Does anybody know of any "good" christian discussion forums in which
atheists are regularly slagged off? I want to extract some prime
examples for a newsletter I edit. Thanks.

Kim.

Hi Peter

I like the ban on smoking in public, it works well for me but I do not think it
is up to me to tell others how to live their lives.

As for the economic necessity compelling the workers to stay in that particular
job, I disagree. Most bar jobs are casual and there is a rapid turnover of
staff. Passive smoking requires long term exposure to create a problem, (if it
is a problem at all). So by the characteristic of the workforce long term
exposure will not take place except in a few exceptional circumstances plus most
work in Western civilizations carries and element of personal choice. If the law
was based upon any common sense venues that need paying customers could offer
facilities along with protections for non smoking staff.

Also to single out one particular group to back up an anti smoking argument is
just cherry picking. Anyone who has ever flown on a plane, drives a car, doesn't
recycle trash, uses electricity to power non essential activity, wastes food and
on and on... affect us all in negative and possibly more far-reaching ways.

Now I see in the news that a guy has been fined for smoking in his own
van because he uses it for work. What has this got to do with any
government official? Who are they protecting and from what?

Still I don't think he was claiming a religious exception. Maybe he should have!

Regards

Andy





To: atheismuk2@...
From: k.heron@...
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:14:14 +0100
Subject: RE: [Atheism UK] Enjoying fags in Gods honour




















             "They are hurting no one but themselves"

If only that were true Andy. What about the workers in the bar? Don't

tell me that they don't have to work there - economic necessity will

keep many in a job they don't want. That's why the UK has a ban in all

workplaces.





-----Original Message-----

From: atheismuk2@... [mailto:atheismuk2@...]

On Behalf Of Andy Leonard

Sent: 22 July 2008 22:23

To: atheismuk2@...

Subject: RE: [Atheism UK] Enjoying fags in Gods honour



Hi Peter



I agree that exceptions for religion are galling. But I also believe in

freedom of expression so I am fine with people who want religion so long

as they don't try to enforce it on me by corrupting society with their

strange views. Likewise I think if people want to smoke then they should

be allowed to. If pubs, clubs, restaurants or wherever choose to cater

for smokers then so be it.

As a reformed smoker I enjoy pubs now without the smoke and it has also

helped me to stay "clean" but I am uncomfortable with one group banning

another's activity simply because they don't like it. So I think that

the guys in Holland are probably just looking for a work around and

using the system to defeat an unjust law.



They are hurting no-one but themselves, its their life to do with as

they choose.



Andy



To: atheismuk2@yahoogro <mailto:atheismuk2%40yahoogroups.co.uk>

ups.co.uk

From: t.p.c.klaver@ <mailto:t.p.c.klaver%40qub.ac.uk> qub.ac.uk

Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:00:40 +0000

Subject: [Atheism UK] Enjoying fags in Gods honour



Fags as in the things you smoke that is (is that Brit lingo, or are



cigarettes called fags in Ireland and the US as well?):



http://www.radionet

<http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/080721

-dutch-smokers-church>

herlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/080721-dutch-smokers-churc

h



One more example of religion being a poor excuse for breaking the rules.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"They are hurting no one but themselves"
If only that were true Andy. What about the workers in the bar? Don't
tell me that they don't have to work there - economic necessity will
keep many in a job they don't want. That's why the UK has a ban in all
workplaces.


-----Original Message-----
From: atheismuk2@... [mailto:atheismuk2@...]
On Behalf Of Andy Leonard
Sent: 22 July 2008 22:23
To: atheismuk2@...
Subject: RE: [Atheism UK] Enjoying fags in Gods honour



Hi Peter

I agree that exceptions for religion are galling. But I also believe in
freedom of expression so I am fine with people who want religion so long
as they don't try to enforce it on me by corrupting society with their
strange views. Likewise I think if people want to smoke then they should
be allowed to. If pubs, clubs, restaurants or wherever choose to cater
for smokers then so be it.
As a reformed smoker I enjoy pubs now without the smoke and it has also
helped me to stay "clean" but I am uncomfortable with one group banning
another's activity simply because they don't like it. So I think that
the guys in Holland are probably just looking for a work around and
using the system to defeat an unjust law.

