This
14 March 2006 by Sean
Thanks to those last week who suggested some theist sites to feed to the lion.
This week’s Purina Lion Feed is Triablogue (thanks, RA).
First up, we have a sick-ass quote from the insane, mushroom-induced ramblings of the Book of Revelation: “And in righteousness he doth judge and make war.”
I hate these bloggers already.
Okay. Time to throw some meat to the kitty-kats to get things started. First off, Triablogue blogger Ryan McReynolds has what he seems to have considered a charitable take on Brokeback Mountain. It made me ill. What’s worse than an ignorant homophobe? A smart one who can do backflips of twisted logic to justify his hatred of gays. Here’s an excerpt:
Nowhere in the film was the happy go lucky air of just another “alternative lifestyle”, so often portrayed on TV sitcoms like “Will and Grace”. This film is a very sad portrayal of the desperate need of the human soul for intimacy.
I’m frankly surprised that Ang Lee hasn’t been taken to task by the gay community for directing such a negative account of homosexuality.
Ironically, if you read respectable Christian authors like Mike Haley and others, you hear them say that homosexuality is usually a result of a failure to bond with a Father:
“But growing up as a kid, Dr. Nicolosi talks about the importance of the disidentification with the feminine and the identification with the masculine. That didnÂít happen for me in my life. What happened was, my dad, his way of making me a man was that he thought that he was going to push me in areas of sports that I wasnÂít interested in and then when I would get frustrated, he would do such things as call me Michelle, call me his third daughter, different instances like that. So times with my father became very painful. So the disidentification process with the feminine never occurred because times of being with my dad and being involved in masculinity were times of pain. So that never happened for me. ”
What does Ang Lee portray in this film? Two men who were emotionally rejected by their fathers. Fathers have great power to shape their children’s lives for good or ill. Bitter and angry men are misery to their children. It’s interesting that those that I hear addressing this issue with regard to homosexuality are Christians who call fathers to love their children with kindness and understanding.
The two men in this film have absolutely no healthy male relationships, except when they meet each other and spend the summer alone together in the wilderness.Not surprisingly, two young, virile, emotionally distant men when placed completely alone together in the same tent for months at a time strike out at each other for connection. This is hardly an endorsement of homosexuality as a normal lifestyle choice.
It’s not a lifestyle choice, you bigot. Do you have any dear friends who are gay? It is too difficult and painful a road to take for anyone to chose it over heterosexuality. They are born that way. You must be one of the people who completely denies the idea of the Kinsey Scale. Well, you’re deluded about human nature. And you missed the entire point of the movie. The two guys are messed up and repressed and in pain and feel like outcasts because they come from a community that would destroy them if they knew that they were gay. They are living in fear, and living lives that are lies, like most homosexuals in human history — thanks to the bigotry of people like you. Ang Lee would laugh at your complete misunderstanding of his work. In fact, everyone involved in the project would.
If you knew any gay people, you would know that many of them lead perfectly happy, comfortable, unrepressed lives, and raise happy, loving families. Of course, they usually have to move away from fucked up placed like Brokeback Mountain in order to do this.
And what is so fictional about the situation posited by Will and Grace? One of our longtime regular posters here at GifS, a Christian herself, lived for many years with a gay man who was her best friend, and she never would have suggested that his lifestyle was a choice. How can she be so forgiving, and Xians like you are so hateful? Is this what Jesus would have wanted?
Another comment from the Brokeback review:
I think it’s popularity in Hollywood and elite circles stems from a misunderstanding of human sexuality and an ignorance of the real source of opression against homosexuals in today’s world. Whatever the sins of rural America against homosexuals may be, the greatest threat of violence against gays at this moment in history is the threat of Islamic Fascism.
Strawman, strawman, strawman. Yeah, so because Islamic Fascism exists, you’re not a homophobe. Man, you’re right. Ang Lee made a cowardly film!
Okay, it’s late. I will lob one more at this hate site and then maybe others can join in. Here is a post where they goe after NARAL arguments for reproductive rights.
Oh, and right off the bat, while I am using that term, one of their first salvos is to attack it:
[...] the euphemism of “reproductive rights.” Are prolifers denying women the right to reproduce? [...]
Shall you reach through your computer screen and smack him, or shall I?
That reminds me of the idiot rabbi back during the height of the gay marriage debate (flames being fanned to win 2004 Congressional seats, and the fed election)… He literally said: “Gays are not denied the right to marry. Just like a straight man, a gay man can marry a woman any time he wants.” Man, these people have hypocrisy down to an art!
Anyway, onward with Triablogue:
Quoting NARAL:
3) Legalizing Abortion Does Not Increase its Incidence
Statistics show that women worldwide, when faced with an unwanted pregnancy, seek abortions regardless of the legality of the procedure, and whether or not safe services are available. Countries as diverse as Canada, Tunisia and Turkey liberalized their abortion laws without an increase in the abortion rate. Holland, though it has a non-restrictive abortion law and free abortions, has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world, far lower than many countries where abortion is illegal (e.g., Chile and Brazil).”
Triablogue’s response:
Statistics also show that wife-beaters worldwide, when faced with an unwanted wife, seek to batter or murder their spouse regardless of the legality of the procedure. So should we legalized uxoricide? There are, in fact, cultures in which wife-killing is socially condoned.
What?? How is killing your wife the same as being allowed to do something about an unwanted pregnancy — especially if that pregnancy could lead to seriously fucking up your own life and the life of the (eventual) child? A husband does not have to carry his wife in his belly for 9 months and raise her and feed her, whether or not she is a deformed product of incestuous rape. He in fact, in many cases, can abandon her most anytime he wants, regardless of whether she can fend for herself when he is gone. A woman cannot abandon her child after it has come to term. She must deal with it in some way. And don’t give me the adoption angle, folks… When Catholic charities themselves are halting adoptions, theists have little righteousness to tout.
And here is their idiot take on teenage parental consent:
“Teenagers”? “Parental consent”? Well, yes. Even if you believe in abortion for grown women, is Engle such a fanatic that she would insist on privacy laws which prevent the prosecution of statutory rape because it can’t be reported to the authorities?
Why should a school counselor or stranger at an abortion clinic—a stranger with a vested business interest—have more input on the decision than the girl’s mother or father? For what other major medical “procedure” would Engel leave the decision-making up to an underage girl and her handlers, then bandage her up and dump her back on the doorstep of her own home—without ever notifying a parent of potential complications or emotional trauma? What if the abortion is botched?
It tells you a lot about the level of moral desperation when the “right” of teenage access to abortion comes at the cost of immunity to medical malpractice and statutory rape. With the teenage “right” to an abortion comes the right to be raped and butchered. Feminism is a beautiful thing, ain’t it though?
Okay. This pissed me off on a personal level. One of my first girlfriends, when she was a teenager, actually carried a baby to term and put it up for adoption completely without the knowledge of her parents (wore loose sweaters, saw the doctor clandestinely, etc. — a remarkable feat). Why? Because if they had found out about it, she would have been disowned for having premarital sex. Disowned, as a teenager. Her parents were that hardcore Xian.
She did what she did because she didn’t want to have an abortion. Mainly because she thought it was a sin. It was a nightmare ordeal from start to finish and years later she was permanently haunted by what may have become of that child, who almost certainly, thanks to where it came from, ended up in a pretty shitty life, if not an orphanage until adulthood.
My ex, in those later years (she was in her mid-20s), said she would have had an abortion early on, and saved herself much misery, if she had known that such a thing was even an option. And she would not be haunted by the memory of what became of the fully developed child that she handed to a stranger and saw carried away from her forever.
You want to talk about a lack of choice and what it does to people’s lives? There you are. Where is that kid today? Lying in a gutter somewhere? Hey Steve the Righteous from Triablogue: you wanna go help him out with a sandwich for me please? You bastard.
I suggest that these Xian fundies take a gander at the movie The Magdalene Sisters… It will give them an idea of the woman-hating society they are trying to force upon us.westchester county loan brokerscalator loancalculator free loanchristian ppc loaninc closing loan servicefixed consolidation rate loancontract example loandictionary loan Map
14 March 2006, on 7:54 am
“stranger at an abortion clinic—a stranger with a vested business interest”
Good flippin grief, how I love this characterization. They are called doctors. If what these doctors do is such a great “business”, then why don’t we see them doing it more than a few days a month? Why do they have to fly to another state to do it? Why do they have to vary their entire schedule on a daily basis and hire security just so they can grocery shop? Why are there so very few of them?
Forget it. Logic allergies are quite the buggers.
14 March 2006, on 8:54 am
Posters from Tribalogue shit all over Lofton’s Debunking Xianity blog. I highly suggest reading anything by Manata ( think his first name is Paul) – one needs a good belly laugh each day.
14 March 2006, on 9:50 am
It’s not a lifestyle choice, you bigot. Do you have any dear friends who are gay? It is too difficult and painful a road to take for anyone to chose it over heterosexuality. They are born that way.
Watch out for the xian anti-gay bait of the “choice-argument.” Don’t buy into it; it’s a red herring. Choice or no choice, the lifestyle’s fine. Choice has nothing to do with it.
14 March 2006, on 11:01 am
You’re going to need more lions, they’re not used to getting fed this well, you’ll give them indigestion.
Well yes, because amongst many other things, we now have clinics where a young girl who’s pregnant can get the help she needs without being judged, or beaten by a father who thinks she’s a whore. What does this guy think happened to teenage girls who were pregnant in the good old days, does he think it was a walk in the park because the parents more or less had to be involved no matter what?
14 March 2006, on 12:53 pm
Hey! Cool to see some ANers here.
14 March 2006, on 4:04 pm
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/03/sean-is-for-suckers.html
Response. Well-stated.
14 March 2006, on 4:20 pm
Why is it when I saw Triablogue I read it as troglodyte?
14 March 2006, on 4:43 pm
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/03/i-tawt-i-taw-puddy-cat-i-did-i-did.html
tasty nuggets
14 March 2006, on 5:36 pm
We must have hit a nerve to warrant attention and such lengthy blog posts from these guys.
They are real %^$%^$ aren’t they? If there was a heaven and hell…neither place would want them. I have met a lot of christians but none as bad as these. This blog is probably doing more to promote atheism than all the atheist blogs online.
As I said before, they should just write praises to themselves and proclaim themselves to be omnipotent and be done with it.
14 March 2006, on 5:52 pm
Nathan: Not well stated, idiotic… And chock full of strawmen. This yo-yo seems great at turning phrases to suggest that feminism is abuse of women and humanism is abuse of humans. But he is full of hot air.
Don’t worry. I’ll get to him later. I’m a bit busy at the moment. But it cracks me up that he is so pious that he can’t bring himself to curse. Nope, we curse over here at GifS because we like to. Because it’s fun. And because, as Frank Zappa once said, they’re just words. We, you see, are not restricted by all your backwards, twisted moral codes. We love and we live, and yes, we fucking curse when we damn well please. And in fact, the atheists I know are by and large far happier people than those theists I have seen stuck in shotgun weddings (which Steve seems to approve of).
How can I seriously respond to a waterhead who says:
“It was a nightmare ordeal from start to finish and years later she was permanently haunted by what may have become of that child, who almost certainly, thanks to where it came from, ended up in a pretty s**** life, if not an orphanage until adulthood.”
Yes, sin has tragic consequences. That’s why it’s a sin.
Oh my. My girlfriend (who was not impregnated by me, Steve the Strawman) got knocked up by some 20-year-old bastard when she was 14 and her child has to pay for her sin? What a loving gawd you have there. I wouldn’t associate myself with such a sick-ass deity if he burned a million bushes in front of me to prove his existence.
Here’s a piece of news for you… Maybe in all your years of “witnessing” you failed to get this: we don’t believe in the idea of mortal sin. And we don’t believe in people being cruelly punished for the “sins” of others. We try to help people regardless of what tragedies they have been through.
Of course, if the boyfriend had done right by the mother of his child, adoption would have been unnecessary.
Notice how Sean uses one sin to excuse another sin. Justification by sin.
Again, this is where you live in medieval times and I don’t. The point is, the boyfriend didn’t do the right thing, and you would have the girl punished in his stead. Your beliefs are truly woman-hating.
“My ex”
Speaking of which, the sin of divorce—resulting in broken homes.
She was my ex-girlfriend, you dipshit strawman. I’ve never been married. So divorce is sinful in your limited worldview. Man, oh, man. Yup. Shouldn’t go getting a divorce, even if your husband beats you. That would be a sin.
Also, this is not a formal debate, and I enjoy cursing at theists. In fact, I will continue to do so. It’s fun.
14 March 2006, on 6:05 pm
As for those “tasy nuggets”, as you call them, comparing gay people to pedophiles repeatedly in your arguments just sickened me.
Check it out, folks… A whole lotta Xian hate:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/03/i-tawt-i-taw-puddy-cat-i-did-i-did.html
14 March 2006, on 6:06 pm
I wanted to leave an interesting comment on Stevearino’s blog, but, dammit, I need a blog of my own.
Why does Steve hate open comment policies?
Man, those Tribbledog guys are no fun.
14 March 2006, on 6:14 pm
This isn’t the type of “consequence” Steve was talking about. He wasn’t talking about the consequence in the sense of punishment. Rather, he was talking about the consequence in terms of effect.
When someone murders someone else, the consequence is that a life is taken.
When someone rapes someone else, the consequence is that someone has been raped.
And when someone abandons a child, the consequence is that a child is abandoned.
These are the consequences for sin. Simply put, sin does not reap good things; it reaps bad things, and we should not expect that it reap good things. When you and I sin, other people get hurt. When I blow up in anger at my children, they get hurt. And when a mother abandons a child simply because it is “unwanted,” the child gets hurt. This is the nature of sin.
Yeah, a real blast.
14 March 2006, on 6:23 pm
And when a mother abandons a child simply because it is “unwanted,” the child gets hurt. This is the nature of sin.
Clearly, Evan, you weren’t paying attention. She didn’t “abandon” the child “simply because it was ‘unwanted.’”
She gave it up for adoption because she was 14 freakin’ years old and her hateful Xian parents would have disowned her had they known this was even happening.
Again, go rent the Magdalene Sisters. That’s the world you hateful fundies seem to want for our entire female population.
14 March 2006, on 6:25 pm
PS: The fundie idea of sin walks hand in hand with things like the right-wing viewpoint of putting drug addicts in jail and throwing away the key (unless, of course, they are to be future presidents of the United States). It’s called punishing the victim, and is at the core of the anti-humanist, moralist, fundie hate machine.
14 March 2006, on 6:30 pm
Aww… look, they’re all gonna gang up on us now. Hey, Tribbledog guys, look at this!
14 March 2006, on 6:35 pm
Quick follow up:
Sean- fantastic flick.
Tribbledog guys,
I find it sad that you are all so violent toward gays since Gene Bridges got AIDS during homosexual sex. I know that for you xian types, having a gay man as the lead dog at your blog is difficult. Can’t you all really find a way to love gays since you are so close to one?
14 March 2006, on 6:36 pm
It’s the same thing: it is self-centered. How will others view me, how this will affect me. There is no concern for how this affects the human life.
On a side note, I wonder how many “hateful” “Xian” parents would really “disown” their child in such a situation where she needed them most.
In any case, you continue to make the 14 year old the victim, rather than the child. The 14 year old could have escaped the whole situation had she chosen to abstain from sex until she was responsible enough to care for the consequences. But she didn’t do this. She made the mistake, and got pregnant. And now the child must pay? This is the consequence of sin.
Of course, I wouldn’t advocate the “putting drug addicts in jail and throwing away the key.” But since when did the criminal become the victim? You merely assert that it is “punishing the victim,” but give me no substantiation for the notion that the wrongdoer is the victim.
14 March 2006, on 6:40 pm
You’re such a moron. There really isn’t any other way of describing it. How can you let comments like this on your blog, Sean?
1.) Gene Bridges has AIDs. As far as I know, he has not disclosed how he got AIDs.
2.) Gene Bridges is not a “gay man.”
3.) I love gay people. In fact, I love them so much that I want them to know the true pleasure of Jesus Christ. Of course, you despise this. But that has nothing to do with my worldview. You merely assert your own, but you cannot account for it.
Get the facts straight, idiot.
14 March 2006, on 7:12 pm
All right, folks, we got a fuckin’ rumble! Somebody play the Sharks and the Jets theme!
Evan: it’s not a “child”, it’s a fetus. And yes, punishing a 14-year-old is punishing the victim. And yes, Xian parents do things like abandoning their pregnant children. This was, in fact, instituionalized in the Magdalene Laundries of Ireland. That was your fucked up Xian faith in the works.
Who do you think is more likely to abandon a child (yes, the 14-year-old is the child here, not the fetus), someone who is already indoctrinated in the belief that the child sinned when she was seduced (or — since we are talking more and more hypothetically here) perhaps even raped by an older man, or the non-theist, humanist who understands that sin is a ridiculous, hateful moral construct and that tragic things happen to people.
Our worldview is empathy. Yours is judgement and damnation. I’ll take ours over yours anyday.
And no, being addicted to a substance does not make you a criminal. It makes you an addict. Somebody who needs help, not punishment. George W. Bush got help for his addictions, and fundies forgive him and never suggest that he should have gone to jail for snorting coke for two decades. Nope, since he is now a man of gawwwd, he is forgiven. No fundies ever suggest Rush Limbaugh’s pill-popping ass should have gone to jail, either, but Limbaugh thinks all drug addicts are criminals… Even though he is one.
Didn’t Jeebus reserve his greatest contempt for the hypocrites?
I love how your buddy Steve there takes pocks shots like “Ooh! Oooh! Sean doesn’t know it is the Book of Revelation without an ’s’!”
I could give a fuck what your fairy tale is called. It’s still horseshit. I am only on this earth once… I’ve read the bibble. It was drivel. Now I read real books. There’s only so much time, and I can’t make a lifetime of studying Little Red Riding Hood. Too much more to learn. I’ll leave that great “intellectual” circle jerk up to you.
14 March 2006, on 7:13 pm
PS: It’s not my blog. And Marcus is one of our bloggers. You have a beef with him, talk to him directly.
14 March 2006, on 7:34 pm
This begs the question.
So outside pressure should prevent us from doing the right thing? Nice worldview. And if your friend jumped off a bridge…
Oh, so breaking the law isn’t a crime?
I don’t know who the heck “Jeebus” is.
Paul Manata wrote that post, not Steve Hays.
Don’t just assert. Show it.
I did address him directly. I told the fool to get his facts straight and to stop openly slandering my friend.
Evan.
14 March 2006, on 7:46 pm
How is the 14-year-old being published by not being allowed to commit murder?
Murder of what? Do you also think birth control is murder? Can you prove to me when your imaginary soul enters a fetus?
Oy, I don’t care what your messed up ideology is… I just like to see you folks prove how heartless you are in threads like this. Still punishing the real child here. You’re all so self-righteous until something actually happens in your family, then you scurry off in the dark and forget about all your pious assertions about how others should live their lives.
