|
Effectronica posted:What on earth is wrong with you? Calling someone pathetic isn't an "argument", you idiot. Then maybe you should not post? Because calling someones argument stupid for the sake of calling it stupid isn't actually a debate, nor can you then show up and snipe at how he can't understand you because you NEVER presented an argument other than name-calling. Effectronica posted:You're a paranoid lunatic and I don't think you should be posting on the internet like this, without the benefit of psychotherapy and antipsychotics. Do you have anything to actually contribute?
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:You're a paranoid lunatic and I don't think you should be posting on the internet like this, without the benefit of psychotherapy and antipsychotics. I still don't understand, you haven't said anything to explain the comment you made. What did you mean by it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:22
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Then maybe you should not post? Because calling someones argument stupid for the sake of calling it stupid isn't actually a debate, nor can you then show up and snipe at how he can't understand you because you NEVER presented an argument other than name-calling. I want you to take a look at the title of this forum. It says, for your benefit, "Debate and Discussion", stupid. Why should I post according to some unfathomable cretin's attempt to hijack this forum for his (or her) own ends? Why should I feed your megalomania? SedanChair posted:I still don't understand, you haven't said anything to explain the comment you made. What did you mean by it? Why is this so important to you? It's a simple comment I used as a yardstick to measure patheticness. Do you think it's not pathetic? Because I have a new yardstick I can use that's even better.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I want you to take a look at the title of this forum. It says, for your benefit, "Debate and Discussion", stupid. Why should I post according to some unfathomable cretin's attempt to hijack this forum for his (or her) own ends? Why should I feed your megalomania? I think you mean for your benefit, and based on your post history, I should assume we have nothing to expect from you in the way of Debate or Discussion Because name-calling and passive aggressive sniping is NOT a discussion. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
That's pretty cool. I don't believe in magic though, but if it works for you then great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Goddamnit, Effectronica, just answer SedanChair's question so he'll shut the gently caress up about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You're a paranoid lunatic and I don't think you should be posting on the internet like this, without the benefit of psychotherapy and antipsychotics. Effectronica posted:Most recently, I called upon the minor Duke of Hell Lord Murmur for assistance in exorcising a troublesome ghost for a friend. Outside of the demonological arts, my most recent pursuits of the arcane have been in the realm of electronics, specifically in the application of Apuleius to logic gates. Let's refocus here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azZ9x2AaejI
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:26
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I think you mean for your benefit, and based on your post history, I should assume we have nothing to expect from you in the way of Debate or Discussion What discussion is possible when the tenor has been that the options are "all religions are evil" and "only religions I know about are evil" as arguments against belief in Jesus Christ? Bwee posted:That's pretty cool. I don't believe in magic though, but if it works for you then great. It's not for everyone. The Goetic practice is, while not so perilous as horror movies would have it, nevertheless delicate and requires a great deal of tact and acting ability.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:What discussion is possible when the tenor has been that the options are "all religions are evil" and "only religions I know about are evil" as arguments against belief in Jesus Christ? If only you'd actually DEBATE and DISCUSS that 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Why is this so important to you? It's a simple comment I used as a yardstick to measure patheticness. Do you think it's not pathetic? Because I have a new yardstick I can use that's even better. Oh, it was a completely random reference. How confusing! Maybe you should pick ways of communicating other than calling people pathetic and likening their behavior to unrelated behavior, then freaking out. That's just advice by the way. Don't feel constrained by it. Chase your dream buddy. Do your thing. Who What Now posted:Also the Catholic Church is a criminal organization that protects numerous known pedophiles from being prosecuted and no amount of good that they ever do will outweigh that. The Second Mile was objectively a more ethical organization than the Catholic Church. It completed its highly ethical practices by disbanding itself when the extent of its enabling of criminal activities came to light.