God Sent Christopher Hitchens to Hell because He Loved Him

Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
God Sent Christopher Hitchens to Hell because He Loved Him

Look at what this Christian said about Hitchens, and listen to his reasoning:

Mod edit: Fixed.


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
help!

How do I get the video to appear in the thread?  All I can manage is this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FmIMAA46A8  or whatever happened in my original post. 

I want people to watch the video in the thread without having to go to another page. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13825
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Well, since Hitch isn't

Well, since Hitch isn't going to hold a press conference on CNN or Fox now, I'd say this idiots arguments are hollow.

"My daddy warned you, you only have yourself to blame"

Yea yea yea, all the major three use their pet deities to threaten others. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

We all know the truth that it was Thor who smoted Hitchens with a lightening bolt.

Bow to Thor or get struck by lightening!


 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I can't watch it right now.

I can't watch it right now. Bad timing. And location. Maybe later. Probably not. It's a christian after all. When was the last time one of them said something that mattered?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13825
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:I can't watch

Vastet wrote:

I can't watch it right now. Bad timing. And location. Maybe later. Probably not. It's a christian after all. When was the last time one of them said something that mattered?

I'd say the founders whom of some were some mix of Christianity/deism. They were the first big push to say "Maybe we shouldn't take religion so seriously as to make law out of it".

But other than that, really haven't seen much before or after them. We need modern "Paines and Jefferxons".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Whatever happened to "Don't

Whatever happened to "Don't speak ill of the dead."  Especially so soon after the man's death.

Christians are despicable.  And we're supposed to be the evil, immoral ones?

What a load of utter shit.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
240 years? Shit. I'd thought

240 years? Shit. I'd thought they'd done something since then.

 

Maybe not. I can't think of anything anyway.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
If only

If only my man Hitchens were here, to respond to this moron. He would tear him all to pieces. And he would make him look like the moron that he is.

I was in a gas station the other day (it is about two blocks from my house and I stop in there regularly and they know me)

As I was purchasing my cigarettes, I always talk for a few minutes with the people behind the counter. We do it almost everyday.

I said something about Hitchens passing.

The kids behind the counter went wild. "Oh Man, I LOVED Hitchens and I didn't agree with him on everything, but the dude was so well spoken, so smart and such a great writer,".

I mentioned that he was a personal hero of mine and they were like "Dude, his works on Orwell and Thomas Paine changed our whole classroom curriculum,".

Let this TV Evangelist piece of shit fade into obscurity where he belongs. He just wishes that he could be as smart as Hitchens. He just wants attention.

And I would rather be in a fictional hell, drinking scotch with Hitchens and hanging out with all the cool people, than I would ever want to be in some "Heaven" like these bastards think that they are going to.

I say fuck heaven.  Of course, there is no heaven or hell, so this is only figurative of me to say so.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Actually, now that we are

Actually, now that we are talking about Hitchens, a lady here said something about him the day the news broke.

She mentioned he died to some of the other women in customer support and then referred to him as "that atheist" and that he was in hell now.

I just ignored it.  I'm not going to raise any hackles at work.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13825
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Watcher wrote:Whatever

Watcher wrote:

Whatever happened to "Don't speak ill of the dead."  Especially so soon after the man's death.

Christians are despicable.  And we're supposed to be the evil, immoral ones?

What a load of utter shit.

Upon the death of Falwell Hitchens said of Falwell in the news, "If you gave him(Falwell) and enema you could fit him in a matchbox".

I too hate "don't speak ill of the dead".

In what context? Both Hitchens and Falwell were public figures. In this country our Constitution values the criticism of public figures. Hitchens would not care that someone spoke ill of him, he'd say "I'll be dead, I wont have the ability to care" and he is right. Live people who value Hitchens are responding to the words of others, we are the ones affected by their words, Hitchens isn't.

Look, context matters. If one is partaking in a private funeral on private property in direct contact with the loved one's morning someone who died, you are polite IN THAT CONTEXT, not to the dead person, they are dead, you are polite to the living who want to mourn that dead person.

Hitchens would not be concerned with people speaking ill of him, he would be more concerned with the logic they use in coming to that conclusion.

When I die for example, I am sure there will even be some atheists who will say "glad that asshole is gone". I'll be dead. I would only say just leave your opinion at the door IF IF IF IF IF IF IF you chose to be in the same private room with my mourners. What you say outside that context is your business.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Well some people have

Well some people have different moral codes.

I usually try and wait until the grass has taken root over a person's grave before I start criticizing them in death.

It's common courtesy.  People always have those that love them.  Let them grieve a little before you start talking shit about their loved one.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3354
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus wrote:Look at

Philosophicus wrote:

Look at what this Christian said about Hitchens, and listen to his reasoning:

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8FmIMAA46A8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I won't bother watching what any christian had to say about Hitchen's passing. What good could become of watching it other than me seeing yet one more ignorant person babble about a mythology.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13825
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Watcher wrote:Well some

Watcher wrote:

Well some people have different moral codes.

I usually try and wait until the grass has taken root over a person's grave before I start criticizing them in death.

It's common courtesy.  People always have those that love them.  Let them grieve a little before you start talking shit about their loved one.

Again, context.

I don't think most people in the west wait until Kim Jong Ill died to call him rightfully the dickhead he was.

Now BOTH Hitchens and Falwell were public figures and in the west we value the criticism of public figures, it is what prevents us from becoming like North Korea.

Even when Kim was alive you couldn't criticize him. I cant imagine what his dissenters are going though now not being able to call him the tyrant and asshole he was.

Speaking ill of the dead is not a crime anymore than saying Jesus is fiction is a crime. The courtesy only comes in CONTEXT of who, what, where, when and why. Not in terms of absolutes. Kim Jong Ill demanded absolutes.

Again, Hitchens would care more about the bad use of logic than their opinion of him.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Again,

Brian37 wrote:

Again, context.

I don't think most people in the west wait until Kim Jong Ill died to call him rightfully the dickhead he was.

