Finally, the investigative reporting we have waited for, exposing it all.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
An ever evolving blog, concerning an evolutionary riddle, wrapped in a conundrum of geological time and hosted by an Eocenic enigma. Reason - Rationality - Skepticism - Logic - Secularism - Humanism - Atheism
Currently reading...
Blogs and Other Links
- You Made Me Say It
- Spanish Inquisitor
- Apostate's Chapel
- Tales of an Ordinary Girl
- bjkeefe
- The Grumpy Lion
- Young Turks (progressive political podcast)
- Blogging Heads (wide-ranging podcast interviews)
- Richard Dawkins (secular/atheist/science news and forums)
- Skeptics Forum (secular/atheist/science forums)
- Live Science (top daily science news)
- World Wildlife Fund (conservation news)
- Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders news)
- Hubble Images (space science educational)
- Understanding Evolution (UC Berkeley educational)
- Evolution (PBS educational multi-media)
- Becoming Human (educational multi-media)
- Science Network (science podcasts)
- Complete Darwin (educational, everything Darwin wrote)
Be A Happy Hominid
- John Evo
- It's another day in paradise. It doesn't get any better or worse than this. This is all there is. We can't effect the past or our inevitable demise. All we can control is how we live right now.
65 comments:
Hilarious, John! Pretty much encapsulates most of the stuff going on in blogland.
Yeah, there was a lot of very familiar phrases cast about in 5 minutes, Jim!
For a real hoot, check out the following link/film that was 'created'by Creationists to conflict with the upcoming anniversary of Darwin.
http://themysteriousislands.com/
"The reason I say that fags are a menace to society, and probably should be killed on sight, is that they seem to have an inordinate influence over the media and the government."
Just wanted to highlight this one for your born-again buddy. 'KILLED ON SIGHT'. According to Gideon, homosexuals should probably be 'killed on sight'. You've gone over the rainbow with this one, Gideon. YOU are a very, very bad person.
You advocate murder, Gideon, and your backpedaling now is just so much horseshit 'cause you're running scared. Little trap, indeed! LOL! A pathetic little man wearing the avatar of a big one. At the height of my fundamentalism, I NEVER stood shoulder to shoulder with the likes of you, Gideon. The idea that you equate abhorrence with your ideas to political correctness really slays me!
Anyhow, thanks for stepping out and REALLY showing everybody where you're coming from. I'm looking forward to cl writing this off as 'one of your little jokes to make a point to you big, bad infidels'. Hahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Oh man, you can't see this stuff on tv!
I might as well address this while I'm here:
"Of course, the reference I made to the hatred of homosexuals for Christians, and their influence over at U Tube censoring Christian videos, went entirely unnoticed."
Oh, you mean the Christians with spokesmen like you, who advocate killing them? Wow, those darned homosexuals just can't live and let live, can they? I mean, all you want is to take part of their personal identity away, maybe herd them into their own 'restricted areas' if they can't be 'cured', and...oh yeah! Murder them!
You're so persecuted, Gideon. We should all hold a benefit for you. Maybe buy you a gift certificate to Big 5, so you can buy some ammo, huh?
Let me ask you something. Do they make strait jackets suit-of-armor style? You're in need of a nice quiet room to practice your prayers in. Preferably padded.
Jim,
See why I allow him to speak? It *really is* the best policy. Though I'm not disrespecting your decision.
Unlike some of my fellow secular humanists and freethinkers, I don't in *any way* think this has anything to do with "free speech". Neither Gideon, nor anyone else, has a "right" to exude his hatred on your site (which is, essentially, your Net home).
Shit just doesn't bother me as much as it does others, and I am a firm believer that shit turns most people off. Of course, I live with the consequence that some will never return to my blog because they think too much of themselves to expose themselves to the likes of Gideon - but that's a *good thing*!! I think of it as a small self-sacrifice for the greater good.
I'm *such* a guy!
John:
I agree. And though I consider folks like Gideon to be a waste of space, on the other hand, their public exposure has certain benefits. To each his or her own.
Gideon:
THAT'S what you've got? THAT??? What a sorry, pestilent doofis you are. And I'll tell you something else. I am SO GLAD YOU'RE around! Know why? Because your presence has exposed cl for the inauthentic suckup he really is. As I think back to the last couple of weeks of him lavishing praise on you! On YOU, of all people! On YOU! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
Hahahahaha! I just keep going back and reading your last post, again and again. It is SO FUCKING PATHETIC! YOU are pathetic, man! You're REALLY grasping at straws now!
Also, I've been meaning to tell you; you've got your mind WAY too much on pedophilia, rape, bestiality and the like. It comes out of you at the first sign of stress. You might want to look into that. Part of your personality disorder, I reckon.
And people who post 4-10 comments in quick succession are pathetic attention whores who think quantity equals quality. You do that a lot, don't you? cl does, too.
WARNING: Last post from me on this thread. Glad we had this chat, Gideon.
