If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Christians called "intolerant" by some stupid atheist who is going to burn in hell when he gets there   (theherald.co.uk) divider line 678
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

14364 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2009 at 2:20 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



678 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2009-03-24 10:31:55 PM
Eh, I'll make some popcorn in the morning....
 
2009-03-24 10:54:21 PM
 
2009-03-24 11:00:53 PM
subby: Christians called "intolerant" by some stupid atheist who is going to burn in hell when he gets there anyone who pays even marginal attention.

Yep.
 
2009-03-24 11:07:59 PM
Oh hey, another Atheist vs. Christian thread.

I'm sure this discussion will offer up salient points and intelligent discourse missing in the previous 97 threads on the same topic.

Have at it people...
 
2009-03-24 11:09:16 PM
That was really well written. I dislike the headline, as there is certainly intolerance to be shared by both sides, but author of TFA makes an excellent point regarding this view that any criticism regarding a religious authority is somehow 'anti-Christian'.
 
2009-03-24 11:14:11 PM
Holden C: Have at it people...

So long as it stays away from this...

i224.photobucket.com">
 
2009-03-24 11:21:48 PM
Holden C: I'm sure this discussion will offer up salient points and intelligent discourse missing in the previous 97 threads on the same topic.

It was 94 by my count. But hey...only Jesus knows the true numbers here.
 
2009-03-24 11:25:55 PM
Everybody knows the Jews are right.
 
2009-03-25 12:28:09 AM
I reject your mythology and substitute a magical diety of my own.
 
2009-03-25 02:24:31 AM
Atheism is the religion of peace.
 
2009-03-25 02:25:02 AM
pretty subtle subby.
 
2009-03-25 02:25:50 AM
Mmmmmm... nah.

Don't even want to bother with a slashie facetiousnessism.
 
2009-03-25 02:25:58 AM
Cletus McGhee: Atheism is the religion of peace.


How dare you mock my system of nonbeliefs!
 
2009-03-25 02:26:33 AM
Obligatory:

thoughtmenagerie.files.wordpress.com
 
2009-03-25 02:31:19 AM
I cannot tolerate intolerance.
 
2009-03-25 02:31:20 AM
Ranger Joe: I reject your mythology and substitute a magical diety of my own.

Said Adam

/The savage one. Sheesh, I slashied.
 
2009-03-25 02:31:44 AM
Leviticus 18:22!
 
2009-03-25 02:32:25 AM
Aw, its the wrong time of day for this greenlight. I'll check back later, lose interest after 150 or so posts, then just scroll for funny pictures. I hope there is a new funny picture or two. And jesus was a piece of cheese. Big farking mix up.
 
2009-03-25 02:32:37 AM
I LOL'ed.

That headline will bring all the loons to the yard. *golf claps*
 
2009-03-25 02:33:20 AM
As a believer I won't tolerate...violence, bigotry, racism, abuse, sexism and a bunch of other awful sins.

Is it okay NOT to tolerate that which one finds objectionable? Would you not tolerate different opinions?
 
2009-03-25 02:33:27 AM
The worst people in any group tend to be the loudest and therefore most often heard. And not all Christians are fundamentalists. Those who are...well, read the first sentence again.
 
2009-03-25 02:34:04 AM
i14.photobucket.com

I had the pleasure of meeting the hell bound Christopher Hitchens this weekend.
 
2009-03-25 02:34:37 AM
That article made articulate well intended points that would welcome a deep and reasoned debate.

Too bad the section of 'Christians' the article is referring to won't have the depth to grasp those nuances or patience or intelligence to respond in kind, or if they do respond, it will be with sound bites, biblical passages and politically-tinged rhetoric.
 
2009-03-25 02:35:17 AM
ninjakirby: Holden C: Have at it people...

So long as it stays away from this...


Even the "I like bacon" part? Because I don't think I could ever deny that part.
 
2009-03-25 02:36:40 AM
Markoff_Cheney
Aw, its the wrong time of day for this greenlight. I'll check back later, lose interest after 150 or so posts, then just scroll for funny pictures. I hope there is a new funny picture or two. And jesus was a piece of cheese. Big farking mix up.



lol thats what I do.
 
2009-03-25 02:37:01 AM
galewgleason: I had the pleasure of meeting the hell bound Christopher Hitchens this weekend.

OOoohhhHHHOOoo, I love Christopher Hitches, I almost never agree w/ him (atheism is the obvious exception) but he's crazy smart.

I also like this comic:

i278.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-25 02:37:39 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: Leviticus 18:22!


Leviticus is some crazy shiat. Eat shellfish? Stoning. Cut your hair? Stoning. Wife cheats on you? Stoning. Flat nose? No heaven for you. Crippled? Ditto. Wear two different types of fabric? BZZZT!

You have to laugh at anybody who says they take the bible literally.
 
2009-03-25 02:37:47 AM
Ah, another religion thread. FUN.

/not
 
2009-03-25 02:37:56 AM
ninjakirby: So long as it stays away from this...

Yeah, right... :)
 
2009-03-25 02:38:30 AM
*Yawn* - I think it's too late in the day to start the blame game or start a flame war, but I may stick around to watch anyways.

/intolerance is universal
//nobody is exempt
///BTW, get some new pictures, I'm tired of seeing the same ones every single time
 
2009-03-25 02:39:05 AM
Bevets or GTFO.
 
2009-03-25 02:39:06 AM
Arklop: The worst people in any group tend to be the loudest and therefore most often heard. And not all ChristiansDUKES HATERS are fundamentalistsassholes. Those who are...well, read the first sentence again.
 
2009-03-25 02:39:52 AM
koan

Never saw the "obligatory" post before, but I'm stealing that for some certain Bible thumpers.
 
2009-03-25 02:40:05 AM
It's not that we dislike you, really. Most of you are quite curious and tolerant.

As for the rest of you, well.... It's just -- Could you just hold it down a little while the rest of us are becoming an enlightened race?
 
2009-03-25 02:40:55 AM
While I agreed with the points the author was making, I don't feel they addressed the article topic. Does not anyone else feel rather unfulfilled by what could have been a far more scathing or flameworthy piece which was really just a preaching-to-the-choir style op-ed?

/all I have to say
//off to bed
 
2009-03-25 02:42:07 AM
irreverence: I LOL'ed.

That headline will bring all the loons to the yard. *golf claps*


They be all like " damn right, it's better then yours...I'd teach you, but i'd have to charge"
 
2009-03-25 02:42:19 AM
Vangor: While I agreed with the points the author was making, I don't feel they addressed the article topic. Does not anyone else feel rather unfulfilled by what could have been a far more scathing or flameworthy piece which was really just a preaching-to-the-choir style op-ed?

/all I have to say
//off to bed


They almost always are. Xtians, most Christians, are not interested in reading about atheism even while many atheists read up and study religion quite closely.
 
2009-03-25 02:42:32 AM
Aw what the hell
i39.photobucket.comi39.photobucket.com

/making a pot of coffee
 
2009-03-25 02:43:23 AM
brainiac-dumdum: Vangor: While I agreed with the points the author was making, I don't feel they addressed the article topic. Does not anyone else feel rather unfulfilled by what could have been a far more scathing or flameworthy piece which was really just a preaching-to-the-choir style op-ed?

/all I have to say
//off to bed

They almost always are. Xtians, most Christians, are not interested in reading about atheism even while many atheists read up and study religion quite closely.


I should say I personally have never met a Christian interested in studying atheism and I grew up in Texas around many a Christian.
 
2009-03-25 02:43:23 AM
TheWarmonger: ///BTW, get some new pictures, I'm tired of seeing the same ones every single time


img148.imageshack.us


There you go. A nice pic of white Jesus being all majestic and stuff.
 
2009-03-25 02:43:55 AM
Acts 2:15
 
2009-03-25 02:44:07 AM
irreverence: That headline will bring all the loons to the yard.

youaintnopicasso.com

My headline brings all the loons to the yard...
 
2009-03-25 02:44:17 AM
At least I'm not the only one who won't read the 900 posts of repeat arguments and just look for funny pictures.
 
2009-03-25 02:45:13 AM
Yarg. Whenever I see these headlines, I just imagine the Mortal Kombat voice saying "FIGHT!"
 
2009-03-25 02:45:30 AM
prekrasno: Bevets or GTFO.

Or just bust myths, Adam:

img.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-25 02:45:33 AM
Summon Kerpal32...
When the universe is studied with all 11 dimensions in context, supernatural conclusions will be found and the ensuing god will cast all those dirty heathen atheists to the pit of hell.
Oh yea, and every athiests needs to be told that Athiesm does not equal science.
 
2009-03-25 02:45:59 AM
EL_FABREZ: TheWarmonger: ///BTW, get some new pictures, I'm tired of seeing the same ones every single time

There you go. A nice pic of white Jesus being all majestic and stuff.


It could be white Muhammad during his Hjri to Medina.
 
2009-03-25 02:46:24 AM
prekrasno: Bevets or GTFO.

I LOL'D
 
2009-03-25 02:47:49 AM
Intolerant Christians? Unheard of. It's a brotherhood of compassion and acceptance.

/disregard crusades
//disregard salem witch trials
 
2009-03-25 02:48:00 AM
It's been my life's mission to eliminate Christianity.

However, they're doing a fine job without my help. Keep up the "good" work guys.
 
2009-03-25 02:48:33 AM
brainiac-dumdum: It could be white Muhammad during his Hjri to Medina.


Blaspheme! Jesus is pretty and white. Muhammad was a dirty brown person. And if that was Muhammad in the pic it wouldn't be a bald eagle flying overhead, it'd be a Predator drone.
 
2009-03-25 02:49:06 AM
And please disregard Jerry Falwell
 
2009-03-25 02:49:32 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: Leviticus 18:22

لاَ تُضَاجِعْ ذَكَراً مُضَاجَعَةَ امْرَأَةٍ. إِنَّهَا رَجَاسَةٌ?،
 
2009-03-25 02:50:26 AM
EL_FABREZ: TheWarmonger: ///BTW, get some new pictures, I'm tired of seeing the same ones every single time

There you go. A nice pic of white Jesus being all majestic and stuff.


is he shooping the woop?
 
2009-03-25 02:51:49 AM
EL_FABREZ: brainiac-dumdum: It could be white Muhammad during his Hjri to Medina.


Blaspheme! Jesus is pretty and white. Muhammad was a dirty brown person. And if that was Muhammad in the pic it wouldn't be a bald eagle flying overhead, it'd be a Predator drone.


lol, my bad
 
2009-03-25 02:53:35 AM
i dont know about you but i get sick and tired of the atheist crap. its not our fault you refuse to acknowledge God. just stop trying to keep people from exercising their constitutional rights.
 
2009-03-25 02:54:05 AM
UsikFark: is he shooping the woop?


I think that's just how he rolls. He's probably just going down to the local 7-11 to buy a pack of Newports, but he has to look awesome doing it.
 
2009-03-25 02:54:09 AM
Britney_Spears: i dont know about you but i get sick and tired of the atheist crap. its not our fault you refuse to acknowledge God. just stop trying to keep people from exercising their constitutional rights.

lol
 
2009-03-25 02:55:22 AM
UsikFark: What_Would_Jimi_Do: Leviticus 18:22

لاَ تُضَاجِعْ ذَكَراً مُضَاجَعَةَ امْرَأَةٍ. إِنَّهَا رَجَاسَةٌ?،


how dare you speak of black people and women in that manner!
 
2009-03-25 02:55:27 AM
Britney_Spears: i dont know about you but i get sick and tired of the atheist crap. its not our fault you refuse to acknowledge God. just stop trying to keep people from exercising their constitutional rights.

8/10
 
2009-03-25 02:55:59 AM
 
2009-03-25 02:56:22 AM
shannynmoore.files.wordpress.com

Take THAT GilRuiz1
 
2009-03-25 02:56:43 AM
Antidamascus: At least I'm not the only one who won't read the 900 posts of repeat arguments and just look for funny pictures.

Good to see the late crew has the same philosophy as me. We are a band of scroll ninjas, in it only for the lulz. I salute you all.

i50.photobucket.com
aprecioderobado.com
img416.imageshack.us
www.stupidedia.org
www.loona.net
img.photobucket.com
Ill just leave these here.
/wow, a GIS of loljesus yeilds much new fun.
//all hotter than the spot reserved for me in hell, where all my farking friends will be.
 
2009-03-25 02:57:08 AM
EL_FABREZ: What_Would_Jimi_Do: Leviticus 18:22!


Leviticus is some crazy shiat. Eat shellfish? Stoning. Cut your hair? Stoning. Wife cheats on you? Stoning. Flat nose? No heaven for you. Crippled? Ditto. Wear two different types of fabric? BZZZT!

You have to laugh at anybody who says they take the bible literally.



It's precisely because of books like Leviticus that I laugh at people who try to pwn Christians by quoting the Old Testament. Since it's fairly early in this thread still, I'll give the atheists to come a little tip:

Christians are well aware of the "intolerance" (as we moderns would call it) and heavy-handedness of the Old Testament. This barbarity contrasted with the pacifism of Jesus Christ is precisely one of the differences distinguishing the Old Testament from the New Testament. I'd go into the theology and apologetics a bit, but I've smoked too much wacky tobacky.

(I don't mean to rag on atheists. Christianity has plenty wrong with it, metaphysically and perhaps even a bit morally. I just find it odd that, for all their intellectual pretensions, most rabidly anti-Christian atheists don't know a damn thing about the theology they hate so much.)
 
2009-03-25 02:57:12 AM
Obligatory:
i16.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-25 02:57:26 AM
EL_FABREZ: UsikFark: is he shooping the woop?


I think that's just how he rolls. He's probably just going down to the local 7-11 to buy a pack of Newports, but he has to look awesome doing it.


i629.photobucket.com

I think Jesus chills with the King
 
2009-03-25 02:59:17 AM
The Name: EL_FABREZ: What_Would_Jimi_Do: Leviticus 18:22!


Leviticus is some crazy shiat. Eat shellfish? Stoning. Cut your hair? Stoning. Wife cheats on you? Stoning. Flat nose? No heaven for you. Crippled? Ditto. Wear two different types of fabric? BZZZT!

You have to laugh at anybody who says they take the bible literally.


It's precisely because of books like Leviticus that I laugh at people who try to pwn Christians by quoting the Old Testament. Since it's fairly early in this thread still, I'll give the atheists to come a little tip:

Christians are well aware of the "intolerance" (as we moderns would call it) and heavy-handedness of the Old Testament. This barbarity contrasted with the pacifism of Jesus Christ is precisely one of the differences distinguishing the Old Testament from the New Testament. I'd go into the theology and apologetics a bit, but I've smoked too much wacky tobacky.

(I don't mean to rag on atheists. Christianity has plenty wrong with it, metaphysically and perhaps even a bit morally. I just find it odd that, for all their intellectual pretensions, most rabidly anti-Christian atheists don't know a damn thing about the theology they hate so much.)


lol i am no chriatian, my quoting that scripture is from family guy. lol at you.
 
2009-03-25 02:59:37 AM
Britney_Spears: i dont know about you but i get sick and tired of the atheist crap. its not our fault you refuse to acknowledge God. just stop trying to keep people from exercising their constitutional rights.

planetsave.com
ACKNOWLEDGIN SOME GOD RIGHT HERE
 
2009-03-25 02:59:47 AM
GWSuperfan: Obligatory:

i629.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-25 02:59:59 AM
christian
 
2009-03-25 03:00:41 AM
Britney Spear's Speculum: Atheism is not a religion^

Atheism IS a religion (new window)
 
2009-03-25 03:01:49 AM
Britney_Spears: i dont know about you but i get sick and tired of the atheist crap. its not our fault you refuse to acknowledge God. just stop trying to keep people from exercising their constitutional rights.

Please tell me you're just trolling...please!
 
2009-03-25 03:01:58 AM
brainiac-dumdum: Atheism IS a religion (new window)

EC FTW! It's funny how many people think he is serious.

i246.photobucket.com

i246.photobucket.com

i246.photobucket.com

i246.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-25 03:02:31 AM
brainiac-dumdum: Britney Spear's Speculum: Atheism is not a religion^

Atheism IS a religion (new window)


I don't think you heard the barking dogs in your head correctly.
 
2009-03-25 03:04:42 AM
The Name: EL_FABREZ:

You have to laugh at anybody who says they take the bible literally.


It's precisely because of books like Leviticus that I laugh at people who try to pwn Christians by quoting the Old Testament. Since it's fairly early in this thread still, I'll give the atheists to come a little tip:



OK fine. You have to laugh at anybody who says they take the bible literally (see- Revelations, Book of David)

OR anybody who believe Jesus is the son of god, but is god, who has to sacrifice himself to save us from him, all because some broad (who was a mistranslation) ate a farking apple.
 
2009-03-25 03:05:19 AM
brainiac-dumdum: Britney Spear's Speculum: Atheism is not a religion^

Atheism IS a religion (new window)


that dude is not funny. he is boring. his schtick is lame.
 
2009-03-25 03:06:14 AM
Britney Spear's Speculum brainiac-dumdum: Atheism IS a religion (new window)

EC FTW! It's funny how many people think he is serious


The post beneath yers thinks I'm serious.
 
2009-03-25 03:06:41 AM
I just think everyone needs to butt out of everyone else's farking business. I mean seriously, what the fark?



The only reason I'd single out certain christian groups (not all christians of course) because they have such a sense of entitlement. They believe that they can get overtly involved in politics and it not seen as being a violation of the separation of church and state...they protect their own rights (or at least their own vision of religious freedoms) with the sort of zealous fervour that one wonders if they'll shoot someone in the face for disagreeing, but are quite happy to try and force their own moral positions on everyone else.

one of the best canadian examples I can think of is the recent move by Canada to legialize gay marriage. While it did become legal for gay weddings, there were many stories floating around about American conservative (christian backed for the most part) organizations pouring millions of dollars into Canadian conservative think tanks and 'grassroots' movements.

What utter arrogance these people have...to actually pour millions into another country to block the move to provide greater freedoms and government accessibility to a minority population that has long been vilified.

Instead of spending that money to feed the poor, build affordable housing or help fund vital research, they wasted their money and effort to stop gay people from being able to marry in a FOREIGN country.

It disgusts me and it should disgust anyone that values the freedom of democracy, equal rights and all that groovy shiat.

My point is, some of the best people I know are religious, and many more are non-religious. We can all get along, but a very vocal and powerful minority is trying to ruin the party for the rest of us by constantly making a turd garnish for the punch bowl.
 
2009-03-25 03:07:34 AM
wow that made me feel a lot better. Glad I got that off my chest. you may commence trolling.
 
2009-03-25 03:07:55 AM
mandingueiro: brainiac-dumdum: Britney Spear's Speculum: Atheism is not a religion^

Atheism IS a religion (new window)

that dude is not funny. he is boring. his schtick is lame.


I think he's funny, but then again I have a sense of humor.
 
2009-03-25 03:08:05 AM
TheWarmonger: ///BTW, get some new pictures, I'm tired of seeing the same ones every single time


home.roadrunner.com
Totally Agrees


/z-snap
 
2009-03-25 03:08:36 AM
Meh. I'm gonna go cook some bacon.
 
2009-03-25 03:10:03 AM
you guys are a real laugh riot. hide behind your stupid pictures, at least until your righteous judgement, that is.
 
2009-03-25 03:10:08 AM
The best part of this artcile is where it is from. The UK. Fark, the UK is basicly a Muslim country now. The Queen shall now be requred to wear a Burka and never speak again. Christian are persecuted against in England by their own Socilist govenment. I believe one school there was forced to cancel their Christmas pagent because it interfered with some obscure Islamic holiday.

FYI...
www.loona.net

I felt this kind of pain this weekend
Shot 85 ewwwww....
 
2009-03-25 03:10:36 AM
this shiat isn't random. any one that thinks that this entire thing we call existence is random? along with all this other shiat beyond anything we can comprehend is random? in less a 1000 years we have named all the elements, came up with laws of motion, and made weapons that can remove us. it may not be the christian god or the muslim god or the buddhist god etc etc etc, something is in control. if you believe this is all random, wow.
 
2009-03-25 03:11:23 AM
Ditto: Meh. I'm gonna go cook some bacon.


Hope that bacon is worth an eternity of suffering in hell, sinner.
 
2009-03-25 03:11:29 AM
hostJP: The best part of this artcile is where it is from. The UK. Fark, the UK is basicly a Muslim country now. The Queen shall now be requred to wear a Burka and never speak again. Christian are persecuted against in England by their own Socilist govenment. I believe one school there was forced to cancel their Christmas pagent because it interfered with some obscure Islamic holiday.

FYI...


I felt this kind of pain this weekend
Shot 85 ewwwww....


nicely done. Just subtle enough.
 
2009-03-25 03:13:35 AM
Britney_Spears: you guys are a real laugh riot. hide behind your stupid pictures, at least until your righteous judgement, that is.

I get the satisfaction of seeing you waste your life believing in the supernatural. Limiting yourself to these made up rules that have no factual basis and solely exist to keep you in line.

Oh, and being your speculum.
 
2009-03-25 03:14:28 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: this shiat isn't random. any one that thinks that this entire thing we call existence is random?


It isn't random. We're fulfilling odds. If you think about all the mass in this universe and how old it actually is you'd figure this had to happen somewhere. So it's best not to keep being preoccupied with supernatural divinity.
 
2009-03-25 03:14:31 AM
Britney Spear's Speculum: Britney_Spears: you guys are a real laugh riot. hide behind your stupid pictures, at least until your righteous judgement, that is.

I get the satisfaction of seeing you waste your life believing in the supernatural. Limiting yourself to these made up rules that have no factual basis and solely exist to keep you in line.

Oh, and being your speculum.


He's kidding
 
2009-03-25 03:14:38 AM
EL_FABREZ: The Name: EL_FABREZ:

You have to laugh at anybody who says they take the bible literally.


It's precisely because of books like Leviticus that I laugh at people who try to pwn Christians by quoting the Old Testament. Since it's fairly early in this thread still, I'll give the atheists to come a little tip:


OK fine. You have to laugh at anybody who says they take the bible literally (see- Revelations, Book of David)

OR anybody who believe Jesus is the son of god, but is god, who has to sacrifice himself to save us from him, all because some broad (who was a mistranslation) ate a farking apple.


Well, the issue of the person of Christ is a completely different issue. If you want to criticize Christians on that basis, then fine, that's a very fair starting point. I was just referring to people who try to paint Christians as adhering to a barbaric ideology by quoting the Old Testament.

Also, I wasn't trying to be snarky at your post. Your bringing up of the book of Leviticus just brought that pet peeve to mind. You're right, it's pretty crazy shiat.
 
2009-03-25 03:15:17 AM
CanadianCommie: We can all get along, but a very vocal and powerful minority is trying to ruin the party for the rest of us by constantly making a turd garnish for the punch bowl.

Welcome to Fark :)
 
2009-03-25 03:15:27 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: this shiat isn't random. any one that thinks that this entire thing we call existence is random? along with all this other shiat beyond anything we can comprehend is random? in less a 1000 years we have named all the elements, came up with laws of motion, and made weapons that can remove us. it may not be the christian god or the muslim god or the buddhist god etc etc etc, something is in control. if you believe this is all random, wow.

and the fact that you believe that a man created this 'random shiat' is even funnier.
 
2009-03-25 03:16:40 AM
Britney Spear's Speculum: I get the satisfaction of seeing you waste your life believing in the supernatural. Limiting yourself to these made up rules that have no factual basis and solely exist to keep you in line.

i dont follow rules, i follow my heart. my heart belongs to God so I know i'm on the right path. bet you cant say the same.

Oh, and being your speculum.


the way you spell your username, the speculum belongs to 'britney spear'. thats not me.
 
2009-03-25 03:16:45 AM
TheWarmonger: Welcome to Fark :)

hey man I still remember when titty links were on the main page. That shiat was AWESOME.
 
2009-03-25 03:16:55 AM
Britney Spear's Speculum: What_Would_Jimi_Do: this shiat isn't random. any one that thinks that this entire thing we call existence is random? along with all this other shiat beyond anything we can comprehend is random? in less a 1000 years we have named all the elements, came up with laws of motion, and made weapons that can remove us. it may not be the christian god or the muslim god or the buddhist god etc etc etc, something is in control. if you believe this is all random, wow.

and the fact that you believe that a man created this 'random shiat' is even funnier.


did i say man? nope
 
2009-03-25 03:17:13 AM
The Name: I was just referring to people who try to paint Christians as adhering to a barbaric ideology by quoting the Old Testament.

I'm more afraid of people who take Revelations literally than the Old Testament.
 
2009-03-25 03:18:59 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: did i say man? nope

semantics

man, person, supernatural being, 'intelligent' being etc...all are hilarious/
 
2009-03-25 03:19:10 AM
Britney_Spears: you guys are a real laugh riot. hide behind your stupid pictures, at least until your righteous judgement, that is.

media.nowpublic.net
THEY SEE ME HIDIN, THEY HATIN.
 
2009-03-25 03:20:08 AM
EL_FABREZ: The Name: I was just referring to people who try to paint Christians as adhering to a barbaric ideology by quoting the Old Testament.

I'm more afraid of people who take Revelations literally than the Old Testament.


totally, not to mention all the schnit that Paul spewed.
 
2009-03-25 03:20:27 AM
CanadianCommie: TheWarmonger: Welcome to Fark :)

hey man I still remember when titty links were on the main page. That shiat was AWESOME.


Its been a long time. They changed the format, they took away the boobs, but at least I can still troll the trolls. Now that I post regularly.
 
2009-03-25 03:20:51 AM
the only thing i know is i am not in control, and i am far from religious. any sort of religious. something is in control and i am not it.
 
2009-03-25 03:22:23 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: the only thing i know is i am not in control, and i am far from religious. any sort of religious. something is in control and i am not it.

It's the laws of physics and biology
 
2009-03-25 03:22:25 AM
I am sick of Tolerance. Tolerance is AGAINST humanity. The Fundamental (Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic, Gravity) Forces are not Tolerant, That's why the universe exists and evolves. Inorganic molecules are not tolerant, that's why life started. No life form has ever been tolerant, that's why we evolved. That's why we exist. INTOLERANCE. Each system doing it's best for itself. That brought us here. It's what we are. If Animals had been tolerant and weak, they wouldn't have eaten the lowest specimens, and there would be no life in this planet. It's hard to accept, for the modern human being, that being cruel is necessary. Even the most cruels man of today lie and justify their actions. There's no need to do that. Anything STRONG is GOOD. Anything that destroys weakness and elevates the human being is GOOD. Religion is Weakness of the mind. But Don't believe me. Let evolution decide. Stop being considerate to each other. That kills evolution. Let the Religious people try to destroy Atheism, and let the Atheists try to destroy Religion. Evolution will take care of choosing the best of each, and man will better at the end of the day.
Religions that preach tolerance, weakness, humility, poverty (Like Christianism) are PERVERSE religions. They foment the worst of the human being, and attack the instincts that made us what we are. They must be destroyed. Atheists that preach peace and tolerance and freedom of beliefs are weak too, and must be destroyed too.

It's time for the human being to embrace its true roots, and let evolution continue, take the evolution of the human race in its hands and lead it to the future. without mercy, without shame, without doubt. Any action that goes against the natural laws is SUICIDAL.
 
2009-03-25 03:22:55 AM
I can remember reading something about casting the first stone or something like that, what was that book?
 
2009-03-25 03:23:26 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: the only thing i know is i am not in control

You are an automaton?
 
2009-03-25 03:23:55 AM
Britney Spear's Speculum: What_Would_Jimi_Do: did i say man? nope

semantics

man, person, supernatural being, 'intelligent' being etc...all are hilarious/


did i say man, person, supernatural being, 'intelligent' being etc?

you are the "moran" holding that sign.
 
2009-03-25 03:24:27 AM
Markoff_Cheney: CanadianCommie: TheWarmonger: Welcome to Fark :)

hey man I still remember when titty links were on the main page. That shiat was AWESOME.

Its been a long time. They changed the format, they took away the boobs, but at least I can still troll the trolls. Now that I post regularly.


Ahh I keep hearing about the good ole days... Shame I didn't catch on to this back then. At least I participate now...

/Tried to find a pic of Squid Jesus
//Failed at GIS
//Totally have to get this shirt
images6.cafepress.com
 
2009-03-25 03:24:28 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: the only thing i know is i am not in control, and i am far from religious. any sort of religious. something is in control and i am not it.


So don't automatically assume it's a deity. Just remember our tiny brains can't figure everything out, yet. Even Newton hit a wall and had to resort to god, even though somebody figured out what was wrong with his calculations just a few years later.
 
2009-03-25 03:25:25 AM
brainiac-dumdum: What_Would_Jimi_Do: the only thing i know is i am not in control, and i am far from religious. any sort of religious. something is in control and i am not it.

It's the laws of physics and biology


then that is what is in control, right.
 
2009-03-25 03:25:37 AM
EL_FABREZ: The Name: I was just referring to people who try to paint Christians as adhering to a barbaric ideology by quoting the Old Testament.

I'm more afraid of people who take Revelations literally than the Old Testament.


So you're more afraid of the people than of the Testament itself? That's kind of weird . . .


[Insert grammar Nazi cartoon here]

Anyway, the reason you're more afraid of Revelations literalists than of OT literalists is because the Revelations literalists happen to be more radical, for political and social reasons that have little to do with Revelations itself. Also, OT literalists practically don't exist.

Since I've found myself splitting hairs with a moron, it looks like it's time for bed. Let me know if this thread solves any great metaphysical conundrums.
 
2009-03-25 03:25:55 AM
brainiac-dumdum: EL_FABREZ: The Name: I was just referring to people who try to paint Christians as adhering to a barbaric ideology by quoting the Old Testament.

I'm more afraid of people who take Revelations literally than the Old Testament.

totally, not to mention all the schnit that Paul spewed.


I'm not as much concerned with the Revelations bullshiat happening....I'm more concerned with the followers who are going to try and MAKE it happen
 
2009-03-25 03:26:15 AM
fundamental christians still rank at the top as far as how annoying groups of people can be.

but man, "athiests" and agnostics are challenging them for the title
 
2009-03-25 03:26:16 AM
The revelations believers? AWESOME.
I am a member of the Rentacostal Church. Bringing on the apocalypse for 100$ a month.
www.cadrequarters.com
 
2009-03-25 03:26:41 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: brainiac-dumdum: What_Would_Jimi_Do: the only thing i know is i am not in control, and i am far from religious. any sort of religious. something is in control and i am not it.

It's the laws of physics and biology

then that is what is in control, right.


i am neither the laws of physics or biology.
 
2009-03-25 03:26:43 AM
almafuerte: I am sick of Tolerance. Tolerance is AGAINST humanity. The Fundamental (Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic, Gravity) Forces are not Tolerant, That's why the universe exists and evolves. Inorganic molecules are not tolerant, that's why life started. No life form has ever been tolerant, that's why we evolved. That's why we exist. INTOLERANCE. Each system doing it's best for itself. That brought us here. It's what we are. If Animals had been tolerant and weak, they wouldn't have eaten the lowest specimens, and there would be no life in this planet. It's hard to accept, for the modern human being, that being cruel is necessary. Even the most cruels man of today lie and justify their actions. There's no need to do that. Anything STRONG is GOOD. Anything that destroys weakness and elevates the human being is GOOD. Religion is Weakness of the mind. But Don't believe me. Let evolution decide. Stop being considerate to each other. That kills evolution. Let the Religious people try to destroy Atheism, and let the Atheists try to destroy Religion. Evolution will take care of choosing the best of each, and man will better at the end of the day.
Religions that preach tolerance, weakness, humility, poverty (Like Christianism) are PERVERSE religions. They foment the worst of the human being, and attack the instincts that made us what we are. They must be destroyed. Atheists that preach peace and tolerance and freedom of beliefs are weak too, and must be destroyed too.

It's time for the human being to embrace its true roots, and let evolution continue, take the evolution of the human race in its hands and lead it to the future. without mercy, without shame, without doubt. Any action that goes against the natural laws is SUICIDAL.


Wow... But that the fark is Christianism. Also, no more Red Bull for you.
 
2009-03-25 03:26:43 AM
ninjakirby
Holden C: Have at it people...

So long as it stays away from this...


B b b b but I like bacon!!

:-(
 
2009-03-25 03:28:01 AM
The Name: Anyway, the reason you're more afraid of Revelations literalists than of OT literalists is because the Revelations literalists happen to be more radical, for political and social reasons that have little to do with Revelations itself. Also, OT literalists practically don't exist.

Aren't orthodox Jews Old Testament literals?
 
2009-03-25 03:28:28 AM
Maybe because the vocal Christians tend to be the really intolerant ones that hate science, art, literature, and anything else good society produces? I mean I realize that moderate Christians exist, but the loud ones are bible thumpers.

I'm personally looking into Taoism.. I find the beliefs sensible, and I think the philosophy could fit well into my life. Eh.

/I was saved at the last Save Point, I can reload if I have trouble
//body will be donated to science, soul is my business only
 
2009-03-25 03:29:07 AM
punta_gorda_allstar: fundamental christians still rank at the top as far as how annoying groups of people can be.

but man, "athiests" and agnostics are challenging them for the title


"athiests" huh
 
2009-03-25 03:29:30 AM
EL_FABREZ: What_Would_Jimi_Do: the only thing i know is i am not in control, and i am far from religious. any sort of religious. something is in control and i am not it.


So don't automatically assume it's a deity. Just remember our tiny brains can't figure everything out, yet. Even Newton hit a wall and had to resort to god, even though somebody figured out what was wrong with his calculations just a few years later.


did i say what was in control was a diety? nope
 
2009-03-25 03:30:02 AM
punta_gorda_allstar: but man, "athiests" and agnostics are challenging them for the title


No, you're making observations with out considering the context of the situation:

When others try to legislate their beliefs onto other people in direct violation with the constitution, you're going to meet resistance.

If you just find the 'resistance' annoying, maybe you should pay more attention to the situation.
 
2009-03-25 03:30:03 AM
brainiac-dumdum: not to mention all the schnit that Paul spewed

To be fair half of what's attributed to Paul in the Bible isn't even his work. Guess which half is the farked up half?
 
2009-03-25 03:30:37 AM
almafuerte: If Animals had been tolerant and weak, they wouldn't have eaten the lowest specimens, and there would be no life in this planet.

wut?

