Atheists are idiots
-
peterchen wrote: Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. That's waaay too good to let slip by... :)
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, "Atheists are idiots"
:-D Benjy, how about another tee shirt? ;P
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.
-
So you immediately tar the other atheists who did help their children participate with the same brush ? Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
Trollslayer wrote: So you immediately tar the other atheists who did help their children participate with the same brush ? Good heavens, you're right! Think of the cross-contamination! :omg: Kevin must never have worked in foodservice...
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
-
I am always amazed be the degree of "True Believer" fervor that comes from Non-Believers. If they don't believe in some kind of "Higher Power" why should they care if I do or what I choose to call it? I've always suspected that they were just afraid they might be wrong... Atheists have a soul, they've just rented it out. Now Lawyers and Accountants I'm not so sure about...
OldRob wrote: I've always suspected that they were just afraid they might be wrong... No, the issue is more that there is no issue. We don't fear anything as we don't see the need to fill our lives with, to be polite, very unimaginative lies. I am perfectly happy in the knowledge (and I don't proclaim to understand all of it) of how I came about and how I will in time cease. I'm perfectly able to grasp the principles of morality, spirit and will because, would you believe it, I share exactly the same brain construction as you do. My biggest gripe with select religious individuals out there is that they somehow propose to assume that athiests are "missing something", as if they somehow have a hole in their lives. Well here's some news for you: we don't have the holes you keep filling. If we did then I'm certain we'd find a suitable religion to live by too. :| OldRob wrote: Now Lawyers and Accountants I'm not so sure about... They evolved from slugs. :-D OldRob wrote: If they don't believe in some kind of "Higher Power" why should they care if I do or what I choose to call it? I, speaking personally, don't give a maggot infested rotting monkey's pustule. (Good enough for you Christian) Sorry, I was just using the opportunity there. I, speaking personally, don't give a damn what you choose to believe in unless you or it tries to interfere my my life or the lives of others. In the case this thread talks of, if Christian's facts are correct, then I too would not have participated. The core principles of religion are present in every man but the hope religion gives to an individual is in my eyes missplaced. Hope should be placed *in* the individual, not given to them like a scrap of bread. Give a man a loaf of bread... etc, etc. :|
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.
-
Here's my contentious rant of the day: There's a charity in the US that is sending shoe boxes full of toys and household needs to children living with HIV in africa. School children were asked to take part, but apparently several parents would not let their children participate because "it's just a thinly veiled attempt to spread Christianity". So in other words, "Sorry, Junior. You can't take part in a humanitarian act of kindness and good will toward your fellow man, because it's just a bunch of religious people trying to shove their beliefs down your throat. Only I'm allowed to do that." When an atheist claims that man has no soul, perhaps they are only refering to themselves.
"My brother says 'Hello'... So hurray for speech therapy!" -Emo Phillips
Kevnar wrote: Here's my contentious rant of the day: I don't find it contentious at all. Poorly thought out and myopic perhaps, but certainly not contentious.
DWORD dwCaffeine = 0x00c0ffee;
-
OldRob wrote: I've always suspected that they were just afraid they might be wrong... No, the issue is more that there is no issue. We don't fear anything as we don't see the need to fill our lives with, to be polite, very unimaginative lies. I am perfectly happy in the knowledge (and I don't proclaim to understand all of it) of how I came about and how I will in time cease. I'm perfectly able to grasp the principles of morality, spirit and will because, would you believe it, I share exactly the same brain construction as you do. My biggest gripe with select religious individuals out there is that they somehow propose to assume that athiests are "missing something", as if they somehow have a hole in their lives. Well here's some news for you: we don't have the holes you keep filling. If we did then I'm certain we'd find a suitable religion to live by too. :| OldRob wrote: Now Lawyers and Accountants I'm not so sure about... They evolved from slugs. :-D OldRob wrote: If they don't believe in some kind of "Higher Power" why should they care if I do or what I choose to call it? I, speaking personally, don't give a maggot infested rotting monkey's pustule. (Good enough for you Christian) Sorry, I was just using the opportunity there. I, speaking personally, don't give a damn what you choose to believe in unless you or it tries to interfere my my life or the lives of others. In the case this thread talks of, if Christian's facts are correct, then I too would not have participated. The core principles of religion are present in every man but the hope religion gives to an individual is in my eyes missplaced. Hope should be placed *in* the individual, not given to them like a scrap of bread. Give a man a loaf of bread... etc, etc. :|
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.
