Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Christian Post)   Judge sentences defendant to Bible Study. Its like they aren't even trying to hide it anymore   (christianpost.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Bibles, South Carolina, Bible studies, Sunday School, Cassandra Tolley  
•       •       •

6254 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Jul 2012 at 4:57 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



297 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-07-05 10:23:06 AM  
Everyone! I beg you, please stop trying to convince Waldo Pepper of the errancy of his views. His belief in God is the only reason that people and animals can be around him without getting raped. It works out for us.

Back to Patton - watch from 2:27 to see Waldo Pepper's views explained with an analogy.

You could always watch the entire thing for such gems as:

"Well, because it says in the Bible - "
"OK - hold on. I am glad you like a book."

"If you like torture porn, check out the Old Testament. Any Saw fans out there?"

/GREEN LANTERN RING
//I WANT
 
2012-07-05 10:24:26 AM  

Kibbler: rufus-t-firefly: Waldo Pepper: rufus-t-firefly: Earguy: Even the article said that such a condition of sentence is only possible if the defendant agrees.

It's no different than requiring AA meetings or other "alternative" punishments.

And, believe it or not, the Bible can be viewed as a work of literature worthy of study.

Now, imagine a judge sentencing someone to read the Koran...

if it fits the crime i would understand, I stated that if someone committed a crime against muslims maybe someone who only thinks of muslims as terrorist I can see a judge saying well read this section of the koran and give me a report on it.

but remember it does sound like this was simply a suggestion to the woman and she agreed

judge: ma'am you indicated you are a Christian might I suggest you read the book of Job
woman: okay

Yeah, because there's no way a judge could take her refusal and give her jail time.

I would assume that this woman likes reading the Bible. Beyond the religious aspect, would this judge sentence someone to play Skyrim if the person being sentenced enjoyed video games? Because I'd like to commit a crime in his jurisdiction.

Skyrim?!? Now *that* is DEPRAVED.

The Lord wants you to play Halo, and run into the control room without looking, so that I can come up from behind thee and smite thee most mightily from my camping position, sayeth the LORD.

STICKETH THOU THE INFIDEL. BAM! Thou are PWNED.


I've got a Dragonbone bow and Daedric armor that says differently.
 
2012-07-05 10:30:04 AM  

unexplained bacon: ....atheists IMO try to answer the unknowable in the same way as the religious, saying, 'there is no god' is an answer too.


I'm sorry, but that looks an awful lot like a strawman to me. Speaking for myself as atheist, I say "I don't believe there are gods." Which is an honest and valid answer to the question "Do you believe in gods?"
It's not a statement of absolute knowledge.
I have never personally met an atheist who claimed the ability to prove the non-existense of Jehova or any other god defined as supernatural. If you meet someone who does, feel free to tell them from me they're idiots. Atheism doesn't exclude idiocy.
 
2012-07-05 10:40:11 AM  
Why the book of Job?

In it we see that God is nothing more than a rube who is easily conned into doing evil, despicable, things simply because some even more powerful being called "Satan" wants to play a game with him.

Of all the books in the bible this one pretty much the most "open" about how God an easily misled, arguably evil certainly weak pawn.

So why make someone read it?
 
2012-07-05 10:46:33 AM  

kid_icarus: *Shrug*, I think it's actually pretty easy, and akin to the judges making certain offenders stand outside wearing signs as a part of their judgement. The judge believes that it might drive the point home to the person more and/or reform them...in this case, you have a southern judge (very important point there) who believes this bible study penance will help reform this woman. And the funny part is...being that she's from the south as well and probably has some religious background, it's entirely possible it might. Not because the scripture has any magical power (particularly Job), but that it taps deep into her psyche.


See, I kinda think THIS.

The Sentence should be suited to the criminal. having one-size-fits-all penalties is good in the large scale (You'll do 20 years for xxx) but at the small scale, Judges are in the situation that they are trying to help people straighten out their lives. Additionally, if everyone involved here were, say ... southern baptists, who the FARK are you people to tell them that a penance (which is what a penalty is) that includes spiritual reflection isn't appropriate?
 
2012-07-05 10:59:38 AM  
Here's the take-away kids: reading and writing assignments are punishments. That's why you have to learn to read, and then do book reports in school for a decade: you're all bad kids and mandatory public education is your punishment.
 
2012-07-05 11:02:14 AM  

Dansker: unexplained bacon: ....atheists IMO try to answer the unknowable in the same way as the religious, saying, 'there is no god' is an answer too.

I'm sorry, but that looks an awful lot like a strawman to me. Speaking for myself as atheist, I say "I don't believe there are gods." Which is an honest and valid answer to the question "Do you believe in gods?"
It's not a statement of absolute knowledge.
I have never personally met an atheist who claimed the ability to prove the non-existense of Jehova or any other god defined as supernatural. If you meet someone who does, feel free to tell them from me they're idiots. Atheism doesn't exclude idiocy.


Heh. No need to apologize perhaps that was a strawman.
I guess it's the "I don't believe" part that I'd have a problem with. Whether or not god/gods exist is a question involving what is beyond the veil. I just think "I don't know" is the only honest answer to those sorts of questions. Atheists and agnostics can be hard to define exactly.
 
