The Choice I Never Made...

Luger187 · Jul 12, 2011

beardo said:
Gates wants us to stop breathing- and he is putting huge money into vaccinating people and talking about lowering population.
What do you think the military is for? I know their are supposed religious people at all ranks but I view the war machine as a Godless one with no true men of God at it's head.
Marriage is legal and religious it is done by a preist in a church united in the eyes of God- I believe in gay legal partnership if they are unable to quit being gay and have the gay gene or whatever but leave the Religious the term marriage and the use of preists and churches. Atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry either.
Eating people could reduce world hunger and remedy over population It could reduce prison populations and health care costs. People probably taste diffrent from primates because of less excercise and a diffrent diet.

bill gates does not want you to stop breathing. you have a problem with him spending millions of his own money to vaccinate africans? show me where he said he wants to lower populations.
religious people have just as much of an ability to kill a man as does an atheist/agnostic. believing in god does not suddenly give one the ability to be more humane. actually, history shows that the religious are WAY more violent because they can easily be talked into killing/torturing in the name of god

marriage can be without a priest. you can go to the office and file paperwork, and bam youre married.
gay people cannot quit being gay by choice. otherwise the thousands of christian gay people would switch to straight and get on with their lives. they cant, so they live in torment, torn between their religious views and their sexuality.
what you are proposing is a separate but equal society, based on religious and anti-homosexual views. what gives you the right to be legally married, but an atheist is not? that is the government establishing a religion.
would you be okay with them saying only muslims are allowed to be married now? and the christians have to go through a different legal process? that is essentially what you are doing, except you give your own religion the advantage. i wonder why...

we are not going to start eating humans man. stop talking about it please

beardo · Jul 12, 2011

Luger187 said:
bill gates does not want you to stop breathing. you have a problem with him spending millions of his own money to vaccinate africans? show me where he said he wants to lower populations.
religious people have just as much of an ability to kill a man as does an atheist/agnostic. believing in god does not suddenly give one the ability to be more humane. actually, history shows that the religious are WAY more violent because they can easily be talked into killing/torturing in the name of god

marriage can be without a priest. you can go to the office and file paperwork, and bam youre married.
gay people cannot quit being gay by choice. otherwise the thousands of christian gay people would switch to straight and get on with their lives. they cant, so they live in torment, torn between their religious views and their sexuality.
what you are proposing is a separate but equal society, based on religious and anti-homosexual views. what gives you the right to be legally married, but an atheist is not? that is the government establishing a religion.
would you be okay with them saying only muslims are allowed to be married now? and the christians have to go through a different legal process? that is essentially what you are doing, except you give your own religion the advantage. i wonder why...

we are not going to start eating humans man. stop talking about it please

[youtube]EyOww-9xo_0[/youtube][youtube]JaF-fq2Zn7I[/youtube]
Zero Co2 means 0 people

Brazko · Jul 12, 2011

Padawanbater2 said:
I apologize for not acknowledging your advice on post #201, I should have, I always regret engaging with idiots over the internet. Nobody ever wins and I end up with a more sour taste in my mouth than when I started. I just got sidetracked by the insane amount of stupid coming from oly's posts, being nice wasn't what I was interested in. There are certain people I know from this forum whose opinions I value, when they say something I know they've given it serious thought and based on previous conversations I already know it's coming from an educated, logical standpoint. That's not to say yours isn't, just that serious consideration is given and I like to respond in acknowledgment when I see someone make a post like that.

I disagree with you that I'm being hypocritical.

I am completely open and willing to hear oly's stance on his beliefs, he's already admitted he fears judgment from the rest of us, which would seem like a normal reaction for a person who feels simple questions are offensive would have. But he's proven himself incapable of doing that in a rational, calm, level-headed manner.

Not sure why a person would make a post in a thread about beliefs if they didn't want to talk about them...?

I never disallowed the fact of you overlooking it. I was replying to posts and before I could throw them up we skipped 1 or 2 pages from where I left off, so I understood the fact if you did. I only based the accusation on the principle of you intentionally doing so and if the case was you didn't then I can't say you were a hypocrite for not doing so and apologize for the implication. I know you are not implying my post didn't come from thoughtful reasoning, but don't automatically assume anybody words without serious consideration. It doesn't matter what they have said in the past, so it shouldn't just be taken for granted that it is what it should be.