Let evolution decide. Stop being considerate to each other. That kills evolution.

We evolved to be considerate. It makes us function better as social organisms, thus helping to ensure the survival of our species.

let evolution continue

Evolution has never stopped.

I get the feeling that you think evolution is "survival of the fittest" and therefore "the strong survive". However, this is not true. Evolution is the survival of the fit enough, i.e. anyone able to adapt and reproduce. Evolution has no goals to make something stronger, better, more intelligent, whatever. Evolution is merely the change in allele frequencies in a population over time as those fit enough to reproduce and pass on their traits do so.

Perhaps you should take a biology class or two before condoning a course of action that would be more likely to hurt our species than help it. Perhaps take a look at the way various other social organisms evolve as well. Cooperation, compassion, and consideration are evolved traits in many social organisms and they are some of the main traits that help help those organisms continue their existence.
 
2009-03-25 03:30:41 AM
hostJP: Ahh I keep hearing about the good ole days... Shame I didn't catch on to this back then. At least I participate now...

there weren't any tabs either. Other than that meaning the exodus of the titty links, the tabs have been extremely helpful at finding a link that you want or keeping track of threads.
 
2009-03-25 03:31:32 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: EL_FABREZ: What_Would_Jimi_Do: the only thing i know is i am not in control, and i am far from religious. any sort of religious. something is in control and i am not it.


So don't automatically assume it's a deity. Just remember our tiny brains can't figure everything out, yet. Even Newton hit a wall and had to resort to god, even though somebody figured out what was wrong with his calculations just a few years later.

did i say what was in control was a diety? nope


maybe you should explain what you did mean...
 
2009-03-25 03:31:45 AM
Lenny_da_Hog: It's not that we dislike you, really. Most of you are quite curious and tolerant.
As for the rest of you, well.... It's just -- Could you just hold it down a little while the rest of us are becoming an enlightened race?


Humanity? Becoming an enlightened race? What book of children's fairytales did you pull that from? Because no honest appraisal of our species would ever lead you to such an outrageously unsupportable conclusion.
 
2009-03-25 03:31:51 AM
I think I'm going to start my own religion. A place were most men, and some women, will come in droves, fill may collection plate, and fund my gigantic tax shelter for years and years to come. Yes brothers and sisters. I invite you to join the Church of Naked Boobies!!! No boobie will go unappreciated. No nipple will go unviewed. Big or small, we do not allow any dicrimination in my church. We just require all females who wish to be worshiped to submit a full color photo of the boobies in question. World peace is but 2 areolas away people. Follow me to the promise land!!!!
 
2009-03-25 03:31:55 AM
I'm going to sit this one out.
 
2009-03-25 03:32:15 AM
ahh yes, nothing like being intolerant of intolerant people...the circle is complete. Why not just let them be intolerant so you have some ground to stand on?
 
2009-03-25 03:33:07 AM
hostJP: Also, no more Red Bull for you.

Also, this. Very well said.

;)
 
2009-03-25 03:35:45 AM
because the majority of people live in their parents basements, do they call their parents dieties? the parents control their lives?

nothing controls what i do. but something controls the world and the universe we live in. is it newtons laws? if so, that is it.

i don't know, neither do any of you. something does.

what you choose to call that "something" is your choice.
 
2009-03-25 03:35:47 AM
mamoru: hostJP: Also, no more Red Bull for you.

Also, this. Very well said.

;)


Thanks man, that's my first "this". I feel like i belong now.!!!
 
2009-03-25 03:37:16 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: something does.

What makes you say so? Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?
 
2009-03-25 03:37:51 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: i don't know, neither do any of you. something does.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that this 'something' exists.

Otherwise, I'm gonna have to go with the null hypothesis on this one
 
2009-03-25 03:38:32 AM
almafuerte: I am sick of Tolerance. Tolerance is AGAINST humanity. The Fundamental (Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic, Gravity) Forces are not Tolerant, That's why the universe exists and evolves. Inorganic molecules are not tolerant, that's why life started. No life form has ever been tolerant, that's why we evolved. That's why we exist. INTOLERANCE. Each system doing it's best for itself. That brought us here. It's what we are. If Animals had been tolerant and weak, they wouldn't have eaten the lowest specimens, and there would be no life in this planet. It's hard to accept, for the modern human being, that being cruel is necessary. Even the most cruels man of today lie and justify their actions. There's no need to do that. Anything STRONG is GOOD. Anything that destroys weakness and elevates the human being is GOOD. Religion is Weakness of the mind. But Don't believe me. Let evolution decide. Stop being considerate to each other. That kills evolution. Let the Religious people try to destroy Atheism, and let the Atheists try to destroy Religion. Evolution will take care of choosing the best of each, and man will better at the end of the day.
Religions that preach tolerance, weakness, humility, poverty (Like Christianism) are PERVERSE religions. They foment the worst of the human being, and attack the instincts that made us what we are. They must be destroyed. Atheists that preach peace and tolerance and freedom of beliefs are weak too, and must be destroyed too.

It's time for the human being to embrace its true roots, and let evolution continue, take the evolution of the human race in its hands and lead it to the future. without mercy, without shame, without doubt. Any action that goes against the natural laws is SUICIDAL.


upload.wikimedia.org

Even he thinks you went too far.
 
2009-03-25 03:39:36 AM
mamoru: What makes you say so? Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?

He'll probably ask us to disprove that it doesn't exist.
He probably will also say that off is a TV channel.
 
2009-03-25 03:40:45 AM
Who would win in a guitar battle between Lemmy and God?
God
Buzzz wrong, Cuz Lemmy is God


videodetective.com
 
2009-03-25 03:43:17 AM
mamoru: What_Would_Jimi_Do: something does.

What makes you say so? Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?


Britney Spear's Speculum: What_Would_Jimi_Do: i don't know, neither do any of you. something does.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that this 'something' exists.

Otherwise, I'm gonna have to go with the null hypothesis on this one


if you wanna live a life blindly, that is your choice. something more powerful than me is in control. whatever you wanna call what i believe in, is up to your dumb ass. i don't know what to call it. that is your problem.
 
2009-03-25 03:43:39 AM
The Name:
Well, the issue of the person of Christ is a completely different issue. If you want to criticize Christians on that basis, then fine, that's a very fair starting point. I was just referring to people who try to paint Christians as adhering to a barbaric ideology by quoting the Old Testament.


I think honestly if most Christians lived by the words of Jesus, rather then the dogma of Paul or the barbarity of the OT, most folks wouldn't have any issues. However when ever the topic of homosexuality or something similar which Jesus never mentioned, the old stand by is digging in to the OT for support. In argumentation, you bring up a topic on direct, expect it to be used in cross. If you tell me that homosexuality is an abomination, prepared to be mocked with the rest of Leviticus.
 
2009-03-25 03:43:39 AM
Britney Spear's Speculum: What_Would_Jimi_Do: i don't know, neither do any of you. something does.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that this 'something' exists.

Otherwise, I'm gonna have to go with the null hypothesis on this one


LOL PROVE GOD EXISTS! CHECK AND MATE!
OMG PROVE GOD DOESNT EXIST! CHECK AND MATE!
stale.
 
2009-03-25 03:46:56 AM
call me a christian whatever.

how many christians listen to slayer, motorhead, megadeth, iron maiden, steppenwolf, hendrix, celtic frost, death angel, thin lizzy etc.

i am not a chrsitian believer. whatever you wanna call me is all right with me.
 
2009-03-25 03:47:42 AM
I'd like to point out that this is a silly sweeping broad statement that can't possibly be true. Like "All muslims are trained killers", "All athiests wish the death of religion", or "All lawyers are weasels."

It's best to just walk away from people who aren't capable of proving their position, because they have exaggerated it to grab a headline. I dare say any eight year old has figured out how to identify when someone has skipped a few rungs of logical thought.

It's far easier(one would hope) to instead point out the shortcomings of any belief system itself, be specific as possible, and then work with someone to come up with solutions. It doesn't work even 1 in 3 times, but that's because people are mostly idiots.

/And then you can go online and argue with them there.
 
2009-03-25 03:47:46 AM
The Name: Also, OT literalists practically don't exist.


It depends on your definition of OT literalists. Literalist in the sense that they believe everything that is laid out in the OT happed exactly nor nearly so as written in the OT, yes they do. They just tend also to be revelation literalists as well which makes them hard to separate out.
 
2009-03-25 03:48:17 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: if you wanna live a life blindly, that is your choice. something more powerful than me is in control. whatever you wanna call what i believe in, is up to your dumb ass. i don't know what to call it. that is your problem.

So you're full of shiat and can't prove and we've call you on it. So you're going to ad hom the issue.

Typical.
 
2009-03-25 03:48:35 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: if you wanna live a life blindly, that is your choice. something more powerful than me is in control. whatever you wanna call what i believe in, is up to your dumb ass. i don't know what to call it. that is your problem.

Does this mean you are not going to answer my very simple question?
 
2009-03-25 03:48:38 AM
Markoff_Cheney: Britney Spear's Speculum: What_Would_Jimi_Do: i don't know, neither do any of you. something does.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that this 'something' exists.

Otherwise, I'm gonna have to go with the null hypothesis on this one

LOL PROVE GOD EXISTS! CHECK AND MATE!
OMG PROVE GOD DOESNT EXIST! CHECK AND MATE!
stale.


i never said god exists? did i ever say god?
you are a moran.
 
2009-03-25 03:50:39 AM
Um, guys? The author of this article was actually female, therefore rendering this entire thread null and void.

/yep, you just spent this long arguing about an article written by a chick
//and it wasn't an article comparing her tits to her ass
///if a man had written that article, it would have been intelligent
 
2009-03-25 03:51:11 AM
mamoru: What_Would_Jimi_Do: if you wanna live a life blindly, that is your choice. something more powerful than me is in control. whatever you wanna call what i believe in, is up to your dumb ass. i don't know what to call it. that is your problem.

Does this mean you are not going to answer my very simple question?


answered more than one time
 
2009-03-25 03:51:29 AM
Organized religion is the reason I am on the fence about a lot of things. Honestly, I am perfectly OK with making the "Leap of Faith" that God does exist. The thing that I have a problem with is some telling me I have to go to a certain location and a specific time to show my belief in God. Lets be honest, the Bible was written by men, therefore flawed. I really think God has a great sense of humor. (see Britney Spears) He's setting in heaven, with a beer in one hand, a remote in the other, and laughing at we puny humans who take out religion way too seriously.

/Steps down from soapbox
 
2009-03-25 03:51:58 AM
this thread is full of crazy now
 
2009-03-25 03:52:38 AM
You can has my username: Um, guys? The author of this article was actually female, therefore rendering this entire thread null and void.

/yep, you just spent this long arguing about an article written by a chick
//and it wasn't an article comparing her tits to her ass
///if a man had written that article, it would have been intelligent


also, fark you
 
2009-03-25 03:52:49 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: answered more than one time

No, you didn't. I asked you what evidence you have as the basis of your assertion that "something is in control" and you went off on a tirade not having said what that something is.

I wasn't asking what it is. I'm asking what leads you to assert that "something" even exists at all.
 
2009-03-25 03:52:53 AM
Markoff_Cheney: LOL PROVE GOD EXISTS! CHECK AND MATE!
OMG PROVE GOD DOESNT EXIST! CHECK AND MATE!
stale.


No, I and other atheists don't have to disprove ANYTHING. Other people have injected this god fellow into our society and our culture with out any proof of it's existence. Do you know what the null hypothesis means?

Prove god exists in the physical universe. If believers have this proof, by all means, divulge it. But they don't. So why is it my job to DISPROVE god existence? They're the ones saying he exists.

This video clarifies my point.
 
2009-03-25 03:54:03 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: Markoff_Cheney: Britney Spear's Speculum: What_Would_Jimi_Do: i don't know, neither do any of you. something does.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that this 'something' exists.

Otherwise, I'm gonna have to go with the null hypothesis on this one

LOL PROVE GOD EXISTS! CHECK AND MATE!
OMG PROVE GOD DOESNT EXIST! CHECK AND MATE!
stale.

i never said god exists? did i ever say god?
you are a moran.


Did I ever take this thread seriously? Or take a side? Just pointed out the frivolity of this argument which you were about to get into, with a joke. I can name call too! You are a farkbait. Or a shiatfist. Cockbrander? Anal dinner plate?
 
2009-03-25 03:54:16 AM
all i have said is something is in control and i am not the (thing, person, whatever) in control and i have no idea what to call this(thing, person, whatever).

all i said is i am not in control. so fark all you that are trying to prove otherwise.
 
2009-03-25 03:54:59 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: all i have said is something is in control and i am not the (thing, person, whatever) in control and i have no idea what to call this(thing, person, whatever).

all i said is i am not in control. so fark all you that are trying to prove otherwise.


are you on mushrooms?
 
2009-03-25 03:55:15 AM
Britney Spear's Speculum: Did you know that your username is poorly punctuated? No offence, but it bugs me every time I see it in a thread. It should be "Spears's".

Yeah, I've said my bit. I'm out now.

/PS... A GIRL wrote the article
//yes, a GIRL
///you're all arguing over something written by a dumb coont instead of a human being
 
2009-03-25 03:55:35 AM
For giggles.

As for new pictures, this one doesn't see much action:

i75.photobucket.com

and fo course, drunk and embittered jesus TOLD YOU HE WAS HARDCORE!
 
2009-03-25 03:56:00 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: all i have said is something is in control and i am not the (thing, person, whatever) in control and i have no idea what to call this(thing, person, whatever).

all i said is i am not in control. so fark all you that are trying to prove otherwise.


I am not trying to prove you otherwise. I am asking you very specifically what your basis is for this assertion. It's a simple question. What is your basis for this assertion?
 
2009-03-25 03:56:38 AM
brainiac-dumdum: this thread is full of crazy now

Indeed.
 
2009-03-25 03:58:01 AM
mamoru: What_Would_Jimi_Do: answered more than one time

No, you didn't. I asked you what evidence you have as the basis of your assertion that "something is in control" and you went off on a tirade not having said what that something is.

I wasn't asking what it is. I'm asking what leads you to assert that "something" even exists at all.


go outside and look at the sun and the stars, who controls that? physics? something does. i am not it.
 
2009-03-25 03:58:33 AM
You can has my username: Britney Spear's Speculum: Did you know that your username is poorly punctuated? No offence, but it bugs me every time I see it in a thread. It should be "Spears's".

Actually, I think it should be Spears'

Failing at point out failure...
0/10
 
2009-03-25 03:58:56 AM
mamoru: brainiac-dumdum: this thread is full of crazy now

Indeed.


The best farking brand of crazy.
 
2009-03-25 04:00:24 AM
You can has my username: Britney Spear's Speculum: Did you know that your username is poorly punctuated? No offence, but it bugs me every time I see it in a thread. It should be "Spears's".

Yeah, I've said my bit. I'm out now.

/PS... A GIRL wrote the article
//yes, a GIRL
///you're all arguing over something written by a dumb coont instead of a human being



I was drunk when I made the login, so HA HA!

Yes I know it's a typo
 
2009-03-25 04:01:06 AM
mamoru: brainiac-dumdum: this thread is full of crazy now

Indeed.


thirded
 
2009-03-25 04:01:34 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: mamoru: What_Would_Jimi_Do: answered more than one time

No, you didn't. I asked you what evidence you have as the basis of your assertion that "something is in control" and you went off on a tirade not having said what that something is.

I wasn't asking what it is. I'm asking what leads you to assert that "something" even exists at all.

go outside and look at the sun and the stars, who controls that? physics? something does. i am not it.
What_Would_Jimi_Do: mamoru: What_Would_Jimi_Do: answered more than one time

No, you didn't. I asked you what evidence you have as the basis of your assertion that "something is in control" and you went off on a tirade not having said what that something is.

I wasn't asking what it is. I'm asking what leads you to assert that "something" even exists at all.

go outside and look at the sun and the stars, who controls that? physics? something does. i am not it.


like i said something is in control, i am not that thing
 
2009-03-25 04:01:37 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: go outside and look at the sun and the stars, who controls that? physics? something does. i am not it.

Why do you say "who controls that?"?

Why don't you say "what?"?

Based on your question question of "who?", I must revise my question: what is the basis of your assertion that some entity is in control?

Just to reiterate, I am asking about "some entity" specifically because you asked the question "Who?" which leads me to think that you believe that it is "some entity".
 
2009-03-25 04:03:06 AM
Jedi_Templar: almafuerte: I am sick of Tolerance. Tolerance is AGAINST humanity. The Fundamental (Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic, Gravity) Forces are not Tolerant, That's why the universe exists and evolves. Inorganic molecules are not tolerant, that's why life started. No life form has ever been tolerant, that's why we evolved. That's why we exist. INTOLERANCE. Each system doing it's best for itself. That brought us here. It's what we are. If Animals had been tolerant and weak, they wouldn't have eaten the lowest specimens, and there would be no life in this planet. It's hard to accept, for the modern human being, that being cruel is necessary. Even the most cruels man of today lie and justify their actions. There's no need to do that. Anything STRONG is GOOD. Anything that destroys weakness and elevates the human being is GOOD. Religion is Weakness of the mind. But Don't believe me. Let evolution decide. Stop being considerate to each other. That kills evolution. Let the Religious people try to destroy Atheism, and let the Atheists try to destroy Religion. Evolution will take care of choosing the best of each, and man will better at the end of the day.
Religions that preach tolerance, weakness, humility, poverty (Like Christianism) are PERVERSE religions. They foment the worst of the human being, and attack the instincts that made us what we are. They must be destroyed. Atheists that preach peace and tolerance and freedom of beliefs are weak too, and must be destroyed too.

It's time for the human being to embrace its true roots, and let evolution continue, take the evolution of the human race in its hands and lead it to the future. without mercy, without shame, without doubt. Any action that goes against the natural laws is SUICIDAL.



Even he thinks you went too far.



Well, Thank you! That's a big compliment.
Anyway, if you actually read Frederich throughly, you'll see he's not far away from what I'm saying ...

From Nietzsche's masterpiece, The Antichrist:

Schopenhauer washostile to life: that is why pity appeared to him as a virtue....Aristotle, as every one knows, saw in pity a sickly and dangerous stateof mind, the remedy for which was an occasional purgative: he regardedtragedy as that purgative. The instinct of life should prompt us to seeksome means of puncturing any such pathological and dangerousaccumulation of pity as that appearing in Schopenhauer's case (and also,alack, in that of our whole literary _decadence_, from St. Petersburg toParis, from Tolstoi to Wagner), that it may burst and be discharged....Nothing is more unhealthy, amid all our unhealthy modernism, thanChristian pity. To be the doctors _here_, to be unmerciful _here_, towield the knife _here_--all this is _our_ business, all this is _our_sort of humanity, by this sign we are philosophers, we Hyperboreans!--
 
2009-03-25 04:03:39 AM
if physics is in control, that is the entity, that would be whom. stop now loser.
 
2009-03-25 04:04:37 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: if physics is in control, that is the entity, that would be whom. stop now loser.

but, physics is not an entity. Physics is a field of study.
 
2009-03-25 04:05:23 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: Leviticus 18:22

And you remember Matthew 21-17
 
2009-03-25 04:06:42 AM
wildsnowllama: What_Would_Jimi_Do: Leviticus 18:22

And you remember Matthew 21-17


you are the biggest moran of all, that was a family guy quote, meant as a joke.
 
2009-03-25 04:08:37 AM
mamoru: I get the feeling that you think evolution is "survival of the fittest" and therefore "the strong survive

Also, contrary to what the rugged individualist types love to spout, evolution doesn't much care about any individual. It only concerns itself with populations and the fitness of the group.

Jedi_Templar: Even he thinks you went too far.

Given the post was almost nihilistic, he would have been very against it. Given that he despised nihilism.
 
2009-03-25 04:11:46 AM
mamoru: What_Would_Jimi_Do: if physics is in control, that is the entity, that would be whom. stop now loser.

but, physics is not an entity. Physics is a field of study.


named by human, so by your field of study so would christianism. no different? of muslim or hindu or islam? those are fields of study?
 
2009-03-25 04:12:45 AM
I need more popcorn. Should I pray some appears in my bowl or get off my ass and make it myself?
 
2009-03-25 04:14:28 AM
Ctrl+F
bevets
Next
Next
Next
Next
*exit thread*
 
2009-03-25 04:16:15 AM
hostJP: No, it's definitely "Spears's". The "s'" form is only for possessive plurals. See here for more info.
 
2009-03-25 04:16:21 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: named by human, so by your field of study so would christianism. no different? of muslim or hindu or islam? those are fields of study?

Hmmm... It is at this point in our conversation that I must ask, is English your first language?

In response to your question, yes, they are different. Those by themselves are not fields of study. However, theology is a field of study which may include analysis of all of those belief systems.

/not sure if I'm being trolled of if I've made someone's brain blow a fuse, shorting out the neural pathways for communication in coherent English
//what say you, rest of Fark?
///meh, either way, it's still fun :D
 
2009-03-25 04:17:28 AM
how many civilizations belive they were built from nothing, that they were built from nothing? the mayans, you believe in them?
 
2009-03-25 04:18:21 AM
Begoggle: Ctrl+F
bevets
Next
Next
Next
Next
*exit thread*


why are people still so crazy for the Bevets? He never sticks around anymore and he always posts the same crap with, of course, a link to his site.
 
2009-03-25 04:19:19 AM
You can has my username: hostJP: No, it's definitely "Spears's". The "s'" form is only for possessive plurals. See here for more info.

Ok, ok, I farked up.

It should read Britney Spears' Speculum

Let this be a lesson to you: Don't drink and create logins.
 
2009-03-25 04:19:25 AM
You can has my username: hostJP: No, it's definitely "Spears's". The "s'" form is only for possessive plurals. See here for more info.

no, it's Spear's, just look at his name- Britney Spear's Speculum
 
2009-03-25 04:19:26 AM
mamoru: What_Would_Jimi_Do: named by human, so by your field of study so would christianism. no different? of muslim or hindu or islam? those are fields of study?

Hmmm... It is at this point in our conversation that I must ask, is English your first language?

In response to your question, yes, they are different. Those by themselves are not fields of study. However, theology is a field of study which may include analysis of all of those belief systems.

/not sure if I'm being trolled of if I've made someone's brain blow a fuse, shorting out the neural pathways for communication in coherent English
//what say you, rest of Fark?
///meh, either way, it's still fun :D


either way you are the embecile.
 
2009-03-25 04:20:16 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: how many civilizations belive they were built from nothing, that they were built from nothing? the mayans, you believe in them?

oh yeah, you ate mushrooms.
 
2009-03-25 04:20:51 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: how many civilizations belive they were built from nothing, that they were built from nothing? the mayans, you believe in them?

In answer to your first question, none?

In answer to your second question, umm, yes, as there is empirical evidence that they existed.

How were your two questions (quoted here) related to the topic of this thread?
 
2009-03-25 04:21:42 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: either way you are the embecile.

Ok, that's the clincher. I'm either being trolled, or...

brainiac-dumdum: oh yeah, you ate mushrooms.

This.

Ah, good times. :D
 
2009-03-25 04:23:30 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: named by human

Physics doesn't need names, or words, it only needs math.
 
2009-03-25 04:24:54 AM
WhyteRaven74: What_Would_Jimi_Do: named by human

Physics doesn't need names, or words, it only needs math.


yay math! That's the best part of math, it's a universal language.
 
2009-03-25 04:26:18 AM
brainiac-dumdum: What_Would_Jimi_Do: how many civilizations belive they were built from nothing, that they were built from nothing? the mayans, you believe in them?

oh yeah, you ate mushrooms.


teddziuba.com
Oblig and agreed.
/But where does 'where' come from?
 
2009-03-25 04:26:26 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: how many christians listen to slayer, motorhead, megadeth, iron maiden, steppenwolf, hendrix, celtic frost, death angel, thin lizzy etc.

A lot actually. Why, what does taste in music have to do with religion?
 
2009-03-25 04:26:45 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: wildsnowllama: What_Would_Jimi_Do: Leviticus 18:22

And you remember Matthew 21-17

you are the biggest moran of all, that was a family guy quote, meant as a joke.


Google it...
 
2009-03-25 04:30:56 AM
brainiac-dumdum: Begoggle: Ctrl+F
bevets
Next
Next
Next
Next
*exit thread*

why are people still so crazy for the Bevets? He never sticks around anymore and he always posts the same crap with, of course, a link to his site.


I am crazy for the Bevets of old.
I keep hoping the return of "Bevets classic".
 
2009-03-25 04:31:58 AM
brainiac-dumdum: That's the best part of math,

indeed :) Now watch, I'm going to get asked about something to do with 1+1 = 2...

Markoff_Cheney: /But where does 'where' come from?

Just take a walk on a Mobius strip. Everywhere is here, there is there no there there.
 
2009-03-25 04:34:03 AM
WhyteRaven74: indeed :) Now watch, I'm going to get asked about something to do with 1+1 = 2...

But, I thought 1+1 = 10

:(
 
2009-03-25 04:35:44 AM
mamoru: WhyteRaven74: indeed :) Now watch, I'm going to get asked about something to do with 1+1 = 2...

But, I thought 1+1 = 10

:(


it does in binary
 
2009-03-25 04:41:00 AM
Britney Spear's Speculum: it does in binary

shh!Britney Spear's Speculum: mamoru: WhyteRaven74: indeed :) Now watch, I'm going to get asked about something to do with 1+1 = 2...

But, I thought 1+1 = 10

:(

it does in binary


Hehehe. Fine, 1+1 may equal 2 or 10, but 1+1+1 = 10, too. :D

/don't mind me... just bored.
 
2009-03-25 04:42:26 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: wildsnowllama: What_Would_Jimi_Do: Leviticus 18:22

And you remember Matthew 21-17

you are the biggest moran of all, that was a family guy quote, meant as a joke.


I didn't realize using a Simpsons quote to counter a family guy quote would be traumatizing for you...
 
2009-03-25 04:43:18 AM
Lets take the statement "God has a plan"
Would believing in God change this plan?

If no, then why should I believe in God? (God planned on me going to hell in the 1st place right?)

If yes, then that would mean I have control over God. I can control God's actions. Then why is he called God in that case?
 
2009-03-25 04:46:25 AM
Wii.Tard: Lets take the statement "God has a plan"
Would believing in God change this plan?

If no, then why should I believe in God? (God planned on me going to hell in the 1st place right?)

If yes, then that would mean I have control over God. I can control God's actions. Then why is he called God in that case?



'god has a plan' has to be the most willfully ignorant statement I've ever heard come out of someone's mouth.
 
2009-03-25 04:48:22 AM
Damn I just got home, I didn't know there would be math...
Now everyone know in religion 1+1= Noah, why because the Pope says so.

Thanks for the correction username... I caught it before I left work, and ment to print a retraction.

I gueess I hit the fail trifecta.
 
2009-03-25 04:52:35 AM
Britney Spear's Speculum: Wii.Tard: Lets take the statement "God has a plan"
Would believing in God change this plan?

If no, then why should I believe in God? (God planned on me going to hell in the 1st place right?)

If yes, then that would mean I have control over God. I can control God's actions. Then why is he called God in that case?


'god has a plan' has to be the most willfully ignorant statement I've ever heard come out of someone's mouth.


Nice call vaginal instrument. If God had a plan for everything, then why was I granted free will. Please refrence my previous post for my religious views and please give to my new church!!!

Oh look a boobie... wife contributes to my church...
 
2009-03-25 04:56:48 AM
hostJP: Nice call vaginal instrument. If God had a plan for everything, then why was I granted free will. Please refrence my previous post for my religious views and please give to my new church!!!

Oh look a boobie... wife contributes to my church...



Looks like your wife is only half committed or she suffered from breast cancer and had a mastectomy. Either way...I'm sorry?

Is the sabbath in your church reserved for football and beer? If it is, sign me up.
 
2009-03-25 04:56:58 AM
Ever notice how society seems to expect people to be tolerant of everything *except* Christianity?
 
2009-03-25 04:59:16 AM
Britney Spear's Speculum: hostJP: Nice call vaginal instrument. If God had a plan for everything, then why was I granted free will. Please refrence my previous post for my religious views and please give to my new church!!!

Oh look a boobie... wife contributes to my church...


Looks like your wife is only half committed or she suffered from breast cancer and had a mastectomy. Either way...I'm sorry?

Is the sabbath in your church reserved for football and beer? If it is, sign me up.


Nahh one is covered by the blanket, she's sleeping. And dear God yes it is. See above for other church goals
 
2009-03-25 05:01:37 AM
www.flashasylum.com
Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net
 
2009-03-25 05:06:20 AM
www.heavingdeadcats.com
 
2009-03-25 05:26:49 AM
Begoggle: I keep hoping the return of "Bevets classic".

img291.imageshack.us
 
2009-03-25 05:34:01 AM
I'm afraid diet Bevets is all I can take at this point. Half the crazy with none of the calories.
 
2009-03-25 05:35:45 AM
Britney Spear's Speculum: Half the crazy with none of the calories.

*snort* for some reason that hits me as hilarious
 
2009-03-25 05:36:26 AM
If it wasn't illegal I would probably actively persecute Christians. At the least take away their right to vote or hold public office. I'm sure they feel the same way about me.
 
2009-03-25 05:47:19 AM
They're just trying to save you from yourselves. People who reject God are all self-destructive animals that inhale jenkem while raping their pet turtles in front of their eight pre-pubescent wives that are also their daughters and/or gay abomination sons. You should get down on your knees and kiss their feet for suffering so much persecution to save your worthless, jenkem sniffing, polygamist, pedophile, bestiality-loving, ghey-spawning souls.

/I know all that is true because the man on the tee-vee told me.
//He also told me to put my money in the bowl for Jesus.
 
2009-03-25 05:49:58 AM
I failed jenkem
 
2009-03-25 05:50:30 AM
Why not just hold a moratorium on all these religions until scientists can figure out which one's the real one.

Then, anybody so inclined would just naturally go with that one.

Who in their right mind could argue with logic like this?
 
2009-03-25 06:04:44 AM
biglot: Who in their right mind could argue with logic like this?

Most people.
 
2009-03-25 06:28:09 AM
Holden C: Oh hey, another Atheist vs. Christian thread.

I'm sure this discussion will offer up salient points and intelligent discourse missing in the previous 97 threads on the same topic.

Have at it people...


Yeah, that's pretty much it.
 
2009-03-25 06:43:30 AM
almafuerte: I am sick of Tolerance. Tolerance is AGAINST humanity. The Fundamental (Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic, Gravity) Forces are not Tolerant, That's why the universe exists and evolves. Inorganic molecules are not tolerant, that's why life started. No life form has ever been tolerant, that's why we evolved. That's why we exist. INTOLERANCE. Each system doing it's best for itself. That brought us here. It's what we are. If Animals had been tolerant and weak, they wouldn't have eaten the lowest specimens, and there would be no life in this planet. It's hard to accept, for the modern human being, that being cruel is necessary. Even the most cruels man of today lie and justify their actions. There's no need to do that. Anything STRONG is GOOD. Anything that destroys weakness and elevates the human being is GOOD. Religion is Weakness of the mind. But Don't believe me. Let evolution decide. Stop being considerate to each other. That kills evolution. Let the Religious people try to destroy Atheism, and let the Atheists try to destroy Religion. Evolution will take care of choosing the best of each, and man will better at the end of the day.
Religions that preach tolerance, weakness, humility, poverty (Like Christianism) are PERVERSE religions. They foment the worst of the human being, and attack the instincts that made us what we are. They must be destroyed. Atheists that preach peace and tolerance and freedom of beliefs are weak too, and must be destroyed too.

It's time for the human being to embrace its true roots, and let evolution continue, take the evolution of the human race in its hands and lead it to the future. without mercy, without shame, without doubt. Any action that goes against the natural laws is SUICIDAL.


That's stupid.
 
2009-03-25 06:51:14 AM
almafuerte: I am sick of Tolerance. Tolerance is AGAINST humanity. The Fundamental (Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic, Gravity) Forces are not Tolerant, That's why the universe exists and evolves. Inorganic molecules are not tolerant, that's why life started. No life form has ever been tolerant, that's why we evolved. That's why we exist. INTOLERANCE. Each system doing it's best for itself. That brought us here. It's what we are. If Animals had been tolerant and weak, they wouldn't have eaten the lowest specimens, and there would be no life in this planet. It's hard to accept, for the modern human being, that being cruel is necessary. Even the most cruels man of today lie and justify their actions. There's no need to do that. Anything STRONG is GOOD. Anything that destroys weakness and elevates the human being is GOOD. Religion is Weakness of the mind. But Don't believe me. Let evolution decide. Stop being considerate to each other. That kills evolution. Let the Religious people try to destroy Atheism, and let the Atheists try to destroy Religion. Evolution will take care of choosing the best of each, and man will better at the end of the day.
Religions that preach tolerance, weakness, humility, poverty (Like Christianism) are PERVERSE religions. They foment the worst of the human being, and attack the instincts that made us what we are. They must be destroyed. Atheists that preach peace and tolerance and freedom of beliefs are weak too, and must be destroyed too.

It's time for the human being to embrace its true roots, and let evolution continue, take the evolution of the human race in its hands and lead it to the future. without mercy, without shame, without doubt. Any action that goes against the natural laws is SUICIDAL.



You sound fat.
 
2009-03-25 06:52:05 AM
From the article: "To describe yourself as pro-life or pro-family suggests that the rest of us are somehow anti-life and anti-family, a clearly absurd proposition."

Well, when you believe killing unborn babies is OK, I would say that makes you anti-life.
 
2009-03-25 06:52:23 AM
Moonbarker Osbourne the Rainbow Wolf not gay: Ever notice how society seems to expect people to be tolerant of everything *except* Christianity?

Huh?

So the people who are in the vast majority, who exercise their power by persecuting others believe that they are persecuted?

That's interesting. Tell me more about how christians are persecuted. Please be specific. I'm sure that an example of, say, a politician losing an election because he was a christian would be a good example. Or, maybe, Christians being driven out of town because of their beliefs. Or maybe someone losing their job because the boss found out they were Christian.
 
2009-03-25 07:09:24 AM
guyinjeep16: Summon Kerpal32...
When the universe is studied with all 11 dimensions in context, supernatural conclusions will be found and the ensuing god will cast all those dirty heathen atheists to the pit of hell.
Oh yea, and every athiests needs to be told that Athiesm does not equal science.