Now BOTH Hitchens and Falwell were public figures and in the west we value the criticism of public figures, it is what prevents us from becoming like North Korea.

Even when Kim was alive you couldn't criticize him. I cant imagine what his dissenters are going though now not being able to call him the tyrant and asshole he was.

Speaking ill of the dead is not a crime anymore than saying Jesus is fiction is a crime. The courtesy only comes in CONTEXT of who, what, where, when and why. Not in terms of absolutes. Kim Jong Ill demanded absolutes.

Again, Hitchens would care more about the bad use of logic than their opinion of him.

First, I know Hitchens wouldn't give two poops what they say about them.  Who cares what Hitchens would think though?  The man is dead.

Criticize all you want when a public figure is alive.  Sure, I'm all for it.  Let me explain where I'm coming from.

What do the theists always say about us atheists?

That we don't have any morals or that we're evil or that we are angry or whatnot.

Dancing on someone's grave after they've died but before they are even buried in it puts you in a bad light.

Billy Graham dies.  That afternoon a bunch of Atheists posts blogs talking smack about him.

What is the Christian going to think?  That they were right about atheists.

It's a cheapshot and weak.  And it does not help our case.

In order for us, hell for any marginalized and stigmatized group, to get out from under the rug we have to be MORE moral, MORE good, MORE kind in order to prove to others that we do have morals, that we are not evil, and we may be angry at times but maybe there is a really good reason for why we are angry.

If every time a prominent atheist dies christians immediately shit all over them but every time a prominent christian dies atheists immediately shut up with any criticizisms of the person for a period of time, what is the undecided third party going to think?

"Hey, these Christians keep saying all these horrible things about atheists but what I SEE is that the atheists are actually a heck of a lot nicer people than the christians."

Sure it feels good to vent about people you disagree with.  But what are you trying to achieve?  Your own personal stress relief?  Or are you trying to convince people sitting on the fence to come to your side?

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13825
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Watcher wrote:Brian37

Watcher wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Again, context.

I don't think most people in the west wait until Kim Jong Ill died to call him rightfully the dickhead he was.

Now BOTH Hitchens and Falwell were public figures and in the west we value the criticism of public figures, it is what prevents us from becoming like North Korea.

Even when Kim was alive you couldn't criticize him. I cant imagine what his dissenters are going though now not being able to call him the tyrant and asshole he was.

Speaking ill of the dead is not a crime anymore than saying Jesus is fiction is a crime. The courtesy only comes in CONTEXT of who, what, where, when and why. Not in terms of absolutes. Kim Jong Ill demanded absolutes.

Again, Hitchens would care more about the bad use of logic than their opinion of him.

First, I know Hitchens wouldn't give two poops what they say about them.  Who cares what Hitchens would think though?  The man is dead.

Criticize all you want when a public figure is alive.  Sure, I'm all for it.  Let me explain where I'm coming from.

What do the theists always say about us atheists?

That we don't have any morals or that we're evil or that we are angry or whatnot.

Dancing on someone's grave after they've died but before they are even buried in it puts you in a bad light.

Billy Graham dies.  That afternoon a bunch of Atheists posts blogs talking smack about him.

What is the Christian going to think?  That they were right about atheists.

It's a cheapshot and weak.  And it does not help our case.

In order for us, hell for any marginalized and stigmatized group, to get out from under the rug we have to be MORE moral, MORE good, MORE kind in order to prove to others that we do have morals, that we are not evil, and we may be angry at times but maybe there is a really good reason for why we are angry.

If every time a prominent atheist dies christians immediately shit all over them but every time a prominent christian dies atheists immediately shut up with any criticizisms of the person for a period of time, what is the undecided third party going to think?

"Hey, these Christians keep saying all these horrible things about atheists but what I SEE is that the atheists are actually a heck of a lot nicer people than the christians."

Sure it feels good to vent about people you disagree with.  But what are you trying to achieve?  Your own personal stress relief?  Or are you trying to convince people sitting on the fence to come to your side?

We don't get theists to see us as individuals by expecting each other to behave like sheep. I think there are plenty of theists who can do the same and already do the same for us. Hitchens himself as "in your face" as he was had plenty of complements after his death from his theist friends and plenty from the media world which he was a huge part of.

My point in THIS has more to WHY you protect dissent as a means to protect eveyrone's rights by not speaking in terms of absolutes. Which is why context matters.

Again, in the context of actually being face to face at a funeral with the mourners, yes, you bite your tongue. But in the context of a public figure, we have to protect our right to criticize them even in death, otherwise we are no better than the fascist states like iran and North Korea, where you cant even criticize them when they are alive.

And the value I am defending here in this post is not an atheist value, it is a Constitutional value because our Constitution protects dissent and even blasphemy.

One of my favorite letters from the Founders was one between Jefferson and Adams. Jefferson was responding to the complaints of Adams that the media and public were not respecting their elected leaders. Jefferson in a much more polite response that I am about to bluntly curtail in summery said , "Look dude, what do you think the Declaration of Independence was? It was "fuck you" to the King. Part of why we fought that war was so we could speak freely about our leaders".

Now, this recognition of freedom of speech is also something I know theists value to, so by typing this an they reading this it WILL break those stereotypes you say theists should not have of us because they value it too. And you may also know that as "in your face" Hitchens was, he too saw Jefferson as a hero to the concept of protection of dissent, and he wrote a book about him too.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions" Thomas Jefferson, who also equated the birth of Jesus as being the same Category of Minerva being born out of the brain of Jupiter. And he was a deist, not an atheist.

So when you say "Dont speak ill of the dead", IT DEPENDS and should only be treated in a case by case contextual basis.


 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Nostagia ain't what it used to be.

I worked with a guy a long time ago when I was a Firefighter. He was an old, mean spirited cajun, a bigot and  a jerk on all counts. He died. My boss and buddy came up to me and asked if I was going to the funeral.

I said "No Lane, he was an asshole."

