UC Berkeley Students wrong about Bill

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
UC Berkeley Students wrong about Bill

"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


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Bill Maher is an obnoxious

 Bill Maher is an obnoxious asshole. I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting him to speak at their commencement. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to listen to one of his spiteful rants if I went to a commencement. Commencement is important to a lot of people and they are well within their rights to decide what kind of person they want giving the keynote, for the rest of us, it isn't our business and it certainly doesn't "hurt" anybody except maybe Maher's ego which is probably damn near invincible. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Bill

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Bill Maher is an obnoxious asshole. I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting him to speak at their commencement. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to listen to one of his spiteful rants if I went to a commencement. Commencement is important to a lot of people and they are well within their rights to decide what kind of person they want giving the keynote, for the rest of us, it isn't our business and it certainly doesn't "hurt" anybody except maybe Maher's ego which is probably damn near invincible. 

 

He's annoying but he does have some good points.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
both sides in this whole

both sides in this whole maher/affleck dichotomy that everybody's making such a fucking big deal of have valid points. that's all i've been trying to say. that's why i'm not fucking cheerleading for anybody. in fact, as i said on another thread, both sides made a poor showing of themselves. it was like watching drunken undergrads debate at a fucking frat party. you know who wasn't there? an actual fucking expert. that's why i can't understand why everybody seems to think this is the goddamn cultural debate of the century. it's a fucking actor versus a pundit and a neuroscientist. none of them can even read arabic for fuck's sake. i'm not impressed.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:both sides in

iwbiek wrote:
both sides in this whole maher/affleck dichotomy that everybody's making such a fucking big deal of have valid points. that's all i've been trying to say. that's why i'm not fucking cheerleading for anybody. in fact, as i said on another thread, both sides made a poor showing of themselves. it was like watching drunken undergrads debate at a fucking frat party. you know who wasn't there? an actual fucking expert. that's why i can't understand why everybody seems to think this is the goddamn cultural debate of the century. it's a fucking actor versus a pundit and a neuroscientist. none of them can even read arabic for fuck's sake. i'm not impressed.

LMAO <cheers> You amaze me sometimes


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:both sides in

iwbiek wrote:
both sides in this whole maher/affleck dichotomy that everybody's making such a fucking big deal of have valid points. that's all i've been trying to say. that's why i'm not fucking cheerleading for anybody. in fact, as i said on another thread, both sides made a poor showing of themselves. it was like watching drunken undergrads debate at a fucking frat party. you know who wasn't there? an actual fucking expert. that's why i can't understand why everybody seems to think this is the goddamn cultural debate of the century. it's a fucking actor versus a pundit and a neuroscientist. none of them can even read arabic for fuck's sake. i'm not impressed.

But they are on TV, everyone knows that everyone on TV is an expert on everything...

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:both sides in

iwbiek wrote:
both sides in this whole maher/affleck dichotomy that everybody's making such a fucking big deal of have valid points. that's all i've been trying to say. that's why i'm not fucking cheerleading for anybody. in fact, as i said on another thread, both sides made a poor showing of themselves. it was like watching drunken undergrads debate at a fucking frat party. you know who wasn't there? an actual fucking expert. that's why i can't understand why everybody seems to think this is the goddamn cultural debate of the century. it's a fucking actor versus a pundit and a neuroscientist. none of them can even read arabic for fuck's sake. i'm not impressed.

Stop, you don't like the sausage making. You're stuck in the library thinking everyone has to shit ice cream and puppies to communicate.

Bill was dead on. Affleck'd good intent doesn't help anyone. Ayaan Hirsi Ali would tell you that, and so would that woman in the article in the second link.

PC crap does not do anything but coddle the inseuritiees of the bullies and oppressors.

"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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Ayaan Hirsi

Brian37 wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali would tell you that, and so would that woman in the article in the second link.



ok, so two fucking writers have decided the question for all time. fuck it, everybody, let's go home.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali would tell you that, and so would that woman in the article in the second link.

ok, so two fucking writers have decided the question for all time. fuck it, everybody, let's go home.

You, "Mommy mommy, someone picked on someone elses claims, I want everything to be candyland"

No dipshit, you are too fucking busy wraped up in protecting mutliculteralism you worry more about hurting people's feelings than the real violence done in the name of religion and the real oppressive laws that harm real humans.

You and I in the west have the luxury of saying "fuck you" to each other without fear of physical harm to each other. In far too much of the east, women like Ayaan are forced to being property. In far to much of the east, Sunnis and Shiites murder each other because they picked the wrong club. In far too much of the east merely saying "Allah does not exist" can get you murdered. In far too much of the east leaving Islam can get you murderd.

You want the east to get up with the times and get it out of it's dark ages, then you need to listen to women like Ayaan, and the woman in that article and Bill and Sam, instead of being PC which does nothing but protect the bullies and oppressors.

Get your head out of your ass and stop pretending that getting offended is the worst thing in the world.

 

 

 

 

 

"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: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:iwbiek

Beyond Saving wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
both sides in this whole maher/affleck dichotomy that everybody's making such a fucking big deal of have valid points. that's all i've been trying to say. that's why i'm not fucking cheerleading for anybody. in fact, as i said on another thread, both sides made a poor showing of themselves. it was like watching drunken undergrads debate at a fucking frat party. you know who wasn't there? an actual fucking expert. that's why i can't understand why everybody seems to think this is the goddamn cultural debate of the century. it's a fucking actor versus a pundit and a neuroscientist. none of them can even read arabic for fuck's sake. i'm not impressed.

But they are on TV, everyone knows that everyone on TV is an expert on everything...

Oh yea, becase a comedian agrees with a neuralogist that makes Sam wrong about everything. As compaired to the Imams and Clerics who center entire governments on an ancient book and use it to justify oppression. Because holy people are "experts" in the nature of reality.

