IGX

terra wrote:Here we go... I had a feeling that my post would elicit the kind of logic usually reserved for kindergarten children and rabid extreme feminists...

...Can't believe I just spent 30 minutes with a rational rebuttal only to realise that you guys got me. It doesn't matter what I write does it?
What is it they say, faith can never be reached by the caravan of rational thought.

You're a smart guy terra. This kind of logical laziness is beneath you.

Turd, The reference about polpot made me check to see if he fitted the pattern as i wasn't sure (he doesn't NOT fit it). But the search showed that this particular argument itself is a default for god botherers... And it has been torn apart at length by those who call themselves athiests, and have more energy for it than I...

Which made me realise what I was doing... And I don't fit into either 'side'. Just a formerly neutral bystander, now sick of the collective fucking stupidity.

I realised we can never debate it, nothing I say would change a thing, it just make me feel good to do it - kind of like praying to a pretendy friend... When you see it for what it is the answer is always, "But of course". And its the old horse to water thing...
Not sure i call myself smart mate, but at least i'm too smart to further indulge the premise. Integrating and transcending perhaps?

Seriously the rebuttal was a whole testament, but it doesn't matter... I think the german term is 'nict makin' (it comes to naught).

This thread is about another poor victim of religion not a debate about the vice psychology that fosters a need for it.

terra wrote:Turd, The reference about polpot made me check to see if he fitted the pattern as i wasn't sure (he doesn't NOT fit it). But the search showed that this particular argument itself is a default for god botherers... And it has been torn apart at length by those who call themselves athiests, and have more energy for it than I...

So it's valid to use an extreme example from the side you oppose, but not valid to use an extreme example from your own? If you want to criticize religion, go ahead-- but criticize the majority beliefs and use examples that apply to the mainstream.

You can criticize my religion all you want, I don't particularly care-- as long as you're willing to play by big boy rules. This is IGx after all...

Terra, the need to believe in God is similar to the need of being hungry or sleepy: you don't have much control about it. You decide if there is one, what it is and how it functions and you live with the concept. Until something happens and you re-consider, re-polish and maybe reject your model. And then there is a deeper, intuitive knowledge that cannot be transmitted to someone else. Similar to what you understand after years of meditation. You cannot unlearn reading once you have been taught it.

Actually it was because the athiests argument seemed so strong and thorough that I realised I must be buying into an internet debate that has been played out many times and will continue ad infinitum whilst ever someone indulges the stupidity (aka that faith and the caravan of knowledge statement etc). Plus there's the realisation that I am buying into an argument on the internet about religion, with an unknown identity who is saying i should argue with him more because i'm "a smart guy"... Like I said, you really had me for a moment there.

See, smart people don't buy into debates with religious people...
They say, "Really you actually believe that? How ridiculous". Then they, walk, away.

That might not be enough for you, that might seem the easy way out, like I don't want to pony up for debatin. But that's the thing, for those who don't need the pretendy, that response actually is enough. "Really you believe in the boogy man, please stop right there, I have to leave now" That's enough of a response!

Anything further is simply enabling you and misleading you that the premise actually deserves something more. This is something that the Dawkins athiest clan should really have to answer for. Their rebuttals, their entertaining of it, actually legitimise the stupidity as if it's something worth debating. "So it seems we can prove that the size of the rock in front of the cave couldn't have....Blah blah"

Oh shut up!... All of you!
At least some cigarette smokers can see that smoking is dumb, even if they do it while going back for more.

Despite pretendy fantasies otherwise, our time is finite - as scary as that is for some. I've wasted enough of it debating on the internet about the unnecessary and ultimately anti-social vice called the pretendy (religion).

You have me wasting time, again!
But that's just it for you kids... Time here actually is to be wasted. You can waste all you want (as long as you don't sin. Or as long as you ask for forgiveness or say hail Peters or something like that), for you time here is just prep for getting up to the clouds, in bliss with the other believers...

Look, being right on the internet comes second to being happy (that's the real big boy rule). So as the responsible adult I feel that I should save our (frighteningly) finite times and make the call for both of us...

You can be right.

Yes Smet, just saw your post... I, concur.