Lane said somewhat taken aback. "You shouldn't talk ill of the dead."

I said, "But Lane, he was an asshole when he was alive, now he's just a dead asshole."

 

I didn't go.

 

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:So when you

Brian37 wrote:

So when you say "Dont speak ill of the dead", IT DEPENDS and should only be treated in a case by case contextual basis.

Well if we are going to be all contextual I guess I need your context.

Why do you speak out about religion?  Just to spew vitriol or to diminish religious belief?

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13825
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Long before I was an atheist

Long before I was an atheist I got a taste of reality from a lady, I considered a second mom my mom's age who lived down the street. I used to watch Wheel of Fortune with her and Tar Heel basket ball with her. Sometimes when I was over there she would get a call from her mom. By the end of the phone call she would be in tears. Love would be the only reason I could think she could put up with such an mean old bitch of a lady. Nancy (my second mom) was the sweetest woman in the world. I couldn't understand why she put up with her mom.

After her mother's death, her son Bill, put her grandmother's ashes in the cooler in the trunk of the car. That old lady didn't deserve any lick of courtesy. Both Nancy and Bill laughed about it. I am quite sure they didn't do any of that at the memorial. But they certainly had every right to laugh and feel relief that she was no longer around to torture them mentally.

At the time that took me "aback" but looking back at it now, I see it for what it was, human nature. It was an action displaying a feeling of relief. I am quite sure they didn't plot her death or wish her death at all. I am quite sure it was mere "good, don't have to deal with that mean lady any more".

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
I'm not sure how the story

I'm not sure how the story relates to being an atheist activist.

Let's say I was a well known atheist blogger with tens of thousands of followers.  I and a prominent religious leader have a long running fued going back and forth with each other over religion.  And then one day he dies.

If I hop up on my blog and say, "Ha, ha.  You're dead you dumb theist.  You aren't in heaven like you thought.  You're just gone, dumbass."

Well what are other Christians who are waffling on theism going to think?

Probably something like, "Wow, what a callous, mean spirited asshole.  I guess it's true that Atheists are evil and have no sense of morality.  Well I don't want to be like that so I'm going to keep going to church and stop trying to second guess religion."

If, on the other hand, I wrote.  "So-and-so and I did not see eye to eye on many issues.  However, I believe he was a well intentioned man and he proved to the world that he was a tireless and brave defender of what he thought was right and good for the world.  I offer his loved ones my sincere and heartfelt condolences during this time of grief and hope they are able to comfort themselves with the warm memories and cherished stories they share of this kind man."

Boom, bitches.  What do you think the waffling Christian would think then?

Maybe something like, "Wow, that was a really nice thing for him to say about him even after all those years of them fighting.  I think it's must be wrong that atheists can't have morals or be good people.  Those other Christians are wrong when they say you need God to be a good person.  Maybe those Christians are wrong about a lot things."

Who cares about the dead guy?  He doesn't matter anymore.  He's gone, and can't add anymore harm than whatever trash he left behind throughout his life.

My purpose, as an atheist blogger, would be to convince more and more people that atheism is the best course for having a truly good world.  That religion actually causes so many problems, and hate, and division.  And I'm not going to convince anyone by spitting on a dead man.  All I'd do is repel them.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13825
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Watcher wrote:I'm not sure

Watcher wrote:

I'm not sure how the story relates to being an atheist activist.

Let's say I was a well known atheist blogger with tens of thousands of followers.  I and a prominent religious leader have a long running fued going back and forth with each other over religion.  And then one day he dies.

If I hop up on my blog and say, "Ha, ha.  You're dead you dumb theist.  You aren't in heaven like you thought.  You're just gone, dumbass."

Well what are other Christians who are waffling on theism going to think?

Probably something like, "Wow, what a callous, mean spirited asshole.  I guess it's true that Atheists are evil and have no sense of morality.  Well I don't want to be like that so I'm going to keep going to church and stop trying to second guess religion."

If, on the other hand, I wrote.  "So-and-so and I did not see eye to eye on many issues.  However, I believe he was a well intentioned man and he proved to the world that he was a tireless and brave defender of what he thought was right and good for the world.  I offer his loved ones my sincere and heartfelt condolences during this time of grief and hope they are able to comfort themselves with the warm memories and cherished stories they share of this kind man."

Boom, bitches.  What do you think the waffling Christian would think then?

Maybe something like, "Wow, that was a really nice thing for him to say about him even after all those years of them fighting.  I think it's must be wrong that atheists can't have morals or be good people.  Those other Christians are wrong when they say you need God to be a good person.  Maybe those Christians are wrong about a lot things."

Who cares about the dead guy?  He doesn't matter anymore.  He's gone, and can't add anymore harm than whatever trash he left behind throughout his life.

My purpose, as an atheist blogger, would be to convince more and more people that atheism is the best course for having a truly good world.  That religion actually causes so many problems, and hate, and division.  And I'm not going to convince anyone by spitting on a dead man.  All I'd do is repel them.

I've said what I had to say. Your good intent does not take account the reality that people will, despite your noble pleading, will always have those IN BOTH CAMPS who will do that. But there IS a reason you don't use "never" as a solution and that reason extends beyond the emotions of ONE person or one group of people and protects the rights of all of us.

Which is WHY I say context matters.

And again, I am quite sure as we read this there ARE theists saying "Good, glad that bastard Hitchens is dead". My point is SO WHAT. If I start demanding they don't do that, guess what, they will want the same, and since they outnumber me, I am not about to hand a loaded gun to my Government in the form of thought police laws.

Courtesy and rights are TWO completely different issues and still depend on contest in both cases.

There is no law forcing people to like me or only say nice things about me, nor should there be. The only thing me and my detractors can and should agree on is to not harm each other or call for the physical harm to the other. Other than that they are not legally obligated to like me.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I've said what

Brian37 wrote:

I've said what I had to say. Your good intent does not take account the reality that people will, despite your noble pleading, will always have those IN BOTH CAMPS who will do that. But there IS a reason you don't use "never" as a solution and that reason extends beyond the emotions of ONE person or one group of people and protects the rights of all of us.

