QueenZone discussion #1333981

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Atheism is just like religion, the same way that 1 is just like -1 in mathematics. Believing with all your heart that there is a god is very close to believing with all your heart that there is no god. The universe is inconceivably strange and complex. There is painfully little that is certain, and possibly even less that is impossible. Nobody ever knows "the Truth", and both the deeply religious and the rigid atheists are convinced that they do know the Truth, beyond a shadow of doubt. That means they are both wrong. We humans have no access to Truth, but we have something better - we can experience Wonder.

mooghead wrote: "There is painfully little that is certain," But what IS certain can be proven beyond doubt by science and evidence.

mooghead wrote: Well, with respect, if you are that easily upset by what a stranger on an internet message board says I suggest you cut the wire to your house immediately.

mooghead wrote: Well, with respect, if you are that easily upset by what a stranger on an internet message board says I suggest you cut the wire to your house immediately.

mooghead wrote: But what IS certain can be proven beyond doubt by science and evidence.

In which case, convince me that God is extremely likely and I will change my outlook

In hindsight perhaps crap was the wrong word, and maybe a tad confrontational.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Atheism is just like religion, the same way that 1 is just like -1 in mathematics. Believing with all your heart that there is a god is very close to believing with all your heart that there is no god. The universe is inconceivably strange and complex. There is painfully little that is certain, and possibly even less that is impossible. Nobody ever knows "the Truth", and both the deeply religious and the rigid atheists are convinced that they do know the Truth, beyond a shadow of doubt. That means they are both wrong. We humans have no access to Truth, but we have something better - we can experience Wonder.

YourValentine wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Atheism is just like religion, the same way that 1 is just like -1 in mathematics. Believing with all your heart that there is a god is very close to believing with all your heart that there is no god. The universe is inconceivably strange and complex. There is painfully little that is certain, and possibly even less that is impossible. Nobody ever knows "the Truth", and both the deeply religious and the rigid atheists are convinced that they do know the Truth, beyond a shadow of doubt. That means they are both wrong. We humans have no access to Truth, but we have something better - we can experience Wonder.

I have to challenge this. Atheism does not have anything to do with believing but all with scepticism. A religious person is supposed to believe with no proof while an atheist or non-believer refuses to believe with no proof. An atheist is not necessarily an evolutionist or other "explainer" of the world - an atheist simply says: "I do not believe in the existence of God because there is no evidence". If there wouldn't be atheism we would still live in the Middle Ages because enlightenment always happened against organised religion and not within religion: the abolition of slavery, democratic sructures, civil rights, equal rights for women, acceptance of homosexuals - all of these were accomplished AGAINST the rules and teachings of religion. Wherever religion has power civil rights are much less than in places where religion does not have that much power and influence. I understand that many people have a deep desire to find comfort and hope in religious teachings and that is great. It's organised religion trying to set the rules for everybody who causes all the  problems.

mooghead wrote: That may be the case I admit. BUT.. I am happy to sit here and have my mind changed. Please, give me any reason to believe in god and I promise I will.

mooghead wrote: I believe in the 10 commandments. I do not need a really old (and in my opinion fictional) book to tell me the difference between right and wrong, I believe its wrong to murder someone because murdering is wrong. I do not need a religious compass for me to realise this.

Mr.Jingles wrote: I have a lot of Christian friends who are very active in their church, and even though I don't share their views 100%, it's good to find a common ground. My family and I try to help them whenever there are charity drives to help those in need. So from that aspect is great to be focus on what unites us, rather than what divides us.

mooghead wrote: I believe in the 10 commandments. I do not need a really old (and in my opinion fictional) book to tell me the difference between right and wrong, I believe its wrong to murder someone because murdering is wrong. I do not need a religious compass for me to realise this.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: it is generally understood amongst historians that it was written by a group of people who were by far intellectually inferior to the writers of the Old Testament. It is very jumbled and contains so many odd paraphrasings (often misunderstood by its own authors) of older texts that making any sense of it in a non-religious way can yield only very limited results

Traditional exegesis interprets this by a bizarre construction that would make the evident plural of God into a mark of respect that is never used anywhere else in the bible.

Heavenite wrote:And regardless of what's true on the why, has anyone heard of "pascale's wager">? It basically says that emotionally, there is no logical reason not to believe in an afterlife, whether there happens to be one or not.

The Real Wizard wrote: As the old saying goes, "calling atheism a religion is like calling abstinence a sex position.".

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: I don't know if I still have 'doubt' because of some remaining bit of fear or if I actually believe there might be something.

I find it funny - as a homeschooling parent (whose daughter is now half-way toward earning her associates degree in business at age 17, btw, and is maintaining a 4.0 !!!! - yes I'm bragging but I'll stop now...)

In my experience, religion has been a barrier to fulfillment and true happiness.

The Real Wizard wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: I don't know if I still have 'doubt' because of some remaining bit of fear or if I actually believe there might be something.

I suspect it's the former, but you may prefer the latter to be true as such an idea may make it easier for you to make peace with your past.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: it amazes me when people say they are sending their children to religious instruction for structure and moral direction.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: So maybe it's not religion that I loathe but the manner in which many practice it. Or maybe it's both.

GratefulFan wrote: People seem to feel entitled to have secularism as guide and support accepted as better and more reasoned without actually making anything like an actual case for that. How is that different from the rigidity and arrogance that can flow from organized religion?

You can't take the best of secularism and hold it up to the worst of organized religion and expect to come up with anything that means much.

GratefulFan wrote: Your language is that of contempt. Religion as a "distraction", a "crutch" etc. God distilled to someone to arbitrarily "curse or thank". Frankly such broad statements demonstrate significant ignorance of experiences outside your own and those of the similarly experienced and like minded.

People organize themselves in many ways, all the time. There are organizations for women, for men, for baseball players and stamp collectors.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: >>>>Not everybody has experienced religion as tyranny.<<<< Perhaps not, but I have, and that has shaped my views. >>>>Your perceptions are fine. It's your narrow, contempt based arguments that I object to.<<<< And I accept that mainly because I know that you and I will never agree on this topic, nor will we fully understand one another. Whether “those words would come out of" your keyboard or not, they are true, and your statement that you “understand completely the range of attitudes about religion and thoroughly respect the many ways in which they evolve” is false, for you do not even remotely understand my attitude toward religion nor, as evidenced by your choice of words here, do you ‘respect’ the ways in which they have evolved. And, just to point out the obvious, when I said “I do not care what anyone believes or does not believe” it was with the implication that whatever others’ beliefs might be, is their business not mine. However, your deliberately distorted interpretation of my point hardly expresses the ‘humility’ you profess to hold.

GratefulFan wrote: I understand you just fine.

The Real Wizard wrote: It is from rejecting things accepted as true previously purported by religion that we have entered our race's greatest phase of innovation and potential.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

GratefulFan wrote: I understand you just fine.

Which brings me back to my point that, on this, we will never agree.

The Real Wizard wrote: It is from rejecting things accepted as true previously purported by religion that we have entered our race's greatest phase of innovation and potential.

This, IMO, is perfection.

GratefulFan wrote: This technical marvel of a website dumped my reply. I'll reassemble later.

GratefulFan wrote: With regard to the other statement I think the forces of religion and secularism on our world have both been a bit of a mixed bag. What do you both see as examples of Bob's statement?

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: I am frankly disgusted by the posts of GratefulFan in this topic. He/she is trying to spin a perfectly honest personal experience by magicalfreddiemercury into an example of bigotry by the latter...

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: I am frankly disgusted by the posts of GratefulFan in this topic. He/she is trying to spin a perfectly honest personal experience by magicalfreddiemercury into an example of bigotry by the latter...

It might come as no surprise, but I greatly appreciate this post. I have spoken of my personal experiences here, and have tried to bring that point to the fore several times. In fairness, though, the responses here - including the subtle twists of meaning - are rather common. People often become uncomfortable and defensive when I relay my experiences (of which these barely touch the surface) and my resulting opinion of religion. Some people understand and some do not. Yet. But I have hope.

Holly2003 wrote: Clearly you bear a grudge against GratefulFan because she has called you out on a lot of bullshit you've posted here in the past. You can't see it yourself obviously, but you're a very intolerant person, masquerading as a liberal. You're always the first to take someone's comments out of context or interpret them is some bizarre way that fits your own agenda, and you're always first to resort to insults when you don't get your way. Failing that, you run off and hide after someone has called you on your behaviour. Regarding the substance of this topic, GF is simply trying to provide her own experiences and compare them against some of the blanket anti-religion statements of, for example, The Real Wizard. Now I'm mostly in agreement with Wizard on this, having seen the damage first hand of the darker side of religious intolerance. However, I also understand that for many, religion is a source of comfort and is not necessarily incompatible with modern Western liberalism. In short, there's room enough for us all on this tiny planet ...

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: I'm very glad to see that you are brave enough to say what you think, feel and believe, and to act on it, when faced with such hostility. You should be proud of that.

Donna13 wrote: My niece asked me who God was when she was about four years old. I just said to her that he watches over us and helps us.

Holly2003 wrote: GF is simply trying to provide her own experiences and compare them against some of the blanket anti-religion statements of, for example, The Real Wizard. Now I'm mostly in agreement with Wizard on this, having seen the damage first hand of the darker side of religious intolerance. However, I also understand that for many, religion is a source of comfort and is not necessarily incompatible with modern Western liberalism. In short, there's room enough for us all on this tiny planet ...

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: In fairness, though, the responses here - including the subtle twists of meaning - are rather common. People often become uncomfortable and defensive when I relay my experiences (of which these barely touch the surface) and my resulting opinion of religion. Some people understand and some do not. Yet. But I have hope.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Do you deny that he/she is attempting to make the victim of intolerance into the perpetrator? I am of the opinion that magicalfreddiemercury was being unfairly treated, so I responded to that.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: You are right that I don't like GF, though your "because..." part is nonsense (I have an intense dislike of conservatism, whereas GF appears to be a convinced conservative, that is the long and short of it), but as you might have noticed had you paid attention, I deal with that by ignoring his/her posts whenever I can.

The Real Wizard wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: In fairness, though, the responses here - including the subtle twists of meaning - are rather common. People often become uncomfortable and defensive when I relay my experiences (of which these barely touch the surface) and my resulting opinion of religion. Some people understand and some do not. Yet. But I have hope.

Fortunately western society is generally one of progression and not regression. Example: link

GratefulFan wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Do you deny that he/she is attempting to make the victim of intolerance into the perpetrator? I am of the opinion that magicalfreddiemercury was being unfairly treated, so I responded to that.

She is both the victim of intolerance and the perpetrator of it.

GratefulFan wrote: She is both the victim of intolerance and the perpetrator of it. Unless your argument is that anti-religion ugliness and injustice is somehow superior to it's mirror image found in religion, several of you in this recent exchange would benefit from more self-awareness. You are intolerant.

The Real Wizard wrote: I know I will be slammed for this post. Bring it on. I can take it :-)

The Real Wizard wrote: I know you meant well, but telling a child that someone or something else has control over their destiny is one of the worst things we as elders can do to them. We should be empowering children to believe anything is possible and completely within their control. The "god" stories tend to accomplish the exact opposite. There is no correct answer to this question - arguably the biggest question of all: "what is out there that we don't know about?" Offering simple, packaged answers to complex questions does an extreme disservice to a child. It may be a plausible temporary solution, but down the line it tends to create weak, dependent people.

The Real Wizard wrote: If that were my kid, my response would be - "nobody knows who or what God is." And then I'd change the subject to something that actually exists. We need to teach our children *how* to think, not *what* to think.

GratefulFan wrote: Apparently reaffirming previous non-statement statements is illuminating enough for the Queenzone religion intelligencia.

GratefulFan wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: You are right that I don't like GF, though your "because..." part is nonsense (I have an intense dislike of conservatism, whereas GF appears to be a convinced conservative, that is the long and short of it), but as you might have noticed had you paid attention, I deal with that by ignoring his/her posts whenever I can.

I'm a conservative like Holly is a cattle rancher from Texas. Seriously, how can anybody be that self absorbed?

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

GratefulFan wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Do you deny that he/she is attempting to make the victim of intolerance into the perpetrator? I am of the opinion that magicalfreddiemercury was being unfairly treated, so I responded to that.

She is both the victim of intolerance and the perpetrator of it.

GratefulFan I did not realize I was expected to show proof of my experiences. Nor did I realize I would have to break down each point I’ve made into bite-sized pieces of logic for you to digest. I shared examples of situations I had been in and the point of view I developed because of them. You can choose not to believe what I’ve said, you can assume I have embellished – or as you’ve implied, that I have lied. You can choose to pluck some of my words from some of my sentences and form your own assessment of my meaning. You can call me intolerant and a perpetrator of such. That is your right and I have no desire to alter your perceptions of me because I know the effort to do so would be wasted. You will not see my position as it is intended, yet my position will remain, and I will leave our discussion knowing that I tried to share a point of view that, not surprisingly, was neither accepted, understood, nor tolerated.

Panchgani wrote: I do not like having religion crammed down my throat, but I fail to see what is wrong with the following sentiment: Grant us each day the desire to do our best, To grow mentally and morally as well as physically, To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers, To be honest with ourselves as well as with others, Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win, Teach us the value of true friendship, Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.

The Real Wizard wrote: So you're basically saying she's not allowed to be "intolerant" of intolerance? Every viewpoint is equal, no matter how ignorant or informed?