David Wulff wrote: Hope should be placed *in* the individual Uh, oh... we're in trouble... :~
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
-
Here's my contentious rant of the day: There's a charity in the US that is sending shoe boxes full of toys and household needs to children living with HIV in africa. School children were asked to take part, but apparently several parents would not let their children participate because "it's just a thinly veiled attempt to spread Christianity". So in other words, "Sorry, Junior. You can't take part in a humanitarian act of kindness and good will toward your fellow man, because it's just a bunch of religious people trying to shove their beliefs down your throat. Only I'm allowed to do that." When an atheist claims that man has no soul, perhaps they are only refering to themselves.
"My brother says 'Hello'... So hurray for speech therapy!" -Emo Phillips
People are allowed to give to any cause they see fit. If your cause doesn't match their critetia, it doesn't mean they don't give at all, it simply means they don't want to contribute their efforts in your cause. period. I'm agnostic, but I give of my time and money where I see fit, and usually its unattached to religion and more often its on a personal level with those I know, but that in no way makes me less generous than you or anyone else. I hope these parents explained to the kids why they didn't help out because I'm sure they are being singled out for this. Hopefully they did something else, perhaps locally for someone else, but its their right to deny in any case. BW "Computers are useless. They only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
-
OldRob wrote: I've always suspected that they were just afraid they might be wrong... No, the issue is more that there is no issue. We don't fear anything as we don't see the need to fill our lives with, to be polite, very unimaginative lies. I am perfectly happy in the knowledge (and I don't proclaim to understand all of it) of how I came about and how I will in time cease. I'm perfectly able to grasp the principles of morality, spirit and will because, would you believe it, I share exactly the same brain construction as you do. My biggest gripe with select religious individuals out there is that they somehow propose to assume that athiests are "missing something", as if they somehow have a hole in their lives. Well here's some news for you: we don't have the holes you keep filling. If we did then I'm certain we'd find a suitable religion to live by too. :| OldRob wrote: Now Lawyers and Accountants I'm not so sure about... They evolved from slugs. :-D OldRob wrote: If they don't believe in some kind of "Higher Power" why should they care if I do or what I choose to call it? I, speaking personally, don't give a maggot infested rotting monkey's pustule. (Good enough for you Christian) Sorry, I was just using the opportunity there. I, speaking personally, don't give a damn what you choose to believe in unless you or it tries to interfere my my life or the lives of others. In the case this thread talks of, if Christian's facts are correct, then I too would not have participated. The core principles of religion are present in every man but the hope religion gives to an individual is in my eyes missplaced. Hope should be placed *in* the individual, not given to them like a scrap of bread. Give a man a loaf of bread... etc, etc. :|
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.