They are hurting no-one but themselves, its their life to do with as
they choose.

Andy

To: atheismuk2@yahoogro <mailto:atheismuk2%40yahoogroups.co.uk>
ups.co.uk
From: t.p.c.klaver@ <mailto:t.p.c.klaver%40qub.ac.uk> qub.ac.uk
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:00:40 +0000
Subject: [Atheism UK] Enjoying fags in Gods honour

Fags as in the things you smoke that is (is that Brit lingo, or are

cigarettes called fags in Ireland and the US as well?):

http://www.radionet
<http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/080721
-dutch-smokers-church>
herlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/080721-dutch-smokers-churc
h

One more example of religion being a poor excuse for breaking the rules.














[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Peter

I agree that exceptions for religion are galling. But I also believe in freedom
of expression so I am fine with people who want religion so long as they don't
try to enforce it on me by corrupting society with their strange views. Likewise
I think if people want to smoke then they should be allowed to. If pubs, clubs,
restaurants or wherever choose to cater for smokers then so be it.
As a reformed smoker I enjoy pubs now without the smoke and it has also helped
me to stay "clean" but I am uncomfortable with one group banning another's
activity simply  because they don't like it. So I think that the guys in Holland
are probably just looking for a work around and using the system to defeat an
unjust law.

They are hurting no-one but themselves, its their life to do with as they
choose.

Andy



To: atheismuk2@...
From: t.p.c.klaver@...
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:00:40 +0000
Subject: [Atheism UK] Enjoying fags in Gods honour




















             Fags as in the things you smoke that is (is that Brit lingo, or are

cigarettes called fags in Ireland and the US as well?):



http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/080721-dutch-sm\
okers-church



One more example of religion being a poor excuse for breaking the rules.

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Fags as in the things you smoke that is (is that Brit lingo, or are
cigarettes called fags in Ireland and the US as well?):

http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/080721-dutch-sm\
okers-church

One more example of religion being a poor excuse for breaking the rules.

--- In atheismuk2@..., "bleach" <marios1985_ni@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page15777.asp
>
The government's reply ignores the wording of the petition, which says
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Refuse any
application submitted by the ‘Church’ of Scientology for recognition
as a Religious Organisation."
I understand this as meaning that Scientology should not be given any
official recognition, not that people should be discouraged from
believing in it. If, for instance, the "Church" decreed that its
members children should wear Ku Kux Klan hoods at all times they might
apply for exemption from school uniform rules on religious grounds. Or
to be allowed to kill food animals by some strange and fearsome
method. Reduce to absurdity of choice.
Brian

And what about persons under the age of 18? Does society have a
responsibility to protect children?



Why is it okay for mutilation of babies still to be carried out in the UK?
It is illegal to dock the tails of Jack Russell terriers but apparently not
some male boys?



When does a set of actions and statements take on the rights of a religion?



I say when it is politically expedient.



Oh if only everyone could see the world as plainly as me!



Freedom of belief is fine for adults but the government needs to take a
position on truth, instead of pussyfooting around on the fence, worrying
about upsetting voters. No backbone.



I now pass the soapbox over to.

   _____

From: atheismuk2@... [mailto:atheismuk2@...] On
Behalf Of bleach
Sent: 16 June 2008 19:56
To: atheismuk2@...
Subject: [Atheism UK] govt responce to a block scientologe petition



http://www.pm. <http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page15777.asp>
gov.uk/output/Page15777.asp

In our approach to religious groups, the Government must seek to
balance its responsibility to protect vulnerable individuals with the
UK's long held commitment to freedom of worship and belief.

The Government does not consider that it would be feasible or
appropriate to introduce specific legislation or regulation of
religious groups, their activities or their beliefs. There would be
considerable difficulty in drawing up legislation in a way that did
not interfere with the individual's right to choose their beliefs and
lifestyles so long as they do no harm to others. There is also no
obvious way in which legislation could deal with cases where adults
participate in activities of religious organisations entirely voluntarily.

---------------

cant legislate against consenting adults volunteering for an over
embellished pyramid scheam.
but you can legislate on what consenting adults do in their own bedroom





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page15777.asp

In our approach to religious groups, the Government must seek to
balance its responsibility to protect vulnerable individuals with the
UK's long held commitment to freedom of worship and belief.

