Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
 If hell did exist...

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Dec 13, 2001
 Comments:

...I'm sure I'd burn in it for finding this excellently, brilliantly funny:

http://fuck-the-skull-of-jesus.mit.edu/fanatics.html

Good thing it's make-believe, or I'd be in trouble.

diaries

More diaries by Lint
Diary, eh?
Why must I procrastinate so?
Sometimes the most amazing things in life...
I may be a feminist
WAR IS OVER!



i think the link is wrong... (none / 0) (#1)
by diazepam on Thu Dec 13th, 2001 at 06:15:33 AM PST
when i open it i get a window with address "http://proxy.[comapnyiworkfor].com/err/access-denied?url=http://fuck-the-skull-of-jesus.mit.edu/fanatics.html"

maybe you should check your link?

::biting sarcasm::
-- diazepam <3's you

works for me (none / 0) (#7)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Dec 13th, 2001 at 05:36:40 PM PST
The link worked for me. Maybe your work's proxy filters out "unsuitable" sites, or something like that.


::cough:: (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Dec 13th, 2001 at 08:30:01 PM PST
i know :) it was a joke.


 
What do you mean by "if"? (none / 0) (#2)
by tkatchev on Thu Dec 13th, 2001 at 06:39:48 AM PST
Hell is not a place, it is a state -- namely, the state of absence of God's grace. Which means that you are almost there already, all the is left for you is to make the final choice and die.


--
Peace and much love...




Not to stoop to liberalist word-games... (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Dec 13th, 2001 at 11:21:52 AM PST
...but you have yet to show us a device or process that can determine the presence or absence of God's grace. Therefore, you cannot categorically state that Mr. Lint is in, out of, or near to the state of being in God's grace. Obviously, you are welcome to claim that Mr Lint is near to the absence of God's grace, and there may in future be evidence to support your claim, but for now you have not shown any evidence.

Just like all the other theists.


Evidence? (none / 0) (#6)
by tkatchev on Thu Dec 13th, 2001 at 01:53:46 PM PST
How does evidence come into the discussion? This isn't a court case, and I'm not trying to convert anybody. I'm just stating something that is obvious to me and to anybody that trusts their intuition more than pointless sophistry games. If you don't see what I'm talking about -- it's your and only your loss. Believe me, I won't lose any sleep over some random person's fall from grace; it's not terribly good of me, but I'm just a person like all of you, after all.


--
Peace and much love...




Libel - the facts (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 11:56:47 AM PST
How does evidence come into the discussion?

Well, all I'm saying is that when Ian Hislop took over editing Private Eye from Richard Ingrams, he made an important editorial change. Richard liked to publish juicy articles because they seemed true. In the cold light of day, these articles were libellous canards, and the Eye's legal defense fund took a pounding as irate media personalities successfully sued the Eye time and time again.

Believe me, I won't lose any sleep over some random person's fall from grace

It's very important that you don't - after all, now there are only 10 sleeps to Santa. You have been a good boy, haven't you?


The horrible truth comes out! (none / 0) (#25)
by tkatchev on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 12:39:36 PM PST
So, the root of the problem comes to light:

Atheists subcosciously know that they are betraying God and themselves, and they are too weak to admit it to themselves. They want others to keep this fact silent.

A serious question:

Why do you hate God?

P.S. I do not celebrate Catholic Christmas.


--
Peace and much love...




A strange question (none / 0) (#28)
by Lint on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 02:20:14 PM PST
Which god are we talking about?

Not that it matters... I don't hate any god. It's difficult to hate something that you know doesn't exist.

Why is the fact that you don't celebrate catholic xmas important? Please explain.


Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

God. (none / 0) (#31)
by tkatchev on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 03:09:55 PM PST
God. There is only one God -- because God isn't a man in the clouds, nor a deus ex machina. Don't play tricks with me, you know that there is a God, and that God is the omnipotent creator of the universe. You know that God has nothing to do with a clockworker demiurge.

As for your hate of God -- don't play games with yourself. If your original post isn't a classic example of denial, then I don't know what is. Here's a hit: if you don't belive in something, you normally don't go around trying to prove your non-belief to total strangers. Imagine a person that professes to not believe in Santa Clause. Further, imagine that the person has an annoying habit of aggressively explaining his non-belief to complete strangers, jumping at any chance he gets to so. Yet further, imagine that this person becomes violently agitated and defensive whenever he recieves any sort of rebuttal, no matter how mild. Does that sound strange and perhaps abnormal to you? I suggest you consult your neighborhood mirror.


--
Peace and much love...




P.S. (none / 0) (#32)
by tkatchev on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 03:11:49 PM PST
Sorry for the spelling errors and typos.


--
Peace and much love...




