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.

(Culture Media Institute)   Yet again, conservatives frustrated that Google has chosen to celebrate some socialist hippie holiday instead of the good ol' American Jesus   (mrc.org) divider line 532
    More: Obvious, American Jesus, Google  
•       •       •

6224 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Apr 2011 at 12:51 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



532 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-04-22 08:30:39 PM

Mrtraveler01: Because Christianity is a religion...and secularism isn't superior...it's just not a religion.


Don't worry, I'm well aware of the current status quo.

Christianity is a religion, one of many religions.

Secularism is the undeniably truth that can govern society.

Any view of mine must meet Secularist's view before it's acceptable to be in society.

/QUIT PERSECUTING ME.
// lulz
 
2011-04-22 08:36:44 PM
It's Easter weekend? shiat. How did I miss that?
 
2011-04-22 08:42:06 PM

Blairr: Something has been bugging the crap out of me and I can't find an answer in layman's terms.

Where does sperm come from?


The testicles.

Is this like, a trick question?
 
2011-04-22 08:49:10 PM

Dr. Mojo PhD: Blairr: Something has been bugging the crap out of me and I can't find an answer in layman's terms.

Where does sperm come from?

The testicles.

Is this like, a trick question?


No... I'm just trying to figure it out, and people always give me weird looks when I ask too many questions about baby-batter.

Aren't semen alive? I mean they move, so they require energy. They have an apparent goal, so there must be a certain level of perception. Perception requires a sensory system of sorts, no? Has anyone ever dissected semen?

Do they come from eggs? Where do those eggs come from? Are the testicles some sort of life producing gland?
 
2011-04-22 08:50:34 PM

Blairr: Farker Soze: dumber

Isn't an argument.

It's a refusal to acknowledge what you don't like.

Try to be open-minded.


You seem to be fixated on your own definition of atheism that no one else shares. You should be a little more open-minded.
 
2011-04-22 08:50:57 PM

Blairr: But God the jackalope is real and you cannot deny that.


Well?
 
2011-04-22 08:53:39 PM

Blairr: You obviously perceive the Bible as the true voice of God on earth, but you're not sure what God is.


Nope.

The bible is a pack of lies written by evil angels, the true god is imprisoned in Heaven by them while Satan was forced to flee to Hell, and is currently working towards striking back and freeing god in the end of days when all become one. TILL ALL ARE ONE! HAIL SANTA!

...Crap, I mean HAIL SATAN!
 
2011-04-22 08:54:34 PM

vrax: Blairr: But God the jackalope is real and you cannot deny that.

Well?


I would say that's correct.

But the function of God and the function the jackalope in society is greatly different.
 
2011-04-22 08:56:08 PM

TheBigJerk: Blairr: You obviously perceive the Bible as the true voice of God on earth, but you're not sure what God is.

Nope.

The bible is a pack of lies written by evil angels, the true god is imprisoned in Heaven by them while Satan was forced to flee to Hell, and is currently working towards striking back and freeing god in the end of days when all become one. TILL ALL ARE ONE! HAIL SANTA!

...Crap, I mean HAIL SATAN!


..which is why I'm okay with Secularism

It's really hard to argue inter-religiously without jihading at each other.
 
2011-04-22 08:59:16 PM

Blairr: No... I'm just trying to figure it out, and people always give me weird looks when I ask too many questions about baby-batter.

Aren't semen alive? I mean they move, so they require energy. They have an apparent goal, so there must be a certain level of perception. Perception requires a sensory system of sorts, no? Has anyone ever dissected semen?

Do they come from eggs? Where do those eggs come from? Are the testicles some sort of life producing gland?


OK, maybe I should forget engaging you and just back away slowly. Yes, I'll do that.
 
2011-04-22 09:02:08 PM

Farker Soze: Blairr: No... I'm just trying to figure it out, and people always give me weird looks when I ask too many questions about baby-batter.

Aren't semen alive? I mean they move, so they require energy. They have an apparent goal, so there must be a certain level of perception. Perception requires a sensory system of sorts, no? Has anyone ever dissected semen?

Do they come from eggs? Where do those eggs come from? Are the testicles some sort of life producing gland?

OK, maybe I should forget engaging you and just back away slowly. Yes, I'll do that.


Yea, I'm kind of a loon.

BUT I'M ALSO GENUINELY CURIOUS.
 