2012-07-05 11:15:12 AM  

Waldo Pepper: of course you don't want, you feel that your sense of what is right and wrong is correct. but how do you know it is, what is it based on? is it your higher self sense of intelligence?


Usually, some manner of philosophical principle(s), accepted intellectually and emotionally to some degree. After that, you hit Münchausen's Trilemma, and the question of what is a "basis".

I'm not sure if I've pointed you at Wikipedia's entry on posets before?

Waldo Pepper: the entire atheist philosophy is based on "I don't want"


Empirically, no. I think I've mentioned the work of Altemeyer and Hunsberger to you? If you're interested better informing your prejudices, you might care to look into their "Amazing Conversions" and "Atheists" studies.

I'll note -- the sort of Hedonist you're referring to does indeed seem to exist. I vaguely recall one of the early papers (1960s?) on unbelief indicated they were on the order of 10%; however, I don't recall the citation, nor whether it was a study of "Nones" or of religious deconverts -- both of which are different categories from Atheists proper.

You might find a few among LaVey-style Satanists, which is pretty much Ayn Rand wrapped up with some ritual elements.
 
2012-07-05 11:19:32 AM  
Sounds like borderline grounds for an appeal to have the sentence thrown out.
 
2012-07-05 11:20:20 AM  
He should read the Quran or the book of Mormon and tell the judge the Christian bible is okay with booze so he chose the no alcohol religions.
 
2012-07-05 11:20:40 AM  

unexplained bacon: Whether or not god/gods exist is a question involving what is beyond the veil. I just think "I don't know" is the only honest answer to those sorts of questions.


Indeed. Which sort of makes all theists dishonest...
 
2012-07-05 11:20:53 AM  

unexplained bacon: Whether or not god/gods exist is a question involving what is beyond the veil.


Not really, if you work from basic principles; though that in some part is based on what exactly your poetic but ambiguous reference to "the veil" means.

unexplained bacon: I just think "I don't know" is the only honest answer to those sorts of questions.


And most atheists don't claim absolute certainty; however, they also don't claim absolute ignorance.
 
2012-07-05 11:32:34 AM  

unexplained bacon: Dansker: unexplained bacon: ....atheists IMO try to answer the unknowable in the same way as the religious, saying, 'there is no god' is an answer too.

I'm sorry, but that looks an awful lot like a strawman to me. Speaking for myself as atheist, I say "I don't believe there are gods." Which is an honest and valid answer to the question "Do you believe in gods?"
It's not a statement of absolute knowledge.
I have never personally met an atheist who claimed the ability to prove the non-existense of Jehova or any other god defined as supernatural. If you meet someone who does, feel free to tell them from me they're idiots. Atheism doesn't exclude idiocy.

Heh. No need to apologize perhaps that was a strawman.
I guess it's the "I don't believe" part that I'd have a problem with.


It's no different from your :"I don't believe it's knowable", if you'll allow the paraphrasing, except that I think it's a far more honest and direct answer to the question: "Do you belive in gods?" No. I don't.
"I believe it's unknowable" meanwhile is a perfectly valid answer to the question "Do you know if there are gods?". Valid, but really just an elaborate roundabout way of saying: "No."
My answer, and the answer of practically every atheist, Christian, Muslim and Jew I've known is really the same as yours: "No, I don't know." They all pretty much agree it's a question of faith and belief, not absolute knowledge.


Whether or not god/gods exist is a question involving what is beyond the veil. I just think "I don't know" is the only honest answer to those sorts of questions.

With respect, I don't agree. While the existence and nature of gods may well be unknowable (unless a god decided to make itself knowable, I suppose. According to scripture, most gods do that from time to time. In the Old Testament, God barely shuts up. He's even described as the kind of god, who'll drop by with a couple of friends, eat your goat and yogurt and chat about his plans to destroy a major city because the people are rich, fat, lazy, arrogant assholes) your beliefs are not. So hypothetically, if someone put agun to your head and said: "Tell me, do you believe in gods?" what would you say? Difficulty: "I believe its unknowable." is an evasive non-sequitur, and the guy with the gun really hates that kind of thing, and he has a short temper.

Atheists and agnostics can be hard to define exactly.

Atheist is easy to define: Someone, who doesn't believe there are gods, for whatever reason.
Agnosticism in a religious context used to mean a subset of Christianity that believe humans aren't aren't meant to know certain things about Jehova, as opposed to the Gnostics, who claimed to possess special knowledge. On the internet today, I have come to read it as "someone who avoids questions about beliefs by saying I don't know." No offense.


disclaimer: If this comes off as more aggressive and combative than I meant it, it's just because I like arguing on the internet. Yes, I'm that kind of retard.
 
2012-07-05 11:57:29 AM  
I feel fairly confident we'll eventually discover life in the methane seas of Titan. Possibly microbial life, or at least fossils of it, on Mars.

I find this to be roughly one gazillion times more interesting than questions about god, or atheism, or agnosticism. The only answer I have on those subjects is a shrug--I don't even have words for them.
 
