Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The sun is God.

CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2011 11:56:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Pat Condell is hilarious. I don't think he's ever gotten under my skin.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2011 12:18:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/12/2011 11:56:03 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Pat Condell is hilarious. I don't think he's ever gotten under my skin.

He is pretty hilarious, although I prefer Christopher Hitchens. Richard Dawkins is definitely my favorite speaker on behalf of Non-believers, since he pretty much leaves opinion at the door and relies on scientific facts.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2011 7:30:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/12/2011 12:18:53 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/12/2011 11:56:03 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Pat Condell is hilarious. I don't think he's ever gotten under my skin.

He is pretty hilarious, although I prefer Christopher Hitchens. Richard Dawkins is definitely my favorite speaker on behalf of Non-believers, since he pretty much leaves opinion at the door and relies on scientific facts.

Haha, good one.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2011 9:39:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/12/2011 7:30:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/12/2011 12:18:53 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/12/2011 11:56:03 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Pat Condell is hilarious. I don't think he's ever gotten under my skin.

He is pretty hilarious, although I prefer Christopher Hitchens. Richard Dawkins is definitely my favorite speaker on behalf of Non-believers, since he pretty much leaves opinion at the door and relies on scientific facts.

Haha, good one.

You would deny that. That's even more funny to anyone with a biology degree, and I am almost certain you have not studied that area in depth. You are more than welcome to prove me wrong in a debate. Otherwise, your views are the ones that are laughable.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2011 9:52:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/12/2011 9:39:11 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/12/2011 7:30:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/12/2011 12:18:53 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/12/2011 11:56:03 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Pat Condell is hilarious. I don't think he's ever gotten under my skin.

He is pretty hilarious, although I prefer Christopher Hitchens. Richard Dawkins is definitely my favorite speaker on behalf of Non-believers, since he pretty much leaves opinion at the door and relies on scientific facts.

Haha, good one.

You would deny that. That's even more funny to anyone with a biology degree, and I am almost certain you have not studied that area in depth. You are more than welcome to prove me wrong in a debate. Otherwise, your views are the ones that are laughable.

You would challenge that. :P

Are you seriously suggesting that when Dawkins "speaks on behalf" of non-believers that he doesn't inject his opinion into his books, articles, speeches, interviews, and debates? Are we talking about the same Richard Dawkins?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2011 9:55:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/12/2011 9:52:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/12/2011 9:39:11 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/12/2011 7:30:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/12/2011 12:18:53 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/12/2011 11:56:03 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Pat Condell is hilarious. I don't think he's ever gotten under my skin.

He is pretty hilarious, although I prefer Christopher Hitchens. Richard Dawkins is definitely my favorite speaker on behalf of Non-believers, since he pretty much leaves opinion at the door and relies on scientific facts.

Haha, good one.

You would deny that. That's even more funny to anyone with a biology degree, and I am almost certain you have not studied that area in depth. You are more than welcome to prove me wrong in a debate. Otherwise, your views are the ones that are laughable.

You would challenge that. :P

Are you seriously suggesting that when Dawkins "speaks on behalf" of non-believers that he doesn't inject his opinion into his books, articles, speeches, interviews, and debates? Are we talking about the same Richard Dawkins?

I don't think so.... o.O

gavin, Dawkins relies on opinion more than scientific fact. Don't get me wrong, I loved the "God Delusion" but most of the book was him writing, "How stupid is this?! [enter opinion here]"
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2011 10:02:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yitzi - "Nice try, but our God isn't so wimpy that it's physically possible to nail Him to anything."
Alyeska - "Why haven't you accepted Walper-Jesus as your savior?"
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 8:23:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/12/2011 9:55:08 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 1/12/2011 9:52:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/12/2011 9:39:11 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/12/2011 7:30:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/12/2011 12:18:53 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/12/2011 11:56:03 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Pat Condell is hilarious. I don't think he's ever gotten under my skin.

He is pretty hilarious, although I prefer Christopher Hitchens. Richard Dawkins is definitely my favorite speaker on behalf of Non-believers, since he pretty much leaves opinion at the door and relies on scientific facts.