Which is WHY I say context matters.

And again, I am quite sure as we read this there ARE theists saying "Good, glad that bastard Hitchens is dead". My point is SO WHAT. If I start demanding they don't do that, guess what, they will want the same, and since they outnumber me, I am not about to hand a loaded gun to my Government in the form of thought police laws.

Courtesy and rights are TWO completely different issues and still depend on contest in both cases.

There is no law forcing people to like me or only say nice things about me, nor should there be. The only thing me and my detractors can and should agree on is to not harm each other or call for the physical harm to the other. Other than that they are not legally obligated to like me.

Free speech?  Is that what you are arguing about?  I'm arguing about how to best reach people to diminish religion in our society.

Of course anyone can say whatever they want, as it should be.

But if you are trying to help get rid of religion, crapping on your religious opponents when news breaks of their death is not going to help you achieve that goal.  You would actually be more of a hidderance to other atheist activists.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I can't watch

Vastet wrote:

I can't watch it right now. Bad timing. And location. Maybe later. Probably not. It's a christian after all. When was the last time one of them said something that mattered?

He's simply terrorizing people into being scared of hell.  Typical Evangelist terrorism.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hitch would have said

 

 

I told you so...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13825
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Watcher wrote:Brian37

Watcher wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I've said what I had to say. Your good intent does not take account the reality that people will, despite your noble pleading, will always have those IN BOTH CAMPS who will do that. But there IS a reason you don't use "never" as a solution and that reason extends beyond the emotions of ONE person or one group of people and protects the rights of all of us.

Which is WHY I say context matters.

And again, I am quite sure as we read this there ARE theists saying "Good, glad that bastard Hitchens is dead". My point is SO WHAT. If I start demanding they don't do that, guess what, they will want the same, and since they outnumber me, I am not about to hand a loaded gun to my Government in the form of thought police laws.

Courtesy and rights are TWO completely different issues and still depend on contest in both cases.

There is no law forcing people to like me or only say nice things about me, nor should there be. The only thing me and my detractors can and should agree on is to not harm each other or call for the physical harm to the other. Other than that they are not legally obligated to like me.

Free speech?  Is that what you are arguing about?  I'm arguing about how to best reach people to diminish religion in our society.

Of course anyone can say whatever they want, as it should be.

But if you are trying to help get rid of religion, crapping on your religious opponents when news breaks of their death is not going to help you achieve that goal.  You would actually be more of a hidderance to other atheist activists.

Context. Again.

If we are talking about people who believe who are NOT jackasses then yea. But when you are talking about jackasses, then no. There will always be some people who deserve it and I see no hindering of relations with theists who do not do that.

I think if we treat each other as individuals then they will understand the difference.

I'd say anyone who blames Katrina on gays and abortion doctors and atheists DESERVES to be called a jackass and even believers were calling him that. So the fact that Hichens raked him over the coals after his death is quite appropriate.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Context.

Brian37 wrote:

Context. Again.

If we are talking about people who believe who are NOT jackasses then yea. But when you are talking about jackasses, then no. There will always be some people who deserve it and I see no hindering of relations with theists who do not do that.

I think if we treat each other as individuals then they will understand the difference.

I'd say anyone who blames Katrina on gays and abortion doctors and atheists DESERVES to be called a jackass and even believers were calling him that. So the fact that Hichens raked him over the coals after his death is quite appropriate.

They "deserve it"?   haha

They are dead.   You are hurting someone after they are extinguished?  You are making dead people feel sheepish, ashamed of themselves, or shed a tear?  For what end result?  To alter their future behavior?  The dead person's future behavior?

Look, all I'm asking, not just you but myself is "what works for what you are trying to achieve and what does NOT help you to achieve your goals?"

That's all I'm saying.   Go rant and throw a fit and be a huge jerk in front of the world at the exact time to make people COMPLETELY dimiss you, prove your opponents correct in most all third party eyes, and have a blast with it.  The dead guy who will never even know anything about it BECAUSE THE DUDE IS DEAD deserves it, right?

But who is getting screwed?   You're screwing yourself.   You are shooting yourself in the foot.

But you've always been angry.   Heck, I was super angry too back in the day.   But you've alwaysf seemed...I don't know, a different kind of angry.   Like highjack reason type of angry.   A lot of people on this forum taught me things that made me do an about face on my previous views on different topics.

I've never seen you do an about face on anything you had already decided on.  Even when, in my opinion, you didn't make the more convincing argument between you and the other atheist.

Has that happened ever with you?   Can you tell me about that experience?

You just keep on moving in the same direction without altering your course a smidgen like a run-away steamroller regardless of really good points of alternate views that make a lot more rational sense.   And I'm not talking about this discussion.   I remember noticing this about you back in 2008 and 2009 when I wasn't even involved in the discussions.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Yea yea yea,

Brian37 wrote:
Yea yea yea, all the major three use their pet deities to threaten others. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Nope, you're again confusing Christianity for Judaism.

Judaism is an actions-based religion.  What matters is what you do.  It Hitchens was a putz, and Hell exists (there is no Christian concept of Hell in Judaism ...), he'd be there.  If he was a decent sort of guy, and Heaven exists (Judaism is unclear on the afterlife because Judaism is focused on =this= life), Hitchens would be there.  From what little I've read, he wasn't a very nice person -- anyone who admires Lenin needs to have his grave pissed on.  Anyone know where it is?

Except for your love of the Redskins and Eric Cartmen, if there is a Heaven, I would expect to see you and your atheist self there, scratching your head, and wondering if Heaven's version of the Redskins don't suck.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Yea yea yea, all the major three use their pet deities to threaten others. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Nope, you're again confusing Christianity for Judaism.