Shit just doesn't bother me as much as it does others, and I am a firm believer that shit turns most people off. Of course, I live with the consequence that some will never return to my blog because they think too much of themselves to expose themselves to the likes of Gideon - but that's a *good thing*!!
Just wanted to point out that some people, especially women, may not come back after a dose of your troll not because they think too much of themselves, but because he takes it to the level that reminds one that the anonymity of the internet is illusory...
Just sayin...
Then, there are those of who figure that he's probably suffering from some incurable affliction like smallus dickus that's making him lash out so, poor thing, and we do the polite thing and just ignore him.
Ok, enough time spent on the sad little attention whore!
Funny video.
ildi - glad you enjoyed the video. Just know that is my intent for the blog right now and you should check in here for them once or twice a week. I totally "get" your comment, and if you choose to not even *read* the comments in the future, I'd get that too! :)
ildi Just wanted to point out that some people, especially women, may not come back after a dose of your troll..."
I find that highly unlikely. There are no girls on the internet. That's just a rumour, silly. Snopes debunked it. Mythbusters, too.
If I wasn't crying so hard, I'd be laughing!
Religion is about two things: money and power. Religious people are some of the most hateful, immoral people I've met. Freethinkers tend to be moral, kind and, well, everything that religious people claim to be but aren't!
Thanks for proving my point, Gideon! Who would Jesus hate? ;-)
Zardoz's comment may very well have saved your ass, Gideon. S/he is correct. Your comments always prove the "value" of religion.
I've already expressed my disapproval of certain comments made by Gideon here.
jim,
"And people who post 4-10 comments in quick succession are pathetic attention whores who think quantity equals quality. You do that a lot, don't you? cl does, too."
I believe this comment is fairly indicative of the overall flaws in your reasoning: you often take one possible motivation for a certain behavior, then merely ascribe that motivation to all who exhibit the behavior. That, my friend, is hasty induction.
I could care less about attention. On the other hand, I do respond to all who respond to me. So, when 4 to 10 people respond to me, I'll write 4 to 10 responses. That's just thoroughness. Frankly, I'd love to lose the attention of certain atheists.
Zardoz,
"Freethinkers tend to be moral, kind and, well, everything that religious people claim to be but aren't!"
Why argue from stereotypes and blanket statements?
John Evo,
"Zardoz's comment may very well have saved your ass, Gideon. S/he is correct. Your comments always prove the "value" of religion."
Don't make the same mistake as Zardoz: Gideon's comments don't prove anything about the value of religion. I could turn right around and say that Pekka-Eric Auvinen proves the value of evolution - but we both know that's silly.
cl, I did not make a blanket statement regarding the morality of freethinkers, I was simply commenting on my experience with people that I've met. My original post reads: "Religious people are some of the most hateful, immoral people I've met. Freethinkers tend to be moral, kind and, well, everything that religious people claim to be but aren't!" In other words, I'm not making a blanket statement about either atheists or religious people, I'm simply stating that there are certain tendencies in each group and that freethinkers tend to be kinder and, ironically, more "Christ-like" than Christians.
As for Gideon, after reading his statements, I took him to be somewhat young, and I don't usually get into arguments with children. All I'll say is that I do not make myself "God" in the absence of any other. I am simply a moral man who does not believe in fairy tales; religion has no monopoly on morality.
Gideon,
"cl, these morons are simply trying to flame you by making you somehow responsible for my antipathy for them."
I know this.
"Besides, Jim bugged out. He's gone on to other more important things..."
I believe we'll hear from jim again.
Zardoz,
"I did not make a blanket statement regarding the morality of freethinkers, I was simply commenting on my experience with people that I've met."
Your comment - as originally worded - was a blanket statement. I am a religious person. Though I am not without sin, I am neither hateful nor immoral.
cl,
I did not make a blanket statement, you are in error. Once again, my original post states: "Religious people are some of the most hateful, immoral people I've met."
Note the use of the word some, I'm not saying that all religious people are hateful or immoral, just that a lot of them seem to be. Religion engenders an attitude like that found in any cult and this leads to hatred towards those who have differing opinions (see Gideon as an example). Religion breeds hate, blind hate.
I do have a question for you: you say that you are not without sin. If you are sinful, how can you be moral? Sin is the result of immorality, therefore you must be an immoral person.
Gideon, you just keep proving my arguments for me, son! lol Thank you!
Please take care, Gideon, and get the help you need!
Peace!
Zardoz,
"Note the use of the word some, I'm not saying that all religious people are hateful or immoral, just that a lot of them seem to be."
Fair enough; I'll take your word for it. If you want to know what tripped me up, it was that you begin with the generality "religious people" and only link "some" to your preposition "of."
"I do have a question for you: you say that you are not without sin. If you are sinful, how can you be moral? Sin is the result of immorality, therefore you must be an immoral person."
Everybody sins; are we all immoral people?
Zardoz,
"Religion breeds hate, blind hate."
