Does it offend you?

Cuban Pete wrote:And the Bible does not end in Bel-Air, therefore it is wrong.

I'm pretty sure even if it did end in Bel-Air, it wouldn't change Skarjo's opinion on it.

$ilva $anta wrote:I've come to the same conclusion in regards to any holy book. I'd never pray to a god even if I'd been drinking enough to be delusional. There have been times when I've thought I was close to dying yet I've never once called upon god or felt anything there.


I've yet to come across any Muslims at uni that can take any criticism or even drink without feeling guilty.

Ah right, so your tiny experience has given you right to base your opinion on muslims?

I mean, this is a story all about how your life got flipped turned upside down.

I'd like to take a minute so sit right there, I'll tell you all about ATHEISM.

Hmmm, I think the sig-banner needs somewhat of an adjustment in the size area of things!

Love you too .

Slaze wrote:

Leviticus wrote:Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you.

That is the reason.

Leviticus is old testament, Acts 10 says that Christians may eat any animal, as it's all created by God, and nothing created by God is dirty.

I don't get offended, I get even.

Kill all the white people. Then we'll be free.

LewisD in a Pear Tree wrote:

$ilva $anta wrote:You know what this topic reminds me of? Asian idiots. I work at a bar and every time we have an Asian party, without a doubt we'll have trouble in the end, with some guy who looks at a girl and some other guy getting offended or something and wanting to fight. Nob ends.

Oriental-Asians?
Or Wuiji-Asians?

I'd like to point out that, in light of The God Delusion being mentioned, Richard Dawkins is an absolute cock.

Mind Crime wrote:

The Fanatics in terms of religion offend me, even though I believe everyones got the right to worship God how they want or not as long as it's not shoved at my face. So that goes for the extremist and evangelists as well as the Atheist fanboys (coz it's kewl not to believe in a God at this time) who also have that equally self-righteous attitude to attack anyone but to people who chose to believe in a god.

mas22 wrote:

Mind Crime wrote:

The Fanatics in terms of religion offend me, even though I believe everyones got the right to worship God how they want or not as long as it's not shoved at my face. So that goes for the extremist and evangelists as well as the Atheist fanboys (coz it's kewl not to believe in a God at this time) who also have that equally self-righteous attitude to attack anyone but to people who chose to believe in a god.

Very true, hence why I removed the awesome sig Slaze made me. I would say though that the more structured debates we have on here on brilliant. People shoving their belief in my face only frustrates me as they will by and large refuse to debate their position.

Cuban Mistletoe Crisis wrote:I'd like to point out that, in light of The God Delusion being mentioned, Richard Dawkins is an absolute cock.

Why?

Skarjo wrote: Before I begin, I personally think, having read massive amounts of most of the scripts of the Abrahamic religions, that I reckon someone made them all up as a joke. They're all so offensively ridiculous that the thought that any sane individual thinks they have modern reference is absurd.

Really? Is there no logic or common sense in the bible at all? Nothing that can be applied to modern times?

mcjihge2 wrote:

Skarjo wrote: Before I begin, I personally think, having read massive amounts of most of the scripts of the Abrahamic religions, that I reckon someone made them all up as a joke. They're all so offensively ridiculous that the thought that any sane individual thinks they have modern reference is absurd.

Really? Is there no logic or common sense in the bible at all? Nothing that can be applied to modern times?

Common sense is scattered around, but not with any discernable logic. Indeed, the very fact that it is common sense makes the fact that some people require an all-powerful fairy to communicate it to them ("Oh! Don't kill!, lolkthxbye") all the more indicative of the average believers mindset.

Skarjo wrote:

Cuban Mistletoe Crisis wrote:I'd like to point out that, in light of The God Delusion being mentioned, Richard Dawkins is an absolute cock.

Why?

I don't agree with the hardcore atheist mindset. Much in the same way I don't agree with the hardcore religious mindset.

There seems to be something about popular atheism that infers a dismissive, almost arrogant tone. That to believe no god exists is superior than believing one does, or accepting one might. Dawkins embodies this and he, at times, could offer his opinion just by plugging his fingers in his ears and singing "la la la la la there's no god, la la la."

As I say though, it's not like that particular brand of atheism is the only expert in ignorance. Organised religion is a textbook case; no doubt you could look to the most devout Catholic followers and learn a few lessons in selective hearing.

By the by, trivialising someone's beliefs by saying they believe in sky fairies or other mythical creatures falls quite firmly into my Dawkins-esque category. It doesn't exactly create an atmosphere for intellectual debate; to me it just serves to rile the religious folk enough to lash out with their own "we're better than you," rubbish. Which, again, is exactly what I think Dawkins goes for.

