NationStates Jolt Archive

Now why can't they do this on my campus (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10349028/)?
A group of atheists at the University of Texas in San Antonio is trying to tempt college kids into trading their Bibles for pornography.

It's part of a program called Smut for Smut sponsored by the student organization called Atheist Agenda.

On Monday, MSNBC's Tucker Carlson welcomed the group's president, Thomas Jackson, to 'The Situation."

There's an interview that follows, and I have to give Tucker Carlson credit here--he's not as much of a douchebag as he usually is in this interview. Here's a sampling:
THOMAS JACKSON: All right. Well, we have Bronze Aged tribal nonsense, these things written by people in tents ages ago, and we're using this to renounce science standards in our classrooms in America. We're using it to kind of influence our political agenda.

And we've read it. Atheists actually tend to be rather knowledgeable about scripture, and we are using this as a medium to get people to know what's actually within the religious text that they hold so dear.

CARLSON: Why porn, though? Why not just argue, you know, about what parts of the sacred text you find specious?

JACKSON: Well, first of all, you know, pornography gets a lot of negative press, and it's smut. A lot of it really is. And we wanted to make the comparison between that and the smut that is religious scripture or a lot of it, you know. The stuff that says a woman is worth half a man, the things that say, you know, you should beat children.

These things aren't acceptable in our society, and if pornography is not acceptable, then these things surely aren't. At the very least, what we're doing is trading something that's very, very bad for something that's only moderately bad.
I got giggly when the Jehovah's Witnesses had a table on campus set up next to the guys from NORML. Can you imagine what this would turn into?

Spectacular.:rolleyes:

I'm not terribly surprised by their actions. Athiests in universities are a rampant, militant plague of fundamentalists, many more fundamental in their anti-belief than those they attack.

I'm more curious as to their success rate than anything else.

LOL, awesome! Give those guys a medal!

Lol why do I have the sudden urge to go raid a church for bibles

Thanks for sharing that Nazzster! Made my day.

Damn! I regret having tossed that bible the Gideon person gave me. It could have scored me porn (well, better porn than was already in it). :(

Heehee. They're growing atheist fundies in America now. *points and giggles*

Spectacular.:rolleyes:

I'm not terribly surprised by their actions. Athiests in universities are a rampant, militant plague of fundamentalists, many more fundamental in their anti-belief than those they attack.

I'm more curious as to their success rate than anything else.

You = cool
me = agrees

Heehee. They're growing atheist fundies in America now. *points and giggles*
For the record, i don't believe in "freedom from religion" any more than I believe in freedom from secularism. Sounds like the guy's just trying to even the scoreboard.

I'm not terribly surprised by their actions. Athiests in universities are a rampant, militant plague of fundamentalists, many more fundamental in their anti-belief than those they attack.

Bitter, much?

Bitter, much?
I suspect having one's holy book labled as "smut" would have the effect of making one bitter. Can't really blame him.

For the record, i don't believe in "freedom from religion" any more than I believe in freedom from secularism. Sounds like the guy's just trying to even the scoreboard. Whether he's evening the scoreboard or not, America doesn't need more irritatingly arrogant opinionated loudmouths. They might spill over and come to where I live, and then there'd be trouble.:)

I'm not terribly surprised by their actions. Athiests in universities are a rampant, militant plague of fundamentalists, many more fundamental in their anti-belief than those they attack.

I'm more curious as to their success rate than anything else.
You know, rude atheists can be nearly as irritating as rude fundy Christians--the difference is that while rude atheists are intimating that they're smarter than you because they don't believe, fundy Christians are saying they're more moral than you because you don't believe the way they do, and furthermore, that you're going to burn in hell as a result. If I have to deal with a rude group of people, it'll be the atheists any day.

I suspect having one's holy book labled as "smut" would have the effect of making one bitter. Can't really blame him.

I feel the exact same way when people badmouth Hustler.

Really now. I find this disgusting. But of course like always they go after the Christians.

I suspect having one's holy book labled as "smut" would have the effect of making one bitter. Can't really blame him.
Most of the books arn't smut, then again America is a violence accepting society so a few more would be smut..

I wonder how long it'll be before someone mentions the order Moses gave to kill and enslave the Midianites…

I prefer to deal with fundie Christians (haven't met many though). At least I might have some chance (being a Christian), however slight, of actually making headway through the skull.

Really now. I find this disgusting. But of course like always they go after the Christians.

Oh, those poor Christians. When will they ever get a chance?

I suspect having one's holy book labled as "smut" would have the effect of making one bitter.

Too bad it's full of it, so he can't really object.

And again, I can't help but wonder what would happen if they did Smut for Smut with the Koran. No doubt it would be a near hate-crime. Anybody (that's you, Fass) who thinks Christianity isn't the last religion it's perfectly PC to bash is kidding themselves.

Really now. I find this disgusting. But of course like always they go after the Christians.
I'm sure if a Muslim or a Jew walked up to the stand holding their preferred text in their hands and a leer on their face, the organisers would not turn them back empty-handed. :D

Oh, those poor Christians. When will they ever get a chance?


Yes,me beinging a Christian, hate gays,try to convert nonbelievers on a daily bases even if it means pissing them off,believe everything in science is a bunch of the Devils work (sarcasm)

Too bad it's full of it, so he can't really object.

This is why I love liberals. The paragons of tolerance, they are.

And again, I can't help but wonder what would happen if they did Smut for Smut with the Koran. No doubt it would be a near hate-crime. Anybody (that's you, Fass) who thinks Christianity isn't the last religion it's perfectly PC to bash is kidding themselves.
Read the interview--they've taken copies of the Koran, of the Satanic Bible, and I believe of the Bhagavad Gita. So much for your theory, huh?:rolleyes:

Whether he's evening the scoreboard or not, America doesn't need more irritatingly arrogant opinionated loudmouths. They might spill over and come to where I live, and then there'd be trouble.:)
Do you extend that same line of logic to the religious... honestly?

Too bad it's full of it, so he can't really object. You have a point… although I don't remember reading that a woman is half of a man… although I suppose she would be if she was really short.

It's politically correct to bash atheists and Christians, as far as I know. If we allowed bashing of everything, then it would all become diffused.

You know, rude atheists can be nearly as irritating as rude fundy Christians--the difference is that while rude atheists are intimating that they're smarter than you because they don't believe, fundy Christians are saying they're more moral than you because you don't believe the way they do, and furthermore, that you're going to burn in hell as a result. If I have to deal with a rude group of people, it'll be the atheists any day.
Personally, I don't see shades of gray when it comes to being offensive. And I'm an atheist/BNuddhist, but you prolly knew that, Nazzster. (Yeah, I'm giving you a new nick, cuz you create some damn good posts and deserve one on NS.)

Really now. I find this disgusting. But of course like always they go after the Christians.
You really should ellaborate, or not.

Interesting.

Well if he suspects me to have a reaction to this then I...just don't care. Sure he's calling the Holy Bible names, but whats that gotta do with me?

*shurgs* Its a free country.

Smut? They're calling it smut?! I'm outraged! Pornography is a great thing!

:D

For the record, i don't believe in "freedom from religion" any more than I believe in freedom from secularism. Sounds like the guy's just trying to even the scoreboard.

Freedom from religion is the most important ideal facing the world today. Look around. People die everyday for their books. Can you imagine strapping a bomb to yourself for Oliver Twist? If that sounds ridiculous to you maybe you should take a look back through the Bible. It is full of contradictions and outright predjudice that has no place in modern society. People act like God sat at a desk and wrote it himself. It was written by people just like you and I a long time ago with their own agendas. If you want to practice your religion thats fine do it in your own home and your own private place of worship. It needs to be taken off our money, off our government buildings and kept out of our schools and public events for good. Most people don't even seem to realize that around 50 years ago was when they added "under God" to our pledge and "in God we Trust" to the money. Our country was founded to let you keep reading your scripture without interference from other religions by keeping it out of the public sphere. Thank God some people are willing to call it like it is. Read the newspper and you'll see the real plague. When people learn to love other people because we are all alive and human together and not because they are afraid of burning in hell or trying to suck up to some omnipresent brain we can finally move forward.

Yes,me beinging a Christian, hate gays,try to convert nonbelievers on a daily bases even if it means pissing them off,believe everything in science is a bunch of the Devils work (sarcasm)

Good sarcasm needs no parentheses.

And again, I can't help but wonder what would happen if they did Smut for Smut with the Koran. No doubt it would be a near hate-crime. Anybody (that's you, Fass) who thinks Christianity isn't the last religion it's perfectly PC to bash is kidding themselves.
I know nothing about the Quran; however, I do know what is in the Bible, maybe not by verse and chapter, but I know more exist than the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Romans, and Revelations.

This is why I love liberals. The paragons of tolerance, they are.

Calling out smut in a holy book has nothing to do with tolerance. The grisly truth is in the book we all know that Christians or not. You can practice your religion we just hope you are smart enough not to go out banning gay marriage and trying to overthrow abortion and stem cell research....oh wait lots of Christians do that with ferver on a daily basis. I get the feeling most people on this forum are not those people but that is because they are choosing to ignore passages in their own holy books. The book itself has not changed because you have.

Do you extend that same line of logic to the religious... honestly? Religious fundies annoy me more because they betray my religion's name.

You know, rude atheists can be nearly as irritating as rude fundy Christians--the difference is that while rude atheists are intimating that they're smarter than you because they don't believe, fundy Christians are saying they're more moral than you because you don't believe the way they do, and furthermore, that you're going to burn in hell as a result. If I have to deal with a rude group of people, it'll be the atheists any day.
Personally, I'd rather someone call me evil then stupid, and as such I am ten times more likely to punch a militant atheist in the face then a militant christian. Personally, I'd almost be willing to go to Hell simply so I could see the surprised looks on these fuckers faces when Baal decides to distribute some ass-rape to our sector.
(And I am an Atheist and very anti-spiritual, before you comment)

Personally, I'd rather someone call me evil then stupid, and as such I am ten times more likely to punch a militant atheist in the face then a militant christian. Personally, I'd almost be willing to go to Hell simply so I could see the surprised looks on these fuckers faces when Baal decides to distribute some ass-rape to our sector.
(And I am an Atheist and very anti-spiritual, before you comment) Actually, it could be quite funny… I (as a religious person) would just say to them "Yes, women are only worth half of men. What's the problem with that? They have their place, they must know their place" and watch the reactions.

I wonder if I'll get the chance to do that when I go to university… I doubt it's quite the same in the UK…

Freedom from religion is the most important ideal facing the world today. Look around. People die everyday for their books. Can you imagine strapping a bomb to yourself for Oliver Twist?

I've never known a Christian to blow themself up because of the Bible... but yeah we had the crusades and whatnot, but that was a long time ago.
I'm a Christian, fundy to a degree (I believe the Bible but I don't try to exocise non-believers. Well... not when I'm sober) and there is so much more to the Bible than what people attribute as 'outdated rules'.

Sex = Song of Solomon (Also known as Song of Songs)
Violence = Old Testament, Revelation
Jokes... all over the place (Hosea 3:1 - "In the same way the Lord loves the people of Israel, even though they worship other Gods and... eat the sacred raison cakes" Translation differs, but sacred raison cakes appears in most. And any religious text that has 'sacred raison cakes' in a passage meant to be taken seriously... well, it deserves a look, if nothing else)

Personally, I'd rather someone call me evil then stupid, and as such I am ten times more likely to punch a militant atheist in the face then a militant christian. Personally, I'd almost be willing to go to Hell simply so I could see the surprised looks on these fuckers faces when Baal decides to distribute some ass-rape to our sector.
(And I am an Atheist and very anti-spiritual, before you comment)
Which is precisely why you wouldn't be called stupid by a rude atheist--unless you were asking for it of course.

Sex = Song of Solomon (Also known as Song of Songs)
Violence = Old Testament, Revelation
Jokes... all over the place (Hosea 3:1 - "In the same way the Lord loves the people of Israel, even though they worship other Gods and... eat the sacred raison cakes" Translation differs, but sacred raison cakes appears in most. And any religious text that has 'sacred raison cakes' in a passage meant to be taken seriously... well, it deserves a look, if nothing else)

You forgot Hosea. God told him to go out and marry a whore, and father her children (whether he was their father or not).

Which is precisely why you wouldn't be called stupid by a rude atheist--unless you were asking for it of course. You get Christian fundies saying that eg Catholics aren't real Christians - and then you get the Taliban (although that's a very extreme example) saying that all other Muslims are apostates.

Everyone's forgetting when Lot's daughters got him drunk and raped him one after another.

I, living in the UK, have never seen the species of Christian known colloquially as "fundie", and therefore find it rather hard to believe in their widespread existence. I've been on the "American Taliban" website, but apart from the names on that - who are very rich influential names - what about average Americans?

If we allowed bashing of everything, then it would all become diffused.
Careful... You're treading into libertarian waters now, Lisk. ;)

You get Christian fundies saying that eg Catholics aren't real Christians - and then you get the Taliban (although that's a very extreme example) saying that all other Muslims are apostates.

Everyone's forgetting when Lot's daughters got him drunk and raped him one after another.

I, living in the UK, have never seen the species of Christian known colloquially as "fundie", and therefore find it rather hard to believe in their widespread existence. I've been on the "American Taliban" website, but apart from the names on that - who are very rich influential names - what about average Americans?
This reminds me of a good old emo phillips quote

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. so i ran over and said "stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" He said, "Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

I, living in the UK, have never seen the species of Christian known colloquially as "fundie", and therefore find it rather hard to believe in their widespread existence. I've been on the "American Taliban" website, but apart from the names on that - who are very rich influential names - what about average Americans?

There aren't many in the urban areas of the US. But if you're in just about any rural area, you'll find them.

They aren't exactly the way that people lampoon them, either.

I've never known a Christian to blow themself up because of the Bible...

