"Buerste" wrote in message
...
snip---

You are not an atheist, you are an antitheist. Atheists don't carry the
hate baggage.

That's not hate baggage----it's wisdom.

Harold

Steve wrote:

Did the survey show how the Jedi faith is doing in your neck of the woods?

May the Schwartz be with you.

David

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip

I rarely joke without letting you know that I'm joking. This is not a
joke. If you have some evidence to support what you're saying, let's hear
it.

One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing group" of the non-religious, would be noticeable among a group
that's grown in numbers by 20,000,000 people over the last 18 years.

--
Ed Huntress


As usual you are trying the "Ed Twist" of what I said. Let me quote.

-"You are completely leaving out antitheists. They take the view that
theism
-is dangerous and destructive. Their hatred of religion is proactive, often
-organized, often violent and craving power. THIS is the fastest growing
-group of non-religious and in many ways can be considered a "religion".
-Think of them as radical secularists bordering on fanatical terrorists.

And somehow you extracted this:

"One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing
group" of the non-religious"

Now, your manipulations confuse me. Do you want to discuss the growth of
"antitheists" or "violent antitheists"? I know you would prefer to change
the meaning of my post, as usual, but... Either that or I'm a ****ty
communicator, or you're a ****ty reader. Take your pick.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 07:09:51 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip

I rarely joke without letting you know that I'm joking. This is not a
joke. If you have some evidence to support what you're saying, let's hear
it.

One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing group" of the non-religious, would be noticeable among a group
that's grown in numbers by 20,000,000 people over the last 18 years.

--
Ed Huntress


As usual you are trying the "Ed Twist" of what I said. Let me quote.

-"You are completely leaving out antitheists. They take the view that
theism
-is dangerous and destructive. Their hatred of religion is proactive, often
-organized, often violent and craving power. THIS is the fastest growing
-group of non-religious and in many ways can be considered a "religion".
-Think of them as radical secularists bordering on fanatical terrorists.

And somehow you extracted this:

"One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing
group" of the non-religious"

Now, your manipulations confuse me. Do you want to discuss the growth of
"antitheists" or "violent antitheists"? I know you would prefer to change
the meaning of my post, as usual, but... Either that or I'm a ****ty
communicator, or you're a ****ty reader. Take your pick.

Its Ed's reading comprehension issues mixed with his desire to be picked
on by those better than he is.

Ive noticed a tendency for Leftists to read what they want into
something quite different.

Ed is no different.

Gunner






"Upon Roosevelt's death in 1945, H. L. Mencken predicted in his diary
that Roosevelt would be remembered as a great president, "maybe even
alongside Washington and Lincoln," opining that Roosevelt "had every
quality that morons esteem in their heroes.""

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip

I rarely joke without letting you know that I'm joking. This is not a
joke. If you have some evidence to support what you're saying, let's hear
it.

One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing group" of the non-religious, would be noticeable among a group
that's grown in numbers by 20,000,000 people over the last 18 years.

--
Ed Huntress


As usual you are trying the "Ed Twist" of what I said. Let me quote.

-"You are completely leaving out antitheists. They take the view that
theism
-is dangerous and destructive. Their hatred of religion is proactive,
often
-organized, often violent and craving power. THIS is the fastest growing
-group of non-religious and in many ways can be considered a "religion".
-Think of them as radical secularists bordering on fanatical terrorists.

And somehow you extracted this:

"One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing
group" of the non-religious"

Now, your manipulations confuse me. Do you want to discuss the growth of
"antitheists" or "violent antitheists"? I know you would prefer to change
the meaning of my post, as usual, but... Either that or I'm a ****ty
communicator, or you're a ****ty reader. Take your pick.

Do you want to try parsing that sentence into something simple, Tom? It
looks to me like you say:

1) Antitheists' hatred of religion is proactive, often organized, often
violent and craving power.

2) This is the fastest-growing group of the non-religious.


Now, maybe you can explain how that's NOT equivalent to saying that violent
antitheists are the fastest-growing group of the non-religious.

I've been editing for a long time, but if you somehow flipped that one on
its back and slid it under the other pea, I missed it.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip

I rarely joke without letting you know that I'm joking. This is not a
joke. If you have some evidence to support what you're saying, let's
hear it.

One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing group" of the non-religious, would be noticeable among a group
that's grown in numbers by 20,000,000 people over the last 18 years.

--
Ed Huntress


As usual you are trying the "Ed Twist" of what I said. Let me quote.

-"You are completely leaving out antitheists. They take the view that
theism
-is dangerous and destructive. Their hatred of religion is proactive,
often
-organized, often violent and craving power. THIS is the fastest growing
-group of non-religious and in many ways can be considered a "religion".
-Think of them as radical secularists bordering on fanatical terrorists.

And somehow you extracted this:

"One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing
group" of the non-religious"

Now, your manipulations confuse me. Do you want to discuss the growth of
"antitheists" or "violent antitheists"? I know you would prefer to
change the meaning of my post, as usual, but... Either that or I'm a
****ty communicator, or you're a ****ty reader. Take your pick.

Do you want to try parsing that sentence into something simple, Tom? It
looks to me like you say:

1) Antitheists' hatred of religion is proactive, often organized, often
violent and craving power.

2) This is the fastest-growing group of the non-religious.


Now, maybe you can explain how that's NOT equivalent to saying that
violent antitheists are the fastest-growing group of the non-religious.

I've been editing for a long time, but if you somehow flipped that one on
its back and slid it under the other pea, I missed it.

--
Ed Huntress


You imply:
often violent = always violent
often rains = always rains
often eats out = always eats out

Thanks for the lesson in logic and language, Mr. Twisty!

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 07:09:51 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip

I rarely joke without letting you know that I'm joking. This is not a
joke. If you have some evidence to support what you're saying, let's
hear
it.