I don't have the exact same freedoms of discussion that many on this board have so me advertising the private schools I've attended of my discipline and education threatens my privacy and security. I have multiple diplomas in the fields of Science and hold multiple National and State licensures. It's not a matter of gloat or prominence for me. I simply care about but my security and livelyhood more. But being educated and holding a previous logical standpoint you agreed with doesn't mean their next standpoint on a subject will be correct also, they are human and still prone to misjudgement and mistakes, including me. Maybe I'm just being over analytical with words, but again this appears to me to be the same thing Oly is accused of because he automatically accepts the foundation of something that he has found security in as well. Meh, anyway

Like I said, its all good bro and no ill feelings were held towards it and I apologize.

Padawanbater2 · Jul 12, 2011

beardo said:
Gates wants us to stop breathing- and he is putting huge money into vaccinating people and talking about lowering population.

That sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory to me. I'm not interested in hearing about this in this thread. If you start a new one about it, I'll check it out and post, but lets just try to stay on topic.

The point I believe you were making was "he's an atheist, he does this thing that's really bad, so atheism is bad" which is invalid from the start. It's the same as the Hitler argument I've seen a million times. Hitler was an atheist > Hitler was bad > atheism is bad!. This is a fallacy of logic, if you don't understand why or need me to be more clear, ask.

beardo said:
What do you think the military is for? I know their are supposed religious people at all ranks but I view the war machine as a Godless one with no true men of God at it's head.

The US military is made up of nearly 100% Christians. It is, essentially, an exclusively religious institution. Atheists cannot be as easily manipulated as religious people can be. Atheists hold no hope for an afterlife, if we die in battle "protecting" our country, that's all she wrote. Furthermore, it's very tough to convince an atheist to go murder another person he's never met before because his government told him to. When there's a cause, or some sense of universal justice being served, warfare and all it entails becomes second nature.

beardo said:
Marriage is legal and religious it is done by a preist in a church united in the eyes of God- I believe in gay legal partnership if they are unable to quit being gay and have the gay gene or whatever but leave the Religious the term marriage and the use of preists and churches. Atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

It can be legal and religious or just legal and not religious. It is primarily a legally binding contract between two people for tax purposes.

Any consenting adults should be able to marry if they want to.

beardo said:
Eating people could reduce world hunger and remedy over population It could reduce prison populations and health care costs. People probably taste diffrent from primates because of less excercise and a diffrent diet.

I think it's morally wrong to eat people unless they die of natural causes and consent to being eaten after they've passed. Then it'd probably be pretty gross. If I ate someone I'd want the prime cut off the prime calf, some nice lean 25 year old, not some 95 year old who just lost a bout with cancer..

Humans aren't supposed to eat each other, and not for religious reasons.

beardo · Jul 12, 2011

Luger187 said:
bill gates does not want you to stop breathing. you have a problem with him spending millions of his own money to vaccinate africans? show me where he said he wants to lower populations.
religious people have just as much of an ability to kill a man as does an atheist/agnostic. believing in god does not suddenly give one the ability to be more humane. actually, history shows that the religious are WAY more violent because they can easily be talked into killing/torturing in the name of god

marriage can be without a priest. you can go to the office and file paperwork, and bam youre married.
gay people cannot quit being gay by choice. otherwise the thousands of christian gay people would switch to straight and get on with their lives. they cant, so they live in torment, torn between their religious views and their sexuality.
what you are proposing is a separate but equal society, based on religious and anti-homosexual views. what gives you the right to be legally married, but an atheist is not? that is the government establishing a religion.
would you be okay with them saying only muslims are allowed to be married now? and the christians have to go through a different legal process? that is essentially what you are doing, except you give your own religion the advantage. i wonder why...

we are not going to start eating humans man. stop talking about it please

Some people choose to be gay or not to be others have gay DNA
Marriage is a religious term requiring the belief in God atheists should not be able to do it either they should get legal unions. it is like me complaning that my insurance won't pay for me to see a gynocoligist.