2011-04-22 09:12:14 PM

Blairr: Dr. Mojo PhD: Blairr: Something has been bugging the crap out of me and I can't find an answer in layman's terms.

Where does sperm come from?

The testicles.

Is this like, a trick question?

No... I'm just trying to figure it out, and people always give me weird looks when I ask too many questions about baby-batter.

Aren't semen alive? I mean they move, so they require energy. They have an apparent goal, so there must be a certain level of perception. Perception requires a sensory system of sorts, no? Has anyone ever dissected semen?

Do they come from eggs? Where do those eggs come from? Are the testicles some sort of life producing gland?


Man, watch moar discovery channel, or do a wiki-walk

But your questions, in order, are:
-Not by most existing definitions of alive
-About the same perception as a torpedo
-Yes.

biological guided missiles

Also, I am offended you asked about this instead of God. OFFENDED!
 
2011-04-22 09:13:30 PM

Blairr: TheBigJerk: Blairr: You obviously perceive the Bible as the true voice of God on earth, but you're not sure what God is.

Nope.

The bible is a pack of lies written by evil angels, the true god is imprisoned in Heaven by them while Satan was forced to flee to Hell, and is currently working towards striking back and freeing god in the end of days when all become one. TILL ALL ARE ONE! HAIL SANTA!

...Crap, I mean HAIL SATAN!

..which is why I'm okay with Secularism

It's really hard to argue inter-religiously without jihading at each other.


So you are a secularist.

Good to know.
 
2011-04-22 09:18:31 PM

TheBigJerk: Blairr: TheBigJerk: Blairr: You obviously perceive the Bible as the true voice of God on earth, but you're not sure what God is.

Nope.

The bible is a pack of lies written by evil angels, the true god is imprisoned in Heaven by them while Satan was forced to flee to Hell, and is currently working towards striking back and freeing god in the end of days when all become one. TILL ALL ARE ONE! HAIL SANTA!

...Crap, I mean HAIL SATAN!

..which is why I'm okay with Secularism

It's really hard to argue inter-religiously without jihading at each other.

So you are a secularist.

Good to know.


I have a hard time finding fault with it, outside of it not being Christian.

But I'm fairly certain Secularists don't see "not being Christian" as a fault, so I doubt I'll persuade them with that argument.

Am I a Secularist? No. But I feel it's a good bridge to approach other groups.
 
2011-04-22 09:20:28 PM

Blairr: No... I'm just trying to figure it out, and people always give me weird looks when I ask too many questions about baby-batter.

Aren't semen alive? I mean they move, so they require energy. They have an apparent goal, so there must be a certain level of perception. Perception requires a sensory system of sorts, no? Has anyone ever dissected semen?

Do they come from eggs? Where do those eggs come from? Are the testicles some sort of life producing gland?


Sperm are alive, yes, though by the loosest definition of the term. They move, but like all cells they require energy to live, whether they're motile or not has no real bearing on their need for energy. They have a goal only in so far as they react chemically to their surroundings. Their movement is limited by the alkaline nature of semen, they gain full mobility when vaginal fluids neutralize the pH levels in semen. Then they just sort of swim around until they stumble upon an egg, and get their next chemical signal. And the testicles are a dedicated cell-producing structure.
 
2011-04-22 09:25:03 PM

Dr. Mojo PhD: They have a goal only in so far as they react chemically to their surroundings.


How does that differ from a full fledged human?

/I'm on the hunt for magic.
//free-will
 
2011-04-22 09:25:26 PM

Blairr: vrax: Blairr: But God the jackalope is real and you cannot deny that.

Well?

I would say that's correct.


Yeah, I knew that my detailed argument for the existence of the jackalope was air tight

But the function of God and the function the jackalope in society is greatly different.

Oh, well, undoubtedly! But issue was existence of, not societal effect of.
 
2011-04-22 09:27:41 PM

Blairr: TheBigJerk: Blairr: TheBigJerk: Blairr: You obviously perceive the Bible as the true voice of God on earth, but you're not sure what God is.

Nope.

The bible is a pack of lies written by evil angels, the true god is imprisoned in Heaven by them while Satan was forced to flee to Hell, and is currently working towards striking back and freeing god in the end of days when all become one. TILL ALL ARE ONE! HAIL SANTA!

...Crap, I mean HAIL SATAN!

..which is why I'm okay with Secularism

It's really hard to argue inter-religiously without jihading at each other.

So you are a secularist.

Good to know.

I have a hard time finding fault with it, outside of it not being Christian.