Well, in a sense anything that includes a god is explicitly not science, as science is quantitative by definition. There are certainly things that are atheist but not science, sure, but the fundamental point that there is no overlap is true enough.
 
2009-03-25 07:12:16 AM
Overfiend: Well, when you believe killing unborn babies is OK, I would say that makes you anti-life.

So when a fetus dies 'naturally', does that make God anti-life?
 
2009-03-25 07:13:08 AM
GWSuperfan: Obligatory:

That "Help we're being oppressed" graph really makes no sense. It implies that a statistical majority cannot be oppressed, which is simply not true. I'd wager fewer than 1/3 of farkers actually understand that concept. That being said, Christians are not being oppressed. They interpret people not wanting religion shoved into their lives as their own oppression. It's not. Get over yourselves.
 
2009-03-25 07:14:11 AM
Overfiend: Well, when you believe killing unborn babies is OK, I would say that makes you anti-life.

If you believe that unborn babies are "life".
 
2009-03-25 07:19:24 AM
unregulatedfemale.typepad.com
 
2009-03-25 07:23:27 AM
Overfiend: Well, when you believe killing unborn babies is OK, I would say that makes you anti-life.

Ditto for those who like to see teenaged girls bleed to death in the street.
 
2009-03-25 07:24:25 AM
maddogdelta: those who like to see teenaged girls bleed to death in the street.


What?
 
2009-03-25 07:27:00 AM
img148.imageshack.us
 
2009-03-25 07:27:15 AM
Overfiend: Well, when you believe killing unborn babies is OK, I would say that makes you anti-life.

Whose life?
The life of a tiny blobby organism that could potentially grow into a human one day, but currently has no cognitive capacity and barely even resembles a humanoid, or the lives of the two living, breathing, thinking adults who don't want a baby? We just have different weights from you when we consider these things.

You have weights too. Do you allow abortion in the case of rape or incest? If so, then you definitely are able to weigh the emotional welfare of the mother as greater than the life of the infant, which is the same thing as we do, just with a greater scalar. And I guess that makes you anti-life too, huh?

If you don't allow it in that case, then you're a heartless person, and I'd recommend walking a mile in a rape victim's shoes before saying another word.
 
2009-03-25 07:36:20 AM
God has a plan for us.

narwilliams.com

This thread has happened before. It shall happen again.
 
2009-03-25 07:47:45 AM
Overfiend: Well, when you believe killing unborn babies is OK, I would say that makes you anti-life.

Awesome. We can have an atheism AND abortion flame war.

I'm assuming you're against the death penalty, war, are vegetarian and never even kill insects, because in all those cases there is death involved and death of an organism more highly advanced than a fetus.

And nobody is pro-death or pro-abortion. They are PRO-CHOICE. Meaning you have the right to CHOOSE whatever option you want.

bushbot111: maddogdelta: those who like to see teenaged girls bleed to death in the street.

What?


If y'all don't think abortions have been happening for thousands and thousands of years, you're retarded. Legalizing it simply ensures it happens safely so the mother doesn't die, too.

There are very very few women who have an abortion lightly and who do not agonize over the decision.
 
2009-03-25 08:11:05 AM
www.nobeliefs.com

We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

Hitler hates athiesm and so should you.

Ein volk, eine Christ.
 
2009-03-25 08:13:07 AM
Got in late, but...

i4.photobucket.com

Let this be a warning, heathens.

/meh
 
2009-03-25 08:17:43 AM
Herb Utsmelz: Let this be a warning, heathens.

If lightening is the anger of the Gods, then the gods are mostly angry at trees. (supposedly) Lao Tze
 
2009-03-25 08:18:34 AM
DemonEater: the lives of the two living, breathing, thinking adults who don't want a baby?

Were they thinking when they had sex? before then? If they were thinking adults they should have thought about the consequences before the fact; a child shouldn't have to pay the price for the "parents" stupidity. There are so many people out there who are willing to adopt, and yet we make them wait in line for month to years. (I don't mind the background checks, but I know of some who have been waiting for years.)

The only difference in the law between a legal abortion or manslaughter of a killed pre-born infant is whether or not the child was "wanted". That is schizophrenia of the law, and it needs to end one way or the other.

Even if there were no God, we are apparently unique in this part of the galaxy, and even if the galaxy were over-flowing with evolved life, we would still be unique, and every individual potential life should be protected and supported by someone, if not by the biological parents. Either human life is sacred or it isn't; the development stage is irrelevant.

I'd be pro life even if I were still an agnostic, because I believe that all intelligent life is worth protecting, and all lesser life is worth protecting up to the point where such protections would interfere with the continued protection of humans. I do not consider a fetus a lesser life form, just an undeveloped potential human. Anything less than that greys an area that opens up a Pandora's box of troubles that devalues human life by degrees, and history shows what happens to societies that devalue human life: they fall, and rightfully so.
 
2009-03-25 08:27:42 AM
Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

Hitler hates athiesm and so should you.

Ein volk, eine Christ.


Ah yes, the Godwin for teh lose. Adolf Hitler was about as God-loving as Dawkins (NOT that I think Dawkins is like Hitler, just saying.)

Never mistake someone who cloaks themselves in the veil of "faith", "religion", or "truth and right" as actually being one of those things. History shows that such hypocrisy is the problem of the individual, not the position they claim to support.

Hitler was about as "Christ like" as Mohamed; he was being political, and his "elimination of the atheist" was a political move to stamp out the Communists, thus eliminating the competition and consolidating his power base, not in any way as a means to truly promote "Christ". The only God Adolf Hitler ever worshiped was himself.

Go back and look at all of the so-called religious wars of any kind from the start of recorded history: only 6% have ever actually had anything to directly do with religion; the rest were always about power, politics, or resource acquisition.
 
2009-03-25 08:29:16 AM
I like how people try to argue that God is a Constant, i.e. eternal and unchanging, yet say "We don't follow the Old Testament cuz, man oh man, God was in a bad mood. We prefer the kinder gentler New Testament God."

Seriously, God is a bipolar douche.
 
2009-03-25 08:30:39 AM
The Name: (I don't mean to rag on atheists. Christianity has plenty wrong with it, metaphysically and perhaps even a bit morally. I just find it odd that, for all their intellectual pretensions, most rabidly anti-Christian atheists don't know a damn thing about the theology they hate so much.)

Maybe it's the quality of the atheists around you. Around here, my fellow godless heathens and I tend to be way more educated on religions than the "believers" seem to be.

There's nothing funnier than pwning someone on their own religious territory.

/Upstate NY
 
2009-03-25 08:37:04 AM
almafuerte: It's time for the human being to embrace its true roots, and let evolution continue, take the evolution of the human race in its hands and lead it to the future. without mercy, without shame, without doubt. Any action that goes against the natural laws is SUICIDAL.

i212.photobucket.com

Approves.
 
2009-03-25 08:37:27 AM
From the makers of 0 tolerance.....liberals want to point out that christians aren't tolerant..... in general, because its A OK to generalize about a specific group of people. Especially black people. Because they're lazy and that's why they still live in tribes in africa. And then there is the mexicans, who are short. Then there are asians, who are good at math.

Thank you CNN, for reflecting on all the generalizations that liberals are allowed to make that others are not allowed to do.
 
2009-03-25 08:47:56 AM
i52.photobucket.com

i52.photobucket.com

i52.photobucket.com

and for the coup de grâce

i52.photobucket.com

/this thread is full of crazy
 
2009-03-25 08:57:33 AM
Moonbarker Osbourne the Rainbow Wolf not gay: Ever notice how society seems to expect people to be tolerant of everything *except* Christianity?

Nope, never noticed that.
 
2009-03-25 08:58:37 AM
thespindrifter: Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

Hitler hates athiesm and so should you.

Ein volk, eine Christ.

Ah yes, the Godwin for teh lose. Adolf Hitler was about as God-loving as Dawkins (NOT that I think Dawkins is like Hitler, just saying.)

Never mistake someone who cloaks themselves in the veil of "faith", "religion", or "truth and right" as actually being one of those things. History shows that such hypocrisy is the problem of the individual, not the position they claim to support.

Hitler was about as "Christ like" as Mohamed; he was being political, and his "elimination of the atheist" was a political move to stamp out the Communists, thus eliminating the competition and consolidating his power base, not in any way as a means to truly promote "Christ". The only God Adolf Hitler ever worshiped was himself.

Go back and look at all of the so-called religious wars of any kind from the start of recorded history: only 6% have ever actually had anything to directly do with religion; the rest were always about power, politics, or resource acquisition.


um...i hate to tell you this but religion itself is always about power, politics, or resource acquisition.

it's a business that sells a product which doesnt exist.

since their product is imaginary, they can sell it over and over for thousands of years at an incredible profit.
 
2009-03-25 09:04:14 AM
maybe the most accurate headline ever written

//damn jesus people weird me out man.......
 
2009-03-25 09:04:20 AM
ninjakirby: So long as it stays away from this...

Your bacon intolerance will not be tolerated, heathen.
 
2009-03-25 09:05:36 AM
thespindrifter:
Hitler was about as "Christ like" as Mohamed; he was being political, and his "elimination of the atheist" was a political move to stamp out the Communists, thus eliminating the competition and consolidating his power base, not in any way as a means to truly promote "Christ". The only God Adolf Hitler ever worshiped was himself.



That's a fancy bit of speculation there. Care to back it up with any information?
 
2009-03-25 09:06:11 AM
Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: since their product is imaginary, they can sell it over and over for thousands of years at an incredible profit.

I fail to see the profit in being burned at the stake for publishing a Bible in English, the profit in being a selfless Buddhist monk, or a life-respecting Hindu who sacrifices convenience for belief.
 
2009-03-25 09:12:28 AM
The dead horse.

/beat it
//beat it harder.
 
2009-03-25 09:13:36 AM
I can't prove this, but I tend to believe that the only Christians who are truly persecuted are the ones who don't look "religious". Furthermore, I believe that these people are not persecuted by the Atheists, gays, prostitutes, drunks, cheats, and other "sinners" but, for the most part, by the prominent "Christians" who feel the need to show just how religious they are. Also, the true Christians won't complain about being persecuted because they were fully aware of that inevitability when they signed up.

Like I said, I can't prove it, but I thought I'd mention it just in case anyone else wants to keep their eyes open for such a scenario.
 
2009-03-25 09:14:51 AM
Meh. Just another person who can't bear to face criticism despite loving to dish it out. Typical hypocrisy.
 
2009-03-25 09:17:25 AM
bushbot111: maddogdelta: those who like to see teenaged girls bleed to death in the street.

What?


All the pro life people who have no problem filling up this page (^)..

thespindrifter: I fail to see the profit in being burned at the stake for publishing a Bible in English

The issue was whether someone was going to cut in on the church's profits. This guy wanted his cut, and paid the price. In much the same way that gangsters kill one another.
 
2009-03-25 09:17:55 AM
Wheeee! Look at me! I know nothing about religion, yet I feel the need to shoot off my mouth, paint with a broad brush, and stereotype all Christians.

Wheeeee!!! I've never even read the Bible! I wouldn't know an epistle from a psalm, yet I'm qualified to dismiss all forms of Christianity!

Wheeee!! Look at me! I've got internet access, so I have earned the right to speak on subjects about which I have absolutely no knowledge!

Wheee!! Look at me! I learned everything that I know about Christianity from an intro to philosophy course at my junior college and from those highly-regarded geniuses at the 4chan message boards!

Wheeeee!!!!
 
2009-03-25 09:20:40 AM
ttintagel: That's a fancy bit of speculation there. Care to back it up with any information?

What, you mean like with the bulk of established history? I'm not going to do all the work for you. Hitler was all about the Fascist ideal, which stood staunchly opposed to Communism. Most of the Atheists of the day were Communists, as Communism is Atheistic at it's very heart. Hitler didn't care about religion, he cared about the politics and "Aryan Ideal" (however ironic that may be coming from a non-blond, half-Jewish, dabbler in homosexuality.)

Hitler wanted Germany to be the only world power, and his biggest concern after consolidating Europe was America, not because the U.S. of A. was a "Christian" nation, but because the nation had strong Anglo-German roots, and he felt that such a high density of "Aryan" people, combined with their manufacturing base and fertile heartland, were Germany's only real competition.

In order to defeat America, Hitler had to assimilate Europe for resources first. In order to accomplish this, he needed a scapegoat to go after, so he used an existing power base (the "Church") as a convenient starting point to manipulate and control the masses that he hadn't already swayed into his cult of personality. Focusing the general frustrations of a smashed country onto the non-Aryans (Jews, Black African descendants, homosexuals, gypsies, et cetera) was a brilliant move, and the real Christians who stood against him had to escape fast or hide, and most were the first ones to go to the camps or be shot in the streets for being "traitors".

Christ called for Peace and Love, to the Jew first and to the Gentile also; Hitler called for hate and murder. It isn't too hard to figure out that power politics, not Christianity, was the real motivating factor here, and usually is. It isn't "No real Scotsman", it's a fact. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... but if it moos? Hmmm, might be a different critter.
 
2009-03-25 09:22:28 AM
Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

Hitler hates athiesm and so should you.

Ein volk, eine Christ


That's right because Hitler NEVER lied about anything.
 
2009-03-25 09:22:42 AM
maddogdelta: bushbot111: maddogdelta: those who like to see teenaged girls bleed to death in the street.

What?

All the pro life people who have no problem filling up this page (^)..


Why do people still cling to that terrible argument? If you grant that abortion is murder, you're not going to be very sympathetic to somebody who gets themselves killed while trying to murder someone.

Yes yes, of course you don't think that abortion is any kind of immoral, but your opponents do, so why bother making the argument?
 
2009-03-25 09:24:41 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Wheeeee!!!....WHAARGARBL

Um...I think you'll find that most of the atheists in these threads know more about the bible than you do.

But thanks for playing!
 
2009-03-25 09:25:17 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Wheeee! Look at me! I know nothing about religion, yet I feel the need to shoot off my mouth, paint with a broad brush, and stereotype all Christians.

Wheeeee!!! I've never even read the Bible! I wouldn't know an epistle from a psalm, yet I'm qualified to dismiss all forms of Christianity!

Wheeee!! Look at me! I've got internet access, so I have earned the right to speak on subjects about which I have absolutely no knowledge!

Wheee!! Look at me! I learned everything that I know about Christianity from an intro to philosophy course at my junior college and from those highly-regarded geniuses at the 4chan message boards!


Hopefully this will cure your butt hurt.

avatar.movetoiceland.com
 
2009-03-25 09:28:03 AM
serial_crusher: Why do people still cling to that terrible argument? If you grant that abortion is murder, you're not going to be very sympathetic to somebody who gets themselves killed while trying to murder someone.

Yes yes, of course you don't think that abortion is any kind of immoral, but your opponents do, so why bother making the argument?


The anti-abortion arguments all center around "but we think life is sacred"... but when push comes to shove... they really don't.

And it isn't a tired old argument. When abortion is illegal, women get abortions illegally. And when they do, they die, horribly.

You choose for a non sentient blob of cells. I choose for living, breathing women.

Unless you're one of those who think that the only moral abortion is my abortion.. (^)
 
2009-03-25 09:29:50 AM
thespindrifter: Christ called for Peace and Love, to the Jew first and to the Gentile also; Hitler called for hate and murder. It isn't too hard to figure out that power politics, not Christianity, was the real motivating factor here, and usually is. It isn't "No real Scotsman", it's a fact. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... but if it moos? Hmmm, might be a different critter.

If that's the case, then most Christians aren't really Christians.

\The biggest genocide in history was caused by a guy who thought he was Jesus' brother
\\Citation (^)
 
2009-03-25 09:30:01 AM
maddogdelta: Deuce McStinkle: Wheeeee!!!....WHAARGARBL

Um...I think you'll find that most of the atheists in these threads know more about the bible than you do.

But thanks for playing!


Please . . . I doubt it. Prove your point, bub, or stop whining.
 
2009-03-25 09:30:03 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Wheeee! Look at me! I know nothing about religion, yet I feel the need to shoot off my mouth, paint with a broad brush, and stereotype all Christians.

Wheeeee!!! I've never even read the Bible! I wouldn't know an epistle from a psalm, yet I'm qualified to dismiss all forms of Christianity!

Wheeee!! Look at me! I've got internet access, so I have earned the right to speak on subjects about which I have absolutely no knowledge!

Wheee!! Look at me! I learned everything that I know about Christianity from an intro to philosophy course at my junior college and from those highly-regarded geniuses at the 4chan message boards!

Wheeeee!!!!


go read isaiah 45:7, provided you read the KJB version and not the NASB or the NKJV, and we'll talk then.

/your god is evil.
//it's in your bible.
///really.
 
2009-03-25 09:30:52 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Please . . . I doubt it. Prove your point, bub, or stop whining.

Ezekial 23:20
 
2009-03-25 09:30:54 AM
thespindrifter: Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: since their product is imaginary, they can sell it over and over for thousands of years at an incredible profit.

I fail to see the profit in being burned at the stake for publishing a Bible in English, the profit in being a selfless Buddhist monk, or a life-respecting Hindu who sacrifices convenience for belief.


i really wouldnt call a tiny minority the norm.


blog.kir.com

praise the lawd.
 
2009-03-25 09:31:37 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

Hitler hates athiesm and so should you.

Ein volk, eine Christ

That's right because Hitler NEVER lied about anything.


atleast he never told anyone that he was the son of god.
 
2009-03-25 09:32:23 AM
What would Jimi do: "this shiat isn't random. any one that thinks that this entire thing we call existence is random? along with all this other shiat beyond anything we can comprehend is random? in less a 1000 years we have named all the elements, came up with laws of motion, and made weapons that can remove us. it may not be the christian god or the muslim god or the buddhist god etc etc etc, something is in control. if you believe this is all random, wow."

'Something from Nothing a Quantum Possibility'

'It's Confirmed, Matter is Merely Vacuum Fluctuations'

Understand also that abiogenesis was not random. Organic molecules form naturally for inorganic ones as the component proteins/amino acids are already inclined to bond when close enough. Likewise the only element of natural selection that's random is genetic mutation, the actual process itself is non-random selective breeding, except instead of a breeder deciding which animals get to mate and pass on their genes, it's the animals who are best able to survive to breeding age and then care for their offspring. It's animal husbandry, the same kind that gave us the variety of domestic dogs, all of our livestock and various cultivated crops, except it happens by itself.

The message to take away here is that you can't bring yourself to accept these propositions because you don't know about the specifics, the supporting evidence. There's a great deal in science that would sound ridiculous and impossible to someone who didn't have the knowledge necessary to understand it. I understand it may seem insulting to you but I don't mean it that way, you're hardly alone, this stuff isn't exactly common knowledge and most Americans have a very slim understanding of science, hence the high incidence of creationists and whatnot. What you need, what they all need, is a more comprehensive education. We need schools with enough funding and sufficiently high hiring standards so that proper time and attention can be given to these subjects, so that students don't go out into the world unequipped to understand scientific principles that are becoming increasingly central to a greater cultural conflict. Without the necessary education they'll be inclined to believe whatever seems 'common sense' to them, or whatever seems most appealing, and the existing problem will only get worse.
 
2009-03-25 09:32:37 AM
aggravatedmonkey: Deuce McStinkle: Wheeee! Look at me! I know nothing about religion, yet I feel the need to shoot off my mouth, paint with a broad brush, and stereotype all Christians.

Wheeeee!!! I've never even read the Bible! I wouldn't know an epistle from a psalm, yet I'm qualified to dismiss all forms of Christianity!

Wheeee!! Look at me! I've got internet access, so I have earned the right to speak on subjects about which I have absolutely no knowledge!

Wheee!! Look at me! I learned everything that I know about Christianity from an intro to philosophy course at my junior college and from those highly-regarded geniuses at the 4chan message boards!

Wheeeee!!!!

go read isaiah 45:7, provided you read the KJB version and not the NASB or the NKJV, and we'll talk then.

/your god is evil.
//it's in your bible.
///really.


Yeah--never mind that the KJ is not all that good of a translation. Never mind that you seem to have absolutely NO understanding of the historical context of Isaiah. Never mind that you're ignoring the overall literary content of not only the book you cite, but also the verse you cite. And never mind that the verse doesn't undercut *anything* about God's goodness. Never mind all that.

You're right. You're always right.
 
2009-03-25 09:33:59 AM
Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: Deuce McStinkle: Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

Hitler hates athiesm and so should you.

Ein volk, eine Christ

That's right because Hitler NEVER lied about anything.

atleast he never told anyone that he was the son of god.


i52.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-25 09:35:07 AM
The Icelander: Deuce McStinkle: Please . . . I doubt it. Prove your point, bub, or stop whining.

Ezekiel 23:20


FTFM
 
2009-03-25 09:35:08 AM
The Icelander: Ezekial 23:20

My Lord, you've yet to quote Deuteronomy 23. I'll wait.

See, you don't know the historical, cultural, or literary contexts of the verse you've pulled. In other words, you've done exactly what you probably claim Christians do: you've taken a verse out of context and attempted to make it fit your own personal interpretation.

/baggage, anyone?
//you've got it
 
2009-03-25 09:36:03 AM
Deuce McStinkle: "Please . . . I doubt it. Prove your point, bub, or stop whining."

Atheists by and large were raised into some religion. I was a Christian myself for nearly 20 years. Most of us were Christians before we became atheists. It's because we thoroughly read and understood the Bible that we became atheists, or at least that's a large part of it.

May I ask you a few questions? You may find them interesting.

#1. Do you believe there was an actual garden of eden, an Adam and Eve, a talking snake, etc.?

#2. Do you think "Why is there something rather than nothing" is a legitimate question to ask?
 
2009-03-25 09:36:19 AM
Intolerant Christians? Unheard of. It's a brotherhood of compassion and acceptance.

/disregard crusades
//disregard salem witch trials


That one did make me laugh. :-) Yes, there has been quite a bit (okay, a lot) of intolerance throughout the ages from Christians and many other religions. It is not so much a religious aspect as it just how humans are. We use the things we believe in (or pretend to believe in) to allow us the justification to remove/fight/convert groups of people we have issues with.

Religious Wars

Crusades 11-13th century
Albigensian Crusade
the Northern Crusades
Aragonese Crusade

French Wars of Religion 16th century
war between Catholics and Protestants (Hugenots primarily)

Thirty Years War 17th century
Garmany, Scandinavia, Poland, France -- Catholics and Protestants (Calvinists)

Israel and Arab Countries (most of recorded history)

Shinto - Showa era
Sino-Japanese War

Sikhism 15-1600's
Shikhs vs. Hindus
Shikhs vs. Muslims

Saxon Wars

Zoroastrianism -- Sassanid era

________________________________

Interestingly enough, neither Jesus nor Peter, Paul, etc are recorded as telling Christians to go into battle for religious reasons, to fight the government and so forth.

/two of my distant relatives are Cotton and Increase Mather
//about flipped when I found that out
 
2009-03-25 09:36:51 AM
Deuce McStinkle: aggravatedmonkey: Deuce McStinkle: Wheeee! Look at me! I know nothing about religion, yet I feel the need to shoot off my mouth, paint with a broad brush, and stereotype all Christians.

Wheeeee!!! I've never even read the Bible! I wouldn't know an epistle from a psalm, yet I'm qualified to dismiss all forms of Christianity!

Wheeee!! Look at me! I've got internet access, so I have earned the right to speak on subjects about which I have absolutely no knowledge!

Wheee!! Look at me! I learned everything that I know about Christianity from an intro to philosophy course at my junior college and from those highly-regarded geniuses at the 4chan message boards!

Wheeeee!!!!

go read isaiah 45:7, provided you read the KJB version and not the NASB or the NKJV, and we'll talk then.

/your god is evil.
//it's in your bible.
///really.

Yeah--never mind that the KJ is not all that good of a translation. Never mind that you seem to have absolutely NO understanding of the historical context of Isaiah. Never mind that you're ignoring the overall literary content of not only the book you cite, but also the verse you cite. And never mind that the verse doesn't undercut *anything* about God's goodness. Never mind all that.

You're right. You're always right.


let me get this straight...first you say that KJB is "not all that good of a translation" and then you say "Never mind that you're ignoring the overall literary content of not only the book you cite, but also the verse you cite."

so which is it skippy?

garbage? or "literary" masterpiece?

and which "translation" do YOU approve of?

you sound fat.
 
2009-03-25 09:36:56 AM
Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: atleast he never told anyone that he was the son of god.

Oooohhh... you hurt me there.

Really? That's the best you can do?

Sad, really.

The whole Hitler was a Christian argument has been debunked by not only religious scholars, but secular scholars as well.

A library is a big building with books: check it out sometime.
 
2009-03-25 09:37:17 AM
Deuce McStinkle: And never mind that the verse doesn't undercut *anything* about God's goodness.

Remind me to tell my kid never to make fun of a bald man, lest god sets bears on her. In his infinite goodness.
 
2009-03-25 09:38:38 AM
Deuce McStinkle: "The whole Hitler was a Christian argument has been debunked by not only religious scholars, but secular scholars as well."

You know, Hitler himself never killed a single Jew. What religion do you suppose the brownshirts were? The einsatzgruppen? The concentration camp guards?
 
2009-03-25 09:39:18 AM
aggravatedmonkey: Deuce McStinkle: aggravatedmonkey: Deuce McStinkle: Wheeee! Look at me! I know nothing about religion, yet I feel the need to shoot off my mouth, paint with a broad brush, and stereotype all Christians.

Wheeeee!!! I've never even read the Bible! I wouldn't know an epistle from a psalm, yet I'm qualified to dismiss all forms of Christianity!

Wheeee!! Look at me! I've got internet access, so I have earned the right to speak on subjects about which I have absolutely no knowledge!

Wheee!! Look at me! I learned everything that I know about Christianity from an intro to philosophy course at my junior college and from those highly-regarded geniuses at the 4chan message boards!

Wheeeee!!!!

go read isaiah 45:7, provided you read the KJB version and not the NASB or the NKJV, and we'll talk then.

/your god is evil.
//it's in your bible.
///really.

Yeah--never mind that the KJ is not all that good of a translation. Never mind that you seem to have absolutely NO understanding of the historical context of Isaiah. Never mind that you're ignoring the overall literary content of not only the book you cite, but also the verse you cite. And never mind that the verse doesn't undercut *anything* about God's goodness. Never mind all that.

You're right. You're always right.

let me get this straight...first you say that KJB is "not all that good of a translation" and then you say "Never mind that you're ignoring the overall literary content of not only the book you cite, but also the verse you cite."

so which is it skippy?

garbage? or "literary" masterpiece?

and which "translation" do YOU approve of?

you sound fat.


"Skippy?" "Fat?"

That's the best you have?

My God. And your logic is flawed: I never said that KJV was a "literary masterpiece," nor did I say that it as "garbage."

Wow. You sound ignorant.
 
2009-03-25 09:40:26 AM
maddogdelta: serial_crusher: Why do people still cling to that terrible argument? If you grant that abortion is murder, you're not going to be very sympathetic to somebody who gets themselves killed while trying to murder someone.

Yes yes, of course you don't think that abortion is any kind of immoral, but your opponents do, so why bother making the argument?

The anti-abortion arguments all center around "but we think life is sacred"... but when push comes to shove... they really don't.

And it isn't a tired old argument. When abortion is illegal, women get abortions illegally. And when they do, they die, horribly.

You choose for a non sentient blob of cells. I choose for living, breathing women.

Unless you're one of those who think that the only moral abortion is my abortion.. (^)


hold on here, now i don't really care about abortion, but this seems like a bad argument. if you accept the idea that a fetus is somehow a life and therefor at least on equal terms with that of the mother, then when you stop most of them and the only ones who are still being done are people in back alleyways finding new and exciting uses for coat hangers, then that's not a bad thing, its good old fashioned darwinism at its best. think about it. here we have a person so gosh darned LAZY they cant be bothered to wait out 9 months, so short cited a highly dangerous, and illegal procedure is preferable to telling daddy, so stupid AND lazy they cant be bothered to use birth control, who has already proven themselves both fertile and willing to concede. in that situation, worst case scenario, the baby dies and therefor the genes off this dumbass are not carried on, and best case scenario, it rips her apart from the inside, thus thinning the herd. humanity benifits
 
2009-03-25 09:42:12 AM
The Icelander: Deuce McStinkle: And never mind that the verse doesn't undercut *anything* about God's goodness.

Remind me to tell my kid never to make fun of a bald man, lest god sets bears on her. In his infinite goodness.


So, the whole Elijah thing, eh?

And, yet again, another internet genius taking a narrative out of context. Typical.
 
2009-03-25 09:42:29 AM
aggravatedmonkey: go read isaiah 45:7, provided you read the KJB version and not the NASB or the NKJV, and we'll talk then.

When your arguments depend on a single translation, to the exclusion of other translations and also to the exclusion of the text being translated, this should perhaps be taken as evidence of a problem with the translation you're using.
 
2009-03-25 09:44:10 AM
Millennium: aggravatedmonkey: go read isaiah 45:7, provided you read the KJB version and not the NASB or the NKJV, and we'll talk then.

When your arguments depend on a single translation, to the exclusion of other translations and also to the exclusion of the text being translated, this should perhaps be taken as evidence of a problem with the translation you're using.


Don't confuse him with the facts.
 
2009-03-25 09:44:34 AM
Deuce McStinkle: "Wow. You sound ignorant."

...Said the Christian to the atheist.

Said the fellow who worships a genocider god, who believes in the tree of knowledge and the talking snake, who believes consciousness is best explained by a ghost living in our heads rather than accepting the findings of cognitive neurobiology, who believes that an ancient desert God created the universe rather than accepting the findings of particle physics, re: particle pairs/quantum potential.

Yeah, the sane guy over there who accepts science and doesn't believe in the talking snake, that guy is the ignorant one. Have I got that right?
 
2009-03-25 09:44:43 AM
Oh, and to add to my previous post, if the Atheists ever go to war, it will probably be between humans and otters.
 
2009-03-25 09:46:41 AM
Millenium: "When your arguments depend on a single translation, to the exclusion of other translations and also to the exclusion of the text being translated, this should perhaps be taken as evidence of a problem with the translation you're using."

Careful now. Arguments to the effect that the Bible doesn't actually condemn gays and that it describes six 'periods' of time rather than literal days relies on that exact sort of selective translation. Is it okay when it excuses scripture, but not when it reflects poorly on it?
 
2009-03-25 09:47:17 AM
Deuce McStinkle: See, you don't know the historical, cultural, or literary contexts of the verse you've pulled. In other words, you've done exactly what you probably claim Christians do: you've taken a verse out of context and attempted to make it fit your own personal interpretation.

That's because the Bible holds no significance for me beyond its literary influence.

You've got a serious case of the butt hurt, and are so closed-minded that you can't admit that quite a few Christians are assholes. I'll gladly admit that there are atheists who are assholes. But considering that we're, at most, 5% of the population, and Christians are something like 80% of the population, so even if one in ten is a jerk, they outnumber atheists.

And are you insisting that all the "angry atheists" are making up their experiences that lead them to have a negative association with Christianity? Oh, wait, those people aren't "real Christians," right? If that's the case you guys might want to sue for defamation of character. Atheists aren't your problem - it's the people who use your religion to look bad. What you're doing is the equivalent of blaming the smoke detector for waking you up when there's a fire.

Now, you might say I'm painting with a broad brush, but when you have tens of thousands of Christian teenagers showing up for "culture warrior" rallies, it's hard to believe they're a minority.

Not to mention that your assertion that atheists are ignorant of the Bible is almost universally untrue. Every atheist I know, including most of the people in this thread know the Bible quite a bit better than the vast majority if Christians.

So go buy some butt paste and apply it liberally, and hopefully your butt hurt will heal up enough to the point where you can see that, through all the vitriol, we atheists might have a farking point.
 
2009-03-25 09:48:40 AM
PC LOAD LETTER: Gil


Say what now?

i224.photobucket.com

/That made my morning, PC LOAD LETTER.
 
2009-03-25 09:49:11 AM
thespindrifter: Either human life is sacred or it isn't

I vote "no".
 
2009-03-25 09:53:10 AM
The Name: EL_FABREZ: What_Would_Jimi_Do: Leviticus 18:22!


Leviticus is some crazy shiat. Eat shellfish? Stoning. Cut your hair? Stoning. Wife cheats on you? Stoning. Flat nose? No heaven for you. Crippled? Ditto. Wear two different types of fabric? BZZZT!

You have to laugh at anybody who says they take the bible literally.


It's precisely because of books like Leviticus that I laugh at people who try to pwn Christians by quoting the Old Testament. Since it's fairly early in this thread still, I'll give the atheists to come a little tip:

Christians are well aware of the "intolerance" (as we moderns would call it) and heavy-handedness of the Old Testament. This barbarity contrasted with the pacifism of Jesus Christ is precisely one of the differences distinguishing the Old Testament from the New Testament. I'd go into the theology and apologetics a bit, but I've smoked too much wacky tobacky.

(I don't mean to rag on atheists. Christianity has plenty wrong with it, metaphysically and perhaps even a bit morally. I just find it odd that, for all their intellectual pretensions, most rabidly anti-Christian atheists don't know a damn thing about the theology they hate so much.)


I took the post more as reminding christians of that fact. Many, many neo-evangelicals like to quote Leviticus whenever it suits their condemnation, then disavow it when it makes them look crazy.
 
2009-03-25 09:54:15 AM
theinsultabot9000: maddogdelta: serial_crusher: Why do people still cling to that terrible argument? If you grant that abortion is murder, you're not going to be very sympathetic to somebody who gets themselves killed while trying to murder someone.

Yes yes, of course you don't think that abortion is any kind of immoral, but your opponents do, so why bother making the argument?

The anti-abortion arguments all center around "but we think life is sacred"... but when push comes to shove... they really don't.

And it isn't a tired old argument. When abortion is illegal, women get abortions illegally. And when they do, they die, horribly.

You choose for a non sentient blob of cells. I choose for living, breathing women.

Unless you're one of those who think that the only moral abortion is my abortion.. (^)

hold on here, now i don't really care about abortion, but this seems like a bad argument. if you accept the idea that a fetus is somehow a life and therefor at least on equal terms with that of the mother, then when you stop most of them and the only ones who are still being done are people in back alleyways finding new and exciting uses for coat hangers, then that's not a bad thing, its good old fashioned darwinism at its best. think about it. here we have a person so gosh darned LAZY they cant be bothered to wait out 9 months, so short cited a highly dangerous, and illegal procedure is preferable to telling daddy, so stupid AND lazy they cant be bothered to use birth control, who has already proven themselves both fertile and willing to concede. in that situation, worst case scenario, the baby dies and therefor the genes off this dumbass are not carried on, and best case scenario, it rips her apart from the inside, thus thinning the herd. humanity benifits


I know you were being sarcastic, but that about sums it up. What if I made the same argument in favor of legalizing trespassing...

Do you have any idea how many people hurt themselves during illegal trespassing each year?

It's not your house. It's just some carpet with walls and floors around it.
 
2009-03-25 09:54:15 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: atleast he never told anyone that he was the son of god.

Oooohhh... you hurt me there.

Really? That's the best you can do?

Sad, really.

The whole Hitler was a Christian argument has been debunked by not only religious scholars, but secular scholars as well.

A library is a big building with books: check it out sometime.


so you're saying that athiests, muslims, buddhists, jews, but not christians were sent to the gas chambers for some other reason yet to be discovered?

i dont know about the hole where you come from, but here in germany, the fact that hitler was a christian and in bed with the church is basic grade school knowledge.
 
2009-03-25 09:55:53 AM
thespindrifter: ttintagel: That's a fancy bit of speculation there. Care to back it up with any information?

What, you mean like with the bulk of established history? I'm not going to do all the work for you.


Yes, the bulk of established history, like Hitler's life, speeches, and writings. You don't need to do the work for me, because it's all right there for anyone to see. You can try to spin it and get inside Hitler's head to guess whether or not he was sincere in his beliefs, but it is just that: a guess.

Christ called for Peace and Love, to the Jew first and to the Gentile also;

Among other things. And he also said that he had not come to negate the Old Testament with its bloody cries for vengeance and smiting. Read your Matthew.


Hitler called for hate and murder.


For his enemies, aand the enemies of his ideals. Much like a lot of the Bible.

It isn't "No real Scotsman", it's a fact.

It's both.
 
2009-03-25 09:58:01 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Wheeee! Look at me! I know nothing about religion, yet I feel the need to shoot off my mouth, paint with a broad brush, and stereotype all Christians.

Don;t kid yourself. Most Americans are brought up with some kind of Christian training. And most atheists I know know the Scriptures better than most Christians. They just see the inherent contradictions instead of cherrypicking or rationalizing them.
 
2009-03-25 10:00:33 AM
Deuce McStinkle: So, the whole Elijah thing, eh?

And, yet again, another internet genius taking a narrative out of context. Typical.


There is no excuse, none, for sicking bears on unruly kids. Even if god's a fictional character, he's a douche for doing that.
 
2009-03-25 10:04:04 AM
The Icelander: Deuce McStinkle: So, the whole Elijah thing, eh?

And, yet again, another internet genius taking a narrative out of context. Typical.

There is no excuse, none, for sicking bears on unruly kids. Even if god's a fictional character, he's a douche for doing that.


www.americanbear.org
why do you hate bears?
 
2009-03-25 10:08:02 AM
serial_crusher: theinsultabot9000: maddogdelta: serial_crusher: Why do people still cling to that terrible argument? If you grant that abortion is murder, you're not going to be very sympathetic to somebody who gets themselves killed while trying to murder someone.

Yes yes, of course you don't think that abortion is any kind of immoral, but your opponents do, so why bother making the argument?

The anti-abortion arguments all center around "but we think life is sacred"... but when push comes to shove... they really don't.

And it isn't a tired old argument. When abortion is illegal, women get abortions illegally. And when they do, they die, horribly.

You choose for a non sentient blob of cells. I choose for living, breathing women.

Unless you're one of those who think that the only moral abortion is my abortion.. (^)

hold on here, now i don't really care about abortion, but this seems like a bad argument. if you accept the idea that a fetus is somehow a life and therefor at least on equal terms with that of the mother, then when you stop most of them and the only ones who are still being done are people in back alleyways finding new and exciting uses for coat hangers, then that's not a bad thing, its good old fashioned darwinism at its best. think about it. here we have a person so gosh darned LAZY they cant be bothered to wait out 9 months, so short cited a highly dangerous, and illegal procedure is preferable to telling daddy, so stupid AND lazy they cant be bothered to use birth control, who has already proven themselves both fertile and willing to concede. in that situation, worst case scenario, the baby dies and therefor the genes off this dumbass are not carried on, and best case scenario, it rips her apart from the inside, thus thinning the herd. humanity benifits

I know you were being sarcastic, but that about sums it up. What if I made the same argument in favor of legalizing trespassing...

Do you have any idea how many people hurt themselves during illegal trespassing each year?

It's not your house. It's just some carpet with walls and floors around it.


it wasnt sarcasm. or even trolling. i am sorry, but it isnt. whatever your reasoning, belief, or stance on abortion, i really dont care. maybe you are for it. maybe you are because it makes it far less worrisome for a guy or a girl out for a good time to not have a problem. fine. i can see the merits of that, o.k., sound reasoning.

maybe you are for it because you think its just America. she should have her freedom of choice. ok, i can see that, land of the free, sound reasoning. you have a point. but if your argument is i or anyone else should give two shiats about a group of woman whose soul common link is that they were to incompetent to avoid pregnancy and to stupid to decide that of all her options, gutting herself with a coat hanger, thus eliminating not one but two genetic failures. i just don't see the point. in my opinion that is actually a valid point on the side of pro-lifers, that there stance indirectly benefits the genetic health of humanity
 
2009-03-25 10:10:34 AM
thespindrifter: C"hrist called for Peace and Love, to the Jew first and to the Gentile also;....Hitler called for hate and murder."

Say, where did all the Canaanites go? Could've sworn they were here a second ago. At least we know God didn't order their genocide, because you'd never knowingly worship a genocider God. Right?
 
2009-03-25 10:13:34 AM
Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle: "Wow. You sound ignorant."

...Said the Christian to the atheist.

Said the fellow who worships a genocider god, who believes in the tree of knowledge and the talking snake, who believes consciousness is best explained by a ghost living in our heads rather than accepting the findings of cognitive neurobiology, who believes that an ancient desert God created the universe rather than accepting the findings of particle physics, re: particle pairs/quantum potential.

Yeah, the sane guy over there who accepts science and doesn't believe in the talking snake, that guy is the ignorant one. Have I got that right?


Are you done stereotyping yet?
 
2009-03-25 10:14:34 AM
Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: Deuce McStinkle: Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: atleast he never told anyone that he was the son of god.

Oooohhh... you hurt me there.

Really? That's the best you can do?

Sad, really.

The whole Hitler was a Christian argument has been debunked by not only religious scholars, but secular scholars as well.

A library is a big building with books: check it out sometime.

so you're saying that athiests, muslims, buddhists, jews, but not christians were sent to the gas chambers for some other reason yet to be discovered?

i dont know about the hole where you come from, but here in germany, the fact that hitler was a christian and in bed with the church is basic grade school knowledge.


So, you guys don't have libraries, then?
 
2009-03-25 10:15:35 AM
Deuce McStinkle: "Are you done stereotyping yet?"

Ah, but which of those things don't you believe?
 
2009-03-25 10:15:38 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Wheeee! Look at me! I know nothing about religion, yet I feel the need to shoot off my mouth, paint with a broad brush, and stereotype all Christians.

Wheeeee!!! I've never even read the Bible! I wouldn't know an epistle from a psalm, yet I'm qualified to dismiss all forms of Christianity!

Wheeee!! Look at me! I've got internet access, so I have earned the right to speak on subjects about which I have absolutely no knowledge!

Wheee!! Look at me! I learned everything that I know about Christianity from an intro to philosophy course at my junior college and from those highly-regarded geniuses at the 4chan message boards!

Wheeeee!!!!


Well, smartass, put a leash on your more high-profile spokespeople like Phelps, etc., and the sterotype won't propogate, will it? Till you do that, if it quacks like a duck...it's a damn duck, mmmkay?
 
2009-03-25 10:17:49 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Please . . . I doubt it. Prove your point, bub, or stop whining.

I'm not whining at all. I'm merely just addressing a fallacy in which you claimed that atheists don't read the bible. I'm pointing out that you are incorrect.

eharac: Interestingly enough, neither Jesus nor Peter, Paul, etc are recorded as telling Christians to go into battle for religious reasons


Matthew 10:34 (King James Version)

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
 
2009-03-25 10:18:48 AM
Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle: "Are you done stereotyping yet?"

Ah, but which of those things don't you believe?


Are you done stereotyping yet?

I'm waiting . . .
 
2009-03-25 10:20:08 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: Deuce McStinkle: Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: atleast he never told anyone that he was the son of god.

Oooohhh... you hurt me there.

Really? That's the best you can do?

Sad, really.

The whole Hitler was a Christian argument has been debunked by not only religious scholars, but secular scholars as well.

A library is a big building with books: check it out sometime.

so you're saying that athiests, muslims, buddhists, jews, but not christians were sent to the gas chambers for some other reason yet to be discovered?

i dont know about the hole where you come from, but here in germany, the fact that hitler was a christian and in bed with the church is basic grade school knowledge.

So, you guys don't have libraries, then?


noone knows germany quite as well as some hick from bumf|_|ck georgia.
 
2009-03-25 10:20:37 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: atleast he never told anyone that he was the son of god.

Oooohhh... you hurt me there.

Really? That's the best you can do?

Sad, really.

The whole Hitler was a Christian argument has been debunked by not only religious scholars, but secular scholars as well.

A library is a big building with books: check it out sometime.


It really doesn't matter what Adolph believed. It's that he, like so many others, used religion to accumulate power. Wrapping yourself in the bible to sucker the believers is a very old practice.
Just look at every TV evangelist, or mega-church preacher. Tons of influence and money to match, all from duping the gullible.
 
2009-03-25 10:20:49 AM
maddogdelta: Deuce McStinkle: Please . . . I doubt it. Prove your point, bub, or stop whining.

I'm not whining at all. I'm merely just addressing a fallacy in which you claimed that atheists don't read the bible. I'm pointing out that you are incorrect.

eharac: Interestingly enough, neither Jesus nor Peter, Paul, etc are recorded as telling Christians to go into battle for religious reasons


Matthew 10:34 (King James Version)

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.


Once again, you display absolutely NO knowledge of how to read. Christ is talking figuratively here. Read the entire Gospel, mon frere, before you shoot off your mouth.

And don't give me that, "Well, you pick and choose when Christ is speaking metaphorically or literally" garbage. If you read carefully, the difference is patently obvious.

Grow up. Argue with integrity. Or go home.
 
2009-03-25 10:21:30 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle: "Are you done stereotyping yet?"

Ah, but which of those things don't you believe?

Are you done stereotyping yet?

I'm waiting . . .


Ahhh..The old "I know you are but what am I?" argument.

Might as well give up guys. This is one tough nut to crack.
 
2009-03-25 10:22:24 AM
theinsultabot9000: maybe you are for it because you think its just America. she should have her freedom of choice. ok, i can see that, land of the free, sound reasoning. you have a point. but if your argument is i or anyone else should give two shiats about a group of woman whose soul common link is that they were to incompetent to avoid pregnancy and to stupid to decide that of all her options, gutting herself with a coat hanger, thus eliminating not one but two genetic failures. i just don't see the point. in my opinion that is actually a valid point on the side of pro-lifers, that there stance indirectly benefits the genetic health of humanity

What valid point?
 
2009-03-25 10:22:26 AM
give me doughnuts: Deuce McStinkle: Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: atleast he never told anyone that he was the son of god.

Oooohhh... you hurt me there.

Really? That's the best you can do?

Sad, really.

The whole Hitler was a Christian argument has been debunked by not only religious scholars, but secular scholars as well.

A library is a big building with books: check it out sometime.

It really doesn't matter what Adolph believed. It's that he, like so many others, used religion to accumulate power. Wrapping yourself in the bible to sucker the believers is a very old practice.
Just look at every TV evangelist, or mega-church preacher. Tons of influence and money to match, all from duping the gullible.


Yes, because televangelists are absolutely representative of all Christian sects.
 
2009-03-25 10:24:19 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Once again, you display absolutely NO knowledge of how to read. Christ is talking figuratively here. Read the entire Gospel, mon frere, before you shoot off your mouth.

I have. Several times.


And don't give me that, "Well, you pick and choose when Christ is speaking metaphorically or literally" garbage. If you read carefully, the difference is patently obvious.

If the difference is patently obvious, then why do people spend so much energy killing each other over it? Are people saved by faith or works? (Let's start with Martin Luther vs Catholicism, then we'll work our way into Calvinism, etc..)

Grow up. Argue with integrity. Or go home.

I have demonstrated my integrity more often than I will guess you have. But go ahead. Keep making claims with no facts to back them up. It's what you seem to be good at.
 
2009-03-25 10:25:27 AM
maddogdelta: Ahhh..The old "I know you are but what am I?" argument.

Might as well give up guys. This is one tough nut to crack.


It's hard to argue with someone who insists nothing you say is relevant.
 
2009-03-25 10:26:49 AM
Deuce McStinkle: give me doughnuts: Deuce McStinkle: Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: atleast he never told anyone that he was the son of god.

Oooohhh... you hurt me there.

Really? That's the best you can do?

Sad, really.

The whole Hitler was a Christian argument has been debunked by not only religious scholars, but secular scholars as well.

A library is a big building with books: check it out sometime.

It really doesn't matter what Adolph believed. It's that he, like so many others, used religion to accumulate power. Wrapping yourself in the bible to sucker the believers is a very old practice.
Just look at every TV evangelist, or mega-church preacher. Tons of influence and money to match, all from duping the gullible.

Yes, because televangelists are absolutely representative of all Christian sects.


Just the successful ones. Look at how much property and political infuence the Catholic Church has. And how much more it used to have.
All gotten from people foolish enough to believe mythology and fairy-tales.
 
2009-03-25 10:27:39 AM
Yet she increased her whorings, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions.

*fap*
 
2009-03-25 10:28:24 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Wheeee! Look at me! I know nothing about religion, yet I feel the need to shoot off my mouth, paint with a broad brush, and stereotype all Christians.

Wheeeee!!! I've never even read the Bible! I wouldn't know an epistle from a psalm, yet I'm qualified to dismiss all forms of Christianity!

Wheeee!! Look at me! I've got internet access, so I have earned the right to speak on subjects about which I have absolutely no knowledge!

Wheee!! Look at me! I learned everything that I know about Christianity from an intro to philosophy course at my junior college and from those highly-regarded geniuses at the 4chan message boards!

Wheeeee!!!!


Haha. I was raised in a nunnery, went to Catholic school, church every week, CCD classes, then tent revivals, Youth Group. Guess what I never believed in? I spent a lot of time studying religions in addition to this, on the basis that I felt I should be knowledgeable to discuss things with Christians until I learned two things.

1) Most Christians won't discuss shiat.
2) I was wasting time learning about something that is completely pointless, and has no place in my life in an effort to placate some idiots who worship a book. I feel the same way about Twilight fans.
 
2009-03-25 10:28:41 AM
Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: Yet she increased her whorings, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions.

*fap*


Wasn't Jenna Jameson in that one?
 
2009-03-25 10:32:34 AM
Deuce McStinkle: "Are you done stereotyping yet?

I'm waiting . . ."


I invited you to tell me which of the things I said about you are untrue. If indeed I am stereotyping you, explain how.
 
2009-03-25 10:33:17 AM
give me doughnuts: theinsultabot9000: maybe you are for it because you think its just America. she should have her freedom of choice. ok, i can see that, land of the free, sound reasoning. you have a point. but if your argument is i or anyone else should give two shiats about a group of woman whose soul common link is that they were to incompetent to avoid pregnancy and to stupid to decide that of all her options, gutting herself with a coat hanger, thus eliminating not one but two genetic failures. i just don't see the point. in my opinion that is actually a valid point on the side of pro-lifers, that there stance indirectly benefits the genetic health of humanity

What valid point?


a main talking point of pro-choice people is that many woman will still have abortions, it will just be far more dangerous, because instead of practiced and sterilized equipment it will be back alley med school rejects using coat hangers, when problems inevitably develop, the woman and the child to be both die.

currently, an abortion is relatively safe for the woman, so right now any woman having an abortion is by nature farking retarded, she is underoing a simple procedure. but if pro-lifers wanted to make the point that any woman who went to the back alleyway and got herself killed, we are talking about not only the removal of both the grossly incompetent and/or stupid, but one who has already proven herself fertile. thats darwinism, and a valid point on the side of any who wished to see abortion outlawed
 
2009-03-25 10:35:17 AM
EL_FABREZ: TheWarmonger: ///BTW, get some new pictures, I'm tired of seeing the same ones every single time

There you go. A nice pic of white Jesus being all majestic and stuff.


He's the 4th horseman?
 
2009-03-25 10:37:25 AM
theinsultabot9000: give me doughnuts: theinsultabot9000: maybe you are for it because you think its just America. she should have her freedom of choice. ok, i can see that, land of the free, sound reasoning. you have a point. but if your argument is i or anyone else should give two shiats about a group of woman whose soul common link is that they were to incompetent to avoid pregnancy and to stupid to decide that of all her options, gutting herself with a coat hanger, thus eliminating not one but two genetic failures. i just don't see the point. in my opinion that is actually a valid point on the side of pro-lifers, that there stance indirectly benefits the genetic health of humanity

What valid point?

a main talking point of pro-choice people is that many woman will still have abortions, it will just be far more dangerous, because instead of practiced and sterilized equipment it will be back alley med school rejects using coat hangers, when problems inevitably develop, the woman and the child to be both die.

currently, an abortion is relatively safe for the woman, so right now any woman having an abortion is by nature farking retarded, she is underoing a simple procedure. but if pro-lifers wanted to make the point that any woman who went to the back alleyway and got herself killed, we are talking about not only the removal of both the grossly incompetent and/or stupid, but one who has already proven herself fertile. thats darwinism, and a valid point on the side of any who wished to see abortion outlawed



i am sorry, currently, a woman getting an abortion is NOT by nature retarded. haven't had my coffee yet. missing that word there made that whole paragraph farking retarded, irony
 
2009-03-25 10:37:55 AM
thespindrifter: DemonEater: the lives of the two living, breathing, thinking adults who don't want a baby?

Were they thinking when they had sex? before then? If they were thinking adults they should have thought about the consequences before the fact; a child shouldn't have to pay the price for the "parents" stupidity. There are so many people out there who are willing to adopt, and yet we make them wait in line for month to years. (I don't mind the background checks, but I know of some who have been waiting for years.)

The only difference in the law between a legal abortion or manslaughter of a killed pre-born infant is whether or not the child was "wanted". That is schizophrenia of the law, and it needs to end one way or the other.

Even if there were no God, we are apparently unique in this part of the galaxy, and even if the galaxy were over-flowing with evolved life, we would still be unique, and every individual potential life should be protected and supported by someone, if not by the biological parents. Either human life is sacred or it isn't; the development stage is irrelevant.

I'd be pro life even if I were still an agnostic, because I believe that all intelligent life is worth protecting, and all lesser life is worth protecting up to the point where such protections would interfere with the continued protection of humans. I do not consider a fetus a lesser life form, just an undeveloped potential human. Anything less than that greys an area that opens up a Pandora's box of troubles that devalues human life by degrees, and history shows what happens to societies that devalue human life: they fall, and rightfully so.



I applaud your love of life, but it is not nearly as unique or special as you seem to want to believe. Yes, an individual can be special and hold value, but that is subjective to those who see value in that person. There are 6,760,000,000 people on this planet. If you just take the top 1% of the humanity with an IQ above 135 it is 67,600,000 people - nearly the population of Texas, California and New York combined. On the other end of that spectrum, there are just as many people at the very bottom of that IQ chart, below 60.

In regards to abortion, here is another fun fact. Humans naturally miscarry upwards of 50% of all conceptions.

In 2008 alone there were roughly 136,000,000 births world wide. Tsis also means at most 136,000,000 "children" are aborted each year by natural causes.
 
2009-03-25 10:38:16 AM
z.about.com
 
2009-03-25 10:40:01 AM
theinsultabot9000:

a main talking point of pro-choice people is that many woman will still have abortions, it will just be far more dangerous, because instead of practiced and sterilized equipment it will be back alley med school rejects using coat hangers, when problems inevitably develop, the woman and the child to be both die.

currently, an abortion is relatively safe for the woman, so right now any woman having an abortion is by nature farking retarded, she is underoing a simple procedure. but if pro-lifers wanted to make the point that any woman who went to the back alleyway and got herself killed, we are talking about not only the removal of both the grossly incompetent and/or stupid, but one who has already proven herself fertile. thats darwinism, and a valid point on the side of any who wished to see abortion outlawed

??????

I read that four times. Came out of it with nothing.
 
2009-03-25 10:44:54 AM

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?


Of course, you can always follow the deconstructionist view: If I deem this rock as having divinity, and divinity only truly matters to myself, then this rock is divine to the extent that I believe it to be. All of reality is perception, after all.
 
2009-03-25 10:45:22 AM
Herb Utsmelz: theinsultabot9000:

a main talking point of pro-choice people is that many woman will still have abortions, it will just be far more dangerous, because instead of practiced and sterilized equipment it will be back alley med school rejects using coat hangers, when problems inevitably develop, the woman and the child to be both die.

currently, an abortion is relatively safe for the woman, so right now any woman having an abortion is by nature farking retarded, she is underoing a simple procedure. but if pro-lifers wanted to make the point that any woman who went to the back alleyway and got herself killed, we are talking about not only the removal of both the grossly incompetent and/or stupid, but one who has already proven herself fertile. thats darwinism, and a valid point on the side of any who wished to see abortion outlawed

??????

I read that four times. Came out of it with nothing.



i noticed a minor word cut there which essentially invalidated the whole idea there, which i mentioned immediately after. paraphrasing, the original point was "currently there is no problem with the woman getting an abortion, because it is a safe and simple procedure."

except i left out the word "no" completely altering the idea. try it now
 
2009-03-25 10:45:27 AM
maddogdelta: Deuce McStinkle: Once again, you display absolutely NO knowledge of how to read. Christ is talking figuratively here. Read the entire Gospel, mon frere, before you shoot off your mouth.

I have. Several times.


And don't give me that, "Well, you pick and choose when Christ is speaking metaphorically or literally" garbage. If you read carefully, the difference is patently obvious.

If the difference is patently obvious, then why do people spend so much energy killing each other over it? Are people saved by faith or works? (Let's start with Martin Luther vs Catholicism, then we'll work our way into Calvinism, etc..)

Grow up. Argue with integrity. Or go home.

I have demonstrated my integrity more often than I will guess you have. But go ahead. Keep making claims with no facts to back them up. It's what you seem to be good at.


Sure, if you say so. You must be right. After all, you say you are.
 
2009-03-25 10:47:06 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Sure, if you say so. You must be right. After all, you say you are.

Another statement without any facts to back them up.

Continue, please.
 
2009-03-25 10:47:41 AM
Deuce McStinkle:

If you are a Christian, you necessarily believe in a genocider god. While Christians aren't beholden to the strictures of the Old Testament, it's still the same deity and it's still canonical. Yahweh explicitly commanded genocides against the Canaanites and several other peoples, going so far as to punish an Israelite leader who kept some of the livestock instead of killing them as well. (Although Moses was permitted to keep the young virginal girls in a few instances, if I recall correctly.)

You must necessarily believe in a garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, and so on. Original sin is inherited from Adam as a result of the Fall, when Adam and Eve were ejected from the garden for eating of the tree. Without the Fall, we did not inherit Adam's sin, and Christ died for nothing. Belief in the ejection from the garden is necessary for your theological worldview.

If you are a Christian, you must necessarily deny the findings of cognitive neurobiology, as they disprove the existence of the soul. In science, a claim is disproven when a theory comes along which is better supported by evidence and which has superior predictive power. This is why Germ theory is said to have disproven the competing explanation that evil spirits cause illness; it explains all of the observable facts, it's better supported by evidence, and it enabled us to predict the characteristics of microorganisms responsible for disease so that we might better combat them. Likewise, the materialist model of consciousness is supported by heaps of evidence and is the predictive basis of many treatments for localized brain damage and hereditary neurological disorders. In the scientific sense, the soul is disproven, although creationists are raising a stink over it as explained in one of the links above. You find yourself in the same camp as these creationists with regards to cognitive neurobiology because the existence of the soul is necessary for your theological worldview.

If you are a Christian, you also must necessarily deny evidence from particle physics research which indicates that the big bang was a natural, self-catalyzing event. You deny this because divine creation is necessary for your theological worldview.

Shall I go on?
 
2009-03-25 10:48:32 AM
Braindeath: Deuce McStinkle: Wheeee! Look at me! I know nothing about religion, yet I feel the need to shoot off my mouth, paint with a broad brush, and stereotype all Christians.

Wheeeee!!! I've never even read the Bible! I wouldn't know an epistle from a psalm, yet I'm qualified to dismiss all forms of Christianity!

Wheeee!! Look at me! I've got internet access, so I have earned the right to speak on subjects about which I have absolutely no knowledge!

Wheee!! Look at me! I learned everything that I know about Christianity from an intro to philosophy course at my junior college and from those highly-regarded geniuses at the 4chan message boards!

Wheeeee!!!!

Haha. I was raised in a nunnery, went to Catholic school, church every week, CCD classes, then tent revivals, Youth Group. Guess what I never believed in? I spent a lot of time studying religions in addition to this, on the basis that I felt I should be knowledgeable to discuss things with Christians until I learned two things.

1) Most Christians won't discuss shiat.
2) I was wasting time learning about something that is completely pointless, and has no place in my life in an effort to placate some idiots who worship a book. I feel the same way about Twilight fans.


Define "most" Christians? Without resorting to broad-stripe stereotyping, I doubt that you can. Tell me, for instance, what an Armenian is. Define covenant theology. Tell me in what ways Wesley disagreed with Luther. I doubt that you can.

You're right: you don't take Christians seriously, so why should they take you seriously?

You are just another angry adolescent shooting his mouth off on the internet.
 
2009-03-25 10:49:26 AM
maddogdelta: Deuce McStinkle: Sure, if you say so. You must be right. After all, you say you are.

Another statement without any facts to back them up.

Continue, please.


I could say the same thing. Keep it up; you're doing fine.
 
2009-03-25 10:50:26 AM
Words to live by...
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." (Stephen F. Roberts)
 
2009-03-25 10:51:28 AM
Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle:

If you are a Christian, you necessarily believe in a genocider god. While Christians aren't beholden to the strictures of the Old Testament, it's still the same deity and it's still canonical. Yahweh explicitly commanded genocides against the Canaanites and several other peoples, going so far as to punish an Israelite leader who kept some of the livestock instead of killing them as well. (Although Moses was permitted to keep the young virginal girls in a few instances, if I recall correctly.)

You must necessarily believe in a garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, and so on. Original sin is inherited from Adam as a result of the Fall, when Adam and Eve were ejected from the garden for eating of the tree. Without the Fall, we did not inherit Adam's sin, and Christ died for nothing. Belief in the ejection from the garden is necessary for your theological worldview.

If you are a Christian, you must necessarily deny the findings of cognitive neurobiology, as they disprove the existence of the soul. In science, a claim is disproven when a theory comes along which is better supported by evidence and which has superior predictive power. This is why Germ theory is said to have disproven the competing explanation that evil spirits cause illness; it explains all of the observable facts, it's better supported by evidence, and it enabled us to predict the characteristics of microorganisms responsible for disease so that we might better combat them. Likewise, the materialist model of consciousness is supported by heaps of evidence and is the predictive basis of many treatments for localized brain damage and hereditary neurological disorders. In the scientific sense, the soul is disproven, although creationists are raising a stink over it as explained in one of the links above. You find yourself in the same camp as these creationists with regards to cognitive neurobiology because the existence of the soul is necessary for your theological worldview.

If you are a Christian, you also must necessarily deny evidence from particle physics research which indicates that the big bang was a natural, self-catalyzing event. You deny this because divine creation is necessary for your theological worldview.

Shall I go on?


Wow.

And you would probably say that Christians confuse science and religion.

I'm not interested in backing my claims with scientific fact. Religion and science are two different things. That's why public schools have no business teaching creationism in the classroom.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding: science is the search for verifiable fact; religion is the search for transcendent truth.
 
2009-03-25 10:53:42 AM
cybrwzrd: In regards to abortion, here is another fun fact. Humans naturally miscarry upwards of 50% of all conceptions.

In 2008 alone there were roughly 136,000,000 births world wide. Tsis also means at most 136,000,000 "children" are aborted each year by natural causes.


Sometimes adults die too, so we should just make it legal to kill them if you want.

/ There's a difference between accidents and murder.
 
2009-03-25 10:53:47 AM
The Name: It's precisely because of books like Leviticus that I laugh at people who try to pwn Christians by quoting the Old Testament.

Oh, I seem to have missed a memo... When exactly did Christians stop citing Leviticus to prop up the oppression of homosexuals?

You do realize that this is why non-Christians bring it up, right? Because "a la carte" Leviticus is still relevant to a disturbing number of Christians.

But I guess you'll say that they aren't "true" Christians, or some such nonsense.

Some Christians are well aware of the "intolerance" (as we moderns would call it) and heavy-handedness of the Old Testament.

FTFY. Others would like to throw out the Constitution and replace it with Mosaic law.
 
2009-03-25 10:56:04 AM
Deuce McStinkle: I could say the same thing. Keep it up; you're doing fine.

Might I again point out that your first claim was that atheists don't read or have never read the bible? I pointed out that your statement was in error, as I have read the bible. I can also direct you to many atheists who have read the bible, and some who are even regarded as scholastic experts on the bible.

Where did I make the claim of inerrancy? Who am I, the Pope?
 
2009-03-25 10:56:38 AM
quisph: Others would like to throw out the Constitution and replace it with Mosaic law.

My God. What a bad idea. Who in the world would want to do such a thing. Not me, and not any Christian I know.
 
2009-03-25 10:59:57 AM
maddogdelta: Deuce McStinkle: I could say the same thing. Keep it up; you're doing fine.

Might I again point out that your first claim was that atheists don't read or have never read the bible? I pointed out that your statement was in error, as I have read the bible. I can also direct you to many atheists who have read the bible, and some who are even regarded as scholastic experts on the bible.

Where did I make the claim of inerrancy? Who am I, the Pope?


I wouldn't know anything about the Pope; I'm Protestant.

You've still not indicated that you're familiar with the Bible. I'm waiting for you to show me that you have some kind of reading sensitivity to the differences among the literary genres in the Bible. Explain to me the difference between an epistle and a psalm. Tell me who wrote Hebrews. Tell me what genre Leviticus is. Tell me who the original audience of Deuteronomy was. Tell me the historical background of the prophet Hosea.

I doubt that you can, but I'll wait while you hit Wikipedia.
 
2009-03-25 11:05:31 AM
serial_crusher: cybrwzrd: In regards to abortion, here is another fun fact. Humans naturally miscarry upwards of 50% of all conceptions.

In 2008 alone there were roughly 136,000,000 births world wide. Tsis also means at most 136,000,000 "children" are aborted each year by natural causes.

Sometimes adults die too, so we should just make it legal to kill them if you want.

/ There's a difference between accidents and murder.


An adult also posseses self conciouness, an embryo or fetus does not.

That Cow/Pig/Fish/Chicken you will eat at lunch today has a higher degree of life than a fetus.
 
2009-03-25 11:06:04 AM
Deuce McStinkle: "Wow.

And you would probably say that Christians confuse science and religion."


In what sense?

Deuce McStinkle: "I'm not interested in backing my claims with scientific fact. Religion and science are two different things. That's why public schools have no business teaching creationism in the classroom."

They have no business teaching creationism because it's been soundly disproven, as is the supernatural explanation for consciousness. It's a great example of religion making claims about reality, and being hilariously wrong. In fact that seems to be a bit of a historical pattern.

Deuce McStinkle: " seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding: science is the search for verifiable fact"

Any time religion speaks of reality, it treads into the domain of science.

Deuce McStinkle: "Religion is the search for transcendent truth."

How's that going, by the way? Turned up any transcendant truths in the past few millenia?

I might point out that I did not speak only of science. I pointed out a very plain theological issue in my first paragraph which you have not addressed. In fact, you've not addressed any of it.


Are you, or are you not a Christian?

Do you or do you not believe in souls?

Do you or do you not believe God created the universe?

Did God command genocides in the Bible, or did he not?


If you are a Christian, if you believe in souls, if you believe God created the universe and if I'm correct that the God you worship commanded genocides, then everything I've said is correct, and all you've done is evade the implications.
 
2009-03-25 11:08:42 AM
If you are a Christian you are a delusional fool with daddy issues.

No amount of WHAAARRRGARBLE is going to change that.

/you have wasted your life on an illusion.
 
2009-03-25 11:08:58 AM
Deuce McStinkle: "My God. What a bad idea. Who in the world would want to do such a thing. Not me, and not any Christian I know."

Apparently enough of them think it's a good idea that this guy nearly made the nomination:

i63.photobucket.com

And this woman came close to being the president of the United States:

i63.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-25 11:09:50 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Explain to me the difference between an epistle and a psalm.

You mean the difference between a letter and a prayer?

Tell me who wrote Hebrews

Since it wasn't signed, we don't really know, do we..

However, I never claimed that I was a religious scholar. I was countering your claim that atheists have never read the bible. When I demonstrated familiarity, you then moved the goalposts so that for me to demonstrate expertise to your satisfaction, not only do I have to have read the bible, but now I need Bart Ehrman's level of knowledge.

Moving the goalposts is a common theist argument tactic.

I doubt that you can, but I'll wait while you hit Wikipedia.

Since I never claimed that level of expertise, I don't see how this is relevant.

Or does someone need to have a phd in Theology before they understand enough about Christianity in order to become a Christian?
 
2009-03-25 11:10:41 AM
Deuce McStinkle: maddogdelta: Deuce McStinkle: I could say the same thing. Keep it up; you're doing fine.

Might I again point out that your first claim was that atheists don't read or have never read the bible? I pointed out that your statement was in error, as I have read the bible. I can also direct you to many atheists who have read the bible, and some who are even regarded as scholastic experts on the bible.

Where did I make the claim of inerrancy? Who am I, the Pope?

I wouldn't know anything about the Pope; I'm Protestant.

You've still not indicated that you're familiar with the Bible. I'm waiting for you to show me that you have some kind of reading sensitivity to the differences among the literary genres in the Bible. Explain to me the difference between an epistle and a psalm. Tell me who wrote Hebrews. Tell me what genre Leviticus is. Tell me who the original audience of Deuteronomy was. Tell me the historical background of the prophet Hosea.

I doubt that you can, but I'll wait while you hit Wikipedia.


I never read Mein Kampf but I know Hitler was crazy. Just because we aren't experts on your little book of fairy tales doesn't mean that we are unqualified to call you an idiot.
 
2009-03-25 11:11:09 AM
The Icelander: thespindrifter: Christ called for Peace and Love, to the Jew first and to the Gentile also; Hitler called for hate and murder. It isn't too hard to figure out that power politics, not Christianity, was the real motivating factor here, and usually is. It isn't "No real Scotsman", it's a fact. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... but if it moos? Hmmm, might be a different critter.

If that's the case, then most Christians aren't really Christians.

DING, DING, DING, DING. We have a winner.

Very rarely will you ever meet a "Christian" that actually follows the teachings of Christ, I think that these folks get caught up in being part of the mob and neglect to comprehend what it is that Christ was saying. They believe but they don't listen, They have faith but they refuse to understand.

I am also amused at how many Christians wanted to go to war in Iraq, that is some peaceful, "love thy neighbor" religion you got there, Lou.

The biggest downfall of Christianity will be the Christians themselves...
 
2009-03-25 11:12:07 AM
All beliefs are intolerant of all other beliefs.

Until you really understand what they're on about, criticism from the outside is pointless.

Atheists strike me as negative people: they know what they don't want because they don't know what they want.
 
2009-03-25 11:17:15 AM
Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle: "Wow.

And you would probably say that Christians confuse science and religion."

In what sense?

Deuce McStinkle: "I'm not interested in backing my claims with scientific fact. Religion and science are two different things. That's why public schools have no business teaching creationism in the classroom."

They have no business teaching creationism because it's been soundly disproven, as is the supernatural explanation for consciousness. It's a great example of religion making claims about reality, and being hilariously wrong. In fact that seems to be a bit of a historical pattern.

Deuce McStinkle: " seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding: science is the search for verifiable fact"

Any time religion speaks of reality, it treads into the domain of science.

Deuce McStinkle: "Religion is the search for transcendent truth."

How's that going, by the way? Turned up any transcendant truths in the past few millenia?

I might point out that I did not speak only of science. I pointed out a very plain theological issue in my first paragraph which you have not addressed. In fact, you've not addressed any of it.


Are you, or are you not a Christian?

Do you or do you not believe in souls?

Do you or do you not believe God created the universe?

Did God command genocides in the Bible, or did he not?


If you are a Christian, if you believe in souls, if you believe God created the universe and if I'm correct that the God you worship commanded genocides, then everything I've said is correct, and all you've done is evade the implications.


1. One doesn't have to believe in a literal seven-day creation period to believe in original sin. That's your assumption.

2. I'm not sure what "genocide" you're addressing. Please be specific.

3. Of course, I'm a Christian. But I also voted for Obama; I don't think that creationism belongs in public schools; I support homosexual civil unions; and I think that a good majority of so-called Christian today engender people like you: those who think that a small sect of a religion represent all of it.

4. Slice it how you wish, my friend. You seem to be convinced in your moral righteousness.
 
2009-03-25 11:18:52 AM
Conservationist: "Atheists strike me as negative people: they know what they don't want because they don't know what they want."

Read up on the history of the Freethought movement. Of course we don't all want exactly the same things, because we're a bunch of people connected only by our lack of theism, but there are a few shared interests, such as preserving the secular character of our government and advancing secular enlightenment ideals like freedom of thought.

Beyond that, it isn't really meaningful to ask what atheists believe, but rather what an individual atheist believes. Would you know what I, personally, stand for?
 
2009-03-25 11:19:31 AM
mloree:

I never read Mein Kampf but I know Hitler was crazy. Just because we aren't experts on your little book of fairy tales doesn't mean that we are unqualified to call you an idiot.


Actually, that is exactly what makes you unqualified.

If I posted what a grand guy Hitler was and what a great person he was, you'd tell me to read Mein Kampf, no? Just so I could see the truth?

You've not read scripture; you have no understanding of it. You're not angry at Christianity. You are angry at the small section of Christians to which you've been exposed.
 
2009-03-25 11:23:15 AM
My parents never took me to church and I never learned anything in the Bible until I was forced to read some of it in Lit class in college. It freaking pissed me off so bad, especially the whole hating women and minorities thing! Although late in life, I realized then that the Bible was just a tool used to control people and is reinterpreted over and and over again to fit someone's goals...just like the US Constitution. They can do whatever they want by using their made up God and/or their made up laws. There are better ways to get people to treat each other with respect, but most of the powerful people of the past and future aren't so interested in that. Let's just start over from the beginning and try this humanity thing again.
 
2009-03-25 11:23:26 AM
maddogdelta: Deuce McStinkle: Explain to me the difference between an epistle and a psalm.

You mean the difference between a letter and a prayer?

Tell me who wrote Hebrews

Since it wasn't signed, we don't really know, do we..

However, I never claimed that I was a religious scholar. I was countering your claim that atheists have never read the bible. When I demonstrated familiarity, you then moved the goalposts so that for me to demonstrate expertise to your satisfaction, not only do I have to have read the bible, but now I need Bart Ehrman's level of knowledge.

Moving the goalposts is a common theist argument tactic.

I doubt that you can, but I'll wait while you hit Wikipedia.

Since I never claimed that level of expertise, I don't see how this is relevant.

Or does someone need to have a phd in Theology before they understand enough about Christianity in order to become a Christian?


Wow. You really missed the point, didn't you?

It's relevant, my friend, because you are attacking the Bible. If I started shooting my mouth off about science, you'd hit me with all of your cut-and-paste facts from the internet and claim that I don't know enough to argue.

I know that this may be hard for you to swallow, but all Christians aren't stupid. A large number of us reject neoconservative thought. A large number of us reject the co-opting of our religion by those with political aims.

I'm not "Moving the Goalposts" (what book did you get that one from?) I'm dealing with the issues.

Now, I'm certain that you're going to accuse me of some other "theist" stunt, so I'll wait.
 
2009-03-25 11:25:00 AM
Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle: "My God. What a bad idea. Who in the world would want to do such a thing. Not me, and not any Christian I know."

Apparently enough of them think it's a good idea that this guy nearly made the nomination: Mike Huckabee



And this woman came close to being the president of the United States: Sarah Palin


What's your point? I supported neither of them.
 
2009-03-25 11:26:02 AM
Deuce McStinkle: 2. I'm not sure what "genocide" you're addressing. Please be specific.

And you claim to have read the bible?
I'll give you 2 examples, the Amalekites
1 Samuel 15:2-3 (New International Version)

2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

And the Mindinites
Numbers 31:7-40 (King James Version)

7And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

8And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.

9And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

10And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.

11And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.

12And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.

13And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.

14And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
 
2009-03-25 11:26:12 AM
mloree: Deuce McStinkle: maddogdelta: Deuce McStinkle: I could say the same thing. Keep it up; you're doing fine.

Might I again point out that your first claim was that atheists don't read or have never read the bible? I pointed out that your statement was in error, as I have read the bible. I can also direct you to many atheists who have read the bible, and some who are even regarded as scholastic experts on the bible.

Where did I make the claim of inerrancy? Who am I, the Pope?

I wouldn't know anything about the Pope; I'm Protestant.

You've still not indicated that you're familiar with the Bible. I'm waiting for you to show me that you have some kind of reading sensitivity to the differences among the literary genres in the Bible. Explain to me the difference between an epistle and a psalm. Tell me who wrote Hebrews. Tell me what genre Leviticus is. Tell me who the original audience of Deuteronomy was. Tell me the historical background of the prophet Hosea.

I doubt that you can, but I'll wait while you hit Wikipedia.

I never read Mein Kampf but I know Hitler was crazy. Just because we aren't experts on your little book of fairy tales doesn't mean that we are unqualified to call you an idiot.


Awesome Godwin.
 
2009-03-25 11:28:43 AM
Deuce McStinkle: "1. One doesn't have to believe in a literal seven-day creation period to believe in original sin. That's your assumption."

No, I never said such a thing, and it's not my position. I said only that one must believe that the fall from grace occurred, and thus there was a garden, an Adam and Eve and so on. I never mentioned literal six day creation (the seventh was a day of rest) anywhere.

Deuce McStinkle: "2. I'm not sure what "genocide" you're addressing. Please be specific."

The genocide of the Canaanites. Israelites were promised land inhabited by several indigenous peoples, and the Israelites were instructed to kill every man, woman and child in most instances (except where they kept virginal girls for themselves) and to burn the buildings to the ground, and to kill all of the livestock.

Deuce McStinkle: "3. Of course, I'm a Christian. But I also voted for Obama; I don't think that creationism belongs in public schools; I support homosexual civil unions; and I think that a good majority of so-called Christian today engender people like you: those who think that a small sect of a religion represent all of it."

Would it surprise you to know that 40% of Americans overall don't accept evolution? In a nation that is 85% Christian, it's not hard to work out the difference and realize that the proportion of Christians who take a literal reading of Genesis are hardly a "small sect".

Deuce McStinkle: "4. Slice it how you wish, my friend. You seem to be convinced in your moral righteousness."

Come off it. You've brought up who you voted for, what rights you support, literally everything except the issues I raised. You answered only one of several questions, and you've spent several posts now evading the rest.

Do you believe in souls?

Do you believe in a creator God?

Did God command genocides or not?

For that matter, what's your take on God's permission to keep slaves?
 
2009-03-25 11:31:32 AM
maddogdelta: Deuce McStinkle: 2. I'm not sure what "genocide" you're addressing. Please be specific.

And you claim to have read the bible?
I'll give you 2 examples, the Amalekites
1 Samuel 15:2-3 (New International Version)

2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

And the Mindinites
Numbers 31:7-40 (King James Version)

7And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

8And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.

9And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

10And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.

11And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.

12And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.

13And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.

14And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.


And? So what?

God gets to make those decisions; you don't.

I'm well aware of the history in the OT. I'm not seeing your point here. Just because these folks were killed doesn't undercut my Christianity.

Once again, however, you're missing the big point. Before the new covenant, Israel were God's chosen. God used Israel in the OT to dispense his wrath and his divine justice.

Just because you don't understand why God decided to have these people killed doesn't undercut the truth of Christianity.

See, you want it your way and your way only: you want God (or not) to conform to your vision. You want the world to be simple, easily understandable. You want to believe that human perception can grasp all truth. My Lord, friend. It can't.

So, yes, God had some people killed in the OT. I'm still not seeing your point.
 
2009-03-25 11:33:35 AM
Zamboro:

Come off it. You've brought up who you voted for, what rights you support, literally everything except the issues I raised. You answered only one of several questions, and you've spent several posts now evading the rest.

Do you believe in souls?

Do you believe in a creator God?

Did God command genocides or not?

For that matter, what's your take on God's permission to keep slaves?


1. Of course I believe in a soul.

2. Of course I believe in a creator God.

3. You're pulling out of context again, misunderstanding the cultural background of a text.
 
2009-03-25 11:34:05 AM
the point is there is no God that can be explained in a book....just heathen men.
 
2009-03-25 11:35:26 AM
Deuce McStinkle: "So, yes, God had some people killed in the OT. I'm still not seeing your point."

"Killed some people"? It was a classically defined genocide. Whole populations were exterminated, down to evey last X, where X is "Canaanite", or any of the other tribes indigenous to the region when the Israelites swept through.

It's genocide. A holocaust. Your God commanded it. You worship a cosmic Hitler.
 
2009-03-25 11:36:14 AM
Mekongcola:

So if he pops out of the tomb and sees his shadow, does that mean 6 more weeks of Lent?

/love the pic!
 
2009-03-25 11:36:20 AM
Always an entertaining topic. Love the comic posts!

Try the site Why Does God Hate Amputees (new window) for a fun read.
 
2009-03-25 11:42:05 AM
Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle: "So, yes, God had some people killed in the OT. I'm still not seeing your point."

"Killed some people"? It was a classically defined genocide. Whole populations were exterminated, down to evey last X, where X is "Canaanite", or any of the other tribes indigenous to the region when the Israelites swept through.

It's genocide. A holocaust. Your God commanded it. You worship a cosmic Hitler.


anyone want to got for a Godwin trifecta?
 
2009-03-25 11:43:40 AM
Deuce McStinkle: "1. Of course I believe in a soul."

Then you're in the same camp as these people. The existence of the soul is contradicted by the findings of cognitive neurobiology. You're no better than a creationist in this regard.

Deuce McStinkle: "2. Of course I believe in a creator God."

Why? I've already posted links to research demonstrating a natural mechanism for causation of the big bang. What makes you think the universe must've been created?

Deuce McStinkle: "3. You're pulling out of context again, misunderstanding the cultural background of a text."

No, I'm not. You're throwing around "Out of context" as if it were a "Get out of facing the ugly brutality in the Bible free" card. I studied the Bible for hours every morning during the three years I attended a Christian academy, then at length on my own time in an Episcopal school. You may be able to use that bit on others, but it doesn't work on me, because I know when you're bullshiatting.

The context is that the Israelites, having been led by Moses into the promised land, found it inhabited by indigenous populations, which they were then commanded to completely exterminate right down to the livestock. When one military leader kept some of the livestock for himself, God lectured and punished him. The only instance in which any were spared was when Moses was permitted to keep a few thousand virginal girls for his men.

In context, all things considered, it's still inexcusable. You cannot justify genocide, and when you find yourself trying to do so, you need to stop and ask yourself what kind of monster your religious beliefs have made you into.
 
2009-03-25 11:45:01 AM
mloree: Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle: "So, yes, God had some people killed in the OT. I'm still not seeing your point."

"Killed some people"? It was a classically defined genocide. Whole populations were exterminated, down to evey last X, where X is "Canaanite", or any of the other tribes indigenous to the region when the Israelites swept through.

It's genocide. A holocaust. Your God commanded it. You worship a cosmic Hitler.

anyone want to got for a Godwin trifecta?


ubetcha


i28.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-25 11:45:03 AM
i141.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-25 11:46:16 AM
Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle: "1. Of course I believe in a soul."

Then you're in the same camp as these people. The existence of the soul is contradicted by the findings of cognitive neurobiology. You're no better than a creationist in this regard.

Deuce McStinkle: "2. Of course I believe in a creator God."

Why? I've already posted links to research demonstrating a natural mechanism for causation of the big bang. What makes you think the universe must've been created?

Deuce McStinkle: "3. You're pulling out of context again, misunderstanding the cultural background of a text."

No, I'm not. You're throwing around "Out of context" as if it were a "Get out of facing the ugly brutality in the Bible free" card. I studied the Bible for hours every morning during the three years I attended a Christian academy, then at length on my own time in an Episcopal school. You may be able to use that bit on others, but it doesn't work on me, because I know when you're bullshiatting.

The context is that the Israelites, having been led by Moses into the promised land, found it inhabited by indigenous populations, which they were then commanded to completely exterminate right down to the livestock. When one military leader kept some of the livestock for himself, God lectured and punished him. The only instance in which any were spared was when Moses was permitted to keep a few thousand virginal girls for his men.

In context, all things considered, it's still inexcusable. You cannot justify genocide, and when you find yourself trying to do so, you need to stop and ask yourself what kind of monster your religious beliefs have made you into.


Excellent PWNage, sir.
 
2009-03-25 11:48:24 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Just because you don't understand why God decided to have these people killed doesn't undercut the truth of Christianity.

So...if God has a good reason to commit genocide, then it's ok? Or is it OK because he's God, and so whatever he does is right?


And besides, I was actually addressing your question regarding genocide...To wit:

2. I'm not sure what "genocide" you're addressing. Please be specific.

I brought up 2 specific genocides, quoted straight from 1 Samuel and Numbers. I don't think these two books of the bible are part of some conspiracy to discredit God, but I would be happy to entertain any evidence you have to demonstrate that I am incorrect.

But allow me to ask you about your original post...remember, this one?

Wheeee! Look at me! I know nothing about religion, yet I feel the need to shoot off my mouth, paint with a broad brush, and stereotype all Christians.

Wheeeee!!! I've never even read the Bible! I wouldn't know an epistle from a psalm, yet I'm qualified to dismiss all forms of Christianity!

Wheeee!! Look at me! I've got internet access, so I have earned the right to speak on subjects about which I have absolutely no knowledge!

Wheee!! Look at me! I learned everything that I know about Christianity from an intro to philosophy course at my junior college and from those highly-regarded geniuses at the 4chan message boards!

Wheeeee!!!!


The basic premise was that atheists never read the bible, and paint all Christians with "a broad brush" to quote your phrase.

um.... don't you think your brush was a little broad? I had to point out to you where 2 genocides, authorized by God, are in the bible, which you seem to have forgotten, in spite of your vast knowledge of the bible.
 
2009-03-25 11:50:42 AM
I agree with the Farkers who advocate just ignoring theologians from now on.

By arguing with them, you give them the impression that their faith is something that can tested or proven true/false through logical argument. Of course, it can't be done. They've lost, and hopefully this century is marked as the one where people peacefully lose the need for a security blanket and try to think rationally in all they do.
 
2009-03-25 11:52:31 AM
Conservationist: All beliefs are intolerant of all other beliefs.

I believe you're oversimplifying things.


...douche.
 
2009-03-25 11:53:12 AM
Deuce McStinkle:

I have been following your comments through the thread and I must say that they amuse me greatly.

I do need to ask, though, why if a Christian quotes a few verses from the bible for their agenda, it is considered "Preaching the Gospel Truth", but if a non-Christian does it, it is "Quoting out of context"?

And yes, your God is a genocidal god with either no plan whatsoever or a plan so twisted and sick that it would make even the most rabid lunatic ask "What the FARK is his problem?" Think about it: If "God" so loves all people, why did "He" allow nations like the Canaanites to rise up in the first place after the flood and then order others of his 'loved creatures' to kill their 'brothers' like that?

I think it all boils down to God being a big ol' invisible Michael Vic, myself - He creates us, pens us in separate 'cages' (nations/religions), and then on days like today, 9/11, etc., he dings the bell and pits his dogs (believers) against one another for personal amusement and/or ego-stroking.
 
2009-03-25 11:54:48 AM
What_Would_Jimi_Do: Leviticus 18:22!

someone should tell these two about Leviticus 18:23...

media2.kxan.com
i.cdn.turner.com
 
2009-03-25 11:55:00 AM
mloree: "Excellent PWNage, sir."

Thanks, although it's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel.
 
2009-03-25 11:57:23 AM
thespindrifter: Hitler Bush was about as "Christ like" as Mohamed; he was being political, and his "elimination of the atheist" was a political move to stamp out the Communiststerrorists, thus eliminating the competition and consolidating his power base, not in any way as a means to truly promote "Christ". The only God Adolf Hitler Bush 43 ever worshiped was himself.

FTFY.
 
2009-03-25 12:00:29 PM
Premeditated_Road_Rage: Deuce McStinkle:

I have been following your comments through the thread and I must say that they amuse me greatly.

I do need to ask, though, why if a Christian quotes a few verses from the bible for their agenda, it is considered "Preaching the Gospel Truth", but if a non-Christian does it, it is "Quoting out of context"?

And yes, your God is a genocidal god with either no plan whatsoever or a plan so twisted and sick that it would make even the most rabid lunatic ask "What the FARK is his problem?" Think about it: If "God" so loves all people, why did "He" allow nations like the Canaanites to rise up in the first place after the flood and then order others of his 'loved creatures' to kill their 'brothers' like that?

I think it all boils down to God being a big ol' invisible Michael Vic, myself - He creates us, pens us in separate 'cages' (nations/religions), and then on days like today, 9/11, etc., he dings the bell and pits his dogs (believers) against one another for personal amusement and/or ego-stroking.


damn. that's the best explanation of the meaning of life I've ever heard.

/newsletter?
 
2009-03-25 12:03:48 PM
Zamboro: The existence of the soul is contradicted by the findings of cognitive neurobiology. You're no better than a creationist in this regard.

That's about the biggest leap of faith I've ever seen. Consciousness is all codified now, eh? I guess they'll be rolling them off the assembly lines any day now.
 
2009-03-25 12:04:19 PM
theinsultabot9000: give me doughnuts: theinsultabot9000: maybe you are for it because you think its just America. she should have her freedom of choice. ok, i can see that, land of the free, sound reasoning. you have a point. but if your argument is i or anyone else should give two shiats about a group of woman whose soul common link is that they were to incompetent to avoid pregnancy and to stupid to decide that of all her options, gutting herself with a coat hanger, thus eliminating not one but two genetic failures. i just don't see the point. in my opinion that is actually a valid point on the side of pro-lifers, that there stance indirectly benefits the genetic health of humanity

What valid point?

a main talking point of pro-choice people is that many woman will still have abortions, it will just be far more dangerous, because instead of practiced and sterilized equipment it will be back alley med school rejects using coat hangers, when problems inevitably develop, the woman and the child to be both die.

currently, an abortion is relatively safe for the woman, so right now any woman having an abortion is by nature farking retarded, she is underoing a simple procedure. but if pro-lifers wanted to make the point that any woman who went to the back alleyway and got herself killed, we are talking about not only the removal of both the grossly incompetent and/or stupid, but one who has already proven herself fertile. thats darwinism, and a valid point on the side of any who wished to see abortion outlawed


Why do you hate the coat-hanger industry?
 
2009-03-25 12:04:59 PM
Zamboro: In context, all things considered, it's still inexcusable. You cannot justify genocide, and when you find yourself trying to do so, you need to stop and ask yourself what kind of monster your religious beliefs have made you into.

Amen

;-)

maddogdelta: So...if God has a good reason to commit genocide, then it's ok? Or is it OK because he's God, and so whatever he does is right?

Yeah, I don't think this argument can ever be won, because whenever we question something that doesn't make sense, they'll just rebut with, well, of course it doesn't make sense to US. But god in his all knowing has reasons that we don't know...

farm4.static.flickr.com

OR we'll get some fabulous circular reasoning:

farm4.static.flickr.com

So, really, we should just accept that Jesus was sent to us for a very special reason...

farm4.static.flickr.com
 
2009-03-25 12:08:01 PM
Aww, maybe I'm too late to jump into this thread, but here it goes:

We knew all our neighbors growing up with kids (the whole five of them). We were the only family on the block that did not attend a church of any kind. My mother was "spiritual" and my father was "agnostic". My sister and I didn't really care either way because we had a great childhood with loving parents.

Neighbors: Family one was devote catholic and BOTH their daughters ended up getting pregnant as teenagers. Lovely family values there. Family Two went to some church every Sunday and now has the father in prison for beating his wife to death and one son in prison for rape. Nice. Family Three was Mormom and has two gay son, two teenage daughters (twins) that are pregnant (four months apart), but the other two turned out okay. Family Four went to church every Sunday as well, but there is no more family four since he shot all the members before turning the gun on himself. Family Five is another of those abusive families, but this time it is the drugged up son who beats his mother for drug money and the father took off years ago to bang his slutty secretary. The daughter is a stripper.

Yup, religion is SUCH a positive influence on our society. Just think, their families would not be so colorful without keeping their heads constantly up their own asses.
 
2009-03-25 12:09:40 PM
trappedspirit: "That's about the biggest leap of faith I've ever seen."

No, it isn't.

trappedspirit: "Consciousness is all codified now, eh? I guess they'll be rolling them off the assembly lines any day now."

We don't fully understand life. We can't roll new lifeforms off an assembly line. Is it therefore too presumptuous, based upon what we do know, to say that it evolved?

Please read the link I provided. No, we don't understand everything about the brain, but we do know enough to say that it produces consciousness as an emergent product of the interplay between its various specialized regions. That's what it does. That's it's function, as explained in the article. Your consciousness can no more persist apart from your brain that a program can execute outside of a processor, or be stored outside of a hard drive/CD/other storage medium.
 
2009-03-25 12:10:42 PM
jekxrb: Yeah, I don't think this argument can ever be won, because whenever we question something that doesn't make sense, they'll just rebut with, well, of course it doesn't make sense to US. But god in his all knowing has reasons that we don't know...

farm4.static.flickr.com


Tracie is another favorite of mine.

Since you debunked my "separated at birth" theory, how 'bout you're the daughter I would have had if I spent more time in Canada as a youth...
// I'll even beat up jerk ex boyfriends that bug you, if you want!
 
2009-03-25 12:13:27 PM
maddogdelta: "// I'll even beat up jerk ex boyfriends that bug you, if you want!"

The minute you said this I started reading her name as jerkxb and it blew my mind a little. :p
 
2009-03-25 12:15:30 PM
a2.vox.com
 
2009-03-25 12:18:06 PM
The christian religeon is not supposed to be tolerant. In fact, it is based on intolerance, and much of this intolerance is designed to spread the word of their God.

Before I get hit with it..
"Thou shalt not judge, let ye be judged yourself.." is not a statement regarding being non-judgemental, it was regarding hypocracy, stating essentially that if you're cheating on your wife, you'd better not say how wrong it is of your neighbor to cheat on theirs.

Can anyone say, after reading the bible, that the bible is all about being non-judgemental? It's full of judgements, the entire religeon is based on the fact that society itself doesn't embrace it, and it's important to find a path that is righteous, regardless of the personal cost. How would you know the right path unless you made judgements on the options availible to you?

The apple in the garden of Eden, per the story, is the source of our ability to determine good from Evil. As the story goes, it's revealed that God didn't want that to happen, but he'll make the best of it. That ability IS the ability to determine a righteous, versus non-righteous path... the ability and REQUIREMENT to judge the actions of those around us and make decisions accordingly.

I wish I was a bit more religeous personally, but I'm not.. However, I find the whole thing fascinating. The bible functions as an excellent guide on how a society can surive and thrive together in a productive environment. It's a shame that no one seems to truly follow it's teachings anymore.

Remember, the path to heaven is (per the story) a narrow road, and not to be immediately found. Also, that treating others as we'd want to be treated is what all of the "laws" of the bible are based on.

Would you want to be told you're going to rot in hell by someone you don't agree with? Would you rather gently be told that there's another option out there.
 
2009-03-25 12:27:36 PM
twoowlz: 'What the Bleep do We Know"


That film was produced by members of the Ramtha cult (new window) based in the Pacific Northwest, which believes that its leader is in telepathic contact with an ancient Atlantean warrior prince named Ramtha. The interviews were held under false pretenses and many of the physicists who appear in the film have since condemned it as they weren't told about the new age angle the film would have.

It's pseudoscience (new window), and I hope you don't take it seriously.
 
2009-03-25 12:27:51 PM
Zamboro: maddogdelta: "// I'll even beat up jerk ex boyfriends that bug you, if you want!"

The minute you said this I started reading her name as jerkxb and it blew my mind a little. :p


*sigh*

While I do have several of those, that was NOT in any way the origin of my handle. :P
 
2009-03-25 12:29:12 PM
jaylectricity: Gasoline for the hellfire.

Fark TAA in the ear. He's a douche of colossal proportions.

/6.9 atheist
 
2009-03-25 12:29:50 PM
almafuerte: Let evolution decide. Stop being considerate to each other. That kills evolution.

img1.fark.net

Evolution selects at all levels, including those both larger and smaller that the individual organism.
 
2009-03-25 12:29:57 PM
There has never been so self-serving a logically fallacy, to the religious, as the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. It's amazing, just watch it in action:

P1: "Man that guy is a real homophobic, racist, *sshole. Always using his Christian faith as an excuse for his bad behaviour."
P2: "Oh, he doesn't count. He's not a 'true Christian'."
-------
P1: "Wow, look at that guy over there spreading love and charity."
P2: "Since he is doing good works that mean he must be, by definition, a 'true Christian'."

You too can selectively own, and disown, people as members of your religious group on a whim by simply prefixing the word 'true' in front of the adjective form of your religion: Has someone who believes the same things as you recently become 'inconvenient' to your belief that only good people are members of your religion? Just say they're not a 'true' member of your faith. Cognitive dissonance resolved!

/... or is it?
 
2009-03-25 12:32:28 PM
Premeditated_Road_Rage: Deuce McStinkle:

I have been following your comments through the thread and I must say that they amuse me greatly.

I do need to ask, though, why if a Christian quotes a few verses from the bible for their agenda, it is considered "Preaching the Gospel Truth", but if a non-Christian does it, it is "Quoting out of context"?

And yes, your God is a genocidal god with either no plan whatsoever or a plan so twisted and sick that it would make even the most rabid lunatic ask "What the FARK is his problem?" Think about it: If "God" so loves all people, why did "He" allow nations like the Canaanites to rise up in the first place after the flood and then order others of his 'loved creatures' to kill their 'brothers' like that?

I think it all boils down to God being a big ol' invisible Michael Vic, myself - He creates us, pens us in separate 'cages' (nations/religions), and then on days like today, 9/11, etc., he dings the bell and pits his dogs (believers) against one another for personal amusement and/or ego-stroking.


THIS. Except in my religion we call him Ron Mexico.
 
2009-03-25 12:35:26 PM
bushbot111: That "Help we're being oppressed" graph really makes no sense. It implies that a statistical majority cannot be oppressed, which is simply not true. I'd wager fewer than 1/3 of farkers actually understand that concept. That being said, Christians are not being oppressed.

That always bugged me too. By that logic, blacks were never oppressed in South Africa.
 
2009-03-25 12:35:37 PM
Dead-Guy

The bible functions as an excellent guide on how a society can surive and thrive together in a productive environment. It's a shame that no one seems to truly follow it's teachings anymore.

I think they still stone people for sexual "immorality" in some places in the world...

Also, that treating others as we'd want to be treated is what all of the "laws" of the bible are based on.

How does "rapists and their victims must be married, and the victim's father paid in silver, if the victim was a virgin prior to the rape" reflect the Golden Rule?
 
2009-03-25 12:36:16 PM
Premeditated_Road_Rage: I do need to ask, though, why if a Christian quotes a few verses from the bible for their agenda, it is considered "Preaching the Gospel Truth", but if a non-Christian does it, it is "Quoting out of context"?

That's a brilliant point. Whenever a Christian quotes something from the bible, I'm now going to say it's out of context. :D

That should get me a few good reactions.
 
2009-03-25 12:36:46 PM
Zamboro: twoowlz: 'What the Bleep do We Know"


That film was produced by members of the Ramtha cult (new window) based in the Pacific Northwest, which believes that its leader is in telepathic contact with an ancient Atlantean warrior prince named Ramtha. The interviews were held under false pretenses and many of the physicists who appear in the film have since condemned it as they weren't told about the new age angle the film would have.

It's pseudoscience (new window), and I hope you don't take it seriously.


I didn't know about the scientists condemning the film. Yeah, I thought the Ramtha thing was weird, but mostly because that woman is scary looking...but fun to consider none the less...and a lot more believable and kind spirited than the bible in my opinion. I believe the whole Edgar Cayce thing so the idea of Ramtha is not so far fetched in my little world.
 
2009-03-25 12:39:13 PM
The Name: EL_FABREZ: What_Would_Jimi_Do: Leviticus 18:22!


Leviticus is some crazy shiat. Eat shellfish? Stoning. Cut your hair? Stoning. Wife cheats on you? Stoning. Flat nose? No heaven for you. Crippled? Ditto. Wear two different types of fabric? BZZZT!

You have to laugh at anybody who says they take the bible literally.

It's precisely because of books like Leviticus that I laugh at people who try to pwn Christians by quoting the Old Testament. Since it's fairly early in this thread still, I'll give the atheists to come a little tip:

Christians are well aware of the "intolerance" (as we moderns would call it) and heavy-handedness of the Old Testament. This barbarity contrasted with the pacifism of Jesus Christ is precisely one of the differences distinguishing the Old Testament from the New Testament. I'd go into the theology and apologetics a bit, but I've smoked too much wacky tobacky.



But isn't Leviticus one of the primary arguments against gay marriage? You can quote Leviticus when it suits you, but disregard it when it says something you don't agree with. Thats just picking and choosing.

And if you pick and choose which moral guidelines to follow, then why do you need the bible?

Not you specifically, just generally speaking.
 
2009-03-25 12:42:16 PM
BergZ: Just say they're not a 'true' member of your faith. Cognitive dissonance resolved!

That's what religion is all about. Vague, ever changing answers and sidestepping the issues so that cognitive dissonance and illogic can be 'avoided'.

Here's an example of a good Christian:

farm4.static.flickr.com


maddogdelta: Since you debunked my "separated at birth" theory, how 'bout you're the daughter I would have had if I spent more time in Canada as a youth...

Are you asking me to call you Daddy? hmmmm.... ;-)
 
2009-03-25 12:43:23 PM
Zamboro: The context is that the Israelites, having been led by Moses into the promised land, found it inhabited by indigenous populations, which they were then commanded to completely exterminate right down to the livestock.

Actually, the archeology suggests that's an even bigger myth than the claim that Rome was founded by twin sons of the God of War who were nursed by a wolf.

So, the context appears to be: this is the story the locals made up to make themselves sound impressive.

hailin: Just think, their families would not be so colorful without keeping their heads constantly up their own asses.

The scary part is the historical odds imply that they'd be even more colorful without religion to instill a howsoever ignored moral framework. (Yes, other bases for frameworks are possible; they just don't has as well-proven a record yet.)
 
2009-03-25 12:51:36 PM
jekxrb: Anti-God is Anti-American



"Take that, you anti-American traitor!"

"Noooo, foiled again!"

i224.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-25 12:52:15 PM
Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle: "So, yes, God had some people killed in the OT. I'm still not seeing your point."

"Killed some people"? It was a classically defined genocide. Whole populations were exterminated, down to evey last X, where X is "Canaanite", or any of the other tribes indigenous to the region when the Israelites swept through.

It's genocide. A holocaust. Your God commanded it. You worship a cosmic Hitler.


they were wicked idolators. God judged the Canaanites, and wiped them out. not the first time. remember the flood?

won't be the last time either.
 
2009-03-25 12:54:01 PM
abb3w: "Actually, the archeology suggests that's an even bigger myth than the claim that Rome was founded by twin sons of the God of War who were nursed by a wolf.

So, the context appears to be: this is the story the locals made up to make themselves sound impressive."


I'm aware. There aren't human remains where you'd expect them nor in the quantities described, no ruins of kingdoms where the Torah claims they once stood, stuff like that.

The relevant issue here is not whether it happened, but why Christians who do believe it happened are willing to rationalize genocide. It's the thought that counts, as it were.

twoowlz: "I didn't know about the scientists condemning the film. Yeah, I thought the Ramtha thing was weird, but mostly because that woman is scary looking...but fun to consider none the less...and a lot more believable and kind spirited than the bible in my opinion. I believe the whole Edgar Cayce thing so the idea of Ramtha is not so far fetched in my little world."

It is fun to consider. And 'kind spirited'. But then, wishful thinking is very seductive, and rarely leads us to correct conclusions. Let us believe something because the evidence supports it, not because it's appealing and desirable. Down that path lies self-deception.

The reason we see so much Deepak Chopra style quantum quackery nowadays is because it's in its relative infancy as a science, and it's still poorly understood. Back when electricity had only just been harnessed and put to good use, there was a great deal of similar quackery going on:

i63.photobucket.com

This is exactly what it looks like. Electricity was often portrayed as some sort of mystical 'vital force', and those lacking energy were told that electric belts, caps, even electrified floors in all homes would restore their vital energies. Much like modern quantum quacks, they never explained the actual mechanism whereby electricity was supposed to accomplish such a thing, they were just throwing around scientific sounding words in order to get dubious ideas past the already limited critical thinking faculties of the public. A sort of 'science cloak' to wrap supernatural concepts in so as to slip them under our radars.

What the Bleep do we Know makes essentially the same claim as the bestselling book advocated by Oprah Winfrey, "The Secret"; that asking 'the universe' for things will result in actually receiving those things, that focusing on things you want somehow 'attracts' them to you. The mechanism is never explained, of course.
 
2009-03-25 12:54:51 PM
Ranger Joe: I reject your mythology and substitute a magical diety of my own.

Thor and Odin for the motherfarking win!
 
2009-03-25 12:56:54 PM
colon_pow: "they were wicked idolators. God judged the Canaanites, and wiped them out. not the first time. remember the flood?"

We might consider the people of Afghanistan or North Korea to be wicked. Does that authorize us to exterminate them?

colon_pow: "Won't be the last time either."

You're right, it won't be the last time. Not so long as there are people out there who believe that there are circumstances in which it's okay to exterminate whole populations. I'm lookin' at you, buddy.
 
2009-03-25 01:02:50 PM
Zamboro, the mechanism will be explained---you'll see. Or maybe you won't see since you know everything already.
 
2009-03-25 01:05:57 PM
Zamboro: colon_pow: "they were wicked idolators. God judged the Canaanites, and wiped them out. not the first time. remember the flood?"

We might consider the people of Afghanistan or North Korea to be wicked. Does that authorize us to exterminate them?


I dunno, colon_pow certainly scared me. The only reason any of us will ever do the right thing is because if we don't, we won't get into heaven, which is the only real goal of all existence. The Old Testament God guided the notion of human morality through fear and death, but the "New God" says that all we have to do is accept Jesus, and we'll have eternal life.
If we don't, we will die, and that's scary.
 
2009-03-25 01:11:01 PM
jekxrb: Are you asking me to call you Daddy? hmmmm.... ;-)

Well...ummm...errr **blushes...stares at shoes***

colon_pow: they were wicked idolators. God judged the Canaanites, and wiped them out. not the first time. remember the flood?

won't be the last time either.


I guess might makes right, then.
 
2009-03-25 01:17:01 PM
Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle: "So, yes, God had some people killed in the OT. I'm still not seeing your point."

"Killed some people"? It was a classically defined genocide. Whole populations were exterminated, down to evey last X, where X is "Canaanite", or any of the other tribes indigenous to the region when the Israelites swept through.

It's genocide. A holocaust. Your God commanded it. You worship a cosmic Hitler.


Wrong. Fundamental flaw in logic.

Hitler: human, subject to God's law. Profane. Fallen. Unable to do any good whatosever. Base. Subject to his own limited understanding of the universe.

God: immortal, not human, subject to His will and His will alone. Sacred. Transcendent. Beyond measuring. Sees all times simultaneously.

You can't fit God into your tiny understanding of human nature.
 
2009-03-25 01:17:57 PM
Deuce McStinkle: 4. Slice it how you wish, my friend. You seem to be convinced in your moral righteousness.

So genocide is okay if god tells me to do it?
 
2009-03-25 01:18:20 PM
one of my co-workers is all "JC"
so I says, "so you're against the death penalty, right?"
"nope" he says.
says I, "but what if an innocent man is put to death by mistake?"
"better that an innocent man die than the guilty go free." he says.
says I, " but if an innocent man dies then by default the one guilty of the murder has gone free."
"no, that means we have executed the guilty person." he says.
says I" but we didn't execute the person who committed the crime"
"but we did execute the person found guilty of the crime" he says.

he still could not fathom that an Athiest held a more moral, more JC position than he did.
 
2009-03-25 01:18:36 PM
Deuce McStinkle: God: immortal, not human, subject to His will and His will alone. Sacred. Transcendent. Beyond measuring. Sees all times simultaneously.

[evidence needed]
 
2009-03-25 01:19:02 PM
Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle: "1. Of course I believe in a soul."

Then you're in the same camp as these people. The existence of the soul is contradicted by the findings of cognitive neurobiology. You're no better than a creationist in this regard.

Deuce McStinkle: "2. Of course I believe in a creator God."

Why? I've already posted links to research demonstrating a natural mechanism for causation of the big bang. What makes you think the universe must've been created?

Deuce McStinkle: "3. You're pulling out of context again, misunderstanding the cultural background of a text."

No, I'm not. You're throwing around "Out of context" as if it were a "Get out of facing the ugly brutality in the Bible free" card. I studied the Bible for hours every morning during the three years I attended a Christian academy, then at length on my own time in an Episcopal school. You may be able to use that bit on others, but it doesn't work on me, because I know when you're bullshiatting.

The context is that the Israelites, having been led by Moses into the promised land, found it inhabited by indigenous populations, which they were then commanded to completely exterminate right down to the livestock. When one military leader kept some of the livestock for himself, God lectured and punished him. The only instance in which any were spared was when Moses was permitted to keep a few thousand virginal girls for his men.

In context, all things considered, it's still inexcusable. You cannot justify genocide, and when you find yourself trying to do so, you need to stop and ask yourself what kind of monster your religious beliefs have made you into.


It's inexcusable if a HUMAN did it. God is not human. He is above all things. If God wanted me to catch fire right now, then I would. And I'd have no reason to biatch; neither would you. You're not immortal. You don't have a full understanding of all things. You don't see the universe and time as He does.

In short, you're not God, and that, above all things, is what angers atheists: the idea that their eternal fates DO NOT rest in their hands.
 
2009-03-25 01:19:46 PM
Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: mloree: Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle: "So, yes, God had some people killed in the OT. I'm still not seeing your point."

"Killed some people"? It was a classically defined genocide. Whole populations were exterminated, down to evey last X, where X is "Canaanite", or any of the other tribes indigenous to the region when the Israelites swept through.

It's genocide. A holocaust. Your God commanded it. You worship a cosmic Hitler.

anyone want to got for a Godwin trifecta?

ubetcha


Still wrong. Keep trying. Keep failing.
 
2009-03-25 01:20:27 PM
Deuce McStinkle: Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle: "So, yes, God had some people killed in the OT. I'm still not seeing your point."

God: immortal, not human, subject to His will and His will alone. Sacred. Transcendent. Beyond measuring. Sees all times simultaneously.

You can't fit God into your tiny understanding of human nature.


Wait - didn't you just fit God into your understanding of human nature by giving those characteristics (immortal,Sacred,etc)?
 
2009-03-25 01:21:14 PM
maddogdelta: Deuce McStinkle: Just because you don't understand why God decided to have these people killed doesn't undercut the truth of Christianity.

So...if God has a good reason to commit genocide, then it's ok? Or is it OK because he's God, and so whatever he does is right?


And besides, I was actually addressing your question regarding genocide...To wit:

2. I'm not sure what "genocide" you're addressing. Please be specific.

I brought up 2 specific genocides, quoted straight from 1 Samuel and Numbers. I don't think these two books of the bible are part of some conspiracy to discredit God, but I would be happy to entertain any evidence you have to demonstrate that I am incorrect.

But allow me to ask you about your original post...remember, this one?

Wheeee! Look at me! I know nothing about religion, yet I feel the need to shoot off my mouth, paint with a broad brush, and stereotype all Christians.

Wheeeee!!! I've never even read the Bible! I wouldn't know an epistle from a psalm, yet I'm qualified to dismiss all forms of Christianity!

Wheeee!! Look at me! I've got internet access, so I have earned the right to speak on subjects about which I have absolutely no knowledge!

Wheee!! Look at me! I learned everything that I know about Christianity from an intro to philosophy course at my junior college and from those highly-regarded geniuses at the 4chan message boards!

Wheeeee!!!!

The basic premise was that atheists never read the bible, and paint all Christians with "a broad brush" to quote your phrase.

um.... don't you think your brush was a little broad? I had to point out to you where 2 genocides, authorized by God, are in the bible, which you seem to have forgotten, in spite of your vast knowledge of the bible.


My Lord, you're shallow. Why says I forgot anything? I just wanted you to be specific; that's all.

Or is that beyond your ability? Or is asking you to verify your claims unfair somehow? Have I offended your sensibilities?

So sorry.
 
2009-03-25 01:22:21 PM
twoowlz: "Zamboro, the mechanism will be explained---you'll see. Or maybe you won't see since you know everything already."

You accuse me of claiming to know everything, immediately after you claim to know what the future of quantum research will reveal.

Look, I don't think I know everything. I don't have a terribly high opinion of myself. But it seems like every time I argue someone with supernatural beliefs into a corner, they react by accusing me of arrogance, as if I must believe myself to have godlike knowledge in order to presume to refute their beliefs.

Is that really all you're left with? I'd rather hear your counterarguments, if you have any.
 
2009-03-25 01:23:14 PM
Premeditated_Road_Rage: Deuce McStinkle:

I have been following your comments through the thread and I must say that they amuse me greatly.

I do need to ask, though, why if a Christian quotes a few verses from the bible for their agenda, it is considered "Preaching the Gospel Truth", but if a non-Christian does it, it is "Quoting out of context"?

And yes, your God is a genocidal god with either no plan whatsoever or a plan so twisted and sick that it would make even the most rabid lunatic ask "What the FARK is his problem?" Think about it: If "God" so loves all people, why did "He" allow nations like the Canaanites to rise up in the first place after the flood and then order others of his 'loved creatures' to kill their 'brothers' like that?

I think it all boils down to God being a big ol' invisible Michael Vic, myself - He creates us, pens us in separate 'cages' (nations/religions), and then on days like today, 9/11, etc., he dings the bell and pits his dogs (believers) against one another for personal amusement and/or ego-stroking.


Clearly, you know nothing of God. I'm suspicious of those who make such claims.

As though you have access to God's eternal plan.

None of us do. That's the point. We are NOT GOD. How are you not seeing this fact? Deal with it: you're limited. Your understanding of God and the universe is limited. You'll never ever understand all things. Is that a tough pill to swallow?

If so, I'm sorry. But it's the truth.
 
2009-03-25 01:24:47 PM
jekxrb: Zamboro: In context, all things considered, it's still inexcusable. You cannot justify genocide, and when you find yourself trying to do so, you need to stop and ask yourself what kind of monster your religious beliefs have made you into.

Amen

;-)

maddogdelta: So...if God has a good reason to commit genocide, then it's ok? Or is it OK because he's God, and so whatever he does is right?

Yeah, I don't think this argument can ever be won, because whenever we question something that doesn't make sense, they'll just rebut with, well, of course it doesn't make sense to US. But god in his all knowing has reasons that we don't know...



OR we'll get some fabulous circular reasoning:



So, really, we should just accept that Jesus was sent to us for a very special reason...


Look at me! Wheeeee!! I can beat a dead horse!! I can post nonsensical graphics that I find on the internet! Wheeee!!!

/fail
//try again
 
2009-03-25 01:27:40 PM
hailin: Aww, maybe I'm too late to jump into this thread, but here it goes: ... Yup, religion is SUCH a positive influence on our society. Just think, their families would not be so colorful without keeping their heads constantly up their own asses.

That's all well and good, but those other families will have the last laugh when you and your nice family are burning in hell for not going to church every Sunday!
 
2009-03-25 01:28:31 PM
Deuce McStinkle: "It's inexcusable if a HUMAN did it. God is not human. He is above all things. If God wanted me to catch fire right now, then I would. And I'd have no reason to biatch; neither would you. You're not immortal. You don't have a full understanding of all things. You don't see the universe and time as He does."

So it's okay to exterminate whole populations if God tells you to do it?

Is something moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it is moral? If the former, then anything (no matter how horrible) can be justified. If the latter, then there is a moral standard external to God by which his actions can be judged.

Deuce McStinkle: "In short, you're not God, and that, above all things, is what angers atheists: the idea that their eternal fates DO NOT rest in their hands."

There is no Yahweh, any more than there is a Ganesh or a Zeus. You believe in the Christian god because you were raised in a Christian family, in a predominantly Christian country. If you'd been raised in Saudi Arabia, you would probably be a muslim. If you were raised in India, odds are you'd be a Hindu. In either case you'd be every bit as convinced that your religion was uniquely credible and that all others were human inventions.
 
2009-03-25 01:28:39 PM
Zamboro: colon_pow: "they were wicked idolators. God judged the Canaanites, and wiped them out. not the first time. remember the flood?"

We might consider the people of Afghanistan or North Korea to be wicked. Does that authorize us to exterminate them?

colon_pow: "Won't be the last time either."

You're right, it won't be the last time. Not so long as there are people out there who believe that there are circumstances in which it's okay to exterminate whole populations. I'm lookin' at you, buddy.


no, we don't do the judging in those matters ourselves. God judged them. if He judges the N. Koreans or Afghans that way, then heaven help them. he does that from time to time. people don't like it either. he judged Sodom and Gomorrah also. i'm sure the sodomites didn't like it either. I'm lookin' at you buddy.

jk
 
2009-03-25 01:28:59 PM
The Icelander: Deuce McStinkle: God: immortal, not human, subject to His will and His will alone. Sacred. Transcendent. Beyond measuring. Sees all times simultaneously.

[evidence needed]


Why? How can one provide evidence for that which cannot be measured?

How are you not seeing your logical flaw?
 
2009-03-25 01:29:01 PM
Millennium: aggravatedmonkey: go read isaiah 45:7, provided you read the KJB version and not the NASB or the NKJV, and we'll talk then.

When your arguments depend on a single translation, to the exclusion of other translations and also to the exclusion of the text being translated, this should perhaps be taken as evidence of a problem with the translation you're using.


let me clarify: i only throw out isaiah as an as an example, not as the singular validation to my argument. tell me, when is the bible literal and when does it require interpretation? is there some formula that i'm unaware of? fundies love to say that homosexuality is an abomination, as stated verbatum in the bible, yet when god says I CREATE EVIL, there is an translation factor involved? the inconsistantcy is mind-boggling.

but i appreciate your well stated, lucid argument. no sarcasm intended at all.
 
2009-03-25 01:29:26 PM
Deuce McStinkle:
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding: science is the search for verifiable fact; religion is the search for transcendent truth.


I love this notion of 'transcendent truth'. Truth that transends verifiable fact. Truth, in short, that has no objective basis. What sort of truth is that?

Here's a little musing on truth:

Would children raised in isolation invent a religion?
They might.
But without knowledge of the Prophet, they would not reinvent Islam; without knowledge of Jesus, they would not reinvent Christianity; without knowledge of Abraham and Moses, they would not reinvent Judaism.

By contrast, given sufficient time they or their descendants would rediscover evolution through natural selection, without knowledge of Darwin. Likewise Newtonian mechanics does not require knowledge of Newton, and relativity could be rediscovered without Einstein.

Some things are innate truths and will always be found again, and some things are simply taught as truths by individuals, and are ultimately arbitrary.
 
2009-03-25 01:30:35 PM
Zamboro:

There is no Yahweh, any more than there is a Ganesh or a Zeus. You believe in the Christian god because you were raised in a Christian family, in a predominantly Christian country. If you'd been raised in Saudi Arabia, you would probably be a muslim. If you were raised in India, odds are you'd be a Hindu. In either case you'd be every bit as convinced that your religion was uniquely credible and that all others were human inventions.


Logical flaw and demonstrably untrue. Do the research before you shoot off your mouth.
 
2009-03-25 01:31:44 PM
aggravatedmonkey: Millennium: aggravatedmonkey: go read isaiah 45:7, provided you read the KJB version and not the NASB or the NKJV, and we'll talk then.

When your arguments depend on a single translation, to the exclusion of other translations and also to the exclusion of the text being translated, this should perhaps be taken as evidence of a problem with the translation you're using.

let me clarify: i only throw out isaiah as an as an example, not as the singular validation to my argument. tell me, when is the bible literal and when does it require interpretation? is there some formula that i'm unaware of? fundies love to say that homosexuality is an abomination, as stated verbatum in the bible, yet when god says I CREATE EVIL, there is an translation factor involved? the inconsistantcy is mind-boggling.

but i appreciate your well stated, lucid argument. no sarcasm intended at all.


Knowledge of literary genres helps. If you're going to argue with the big boys, you need to catch up on current biblical scholarship.
 
2009-03-25 01:33:06 PM
colon_pow: "no, we don't do the judging in those matters ourselves. God judged them. if He judges the N. Koreans or Afghans that way, then heaven help them. he does that from time to time. people don't like it either. he judged Sodom and Gomorrah also. i'm sure the sodomites didn't like it either. I'm lookin' at you buddy."

Hitler said that he was sent on a mission from God when he 'battled the international Jew'. So did Moses, when he exterminated populations native to the 'promised land'. So did Christian revolutionary Hong Xiuquan when he wiped out 20-30 million Chinese in order to establish the Heavenly Kingdom. In every such case, God did not carry out the genocide personally, a human being claiming divine authority did so.

Human beings who believe in God are liable to believe he commands various things of them. One of those things is apparently genocide.
 
2009-03-25 01:34:14 PM
Deuce McStinkle: My Lord, you're shallow. Why says I forgot anything? I just wanted you to be specific; that's all.

Or is that beyond your ability? Or is asking you to verify your claims unfair somehow? Have I offended your sensibilities?

So sorry.


My apologies. You seemed to have a memory lapse regarding ordered genocides. I didn't know we were being tested. I should have realized it was a test when you continually fail to acknowledge that atheists have read the bible, and instead stand behind your initial WHAARGARBLE that we are atheists because we haven't read your book.

So, let me lay it out for you: I'm an atheist because I've read your book. It is inconsistent, nonsensical, morally bankrupt, hateful, misogynistic, autocratic, and just plain dumb. If the god you worship were to stand in front of me today and prove his existence I still wouldn't worship him because he is a petty, spiteful, mass murderer who clearly has no more concept of what is moral than Charles Manson.

If so, I'm sorry. But it's the truth.

Really? Do you have any evidence that supports your claim?
 
2009-03-25 01:35:31 PM
Zamboro: colon_pow: "no, we don't do the judging in those matters ourselves. God judged them. if He judges the N. Koreans or Afghans that way, then heaven help them. he does that from time to time. people don't like it either. he judged Sodom and Gomorrah also. i'm sure the sodomites didn't like it either. I'm lookin' at you buddy."

Hitler said that he was sent on a mission from God when he 'battled the international Jew'. So did Moses, when he exterminated populations native to the 'promised land'. So did Christian revolutionary Hong Xiuquan when he wiped out 20-30 million Chinese in order to establish the Heavenly Kingdom. In every such case, God did not carry out the genocide personally, a human being claiming divine authority did so.

Human beings who believe in God are liable to believe he commands various things of them. One of those things is apparently genocide.


Man, you paint with a broad brush. Keep on showing how little you know. You're doing a fine job, a really fine job. You're a real credit the atheist cause.

You don't have any understanding of covenant theology at all. That much is clear; otherwise, you wouldn't be confusing the New and Old covenant.

Research: don't leave home without it.
 
2009-03-25 01:36:03 PM
Deuce McStinkle: aggravatedmonkey: Millennium: aggravatedmonkey: go read isaiah 45:7, provided you read the KJB version and not the NASB or the NKJV, and we'll talk then.

When your arguments depend on a single translation, to the exclusion of other translations and also to the exclusion of the text being translated, this should perhaps be taken as evidence of a problem with the translation you're using.

let me clarify: i only throw out isaiah as an as an example, not as the singular validation to my argument. tell me, when is the bible literal and when does it require interpretation? is there some formula that i'm unaware of? fundies love to say that homosexuality is an abomination, as stated verbatum in the bible, yet when god says I CREATE EVIL, there is an translation factor involved? the inconsistantcy is mind-boggling.

but i appreciate your well stated, lucid argument. no sarcasm intended at all.

Knowledge of literary genres helps. If you're going to argue with the big boys, you need to catch up on current biblical scholarship.


y'know, i've read every statement you've made in this thread, and not once, have you backed up anything you have said with anything coherent. keep responding if you wish, but i'm not going to debate with you. go ahead and continue on with your mindless ramblings based on nothing more than your playground mentality.
 
2009-03-25 01:36:21 PM
Deuce McStinkle: Zamboro:



Logical flaw and demonstrably untrue. Do the research before you shoot off your mouth.


elultimoquecierrelapuerta.files.wordpress.com
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means
 
2009-03-25 01:37:31 PM
Deuce McStinkle: It's inexcusable if a HUMAN did it. God is not human. He is above all things. If God wanted me to catch fire right now, then I would. And I'd have no reason to biatch; neither would you. You're not immortal. You don't have a full understanding of all things. You don't see the universe and time as He does.

So with god it's "Do as I say, not as I do?" That's, frankly, bullshiat. If I'm told to kill children, I'm going to need a bit more to go on than "Hey, I'm god."

But I guess that's where faith comes in. If I knew, deep in my bums, that I had to kill all those kids because god wanted me to, I guess I could do it.

In short, you're not God, and that, above all things, is what angers atheists: the idea that their eternal fates DO NOT rest in their hands.

WHEEEE!!! Let's make sweeping generalizations!!! Yay!
 
2009-03-25 01:37:44 PM
Deuce McStinkle: "Logical flaw and demonstrably untrue. Do the research before you shoot off your mouth."

I have. Place of birth is the single most statistically accurate predictor of religious affiliation.
 
2009-03-25 01:38:02 PM
maddogdelta: Deuce McStinkle: My Lord, you're shallow. Why says I forgot anything? I just wanted you to be specific; that's all.

Or is that beyond your ability? Or is asking you to verify your claims unfair somehow? Have I offended your sensibilities?

So sorry.

My apologies. You seemed to have a memory lapse regarding ordered genocides. I didn't know we were being tested. I should have realized it was a test when you continually fail to acknowledge that atheists have read the bible, and instead stand behind your initial WHAARGARBLE that we are atheists because we haven't read your book.

So, let me lay it out for you: I'm an atheist because I've read your book. It is inconsistent, nonsensical, morally bankrupt, hateful, misogynistic, autocratic, and just plain dumb. If the god you worship were to stand in front of me today and prove his existence I still wouldn't worship him because he is a petty, spiteful, mass murderer who clearly has no more concept of what is moral than Charles Manson.

If so, I'm sorry. But it's the truth.

Really? Do you have any evidence that supports your claim?


I still don't see any evidence that you've read the Bible other than scattered stories here and there. You've certainly not studied it. You certainly seem to have an axe to grind, however.

If you're going to argue on the level at which you're attempting, then scriptural criticism comes into play. It you're unfamiliar with current biblical scholarship, that's not a problem. It's just a lack of knowledge.
 
2009-03-25 01:38:50 PM
aggravatedmonkey: Deuce McStinkle: aggravatedmonkey: Millennium: aggravatedmonkey: go read isaiah 45:7, provided you read the KJB version and not the NASB or the NKJV, and we'll talk then.

When your arguments depend on a single translation, to the exclusion of other translations and also to the exclusion of the text being translated, this should perhaps be taken as evidence of a problem with the translation you're using.

let me clarify: i only throw out isaiah as an as an example, not as the singular validation to my argument. tell me, when is the bible literal and when does it require interpretation? is there some formula that i'm unaware of? fundies love to say that homosexuality is an abomination, as stated verbatum in the bible, yet when god says I CREATE EVIL, there is an translation factor involved? the inconsistantcy is mind-boggling.

but i appreciate your well stated, lucid argument. no sarcasm intended at all.

Knowledge of literary genres helps. If you're going to argue with the big boys, you need to catch up on current biblical scholarship.

y'know, i've read every statement you've made in this thread, and not once, have you backed up anything you have said with anything coherent. keep responding if you wish, but i'm not going to debate with you. go ahead and continue on with your mindless ramblings based on nothing more than your playground mentality.


Sure. You win.
 
2009-03-25 01:39:37 PM
Deuce McStinkle: "Man, you paint with a broad brush. Keep on showing how little you know. You're doing a fine job, a really fine job. You're a real credit the atheist cause."

Blah de blah de blah.

Deuce McStinkle: "You don't have any understanding of covenant theology at all. That much is clear; otherwise, you wouldn't be confusing the New and Old covenant."

In what way have I confused the two, exactly?

Deuce McStinkle: "Research: don't leave home without it."

Do you have any actual counter-arguments, or just more petty barbs?
 
2009-03-25 01:39:48 PM
What does Zamboro believe in anyways?
 
2009-03-25 01:42:29 PM
Deuce McStinkle: Zamboro:

There is no Yahweh, any more than there is a Ganesh or a Zeus. You believe in the Christian god because you were raised in a Christian family, in a predominantly Christian country. If you'd been raised in Saudi Arabia, you would probably be a muslim. If you were raised in India, odds are you'd be a Hindu. In either case you'd be every bit as convinced that your religion was uniquely credible and that all others were human inventions.

Logical flaw and demonstrably untrue. Do the research before you shoot off your mouth.


Just because you say so? Seems completely true to me. In fact my friend who is a christian agrees with this also.
 
2009-03-25 01:43:06 PM
Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle: "Logical flaw and demonstrably untrue. Do the research before you shoot off your mouth."

I have. Place of birth is the single most statistically accurate predictor of religious affiliation.


Then explain how those raised in one religion covert to another.

But I guess that you don't have to. I mean, you're right and everything. You're clearly convinced that you are, and no amount of discussion will ever make you even reconsider your claims, much less entertain the notion that you might be wrong.

Oh, I know, I know: "bbbbuutttt all you X-ians--lolzors--all yu do is quote some ancnet (sp?) buuk!" Yeah, every Christian I know is absolutely convinced the he or she is right: NOPE. Most of us struggle with our faiths. Most of us hate the actions of Fred Phelps. Most of us resent the way that the far right-wing sects get the most press.

So, go ahead, hit me with a hotlink. Go ahead, keep being convinced in your moral righteousness. Go ahead, keep thinking that the thousands of years of human history have gotten right time and again. Go head, keep on believing in your flawed limited perceptions to explain the world.

Me? I'm content with searching for Truth. I'm also content knowing that I'll never fully know it.

You win, my friend. Want a cookie?
 
2009-03-25 01:43:18 PM
twowlz: What does Zamboro believe in anyways?

he believes more than he lets on. He and Maddog and others.
there is spiritual warfare going on today and these guys are on the front lines. they patrol these religious threads like it's serious business.
 
2009-03-25 01:43:29 PM
Facetious_Speciest: Dead-Guy

The bible functions as an excellent guide on how a society can surive and thrive together in a productive environment. It's a shame that no one seems to truly follow it's teachings anymore.

I think they still stone people for sexual "immorality" in some places in the world...

Also, that treating others as we'd want to be treated is what all of the "laws" of the bible are based on.

How does "rapists and their victims must be married, and the victim's father paid in silver, if the victim was a virgin prior to the rape" reflect the Golden Rule?


Old testament versus New Testament.
In the old testament the focus was on how a group of people turned to God, and became his favored group. Outsiders from beyond that group were not treated as "neighbors" in the sense that we understand it.

The "Golden Rule" is a Jesus quote which he states that these are what the laws are based on. I don't know if they were supposed to include the Old Testamnt "Eye for an Eye" kind of thing.

However, if you look at it from the context of a rule for society to "get along", it's kind of a "don't cheapen sex" thing, suggesting that if you were going to have sex (rape or not) you were supposed to stay with that partner for life. That was the punishment for Rape, but the punishment for a woman having consensual sex prior to marriage was bad too.

I suppose it might have to do with woman screaming "rape" when it was consensual sex, in-order to avoid the penalties and loss of face for her and her family. In those days, saving face was still important.

Stoning for immoral sexual acts seems strong to us because our society has evolved past that sort of thing. Now we are more conditioned to accept unusal practises, and differences. In our current society such a thing is deemed wrong, especially with all the focus on being PC.

However, in "differently" developed country, this is a way that they stop these counter cultures from growing within the society, thereby preventing them from altering the society from what they beleive is the "right way to be". This has worked to a certain degree, as evidenced by the fact that their society is still at that point after all of the generations which have passed since it was started.

May I point out that there isn't a person in here that doesn't feel that their personal views are correct. I'm not christian enough to tell you that they are immoral for stoning people, but I know that I'm personally not supportive of that because of the society I was raised in... In terms of, yes, I would hope to halt that kind of punishment within the society I'm in.

Perhaps if I was raised in a society where that was the norm, it would make more sense, and seem like the right thing to do. Sort of like some of even our nicest ancestors were pretty keen on owning slaves, and with few exclusions (that DO exist), all of our ancestors were certainly against letting women have equality to men.

One of my biggest pet peeves with the bible is the approach that women are not the equals to men, and that it's ok to own slaves and stuff. Our society has changed quite a bit since those days.

Has it been a positive change? I refer you to what I said above. From where we stand, it's improved, however, if we were in a different kind of society where that was still a part of it, we WOULD NOT feel that way, unless it's negative connotations affected us in such a way that truly seemed unfair.

As a result, I maintain that it's a great way to set-up a society to survive, thrive, and maintain itself. However, it's not one to be adopted by a bunch of folks that have already been raised within a different kind of society.

I'd love to start again.. using the current society as a baseline, from which to plot-out a similar course, but I suspect that wouldn't work, due to the adherence to political correctness concepts, and the associated concepts of the loud minority driving the silent majority.

I suspect the "Golden Rule" might have been used as a last ditch effort to transcend the evolution of the society. Personally, I think that works pretty well when applied properly.

Unfortunately, the Golden rule is trumped these days by Political Correctness. You can't treat people how you would want to be treated, you have to guess how THEY might want to be treated, and act accordingly. Being ignorant of their cultures and feelings, etc is not acceptable.

Which DOES make a certain amount of sense considering that I'm sure the significantly attractive girl who used to be in my old Science class would probably have called the police if I were to have done the things to her that I'd want her to do to me. ;)

Hmm.. in the olden days I would have been stoned, or been foreced to marry her. Either would have probably served to prevent the acts from occurring, which is to say.. served it's jutice in a blind blanket way that helps the most amount of people, and hurts the least amount of people.

To me.. that's the whole point in having laws in the first place.
 
2009-03-25 01:44:03 PM
Deuce McStinkle: Logical flaw and demonstrably untrue. Do the research before you shoot off your mouth.

Considering that 80% of the United States identifies themselves as one form of Christian or another, a very high percentage of those who live in India are Hindu, a very high percentage of those who live in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey and other middle eastern states are Moslem, etc..I don't think that Zamboro's statement is "demonstrably untrue". I think it can be shown that most people adopt either the same, or at least a similar religion to their parents.
 
2009-03-25 01:44:18 PM
Deuce McStinkle: If you're going to argue on the level at which you're attempting, then scriptural criticism comes into play. It you're unfamiliar with current biblical scholarship, that's not a problem. It's just a lack of knowledge.

It's also the fact that your book is no more important to us than, say, the works of Shakespeare, and your god no more real to us than Hamlet.

And, frankly, the character of god in the Bible is a dick.
 
2009-03-25 01:44:21 PM
Deuce McStinkle: Premeditated_Road_Rage: Deuce McStinkle:

I have been following your comments through the thread and I must say that they amuse me greatly.

I do need to ask, though, why if a Christian quotes a few verses from the bible for their agenda, it is considered "Preaching the Gospel Truth", but if a non-Christian does it, it is "Quoting out of context"?

And yes, your God is a genocidal god with either no plan whatsoever or a plan so twisted and sick that it would make even the most rabid lunatic ask "What the FARK is his problem?" Think about it: If "God" so loves all people, why did "He" allow nations like the Canaanites to rise up in the first place after the flood and then order others of his 'loved creatures' to kill their 'brothers' like that?

I think it all boils down to God being a big ol' invisible Michael Vic, myself - He creates us, pens us in separate 'cages' (nations/religions), and then on days like today, 9/11, etc., he dings the bell and pits his dogs (believers) against one another for personal amusement and/or ego-stroking.

Clearly, you know nothing of God. I'm suspicious of those who make such claims.

As though you have access to God's eternal plan.

None of us do. That's the point. We are NOT GOD. How are you not seeing this fact? Deal with it: you're limited. Your understanding of God and the universe is limited. You'll never ever understand all things. Is that a tough pill to swallow?

If so, I'm sorry. But it's the truth.


Truth? The truth is that if you read the bible cover to cover, the "God" depicted within is a bipolar schizophrenic with emotional and codependency issues who does not 'plan' so much as shoot from the hip.

"He" could have forgone free will and sin, seeing as he is omnipotent and could see the future, but what fun is it to have a planet full of mindless automatons who love and praise you because they are programmed to do so without fail or question? It's not. But setting them up for a trap (the apple), then punishing them for your bad design and then forcing them to love and worship you for that punishment? Wooot! Only thing more fun than that is kicking a starving dog every time it draws near the food dish so that it will merrily wag its tail when you finally feed it.

God is an asshole, buddy, He has a Uber--Mega-Fark login and enjoys snarking daily.

There is your truth. You deal with it.
 
2009-03-25 01:47:09 PM
Deuce McStinkle: So, go ahead, hit me with a hotlink. Go ahead, keep being convinced in your moral righteousness. Go ahead, keep thinking that the thousands of years of human history have gotten right time and again. Go head, keep on believing in your flawed limited perceptions to explain the world.

Humans and their flawed, limited perceptions are responsible for the machines that enable us to have this conversation.

They seem pretty reliable to me. And it doesn't mean you stop searching for truth. It means you don't look for it in one book out of the millions that are published.
 
2009-03-25 01:48:33 PM
twoowlz: "What does Zamboro believe in anyways?"

I believe that those who say religion is the sole cause of war are taking an indefensibly simplistic view of history. However those who claim religion has only ever been used insincerely, as a pretense for war, are taking an equally simplistic view motivated mainly by their desire to shift blame away from their preferred religion. No one factor is the sole cause of any given war; rather wars typically result from a mixture of many factors, though never in equal proportion. A war might be mainly 'about' religion, with conquest and greed as secondary motivations. A war might also be mainly 'about' ethnocentrism and nationalism, with traditionalism used as a pretense, and so on.

. I believe religiosity to be symptomatic of suffering. It offers relief and refuge from the barbarism of life in third world nations (where religiosity is intense and dominant) and the unique stresses of financial/social inequity, poor health/education and the inability to improve ones conditions which many still face in America, despite her wealth and military might. There exists an inverse correlation between the standard of living indicies in any given nation and its degree of religiosity, and rather than making the claim that religion directly causes lower standard of living indicies, I would instead argue that the population turns to religion when their quality of life is poor and they have no means of improving their situation. There are some situations (see: the Middle East) in which a self-perpetuating cycle occurs; charismatic figures play upon the suffering of poorly educated refugees and laborers, shifting the blame for their suffering away from their theocratic government and onto some foreign enemy who is either irreligious or thought to be of the 'wrong' religion. In these cases terrorism results, conditions worsen, and religiosity increases. If conditions improve, citizens are on average well educated, in good health and have all of their basic needs met (i.e; high standard of living indicies) then we see religiosity decrease and eventually fade into irrelevance, as is the case in Scandinavia, Britain, Japan, France and so on. Despite our wealth, America still suffers from poor public education (science suffers the most, owing largely to religious opposition to science education wherever it conflicts with scripture), a great degree of class stratification where there should instead be a smooth gradient, teenage pregnancies due to religious/cultural suppression of sex education, social inequality for gays, poor health care (exacerbated by religious opposition to certain necessary medical technologies) and so on and so forth. As is the case in the middle east our religiosity is not due only to these shortcomings, but they are themselves caused in part by the very religiosity that they inspire.

I believe that the economic views of hard socialists and libertarians are too extreme. Neither total nationalization nor a completely free market is best for America; presently many services and institutions are socialized (libraries, utilities, infrastructure) while many others are privately operated. This is how it ought to be, although there's room for debate as to which services should be privatized which are presently nationalized and vice versa.

I believe that the United States would do well to invest in a predominantly nuclear solution to the energy crisis patterned after the French model, though perhaps with a greater supplement of renewables. More than 80% of France's energy is produced by new generation nuclear plants. Fast neutron, pebble bed, breeder and pressurized water reactors offer increased efficiency and greater safety when compared to the legacy reactors currently in use, and the waste they produce is actually *less* radioactive than the coal ash from existing coal fired power plants. Such a transition would be initially costly, but would pay for itself many times over by curing us of our addiction to foreign oil and positioning America as an energy super power when formerly oil rich nations begin to run dry.

. I believe that a government initiative ought to be undertaken to construct large scale autonomous agricultural/mining/manufacturing/etc facilities, powered mainly by the aforementioned nuclear infrastructure. Failing that, on-site renewables such as solar and wind could sustain 24/7 production by storing energy in high permittivity ultracapacitors (or whatever other advanced methods of storing electricity become available) which would fill up during periods of peak sunlight/wind and then continue recharging the robots and their support machinery when neither wind nor sunlight are available.

I believe that the United States ought to implement (nationwide) an economic system patterned after Alaska's Citizen's Permanent Fund, in which some portion of profits made by companies exploiting the natural resources of a state would be paid out to citizens of that state in the form of a monthly stipend. This would serve as a stopgap solution pending the implementation of automated labor facilities.

I believe that because we are no longer on the gold standard, some other commodity must become the basis of our currencies worth in order to safeguard against economic collapse. Currency could potentially represent some proportional share of the products of automated labor, as well as the profit from their export (assuming a period of perhaps a decade in which most other developed nations are without some comparable automated labor program) Under such a system, every citizen would be guaranteed a small monthly income which would grow as more automated labor facilities are built. Eventually a tipping point would be reached where monthly stipends would become generous enough to live on, regardless of whether one worked or not. At this point we would be free to pursue whatever hobbies we're passionate about, as the basis of our economy would have shifted from human labor to automated labor, and currency would exist mainly as a means of regulating consumption such that it does not outstrip the productive capacity of automated labor.

I believe that a good solution to both the economic and environmental crisis would be to convert some portion of unused retail space in malls to apartments, so that we might have the option of living in consolidated indoor habitats which are more efficient to heat and cool, and which can be made energy independent by integrating solar energy collectors and wind props into the structure itself. Airports could be similarly adapted while continuing to serve as air transit hubs. A minimum guaranteed daily patronage would ensure a healthy economy, and the internal climate could be kept livable regardless of how unlivable it might eventually become outside.

I believe that our government ought to subsidize the widespread implementation of Personal Rapid Transit, as it is more economical and more ecologically sound than existing forms of mass transit, and it fits in nicely with the concept of consolidated residential/commercial centers that I outlined earlier.

I believe that in the interim between the abandonment of internal combustion technology and the completion of PRT infrastructure, there ought to be a government regulated (but not subsidized) transition to electric vehicles, with the responsibility for realizing this transition placed largely on auto manufacturers. I don't believe automakers will cooperate voluntarily as they're still too entangled with the oil industry. The current industry commitment to producing pure electric vehicles may well be an empty gesture that they intend to fail, and we can ill afford another EV-1 debacle.

I believe that hydrogen fuel cell technology in its present form is impractical for personal transportation, and by the time it becomes practical we should already have implemented widespread PRT. Fuel cell technology will find roles wherever EESU technology would be insufficient, such as shipping by truck, air travel and so on. Fuel can be sustainably produced by way of large scale electrolysis plants, powered by integrated renewables.


These are a few of the things that one atheist believes in. Thank you for asking.
 
2009-03-25 01:49:36 PM
Dead-Guy: Stoning for immoral sexual acts seems strong to us because our society has evolved past that sort of thing.

But I thought that the Bible was the height of morality and the perfect source for rules of behavior?

If we've "evolved beyond" the rules of the Bible, doesn't that mean we must have access to some sort of better morality? And doesn't that imply that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of stories, rules and history and not from god?
 
2009-03-25 01:49:47 PM
Zamboro: quantum quackery

didn't read the article or posts above. caught this and thought wow. quacks at work.

www.sciencedaily.com


Zamboro: 'Something from Nothing a Quantum Possibility'

'It's Confirmed, Matter is Merely Vacuum Fluctuations'


lmao. so all that energy came from where exactly? 2 years of discussing string theory and QCD with you, and you think you've got it all figured out. You're funny.

scienceblogs.com

lmao. don't ever change zamboro (not like you could anyway you're such a zealot). you're pure comedy gold.
 
2009-03-25 01:52:35 PM
Christians called "intolerant"
images.morris.com
For the life of me i cant see why.
 
2009-03-25 01:53:24 PM
Zamboro: These are a few of the things that one atheist believes in. Thank you for asking.

I like to say that everyone has beliefs. Some people base theirs more on faith (which seems like an assumption) and some people base theirs more on experience and evidence.

Atheists tend to lean on experience and evidence, while people like Mr. McStinkle lean more on the assumption that there's some perfect, unknowable magic entity that only appeared to one small group of people on one tiny planet in a plain solar system in an ordinary galaxy amongst the hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe.

\You know what would be fantastic evidence that god exists?
\\If aliens land on the White House lawn and ask the president if he's heard the Good News
 
2009-03-25 01:54:32 PM
The Icelander: \If aliens land on the White House lawn and ask the president if he's heard the Good News

They'd probably ask if he's heard of Amway...
 
2009-03-25 01:55:40 PM
dogfather_jr: Overfiend: Well, when you believe killing unborn babies is OK, I would say that makes you anti-life.

So when a fetus dies 'naturally', does that make God anti-life?


No. If God is who the Bible says he is, he is the giver of life. And as the giver, it is his to take. Any time you get, is a gift. You are not owed more time.
 
2009-03-25 01:56:13 PM
The Icelander: Zamboro: These are a few of the things that one atheist believes in. Thank you for asking.

I like to say that everyone has beliefs. Some people base theirs more on faith (which seems like an assumption) and some people base theirs more on experience and evidence.

Atheists tend to lean on experience and evidence, while people like Mr. McStinkle lean more on the assumption that there's some perfect, unknowable magic entity that only appeared to one small group of people on one tiny planet in a plain solar system in an ordinary galaxy amongst the hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe.



Way to demonstrated a MARKED misunderstanding of my views.

Nice going. You win. Would you like a cookie, too?
 
2009-03-25 01:56:19 PM
The Icelander: some people base theirs more on experience and evidence.


Are there no assumptions in this approach, then?
 
2009-03-25 01:58:48 PM
Deuce McStinkle: Way to demonstrated a MARKED misunderstanding of my views.

This is different from your misunderstanding of my views... how?

\Pro tip: I'm not an atheist because I hate god
\\I'm an atheist because I don't think god exists
\\\Simple as that
 
2009-03-25 01:59:55 PM
GilRuiz1: Are there no assumptions in this approach, then?

There are some basic assumptions, yes, but experience has shown they're reliable assumptions.
 
2009-03-25 02:01:05 PM
TexasRedbud: No. If God is who the Bible says he is, he is the giver of life. And as the giver, it is his to take. Any time you get, is a gift. You are not owed more time.

So, this person did it right, then (^)...
 
2009-03-25 02:02:29 PM
kerpal32: didn't read the article or posts above. caught this and thought wow. quacks at work."

"Quantum quackery" was meant to refer to people like Deepak Chopra who believe that quantum mechanics legitimizes their supernaturalist claims. It was in no way meant to refer to actual particle physicists.

kerpal32: "lmao. so all that energy came from where exactly? 2 years of discussing string theory and QCD with you, and you think you've got it all figured out. You're funny."

Neither one of us are particle physicists. All I can do is point to the research done by those who are. You apparently think they're full of shiat in this case, which makes me wonder why you don't take it up with them rather than me.

As I understand it, the answer to the question "where did all of the energy come from" is "It didn't". There is no 'surplus' of energy, as it were. The total energy state of the universe is zero. The big bang was not a creation event so much as it was a separation event.

If I were a Christian, or a deferential atheist, you wouldn't have such a problem with acknowledging that I know the things that I do. You certainly seem to expect me to believe that you know what you're talking about, and of course I believe you do for the most part as I wouldn't let my personal distaste for you distort my perception. I wish you'd extend me the same courtesy.
 
2009-03-25 02:02:40 PM
maddogdelta: So, this person did it right, then (^)...

I'd say someone who killed his kid (or himself) because his god told him to has a lot more faith than someone who just helps out at a soup kitchen.
 
2009-03-25 02:06:53 PM
stuffy: Christians called "intolerant"

For the life of me i cant see why.


Your post is cute, but not even you can believe that Phelps represents Biblical Christianity.

In case you do not have any interest in reading the Bible, let me assure you that Phelps kind is condemned by Jesus in the New Testament. As the lowest of the low.
 
2009-03-25 02:07:28 PM
maddogdelta: TexasRedbud: No. If God is who the Bible says he is, he is the giver of life. And as the giver, it is his to take. Any time you get, is a gift. You are not owed more time.

So, this person did it right, then (^)...


well duh, he's obviously crazy! i mean, anyone who says god has spoken directly to them HAS to be crazy...right?

i52.photobucket.com

i52.photobucket.com

oh wait...
 
2009-03-25 02:08:04 PM
The Icelander: GilRuiz1: Are there no assumptions in this approach, then?

There are some basic assumptions, yes, but experience has shown they're reliable assumptions.



Seems practical. Thanks, The Icelander.


And now for no reason:

i224.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-25 02:08:59 PM
Christians intolerant? What, just because they're constantly trying to write the Bible into the Constitution to keep gays from having rights? Because they harass people constantly to convert or burn? Because they drool at the thought of people of other religions burning in hell? Because they say that it's a Christian country and if you want to have some other religion or non-religion you should just leave? Because they want their religion taught as fact in public schools. Because 90% of them would outright refuse to vote for an atheist or person of another religion no matter how good their policies? Because they try to outlaw Plan B because they have no idea how it works, as in if you take it after you're already pregnant it won't terminate the pregnancy, it only prevents pregnancies that haven't happened? Because they scoff at evolution without ever opening a science book in their lives?

Nah, Christians aren't intolerant!
 
2009-03-25 02:09:57 PM
aggravatedmonkey: oh wait...

And don't forget...
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2009-03-25 02:09:58 PM
I've got nothing today, so here's shaved Jesus:

i3.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-25 02:12:31 PM
maddogdelta: TexasRedbud: No. If God is who the Bible says he is, he is the giver of life. And as the giver, it is his to take. Any time you get, is a gift. You are not owed more time.

So, this person did it right, then (^)...



Not sure of your point. Are you saying that every person who says he hears God is a Christian and in fact has heard from God?


I find it hard to imagine that is what you really believe.


So, do you want to take another shot at my original comment? or are you out of cute replies?
 
2009-03-25 02:18:18 PM
Deuce McStinkle: Look at me! Wheeeee!! I can beat a dead horse!! I can post nonsensical graphics that I find on the internet! Wheeee!!!

Look at me! Wheeee!! I can be a condescending douche and reinforce everyone's stereotypes about Christians! Wheeee!!!!

Deal with it: you're limited. Your understanding of God and the universe is limited. You'll never ever understand all things. Is that a tough pill to swallow?

If so, I'm sorry. But it's the truth.


How can you know that? How do you KNOW that's the truth? How do you KNOW we're limited? Why do you think there's a god?
 
2009-03-25 02:18:59 PM
Zamboro: Neither one of us are particle physicists. All I can do is point to the research done by those who are. You apparently think they're full of shiat in this case, which makes me wonder why you don't take it up with them rather than me.

lmao. Nope, you're right, I'm just a mathematician with a degree in pure mathematics. But I did work at SLAC and know a lot more than you. And I understand inflationary and spatial stability theory better than you. Even if you keep waving your book at me (like it was some bible I might add).

/again, you didn't answer "where did all that energy come from". This isn't Reaganomics. Separation of positive and negative energy through quantum fluctuations after inflation doesn't explain it away. Just saying the universe did not require the violation of energy conservation at the assumed creation (which is really all you keep stating) does not explain the question away.

Wake me when you can admit atheism is a philosophy just like any other.

//wake me when you can admit atheism is just a philosophy.
 
2009-03-25 02:19:34 PM
TexasRedbud: Not sure of your point. Are you saying that every person who says he hears God is a Christian and in fact has heard from God?

1) The person is a Christian because "he cut his 5-year-old son's head off to save him from the anti-Christ." I don't see why a Muslim or Hindu would do that.

2) It's to say that perhaps people who claim god talks to them are just insane, and should be treated for schizophrenia. This also goes for Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Jesus and Paul.

I mean, who knew, maybe this guy really did save his son from the anti-Christ, and god really did tell him to do it. Since your god seems to be notoriously bad at providing evidence, we'll never be sure.
 
2009-03-25 02:20:03 PM
I think Zamboro should eat a few shroom caps or smoke a bowl. I think everyone should..LOL! Then we would all feel the special life force that is everywhere.
 
2009-03-25 02:21:09 PM
Zamboro: We don't fully understand life. We can't roll new lifeforms off an assembly line. Is it therefore too presumptuous, based upon what we do know, to say that it evolved?

No, my beef was just the wording of your comment. Equating the belief in a soul with creationism. The creationism I see as quite bizarre, but having to accept that or the total mechanistic viewpoint of the universe seems some odd (if then else) equation.
 
2009-03-25 02:21:42 PM
Zamboro: These are a few of the things that one atheist believes in. Thank you for asking.

Thanks for sharing. It's nice to see someone describe what they believe in a civilized, non-aggressive manner.

/Totally serious
 
2009-03-25 02:21:45 PM
Deuce McStinkle: None of us do. That's the point. We are NOT GOD. How are you not seeing this fact? Deal with it: you're limited. Your understanding of God and the universe is limited. You'll never ever understand all things. Is that a tough pill to swallow?

Christians seem to have an extremely low opinion of their species.

I was watching a show about this guy who spent tens of thousands of hours creating a beautiful topiary garden. Then some lady came in and said "This is god's work, right here."

Only a believer could look at a topiary and say that's god that did it. If it weren't for the gardener spending hours and hours trimming those trees and bushes, they'd look like shiat.
 
2009-03-25 02:22:18 PM
TexasRedbud: Not sure of your point. Are you saying that every person who says he hears God is a Christian and in fact has heard from God?

I find it hard to imagine that is what you really believe.

So, do you want to take another shot at my original comment? or are you out of cute replies?


Your point was that God can kill anyone he wants (which I think is pretty detestable to start with, but let's work with it).

So, if God tells you to kill someone, that makes it OK, right? (I'm not singling out any particular religion right now, the Moslems are doing pretty good at this kind of argument recently, but they aren't the only ones..)
 
2009-03-25 02:25:58 PM
jekxrb: Deuce McStinkle: Look at me! Wheeeee!! I can beat a dead horse!! I can post nonsensical graphics that I find on the internet! Wheeee!!!

Look at me! Wheeee!! I can be a condescending douche and reinforce everyone's stereotypes about Christians! Wheeee!!!!

Deal with it: you're limited. Your understanding of God and the universe is limited. You'll never ever understand all things. Is that a tough pill to swallow?

If so, I'm sorry. But it's the truth.

How can you know that? How do you KNOW that's the truth? How do you KNOW we're limited? Why do you think there's a god?


Did you just ask, 'How do you know that we're limited?'.

Please name one way we are not limited?
 
2009-03-25 02:26:21 PM
almafuerte 2009-03-25 04:03:06 AM
From Nietzsche's masterpiece, The Antichrist:

Schopenhauer washostile to life: that is why pity appeared to him as a virtue....Aristotle, as every one knows, saw in pity a sickly and dangerous stateof mind, the remedy for which was an occasional purgative: he regardedtragedy as that purgative. The instinct of life should prompt us to seek some means of puncturing any such pathological and dangerous accumulation of pity as that appearing in Schopenhauer's case (and also,a lack, in that of our whole literary _decadence_, from St. Petersburg toParis, from Tolstoi to Wagner), that it may burst and be discharged....Nothing is more unhealthy, amid all our unhealthy modernism, than Christian pity. To be the doctors _here_, to be unmerciful _here_, towield the knife _here_--all this is _our_ business, all this is _our_sort of humanity, by this sign we are philosophers, we Hyperboreans!--


I'll have to remember that if you are ever in need of a flotation device to save you from drowning. Oh, what's that ? Nietzsche said pity isn't a virtue ? Well, then screw that poor sod drowning, I'm going to have some hot tea and a scone.. and now the world will be a better place because I am unmerciful.

STFU undergrad.
 
2009-03-25 02:28:52 PM
Zamboro: What the Bleep do we Know makes essentially the same claim as the bestselling book advocated by Oprah Winfrey, "The Secret"; that asking 'the universe' for things will result in actually receiving those things, that focusing on things you want somehow 'attracts' them to you. The mechanism is never explained, of course.

I believe The Secret actually explicitly claims that the reason for the Holocaust was because the Jews wanted to be punished, or didn't want the Nazis to stop, or some equally insulting theory. They didn't get freedom, so obviously they didn't want it enough.

kerpal32: lmao. so all that energy came from where exactly? 2 years of discussing string theory and QCD with you, and you think you've got it all figured out. You're funny.

Zam was talking about quantum theory, which is fairly well-understood, and then you make a crack about string "theory," which hasn't yet been proven. String theory and quantum theory are two different animals. Making a string theory joke when he's talking about quantum theory only serves to make you look foolish.

Where does the energy come from? The vacuum itself. Even you can do math.

1 + -1 = 0

This works backwards, too:

0 = 1 + -1

0 is the vacuum, and 1 + -1 are the particles and antiparticles generated. The total energy of the system remains 0. We see this all the time in the vicinity of black holes in the form of Hawking radiation. We not only know it can happen, we know it does happen. So what exactly is your problem?
 
2009-03-25 02:31:48 PM
TexasRedbud: Did you just ask, 'How do you know that we're limited?'.

Please name one way we are not limited?


We may not be unlimited now, but we may solve that problem technologically.

Then again, the fact that we're limited in so many ways is a good counter-argument when people bring free will into things. Why couldn't god have limited us so that, using a prior example, we weren't able to cut each other's heads off?

Are our limitations limiting our free will? I mean, we can't jump off a building and fly away, no matter how much we will ourselves to do it.
 
2009-03-25 02:33:36 PM
GilRuiz1: And now for no reason:

Isn't that really all that atheism is in the end? lol. Explain it to someone for me please.....

/BTW - your other pal really is a militant atheist. you know who I'm referring to.
 
2009-03-25 02:37:43 PM
VonAether: Zam was talking about quantum theory, which is fairly well-understood, and then you make a crack about string "theory," which hasn't yet been proven.

lol. did you know string theory predicted the results of a QCD test at CERN in January? probably not.

/just curious. I'm talking about quantum theory also. please don't interject yourself. this has been a 2 year debate with him because, well frankly, he's a militant atheist.
 
2009-03-25 02:42:20 PM
TexasRedbud: Did you just ask, 'How do you know that we're limited?'.

Please name one way we are not limited?


Did you just answer my question with a question in an attempt to divert from the fact that you can't answer my question?

Fine. Seeing as I'm not interested in those sorts of shenanigans I WILL answer. I would argue that humans keep pushing the 'limits' of their existence, that we're constantly working to discover more about the universe and we are successfully doing so, that we are finding new and more advanced methods of interacting with the universe and even if we need technology to do so, we can still DO so. We've developed from monkeys to monkeys who've walked on the moon. The only limits there are on us are those that WE impose by close-minded thinking and the very thought that we HAVE limits.

Now, perhaps someone would like to answer MY questions, or would you prefer to duck and avoid again?

I mean, we can't jump off a building and fly away, no matter how much we will ourselves to do it.

Well, you could do it with a hang-glider. Or a jet pack. We find ways to make things happen...

Prayer on the other hand, I'm pretty sure will see you flat on the sidewalk. But I'm willing to run some trials, if anyone wants to volunteer?
 
2009-03-25 02:44:07 PM
Dead-Guy

Old testament versus New Testament.

The "Golden Rule" is a Jesus quote which he states that these are what the laws are based on. I don't know if they were supposed to include the Old Testamnt "Eye for an Eye" kind of thing.


So, really, you wouldn't maintain that 'treating others as we'd want to be treated is what all of the "laws" of the bible are based on.' Your interpretation of the New Testament, sure.

However, if you look at it from the context of a rule for society to "get along", it's kind of a "don't cheapen sex" thing, suggesting that if you were going to have sex (rape or not) you were supposed to stay with that partner for life.

I don't believe forcing rape victims to marry their rapists makes sex more special. Yikes.

Stoning for immoral sexual acts seems strong to us because our society has evolved past that sort of thing. Now we are more conditioned to accept unusal practises, and differences. In our current society such a thing is deemed wrong, especially with all the focus on being PC.

Not stoning homosexuals (as an example) isn't "PC." It's being a decent human being.

...with few exclusions (that DO exist), all of our ancestors were certainly against letting women have equality to men.

One of my biggest pet peeves with the bible is the approach that women are not the equals to men, and that it's ok to own slaves and stuff. Our society has changed quite a bit since those days.


I think this is somewhat ironic, given that most of our ancestors learned a great deal of their misogyny from Christianity.

As a result, I maintain that it's a great way to set-up a society to survive, thrive, and maintain itself. However, it's not one to be adopted by a bunch of folks that have already been raised within a different kind of society.

The only reason you're a Christian is precisely because it was adopted by a bunch of folks that had already been raised within a different kind of society.

I'd love to start again.. using the current society as a baseline, from which to plot-out a similar course, but I suspect that wouldn't work, due to the adherence to political correctness concepts, and the associated concepts of the loud minority driving the silent majority.

But you think refraining from stoning "immoral" people is just being PC, so...eh.

Which DOES make a certain amount of sense considering that I'm sure the significantly attractive girl who used to be in my old Science class would probably have called the police if I were to have done the things to her that I'd want her to do to me. ;)

Hmm.. in the olden days I would have been stoned, or been foreced to marry her. Either would have probably served to prevent the acts from occurring...


I need a drink. It sounds to me like you're saying you raped this woman, which obviously is not the case. Something's wrong with my funnymetre.
 
2009-03-25 02:45:18 PM
jekxrb: Well, you could do it with a hang-glider. Or a jet pack. We find ways to make things happen...

Yes. Human ingenuity, based on experience and reason and the scientific method, overcomes our natural limitations.

Prayer on the other hand, I'm pretty sure will see you flat on the sidewalk. But I'm willing to run some trials, if anyone wants to volunteer?

I bet there would be tons of religious people eager to demonstrate the strength of their faith.
 
2009-03-25 02:47:19 PM
Conservationist: Atheists strike me as negative people: they know what they don't want because they don't know what they want.

Why is it necessary to "want" a God or a religion? Are you somehow incomplete without one? I think what you really want is some sort of fantastic "afterlife" because you are wholly unfulfilled by your "currentlife". And that's just a pity.
 
2009-03-25 02:50:37 PM
I love how much religion gets people's big boy and girl panties all in a bunch...Just think what positive things could get done if we could harness this much energy, spirit, enthusiasm, undying love and fever and attach it to other issues and crisis in the world today...

I love how the concepts of being good and nice and kind to each other, to judge not lest ye be judged and MYOB have been lost on all sides of the religious debate...I love how some always have to attach a Divine Intervention to things when they are good, but never when bad things happen to good people. And I love how defending your religion or viewpoint to strangers on the internet becomes the next crusade...When all yell, no one can hear and listen...Respect me as a fellow human being by not shoving your viewpoint in every open orifice and I will completely and actively listen with the hope that you will listen with an open mind to what my viewpoint may be. If not, I will only hear the Charlie Brown teacher yelling...

Old song but still is relevant today:

One Tin Soldier (The Legend of Billy Jack)
by Lambert-Potter, sung by Coven

Listen, children, to a story
That was written long ago,
'Bout a kingdom on a mountain
And the valley-folk below.

On the mountain was a treasure
Buried deep beneath the stone,
And the valley-people swore
They'd have it for their very own.

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgment day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.

So the people of the valley
Sent a message up the hill,
Asking for the buried treasure,
Tons of gold for which they'd kill.

Came an answer from the kingdom,
"With our brothers we will share
All the secrets of our mountain,
All the riches buried there."

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgment day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.

Now the valley cried with anger,
"Mount your horses! Draw your sword!"
And they killed the mountain-people,
So they won their just reward.

Now they stood beside the treasure,
On the mountain, dark and red.
Turned the stone and looked beneath it...
"Peace on Earth" was all it said.

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgment day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.
 
2009-03-25 02:50:51 PM
kerpal32: Zamboro: quantum quackery

didn't read the article or posts above. caught this and thought wow. quacks at work.

Zamboro: 'Something from Nothing a Quantum Possibility'

'It's Confirmed, Matter is Merely Vacuum Fluctuations'

lmao. so all that energy came from where exactly? 2 years of discussing string theory and QCD with you, and you think you've got it all figured out. You're funny.



lmao. don't ever change zamboro (not like you could anyway you're such a zealot). you're pure comedy gold.


Summon Kerpal32: The latest news- He doesnt understand Quantum Physics.

Love how you use the argument that we have 11 dimesions so we cannot know all the rules, and that those rules will point to the supernatural. But then in the same breath you laugh at the attempts to discover additional said dimensions.
 
2009-03-25 02:53:23 PM
Matthew 10:34 (King James Version)

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.


Reasonable counterpoint to my earlier comment. However, taking a single verse out of the context of the passage (Or a single line from any other book, speech, etc.) can be misleading.

Chapter 10 of Matthew discusses how the people that choose to follow Christ, leave the faith they had grown up in, would cause division among family and friends, how governments would despise them and maybe try to kill them. Christ was warning them that belief in Him would not be instant peace, love and joy throughout the world, but it would be a sword... cutting them apart from what they had had before.

If you doubt that idea, you have failed to read the 400some posts above.

If you take other Bible passages out of context you get fun things like: Let him that stole steal. No more let him labor with his hands.

(Proper verse is Let him that stole steal no more. Let him labor with his hands.)

:-)
 
2009-03-25 02:54:16 PM
Conservationist: Atheists strike me as negative people: they know what they don't want because they don't know what they want.

I know what I want. To be left alone. To not be looked down upon because I don't subscribe to any religion. To not be discriminated against. To not have my property vandalized if I express my love of science and reason. To not have my kids forced to pledge allegiance to a country under god. To not have my money say that we all trust in god.

I know exactly what I want. It's just the opposite of what you want, and therefore you think it's not valid.
 
2009-03-25 02:54:30 PM
kerpal32: GilRuiz1: And now for no reason:

Isn't that really all that atheism is in the end? lol. Explain it to someone for me please.....

/BTW - your other pal really is a militant atheist. you know who I'm referring to.


Oh hey, there he goes trying to tell me what I believe again. "No, no, no, you aren't arguing for mysticism and magic, you MUST be a militant atheist!" You are SUCH a joke. I believe in a transcendent reality. You can't change that, no matter how much you want to. So go on throwing your little temper tantrums, it amuses us.

I mean, really. You just can't handle the fact that some theists don't require a heaping helping of cognitive rationalizations to make sense of their inconsistencies, can you, Mr. Roman Catholic Buddhist? How does that work, again? Do you believe in a personal heaven as described in the Bible, or in the nothing-state of Nirvana? Did Christ die for our sins, or is sin merely a form of attachment to material things, and so a concept to be discarded? Are works and faith necessary for salvation, or is personal enlightenment all you need?

You want to tell me that I can't believe what I believe? I'll do the same right back, and even a cursory examination will show that your chosen sets of arbitrary beliefs are FULL of mutually exclusive crap.

I also note you still haven't explained from last time how you get around the Principle of Noncontradiction when you simultaneously assert the validity of science, which denies teleology, and the "other" philosophical systems, which assert it.

And before you go off whargarrbling about atheism again, note that this is the philosophy of science that denies teleology. Atheism takes its cues from science in this case, not the other way around.
 
2009-03-25 02:56:22 PM
mungo: Deuce McStinkle:
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding: science is the search for verifiable fact; religion is the search for transcendent truth.

I love this notion of 'transcendent truth'. Truth that transends verifiable fact. Truth, in short, that has no objective basis. What sort of truth is that?

Here's a little musing on truth:

Would children raised in isolation invent a religion?
They might.
But without knowledge of the Prophet, they would not reinvent Islam; without knowledge of Jesus, they would not reinvent Christianity; without knowledge of Abraham and Moses, they would not reinvent Judaism.

By contrast, given sufficient time they or their descendants would rediscover evolution through natural selection, without knowledge of Darwin. Likewise Newtonian mechanics does not require knowledge of Newton, and relativity could be rediscovered without Einstein.

Some things are innate truths and will always be found again, and some things are simply taught as truths by individuals, and are ultimately arbitrary.


Very nice.. :)
I think there's may be a God that is sort of like aspects of all the gods, but that we don't directly commune with him, and simply don't understand it (him?). That all of these teachings are sort of an indication of what man has deciphered god(s) to be, but none being the absolute truth that some think it to be.

Perhaps the mere fact that mankind will discover it's own form of religeon, and that MANY religeons that have been in existence have many overlapping concepts... is at least a suggestion of SOMETHING being there to do something like come up with all the stuff we discover each day about things like DNA codings and suchlike?

I use that because it's at the edge of our understanding, much like ancient man made deities out of the Sun, Moon, and trees because he had no explanation for how/why they did what they did. MAN.. if he'd known it all then, what would the deities have been like? Although, to be fair, we might know how the Sun "moves" and what it is, and how these things benefit us (and life in general), it looks as though we'll never understand a "why" through science.

Does that mean there ISN'T a "why", or does it mean that the "why" merely continues to escape us?

Some religeons seem closer to the mark than others, but all were written in the beleif that their way was the right way. How "close to the mark" depends on our societies "view" of those religeons. For example, do we come back as Cows? That probably seems unlikely to most folks in the Fark society, but is that due to actual evidence to the contrary? or simply a different perspective on what we beleive to be our religeous views (or beleif in no religeon).. All of which are truly unevidenced beleifs.

We can't prove God doesn't exist, or that we aren't reborn as cows, any more that we can prove that either of these concepts are true. We can only interpret facts in whatever manner we choose, to support our beleifs or deny the beleifs of others.

I will say this though.. societies are geared towards making unbiased facts of this nature to be difficult to find. Commonly, it would appear that aside from sects, society has a strong influence on the general beliefs and religeons of it's members. Our current society seems to be destined to simply dilute, and/or push all religeous beliefs away, replacing it with the attitude of "ok freak.. whatever you wanna' follow.. just don't do it in my yard," and stereotypes of other competing societies.

All of which is interesting to me.. and maybe not to you.. I hope that those I'd be boring aren't wasting their time with my posts, lol.
 
2009-03-25 02:56:25 PM
The Icelander: Conservationist: Atheists strike me as negative people: they know what they don't want because they don't know what they want.

I know what I want. To be left alone. To not be looked down upon because I don't subscribe to any religion. To not be discriminated against. To not have my property vandalized if I express my love of science and reason. To not have my kids forced to pledge allegiance to a country under god. To not have my money say that we all trust in god.

I know exactly what I want. It's just the opposite of what you want, and therefore you think it's not valid.


THIS!

I heart you even more!!
 
2009-03-25 02:56:38 PM
KiltedBastich: Oh hey, there he goes trying to tell me what I believe again.

Really? I thought he was talking about me.

\Is actually a militant atheist
\\If you take militant to mean "willing to stand up for his rights"
 
2009-03-25 02:58:30 PM
queenb4biatch: THIS!

I heart you even more!!


I'm quite heart-able when you get to know me.
 
2009-03-25 02:58:35 PM
queenb4biatch: Just think what positive things could get done if we could harness this much energy, spirit, enthusiasm, undying love and fever and attach it to other issues and crisis in the world today...


You know, that's a really good question. How come the Peace Corps, Greenpeace, and all the other make-love-not-war do-gooders been unable to harness that same energy, spirit, and so on? Why has religion been able to do it, but the save-the-planet crew has not?

i224.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-25 02:58:39 PM
Thread needs more pics. You people expect me to read all that? I want the graphic novel version.
 
2009-03-25 02:59:01 PM
guyinjeep16: Love how you use the argument that we have 11 dimesions so we cannot know all the rules, and that those rules will point to the supernatural. But then in the same breath you laugh at the attempts to discover additional said dimensions.

If by that you mean you're recently self aware talking meat on a cosmological scale with an over inflated sense of ego, yea, I agree with you.

Another way of stating that for recently self aware talking meat is human beings, confined to 4 directly observable dimensions (maybe, depends on if #4 is causal and not just the observation of 2 or 3 others interacting, and a 5th just recently observed indirectly) out of 11 theorized dimensions, 10 spatial and 1 temporal (possibly 23) that make up the universe and reality, probability shows the universe operates under "natural laws" with some known anomalies that cannot be explained, but can be relativistically predicted have a right to an atheist philosophy, but not the right to be arrogant farks imposing their philosophy on everyone else.


I make no proselytizing arguments for theism or deism. I just point out to ignorant militant trolls that atheism is just a philosophy, and science doesn't disprove theism.
 
2009-03-25 03:01:47 PM
Deuce McStinkle: Clearly, you know nothing of God. I'm suspicious of those who make such claims.

Deuce McStinkle: God: immortal, not human, subject to His will and His will alone. Sacred. Transcendent. Beyond measuring. Sees all times simultaneously.

Go ahead and reconcile those statements for me, Sport...
 
2009-03-25 03:02:51 PM
The Icelander: KiltedBastich: Oh hey, there he goes trying to tell me what I believe again.

Really? I thought he was talking about me.

\Is actually a militant atheist
\\If you take militant to mean "willing to stand up for his rights"


militant as in being on the front lines in spiritual warfare, battling the forces of good.
 
2009-03-25 03:03:29 PM
jekxrb: Anti-God is Anti-American


////


Oh. So that's why he chose a nice Jewish girl to impregnate and bare his son. Now it all seems so clear to me. Statements like the above are nothing more than ANTI-Intellectual, brought about by no less than 4 generations of inbreeding.
I prefer a saying made famous by one of the Marx brothers, " Religion is the opiate of the masses."
 
2009-03-25 03:05:06 PM
GilRuiz1: You know, that's a really good question. How come the Peace Corps, Greenpeace, and all the other make-love-not-war do-gooders been unable to harness that same energy, spirit, and so on? Why has religion been able to do it, but the save-the-planet crew has not?

Great question!

I do believe, however, that the fever and energy can be misplaced in wheel-spinning debates on religion, whereas we should be putting differences aside and using that same amount of energy to solve stuff rather than add to it by spewing hate from all sides to all other sides.
 
2009-03-25 03:05:57 PM
kerpal32: If by that you mean you're recently self aware talking meat on a cosmological scale with an over inflated sense of ego, yea, I agree with you.

You mean, they're made of meat? (^)
 
2009-03-25 03:06:03 PM
The Icelander: I'm quite heart-able when you get to know me.

:)

/how YOU doin...
 
2009-03-25 03:06:05 PM
The Icelander: KiltedBastich: Oh hey, there he goes trying to tell me what I believe again.

Really? I thought he was talking about me.


"Hey, do you think he's talking about me?"

"No, I think he was referring to me."

"Mmmwah-haaaah-haaaaaa!"

i224.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-25 03:06:08 PM
abb3w: almafuerte: Let evolution decide. Stop being considerate to each other. That kills evolution.



Evolution selects at all levels, including those both larger and smaller that the individual organism.


Well, to be fair, group selection has pretty much been disproved, at least at the most naive forms.
 
2009-03-25 03:06:31 PM
kerpal32: Zamboro: quantum quackery

didn't read the article or posts above. caught this and thought wow. quacks at work.

Zamboro: 'Something from Nothing a Quantum Possibility'

'It's Confirmed, Matter is Merely Vacuum Fluctuations'

lmao. so all that energy came from where exactly?.


The net energy of the universe is zero. All what energy is right. You like to make things up in your head dont ya.
 
2009-03-25 03:09:09 PM
kerpal32: Zamboro: Neither one of us are particle physicists. All I can do is point to the research done by those who are. You apparently think they're full of shiat in this case, which makes me wonder why you don't take it up with them rather than me.

lmao. Nope, you're right, I'm just a mathematician with a degree in pure mathematics. But I did work at SLAC and know a lot more than you. And I understand inflationary and spatial stability theory better than you. Even if you keep waving your book at me (like it was some bible I might add).

/again, you didn't answer "where did all that energy come from". This isn't Reaganomics. Separation of positive and negative energy through quantum fluctuations after inflation doesn't explain it away. Just saying the universe did not require the violation of energy conservation at the assumed creation (which is really all you keep stating) does not explain the question away.

Wake me when you can admit atheism is a philosophy just like any other.

//wake me when you can admit atheism is just a philosophy.


You are officially the new Bevets. I love the stupidity.
 
2009-03-25 03:10:10 PM
colon_pow

militant as in being on the front lines in spiritual warfare, battling the forces of good.

lol?

Do you really think Christians and atheists are locked in some cosmic struggle? Who are the "forces of good?" Are the "forces of evil" merely atheists, or non-Christians, or what?
 
2009-03-25 03:10:37 PM
Deuce McStinkle: So, yes, God had some people killed in the OT. I'm still not seeing your point.

Holy cow! How do you know who made that decision? Somebody certainly did it in the name of God, but if that sort of thing is allowed because "God decided it", who verifies that it was actually God? Answer, the "Holy Men". Believing that it is ok to slaughter men women and children in the name of God may not even be what God wants. But that would mean you would have to question that unquestionable book. And we can't have that. So some people still carry around the idea that there are times when killing large groups of people might be ok, provided that God gave his stamp of approval.
 
2009-03-25 03:11:30 PM
colon_pow: militant as in being on the front lines in spiritual warfare, battling the forces of good.

Pretty much.

\And evil will win because good is dumb
 
2009-03-25 03:12:17 PM
VonAether: Zamboro: What the Bleep do we Know makes essentially the same claim as the bestselling book advocated by Oprah Winfrey, "The Secret"; that asking 'the universe' for things will result in actually receiving those things, that focusing on things you want somehow 'attracts' them to you. The mechanism is never explained, of course.

I believe The Secret actually explicitly claims that the reason for the Holocaust was because the Jews wanted to be punished, or didn't want the Nazis to stop, or some equally insulting theory. They didn't get freedom, so obviously they didn't want it enough.

kerpal32: lmao. so all that energy came from where exactly? 2 years of discussing string theory and QCD with you, and you think you've got it all figured out. You're funny.

Zam was talking about quantum theory, which is fairly well-understood, and then you make a crack about string "theory," which hasn't yet been proven. String theory and quantum theory are two different animals. Making a string theory joke when he's talking about quantum theory only serves to make you look foolish.

Where does the energy come from? The vacuum itself. Even you can do math.

1 + -1 = 0

This works backwards, too:

0 = 1 + -1

0 is the vacuum, and 1 + -1 are the particles and antiparticles generated. The total energy of the system remains 0. We see this all the time in the vicinity of black holes in the form of Hawking radiation. We not only know it can happen, we know it does happen. So what exactly is your problem?


Its not in line with his Theist views, thats the problem.

Welcome to the new Bevets.
 
2009-03-25 03:12:36 PM
kerpal32: "lmao. Nope, you're right, I'm just a mathematician with a degree in pure mathematics. But I did work at SLAC and know a lot more than you."

And yet, you believe in god, so clearly something is amiss.

kerpal32: "And I understand inflationary and spatial stability theory better than you. Even if you keep waving your book at me (like it was some bible I might add)."

Substitute just about anything written on the subject by Hawking and you're just as well off, as he's of the same mind as Stenger where the causation of the big bang is concerned. That particular book is a favorite of mine specifically because it ties together a ton of excerpts from other books by the sort of physicists we could both agree are experts in their field, saving me the trouble of digging up a dozen different links and then explaining how they're all painting different parts of the same picture.

kerpal32: "/again, you didn't answer "where did all that energy come from". This isn't Reaganomics. Separation of positive and negative energy through quantum fluctuations after inflation doesn't explain it away. Just saying the universe did not require the violation of energy conservation at the assumed creation (which is really all you keep stating) does not explain the question away."

As a mathematician who worked at SLAC, you should be able to understand this, and how it supports the model we've been discussing for like six threads now by way of prediction.

You're correct that the answer is incomplete. I've provided a naturalistic mechanism for the big bang, but I haven't explained some of the inconsistencies in how it played out, such as why so little antimatter survived compared to matter, and what accounts for the universes missing mass, things like that. I can't answer those. Perhaps the answers haven't been discovered yet or perhaps they have and I've yet to hear about it, but I only need to provide a well supported naturalistic mechanism for a self-catalyzing big bang. With that provided, we may argue over particulars until we're both old and g....until I'm also old and grey, and it'll be moot. It would be like the Japanese attempting to negotiate the terms of their surrender following the nuclear annihilation of hiroshima and nagasaki.

kerpal32: "Wake me when you can admit atheism is a philosophy just like any other. wake me when you can admit atheism is just a philosophy."

Insofar as gravity, relativity or evolution are philosophies, I guess. Atheism is a conclusion supported by the sum total of evidence available at present. You seem to believe that given a greater understanding of the universe, science will uncover evidence of the divine. That's an interesting prediction, but I hope you'll forgive me if I don't have as much faith in it as you do. Perhaps if you'd share your crystal ball...?
 
2009-03-25 03:12:55 PM
Facetious_Speciest: colon_pow

militant as in being on the front lines in spiritual warfare, battling the forces of good.

lol?

Do you really think Christians and atheists are locked in some cosmic struggle? Who are the "forces of good?" Are the "forces of evil" merely atheists, or non-Christians, or what?


Who defines "good" and "evil"? Who defines "infidels" and "believers"?

And again, why are we all fighting?
 
2009-03-25 03:13:44 PM
KiltedBastich: I mean, really. You just can't handle the fact that some theists don't require a heaping helping of cognitive rationalizations to make sense of their inconsistencies, can you, Mr. Roman Catholic Buddhist?

sure i can. the same way i understand there are irrational militant atheists and emo atheists (some on Fark).

/no time to play today kilted. and no, I wasn't talking about you. But the other guy who "read a book" written by an atheist from an atheist perspective and waves it like it literally is a "bible".

KiltedBastich: also note you still haven't explained from last time how you get around the Principle of Noncontradiction when you simultaneously assert the validity of science, which denies teleology, and the "other" philosophical systems, which assert it.

I don't need to. That' why it's called a paradox. at least when you eliminate meta-language, semantics, human interjection to "frame something in human terms" based on 2000+ yr old poorly translated text, etc. etc. etc..

We have paradoxes in mathematics all the time. In fact, we have some that we accept, and we even have a word for it. Dialetheia (pops).

Yet somehow we manage not to be complete militant pricks on the internet imposing our philosophy about it on everyone.

I do not approach science from a teleological perspective. YOU keep making that inference. Because you're biased. I have philosophical beliefs that fall outside of science and scientific method, and do not impede me from applying scientific method.
 
2009-03-25 03:14:20 PM
kerpal32: VonAether: Zam was talking about quantum theory, which is fairly well-understood, and then you make a crack about string "theory," which hasn't yet been proven.

lol. did you know string theory predicted the results of a QCD test at CERN in January? probably not.

/just curious. I'm talking about quantum theory also. please don't interject yourself. this has been a 2 year debate with him because, well frankly, he's a militant atheist.


You cant argue a point on facts, thats why you resort to the militant atheist stuff.
What does it matter if he is a Militant Atheist, either he is wrong or right.
 
2009-03-25 03:15:13 PM
i64.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-25 03:16:27 PM
queenb4biatch

Who defines "good" and "evil"? Who defines "infidels" and "believers"?

Crazy people with paradoxically exclusivist/universalist religious inclinations, apparently.

And again, why are we all fighting?

I'm having a tea party. I reject your reality!
 
2009-03-25 03:17:02 PM
maddogdelta: TexasRedbud:

Your point was that God can kill anyone he wants (which I think is pretty detestable to start with, but let's work with it).

So, if God tells you to kill someone, that makes it OK, right? (I'm not singling out any particular religion right now, the Moslems are doing pretty good at this kind of argument recently, but they aren't the only ones..)


I guess it sounds bad, as you say. But God is the giver of life, and, as such, life is his to take.

The Bible goes so far as to say that every day is a gift. There is no guaranty that we will have a tomorrow.

In the book of Job, it says something like, 'The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord'.

You mention the idea that if God tells someone to kill, I am sure that 99.9999 % of the time anyone announces that God has spoken to them and told them to kill, that God had nothing to do with it.

But from a purely theoretical position, IF God told you do something, it would be moral correct to do it.

The original comment was on a natural death of an un-born child. This takes out the element of God speaking to a person. But it really is the same, isn't it? If God creates and God gives life, he is also commited to an end of that life. At least in the world we live in now. No one lives this life forever. You said it was detestable if God told someone to kill another. Is it detestable if a 90 old woman dies in her sleep?
 
2009-03-25 03:17:40 PM
Facetious_Speciest: I'm having a tea party. I reject your reality!

May I come to you tea party? It sounds lovely and so much more entertaining that all the douchebaggery found here today...I'll even bring pie!
 
2009-03-25 03:18:30 PM
Zamboro: I've provided a naturalistic mechanism for the big bang, but I haven't explained some of the inconsistencies in how it played out... I can't answer those. Perhaps the answers haven't been discovered yet or perhaps they have and I've yet to hear about it


The real answer:

i224.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-25 03:18:39 PM
Facetious_Speciest: colon_pow

militant as in being on the front lines in spiritual warfare, battling the forces of good.

lol?

Do you really think Christians and atheists are locked in some cosmic struggle? Who are the "forces of good?" Are the "forces of evil" merely atheists, or non-Christians, or what?


Satan. the great deceiver. Militant athiests are doing his work.
 
2009-03-25 03:20:25 PM
zootsuit: "Thanks for sharing. It's nice to see someone describe what they believe in a civilized, non-aggressive manner.

/Totally serious"


Oh, thanks you. Did you read all of it? I'm open to discussion. I have reservations about my favorite post-scarcity economic model (automated labor, see 'Project Venus' and 'Manna') and the cost overruns that seem to plague nuclear plant construction in particular (pressurized water reactors in France), although in either case I do think that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, and that these are the best solutions for their respective problems.

trappedspirit: "No, my beef was just the wording of your comment. Equating the belief in a soul with creationism. The creationism I see as quite bizarre, but having to accept that or the total mechanistic viewpoint of the universe seems some odd (if then else) equation."

Here, read this.

"I think Zamboro should eat a few shroom caps or smoke a bowl. I think everyone should..LOL! Then we would all feel the special life force that is everywhere.

Then again you also feel like your face is melting upwards and your left arm is turning into a cybernetic dragon. Fun for the whole family, but unlikely to bring you any closer to an accurate understanding of reality.
 
2009-03-25 03:21:04 PM
kerpal32: guyinjeep16: Love how you use the argument that we have 11 dimesions so we cannot know all the rules, and that those rules will point to the supernatural. But then in the same breath you laugh at the attempts to discover additional said dimensions.

If by that you mean you're recently self aware talking meat on a cosmological scale with an over inflated sense of ego, yea, I agree with you.

Another way of stating that for recently self aware talking meat is human beings, confined to 4 directly observable dimensions (maybe, depends on if #4 is causal and not just the observation of 2 or 3 others interacting, and a 5th just recently observed indirectly) out of 11 theorized dimensions, 10 spatial and 1 temporal (possibly 23) that make up the universe and reality, probability shows the universe operates under "natural laws" with some known anomalies that cannot be explained, but can be relativistically predicted have a right to an atheist philosophy, but not the right to be arrogant farks imposing their philosophy on everyone else.


I make no proselytizing arguments for theism or deism. I just point out to ignorant militant trolls that atheism is just a philosophy, and science doesn't disprove theism.


Simple question- What do YOU suggest we do to find out what the known anomalies are?
 
2009-03-25 03:22:32 PM
guyinjeep16: You cant argue a point on facts, thats why you resort to the militant atheist stuff.
What does it matter if he is a Militant Atheist, either he is wrong or right.


by "facts" you mean proving to your satisfaction that a metaphysical philosophy fits within a materialistic philosophy?

gee, you're an idiot. please go back to "pushing tin", stop being a dick, and I'll stop being one back at you.

/the "militant" term applies to ardent supporters of a philosophical position who keep arguing from that perspective as if it "proves" anything or even has any validity.
 
2009-03-25 03:22:34 PM
colon_pow: Satan. the great deceiver. Militant athiests are doing his work.

At least it pays well.
 
2009-03-25 03:23:24 PM
TexasRedbud: But from a purely theoretical position, IF God told you do something, it would be moral correct to do it.

This sounds quite a bit like "If the President does it, then it's not illegal."
 
2009-03-25 03:24:57 PM
guyinjeep16: Simple question- What do YOU suggest we do to find out what the known anomalies are?

which ones? the one's we know of today? or the one's we'll continue to uncover? Or do you think man has reached that apex of science and knowledge? Through science of course.

What if science doesn't provide all the answers to the questions?

/wake me when you have a TOE. Then we'll discuss deism.
 
2009-03-25 03:26:45 PM
The Icelander: colon_pow: Satan. the great deceiver. Militant athiests are doing his work.

At least it pays well.


*snort*

new keyboard, etc....
 
2009-03-25 03:27:35 PM
kerpal32: Or do you think man has reached that apex of science and knowledge? Through science of course.

We'll never reach the apex of science and knowledge. That's kind of the point. That's what makes it fun.

What if science doesn't provide all the answers to the questions?

It seems like you think we're expecting science to do more than what it can.

I know full well science won't answer all the questions I have. But I'm not going to try to convince myself of something for which there is no evidence just because it will make me feel better.
 
2009-03-25 03:30:31 PM
colon_pow

Satan. the great deceiver. Militant athiests are doing his work.

I'm sure I'll be either repulsed or vaguely fascinated with the answer, but...if the Christians are the Forces of Good! and atheists work for the other Christian deity, who do, say, Hindus serve?
 
2009-03-25 03:31:41 PM
The Icelander: It seems like you think we're expecting science to do more than what it can.

I know full well science won't answer all the questions I have. But I'm not going to try to convince myself of something for which there is no evidence just because it will make me feel better.


you want me to debate this from a single position against multiple atheistic and agnostic theistic views? Not gonna happy skippy.

And I don't do it to "make myself feel better". How does that invalidate the philosophy anyway?
 
2009-03-25 03:34:04 PM
kerpal32: "kerpal32: Or do you think man has reached that apex of science and knowledge? Through science of course."

Do we need to know everything in order to know anything? Is it too presumptuous to conclude that evolution and abiogenesis account for life on Earth in light of the fact that we have not yet reached the apex of knowledge? I don't think so.

It may seem as though we're treading on sacred ground when science speaks of the origin of the universe, but then science was thought to be treading on sacred ground when it first began to speak of the origins of life as well. These are not sacred questions, nor are they impossible to answer. Indeed, we've already made a great deal of progress towards that end.
 
2009-03-25 03:34:11 PM
Facetious_Speciest: colon_pow

Satan. the great deceiver. Militant athiests are doing his work.

I'm sure I'll be either repulsed or vaguely fascinated with the answer, but...if the Christians are the Forces of Good! and atheists work for the other Christian deity, who do, say, Hindus serve?


The hungry folks at the Indian restaurant?
 
2009-03-25 03:38:05 PM
The Icelander: We'll never reach the apex of science and knowledge. That's kind of the point. That's what makes it fun.

I can understand the desire to have this statement be true, but why do you believe it's true? Hope? Faith? Gut feeling? Hard facts? Just curious.
 
2009-03-25 03:39:43 PM
Zamboro: kerpal32: "kerpal32: Or do you think man has reached that apex of science and knowledge? Through science of course."

Do we need to know everything in order to know anything? Is it too presumptuous to conclude that evolution and abiogenesis account for life on Earth in light of the fact that we have not yet reached the apex of knowledge? I don't think so.

It may seem as though we're treading on sacred ground when science speaks of the origin of the universe, but then science was thought to be treading on sacred ground when it first began to speak of the origins of life as well. These are not sacred questions, nor are they impossible to answer. Indeed, we've already made a great deal of progress towards that end.




Nice strawman.

img512.imageshack.us

There is no sacred ground for science. But you're making claims based on your opinions and philosophy. That does not invalidate other opinions or philosophies.

sorry, you fail....
img225.imageshack.us
 
2009-03-25 03:40:36 PM
So do atheists not believe in anything spiritual because there is no proof of the existence of such forces? If that is true then it sounds like they aren't very creative or imaginative which is exactly what we need to move forward.
 
2009-03-25 03:40:52 PM
kerpal32: guyinjeep16: You cant argue a point on facts, thats why you resort to the militant atheist stuff.
What does it matter if he is a Militant Atheist, either he is wrong or right.

by "facts" you mean proving to your satisfaction that a metaphysical philosophy fits within a materialistic philosophy?

gee, you're an idiot. please go back to "pushing tin", stop being a dick, and I'll stop being one back at you.

/the "militant" term applies to ardent supporters of a philosophical position who keep arguing from that perspective as if it "proves" anything or even has any validity.


Facts are facts. Doesnt matter where they come from.

/People who name call often use names they themselves have been called recently
 
2009-03-25 03:43:27 PM
kerpal32: guyinjeep16: Simple question- What do YOU suggest we do to find out what the known anomalies are?

which ones? the one's we know of today? or the one's we'll continue to uncover? Or do you think man has reached that apex of science and knowledge? Through science of course.

What if science doesn't provide all the answers to the questions?

/wake me when you have a TOE. Then we'll discuss deism.


Any and all anomalies.
If science cant answer them then what should we use? Im just wondering why when an Atheist uses the same science that its somehow invalid.
 
2009-03-25 03:44:42 PM
kerpal32: And I don't do it to "make myself feel better". How does that invalidate the philosophy anyway?

I was speaking more about the people who believe incredible things to make themselves feel better without fully thinking them through.

Like the people who say "god has a plan" when bad things happen to them. Or people who say "he's in a better place" when their pet dies.

My cat's in the hospital right now with liver failure. There's a good chance he'll pull through, but it's still scary and sad that he might die. I could tell myself "He's going to a better place and I'll see him when I get there," but I know that I'd just be lying to myself because there's no evidence at all that he's going to be anything but dead. And I'd rather be sad than delusional.
 
2009-03-25 03:45:45 PM
trappedspirit: The Icelander: We'll never reach the apex of science and knowledge. That's kind of the point. That's what makes it fun.

I can understand the desire to have this statement be true, but why do you believe it's true? Hope? Faith? Gut feeling? Hard facts? Just curious.


That's easy - simple fact. Technological evolution following Moore's Law to the fullest. Every time we find a question, we make a shovel that can dig for the answers like the LHC, a better microscope, etc., The ability and desire to quest for new answers and more detailed like this instead of relying upon the answers that glorified cavemen came up with 2000 years ago is what separates intelligent man from his peers.

As long as people refuse to let "And then a miracle occurred" sit in the middle of their formula, we will ALWAYS have advances in science and knowledge. ALWAYS.
 
2009-03-25 03:46:20 PM
trappedspirit: I can understand the desire to have this statement be true, but why do you believe it's true? Hope? Faith? Gut feeling? Hard facts? Just curious.

There was a snippet in the April 09 issue of Scientific American about the nature of knowledge, and that even if we had infinite memory and computing power, the fact that we exist within the universe means we can't ever fully know it.
 
2009-03-25 03:46:37 PM
twowlz: So do atheists not believe in anything spiritual because there is no proof of the existence of such forces? If that is true then it sounds like they aren't very creative or imaginative which is exactly what we need to move forward.

Imagination can go past the have-to belief in a spiritual being having to exist in order for all things to happen.

I do not necessarily subscribe to the organized religions of the world, but I believe that there are things in the universe which we have not seen or discovered. I can read a book and let my mind envision how other worlds look. I can see a sunrise and be thankful for the opportunity to have another day to do good or to screw up all without having to thank any form of spiritual being for my existence.
 
2009-03-25 03:47:31 PM
twowlz: So do atheists not believe in anything spiritual because there is no proof of the existence of such forces? If that is true then it sounds like they aren't very creative or imaginative which is exactly what we need to move forward.

So if I tell you that I have a six foot tall rabbit as drinking companion, does that make me delusional or imaginative?

// and if you want to claim "not imaginative because it's been done before, so has the white guy with the beard...
 
2009-03-25 03:47:39 PM
twowlz: So do atheists not believe in anything spiritual because there is no proof of the existence of such forces? If that is true then it sounds like they aren't very creative or imaginative which is exactly what we need to move forward.

Yes, it's atheism and science that has held back human development, not religion.

How does the fact that atheists don't believe in god mean they aren't creative or imaginative? Are you saying god is created and imagined by people and ergo does not exist? I would agree with THAT statement.
 
2009-03-25 03:47:50 PM
Zamboro: Really? You never do that?

yet you're the one pa-trolling these threads. I just pop in to shine a light on your personal biases and hatred of religion.
 
2009-03-25 03:49:50 PM
jekxrb: Overfiend: Well, when you believe killing unborn babies is OK, I would say that makes you anti-life.

Awesome. We can have an atheism AND abortion flame war.

I'm assuming you're against the death penalty, war, are vegetarian and never even kill insects, because in all those cases there is death involved and death of an organism more highly advanced than a fetus.

And nobody is pro-death or pro-abortion. They are PRO-CHOICE. Meaning you have the right to CHOOSE whatever option you want.

Yes I am against the death penalty, not a vegetarian, was an exterminator (so I killed millions of insects).

Where you and I disagree is that I feel that each unborn baby (you call them fetuses) has a soul. I do not believe that animals or insects have souls persay (I think they have some sort of life force, but that's a discussion for another time).

I realize that abortion for most women is not an easy decision. I don't hate women who've had them or the people who provide them. I also am a strong believer in sex education that promotes contraception use. Hey - one thing we can all agree on is the less unwanted pregnancies that end up in abortion is the best thing.

But I believe in my heart that abortion is killing a human being.

Peace to you all,

Overfiend
 
2009-03-25 03:49:56 PM
The Icelander: I was speaking more about the people who believe incredible things to make themselves feel better without fully thinking them through.

Of course you were. How are they different than the people who simply refuse to think about it, believe it as "must all be natural", and then run around trying to convince everyone else how right they must be in their philosophy?
 
2009-03-25 03:50:18 PM
guyinjeep16 You like to make things up in your head dont ya.

now you're gettin it. ;D
 
2009-03-25 03:53:07 PM
queenb4biatch

The hungry folks at the Indian restaurant?

Wow. Why'd you do that? Now I'm starving. :(
 
2009-03-25 03:53:41 PM
Christ: I have some great news! You don't need a church or a priest to have a relationship with God.

Christians: Awesome! Let's create several churches and priests in Your name!

Christ: *Facepalm*
 
2009-03-25 03:54:29 PM
kerpal32: How are they different than the people who simply refuse to think about it, believe it as "must all be natural", and then run around trying to convince everyone else how right they must be in their philosophy?

I'm just assuming something doesn't exist unless there's evidence. They're assuming something exists and are making very specific and unconfirmable assertions about it.
 
2009-03-25 03:57:28 PM
twowlz: So do atheists not believe in anything spiritual because there is no proof of the existence of such forces? If that is true then it sounds like they aren't very creative or imaginative which is exactly what we need to move forward.

avatar.movetoiceland.com

Douglas Adams frowns on your shenanigans.
 
2009-03-25 03:57:56 PM
kerpal32: "Nice strawman. There is no sacred ground for science. But you're making claims based on your opinions and philosophy. That does not invalidate other opinions or philosophies. sorry, you fail...."

Cute pictures, but you've done nothing to counter my argument, nor was it a straw man. Here are your exact words:

kerpal32: "Or do you think man has reached that apex of science and knowledge? Through science of course."

The implication here is that in order to know certain things which you've declared off-limits to science, we would have to believe that man has reached an apex of science and knowledge. I don't think that's true. The question of whether life was designed or evolved of its own accord was every bit as emotionally charged, every bit as controversial, yet we managed to produce an answer despite not having reached an apex of knowledge and science.

The origin of the universe is not an unknowable. It is a question for particle physics to answer. We'll have answered it completely enough in due time that natural causation will achieve the same degree of support as evolution, relativity and so on. When that occurs, and it takes its appropriate place alongside the findings of cognitive neurobiology re: consciousness and the theory of abiogenesis, all of the essential claims of the Christian religion will have been disproven by science, insofar as it is capable of disproving anything.
 
2009-03-25 04:00:09 PM
The Icelander: Dead-Guy: Stoning for immoral sexual acts seems strong to us because our society has evolved past that sort of thing.

But I thought that the Bible was the height of morality and the perfect source for rules of behavior?

If we've "evolved beyond" the rules of the Bible, doesn't that mean we must have access to some sort of better morality? And doesn't that imply that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of stories, rules and history and not from god?


No.. as the rest of my post suggested.. evolution is not automatically an improvement. It's impossible to create an objective baseline on anything like that, except to say that each society considers itself to be the best society possible.

Also, I'm not a bible thumper by any means.. As I said, I just think it's a great source of information for creating and maintaining a society that would, in theory, do very well and allow it's members to live happily with one another.. to permit large groups to "work".

The bible wasn't written by God or something, by it's own admission, it was "inspired by God". Which means folks are reading man's interpretation of "his" surroundings circa whatever time period a chapter was written in.

As far as being in possession of a "higher morality" supposedly we have one that's built-in according to the stories regarding the Garden of Eden and the Apple, but the bible is quick to indicate that this doesn't make men holy, it merely makes them liable for evil that they knowingly commit.

Also, it's my estimation that society plays a role in the subjectivity of it too. (ie- is it wrong to eat meat that comes from a "tortured" animal?)

However, if we were all God-fearing Christians, and all followed the bible's teachings, it would be a different society entirely. Better? Sure, because you wouldn't get stuff like priests molesting kids, or serial killers, etc.

It's achieved through the self-imposed reduction of freedoms, which is also the definition of acting responsibly. Simple enough, but with actual religeon thrown in the middle, regarding worship and stuff, it get's a little sticky in terms of "who can prove what" and "if THIS is wrong, it must ALL be wrong" because it 's held against the ultimate in standards... our own natural sense of morality.

Like "genocide is wrong.." What is "wrong?" and who are you to say it shouldn't happen? That's your sense of morality talking.
Otherwise known as guilt, which is what the church is credited with creating.

Guilt is a pretty useful thing for a society to have. It's what protects your mom from being relentlessly raped by anyone who wants to "partake of those goodies." However, it also denied those folks the individual freedom to act in any way they wanted to.

It's a neat trick when you consider the source of it, and neccessary for the viability of a society. Without that self-restraint, there's external restraint, which is what societal laws and rules do...

ie- make rape illegal and punishable, and it won't happen anymore. (FAIL)

BUT-
make everyone feel guilty about it, and their immortal soul in jeopardy for actions such as those, and TWO things happen:
#1- enternal damnation and/or guilt is a stronger deterrent.

#2- if it still happens, the victims and victim families can take consolation in the fact that this person will be punished by a deity upon their death.

Of course, that works a lot better when everyone beleives, rather than just some folks, but what can you do besides putting the religeon out there and hope someone bites?
 
2009-03-25 04:00:58 PM
The Icelander: Like the people who say "god has a plan" when bad things happen to them. Or people who say "he's in a better place" when their pet dies.

unless of course "he" doesn't have a plan. Are you arguing for metaphysical determinism at a personal level? Seems self centered. While you're at it, why not ask for loot, or love, or happiness for the duration of your natural life....



Bender:
So do you know what I'm going to do before I do it?

God:
Yes.

Bender: What if I do something different?

God:
Then I don't know that.

Bender:
Cool... Cool... I bet a lot of people pray to you, huh?

God:
Yes, but there are so many asking so much. After a while, you just sort of
tune it out.

img135.imageshack.us


hmmmmmm maybe it was an electrical fire.

God:
Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a pickpocket.

Bender: Or a guy who burns down a bar for the insurance money!

God:
Yes, if you make it look like an electrical thing. When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.


or not. whatever floats your boat.
 
2009-03-25 04:06:20 PM
The Icelander:
Douglas Adams frowns on your shenanigans.



Now that's one rational, froopy dude I could have discussed atheism with.

Sadly, he's been replaced by this asshole.
img502.imageshack.us
 
2009-03-25 04:07:17 PM
kerpal32: "yet you're the one pa-trolling these threads."

Am I?

zootsuit: "Thanks for sharing. It's nice to see someone describe what they believe in a civilized, non-aggressive manner. /Totally serious"

You seem to be the only person in here who thinks I'm 'trolling' thus far.

kerpal32: "I just pop in to shine a light on your personal biases and hatred of religion."

Really? That's all? No vitriolic ranting about "militant atheists"? No insulting image macros? No denigrating catch phrases? You're just being the last shining beacon of God's mercy in a vile den of ne'er do wells?

I don't hate religion. I've quoted from the Ramayana and Upanishads in past threads. I'm intimately familiar with the capers of the Norse gods. I've studied a greay many religions in depth and I regard them as culturally valuable, as a form of collaborative memetic art, but which has detrmimental effects when sincerely believed in.

If there's anything I hate, it's faith, and I am well prepared to explain why we should all revile faith if you're interested.
 
2009-03-25 04:07:48 PM