for a variety of
reasons that I have detailed in previous posts and in
letters to the Vatican. Things like that.
You are absolutely correct that one can be of upright
moral character without being religious. We all know
that some of the biggest scroundrels around, like the
Mafia and Hitler, pretended to be religious while
violating every Christian precept ever written. On
the other hand some of the even bigger scroundrels,
with a far higher "body count", like Lenin, Stalin,
Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, Fidel Castro, were or are
atheists.
I just read an amusing post by Cornel, who also says
that all scientific knowledge is like silly-putty,
where he says, "Atheists (who share the philosophy of
atheism) have never fielded armies to fight others."
I guess Cornel completely forgot about the Communists,
for whom atheism is a central tenet. The Communists
of the old Soviet Union and China, North Korea and
Cuba and others, have all fielded armies unbeknownst
to Cornel. They have all brutalized and subjugated
their own people and menaced their neighbors, and
Stalin and Mao are credited with massacres of their
own people totalling some 50 million lives, which
would make Hitler, whom atheist activists like to
paint as a Christian because of some of his
self-serving comments, but who violated every single
tenet of the rock solid Christian moral code, seem
like a Boy Scout leader.
My only point has been that when one signs on as a
member of a group that has certain published
standards, developed over millenia of experience,
carrying consequences within the group that go beyond
the civil or criminal law, there are far more checks
and balances and public and private pressure on that
member to conform to the moral rules of that group.
Hitler may have called himself a Christian when it
suited him, but, since he violated every tenet that he
may have signed on to, his claim was hollow and
everyone knew it - other than those atheists that are
anti-Christian and refer to him as a Christian.
On the other hand, none of the Communists had signed
on to any moral code, so what moral standard could
anyone hold them to, other than local and
international law?
An individual non-religious person may have excellent
moral standards, but who knows what those are, and
there is less pressure and no consequences other than
the law on exceptions that they may take when their
backs are to the wall, or even when convenience
dictates.
Thus, I will accept a conditional moral equivalency,
but not a general across-the-board moral equivalency.
Post by Vivek
I will let you have he last word on this one
Mario says:
Thank you Vivek, and for your civil discourse as well.
I hope I was able to clarify my very specific and
nuanced comments, which some have erroneously
interpreted as an indictment of the moral code of all
atheists, which would be a false interpretation. If
not, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
Mario Goveia
2006-07-05 15:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by cornel
Vivek
True to character, Mario decides that the guys like
Hitler, Stalin those in the Mafia etc all brought
up in his rock solid Christian morality swapped
sides to become atheists and then became the orgres
they were. The point I was making was that, clearly
the rock solid Christian moral code was not
particularly solid and has never been so.
Mario responds:
Cornel,
I wish you would wake up and read my posts a little
more carefully, even though you consider everything to
be provisional, before embarrassing yourself like
this.
I never said that the Mafia and Hitler became
atheists. I said that they pretended to be Christians
when it suited them but broke every tenet of the
rock-solid Christian moral code, which made their
claims hollow as every rational person would know.
However, their claims of being Christians are useful
to anti-Christians like yourself.
The point you were making is absurd on it's face. A
rock-solid moral code doesn't become less so just
because some "malcreades" choose to ignore them.
Compare this with the home-made moral codes of
unorganized individual atheists where, a) no one knows
what these may be, and b) no one knows when they may
make exceptions based on convenience or pressure,
unless they get themselves arrested.
Besides, you also made the most comical statement
since Goanet was formed when you said, "Atheists (who
share the philosophy of atheism) have never fielded
armies to fight others."
Vivek
2006-07-02 20:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Dear mario:
I dont think there were any absurdities in my post.
What i wanted to convey was that "evidence" as Gilbert
and others demand for the atrocities committed on
native population during the inquisition is very hard
to find.

Francis Xaviers letters provide a insight into his
bent of mind and his intolerant nature.You are welcome
to read them and decide for urself.

I have no idea what a cafteria catholic is and in my
opinion one doesnt have to be religious in order to be
of upright moral nature.