But I'm fairly certain Secularists don't see "not being Christian" as a fault, so I doubt I'll persuade them with that argument.

Am I a Secularist? No. But I feel it's a good bridge to approach other groups.


By your own epistemological paradigm you're wrong.

Either everything must be religion, ergo secular is a religion of not-religion, or NOT everything must be religion, ergo secular is not a religion.

"Either way you lose."

Once we've completed that list of fallacy by contradiction, we can get to your many instances of begging the question, egregious use of non-sequitur, and ridiculous false dichotomies.

Also, my genitalia are the one true god, KNEEL AND WORSHIP!
 
2011-04-22 09:28:35 PM

Blairr: Dr. Mojo PhD: They have a goal only in so far as they react chemically to their surroundings.

How does that differ from a full fledged human?

/I'm on the hunt for magic.
//free-will


And I'm poised to karate-chop any BioAlis that comes flying in here screaming "SEENNNNTIIIIENNNNNNNNCEEEEE!!!"

/It's a philosophical term!
//Doesn't mean it exists!
///Much like altruism!
 
2011-04-22 09:31:29 PM

vrax: Blairr: vrax: Blairr: But God the jackalope is real and you cannot deny that.

Well?

I would say that's correct.

Yeah, I knew that my detailed argument for the existence of the jackalope was air tight

But the function of God and the function the jackalope in society is greatly different.

Oh, well, undoubtedly! But issue was existence of, not societal effect of.


Well, if you argue for the existence of the Jackalope, it should be noted that the purported Jackalope is a terrestrial animal and we can go looking for it on Earth.

God is divine and can't be found (atleast in any corporeal form) on Earth.
 
2011-04-22 09:32:36 PM

TheBigJerk: epistemological paradigm


You made that up.

That's not a thing.
 
2011-04-22 09:37:51 PM

TheBigJerk: Either everything must be religion, ergo secular is a religion of not-religion, or NOT everything must be religion, ergo secular is not a religion.


That bridge I was referring to being all discussion between groups must be free of " 'cause God " simply because we have different views on God and such closed-mindedness can only lead to violence.

It's savagery to approach Islam as a Christian in argument. You're looking for violence, that's wrong. The meek shall inherit the Earth ;)

A rational middle ground is beneficial to all. However I can invoke " 'cause God " between another Christian.
 
2011-04-22 10:02:47 PM

Blairr: vrax: Blairr: vrax: Blairr: But God the jackalope is real and you cannot deny that.

Well?

I would say that's correct.

Yeah, I knew that my detailed argument for the existence of the jackalope was air tight

But the function of God and the function the jackalope in society is greatly different.

Oh, well, undoubtedly! But issue was existence of, not societal effect of.

Well, if you argue for the existence of the Jackalope, it should be noted that the purported Jackalope is a terrestrial animal and we can go looking for it on Earth.

God is divine and can't be found (atleast in any corporeal form) on Earth.


But...

i54.tinypic.com
 
2011-04-22 10:22:07 PM

Blairr: TheBigJerk: epistemological paradigm

You made that up.

That's not a thing.


Epistemology, occasionally invoked when a theist is backed into a corner via logical expression. I.e. "don't patronize me college girl, we exist in different epistemological paradigms farkpants! aaaaaarrgh!"

You're not familiar with Earth day, so I anticipate you being too sheltered for the rest as well.
 
2011-04-22 10:27:50 PM
TheBigJerk:

I hate reading.

If you could demonstrate the nuance by contrasting two concepts, it would be appreciated.

Are you saying the argument is simply:

"I'm not wrong, we just have two different weltanschauungs" ??
 
2011-04-22 10:31:13 PM

Blairr: Farker Soze: Blairr: No... I'm just trying to figure it out, and people always give me weird looks when I ask too many questions about baby-batter.

Aren't semen alive? I mean they move, so they require energy. They have an apparent goal, so there must be a certain level of perception. Perception requires a sensory system of sorts, no? Has anyone ever dissected semen?

Do they come from eggs? Where do those eggs come from? Are the testicles some sort of life producing gland?

OK, maybe I should forget engaging you and just back away slowly. Yes, I'll do that.

Yea, I'm kind of a loon.

BUT I'M ALSO GENUINELY CURIOUS.


Are you suggesting that once something is conceptualized, it exists? If so, that'll give me a great reason to fire up my phlogiston-powered N-ray generator.
 