One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing group" of the non-religious, would be noticeable among a group
that's grown in numbers by 20,000,000 people over the last 18 years.

--
Ed Huntress


As usual you are trying the "Ed Twist" of what I said. Let me quote.

-"You are completely leaving out antitheists. They take the view that
theism
-is dangerous and destructive. Their hatred of religion is proactive,
often
-organized, often violent and craving power. THIS is the fastest growing
-group of non-religious and in many ways can be considered a "religion".
-Think of them as radical secularists bordering on fanatical terrorists.

And somehow you extracted this:

"One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing
group" of the non-religious"

Now, your manipulations confuse me. Do you want to discuss the growth of
"antitheists" or "violent antitheists"? I know you would prefer to change
the meaning of my post, as usual, but... Either that or I'm a ****ty
communicator, or you're a ****ty reader. Take your pick.

Its Ed's reading comprehension issues mixed with his desire to be picked
on by those better than he is.

Ive noticed a tendency for Leftists to read what they want into
something quite different.

Ed is no different.

Gunner


If you like what you read, change it.

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip

I rarely joke without letting you know that I'm joking. This is not a
joke. If you have some evidence to support what you're saying, let's
hear it.

One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing group" of the non-religious, would be noticeable among a group
that's grown in numbers by 20,000,000 people over the last 18 years.

--
Ed Huntress


As usual you are trying the "Ed Twist" of what I said. Let me quote.

-"You are completely leaving out antitheists. They take the view that
theism
-is dangerous and destructive. Their hatred of religion is proactive,
often
-organized, often violent and craving power. THIS is the fastest
growing
-group of non-religious and in many ways can be considered a "religion".
-Think of them as radical secularists bordering on fanatical terrorists.

And somehow you extracted this:

"One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing
group" of the non-religious"

Now, your manipulations confuse me. Do you want to discuss the growth
of "antitheists" or "violent antitheists"? I know you would prefer to
change the meaning of my post, as usual, but... Either that or I'm a
****ty communicator, or you're a ****ty reader. Take your pick.

Do you want to try parsing that sentence into something simple, Tom? It
looks to me like you say:

1) Antitheists' hatred of religion is proactive, often organized, often
violent and craving power.

2) This is the fastest-growing group of the non-religious.


Now, maybe you can explain how that's NOT equivalent to saying that
violent antitheists are the fastest-growing group of the non-religious.

I've been editing for a long time, but if you somehow flipped that one on
its back and slid it under the other pea, I missed it.

--
Ed Huntress


You imply:
often violent = always violent
often rains = always rains
often eats out = always eats out

Thanks for the lesson in logic and language, Mr. Twisty!

Here's the important lesson: The way you wrote those sentences, the anaphor
(THIS group) refers to the antecedent "those whose hatred of religion is
proactive, often-organized, often violent and craving power."

If one wants to be generous, he could say that you wrote an ambiguous
sentence, since it isn't clear whether the antecedent for THIS is those
violent ones, or just anti-theists in general.

But I'm not in a generous mood. g The hardball analysis of your sentences
is that, if you didn't intend the violent ones to be the referent, your
passage reflects a failure of salience. The closest, most salient referent
to the anaphor is the violent ones.

(The editor pulls out his blue pencil, corrects the passage, and moves
on...)

--
Ed Huntress

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Faith is becoming less and less important these days.
Thinking people would rather have facts and you don't get them from
religion.

Hawke

Of course not. There are no facts to get. Religion is faith based,
certainly contrived by man to dominate his fellow man. Follow the money
and it's real obvious why religion exists.

Harold (the agnostic)

The Bible teaches to follow no man except Jesus and his teaching was quite a
bit different than the religious leaders of his day and this day. Jesus
also says to call no man father, I guess the Catholics completely ignore
this. What you say may be the way it's practiced (dominate fellow man) but
it's against the Christian religion "by the book". If the Bible is
contrived by man then I don't know why it is so against the purpose you
state and condemns men who practice what you say it's for. Your claim is
sort of like saying machinery's handbook misleads people to cut 1018 with
HSS at 30,000SFM, reading the book says something totally different though.

RogerN

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 07:09:51 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip

I rarely joke without letting you know that I'm joking. This is not a
joke. If you have some evidence to support what you're saying, let's
hear
it.

One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing group" of the non-religious, would be noticeable among a group
that's grown in numbers by 20,000,000 people over the last 18 years.

--
Ed Huntress


As usual you are trying the "Ed Twist" of what I said. Let me quote.

-"You are completely leaving out antitheists. They take the view that
theism
-is dangerous and destructive. Their hatred of religion is proactive,
often
-organized, often violent and craving power. THIS is the fastest growing
-group of non-religious and in many ways can be considered a "religion".
-Think of them as radical secularists bordering on fanatical terrorists.

And somehow you extracted this:

"One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing
group" of the non-religious"

Now, your manipulations confuse me. Do you want to discuss the growth of
"antitheists" or "violent antitheists"? I know you would prefer to
change
the meaning of my post, as usual, but... Either that or I'm a ****ty
communicator, or you're a ****ty reader. Take your pick.

Its Ed's reading comprehension issues mixed with his desire to be picked
on by those better than he is.

Ive noticed a tendency for Leftists to read what they want into
something quite different.

Ed is no different.

Gunner


If you like what you read, change it.

Both of you can use a few lessons in basic grammar. The assumed antecedent
is the closest one, in most sentence constructions. If you intend another
one, as when you leap over the closest antecedent and refer to one that
precedes it -- as you apparently intended to do here -- you must be explicit
about which of the possible antecedents you intend.

For example, use a parenthetical clarification: "Their hatred of religion is
proactive, often organized, often violent and craving power. This group --
the anti-theists -- is the fastest growing group of non-religious and in
many ways can be considered a 'religion'".