I will let you have he last word on this one
-vivek

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Mario Goveia
2006-07-04 16:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vivek
I dont think there were any absurdities in my post.
What i wanted to convey was that "evidence" as
Gilbert and others demand for the atrocities
committed on native population during the
inquisition is very hard to find.
Mario responds:
Vivek,
The absurdities I referred to in your post involved
your demand for evidence for things like sati,
untouchability, the Holocaust, Osama's involvement in
9/11, etc. I understand you were trying to illustrate
the problems with providing evidence. However, I
think that Gilbert has shown with facts and sequential
logic that many of the claims on the issue of
destruction of Hindu temples in order to build
Churches are not what everyone thinks.
Post by Vivek
Francis Xaviers letters provide a insight into his
bent of mind and his intolerant nature.You are
welcome to read them and decide for urself.
Mario responds:
Again, Gilbert has clarified this issue and you need
to respond to his comments directly.
Post by Vivek
I have no idea what a cafteria catholic is and in my
opinion one doesnt have to be religious in order to
be of upright moral nature.
Mario responds:
A cafeteria Catholic is one who disagrees with the
official Church's religious "menu" in certain specific
areas. These tend to be interpretations developed by
church officials over the years, or wholesale
concoctions by church officials, and are not part of
the basic rock-solid tenets of the religion.
For example, I support the use of condoms as a means
of birth control, the Church officially opposes this.
I would lose no sleep if priests and nuns were allowed
to marry. The Church wants to rehabilitate and
forgive all pedophile priests. I would also forgive
them but execute the worst ones if I could. The
current Pope wants to "fast-track" Pope JP-II towards
sainthood. I strenuously oppose this for a variety of
reasons that I have detailed in previous posts and in
letters to the Vatican. Things like that.
You are absolutely correct that one can be of upright
moral character without being religious. We all know
that some of the biggest scroundrels around, like the
Mafia and Hitler, pretended to be religious while
violating every Christian precept ever written. On
the other hand some of the even bigger scroundrels,
with a far higher "body count", like Lenin, Stalin,
Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, Fidel Castro, were or are
atheists.
I just read an amusing post by Cornel, who also says
that all scientific knowledge is like silly-putty,
where he says, "Atheists (who share the philosophy of
atheism) have never fielded armies to fight others."
I guess Cornel completely forgot about the Communists,
for whom atheism is a central tenet. The Communists
of the old Soviet Union and China, North Korea and
Cuba and others, have all fielded armies unbeknownst
to Cornel. They have all brutalized and subjugated
their own people and menaced their neighbors, and
Stalin and Mao are credited with massacres of their
own people totalling some 50 million lives, which
would make Hitler, whom atheist activists like to
paint as a Christian because of some of his
self-serving comments, but who violated every single
tenet of the rock solid Christian moral code, seem
like a Boy Scout leader.
My only point has been that when one signs on as a
member of a group that has certain published
standards, developed over millenia of experience,
carrying consequences within the group that go beyond
the civil or criminal law, there are far more checks
and balances and public and private pressure on that
member to conform to the moral rules of that group.
Hitler may have called himself a Christian when it
suited him, but, since he violated every tenet that he
may have signed on to, his claim was hollow and
everyone knew it - other than those atheists that are
anti-Christian and refer to him as a Christian.
On the other hand, none of the Communists had signed
on to any moral code, so what moral standard could
anyone hold them to, other than local and
international law?
An individual non-religious person may have excellent
moral standards, but who knows what those are, and
there is less pressure and no consequences other than
the law on exceptions that they may take when their
backs are to the wall, or even when convenience
dictates.
Thus, I will accept a conditional moral equivalency,
but not a general across-the-board moral equivalency.
Post by Vivek
I will let you have he last word on this one
Mario says:
Thank you Vivek, and for your civil discourse as well.
I hope I was able to clarify my very specific and
nuanced comments, which some have erroneously
interpreted as an indictment of the moral code of all
atheists, which would be a false interpretation. If
not, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
Mario Goveia
2006-07-05 15:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by cornel
Vivek
True to character, Mario decides that the guys like
Hitler, Stalin those in the Mafia etc all brought
up in his rock solid Christian morality swapped
sides to become atheists and then became the orgres
they were. The point I was making was that, clearly
the rock solid Christian moral code was not
particularly solid and has never been so.
Mario responds:
Cornel,
I wish you would wake up and read my posts a little
more carefully, even though you consider everything to
be provisional, before embarrassing yourself like
this.
I never said that the Mafia and Hitler became
atheists. I said that they pretended to be Christians
when it suited them but broke every tenet of the
rock-solid Christian moral code, which made their
claims hollow as every rational person would know.
However, their claims of being Christians are useful
to anti-Christians like yourself.
The point you were making is absurd on it's face. A
rock-solid moral code doesn't become less so just
because some "malcreades" choose to ignore them.
Compare this with the home-made moral codes of
unorganized individual atheists where, a) no one knows
what these may be, and b) no one knows when they may
make exceptions based on convenience or pressure,
unless they get themselves arrested.
Besides, you also made the most comical statement
since Goanet was formed when you said, "Atheists (who
share the philosophy of atheism) have never fielded
armies to fight others."
Vivek
2006-07-02 20:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Dear mario:
I dont think there were any absurdities in my post.
What i wanted to convey was that "evidence" as Gilbert
and others demand for the atrocities committed on
native population during the inquisition is very hard
to find.