Judaism is an actions-based religion.  What matters is what you do.  It Hitchens was a putz, and Hell exists (there is no Christian concept of Hell in Judaism ...), he'd be there.  If he was a decent sort of guy, and Heaven exists (Judaism is unclear on the afterlife because Judaism is focused on =this= life), Hitchens would be there.  From what little I've read, he wasn't a very nice person -- anyone who admires Lenin needs to have his grave pissed on.  Anyone know where it is?

Except for your love of the Redskins and Eric Cartmen, if there is a Heaven, I would expect to see you and your atheist self there, scratching your head, and wondering if Heaven's version of the Redskins don't suck.

So you may or may not have an afterlife that you don't need God for? 

Why worship God then? Or are you saying Judaism doesn't?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Yea yea yea, all the major three use their pet deities to threaten others. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Nope, you're again confusing Christianity for Judaism.

Judaism is an actions-based religion.  What matters is what you do.  It Hitchens was a putz, and Hell exists (there is no Christian concept of Hell in Judaism ...), he'd be there.  If he was a decent sort of guy, and Heaven exists (Judaism is unclear on the afterlife because Judaism is focused on =this= life), Hitchens would be there.  From what little I've read, he wasn't a very nice person -- anyone who admires Lenin needs to have his grave pissed on.  Anyone know where it is?

Except for your love of the Redskins and Eric Cartmen, if there is a Heaven, I would expect to see you and your atheist self there, scratching your head, and wondering if Heaven's version of the Redskins don't suck.

So you may or may not have an afterlife that you don't need God for?

Pretty much that sums it up.  Judaism focuses on the here-and-now world, not what you get promised.

Consider this -- I tell you that if you tell =me= how wonderful I am, in 10 years I'm going to give you $1,000.  If that doesn't influence your decision to be a sycophant, tell me a dollar amount.  I'd wager that sooner or later, I can get your undying love, devotion and adoration.  But would it be genuine?  I mean, I'd hope so, because I am a very nice and wonderful person, but you should give me that for free.

In the Torah we are told "You will eat, and you will be satisfied, and you will bless the LORD your G-d".  From this we learn that grace is said AFTER you eat, when you are more likely to be genuinely grateful (or not ...) than while you are hungry where your hunger might be influencing your decision.

Who has a the slightest =clue= how many Christians aren't simply engaged in Pascal's Wager?  At least with Judaism, with no promise of "streets of gold" or "70 virgins", a Jew is a Jew because =they= want to, not because of special promises of free goodies after death.  You don't even believe in G-d, much less Heaven or Hell.  I'd say your ethical conduct should be considered far more highly, because you have no promise of Heaven or threat of Hell, than some "believer" who does.

Quote:
Why worship God then? Or are you saying Judaism doesn't?

Because G-d created the entire Universe and everything in it and the Universe is an incredibly wonderful thing.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:I worked

Louis_Cypher wrote:

I worked with a guy a long time ago when I was a Firefighter. He was an old, mean spirited cajun, a bigot and  a jerk on all counts. He died. My boss and buddy came up to me and asked if I was going to the funeral.

I said "No Lane, he was an asshole."

Lane said somewhat taken aback. "You shouldn't talk ill of the dead."

I said, "But Lane, he was an asshole when he was alive, now he's just a dead asshole."

I didn't go.

LC >;-}>

I love you.  Will you marry me?

(I made the same offer to Brian37, but he hasn't taken me up on it ...)

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Universe is a very mixed

The Universe is a very mixed bag of order and chaos, and Life on Earth is also a lot of hurt with a few shining moments for some.

Mere existence is in no way something to automatically be grateful for. Depends on the nature of that existence. There are more than enough unnecessary affllctions of all kinds we have to suffer, or at least risk, especially as children, that it is clear that G-d is either an incompetent or malicious asshole, deserving of nothing but contempt. It is utterly illogical to assume anything else about any such creator, if It exists. The writings about such this imagined entity are just a combination of wishful thinking and sucking up to a tyrant in the hope of avoid the worst.

It is more charitable and rational to accept that the 'creator' is just an abstract physical principle, which makes it far easier to understand why we have such a largely random and chaotic universe, and why 'shit happens'.

=====

I heard the other day that Judaism (and Islam) is more reluctant to help people afflicted by various forms of disease or disability than Christianity, because it is believed than many such people deserved it in some way, otherwise G-d wouldn't have done it to them. I have heard this from other sources, although mainly about Islam, especially in Africa. Some strains of Buddhism also have an element of this. In some ways it is a logical conclusion once you buy into a powerful and 'just' god.

Any comments, Furry? Genuinely, I did hear this on a serious podcast.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:She mentioned

Watcher wrote:

She mentioned he died to some of the other women in customer support and then referred to him as "that atheist" and that he was in hell now.

I would've said... haha that atheist is in hell with Katherine Hepburn, Ghandi, and Buddha.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13825
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:Nope, you're again

Quote:
Nope, you're again confusing Christianity for Judaism.

Judaism is an actions-based religion

No I am not confusing the two. Christianity shares the same characters AS literature and the same god as literature. And not even the Jewish name "Yahweh" or "El Or "Elohim" or "Baal" or "Asurah" are original to Hebrews.

Human interaction is ACTION BASED, that is nature, that is biology, that is evolution.

If you are on a hourly paycheck, most places pay you every two weeks. How long would you work there if your boss simply said "Just have faith" I'll pay you, and they did not?

ACTIONS are what humans base their reactions on. No magic, no superstition, no god needed.

You fail to see, like every claimant of a pet god that our actions are natural, even when we fill in gaps and falsely believe that a super hero is the one causing the actions when we are merely, as a species, assigning a bullshit magical answer to our actions.

 

I agree actions do count. But neither your actions or your apathy require a god belief

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13825
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:Except for your love

Quote:
Except for your love of the Redskins and Eric Cartmen, if there is a Heaven, I would expect to see you and your atheist self there, scratching your head, and wondering if Heaven's version of the Redskins don't suck.