Get it?

(BTW, the double m-dash, represented online by pairs of hyphens, is still
considered to be parenthetical.)

--
Ed The Editor

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"TinLizziedl" wrote in message
k.net...
The only religious precept I feel I need to know and follow: Treat
others as you would want to be treated.

As far as I'm concerned, 99% of the religious thinking mankind has
dreamed up is hogwash. Designed to oppress and subjugate groups within
the religion, and de-humanize groups outside of it. Belive as I do or
be damned!

Religion exists as a crutch, a tool, and a weapon. Unbelivers can be
subjected to any punishment the religious care to mete out, for any
reason. After all, since I believe in a supreme being and you don't or
you call him/her/it by the wrong name, you're going to hell and I won't.

Am I an Athiest? Perhaps. Agnostic may be closer. Uncharitable
towards "Sunday-morning Christians?" You bet! Nothing kills me like
seening self-proclaimed Christians being hipocritical and not feeling
any contrition about it. Their church is just another reason to skip
work and have social gatherings.

I usually try not to associate with people who feel that their religion
gives them the right to strip unbelievers of their rights. When you get
down to it, this country was founded on the idea of freedom from
religious oppression, and freedom of religion. What is a religion? A
system of beliefs that guides you in your moral and ethical transactions
with the world around you. Not all transactions are easy and clear cut.
Most religions want cookie-cutter solutions to problems. One size fits
all. This has got to be the most incredibly asinine thing I have ever
heard of!

--
Tin Lizzie
"Elephant: A mouse built to government specifications."-Lazarus Long

You are not an atheist, you are an antitheist. Atheists don't carry the
hate baggage.


Thanks for the clarification. Now I know I am an atheist and an
antitheist. I don't believe in gods either singular or plural. In
addition, I am vehemently anti religion. But only because I see religion
as one of the primary reasons for man's inhumanity to man. Other than the
military I see no organization more responsible for the deaths of so many
innocent people than organized religion. I hope the survey is correct and
the trend of more people believing like me continues. The world will be a
much safer place and better if they do.

Hawke

Hitler's killing was based on atheism, to try to help evolution. Many other
"man's inhumanity to man" are atheism based.

RogerN

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

snip
"No religion" is not athiest. More likely agnostic.
Atheism IS a religion - they believe very strongly there is no "god"
or higher power of any description. An Agnostic doesn't know if there
is a "God" or higher power of any description, and really doesn't
care. A Panthiest believes there is "a god" within every ( at least
living) thing. A Polytheist believes in a plethora of "gods"

Not true, Clare.

Atheism means "without gods." The more common kind of atheist today,
sometimes called the scientific atheist, is one who doesn't believe in
gods because he doesn't think there is sufficient evidence in favor of
gods. Only the most extreme atheists, sometimes called the "strong"
atheists, assert that they have sufficient reason to believe that gods
positively do not exist.

Lots of people who think they're agnostics actually are atheists by any
sophisticated definition. They haven't seen evidence to believe in gods
with anything like assurance; they won't assert that there is a god or
gods. That's a variety of atheist -- someone who is "without gods."

An agnostic -- a term revived and re-defined by T.H. Huxley over a century
ago -- is one who believes that the existence of gods is unknowable. Not
"unknown," but unknowable, as a point of ontological philosophy. Huxley
and the others who re-coined the term were interested in the ontological
proofs of the existence or non-existence of things. Very few people who
think of themselves as "agnostics" even know what the term really means.
They think is just means "I don't know."

If you don't know, you just don't know. You're neither an agnostic nor an
atheist. You just...don't know. g

But calling atheism a religion is actually kind of dumb. Most modern
atheists make their claims based on evidentiary principles -- the version
of "science" they learned in school. They haven't seen the evidence, so
they are "without gods." What we call religion usually is the practice of
theism, and theism is a belief that doesn't require scientific evidence.
You may find a few atheists who are faith-based, like theists, but by no
means does the typical "scientific" theist think that way. They're more
like scientists who don't believe in ghosts or life after death, because
they haven't seen any evidence that they really exist.

--
Ed Huntress

Without proper dictionary definitions.. To not believe (not faith) in God is
different to believe (faith) there is certainly no God.

One person said claiming atheism is a religion is like claiming not
collecting stamps is a hobby. But for some it's like not collecting stamps,
for others it's like a hobby actively collecting things that are not stamps.

RogerN

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

snip
"No religion" is not athiest. More likely agnostic.
Atheism IS a religion - they believe very strongly there is no "god"
or higher power of any description. An Agnostic doesn't know if there
is a "God" or higher power of any description, and really doesn't
care. A Panthiest believes there is "a god" within every ( at least
living) thing. A Polytheist believes in a plethora of "gods"

Not true, Clare.

Atheism means "without gods." The more common kind of atheist today,
sometimes called the scientific atheist, is one who doesn't believe in
gods because he doesn't think there is sufficient evidence in favor of
gods. Only the most extreme atheists, sometimes called the "strong"
atheists, assert that they have sufficient reason to believe that gods
positively do not exist.

Lots of people who think they're agnostics actually are atheists by any
sophisticated definition. They haven't seen evidence to believe in gods
with anything like assurance; they won't assert that there is a god or
gods. That's a variety of atheist -- someone who is "without gods."

An agnostic -- a term revived and re-defined by T.H. Huxley over a
century ago -- is one who believes that the existence of gods is
unknowable. Not "unknown," but unknowable, as a point of ontological
philosophy. Huxley and the others who re-coined the term were interested
in the ontological proofs of the existence or non-existence of things.
Very few people who think of themselves as "agnostics" even know what the
term really means. They think is just means "I don't know."