The Government does not consider that it would be feasible or
appropriate to introduce specific legislation or regulation of
religious groups, their activities or their beliefs. There would be
considerable difficulty in drawing up legislation in a way that did
not interfere with the individual's right to choose their beliefs and
lifestyles so long as they do no harm to others. There is also no
obvious way in which legislation could deal with cases where adults
participate in activities of religious organisations entirely voluntarily.

---------------

cant legislate against consenting adults volunteering for an over
embellished pyramid scheam.
but you can legislate on what consenting adults do in their own bedroom

--- In atheismuk2@..., "Peter Klaver" <t.p.c.klaver@...>
wrote:
>
> Awww....the CoE feels ingnored:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7442285.stm
The article also says:
Communities Secretary Hazel Blears denied there was a bias towards
Muslim organisations.

She said: "It's just common sense. I would put it as simply as that.

"If you have a situation where you need to build the resilience of
young Muslim men and women to be able to withstand an extremist
message then of course you do that kind of work, but it doesn't mean
you do it exclusively."

Can we take it, then, that she'll be building up resilience to extreme
creationist messages?
Brian

It's funny really. I thought that they do what they do for their God not for
recognition by a political system.



Here we are again, religion expecting a seat at the table of influence.



Are you giving to receive then Bishop?



Every British, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Jain, FSM, Church of the seventh day
Easter egg hunt or whatever have the same political clout as every other
person in the country. Every four years they get a vote. , They can form
pressure groups and present their case but none of them, barring the very
wealthy of course who are allowed favor so they don't go and live somewhere
else, should be allowed a special pass.



Andy



   _____

From: atheismuk2@... [mailto:atheismuk2@...] On
Behalf Of Peter Klaver
Sent: 08 June 2008 15:15
To: atheismuk2@...
Subject: [Atheism UK] Poor, poor Church of England (*snicker*)



Awww....the CoE feels ingnored:

http://news. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7442285.stm>
bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7442285.stm

They call for a minister for religion. Contrary to the usual scenario
where I dread 'Oh my FSM, here we go again', I feel optimistically
confident that we won't see a ministry for religion being set up in
the UK any time soon.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Awww....the CoE feels ingnored:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7442285.stm

They call for a minister for religion. Contrary to the usual scenario
where I dread 'Oh my FSM, here we go again', I feel optimistically
confident that we won't see a ministry for religion being set up in
the UK any time soon.

Ok, here is a small laugh for those who hadn't seen it already

http://blacktable.com/gillin041202.htm

The atoms that are in our body recycle even while we are alive. What
makes you "you" is the way the atoms are joined together, and
particularly the way the neurons in your brain change their
connections from day to day, not the particular individual atoms.
When you die these connections are lost.

This idea of "consciousness" existing in some way at the atomic
level, usually explained with much hand-waving involving buzz words
like "quantum" and "energy", is new-age waffle (a la Deepak Chopra).


--- In atheismuk2@..., "John" <reinc94@...> wrote:
>
> It is difficult to prove, but the basic concept is that since there
> is no god, the atoms themselves are what gives rise to a feeling
> of consciousness, in the past, present, and future.
>
> Memories are stored in the arrangement of atoms, thus are lost when
> the body decomposes, or in cases of amnesia too.
>
> Can we at least agree that the theory is possible,
> even if not guaranteed?
> That is to say that there is a possibility our atoms will
> feel alive in the future, with new bodies and memories?
>

Yay!

I say again: Yay!

:¬)

The anti-science brigade was in action at the House of Commons today,
trying to ban research involving hybrid embryos. This is viable
research, UK scientists have already created and studied a few hybrid
embryos. The efforts to kill that research were led by Catholic MPs,
acting on the Vatican party line that the soul enters the body at
conception and that using such early embryos for research (especially
mixing it with animal embryo matter) is unethical. Despite their best
efforts, they were routed.

A first bill had been introduced to ban all research on hybrid
embryos. It was easily defeated (336-176). A second vote on the same
subject, merely limiting the types of hybrids that could be created,
was defeated by a smaller margin.

Researchers say hybrid embryos are a very promising avenue for
learning about, and finding cures for, various diseases.

