|
Brainiac Five posted:Didn't say that at any point. You are a clumsy liar and with hope you will receive just recompense for your evil deeds. then what do you mean when you say religion can be physical
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 18:59
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Keep trying, sweety, I'm sure you'll get it eventually. I look forward to you eagerly explaining that there's nothing hateful or prejudiced about saying Jews are servants of evil to a synagogue, assuming you aren't the kind of sniveling coward who only says what he thinks when there's no chance of consequences and thinks himself polite.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I look forward to you eagerly explaining that there's nothing hateful or prejudiced about saying Jews are servants of evil to a synagogue, assuming you aren't the kind of sniveling coward who only says what he thinks when there's no chance of consequences and thinks himself polite. you don't get the point do you
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
blowfish posted:then what do you mean when you say religion can be physical Exactly what I said. If some religion is true, it has physical existence. This doesn't automatically mean it's von Daniken poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
though i will state that something awful goon brainiac five specifically is not only a terrible poster but also a servant of evil
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I don't see how this is a cheap shot. A lot of people literally served and honored Hitler, too. I like how the materialist here say they are not rude.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Exactly what I said. If some religion is true, it has physical existence. This doesn't automatically mean it's von Daniken poo poo. so basically  that let you pretend your fantasy is not just a fantasy, without actually elaborating on what any of your words meanunless you specify "physical existence" you're just making poo poo up
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I like how the materialist here say they are not rude. Every person has it in them to be a Mitläufer. It's good to be aware of that, but it's not an indictment of that particular person.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Look, guys, it's okay to say that, because you Jews made up the evil being you all serve, and, statistically speaking, you are more likely to have a big nose-
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I look forward to you eagerly explaining that there's nothing hateful or prejudiced about saying Jews are servants of evil to a synagogue, assuming you aren't the kind of sniveling coward who only says what he thinks when there's no chance of consequences and thinks himself polite. Why would I explain a position that isn't mine? I told you, I don't think they serve anything. And I don't have a problem telling anyone that their god isn't real in an appropriate setting. For someone who wished a man got a just recompense for lying, you sure seem to have no problem with lying yourself. Then again, hypocrites rarely do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I like how the materialist here say they are not rude. No one here has been ruder than yourself. Hypocrisy coming from all sides today, it seems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:The Gnostics died out for not being popular. Sorry you cannot deal with history because they were more intelligent & vastly morally superior (by modern standards, i.e. the only standards that matter) to the unimaginative peasants who were the majority then. and they threatened the petty tyrants who wanted to use Rome's corrupt pyramid scheme of a religious system to line their own pockets and perpetuate a religious life of ritual and patriarchy instead of individualism and transgressive mysticism. seriously, I realize this is impossible to prove but I believe that western civilization would have been so much better off under a gnostic christianity. Brainiac Five posted:But Judaism, along with Christianity, Islam, Bahai'i, Samaritanism, some Wiccan and other neopagan traditions, these all consider this evil, Hitlerish entity someone to serve and honor, so they all serve evil according to you. Maybe your cheap shots are actually intellectually really loving dumb? You seem to be allergic to actually defending the subject of abrahamic monotheism itself, as opposed to furiously hurling out race cards to shut down criticisms of a hegemonic majority religion(s). As he's pointing out, even putting metaphysics aside and assuming that it IS as likely as not that the god of the Old and New Testament exists... claiming complete fidelity to these texts is still borderline indefensible purely on ethical grounds. My question to you (and Crowsbeak, etc) is this: if you don't want all of the horrible, genocidal actions and disgustingly oppressive laws from your holy books to be held against your belief system, loving take them out. Disclaim them. Repudiate them. You don't have to be a religious leader to do this! Your religious belief system belongs to you and you alone, and to say otherwise is just dodging moral culpability. You don't even have to get all Thomas Jefferson and physically remove the evil parts from your gilt-leafed books. All you have to do is say "Some parts of the Bible (or Koran, Torah) are absolutely wrong and I do not believe they were acts of God, or given any moral sanction by Him. Sections (x,y,z) are irreconcilable with what civilization now knows to be good, and so a good and loving god would not commit or condone them. The parts sanctioning and mandating slavery, patriarchy, forcible conversion, mass murder etc. were NOT the creations of god, but were created out of whole cloth by the human writers, or inserted by an evil power; context or not, there is not and never has been any kind of justification for such acts. Taken as a whole, the teachings of the Bible (Koran/Torah) inform modern morality without being above and beyond it or dictating it." Why can't this be done? On a large scale or personally? It would certainly make selling your religion to modern progressives easier, don't you think? Edit: Brainiac Five posted:Look, guys, it's okay to say that, because you Jews made up the evil being you all serve, and, statistically speaking, you are more likely to have a big nose- I have no problem calling ultra-orthodox jewish believers followers of an evil ideology, actually. There really isn't anything good to be said about them, socially and politically speaking. Liberal_L33t fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Apr 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
blowfish posted:so basically I'm enjoying your pretense to knowledge, because it means you end up saying things in the line of, "have a rigorous theory worked out about a hypothetical statement, lest I, blowfish, Germany's dumbest son, disapprove of thee!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I'm enjoying your pretense to knowledge, because it means you end up saying things in the line of, "have a rigorous theory worked out about a hypothetical statement, lest I, blowfish, Germany's dumbest son, disapprove of thee!" If you are making a ~hypothesis~ on no grounds whatsoever, you are literally making poo poo up. also, Brainiac Five posted:"the god of the jews (if he actually existed) would be an evil genocidal criminal who should be locked up, but actual jews (like most other religions' adherents) don't tend to go out of their way to be evil and instead adjust their religious feelings to the real world" == "all the jews are literal hitlers"
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