If you don't know, you just don't know. You're neither an agnostic nor an
atheist. You just...don't know. g

But calling atheism a religion is actually kind of dumb. Most modern
atheists make their claims based on evidentiary principles -- the version
of "science" they learned in school. They haven't seen the evidence, so
they are "without gods." What we call religion usually is the practice of
theism, and theism is a belief that doesn't require scientific evidence.
You may find a few atheists who are faith-based, like theists, but by no
means does the typical "scientific" theist think that way. They're more
like scientists who don't believe in ghosts or life after death, because
they haven't seen any evidence that they really exist.

--
Ed Huntress

Without proper dictionary definitions.. To not believe (not faith) in God
is different to believe (faith) there is certainly no God.

One person said claiming atheism is a religion is like claiming not
collecting stamps is a hobby. But for some it's like not collecting
stamps, for others it's like a hobby actively collecting things that are
not stamps.

RogerN

Damned good, Roger! I'll keep that one handy, with your permission.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:41:53 -0500, "RogerN" wrote:


"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"TinLizziedl" wrote in message
k.net...
The only religious precept I feel I need to know and follow: Treat
others as you would want to be treated.

As far as I'm concerned, 99% of the religious thinking mankind has
dreamed up is hogwash. Designed to oppress and subjugate groups within
the religion, and de-humanize groups outside of it. Belive as I do or
be damned!

Religion exists as a crutch, a tool, and a weapon. Unbelivers can be
subjected to any punishment the religious care to mete out, for any
reason. After all, since I believe in a supreme being and you don't or
you call him/her/it by the wrong name, you're going to hell and I won't.

Am I an Athiest? Perhaps. Agnostic may be closer. Uncharitable
towards "Sunday-morning Christians?" You bet! Nothing kills me like
seening self-proclaimed Christians being hipocritical and not feeling
any contrition about it. Their church is just another reason to skip
work and have social gatherings.

I usually try not to associate with people who feel that their religion
gives them the right to strip unbelievers of their rights. When you get
down to it, this country was founded on the idea of freedom from
religious oppression, and freedom of religion. What is a religion? A
system of beliefs that guides you in your moral and ethical transactions
with the world around you. Not all transactions are easy and clear cut.
Most religions want cookie-cutter solutions to problems. One size fits
all. This has got to be the most incredibly asinine thing I have ever
heard of!

--
Tin Lizzie
"Elephant: A mouse built to government specifications."-Lazarus Long

You are not an atheist, you are an antitheist. Atheists don't carry the
hate baggage.


Thanks for the clarification. Now I know I am an atheist and an
antitheist. I don't believe in gods either singular or plural. In
addition, I am vehemently anti religion. But only because I see religion
as one of the primary reasons for man's inhumanity to man. Other than the
military I see no organization more responsible for the deaths of so many
innocent people than organized religion. I hope the survey is correct and
the trend of more people believing like me continues. The world will be a
much safer place and better if they do.

Hawke

Hitler's killing was based on atheism, to try to help evolution. Many other
"man's inhumanity to man" are atheism based.

RogerN

Hitler and his flunkies were not athiests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_H...igious_beliefs

http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hitler.html

Etc etc


Gunner

"Upon Roosevelt's death in 1945, H. L. Mencken predicted in his diary
that Roosevelt would be remembered as a great president, "maybe even
alongside Washington and Lincoln," opining that Roosevelt "had every
quality that morons esteem in their heroes.""

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
snip

Without proper dictionary definitions.. To not believe (not faith) in God
is different to believe (faith) there is certainly no God.

One person said claiming atheism is a religion is like claiming not
collecting stamps is a hobby. But for some it's like not collecting
stamps, for others it's like a hobby actively collecting things that are
not stamps.

RogerN

Damned good, Roger! I'll keep that one handy, with your permission.

--
Ed Huntress

Permission granted... I think TMT is collecting things the right wingers
say so he can report us all to Obama as terrorists :-)

Have you heard from TMT lately? It kind of worries me to see all these
political posts and he's not chiming in. I know I don't agree with many on
this group but I see it as a bunch of friends that I still consider friends
even though we don't agree on political and/or religious and/or other
discussions.

RogerN

Bu
Thanks for the clarification. Now I know I am an atheist and an
antitheist. I don't believe in gods either singular or plural. In
addition, I am vehemently anti religion. But only because I see religion
as one of the primary reasons for man's inhumanity to man. Other than the
military I see no organization more responsible for the deaths of so many
innocent people than organized religion. I hope the survey is correct and
the trend of more people believing like me continues. The world will be a
much safer place and better if they do.

Hawke

What's the difference between somebody forcing their beliefs in a (G)god(s)
on others or you guys forcing your anti-belief on others? Same thing,
except of course you are "Right" in your belief and everyone in disagreement
is wrong.



There wouldn't be a difference if that is what both groups were doing.
But they are not. Atheists simply choose not to believe in something
there is no proof of. That can't be construed as forcing anything on
anybody. Religion, not quite the same. We have the historical records of
people being burned at the stake by religious people for not agreeing
with them. Now that's what I call forcing. Being right is a different
issue. If you believe in something that is factually incorrect, well,
you can't be right then, can you?

Hawke

Bu
Thanks for the clarification. Now I know I am an atheist and an
antitheist. I don't believe in gods either singular or plural. In
addition, I am vehemently anti religion. But only because I see religion
as one of the primary reasons for man's inhumanity to man. Other than the
military I see no organization more responsible for the deaths of so many
innocent people than organized religion. I hope the survey is correct and
the trend of more people believing like me continues. The world will be a
much safer place and better if they do.

Hawke

What's the difference between somebody forcing their beliefs in a (G)god(s)
on others or you guys forcing your anti-belief on others? Same thing,
except of course you are "Right" in your belief and everyone in disagreement
is wrong.