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Ultimately, if you look at the Roman Catholic Church itself, through its history it generally acted as a state if not was outright one. The Church just never collapsed like the Ottomans did or the Byzantines (although the Ottomans in that case took over the reins themselves). It took me a day to consider my response to this. The Roman Catholic church was a state in as much as the various Orthodox Churches were a state for most of their history: inseperable from the will of the largest power bloc around, hence the anti-popes and whole reformation movement. The church itself only held power above the will of its patrons for very brief periods of time, and always in the promotion of a regional power's attempts at consolidation. So when did the Catholic church separate from an institution of state control to an alternative pathway for development of political order? Well, banning priests from getting married had a large impact towards ending patrimonialism within church office-holdings. The development of political order is the story of the development of institutions to mediate human's natural patrimonial inclinations. I'd go so far to say the church only achieved this at the level of state power transitions when it eliminated inherited offices via banning priest marriage while also implementing policies which promoted the funding of jesuit universities. So why did the catholic church never collapse, versus the Byzantines' or Ottomans' systems? Well, it did collapse in some regions; that's what the whole reformation period was about, being able to secure offices for your family and using the church to expand your power base. This necessitated the chuch engage in social programs to compete for political favor and foster a class to promote its interests--mainly, its tax exemption status for its large agricultural estates--and took the roundabout way to establish law as divine in origin separated from human will through institutional bureaucracy. Far quicker to have the word of god and the laws of humanity be set in stone, with political order developing from there. Alas, the catholics took the long route to reach the same outcome upon patrilinial structures of power transition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:38
|
|
CommieGIR posted:If only you'd actually DEBATE and DISCUSS that Fine. I think that the sort of aggressive atheism on display is calculated to reinforce beliefs about how negative religion is by ensuring anyone that's religious is alienated and people that aren't religious or in line with this sort of adolescent behavior are either shut up or treated as religious fifth columnists in atheism. I think that the world will be a better place when your kind of behavior is eliminated in ostensible adults. SedanChair posted:Oh, it was a completely random reference. How confusing! Maybe you should pick ways of communicating other than calling people pathetic and likening their behavior to unrelated behavior, then freaking out. That's just advice by the way. Don't feel constrained by it. Chase your dream buddy. Do your thing. Why don't you come out and accuse me of whatever it is you're implying? Are you really too cowardly to confront someone directly over text? Afraid I really am an accomplished demonologist and practitioner in the Western Magical Tradition, and could zap you with a spell of impotence (probably a waste) if you did?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Isn't that your criticism of her? That this woman who lived a life of poverty and charity for some of the least regarded humans on the planet didn't do a good enough job at it? You say this like it isn't a meaningful criticism, but "doing a very bad job" at a charitable cause to the point where you cause unnecessary suffering to the people involved is pretty dire, especially when you're receiving millions of dollars in funding from international sources. Charities are perfectly valid targets for criticism, and gross mismanagement of a charity can reasonably be called an immoral act. Periodiko fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You're a paranoid lunatic and I don't think you should be posting on the internet like this, without the benefit of psychotherapy and antipsychotics. Says the man talking about casting spells.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Why don't you come out and accuse me of whatever it is you're implying? Are you really too cowardly to confront someone directly over text? Afraid I really am an accomplished demonologist and practitioner in the Western Magical Tradition, and could zap you with a spell of impotence (probably a waste) if you did? I wasn't accusing you of anything, you seemed to be making a claim of some kind. You're now saying that it was completely random, so never mind. It kind of makes sense now that I realize how truly random and angry your attacks are. Pathetic, impotent etc. I get it, you're unbalanced. So there's nothing else to discuss, is there? Except, you know, the topic. For example! Effectronica posted:Fine. I think that the sort of aggressive atheism on display is calculated to reinforce beliefs about how negative religion is by ensuring anyone that's religious is alienated and people that aren't religious or in line with this sort of adolescent behavior are either shut up or treated as religious fifth columnists in atheism. I think that the world will be a better place when your kind of behavior is eliminated in ostensible adults. We tried this, but nowadays there are scant public funds to retain official torturers and executioners as we had in the days you long to return to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Afraid I really am an accomplished demonologist and practitioner in the Western Magical Tradition, and could zap you with a spell of impotence (probably a waste) if you did? Were you lying to me? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Fine. I think that the sort of aggressive atheism on display is calculated to reinforce beliefs about how negative religion is by ensuring anyone that's religious is alienated and people that aren't religious or in line with this sort of adolescent behavior are either shut up or treated as religious fifth columnists in atheism. I think that the world will be a better place when your kind of behavior is eliminated in ostensible adults. I think it's pretty obviously emotional, not "calculated".
