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.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:"Vitriol"?That

Brian37 wrote:

"Vitriol"?

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

I get sick of humans in general being afraid of bluntness.

*and this is approximately how far I read of your post before I responded.*

Bullshit.

You want blunt?   I'm the king of blunt.

I've been banned from forum A to forum Z for being blunt.

I think this is the one and only forum I can't get myself banned from.

[edit]Actually, Brian Sapient basically treated me as such, "Ban you?   I'm going to fucking promote your ass.(he modded me)" One of the many reasons I love this forum.[/edit]

I've shown back up at this forum after being banned from two other forums, completely unrelated about religion, about completely different topics, where I didn't treat everyone like I was talking in a kindergarten class and maybe I caused a tiny bit of contention.   Not even a single curseword or anything.   Just being blunt.

I'm not getting banned from trolling or being a jerk, it's from being unabashedly blunt.

You just spit fire.   You just drop your pants and push out a turd no matter who says what.   Here comes Brian37's angry rant because someone posted that they noticed a bluebird sitting on a branch outside of their kitchen window.

That's all you do, man.   Calm the fuck down.   Get laid.   Something.

If we want to scale 5 as neutral, 10 as super pissed, and 0 as extremely friendly, I've at the best seen you post ALL the way down to the 6 level.  Most of the time you operate at level 8 or higher.

Are you ever calm and relaxed?  Or post as such at least?

Fucking blunt.   I can't believe you said that.

I know blunt.   You spit acid.

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


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

Brian37 wrote:

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.

That's me in my avatar at a Human Rights Campaign dinner a few years back.

"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: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Brian37

Watcher wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

"Vitriol"?

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

I get sick of humans in general being afraid of bluntness.

*and this is approximately how far I read of your post before I responded.*

Bullshit.

You want blunt?   I'm the king of blunt.

I've been banned from forum A to forum Z for being blunt.

I think this is the one and only forum I can't get myself banned from.

[edit]Actually, Brian Sapient basically treated me as such, "Ban you?   I'm going to fucking promote your ass.(he modded me)" One of the many reasons I love this forum.[/edit]

I've shown back up at this forum after being banned from two other forums, completely unrelated about religion, about completely different topics, where I didn't treat everyone like I was talking in a kindergarten class and maybe I caused a tiny bit of contention.   Not even a single curseword or anything.   Just being blunt.

I'm not getting banned from trolling or being a jerk, it's from being unabashedly blunt.

You just spit fire.   You just drop your pants and push out a turd no matter who says what.   Here comes Brian37's angry rant because someone posted that they noticed a bluebird sitting on a branch outside of their kitchen window.

That's all you do, man.   Calm the fuck down.   Get laid.   Something.

If we want to scale 5 as neutral, 10 as super pissed, and 0 as extremely friendly, I've at the best seen you post ALL the way down to the 6 level.  Most of the time you operate at level 8 or higher.

Are you ever calm and relaxed?  Or post as such at least?

Fucking blunt.   I can't believe you said that.

I know blunt.   You spit acid.

Blunt was the original intent when this site started and the fact you haven't been banned is a testimony to the hands off approach Brian has. There have also been theists who have been here and stayed here for a time that spewed bigotry way beyond what even a newspaper would tolerate.

Jean Calvin made the mistake of blaming the Japanese Tsunami on lack of belief in god. What he didn't know was that I was married to a "Jap". He was the closest I came to calling for a ban, but someone else here wisely pulled me aside and said "Brian, let him make an ass of himself".

I don't spit "acid". 9/11 was acid. The Dark Ages was acid. Jean's using Japan as a hostage to threaten America was acid.

You can make this about me all you want but it will miss the bigger picture of the long term issue of what kind of society ANYONE would want to live in.

Do you want to live in a society where everyone is forced to like each other and only say nice things about each other?

Or do you want to live in a society, which I think this website reflects more than any other atheist website or even newspapers, where you say what you want and let the reader decide?

Freud said it best "The first person to hurl an insult instead of a stone, started civilization"

"Fuck" is a word, but a bullet and bomb do much more damage.

 

"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


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

Brian37 wrote:
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.

Well, I'm mostly here for the science posts.  Like, the one about nanophotos and the other about self-healing electronics.  There is more =science= here than any other forum I've visited.

But I have to agree with the others -- you're over the top.  Chillax.  Set a spell.  Have a beer or something.

"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: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
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.

Well, I'm mostly here for the science posts.  Like, the one about nanophotos and the other about self-healing electronics.  There is more =science= here than any other forum I've visited.

But I have to agree with the others -- you're over the top.  Chillax.  Set a spell.  Have a beer or something.

Furry, how am I "over the top"?

If I was demanding no theist post here that would be "over the top". If I was demanding churches be burned down or arresting Muslims for merely being Muslim, that would be "over the top".

I am chilled. South Park and Mel Brooks fans don't have a wedgie.

Don't mistake passion for debate for being "over the top".

I simply don't sugar coat my position. It is more a matter of others being not used to style.

Furry, I can laugh at myself and and admit my mistakes as well as anyone else. I am not super human and if you shoot me the same thing would happen as if I shot someone else, they would feel pain.

My intent here is to simply get humans to the point of words.

I am tired of feeling like I have to walk on eggshells for others. I know no one wants to be oppressed or die over anything. That is not lost on 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 don't spit

Brian37 wrote:

I don't spit "acid". 9/11 was acid.

I saw the aftermath of 9/11 the same day it happened.   I watched NY City smoke for days afterwards.

I fought in their "holy wars".  I was part of the initial invasion force of Afghanistan.

I lost a very, very, very dear friend on 9/11.

Calm down.

The "testimony" of Sapient making me a moderator back then is not one of toleration on this forum, it's one of acceptance.

Nothing gives you a right to be eternally angry at everyone forever for everything.

"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:

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.

No, I do understand The Person Is Not The Job, but unless I misunderstood what you wrote, you met your wife while she was being paid to dance around a brass pole while wearing little or no clothing.

And there is =nothing= uptight about my sexuality.  I'm naturally vanilla flavored, but I recognize that there are other flavors at Baskin Robbins.

"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: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Brian37

Watcher wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I don't spit "acid". 9/11 was acid.

I saw the aftermath of 9/11 the same day it happened.   I watched NY City smoke for days afterwards.

I fought in their "holy wars".  I was part of the initial invasion force of Afghanistan.

I lost a very, very, very dear friend on 9/11.

Calm down.

The "testimony" of Sapient making me a moderator back then is not one of toleration on this forum, it's one of acceptance.

Nothing gives you a right to be eternally angry at everyone forever for everything.

I am clam geeze. I am NOT angry the way you want to falsely paint me out to be.

I am passionate in being myself. I am passionate in challenging others to THINK about what they claim. I will not back off that.

I am angry in the sense that education and politics are polluted by superstition so much that humanity cannot focus on what we have in common. I think there is nothing wrong about being passionate about the fact that virgin births are myth. Just like Galileo was passionate about stating the truth about the earth rotating around the sun. Just like he most likely was angry about the church's response to the truth he told them.