I am no car mechanic myeslf, never built one from scratch, but I know cars don't run on pixy dust. And I'd bet at the same time you'd defend the stupidity of fake "redneck"  Duck Dynasty right to make money selling mind rot to the public. Bill tells an ugly truth about the middle east and you call him obnoxious. No peep about preppies on a fake show selling crap.

 

"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


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Oh yea, becase

Brian37 wrote:

Oh yea, becase a comedian agrees with a neuralogist that makes Sam wrong about everything. As compaired to the Imams and Clerics who center entire governments on an ancient book and use it to justify oppression. Because holy people are "experts" in the nature of reality.

No, Sam is wrong because he is wrong. Whether or not Maher agrees with him is irrelevant. Maher is right about some things, even a blind squirrel can find a nut. As iwbiek pointed out, neither of them have any particular expertise on Islam or Middle Eastern culture, so their views should be taken with as much authority as- well mine. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

I am no car mechanic myeslf, never built one from scratch, but I know cars don't run on pixy dust. And I'd bet at the same time you'd defend the stupidity of fake "redneck"  Duck Dynasty right to make money selling mind rot to the public. Bill tells an ugly truth about the middle east and you call him obnoxious. No peep about preppies on a fake show selling crap.

Yeah, it is called freedom. They can sell whatever they can find people want to buy. I don't have a problem with Maher having a show and raking in whatever millions he does making it. But just because you can attract an audience doesn't give your argument any intellectual weight. Lots of stupid people attract large audiences, Duck Dynasty is a good example. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
experts are just too much

experts are just too much goddamn work to listen to. they quote sources i'm not familiar with. they qualify everything. i go away confused and unfulfilled. i need actors and comedians, who understand average joes like me don't want gray areas, to tell me shit.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Oh yea, becase

Brian37 wrote:

Oh yea, becase a comedian agrees with a neuralogist that makes Sam wrong about everything. As compaired to the Imams and Clerics who center entire governments on an ancient book and use it to justify oppression. Because holy people are "experts" in the nature of reality.

I am no car mechanic myeslf, never built one from scratch, but I know cars don't run on pixy dust. And I'd bet at the same time you'd defend the stupidity of fake "redneck"  Duck Dynasty right to make money selling mind rot to the public. Bill tells an ugly truth about the middle east and you call him obnoxious. No peep about preppies on a fake show selling crap.

The problem with this entire discussion is you are trying to use opinions of non-experts. Do they have a right to speak their opinion sure. Is what they say truthful? No. It's completely an opinon backed by nothing more than reading some books, watching the news and using their views about other people and religions to form an assumed stance. If you have a person who had 20 years of experience with the middle east and or middle eastern religion then it might be a different discussion.

The point is that you have a comedian who has voiced his opinion before and people who know of him know what he is going to say before he speaks. The same with Sam. However no one cares about the other two people in the video because they are only common people like us who can't hang with the experts. Hell even a few of us here who ARE experts at relgion in some form or fashion can't hang with experts in the middle eastern religions.

Really. Quit while you are behind.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
 We also have an opinion

 We also have an opinion piece by a woman from Pakistan, which is as far from the Middle East, culturally and geographically, as France is from Russia. Only a fool would consider indiscriminately lumping France and Russia together because they're both historically "Christian." Yet because of the tradition of "orientalism" in the west, we have no problem lumping countries as disparate as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia together because it all seems the same to us: "the East." And apparently anyone who points out the sheer asininity of this type of discourse is just being a "PC liberal," a label which the writer from Pakistan Brian cited apparently doesn't realize stops discussion just as much as Affleck's (stupid) cry of "racist."

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1520
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I agree.

iwbiek wrote:
experts are just too much goddamn work to listen to. they quote sources i'm not familiar with. they qualify everything. i go away confused and unfulfilled. i need actors and comedians, who understand average joes like me don't want gray areas, to tell me shit.

The only "expert"I ever met was a US Marine that fired "expert" on the rifle range. I know he was an expert because in 1958 one had to fire 240 or better out of 300 to be "expert". If there is an approprate numbering system to determine if one is an "Expert" in Achedemics I don't know about it. But in riflery there is--so that's how we know.

What's amazing --- how many times on the news has an "expert" been found wrong--or---we hear that two experts don't agree. If two experts (so called) don't agree--then which one isn't the expert. How can an "expert" be wrong and another right.  So, being a physicist what number from 0 to 300 do I need to be an "expert" physicist. Well now---lemme see--it's been a while since carrying on with learning physics, so lets say that if I "was" 300", now it's about 150. So, so much for being an expert. Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: We also have

iwbiek wrote:

 We also have an opinion piece by a woman from Pakistan, which is as far from the Middle East, culturally and geographically, as France is from Russia. Only a fool would consider indiscriminately lumping France and Russia together because they're both historically "Christian." Yet because of the tradition of "orientalism" in the west, we have no problem lumping countries as disparate as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia together because it all seems the same to us: "the East." And apparently anyone who points out the sheer asininity of this type of discourse is just being a "PC liberal," a label which the writer from Pakistan Brian cited apparently doesn't realize stops discussion just as much as Affleck's (stupid) cry of "racist."

Who is the 'woman from Pakistan'? 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who Brian mentioned, was born in Somalia, and spent her early life in Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia and Kenya. Later, she travelled around parts of the Middle East, including Israel. So while she may not be an 'expert' on the Middle East, she in no way deserves to be dismissed in the way you seem to.

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


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:iwbiek

Old Seer wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
experts are just too much goddamn work to listen to. they quote sources i'm not familiar with. they qualify everything. i go away confused and unfulfilled. i need actors and comedians, who understand average joes like me don't want gray areas, to tell me shit.

The only "expert"I ever met was a US Marine that fired "expert" on the rifle range. I know he was an expert because in 1958 one had to fire 240 or better out of 300 to be "expert". If there is an approprate numbering system to determine if one is an "Expert" in Achedemics I don't know about it. But in riflery there is--so that's how we know.