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
I think recent history demonstrates adequately that an avowedly irreligious state is just as capable of torturing and killing the heretic as any religious state. As a non-atheist it does sometimes seem like there is this abrupt leap to 'do you believe in anything other than very vague Deism? Well, why are you not seeking treatment for your mental illness?' I recall one thread a while back that said any religious belief beyond 'very vague deism' was an existential threat to the existence of Every Good Thing, Ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think recent history demonstrates adequately that an avowedly irreligious state is just as capable of torturing and killing the heretic as any religious state. But those were good guys. We killed bad guys. e: the commonality is angry, shouty people like Effectronica who can't stand being in the same room with a heretic, it seems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Fine. I think that the sort of aggressive atheism on display is calculated to reinforce beliefs about how negative religion is by ensuring anyone that's religious is alienated and people that aren't religious or in line with this sort of adolescent behavior are either shut up or treated as religious fifth columnists in atheism. I think that the world will be a better place when your kind of behavior is eliminated in ostensible adults. Thank you. Yes, aggressive atheism can be just as bad as aggressive religious beliefs, however that has very little with SedanChair's argument about disproving the existence of Christ being 'stupid' However, personally I'd rather have a large group of skeptical aggressive atheists versus a group of aggressive atheists versus the already REAL group of aggressive religious societies that we have to deal with in the South both on a legislative level and a educational level. I don't agree with militant athiests that religion needs to be wiped out wholesale, but I also at least expect religious groups to stay out of legislation and science. That is my stance, and expecting religious individuals and groups to be above reproach is not only wrong, its dangerous. Nessus posted:I think recent history demonstrates adequately that an avowedly irreligious state is just as capable of torturing and killing the heretic as any religious state. Just for posterity, can I get some examples? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:We tried this, but nowadays there are scant public funds to retain official torturers and executioners as we had in the days you long to return to. Hey now--we both know this isn't true. There are always funds available for more torture and repression, depending upon your skills to play off circumstances to shift the target for surpression. We have more cost-effective systems in place than outright torture and repression; when an individual falls through the gaps in those systems, that's when force is used to ensure compliance. The focus must be upon strengthening those systems to prevent individuals from choosing actions which comply the use of force against them, rather than the current and historical use of religion to force compliance first and foremost with systems emerging from homogeneous populations with high rates of collective efficacy, because the former is much quicker and much less rapey than the latter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:48
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Says the man talking about casting spells. Here I thought you'd taken your ball and gone home, Dickeye. SedanChair posted:I wasn't accusing you of anything, you seemed to be making a claim of some kind. You're now saying that it was completely random, so never mind. It kind of makes sense now that I realize how truly random and angry your attacks are. Pathetic, impotent etc. I get it, you're unbalanced. So there's nothing else to discuss, is there? Except, you know, the topic. For example! What the gently caress? Do you really think that it's healthy to think that you're smarter than Abraham Lincoln because he was a Deist and you're an atheist? Do you really think that sort of arrogance is good, and should be proliferated across the whole world? Is it good when Christians insist that only Christianity allows moral behavior? Bwee posted:Were you lying to me? I'm accommodating people's beliefs. Periodiko posted:I think it's pretty obviously emotional, not "calculated". I don't think that's really the case. Maybe for teenagers and young adults, but these are people that are probably in their late twenties at a minimum. You'd think that with a broad range of life experiences, they'd have to make a conscious effort to tell themselves that going to church (unless it's Unitarian) is a sign of evil. Maybe I'm wrong, though. I hope that isn't the case.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Is Abdul-Rahman Kassig in Paradise with Jesus Christ for his good deeds, or is he suffering in Hell for all eternity?