In article <ea673e0e-9fca-49fe-a1c3-6fb1409c93d1n@googlegroups.com>,
Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I have to say, three of these surprised me.
>
>(Obviously, I don't know much about them.)
>
>https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-13-countries-where-being-an-atheist-is-punishable-by-death-a6960561.html

And they are:

1. Afghanistan

2. Iran

3. Malaysia

4. Maldives

5. Mauritania

6. Nigeria

7. Pakistan

8. Qatar

9. Saudi Arabia

10. Somalia

11. Sudan

12. United Arab Emirates

13. Yemen

Not surprisingly, most of them are Muslim shitholes.
(Although there does seem to be a few exceptions to this...)

--
Watching ConservaLoons playing with statistics and facts is like watching a
newborn play with a computer. Endlessly amusing, but totally unproductive.

Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
> In article <ea673e0e-9fca-49fe-a1c3-6fb1409c93d1n@googlegroups.com>,
> Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I have to say, three of these surprised me.
>>
>>(Obviously, I don't know much about them.)
>>
>>https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-13-countries-where-being-an-atheist-is-punishable-by-death-a6960561.html
>
> And they are:
>
> 1. Afghanistan
>
> 2. Iran
>
> 3. Malaysia
>
> 4. Maldives
>
> 5. Mauritania
>
> 6. Nigeria
>
> 7. Pakistan
>
> 8. Qatar
>
> 9. Saudi Arabia
>
> 10. Somalia
>
> 11. Sudan
>
> 12. United Arab Emirates
>
> 13. Yemen
>
> Not surprisingly, most of them are Muslim shitholes.
> (Although there does seem to be a few exceptions to this...)

All of them have large Islamic populations,so I suppose
you are saying that there are exceptions to being "shitholes"?

(God only knows why anyone would either BE an atheist or PROSECUTE them).

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

In article <9c48c200-7be3-4078-93ef-6cbee598a85fn@googlegroups.com>,
Meteorite Debris <peter.gregory.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
....
>Being atheist as I am is not a choice. Either one believes in a god without
>evidence or one lacks evidence. I have not been satisfied with "evidence" put
>forward to date. Every argument for a god uses at least one logical fallacy.

I get what you are saying, but it is generally accepted that the correct
term to use for your position is "agnostic", not "atheist". Operationally,
there is no difference, but the idea is that agnostic more closely captures
the passive sense you are describing.

>The definition of an atheism is a lack of belief in a god, not a belief in
>there being no god. It is in the passive sense. The word is a-theism as in
>a-moral, not im-theism as in im-moral. The Greek prefix "a" meaning "lack
>of". One can no more "choose" to be an atheist then one can choose to
>believe in Santa Claus.

"Believers" have a more fluid/flexible view. They maintain that you *can*
control your beliefs. This means that they are using the term "believe"
differently than we (you & I) do.

--
'Islamaphobia' is a term created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons.

- Author unknown, quoted by Sam Harris -

Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
> In article <9c48c200-7be3-4078-93ef-6cbee598a85fn@googlegroups.com>,
> Meteorite Debris <peter.gregory.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:

(The replied-to article by Mr. Debris does NOT appear on my server).

> ...
>>Being atheist as I am is not a choice.

Fleeing accountability?

>> Either one believes in a god without
>>evidence or one lacks evidence. I have not been satisfied with "evidence" put
>>forward to date.

That speaks to your lack of comprehension that the existence
of anything whatsoever constitutes proof that there must be
an Infinitely First Cause,and your fallacious restriction of
the possible natures of the IFC to the weak theories about it
put forward by religions.

>> Every argument for a god uses at least one logical fallacy.
>
> I get what you are saying, but it is generally accepted that the correct
> term to use for your position is "agnostic", not "atheist". Operationally,
> there is no difference, but the idea is that agnostic more closely captures
> the passive sense you are describing.
>
>>The definition of an atheism is a lack of belief in a god, not a belief in
>>there being no god.

You are over-broadening the definition of atheism even as
you over-narrow the definition of "God" (which is the name
given to whatever the answer is to the nature of the IFC).