Any hybrid embryo is only allowed to develop a few days, it never
grows bigger than a pin head. Letting it grow further or inserting it
into a womans womb is not allowed.

I'm happy to see scientific research not being further restricted.
Well done Parliament.

greets,
Peter

Hi John,



Lots of ideas are difficult to prove and theories are based upon the best
evidence available.



From what I see of your idea the only evidence is because you say so.



Whether I agree with you or not is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the
continuation of the process. If it is happening as you say, then it is
provable. The onus as the proponent of the theory is upon you to present
robust evidence that can be tested. Once this happens and a body of research
grows then you will have a theory.



At this point as far as I can see you have an idea which with respect, seems
to require the same acceptance of blind faith as the belief in god which you
denounce.



Regards



Andy



   _____

From: atheismuk2@... [mailto:atheismuk2@...] On
Behalf Of John
Sent: 18 May 2008 03:58
To: atheismuk2@...
Subject: Re: [Atheism UK] video about atheism and the science of
reincarnation



--- In atheismuk2@yahoogro <mailto:atheismuk2%40yahoogroups.co.uk>
ups.co.uk, "Andrew Leonard"
<andy_leonard@...> wrote:
>
..
>
> Prove your idea. Actually I think I once discussed something similar
when I
> was about 17 under the influence of something or other.
>

It is difficult to prove, but the basic concept is that since there
is no god, the atoms themselves are what gives rise to a feeling
of consciousness, in the past, present, and future.

Memories are stored in the arrangement of atoms, thus are lost when
the body decomposes, or in cases of amnesia too.

Can we at least agree that the theory is possible,
even if not guaranteed?
That is to say that there is a possibility our atoms will
feel alive in the future, with new bodies and memories?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In atheismuk2@..., "Andrew Leonard"
<andy_leonard@...> wrote:
>
...
>
> Prove your idea. Actually I think I once discussed something similar
when I
> was about 17 under the influence of something or other.
>

It is difficult to prove, but the basic concept is that since there
is no god, the atoms themselves are what gives rise to a feeling
of consciousness, in the past, present, and future.

Memories are stored in the arrangement of atoms, thus are lost when
the body decomposes, or in cases of amnesia too.

Can we at least agree that the theory is possible,
even if not guaranteed?
That is to say that there is a possibility our atoms will
feel alive in the future, with new bodies and memories?

--- In atheismuk2@..., "John" <reinc94@...> wrote:
>
> If something happened once, then it could happen again.
Oh dear, everybody's breathing in Napoleon/Julius Caesar or whoever.
Except that's a bit out of date now: we're all breathing in a supernova.
Brian

I watched it too.
I don't know why I bothered.
My carbon atoms have been used previously. Big deal. I am not a sheet of
recycled paper.


> Well I watched it.
>
>
>
> It seems that the guy is advocating that atoms are recycled and therefore
> carry with them something of the previous body that they formed. At first
> I
> thought it was a joke by the makers of Southpark. The animation and
> narration would lead one to think so, but at the end the guy seems to be
> serious, I think.
>
>
>
> Prove your idea. Actually I think I once discussed something similar when
> I
> was about 17 under the influence of something or other.
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> PS I think John offers a fair critique.
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: atheismuk2@... [mailto:atheismuk2@...]
> On
> Behalf Of John PM Chappell
> Sent: 16 May 2008 11:48
> To: atheismuk2@...
> Subject: Re: [Atheism UK] video about atheism and the science of
> reincarnation
>
>
>
> Unmitigated bollocks and that's without bothering to watch whatever
> crap is on YouTube. For the record, your grasp of what constitutes a
> theory, scientific or otherwise, is shaky and you also don't seem to
> understand that if it were a theory that would grant it no authority
> in terms of credibility. Why am I bothering to point this all out?
> It's a dreary afternoon and I am bored.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Well I watched it.



It seems that the guy is advocating that atoms are recycled and therefore
carry with them something of the previous body that they formed. At first I
thought it was a joke by the makers of Southpark. The animation and
narration would lead one to think so, but at the end the guy seems to be
serious, I think.



Prove your idea. Actually I think I once discussed something similar when I
was about 17 under the influence of something or other.



Andy



PS I think John offers a fair critique.