Luger187 · Jul 12, 2011

beardo said:
Some people choose to be gay or not to be others have gay DNA
Marriage is a religious term requiring the belief in God atheists should not be able to do it either they should get legal unions. it is like me complaning that my insurance won't pay for me to see a gynocoligist.

how do you know people choose to be gay? source?
no, marriage is not only a religious practice anymore. it is now a societal norm which most people do, whether they are religious or not. marriage is not a right only allowed by you

i will watch those videos in a few

Padawanbater2 · Jul 12, 2011

beardo said:
Some people choose to be gay or not to be others have gay DNA
Marriage is a religious term requiring the belief in God atheists should not be able to do it either they should get legal unions. it is like me complaning that my insurance won't pay for me to see a gynocoligist.

Why would it be wrong if I chose to be gay? This is a serious question, what would entail "choosing" to be gay? Would simply kissing another man be enough or would I have to take it further? What if I had a crush on another guy but have never had any physical contact?

Show me where the marriage police wrote down that it's only between religious heterosexual people.

beardo · Jul 12, 2011

Luger187 said:
how do you know people choose to be gay? source?
no, marriage is not only a religious practice anymore. it is now a societal norm which most people do, whether they are religious or not. marriage is not a right only allowed by you

i will watch those videos in a few

I'm not gay but can chose to be if I feel like it, Other people have the gay in them their born gay-even some straight men have the gay gene but fight their urge and do not commit gay acts.
I just say the word marriage is associated with God.
Why can't I go to a gyno? that's like atheist bitching they can't get into heaven
One thing I will give Gates is I beleive he is smart and doesn't choose his words lightly.

Luger187 · Jul 12, 2011

beardo said:
I'm not gay but can chose to be if I feel like it, Other people have the gay in them their born gay-even some straight men have the gay gene but fight their urge and do not commit gay acts.
I just say the word marriage is associated with God.
Why can't I go to a gyno? that's like atheist bitching they can't get into heaven
One thing I will give Gates is I beleive he is smart and doesn't choose his words lightly.

i dont think you could really choose to be gay. you could fake it by kissing and fucking guys, just like gay people hide it by pretending to be straight. but you could not get those real emotional feelings for another man. and if you can, you are bi.

i dont believe marriage is associated with god. some people associate it with god, true. but not all. most people just see marriage as a joining of two people who love eachother. just because most people here have a christian wedding, does not mean weddings are christian

beardo · Jul 12, 2011

Luger187 said:
i dont think you could really choose to be gay. you could fake it by kissing and fucking guys, just like gay people hide it by pretending to be straight. but you could not get those real emotional feelings for another man. and if you can, you are bi.

i dont believe marriage is associated with god. some people associate it with god, true. but not all. most people just see marriage as a joining of two people who love eachother. just because most people here have a christian wedding, does not mean weddings are christian

What about Bill Gates and the Georgia guide stones and the NWO?

DelSlow · Jul 13, 2011

beardo said:
What about Bill Gates and the Georgia guide stones and the NWO?

What about them?

beardo · Jul 13, 2011

DelSlow said:
What about them?

It is an Atheist plot to take over the world and reduce the population and enslave the survivors.

DelSlow · Jul 13, 2011

beardo said:
It is an Atheist plot to take over the world and reduce the population and enslave the survivors.

That doesn't sound good....

mindphuk · Jul 13, 2011

beardo said:
Some people choose to be gay or not to be others have gay DNA
Marriage is a religious term requiring the belief in God atheists should not be able to do it either they should get legal unions. it is like me complaning that my insurance won't pay for me to see a gynocoligist.

Since when is marriage solely a religious union? Marriage predates many religions including Xianity. Marriage crossed over cultures and religions from the Greeks to the Egyptians and other pagan cultures. Marriage used to be about uniting territory and kingdoms, as well as about ownership and dowry. Now it is about legal benefits and privileges in our country that are being systematically denied to certain groups by bigots like you. The religious can keep their ceremonies before whatever gods they desire, but as long as the state recognizes the union contract and confers special benefits, any consenting couple should be able to get married under the law.

guy incognito · Jul 13, 2011

Brazko said:
Heis, I see and Understand the difference. I don't know why this is being misunderstood. The question was not how Scientist or Epistemologist go about rationalizing, but how do believers use rationality. I showed him how they rationalize. And even gave an example of how I would rationalize a certain belief. You have said in the past, (I think) that you cannot use Science to confirm Religion or something along those lines. So I didn't use a scientific definition to explain that of a believer.