That's, perhaps, due to a lack of testicular fortitude. Rather than blowing themselves up, they just blow other people up. ie: Oklahoma City, numerous abortion clinic bombings (and shootings), innumerable deaths caused by the KKK (though largely in the past), as well as the day-to-day hate crimes.

Careful... You're treading into libertarian waters now, Lisk. ;)
The water is warm come on in:p :fluffle:

Calling out smut in a holy book has nothing to do with tolerance. The grisly truth is in the book we all know that Christians or not. You can practice your religion we just hope you are smart enough not to go out banning gay marriage and trying to overthrow abortion and stem cell research....oh wait lots of Christians do that with ferver on a daily basis. I get the feeling most people on this forum are not those people but that is because they are choosing to ignore passages in their own holy books. The book itself has not changed because you have.

OK I get it now. It's OK to be intolerant of Christians because they disagree with you. But it's still OK to be a Christian, as long as you don't actually believe any of it. :rolleyes:

Religious fundies annoy me more because they betray my religion's name.
I love you, and there should be more of you.

I love you, and there should be more of you. What? Literally, as in a clone army? It's a possibility…

Libertarian? Me?:D

Freedom from religion is the most important ideal facing the world today. Look around. People die everyday for their books. Can you imagine strapping a bomb to yourself for Oliver Twist? If that sounds ridiculous to you maybe you should take a look back through the Bible. It is full of contradictions and outright predjudice that has no place in modern society. People act like God sat at a desk and wrote it himself. It was written by people just like you and I a long time ago with their own agendas. If you want to practice your religion thats fine do it in your own home and your own private place of worship. It needs to be taken off our money, off our government buildings and kept out of our schools and public events for good. Most people don't even seem to realize that around 50 years ago was when they added "under God" to our pledge and "in God we Trust" to the money. Our country was founded to let you keep reading your scripture without interference from other religions by keeping it out of the public sphere. Thank God some people are willing to call it like it is. Read the newspper and you'll see the real plague. When people learn to love other people because we are all alive and human together and not because they are afraid of burning in hell or trying to suck up to some omnipresent brain we can finally move forward.

To quote someone else here; "You sir, are preaching to the perveted".

Regardless of religion's crimes, freedom of religion doesn't equate to from it.
You aren't free unless you are granted the freedom to choose unwisely. ;)

OK I get it now. It's OK to be intolerant of Christians because they disagree with you. But it's still OK to be a Christian, as long as you don't actually believe any of it. :rolleyes:
Yup got to love freedom of expression its compleatly ok to think or say anything you want as long as you dont infringe on others freedoms

To quote someone else here; "You sir, are preaching to the perveted".

Regardless of religion's crimes, freedom of religion doesn't equate to from it.
You aren't free unless you are granted the freedom to choose unwisely. ;)
Lol thats in my sig :)

I prefer fundies as long as they aren't terrorists. Remember: The KKK is a terrorists group. I like peaceful fundies. Sure, they're against gay marriage, abortian(I don't like the idea of adults being the only ones with any real rights), and militant atheism(which clear-thinking person doesn't dislike the militant types?), but militant atheists are tearing down the first amendment. For them, I can say anything as long as it isn't a prayer. I can be any kind of theist as long as it's atheism. Basicly, they want a secular nation, both public and private. If you're an atheist who isn't what I just described, you're not militant.

PS. Is it me or is the ACLU becoming a haven for militant atheists? I dunno.

PPS. You won't believe how many people think that molestation isn't harmful, but rape is. They're basicly the same damn thing. Only, one involves minors and the other doesn't. Other than that, they're synonyms.

What? Literally, as in a clone army? It's a possibility…

Libertarian? Me?:D
I'm pro-biotech, but that's another thread...

No need to be libertarian. I just like people with open minds. :fluffle:

PS. Is it me or is the ACLU becoming a haven for militant atheists? I dunno.

Damn them and their defending private religious beliefs and fighting against all government acknowledgment of it.

I may not care about people's beliefs or non beliefs but If I meet one of these people, they'll be getting a Bitchslap upside the face.

I may not care about people's beliefs or non beliefs but If I meet one of these people, they'll be getting a Bitchslap upside the face.
Just so we're clear--the militant fundies or the militant atheists?

Just so we're clear--the militant fundies or the militant atheists?
Both! Both are trying to force people to 'convert' to their beliefs so they both deserve a beat down in my opinion.

The atheists are tryingto 'convert' them to they're 'religion' making them just as bad as the Religious Extremist. And they are just as annoying as well.
I'd hit the atheists and then take their Porn. I'd hit the Religious Extremists also though.

Lol thats in my sig :)
I know, I have sig envy (if I could have one anymore, which I can't). ;)
You do know we're maried on NS, right? In a threesome with Aerou?
Not trying to threadjack, sorry, OP...

PS. Is it me or is the ACLU becoming a haven for militant atheists? I dunno.
Only if you'e a neocon who thinks "civil liberties" are un-American.
Who'd think "liberty" was "American" but a bunch of assholes?

Both! Both are trying to force people to 'convert' to their beliefs so they both deserve a beat down in my opinion.

The atheists are tryingto 'convert' them to they're 'religion' making them just as bad as the Religious Extremist. And they are just as annoying as well.
I'd hit the atheists and then take their Porn. I'd hit the Religious Extremists also though. Nothing wrong with trying to convert people to your point of view. Incessant meaningless haranguing and damning a] morals or b] intelligence is very, very annoying though.

Nothing wrong with trying to convert people to your point of view. Incessant meaningless haranguing and damning a] morals or b] intelligence is very, very annoying though.
Considering my kinky nature, whether you're a m/f is no issue...

You're still getting sexier with each post in this thread. Bring on the clones, and drop one off here and I'll do the market testing free of charge.
I'd love to test the "next generation" Christian. In other words, the one that fits the criteria set over 2 millenia ago.

That's, perhaps, due to a lack of testicular fortitude. Rather than blowing themselves up, they just blow other people up. ie: Oklahoma City, numerous abortion clinic bombings (and shootings), innumerable deaths caused by the KKK (though largely in the past), as well as the day-to-day hate crimes.

I wasn't going to get involved in this, but a true Christian (follower of Christ) would not blow up a government building or abortion clinic or beat up a gay or be involved in a hate group. Just because a person calls themselves a christian does not mean they are. Jesus said "...Remember the commandments..." and a real christian would do just that. Two of those commandments say "Thou shalt not kill" and "love thy neighbor as thyself". So a true follower of Christ, or christian, would never kill a person or hate gays. Disagreeing with a person for what they do is far from hating them.

I wasn't going to get involved in this, but a true Christian (follower of Christ) would not blow up a government building or abortion clinic or beat up a gay or be involved in a hate group. Just because a person calls themselves a christian does not mean they are. Jesus said "...Remember the commandments..." and a real christian would do just that. Two of those commandments say "Thou shalt not kill" and "love thy neighbor as thyself". So a true follower of Christ, or christian, would never kill a person or hate gays. Disagreeing with a person for what they do is far from hating them.
Don't know if you're a Christian, but we do appreciate the presence of a much-needed Captain Obvious that comes to the rescue.
It would help if we wouldn't concentrate on hypebolic situations though. Just denying homosexuals the right to marry is enough contradiction by a group overwhelmingly in favor of LESS government inteference in life should speak volumes.
Unfortunaltely, that's lost on 99% of them, who believe morality can be legislated.

I'm talkin; politics here, not faith.

Grammar Nazis, I don't have the same privelages that you do. I post with emotion (hastily) by nature, and can't correct things my fingers did that my brain knows better. *blush*

u gatta be kidding me?all people who rather have porn the a bible :mp5:

u gatta be kidding me?all people who rather have porn the a bible :mp5:


You must be joking! Are you pretending to be a hypocritical Christian type with the killing of people who would rather have porn than a bible, or do you seriously consider yoruself to be a Christian and just don't understand what Jesus was teaching?

Don't know if you're a Christian, but we do appreciate the presence of a much-needed Captain Obvious that comes to the rescue.
It would help if we wouldn't concentrate on hypebolic situations though. Just denying homosexuals the right to marry is enough contradiction by a group overwhelmingly in favor of LESS government inteference in life should speak volumes.
Unfortunaltely, that's lost on 99% of them, who believe morality can be legislated.

I'm talkin; politics here, not faith.

Well, politically speaking then (don't know where you came up with this 99% stat) you seem to be confusing conservatism with christianity, in much the same way that conservatives tend to associate liberalism with atheism and satanism. It's true that many evangelical (christian and non- alike) groups support the republican party and the conservative agenda as a whole, but so do many other secular groups. It's also true that the Methodist Association were supporting John Kerry. You are forgetting that the bans on gay marriage were approved by a nearly equal number of conservatives and liberals. In the state where I live, the ammendment barely passed yet in such a liberal state as Michigan is, conservatives carried 67% of the popular vote.

Well, politically speaking then (don't know where you came up with this 99% stat) you seem to be confusing conservatism with christianity, in much the same way that conservatives tend to associate liberalism with atheism and satanism. It's true that many evangelical (christian and non- alike) groups support the republican party and the conservative agenda as a whole, but so do many other secular groups. It's also true that the Methodist Association were supporting John Kerry. You are forgetting that the bans on gay marriage were approved by a nearly equal number of conservatives and liberals. In the state where I live, the ammendment barely passed yet in such a liberal state as Michigan is, conservatives carried 67% of the popular vote.
You may be confusing modern "conservatism" with classic liberalism, or libertarianism, IMHO.

Which is precisely why you wouldn't be called stupid by a rude atheist--unless you were asking for it of course.
It is still unbearably arrogant. Both the fundie Xtian and the fundie Atheist are making unprovable claims, and then proceeding to judge people who don't believe as they do based on said fundies own beliefs. The difference is that, while the Xtian restrains himself to making judgements that are only valid if you hold his beliefs, the Atheist insists on making judgements that have weight beyond her beliefs.
To put it more clearly, if you aren't a Xtian, why should the concept of sin matter to you?

You may be confusing modern "conservatism" with classic liberalism, or libertarianism, IMHO.

You know that's not true, I'm just saying that there are a few on each side with so much hatred for the other that they're willing to lie and spread hateful rhetoric in the hopes of destroying the other's character.

I'm not gonna label any person as to their political or moral character but I will say that there are some outspoken few conservatives that convey liberals as Christian-hating gay-loving hippies and at the same time there are a loud few liberals who try to paint conservatives as gay-hating bible-thumping ideologues who fail to see logic or reason.

How can a person rightfully make a point if their explanations are based upon loathe instead of facts.

This is why I love liberals. The paragons of tolerance, they are.

:D A conservative talking about tolerance? :D :D :D :D

Thanks I needed that......

You know that's not true, I'm just saying that there are a few on each side with so much hatred for the other that they're willing to lie and spread hateful rhetoric in the hopes of destroying the other's character.

I'm not gonna label any person as to their political or moral character but I will say that there are some outspoken few conservatives that convey liberals as Christian-hating gay-loving hippies and at the same time there are a loud few liberals who try to paint conservatives as gay-hating bible-thumping ideologues who fail to see logic or reason.

How can a person rightfully make a point if their explanations are based upon loathe instead of facts.
Then we're getting into the connundrum of symantics. I'm referring as to how it's used "popularly", in shich case I'm completely right.
Intellectual terminology (newsflash, everyone on NS) doesn't mean shit.

Unfortuantely, I am right... And wish I wasn't.

You know, all this talk has got me thinking about the differences of jesus' teachings and god's. God always seems vengefull, killing all the first borns and whatnot. Do as i say, not as i do. Meanwhile Jesus seems to be a paragon of... Well... Everything good. I wonder where christianity would be without Jesus. Whether or not he truly walked on water or not, he is the most influential man in history.

Anyways, anyone who is a jerk is a jerk, and no amount of personal faith (In ANYTHING) is gonna change that. Shoot someone? Jerk. Preach that someone else is inherently inferior? Jerk. Attack anoether's beliefs just because they are not your own? Jerk.

I sorta feel like i'm beating a dead horse, though.

I sorta feel like i'm beating a dead horse, though.

you jerk! :p :D :fluffle:

Whether or not he truly walked on water or not, he is the most influential man in history.

Except for...you know...Buddha.

But otherwise, you make a good point. God, as depicted in the Old Testament, was kind of a bastard. Jesus was okay, although he had his little tantrums too.

You get Christian fundies saying that eg Catholics aren't real Christians - and then you get the Taliban (although that's a very extreme example) saying that all other Muslims are apostates.

Everyone's forgetting when Lot's daughters got him drunk and raped him one after another.

I, living in the UK, have never seen the species of Christian known colloquially as "fundie", and therefore find it rather hard to believe in their widespread existence. I've been on the "American Taliban" website, but apart from the names on that - who are very rich influential names - what about average Americans?

They only had sex with him because when they were forced to evaucuate Sodom when God destroyed it, they thought they were the only people left in the world, and thus, they beleived it was their responisiblity to continue the human race.

I love how liberals try to twist EVERYTHING to thier liking....:rolleyes:

Except for...you know...Buddha.
Yeah, because starting a couple crappy pseudo-religious organizations that have become absurdly popular among Atheists who haven't got the balls to go all the way is, like, ten times more important then being a major player in the world's two largest religions.

I, living in the UK, have never seen the species of Christian known colloquially as "fundie", and therefore find it rather hard to believe in their widespread existence. I've been on the "American Taliban" website, but apart from the names on that - who are very rich influential names - what about average Americans?

Well if you go to uni, you will most likely come into contact with a christian union of some sort or another, most likely affiliated to the UCCF (http://www.uccf.org.uk/). They are fairly right on, AFAIK it is not uncommon for them to frequently get in trouble for their views and how they voice them.

They only had sex with him because when they were forced to evaucuate Sodom when God destroyed it, they thought they were the only people left in the world, and thus, they beleived it was their responisiblity to continue the human race.

I love how liberals try to twist EVERYTHING to thier liking....

