*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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

###mod edit. removed spam

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.

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.

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!

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

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

                                                                                         Guns are my friends.

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

                             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.

                                                                I guess I should prepare myself to be reprimanded.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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