An Atheist Speaks

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

and I think the only people blinder than even those, are the ones with their eyes burned out with acid

Well, there are the people who have no heads. I would imagine that they are pretty blind too. (They have no brains either, so at least they are not aware that they are blind.)

Yeah, but they don't really talk alot about their beliefs. I find them refreshingly quiet and confident and not pushy at all.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

Let's not believe anything that historians recorded before... let's pull a date out of the air... A.D. 1500.

Absolutely right! If you automatically take at face value the entire contents of any historical work that old then you are setting yourself up for a massive fall.

One of the main reasons that Classics and Ancient History is such a thriving field is because so much of what is written in ancient historical works is not true. Trying to find out which bits are true and which bits are made up is all the fun!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

Quote

and I think the only people blinder than even those, are the ones with their eyes burned out with acid

Well, there are the people who have no heads. I would imagine that they are pretty blind too. (They have no brains either, so at least they are not aware that they are blind.)

Not neccessarily. Herodotus, as always working from eyewitness accounts, wrote about the headless Blemmyae in Africa whos' faces were in their chests. And that's, like, an eyewitness account. In a book. So it must be true.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

Jakee - your reply you've been bouncing around for; you presented a statement as being something I'd directly said, which in fact it hadn't. Your constant demands for answers and explanations work both ways - you're quite capable of reading earlier posts.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm a nobody in regarding how religion should be properly applied and I readily accept that fact. I just continually hear points concerning evil that's been a direct consequence of religion. But that hasn't been religions fault. It's man's misuse and misapplication of religion that's at fault - so it's an important aspect easily put aside in regards to arguments of religion being for good or bad.

Ah, so when religious texts are used to justify being nasty to people that isn't religion's fault, just bad people. However when religious texts are used to encourage being good to each other it isn't because of good people, but the religious texts.

How... convenient

What's fucking crazy? You've said it yourself - I've emboldened it. Encouraged. That's been the point all along. Pity you've been too busy nitpicking, avoiding my questions to you, and generally taking on your typically arrogant logical higher ground. Your atheists beliefs only work to a point when you consider the greater community or society.

And a fucking good example for you today is the UK.

Read this:

'Atheists claim they behave no worse than believers, and often better, but why should atheists care, or use such terms as "good" and "virtue" anyway?

If we are weak and poor, we can all summon up self-interested decency, behaving in a kind way, in public, towards those from whom we hope for decency in return.

But as soon as we have the power to do evil, we generally do. What is to stop us, unobserved, doing and planning acts of selfish unkindness against others, as so many of us do – for example – in office politics?

What is to stop us, in the privacy of the home, taking advantage of the goodness of others more generous than ourselves? Who will ever know?

If we become rich or mighty, how much worse the problem is. We can rob, wound and defraud our fellow creatures without any fear that they will be able to take revenge. A surprising number of us have power to act in this way.

Look at the annual massacre of unborn babies, done away with for the convenience of adults.

In the harsher parts of our cities, strong, violent people rule their neighbours with pre-medieval savagery, demonstrating a fine understanding of what it means if there is no God: that if something works for you, and you can get away with it, then you may do it without fear of consequence in this world – and there is no next world.

That is practical atheism. Comfortable, suburban unbelievers hate to have this pointed out to them.

They would never behave like that, surrounded as they are by the invisible web of ten centuries of Christian law and morality.

But it is the application of what they preach, the worship of self and power.

Faith and belief can be and often are restraints on this arrogance of power. They offer the possibility of justice where human society fails to provide it – as it almost always does fail.

We abolished the gallows, for example, and found we had created an armed police and an epidemic of prison suicides. We abolished school selection by exams, and found we had replaced it with selection by money. And so on.

We are in the process of abolishing religion, and so of abolishing conscience, too.

It is a favourite jibes that a world ruled by faith is like North Korea, a place where all is known and all is ordered.

On the contrary, North Korea is the precise opposite of a land governed by conscience.

