General Music Chat

.

Phil (and Jimmy for that matter),

It's quite evidently within your rights to be personally insulting to people of faith, so don't be surprised when mockery of your own faithlessness and liberalism ass-kissing is visited upon you in return.


So remind yourself of that Phil, next time you want to tell me to "STFU" because you naively believe YOU can mock people of faith, and not be shown up and mocked in return.

You put it out there?

Expect it back, and don't act offfended or surprised when it happens.

k?





.

I'm agnostic because I can't prove that there's not a God; you're religious because you think you don't need proof, you just know. Athiests are just as stubborn; they think they know there's not a God and they don't need proof either. The truth is, it's unknowable so silly to discuss.

A lot of Atheists understand that Agnosticism is the only defensible position if you're in an argument.

But most of the time it's just easier to tell a God-worshiper that you're an Atheist; they tend to get the point faster.

I am not mocking thier faith as much as mocking thier efforts to force me into the life style models of thier faith, Craig. If you cannot see that, you can expect to be insulted a LOT more as time goes on, esp considering that I have a constitutional right to live outside the strict restrictions of the j/c way of life, & I expect to be outspoken on the subject until I die.

As far as I can tell, I gave the liberal left-wingers hell, too, bub.

But you go ahead & take things personally that aren't intended that way, if you wish. I know you're an emotional guy who loves a confrontation.

Still, when I speak of how a god is shy about proving ppl's claims of the nature of his existence, don't twist my words to mean what I obviously didn't say. That is beneath us both, & serves only to further your claims of my hypocrisy when it isn't warranted, my man.

If you wanna have a name-calling match, well, okay, I'll go for it, but you best bone up on your skills, &, frankly, I'd rather do it out of the forae, if you please.

You DID manage to once again side-track an intelligent conversation into yet another one about your favorite subject, though. It's getting quite boring, Craig. How about making an intelligent contribution to the subject instead of hijacking it into yet another rant about YOUR religion & how abused you are by all of us non-believers?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster was invented by some athiests who were trying to make a point:

I was being sarcastic.

But didn't the original analogy use the term... "Flying Pink Unicorn in the sky" or something like that?

I'm agnostic because I can't prove that there's not a God;

I wonder if you "say" this though, because you realize intellectually that it is the only intelligent position between "atheism" and "agnosticism"? I say that, because your words indicate more to me, that you have settled this matter for yourself, more than your "position" would indicate, and you appear more often to be ATHEIST than AGNOSTIC.

I mean... don't be ofended. You know what you really believe. You just come across more like an atheist, based on the biting nature of your words, where God or religion are concerned.

If you really thought there was a "possibility" that God existed, would you speak that way? I don't know.

you're religious because you think you don't need proof, you just know.

In childhood, that would have been an accurate statement, because I grew up "knowing" or "believing" there was a God, because the adults around me believed this.

I disagree that this applies to me now.

I do have evidence. And the more evidence I collect, the more "faith" I have. Which seems paradoxical, but is nonetheless true. The same applies to "faith" in a love interest. The longer the relationship goes, with sexual fidelity being preserved, guess what... the more "faith" each person develops, that the other WILL NOT cheat on them. More PROOF does create MORE FAITH.

And God proves Himself to me, all the time... through miracles, visions, messages, premonitions, fulfilled promises, etc...

This is a being "I COMMUNICATE" with, and UNDERSTAND when He communicates back.

If God promised me that certain events would occur, and without fail, over decades of time, they ALWAYS get fulfilled, and yet I was only "imagining" this conversation in my head, then I am either God Himself (since the events I promised myself, are brought to pass) or I am the luckiest son-of-a-b*tch who ever lived, by defying the statistical probabilities of "coincidence".

I am NEITHER of those things.

Athiests are just as stubborn; they think they know there's not a God and they don't need proof either.

Atheism is patently illogical, because they assume a position, which would require evidence to maintain, and yet they somehow believe that the lack of evidence... IS the evidence, allegedly supporting their position. In believing a universal negative, they are committing what's referred to as a "logical fallacy".

