I'll give you another quote:
"There is a difference between lying down and bending over" Frank
Zappa.
If you defend a strong theist in a community where religious
disagreement is causing conflict and aggression you are "bending over"
to take it, and by your forbearance are as responsible for the
strife.
Theism in N Ireland is not accpetable. You might as well be harboring
Osama Bin Laden if you actively defend the rights of the Protestants
and the Catholics to wage their war. They are not going to give you
the latitude to be atheist.
An atheist is stopped and threatened in the streets of N I, "what
religion do you support?"
"I'm an atheist!"
"Are you a protestant atheist, or a Catholic atheist?"
There are times when you have to make up your mind. Freedom is of no
value or utility if it is wrong to point out a person's errors.
On Jun 30, 5:39 pm, bob600 <b...@nireland.com> wrote:
> First my position, I am what most would consider a “strong” atheist, I
> “know” God does not exist, that in itself has attracted some attacks,
> so I would ask that you let it pass this one time. I have lived in the
> heart of a divided society for 25 years, a society, given my position
> in it, that tested my religious affiliations robustly and daily. So
> on a daily and personal basis I experienced the “very bad” side of
> religion. Nevertheless, and despite my strong non beliefs, I happily
> accept and defend other people’s right to think differently.
> For some time now I have been attacked for taking that position
> sometimes by assholes, which I consider flattery, but sometimes by
> others for whom I have a certain respect, and it is the criticism from
> the latter that leads me to ask:-
> Why is it so wrong to defend the “nice” theists who do me no harm,
> while being happy to condemn the “bad” that potentially could.
> Believe it or not I ask this with an open mind, and if I my position
> is proven wrong, I will accept it, reappraise my position and admit my
> error.
> I leave you with an apt quote from Mahatma Gandhi, 1931:-
> “Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It
> passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced
> and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious
> right.”
On Jul 1, 9:45 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > chx
> > The atheist institution is bad and those who support it do have to
> > take some responsibility for it's acts and explain why they support an
> > institution which engages in those acts.
> I would like to discuss the truth of that claim if you were interested
> in reasoned dialog and learning new things, but since you are a liar
> and a troll I think i'll just point out that you're a lying troll and
> hope that no one sees fit to respond to your trolling.
chx
ok, since you are one of the few real atheists here i assume you are
not aware of this organisation. for your sake then i will call them
catholic atheists, happy now.
(a darn smart building they have there)
> > > On Jun 30, 12:39 pm, bob600 <b...@nireland.com> wrote:
> > > I think this is one area where there might be a fundamental
> > > misunderstanding, either on my part, or on the part of others.
> > chx
> > make that two of us
> > > It's really not about individual theists and whether they're nice or
> > > not.
> > chx
> > It's really not about individual atheists and whether they're nice or
> > not
> > > They can be and how one deals with individuals on a personal level is
> > > different than how one debates the institution and individual
> > > responsibility in relation to the institutions they support.
> > chx
> > agreed
> > > The institution of religion is bad and those who support it do have to
> > > take some responsibility for it's acts and explain why they support an
> > > institution which engages in those acts.
> > chx
> > The atheist institution is bad and those who support it do have to
> > take some responsibility for it's acts and explain why they support an
> > institution which engages in those acts.
> > and
> > > They also have to take some responsibility for the extremists in their
> > > midst.
> > > When one actually analyzes religion even the "good" it does is for
> > > "bad" reasons so what is the end result if it isn't bad.
> > chx
> > When one actually analyzes atheism even the "good" it does, is for
> > "bad" reasons so what is the end result if it isn't bad.
> > > For example, charity is based on proselytization and self-promotion.
> > > So while it can help an immediate crisis, the self-serving part of it
> > > can also create problems.
> > chx
> > is it always self-promotion? what if it is done in such a manner that
> > no one knows who is charitable? will that be self serving with no
> > 'public' gain.
> > > None of this means that you have to hold your Catholic buddy down at
> > > the Pub accountable for the Inquisition.
> > chx
> > or atheist, theist, protestant, etc.
> > > It does mean that when we debate or if we choose to discuss these
> > > things with theist friends we ask those questions and discuss them
> > > honestly.
