You’re miffed because one of your priests was insulted. You don’t even come close to practicing what you preach.
[/quote]
Here we do indeed attack each other’s beliefs. I think your beliefs on this matter are nonsense; you think the same of mine. We should exchange these views, attended of course by evidence, in debate. If I believe that your god is no more or less real than St. Nick coming down the chimney, I should not hesitate to inform you of such, even though I am risking insulting the beliefs of someone I respect. This is the price of serious argument, and it’s a price most of us have gotten pretty good at accepting while remaining friends or e-friends.
But “retard cripple”? Both halves of that expression are low and classless (I mean, using “cripple” as a slur? What the fuck?), and the first half is outright ludicrous, given who is saying it and about whom it’s being said (like Muggsy calling Sim Bhullar short). That kind of shit usually peters out after middle school.
You’re miffed because one of your priests was insulted. You don’t even come close to practicing what you preach.
[/quote]
Here we do indeed attack each other’s beliefs. I think your beliefs on this matter are nonsense; you think the same of mine. We should exchange these views, attended of course by evidence, in debate. If I believe that your god is no more or less real than St. Nick coming down the chimney, I should not hesitate to inform you of such, even though I am risking insulting the beliefs of someone I respect. This is the price of serious argument, and it’s a price most of us have gotten pretty good at accepting while remaining friends or e-friends.
But “retard cripple”? Both halves of that expression are low and classless (I mean, using “cripple” as a slur? What the fuck?), and the first half is outright ludicrous, given who is saying it and about whom it’s being said (like Muggsy calling Sim Bhullar short). That kind of shit usually peters out after middle school.[/quote]
I’m not defending the use of “retard cripple.” I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of being offended at its use while in a legion of other instances he (not you) has mocked Christ and Jehovah and Yahweh, and followers, in a manner every bit as offensive, or more, as “retard cripple.”
No, Varq, even though a good friend, does not merely “attack beliefs” he does EXACTLY what Pat did but with a far larger volume.
You’re miffed because one of your priests was insulted. You don’t even come close to practicing what you preach.
[/quote]
Here we do indeed attack each other’s beliefs. I think your beliefs on this matter are nonsense; you think the same of mine. We should exchange these views, attended of course by evidence, in debate. If I believe that your god is no more or less real than St. Nick coming down the chimney, I should not hesitate to inform you of such, even though I am risking insulting the beliefs of someone I respect. This is the price of serious argument, and it’s a price most of us have gotten pretty good at accepting while remaining friends or e-friends.
But “retard cripple”? Both halves of that expression are low and classless (I mean, using “cripple” as a slur? What the fuck?), and the first half is outright ludicrous, given who is saying it and about whom it’s being said (like Muggsy calling Sim Bhullar short). That kind of shit usually peters out after middle school.[/quote]
I’m not defending the use of “retard cripple.” I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of being offended at its use while in a legion of other instances he (not you) has mocked Christ and Jehovah and Yahweh, and followers, in a manner every bit as offensive, or more, as “retard cripple.”
No, Varq, even though a good friend, does not merely “attack beliefs” he does EXACTLY what Pat did but with a far larger volume.
[/quote]
Bullshit.
Prove it.
[/quote]
“Zombie Jesus” comes to mind as I sit in my pickup in the Costco parking lot.
But you’re going to argue that “Zombie Jesus” doesn’t even come close to being equivalent with “crippled retard,” right?
There are many other examples and you know it and the regulars on this forum know it as well.
The fact of the matter is, as I mentioned before, one of your “religious” leaders was insulted and it was then and only then that you took offense.
[/quote]
How quickly they forget.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, Varq, your zombie meme was posted – THIS TIME – to make a point and not condescend. I understand that.[/quote]
You are always reminding people to check their assumptions, and to look at things in their proper context. Go back to Doogie’s thread and start practicing what you preach.
EDIT: further, you said “THIS TIME”, implying that Doogie’s thread was not the first time I had posted this meme. If you can find another instance of me posting this meme outside of that thread, which you conceded was not mocking, then I will apologise, admit I was mistaken and buy you dinner. However, if you are unable to do so, you must do the same. Deal?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You’ve used it before as I recall too (in print, not memes) or facsimiles thereof.[/quote]
My offer I mentioned in my edit above stands.
Quote the thread, and the context, in which I “mocked Christ” with allusions to the “zombie Jesus” meme, and I will apologise, admit I was wrong, and buy you dinner at Gyu-kaku next time you’re in town. If you are unable to do so, then you owe me an apology, an admission that you were mistaken, and dinner.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m going to guess that Pat had a particularly bad day/moment.[/quote]
I am going to guess that this is probably the case. I’ve certainly made my share of posts that I’m not particularly proud of for reasons that had very little to do with what was being discussed on a thread, and more to do with a bad mood at the time.
Pat is one of my favourite posters here, and definitely one of the more reasonable debaters on religious topics, which is probably why his choice of epithets was a bit surprising to me. I suppose I hold him to a higher standard, as he clearly holds me to a higher standard, hence the line about my mocking the beliefs of theists without really understanding them being “sad” for a man of my supposed intelligence. Whether he is right in his assessment is another matter.