The amount of rage in your reply is remarkable. To a great degree, I think you confirm my first point (the "True believer" fervor one, not the one you quoted). David Wulff wrote: OldRob wrote: I've always suspected that they were just afraid they might be wrong... I should have put a :) after that, it was meant in far greater jest than you took it. Some clarification: 1. Personally I have little use for organized religions of any stripe, not so much because of the supposedly "core" beliefs they espouse, but because like most human organizations their primary focus is on self promotion; the organization and its human hierarchy are unfortuanately more important to them than the beliefs. That said, however, I prefer Pascal's wager over your position. I am also very suspicious of anyone claiming to have exclusive truth on their side (Atheists included). 2. I would not however, deny a child a lesson in sharing, nor exposure to the idea that there are less fortunate in the world merely because I objected. That some children get some aid seems more important than whether or not they are subjected to the indoctination that I disagree with. Presented with a purely secular charitable organization as an alternative, I would surely choose them, but in the abscence of such (Does UNICEF DO anything these days?), I would posit that even a tarnished act of charity is preferable to the abscence of charity. 3.I too could care less what your (or anyone elses) beliefs recarding the existance of a deity might be, and object to anyone who insists on forcing their system on me. I do not, however, believe that I have the right or obligation to insist that organized religions be prevented from recruiting, unless they endanger the well being of either the recruited or the apostate. Belittling another because they belive OR don't believe is equally reprehensible behaviour. The initial post was in poor taste (a bit too sweeping a condemnation, which questioned intelligence where it should have questioned motive) at best. IMHO your response is little more tasteful. I am reminded of the quote from MacBeth: 'Methinks the lady dost protest too much' In closing, my apologies for unintentionally offending you so much. I just didn't realize it was THAT important... :rolleyes:
-
David Wulff wrote: Hope should be placed *in* the individual Uh, oh... we're in trouble... :~
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
tsk. P.S. I don't actually know what that means, but I've been wanting to try it out for ages now. :-O
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.
-
The amount of rage in your reply is remarkable. To a great degree, I think you confirm my first point (the "True believer" fervor one, not the one you quoted). David Wulff wrote: OldRob wrote: I've always suspected that they were just afraid they might be wrong... I should have put a :) after that, it was meant in far greater jest than you took it. Some clarification: 1. Personally I have little use for organized religions of any stripe, not so much because of the supposedly "core" beliefs they espouse, but because like most human organizations their primary focus is on self promotion; the organization and its human hierarchy are unfortuanately more important to them than the beliefs. That said, however, I prefer Pascal's wager over your position. I am also very suspicious of anyone claiming to have exclusive truth on their side (Atheists included). 2. I would not however, deny a child a lesson in sharing, nor exposure to the idea that there are less fortunate in the world merely because I objected. That some children get some aid seems more important than whether or not they are subjected to the indoctination that I disagree with. Presented with a purely secular charitable organization as an alternative, I would surely choose them, but in the abscence of such (Does UNICEF DO anything these days?), I would posit that even a tarnished act of charity is preferable to the abscence of charity. 3.I too could care less what your (or anyone elses) beliefs recarding the existance of a deity might be, and object to anyone who insists on forcing their system on me. I do not, however, believe that I have the right or obligation to insist that organized religions be prevented from recruiting, unless they endanger the well being of either the recruited or the apostate. Belittling another because they belive OR don't believe is equally reprehensible behaviour. The initial post was in poor taste (a bit too sweeping a condemnation, which questioned intelligence where it should have questioned motive) at best. IMHO your response is little more tasteful. I am reminded of the quote from MacBeth: 'Methinks the lady dost protest too much' In closing, my apologies for unintentionally offending you so much. I just didn't realize it was THAT important... :rolleyes:
OldRob wrote: The amount of rage in your reply is remarkable. To a great degree, I think you confirm my first point (the "True believer" fervor one, not the one you quoted). Rage? Offense? Lol - try checking the ratings in my signature: not a single mark on the "anger" score. :) I was not in the slightest annoyed or pissed off at your remarks, I was merely putting my side of the argument accross so that you (and more importantly others) wouldn't be mislead by the prejudical Christian view of athiests that I have yet to see backed up by hard evidence. OldRob wrote: I prefer Pascal's wager over your position Pascal's wager is for cowards, and that is said with 100% sincerity. OldRob wrote: That some children get some aid seems more important than whether or not they are subjected to the indoctination that I disagree with. Ask yourself if that child needs *that* aid? We all assume everybody in third world and deprived situations wants to or should live to our standards, but truth be told given the choices the vast majority would prefer not to. Aid of the sort this campaign is generating has zero humanitarian benefits to the recepients. If you want to help deprived people donate money to Oxfam for their goat breeding campaign, or donate time to teach irrigation techniques on the African Savana. I could live with the fake views pushed around by an organsiation if the nett result helps those involved with their lives, rather than providing a good case for a publicity photoshoot. OldRob wrote: I would not however, deny a child a lesson in sharing, nor exposure to the idea that there are less fortunate in the world merely because I objected For the latter part, see above, for the former, if the child doesn't understand why people share then a futile and purely cosmetic activity like this won't teach them anything. Sharing comes from the heart, so to speak, not from feeling sorry or being guilt-tripped. OldRob wrote: I do not, however, believe that I have the right or obligation to insist that organized religions be prevented from recruiting, unless they endanger the well being of either the recruited or the apostate. I am all for individual enhancement, but a belief system that pushes an ultimate higher accountability and the idea that morality is above us all, well then I have a problem with it. If a Christian organisation prov
-
tsk. P.S. I don't actually know what that means, but I've been wanting to try it out for ages now. :-O
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.
