Print

[Stathei]

SJ, what you misunderstand is that your imaginary world is just that - imaginary. You are living in a fantasy of ludicrous bullsht, and are wasting an inordinate proportion of your only life thinking and writing ridiculous nonsense. The reason I have not posted for so long is the simple realization that I was doing the same by engaging you - but I do feel the need to inject a little reality now and then (although last time I did so you deleted my post because I laughed at your laughable belief that the Universe is younger than glue  ).

[Anthony Horvath]

"SJ, what you misunderstand is that your imaginary world is just that - imaginary."

 

"You are living in a fantasy of ludicrous bullsht, and are wasting an inordinate proportion of your only life thinking and writing ridiculous nonsense. The reason I have not posted for so long is the simple realization that I was doing the same by engaging you - but I do feel the need to inject a little reality now and then"

And doing a swell job, too. 

"(although last time I did so you deleted my post because I laughed at your laughable belief that the Universe is younger than glue   )."

I deleted your post because you disregarded the rules of the thread which, simply put, said that I think people ought to reject the argument as it really is and not a strawman and so comments that amount to nothing more than derision would be deleted on sight.  I made that clear at the outset of the thread.  You chose to disregard.   That is not my problem.

You can choose to live in your own little make-believe world and refuse to engage other ideas, asserting just like you did again here, that you are right- intuitively and obviously right, and requiring no defense- and I can't stop you.   But on the other hand, in such circumstances no one should feel compelled to take you seriously.

I know I don't.

You've gone and did on this thread basically what you always did.  You stepped in and mocked without any hint of being willing to exchange ideas and argue the merits of positions.  Its ironic that you chose to do so with this particular thread:  you clearly think you understand what it is you are objecting to, but how could you?

[stathei]

You stepped in and mocked without any hint of being willing to exchange ideas and argue the merits of positions.

Indeed I did - your "position" has no merit. Your "position" deserves nothing but mockery for the dangerous and absurd voodoo that it is. That was the entire point of my post, thank you for recognizing it. I am tired of pretending to respect religion.

You can choose to live in your own little make-believe world

There is absolutely nothing make-believe about my world, SJ. Lack of tolerance for religious insanity is very real, and disregarding the arguments of the ignorant is often the only option. Yes, SJ, you are the ignorant one. You think that you are wise, and spend incalculable amounts of time pontificating to yourself and about seven other people, but you will always be ignorant while you cling to your false beliefs.

you clearly think you understand what it is you are objecting to, but how could you?

I am objecting to the most outrageous scandal of our time - the fallacy of the persistence of religious belief far beyond the time when we should have recognized its worthlessness. In a century or so, we will look back on today as a mini dark age. I just hope my grandchildren enjoy a second age of enlightenment and not just my great-grandchildren. A world without God? Now that's heaven...

[Anthony Horvath]

"Indeed I did - your "position" has no merit."

This is something you would not know, as you have no idea what it is, and never have.

"I am tired of pretending to respect religion."

Very well, Pol Pot.  Off with you and do your thing.

"You think that you are wise, and spend incalculable amounts of time pontificating to yourself and about seven other people, but you will always be ignorant while you cling to your false beliefs."

Look at him pontificate!

Why are you here?  Go away.

"A world without God? Now that's heaven..."

And I'm sure you won't mind putting bullets behind your words, too.  You're sounding mighty tolerant, if I may say so myself.

Seriously, if you're going to be this way, just go away.  If you're so concerned about not wasting your time, I think in this case I'm inclined to agree.  Stop wasting your time, because you're only wasting our time.

[stathei]

I deleted your post because you disregarded the rules of the thread which, simply put, said that I think people ought to reject the argument as it really is and not a strawman and so comments that amount to nothing more than derision would be deleted on sight.  I made that clear at the outset of the thread.  You chose to disregard.   That is not my problem.

You made the rules of the thread to allow yourself to spout your hilarious opinion without fear of anyone pointing out that you are a crazy religious nut. You deleted my post because I couldn't listen to your preposterous bullsht without making fun of it.

Would you hold your tongue if a Scientologist came on your forum and said "Don't laugh, but Xenu brought billions of people to Earth 75 million years ago and blew them up, leading to clustered spirits called Body Thetans"? My guess is that you would laugh just as hard as I would, but you'd be a little scared by the fact that an otherwise rational human being can believe such stupidity.

You are absolutely no different from that Scientologist, and you deserve exactly the same derision and contempt. Get used to it, atheists are becoming less and less afraid to tell the truth.

[Anthony Horvath]

*yawn*

[stathei]

Seriously, if you're going to be this way, just go away.

Maybe you should ban me, SJ. Then you would be free to talk unmitigated drivel to your followers.

Very well, Pol Pot.

And I'm sure you won't mind putting bullets behind your words, too.

So I must be murderous or genocidal if I think that religion has had its time? You are more disturbed than I thought.