> > chx
> > atheist or any other
> > > Now if you're analysis indicates that you believe religion as an
> > > institution has good to offer, then a lot of us will disagree with
> > > that position, including me.
> > chx
> > this goes for what is evident here as it is clear we also have
> > atheists banding together to form an institutional position which
> > amounts to the very thing you as *supposedly* individual atheists are
> > against from the start. attempting to destroy one institution and then
> > replace it with your own. this institution then requires a leader, who
> > will that be? will this be the director at the atheist institution in
> > USA? a well established organisation, hmmm?
> > i am an individualist and don't care for any form of institutions of
> > any kind and i have NO label, for what i care they can all go away.
> > > I'm not sure if that's your position though.
> > chx
> > i think that most of all theist and atheists hold this position and
> > this is why our group is a war zone and not a debate group!- Hide quoted text -
> On Jun 30, 11:10 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > One more comment.
> > Everyone has the right to believe in whatever they want to believe and > > I would defend their right to do that.
> > However, I would also exercise my right to criticize that belief, and > > point out the fallacies.
> > People should be convinced/educated, not forced to give up beliefs > > that are harmful to them and others.
> > On Jun 30, 9:00 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 30, 12:39 pm, bob600 <b...@nireland.com> wrote:
> > > > First my position, I am what most would consider a "strong" atheist, > I > > > > "know" God does not exist, that in itself has attracted some attacks, > > > > so I would ask that you let it pass this one time. I have lived in > the > > > > heart of a divided society for 25 years, a society, given my position > > > > in it, that tested my religious affiliations robustly and daily. So > > > > on a daily and personal basis I experienced the "very bad" side of > > > > religion. Nevertheless, and despite my strong non beliefs, I happily > > > > accept and defend other people's right to think differently.
> > > > For some time now I have been attacked for taking that position > > > > sometimes by assholes, which I consider flattery, but sometimes by > > > > others for whom I have a certain respect, and it is the criticism > from > > > > the latter that leads me to ask:-
> > > > Why is it so wrong to defend the "nice" theists who do me no harm, > > > > while being happy to condemn the "bad" that potentially could.
> > > I think this is one area where there might be a fundamental > > > misunderstanding, either on my part, or on the part of others.
> > > It's really not about individual theists and whether they're nice or > > > not.
> > > They can be and how one deals with individuals on a personal level is > > > different than how one debates the institution and individual > > > responsibility in relation to the institutions they support.
> > > The institution of religion is bad and those who support it do have to > > > take some responsibility for it's acts and explain why they support an > > > institution which engages in those acts.
> > > They also have to take some responsibility for the extremists in their > > > midst.
> > > When one actually analyzes religion even the "good" it does is for > > > "bad" reasons so what is the end result if it isn't bad.
> > > For example, charity is based on proselytization and self-promotion. > > > So while it can help an immediate crisis, the self-serving part of it > > > can also create problems.
> > > None of this means that you have to hold your Catholic buddy down at > > > the Pub accountable for the Inquisition.
> > > It does mean that when we debate or if we choose to discuss these > > > things with theist friends we ask those questions and discuss them > > > honestly.
> > > Now if you're analysis indicates that you believe religion as an > > > institution has good to offer, then a lot of us will disagree with > > > that position, including me.
> > > I'm not sure if that's your position though.
> > > > Believe it or not I ask this with an open mind, and if I my position > > > > is proven wrong, I will accept it, reappraise my position and admit > my > > > > error.
> > > > I leave you with an apt quote from Mahatma Gandhi, 1931:-
> > > > "Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. > It > > > > passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced > > > > and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that > precious > > > > right."- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
-- ------------------------------------------------ Trance Gemini Irrationally held "truths" may be more harmful than reasoned errors. -- Thomas Henry Huxley
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:15 AM, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 3:00 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 30, 12:39 pm, bob600 <b...@nireland.com> wrote:
> > I think this is one area where there might be a fundamental > > misunderstanding, either on my part, or on the part of others.
> chx > make that two of us
> > It's really not about individual theists and whether they're nice or > > not.
> chx > It's really not about individual atheists and whether they're nice or > not
> > They can be and how one deals with individuals on a personal level is > > different than how one debates the institution and individual > > responsibility in relation to the institutions they support.