David Wulff wrote: tsk. David Wulff wrote: P.S. I don't actually know what that means, but I've been wanting to try it out for ages now. Well, you couldn't have picked a better opportunity! "tsk" is, in fact, an abreviation which stands for "the shog knows". Its use denotes the adoption of my point of view over your own, and, once the manditory $70 users fee is paid, a subscription to my yearly newsletter. :)
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
-
OldRob wrote: The amount of rage in your reply is remarkable. To a great degree, I think you confirm my first point (the "True believer" fervor one, not the one you quoted). Rage? Offense? Lol - try checking the ratings in my signature: not a single mark on the "anger" score. :) I was not in the slightest annoyed or pissed off at your remarks, I was merely putting my side of the argument accross so that you (and more importantly others) wouldn't be mislead by the prejudical Christian view of athiests that I have yet to see backed up by hard evidence. OldRob wrote: I prefer Pascal's wager over your position Pascal's wager is for cowards, and that is said with 100% sincerity. OldRob wrote: That some children get some aid seems more important than whether or not they are subjected to the indoctination that I disagree with. Ask yourself if that child needs *that* aid? We all assume everybody in third world and deprived situations wants to or should live to our standards, but truth be told given the choices the vast majority would prefer not to. Aid of the sort this campaign is generating has zero humanitarian benefits to the recepients. If you want to help deprived people donate money to Oxfam for their goat breeding campaign, or donate time to teach irrigation techniques on the African Savana. I could live with the fake views pushed around by an organsiation if the nett result helps those involved with their lives, rather than providing a good case for a publicity photoshoot. OldRob wrote: I would not however, deny a child a lesson in sharing, nor exposure to the idea that there are less fortunate in the world merely because I objected For the latter part, see above, for the former, if the child doesn't understand why people share then a futile and purely cosmetic activity like this won't teach them anything. Sharing comes from the heart, so to speak, not from feeling sorry or being guilt-tripped. OldRob wrote: I do not, however, believe that I have the right or obligation to insist that organized religions be prevented from recruiting, unless they endanger the well being of either the recruited or the apostate. I am all for individual enhancement, but a belief system that pushes an ultimate higher accountability and the idea that morality is above us all, well then I have a problem with it. If a Christian organisation prov
David Wulff wrote: If a Christian organisation provides help to a community and they take the descision to adopt common Christian beliefs to help them live their lives than that is great - all power to the individual - but being *told* that is the way to go is plain wrong on so many levels. Please explain that last line (the bit after the '-'). Are you saying it is wrong to assert your beliefs are correct and those that conflict are not? Or are you saying it is wrong to command someone to believe as you do? Or am i missing the point completely? (be aware: that last option is the cowardly cop-out option, even if it happens to be true.)
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
-
David Wulff wrote: tsk. David Wulff wrote: P.S. I don't actually know what that means, but I've been wanting to try it out for ages now. Well, you couldn't have picked a better opportunity! "tsk" is, in fact, an abreviation which stands for "the shog knows". Its use denotes the adoption of my point of view over your own, and, once the manditory $70 users fee is paid, a subscription to my yearly newsletter. :)
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
Okay after a little digging I came across this: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tsk[^] So it represents doing that "tut tut" expression thingy? :~
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.
