Richard Dawkins dies

[artpunk]

i praise allah everyday, and i can guarantee you'll misinterpret what i mean in saying that....

Ummm... actually, you can't, please don't be presumptuous. I take what you say on face value, making no jugments or interpretations - as with such limited information and not knowing you personally, that would be presumptuous of me!

you're the fool for listening.

...heh, I don't listen really, stopped listening ages ago as there is really nothing new out there being said. I just occasionally stir the debating pot a bit. I don't really think I am going to hell, as I don't believe in such a place in the traditional sense. Hell (and sometimes Heaven) are made real here on Earth, by we humans.
I agree that corruption and politics is a problem (but that is overlooking plenty of other inherent problems in these issues) but these factors are so inextricably interlinked with most religions that I for one cannot see how they can be separated.

[rakim87]

I agree that corruption and politics is a problem (but that is overlooking plenty of other inherent problems in these issues) but these factors are so inextricably interlinked with most religions that I for one cannot see how they can be separated.

if you can't see how they can be separated than you won't know what i mean by "praising allah."
that's why i said that.
if reiki, chakras, or auras make any sense to you i could continue explaining my thoughts but otherwise just consider that there are the christian nut jobs who would buy indulgences and then there are people who just use it as a way of practicing spirituality and good intentions. the latter don't take things at face value.

if you're not listening to those making such bold claims, why respond? you can't negotiate with ignorance. after years of dealing with ignorant people i've found the only thing you can do is state facts and even that will get misconstrued with them.

[artpunk]

if you can't see how they can be separated than you won't know what i mean by "praising allah."
that's why i said that.
if reiki, chakras, or auras make any sense to you i could continue explaining my thoughts but otherwise just consider that there are the christian nut jobs who would buy indulgences and then there are people who just use it as a way of practicing spirituality and good intentions. the latter don't take things at face value.

Heh, you keep telling me what I cannot understand, without knowing anything about my past life experiences and encounters with different belief systems, without knowing what I have studied, researched and indeed practiced myself on a personal basis in the past. This is not really the issue however, let me just say that I would like to think I fall into the latter category of people you talk about.
I do understand what you are saying. By talking about the separation of power and politics from religion I meant I cannot see how they can be separated in the whole organisational sense of religion, not as it applies to an individual. Of course (some) individuals can separate politics from their own spiritual practice or their sense of self as it applies to their personal belief systems.

[rakim87]

if you can't see how they can be separated than you won't know what i mean by "praising allah."
that's why i said that.
if reiki, chakras, or auras make any sense to you i could continue explaining my thoughts but otherwise just consider that there are the christian nut jobs who would buy indulgences and then there are people who just use it as a way of practicing spirituality and good intentions. the latter don't take things at face value.

Heh, you keep telling me what I cannot understand, without knowing anything about my past life experiences and encounters with different belief systems, without knowing what I have studied, researched and indeed practiced myself on a personal basis in the past. This is not really the issue however, let me just say that I would like to think I fall into the latter category of people you talk about.
I do understand what you are saying. By talking about the separation of power and politics from religion I meant I cannot see how they can be separated in the whole organisational sense of religion, not as it applies to an individual. Of course (some) individuals can separate politics from their own spiritual practice or their sense of self as it applies to their personal belief systems.

i see. i've never claimed to know anything beyond what you say. you seem more defensive than conversational though, so that's enough for me really.

[artpunk]

if you can't see how they can be separated than you won't know what i mean by "praising allah."
that's why i said that.
if reiki, chakras, or auras make any sense to you i could continue explaining my thoughts but otherwise just consider that there are the christian nut jobs who would buy indulgences and then there are people who just use it as a way of practicing spirituality and good intentions. the latter don't take things at face value.

Heh, you keep telling me what I cannot understand, without knowing anything about my past life experiences and encounters with different belief systems, without knowing what I have studied, researched and indeed practiced myself on a personal basis in the past. This is not really the issue however, let me just say that I would like to think I fall into the latter category of people you talk about.
I do understand what you are saying. By talking about the separation of power and politics from religion I meant I cannot see how they can be separated in the whole organisational sense of religion, not as it applies to an individual. Of course (some) individuals can separate politics from their own spiritual practice or their sense of self as it applies to their personal belief systems.

i see. i've never claimed to know anything beyond what you say. you seem more defensive than conversational though, so that's enough for me really.