2011-04-22 10:35:24 PM

TsukasaK: gshepnyc: See, this is why I, much as I piss on you regularly, I would have angry, angry hate sex with you.



/+1 for getting the reference
//also, you can't have him, only I hate phil more than any other


Jegus, that's about the last thing I expected in a thread like this.
 
2011-04-22 10:40:44 PM

Blairr: TheBigJerk:

I hate reading.


Then no.

Also, the bible is a very thick book.

HINT HINT.
 
2011-04-22 10:44:02 PM
I suppose it would be rude of me to wish people "Happy Jewish Zombie on a Stick" day.
 
2011-04-22 11:04:27 PM
dinner-party-ideas.com
 
2011-04-22 11:18:29 PM

buckler: Are you suggesting that once something is conceptualized, it exists?


Pretty much.

But you really need to stop and think about this concept.

"phlogiston-powered N-ray generator"

What is that?

Is it something that you just made up, in an attempt to make my idea look silly?

If that's what it is, that's what it is. I cannot deny its existence.

The success of the attempt is irrelevant.

The idea is that; if people could be aware of God without religious scripture, then God exists. I'm aware of gravity without being told what gravity is.

If God exists solely in religious scripture and the only reason you're aware of God is because he religious scripture tells you he exists, then God exists.

Whatever God is, God is. God exists.

You cannot use the Bible to refute God, by doing so, you're giving the Bible authority and the Bible says God exists.

If you try to refute the existence of God without religious scripture, the only way you're aware of God is because you've sensed God. God exists.

You can't be Apooh, you can't be Agravity, you can't be Ajackalope and you can't be Atheist.

You cannot deny the existence of these things. You can argue over what they are, but they will always exist. If you don't believe the Bible, you can simply say "I'm not Christian." Or simply "irreligious"

Atheism is illogical and therefore wrong(so long as something needs to be logical to be 'right'). Something has to exist before you can deny it exists. Which makes no sense. Something must exist for two people to argue over what that something actually is, but it does exist. The question then becomes, how are you arguing over what God is, if God doesn't exist.

The only answer to Theists, is to call them liars and to tell them to fark off. But there is no logical argument against them, to be Atheist, is to be illogical.
 
2011-04-22 11:26:23 PM
The point of the death is to reveal the redemption.

People who get pissy about good friday need to shut the fark up. Pay attention to sunday, not friday, assholes.

/christian
 
2011-04-22 11:50:35 PM

Ball Sack Obama: Sock Ruh Tease: Ball Sack Obama: I still don't understand why this particular thread is in the Politics tab.

All Christians and Catholics are Republicans? All atheists and heathens are Democrats?

The Politics tab now means "controversial topics that will be likely to generate huge threads and many clicks for Drew", unofficially.

For what it is worth, I just changed my homepage to Bing, and my default search engine to Bing as well. I'm guessing if ALL Christians, conservatives, Republicans, etc. made similar efforts it might change Google's perspective.

So this thread served a purpose... at least for me.

Meh, bye bye Google.


Bing also decided to celebrate Earth Day... and they're a subsidiary of Microsoft. Thou hast thrice failt!
 
2011-04-22 11:55:56 PM

The Why Not Guy: Samuel Beale's Ghost: I have no reason to doubt you but are you sure you are not thinking of the Anglicans?

No I am not. I know the difference. It's more severe in the Anglican Church but it's happening in the EC as well. I just did a Google search using Episcopalian +break +gay. In the first five hits were stories of two of the largest congregations in Virginia leaving the EC as well as Rick Warren's new "province" in Texas with 100,000 members, former Anglicans and Episcopalians unhappy with the liberal treatment of gays.

So no, I'm not confused. I'm paying attention.


Right, and the remaining Anglicans and Episcopalians are happy with the liberal treatment of gays--their the ones who approved of the gay-friendly policies to begin with. It seems like you keep ending up in the opposite direction of where the facts are leading you.

You've figured out that people are leaving the Episcopal Church because it has become too gay-friendly, and you understand the fact that the people who are leaving are the ones who don't like gays, but you haven't figured out that the people who DIDN'T leave are the ones who, at the very least, don't care one way or another and at best are very happy that the church has become openly accepting of its gay and lesbian members. The existing Episcopal Church is becoming more tolerant, because the intolerant members are leaving. Maybe you need to pay closer attention.

Peace!
 
