tricki

Birdsboro, PA

#700831 Mar 10, 2014
Love you. We worship you amalgam. We bow down and adore you. Praise amalgam.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#700832 Mar 10, 2014
Alice Cooper

Welcome To My Nightmare

tricki

Birdsboro, PA

#700833 Mar 10, 2014
We love you amalgam!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#700834 Mar 10, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
"Even though they grow weary and wear themselves out with child-bearing, it does not matter; let them go on bearing children till they die, that is what they are there for." - Martin Luther, Father of Christian Protestantism
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Now see I disagree with that. They're also here to make us sammiches. And clean up afterwards.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Seriously? That's your reply to one of the most hateful ideas imaginable?
That isn't one of the most hateful ideas imaginable. You want hateful ideas, look to humanism:

“Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them”-Sam Harris

“We have a choice. We have two options as human beings. We have a choice between conversation and war. That's it. Conversation and violence. And faith is a conversation stopper.”
-Sam Harris

"My concern is that our religions, the diversity of our religious doctrines, is going to get us killed. I'm worried that our religious discourse- our religious beliefs are ultimately incompatible with civilization.”
-Sam Harris

"When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use." -Stalin

“One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic.”-Stalin

“Death solves all problems - no man, no problem.”-Stalin

"Stalin is our greatest father and teacher." -Mao Zedong

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”
-Richard Dawkins

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#700835 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Another thing the Topix Atheists! do is pull out some supposedly biblical contradiction they found on some website and preach to you that they know the Bible better than you. It's hilarious
We tell you in part because you seem unaware of these things. Your priests shield you from them, and you would never be aware of them without the help of unbelievers. And yes, I get them from websites made by people who get them from your bible.

Why don't you care about theses contradictions, or what the implications of them are for the authenticity of your holy book?

Did you see my post outlining criteria for a rational skeptic to believe in a god? Under Highly Suggestive criteria was this:

[6] A genuinely flawless and consistent holy book.

• It should be a book that no man -- no number of men -- could produce.
• It should contain the perfection of philosophy.
• It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature.
• There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject or science.
• Its morality should be the highest, the purest.
• Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should be just, wise, perfect, and perfectly adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired.
• It should contain nothing calculated to make man cruel, revengeful, vindictive or infamous.
• It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy and the spirit of liberty.
• It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and lust, to ignorance, credulity and superstition.
• It should develop the brain and civilize the heart.
• It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and wisest.

A book featuring an allegedly perfect god that makes errors and commits moral atrocities that is also full of errors of history and science, internal contradictions, unfulfilled predictions and promises is meaningful to evidence based thinkers. You don't seem to care.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#700836 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I can only handle so much intolerance from you before I just start scrolling.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Intolerance from me? You're kidding, right?
Does it look like I'm kidding?
You have been maligning me and atheism for pages now.
You make it so easy. All of your Christian haters make it easy.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#700837 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Topix Atheist! cannot listen to reason.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Reason is our world. Yours is faith. If you respect reason, then abandon faith. You cannot have both. They are incompatible.
HAHA! It is your faith that tells you "there's probably no god".

Reason cannot lead to that belief.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#700838 Mar 10, 2014
River Tam wrote:

An insignificant female?
RR is that you?
Males are only useful for two things.
Taking the garbage out and helping to make more females. If they fail to do the first thing, they'll be relegated to the stall to be milked when necessary.
I did not know that you are a misandrist.

Such evil, FemiNazi tendencies.

But alas, you're just a female so no one will care about your misandrist words written here...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#700839 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Don't put all your cards into your science, it's wrong more often than it's right.
You should trust the bible instead, right?