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: GratefulFan I did not realize I was expected to show proof of my experiences. Nor did I realize I would have to break down each point I’ve made into bite-sized pieces of logic for you to digest. I shared examples of situations I had been in and the point of view I developed because of them. You can choose not to believe what I’ve said, you can assume I have embellished – or as you’ve implied, that I have lied. You can choose to pluck some of my words from some of my sentences and form your own assessment of my meaning. You can call me intolerant and a perpetrator of such. That is your right and I have no desire to alter your perceptions of me because I know the effort to do so would be wasted. You will not see my position as it is intended, yet my position will remain, and I will leave our discussion knowing that I tried to share a point of view that, not surprisingly, was neither accepted, understood, nor tolerated.

Panchgani wrote: I do not like having religion crammed down my throat, but I fail to see what is wrong with the following sentiment: Grant us each day the desire to do our best, To grow mentally and morally as well as physically, To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers, To be honest with ourselves as well as with others, Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win, Teach us the value of true friendship, Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.

Donna13 wrote: I don't see God as a controlling man in the sky. I see God as a helpful force and this isn't based on someone else's writings or website; this is from my own life experience. I am a free thinking person, and I also have complete confidence in my niece and I am very proud of the person she is becoming. She is both intelligent and adaptive and she is empathetic, and has a very good sense of humor.

waunakonor wrote: I'm sorry*, but how exactly is telling kids that they have complete control over everything a healthy message to be sending? Kids shouldn't grow up believing that. They should grow up learning how to attempt to overcome the things that prevent them from controlling what they become in life.

You criticize the idea of God to be a simple, packaged answer to a complex question, but how is that any less simple and packaged?

The Real Wizard wrote: If that were my kid, my response would be - "nobody knows who or what God is." And then I'd change the subject to something that actually exists. We need to teach our children *how* to think, not *what* to think.

I'm failing to see how your proposed response tells kids how to think any less than Donna's answer.

One more thing: it's not possible for a parent to raise a child well without some of the parent's beliefs rubbing off.

If you think you're going to ONLY tell to child how to think, and not what to think, to put it bluntly, you're wrong.

If you're atheist but think that you're giving your children free will over what to believe, some of your atheism is definitely rubbing off on them, whether you like it or not (you probably do).

waunakonor wrote: As it stands, religion is one way of raising children; secularism is another. One is not superior to the other: both can raise intelligent kids as well as assholes, and I'd be willing to bet money that the smart:stupid ratios of the two pathways are at least roughly similar.

GratefulFan wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote: So you're basically saying she's not allowed to be "intolerant" of intolerance? Every viewpoint is equal, no matter how ignorant or informed?

More of that circular reasoning.

I've been asking for a couple of pages now for somebody to point out what is intolerant about organizing on faith for education.

The Real Wizard wrote: But as GF already pointed out, the part that caused the controversy was the "Our heavenly father" at the beginning and the "Amen" at the end. But by turning it into a religious statement, it carries the implication that one philosophy (that there is a heavenly father) is to be adhered to above all other philosophies.

Panchgani wrote: Really??? Does it really imply that one particular religion (or philosophy) is the ONLY legitimite religion (or philosophy).

It is overkill to have the baby (the statement) thrown out with the 4 words of bathwater (my heavenly father & amen).

On the other hand, "One Nation under God" and "In God We Trust" implies that I am not a "legitimite" American, because I do not trust in a god that "lords" over me.

GratefulFan wrote: Waunakonor's post on your "lie" does give me some solace that I'm not a complete failure at communicating, but I do see that my choice of words reasonably led to you to think I was accusing you of dishonesty. I wasn't. I'm sorry that it came across that way. I'm not of course asking for "proof of your experiences", I'm asking you to feel some responsibility for reasonably supporting specific arguments that arbitrarily diminish things that are important and meaningful to other people. It's clear by now you're not prepared to do so. As you say there is little left for me to do but draw my conclusions. This is a topic that allows you to get away with that with your peers here, but the truth is that if your language, tone and attitudes were applied to a matter like race rather than religion it would feel quite different to people. Honestly I feel sorrow for you, both for the destructive experiences you had with religion and some aspects of what you've done with them. Your avoidant replies to me are intended to relay something like dignity and grace I think, but what they are to me is small. PS. "Not surprisingly" Really MFM?

The Real Wizard wrote:

Panchgani wrote: Really??? Does it really imply that one particular religion (or philosophy) is the ONLY legitimite religion (or philosophy).

Well, yes and no. It is one idea, but it can branch off into any number of ways as there are thousands of religions that have adhered to some kind of idea of a heavenly father. Either way, it certainly does exclude a lot of people. The prayer without those four words, however, would exclude nobody.

It is overkill to have the baby (the statement) thrown out with the 4 words of bathwater (my heavenly father & amen).

Absolutely it is. And the school has the choice to put up the prayer without the religious words, and they haven't. Sour grapes?

On the other hand, "One Nation under God" and "In God We Trust" implies that I am not a "legitimite" American, because I do not trust in a god that "lords" over me.

If that doesn't bother you, that's cool. But it definitely bothers a lot of people.

The Real Wizard wrote: At best we can have a bit of a better understanding of where we are all coming from, but it's very unlikely any of us are going to walk away having adopted the thoughts or ideas of someone else here.

How much are we listening to others vs. writing our thoughts on a forum because they make sense to us ?

So is the end gain worth the time invested ?

Donna13 wrote: LOL, Zebonka. (As usual, we're not worthy! Ha.) I would like to add some thoughts. It is maybe not a good idea for me to only say that I think that God is a helpful force. Because that would imply that I think that only our will is in action. I think that there is a great amount of intelligence beyond our own and I think this intelligence is also a giving force or entity. In other words, we can have one option in mind, and what we end up with (which we didn't specifically want) is much better than anything we could have imagined for ourselves. Or we go to sleep with a problem and wake up with a good solution. Or we get a feeling that tells us to slow down, then a car runs a stop sign and travels in front of us rather than hitting us from the side (my most recent Wow moment). So, these are mysteries. This intelligence outside ourselves (or maybe we are all connected to it) is a mystery. We don't know who or what God is, or how much he resembles the God of the religions, but I would say that He/She/it (this is for Real Wizard -ha) is much more cool, awesome, and wonderful than we can even imagine.

GratefulFan wrote: Okay all you heathens, prepare to be converted! The offensive dude on the prayer banner works in mysterious ways. Today, I managed to give myself a great big concussion. That's right: no TV, no computer (after this), no texting, no reading, no going to work, no arguing about religion on the internet. For 5 days I will be a miserable potted plant. So I can't explain how you lot are still slightly full of poo just now, but I'll be back in a few days. In lieu of flowers try to sort yourselves out by then. Ha ha. Just in case I go all Natasha Richardson, know that I do love you all, and MFM, of all the people who I don't know in NYC you are still my first choice with whom to order champagne and too many samosas, eat what we can, and throw the rest at each other as seems appropriate. If you talk about me while I'm gone please be interesting. :)

GratefulFan wrote: Okay all you heathens, prepare to be converted! The offensive dude on the prayer banner works in mysterious ways. Today, I managed to give myself a great big concussion. That's right: no TV, no computer (after this), no texting, no reading, no going to work, no arguing about religion on the internet. For 5 days I will be a miserable potted plant. So I can't explain how you lot are still slightly full of poo just now, but I'll be back in a few days. In lieu of flowers try to sort yourselves out by then. Ha ha. Just in case I go all Natasha Richardson, know that I do love you all, and MFM, of all the people who I don't know in NYC you are still my first choice with whom to order champagne and too many samosas, eat what we can, and throw the rest at each other as seems appropriate. If you talk about me while I'm gone please be interesting. :)

Donna13 wrote: this lady doesn't sound very intelligent to me.

I can talk to my own older family members and hear enough anecdotal information that proves to me (beyond my own experience) that we are being assisted, warned of shocking events in advance, and that prayer works.

And these phenomena (whether you apply religious ideas to it or not) have been the subject of the work of real scientists at the top universities.

This lady just sounds like a person who is trying to be logical, but overlooking what she cannot accept.

She may be just as controlling as a super religious mother or father. The other side of the coin.

The Real Wizard wrote: This is far more complex and layered than two simple binary options. Instead of a coin, let's liken these various styles of thought to an ocean - agnostics swim in the ocean, atheists sit on the beach suntanning, and religious people have taken a cup of the water and walked away with it, content to never see an ocean again, and believe that swimming is hazardous to your health.

Heavenite wrote: Interesting answer! Its clever because the question is rubbish to start with. And the response highlights the flawed thinking within it. Yet for all intents and purposes, unicorns and god do exist in someone's reality if they believe in them. Kids and Santa are another good example of this. Then one day the child is sad to find out that Santa doesn't deliver the presents at all. And as adults, we continue to suffer this sort of emotional pain when our view of the world is found to be wanting.

mooghead wrote: "Yet for all intents and purposes, unicorns and god do exist in someone's reality" So if God exists only in the mind of man does that mean he is real? In which case I have a seat reserved for the tooth fairy, santa and Thor. I saw Spiderman and Wolverine, they are in films FFS!!!!

The Real Wizard wrote:

Donna13 wrote: She may be just as controlling as a super religious mother or father. The other side of the coin.

Years ago a friend of mine dated someone who essentially said the same thing. My friend once told her she could do whatever she liked, and she said "stop controlling me." Some people are so under control that they are frightened by freedom, as it translates to them as a form of control. If you don't give them answers to unanswerable questions from day one, they won't be scared by the lack of answers or control by external forces in their lives. But when an adult has externalized control for all their lives, only then is such freedom scary. They find safety in rules and restrictions. "Freedom is slavery," said George Orwell. He was right.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

mooghead wrote: "Yet for all intents and purposes, unicorns and god do exist in someone's reality" So if God exists only in the mind of man does that mean he is real? In which case I have a seat reserved for the tooth fairy, santa and Thor. I saw Spiderman and Wolverine, they are in films FFS!!!!

When a million people believe in God, does it mean a bearded guy suddenly pops into existence on a cloud? No, it certainly doesn't. Does it mean god exists in the same way morality or arachnophobia exists? I would argue it does. They are mental concepts, that exist solely because people believe in them. They don't exist outside our minds, and they are not tangible. Still, I do think they exert influence on the actual world - if everyone suddenly stopped believing in morality, or everyone stopped being afraid of spiders, that would definitely change our lives, be it in major or minor ways.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

mooghead wrote: "Yet for all intents and purposes, unicorns and god do exist in someone's reality" So if God exists only in the mind of man does that mean he is real? In which case I have a seat reserved for the tooth fairy, santa and Thor. I saw Spiderman and Wolverine, they are in films FFS!!!!

When a million people believe in God, does it mean a bearded guy suddenly pops into existence on a cloud? No, it certainly doesn't. Does it mean god exists in the same way morality or arachnophobia exists? I would argue it does. They are mental concepts, that exist solely because people believe in them. They don't exist outside our minds, and they are not tangible. Still, I do think they exert influence on the actual world - if everyone suddenly stopped believing in morality, or everyone stopped being afraid of spiders, that would definitely change our lives, be it in major or minor ways. That is the power of belief, which is an entirely different thing to religion all together, something religious fundamentalists and hardcore atheists both have a hard time understanding. Belief is a very powerful psychological capability, but when millions of people believe that every word of the bible is literally true, that doesn't mean it suddenly becomes so. So why can belief make a thing like morality (or 'god') real, but can it not cause the bible to suddenly become absolutely true? It's the difference between the abstract and the concrete - abstract concepts exist in the mind (and according to Platonic philosophy also in a metaphysical world that is entirely separate from the universe), but concrete things are inherently bound to the physical world in some way.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: When a million people believe in God, does it mean a bearded guy suddenly pops into existence on a cloud? No, it certainly doesn't. Does it mean god exists in the same way morality or arachnophobia exists? I would argue it does. They are mental concepts, that exist solely because people believe in them. They don't exist outside our minds, and they are not tangible. Still, I do think they exert influence on the actual world - if everyone suddenly stopped believing in morality, or everyone stopped being afraid of spiders, that would definitely change our lives, be it in major or minor ways. That is the power of belief, which is an entirely different thing to religion all together, something religious fundamentalists and hardcore atheists both have a hard time understanding. Belief is a very powerful psychological capability, but when millions of people believe that every word of the bible is literally true, that doesn't mean it suddenly becomes so. So why can belief make a thing like morality (or 'god') real, but can it not cause the bible to suddenly become absolutely true? It's the difference between the abstract and the concrete - abstract concepts exist in the mind (and according to Platonic philosophy also in a metaphysical world that is entirely separate from the universe), but concrete things are inherently bound to the physical world in some way.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote: This is far more complex and layered than two simple binary options. Instead of a coin, let's liken these various styles of thought to an ocean - agnostics swim in the ocean, atheists sit on the beach suntanning, and religious people have taken a cup of the water and walked away with it, content to never see an ocean again, and believe that swimming is hazardous to your health.

=== I'm traveling so I can't reply as thoroughly as I would like, but I saw this and had to say I think it is brilliant.

Heavenite wrote: I think they would its say life itself that is the "spiritual" thing, so things like integrity and morality actually matter and make a difference to ourselves and to others. And the more people that understand that and stop acting just from base self interest, the more we change the place for the better. So there's no need for anything or anyone that's external to us and the real world to be or do anything in that view.