2011-04-23 12:03:25 AM

Blairr: You cannot use the Bible to refute God, by doing so, you're giving the Bible authority and the Bible says God exists.


You CAN however, use the bible to refute itself. In doing so you refute its claims, and thus refute the claim, "god is proven."

You are using flowery language to deliberately obfuscate and conceal the underlying difficulty of burden of proof. The onus is upon you to prove god IS, rather than the burden being upon us to disprove.

If you try to refute the existence of God without religious scripture, the only way you're aware of God is because you've sensed God. God exists.

Logic failure. The first question begged is the assumption that one must refute god to be an atheist. This is false. The rest are irrelevant.

If God exists solely in religious scripture and the only reason you're aware of God is because he religious scripture tells you he exists, then God exists.

Logic failure: Why?

Whatever God is, God is. God exists.

In the same way that Winnie the Pooh exists, which is to say, it does not.

You say, (or rather imply, in your inherently dishonest and obfuscatory rhetorical style) "But he exists as a construct of fiction and exists in the mind!" This is true, but it is irrelevant. Atheism and apoohism and a-everything-else-ism is the state of living without interest or faith in it's existence as anything but a fantastical construct of the mind, with no influence beyond what the human assigns to it.

Your twisted, bent, and self-contradictory definition of atheism is both insulting and illogical. Atheism is defined by you as the total rejection of the existence of god, (false) and the paradoxical presumption that this extends to the existence of purely mental constructs (also false) and that this means Atheism is illogical while clinging to the inherently illogical notion that one CANNOT be atheist despite describing what it is and that, as you said, "Something has to exist before you can deny it exists."

Or to put it more simply...

STOP BEING A LIFESTYLER YA JACKASS!
i75.photobucket.com
 
2011-04-23 12:12:16 AM

Big Al:
Trinity is a lie and a myth created by the Pope so you can worship him too without feeling guilty. Jesus was the son, so a separate person. You can accept his message, but worshiping him like God is going against the basic old testament writings. And Jesus' own words too. But then again misguided is a religious lunatics middle name.


The only Christian sects that do not follow the doctrine of the Trinity are Armstrongism and Christian Science. It's not a Catholic thing, it's a Christian thing.

I guess there are other religions that follow the Abrahamic god and have a Jesus that don't follow the doctrine (Islam, Mormonism/LDS) which could be called part of the same general religious family, but still. Assuming you're christian, how bad did your preacher/priest/whatever fail that you're unaware of the basic tenets of your own religion?
 
2011-04-23 12:15:40 AM

TheBigJerk: Blairr: You cannot use the Bible to refute God, by doing so, you're giving the Bible authority and the Bible says God exists.

You CAN however, use the bible to refute itself. In doing so you refute its claims, and thus refute the claim, "god is proven."

You are using flowery language to deliberately obfuscate and conceal the underlying difficulty of burden of proof. The onus is upon you to prove god IS, rather than the burden being upon us to disprove.

If you try to refute the existence of God without religious scripture, the only way you're aware of God is because you've sensed God. God exists.

Logic failure. The first question begged is the assumption that one must refute god to be an atheist. This is false. The rest are irrelevant.

If God exists solely in religious scripture and the only reason you're aware of God is because he religious scripture tells you he exists, then God exists.

Logic failure: Why?

Whatever God is, God is. God exists.

In the same way that Winnie the Pooh exists, which is to say, it does not.

You say, (or rather imply, in your inherently dishonest and obfuscatory rhetorical style) "But he exists as a construct of fiction and exists in the mind!" This is true, but it is irrelevant. Atheism and apoohism and a-everything-else-ism is the state of living without interest or faith in it's existence as anything but a fantastical construct of the mind, with no influence beyond what the human assigns to it.

Your twisted, bent, and self-contradictory definition of atheism is both insulting and illogical. Atheism is defined by you as the total rejection of the existence of god, (false) and the paradoxical presumption that this extends to the existence of purely mental constructs (also false) and that this means Atheism is illogical while clinging to the inherently illogical notion that one CANNOT be atheist despite describing what it is and that, as you said, "Something has to exist before you can deny it exists."

Or to put it more simply...

STOP BEING A LIFESTYLER YA JACKASS!


THIS!

And I'd like to add, Blairr's concept of existence is different from what rational people define existence to be. Sure, God as an idea "exists". But no atheist is arguing that the idea of God doesn't exist, that is not in the definition of atheism. Atheists argue that there is no evidence to support the claim that a God exists in the real world.
 