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#700840 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not know that you are a misandrist.
Such evil, FemiNazi tendencies.
But alas, you're just a female so no one will care about your misandrist words written here...
A female that would go out the door with the first bag of garbage!
tricki

Birdsboro, PA

#700841 Mar 10, 2014
Murdock’s misrepresented sources

1. Walker,‘The Woman’s Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects’(1988): This is not a scholarly work at all. Walker is not even a scholar; her academic qualifications are in journalism, and the only subject in which she is recognized as an expert is knitting. Walker’s book is full of unsubstantiated personal claims deriving largely from her own imagination. Walker cites a 1972 reprint of a work by Knight,‘An Account Of The Remains Of The Worship Of Priapus : Lately Existing At Isernia in the Kingdom of Naples: In Two Letters’(1786). Knight is a witness to the existence of the statue, but unlike Murdock he says absolutely nothing about it being anything to do with Peter.

2. Knight,‘An Account Of The Remains Of The Worship Of Priapus: Lately Existing At Isernia in the Kingdom of Naples: In Two Letters’(1786): Since Murdock had already cited a work citing Knight, listing Knight independently was redundant. Murdock was inflating artificially the number of works she cited, a fact which Carrier appears to have overlooked. Knight was tutored at home and was never awarded a university degree, so he was not a scholar. However, his wide experience with antiquities as a collector of ancient coins and bronze statues at least means he was more educated on the subject than Walker the knitting expert.

3. Williams,‘A Dictionary of Sexual Language and Imagery in Shakespearean and Stuart Literature’(1994). This is a scholarly work on a completely different subject. It refers to the existence of the statue, citing a work by Fuchs,‘Geschichte der Erotischen Kunst’(1908), so it is not an independent source.

4. Fuchs,‘Geschichte der Erotischen Kunst’(1908). Murdock had already cited a work citing Fuchs, so listing Fuchs independently is redundant; Carrier again overlooked the fact that Murdock was inflating artificially the number of works she cited. Additionally, Fuchs had a law degree, no qualifications in the field in which he was writing, and never held an academic appointment, so this is not a scholarly source.

5. Erlach, Reisenleitner & Vocelka,‘Privatisierung der Triebe?’ Sexualitat in der Fruhen Neuzeit’(1994): This work cites an unidentified ’18th C. engraving’(p. 206, mistakenly referred to by Murdock as p. 203), which is almost certainly Knight, so this is not an independent source. Published in 1994, this source says that the statue is ‘still housed in the Vatican’s secret collection’(p. 206), but as we shall see there is no evidence it was ever in the Vatican ‘secret collection’. Murdock has clearly never read this book herself, and failed completely to identify it properly; she wrongly attributes authorship to ‘Peter Lang’. In fact, Peter Lang is the name of the publisher. This is another error in Murdock’s list of what Carrier referred to as ‘numerous scholarly sources’ which Carrier failed to identify. It is clear he hasn’t read the book either, and neglected to check any of Murdock’s references.

6. Jones,‘The Secret Middle Ages’(2002): Murdock quotes Jones referring to the ‘notorious Albani bronze said to be held in the Vatican Museum’(p. 75), emphasis mine. Here is a scholarly work striking a note of caution concerning the popular story of the statue being held at the Vatican, and now the story is that it is said to be held in the ‘Vatican Museum’, not in a ‘secret collection’. Jones provides no source for the story, and says nothing about the statue having anything to do with Peter.

