[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, my bad. Dad is partly sane. Mother is one of those bat-shit crazy loons. Those aren’t my characterizations folks. I’m simply using his view of religious folk in the manner he’s expressed here.[/quote]
Sigh, my definition of bat shit crazy religious people is the ones that can’t keep it to themselves. That’s no secret.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Mak, there’s a couple non-christian/religious on this thread who you should seek to mimic. They carry themselves well, without needing to antagonize or make enemies. I don’t know what has happened to you, but you’ve changed a hell of alot since I started posting here. I hate having to break the news to you, but sometime ago, in your quest to battle fanaticism and zealotry, you became your monster.
I knew someone would drop a duece on this thread. You just had to be that guy. Go see a comedy and cheer up, or something.[/quote]
Given that you and failharder seem to be the ones who think my parents are fair game for this topic, I have to wonder.
Seems to me the basis of your atheism has just crumbled out from underneath your feet. You might try out agnosticism. Or do you have different and incompatible standards concerning the possible existence of an after-life, and the possibiltiy of a diety?
You refuse to rule out the possibility of an afterlife (“I don’t know”), because I can’t disprove it.
Yet, you can state God doesn’t exist, though you can’t disprove the existence of God. And when asked to, would be quick to say the burden isn’t on you.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Answer the question, Mak. Do you ridicule Mom and Pop for their beliefs?[/quote]
No. They don’t make decisions that could affect other peoples lives based on fairy tales.
Again, your desperation is evident now that you feel bringing my parents into this is appropriate.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Seems to me the basis of your atheism has just crumbled out from underneath your feet. You might try out agnosticism. Or do you have different and incompatible standards concerning the possible existence of an after-life, and the possibiltiy of a diety?
You refuse to rule out the possibility of an afterlife (“I don’t know”), because I can’t disprove it.
Yet, you can state God doesn’t exist, though you can’t disprove the existence of God. And when asked to, would be quick to say the burden isn’t on you.
[/quote]
Even Dawkins admits the possibility of a deity, just not the deity you subscribe to.
Arguing semantics. Nice.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Mak, there’s a couple non-christian/religious on this thread who you should seek to mimic. They carry themselves well, without needing to antagonize or make enemies. I don’t know what has happened to you, but you’ve changed a hell of alot since I started posting here. I hate having to break the news to you, but sometime ago, in your quest to battle fanaticism and zealotry, you became your monster.
I knew someone would drop a duece on this thread. You just had to be that guy. Go see a comedy and cheer up, or something.[/quote]
Given that you and failharder seem to be the ones who think my parents are fair game for this topic, I have to wonder.[/quote]
Fair game? I feel sorry for your mother. To think you’d see her as insane or delusional because she’s religious. That’s she some coward…
So what is it, Mak. Are we, your mother and I, delusional, brainwashed, sheeple, trapped in our insanity because we can’t face our “I don’t know” state upon our deaths? No, we aren’t. Most likely you don’t believe that about your mother, either. Yet, somehow, you don’t extend that to anyone else.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, my bad. Dad is partly sane. Mother is one of those bat-shit crazy loons. Those aren’t my characterizations folks. I’m simply using his view of religious folk in the manner he’s expressed here.[/quote]
Sigh, my definition of bat shit crazy religious people is the ones that can’t keep it to themselves. That’s no secret.[/quote]
Mak, you should read your reply while looking into a mirror.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, my bad. Dad is partly sane. Mother is one of those bat-shit crazy loons. Those aren’t my characterizations folks. I’m simply using his view of religious folk in the manner he’s expressed here.[/quote]
Sigh, my definition of bat shit crazy religious people is the ones that can’t keep it to themselves. That’s no secret.[/quote]
These folks don’t keep it to themselves…in fact they can be far more strident than most Christians but yet I don’t see you brandishing your crossbow of contempt for them?[/quote]
Start a thread about it and I will. However, that’s not what this is about, you seem intent on derailing this thread for whatever reason. Perhaps you don’t want people to ask questions, I don’t know.
I could rant for hours on end about disgusting practices like Sati, the Varna caste system, the swing between reverence for women and treating them like dirt, and the fact that the concept of reincarnation has dulled how precious life is for many people. Don’t get me started on Bal Thackeray and his group (Shiv Sena). There is a reason I refer to Bombay as Bombay.
