View Full Version : I'm Becoming a Fabulous Atheist
Sexy Celebrity
05-28-09, 12:02 PM
Hello, my lovelies.
KasperKristensen
05-28-09, 12:10 PM
Do you think destiny (the concept) has anything to do with God, necessarily?
Sexy Celebrity
05-28-09, 12:16 PM
Blah Blah Blah
Sexy Celebrity
05-28-09, 12:19 PM
Blah Blah Blah
KasperKristensen
05-28-09, 12:27 PM
I believe that destiny is an illusion... right along with God.
So, yes, in that regard, yes.
But believing in destiny has nothing to do with being an atheist then. Would you agree?
That's backwards, though: determinism is the inevitable result of believing in materialism (though I know lots of people hate this idea). The idea of free will is what makes choice possible, and therefore makes disbelief in destiny possible. So, if this is about disbelieving in destiny, it wouldn't lead you to atheism, it'd lead you to some form of theism, or at least mysticism.
Not that the ups and downs of one's social life should factor into any of this too heavily to begin with...
KasperKristensen
05-28-09, 12:40 PM
You're right, I do hate that idea. How do you reach that conclusion?
We've actually got a couple of threads devoted to it already, and I don't want to hijack this thread, so any discussions or replies should probably go there. The Cliff Notes version of the argument goes like this:
If there is nothing supernatural in existence, then all that exists is physical matter (materialism). This means that our brains/minds are only composed of physical matter and not imbued with any sort of soul or special ability outside of the laws of physics. Matter, of course, has no choice about how it reacts to things around it, any more than a stone has a choice about falling to the ground when you drop it. Thus, if our minds are purely physical, there's nothing special about the molecules and atoms in our brains that would exempt them from the same laws of cause and effect that govern every other molecule and atom.
What we believe to be choices, then, would merely be the result of a long chain of causation which became inevitable the moment the universe was set into motion (determinism).
The Moviegoer
05-28-09, 01:08 PM
I beg to differ. I am a Christian, of course in this situation (according to Sexy Celebrity) that is like saying I like to paint. Of course that is not the way I see it, and this is entirely Sexy Celebrity's choice of faith, not mine.
Piddzilla
05-28-09, 01:15 PM
Great post, Sexy! Great, but a bit sad... But the dog saved it.
I wouldn't exactly call myself an atheist, I'm rather agnostic leaning towards atheism.
Of all the big religions, but without knowing that much about any of them, I would have to say that buddhism seems the most appealing to me.
The Moviegoer
05-28-09, 01:18 PM
Actually, I am beginning to think Sexy Celebrity is not an Atheist. The definition of God is the force or existing thing that created everything we know, including us. It doesn't have to be a person, and he believes it is science - which means Sexy Celebrity believes in God (science as she suggests.) God just took the form of a person as far as Jesus is concerned. That does not mean that God is a person. So Sexy Celebrity thinks the force (God) that created everything in this world was science (The force/God.)
KasperKristensen
05-28-09, 01:19 PM
Sexy's a dude.
I think we're talking past each other a little. I'm saying that it doesn't quite add up to become an atheist because you don't believe in destiny -- it's the other way around. Determinism is the order you say you don't believe in any more. Free Will (and its supernatural implications) is what introduces the possibility of chaos. Your reasoning points you towards some kind of theism, but for some reason your conclusion is atheism.
This is, of course, assuming that atheism in this instance also means materialism (which it usually does). I suppose you could believe in some sort of supernatural mysticism, but at that point I don't know if you could really call yourself an atheist.
KasperKristensen
05-28-09, 01:44 PM
Urgh, I can't even go atheist without becoming female.
Come on dude. Moviegoer's a new member and when people mention a romantic relationship with a dude, the normal, immediate reaction is to assume that person is a woman.
Sexy Celebrity
05-28-09, 01:54 PM
Come on dude. Moviegoer's a new member and when people mention a romantic relationship with a dude, the normal, immediate reaction is to assume that person is a woman.
I know, I know, I know. She/He didn't do anything wrong.
I'm gonna go scream in the MoFo Support Group now.
Devils Angel
05-28-09, 01:55 PM
By believing in only science are you not putting all your beliefs into what one person has said just because he studied it and decided that what he had researched was proof?
Id much rather believe in fate and god and destiny than to lay all my belief into what someone else has decided is a fact. The only true facts are what you see yourself, not what someone else determains for you.
If it meant to be it is meant to be, just because you thought it was meant to be, doesnt mean it is. You could think the next 10men were meant to be, and then one day, the guy who is actually meant to be is.
Im a firm believer in everything happens for a reason, be it a good reason or not.
Oh, I'm always trying to trick people into believing in God, but don't worry, I still make sure what I'm saying adds up. ;)
Anyway, what I mean to say is...uh...nevermind. :)
adidasss
05-28-09, 02:02 PM
The sad part of this thread is that I'm pretty sure you're not kidding. Now we just have to wait for you to start dating a believer and turn into a born again Christian or something.
Sexy Celebrity
05-28-09, 02:05 PM
The sad part of this thread is that I'm pretty sure you're not kidding. Now we just have to wait for you to start dating a believer and turn into a born again Christian or something.
:laugh: And make a thread about it.
Sexy Celebrity
05-28-09, 02:06 PM
The crazy thing is, Adidasss has found a portal inside my brain ~ I actually did pick up a bible while dating this religious guy, and I never wanted a bible before. But it was free and bound in pink & black leather.
KasperKristensen
05-28-09, 02:09 PM
A pink and black bible? You'll have to post a picture 'fore I believe that. ;)
Sexy Celebrity
05-28-09, 02:12 PM
A pink and black bible? You'll have to post a picture 'fore I believe that. ;)
http://ag.christianbook.com/g/product/9/938613.gif
Sorry I can't find a bigger picture, but this is it. This is the Bible I own. That's a leather casing.
Sexy Celebrity
05-28-09, 02:18 PM
Blah Blah Blah
KasperKristensen
05-28-09, 02:23 PM
Sorry I can't find a bigger picture, but this is it. This is the Bible I own. That's a leather casing.
Well there you go. :p
Devils Angel
05-28-09, 02:36 PM
On the plus side, I just got a message from a new guy who lives in my area and wants to talk to me. He is long term relationship oriented. His name is Mel.
Does he believe in god?
Sexy Celebrity
05-28-09, 05:14 PM
Does he believe in god?
I have no idea.
rice1245
05-28-09, 05:38 PM
Id much rather believe in fate and god and destiny than to lay all my belief into what someone else has decided is a fact. The only true facts are what you see yourself, not what someone else determains for you.
But science is fact! Definition : knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. And it's right in front of your face, it's proven, not because somebody decided it is. But it just is and somebody discovered that it is. That's why it is proven again and again
Definition of faith: Belief that is not based on proof.
And i definitely believe in coincidences and nothing more =\
Oh and i believe in science. And no that doesn't mean science is my god and i worship and pray to Him the almighty test tube o.0
KasperKristensen
05-28-09, 05:43 PM
And i definitely believe in coincidences and nothing more =\
Why the frown? Do you want to believe in something more?
Sexy Celebrity
05-28-09, 05:49 PM
I believe in Varla Jean Merman.
http://www.theatermania.com/news/images/12665a.jpg
http://catronfashion.com/DragDog.jpg
God or no God I want a dog like that :yup:
TheUsualSuspect
05-28-09, 07:18 PM
I believe in GOD, as in a creator, not as in one who people worship in a religion. The idea of a GOD is all the same, creator, just people have their own ideas behind it. Religion has tarnished the idea of a creator. People always say to me, if you believe in GOD, why doesn't he heal the sick or whatever. Is it so hard to believe that he doesn't have any interactions with us whatsoever. And, when I say he, I don't mean a bug guy in sandals with a white beard. Just using it as a reference point.
People always say prove 'he' exists, well prove 'he' doesn't. The debate over a GOD will never be won and I find that people who call others stupid for believing in a higher being other then a science are ego centric a**holes. I don't sway one way or the other in the name of science, but all I will say is that so many people put so much truth into it when science itself is just a bunch of theories. People say that science is the only way to prove things...yet it hasn't proven a whole hell of a lot. After all, they are called Scientific Theories.
Science does not have the answers, we like to think it does.
God does not have the answers, we like to think it does.
I always get weird looks when I say I believe in God and not the bible, but hey, we wrote the bible in his name so how hard is it to really believe that?
The debate over evolution vs creationism is stale and old, why can't the two work hand in hand? One acts through the other?
KasperKristensen
05-28-09, 07:30 PM
People always say prove 'he' exists, well prove 'he' doesn't.
I believe in santa clause, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy!
That wasn't sarcasm, but you could prove that anything exists via that form of logic.
It's interesting the way one can use words. If I say I believe in God, and I do, then that's a fact. If I say that you cannot believe in God because there's no proof, that's an opinion. If I say that God is a fact, then that's an opinion. If I say that science consists of facts, that's a fact, even when the facts are based on theories (which in general are accepted as facts until proven otherwise). But can one really say that science is a fact?
Facts constantly change. That's an interesting thing about facts. For example, if one could keep track of how many people are alive on the Earth at a given time, you could say how many people there are, even though it will constantly change. So, it would be a fact for a split second and may become a fact a little bit later, but it will never be a fact ever again. Of course, since one cannot determine the number of people on the earth at a given moment, that number can probably never be considered a fact. Yet the number exists and is unknown by Man.
You could say I'm wrong because we have history. Those are facts which seem to change constantly, not just due to science but due to revelations about the flaws and biases of man's recording of so-called history. :)
Used Future
05-28-09, 08:09 PM
I think this really depends on how an individual chooses to define god.
Personally I believe in positive and negative energy, but not in some all seeing all knowing deity that watches over us. To me that concept is no more believable than the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot; I certainly wouldn't pray to or attend a gathering once a week and sing about them. Nor would I live my life around some unproven mythology and get really irate when someone says something to contradict it. The bottom line regarding god though is that I simply don't know; end of story.
Hello, my lovelies.
I have an announcement to make. I've decided that I am now an atheist.
After a long, exhausting 25 year research, I have concluded that God does not exist and science rules our lives. Science rules our lives so intricately that we can't even notice it anymore. There is no free will, only chaos. Order is only in your imagination. Religion is an art - just like Pepsi, baseball, opera, comic books, and Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (although that may not be art...)
Art is only one letter away from the word "fart". Religion is, thus, artsy fartsy.
:) You're having a high ol' time with this! Well, whatever floats your boat--have at it. :)
I'm not a Christian nor do I profess any other religion. But that's my personal choice. I've never felt the need to make fun of or abuse someone else's relgious belief, however. What's the point of that? Doesn't make my disbelief any stronger or their belief any weaker. Seems more like a kid's game like, "I've got blue eyes and you don't!"
And although a non-believer, I would never classify myself as an atheist simply because the term brings to mind Madelyn Murray O'Hare who became such a cartoon poster child for atheism. I never saw anyone who was so dependent on Christianity as ol' Madelyn. Outraging Christians was what gave her life meaning. It was her reason for getting up in the morning. Although she professed to hate it, she was more hooked on Christianity than the pope, more evangelical (for atheism) than Billy Graham. Why would anyone want to waste their time preaching atheisim--doesn't that sort of go against the whole concept of not believing?
:
I'm not a Christian nor do I profess any other religion. But that's my personal choice. I've never felt the need to make fun of or abuse someone else's religious belief, however.
I don't think Sexy was making fun or abusing someone else's beliefs :nope:
Leave it to Sexy to have an all-in-one bundled thread where controversies like God and sexual preference fly around like nude homosexual angels with flaming, angelic, wings.
If you know me, then you know I say that in respect and not anything else. Good for you S.C. to be who you are and to shout it out like a Riccola commercial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dDFIHfTFqg
I will be the first to admit that I have no clue about what happens to us after we die. Everyday I try to focus on the here and now, but I do consider myself a religious person. Why? I can honestly say, I have no idea, other than the fact that I cannot accept the thought of my loved ones that have died are gone forever. I do not care if it is a memory, a soul, a reincarnated cricket or an electron: life goes on in one form or another, and it always will.
I remember my father and my grandmother, in the basest forms of existence they exist, so yep I believe in life after death.
Ðèstîñy
05-29-09, 02:57 AM
God or no God I want a dog like that :yup:
I bet that dog would like to kill his/her owner.
I bet that dog would like to kill his/her owner.
Or lick them to death http://bestsmileys.com/dogs/2.gif
Devils Angel
05-29-09, 03:56 PM
But science is fact! Definition :knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. And it's right in front of your face, it's proven, not because somebody decided it is. But it just is and somebody discovered that it is. That's why it is proven again and again
Definition of faith: Belief that is not based on proof.
And i definitely believe in coincidences and nothing more =\
Oh and i believe in science. And no that doesn't mean science is my god and i worship and pray to Him the almighty test tube o.0
Youre completely missing my point and im not sure I can type it in a way youre going to understand.
Its like 1+1 = 2 This is FACT. But its only a fact because someone decided it, and decided the way they prove it is the right way. That definition is FACT because someone has said it is and invented the word.
Facts are merely someone saying that their studying is right and true and what they have done proves something is true and factual, when, what if someone else studies the same thing and gets a different result, but each time they do their experiments and get the same result, theyre told theyre doing it wrong.
Everything we learn in school is just something someone else has passed onto us and told us is fact and is right.
I personally dont know what I believe in, I dont believe in Science being the be all and end all and I dont believe in God. Im saying Id rather believe in God than to put all my belief into something someone has told me is true and factual.
I do believe in fate as I believe everything happens for a reason.
If youre still unclear as to what I mean then im at a loss how to explain it any better.
Also dont think that I believe what im saying to be true and "factual" its merely my opinion and point of view on the whole science vs god subject.
Sexy Celebrity
05-29-09, 04:08 PM
We'll all find out one day if God is real.
The joke is if there isn't an afterlife and we completely die upon our death, then we STILL WON'T EVER KNOW.
We won't even care... about anything... we won't know what caring is anymore.
I don't think Sexy was making fun or abusing someone else's beliefs :nope:
Well, technically I never said he was, although I can see how some (not me!) might interpret it that way. Basically, I was only expressing my opinion about any impulse by any unnamed person in or out of this forum to run down someone's religious beliefs (or sexual preference or political views or hair style, whatever) seems like a huge waste of time and effort, so why do it? That would be sorta like me brooding over an ex-wife--why would I want to remain shackled to her, even in my thoughts, now that I'm finally free???
Sexy Celebrity
05-29-09, 05:12 PM
I want to make it clear that I wasn't making fun of anybody or anything.
FILMFREAK087
05-29-09, 07:54 PM
Hello, my lovelies.
I have an announcement to make. I've decided that I am now an atheist.
After a long, exhausting 25 year research, I have concluded that God does not exist and science rules our lives. Science rules our lives so intricately that we can't even notice it anymore. There is no free will, only chaos. Order is only in your imagination. Religion is an art - just like Pepsi, baseball, opera, comic books, and Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (although that may not be art...)
Art is only one letter away from the word "fart". Religion is, thus, artsy fartsy.
Art keeps up comfortable and gets us through our days.
Recently I was dating somebody and I read a great book, Decoding Love: Why It Takes Twelve Frogs To Find A Prince, and Other Revelations from the Science of Attraction by Andrew Trees. It offered some profound advice on how to capture your love interest. A lot of what the book was said was absolutely shocking... how all around the world, things happen in love the same way with everyone. It truly makes you feel like... things aren't ever "meant to be".
I thought, upon my first kiss with this guy, that I had found the love of my life. I thought God had placed him on this earth just for me. It was looking very possible... there were so many "signs"... we knew so many of the same people. It was odd. There were other things that made me think it was all... meant to be.
However, last night, he told me that... he just wasn't that into me.
Thus, I was a crazy loon for believing in all of that "meant to be" crap. I might as well be Carrie White's mother.
I was very sad, but my heart already broke over him on Sunday night when the date turned into a disaster. I stressed for days over what had occured and when I was gonna hear from him again.
This man was also deeply religious and worked for a church.
No divine miracles for poor old Sexy Celebrity. Divine miracles are only in your imagination.
So, I added up everything and concluded that my agnostic status doesn't apply anymore ~ I am an atheist. I have seen it all now. There is only flesh ~ no soul. I'm sorry to tell you this. You will either cry an ocean, dismiss me or cheer me on.
And now a picture of a dog drag queen.
http://catronfashion.com/DragDog.jpg
Congrats, I guess... As for destiny and events being "meant to be," I've always agreed with George Carlin, if someone prays to God to do something outside of "his plan," then what good is a plan if anyone can just alter it. Then if destiny does exist then life is nothing more than a cosmic doll house in which we are all nothing more than play things. Personally I prefer the idea of constructing one's own fate, as opposed to a prepackaged existence.
John McClane
05-29-09, 08:57 PM
I remember my father and my grandmother, in the basest forms of existence they exist, so yep I believe in life after death.I find this sort of definition for the afterlife shaky, at best. No disrespect, but you're just changing the definition of life to include any sort of meager existence. But let's just run with this one for a second, alright.
You die and we bury you. Worms dig into your coffin and eat you. These same worms get eaten by birds and then I kill one of those birds and eat it. Does this mean I'm now partially you? Since you don't ever die because you exist in the basest form?
I can totally buy the afterlife argument if it's like some separate unquantified piece of you, but just the basic "a piece of me" raises way to may questions that I feel aren't answerable. But hey, maybe it just bothers me more so than it does you.
EDIT: Oddly enough, I find myself wanting to argue against your viewpoint SexyCelebrity. However, I haven't had enough time to sit down and gather my thoughts as I've been in class for the past 3 weeks. I'll see if I can nail done some time this coming week and drum something up.
I find this sort of definition for the afterlife shaky, at best. No disrespect, but you're just changing the definition of life to include any sort of meager existence. But let's just run with this one for a second, alright.
I actually have neither the ability nor the desire to change the definition of anything. I am saying what I believe and also what I want to be true. If "something" or someone proves me wrong then I am open to it, how could I not be? Nothing (or I should say no thing), however, does prove me wrong - so I ride the fence a bit I admit. I understand your argument and I take no disrespect, but the word "meager" to me is a bit out of place. Life, to me, is to be revered and whatever form it takes is okay by me. The mother of proof is imagination because without that whats to imagine?
John McClane
05-29-09, 10:57 PM
Life, to me, is to be revered and whatever form it takes is okay by me. The mother of proof is imagination because without that whats to imagine?I agree life should be revered. And I get what you say about a piece going on and stuff like that, but how does a tiny, tiny, tiny piece constitute life? The whole point of life is activity, reproduction, etc. When that stops...that energy, if you want to call it that, gets put to use elsewhere. It doesn't continue to be the same thing elsewhere (i.e. a person continuing to be a person in a bird). See the problem I have with it?
Sir Toose
05-30-09, 12:51 AM
Hello, my lovelies.
I have an announcement to make. I've decided that I am now an atheist.
After a long, exhausting 25 year research, I have concluded that God does not exist and science rules our lives. Science rules our lives so intricately that we can't even notice it anymore.
The only thing I'd say is that science and God need not be mutually exclusive of one another.
Science is undeniably useful but for answering the big questions it's like a small flashlight in a dark city. It allows us to glimpse how things work but we're far from a complete picture I'd say.
God/divinity doesn't explain anything either unless you're willing to have 'faith' and accept all that is unknown as God's hand.
I haven't found a path yet that works for me but I'm not closing any doors either. I think life, in part, is about questioning everything and learning what you can. Seems to me that shutting off one idea for another might limit the focus of any given study. In this one, no one has a definitive answer.
One more thing:
Atheists in my view aren't fabulous because they disregard too much. I'd hate to think of you being anything other than fabulous :D
Sexy Celebrity
05-30-09, 01:49 PM
The only thing I'd say is that science and God need not be mutually exclusive of one another.
Science is undeniably useful but for answering the big questions it's like a small flashlight in a dark city. It allows us to glimpse how things work but we're far from a complete picture I'd say.
God/divinity doesn't explain anything either unless you're willing to have 'faith' and accept all that is unknown as God's hand.
It's just that when I was reading this book, Decoding Love, I read how scientists studied things about couples all over the world -- facts about how they got together, how long their relationship lasted... and they even talked about how human beings are attracted to people who have different DNA types than them. They did a "sweaty T-shirt" experiment with women to see which men's t-shirts smells they preferred, and after analyzing results and blood work, found that the women preferred the t-shirts of men with different DNA than them.
Now, when I read stuff like that... although it's possible to BELIEVE that God's will may be getting carried out through human DNA by making certain people be born certain way... but that's all it is. A belief.
Also, when these scientists conclude that certain human behaviors are all occuring all over the world the same way... if there's determinism involved... it loses magic to me. Makes it feel like we're no different than ... oh, I dunno, lions, tigers, bears, insects, dogs, cats, rhinos, birds, venus fly traps.
...determinism is the inevitable result of believing in materialism (though I know lots of people hate this idea)
It's not a matter of hating. It's a matter of noticing the gaps (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=476545&postcount=7) in that ungodly argument ;)
Now, when I read stuff like that... although it's possible to BELIEVE that God's will may be getting carried out through human DNA by making certain people be born certain way... but that's all it is. A belief.