Haha, good one.

You would deny that. That's even more funny to anyone with a biology degree, and I am almost certain you have not studied that area in depth. You are more than welcome to prove me wrong in a debate. Otherwise, your views are the ones that are laughable.

You would challenge that. :P

Are you seriously suggesting that when Dawkins "speaks on behalf" of non-believers that he doesn't inject his opinion into his books, articles, speeches, interviews, and debates? Are we talking about the same Richard Dawkins?

I don't think so.... o.O

gavin, Dawkins relies on opinion more than scientific fact. Don't get me wrong, I loved the "God Delusion" but most of the book was him writing, "How stupid is this?! [enter opinion here]"

Dawkins is an acclaimed scientist, and when he defends evolution and physics against those who would see creation and miracles taught in school, he uses scientific facts to back his claims. Of course the man has opinions, but they are based in reality.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 9:09:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
gavin, Dawkins relies on opinion more than scientific fact. Don't get me wrong, I loved the "God Delusion" but most of the book was him writing, "How stupid is this?! [enter opinion here]"

Dawkins is an acclaimed scientist, and when he defends evolution and physics against those who would see creation and miracles taught in school, he uses scientific facts to back his claims. Of course the man has opinions, but they are based in reality.:

He's also a blowhard who panders to a crowd of anti-theists, not atheists. I find myself in agreement with most things he says, but the man lacks a certain tact necessary to compel the opposite crowd with persuasion. If anything, he does more harm to his own cause by creating for the fundies a self-fulfilling prophecy. "See, he's just out to get religion. We can't trust anything he says!"

It's the same rationale being used in Afghanistan. The US unwittingly creates more enemies. The more they slaughter, the greater the animosity they create. For every dead terrorist, 2 more take their place out of frustration against naked aggression. Dawkins does the same thing, because who would be obsessed with religion unless they're religious. It comes across as an obsession for him, not merely subject of interest to him.

Yes, he's a very intuitive man full of genuine accomplishments... I just think he jeopardizes his hard won efforts with rhetoric. Stick to science and let people come to their own conclusions.

It's like the media analysts now or days. Just present the f*cking facts! I don't need you to tell me how to interpret it. Leave nterpretation up to us. Anything less is as condescending as theists presenting to us "The Truth, llc."

Dawkins doesn't need to offer Truth (trademark symbol). He simply needs to present facts in a persuasive manner to the jury. Let the jury decide the verdict. As Professor Tyson once phrased it to him, "You're a professor of anthropology, not a professor Truth."
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 9:28:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 9:09:04 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
gavin, Dawkins relies on opinion more than scientific fact. Don't get me wrong, I loved the "God Delusion" but most of the book was him writing, "How stupid is this?! [enter opinion here]"

Dawkins is an acclaimed scientist, and when he defends evolution and physics against those who would see creation and miracles taught in school, he uses scientific facts to back his claims. Of course the man has opinions, but they are based in reality.:

He's also a blowhard who panders to a crowd of anti-theists, not atheists. I find myself in agreement with most things he says, but the man lacks a certain tact necessary to compel the opposite crowd with persuasion. If anything, he does more harm to his own cause by creating for the fundies a self-fulfilling prophecy. "See, he's just out to get religion. We can't trust anything he says!"

It's the same rationale being used in Afghanistan. The US unwittingly creates more enemies. The more they slaughter, the greater the animosity they create. For every dead terrorist, 2 more take their place out of frustration against naked aggression. Dawkins does the same thing, because who would be obsessed with religion unless they're religious. It comes across as an obsession for him, not merely subject of interest to him.

Yes, he's a very intuitive man full of genuine accomplishments... I just think he jeopardizes his hard won efforts with rhetoric. Stick to science and let people come to their own conclusions.

It's like the media analysts now or days. Just present the f*cking facts! I don't need you to tell me how to interpret it. Leave nterpretation up to us. Anything less is as condescending as theists presenting to us "The Truth, llc."