The truth is, it's unknowable so silly to discuss.

I understand what you are saying, but... I don't know that it's silly to discuss things, merely because they appear to have no conclusive evidence. There's no conclusive evidence for the existence of aliens, but that doesn't make it "silly" to discuss them.

.

Phil,

I am not trying to be dishonest or have any ulterior motive.

You may have condemned some liberals too, regarding their ACTIONS, but you didn't use the same pejorative language to do so.

This does highlight your personal bias.

And I responded the way I did, because as a person of faith and a believer in God, I was offended. If any liberals were offended, they can take that up with you themselves.

I was not "wanting" a confrontation with you. It is simply unfair that you use the language you do, and the venom you do, without a response.

That's all. Nothing more.

You made insulting barbs.

I made them back.

In a nut shell... That "IS" all that happened.

Let's drop it now.

We've both had our little expressions of detest.

There's no point in repeating the process, right?



Besides... we agree on much, at times. Even where the hypocrisy of some parties of Christianity are concerned. Such as... Detesting those people who would create a Theocracy and remove our freedoms and liberties.

.

Atheism is patently illogical, because they assume a position, which would require evidence to maintain, and yet they somehow believe that the lack of evidence... IS the evidence, allegedly supporting their position. In believing a universal negative, they are committing what's referred to as a "logical fallacy".

That is the funniest sh*t I've read on a long time...

You make me laugh Craig.

Let's see what I said that you found so insulting, shall we? I wouldn't wanna do it again...

Teach your religion, your superstition, & your dogma in your churches & in your homes.

Note how I seperated "religion" from "superstition." That doesn't look like an attack on religious ppl to me.

While those other countries' education systems have bettered themselves, our own has been diminished by the political, psychological, & religious communities..

This is clearly an attack on those who have been detrimental to the educational process, & nowhere do I even mention the j/c intervention, although it is by far one of the most successful groups in mandating less than educational curriculae, or the removal of useful curriculae.

The right-wing j/c activists hollared about it being there for ANYONE to read, & so it was removed. The works of Mark Twain have been rewritten to appease the tender sensitivities of those with race relation issues. Ditto the works of H.P. Lovecraft, Edgar Rice Burroughs, etc, if these books aren't banned outright. .

Here I show one example of the j/c intervention, & 3 examples of the interventions of the left. I also stated it in a way that shows how the far right would remove the rights of ALL to read this material, which I consider to be meddling & downright unconstitutional. My kid has a perfect right to be able to read any damned book I deem worthy of his attention, no matter WHAT you or your god has to say about it. (I'm using the editorial "you,"here. Don't take it personally!)

Dissecting frogs & worms is considered barbaric, & students are often excused from that distasteful learning experience for "moral reasons." There are lots of lessons on the dangers of alcohol in the science class, though, cuz we simply must have those moral lessons taught at every opportunity, & this is the perfect class to show how a worm or a flower dies in alcohol..

This is clearly another example of left-wing thought, & has nothing to do with religion.

There is far less emphasis on why things happened, because we might have to touch upon someone's religious beliefs in an unflattering way. Oh dear!.

This example is given because of the American school system's glorification of Charlemagne, who was a warrior-king who forced the christian religion on everyone he encountered at the point of a sword, which is never mentioned in our school books, while he is proclaimed to be one of the best kings Europe ever had. It is never mentioned exactly WHAT his intentions were in his fervor to "unite all of Europe." In the school books, it is enough that he did so.

Reading & writing have been dummied down so that everyone can be equal in this area. We wouldn't want those slower students to feel badly about themselves if they can't keep up..

Again, an attack on the left & thier stupid views.

Our teachers are told to continually be on the watch for any student who needs extra help, so that the school may get extra funding for thier special educational needs. Thus, many students are wrongly labelled as ADHD, ADD, OCD, and whatever other initiallized problem they can find, which results in the erroneous drugging of the child, & special classes to solve problems that don't even exist..

Yet another attack on the left. It's also an attack on the school system itself, in how they ignore the needs of the child in favor of getting more & more funding. Further, it is an atack on the medical community & thier tendency to medicate our kids.