2012-07-05 12:04:42 PM  

Gyrfalcon: The book of Job is the best example I know of that the Bible is just a bunch of folk tales stapled together. The first half of Job is the old story of how bad things happen to good people, with the then-current theological explanation. The second half--obviously not written by the same author--is a mystical and poetic account of how God works in mysterious ways, and has NOTHING to do with the first half's bet between Satan and God. In the first part, there is a human-like and involved god, in the second, a distant and unconcerned God is so busy with everything else, man's welfare is just an afterthought.


All of that.

The discontinuity found within the Book of Job that you point out was a significant factor for me back when I initially rejected my RCC upbringing and became an atheist.

/That and the whole "cool with slavery" thing.
 
2012-07-05 12:08:58 PM  

Kibbler: I feel fairly confident we'll eventually discover life in the methane seas of Titan. Possibly microbial life, or at least fossils of it, on Mars.

I find this to be roughly one gazillion times more interesting than questions about god, or atheism, or agnosticism. The only answer I have on those subjects is a shrug--I don't even have words for them.


I agree with much of that, and I'd wish a shrug was all anybody would spare for the suggestion of gods. But those questions have significant impacts on human societies, and that probably won't change, regardless of what we discover. If you don't understand others' beliefs, you won't understand why they do the stuff they do, which is infinitely more relevant to my existense than potential life on Mars. Unless I can have pet Martian cat, my interest is purely intellectual.
And be fair: space exploration is at best tangentially related to the topic. You can't be surprised it's not at the top of everyone's agenda here.
 
2012-07-05 12:12:00 PM  

mrshowrules:
I've read my share of Grisham novels, I know how this works. Seriously though, I guess I'm trying too hard to figure out the motivation of a judge to do something so stupid.


South Carolina circuit court judge. Also a Deacon in the Baptists church.

There ya go.
 
2012-07-05 12:28:29 PM  

MmmmBacon: TV's Vinnie: Just wait till some judge imposes a brutally harsh sentence on a defendant just because they're wiccan. Oh, the ACLU won't stop fappin' once that happens.

Not likely. The ACLU isn't exactly known for picking up on Wiccan/Pagan injustices. The only ones they might get involved in would be slam-dunk guaranteed wins, and those that are extremely high profile. But when it comes to smaller cases, if it is a Christian/Jew/Muslim/Etc being discriminated against, the ACLU often will get involved. But there have been smaller cases that involved Wiccans and Pagans that the ACLU declined to assist with.

/Not saying they are anti-Pagan
//Just saying


A brief tour of the google (all of 10 seconds, even) shows me that your assertions do not bear up with reality.

ACLU Wicca
 
2012-07-05 12:33:13 PM  
The god particle was discovered in the particle collider so religions should be calling it quits soon.
 
2012-07-05 12:36:29 PM  

monoski: The god particle was discovered in the particle collider so religions should be calling it quits soon.


My sarcasm detector exploded!
I'm SOO glad I bought that thing...
 
2012-07-05 12:37:20 PM  

Dansker: Kibbler: I feel fairly confident we'll eventually discover life in the methane seas of Titan. Possibly microbial life, or at least fossils of it, on Mars.

I find this to be roughly one gazillion times more interesting than questions about god, or atheism, or agnosticism. The only answer I have on those subjects is a shrug--I don't even have words for them.

I agree with much of that, and I'd wish a shrug was all anybody would spare for the suggestion of gods. But those questions have significant impacts on human societies, and that probably won't change, regardless of what we discover. If you don't understand others' beliefs, you won't understand why they do the stuff they do, which is infinitely more relevant to my existense than potential life on Mars. Unless I can have pet Martian cat, my interest is purely intellectual.
And be fair: space exploration is at best tangentially related to the topic. You can't be surprised it's not at the top of everyone's agenda here.


I didn't say I wasn't interested in other people's beliefs. I read the entire NT within the past year, and then read the first five books of the OT. I'm a fan of history, philosophy, and the history of philosophy--the history of ideas. I've been reading Plato recently. A historical novel about the Tudor period. One of Shakespeare's plays, King John, that is one of his deepest studies of character and politics. A primer on economics (a subject entirely bound up in what other people think about things). A biography of Hitler, whose life story is one of ideas (albeit very bad ones), and what other people think of those ideas. Another one of my favorite subjects is the Byzantine era, and the incredible wars they fought over the most abstruse and impenetrable points of theological doctrine.

The topic of what other people think (and why they think it) is fascinating to me. The topic of whether god exists holds no interest to me at all. The topic of what is, or is not, an atheist or agnostic, is completely bound up today in preconceived notions, across the entire spectrum of belief or non-belief. I don't think people talk about what is an atheist or agnostic so much as what they believe other people should believe about what is, or is not, an atheist or agnostic. About on par with the hair-splitting the Byzantines did over the nature or essence of Jesus. The interest shifts from the terms themselves, to the reasons that people think the things they do about the terms.

One other thing, I can't imagine that there is any kind of curiosity other than intellectual curiosity. I understand your point that this is not a thread about life on other planets; I was making an indirect comment on what I find interesting. Now that I think about it, though, that topic is one of primary interest (what we know, and what I think about it) rather than secondary (what we think we know, and say we think we know, and why we say those things, and what I think about that).
 