Heavenite wrote: Problem is times and technology have changed, but these rules have become ingrained as part of the dogma and now cause more guilt and harm than any good. The religions are therefore stuck in the past and not always serving those people they profess to serve. And that's why they are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

GratefulFan wrote: Heard about this 'feature' of Apple's Siri last night while watching a hockey game on TV. Don't know if it's just this version of iOS, just in Canada, or what, but look what happens when you ask Siri to show you a picture of God. Ahhahahaha! I've asked her about 10 times since last night just to amuse myself. For non-fans, Daniel is the longest serving captain in the NHL and a big fan favourite. link

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

Heavenite wrote: Problem is times and technology have changed, but these rules have become ingrained as part of the dogma and now cause more guilt and harm than any good. The religions are therefore stuck in the past and not always serving those people they profess to serve. And that's why they are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

It's absolutely true, times and technology (and attitudes) have changed, yet I hold the very strong opinions that religion has not become irrelevant quickly enough, and that the guilt and harm it causes is nothing new but rather an integral (and IMO, intentional) part of it. Of course 'good' can be found in nearly everything. The 'good' side of it is the sense of community and charity. However, religion itself is not the impetus to those things. And so, I am still of the opinion that simple common decency, not kowtowing to a supposed higher power, is what will improve the quality of life for nearly everyone. (I say nearly because some, I have learned, thrive on the guilt.) I do like the way you think, though. It's insightful and open-minded.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: You can believe what you want to believe, but when you start spreading false claims you destroy the value of what you believe in by tainting it with dishonesty.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: "only those universal values can save us and humanity - other ideologies, philosophies are relativistic or materialistic etc etc only harm people and our souls" That's a fine example of religious fundamentalism: a narrow-minded denunciation of every philosophy that is not your own with false arguments. Christianity does not contain a single idea that did not originate in an older philosophy, and your claim that every other philosophy is "relativistic or materialistic" is not just disrespectful and nonsensical, but an outright lie. By definition every idealistic philosophy is not materialistic, and by definition every absolutist philosophy is not relativistic. If you've been studying philosophy, you have not done a very good job at it, as your claims are, from a purely philosophical point of view, patently untrue. You can believe what you want to believe, but when you start spreading false claims you destroy the value of what you believe in by tainting it with dishonesty.

mooghead wrote: Still checking in on my own thread every now and then ready to be convinced by evidence that will rock my world and whole existence....

Donna13 wrote: One's own negative experiences growing up are sad to hear about, but this does not mean that the problems experienced by individuals are universal. Everyone has different experiences, and different reactions to experiences.

Donna13 wrote: Solaris, I'm not saying life has to be all sunshine and roses. There are bad things and bad people we have to deal with on occasion. Sometimes a string of bad things happen to us and we have to have the endurance to get through those times. However we must be resilient enough to eventually return to our default mode of enjoying life. If the world seems dark, scary, evil, or just generally not worth it most of the time, then this is a clue that a person needs help to stop feeling this way all the time - because it is not normal.

Donna13 wrote: I imagine that biased documentaries and conspiracy theories are most likely to mislead those who cannot trust "the system" or official sources, or even friends and family who love them, yet they have no trouble trusting the word of a documentary film maker or someone promoting conspiracy theories. It is ironic that they are so willing to put full trust and belief in those who tell them they should not trust or believe anyone. Many educated people have trouble with their mind, or their mood, and it is nothing to be ashamed of. They cannot blame themselves because they are not at fault for having this problem. Look at Brian May. He realized he needed professional help in order to go on living. And he is glad he got that help that has allowed him to fight his depression. It was not his fault that he was seeing the world as a dark unhappy place. It was a medical condition.

solaris wrote: I am "just" a philosopher and a critical investigative thinker.

GratefulFan wrote:

solaris wrote: I am "just" a philosopher and a critical investigative thinker.

You don't appear to be an effective critical thinker though. And that's the problem. I've noted before that the ability to glean whether evidence and arguments fully and adequately support any given statement or concept is a very specific skill. One that conspiracy theorists virtually never have. Sadly that dooms you all to echo chambers of the like minded, thinking the rest of us are drowning in unenlightenment.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: ...what remains is mostly just bullshit along the lines of the Malleus Maleficarum (witchhunter's bible), which really is just a bunch of pornographic ravings by a (literally) deranged misogynist.

mooghead wrote: "Atheist churches" I detest this term. Atheism is not a religion.

The Real Wizard wrote: Exactly - that doesn't make it a religion. That makes them arseholes. That said, they still have the upper hand regardless of their methods of putting their point across. A religion requires doctrine and beliefs. Atheists do not have beliefs. Their worldview is based on the natural world, which is proven to be correct by the scientific method. Putting this on a scale as if it is somehow an equal opposite to untenable beliefs about the unknown makes absolutely no sense. It is people with metaphysical propositions who have the burden of proof. Atheists are right by default until proven otherwise. 90 something percent of major conflict in this world would be solved if people were educated to understand this.

The Real Wizard wrote: Exactly - that doesn't make it a religion. That makes them arseholes. That said, they still have the upper hand regardless of their methods of putting their point across. A religion requires doctrine and beliefs. Atheists do not have beliefs. Their worldview is based on the natural world, which is proven to be correct by the scientific method. Putting this on a scale as if it is somehow an equal opposite to untenable beliefs about the unknown makes absolutely no sense. It is people with metaphysical propositions who have the burden of proof. Atheists are right by default until proven otherwise. 90 something percent of major conflict in this world would be solved if people were educated to understand this.

GratefulFan wrote: The scientific method (which itself requires assumptions about the nature of reality derived from metaphysical philosophy by the way) is just one application in the vast sphere of reason.

GratefulFan wrote: In recent history John Paul II argued that faith without reason leads to superstition (and reason without faith to nihilism and relativism).

"it is clear from the historical record that _________ has been probably the largest single and longest-term patron of science in history, that many contributors to the Scientific Revolution were ____________ , and that several ____________ and perspectives were key influences upon the rise of modern science."

Holly2003 wrote: The following comments aren't mine. In fact, they're from an Amazon book review. Gave me pause for thought. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let's suppose that in the future (if not now) the bots in a computer game become conscious...

Donna13 wrote: Scientists wake up with hunches and sometimes are able to lucky guess their way into a hypothesis.

So, for a scientist to close his/her mind to alternative possibilities, or answers, or an experiment that could disprove the hypothesis, then that (the closed mind), is not following the scientific method.

As Brian May (Queen reference in all arguments here - ha) has stated (I don't have the exact quote, but he answered the question - did he believe in God - in his RT interview), nobody has disproved that God exists, therefore the question (scientific or otherwise) is still there.

Donna13 wrote: "In the case of the Higgs Boson, one could argue that they accepted the position on faith, but it was mathematics that led to the hypothesis, not a bunch of guys wishing it would be true." I don't understand this sentence.

mooghead wrote: Remember, we are all born atheist.

AmericanThinker wrote: the endgame of any thinking and rational society should be the eventual complete extermination of religion.

mooghead wrote: "but I am an agnostic" No such thing, have a think and make your mind up, I am happy with whatever you decide. Remember, we are all born atheist. We only start believing when we start being indoctrinated by our parents and schools... Choose whatever you like, but unless it is YOUR decision you are not free....

The Real Wizard wrote:

AmericanThinker wrote: the endgame of any thinking and rational society should be the eventual complete extermination of religion.

I'm not so sure. A large percentage of our population still feels the need to externalize certain forms of control in their lives, and this is where religion comes in handy. If religion didn't exist or was banned, these same people would just seek something else to replace it. What we need to do as a society is evolve to a place where we're emotionally and spiritually self-sufficient, basing these things on experiences in the physical world. Some people are more than ready, and others have a long way to go.

The Real Wizard wrote: What we need to do as a society is evolve to a place where we're emotionally and spiritually self-sufficient, basing these things on experiences in the physical world. Some people are more than ready, and others have a long way to go.

AmericanThinker wrote: the endgame of any thinking and rational society should be the eventual complete extermination of religion.

GratefulFan wrote: ...but if there is one theme that has arisen here it seems to be the near complete absence of any self criticism or reflection from your side. Certainly between this and the Francis thread there seems to be no sense that behind the concept of religion lie people who can be hurt by words. I have left my computer in tears a half a dozen times at least in the last two weeks. I've been here a long enough time and there are people here who matter to me and the feeling of distance and alienation and indifference is difficult. As I said I fully accept I may have a blind spot. But certainly no such neglect of the humanity behind abstractions is made here when the extreme words or subtly demeaning themes are about, say, homosexuality. I've seen exponentially more upset over somebody asking if Fred was irresponsible about not wearing a condom on the third Tuesday in April than the persistent, grinding diminishment of faith and it's practice here. The only other time I felt remotely this way was during the Ground Zero Mosque discussions. Religion again. Clearly it's a tough subject for me. The way people conduct themselves just bewilders me and knocks me right over. Somehow that ended up in lingering distress, a bet, some chicken fajitas, and a confession.

Do with it, or not, whatever you like.

mooghead wrote: I'm not particularly friendly or unfriendly. I certainly don't believe its proper behaviour to go door to door disturbing people in their own homes asking leading questions for which ever answer you give they have a snide response for in an effort to indoctrinate you into their way of thinking. Tolerance anyone? No Awful behaviour.

mooghead wrote: Anyway... anyone come up with any proof of god yet? Preferably something that has been peer reviewed? Then I can hold my hands up and admit I was wrong and make up for several years of praying.....

Lostman wrote:

mooghead wrote: Anyway... anyone come up with any proof of god yet? Preferably something that has been peer reviewed? Then I can hold my hands up and admit I was wrong and make up for several years of praying.....

He just exists, he just does... :-)

mooghead wrote: Have a good easter everyone, loads of days off work, thank you jebus xxxxx

The Real Wizard wrote: And enjoy telling people that eggs and bunnies are pagan symbols for sex and fertility !

The Real Wizard wrote: A hi res version, just for you :-)

mooghead wrote: Ricky Gervais on Twitter.... .

GratefulFan wrote: Multiple sources claim it was redacted from the Facebook page of Richard Dawkins' Foundation for Reason and Science...

GratefulFan wrote: Lame. You put up a misleading and unsupportable bit of smug nonsense and can't even be arsed to care.

GratefulFan wrote: I hope you do care at some point. By far the most hurtful, overwhelming and psychologically battering aspect of these religion/atheism threads for me has been the disturbing and unsettling proximity to the mechanics of negative stereotyping and prejudice. To be caught under that over time was a mentally and emotionally crushing experience. The religion aspect is almost incidental because it could be anything dividing the few from the many here. When we see people as 'other' and 'different' we don't even use the same part of our brain as we do in relating to those 'in group'. The things that slip away are astonishing. Empathy, responsibility, granularity of thought, all numbed in a haze of being unable to relate and connect, and thus being unable to give much of a crap.

Panchgani wrote:

GratefulFan wrote: I hope you do care at some point. By far the most hurtful, overwhelming and psychologically battering aspect of these religion/atheism threads for me has been the disturbing and unsettling proximity to the mechanics of negative stereotyping and prejudice. To be caught under that over time was a mentally and emotionally crushing experience. The religion aspect is almost incidental because it could be anything dividing the few from the many here. When we see people as 'other' and 'different' we don't even use the same part of our brain as we do in relating to those 'in group'. The things that slip away are astonishing. Empathy, responsibility, granularity of thought, all numbed in a haze of being unable to relate and connect, and thus being unable to give much of a crap.

She will never care. The hatred of Militant atheists is more poisonous than any right wing religious cult.

Panchgani wrote:

GratefulFan wrote: I hope you do care at some point...The things that slip away are astonishing. Empathy, responsibility, granularity of thought, all numbed in a haze of being unable to relate and connect, and thus being unable to give much of a crap.

She will never care. The hatred of Militant atheists is more poisonous than any right wing religious cult.

The Real Wizard wrote: Exactly. Atheists have been responsible for countless wars, soldier funeral protests and encouraging people in Africa not to use condoms because they'll lead to AIDS. Thanks for that ever-needed sobering reminder.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: On topic: GratefulFan, I think a pretty poor case is made both by the Dawkins gang and by the blog you refer to. The exact origins of easter are very unclear - the only thing all serious historians agree on is that it is a Christianized version of some pagan festival. Very likely, it is derived from festivals celebrating the arrival of spring, which is pretty much universally celebrated. As such, fertility is a vital aspect, mostly in the form of spring representing the time when the earth itself is again becoming fertile and animals are forming couples. The egg as a symbol of fertility is so self-evident that I won't even go into it here. As nearly every culture had its own spring festival, it is likely that the Christianized easter had different origins in different places. In Germania, germanic antecedents would be likely, whereas the countries of the Levant would be more likely to incorporate Babylonian and Assyrian aspects. Ishtar is apparently identical with the older Sumerian Inanna. Of Inanna we know that she was celebrated on a special festival on the tenth day of the new year (i.e. the tenth day after the spring equinox), so she does tie in with easter. The problem with both the Dawkins-post and the blog you cite is that they assume a single origin for easter, which is a complete historical fallacy. The origins vary according to geographic, social and historical conditions.

Panchgani wrote: The hatred of Militant atheists is more poisonous than any right wing religious cult.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Apparently, you are not interested in the origin of easter at all. You are interested in finding something to beat the atheists with. I think that's more than a little sad. I also think the hostile tone of your last post is uncalled for and more than a little sad.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Apparently, you are not interested in the origin of easter at all. You are interested in finding something to beat the atheists with. I think that's more than a little sad. I also think the hostile tone of your last post is uncalled for and more than a little sad.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Apparently, you are not interested in the origin of easter at all. You are interested in finding something to beat the atheists with.

The Real Wizard wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Apparently, you are not interested in the origin of easter at all. You are interested in finding something to beat the atheists with.

Standing ovation.

The Real Wizard wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Apparently, you are not interested in the origin of easter at all. You are interested in finding something to beat the atheists with.

Standing ovation.

Holly2003 wrote: You're hardly in a position to lecture anyone about hostile and aggressive comments Thomas.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: The way you are abusing Bob is quite simply shameful. If there is one person here on QZ whom I would describe as humane and tolerant, it's Bob, and I am quite sure that a vast number of Zoners would side with me on that.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

Holly2003 wrote: You're hardly in a position to lecture anyone about hostile and aggressive comments Thomas.

