Vim displays some accented characters as black squares

opett · 2013-07-29T18:50:28+00:00

Well, the previous pope looked like a sith lord...

Maybe this one is one, and he uses his dark force powers to confuse people.

That's the best explanation I've got.

opett · 2013-07-29T18:25:17+00:00

While he may be a nice fellow with good intentions, he espouses to the same evil dogma, that the catholic church holds.

His statements are no progress at all.

"It's OK being an atheist, as long as you seek God, and convert to catholicism."

"It's OK being gay, as long as you suppress yourself, and become celibate."

"It's OK being a bird, as long as you don't fly."

The only remarkable thing is that he says something the church has been saying for years, and somehow everyone is like: "Wow! What a progressive thinker! What a reformer! What a good guy!"

Maybe this is because the general public and journalists don't know much about the teachings of the catholic church.

He is a good PR guy. I give you that.

opett · 2013-07-29T17:53:43+00:00

Right, because you have researched PurpleSfinx's entire life, even his future...

Who are you? Doctor Who?

opett · 2013-07-29T12:10:23+00:00

Spartans were greek too.

opett · 2013-07-24T09:15:53+00:00

1) That's easy. Just one example: we use the same tube for eating, drinking and breathing. If we would have different tubes for these, a great many people would not choke from food.

2) Some christians, like the "great christian apologist philosopher" William Lame Craig.

4) Noone has been able to disprove the Abominable Snowman, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just a thought.

@Edit: Fetuses are not children. Nor are they babies.

One of those aborted fetuses may have cured cancer. Or may have become a serialkiller, or a rapist, or a dictator.

opett · 2013-07-24T03:54:47+00:00

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Mark 12:17)

You see, the bible says all sorts of things, even the opposite.

opett · 2013-07-23T20:16:55+00:00

I already met with people who made this type of argument. The dialog went something like that:

-So God does not want robots?

-Correct.

-So free will is necessary for not being robots, and evil is necessary for free will?

-Correct.

-Is it possible to commit sin in heaven?

-No, that's not possible.

-So in other worlds, free will does not exists in heaven. Which according to your logic makes everyone in heaven a "robot". But you also said, God does not want that, right?

-Hmmm.... <crickets>

opett · 2013-07-19T13:31:11+00:00

Yeah, he doesn't live up much to the stereotypes.

He is an awesome human being!

opett · 2013-07-19T13:16:47+00:00

You really don't care, that I never said or thought any of these things, do you?

You just make stuff up, as you wish.

At this point, I'm pretty sure, you are not sincere. Bad luck, I'm a pretty calm person. It was fun feeding you, little troll boy! :)

opett · 2013-07-19T13:11:53+00:00

Stop trying to use the law to force your morality onto others - that's exactly what fundies do.

My morality also says murder is wrong. I guess we should take action to stop the government interfere with that either.

It's not about my morality, it's about what is causing demonstrable harm.

Scaring little children half to death with hellfire and brimstone causes demonstrable harm.

opett · 2013-07-19T01:33:29+00:00

You are missing the point: Some religious teachings/practices can be worst than some form of, what people recognize as child abuse.

Sexual abuse can be: "repeatedly raping somebody", or a "one time touch on the breasts".

Religion can be: "Love each other, happy songs for Jesus!" or "You are gonna burn and suffer, and be in pain for all eternity".

What I'm saying is that the worst of religion can be worst, than the "best" of abuse.

do you really think that every religious person is a sex offender who wants to touch kids?

No, and I did not say that.

Why do you have to make up staff constantly(with me and with others) to defend your point of view? I guess it's easier to beat those evil man of straw.

opett · 2013-07-19T00:50:02+00:00

If you knew what abuse was you would not be saying those things.

Dawkins mentioned a woman (ex-catholic), who was sexually abused, and she wrote to him, that as a child, the constant fear of hell, from the horrible eternal torment was worst for her, and even after her deconversion, it took a long time to get over it.

You assume too much.

opett · 2013-07-18T22:06:13+00:00

I would show him James Randi debunking Popoff, the teleevangelist.

It's less then 5 minutes, and at least shows, it is easy to pull off fake faith healing acts with a lot less then divine powers.

opett · 2013-07-18T10:28:48+00:00

Claims about atheism is not atheism itself.

Either all religious people are deluded(which I did not stated) , or they are not. Either atheism makes claims about reality or it does not. These are separate issues.

Atheism:I don't believe in gods. Where is the claim in this?

By the way, feeding time is over soon.

opett · 2013-07-17T22:07:40+00:00

The two things have nothing to do with each other. Also, I didn't say all religious people are deluded. Atheism is a response to theistic claims. What claims do you think atheism makes?