2012-07-05 12:37:51 PM  
The GOP are against activist judges unless they are bible thumping activist judges, amirite?
 
2012-07-05 12:50:06 PM  
Apparently, even Christians recognize that reading the Bible is punishment.
 
2012-07-05 12:51:40 PM  

Kibbler:
I didn't say I wasn't interested in other people's beliefs. I read the entire NT within the past year, and then read the first five books of the OT. I'm a fan of history, philosophy, and the history of philosophy--the history of ideas. I've been reading Plato recently. A historical novel about the Tudor period. One of Shakespeare's plays, King John, that is one of his deepest studies of character and politics. A primer on economics (a subject entirely bound up in what other people think about things). A biography of Hitler, whose life story is one of ideas (albeit very bad ones), and what other people think of those ideas. Another one of my favorite subjects is the Byzantine era, and the incredible wars they fought over the most abstruse and impenetrable points of theological doctrine.


Cool. More than cool. But frankly, that doesn't sound like someone who merely shrugs at those questions.

The topic of what other people think (and why they think it) is fascinating to me. The topic of whether god exists holds no interest to me at all.

But it makes up and determines a lot of what people think, so I can't see how you seperate the two.
But what I really don't understand is what compelled you to enter and announce your indifference to the conversation.
 
2012-07-05 12:53:19 PM  
Honestly, the judge would have been better off mandating that the defendant watch "The People's Court" or play through each and every one of the Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney games--and they'd NOT have the First Amendment issues in question.

(Seriously, in its original context, the book of Job is basically one of the Phoenix Wright games in a mockup of an early Israeli court system where the defendant must prove their innocence--and with Satan (more properly ha-Satan) in his original role as God's prosecuting attorney. Basically picture Job as Phoenix, Satan as Miles Edgeworth, and God being the old git judge with the beard...and you get the idea. It is a condemnation of "retributive justice" and the concept of "you had bad things happen because you did bad things", but it's done basically in the form of a trial against humanity with Job as defense attorney and a generally hostile court.)
 
2012-07-05 12:56:59 PM  

Dansker: Kibbler:
I didn't say I wasn't interested in other people's beliefs. I read the entire NT within the past year, and then read the first five books of the OT. I'm a fan of history, philosophy, and the history of philosophy--the history of ideas. I've been reading Plato recently. A historical novel about the Tudor period. One of Shakespeare's plays, King John, that is one of his deepest studies of character and politics. A primer on economics (a subject entirely bound up in what other people think about things). A biography of Hitler, whose life story is one of ideas (albeit very bad ones), and what other people think of those ideas. Another one of my favorite subjects is the Byzantine era, and the incredible wars they fought over the most abstruse and impenetrable points of theological doctrine.

Cool. More than cool. But frankly, that doesn't sound like someone who merely shrugs at those questions.

The topic of what other people think (and why they think it) is fascinating to me. The topic of whether god exists holds no interest to me at all.

But it makes up and determines a lot of what people think, so I can't see how you seperate the two.
But what I really don't understand is what compelled you to enter and announce your indifference to the conversation.


I didn't. That's what you're not getting. But I'm off now anyway.
 
2012-07-05 12:57:40 PM  

Dansker: unexplained bacon: Dansker: unexplained bacon: ....atheists IMO try to answer the unknowable in the same way as the religious, saying, 'there is no god' is an answer too.

I'm sorry, but that looks an awful lot like a strawman to me. Speaking for myself as atheist, I say "I don't believe there are gods." Which is an honest and valid answer to the question "Do you believe in gods?"
It's not a statement of absolute knowledge.
I have never personally met an atheist who claimed the ability to prove the non-existense of Jehova or any other god defined as supernatural. If you meet someone who does, feel free to tell them from me they're idiots. Atheism doesn't exclude idiocy.

Heh. No need to apologize perhaps that was a strawman.
I guess it's the "I don't believe" part that I'd have a problem with.

It's no different from your :"I don't believe it's knowable", if you'll allow the paraphrasing, except that I think it's a far more honest and direct answer to the question: "Do you belive in gods?" No. I don't.
"I believe it's unknowable" meanwhile is a perfectly valid answer to the question "Do you know if there are gods?". Valid, but really just an elaborate roundabout way of saying: "No."
My answer, and the answer of practically every atheist, Christian, Muslim and Jew I've known is really the same as yours: "No, I don't know." They all pretty much agree it's a question of faith and belief, not absolute knowledge.


Whether or not god/gods exist is a question involving what is beyond the veil. I just think "I don't know" is the only honest answer to those sorts of questions.

With respect, I don't agree. While the existence and nature of gods may well be unknowable (unless a god decided to make itself knowable, I suppose. According to scripture, most gods do that from time to time. In the Old Testament, God barely shuts up. He's even described as the kind of god, who'll drop by with a couple of friends, eat your goat and yogurt and chat about his plans to destroy a major city because the people are rich, fat, lazy, arrogant assholes) your beliefs are not. So hypothetically, if someone put agun to your head and said: "Tell me, do you believe in gods?" what would you say? Difficulty: "I believe its unknowable." is an evasive non-sequitur, and the guy with the gun really hates that kind of thing, and he has a short temper.