Francis Xaviers letters provide a insight into his
bent of mind and his intolerant nature.You are welcome
to read them and decide for urself.

I have no idea what a cafteria catholic is and in my
opinion one doesnt have to be religious in order to be
of upright moral nature.

I will let you have he last word on this one
-vivek

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Mario Goveia
2006-07-04 16:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vivek
I dont think there were any absurdities in my post.
What i wanted to convey was that "evidence" as
Gilbert and others demand for the atrocities
committed on native population during the
inquisition is very hard to find.
Mario responds:
Vivek,
The absurdities I referred to in your post involved
your demand for evidence for things like sati,
untouchability, the Holocaust, Osama's involvement in
9/11, etc. I understand you were trying to illustrate
the problems with providing evidence. However, I
think that Gilbert has shown with facts and sequential
logic that many of the claims on the issue of
destruction of Hindu temples in order to build
Churches are not what everyone thinks.
Post by Vivek
Francis Xaviers letters provide a insight into his
bent of mind and his intolerant nature.You are
welcome to read them and decide for urself.
Mario responds:
Again, Gilbert has clarified this issue and you need
to respond to his comments directly.
Post by Vivek
I have no idea what a cafteria catholic is and in my
opinion one doesnt have to be religious in order to
be of upright moral nature.
Mario responds:
A cafeteria Catholic is one who disagrees with the
official Church's religious "menu" in certain specific
areas. These tend to be interpretations developed by
church officials over the years, or wholesale
concoctions by church officials, and are not part of
the basic rock-solid tenets of the religion.
For example, I support the use of condoms as a means
of birth control, the Church officially opposes this.
I would lose no sleep if priests and nuns were allowed
to marry. The Church wants to rehabilitate and
forgive all pedophile priests. I would also forgive
them but execute the worst ones if I could. The
current Pope wants to "fast-track" Pope JP-II towards
sainthood. I strenuously oppose this for a variety of
reasons that I have detailed in previous posts and in
letters to the Vatican. Things like that.
You are absolutely correct that one can be of upright
moral character without being religious. We all know
that some of the biggest scroundrels around, like the
Mafia and Hitler, pretended to be religious while
violating every Christian precept ever written. On
the other hand some of the even bigger scroundrels,
with a far higher "body count", like Lenin, Stalin,
Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, Fidel Castro, were or are
atheists.
I just read an amusing post by Cornel, who also says
that all scientific knowledge is like silly-putty,
where he says, "Atheists (who share the philosophy of
atheism) have never fielded armies to fight others."
I guess Cornel completely forgot about the Communists,
for whom atheism is a central tenet. The Communists
of the old Soviet Union and China, North Korea and
Cuba and others, have all fielded armies unbeknownst
to Cornel. They have all brutalized and subjugated
their own people and menaced their neighbors, and
Stalin and Mao are credited with massacres of their
own people totalling some 50 million lives, which
would make Hitler, whom atheist activists like to
paint as a Christian because of some of his
self-serving comments, but who violated every single
tenet of the rock solid Christian moral code, seem