I know that is your well intended way of saying "Brian, despite your bluster, I like you"

But we are not arguing over likes and dislikes here. I am quite sure outside the issue of religion you are a nice person. But god claims are a serious matter and affect global politics and religion. It is not an issue either you or I should shy away from.

But in the context of this well intended "I like you" answer there are STILL logical fallacies that I cannot agree with.

Why would I want to hang out with a being forever? YOU might not find that boring, but I would. Just as it would get boring if the Redskins never lost a game and won every Super Bowl forever.

And since I already reject the idea of "free will"(in the theistic sense) when all the major three religions assert an all seeing, all knowing, all powerful being, I find it absurd that I could be myself in a "heaven". I couldn't cuss. I couldn't  get a blow job, even if it were by consent. I couldn't complain to this god about people I liked whom I thought should be up there with me. And on top of that my only goal would be to kiss his ass the entire time.

"Heaven" is not a real place. It is merely a human reflection of our own utopias. Just like god is not real and is merely a fictional super hero in the form of our own protections of our own wishful thinking.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

I worked with a guy a long time ago when I was a Firefighter. He was an old, mean spirited cajun, a bigot and  a jerk on all counts. He died. My boss and buddy came up to me and asked if I was going to the funeral.

I said "No Lane, he was an asshole."

Lane said somewhat taken aback. "You shouldn't talk ill of the dead."

I said, "But Lane, he was an asshole when he was alive, now he's just a dead asshole."

I didn't go.

LC >;-}>

I love you.  Will you marry me?

(I made the same offer to Brian37, but he hasn't taken me up on it ...)

 

Well, I'm already married, but we aren't fanatics about it....

 

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:The Universe

BobSpence wrote:

The Universe is a very mixed bag of order and chaos, and Life on Earth is also a lot of hurt with a few shining moments for some.

Mere existence is in no way something to automatically be grateful for. Depends on the nature of that existence. There are more than enough unnecessary affllctions of all kinds we have to suffer, or at least risk, especially as children, that it is clear that G-d is either an incompetent or malicious asshole, deserving of nothing but contempt. It is utterly illogical to assume anything else about any such creator, if It exists. The writings about such this imagined entity are just a combination of wishful thinking and sucking up to a tyrant in the hope of avoid the worst.

It is more charitable and rational to accept that the 'creator' is just an abstract physical principle, which makes it far easier to understand why we have such a largely random and chaotic universe, and why 'shit happens'.

=====

I heard the other day that Judaism (and Islam) is more reluctant to help people afflicted by various forms of disease or disability than Christianity, because it is believed than many such people deserved it in some way, otherwise G-d wouldn't have done it to them. I have heard this from other sources, although mainly about Islam, especially in Africa. Some strains of Buddhism also have an element of this. In some ways it is a logical conclusion once you buy into a powerful and 'just' god.

Any comments, Furry? Genuinely, I did hear this on a serious podcast.

Whoever suggested that Jews, or Muslims, shouldn't help someone who has some manner of disease "because they deserved it" is an absolute idiot.  There are some strains of Christianity which hold that a person who has a disease "doesn't have (enough or any) faith", so perhaps they "deserve" it, but within Judaism (100% certainty) and Islam (pretty close to 100% certainty), helping the sick is a mitzvah (commandment, not just some warm and fuzzy "good deed&quotEye-wink.

Bikur Cholim (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikur_cholim) is a COMMANDMENT, which is to say that a person who fails to do such a thing is a Really Bad Jew.

I am aware that Hinduism, for example, has a caste system in which there are people who are presumed to "deserve" misfortune in life because of their lower status, but the Buddha attacked the caste system as ignorant, so I'd be surprised to find that is a belief in Buddhism, but not in Hinduism.

As regards your comments that G-d is (l'havdil) some sort of malicious asshole, I think there are a large enough number of alternatives that saying G-d is "all good" or "all bad" or any such sort of absolute ignores that things really =could= be different.  And you might still complain about them.  To me, your real issue is that if G-d exists, you don't like how G-d set things up.  Which isn't all that worthwhile a reason to reject the notion that G-d exists in the first place.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote: I heard the

BobSpence wrote:
I heard the other day that Judaism (and Islam) is more reluctant to help people afflicted by various forms of disease or disability than Christianity, because it is believed than many such people deserved it in some way, otherwise G-d wouldn't have done it to them. I have heard this from other sources, although mainly about Islam, especially in Africa. Some strains of Buddhism also have an element of this. In some ways it is a logical conclusion once you buy into a powerful and 'just' god.

Bob, I expect this information arose from Christians especially since it paints Christianity in a better light. The book of John presents just such a case. The pharisees didn't believe G-d would help sinners but only the righteous.

John 9 wrote:
As he (Jesus) went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. “Go,” he told him, “wash in the Pool of Siloam” (this word means “Sent&rdquoEye-wink. So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.

His neighbors and those who had formerly seen him begging asked, “Isn’t this the same man who used to sit and beg?” Some claimed that he was. Others said, “No, he only looks like him.” But he himself insisted, “I am the man.”

“How then were your eyes opened?” they asked. He replied, “The man they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and then I could see.” “Where is this man?” they asked him. “I don’t know,” he said.

They brought to the Pharisees the man who had been blind. Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened the man’s eyes was a Sabbath. Therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. “He put mud on my eyes,” the man replied, “and I washed, and now I see.” Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.” But others asked, “How can a sinner perform such signs?” So they were divided.

Then they turned again to the blind man, “What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened.” The man replied, “He is a prophet.” They still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they sent for the man’s parents. “Is this your son?” they asked. “Is this the one you say was born blind? How is it that now he can see?” “We know he is our son,” the parents answered, “and we know he was born blind. But how he can see now, or who opened his eyes, we don’t know. Ask him. He is of age; he will speak for himself.” His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders, who already had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue. That was why his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.”

A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. “Give glory to God by telling the truth,” they said. “We know this man is a sinner.” He replied, “Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!”