There wouldn't be a difference if that is what both groups were doing.
But they are not. Atheists simply choose not to believe in something
there is no proof of. That can't be construed as forcing anything on
anybody. Religion, not quite the same. We have the historical records of
people being burned at the stake by religious people for not agreeing
with them. Now that's what I call forcing. Being right is a different
issue. If you believe in something that is factually incorrect, well,
you can't be right then, can you?

Hawke

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
snip

Without proper dictionary definitions.. To not believe (not faith) in
God is different to believe (faith) there is certainly no God.

One person said claiming atheism is a religion is like claiming not
collecting stamps is a hobby. But for some it's like not collecting
stamps, for others it's like a hobby actively collecting things that are
not stamps.

RogerN

Damned good, Roger! I'll keep that one handy, with your permission.

--
Ed Huntress

Permission granted... I think TMT is collecting things the right wingers
say so he can report us all to Obama as terrorists :-)

Have you heard from TMT lately? It kind of worries me to see all these
political posts and he's not chiming in. I know I don't agree with many
on this group but I see it as a bunch of friends that I still consider
friends even though we don't agree on political and/or religious and/or
other discussions.

RogerN

'Don't know about TMT. I plonked him over a year ago because I grew tired of
the endless cut-and-paste nonsense. He picked that up from Gunner, who
doesn't appear to have time for as much of it any more. And there are
several others I don't read, left and right, unless they respond to me or
they get into a thread I'm interested in.

But I saw him quoted just a day or so ago. Maybe someone was responding to
an old message; I don't know.

I don't mind sharp disagreements. I dislike certain things, and avoid
conversations that get into killing people for political reasons or
stereotyping and dehumanizing one's opponents.

--
Ed Huntress

Buerste wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip
I rarely joke without letting you know that I'm joking. This is not a
joke. If you have some evidence to support what you're saying, let's hear
it.

One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing group" of the non-religious, would be noticeable among a group
that's grown in numbers by 20,000,000 people over the last 18 years.

--
Ed Huntress


As usual you are trying the "Ed Twist" of what I said. Let me quote.

-"You are completely leaving out antitheists. They take the view that
theism
-is dangerous and destructive. Their hatred of religion is proactive, often
-organized, often violent and craving power. THIS is the fastest growing
-group of non-religious and in many ways can be considered a "religion".
-Think of them as radical secularists bordering on fanatical terrorists.

And somehow you extracted this:

"One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing
group" of the non-religious"

Now, your manipulations confuse me. Do you want to discuss the growth of
"antitheists" or "violent antitheists"? I know you would prefer to change
the meaning of my post, as usual, but... Either that or I'm a ****ty
communicator, or you're a ****ty reader. Take your pick.


I'm going with you're a ****ty communicator.



Hawke

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:30:35 -0500, "RogerN" wrote:


"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
t...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Faith is becoming less and less important these days.
Thinking people would rather have facts and you don't get them from
religion.

Hawke

Of course not. There are no facts to get. Religion is faith based,
certainly contrived by man to dominate his fellow man. Follow the money
and it's real obvious why religion exists.

Harold (the agnostic)

The Bible teaches to follow no man except Jesus and his teaching was quite a
bit different than the religious leaders of his day and this day.

You seem to be ignoring more than half of your bible :-|



Mark Rand(Hard atheist)
RTFM

RogerN wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"TinLizziedl" wrote in message
k.net...
The only religious precept I feel I need to know and follow: Treat
others as you would want to be treated.

As far as I'm concerned, 99% of the religious thinking mankind has
dreamed up is hogwash. Designed to oppress and subjugate groups within
the religion, and de-humanize groups outside of it. Belive as I do or
be damned!

Religion exists as a crutch, a tool, and a weapon. Unbelivers can be
subjected to any punishment the religious care to mete out, for any
reason. After all, since I believe in a supreme being and you don't or
you call him/her/it by the wrong name, you're going to hell and I won't.

Am I an Athiest? Perhaps. Agnostic may be closer. Uncharitable
towards "Sunday-morning Christians?" You bet! Nothing kills me like
seening self-proclaimed Christians being hipocritical and not feeling
any contrition about it. Their church is just another reason to skip
work and have social gatherings.

I usually try not to associate with people who feel that their religion
gives them the right to strip unbelievers of their rights. When you get
down to it, this country was founded on the idea of freedom from
religious oppression, and freedom of religion. What is a religion? A
system of beliefs that guides you in your moral and ethical transactions
with the world around you. Not all transactions are easy and clear cut.
Most religions want cookie-cutter solutions to problems. One size fits
all. This has got to be the most incredibly asinine thing I have ever
heard of!

--
Tin Lizzie
"Elephant: A mouse built to government specifications."-Lazarus Long
You are not an atheist, you are an antitheist. Atheists don't carry the
hate baggage.

Thanks for the clarification. Now I know I am an atheist and an
antitheist. I don't believe in gods either singular or plural. In
addition, I am vehemently anti religion. But only because I see religion
as one of the primary reasons for man's inhumanity to man. Other than the
military I see no organization more responsible for the deaths of so many
innocent people than organized religion. I hope the survey is correct and
the trend of more people believing like me continues. The world will be a
much safer place and better if they do.

Hawke

Hitler's killing was based on atheism, to try to help evolution. Many other
"man's inhumanity to man" are atheism based.

RogerN




He sure did get a lot of Christians to go along with his atheist based
killing. In fact Germany was a Christian nation. So the fact that it's
leader wasn't had nothing to do with all those Christians going on a
blood thirsty killing spree. Like they have ever since they got
organized into a religion. So the question is who is worse, the
Christians or the Muslims. Looks a lot like a tie to me.