What's amazing --- how many times on the news has an "expert" been found wrong--or---we hear that two experts don't agree. If two experts (so called) don't agree--then which one isn't the expert. How can an "expert" be wrong and another right.  So, being a physicist what number from 0 to 300 do I need to be an "expert" physicist. Well now---lemme see--it's been a while since carrying on with learning physics, so lets say that if I "was" 300", now it's about 150. So, so much for being an expert. Smiling

When I was in The Corps it was 220 for expert and a perfect score was 250.

On pre-qual day I shot a 248. On the day that counted I shot a 222.

The Marine DI who was a former sniper wanted me to go to sniper school but I didn't want that route. The reason being is that the 222 I shot was doing a tropic storm and it was raining and it was cold as fuck out on the range. That was something I never wanted to do and I'm glad to give up expert to any one who does that stuff. It's hard core.

I still have my shooting card... somewhere...

 

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1520
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I don't want to

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
experts are just too much goddamn work to listen to. they quote sources i'm not familiar with. they qualify everything. i go away confused and unfulfilled. i need actors and comedians, who understand average joes like me don't want gray areas, to tell me shit.

The only "expert"I ever met was a US Marine that fired "expert" on the rifle range. I know he was an expert because in 1958 one had to fire 240 or better out of 300 to be "expert". If there is an approprate numbering system to determine if one is an "Expert" in Achedemics I don't know about it. But in riflery there is--so that's how we know.

What's amazing --- how many times on the news has an "expert" been found wrong--or---we hear that two experts don't agree. If two experts (so called) don't agree--then which one isn't the expert. How can an "expert" be wrong and another right.  So, being a physicist what number from 0 to 300 do I need to be an "expert" physicist. Well now---lemme see--it's been a while since carrying on with learning physics, so lets say that if I "was" 300", now it's about 150. So, so much for being an expert. Smiling

When I was in The Corps it was 220 for expert and a perfect score was 250.

On pre-qual day I shot a 248. On the day that counted I shot a 222.

The Marine DI who was a former sniper wanted me to go to sniper school but I didn't want that route. The reason being is that the 222 I shot was doing a tropic storm and it was raining and it was cold as fuck out on the range. That was something I never wanted to do and I'm glad to give up expert to any one who does that stuff. It's hard core.

I still have my shooting card... somewhere...

 

 

drag things off topic so I'll post only once more on this subject. In 58 to 61 we were still with the M-1 Garand. I have one today. We fired 60 rounds--20 at 200 yds, 300 yds and 500 yds. The first 10 at eah distance was slow and the 2nd ten rapid for a total of 300. /each bull was 5 points and then  to the deuce ring. When I left the Stumps the Marine Corps was changing over to the M-14. I don't mind either rifle and don't care for the M-16. I'll stay with Emmy Gee.  Semper Fi Bro.BTW-that's damn good shooting. The specs have changes over time, so I assume you are expert--Good job.  My last day of active duty I was pulling butts.   Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer

Old Seer wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
experts are just too much goddamn work to listen to. they quote sources i'm not familiar with. they qualify everything. i go away confused and unfulfilled. i need actors and comedians, who understand average joes like me don't want gray areas, to tell me shit.

The only "expert"I ever met was a US Marine that fired "expert" on the rifle range. I know he was an expert because in 1958 one had to fire 240 or better out of 300 to be "expert". If there is an approprate numbering system to determine if one is an "Expert" in Achedemics I don't know about it. But in riflery there is--so that's how we know.

What's amazing --- how many times on the news has an "expert" been found wrong--or---we hear that two experts don't agree. If two experts (so called) don't agree--then which one isn't the expert. How can an "expert" be wrong and another right.  So, being a physicist what number from 0 to 300 do I need to be an "expert" physicist. Well now---lemme see--it's been a while since carrying on with learning physics, so lets say that if I "was" 300", now it's about 150. So, so much for being an expert. Smiling

When I was in The Corps it was 220 for expert and a perfect score was 250.

On pre-qual day I shot a 248. On the day that counted I shot a 222.

The Marine DI who was a former sniper wanted me to go to sniper school but I didn't want that route. The reason being is that the 222 I shot was doing a tropic storm and it was raining and it was cold as fuck out on the range. That was something I never wanted to do and I'm glad to give up expert to any one who does that stuff. It's hard core.

I still have my shooting card... somewhere...

drag things off topic so I'll post only once more on this subject. In 58 to 61 we were still with the M-1 Garand. I have one today. We fired 60 rounds--20 at 200 yds, 300 yds and 500 yds. The first 10 at eah distance was slow and the 2nd ten rapid for a total of 300. /each bull was 5 points and then  to the deuce ring. When I left the Stumps the Marine Corps was changing over to the M-14. I don't mind either rifle and don't care for the M-16. I'll stay with Emmy Gee.  Semper Fi Bro.BTW-that's damn good shooting. The specs have changes over time, so I assume you are expert--Good job.  My last day in the  Corps I was pulling butts.   Smiling

(sorry this is off topic)

I've found my score card. It's amazing I still have it, holy shit, 24 years later.. holy crap... I'm older.

I took a picture of it but my battery was dying. I also have the test sheet from when we got to fire 9 rounds at small targets sheets.

The funny thing I see on my score card which I completely forgot about was that my grouping was so tight that they were putting zeros down, meaning I missed completely. I then complained and they had to look again. I kept shooting in the same spots and even though they were putting those stickers over the area I kept shooting out the back paper so the sticky wouldn't stick any more.

It's weird because I really dislike guns but I could shoot 700 yards easy even with the M16 and no scope.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:iwbiek

BobSpence wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

 We also have an opinion piece by a woman from Pakistan, which is as far from the Middle East, culturally and geographically, as France is from Russia. Only a fool would consider indiscriminately lumping France and Russia together because they're both historically "Christian." Yet because of the tradition of "orientalism" in the west, we have no problem lumping countries as disparate as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia together because it all seems the same to us: "the East." And apparently anyone who points out the sheer asininity of this type of discourse is just being a "PC liberal," a label which the writer from Pakistan Brian cited apparently doesn't realize stops discussion just as much as Affleck's (stupid) cry of "racist."