Atheists and agnostics can be hard to define exactly.

Atheist is easy to define: Someone, who doesn't believe there are gods, for whatever reason.
Agnosticism in a religious context used to mean a subset of Christianity that believe humans aren't aren't meant to know certain things about Jehova, as opposed to the Gnostics, who claimed to possess special knowledge. On the internet today, I have come to read it as "someone who avoids questions about beliefs by saying I don't know." No offense.


disclaimer: If this comes off as more aggressive and combative than I meant it, it's just because I like arguing on the internet. Yes, I'm that kind of retard.


I'm mobile now so I must be very brief as I hate typing with my thumbs.
First I don't read you as aggressive no worries. I don't intend to come off that way either. Just chatting.
By "beyond the veil" I just mean what is true for us before and after our lives. I think most people get the idea there.
My slightly longer answer to the question "what happens when we die?" is, I don't know and neither do you. I think if someone argues that they do know (as in, nothing happens or something happens) they are claiming knowledge I don't think they truly have.
I might pop back here later tonight when I reach homebase as I enjoy these sorts of debates myself particularly with atheists. It makes for logical chats usually.
 
2012-07-05 01:00:53 PM  

mat catastrophe: When is South Carolina going to get its own tag?


Get in line.

i186.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-05 01:01:04 PM  

Kibbler: One other thing, I can't imagine there is any kind of curiosity other than intellectual curiosity.


I meant "purely academic". English is my second language, and sometimes I get idiomatic expressions wrong when I rush it. Big whoop.
 
2012-07-05 01:32:57 PM  

Yamaneko2: i186.photobucket.com


...might look better if you used the shape of the state for the "D" instead of that "I".

And Texas is still at the head of the list. Really. There's about a dozen competing versions out there; the only other state with more than one is Arizona, with two.
 
2012-07-05 01:51:20 PM  

unexplained bacon: Atheists and agnostics can be hard to define exactly.

Atheist is easy to define: Someone, who doesn't believe there are gods, for whatever reason.
Agnosticism in a religious context used to mean a subset of Christianity that believe humans aren't aren't meant to know certain things about Jehova, as opposed to the Gnostics, who claimed to possess special knowledge. On the internet today, I have come to read it as "someone who avoids questions about beliefs by saying I don't know." No offense.


disclaimer: If this comes off as more aggressive and combative than I meant it, it's just because I like arguing on the internet. Yes, I'm that kind of retard.

I'm mobile now so I must be very brief as I hate typing with my thumbs.
First I don't read you as aggressive no worries. I don't intend to come off that way either. Just chatting.
By "beyond the veil" I just mean what is true for us before and after our lives. I think most people get the idea there.
My slightly longer answer to the question "what happens when we die?" is, I don't know and neither do you. I think if someone argues that they do know (as in, nothing happens or something happens) they are claiming knowledge I don't think they truly have.
I might pop back here later tonight when I reach homebase as I enjoy these sorts of debates myself particularly with atheists. It makes for logical chats usually.


The concept of something (other than rotting) happening after death is one that hinges entirely on the concept of a "soul."

The term "me", (as in the person that I am, my memories, logic, desires, abilities, feelings, etc), is something that describes the neural pathways that make up my brain. If this brain is damaged with a bullet or arrow or electric shock, then I will cease to be the "me" that I am today. I will instead be a slightly different version of "me" who may have entirely different decision making skills, desires, abilities, etc.

When I expire and the cells in my body break down stop multiplying and cease to function, my brain (again, "me") will also cease to function. At that point I will be dead and there will be no more "me" around. All of this is beyond question- it's not just intuitive or logical, but completely demonstrable.

So when people state that there is "nothingness" or a lack of an afterlife after once ceases to exist, that's pretty much on target. The only people claiming that that's not the case are people arguing from the point of view that their brains are not what makes them "them," but rather that there is a magical being inside them called a "soul" which is the real "them."

That viewpoint can be undermined very quickly and easily because it is pretty simple to find proof that our brains are what makes us who we are. The outdated concept of the "soul" predates our understanding of the brain, so it's understandable that the concept was invented thousands of years before enlightenment. But the fact that we now know about the organ called the "brain" means that we no longer have a reason to pretend in the concept of a "soul."
 
2012-07-05 01:53:47 PM  

Kibbler: rufus-t-firefly: Waldo Pepper: rufus-t-firefly: Earguy: Even the article said that such a condition of sentence is only possible if the defendant agrees.

It's no different than requiring AA meetings or other "alternative" punishments.

And, believe it or not, the Bible can be viewed as a work of literature worthy of study.

Now, imagine a judge sentencing someone to read the Koran...

if it fits the crime i would understand, I stated that if someone committed a crime against muslims maybe someone who only thinks of muslims as terrorist I can see a judge saying well read this section of the koran and give me a report on it.

but remember it does sound like this was simply a suggestion to the woman and she agreed

judge: ma'am you indicated you are a Christian might I suggest you read the book of Job
woman: okay

Yeah, because there's no way a judge could take her refusal and give her jail time.