2011-04-23 12:16:00 AM

Blairr: buckler: Are you suggesting that once something is conceptualized, it exists?

Pretty much.

But you really need to stop and think about this concept.

"phlogiston-powered N-ray generator"

What is that?

Is it something that you just made up, in an attempt to make my idea look silly?


I didn't make it up, but it does make your idea look silly.
Phlogiston is an ancient alchemical concept of a substance present in all burnable substances, which gives them the capacity to burn. N-rays are a form of radiation initially proposed by Prosper-René Blondlot. Both of these hypotheses have been very definitively disproven. Anyone who continues to believe in either is seriously disturbed. A concept does not reality make. I understand the idea behind it, but that's a very simplistic and naive view, in my opinion. We are not all Bomb Number 20. Look that one up.
 
2011-04-23 12:16:39 AM

Jim_Callahan: Big Al:
Trinity is a lie and a myth created by the Pope so you can worship him too without feeling guilty. Jesus was the son, so a separate person. You can accept his message, but worshiping him like God is going against the basic old testament writings. And Jesus' own words too. But then again misguided is a religious lunatics middle name.

The only Christian sects that do not follow the doctrine of the Trinity are Armstrongism and Christian Science. It's not a Catholic thing, it's a Christian thing.

I guess there are other religions that follow the Abrahamic god and have a Jesus that don't follow the doctrine (Islam, Mormonism/LDS) which could be called part of the same general religious family, but still. Assuming you're christian, how bad did your preacher/priest/whatever fail that you're unaware of the basic tenets of your own religion?


What about Eastern Orthodox?

I know they kinda fall by the wayside being in commieland but still...
 
2011-04-23 12:49:24 AM

The Name: Not really. I think you're severely underestimating the resonance these guys still have in Christian culture:


Or someone more recent...

Yes, in a predominantly Christian society there is essentially zero persecution. (Almost like Christians are generally decent people regardless of faith!)

I assure you, in societies where Christians aren't the majority, that same level of tolerance and inclusion is not reciprocated to the minority Christian.

But it's kinda our thing; "the blood of the martyr is the seed of the church"

I like to think that the success of this "strategy" is because there exists a genuine "good" in people, or empathy for the oppressed. And that violence toward the nonviolent offends everybody(regardless of what sect they belong too) and that people will then side with the nonviolent(become Christian).

The BigJerk:

Dear God.

I am le tired.

The other argument against Atheists, that sort of relates:

To be Theist and to be Atheist both require the same hurdling of "the burden of proof" because no one actually knows what is divine.

Theists are fully aware they haven't proof. It's what makes it a faith and them believers. If I could prove the existence of the Biblical God and the existence of Heaven and Hell and that all the proclaimed commandments of the Bible will actually determine your place in the afterlife, we wouldn't call anything a religion. We would look at the Bible as a study guide and life as some sort of placement test. There would be no guess work involved and ZERO faith required.

Atheists are apparently unaware that they haven't proof as they like to cite the Theist's lack of proof.

Theism and Atheism are both claims to "what is" in the divine realm. No one can actually know.

Theists are believers.
Atheists are hypocrites.
Agnostics are consistent.

(in a "burden of proof" argument)
 
2011-04-23 12:53:00 AM
I, RICK PERRY, Governor of Texas, under the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Texas, do hereby proclaim the three-day period from Friday, April 22, 2011, to Sunday, April 24, 2011, as Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas. I urge Texans of all faiths and traditions to offer prayers on that day for the healing of our land, the rebuilding of our communities and the restoration of our normal and robust way of life.

Link (new window)

Where's the outrage?
 
2011-04-23 01:06:18 AM

Rent is too damn high: But no atheist is arguing that the idea of God doesn't exist


>_>

1. Atheists argue that God is an idea.
2. Theists argue God is [whatever].
3. Agnostics argue you cant know.

1. God = an idea
2. God = [whatever]
3. God = ?

God exists, not matter what it is. If you depend on proof, 3. is the only acceptable answer.
 
2011-04-23 01:12:27 AM

TheBigJerk: The onus is upon you to prove god IS, rather than the burden being upon us to disprove.


While I appreciate your position, I find the above comment to be null.

I think you have just as much a burden as an athiest to prove god doesn't exist as someone of faith has to prove that he does. when looking at it impartially, each has a position to prove to the other, and no more, no less.

you may want to drop the "us" in that as well, and speak only for yourself.
 