Keep your GODDAMN MORALITY out of our lives and bedrooms.
So outside pressure should prevent us from doing the right thing? Nice worldview. And if your friend jumped off a bridge…
Outside pressure?? We are talking a 14-year-old and her mind-controlling Xian parents. At what point do you actually develop empathy? Or is it automatically removed the moment you accept your hateful, judging, slaughtering, needy, megalomaniacal sky daddy?
Paul Manata wrote that post, not Steve Hays.
Sorry, all you Xians look alike.
I don’t know who the heck “Jeebus” is.
These people remind me of those kids who live next door on the Simpsons. They say words like “heck.”
It’s still horseshit.
Don’t just assert. Show it.
Hey, everybody, Evan here thinks I am supposed to prove a negative to him.
14 March 2006, on 7:56 pm
Evan,
I’m not slandering your friend- it’s perfectly acceptable for him to be gay. I just don’t understand how you hate gays yet “love” Gene. Does he know about your double standard? I noticed that you rip Sean for ad hominem yet you call me an idiot and a moron. Why are you so hostile when I point out easily deducted information?
I know you feel superior and all that, but asking me to account for my worldview because you think it is tenuous is like your silly allusion that gay people should get to “know the pleasure” of jebus. I mean, most gay dudes I know don’t have sex fantasies about god. Although maybe Gene does.
I should email him and ask about it… whadda ya think? I bet he’d love to to answer some heartfelt questions about his own xian homosexual experiences or maybe receive some support literature from GLAD. Although given his spectrum of experiences, it might be more appropriate to sign him up for a NAMBLA newsletter.
Jeez, Evan, chatting with you has been great! I’m glad you helped me get all these ideas out! I’ll be sure to let Gene know about all the wonderful help you’ve given me!
Gee whiz shuck golly!
14 March 2006, on 8:00 pm
In your worldview, do humans have souls or do they not? What constitutes “murder”? If the prerequisite for murder is “has a soul,” then, in your atheistic worldview, do humans have souls? When do they get souls? Can you prove this?
Yes, in the theistic worldview, murder is determined by the sanctity of life. But what determines murder in an atheistic worldview?
Heartless? Because I am against murder? Yeah, real heartless…
Again, why is it “punishment” for having people be responsible for their actions? Why is it “punishment” for disallowing murder as a scapegoat option?
This is just a generic assertion, but irrelevant to this discussion.
“Mind-controlling”? So they’ve strapped wires to her brain? No, this is outside pressure.
Yeah, and all you humanists hate human life! (Isn’t it great to make generic, unsubstantiated assertions? Why not just own up to your mistake instead of shifting the blame?)
No…I am asking you to prove a positive. “It’s still horeshit” is a positive statement, is it not? Or have you already forgotten the meanings of the words “positive” and “negative” since you have decided to fry your brain?
14 March 2006, on 8:28 pm
No, Evan, your bibble asserts that it is the word of an imaginary friend that with all the science in the world, your kind have been unable to prove exists. Your bibble is asserting the positive. I am asserting that the burden of proof is on you. But we all know these arguments. If you don’t believe in them, you don’t believe in logic. But your entire philosophy is based on illogic, so that should not be a surprise.
No, I don’t believe in souls, which makes “murder” an interesting moral discussion, and not as simple-minded and black-and-white as you folks make it. Which is why you can say unplugging Terry Schiavo was murder, and I can say it was humane.
14 March 2006, on 8:28 pm
Sean, have a response to my neutering your lion rather than, “It made me sick.” I gave arguments, can you refute ‘em? Or, is telling autobiographical details about yourself considered a refutation ’round these parts?
Oh, the Christian life is “painful” and “difficult.” So, Evan and I must have been born this way, you biggoted theophobe.
Anyway, I’ll be waiting for a response. And, btw, pointing out your error on Revelation was called the cherry on top. It just aded insult to injury. And, I used it to make a point, i.e., that you’re an ignorant theophobe.
Marcus, maybe you can actualy deal with an argument. Here it is:
You’re claiming that we “hate gays” because we say that engaging in homosexual behavior is immoral and should be condemned. We feel that we should tell them that what they are doing is wrong and sinful. We want to share the good news of the Savior with them. But you can’t hear good news until you hear the bad. So we tell them God’s law.
First, write out that argument which proves that the above is “hatred.”
Second, if your children (assuming you had them) were to do something wrong (e.g., pick a rule that you’d have, e.g., no running in the street) and you told them that it was wrong to do that could I say that you “hated your children?”
I’m betting that you’ll just name call and cower in fear when it comes to actually debating the issue. Got that, cup cake?
Anyway, I’d love to see actual arguments here. As it stands,
Triablogue: 1gods4suckers: 0
No posting imaginary scoreboards on the walls of our house, bitch.
14 March 2006, on 8:34 pm
Hi Sean,
Actually, you have the burden. You see, the Bible claims that you know that God exists and that his existence is more clear than the nose on your face. So, saying that His existence is unclear is to make the (albeit indirect) *positive* claim that Christianity is false.
So, one’s worldview determines who has the burden, you see. So, you must be *assuming* atheism in order to say that we have the burden. So, let’s translate your argument: RESTATED: Evan, if you assume that Christianity is false then you have the burden. Wow! How uninteresting.
So, lable my position, A-atheism. Now you have the burden.
Evan, this is to easy!
14 March 2006, on 8:37 pm
Jesus said that the world would hate us because it first hated Jesus. Thanks for confirming Jesus’ words in your sich comments about Gene.
I know it must make Gene happy in once sense, to suffer for his Lord this way.
But, when one thinks about it, the claim that homosexuality is not immoral because people are born that way is to prove to much. It also proves that pedophilia is not immoral because people are just “born that way.” Now who’s the sicko?
Also, you claim about Christianity not being empirically verifiable gets into weird things as well. If you can’t claim something unless you’ve empirically verified it then why claim child molestation is wrong. Unless, of course, you’ve … well that’s just sick, now isn’t it?
14 March 2006, on 8:39 pm
Read back over the comments. I made no positive assertion concerning the Bible, and you made no negative. Rather, you made a positve assertion that the Bible was “horsehit”. How is that not a positive statement? Now prove to me the Bible is horeshit, unless you are wanting me to prove the negative that it isn’t.
But it is. Murder is the unjust taking of a human life. Abortion is the unjust taking of a human life. Therefore, abortion is murder.
14 March 2006, on 8:42 pm
tasty morsals.
Check out Godzilla feed: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/03/i-tawt-i-taw-puddy-cat-i-did-i-did.html
14 March 2006, on 8:43 pm
Baby Paul:
I have a life, and a date in 30 minutes. We’re gonna have sex, and it’s gonna involve condoms and no guilt. And we’re gonna enjoy the hell out of it.
So I will get back to you tomorrow night. Don’t count your chickens before they hatch, bub. And don’t be putting fucking self-presumed score boards on the wall in our house.
Man, Stardust was right, Triablogue is some self-righteous muthas. Ha!
It did, by the way, make me sick. Gay sex is not sinful or wrong. Love is not wrong. Sex between an adult and a child is not the same as sex between two consenting, loving adults, hatemonger. While I am gathering my non-autobiographical data, why don’t you find something other than your book “Advice From a Backwards 4,000-year-old Desert Nomad” to prove to me why homosexuality is a “sin”. And while you’re at that, find me some scientific sources that detail what a sin is. I don’t think I got that in biology class.
I am not going to argue theology with you. I have absolutely no interest in doing that, since I consider it utter podunk, just as you would laugh at the idea, I am sure, of arguing Scientology. What I am going to argue with you is values, from the only standpoint I have, my own ethos. We’ll see who comes out of it smelling like a bigoted, medieval misogynist.
“Theophobe.” I like that. As opposed to “homophobe.”
Homophobe: a person who is deathly afraid of being hugged by a man.
Theophobe: a person who works in a high-rise building and is deathly afraid of some wild-eyed religious lunatic slamming a plane into it.
14 March 2006, on 8:45 pm
Baby Paul:
You don’t seem to understand, we don’t give a fuck what Jeebus said. Give me another source as to why homosexuality is evil.
14 March 2006, on 8:45 pm
Paul,
I haven’t called anyone a name yet- Evan called me an “idiot” and a “moron” and I’ve been nothing but inquisitive. Of course I made that comment, but it was because I don’t understand how you can disapprove of gays yet openly allow Gene to do things with your group. I mean, afterall, godhatesfags.com is one of your satillite websites, yeah?
It’s unfortunate that Gene obviously doesn’t have enough support from you guys. I’m certain that some LGBT literature will give him what you all don’t provide. Sad, really sad. I mean, how can his wings of faith give his sweet spirit a boost if all of you can’t shove him with tender lovingness? I know his homosexuality is at odds with your beliefs but do you really need to be two faced?
Furthermore- you made a mistake by scoring. There is no prize to be won here. Silly boy- keeping score on intangibles on the internet for arguments is like when you used to snort coke and line up the line perfectly without a grain out of place- doesn’t matter- it’s all going to the same place. It’s nice to know you used to hit the pipe- makes you seem more human. Well, gotta get cracking and sign gene up for all those wonderful newsletters!
14 March 2006, on 8:57 pm
Sean,
Why refer to me as “baby Paul?” Is that your pedophile tendencies comming out?
Anyway, thanks for the fodder above so I can make another post showing Christians how silly atheism is.
Guess what, a man is ghoing to molest a child and enjoy the hell out of it.
I counted my chickens bfore they hatched, because I already know how many chickens will hatch. the game is fixed. You take on us you take on Elohim. We have mighty weapons for the casting down of strongholds. You escape reason, we escape wrath.
Oh, and before you respond can you define “science” for me? That would be helpful. Oh, would you mind showing me how “science”" proves that nature is uniform, or the existence of logic, or morality?
Oh, almost forgot, prove your own “ethos” be means of science. And, you said man has no soul, so I guess you assume morality can be based on a bag of chemicals? intersting argument.
“Theophobe:” Someone afraid to get into a rational debate with a theist.
And, Sean, if Jesus is God then you’d better care what he says. So, try not to beg the question, mkay?
But, I’ve already shown how you’ve not proven that homosexuality is okay, In fact, your arguments for why it is okay also proves that pedophilai is okay, and not evil. So, since you deny that then I’ve shown why it is wrong via reductio ad absurdum.
Oh, and if I only have my “ethos” to go on then my “ethos” says it is evil. Yours says it is not. So, we’re left with opinions. Now, what follows? Well, it’s only your *opinion* that child molestation is wrong! How do ya like your worldview? See what happens when you reject God? You reject rationality.
14 March 2006, on 9:00 pm
Now now, drug user, don’t get your panties into a ruffle. I know that you only get nonsecular education at ABTS (your A Brief Pressuppositional Analysis of Buddhism was horribly thin) so I won’t expect much out of you.
By the way, since we apparently must have a blog membership to comment on Tribbledog, it would be nice if you didn’t leave comments that are simply links to it. We aren’t your billboard.
Thanks again!
Say hi to Gene for me and let him know I’ll be sending him some things! When he gets those emails in the morning, let him know I helped him out!
14 March 2006, on 9:07 pm
Hey Marcus,
Just as I thought, no response to my argument:
Paul: 1
Marcus: 0
And, I never said that you name called Gene. I just said you’d name call. Just like you did. So, just wondering if theists are so stupid why can’t you seem to be able to engage in rational argumentation with one? Are you a theophobe too?
And, you’ve not shown that we “hate gays.” And, you’ve not shown that Gene is gay. Therefore, your entire response is predicated upon ignorant conjecture. IS that standard fair around here? Juts make things up and then “argue” for them? So, it appears that the atheists are engaged in fairy tales while the Christians are begging for a rational argument.
Christianity: 1
Atheism: 0
So, I’ll be waiting but I’ll bet that gods4suckers will again fail to engage triablogue, therefore:
Traiblogue: 1
gods4suckers: 0
14 March 2006, on 9:11 pm
Hi Marcus,
I noticed that all you’ve done is to assert again. Actually, I showed an internal contradiction within Buddhism. It could have only been a sentence. An internal contradiction ruins your opponant, just like I did with Sean above.
But, still waiting for a comeback from you. If my posts have been “thin” then what do you call what yours are? Non-existent?
And, I’ve gotton secualr education through highschool and in college as well. I just started thinking and so that’s what got me to see how silly it all was. Thinking, you should try it some time.
14 March 2006, on 9:48 pm
Paul,
I find it odd that you are keeping score. What exactly are the criteria for scoring? Can you explain it? I mean, seriously, it looks like you’re smoking pot up in here.
I wasn’t arguing with you to begin with- so I don’t understand how you want me to answer your contentions, since I haven’t technically engaged you.
I did, however, find this photo of you which apparently was posted on several gay dating sites earlier this hour. Did my comments about Gene awaken a latency? It’s so nice to know that I’m helping all of you come to terms with your homosexuality.
14 March 2006, on 10:07 pm
Marcus:
You’re lucky if you avoid a lawsuit in all of this.
14 March 2006, on 10:25 pm
Well, here we have, in Marcus, another atheist afraid to debate a theist.
Now you can see why I’m not an atheist, I actually think truth, reason, and morality matter.
Thank God that he rescued me from such foolishness.
14 March 2006, on 10:30 pm
Evan,
Why would I be litigated for trying to help out? Jeez, let a guy assist once in a while.
PS- I’ve always had a penchant for luck, particularly in currency exchanges. Would you like a rate quote? It’s a great side opt to being a contract attorney.
Doh!
14 March 2006, on 10:31 pm
Marcus, Sean
ROTFLMAO. Did these guys get a ride to school on the short bus? Sure would explain a lot.What IS with the score keeping kiddy stuff by the way?
Sean
I love that satire from the original post here. Great stuff. If I wasn’t laughing my ass off I’d have to consider that they were serious.
14 March 2006, on 10:48 pm
“Well, here we have, in Marcus, another atheist afraid to debate a theist.”
Weird… from observation, I thought fear was a theist trait? Man, why sling the ad hominem dude? I just wanna be your friend.
14 March 2006, on 11:20 pm
“Hi Sean,
Actually, you have the burden. You see, the Bible claims that you know that God exists and that his existence is more clear than the nose on your face. So, saying that His existence is unclear is to make the (albeit indirect) *positive* claim that Christianity is false.
So, one’s worldview determines who has the burden, you see. So, you must be *assuming* atheism in order to say that we have the burden. So, let’s translate your argument: RESTATED: Evan, if you assume that Christianity is false then you have the burden. Wow! How uninteresting.
So, lable my position, A-atheism. Now you have the burden.”
You’ve given no evidence for the existence of god. I have seen as much evidence for god as for the existence of ass-gnomes. Therefore I have as much reason to believe in god as I do ass-gnomes. If you would like to show me evidence, real, irrefutable evidence for god, I would love to see it. Treat me like someone who geniunly wants proof, that means not calling me a blind fool or some other belligerent crap you have proven yourself more than willing to use.
Our “ethos” are based on empathy and a sort of “Do no harm” philosophy. There is nothing to scientifically prove with our ethos. The reason there is nothing to scientifically prove with our ethos is because we do not profess morals and ethics that are set down in the fabric of the universe itself as you do, our ethos are subjective and I admit that readily, because morals are based on the subjective, human beings and any other sentient feeling organism that might come along.
Looking at it from the objective view of the universe, we are just people doing what we think is right based on our own subjective experiences, and there is nothing “wrong” with that on an objective level because morals do not exist on an objective level except in the context of conscious entities such as ourselves. You are of course thinking “That means you think pedophiles are right too you evil sinner!!” From the viewpoint of the objective universe, yes, pedophiles would be just as right because from the “viewpoint” of the objective universe, morals don’t exist or matter. From the viewpoint of me, no, because morals are based around humans (and whatever other sentient being that may come along) because morals are the invention of and only make sense in the context of a conscious, feeling entities. Sounds completely alien to you I’m sure, maybe I’ve even confirmed your suspicions about atheists and such participating in moral relativism. Well, unless god exists, which you have yet to show evidence for, that’s all there really is, and there is no moral code by which the universe judges us.
I would love it if you would show me where you think I’m wrong, but I get the feeling you’re just going to mock me. Please prove me wrong on at least that last feeling.
14 March 2006, on 11:32 pm
Why hello friend,
Marcus, what do you mean, ad hominem? Did you mean, why did I address you? Well, because I was talking to you. Why would I address someone else and not you?
Now, if you used that term in the sense of an informal falalcy, then how did I reason that you were *wrong* because you were afraidf to debate?
So, time to re-read your beginner’s text on informal fallacies.
Oh yeah, why do you seem so incoherent?
You said above that,
Marcus: I wasn’t arguing with you to begin with- so I don’t understand how you want me to answer your contentions, since I haven’t technically engaged you.
Me now: So, Marcus hasn’t “technically engaged me, Paul Manata. Okay, well let’s see if marcus’ heads screwed on tight? Above that he writes,
Marcus:
1) Man, those Tribbledog guys are no fun.
2) Tribbledog guys, I find it sad that you are all so violent toward gays …
3) Paul, … Of course I made that comment, but it was because I don’t understand how you can disapprove of gays yet openly allow Gene to do things with your group.
So, we find Marcus directly naming me, and before I posted anything to him he calls out the “Triablogue guys.” Simple logic would lead us to conclude that he was referring to me (as well as the others) since I am a member of Triabogie.
But(!), notice that when the going get’s rough for the teenager he acts as if he never intended to say anything directed my way, apparently fogetting that he was the first one to direct something towards me.
So, I responded to him with an argument that he has still failed to answer. he was the *first* one to ask the questions, I responded and answered him, and then he ducks for cover. He intends to shift the focus off his original questiosn and my answer to *his questions* in order to avert any burden. The problem is that the quotes are here for all to see. And, all can see that Marcus can’t even keep his thoughts straight for one evening! Marcus, the Apostle Paul asks, “Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this agre? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?”
Tell me, are you empirical proof of Psalm 14:1?
14 March 2006, on 11:37 pm
FORD!!!! Welcome to the fun!
Man O Man are the Tribbledogs are obssesed with us- their blog is literally exploding with our quotes! Since research shows that 90% of theist blog visitors are actually atheists burning for a fight, it’s awesome to have all the free advertising! It’s great to be popular!
Paul, Evan, any input, guys? Thanks alot for the service! It’s really good to know you dudes!
Yours in Jizzus’ bloody, anally raped bunghole (stretched by Roman battle horse cocks, then later cut free and worn as a party hat by Pilate),
Marcus
15 March 2006, on 12:14 am
Addendum:
Paul,
I find it odd that you think I don’t understand how ad hominem works (I mean, hell, at least I italicized the phrase). Furthermore, your “samples” of how I engaged in the argument with you are invalid- I didn’t engage in any argument in which you were at the time participating; I simply made a few outside observations on my own outside of your discussion.