I would assume that this woman likes reading the Bible. Beyond the religious aspect, would this judge sentence someone to play Skyrim if the person being sentenced enjoyed video games? Because I'd like to commit a crime in his jurisdiction.

Skyrim?!? Now *that* is DEPRAVED.

The Lord wants you to play Halo, and run into the control room without looking, so that I can come up from behind thee and smite thee most mightily from my camping position, sayeth the LORD.

STICKETH THOU THE INFIDEL. BAM! Thou are PWNED.


You are both doomed to play nothing but Links-Golf on the Tandy VIS for all eternity, because you have failed to heed the words of the great prophet:

LEEEEEEEROYYYYY JENKINNNNNS!!!!
 
2012-07-05 02:00:25 PM  

Waldo Pepper: nah they are just tired of seeing how atheist and others are doing their best to remove all mention of God from public life. see without God you are free to do whatever feels good to you regardless if it is right.

but if there is no God there is no sin and that makes things like homosexuality, abortion and anything else depraved you wish to do, perfectly okay



Here is where you lost the argument and any claim you might have had to any moral high ground.
 
2012-07-05 04:00:00 PM  
Right, because if there's one place you can always trust for sensible moral advice, it's the old testament.

Kinda makes you wonder if the judge has ever even READ the bible.
 
2012-07-05 04:12:54 PM  

MrEricSir: Right, because if there's one place you can always trust for sensible moral advice, it's the old testament.

Kinda makes you wonder if the judge has ever even READ the bible.


That's the beauty of this deal- he doesn't have to!

Instead he's simply forcing convicts to write cliffs-notes for him!
 
2012-07-05 04:16:11 PM  

Leeds: unexplained bacon: Atheists and agnostics can be hard to define exactly.

Atheist is easy to define: Someone, who doesn't believe there are gods, for whatever reason.
Agnosticism in a religious context used to mean a subset of Christianity that believe humans aren't aren't meant to know certain things about Jehova, as opposed to the Gnostics, who claimed to possess special knowledge. On the internet today, I have come to read it as "someone who avoids questions about beliefs by saying I don't know." No offense.


disclaimer: If this comes off as more aggressive and combative than I meant it, it's just because I like arguing on the internet. Yes, I'm that kind of retard.

I'm mobile now so I must be very brief as I hate typing with my thumbs.
First I don't read you as aggressive no worries. I don't intend to come off that way either. Just chatting.
By "beyond the veil" I just mean what is true for us before and after our lives. I think most people get the idea there.
My slightly longer answer to the question "what happens when we die?" is, I don't know and neither do you. I think if someone argues that they do know (as in, nothing happens or something happens) they are claiming knowledge I don't think they truly have.
I might pop back here later tonight when I reach homebase as I enjoy these sorts of debates myself particularly with atheists. It makes for logical chats usually.

The concept of something (other than rotting) happening after death is one that hinges entirely on the concept of a "soul."

The term "me", (as in the person that I am, my memories, logic, desires, abilities, feelings, etc), is something that describes the neural pathways that make up my brain. If this brain is damaged with a bullet or arrow or electric shock, then I will cease to be the "me" that I am today. I will instead be a slightly different version of "me" who may have entirely different decision making skills, desires, abilities, etc.

When I expire and the cells in my body break do ...


thought provoking, I think for the most part what you've said is the state of the art argument for the 'you die and nothing happens' concept.

without going to the idea of a soul, what if let's say your perception of time changes such that your last moments are in effect infinite? or let's say that your life viewed from a higher dimension is one entity the top and bottom of which are your birth and death...and that entity itself lives on...

basically, I don't really disagree with what you said, I just think that with so much left to learn about the brain, consciousness in particular, and with so much to learn about the nature of our universe (at the smallest and largest levels in particular) that it's hard for me to say 'nothing happens' and leave it there.

There are nearly limitless possibilities I think, I'm not married to any of them however. I think the 'I don't know' sort of philosophy is pretty strong because I make no claims, I just doubt the claims of others.
 
2012-07-05 04:17:57 PM  

Waldo Pepper: but you folks keep on pushing for God to removed from this country, it is working so well for us all


It does not belong in our government. And yes, things would work just fine if you fundies would just accept it and get over your insecurity about your religion.
 
2012-07-05 04:51:08 PM  

unexplained bacon: basically, I don't really disagree with what you said, I just think that with so much left to learn about the brain, consciousness in particular, and with so much to learn about the nature of our universe (at the smallest and largest levels in particular) that it's hard for me to say 'nothing happens' and leave it there.

There are nearly limitless possibilities I think, I'm not married to any of them however. I think the 'I don't know' sort of philosophy is pretty strong because I make no claims, I just doubt the claims of others.


You're making a lot of sense. The only single point I would push harder is this one- We absolutely know what happens to the brain after death. In fact, based on the amount of decay people can pinpoint fairly accurately just how long human tissue has been dead because of the knowledge of exactly what breaks down (or is eaten) when.

The only remaining question is if there is any truth to the concept that the brain is not really in charge, but rather that there is a supernatural component that is the real "me." I have seen no evidence for any such thing and as a result I consider the positive claim of "nothing happens" to be demonstrable, not just likely...

But it's a fairly minor point of contention, if one at all.
 