 
No god. (none / 0) (#38)
by Lint on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 04:25:05 PM PST
There is not simply one god in which theists can believe. There are millions of people all over the world believing in what they think is the only true god or gods. I suggest that you do some homework on the nature of global religion and the various belief systems developed throughout human history. Unfortunately, as you have demonstrated, most people tend to ignore or outright admonish those who have beliefs different from them--everyone claiming that their god or gods are the only proper ones. This causes much conflict--long, bloody wars, territorial disputes, and the like. Which is ironic, since most religions teach that life is precious... yet more lives have been taken in the name of religion than should be necessary. If god did exist, which, of course, is not true, then it would be a shame to worship such a deity that would allow others to murder and maim in "his" (or "her" or "their") name.

I don't "know that there is a god". I know that there isn't a god. My knowledge is based on the fact that the existence of a god or gods cannot be proven. You cannot prove that god exists. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, there is no such thing.

Again, I do not hate any god because I know that a god or gods do not exist. One cannot hate something that doesn't exist. I find it interesting that you seem to be fixated on whether or not I hate something that I don't believe exists.

I also find it interesting that you keep claiming I am in "denial" and that I "really believe there is a god", or that I am attempting to prove my non-belief. There is nothing to prove--my non-belief stands on its own. You seem to be the one in denial and having difficulty coping with the fact that someone can have utter disbelief in god, gods, heaven, hell, the devil, the bible, etc. Perhaps you should see someone about that.

Imagine someone who attempts to prove the existence of santa claus at every given opportunity. Imagine that this person visits others who have stated that they do not believe in santa claus, and regardless of the reasons given for their disbelief, said person attempts to convince the others that, even though they have repeatedly stated their disbelief, they really do believe. Imagine that this person, upon discovering that simple argument is not an option, resorts to fallacious debating techniques and attacks, despite the obvious flaws in said persons logic. Imagine that, despite all of the obvious proof of the non-existence of santa claus, said person continues to believe and attempt to argue his existence with others--regardless of the fact that there is little interest in said person's opinions-- yet this person becomes so agitated at the thought of santa's non-existence that said person continues to debate this topic with anyone who looks even slightly interested...

There should be a mirror or two where you live, I believe. ;)


Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

 
10 pieces of silver in the bank (none / 0) (#43)
by because it isnt on Sat Dec 15th, 2001 at 09:43:04 AM PST
Why do you hate God?

Mu. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? P.S. I do not celebrate Catholic Christmas.

Well, no, you probably celebrate a Orthodox Christmas, in the regular Russian timezone of GMT+336. But I was making a simple point. I will most likely be celebrating the Winter Solstice that the Christians tried to cover up with Christmas.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

My hero (none / 0) (#48)
by Lint on Sun Dec 16th, 2001 at 04:17:40 AM PST
Thanks for posting that, because it isn't. Incidentally, Mr. Adams was the person who "made me see the light", so to speak. He was always very comfortable with his non-belief, and he helped me gain incredible confidence in my own conclusions about theism.

He is missed.

"What astonished me, however, was the realization that the arguments in favor of religious ideas were so feeble and silly next to the robust arguments of something as interpretative and opinionated as history. In fact they were embarrassingly childish. They were never subject to the kind of outright challenge which was the normal stock in trade of any other area of intellectual endeavor whatsoever. Why not? Because they wouldn't stand up to it."

--Douglas Adams, The American Atheist Volume 37 No. 1


Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

 
The misconceptions of hell (none / 0) (#21)
by Ben Reid on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 06:18:01 AM PST
The common images that people conjour up about hell are that of a lake of fire (in which you burn for eternity), a place with a red devil and a pitchfork and other symbolic images which are constantly re-enforced through popular television and print media.

This is a clever tactic the devil uses to trivialise the matter, to joke about it and lead people to believe that God (and hell) don't really exist. You don't really die right? You just come back as some re-incarnated lifeform according to how "good" you have been ... and what type of God would make people burn in eternity in a lake of fire after all?

As with most of the devil's lies, this couldn't be farther from the truth. God is fair, just and loving. As tkatchev has pointed out, when you study the Bible taking this into account, it is clear that hell is not a physical place at all.

Hell is the realisation that you have eternal separation from God and His love -- Hell is the point where you have "run out of chances". Hell results in an eternal, physically painless death. It is not some place you rot and burn.

"This fallen world is the battlefield for the greatest conflict the heavenly universe and earthly powers have ever witnessed. It was appointed as the theater on which would be fought out the grand struggle between good and evil, between heaven and hell. Every human being acts as a part in this conflict. No one can stand on neutral ground. Men must either accept or reject the world's Redeemer. All are witnesses either for or against Christ. Christ calls upon those who stand under his banner to engage in the conflict with Him as faithful soldiers, that they may inherit the crown of life...The Lord Jesus Christ has summoned the world to hear. 'He that hath ears to hear let him hear'" (E.G. White in Sons & Daughters of God p. 242)


Riddle me this... (none / 0) (#27)
by Lint on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 02:17:02 PM PST
Firstly, which hell are we talking about? The xian hell? Because lots of other religions believe that there is some place in which non-believers will suffer for eternity...

But if we are talking xian hell:

Why does an all powerful god need hell to keep people in check? A devil or hell or evil, or whatever moniker that could be applied to what is essentially the same thing, to keep people in check and from straying from the "path"?