I’ve also noted a definite shift in your mode of contention away from topical issue and toward issue concerning personal capability of individual merit in the face of my simple diagnoses’- an exercise in rhetorical water treading, i.e.- “you see what he said! All of you! You saw it!” And at the end you argue with biblical quote, a method always shown to be a proven loser with any atheistic crowd.
I’m not trying to be mean; I’m simply making a series of observations, as I did before, that need no argumentative response. Your arguments might also be helped by a bit of spelling and grammatic refinement. That last post became nigh intelligible. It seems you may be either exhausted, drunk, or high- not normally the best states in which to write.
Just a few of my own suggestions. Implement them as you see fit- they could help you convert a soul or two! Glad I could help!
15 March 2006, on 12:50 am
Wow, I can’t believe I’ve been away from this all day. Anyway, once again we have a screaming group of Christians coming in here telling us how much love it takes for people to judge and condemn others in the name of God for committing activities (i.e. consensual adult same-sex relationships) which harm no one else in the society and then comparing these harmless acts to something which does harm people (pedophilia). Meanwhile, they also tell us how much they have benefitted from God’s love the joy they feel, and their great capacity for love, while throwing around insults, being rude guests, building strawman after strawman, and all around reminding me that the worst thing about any religion is its followers. Answer me this, triablogue people, who do you hope to reach by carrying on like you’re on the O’Reilly Factor? Does screaming at and insulting non-believers convert them or show them the love you supposedly feel? Can you build an argument that doesn’t use circular logic (i.e. “I believe in God because the Bible says he exists. I believe in the Bible because God inspired it. Therefore, my beliefs are right.”)? If Jesus gives you such peace through salvation, why so angry?
15 March 2006, on 1:08 am
Marcus: funny shit, man.
I am debating whether I am even gonna bother to argue point by point with a sicko who equates homosexuality with pedophilia.
Meanwhile, one thing that always comes out of these rumbles that is abundantly clear:
Atheists are funny; theists have no sense of humor whatsoever.
Joke ‘em if they can’t take a fuck (and apparently, they can’t, or won’t, or Jeebus won’t let ‘em).
I’d rather laugh with the “sinners” than cry with the “saints”, indeed.
I’m waiting for one of our resident philosophy academics to address the above twistifications of burden of proof. Ya’ll can do it much better than I. Or don’t. Tribbledoggers clearly have no lives, and can write about this shit all day (and keep scores on their candy-colored abaci), and I know you do.
15 March 2006, on 1:12 am
“Atheists are funny; theists have no sense of humor whatsoever.”
That says more than they can understand.
15 March 2006, on 1:16 am
PS: Tribbledogs… To echo Marcus: thanks for all the traffic!
15 March 2006, on 1:27 am
I think the lions are burping and farting with happiness. This was too funny. I needed a good laugh today.
15 March 2006, on 1:41 am
If woman don’t want to get pregnant, why are they having sex?
Because I like orgasms. A lot.
If I should ever become pregnant before I care to take on the responsibility of a child, I’m going to abort. And if someone such as these weak-minded, self-deluded fucks should be standing outside of the clinic, waving their banners and quoting scripture at me, I’m going to run up and show them a jar with some chopped up chicken bits in water that I’d previously prepared and brought with me to the clinic. I’ll shove it under their noses and shout gleefully: “Look, they let you keep it! Just like getting your tonsils taken out!”
15 March 2006, on 2:09 am
Julie, you’re fucking awesome!
15 March 2006, on 2:22 am
Julie: Hell yeah. That’s the kind of militant activism we’re gonna need in the coming battle these people are preparing to drag our nation into (think of it: with all the poverty, war, misery in the world, this is the fight they want to entrench this whole country in). Fine, let them do it. No matter how you slice it (no pun intended), they’re gonna lose.
15 March 2006, on 2:28 am
Semi-literate, drug addict thug turned abuser of women’s rights Paul said:
So, we find Marcus directly naming me, and before I posted anything to him he calls out the “Triablogue guys.” Simple logic would lead us to conclude that he was referring to me (as well as the others) since I am a member of Triabogie.
You’re a member of Triabogie?? Folks, we have a new name for Tribbledogs. Apparently Paul the violent misogynist latent homosexual (pssst: Paul’s wife, better hope he stays gainfully employed, because from his attitude toward women, you can expect him to start hitting you the moment his paychecks run dry).
“Triabogie.” I like it. “Triabooger” could work, too.
15 March 2006, on 2:32 am
Jimmer said:
Marcus, Sean
ROTFLMAO. Did these guys get a ride to school on the short bus?
Ha!
15 March 2006, on 2:51 am
Evan May said:
Evan: it’s not a “child”, it’s a fetus.
This begs the question.
What question, waterhead?
And yes, punishing a 14-year-old is punishing the victim.
How is the 14-year-old being published by not being allowed to commit murder?
Okay, we make typos and misspellings all the time, but somehow these guys make funnier ones. Now that I have had a moment to look back over this thread, I am seeing more and more hilarious shit:
How is the 14-year-old being published by not being allowed to commit murder?
That is a bizarre Freudian slip. “Published” for “punished”? Evan, are you a languishing, frustrated Xian novelist? Maybe if you let Jeebus punish you more (you Xians love that), you’ll get published.
Or maybe you meant to say “published.” In which case, holy shit! You’re right. Back in the day it took a lot of work to get published. Writing something commercially viable, formatting your manuscript properly, knowing where to send it, seeking representation. Nowadays, according to Evan, one can get published by avoiding an abortion.
Nice! Should R v. Wade be overturned, wee have a whole generation of brilliant young poets on our way!
15 March 2006, on 3:10 am
Okay, I said to myself I would stop. I have better things to do and I had a great night tonight, but Paul the misogynistic closet homosexual future wife beater deserves a response to this direct attack:
# paul manata Says:
March 14th, 2006 at 8:57 pm e
Sean,
Why refer to me as “baby Paul?” Is that your pedophile tendencies comming out?
You mean “pedophilic tendencies.” Pedophile is a noun. Pedophilic is an adjective. Oh, and calling me a pedophile is why I call you a wife beater. Tit for tat, criminal.
Anyway, thanks for the fodder above so I can make another post showing Christians how silly atheism is.
Yup. We’re way silly. We don’t base our beliefs on a text so ancient and so muddled in its endless translations as to be the equivalent of cutting off legs to prevent the spread of gangrene — as backwards as philosophy can get. Thank you, ancient camel people! Keep on keepin’ on, Dark Ages Dude.
Guess what, a man is ghoing [sic] to molest a child and enjoy the hell out of it.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I counted my chickens bfore [sic] they hatched, because I already know how many chickens will hatch. the [sic] game is fixed. You take on us you [sic] take on Elohim.
Okay, we are now speaking with the typical criminal-turned-religious-fanatic. Without religion, he would clearly be carving people up. He makes about as much sense as anyone committed to the most severe psycho ward.
We have mighty weapons for the casting down of strongholds. You escape reason, we escape wrath.
Um. Fire and brimstone now. He is getting violent. I knew he still had it in him. Hey Tribble Frogs. You let this Mike Tyson of theology speak for you? Is he still prison raping his wife in the ass and doing copious amounts of cocaine? Survey says yes.
Oh, and before you respond can you define “science” for me? That would be helpful.
Why do I have to? Have you never heard of the dictionary? If not, here it is:
sci·ence (sī’əns) pronunciation
n.
1.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Oh, almost forgot, prove your own “ethos” be [sic] means of science. And, you said man has no soul, so I guess you assume morality can be based on a bag of chemicals? intersting [sic] argument.
“Theophobe:” Someone afraid to get into a rational debate with a theist.
And you guys still haven’t proven to me that you aren’t a bunch of closeted homosexuals who hate yourselves and women. The burden of proof is on you. So there. (Sean slaps gay lover-boy Paul with a purse. He’s so ruuuuude! And he never calls me on Saturday night!)
And. Um. I’ve just proved you wrong, asshole.
Dribbleblog: 0
God is for Suckers: Fuck You
And, Sean, if Jesus is God then you’d better care what he says. So, try not to beg the question, mkay?
Translation: Duh. Pascal’s Wager. Next.
But, I’ve already shown how you’ve not proven that homosexuality is okay, In [sic] fact, your arguments for why it is okay also proves that pedophilai [sic] is okay, and not evil. So, since you deny that then I’ve shown why it is wrong via reductio ad absurdum [was this a sentence??].
It was absurd, all right, but you still make no sense. Must have fried your brain with all the drug abuse (And how many people did you kill in your violent days, lover boy? Smooch! I love a macho man!)
Oh, and if I only have my “ethos” to go on then my “ethos” says it is evil. Yours says it is not. So, we’re left with opinions. Now, what follows? Well, it’s only your *opinion* that child molestation is wrong! How do ya like your worldview? See what happens when you reject God? You reject rationality.
I agree. We only have our ethos to go on. But your sense of what is evil, and your self-righteousness, is pathetic and vile to me, considering you are a once and future wife beater. How dare you?
Hey, Paul. How is your work as a male prostitute coming? Is it supplementing your income as you’d hoped it would?
15 March 2006, on 3:30 am
One more thing, now that I have had my rant. Baby Paul: Why do I repeatedly call you “criminal” and “drug addict”? Because that is what you once were, and have every right to move beyond. I, as a secular humanist, believe in that right. But you, as an evangelical moralist, do not. You deny the impregnated child a chance to survive her own trauma. Therefore, you forfeit your own right to redemption. You criminalize the victim, which is absolutely horrendously cruel given your own background. This is why secular humanists will fight you hypocrites to the bitter end. Have you ever read “Les Miserables”? I somehow doubt that, even if you did, you would get the point.
15 March 2006, on 3:32 am
Oh, and yet one more thing: I call you Baby Paul because your morality has only developed to the point of a vindictive 10-year-old child. I am sorry about what happened to you in your life. Too bad you turned it into a career of hate.
And on that note, can I have a kiss, you beautiful hunk of a man, you?? (Is that your ass in the pic Marcus posted? Mwah!)
15 March 2006, on 3:35 am
# Evan May Says:
March 14th, 2006 at 10:07 pm e
Marcus:
You’re lucky if you avoid a lawsuit in all of this.
Good fuckin’ luck, assclown. Obviously you know nothing of law protecting satire. This isn’t the UK. We don’t have many slander laws here. Your homosexually-repressed buddy has alredy made himself a public figure. Too fucking bad. Have fun with your idle threats. FART.
15 March 2006, on 7:08 am
See? What did I tell you? Their a bunch of hatemongering rejects from the short bus. But damn they are funny. This thread it hilarious. Esp every time they insulted, and every time they claimed victory. My five year old neice can see through this bullshit. How funny that grown men cannot.
Lofton eviscerates them on his blog constantly too.
They’ve been reduced to posting long winded bullshit on their own blog, because it’s so easy to humilate them everywhere else.
15 March 2006, on 8:33 am
Good morning, all!
Whew, what a run of fun that was! I had sweet dreams all night. It is fanscinating to see and watch a chink in the witnessing armor exposed and exploited. Paul had a descent run, but in the end he collapsed into scripture blather, defensive whining (because he think winning an argument on the internet matters), and “righteous” anger. Amazing what a good character read and research can do for a person. Tribbledogs, I love you guys!
Everyone else who missed the fun last night, enjoy the reading- it’s a laugh-a-minute riot!
I can think of only one way to end this comment:
THE ARISTOCRATS!!!!
15 March 2006, on 8:47 am
Marcus said:
I can think of only one way to end this comment:
THE ARISTOCRATS!!!!
Bwahahahaha!
15 March 2006, on 9:11 am
Lya: Thanks to you and others for pointing these asshats out.
With luck, they will come back and yodel some more.
I love how almost no theist sites, including theirs, allow open comments on their own blogs. What are they afraid of?
15 March 2006, on 9:28 am
“What are they afraid of?”
I’ll take “Fear of being humiliated on their own blog” for $400, Alex.
15 March 2006, on 10:10 am
Some of these jebus dudes are actually claiming that it is irrational *NOT* to believe in their lord and sheppard, because it says so in the bible. WTF? Relying on a collection of self-contradictory stories, written by numerous authors during totally different periods, is that rational? As is well-known from elementary logic, the truth of any proposition follows from the truth of a contradiction. In other words, if you believe in the bible literaly, then you should basically believe anything at all, including that god does not exist, that jezus was gay and that you will go to hell. And if you don’t believe everything in the bible should be taken literally, then why believe anything at all? I rest your case.
15 March 2006, on 10:18 am
Did you see Stevarino’s new post “Anatomy of a Rumble” over at Tribbledog? He does a great job of being an ignorant tool- obviously preaching to his own choir.
And Paulie “Too Bald, Too Short” Manata used to be a gang-banger? That’s some funny shit right there. I wonder what kind of pussy gang would have initiated him?
O yeah, Paul, I found a pic of you and your fiancee online. She’s a button! I wonder what embarassing positions I’ll be able to photoshop her into- amazing the things you can dig up over google with the proper terms and booleans. Now Paul, since you’re a xian and really love me, I won’t post her pic on here… but it might enjoy a healthy email circulation.
15 March 2006, on 10:30 am
Marcus you are a deliciously evil man. *jk*
They always do this. Once they are humiliated in debate on atheist blogs (which is always) they crawl back to the peanut gallery to post some inane retort. They know full well they are preaching to the choir, but since the choir doesn’t challenge them, it’s nice and safe for their delusions to continue..
15 March 2006, on 10:30 am
This will supply them with material to write about on their own blog for weeks! LOL! Every time they are “defeated” or pissed they run back to their blog and write big long Triablopoop to themselves to boost themselves up again like they are doing right now. And they declare themselves winners…hahahahaha…They act like winning arguments in blogland is their life goals.
I was a “feature” of their blog posts for a few days because I kept deleting Evan May’s comments on my blog. and it was so lame and funny!
One thing that really pisses them off is when you delete their comments. They go apeshit about that! I don’t normally delete comments, but it’s funny to do it with self-righteous evangelists!
15 March 2006, on 10:45 am
Lya,
What? No, I’m serious- it’s amazing what one can find on the internet. She looks just cute enough to abuse in a drunken haze- Paul, make your old man proud!
Stardust,
They’re transparent and simple, yeah?
15 March 2006, on 11:05 am
This thread has driven me way further away from xianity, and I’m already damn far away.
I was going to put up a post calling all xians retards, but then I realized how insulting that is to people who actually suffer from things like Down’s syndrome.
15 March 2006, on 11:10 am
Hello all,
Had a good nights sleep, woke up, ckecked this site, found no responses to my arguments.
Do let me know when i should check back in.
15 March 2006, on 11:24 am
here’s the short short version.
As my blog post demonstrated more fully, if Sean’s justification for homosexualality is that since they were born with their sexual desires then, therefore, it is not immoral then since the pedophile was “born” with his sexual desires then, therefore, pedophilia is not immoral.
Now, there are a few responses you could give, but as it stands, so far, given *all* you’ve argued for homosexuality’s moral acceptability, you’ve proven to much.
This, therefore, is not a fault in my argument for *you* must supply the added premises which allow for homosexual sex and, at the same time, dissalow pedophil”IC” sex.
~Paul
p.s. I like how someone said that we were not funny, but then Lya came in and said we were funny. Then, the rest of the atheists cheerd *both* comments.
p.p.s Sean, buddy, you did not give necessary and sufficient conditions for science. (1) Allows for some philosophy to be called “science.” (2) Non-theistic philosophers seek to find “natural” explanations for their theories. Also, (2) is vague. Playing football is an “activity” which is a “natural phenomena. (3) is easily seen not to properly demarcate science from non-science since theologians, philosophers, hit men, chess players, mathemeticians, et al. engage in (3).
So, try to define science for us. If you can’t demarcate science from non-science then all your “science” bullying tactic turn against themselves.
p.p.p.s I searched high and low to find where you responded in any substantive way to my arguments against you. Guess what? Didn’t see it. Maybe you could make it clear for me, mmmkay?
15 March 2006, on 11:41 am
Paul, Wife-beating-pussy-gang-crack-smoker, Manata
I don’t know about letting you know- maybe if anonymous comments were allowed on your blog it would be possible.
Hey, I’ve got great news! I subscribed to five gay support magazines and to High Times for you! I included a few gun themed magazines for when you decide to “off” your ho. There was one problem, however, since I didn’t have your address, I sent them to 11717 Poway Road where I’m sure they’ll be held for you! I’ll sign you up for some more when I can! Just trying to help!
By the way, most scientists recognize science as being an exercise in the Popper’s Theory Prerequisites and in the Daubert Criteria. These have been standard guidelines for quite a while now. I’m sure you are very familiar with them, but I hope that helps you out a little in your search for truth! Just trying to help!
Also, I couldn’t find Gene’s address, so I sent his gay literature care of SBTS- hope he doesn’t mind!
15 March 2006, on 12:16 pm
This, therefore, is not a fault in my argument for *you* must supply the added premises which allow for homosexual sex and, at the same time, dissalow pedophil”IC” sex.
How about: one involves consenting adults and the other doesn’t? (Just thought I’d give it a shot.)
p.p.s Sean, buddy, you did not give necessary and sufficient conditions for science. [...] So, try to define science for us. If you can’t demarcate science from non-science then all your “science” bullying tactic turn against themselves.
Huh? Outside of (maybe) math-stuff, can anyone “give necessary and sufficient conditions” for anything? What, exactly, are the necessary and sufficient conditions for something like “table?”
And if I can’t give such a definition, I now can’t make any distinctions between tables and non-tables, and I can’t make any claims about tables and non-tables at all? How Platonic.
Wow. I’m just confused, I guess. Then again, so was Plato.
15 March 2006, on 1:28 pm
“p.s. I like how someone said that we were not funny, but then Lya came in and said we were funny. Then, the rest of the atheists cheerd *both* comments.”
We said you have no sense of humor. You’re damn funny, the same way that video of the monkey drinking his own piss is funny: i.e. both you and the monkey are to stupid to realize you’re making an ass of yourselves.
15 March 2006, on 2:25 pm
“p.s. I like how someone said that we were not funny, but then Lya came in and said we were funny. Then, the rest of the atheists cheerd *both* comments.”
Thank you for providing clear proof that you just don’t get it.
15 March 2006, on 2:55 pm
Pedophilia-obsessed Paul, who keeps claiming that he has not been refuted, said:
As my blog post demonstrated more fully, if Sean’s justification for homosexualality is that since they were born with their sexual desires then, therefore, it is not immoral then since the pedophile was “born” with his sexual desires then, therefore, pedophilia is not immoral.
Now, there are a few responses you could give, but as it stands, so far, given *all* you’ve argued for homosexuality’s moral acceptability, you’ve proven to much.
This, therefore, is not a fault in my argument for *you* must supply the added premises which allow for homosexual sex and, at the same time, dissalow pedophil”IC” sex.
We have repeatedly addressed this, Paul. And we rejected your ridiculous choices (don’t dictate to me what my moral choices are, hatemonger). Guess you just can’t grasp the concept. One is an act between informed, consensual adults (you know, like when you and your buddies used to score some crack together and smoke up). The other is an act of sexual molestation performed by an adult on a helpless child.