like a Boy Scout leader.
My only point has been that when one signs on as a
member of a group that has certain published
standards, developed over millenia of experience,
carrying consequences within the group that go beyond
the civil or criminal law, there are far more checks
and balances and public and private pressure on that
member to conform to the moral rules of that group.
Hitler may have called himself a Christian when it
suited him, but, since he violated every tenet that he
may have signed on to, his claim was hollow and
everyone knew it - other than those atheists that are
anti-Christian and refer to him as a Christian.
On the other hand, none of the Communists had signed
on to any moral code, so what moral standard could
anyone hold them to, other than local and
international law?
An individual non-religious person may have excellent
moral standards, but who knows what those are, and
there is less pressure and no consequences other than
the law on exceptions that they may take when their
backs are to the wall, or even when convenience
dictates.
Thus, I will accept a conditional moral equivalency,
but not a general across-the-board moral equivalency.
Post by Vivek
I will let you have he last word on this one
Mario says:
Thank you Vivek, and for your civil discourse as well.
I hope I was able to clarify my very specific and
nuanced comments, which some have erroneously
interpreted as an indictment of the moral code of all
atheists, which would be a false interpretation. If
not, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
Mario Goveia
2006-07-05 15:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by cornel
Vivek
True to character, Mario decides that the guys like
Hitler, Stalin those in the Mafia etc all brought
up in his rock solid Christian morality swapped
sides to become atheists and then became the orgres
they were. The point I was making was that, clearly
the rock solid Christian moral code was not
particularly solid and has never been so.
Mario responds:
Cornel,
I wish you would wake up and read my posts a little
more carefully, even though you consider everything to
be provisional, before embarrassing yourself like
this.
I never said that the Mafia and Hitler became
atheists. I said that they pretended to be Christians
when it suited them but broke every tenet of the
rock-solid Christian moral code, which made their
claims hollow as every rational person would know.
However, their claims of being Christians are useful
to anti-Christians like yourself.
The point you were making is absurd on it's face. A
rock-solid moral code doesn't become less so just
because some "malcreades" choose to ignore them.
Compare this with the home-made moral codes of
unorganized individual atheists where, a) no one knows
what these may be, and b) no one knows when they may
make exceptions based on convenience or pressure,
unless they get themselves arrested.
Besides, you also made the most comical statement
since Goanet was formed when you said, "Atheists (who
share the philosophy of atheism) have never fielded
armies to fight others."
Vivek
2006-07-02 20:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Dear mario:
I dont think there were any absurdities in my post.
What i wanted to convey was that "evidence" as Gilbert
and others demand for the atrocities committed on
native population during the inquisition is very hard
to find.

Francis Xaviers letters provide a insight into his
bent of mind and his intolerant nature.You are welcome
to read them and decide for urself.

I have no idea what a cafteria catholic is and in my
opinion one doesnt have to be religious in order to be
of upright moral nature.

