Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: My take on Life
March 5, 2014 at 1:26 pm
(March 5, 2014 at 1:15 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I have no thoughts, only conditioned reflexes based on the initial condions of the universe...oh wait! I am not an ontological naturalist. Never mind (literally). ;-)
Well, be happy to note that if you were an ontological naturalist, your reflexive interpretation of the world would look and feel no different from any potential free will you might be espousing, and so would be devoid of meaningful difference when discussing worldviews.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: My take on Life
March 5, 2014 at 1:32 pm
(This post was last modified: March 5, 2014 at 1:47 pm by Mudhammam.)
(March 5, 2014 at 1:26 pm)Esquilax Wrote: (March 5, 2014 at 1:15 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I have no thoughts, only conditioned reflexes based on the initial condions of the universe...oh wait! I am not an ontological naturalist. Never mind (literally). ;-)
Well, be happy to note that if you were an ontological naturalist, your reflexive interpretation of the world would look and feel no different from any potential free will you might be espousing, and so would be devoid of meaningful difference when discussing worldviews.
Of course there would be meaningful differences... not all concepts that describe our sentient experiences are equally helpful (such as free will).
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 7085
Threads: 69
Joined: September 11, 2012
Reputation:
84
RE: My take on Life
March 5, 2014 at 1:43 pm
(March 5, 2014 at 11:32 am)Fromper Wrote: (March 5, 2014 at 5:26 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Uhm... I think I was pretty polite, not that he deserved the politeness. The OP signed up for an account, wrote a wall of text, and had no point at the end. He didn't write an intro and he had no interest in engaging the community. He came here to proselytize. It's really simple. Yes, by this thread's standards, you were polite. Compared to the "fucktard", "christard", and "head up your ass" comments in posts 5-7, your "mental masturbation" line in post #9 was tame. But even that was ruder than I would have been.
He did post some things that I clearly disagree with, and said that he doesn't want us to try and convince him. Politely asking why he's here is an appropriate response. So is correcting his misconceptions and pointing him towards additional reading material, even if he said that he wasn't going to listen. If he persists in refusing to listen to what we have to tell him, then telling him to go away because we don't want him coming here and preaching at us is also appropriate. But again, say it politely.
I'm a "lead by example" type of guy. I know that the theist world tends to look down at atheists, so I try to be extra polite, just to make sure I don't add fuel to the fire. I treat people with respect until they prove they don't deserve it. This guy didn't swear at us, so I wouldn't swear at him. Heck, even if he did swear at us, I wouldn't swear at him.
I'm a big believer in the "kill them with kindness" method. If you're extremely polite, then even if the person being an ass to you doesn't realize he's being the jerk, all the third party observers will. All the rude responses here seem to be acting like the only Christian you're talking to is the original poster, which isn't true. This is the internet. Some skeptical Christian is going to read this thread in 5 years, and the rude and arrogant atheists are going to make them reject their skepticism, because they'll think all atheists are assholes, and they don't want to turn into that.
It's like Bill Nye vs Ken Ham in that debate. Do you think Nye honestly thought Ham could be convinced?
Oh, well aren't you just perfect.
You're no better than the OP, fromper. You're brand new here, and telling an entire community how to act by your standards. Fuck off. See? It's not just Christians that get treated with rudeness; just other rude people.
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: My take on Life
March 5, 2014 at 5:39 pm
(March 5, 2014 at 11:32 am)Fromper Wrote: I'm a big believer in the "kill them with kindness" method. If you're extremely polite, then even if the person being an ass to you doesn't realize he's being the jerk, all the third party observers will.
Those are solid Christian principles you got there brother.
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: My take on Life
March 5, 2014 at 6:15 pm
(March 5, 2014 at 5:39 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: (March 5, 2014 at 11:32 am)Fromper Wrote: I'm a big believer in the "kill them with kindness" method. If you're extremely polite, then even if the person being an ass to you doesn't realize he's being the jerk, all the third party observers will.
Those are solid Christian principles you got there brother.
Because Christians invented the idea of kindness.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: My take on Life
March 5, 2014 at 6:20 pm
(March 5, 2014 at 6:15 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Because Christians invented the idea of kindness.
Word
Posts: 30982
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: My take on Life
March 5, 2014 at 6:36 pm
(March 5, 2014 at 11:32 am)Fromper Wrote: (March 5, 2014 at 5:26 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Uhm... I think I was pretty polite, not that he deserved the politeness. The OP signed up for an account, wrote a wall of text, and had no point at the end. He didn't write an intro and he had no interest in engaging the community. He came here to proselytize. It's really simple. Yes, by this thread's standards, you were polite. Compared to the "fucktard", "christard", and "head up your ass" comments in posts 5-7, your "mental masturbation" line in post #9 was tame. But even that was ruder than I would have been.
You know, I'm not ordinarily rude.
But when someone comes in here and says they've seen all the evidence, nothing can change their mind, and then trot out something as mind-numbingly stupid as to say the Big Bang describes an "explosion of nothing", well, sorry to say, suggesting that they have their head up their ass is warranted. And on top of that, the dude wants us to read his fucking POV.
He's proselytizing. He's not here for discussion, he's not here to share views, he's here to preach, and he can go fuck himself with a rusty pitchfork for all I care.
Posts: 190
Threads: 8
Joined: February 27, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: My take on Life
March 6, 2014 at 11:25 am
Wow. I've been involved in a lot of internet discussion groups over the years, and I think this is the first time I've ever seen a whole group so vocally reject a generic "Can't we all just get along?" message. Is there some particular reason that the members of this forum think civility is a bad thing? Are you all actively trying to reenforce all the negative stereotypes that theists believe about us atheists?
That's MISTER Godless Vegetarian Tree Hugging Hippie Liberal to you.
Posts: 15351
Threads: 118
Joined: January 13, 2014
Reputation:
117
RE: My take on Life
March 6, 2014 at 11:40 am
(March 6, 2014 at 11:25 am)Fromper Wrote: Wow. I've been involved in a lot of internet discussion groups over the years, and I think this is the first time I've ever seen a whole group so vocally reject a generic "Can't we all just get along?" message. Is there some particular reason that the members of this forum think civility is a bad thing? Are you all actively trying to reenforce all the negative stereotypes that theists believe about us atheists?
None of us think civility is a bad thing, fromper. We just don't think it's a blanket rule. We play by the "tit for tat" rule, rather than the "turn the other cheek" rule. You come in here and shit on our doorstep, we'll usher you out just the same.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Posts: 183
Threads: 11
Joined: February 9, 2014
Reputation:
4
RE: My take on Life
March 6, 2014 at 3:05 pm
(This post was last modified: March 6, 2014 at 3:17 pm by shep.)
(March 2, 2014 at 9:58 pm)Spage Wrote: I'm still waiting for some actual fossils of those whales. Here was the link given:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/librar...34_05.html
Here is a fossil of Basilosaurus:
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/image...jn749MVQaA
Here is a fossil of Ambulocetus:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...ocetus.JPG
I could not find any of Rhodocetus but here is a fossil of Dorudon, an ancestor of the whale that lived roughly 40 million years ago:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...enberg.jpg
Note on Dorudon the two small legs at the end of the tail - these are the vestigial remnants of the animal when it roamed land before it's transition to sea.
|