Hawke

Let the Record show that "RogerN" on or about Sat,
24 Oct 2009 09:50:43 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in
rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

But calling atheism a religion is actually kind of dumb. Most modern
atheists make their claims based on evidentiary principles -- the version
of "science" they learned in school. They haven't seen the evidence, so
they are "without gods." What we call religion usually is the practice of
theism, and theism is a belief that doesn't require scientific evidence.
You may find a few atheists who are faith-based, like theists, but by no
means does the typical "scientific" theist think that way. They're more
like scientists who don't believe in ghosts or life after death, because
they haven't seen any evidence that they really exist.

--
Ed Huntress

Without proper dictionary definitions.. To not believe (not faith) in God is
different to believe (faith) there is certainly no God.

One person said claiming atheism is a religion is like claiming not
collecting stamps is a hobby. But for some it's like not collecting stamps,
for others it's like a hobby actively collecting things that are not stamps.

But the better comparison, is that there are those who are
obsessed with God/god/divine entities, and there are those who are
not. Just as the censor and the pornographer are both obsessed with
sex, the "militant" atheists are as god obsessed as the most devout
believer.
And it does appear that the militant atheists tend to be anti-the
local dominate deity. Which can lead to some humorous interchanges,
as the militant atheists says "I don't believe in a 'Pink Unicorns
with Blue Bows' kind of deity" and the theist agrees "Neither do I."

The non-god obsessed atheists isn't so much against the concept of
god, as they just lack a referent. "Null Program" is their response
to the whole question. Whether their neighbor believes in one god or
twenty - or none - neither picks their pocket nor breaks their arm.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Let the Record show that "Harold and Susan Vordos" on
or about Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:12:31 GMT did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

"Buerste" wrote in message
...
snip---

You are not an atheist, you are an antitheist. Atheists don't carry the
hate baggage.

That's not hate baggage----it's wisdom.

Hate is not wisdom.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip
I rarely joke without letting you know that I'm joking. This is not a
joke. If you have some evidence to support what you're saying, let's
hear it.

One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing group" of the non-religious, would be noticeable among a group
that's grown in numbers by 20,000,000 people over the last 18 years.

--
Ed Huntress


As usual you are trying the "Ed Twist" of what I said. Let me quote.

-"You are completely leaving out antitheists. They take the view that
theism
-is dangerous and destructive. Their hatred of religion is proactive,
often
-organized, often violent and craving power. THIS is the fastest growing
-group of non-religious and in many ways can be considered a "religion".
-Think of them as radical secularists bordering on fanatical terrorists.

And somehow you extracted this:

"One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing
group" of the non-religious"

Now, your manipulations confuse me. Do you want to discuss the growth of
"antitheists" or "violent antitheists"? I know you would prefer to
change the meaning of my post, as usual, but... Either that or I'm a
****ty communicator, or you're a ****ty reader. Take your pick.


I'm going with you're a ****ty communicator.



Hawke

I freely admit that. I have never pretended to be intelligent or a
wordsmith. I'm blessed by occasionally being mechanically clever or lucky
and sometimes think clearly. I never have the arrogant, liberal pretence
that everything I think, do or say is dripping with wisdom.

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Bu
Thanks for the clarification. Now I know I am an atheist and an
antitheist. I don't believe in gods either singular or plural. In
addition, I am vehemently anti religion. But only because I see religion
as one of the primary reasons for man's inhumanity to man. Other than
the military I see no organization more responsible for the deaths of so
many innocent people than organized religion. I hope the survey is
correct and the trend of more people believing like me continues. The
world will be a much safer place and better if they do.

Hawke

What's the difference between somebody forcing their beliefs in a
(G)god(s) on others or you guys forcing your anti-belief on others? Same
thing, except of course you are "Right" in your belief and everyone in
disagreement is wrong.

There wouldn't be a difference if that is what both groups were doing. But
they are not. Atheists simply choose not to believe in something there is
no proof of. That can't be construed as forcing anything on anybody.
Religion, not quite the same. We have the historical records of people
being burned at the stake by religious people for not agreeing with them.
Now that's what I call forcing. Being right is a different issue. If you
believe in something that is factually incorrect, well, you can't be right
then, can you?

Hawke

I know, that stake-burning thing is a real problem. Why just the other
day...

Here's an interesting story about liberal tollerance:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344350,00.html

"Mark Rand" On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:30:35 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:


"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
t...

"Hawke" wrote in message
Faith is becoming less and less important these
days.
Thinking people would rather have facts and you don't
get them from
religion.

Hawke

Of course not. There are no facts to get. Religion
is faith based,
certainly contrived by man to dominate his fellow man.
Follow the money
and it's real obvious why religion exists.

Harold (the agnostic)

The Bible teaches to follow no man except Jesus and his
teaching was quite a
bit different than the religious leaders of his day and
this day.

You seem to be ignoring more than half of your bible :-|



Mark Rand(Hard atheist)
RTFM

Why can't we all just live by the Ten Commandments, eih? The
10 basic
'actions' on how to get along in society. It seems to me
that if someone
can recognize evil then there must be by definition an equal
but opposite
good. God is good, Satan is evil. Don't make drugs your god,
or alcohol,
or gambling, or hate or whatever. Don't be jealous of your
neighbor.
Don't kill people. Don't steal things. Don't try to take
over your neighbors
beautiful wife, go get your own. etc. etc. etc. What does
all this have to
do with religion? It doesn't matter, live by the 10 c's and
you'll live
an honest life. That's the problem, not enough people play
by these
rules. :(( phil

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...
snip---

You are not an atheist, you are an antitheist. Atheists don't carry the
hate baggage.

That's not hate baggage----it's wisdom.

Harold

Off Off Topic:

Harold, did you ever get anywhere with the CNC machine you were considering?

RogerN

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 06:48:15 GMT, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Faith is becoming less and less important these days.
Thinking people would rather have facts and you don't get them from
religion.