   _____

From: atheismuk2@... [mailto:atheismuk2@...] On
Behalf Of John PM Chappell
Sent: 16 May 2008 11:48
To: atheismuk2@...
Subject: Re: [Atheism UK] video about atheism and the science of
reincarnation



Unmitigated bollocks and that's without bothering to watch whatever
crap is on YouTube. For the record, your grasp of what constitutes a
theory, scientific or otherwise, is shaky and you also don't seem to
understand that if it were a theory that would grant it no authority
in terms of credibility. Why am I bothering to point this all out?
It's a dreary afternoon and I am bored.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Unmitigated bollocks and that's without bothering to watch whatever
crap is on YouTube.  For the record, your grasp of what constitutes a
theory, scientific or otherwise, is shaky and you also don't seem to
understand that if it were a theory that would grant it no authority
in terms of credibility.  Why am I bothering to point this all out?
It's a dreary afternoon and I am bored.

If something happened once, then it could happen again.
We are here, and we could be back here again, that is
our consciousness could be back with a new body in our next life.

this is a scientific theory, that has nothing to do with religion.

this video starts out picking on religion and how religion got
started by a cave man who was hallucinating on a bad mushroom.

then it explains how our "feeling of being alive" could return
in our next lives.

it uses animation and special effects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyVXeWhkzEg

please let me know what you think of it.

lets just hope any alien religions aint like those on earth, i dont want to end
up BBQ'd by some lil green guy, with a laser rifle, screaming "kill the
heretic/infidel".

though, on the premise there is a god, maybe that was the point!
anyone who's played sim-city can tell you how pretty those disaster buttons get,
after your city has filled most of the map.


____________________________________________________________

ψυχοπομπóς
____________________________________________________________




----- Original Message ----
From: "k.heron@..." <k.heron@...>
To: atheismuk2@...
Sent: Wednesday, 14 May, 2008 9:04:14 PM
Subject: RE: [Atheism UK] News from the Vatican


It's tempting to suggest that the catholic church should agree that we now
have a hypothesis which may be tested in the future. If it is true that
the bible represents the word of God, and there are alien life forms, then
surely they should also have received the message.
In other words, if we make contact with an alien life form and they can
quote the book of Genesis then I will be prepared to admit that God
exists. If they can't, will the Pope change his mind?

Trouble with this is that God apparently couldn't be bothered to tell
Australian aboriginals or native Americans about his existence. So if He
can't travel a couple of thousand miles to save millions of souls why
should He be expected to go a few lightyears?

But then again He is omnipresent, so He is already there...




       __________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It's tempting to suggest that the catholic church should agree that we now
have a hypothesis which may be tested in the future. If it is true that
the bible represents the word of God, and there are alien life forms, then
surely they should also have received the message.
In other words, if we make contact with an alien life form and they can
quote the book of Genesis then I will be prepared to admit that God
exists. If they can't, will the Pope change his mind?

Trouble with this is that God apparently couldn't be bothered to tell
Australian aboriginals or native Americans about his existence. So if He
can't travel a couple of thousand miles to save millions of souls why
should He be expected to go a few lightyears?

But then again He is omnipresent, so He is already there...

Absolutely not.



Each religion is unique, formed individually, no common sharing of myth. The
words handed down by the deity himself. Then carefully added to over the years
by delivering further messages to mentally ill people so that they may save us
from the likes of your clearly, satanic lies.



   _____

From: atheismuk2@... [mailto:atheismuk2@...] On
Behalf Of Peter Klaver
Sent: 14 May 2008 07:53
To: atheismuk2@...
Subject: Re: [Atheism UK] News from the Vatican



Oh for FSMs sake! What are you on about? Don't you know that
plagiarism is common practice in religion. You didn't think that
christianity made up all that shit by itself, did you? Google
'Mithras'. That was just one of various such stories floating around
at the time. Watch a piece of QI on it via YouTube:

http://www.youtube. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSm7YPMQOSo>
com/watch?v=MSm7YPMQOSo