Dawkins doesn't need to offer Truth (trademark symbol). He simply needs to present facts in a persuasive manner to the jury. Let the jury decide the verdict. As Professor Tyson once phrased it to him, "You're a professor of anthropology, not a professor Truth."

Well said, but at what point do you draw the line for the ad populum argument? My point is this. What are you to do when people start rejecting science in favor of mythology and scripture? I'm sorry, but just sitting on your hands as Islamic Sharia is practiced in Europe, and Christian Fundamentalists reside in the White House, is not a legitimate strategy. Why should the rest of the world sit around while the Jews, Christians, and Muslims kill each other and eventually the rest of the world? Remember, there are people claiming to be giving us "the facts", when they are nothing more than delusions of warped minds.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 9:55:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well said, but at what point do you draw the line for the ad populum argument? My point is this. What are you to do when people start rejecting science in favor of mythology and scripture? I'm sorry, but just sitting on your hands as Islamic Sharia is practiced in Europe, and Christian Fundamentalists reside in the White House, is not a legitimate strategy. Why should the rest of the world sit around while the Jews, Christians, and Muslims kill each other and eventually the rest of the world? Remember, there are people claiming to be giving us "the facts", when they are nothing more than delusions of warped minds.:

I understand your sense of urgency, however, persuasive argument is the only thing that has ever accomplished a damned thing in this world. I can only tell you from personal experience that confirmation bias is a very powerful thing. People will protect their worldview with a vengence for the simple fact that it's difficult to come to the realization that what you've spent so much time in was an elaborate lie. They don't want to accept that and be made fools.

That has the potential to cause serious cognitive dissonance. I once was a fundamentalist Christian, and I can tell you that one of the most compelling ways to ensure deconversion won't take place, is by browbeating. Dawkins' and Hitchens have done more to keep people in the faith than I think they ever brought out. That was my experience.

I just needed clear, identifiable facts. And the sh*t won't happen over night. It takes a slow erosion of faith for someone to finally lose all faith.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 9:58:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 9:49:50 AM, the-good-teacher wrote:
"The sun is God", is the moon then his wife and the morning star their child ? LOL

What a dummy. You didn't even watch the clip, did you? If you take your head out of your a$$, you would be able to watch it.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 10:04:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I gotta go with PARADIGM_L0ST on this one.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 10:06:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 9:55:37 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Well said, but at what point do you draw the line for the ad populum argument? My point is this. What are you to do when people start rejecting science in favor of mythology and scripture? I'm sorry, but just sitting on your hands as Islamic Sharia is practiced in Europe, and Christian Fundamentalists reside in the White House, is not a legitimate strategy. Why should the rest of the world sit around while the Jews, Christians, and Muslims kill each other and eventually the rest of the world? Remember, there are people claiming to be giving us "the facts", when they are nothing more than delusions of warped minds.:

I understand your sense of urgency, however, persuasive argument is the only thing that has ever accomplished a damned thing in this world. I can only tell you from personal experience that confirmation bias is a very powerful thing. People will protect their worldview with a vengence for the simple fact that it's difficult to come to the realization that what you've spent so much time in was an elaborate lie. They don't want to accept that and be made fools.

That has the potential to cause serious cognitive dissonance. I once was a fundamentalist Christian, and I can tell you that one of the most compelling ways to ensure deconversion won't take place, is by browbeating. Dawkins' and Hitchens have done more to keep people in the faith than I think they ever brought out. That was my experience.

I just needed clear, identifiable facts. And the sh*t won't happen over night. It takes a slow erosion of faith for someone to finally lose all faith.

That begs the true question, to which we already know the answer. How has this faith been so deeply ingrained? The answer is also the problem. Indoctrination. The human mind is extremely susceptible to hallucination, particularly the mind of a child. So, parents and priests actually prey on their own children, and turn them into whatever they think they should be. Seems more like a virus, than a religion to me.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 10:07:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 8:23:35 AM, gavin.ogden wrote:
Dawkins is an acclaimed scientist, and when he defends evolution and physics against those who would see creation and miracles taught in school, he uses scientific facts to back his claims. Of course the man has opinions, but they are based in reality.