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:You say this like it isn't a meaningful criticism, but "doing a very bad job" at a charitable cause to the point where you cause unnecessary suffering to the people involved is pretty dire, especially when you're receiving millions of dollars in funding from international sources. Charities are perfectly valid targets for criticism, and gross mismanagement of a charity can reasonably be called an immoral act. It cannot be overstated that her charities were not simply mismanaged because of incompetency but were intentionally designed not to cure people and kept very little in the way of strong painkillers of any kind if they kept them at all because she and her organization viewed suffering as a way to come closer to God. And yet this view did not stop her from using her money and immense influence to seek the help and quality care of numerous top doctors in the US, Europe, and India. She was an unequivocally evil woman. -EDIT- I am 100% sure that I am, in fact, much smarter than Abe Lincoln. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Abe Lincoln, wow yeah there was a man who took solace in the mysteries of the cosmos. There was a man who believed in God.My Imaginary GF posted:Hey now--we both know this isn't true. There are always funds available for more torture and repression, depending upon your skills to play off circumstances to shift the target for surpression. Clearly these more subtle and cost-effective systems aren't doing their jobs then, because I have to listen to atheists call religion stupid 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Thank you. That said, is it OK for a church to volunteer to be a polling place, or to operate "souls to the polls" programs to use their church bus to get voters to polling places? I would agree that there should not be pulpit advocacy, though this seems like a gray area. As for science, I have no problem with them sponsoring research in an above-board way (which I presume happens at Catholic and other large colleges with religious backers somewhere in the back room.) I will certainly agree that 'religious' or 'a clergy man' does not win you automatic 'good guy' points.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:51
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Thank you. I personally would rather have a world where people are generally mature individuals and there isn't a support structure that sponsors immature behavior, whether it's a religious or nonreligious one. I also think it's unrealistic to expect religious groups to be completely noninvolved in politics, even though they've become too powerful in some respects in recent years. As for keeping religion out of science, well, there are deeper causes for why evolution has become a battleground in the last twenty years after about seventy years of irrelevance to politics. And the USSR classifying dissidence as a form of mental illness is a pretty good example, as is American treatment of Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Nessus posted:
Absolutely; a social organization which does no civic outreach is simply a more organized bar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think in the South, a certain degree of the atheistic stridency gets in the way of forming effective anti-shithead coalitions. However, at a certain point this is rhetorical tactics, and yes, annoying smug atheist posters are merely annoying. How so? I mean, the alternative is already real: Hot button issues their associated politicians get endorsed by churches and clergy, tied together with the GOP actively courting the Religious Right. Nessus posted:That said, is it OK for a church to volunteer to be a polling place, or to operate "souls to the polls" programs to use their church bus to get voters to polling places? I would agree that there should not be pulpit advocacy, though this seems like a gray area. As for science, I have no problem with them sponsoring research in an above-board way (which I presume happens at Catholic and other large colleges with religious backers somewhere in the back room.) I will certainly agree that 'religious' or 'a clergy man' does not win you automatic 'good guy' points. Pulpit advocacy is what we have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think recent history demonstrates adequately that an avowedly irreligious state is just as capable of torturing and killing the heretic as any religious state. What? Unless I missed something those governments weren't committing those atrocities while screaming "God is dead!" and the churches were targeted not because of an aversion to God per se but because churches represented a rival for power and the cults of personality. Unless you aren't talking about Soviet Russia and such and instead mean some super obscure event I never heard of.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:55
|
|
