A Call to Intellectuals

[flyhalf87]

and think about it. EVERYBODY gets bashed for their beliefs, but the way you look at it, its like atheists vs all religion when its really not, its atheism vs christianity, vs buddhism vs islam vs judaeism etc.

and when you talk crap on a religion, you are telling that person that the thing that they value the most is utter crap and they are stupid for believing it. when a religious person tells you you are wrong, its because they think that convincing you will save your soul

look at it this way-
if i turn out to be right, then i did you a favor by letting you know the truth, if im wrong absolutely nothing happens differently to you.
if youre right, absolutely nothing happens differently to you or me, if youre wrong you just look like an asshole

EDIT: i dont mean you should be thanking me or whatever i just mean take into account where people are coming from when they talk about god, its not to ruin your day if you know what i mean. its like your parents or whatever telling you you shouldnt eat junk food as a kid; you disagree, you both think youre right, and you both think youre doing it for your own good

i think the thing i understand the least is the total animosity towards people who believe a certain thing. if the person is a jackass, they are a jackass whether they believe in god or not. if a person is cool, they are cool whether they believe in god or not. so why generalize about how terrible religious people are. grow up.

[morphyx]

One thing is clear. Free speech, freedom of thought, and opinion, freedom of belief, and liberty are not friends of militant atheists. They are elitist, condescending, mean spirited, crude, fascist totalitarians intent upon aggressively propagating their dogmatic doctrines of intolerance by force if necessary.

The Apocalypse will be launched by atheists. That was written 2000 years ago. It's coming true right before our eyes.

[mrblonde77]

Originally Posted by morphyx

One thing is clear. Free speech, freedom of thought, and opinion, freedom of belief, and liberty are not friends of militant atheists. They are elitist, condescending, mean spirited, crude, fascist totalitarians intent upon aggressively propagating their dogmatic doctrines of intolerance by force if necessary.

The Apocalypse will be launched by atheists. That was written 2000 years ago. It's coming true right before our eyes.

Funny. I thought it was the extremist Muslims who provoked an even more aggressive attack by the Christians (9/11-> War in Iraq). I'm still wondering where this Atheist army is coming from and who is leading it. What violent atheists are you even talking about?

Originally Posted by morphyx

So ["militant atheists"] troll, attack, bully, belittle, demean, and try to intimidate people to leave, bend, or break.

Originally Posted by morphyx

They are elitist, condescending, mean spirited, crude, fascist totalitarians intent upon aggressively propagating their dogmatic doctrines of intolerance by force if necessary.

Oh the hypocrisy is killing me! Keep embarrassing yourself, it's helping our case more than anything we could ever say. Thanks!

[Digit]

associations.

[morphyx]

Originally Posted by Digit

associations.

It's an intellectual thread.

[the roach]

Originally Posted by morphyx

It's an intellectual thread.

Then please vacate the premises sir.

[scoobydooby67]

Originally Posted by the roach

Then please vacate the premises sir.

oh. snap.

[Digit]

Originally Posted by Zylark

Why, because religion is not prone to compromise.

i think rhetoric like this sweeping generalisation statement is as helpful as the "jesus is my personal saviour" croud's parroting of god this and god that. *


i mean, i've made a couple of religions in my life, and as far as i can tell, they are pretty prone to compromise.


anyhoo...[to remind myself]... like the sabian oracle symbol of my birth reads:

Aquarius 3:
A deserter from the navy stands suddenly aware of a dawning truth: freedom is never the result of compromise.





disclaimer-
yes, i realise my language here[ * ] is laced with controversy for some, and i like it like that. bite the bait if you like. lol. no. stoop!





edit-
ooh, zy has enticed another reply from me too....

Originally Posted by Zylark

Tell me Bush is not motivated by certain christian dogmas, and I will show you the tooth-fairy.

George Bush is not motivated by certain christian dogmas. he worships moley. the baby eating owl. he, like his father and grandfather before him have to present themselves as christian. it's a "PR" trick. no more. he's actually into human sacrafice and the like.

can't you tell?

if he was motivated by christian dogmas, wouldnt he then be under the ten comandments... i'm sure one of them says thou shalt not kill. ... n we are talking dogma, so we can overlook that it's just a retelling of "the greatest story ever told", and in transcriptions and translations it was changed from someone saying "i didnt kill nobody mannnn!" (words close to that effect) to "thou shalt not kill" oh yeah, we can overlook that, ... uhh, i better italicise that to help keep it more visually outta the way.

so uhh....

yeah...

he kills. he kills so much that he's famous for having killed more death row victems than any other politician since the days when "nig*ers" were hung a dime a dozen. so he's certainly not ascribing to that particular piece of Christian dogma. perhaps u had other certain christian dogmas in mind. but unless u tell me specifics, i wanna know.....

where's the tooth-fairy?





ps, i luv ya zy. u keep so many of us on our toes. a steady reference check.



pps,

here's some relevent comic relief for us to remind us all WHAT THE FUCK!

[Zylark]

Have we been watching too much Alex Jones "documentaries" again Digit? Tell me you are able too look past his conspiracist spin, and that this particular nut-job is nothing but paranoid.

So what if former fraternity members have a weekend in the woods every year? Who cares what they do there. Part of beeing in a fraternity is having more or less bizarre traditions and rituals. Nothing more to it.

We had ours when I was a student. We even had mock human sacrifice in old Viking tradition. 'Blot' as it is called. All in good fun, and we got silly drunk.

Doesn't mean I believe in the Viking gods. Just as the Skull and Bones Owl fascination dosn't make Bush junior (or senior for that matter) into occultists.

Bush is very much a christian. Not only does he not miss a chance to actually say so, but he also regulary have meetings and other contact with various very fundamentalist preachers and pastors. Not even to mention his support to faith based (read: christian) programs and organizations.

His denial of funds to relief and humanitarian organizations that promote condom-use in AIDS ridden parts of Africa is typical. Only a true christian could seriously believe abstinence is a viable option.

[Bluntzilla420]

Random Alert: Isn't it crazy how one can witness the Aurora Borealis 260 nights a year? And each night of its showing could produce enough electricity to power the ENTIRE United States? I think it is pretty interesting, while pretty crazy as well

[Digit]

Originally Posted by flyhalf87

and think about it. EVERYBODY gets bashed for their beliefs, but the way you look at it, its like atheists vs all religion when its really not, its atheism vs christianity, vs buddhism vs islam vs judaeism etc.

"vs". yeah right.

Originally Posted by Zylark

Have we been watching too much Alex Jones "documentaries" again Digit? Tell me you are able too look past his conspiracist spin, and that this particular nut-job is nothing but paranoid.

So what if former fraternity members have a weekend in the woods every year? Who cares what they do there. Part of beeing in a fraternity is having more or less bizarre traditions and rituals. Nothing more to it.

We had ours when I was a student. We even had mock human sacrifice in old Viking tradition. 'Blot' as it is called. All in good fun, and we got silly drunk.

Doesn't mean I believe in the Viking gods. Just as the Skull and Bones Owl fascination dosn't make Bush junior (or senior for that matter) into occultists.

Bush is very much a christian. Not only does he not miss a chance to actually say so, but he also regulary have meetings and other contact with various very fundamentalist preachers and pastors. Not even to mention his support to faith based (read: christian) programs and organizations.

His denial of funds to relief and humanitarian organizations that promote condom-use in AIDS ridden parts of Africa is typical. Only a true christian could seriously believe abstinence is a viable option.

.........

* blink blink *


... does this mean you're not going to show me the tooth fairy?




also... i'm rather surprised.... were you just being a bush appologist... no wait, not even... you were suggesting they might not be up to their necks in all sorts of weird rituals and in part responsible for millions (perhaps billions?) of deaths. ...! how bizarre.

whether they are occultists and/or reptilians isn't quite the issue to me. its the deeds done, doing and yet to be done lest something intervenes, brought forth from whatever it is that motivates such actions which i consider more pertinent for raising alarm bells over.

anyhoo... sticking a feather up your butt doesnt make you a chicken just the same that proclaiming yourself a christian might not necessarily make it so either. i still say it's a PR scam.

now show me the damn tooth fairy!

;D

[auntiesocial]

I would have to bitterly disagree with any thread where some one's or some group's ideas are forbidden from the onset. Any thread should be allowed to evolve into any conversation it is lead to. However, for debate--especially debates concerning science or history-- there is a prerequisite involving the protagonists: there must exist some rudimentary knowledge of the subject at hand. Sadly, that doesn't always happen on anonymous internet forums.

The problem--to which I am willfully guilty of--when religion takes over a thread is that basic scientific and historical precedents are completely ignored by religious people when it suits their "argument"(usually a lack of an argument).

For example: " One thing is clear. Free speech, freedom of thought, and opinion, freedom of belief, and liberty are not friends of militant atheists. They are elitist, condescending, mean spirited, crude, fascist totalitarians intent upon aggressively propagating their dogmatic doctrines of intolerance by force if necessary. "

Once a person displays purposeful ignorance of this sort, people with an education tend to get a little chippy. I mean, has this person never heard of Thomas Paine? The Marque de Sade? Clarence Darrow? Carl Sagan, Benjamin Franklin, Democritus, James Madison, John Lennon, Samuel Clemens, Thomas Edison...etc? You know, "militant atheists" who helped deliver the free speech, freedom of thought, and opinion, freedom of belief, and liberty he has become accustomed to?!?!?!?!?!

Talking about your religion is fine. Evangelicalism is fine with me as long as it is honest. However, religious people must understand that their beliefs DO NOT have to be respected or placed equal to any scientific theory. There is no logical basis for a "creator", and no evidence whatsoever of any sentient, controlling, omnipotent force. Believers have "faith", that is enough for them but not everyone else. Having said that, conversely, believers MUST have respect for science and history. They can not invent "controversy" where none exists, like with evolution, carbon dating, genetic mapping, red-shift measurement, ocean temperatures, fossil records, paleontology..... They can not use the bible as a historical or scientific record, ever. And they can not post pictures of galaxies that lie 150 million light years away as "proof of god" one day, and imprison astronomers the next. If they refuse to show respect, they should be ready to accept the same lashing scientists receive when their ideas come up short on evidence or logic; a severe, condescending, out-right thrashing of their hypothesis and philosophy.

[pigninja]

Originally Posted by auntiesocial

I would have to bitterly disagree with any thread where some one's or some group's ideas are forbidden from the onset. Any thread should be allowed to evolve into any conversation it is lead to. However, for debate--especially debates concerning science or history-- there is a prerequisite involving the protagonists: there must exist some rudimentary knowledge of the subject at hand. Sadly, that doesn't always happen on anonymous internet forums.

The problem--to which I am willfully guilty of--when religion takes over a thread is that basic scientific and historical precedents are completely ignored by religious people when it suits their "argument"(usually a lack of an argument).

For example: " One thing is clear. Free speech, freedom of thought, and opinion, freedom of belief, and liberty are not friends of militant atheists. They are elitist, condescending, mean spirited, crude, fascist totalitarians intent upon aggressively propagating their dogmatic doctrines of intolerance by force if necessary. "

Once a person displays purposeful ignorance of this sort, people with an education tend to get a little chippy. I mean, has this person never heard of Thomas Paine? The Marque de Sade? Clarence Darrow? Carl Sagan, Benjamin Franklin, Democritus, James Madison, John Lennon, Samuel Clemens, Thomas Edison...etc? You know, "militant atheists" who helped deliver the free speech, freedom of thought, and opinion, freedom of belief, and liberty he has become accustomed to?!?!?!?!?!

Talking about your religion is fine. Evangelicalism is fine with me as long as it is honest. However, religious people must understand that their beliefs DO NOT have to be respected or placed equal to any scientific theory. There is no logical basis for a "creator", and no evidence whatsoever of any sentient, controlling, omnipotent force. Believers have "faith", that is enough for them but not everyone else. Having said that, conversely, believers MUST have respect for science and history. They can not invent "controversy" where none exists, like with evolution, carbon dating, genetic mapping, red-shift measurement, ocean temperatures, fossil records, paleontology..... They can not use the bible as a historical or scientific record, ever. And they can not post pictures of galaxies that lie 150 million light years away as "proof of god" one day, and imprison astronomers the next. If they refuse to show respect, they should be ready to accept the same lashing scientists receive when their ideas come up short on evidence or logic; a severe, condescending, out-right thrashing of their hypothesis and philosophy.

Christians MUST accept science as fact. Until this happens there can be no real debate.

um... yeah...what he said.

[Digit]

"MUST" eh?



i dont think with statements like that, that we can point fingers only at the christians for standing in the way of debate. ultimatums like that aint the answer.



and who says it needs to be a debate anyways. why is everyone so gung ho on debate like its the only form of dialogue.

why not just discus?

[auntiesocial]

why not just discus?

We can discus evolution. But we can not debate the validity of transitional fossils. They exist, they are proven, there is no debate. We can have conversations about Hubble images. But we can not debate the scientific validity of a spectrometer just because it gives readings that contradict creationist's gibberish. We can discus the contributions--good and bad--of atheists through history. But we can not debate how they relate to unsubstantiated 2,000 year old prophecy.

Certain scientific principles must be respected, ESPECIALLY when they contradict religious "teaching". Believers like to pick-and-choose which parts of their "holy" scriptures they will follow. The problem is when they apply these "principles" to science and history. You can't pick-and-choose what parts of scientific theory you want to live by. Not everything is open to discussion or debate. Sometimes facts are just.....facts.