If god is all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful-- is there anything that could oppose god's will? Including the Devil?

What about all the people who died before the rise and fall of Jesus Christ... did they go to hell? Simply because they weren't born in the same lifetime as the head of the xian religion? What about all those who didn't live in the same part of the world as Christ? All those people in South and North America, Canada, Australia, Russia, Greenland, etc.... did they go to hell? Why would an all loving god allow those people to die and go to hell merely because, geographically, it was impossible for them to get to know Jesus Christ and accept his father as the one true god?

Just curious.


Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

Steps to success: (none / 0) (#30)
by tkatchev on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 02:59:18 PM PST
Steps to succeed in life:

  1. Read his post again.
  2. Try to learn to use your brain.


I'm sorry if I sound unnecessarily rude, but I hate when people push their narrow-minded little party agenda instead of trying to understand what their opponent is saying. Do you even realize that you came nowhere close to replying to the actual ideas in the parent post?

Thank you and have a productive day.


--
Peace and much love...




Yes, that is annoying isn't it? (none / 0) (#36)
by Lint on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 03:58:23 PM PST
I hate when people push their narrow-minded little party agenda instead of trying to understand what their opponent is saying.


I also don't like it when people attempt to tell you what you're thinking, or how you feel about a certain topic or personally, when that person knows nothing of you aside from your convictions on one topic.

But what you seem to hate is highly ironic judging from your comments of late where the subject of atheism is concerned.

Have a nice day. :)


Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

 
Funny, (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Dec 13th, 2001 at 09:55:19 AM PST
but not entirely original. I think the Onion does it better. Also, a big "fuck you" to people who think that their God or religion couldn't support something like this. Conversion is always important to any of them.


Yeah. (none / 0) (#5)
by hauntedattics on Thu Dec 13th, 2001 at 01:52:14 PM PST
So much for tolerance and understanding...it works both ways, you know.

And way to lump all religious people together in one basket - you and Mr. A.R. below are masters of overgeneralization.


 
I loves me some Onion (none / 0) (#10)
by Lint on Thu Dec 13th, 2001 at 11:37:24 PM PST
hauntedattics-- I don't see how saying "to people who think that their own god or religion couldn't support something like this" is lumping all religious people together. Had that person said, "All people who believe in a god or gods cannot stand having their religion criticized"--that would have been generalizing. I took it as more of a heads-up to anyone who took the article as a general affront to their religious beliefs or their god or whatever, because, as we've seen several times and in various circumstances, there do exist certain religious individuals out there who cannot take even the lightest ribbing of their beliefs without going on a crusade.

Example-- when my mother visited last week, I showed her what I consider to be a hilarious Rowan Atkinson stand-up tape. When it got to the part where he's reading from the bible about jesus performing miracles while the people working in the kitchen are shouting "Go on, give us another one" and "Do you do children's parties?" (unto which the lord replied, "no"), my mom immediately denounced the whole thing as "blasphemous". Shows you what I know.

One of my great spiritual heroes, although I didn't follow his belief in theism, made a great quote before he passed away recently: "Any religion that can't tolerate questioning deserves to fade." You know, which is as true for religion as it is for any other belief. Perhaps that's why most religious texts warn so vehemently against questioning whether or not that particular belief system is valid... just in case its followers might find out the truth.

Anyway... the Onion, yes. That's also what I thought when I first read this article--very much the same style, so you can see where they nipped it from. Oniony goodness will always prevail, though I think they've gone a little soft lately. I can't see them putting something as hit-home as the "fanatics" bit up-- but this was funny. ;)


Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

My objection (none / 0) (#23)
by hauntedattics on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 10:26:43 AM PST
My objection was to:
(a)the implication that people who think their god or religion couldn't support what was in the article deserve a rude expletive; and
(b) the idea that conversion is part of any religious person's agenda.

(b) is a gross overgeneralization and both (a) and (b) are insulting.

And I'm not Christian, by the way.


That's nice to know. (none / 0) (#29)
by Lint on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 02:25:35 PM PST
Your impression of generalization aside, why do you find another's comment that some religious persons become defensive when fun is poked at their religion rude? Is conversion not a facet of some religions?


Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

Let yourself go. (none / 0) (#33)
by tkatchev on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 03:18:02 PM PST
Look, nobody at all is trying to convert you Really, 99.9% of the religious folks just don't care. They don't want to know you, much less waste time converting ingrates.

It seems like you are becoming paranoid from all this internalizing of your own irresponsibility. It's almost as if you know that you've betrayed yourself, but don't want to admit it to yourself. It's as if you are constantly fighting a battle within yourself, that you know that you could be a better person, but don't have the willpower to take that step yet. You are clearly in denial, and you are hurting yourself.


--
Peace and much love...




Fear (none / 0) (#37)
by Lint on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 04:00:27 PM PST
At which point do you think I was worried about being "converted"? If I honestly know that there is no god or gods, why would I subscribe to this knowledge if I felt that my opinions and decisions were weak and malleable, or easily changed? Please explain.