And this excuses rape? :confused:

I suppose this finishes all the "Would you sleep with me if we were the last two people on earth" type questions.

Yeah, because starting a couple crappy pseudo-religious organizations that have become absurdly popular among Atheists who haven't got the balls to go all the way is, like, ten times more important then being a major player in the world's two largest religions.
After 10 years of actively participating in Buddhism, your comment comes off as incredibly arrogant and myopic.
Don't pretend to understand something you haven't taken the time to excersize.
Buddhism requires years of mediational practice. Doesn't mean it's correct, but don't try to passive-aggresively pass it off as a cop-out.
Wickepedia isn't going to "clue you in" either, dude.

You = cool
me = agrees
I agree. I'm an agnostic, but I think that's just wrong.

After 10 years of actively participating in Buddhism, your comment comes off as incredibly arrogant and myopic.
Don't pretend to understand something you haven't taken the time to excersize.
I had to do a rudimentary study of buddhism as part of this comparitive religion thing I did a while ago, and I was incredibly nonplussed.
Buddhism requires years of mediational practice. Doesn't mean it's correct, but don't try to passive-aggresively pass it off as a cop-out.
Say what you will, but Buddhism is going to stay on my board of spiritual cop-outs that have become popular of late. Does that mean you can't enjoy it, or that following invalidates your opinion on other things? No, but don't expect me to take any of it seriously.
Wickepedia isn't going to "clue you in" either, dude.
I wouldn't expect it to, and thus haven't looked. Religion is one of the worst things to probe a wiki about, as their is almost no way to find a truly impartial observer.

All this aside, the main thrust of my comment is, and remains, that when sat beside JC, Buddha isn't that important in history.

I had to do a rudimentary study of buddhism as part of this comparitive religion thing I did a while ago, and I was incredibly nonplussed.

Say what you will, but Buddhism is going to stay on my board of spiritual cop-outs that have become popular of late. Does that mean you can't enjoy it, or that following invalidates your opinion on other things? No, but don't expect me to take any of it seriously.

I wouldn't expect it to, and thus haven't looked. Religion is one of the worst things to probe a wiki about, as their is almost no way to find a truly impartial observer.

All this aside, the main thrust of my comment is, and remains, that when sat beside JC, Buddha isn't that important in history.

You know up until now I havnt been sure what to make of you and your posts, but after this one...I respect you and your views, and I think you really know what your talking about. I also agree with the above.:p

Jesus said "...Remember the commandments..." and a real christian would do just that. Two of those commandments say "Thou shalt not kill" and "love thy neighbor as thyself".

What about Christians with low self esteem? :p

I'm Catholic, but more so because my mom says than in practice. Obviously, the Bible is real old, so not everything in it is up to date. Personally, I think it was meant to be updated by now, but all the prophets are hopped up on pills for their hallucinations, and the baby Jesus has probably been aborted multiple times. Be that as it may, I think it's the responsibility of Christians (and other religions) today to start with the basics, the commandments (or whatever the code is for other religions), as mentioned, and work from there. I will honestly say that I don't know much about the details of the Bible, but I try to follow the commandments simply because they are good ideas.

Not all of my views mesh perfectly with my religion, I don't hate gay people, I'm pro-choice and I think stem cell research is a good idea, but that's not to say that I'm any worse a Christian than you because you think the opposite on those issues. I think it's obvious that God's message was for everyone to play nice. If you can remember that and live by it, I think it makes you a good enough person for Him (or Her, or Them, or whatever).

You get Christian fundies saying that eg Catholics aren't real Christians - and then you get the Taliban (although that's a very extreme example) saying that all other Muslims are apostates.

Everyone's forgetting when Lot's daughters got him drunk and raped him one after another.

I, living in the UK, have never seen the species of Christian known colloquially as "fundie", and therefore find it rather hard to believe in their widespread existence. I've been on the "American Taliban" website, but apart from the names on that - who are very rich influential names - what about average Americans?

I've always wondered what their rational for that was...considering Catholicism was the only Christianity until Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses. It seems odd to call the original Christians fakes. So, if anyone can enlighten me as to the way you guys rationalize this belief, I'd love to listen.

*snip*
Fiddle, it's all good. Budhism acknowledges the fact that it's in the eye of the beholder. In fact, that's what makes it unique.
It's about perspective, in the end. The reincarnation, blah-blah-blah crap is smoke n' mirrors. At the end (at least in the Tibetan tradition), it's all about illusion and spiritual physics, which I understand remains "up in the air".
It's a miror. I can't stand up for Tibetan Buddhism any more than anyone else.
IMHO, it's just lead me to believe that thee is no God. Thee is no fate. There is no "anything" worthwhile here.
Trying to make sense of the senseless (or argue about it) is redundant, and a waste of our illusory, but inevitable time.
It doesn't matter thant you're hostile toward Buddshism. In the end, things like "hostility" cease to make any sense. I'm drinking, and so I'll prolly devolve into bad communication. But, in a religion where "nothing" is the end-point, all arguments kinda collapse.
At least, for a nihilist/nirvanist like myslef.

Spectacular.:rolleyes:

I'm not terribly surprised by their actions. Athiests in universities are a rampant, militant plague of fundamentalists, many more fundamental in their anti-belief than those they attack.

I'm more curious as to their success rate than anything else.

Atheists aren't fundamentalists, it's not because we wildly object the suggestion of ID in science classes that we're fundamentalists

these type of people are destroying this country... it is sickening.

I suspect having one's holy book labled as "smut" would have the effect of making one bitter. Can't really blame him.

http://www.kefren.be/mig/albums/Graspop/Stuff_voor_het_forum/bible.jpg

I had to do a rudimentary study of buddhism as part of this comparitive religion thing I did a while ago, and I was incredibly nonplussed.

Say what you will, but Buddhism is going to stay on my board of spiritual cop-outs that have become popular of late. Does that mean you can't enjoy it, or that following invalidates your opinion on other things? No, but don't expect me to take any of it seriously.

I wouldn't expect it to, and thus haven't looked. Religion is one of the worst things to probe a wiki about, as their is almost no way to find a truly impartial observer.

All this aside, the main thrust of my comment is, and remains, that when sat beside JC, Buddha isn't that important in history.

While estimates vary between 200-500 million adherents, the generally agreed number of Buddhists is estimated at around 350 million (6% of the world's population). This makes Buddhism the world's fourth largest (in terms of number of adherents) religion.

Your shallow and snide remarks about a major religion reflect poorly on you only.

What about Christians with low self esteem? :p

I'm Catholic, but more so because my mom says than in practice. Obviously, the Bible is real old, so not everything in it is up to date. Personally, I think it was meant to be updated by now, but all the prophets are hopped up on pills for their hallucinations, and the baby Jesus has probably been aborted multiple times. Be that as it may, I think it's the responsibility of Christians (and other religions) today to start with the basics, the commandments (or whatever the code is for other religions), as mentioned, and work from there. I will honestly say that I don't know much about the details of the Bible, but I try to follow the commandments simply because they are good ideas.

Not all of my views mesh perfectly with my religion, I don't hate gay people, I'm pro-choice and I think stem cell research is a good idea, but that's not to say that I'm any worse a Christian than you because you think the opposite on those issues. I think it's obvious that God's message was for everyone to play nice. If you can remember that and live by it, I think it makes you a good enough person for Him (or Her, or Them, or whatever).


For the last time, "Thou Shalt Hate Fags" is not written in the Bible, not part of Church doctrine, and thus not a popular sentiment outside of what's-his-name's pissant group. The act is regarded as a sin, and for Christians to hate gay people would be like a doctor hating and refusing service to a patient.

So contrary to the screeds of liberals, who cringe at the notion that anyone should "judge" them, we do not hate gays.

I would also be careful about your final conclusion. Being a nice person is being a nice person, being a nice person and beleiving in God is being a Christian. There are no Atheist Christians, as some like to call themselves.

http://www.kefren.be/mig/albums/Graspop/Stuff_voor_het_forum/bible.jpg

71 posts into your stay at nation-states and your already trolling liberal bullshit.....GREAT!

these type of people are destroying this country... it is sickening.

LOL.

Really now. I find this disgusting. But of course like always they go after the Christians.
actually i heard a slightly different story, they were trading any whole text for porn.

i think this is awesome but i really think that colleges have enough porn in them already.

I wasn't going to get involved in this, but a true Christian (follower of Christ) would not blow up a government building or abortion clinic or beat up a gay or be involved in a hate group. Just because a person calls themselves a christian does not mean they are. Jesus said "...Remember the commandments..." and a real christian would do just that. Two of those commandments say "Thou shalt not kill" and "love thy neighbor as thyself". So a true follower of Christ, or christian, would never kill a person or hate gays. Disagreeing with a person for what they do is far from hating them.


No all a true Christian needs to do is believe Christ died for their sins and is their saviouur and has asked for forgiveness. What you are describing is a good Christian.Christians can be bad!

71 posts into your stay at nation-states and your already trolling liberal bullshit.....GREAT!

Yea, ain't life a bitch? I'm so sorry for my bad behaviour or for me upsetting you with my bashing of thy holy scripture :rolleyes:

71 posts into your stay at nation-states and your already trolling liberal bullshit.....GREAT!
Some people have skill
I like him already lol

While estimates vary between 200-500 million adherents, the generally agreed number of Buddhists is estimated at around 350 million (6% of the world's population). This makes Buddhism the world's fourth largest (in terms of number of adherents) religion.

Your shallow and snide remarks about a major religion reflect poorly on you only.

Actually I think they reflect highly on him..as I have to agree with what he said....and, how can you say that when you are constantly putting down Christians and their religion.....dont do that, it reflects poorly on you.

http://www.kefren.be/mig/albums/Graspop/Stuff_voor_het_forum/bible.jpg

I'm not even that religious, but I still find that offensive. Sometimes I wish people could just lay off each other and let us coexist peaceably. I don't really see that happening anytime soon, but we could start now. The fundy Christians should stop trying to force their morals on others, and the fundy atheists can stop telling the Christians they're wrong, because who the hell really knows anyway?

Just something to ponder though, as a logical reason for considering religion:

You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case your loss is finite and therefore negligible.
You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
You may not believe in God, and God exists, in which case you will go to hell: your loss is infinite.
(derived from Pensées, Blaise Pascal)

Some people have skill
I like him already lol

You would.

actually i heard a slightly different story, they were trading any whole text for porn.

i think this is awesome but i really think that colleges have enough porn in them already.
yup people cant read

They were also taking the quran and the santinist bible
(not that they were limited to them just that they already DID traid for them)

Yea, ain't life a bitch? I'm so sorry for my bad behaviour or for me upsetting you with my bashing of thy holy scripture :rolleyes:

Dont be sorry, as I dont care what you think, just dont do it, as I do care what you do.

You would.
Yup I got a sense of humor

*snip*
At least, for a nihilist/nirvanist like myslef.

That just reminds me of the joke:

Morris was passing a small courtyard and heard voices murmuring. He went in and saw an altar with a large zero in the middle. White-robed people were kneeling before the altar chanting hymns to The Great Nullity and The Blessed Emptiness.

Morris turned to a white-robed observer beside him and asked:

Is Nothing Sacred?

Yes I'm sorry, I couldn't help it

Yeah, because starting a couple crappy pseudo-religious organizations that have become absurdly popular among Atheists who haven't got the balls to go all the way is, like, ten times more important then being a major player in the world's two largest religions.

Hmm... according to some (religious) people it's the atheists whom don't believe in a god, a devil, a hell or a heaven that take the most chances, because, hey, we're gonna burn in hell!

I like the idea of the smut for smut thingie, maybe they can do a little kiddie version for it aswell, carnage for carnage, and give kids some violent games

Hmm... according to some (religious) people it's the atheists whom don't believe in a god, a devil, a hell or a heaven that take the most chances, because, hey, we're gonna burn in hell!

I like the idea of the smut for smut thingie, maybe they can do a little kiddie version for it aswell, carnage for carnage, and give kids some violent games
Lol or just hand out a joke "joke for a joke" campaign

Kiddie friendly as well (depending on the joke books):p

these type of people are destroying this country... it is sickening.

Who? The ones trying to get religion into science classes? Yea, i agree.

<snip>
To go into an in depth list of all the things I can't stand about Buddhism would require far too much effort and drag us even further off topic. This is a thread about Xtian bashing, people! Get with the program!
Nah, give me YHWH or Allah over Nirvana any day (Yes, I know its not the same thing, but when going apples vs oranges you have to make some concessions).

While estimates vary between 200-500 million adherents, the generally agreed number of Buddhists is estimated at around 350 million (6% of the world's population). This makes Buddhism the world's fourth largest (in terms of number of adherents) religion.
And still smaller then either Islam or Xtianity. Therefore, Buddha's Importance < Jesus' Importance.
Your shallow and snide remarks about a major religion reflect poorly on you only.
No, it doesn't. 6% of the world is tiny when placed beside, oh, I dunno, 94% of the world (Hey look, I've still got a 4.0!) that agrees with me that Buddhism is silly and not worth their time.
Like I said, I could go further and deeper into the argument, and pull out every place that I disagree with Buddhists, but that would take us even further away from the topic.

That just reminds me of the joke:

Morris was passing a small courtyard and heard voices murmuring. He went in and saw an altar with a large zero in the middle. White-robed people were kneeling before the altar chanting hymns to The Great Nullity and The Blessed Emptiness.

Morris turned to a white-robed observer beside him and asked:

Is Nothing Sacred?

Yes I'm sorry, I couldn't help it
*groans* lol nice
Should make the Zero a Naught sign :)

like this (no not the boobs part)
http://www.transportblog.com/images/indian_subway_groping.jpg

Who? The ones trying to get religion into science classes? Yea, i agree.

Ah so now we are lumping fundemantalists with the billion other Christians together, stereotypically, are we? However, all Christians, even the uber left wing Christians, feel the bible is sacred, and not something to be called or traded with smut. Those people are ignorant insensitive bastards and could use some of their own lessons on tolerance.