I'm now banning myself from this thread. Cold turkey, kind of like quitting smoking. Because I can.

terra wrote:You have me wasting time, again!
But that's just it for you kids... Time here actually is to be wasted. You can waste all you want (as long as you don't sin. Or as long as you ask for forgiveness or say hail Peters or something like that), for you time here is just prep for getting up to the clouds, in bliss with the other believers...

Oh please continue, you're hilarious. Enjoy your mid-life Ayn Rand phase!

We need to update our SERE School syllabus, it seems.

"Boxcar 51, cleared to drop a nuke on my position, and hurry up."

terra, you raised the issue of God/religion in this thread, claiming that "pretendy" was the source of man's inhumanity to man. When challenged, you bailed out of the discussion, like a kid on the playground who throws a punch and retreats behind the teacher's skirt.

And then to claim some sort of butthurt victim status: "how dangerous can (my) idea be?" Toughen up, mate! This is (online) Sparta.

I've never seen the word "pretendy" used so many times in a thread before or for that matter, ever. I abhor smug use of made up words. The zealotry, dismissive attitude and overall obnoxious superior air of many if not most atheists is as disconcerting as extremists on any side.

Besides.....

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht7mxF9XZiA[/youtube]

terra wrote:This thread is about another poor victim of religion not a debate about the vice psychology that fosters a need for it.

I would say it's about another poor victim of inhuman humanity. Focusing on religion alone neglects a deeper problem of our species.

That's not a defense of this use of religion at all. In a very non-religious way I want the people who commit the atrocities we've been reading about; from the burning to the beheadings to the rapes to the Yazidi and other massacres, fully and completely eradicated.

This would be a good avatar for you terra.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Y[/youtube]

jfc

Some believers are good people and do good things, some believers are bad people and do bad things

Some non-believers are good people and do good things, some non-believers are bad people and do bad things

BOOM I JUST SOLVED THAT SHIT ARGUMENT OVER.

Smet wrote:Terra, the need to believe in God is similar to the need of being hungry or sleepy: you don't have much control about it. . . .

Wait. Wut?

I am hungry right now. I'm sleepy all the time. But I don't have any need to believe in a higher power. Whether there is a god or not isn't important to me.

Ed Zachary wrote:

Smet wrote:Terra, the need to believe in God is similar to the need of being hungry or sleepy: you don't have much control about it. . . .

Wait. Wut?

I am hungry right now. I'm sleepy all the time. But I don't have any need to believe in a higher power. Whether there is a god or not isn't important to me.

What about a lower power?

This is more my style.



All that being said. Fuck ISIS/ISIL and any murdering piece of shit that kills in the name of any god or demagogue. I'm a firm believer in swift and severe violence to wipe out those shitheads.

Ed Zachary wrote:
I'm a firm believer in swift and severe violence to wipe out those shitheads.

Could not agree more with that part.

Bob Wildes wrote:

Ed Zachary wrote:
I'm a firm believer in swift and severe violence to wipe out those shitheads.

Could not agree more with that part.

OK. It's settled. Now we can fight over who does the violence & how.

we've been employing violence for the past decade.

is the answer as simple as more violence?

You can't reason with these animals. I'm thinking Darf Total War is the answer. Never happen.

dead man walking wrote:we've been employing violence for the past decade.

is the answer as simple as more violence?

We could send Yoko Ono to sing for them, but that would be too cruel.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:So there is an entire culture that thinks this is acceptable?

No. Burning the body of a Muslim is considered extremely offensive. This was a big PR mistake if their goal was to create a "caliphate".

turd--the yoko ono comment is good.

i'm no pacifist. i'm fine with killing bad guys. i think if we ask our military to kill bad guys, they should not be prevented from chasing them down wherever they run, contrary to the rules we handicapped ourselves with in afghanistan. and flying a dozen or two air missions a day against isis is feckless.

can we truly distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys in the desert?

the whole way they've gone about it is really just paying lip service to actually building anything...it's a bunch of sexually repressed savages who've been buttfucked by their uncles since they were 8, turning them into what are essentially sociopaths with little or not empathy for any living being.