I will let you have he last word on this one
-vivek

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Mario Goveia
2006-07-04 16:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vivek
I dont think there were any absurdities in my post.
What i wanted to convey was that "evidence" as
Gilbert and others demand for the atrocities
committed on native population during the
inquisition is very hard to find.
Mario responds:
Vivek,
The absurdities I referred to in your post involved
your demand for evidence for things like sati,
untouchability, the Holocaust, Osama's involvement in
9/11, etc. I understand you were trying to illustrate
the problems with providing evidence. However, I
think that Gilbert has shown with facts and sequential
logic that many of the claims on the issue of
destruction of Hindu temples in order to build
Churches are not what everyone thinks.
Post by Vivek
Francis Xaviers letters provide a insight into his
bent of mind and his intolerant nature.You are
welcome to read them and decide for urself.
Mario responds:
Again, Gilbert has clarified this issue and you need
to respond to his comments directly.
Post by Vivek
I have no idea what a cafteria catholic is and in my
opinion one doesnt have to be religious in order to
be of upright moral nature.
Mario responds:
A cafeteria Catholic is one who disagrees with the
official Church's religious "menu" in certain specific
areas. These tend to be interpretations developed by
church officials over the years, or wholesale
concoctions by church officials, and are not part of
the basic rock-solid tenets of the religion.
For example, I support the use of condoms as a means
of birth control, the Church officially opposes this.
I would lose no sleep if priests and nuns were allowed
to marry. The Church wants to rehabilitate and
forgive all pedophile priests. I would also forgive
them but execute the worst ones if I could. The
current Pope wants to "fast-track" Pope JP-II towards
sainthood. I strenuously oppose this for a variety of
reasons that I have detailed in previous posts and in
letters to the Vatican. Things like that.
You are absolutely correct that one can be of upright
moral character without being religious. We all know
that some of the biggest scroundrels around, like the
Mafia and Hitler, pretended to be religious while
violating every Christian precept ever written. On
the other hand some of the even bigger scroundrels,
with a far higher "body count", like Lenin, Stalin,
Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, Fidel Castro, were or are
atheists.
I just read an amusing post by Cornel, who also says
that all scientific knowledge is like silly-putty,
where he says, "Atheists (who share the philosophy of
atheism) have never fielded armies to fight others."
I guess Cornel completely forgot about the Communists,
for whom atheism is a central tenet. The Communists
of the old Soviet Union and China, North Korea and
Cuba and others, have all fielded armies unbeknownst
to Cornel. They have all brutalized and subjugated
their own people and menaced their neighbors, and
Stalin and Mao are credited with massacres of their
own people totalling some 50 million lives, which
would make Hitler, whom atheist activists like to
paint as a Christian because of some of his
self-serving comments, but who violated every single
tenet of the rock solid Christian moral code, seem
like a Boy Scout leader.
My only point has been that when one signs on as a
member of a group that has certain published
standards, developed over millenia of experience,
carrying consequences within the group that go beyond
the civil or criminal law, there are far more checks
and balances and public and private pressure on that
member to conform to the moral rules of that group.
Hitler may have called himself a Christian when it
suited him, but, since he violated every tenet that he
may have signed on to, his claim was hollow and
everyone knew it - other than those atheists that are
anti-Christian and refer to him as a Christian.
On the other hand, none of the Communists had signed
on to any moral code, so what moral standard could
anyone hold them to, other than local and
international law?
An individual non-religious person may have excellent
moral standards, but who knows what those are, and
there is less pressure and no consequences other than
the law on exceptions that they may take when their
backs are to the wall, or even when convenience
dictates.
Thus, I will accept a conditional moral equivalency,
but not a general across-the-board moral equivalency.
Post by Vivek
I will let you have he last word on this one
Mario says:
Thank you Vivek, and for your civil discourse as well.
I hope I was able to clarify my very specific and
nuanced comments, which some have erroneously
interpreted as an indictment of the moral code of all
atheists, which would be a false interpretation. If
not, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
Mario Goveia
2006-07-05 15:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by cornel
Vivek
True to character, Mario decides that the guys like
Hitler, Stalin those in the Mafia etc all brought
up in his rock solid Christian morality swapped
sides to become atheists and then became the orgres
they were. The point I was making was that, clearly
the rock solid Christian moral code was not
particularly solid and has never been so.
Mario responds:
Cornel,
I wish you would wake up and read my posts a little
more carefully, even though you consider everything to
be provisional, before embarrassing yourself like
this.
I never said that the Mafia and Hitler became
atheists. I said that they pretended to be Christians
when it suited them but broke every tenet of the
rock-solid Christian moral code, which made their
claims hollow as every rational person would know.
However, their claims of being Christians are useful
to anti-Christians like yourself.
The point you were making is absurd on it's face. A
rock-solid moral code doesn't become less so just
because some "malcreades" choose to ignore them.
Compare this with the home-made moral codes of
unorganized individual atheists where, a) no one knows
what these may be, and b) no one knows when they may
make exceptions based on convenience or pressure,
unless they get themselves arrested.
Besides, you also made the most comical statement
since Goanet was formed when you said, "Atheists (who
share the philosophy of atheism) have never fielded
armies to fight others."
Vivek
2006-07-02 20:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Dear mario:
I dont think there were any absurdities in my post.
What i wanted to convey was that "evidence" as Gilbert
and others demand for the atrocities committed on
native population during the inquisition is very hard
to find.