That just reminds me of the joke:

Morris was passing a small courtyard and heard voices murmuring. He went in and saw an altar with a large zero in the middle. White-robed people were kneeling before the altar chanting hymns to The Great Nullity and The Blessed Emptiness.

Morris turned to a white-robed observer beside him and asked:

Is Nothing Sacred?

Yes I'm sorry, I couldn't help it

Joo are bad man, senor.

Some people have skill
I like him already lol

Why thank you :D

*groans* lol nice
Should make the Zero a Naught sign :)

like this (no not the boobs part)
http://www.transportblog.com/images/indian_subway_groping.jpg

Bro, I had to ask!....Is that a smurfing penis on that chick?

And still smaller then either Islam or Xtianity. Therefore, Buddha's Importance < Jesus' Importance.

.

Or, to continue the formula:

Your importance < Buddha's Importance < Jesus' Importance

Some humility. Please.

If you don't like Buddhism, here's an idea: don't be a Buddhist. To be condescending towards an essentially peaceful people who leave you alone is somewhat uncalled for, whatever your creed might be.

. 6% of the world is tiny when placed beside, oh, I dunno, 94% of the world (Hey look, I've still got a 4.0!) that agrees with me that Buddhism is silly and not worth their time.

Because somebody's not a member of a religion, they think its silly? (your statement does include this premise)

Do you feel that the statement "94% of the world agree that Buddhism is silly" would withstand real examination?

You can certainly have any feeling about anything you want, but it seems like you may be projecting your view on more people than really agree with you.

Or, to continue the formula:

Your importance < Buddha's Importance < Jesus' Importance

Some humility. Please.

If you don't like Buddhism, here's an idea: don't be a Buddhist. To be condescending towards an essentially peaceful people who leave you alone is somewhat uncalled for, whatever your creed might be.

Amen to that! (I realize the irony there)

This thread proves naught else than that people are more content in their zeal than in an open, reasonable dialogue.
The entire point of religion is to have a model for conduct by which every one can live peacefully.

I think most people missed that point.

To paraphrase Hillel, 1st century Jewish philosopher (and most likely a teacher of Jesus):

The essential message of the scriptures is to be kind to others, and expect the same in return. The rest is commentary.

This thread proves naught else than that people are more content in their zeal than in an open, reasonable dialogue.

True, but religion is one of those things that it's impossible to have a resonable dialogue over. It is one of the things that should never be discussed over dinner, for obvious reasons.

I'm not even that religious, but I still find that offensive.

I find it to contain alot of truth personally, and the "do not take litterally" really should be printed on those damned things (religious texts)

Sometimes I wish people could just lay off each other and let us coexist peaceably. I don't really see that happening anytime soon, but we could start now. The fundy Christians should stop trying to force their morals on others, and the fundy atheists can stop telling the Christians they're wrong, because who the hell really knows anyway?

The dead know, but they don't say much ;) I don't really care much about what you believe or don't believe, i think we all should just get a bigger skin & stop taking these things so bloody personal (oh, and keep religion out of the education & government). It's not like i'm going to loose sleep because some religious fella makes fun of me or atheists, i'd expect the same to apply in both directions.

Just something to ponder though, as a logical reason for considering religion:

You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case your loss is finite and therefore negligible.
You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
You may not believe in God, and God exists, in which case you will go to hell: your loss is infinite.
(derived from Pensées, Blaise Pascal)

Well, eighter i'm very brave (or stupid, for risking eternal damnation) or to damned logical to being able to convince myself of even the possibility of such a being to have ever existed, i can't fathom why or how people can believe it.

Now, mind you, my parents are religious (not churchgoing, but religious) and they *tried* getting me to do those ceremonies that young catholics do, they even tried bribing me with a bike when i was 12 or something, but i just couldn't accept the idea of 'god'.

Believing in god doesn't solve any of the questions mankind has about his origins, it nearly moves the questions to another level, and gives false hope to people.

I honestly believe that religions are manmade creations to awner questions they couldn't awnser, and with the same logic behind them as laws, namely to maintain a sociaty.

People wonder, "what is the meaning of life, why are we here" or who knows what other questions, and they can't grasp the possibility of there not being a reason to life, no reason to their existance, while i can't grasp the possibility of life *having* a meaning.

You say "God made us", i'll ask "Who made god" and we're back to square one ;)

Eh, why do you care what me and fiddle think of them anyway? Those number crunchers are probably too busy with tomorrow nights math homework to notice us saying anything anyway.

Dont be sorry, as I dont care what you think, just dont do it, as I do care what you do.

Well, just as you don't care what i might think, i do not care if i upset you when i post a picture rediculing your faith.

How's that for tolerance eh? What ya gonna do? Try & take freedom of speech away?

Or are you worried for "my eternal soul"? Newsflash for you, if there really was such a thing, i'd have sold it to satan ages ago.

True, but religion is one of those things that it's impossible to have a resonable dialogue over. It is one of the things that should never be discussed over dinner, for obvious reasons.

Actually, dinner, after a few glasses of wine, is where it starts getting interesting!

Your importance < Buddha's Importance < Jesus' Importance

Some humility. Please.
But my importance isn't the issue. This whole mess started because somebody made the claim that Buddha was more important than Jesus. I corrected the error, but at no point did I say I was more important than either.
The only one who worships at my altar is me, and that is all the congregation that I need and all the god that I could want.
If you don't like Buddhism, here's an idea: don't be a Buddhist. To be condescending towards an essentially peaceful people who leave you alone is somewhat uncalled for, whatever your creed might be.
But I haven't been the aggressor at any stage! I corrrected something one person said, someone else argued with it. I argued back, and someone else replied. Now I'm replying again! If you people quit shooting at me, I'll quit firing back!

Because somebody's not a member of a religion, they think its silly? (your statement does include this premise)

Do you feel that the statement "94% of the world agree that Buddhism is silly" would withstand real examination?
As far as the Buddha goes, yes. Since there are Budddhist/X, where X is just about any brand religion or lack thereof you can think of, scattered about the world pretty widely, I'd say that people who aren't Buddhist do so because they don't think it is worth their time and a bit silly.
If a Buddhist is wrong, they gain little or nothing from their devotion. There is no inner peace, there is no Nirvana, there is no reincarnation, there is nothing more that they get for their investment of time/effort/thought then I get for my lack of investment. Therefore, they are wrong and were quite silly to waste their time on heresies.
If I'm not a Buddhist, I must think that they are wrong (If I thought they were right I'd convert, right?), then I must find their devotions silly.

Ah so now we are lumping fundemantalists with the billion other Christians together, stereotypically, are we? However, all Christians, even the uber left wing Christians, feel the bible is sacred, and not something to be called or traded with smut. Those people are ignorant insensitive bastards and could use some of their own lessons on tolerance.

Hey, you could always insult our own holy texts!
....
Oh, right, you can't, we haven't got any of those *D'OH!*

I don't have a problem with people who believe, aslong as they don't try & shove it down my throut, and having texts like "in god we trust" to me equels to "shoving it down my throut", luckally i don't live in the US.

You know, *NOTHING* that is man made is sacred, because it is made by man in the first place.

But I haven't been the aggressor at any stage! I corrrected something one person said, someone else argued with it. I argued back, and someone else replied. Now I'm replying again! If you people quit shooting at me, I'll quit firing back!

That would require you to get the last word though.;)

But I haven't been the aggressor at any stage! I corrrected something one person said, someone else argued with it. I argued back, and someone else replied. Now I'm replying again! If you people quit shooting at me, I'll quit firing back!


I hope you will accept my apologies. I must have missed the orginal instigation.

As far as the Buddha goes, yes. Since there are Budddhist/X, where X is just about any brand religion or lack thereof you can think of, scattered about the world pretty widely, I'd say that people who aren't Buddhist do so because they don't think it is worth their time and a bit silly.
If a Buddhist is wrong, they gain little or nothing from their devotion. There is no inner peace, there is no Nirvana, there is no reincarnation, there is nothing more that they get for their investment of time/effort/thought then I get for my lack of investment. Therefore, they are wrong and were quite silly to waste their time on heresies.
If I'm not a Buddhist, I must think that they are wrong (If I thought they were right I'd convert, right?), then I must find their devotions silly.

I met a number of practicing buddhists when I was in Japan next year. I didn't convert, but I didn't find them silly. I found them admirable in their devotion and behaviour. Also, I think its possible to find inner-peace in a meditative practice without its cosmological extrapolations being proven.

You seriously have never observed a practice that you didn't want to convert to, but also didn't find silly? And more importantly, do you feel that 94% of the planet shares that reasoning?

This seems testable. I'm going to ask around over the next week, and ask people "Do you believe in Buddhism, and do you find it silly?". If your premise is correct, I should receive 94% replies of "no and yes".

EDIT: It occurs to me that I should clarify I completely accept if you aren't into buddhism, and don't feel that you have to justify your reasons at all. I just think the assumption that 94% of the world finds it silly may be an overly broad statement.

I always liked the budist monks who got swords and fought.......

i'm an athiest i'll leave you alone as long as you leave me alone

that is I don't want your religion to intrude into my life at all

I live in a secular country (wales) we have no national church therefore I don't want to have religion affecting my rights.

i'm all for you having the right ot choose to pray all the time, refuse drugs as its gods will or not have abortions but it should be a matter of personal choice

NOT THE STATE TELLING US!!!!!!

we do certain things as our general culture is christian/pagan/jewish in basis so i'm not against xmas or anything as for most its got to the point of being non religious in my country like easter is about chocolate to most now.

You seriously have never observed a practice that you didn't want to convert to, but also didn't find silly? And more importantly, do you feel that 94% of the planet shares that reasoning?
What makes you think I've never met a Buddhist? I've chattered with plenty (well, I've never met a Therevadan), and they are quite nice, but that really doesn't make their theology any less silly.
This seems testable. I'm going to ask around over the next week, and ask people "Do you believe in Buddhism, and do you find it silly?". If your premise is correct, I should receive 94% replies of "no and yes".
Well, see ya after you've toured a reasonable sample of the world. You should probably hit two or three of the major cities in each country, or at least in each major region. Don't forget to make a quick search through the fields and plains to be sure that your gathered opinions aren't skewed my metropolitan ideas.
After all, there are 350 million Buddhists in the world, meaning you could go to 350 million people and get "yes and no" for your answers without proving anything in relation to my point.

What makes you think I've never met a Buddhist?
Well, see ya after you've toured a reasonable sample of the world. You should probably hit two or three of the major cities in each country, or at least in each major region. Don't forget to make a quick search through the fields and plains to be sure that your gathered opinions aren't skewed my metropolitan ideas.
After all, there are 350 million Buddhists in the world, meaning you could go to 350 million people and get "yes and no" for your answers without proving anything in relation to my point.

Actually, since your premise is that "All people who don't believe in Buddhism think its silly", I only need to find a few people who don't believe in it, but also don't find it silly. So, I don't really need to check with any sizable sample population, since no statistical inference is being tested, but rather a categorical statement regarding one belief as a necessary subset of another.

So, basically, if anybody says "I'm not a Buddhist, but I don't find it silly", then your statement was incorrect. (Your statement being that not believing in a religion includes considering it silly).

Bro, I had to ask!....Is that a smurfing penis on that chick?
No idea was just looking for a silly way yo display the naught (or anti) symbol

I'm not even that religious, but I still find that offensive. Sometimes I wish people could just lay off each other and let us coexist peaceably. I don't really see that happening anytime soon, but we could start now. The fundy Christians should stop trying to force their morals on others, and the fundy atheists can stop telling the Christians they're wrong, because who the hell really knows anyway?

Just something to ponder though, as a logical reason for considering religion:

You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case your loss is finite and therefore negligible.
You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
You may not believe in God, and God exists, in which case you will go to hell: your loss is infinite.
(derived from Pensées, Blaise Pascal)


Holy god you managed to understand the arguement you were using (Pascal's wager) but you did not manage to do a simple google search on how flawed that arguement is?

Holy god you managed to understand the arguement you were using (Pascal's wager) but you did not manage to do a simple google search on how flawed that arguement is?

Hee, yeah. I wonder if cults use Pascal's reasoning to explain why you might as well believe in the spaceship, or Baphomozilla the Lizard Deliverance.

Hee, yeah. I wonder if cults use Pascal's reasoning to explain why you might as well believe in the spaceship, or Baphomozilla the Lizard Deliverance.
Agreed ... I have a feeling they do

To go into an in depth list of all the things I can't stand about Buddhism would require far too much effort and drag us even further off topic. This is a thread about Xtian bashing, people! Get with the program!
Nah, give me YHWH or Allah over Nirvana any day (Yes, I know its not the same thing, but when going apples vs oranges you have to make some concessions).


And still smaller then either Islam or Xtianity. Therefore, Buddha's Importance < Jesus' Importance.

No, it doesn't. 6% of the world is tiny when placed beside, oh, I dunno, 94% of the world (Hey look, I've still got a 4.0!) that agrees with me that Buddhism is silly and not worth their time.
Like I said, I could go further and deeper into the argument, and pull out every place that I disagree with Buddhists, but that would take us even further away from the topic.

Christians (all lumped together) make up about 33% of the world population.

Does that mean that 67% of the world thinks Christianity is silly?

I wonder if they take the constitution, too... I might be able to get a two for one deal if I include the bill of rights!

(Cat, from this threads posts, evidently)

Hee, yeah. I wonder if cults use Pascal's reasoning to explain why you might as well believe in the spaceship, or Baphomozilla the Lizard Deliverance.

I don't think that that is the idea guys. He's trying to say that it makes more sense to believe in a god than not, because if you don't and there is one you're f***ed.