Why am I an ingrate?

It seems that you are becoming increasingly paranoid from the fact that an atheist has no desire to know your god, or any god for that matter, and that you are irresponsibly attempting to spiritually get through to this non-believer. It's almost as if you know that your attempts at debating spirituality and theology with this person rely on Ad Hominem and emotive arguments. You know you could be a better person by not attempting to make these statements to people who have no desire to accept your religion, but you don't have the willpower to realize this yet. You are clearly in denial, thinking that someday everyone will accept a god and have a personal relationship with this god, and by believing this you are hurting yourself.

Sad, really.


Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

 
Hi tkatchev... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Lint on Thu Dec 13th, 2001 at 11:11:12 PM PST
I think evidence has a great deal to do with determining whether or not one is theist or atheist, as our Anonymous Reader friend was explaining.

The reason why I say this is because you, as a theist, believe that the burden of proof for the existence of a god or gods lies with what you know to be true about his existence, as is the case for many theists. Many believe that tangible "proof" of the existence of a god or gods is unnecessary and goes against the very grain of what it means to be a "believer" (i.e. A "believer" does not need "proof" in order to believe). That is why it is called "faith", as in "Having faith in god". And that is one reason why many people, such as myself, do not believe in a god or gods-- because relying on faith alone in determining ones spiritual path does not seem reasonable nor logical.

However, and I say this with total honesty, I have great respect for those who choose to believe or not to believe in any manner that they choose. It would be hypocritical for me not to--as an atheist I struggle daily in this not-so-church-and-state-separated society, and I would one day like to be able to freely express my choice to not believe without people looking at me as if I had suddenly grown a second head. Not that they don't have that right, of course, but it is awkward and tiring.

So I will respect your opinion that I am falling from or have already fallen from "god's grace" (although you haven't specified which god), as I hope you would accept my opinion that all theists (mono-, multi- and so on) are living in a fantasy world--relying on the words of several thousand year old fairy tales to lead them down a moral path in order to spend eternity in heaven, brahman, valhalla, nirvana, Shinto kami, asphodel and elysium... all paradisial alternatives to simply dying, which is one of humankind's greatest fears (death without eternal life or rebirth), and is one of the major reasons behind humankind's creation of religion (along with explaining the unexplainable).

Oh, and I'm a Miz by the way, not a Mister. Not that it matters much, of course. ;)


Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

which society is this? (none / 0) (#11)
by nathan on Thu Dec 13th, 2001 at 11:38:35 PM PST
You wrote:

[A]s an atheist I struggle daily in this not-so-church-and-state-separated society...

Frankly, it's not any easier for Christians. Try going to a meeting of your local university's Women's Centre and letting a few words slip about being religious. It had better be paganism, or else you'll be cursed out of the room.

In fact, if you try to act like a Christian pretty much anywhere, you're mocked and derided. Of course, we've been warned that we should expect that, so it's not such a huge deal, but we do have feelings too. I'm aware some Americans have oppressive "Christian" home lives, but isn't it a little easy to generalize that "all Christians have it easy, and all atheists are made to feel as if cursed with a superfluity of heads?"

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Well, honestly? (none / 0) (#12)
by Lint on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 01:01:33 AM PST
I can see where you're going with this. But isn't it easier to say that one is "generalizing" than it is to actually try and understand the point one was trying to make originally? This place seems to be overwhelmed with generalization-mongers, no offence. Had I actually said, "all Christians have it easy, and all atheists are made to feel as if cursed with a superfluity of heads?" I would agree with you-- but this is not the case.

I can understand the feelings you've had where presenting your personal beliefs in society is concerned. I can sympathize with that, having been in more than a few uncomfortable religious-oriented situations myself (and college life was the least of them). I would say that most of the negative attention anyone receives due to their beliefs, lifestyles, etc. (ranging anywhere from religious preferences to sexual orientation) stem from the stereotypes and generalizations of others. For instance, some people, upon learning that someone in their presence is xian, might immediately think "uptight", "prudish", "lame", etc. merely based on the person's beliefs without knowing that individual personally. Others, upon learning that another individual is atheist, might immediately think "satanist", "pagan", "anarchist", etc. simply because some people cannot wrap their minds around the thought of not believing in anything involving a supreme creator-being of any form. But such is society at large-- a collection of us all thinking we know what's good for the general populous without taking the time to truly appreciate the beauty found in diversity. And, unfortunately, this is also a society bound in all forms of discrimination. Maybe, someday, believers and non can learn to appreciate the rights of the other to practice their spirituality (or not) in any way that does not threaten the values or beliefs of either side.

However, in my society at least (that of the United States), xianity is prevalent in all facets of day to day life. This is due in part to this country's history, which has sort of percolated throughout the years. It is the one belief system that is accepted without a blink or question as to its "place" in our society. And now, as we've recently seen in our current xian fundie-oriented federal administration, many separation of church and state decisions have already been challenged.

