Man, you’re just full of yourself and your “I know God doesn’t exist and I’m so right and all you theists are morons” attitude.
People like you make me hope more than anything that God exists, so that you’ll realize just how wrong you were - but more than that, that you’ll be humbled out of your arrogance. I’ll admit I’m not sure God exists, but people like you serve to strengthen my faith - at the risk of making me a little angry.
You once posted, in a theological thread, how the Straight Dope community is committed to fighting ignorance, in such a way that you implied all theists were complete idiots. Besides being completely wrong (certainly there are and have been theists that are significantly more intelligent than you), that’s just incredibly rude and egotistical. I will never forget that, and I will probably never recover much respect for you.
We have amongst our community a significant number of non-theists. Very few of them are anywhere near as stuck-up and supercilious about it as you are. I don’t give a shit what you believe, but I wish you’d stop being such an asshole about it.
I will say this for you, though: you certainly live up to your name. :rolleyes:
It’s customary to link to the thread this took place in. You know, context and all.
Ok, first of all, ignorance and intelligence aren’t opposites. Secondly, what do you mean “implied”? Cite or don’t make claims about others’ implications. Thirdly, you’re calling him/her an egotistical jerk for thinking s/he is right but then you tell him/her (damnit, English needs a gender neutral pronoun) that s/he is “completely wrong” while attacking a strawman?
Seriously weak rant.
It’s a palindrome. Certainly a wise, mighty, enlightened theist such as yourself already knew that, though “:rolleyes:”.
The way I read this, you seem to come off as pretty arrogant, too - hoping God exists just so you can prove someone wrong. You also make it sound as if your animosity toward those who disagree with you is what strengthens your faith. Not, to my way of thinking, the most effective way of arguing your position.
OTOH:
It seems to me pretty obvious the “completely wrong” was in reference to I Love Me, Vol. I’s (supposed) claim that “all theists were complete idiots”, not his atheism.
It was in reference to Othersider’s perception that ILMV1 implied that all theist were complete idiots, which Othersider didn’t even bother to link to.
Neat-o!! This is my first pitting ever!! Thanks dude! I’m not actually full of myself at all. Just a regular guy who like everyone else has never seen any objective proof of a God (if there is someone out there who has, let me know… though I’m pretty sure it’d be big news).
And of course, in the post you quote from and just about any post I make on the subject of “God: Yea or Nay?” I mention that many theists are quite smart indeed. So I’m afraid you’re wrong about the “I’m so right and all you theists are morons” thingie.
Perhaps you took it that way, but I have never believed that all theists are complete idiots. Not even most of them. I do believe they may have what amounts to a delusion, but I also know people take “delusional” as an insult, even if it does accurately describe their perceptions of certain things.
There are theists more intellignet than I? Well… Polycarp and St. Augustine, I guess. Who else you got? (I jest)
It’s neither rude nor egotistical to point out that many people are making important decisions everyday, some of which greatly affect me and my well-being, based in part on judging what are most likely myths and/or superstitions to be critical truths and realities.
This is why people bring up the Invisible Pink Unicorn sometimes. Because if we had a President who made his decisions on the basis of how best to serve the greater glory of an IPU, I think most of us would find him delusional and probably dangerous. In fact, a candidate who believed that could never get elected in the first place.
As you may or may not be able to figure out, believing in an IPU is pretty much the same as believing in most popular Gods. And I’m supposed to be accepting of that sort of nonsense? Why? Because the Bible said so?
Sorry chum. That sort of shit doesn’t fly except in Sunday School. This is the real world and many of us prefer to deal with reality.
And I feel obliged to point out that you are something of an asinine fuck-wad if you would consider your faith in God strengthened by people like me. That’s just like the nutty undecided goofs who bleated around election time that: “All this negativity about Bush just makes me more likely to vote for him!” Not enough roll-eyes for flawed logic like theirs and yours, you know.
Think outside of your sheep-brain-- hell, see if you can even make it outside of your *lizard brain * and base your decisions on facts; not on things that other people don’t agree with you about.
I’m sorry you see me as stuck up and super-silly. I don’t see you like that. I only see you as a weak, thin-skinned simpleton with very low self esteem. But that’s OK. Let’s be friends because Jesus loves us. Especially you because you are so obviously a needy prick. Want to get stroked? Go to a Bible study. Don’t whine at me and insult me with your petty, naive worldview.
You think I’m a jerk? And that the other non-theists around here are peachy-keen? So be it. I do think they have at least something in common with me. I believe they see no reason to believe in something there is no evidence of.
And that is ALL I have really ever said on this subject. If you read into my posts that I think all theists are idiots then that’s something–just like learning to tie your shoes–that you will have to grapple with yourself. Or with Mom, if that helps.
I guess now that I’ve used some yukky language here you’re probably ready to become a monk. (I base that on your bizarre and self-admitted desire to move swiftly closer to any position that you deem me to be against.)
Oh-- did I tell you that I’m against baby diddlers? Now I did. So I guess you’ll be cleaning up your act then.
Good.
Now run along and stay the fuck out of my way you pitiful, shrunken maggot.
I didn’t wish for that. I don’t wish damnation on anyone. In fact, I hope we all go to heaven.
My bad.
I know that. But there’s an inverse correlation, however imperfect, between intelligence and ignorance.
If this were a debate thread, I would have of course cited. While it would have been nice of me to include a cite, I didn’t make this thread to debate. I made it to rant about a guy that pissed me off. It was not meant to encourage lots of discussion by other posters.
No, I’m calling him/her an egotistical jerk for implying that anyone who holds a position that contradicts his/her an idiot. I know it’s only my perception, but I’d imagine I’m not the only one who would interpret it that way.
It served its purpose by allowing me to vent. I wasn’t trying to create an airtight argument.
I don’t see why you interpreted from my post that because I perceived arrogance in another poster that I’m arrogant as well, but I certainly didn’t try to give that impression. And no, I didn’t know that; I never bothered to try and figure it out. And who gives a shit?
Well, now I’m beat. You know, I didn’t get it the first time, but after you pointed out a second time that my rant was weak and pointless, I finally did get it. Thanks a million.
You’re right, it’s not. And I didn’t mean to come off arrogant. But then again, maybe the subject of my pitting didn’t, either.
I’d like to propose something akin to “Godwin’s law”. Godwin’s law means that if you liken another’s political viewpoint to the Nazi party you forfeit all credibility.
You can call this Monkey’s law: If you denigrate another’s theoligical viewpoint by likening it to what sounds like a bad childrens book, you forfeit all credibility.
In other words, invoking the “invisible pink unicorn”* and all it’s antecedents ruins credibility. It’s never worked, it only inflames the other side, and possibility of meaningfull debate is lost. Give it up. The phrase has never been witty nor insightful. Calling somebody a Nazi is pitworthy, and insulting another’s religous beliefs is also pitworthy. I suppose this is why y’all are here in the pit now.
I want a link before I really get into this, but I’ve dealt with I love Me, Vol. I, before, and I’m guessing he probably deserved the pitting: so this is an aside: I get the palindrome, it’s fucking obvious honestly, but how conceited do you have to be to pick that palindrome? I’m guessing you have to be conceited enough to think that all other viewpoints other than yours are childish. It’s not even an especially clever palindrome. “A nut for a jar of tuna” would at least have given you an opportunity for bad loaves and fishes puns.
On preview, I see that I Love Me has responded, so let me add this. Narcissus, you’re one condescending fuck.
I’m fully aware that the “IPU” thing started with an ancient usenet diatribe. It wasn’t clever then, and it ain’t now
If God is personal, then proof wouldn’t be objective. That’s the nature of it.
Then perhaps I was mistaken. I apologize if you did not intend arrogance. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of theism as a “delusion” just because you don’t see any evidence of God, though.
I know you jest, but still…here are a few: Liebniz, Swedenborg, Pascal, Newton, Euler, and Melancthon.
I disagree with your assessment, again, but I agree that people shouldn’t be making important decisions that might greatly affect us based on things that some of us don’t believe in.
You’re implying that God, or any perception of him/her/it is tantamount to an IPU, which I vehemently disagree with.
That’s not true at all. Lots of people believe in God based on evidence which they interpret after careful scrutiny. I don’t know any sane people that believe in IPUs. You might think they’re equivalent, but that’s what I disagree with you on.
In fact, I can only think of one other non-believer that’s ever suggested to me that God is interchangeable with an IPU, and he’s more of an asshole than you are. Most non-believers that I’ve talked with about it don’t think nearly so narrowly. Obviously it’s not logically sound to make an argument ad populum, but it does suggest that belief in God does not a deluded person make.
Ouch, man. I’m hurt.
Well, you certainly told me. I’ll definitely think twice before questioning you in the future. Way to pull shit out of your ass, by the way. You can psychoanalyze me all you want, but you’re no better than me.
He says IPU, I say Magic Sky Pixie, all have the same amount of evidence for their existance which is what the original thread was about.
If I was to say I had a personal relationship with God, would you believe me? I pray and he answers. But, what if I said he was talking to me through my hair dryer? What if I God said his name was Zeus and that he lived on Olympus? And yet your belief in God has about as much evidence as any of those statements of mine. Yet you’d think me strange if Zeus was talking to me through my hair dryer, wouldn’t you? There is about as much evidence of Zeus being real as anything in Christianity. So, why don’t you believe in Zeus? Tell you what, you prove that there isn’t such a thing as Zeus, or an IPU, without also disproving your particular fancy and I’ll believe in whatever you want me to.
And I say that Stalin was an atheist! He relied on evidence, and his conclusion from said evidence was that it was bad for Russia. How many people died from the Soviet athiest policies?
My argument doesn’t work there, does it? I know why… but do you? I really hope my proposed law about fairy tales takes hold.
How the fuck is “magical sky pixie” less insulting than “invisible Pink Unicorn”? Both need to be dropped. Othersider has as much faith in magic hairdryers as you do in the wisdom of pogroms.
Ad hominems and non sequitors ain’t gonna get you the respect I give the steam coming off my piss in snow.
If the Judeo-Christian god exists, he’s a fucking moron for not coming up with something better to convince people he exists and should be listened to.
But then again, every Christian picks and chooses when it comes to biblical law, so who am I to argue.
But if the Judeo-Christian got is after faith and not belief, than maybe he’s right on track. Sheesh, if he does exist, he certainly has though of all the angles and has got some sort of plan going. What, you think you could out think a diety? It’s not like I can explain to my dog why she really shouldn’t eat that interesting smelling thing we found in the parking lot, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t in her best interest.
Most faith turns out to be missplaced when scrutinized or with the advantage of hindsight. People are very good at having faith in things, but rarely good at chosing what to have faith in. If God just wants faith then he is little different from a phone line psychic or snake oil salesman.
Normally, I stay the hell away from religious and political threads, but since no one else has been childish enough to point this out, I guess it’s up to me:
