dumb religious nonsense
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But Christians are all angels, right?
Of course - eventually. :)
Bob Emmett
Bob Emmett wrote:
Of course - eventually.
You believe in heaven?
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I love all these examples of how closed minded and biggoted extreme athiests are.
http://godlesspaladin.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/anti-atheist-billboards/[^] http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1122/1414548652_fd56db0c78_o.jpg[^] http://thescroogereport.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/billboard_smaller.jpg[^] But Christians are all angels, right?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But Christians are all angels, right?
Hell, no. Most of them are stupid. Certainly, most of them would be found to claim that a non Christian must have no moral compass, which is BS. The point is entirely that the athiests attempt to take the high moral ground, and it is far from where they are. On both sides of the equation are human beings acting irrationally to defend their view of the world.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Of course - eventually.
You believe in heaven?
Here's a thought. If heaven exists ( and it kind of doesn't, but that's another story ), or if God exists, then they exist regardless of what any person may believe.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Here's a thought. If heaven exists ( and it kind of doesn't, but that's another story ), or if God exists, then they exist regardless of what any person may believe.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Here's a thought. If heaven exists ( and it kind of doesn't, but that's another story ), or if God exists, then they exist regardless of what any person may believe.
I've considered that. The question is not whether or not they exist, but whether believing that they exist or not is justifiable.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But Christians are all angels, right?
Hell, no. Most of them are stupid. Certainly, most of them would be found to claim that a non Christian must have no moral compass, which is BS. The point is entirely that the athiests attempt to take the high moral ground, and it is far from where they are. On both sides of the equation are human beings acting irrationally to defend their view of the world.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Then why did you take such disproportionate enjoyment in atheists doing it?
-
Then why did you take such disproportionate enjoyment in atheists doing it?
Because the athiests claim they take the high moral ground, and they are no better, and just as irrational. It's a question of claiming to be the voice of reason, and utterly failing to be.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Here's a thought. If heaven exists ( and it kind of doesn't, but that's another story ), or if God exists, then they exist regardless of what any person may believe.
I've considered that. The question is not whether or not they exist, but whether believing that they exist or not is justifiable.
Well, that's fair enough.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Because the athiests claim they take the high moral ground, and they are no better, and just as irrational. It's a question of claiming to be the voice of reason, and utterly failing to be.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
just as irrational
Not 'just as irrational'. Although I personally don't think that religious belief is a mental illness, believing in untestable, undetectable entities permeating all of the Universe and watching you and manipulating your life, is more consistent with psychosis than not believing so.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
just as irrational
Not 'just as irrational'. Although I personally don't think that religious belief is a mental illness, believing in untestable, undetectable entities permeating all of the Universe and watching you and manipulating your life, is more consistent with psychosis than not believing so.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Not 'just as irrational'.
I'm afraid so.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Although I personally don't think that religious belief is a mental illness, believing in untestable, undetectable entities permeating all of the Universe and watching you and manipulating your life, is more consistent with psychosis than not believing so.
Well, I can see that point of view. It's the smugness, the complete misapplication of Occam's Razor in ways that make no sense, the sense of vitriol and highmindedness that I find frustrating. I'm not necessarily meaning you, or even all athiests, I'm saying that those qualities are as prevelent in the athiest side of the debate, as irrational stupidity can be on the religious side. I mean, I used to frequent a newsgroup called aus.religion.christian. I went back after years, and who had been there the whole time I had been gone, and was still there ? A person who joined the Christian news group so he could insult every Christian and tell them all how wise he was for knowing there was no God. Which makes as much sense as me spending my life on a Ford newsgroup, so I could spend all my time telling those people that Holdens are better, when I could spend my time talking to fellow Holden lovers, or even driving my car, or smelling flowers or something. Extreme athiesm is a religion, not in the sense of beleving in a god ( science is not a God, that's stupid, although it is true that most people use science as a god today, by simply not understanding but blindly accepting science as filtered through the news media ). It's so in the sense that it has it's zealots, and that they are people who defend their view at all costs, cannot tell when they are being irrational and/or obtuse, and will not listen to any sort of logic or reason. In this sense, I mean more that I've had athiests tell me what I believe, and no matter how I tell them I don't believe what they claim, they keep telling me I must do, then cutting down the view I don't even hold. Or people who have never read the bible, but think because they can take a couple of OT verses out of all context and then attack them on that basis, and feel like they've put the God question to rest, when all they have done is show their ignorance.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find o
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Not 'just as irrational'.
I'm afraid so.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Although I personally don't think that religious belief is a mental illness, believing in untestable, undetectable entities permeating all of the Universe and watching you and manipulating your life, is more consistent with psychosis than not believing so.