BUT I am not angry in the sense that people make claims I hate. If I was angry about everything in the context you falsely accuse me of, I would not be able to have a relationship with my own mother who is a neat freak which drives me nuts.

Ranting does not equal hate anymore than Luis Black hates Jews because he made fun of how all Jews get in his tradition are basically "tops" compared to the mother load of Christmas presents.

Otherwise Luis would literally hate himself for making fun of the own traditions he grew up in.

I hate claims, not people. I hate absurdity, not reality. And the reality is that I am just as human and flawed and tick people off just like I get ticked off by others. That doesn't mean we should never refrain from expressing our emotions. It just makes all of us human.

I really am more calm than you think and this is just text, not a war.

"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


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

Brian37 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

But I have to agree with the others -- you're over the top.  Chillax.  Set a spell.  Have a beer or something.

Furry, how am I "over the top"?

I apologize for the analogy, but I don't know of any other.

You often come across like a 5 year old who discovered the word "Fuck" and keeps on using it.  At first you get spanked, maybe your mouth gets washed out with soap, but after a while, your parents ignore you.  For that matter, =everyone= ignores you whenever you say "Fuck" because they've just gotten used to it.

Then one day you realize that you aren't getting any attention for using the Magic Attention Getting Word.  And you are =pissed=.  So you say "Fuck" a lot more.  And maybe you toss in a "Piss" and "Shit" and "Dick" and a few other words.

Still no attention.

And it pisses you off even more, because "Fuck" is such a bad word that =surely= we all should be jumping up and down like crazy trying to get you to stop saying "Fuck".

Except that we know the only way to make you stop is to ignore you.  That sooner or later you will realize that we no longer give a fuck how many times you say "Fuck".

Me, I'm waiting on you to stop focusing on the "woo" and start focusing on what the "woo" has to say about this Planet.  The "woo" I believe in says that we are supposed to treat each other with a level of respect and dignity that reflects, according to our "woo", that we are created in the image of G-d.

So.  If you can set the "woo" aside a while, and set aside the "image of G-d" thing for a while, can we focus on RESULTS.  Because that's what Judaism cares about -- results.  It is better, in Judaism, that G-d be insulted and that a person not be harmed, than that G-d is somehow "off limits" and people get hurt.

Attack the "woo" all you want, but if you lay a finger on another Human Being, I'm going to be pissed off.  That's my bottom line.

"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: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

But I have to agree with the others -- you're over the top.  Chillax.  Set a spell.  Have a beer or something.

Furry, how am I "over the top"?

I apologize for the analogy, but I don't know of any other.

You often come across like a 5 year old who discovered the word "Fuck" and keeps on using it.  At first you get spanked, maybe your mouth gets washed out with soap, but after a while, your parents ignore you.  For that matter, =everyone= ignores you whenever you say "Fuck" because they've just gotten used to it.

Then one day you realize that you aren't getting any attention for using the Magic Attention Getting Word.  And you are =pissed=.  So you say "Fuck" a lot more.  And maybe you toss in a "Piss" and "Shit" and "Dick" and a few other words.

Still no attention.

And it pisses you off even more, because "Fuck" is such a bad word that =surely= we all should be jumping up and down like crazy trying to get you to stop saying "Fuck".

Except that we know the only way to make you stop is to ignore you.  That sooner or later you will realize that we no longer give a fuck how many times you say "Fuck".

Me, I'm waiting on you to stop focusing on the "woo" and start focusing on what the "woo" has to say about this Planet.  The "woo" I believe in says that we are supposed to treat each other with a level of respect and dignity that reflects, according to our "woo", that we are created in the image of G-d.

So.  If you can set the "woo" aside a while, and set aside the "image of G-d" thing for a while, can we focus on RESULTS.  Because that's what Judaism cares about -- results.  It is better, in Judaism, that G-d be insulted and that a person not be harmed, than that G-d is somehow "off limits" and people get hurt.

Attack the "woo" all you want, but if you lay a finger on another Human Being, I'm going to be pissed off.  That's my bottom line.

Great, we agree on something. I will attack the woo. But if that person I whose woo I am attacking, while not physically harming them, if they get violent with me when I have not physically harmed them will you defend me or them?

No one has a right to lay a finger on someone who is not attacking them physically. That is a given, or should be. But claims do not deserve taboo status.

 

 

 

"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: 10340
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
I won't tell you to shut up

I won't tell you to shut up or calm down, Brian. They are right that you're impulsive and your posts drip with emotion, and occasionally you misread things as a result, but that's fine with me.

People come in all flavours, and I've no doubt you've had a significant impact on the movement. Many of your posts are brilliant.

Too much logic and science can make things stale and boring. More energy is a good thing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

But I have to agree with the others -- you're over the top.  Chillax.  Set a spell.  Have a beer or something.

Furry, how am I "over the top"?

I apologize for the analogy, but I don't know of any other.

You often come across like a 5 year old who discovered the word "Fuck" and keeps on using it.  At first you get spanked, maybe your mouth gets washed out with soap, but after a while, your parents ignore you.  For that matter, =everyone= ignores you whenever you say "Fuck" because they've just gotten used to it.

Then one day you realize that you aren't getting any attention for using the Magic Attention Getting Word.  And you are =pissed=.  So you say "Fuck" a lot more.  And maybe you toss in a "Piss" and "Shit" and "Dick" and a few other words.

Still no attention.

And it pisses you off even more, because "Fuck" is such a bad word that =surely= we all should be jumping up and down like crazy trying to get you to stop saying "Fuck".

Except that we know the only way to make you stop is to ignore you.  That sooner or later you will realize that we no longer give a fuck how many times you say "Fuck".

Me, I'm waiting on you to stop focusing on the "woo" and start focusing on what the "woo" has to say about this Planet.  The "woo" I believe in says that we are supposed to treat each other with a level of respect and dignity that reflects, according to our "woo", that we are created in the image of G-d.

So.  If you can set the "woo" aside a while, and set aside the "image of G-d" thing for a while, can we focus on RESULTS.  Because that's what Judaism cares about -- results.  It is better, in Judaism, that G-d be insulted and that a person not be harmed, than that G-d is somehow "off limits" and people get hurt.

Attack the "woo" all you want, but if you lay a finger on another Human Being, I'm going to be pissed off.  That's my bottom line.

 BTW pretty picture of you, all kidding aside. I would hit on you at a bar.

What you do is mistake a natural sense of "awe" which needs no label or religion and superstition to have.

And again, I hate the word "respect". You don't know about my past when I was a kid who was too damned sensitive for my own good. I wanted so badly for people to "respect me" that I let their baggage become mine.

I hate that word. I value what can be proven, not claimed. I value individuality and value honesty, not placation at the expense of that honesty.