Well, DNA doesn't discount God or anything. Good luck with the sweaty t-shirt sniffing tho :)
Sir Toose
05-30-09, 07:56 PM
Makes it feel like we're no different than ... oh, I dunno, lions, tigers, bears, insects, dogs, cats, rhinos, birds, venus fly traps.
We can't really know what their experience is either... maybe it's awesome for them as well!
honeykid
05-30-09, 11:40 PM
So, maybe... just maybe... there is a God.
There's not... Unless there is but, if there is, then it's me.
The only thing I'd say is that science and God need not be mutually exclusive of one another.
They need not be, but they are.
You die and we bury you. Worms dig into your coffin and eat you...
This has nothing to do with your argument, it's just that worms don't eat you or dig into your coffin. It's bacteria that'll 'eat' you if you're properly buried in a coffin.
...Then if destiny does exist then life is nothing more than a cosmic doll house in which we are all nothing more than play things. Personally I prefer the idea of constructing one's own fate, as opposed to a prepackaged existence.
That's pretty much the way I see it, based on my own experience.
... Why would anyone want to waste their time preaching atheisim--doesn't that sort of go against the whole concept of not believing?
While I agree with the sentiment of your argument, I'd suppose (and others may have other reasons, like the one you outlined) that the point of "preaching atheism" is in the hope that organised religion can be ended and people can stop believing in such backwards mumbo-jumbo. Of course if, once it's gone people just look for something else to believe in, then it could be out of the frying pan and into the fire, but maybe these people have more 'faith' in humanity than I do.
LeRollingStone
05-31-09, 05:11 PM
Well, see, this is part of the problem.
Secretly, I've always suspected that I was either a.) God in a human form who doesn't realize it, or b.) Master of the Universe.
I suppose I could be c.) All of the above.
But I'm probably just d.) None of the above.
or maybe you're E...supreme badassssssss. dats what eye iz.:eek:
LeRollingStone
05-31-09, 05:17 PM
I believe in God...there are quite a few holes in the concept of what God wants and who God is, and what sin is, etc...but what I do is I pray to whoever God is, because it comforts me. It makes me feel like some higher being is taking care of myself and my loved ones.
I, however, am NOT a Christian. I'm a believer. I don't like being associated with anyone or anything that thinks they have the right to tell people who they can marry, what kind of music they can listen to, what to wear.
We all believe in something. Some of us believe in not believing, some of us believe in ourselves, or something higher, and for some of us its statues...but no one can say they don't believe.
****, that was corny. I didnt mean it to sound corny. lol I was trying to be honest...:rolleyes:
John McClane
05-31-09, 07:33 PM
As far as I'm concerned these days you're free to believe stupid ***** all you want, so long as you don't hurt anyone or infringe on anyone's right to believe/not believe in stupid *****. I believe in stupid *****, but I'm not preventing anyone from doing the same. No harm, no foul.
Sexy Celebrity
06-02-09, 01:40 PM
I, however, am NOT a Christian. I'm a believer.
Hit it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfuBREMXxts
. . . I'd suppose (and others may have other reasons, like the one you outlined) that the point of "preaching atheism" is in the hope that organised religion can be ended and people can stop believing in such backwards mumbo-jumbo.
Why would an atheist care what anyone else believed? Several Protestant Christian churches say in their bylaws that one of the believer's duties is to go out and convert others to that religion. So what drives the athiest to go out and preach his "religion"? He's got no church, no bylaws, no command from on high to bring in converts. No one to give him an "at-a boy!" if he does. That would seem to me like seeking validation of your own beliefs. Hey, if you're bold enough to renounce whatever God people think may be out there, is there really going to be any safety in numbers if you're wrong. Atheism like religion is a personal belief that I think is best kept to one's self so that one doesn't become too damn annoying!
"Preaching" athesim would be like I've decided that it's backward mumbo-jumbo for people to wear baseball caps with the bill in the back, and now I'm going to go out and tell 'em it's a sin and try to get them to sign a pledge that they'll no longer do that. Or maybe it's brown shoes or multicolored hair. It's no skin off my nose if folks wear baseball caps backward or brown shoes or color their hair pink and green. So what reason do I have to convince them otherwise, especially when I could be sitting in the shade laughing at the fools as they pass by?
Personally, I think most self-described atheists aren't so much against religion or even know that much about the pros and cons of it, but they simply get off on flaunting authority and shocking the "grown-ups."
Sexy Celebrity
06-03-09, 04:38 PM
Why would an athiest care what anyone else believed? Several Protestant Christian churches say in their bylaws that one of the believer's duties is to go out and convert others to that religion. So what drives the athiest to go out and preach his "religion"? He's got no church, no bylaws, no command from on high to bring in converts.
Basic human rights.
Religion throws dogma out there in the world that makes people feel like they don't have the right to be a certain way (for instance, since this is very personal to me, the right to love someone of the same sex, to have sex with them).
Some (most) religions would rather scare everyone into thinking that it's wrong. Atheists - with their beliefs, backed up by science and sanity - say, Don't listen to fairy tales. Get a grip on reality. Your body is your own. Your life is yours to live. Stop fearing about what's gonna happen after your body dies and decomposes. Get smart. Learn real facts. Be happy.
That would be like I've decided that it's backward mumbo-jumbo for people to wear baseball caps with the bill in the back, and now I'm going to go out and tell 'em it's a since and try to get them to sign a pledge that they'll no longer do that. Or maybe its brown shoes or multicolored hair. It's no skin off my nose if folks wear baseball caps backward or brown shoes or color their hair pink and green. So what reason do I have to convince them otherwise, especially when I could be sitting in the shade laughing at the fools as they pass by?
It's sad that Madea is merely a fictional character played by Tyler Perry, or else I'd want her to appear before you in that shade and kick the crap out of you.
http://www.artsjournal.com/dramaqueen/hop_madea_240x260_113020070109.jpg
I'll just have to hope that a Madea-like person is around and he or she will take care of you.
It might be me.
Personally, I think most self-described atheists aren't so much against religion or even know that much about the pros and cons of it, but they simply get off on flaunting authority and shocking the "grown-ups."
You are wrong. Lots of atheists know a lot about what they're talking about and they also study religion -- it's usually how they got to be an atheist in the first place.
I don't grant the premise that "most" atheists are the way you say, or that they "usually" got that way by studying religion. Some certainly have. Many have not. Frankly, I'm stunned by the shallowness of most of the arguments I hear. And, forgive me for being blunt, but this entire thread appears to exist because of romantic turbulance more than philosophical rigor.
I wouldn't dare assume that this means all atheists are so casual about their reasoning, but I've argued with hoards of them over the years, and I certainly haven't noticed the things you're suggesting to be applicable to the majority.
I'd say you're describing the way atheists often like to present atheism. The reality is a good deal murkier.
Re: "basic human rights." Suggesting people shouldn't do something, be it with gentle prodding or fire-and-brimstone shaming, does not violate anyone's basic human rights. There is no right no to be shamed, or disagreed with, or thought ill of, nor should there be.
. . . I'd suppose (and others may have other reasons, like the one you outlined) that the point of "preaching atheism" is in the hope that organised religion can be ended and people can stop believing in such backwards mumbo-jumbo.
The assumption underlying this is that truth is good. Here's a question that sounds ridiculous, but isn't: why is the truth good? Seriously. If you don't believe in anything beyond this universe, why is believing true things necessarily good? We can point to plenty of examples where believing the wrong thing is bad, but it's not hard to come up with hypotheticals where believing a lie is useful, either tangibly or psychologically. An atheist cannot rail against religion on the mere grounds that they think it false; they would have to demonstrate that it is a detriment to a greater goal. They'd also have to demonstrate that their goal is objectively worthwhile. I don't think they can do either.
Ironically, this isn't so easy for them to do. Atheists are almost invariably Darwinists, and whether true or not, humanity has clearly evolved to have an inclination towards spiritual beliefs, given their overwhelming popularity throughout history. Thus, it would seem that an atheist must shoot themselves in the foot a bit when they are Darwinists, yet simultaneously maintain that one of the core beliefs of the overwhelming majority of humans has a negative effect on our survival. The statement borders on outright contradiction.
I suppose one could attempt to make the case that religion was helpful up until recently (though good luck finding an atheist willing to concede even that), but has outlived its usefulness, but that's a very speculative position to take, and well nigh impossible to actually demonstrate.
It's not a matter of hating. It's a matter of noticing the gaps (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=476545&postcount=7) in that ungodly argument ;)
The "gaps" probably shouldn't be plural; the whole thing seems to rest on one concept: quantum mechanics. Which seems an odd thing to base opposition on, given how little we know about it. Heck, you suggested yourself in that post that you simply expect that what appears to be "random" is really just too complex for us to understand at the moment, and I cetainly agree. And given that everything we've ever discovered about the universes inside us has followed this pattern, it seems to make for a pretty sensible assumption.
Regardless, even if this argument were considered in spite of all this, you'd still be left with an alleged "materialist" putting their faith in the scientific process on one hand, and with the other maintaining the existence of Free Will based on speculation on a topic that they admit we don't understand.
In other words, if a materialist applies the raw scientific process to the idea of choice, they must conclude that they have no solid evidence whatsoever that it actually exists, and a mountain suggesting that it doesn't. To reach this conclusion they need only apply a fraction of the scrutiny that they reserve for, say, religion.
Of course, an added irony is that even if it were proved that there were truly "random" quantum events occuring, they'd still be...well, random. Not the result of choice.
Then again, if you're merely suggesting that there's a lot we don't know and we could discover some sort of "choice molecule," well heck, anything's possible. But there isn't anything solid to rest an argument on, I don't think. Especially not for any individual who exalts the scientific process first and foremost.
John McClane
06-03-09, 05:25 PM
Rufnek: For some atheists, some mind you not all, superiority tends to take the better of them. I'm going to try and stop/convince people because I have vastly superior knowledge to something they're unaware of. At least, in my experience I've found that to be the case. And I have also been guilty of that same reasoning.
Yoda: Just as an atheist cannot demonstrate that religion is detriment to a greater goal, theists can also not demonstrate that religion is crucial to a greater goal. Be it world peace, salvation, etc. Trying to argue against, or for it, just isn't possible. At least, not to the point of saying it's a logical necessity (whether it should be abolished or praised).
Yoda: Just as an atheist cannot demonstrate that religion is detriment to a greater goal, theists can also not demonstrate that religion is crucial to a greater goal. Be it world peace, salvation, etc. Trying to argue against, or for it, just isn't possible. At least, not to the point of saying it's a logical necessity (whether it should be abolished or praised).
I agree for the most part, and I wouldn't pretend that I could objectively prove that religion is a "logical necessity." Of course, the two sides (to over-simplify things for simplicity's sake) don't usually make the same promises. I know very few religious folks who think that the problems of the world will simply go away if everyone thought like them. I know quite a few atheists who think that embracing science and rationality will cure what ails us, however. Admittedly anecdotal, but I'll be surprised if others haven't had similar experiences.
Anyway, I think you can make the case that theism aids the greater goal of glorifying God and trying to emulate Him. Even so, I certainly admit that religion opens up certain behavioral pitfalls that don't exist with other worldviews, though I'd say that's true of any belief (or lack thereof). There's always going to be a two-steps-forward-one-step-back deal with any belief system, even the right one, given our annoyingly persistent human-ness. ;)
John McClane
06-03-09, 05:38 PM
I agree for the most part, and I wouldn't pretend that I could objectively prove that religion is a "logical necessity." Of course, the two sides (to over-simplify things for simplicity's sake) don't usually make the same promises. I know very few religious folks who think that the problems of the world will simply go away if everyone thought like them. I know quite a few atheists who think that embracing science and rationality will cure what ails us, however. Admittedly anecdotal, but I'll be surprised if others haven't had similar experiences.I, also, would have to agree. At least in my experiences and my behavior in the past. I've also been guilty of that same reasoning you've just stated, and I'd be willing to bet that it's much more common as well.
Anyway, I think you can make the case that theism aids the greater goal of glorifying God and trying to emulate Him. Well of course, but why is that even important? I wouldn't see how it would make humans better or anything. There are a fair number or people out there that glorify God with religion and they're real sh!ts.
Even so, I certainly admit that religion opens up certain behavioral pitfalls that don't exist with other worldviews, though I'd say that's true of any belief (or lack thereof). There's always going to be a two-steps-forward-one-step-back deal with any belief system, even the right one, given our annoyingly persistent human-ness. ;)Agreed, once more. No matter how correct, or incorrect, a belief/worldview/or lack thereof they will still be subjected to that inherit human flaw. Regardless of politics, religion, or your favorite type of sandwich. ;)
The Moviegoer
06-03-09, 06:12 PM
Urgh, I can't even go atheist without becoming female.
Moviegoer, what you said is ridiculous. "I believe that Sexy Celebrity is not an atheist." I just said that I was an atheist now! I am not some character in a book that needs to be debated on - I'm real!
I am not saying that God is science. I am not saying that there is a Supreme Being.
Yoda is right when he's saying that choices are all the result of everything that's happened since the beginning of time (if there was a beginning).
Now, I don't understand everything fully about how the universe began - who does? But I'm just thinking that human beings are all too predictable and common for the idea of a soul - an independent spirit - something that lives forever, goes to an afterlife, what have you -- I think that, sadly, it's ridiculous.
I've spent a long, long time believing in destiny -- granted, destiny doesn't have to mean you believe in God, but... isn't destiny supposed to mean it's DESTINED?!
I'm saying the truth is that there's probably just chaos... and it only looks like there isn't chaos because everything seems so ... normal.
My crazy, spiritual mind -- something it's used to being -- keeps wondering about that phone call though, but RATIONALLY, I know it just had to be a mistake call. He was probably dialing the last number he called since he called me last night.
Now, we could get into psychology, Freud and the subconscious and say that he called me by mistake because he really wants to call me and not let me go... but that's a seperate thing.
Not really. God doesn't have to be a person.
. . . I'm going to try and stop/convince people because I have vastly superior knowledge to something they're unaware of. At least, in my experience I've found that to be the case. And I have also been guilty of that same reasoning.
:) So your belief (in your self-proclaimed "vastly superior knowledge") has called you to go out of your way to convert others. Exactly how does that differ from someone preaching his belief in a supreme being? The only difference I see, John, is that the Supreme Being you believe in is you! You are a one-man religion based on faith in your own superiority.
Besides, your target for conversion may have read, heard, thought the same things as you, yet has no faith in them and has rejected them in favor of his own faith, whatever it is. Reason has absolutely nothing to do with faith, because the whole thing about faith is that one believes something without any proof. A real Christian (and many who only think they are) doesn't need or even consider proof, he just believes!
Sexy Celebrity
06-03-09, 06:48 PM
I don't grant the premise that "most" atheists are the way you say, or that they "usually" got that way by studying religion. Some certainly have. Many have not. Frankly, I'm stunned by the shallowness of most of the arguments I hear. And, forgive me for being blunt, but this entire thread appears to exist because of romantic turbulance more than philosophical rigor.
http://la.climatologie.free.fr/turbulance-atm/orageanime.gif
I dunno, I woke up the morning after I got dumped, felt atheist, decided in the shower that I was gonna be atheist from now on... I mean, this is after years and years of contemplation, study, listening to other atheists, reading articles, etc. etc.
The truth is, I'm actually back to being an agnostic again, but I still appreciate the atheist stance. Turbulance has moved. I've found a new man, thus I'm in revenge mode and I've taken said revenge to my new Twitter page, which is now the unofficial sequel to this thread. But anyways...
I wouldn't dare assume that this means all atheists are so casual about their reasoning, but I've argued with hoards of them over the years, and I certainly haven't noticed the things you're suggesting to be applicable to the majority.
Well, I dunno. I know of a few good atheists and that's all.
One of my favorite atheists is James Randi, the paranormal debunker over at www.randi.org. Look at how sexy he is.
http://www.randi.org/images/photos/randi-shirt.jpg
Re: "basic human rights." Suggesting people shouldn't do something, be it with gentle prodding or fire-and-brimstone shaming, does not violate anyone's basic human rights. There is no right no to be shamed, or disagreed with, or thought ill of, nor should there be.
I just believe that a lot of crap put out there by religious people can do a lot of harm to people. The human brain can be a gullible, sensitive, overworked, overtaxed and lame machine sometimes. I think people can be protected by knowing that they can be free to do things that religions tell them not to. I think they can live their lives better.
It might not be bad to get the opposing messages (religion's) out there, but I think it's important to have other views, especially since in most cases I personally feel they're right and they're beneficial to human beings.
The assumption underlying this is that truth is good. Here's a question that sounds ridiculous, but isn't: why is the truth good? Seriously. If you don't believe in anything beyond this universe, why is believing true things necessarily good?
Safety reasons.
The Moviegoer
06-03-09, 06:58 PM
http://la.climatologie.free.fr/turbulance-atm/orageanime.gif
I dunno, I woke up the morning after I got dumped, felt atheist, decided in the shower that I was gonna be atheist from now on... I mean, this is after years and years of contemplation, study, listening to other atheists, reading articles, etc. etc.
The truth is, I'm actually back to being an agnostic again, but I still appreciate the atheist stance. Turbulance has moved. I've found a new man, thus I'm in revenge mode and I've taken said revenge to my new Twitter page, which is now the unofficial sequel to this thread. But anyways...
Well, I dunno. I know of a few good atheists and that's all.
One of my favorite atheists is James Randi, the paranormal debunker over at www.randi.org (http://www.randi.org). Look at how sexy he is.
http://www.randi.org/images/photos/randi-shirt.jpg
I just believe that a lot of crap put out there by religious people can do a lot of harm to people. The human brain can be a gullible, sensitive, overworked, overtaxed and lame machine sometimes. I think people can be protected by knowing that they can be free to do things that religions tell them not to. I think they can live their lives better.
It might not be bad to get the opposing messages (religion's) out there, but I think it's important to have other views, especially since in most cases I personally feel they're right and they're beneficial to human beings.
Safety reasons.
I hear you, Sexy Celebrity. Live your life to the fullest.
I know you are gay and everything but come on, that guy is like 70. How is he sexy? I mean look at him:
http://www.randi.org/images/photos/randi-shirt.jpg
He's no hunk.
The Moviegoer
06-03-09, 07:02 PM
Oh boy, I can tell this thread is going to get violent.
Sexy Celebrity
06-03-09, 07:10 PM
I know you are gay and everything but come on, that guy is like 70. How is he sexy? I mean look at him:
http://www.randi.org/images/photos/randi-shirt.jpg
He's no hunk.
Are you nuts? You must be secretly attracted to him because you used his picture TWICE in that post!
Just look at that furry white beard... ooooooh, think about all of the places it could rub against. And doesn't he look so very dominating and authoritative with those crossed arms, blue shirt and that bossy red tie?
No?
http://www.peek-productions.com/images/Randi/Randi.jpg
What about here? Look at those hands... c'mon! Doesn't he just look like Santa Claus' more scientifically skilled brother? The one who doesn't eat all of America's cookies all on one night?
http://www.yuppiepunk.org/images/jamesrandi.jpg
He's even more smokin' hot and dominating here. Black suit and a funky gray & black tie... ooooh! Prince would be so impressed.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3211/2479787714_b9df971a62.jpg?v=0
Sometimes Randi (whose name is very sexual, by the way) dresses up in costumes, such as here.
http://img.skitch.com/20081112-g4tag3di7mcrg1y9up9866t4ij.preview.jpg
The sight of sexy James Randi is enough to make anyone's hair stand on end!
I just believe that a lot of crap put out there by religious people can do a lot of harm to people.
And this is something you just take on faith, right? No amount of "facts" presented by others can convince you otherwise? Good for you. You are a true believer, faithful to your religion of atheism or whatever you care to call it. :)
Sexy Celebrity
06-03-09, 07:19 PM
And this is something you just take on faith, right? No amount of "facts" presented by others can convince you otherwise? Good for you. You are a true believer, faithful to your religion of atheism or whatever you care to call it. :)
My religion is sexiness. I believe in it - I have seen it - and it has it own dark side too, its own hell, its own devil - it's called ugliness.
There are atheists who don't believe in such a thing as sexiness -- they think it doesn't exist or doesn't matter - but I believe that it's there! I believe that I am part of sexiness.
Until I die and decay, that is. Then I will no longer be sexy....
Although, even that's not totally true, for there are necrophiliacs out there who would probably still find me sexy....
Religion throws dogma out there in the world that makes people feel like they don't have the right to be a certain way (for instance, since this is very personal to me, the right to love someone of the same sex, to have sex with them).
Com'on, you can screw your dog on the church altar, and the cops will only arrest you for indecent behavior, not for busting any commandments. You want to work for human rights, go join the Democratic party like my gay cousin.
It's sad that Madea is merely a fictional character played by Tyler Perry, or else I'd want her to appear before you in that shade and kick the crap out of you. I'll just have to hope that a Madea-like person is around and he or she will take care of you. It might be me.
Just because I raised some questions about atheism? I guess it's not bashing if a gay does it, huh? Not willing to extend human rights--like the freedom of speech--to all humans? Well, whatever floats your boat, bubba, bring it on. :laugh:
Sexy Celebrity
06-03-09, 07:38 PM
I'm leaving this thread until someone with an even bigger interest in the freedom of speech wants to discuss what James Randi looks like naked.