I can understand why someone openly hostile to religion like Christopher Hitchens or, to a lesser extent, Richard Dawkins might draw Pat’s ire, but the most inflammatory thing I have ever read Stephen Hawking say about God is that there is no evidence for his existence, which is, depending on your perspective, empirically true, or just a matter of his opinion. Regardless of what he thinks about God, he is a brilliant man, certainly not retarded, and calling him a cripple is just mean.
But I was not personally offended on Hawking’s behalf. One does not step (figuratively, anyway, in Hawking’s case) into the public spotlight without attracting a few hecklers.
While dredging the depths of PWI to find any instances where I may have mocked Christ, Jehovah, Yahweh or any other Christian deity, I came across this post that I made two years ago, appropriately enough, to Pat, on Headhunter’s “Should I become a Christian” thread.
It still applies today.
Pat said: You can mock me, call me brainwashed, or whatever slander you wish to lay upon me, it won’t destroy the truth.
To which I replied thusly:
[i]Not mocking you, and wouldn’t say you’re brainwashed.
And if I did, it would be libel, not slander.
Pat, I’ve known you for a few years now and I think you’re a decent guy. Your beliefs are your business, obviously. I may not share all of these beliefs, and I may sound critical of some of them, but I don’t criticize you for having them.
Fact is, I enjoy talking politics and religion, because it’s something almost everybody has an opinion about, and I usually learn something new with each exchange. Like I learned something about transubstantiation when talking with you about it. There is a risk, obviously, in talking about religion, abortion, or politics, in that very few people can discuss it dispassionately. Even if one’s cherished beliefs aren’t overtly insulted, just calling them into question is enough to send them over the edge.
If I bring an inordinate amount of history into the discussion, it’s because history is something that interests me, particularly when things that happened in the past parallel things that are happening in the present. From this, one can make predictions about things that may happen in the future, because if there is one constant in the universe, it’s that human beings do not learn from their mistakes.
Since you bared your spiritual heart to me, I suppose it’s only decent to reciprocate, at least a little. I don’t reject God. God and I get along just fine. We didn’t for a while there, but that was my problem, not His.
Sorry if I pushed one of your hot buttons. This discussion is over. [/i]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You’ve used it before as I recall too (in print, not memes) or facsimiles thereof.[/quote]
My offer I mentioned in my edit above stands.
Quote the thread, and the context, in which I “mocked Christ” with allusions to the “zombie Jesus” meme, and I will apologise, admit I was wrong, and buy you dinner at Gyu-kaku next time you’re in town. If you are unable to do so, then you owe me an apology, and admission that you were mistaken, and dinner.[/quote]
Are you honestly claiming you’ve never mocked Christ or God or Jehovah or the Holy Spirit or Yahweh on this forum?[/quote]
No, I am positively asserting that
a) I have never mocked Christ on this forum by alluding to the zombie Jesus meme, as you claimed; and
b) I have never mocked Christ and Jehovah and Yahweh on this forum, in a manner every bit as offensive, or more, as “retard cripple.”
But I await your presentation of evidence to the contrary.
Is nihilism the only logical alternative to faith? I think it is. Either nihilism or some delusion that you have avoided being touched by the void. It leaves its mark upon you. I can see it. And it frightens me. :)[/quote]
This I completely agree with.[/quote]
Faith or nihilism is a false dichotomy. Is existentialism not a tenable middle ground?[/quote]
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Who is doing the mocking, here, Pat?
A “retard cripple”? Really?
I expect better from you.[/quote]
You really shouldn’t. I personally believe that for it not his condition, Hawking would not receive near as much attention as he does. My disparagement of him was deliberate. Generating precisely the effect I wanted.
He so frequently elevated that saying such a nasty, classless thing about the guy would leave people aghast. So that’s why I did it.
Well, the nature vs. nurture argument always depends on several variables, and it’s impossible to say which is the case in this instance…It would also be interesting to temporarily inhibit all activity in these areas and see how religious and credulous the subject remains.[/quote]
It’s simply putting the impetus of evidence in the wrong place, be it looking for brain waves or fairies and magical winged things is always an avoidance to address the fundamental questions. The question is of essence and existence. Not whether or not you feel it, see magical fairies and the other little silly anecdotes the atheists have decided ad hoc constitutes evidence.[/quote]
Perhaps you missed the part above where I said “this is not by any means conclusive evidence”. I simply find it interesting that there is in the brain an area or areas that seem to be the processing centre for religious thought and experience, and that people without a belief in the supernatural tend to be less affected by stimulus to these areas.
[/quote]
I wasn’t being entirely fair to you in particular. Your post was what I chose to jump on my soap box, it wasn’t you I was solely addressing.
Addressing it specifically, it is the crux of the mind-body problem. A stimulated brain area for what ever reason, merely demonstrates activity in the physical object of the brain. Two similar people experiencing the same stimulation of the same area of the brain, may be experiencing completely different phenomena.