--- In atheismuk2@yahoogro <mailto:atheismuk2%40yahoogroups.co.uk> ups.co.uk,
"Andrew Leonard"
<andy_leonard@...> wrote:
>
> Plagiarist!
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: atheismuk2@yahoogro <mailto:atheismuk2%40yahoogroups.co.uk> ups.co.uk
[mailto:atheismuk2@yahoogro <mailto:atheismuk2%40yahoogroups.co.uk> ups.co.uk]
On Behalf Of Peter Klaver
> Sent: 14 May 2008 06:30
> To: atheismuk2@yahoogro <mailto:atheismuk2%40yahoogroups.co.uk> ups.co.uk
> Subject: Re: [Atheism UK] News from the Vatican
>
>
>
> Original sin was that eating of the apple by Adam, after the talking
> snake encouraged Eve to give it to Adam.
>
> But since we all know that Martians don't have gender but they do have
> two heads, the Garden of Eden story will have to be amended a bit. I
> suggest something like the following:
>
> The one head no doubt seduced the other head into smelling the odors
> of fresh and bad breath, egged on by a talking rock. The galactic
> overlord had explicitly forbidden them from doing so. Hence they were
> banned and fell onto Mars. There they gave up their vegetarian diets,
> as they discovered that yellow space worms are actually a yummie
> yummie yummie dish for lunch. From this healthy nutrition, two small
> extra small heads started to grow on the extra terestial, but they
> didn't get along and one of the small heads bits off the other small
> head. Then another small head suddenly appeared out of nowhere. The
> young head had a steaming hot shag with the new head (being very good
> at giving head) as did their offspring heads. And from this glorious
> incest feast, the whole Martian race sprang.
>
> The End
>
> --- In atheismuk2@yahoogro <mailto:atheismuk2%40yahoogroups.co.uk>
ups.co.uk, PSYCHOPOMPOS <marios1985_ni@>
> wrote:
> >
> > why add a deity?
> > why have one there in the first place?
> >
> > could someone remind me what "original sin" is supposed to be? iv
> actually forgotten...
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> >
> >
ψυχοπομπ�\
�³Ï‚
> > __________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: topaccount2001 <andy_leonard@>
> > To: atheismuk2@yahoogro <mailto:atheismuk2%40yahoogroups.co.uk>
ups.co.uk
> > Sent: Wednesday, 14 May, 2008 1:29:37 AM
> > Subject: [Atheism UK] News from the Vatican
> >
> >
> > http://news. bbc.co.uk/ 1/hi/world/ europe/7399661. stm
> >
> > Interesting news from the Vatican. I am not sure where it mentions
> > aliens in the Bible though. But, I many be wrong.
> >
> > They are also planning to celebrate Darwins birthday. I suppose that
> > at last in the face of irrefutable evidence they have finally realized
> > that they can no longer deny evolution as a theory.
> >
> > But weren't they right about, creation, witches the inquisition and
> > the rest? I feel sure that they said they were in an argument or two
> > that I heard.
> >
> > Why do they not see that the theories of extraterrestrial life,
> > evolution and others actually work without the need for a god to
> > explain any part of them. It all seems a bit confused and unnecessary.
> > The theories work well stand alone, why add a deity?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> > Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
> > A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.
<http://uk.docs. <http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html>
yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html> yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Oh for FSMs sake! What are you on about? Don't you know that
plagiarism is common practice in religion. You didn't think that
christianity made up all that shit by itself, did you? Google
'Mithras'. That was just one of various such stories floating around
at the time. Watch a piece of QI on it via YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSm7YPMQOSo