John McClane
06-03-09, 09:00 PM
:) So your belief (in your self-proclaimed "vastly superior knowledge") has called you to go out of your way to convert others. Exactly how does that differ from someone preaching his belief in a supreme being? The only difference I see, John, is that the Supreme Being you believe in is you! You are a one-man religion based on faith in your own superiority.No, you got it all wrong. The point I'm making is that someone who doesn't believe thinks they have the right answer. The whole point in trying to convert someone isn't for their sake, but for the person who's doing the converting. There's no real motive other than belittling the person, or getting some satisfaction in "being right." Both sides are, IMO, a bit arrogant when it comes to the whole argument (claiming to have the right answer). And no, I have no belief in "vastly superior knowledge."
Besides, your target for conversion may have read, heard, thought the same things as you, yet has no faith in them and has rejected them in favor of his own faith, whatever it is. Reason has absolutely nothing to do with faith, because the whole thing about faith is that one believes something without any proof. A real Christian (and many who only think they are) doesn't need or even consider proof, he just believes!And yet, there are plenty of people who believe because they see something as proof. In the same way some don't believe because they see something as proof. So the believer can't see why the non-believer doesn't agree with them when all the evidence is staring them in the face, and the non-believer can't see why in the vice verse. And sometimes their evidence is the exact same thing!
John McClane
06-03-09, 09:05 PM
And this is something you just take on faith, right? No amount of "facts" presented by others can convince you otherwise? Good for you. You are a true believer, faithful to your religion of atheism or whatever you care to call it. :)I have to disagree on this one. There are plenty of reasons and facts that can demonstrate religious harm, and non-religious harm too. Which is one reason why churches don't stone witches, permit slavery, etc. These are practices that have obvious evidence that demonstrate religious harm and no amount of "facts" can convince people otherwise. If a good case can be made I see no reason why some religious practices can't be considered harmful because let's be honest...some are/were.
The Moviegoer
06-03-09, 10:49 PM
Are you nuts? You must be secretly attracted to him because you used his picture TWICE in that post!
Just look at that furry white beard... ooooooh, think about all of the places it could rub against. And doesn't he look so very dominating and authoritative with those crossed arms, blue shirt and that bossy red tie?
No?
http://www.peek-productions.com/images/Randi/Randi.jpg
What about here? Look at those hands... c'mon! Doesn't he just look like Santa Claus' more scientifically skilled brother? The one who doesn't eat all of America's cookies all on one night?
http://www.yuppiepunk.org/images/jamesrandi.jpg
He's even more smokin' hot and dominating here. Black suit and a funky gray & black tie... ooooh! Prince would be so impressed.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3211/2479787714_b9df971a62.jpg?v=0
Sometimes Randi (whose name is very sexual, by the way) dresses up in costumes, such as here.
http://img.skitch.com/20081112-g4tag3di7mcrg1y9up9866t4ij.preview.jpg
The sight of sexy James Randi is enough to make anyone's hair stand on end!
...
I would like to comment, but I don't know if I can. You honestly think that old dude wearing diapers staring stupidly at some Asian guy (not to mention the one where he is dressed up like some Lord of the Rings fanatic with the people staring at him like WTF is wrong with you) is...... HOT!? I just commented... and it was not a good thought.
Sexy Celebrity
06-04-09, 04:00 PM
Moviegoer, please stop reposting those hot-as-hell pictures of James Randi. Callouses are beginning to form on my hands. I'm getting so hot that I'm breaking out the Tylenol and having to fill my bathtub with cold water & ice cubes just to bring my temperature down.
http://www.wired.com/news/images/full/amazingrandi1_f.jpg
God, he is so dreamy. Eat your heart out, Tom Cruise. Look at that beautiful bald head. I just wanna put little lines on it with a magic marker for everytime he brings me to total satisfaction. *SIGH* Let's bring Michelangelo back to life so he can sculpt a naked statue of Randi ~ another masterpiece for the world to enjoy forever, for sure!
Iroquois
06-04-09, 04:04 PM
:indifferent:
Sexy Celebrity
06-04-09, 04:07 PM
I don't grant the premise that "most" atheists are the way you say, or that they "usually" got that way by studying religion. Some certainly have. Many have not. Frankly, I'm stunned by the shallowness of most of the arguments I hear. And, forgive me for being blunt, but this entire thread appears to exist because of romantic turbulance more than philosophical rigor.
Just so you know ~ I've got you. You're kind of saying that I'm a silly atheist who became that way because of romantic problems and not because I've studied religion or been all philosophical.
The truth is I've been studying and thinking philosophically for years and years. Now I can't tell you everything I've learned, but, PHILOSOPHICALLY... philosophically my conclusions came mostly from truths about the world.
I just don't really wanna go into them right now. It's hard for me to debate, I guess. I also have a headache. Plus, this thread is now even more absurd, thanks to me. Care to comment about James Randi's sex appeal?
Sexy Celebrity
06-04-09, 04:09 PM
:indifferent:
Sorry, I don't mean to frustrate the heterosexuals. Here's some cleavage to look at.
http://abinitioadinfinitum.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/tilly-j.jpg
Iroquois
06-04-09, 04:11 PM
I thought it was more of a stunned look. It doesn't convey frustration to me. Frustration is more like :mad:.
Sexy Celebrity
06-04-09, 04:15 PM
I thought it was more of a stunned look. It doesn't convey frustration to me. Frustration is more like :mad:.
That would make me think you'd want me to delete my post. That's anger to me.
http://fg8bpa.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pSPd5KkoHalomFWR577Bv01xWlFSa3yTXt_zsJ_rFfV-9c9YmyspXRhi55fEr7hyR180BYBAq94CJMJQyPjVuaQ/Bound.jpg
Anyway, *ding dong*, it's Jennifer Tilly.
Iroquois
06-04-09, 04:17 PM
Well, smileys are complicated things I guess.
And pictures of Tilly aren't going to work on me for a number of reasons (tired, distracted, "frustrated", etc etc etc)
Sexy Celebrity
06-04-09, 04:19 PM
http://www.scene-stealers.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/crowd.jpg
No, you got it all wrong. The point I'm making is that someone who doesn't believe thinks they have the right answer. The whole point in trying to convert someone isn't for their sake, but for the person who's doing the converting. There's no real motive other than belittling the person, or getting some satisfaction in "being right." Both sides are, IMO, a bit arrogant when it comes to the whole argument (claiming to have the right answer).
Now this I agree with. Problem with emails is that it's easy to misunderstand what one is reading without the facial and body expressions that communicate so well in real life.
John McClane
06-04-09, 07:28 PM
Just so you know ~ I've got you. You're kind of saying that I'm a silly atheist who became that way because of romantic problems and not because I've studied religion or been all philosophical.
The truth is I've been studying and thinking philosophically for years and years. Now I can't tell you everything I've learned, but, PHILOSOPHICALLY... philosophically my conclusions came mostly from truths about the world.Philosophically speaking, IMO anyways and I'm sure my teachers would agree, philosophy is not the thing that gets you to an end per se. The only point of it is to keep moving and presenting new ideas...radical ones sometimes. It's just the art of looking at problems, but that's just my opinion on the matter.
honeykid
06-04-09, 11:37 PM
Sorry, I don't mean to frustrate the heterosexuals. Here's some cleavage to look at.
http://abinitioadinfinitum.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/tilly-j.jpg
That would make me think you'd want me to delete my post. That's anger to me.
http://fg8bpa.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pSPd5KkoHalomFWR577Bv01xWlFSa3yTXt_zsJ_rFfV-9c9YmyspXRhi55fEr7hyR180BYBAq94CJMJQyPjVuaQ/Bound.jpg
Anyway, *ding dong*, it's Jennifer Tilly.
From one hetrosexual to the sites premier homosexual, I say thank you for the pics. :up:
http://abinitioadinfinitum.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/tilly-j.jpg
I think "she" got "bust"ed for bringing crack aboard an airplane once. :p
Just so you know ~ I've got you. You're kind of saying that I'm a silly atheist who became that way because of romantic problems and not because I've studied religion or been all philosophical.
The truth is I've been studying and thinking philosophically for years and years. Now I can't tell you everything I've learned, but, PHILOSOPHICALLY... philosophically my conclusions came mostly from truths about the world.
I just don't really wanna go into them right now. It's hard for me to debate, I guess. I also have a headache. Plus, this thread is now even more absurd, thanks to me. Care to comment about James Randi's sex appeal?
I honestly wouldn't presume to guess as to how much you've thought about this or that. I don't think you're just a "silly atheist" and I have no trouble believing that you've been toying with the idea for awhile. I'm just saying that the impetus is clearly relationship troubles. You've had a hard time of it over the last year or so, and if that's coincided with an increase in skepticism towards faith, I think it's reasonable to wonder whether or not that's a coincidence.
I'll gladly take you at your word if you say there are deeping reasons behind it all. If you ever care to share them, I'll certainly listen. I'm just going off of what I have, which is, at the moment, a rationale about destiny that I think points in the opposite direction of the conclusion, and a thread announcing a shift in beliefs which coincides with the aforementioned difficulties. I certainly realize, though, that as is always the case with other people, I don't have the whole picture.
John McClane
08-14-09, 11:59 AM
I honestly wouldn't presume to guess as to how much you've thought about this or that. I don't think you're just a "silly atheist" and I have no trouble believing that you've been toying with the idea for awhile. I'm just saying that the impetus is clearly relationship troubles. You've had a hard time of it over the last year or so, and if that's coincided with an increase in skepticism towards faith, I think it's reasonable to wonder whether or not that's a coincidence.
I'll gladly take you at your word if you say there are deeping reasons behind it all. If you ever care to share them, I'll certainly listen. I'm just going off of what I have, which is, at the moment, a rationale about destiny that I think points in the opposite direction of the conclusion, and a thread announcing a shift in beliefs which coincides with the aforementioned difficulties. I certainly realize, though, that as is always the case with other people, I don't have the whole picture.I'd be interested to see if he still feels the same way now.
Over the years, I've found myself in several tough spots and every single time they've affected my core beliefs. Mind you, I never just instantly changed my mind as I, personally, find that very practice to be shaky at best, if not entirely fake. However, I did find myself to be more influenced by material I read, listened to, and saw. It wasn't until a year ago that I realized this and decided to commit myself to a philosophy degree. I don't limit myself to what I read or might possibly believe now. Two years ago I did just that and I honestly do believe I took more steps backward than forward.
Sexy Celebrity
08-14-09, 04:24 PM
I'd be interested to see if he still feels the same way now.
I hope there is a God. I really do. Sometimes, I actually do believe in one. I used to feel a lot stronger in my belief of God.
There was a surprising "synchronicity" on August 6th in my life that definitely turned the tables on the whole atheist thing. I've always been interested in synchronicities, but they were getting rarer and rarer.
I'll be honest ~ this whole "fabulous atheist" thing was basically started in anger at the guy who dumped me. However, I did really feel like an atheist the day I made this thread. But, I had been plotting in my head - when I suspected he wasn't that into me - to tell this church boy that he made an atheist out of me, just because I thought it might f**k with his head (I know, I'm terrible at revenge). I said nothing when we actually spoke on the phone and he said it was over between us - but the next day, I came here, made this thread, changed my religion to "atheist" on Facebook (for him to see), etc.
I just... I can't deal talking about God and religion with everyone, especially firm believers in heaven / hell / Satan / Jesus / that kind of thing. I don't know what's out there. I don't know what comes after, if anything. I am open minded to the possibility of it being something unexpected. Because there are so many cultures in the world -- and also, because there are so many PLANETS in the universe -- billions and billions, undiscovered -- Jesus probably isn't everywhere. Beliefs must be different all over. I think that Christianity is okay if you wanna believe in it, but I personally feel limited by that stuff.
I don't fear hell. I don't think about the possibility of going to hell. I'm certainly not ever going to believe that you go to hell by being gay. But I'm open to the possibility of darkness and evil spirits, or whatever it is.
Yet at the same time, I'm confused because a lot of simple things on Earth can seem "evil". Is murder always evil? What if it's done to have food to eat, as with animals? There are other examples - I just can't think of them all now.
I fear that when I die, everything's over, forever. That's my greatest fear. All I can really say is that I'm hopeful that it isn't true. Although, the afterworld better be a hell of a lot better than life. When Yoda and I are dead, and we both make it to heaven, and he makes a Movie Forums up there, there better not be any need for me to remake "The MoFo Support Group".
My idea of heaven is Nebbit gets the biggest pair of boobs instead of wings. :)
Hello, my lovelies.
I have an announcement to make. I've decided that I am now an anteater.
The problem is that you have to eat a crapload to get filled up. I know; I've been an Anteater since 1973.
http://gram.eng.uci.edu/~alberto/images/anteater.gif
Sexy Celebrity
08-16-09, 05:23 PM
Hello, my lovelies.
I have an announcement to make. I've decided that I am now an anteater.
This made me laugh for real.
Sexy Celebrity
01-09-10, 04:15 PM
I am no longer a fabulous atheist.
This thread is null and void. Obsolete.
I have a stronger faith in God now. This I cannot lie about.
I will always understand atheism, but I feel like going on record here and saying... there is a God.
And an afterlife, too!
beelzebubbles
01-09-10, 04:16 PM
Is god's first name Jake by any chance?
Sexy Celebrity
01-09-10, 04:33 PM
Is god's first name Jake by any chance?
http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/Cf/jake-gyllenhaal-1207-lg.jpg
I tell ya, if God made Jake Gyllenhaal in his own image, I won't be needing Zelda Rubinstein's encouragement to go into The Light.
So what has changed your mind Sexy? :confused:
Sexy Celebrity
01-13-10, 03:07 PM
Once I've smoothed out this theism business of my own, I'll explain everything.
John McClane
01-13-10, 09:29 PM
You change your mind more often than a teenage girl. :p
I get your point, but do you actually have the evidence that he does that? Sure, he wears his emotions on his sleeve, but others do that too. I seem to remember that this thread (or a similar one and the dope-smoking thread) had you saying things which would never change in your heart and soul, but you may have reconsidered those already unless I'm a mistaken ass, which is certainly possible. Love you, Matthew. :cool:
John McClane
01-13-10, 11:01 PM
I get your point, but do you actually have the evidence that he does that? Sure, he wears his emotions on his sleeve, but others do that too. I seem to remember that this thread (or a similar one and the dope-smoking thread) had you saying things which would never change in your heart and soul, but you may have reconsidered those already unless I'm a mistaken ass, which is certainly possible. Love you, Matthew. :cool:Ohh, touche! :D
Hey, I'm young. I'm allowed to change my mind at the drop of a hat (ya know, growing up and figuring it all out and stuff?). ;) Besides, I was just kidding with him...but you know that.
beelzebubbles
01-13-10, 11:04 PM
The only problem with atheism is there is no place to wear a really fabulous outfit on Sunday morning, sing songs you learned as a kid with a coffee hour featuring free danish afterward. I like being read to and I enjoyed a good homily. Of course, I was lucky. My parents only went to churches that featured a priest who could actually give an entertaining sermon. So despite losing my faith at around thirteen, I stuck with the church till I was about thirty=five for the entertainment and the socializing. Beat that atheists!
honeykid
01-13-10, 11:06 PM
Well, there's not getting up on Sunday morning. I think that knocks the whole thing into a cocked hat, myself.
The key is that you still hang out here and take in what we all have to say, whether you agree or not. I'm old, but I can certainly learn something from a younger whipper-snapper. I honestly feel that I'm wise, but I can also honestly tell you that if I wasn't surrounded by my specific friends and family, that I could easily be "living" on the street. It's amazing how close the line is between "self-supportive citizen" and "******* reject".
John McClane
01-13-10, 11:08 PM
Well, there's not getting up on Sunday morning. I think that knocks the whole thing into a cocked hat, myself.
The only problem with atheism is there is no place to wear a really fabulous outfit on Sunday morning, sing songs you learned as a kid with a coffee hour featuring free danish afterward. I like being read to and I enjoyed a good homily. Of course, I was lucky. My parents only went to churches that featured a priest who could actually give an entertaining sermon. So despite losing my faith at around thirteen, I stuck with the church till I was about thirty=five for the entertainment and the socializing. Beat that atheists!Of course, this is assuming that you *have* to go to church to be a believer. I don't dig me no religion.
beelzebubbles
01-13-10, 11:10 PM
Of course, this is assuming that you *have* to go to church to be a believer. I don't dig me no religion.
Have to shmave to. It's fun.
Church is the biggest stumbling block to organized religion and a way to get people who have a spiritual hard-on to get involved. That's why I find "anti-churchism" in whatever form it takes to be the major problem with the concept of why gung-ho church believers won't back off a little. To me, the perfect group of people who want to start and participate in a church (in between all of you who are all past that) are the people who believe that they DO NOT know all the answers. We can hang on here if you like, but remember, I didn't make the flippin' universe, so I definitely do not have all the answers. I have some wonderful questions though...
beelzebubbles
01-13-10, 11:57 PM
I was fortunate growing up. Church was fun and our values were liberal and promoted good citizenship more than a belief in Jesus Christ. It's probably why, though I am an atheist, I have only good feelings towards organized religion.
Well, my current goodies connected to church are all closed basically. There are still plenty of other ones but don't let some church tell you that you're wrong about anything unless they actually explain it to you and you accept it.
I love the "happy" medium between religion and atheism: It is called a net, it catches amany things. :)
http://sjdyer.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/safety-net.jpg
John McClane
01-14-10, 12:17 AM
Church is the biggest stumbling block to organized religion and a way to get people who have a spiritual hard-on to get involved. That's why I find "anti-churchism" in whatever form it takes to be the major problem with the concept of why gung-ho church believers won't back off a little. To me, the perfect group of people who want to start and participate in a church (in between all of you who are all past that) are the people who believe that they DO NOT know all the answers. We can hang on here if you like, but remember, I didn't make the flippin' universe, so I definitely do not have all the answers. I have some wonderful questions though...Sorry, I just don't dig sitting in a building that people say is "holy" listening to some dude(s)/dudette(s) tell me what the universe is all about.
Count DeMoney
01-14-10, 01:56 AM
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/us-televangelist-claims-haiti-earthquake-a-blessing-in-disguise/story-e6freuy9-1225819201168
Lovely...just lovely...
So...who here honestly believes in their Heart of Hearts...that Sexy_Celebrity is hell-bound for his choice of lifestyle? Come on you pure holy winged angels...fess up...
(I sure as hell don't mate...!)
The debate over evolution vs creationism is stale and old, why can't the two work hand in hand? One acts through the other?
To quote Jamie Oliver:
"Suck my what...!?!"
Sorry, I just don't dig sitting in a building that people say is "holy" listening to some dude(s)/dudette(s) tell me what the universe is all about.
That's my point. Go hang out at a park or the beach. Talk to your friends. You will learn more about reality and what you feel to be holy since holyness just means purity.
John McClane
01-14-10, 02:11 AM
That's my point. Go hang out at a park or the beach. Talk to your friends. You will learn more about reality and what you feel to be holy since holyness just means purity.So wait, were you agreeing or disagreeing with anti-church statements?
You make your own church. A church is not a building. It's a gathering of like-minded people who agree to try to accomplish something "pure". I sure hope I don't sound like a Nazi here...
42ndStreetFreak
01-14-10, 04:37 AM
'The Church', if you want to believe in such religions...should be in your head, in private.
I like how people who don;t believe in the magic pixie, the magic goat, the holy dwarf or the sainted hobbit...have to explain themselves and justify it!
I don't believe in utterly unproven ( SHOW ME THEN....NOW....DO IT....ANY PROOF AT ALL....ANYTHING) supernatural sky fairies BECAUSE they are utterly unproven supernatural sky fairies!
If YOU truly think there is a great, invisible, supernatural being in the sky...and you then base real world laws, real world rules, real world crowd controlling doctrines, real world damning criticism, real world punishments and entire real world social ideas that influence the entire globe....YOU are the one who should damn well justify it, explain it and damn well prove your delusion!
It's all farcical.
You 'believers' can't even ****ing well agree on WHAT to believe in!
Muslims fight other Muslims, Christians fight other Christians, Jews fight other Jews.
And all the above (and a damn sight more) fight each other when not fighting themselves.
'Believers' once believed in tree gods, earth gods, muscle-bound gods on clouds with winged horses, sky gods, water gods, greek gods, roman gods, African gods..blah blah.
Now ALL THOSE gods are classed as primitive superstition (even sinful!!!) while your just as unproven, just as ****ing BARMY and wacky religions are classed as great wisdom and moral truisms!
Fickle bunch ain't yer.
If I walked around saying I believe in a purple man who lives under the rainbow and demanded great buildings, schools, money, laws, and countrywide/global wide rule be created and forged and given to me because of my purple rainbow guy all YOU LOT would scoff...any rational person would scoff as well...And yet Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus blah blah blah seem to get away with it!
You want to believe in the power of The Force? Fine. Do it away from any public space or influence though and keep it to yourself. Knock yourself out!
But the day you lock up, kill, punish and condemn real people in the real world...Some of us have a problem with your beliefs!
And we also have a problem when you say that this religious murder, torture, servitude, damning, judging and threat should be excused, 'understood', and even ****ing respected just because it's a religion and use that status as a shield (the darker the skin of that religion the stronger the shield as well I notice).