[Deep Thought]

Ah, yes. Classic Johnny vs. Stathei goodness. -_-'

My only point of any relevent input would be that the question of "Who created God?" is one of the more idiotic questions I can think of in deciding whether to accept or reject Christianity, theism, or whatever you want to fill in the blank with. Since something must logically be uncreated (either the "creation," the "creator," or the endless and beginningless string of creationsm), then all the question can come to is "Why not skip the God, then, and just say that the universe in uncreated?" ...which is of course a perfect response, because it shows how useless the question was in the first place.

...So if someone was stumped by that one, I would be somewhat wary of their other conclusions as well. One bit of extremely fuzzy logic does tend to stain one's credibility, after all.

EDIT: Oh, and yes, Christian educational methods would be more effective if they touched more upon the issue of why Christianity wins out (not to say it actually does, but...) over other schools of thought. In other words, I more or less agree with Johnny on that point, regardless of my non-Christian-ness.

Alright, that's all for the amateur lecture. Carry on the carnage...

[The Sasquatch]

Would you hold your tongue if a Scientologist came on your forum and said "Don't laugh, but Xenu brought billions of people to Earth 75 million years ago and blew them up, leading to clustered spirits called Body Thetans"? My guess is that you would laugh just as hard as I would, but you'd be a little scared by the fact that an otherwise rational human being can believe such stupidity.

I don't know about SJ, but I would ask a Scientologist to give me a reason to accept the whole Xenu thing. I'm not inclined to believe him/her, but I'll engage a person in discussion so long as they remain rational. Sometimes Scientologists CAN be rational and it has been my experience that the rational ones can soemtimes be argued away from their position through logic.

If, however, a person's reasoning was tatmount to "beause I'm right," I would disregard them. There's no point in talking with someone who's only interest is either mockery or self aggrandizement. I haven't read any of your threads, but thus far you seem to state that Johnny is wrong, and you're reason seems to be nothing more than "because." You may very well have a rational argument to back up your claims, but you haven't shared it. Thus you remain in the nutjob pile with the Scientologists who accept their beliefs because of a reason they refuse to share.

Do you have a reason to believe anything related to faith is imaginary? If so, share it. If not, please find another place to hang out.

Sincerely,
The Sassquatch

[stathei]

Disbelieving something irrational is rationality itself, Sasquatch. I will also engage a person in discussion if they remain rational, but if somebody believes in Xenu or that the earth is three and a half weeks old I will treat them with the derision they deserve. I've become intolerant of bs as SJ correctly stated and do not suffer fools gladly.

[Deep Thought]

Disbelieving something irrational is rationality itself, Sasquatch.

Ayup. But...

but if somebody believes in Xenu or that the earth is three and a half weeks old I will treat them with the derision they deserve.

...Ah... you could just ignore them, you know? Because that derision does nothing more than make people, like, not like you, and consequently they ignore you, which you should have been doing to them in the first place. The rather obvious advantage to ignoring them is that it's only them wasting their time and breath spouting garbage. With your current philosophy, you are, too. (No offense, of course, but unless circumstance demands it, I do regard derision as garbage, and I'm sure many people do, bearing in mind, of course, the fine line between fairly good-natured sarcasm and actual derision...)

[The Sasquatch]

Disbelieving something irrational is rationality itself, Sasquatch.

I agree wholeheartedly and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

I will also engage a person in discussion if they remain rational, but if somebody believes in Xenu or that the earth is three and a half weeks old I will treat them with the derision they deserve. I've become intolerant of bs as SJ correctly stated and do not suffer fools gladly.

Okay. If, for instance, somebody said, "I believe in the existence of and worship the Invisible Pink Unicorn and here are 10 reasons why," would you listen to the reasons, engage the person in discussion over those points with which you disagree, and then either accept or reject the person's claims based on the validity of their argument, or would you reject ithem out of hand without ever listening to what the person has to say?

[stathei]

DT, I do not agree that laughing at the laughable is garbage. I think it is time that we point out that the Emperor is, in fact, naked and stop discussing the cut and color of his magnificent but non existent New Clothes.

Sasquatch, I think you know the answer - I would reject them out of hand. To believe in such abject nonsense would require me to invent my own little way of looking at the world - that's SJ's specialty, not mine.

[Deep Thought]

DT, I do not agree that laughing at the laughable is garbage. I think it is time that we point out that the Emperor is, in fact, naked and stop discussing the cut and color of his magnificent but non existent New Clothes.

Given your method of choice, that would serve no purpose but to make the emperor hate you, though, which is my point. Why not, instead, calmly point out in an un-embarrassing manner (preferably, if such a case were literal, away from the crowd) that said Emperor had been hoodwinked, that he was walking around in his boxers or worse, and that he'd better go put some pants on, for the love of decency! ...And if the Emperor decides not to heed you? Well, what then? Nothing, I say. You had your shot, now let the man bask in his delusions. The fact that he's showing off his nethers doesn't mean you are.