So do lots of things; what's the point?
cl - you are right. If our only sampling were Gideon and some guy (was he an atheist?) who believed he should have a hand in evolution.
Unfortunately, as I peruse the Intertubes I find countless "Gideons". He just happens to be "my" personal example to show the world.
And, if I'm wrong, folks will understand that, won't they? They say, "this guy is psychotic but clearly represents no of the dogmatic Christians I've met."
In other words, give me the credit of knowing that my saying its so, don't make it so.
I leave it to the judges.
"cl - you are right. If our only sampling were Gideon and some guy (was he an atheist?) who believed he should have a hand in evolution."
Do you imply that Pekka is the only idiotic atheist?
"Unfortunately, as I peruse the Intertubes I find countless "Gideons""
I find countless "atheist Gideon's" too so what's your point?
"And, if I'm wrong, folks will understand that, won't they? They say, "this guy is psychotic but clearly represents no of the dogmatic Christians I've met.""
John, I wasn't talking about Gideon; I was talking about religion. Your comment proffers Gideon as "proving the value of religion," and that's just wordplay.
"In other words, give me the credit of knowing that my saying its so, don't make it so. I leave it to the judges."
All good with me brother.
Everybody sins; are we all immoral people?
Nobody sins, because there is no such thing as sin.
What there is is imperfect humans who occasionally make mistakes, or because of flaws or imperfections in their personal morality, do things that society considers wrong.
To equate immorality with sin is just pure nonsense and misdirection, and a fabrication of a non-existent religious concept used to prop up belief in another non-existent religious concept.
-----------------------
Now, as for the video, I thought it was a brilliant exposition of the mis-characterizations of atheists many theists have, probably through sheer ignorance. When I say ignorance, I don't imply anything bad, just lack of knowledge, most of the times willful. Those two cartoon characters were parroting what they learn in Bible study, or their church, or Sunday School. That kind of misunderstanding is very prevalent, especially among certain sects, but that doesn't mean that all Christians think that way.
Cl doesn't. Giddi-yawn does.
Your comment proffers Gideon as "proving the value of religion," and that's just wordplay.
Giddy-yawn's comments prove the value of Giddy-yawn's particular brand of religion.
Is that wordplay too?
"Nobody sins, because there is no such thing as sin."
Get real SI. However a person defines wrongdoing, or error, or sin.. or whatever one wants to call it, we all do it, and that's what I meant. We all act immorally from time to time. Do you agree? Or disagree?
"To equate immorality with sin is just pure nonsense and misdirection, and a fabrication of a non-existent religious concept used to prop up belief in another non-existent religious concept."
And as usual, your argument is based on your opinion that God doesn't exist. When will you learn that your opinion means no more to me than anyone else's? When will you learn to argue facts, logic, and data?
Get real SI. However a person defines wrongdoing, or error, or sin.. or whatever one wants to call it, we all do it, and that's what I meant. We all act immorally from time to time. Do you agree? Or disagree?
Isn't that what I said? "Sin" is a made up name for what you say. A metaphor, maybe? Rape is rape, not a sin (except in religious circles). Theft is theft, not a sin (except in religious circles). X (X being something wrong) is X, not a sin (except in religious circle). So all these "wrongdoings" or "errors" have their own definitions.
If you are religious, you might also call them sins.
Which was my point.
When will you learn to argue facts, logic, and data?
Every time we engage in verbal combat? ;)
I'm game. Show me a sin. Bring one out that we can examine and confirm that it's a sin.You know, that thing that Christians say leaves a black mark on your soul, but god keeps a tally of on some divine database. It must exist, if it can be enumerated in said database.
(And lest you think I'm creating a strawman, let me know whether you had a parochial education.)
So show me one. That would be a fact, or data that we can examine logically.
"I'm game. Show me a sin. Bring one out that we can examine and confirm that it's a sin."
Please. You think I'm gonna fall for that again? You don't believe in God; you don't believe in sin. What you ask for is not possible. You know what I meant, we established that, be gone with ya.
Please. You think I'm gonna fall for that again? You don't believe in God; you don't believe in sin. What you ask for is not possible.
What I believe is irrelevant. You do, and want to argue facts, so, show me the fact of sin you believe in.
You know what I meant, we established that, be gone with ya.
Nice argument avoidance. Drive by, no less.
"What I believe is irrelevant. You do, and want to argue facts, so, show me the fact of sin you believe in. "
No, what you believe is everything. Regardless, the fact of sin is all around us.
And you're quite correct: this is argument avoidance. I've learned better, and I'm perfectly fine with you "winning" this one because I don't wanna get into it. You're not a nice arguer.
If sin is all around us, wouldn't it be a simple matter for you to produce some evidence for it?
I believe trees are all around us. Want me to show you some evidence?
And I'm deeply hurt about the "nice arguer" comment. I'll have you know that I'm very nice. Disagreeable, but nicely disagreeable.
Blah blah blah. When I say that 'sin is all around us,' you already know what I mean so it's a moot point.
Post a Comment