It is a country governed by men who do not believe in God or conscience, where nobody can be trusted to make his own choices, and where the State decides for the people what is right and what is wrong.

And it is the ultimate destination of atheist thought.

If you do not worship God, as a society, you end up worshipping power, whether it is Kim Jong Il, Leon Trotsky or the military might of George W. Bush.' Peter Hitchens

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

Jakee - your reply you've been bouncing around for; you presented a statement as being something I'd directly said, which in fact it hadn't. Your constant demands for answers and explanations work both ways - you're quite capable of reading earlier posts.

I've read them, I still think you were lying. You said you would show me the statement you were referring to, if you now refuse to do that, it's another lie.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

Bollox - if it's that important you go ahead and do all the donkey work; provide both our relevant posts in the matter, and then I'll quite happily embolden the pertinent points.

I doubt you'll provide the particular posts though, or your un-edited versions.

edit: because you, cunty bollox, have been doing all the lying.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

What's fucking crazy? You've said it yourself - I've emboldened it. Encouraged. That's been the point all along.

Ok, so religion can encourage people to be either good or bad. Any credit it gets for encouraging people to do good, it should get equal credit for when it has encouraged people to do bad - and it's done a lot of that. You can't only consider one side of the coin.

Quote

Your atheists beliefs only work to a point when you consider the greater community or society.

You've yet to show that in any way.

Quote

Quote from some ignorant cunt with a chip on his shoulder***

Dude, if that shit piece of polemic is the best you've got, you've got nothing!

He even ends the piece by mentioning GWB as an example of what happens when a country stops worshipping god. Has he seen the US rate of churchgoing compared to ours? Please tell me you weren't taken in by something so obviously retarded?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

Bollox - if it's that important you go ahead and do all the donkey work; provide both our relevant posts in the matter, and then I'll quite happily embolden the pertinent points.

I'll provide you with your latest lie, but that's it - up to you to do the rest, as you promised.

Quote

I will show you the phrase you said I said which in actual fact I didn't tomorrow, in fact, maybe Monday.

Still waiting. Funny how you've had the time and inclination to moniter this thread for several days, and write out several rather lengthy replies, but can't even c&p one single quote.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

What's fucking crazy? You've said it yourself - I've emboldened it. Encouraged. That's been the point all along.

Ok, so religion can encourage people to be either good or bad. Any credit it gets for encouraging people to do good, it should get equal credit for when it has encouraged people to do bad - and it's done a lot of that. You can't only consider one side of the coin.

This is getting boring. I've demonstrated both sides of consideration, whilst you quite obviously favour only one yourself. It's you with the bent coin.

Quote

Your atheists beliefs only work to a point when you consider the greater community or society.

You've yet to show that in any way.

You've yet to show anything else yourself, whilst I've already explained my opinion. Justify your counter claim.

Quote

Quote from some ignorant cunt with a chip on his shoulder***

Dude, if that shit piece of polemic is the best you've got, you've got nothing!

He even ends the piece by mentioning GWB as an example of what happens when a country stops worshipping god. Has he seen the US rate of churchgoing compared to ours? Please tell me you weren't taken in by something so obviously retarded?

You're the one with nothing. You're counter arguments have only misguided logic. Substantiate them.

What he said was this: 'it is the ultimate destination of atheist thought.

If you do not worship God, you end up worshipping power, whether it is Kim Jong Il, Leon Trotsky or the military might of George W. Bush.'

So is the pertinent point more obvious for you?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

Bollox - if it's that important you go ahead and do all the donkey work; provide both our relevant posts in the matter, and then I'll quite happily embolden the pertinent points.

I'll provide you with your latest lie, but that's it - up to you to do the rest, as you promised.

Quote

I will show you the phrase you said I said which in actual fact I didn't tomorrow, in fact, maybe Monday.

Still waiting. Funny how you've had the time and inclination to moniter this thread for several days, and write out several rather lengthy replies, but can't even c&p one single quote.

