How to Destroy an Atheist in an Argument
By Dan8267 Follow Thu, 31 May 2012, 6:46pm 5,913 views 68 comments
In Boca Raton FL 33433
Watch (2) Share
Quote
Permalink Like Dislike « First « Previous Viewing Comments 29-68 of 68 Last » See most liked comments
|
Premium member Dan8267 is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend (5)
171 threads
5,210 comments
Dan8267 says
Actually, I can't connect your dots. You somehow get from this, and that it's okay for you to judge these people as wrong in their beliefs about women, to you get to judge all the religious as wrong.
Good times...
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
marcus says
Well that's a pussy way to admit defeat.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,118 comments
Dan8267 says
If civilian massacre is good reason, then you are behind Bush#1's efforts in iraq, and Bush#2 efforts towards islamoites, and those that protect them. Right?
You skipped over alot of my questions.
At any rate, who says it is wrong to have genocide or civilian massacre? Explain the reason or basis for such a law or belief, and by what function enforcement is to happen:.... by whom, paid for by what system, to who's satisfaction, and under what authority.
Thanks.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Cloud says
Please furnish the quote where I am mocking "believers".
Oh, you can't? Well that is because you are lying.
Cloud says
Hmmmm, at least it is nice to know what you view as a great leader.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Bap33 says
I did support the first U.S.-Iraq War as it had a clear objective to remove an invading force from a sovereign nation. Naturally, I would have been more pleased with the U.S. if it hadn't acted because of its financial interest in the middle eastern oil, but rather to protect the rights of all people to be self-governed.
The second U.S.-Iraq War was not about saving civilians, toppling a dictator, or preventing genocide. Nor was it about weapons of mass destruction or links to Al Qaeda, both of which were lies told by the evil G.W. Bush, or "Lord Barry" if you prefer.
Given that a million Iraqi men, women, and children died horribly in that war, and the human and civil rights of countless others were violated, if I had to choose between the evil brought on by Bush/Cheney vs. that brought on by Saddam, I would choose the later as the lesser of the two evils. However, it is a false dichotomy as neither was necessary.
The bottom line is that the U.S. government had evil intentions going into the second Iraq war, and intentions matter. They effect the methods and outcome of war.
Bap33 says
If I did, then it's because you did not present them in a coherent form. Try a list format. I never intentionally drop a question or issue.
Also, be specific and clear in your questions.
Bap33 says
You can't serious with that question. Do you really think that either something has to be explicitly prohibited by the Bible in some kind of fairy tale or it's ok?
It is self-evident that murder is a violation of human rights, specifically the right to life. By extension, of course genocide and civilian massacres are wrong.
Then again, the Bible does promote and condone genocide. That's one of the reasons you should stop looking to that collection of fairy tales for moral guidance. It was written by immoral men.
Bap33 says
Human rights. It's not rocket science. The concept is that human rights are universal. Sure, some crockpot could decide that humans don't deserve to exist and start killing people at random, but we shoot people like that.
If people don't have the right to live, then how could any society function? Don't think to hard about this issue, it's not a hard problem.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
leoj707 says
Even sadder is what Cloud considers a leader.
You know who the greatest Roman who ever lived was? It wasn't Julius Cesar or any of the other emperors. Remove any one of them from history and sure the battles will change, but day-to-day life and long-term rates of violence and murder would not. The emperors are unimportant.
The greatest Roman who ever lived was the guy who invented concrete. And we don't even know his name. But his invention still affects us today. We still benefit from concrete roads and buildings. That Roman contributed more to our quality of life and happiness than all the emperors and generals put together. Think about that.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,118 comments
Dan8267 says
no, our citizens were murdered. Can America react to it's own murdered citzens?
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,118 comments
Dan8267 says
enforceing the law you cite about not murdering citizens, is that reason enough?
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,118 comments
Dan8267 says
I think it is self-evident that we are endowed by our Creator with rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Your human life view will piss off the pro-abortion crowd.