> chx > agreed
> > The institution of religion is bad and those who support it do have to > > take some responsibility for it's acts and explain why they support an > > institution which engages in those acts.
> chx > The atheist institution is bad and those who support it do have to > take some responsibility for it's acts and explain why they support an > institution which engages in those acts.
Chx. You really can be an idiot.
There is no such thing as an atheist institution. Your feeble attempt at an "analogy" fails.
> and
> > They also have to take some responsibility for the extremists in their > > midst.
> > When one actually analyzes religion even the "good" it does is for > > "bad" reasons so what is the end result if it isn't bad.
> chx > When one actually analyzes atheism even the "good" it does, is for > "bad" reasons so what is the end result if it isn't bad.
Atheism doesn't do "good" or "bad".
It's a lack of belief. Are you really this stupid?
I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt for months but my patience is wearing thin when you continuously make moronic remarks like this.
Then when someone calls you a moron you get all self-righteous and nail yourself to your perpetual "victim" cross.
If you don't want to be called a moron, stop writing such incredibly stupid posts.
> > For example, charity is based on proselytization and self-promotion. > > So while it can help an immediate crisis, the self-serving part of it > > can also create problems.
> chx > is it always self-promotion? what if it is done in such a manner that > no one knows who is charitable? will that be self serving with no > 'public' gain.
> > None of this means that you have to hold your Catholic buddy down at > > the Pub accountable for the Inquisition.
> chx > or atheist, theist, protestant, etc.
> > It does mean that when we debate or if we choose to discuss these > > things with theist friends we ask those questions and discuss them > > honestly.
> chx > atheist or any other
> > Now if you're analysis indicates that you believe religion as an > > institution has good to offer, then a lot of us will disagree with > > that position, including me.
> chx > this goes for what is evident here as it is clear we also have > atheists banding together to form an institutional position which > amounts to the very thing you as *supposedly* individual atheists are > against from the start. attempting to destroy one institution and then > replace it with your own. this institution then requires a leader, who > will that be? will this be the director at the atheist institution in > USA? a well established organisation, hmmm?
> i am an individualist and don't care for any form of institutions of > any kind and i have NO label, for what i care they can all go away.
No Chx. You're a liar. You're not an individualist if you're a Christian.
That would be impossible. Christianity, unlike atheism, is a doctrine.
> > I'm not sure if that's your position though.
> chx > i think that most of all theist and atheists hold this position and > this is why our group is a war zone and not a debate group!
No, it's idiots like you who make the kind of remarks you're making in this post that turn this site into a war zone and not a debating.
This post is full of lies and vitriol.
You deliberately and consistently "forget" that atheism is a lack of belief and nothing more.
You deliberately and consistently lie about atheism is, what atheists stand for.
You know full well that when we talk about being anti-theist we're talking about convincing people and despite that you consistently imply that we're "out to get religion" and "want to destroy it" etc.
This is an ugly lie Chx and you know it.
-- ------------------------------------------------ Trance Gemini Irrationally held "truths" may be more harmful than reasoned errors. -- Thomas Henry Huxley
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:25 AM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Liked the analogy, although I would compare religious moderates to > people who sell dynamite to children and religious extremists to the > children with the dynamite. The moderates might say "hey, don't blow > anybody up with that" but they shouldn't be hawking the fucking > dynamite in the first place.
> On Jun 30, 7:54 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote: > > On Jun 30, 9:39 am, bob600 <b...@nireland.com> wrote:
> > Why is it so wrong to defend the "nice" theists who do me no harm, > > while being happy to condemn the "bad" that potentially could.
> > LL: For the same reason it's wrong to defend people who are playing > > with dynamite next door.
> > They may be nice people other than this one bad habit, but don't you > > think the imminent danger is worth publicizing? Or should you just let > > them have their fun and hope for the best?
> > > First my position, I am what most would consider a "strong" atheist, I > > > "know" God does not exist, that in itself has attracted some attacks, > > > so I would ask that you let it pass this one time. I have lived in the > > > heart of a divided society for 25 years, a society, given my position > > > in it, that tested my religious affiliations robustly and daily. So > > > on a daily and personal basis I experienced the "very bad" side of > > > religion. Nevertheless, and despite my strong non beliefs, I happily > > > accept and defend other people's right to think differently.