I hold perhaps the most moderate opinion in this discussion, and this discussion is all that counts in this topic.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: I hold perhaps the most moderate opinion in this discussion, and this discussion is all that counts in this topic.

Zebonka12 wrote: But people, look at the fucking calendar already. We should be past so much of the bullshit that goes along with this stuff.

“…it's a lot easier for humans to contemplate what might be out there than it is to shoehorn our brains into grasping oblivion. The short version of the story is that we can't do it, as a matter of practicality. When you're dead, you can't be really said to be experiencing 'nothing' because you aren't there experiencing a damn thing. You don't wake up from it and subsequently say 'I guess that's what death is like, then!'. We simply don't get what 'nothing' is. So we make shit up. More palatable alternatives…”

Zebonka12 wrote: My issue is that not enough people bother to perform the thought process themselves, rational or otherwise. Whether you get an opinion because it's the one you were born with, or whether you arrive at it after thinking about an issue for a couple of decades whenever you're on the shitter - I mean, that's a pretty big difference right there.

Zebonka12 wrote: But people, look at the fucking calendar already. We should be past so much of the bullshit that goes along with this stuff. Every time I see a religious leader on the television I want to cry into my soup; they can't (or won't) acknowledge how ridiculous it is for them to be wearing their stupid pyjamas and giving people (frequently) irrelevant advice on how to live.

Zebonka12 wrote: I mean, that bloody Papal Conclave - I stayed up and watched the announcement, and it took a while for it all to sink in that there's probably a billion people watching this religious event take place, and it has *nothing* to do with God. God didn't cast a vote, he didn't pick anyone - it was a bunch of old codgers in a fuckin' room.

Zebonka12 wrote: I really am rambling but honestly - enough's enough. I think (and I wouldn't know where to begin as far as making the distinction goes) that there's a way to have your belief and feel that connection to 'whatever', and share that with people - *WITHOUT* all of the bullshit that goes with it. Without sharia law or Mormon doorknockers or a Pope with poisonous attitudes concerning just how much he should be allowed to meddle in the affairs of real people who are going to be influenced by his backwards and nonsensical ideas about contraception.

Zebonka12 wrote: We have enough of that from our elected officials. The only thing the Pope should ever fucking say - the only thing - is "Love each other!". Any institution that oversteps that mandate, as far as I'm concerned, ought to be bulldozed and turned into a bowling alley. And it's upsetting to me that this notion might be, in turn, upsetting to others - but that's fuckin' life. There are people in the world who think they have a meaningful opinion about my sideburns - I tell them to fuck off and I move on.

Donna13 wrote: Well, my third paragraph was responding to something another person brought up already.

GratefulFan wrote: You could imagine a graduation ceremony without a gowns? Or a Supreme Court?

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Well, what do you want? No matter what I write, your only response will be further bitching and moaning. In case you haven't noticed, there hasn't been any meaningful discussion for pages. It's mostly just you telling everyone else that they are wrong.

Zebonka12 wrote: "utter indifference to both them and reasonable standards of argument" Which is why it was a great idea to bring the Special Olympics into it, no doubt. Laughable in all of the wrong ways.

The Real Wizard wrote: Seriously GF - you have become very embittered as of late. You used to be a wonderful voice of reason at this place. But these past few months you have become completely closed-minded to any views other than your own and have made it a full time job to troll people who are rationally picking apart your ever-worsening arguments. You present yourself as being open-minded, but these past couple weeks you've revealed yourself to be far more dogmatic than even you might realize. Just an observation - take it how you will. All BS stripped away, I sincerely hope you're doing alright.

The Real Wizard wrote: Seriously GF - you have become very embittered as of late. You used to be a wonderful voice of reason at this place. But these past few months you have become completely closed-minded to any views other than your own and have made it a full time job to troll people who are rationally picking apart your ever-worsening arguments. You present yourself as being open-minded, but these past couple weeks you've revealed yourself to be far more dogmatic than even you might realize. Just an observation - take it how you will. All BS stripped away, I sincerely hope you're doing alright.

GratefulFan wrote:

Zebonka12 wrote: "utter indifference to both them and reasonable standards of argument" Which is why it was a great idea to bring the Special Olympics into it, no doubt. Laughable in all of the wrong ways.

Coming from the guy who has zero, I mean ZERO boundaries when it comes to humour this is a bit precious. Ha! Very true.

The Real Wizard wrote: Seriously GF - you have become very embittered as of late. You used to be a wonderful voice of reason at this place. But these past few months... All BS stripped away, I sincerely hope you're doing alright.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: GratefulFan... I have never seen you act in a way such as you have these last few pages, which I can only describe as fanatical and deeply worrying.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: ...the hostility (and name-calling) has been present for many pages.

GratefulFan wrote: Today, I managed to give myself a great big concussion.

Holly2003 wrote: Meanwhile, In Cyprus the Orthodox Church offered it's entire wealth to shore up the struggling economy.* Evil bastards indeed ...

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

Holly2003 wrote: Meanwhile, In Cyprus the Orthodox Church offered it's entire wealth to shore up the struggling economy.* Evil bastards indeed ...

Of course, the fact that the Church Of Cyprus owns vast tracts of land not to mention majority interests in banks and countless commercial businesses on the island is completely irrelevant to this gesture...self-interest is absolutely not involved, and aside from that, it's perfectly acceptable for a modern, secular democracy to have a *state church* that owns a considerable portion of supposedly free enterprise in said country. Perhaps you need to read up on some of the details before you start applauding.

Holly2003 wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

Holly2003 wrote: Meanwhile, In Cyprus the Orthodox Church offered it's entire wealth to shore up the struggling economy.* Evil bastards indeed ...

Of course, the fact that the Church Of Cyprus owns vast tracts of land not to mention majority interests in banks and countless commercial businesses on the island is completely irrelevant to this gesture...self-interest is absolutely not involved, and aside from that, it's perfectly acceptable for a modern, secular democracy to have a *state church* that owns a considerable portion of supposedly free enterprise in said country. Perhaps you need to read up on some of the details before you start applauding.

Oh ffs read ALL of what I said and not just the one bit you quoted.

Holly2003 wrote: Or maybe you've just made an ass of yourself again. How many times is that now?

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Of course, the fact that the Church Of Cyprus owns vast tracts of land not to mention majority interests in banks and countless commercial businesses on the island is completely irrelevant to this gesture...self-interest is absolutely not involved, and aside from that, it's perfectly acceptable for a modern, secular democracy to have a *state church* that owns a considerable portion of supposedly free enterprise in said country. Perhaps you need to read up on some of the details before you start applauding.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Posted: 09 Apr 13, 20:47

The Real Wizard wrote: Seriously GF - you have become very embittered as of late. You used to be a wonderful voice of reason at this place. But these past few months... All BS stripped away, I sincerely hope you're doing alright.

Posted: 03 Apr 13, 09:51

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: GratefulFan... I have never seen you act in a way such as you have these last few pages, which I can only describe as fanatical and deeply worrying.

Posted: 02 Apr 13, 07:43

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: ...the hostility (and name-calling) has been present for many pages.

Posted: 13 Jan 13, 18:19

GratefulFan wrote: Today, I managed to give myself a great big concussion.

GratefulFan wrote: You and bigot #2 seriously make me sick down to my toes and you can be assured that every drop of anger and disgust comes from that place and nowhere else.

GratefulFan wrote: It's not inherently evil or suspicious that a large religious organization has assets and investments and owns businesses.

Zebonka12 wrote: "zero, I mean ZERO boundaries" Er ... when did I ever claim to have them? First of all, there are actually a couple of things I haven't joked about here (I'd be a fool if I named either of them), but the real issue here is that I don't actually lay claim to any higher standards or boundaries in that regard. But you seem to, and I think it's actually laughable that you can parade such a double standard in broad daylight like that. The point I was making is that I haven't got anything to live up to - it's just hilarious that for all of your folderol in this thread, you'd still resort to such base tactics. It puts the rest of your posts into a pretty clear context, I'll say that much. And my issue isn't even whether or not using Special Olympics as some kind of hyperbole is offensive or not. I'm not offended. For one thing it's always struck me as a bit bizarre to use a bunch of physically impaired athletes as an example of something pointless, frivolous, below-par or pathetic - considering a lot of them are able to achieve more in their chosen field than a lot of the perfectly able people who use the phrase in the first place! It's not even offensiveness I'm talking about here, I want to make that clear - it's more the laziness inherent in using the term, and I suppose the bold inaccuracy of it.

The Real Wizard wrote:

GratefulFan wrote: It's not inherently evil or suspicious that a large religious organization has assets and investments and owns businesses.

It'd better not be suspicious since they aren't taxed. There is nothing benevolent about this action. They are bailing out the country because it is good for business, which is what churches ultimately are. And arguably the most successful business of all. They've lasted for 1700 years on the basis of a story of a guy being crucified and coming back to life on the third day - a story that's been told at least 15 times before in traditions prior to theirs (knowledge of which is actively suppressed to this day), a fact which I suspect at least 95 percent of its customers ("adherents" is a somewhat misleading term) aren't aware of. Take it from here, Mr. Carlin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6ZcA4uGgRI FYI, these are not "absurd, insulting and unsupported generalizations." They are undeniable fact. Carry on..

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: That last post of yours is truly a masterpiece of defective reasoning. Here's your argument in schematics: 1) You're not opposed to religion in general, you're anti-Christian 2) If the discussion were about some other religion, you'd be all for it 3) If I'm actually wrong and points 1 and 2 don't apply, you're still bigots. And you claim the authority to dismiss other people's reasoning? That is beyond sad.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: The bloody irony of you trying to take the moral and intellectual high ground in a discussion where you have done nothing except come up with short flame-posts! Holly, if you had an ounce of decency, you'd be ashamed of yourself. Apparently, you don't even realize what a complete ass you make of yourself. You're free to disagree with Zeb, but if you dismiss his entire explanation of the point you were too lazy to be bothered reading with a thoroughly immature and superficial flame, you show yourself to be a sad little troll. I find GratefulFan's behaviour in this topic deeply disturbing and fanatical, but at least GratefulFan attempts a real discussion from time to time. You, Holly, are just trolling.

Holly2003 wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: The bloody irony of you trying to take the moral and intellectual high ground in a discussion where you have done nothing except come up with short flame-posts! Holly, if you had an ounce of decency, you'd be ashamed of yourself. Apparently, you don't even realize what a complete ass you make of yourself. You're free to disagree with Zeb, but if you dismiss his entire explanation of the point you were too lazy to be bothered reading with a thoroughly immature and superficial flame, you show yourself to be a sad little troll. I find GratefulFan's behaviour in this topic deeply disturbing and fanatical, but at least GratefulFan attempts a real discussion from time to time. You, Holly, are just trolling.

I am simply holding a mirror up to your behaviour. Those with limited self-awareness of their own moral, cultural or intellectual bias often blame the messenger.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: And again, a flame, no argument, no explanation, no content. You refuse to put your money where your mouth is by pointing out the supposed fallacies you're screaming about. In fact, you are pretty much admitting that you are actually a troll. Furthermore, if you think "most of [my] time on Queenzone is spent abusing those [I] disagree with", you evidently take an extremely selective sample of my posts. Of course, the irony of someone who has spent the last couple of pages of this discussion abusing everyone who disagrees with said person telling me that I spend all my time abusing others is entirely lost on you. The pathetic way in which you try to get me angry by questioning my intelligence is just further evidence of the depths to which you will sink. You simplify every opposing position into either intellectual dishonesty, lack of intelligence or anti-Christianity. Now who's the intolerant bigot?

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: And again, a flame, no argument, no explanation, no content. You refuse to put your money where your mouth is by pointing out the supposed fallacies you're screaming about. In fact, you are pretty much admitting that you are actually a troll.

Zebonka12 wrote: "logical contortions" If you view what I was saying as any kind of contortion, I can only assume you're just being inflexible. Your prerogative. Not much else to say to your subsequent posts (or TQ's) other than that the idea that I'm merely pissed with Christianity and not Islam and the rest is utterly silly. Out of my own laziness I'm not even sure if other religions have been brought into the thread (yet), so I didn't mention them. Y'all keep saying things that don't apply to me (this 'Why Christianity and not the others?' thing is an example) so I'll have to play it safe and assume I keep getting someone else's mail here.

Zebonka12 wrote: "pissing in the wind" The wind doesn't always blow in the same direction. I mean truly, I want to sit down and make some sense of this train wreck of a thread, but it would involve me having to sit down and actually read some of this crap again. All I can get is a strong whiff of some people trying to blame the ills of humanity on religion, and some other people saying 'no way, it's done all of these great things' - and an odd unwillingness to consider a mesh of the two.

Zebonka12 wrote: I don't really know if I've made it obvious enough as yet, but inasmuch as I don't buy GratefulFan's pitch on this topic, neither would I want to align myself wholly with TQ's.

Zebonka12 wrote: Y'all keep saying things that don't apply to me (this 'Why Christianity and not the others?' thing is an example) so I'll have to play it safe and assume I keep getting someone else's mail here.

Panchgani wrote: GF - MHO ... The "Unholy Trinity" (GH, TQ & FM) are not worthy of your attention. Trying to rationally discuss a moderate opinion on QZ is like pissing in the wind. Please do yourself a favor and ignore them. A fight against willful ignorance is futile.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Zeb, I've found your posts in this thread to be well-considered, profound and balanced.