Hitler must be spinning that he never called 'National Socialism' a religion. He would have had a much easier ride.
Hell if he had also slapped on the fake tan cream the so called 'liberals' would have actually helped him and defended him and called for respect.
Hard luck Adolf.
KasperKristensen
01-14-10, 07:24 AM
I put this in my blog a while back. Thought I'd chip in and translate it for you.
God needs our forgiveness
Of all beings, God is probably the one who falls victim to most accusations. And it's only natural to accuse someone who can't answer. As far as we know it has no consequences. But when you unload your anger-fueled complaints on our God almighty, did you ever think that he actually embraces them? Maybe he needs your forgiveness and not the other way around.
Perhaps God began his creation of the world very enthusiastically and with the best intentions, but somewhere down the road he made a mistake. A mistake which resulted in his paradise becoming the world we live in now. A world which, beyond the shadow of a doubt, contains goodness, which advocate his existence, but also contains elements which seem to disprove him. And if we assume that God is almighty and all knowing, what is the reason for the latter? A priest can argue that God works in mysterious ways, but isn't that just because we don't dare or can't explain it?
Granted, if you accept that God made a mistake, then you accept that he isn't almighty and all knowing, and the hypothesis becomes very weak. But personally I find it easier to accept a flawed God, than a God who knowingly put evil and suffering in the world.
SoulInside
01-14-10, 08:33 AM
Life on earth is about 3 and a half billion years old. 3 500 000 000. The oldest religious communities are only about 150 000 years old. Prehistoric rules came first. Maybe there is a greater being. Maybe there are more than just one. But for all we know right now, religion is more or less masked philosophy. If all the true believers would spend less time worships their gods and defends their beliefs, and more time trying to help each other and solves our problems, we all would be happy campers.
I don't know why I'm responding to this post, because almost nothing about it suggests that the author is even remotely open-minded about the subject, but I feel obliged all the same, so I'll keep it short and to the point.
I like how people who don;t believe in the magic pixie, the magic goat, the holy dwarf or the sainted hobbit...have to explain themselves and justify it!
Funny, I don't believe in any of those things.
Making up silly names for things you don't believe in doesn't, in fact, make them silly.
I don't believe in utterly unproven ( SHOW ME THEN....NOW....DO IT....ANY PROOF AT ALL....ANYTHING) supernatural sky fairies BECAUSE they are utterly unproven supernatural sky fairies!
If YOU truly think there is a great, invisible, supernatural being in the sky...and you then base real world laws, real world rules, real world crowd controlling doctrines, real world damning criticism, real world punishments and entire real world social ideas that influence the entire globe....YOU are the one who should damn well justify it, explain it and damn well prove your delusion!
Assuming that your definition of "proof" would involve something tangible, then what you're asking for is circular: you want physical proof of something that is not physical. It's a meaningless demand that is, by definition, impossible to fulfill.
Also, I don't believe God is "invisible" or "in the sky." You're mocking images that you yourself are assigning to religion. It makes no argument and contains no insight.
It's all farcical.
You 'believers' can't even ****ing well agree on WHAT to believe in!
Muslims fight other Muslims, Christians fight other Christians, Jews fight other Jews.
And all the above (and a damn sight more) fight each other when not fighting themselves.
And Americans fight Americans, and British people fight British people, and people who believe in the same systems of government fight each other, too. This doesn't make believers any different from any other person in this regard.
Notice, however, that all the groups you listed do agree that there is a God, and they do have some basic agreements about God's nature. I'm sure you're perfectly aware of how difficult it is to get large groups of people to agree about something; isn't it interesting that the overwhelming majority of humanity has agreed on that one thing?
'Believers' once believed in tree gods, earth gods, muscle-bound gods on clouds with winged horses, sky gods, water gods, greek gods, roman gods, African gods..blah blah.
Now ALL THOSE gods are classed as primitive superstition (even sinful!!!) while your just as unproven, just as ****ing BARMY and wacky religions are classed as great wisdom and moral truisms!
Fickle bunch ain't yer.
No, because humanity is not a collective entity, thus it's not "fickle" when someone 1,000 years ago believes one thing, and I, today, believe something else, being that we're two different people.
You want to believe in the power of The Force? Fine. Do it away from any public space or influence though and keep it to yourself. Knock yourself out!
But the day you lock up, kill, punish and condemn real people in the real world...Some of us have a problem with your beliefs!
And we also have a problem when you say that this religious murder, torture, servitude, damning, judging and threat should be excused, 'understood', and even ****ing respected just because it's a religion and use that status as a shield (the darker the skin of that religion the stronger the shield as well I notice).
That's...borderline racist. Perhaps without the borderline. Makes me wonder who would've given you rep for that post, frankly.
Regardless, notice that for all your complaints about judging, your entire post is filled with it. In other words, it's not okay for religious people to make judgments, but it's okay for you to do so to them. Because you think they're wrong, yes? In which case, there's no actual difference between you and them aside from your beliefs and theirs. You're not making an actual point that differentiates yourself from religious people any more than your varying levels of belief already do.
Also, for all the railing on about reason and evidence, which of these two posts (your post, and this reply) seems more methodical and coldly rational, and which seems more hot-blooded, angry, and emotional? Isn't that kind of odd?
You make your own church. A church is not a building. It's a gathering of like-minded people who agree to try to accomplish something "pure". I sure hope I don't sound like a Nazi here...
I don't think you sound like a Nazi. :) But I am kind of curious as to what you're getting at here. The Church, indeed, is the people, and not a mere building. But it makes sense for them to congregate, no? And it's sensible to have a building expressly for such purposes, too. In semi-response to MattJohn's scare quotes around the word "holy", nobody's saying that bricks and mortar are holy; it's a symbol, made holy by its use. If you believe anything can be holy, I see no reason why a Church would have to be otherwise.
All that said, I'm not going to pretend that all the extracurricular activities so many Churches insist upon are a crucial part of Christian fellowship. I like them fine, and I have no problem with them, and it makes sense to me that like-minded people like to gather and share each other's company. But in some Churches is seems to supplant the worship itself in terms of importance, which I've never cared for.
Sorry for all the posts; they had to be kept fairly separate. I'll combine the last two, though:
Perhaps God began his creation of the world very enthusiastically and with the best intentions, but somewhere down the road he made a mistake. A mistake which resulted in his paradise becoming the world we live in now. A world which, beyond the shadow of a doubt, contains goodness, which advocate his existence, but also contains elements which seem to disprove him. And if we assume that God is almighty and all knowing, what is the reason for the latter? A priest can argue that God works in mysterious ways, but isn't that just because we don't dare or can't explain it?
I don't think of priests as the people to turn to with those kinds of questions. Some, sure, but generally I think of them as a guide when you've already accepted it, and need guidance within that framework. If you want answers, go to a theologian instead. I can recommend many, some of which you've surely already heard of. ;)
Granted, if you accept that God made a mistake, then you accept that he isn't almighty and all knowing, and the hypothesis becomes very weak. But personally I find it easier to accept a flawed God, than a God who knowingly put evil and suffering in the world.
This, of course, is where Free Will comes in. The belief is not that God put evil and suffering in the world, but that He put autonomous beings in the world, which will inevitably result in evil and suffering at times.
Life on earth is about 3 and a half billion years old. 3 500 000 000. The oldest religious communities are only about 150 000 years old. Prehistoric rules came first. Maybe there is a greater being. Maybe there are more than just one. But for all we know right now, religion is more or less masked philosophy. If all the true believers would spend less time worships their gods and defends their beliefs, and more time trying to help each other and solves our problems, we all would be happy campers.
A few scattered thoughts:
1) In many cases, the worship is what causes some people to want to do the things you're talking about, in which case you can't necessarily parse it out that way.
2) Believers would find less reason to spend time defending their beliefs if people spent less time attacking them.
3) The last statement above can be made to apply to any group that every does anything that is not fundamentally crucial. You, typing that post. Or any militant atheist who would rather blame religion for the world's problems than try to fix them. It's not a statement that really applies to religion, specifically.
KasperKristensen
01-14-10, 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KasperKristensen
Granted, if you accept that God made a mistake, then you accept that he isn't almighty and all knowing, and the hypothesis becomes very weak. But personally I find it easier to accept a flawed God, than a God who knowingly put evil and suffering in the world.
This, of course, is where Free Will comes in. The belief is not that God put evil and suffering in the world, but that He put autonomous beings in the world, which will inevitably result in evil and suffering at times.
You can't say that all suffering comes from free will. Someone didn't decide to create natural disasters, diseases or the like.
You can't say that all suffering comes from free will. Someone didn't decide to create natural disasters, diseases or the like.
I'm not so sure about that. Golgot and I actually touched on this in another thread, and it's way too involved to reproduce easily, but I think an argument can be made that these things are the natural and cumulative result of free will, all the same. We don't know a lot about what causes some of these disasters, either.
That said, even if one were to operate under the assumption that these were not the result of free will, I'm not sure they make a great argument against God's goodness, anyway; if we're accepting, for the sake of argument, that God exists, then even natural disasters pale in importance to what comes later. The argument is sort of a catch-22: it's an argument that's predicated on the horror of suffering AND the existence of God, yet the existence of God undercuts the argument by lessening the relative importance of things that happen here and now. Kinda funny that way.
It sounds glib, to be sure, and I won't pretend it's comforting to anyone who experiences loss. I fully expect to be somewhat revolted with this line of thought at some point in my life, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
42ndStreetFreak
01-14-10, 01:19 PM
Blah blah...blither.
I quite frankly am more than happy to keep myself to myself. In fact all non-believers are.
Until people who believe in sky fairies (I'll call a ****ing non-entity any damn thing I want THANKS) dictate how REAL people in the REAL world live (or die).
THAT'S the difference.
I would leave all you religious delusionists to yourselves...but you see you just can;t leave other people alone can you?
Women, Gays, no religion...all are targeted for simply existing, whether or not they keep themselves to themselves or not.
Again...the difference.
The day the Pope does not stand up on his (oh so very rich) balcony and and declare to a global audience that Homosexuals (who have done nothing except EXIST) are a big a problem to the world as Global Warming....I'll change my view.
Until then....
And you see I'm not brainwashing children in my own school that Homosexuals, for example, are wrong to exist and are dangerous to society.
Religious people are though...based on something none of you can show any proof of whatsoever.
THAT'S a major problem for any rational person.
That's a major problem for evolution of any 21st century society.
I call that something to get ANGRY about! As it's real.
It's there to be seen, heard and experienced.
Unlike your Son of God guy who came back from the dead, floated up to paradise and moves in mysterious (indeed) ways.
Ways I notice that are very handily not able to be experienced by any of the senses.
And yes, i want proof.
And you know why?
Because as soon as you stone a person to death, arrest them, persecute them, threaten them, execute them and publically condemn and damn them...you better have proof of that 'being' your doing all that in the name of!
Is that unreasonable?
When real stones don't hit real bones, or when real words from real mouths don't insult and condemn real people (God does hate them 'fags') you can believe in any fantasy la la land Jedi Hobbit, Buddha, Allah, L Ron, Christ you like with no proof of any of it.
But while real flesh and blood people are persecuted (verbally, physically, psychologically) because of something that you can;t even show exists...YES we have a damn problem.
And yes you'll all be called on it.
Stop your real world bigotry and hurt connected to your supernatural belief though...and quite frankly I could care less.
Racist! Yeah....Sure...Whatever.
Seeing as the most violent, globally destructive (and globally active) religion of Islam is given a free ride like no other belief on Earth and seeing as "RACIST" is shouted out by ****ing idiots towards those who challenge it...i would say my description holds.
The day Islam (mostly Black, Asian, Arab...notice though no one race there) is given half the flak Scientology (basically white, western) is, I'll eat my shoes.
And as for people fighting people...Yes...people fight people.
But its kind of strange how those people who have supposedly found a wise, peaceful and oh so ****ing right religion actually kill more people (even those people who have also supposedly found the same wise, peaceful and oh so right religion) than anyone else.
When a Muslim plants a bomb in a mosque of another Muslim for example....i think my point about this and all religious belief (let alone supposedly morally superior belief- LOL) is made.
But hey! You don;t like my views Yoda? Fine. Simply keep your views out of real world society and the life of its real people and you'll never hear from me or my kind again.
Making up silly names for things you don't believe in doesn't, in fact, make them silly.
No you're right. The magic goat is not silly at all.
Despite its silly name.
It is of course just as real as the far more sensibly monikered 'God', 'Allah', 'Buddha', 'Krishna'. I guess it's all in a name!
Poor magic goat.
KasperKristensen
01-14-10, 01:30 PM
I'm not so sure about that. Golgot and I actually touched on this in another thread, and it's way too involved to reproduce easily, but I think an argument can be made that these things are the natural and cumulative result of free will, all the same. We don't know a lot about what causes some of these disasters, either.
Sorry but that sounds extremely vague and I just can't buy it. :)
KasperKristensen
01-14-10, 01:31 PM
No you're right. The magic goat is not silly at all.
Despite its silly name.
It is of course just as real as the far more sensibly monikered 'God', 'Allah', 'Buddha', 'Krishna'. I guess it's all in a name!
Poor magic goat.
Did you just say that Buddha is a God? :laugh:
Blah blah...blither. Typical Yoda on his podium.
Do us all a favor and just omit pointless insults like this. I don't know what you think they add to your arguments or the discussion, but in both cases, the answer is "nothing."
What you say should have force through the soundness of its reasoning; if you have to make what you're saying appear more forceful with useless insults, I think it says something about the strength of your argument.
I quite frankly am more than happy to keep myself to myself. In fact all non-believers are.
Wow, this isn't even close to true. I've spent countless hours arguing with skeptics, and some of them are pretty live-and-let-live (so, I should note, are many of the Christians I've known). But I've met plenty of militant atheists, too, who go well out of their way to proclaim their non-belief and antagonize religious people repeatedly, to the point at which their lack of belief is a huge part of their identity. The idea that "all" (all!) non-believers are otherwise is absurd.
Also, I don't recall anyone judging you in this thread, but you still felt the need to jump in to rail against religion. So how's it work? If you think this is going on anywhere in the world, by even a single religious person, you feel you have an open invitation to rant about it unprompted, even when no one is actually bothering you?
Until people who believe in sky fairies (I'll call a ****ing non-entity any damn thing I want THANKS) dictate how REAL people in the REAL world live (or die).
THAT'S the difference.
I would leave all you religious delusionists to yourselves...but you see you just can;t leave other people alone can you?
I didn't say you weren't allowed to say silly things like "sky fairies" -- I said it was pointless, and contained no argument or insight. And that's true. Defiantly asserting your right to do so doesn't change that, because that was never disputed.
Women, Gays, no religion...all are targeted for simply existing, whether or not they keep themselves to themselves or not.
There's a difference between having a disagreement, and "target" someone. I'm not going to defend people who wield their religion like a club; they can't be defended. But those people, despite what you've probably persuaded yourself of, are not the entirety of any religion. They're just the loudest. You're trying to use the worst religious people to represent all of religion, which is completely fallacious.
The day the Pope does not stand up on his (oh so very rich) balcony and and declare to a global audience that Homosexuals (who have done nothing except EXIST) are a big a problem to the world as Global Warming....I'll change my view.
Until then....
I'm not Catholic. I'm not going to defend the Pope, because he doesn't speak for me. If he thinks homosexuality is some sort of major problem, I think he's wrong. I don't know what argument you think you can make against religion in general by targeting individual statements by religious people. See above for my general response to such things.
I call that something to get ANGRY about! As it's real.
It's there to be seen, heard and experienced.
Unlike your Son of God guy who came back from the dead, floated up to paradise and moves in mysterious (indeed) ways.
Ways I notice that are very handily not able to be experienced by any of the senses.
Except that some people, a couple thousand years ago, say they saw exactly that. You don't believe them; fine, but that's what they claim, and thus nobody's saying it's something that is not "able to be experienced by any of the senses."
But regardless, you're sidestepping the point: your senses are physical. You're demanding physical proof of something which doesn't claim to be physical. As I said before, that's circular.
And yes, i want proof.
And you know why?
Because as soon as you stone a person to death, arrest them, persecute them, threaten them, execute them and publically condemn and damn them...you better have proof of that 'being' your doing all that in the name of!
Is that unreasonable?
You're subtly changing your argument. Your original statement was about believing in things without proof, not killing people without proof. Nobody's saying that we should stone people without physical evidence. And you'll notice, for example, that in America at least, Christianity is very common, but is not the basis for our entire legal system. Nor should it be. But should religious people be allowed to disagree with things on account of their faith? Of course.
Racist! Yeah....Sure...Whatever.
Seeing as the most violent, globally destructive (and globally active) religion of Islam is given a free ride like no other belief on Earth and seeing as "RACIST" is shouted out by ****ing idiots towards those who challenge it...i would say my description holds.
Once again you say one thing, it is disputed, and then you defend not your original statement, but a modified version of it.
Saying that you think Islam is given too many allowances for the transgressions of its followers is not necessarily racist, but that's completely different from "darker skinned religious people are more violent." The way we say things matters, and says something about us.
The day Islam (mostly Black, Asian, Arab...notice though no one race there) is given half the flak Scientology (basically white, western) is, I'll eat my shoes.
Scientology is too absurd and narrow to receive the same kind of treatment as Islam; it's too much of a joke to be taken seriously enough to be condemned.
And as for people fighting people...Yes...people fight people.
[I]But its kind of strange how those people who have supposedly found a wise, peaceful and oh so ****ing right religion actually kill more people (even those people who have also supposedly found the same wise, peaceful and oh so right religion) than anyone else.
Okay, where's your proof of this? Show me that religious people kill more than other people.
When a Muslim plants a bomb in a mosque of another Muslim for example....i think my point about this and all religious belief (let alone supposedly morally superior belief- LOL) is made.
Why would that make your point? People do insane and horrible things with or without religion. Christianity, for example, does not purport to relieve mankind of its sinful nature, only to account for it, and hopefully redeem it. Absolutely no point is made by showing religious people sinning, because I don't believe any major religion disputes that, or pretends it will fix it.
No you're right. The magic goat is not silly at all.
Despite its silly name.
It is of course just as real as the far more sensibly monikered 'God', 'Allah', 'Buddha', 'Krishna'. I guess it's all in a name!
Poor magic goat.
All in a name? No, but they matter. If they didn't, you wouldn't feel the need to use them.
My point remains: making up silly names for these things is pointless and does nothing to advance anything you're saying. It is not clever or relevant, and adds nothing to the discussion. It's a waste of time and words and, I promise you, it does nothing to help your cause. Quite the opposite.
Sorry but that sounds extremely vague and I just can't buy it. :)
Well, it is vague because, as I said, the whole thing is a little too involved to just reproduce here. But that wasn't the entirety of my argument, anyway; in the very next paragraph I explained why I think the argument against God's goodness is shaky even if one concedes that natural disasters are truly "natural."
Sexy Celebrity
01-14-10, 02:06 PM
Well, it's difficult reading him, but I liked some of the things 42ndStreetFreak said, so I positive repped him -- since Yoda was wondering who would even rep him.
Now, I would like to explain, at least a little bit, about why I've changed my mind.
First of all, I found a new book to read, as I always do -- There Is a God: How The World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, by Antony Flew. Haven't read it all, but it's pretty fascinating.
Second, call me crazy, but it's a matter of personal choice, faith and belief in evidence of God that I think has been revealed to me... the kind of stuff that makes a believer seem crazy.
Here was the big kicker -- I've already mentioned that my cousin died a few weeks ago. I talked about it in The MoFo Support Group.
I think he's made contact with the family to tell everyone he's okay.
How do I explain this without sounding really nutty? I'll be vague - this is the internet (not that that's stopped me before). I won't transform any atheists here, unless you take my word for it -- he sent a message and the message was a passage in The Bible (which shocked me). Everything about the passage was shocking and related to my cousin and his death, especially when it was translated in a more traditional manner of speaking.
Believe it or not, I used the pink & black leather Bible that I picked up for myself when I was dating the church jerk that drove me to atheism when he left me depressed and dead spiritually. But that was only used in the beginning of this God Spoke To Me drama (though, it wasn't God, it was my cousin).
You could easily discount me and dismiss me as grieving, needing reassurance, etc. I might do the same if it was someone else. And I'm not... 100% sure that it was a real message... but I'm more inclined to believe it is based on the circumstances. At first, I was really, really moved by it -- hence, why I made the decision to talk about my change the other day. At this time, though, the impact has lessened and sometimes I do wonder about it and worry that I could have been wrong... that maybe my cousin isn't existing somewhere else.
But this is not the first time that I've had an experience like this, although... this time it was pretty incredible.
I'm sure that dark days will come again and I'll be skeptical... but I have reminders and with that I have hope. I may always have God.
KasperKristensen
01-14-10, 02:07 PM
Well, it is vague because, as I said, the whole thing is a little too involved to just reproduce here. But that wasn't the entirety of my argument, anyway; in the very next paragraph I explained why I think the argument against God's goodness is shaky even if one concedes that natural disasters are truly "natural."
Just so I'm sure what you were saying:
Your point was that natural disasters and diseases doesn't really matter because the victims of these have an eternity of bliss awaiting them? I'm not trying to be antagonistic or anything, just making sure I understand.