Human rights may be universal, but American Warriors are called on to secure human rights more than any other force on earth.
Follow
Befriend (23)
56 threads
4,081 comments
Scottsdale, AZ
robertoaribas's website
Bap33 says
Who did Iraq kill?
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,118 comments
Iraq supports islamites that murder citizens.
Follow
Befriend
2,842 comments
Monterey, CA
Cloud says
Their faith isn't a product of their intelligence.
Follow
Befriend
2,842 comments
Monterey, CA
Cloud says
In Europe not that long ago pretty much everybody was a firm believer of one sort or another. The stupidest people in society were believers. So presumably, according to you, their faith was also a product of their (lack of) intelligence.
Do you see where this is going?
Follow
Befriend
2,842 comments
Monterey, CA
Cloud says
What was the relevance of that post? Really, this seems to be where you always go when you haven't got anything meaningful to say.
If pretty much everyone believed in the past, then that means that both the brightest and the stupidest in society were believers. Do you really not see the point?
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
94 comments
"Richard Feynman eloquently expresses how ridiculous this approach is."
Glad to see someone else here also knows of and admires that brilliant man.
Follow
Befriend
2 comments
We cannot understand an infinite God thru our human intellect. We can only humbly seek him. There is no way someone blinded by this world can see God. "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence." 1 Corinthians 1:27-30
Follow
Befriend (13)
61 threads
2,705 comments
Premium
Cloud says
It's a response, I'll grant you that.
Cloud says
Who knew that Pascal was a scientist, and not a lazy French Philosopher who died shortly after moving to Sweden to tutor the Queen, she liked to get up at 4AM? Guys from the dawn of era of reason != Scientists.
Being scientists, I suppose they have EVIDENCE for their beliefs? If so, can you point me to what that is?
Follow
Befriend (7)
30 threads
1,267 comments
31 male
Premium
Are we operating under the assumption that humans are rational beings now? Sounds like someones claim is all we need is to better educate the savages, then they will be smart enough to believe what we instruct them to believe
Follow
Befriend (3)
41 threads
835 comments
San Francisco, CA
Dan8267 says
I wouldn't describe that section as eloquent, but certainly illustrates a way that a person can approach big questions in life which results in a victory over fear. Strangely, I find a lot in common with that goal of victory over fear and the goals of the Christian religion, which is the only one I know much about. Unfortunately, something about the way religions are practiced distracts people from the goals. A religion can even have a goal of not killing, but then, somehow, become a reason for killing on the most massive scale, outside of disease.
That last line in the documentary, though, about living a life full of questions and uncertainly, but without fear, seems to be a direction toward peace.
Follow
Befriend (3)
41 threads
835 comments
San Francisco, CA
Bap33 says
I'm thinking you don't realize that what you wrote is based on an assumption. That assumption is that everyone detained at Gitmo meets the same criteria. I think, based on some of the people who have been released, we can comfortably say not everyone detained has met that criteria, right? So to execute them all, would mean executing innocent people.
Not that the U.S. hasn't done plenty of that! If there is a god of mercy or justice, expect a meteor smack dab in the middle of North America any day now.
Follow
Befriend (3)
41 threads
835 comments
San Francisco, CA
Bap33 says
So does the United States.
Follow
Befriend (3)
41 threads
835 comments
San Francisco, CA
Bap33 says
By your reasoning, Iraq has the most reasons to "react" by virtue of having the most murdered citizens.
Follow
Befriend (3)
41 threads
835 comments
San Francisco, CA
Dan8267 says
Unfortunately, this is a state all humans maintain and the United States actually has a relatively short history compared with other countries simply because the United States is such a young country.
Follow
Befriend (3)
41 threads
835 comments
San Francisco, CA
Cloud says
I don't understand how someone with even a little understanding of history would write this statement. You must be thinking there have been no "great scientists" for centuries or something?
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Bap33 says
Bap, Bap, Bap, you really need to stop watching Fox News and turn on a real news source. The misinformation that Rupert Murdock feeds you is destroying your very grip on reality.