Zebonka12 wrote: But people, look at the fucking calendar already. We should be past so much of the bullshit that goes along with this stuff. Every time I see a religious leader on the television I want to cry into my soup; they can't (or won't) acknowledge how ridiculous it is for them to be wearing their stupid pyjamas and giving people (frequently) irrelevant advice on how to live. Half the time I feel like I've backed into a time machine and I'm lost in some quaint, idiotic alternate reality where civilisation is stuck in second gear or something. I mean, that bloody Papal Conclave - I stayed up and watched the announcement, and it took a while for it all to sink in that there's probably a billion people watching this religious event take place, and it has *nothing* to do with God. God didn't cast a vote, he didn't pick anyone - it was a bunch of old codgers in a fuckin' room. I really am rambling but honestly - enough's enough. I think (and I wouldn't know where to begin as far as making the distinction goes) that there's a way to have your belief and feel that connection to 'whatever', and share that with people - *WITHOUT* all of the bullshit that goes with it. Without sharia law or Mormon doorknockers or a Pope with poisonous attitudes concerning just how much he should be allowed to meddle in the affairs of real people who are going to be influenced by his backwards and nonsensical ideas about contraception. We have enough of that from our elected officials. The only thing the Pope should ever fucking say - the only thing - is "Love each other!". Any institution that oversteps that mandate, as far as I'm concerned, ought to be bulldozed and turned into a bowling alley. And it's upsetting to me that this notion might be, in turn, upsetting to others - but that's fuckin' life. There are people in the world who think they have a meaningful opinion about my sideburns - I tell them to fuck off and I move on.

catqueen wrote: And (to finally get to my point) -- Zeb, i totally agree. It breaks my heart when i see stuff like that. It's so wrong for people to claim divine authority to push their own ideas, and to use the power of people's belief/tradition/background to influence them to follow the religious person's agenda. Churches don't have to be like that. My church is amazing, people are loved for who they are. We teach what we believe to be true clearly and uncompromisingly, but it's taught in love. There are people who come regularly who don't agree with some of the major teachings -- they are still welcome and loved. That is how a church is SUPPOSED to be, and it's completely wrong when it's just some pompous guy who doesn't care, talking down to people and telling everyone else how they should live.

Zebonka12 wrote: On a person to person level, I haven't really got any axe to grind with this stuff. I keep hammering on this drum, but it seems some of us do get mixed up between jabs at the higher levels of the establishment vs. some kind of mean-spirited attack on people's feelings about spooky stuff.

catqueen wrote: I think saying that 'the church is corrupt, therefore there is no God,' 'the church is corrupt so i won't have anything to do with God' or similar is unfair. It's tragic that so much of the church is corrupt, it's wrong -- maybe evil -- that there is so much wrong with the church. But that in itself is not an argument for or against the existence of God.

GratefulFan wrote:

Zebonka12 wrote: On a person to person level, I haven't really got any axe to grind with this stuff. I keep hammering on this drum, but it seems some of us do get mixed up between jabs at the higher levels of the establishment vs. some kind of mean-spirited attack on people's feelings about spooky stuff.

Just so we're clear, your imprudent decision to speak in belittling generalities isn't anybody else's failure to adequately discern.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: TQ, to paraphrase Panchgani's comment to GF - don't waste your time arguing. We've been doing that for 16 pages now and the responses have been filled with rage, hysteria, insults, fictitious identities and purposeful twists of perceptions. In other words, anything to get off topic, which is what the personal attacks are about. Distraction. You're better than that. The "unholy trinity" (that is Bob, you and me, apparently) is better than that. So are our points. It's wasted energy to hope the other side will see that.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Are you really so desperate to spit venom at people whose views are not your own that you will resort to doing so when it's completely out of context?

GratefulFan wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Are you really so desperate to spit venom at people whose views are not your own that you will resort to doing so when it's completely out of context?

I have sufficient faith in Zebonka's intelligence that he'll understand that it's completely in context and hardly venomous. You, not so much.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: I'm afraid it seems you're right. Still, it's a shame that GF and Holly are doing this, as there are also people, like catqueen, who do want to have a decent, sensible discussion. I did have a laugh at the "unholy trinity" bit. Considering that they call me that, and the Dawkins-followers have in the past accused me of being a "religious fanatic", I think I'm succeeding pretty well in holding a moderate position between both extremes. I do find it disturbing that someone like GF, who often, though IMHO far from always, seems quite reasonable outside this discussion, is apparently honest in the belief that she (I think?) holds a moderate position. Holly, I'm convinced, is really just trolling.

GratefulFan wrote:

catqueen wrote: And (to finally get to my point) -- Zeb, i totally agree. It breaks my heart when i see stuff like that. It's so wrong for people to claim divine authority to push their own ideas, and to use the power of people's belief/tradition/background to influence them to follow the religious person's agenda. Churches don't have to be like that. My church is amazing, people are loved for who they are. We teach what we believe to be true clearly and uncompromisingly, but it's taught in love. There are people who come regularly who don't agree with some of the major teachings -- they are still welcome and loved. That is how a church is SUPPOSED to be, and it's completely wrong when it's just some pompous guy who doesn't care, talking down to people and telling everyone else how they should live.

Your description of your church pretty much describes every church I've ever spent enough time in to form an opinion. It's not clear who you're condemning here and where you're drawing the line between religion as a positive force and religion as a negative force. Who are these pompous people who don't care? Doesn't that beg for some specificity or at least some reasonable categorization? Is it televangelists maybe? And is some of your stuff directed to Catholicism and the Catholic Church specifically, as Zebonka's was? Again, its just not clear. Zebonka's comments about crying in his soup over people in their pyjamas were sufficiently broad and encompassing that they certainly didn't exclude your church. Do you think they did?

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

catqueen wrote: I think saying that 'the church is corrupt, therefore there is no God,' 'the church is corrupt so i won't have anything to do with God' or similar is unfair. It's tragic that so much of the church is corrupt, it's wrong -- maybe evil -- that there is so much wrong with the church. But that in itself is not an argument for or against the existence of God.

Just to be clear here: I don't think anyone in this discussion apart from the topic starter is talking about whether or not there is a god, and I certainly don't think there are many here who would not allow other people to believe.
That is fair enough -- and maybe i'm over sensitive. But a lot of people that i've met don't want to consider whether or not they believe in God because they have experienced so much pain at the hands of religious people. And i do think that's sad. So it is important to me to separate the two.

Zebonka12 wrote: *shrug* Makes sense to me! I probably didn't bring it up in this thread but we've had these religious topics on QZ before, and I've said it at least once - I've had some pretty full-on Christians for friends, and our conflicting ideas never stopped us from getting on. One of them knew how I felt about establishments, and was a little touchy about it, but she got it all the same. I mean I could've given her shit for her feelings about evolution, but honestly - why bother? On a person to person level, I haven't really got any axe to grind with this stuff. I keep hammering on this drum, but it seems some of us do get mixed up between jabs at the higher levels of the establishment vs. some kind of mean-spirited attack on people's feelings about spooky stuff. You might call it attrition, although I'd be happy if we could go without it. If I haven't made that clear enough yet, then my bad. But for me, the two really are separate discussions, and if I wandered into the wrong one here, then again - my bad.

catqueen wrote: That probably makes no sense :/ Not v coherent today...

catqueen wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

catqueen wrote: I think saying that 'the church is corrupt, therefore there is no God,' 'the church is corrupt so i won't have anything to do with God' or similar is unfair. It's tragic that so much of the church is corrupt, it's wrong -- maybe evil -- that there is so much wrong with the church. But that in itself is not an argument for or against the existence of God.

Just to be clear here: I don't think anyone in this discussion apart from the topic starter is talking about whether or not there is a god, and I certainly don't think there are many here who would not allow other people to believe.

That is fair enough -- and maybe i'm over sensitive.o But a lot of people that i've met don't want to consider whether or not they believe in God because they have experienced so much pain at the hands of religious people. And i do think that's sad. So it is important to me to separate the two.

mooghead wrote: Policies/views.. all irrelevant..... everyone is entitled to them, still looking to be convinced by the god thing I love looking round churches and cathedrals.. they are amazing buildings... Anyone got god to flash in front of my eyes yet? Getting tired of waiting.....

catqueen wrote: Well, I completely agree with you there. As for pain experienced at the hands of religious people: I live in a bible belt region, and in my work I encounter quite a number of ultra-rthodox religious people. Most of them are quite civil and tolerant, yet the religious political party that claims to represent them does all it can to make life hard on anyone who isn't part of their little club. For instance, they actively seek to make it impossible for *any* event to take place on Sundays, because it would violate their right to rest on the sabbath day - even when said events are located several miles from the nearest church and far from residential areas. Do I think the orthodox religious people are evil because of that? No, I don't. My firsthand experience shows me that most of the people who attend the church and vote for the party don't hold such views. But I certainly do think the political party claiming to represent them is evil, as is the power-structure in the church that keeps trying to persecute those who hold different views from theirs. What is really disturbing to me is that these people are indoctrinated to support those leaders despite the fact that they don't support their policies.

mooghead wrote: Policies/views.. all irrelevant..... everyone is entitled to them, still looking to be convinced by the god thing I love looking round churches and cathedrals.. they are amazing buildings... Anyone got god to flash in front of my eyes yet? Getting tired of waiting.....

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: It did make sense, catqueen. And I’m happy to know you found a happy welcoming church after leaving the strict harsh one to which you had once belonged. I think yours is a beautiful example of how someone’s faith can be so much a part of who they are yet not overshadow the fact that others will/can/do feel differently.

mooghead wrote: Policies/views.. all irrelevant..... everyone is entitled to them, still looking to be convinced by the god thing I love looking round churches and cathedrals.. they are amazing buildings... Anyone got god to flash in front of my eyes yet? Getting tired of waiting.....

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: What is really disturbing to me is that these people are indoctrinated to support those leaders despite the fact that they don't support their policies.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: I don't like bishops writing letters to their flock telling them not to use condoms because they will give you AIDS.

Zebonka12 wrote: Yeah, I didn't take it as venom. But I think I've already answered to the charge of being vague about all of this - it's a matter of time for me. I want to sit down and get specific and trawl for old links that I found interesting, but I keep getting distracted by other shit I'm supposed to be doing. So there's that. I think I now know how it feels to try and quit smoking.

catqueen wrote: And i guess it's typical of anyone with an extremely strong view on certain issues to vote in favour of those issues, no matter what the other issues may be involved are. You can see the same with pro-life and pro-choice people -- they often follow that issue and ignore the many other issues that the person they are voting for/supporting may be involved in.

GratefulFan wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: I don't like bishops writing letters to their flock telling them not to use condoms because they will give you AIDS.

As I've already explained, at great multi-paragraph length, the implication of that is simply not true. It's not. It's a handy misrepresentation of facts that allows weak minded liberals who should know better to wallow in their self-affirming version of anti-Semitism. Why would you volunteer to be such a risible moron? Google hard and google often. "The door of a[n apprentice] bigoted's mind opens outwards so that the only result of the pressure of facts upon it is to close it more snugly.” -Ogden Nash

Holly2003 wrote: scum? And this from the guy claiming not be be abusive ...

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

Holly2003 wrote: scum? And this from the guy claiming not be be abusive ...

When provoked to the extreme with accusations of anti-Semitism, yes. But I see you are also trying to weasel out of the real content of the post, namely proof that GF is a liar.

Holly2003 wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

Holly2003 wrote: scum? And this from the guy claiming not be be abusive ...

When provoked to the extreme with accusations of anti-Semitism, yes. But I see you are also trying to weasel out of the real content of the post, namely proof that GF is a liar.

I don't have to weasel out of anything since I didn't make the remarks and am not responsible for them. In contrast, yesterday you claimed yesterday not to be abusive and to be moderate (while calling me a troll) and here you are the next day calling GF "scum".  Oh dear ...

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Yeah, and unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism have nothing to do with that, of course...

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: So, in summary, you are a complete and total liar.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Yeah, and unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism have nothing to do with that, of course...

Oh tsk, tsk, TQ. Didn't you know? The spewing of such slanderous insults is permitted from one side only. Those on the other side must not respond in kind but must, instead, take their lumps without retort lest they be deemed created of some lesser moral fabric.

Donna13 wrote: And this is why we are told not to discuss religion or politics at the dinner table. Ha. I guess because people have to feel a sense of friendship and acceptance in order to digest their food. After I feed my little dogs their dinner, I always rub their fur and tell them in a very happy voice that I am glad they ate their dinner. They love this and get very wiggly and happy. And I think this makes them healthier - this feeling of being loved and appreciated at dinnertime.

tcc wrote: I can tell you a true story to give you guys a break. I studied in a Christian mission school and there was a chapel for students to pray when they want. As usual, before exam time, a lot of students would go there to pray. On day, a teacher told us that it was no use praying to God at the last minute because God help those who help themselves. One classmate turned to me and said "If I can help myself I don't need God".

Donna12 wrote: After I feed my little dogs their dinner, I always rub their fur and tell them in a very happy voice that I am glad they ate their dinner. They love this and get very wiggly and happy. And I think this makes them healthier - this feeling of being loved and appreciated at dinnertime.

tcc wrote: When people asked him why he believed in all three different religions, he said "just in case.....".

GratefulFan wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: So, in summary, you are a complete and total liar.

The lone archbishop who thinks somebody in Europe is lacing condoms and AIDS medication to finish of the African people can't blamed be on broad Catholic policy Thomas. Get real. Even the article, from a Catholic news site, noted "However, Archbishop Francisco Chimoio’s opposition to condoms goes beyond the Church’s teaching on sex and sexuality." There are paranoid, rogue people in every profession and sometimes they end up with a public voice. It's unfortunate but it happens.

It's true however that suspicion about the wisdom and efficacy of condom campaigns in Africa was generally shared by the Catholic hierarchy in the early years of the new millenium.

Trujillo's case that condoms could allow HIV to pass through was the first attempt to bring science to an increasingly held belief by the Church that condom campaigns were failing Africa.