So you admit you were wrong when he says that he leaves his opinions at the door?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 10:09:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 10:07:31 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/13/2011 8:23:35 AM, gavin.ogden wrote:
Dawkins is an acclaimed scientist, and when he defends evolution and physics against those who would see creation and miracles taught in school, he uses scientific facts to back his claims. Of course the man has opinions, but they are based in reality.

So you admit you were wrong when he says that he leaves his opinions at the door?

Sure, I misspoke. I should have said his opinions are based on scientific evidence. Sorry about that. I get carried away sometimes. After all, I am human.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 10:10:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 10:04:25 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I gotta go with PARADIGM_L0ST on this one.

Me too. Persuasion always goes much further than denigrating. I love hearing a rational person speak of atheism as a viable option, but within moments of hearing these guys, there is a polarizing effect.
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 10:14:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 10:10:09 AM, innomen wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:04:25 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I gotta go with PARADIGM_L0ST on this one.

Me too. Persuasion always goes much further than denigrating. I love hearing a rational person speak of atheism as a viable option, but within moments of hearing these guys, there is a polarizing effect.

I think that's the idea. I also believe there should be a polarizing effect. If one rejects science for faith, then some believe they deserve ridicule, while others believe they should be committed. I'm not saying I completely agree with that, but I don't disagree either.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 10:16:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 10:14:56 AM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:10:09 AM, innomen wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:04:25 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I gotta go with PARADIGM_L0ST on this one.

Me too. Persuasion always goes much further than denigrating. I love hearing a rational person speak of atheism as a viable option, but within moments of hearing these guys, there is a polarizing effect.

I think that's the idea. I also believe there should be a polarizing effect. If one rejects science for faith, then some believe they deserve ridicule, while others believe they should be committed. I'm not saying I completely agree with that, but I don't disagree either.

Why would you believe that some deserve ridicule?
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 10:26:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 10:16:49 AM, innomen wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:14:56 AM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:10:09 AM, innomen wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:04:25 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I gotta go with PARADIGM_L0ST on this one.

Me too. Persuasion always goes much further than denigrating. I love hearing a rational person speak of atheism as a viable option, but within moments of hearing these guys, there is a polarizing effect.

I think that's the idea. I also believe there should be a polarizing effect. If one rejects science for faith, then some believe they deserve ridicule, while others believe they should be committed. I'm not saying I completely agree with that, but I don't disagree either.

Why would you believe that some deserve ridicule?

When it is obvious that a brain is closed for business, the only thing left is to ridicule. At that point, what difference does it make anyway? To give an example, The-good-teacher is not a teacher at all. He obviously has no aspirations of knowledge or truth. He just wants to vomit scripture all day to reinforce the house of cards that is the basis for his reality. He is deserving of ridicule, or a straight jacket. I'm a fan of freedom, so I choose ridicule. Sticks and stones, right? You are welcome to disagree with me, and if some choose to ridicule in return, I am right here. On the other hand, there are some that acknowledge that the evidence against almost all religion is overwhelming, but they still have their own idea of a higher power. I would be wrong to ridicule someone for that, because they are actually using the brain that is availabe to us through millions of years of evolution, instead of flushing it down the toilet.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 10:35:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 10:26:27 AM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:16:49 AM, innomen wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:14:56 AM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:10:09 AM, innomen wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:04:25 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I gotta go with PARADIGM_L0ST on this one.

Me too. Persuasion always goes much further than denigrating. I love hearing a rational person speak of atheism as a viable option, but within moments of hearing these guys, there is a polarizing effect.

I think that's the idea. I also believe there should be a polarizing effect. If one rejects science for faith, then some believe they deserve ridicule, while others believe they should be committed. I'm not saying I completely agree with that, but I don't disagree either.

Why would you believe that some deserve ridicule?