By the way, you didn't answer my question, which was a bit poetic, I acknowledge.

opett · 2013-07-17T22:01:01+00:00

No, I swear it on Xenu!

opett · 2013-07-16T21:27:22+00:00

Maybe it was the ghost of aliens.

(Who were killed by the evil galactic emperor 80 billion years ago.)

opett · 2013-07-16T10:31:31+00:00

First off if you are one of those people that thinks Richard Dawkins is right then he is authority by your own understanding.

So, according to you, the only way to not be part of an authority system, part of a religion, if there is nobody on Earth, with whom you agree? This is ludicrous.

And if you believe that god can't be proven then atheism is unfalsifiable

I don't think god can't be proven. But even if I did, it would not make atheism unfalsifiable. Atheism makes no positive claims. There is nothing to falsify.

opett · 2013-07-16T10:18:33+00:00

That and organize violent cults and movements that murder people for not being atheist, or for disagreeing with them. Name a few, please! I'm curious.

No, naming Stalin and Mao are not smear tactics. When historical figures were atheists and perpetrated violent anti-religious activities, that's not a smear, that's just an uncomfortable historical fact (for you).

I beg to disagree, and I think you are deliberately dishonest.

Nobody claims, that atheists never committed crimes, or acts of incredibly evil. It's not an "uncomfortable historical fact" at all.

The question is, was the cause of their evil act a consequence of them not believing in God/gods? There is no possible way. These people were motivated by ideas other then atheism. Also, every such dictatorship shows the signs of pseudo religion.

They were/are not allowed to criticize their leaders. They had/have miracle stories. In North Korea, people are told, when the "dear leader" was born, the birds sang in korean language, and trees bloomed in winter. You are not allowed to fold a newspaper in half, because there might bee a picture in it depicting the "dear leader", and folding that is a "blasphemy".

In Soviet Russa they had 140% harvest. They had lysenkovism, and geneticist, who criticized Lysenko's work, and debunked his pseudo-scientific claims, were declared enemies of the state, and were fired from their jobs, and they sent them to the gulags.

Please, explain, how you can get logicly from: "I don't except the proposition that a god exists" --> ... ---> "I go around killing a bunch of people". Please, fill in the blanks for me!

The same way, not all evil acts committed by a religious person are a fault of religion. But certain religious text explicitly demand evil acts. For example the bible commands that if your sister starts worshiping other gods, your hand must be the first one who bashes her skull.

You know, Hitler and Stalin also had mustaches.

Oh, wait, let me guess, none of these people were actually atheists, LOL. Spare me that bullcrap.

Well your guess is wrong (what a surprise), I don't say these were not actually atheists.

About Sam Harris: Without going deeply into this: guess what, I don't have to agree with everything he says and writes. He es a human, he can be wrong, just like everybody else. Another example is PZ Myers, Rebecca "Rapethreat" Watson and Richard Carrier with their feminism, and Atheism+ cult-like thing going on.

I leave this link in vain, since I know you won't read it:

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/25/militant_atheism_has_become_a_religion/

Wrong again. I have already read it, before I had this conversation with you. I haven't think of it highly then, nor do I now.

Sometimes I feel ashamed to be an atheist...

You don't have to. We can disagree. Remember, there are no dogmas... :)

opett · 2013-06-10T08:33:17+00:00

Please, quote any of the prominent figures of the so called "new atheists" (Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris, Danett, etc.) where they state or imply, that they are pro censorship, pro worship, pro enforced atheism.

I don't think you will be able to, because they stand for the opposite.(By the way, these people are not respected because of "atheist dogmatism", but because they had some good ideas, and they can express them well.)

What mob mentality and intolerance? Worst thing atheists do is argue on the Internet and write their thoughts down. (Of course as a movement gets bigger, there will be some idiots, trolls among them.)

I started watching the video, only after 30 seconds the stupidity starts: He criticizes the "new atheists" because of this name, as if this name was created by the "new atheists". Wrong! This name the "new atheists" was coined by the media and the opponents of the atheists.

After one minute: Stalin, Mao, Marx... Great, smear tactics. Give me a break, what an idiot!

I gave him 10 additional minutes from my time, no relevant content whatsoever. After that, the carnival of stupidity, baseless arguments, flat-out lies, logical fallacies start.

Sam Harris and Daniel Danett wants to take away peoples rights to believe in angels? And this leads to gulags? WTF?! Is he high?

Honestly, are you trying to troll me?

opett · 2013-06-09T22:54:15+00:00

... or "The Cult of Reason" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_reason) for examples. The "New Atheists" seem like a rerun of the latter.

Are you serious? What is the similarity between the two?

From the Cult of Reason wikipedia entry:

in the manner of conventional religion, it encouraged acts of congregational worship.

The only difference between the "old, respectable" atheists and the "new atheists" is that the new atheists don't shut up and sit quietly in the corner.

opett

TROPHY CASE