It was intended to support feelings that the use of condoms to protect against AIDS in Africa was "Russian Roulette....leading people to think they are fully protected" and that the promotion of condoms as the answer to AIDS "is to lead many to their death." Instead, fidelity or abstinence was the answer. It's true the use of science in those early years was somewhat selective and overstated, and outside of the consensus of the day, but it wasn't entirely incorrect. See link.

At the bottom of that 2004 piece were some of the thoughts of the very early scientific and epidemiological proponents of the then radical idea that condoms needed a second look at there was increasing evidence that they were not fulfilling their promise in Africa. One scientific source used by Trujillo and the Church in 2004 was described in 2009 by Harvard AIDS specialist Edward Green this way: In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations' AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa. UNAIDS quietly disowned the study. (The authors eventually managed to publish their findings in the quarterly Studies in Family Planning.) Since then, major articles in other peer-reviewed journals such as the Lancet, Science and BMJ have confirmed that condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of Africa." It's of course hard to know how that 2004 coverage might have differed if what is known today was known then. Your use of Benedict's quote as the final nail in your coffin of 'moderation' is one more irritating example of having to follow you around and mop up completely unnecessary stupidity. That is the precise quote I used to show that the statement was true, science based and directly and explicitly supported by epidemiology and epidemiologists in 2009. I'm not going to reargue the whole thing because it's all there in my previous post. The somewhat retroactively "well duh" truth is that when 25% and more of the young people in a country are infected with HIV a device with a non insignificant risk of physical and human failure is a terrible primary strategy to fight the spread of AIDS. We now know that an emphasis on condom distribution campaigns almost certainly increased infections in these countries. Edward Green again: So what has worked in Africa? Strategies that break up these multiple and concurrent sexual networks -- or, in plain language, faithful mutual monogamy or at least reduction in numbers of partners, especially concurrent ones. "Closed" or faithful polygamy can work as well.

Condoms are dead last on everybody's list now. How the African epidemics might have charted a different course if the hard to displace western condom orthodoxies had been more critically looked at in the early 2000's when the Church and others first raised alarms cannot be known. If people were remotely able to wrestle in their rabid hatred for the Catholic Church, in your case apparently to the point of being willing to indirectly continue the outdated and deadly promotion of condoms as the primary solution to AIDS in Africa, it would be interesting to consider the implications of the fact that in being behind the Vatican was actually ahead.

Here are the raft of the 'the Pope was right' stories from 2009, which also catch the Church stance on condoms in countries in which the epidemiological patterns are different. link

That anti-catholism is the new anti-semitism of elements of the left has been passionately and painstakingly argued in scholarship and books for some time. In my long experience it is certainly so. Sorry about your modern day anti-semitism Thomas. You should work on that.

That anti-catholism is the new anti-semitism of elements of the left has been passionately and painstakingly argued in scholarship and books for some time. In my long experience it is certainly so. Sorry about your modern day anti-semitism Thomas. You should work on that.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Are you even capable of reading? The quote you attacked me on was "I don't like bishops writing letters to their flock telling them not to use condoms because they will give you AIDS." That is *exactly* what I have *proven* to you was done. All your "the lone archbishop ... can't be blamed on broad Catholic policy" is just a load of crap to distract from the point. I never said anything about "broad Catholic policy", I said I didn't like bishops telling their flock the exact lies that this (arch)bishop told his. You were wrong. Deal with it.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: No, it was an attempt to use science to support established doctrine. "Condoms are a moral evil" is the dogma - anything that would support that view was welcome.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: In your view, when a little over 2% of tested types of condoms (from a sample of 470) are theoretically penetrable to the HIV virus, it is "not entirely incorrect" to say that condoms do not protect against AIDS at all. Which is what Trujillo did. If that is your view, than in your view no politician has ever told a lie, and every time you have accused me of saying something that isn't true, I was considerably more than "not entirely incorrect".

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Also, the fact that Edward C. Green himself pointed out that "the tendency of people in steady relationships to not use condoms" was the primary reason for the fact that the spread of AIDS wasn't slowing down as fast as was expected (Cassell MM, et al. (2006). "Risk compensation: the Achilles' heel of innovations in HIV prevention?" BMJ 332(7541): 605-607.) is something you gladly ignore. So when people refuse to use condoms and get AIDS because of that, it proves that condoms are inadequate protection, right?

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Yeah, sure. Of course, "everyone" does not include the CDC (link, the European Commission's health advisory (link, this particular publication refers to work in Myanmar) or Doctors Without Borders (link, but hey, what do they know? They're only fighting the epidemic. But of course, you gladly ignore all publications that dissented. Obviously they were all communist anti-Catholics, especially Doctors Without Borders.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: GF's answer to AIDS: teach the darkies abstinence. Welcome back to 1880. Sure, there wasn't any AIDS then, but that doesn't mean their views don't still apply, right?

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: This is truly pathetic, as pathetic as all the cheap jabs at me you tried to make in your later posts. Maybe, if you had a little knowledge of history, you'd be aware that anti-Semitism is the hatred of Jews. Not of rabbi's, of Jewish theology or of Jewish institutions, but the complete, total, wholesale hatred of every single Jewish man, woman or child. If you will compare severe criticism of the Vatican (i.e. catholic leadership and institutions) with that, you have not an ounce of decency. You are so desperate to be persecuted that you will abuse anything to make yourself look like a poor victim.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

Zebonka12 wrote: Y'all keep saying things that don't apply to me (this 'Why Christianity and not the others?' thing is an example) so I'll have to play it safe and assume I keep getting someone else's mail here.

Zeb, I've found your posts in this thread to be well-considered, profound and balanced. That surprised me since I'm used to seeing one-liners from you. Sadly, the responses that seem directed to someone else - the contorting of your words and meaning - are just a symptom of this thread and have been happening since the early pages. I think when people come into a discussion believing their way is the right way for everyone, anyone who shows an opposing perspective - for whatever reason - is attacked. I, for one, am glad you've posted these comments, and I have found them to be quite grounding. TQ, to paraphrase Panchgani's comment to GF - don't waste your time arguing. We've been doing that for 16 pages now and the responses have been filled with rage, hysteria, insults, fictitious identities and purposeful twists of perceptions. In other words, anything to get off topic, which is what the personal attacks are about. Distraction. You're better than that. The "unholy trinity" (that is Bob, you and me, apparently) is better than that. So are our points. It's wasted energy to hope the other side will see that.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

GratefulFan wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Are you really so desperate to spit venom at people whose views are not your own that you will resort to doing so when it's completely out of context?

I have sufficient faith in Zebonka's intelligence that he'll understand that it's completely in context and hardly venomous. You, not so much.

Do you honestly fail to understand what you yourself write? God, I've had it with you. I'm going to take the above advise and stop wasting time on you.

GratefulFan wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: It did make sense, catqueen. And I’m happy to know you found a happy welcoming church after leaving the strict harsh one to which you had once belonged. I think yours is a beautiful example of how someone’s faith can be so much a part of who they are yet not overshadow the fact that others will/can/do feel differently.

And just when I thought you'd run out of ways to make me ill on this topic. Why don't you take a moment to explain to catqueen how her faith is a crutch? And perhaps a moment to explain to me why Catholicism should be overshadowed by your unprincipled willingness to drag around unjust characterizations of a Pope's words on AIDS in Africa for example, or subjected to inane stabs at the dearth of 'higher intelligence' back though hundreds of years such leaders. Nobody who has been remotely paying attention thinks you have a single ounce of respect or regard for anybody's religious practice. Please. This entire thread has been an exercise in watching the masks slowly slip off a couple of bigots. Nice try on the tolerant long suffering reasonableness, but but your hair is a mess, your shirt is on backwards and you've got lipstick smeared down to your chin. My last internal defense of you on this topic was that you at least had the courage of your distasteful convictions. I'll light a candle.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

GratefulFan wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: I don't like bishops writing letters to their flock telling them not to use condoms because they will give you AIDS.

As I've already explained, at great multi-paragraph length, the implication of that is simply not true. It's not. It's a handy misrepresentation of facts that allows weak minded liberals who should know better to wallow in their self-affirming version of anti-Semitism. Why would you volunteer to be such a risible moron? Google hard and google often. "The door of a[n apprentice] bigoted's mind opens outwards so that the only result of the pressure of facts upon it is to close it more snugly.” -Ogden Nash

You are a slandering liar. Your accusation of anti-Semitism is frankly perverse. I shouldn't be responding to scum like you, but I can't pass up on this opportunity to prove what a lying ass you are. * In 2007, Archbishop Francisco Chimoio of Mozambique announced that European condom manufacturers are deliberately infecting condoms with HIV to spread Aids in Africa. link Chimoio isn't alone, aid workers report that the Catholic church is making it impossible for them to hand out condoms to those who do want them, and that priests tell the populace that condoms are laced with the HIV virus. link In a 2003 BBC documentary the South American cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo asserted that condoms don't protect against AIDS at all, and that the use of condoms thus helps spread AIDS. link " In March 2009, on his flight to Cameroon (where 540,000 people have HIV), Pope Benedict XVI explained that Aids is a tragedy "that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems". In May 2009, the Congolese bishops conference made a happy announcement: "In all truth, the pope's message which we received with joy has confirmed us in our fight against HIV/Aids. We say no to condoms!" " link There are also plenty of deranged baptists who make the same claims: link So, in summary, you are a complete and total liar.

GratefulFan wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Yeah, and unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism have nothing to do with that, of course...

Oh tsk, tsk, TQ. Didn't you know? The spewing of such slanderous insults is permitted from one side only. Those on the other side must not respond in kind but must, instead, take their lumps without retort lest they be deemed created of some lesser moral fabric.

Stop being a bigot and you won't have to worry about having your distasteful and shameful behaviour outed. And seriously, taking intellectual succor from ThomasQuinn is the QZ version of failing an IQ test.

The Real Wizard wrote: This may be the best ever thread at this website. And it led to the crowning of the three greatest posters in the history of Queenzone. Let us all rejoice. Preferably in a non-theistic way.

The Real Wizard wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

GratefulFan wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: I don't like bishops writing letters to their flock telling them not to use condoms because they will give you AIDS.

As I've already explained, at great multi-paragraph length, the implication of that is simply not true. It's not. It's a handy misrepresentation of facts that allows weak minded liberals who should know better to wallow in their self-affirming version of anti-Semitism. Why would you volunteer to be such a risible moron? Google hard and google often. "The door of a[n apprentice] bigoted's mind opens outwards so that the only result of the pressure of facts upon it is to close it more snugly.” -Ogden Nash

You are a slandering liar. Your accusation of anti-Semitism is frankly perverse. I shouldn't be responding to scum like you, but I can't pass up on this opportunity to prove what a lying ass you are. * In 2007, Archbishop Francisco Chimoio of Mozambique announced that European condom manufacturers are deliberately infecting condoms with HIV to spread Aids in Africa. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/african_archbishop_claims_condoms_were_infected_with_aids/ Chimoio isn't alone, aid workers report that the Catholic church is making it impossible for them to hand out condoms to those who do want them, and that priests tell the populace that condoms are laced with the HIV virus. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids In a 2003 BBC documentary the South American cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo asserted that condoms don't protect against AIDS at all, and that the use of condoms thus helps spread AIDS. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/22/catholicism.colombia " In March 2009, on his flight to Cameroon (where 540,000 people have HIV), Pope Benedict XVI explained that Aids is a tragedy "that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems". In May 2009, the Congolese bishops conference made a happy announcement: "In all truth, the pope's message which we received with joy has confirmed us in our fight against HIV/Aids. We say no to condoms!" " http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/11/bad-science-pope-anti-condom There are also plenty of deranged baptists who make the same claims: http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=54128 So, in summary, you are a complete and total liar.

Standing ovation. This may be the best ever thread at this website. 

The Real Wizard wrote: That's so cooooooooooool ... I've always been in a club with you. TQ is cooking dinner. I've heard he makes a mean bigot roast.

The Real Wizard wrote: If you don't like the guy, that's fine (well it isn't, since anyone of sane mind can't possibly find anything not to like). But please, don't let it cloud your judgement to the point of looking like a complete idiot. He is the absolute finest investigative historian Queenzone (and likely almost any other forum you've ever read) has to offer.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote: This may be the best ever thread at this website. And it led to the crowning of the three greatest posters in the history of Queenzone. Let us all rejoice. Preferably in a non-theistic way.

Our crowning ceremony should include not just crowns but the entire ensemble.

The Real Wizard wrote: For fuck's sake - it seriously saddens me to see you stoop so low, to actually become an internet troll. I had such hope for you. Point me to the post where MFM (or anyone, for that matter) said all adherents of every religion use it at a crutch. Write a book. Do something useful. You have the intellect. Maybe then you'll stop trolling people in your spare time and make better use of it.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: I not only talk to people, but I have also been on both sides of the religious wall. There are many like myself who see religion as a crutch. And there are many, like my parents and others, who see it as a lifeline.

GratefulFan wrote: Your language is that of contempt. Religion as a "distraction", a "crutch" etc. God distilled to someone to arbitrarily "curse or thank". Frankly such broad statements demonstrate significant ignorance of experiences outside your own and those of the similarly experienced and like minded.

The Real Wizard wrote: It absolutely is a distraction and a crutch. It is a reason to stop searching for ultimate truth because you believe you have found it in a nice prepackaged entity that costs $10-20 once a week in a collection plate

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: I not only talk to people, but I have also been on both sides of the religious wall. There are many like myself who see religion as a crutch. And there are many, like my parents and others, who see it as a lifeline.