[The Sasquatch]

Sasquatch, I think you know the answer

If i knew the answer, I woulnd't have asked. I don't believe in making assumptions unless it is absolutely necessary.

I would reject them out of hand. To believe in such abject nonsense would require me to invent my own little way of looking at the world - that's SJ's specialty, not mine

What do you do if somebody disagrees with your political philosophy? or your taste in movies? Do you reject their statements out of hand or do you consider what they have to say?

[Anthony Horvath]

He wishes he could shoot them, or barring that, lock them into gulags.  They are a dangerous lot, them young earthers.  Dangerous, I say.

[stathei]

What do you do if somebody disagrees with your political philosophy? or your taste in movies? Do you reject their statements out of hand or do you consider what they have to say?

Of course I consider what they have to say - unless they thought that the movie was actually created by aliens who wanted us to go to the Mothership to be "probed". In that case, I would reject them out of hand. That is a better analogy of how I feel when discussing religion. Our opinions are not merely quantitavely different, but qualitavely different - like talking to a schizophrenic.

He wishes he could shoot them, or barring that, lock them into gulags.

SJ, what on earth are you talking about? You're sounding even more crazy than usual, just in time for my "schizophrenic" analogy.

[stathei]

They are a dangerous lot, them young earthers.  Dangerous, I say.

I do agree with that, SJ. Without people like Young Earth Crazies we would have cured cancer centuries ago. You'd rather see a child die of leukemia or sit in a wheelchair all her life than allow research on a trophoblast. That's just one of the realities of your pathetic religion, SJ. Religious fundamentalists like you are dangerous, and I fear you because you don't even know how terribly dangerous you are.

(Cue yet another tiresome, predictable equation of atheism with insane dictators in order to show how not believing in God is a one way ticket to genocide, unlike religion...)

[Anthony Horvath]

SJ, what on earth are you talking about? You're sounding even more crazy than usual, just in time for my "schizophrenic" analogy.

Well, you've had a string of posts saying that you aren't going to 'put up with this nonsense' anymore.  One might think that this means you're going to limit yourself to mere derision, but when one considers statements like this one,

"Your "position" deserves nothing but mockery for the dangerous and absurd voodoo that it is."

and this one,

"You are absolutely no different from that Scientologist, and you deserve exactly the same derision and contempt. Get used to it, atheists are becoming less and less afraid to tell the truth."

Now, I am not so sure I agree with the assertion that atheists have been cowards up until this point.  I think you just have to speak for yourself on that score.  But obviously if you think that this position is 'dangerous' then you as a good, upright moral person (because we all know that atheists are not bad people) should wish to intervene, right?

Then you say,

"Without people like Young Earth Crazies we would have cured cancer centuries ago."

Without us? YECcers?  Well how are you going to get rid of us then?  Can you really in good conscience allow us to persist, hindering the cause of science- all those poor people dying from cancer through some unsupported contention that a delay in the cure of cancer can be tracked back to a belief in a YEC?

And then you say,

"Religious fundamentalists like you are dangerous, and I fear you because you don't even know how terribly dangerous you are."

heh, this is just rich.  Don't we usually lock such people up?  You don't have to call the place you lock them gulags, and if you don't, it will never occur to a free-thinker that there is a similarity.

As for cueing a predictable argument, it is not that I think "[You] must be murderous or genocidal if [you] think that religion has had its time?" but rather that if you really thought it dangerous, you'd do something about it.  One further extrapolates that merely 'telling the truth' is probably not going to be a sufficient remedy to this dangerous, dangerous position of mine, and a good moral person will take further steps.  Concrete steps.  Right?

Its not murderous or genocidal if its for the good of humanity, right?

I'm not equating atheism with immorality!  My friend, its just the opposite!  If you really cared about humanity, you'd do something about it!  Not words, but action!

"In a century or so, we will look back on today as a mini dark age. I just hope my grandchildren enjoy a second age of enlightenment and not just my great-grandchildren."

Don't you care about your children, grandchildren, and grandchildren?  

You do understand that having been assured that you have no intention on supporting any of your contentions and think that they are self-evident to any reasonable soul and therefore require no defense, I'm now merely needling you.  You're so easy.  

[stathei]

It's a very long way from derision to deathcamps, SJ  .

Well how are you going to get rid of us then?

Time. And a refusal to respect your hilarious "position".

unsupported contention that a delay in the cure of cancer can be tracked back to a belief in a YEC?

Stem cell research will hasten our cure for cancer and, in fact, almost all other diseases from which we suffer. You can not reasonably deny that fact. YECer's are able to convince themselves that the Earth was created for them last August just before Aunt Gracie came to visit, so it is likely that they are crazy enough to value 150 cells in a Petri dish more than a child's life - unless you are claiming there is no correlation between YEC and an immoral objection to stem cell research? Since both of these beliefs are essentially the sole property of American religous extremists (to the bemusement of the civilized world) I don't think you can make that argument either.

I'm now merely needling you.  You're so easy.

Now THAT is true  ...