It is nonetheless interesting, but it really doesn’t mean anything with regards to the existence of God or religion. Such an experience may reflect in the activity in brain or it may not.
Sure. My problem is that people on all sides concern themselves to much with these more superficial matters with out dealing with the core, or the essence of existence in the first place.
If there is no God, then none of their claims have merit. If their is, their claims still may not have any merit; or they may, or it may be partial.
If not God, then nothing else matters. Religion is silly, the Bible is just a book which may or may not be interesting, etc.
If God, the Bible still may be just a book, or it may really be His word. Religion still may be silly, or it can be an invaluable tool. Angels and such may exist, or they may not.
No God shuts down all possibilities. God existing doesn’t necessarily validate the other stuff.
If that, seeing as we cannot actually prove it exists. We cannot eliminate the error of perception, nor can we prove we are percepting anything real at all.
So by process of Cartesian reduction, we have only that something exists. And if we all agree we can call it the ‘physical universe’. Since we cannot eliminate our selves from ourselves, we can never really prove it.
So what do we have? At best something. Something that exists for no reason. So if not God, we have 2 things, actually. ‘Something’ and the problem of 'why?.
That is exactly the proposition put forth by Hawking and Mlodinow in ‘The Grand Design’, everything popped into existence out of nothing because the law of gravity. Which just happened to be there, for no reason.
Correct. But many, many atheists, who claim to adhere to the rocky veneer of science, commit the fallacy that these explanations are scientific fact. Which they are in fact, hypothesis’s, at best; if they made it beyond theory.
I do find it odd that those dedicated to evidence and fact will so blindly attach themselves to any explanation, whether or not it has merit, simply to dispose of God. Not realizing that even if said theory or hypothesis be correct, it does not solve the problem of God. It, at best, kicks the can down the road a bit.
It’s not what I believe, or course. It’s what I am accused of believing.
I don’t and never have subscribed to a ‘god of gaps’ theory. I do not belong to the caveman, who thought that all unexplained phenomena was of deistic origin.
But by the same token, when you run out of explanations for things, then what? Do things stop existing?
That’s what I am concerned with. When you no longer have the means to explain, yet you are left with something that demands to be explained.
Well, you mock what you believe to be the beliefs of scientists and non-theists, so I suppose it all balances out. But I think you’ll find if you go back and look at what I’ve written on this thread, there has been very little mocking going on from my side.[/quote]
I think your a good guy, Varq. I was shouting to be heard, you were my means. I am sorry to do that to you, I am not sorry for what I said. It wasn’t you in particular I was attacking. I was attacking the oft repeated, misdirection of new atheism.
New atheism takes a tactic, not dared by old atheism. It defines what theists believe, and then attacks vigorously it’s own definition of belief, not necessarily the reality of it. And far to often, I see theists take the bait, not realizing that they were misrepresented in the first place.
And if I take a tactic, such as mocking, out of the new atheist handbook I wouldn’t think of it as sinking to ‘their level’, unless you believe the belief is in fact inferior.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m going to guess that Pat had a particularly bad day/moment.[/quote]
Not really. If new atheism teaches that mocking is a useful tool of argumentation, why then cannot I not use it? It’s only taking the low road if you believe that its proponent’s beliefs are in fact inferior.
It got the results I intended. If the reaction was intended and I got it, then I would consider it a success.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m going to guess that Pat had a particularly bad day/moment.[/quote]
I am going to guess that this is probably the case. I’ve certainly made my share of posts that I’m not particularly proud of for reasons that had very little to do with what was being discussed on a thread, and more to do with a bad mood at the time.
Pat is one of my favourite posters here, and definitely one of the more reasonable debaters on religious topics, which is probably why his choice of epithets was a bit surprising to me. I suppose I hold him to a higher standard, as he clearly holds me to a higher standard, hence the line about my mocking the beliefs of theists without really understanding them being “sad” for a man of my supposed intelligence. Whether he is right in his assessment is another matter.
I can understand why someone openly hostile to religion like Christopher Hitchens or, to a lesser extent, Richard Dawkins might draw Pat’s ire, but the most inflammatory thing I have ever read Stephen Hawking say about God is that there is no evidence for his existence, which is, depending on your perspective, empirically true, or just a matter of his opinion. Regardless of what he thinks about God, he is a brilliant man, certainly not retarded, and calling him a cripple is just mean.
But I was not personally offended on Hawking’s behalf. One does not step (figuratively, anyway, in Hawking’s case) into the public spotlight without attracting a few hecklers.[/quote]
Thanks Varq. I don’t actually dislike Hitchens, even if I disagree. He was at least humorous and not out right mean. I do deplore his inferior in Dawkins. I think he’s a moron (at least when it comes to theology) and recently has gone of the deep end with some of his recent comments. It’s something he knows little about yet speaks of it more than something he actually studied, biology.
I think Hawking likes to use ‘shock and awe’, and crutches on his condition. Which is why he writes things like ‘Philosophy is dead’.