The Real Wizard wrote: It absolutely is a distraction and a crutch. It is a reason to stop searching for ultimate truth…

mooghead wrote: This might be lighting the touchpaper but surely none of the highly intelligent people who frequent this website actually believe in all that god crap?

Donna13 wrote: God doesn't make anyone do anything. We have free will. Only a few here are "falling out". Not "all" are "falling out". The same ones who are arguing here also argue with each other in other threads sometimes.

The Real Wizard wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

GratefulFan wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Are you really so desperate to spit venom at people whose views are not your own that you will resort to doing so when it's completely out of context?

I have sufficient faith in Zebonka's intelligence that he'll understand that it's completely in context and hardly venomous. You, not so much.

Do you honestly fail to understand what you yourself write? God, I've had it with you. I'm going to take the above advise and stop wasting time on you.

No, don't give up ! "You and bigot #2 seriously make me sick down to my toes and you can be assured that every drop of anger and disgust comes from that place and nowhere else." ^ why give up when there's a chance at making this comment even better?

The Real Wizard wrote:

GratefulFan wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Yeah, and unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism have nothing to do with that, of course...

Oh tsk, tsk, TQ. Didn't you know? The spewing of such slanderous insults is permitted from one side only. Those on the other side must not respond in kind but must, instead, take their lumps without retort lest they be deemed created of some lesser moral fabric.

Stop being a bigot and you won't have to worry about having your distasteful and shameful behaviour outed. And seriously, taking intellectual succor from ThomasQuinn is the QZ version of failing an IQ test.

If you don't like the guy, that's fine (well it isn't, since anyone of sane mind can't possibly find anything not to like). But please, don't let it cloud your judgement to the point of looking like a complete idiot. He is the absolute finest investigative historian Queenzone (and likely almost any other forum you've ever read) has to offer.

GratefulFan wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: This is truly pathetic, as pathetic as all the cheap jabs at me you tried to make in your later posts. Maybe, if you had a little knowledge of history, you'd be aware that anti-Semitism is the hatred of Jews. Not of rabbi's, of Jewish theology or of Jewish institutions, but the complete, total, wholesale hatred of every single Jewish man, woman or child. If you will compare severe criticism of the Vatican (i.e. catholic leadership and institutions) with that, you have not an ounce of decency. You are so desperate to be persecuted that you will abuse anything to make yourself look like a poor victim.

Funny that you should formulate these precise lame excuses. I previously mentioned a book called The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice. Thoughtful, balanced and well received

GratefulFan wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote: If you don't like the guy, that's fine (well it isn't, since anyone of sane mind can't possibly find anything not to like). But please, don't let it cloud your judgement to the point of looking like a complete idiot. He is the absolute finest investigative historian Queenzone (and likely almost any other forum you've ever read) has to offer.

Good Christ Bob. Maybe if history's most pressing question was who forgot to wrap the cheese after the Theodore Roosevelt American History Award ceremony. I can't even count the clean ups in fact and reason that have been required over the years once TQ winds up. It's nothing to do with liking or not liking, it's just the way it is. I'd suggest you confine your comedy to pasting George Carlin links. There's a certain meta humour to venerating a dead guy because he makes makes fun of the Jesus lovers.

GratefulFan wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote: This may be the best ever thread at this website. And it led to the crowning of the three greatest posters in the history of Queenzone. Let us all rejoice. Preferably in a non-theistic way.

Our crowning ceremony should include not just crowns but the entire ensemble.

TQ! Are you going to take this crap? I think bigot #2 just called you a bigot! If you want to explain to her that a bigot cheerleader and enabler is not exactly the same as a fully pledged bigot I'll totally have your back.

GratefulFan wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote: For fuck's sake - it seriously saddens me to see you stoop so low, to actually become an internet troll. I had such hope for you. Point me to the post where MFM (or anyone, for that matter) said all adherents of every religion use it at a crutch. Write a book. Do something useful. You have the intellect. Maybe then you'll stop trolling people in your spare time and make better use of it.

Stop moving the goalposts. I didn't suggest that she tell catqueen that she'd said "all adherents of every religion use it at a crutch". More bigot shell games. If you'd all take responsibility for the actuality of your narrow and obnoxious positions it would all be a lot less insidious and infuriating.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: I not only talk to people, but I have also been on both sides of the religious wall. There are many like myself who see religion as a crutch. And there are many, like my parents and others, who see it as a lifeline.

...to which I replied

GratefulFan wrote: Your language is that of contempt. Religion as a "distraction", a "crutch" etc. God distilled to someone to arbitrarily "curse or thank". Frankly such broad statements demonstrate significant ignorance of experiences outside your own and those of the similarly experienced and like minded.

...to which you replied

The Real Wizard wrote: It absolutely is a distraction and a crutch. It is a reason to stop searching for ultimate truth because you believe you have found it in a nice prepackaged entity that costs $10-20 once a week in a collection plate

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

GratefulFan wrote: Funny that you should formulate these precise lame excuses. I previously mentioned a book called The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice. Thoughtful, balanced and well received

Yes, a very neutral source indeed You don't even have to look much further than his Wikipedia page

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

GratefulFan wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote: This may be the best ever thread at this website. And it led to the crowning of the three greatest posters in the history of Queenzone. Let us all rejoice. Preferably in a non-theistic way.

Our crowning ceremony should include not just crowns but the entire ensemble.

TQ! Are you going to take this crap? I think bigot #2 just called you a bigot! If you want to explain to her that a bigot cheerleader and enabler is not exactly the same as a fully pledged bigot I'll totally have your back.

About a page ago, I was a raving, drooling anti-Semite Catholic-hater, and now I'm not a bigot because it suddenly doesn't fit your agenda anymore? Seriously, the way you spin in this topic makes FOX News look, well...fair and balanced.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: So, what you are actually saying is: When you quote something that contradicts anything GF says, it's taking it out of context, cherry picking and being too stupid to understand anything more complex than Where's Wally, while, on the other hand, when GF needs to support something, any quote dragged out of context and selectively interpreted amounts to ironclad evidence. Sorry GF, you're not getting that TR-award just yet.

Donna13 wrote: God doesn't make anyone do anything. We have free will. Only a few here are "falling out". Not "all" are "falling out". The same ones who are arguing here also argue with each other in other threads sometimes.

GratefulFan wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

GratefulFan wrote: Funny that you should formulate these precise lame excuses. I previously mentioned a book called The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice. Thoughtful, balanced and well received

Yes, a very neutral source indeed You don't even have to look much further than his Wikipedia page

And I'm sure you didn't. Nice ad hominem. Read the book.

GratefulFan wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

GratefulFan wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote: This may be the best ever thread at this website. And it led to the crowning of the three greatest posters in the history of Queenzone. Let us all rejoice. Preferably in a non-theistic way.

Our crowning ceremony should include not just crowns but the entire ensemble.

TQ! Are you going to take this crap? I think bigot #2 just called you a bigot! If you want to explain to her that a bigot cheerleader and enabler is not exactly the same as a fully pledged bigot I'll totally have your back.

About a page ago, I was a raving, drooling anti-Semite Catholic-hater, and now I'm not a bigot because it suddenly doesn't fit your agenda anymore? Seriously, the way you spin in this topic makes FOX News look, well...fair and balanced.

I never called you a bigot. I called you a bigot cheerleader and I believe you make careless, anti-Catholic statements out of a general intolerance, general intellectual sloppiness and a misguided idea of liberalism. There's never been a bigot #3 in my posts, has there. Another clean up in aisle four when Thomas starts to think.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: You are thoroughly dishonest in the way you 'argue' here. Anyone who reads your posts in this topic in sequence will quite swiftly be convinced of your willingness to twist, spin and manipulate your own and other people's words to support your views.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

GratefulFan wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

GratefulFan wrote: Funny that you should formulate these precise lame excuses. I previously mentioned a book called The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice. Thoughtful, balanced and well received

Yes, a very neutral source indeed You don't even have to look much further than his Wikipedia page

And I'm sure you didn't. Nice ad hominem. Read the book.

1) Look up what "ad hominem" means. Seriously, do that, please, because this is by no stretch of the imagination an ad hominem. In fact, your reply is closer to being an ad hominem than my original post. 2) I did. I read about two dozen reviews of his book, his employment history and a bibliography of his other publications. It was very enlightening, and illustrative of what you consider a good, neutral source.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Either you are totally dishonest and willing to spin everything you (or anyone else) said simply to make it appear, superficially, that you are right, or you are breathtakingly stupid. I'm fairly sure you're not particularly stupid, so I suspect it's the former, not in the last place because of your previous track record. You called me an anti-Semite who hates Catholics, and you suggested that the Anti-Catholicism - The Last Accepted Prejudice (the title is bullshit, because, for example, Islamophobia, anti-gay hate, hatred of the political left and hatred of atheism are perfectly acceptable forms of prejudice in much of the western world) book you mentioned was something I should read because I was supposedly guilty thereof. If that doesn't constitute bigotry, then you evidently haven't got a clue what bigotry means. You are thoroughly dishonest in the way you 'argue' here. Anyone who reads your posts in this topic in sequence will quite swiftly be convinced of your willingness to twist, spin and manipulate your own and other people's words to support your views. I would just like to conclude by saying that any shred of respect I might have had for you evaporated when you so easily equated antisemitism with what you call 'anti-Catholicism'. Even if what you claim about anti-Catholicism was true (which it isn't), this is still miles removed from antisemitism. In fact, there is an analogous form of anti-Catholicism, namely anti-Judaism, which is disapproval or even hatred of Jewish THEOLOGY AND RELIGION, but NOT hatred of Jewish individuals. Antisemitism involves hatred of individuals for the reason that they are Jewish. Even someone as unscrupulous as yourself should be ashamed of abusing antisemitism to make yourself look persecuted and deserving of sympathy. You are, whether you intended to do so or not, downplaying the severity of antisemitism, and this is unforgivable.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: You are thoroughly dishonest in the way you 'argue' here. Anyone who reads your posts in this topic in sequence will quite swiftly be convinced of your willingness to twist, spin and manipulate your own and other people's words to support your views.

This says it all.

mooghead wrote: link link

The Real Wizard wrote: The bottom line: You find yourself at war with a group of individuals here. Nobody is at war with you.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: What's so disturbing about these two stories - beyond the obvious - is how people continue to look up to these leaders (and those like them) and blindy follow them, believing their words and deeds to be of some higher value.

Donna13 wrote: Not that anyone here has the identical personality of my relative (ha), but there are common elements. Anyway, I don't think Magical is a bigot. But I would say that due to her negative experience, she is not impartial on the subject because her painful emotions and memories will always be there as a form of self-protective caution with regards to the Catholic church. But she has intelligence and can see that others do get something positive out of religion. And she is not lecturing others in an attempt to get them to quit the church or stop believing. So I would say that despite her terrible experience, and her firm opinions, she is very accepting of others as is evidenced by what she said to Catqueen, and by her demeanor overall. So I can understand and sympathize with her point of view.

GratefulFan wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: It did make sense, catqueen. And I’m happy to know you found a happy welcoming church after leaving the strict harsh one to which you had once belonged. I think yours is a beautiful example of how someone’s faith can be so much a part of who they are yet not overshadow the fact that others will/can/do feel differently.

And just when I thought you'd run out of ways to make me ill on this topic. Why don't you take a moment to explain to catqueen how her faith is a crutch? And perhaps a moment to explain to me why Catholicism should be overshadowed by your unprincipled willingness to drag around unjust characterizations of a Pope's words on AIDS in Africa for example, or subjected to inane stabs at the dearth of 'higher intelligence' back though hundreds of years such leaders. Nobody who has been remotely paying attention thinks you have a single ounce of respect or regard for anybody's religious practice. Please. This entire thread has been an exercise in watching the masks slowly slip off a couple of bigots. Nice try on the tolerant long suffering reasonableness, but but your hair is a mess, your shirt is on backwards and you've got lipstick smeared down to your chin. My last internal defense of you on this topic was that you at least had the courage of your distasteful convictions. I'll light a candle.

catqueen wrote: But it's very possible to be very much against something but to recognise that not everyone feels the same way... i don't think Magical is being hypocritical in respecting someone else's view even though she doesn't agree with it. She's just being a decent person.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Thank you for this, catqueen. Many of the comments in this thread, as well as the intent behind them, have been distorted and maligned. It's good to know that hasn't masked the true intent for everyone.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: You don't seriously mean to suggest that you are a particularly open-minded person, do you?

mooghead wrote: All still irrelevant. Prove god. Still waiting.

GratefulFan wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Thank you for this, catqueen. Many of the comments in this thread, as well as the intent behind them, have been distorted and maligned. It's good to know that hasn't masked the true intent for everyone.