When it is obvious that a brain is closed for business, the only thing left is to ridicule. At that point, what difference does it make anyway? To give an example, The-good-teacher is not a teacher at all. He obviously has no aspirations of knowledge or truth. He just wants to vomit scripture all day to reinforce the house of cards that is the basis for his reality. He is deserving of ridicule, or a straight jacket. I'm a fan of freedom, so I choose ridicule. Sticks and stones, right? You are welcome to disagree with me, and if some choose to ridicule in return, I am right here. On the other hand, there are some that acknowledge that the evidence against almost all religion is overwhelming, but they still have their own idea of a higher power. I would be wrong to ridicule someone for that, because they are actually using the brain that is availabe to us through millions of years of evolution, instead of flushing it down the toilet.

So it is within your value system to ridicule people that you deem....close minded? You go and choose ridicule and see what grand results you get. I suppose it massages your ego a bit - that whole superiority thing and all, but personally i have never really seen much use in ridicule. If the interaction is pointless, why engage? Oh yeah, the ego again.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 10:36:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Everyone deserves ridicule. If you can't handle ridicule, you have two options...

Get thicker skin

or

An hero
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 10:47:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 10:35:23 AM, innomen wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:26:27 AM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:16:49 AM, innomen wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:14:56 AM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:10:09 AM, innomen wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:04:25 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I gotta go with PARADIGM_L0ST on this one.

Me too. Persuasion always goes much further than denigrating. I love hearing a rational person speak of atheism as a viable option, but within moments of hearing these guys, there is a polarizing effect.

I think that's the idea. I also believe there should be a polarizing effect. If one rejects science for faith, then some believe they deserve ridicule, while others believe they should be committed. I'm not saying I completely agree with that, but I don't disagree either.

Why would you believe that some deserve ridicule?

When it is obvious that a brain is closed for business, the only thing left is to ridicule. At that point, what difference does it make anyway? To give an example, The-good-teacher is not a teacher at all. He obviously has no aspirations of knowledge or truth. He just wants to vomit scripture all day to reinforce the house of cards that is the basis for his reality. He is deserving of ridicule, or a straight jacket. I'm a fan of freedom, so I choose ridicule. Sticks and stones, right? You are welcome to disagree with me, and if some choose to ridicule in return, I am right here. On the other hand, there are some that acknowledge that the evidence against almost all religion is overwhelming, but they still have their own idea of a higher power. I would be wrong to ridicule someone for that, because they are actually using the brain that is availabe to us through millions of years of evolution, instead of flushing it down the toilet.

So it is within your value system to ridicule people that you deem....close minded? You go and choose ridicule and see what grand results you get. I suppose it massages your ego a bit - that whole superiority thing and all, but personally i have never really seen much use in ridicule. If the interaction is pointless, why engage? Oh yeah, the ego again.

You may be right to a certain extent, but calling someone stupid who is obviously stupid is fine. Just like calling someone an ego maniac who is an ego maniac is also fine. So, now we are back at square one, aren't we? Simply stating facts can be considered ridicule, right?
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 10:51:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 10:47:25 AM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:35:23 AM, innomen wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:26:27 AM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:16:49 AM, innomen wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:14:56 AM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:10:09 AM, innomen wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:04:25 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I gotta go with PARADIGM_L0ST on this one.

Me too. Persuasion always goes much further than denigrating. I love hearing a rational person speak of atheism as a viable option, but within moments of hearing these guys, there is a polarizing effect.

I think that's the idea. I also believe there should be a polarizing effect. If one rejects science for faith, then some believe they deserve ridicule, while others believe they should be committed. I'm not saying I completely agree with that, but I don't disagree either.

Why would you believe that some deserve ridicule?

When it is obvious that a brain is closed for business, the only thing left is to ridicule. At that point, what difference does it make anyway? To give an example, The-good-teacher is not a teacher at all. He obviously has no aspirations of knowledge or truth. He just wants to vomit scripture all day to reinforce the house of cards that is the basis for his reality. He is deserving of ridicule, or a straight jacket. I'm a fan of freedom, so I choose ridicule. Sticks and stones, right? You are welcome to disagree with me, and if some choose to ridicule in return, I am right here. On the other hand, there are some that acknowledge that the evidence against almost all religion is overwhelming, but they still have their own idea of a higher power. I would be wrong to ridicule someone for that, because they are actually using the brain that is availabe to us through millions of years of evolution, instead of flushing it down the toilet.