2011-04-23 01:33:42 AM
Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiince this is the Politics tab, let's get a little Politic-ky!

YOU CANNOT BE A CHRISTIAN AND A REPUBLICAN

Republicans vociferously object to guaranteed healthcare, pensions for the elderly, and welfare for the poor. They then proceed to dismantle what is already in place for these things. Then they turn around and pander to Christians for votes... but here's what the Bible says about it:

"The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them." Ezekiel 34:4

""When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me. "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." Matthew 25:31-46

"I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak, and the fat and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them in justice." Ezekiel 34:16

"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn." Isaiah 61:1-2

"In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"" Acts 20-35

"Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers," 1st Timothy 5:1

"Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." James 1:27

"Jesus looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the offering box, and he saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. And he said, "Truly, I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on." Luke 21:1-4

"And he called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff-no bread, no bag, no money in their belts- but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics. And he said to them, "Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you depart from there. And if any place will not receive you and they will not listen to you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them." So they went out and proclaimed that people should repent. And they cast out many demons and anointed with oil many who were sick and healed them."" Mark 6:7-13

There you have it, from your own holy book. Republicans do exactly the opposite of what Jesus would do.
But of course, I'm just the Atheist that notices these things... why would you ever believe me?

Also: Since the Bible doesn't agree with the Republican party, it's socialist propaganda and must be destroyed, right?
 
2011-04-23 01:41:15 AM

Rhino_man: YOU CANNOT BE A CHRISTIAN AND A REPUBLICAN


I think it's the church's job to be charitable. I pay my tithe and volunteer through my church to help my community.

It's not that we're not charitable, it's that we have a definition of what the "state" is suppose to do and what the "church" is suppose to do. Separation of church and state kinda thing.
"Render unto Caesar..."

It's not the job of the state to tax me and be charitable with my money.

People should be compassionate and charitable, but paying tax is not an option. Obligatory-compassion and obligatory-charity are oxymorons. Making the acts obligations nullify the acts.
 
2011-04-23 01:45:49 AM

Blairr:
>_>

1. Atheists argue that God is an idea.


No, atheists argue that God only exists as an idea (or concept), and that God does not exist in the real world.


2. Theists argue God is [whatever].

Theists argue that a God (or more than one) exists.

3. Agnostics argue you cant know.

No, an agnostic argues that no one knows.

1. God = an idea
2. God = [whatever]
3. God = ?

God exists, not matter what it is.


Which means absolutely nothing in the real world. Again, no one is arguing that the concept of God does not exist, so no one is technically challenging this point. But "exists" in this case is termed (by you) too ambiguously. If it exists only as a fictional entity, it does not actually exist in the real world.

If you depend on proof, 3. is the only acceptable answer.

Actually this may surprise you, but an atheist can be an agnostic. I am in fact an agnostic atheist. I disbelieve in all deities, but I also don't believe we have the exact truth of the universe. I can accept that there might be a God (aka a possibility), but absent of evidence, I disbelieve that there is one.
 
2011-04-23 01:56:24 AM
At first, I was all like, "Nah, this is just another derptastic headline taking a cheap swing at Jesus-lovin' folks." And then I clicked.

And wow. Just... wow.

"And the Lord spake unto the people gathered at the foot of the cross, among them Mary Magdelain, Mary his mother, and John his brother,
"For those that best loved him kept His words to their heart.
"'Today, I am gonna kick it off this world, people! So you best show some 'preciation, and don't EVER let no one make this day anythin' but MY DAY, y'hear? MINE. 'Cause fark me, this hurts so I damn well want a bit of commitment in return from y'all, un'erstan'?
"'The first mother f*c*er wants to turn Easter into some touchy-feely liberal event that has all to do wit' lovin' the world an' giving back to nature an' living in harmony? That guy is gettin' no love from me on Judgement Day, I tell you that RIGHT now. That's bullshiat, is what that is. I am DYIN' here! You see my feet?
"'Can I get a nose scratch up here? Mom? Hon? Baby, seriously, just reach up an' give my nose a scratch 'cause if I sneeze there's gonna be some tearin' or somethin.'
"For those who love Jesus hear His words, and take them to their heart and they are saved.
"Amen."
 
2011-04-23 01:58:49 AM

Bob Dolemite: TheBigJerk: The onus is upon you to prove god IS, rather than the burden being upon us to disprove.

While I appreciate your position, I find the above comment to be null.