Heisenberg summed up the confusion. I still don't think the original question from pad was how do believers use rationality, but if they have rational reasons (using the dictionary definition of rational meaning based on reason and logic).

I understand your point.

guy incognito · Jul 13, 2011

beardo said:
What about Bill Gates?- why don't you support it? what if it could help you either economically or socially
Isn't marriage religious?
What do people taste like? How do you know their not way better than cows or chickens? why not find out? maybe they could sell it at the store.

This thread exploded. Why don't you support killing humans (whether it helps you economically or socially or any other way)? Do you have any reasons other than god says not too? Any reasons at all that are not fundamentally tied to god, like maybe you have some sort of moral framework independent of your god and religion?

Heisenberg · Jul 13, 2011

Brazko said:
That was not the question posed though, and to your point I also inferred the people involved argue their rational to the others rational to determine the rationality of their thinking. Pad never gave any rational information of his own arguement to confer the rational thinking of others. He asked do they have rational reasons or Are they just irrational. Go back and slowly read what I said. Two or Three times if it helps.

Big Billy gave info towards his rationality towards Santa. We agreed upon Santa. I then went on to ask him about what god does he not want me to believe in? Is this so confusing? I'm inferring his ability of rational thinking compared to my rational thoughts. We may both agree or not on the rational or irrational, however, we were able to take in account what the other is thinking to determine the rationality of said subject.

Nobody every suggested anything outside of two people discussing their meaning and comprehension of whatever to decide the rationality of it. Please tell me who have continued to suggest or imply anything other than that.

I'm sorry if what I say is confusing to some. So I set examples that people can actively relate too. This is why I have little patience or leniency talking to people. If you choose to speak like an adult be expected to have an understanding as an adult. If you don't understand something thats over your head, don't imply. Just say please tell me in simplier terms that I can understand. I don't mind. But if I say something and you just keep going on towards left field with something (ball of light vs hydrogen/helium) I can't help but look at you in the same light as you may choose to look at others.

And maybe you are just stoned because you said to me I may have been confusing him with my angle and there was no other angle except for me citing Oly's perspective. This is the only place I see where confusion could have taking place and even if it did it bears no matter on the fact.

So the extent of being a hypocrite is predicated on the extremity of the situation and not the fact of. So being a hypocrite is o.k. as long as you are being a hyocrite in a minor way. You can shoe shine this all you want but being a Hypocrit is being a Hypocrit.. And it was never about his opinion of standards it was about his actions. If you ignore and dismiss information then actively take part in accepting someone else's information that can be speculated over for particular reasons especially if the exact same information was giving before. You stand judgement of being a Hypocrit. Oly said he has discussed this with his professor and was willing to listen but declined any reason to listen to Pad. He has been called a hypocrit in his actions for doing so along with other reasons. Does this not fit the bill of the exact same thing Pad has just done.

I already acknowledged the fact of him possibly missing the post. We are 3-4pages down the road and he still is missing it.

Watch how easy this is...

Pad: I'm not a hypocrit Braz, I didn't see your post or the one after.

Braz: My bad bro, no problem, sorry for calling you a hypocrit.

Actions have spoken louder than words though.

So you are saying that by dismissing your post, and heeding my post, he is a hypocrite? Is this the information your referring to? I think your suggestion that he take a less hostile attitude hardly counts as information, even with the example and insight. It's an opinion. It is not unusual for a person to be unconvinced by one appeal and then change his mind when he hears it again, and doesn't necessarily qualify as hypocritical. When oly asks about missing links, and then states that no amount of discovery of missing links will make a difference, he is ignoring fact, not opinion. That makes him willfully ignorant, but not a hypocrite. What struck me as hypocritical is that he believes in the bible, in which Jesus says to love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, do not seek revenge on those who wrong you, do not judge. When oly says things like "You fucking atheists are so fucking retarded" that seems pretty judgmental. When he says "if i knew you personally and you told me that in my face, i would kick your fucking ars ol boyle" it doesn't seem like hes turning the other cheek. How can he expect others to respect his beliefs when he doesn't respect them himself? Pad is certainly being judgmental, but he isn't pretending to live by some code that teaches against it. When Pad says "fuck you" it is abusive and frankly pointless, when oly says "fuck you" it is abusive, pointless and hypocritical.

We are all ignorant and even willfully ignorant. I choose to ignore the music of John Tesh. That is not the same as holding a belief and judging others based on that belief while ignoring the dictations of that belief yourself. You are either purposefully equivocating, or else do not understand the nuance. If you have a problem with people calling oly hypocritical for considering his professors words and not ours, then take it up with whoever said that.

I may have trouble with adult understanding, but I seem to be able to understand most people just fine. Perhaps your lack of patience and leniency with people stems from your tendancy to use ambiguous language and to under articulate. In any case, confusion often arises during debate, especially one with so many participants; it doesn't necessarily mean that understanding is over my head.

Brazko · Jul 13, 2011

Heisenberg said:
So you are saying that by dismissing your post, and heeding my post, he is a hypocrite? Is this the information your referring to? I think your suggestion that he take a less hostile attitude hardly counts as information, even with the example and insight. It's an opinion. It is not unusual for a person to be unconvinced by one appeal and then change his mind when he hears it again, and doesn't necessarily qualify as hypocritical. When oly asks about missing links, and then states that no amount of discovery of missing links will make a difference, he is ignoring fact, not opinion. That makes him willfully ignorant, but not a hypocrite. What struck me as hypocritical is that he believes in the bible, in which Jesus says to love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, do not seek revenge on those who wrong you, do not judge. When oly says things like "You fucking atheists are so fucking retarded" that seems pretty judgmental. When he says "if i knew you personally and you told me that in my face, i would kick your fucking ars ol boyle" it doesn't seem like hes turning the other cheek. How can he expect others to respect his beliefs when he doesn't respect them himself? Pad is certainly being judgmental, but he isn't pretending to live by some code that teaches against it. When Pad says "fuck you" it is abusive and frankly pointless, when oly says "fuck you" it is abusive, pointless and hypocritical.

We are all ignorant and even willfully ignorant. I choose to ignore the music of John Tesh. That is not the same as holding a belief and judging others based on that belief while ignoring the dictations of that belief yourself. You are either purposefully equivocating, or else do not understand the nuance. If you have a problem with people calling oly hypocritical for considering his professors words and not ours, then take it up with whoever said that.

I may have trouble with adult understanding, but I seem to be able to understand most people just fine. Perhaps your lack of patience and leniency with people stems from your tendancy to use ambiguous language and to under articulate. In any case, confusion often arises during debate, especially one with so many participants; it doesn't necessarily mean that understanding is over my head.

If the club is playing John Tesh music and you simply don't like the club your in and call the club bunk, then proceed over to another club playing John Tesh music and say hey this club is slamming. Your being being a hypocrite towards the club has nothing to do with the music being played. oh but I don't want to confuse you with the example and principle because I'm sure it must be because of the hot chicks that club has..whatever. Get mad if you want, it no longer matters to me. And I already addressed the point of holding boxed standards to a group or individual regardless of their belief or lack of in a post directly quoted to you so go back and check your comprehension as well. Please don't lose any sleep on my account. It's just a discussion and was never meant to be anything but. I never took anybody side on anything but pointed out a fact, which still remains a fact. You can just get over it as well.q

Brazko · Jul 13, 2011

guy incognito said:
Heisenberg summed up the confusion. I still don't think the original question from pad was how do believers use rationality, but if they have rational reasons (using the dictionary definition of rational meaning based on reason and logic).

I understand your point.

Yes I understood his comment as well but if you read what I said as you say you have and understood it. Then using the term didn't apply. Pad asked were there any rational reasons to believe in god or are all believers irrational? Who is he talking to Incog? Uummm, I don't know..yeah right, ok whatever...

I'm glad we were able to come to an understanding..

Dankster4Life · Jul 13, 2011

olylifter420 said:
dude, if you dont like what i am posting, then dont read it! YOu dont see me asking these people to leave... i like to know the way they think... I think it is evolution taking place... A breed evolving into the biggest bunch of hate driven people determined to undermine others beliefs and bash them in, sort of like the nazi's...

I am interested in their thinkin also......so i sit here and keep my trap shut and READ.

You don't get it and probably won't get it dude.

Did you notice the horse statement???You should really think about it.

And i see your posting again.Your posts take away from this thread.

SHUT THE FUCK UP AND READ!!!!!!!!!HOW DO YOU LEARN IF YOU NEVER SHUT UP? AND YOU HAVE NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL TO ADD!!

The Choice I Never Made...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member