time to pry his rifle

[sexual_chocolate]

moses might have been a little confused though, if tvash took off his shirt....

[JayB]

Yea - but there's a significant moral distinction between the two. Refusing to honor other people's religious taboos strikes me as something entirely different than using images of people that died in concentration camps for theatrical purposes.

 

Bullshit. Certain individuals here are doing far more than avoiding a religious taboo. Saying "fuck Moses" is far beyond merely refusing to abide by some taboo, it's intentionally maximizing offensiveness and contempt. In such a case just about any response - including those images - can hardly be faulted as "over the bounds". The bounds have already been overshot.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

What distinguishes your position here from the Muslims upset about cartoon images of Mohammed in Danish newspapers? I'm not suggesting that they're completely identitical, but what, in your opinion, distinguishes your arguments from theirs on this point?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

i'll grant you that stalin and mao were aethists and monsters, but history has a much longer list of moses and jesus-lovers who were every bit as bad; folks who sincerely ascribe themselves to a hocus-pocus religion have wrecked more havoc on this earth than the enlightened few who have cast aside the boogeymen of their primitive ancestors. the bottom line is to fear anyone who thinks they have the whole world figured out for themselves and everybody else in it - aetheistic, aggressive communism was a relgion in that sense. most christians seem incapable of seperating their belief in the big-guy in the bathrobe from the corollary belief that, being part of the faithful, they then have the right to tell me how to live my life. i'm an apathetic aestheist - the universe means nothing more than what i choose it to mean, there is no great calling, and i don't give a shit what you believe in or how you live you're life, just leave me the fuck alone about it.

 

Your take on history of course suits and props up your own beliefs. The reality is not so black and white. Moral fucks have taken advantage of institutions in place for the purpose of self-aggrandizement and wielding of power throughout history, including religious institutions. In the case of the latter you don't have to scratch the surface very hard to find an absence of belief in the faith many of these folks used for their own purposes (accumulation of power, wealth). Those doing the bidding of these folks often fell into a pattern - thugs, criminals, murderers - who were more than willing to do the bidding of their master (turn the thumbscrews, burn the witches) as they were able to do so justified by the force of law and government. Persons of true faith suffered along with the rest of humanity, did much good (which is lost to the pages of history - evil seems to make better news!), and fought the good fight.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Yea - but there's a significant moral distinction between the two. Refusing to honor other people's religious taboos strikes me as something entirely different than using images of people that died in concentration camps for theatrical purposes.

 

Bullshit. Certain individuals here are doing far more than avoiding a religious taboo. Saying "fuck Moses" is far beyond merely refusing to abide by some taboo, it's intentionally maximizing offensiveness and contempt. In such a case just about any response - including those images - can hardly be faulted as "over the bounds". The bounds have already been overshot.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

What distinguishes your position here from the Muslims upset about cartoon images of Mohammed in Danish newspapers? I'm not suggesting that they're completely identitical, but what, in your opinion, distinguishes your arguments from theirs on this point?

 

Those muslims have every right to be offended. They can boycott companies that publish or broadcast the images, they can send letters to the editor, they can have peaceful protests. They can even tell all of us who laugh at the images and mock them to go fuck ourselves.

 

They can NOT make death threats, set off bombs, call for jihad, etc.

 

It's pretty fucking clear, no?

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

i don't think he said "fuck moses".

 

Who is "he". I've got tittie boy on ignore.

 

I did see a "fuck xxx/yyy/zzz" by Ivan or somebody. I'm not repeating the blasphemy, so fill in the xxx, etc on your own.

[sexual_chocolate]

They can NOT make death threats, set off bombs, call for jihad, etc.

 

 

what do you mean "they can't"?

 

"they" (?) are doing it all the time!

[JayB]

11th Commandement:

 

Hey Moses: Thou shalt suck me.

 

You may have heard the expression: "is nothing sacred"? The answer is, yes, some things are to many people, and very deeply so(including at least six million people who were murdered for their religious beliefs or associated ethnicity.)

In a free society, you can piss all over Christianity, Judaism, or whatever, but again, don't expect that you won't be called out on it. You should be. Some of us don't believe in sitting around and watching it treated like some big joke. By responding, at least the awareness is being spread that some people really care about this stuff and maybe you'll reconsider the nature of your ugly comments next time. I doubt it, but maybe.

 

Outside of the settings I mentioned previously - particular religious ceremonies that you are attending as a guest, when you are a guest in a religious persons home - etc, what moral case can be made for a state of affairs in which those outside of a particular religion have to treat a particular belief or figure associated with that religion as sacred?

 

I've run across people who believe that refusing to provide the appropriate medical care that their children need to live is as sacred and inviolable as your fondness for Moses. Is this, and the many other occasions in which a particular set of religious convictions intrude on public life or on matters of public concern also off limits?

[sexual_chocolate]

man, this is turning into a serious discussion!

[StevenSeagal]

it was 2 faced bullshit christians that did that shit to the jews and who make up the majority of the current administration - we could use a few more fuck jesus/moses/ahuramazda types.

 

It was amoral atheists who infected the world with this and other genocides, some of whom *were* raised Christian (or Jewish in the case of Stalinist Russia), but hardly were practicing believers, but go on and delude yourself. I'd like to see far more good people of faith than faithless atheists who arrogantly say "fuck j****". No, fuck you.

 

i'll grant you that stalin and mao were aethists and monsters, but history has a much longer list of moses and jesus-lovers who were every bit as bad; folks who sincerely ascribe themselves to a hocus-pocus religion have wrecked more havoc on this earth than the enlightened few who have cast aside the boogeymen of their primitive ancestors. the bottom line is to fear anyone who thinks they have the whole world figured out for themselves and everybody else in it - aetheistic, aggressive communism was a relgion in that sense. most christians seem incapable of seperating their belief in the big-guy in the bathrobe from the corollary belief that, being part of the faithful, they then have the right to tell me how to live my life. i'm an apathetic aestheist - the universe means nothing more than what i choose it to mean, there is no great calling, and i don't give a shit what you believe in or how you live you're life, just leave me the fuck alone about it.

 

Richard Dawkins, in his book "The God Delusion", makes a very strong argument that, while Stalin for example was likely an atheist, atheism itself was not the motivation for the atrocities committed, nor for his lack of morals.

 

Simultaneously, he makes an even stronger argument that even devout Christians do not actually obtain their morals from the Bible: since the old testament explicitly calls for such things as killing someone who works on sundays, death for adultery, on and on- things that modern Christians have come to reject- clearly if humans can pick and choose which parts of the Bible to adhere to, there must be some other basis for morality acting in advance.

 

The point being, that ascribing "lack of morals" as an intrinsic characteristic of atheists, on the basis that religious scriptures provide that for you, is grossly inaccurate.

 

Organized religion and faith in a higher being is not paramount to sound moral judgment.

 

 

[JayB]

Yea - but there's a significant moral distinction between the two. Refusing to honor other people's religious taboos strikes me as something entirely different than using images of people that died in concentration camps for theatrical purposes.

 

Bullshit. Certain individuals here are doing far more than avoiding a religious taboo. Saying "fuck Moses" is far beyond merely refusing to abide by some taboo, it's intentionally maximizing offensiveness and contempt. In such a case just about any response - including those images - can hardly be faulted as "over the bounds". The bounds have already been overshot.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

What distinguishes your position here from the Muslims upset about cartoon images of Mohammed in Danish newspapers? I'm not suggesting that they're completely identitical, but what, in your opinion, distinguishes your arguments from theirs on this point?

 

Those muslims have every right to be offended. They can boycott companies that publish or broadcast the images, they can send letters to the editor, they can have peaceful protests. They can even tell all of us who laugh at the images and mock them to go fuck ourselves.

 

They can NOT make death threats, set off bombs, call for jihad, etc.

 

It's pretty fucking clear, no?

 

I agree - they are free to do all of those things, but it seems like the entire spectrum of actions that we've seen from them have their genesis in the same sense of outrage at others mocking some particular aspect of their faith that they deem sacred.

 

I'm not sure how much of what we know about Jesus the historical figure is accurate, but how well does the outrage and anger that you feel square with the picture that believers have constructed over many centuries? Would Jesus - as you understand him - be overcome with anger if he saw someone taking a leak on his image or mocking some element of his faith?

[Doug]

 

Those muslims have every right to be offended. They can boycott companies that publish or broadcast the images, they can send letters to the editor, they can have peaceful protests. They can even tell all of us who laugh at the images and mock them to go fuck ourselves.

 

They can NOT make death threats, set off bombs, call for jihad, etc.

 

It's pretty fucking clear, no?

 

Well apparently what some people of certain religious beliefs do believe is that their doctrines and dogma are above common law. Suicide bombing in the name of muhammad Vs. bombing a women's health clinic that may perform abortions in the name of god. At least the suicide bombers take themselves out of the gene pool.....

[sexual_chocolate]

11th Commandement:

 

Hey Moses: Thou shalt suck me.

 

You may have heard the expression: "is nothing sacred"? The answer is, yes, some things are to many people, and very deeply so(including at least six million people who were murdered for their religious beliefs or associated ethnicity.)

In a free society, you can piss all over Christianity, Judaism, or whatever, but again, don't expect that you won't be called out on it. You should be. Some of us don't believe in sitting around and watching it treated like some big joke. By responding, at least the awareness is being spread that some people really care about this stuff and maybe you'll reconsider the nature of your ugly comments next time. I doubt it, but maybe.

 

 

"I believe in everything, nothing is sacred; I believe in nothing, everything is sacred."

 

"that's words to live by, and words to die to."

 

 

i can understand being offended, but i don't think it's a very enlightened condition....

 

as a matter of fact, the Kabalah deals with these things in a much more esoteric way than the exoterics of the layman's "religion".

[Raindawg]

"I believe in everything, nothing is sacred; I believe in nothing, everything is sacred."

 

The Gospel according to Tom Robbins???

 

 

i can understand being offended, but i don't think it's a very enlightened condition....

 

as a matter of fact, the Kabalah deals with these things in a much more esoteric way than the exoterics of the layman's "religion".

 

Would you like to enlighten us on the Kabbalah, rabbi?

[kevbone]

What is this thread about?

[tvashtarkatena]

 

It was amoral atheists who infected the world with this and other genocides, some of whom *were* raised Christian (or Jewish in the case of Stalinist Russia), but hardly were practicing believers, but go on and delude yourself. I'd like to see far more good people of faith than faithless atheists who arrogantly say "fuck j****". No, fuck you.

 

 

Perhaps, one day, we atheists, who are, after all, at the root of every evil, will be exterminated.

 

 

[tomtom]

What is this thread about?

 

6 pages.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

What is this thread about?

 

Climbing. Can't you tell?

[tvashtarkatena]

11th Commandement:

 

Hey Moses: Thou shalt suck me.

 

You may have heard the expression: "is nothing sacred"? The answer is, yes, some things are to many people, and very deeply so(including at least six million people who were murdered for their religious beliefs or associated ethnicity.)

In a free society, you can piss all over Christianity, Judaism, or whatever....

 

....but apparently not Charleton Heston.

 

When did he become a religion, anyway?

[tvashtarkatena]

By the way, I wake up every morning with an urge to wipe out 20 million people. I just lack the means to do it in style.

 

 

Oh, and fuck Moses. The real one.

 

There, now Raindawg finally has something to spray about.

Edited April 10, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

For Chuck said:

 

"I am the Alpha Male and the Omega Man".

Edited April 10, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[billcoe]

Friends, countrymen, people who dislike Professor Pot Kettle Black, lend me your ears; I come to bury Pot, not to praise him. In the text that follows, I don't intend to recount all of the damage caused by Pot's mephitic flimflams but I do want to point out that Pot keeps saying that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all thoroughly justified. For some reason, Pot's apologists actually believe this nonsense. Time cannot change his behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Pot can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, undermine the intellectual purpose of higher education. He ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person.

 

Pot will probably respond to this letter just like he responds to all criticism. He will put me down as "mumpish" or "peremptory". That's his standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about him except the most fawning praise. As will be discussed in more detail later in this letter, he is absolutely determined to believe that you and I are objects for him to use then casually throw away and forget like old newsprint that's performed its duty catching bird droppings, and he's not about to let facts or reason get in his way. Although there are no formal, external validating criteria for Pot's disorderly claims, I think we can safely say that I once overheard him say something quite astonishing. Are you strapped in? He said that everyone who doesn't share his beliefs is a foolhardy, soulless hell-raiser deserving of death and damnation. Can you believe that? At least his statement made me realize that ever since he decided to initiate a reign of lecherous terror, his consistent, unvarying line has been that his opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality.

 

I use such language purposefully -- and somewhat sardonically -- to illustrate how Pot spouts a lot of numbers whenever he wants to make a point. He then subjectively interprets those numbers to support his paroxysms while ignoring the fact that he is totally versipellous. When Pot's among plebeians, he warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against separatism. But when he's safely surrounded by his helots, Pot instructs them to inject even more fear and divisiveness into political campaigns. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that Pot is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others. I submit that everyone should stop and mull that assertion. Then, you'll understand why Pot doesn't care about freedom, as he can neither eat it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to him.

 

Many people lie. However, Pot lies with such ease it's troubling. At the risk of sounding hopelessly amateurish, it ruffles my feathers that he wants to conduct business in a bestial, quarrelsome way. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to him.

 

Most of Pot's writings are thesis-less runarounds that leave the reader unclear as to both his point and his position on the issue. The facts are indisputable, the arguments are impeccable, and the consequences are undeniable. So why does Pot aver that his protests are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos? The answer may surprise you, especially when you consider that it is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to teach argumentative curmudgeons about tolerance. If I may be permitted to make an observation, people often get the impression that improvident sods and Pot's yes-men are separate entities. Not so. When one catches cold, the other sneezes. As proof, note that Pot could use some etiquette lessons. Let's be sure that I've made myself absolutely clear: Pot is locked into his present course of destruction. He does not have the interest or the will to change his fundamentally vengeful scribblings.

 

Doesn't Pot realize that given the very real threat of him challenging all I stand for it is essential that we build a world overflowing with compassion and tolerance? The answer to that question has broad implications. For example, Pot maintains a "Big Brother" dossier of incriminating information about everyone he distrusts, to use as a potential weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? As you no doubt realize, that's a particularly timely question. In fact, just half an hour ago I heard someone express the opinion that the really interesting thing about all this is not that Pot's hirelings care more about speaking, acting, and even thinking like Pot than they care about what makes sense. The interesting thing is that if he truly wanted to be helpful, Pot wouldn't strip people of their rights to free expression and individuality. Just because pathological antagonism exists and has for a long time, there is no reason for us to accept it from Pot. Let me recite the following phrases as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward towards increased ability to wreck our country, derail our civilization, and threaten the human race with extinction: inerudite apostates; conniving, bloody-minded poseurs; boosterism; Pot's bootlickers; Pot Kettle Black. My point is that Pot has recently been going around claiming that his vices are the only true virtues. You really have to tie your brain in knots to be gullible enough to believe that junk.

 

Pot's gestapo appears to be growing in number. I pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction yet I keep reminding myself that Pot's cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good. Pot insists that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that he can dole out or retract. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates. His prank phone calls have experienced a considerable amount of evolution (or perhaps more accurately, genetic drift) over the past few weeks. They used to be simply uncouth. Now, not only are they both immoral and imperious, but they also serve as unequivocal proof that Pot's compeers were recently seen making my blood curdle. That's not a one-time accident or oversight. That's Pot's policy.

 

Pot does not merely replicate the most mudslinging structures of contemporary life. He does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. Most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Pot spawn a society in which those with the most deviant lifestyle, destructive behavior, or personal failures are given the most by the government.

 

Pot has so frequently lied about how he is as innocent as a newborn lamb that some weaker-minded people are starting to believe it. We need to explain to such people that if you read between the lines of Pot's modes of thought, you'll unequivocally find that if you can go more than a minute without hearing Pot talk about vandalism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial. Pot always demands instant gratification. That's all that is of concern to him; nothing else matters -- except maybe to purge the land of every non-incontinent person, gene, idea, and influence. I tell you this because Pot wants to level filth and slime at everyone opposed to his asseverations. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is Pot's gossamer grasp of reality.

 

I won't pull any punches here: Implying that Pot can convince criminals to fill out an application form before committing a crime is no different from implying that Pot can absorb mana by devouring his nemeses' brains. Both statements are ludicrous. We are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which whiney humanity-haters like Pot are entirely absent. The other road leads into the darkness of terrorism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? We already have our answer; as a respected journalist put it, "Pot's speeches are full of declamation, bloviation, obfuscation, and equivocation". She probably could have added that I am not fooled by Pot's unstable and eristic rhetoric. I therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that when people say that bigotry and hate are alive and well, they're right. And Pot is to blame. Summa summarum, Prof. Pot Kettle Black often expresses great interest in, and approval of, violent acts reported in the press -- spousal abuse, shooting sprees, capital punishment, and so forth.

(this was a randomly generated letter and not written, ,read, or supported by the author)

[RuMR]

What is this thread about?

its amazing...i put kevbone on ignore, and it changes nothing in the thread...

[Fairweather]

 

Those muslims have every right to be offended. They can boycott companies that publish or broadcast the images, they can send letters to the editor, they can have peaceful protests. They can even tell all of us who laugh at the images and mock them to go fuck ourselves.

 

They can NOT make death threats, set off bombs, call for jihad, etc.

 

It's pretty fucking clear, no?

 

Well apparently what some people of certain religious beliefs do believe is that their doctrines and dogma are above common law. Suicide bombing in the name of muhammad Vs. bombing a women's health clinic that may perform abortions in the name of god. At least the suicide bombers take themselves out of the gene pool.....

 

Let's look at the current 10 year tally of murder committed in the name of religion:

 

Muslim Suicide Bombers: 298,932 (this number for illustrative purposes only)

Fundi-Christian Anti-Abortionists: 2

 

Tvashtarketena publicly expresses irreverence toward Moses and is (rightfully) flamed on a web board. Had he publicly suggested Mohamed or Allah fellate his pathetic filament (source: Mrs. Tvashtarketena) he would, no doubt, be the object of a fatwah (No pun intended). No difference between Jew/Christian and Muslim? Nice try.

 

 

 

[kevbone]

What is this thread about?

its amazing...i put kevbone on a pedestal every day. What a guy!

 

 

Thanks R.....

[bstach]

 

Richard Dawkins, in his book "The God Delusion", makes a very strong argument that, while Stalin for example was likely an atheist, atheism itself was not the motivation for the atrocities committed, nor for his lack of morals.

 

Simultaneously, he makes an even stronger argument that even devout Christians do not actually obtain their morals from the Bible: since the old testament explicitly calls for such things as killing someone who works on sundays, death for adultery, on and on- things that modern Christians have come to reject- clearly if humans can pick and choose which parts of the Bible to adhere to, there must be some other basis for morality acting in advance.

 

If you are describing his argument correctly, Richard Dawkins clearly does not understand a key aspect of Christianity: Christians are not bound by the old testament law. Christians really only have one law: love thy neighbour. If Dawkins doesn't understand this, it brings the whole bookinto question.