I think you have just as much a burden as an athiest to prove god doesn't exist as someone of faith has to prove that he does. when looking at it impartially, each has a position to prove to the other, and no more, no less.


False equivalence based on strawman political, a fallacy more commonly described as "BOTH SIDES!" Atheism is simply defined as being without gods, faith, or magical thinking. An agnostic is an atheist, one who actively denies the existence of Zeus is an atheist, here, a comic explains:

i75.photobucket.com

"there have been thousands of myths, thousands of gods, the difference between you and i , is i believe in one less than you do"


Now it is true that one cannot prove a negative, and by that very fact one fundamentally cannot prove the existence of all supernatural and paranormal conceptualizations. But the burden of proof is on the positive claim. You say, "there is god." I say, "prove it."

Another comic analogy

You say, "lol both sides r same," but the truth is, they are not. One deflects and dissembles with arguments that equally apply to Zeus, Thor, and the invisible pink unicorn. One merely says, "prove it or leave me alone."
 
2011-04-23 02:08:51 AM

Blairr: Theists are fully aware they haven't proof. It's what makes it a faith and them believers.

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

Atheists are apparently unaware that they haven't proof as they like to cite the Theist's lack of proof.

Theism and Atheism are both claims to "what is" in the divine realm. No one can actually know.

Theists are believers.
Atheists are hypocrites.
Agnostics are consistent.

(in a "burden of proof" argument)




Wrong.

Atheism is entirely consistent with metaphysical naturalism. It the application of a philosophical system, that believes that only the natural world exists, to religion. Of course, you will have some atheists that don't believe in a deity but do believe in other "supernatural" events. These people are hypocrites.

Theism is under the umbrella of metaphysical dualism (I prefer "supernaturalism"). However, any form of theism goes beyond simple metaphysical dualism and makes positive claims about the nature of the supernatural.

Burden of proof is just not an argument that theists will win.

Now, metaphysical dualists and metaphysical naturalists are at an impasse - the "supernatural" is by definition unknowable. It is beyond the boundaries of our physical experience. So any claims that it does/does not exist are equally liable to burden of proof.

Theism, OTOH, makes a positive claim on what constitutes the supernatural. So you really end up with two options; either God is completely undefined, "unknowable", but he is "God" or God is the traditionally defined benevolent creator.

Either way there is a positive claim about the nature of the unknowable. This obviously requires a greater burden of proof than metaphysical dualism and then it follows that it would be the same for metaphysical naturalism (or atheism).

The interesting part about this is, the more rigorous and consistent of a belief system you place atheism into (naturalism) the stronger the theory becomes. If you put theism into a more structured and consistent belief system (religion), the weaker the theory becomes.

This is why most people who want to argue about theism vs. atheism will only discuss in the abstract - even if they worship a very clearly delineated deity.

It is definitely easier to defend the unknowable "God" than to defend the God who talked to Noah.

Blairr: 1. Atheists argue that God is an idea.
2. Theists argue God is [whatever].
3. Agnostics argue you cant know.

1. God = an idea
2. God = [whatever]
3. God = ?

God exists, not matter what it is. If you depend on proof, 3. is the only acceptable answer.


The question is truly absurd due to the lack of meaning in the term "God". What's God? Maybe I named my dog God. It doesn't hold any meaning when the deity is undefined.

Certainly if you depend on proof of nonexistence, in any subject, agnosticism would be the only answer. That doesn't mean it is the logical answer.
 
2011-04-23 02:10:00 AM

TheBigJerk: The Name: DevideByZer0: The persecution claims are cover that Christians use while they push to infuse their culture into every aspect of everyone else's culture.

Have a problem with Christians infusing themselves into politics and culture in an authoritarian nature? Too bad, you're just persecuting them.

Not really. I think you're severely underestimating the resonance these guys still have in Christian culture:

Sure, the claims of persecution are bogus, but people interpret events through their own cultural lens, and for Christians, for understandable historical reasons, that lens happens to be drenched with the blood of the martyrs. It's not just a "cover" or a "ruse" or anything of the sort for the average Christian on the street who falls in for this talk of persecution.

I always liked the term "martyrdom complex." A desperate need to feel like the underdog in their own personal tragedy/redemption movie.


Actually, the movie analogy isn't very far off. Google "narratology" and you'll find some pretty interesting and academically legit stuff. I'd recommend

blackwellclassics.files.wordpress.com
 
Displayed 50 of 532 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report