Back in 1806-1812, British naval ships seizing U.S. merchant ships and capturing U.S. citizens. As a result of this, the United States declared war on Britain in 1812. This was called the War of 1812.
Now imagine if Fox News had been around at that time and G.W. Bush had president instead of James Madison. Bush would have declared war on France, and Fox News would say that there was a connection between France and King George III of Britain.
Luckily, Madison wasn't retarded like Bush and Fox News didn't exist. Flash forward 200 years and people like you still believe the lies that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. He wasn't. Saudi Arabia was. But we didn't go to war or militarily intervene in Saudi Arabia because we're their bitches. Our big oil companies make profits from Saudi Arabia. If we had attacked any nation for supporting the 9/11 attacks, it should have been Saudi Arabia.
Seriously Bap, stop watching Fox News. It's poison.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Bap33 says
Actually no it wouldn't. The controversy of abortion is over when living tissue becomes a person. No person in favor of legalize abortion believes in killing babies after they are born. In fact, most people in favor of legalize abortion are in favor of it only in the first trimester. It's disingenuous to claim that such people are heartless bastards who just like to murder babies, just like it is disingenuous to claim that the pro-lifers just want to suppress women and would be pro-choice if men were the ones who had babies.
Also, the standard terms are pro-life and pro-choice. Of course, pro-lifers tend not to be "for life" as they tend to be for the death penalty, completely contradicting their stance that life is sacred and only god should take it. And of course, pro-choice is a lie as well since it's only the choice of the mother, not the father or the offspring.
Better terms would be pro-legalization and anti-legalization. But certainly terms like pro-abortion and anti-choice are bullshit that each side flings at the other.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
wbblair3 says
America would be better off if we elected the Richard Feynmans of the world instead of the politicians we do elect.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
thunderlips11 says
Pascal was a mathematician, and a pretty hooting one at that. Remember, Pascal's Triangle? I had loads of fun with that freshman year of high school.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
errc says
I find that rationality is a function of personality, not chronology. However, the knowledge base available to a person is a function of the time in which they live. It takes rationality, intelligence, and knowledge to truly understand the universe and exploit it wisely.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
FunTime says
I meant the concept, not the speech. The realization that religion is just to local to a planet, a species, and even a culture just goes to show how ludicrous it is.
Why would the supreme creator of the universe reveal himself to one small tribe in the Middle East, but fuck all the Native Americas, Asians, Africans, etc. Why not send a "son" to Japan or Alaska? Seems a bit local to an arbitrary culture during a time when the whole world was already populated with many people and cultures.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
FunTime says
I disagree. I conjecture -- and this is only a conjecture right now -- that the reason all states act in this hypocritical way is because of the personality types that we allow to take over the power roles in government. As such, there are two solutions to this problem.
We could elect better people, engineers and scientists instead of politicians. This could be done by passing multiple reforms, some of which I've detailed in other threads.
Alternatively, we could eliminate the power positions altogether. This requires a different set of reforms and a willingness to automate government, replacing humans with software. Personally, I favor this approach.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
FunTime says
Somehow I missed that comment before, but holy shit! You have to be kidding me Bap! You're suggesting that all the people in Gitmo were terrorist and that they are lucky the U.S. was merciful? Christ man, that should offend you as a Christian.
Just take a look at the Uighurs. These four men were completely fucking innocent, and did absolutely nothing wrong in their lives, never hurt a fly. Yet, they were viciously tortured for years and then still not given back their freedom and dignity after being released.
That alone should make you vomit as a Christian, an American, and as a fucking human being.
Then there was they white guy from Germany who was kidnapped and tortured by the U.S. for the crime of marrying an Islamic woman. That's it. An October-fest regular married an Islamic woman and was tortured by our government for it. Guilt by marriage. Oh, and the woman he married? Not a terrorist, never arrested, no connections to any terrorist group. That's pretty fucked up.