And I have.
But enough of that, it’s clear you aren’t interested in arguing a real point, you’re just looking for a smokescreen. I will not be helping you do that, so welcome to my ignore list.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Seems to me the basis of your atheism has just crumbled out from underneath your feet. You might try out agnosticism. Or do you have different and incompatible standards concerning the possible existence of an after-life, and the possibiltiy of a diety?
You refuse to rule out the possibility of an afterlife (“I don’t know”), because I can’t disprove it.
Yet, you can state God doesn’t exist, though you can’t disprove the existence of God. And when asked to, would be quick to say the burden isn’t on you.
[/quote]
Even Dawkins admits the possibility of a deity, just not the deity you subscribe to.
Arguing semantics. Nice.[/quote]
Ah, now I see. Dawkins not knowing, knows what God isn’t. A theological atheist! And, the whole mess just tumbled down around itself.
I’m taking my leave. I’ll let the readers consider you and Dawkins, who don’t know if a God exists or not (thus not knowing the possible nature/characteristics/identity of a possible God), yet can absolutely determine what God is most definitely not. Chew on that for awhile.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Seems to me the basis of your atheism has just crumbled out from underneath your feet. You might try out agnosticism. Or do you have different and incompatible standards concerning the possible existence of an after-life, and the possibiltiy of a diety?
You refuse to rule out the possibility of an afterlife (“I don’t know”), because I can’t disprove it.
Yet, you can state God doesn’t exist, though you can’t disprove the existence of God. And when asked to, would be quick to say the burden isn’t on you.
[/quote]
Even Dawkins admits the possibility of a deity, just not the deity you subscribe to.
Arguing semantics. Nice.[/quote]
Ah, now I see. Dawkins not knowing, knows what God isn’t. A theological atheist! And, the whole mess just tumbled down around itself.
I’m taking my leave. I’ll let the readers consider you and Dawkins, who don’t know if a God exists or not (thus not knowing the possible nature/characteristics/identity of a possible God), yet can absolutely determine what God is most definitely not. Chew on that for awhile.[/quote]
You may be an idiot, but your ability to twist words is commendable. So is the ability to read minds and read further into a sentence than the person who wrote it.
While I’m still here, who wants to place bets on push responding to my posts while knowing I can’t see them?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Meh, if we accept orientation, predisposition, whatever, then there’s nothing to debate. Religious people will be religious, and the atheist will be atheist. Those that convert either way were just closet cases all along. We’ve certainly seen, on this very forum, an attempt to suggest a biological reason for why the faithful are religious in the first place, with God Spots and etc. If you can’t change a person’s sexual orientation through therapy (as we’re told), what makes anyone think a sincerely religious person can have his religious orientation altered? And, vice versa. Of course, this isn’t my view.
Too many of these. Same people saying the same things. Good luck though![/quote]
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/billington.html
Discuss
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
Well, I will take these posts as a “no.” I just figured maybe we could have actual discussions about beliefs on religion, but I guess even the ones that post the most in religious threads don’t really want to discuss anything just argue.
I just think it’s a shame every religious “discussion” just becomes “God is the only way” vs. “religion is a fantasy.” Never any references or sources to back up anything that either side believs.[/quote]
I actually do enjoy religious discussions. Even amongst the 'fuck you’s there is still good material and there are quite few knowledgeable folks around here, but I am burnt out on it is my problem. I myself have typed enough to fill up a book on the matter. It’s been hit pretty hard. I just need a break and I will come back to it.
It’s not about not wanting a good religious discussion, I just need some recovery time.[/quote]
True. There have been good discussions on these forums. But they are exhausting!
Just a quick thought. I’m not sure why I wasted my time arguing. Not when I can point out that Obama is a self-proclaimed Christian. Ooooooh, you racists! Ok, I’m going to scurry along now.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Just a quick thought. I’m not sure why I wasted my time arguing. Not when I can point out that Obama is a self-proclaimed Christian. Ooooooh, you racists! Ok, I’m going to scurry along now.[/quote]
When Obama starts operating a faith based Government, I’ll worry. Until then, your point is moot.