2012-07-05 04:56:28 PM  
Dansker:

back at my keyboard I can comment in better detail....

It's no different from your :"I don't believe it's knowable", if you'll allow the paraphrasing, except that I think it's a far more honest and direct answer to the question: "Do you belive in gods?" No. I don't.

IMO the question should be, 'are there gods?', not what you believe, but what is. If you say 'no'. then you're drawing a conclusion, and that's what I have trouble with personally.
If you asked, 'is there any solid evidence that god/gods exist then I'd say no.

"I believe it's unknowable" meanwhile is a perfectly valid answer to the question "Do you know if there are gods?". Valid, but really just an elaborate roundabout way of saying: "No."

I don't think saying I don't know is the same as saying no here.

My answer, and the answer of practically every atheist, Christian, Muslim and Jew I've known is really the same as yours: "No, I don't know." They all pretty much agree it's a question of faith and belief, not absolute knowledge.

maybe this is just where I differ. I speak of actual knowledge and I see belief as nothing but a guess that you've settled on. I enjoy contemplating these guesses quite a bit, I just can't take any of them as ultimately true.


if someone put agun to your head and said: "Tell me, do you believe in gods?" what would you say? Difficulty: "I believe its unknowable." is an evasive non-sequitur, and the guy with the gun really hates that kind of thing, and he has a short temper.

as far as I can tell it's unknowable, if it's actually knowable I have yet to see the evidence. I don't rule out that perhaps IT is knowable, I just know I don't know and I've never met anyone who was able to convince me that they in fact know. So I don't know is a real answer whether the gunman likes it or not.

Atheist is easy to define: Someone, who doesn't believe there are gods, for whatever reason.
Agnosticism in a religious context used to mean a subset of Christianity that believe humans aren't aren't meant to know certain things about Jehova, as opposed to the Gnostics, who claimed to possess special knowledge. On the internet today, I have come to read it as "someone who avoids questions about beliefs by saying I don't know." No offense.


I'm pretty sure I've come across these definitions a few times before...I'm not sure that agnostic as defined there covers my philosophy.
It's not that I avoid questions about belief, I just think belief is irrelevant when it comes to what is and what isn't. knowledge works here, belief is just something man came up with to cover gaps in knowledge.
 
2012-07-05 05:03:59 PM  

Leeds: unexplained bacon: basically, I don't really disagree with what you said, I just think that with so much left to learn about the brain, consciousness in particular, and with so much to learn about the nature of our universe (at the smallest and largest levels in particular) that it's hard for me to say 'nothing happens' and leave it there.

There are nearly limitless possibilities I think, I'm not married to any of them however. I think the 'I don't know' sort of philosophy is pretty strong because I make no claims, I just doubt the claims of others.

You're making a lot of sense. The only single point I would push harder is this one- We absolutely know what happens to the brain after death. In fact, based on the amount of decay people can pinpoint fairly accurately just how long human tissue has been dead because of the knowledge of exactly what breaks down (or is eaten) when.

The only remaining question is if there is any truth to the concept that the brain is not really in charge, but rather that there is a supernatural component that is the real "me." I have seen no evidence for any such thing and as a result I consider the positive claim of "nothing happens" to be demonstrable, not just likely...

But it's a fairly minor point of contention, if one at all.


I think you make plenty of sense yourself. I think the nature of consciousness is at the center of the problem here and while we know quite a bit about the brain, consciousness itself is a tough nut to crack.

a fun hypothetical to mull over here is the old idea, what if you copied every single atom right down to the smallest detail in my body...would that be me? would that pile of atoms assert it's identity as unexplained bacon just as convincingly as I would?

also there's the idea that information cannot be destroyed, that concept could be used to argue for an eternal existence...just thoughts.

It could certainly very well be that we die and all goes black forever...that's it.
I don't know.
 
2012-07-05 07:44:28 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Here is where you lost the argument and any claim you might have had to any moral high ground.

I don't claim any moral high ground


Honesty isn't your strongest suit, is it?
 
2012-07-05 09:59:57 PM  

Waldo Pepper: where did I claim moral high ground?


AaDb'thuk, b'zugda-hiara.
 
2012-07-06 08:39:43 AM  

Waldo Pepper: unexplained bacon: Waldo Pepper:
see without God you are free to do whatever feels good to you regardless if it is right.

this is where a lot of religious people fail hard...you've got this wrong buddy.
I'm not a christian and I'd wager my sense of right and wrong is as good or better than most fundies I know.

see with God you have a problem where people do bad things because they think God will forgive them and after that it's ok.

at any rate, this is all just chatter, because whether you think god = morals or not isn't important to me. I don't want you pushing your convoluted understanding of the world at me period.

of course you don't want, you feel that your sense of what is right and wrong is correct. but how do you know it is, what is it based on? is it your higher self sense of intelligence?

the entire atheist philosophy is based on "I don't want"

I don't want God telling me what I do is a sin
I don't want God to judge me
I dont' want to be accountable to anyone other than myself
I don't want have this baby so let me kill it
I don't want to just have sex with one gender as it limits my options so any hole is okay, mmmm look i'm horny and there is a sheep, I don't want you to tell me I can't hump it.