If you think that sounds misinformed, you might be right, but I couldn't bring myself to read through a whole book full of his atheist pap.

Cuban Mistletoe Crisis wrote:

Skarjo wrote:

Cuban Mistletoe Crisis wrote:I'd like to point out that, in light of The God Delusion being mentioned, Richard Dawkins is an absolute cock.

Why?

I don't agree with the hardcore atheist mindset. Much in the same way I don't agree with the hardcore religious mindset.

There seems to be something about popular atheism that infers a dismissive, almost arrogant tone. That to believe no god exists is superior than believing one does, or accepting one might. Dawkins embodies this and he, at times, could offer his opinion just by plugging his fingers in his ears and singing "la la la la la there's no god, la la la."

As I say though, it's not like that particular brand of atheism is the only expert in ignorance. Organised religion is a textbook case; no doubt you could look to the most devout Catholic followers and learn a few lessons in selective hearing.

By the by, trivialising someone's beliefs by saying they believe in sky fairies or other mythical creatures falls quite firmly into my Dawkins-esque category. It doesn't exactly create an atmosphere for intellectual debate; to me it just serves to rile the religious folk enough to lash out with their own "we're better than you," rubbish. Which, again, is exactly what I think Dawkins goes for.

If you think that sounds misinformed, you might be right, but I couldn't bring myself to read through a whole book full of his atheist pap.

I think the bolded statement is the one that I take issue with. Yes, Dawkins could offer no more than a 'There's no God lalalaaa' argument but he never actually does. Indeed, had you read The God Delusion you'd see that, far from simply dismissing God he presents thorough, structured and reasoned argument against the various religious positions. He uses arguments based in logic, science, philosphy, sociology and history to deconstruct the various defences of religion.

His books are precisely the structured fuel of intelligent, reasoned debate that had been so absent. Now, you may feel my use of terminology is innapropriate or inflammatory but if I refer to Gods as mythical creatures or fairies then that's precisely because that's what I feel they are. If you disagree, then defend your point of view.

Skarjo wrote:

$ilva $anta wrote:I've come to the same conclusion in regards to any holy book. I'd never pray to a god even if I'd been drinking enough to be delusional. There have been times when I've thought I was close to dying yet I've never once called upon god or felt anything there.


I've yet to come across any Muslims at uni that can take any criticism or even drink without feeling guilty.

Ah right, so your tiny experience has given you right to base your opinion on muslims?

I mean, this is a story all about how your life got flipped turned upside down.

I'd like to take a minute so sit right there, I'll tell you all about ATHEISM.

I've been brought up with Hindus and Muslims

I'm athiest, you don't need to tell me about it at all.

Skarjo wrote:His books are precisely the structured fuel of intelligent, reasoned debate that had been so absent. Now, you may feel my use of terminology is innapropriate or inflammatory but if I refer to Gods as mythical creatures or fairies then that's precisely because that's what I feel they are. If you disagree, then defend your point of view.

Sitting firmly in the agnostic camp, I don't hold an opinion on any sort of god (or indeed the absence of one). My best and only defense is that I just don't really agree with it, because of what usually results round here when people use such sensational (for want of a better word) terms. It's not that it's inappropriate or inflammatory - I can't really say that when I call some types of atheism arrogant - I just don't like it.

And, evidently, I don't agree with atheism because it assumes a certainty that no god exists, just as religion is certain a god does. You may find that I'm just as sceptical as the next man when it comes to discussing the nuances of the organisations claiming to have links with a god, though.

It's rather, I don't know, disturbing, that a lot of the world's atrocities aren't really committed in the name of a god, but in the name of their religion - an artificial construct built up by a select few very intelligent people.

Richard Dawkins is no cock! How dare ye!

He never, ever, simply just says "there's no god lalala" or anything of the sort. Also, in The God Delusion he says that he is 99% atheist (basically meaning the only thing he is certain of is that he is not certain of anything), as he realises that agnosticism is the only strictly rational view to have.

I don't know why people are offended so much by the 'c' word. Obviously I don't want to be called it, but I quite like it as a means to describe people I truly, utterly hate, more than any other swear word can.

It offends me when people say abortion is outright wrong. People are entitled to their beliefs, I just don't think you can say in every single situation it will always be the wrong thing to do.

emilythestrange wrote:I don't know why people are offended so much by the 'c' word. Obviously I don't want to be called it, but I quite like it as a means to describe people I truly, utterly hate, more than any other swear word can.

I thought, for a while, you were continuing the current trend of conversation and talking about Christians .