SedanChair posted:Abe Lincoln, wow yeah there was a man who took solace in the mysteries of the cosmos. There was a man who believed in God. Do you have strong evidence that Lincoln was an atheist, rather than the Deist so many other Americans of his time were, given that his personal letters disclaim belief in organized religion rather than in spirituality as a whole? Do you recognize that Lincoln is one example, and that you can present hundreds of highly intelligent people who had religious convictions who work just as well for pointing out how arrogant claiming to be smarter than all religious people because of your atheism is?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Just for posterity, can I get some examples?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I'm mostly referring to the various abuses of purportedly-socialist regimes throughout the 20th century. My point is not that they are somehow inherently bad for their avowed atheism, but that the motivation to purge the heretic (even if you call him a dissident or whatever) seems to be more "an aspect of the human political condition" than "a disease of the Christian faith." Name some. I mean, yes, you have Stalin, but even he eventually let up on the Churches during World War 2. But who else?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Do you have strong evidence that Lincoln was an atheist, rather than the Deist so many other Americans of his time were, given that his personal letters disclaim belief in organized religion rather than in spirituality as a whole? "Deism" is code for "atheism is impolite" hth quote:Do you recognize that Lincoln is one example, and that you can present hundreds of highly intelligent people who had religious convictions who work just as well for pointing out how arrogant claiming to be smarter than all religious people because of your atheism is? Smart people believe irrational things sometimes. It's not just religion. Me recognizing them as irrational in some matter or other doesn't mean I'm smarter than them. I'm not going to regard myself as smarter than a theoretical physicist just because they believe in chiropractic. However, I'm not going to take their belief as evidence of the legitimacy of chiropractic either. And when it comes to cosmic matters, the permanence of death and one's own insignificance, no wonder people cop out. Heck I wish I could just have a big religious hallucination and cop out myself. That'd feel nice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Do you have strong evidence that Lincoln was an atheist, rather than the Deist so many other Americans of his time were, given that his personal letters disclaim belief in organized religion rather than in spirituality as a whole? Do you recognize that Lincoln is one example, and that you can present hundreds of highly intelligent people who had religious convictions who work just as well for pointing out how arrogant claiming to be smarter than all religious people because of your atheism is? I wouldn't say that I'm smarter than all those people because I'm an atheist, but because I have a much better quality education than they could have ever dreamed of because I live in a more advanced society. -EDIT- Only in regard to historical figures, obviously. I would never claim to be smarter than someone working for NASA just because they believe in God.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:01
|
|
SedanChair posted:"Deism" is code for "atheism is impolite" hth Cool. I'm not talking about you. Shut up and go back to whatever paranoia you were engaging in earlier. Who What Now posted:I wouldn't say that I'm smarter than all those people because I'm an atheist, but because I have a much better quality education than they could have ever dreamed of because I live in a more advanced society. Oh, you're smarter than James Clerk Maxwell, eh?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Name some. I mean, yes, you have Stalin, but even he eventually let up on the Churches during World War 2. But who else? America did it too, during the same period, but the victims tended to be poor racial minorities and it was generally not organized on a large level.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Do you have strong evidence that Lincoln was an atheist, rather than the Deist so many other Americans of his time were, given that his personal letters disclaim belief in organized religion rather than in spirituality as a whole? Do you recognize that Lincoln is one example, and that you can present hundreds of highly intelligent people who had religious convictions who work just as well for pointing out how arrogant claiming to be smarter than all religious people because of your atheism is? I think you can believe someone is mistaken about a particular issue without thinking that you're smarter than them Isaac Newton was unquestionably a vastly more intelligent man than me, but his belief in the efficacy of alchemy was in error
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Oh, you're smarter than James Clerk Maxwell, eh? That isn't what he said. At all. Torka posted:I think you can believe someone is mistaken about a particular issue without thinking that you're smarter than them This. Exactly. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Cool. I'm not talking about you. Shut up and go back to whatever paranoia you were engaging in earlier. But you were talking directly to me, you impolite person. Are you really a Christian? If so you are a poo poo representative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:06
|
|