[Gorian]

@Erica Yours was funnier. His was more accurate

[dorknexus]

Our lord and savior created the universe after a night of heavy drinking so we actually find God through booze.

Quote

And yea the man thou knowest as Linguini was a sinful man. He partaketh not of the holy pasta in his name, nor of the meatballs in his sauce in his holy name. The FSM looked down upon him and was wrathful, plus he also had a hangover, and verily did this displease the almighty noodly one. Linguini 1:2

Also, according to the Gospel, we should avoid linguini and look towards our more cylindrical brethren for truth and wisdom. If God didn't love us, why would he have given us meatballs?

If you read the above and knew that I was dead serious and I honestly thought that's how reality worked, how would you feel about that?

That's how I feel when I read your posts about God and you say it like it's some undeniable truth.

It's like overhearing someone talk about a Disney movie as if it were factual. Strange and saddening.

This post has been edited by Dark_Nexus: 09 November 2010 - 02:34 PM

[blutrane]

uh....perspective shift?

[dorknexus]

I already told you, I reject unreasonable ideas and I have no reason to respect crazy ideas. Do I also have to respect the idea that unicorns might exist? Or that there might be a teapot in an elliptical orbit between Earth and Mars? Bigfoot? When do I get to say "no, these are simply too unreasonable."

I have to respect all these ideas and say "yes, yes, although highly highly highly improbable, still plausible, and therefore I shouldn't treat you like an idiot."

This post has been edited by Dark_Nexus: 09 November 2010 - 02:52 PM

[KYA]

And that doesn't apply to you why?

[dorknexus]

i dunno if you know how to read but... i am saying i DON'T have to respect bullshit ideas.

[Gorian]

That is a matter of opinion, and subjective

[KYA]

Dark_Nexus, on 09 November 2010 - 04:43 PM, said:

i dunno if you know how to read but... i am saying i DON'T have to respect bullshit ideas.

Me either. It appears that you think your own policy doesn't apply to you. That's why I asked.

[Videege]

Dark_Nexus, on 09 November 2010 - 09:41 AM, said:

Quote

How does the origin of a person's thoughts on the subject of gay marriage discredit them?

Here's how I look at it. You have to judge people based on the credibility of their opinions and statements. You wouldn't listen to a Nazi give a rant on racial prejudice. Why? Because his foundational beliefs are crazy and immutable. In the same vein, I am not going to respect the viewpoints of someone who openly admits they are "Christian and proud of it" and then proceeds to lecture about homosexuality.

As time progresses, and these stubborn archaic views become less acceptable, these religions will become more and more watered down.

For instance:

Quote

Would you stone women who have been raped? I don't think so

Why not? Mighty bold of you to look at a verse in the bible and say "well we aren't going to follow that part." Why? Because it's unreasonable? Yes! Most definitely because it's unreasonable! You know what's even more unreasonable? Jewish carpenters being resurrected from the dead. But you won't call that unreasonable, you'll call that "faith."

Well, I call that ignorance.

The whole foundation of Christianity is unreasonable. Only very recently are we seeing the "meek and mild" side of the bible where Christians say stupid shit like:

"I don't agree with what homosexuals are doing, and they will probably burn in a fiery hell, but I respect them."
Which is definitely an upgrade from:
"Faggots are going to burn in eternal misery for their selfish sins!!"

But the former is still a steep slippery, blurry slope of bullshit.

If you don't like them, say it. Don't sugar coat is and beat around the bush (even if it is burning and talking).

"We don't know how they are going to be judged but everyone has a chance for forgiveness."
Right, but you know how you'd like them to be judged. Not to mention that entire statement is loaded with the shitty view that someone is doing something wrong based on your modern, watered down, load of shit interpretation of an ancient religious text. Otherwise, why the need for forgiveness?

If you had some conviction and followed the bible to a tee then at the very least I could respect you for being consistent. But Christians allow social norms to water down their religious laws and that's called selling out.

So you're either completely nuts, or your less nuts but a sell out. Neither of those are respectable foundations.

If you don't want to be lumped in with the crowd of mindless, blind, ignorant Christians, then don't label yourself as one. It's like me saying "I'm a Nazi but this is how my viewpoints differ from regular Nazi's..."

At the end of the day you're going to still be thinking "That dude's a fucking dirty, crazy Nazi."

Temporarily coming out of retirement to QFT. Christian people get to pick piecemeal from the Bible based on their own perspective and moral paradigm (and then, by the way, turn around and say "how can morality derive from something other than the Bible and God?" - wait, you just did that!), then think they should be treated with respect because hey, that's my FAITH you're talking about there, man!

Religion is used to enjoying a level of respect that places it beyond questioning. To quote Professor Dawkins:

Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'Fine, I respect that'. The odd thing is, even as I am saying that I am thinking 'Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?' but I wouldn't have thought 'Maybe there's somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics' when I was making the other points. I just think 'Fine, we have different opinions'. But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody's (I'm going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say 'No, we don't attack that; that's an irrational belief but no, we respect it'.

[baavgai]

blutrane, on 09 November 2010 - 02:38 PM, said:

An easier way to sum up the bible is through major covenant history

Neat. Alas, for some reason, puts me in a silly state of mind.

Adam and Eve: Creation, um, another creation, um, do over. Create man and woman. Oops, create another woman. It's perfect, man screws it up, blame the woman.

Abraham: God ain't no vegetarian, He wants blood!

Noah: Do over! Totally.

Moses: You are the chosen. Suffer!

Jesus: Jews had is wrong. Do over!

[alias120]

This debate has certainly taken on a more religious context. I suppose that was bound to happen considering who the primary opponents to gay marriage are.

I am relieved to see a few christians that do not have a problem with giving homosexuals equal rights. I do not expect them to accept gays, but acknowledging that gays are entitled to a legal marriage is a great step towards equality.

[dorknexus]

holy shit it's videege!

Quote

Me either. It appears that you think your own policy doesn't apply to you. That's why I asked.

Feel free to lay siege to my ideas and opinions. They hold far more water than yours.

[KYA]

In your opinion.

[Videege]

KYA, on 09 November 2010 - 07:08 PM, said:

In your opinion.

I get my kicks from reading BS like this. It amuses me that religious people assume that because it is impossible to disprove the existence of a higher power, the hypothesis that there exists a higher power (I'm assuming you like to narrow that down to not just creator of the universe, but a personal deity who busies himself with human affairs) somehow wins by default.

Guess what? I think that there's pixies under my bed who like to rearrange my belongings from time to time. What, you say? There's 0 proof? Well, ye of little faith, you cannot disprove my hypothesis, and therefore, I deserve at least 50% respect.

Wrong. You can't just call positions 'opinions' and imply that it's a essentially a coin toss, that all positions are on equal ground with one another.

Note: I write this reply assuming you are referring to Nexus' religious beliefs. If that's not the case, please correct me, and I'll deliver a more accurate rebuttal to your mind-blowing treatise of "In your opinion."

[supersloth]

NUH UH