--- In atheismuk2@..., "Andrew Leonard"
<andy_leonard@...> wrote:
>
> Plagiarist!
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: atheismuk2@...
[mailto:atheismuk2@...] On Behalf Of Peter Klaver
> Sent: 14 May 2008 06:30
> To: atheismuk2@...
> Subject: Re: [Atheism UK] News from the Vatican
>
>
>
> Original sin was that eating of the apple by Adam, after the talking
> snake encouraged Eve to give it to Adam.
>
> But since we all know that Martians don't have gender but they do have
> two heads, the Garden of Eden story will have to be amended a bit. I
> suggest something like the following:
>
> The one head no doubt seduced the other head into smelling the odors
> of fresh and bad breath, egged on by a talking rock. The galactic
> overlord had explicitly forbidden them from doing so. Hence they were
> banned and fell onto Mars. There they gave up their vegetarian diets,
> as they discovered that yellow space worms are actually a yummie
> yummie yummie dish for lunch. From this healthy nutrition, two small
> extra small heads started to grow on the extra terestial, but they
> didn't get along and one of the small heads bits off the other small
> head. Then another small head suddenly appeared out of nowhere. The
> young head had a steaming hot shag with the new head (being very good
> at giving head) as did their offspring heads. And from this glorious
> incest feast, the whole Martian race sprang.
>
> The End
>
> --- In atheismuk2@yahoogro <mailto:atheismuk2%40yahoogroups.co.uk>
ups.co.uk, PSYCHOPOMPOS <marios1985_ni@>
> wrote:
> >
> > why add a deity?
> > why have one there in the first place?
> >
> > could someone remind me what "original sin" is supposed to be? iv
> actually forgotten...
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> >
> > ψυχοπομπóς
> > __________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: topaccount2001 <andy_leonard@>
> > To: atheismuk2@yahoogro <mailto:atheismuk2%40yahoogroups.co.uk>
ups.co.uk
> > Sent: Wednesday, 14 May, 2008 1:29:37 AM
> > Subject: [Atheism UK] News from the Vatican
> >
> >
> > http://news. bbc.co.uk/ 1/hi/world/ europe/7399661. stm
> >
> > Interesting news from the Vatican. I am not sure where it mentions
> > aliens in the Bible though. But, I many be wrong.
> >
> > They are also planning to celebrate Darwins birthday. I suppose that
> > at last in the face of irrefutable evidence they have finally realized
> > that they can no longer deny evolution as a theory.
> >
> > But weren't they right about, creation, witches the inquisition and
> > the rest? I feel sure that they said they were in an argument or two
> > that I heard.
> >
> > Why do they not see that the theories of extraterrestrial life,
> > evolution and others actually work without the need for a god to
> > explain any part of them. It all seems a bit confused and unnecessary.
> > The theories work well stand alone, why add a deity?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> > Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
> > A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.
<http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html> yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Plagiarist!



   _____

From: atheismuk2@... [mailto:atheismuk2@...] On
Behalf Of Peter Klaver
Sent: 14 May 2008 06:30
To: atheismuk2@...
Subject: Re: [Atheism UK] News from the Vatican



Original sin was that eating of the apple by Adam, after the talking
snake encouraged Eve to give it to Adam.

But since we all know that Martians don't have gender but they do have
two heads, the Garden of Eden story will have to be amended a bit. I
suggest something like the following:

The one head no doubt seduced the other head into smelling the odors
of fresh and bad breath, egged on by a talking rock. The galactic
overlord had explicitly forbidden them from doing so. Hence they were
banned and fell onto Mars. There they gave up their vegetarian diets,
as they discovered that yellow space worms are actually a yummie
yummie yummie dish for lunch. From this healthy nutrition, two small
extra small heads started to grow on the extra terestial, but they
didn't get along and one of the small heads bits off the other small
head. Then another small head suddenly appeared out of nowhere. The
young head had a steaming hot shag with the new head (being very good
at giving head) as did their offspring heads. And from this glorious
incest feast, the whole Martian race sprang.

The End

--- In atheismuk2@yahoogro <mailto:atheismuk2%40yahoogroups.co.uk> ups.co.uk,
PSYCHOPOMPOS <marios1985_ni@...>
wrote:
>
> why add a deity?
> why have one there in the first place?
>
> could someone remind me what "original sin" is supposed to be? iv
actually forgotten...
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
>
> ψυχοπομπóς
> __________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: topaccount2001 <andy_leonard@...>
> To: atheismuk2@yahoogro <mailto:atheismuk2%40yahoogroups.co.uk> ups.co.uk
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 May, 2008 1:29:37 AM
> Subject: [Atheism UK] News from the Vatican
>
>
> http://news. bbc.co.uk/ 1/hi/world/ europe/7399661. stm
>
> Interesting news from the Vatican. I am not sure where it mentions
> aliens in the Bible though. But, I many be wrong.
>
> They are also planning to celebrate Darwins birthday. I suppose that
> at last in the face of irrefutable evidence they have finally realized
> that they can no longer deny evolution as a theory.
>
> But weren't they right about, creation, witches the inquisition and
> the rest? I feel sure that they said they were in an argument or two
> that I heard.
>
> Why do they not see that the theories of extraterrestrial life,
> evolution and others actually work without the need for a god to
> explain any part of them. It all seems a bit confused and unnecessary.
> The theories work well stand alone, why add a deity?
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
> A Smarter Email http://uk.docs. <http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html>
yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Original sin was that eating of the apple by Adam, after the talking
snake encouraged Eve to give it to Adam.