-
Okay after a little digging I came across this: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tsk[^] So it represents doing that "tut tut" expression thingy? :~
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.
David Wulff wrote: So it represents doing that "tut tut" expression thingy? Only fags and characters in stories for children use "tut tut". Dictionary.com is full of shit. :suss:
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
-
David Wulff wrote: If a Christian organisation provides help to a community and they take the descision to adopt common Christian beliefs to help them live their lives than that is great - all power to the individual - but being *told* that is the way to go is plain wrong on so many levels. Please explain that last line (the bit after the '-'). Are you saying it is wrong to assert your beliefs are correct and those that conflict are not? Or are you saying it is wrong to command someone to believe as you do? Or am i missing the point completely? (be aware: that last option is the cowardly cop-out option, even if it happens to be true.)
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
I was referring to what is best summed up using GWB's words: "you're either with us or against us". It's that mentality I was striking at. IMHO the concepts of heaven and hell should be banned by all human rights organisations and enforced very strictly by governments: you are using scare tactics to get players. Another term for this is psychological intimidation.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.
-
David Wulff wrote: So it represents doing that "tut tut" expression thingy? Only fags and characters in stories for children use "tut tut". Dictionary.com is full of shit. :suss:
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
I believe you Shog, I believe you. ;)
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.
-
I believe you Shog, I believe you. ;)
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.
Whoa, don't be doing anything foolish now... :~
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
-
David Wulff wrote: tsk. David Wulff wrote: P.S. I don't actually know what that means, but I've been wanting to try it out for ages now. Well, you couldn't have picked a better opportunity! "tsk" is, in fact, an abreviation which stands for "the shog knows". Its use denotes the adoption of my point of view over your own, and, once the manditory $70 users fee is paid, a subscription to my yearly newsletter. :)
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
Shog9 wrote: "tsk" is, in fact, an abreviation which stands for "the shog knows". :laugh::laugh::laugh: I think, of all your fine attributes, I appreciate your humility the most. "How many times do I have to flush before you go away?" - Megan Forbes, on Management (12/5/2002)
-
David Wulff wrote: So it represents doing that "tut tut" expression thingy? Only fags and characters in stories for children use "tut tut". Dictionary.com is full of shit. :suss:
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
Shog9 wrote: Dictionary.com is full of shit. Pseudodictionary is more complete in its coverage of the language: multi-tsking - Describes the tsk tsk tsk noise a plumber or mechanic makes just before quoting you a month's pay to make a repair. ex. After five minutes of multi-tsking the plumber said, "Who did this for you then, pal? Gonna cost you, this is." "How many times do I have to flush before you go away?" - Megan Forbes, on Management (12/5/2002)
-
I was referring to what is best summed up using GWB's words: "you're either with us or against us". It's that mentality I was striking at. IMHO the concepts of heaven and hell should be banned by all human rights organisations and enforced very strictly by governments: you are using scare tactics to get players. Another term for this is psychological intimidation.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.
David Wulff wrote: I was referring to what is best summed up using GWB's words: "you're either with us or against us". GWB was quoting (or possibly paraphrasing). Some things *are* black and white, much as we'd love to live in gray. David Wulff wrote: Another term for this is psychological intimidation. If i tell you sticking your finger in the wall socket will get you a nasty shock, what is that? Does it matter?
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
-
Shog9 wrote: Dictionary.com is full of shit. Pseudodictionary is more complete in its coverage of the language: multi-tsking - Describes the tsk tsk tsk noise a plumber or mechanic makes just before quoting you a month's pay to make a repair. ex. After five minutes of multi-tsking the plumber said, "Who did this for you then, pal? Gonna cost you, this is." "How many times do I have to flush before you go away?" - Megan Forbes, on Management (12/5/2002)
Roger Wright wrote: multi-tsking i love it! :-D
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”