Hawke

Of course not. There are no facts to get. Religion is faith based,
certainly contrived by man to dominate his fellow man. Follow the money
and it's real obvious why religion exists.

Harold (the agnostic)

One of my all-time favorite Onion headlines (as best I can remember
it): Late Pope Miffed That Heaven Less Opulent Than Vatican

Wayne

In article t,
TinLizziedl wrote:

The only religious precept I feel I need to know and follow: Treat
others as you would want to be treated.

That is not a religious precept. It is a social one.

-Frank

--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com

"Phil Kangas" wrote in message
...

"Mark Rand" On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:30:35 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:


"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
t...

"Hawke" wrote in message
Faith is becoming less and less important these
days.
Thinking people would rather have facts and you don't
get them from
religion.

Hawke

Of course not. There are no facts to get. Religion
is faith based,
certainly contrived by man to dominate his fellow man.
Follow the money
and it's real obvious why religion exists.

Harold (the agnostic)

The Bible teaches to follow no man except Jesus and his
teaching was quite a
bit different than the religious leaders of his day and
this day.

You seem to be ignoring more than half of your bible :-|



Mark Rand(Hard atheist)
RTFM

Why can't we all just live by the Ten Commandments, eih? The
10 basic
'actions' on how to get along in society. It seems to me
that if someone
can recognize evil then there must be by definition an equal
but opposite
good. God is good, Satan is evil. Don't make drugs your god,
or alcohol,
or gambling, or hate or whatever. Don't be jealous of your
neighbor.
Don't kill people. Don't steal things. Don't try to take
over your neighbors
beautiful wife, go get your own. etc. etc. etc. What does
all this have to
do with religion? It doesn't matter, live by the 10 c's and
you'll live
an honest life. That's the problem, not enough people play
by these
rules. :(( phil



Heh! My wife, born and raised in the mormon church, who has now withdrawn
from its evil grasp, has an even better philosophy. Really simple, too.
The golden rule. One thing to remember----and it should come easily.

The thing I have noted mostly about "religious" folks, is that the more they
proclaim themselves to be "religious", the more they are unlike Christ.

I have very little tolerance for people that can't leave their religion at
the curb. If they expect my respect, I expect them to respect my right to
believe as I do.

Harold

In article , RogerN
wrote:

Hitler's killing was based on atheism, to try to help evolution. Many other
"man's inhumanity to man" are atheism based.

Godwin's law notwithstanding, I have a German infantry soldier's belt
buckle brought back from Belgium in 1945 by my father. It is factory
inscribed, "Gott Mit Uns." Want to tell me how that is "based on
atheism?"

There is more than enough other contemporary evidence to make your
claim simply ludicrous. My suggestion is that you get an education.

-Frank

--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:14:58 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:30:35 -0500, "RogerN" wrote:


"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
et...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Faith is becoming less and less important these days.
Thinking people would rather have facts and you don't get them from
religion.

Hawke

Of course not. There are no facts to get. Religion is faith based,
certainly contrived by man to dominate his fellow man. Follow the money
and it's real obvious why religion exists.

Harold (the agnostic)

The Bible teaches to follow no man except Jesus and his teaching was quite a
bit different than the religious leaders of his day and this day.

You seem to be ignoring more than half of your bible :-|



Mark Rand(Hard atheist)
RTFM
Just the first half - which is mostly a history.

Buerste wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip
I rarely joke without letting you know that I'm joking. This is not a
joke. If you have some evidence to support what you're saying, let's
hear it.

One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing group" of the non-religious, would be noticeable among a group
that's grown in numbers by 20,000,000 people over the last 18 years.

--
Ed Huntress

As usual you are trying the "Ed Twist" of what I said. Let me quote.

-"You are completely leaving out antitheists. They take the view that
theism
-is dangerous and destructive. Their hatred of religion is proactive,
often
-organized, often violent and craving power. THIS is the fastest growing
-group of non-religious and in many ways can be considered a "religion".
-Think of them as radical secularists bordering on fanatical terrorists.

And somehow you extracted this:

"One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing
group" of the non-religious"

Now, your manipulations confuse me. Do you want to discuss the growth of
"antitheists" or "violent antitheists"? I know you would prefer to
change the meaning of my post, as usual, but... Either that or I'm a
****ty communicator, or you're a ****ty reader. Take your pick.

I'm going with you're a ****ty communicator.



Hawke

I freely admit that. I have never pretended to be intelligent or a
wordsmith. I'm blessed by occasionally being mechanically clever or lucky
and sometimes think clearly. I never have the arrogant, liberal pretence
that everything I think, do or say is dripping with wisdom.

You're also mistaken thinking that pretense is something confined to
liberals. I can cite you scads of republicans just like that. It makes
no sense to make accusations about one party when the facts show the
other is just as guilty. All that shows is a personal bias.

Hawke

"Frank J Warner" wrote in message
news:241020091906288366%warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon .net...
In article , RogerN
wrote:

Hitler's killing was based on atheism, to try to help evolution. Many
other
"man's inhumanity to man" are atheism based.

Godwin's law notwithstanding, I have a German infantry soldier's belt
buckle brought back from Belgium in 1945 by my father. It is factory
inscribed, "Gott Mit Uns." Want to tell me how that is "based on
atheism?"

There is more than enough other contemporary evidence to make your
claim simply ludicrous. My suggestion is that you get an education.

-Frank

--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com

You have to go beyond what they claimed and understand what they really
were. If they called themselves unicorns it doesn't make them unicorns.
They made up a religious sounding reason for what they did, many do
something wrong and try to claim God told them to do it. If they believed
God created all men equal, then why would they be trying to produce
evolutions master race? If they believed the Jews were God's chosen people,
then why where they killing them?

RogerN

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...
snip---

You are not an atheist, you are an antitheist. Atheists don't carry the
hate baggage.