So, basically, if anybody says "I'm not a Buddhist, but I don't find it silly", then your statement was incorrect. (Your statement being that not believing in a religion includes considering it silly).
Actually, my dearest one, that is rather not my point. My point is that Buddha only influences 6% of the world's population, which means that 94% of thee world doesn't give a flying fuck when it comes to the brass tacks. You seem to have magically ignored every part of the post, with the exclusion of one word.
One word which you seem determined to argue about, and while at first I was loathe to become annoyed with one as beatific as your fine self, I have become increasingly less moved to even the casual consideration of frivolous debate.
Most of the world is not Buddhist, nor do they recognize the Buddha in any real way (and before you latch upon the word recognize I am saying it using the strict definition of "acknowledge the superior wisdom of", and most means "60% and up"). And 94% of the world views Buddhism as "not worth their time", as is demonstrated by their not spending time on it.
At first, this was fun, but I really am tired of being channeled into arguing about the placement of a single world, especially now that Cat-Tribes seems eager to double-team the effort.

Of course, why should I expect a real thought out response when you can just grab a single splinter of it and reply only to that?

PS: And my dearest Cat-Tribe, why should I assume that 67% of the world thinks?

I don't think that that is the idea guys. He's trying to say that it makes more sense to believe in a god than not, because if you don't and there is one you're f***ed.

Right, but the same reasoning applies to any "god" concept, that's all. So it doesn't support a benevolent "good" god any more than a spaceship god.

Actually, my dearest one, that is rather not my point. My point is that Buddha only influences 6% of the world's population, which means that 94% of thee world doesn't give a flying fuck when it comes to the brass tacks. You seem to have magically ignored every part of the post, with the exclusion of one word.
One word which you seem determined to argue about, and while at first I was loathe to become annoyed with one as beatific as your fine self, I have become increasingly less moved to even the casual consideration of frivolous debate.
Most of the world is not Buddhist, nor do they recognize the Buddha in any real way (and before you latch upon the word recognize I am saying it using the strict definition of "acknowledge the superior wisdom of", and most means "60% and up"). And 94% of the world views Buddhism as "not worth their time", as is demonstrated by their not spending time on it.
At first, this was fun, but I really am tired of being channeled into arguing about the placement of a single world, especially now that Cat-Tribes seems eager to double-team the effort.

Of course, why should I expect a real thought out response when you can just grab a single splinter of it and reply only to that?

PS: And my dearest Cat-Tribe, why should I assume that 67% of the world thinks?

Sorry, I honestly didn't feel I was being that adversarial about it. And I only took issue with one part of your post, because I only thought that one statement was unsound. I don't understand why you're being so confrontational about it. If you really feel attacked, I apologize.

Spectacular.:rolleyes:

I'm not terribly surprised by their actions. Athiests in universities are a rampant, militant plague of fundamentalists, many more fundamental in their anti-belief than those they attack.

I'm more curious as to their success rate than anything else.

Well it's really for the better, kids need porn more then they need mythology. ;)

I don't think that that is the idea guys. He's trying to say that it makes more sense to believe in a god than not, because if you don't and there is one you're f***ed.
Ok listed some of the flaws with pascalls

1) pascalls wager assumes there is no consequence to believing in god (personaly if I only have this life ... time I waste on something "just in case" is a horrible loss to me ... I could be spending that time doing much better things form myself or my fellow humans)

2) pascalls wager assumes there are only two choices god or not (many religions are mutualy exclusive ... meaning you choose the wrong god you are fucked as well)

3)pascalls wager assumes that god is stupid enough to think that someone "hedging" their bets is actualy a true believer

4) pascalls wager assumes that you can activly choose a belief.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#pascal (a simmilar viewpoint to my list)

Right, but the same reasoning applies to any "god" concept, that's all. So it doesn't support a benevolent "good" god any more than a spaceship god.

Ok, I get it now.

This group is needed at my school. We have the Campus Crusade for Christ annoying the hell out of everybody and nobody to counter them.

Next year me and some friends are starting an atheist and agnostic club. We probably won't get enough funding to do a project like that though.

Actually, my dearest one, that is rather not my point. My point is that Buddha only influences 6% of the world's population, which means that 94% of thee world doesn't give a flying fuck when it comes to the brass tacks. You seem to have magically ignored every part of the post, with the exclusion of one word.
One word which you seem determined to argue about, and while at first I was loathe to become annoyed with one as beatific as your fine self, I have become increasingly less moved to even the casual consideration of frivolous debate.
Most of the world is not Buddhist, nor do they recognize the Buddha in any real way (and before you latch upon the word recognize I am saying it using the strict definition of "acknowledge the superior wisdom of", and most means "60% and up"). And 94% of the world views Buddhism as "not worth their time", as is demonstrated by their not spending time on it.
At first, this was fun, but I really am tired of being channeled into arguing about the placement of a single world, especially now that Cat-Tribes seems eager to double-team the effort.

Of course, why should I expect a real thought out response when you can just grab a single splinter of it and reply only to that?

PS: And my dearest Cat-Tribe, why should I assume that 67% of the world thinks?

Throwing poo around is NOT argumentation. I see no need to play further.

I think this actions are really nice, but why sholud they give only bibles?? Not everybody is Catholic. I think they should give them books instead of bibbles

Ok sense you seem to be unable to see the flaws let me do the short list for you

1) pascalls wager assumes there is no consequence to believing in god (personaly if I only have this life ... time I waste on something "just in case" is a horrible loss to me ... I could be spending that time doing much better things form myself or my fellow humans)

2) pascalls wager assumes there are only two choices god or not (many religions are mutualy exclusive ... meaning you choose the wrong god you are fucked as well)

3)pascalls wager assumes that god is stupid enough to think that someone "hedging" their bets is actualy a true believer

4) pascalls wager assumes that you can activly choose a belief.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#pascal (a simmilar viewpoint to my list)


So, it's only invalid because you complicate it. As a logical issue in its purest form, religion=good idea. That's all I was trying to say, not create some grand debate about the flaws in it when applied to real life.

P.S. Why is it such an issue to you?

This group is needed at my school. We have the Campus Crusade for Christ annoying the hell out of everybody and nobody to counter them.

Next year me and some friends are starting an atheist and agnostic club. We probably won't get enough funding to do a project like that though.

Just remember, some people might claim that handing out porn may violate community standards of decency. So, do the right thing and hand out gift certificates to a local reputable porn superstore.

Sorry, I honestly didn't feel I was being that adversarial about it. And I only took issue with one part of your post, because I only thought that one statement was unsound. I don't understand why you're being so confrontational about it. If you really feel attacked, I apologize.
Don't take offence, the joke had gotten stale and we were terribly off of whatever course we were supposed to be on, so I put a stop to it the most efficient way I knew.

This group is needed at my school. We have the Campus Crusade for Christ annoying the hell out of everybody and nobody to counter them.

Next year me and some friends are starting an atheist and agnostic club. We probably won't get enough funding to do a project like that though.
What you got to do is have it the same day the crazies are handing out bibles


Lol I bet the christians get more traffic then they ever have before (just so people can go get their bible to "pay" for their porn) lol

I think this actions are really nice, but why sholud they give only bibles?? Not everybody is Catholic. I think they should give them books instead of bibbles
1. You can give any book.
2. More people than Catholics use Bibles.

Throwing poo around is argumentation. I see no need to play further.
Which was exactly the point of that post.
BTW, picking on a single word rather than dealing with the broader point (that 6% is insignfigant) is also argumentative.

As a logical issue in its purest form, religion=good idea.

I would wonder whether a substantial portion of people with formal training in the field of logic would recognize this as a reasonable axiom...

So, it's only invalid because you complicate it. As a logical issue in its purest form, religion=good idea. That's all I was trying to say, not create some grand debate about the flaws in it when applied to real life.

P.S. Why is it such an issue to you?
You expect reality to not be complicated?

and its not just religion=good idea

Its religion=good idea , assuming .... (insert large list here)

It is an issue because it is a very flawed arguement constantly drug up to support religion by people that cant figure out the problems with its application to the real world (not saying you nessisarily but it happens often around here)

Don't take offence, the joke had gotten stale and we were terribly off of whatever course we were supposed to be on, so I put a stop to it the most efficient way I knew.

I'm not offended, and I didn't realize there was joking. Maybe I didn't explain my specific objection well, but I have no problem with agreeing to disagree. In the future, if you want to drop a particular line of inquiry, and no active issue is predicated on the finding thereof, just let me know.

Spectacular.:rolleyes:

I'm not terribly surprised by their actions. Athiests in universities are a rampant, militant plague of fundamentalists, many more fundamental in their anti-belief than those they attack.

I'm more curious as to their success rate than anything else.
Funny, at my school, the theists are a rampant militant plague of fundamentalists.
Some people feel the need to fight fire with fire.

Which was exactly the point of that post.
BTW, picking on a single word rather than dealing with the broader point (that 6% is insignfigant) is also argumentative.
What method are you determining 6 percent is not significant? LSD or tukes?(or another method?)
What is setting your level of significance

I would wonder whether a substantial portion of people with formal training in the field of logic would recognize this as a reasonable axiom...

Personally, I doubt it... it is pretty flawed, but I only posted it because it was an interesting thought process to consider. Then, I felt attacked by upwardthrust, so I became defensive. Mmmm, pride...even though I was most likely wrong, I defended my position to save face.

Personally, I doubt it... it is pretty flawed, but I only posted it because it was an interesting thought process to consider. Then, I felt attacked by upwardthrust, so I became defensive. Mmmm, pride...even though I was most likely wrong, I defended my position to save face.
Sorry I did not mean to attack
You just have to understand how frigging often pascalls is brought up around here in an attempt to justify things

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Just remember, some people might claim that handing out porn may violate community standards of decency. So, do the right thing and hand out gift certificates to a local reputable porn superstore.
lol.

Nah, we'll probably just protest their stupid campaigns (they had one against porn recently) and have philosophical discussions and the like.

Well, I was also thinking of having events like going bowling Sunday mornings or something...

Sorry I did not mean to attack
You just have to understand how frigging often pascalls is brought up around here in an attempt to justify things

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Apology accepted :)

Personally, I doubt it... it is pretty flawed, but I only posted it because it was an interesting thought process to consider. Then, I felt attacked by upwardthrust, so I became defensive. Mmmm, pride...even though I was most likely wrong, I defended my position to save face.

Yeah, I've done that, too.

http://www.kefren.be/mig/albums/Graspop/Stuff_voor_het_forum/bible.jpg
I give it when it's due... Thanx for making my MYSPACE (http://www.myspace.com/robeichenlaub) a little better. :D :fluffle:

What method are you determining 6 percent is not significant? LSD or tukes?(or another method?)
What is setting your level of significance
The method whereby if every none buddhist picked up a rock and threw it at a Buddhist, we'd have a whole lot of dead Buddhists.
As far as people go, 6% is nothing, not when the other sides are weighing in with 33% or 20%.

And, Saint Curie, this is the Interweb. Anything I say here I say for my own amusement, hence, a joke, as far as I care.

Which was exactly the point of that post.
BTW, picking on a single word rather than dealing with the broader point (that 6% is insignfigant) is also argumentative.

:fluffle:

The method whereby if every none buddhist picked up a rock and threw it at a Buddhist, we'd have a whole lot of dead Buddhists.
As far as people go, 6% is nothing, not when the other sides are weighing in with 33% or 20%.

And, Saint Curie, this is the Interweb. Anything I say here I say for my own amusement, hence, a joke, as far as I care.
In the age of unreason, WTF do statistics mean?

The method whereby if every none buddhist picked up a rock and threw it at a Buddhist, we'd have a whole lot of dead Buddhists.
As far as people go, 6% is nothing, not when the other sides are weighing in with 33% or 20%.

And, Saint Curie, this is the Interweb. Anything I say here I say for my own amusement, hence, a joke, as far as I care.
Hmmm figuring standard error 350 mil or so by both tuky's and LSD show it to be significant


But could be wrong its been two years sense I finished up my minor

The method whereby if every none buddhist picked up a rock and threw it at a Buddhist, we'd have a whole lot of dead Buddhists.
As far as people go, 6% is nothing, not when the other sides are weighing in with 33% or 20%.

And, Saint Curie, this is the Interweb. Anything I say here I say for my own amusement, hence, a joke, as far as I care.

Wow, now you're advocating the stoning of 350 million people... Consider though that if 6% threw rocks at .00000000016777777% (you), we'd have a large pile of rocks and no more you...

The method whereby if every none buddhist picked up a rock and threw it at a Buddhist, we'd have a whole lot of dead Buddhists.
As far as people go, 6% is nothing, not when the other sides are weighing in with 33% or 20%.

And, Saint Curie, this is the Interweb. Anything I say here I say for my own amusement, hence, a joke, as far as I care.
Sounds like we'd have a whole lot of nonsense. We tend to leave that to Christians.

:fluffle:
Reciprocation: :fluffle:

In the age of unreason, WTF do statistics mean?
They mean that 94% of me agrees that we should quit arguing. The other 6% are off seeking inner peace via meditation and the renouncing of worldly excess.

Hmmm figuring standard error 350 mil or so by both tuky's and LSD show it to be significant

But could be wrong its been two years sense I finished up my minor
Yay! Good for you, you attended Uni or a College or whatever! WHEE!!
Now what does that have to do with this argument? Especially since you always seem eager to go after Xtians, tell me, Mr Man, is 33% an acceptable margin of error?
No? You mean it isn't? Shouldn't you then realize that such makes Xtians more signifigant then you, and therefore above your scorn? (As was the original intent of the argument)


Why don't we all just drop it? Kthxbye.

They mean that 94% of me agrees that we should quit arguing. The other 6% are off seeking inner peace via meditation and the renouncing of worldly excess.
Would it offend you if that gave me a boner?

Wow, now you're advocating the stoning of 350 million people... Consider though that if 6% threw rocks at .00000000016777777% (you), we'd have a large pile of rocks and no more you...
Not really, if all the Buddhists were allowed to stone me, nothing would happen; nonviolence being part of the 8 Fold Path, and all.