Yeah. Sure they have. A negative experience with religion (or anything else) provides all the necessary authority in the world for describing the reality of one's own life and for statements and beliefs that describe what faith and religion can be. They provide nothing for what religion objectively is for a billion and more people. Based on your narrow individual experiences you've decided the whole world needs to get rid of religion. Let's take a moment and absorb that, and its truly breathtaking arrogance. I can only imagine the reaction here if I expressed such sweeping global designs and conclusions based on my own personal positive experiences. Religion, you said, can't become irrelevant quickly enough, and all its 'good' is effectively an illusion or at least external and unrelated. The worst of organized religion and religion are one and the same. Indeed the guilt and harm it causes are both integral and intentional. It's a 'crutch'. Or at best a 'lifeline' for your implicitly fanatical parents and people like them. Either a crutch or a lifeline: both conjure weakness, brokenness and and helplessness, a need for some kind of external rescue. Indeed that has been your recurring theme: believers are weak and stupid and not making reasoned autonomous decisions, they're blindly listening to their leaders, or slaves to their conditioning. You've stood in explicit and implicit agreement with statements that sweepingly and utterly indiscriminately malign the intelligence, reason, strength and autonomy of people that embrace faith. You're on the record as firmly supporting Bob the bigot as 'tolerant'. When I've asked you to care about fairness and fact in the name of my experiences and the experiences of others you've been avoidant, dismissive and flippant. Again: your 'respect' for catqueen and her faith is an utter absurdity for anybody paying attention. A couple of you latched on to her incomplete and frankly naive reading of this thread like parasites, drawing off her discernment between self generating positive and negative forces in religion like it was your own, when in reality you've done nothing but malign and dismiss every aspect of faith and every aspect of those who embrace it If the thoroughness of your indiscriminate derision was applied to gender, race or sexual orientation you'd be a pariah. I'd invite anyone to try to fashion a statement about how some innate feature of homosexuality or femaleness or blackness makes you weak and insufficiently proactive in a terror attack. Really. Try it in your head. That still floors me days later. But religion is the subject so everywhere you go you'll find a trail of apologists and cheerleaders and bigots to prop up your opressed-turned-oppressor militance. They can worry about your demeanor. It's easy to be calm when you don't care about anybody but yourself. I'll worry about your poisonousness. As some point we choose what to do with our experiences and we are responsible for who we become. I'm addressing you, but like those who call out the homophobes and misogyists in other areas of Queenzone I'm really talking to the people of faith who may be reading this thread who simpy do not deserve your thoughtless, insensitve and thoroughly self-absorbed bigotry unilaterally defining their history and experience like you've got the slightest authority or wisdom to do so. Catqueen calls you a 'decent' person. I have no reason outside this topic to imagine that you're not. But I simply don't care. The world is full of great people, some of them on this very thread, and cutting you out of my online view like an ugly cancer gives a deserving nod to the many, many people who are irreligious or atheisist or who come through great trials without becoming wallowing bigots, here and everywhere. Power to them. Shame to you.

catqueen wrote: I don't remember who made different comments in this thread -- but i still think that it's possible to despise something on the whole and still respect individuals who support that ideology. I have american friends who i really strongly hate their political ideologies. Those ideologies affect a lot of their lives and how they live and perceive things. Yet, they are still my friends. I argue with them about it, but i still respect them as my friends. I have a friend who believes that men and women are not capable of the same thing. Obviously there are gender differences, but he feels that women are not physically capable of stuff that men are. I argue that women are socialised and raised differently, and that is where the difference lies. For example, he believes that a man will be a better soldier then a woman, and that he will be better at survival then a woman. Yet, he still respects women, even though his worldview contradicts that. But i know him, and he has a high respect for women and values what we contribute. It doesn't make sense, but even though his worldview doesn't appear to emphasise the strengths of women, he actually does value and highly respect the women that he knows as individuals. And even though i hate his views on this topic, and totally disagree with him, i still value and love him as a friend. I argue with him, but i still listen to him. I disregard his views, and disparage them to people, but i still value him and respect him as a person. So it is possible to strongly disagree and dislike someone's position but still be respectful and appreciate them as an individual.

GratefulFan wrote: Some militant atheists appear to think they're god. Does that help?

catqueen wrote: I don't remember who made different comments in this thread -- but i still think that it's possible to despise something on the whole and still respect individuals who support that ideology.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: “The two sides may never understand one another, but I’m not sure understanding is as necessary as acceptance – which is often a sticking point. I don’t care what anyone believes or doesn’t believe as long as their belief is not forced upon me.”

GratefulFan wrote: When I've asked you to care about fairness and fact in the name of my experiences and the experiences of others you've been avoidant, dismissive and flippant.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: “The two sides may never understand one another, but I’m not sure understanding is as necessary as acceptance – which is often a sticking point. I don’t care what anyone believes or doesn’t believe as long as their belief is not forced upon me.”

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: You have repeatedly dismissed me and my views in insult-riddled fits of rage then called me out for not replying, sensitively, to your skewed, obnoxious rants about how I am a narrow-minded bigot. Why would anyone reply to such indefensible nonsense? In the early pages of this thread, I believed there might be opportunity for some quality conversation and exchange of ideas. Almost immediately you disregarded my views in favor of your own interpretation of them. You arrogantly declared that my experiences, and perceptions thereof, felt “less than forthright” and were “self-serving and suspect” as if you and only you had the authority to determine the integrity of my statements. You labeled me as a heathen, a parasite, contemptible, small, ignorant, poisonous and whatever else you managed to toss into various posts on these many pages. Your behavior throughout has been a clear example of the irrational, fanatical and worrisome intolerance which mirrors much of the outrageous behavior that turned me away from religion in the first place. So you can continue to rant and accuse and stomp your feet in virtual tantrums. Your words and tone are nothing more than a jumble of hatred and hysteria unworthy of this or further response.

mooghead wrote: link

GratefulFan wrote: Holy fracking slutty Ishtar! NO! Not everybody's future. Mind you, I did hear that history signed a petition perpetually delegating you to the future. Can't imagine what that was about....

GratefulFan wrote: Hey speaking of the 6th grade, did your "M.A." supervisor regularly wear a red nose and big floppy shoes?

Zebonka12 wrote: None of that precludes the possibility of him wearing a big red nose or floppy shoes. Fuck, if I were a professor, that'd be my first instinct.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

GratefulFan wrote: Hey speaking of the 6th grade, did your "M.A." supervisor regularly wear a red nose and big floppy shoes?

6th grade level indeed. Not that it's any of your business, but my thesis supervisor was prof. dr. Adam Fairclough, the leading historian of the Civil Right Movement and a renowned expert on the history of American Reconstruction (1865-1877). link

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

GratefulFan wrote: Hey speaking of the 6th grade, did your "M.A." supervisor regularly wear a red nose and big floppy shoes?

6th grade level indeed. Not that it's any of your business, but my thesis supervisor was prof. dr. Adam Fairclough, the leading historian of the Civil Right Movement and a renowned expert on the history of American Reconstruction (1865-1877). link

Panchgani wrote: Trivia Time: Which QZ'er stated the following on page 3 of this thread? "I consider 'god' an imaginary being who humans lazily thank or curse, depending on circumstance, because they'd rather give control and responsibility to this magical being than accept it for themselves." "There are many like myself who see religion as a crutch."

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Oh please. I do more thinking that you'll ever do in your whole life. You might not have noticed, possibly due to your complete lack of realism, but a discussion on an internet forum is not the same as a thesis, a book or an article. This is quite fortunate for you, as those sources you so fundamentalistically stand by are far from neutral. Also, if you had even a tiny bit of insight into sensible academic research, you'd realize that trying to establish the value of an argument by hammering on the reputation of the person who made the argument is about the biggest fallacy there is. On the side, just because someone with as big a mouth on accuracy, yet so little of it, deserves to be shown wrong whenever possible: link Leiden: 95 Penn State: 101 Of course, you could probably find a ranking where Leiden is below Penn State, as there are literally hundreds of rankings around, but then, you'd be guilty of selective shopping, and of course, you never do that [/sarcasm]

GratefulFan wrote:

Panchgani wrote: Trivia Time: Which QZ'er stated the following on page 3 of this thread? "I consider 'god' an imaginary being who humans lazily thank or curse, depending on circumstance, because they'd rather give control and responsibility to this magical being than accept it for themselves." "There are many like myself who see religion as a crutch."

How can you describe these kinds of rigid, sweeping beliefs in terms of anything other than head shaking self-absorption? And there is so,so much of it on this thread. Atheism and irreligiousness just does not deserve to be represented in this way. If you'd be interested in sharing, how did your choice of atheism evolve, and to what do your credit your more curious and empathetic views towards religion and the religious?

Panchgani wrote: I am somewhere between being an agnostic and atheist. I was a practicing Catholic through my first year of graduate school. I went to public elementary schooI, but was an alter boy. In my first year of graduate school I was in the Catholic guitar choir and also went on a religious retreat, and for a while read the bible every day ... but I always had doubts about religion ... My new British roommate at college (after I started my 2nd year of graduate school was atheist and had a lot questions that helped sow doubt in my religion. Ironically, he met my family (particularly my mother) and eventually (after graduating) became Catholic when he returned to England years later. I never felt worthy of heaven, but I knew I was not deserving of hell, and I certainly resented being threatened to believe in god ... or else. I know I am a good and moral person, and I know I do not need what I perceive as coercive a god, if he exists. My folks still love me even though I quit being a practicing Catholic and never tried to force me back into religion. They've always accepted me for who I am. I have seen many "commoner" religious folk "walk the walk" rather than just "talk the talk" who are very good people. When my son was in Boy Scouts it was part of a Mormon boy scout troop. I was impressed with their work ethic, charity work, humbleness, sense of community, and acceptance of non-Mormons. I always showed respect toward their religion and they always treated me with respect. I know I am not arrogant enough to believe I have all the answers, and I am certainly not arrogant enough to believe that the religious are mentally inferior sheep. However, I know I am superior to TQ because I attended and graduated from a better college ... LOL

Panchgani wrote: Trivia Time: Which QZ'er stated the following on page 3 of this thread? "I consider 'god' an imaginary being who humans lazily thank or curse, depending on circumstance, because they'd rather give control and responsibility to this magical being than accept it for themselves." "There are many like myself who see religion as a crutch."

GratefulFan wrote: Huh. Religious leaders imparting life and power to machines to further their interests and the interests of religion. Meanwhile in 2013 the militant atheist sector and its evangelists slickly strip human beings of their experience, reason, intelligence and autonomy to impart on them the mindless function of machines slaved to their programming. Ironic.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

GratefulFan wrote: Huh. Religious leaders imparting life and power to machines to further their interests and the interests of religion. Meanwhile in 2013 the militant atheist sector and its evangelists slickly strip human beings of their experience, reason, intelligence and autonomy to impart on them the mindless function of machines slaved to their programming. Ironic.

Talk about a slanted, selective, downright silly reasoning. You say "militant atheist sector and its evangelists slickly strip human beings of their experience, reason, intelligence and autonomy to impart on them the mindless function of machines slaved to their programming." Apparently you've never heard of the protestant teachings of predestination. Orthodox Calvinism holds that you have no free will and all your decisions, religious and otherwise, are pre-determined by god. Talk about making people mindless slaves to their programming...

Lostman wrote: Oh Lord, this is never going to end...

GratefulFan wrote: They're just kind of narrow and self absorbed and thoroughly over-focused on their own experiences as a template for everything, as can be seen ever more clearly with each new post on the thread.

mooghead wrote: Take me lord....!!!!!!

The Real Wizard wrote:

GratefulFan wrote: Some militant atheists appear to think they're god. Does that help?

Asserting that there is no god is not synonymous with saying they themselves are a god of some sort. In fact, it is a complete logical fallacy since it is impossible for those two assertions to coexist.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Hey! That was on topic, how dare you!

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Well, it was a nice link nonetheless...

Pingfah wrote: I'm an atheist, I was born that way, and so far I can see no reason to rock the boat.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Yeah, it's a little more complex than that. First, let's get Von Däniken out of the way - the man is a complete fraud and the only way he can maintain his views is by completely denying ALL findings of Egyptology in the past 70 years. He and people like him base their theories on the completely ridiculous assumption that people who lived more than 2000 years ago didn't just lack modern tools and knowledge, but that all people who lived more than 2000 years ago were complete and utter morons incapable of even the simplest reasoning or even of progress by trial and error. All (and I mean all, without exception) 'ancient astronaut theorists' hold their view on the basis of sheer bloody ignorance of ancient cultures and a conviction that mankind has only been capable of intelligent behavior for a few centuries at most. The Sumerian ethnogenesis (the story of how their people came to be) is much more pessimistic than most other culture's interpretation of where they came from, but it is not unique or even the most far out of the bunch. The ancient Germanic peoples believed they and their whole world were carved from the gory remains of a slain giant, the ancient Fins described how the people came with the land, and the land came to be when a goddess burned herself on some eggs and dropped them in the sea, the eggshells forming the land, and an African creation myth tells of how the world was found fully-formed at the bottom of the sea by a bird that was fishing (don't ask for logical consistency and don't ask where the bird came from or what it was fishing for). Want a pleasant afternoon of sheer and utter bafflement? Look up creation myths on the internet. Finally, "the original tables were basically 'classified' by the 'monks'": sadly, it's not that simple again. As in most early cultures that had discovered writing, writing was held to be a supremely magical act (making words last much longer than those who spoke them means you can put your soul onto paper, or more accurately, clay tablets). As such, all religious writing was almost by definition secret, reserved solely for the priestly class and not to be discusses outside their own class. The same thing was common in many cultures: the Celts, contrary to popular belief, did use writing (probably an adapted Greek alphabet), but it was strictly prohibited to write down any of their religious knowledge because that would make it available to people who weren't druids. Similarly, people who were part of a so-called Mystery-Religion (a religion that reveals secrets to their believers, usually a way to live eternally after death. Christianity is basically a Mystery Religion) in the Greek and Roman world were not allowed to share any of their religious knowledge with anyone who wasn't part of their cult on the pain of death. It is very normal for people who grew up in parts of the world dominated by Abrahamic religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) to consider that version of religion the norm, but in fact it isn't. Those religions fall under the heading 'Revealed Religion', meaning a religion based on the teachings of one or more prophets. These religions are universalist (Judaism is a rare and strange exception, hinting at very great antiquity but also syncretism, i.e. the mixing of multiple religions), meaning that their aim is to present their teachings to the whole world. Most ancient religions were exclusivist, meaning their teachings were for the benefit of a small group (a single City-State, or even a single ruling class) and as such were closely guarded. This latter scenario also applies to the Sumerians. So it's not that just this story was 'classified', basically their whole religion was, as were most religions at the time (at least those we know of).