I find "awe" in nature, both the good and the bad. I find "awe" in my cat without assigning it to Osirus or Thor or Vishnu. I find "awe" in a pretty sunset without losing sight that it will expand and fry this planet eventually.

"Respect" is the way humans defend myth. Testing is how humans get beyond myth.

 

"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


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

Brian37 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

So.  If you can set the "woo" aside a while, and set aside the "image of G-d" thing for a while, can we focus on RESULTS.  Because that's what Judaism cares about -- results.  It is better, in Judaism, that G-d be insulted and that a person not be harmed, than that G-d is somehow "off limits" and people get hurt.

Attack the "woo" all you want, but if you lay a finger on another Human Being, I'm going to be pissed off.  That's my bottom line.

Great, we agree on something. I will attack the woo. But if that person I whose woo I am attacking, while not physically harming them, if they get violent with me when I have not physically harmed them will you defend me or them?

No one has a right to lay a finger on someone who is not attacking them physically. That is a given, or should be. But claims do not deserve taboo status.

Yeah, but have I told you to stop saying "Fuck" so much?  Or just to chill?

Or put it another way -- I'm sure you have had plenty of Christians come through here and tell you that you're going to Hell because you aren't a practicing polytheist.  Have I said you're going to Hell because you're not a monotheist, or only that you might go to Hell (if it exists ...) for being a dick?

Or yet another way -- if I'm not trying to make you a Jew (I think you'd make a fine Jew, but you're equally fine not being a Jew), why are you getting in my face about G-d?  If G-d is only going to judge you based on how you treat others, I think you'd be working on the more important item anyway -- fixing this Planet so it's safe for the inhabitant.  When you get done doing that, then we can deal with the whole "Does G-d exist or not?" 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."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I won't tell

Vastet wrote:
I won't tell you to shut up or calm down, Brian. They are right that you're impulsive and your posts drip with emotion, and occasionally you misread things as a result, but that's fine with me. People come in all flavours, and I've no doubt you've had a significant impact on the movement. Many of your posts are brilliant. Too much logic and science can make things stale and boring. More energy is a good thing.

Thanks Vaset, I am a drip. I won't deny it. I am both a bundle of energy and bluster with foam to boot. But all you have to do to get along with me is scratch me behind the ears and rub my belly.

"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: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

So.  If you can set the "woo" aside a while, and set aside the "image of G-d" thing for a while, can we focus on RESULTS.  Because that's what Judaism cares about -- results.  It is better, in Judaism, that G-d be insulted and that a person not be harmed, than that G-d is somehow "off limits" and people get hurt.

Attack the "woo" all you want, but if you lay a finger on another Human Being, I'm going to be pissed off.  That's my bottom line.

Great, we agree on something. I will attack the woo. But if that person I whose woo I am attacking, while not physically harming them, if they get violent with me when I have not physically harmed them will you defend me or them?

No one has a right to lay a finger on someone who is not attacking them physically. That is a given, or should be. But claims do not deserve taboo status.

Yeah, but have I told you to stop saying "Fuck" so much?  Or just to chill?

Or put it another way -- I'm sure you have had plenty of Christians come through here and tell you that you're going to Hell because you aren't a practicing polytheist.  Have I said you're going to Hell because you're not a monotheist, or only that you might go to Hell (if it exists ...) for being a dick?

Or yet another way -- if I'm not trying to make you a Jew (I think you'd make a fine Jew, but you're equally fine not being a Jew), why are you getting in my face about G-d?  If G-d is only going to judge you based on how you treat others, I think you'd be working on the more important item anyway -- fixing this Planet so it's safe for the inhabitant.  When you get done doing that, then we can deal with the whole "Does G-d exist or not?" thing.

Stop it. Seriously. Stop compartmentalizing issues here and mixing them up.

If I wanted to be a Jew, which I don't, but if I did YOU would be more of an example of ANY religious person I would want to be, IF I wanted to believe. And since that is you in the avatar, take a complement and know I would hit on you, not that you would accept.

I AM in your face, yes, but you keep taking that out of context. If it is ok for me to attack woo, than accept that I am attacking woo and not you.

"Does god exist"

THERE, that it the topic. That is what humanity has fought over forever and in my estimation for far to long.

I don't think shying away from it or ignoring it will solve the problem. I'd say that when we can all verbally box over it without fear we will AT A MINIMUM be aware that blasphemy is far better than physical violence.

 

"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:No, I

FurryCatHerder wrote:

No, I do understand The Person Is Not The Job, but unless I misunderstood what you wrote, you met your wife while she was being paid to dance around a brass pole while wearing little or no clothing.

And there is =nothing= uptight about my sexuality.  I'm naturally vanilla flavored, but I recognize that there are other flavors at Baskin Robbins.

I did not intend to imply that you were uptight.   And I've never considered you a prude.

No, there was no pole that night.  We danced, we kissed, we made out for a couple hours, purely just kissing and hugging, and then she went home.

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


moxia19
moxia19's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2011-09-29
User is offlineOffline
spam

###mod edit. removed spam


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Stop it.

Brian37 wrote:

Stop it. Seriously. Stop compartmentalizing issues here and mixing them up.

If I wanted to be a Jew, which I don't, but if I did YOU would be more of an example of ANY religious person I would want to be, IF I wanted to believe. And since that is you in the avatar, take a complement and know I would hit on you, not that you would accept.

I AM in your face, yes, but you keep taking that out of context. If it is ok for me to attack woo, than accept that I am attacking woo and not you.

"Does god exist"

THERE, that it the topic. That is what humanity has fought over forever and in my estimation for far to long.

I don't think shying away from it or ignoring it will solve the problem. I'd say that when we can all verbally box over it without fear we will AT A MINIMUM be aware that blasphemy is far better than physical violence.

I'm incapable of not compartmentalizing issues.  Somewhere along the line the wetware was programmed to do precisely that -- it's probably why I'm a fairly decent engineer and why I've been a great project manager.  But whatever, it's what I do and it seems pretty immune to all attempts at fixing it.

The thing with you and your "woo" attacks is that you mostly seem to be confusing "stupid woo" for a type of "woo" that isn't nearly as stupid as, say, Christianity.  I'll give you an example of our "woo" --

Not that "Heaven" is clearly described in the Torah, but there is a strong agreement that "How have you treated other people?" will rank much higher up the list of "Things that get you into Heaven" than "Have you ever eaten bacon?"  When I eat dead pigs, I harm =me=.  G-d isn't going to zap me for eating pig.  I will not go to Hell for eating pig.  I =will= go to Hell (not that Jews believe in Hell ...) for mistaking a person in need for a pig.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that "Gets you into Heaven" is a proxy for "is a good person", can you see that there is a big difference between "How have you treated other people?" and "Are you a Redskins fan?" as criteria for "Is a good person"?

My suggestion -- just a suggestion -- would be to attack "woo" on the basis of its compatibility with a secular culture, not on the basis of being "woo" itself.

"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: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Stop it. Seriously. Stop compartmentalizing issues here and mixing them up.