In the age of unreason, WTF do statistics mean?

Are we really in an age of unreason? That's terribly depressing...

Maybe we could issue permits for statistics the same way some states issue "Concealed Carry" permits for guns. But instead of safety training, range qualification, and finger printing, anybody wanting to whip out statistics in public would have to have training in analytical mathematics, discrete and continuous methods of modeling, and maybe introductory French Literature for a well-rounded program.

Course, now I'd have to enroll in a bunch of courses...

Would it offend you if that gave me a boner?

...no, but I would think differently of you...

Would it offend you if that gave me a boner?
No, I'm afraid that that isn't the 6% of me that is seeking enlightenment. Those regions are quite happy too dwell in decadence and worldliness.

Well if you go to uni, you will most likely come into contact with a christian union of some sort or another, most likely affiliated to the UCCF (http://www.uccf.org.uk/). They are fairly right on, AFAIK it is not uncommon for them to frequently get in trouble for their views and how they voice them.I can honeslty say that when I went to Uni, here in the UK, I never really encountered anyone overtly religious outside of the Chaplaincy building, and then in all but one instance (a memorial service for a good friend who died of 'the big C' one summer, where we were all participating in the rememberance ceremony, regardless of religious persuasion) it was just a matter of passing by people in the building who were being meditative or otherwise quiet while I was there for either: Weekly SF society meetings or associated business Blood donation Visitng it as the designate 'sanctuary'/game-HQ for an "assasinate everyone else" week-long campus-wide LARP-style game.

I must not have had good reason to have been wandering in there whilst either of the two dedicated chapel rooms (Anglican-esque/sparse and Catholic-esque/decorative, but otherwise really much the same and exchangable/usable by any denomination who didn't actually get burnt by the token crucifixes) were actively in use, early on a Sunday morning, by various on-campus people who no-doubt used them at that time...

Never had myself preached at, or anything approaching an attempt at recruiting to the 'cause', outside of the Fresher's Week stalls in the great hall when I might have been (but probably wasn't) asked if I wanted to join FaithSoc, or whatever it would have been called.

...no, but I would think differently of you...
I'm a very-libertarian kinkmeister. Think what you will, n00b.

Are we really in an age of unreason? That's terribly depressing....
Yes, and yes it is. We're working our way towad a Class I society (http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0585.html?m=1) with little hope. Take a look around.

That's why there's no God. We really dson't deserve one.

No, I'm afraid that that isn't the 6% of me that is seeking enlightenment. Those regions are quite happy too dwell in decadence and worldliness.
No matter what you say from this point, it's still cute.

OK I get it now. It's OK to be intolerant of Christians because they disagree with you. But it's still OK to be a Christian, as long as you don't actually believe any of it. :rolleyes:

No, that is not what I said. It is OK to be a Christian if you keep it to yourself in your private churches and houses. When it creeps into the government or into public events like praying before a baseball game than it is pushing your beliefs on someone else. Same applys for abortion and stem cell research. If you don't like it, don't do it, you have no right to tell some one they have to have a child or their illness can't be cured because your religion has reservations about it. Same goes for putting it on money or in the pledge of allegence. Knock your socks off praying with your friends before the game but don't expect it to be broadcast over the speakers. I don't see intolerance in that. You can do what you want independant of everyone else just as I do what I do independant of you.

What I said about ignoring passages in the book was worded badly. What I meant is the bible says that homosexuality is a sin for example. But voting to restrict marriage is forcing that belief on someone else. Thus it shouldn't happen. What I should have said is not that they are choosing to ignore the passages but they are choosing not to act on them. The point is they are in the Bible. It is a severly flawed work that if followed to the letter teaches a lot of bad with the good.

I'm a very-libertarian kinkmeister. Think what you will, n00b.

Why are you calling me a noob???

To quote someone else here; "You sir, are preaching to the perveted".

Regardless of religion's crimes, freedom of religion doesn't equate to from it.
You aren't free unless you are granted the freedom to choose unwisely. ;)

You have the freedom to choose unwisely. My point is that freedom only extends over yourself in your private home and places of worship (or if say you choose to pray by yourself or with friends in public). It should never be in a place of any governmental standing or a public place where others are forced to listen to your prayers. Certainly not on money or in the pledge either.

Yes, and yes it is. We're working our way towad a Class I society (http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0585.html?m=1) with little hope. Take a look around.

That's why there's no God. We really dson't deserve one.

I'm sorry, I don't entirely follow. The link describes a Class I society as harvesting the resources of their entire planet, in contrast to civilization with broader resources bases. I don't see how that correlates to an "Age of Unreason".

I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I just don't follow yet. I would hope (but can't really prove) that a society's capacity for and excercise of reason would correlate positively with its development of advanced technology.

If you've got a sec, help me understand your point better.

snip
Yay! Good for you, you attended Uni or a College or whatever! WHEE!!
Now what does that have to do with this argument? Especially since you always seem eager to go after Xtians, tell me, Mr Man, is 33% an acceptable margin of error?
No? You mean it isn't? Shouldn't you then realize that such makes Xtians more signifigant then you, and therefore above your scorn? (As was the original intent of the argument)


Why don't we all just drop it? Kthxbye.
No 33 percent would not be an acceptable margin of error
You are usualy looking for an alpha of about 5 percent in population statistics (error)

Now if you were asking if 33 was significant ... yes 350 million (or 6 percent) qualifies as statisticaly significant so you can logicaly conclude that anything greater then that would also be significant statisticaly

You have the freedom to choose unwisely. My point is that freedom only extends over yourself in your private home and places of worship (or if say you choose to pray by yourself or with friends in public). It should never be in a place of any governmental standing or a public place where others are forced to listen to your prayers. Certainly not on money or in the pledge either.
No shit. Look up libertarianism.

I'm sorry, I don't entirely follow. The link describes a Class I society as harvesting the resources of their entire planet, in contrast to civilization with broader resources bases. I don't see how that correlates to an "Age of Unreason".

I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I just don't follow yet. I would hope (but can't really prove) that a society's capacity for and excercise of reason would correlate positively with its development of advanced technology.

If you've got a sec, help me understand your point better.
You know this deserves another thread of its own, lest we threadjack.
Would you start it, please?

No 33 percent would not be an acceptable margin of error
You are usualy looking for an alpha of about 5 percent in population statistics (error)

Now if you were asking if 33 was significant ... yes 350 million (or 6 percent) qualifies as statisticaly significant so you can logicaly conclude that anything greater then that would also be significant statisticaly
You weirdos and your statistics. *fucks you husband-style* :p :fluffle:

You have the freedom to choose unwisely. My point is that freedom only extends over yourself in your private home and places of worship (or if say you choose to pray by yourself or with friends in public). It should never be in a place of any governmental standing or a public place where others are forced to listen to your prayers. Certainly not on money or in the pledge either.

A better way to say this is: You have freedoms only so long as they do not interfere with others freedom.

[QUOTE=Arsebiscuitopia]I've never known a Christian to blow themself up because of the Bible... but yeah we had the crusades and whatnot, but that was a long time ago.
I'm a Christian, fundy to a degree (I believe the Bible but I don't try to exocise non-believers. Well... not when I'm sober) and there is so much more to the Bible than what people attribute as 'outdated rules'.
[QUOTE]

As strongly as I feel for the separation of religion from all governmental decision making and public events where it can be forced on other people, don't get me wrong the Bible is one hell of a peice of literature. I study literature at University and it obviously is a very influential text on modern literature and culture as we know it. I simply stress that it is contradictory and oftentimes very predjudicial. It is a book written by people a long time ago. People who had their own agendas and prejudices. I don't agree with the use of it to guide one's life unless you crop out all the garbage in it (which is a lot and a difficult task). If you do believe in it than knock yourself out but at the same time keep it to yourself and to the proper outlets where it is not forced on anyone as a creedo. I am willing to discuss the Bible's religious and moral implications as I would any text. I am not willing to assign a supernatural importance to it.

You weirdos and your statistics. *fucks you husband-style* :p :fluffle:
*videotapes*
And iff we're going to argue about which religions we can mock based on statistical margins of error, we'll have to stick to the really obscure ones. Like Heathenism and whatever the religion off the Ancient Greeks was called.

You weirdos and your statistics. *fucks you husband-style* :p :fluffle:
Lol sorry I dont mean it ... but comp networking at the univ i got my bachlors at IS a statistics department course

So regardless if I wanted to or not 5 stats classes were required ... so I finished up a stats minor

Lucky where I got my Masters at it was comp sci not stats

Now why can't they do this on my campus (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10349028/)?


There's an interview that follows, and I have to give Tucker Carlson credit here--he's not as much of a douchebag as he usually is in this interview. Here's a sampling:

I got giggly when the Jehovah's Witnesses had a table on campus set up next to the guys from NORML. Can you imagine what this would turn into?

Haha, this is friggin' awesome. I'm gonna go out and buy a bible just so I can get porn in exchange!

A better way to say this is: You have freedoms only so long as they do not interfere with others freedom.

Haha yea I guess if you want to be boring and lucid. ;)

*videotapes*
And iff we're going to argue about which religions we can mock based on statistical margins of error, we'll have to stick to the really obscure ones. Like Heathenism and whatever the religion off the Ancient Greeks was called.
Well we would be making the decisions off of it based on significance threshold not the error (well to be fare a lot of the sig's level is computed with Mean Square Error but that is a bit different)

But yeah sorry I was just making stats comments was not trying to apply it all the way back to who can pick on who

Haha, this is friggin' awesome. I'm gonna go out and buy a bible just so I can get porn in exchange!

I don't think you have to buy bibles; they're are lots of groups that'll give/send you several for yourself and your 9 siblings.

If they'll take the "Book of Mormon", I think there's an 800 number that'll send you as many as you want...unless they think you're just burning them for heat.

I don't think you have to buy bibles; they're are lots of groups that'll give/send you several for yourself and your 9 siblings.

If they'll take the "Book of Mormon", I think there's an 800 number that'll send you as many as you want...unless they think you're just burning them for heat.
Not a bad idea in minnesota lol

Haha, this is friggin' awesome. I'm gonna go out and buy a bible just so I can get porn in exchange!
Wouldn't it be faster to just by pr0n? Or better yet, you're at a computer right now. Just surf yourself over to one of those websites, sign up with the money you'd have used for the bible, and enjoy right now.
You can trust me, I'm a spiritual guru.

Lol sorry I dont mean it ... but comp networking at the univ i got my bachlors at IS a statistics department course

So regardless if I wanted to or not 5 stats classes were required ... so I finished up a stats minor

Lucky where I got my Masters at it was comp sci not stats
I have no idea what that means... I got a degree "long-ago" in commerica arts.

*videotapes*
And iff we're going to argue about which religions we can mock based on statistical margins of error, we'll have to stick to the really obscure ones. Like Heathenism and whatever the religion off the Ancient Greeks was called.
I'm still lost. You guys are wayyyyyy smater than me.

I have no idea what that means... I got a degree "long-ago" in commerica arts.
I got the equivelent of a BA (minor) in stats
BS in Computer networking
BS in Information Security
Masters in computer networking
Masters in computer information security

BS is your standard 4 year degree (major) usualy paired up with a minor (which counts as a BA) in my case statistics

Then I got another degree for IS
Then finished up both masters at the same time
Master Of Science is usualy 2 years to get each (on top of the 4 years to get the BS's in the first place)

Think of it as layers
|------|------|------|------|
BA BS MS Doctorate
BA is 2 years BS is 4 years
MS = BS+2 years
DR = BS+MS+four to 5 years (assuming non medical doctor)
(sorry for the side track)

I'm still lost. You guys are wayyyyyy smater than me.
On that, I must agree. When I graduated high school I was voted "Most likely to Smat", which was nice because I lost the heated "Most Likely to Die in a Ditch" race.

On that, I must agree. When I graduated high school I was voted "Most likely to Smat", which was nice because I lost the heated "Most Likely to Die in a Ditch" race.
Can anyone ever be said to "win" that last one :) :fluffle:

On that, I must agree.
You know you majored in douchbaggery, cumguzzler! :p

You know I love ya for your stle, though... :D

On that, I must agree. When I graduated high school I was voted "Most likely to Smat", which was nice because I lost the heated "Most Likely to Die in a Ditch" race.
I hate you because you're funnier than I am.

You know you majored in douchbaggery, cumguzzler! :p

You know I love ya for your stle, though... :D
besides the ones on the last page (god I hate being the last post no one ever reads it) I deffinatly wouldent mind majoring in douchbaggery as well :)

You know you majored in douchbaggery, cumguzzler! :p
I Majored in Yo' Mama with a Minor in Asshattery at the University of Hard Knocks.
You know I love ya for your stle, though... :D
I love my stle, too. How much have you drank at this point?

I Majored in Yo' Mama with a Minor in Asshattery at the University of Hard Knocks.

I love my stle, too. How much have you drank at this point?
(Only American who'd admit it) Bottle of Sherry.

6 pack of Budweiser Ice goodness.

Yeah, I disgust myself.

I suspect having one's holy book labled as "smut" would have the effect of making one bitter. Can't really blame him.

what if your holy book is that months issue of playboy?

Really now. I find this disgusting. But of course like always they go after the Christians.

what are we gona do? go after the jews? :rolleyes:
Look. Christians have been in power since... ooh about Constantine. Not the movie, the Roman Emperor. Stop playing your "war on christianity" card, its obvious its all in youy heads. What the people here are trying to do is to get out their message in a humerous, and attention-attracting way, and guess what: they succeded.

Now if your so insecure about your religious beleifs, that you cant take a little joke at their expense, you realy need to reexamine yourself. I think if God realy cared, heed have oppened a can of Smite by now.

And again, I can't help but wonder what would happen if they did Smut for Smut with the Koran. No doubt it would be a near hate-crime. Anybody (that's you, Fass) who thinks Christianity isn't the last religion it's perfectly PC to bash is kidding themselves.

if you actually read the full interview (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10349028/) you'll see they take ALL holy religious texts, and yes they DID rake in a few Korans. Its no hate crime, its equality, just not the type everyone was hoping for.