42ndStreetFreak
01-14-10, 02:39 PM
Did you just say that Buddha is a God? :laugh:
No...I simply named (along with that poor magic goat who is of course to be taken so seriously despite his name) another sky fairy that people like to think exists and force upon the lives of everyone else.
So smiley the **** outta that.
KasperKristensen
01-14-10, 02:41 PM
No...I simply named (along with that poor magic goat who is of course to be taken so seriously despite his name) another sky fairy that people like to think exists and force upon the lives of everyone else.
So smiley the **** outta that.
And why is Buddha a sky fairy? :) :D ;)
42ndStreetFreak
01-14-10, 02:52 PM
Scientology is too absurd and narrow to receive the same kind of treatment as Islam; it's too much of a joke to be taken seriously enough to be condemned.
Oh boy! Irony alert!
Although I doubt you'll ever see it.
Yeah...Scientology is SOOOO absurd. Not remotely to be taken as seriously as all those other 'proper' beliefs. Those oh so rational ones.
Next they'll go to even greater heights of absurdity and waffle on about
72 virgins in paradise up for grabs,
Coming back from the dead,
Global creation in a week,
Egyptians and dinosaurs going for walks together,
Reincarnation,
Talking bushes
Parting seas by waving staffs about,
Boats that can take examples of every animal in the world and still have room for a sunbathe,
Instant cures for lepers
Instantly multiplying foodstuffs
And invisible beings judging us all for liking dick, having breasts and not believing in invisible beings!
And then Scientology really would be very different from any other beliefs and far too absurd to be taken seriously...I see your point.
KasperKristensen
01-14-10, 02:57 PM
I'm still confused as to why Buddha is a sky fairy...
42ndStreetFreak
01-14-10, 03:04 PM
I'm still confused as to why Buddha is a sky fairy...
Well if sky fairy is too hard for you to get your head around you can substitute it for any of the following or any other bullcrud you want to describe a supernatural being who ponces around on clouds...
Pink tamponono, blue sparkly, one legged dwarf in a tutu who lives in a yellow haze light, purple headed mountain balloon of yaboo.
Whatever.
I still like sky fairy though.
Oh, and that goat of course. But hey, that's my silly rational mind for you.
Evolution aye!? What a curse.
KasperKristensen
01-14-10, 03:08 PM
Well if sky fairy is too hard for you to get your head around you can substitute it for any of the following or any other bullcrud you want to describe a supernatural being who ponces around on clouds...
Could it be you've just confirmed your ignorance? Buddha is not a god, and I take it that's what you mean by "ponces around on clouds".
42ndStreetFreak
01-14-10, 03:48 PM
Could it be you've just confirmed your ignorance? Buddha is not a god, and I take it that's what you mean by "ponces around on clouds".
Really? Am I ignorant about the physical characteristics of things that don't exist?
Oh no. How can I go on.
And is poncing around on clouds (or in clouds, or on top of mountains in the clouds) is the definition of a god is it!? Must have missed that one in the dictionary.
Wow! What about all those water gods and earth gods?
Is that why they are now classed as dumb ass superstition, because they stupidly forgot to move up to cloudland?
That explains it!
"darker skinned religious people are more violent."
LMAO! Who said that? I don't consider darker skinned non-Muslims more violent.
Hole in the accusation there I think, oh smug one.
But the pseudo-liberal idiots who defend Islam use the fact that most Muslims are not white (though all different races even then) to give it a free ride and to attack those who are against it. Fact. Far more than any other religion.
So yes, Hitler should have called National Socialism a religion and slapped on the tanning cream...Then all those so called liberals would have held his dick for him when he went to the bathroom.
And as for people 'seeing' zombie Jesus...I actually think that's just words in a religious book (the same book that has those parting seas, loaves and fishes multiplying by magic and Adam and Eve I might remind you).
Is Gollum real too!?? Wow.
Sexy Celebrity
01-14-10, 03:50 PM
Nobody has even commented on my message from beyond the grave.
KasperKristensen
01-14-10, 03:56 PM
Really? Am I ignorant about the physical characteristics of things that don't exist?
Oh no. How can I go on.
And is poncing around on clouds (or in clouds, or on top of mountains in the clouds) is the definition of a god is it!? Must have missed that one in the dictionary.
Wow! What about all those water gods and earth gods?
Is that why they are now classed as dumb ass superstition, because they stupidly forgot to move up to cloudland?
That explains it!
A Buddha is nothing than a person who has achieved complete enlightenment. If you're referring to Buddha Shakyamuni, well he was just a prince with a good idea. What's superstitious about that my all knowing friend?
42ndStreetFreak
01-14-10, 03:56 PM
If he thinks homosexuality is some sort of major problem, I think he's wrong
Really? What religion are you in then?
You mean you've found one that does not condemn Homosexuals (can't be Islam then, The Quran states that walls should be pushed on them and that they be thrown from cliffs).
So either you've made up your own religion (hey, join the club) or in fact you're just ignoring parts of a religion and as such are not truly a representative of it!
After all, we can hardly say that The Pope does not truly represent Catholicism can we?
OR it could be that you don't see (I noticed your wording there) that Homosexuals are a MAJOR problem. You just see them as a smaller one.
Hope not! Sounds pretty much the same as racism that.
42ndStreetFreak
01-14-10, 04:33 PM
And oh yeah...Those so called militant Atheists. What rot!
You seem to have ignored the order of events.
Person A - Religious sort
Person - B - Atheist.
Person A walks past person B and punches him in the face because his God told him to.
Person B punches back in retaliation.
But Person B would have quite happily walked on by Person A and not bothered them at all if Person A had not punched them.
See?
OR..Person A punches Person B because his God told him to and a watching Person C (Atheist) quite rightly takes offence at this and calls Person A out on his actions.
Again Person C would otherwise have had no dealings with Person A.
So really, in either case, Person A can't really ****ing complain about the reactions to what he did and why he did it.
Simple really. Rational even.
KasperKristensen
01-14-10, 04:43 PM
And oh yeah...Those so called militant Atheists. What rot!
You seem to have ignored the order of events.
Person A - Religious sort
Person - B - Atheist.
Person A walks past person B and punches him in the face because his God told him to.
Person B punches back in retaliation.
But Person B would have quite happily walked on by Person A and not bothered them at all if Person A had not punched them.
See?
OR..Person A punches Person B because his God told him to and a watching Person C (Atheist) quite rightly takes offence at this and calls Person A out on his actions.
Again Person C would otherwise have had no dealings with Person A.
So really, in either case, Person A can't really ****ing complain about the reactions to what he did and why he did it.
Simple really. Rational even.
Generalization really. Stupidity even.
Sexy Celebrity
01-14-10, 05:06 PM
Look at what is happening to my obsolete fabulous atheist thread....
meatwadsprite
01-14-10, 05:33 PM
Is Gollum real too!?? Wow.
Well not anymore, he fell into a volcano.
John McClane
01-14-10, 05:48 PM
In semi-response to MattJohn's scare quotes around the word "holy", nobody's saying that bricks and mortar are holy; it's a symbol, made holy by its use. If you believe anything can be holy, I see no reason why a Church would have to be otherwise.I don't mean the building itself is "holy," but its use (which is exactly what you're saying). I just ain't buying that one bit...unless you got a stamp of approval from God, of course. ;)
I'm not so sure about that. Golgot and I actually touched on this in another thread, and it's way too involved to reproduce easily, but I think an argument can be made that these things are the natural and cumulative result of free will, all the same. We don't know a lot about what causes some of these disasters, either.
That said, even if one were to operate under the assumption that these were not the result of free will, I'm not sure they make a great argument against God's goodness, anyway; if we're accepting, for the sake of argument, that God exists, then even natural disasters pale in importance to what comes later. The argument is sort of a catch-22: it's an argument that's predicated on the horror of suffering AND the existence of God, yet the existence of God undercuts the argument by lessening the relative importance of things that happen here and now. Kinda funny that way.
It sounds glib, to be sure, and I won't pretend it's comforting to anyone who experiences loss. I fully expect to be somewhat revolted with this line of thought at some point in my life, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.Quick response to this one; natural disasters are a result of the "fall of man" and his exercise of "freewill." Of course, I ain't buying that we have freewill either, so leave me outta that mess. ;)
Oh boy! Irony alert!
Although I doubt you'll ever see it.
Yeah...Scientology is SOOOO absurd. Not remotely to be taken as seriously as all those other 'proper' beliefs. Those oh so rational ones.
Next they'll go to even greater heights of absurdity and waffle on about
72 virgins in paradise up for grabs,
Coming back from the dead,
Global creation in a week,
Egyptians and dinosaurs going for walks together,
Reincarnation,
Talking bushes
Parting seas by waving staffs about,
Boats that can take examples of every animal in the world and still have room for a sunbathe,
Instant cures for lepers
Instantly multiplying foodstuffs
And invisible beings judging us all for liking dick, having breasts and not believing in invisible beings!
And then Scientology really would be very different from any other beliefs and far too absurd to be taken seriously...I see your point.Oh boy, talk about absurd!
6 billion years ago the universe *just happened* to explode outward
3.5 billion years ago a star and planets *just happened* to form in our solar system
3 billion years ago Earth *just happened* to form an oxygen atomsphere
1 billion years ago amino acids *just happened* to form proteins
250 million years ago dinosaurs *just happened* to rule the Earth
2.2 million years ago the homo species *just happened* to appear
250,000 years ago homo sapiens *just happened* to appear
10,000 years ago homo sapiens *just happened* to settle across the globe and form advance civilizations
Of course, none of this is evidence for a Creator...but the history of the universe and our own solar system is a pretty freaking absurd occurrence! ;)
Then again, the Earth was just created 5 minutes ago.
42ndStreetFreak
01-15-10, 10:33 AM
Generalization really. Stupidity even.
Oh dear...It jumps to the defence all the time.
We looking for a place on God's upturned right digit are we?
Hedging our little bets JUST in case?
Well, lets just say I'm keeping my accurate remarks simple to understand for those who truly believe in supernatural entities.
Oh no...have I shown disrespect for myth?
Shame on me. I guess I'lll miss out on paradise when my time comes.
No celestial virgin raping for me then. :(
KasperKristensen
01-15-10, 05:14 PM
Oh dear...It jumps to the defence all the time.
We looking for a place on God's upturned right digit are we?
Hedging our little bets JUST in case?
Not really no. I'm much more prone to believe in Buddhism than in any other religion. That doesn't mean I can't call people out when they're being, well, dumb.
Well, lets just say I'm keeping my accurate remarks simple to understand for those who truly believe in supernatural entities.
Your accurate remarks? Did you put accurate in italics because you were being sarcastic? Because that's the only way any sensible person would agree with you.
Oh no...have I shown disrespect for myth?
Shame on me. I guess I'lll miss out on paradise when my time comes.
No celestial virgin raping for me then. :([/QUOTE]
Listen, you need to shut up and learn.
First of all, the Muslim paradise isn't that male chauvinistic. There's a corresponding paradise for women in Islam. The Koran doesn't really specify what it is, but merely states that it's 'something like' the male paradise, only seen from a womans perspective. You're just generalizing the extremist's beliefs and applying them to every Muslim. Every Muslim isn't a terrorist just like every believer in God doesn't ride around in horse carriages. I know, shocking right?
Second of all, do you even realize how many people you've offended hugely by your ignorant, "accurate" remarks? According to you, all believers are militant, aggressive people who "punches other people in the face" for not believing. Lemme ask you, who punched you in the face in here to deserve your aggression, border lining hatred?
Thirdly you categorized Buddha Shakyamuni as a supernatural figure, which clearly shows just how ignorant you are.
Fourthly, why do you feel that you have to force your lack of belief onto everyone else? Doesn't that make you just as bad as those "militant, aggressive believers"? No it makes you worse. At least aggressive believers are trying to save your soul. You're just trying to take everyones beliefs away. Why?
Religion might seem silly to you but why can't you just, well, shut the **** up? "Oh, now he's attacking my freedom of speech", no I'm attacking your ignorance. What I just wrote doesn't apply to everyone. It applies to you and people like you. Freedom of speech is a right, but it doesn't mean you have to exercise that right, just because you're under the delusion that you have all the answers. And how can you know all the answers when you don't even know the questions? The questions being the source material on which these religions are based on.
Read a book, might I suggest the bible?
42ndStreetFreak
01-15-10, 05:46 PM
Ahhhh....Sweet.
At last, not hedging bets but jumping full on the typical loony fantasist train.
I love it when supernatural fanboys (hey, Buddhism can join the rest you know in sky fairy la la land) act all ****ing smug.
No one who believes on pixies can really act smug. Comes from believing in pixies.
Even Buddhist ones.
And hey, Buddha was a big babe who floated in the clouds...i know...TV's "Monkey" proved it. Buddha had one hell of a big digit to sit on as well.
I never mentioned Shakyamuni whatisname.
And as I said...as long as delusionists SH1T on the world, and specifically her country, my young daughter has to grow up in with their ****ing real world laws, persecutions, hate and judgements based on ****ING SUPERNATURAL GARBAGE I'll call them out on it.
As long as knuckle-dragging filth shrieks out "God is great" before blowing themselves and others up in my country, where my family lives, and waves the Quran around in their 'I want those virgins' martydom videos...I'll damn well SHOUT.
And if (in the 21st century, and we have this repulsive supernatural garbage at greater heights of nuttiness, hate and violence any time in living memory...worldwide...especially damn Islam) we finally stick ALL religions back into the living rooms and brain pans of those who believe such things and out of the public arena away from real people and their real lives... i'll be happy to shut the **** up!
Until then i'll shout as loud as I like. Even if you don't like.
You can try to smug your way into being a remotely rational creature...but in the end your belief, and worse, defence of dark ages fantasies that kills hundreds of thousands around the globe every year and persecutes many more, means you're not remotely to be taken seriously so you really shouldn't be so smug.
And as for 'extremists'. Those are actually the real, devout, full on believers. They truly represent the faith. Unlike pick and choose merchants. So i'll forge my views on those that fully embrace a religion, not those that skip bits.
But hey, Denmark is also now slipping into that same backwards Islamic mire as everyone else (which of course gets all the other religious nutters screeching even louder) so you'll wake up eventually.
You smug.
I'll shout.
"Monkey magic! Monkey magic! Monkey magic...Monkey magic, ooooooo".
beelzebubbles
01-15-10, 05:48 PM
I have always found such arguments a fabulous bore.
Carry on.
John McClane
01-15-10, 05:54 PM
Dude, seriously? You sound like a freaking loon. You come in here throwing ad hominem arguments left and right, and then expect people to actually listen to what you have to say? There's no sound reasoning there.
The only person acting like a child here is you, so just cool it.
42ndStreetFreak
01-15-10, 06:01 PM
I agree.
No idea why politics and religion (though of course religion has to sprout up everywhere like a ****ing weed) is even allowed on a movie forum.
It's best we all live in ignorance about such aspects of those around us we discuss films with.
But hey, i'm like a fly. The smell of **** attracts me. So feel free to clear it up.
KasperKristensen
01-15-10, 06:06 PM
Ahhhh....Sweet.
At last, not hedging bets but jumping full on the typical loony fantasist train.
I love it when supernatural fanboys (hey, Buddhism can join the rest you know in sky fairy la la land) act all ****ing smug.
No one who believes on pixies can really act smug. Comes from believing in pixies.
Even Buddhist ones.
And hey, Buddha was a big babe who floated in the clouds...i know...TV's "Monkey" proved it. Buddha had one hell of a big digit to sit on as well.
I never mentioned Shakyamuni whatisname.
And as I said...as long as delusionists SH1T on the world, and specifically her country, my young daughter has to grow up in with their ****ing real world laws, persecutions, hate and judgements based on ****ING SUPERNATURAL GARBAGE I'll call them out on it.
And if (in the 21st century, and we have this repulsive supernatural garbage at greater heights of nuttiness, hate and violence any time in living memory...worldwide...especially damn Islam) we finally stick ALL religions back into the living rooms and brain pans of those who believe such things and out of the public arena away from real people and their real lives... i'll be happy to shut the **** up!
Until then i'll shout as loud as I like. Even if you don't like.
You can try to smug your way into being a remotely rational creature...but in the end your belief, and worse, defence of dark ages fantasies that kills hundreds of thousands around the globe every year and persecutes many more, means you're not remotely to be taken seriously so you really shouldn't be so smug.
And as for 'extremists'. Those are actually the real, devout, full on believers. They truly represent the faith. Unlike pick and choose merchants. So i'll forge my views on those that fully embrace a religion, not those that skip bits.
But hey, Denmark is also now slipping into that same backwards Islamic mire as everyone else (which of course gets all the other religious nutters screeching even louder) so you'll wake up eventually.
You smug.
I'll shout.
"Monkey magic! Monkey magic! Monkey magic...Monkey magic, ooooooo".
You're old enough to be a father? Here I had you pegged as a fourteen year old, angry-at-the-world, ignorant teenager. Well, most of it is still true.
Well, alright old-timer.
What do Buddhists believe in?
What do you mean when you say Buddha? (The Buddhist God?)
Do you honestly believe that a very small percentage of people define the majority's religion?
Buddhists killed hundreds of thousands of people in the dark ages?
I don't really think you'll answer these, I'm just trying to display your ignorance.
42ndStreetFreak
01-15-10, 06:11 PM
Oh look. He's doing the 'my religion is okay so there' bit.
And again a fantasist can't really call someone else on ignorance can they?
Ah...**** it. You can't argue with delusionists.
KasperKristensen
01-15-10, 06:11 PM
And here comes the red storm of defeat. :laugh:
KasperKristensen
01-15-10, 06:12 PM
Oh look. He's doing the 'my religion is okay so there' bit.
And again a fantasist can't really call someone else on ignorance can they?
Ah...**** it. You can't argue with delusionist.
I'm beginning to realize that. ;)
42ndStreetFreak
01-15-10, 06:24 PM
Praise be.
KasperKristensen
01-15-10, 06:26 PM
Sarcasm or don't you realize that you were the delusional person?
I'd like you to explain to me why I'm delusional though. :)
karibou
01-15-10, 06:37 PM
Hello, my lovelies.
I have an announcement to make. I've decided that I am now an anteater.
Be careful; that's one addicting religion. I've been in AA (Anteaters Anonymous) for two years now, and it's a mighty tough battle.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/bou/anteater-rockstar.jpg
Used Future
01-15-10, 06:41 PM
At this juncture I feel it only pertinent to clarify for the great unwashed what a sky fairy looks like; according to Google images anyway;)
http://www.sacredart-murals.co.uk/images/Mural%20Rooms/Lucy-Maes-Faeries/evening-sky-fairies.jpg
KasperKristensen
01-15-10, 06:42 PM
At this juncture I feel it only pertinent to clarify for the great unwashed what a sky fairy looks like; according to Google images anyway;)
http://www.sacredart-murals.co.uk/images/Mural%20Rooms/Lucy-Maes-Faeries/evening-sky-fairies.jpg
Why look at that! It's Buddha! :D
Caitlyn
01-15-10, 10:59 PM
Look at what is happening to my obsolete fabulous atheist thread....
Yeah... I was kinda enjoying it and handed out some positive rep even though I didn't totally agree with everything being posted... but now it's just gotten :rolleyes: .... I think I'll just go hug my tree...
beelzebubbles
01-16-10, 12:46 AM
I think I'll just go hug my tree...
Don't do that! Then someone will accuse you of being a Druid and that will be one more set of beliefs to defend or scoff at while knowing little or nothing about it.
Darkrose
01-16-10, 12:55 AM
My two bits that is if you try to narrow anything down (to "the good") or put all of your faith in one thing (its cool if you want to do it), but it seems silly. Simply put: we don't have enough science to explain everything and blind faith is (IMO) an easy way to ride the road of ignorance. I'm too agnostic which I define to believe in a higher power but not specifically. For me(as hippy as this sounds), so far, as I can tell is the universe. As people, we connect to each other and the earth we all are "one" in a sense. For the longest time I tried to figure out the purpose in why we live, like most people do at one point or another. I think its different for everyone. In my life its to see beauty. I swear that the first day I don't see some sort of beauty in the world is the day I commite suicide. The other part is to make memories and experience as much life as possible (not in a retarded way) and do this with people we care about. Thats what I believe.
karibou
01-16-10, 01:10 AM
Don't do that! Then someone will accuse you of being a Druid and that will be one more set of beliefs to defend or scoff at while knowing little or nothing about it.
Well, I know for a fact that Druids have really nifty robes.
http://i.treehugger.com/winter-solstice-2005-druids.jpg
beelzebubbles
01-16-10, 01:36 AM
I am glad to see that sensible people who can have a cool and reasoned discussion have finally gotten a hold of this thread.
http://www.transbuddha.com/images/uploads/2009/05/batshit-crazy.jpg
Muwahahahaha!
karibou
01-16-10, 02:05 AM
Indeed. Calmer folks shall always prevail.
http://www.gonemovies.com/www/wanadoofilms/thriller/ExorcistHoofd_Hoog.jpg
beelzebubbles
01-16-10, 02:10 AM
Don't let the compliment turn your head.
honeykid
01-16-10, 02:12 AM
I know they say it'll make you blind, but I didn't know it could do that to you as well. ;)
karibou
01-16-10, 02:28 AM
I know they say it'll make you blind, but I didn't know it could do that to you as well. ;)
Methinks you're thinking of something else! :p
SoulInside
01-19-10, 07:18 AM
If YOU truly think there is a great, invisible, supernatural being in the sky...and you then base real world laws, real world rules, real world crowd controlling doctrines, real world damning criticism, real world punishments and entire real world social ideas that influence the entire globe....YOU are the one who should damn well justify it, explain it and damn well prove your delusion!