Simply put-- personal decisions where religion is concerned may range from the devout to the fanatic to the non-involved and anywhere in between. But this has less to do with "what one believes" than it does with "how one believes". It is more accepted in this society to believe in some form of spiritual deity, or deities, than it is to have absence of belief . That has nothing to do with generalizing or stereotyping against other belief systems-- it is a fact.

I have no problem with one's personal religious or absence of religious preferences. I do have a problem, however, when another person's beliefs are forced upon or take preference over my own, as I'm sure you would agree. I can imagine how most white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant Americans would feel if someone suddenly started threatening their beliefs, lifestyles or religious choices... by putting myself in the shoes of everyone else. Does it matter to me what others think of my own personal choices where my life is concerned? Not one whit. But I would like to live and raise children in a society where my opinions and choices aren't pushed aside or threatened by the personal views and morals of others, but instead are accepted as a valuable contribution to the diversity of our culture and to individual freedoms as a whole ... but that's just a dream, of course. ;)


Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

what are you trying to say? (none / 0) (#14)
by nathan on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 01:36:46 AM PST
For what it's worth, I'm in favour of tolerance as well. What does that have to do with atheists having it harder than Christians?

All you've done is state it's a fact. You haven't even busted out the anecdotal evidence yet. For what it's worth, I'll accept you assertion that in some circles it's hard to be an atheist, if you'll reciprocate.

Believe me, I'm not some aggressive, self-righteous jerk in real life. I'm not ashamed of the Gospel, but I don't try to drag God into people's lives either. If someone asks me a religious question up front, I'll give him a serious answer. Most of my academic and professional acquaintances are probably not aware that I practice a religion.

My own cowardice aside, atheists don't have a monopoly on feeling marginalised and shut up. Just look at all the h4x0rs ripping on Christians in the comments on the T Reg article.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Poor nathan. (none / 0) (#16)
by RobotSlave on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 02:56:04 AM PST
I'm sorry you actually went through the effort of reading that post, and responding to it, to boot.

Look, any sensible athiest has plenty of respect for the sensible christian. The sensible athiest realizes that he or she can not escape fundamental philosophical or moral questions by merely abandoning God.

The sensible athiest realizes that he or she can't even escape Faith-- any athiest willing to engage in meaningful discussion will admit to blind faith in something, be it the fundmental nature of humanity (be it Good, or Selfish, or what have you), or in the Scientific Method (which ultimately requires blind adherence to one ethereal tenet or another), or whatever else they might have in their pockets.

If you run up against anyone preaching any sort of atheist extremism, then you are quite likely facing a trollop, and it is best not to feed such creatures. They live for attention, you know.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

you assume (none / 0) (#17)
by nathan on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 03:03:17 AM PST
That I read the post in question.



Nathan, sigh sigh sigh, more fool me
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Contrite apology. (none / 0) (#18)
by RobotSlave on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 03:12:43 AM PST
I am so very sorry for underestimating you. It won't happen again, I promise.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Assumption is a tricky thing, yes indeedy (none / 0) (#20)
by Lint on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 03:35:53 AM PST
I require attention. Someone, please stroke my fragile ego.

Thanks in advance.


Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

It will have to be someone else. (none / 0) (#26)
by RobotSlave on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 12:54:54 PM PST
Terribly sorry. You seem nice enough, but Slave is strictly a bottom.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

That's a darn shame. (none / 0) (#34)
by Lint on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 03:21:51 PM PST
Attention from a bottom is the highlight of my day.

And it's true, Nathan. It's all a terrible ruse. The difference between us strong atheists (or as you say, "extremist" atheism) and the "sensible" (i.e. weak atheism) is that, unlike weak atheists or agnostics, we will cloud your mind will all sorts of nonsensical questions like "Why are we here?" and "Why does an almighty god-figure need to be served by humans?"

And then, when you're confused and aren't paying attention, we'll steal your wallet and run away. It's true.

It's a good thing you've ascertained that the "sensible" atheist knows the difference between blind faith in a supreme being(s) and faith in things that can be proven and explained (be it science, nature, etc), and that the two "faiths" are indistinguishable from each other . That makes complete sense. ;)


Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

in case you haven't noticed, (none / 0) (#47)
by nathan on Sat Dec 15th, 2001 at 05:05:31 PM PST
You're sophistically mischaracterizing your opponents' arguments. That means:
  • You're willfully misunderstanding,
  • You're stupid, or,
  • You aren't reading carefully because you think you've already figured us out.

    The first is stupid, the second is pitiful, and the third makes you a jerk. Take your pick.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

  • Hello Kettle? This is Pot calling... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Lint on Sun Dec 16th, 2001 at 04:39:39 AM PST
    Please explain to me why responding to another's statement in a way that might

    1. Open the lines of communication, for those who are willing to communicate without puerile name calling or insults against those they don't agree with; or
    2. Clarify the claims made by those of a differing viewpoint in order to better reach common ground on the topic at hand, rather than pointlessly stating opinions in place of fact on serious topics such as spirituality, religion and the existence (or non) of an almighty deity


    is "sophistically mischaracterizing your opponents' arguments"?