And remember Bap, if our government can do that to a white German, a member of the master race, it sure as hell can do it to your red neck ass. This German guy was whiter than you. You have a false sense of security that these things will never happen to you because you're a red-state American. News flash: it can. If for no other reason, you should oppose such atrocities when they are inflicted upon others because they will inevitably be inflicted upon you or someone you love.
Follow
Befriend (13)
61 threads
2,705 comments
Premium
If we've learned anything from the past 10 years, the more people believe something can't happen, the more likely it will.
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
2,564 comments
Dan8267 says
Bap has no clue that his pissed off neighbor or ex wife could turn him in any time on totally phony allegations to DHS, collect a reward, and he might be in jail for a long time with no assets or legal council. Or that some $8.00 an hour clerk could make a typo and bap would have a 5am swat team raid. Or that bap could be the victim of someone who is lazy at some black agency that makes their numbers by simply making cases up (it has happened many times in law enforcement) and doesn't care who they put in jail. That was the kind of stuff the bill of rights was written to prevent, but the bill of rights doesn't apply to homeland security.
What makes bap think there is some chinese firewall that says the immoral behaviour condoned by our leaders and a surprising amount of regular citizens at places like gitmo can't happen anywhere, to anyone, at any time in the US. Of course it can, it already has.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
bob2356 says
True, all of those things can and do happen a lot more frequently then people realize. Greed, making numbers, casual data entry mistakes all happen all the time.
Follow
Befriend (3)
41 threads
835 comments
San Francisco, CA
Dan8267 says
Yeah, I completely agree and that has been a very compelling thought when forming my ideas on religion. After being raised in a fringe, fundamentalist(I'm not sure what that means exactly, but I'll use it anyway for effect), evangelical, protestant Christian religion, I started thinking about how much that shaped my view of other people and how my religious beliefs were tied to where I was born. Of course, some evangelical Christians deal with these thoughts by thinking that the goal is to convert everyone on the planet to Christianity. They also realize this isn't done, but don't seem to ask about all the people who lived before it will be done, since that is their goal. What of their salvation? So I have concluded that to believe in some evangelical Christian beliefs, you must believe your salvation is determined by the region of the planet where you are born. I have never been able to resolve any idea of a peaceful, merciful god with that idea and have therefore never believed adherence to any one religion is a prerequisite of salvation(most of them teach this, but act quite differently and also teach contradictory ideas). I've concluded there can be no one religion to which one must adhere in order for salvation by and omniscient, omnipotent, knowing no time(what's the word for that?) god.
Follow
Befriend (3)
41 threads
835 comments
San Francisco, CA
Dan8267 says
Since you're conjecturing, I agree. I think there are ways forward in time that will be more helpful and will take us away from killing people as a solution. I think that argument is being made these days and is compelling. I'm convinced we're in a long period of going away from that kind of society, but man is it a long period of a few millennia.
I also agree that my view of the past was limiting. There have been times where leadership of the kinds you propose when you could argue alternative solutions were tried. Some of the people who founded the United States, a subject I unfortunately know very little about, might be examples.
Follow
Befriend
45 comments
When asked whether I believe in God, my standard answer is: "Sorry, I'm not stupidstitious."
Is that too harsh? I really can't tell anymore...
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
country_stroll says
Maybe a little too harsh.
I prefer, "What god or gods are you referring to?"
...and the followup answer is typically something along the lines of, "I have seen zero evidence of that/those god(s) existence."
Follow
Befriend (3)
41 threads
835 comments
San Francisco, CA
I have little idea what it means for someone to say, "I believe in God." I just guess that means they think that the responsibility for the origin of everything humans know is somehow carried by some other type of being. Honestly, though, I don't think people who say that phrase have given it much thought and at least some of the time they're thinking of some grandfatherly big human being up in space who in some way plays a role in their world. My evidence for this outside of years spent in Christian churches is the artwork in Bibles, on church walls, and in popular Christian sources of info.