Who is the 'woman from Pakistan'? 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who Brian mentioned, was born in Somalia, and spent her early life in Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia and Kenya. Later, she travelled around parts of the Middle East, including Israel. So while she may not be an 'expert' on the Middle East, she in no way deserves to be dismissed in the way you seem to.




bob, if you're honestly going to keep sniping at me for brian's sake like this, you're at least going to have to read more closely than he does. if i were referring to ali, i would have said "ali." "writer from pakistan" clearly refers to eiynah, the writer of the editorial in pakistan today that brian linked to in the OP, calling her the one "who the PC hurt" (i couldn't recall her name at the time and i was mobile). he also mentioned her right after mentioning ali in post #6. she clearly is pakistani, as her book is called my chacha is gay and "chacha" is "uncle" in both urdu and panjabi, the major languages of pakistan.


anything else?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:BobSpence

iwbiek wrote:
BobSpence wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

 We also have an opinion piece by a woman from Pakistan, which is as far from the Middle East, culturally and geographically, as France is from Russia. Only a fool would consider indiscriminately lumping France and Russia together because they're both historically "Christian." Yet because of the tradition of "orientalism" in the west, we have no problem lumping countries as disparate as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia together because it all seems the same to us: "the East." And apparently anyone who points out the sheer asininity of this type of discourse is just being a "PC liberal," a label which the writer from Pakistan Brian cited apparently doesn't realize stops discussion just as much as Affleck's (stupid) cry of "racist."

Who is the 'woman from Pakistan'? 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who Brian mentioned, was born in Somalia, and spent her early life in Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia and Kenya. Later, she travelled around parts of the Middle East, including Israel. So while she may not be an 'expert' on the Middle East, she in no way deserves to be dismissed in the way you seem to.


bob, if you're honestly going to keep sniping at me for brian's sake like this, you're at least going to have to read more closely than he does. if i were referring to ali, i would have said "ali." "writer from pakistan" clearly refers to eiynah, the writer of the editorial in pakistan today that brian linked to in the OP, calling her the one "who the PC hurt" (i couldn't recall her name at the time and i was mobile). he also mentioned her right after mentioning ali in post #6. she clearly is pakistani, as her book is called my chacha is gay and "chacha" is "uncle" in both urdu and panjabi, the major languages of pakistan.
anything else?

I apologize, I didn't read through the posts carefully enough. I know Brian is quite a 'fan' of Ayaan, which had a lot to do with me jumping to the wrong conclusion.

Just curious, when was the last time I 'sniped' at you? 

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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:iwbiek

Old Seer wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
experts are just too much goddamn work to listen to. they quote sources i'm not familiar with. they qualify everything. i go away confused and unfulfilled. i need actors and comedians, who understand average joes like me don't want gray areas, to tell me shit.

The only "expert"I ever met was a US Marine that fired "expert" on the rifle range. I know he was an expert because in 1958 one had to fire 240 or better out of 300 to be "expert". If there is an approprate numbering system to determine if one is an "Expert" in Achedemics I don't know about it. But in riflery there is--so that's how we know.

What's amazing --- how many times on the news has an "expert" been found wrong--or---we hear that two experts don't agree. If two experts (so called) don't agree--then which one isn't the expert. How can an "expert" be wrong and another right.  So, being a physicist what number from 0 to 300 do I need to be an "expert" physicist. Well now---lemme see--it's been a while since carrying on with learning physics, so lets say that if I "was" 300", now it's about 150. So, so much for being an expert. Smiling




i'm not going to bother talking about how to define a term as general as "expert." since i was specifically talking about an expert on the middle east, i'll give my view of what that is and i think most people will find it reasonable. an expert on the middle east, imo, is someone who has spent years there immersed in the culture, who is reasonably fluent in the local languages and dialects, who can integrate more or less seamlessly in most social situations; iow, someone who truly understands the middle eastern mindset, AND who can effectively put it in a global context. i don't insist on academic training in middle eastern studies but it is desirable, because academic training helps one synthesize and apply data immensely.


obviously, the best candidate for this role would be a born-and-bred middle easterner, but we in the west unfortunately tend to suspect native scholars of some insidious agenda of "defending" their home cultures and thus lacking "objectivity."


i'll tell you exactly who an expert on the middle east is NOT, however: someone who sits at home in the US and gets all his info through the associated press et al. also, it bears saying that being an expert on islam (and it takes at least a lifetime to become a general expert on a religion as vast as that, and only then for the most talented and diligent) does not necessarily make one an expert on the middle east and vice versa. in fact, being an expert "on the middle east" is damn near impossible. one could only really hope to get comprehensive knowledge of individual countries or regions, and even then one would have to ask if this person is an expert on the historical or contemporary middle east or both (as they are, of course, inextricably linked).


in my experience, a good litmus test for if you're talking to an expert on international affairs, history, anthropology, religions, ideologies, etc., is to ask them a question about their area, particularly a loaded and general question like "what does (religion/ideology x) teach about human rights," "how are women treated in iran," "do muslims in afghanistan support the taliban," etc. if you get anything other than a great deal of initial hesitation and brow furrowing, bid them good day. don't waste your time.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Just

BobSpence wrote:

Just curious, when was the last time I 'sniped' at you? 




it could just be my perception of the situation of course.


BobSpence wrote:
I apologize, I didn't read through the posts carefully enough. I know Brian is quite a 'fan' of Ayaan, which had a lot to do with me jumping to the wrong conclusion.




btw, in addition to coming to brian's defense, don't you think you might serve him well by suggesting he learn from statements like this? just learning to apologize and admit he's wrong now and then would bring down the animosity considerably. he refuses to see that the main reason he's being attacked so much is not because of his ideas.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Ibwick if you do anything

 Ibwick if you do anything do not take it out on Bob. Your beef is with me. And as far as lecturing me about getting things wrong you are the one with a communist flag symbol on top of not reading Hitchens book or even comming remotely close to understanding why religion should not be given a pass. Attack me all you want, and that is PRECICESLY the point I am makeing about humans in general. PC bullshit does not help sovle shit. You have childishly acteded like the schoolyard hero when in reality, you give cover to the bullies of the world, which is the wall Hitchens was trying to tear down. Scrutiny and blasphemy are the only weapon that can keep fascism from talking hold.

Now, no I am not apoligizing for shit. When you can walk on water and cure the blind and rise from the dead, then maybe I will apologize. Until then you need to stop acting like people need to bow to you becuase some things in life are ugly and others point out those ugly truths. 

Grow the fuck up Ibwick. Nobody is perfect, not you, not me. You can attack me all you want, becuase unlike you, I accept that on a planet of 7 billion you are not always going to have nice things said about you. 

 

"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: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Here is Bill's response to

 Here is Bill's response to the well intended PC morons who don't want him to speak.

 

https://www.facebook.com/Maher?fref=nf

His video response to the protesters is down a bit.

"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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
 Nobody's "taking anything

 Nobody's "taking anything out on bob." Bob entered the discussion unsolicited (or did he?) and I responded to what he said. Nothing to do with you, so fuck off. And I gave up on you ever apologizing for anything long ago. that would mean admitting you're wrong, something you've never done on this site and will never do. I love how i and countless others here have pointed out so many specific things you've gotten wrong over the years, you've never owned up to a single one (unlike your protector here, who did just that yesterday), and still the only thing you have to come at me with is my avatar (which in reality you have no understanding of, what a surprise) and the fact I'm not going to waste time reading a book by your favorite political pundit. You're a sad little man with a martyr complex and again I tell you to fuck off. I suppose I'm bullying you too, aren't I?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:BobSpence

iwbiek wrote:
BobSpence wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

 We also have an opinion piece by a woman from Pakistan, which is as far from the Middle East, culturally and geographically, as France is from Russia. Only a fool would consider indiscriminately lumping France and Russia together because they're both historically "Christian." Yet because of the tradition of "orientalism" in the west, we have no problem lumping countries as disparate as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia together because it all seems the same to us: "the East." And apparently anyone who points out the sheer asininity of this type of discourse is just being a "PC liberal," a label which the writer from Pakistan Brian cited apparently doesn't realize stops discussion just as much as Affleck's (stupid) cry of "racist."

Who is the 'woman from Pakistan'? 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who Brian mentioned, was born in Somalia, and spent her early life in Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia and Kenya. Later, she travelled around parts of the Middle East, including Israel. So while she may not be an 'expert' on the Middle East, she in no way deserves to be dismissed in the way you seem to.


bob, if you're honestly going to keep sniping at me for brian's sake like this, you're at least going to have to read more closely than he does. if i were referring to ali, i would have said "ali." "writer from pakistan" clearly refers to eiynah, the writer of the editorial in pakistan today that brian linked to in the OP, calling her the one "who the PC hurt" (i couldn't recall her name at the time and i was mobile). he also mentioned her right after mentioning ali in post #6. she clearly is pakistani, as her book is called my chacha is gay and "chacha" is "uncle" in both urdu and panjabi, the major languages of pakistan.
anything else?

Excuse me, but this is precisely the problem. "It's complex" well no shit sherlock. Same stupid flawed thinkinging when someone points out a verse in a holy book and accuses athiests of taking it out of context, missing the bigger picture that the entire book is a myth regardless of the nice stories in it. Islam has different sects and different languages and different practices. NO SHIT, not even at atheists agree all the time either, and you can find atheists all over the world too.

Islam needs it's Jefferson and Paine, not just one country or one sect, but the climate is still far too widely stuck in the past. Pointing out more moderate states and or liberal Muslims does not change the totality of the region as a whole. There is still a big enough MINORITY that is holding that region back. To burry your head in the sand is to shit on Ali and that woman from Pakistan. It should not matter what their differences are, or what their boarders are or what languages they speak. You are stuck on details when we are taling about the weather pattern and there is still too big of a storm for the east that is still holding that region back.

Oh and as far as French Christians and Russian Christians being different. Again you stupidly accuse us of thinking they are the same? No is claiming they are. No different than Catholics and Mormons are the same here in America. NO SHIT. Still does not change our species history of using holy books as political weapons to justify all sort of abusrdities like blue laws to banning abortion, to slavery to sexism and homophobia.  America is a a much more free society than Russia, but because of the bible we are just now getting arround to rightfully allowing gay marriage, because compassionate people dispite their beliefs chose to ignore that others use it as a weapon to deny gays equal rights. Now what Russian Christians have in common is that they use the Christian bible RIGHT NOW to pass censorship laws preventing gay advocasy and police TODAY in Russia often look away when gays are attacked and beaten up. The different sects of Christianity do not change the fact that the same source is used, THE BIBLE.

You "Coke is a different company than Pepsi" ME "no shit, but they are still sodas".

As long as humans have religions, which they will, those holy books can and will be used to justify the desires of the individual and our society. To say that the weather from Saudia Arabia to Pakistan is all sunny with calm waters is fucking absurd.<-----No you did not litterally say that, but you might as well pretend it, because you like I know there is a problem, but unlike you I do not think coddling the storm over there as if only saying nice things will solve anything.

 

 

"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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
 How about you react to my

 How about you react to my post to you instead of my post to bob? Deflecting again, are we? Much easier to hide behind our stock histrionics than deal with the reality of our own willful ignorance, isn't it?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: How about you

iwbiek wrote:

 How about you react to my post to you instead of my post to bob? Deflecting again, are we? Much easier to hide behind our stock histrionics than deal with the reality of our own willful ignorance, isn't it?

No one is hiding from anything. You are using the same stupid flawed logic theists use getting stuck on details. Cars and motor cycles being different does not change that they are vehicles, and like any vehcile they can be driven unsafely and the drivers can do stupid shit while opporating either. Same stupid logic I get from gun nutters. "Not everyone does that", still does not change far too many still do.

Unless you understand long term human behavior you will not understand what I am saying. Keep getting stuck on details like an idiot.

 

"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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Troublesome things, details,

Troublesome things, details, aren't they? Concrete examples of concrete realities. They take time and effort to consider, and they challenge our preconceived notions at every turn. So much easier and more self-gratifying to deal in half-baked generalizations and abstract ideas. Then one can understand anything in as little as an afternoon. Right up your alley.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:iwbiek

Brian37 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

 How about you react to my post to you instead of my post to bob? Deflecting again, are we? Much easier to hide behind our stock histrionics than deal with the reality of our own willful ignorance, isn't it?

No one is hiding from anything. You are using the same stupid flawed logic theists use getting stuck on details. Cars and motor cycles being different does not change that they are vehicles, and like any vehcile they can be driven unsafely and the drivers can do stupid shit while opporating either. Same stupid logic I get from gun nutters. "Not everyone does that", still does not change far too many still do.

Unless you understand long term human behavior you will not understand what I am saying. Keep getting stuck on details like an idiot.

 

Where exactly are these theists who get stuck on details? Ime, theists often run from any conversations that involve details and when they do get into that conversation they move the goal posts constantly as each detail goes against the belief they started with (eg my ongoing conversation with cap over in the flood thread). You use very similar tactics and simply leave a thread anytime anyone asks you for specific details. Which, imo, should be a warning sign to you that you should consider your position a little more deeply before asserting a position as obvious unquestionable fact. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, I remember debating a

Yeah, I remember debating a particularly spacey theist once. After several minutes he told me, verbatim, "you're getting hung up on facts, man." Then he seemed genuinely surprised when I laughed really loudly.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Troublesome

iwbiek wrote:

Troublesome things, details, aren't they? Concrete examples of concrete realities. They take time and effort to consider, and they challenge our preconceived notions at every turn. So much easier and more self-gratifying to deal in half-baked generalizations and abstract ideas. Then one can understand anything in as little as an afternoon. Right up your alley.

No , it is precisely on just about any f subject, but especially religion, people get lost in details missing the entirety of our species history.

Our species can find all sorts of patterns in life, they can center their entire lives arround a perception, they cherry pick missing the bigger picture because that idea feels right to them. Just like the Egyptians were successful for 3,000 years centering their lives arround poytheistic gods that did not exist in reality. Bad enough that even without violence that humans come to false conclusions. But you do not reduce violence in our species by by giving cover to any religion under the intent of multicutlralism. Good intent does not equate to good tactic.

False perceptions are an unfortunate part of our species existence, which makes it extremely important to understand our evolutionary reality. Allowing people rights has nothing to do with credibility of a given claim. You allow cover for the few who fuck things up for the many by  doing the same cherry picking they do.

"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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
You constantly point to

You constantly point to evolution as virtually the only affective force in existence and you talk about "reducing violence"? Does your stupidity really know no bounds?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Yeah, I

iwbiek wrote:

Yeah, I remember debating a particularly spacey theist once. After several minutes he told me, verbatim, "you're getting hung up on facts, man." Then he seemed genuinely surprised when I laughed really loudly.

Here is your fucked up logic.

"Lets ignore the amount of drunk driving by focusing on the details between cars and motorcycles".

When a girl is shot for wanting an education , the source that led the assholes to do it was the Koran. When women cannot drive and are forced to ask for men's permission to do anything in Saudi Arabia to do anything, again, the source is the Koran.

When slaves were owend, the bible was the source of justification. When gays are denied rights in America or in Russia, it is still the same bible. "Missinterpretation" does not change where they are getting their source of morality. The west became more civil and defends multiculteralism because moderates and liberals cherry pick and or ignore the nasty words in holy books, but the same books they use for acts of compassion are the same source those who commit cruel acts or oppressive laws. SAME SOURCE.

Moderates and liberals of any religion cannotbe literalists, to do so and do everything those words command or condone one would literally become a monster. 

"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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Here's a little tip on

Here's a little tip on empiricism, moron, though it will doubtless be lost on you. If you cannot defend something in the details, it is indefensible.

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
 YOU HAVEN'T READ THE

YOU HAVEN'T READ THE FUCKING QURAN, BRIAN! EVER! I say that with 100% confidence. Do you not consider it an important detail that you read a text you wish to make such a flippant statement about? OF COURSE YOU DON'T. Because it runs contrary to your miserable little shibboleths. Where in the Quran does it say no woman should be educated? I'll give you the rest of your waste of a life to find it, cuz it ain't there! That's why in Afghanistan Malala can be shot and over in Bangladesh they have a female prime minister! There are as many different islams as there are christianities and surely even an arrogant little fuck like you will admit you can't possibly understand all of them. Never mind, of course you won't admit that...

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Oh, and incidentally, you

Oh, and incidentally, you ignorant cunt, the Bible does not justify slavery. It merely takes it as a social reality and tells how it should be conducted justly. It neither morally condemns nor justifies it. Sorry for bothering you with more fucking facts. The Quran doesn't relegate women to ignorance, the bible doesn't justify slavery, and Hypatia never left us any quotes. JUST ADMIT THESE THINGS.

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
 Now he goes silent. What a

 Now he goes silent. What a surprise.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:When slaves

Brian37 wrote:

When slaves were owend, the bible was the source of justification.

The earliest abolitionists were far stronger bible thumpers than those who supported slavery. The movement really started among the Quakers (Jon Woolman, Benjamin Lay, Benjamin Lundy & friends) and then it spread into the more mainstream religions, primarily made up of evangelical Christens- those of the same stripe as what we would call the "Christian right" today. Led by the likes of Rev. John Newton, who is widely credited with converting William Wilberforce to an anti-slave position. Wilberforce, an influential British politician, went on to push through several laws that were devastating to the slave trade in Britain. 