the joke that never ends

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#700842 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You yourself said that humanists are atheists and atheists are humanists.
You're half right.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Stalinism does not have a god.
Stalinism had a mortal god. Stalin demanded utter obedience and submission on threat of death just like your god.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
If Satalinsim can have a god, then so can humanism.
That is incorrect. Stalinism, like Christianity, is authoritarian. Humanism is democratic.ense.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#700843 Mar 10, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Christianity has generated zero useful ideas, but has spread its worst ideas wherever it could - ideas like Christian homophobia, atheophobia, misogyny and its war on reproductive rights; its contempt for church-state separation; its contempt for reason and evidence, and an exaltation of faith as a virtue; its anti-intellectuali sm and antiscientism; its tribalisitic tendencies including antisemitism and islamophobia; a deep seated misanthropy that depicts man as sin-infected, failed, utterly dependent, and hopeless except through the church's exclusive dispensation of salvation; self-loathing (we are spirits trapped in vile flesh); an ethical system in which submission to the presumed will of a petty, narcissistic and sadistic deity as interpreted by church elders is the highest moral good, and in which virtues such as self-actualization are treated contemptuously using words like "rebellion, " "arrogance, " and "pride"; the doctrine of sin in which deviation from an ancient and irrational set of values is viewed as grounds for retribution by a god, and by extension, its agents on earth trying to curry favor with it; a distrust of the material world and an effort to alienate the faithful from it; contempt for the earth, which is seen as a waiting room scheduled for apocalyptic annihilation "soon"; cheap and easy self-forgiveness (when does Jesus ever not forgive whoever asks for forgiveness?); sexual constipation (guilt, shame), and anhedonia - the idea that pleasure is sin. Christian love is modeled by crucifixion and submissive worship. Christian kindness is modeled by persecution and scapegoating of gays and atheists. Christian justice is modeled by substitutional atonement, visiting the sins of the father on subsequent generations, and retributional justice such gratuitous torture for the thought crime of unbelief. Christian mercy is modeled by the doctrine of damnation without hope of forgiveness. That's your church's moral and intellectual legacy.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
See? This is your intolerance and bigotry I talk about. You're a hypocrite, nothing more.
Every one of those claims can be supported. Can you refute them?

You just gave us an example of Christian antiscientism: "Don't put all your cards into your science, it's wrong more often than it's right."

Alabama boy is a fine example of Christian atheophobia.

Furthermore, you seem to have no idea what either bigotry or hypocrisy are. Bigotry is an unfair and irrational treatment of people, not ideas. I don't treat people unfairly. I criticize ideas.

And hypocrisy involves self-contradiction and a double standard regarding behavioral advice. I hold you to no standard that I don't also hold myself to.

The simple fact is that you don't like what you just read, so you lash out with aspersions rather than a rebuttal of those ideas. That means nothing except that you have no defense.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#700844 Mar 10, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
We tell you in part because you seem unaware of these things. Your priests shield you from them, and you would never be aware of them without the help of unbelievers. And yes, I get them from websites made by people who get them from your bible.
Why don't you care about theses contradictions, or what the implications of them are for the authenticity of your holy book?
Did you see my post outlining criteria for a rational skeptic to believe in a god? Under Highly Suggestive criteria was this:
[6] A genuinely flawless and consistent holy book.
• It should be a book that no man -- no number of men -- could produce.
• It should contain the perfection of philosophy.
• It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature.
• There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject or science.
• Its morality should be the highest, the purest.
• Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should be just, wise, perfect, and perfectly adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired.
• It should contain nothing calculated to make man cruel, revengeful, vindictive or infamous.
• It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy and the spirit of liberty.
• It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and lust, to ignorance, credulity and superstition.
• It should develop the brain and civilize the heart.
• It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and wisest.
A book featuring an allegedly perfect god that makes errors and commits moral atrocities that is also full of errors of history and science, internal contradictions, unfulfilled predictions and promises is meaningful to evidence based thinkers. You don't seem to care.
The Bible doesn't have to follow your Perfection Policy and God is not limited to your idea of morality.

But by all means, continue quoting Scripture, it's nice to see it plastered everywhere.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#700845 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Don't put all your cards into your science, it's wrong more often than it's right.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You should trust the bible instead, right?
Why is everything so ultimate with you?

I'd say trust both the Bible and science, with a skeptical eye of course.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#700846 Mar 10, 2014
tricki wrote:
Thanks amalgam, you lying piece of filth! Love you.
And here is Christian love. Anybody else would be ashamed to post like this. But he comes by it honestly. His god loves us this way, too. It loves us, but would still hurl hurricanes and tsunamis at us, let our children die of leukemia, visit us with plagues like AIDS, and then condemn us to eternal torture for defying it. With role models like that, you're going to get thoughts and even public comments like his.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#700847 Mar 10, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Every one of those claims can be supported. Can you refute them?
Of course.

You can support them and I can refute them.