This kind of "religion" is just the lazy man's Ethics.
 
2012-07-06 08:52:53 AM  

BeesNuts: Waldo Pepper:
the entire atheist philosophy is based on "I don't want"

I don't want God telling me what I do is a sin
I don't want God to judge me
I dont' want to be accountable to anyone other than myself
I don't want have this baby so let me kill it
I don't want to just have sex with one gender as it limits my options so any hole is okay, mmmm look i'm horny and there is a sheep, I don't want you to tell me I can't hump it.

This kind of "religion" is just the lazy man's Ethics.


Yeah, Waldo seemed to slip a bit in this thread. It's almost as though he has already forgotten what we taught him last week.
 
2012-07-06 10:49:44 AM  

Waldo Pepper: Leeds: BeesNuts: Waldo Pepper:
the entire atheist philosophy is based on "I don't want"

I don't want God telling me what I do is a sin
I don't want God to judge me
I dont' want to be accountable to anyone other than myself
I don't want have this baby so let me kill it
I don't want to just have sex with one gender as it limits my options so any hole is okay, mmmm look i'm horny and there is a sheep, I don't want you to tell me I can't hump it.

This kind of "religion" is just the lazy man's Ethics.

Yeah, Waldo seemed to slip a bit in this thread. It's almost as though he has already forgotten what we taught him last week.

sorry I slept through your lesson. Yawns


You seem to be an entirely different person than you were the other day. What happened?
 
2012-07-06 05:50:14 PM  

unexplained bacon: Dansker:

back at my keyboard I can comment in better detail....

It's no different from your :"I don't believe it's knowable", if you'll allow the paraphrasing, except that I think it's a far more honest and direct answer to the question: "Do you belive in gods?" No. I don't.

IMO the question should be, 'are there gods?', not what you believe, but what is. If you say 'no'. then you're drawing a conclusion, and that's what I have trouble with personally.


But you have already made that question moot, by stating your belief that it is unknowable. And pretty much everybody agrees, from all sides of the issue: We can't really know. And I'm sorry to say that you're only confirming my prejudice now, by expressly avoiding the question of your own belief and redirecting attention to an unanswerable question about the metaphysical.
Oh, and thanks for taking your time to reply, and sorry it took a while for me to get back. I'm just glad they hadn't closed the thread already.

If you asked, 'is there any solid evidence that god/gods exist then I'd say no.

And so would pratically everybody, except for a few idiots on the fringes here and there.

"I believe it's unknowable" meanwhile is a perfectly valid answer to the question "Do you know if there are gods?". Valid, but really just an elaborate roundabout way of saying: "No."

I don't think saying I don't know is the same as saying no here.


It looks like we'll have to agree to disagree...unless a short educational play can convince you?
Later that night at Local Bar #3...
Dansker: Hey, Superhot Chick, you know you want to have sex with me, don't you?
Superhot Chick: I really don't.
D: I'm not hearing a "no!"
SC:
D: Damn you, Unexplained Bacon
SC: WTF? Weirdo

Even later...
Dansker: I must admit, I don't believe Superhot wants to have sex on me. Will you give me a large Scothc on the house?
Bartender: I will not.
D: That wasn't a "no!"

But seriously. When your answer to "Do you know X?" is "I don't know X", it really is a "no!"
And like I said before:
My answer, and the answer of practically every atheist, Christian, Muslim and Jew I've known is really the same as yours: "No, I don't know." They all pretty much agree it's a question of faith and belief, not absolute knowledge.

maybe this is just where I differ. I speak of actual knowledge and I see belief as nothing but a guess that you've settled on. I enjoy contemplating these guesses quite a bit, I just can't take any of them as ultimately true.


You're speaking of what you believe is impossible knowledge about the cosmos. I'm speaking about your knowledge of you own thoughts and feelings. To me, a belief is not something I chose, or settle on. It's a feeling, produced by a life of experience and knowledge. And I know I don't have the feeling of belief in gods. I did when I was a lot younger, so I know what it feels like.
if someone put agun to your head and said: "Tell me, do you believe in gods?" what would you say? Difficulty: "I believe its unknowable." is an evasive non-sequitur, and the guy with the gun really hates that kind of thing, and he has a short temper.

as far as I can tell it's unknowable, if it's actually knowable I have yet to see the evidence. I don't rule out that perhaps IT is knowable, I just know I don't know and I've never met anyone who was able to convince me that they in fact know. So I don't know is a real answer whether the gunman likes it or not.


I forgot to mention the guy with the gun just turned up the radio, and "Stuck In The Middle With You" is playing...

It's not that I avoid questions about belief, I just think belief is irrelevant when it comes to what is and what isn't.

But belief and the lack thereof is relevant to being atheist. And I think you've deftly avoided questions of belief in our conversation, as pleasant as it has been.
 
2012-07-06 11:46:31 PM  

Waldo Pepper: no see I said "yawns"


Finally, selective exposure involves resisting persuasion by leaving the situation or actively tuning out the persuasive message (e.g., Brock & Balloun, 1967; Frey, 1986; Kleinhesselink & Edwards, 1975). - (doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_5)
 
Displayed 47 of 297 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report