The evangelical work of many American organizations were inspired by, (and often funded), the work of Wilberforce and the coalition of influential Brits that he built. Not only were they extremely religious (complete batshit fundy nuts by todays standards) they were also, *gasp* rich evil businessmen. Groups like the American Bible Society performed widespread charitable work, while evangelizing their religious and anti-slavery messages. 

The major figures of the abolition movement in America were almost without exception, extreme fundamentalists. Elizabeth Heyrick, the Tappan brothers, John Brown (who was damn near a religious terrorist if you consider any of his actions over any issue other than slavery- many actually do consider him a murderer and terrorist), Elijah Lovejoy, etc. I could go on forever. All of them were extremely religious, very public about it and they used their religion as a method to spread abolitionist thought as well as their EXPLICIT arguments for being abolitionist. 

The AA-SS (American Anti-Slavery Society) had virtually every single one of its chapters based in a church. If religion hadn't existed in some alternate universe, it is virtually certain that slavery still would have existed (slavery became huge in the US for strictly economic reasons, unlike slavery in some other areas of the world where it was done as punishment or to control particular nationalities from a conquered country) and it is virtually certain that it would have taken much longer to get rid of it. Religion was a powerful tool for the abolitionists as well as their motivation. 

There were VERY few churches which rationalized slavery using a few bible quotes- they weren't running around saying that the bible says people have a religious duty to have slaves. It wasn't a justification, at most it was "well the bible doesn't say it is a sin". That is a much more passive stance than the stance adopted by the abolitionists who claimed that according to the bible, slavery is an evil sin and one which the pious have a duty to stop. 

Go read a fucking history book before making dumb ass claims. Oh, wait, the facts don't matter. Religion is poison and your fucked up version of history where religion promoted slavery is more convenient for you. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

When slaves were owend, the bible was the source of justification.

The earliest abolitionists were far stronger bible thumpers than those who supported slavery. The movement really started among the Quakers (Jon Woolman, Benjamin Lay, Benjamin Lundy & friends) and then it spread into the more mainstream religions, primarily made up of evangelical Christens- those of the same stripe as what we would call the "Christian right" today. Led by the likes of Rev. John Newton, who is widely credited with converting William Wilberforce to an anti-slave position. Wilberforce, an influential British politician, went on to push through several laws that were devastating to the slave trade in Britain. 

The evangelical work of many American organizations were inspired by, (and often funded), the work of Wilberforce and the coalition of influential Brits that he built. Not only were they extremely religious (complete batshit fundy nuts by todays standards) they were also, *gasp* rich evil businessmen. Groups like the American Bible Society performed widespread charitable work, while evangelizing their religious and anti-slavery messages. 

The major figures of the abolition movement in America were almost without exception, extreme fundamentalists. Elizabeth Heyrick, the Tappan brothers, John Brown (who was damn near a religious terrorist if you consider any of his actions over any issue other than slavery- many actually do consider him a murderer and terrorist), Elijah Lovejoy, etc. I could go on forever. All of them were extremely religious, very public about it and they used their religion as a method to spread abolitionist thought as well as their EXPLICIT arguments for being abolitionist. 

The AA-SS (American Anti-Slavery Society) had virtually every single one of its chapters based in a church. If religion hadn't existed in some alternate universe, it is virtually certain that slavery still would have existed (slavery became huge in the US for strictly economic reasons, unlike slavery in some other areas of the world where it was done as punishment or to control particular nationalities from a conquered country) and it is virtually certain that it would have taken much longer to get rid of it. Religion was a powerful tool for the abolitionists as well as their motivation. 

There were VERY few churches which rationalized slavery using a few bible quotes- they weren't running around saying that the bible says people have a religious duty to have slaves. It wasn't a justification, at most it was "well the bible doesn't say it is a sin". That is a much more passive stance than the stance adopted by the abolitionists who claimed that according to the bible, slavery is an evil sin and one which the pious have a duty to stop. 

Go read a fucking history book before making dumb ass claims. Oh, wait, the facts don't matter. Religion is poison and your fucked up version of history where religion promoted slavery is more convenient for you. 

 

Still missing the fucking point. Both the abolitionists AND the ones justifying the slavery BOTH have the same source. That should tell humans in general that the morality is not actually comming from the book itself, but humans are using it to justify their own desires. Our species ability to be cruel or comasoinate is not in a book, but in our evolution. Take away the excuses of cherry picking because both cherry pick.

Just like both Malala and her shooters see the Koran as their source of justifications.

 

 

 

"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: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
http://www.middleeasteye.net/

"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: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Oh, and

iwbiek wrote:

Oh, and incidentally, you ignorant cunt, the Bible does not justify slavery. It merely takes it as a social reality and tells how it should be conducted justly. It neither morally condemns nor justifies it. Sorry for bothering you with more fucking facts. The Quran doesn't relegate women to ignorance, the bible doesn't justify slavery, and Hypatia never left us any quotes. JUST ADMIT THESE THINGS.

 

NO you dipshit, you are taking a current liberal view of that book. Slavery was justified by people who picked up and read that same book. You choose to interpret the current liberal view of it which is cherry picking. 

If one book can be used to justify either by either then that is one fucking needlessly convoluted book. If a bicycle factory had assembly manuals writtin like holy books the workers would end up with squid for spokes and end up murdering each other over how to assmble the bikes.

To do what that book says word for word litterally you would become a monster. It says nothing about condeming slavery in it. It says nothing about condeming rape in it. You know why? Because in antiquity even in polythiesm it was quite common to take those you defeated and turn them into slaves. And don't even try to justify female equality because the very first story sets a women up for blame for the fall of man.

Both oppressors and liberators use holy books as justifications. That does not change the source is the same. The fundementalists in religion are the litteralists but the source is the same.