I can't see where I said 'promise'. Again, a further demonstration of your sly little ways of changing the actual text.

As I also mentioned earlier, I can't be arsed going through the posts to find the particular one in this case. As you say, it's relatively easy - and it is. But it's nice to see you now use this as justification of your accusation. Water off a ducks back. You're the one who's been showing lack of integrity as shown above, despite it being only a minor case in this instance.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

This is getting boring. I've demonstrated both sides of consideration,

Where? You've said that religion can't be blamed for people doing bad things, while it is the only thing that can keep people doing good things. That's not both sides!

Quote

You've yet to show anything else yourself, whilst I've already explained my opinion.

Just saying what you think is not explaining your opinion. Your reason for thinking that religion is neccessary for society to be moral is that you think religion is neccessary for morality. Why?

Quote

What he said was this: 'it is the ultimate destination of atheist thought.

And he's wrong. He assumes that just because he needs something to worship, everyone must want something to worship. That is (quite shockingly) the least shallow part of his argument. He just assumes the truth of that statement and takes off from there. It's realy, really shit work.

hell, look at his first paragraph; "Atheists claim they behave no worse than believers, and often better, but why should atheists care, or use such terms as "good" and "virtue" anyway?"

I mean, WTF? Most atheists obviously do care, so why does the rest of the article read as if he's proved that we don't? It's risible - I wouldn't wipe my arse with it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

As I also mentioned earlier, I can't be arsed going through the posts to find the particular one in this case. As you say, it's relatively easy - and it is.

But you don't, because you know you're wrong, and were lying. Why else would you say you were going to, then chicken out? Pretty transparent.

If it makes it any easier, it's probably somewhere between pages 12 and 14. I can't be any more specific than that, 'cos I haven't got a fucking clue what statement you're talking about. 'Cos you made it up.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

This is getting boring. I've demonstrated both sides of consideration,

Where? You've said that religion can't be blamed for people doing bad things, while it is the only thing that can keep people doing good things. That's not both sides!

Quote

You've yet to show anything else yourself, whilst I've already explained my opinion.

Just saying what you think is not explaining your opinion. Your reason for thinking that religion is neccessary for society to be moral is that you think religion is neccessary for morality. Why?

Quote

What he said was this: 'it is the ultimate destination of atheist thought.

And he's wrong. He assumes that just because he needs something to worship, everyone must want something to worship. That is (quite shockingly) the least shallow part of his argument. He just assumes the truth of that statement and takes off from there. It's realy, really shit work.

hell, look at his first paragraph; "Atheists claim they behave no worse than believers, and often better, but why should atheists care, or use such terms as "good" and "virtue" anyway?"

I mean, WTF? Most atheists obviously do care, so why does the rest of the article read as if he's proved that we don't? It's risible - I wouldn't wipe my arse with it.

Your questions have been answered in my earlier posts.

The article isn't based on proving atheists don't care. I'm amazed that's your understanding of it. Read it again.

Do I have to spell out his points for you? For fucks sake. Not likely. If it's beyond you, fine.

Because I don't really give a fuck.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

As I also mentioned earlier, I can't be arsed going through the posts to find the particular one in this case. As you say, it's relatively easy - and it is.

But you don't, because you know you're wrong, and were lying. Why else would you say you were going to, then chicken out? Pretty transparent.

If it makes it any easier, it's probably somewhere between pages 12 and 14. I can't be any more specific than that, 'cos I haven't got a fucking clue what statement you're talking about. 'Cos you made it up.

Bollox - it's your fucking demands that make me loath to go off and find the misquoted statement.

You should find it quite easy though; it's where you've 'quoted' me as having said something I never actually said. Have a look - you should find several examples now.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

The article isn't based on proving atheists don't care.

No it isn't. As I said, he assumes that atheists don't care, then writes as if it has been proven. That's why it's trash.

'Atheists claim they behave no worse than believers, and often better, but why should atheists care, or use such terms as "good" and "virtue" anyway?