Then they asked him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” He answered, “I have told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples too?” Then they hurled insults at him and said, “You are this fellow’s disciple! We are disciples of Moses! We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don’t even know where he comes from.” The man answered, “Now that is remarkable! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes.

We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly person who does his will. Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.”

To this they replied, “You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!” And they threw him out.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:Well, I'm

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Well, I'm already married, but we aren't fanatics about it....

Funny.   My wife is very possesive of me.  If another woman so much as smiles at me she starts getting agitated.

I'm the opposite.   If some guy hits on my wife or I notice them staring at her chest I just chuckle and think it's amusing.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13825
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Watcher wrote:I'm not sure

Watcher wrote:

I'm not sure how the story relates to being an atheist activist.

Let's say I was a well known atheist blogger with tens of thousands of followers.  I and a prominent religious leader have a long running fued going back and forth with each other over religion.  And then one day he dies.

If I hop up on my blog and say, "Ha, ha.  You're dead you dumb theist.  You aren't in heaven like you thought.  You're just gone, dumbass."

Well what are other Christians who are waffling on theism going to think?

Probably something like, "Wow, what a callous, mean spirited asshole.  I guess it's true that Atheists are evil and have no sense of morality.  Well I don't want to be like that so I'm going to keep going to church and stop trying to second guess religion."

If, on the other hand, I wrote.  "So-and-so and I did not see eye to eye on many issues.  However, I believe he was a well intentioned man and he proved to the world that he was a tireless and brave defender of what he thought was right and good for the world.  I offer his loved ones my sincere and heartfelt condolences during this time of grief and hope they are able to comfort themselves with the warm memories and cherished stories they share of this kind man."

Boom, bitches.  What do you think the waffling Christian would think then?

Maybe something like, "Wow, that was a really nice thing for him to say about him even after all those years of them fighting.  I think it's must be wrong that atheists can't have morals or be good people.  Those other Christians are wrong when they say you need God to be a good person.  Maybe those Christians are wrong about a lot things."

Who cares about the dead guy?  He doesn't matter anymore.  He's gone, and can't add anymore harm than whatever trash he left behind throughout his life.

My purpose, as an atheist blogger, would be to convince more and more people that atheism is the best course for having a truly good world.  That religion actually causes so many problems, and hate, and division.  And I'm not going to convince anyone by spitting on a dead man.  All I'd do is repel them.

How does this relate to being an atheist activist?

Well, imagine if we had people in power today with the powers of the Church at the time of Galileo. You forget that there ARE people if given that type of power WOULD do to us TODAY what was done to Galileo if given the chance. Being nice to those types wont make them change their mind. That is not lumping them in with all believers, nor should we. It is merely the realization that we will have to verbally smack people around to keep those church types at bay so we don't end up with the same society that jailed Galileo for merely telling the truth.

If you think that cant or wont happen it would be only because we raise our voices, not because we become Uncle Toms. Not accusing you personally of becoming Uncle Toms. Just saying we cant just simply be nice all the time 100 percent of the time as a blanket solution.

I don't want to live in a society where being nice and not bitching about absurdities is the only way to "get along".

We should get along, but not through submission or by making demands that people only say nice things.

If I claimed I was Napoleon, you might think "Well, he has the right to claim he is", But you'd also be right in saying "Brian, dude, I love you, but you are not fucking Napoleon".

Arguing delivery misses the message and sometimes you simply cannot be nice about making the point that the other person got it wrong. That does not mean I hate everyone who believes things I find absurd, it simply means I wont sugar coat my position.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
A)  You can't convince

A)  You can't convince people their ideas about religion are wrong if they don't listen to you.

B)  If you act like an annoying scumbag all the time no one will listen to you.

I seriously doubt that all the homosexuals in Iran have to do, to keep from getting executed for being gay, is yell at people and act like assholes.

It would probably make more Iranians agree with the executions.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:A)  You can't

Watcher wrote:

A)  You can't convince people their ideas about religion are wrong if they don't listen to you.

B)  If you act like an annoying scumbag all the time no one will listen to you.

I seriously doubt that all the homosexuals in Iran have to do, to keep from getting executed for being gay, is yell at people and act like assholes.

It would probably make more Iranians agree with the executions.

+1.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13825
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Watcher wrote:Louis_Cypher

Watcher wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Well, I'm already married, but we aren't fanatics about it....

Funny.   My wife is very possesive of me.  If another woman so much as smiles at me she starts getting agitated.

I'm the opposite.   If some guy hits on my wife or I notice them staring at her chest I just chuckle and think it's amusing.

I couldn't do that. Went through that one time with one girlfriend and dumped her. I don't know how you do that.

My x left me for other reasons, but I will say when it came to looking, neither of us cared. We both knew the other wasn't going to do anything. I actually got a kick out of guys eyeballing her. The only time she got upset at me looking at other women was in front of her parents, and I admit, not a good place to do that.

We met in college and she would study with other guys. And sometimes she would find me sitting with other female students, never affected her, not even when we were married.

And as far as staring at chests, guys do deserve to get laughed at, even me. We do think down there. It's just that some of us who admit it dont try to make it out to be dirty. It just means we can be very pleasantly distracted.

I am one of those guys who could easily get run over in traffic because I was staring at boobs.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Oh, my wife is strange.  If

Oh, my wife is strange.  If we are say, in a grocery store and some woman starts staring at me (this actually happened recently) it raises her hackles.

However, we've gone to the strip club together several times, usually on her suggestion.  If I point out a girl I think is cute she'll go fetch her for me.

So I guess it depends on the situation.

My wife is quirky but oh so much fun.  I love her more now that when we got married over 8 years ago.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2406
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Watcher.

                         I have it easier, at age 56 and weighing 250 pounds  women just don't look at me like they use to; believe it or not.  My wife of 24 years isn't the jelous type,  she truely believes that no woman but her can find me attractive and she might be right. You never did tell me if you liked wine and conversation? 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Jeff, I'll take any free

Jeff, I'll take any free booze anyone would like to give me.  I'm sure you're a wonderful conversationalist.