If I wanted to be a Jew, which I don't, but if I did YOU would be more of an example of ANY religious person I would want to be, IF I wanted to believe. And since that is you in the avatar, take a complement and know I would hit on you, not that you would accept.

I AM in your face, yes, but you keep taking that out of context. If it is ok for me to attack woo, than accept that I am attacking woo and not you.

"Does god exist"

THERE, that it the topic. That is what humanity has fought over forever and in my estimation for far to long.

I don't think shying away from it or ignoring it will solve the problem. I'd say that when we can all verbally box over it without fear we will AT A MINIMUM be aware that blasphemy is far better than physical violence.

I'm incapable of not compartmentalizing issues.  Somewhere along the line the wetware was programmed to do precisely that -- it's probably why I'm a fairly decent engineer and why I've been a great project manager.  But whatever, it's what I do and it seems pretty immune to all attempts at fixing it.

The thing with you and your "woo" attacks is that you mostly seem to be confusing "stupid woo" for a type of "woo" that isn't nearly as stupid as, say, Christianity.  I'll give you an example of our "woo" --

Not that "Heaven" is clearly described in the Torah, but there is a strong agreement that "How have you treated other people?" will rank much higher up the list of "Things that get you into Heaven" than "Have you ever eaten bacon?"  When I eat dead pigs, I harm =me=.  G-d isn't going to zap me for eating pig.  I will not go to Hell for eating pig.  I =will= go to Hell (not that Jews believe in Hell ...) for mistaking a person in need for a pig.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that "Gets you into Heaven" is a proxy for "is a good person", can you see that there is a big difference between "How have you treated other people?" and "Are you a Redskins fan?" as criteria for "Is a good person"?

My suggestion -- just a suggestion -- would be to attack "woo" on the basis of its compatibility with a secular culture, not on the basis of being "woo" itself.

No one is talking about your job skills. And trying to say that Jew woo is better than Christian woo is silly.

Again you are not going to get away with "Yea those Christians have nutty beliefs" when you yourself have a tradition rooted in myth and an invisible sky friend which your tradition plagurized from polytheism and Christains plagurized from you.

"I'm different". No you are not. You are in the exact same boat as all the humans in the past and all the humans today who claim a deity/god/super natural. You don't get a pass because of your label or tradition.

"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


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Again you are

Brian37 wrote:
Again you are not going to get away with "Yea those Christians have nutty beliefs" when you yourself have a tradition rooted in myth and an invisible sky friend which your tradition plagurized from polytheism and Christains plagurized from you.

"I'm different". No you are not. You are in the exact same boat as all the humans in the past and all the humans today who claim a deity/god/super natural. You don't get a pass because of your label or tradition.

Only because you keep focusing on the "woo" aspects of "woo".

Replace "woo" with "gang" or "club" or "clique", then tell me that our "gang" or "club" or "clique" has stupid values, compared to those other "gangs", "clubs" and "cliques".

"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."


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Looks like someone on the

Looks like someone on the forums is eager to jump back in line to become the next Kaptoy. Slandering current spouses, unproductive threadmothering, pointing out to a loudmouth that he is, in fact, loudmouthed (or has "fangs" )... and even a tongue-and-cheek offer of marriage to someone who (I suspect) couldn't be more disinterested. Tsk tsk.

You're back on track, Furrycatherder. I simply can't wait for you to re-earn your troll tag. It would be such a... momentous occasion. Like Louis_Cypher's dead acquaintance, I am very much an asshole.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Again you are not going to get away with "Yea those Christians have nutty beliefs" when you yourself have a tradition rooted in myth and an invisible sky friend which your tradition plagurized from polytheism and Christains plagurized from you.

"I'm different". No you are not. You are in the exact same boat as all the humans in the past and all the humans today who claim a deity/god/super natural. You don't get a pass because of your label or tradition.

Only because you keep focusing on the "woo" aspects of "woo".

Replace "woo" with "gang" or "club" or "clique", then tell me that our "gang" or "club" or "clique" has stupid values, compared to those other "gangs", "clubs" and "cliques".

YOU KEEP staring at my fingertip while I am pointing at the moon.

THE POINT is that you insist that a label, being that of "Jew" somehow makes you have good values, when the reality is that is merely a label, and you COULD have those same values without that label. Your label, is merely a tradition born out of superstition and myth written in an unscientific age. The behaviors you value are a product of evolution, not because of being Jewish.

It is a label, and not only a label, a label that has members who hold a needles invisible friend claim. And that label has also falsely laid claim to land and race FALSELY, which makes it a gang. All the gods of Abraham are woo clubs and gangs. Including you.

Evolution explains human behavior, both our good behavior and our bad behavior. Jew/Christian/Muslim/Hindu/ ect ect ect, do not make humans special. Those are merely comic book clubs people claim make them moral. Morals have always been independent of labels and has always existed and are not dependent on a particular pet god claim.

Being Jewish does not make you special. If you do good, it is because you do good. If you do bad, it is because you do bad. No label needed to explain life, not yours not any. Our species "homo sapient" has been around long before Hebrews, and there are plenty of moral decent people outside Jews all over the world. My point has been and is TO ALL pet god claimants is that a god is not needed to believe in to be good or decent.

PLEASE try understand that before you reply.

 

 

"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


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

Brian37 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Again you are not going to get away with "Yea those Christians have nutty beliefs" when you yourself have a tradition rooted in myth and an invisible sky friend which your tradition plagurized from polytheism and Christains plagurized from you.

"I'm different". No you are not. You are in the exact same boat as all the humans in the past and all the humans today who claim a deity/god/super natural. You don't get a pass because of your label or tradition.

Only because you keep focusing on the "woo" aspects of "woo".

Replace "woo" with "gang" or "club" or "clique", then tell me that our "gang" or "club" or "clique" has stupid values, compared to those other "gangs", "clubs" and "cliques".

YOU KEEP staring at my fingertip while I am pointing at the moon.

And you keep staring at the moon while I'm pointing at your fingertip.

Gravity exists.  You can stamp your feet all you want and scream bloody hell about Gravity, but all your bitching and moaning won't do anything about it.

Let that soak in for a few minutes.

You can disbelieve "Gravity" all you want, utterly useless exercise though it may be, but you still have to obey the Law of Gravity.  The only difference between something like "Gravity" and "The Negative Golden Rule" is that you can claim that G-d doesn't exist and ignore it.  This leaves you with a number of choices, only one of which I'll elaborate on -- either Beyond Saving's moral and ethical values are equally valid compared to yours, or they aren't.  And if they aren't, why not and who says so?

"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
Kapkao wrote:Looks like

Kapkao wrote:

Looks like someone on the forums is eager to jump back in line to become the next Kaptoy. Slandering current spouses, unproductive threadmothering, pointing out to a loudmouth that he is, in fact, loudmouthed (or has "fangs" )... and even a tongue-and-cheek offer of marriage to someone who (I suspect) couldn't be more disinterested. Tsk tsk.

You're back on track, Furrycatherder. I simply can't wait for you to re-earn your troll tag. It would be such a... momentous occasion. Like Louis_Cypher's dead acquaintance, I am very much an asshole.

I dunno -- so far my offers of marriage have been received more positively than =I= am willing to have them accepted!

But you'll note that "Troll" tags don't do much for me.  I viewed the last one as "Oh, Shit -- she's not going to become an Atheist next week!"

"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: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Again you are not going to get away with "Yea those Christians have nutty beliefs" when you yourself have a tradition rooted in myth and an invisible sky friend which your tradition plagurized from polytheism and Christains plagurized from you.

"I'm different". No you are not. You are in the exact same boat as all the humans in the past and all the humans today who claim a deity/god/super natural. You don't get a pass because of your label or tradition.

Only because you keep focusing on the "woo" aspects of "woo".

Replace "woo" with "gang" or "club" or "clique", then tell me that our "gang" or "club" or "clique" has stupid values, compared to those other "gangs", "clubs" and "cliques".

YOU KEEP staring at my fingertip while I am pointing at the moon.

And you keep staring at the moon while I'm pointing at your fingertip.

Gravity exists.  You can stamp your feet all you want and scream bloody hell about Gravity, but all your bitching and moaning won't do anything about it.

Let that soak in for a few minutes.

You can disbelieve "Gravity" all you want, utterly useless exercise though it may be, but you still have to obey the Law of Gravity.  The only difference between something like "Gravity" and "The Negative Golden Rule" is that you can claim that G-d doesn't exist and ignore it.  This leaves you with a number of choices, only one of which I'll elaborate on -- either Beyond Saving's moral and ethical values are equally valid compared to yours, or they aren't.  And if they aren't, why not and who says so?

No, gravity is a fact. Pet gods, including yours are nothing but your personal naked assertion and a product of myth and imagination.

A history of tradition does not make any god real. PERIOD!

Thor/Allah/Jesus/Osirus/Yahweh, ARE ALL PRODUCTS OF HUMAN IMAGINATION. Your Jewish tradition will die along with all myths when our species goes extinct in the future. You are not special, no human is, no human has ever been special, no human will ever be special.

Here is reality stripped of all comic book myths. Humans have sex, they have babies, and we die, from all sorts of forms of death. Life goes on with or without us. Thats it. No magic needed, no woo needed, no "Jew/Muslim/Christian/Hindu, ect ect ect needed to explain life.

"My god is real" NO, the only thing that is real is your credulity and gullibility and imagination to twist logic to suit your personal desires. No different than any Muslim or Christian who defends their pet deity. No different than when the Egyptians falsely thought the sun was a god.

Deity/god/s/super natural, claims ARE NOT NEEDED to explain gravity or life or the universe. Not yours, not any.

Pontificate all you want about how great being a Jew is and you'll be just as dead in 1,000 years like me. And there wont be any heaven or hell for us to go to or be threatened or bribed with, You won't go to a Muslim hell any more than I will go to a Jewish heaven. IT IS MYTH MYTH MYTH MYTH MYTH. It is your simple desire for a fictional utopia that does not exist in reality.

ALL OF IT IS MYTH, yours theirs ALL OF IT IS MYTH.

Gravity=fact

Deity=superstition, myth, human imagination.

Thats it, that is the reality you don't want to face. Muslims don't want to face. Christians don't want to face. You are all on the sinking ship of superstition.

 

"I am not like the others". YES YOU ARE!

 

"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
Hey Furry.  Why don't you

Hey Furry.  Why don't you keep your Jewish culture and ditch the Jewish fairy tales?   It won't make you a bad Jew.  Promise.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism

Bacon is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY good.   Dump the childish beliefs in fairies and gods and have a BLT with me.

Bacon makes everything better.

 

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


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:This

FurryCatHerder wrote:

This leaves you with a number of choices, only one of which I'll elaborate on -- either Beyond Saving's moral and ethical values are equally valid compared to yours, or they aren't.  And if they aren't, why not and who says so?

Not all moral and ethical values are equally valid. This has been determined by many different people using many different standards. However, there are certain moral and ethical issues that almost everyone can come to an agreement on. I think the most important step in creating a valid moral code is discussing and deliberating on what should serve as the basis of it. The Negative Golden Rule is a good example of a basis.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Hey Furry. 

Watcher wrote:

Hey Furry.  Why don't you keep your Jewish culture and ditch the Jewish fairy tales?   It won't make you a bad Jew.  Promise.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism

Bacon is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY good.   Dump the childish beliefs in fairies and gods and have a BLT with me.

Bacon makes everything better.

 

That reminds me of Penn's book "God No" when a fan of his revealed that he was a Jew but left his faith, but still couldn't bring himself to break that taboo. Penn invited him to eat after the show and the former Jew had his first bacon cheeseburger. He said the former Jew cried because he was finally relieved that he didn't have to wallow in that fear and the burger tasted so damned good.

But that wasn't a "real Jew" I am sure. Or maybe Furry will cop out to "being a Jew fits in nicely with "go with the flow". She thinks I'd make a great Jew.

And her book of myth has all sorts of ridiculous rules about prep of food and what foods you can or cannot eat, and all of them have to be blessed. Which really amounts to pretending you have a magic wand as a Rabbi that magically makes the food safe to eat.

I couldn't go through life merely avoiding food because of a superstition. It's just as silly a superstition when Muslims don't eat pork or don't eat during the day for a month.

There are natural reasons not to eat something. You don't like the taste of it. You have an allergy to it. You are too fat. Our your doctor is telling you you need to change your diet. But religious rules about food are patiently absurd.

Even Catholics have that stupid rule about no red meat on Friday, which inspired McDonald's Fillet O Fish.

Humans evolved and continued prior to these myths being born, and if they were all suddenly scrapped and considered myths themselves, the species would still survive.

 

 

 

"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


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

This leaves you with a number of choices, only one of which I'll elaborate on -- either Beyond Saving's moral and ethical values are equally valid compared to yours, or they aren't.  And if they aren't, why not and who says so?

Not all moral and ethical values are equally valid. This has been determined by many different people using many different standards. However, there are certain moral and ethical issues that almost everyone can come to an agreement on. I think the most important step in creating a valid moral code is discussing and deliberating on what should serve as the basis of it. The Negative Golden Rule is a good example of a basis.

Who gets to decide which ones are "good" and which ones are "bad"?  You?  You and a million of your closest friends with guns?

There are two sources of morality -- people with guns, and G-d.  Those are the two (and only two, though you may substitute "thermonuclear devices" for "guns" ...) possible sources for "morality" or "ethics" or whatever you like.

You're free to argue with that position -- I've learned that when discussing things with Atheists that there tends to be a lot of confusion over what "Might Makes Right" actually means, and it seems to negatively affect their ability to reason, but those really are the only two choices.  There aren't three, and there isn't just one.

Which way my response goes will be determined by how well you accept what I just wrote.  Choose wisely Eye-wink

"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."