blowfish posted:If you are making a ~hypothesis~ on no grounds whatsoever, you are literally making poo poo up. So, why do Jews worship this being? Are they stupid or something? After all, it's self-evidently the case that God is evil! In any case, keep on trying to get me to say religion is just like a godawful teevee show.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I'm enjoying your pretense to knowledge, because it means you end up saying things in the line of, "have a rigorous theory worked out about a hypothetical statement, lest I, blowfish, Germany's dumbest son, disapprove of thee!" You seem to be under the impression that you don't have to defend any of the claims you're going to bat for, here. While that is technically true - internet forum and all that - you're not really contributing to the thread discussion if you never actually engage with anything. As far as thread contribution goes, Crowsbeak (or blowfish, or whoever you want to caricature) has been far more honest and productive than you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So, why do Jews worship this being? Are they stupid or something? After all, it's self-evidently the case that God is evil! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Judaism#Ritual.2C_autonomy_and_law god you're shrill Edit: The ones who still hold to a static, traditionalist interpretation of the original scripture are stupid, yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So, why do Jews worship this being? Because humans are predisposed to believing in irrational things (likely for evolutionary reasons), and quote:Are they stupid or something? That works as well, because humans by default behave rather stupidly. quote:After all, it's self-evidently the case that God is evil! quote:In any case, keep on trying to get me to say religion is just like a godawful teevee show. A pretty accurate description, actually.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Because humans are predisposed to believing in irrational things (likely for evolutionary reasons), and Misanthropy isn't a scientific position. Try again, little boy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Misanthropy isn't a scientific position. Try again, little boy. Ok, now we're devolving to name calling, after having failed to provide even minimal evidence dozens of times.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Misanthropy isn't a scientific position. Try again, little boy. Says the child who can't back up anything they say. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Ok, now we're devolving to name calling, after having failed to provide even minimal evidence dozens of times. I'm not going to cater to someone who demands proof that something must exist to be provably existent, because only an howling idiot could demand that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I'm not going to cater to someone who demands proof that something must exist to be provably existent, because only an howling idiot could demand that. Then we're back to believing in things without evidence, which is a dumb idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Then we're back to believing in things without evidence, which is a dumb idea. What? What the gently caress is wrong with your brain? Did mommy keep dropping you as a baby?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:What? What the gently caress is wrong with your brain? Did mommy keep dropping you as a baby? So you believe in god (and that religion can be a physical thing that exists) without any evidence whatsoever and get awfully worked up over people telling you that might be a dumb thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
blowfish posted:So you believe in god (and that religion can be a physical thing that exists) without any evidence whatsoever and get awfully worked up over people telling you that might be a dumb thing to do. That isn't what I've said. Stop lying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Like, you can make an argument that agnosticism is a better position than firm "god definitely doesn't exist"-type atheism, but you can't do that for religion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:That isn't what I've said. Stop lying. Then, for once, clarify what you're saying instead of making stupid ad-hominem arguments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Then, for once, clarify what you're saying instead of making stupid ad-hominem arguments. When I did, you immediately lied about it, so I'd be real gullible to do that, wouldn't I?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:When I did, you immediately lied about it, so I'd be real gullible to do that, wouldn't I? Then quote your post that I allegedly lied about. That shouldn't be hard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Then quote your post that I allegedly lied about. That shouldn't be hard. No, you don't seem to get it. You're not trustworthy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Then quote your post that I allegedly lied about. That shouldn't be hard. Like most liars B. Five tends to accuse others of lying when their own lies are pointed out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Like most liars B. Five tends to accuse others of lying when their own lies are pointed out. Hey, fucko, you wanna explain why "something must first exist if it's provably existent" is a controversial statement? Or did you just classify me in the "religious subhuman" category and ignore the actual content?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:No, you don't seem to get it. You're not trustworthy. Dividing the world into good and evil and then reducing it to the set of people classified as good according to your subjective (and probably real bad) criteria has always been a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
I can't tell if Brainiac Five is trolling or not. This seems like a pretty rare combination of dislikability, arrogance, stridency, and monumental stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Hey, fucko, you wanna explain why "something must first exist if it's provably existent" is a controversial statement? Or did you just classify me in the "religious subhuman" category and ignore the actual content? Heyyyy!! Fucko 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Hey, fucko, you wanna explain why "something must first exist if it's provably existent" is a controversial statement? Or did you just classify me in the "religious subhuman" category and ignore the actual content? Why should I explain anything to a petulant compulsive liar like you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Dividing the world into good and evil and then reducing it to the set of people classified as good to your subjective (and probably real bad) criteria has always been a good idea. Not what I said. I used empiricism to conclude that, on the evidence, you were untrustworthy. Should I have faith you'll respond to what is actually written, instead?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Hey, fucko, you wanna explain why "something must first exist if it's provably existent" is a controversial statement? Or did you just classify me in the "religious subhuman" category and ignore the actual content? Hey, fucko, you wanna explain why "believing in something without any evidence whatsoever doesn't say anything about its existence" is a controversial statement? Or did you just classify me in the "atheist subhuman" category and ignore the actual content?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Not what I said. I used empiricism to conclude that, on the evidence, you were untrustworthy. Should I have faith you'll respond to what is actually written, instead? Given that there is next to zero cost to showing ~faith~ (worst case scenario, I post something you don't like), yes you should.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:52
|
|