    If I were to tell you what I do for a living and you wanted more information about the field of employment, I wouldn't consider your questions (made in order to gain further understanding of a topic) "stupid". I wouldn't call your curiosity "pitiful". And I certainly wouldn't think you a "jerk" for asking.

    Pardon me if this sounds rude, but if you are incapable of discussing a serious topic in a mature manner, without becoming egregiously defensive whenever someone disagrees with your opinion, perhaps you should find another topic to discuss.


    Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

    listen, chum (none / 0) (#52)
    by nathan on Sun Dec 16th, 2001 at 10:02:07 AM PST
    You didn't "open the lines of communication." You threw a bunch of URLs at me, then claimed I hadn't read them because I didn't automatically convert to your viewpoint.

    You sophistically mischaracterized my arguments because you didn't respond to their content. You merely reinterpreted them to mean something convenient, then argued against that. I don't think I've done that to you yet. I reserve the right to protest when you put words in my mouth.

    I agree that there might be nothing more to say here.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    Right... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Lint on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 03:18:59 AM PST
    I'm not quite sure what you're getting at... you seem to be insinuating that there is some sort of social conflict between xians and atheists as to whom is more persecuted. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    And I don't believe I ever stated that atheists "have a monopoly on feeling marginalized and shut up". If you don't mind, could you explain why you felt that was my message? You seem to be rather fixated with the subject of xian persecution vs. that of atheists, so...

    Do you mind giving me some examples of where and why a xian would be found less socially acceptable than an atheist? Does there exist any job that a xian would not be qualified to hold based on his or her religious preference, or one in which being a xian might be used as a means of deciding employment incompatibility? Would being xian figure into an individual's chances of adopting a child? Finding a mate or being in a relationship? Having a wedding or funeral service to personal specifications? How about celebrating the holidays? Or running for public office? Raising children?

    Explaining your ethics, morality and personal views to those who are aware of your religious decision, without prejudice, pity, attempts at conversion, or threats of violence?

    I don't know if a few hypotheticals will take the place of anecdotal evidence, but it'll have to do. Every one of those situations, and many more I'm sure, are issues that atheists face dealing with on a daily basis. Does that mean others don't struggle with finding acceptance in today's society, and that atheists are the only ones facing hardship where societal acceptance is concerned? Absolutely not.

    Again, this isn't a contest to see who is the "most persecuted" (if it were that, it would be a hands-down tie between the Jews, Native Americans and African slaves ;) ). I will state once again that I sympathize with your difficulties in expressing your religious orientation and the problems it has caused with you socially. However, and speaking as someone who was raised baptist (my father is a baptist minister) and who accepted atheism in her early 20s, I'd love to have the kind of acceptance xians have compared to what we atheists deal with daily. I'm honestly jealous of it. Don't believe me? Spend a day as an atheist and see for yourself. ;)

    The only thing I don't like about xianity? The way that some of them try to convert everyone around them, or the way some of them act like anyone who isn't xian has the plague. Does that mean all xians are bad people? Nope, and I'm not one to let a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch--although, honestly, that's probably the number one reason some xians find difficulty in society: because of the negative, fanatic and self-righteous attitudes of some xian members who give the entire group a bad name (just as the terrorist groups of the Middle East have given islam a bad name to some). I love studying religions and I try to learn as much from people with differing viewpoints as possible. Religion and theology are fascinating--but practicing them just isn't for me. I don't judge people based on their religious preferences--now if only the rest of the world felt the same way. I let people speak for themselves... I've met religious persons who were the best and atheists who were assholes. It's the way of the world.

    Thank you, though, for sharing your opinions with me. I'm actually not all that jerky or self-righteous in real life either. I'm not ashamed of being atheist at all--I'm very proud of it, actually, and it was the best realization I've ever had in my life. The most difficult thing about my decision was explaining it to my religious family, but I'm lucky to be related to such accepting people (mostly, anyway). Some people have a more difficult time. It was difficult talking about atheism at first, due to the negative attitudes that you get from many people, but now I know that those who really care about me are the only ones who matter. I hope you find pride in your own beliefs and are never ashamed of who you are. :)


    Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

    ps (none / 0) (#40)
    by nathan on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 06:37:26 PM PST
    Convert or perish, heathen.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    Awww, Nathan (none / 0) (#41)
    by Lint on Sat Dec 15th, 2001 at 12:18:43 AM PST
    For a second there I thought you were intelligent. My mistake.


    Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

    Awww, Lint, (none / 0) (#45)
    by nathan on Sat Dec 15th, 2001 at 02:51:09 PM PST
    For a minute there I thought you could recognize sarcasm when it was poured over your head from a great big bucket.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    Boy, is that a relief! (none / 0) (#50)
    by Lint on Sun Dec 16th, 2001 at 05:06:15 AM PST
    Your gentle wit has once again left me confounded as ever. Surely I am not worthy.


    Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

     
    Faith. (none / 0) (#13)
    by tkatchev on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 01:08:52 AM PST
    Faith is a purely personal choice, not a buisiness contract. When the time comes, you'll feel your own personal need for God; until then, it's pretty pointless to try describing what the point of Christianity is.


    --
    Peace and much love...




    A personal choice, huh? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Lint on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 01:51:57 AM PST
    I'm confused as to where business came into the equation. Perhaps you'd like to clarify what you mean by "Faith... is not a business contract" and why you felt it fitting to make that comment?

    And do you mind telling me why it isn't pointless for you to tell an atheist that he or she will "feel your own personal need for god", since, as you stated, faith is purely a personal choice? If one has made the personal choice to have absence of faith, why would they then find their own personal need for god? Under what circumstances would I find this personal need for a god, or gods? And which god are we talking about? Which god do you believe in?

    And why is it pointless to try describing what the point of xianity is? Because I'm not xian? Does the bible say that only xians can talk about xianity? How would you describe the point of xianity, then?

    Just curious. ;)


    Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

    Faith. (none / 0) (#22)
    by tkatchev on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 09:00:15 AM PST
    Faith is not about "do this-and-this to gain metaphysical goodies". Faith is a personal commitment between you and God, a convent that states that you are ready to transcend your own animal nature. If you aren't ready to take responsibility, if you still don't see the point of transcending your animal urges, then there isn't much point in talking to you about faith. That would be akin to explaining the intricacies of graduate school to somebody who wants to drop out of ninth grade.


    --
    Peace and much love...




    Then why... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Lint on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 03:30:44 PM PST
    ...do you claim that I will, someday, make this personal commitment between myself and a god, if I am convinced that a god or god do not exist? You still haven't explained at which point I will be ready for this commitment.

    Or which god we're talking about.


    Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

     
    "When the time comes"... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by because it isnt on Sat Dec 15th, 2001 at 09:51:59 AM PST
    "When the time comes, you'll feel your own personal need for God"

    "That sickness is old age; and a horrible disease it is. They say that it is the fear of death and of what comes after death that makes men turn to religion as they advance in years." - Aldous Huxley
    adequacy.org -- because it isn't

     
    hey, Lint, (none / 0) (#39)
    by nathan on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 04:34:12 PM PST
    If the point of this diary was aggressive atheism and not reading other's psts, good for you.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    Hey Nathan, (none / 0) (#42)
    by Lint on Sat Dec 15th, 2001 at 12:26:18 AM PST
    If the point of your replies to this diary is merely to prove your difficulty in holding a conversation without becoming defensive, agitated or close-minded, then congrats! :)

    By the way, did you bother reading the links I provided in an (irrational) attempt to educate you lot on what the heck you're talking about when it comes to a subject other than xianity?

    I thought not. :)


    Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

    oh, right. (none / 0) (#46)
    by nathan on Sat Dec 15th, 2001 at 02:53:33 PM PST
    You see, the only reason I don't believe what you believe is that I haven't read your sources! Well, thanks for educating me, comrade. At least I'm no so rude as to post a bunch of Kierkegaard links and claim you're dumb for not agreeing with them.

    Sigh, I'm starting to think RobotSlave was right.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    Sigh, indeed. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Lint on Sun Dec 16th, 2001 at 05:28:02 AM PST
    Now you're just bordering on the ridiculous.

    No, I never said you were dumb for not reading them. I personally think it's silly for someone to try and argue on a subject they know next to nothing about (and have proven repeatedly through their attempts at debate; as in my attempts to share my knowledge of atheism with you as you have proven you know very little about it--yet you continue to attempt this debate without educating yourself on the subject, which I think is a little odd). Perhaps that's just me. But your dumbness is something I know rather little of, personally, so let's not mention it.

    Changing the subject, making unfounded accusations and littering your posts with attempts at personal attack, rather than answering simple questions or holding the semblance of an amicable conversation, despite our personal differences, must be tiring, no? It almost seems that you enjoy arguing for the mere sake of, rather than trying to hold a conversation in which questions and answers can be asked and given without dodging, slur or unnecessary negative argument...

    That's the way it seems to me, at least. But then again, I don't claim to know everything. ;)


    Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

    see, there you go again (none / 0) (#53)
    by nathan on Sun Dec 16th, 2001 at 11:58:02 AM PST
    You assume that I just didn't read your sources (ie, I am ignorant,) or read them but didn't get them (ie, I am dumb.) You don't realize that I read them and disagreed, for good reasons of my own. For instance, you appear to think that your presentation of some guy's definition of 'strong' vs. 'weak' atheism, which btw appears to look like plain old positivistic vs. normative atheism, constitutes a refutation of my claim that you are aggressively atheistic. See tkatchev's "Santa Claus" comment for relevant discussion.

    You appear to feel that religious people, once enlightened, will become atheists, because it is more sensible. Some of us feel the same way about you. Do you think I've always believed in God? Parochialism is disgusting in any form.