Francis Xaviers letters provide a insight into his
bent of mind and his intolerant nature.You are welcome
to read them and decide for urself.

I have no idea what a cafteria catholic is and in my
opinion one doesnt have to be religious in order to be
of upright moral nature.

I will let you have he last word on this one
-vivek

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Mario Goveia
2006-07-04 16:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vivek
I dont think there were any absurdities in my post.
What i wanted to convey was that "evidence" as
Gilbert and others demand for the atrocities
committed on native population during the
inquisition is very hard to find.
Mario responds:
Vivek,
The absurdities I referred to in your post involved
your demand for evidence for things like sati,
untouchability, the Holocaust, Osama's involvement in
9/11, etc. I understand you were trying to illustrate
the problems with providing evidence. However, I
think that Gilbert has shown with facts and sequential
logic that many of the claims on the issue of
destruction of Hindu temples in order to build
Churches are not what everyone thinks.
Post by Vivek
Francis Xaviers letters provide a insight into his
bent of mind and his intolerant nature.You are
welcome to read them and decide for urself.
Mario responds:
Again, Gilbert has clarified this issue and you need
to respond to his comments directly.
Post by Vivek
I have no idea what a cafteria catholic is and in my
opinion one doesnt have to be religious in order to
be of upright moral nature.
Mario responds:
A cafeteria Catholic is one who disagrees with the
official Church's religious "menu" in certain specific
areas. These tend to be interpretations developed by
church officials over the years, or wholesale
concoctions by church officials, and are not part of
the basic rock-solid tenets of the religion.
For example, I support the use of condoms as a means
of birth control, the Church officially opposes this.
I would lose no sleep if priests and nuns were allowed
to marry. The Church wants to rehabilitate and
forgive all pedophile priests. I would also forgive
them but execute the worst ones if I could. The
current Pope wants to "fast-track" Pope JP-II towards
sainthood. I strenuously oppose this for a variety of
reasons that I have detailed in previous posts and in
letters to the Vatican. Things like that.
You are absolutely correct that one can be of upright
moral character without being religious. We all know
that some of the biggest scroundrels around, like the
Mafia and Hitler, pretended to be religious while
violating every Christian precept ever written. On
the other hand some of the even bigger scroundrels,
with a far higher "body count", like Lenin, Stalin,
Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, Fidel Castro, were or are
atheists.
I just read an amusing post by Cornel, who also says
that all scientific knowledge is like silly-putty,
where he says, "Atheists (who share the philosophy of
atheism) have never fielded armies to fight others."
I guess Cornel completely forgot about the Communists,
for whom atheism is a central tenet. The Communists
of the old Soviet Union and China, North Korea and
Cuba and others, have all fielded armies unbeknownst
to Cornel. They have all brutalized and subjugated
their own people and menaced their neighbors, and
Stalin and Mao are credited with massacres of their
own people totalling some 50 million lives, which
would make Hitler, whom atheist activists like to
