Words fail me.
-
The internet is where people can make completely base and tasteless comments with impunity. How is it exactly that burning a baby in a microwave oven is joke fodder? Was it worth it? Did you get a good laugh in? Shame on you.
-
digital man wrote:
Apparently he was a born again christian...
Anyone can *claim* anything. You know, sort of like you are tendentiously doing here. His actions are consistent with atheism; his actions are consistent with what you fools assert is the truth about the nature of reality. *YOUR* (plural) actions in this thread are not consistent with what you (plural) assert is the truth about the nature of reality. You fools are acting as though this man is morally responsible for what he did. You fools are acting as though there is such a thing as objective morality (which you verbally deny), and that he has violated it. You fools are acting as though there is such a thing as justice (which cannot really exist were atheism true), and that justice demand that this fellow be punished, and worse than punished, for his violation of morality.
Go sit in a microwave.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
You know what else is beyond parody? Give up? Ya mum!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Why do you come here if you hold us all is such ill regards? Are you trying to save sinner's souls by berating them with rhetoric? I don't get it.
He's retarded, that's why. I wouldn't be surprised if his slave of a father beat his ass as a child - and if he didn't, he should have. Hard. Very hard. Preferably to death.
Only memories, fading memories, blending into dull tableaux. I want them back.
-
Ro0ke wrote:
I'm sorry for misunderstanding...
No problem at all, no need to be sorry, no need to apologize. There is nothing at all culpably wrong with not understanding something. There is nothing wrong with asking for clarification. Rather, it is the *refusal* to understand which is culpably wrong, it is the refusal to acknowledge and understand clarification which is culpably wrong. And when a refusal to understand is coupled with the sorts of behavior these 'atheists' (the quotes are because they only play at being atheists, for they refuse to understand what atheism entails) constantly exhibit, then such persons make themselves in all ways despicable.
Ro0ke wrote:
Why are there no such things as innocence and guilt if atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality?
In a nutshell: Concepts can be explained only by reference to mind(s). These things (innocence/guilt, responsibility/non-responsibility, sanity/insanity, rationality/irrationality, etc) are all concepts; as such, they exist only "within" a mind or minds. But atheism -- the denial that there is a God -- cannot logically make use of invocation of minds to explain anything, for the very nature of atheism is to deny that reality is fundamentally mental. I've made reference above to Richard Dawkins' article explicating his "dangerous idea," 'Let's all stop beating Basil's car,' the thesis of which is that concepts such as responsibility and blame (i.e. holding another responsibile for his actions) are faulty and false concepts, that these (and many other like) concepts do not accurately reflect the true nature of reality. Now, *IF* atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, THEN Dawkins' claims would be correct. The fact that he doesn't himself believe (as he admits and acknowledges in the conclusion of the piece) the view he's trying to advance certainly tells us something interesting about Professor Dawkins, but it doesn't change the fact that the view he is trying to advance follows logically and inescapably from atheism, from the denial that there is a God. Even though the thesis and claims Dawkins advances are false, and even though Dawkins is a liar (for he knows and even admits that he doesn't actually believe the assertions he's advancing), I highly recommend reading his entire article. Two Basic Worldview
So...let me get this straight...if she weighs the same as a duck, then she's a witch?
-
Ilíon wrote:
Not that an observant person was ever in any doubt as to what 'atheists' are like.
No one is learning anything about me arsehole. I have been here since the first week of Code Project and everyone and anyone that matters already knows all about me. You don't, so just fuck off.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
So...let me get this straight...if she weighs the same as a duck, then she's a witch?
-
I agree with that completely. Human civilizaton is simply not possible without moral authority. But democratic systems make a very poor source for stable, moral authority. If the morality does not emerge naturally from the bottom up (as Jefferson, Madison, et al assumed it would) in the form of traditional religious sentiments and beliefs, than a democratic system will become increasingly less socially stable over time.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
So basically you want to stifle all 'morality' that doesn't agree with those in charge? Religion should be put in charge again, you reckon? That branch of science is immoral! You will stop it at once! Condoms? Oh, no. You will have more children! NOW! Blood transfusion? Think again buddy. Stealing is a SIN! Hands and feet chopped off at once! A dissenter? By our authority, YOU MUST DIE NOW!!! Medicine?! No, no, NO! God gave you herpes for a reason! No, this is MEN'S work! WOMEN must shut up and be loyal, hardworking, downtrodden HOUSEWIVES! And so on.
-
Did it ever occur to you that the concept of 'mind' might actually be explained within atheism? That its existence doesn't contradict atheism at all?
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Why do you come here if you hold us all is such ill regards? Are you trying to save sinner's souls by berating them with rhetoric? I don't get it.