But since we all know that Martians don't have gender but they do have
two heads, the Garden of Eden story will have to be amended a bit. I
suggest something like the following:

The one head no doubt seduced the other head into smelling the odors
of fresh and bad breath, egged on by a talking rock. The galactic
overlord had explicitly forbidden them from doing so. Hence they were
banned and fell onto Mars. There they gave up their vegetarian diets,
as they discovered that yellow space worms are actually a yummie
yummie yummie dish for lunch. From this healthy nutrition, two small
extra small heads started to grow on the extra terestial, but they
didn't get along and one of the small heads bits off the other small
head. Then another small head suddenly appeared out of nowhere. The
young head had a steaming hot shag with the new head (being very good
at giving head) as did their offspring heads. And from this glorious
incest feast, the whole Martian race sprang.

The End

--- In atheismuk2@..., PSYCHOPOMPOS <marios1985_ni@...>
wrote:
>
> why add a deity?
> why have one there in the first place?
>
> could someone remind me what "original sin" is supposed to be? iv
actually forgotten...
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> ψυχοπομπóς
> ____________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: topaccount2001 <andy_leonard@...>
> To: atheismuk2@...
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 May, 2008 1:29:37 AM
> Subject: [Atheism UK] News from the Vatican
>
>
> http://news. bbc.co.uk/ 1/hi/world/ europe/7399661. stm
>
> Interesting news from the Vatican. I am not sure where it mentions
> aliens in the Bible though. But, I many be wrong.
>
> They are also planning to celebrate Darwins birthday. I suppose that
> at last in the face of irrefutable evidence they have finally realized
> that they can no longer deny evolution as a theory.
>
> But weren't they right about, creation, witches the inquisition and
> the rest? I feel sure that they said they were in an argument or two
> that I heard.
>
> Why do they not see that the theories of extraterrestrial life,
> evolution and others actually work without the need for a god to
> explain any part of them. It all seems a bit confused and unnecessary.
> The theories work well stand alone, why add a deity?
>
>
>
>
>       __________________________________________________________
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
> A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

why add a deity?
why have one there in the first place?

could someone remind me what "original sin" is supposed to be? iv actually
forgotten...


____________________________________________________________

ψυχοπομπóς
____________________________________________________________




----- Original Message ----
From: topaccount2001 <andy_leonard@...>
To: atheismuk2@...
Sent: Wednesday, 14 May, 2008 1:29:37 AM
Subject: [Atheism UK] News from the Vatican


http://news. bbc.co.uk/ 1/hi/world/ europe/7399661. stm

Interesting news from the Vatican. I am not sure where it mentions
aliens in the Bible though. But, I many be wrong.

They are also planning to celebrate Darwins birthday. I suppose that
at last in the face of irrefutable evidence they have finally realized
that they can no longer deny evolution as a theory.

But weren't they right about, creation, witches the inquisition and
the rest? I feel sure that they said they were in an argument or two
that I heard.

Why do they not see that the theories of extraterrestrial life,
evolution and others actually work without the need for a god to
explain any part of them. It all seems a bit confused and unnecessary.
The theories work well stand alone, why add a deity?




       __________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7399661.stm

Interesting news from the Vatican. I am not sure where it mentions
aliens in the Bible though. But, I many be wrong.

They are also planning to celebrate Darwins birthday. I suppose that
at last in the face of irrefutable evidence they have finally realized
that they can no longer deny evolution as a theory.

But weren't they right about, creation, witches the inquisition and
the rest? I feel sure that they said they were in an argument or two
that I heard.

Why do they not see that the theories of extraterrestrial life,
evolution and others actually work without the need for a god to
explain any part of them. It all seems a bit confused and unnecessary.
The theories work well stand alone, why add a deity?