Atheists are idiots
-
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”
-
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)
Roger Wright wrote: I appreciate your humility the most. Yes, it *is* nice, isn't it... *tsk* Roger, you'll make me blush! :-O
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
-
Kevnar wrote: Atheists are idiots Careful with your blanket statements and generalizations. :suss: Jon Sagara When I want something, I just go out and buy it. That makes me a go-getter. -- My sister
Wow. We here at the CodeProject that do believe in God face these types of blanket statements and generalizations on almost a daily basis. I haven't read this thread yet, but I would bet at least 1/4 of the posts will bash religion or religious people. Let me count...
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
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: 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 And what would that be? BTW I don't claim to belong to that particular club (Christian) either. You shouldn't limit your criticism to that brand of tri-theism. Some of the other theisms are less generous and less tolerant. David Wulff wrote: 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. I would be interested in the evidence you have to support that assertion. Given the rather overwhelming pace of immigration we in the US are seeing across our southern border, I am inclined to believe the opposite... David Wulff wrote: I could live with the fake views pushed around by an organsiation Either mispoken or ungenerous on your part (fake): I believe most religions are quite sincere about their beliefs. If you meant 'false' instead, then I can only say that I have yet to see either proof or disproof for most of their assertions (christian, muslim, hindu or other...). I would agree that a very good deal of the allegory (fables?) delivered with the message is suspect, but even that remains largely unprovable as to its veracity or falsehood. David Wulff wrote: Pascal's wager is for cowards, and that is said with 100% sincerity. I fail to see how courage is relevant here...a failing on my part I am sure. Now I suppose I have said enough to get spam demoted to #2 at least:-D.
-
Wow. We here at the CodeProject that do believe in God face these types of blanket statements and generalizations on almost a daily basis. I haven't read this thread yet, but I would bet at least 1/4 of the posts will bash religion or religious people. Let me count...
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *Jason Henderson wrote: We here at the CodeProject that do believe in God face these types of blanket statements and generalizations on almost a daily basis. Oh. Well that makes it ok, then. :rolleyes: Jon Sagara When I want something, I just go out and buy it. That makes me a go-getter. -- My sister
-
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 who don't respect other people's views are idiots (whether they agree with them or not is their own business). Don't the parents realize there is a separation of church and state in U.S. schools? And even if there is stuff going on behind the scenes, don't the parents want their children to grow up to be their own person? Of course parent mediation is necessary so their children don't grow up to be drug dealers and thugs but christians aren't bad people, they just live a different lifestyle, based around an omnipotent figure known as God, who tells people not to kill other people and stuff. What's so bad about that? Anyway, just my 2 cents. Brad Jennings BTW, I am a christian.
-
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
Well speaking as a devout Atheist. Helping people less fortunate has nothing to do with religion. It's just one of those natural things that all people should do - no matter what their beliefs. These people you talk about aren't anything other than mean spirited. Michael Fat bottomed girls You make the rockin' world go round -- Queen
-
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, you are welcome to your contentious rant. I consider myself a God fearin man, and I personally don't like schemes like this. I've personally done missionary work in some atrocious places, and consider most well meaning people from the outside cause more harm then good. But don't worry I'm sure atheists will burn in hell. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
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: 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." Works both ways mate. Many a Christian organisation will not team up with an actively non-Christian organisation no matter how many lives the teaming up can save. Hell, I remember prominent Christians telling their congregation not to associate with non-Christians unless it was to convert them! How screwed up is that?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaNOPcode wrote: ...but in America, you're not allowed to thrust, moan or see anything...