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

This leaves you with a number of choices, only one of which I'll elaborate on -- either Beyond Saving's moral and ethical values are equally valid compared to yours, or they aren't.  And if they aren't, why not and who says so?

Not all moral and ethical values are equally valid. This has been determined by many different people using many different standards. However, there are certain moral and ethical issues that almost everyone can come to an agreement on. I think the most important step in creating a valid moral code is discussing and deliberating on what should serve as the basis of it. The Negative Golden Rule is a good example of a basis.

Who gets to decide which ones are "good" and which ones are "bad"?  You?  You and a million of your closest friends with guns?

There are two sources of morality -- people with guns, and G-d.  Those are the two (and only two, though you may substitute "thermonuclear devices" for "guns" ...) possible sources for "morality" or "ethics" or whatever you like.

You're free to argue with that position -- I've learned that when discussing things with Atheists that there tends to be a lot of confusion over what "Might Makes Right" actually means, and it seems to negatively affect their ability to reason, but those really are the only two choices.  There aren't three, and there isn't just one.

Which way my response goes will be determined by how well you accept what I just wrote.  Choose wisely Eye-wink

 

I have been reading a book by a respected sociologist.

http://www.amazon.com/Social-Animal-Sources-Character-Achievement/dp/0812979370/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325018236&sr=1-1

The social animal: the hidden sources of love, character and achievement by David Brooks.

We have morals because we are empathetic.  We feel each others pain.  Might does not make right, and humans are a social animal.  We can not survive without each other.  We can not raise children except cooperatively.  We have to get along and form strong societies to perpetuate our species.  god/s/dess/G_d is not required, only oxytocin.  The book is available at my local library, so you can get a copy for free.  No excuses not to read it. 

I realize you might reject this suggestion out of hand.  It appears you require some mythology in order to make sense of your world.  I'm still looking for why some people cling so hard to any religion.  Very few religions are recent additions.  The old ones were largely put together by bronze/iron age pastoralists and early agriculturalists.  Hardly the sort of people who could have had answers about the natural processes in their world.  And yet, people persist in deluding themselves with these ancient myths.  I find it puzzling.

Try reading the book - it may be more interesting than you think.  The author points out that our conclusions and decisions are based on our emotions, not logic or rationality.  That includes all of us attempting to be rational here on these forums.

And no, I don't think I am comfortable with this idea yet.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3558
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote: Who

FurryCatHerder wrote:

 

Who gets to decide which ones are "good" and which ones are "bad"?  You?

 

                                                        Of course I decide which ones are "good" or "bad".   I think for myself.     ....is that against your religion ?

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
  You and a million of your closest friends with guns?

 

                                                                                         Guns are my friends.

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
There are two sources of morality -- people with guns, and G-d.

 

                                                                         How about when God sends people with guns ?  Does that count ?

 

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
  You're free to argue with that position --

 

                                                                               

                             But doing that might entail thinking for myself and .... Heaven forbid !  ...I might end up coming to a conclusion that wasn't sanctioned by your G-d.

 

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Which way my response goes will be determined by how well you accept what I just wrote.  Choose wisely Eye-wink

 

                                                                I guess I should prepare myself to be reprimanded.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Which

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Which way my response goes will be determined by how well you accept what I just wrote.  Choose wisely Eye-wink

I'm trying to find a reason I should even care what your response is. You refuse to accept the possibility that you are wrong. You state that anyone who doesn't accept your argument is either ignorant: "a lot of confusion over what 'Might Makes Right' actually means", or unreasonable: "negatively affect their ability to reason". You don't seem to be interested in learning at all: you just arrogantly assume that you are correct and that any complaints about your argument are automatically invalid.

What if people took issue with your argument because they honestly thought it was inadequate?

When you claim my arguments are inadequate I go back and check. I try to analyze them from your perspective so that I can hopefully see and understand exactly why you have a problem with them. Admittedly, I have not been very successful so far. Part of this is due to the fact that it is harder to think when you hungry and in pain (I just had my wisdom teeth removed). Another part is due to the fact that I find your arguments rather irritating and that it is difficult for me to 'respond rationally' when I am angry.

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

This leaves you with a number of choices, only one of which I'll elaborate on -- either Beyond Saving's moral and ethical values are equally valid compared to yours, or they aren't.  And if they aren't, why not and who says so?

Not all moral and ethical values are equally valid. This has been determined by many different people using many different standards. However, there are certain moral and ethical issues that almost everyone can come to an agreement on. I think the most important step in creating a valid moral code is discussing and deliberating on what should serve as the basis of it. The Negative Golden Rule is a good example of a basis.

Who gets to decide which ones are "good" and which ones are "bad"?  You?  You and a million of your closest friends with guns?

There are two sources of morality -- people with guns, and G-d.  Those are the two (and only two, though you may substitute "thermonuclear devices" for "guns" ...) possible sources for "morality" or "ethics" or whatever you like.

You're free to argue with that position -- I've learned that when discussing things with Atheists that there tends to be a lot of confusion over what "Might Makes Right" actually means, and it seems to negatively affect their ability to reason, but those really are the only two choices.  There aren't three, and there isn't just one.

Which way my response goes will be determined by how well you accept what I just wrote.  Choose wisely Eye-wink

Who gets to decide is a bad question. It falsely makes it an either/or proposition when life has shades of gray and individuals are much more complex than the black and white thinking most humans fall for.

HOW a society collectively decides is important. You put your trust blindly into one power, you are very easily going to be lead by the nose.

The monotheism of the god/s of Abraham is simplistic and childish black and white thinking. It puts trust in one being. A being that is not subject to review or impeachment and IS above the law and is not required to answer to us. It is the very definition of a dictator.

HOW western societies govern, is totally opposite of this God. Since western governments have anti trust laws to prevent rule by one, it takes into account individuality and protects that individuality. There is no expectation to blind loyalty in a pluralistic society.

There is nothing morally civil or ethical about the Jewish/Christian/ Muslim god/s. They are the opposite of what western societies and their leadership value.


 

"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


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

cj wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

This leaves you with a number of choices, only one of which I'll elaborate on -- either Beyond Saving's moral and ethical values are equally valid compared to yours, or they aren't.  And if they aren't, why not and who says so?

Not all moral and ethical values are equally valid. This has been determined by many different people using many different standards. However, there are certain moral and ethical issues that almost everyone can come to an agreement on. I think the most important step in creating a valid moral code is discussing and deliberating on what should serve as the basis of it. The Negative Golden Rule is a good example of a basis.

Who gets to decide which ones are "good" and which ones are "bad"?  You?  You and a million of your closest friends with guns?

There are two sources of morality -- people with guns, and G-d.  Those are the two (and only two, though you may substitute "thermonuclear devices" for "guns" ...) possible sources for "morality" or "ethics" or whatever you like.