I prefer beer though...

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:However, we've

Watcher wrote:
However, we've gone to the strip club together several times, usually on her suggestion.  If I point out a girl I think is cute she'll go fetch her for me.

My ex-wife and I used to go to strip clubs and drop large piles of money.  Strippers are =much= nicer to women than men because they know we're not going to try anything inappropriate ... most of the time.

These days I have to beg the guys I know to drag me along because strip clubs won't let single women in, even if we just wanna have a look.  Most of my friends have either recently had kids, or are recently divorced, and don't have the time or money.

I happen to believe that strip clubs can be good for a marriage, so long as both parties understand that it's just entertainment.  I had a relationship 20+ years ago where we'd go out and do role play with getting picked up.  That was also fun.  And, of course, we'd go home and things would be far more entertaining in the privacy of our own little world.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:My

FurryCatHerder wrote:

My ex-wife and I used to go to strip clubs and drop large piles of money.  Strippers are =much= nicer to women than men because they know we're not going to try anything inappropriate ... most of the time.

My wife used to strip.  That's actually how we met.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:FurryCatHerder

Watcher wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

My ex-wife and I used to go to strip clubs and drop large piles of money.  Strippers are =much= nicer to women than men because they know we're not going to try anything inappropriate ... most of the time.

My wife used to strip.  That's actually how we met.

Well, I strip most days or nights as well.  I just do it before going to bed or taking a shower Eye-wink

Glad to hear it's worked out.  I've never heard of someone who married a stripper they met and had it work out.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Eh... it's a living.

I've dated a few strippers, and one of my ex wives danced a few turns around the pole. I've worked with the girls in a business venture, renting their services for private parties (no, not what you think, it was 20 minutes for $100, and the girl kept her tips) I'd pick them up at the clubs, drive them to the party, wait, and drive them back, usually in time for their next set. So I have a good familiarity with the ladies. I have seen several long term relationships between ex-customers and dancers, but then let's face it, marriages have better than a 50% failure chance regardless.

 

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13825
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Watcher

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Watcher wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

My ex-wife and I used to go to strip clubs and drop large piles of money.  Strippers are =much= nicer to women than men because they know we're not going to try anything inappropriate ... most of the time.

My wife used to strip.  That's actually how we met.

Well, I strip most days or nights as well.  I just do it before going to bed or taking a shower Eye-wink

Glad to hear it's worked out.  I've never heard of someone who married a stripper they met and had it work out.

If that is you in your avatar, I could go Kosher, you don't look like you have cloven hooves.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Well, I

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Well, I strip most days or nights as well.  I just do it before going to bed or taking a shower Eye-wink

Glad to hear it's worked out.  I've never heard of someone who married a stripper they met and had it work out.

My wife is not a "stripper", you dork.   haha

She's an amazing woman that used to have this job involving dacing around on a stage in various states of undress.

She has also worked as a manager of restaurants, phone support person, house cleaner, and all kinds of jobs.

I didn't marry a stripper.  She's just cool and not some weird, uptight prude about sexuality.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13825
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Watcher wrote:Brian37

Watcher wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

So when you say "Dont speak ill of the dead", IT DEPENDS and should only be treated in a case by case contextual basis.

Well if we are going to be all contextual I guess I need your context.

Why do you speak out about religion?  Just to spew vitriol or to diminish religious belief?

"Vitriol"?

That is the world used by people who want their insecurities coddled.

I get sick of humans in general being afraid of bluntness. Some things deserve scorn. Any Muslim claiming that their women shouldn't drive or cant vote DESERVES SCORN.

Anyone claiming that a baby can be born without a second set of DNA deserves scorn.

Susan B. Anthony said it best, "Well behaved women seldom make history"

Ayan Hersi Ali offended people without cussing, her mere blasphemy of Muslim men's treatment of women ALONE was enough to get her death threats and get her documentary maker friend murdered.

THOSE people, not all religious people, but those people, deserve scorn and ridicule and I don't give one fuck what they think.

And even claims, any given claim on any subject, does not deserve taboo status, even if I agree with the civil right to make the claim.

If our species never questioned social norms our species never would have left the caves. I am not going to sugar coat my views on any given claim just because my delivery "might" offend some.

Quote:
Just to spew vitriol or to diminish religious belief?

No, I blaspheme to diminish the pedestal of entitlement religions think they have in establishing a pecking order. I don't do it out of hate. I do it because I hate how it divides humanity because it DOES set up a pecking order.

People think I am ugly with just mere words? Humans in our history, do far worse with violence and war precisely because of the taboos they set up. Religion isn't going anywhere anytime soon. But I am damned sure going to treat that collective mentality of all religions like the childish selfish brats they act like. Maybe if I can shame them enough, they wont continue to be the violent pricks they still act like.

When and if religion ever gets to the point it is treated like a mere pass time and not a blood sport, then I will relax. But as long as Christians/Jews/ and Muslims insist on treating the planet like a giant game of capture the flag, infect politics and education, and since I live on this planet too, I am going to do my best to shame them into knocking it off.

"FUCK" and "BULLSHIT" are nothing compared to murdering doctors, lynching blacks, preventing women from voting, dumbing down society with the absurdity of creationism.

I'd say the woman who was murdered on the soccer field at halftime in Afghanistan were alive today would want someone to say FUCK YOUR RELIGION if that is the way you treat women.

So again, CONTEXT, I cant stop people from believing things I hate. I have family and friends and co-workers who make claims I hate. No different to me than my co workers who love soccer and hate the NFL.

But without the ability to cuss the violent assholes out, and blaspheme them and treat them like the pieces of shit they are, there is no way to increase the secular pluralistic neutrality we should maximize. Shame is the only way to neuter the gang mentality.

Furry is here, Cap is here, they haven't run away because of words. I would like to give my believing friends credit to have the maturity that words are just that.

You don't move into the future with taboos or fear.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37