If you can’t see the moral differences between these two things, your values are too far gone for me to have any kind of meaningful conversation with you.
By the way, all Xians are not like you fundie sickos. In fact, the vast majority of moderate American Xians would, I am sure be repulsed by what you are saying. A good friend of mine who is a Christian read some of what you had to say here and blurted “Who are these vicious people? What kinds of Christians are these?”
That made me feel good.
15 March 2006, on 4:20 pm
Good, now we have something to work with.
So, I take it that Sean (and his ilk) have refuted their claim that *just because* one is “born” homosexual does not make the act immoral. The problem was that thie was the entirety of Sean’s argument. His reason for homosexuality being a moral option was that “they were born that way.” Now, we can all agree that my post refuted Sean. So, we can move on.
So, the argument is that homosexuality is okay because it’s between consenting adults. A few questions before I feed it to Godzilla:
i. Who says? Is this your opinion that sex between unconsenting partners is not okay? If so, the pedophile can have his “opinion.”
ii. Define adult.
iii. Homosexuality *is* sex between consenting adults, therefore it is morally acceptable? This is the naturalistic fallacy. Or, put another way, just because they *can* consent to sex does not imply that they *should.*
~Paul
p.s. I happen to make disticntions between the two, and I have a universal, absolute, unchanging standard of morality. You have, well, your “ethos.” I mean, define “ethos.” Also, prove how morality can be based on “bags of chemicals.” And, show why what one bag of chemicals does to another is ethically relevant.
p.p.p. Sean, for your “There are good Christians out there who don’t think like you” argument to work you’re going to need to define “Christian.” My money is that they are not “Christians.”
15 March 2006, on 4:24 pm
p.p.p.s. Here’s a tasty nugget from one of your church members:
Ford wrote: “Looking at it from the objective view of the universe, we are just people doing what we think is right based on our own subjective experiences, and there is nothing “wrong” with that on an objective level because morals do not exist on an objective level except in the context of conscious entities such as ourselves. You are of course thinking “That means you think pedophiles are right too you evil sinner!!” From the viewpoint of the objective universe, yes, pedophiles would be just as right because from the “viewpoint” of the objective universe, morals don’t exist or matter.”
Me now: See, I told you, pedophila is not “really” wrong in your worldview. So, quit the charade. In your worldview it does not matter if one rapes a child, other than you don’t personally like it. Well, I don’t personally like fish, so what? On your worldview there is no real difference between choosing to eat fish and choosing to rape a child, other than the physics are different.
15 March 2006, on 4:52 pm
Strawman Paul: Pedophiles are not necessarily born that way. Where is your evidence? Is it nature or nurture? It is probably a combination of the two. In fact, I am willing to concede that the same goes for homosexuality. Same goes for heterosexuality, for that matter. All I know is that most gays will tell you that from an early age, they felt different from others. And there has been much research done over the years that has shown things like gays responding to pheromones differently than straights, having different brain structures from straights, etc. I am not gonna look that stuff up for you. You’ll have to do your own reading.
There is much research to be done on human sexuality. Point is, your absolutist stances on what is right and wrong when it comes to how OTHER PEOPLE conduct themselves sexually would put an end to such research and leave humanity in the dark.
Some knowledge:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=70077
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=557962
I am not trying to justify the morality of homosexuality to you. It is not my job to do so, since I do not consider it immoral. You do, and therefore you must prove to me why it is immoral. Use something besides the bibble, please. Show through an ethical argument how two men having sex in an apartment down the street from you are hurting ANYBODY. Show me this.
My ethos, and ethos of millions of people like me, and most of the people in the city where I live, where gay people openly kiss and hold hands in the street, say it is fine — and in fact beautiful — if conducted among loving, mutually informed, consensual adults. Prove to me how it hurts others. I would love to see this.
Pedophilia victimizes a child. I will not state this again. It’s not my job to define adulthood. Look up the laws for various regions.
Your ethos is based on the hate speech of an ancient book. Mine, and those I hold dear, and the great swath of ethical moderates in this country, base our ethos on things like empathy — you know, walking a mile in your brother’s shoes and all that. Something that, although you once walked that mile, you seem to be completely lacking.
Sean, for your “There are good Christians out there who don’t think like you” argument to work you’re going to need to define “Christian.” My money is that they are not “Christians.”
They’re just as Christian as you claim to be. They were raised with it, believe in it, and live by it.
Does Pat Robertson speak for you? How about Fred Phelps?
That’s the problem with theism, it can be twisted in so many ways, and everyone claims that they are the only true fill-in-the-blank.
This is what is known as the No True Scotsman fallacy. You must be aware of it, so why did you so pathetically resort to it?
15 March 2006, on 5:00 pm
i think a simple FUCK YOU AND GO AWAY YOU STUPID SONOFABITCH would have done, for the amount of intelligable response you will get Sean.
15 March 2006, on 5:19 pm
salty:
i think a simple FUCK YOU AND GO AWAY YOU STUPID SONOFABITCH
I just wanted to show them that their arrogance is unfounded. I like to see them come back around to pathetically quoting scripture and spouting logical fallacies. I’m done with these morons, though. Too much important other shit needs doing.
15 March 2006, on 5:26 pm
i just admire that youve so much patience up to now
15 March 2006, on 5:29 pm
Paul, you do understand that not all pedophiles victimize children of the same sex don’t you? Accepting homosexuality as natural has nothing to do with pedophilia just as accepting heterosexuality as natural has nothing to do with pedophilia, even though both homosexuals and heterosexuals are pedophiles. Trying to link homosexuality and pedophilia is merely your attempt to stigmatize homosexuality because you don’t like it without providing any real facts to back up your prejudice (other than because God says so).
In fact, like rape, pedophilia often has little to do with sex itself and more to do with power and control. You don’t assume that a man rapes a woman merely because he ain’t getting any lately, do you? Likewise, a healthy sexual relationship is not really possible between an adult and a child, because the power differentials are too great. When a father continuously molests his young daughter or her friend, we don’t blame his natural heterosexual urges. We know there are other reasons for his immoral behavior. Why can’t you apply the same reasoning to homosexuality?
15 March 2006, on 5:31 pm
Homosexuality documented in over 450 species
15 March 2006, on 5:38 pm
It is wrong *to me*. What I basically said, to boil it down for you, was that the universe could give a fuck, that there is no such thing as morality according to the universe, morals are for people, and only exist in the context of people, it’s like being happy, the universe does not experience happiness, we do, are you saying happiness doesn’t exist now because the dead, unconscious universe doesn’t feel happiness?
“See, I told you, pedophila is not “really” wrong in your worldview. So, quit the charade.”
According to THE UNIVERSE it doesn’t make a difference, because morals only exist in the form of information used by us sentient beings, not in the laws of physics or matter. That doesn’t mean morals mean anything less because meaning itself is a human quality, it only matters to us, we need only care about ourselves and other sentient feeling things.
To give another example would be language, the universe has no language, there is no form of absolute conscious communication that is a property of the universe, therefore, according to you, language is meaningless and an opinion, to which I would reply, yes, TO THE UNIVERSE it is meaningless, to humans, it means something. Language is based on our subjective experience and is only there for us and by us. So I guess language does not “really” mean anything in my worldview right? Yeah, to the fucking universe, because there is no such thing as meaning in the fucking universe. Just like pedophilia isn’t wrong to THE MOTHERFUCKING UNIVERSE because their is no such thing as wrong in the universe, it only matters to us.
Can you differentiate between the two? Conscious, feeling entities and the unconscious universe?
“Well, I don’t personally like fish, so what?”
So you don’t eat the fucking fish.
I don’t let pedo’s molest people.
“On your worldview there is no real difference between choosing to eat fish and choosing to rape a child, other than the physics are different.”
Yeah, to the universe, but we don’t give a shit about the unonscious, unfeeling universe do we? We only care about us and others like us right? In my view and the view of most other humans, you know, the view we do give a shit about, there is a world of difference between nasty food and child molestation. Morals only make sense in the context of conscious feeling beings, I keep repeating this so that maybe what I actually say will seep throught an open crack and hit you in the face, rather than go through your damn filter that picks and chooses what you want to hear. Morals don’t make sense in the context of, say, rocks.
You seem to think you can guilt trip me into believing in god, but you’re assuming that I am immoral because I admit that my morals aren’t based on some written-into-the-universe moral code which would be set down by the same entity which you haven’t given me evidence for yet. Plan on picking yourself up by your own bootstraps too?
I base my morals and ethos on whether it does harm to people, you base yours on a deity that you have given no evidence for.
15 March 2006, on 5:56 pm
So Sean, you hate the Xtian ‘hatemongers’, and are intolerant of their intolerance? By your own unfounded arrogance you sure showed them that their arrogance is unfounded. Hmmm. What’s that I hear? The noise of a deflating balloon filled with nothing but hot air.
I sure hope you are “done with these morons, though. Too much important other shit needs doing.” Like running a blog site attacking these morons no doubt. With the blip that is your life why exactly are you wasting your time? Who cares what anyone thinks. It’ll mean nothing in 100 years and even less 1000 years from now. As long as the specied survives…..
15 March 2006, on 6:24 pm
Bruce,
“Likewise, a healthy sexual relationship is not really possible between an adult and a child, because the power differentials are too great.”
I would agree that in principle this is an excellent statement!
Unfortunately in practice, pederasty, in various forms, has been accepted as normal by a number of cultures throughout history and even today. Also foundational to that statement is the definition of ‘adult’ and ‘child’. I believe Paul’s (or Evan’s) request for a definition was ignored.
Here are two definitions of an adult that I found on dictionary.com:
1. One who has attained maturity or legal age.
2. Biology. A fully grown, mature organism.
So what does it mean to be fully grown? Perhaps post-pubescent, able to reproduce, have sex?
The age of consent is as low as 12 in Spain (and in many other countries). It is therefore legally and biologically feasible that a fifty year old can have a hetero or homo sexual relationship with a 12 year old. In these countries this would be regarded as ‘healthy’. With a moral code or ethos that simply depends on the relevance to humans at a specific point in time in a specific region, definitions, regional laws and biology would therefore render that statement relevant in some instances, meaningless in others.
I note with interest that in many countries, reducing the age of consent laws is not the agenda of heterosexuals but is one of the top priorities of the gay agenda.
15 March 2006, on 6:28 pm
Ford: well said.
Warren: Why did we attack them? Because they are on the constant attack. It’s built into their intolerant value system. This country is under assault by intolerant religious fanatics. So is this whole planet. We are here to counter the attack. Read our mission in the upper right of this page.
Yes, I am intolerant of their intolerance. Many a treatise has been written on this issue. My values say intolerance is the one thing that should not be tolerated. Traditionally tolerant nations such as Holland are dealing with this very issue, as intolerant groups (mostly fundie Muslims — which, by the way, are exactly the same to us atheists as fundie Xians) come into their country and try to spread their intolerance. The Dutch are beginning to realize that they cannot tolerate intolerance in their midst. It would belie everything they have stood for as a nation for years.
So yup. I don’t tolerate them. And my life has plenty of meaning, blip.
For instance: I don’t run this site. This site is a collaboration. What’s more lame, creating a forum like this for like-minded people — a traditionally persecuted minority, in fact — to come together and converse, collaborate, commiserate, and respond to injustice… Or to be a useless troll on that forum… like you?
15 March 2006, on 6:32 pm
In his infinite wisdom, Paul said this:
“…and I have a universal, absolute, unchanging standard of morality. You have, well, your “ethos.” I mean, define “ethos.” Also, prove how morality can be based on “bags of chemicals.” And, show why what one bag of chemicals does to another is ethically relevant.”
I assume he’s talking about the bible. What he doesn’t seem to realize is that before there even was a bible (and that encompasses roughly 99% of the time humans have existed), people had morals too. Simple but powerful morals like “I won’t do to you what I wouldn’t like you to do to me, especially if there’s a chance my fellow humans will punish me for it.” And the punishment part is really important here. Hell.
It boggles the mind to think that one has to rely on a self-contradictory collection of fables to understand why such rules of conduct are quite natural. Why else do people in the non-christian part of the world behave more or less according to the same principles? One has to be truly brain-washed to be so blinded.
Following this line of reasoning, how would it hurt anyone if two people of the same sex love each other and wish to live together as a couple and lead perfectly normal lives? Nobody of course, unless you believe that any behavior by somebody else that is not condoned by that collection of fables actually hurts yourself. Psychopathic.
15 March 2006, on 6:40 pm
I note with interest that in many countries, reducing the age of consent laws is not the agenda of heterosexuals but is one of the top priorities of the gay agenda.
What??? Prove it.
Is it just me or are these people babbling. Warren: what the fuck is the point you a trying to make?
And you do know that the one organization that has tolerated and nearly institutionalized pedophilia to the largest degree in recent human history was, um, the church??
15 March 2006, on 6:44 pm
How about we also include in pedophilia. Forcing children to believe in or about fantasies in supernatural beings including gods demonns and other forms o unseen beings. And by force I mean that if they refuse they are punished in some manner.
How do you define science??? WTF? are you really that fuckin stupid Paul? Our science is the same for each of us unlike your form of xianity which is half assed at best. We are talking about the same kind of science that Behe and Demsky practise poorly. They try but they are unable to get to any successful conclusions. They are trying to prove that evolution is not the only theory by the way. And they have NOT done so. They in fact are on the dole at the Discovery Institute and I read somewhere that the Institute is being investigated for fraud. It seems right so I mention it, But I am not sure as I have not had time to veriy. Hopfully they will be closed down and all the money they stole will be returned. That science.
What was the legal age for being an adult in the bibble. Surely a book of such profound wisdom has established the age of adulthood.
15 March 2006, on 6:45 pm
BTW, bibles are bags of chemicals, too. So is god, in the sense that he exists in the form of neuronal connections in the brains of the weak-minded who need a big daddy in the sky to cope with reality. Talk about the war on drugs.
15 March 2006, on 6:46 pm
Sean: do gay monkeys go to hell???????
15 March 2006, on 6:48 pm
Warren L said, “I note with interest that in many countries, reducing the age of consent laws is not the agenda of heterosexuals but is one of the top priorities of the gay agenda.”
Which countries? Can you give an example? And what is your evidence?
15 March 2006, on 6:53 pm
Sean, I’m sorry I repeated your question asking Warren L. for proof; you must have posted yours while I was still composing mine.
I’d delete it, but I’m afraid I don’t know how; I’m still new to this and willing to learn.
15 March 2006, on 6:57 pm
Well, you see, according to them, homosexuals and pedophiles are the same thing.
15 March 2006, on 7:10 pm
I hope every week’s lion feeding is this fucking exciting.
15 March 2006, on 7:41 pm
Eve: don’t be sorry. Welcome and have fun!
15 March 2006, on 8:02 pm
Very difficult to wade through your post, but I’ll give it a shot:
So, the argument is that homosexuality is okay because it’s between consenting adults.
Umm, I didn’t think that was the argument — but then again, I guess I came in late. (Sorry, I’m in the process of moving.) Does that have to be the argument? What about: homosexuality is okay because it’s between consenting adults, and there doesn’t seem to be any good reason why one shouldn’t engage in that kind of sexual activity (unless, of course, you’re not gay in the first place)?
i. Who says? Is this your opinion that sex between unconsenting partners is not okay? If so, the pedophile can have his “opinion.”
Who needs to say? (Is this a specific concern about homosexuality or morality in general?)
ii. Define adult.
You don’t know what an adult is? Not really sure why the meaning of this word isn’t clear enough for that statement. If you have any reasons why you would need a definition in order to make this claim, I’m open.
iii. Homosexuality *is* sex between consenting adults, therefore it is morally acceptable? This is the naturalistic fallacy.
Why?
Or, put another way, just because they *can* consent to sex does not imply that they *should.*
Did someone actually claim that people “should” engage in homosexual sex? (That’s kind of weird.)
But you don’t need to claim that. The issue isn’t whether one “should” engage in this kind of sexual activity (why should heteros engage in that kind of sex?), but whether there seems to be any good reason not to do it, given the fact that it involves consenting adults and doesn’t seem to do any harm to anyone else.
p.s. I happen to make disticntions between the two, and I have a universal, absolute, unchanging standard of morality. You have, well, your “ethos.” I mean, define “ethos.” Also, prove how morality can be based on “bags of chemicals.” And, show why what one bag of chemicals does to another is ethically relevant.
Further, in order to accept this absolute, unchanging view of morality based on god, you’re going to need to show (1) that god exists (in the proper sense), (2) which revelation is correct, and (3) which interpretation of that revelation is correct. After you show those things, you’ll have some other questions to answer, such as: How exactly does a command from god give you morality? Why should one care about what god commands?
15 March 2006, on 8:15 pm
I note with interest that in many countries, reducing the age of consent laws is not the agenda of heterosexuals but is one of the top priorities of the gay agenda.
Warren, is your dishonesty intentional or are you really that ignorant? You know as well as I that in many places (including states in the US) the age of consent for homosexuality is HIGHER than the age of consent for heterosexuality. Homosexuals just want to be treated the same under the law as everyone else. They are pushing for equality under the law, not necessarily for lower consent ages. If it is legal for two heterosexuals to have sex at age 16 then it should also be legal for two homosexuals to have sex at age 16, not 18 or 21.
15 March 2006, on 8:37 pm
Warren L. said, “The age of consent is as low as 12 in Spain.”
I note with interest that you chose as an example of low age-of-consent laws a nation with a long-standing, well-documented tradition of strong – many would say “extreme” – religious views (”Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!”)…
Are you inviting us to jump to the conclusion that *religious* countries have pedophilic tendencies?
15 March 2006, on 8:46 pm
See, I hardly wrote anything during this whole thing and I got a whole new blog post at Triablogobarf about me and they make up fake emails as well! I was at the hospital emergency room all day waiting with my sister who has a serious heart condition…they are BASTARDS. They indeed are not christians. Or maybe they are just reinforcing my opinion of what a christian is?
15 March 2006, on 8:47 pm
I would rather burn in the flames of a hell for all eternity than spend one second in a heaven with these assholes.
15 March 2006, on 9:03 pm
Are you inviting us to jump to the conclusion that *religious* countries have pedophilic tendencies?
Good point Eve. Why, even in the good ol’ Christian based US of A there are states with age of consent as low as 14. Granted, that is two years higher than Spain. So I guess she’ll have at least a year of high school under her belt before she starts knocking out babies.
15 March 2006, on 9:09 pm
Sorry to hear about your sister, stardust1954; I hope she improves soon. I had a sister with a congenital heart condition, so I know what it’s like to wait – and worry – in an emergency room.
Shame, shame, shame on Triablogue for playing dirty pool. So much for their vaunted morality – just like all their other declared “absolute” values, obviously nonexistent. They just tossed any credibility they might have cultivated with me down the toilet, and with it, any time, attention, or interest I might have been tempted to give them.