This isn't the only place he comes: http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=30311980&an=0&page=0#Post30311980[^] Believe it or not, he writes in the same pompous, impenetrable way. As though throwing around randomly emphasised 'big words' will make him sound smarter... :doh:
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Ilíon wrote:
people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse
We do NOT espouse boiling babies. Get it? Its simple. YOU are wrong. We DO NOT espouse boiling babies. We espouse the non existence of God. Our morality has a different root from yours. Dont you get it?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Do you think he has EVER admitted that he is wrong? He thinks he's God... :doh:
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Indeed: I don't think the word has been created to describe this. Perhaps he should be killed much as he attempted to kill his child? 5 minutes at 1000 should do it nicely.
digital man wrote:
Perhaps he should be killed much as he attempted to kill his child? 5 minutes at 1000 should do it nicely.
No a long stint in prison will do wonders for him. In prison they treat child molesters and such with special treatment, I believe they call them bitches! Then when he gets out they should cook him! Mike
Semper Fi http://www.hq4thmarinescomm.com[^]
-
So basically you want to stifle all 'morality' that doesn't agree with those in charge? Religion should be put in charge again, you reckon? That branch of science is immoral! You will stop it at once! Condoms? Oh, no. You will have more children! NOW! Blood transfusion? Think again buddy. Stealing is a SIN! Hands and feet chopped off at once! A dissenter? By our authority, YOU MUST DIE NOW!!! Medicine?! No, no, NO! God gave you herpes for a reason! No, this is MEN'S work! WOMEN must shut up and be loyal, hardworking, downtrodden HOUSEWIVES! And so on.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
So basically you want to stifle all 'morality' that doesn't agree with those in charge?
But it will get stifled regardless of what any one does. It will either be stifled by some kind of centralized ruling elite, or it will be stifled as those who are unwilling to accept commonly held moral traditions are ostracized from civil society by their fellow citizens. That is an inevitable process. No one can stop it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Religion should be put in charge again, you reckon?
I think religion is as good a choice as any other, probably the best since western society at least has a means of keeping religious authority distinct from secular authority. The best of all possible worlds was what existed in the US about a century ago when the federal government was very small and unobtrusive, but the society at large all adhered voluntarily to a closely held tradition of christian ethics. We were just coming out of our frontier era at that time so there was still a great deal of latent violence, but that would have naturally ebbed away in time. If we had maintained that basic formulat we would be much better off for it today.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
So basically you want to stifle all 'morality' that doesn't agree with those in charge?
But it will get stifled regardless of what any one does. It will either be stifled by some kind of centralized ruling elite, or it will be stifled as those who are unwilling to accept commonly held moral traditions are ostracized from civil society by their fellow citizens. That is an inevitable process. No one can stop it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Religion should be put in charge again, you reckon?
I think religion is as good a choice as any other, probably the best since western society at least has a means of keeping religious authority distinct from secular authority. The best of all possible worlds was what existed in the US about a century ago when the federal government was very small and unobtrusive, but the society at large all adhered voluntarily to a closely held tradition of christian ethics. We were just coming out of our frontier era at that time so there was still a great deal of latent violence, but that would have naturally ebbed away in time. If we had maintained that basic formulat we would be much better off for it today.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
We were just coming out of our frontier era at that time so there was still a great deal of latent violence,
The "Wild West" is a myth created by the pulp-novels of a century ago.
My west Texas ancestors [^]will be very sorry to hear that. http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~txbrown/pibaugh.html[^] :laugh:
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
My west Texas ancestors [^]will be very sorry to hear that. http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~txbrown/pibaugh.html[^] :laugh:
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
:laugh: Yourself. We both know that you are not much more honest than the kiddies are. We both know that the "Wild West" is the myth that the frontier was exceeding and exceptionally dangerous (when, in fact, it was less dangerous that the cities even of that time, much less of our time), and that everyone walked around wearing a six-shooter, with which, at the least provocation, he was only too willing to kill another.
-
:laugh: Yourself. We both know that you are not much more honest than the kiddies are. We both know that the "Wild West" is the myth that the frontier was exceeding and exceptionally dangerous (when, in fact, it was less dangerous that the cities even of that time, much less of our time), and that everyone walked around wearing a six-shooter, with which, at the least provocation, he was only too willing to kill another.
Ilíon wrote:
We both know that you are not much more honest than the kiddies are.
Perhaps, but then I am honest about my dishonesty.
Ilíon wrote:
We both know that the "Wild West" is the myth that the frontier was exceeding and exceptionally dangerous
If you are referring to the romanticizing of the old west, than yes, it was certainley romanticized. Gun fights in the middle of town were certainly rare (although the Southern tradition of dueling was very real). But most of the myth was based very much on the truth. I'm certain that statistically, there were many urban areas at that time that were more dangerous, but the frontier was certainly a very dangerous and 'wild' place. My own family was heavily involved in that violence throughout most of American history. I've been a student of that history my entire adult life, and I've worked as a librarian in a research library dedicated to the history of the transmississippi west. So, I can assue you its a topic I'm not very likely to be greatly intimated on by the vast dept of your 'education'.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Ro0ke wrote:
I'm sorry for misunderstanding...