Hmmm...initially you stated (no - guaranteed!) I would misinterpret something you said, then when I stated I agree with your points and think I understand what you are telling me given the information you have provided, you tell me in reply that I can't or don't understand these things, so I suppose I may be feeling a bit defensive... I am having a really hard time working out why you are taking issue with me when really I am simply pointing out that it is presumptuous for any individual (you, me, anyone) to know and state what another person knows or can understand. Can you not see my point in that? It is a bit hard to have a conversation when one party completely ignores a main point that the other party is trying to impart. Not to worry, I have no upset feelings about this and hope you do not either... i am more bemused that anything.
Sincerely wishing you peace, health & happiness along your journey in life.

[d.reamonn]

Yes, yes, that's nice too... Completely off topic? Hardly.
To be honest I didn't really take anything about the whole argument too seriously considering Forge's OP (an animation that pretty well speaks for itself) and then your launching into your reference to Vox's book, which with even a cursory examination begs more questions than providing real answers - what is it with those graphs? Where are the references backing up the data he uses to get those graphs? And the rest of the title of his book 'unholy trinity'? If Vox is not about pro-religion, what is he about? I mean does he actually state he is agnostic? If not, he is just pushing the same old illogical wheelbarrow as far as I'm concerned. (Oh... and 'Deep Fisted' - thats a term used a lot in rational debate is it? )

Hide in shame... Yes, very droll.
Excuse me if I don't feel the need to!

I must apologise if my previous post was too subtle; allow me to elucidate. When I said that you were off topic, I was not referring to the OP. If I were referring to the OP, you were still off topic, but I wasn't. Rather, I was referring to the TIA tangent, which is concerned with a book about the irrationality of atheists rockstars, not atheism. Hence, when you claim that Vox expects you to take some form(s) of religion seriously, you are not referring either to the OP, or the tangent. Hence "off topic".

Next, I'd love you to stand up and explain to the class what it is that you mean by "cursory glance". I ask only because your OT posting thus far has very much cast into doubt your ability to glance at anything to extract any kind of meaningful information.

You then reach a new low, when you ask where the explanations for the graphs are. They're in the book. You know, the book we've been talking about. You would have realised this, had you given the actual contents of this thread a cursory glance.

Now try to wrap your mind around this:

1. Vox doesn't expect anything from you.
2. Vox's religious views are OT.
3. Jumping into a thread about golf to give your opinion on sushi will always be retarded, unless you are intentionally trolling.
4. Deep fisting is plenty rational.

There's no shame in being retarded; to claim that you are otherwise just makes you look silly like a teapot.

[rakim87]

i see. i've never claimed to know anything beyond what you say. you seem more defensive than conversational though, so that's enough for me really.

Hmmm...initially you stated (no - guaranteed!) [/quote]

you've never said anything that would leave me to believe you understand. also you said you take things at face value.

i don't really care though and we're not accomplishing anything so i'll just trust that you mean well.

[artpunk]

rakim, I didn't say anything to lead you to believe I understood because I didn't have any information to go on. I was simply saying you couldn't guarantee I wouldn't understand before I even made a reply! Believe me, I really do mean well, but others seem to think I am being deliberately inflammatory, simply by having an opinion.
Speaking of which -d.reamonn - FFS relax!

Yes, yes, that's nice too... Completely off topic? Hardly.
To be honest I didn't really take anything about the whole argument too seriously considering Forge's OP (an animation that pretty well speaks for itself) and then your launching into your reference to Vox's book, which with even a cursory examination begs more questions than providing real answers - what is it with those graphs? Where are the references backing up the data he uses to get those graphs? And the rest of the title of his book 'unholy trinity'? If Vox is not about pro-religion, what is he about? I mean does he actually state he is agnostic? If not, he is just pushing the same old illogical wheelbarrow as far as I'm concerned. (Oh... and 'Deep Fisted' - thats a term used a lot in rational debate is it? )

Hide in shame... Yes, very droll.
Excuse me if I don't feel the need to!

I must apologise if my previous post was too subtle; allow me to elucidate. When I said that you were off topic, I was not referring to the OP. If I were referring to the OP, you were still off topic, but I wasn't. Rather, I was referring to the TIA tangent, which is concerned with a book about the irrationality of atheists rockstars, not atheism. Hence, when you claim that Vox expects you to take some form(s) of religion seriously, you are not referring either to the OP, or the tangent. Hence "off topic".

Next, I'd love you to stand up and explain to the class what it is that you mean by "cursory glance". I ask only because your OT posting thus far has very much cast into doubt your ability to glance at anything to extract any kind of meaningful information.

You then reach a new low, when you ask where the explanations for the graphs are. They're in the book. You know, the book we've been talking about. You would have realised this, had you given the actual contents of this thread a cursory glance.

Now try to wrap your mind around this:

1. Vox doesn't expect anything from you.
2. Vox's religious views are OT.
3. Jumping into a thread about golf to give your opinion on sushi will always be retarded, unless you are intentionally trolling.
4. Deep fisting is plenty rational.

There's no shame in being retarded; to claim that you are otherwise just makes you look silly like a teapot.

Riiiight, well thanks for that....as if any topic in the Lounge should be taken so seriously anyway!
I reached a new low? Talking about the data and where it was sourced from... I was just asking, and I am certainly not going to download the frigging pdf of this book to confirm the data's probably dodgy anyway. You know there are lies, damn lies and then there's statistics.
Now, wrap your mind around my response to your points:

1. That's nice, I don't care one way or the other.
2. Vox's religious views are NOT OT when he is discussing/dissecting other peoples belief systems - they are extremely relevant. Get real.
3. Golf and Sushi? Bad analogy and totally irrelevant. You say my contribution was OT, I say it wasn't. It is at least as relevant as your original reply to Forge's link. Difference of opinion? Maybe... But we'll have to agree to differ there.
4. If you say so, perhaps in your universe.

One way or another I don't really care, and debating with you seems ultimately futile. If contributing an opinion on a thread that started with an amusing animation is considered trolling then so be it, personally I think you are over-reacting because I seemed to be having a go at Vox and his book, which you seem to have a real hard on for, so I'll leave you and Vox to your own mutual appreciation party..
...you really need to lighten up a bit, you know?

[d.reamonn]

Riiiight, well thanks for that....as if any topic in the Lounge should be taken so seriously anyway!
I reached a new low? Talking about the data and where it was sourced from... I was just asking, and I am certainly not going to download the frigging pdf of this book to confirm the data's probably dodgy anyway. You know there are lies, damn lies and then there's statistics.
Now, wrap your mind around my response to your points:

1. That's nice, I don't care one way or the other.
2. Vox's religious views are NOT OT when he is discussing/dissecting other peoples belief systems - they are extremely relevant. Get real.
3. Golf and Sushi? Bad analogy and totally irrelevant. You say my contribution was OT, I say it wasn't. It is at least as relevant as your original reply to Forge's link. Difference of opinion? Maybe... But we'll have to agree to differ there.
4. If you say so, perhaps in your universe.

Yes, you reached a new intellectual low when you mistook the trailer for the book. Eg:

Normal person: How did you like the trailer for Superman?
Retard: I didn't like the ending.

Also, your attempt to replace "explanations" with "data" was a childish attempt manipulate my words. In future, you'd do better to practice formulating coherent thoughts, such as "cheddar good", rather trying a fancy move like that.

Concerning (2), I'll say this one last time: the book is about logic, not religion. It is not an attack on atheism, nor does it defend religion. Indeed many readers were disappointed that it said NOTHING of Vox's own religious beliefs. If you can't understand the difference between a logical argument and belief system, then please get yourself aborted before your little embryonic mind becomes inflated enough to qualify you for legal protection.

Disclaimer: THE LOUNGE IZ JUS FOR GIGGLZ I DON TCARE EITHER WAYZ LOLZZLLZOLZZ.

[artpunk]

Your counter arguments are so bizarre that they border on the surreal. They also avoid addressing my points to you but hey keep on being that way if you must.
I read some of the reviews on the book on it's Amazon page, both for and against. They pretty well summed it up for me in a "nothing to see here, move on” kind of way. Any wanker who is going by a nom de plume of Vox Day (Vox Dei - voice of God) certainly is going to be on the attack (very much like you are with me) against any belief system that threatens his. Reading of several reviews of the book pretty much outlines his failure to engage in any kind of logical debate, it seems he resorts more to personal attack than actual rational argument or valid relevant data. Speaking of personal attacks - calling someone a 'retard' when you don't agree with them, sound familiar? Stop being such an antagonistic twat.

...and yes, you definitely need to lighten up.
Peace.

[Machinesworking]

2. Vox's religious views are OT.

Absolutely not true. Any book written by anyone about religion or politics will invariably always be slanted by their alignment, and to pretend otherwise is deluding themselves.
I wouldn't read a book written by a socialist about right wing politics expecting an unbiased view.

I mean really? I know you're mostly baiting here but...

[d.reamonn]

and there are no countries if we don't have self defense. granted there are consistently unnecessary wars but if your country or whatever country protecting you doesn't have an army and practice self defense do you really think there aren't people out there that would bomb the shit out of you over something dumb? that's why the more peaceful countries ended up protected by someone or being invaded.

Switzerland.

Just to be clear, are you saying Switzerland wasn't armed and ready to get busy? Military deterrence played a large role in their neutrality.

I was being deliberately ambiguous, as it is a complex question. Switzerland's military is a joke, and any serious attack on the tiny country would make the six-day war seem like the 100 years' war. Our neutrality has been upheld for a great number of reasons, and I'd bet my shining balls that even the most astute analyst could never fully explain it. That said, I'm pretty sure that it has less to do with its military or international defense agreements, than it has to do will its banking sector and lax gun laws.

That's right, I just implied that more guns = fewer wars.

[d.reamonn]

2. Vox's religious views are OT.

Absolutely not true. Any book written by anyone about religion or politics will invariably always be slanted by their alignment, and to pretend otherwise is deluding themselves.
I wouldn't read a book written by a socialist about right wing politics expecting an unbiased view.

I mean really? I know you're mostly baiting here but...

This is simply a case of projection. You can't detach reason from emotion, and thus you don't expect others to be able to.

[d.reamonn]

Your counter arguments are so bizarre that they border on the surreal. They also avoid addressing my points to you but hey keep on being that way if you must.
I read some of the reviews on the book on it's Amazon page, both for and against. They pretty well summed it up for me in a "nothing to see here, move on” kind of way. Any wanker who is going by a nom de plume of Vox Day (Vox Dei - voice of God) certainly is going to be on the attack (very much like you are with me) against any belief system that threatens his. Reading of several reviews of the book pretty much outlines his failure to engage in any kind of logical debate, it seems he resorts more to personal attack than actual rational argument or valid relevant data. Speaking of personal attacks - calling someone a 'retard' when you don't agree with them, sound familiar? Stop being such an antagonistic twat.

...and yes, you definitely need to lighten up.
Peace.

Your points were too subtle for me.

[d.reamonn]

Your counter arguments are so bizarre that they border on the surreal. They also avoid addressing my points to you but hey keep on being that way if you must.
I read some of the reviews on the book on it's Amazon page, both for and against. They pretty well summed it up for me in a "nothing to see here, move on” kind of way. Any wanker who is going by a nom de plume of Vox Day (Vox Dei - voice of God) certainly is going to be on the attack (very much like you are with me) against any belief system that threatens his. Reading of several reviews of the book pretty much outlines his failure to engage in any kind of logical debate, it seems he resorts more to personal attack than actual rational argument or valid relevant data. Speaking of personal attacks - calling someone a 'retard' when you don't agree with them, sound familiar? Stop being such an antagonistic twat.

...and yes, you definitely need to lighten up.
Peace.

Also, no. There are many people I disagree with who I don't believe to be functional retards. For example, my mate Trevor from down the pub thinks StarTrek is, and I quote, "a jolly good romp". No, I reserve the retard label for those who are so derp that they think school is about education.

Peace