(...)
Hitler must be spinning that he never called 'National Socialism' a religion. He would have had a much easier ride.
Everyone who is not discouraged by all your insults, damn`s, ****`s and your general childish behaviour, can see that you hold some good arguments in your favour. I (absolutely) agree with what you say above. But I would also recommend you to come down a bit. Except, of course, you are only a flamer. Are you?
PS: Adolf actually tried to establish a Religion. It was based around some Sun-Cult combined with Viking-stuff, the average Nazi-Bull****. It didn`t work out (in time), like the intercontinental-missile and the war in russia and so on.
SoulInside
01-19-10, 08:19 AM
A few scattered thoughts:
1) In many cases, the worship is what causes some people to want to do the things you're talking about, in which case you can't necessarily parse it out that way.
2) Believers would find less reason to spend time defending their beliefs if people spent less time attacking them.
3) The last statement above can be made to apply to any group that every does anything that is not fundamentally crucial. You, typing that post. Or any militant atheist who would rather blame religion for the world's problems than try to fix them. It's not a statement that really applies to religion, specifically.
Okay, I try to reword this...
Money makes the world go round, not religion. At least today. But that doesn`t means, that the big religions have lost it all. And unlike other groups or lobbies, who are struggling for money, influence and power on this earth, they are claiming to be in touch with some "higher command". That means: Their leaders are actually thinking, that they are in possession of the ultimate truth. That`s potentially dangerous, isn`t it? Ordinary civils and young followers - they usually don`t think about stuff like that, just enjoying the social warmness. Churches, mosques and temples all around the world are helping millions and millions of poor and weak humans on a daily base. Great. But otherhand: Right now, in this moment, people in Africa dying a horrible death, because of Karol Wojtoyla and Joseph Ratzinger. Millions have already died, because of these two bastards. And many more will die, until Ratzi took his last deep breath. I don`t believe in hell, but if it really exists, I hope this two will burn forever. I don`t even start to talk about the crusades, constant child abuse, Palestine, the Taliban, woman and gay rights in Islamic countries. and so on, and so on... you already got the picture. What seperat religious folk from the rest? They are on a mission. You can discuss with them for hours and days, and it`s highly theoretical, maybe even fascinating. But in the real world ... human beings in the past/present/future die for NOTHING, for invisible gods and strange beliefs. Yes, if there would be no religion, it surely wouldn`t be like in this John Lennon-Song "Imagine". The ******** would find oher reasons for their cruel acts. But that dosn`t means, religion is the best way. Look, I live in Germany and I do not like this country. But it`s great, that our society is almost absolut secular. No intelligent design, no radical christs who makes the president, acting aggressively and hold zero tolerance for other believes. At all, religion is manmade, some people use it in good way, others try to take advantage of it. But why we still have to mask our big questions, like the cavemen hundred-thousand years ago? Writings on the wall, mysterious symbols, old prophecies? What`s that? We would be better without organized religion, that`s my point.
Darkrose
01-22-10, 09:29 PM
I would agree that organized religion does have massive negative effects on people. I'm not saying that it's all bad starting from the heart, but once you give someone rules to live their lives by and they want to do something that breaks that law, they will find a way to justify it (just think Puritans). Also, because this is a movie forum, another great (although fictional) example would be Children of the Corn. There's one specific part where they are in the church and he holds up the Bible and basically says they are re-writing it and twisting it to fix to suit whatever their desire is. I think there's some truth in that.
I put this in my blog a while back. Thought I'd chip in and translate it for you.
God needs our forgiveness
Of all beings, God is probably the one who falls victim to most accusations. And it's only natural to accuse someone who can't answer. As far as we know it has no consequences. But when you unload your anger-fueled complaints on our God almighty, did you ever think that he actually embraces them? Maybe he needs your forgiveness and not the other way around.
Perhaps God began his creation of the world very enthusiastically and with the best intentions, but somewhere down the road he made a mistake. A mistake which resulted in his paradise becoming the world we live in now. A world which, beyond the shadow of a doubt, contains goodness, which advocate his existence, but also contains elements which seem to disprove him. And if we assume that God is almighty and all knowing, what is the reason for the latter? A priest can argue that God works in mysterious ways, but isn't that just because we don't dare or can't explain it?
wow. had to sift through some real drivel to get there, but I thought this was a really interesting thought, KK. i dont agree with it of course, but for some reason that i may realize later, i like its trajectory. i just thought that bore saying.
in recent weeks, though, i was thinking about this EXACT dusty, age-old conundrum:
But personally I find it easier to accept a flawed God, than a God who knowingly put evil and suffering in the world.
and I agree with this:
This, of course, is where Free Will comes in. The belief is not that God put evil and suffering in the world, but that He put autonomous beings in the world, which will inevitably result in evil and suffering at times.
but this is a great point.
You can't say that all suffering comes from free will. Someone didn't decide to create natural disasters, diseases or the like.
it occurred to me while reading this that every discussion i've seen or had on this aspect of God's existence is often approached as though this question has a universal religious answer, like so: if God existed, he wouldnt have let that happen; it happened, thus, he does not exist. the failure here, then, is to acknowledge and take into account the myriad religious views on God and his existence. for example, i frankly have no idea how a Muslim believes about God's willingness to allow bad things to happen, nor how they justify it. i do imagine their view is somewhat different than the christian view, and no doubt the Hindus, Buddhists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Mormons, Jews, etc., all have some variation to their justification.
my point? you have to know your audience (or interviewee, shall we say), because their individual religious beliefs, or lack thereof, will inform their answer. . . greatly.
:D that said, here's why i like KK's musings: what if God really were trifling and capricious?
PERSON to GOD: You suck. Where were you during the bad times?? :(
GOD to PERSON: No. YOU Suck. Where were you the REST of the time? :mad:
but lets close on lighter note. how about THIS STORY for this thread, huh?
Top Athletics prospect retires to enter priesthood (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-athletics-desme&prov=ap&type=lgns)
Sexy Celebrity
01-24-10, 12:55 PM
Why do people always say, If God exists, he wouldn't have let that happen. He wouldn't have let thousands of people die in the earthquake in Haiti; he wouldn't have let that mother and her five children get murdered; he wouldn't have brought AIDS upon us or cancer; he wouldn't have blown up the space shuttle or crashed the airplane; he wouldn't have made that child be born with missing arms; he wouldn't have killed my daughter when she was only 23, blah blah blah. THUS, God does not exist!
Terrible things are just what life is all about -- maybe He designed it that way.
Maybe we'd be bored without them!
Sometimes I like death and disease -- gives me something to look forward to when I think about all of the nasty people I've met in my life. Yes, that man cheated on me, but I gotta look on the bright side -- prostate cancer runs in his family.
So, Thank God that God gets rid of people somehow.
I mean, how else are we supposed to get to Heaven? Do you wish death only came in pill form? Or not at all?
Maybe we're reincarnated. Who knows? Lifetimes would be like movies. In spirit form, we might all be making out our Top 100 Lives We've Lived lists. Maybe even a list to check off things we experienced in life. Imagine the possibilities.
Check off the following if you experienced them while living on Earth:
* Been a human
* Been a deer
* Been a cow
* Been a lion
* Was a woman, had breast cancer
* Was a woman, had uterine cancer
* Was a woman, became a man
I mean, the possibilities are endless, and who knows? If reincarnation is real, we might all be doing this someday, or maybe after we finish this life. Maybe we get a free Starbucks coffee after we've lived so many lives -- or maybe we get an easy free life as the son of a Starbucks millionaire. Who knows?
My point is -- if there is a God, why would he make life so boring and not let us experience anything?
SoulInside
01-25-10, 09:44 AM
My point is -- if there is a God, why would he make life so boring and not let us experience anything?
I´m not sure I understand that. Your life is just as boring or as interesting as you want it to be. If you are really bored, travel around the world with no money - adventure is guaranted. Or join the circus. Take drugs, have sex with strangers, do dangerous and thrilling things. Move on. Whatever.
What is so cool about body-switching and reincarnation?
Sexy Celebrity
01-25-10, 02:01 PM
I´m not sure I understand that. Your life is just as boring or as interesting as you want it to be. If you are really bored, travel around the world with no money - adventure is guaranted. Or join the circus. Take drugs, have sex with strangers, do dangerous and thrilling things. Move on. Whatever.
What is so cool about body-switching and reincarnation?
I was asking that question hypothetically. The reincarnation part was something else.
I was saying that life would be boring without danger. Without death, without disease, without chaos, without pain, without fear.
You said yourself that if you don't want to be bored, you should go do dangerous things, thrilling things, take drugs, have sex with strangers, etc. But people do those dangerous things and then something horrible happens -- they have sex with a stranger and get an STD, maybe AIDS; they take too many drugs and have an overdose and die; they attempt to climb Mount Everest but they never make it, they die up there.
And when these things happen, people say, how could God do that? How could he allow that to happen? There must not be a God!
Imagine life without the danger -- imagine we all lived in a world where there was a God, but he didn't invent death. Nobody died, nobody got sick, nobody got hurt... there would be no such thing as a dangerous thing. "Scary things" would not exist. If nobody died or got sick or got hurt from anything, there's nothing to fear.
Thus, it would probably all be boring.
If there is a God, he created life so it wouldn't be boring -- we have things to fear. Thus, we have things to enjoy and have fun with.
There are consequences to this -- death, disease, pain. If it happens, it's ridiculous to say, God shouldn't have allowed that! I guess there's no God then!
People get so, so angry at God about these things.
God isn't the problem. Life is the problem. Life has its positives and negatives. You know the positives through the negatives.
God built the amusement park -- and the rides are meant to kill. Laugh and play while you can, but everyone leaves on a stretcher.
Don't like it? Doesn't matter. You can't do anything about it. That's just God's exit strategy, so laugh and play, laugh and play.
Don't like it? Doesn't matter. You can't do anything about it. That's just God's exit strategy, so laugh and play, laugh and play.
morbid, Sexy. morbid, but funny! :p i do think that with most things its true you know the positives through the negatives. removal of all things negative simply just doesnt work. havent some tried? in broad terms, that was the general thrust behind communism, and many agree that communism is a failed experiment.
and since this is a movie forum, i find it interesting that there are a vast number of movies throughout the various eras, depicting the failure and disastrous outcomes of an initially altruistic societal attempt to remove choice and its consequences.
it seems to me that even on a broad social scale, regardless of beliefs, no one ever truly advocates the removal of choice. such an argument is at worst hypocritical, and at best self-serving, because in truth, im not advocating for the removal of MY choice - but yours. no. the real argument is for the removal of consequences that result from the choice. i dont advocate the removal of choice, but neither do i advocate the removal of consequences. each person everywhere at present has the ability to self-govern their choices (or simply put, self-determination), and in this way, can choose their own outcome. one can DO whatever one wants to do - even to the extent of breaking the law or harming others. the question is: if your social environment does not change, are you willing to live with the outcome? even i know that attempting to change my environment to make my decisions more enjoyable (= with fewer negative consequences) for me is an attempt to impose my will on others. life would be so much easier if everyone simply agreed with me!
do whatever you want. your decision, you free agent you. at cost. ;)
[this point could easily be discussed in terms of high school social dynamics and peer pressure]
the law of cause and effect (http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/law_of_cause_and_effect_FoS_V7N3_(causality).pdf) exceeds mere religious belief, and is broadly understood and applied scientifically and religiously. Stanford has this great philosophy page out there discussing even further causal determinism versus chance (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#ChaDet) (or in general terms - chaos theory). very interesting stuff - obviously only a starting place if one is interested in the subject.
so why do bad things happen if there is a God? would could say cause and effect, but i'd venture to say that the idea of intangible "faith" in the illogical and/or unprovable makes any believer of any religion in broad terms a believer in chaos theory as well. and im very comfortable with that.
my point? one cannot banally suggest that causality - or chaos/chance - cease to exist, simply because "bad things shouldnt happen!" that's just a cheap argument.
SoulInside
01-26-10, 07:08 AM
God built the amusement park -- and the rides are meant to kill. Laugh and play while you can, but everyone leaves on a stretcher.
I have watched Final Destination 3 , so I know exactly what you are talking about. ;)
Don't like it? Doesn't matter. You can't do anything about it. That's just God's exit strategy, so laugh and play, laugh and play.
Okay, now I got your point of view. You are a hedonist. I have to respect that. But while all the laughing, playing and dancing, guys and girls like you should also respect, that there are other strategies for dealing with the balance. That there is no perfect way, is understood.
KasperKristensen
01-26-10, 07:33 AM
I have to respect that.
Right there! This is paramount in this discussion. Good on you sir.
KasperKristensen
01-26-10, 07:33 AM
I'm talking to you 42nd something.
SoulInside
01-26-10, 07:46 AM
Maybe he will get back in the ring soon - and show us some new moves.
KasperKristensen
01-26-10, 07:56 AM
If he does come back I bet it'll be under a new username... We can never feel safe again.
honeykid
01-26-10, 11:05 PM
I hope not, I liked 42nd. He said a lot of the things I couldn't be bothered to waste my breath (or time) saying. :)
Unfortunately, he said them in the most insulting manner possible, based huge chunks of his "arguments" on generalizations, and completely lashed out when anyone pointed out any inconsistency to him. But other than that, yeah, awesome dude.
honeykid
01-27-10, 10:04 PM
The liking 42nd had nothing to do with what he said in this thread.
He didn't put it over in the most elegant or thoughtful way, and certainly not in a way that was supposed to change anyone's miind, but I agreed with the sentiment of much of it.
TBH, I haven't really read much of what's in the thread past the initial reason for it. My eyes have glanced over it, but my mind wanders off whenever debates like this go on and that applies to both sides. As neither side is going to change their mind regardless of what they hear, it's just talking for talking's sake. Nothing wrong in that but, on this subject at least, it's not for me.
John McClane
01-27-10, 10:47 PM
He didn't put it over in the most elegant or thoughtful way, and certainly not in a way that was supposed to change anyone's miind, but I agreed with the sentiment of much of it.No, he sounded like an idiot. He took everything...overemphasized it...and then mocked it for being absurd/crazy.
"So like, there's this batsh!t loony idea that an *invisible force* known as gravity pulls every object towards the ground at the same speed."
"Some crazy dude once said that *nothing* is faster than the speed of light."
"In some places they teach students this insane idea that there's this thing known as an "atom" that everything is made of and *nothing* could possible be smaller than it."
Hell, I could go on for ages mocking soundly established scientific "facts" using his reasoning process, unless he believed that every single explanation for the way the world operates was false and absurd...then I have little reason to listen to him.
TBH, I haven't really read much of what's in the thread past the initial reason for it. My eyes have glanced over it, but my mind wanders off whenever debates like this go on and that applies to both sides. As neither side is going to change their mind regardless of what they hear, it's just talking for talking's sake. Nothing wrong in that but, on this subject at least, it's not for me.What he did was talking for talking's sake. There are many of us here that, while we wouldn't have a major paradigm shift, would be inclined to *reason* and *listen* to others to help form *better* opinions...even if those opinions are ones we already hold. One of the strongest ways to bolster your own argument is to understand another.
I like 42nd and I hope he comes back. He uses the same gung-ho approach in his movie reviews as he does in his other arguments (and I think that is the most appropriate word right there). I really believe he's coming from a position of love (love of family and country and horror movies) and not of hate when discussing everything. I just don't think he's been to a forum for very long where people try to challenge other's opinions without becoming offensive. I believe his heart is in the right place and he's actually had a personal experience which he hasn't shared with us, so I try to consider that when I have a disagreement with him about something.
Plainview
01-27-10, 11:08 PM
Its funny because all these post all these opinions are simpily that. "OPINIONS" No one knows the answers of the how or why or whatever. I never talk about 2 things religion and politics because there's always going to be a fight.
Harry Lime
01-27-10, 11:17 PM
Nothing implies something.
John McClane
01-27-10, 11:18 PM
Its funny because all these post all these opinions are simpily that. "OPINIONS" No one knows the answers of the how or why or whatever. I never talk about 2 things religion and politics because there's always going to be a fight.Let's try and stay clear of epistemology. That's a whole mess in itself. ;)
Plainview
01-28-10, 01:08 AM
Like what makes a justified belief justified.....
Sexy Celebrity
01-28-10, 04:46 PM
Okay, now I got your point of view. You are a hedonist. I have to respect that. But while all the laughing, playing and dancing, guys and girls like you should also respect, that there are other strategies for dealing with the balance. That there is no perfect way, is understood.
Hedonist? I don't go around thinking of myself as a hedonist, although it might be kind of true.
42ndStreetFreak
02-05-10, 09:02 PM
If he does come back I bet it'll be under a new username... We can never feel safe again.
If I decide to come back i won't need to hide. Nothing for me to feel ashamed about, as having a 21st century mind while surrounded by dark ages fairyland dwellers is a badge of pride.
And unlike you I don't need masquerade or illusion to get through life. And it's not very big, clever, or moral sniping at someone behind their back.
But really it's hard to enjoy a place stocked with delusionists with laughable egos (who fail to see the farce in acting all high and mighty while at the same time believing in The High and Mighty Invisible Fat Pixie Gnome) and delusional George W. Bush fanboys who lie about having found a religion they follow that doesn't hate Homosexuals...But what's one more delusion.
Oh yeah....Another bunch of 'Religion of Peace' practicionists have blown up (and thus got their celestial virgin harem) a 100 fellow 'Religion of Peace' practitionists while they were carrying out a 'Religion of Peace' practice.
Another moral, grounded, tolerant example of religion in the 21st century.
Blame McDonalds!
Perhaps I'll get back to film gossip. As I miss some of you good people.
Everyone else can feel free to put me on ignore. Have some neg rep to encourage you.
Or perhaps I should consult a burning bush first before making my decision...Afterall I wouldn't want to look foolish.
And 'Sexy Celebrity'...I don't think people blame God (or question him) because someone who decided to climb Mount Everest fell of it!!
I think they blame and question God over things like babies born with cancer and children who walk 10 miles to get water to drink to end up having their eyes eaten by a pointless, worthless, God created parasite once they get there.
Or....I don't know. Something like God's personally chosen 'special representatives on Earth' raping alter boys in their care and the other God's personally chosen 'special representatives on Earth' covering up for them while humbly praying to their God and spitting in the faces of those dirty Homosexuals and upperty women.
And in fact I see The Pope (that enlightened ex-Nazi) has criticised the UK's Equality Bill that upholds rights for Gays and women. Religion...the moral compass.
But hey...What do i know? I just like talking for talking's sake. :p
Ðèstîñy
02-05-10, 11:07 PM
If I decide to come back i won't need to hide. Nothing for me to feel ashamed about, as having a 21st century mind while surrounded by dark ages fairyland dwellers is a badge of pride.
Damn I'm good. I said this. I said you weren't the type to hide behind another user-name, and that you'd let it be known that you were back. That we'd all hear you when you return. ;)
Perhaps I'll get back to film gossip. As I miss some of you good people.
Yes, avoid religion and politics. I know I do. That ***** pisses me off. Besides, I've actually listed the last 15 movies from the horror list. No, no more sense then, but I'm thinking about it.
p.s. You know you miss my groovy self.
Have some neg rep to encourage you.
I was neg repped recently. Can you believe that *****? Sweet little olé me. Work, work, work, and I get zapped.
Or perhaps I should consult a burning bush first before making my decision...
It's a singing bush, but Chevy Chase shot and killed it. I think it was Chevy. If it wasn't him, it was Steve or Martin.
42ndStreetFreak
02-05-10, 11:07 PM
I've tried to be patient...but my threshold for morons is low.
You must find it very hard to live with yourself then.
My sympathies. :p
My cheap parting shot.
John McClane
02-05-10, 11:15 PM
You must find it very hard to live with yourself then.
My sympathies. :pCan I ask you one thing? Of course, this is a rhetorical question to illustrate your massive mound of stupidity...so there will be no need to answer.
Where in the hell have I stated any belief in God, ghosts, the afterlife, Moon landings, the JFK assassination, gnomes, pixies, unicorns, Bush's favorite color, and etc.? The last time I checked...because I know you haven't...I have stated no such opinions on anything. When you accuse someone of holding a belief, when they have not stated either way, and then ridicule them for it, it's the summit of asininity.
Again, I don't expect you to understand this, even though I did my best to S-P-E-L-L it out for you. Oh well, walls don't make very good conservationists. ;)
42ndStreetFreak
02-06-10, 07:09 PM
Can I ask you one thing? Of course, this is a rhetorical question to illustrate your massive mound of stupidity...so there will be no need to answer.
Where in the hell have I stated any belief in God, ghosts, the afterlife, Moon landings, the JFK assassination, gnomes, pixies, unicorns, Bush's favorite color, and etc.?