No problem at all, no need to be sorry, no need to apologize. There is nothing at all culpably wrong with not understanding something. There is nothing wrong with asking for clarification. Rather, it is the *refusal* to understand which is culpably wrong, it is the refusal to acknowledge and understand clarification which is culpably wrong. And when a refusal to understand is coupled with the sorts of behavior these 'atheists' (the quotes are because they only play at being atheists, for they refuse to understand what atheism entails) constantly exhibit, then such persons make themselves in all ways despicable.
Ro0ke wrote:
Why are there no such things as innocence and guilt if atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality?
In a nutshell: Concepts can be explained only by reference to mind(s). These things (innocence/guilt, responsibility/non-responsibility, sanity/insanity, rationality/irrationality, etc) are all concepts; as such, they exist only "within" a mind or minds. But atheism -- the denial that there is a God -- cannot logically make use of invocation of minds to explain anything, for the very nature of atheism is to deny that reality is fundamentally mental. I've made reference above to Richard Dawkins' article explicating his "dangerous idea," 'Let's all stop beating Basil's car,' the thesis of which is that concepts such as responsibility and blame (i.e. holding another responsibile for his actions) are faulty and false concepts, that these (and many other like) concepts do not accurately reflect the true nature of reality. Now, *IF* atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, THEN Dawkins' claims would be correct. The fact that he doesn't himself believe (as he admits and acknowledges in the conclusion of the piece) the view he's trying to advance certainly tells us something interesting about Professor Dawkins, but it doesn't change the fact that the view he is trying to advance follows logically and inescapably from atheism, from the denial that there is a God. Even though the thesis and claims Dawkins advances are false, and even though Dawkins is a liar (for he knows and even admits that he doesn't actually believe the assertions he's advancing), I highly recommend reading his entire article. Two Basic Worldview
Thanks for your link to Dawkins' article, which I had not read until today. It is great to quote atheists because, as Greg Bahnsen said, you won’t have to wait long before they supply the rope with which they hang themselves. I actually agree with Dawkins' approach: we should track down a problem and fix it. With that said, I must say also that this approach can only be consistently applied from the Judeo-Christian worldview, which presupposes the existence of God. Why? Simple, let's apply Dawkins’ principle to his own worldview and check for inconsistencies: He says “we laugh at [Basil’s] irrationality”, and “As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics”. Here are some problems I find: Unless Basil’s brains are the exception, how can Dawkins justify anybody laughing at the actions produced by a brain that is governed by the laws of physics? His laughing at Basil’s irrationality suggests that he presupposes the value of the laws of reason in the proper functioning of the brain. Now, giving Dawkins an undeserved higher ground and not asking him to account for the material aspect of any kind of ‘law’ (which he will still have to do), I would like to nominate him to teach a new college course: The Physics of the Laws of Reason and then enroll in it to get enlightened in the matter. In summary, a materialist like Dawkins has to be utterly (even though not necessarily consciously) convinced of the reality of the immaterial, universal and transcendental laws of reason, in order to argue against the existence of anything with these characteristics. If he is right, then the laws of reason do not exist, but in this case he would have no grounds to ‘laugh’ at anybody that does not conform to what does not exist, would he?
Juanfer
-
Thanks for your link to Dawkins' article, which I had not read until today. It is great to quote atheists because, as Greg Bahnsen said, you won’t have to wait long before they supply the rope with which they hang themselves. I actually agree with Dawkins' approach: we should track down a problem and fix it. With that said, I must say also that this approach can only be consistently applied from the Judeo-Christian worldview, which presupposes the existence of God. Why? Simple, let's apply Dawkins’ principle to his own worldview and check for inconsistencies: He says “we laugh at [Basil’s] irrationality”, and “As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics”. Here are some problems I find: Unless Basil’s brains are the exception, how can Dawkins justify anybody laughing at the actions produced by a brain that is governed by the laws of physics? His laughing at Basil’s irrationality suggests that he presupposes the value of the laws of reason in the proper functioning of the brain. Now, giving Dawkins an undeserved higher ground and not asking him to account for the material aspect of any kind of ‘law’ (which he will still have to do), I would like to nominate him to teach a new college course: The Physics of the Laws of Reason and then enroll in it to get enlightened in the matter. In summary, a materialist like Dawkins has to be utterly (even though not necessarily consciously) convinced of the reality of the immaterial, universal and transcendental laws of reason, in order to argue against the existence of anything with these characteristics. If he is right, then the laws of reason do not exist, but in this case he would have no grounds to ‘laugh’ at anybody that does not conform to what does not exist, would he?
Juanfer
juanfer68 wrote:
[pretend I've duplicated your entire post]
Indeed. C.S. Lewis refuted Dawkin's theory on blame/punishment decades before Dawkins wrote the article: The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment[^]. And, if I recall correctly, G.K. Chesterton refuted this theory early in the 20th century.
-
Ilíon wrote:
But we already *knew* that about you.
"We"? Are you having delusions of royalty again?