What we're left with is choice.
You just gave us an example of Christian antiscientism: "Don't put all your cards into your science, it's wrong more often than it's right."
That's not "antiscientism", ya nutbag. That's skepticism.

If no one was skeptical of science, we'd still be taught that spontaneous generation is a fact.
Alabama boy is a fine example of Christian atheophobia.
Who?
. Furthermore, you seem to have no idea what either bigotry or hypocrisy are. Bigotry is an unfair and irrational treatment of people, not ideas. I don't treat people unfairly. I criticize ideas.
You criticize unfairly. You claim that Christianity teaches phobias of atheists, homosexuals and science.

That could be supported by the teachings of some churches, of done preachers, sure. But to label all of Christianity as such is pure bigotry.
And hypocrisy involves self-contradiction and a double standard regarding behavioral advice. I hold you to no standard that I don't also hold myself to.


Bullshit. You hold the idea that bigotry and intolerance is wrong while committing them yourself. That's hypocritical.
The simple fact is that you don't like what you just read, so you lash out with aspersions rather than a rebuttal of those ideas. That means nothing except that you have no defense.
That isn't a fact. Whether I like it it not is irrelevant. What is relevant are the facts, which you twist to suit your agenda of demeaning and demonizing 'the church'.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#700848 Mar 10, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You're half right.
<quoted text>
Stalinism had a mortal god. Stalin demanded utter obedience and submission on threat of death just like your god.
<quoted text>
That is incorrect. Stalinism, like Christianity, is authoritarian. Humanism is democratic.ense.
Humanism is equally authoritarian. You are a humanist. You insist on pushing your views of legality and morality and you fight to lessen views that counteract with your own.

Oh, and Stalinism had no god.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#700849 Mar 10, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
"Even though they grow weary and wear themselves out with child-bearing, it does not matter; let them go on bearing children till they die, that is what they are there for." - Martin Luther, Father of Christian Protestantism
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Now see I disagree with that. They're also here to make us sammiches. And clean up afterwards.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Seriously? That's your reply to one of the most hateful ideas imaginable?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
That isn't one of the most hateful ideas imaginable. You want hateful ideas, look to humanism:

“Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them”-Sam Harris

“We have a choice. We have two options as human beings. We have a choice between conversation and war. That's it. Conversation and violence. And faith is a conversation stopper.”-Sam Harris

"My concern is that our religions, the diversity of our religious doctrines, is going to get us killed. I'm worried that our religious discourse - our religious beliefs are ultimately incompatible with civilization.”-Sam Harris

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”
-Richard Dawkins
I deleted your Stalin and Mao quotes. They aren't humanists.

And none of the rest compare with the disgusting words from Luther that you condoned. To make the comment you did, and to think that the ones you listed are worse than Luther's repulsive ideas only reveals that your faith has failed to make you the kind of man that you could have been. I can't help but believe that you would have been a better person if you were raised under a better ideology.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#700850 Mar 10, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
Actually no, RR. It's just that science is not some unchanging Bronze Age revelation.
It's a process - and a self-correcting one at that.
All the more reason to be ultra skeptical of science.

I don't think most people are. I think that a lot of people, especially the Topix Atheist!, reads something in a science book or on a science website and immediately deems it as fact.

They don't care about blunders of science, about false data and the scientists that falsify it, political and monetary agendas, bad science chasing bad ideas, etc.

I say to not hold all your cards in science and big it's like IANS call me 'sciencephobic'....

Check it out:

"20 of the Greatest Blunders in Science in the Last 20 Years."

"What were they thinking?"

http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featblun...

It is absolutely imperative to be skeptical of science and especially the scientists that claim it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 3 min Grau 119,272
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 min onemale 263,569
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min confrinting with ... 554,995
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 8 min mike 603,659
Abu dhabi massage for men 0555079516 Alisa 37 min alisa 1
Bull and Boar - an 18th century Welsh tavern. 1 hr Hatti_Hollerand 68
Why do BLACK People hate Mexicans so much? (Dec '13) 1 hr truth 932
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 1 hr truth 5,435

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE