get ready for boobquake day

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments (Page 61)

Showing posts 1,201 - 1,220 of1,451
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1212
Jul 16, 2010
 
no1special wrote:
I presented an unatributed quotation, which amused me. I took further amusement in the fact that it was taken seriously
Don't worry about that any more.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1213
Jul 16, 2010
 
no1special wrote:
A recent similar 'witch hunt' can be seen in the McMartin Preschool child abuse scandal, and other 'ritual' child abuse allegations of the era.
Similar? Were the McMartins burned alive?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1214
Jul 16, 2010
 
no1special wrote:
<quoted text>
"deducing" that you know what another person is thinking is different than mind reading in what way?
LOL. Fail.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1215
Jul 16, 2010
 

Judged:

1

no1special wrote:
<quoted text>
Accepting a human as having ultimate authority is submitting. We submit all the time, most notably, to the rule of law, and the judgement of a judge, or a panel of judges. I believe that it is 'ok', as a practical matter to accept judicial authority. Perhaps you have a different opinion.
Being away from England allowed the behavior, as it allowed the puritans to create and to live by their own, unevolved, law.
The claim that certain women were witches was made by people with their own agendas - human agendas, like jealousy, greed and simple mean spiritedness.
The 'ultimate authority' was a 'bible'(a selction of unrelated religious texts written by seperate authors and put together by a committee) which had been selectively edited by King James, and adopted by a group of puritan religious elders.
No one person of authority (save perhaps King James) was involved. All it took was an instigator, in the historic case of Salem, a clique of girls, that is (or are) social connected and regarded as credible by the powers that be.
A recent similar 'witch hunt' can be seen in the McMartin Preschool child abuse scandal, and other 'ritual' child abuse allegations of the era.
What a sickening apology. Again.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1216
Jul 16, 2010
 
NotBuyingIt wrote:
<quoted text>I did read it - looks like he is explaining why we *do* have superstitions - be he mentions how we also LEARN.. which means we are not necessarily doomed our entire life to them - that we learn, and correct those.
"Sometimes A really is connected to B; sometimes it is not. When it is, we have learned something valuable about the environment from which we can make predictions that aid in survival and reproduction. "
He also failed to acknowledge that when it is not connected we also learned.
It is clear his point is; superstitions are, until we have investigated and learned otherwise, is a predisposition to assign a proxy answer to things we have not yet fully understood.
The crucial things will get our attention first, and other things that have no relevance may never get investigated, and thus never corrected.
And thus, superstitions for an adult in civilized society be an indication of poor education.
Superstition is faith, meaning unjustified certitude.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1217
Jul 16, 2010
 
no1special wrote:
<quoted text>
still rationalizing your hatred?
Hateful blah-blah hate blah-blah a hateful hating of hate. Whatevah.[Yawns from tedium]

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1218
Jul 16, 2010
 
no1special wrote:
Yes Bob, I make up my own words as I go along
That's just misspelling, not neologism. "Speach" is not a new word.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1219
Jul 16, 2010
 

Judged:

1

no1special wrote:
You can do better Bob.
Is it hate speech if I call you a condescending prick?

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1220
Jul 16, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it hate speech if I call you a condescending prick?
Be prepared for your usage of the word "prick' being taken out of context, or spun in a completely unrelated way, and possibly the entire sentence.

BTW, you spelled 'speech" correctly.You maverick.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1221
Jul 16, 2010
 
no1special wrote:
<quoted text>
still rationalizing your hatred?
If I'm discredited, does that make your hate speech more rational? Justified?
C'mon Bob, you know better than that.
Ain't rationalization, is logic.

You have failed, at every turn, to provide **logical** counter-arguments.

Your entire straw-man "argument" such as it was, consisted of an emotional appeal-- your intense desire to apologize for religion.

<shrug>

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1222
Jul 16, 2010
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't castigate people for having religious beliefs. I castigate them for being assholes, like many on Topix. I stand by my examples of religious tolerance in people who don't treat me like demon scum fit for damnation, like Joe. He is a strong believer, and he's all right with me, because he's not an anal sphincter.
Fail.
Yep-- Joe is an A-okay dude.

So is the guy who occasionally posts as "The Innkeeper"-- he's okay, too-- if you ask, he rejects the theologies of omniscience, hell-torture and other traditional doctrines of hate.

There's a few others as well-- over on the Evolution threads, there's 'Fossil Bob' who is a genuine geologist. He is also a believer, but he's quite okay-- a very smart fellow, who also rejects hate-dogma.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1223
Jul 16, 2010
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Unwarranted skepticism. LOL. I don't believe that I've ever heard an atheist say anything like that before. Christian!
:ROFL:

That **IS** a new one-- ought to add to "Fundies Say The Darndest Things":

"Unwarranted Skepticism".....