So it is within your value system to ridicule people that you deem....close minded? You go and choose ridicule and see what grand results you get. I suppose it massages your ego a bit - that whole superiority thing and all, but personally i have never really seen much use in ridicule. If the interaction is pointless, why engage? Oh yeah, the ego again.

You may be right to a certain extent, but calling someone stupid who is obviously stupid is fine. Just like calling someone an ego maniac who is an ego maniac is also fine. So, now we are back at square one, aren't we? Simply stating facts can be considered ridicule, right?

I actually don't think it's all that fine to call someone stupid, but you don't have to go by me. I probably follow a different path in such things. Stating facts can have the same effect as wielding a baseball bat. I have found that there are far more fruitful ways of dealing with people. Calling someone stupid really hasn't improved anything for me or the person i call stupid.
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 10:51:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 10:36:22 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Everyone deserves ridicule. If you can't handle ridicule, you have two options...

Get thicker skin

or

An hero

To think one is above ridicule is the highest form of ego.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 10:53:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 10:51:26 AM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:36:22 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Everyone deserves ridicule. If you can't handle ridicule, you have two options...

Get thicker skin

or

An hero

To think one is above ridicule is the highest form of ego.

Indeed.

Though, I feel like I need to quote Buddha here, because it might illustrate where some people here are coming from...

"Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world."
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 10:55:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 10:51:20 AM, innomen wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:47:25 AM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:35:23 AM, innomen wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:26:27 AM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:16:49 AM, innomen wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:14:56 AM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:10:09 AM, innomen wrote:
At 1/13/2011 10:04:25 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I gotta go with PARADIGM_L0ST on this one.

Me too. Persuasion always goes much further than denigrating. I love hearing a rational person speak of atheism as a viable option, but within moments of hearing these guys, there is a polarizing effect.

I think that's the idea. I also believe there should be a polarizing effect. If one rejects science for faith, then some believe they deserve ridicule, while others believe they should be committed. I'm not saying I completely agree with that, but I don't disagree either.

Why would you believe that some deserve ridicule?

When it is obvious that a brain is closed for business, the only thing left is to ridicule. At that point, what difference does it make anyway? To give an example, The-good-teacher is not a teacher at all. He obviously has no aspirations of knowledge or truth. He just wants to vomit scripture all day to reinforce the house of cards that is the basis for his reality. He is deserving of ridicule, or a straight jacket. I'm a fan of freedom, so I choose ridicule. Sticks and stones, right? You are welcome to disagree with me, and if some choose to ridicule in return, I am right here. On the other hand, there are some that acknowledge that the evidence against almost all religion is overwhelming, but they still have their own idea of a higher power. I would be wrong to ridicule someone for that, because they are actually using the brain that is availabe to us through millions of years of evolution, instead of flushing it down the toilet.

So it is within your value system to ridicule people that you deem....close minded? You go and choose ridicule and see what grand results you get. I suppose it massages your ego a bit - that whole superiority thing and all, but personally i have never really seen much use in ridicule. If the interaction is pointless, why engage? Oh yeah, the ego again.

You may be right to a certain extent, but calling someone stupid who is obviously stupid is fine. Just like calling someone an ego maniac who is an ego maniac is also fine. So, now we are back at square one, aren't we? Simply stating facts can be considered ridicule, right?

I actually don't think it's all that fine to call someone stupid, but you don't have to go by me. I probably follow a different path in such things. Stating facts can have the same effect as wielding a baseball bat. I have found that there are far more fruitful ways of dealing with people. Calling someone stupid really hasn't improved anything for me or the person i call stupid.

But calling someone an ego maniac is okay? I think it is, and you seem to think it is. Why is then wrong to call some stupid? I never claimed it helped anyone, I just said it was a last resort. You can't reason with stupidity, so why would I waste my time in trying to be diplomatic? That would make me stupid, which fortunately I'm not.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 11:02:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
You can't reason with the unreasonable, and I've never met a truly ignorant person who was blissful.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp