HAH! Bean-counter. :P


Cheers,
Tink

I stick to the facts..

While I was being kind and giving him a 0.2% bonus .... ;)



Cheers,
Tink

Bottom line is: Atheism is almost 50% more awesome than all the religions in the world COMBINED. Do the math! You know I won't.

You haven't exactly proven that you're good at reasoning or
arguing in this thread. I'll take your statement in that spirit;
it's as valuable as the "LALA can't hear you".


Cheers,
Tink

I know we don't share the same sense of humor, but dude... if that wasn't an obvious attempt at being funny... Same with the conclusion on the poll and when I said I was ripe for Pastafarianism (I'm not actually going to worship the noodly master).
And the reason I responded to you like an 8 year old was because you thought you're being clever by telling me that I 'just don't get it' 3 times in a row... and again and again in every response to me. That's not a very mature way of handling things either.

When you hear the story of Joseph Smith, you're not saying "Oh, this is completely logical! There I have been searching for the Truth for so long, and now I finally see"
This is EXACTLY how I feel about the bible. In fact I cannot at all distinguish between the Bible, the book of mormon or the writings of L Ron Hubbert in terms of sensibility. Talking to Christians for me is like it is for you to talk to any of followers of those guys.
When you see why you don't understand Joseph Smith, you will know why I don't understand the bible. It has nothing to do with being stupid or ignorant.

And you're still mixing and matching to your hearts content.

If the Pastafarian-approach of being funny is what you're
after you got it all wrong. You may have noticed that I'm
not arguing with Jiml8 about his comedy, it's kind of funny
even though I don't appreciate the "noodle" because of the kind
of sexual connotation; but if no LQ members find it offensive
I'm happy to ignore that; and I'm not arguing with tricky about
atheism, because there's no sensible argument possible, coming
from different premises all together. I respect that he put a
lot of thought into his ideas, and that he's presenting them in
a witty manner.

I'm arguing with you, because you've tried to show something within
the context of the bible, and then you found that you can't defend
your stance yet kept harping on about it.
And it's not even remotely entertaining - well, there's some
comedy in it, just not of the intentional kind. :}


Cheers,
Tink

Comedy???? COMEDY!!!

Sirrah, I will have you know that it is not I who created Our Noodly Master, and I do not believe that there is any sexual connotation intended. Instead, the noodle is clearly a piece of spaghetti, which is obviously to be seen in the name of the Deity: the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Further, His meatballs are to be taken at face value; they are meatballs and not any other type of balls.

Pastafarianism, after a very long underground existence, emerged from the shadows in 2005 with the submission of this letter to the Kansas school board, demanding that if Creationism (oops...sorry..."intelligent design"...) was to be taught in public school science classrooms, Pastafarianism should also be taught alongside it because the reasoning behind the Pastafarian religion was as tight, as elegant, and as unchallengeable as the reasoning behind Christianity. Further, the reasoning behind both Christianity and Pastafarianism is obviously far superior to that hateful theory of evolution, as is discussed in the letter. After all, the ability to substantiate an argument is irrelevant to a person of faith.

The Noodle of the Flying Spaghetti Monster can be seen throughout Creation, as is described on the website for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That Noodle does not have any sexual connotations (unless, of course, a plate of spaghetti turns you on sexually, but we won't go there). It is merely the Appendage of the Master.

Raaaaaa-men!





(ps...the astute observer might note that I have some commentary on the value of this entire thread buried as a subtext, deep within my posts)


(pps...the ps was sarcasm - jiml8, pointing out the obvious since at least 1902)

Religion beside all is an ideology - and that what makes it very dangerous. Even most benevolent ideology (and religion is not) might be manipulated by a prophet, a sheik, a leader, a fuhrer and lead to a violence toward others who don't subscribe to the ideology. Somehow "the other check" is forgotten and "an eye for eye" comes into the focus. "Firm believer" is a dangerous thing, but after millenniums of domination the religion made it a virtue with all these suffering saints and prophets. Doubting, questioning and critical thinking - are not the things which religion encourage: instead suggesting to find the answer in the BOOK (pick your favorite: bible, quaran, book of mormon). Religion is an overblown cult, there is no difference between religion and cult, only in the size. No denying, many servants of the cults are decent and good meaning people, but it doesn't make them less dangerous if historical reality changes: as long as there is a religion there are Inquisition, Crusades, suicide bombers, Taliban and such.

And in the immortal words of Ned Flanders (from The Simpsons TV show...I presume it is available in the UK though I don't know if you've ever seen it):

"Why me, Lord? I've done my best to follow the Bible, even the parts that contradict the other parts..."

I love Ned Flanders.. he's hilarious.

No idea whether the pommes can watch it - we can :}
And yeah, he's great fun.

LOL. Don't think I've seen that episode. :}



Cheers,
Tink

Sure they can watch it, it used to run on BBC, don't now whether it does anymore.

Seriously? Have you got any idea about the origins of the Western respect for science? It originates in religion - and so do human rights. You can find the details in books like Charles Taylor's "Sources of the Self" or those written by the British historian Keith Thompson. The reasoning went something like this: if man was made in God's image, then surely analyzing nature would be a great idea to find out more about God and his intentions.

Of course, the history of religions is filled with internal contradictions but so is the history of science / technology /economics. Tell the average manager to reorganize the company to become more eco friendly and they won't because it's not "economically feasible". Tell the plastic surgeon that his energy had better be spent on developing a cure for cancer. They won't, they are doing too well in their current line of business. And how about the nazist or stalinist massacres of the last century, which were made possible thanks to the fruits of science and rationality and which had little if any religious ground?

And as pointed out in one of my previous posts, christianity in particular didn't become intolerant until it got polluted with the logical/scientific mindset. Medieval theologians fully recognized the ambiguity of many passages in the Bible. Then the Renaissance got swept away with the idea that it was 0 or 1, false or true. Luther attacking other christians on these grounds, other christians then attacking Luther, each group splitting up into more and more factions, more debate ending in religious wars. Bye bye reason, welcome rationality.

I've considered Frisbeetarianism : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisbeetarianism

Another sample of Islamic justice in the news. A woman teacher, from Liverpool, working in the Sudan, has been charged with blasphemy for allowing her pupils (6 year olds) to name a teddy-bear Mohammed. She could get 40 lashes.