paint as a Christian because of some of his
self-serving comments, but who violated every single
tenet of the rock solid Christian moral code, seem
like a Boy Scout leader.
My only point has been that when one signs on as a
member of a group that has certain published
standards, developed over millenia of experience,
carrying consequences within the group that go beyond
the civil or criminal law, there are far more checks
and balances and public and private pressure on that
member to conform to the moral rules of that group.
Hitler may have called himself a Christian when it
suited him, but, since he violated every tenet that he
may have signed on to, his claim was hollow and
everyone knew it - other than those atheists that are
anti-Christian and refer to him as a Christian.
On the other hand, none of the Communists had signed
on to any moral code, so what moral standard could
anyone hold them to, other than local and
international law?
An individual non-religious person may have excellent
moral standards, but who knows what those are, and
there is less pressure and no consequences other than
the law on exceptions that they may take when their
backs are to the wall, or even when convenience
dictates.
Thus, I will accept a conditional moral equivalency,
but not a general across-the-board moral equivalency.
Post by Vivek
I will let you have he last word on this one
Mario says:
Thank you Vivek, and for your civil discourse as well.
I hope I was able to clarify my very specific and
nuanced comments, which some have erroneously
interpreted as an indictment of the moral code of all
atheists, which would be a false interpretation. If
not, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
Mario Goveia
2006-07-05 15:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by cornel
Vivek
True to character, Mario decides that the guys like
Hitler, Stalin those in the Mafia etc all brought
up in his rock solid Christian morality swapped
sides to become atheists and then became the orgres
they were. The point I was making was that, clearly
the rock solid Christian moral code was not
particularly solid and has never been so.
Mario responds:
Cornel,
I wish you would wake up and read my posts a little
more carefully, even though you consider everything to
be provisional, before embarrassing yourself like
this.
I never said that the Mafia and Hitler became
atheists. I said that they pretended to be Christians
when it suited them but broke every tenet of the
rock-solid Christian moral code, which made their
claims hollow as every rational person would know.
However, their claims of being Christians are useful
to anti-Christians like yourself.
The point you were making is absurd on it's face. A
rock-solid moral code doesn't become less so just
because some "malcreades" choose to ignore them.
Compare this with the home-made moral codes of
unorganized individual atheists where, a) no one knows
what these may be, and b) no one knows when they may
make exceptions based on convenience or pressure,
unless they get themselves arrested.
Besides, you also made the most comical statement
since Goanet was formed when you said, "Atheists (who
share the philosophy of atheism) have never fielded
armies to fight others."
Vivek
2006-07-02 20:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Dear mario:
I dont think there were any absurdities in my post.
What i wanted to convey was that "evidence" as Gilbert
and others demand for the atrocities committed on
native population during the inquisition is very hard
to find.