This is why I love liberals. The paragons of tolerance, they are.

This is why I love concervitives. The paragons of compassion, and other such religious values, they are.

You get Christian fundies saying that eg Catholics aren't real Christians - and then you get the Taliban (although that's a very extreme example) saying that all other Muslims are apostates.

Everyone's forgetting when Lot's daughters got him drunk and raped him one after another.

I, living in the UK, have never seen the species of Christian known colloquially as "fundie", and therefore find it rather hard to believe in their widespread existence. I've been on the "American Taliban" website, but apart from the names on that - who are very rich influential names - what about average Americans?

See: My grandparents. Oh their out there alright. No thanks to you for sending all you wackows overhere 300 years ago :rolleyes:

OK I get it now. It's OK to be intolerant of Christians because they disagree with you. But it's still OK to be a Christian, as long as you don't actually believe any of it. :rolleyes:

Look, I have no problem with any religion, or any fundomentalists, so long as they dont try to impose their views on to other people. When the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (ahh! Mormons!) wants to run a tv add durring my program. Fine. but only so long as every other religious organization gets that same option. and that includes any religioun I have/am/will be founding in the future, Including what may become the Church of Hard-core porn of latter day Orgasms. If the Mormons dont get cencored, then why should anyone else? See where you start running into a problem? So please, only display as much of your religon as you want other people displaying theirs.

I wasn't going to get involved in this, but a true Christian (follower of Christ) would not blow up a government building or abortion clinic or beat up a gay or be involved in a hate group. Just because a person calls themselves a christian does not mean they are. Jesus said "...Remember the commandments..." and a real christian would do just that. Two of those commandments say "Thou shalt not kill" and "love thy neighbor as thyself". So a true follower of Christ, or christian, would never kill a person or hate gays. Disagreeing with a person for what they do is far from hating them.

everything is opened to interpritation, including the bible. Sick, twisted interpretation.

u gatta be kidding me?all people who rather have porn the a bible :mp5:

guilty as charged :fluffle:

You know, all this talk has got me thinking about the differences of jesus' teachings and god's. God always seems vengefull, killing all the first borns and whatnot. Do as i say, not as i do. Meanwhile Jesus seems to be a paragon of... Well... Everything good. I wonder where christianity would be without Jesus. Whether or not he truly walked on water or not, he is the most influential man in history.

Anyways, anyone who is a jerk is a jerk, and no amount of personal faith (In ANYTHING) is gonna change that. Shoot someone? Jerk. Preach that someone else is inherently inferior? Jerk. Attack anoether's beliefs just because they are not your own? Jerk.

I sorta feel like i'm beating a dead horse, though.

to the first part, Where would christianity be without Jesus: Judeaism.

as to the most influential man in history! pshaw!! just cause you have a lot of influence, doesent make you the most influential person: example. Cao Cao. For anyone not familliar with third century china, Cao Cao was a warlord who, at the fall of the Han Dynasty, managed to secure the northern half of China. The southern half was jointly occupied by Liu Bei and Sun Quan. Anyone here ever heard of ANY of them? didnt think so. but here the thing. after several foreign tribes invaded later in history, the "Chinese" governments took refuge in the south, and then proceded to launch propoganda campaigns, usualy featuring chinese history (including historical characters like Cao Cao), in order to try to strengthen their fanbase. What was once just a historical document became a tool for shaping chinese culture. That shaping of chinese culture resulted in the china we know today. and all our interactions with it over the yeras (koran+vietnam wars) since their are more chinese and people living in the chinese sphere of influence than their are Christians (and by Christians I mean people who have actually read and understand the new testimant, not just those who beleive in a god and say their Christian) therfore it can be argued that Cao Cao is more influential than Jesus.

Yeah, because starting a couple crappy pseudo-religious organizations that have become absurdly popular among Atheists who haven't got the balls to go all the way is, like, ten times more important then being a major player in the world's two largest religions.

Yeah, because starting a couple crappy pseudo-religious organizations that have become absurdly popular among Atheists who haven't got the balls to go all the way is, like, ten times more important then being a major player in the world's two largest religions.

Fan of religios descrimination huh? Prick.

I had to do a rudimentary study of buddhism as part of this comparitive religion thing I did a while ago, and I was incredibly nonplussed.

Say what you will, but Buddhism is going to stay on my board of spiritual cop-outs that have become popular of late. Does that mean you can't enjoy it, or that following invalidates your opinion on other things? No, but don't expect me to take any of it seriously.

I wouldn't expect it to, and thus haven't looked. Religion is one of the worst things to probe a wiki about, as their is almost no way to find a truly impartial observer.

All this aside, the main thrust of my comment is, and remains, that when sat beside JC, Buddha isn't that important in history.

"as part of this comparitive religion thing I did a while ago"? Yeah, you sound real serious about that one.

as to not finding an imparial observer, I agree, if only because of you calling Buddism a psudo-religion.

71 posts into your stay at nation-states and your already trolling liberal bullshit.....GREAT!

771 posts on nation states and you still havent developed a sense of self esteem.......GREAT!

No, it doesn't. 6% of the world is tiny when placed beside, oh, I dunno, 94% of the world (Hey look, I've still got a 4.0!) that agrees with me that Buddhism is silly and not worth their time.
Like I said, I could go further and deeper into the argument, and pull out every place that I disagree with Buddhists, but that would take us even further away from the topic.

actually more like 60, but hey, sure, 2600% error is fine.


What makes you think I've never met a Buddhist? I've chattered with plenty (well, I've never met a Therevadan), and they are quite nice, but that really doesn't make their theology any less silly.

I'm sure the Buddists youve met would apriciate that view.

Actually, my dearest one, that is rather not my point. My point is that Buddha only influences 6% of the world's population, which means that 94% of thee world doesn't give a flying fuck when it comes to the brass tacks.

so you measure a religions influence by the amount of people who beleive in it? I have two words to say to that. Nine and Eleven. oh? were those muslims attacking a predominatly christian nation? and ya know, we went to war over it! if that isnt influence what is?!?!

Well it's really for the better, kids need porn more then they need mythology. ;)

kudos to that!

Just remember, some people might claim that handing out porn may violate community standards of decency. So, do the right thing and hand out gift certificates to a local reputable porn superstore.

and crusades dont?


Alright, enough for this post. I await your most angry and rage-filled replies.

Isn't this Smut-for-Smut program seem to be just a not-to-the-point way of criticising institutionalised religion and religious texts as a whole. It seems to be just a cheap way to flame religious texts without allowing an accessable open forum for discussing the contradictions that they say are in these texts, without really allowing reply from the other side to thier arguements. If they won't to get a point across, openly comparing texts that people have held sacred for centuries is just encouraging outrage. Why don't these atheists just start up open public forum discussion on the campus, other people will obviously oppose these views and they can have constructive debates about it. The whole idea of comparing these texts to porn, I don't take a side on whether they are or not, is highly defamatory and downright abusive. The guys said that it wasn't done in such a way to make it like shoving it down your throat, and that they didn't knock on doors but just had a table. That's all well and good, but the idea of swaping it for porn looks merely like an opportunistic assualt on religion, an immature on at that. If they have an arguement against religion they should debate it in an open and non-hostile manner, otherwise their just discrediting their viewpoint.

My personal opinion in general is that is doesn't matter whether god exists or not, in this way I specifically separate religion and god. Without religion society has no framework, people have no sense of direction or guidance in life. You can do without god but not without religion, that is why I disagree with atheism, even though I'm christian I understand that institutionalised religion is neccessary for society, people need that kind of reference points in life. I see atheism as bad because it's detrimental for society, a viewpoint that endorses hopelessness (I know some may disagree but no faith in the immortality of the soul is hopelessness) is destructive, and worst than that it's contagious. Such society's as Stalinist-USSR which was state endorsed atheism saw terrible results, especially on collectivised peasants. And France saw this during the Reign of Terror, when the churches were looted and the priests guilotined.

*snip*
I hate you for that post.

Fan of religios descrimination huh? Prick.
Where did I say that? Buddha was less important than Jesus, it's a factogram.
"as part of this comparitive religion thing I did a while ago"? Yeah, you sound real serious about that one.
Fine, you want me to find the name of my proffesor, the class, etc?
Better not to obsses over pedigrees.
actually more like 60, but hey, sure, 2600% error is fine.
This comment is in relation to, what?
I'm sure the Buddists youve met would apriciate that view.
They don't really care, just like I don't care that they find my complete belief in the physical shallow.
so you measure a religions influence by the amount of people who beleive in it? I have two words to say to that. Nine and Eleven. oh? were those muslims attacking a predominatly christian nation? and ya know, we went to war over it! if that isnt influence what is?!?!
Islam covers over 20% of the globe, and no one could argue that it isn't a big influence. Buddhism is an aside religion that never seems to doo much, thhus Buddha is a blip in history beside JC.
Alright, enough for this post. I await your most angry and rage-filled replies.
You won't get any from this quarter, and I'll probably be the only one who replies at all. This thread had its run, and now its more or less spam, with periodic fits of OT.

I hate you for that post.
Damn him for making you read it at gun point.
(Sherry and Beer? WTF, man?)

Fiddlebottoms being serious?

*dies*

Where did I say that? Buddha was less important than Jesus, it's a factogram.
Does Hallmark make those?

Isn't this Smut-for-Smut program seem to be just a not-to-the-point way of criticising institutionalised religion and religious texts as a whole. It seems to be just a cheap way to flame religious texts without allowing an accessable open forum for discussing the contradictions that they say are in these texts, without really allowing reply from the other side to thier arguements. If they won't to get a point across, openly comparing texts that people have held sacred for centuries is just encouraging outrage. Why don't these atheists just start up open public forum discussion on the campus, other people will obviously oppose these views and they can have constructive debates about it. The whole idea of comparing these texts to porn, I don't take a side on whether they are or not, is highly defamatory and downright abusive. The guys said that it wasn't done in such a way to make it like shoving it down your throat, and that they didn't knock on doors but just had a table. That's all well and good, but the idea of swaping it for porn looks merely like an opportunistic assualt on religion, an immature on at that. If they have an arguement against religion they should debate it in an open and non-hostile manner, otherwise their just discrediting their viewpoint.

My personal opinion in general is that is doesn't matter whether god exists or not, in this way I specifically separate religion and god. Without religion society has no framework, people have no sense of direction or guidance in life. You can do without god but not without religion, that is why I disagree with atheism, even though I'm christian I understand that institutionalised religion is neccessary for society, people need that kind of reference points in life. I see atheism as bad because it's detrimental for society, a viewpoint that endorses hopelessness (I know some may disagree but no faith in the immortality of the soul is hopelessness) is destructive, and worst than that it's contagious. Such society's as Stalinist-USSR which was state endorsed atheism saw terrible results, especially on collectivised peasants. And France saw this during the Reign of Terror, when the churches were looted and the priests guilotined.

They arnt trying to insult religious texts. Their trying to get their point of view out there, and have a little fun doing it. I'm sure theyed be happy to discuss this with you whenever they want.

As for "religion being the framework for society" No, thats a stupid, immature viewpoint. Stop. Now. Morals are the framework for society. Most religions teach morals of some kind, but it is completetly possible to have morals without religion. If one were to beleive what you were saying than every atheist, agnostic, or anyone else with a similar beleif would be a serial-rapist/murderer. Please, take a minute to examine your own arguments before you post them.

Isn't this Smut-for-Smut program seem to be just a not-to-the-point way of criticising institutionalised religion and religious texts as a whole. It seems to be just a cheap way to flame religious texts without allowing an accessable open forum for discussing the contradictions that they say are in these texts, without really allowing reply from the other side to thier arguements. If they won't to get a point across, openly comparing texts that people have held sacred for centuries is just encouraging outrage. Why don't these atheists just start up open public forum discussion on the campus, other people will obviously oppose these views and they can have constructive debates about it. The whole idea of comparing these texts to porn, I don't take a side on whether they are or not, is highly defamatory and downright abusive. The guys said that it wasn't done in such a way to make it like shoving it down your throat, and that they didn't knock on doors but just had a table. That's all well and good, but the idea of swaping it for porn looks merely like an opportunistic assualt on religion, an immature on at that. If they have an arguement against religion they should debate it in an open and non-hostile manner, otherwise their just discrediting their viewpoint.

My personal opinion in general is that is doesn't matter whether god exists or not, in this way I specifically separate religion and god. Without religion society has no framework, people have no sense of direction or guidance in life. You can do without god but not without religion, that is why I disagree with atheism, even though I'm christian I understand that institutionalised religion is neccessary for society, people need that kind of reference points in life. I see atheism as bad because it's detrimental for society, a viewpoint that endorses hopelessness (I know some may disagree but no faith in the immortality of the soul is hopelessness) is destructive, and worst than that it's contagious. Such society's as Stalinist-USSR which was state endorsed atheism saw terrible results, especially on collectivised peasants. And France saw this during the Reign of Terror, when the churches were looted and the priests guilotined.

That's funny, if people who have no religion have no direction or guidance in life... how have so many ended up being higly successful and finding love and security. how have so many non-religious people made it thru their lives healthy and happy to die peacefully? Why are so many atheists working to help their fellow man?

I have no religion but I have love, success, security, health, happiness and god in my life. booyah!

Damn him for making you read it at gun point.
(Sherry and Beer? WTF, man?)
I'm reaching retadation by addition. I'll be back with another sixer.
I'm gonna harrass you next time you post drunk.











If I remember.

That's funny, if people who have no religion have no direction or guidance in life... how have so many ended up being higly successful and finding love and security. how have so many non-religious people made it thru their lives healthy and happy to die peacefully? Why are so many atheists working to help their fellow man?