Then again, maybe that’s their real agenda: to drive people *away* from their way of thinking. If it is, they certainly succeeded with me.
15 March 2006, on 9:45 pm
For those of you wondering, here’s the supposed email they claim to have gotten.
“Dear Mr. Hays,
Those people at Triablogue seem to be the Jim Jordan type who get much [sic.] of their ideas from trolling atheist blogs, then write dissertation rebuttals that take hours to read.
Sincerely,
Stardust 1954″
15 March 2006, on 9:51 pm
Oh, and look who commented,
sable chicken.
15 March 2006, on 9:51 pm
I don’t know where they got this shit. I said something to that effect in a comment here, but never wrote anything to this Hays guy and NEVER wrote anything on Triablogue’s crappy blog.
So much for morality.
15 March 2006, on 10:03 pm
Yeah, fucking assholes, I shouldn’t be surprised but I always am.
Oh, and Enemy of Religion, you remember how sable chicken just randomly blurted out 5150 in the middle of that comment of hers in the “oops” post earlier?
“So I might as well just put it out there.It is now the 2 year anniversary of my 5150….if you don’t know what that is…it’s being held against my will, for 72 hours because people that didn’t know me very well thought I was suicidal.”
15 March 2006, on 10:52 pm
“We must have hit a nerve to warrant attention and such lengthy blog posts from these guys.
They are real %^$%^$ aren’t they? If there was a heaven and hell…neither place would want them. I have met a lot of christians but none as bad as these. This blog is probably doing more to promote atheism than all the atheist blogs online.
As I said before, they should just write praises to themselves and proclaim themselves to be omnipotent and be done with it. ”
Was it, by chance, this comment that you think they probably twisted the fuck out of? You know, what bothers me is not what they believe or how they act, but the fact that people like this have a lot of influence over the world.
Regarding their latest entry,
“3.If you must use words, remember that “freethinkers” are used to a controlled vocabulary of about seven four-letter words, endlessly repeated in various combinations.”
Yeah, I guess we’re all five years old now, if we use any obscenities at all, in their eyes that’s all we’ve said. What did I tell you about the selective filter they use in their reading? I’ve written, what? 2000 words? I’ve used “swear words” five times (at least I don’t think they count the word “crap”, even so, it’s only six times).
I also find it interesting that they’re making fun of us for reading and writing comprehension as well as being unable to use logic. Funny, I seem to recall paul manata’s inability to spell pedophile, pedophilia, and pedophilic even though he seems obsessed with the subject. Also, regarding logic, well, look no further than his belief on burden of proof. Reading comprehension? Well, he didn’t seem able to understand what I spent about 1700 words trying to explain to him. You know, the simple concept of morality being a human invention that only makes sense in the context of a human (or any other sentient being that might come along). He sure does want us to define every fucking word we use doesn’t he?
15 March 2006, on 10:52 pm
Sable Chicken? That crazyass Landmark, child abusing, whore? Didn’t she bother to stop her husband from hitting that excitement called daughter?
Chicken- I monitor your every move. I know where you live.
Tribbledogs,
Motherfucker are you guys obssesed with us? Get any saving done this weekend?
Paul,
I got your fiancee right over my toilet. Think about that. How can you trust someone so “beautiful.” Don’t forget to make dad proud and beat her senseless while dropping acid!
Gene,
I’m going to write a great article about you for “Out” magazine.
15 March 2006, on 11:13 pm
Too bad good ol’ Rockstar Ryan is off of the internet, he would’ve loved this.
15 March 2006, on 11:30 pm
Funny how you guys are compalining about morality now!
You twinkies have no back bone, and you lack the courage of your convistions. Yes, I said convistions! You got a problem with that, twinies? You hairballs! You nerferters!
Mommy. Where’s my mommy?
Mommy, why did you beat me so?
I love you mommy.
If you guys can make doctored pictures of me with some dude’s harry butt in the background but then whine and complain, like cup cakes, if someone doctors one of your claims, then you’re the epitome of hypocrisy. I’ve never seen such sisified behavior, in my life.
Stardust, you wrote, “I don’t know where they got this shit. I said something to that effect in a comment here, but never wrote anything to this Hays guy and NEVER wrote anything on Triablogue’s crappy blog.”
Well, boo-hoo. Where do you guys get your info on Gene and myself? Why don’t you have the intengrity to act consistently? You had no problem when your unbelieving ilk were lying about us, but now when it’s your turn you begin to cry. How funny.
I love Gene. He and I have many sex, but it is in the name of the Lord, with our priest present, so there.
Oh, mommy. I seek your womb again mommy. May I climb back inside and curl up and sleep? My head hurts so much right now, mommy.
Then we have g-sissek. He thinks that, “bibles are bags of chemicals, too.” Actually “Bibles” are instantiations of the propositions (which are immaterial entities, btw, you nominalist) which God has given to man.
Then we have Bobbert, He writes, “What about: homosexuality is okay because it’s between consenting adults, and there doesn’t seem to be any good reason why one shouldn’t engage in that kind of sexual …” But this is the naturalistic fallacy. To which he repsonded,
“The issue isn’t whether one “should” engage in this kind of sexual activity (why should heteros engage in that kind of sex?), but whether there seems to be any good reason not to do it, given the fact that it involves consenting adults and doesn’t seem to do any harm to anyone else.”
But the problem is that just because something *is* the case does not make it morally acceptable. Because two men *can* engage in homosexual sex does not mean that they *should* (i.e., that it is morally permissable). I mean, it *is* a fact that people *can* murder and get away with it, therefore I *should* be allowed to do it. C’mon, guy.
I… I don’t know why, but I feel it… I can feel it! I’m gonna say it! I am! Shit in my mouth! There, I said it.
Oh no. I said the “S” word. Mommy, don’t beat me, please!
Then Bobby says, “Further, in order to accept this absolute, unchanging view of morality based on god, you’re going to need to show (1) that god exists (in the proper sense), ”
Why do I need to show this? And, what is the “proper sense?” Furthermore, what is your theory of how one proves things? Maybe you think the only way to prove something is by empirical verification? If so, then I could not prove an immaterial being. But then you couldn’t prove the existence of things like logical laws, or the uniformity of nature. So, your proof theory would undermine proof itself (since proof presupposes logic). After we deal with proof then we can address the other two (since they depend on it).
Then we have the basis for morality as “if it hurts then its bad.” Well, define “harm.” Gay sex tears the anus. That is “harmful.” Unless you define harm in a certain way to exclude this “harm.” Also, training for the Olympics causes “pain.” Therefore it is immoral. What about sado-masochists? Are you against them? I’m only going off what you tell me here. Not my fault you fail to be precise. Lastly, homosexual sex is immoral according to God and it leads to pain. So, you’ve begged the question. Try not to do that next time. Oh, I almost forgot, how do you determine pain vs. pleasure? What if one man’s pleasure outweighs anothers pain? Or, vice versa. What if the pain that a pedophile is caused because he’s not alowed to love children outweighs the pain the children feel? Give me the scientific findings which show us how to rate pain.
The we have this gem?
“How about we also include in pedophilia. Forcing children to believe in or about fantasies in supernatural beings including gods demonns and other forms o unseen beings. And by force I mean that if they refuse they are punished in some manner.”
Good, so your against teaching the fairy-tale referred to as evolution in school. I mean, teaching kids that non-life turned into life and that the non-reasoning turned into the reasoning, and that the amorral turned into the moral, and that the cell-dividing turned into the copulating, and that the two-way lung turned into the one way lung, and the non-seeing turned into the seeing, etc etc etc. Folks, this is alchemy! That is, you’re teaching children that qualities turned into their opposites. Fairy-tale to be sure: “A long time ago (read, billions and billions of years) a frog turned into a prince!” Not so far off from the evolution fairy tale, huh?
I should stop writing. Mommy is calling to me from the bathroom. She is in the bath, and she wants me to look on her nakedness. I can’t stand it!
Then, check out this dodge, “How do you define science??? WTF? are you really that fuckin stupid Paul? Our science is the same for each of us unlike your form of xianity which is half assed at best.” Wow! I guess all the atheistic and non-Christian philosophers of science have just been stupid! Giving a definition of science is one of the main things they do, so that your discipline can be properly demarcated. This is one of the first things that is done in the court of law as well. Indeed, defining science a certain way is how the ACLU can reject “creation science.” So, you’d better think it is important, all your herors do. So, define science, don’t just run, cup cake.
Next, we have another unstudied hack, who beggs questions:
No, Mommy! I won’t misspell begs again! Please don’t make me snuggle your naked breasts, Mommy! No more wire hangers!
“I assume he’s talking about the bible. What he doesn’t seem to realize is that before there even was a bible (and that encompasses roughly 99% of the time humans have existed), people had morals too. ”
Actually, I was not. I was referring to the Character of God as the basis for morality. His law has been written people’s hearts. All men know His law. Therefore, before the physical “Bible” or before the name “Christianity” came about, people knew God’s laws. If you deny this then you’re making the positive claim that the Bible is false, so better man-up and prove it. Your argument looks like this: “If we assume that Christianity is false, then your statement was stupid.” Whoop-id-e-do.
~Paul
p.s. Gene is not at SBTS, so, try again, suckas. Nya. Nya. Raspberrryyy. Pattoii!
p.p.s. Mommy, it’s so dark and lonely in here. Let me out, please?
15 March 2006, on 11:51 pm
Ford – I made a comment on the first lion feed post about Jordan, so it is probably a combination of a couple of comments I made.
I think our lions are getting indigestion.
16 March 2006, on 12:19 am
You haven’t proven it true yet. The list of things proven is limited (large, but limited). The list of things unproven is unlimited and can include anything. Let me explain this to you paul, it’s not about who says what first. You have to have evidence that something exists. Otherwise, it joins the unlimited hoard of other things without evidence, which includes as many arbitrary and completely random beliefs as you or anyone else could ever think of, and then some. Yep, there is as much evidence to believe your god or bible as to believe ass gnomes and anything else just as rediculous.
Here’s how I work Paul, I have a model of the world in my head built up from my experience through life, it’s based on evidence, when I learn something new, I incorporate it into my little world model, if someone provides me with evidence for something I didn’t previously believe, I change my model to accomodate it. Of course, sometimes it doesn’t always fit my model, and that calls for a rethink of my model. That means questions raised, research done, questions asked, etc. All part of the search for knowledge, our models are always incomplete and always changing and being questioned, it’s dynamic like that.
When someone tells me something, I ask for evidence, to just take someone’s word for it would be foolish, I’m sure even you could admit that. I tell them what I know, let them correct me, give me evidence etc., basically I debate with them, I figure, “Hey, maybe this fella knows something I don’t. Maybe he can tell me something, exchange of info, stuff like that”. When the person starts the “debate”, they either do so in a polite manner and a civil debate ensues, or they get nasty, call names, or they don’t even have to say anything directly, they can just have an overall condescending attitude or treat us like ignoramouses, and I get a little testy or defensive, of course, because the person just swept in with a bag of insults and no meat to their arguements. I still try to get information out of them though, they might still know something I don’t. I might as well give them a chance to make their case right? I give them a chance, if they provide new information and evidence, I modify my model accordingly and ask all of the appropriate questions to straighten out the edges and rough details. If they offer no evidence, then they have given no reason for me to change my model. So far, all you’ve managed to do is be an asshole, show an utter lack of logical thinking, and provided no useful information or any evidence at all. I have no reason to believe you.
Seriously GifS folks, this Paul guy was sorta fun for the first few comments, but now he’s beginning to sound like a broken record playing an out of tune song. I’ve seen people’s comments screwed with over far less, what do you say?
16 March 2006, on 12:25 am
If Sable was 5150′d she has my sympathies. That’s sad. I hope that she doesn’t end up there again.
16 March 2006, on 12:36 am
OK Paul
Science has been defined and you have yet to give any but some childish dodge of the topic. You seem to go to great lengths to find a reason to continue talking without saying anything.
God does NOT exist and we do not have a church. YOU are wrong.
Creationism is NOT science. YOU are wrong.
Intelligent Design is neither. And is Wrong.
Evolution is the truth and it is scientific fact. YOU are wrong.
I notice you did not address the claims I’ve made but completely missed the target. YOU are wrong.
YOU did not address my assertion about Behe and Demsky. YOU are a coward.
Send someone else you dick weed. Maybe they speak the english language and can communicate in a learned manner. I can’t speak for anyone else but I find it tedious to follow your drug induced brain damaged rantings.
If you want to discuss science define what it is and we can go from there. We all know what science is and I’m particularly curious as to why you need a definition. Unless it is to dispute the definition so cut to the chase and give us your definition. We already know this dodge well enough to have you define it so that you can’t back out later when your lack of qualifications are disputed. Your just another of the many liars who associates with a xian religion and thinks that is sufficient to be called christian. You lack all the good qualities of the many christans who really do believe in their god. Your no more than a predator.
16 March 2006, on 12:37 am
Yes. Involuntary hospitalization would be a nightmare.
Paul, a proposition to make, convert me. Tell me the words that would make me believe Paul. That’s all I ask. Don’t treat me as an opponent Paul, treat me like a someone to convert, I will ask questions, you answer, if it makes sense and there is evidence you can show me, irrefutable evidence, I will be converted. It’s just that easy. You can have a new ally today if you just provide me with evidence, a reason to believe, if it’s apparently so obvious and you’re so confident about it, it should be easy right?
16 March 2006, on 1:00 am
So since you’ve now resoted to tampering with what I write I take it that you are al but declaring defeat.
People have refused to interact with me. Also, I posted a non-Christian, non-religious, argument against homosexuality, it dissapeared.
Basically, I guess we’re done here. If anyone wants to have a one-on-one blog debate, then please let me know, otherwise bathe in your fear and hypocrisy.
16 March 2006, on 1:30 am
Now he will go back and write another blog post on his own blog about his great “victory” here. That’s all they know how to do.
16 March 2006, on 1:49 am
And he constantly claims no one is interacting with him. He has been refuted again and again and he just builds strawmen and tears them down. Who is failing to interact with whom?
If anyone wants to have a one-on-one blog debate
Paul, that sounds… um…. gay.
I saw your copy-and-paste post from your lover Gene that was supposedly arguing that “homos are evil” from a non-religious standpoint. It seemed like you posted it twice, so the second one was marked as spam. If you want to copy and paste it again, feel free. I know that’s hard work, but since you circle jerkers seem to have nothing else to do all day, you’ll probably manage.
And while you’re busy calling us cowards and getting free advertising for your web site on ours: when are you gonna show some fuckin’ cajones and open your own cowardly blog to free-range comments like we do?
Fuckin’ spineless turd.
16 March 2006, on 2:11 am
Paul, please post your non-religious argument against homosexuality again. I went to your blog, but it is so convoluted that I can’t find it there. I’ve never heard of an argument against homosexuality that didn’t in some way anchor itself in religion (other than those sophmoric arguments like “eww, it’s so gross”), so I’d be interested in hearing yours.
16 March 2006, on 2:28 am
Ford: Indeed. Rockstar would have loved this. He made a brief appearance today in the Ingersoll thread, and poof, disappeared again.
16 March 2006, on 3:42 am
PM said:
So since you’ve now resoted to tampering with what I write I take it that you are al but declaring defeat.
Why are these latent leather daddies at Dribble Frogs so obsessed with the idea of winning/losing against us sissy little boys and girls of little old GifS? I mean, we don’t post headers on our site that rave about the glory of war and judgment. We’re just a bunch of secular humanist nerds in a big group hug. Oh, but we do like to kick misogynist theists in the nuts now and then. Tee-hee.
Can’t we all just kiss and make up, Paulie Paul?
Do you like movies about gladiators, Paul?
As you whine about having your posts edited, perhaps you missed this (and by the way, I ask again, why don’t you let us freely comment on your shit-ass blog?):
http://gods4suckers.net/on-commenting/
This is an atheist site. It’s an atheist site that rants about encroaching theocracy, evil done from religion, and religious hypocrisy, stupidity, and irrationality. That doesn’t mean Xians or other religious folks can’t or don’t make worthwhile contributions to our discussion (we have some regular theistic commenters who make real positive contributions to the discussions); but it does mean that stopping in to witness for Jeebus, telling us how sorry you are for us, offering us another lame-ass attempt at Pascal’s Wager or a Free Will theodicy, or threatening us with the burning fires of hell is the moral equivalent of spam, and will be treated as such. If you have a profound need to post such things, get your own soapbox and bandwith. It’s free at, e.g., Blogger.com, and you can link to us to your heart’s content.
So, we’re now phasing in a new comment policy: We’ll still welcome thoughtful disagreement, but we’ll delete and filter anything we see as effectively comment spam, as described above. And if you’re really egregious about it, we’ll just edit it rather than deleting it and make you look like even more of an idiot than your original message did. (Admittedly, in some cases, this seems near impossible.)
Get it now?
Nah. ‘Course ya don’t.
16 March 2006, on 4:00 am
Sean, I wasn’t asking why you were attacking Paul and Evan. It’s pretty obvious. By all means please exercise your right to respond, attack, disparage, ridicule, and mock. It’s called ‘free speech’ right and everyone has a right to it? Oh I forgot, except those that have a different worldview to you.
I simply raised some questions and made a few observations. I don’t believe I made any ‘moral’ judgments nor did I condemn atheists or homosexuals and yet you immediately judged, labeled and mocked me. I find your “I only have an issue with Fundi Xtians” so disingenuous. You and a few others have proved that you lack tolerance and charity for any one who doesn’t hold to your opinion and dares to raise any questions. It’s hard to dialog with those who only want a monolog. I find your whole stance hypocritical, hence my response.
Correct me if I am wrong but my assumption is that atheists have fundamental (definition: 1st principals from which other truths can be derived) beliefs. True? Those beliefs spur you to devote yourself to “Commentary, news, and rants on the evils and stupidity of belief in the big invisible daddy in the sky. Illuminating and watchdogging the widespread attempts to institutionalize the theocratic rule of the US.” I wonder does that make you an atheistic fundamentalist?
In my own personal trollish opinion (last I looked I still had a right to my opinion) I felt that Paul and Evan better presented and articulated their arguments. If this were a debate I’d vote Tblog 1, Sean 0.5. That irregardless of content!! Hence my balloon comment. I am sure I’ll now hear why I am a moron, etc so before the ad hominem starts please take note of my ‘irregardless of content’ comment.
I have observed other debates between atheists and Xtians where the atheists have won the debate hands down. I also found some of the arguments presented by your friends pretty thought provoking. Good to think about and wrestle with. But in all cases the arguments presented on both sides were not enough to persuade any one of the participants away from their currently held views. No-one dealt the knockout blow and I doubt anyone will anytime soon.
I also found it interesting you stating that you are done with these morons when a substantial amount of this site is dedicated to responding to these morons. And then after making that statement you continued to engage them. So what’s it going to be?
I don’t doubt that your life has meaning. I am sure it does. But in your grand scheme of things the only ‘real’ and tangible meaning your life has is the propagation of the species. Survival of the collective at the expense of the individual. Haven’t atheists written treatise after treatise that the supposed futility of life is what has given rise to religious belief? One can only put forward such an idea by giving credence to the premise.
My cooment: “I note with interest that in many countries, reducing the age of consent laws is not the agenda of heterosexuals but is one of the top priorities of the gay agenda.”
Sean, Bruce (and Eve) is this statement really dishonest or ignorant? Bruce you state, “You know as well as I that in many places (including states in the US) the age of consent for homosexuality is HIGHER than the age of consent for heterosexuality. Homosexuals just want to be treated the same under the law as everyone else. They are pushing for equality under the law, not necessarily for lower consent ages. If it is legal for two heterosexuals to have sex at age 16 then it should also be legal for two homosexuals to have sex at age 16, not 18 or 21.
So help me out with this, lowering the age of consent, (to address an inequality under the law), is not one of the top priorities of the gay agenda? Pushing for equality under the law is or is not directly related to lowering the age of consent for homosexuals? Bruce I think you just validated my statement. It appears that your only contention is based on a ‘moral’ judgment you assume I was making.
Eve, nice rabbit trail so jump away. Actually you have no disagreement from me, except finding proof may prove elusive in substantiating that conclusion. Don’t you get the point I was making to Bruce. Sex, even, adult-child sex with anyone in Spain over 13 (my mistake the age of consent is 13 not 12) is not considered pedophilia in Spain. So that in and of itself precludes your conclusion.
You asked for proof so here it is – go to google.com and search on ‘age of consent laws’. Yep gay sites outnumber all others by about 20-to-1. I simply stated that lowering of the age of consent (irregardless of the reason albeit it a very good reason) was a top priority of the gay agenda. Proof enough?
Here is a seemingly impartial site that my search turned up: http://www.ageofconsent.com/index.htm
Read some of the editorials and comments. Interesting stuff. One particularly stood out – It started off with “F**k the kids”.
Sean’s Comment “And you do know that the one organization that has tolerated and nearly institutionalized pedophilia to the largest degree in recent human history was, um, the church??”
Sean, um, don’t you think the word church, and xtian are pretty nebulous. Can we lump all atheists in with Pol Pot, Stalin and Moa. (I personally know many who would balk at the idea.) Yes, the recent Roman Catholic incidents have been scandalous. So have those perpetrated by counselors, teachers and uncles. My vote for the main culprits would be dirty old uncles. I provided my proof now please provide yours showing ‘to the largest degree in recent human history”.
Now to clarify the point I was trying to make…
The age of consent is as low as 12 in Spain (and in many other countries). It is therefore legally and biologically feasible that a fifty year old can have a hetero or homo sexual relationship with a 12 (read 13) years old. In these countries this would be regarded as ‘healthy’. With a moral code or ethos that simply depends on the relevance to humans at a specific point in time in a specific region, definitions, regional laws and biology would therefore render that statement (made by Bruce) relevant in some instances, meaningless in others.
So without absolutes, ‘morals’ are relative, forever changing, based on whims, trends and a smattering of self justification. Believe it or not child sex traffickers have a set of morals they adhere to, so do murderers, rapist, thieves etc. The question is whose set of ‘morals’ is right? What does ‘right’ mean?
Sean, I’m betting you’re going to use the “prove that god exists apart from the bible before I provide my proof” card again. I’m vacillating between ‘that’s a good argument’ on one hand and ‘what a cop out’ on the other. I’m leaning towards the latter. If you are interested in a good argument for the existence of God, one was put forward by that idiotic troll of a moron, ex-atheist Cambridge and Oxford professor C.S. Lewis. He doesn’t quote the ‘ancient text’ once. It’s called, oh no ‘Mere Christianity”. Hmmm suppose not?
Finally I have found agreement with you. I have better things to do.
16 March 2006, on 4:12 am
Great post from Kill the Afterlife about Paul Manata the Racist.
I’m glad, unlike the all-to-civil Kill the Afterlife, that I have no qualms about spitting in the faces of people like Manata. I have no problem being insulting, but I grew up on the streets of New York. I wonder what we would have done back in the day with whatever chump suburban gang Manata belonged to when he was Baby Baby Paul?
Did I hear a misogynistic, homophobic mouse named Warren enter the room? Didn’t think so.
16 March 2006, on 4:24 am
Tribble Dog Circular Arguing 101:
Oh, yeah? Define “science”!
Oh, yeah? Define “ethos”!
Oh, yeah? Define “adult”!
Oh, yeah? Define “moral”!
Oh, yeah? Define “cheeseburger”!
Oh, yeah? Define “pancreas”!
Oh, yeah? Define “define”!
Oh, yeah? Define “giant vacillating fundie nutsack”!
16 March 2006, on 6:46 am
“If you guys can make doctored pictures of me with some dude’s harry butt in the background but then whine and complain, like cup cakes, if someone doctors one of your claims, then you’re the epitome of hypocrisy.”
The individual that fucked with your photo (and soon, your “woman”) has not complained once about your treatment. I wonder who it could be?
TADA!!! THE ARISTOCRATS!
16 March 2006, on 7:10 am
I love watchtin them declare victory each time they’re completely pwned.
16 March 2006, on 7:24 am
Paul said:
““I assume he’s talking about the bible. What he doesn’t seem to realize is that before there even was a bible (and that encompasses roughly 99% of the time humans have existed), people had morals too. ”
Actually, I was not. I was referring to the Character of God as the basis for morality. His law has been written people’s hearts. All men know His law. Therefore, before the physical “Bible” or before the name “Christianity” came about, people knew God’s laws. If you deny this then you’re making the positive claim that the Bible is false, so better man-up and prove it. Your argument looks like this: “If we assume that Christianity is false, then your statement was stupid.” Whoop-id-e-do.”
The Character of God, that’s a new one to me. Since I don’t know his Law, I guess I am not a man. Paul, how do you know that your God doesn’t have a bad character? From the OT one might get the impression that he is a bit of an asshole. Besides, there are thousands of religions, and even more gods are claimed to exist. What makes you think you picked a winner?
You know, I don’t need to make a positive claim that the bible is false. The bible itself does a very good job at that, being full of inconsistencies. So either you accept logic and conclude that the bible must be at least partially false, or you deny the validity of logic. Of course you will contradict that there are contradictions in the bible. I could direct you to numerous sites where these contradictions are spelled out, but I suspect you are already well aware of them but simply keep denying that they are contradictions, no matter how obvious it is that they are, because if you didn’t your faith would come crumbling down and you would have to wake up and face reality.
16 March 2006, on 8:09 am
“His law has been written people’s hearts. All men know His law. Therefore, before the physical “Bible” or before the name “Christianity” came about, people knew God’s laws. ”
What is evidence of brainwashing!
“If you deny this then you’re making the positive claim that the Bible is false, so better man-up and prove it.”
What is a complete and total lie!
This is fun. I’ll take Logical Fallacies and Lies in support of Religion for $1600, Alex.
16 March 2006, on 8:23 am
Sean,
“Oh, yeah? Define “cheeseburger”!”
Delicious! How’s that?
“Oh, yeah? Define “giant vacillating fundie nutsack”!”
BWAHAHAHAAA!
16 March 2006, on 9:05 am
Then Bobby says, “Further, in order to accept this absolute, unchanging view of morality based on god, you’re going to need to show (1) that god exists (in the proper sense), ”
Why do I need to show this? And, what is the “proper sense?” Furthermore, what is your theory of how one proves things?
Well, the “proper sense” was referring to the god you specifically worship, i.e., a monotheistic being with the properties found in xianity. But I guess it doesn’t matter anymore.
Lastly, homosexual sex is immoral according to God and it leads to pain. So, you’ve begged the question.
[*sigh*] Dude, thought I could have a discussion. But looks not. I’m done here, Paul. Good luck with all those definitions, and all the bullshit.
16 March 2006, on 9:08 am
Bullshit thy name is Religion.
16 March 2006, on 10:37 am
Aww… Poor Wally…
He either doesn’t get the joke, or he’s a sock puppet.
16 March 2006, on 10:42 am
Last time then I’m done:
Challenge: back and forth debate between us posted on the main page of our blogs.
Any takers?
No, I assume you’ll all just avoid my questions and arguments, make fun of them, then have the penut gallery cheer you on, and then you’ll all just say how stupid I am. But, if one searches through these posts they will not see anything substantive comming from your end. But hey, I’ve grown to expect that from atheists.
~Paul
p.s. this is serious: thanks for how kindly you’ve treated me, in light of my sins before a Holy God I deserve much worse, but thanks to His Son I have been saved, by his life and precious blood. Now, kiss the Son lest ye persih in the way.
16 March 2006, on 10:56 am
Why should we believe anything these people say if they are “so bad” that they deserve the worst punishments possible?
Some wear the “cloak” of xianity but are still gang bangers, racists, etc. underneath. Religion may get some people “off the hook” in their own minds, but rarely is there a pure and total transformation when someone is “saved.” I have seen this happen with people in my own family. This is one of the things that repulses me about xianity and all religion for that matter. It just gives the person a release from personal responsibility of having to follow any kind of morals because they can be “forgiven” for immoral acts and behavior over and over and over again.
16 March 2006, on 10:59 am
Paularino,
So I guess you won’t mind if I take your image public and make a series of photoshops to post at FARK (a substantially larger readership than here). I appreciate the idea of your notion of talcivilized debate, but as others have noted so well before- this is the internet. I like how you give us a moment to react and defend our own intelligence against you, but there really is no need to… is there?
I will continue to live life fully and happily, influencing everyone from behind the curtain (are you really surprised that even the most conservative of your elected officials never get you what you want from the country? Yeah, you can thank me and my associates… not the ones here…;-)). Just keep on being an ignorant xian. You certainly help keep me in power *nudge nudge wink wink.
Although I can’t resist this little statement from your blog-
“We are not pronouncing moral judgment on the homosexual community. God is the one rendering that verdict. All we’ve done is to agree with God.”
Sounds almost like-
Hitler made us do it.
Bin Laden told me to.
Torquemada said it was alright.
Submitting to a tyrant, even a god, is a sign of weakness. Though I guess I shouldn’t expect otherwise from a gang member, drug user, and wife beater.
16 March 2006, on 11:03 am
If one searches through these posts they will not see anything substantive comming from your end. But hey, I’ve grown to expect that from xians.
Check out Lofton’s blog to see how they shit all over that one too. Never a single shred of substance, just delusional fluff.
16 March 2006, on 11:09 am
“Now, kiss the Son lest ye persih in the way. ”
Is this why priests like the little boys so much?
16 March 2006, on 11:16 am
Lya,
Don’t you love it? He’s obviously upset and incapable of dealing with us. His grammar, punctuation, and spelling have gotten steadily worse; he has resorted to quoting scripture; he has resorted to trying to draw our sympathy. It’s wonderful to see a theist babble.
I think I’ll make a button or two in tribute to our new friends. I sure hope they get everything I sent them! Especially Paul’s waffle house… can’t wait to hear his reaction!
16 March 2006, on 11:54 am
So help me out with this, lowering the age of consent, (to address an inequality under the law), is not one of the top priorities of the gay agenda? Pushing for equality under the law is or is not directly related to lowering the age of consent for homosexuals? Bruce I think you just validated my statement. It appears that your only contention is based on a ‘moral’ judgment you assume I was making.
Nice try Warren, but first impressions are everlasting.
I’ll go slow so you can keep up. You said:
I note with interest that in many countries, reducing the age of consent laws is not the agenda of heterosexuals but is one of the top priorities of the gay agenda.
Hmmm. So what moral judgement could you be making I wonder? Who generally uses the phrase ‘gay agenda’? Oh yeah, homophobes and Christian bigots. And in a discussion thread about pedophilia and homosexuality, what would be implied by stating that reducing age of consent laws was a top priority of the gay agenda? Oh yeah, that homosexuals want to reduce age of consent so they can legally diddle little boys. I guess you just conveniently forgot to mention the fact that heterosexuals already get to taste the sweet fruit of those young innocent virgins. Maybe they just don’t want all the competition from the gays?
Now, in the real world (try it sometime, you’ll like it), you’ll find that often where the age of consent is 16, that limit will apply only to heterosexuals. Homosexual acts (referred to as sodomy and such) will either have a higer age of consent limit or be illegal. Do you see the distinction here? The aim is not to reduce the accepted age of consent (16 in this example) but rather to make the age of consent equal for everyone (and in some cases, to just make sex between two people legal in the first place). If the age of consent were 18 for heterosexuals and 21 for homosexuals, would you still be making the same argument about the “gay agenda”?
Funny how you don’t see the irony in your Spain example. Spain is a predominantly Catholic and heterosexual country. Was not too long ago (I believe the mid 1990s) that homosexuality was officially decriminalized. Guess what, the age of consent in Spain did not automatically drop to 12 when they decriminilized homosexuality, it was already there for heterosexuals to enjoy all to themselves. So at the same time those God fearing heterosexuals were locking up gays, they were indulging in the pleasures of nubile 12 year old virgins. I’d lose the Spain example. You might want to find a different country where Jesus doesn’t condone 12 year old sex. I think some of those African or Middle Eastern countries might work for you.
16 March 2006, on 3:50 pm
” If you are interested in a good argument for the existence of God, one was put forward by that idiotic troll of a moron, ex-atheist Cambridge and Oxford professor C.S. Lewis. He doesn’t quote the ‘ancient text’ once. It’s called, oh no ‘Mere Christianity”. Hmmm suppose not?
”
rofl
16 March 2006, on 5:00 pm
Warren L. said, “Eve, nice rabbit trail so jump away.”
I honestly don’t know what that means.
“Actually you have no disagreement from me, except finding proof may prove elusive in substantiating that conclusion.”
I agree; the researcher would have to establish a universally-agreed-upon definition of “pedophilia” from the get-go, which would bring him/her back to the basic fact that different groups of people define the term differently.
“Don’t you get the point I was making to Bruce. Sex, even, adult-child sex with anyone in Spain over 13 (my mistake the age of consent is 13 not 12) is not considered pedophilia in Spain. So that in and of itself precludes your conclusion.”
I see your point more clearly now and actually agree with you again; sex with anyone 13 or over is not considered pedophilia in Spain because the Spanish age of consent is 13 years old, whatever our opinion to the contrary here in the US.
My next question is what factor in particular made you choose Spain as your primary example – an age of consent relatively “young” compared to the median US age, or am I reading more into your post than you intended?
16 March 2006, on 7:47 pm
Eve,
You said…
“Are you inviting us to jump to the conclusion that *religious* countries have pedophilic tendencies?”
The responses to my comments dealt solely with the example I used, not the point I was making by using the example. (A rabbit trail, hence my comment). Also most latched onto my last comment without even addressing the main point.
Why I chose Spain? Honestly, because I remember reading about their age of consent in comparison to the rest of Europe. It was simply an example I used to substantiate my point: What consitutes a ‘moral’ judgement as to what is an unhealthy adult-child hetero or homosexual relationship varies considerably. Who then is right? …That’s all.
I’ll readily concede that *religious* countries have pedophilic tendencies. I’ll readily concede that religious people are often guilty of the behaviours they condemn. Is that hypocritical? Absolutely. Do they participate in those behaviours more than any others? I really don’t know.
If you’ll notice I mentioned both hetero and homosexual activity between a 50 year old and a 12 (13) year old so my main point was not attacking homosexuality. And yes, I used the disparate ages for effect. Do you think my point would still be valid if I said a 25 year old and a 13 year old?
My last statement, the ‘gay agenda’ one, which was not necessary to corroborate my main point, was made to see what kind of reaction I would get. I wasn’t disappointed…
Thanks for the dialog.
16 March 2006, on 8:09 pm
Warren,
Would a “dialog” be some kind of deadfall timber?
16 March 2006, on 8:56 pm
Warren,
Thank you also for answering my question and engaging in dialogue with me; I didn’t address the main point of your post because others were already responding to it, and I thought it would be more interesting for me to address something new.
As a writer, I’ll go out on a limb and say you would probably agree with me that we don’t usually make the choices in our writing lightly; in other words, we do put some thought into selecting the sentence structure, vocabulary, and examples we use. I find that paying attention to details like that often gives me some further insight into what the writer is conveying, sometimes on a different level; for me, it adds richness to the experience of reading, writing, and discussing.
If you had said, for example, that you chose Spain to try to shock your readers, that’s just as valid a style choice in my book as selecting it because it was the last country you read about, or something like that. It could at the very least lead into another equally spirited conversation, like now.
You said, “Do you think my point would still be valid if I said a 25 year old and a 13 year old?” Yes, but I find the example you used definitely more effective because of the greater difference in ages.
I just took a look at ageofconsent.com, by the way; very interesting…
16 March 2006, on 10:27 pm
Strawman Warren said:
Warren L Says:
March 16th, 2006 at 4:00 am e
Sean, I wasn’t asking why you were attacking Paul and Evan. It’s pretty obvious. By all means please exercise your right to respond, attack, disparage, ridicule, and mock. It’s called ‘free speech’ right and everyone has a right to it? Oh I forgot, except those that have a different worldview to you.
Don’t put words in my mouth, punk. I am a free speech absolutist. Find me a single statement anywhere on this blog where I have ever suggested that someone’s speech should be curbed.
I am glad you get the basic tenets of the First Amendment. Many fundies do not.
16 March 2006, on 10:39 pm
paul said:
p.s. this is serious: thanks for how kindly you’ve treated me, in light of my sins before a Holy God I deserve much worse, but thanks to His Son I have been saved, by his life and precious blood.
What saddens me about you, Paul, is that instead of cleaning up your life and then devoting it to great empathy and charity (a supposedly traditional Xian value; Faith, Hope, Charity) toward those who are at odds with society, suffering needlessly, in need of a helping hand, you have decided to sit on a throne and judge who will be damned and who will be saved.
Anyone who was once a practicing criminal should know what it is like to be an outsider, to be treated like a pariah by the greater society. Yet your message to a desperate, confused, 15-year-old gay kid is “Stop feeling the way you feel or God will burn you in hellfire forever.”
I do hope that you are active in the community where you were once a criminal; getting kids off the street, helping them escape abusive homes, helping them get educated and employed. I know you have not expressed much sympathy here for that symbolic 14-year-old girl with a pregnancy that has her running scared, but I do hope that you at least are helping such girls keep from being dragged down into poverty and misery for the rest of their lives.
I mean through real concrete work with charities, shelters, rehabilitation programs, etc.
If you are not doing the above, and all you are doing is proselytizing and spouting the hate we see here, I have no idea why your god saved you. I really don’t.
16 March 2006, on 10:52 pm
paul said:
Challenge: back and forth debate between us posted on the main page of our blogs.
This has already happened. See above.
17 March 2006, on 12:40 am
Sean, so you did hear me… You’re right, I did put words in your mouth.
Marcus, LOL
17 March 2006, on 2:50 am
Warren L Says:
Sean, so you did hear me… You’re right, I did put words in your mouth.