You're free to argue with that position -- I've learned that when discussing things with Atheists that there tends to be a lot of confusion over what "Might Makes Right" actually means, and it seems to negatively affect their ability to reason, but those really are the only two choices.  There aren't three, and there isn't just one.

Which way my response goes will be determined by how well you accept what I just wrote.  Choose wisely Eye-wink

 

I have been reading a book by a respected sociologist.

http://www.amazon.com/Social-Animal-Sources-Character-Achievement/dp/0812979370/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325018236&sr=1-1

The social animal: the hidden sources of love, character and achievement by David Brooks.

We have morals because we are empathetic.  We feel each others pain.  Might does not make right, and humans are a social animal.  We can not survive without each other.  We can not raise children except cooperatively.  We have to get along and form strong societies to perpetuate our species.  god/s/dess/G_d is not required, only oxytocin.  The book is available at my local library, so you can get a copy for free.  No excuses not to read it. 

I realize you might reject this suggestion out of hand.  It appears you require some mythology in order to make sense of your world.  I'm still looking for why some people cling so hard to any religion.  Very few religions are recent additions.  The old ones were largely put together by bronze/iron age pastoralists and early agriculturalists.  Hardly the sort of people who could have had answers about the natural processes in their world.  And yet, people persist in deluding themselves with these ancient myths.  I find it puzzling.

Try reading the book - it may be more interesting than you think.  The author points out that our conclusions and decisions are based on our emotions, not logic or rationality.  That includes all of us attempting to be rational here on these forums.

And no, I don't think I am comfortable with this idea yet.

 

 

I had that book in my hands at Borders when it was going out of business and they had their sales going on.  I don't remember why I didn't buy it (I know I had a whole stack of books I already picked out).  When I flipped through the pages I noticed that it was a novel with science tidbits interspersed.  Maybe I should go to the library so I don't keep forgetting to buy it.

 

I'm disappointed that religious people, or anybody, would be resistant to scientific explanations of morality.  Evolutionary explanations work great for explaining moral instincts, not just game theory type explanations (although I like those too).  We actually have moral emotion.  As Michael Shermer said in The Science of Good & Evil, "most people are good most of the time."  I hope I'm quoting the right book, but I know that Shermer said that.

 

 

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus wrote:cj

Philosophicus wrote:

cj wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

This leaves you with a number of choices, only one of which I'll elaborate on -- either Beyond Saving's moral and ethical values are equally valid compared to yours, or they aren't.  And if they aren't, why not and who says so?

Not all moral and ethical values are equally valid. This has been determined by many different people using many different standards. However, there are certain moral and ethical issues that almost everyone can come to an agreement on. I think the most important step in creating a valid moral code is discussing and deliberating on what should serve as the basis of it. The Negative Golden Rule is a good example of a basis.

Who gets to decide which ones are "good" and which ones are "bad"?  You?  You and a million of your closest friends with guns?

There are two sources of morality -- people with guns, and G-d.  Those are the two (and only two, though you may substitute "thermonuclear devices" for "guns" ...) possible sources for "morality" or "ethics" or whatever you like.

You're free to argue with that position -- I've learned that when discussing things with Atheists that there tends to be a lot of confusion over what "Might Makes Right" actually means, and it seems to negatively affect their ability to reason, but those really are the only two choices.  There aren't three, and there isn't just one.

Which way my response goes will be determined by how well you accept what I just wrote.  Choose wisely Eye-wink

 

I have been reading a book by a respected sociologist.

http://www.amazon.com/Social-Animal-Sources-Character-Achievement/dp/0812979370/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325018236&sr=1-1

The social animal: the hidden sources of love, character and achievement by David Brooks.

We have morals because we are empathetic.  We feel each others pain.  Might does not make right, and humans are a social animal.  We can not survive without each other.  We can not raise children except cooperatively.  We have to get along and form strong societies to perpetuate our species.  god/s/dess/G_d is not required, only oxytocin.  The book is available at my local library, so you can get a copy for free.  No excuses not to read it. 

I realize you might reject this suggestion out of hand.  It appears you require some mythology in order to make sense of your world.  I'm still looking for why some people cling so hard to any religion.  Very few religions are recent additions.  The old ones were largely put together by bronze/iron age pastoralists and early agriculturalists.  Hardly the sort of people who could have had answers about the natural processes in their world.  And yet, people persist in deluding themselves with these ancient myths.  I find it puzzling.

Try reading the book - it may be more interesting than you think.  The author points out that our conclusions and decisions are based on our emotions, not logic or rationality.  That includes all of us attempting to be rational here on these forums.

And no, I don't think I am comfortable with this idea yet.

 

 

I had that book in my hands at Borders when it was going out of business and they had their sales going on.  I don't remember why I didn't buy it (I know I had a whole stack of books I already picked out).  When I flipped through the pages I noticed that it was a novel with science tidbits interspersed.  Maybe I should go to the library so I don't keep forgetting to buy it.

 

I'm disappointed that religious people, or anybody, would be resistant to scientific explanations of morality.  Evolutionary explanations work great for explaining moral instincts, not just game theory type explanations (although I like those too).  We actually have moral emotion.  As Michael Shermer said in The Science of Good & Evil, "most people are good most of the time."  I hope I'm quoting the right book, but I know that Shermer said that.

 

 

Muslims think their morality is the best. Christians think their morality is the best. Jews think their morality is the best. Even the Chinese think their morality is the best.

And some atheists also make the mistake of claiming "atheism" is the best morality.

The truth of our species evolution is that a human is NOT automatically good or bad by proxy of label. If they were then we could find a country somewhere that does not have prisons. Yet every country in the world has prisons.

But I agree with you that MOST humans are good. However, the division is caused, not by the differences, but by the false notion that a label invented morality. Our species has been around long before even the written age. If there was no evolutionary sense of empathy or cooperation our species would not have evolved.

Being an atheist does not make one automatically good or bad. Being a Muslim does not make one automatically good or bad. Being a Jew does not make one automatically good or bad. Being Chinese does not make one automatically good or bad. Our different nationalities and a world full of different religions needlessly makes labels the focus and THAT is what causes the divisions, not the differences.

I do not expect labels of nationality or race or religion to go away any time soon. But I do think our species makes the mistake of assuming a label is magical and has the magic power of making someone good. Only our actions do that, not our labels.

 

 

"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


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Which way my response goes will be determined by how well you accept what I just wrote.  Choose wisely Eye-wink

I'm trying to find a reason I should even care what your response is. You refuse to accept the possibility that you are wrong. You state that anyone who doesn't accept your argument is either ignorant: "a lot of confusion over what 'Might Makes Right' actually means", or unreasonable: "negatively affect their ability to reason". You don't seem to be interested in learning at all: you just arrogantly assume that you are correct and that any complaints about your argument are automatically invalid.

There are two (more or less ...) possible states within Civilization:

1). Everyone is subject to rules, which are enforced by some central authority when broken.

2). There are no rules and everyone fends for themself.

Pick one.