That's not hate baggage----it's wisdom.

Harold

Off Off Topic:

Harold, did you ever get anywhere with the CNC machine you were
considering?

RogerN



Got the CNC. It's sitting in the RV storage portion of my shop, but I'm not
anywhere near ready to start learning. I'll move it to the shop and set it
up permanently when I finish building our house, which should be sometime
around the middle of some year! :-)

Thanks for asking.

By the way, it's a HAAS TM-1, built in 2004.

Harold

"Frank J Warner" wrote in message
news:241020091851032865%warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon .net...
In article t,
TinLizziedl wrote:

The only religious precept I feel I need to know and follow: Treat
others as you would want to be treated.

That is not a religious precept. It is a social one.

-Frank

Yes, it is, and it's more than adequate for all circumstances. The Golden
Rule.

The problem is trying to get folks to reciprocate in kind. Ain't likely
to happen, eh? Seems like most folks consider anything that is to their
benefit a good thing, regardless of how it may harm others.

Harold

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:30:11 -0700, the infamous pyotr filipivich
scrawled the following:

Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on
or about Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:32:51 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:53:22 -0500, Ignoramus21020
wrote:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/10/21...rk.subway.ads/

Rafferty and De Dora cite the American Religious Identification
Survey, released earlier this year, as evidence of a shift away from
organized religion. Those checking "none" for religion rose from 8
percent of the population in 1990 to 15 percent in 2008, effectively
making "no religion" the fastest growing religious identification in
the United States.


Does that mean they are becoming athiests, or simply not identifying
with any organized religion.

Or are not identified with any recognized religion.

Many forms nowadays have a new checkbox: spiritual but not religious.
Thank Crom for that.


The tale is
that Bishop Pollycarp was told to "adjure the atheists" - so he did.
He waved at the assembled crowds and said "away with the atheists!"

He's that lovely gent who was stabbed when they failed to burn him at
the stake, huh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp

--
The only reason I would take up exercising is
so that I could hear heavy breathing again.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 05:06:36 -0700, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 07:09:51 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip

I rarely joke without letting you know that I'm joking. This is not a
joke. If you have some evidence to support what you're saying, let's hear
it.

One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing group" of the non-religious, would be noticeable among a group
that's grown in numbers by 20,000,000 people over the last 18 years.

--
Ed Huntress


As usual you are trying the "Ed Twist" of what I said. Let me quote.

-"You are completely leaving out antitheists. They take the view that
theism
-is dangerous and destructive. Their hatred of religion is proactive, often
-organized, often violent and craving power. THIS is the fastest growing
-group of non-religious and in many ways can be considered a "religion".
-Think of them as radical secularists bordering on fanatical terrorists.

And somehow you extracted this:

"One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing
group" of the non-religious"

Now, your manipulations confuse me. Do you want to discuss the growth of
"antitheists" or "violent antitheists"? I know you would prefer to change
the meaning of my post, as usual, but... Either that or I'm a ****ty
communicator, or you're a ****ty reader. Take your pick.

Its Ed's reading comprehension issues mixed with his desire to be picked
on by those better than he is.

Ive noticed a tendency for Leftists to read what they want into
something quite different.

Ed is no different.

I'm guessing that the koolaid he drank has put him on a bad trip.
What the hell happened? Now he's treating everyone as he has always
treated you: like ****. It's downright shameful.

--
The only reason I would take up exercising is
so that I could hear heavy breathing again.

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:59:48 GMT, the infamous "Harold and Susan
Vordos" scrawled the following:


"RogerN" wrote in message
om...

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...
snip---

You are not an atheist, you are an antitheist. Atheists don't carry the
hate baggage.

That's not hate baggage----it's wisdom.

Harold

Off Off Topic:

Harold, did you ever get anywhere with the CNC machine you were
considering?

RogerN



Got the CNC. It's sitting in the RV storage portion of my shop, but I'm not
anywhere near ready to start learning. I'll move it to the shop and set it
up permanently when I finish building our house, which should be sometime
around the middle of some year! :-)

Thanks for asking.

By the way, it's a HAAS TM-1, built in 2004.

Y'know, if you set it up and knocked out several runs of 100 of
something, it'd pay for the laborers to finish your house for you, and
you could oversee every step without the added sweat. Just a thought.
(I know, good laborers are hard to find.)

--
The only reason I would take up exercising is
so that I could hear heavy breathing again.

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

snip
Off Off Topic:

Harold, did you ever get anywhere with the CNC machine you were
considering?

RogerN



Got the CNC. It's sitting in the RV storage portion of my shop, but I'm
not anywhere near ready to start learning. I'll move it to the shop and
set it up permanently when I finish building our house, which should be
sometime around the middle of some year! :-)

Thanks for asking.

By the way, it's a HAAS TM-1, built in 2004.

Harold

Way back when I was telling you about an idea to make a poor mans tool
changer. While looking up to see a Haas TM-1, I found a video where someone
done it, you might be interested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3wjO0aaKLQ

If I ever get me a shop building at my current residence and get some work
going, I'd love to buy something like the TM-1. By Bridgeport seems pretty
limited without a lot of work to modify it. I could, and plan to, do an EMC
conversion, add a spindle encoder for taping, but the simple tool holder
would be difficult because of my Erickson QC 30 spindle nut system. I
wonder if anyone makes a draw bar/pull stud system for Erickson QC 30
spindles?

I think I could get some work for my machines if I had the time to run them
and felt like it. I'm just a little uneasy about going into debt to buy a
building with a concrete floor. The last price I had was around $18K for a
30 X 50 building with the concrete floor, I was figuring about $4K
additional for my wiring upgrade (100A at house to 200A) and electricals for
the building.

Maybe I'll start a new thread to discuss this and get some advise and
opinions from the folks that have done similar.

RogerN