:ROFL:
:ROFL:
:ROFL:

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1224
Jul 16, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep-- Joe is an A-okay dude.
So is the guy who occasionally posts as "The Innkeeper"-- he's okay, too-- if you ask, he rejects the theologies of omniscience, hell-torture and other traditional doctrines of hate.
There's a few others as well-- over on the Evolution threads, there's 'Fossil Bob' who is a genuine geologist. He is also a believer, but he's quite okay-- a very smart fellow, who also rejects hate-dogma.
People like that are evidence that it is not religion or the religious per se that we object to. If it were, there would be no exceptions.

It's the individual behavior of the believer. Here is a partial list of my peeves atheists have with theists on these threads (feel free to add your own if it isn't here):

IRRITATING and DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIORS COMMON AMONG THEISTS

[1] Telling us what it is that we believe, especially that we claim that there is no god

[2] Unsolicited (which is all of it) preaching and proselytizing

[3] Referring to atheism as a religion, saying that atheism requires faith, or calling an atheist a fundamentalist

[4] Trying to prove something by quoting the Bible

[5] Threatening nonbelievers with damnation

[6] Pretending that you don't have the burden of proof

[7] Using cut and paste arguments from others that you can't defend

[8] Repeating arguments that have already been refuted and rejected

[9] Saying that we believe nothing, that our lives are without purpose or meaning, or that we have no basis for moral behavior

[10] Announce that you'll be praying for us

[11] Invoking Pascalís Wager, which says that there is everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing in Jesus

[12] Telling us that we canít or donít understand the Bible, or that our Christian experiences couldnít have been authentic if we abandoned them

[13] Saying that we hate your god, are rebelling against your god, or really believe in a god
nina

Ottawa, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1225
Jul 16, 2010
 
no1special wrote:
<quoted text>
"deducing" that you know what another person is thinking is different than mind reading in what way?
because deduction is arrived at by observation and applying your experience of human interactions

mind reading is bogus as human brains are not transmitter/receivers

seriously, you're so intellectually twisted that you have to screw your socks on every morning
nina

Ottawa, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1226
Jul 16, 2010
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
...
[13] Saying that we hate your god, are rebelling against your god, or really believe in a god
[14] Employing the No True Scotsman fallacy

[15] misrepresenting ToE concepts and all science knowledge

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1227
Jul 16, 2010
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
People like that are evidence that it is not religion or the religious per se that we object to. If it were, there would be no exceptions.
It's the individual behavior of the believer. Here is a partial list of my peeves atheists have with theists on these threads (feel free to add your own if it isn't here):
IRRITATING and DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIORS COMMON AMONG THEISTS
[1] Telling us what it is that we believe, especially that we claim that there is no god
[2] Unsolicited (which is all of it) preaching and proselytizing
[3] Referring to atheism as a religion, saying that atheism requires faith, or calling an atheist a fundamentalist
[4] Trying to prove something by quoting the Bible
[5] Threatening nonbelievers with damnation
[6] Pretending that you don't have the burden of proof
[7] Using cut and paste arguments from others that you can't defend
[8] Repeating arguments that have already been refuted and rejected
[9] Saying that we believe nothing, that our lives are without purpose or meaning, or that we have no basis for moral behavior
[10] Announce that you'll be praying for us
[11] Invoking Pascalís Wager, which says that there is everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing in Jesus
[12] Telling us that we canít or donít understand the Bible, or that our Christian experiences couldnít have been authentic if we abandoned them
[13] Saying that we hate your god, are rebelling against your god, or really believe in a god
You are of course, correct-- it's not the religion, but the individual's response to the religion.

Many people manage to overcome the more heinous shortcomings of religion, and reject the hateful bits.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1228
Jul 17, 2010
 
nina wrote:
<quoted text>
[14] Employing the No True Scotsman fallacy
[15] misrepresenting ToE concepts and all science knowledge
Thanks. I'll update.

“You are what you choose to be.”

Since: Nov 09

Florence, Or

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1229
Jul 20, 2010
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't castigate people for having religious beliefs. I castigate them for being assholes, like many on Topix. I stand by my examples of religious tolerance in people who don't treat me like demon scum fit for damnation, like Joe. He is a strong believer, and he's all right with me, because he's not an anal sphincter.
Fail.
If your popsts were more clear in this regard there would be no issue,would there?

"Fail"? no need to share your grades with the world.

“You are what you choose to be.”

Since: Nov 09

Florence, Or

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1230
Jul 20, 2010
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
People like that are evidence that it is not religion or the religious per se that we object to. If it were, there would be no exceptions.
It's the individual behavior of the believer.
...
well writen.

my apologies for not seeing this in your earlier posts.
NotBuyingIt

Mesa, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1231
Jul 20, 2010
 
no1special wrote:
<quoted text>
well writen.
my apologies for not seeing this in your earlier posts.
lol

Really? This needed to be pointed out for you?

How could a rational person assume otherwise?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1,201 - 1,220 of1,451
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••