I have no religion but I have love, success, security, health, happiness and god in my life. booyah!
That's like asking "why evolution". It happens.

Fiddlebottoms being serious?

*dies*
*collects corpse for "special purposes"*
(Never assume I'm being serious, this is the Interweb)

Does Hallmark make those?
Yes, they make "Jesus > Buddha", "Buddha > You (Unless you are Jesus or Buddha)", and "Your Mom is a filthy whore, see the attached pictures" varieties.

Where did I say that? Buddha was less important than Jesus, it's a factogram.

There are more asians than there are christians. All asian culture has been influenced in some way or another by Buddha. No, your wrong.

Fine, you want me to find the name of my proffesor, the class, etc? Better not to obsses over pedigrees.

No, but I want some proof you faced the class with a serious attitude. Anyone can take a class, but not everyone can get anything out of it.

This comment is in relation to, what

The difference, via the formula for percent error between 94(aka what you said) and 60%(the number of people who are oppenly, in some way shape or form, christian).

[/QUOTE]They don't really care, just like I don't care that they find my complete belief in the physical shallow.[/QUOTE]

I think it would depend on which faction of Buddism your talking about. Some Japanese buddist sects actually practice armed combat. They might have a bit of a problem with you :sniper:

[/QUOTE]Islam covers over 20% of the globe, and no one could argue that it isn't a big influence. Buddhism is an aside religion that never seems to doo much, thhus Buddha is a blip in history beside JC.[/QUOTE]

Aside from the whole continent of asia thing. But just cause 1 out of every 4 people is Chinese isnt any reason to pay attention to them in a country that values democracy, and thus the will of the majority.

[/QUOTE]You won't get any from this quarter, and I'll probably be the only one who replies at all. This thread had its run, and now its more or less spam, with periodic fits of OT.[/QUOTE]

Well then I guess I'll just have to mercessly tear apart your flawed arguments then. Have at thee!

i must say, the christians had it coming
they're allowed to hate everyone else
so why can't the athiests hate them hmmmm?

yes, i do believe this is hilarious

Ok.. after reading about 3/4ths of this thread I know understand why quite a few people hate (most) religions..

It requires you to be moral (or at least implies that fact) and people don't want to be moral, they want to do whatever they feel like atm.

Thats sad in my opinion

There are more asians than there are christians. All asian culture has been influenced in some way or another by Buddha. No, your wrong.
Yay for arbitrary judgement! Yay for unproven arguments! Generally Yay for this post!
No, but I want some proof you faced the class with a serious attitude. Anyone can take a class, but not everyone can get anything out of it.
Of course I didn't, Theology is a joke.
However, I never took Physics seriously, and yet can rattle off various formulae and recite natural laws.
The difference, via the formula for percent error between 94(aka what you said) and 60%(the number of people who are oppenly, in some way shape or form, christian).
So, what, is the world not Xtian or Buddhist? I was referring to 6% Buddhists, 94% non-Buddhists.
I think it would depend on which faction of Buddism your talking about. Some Japanese buddist sects actually practice armed combat. They might have a bit of a problem with you :sniper:
Neverminding the fact that such violates a central tenant Buddha laid down (which strikes heavily against his influence), it still doesn't apply.
Aside from the whole continent of asia thing. But just cause 1 out of every 4 people is Chinese isnt any reason to pay attention to them in a country that values democracy, and thus the will of the majority.
Once again, you confuse me with your logic, earth-thing. What is this country you speak of, and what does it have to do with Buddha's smallness beside JC?
Well then I guess I'll just have to mercessly tear apart your flawed arguments then. Have at thee!
Nah, I think I'd rather chatter blithely with the drunk guy and continue writing this here term paper.
*gestures to other open computer window that you can't see because you aren't in the room with me, but what ever*
Then devote major thought to this pickled cucumber.

Ok.. after reading about 3/4ths of this thread I know understand why quite a few people hate (most) religions..

It requires you to be moral (or at least implies that fact) and people don't want to be moral, they want to do whatever they feel like atm.

Thats sad in my opinion

Is it possible that there are reasonable moral principals that can be derived, tested, and practiced entirely without religion, and that many of these ideas involve a continuous and abiding commitment, rather than "at the moment" urges?

Has your life experience included meeting people who are deeply and authentically moral, but non-religious? And if you have met them, do they not disprove your generality about people?

They arnt trying to insult religious texts. Their trying to get their point of view out there, and have a little fun doing it. I'm sure theyed be happy to discuss this with you whenever they want.

As for "religion being the framework for society" No, thats a stupid, immature viewpoint. Stop. Now. Morals are the framework for society. Most religions teach morals of some kind, but it is completetly possible to have morals without religion. If one were to beleive what you were saying than every atheist, agnostic, or anyone else with a similar beleif would be a serial-rapist/murderer. Please, take a minute to examine your own arguments before you post them.
I think someone said a few pages ago that 'nothing man-made was sacred', i agree that it is entirely possible to have moral without religion, but religious morality is always going to look more higher and sacred because morality without religion isn't man-made, and therefore will be seen as corrupt. I'm not making any direct comment as to the actual legitimacy of these religions' claims. As long as a government makes legislates in a way which supposedly reflects society's viewpoint, it will be seen as politically motivated, corrupt and what not. But when morality is seen to be inspired by god, through religious institutions, society will always respect it more and follow it more closely, history has seen this, the Church's pre-Luther domination of Europe saws that clearly, and they only did it because they were seen as a godly authority, because national authorities can only legislate nationally, while religion has no political borders. And arguements like 'I don't follow laws because their from god' while being over simplistic, do not in any way constitute majority viewpoint. I'm saying as a matter of fact that religious morality has always been seen to be more legitimate than 'national' morality. The fact is that holding eternal judgement for immorality as opposed to impermanent judgement is infinitely essential for society's framework. And your reference to atheists/agnostics who believed my viewpoint being rapists/murderers proves my point of why atheism (or hopeless belief) is so dangerous, if you can not hold punishment that is not eternal over a society, then you will end up with malefactors with nothing to loose, because they literally will think they have nothing to loose. Seriously though, power is in the apperance of power, it does not matter if god exists or doesn't, as long as people think he does, and if an institutionalised religion legislates as inspired by god, then that is truely an ordered society. I think your reply was intirely stupid and immature, you seem to be ignoring the fact that while morality can exist apart from religion, working morality in society can never exist outside religion, atheistic society would end you with an underground of amoral criminals.

Is it possible that there are reasonable moral principals that can be derived, tested, and practiced entirely without religion, and that many of these ideas involve a continuous and abiding commitment, rather than "at the moment" urges?
Who has got the time for all that? Religion is a much more efffective tool for keeping the masses in line, and couldd work as a stop gap for the individual until they develop a morality independent of gods.
Has your life experience included meeting people who are deeply and authentically moral, but non-religious? And if you have met them, do they not disprove your generality about people?
The person I know best is myself, and he is nonreligious and hasn't had a moral foundation his entire life. He was malevolent and hateful even before he lost Jesus, but fear of the Devil kept him in line.
Even still, I run my life by more then at the moment urges, I run it by long term goals. I intend to be powerful one day, and that ambition keeps me from straying too far off the path.

Ok.. after reading about 3/4ths of this thread I know understand why quite a few people hate (most) religions..

It requires you to be moral (or at least implies that fact) and people don't want to be moral, they want to do whatever they feel like atm.

Thats sad in my opinion
And your opinion is sad in my opinion

:p(aint freedom of belief great)

And your opinion is sad in my opinion

:p(aint freedom of belief great)
So when you headin' toward Florida? :D :fluffle:

aethists are teh ignorant

aethists are teh ignorant
Thats interesting ... Glad I am an atheist not one of those ignorant aethists

So when you headin' toward Florida? :D :fluffle:
One of these days :)

aethists are teh ignorant
And at less than 200 posts, you've set the standard. Congrats!

aethists are teh ignorant

Whereas you bless us with such pearls of wisdom ....

BA is 2 years BS is 4 years


Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Sciences, and Bachelor of Music degrees are all four year degrees.

Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Sciences, and Bachelor of Music degrees are all four year degrees.
In this case, BA=Associate's Degree, I think.

Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Sciences, and Bachelor of Music degrees are all four year degrees.

I'm sure it varies in different systems, but I believe this is correct in the U.S.

A bachelor's of anything usually denotes an accredited "4 year" degree, although that number is becoming less meaningful as formal education is becoming less stringently structured.

An Associates Degree is typically denoted AA (Associate's of Arts).

Maybe we should move to a system where the degree title is more informative...

"I have a B.S.A.D.C.A.B.H.O.T.G.G.D.H.S.C..."

and it would be understood he means Bachelor's of Sitting Around Drinking Copious Amounts of Beer, Hitting On That Gymnast Girl Down the Hall, and Skipping Class

I suspect having one's holy book labled as "smut" would have the effect of making one bitter. Can't really blame him.

Solomon 1:9 I have compared thee, O my love, to a company of horses in
Pharaoh's chariots.

To it's scant credit, the Bible is not free of smut.

What has the guy bitter is that he has come to believe that the Bible contains naught but purity and virtue and has not yet had the preperatory brainwashing to find virtuous such phrases as "blessed is he who dashet the little ones upon the rocks" or "I shall corrupt thy seed and smear dung upon thy faces."

In this case, BA=Associate's Degree, I think.

It's probably been told to all here before, but here goes.

BS = Bullshit
MS = More Shit
PhD = Pile it higher and deeper

Hehe, cute.

In this case, BA=Associate's Degree, I think.
Yeah sorry local thing
he is right BA in its normal sense is a 4 year

And you are right I was thinking Associates

It's probably been told to all here before, but here goes.

BS = Bullshit
MS = More Shit
PhD = Pile it higher and deeper
Well I am at 2X more and working on piling it on deeper
LOL intresting lol

Really now. I find this disgusting. But of course like always they go after the Christians.

Of course. Insulting the Koran is a good way to get blown up! :p

This group is needed at my school. We have the Campus Crusade for Christ annoying the hell out of everybody and nobody to counter them.

Next year me and some friends are starting an atheist and agnostic club. We probably won't get enough funding to do a project like that though.

You want to piss of them CCfC's? Invite some gay porn actors to give afew speeches :D

So, it's only invalid because you complicate it. As a logical issue in its purest form, religion=good idea. That's all I was trying to say, not create some grand debate about the flaws in it when applied to real life.

The problem is that my mind rejects religion in any form, i just can't understand it, so it's not an option for me.

I give it when it's due... Thanx for making my MYSPACE (http://www.myspace.com/robeichenlaub) a little better. :D :fluffle:

You're welcome ;)

Good sarcasm needs no parentheses.

Yeah, but it does need correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

Read the interview--they've taken copies of the Koran, of the Satanic Bible, and I believe of the Bhagavad Gita. So much for your theory, huh?:rolleyes:

But they didn't ask for those books in their advertising. They specifically advertised trading a bible in for porn.

Ok.. after reading about 3/4ths of this thread I know understand why quite a few people hate (most) religions..

It requires you to be moral (or at least implies that fact) and people don't want to be moral, they want to do whatever they feel like atm.

Thats sad in my opinion

Religion != Morals (!= means does not equal).
One can have morals and not believe in anything, and one can have no morals and still believe in religion.

Ok.. after reading about 3/4ths of this thread I know understand why quite a few people hate (most) religions..

It requires you to be moral (or at least implies that fact) and people don't want to be moral, they want to do whatever they feel like atm.

Thats sad in my opinion


I fail to see what's immoral about porn?

I think someone said a few pages ago that 'nothing man-made was sacred', i agree that it is entirely possible to have moral without religion, but religious morality is always going to look more higher and sacred because morality without religion isn't man-made, and therefore will be seen as corrupt.

I think you mean "morality with religion isn't man-made", and i disagree, because, no matter how you look at it, religion *IS* man-made.

I'm not making any direct comment as to the actual legitimacy of these religions' claims. As long as a government makes legislates in a way which supposedly reflects society's viewpoint, it will be seen as politically motivated, corrupt and what not.

If the law reflects common moral grounds, and is logical, people will accept it without murmuring about corrupt governments and whatnot.

But when morality is seen to be inspired by god, through religious institutions, society will always respect it more and follow it more closely, history has seen this, the Church's pre-Luther domination of Europe saws that clearly, and they only did it because they were seen as a godly authority, because national authorities can only legislate nationally, while religion has no political borders.

I don't see morals or laws being based on religion as something i should respect, because it often results in fairly screwed up laws (think Afghanistan, the US's anti gay movement, attempts to ban gay marriage, Iran...)

And arguements like 'I don't follow laws because their from god' while being over simplistic, do not in any way constitute majority viewpoint. I'm saying as a matter of fact that religious morality has always been seen to be more legitimate than 'national' morality.

I disagree with that. And it's not a fact without proof

The fact is that holding eternal judgement for immorality as opposed to impermanent judgement is infinitely essential for society's framework. And your reference to atheists/agnostics who believed my viewpoint being rapists/murderers proves my point of why atheism (or hopeless belief) is so dangerous, if you can not hold punishment that is not eternal over a society, then you will end up with malefactors with nothing to loose, because they literally will think they have nothing to loose.

Then how do you explain, eg, priests abusing kids? Or the Spanish Inqusition? The were religious men holding to morals based on their faith and they believe in eternal punishment, yet they commit or have committed horrible crimes.

What you describe are sociopaths, and no amount of religion can stop these people.

Seriously though, power is in the apperance of power, it does not matter if god exists or doesn't, as long as people think he does, and if an institutionalised religion legislates as inspired by god, then that is truely an ordered society. I think your reply was intirely stupid and immature, you seem to be ignoring the fact that while morality can exist apart from religion, working morality in society can never exist outside religion, atheistic society would end you with an underground of amoral criminals.

I find that last bit extremely narrow minded, and offensive to boot, basicly you're saying that atheists have lower moral standards than religious people and that we can never aspire to have decent morals. Your argument is extremely flawed.