In the harsher parts of our cities, strong, violent people rule their neighbours with pre-medieval savagery, demonstrating a fine understanding of what it means if there is no God: that if something works for you, and you can get away with it, then you may do it without fear of consequence in this world – and there is no next world. That is practical atheism.

It is a country governed by men who do not believe in God or conscience, where nobody can be trusted to make his own choices, and where the State decides for the people what is right and what is wrong. And it is the ultimate destination of atheist thought."

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

Bollox - it's your fucking demands that make me loath to go off and find the misquoted statement.

Right, not because you were tired, or couldn't be arsed, or your dog ate your homework, now it's this? You haven't got a leg to stand on, have you?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,032]

Quote

Quote

I am sorry you have abandoned discussion and descended to the usual Speaker's Corner attacks. It was interesting while it lasted.

Would you call my observation that you twist words a personal attack?

This deserves an irony score. The word twisting that you have to resort to in order to claim that the bible does not contradict itself is just incredible.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,032]

Quote

Quote

Quote

and I think the only people blinder than even those, are the ones with their eyes burned out with acid

Well, there are the people who have no heads. I would imagine that they are pretty blind too. (They have no brains either, so at least they are not aware that they are blind.)

Not neccessarily. Herodotus, as always working from eyewitness accounts, wrote about the headless Blemmyae in Africa whos' faces were in their chests. And that's, like, an eyewitness account. In a book. So it must be true.

The Iliad and Odyssey report on the actions of the Greek Gods, so they must really exist too. And there are volumes of literature about the Hindu Gods.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[vortexring 0]

"it is the ultimate destination of atheist thought."

That in itself shows why there is more to the article than proving atheists just 'don't care.' He writes to provide what his opinion is of an atheist societies future, by simply using todays increasingly immoral society as an example.

He writes critically of what he believes atheist beliefs
cause in a society.

I only share a somewhat similiar opinion.

I can think of numerous possible reasons that can explain our increasingly immoral societies, none so better than this.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

Bollox - it's your fucking demands that make me loath to go off and find the misquoted statement.

Right, not because you were tired, or couldn't be arsed, or your dog ate your homework, now it's this? You haven't got a leg to stand on, have you?

See earlier points regarding this.

edit:'You should find it quite easy though; it's where you've 'quoted' me as having said something I never actually said. Have a look - you should find several examples now.'

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

That in itself shows why there is more to the article than proving atheists just 'don't care.'

Ok, so atheists don't care about right and wrong and they also want to build soulless tyrranical regimes wherever they set foot. It's a great story - get back to me if he ever decides to justify it with fact or logic, instead of just assuming it as the basis of his worthless polemic.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

because you, cunty bollox, have been doing all the lying.

So, can we assume, based on your assertion that religion is necessary for virtue, as well as your PA, that you are an atheist?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jakee 1,501]

I've shown you the statement I think you were talking about, and explained why you're wrong. Look, I'll even dig it up again for you (Oh, the terrible, terrible effort!).

As far as I'm concerned, that's it. If you want to show me otherwise, please go ahead. I think we all know by now that you've got sweet FA though. Why else would you have spent so much time and effort frantically back pedalling when all you had to provide, (and provide something you did, in fact, say you would do) was one simple C&P?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

'Ok, so atheists don't care about right and wrong and they also want to build soulless tyrranical regimes wherever they set foot.'

Did he say that? Did I? Fucking bollox again Jakee - that's your interpretation.

You've used such tactics earlier in regards to what I've said - go back and see. And then you have the fucking nerve to call me a liar. And hop up and down to get me to waste time proving you so.

Tut - fucking - tut.


It does make me wonder though. Do you believe society would be better if people no longer believed in God/Religion/etc? I can only assume you do.

All you've read is his opinion on such a matter.

Why would it be different in your opinion then?

Feel free to provide your opinion.

(I've asked you that a few times now - you never do, do ya!?)

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'