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  
•       •       •

14369 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 678 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report