Home » Forums » Miscellaneous Forums » Trollville

This blog post is amazing

Posted on: July 16, 2008 - 12:54pm
JewishPhilosopher
Posts: 1
Joined: 2008-07-16
User is offlineOffline
This blog post is amazing

www.rationalresponders.com/blog/kellym78

Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Furl
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Yahoo
‹ FathomFFI is a Troll Who Lies A Lot For the Bitches [Trollville] ›

Posted on: July 16, 2008 - 1:09pm #1
Balrogoz
Gold Member
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
 amazing in the sense that

 amazing in the sense that it misses the point entirely.

 

Atheism is in fact a detrimental to a religious organizations.  Of course, the point atheists are making is that religious organizations are detrimental to humans.

 Claiming atheism is an addiction of course relies on diagnosing it as such.

DSM IV wrote:

  • Preoccupation with use of the chemical between periods of use.
  • Using more of the chemical than had been anticipated.
  • The development of tolerance to the chemical in question.
  • A characteristic withdrawal syndrome from the chemical.
  • Use of the chemical to avoid or control withdrawal symptoms.
  • Repeated efforts to cut back or stop the drug use.
  • Intoxication at inappropriate times (such as at work), or when withdrawal interferes with daily functioning (such as when hangover makes person too sick to go to work).
  • A reduction in social, occupational or recreational activities in favor of further substance use.
  • Continued substance use in spite of the individual having suffered social, emotional, or physical problems related to drug use.
    • Kind of forgot to research your claims?  I'll have to go on record as not being surprised.

    If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


    Posted on: July 16, 2008 - 1:24pm #2
    MattShizzle
    Superfan
    MattShizzle's picture
    Posts: 7680
    Joined: 2006-03-31
    User is offlineOffline
    This person isn't worth

    This person isn't worth responding too. He's such an idiot that he doesn't consider evolution true and considers the fucking Bible as evidence. That's like using Superman comics to "prove" that humans can fly and considering as evidence over Science/Biology books.

    "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
    Richard Dawkins


    Posted on: July 16, 2008 - 1:46pm #3
    jcgadfly
    SuperfanBronze Member
    jcgadfly's picture
    Posts: 2106
    Joined: 2006-07-18
    User is offlineOffline
    Balrogoz wrote: amazing in

    Balrogoz wrote:

     amazing in the sense that it misses the point entirely.

     

    Atheism is in fact a detrimental to a religious organizations.  Of course, the point atheists are making is that religious organizations are detrimental to humans.

     Claiming atheism is an addiction of course relies on diagnosing it as such.

    DSM IV wrote:

  • Preoccupation with use of the chemical between periods of use.
  • Using more of the chemical than had been anticipated.
  • The development of tolerance to the chemical in question.
  • A characteristic withdrawal syndrome from the chemical.
  • Use of the chemical to avoid or control withdrawal symptoms.
  • Repeated efforts to cut back or stop the drug use.
  • Intoxication at inappropriate times (such as at work), or when withdrawal interferes with daily functioning (such as when hangover makes person too sick to go to work).
  • A reduction in social, occupational or recreational activities in favor of further substance use.
  • Continued substance use in spite of the individual having suffered social, emotional, or physical problems related to drug use.
    • Kind of forgot to research your claims?  I'll have to go on record as not being surprised.

     

    So the only quibble you have is that religious organizations aren't chemical substances?

    Replace "chemical" and "chemical substance" with "religious organization" and it's a tighter fit than you'd probably care to realize.

    Well...except for wanting to stop and using more than anticipated.  God addicts are like the alcoholics who avoid hangovers for a week by staying drunk for 8 days.

     

    The journey is often worth more than the destination.


    Posted on: July 16, 2008 - 1:51pm #4
    Balrogoz
    Gold Member
    Posts: 173
    Joined: 2008-05-02
    User is offlineOffline
     No, not by a long shot.

     No, not by a long shot.  But for the reasons that Mattshizzle covered I decided against going into it any deeper with someone that would likely not be interested in intelligent discourse. 

     

    Whatever the addiction thing is also isn't important, what I figured weren't qualifiers were 1, 3, 4(maybe, don't even know what it would mean, really), 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

    If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


    Posted on: July 16, 2008 - 2:04pm #5
    jcgadfly
    SuperfanBronze Member
    jcgadfly's picture
    Posts: 2106
    Joined: 2006-07-18
    User is offlineOffline
    Balrogoz wrote: No, not by

    Balrogoz wrote:

     No, not by a long shot.  But for the reasons that Mattshizzle covered I decided against going into it any deeper with someone that would likely not be interested in intelligent discourse. 

     

    Whatever the addiction thing is also isn't important, what I figured weren't qualifiers were 1, 3, 4(maybe, don't even know what it would mean, really), 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

    Funny. The ones you say don't apply to religions I lived through...

    We don't need to discuss it really - I just find our differences intriguing.

    The journey is often worth more than the destination.


    Posted on: July 16, 2008 - 3:04pm #6
    MattShizzle
    Superfan
    MattShizzle's picture
    Posts: 7680
    Joined: 2006-03-31
    User is offlineOffline
    I'm wondering if this was a

    I'm wondering if this was a drive-by proselytizer anyway - seeing his first post went to trollville. Only been a bit over 2 hours so we'll see if he comes back. I kind of suspect not.

     

    BTW why does he care about the Bible rather than the Torah if he's Jewish???

     

    "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
    Richard Dawkins


    Posted on: July 16, 2008 - 4:12pm #7
    Balrogoz
    Gold Member
    Posts: 173
    Joined: 2008-05-02
    User is offlineOffline
    jcgadfly wrote:So the only

    jcgadfly wrote:

    So the only quibble you have is that religious organizations aren't chemical substances?

    Replace "chemical" and "chemical substance" with "religious organization" and it's a tighter fit than you'd probably care to realize.

    Well...except for wanting to stop and using more than anticipated.  God addicts are like the alcoholics who avoid hangovers for a week by staying drunk for 8 days.

     

     

    Oh, I see the confusion.  What I'm saying is that these don't apply to a lack of belief (atheism).  When you instead replace 'nothing' with 'something' I think the argument does (or can), in fact, work.

    If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


    Posted on: July 16, 2008 - 4:17pm #8
    jcgadfly
    SuperfanBronze Member
    jcgadfly's picture
    Posts: 2106
    Joined: 2006-07-18
    User is offlineOffline
    Balrogoz wrote:jcgadfly

    Balrogoz wrote:

    jcgadfly wrote:

    So the only quibble you have is that religious organizations aren't chemical substances?

    Replace "chemical" and "chemical substance" with "religious organization" and it's a tighter fit than you'd probably care to realize.

    Well...except for wanting to stop and using more than anticipated.  God addicts are like the alcoholics who avoid hangovers for a week by staying drunk for 8 days.

     

     

    Oh, I see the confusion.  What I'm saying is that these don't apply to a lack of belief (atheism).  When you instead replace 'nothing' with 'something' I think the argument does (or can), in fact, work.

    I understand now. Thanks

    The journey is often worth more than the destination.