Can I ask you one thing? Of course, this is a rhetorical question to illustrate your massive mound of stupidity...so there will be no need to answer.
Where in the hell have I stated YOU did? :p
Oh, by the way, if you still feel like illustrating my massive mound...feel free dear.
42ndStreetFreak
02-07-10, 07:11 AM
Poor loser much? :D
Now now. Surely below your mighty intellect?
What next? "Nah nah nah nah naaaaah"?
I mean really! :rolleyes:
Anyway, keep it up and I may well reconsider you getting anywhere near my gloriously massive mound...which would mean we both lose out.
xxx
McClane is trying to communicate to you because he's always been an atheist yet believes you paint people with broad brushstrokes. Now, I'll admit that some of us may be guilty of something similar, but it's really weird to be fighting with someone who agrees with much of what you say just because you say things in a totally different manner and seem to be totally skewed when you "interact". By the way, seen any good horror flicks lately?
42ndStreetFreak
02-07-10, 11:49 AM
Actually he fought with me, because he thinks I should show some kind of respect for people's beliefs (that they mutate the real world with...THAT'S the important thing) just because such delusional ramblings are classed as a 'religion'.
If I murdered, raped, tortured, assaulted, mutilated, publically damned and threatened the amount of people 'religions' have (and yes, Islam is the biggest turd in the pile) because I decreed it was okay because the blue gnome at the bottom of my garden said it was okay and righteous to do so....No respect of any kind at all would be shown for such garbage.
And quite rightly so.
McClane, atheist or no, is happy to have everyone else's life altered and ruled by other peoples ramblings even as he disbelieves them though.
He appeases, which is all the religious sorts need.
And if deciding that people who follow the letter of a religion, with devout love for it, are the only ones who actually truly represent that religion (Wow! Such a crazy idea!) is being classed as painting people with broad strokes...I'm happy to get my brushes out.
But hey, the day people keep their beliefs in their own homes (child marriage, forced marriage, honour killings and enforced slavery in the home aside) I could care less.
But what the ****...This is just going over what I already have done above.
But like I said...you can't argue with fantasists.
I guess time will show if I was right to push so hard against these, automatically deserving of respect it seems, ancient, anti-21st century, religious ramblings.
But if I'm proven right...Our children will be the ones that suffer.
So i think I'll put THAT worry ahead of offending some dude who thinks (his specific) pixie does actually exist.
And I don't care if people think I should put respect for someones fantastical beliefs before the future and welfare of my child!
**** that and **** them!
The day my daughter's life is free from the chance some suicide bombing religious dog blowing her up while screaming "God is great", the day she is not prejudiced against by religious freaks because of her gender or perhaps lack of 'belief' (and the day that applies to HER children as well) I'll happily put away my paintbox and my broad brushes.
Until then...don't think my child's future will come second to showing respect for someone else's delusion.
And yes, all kinds of bad things can happen or go wrong for a person. But most (indeed if not all) those other things are not deemed worthy of respect, are not socially accepted, appeased, defended or even protected!
Someone mugs my daughter and no holy man in a holy place or so called community leaders will defend and apologise for it!
Or hold ****ing parades in praise of the mugger and her mugging!!
Compare THAT though with what we saw after 9/11 and 7/7. Respect? **** respect.
I'll leave with one more sign of God's love.
A newborn baby in Haiti was in hospital for severe burns to its head when God decided to drop that hospital on it with an earthquake resulting in the baby's arm being amputated and its Mother killed. All before the burns could even be healed just to add the cherry on top.
Now I'm sorry...But such an event means only 3 things...None of them good for religion.
1) There is no God. **** happens.
2) There is a God but he's powerless and takes no interest.
3) There is a God but he let (even made) such a thing happen because he's a nasty ****.
Whichever one you choose ( a newborn baby let us remember) it invalidates any belief in God as it makes religion pointless, offensive and certainly not worthy of actual power over people's lives.
Now... I'm off to massage my massive mound.
SoulInside
02-08-10, 06:59 AM
****ing Flamer.
He didn't put it over in the most elegant or thoughtful way, and certainly not in a way that was supposed to change anyone's miind, but I agreed with the sentiment of much of it.
In that case you should be even more upset than the rest of us; if he's expressing things you agree with, he's certainly not making those views look particularly good, given that he's got believers, agnostics, and borderline atheists all aghast simultaneously.
Letting behavior like this slide because one agrees with some rough sentiment behind it is, to my mind, something that fosters generalization and resentment on both sides of any debate. It encourages the caricaturization of opposing viewpoints and leads to laxer standards of discourse. Bad behavior is bad behavior, and we shouldn't make apologies for it because we share some partial worldview with whoever's engaging in it.
Re: 42nd's many recent posts: so many words, yet none of them come to make a point that a) hasn't been made (and answered) before, b) address in any way the staggering number of things he says that are borne completely out of generalization, c) couldn't be made in a perfectly civil manner.
There's simply no reason why someone who has come to logical conclusions based on sound reason would feel the need to constantly supplement that reason with juvenile insults and cursing. None.
Looking back over your last few posts, it's interesting how many of these errors come from one simple mistake: the failure to differentiate between a religion and its followers. The rest of the world has no problem realizing that something one Muslim does does not necessarily reflect on every other, or that things can be (and are) done in the name of Christ that aren't particularly Christian. You sarcastically ask why religion is worthy of respect while reeling off lists of the most extreme things ever done in its name (or by its followers), but this only serves to highlight your own ideological blindspot. Most people have no trouble understanding that a belief and the people who espouse it are different thing.
I've tried to engage you in those rare instances in which you stumble near an actual point (like your long, roundabout way of parroting the famous Epicurius quote in the post above), but you've made it plenty clear that you're not interested in any of that. There are plenty of complex theological issues at play here, but nothing you've said leads me to believe you've bothered to really consider any of them, or have anything new to say about them.
But it's easy to see why you wouldn't. If you ever strayed near a truly serious thought about religion, it would inevitably dismantle the nice, simple, black-and-white view of it you've expressed here. Such visceral anger can't survive any sustained attempt at legitimately pondering these things, because reality is always more complicated than our prejudices will let us acknowledge.
Best to keep a safe distance from all serious literature and discussion on the topic, if you want to maintain such a high level of righteous anger.
42ndStreetFreak
02-09-10, 06:20 AM
Yeah...Hmmm....Cop out.
A total lifestyle religious belief has nothing to do with the person living by it!??
Really? :D
Seems like the kind of weasel remarks people like you (unless you're not devout or have made up your own religion, if not you;re a liar) spew out when attacking Homosexuals...condemn the sin, not the sinner. LMAO!
"We don't hate gays...we just don't want them to do anything actually gay. Because we are moral and upright like that".
You make a mockery of morality as much as you make a mockery of liberalism.
You're a delusional weasel and hypocrite. So don't dare judge me with your medieval mind.
I want to live in 42nd's world. It sounds so much less fanatical.
Yeah...Hmmm....Cop out.
A total lifestyle religious belief has nothing to do with the person living by it!??
Really? :D
Er, no. Show me where I said that. And then, when you can't, sit back and reflect on just how often you have to exaggerate in order to have something to say.
What I did say was that they're two different things. People can -- and will -- do things at odds with their belief system. They can -- and will -- pervert any teaching from time to time.
Of the two of us, you're the one taking the absolute position, by continually insisting that there is no abstraction or difference between believer and belief, even when the former does things clearly at odds with the latter. It's stunning how much of what you say is rooted in this basic failure. Your entire attitude towards religion seems to be one giant logical fallacy.
Seems like the kind of weasel remarks people like you (unless you're not devout or have made up your own religion, if not you;re a liar) spew out when attacking Homosexuals...condemn the sin, not the sinner. LMAO!
What's supposed to be funny about "condemn the sin, not the sinner"? Are you under the impression that you've just made an argument of some kind by typing "LMAO"?
You're a delusional weasel and hypocrite.
Again, with the insecurity. Do you think insulting people makes you sound smarter? Do you think it'll distract anyone from just how shallow most of what you're saying is? Because I think it only makes it more obvious.
So don't dare judge me with your medieval mind.
:laugh: Yeah...this tack isn't gonna work. I'm a computer programmer, dude. And I don't program on those old wooden medieval computers, either. No sir, I've moved up to the ones that use 'lectricity and everything.
Also, giving negative rep just because I'm disagreeing with you is, well, dumb. I give it to any post of yours that insults someone needlessly, just as I've always given it out. You, on the other hand, seem to do it purely out of retaliation. Grow up.
Wow - terrible debating skills at work again on MoFo...
I guess I am the one that usually has to say it:
You've lost the debate, 42ndstreet. Time to give up.
Extreme views usually put people firmly in the LOSS column. Try a more balanced approach next time.
42ndStreetFreak
02-09-10, 06:17 PM
I laugh with disdain at all delusional homophobes and hypocrites like you Yoda.
Especially fantasist bigots like you who pretend you're so ****ing superior and moral because your delusions and prejudices are supposedly blessed by some invisible God being!
I'm a computer programmer, dude.
Wow...I'm so awed. Kind of makes it even worse then that you live in some dark ages dwelling religious delusion and judge life and people by fantasy words spouted out of thin air.
An ape with a PC in its paw....is still an ape.
giving negative rep just because I'm disagreeing with you is, well, dumb
Well because you like simple minded things such as negative rep in a cyber world, that actually means so much of nothing, I like knowing it bothers you so much when I do it.
You are a Mod dear...just ban me. Make me go 'puff' (sorry...offensive word to you I know. God said so).
And sadly Golgot...very sadly...you do live in my world.
I laugh with disdain at all delusional homophobes and hypocrites like you Yoda.
Especially fantasist bigots like you who pretend you're so ****ing superior and moral because your delusions and prejudices are supposedly blessed by some invisible God being!
Yeah, I have no idea how this is supposed to be a response to anything I've said, or even addressed to me at all, for that matter.
We've seen this from you plenty of times, guy: when you're cornered, you lapse into critiques aimed at whatever your stereotype of a typical Christian is, regardless of whether or not it has any relevance to the discussion at hand. You start arguing with the caricature in your head, rather than the people you're actually arguing with. It's your go-to when you've run out of things to say.
Wow...I'm so awed. Kind of makes it even worse then that you live in some dark ages dwelling religious delusion and judge life and people by fantasy words spouted out of thin air.
So, your response is...nothing. Awesome.
Perhaps this went over your head, but the point was not to "awe" you, but to point out how silly you look when you toss out random adjectives on topics you know nothing about. A technologically savvy person of faith doesn't fit with your childish stereotypes, so it's almost as if it doesn't even occur to you that such a person could exist.
Well because you like simple minded things such as negative rep in a cyber world, that actually means so much of nothing, I like knowing it bothers you so much when I do it.
You're a bit confused, I'm afraid. It doesn't bother me; I've got plenty to spare. And if it did bother me, I could take solace in the fact that you're literally the only person taking it from me in this thread, or by the fact that retaliatory rep is against the rules and I could remove it if I wanted.
The fact that you think it's pointless -- yet do it because you hope to antagonize me -- is exactly my point. You're a grown man, and you're using some frivolous points system to try to get a rise out of someone on the Internet because they disagree with you. I don't think you've fully internalized just how petty that is.
You are a Mod dear...just ban me. Make me go 'puff' (sorry...offensive word to you I know. God said so).
If you break a rule, you will be banned (you have one warning already, I believe). But there's no rule against being ignorant. I know me saying this doesn't fit with your cartoonish notion of Christians being bigoted, intolerant, and quashing dissent at every turn, so I guess you can just add this to your overflowing surplus of cognitive dissonance.
Meanwhile, you've somehow managed to make yet another post that addresses nothing, illuminates nothing, and answers nothing. It's almost becoming impressive. One would think you'd say something relevant by accident now and again, at least.
Wake me when you've developed the philosophical curiosity and general social skills of your average 14-year old, and then we'll talk.
honeykid
02-09-10, 09:06 PM
In that case you should be even more upset than the rest of us; if he's expressing things you agree with, he's certainly not making those views look particularly good, given that he's got believers, agnostics, and borderline atheists all aghast simultaneously.
Letting behavior like this slide because one agrees with some rough sentiment behind it is, to my mind, something that fosters generalization and resentment on both sides of any debate. It encourages the caricaturization of opposing viewpoints and leads to laxer standards of discourse. Bad behavior is bad behavior, and we shouldn't make apologies for it because we share some partial worldview with whoever's engaging in it.
I think you've missed my point a little, Yoda.
I'm not letting anything slide because I'm not engaging. I think I've already stated my thoughts on the direction this thread has taken and its validity. I'm not 'letting' 42nd's rant slide, any more than I'm letting anyone who believes in the existance of a God, slide.
Talking about faith when including religion is one thing, a bit like arguing who'd win in a fight between Batman and Spiderman, but at least there are 'facts' and documents that everyone agrees on or can be presented. There's a basis for a debate. Arguing or challenging someone's faith alone is completely pointless, as no one's going to change their mindset or world view after something said in a thread. Not only that, but when this does happen (as seen in this thread) people get defensive, which is understandable, but it breeds ill will and resentment, none of which is necessary and all completely pointless.
I'm not bothered about who he's pissing off or how he's making his (my?) views look.
If you want a little more from me I'll say that, personally, saying those who believe in a God have a medieval mind (or whatever it was) is doing them a favour. It's certainly more charitable than I'd be. People had been believing in God(s) for thousands of years before that, so why label them as medieval? That'd only put them about 600 years behind the current day.
The view that it seems myself and 42nd share is that religion is bunk and that there is no God. We both seem to be of the view that organized religion has been, and is, to blame for the deaths/pain/hatred/etc of a great many people throughout history right up until the present day and that this world would be better off without it. Not only that, but that it is no longer needed.
I don't really see how he was speaking for me beyond that or why I should be repremanding him for... what? Not arguing 'my' position well enough? I wasn't putting my position forward. Merely saying that I agreed with the sentiment of some of it.
John McClane
02-09-10, 09:24 PM
If you want a little more from me I'll say that, personally, saying those who believe in a God have a medieval mind (or whatever it was) is doing them a favour. It's certainly more charitable than I'd be. People had been believing in God(s) for thousands of years before that, so why label them as medieval? That'd only put them about 600 years behind the current day.To be honest, it's a poor insult. The last time I checked medieval thinkers, and earlier, were some brilliant arseholes. Every branch of science owes something to these "medieval" thinkers. So technically, if we're insulting their intelligence then we are insulting our own. But hey, to each their own insults.
The view that it seems myself and 42nd share is that religion is bunk and that there is no God. We both seem to be of the view that organized religion has been, and is, to blame for the deaths/pain/hatred/etc of a great many people throughout history right up until the present day and that this world would be better off without it. Not only that, but that it is no longer needed.Blaming a large portion of past transgressions on religion requires you to throw all reason out the window. No, last time I checked humans are just s****y creatures. No religion needed. Now you can easily argue, and I wouldn't disagree, that religion gives people a reason to embrace their evil side. That, however, does not reflect on the religion itself but the person.
For example, I kill a person because they use a Zune and not an iPod. Apple is not evil. I'm evil.
The idea that all evil and bad, or even a majority of it, will leave the world once religion is eradicated is...well...stupid.
OK, honey, that's a good post and well-explained, but as I think about it a little more, I believe that no matter what else 42nd is saying that he has been disingenuous on at least one count in laying forth an agenda. I don't recall exactly what brought 42nd to this site, but I was under the impression that he wanted to discuss horror flicks with people who mostly liked horror flicks. It didn't take too long for him to segue into the fact that Islam is taking over the world in general and the UK specifically. He discussed, at length, how Islam needs a reformation and that other religions, specifically Christianity, underwent their reformation so that it wouldn't be such a danger to the world at large. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's a fair way to present his side, at least at first.
Now, apparently 42nd didn't realize that he stumbled onto a site where people coming from both sides of the "religion and politics" question are willing to (and actually quite interested in a) debate in the classical form of a debate. To be sure, religion and politics are discussed here all the time, but they probably take up about 2% as much space as movie discussion and debate. However, for some reason, when some people here thought he was being too extreme in his hatred for Islam and his point that it may well cause the end of the world (I still thiink I'm reading him correctly here), he seemed to get even more extreme by lumping everybody who has anything to do with religion (or a belief in any form of spirituality) as a fanatic who is apparently personally condoning AND ACTUALLY contributing to the downfall of western civilazation by having a caveman mentality and some kind of appeasement attitude toward this dangerous situation confronting our world. Look, I'll be the first person to say that we live in a world more-dangerous than it has ever been. Radical fundamentalism is a key reason for that. Yet, somehow this world is populated by more people who claim to be agnostics or atheists than ever before. Therefore, let me ask you this. If this apparent contradiction is true, then who is more responsible for this so-called appeasement? I know you're going to say that the people in charge are responsible, but really, if there are enough people in enough countries who agree with 42nd, wouldn't they be mobilizing to do something to save their families from what they see as a direct danger to their posterity?
I don't want to get into how these sorts of things have happened down through the ages where a minority group of people have risen up to popularly quash what they believe to be an evil living amongst them. Sometimes they result in things such as a people obtaining their liberty from an occupying force and sometimes they result in a group's extermination due to the doctrines of totalitarian states. I hope that we all find a way to survive this world of terrorism which we live in, and I'm pretty sure that MoFo will survive anything which resembles terrorism from people who may or may not have their hearts in the right place. I, for one, am not going to think differently of anyone expressing their difference of opinion unless they somehow feel the need to insult those who do not share their beliefs. I might feel upset if I actually knew though that some people automatically discount my opinion on anything just because they believe they know what I believe about something which probably has nothing at all to do with whatever discussion I'm entered into at the time. Call me silly for taking a "message board" (that's the first time I've ever used that phrase) so seriously, but you guys are a part of my family.
honeykid
02-09-10, 11:42 PM
I had started a reply to the last two posts. I know I said I wasn't bothering with it, but there were a couple of things I'd like to add/answer. Anyway, I'm an idiot (don't all agree so quickly) and lost it all. I'm not going to start it all again now, so I'll just try and hit the main points in broad strokes.
As I also said earlier, I haven't read a most of the posts in this thread (after the posts concerning the original reason for it) but I'm willing to go along with you mark, on your take of what's been said. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether or not he thinks that Christianity changed so as not to be a danger to the world. If he does, then I think he's wrong. Christianity changed because what it said/preached has been constantly disproved over the last 600 years or so and they did their best to stop that being known to the world, too.
I agree that 42nd has appeared to become very involved in this thread to the exclusion of all others. I think that's a shame (as I said, I liked him for what he said elsewhere on the site) and I don't think he came to this site looking to start this up. I think this thread appeared and it's obviously one of his pet peeves/bandwagons/whatever and he's jumped into it with both feet.
While the world may be populated with more people than ever who claim to be non-religious/athiest/secular/whatever, there's still billions more who believe in some God/religion. A quick internet count puts it at something like 5.8bn to 1.1bn and it's not like we're all mixed up together. Interacting, talking and understanding one another, explaining why we think the way we do. It's not as if all the secular people are going to descend on Japan and tell them that Shinto is a load of crap? Are they going to flood the US? Of course not. All that can happen is that the ideas spread and, more often than not, it happens from the top down. It wasn't until the Emperor Constantine converted in the third century that Christianity spread thoughout the Roman Empire and the Roman Gods were usurped by the Christian God.
When you said this, mark:
if there are enough people in enough countries who agree with 42nd, wouldn't they be mobilizing to do something to save their families from what they see as a direct danger to their posterity?
Did you mean "agree" as in non-religous/secular? Or agree as in with the ferocity and fervour of 42nd? People are notoriously difficult to organise in large numbers, especially among civilians (where people are still individuals and question things, as oppossed to an army, say.) If you just meant agree that there's no God or whatever, then that's not the same as actively seeking/demanding a religion to be updated/modernised or whatever.
John, at no point did I say that the eradication of religion would solve all the worlds problems or all of societies ills. That's not the point. The point is, at least, my point is, that if you only believe something's evil/bad/unholy/whatever because of your religion (or more often than not, your parents as they're the ones that usually indoctrinate their children, hence pro-creation being so exhalted and sacred in many religions) then to rid the world/society of that religion would mean they'd be less hatred/pain/violence/whatever. Not none. There'd still be homophobics, there'd still be racists, there'd still be mysogynists and everything, but at least they wouldn't have the 'excuse' of religion and there'd be less people who think they have to think that way because it's the 'right' way.
I agree that people are ******. Couldn't agree more. We're animals and I mean that in the beastial sense, not a moral one.
Now you can easily argue, and I wouldn't disagree, that religion gives people a reason to embrace their evil side. That, however, does not reflect on the religion itself but the person.
For example, I kill a person because they use a Zune and not an iPod. Apple is not evil. I'm evil.
True, but if Apple told you that you were being righteous if you killed Zune users, then wouldn't you concur that Apple would be evil? If you didn't care if someone used Zune until you started using Apple, wouldn't you only care because you were an Apple user?
Personally, I don't like to use words like 'evil' seriously. It's a moral evaluation which changes depending on the society or mindset of the person using it. Women are still routinely stoned to death for committing adultery in Nigeria, among other countries. Still sentenced to death in Iran and Somalia (among others) for being raped. Honour killings still occur. We have them here in the UK. None of these things are considered 'evil' by the people that commit them. They're following what they've been taught/told to do by their religious teachers or the laws created based on thos teachings. We, of course, do.