> > > For some time now I have been attacked for taking that position > > > sometimes by assholes, which I consider flattery, but sometimes by > > > others for whom I have a certain respect, and it is the criticism from > > > the latter that leads me to ask:-
> > > Why is it so wrong to defend the "nice" theists who do me no harm, > > > while being happy to condemn the "bad" that potentially could.
> > > Believe it or not I ask this with an open mind, and if I my position > > > is proven wrong, I will accept it, reappraise my position and admit my > > > error.
> > > I leave you with an apt quote from Mahatma Gandhi, 1931:-
> > > "Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It > > > passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced > > > and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious > > > right."- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
-- ------------------------------------------------ Trance Gemini Irrationally held "truths" may be more harmful than reasoned errors. -- Thomas Henry Huxley
> On Jun 30, 9:39 am, bob600 <b...@nireland.com> wrote:
> > First my position, I am what most would consider a “strong” atheist, I
> > “know” God does not exist, that in itself has attracted some attacks,
> > so I would ask that you let it pass this one time. I have lived in the
> > heart of a divided society for 25 years, a society, given my position
> > in it, that tested my religious affiliations robustly and daily. So
> > on a daily and personal basis I experienced the “very bad” side of
> > religion. Nevertheless, and despite my strong non beliefs, I happily
> > accept and defend other people’s right to think differently.
> > For some time now I have been attacked for taking that position
> > sometimes by assholes, which I consider flattery, but sometimes by
> > others for whom I have a certain respect, and it is the criticism from
> > the latter that leads me to ask:-
> > Why is it so wrong to defend the “nice” theists who do me no harm,
> > while being happy to condemn the “bad” that potentially could.
> > Believe it or not I ask this with an open mind, and if I my position
> > is proven wrong, I will accept it, reappraise my position and admit my
> > error.
> > I leave you with an apt quote from Mahatma Gandhi, 1931:-
> > “Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It
> > passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced
> > and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious
> > right.”
> You aren't depriving anyone of their freedom to err by pointing out
> their errors. You can happilly accept and defend other people's rights
> to think differently while criticizing the thoughts that they are free
> to have.
Bob600 replies:- I am happy to criticize their free thoughts while
defending their rights to have them, and I do it all the time. Its the
defense of those rights by me that some consider wrong.
> The "nice" theists who do you no harm are doing all of us harm by
> giving tacit approval to the theists who DO cause harm. Their silence
> can only be taken to mean they agree with the harmful theists, or that
> they know they are harmful but are scared of them.
Bob600 replies:- I can't see how that works, does that mean that my
silence on what "atheist" extremists may be doing is tacit approval of
them, I did not approve of communism in its various locations, but I
was relatively silent on the matter. To busy getting on with my life,
which I suspect the "silent" theists are doing.
>Either way, they
> support the harmful theists because they aren't doing a thing to stop
> them from acting in the name of their MUTUAL beliefs, and it then
> becomes a slippery slope towards totalitarianism, theocracies, 9/11,
> the Bush administration; pick your poison. Maybe the difference is the
> nice ones should just be sweet talked out of their beliefs (though I
> suspect a lot of the nice ones might show a darker side of their
> personalities when that conversation begins).
Bob600 replies:- Then I should have been carrying out more positive
action against those damn commies back in the 60's, problem is I had a
business to run, a family to keep, and they were to far away. Mine you
back in October 1962 I was also busy digging a deep hole and kissing
my ass goodbye when those peace loving Americans threated to destroy
the world because the commies were getting to close to them in Cuba.
> That's just fucking ridiculous, Dev. Is theism misguided? Of course.
> Is it contradicted by fact? Yes. Does it turn every single person who
> ever espoused a well-meant religious ideal or concept into a
> "pathologically lying, irresponsible lowlife'. NO. (And that IS what
> you wrote).
> Any "good theist", perhaps a simple soul, mired in the mostly well-
> meaning habits of family and faith, stumbling, curious, into this
> "group", is going to be utterly repelled by your (and your pals')
> unrelenting hateful screaming about the evil, idiocy and venality of
> their cherished beliefs. We are supposed to be the reasonable,
> objective voices here, aren't we, not the fucking thought police.
> You and all the other atheist flame warriors need to get a grip. You
> all live in this fantasy world of being the atheist-oppressed. You are
> not atheist missionaries crying in a wilderness of Christian
> oppressors here. Look around you, these here are mostly your friends.
> There are plenty enough venal Christian assholes here worthy of your
> bile, but please, dick-heads, have a little time and respect for the
> unconverted curious.
> Regards,
> Baz the Troll (it's a calling)
> On Jun 30, 3:15 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Yes. I do concede that some theists can seem like downright decent
> > people when taken out of the context of their theism. That explains
> > why we never see any "good theists" on this group--theism appeals to,
> > and brings out, the worst in people so whenever that side of them is
> > what is displayed, it turns the best of them into pathologically
> > lying, irresponsible lowlifes.
> > On Jun 30, 12:30 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 30, 12:58 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 30, 9:39 am, bob600 <b...@nireland.com> wrote:
> > > > > First my position, I am what most would consider a “strong” atheist, I
> > > > > “know” God does not exist, that in itself has attracted some attacks,
> > > > > so I would ask that you let it pass this one time. I have lived in the
> > > > > heart of a divided society for 25 years, a society, given my position
> > > > > in it, that tested my religious affiliations robustly and daily. So
> > > > > on a daily and personal basis I experienced the “very bad” side of
> > > > > religion. Nevertheless, and despite my strong non beliefs, I happily
> > > > > accept and defend other people’s right to think differently.
> > > > > For some time now I have been attacked for taking that position
> > > > > sometimes by assholes, which I consider flattery, but sometimes by
> > > > > others for whom I have a certain respect, and it is the criticism from
> > > > > the latter that leads me to ask:-
> > > > > Why is it so wrong to defend the “nice” theists who do me no harm,
> > > > > while being happy to condemn the “bad” that potentially could.
> > > > > Believe it or not I ask this with an open mind, and if I my position
> > > > > is proven wrong, I will accept it, reappraise my position and admit my
> > > > > error.
> > > > > I leave you with an apt quote from Mahatma Gandhi, 1931:-
> > > > > “Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It
> > > > > passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced
> > > > > and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious
> > > > > right.”
> > > > You aren't depriving anyone of their freedom to err by pointing out
> > > > their errors. You can happilly accept and defend other people's rights
> > > > to think differently while criticizing the thoughts that they are free
> > > > to have.
> > > > The "nice" theists who do you no harm are doing all of us harm by
> > > > giving tacit approval to the theists who DO cause harm. Their silence
> > > > can only be taken to mean they agree with the harmful theists, or that
> > > > they know they are harmful but are scared of them. Either way, they
> > > > support the harmful theists because they aren't doing a thing to stop
> > > > them from acting in the name of their MUTUAL beliefs, and it then
> > > > becomes a slippery slope towards totalitarianism, theocracies, 9/11,
> > > > the Bush administration; pick your poison. Maybe the difference is the
> > > > nice ones should just be sweet talked out of their beliefs (though I
> > > > suspect a lot of the nice ones might show a darker side of their
> > > > personalities when that conversation begins).- Hide quoted text -
> > > Well said. It should be noted that there appears to be an inverse
> > > correlation between "good" and "theism". That is the more "good" a
> > > theist is, then the less of a theist they are than "bad" theists. All
> > > the bad qualities of theists seem to be related to how seriously
> > > (read: fundamentally) they take their theism.
> > > So if they become more good by being less theist, is it wrong to help
> > > them on that path?
> On Jun 30, 9:39 am, bob600 <b...@nireland.com> wrote:
> > First my position, I am what most would consider a “strong” atheist, I
> > “know” God does not exist, that in itself has attracted some attacks,
> > so I would ask that you let it pass this one time.
> LL: No, you're just an atheist like all other atheists. You have
> simply added an irrational aspect to it that has nothing to do with
> lack of belief in a god.
Bob600 replies:- And I did say "let it pass this one time" but you
could not resist, could you.
> Bob: I have lived in the
> > heart of a divided society for 25 years, a society, given my position
> > in it, that tested my religious affiliations robustly and daily. So