Yes, my son. I heard you. All if forgiven. Say five Our Fathers and four Hail Marys.
17 March 2006, on 2:57 am
And PS: Thank you, Warren, for being a gentleman and conceding that I have never presented myself as anti-First Amendment. All sparring aside — no matter how in-your-face (hey, what can I say? I grew up in NYC) — I actually do appreciate such moments of civility.
17 March 2006, on 6:25 am
Sean, Sean, Sean,….you make me shake my head.
“Free-range commenting”….HA! funny, what a joke.
Marcus,
you know what I’m up to at all times…good, someone should.
17 March 2006, on 6:39 am
This is like arguing with Forrest Gump. “Ah know gawd is reeel Lewtenant Dayne, cuz Momma told me so….”
17 March 2006, on 7:39 am
Ha, icaruspoe!
Okay, gang. We have all tired, it seems, of DribbleFrog and their endless claims to empty victory.
New Lion Feed in less than a week. Please send in your recommendations! Let’s try and change it up if at all possible. Something Muslim or neo-religious (Scientology would be tasty… Then we would really get threatened with a lawsuit!)
I will in the meantime go back over the thread two weeks ago and review the other suggestions already received.”
Also, if anyone wants to write the opening salvo of one of these, be my guest. Just let me know.
17 March 2006, on 11:14 am
Just for the record, my views on Brokeback are result of my conversations with my many gay family members and friends, and my years in Venice Beach, Boulder and now Boston.
For that matter, how do you know I am not gay?
Perhaps if I met your standards for gay, you wouldn’t be so judgmental.
17 March 2006, on 11:14 am
Oddly enough, I’ve been trying to read the Tribbledog website, yet keep getting “Access Forbidden” errors.
What gives?
17 March 2006, on 11:49 am
“For that matter, how do you know I am not gay?”
Because, you silly fucker, your profile says you aren’t.
When I was teaching, your crusaders were some of the most annoying students I had ever had. I enjoyed, immensely, failing most of them.
17 March 2006, on 2:24 pm
Sean,
what about the Mormons? Christian Science?
17 March 2006, on 2:39 pm
Oddly enough, I’ve been trying to read the Tribbledog website, yet keep getting “Access Forbidden” errors.
What gives?
They are blocking your IP address.
17 March 2006, on 4:01 pm
Bruce and Marcus:
That’s exactly what they are doing.
You can probably get around it by using an IP masking site:
http://www.the-cloak.com/anonymous-surfing-home.html
Joao:
Mormons could be fun! Anyone know any lame-o Mormon blogs? I’d like one that would fight back.
17 March 2006, on 4:35 pm
They’re actually back up now… I figure they can’t have been blocking our IP’s because they’re using Blogspot and from what I know they don’t have that level of administrative access. Earlier today I saw a server maintainance page in place of their homepage… unfortunately, it looks like the world will have to continue putting up with their idiocy.
17 March 2006, on 4:45 pm
Marcus said:
“For that matter, how do you know I am not gay?”
Because, you silly fucker, your profile says you aren’t.
When I was teaching, your crusaders were some of the most annoying students I had ever had. I enjoyed, immensely, failing most of them.
Now Marcus, where in my profile does it say that? I think your prejudicees are getting the best of your sound judgement.
17 March 2006, on 5:24 pm
“Now Marcus, where in my profile does it say that?”
From your profile: “I am married with three children.”
If you are a xian, then you obviously are against gay marriage; therefore you are not gay and you most certainly would have not made it to the level of “Regional Director of Operations for the Northeast Region of Campus Crusade for Christ” if you were. Furthermore, a good gay xian would give up his children to the indoctrination machine so his “homojuice” wouldn’t get all over them. Xians are just too intolerant.
TADA!!!! DEDUCTIVE REASONING TO THE RESCUE!
17 March 2006, on 5:30 pm
Marcus, you forgot:
THE ARISTOCRATS!!
17 March 2006, on 7:36 pm
Sean,
D. Pepsi + Windpipe = Monitor + Windex
17 March 2006, on 7:40 pm
I think I found Mormon-flavored food for the lions…
The Blog of Jared
These guys apparently believe that the Garden of Eden was a real place, and check out this comment about the recent natural disasters:
“I can’t help but think about whether these disasters are part of a grander plan to force people off the proverbial “fence”. Often it takes drastic measures for people to be introspective and humble. And only in this condition do people really seek after, and find, God.”
17 March 2006, on 8:26 pm
Stardust: They seem kinda in their infancy. Haven’t been around long. Would it be mean? I poked around and found a few other Mormon blogs and they were kinda in their infancy, too.
17 March 2006, on 8:35 pm
I haven’t been able to post and to think we lost to paul. Dammit I’m so ashamed I could just… Laugh my ass off. I have worked around people like him, real thugs to be presice. They never learn anything new in the behavior modification dept. They accept heysus and still use the same loud mouth tantrum thuggery to get their point across. Only now their thuggery is for heysus. Scream rant scream rant. we won hahhahaha. I read his bio and wondered if “covenant child” was just another way of saying he is not married to the mother of his child. He should know that as an atheist he doesn’t have any need to make up weird designations like that. A child is a child and that is the end of it. However his religion makes up so many fantasy ideals it would be impossible to meet their qualifications.
Paul
Give it up man your still a gang banger. Your still hostile to people and that would be the true sign to you that your beliefs are real. If you walked away from your violent, might is right ways and really accepted the peace of heysus. I was engaging you but you gave in and declared victory . sis
17 March 2006, on 9:09 pm
Sean – Yeah, I see what you are saying. Am I just looking in the wrong places, or what? I am finding that blogs of other religions just aren’t as “radical” or mean as xianity. Even the Scientology blogs were “nice” and kind of innocent. It would be like slaughtering lambs. Even the satanist blogs I found don’t seem bad at all in comparison. But I have a large storehouse of xian blogs I wouldn’t feel bad about placing on the lion’s menu at all. Guns God and Glory being one. But they are real dicks.
17 March 2006, on 9:28 pm
Hell yeah, Stardust, those guys are some crazy bastards! But who would mind having dicks here? We get them every day anyway…
Heh.
17 March 2006, on 9:33 pm
Guns, God and Glory? They sound hideous. They also sound like they will make death threats. Cool! I’ll check them out this weekend.
17 March 2006, on 9:40 pm
Sean…Just to caution you…me and a couple other bloggers had to turn on our comment moderator for a bit after only making one comment on their blog in disagreement with abortion…it was like stepping into a nest of vermin. They slapped my email on their blog and encouraged spambots to attack.
Here’s the blog address so you can check it our first. They are really mean assholes and are obsessed with the anti-abortion issue.
http://godgunsglory.com/
17 March 2006, on 9:41 pm
What about a nice psychic blog? The lions might find them tasty – and some of those psychics can get real testy!
17 March 2006, on 9:43 pm
OOPs… meant to say comment in disagreement with their ANTT ABORTION stance not disagreement with abortion.
17 March 2006, on 9:46 pm
‘Course they’re probably not half as nasty as those ggg guys sound…
17 March 2006, on 10:02 pm
Nasty = fun
17 March 2006, on 10:20 pm
GGG is anti-liberal pro war, pro guns, pro death penalty, pro violence…and they are all in favor of killing anyone who aborts a zygote or embryo. And they are not very educated. Not at all.
17 March 2006, on 10:41 pm
In their infancy Sean? Do you really want assholes to grow? Though I suppose we wouldn’t actually stop any of it, we would probably just help them become jaded and more of a pain in the ass for people in the future to deal with.
The GGG people? Some crazy sounding bastards. I don’t know if I’ll participate in that one, the last lion’s den really wore me the fuck out. Typing up long ass comments explaining simple concepts from the ground up, only to be purposely misinterpreted and asked for definitions- which are never good enough for them- for words like adult, yet having absolute judgments handed down to you based on the emotional weight of certain key words and syntaxes. It can be fun tearing an argument that is obviously bullshit to shreds, but when it stops progressing and the religious fucksticks just keep doing the same shit they always do, damn. I start to dread seeing their name pop up beside one of the numbers to the comments, because I know it’s going to be another five minutes trying to peice together their incoherent jumble of words to try to figure out what you think they might’ve meant, then going through another minute or two of beating my head against the wall while asking myself the question “Why?”, and composing a response, the meat of which you know will be ignored. Now you’re suggesting we go after these godgunsglory folks, a bunch of assholes that will probably get the aryan brotherhood to firebomb our houses? Meh, could be fun, I’ll have to wait and see.
17 March 2006, on 10:49 pm
The thing that bugged me about The Blog of Jared is that some of them think that a god is purposely sending tsunamis and hurricanes to “get people’s attention.” That is ludicrous…and Ford is right. Maybe they need to be “nipped in the bud” so to speak. These Mormons are nice on the outside, but are just as annoying when it comes to trying to convert people.
18 March 2006, on 1:17 am
Okay, okay, I admit it. I’m having some fun, Stardust. But I don’t do this often…
http://godgunsglory.com/2006/02/28/life-is-life/
It won’t last long, and I’m not pushing anything (all that much). But I just like to see WIA (i.e., wackos-in-action).
This “senario” will be over soon.
18 March 2006, on 1:54 am
sable chicken said:
Sean, Sean, Sean,….you make me shake my head.
“Free-range commenting”….HA! funny, what a joke.
I assume you are being sarcastic, dear. We allow more open commentary than any Xian web site I have ever seen. We atheists are like that with the First Amendment and all.
18 March 2006, on 1:59 am
Okay, maybe Ford and Eve and Stardust’s words of caution are worth heeding. No need to create another firebomb here with even more hateful Xians coming at us. In fact, a friend of mine suggested that a Lion Feed every week is too much, and could see me being worn down just trying to keep up with it, along with all the other shit I am doing. Man, these people are relentless, aren’t they?
Should I postpone a new Lion Feed for another week and think on it? Shit, I’ve only read two thirds of this thread as it is.
18 March 2006, on 2:05 am
Bob Says:
March 18th, 2006 at 1:17 am e
Okay, okay, I admit it. I’m having some fun, Stardust. But I don’t do this often…
http://godgunsglory.com/2006/02/28/life-is-life/
It won’t last long, and I’m not pushing anything (all that much). But I just like to see WIA (i.e., wackos-in-action).
This “senario” will be over soon.
Oh, no. Bob went and started the rumble already! Must have been the Irish in him on St. Patty’s Day.
18 March 2006, on 2:14 am
In case these fuckers delete it, here is Bob’s brilliantly “who me?” salvo at the dirtbags over at God, Guns, Glory. I’m sorry, but I may just have to feed these bastards to the lion soon… Bob’s exchange, although hilariously innocent on his end, was met with such venom that I want to stand up and punch these guys out.
Herewith, for posterity, his exchange with their nasty dude “JJ”:
# Bob Says:
Aborting a child is never, and will never, be an acceptable option. Life is life.
Just wanted to see what would be argued against the following:
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, “Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you — we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it?
I guess my question is: If you’re kidnapped, would that make any moral difference? The usual (i.e., traditional) reply to this thought-experiment is that it “works” for rape cases, but not for much else. Thoughts? Does it matter if you’re kidnapped against your will? Or even drugged? Would it make any difference if the kidnapping was coupled with something else, like requiring the rest of your life (instead of nine months)?
Don’t have an agenda, just trying to get some responses and arguments.
Thanks for your time.
Posted on March 17th, 2006 at 9:57 pm | Link
# JJ Says:
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. There is nothing in this senerio that can be remotely compared to an abortion of baby conceived by rape or incest. You don’t have an agenda? Bullcrap. Nobody writes that kind of swill, looking for a rational and logical answer, who is without an agenda.
Society of Music Lovers!? Dude, I emplore you to work on your little so-called “thought-experiments.” Your own child (whether it be from a father who is an animal or not) is still your child. Unborn children are the most innocent of societies victims. They have no voice. Mr Super violinist (whether it was his idea or not) has the moral responsiblity to either A) wait for a legal mean to recooperate or B) accept his fate and meet his maker. Comparing an ill violinist to an innocent baby is a worthless example. Try again.
Posted on March 17th, 2006 at 10:30 pm | Link
# Bob Says:
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. There is nothing in this senerio that can be remotely compared to an abortion of baby conceived by rape or incest. You don’t have an agenda? Bullcrap. Nobody writes that kind of swill, looking for a rational and logical answer, who is without an agenda.
It was just something we read in a phil course I was taking. Didn’t mean to make you angry. Bye.
Posted on March 17th, 2006 at 10:59 pm | Link
# JJ Says:
Im not angry. But that doesn’t make your senario any less ignorant. You wanted my opinion right? You got it. Peace.
Posted on March 17th, 2006 at 11:01 pm | Link
# Bob Says:
But I thought you said life is life. Would it matter who it was? Does it have to be my child? Can’t it be just someone? Isn’t it the same thing?
Posted on March 17th, 2006 at 11:12 pm | Link
# JJ Says:
I hope I didn’t confuse you when I made the comment, “Life is Life.” I am pro-death penalty. When someone deserves to die, they should die. An unborn child does not deserve to die… they are guilty of nothing. Mr Super Violinist is guilty of kidnapping, ect.
If he had no part in it, it would still be his moral obligation to seek treatment in a legal manner.
And why the heck are we still talking about this crap? This is stupid. I thought you said, ‘bye’? Im done.
Posted on March 17th, 2006 at 11:19 pm | Link
# Bob Says:
I hope I didn’t confuse you when I made the comment, “Life is Life.” I am pro-death penalty. When someone deserves to die, they should die. An unborn child does not deserve to die… they are guilty of nothing. Mr Super Violinist is guilty of kidnapping, ect.
Yes, I was confused. I’m sorry. I thought you meant that every human life that wasn’t involved in something bad was worthy of keeping them alive, or something. And the guy in the example was unconscious the hole time and wasn’t really involved, so I just thought it might be a good idea to keep him alive. Its hard for me to imagine him guilty of kidnapping when he didnt do anything.
And why the heck are we still tyalking about this crap? This is stupid. I thought you said, ‘bye’? Im done.
I guess I was just surprised at how quickly you responded. Sorry.
Posted on March 17th, 2006 at 11:29 pm | Link
# JJ Says:
My goodness… I need some duct tape.
First off, you never responded to my comments about an unborn child being guilty of nothing. This in itself just supports my case about you having an agenda.
Now lets get this out in the open here. To me abortion is murder. Murder is defined as the “unlawful killing of one human by another.” Unplugging myself from a stranger (whose psychotic followers illegally put my life at risk) and take almost a year of my life away from my family (by which I feel instructed by God to protect and care for) is not murder. The man was going to die regardless. When he awoke and realized what had happened and he does not condemn the actions of the Society of Nut Jobs, he is just as guilty. He needs to make it right and follow the letter of the law.
Posted on March 17th, 2006 at 11:41 pm | Link
# Bob Says:
First off, you never responded to my comments about an unborn child being guilty of nothing. This in itself just supports my case about you having an agenda.
I’m sorry. I thought that was clear for to me. Yes, I agree with the claim about the unborn child. I guess Im just not sure about the unconsious person.
Now lets get this out in the open here. To me abortion is murder. Murder is defined as the “unlawful killing of one human by another.” Unplugging myself from a stranger (whose psychotic followers illegally put my life at risk) and take almost a year of my life away from my family (by which I feel instructed by God to protect and care for) is not murder. The man was going to die regardless. When he awoke and realized what had happened and he does not condemn the actions of the Society of Nut Jobs, he is just as guilty. He needs to make it right and follow the letter of the law.
Okay, I think I understand now. Thanks very much. Sorry for wasting your time.
Posted on March 17th, 2006 at 11:50 pm | Link
# JJ Says:
Posted on March 17th, 2006 at 11:56 pm | Link
# JJ Says:
“Wackos-in-action” huh? Get off my website you dirtbag.
Posted on March 17th, 2006 at 11:59 pm | Link
# Bob Says:
Yep. Good one, JJ. Kudos.
Posted on March 18th, 2006 at 12:00 am | Link
18 March 2006, on 2:16 am
Sorry, Bob… I hadn’t read your thread with JJ the Retard before I realized you were misspelling things intentionally. Brilliant, man.
18 March 2006, on 2:17 am
Good times, good times…
18 March 2006, on 2:32 am
Oh, god. These guys are sick. They’re really, really, really sick. I just spent some time on their site. *Shiver*. The section on porn alone will make your skin crawl. Apparently lust, that beautiful human thing that can lead to all sorts of crazy, wonderful, romantic times, is THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL. Not war, not bigotry, not jealousy, not vengefulness, not greed… But lust.
Oh, my. This one might have to wait a few weeks until we can all refuel. Unfortunately, now they already know we are out here. Be afraid… be very, very afraid.
18 March 2006, on 2:36 am
Bob’s exchange, although hilariously innocent on his end, was met with such venom that I want to stand up and punch these guys out.
No, no, Airborne was okay. Ended the convo in a classy manner. No need to order that hit, Godfather.
18 March 2006, on 3:06 am
Man, these bastards waste no time. JJ from God, Hate, War, Glory, Killing Women and Children in Vast Quantities in the Name of Jeebus, has already gone on the attack:
#
Name: JJ | E-mail: jj@godgunsglory.com | URI: http://www.godgunsglory.com | IP: 71.32.2.62
Hey, I called you a dirtbag first. You can’t copy my insults. That’s insulting.
Edit | View Post | Delete just this comment | Bulk action: Approve Spam Delete Defer until later
#
Name: JJ | E-mail: jj@godgunsglory.com | URI: http://www.godgunsglory.com | IP: 71.32.2.62
Don’t hurt yourself Pee Wee.
Edit | View Post | Delete just this comment | Bulk action: Approve Spam Delete Defer until later
#
Name: JJ | E-mail: jj@godgunsglory.com | URI: http://www.godgunsglory.com | IP: 71.32.2.62
Oh yea, lust is just one of the seven deadly sins you don’t believe in. Sin is the root of evil, so yea, you’re right Big Chief.
Edit | View Post | Delete just this comment | Bulk action: Approve Spam Delete Defer until later
I marked all as spam. I’m not in the fucking mood.
18 March 2006, on 3:49 am
PS: The speed at which these dorks realize we are writing about them warms my heart. It shows we are getting far more eyeballs than they are. They’re obviously champing at the bit in the hopes that we will continue to pick a fight (see Paul’s “I challenge you” post).
Gotta love it.
Busy weekend ahead, kids. See you late on Sunday. Let me know what you think about postponing L.F. for a week. And if JJ worms his way in somehow, kick him one in the ass for me.
Peace.
18 March 2006, on 7:49 am
Stardust said:
he thing that bugged me about The Blog of Jared is that some of them think that a god is purposely sending tsunamis and hurricanes to “get people’s attention.” That is ludicrous…and Ford is right. Maybe they need to be “nipped in the bud” so to speak. These Mormons are nice on the outside, but are just as annoying when it comes to trying to convert people.