Conversely, in those countries they think we're evil/it's disgusting for allowing women to dress the way they do. To allow homosexuals to live their lives without fear of prosecution or death. To drink alcohol. To not be religious. All manner of things, most of which I probably have no idea about.
John McClane
02-10-10, 12:08 AM
All that can happen is that the ideas spread and, more often than not, it happens from the top down. It wasn't until the Emperor Constantine converted in the third century that Christianity spread thoughout the Roman Empire and the Roman Gods were usurped by the Christian God.I just feel the need to point out that's not how it happened. Christianity was already widely accepted and practiced before Constantine took office. We can argue whether he converted for political or personal reasons, but all he did was make it the official religion of the state...alas, most people were already practicing it before he did that.
John, at no point did I say that the eradication of religion would solve all the worlds problems or all of societies ills. That's not the point. The point is, at least, my point is, that if you only believe something's evil/bad/unholy/whatever because of your religion (or more often than not, your parents as they're the ones that usually indoctrinate their children, hence pro-creation being so exhalted and sacred in many religions) then to rid the world/society of that religion would mean they'd be less hatred/pain/violence/whatever. Not none. There'd still be homophobics, there'd still be racists, there'd still be mysogynists and everything, but at least they wouldn't have the 'excuse' of religion and there'd be less people who think they have to think that way because it's the 'right' way.You will still have politics, so I ain't buying that one bit. Not one bit at all.
True, but if Apple told you that you were being righteous if you killed Zune users, then wouldn't you concur that Apple would be evil? If you didn't care if someone used Zune until you started using Apple, wouldn't you only care because you were an Apple user?Religion doesn't tell people to kill others. Point to as many religious passages as you want about "killing infidels" or what not and I'll point you to an equal number that don't condone it. More over, the context of some of those "kill the infidels" passages illustrate what not to do. However, I very much dislike religious documents for this very reason. The moral judgment is NOT in the book. It's made by the person reading it.
Personally, I don't like to use words like 'evil' seriously. It's a moral evaluation which changes depending on the society or mindset of the person using it. Women are still routinely stoned to death for committing adultery in Nigeria, among other countries. Still sentenced to death in Iran and Somalia (among others) for being raped. Honour killings still occur. We have them here in the UK. None of these things are considered 'evil' by the people that commit them. They're following what they've been taught/told to do by their religious teachers or the laws created based on thos teachings. We, of course, do.
Conversely, in those countries they think we're evil/it's disgusting for allowing women to dress the way they do. To allow homosexuals to live their lives without fear of prosecution or death. To drink alcohol. To not be religious. All manner of things, most of which I probably have no idea about.Sorry, I can't get behind the idea of there not being some sense of absolute morality...God or no God. There are very obvious things that are inherently evil, regardless of the society. Not only that but many societies have similar morals, i.e. they only disagree on the application of them.
For example, no society considers it honorable to hold your own interests above others. They do, however, disagree on who's interests you should hold above your own (your parents, your government, your neighbors, etc.). We can also use witch burnings as an example. If you had good reason to believe that some women eat children, destroy crops, and etc and there was no way to imprison them...would you not be morally obligated to kill them? You would be.
And sadly Golgot...very sadly...you do live in my world.
Nah, there are quite a few difference between our worlds mate.
In my world, it's fine for a Christian not to act on the apparent homophobia in the Bible, for example.
In my world, exceptional claims require at least reasonable evidence. A bulldozer scooping some grit & a still of a nearby broken gravestone don't = 'Muslims bulldoze graveyard' (http://bnp.org.uk/2009/09/genocide-how-islamic-colonisation-destroys-your-heritage/) etc. Especially not when a quick spot of research (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1136108_car_park_work_disturbs_headstones) reveals the real circumstances are quite distinct. (And that's just one of the many extreme claims you to stick by, despite very reasonable evidence to the contrary).
In my world, it's healthy to recognize when facts we thought supported our argument or world view turn out to be false.
In my world, understanding the minds and arguments of those you disagree with is worthwhile. And hurling blanket insults isn't.
Tho lord knows it's ****ing nigh impossible where you're concerned. Because frankly, your behaviour warrants about every insult sent your way, and your ears seem closed to any attempt at constructive disagreement.
42ndStreetFreak
02-10-10, 05:19 PM
You see Honeykid puts it right (wow, for a supposed Atheist you sure do love defending religion McClane!).
Evil acts will always happen without religion.
But there would be an awful lot less of them without it (and as Honey said...It's not like anyone in 2010 NEEDS the damn stuff either) and, for me, most importantly these acts would not be considred righteous and worse...Justified!
I'll simply quote myself. Because I'm ****ing good.
All kinds of bad things can happen or go wrong for a person.
But most (indeed if not all) those other things are not deemed worthy of respect, are not socially accepted, appeased, defended or even protected!
Someone mugs my daughter and no holy man in a holy place or so called community leaders will defend and apologise for it!
Or hold parades in praise of the mugger and her mugging!!
People can weasel and disgracefully apologise for religion all they want...but when the devout (**** pick and choose merchants as they simply do not represent their religion. Simple as that) carry out acts and specifically quote from their religion to back those acts up and excuse them...that religion is at fault, NOT JUST the person.
Take Australia last year or the year before when a Muslim man accused of beating his Wife used the fact the the Quran directly said it was right for him to do so as his legal defence!
Shia Muslim men in Afghanistan voted on the right to rape and refuse food to their wives only last year specifically because Islam, in the Quran and the Hadiths, says they can if their wives do not agree to sex whenever the man wants it.
Directly because their Prophet (who also slaughtered Jewish tribes) married a 9 year old girl...Child marriage in Islamic countries is a huge, widespread, socially and legally accepted practice and problem.
RIGHT NOW a...wait for it...12 year old girl is fighting to divorce her 80 year old Husband (and Cousin of her Father) in Saudi!!
The same Saudi that's the most exporting state as far as pushing Islam in The West goes has no legal minimum age for marriage. Nice.
Basic figures, official figures, in the UK has hundreds of girls around the age of 12 suddenly vanishing from school records because they get shipped off to marry abroad.
Muslims explicitly bring up what their Prophet did as justification for child marriage!
That's the religion itself!
No matter how much appeasers and apologists (as bad as any Jihadist as they help smooth the way) try to dodge this basic, in black and white, historical fact.
And why would almost no action be taken against such events, that break the Law of the country?
Because it's a religious practice!
As we have seen this week in the UK the first Sikh judge shows his true religiously fanatic colours be saying that Sikh boys at school (Schoolchildren!) should be allowed to carry their ceremonial knives to school!
That specifically break numerous Laws of this country that EVERYONE ELSE has to abide by...but it's also a farce as far as basic common sense goes!
Again...Ancient religion not only screams to be obeyed, but asks to be treated differently from anyone else in the country.
And really, please don't go on about closed minds. As there is nothing more closed than a mind that believes GOD is on their side.
And Yoda...as for dodging things, you no all about that, as if you are devout to your religion you do indeed condemn Homosexuals and do it because you think your invisible being says it's righteous to do so!
Hey, I know what you are...You should accept it too.
Hey, I know what you are...
My niece says this all the time - she's five years old.
She gets put in time-out when she says it...
Coming soon, to a theater near you...
http://sarge.wheresthebeef.co.uk/Misc/BANHAMMER.png
42ndStreetFreak
02-10-10, 07:04 PM
My niece says this all the time - she's five years old.
She says you're a religious delusionist who also tries to hide the fact he's a Homophobic bigot?!
Wow...Tough 5 year old you got there.
Coming soon, to a theater near you...
http://sarge.wheresthebeef.co.uk/Misc/BANHAMMER.png
Well ****ing do it then!
But don't expect much love in return from Yoda, such things are sinful (Although judging by many Priests, Bishops, Clerics and Vicars...you could be in luck). :p
You see Honeykid puts it right (wow, for a supposed Atheist you sure do love defending religion McClane!).
Evil acts will always happen without religion.
But there would be an awful lot less of them without it (and as Honey said...It's not like anyone in 2010 NEEDS the damn stuff either) and, for me, most importantly these acts would not be considred righteous and worse...Justified!
I'll simply quote myself. Because I'm ****ing good.
All kinds of bad things can happen or go wrong for a person.
But most (indeed if not all) those other things are not deemed worthy of respect, are not socially accepted, appeased, defended or even protected!
Someone mugs my daughter and no holy man in a holy place or so called community leaders will defend and apologise for it!
Or hold parades in praise of the mugger and her mugging!!
People can weasel and disgracefully apologise for religion all they want...but when the devout (**** pick and choose merchants as they simply do not represent their religion. Simple as that) carry out acts and specifically quote from their religion to back those acts up and excuse them...that religion is at fault, NOT JUST the person.
Take Australia last year or the year before when a Muslim man accused of beating his Wife used the fact the the Quran directly said it was right for him to do so as his legal defence!
Shia Muslim men in Afghanistan voted on the right to rape and refuse food to their wives only last year specifically because Islam, in the Quran and the Hadiths, says they can if their wives do not agree to sex whenever the man wants it.
Directly because their Prophet (who also slaughtered Jewish tribes) married a 9 year old girl...Child marriage in Islamic countries is a huge, widespread, socially and legally accepted practice and problem.
RIGHT NOW a...wait for it...12 year old girl is fighting to divorce her 80 year old Husband (and Cousin of her Father) in Saudi!!
The same Saudi that's the most exporting state as far as pushing Islam in The West goes has no legal minimum age for marriage. Nice.
Basic figures, official figures, in the UK has hundreds of girls around the age of 12 suddenly vanishing from school records because they get shipped off to marry abroad.
Muslims explicitly bring up what their Prophet did as justification for child marriage!
That's the religion itself!
No matter how much appeasers and apologists (as bad as any Jihadist as they help smooth the way) try to dodge this basic, in black and white, historical fact.
And why would almost no action be taken against such events, that break the Law of the country?
Because it's a religious practice!
As we have seen this week in the UK the first Sikh judge shows his true religiously fanatic colours be saying that Sikh boys at school (Schoolchildren!) should be allowed to carry their ceremonial knives to school!
That specifically break numerous Laws of this country that EVERYONE ELSE has to abide by...but it's also a farce as far as basic common sense goes!
Again...Ancient religion not only screams to be obeyed, but asks to be treated differently from anyone else in the country.
And really, please don't go on about closed minds. As there is nothing more closed than a mind that believes GOD is on their side.
And Yoda...as for dodging things, you no all about that, as if you are devout to your religion you do indeed condemn Homosexuals and do it because you think your invisible being says it's righteous to do so!
Hey, I know what you are...You should accept it too.
Obviously one needn't be religious to be seething with anger and hate.
karibou
02-11-10, 06:38 PM
Obviously one needn't be religious to be seething with anger and hate.
I get that way when I stub my toe. :(
http://memegenerator.net/Instances/Foul-Bachelor-Frog-STUB-TOE-ON-CHAIR-TELL-CHAIR-TO-FCK-OFF.jpg
42ndStreetFreak
02-12-10, 09:28 PM
Obviously one needn't be religious to be seething with anger and hate.
And that's it is it? No points made, no reaction to disgraceful events and practices...just smart mouth ******** because i dared to say anything.
While people like you say and do nothing out of fear and ******** indoctrination that makes you think such things should be respected, protected and just hushed up.
Anger? Damn right...and anyone who isn't angry and such things should look in the mirror and ask themselves why.
Hate? Yeah I hate such events and practices....DON'T YOU!?
****ing pricks.
If some white, non-religious person did even half of these things pseudo-liberal jokes like you would be all over them.
Add a tan and a religion though and you not only stick your tail between you legs...you bow down too!
Weak, cowardly, spineless hypocrites, appeasers and apologists.
KasperKristensen
02-12-10, 09:45 PM
"And that's it is it? No points made,"
:laugh: exactly
42ndStreetFreak
02-12-10, 10:02 PM
"And that's it is it? No points made,"
:laugh: exactly
Oh look, it's the 'fat dude in a dress floating around clouds' guy.
"Born from an egg on a mountain top! Monkey is funky..."
Appeasers. Such a foul stench. :rolleyes:
KasperKristensen
02-12-10, 10:08 PM
Oh look, it's the 'fat dude in a dress floating around clouds' guy.
"Born from an egg on a mountain top! Monkey is funky..."
Appeasers. Such a foul stench. :rolleyes:
Speaking of making points... Good one. ;)
beelzebubbles
02-12-10, 10:29 PM
I think this is the trolliest thread we have here on Mofo.
This may be completely unprecedented, but now 42SF just insullted one of the oldest guys on the site. He's gotta be at least 66 and I truly don't believe he believes in God although his son died trying to save others. But at least rufnek is respectful.
This is my point: is there anyway to ban 42nd, who's dying for it and therefore should not get it for the whole site, from any threads other than Movies? I mean, I realize that he can say anything he wants anywhere as long as he's allowed to post. But maybe, 42nd, you can get more into movies, please? Trust me, there are atheists at least as strong as you on the site, but they participate and don't spend all their time badmouthing people, especially when some of us actually care about your thoughts on movies.
John McClane
02-12-10, 11:21 PM
What can you expect from an idiot? Nothing.
honeykid
02-13-10, 12:47 AM
42nd, why are you quoting "Monkey"?
BTW, Monkey is, indeed, funky. :D:cool:
42ndStreetFreak
02-13-10, 09:02 AM
42nd, why are you quoting "Monkey"?
BTW, Monkey is, indeed, funky. :D:cool:
Because he flies around on his pink cloud around big fat man/woman Buddha's head and huge hands.
This is science.
TV does not lie.
Okay.....I'll apologise.
If I insulted anyone for no good reason I am sorry.
If I insulted people who damn well deserved it... I'm still happy.
The fact is....I have mentioned things that any right minded person should be disgusted and angry about.
And yet....All i have had from post one is shrouded abuse for daring to tackle any and all religious dogma, abuse, atrocity, hypocrisy and privilege because it seems so many hypocrites think it is shielded and something to be tip-toed around.
Why? You wouldn't tip-toe around any non-religious belief that did and said the things religion does. So why is it different?
Because you're hypocrites!
And yes....when I see the battle being lost not because of a stronger enemy but because of so many people refusing to even think about doing anything...I get damn angry.
And since I had my daughter I get damn angry with an extra ****ing damn.
And I am sorry to Rufnek.
But it's his kind of answer that annoys me.
Re-read what I posted about things that have happened and are happening , and above all being ALLOWED to happen.
Whether you hate me or not....How can anyone at all not find these things wrong!
And yet....all it gets is 'Obviously one needn't be religious to be seething with anger and hate.'?
WTF!
So nothing about kids being allowed by religious privilege to carry daggers to school.
Nothing about children vanishing from school records to be married off.
Nothing about parades and holy place preaching in favour of mass murder.
Nothing about child sexual abuse with holy blessing.
Nothing about 21st century people, in direct word of their belief, voting to rape and punish wives for not wanting sex all the time.
Nothing to say about that! Oh no!
None of that matters.
None of that matters because it's to be respected.
Really? You would rather slag me off more than you want to criticise such atrocity?!!
That puts other people to shame. Not me!
And man, I guess you have no idea how ****ing frustrating such an attitude is!
Fine.
Like I said, our children, MY children, will be the ones to live in this dark ages religious hell we're letting grow and grow around us.
That may not annoy you (even if you are parents it seems...Nice) but it does and always will annoy the **** out of me!
Call me a caring ****.
But I am sincerely sorry for some of the rather scattergun abuse and anger.
And that's all you're going to get.
If it's enough that's up to you.
I have more important concerns...shame so many of you on here DON'T.
All i have had from post one is shrouded abuse for daring to tackle any and all religious dogma, abuse, atrocity, hypocrisy and privilege because it seems so many hypocrites think it is shielded and something to be tip-toed around.
That's possibly because you call anyone who doesn't think exactly as you do a hypocrite. (PS you're not 'tackling' anything. You're on a message board.)
I pondered responding to your latest diatribe, but there's really very little point. You ignore the numerous occasions where people concur with serious religion-based issues you raise, seem incapable of discussing them in anything other than 'smite the believer' terms, and lose it completely when anyone points out flaws in your arguments (and/or refuses to concur with your apparent 'get rid of all religions' 'solution').
In short, you're not looking for a discussion. You're looking for people to nod slavishly and then get their pitchfork. So why should anyone respond?
Sexy Celebrity
02-13-10, 12:44 PM
Oh, God, it's continued....
42ndStreetFreak
02-13-10, 01:47 PM
Yes but Golgot...You were included in this bit.
If I insulted people who damn well deserved it... I'm still happy.
Oh yes, I forgot, I'm an 'appeaser' aren't I. Because I point out when you've fantasised graveyard bulldozings etc. Bad appeaser, bad. Trying to stop lovely 42nd from believing in the things that don't exist :rolleyes:
beelzebubbles
02-13-10, 02:30 PM
Let me leaven the proceedings and introduce you to a cartoon series I found about two strange bed fellow; Jesus and Mo (that is short for Mohammed). They discuss modern day religious practice along with the occasional interjection from an invisible atheistic barmaid.
http://www.jesusandmo.net/
That should lighten things up.
*that should appease them for awhile. muwahaha*
John McClane
02-13-10, 02:39 PM
Dude, Mr. Deity (http://www.mrdeity.com/) is way better. :yup:
beelzebubbles
02-13-10, 02:43 PM
I will check it out. Thanks.
42ndStreetFreak
02-13-10, 08:11 PM
Trying to stop lovely 42nd from believing in the things that don't exist :rolleyes:
Nooooo...i think you'll find I'm the one trying to point out the folly of believing in things that don't exist. You know, those lovely God things. :p:p:p
And you can bleat on about one debunk...but that can be replaced by a hundred other truths. Far worse.
And living near the abject shame of 'Londonistan', that place that was once the Capital City of my country before it became a 3rd world, dark ages trapped, Islamist terrorist training camp and recruitment centre, you should know that.
But of course you do know it. Don't yer.
And you can bleat on about one debunk...but that can be replaced by a hundred other truths. Far worse.
It's one of many debunks, dearest, but perhaps my favourite, because it shows how easily you'll assume the worst is happening when it comes to religions. The only reason I've kept repeating it is because you've stood by it for so long, throwing it around amongst your standard 'Medieval' repertoire and defending it outright as having 'seen it with your own eyes' etc.
It's one of the many reasons it's almost impossible to discuss the valid points you do raise. They're mired in a morass of pre-ordained belief. Kinda ironic.
And living near the abject shame of 'Londonistan', that place that was once the Capital City of my country before it became a 3rd world, dark ages trapped, Islamist terrorist training camp and recruitment centre, you should know that.
What, no hyperbole?
I see 42nd finally admitted that he was wrong about the gravestones. Not much of a mea culpa, though:
And you can bleat on about one debunk...but that can be replaced by a hundred other truthsWhy did it take you so long to admit this? And why are you brushing off the fact that you were so casual with the truth? Have you ever stopped to think what it says about your objectivity that you so readily accept things that fit into your worldview, even if they're false?
You're confirming everything being said about you with every post, for crying out loud. Every logical rejoinder is ignored, replaced by vague examples of religious abuse. I don't know what logical circuit in your mind has to go missing for you to think that these constitute a basis from which to despise the whole of religious practice across the world, but they don't. They just don't. It's a form of generalization so extreme and fallacious that I'm stunned I have to point it out.
Now, either you have actual responses to the points being made, or you don't. And given that you've been repeating yourself and avoiding every argument thrown your way for the last couple of weeks, I think it's a pretty safe bet that you don't. So stop wasting everyone's time: answer the posts and arguments being addressed to you, or man up, concede that you can't, and move on.
Also, I've sent you this same warning via PM, but I'll repeat it here, so that people have a heads-up in case anything goes down: if you keep trying to drag this discussion into other threads again, you'll be banned. Your religious bigotry has a big enough stage on which to commit intellectual suicide in this thread already. Please consider this your final warning on the matter.
Well, he asked for it. :rolleyes: Literally.
If anyone cares to read any choice excerpts from 42nd's final rant to confirm that it was ban-worthy, PM me and they're all yours.
Suffice to say, the post did not contain the previously requested response to any of the points being made. It did contain quite a few adjectives, though, so there's that.
At least Peter Cushing isn't there anymore. I'd shudder to think of him speaking that way, even with Darth Vader or Count Dracula.
Thursday Next
02-15-10, 05:31 PM
It did contain quite a few adjectives, though, so there's that.
Let me guess, were these adjectives largely represented by stars instead of letters? :rolleyes:
Somehow only one had ****. That was the first word.
John McClane
02-15-10, 07:07 PM
God, I am so surprised. I just didn't see this coming! Why? WHY?!!
beelzebubbles
02-15-10, 11:10 PM
Because you are not a believer, Matt.
*cross self and looks upward*
Maybe this is a good time to clarify this. Matthew, how much percent of a "believer" are you, at this exact time?
John McClane
02-15-10, 11:22 PM
That's an excellent question. I have no idea. I'd say it's probably 50/50, but that will probably change in the next five minutes, so I will have to get back to you. ;)
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.