Well, I can see that point of view. It's the smugness, the complete misapplication of Occam's Razor in ways that make no sense, the sense of vitriol and highmindedness that I find frustrating. I'm not necessarily meaning you, or even all athiests, I'm saying that those qualities are as prevelent in the athiest side of the debate, as irrational stupidity can be on the religious side. I mean, I used to frequent a newsgroup called aus.religion.christian. I went back after years, and who had been there the whole time I had been gone, and was still there ? A person who joined the Christian news group so he could insult every Christian and tell them all how wise he was for knowing there was no God. Which makes as much sense as me spending my life on a Ford newsgroup, so I could spend all my time telling those people that Holdens are better, when I could spend my time talking to fellow Holden lovers, or even driving my car, or smelling flowers or something. Extreme athiesm is a religion, not in the sense of beleving in a god ( science is not a God, that's stupid, although it is true that most people use science as a god today, by simply not understanding but blindly accepting science as filtered through the news media ). It's so in the sense that it has it's zealots, and that they are people who defend their view at all costs, cannot tell when they are being irrational and/or obtuse, and will not listen to any sort of logic or reason. In this sense, I mean more that I've had athiests tell me what I believe, and no matter how I tell them I don't believe what they claim, they keep telling me I must do, then cutting down the view I don't even hold. Or people who have never read the bible, but think because they can take a couple of OT verses out of all context and then attack them on that basis, and feel like they've put the God question to rest, when all they have done is show their ignorance.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find o
Just out of interest, with regards to what were these atheists actually being 'irrational' towards?
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Of course - eventually.
You believe in heaven?
-
Well, those are relevant topics. It is considered immoral to kill a baby. The majority of homosexuals are not born, they make the choice to be sexually deviant. If you look at the facts most homosexuals tend to have STDs, support corrupt government. This is immoral. A real homosexual is born with hormonal imbalances that make the body feel as if it is of the opposite sex, and therfore naturally that person becomes attracted to what the body and mind feels is the opposite sex when in fact it is the same sex. This is not immoral.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Well, those are relevant topics. It is considered immoral to kill a baby.
Baby, yes, Fetus, not so much. Why? Fairly simple really, otherwise stillbirths would cause even more emotional and psychological damage than they already do. A fairly typical adaptation by humans to an unfortunate situation. You consider it immoral to remove a fetus, but you are never going to have one in you in the first place. As such, I fail to see why you get a say in it. That said, I fail to see why anyone except the person who has to deal with the thing gets a say in it.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The majority of homosexuals are not born, they make the choice to be sexually deviant. If you look at the facts most homosexuals tend to have STDs, support corrupt government. This is immoral.
And you have evidence of any of this how? From what I remember the only loosely correct point is a higher rate of STDs, but given the remarkable lack of transmission of most of those in lesbians and the fact that not every gay man is a complete idiot(may still be a drama queen, but not an idiot) I have a remarkably hard time believing 'most' homosexuals have STDs. And really, if you're attacking homosexuals over sexual deviancy, I'd like to talk to the church about this glorification of S&M they're doing with the cross. The passion of the Christ was a fucking snuff film. But, here's the issue, not everyone is born into the binary system you have arranged of moral vs immoral, there are people with a combination of the differences to 'normal' sexuality who may be attracted to either. Would they count as choosing to be homosexual, or are we ignoring them for piety's sake?
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Well, those are relevant topics. It is considered immoral to kill a baby.
Baby, yes, Fetus, not so much. Why? Fairly simple really, otherwise stillbirths would cause even more emotional and psychological damage than they already do. A fairly typical adaptation by humans to an unfortunate situation. You consider it immoral to remove a fetus, but you are never going to have one in you in the first place. As such, I fail to see why you get a say in it. That said, I fail to see why anyone except the person who has to deal with the thing gets a say in it.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The majority of homosexuals are not born, they make the choice to be sexually deviant. If you look at the facts most homosexuals tend to have STDs, support corrupt government. This is immoral.
And you have evidence of any of this how? From what I remember the only loosely correct point is a higher rate of STDs, but given the remarkable lack of transmission of most of those in lesbians and the fact that not every gay man is a complete idiot(may still be a drama queen, but not an idiot) I have a remarkably hard time believing 'most' homosexuals have STDs. And really, if you're attacking homosexuals over sexual deviancy, I'd like to talk to the church about this glorification of S&M they're doing with the cross. The passion of the Christ was a fucking snuff film. But, here's the issue, not everyone is born into the binary system you have arranged of moral vs immoral, there are people with a combination of the differences to 'normal' sexuality who may be attracted to either. Would they count as choosing to be homosexual, or are we ignoring them for piety's sake?
A fetus can feel pain. Don't believe me? Watch the silent scream.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