"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


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Still missing

Brian37 wrote:

Still missing the fucking point.

I wasn't aware you had a point. I thought it was just ignorant bloviations. If you had a point, it would be a substantial improvement. 

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Both the abolitionists AND the ones justifying the slavery BOTH have the same source.

No, they didn't. Well, at least not in any sense other than their last common ancestors.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

That should tell humans in general that the morality is not actually comming from the book itself,

There isn't a single person in the entire world who believes that it does. Do you know where most monotheists believe that morality comes from? (oh damn, another detail)

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You choose to

Brian37 wrote:
You choose to interpret the current liberal view of it which is cherry picking



where am i cherry-picking? i haven't even quoted a verse. i'm talking about the whole fucking bible, something i know you haven't read any more than you've read the quran. if anyone's cherry-picking, it's you and your ilk. have you actually read it? cover to cover? (i know i'm not going to get an answer to that.) or do you just get select verses fed to you by the new atheist writers? because that's as bad as getting them fed to you by fundies. there is not a single passage in the bible that defends slavery as an institution. i don't care how people have interpreted it, there isn't, and i'm talking about the plain fucking meaning. quote it for me, if there is. there also isn't a verse that condemns slavery. there are plenty of verses that regulate slavery, but that's not what you've been saying.


game, set, match. a knowledge of the original sources wins out every time.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i have never seen anyone

i have never seen anyone refuse to so much as modify their ignorance with such tenacity, and most of my friends are ignorant village catholics. i recently argued abortion with one who goes to pro-life rallies and i even got him to admit there are a couple problems with his position.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ei

"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: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i have never

iwbiek wrote:
i have never seen anyone refuse to so much as modify their ignorance with such tenacity, and most of my friends are ignorant village catholics. i recently argued abortion with one who goes to pro-life rallies and i even got him to admit there are a couple problems with his position.

No moron, the only one with their head in the sand is you. You allow your evolutionary empathy to cloud your judgment. Humans find their justifications in books of myth to do either good or bad, you refuse to see the source as the same. You are not going to help the oppressed by ignoring that. Your politically correct bullshit helps no one.

Once again, you have no long term view of how human's flawed perceptions lead our species to false conclusions. Nice stories in Star Wars does not make "The Force" real. Darth Vader does  not make "The Dark Side of The Force" real, but the movie is the same fucking movie. Idiots like you would defend the church instead of Galileo because rocking the boat might hurt someone's feelings because of facts.

 

You also have some stupid fucking mentality that bluntness and blasphemy is some sort of oppression on par with real oppression. If you want to coddle the insecurites of of myth lovers, you can. But this isn't about human rights, this is claims and sticking a mirror to those cliams and justifications and cold water on their faces to show them that it is the same source. 

 

"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: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Here is the part my well

 Here is the part my well intended PC friends miss because they only see what they want to see.

This was a twitter post from a fellow atheist " For this world to be free and breathe again Islam must be annihilated"

If you think I never challenge language like this, you'd be wrong. It is one thing to verbally cuss out and blaspheme religion like having a friend claim the Yankees won the Superbowl when one knows damned well they play baseball. It is quite another to cross the line using the same intollerent implications that lead to the same horrors the civil west rightfully points out. I called him out, not for his rightful anger to horrible actions, but his implication to reduce ourselves to the same level.

"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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
after all this time, you're

after all this time, you're still so narcissistic that you try to make it about anything other than you. i'm not defending religion. i'm attacking your stupidity. and a blind man could see it in my posts. it's not my "evolutionary empathy." it's my "evolutionary hatred of loudmouthed fools." have you ever noticed that out of all the people who constantly rip on religions on this site, now and in the past, YOU are the only one i've ever attacked? does that tell you nothing? you're not even the first person to have referred to religion as "poison" on this site, yet you're the only one i've ever taken to task for it. again, DOES THAT TELL YOU NOTHING?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:after all this

iwbiek wrote:
after all this time, you're still so narcissistic that you try to make it about anything other than you. i'm not defending religion. i'm attacking your stupidity. and a blind man could see it in my posts. it's not my "evolutionary empathy." it's my "evolutionary hatred of loudmouthed fools." have you ever noticed that out of all the people who constantly rip on religions on this site, now and in the past, YOU are the only one i've ever attacked? does that tell you nothing? you're not even the first person to have referred to religion as "poison" on this site, yet you're the only one i've ever taken to task for it. again, DOES THAT TELL YOU NOTHING?

Oh shut the fuck up dipshit. You didn't say shit when this website started when others offended religion long before you had your childish knejerk reaction to my argument. There was plenty of blasphemy long before this current beef between you and I started.

All you are fucking arguing is "It is ok the way I criticize religion and my way is the only way to do it".

If anyone is narcissitic it is you, you think because you hold the title "teacher" that make you immune to question? You don't give one fuck about reducing violence in the world based on religious claims. You are merely interested in coddling the insecurites of others because of your stupid ignorance.
 

Now I am going to teach you something.

You do not own me. You are not above me. You are not special. Your holding the title atheist does not give you anymore special treatment to me.  You holding the title "teacher" also doesn't mean shit to me. There are 7 billion people on this planet and both you and I are merely 2. In 5 billion years neither you or I will be alive. 

 

Now where you go wrong is where all well intended people go wrong. NO ONE IS FUCKING TALKING ABOUT LEGAL RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

You still are stuck in the bullshit attitude that anything ugly should not be brought up becuase someone might get their feelings hurt. 

You and I have been cussing each other out and we hate each other. And the fucking childish part you don't see is that we are not stabbing each other to death because, realize it or not, you accept that there are worse things in the world. You damned well know that. Christians in Iraq have a right to fear. Gays in Iran have a right to fear. You are merely pissed off because you don't like the way I do it. TOO FUCKING BAD AND WELCOME TO REALITY.

 

So grow the fuck up. I offend you and you offend me and both of us are still here. Put your big boy pants on crybaby.

 

 

 

"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