>> It is in the passive sense. The word is a-theism as in
>>a-moral, not im-theism as in im-moral. The Greek prefix "a" meaning "lack
>>of". One can no more "choose" to be an atheist then one can choose to
>>believe in Santa Claus.
>
> "Believers" have a more fluid/flexible view. They maintain that you *can*
> control your beliefs. This means that they are using the term "believe"
> differently than we (you & I) do.

What one can not control is not an active belief but an assumption.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

In article <ull8b5$h98$2@reader2.panix.com>,
Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>> In article <9c48c200-7be3-4078-93ef-6cbee598a85fn@googlegroups.com>,
>> Meteorite Debris <peter.gregory.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>(The replied-to article by Mr. Debris does NOT appear on my server).

This probably explains why you don't see any posts by "Dave P" (as we were
discussing in another thread). It sounds like either you or your admins
have totally blocked anything coming from Google (and/or anything from
"@gmail.com"), presumably in response to the recent spam-shit-show.

Both "Meteorite Debris" and "Dave P" post from @gmail.com addresses.

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/LadyChatterley

On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 4:44:49 PM UTC-6, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> It sounds like either you or your admins
> have totally blocked anything coming from Google (and/or anything from
> "@gmail.com"), presumably in response to the recent spam-shit-show.

You may well be onto something. While I certainly don't feel that voices should not be heard from those who can only afford the free email addresses, it does solve some problems. Spammers AND scammers take full advantage of the free services. At that price, they can create an unlimited number of addresses. I'm in an online group (not Google) that does not accept membership from those with free addresses and it has worked out great for about two decades. I retired during the pandemic, but continue to pay for my email address, partly because I do see this trend in small membership groups.

Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
> In article <ull8b5$h98$2@reader2.panix.com>,
> Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>>Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>>> In article <9c48c200-7be3-4078-93ef-6cbee598a85fn@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Meteorite Debris <peter.gregory.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>(The replied-to article by Mr. Debris does NOT appear on my server).
>
> This probably explains why you don't see any posts by "Dave P" (as we were
> discussing in another thread). It sounds like either you or your admins
> have totally blocked anything coming from Google (and/or anything from
> "@gmail.com"), presumably in response to the recent spam-shit-show.
>
> Both "Meteorite Debris" and "Dave P" post from @gmail.com addresses.
>

So this would be a Panix policy?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
> Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>> In article <ull8b5$h98$2@reader2.panix.com>,
>> Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>>>Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <9c48c200-7be3-4078-93ef-6cbee598a85fn@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Meteorite Debris <peter.gregory.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>(The replied-to article by Mr. Debris does NOT appear on my server).
>>
>> This probably explains why you don't see any posts by "Dave P" (as we were
>> discussing in another thread). It sounds like either you or your admins
>> have totally blocked anything coming from Google (and/or anything from
>> "@gmail.com"), presumably in response to the recent spam-shit-show.
>>
>> Both "Meteorite Debris" and "Dave P" post from @gmail.com addresses.
>>
>
> So this would be a Panix policy?

(I *DO* see,but can not quote because of the charset issue,
a posting from Mr. Debris on the "Google Groups drop Usenet"
thread).
> -=-=-
> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

In <ullhob$hlk$2@reader2.panix.com> Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> writes:

>> Both "Meteorite Debris" and "Dave P" post from @gmail.com addresses.

>So this would be a Panix policy?

Just based on some posts in Panix.chat, etc., it looks like
it's ack'ing the "noce'ems", but I haven't seen anything
to suggest Panix has blocked gmail.com addresses.

Doesn't mean they're not, of course.

Suggest you send a query to staff [at] panix [dot] com.

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 4:55:43 AM UTC-5, Meteorite Debris wrote:
> Being atheist as I am is not a choice. Either one believes in a god without evidence or one lacks evidence. I have not been satisfied with "evidence" put forward to date. Every argument for a god uses at least one logical fallacy.
>
> The definition of an atheism is a lack of belief in a god, not a belief in there being no god. It is in the passive sense. The word is a-theism as in a-moral, not im-theism as in im-moral. The Greek prefix "a" meaning "lack of". One can no more "choose" to be an atheist then one can choose to believe in Santa Claus.

Speaking of which...

I think everyone here, religious or not, will enjoy this 1961 Peanuts strip..

(Check out the nine comments underneath, too. You have to click on the right to see them.)

https://www.gocomics.com/peanuts/1961/12/13