    I agree that we should stop talking about this. I don't think it is accomplishing anything. And this isn't because of your opinions about religion, it's because you've never extended me the slightest bit of respect throughout. First you were patronizing, then just plain offensive.[1] Feh.

    [1] I'm not all that proud of my own conduct here, either.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    Wow, Nathan (none / 0) (#54)
    by Lint on Mon Dec 17th, 2001 at 06:01:26 AM PST
    If discussing this topic with me has been so distressing to you, I'm surprised you at how often you have returned to continue the proceedings!

    I would be completely happy to agree to disagree with you on the topic of atheism v. theism. However you have done very little to actually discuss atheism v. theism. Instead, you have repeatedly posted on how I have:

    1. Put words in your mouth,
    2. Changed the subject,
    3. Not answered your questions, Assumed things about your character or your ability to read and comprehend things,
    4. Turned the argument around onto you,
    5. Etc.


    While:

    1. Putting words in my mouth,
    2. Changing the subject,
    3. Not answering my questions, Assuming things about my character or my ability to read and comprehend things,
    4. Turning the argument around onto me,
    5. Etc.


    Which is fine, as long as you realize what you are doing. It appears that you enjoy to drag out pointless arguments by an attempted debate of semantics, and that's cool if it's your thing. However, I'd just like to point out once again that people who have difficulty in debating a topic without becoming emotional, defensive or aggressive is evidence that they have very little knowledge of the subject material or on the subject of debate. By making personal attacks and assumptions you have proven that you have difficulty debating effectively. What is the point of debating a topic with a person who has no interest in hearing the other side, let alone the ability to refrain from ad hominem and emotive attacks? What, indeed.

    I could easily spend all day telling you how you "appear" to be. I could whip up all kinds of illogical and bottomless conclusions, based only on this half-witted discussion, on your character. I could assume. But that would be wrong and fallacious. I have not once assumed about your character or your personal beliefs or opinions, because I do not know you personally--I only know of you what you have shown here, and that is not enough to make a conclusion of your character.

    Why, then, do you assume my character? I sincerely apologize if I ever gave you the impression that I feel "that religious people, once enlightened, will become atheists, because it is more sensible". "Sensible" is subjective, as can be deduced from reading this long and tiresome thread of posts. Yet, again, when you assume about my character it only shows me that you are unable to discuss this matter maturely, which is a waste of time.

    I will also apologize if I gave you the impression that I felt you were unintelligent in regard to the information I provided on atheism. As you appeared to want to continue this discussion while making uninformed comments, I felt that it was only proper to point out to you that, if you want to continue this subject, would you please take a moment to speak as if you have acquainted yourself with the topic. Yet, as you continued to feel that discussing my character was more important than the topic, I continued to take that opportunity. If you disagreed with the material, why, then, didn't you feel that your opinions on the matter would have been useful to the conversation rather than leaving me to hang while you continued making defamatory statements? Just curious.

    tkatchev also assumes the character of others before respecting the opinions of others as being different (i.e. "As for your hate of God...", after I explained several times that I have no hate for any gods, as I have no belief in any gods, which would then make it impossible for me to hate any gods, etc.), so would then not be the best source to use when backing up your statements.

    Your use of the term "parochialism" is interesting, by the way.

    "Some guy's" definitions of strong and weak atheism are the definitions for strong and weak atheism. There is no such thing as "positivistic" and "normative" atheism, although I'm sure that you could individually reason in that manner. That statement was, in my opinion, quite dismissive and I'm curious as to why you would display such a "who cares" attitude about something you've put so much energy into debating against? Once again, just curious.

    Discussion and debate can accomplish quite a lot as long as both sides refrain from this sort of quibbling. However, both sides have to be willing to do their part. I'm sorry if you felt I was being sarcastic or patronizing in my comments to you, as I was honestly, and respectfully, attempting to discuss this topic with you. I felt everything was going pretty well until: this (which honestly hurt my feelings, as I thought we were having a nice conversation).

    Anyway, Nathan, you are obviously going to make your opinions of me based on whatever evidence you need, and I'm frankly tired of trying to defend my character, so there you are. You win. I'm too old for this, or whatever. I'm sure you are probably a very nice person despite my opinions of you after this conversation, so I'll keep the jury out so to speak.

    Just do me--nay, yourself a favor? Try and keep from getting so defensive about everything. Dear bob, if I thought that all religious people were dumb, misguided, deluded, unenlightened, ignorant, etc., I would have very few people in which I respected personally. Religion, as you say, has very little to do with it. Perhaps your relations at the Women's Centre might be greatly improved if you just let...things...go.

    Just a suggestion... I'm sure you have your own. ;)

    Best,

    Amanda


    Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

    re: my offensive post (none / 0) (#55)
    by nathan on Mon Dec 17th, 2001 at 12:16:21 PM PST
    Sorry if that hurt your feelings. That was a private joke between myself and RobotSlave. Bottoms need an occasional kick in order to enjoy themselves.

    Anyway, I'm sorry if that's what drove things downhill.

    All the best,
    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     

    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.