"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: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Which way my response goes will be determined by how well you accept what I just wrote.  Choose wisely Eye-wink

I'm trying to find a reason I should even care what your response is. You refuse to accept the possibility that you are wrong. You state that anyone who doesn't accept your argument is either ignorant: "a lot of confusion over what 'Might Makes Right' actually means", or unreasonable: "negatively affect their ability to reason". You don't seem to be interested in learning at all: you just arrogantly assume that you are correct and that any complaints about your argument are automatically invalid.

There are two (more or less ...) possible states within Civilization:

1). Everyone is subject to rules, which are enforced by some central authority when broken.

2). There are no rules and everyone fends for themself.

Pick one.

Why do most humans suffer the either/or mindset? How about the third option of checks and balances?

If central authority is better than no rules, then North Korea has that. And the religious people simply advocate their religion being the central authority vs the state being the central authority. Which is why you want a Jewish state and Christians here falsely think the Constitution was ripped out of the bible. The only difference between theocracy and Nationalism is the god the people worship.

I don't want either.

I want a government that is via consent of the governed with NO absolutes and the ability to compete and change with laws that prevent ALL MONOPOLIES. I want the ability for the minority to compete. I want the ability to change. I don't want the stagnation of either theocracy or worship of the state.

The only centralized power that the US Constitution has ultimately is the attitude that change is possible only through protection of dissent and the ability to appeal and change our leaders when we wish.

God based and state based worship of centralized power such as North Korea and Iran are the same. Unchangeable and oppressive to anyone who doesn't tow the religious/political line.

The mistake I see from Christians and Jews in the west is that they don't see that they are protected by that centralized concept of government neutrality on the issue of religion that causes the sectarian dogmatism that plagues the Middle East between Sunnis and Shiites.

Of course I don't want no rules. But I don't want Jewish rules anymore than you want Muslim rules, any more than we want Christian rules, anymore than a Muslim, Jew or Christian or atheist would want to live under the absolute power of Kim Jong Ill.

ADVICE AND CONSENT, CHECKS AND BALANCES, ABILITY TO CHANGE, ABILITY TO DISSENT, ABILITY TO CORRECT. No absolute power, no monopolies of power.

Stagnation are what any form of dogmatism advocates, be it a god based government or a state worship government.

 

 

 

"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


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:The only

Brian37 wrote:

The only centralized power that the US Constitution has ultimately is the attitude that change is possible only through protection of dissent and the ability to appeal and change our leaders when we wish.

God based and state based worship of centralized power such as North Korea and Iran are the same. Unchangeable and oppressive to anyone who doesn't tow the religious/political line.

 

ADVICE AND CONSENT, CHECKS AND BALANCES, ABILITY TO CHANGE, ABILITY TO DISSENT, ABILITY TO CORRECT. No absolute power, no monopolies of power.

Stagnation are what any form of dogmatism advocates, be it a god based government or a state worship government.

Exactly, problems arise when rules and laws are enforced merely because they are rules and laws, when authority is assumed to be right merely because it is authority. If a policeman tells you to shoot someone, you should not give the order special consideration merely because a policeman gave it. People in authority often treat those under their authority like they are inferior. For example, a boss may think that insulting his employees is acceptable. However, if his employees were to insult him, he may get quite angry and fire them.

The key, I think, is for a central authority to be subject to the same rules it enforces on everyone else. For example, if a governing body imprisons people who steal money, it too should refrain from stealing money.

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:There

FurryCatHerder wrote:

There are two (more or less ...) possible states within Civilization:

1). Everyone is subject to rules, which are enforced by some central authority when broken.

2). There are no rules and everyone fends for themself.

Pick one.

Two extremes, with many variations in between, such as the manner of enforcement - Stalinesque, or with rights of appeal.

Plus the other variables of how the 'rules' are derived, and are they able to be contested and amended.

Religiously derived rules are ultimately purely subjective, the ideas of one, or a small group of "prophets", who formulate them in accordance with what they imagine as the "revealed" edicts of an imagined "higher" being. There being no way to distinguish between 'true' revelation, if it exists, and a pure brain-fart. They are not "morality", they are a crude 'legal system', no better than that of any other tyrannical dictatorship. Morality cannot come from religion, except accidentally.

You have heard of the Euthyphro dilemma, I assume? Is an edict "good" because God issues it, or is it "good" by some higher standard, which God adheres to?

And why should a God be assumed to be "good", except  by "might makes right"?

IOW, there is no way to "know" that religious derived codes of behaviour are "good". They may be, as they will be influenced, consciously or not, by the evolved instincts that most non-psychopathic individuals share, but they are easily perverted by the assumptions of religious dogma.

Of course it is worse than that - there is not just one such code, with only one clear interpretation. You are back with more fallible human judgement to decide which is the "right" standard of "rightness".

Secular ethics, with something like the Silver Rule as a starting point - "Do not do to others what you would not wish done to yourself" - based firmly on our evolved empathy as necessary to the survival of a self-aware social species, is the way to true morality. Not perfect, but all we have with any kind of justification.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Again you are not going to get away with "Yea those Christians have nutty beliefs" when you yourself have a tradition rooted in myth and an invisible sky friend which your tradition plagurized from polytheism and Christains plagurized from you.

"I'm different". No you are not. You are in the exact same boat as all the humans in the past and all the humans today who claim a deity/god/super natural. You don't get a pass because of your label or tradition.

Only because you keep focusing on the "woo" aspects of "woo".

Replace "woo" with "gang" or "club" or "clique", then tell me that our "gang" or "club" or "clique" has stupid values, compared to those other "gangs", "clubs" and "cliques".

Atheists can form "gangs" or clubs or "cliques". But the word itself is not a "gang" or "club". The word "atheist" means that the individual simply has no god belief. Which is why I am not blindly loyal to Beyond Saving. The only thing we have in common is our lack of belief.

But the word "Jew" is a club as a word by itself. The word Muslim is a club by itself.

That is the difference. The word "atheist" is the description of a position. It does not, by itself imply any loyalty oath based on lack of belief. You however do have an oath to god which is why you can ignore the bad that Israel does and some Jews do.

Same with nationalism or political labels, those are not merely positions, they are clubs. "Atheists" are no more a club than off is a TV channel. We can form clubs, yes, but not because we are atheists, but because we are humans.

Now again, you are focused on labels when I have already stated that EVERYONE is part of the same evolution and that no one is special by proxy of label, not even atheists.

The difference is that I accept that and you don't. It is because I reject dogmatism and see humans as first with NO PECKING ORDER. You cant do that because you have a loyalty issue to your club. I have no loyalty to atheists. I have a loyalty to humanity first. Whatever atheist club I partake in is subject to my review and based on the conditions of their actions, not the fact we share the same label.

I am not speaking for all atheists or claiming that morality as an invention of atheists. That is what you do, not me. I speak for myself.

 

"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


TheFallenAngel
TheFallenAngel's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2012-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Because what's more loving

Because what's more loving than sending people to a place of eternal flames & damnation?