Francis Xaviers letters provide a insight into his
bent of mind and his intolerant nature.You are welcome
to read them and decide for urself.

I have no idea what a cafteria catholic is and in my
opinion one doesnt have to be religious in order to be
of upright moral nature.

I will let you have he last word on this one
-vivek

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Mario Goveia
2006-07-04 16:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vivek
I dont think there were any absurdities in my post.
What i wanted to convey was that "evidence" as
Gilbert and others demand for the atrocities
committed on native population during the
inquisition is very hard to find.
Mario responds:
Vivek,
The absurdities I referred to in your post involved
your demand for evidence for things like sati,
untouchability, the Holocaust, Osama's involvement in
9/11, etc. I understand you were trying to illustrate
the problems with providing evidence. However, I
think that Gilbert has shown with facts and sequential
logic that many of the claims on the issue of
destruction of Hindu temples in order to build
Churches are not what everyone thinks.
Post by Vivek
Francis Xaviers letters provide a insight into his
bent of mind and his intolerant nature.You are
welcome to read them and decide for urself.
Mario responds:
Again, Gilbert has clarified this issue and you need
to respond to his comments directly.
Post by Vivek
I have no idea what a cafteria catholic is and in my
opinion one doesnt have to be religious in order to
be of upright moral nature.
Mario responds:
A cafeteria Catholic is one who disagrees with the
official Church's religious "menu" in certain specific
areas. These tend to be interpretations developed by
church officials over the years, or wholesale
concoctions by church officials, and are not part of
the basic rock-solid tenets of the religion.
For example, I support the use of condoms as a means
of birth control, the Church officially opposes this.
I would lose no sleep if priests and nuns were allowed
to marry. The Church wants to rehabilitate and
forgive all pedophile priests. I would also forgive
them but execute the worst ones if I could. The
current Pope wants to "fast-track" Pope JP-II towards
sainthood. I strenuously oppose this for a variety of
reasons that I have detailed in previous posts and in
letters to the Vatican. Things like that.
You are absolutely correct that one can be of upright
moral character without being religious. We all know
that some of the biggest scroundrels around, like the
Mafia and Hitler, pretended to be religious while
violating every Christian precept ever written. On
the other hand some of the even bigger scroundrels,
with a far higher "body count", like Lenin, Stalin,
Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, Fidel Castro, were or are
atheists.
I just read an amusing post by Cornel, who also says
that all scientific knowledge is like silly-putty,
where he says, "Atheists (who share the philosophy of
atheism) have never fielded armies to fight others."
I guess Cornel completely forgot about the Communists,
for whom atheism is a central tenet. The Communists
of the old Soviet Union and China, North Korea and
Cuba and others, have all fielded armies unbeknownst
to Cornel. They have all brutalized and subjugated
their own people and menaced their neighbors, and
Stalin and Mao are credited with massacres of their
own people totalling some 50 million lives, which
would make Hitler, whom atheist activists like to
paint as a Christian because of some of his
self-serving comments, but who violated every single
tenet of the rock solid Christian moral code, seem
like a Boy Scout leader.
My only point has been that when one signs on as a
member of a group that has certain published
standards, developed over millenia of experience,
carrying consequences within the group that go beyond
the civil or criminal law, there are far more checks
and balances and public and private pressure on that
member to conform to the moral rules of that group.
Hitler may have called himself a Christian when it
suited him, but, since he violated every tenet that he
may have signed on to, his claim was hollow and
everyone knew it - other than those atheists that are
anti-Christian and refer to him as a Christian.
On the other hand, none of the Communists had signed
on to any moral code, so what moral standard could
anyone hold them to, other than local and
international law?
An individual non-religious person may have excellent
moral standards, but who knows what those are, and
there is less pressure and no consequences other than
the law on exceptions that they may take when their
backs are to the wall, or even when convenience
dictates.
Thus, I will accept a conditional moral equivalency,
but not a general across-the-board moral equivalency.
Post by Vivek
I will let you have he last word on this one
Mario says:
Thank you Vivek, and for your civil discourse as well.
I hope I was able to clarify my very specific and
nuanced comments, which some have erroneously
interpreted as an indictment of the moral code of all
atheists, which would be a false interpretation. If
not, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
Mario Goveia
2006-07-05 15:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by cornel
Vivek
True to character, Mario decides that the guys like
Hitler, Stalin those in the Mafia etc all brought
up in his rock solid Christian morality swapped
sides to become atheists and then became the orgres
they were. The point I was making was that, clearly
the rock solid Christian moral code was not
particularly solid and has never been so.
Mario responds:
Cornel,
I wish you would wake up and read my posts a little
more carefully, even though you consider everything to
be provisional, before embarrassing yourself like
this.
I never said that the Mafia and Hitler became
atheists. I said that they pretended to be Christians
when it suited them but broke every tenet of the
rock-solid Christian moral code, which made their
claims hollow as every rational person would know.
However, their claims of being Christians are useful
to anti-Christians like yourself.
The point you were making is absurd on it's face. A
rock-solid moral code doesn't become less so just
because some "malcreades" choose to ignore them.
Compare this with the home-made moral codes of
unorganized individual atheists where, a) no one knows
what these may be, and b) no one knows when they may
make exceptions based on convenience or pressure,
unless they get themselves arrested.
Besides, you also made the most comical statement
since Goanet was formed when you said, "Atheists (who
share the philosophy of atheism) have never fielded
armies to fight others."
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...