No kidding. If you have ever lived in a major metropolitan area, you dread the time of year that the Mormon missionary boys descend on you like locusts. Either that or you relish the opportunity to be rude to little brainwashing victims.
Okay. Blog of Jared remains on the menu for now.
18 March 2006, on 10:18 am
I was just in a debate with someone who said that we have our crazy xian fundies, but they are nothing like the crazy muslim fundamentalists. They aren’t???? If this was Iraq, people like those on the lion’s menu would be the insurgents and that is disturbing.
18 March 2006, on 10:29 am
You guys wwant to know what was really scary? If things had worked out slightly different with me, I would’ve been on their site arguing against you guys. That may not be scary for you of course, but for me, to think there was a point in time where I might’ve gone ape-shit fundie is pretty terrifying for me. Though I probably wasn’t as close as I think, it was more anxiety of letting go after the truth was pretty clear. So maybe I wasn’t in quite so much danger. I was headed down that path, but as I got further down it, I began to feel more and more like I was forcing myself to go insane as things made less and less sense and the world started to become a much more frightening place than it already was.
18 March 2006, on 11:29 am
stardust said:
I was just in a debate with someone who said that we have our crazy xian fundies, but they are nothing like the crazy muslim fundamentalists. They aren’t???? If this was Iraq, people like those on the lion’s menu would be the insurgents and that is disturbing.
Absolutely. It’s a matter of sheer economics. Why do you think the craziest militia freaks are poor white boys in the country?
Just poor and uneducated enough to be angry and clueless, just lower-middle-class enough to afford a machine gun.
That’s the same group that is raising hell in Iraq, and religion is the primary tool that takes their economic rage (not entirely unjustified — except here we have options, and these dumbasses keep voting against their own self-interests — I keep saying that… Do I sound like I fucking mean it?) and turns them into nutball suicide bomber types.
If things were desperate enough here, these fundie Xians would be just as dangerous as fundie Muslims.
18 March 2006, on 11:31 am
Good for you Ford. And you did it without having to be 5150′d.
18 March 2006, on 12:12 pm
I can imagine more than one time in my life where my nutty ass shoulda been locked up.
18 March 2006, on 12:46 pm
I wasn’t picking a fight. I wanted to know how Bob got to our site and saw his trail leaded back here. Don’t give yourself that much credit. See ya around. Oh yea, stop drinking so much hater-ade.
18 March 2006, on 3:49 pm
JJ,
So, by virtue of our atheism, you hate us and think us all ignorant by default?
18 March 2006, on 4:50 pm
JJ: “leaded”
uuh, its led dumbass
18 March 2006, on 4:57 pm
JJ:
“Poor Salty slimey trail leads him back to his den of belly crawlers at http://www.Gods4Suckers.net”
i dont even have to say anything…
18 March 2006, on 4:58 pm
Maybe it was durning the 5150 that I was knocked off my high horse,
and was given a whole new point of view.
19 March 2006, on 2:01 am
Marcus said:
“If you are a xian, then you obviously are against gay marriage; therefore you are not gay and you most certainly would have not made it to the level of “Regional Director of Operations for the Northeast Region of Campus Crusade for Christ” if you were. Furthermore, a good gay xian would give up his children to the indoctrination machine so his “homojuice” wouldn’t get all over them. Xians are just too intolerant.”
So Marcus, you believe being gay is a choice only. In your view, one cannot be gay if they don’t act gay. Or, do you think that if being gay is genetic, then it inevitably detirmines gay behavior.
So if I understand correctly, in Brokeback Mounain, you don’t think that Ennis and Jack were gay during the months or years between their gay behavior when they were with there wives and children and so forth. But then they were gay, when they acted gay.
That is an interesting position.
19 March 2006, on 2:27 am
McDonaldsMac (certainly looks like you eat plenty of Big Macs),
That was a strange twist of logic.
19 March 2006, on 8:34 am
I am with Marcus on that one, McRyan. That makes no sense. The point is that Ennis and Jack are gay before, during, after, etc. Societal pressure is what forces them to live the lie that they aren’t gay… And leads to tragedy. They’re, like, totally gay from the get-go.
But society won’t let them be that way.
“In your view, one cannot be gay if they don’t act gay.”
I see nothing in any of our statements to suggest this. Are you trying to tell us something in a cloaked fashion? Has society forced you to push your own homosexuality beneath the covers?
20 March 2006, on 7:21 am
Man. Ive been gone the whole weekend! Couldn’t you guys use some raid on these sick perverted roaches? DO I have to do everything around here?
20 March 2006, on 2:58 pm
I think Ford and stardust1954 are right, and the Mormon site would make a good dish for the lions – even if just as a palate-cleanser. Fundie xtian sites are a dime a dozen, so in the spirit of the Lion Feed mission, let’s diversify!
I fondly remember my Scottish granny, a good Presbyterian, quite graciously inviting the Mormon boys in and playing hostess to them on more than one occasion; little did they know when they accepted her offer of tea that they were walking into a lioness’ den. They would all sit down very politely with their cups and respective Bibles, and Granny would debate them, book for book, verse for verse, and chapter for chapter for as long as they could take it. Needless to say, they always cried uncle first and stopped coming around after a while, so I think they put the word out to avoid her at all costs!
I guess fighting fire with fire – pitting one religion against another – sometimes works.
Hmmmm *evil look comes into eyes*…
22 March 2006, on 2:55 pm
Maybe these xtian morons need to go read the clinical definition of pedophilia…because they keep on making the same mistake over and over and over.
23 March 2006, on 1:51 am
Okay. The lions are still digesting. This won’t be a weekly feature. Clearly it’s too much to eat all at once. But thank you all for sitting down to chow together.
The lions will return next week. I’ll try bi-weekly for now and see how that tastes.
24 March 2006, on 4:53 pm
The lions *and* lionesses *burp* thank you…
24 March 2006, on 4:59 pm
Well, I just got dumped last night, so I am not sure I am up for another fight for at least another week. Maybe someone else can do it this coming week. Otherwise, the hungry lions (and lionesses) will return soon.
24 March 2006, on 5:27 pm
Sorry to hear about that; what a crappy thing to happen right before the weekend. All I can think of are tired platitudes, so I’ll just say hang in there.
24 March 2006, on 5:44 pm
Thanks!
24 March 2006, on 10:36 pm
Sorry about your break up Sean…that sucks.
The Blog of Jared must go on the menu…he is dissin’ classical literature while praising his babble of fantasy as “superior” to the great classics.
The supposed “classics” are nothing more than glorified Sudoku puzzles with words instead of numbers. They don’t teach anything new. They use the same old concepts and lock them up with a different combination for us to gleefully pore over until, in the end, we announce that “We’ve figured it out! Stealing is bad because Dick and Jane saw Spot run!”
Contrast this over-hyped symbolism to the simple parables of the Savior which can, with the aid of the spirit unfold the mysteries of Godliness to us. The recycled philosophies of men hold not even a candle to the stories Christ used to teach eternal truths to the simple men and women with whom He primarily associated.
This guy is really really stupid. I think I hear the lions’ stomachs growling.
24 March 2006, on 11:16 pm
Thanks, Star. Consider him Purina Lion Chow. If I have the Irish in me (and ya know I do) I might just pick a fight with BOJ before the weekend is out. Who knows, it may be cathartic (and it is raining here in San Francisco).
Contrast this over-hyped symbolism to the simple parables of the Savior which can, with the aid of the spirit unfold the mysteries of Godliness to us. The recycled philosophies of men hold not even a candle to the stories Christ used to teach eternal truths to the simple men and women with whom He primarily associated.
Again, folks. Um. Do you not think men wrote this freakin’ book, boy? Jeebs, they boggle my mind as they grasp at phantoms in their demon-haunted world.
27 March 2006, on 1:04 am
Hey guys,
This is Ryan from Blogger of Jared (the idiot who railed against “classic” literature, which, whether you believe in the bible or not, is still a boatload of crap. So let go of the logical fallacy of trying to dismantle my argument by debunking the bible. In fact, I’ll save you the trouble by conceding that the Bible is just a pretty pink story for suckers. It still doesn;t make symbolism in “classic” literature anything more than a cheap attempt to appear thoughtful by a group of talentless hacks)
Anyway, back to my point, I am curious as to why no one posted their thoughts on the blog? I knew I was tossing out some fighting words when I wrote them. I don’t even think that I am unwilling to change my mind if a well organized argument is given. That’s why I started this Blog in the first place. I don’t really enjoy hearing a chorus of kool-aid drinkers agreeing with every outlandish argument I make. Honestly, a blog and readership like that would be quite asinine. So stop challenging my opinions while hiding in the corner of the room under your blankie so the scary mormon blogger monster won’t see you. (Get it? Your blog symbolizes the blankie that offers only a fragile facade and the corner symbolizes the psuedo-geography of the internet and the mormon blogger monster symbolizes… me. Wow I’m soooo talented and creative and free-thinking.)
By the way if you do come to comment, please do me a favor and keep the language clean. I would love to debate the issue without feeling like I have to delete every other comment.
27 March 2006, on 10:55 am
So, one literature course in early 1900’s American ficiton makes you an authority on the literary canon for all of history?
Damn, you’re an idiot.
If you are unable to understand the literature, the fault is in you not the writer. Do you think literary study comes by its conclusions without a system of peer review similar to that of a science?
I noticed that you were in “marketing” and are currently a “marketing director.” You and your ilk are known as the kinds of people who are literarily retarded- I’ve never known such disappointment as trying to teach business kids. Keep your ass in marketing and your opinions out of literary studies.
27 March 2006, on 12:30 pm
“If you are unable to understand the literature, the fault is in you not the writer.”
You’re probably right. I’m not the sharpest ball in the bowling alley.
27 March 2006, on 2:19 pm
Well, Ryan, that’s mighty self-conscious of you to admit.
27 March 2006, on 4:46 pm
ryan said,
This is Ryan from Blogger of Jared (the idiot who railed against “classic” literature, which, whether you believe in the bible or not, is still a boatload of crap.
Then you said,
In fact, I’ll save you the trouble by conceding that the Bible is just a pretty pink story for suckers. It still doesn;t make symbolism in “classic” literature anything more than a cheap attempt to appear thoughtful by a group of talentless hacks)
For the sake of clarification, what exactly do you mean by “classic literature?”
What equals the “boatload of crap:” the literature itself or symbolist literary criticism?
And who are the “talentless hacks:” the “classic” authors themselves or the literary critics who use the symbolist approach to analysis and critique?
27 March 2006, on 7:26 pm
what exactly do you mean by “classic literature?”
1. I painted with a pretty broad brush there so admittedly it’s difficult to encapsulate everything. I cited as a couple examples, The Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye. I suppose that for sake of discussion, we could say that much of the literature I am criticizing is that which has been generally accepted by academia as “classic”.
2. The boatload of crap is the literary criticism, i.e., those who claim that just because a book is a great read and has some symbolism in it, it is suddenly intellectually superior to the rest of literature. Why aren’t any of Roald Dahl’s books required reading?
3. The talentless hack accusation was directed to authors who attempt to use symbolism to veil philosophical perspectives that are unoriginal.
Again, as I said in my post, most classics are good reads. The symbolism is admittedly fun to decipher (just like a sudoku puzzle). Finding the meaning behind the green light across the bay carries the same value as catching your brother in Hide-and-go-seek. But it seems a bit overboard to suggest that the ability to symbolize is some great gift. It’s not really that hard.
27 March 2006, on 7:37 pm
1. You’re still attacking a pretty huge canon… you should narrow it down to time period, locale, and genre.
2. Dahl’s books are required reading across a few genres. You’d be hard pressed to find literary types who don’t enjoy his work.
3. What, you mean like the bible and the book of mormon?
27 March 2006, on 9:17 pm
ryan said,
I suppose that for sake of discussion, we could say that much of the literature I am criticizing is that which has been generally accepted by academia as “classic”.
The boatload of crap is the literary criticism
The talentless hack accusation was directed to authors who attempt to use symbolism to veil philosophical perspectives that are unoriginal.
So, to be clear, you’re railing against *two* targets: the literature itself *and* the literary critics?
27 March 2006, on 10:00 pm
Marcus,
re: response to #2 – I agree, just as I enjoy Hemingway’s work. But you would also be hard-pressed to find a literary type that would agree that Dahl’s writing exceeds Hemingway’s, and they would cite the depth of symbolism inherent in Hemingway’s books. I think this a fallacy. Symbolism isn’t a mark of greatness.
re: response to #3 – No, for the sake of the argument I’ve already conceded the bible (and I’ll toss in the book of mormon) as fraudulent.
Eve: Yes and no. Yes in a general sense. And no, because there are exceptions. I just chose to exclude these exceptions in my post for 2 reasons. (a) I don’t like writing posts that are too long-winded and (b) Taking a weak stance doesn’t create an atmosphere in which debate can flourish. I would rather hash out a point that I made and eventually admit defeat than write an all inclusive thesis designed to be bulletproof.
(On that note, I have taken a significant amount of flak from the other mormon bloggers for my post and there have been some excellent points made. So much so that although I will fight out as many details as I can, I am on the slow road to admitting that my post was wrong. I have learned a lot in the discussion that has been generated though and who knows, maybe throughout these comments I will find a defensible position and live forever in my anti-literati ways….)
27 March 2006, on 10:05 pm
and also my apologies to Triablogue for threadjacking your “roast”. I know I should have waited for my turn (which I’m still not sure is coming, nor what it all entails)
I just couldn’t resist, I mean, what good Christian can resist a chance at martyrdom… oh wait, I forgot – Christians don’t think Mormons are Christians… If that’s true, would a lion even eat us or are we like the SPAM of Christianity?
27 March 2006, on 10:19 pm
Ryan,
No, they would probably not initially note the symbolism of Hemmingway’s works- they would note the complexity of character he is able to connote with such terse language. Despite that, use of symbol in an effective and coherent manner does make any one book more laudable than another; you can’t fault it for having what the other does not. Your own distaste for your English syllabus would be a more logical reason for your opinions about literature.
28 March 2006, on 6:06 pm
ryan: But you would also be hard-pressed to find a literary type
What is a “literary type?” A professional literary critic, a published author, or simply someone who loves to read?
ryan: that would agree that Dahl’s writing exceeds Hemingway’s,
Actually, that’s a perfectly valid point to make, as long as the person making that assertion backs it up with textual evidence and a well-written and organized argument.
ryan: and they would cite the depth of symbolism inherent in Hemingway’s books.
Not necessarily; symbolism is simply one element of many that the critic might look at in any given work. There are many other approaches in addition to the symbolist that critics employ on a regular basis. I myself almost always look at style first and expand from there, but that’s just me. Marcus mentions character through language as a possible initial approach to Hemingway, for example.
I think this a fallacy.
In the field, the symbolist approach to literary criticism is just as valid in analyzing and interpreting a text as any other, and is simply one of many choices the critic faces in composing a critique. Maybe you prefer another approach over the symbolist, but that’s a matter of personal taste.
ryan: Yes and no. Yes in a general sense. And no, because there are exceptions. I just chose to exclude these exceptions in my post for 2 reasons. (a) I don’t like writing posts that are too long-winded and (b) Taking a weak stance doesn’t create an atmosphere in which debate can flourish. I would rather hash out a point that I made and eventually admit defeat than write an all inclusive thesis
But don’t you see? That’s exactly what you’re trying to do in making such a sweepingly general statement as “the supposed ‘classics’ are nothing more than glorified Sudoku puzzles with words instead of numbers:” you *are* writing an “all inclusive thesis,” but you don’t want to go into detail on it. You’ve taken on this huge topic without any specific examples to support your stance, which is what’s making the “hashing out” of the points such a long, slow process. It *is* possible to compose a “short-winded” post with a strong “stance” as a springboard to discussion – at least in my opinion and experience.
ryan: there have been some excellent points made. So much so that although I will fight out as many details as I can, I am on the slow road to admitting that my post was wrong.
Mmmm – “wrong” in being too general, yes, I’ll agree with that. That’s big of you to acknowledge.
ryan: I have learned a lot in the discussion that has been generated though and who knows, maybe throughout these comments I will find a defensible position and live forever in my anti-literati ways…
Whatever flips your pancakes…
28 March 2006, on 6:37 pm
This thread sure changed! It doesn’t even remotely resemble the topic that began here, which I think was about calling the Tribbledoggers a bunch of assholes and other fine ad hominem attacks.
Eve said: “Whatever flips your pancakes.”
Ha! That one’s new on me. Like it.
28 March 2006, on 7:18 pm
Yeah, Eve! You tell ‘em! And stuff!
28 March 2006, on 9:27 pm
You’re right, Sean; I didn’t even realize it until you just pointed it out. Way off topic…
So is there any particular etiquette at this point? You started this post and announced it pretty much ended a while back; I’ll be happy to follow your lead and declare myself finished with it as well.
28 March 2006, on 9:29 pm
Oh, don’t worry, Eve. Etiquette Schmetiquette. I could give two toots.
28 March 2006, on 9:33 pm
*lol* I’ll bet the lions weren’t expecting dessert after such a banquet!
28 March 2006, on 11:09 pm
I was checking out the Blog of Jared for a bit and found this weird-ass stuff. Apparently, Mormons believe in “PRE mortal existence” — so they not only believe in supernatural afterlife…but supernatural BEFORE life. CRAZiness! Why the hell if we are having a happy forever immortality are we then put on a planet with a bunch of pain and suffering and where we are caused to SIN only to have to have this god create a son and torture and kill him to SAVE us so we can become immortal supernatural beings again and live in heaven with Jerry Falwell??? (And send Joseph Smith Jr to bring another sort of message from the angel Moroni…) I am confused!
28 March 2006, on 11:22 pm
Star: You’re not supposed to think about it.
So what was that other Mormon site that somebody recommended besides Blog o’ Jared? It sounded bigger and badder.
29 March 2006, on 12:32 am
Sean – Found this link to that lists a whole crapload of Mormon blog links.
http://www.mormon-blogs.com/
29 March 2006, on 3:06 am
Thanks, Star. Bookmarked it. I must admit, the lions are getting restless. Stay tuned.
7 April 2006, on 8:23 am
[...] So I was just poking around Alexa.com’s traffic ranking site and decided to run a traffic comparison between God is for Suckers and last month’s Lion Feed snack, the fundie, reactionary Triablogue. Excuse me if I don’t link to them again. As you can see from the graph to the right, we have done them enough favors. [...]
13 July 2006, on 8:35 am
[...] Most of his arguments are petty and fail to address any of the sweeping contradictions Dan points out. He keeps trying to push Dan into a semantic corner: “Did I say that? When did I say that? Define that. What do you mean when you say that?” Same thing he did when he was arguing with us. Everything in his world is relative to his deranged presuppositional worldview, including the rules of logic and scientific inquiry. [...]
15 March 2007, on 8:11 pm
[...] And how could we ever forget the Great Lion Feast! This Week’s Lion Feed: Triablogue [...]