The main emphasis in our modern school system focuses on the child's self esteem. It is considered far more important that the child FEEL GOOD about himself, whether or not he can actually contribute to anyone or anything in any positive way. Of course, without an adequate education, his chances of being able to contribute are severely lessened, but that doesn't seem to matter as long as he FEELS GOOD about his core self, so that's where our schools are placing thier efforts. This train of thought started in the 50's, with the advent of that stupid hippie "everyone's a winner" concept, & we've taken it so far now that it's become our mantra..

Hmmm...here, I call the left stupid. I didn't do that with the religious right, did I? But I must have been too harsh on them somewhere, considering your response, right?

We have continually REMOVED curriculae from the scholastic experience in our efforts to improve it, & replaced the missing classes with fluff. In the decades before I went to school, ettiquette was taught as part of the curriculum. Yes, you would be taught how to talk to ppl, how to treat ppl in ethical & socially acceptable ways. This was very useful for those students who didn't come from the more elite social strata, & gave them a leg up in thier future efforts to improve themselves. Dance was taught, which tended to show ppl how to reach out for each other in acceptable normal ways. Now, in many school districts, they're speaking of the removal of music & art classes, calling them "fluff," while they continue to pound away at our children with Guidance Class to improve thier self esteem, & to lecture them ad nauseum about the dangers of drugs & alcohol, in favor of actually teaching them how to relate, how to better themselves, or even to express themselves in artful ways..

Another attack on the left, from what I can see.

As long as we try to keep the kids moving through the system with as few true challenges as possible, they will not be able to face challenges out in the real. But for some strange reason, that's exactly what we do.

This seems to be a common theme with the left, doesn't it, & not the right?



So, as far as I can tell, Craig, I was FAR more rough on the left than the right, & my "insulting barbs" were reserved for those who would intervene in our educational system to its detriment. Are you one of those ppl? If so, you may have reason to be offended. Otherwise, you're reading things into the text that weren't written, applied your own agendas, & responded wrongfully to me.

I stand by my every word, & I don't see how any of them would insult anyone here, unless, of course, they are in that camp where they try to force thier agendas on me & mine. I don't really know that many ppl like that, cuz I know better than to associate with that type of a-hole.

Your knee-jerk reactions aside, I think I've done pretty well by everyone in my little diatribe, without being all that offensive to ppl of the j/c persuasion. I certainly did NOT attack the religion in any way.

I fail to see how this in any way required your mention of my lack of faith. How dare you apply that to me! I have plenty of faith, just not in your religion. You know so very little about me, yet you apply your broad brush strokes to define me as a man of no faith, & a hypocrite with low morals. Is it any wonder I find you to be such a pompous ass? STFU!

At the very least, I'd say you owe me an apology, cuz I'm feeling sensitive today.

Atheism is patently illogical, because they assume a position, which would require evidence to maintain, and yet they somehow believe that the lack of evidence... IS the evidence, allegedly supporting their position. In believing a universal negative, they are committing what's referred to as a "logical fallacy".

That is the funniest sh*t I've read on a long time...

You make me laugh Craig.

Good... laughter is healthy for you.

.

Sorry Phil,

I didn't feel like reading your last response in it's entirety.

But you're right and I'm wrong.

My apologies.

Clearly you are always respectful of all of us superstitious people.

How could I have ever assumed otherwise?

Can we get back to being friends... well... tolerating one another again?



.

Double standards, Craig? You always ask US to read your words in thier entirety, don't you?

C'mon, man READ IT!

Then respond accordingly.

It's only fair!

:shock:

Double standards, Craig? You always ask US to read your words in thier entirety, don't you?

I think I only asked that once, for one particular thread.

I know alot of people here don't read my entire posts when they are long.

But I also know that, lots of people who didn't read my posts when religion was the topic, are reading them now.

I'm gaining a little ground... slowly but surely.

LOL

C'mon, man READ IT!

Then respond accordingly.

It's only fair!

Wow.

LOL


Can't we go round and round on something NEW?



.

Ok, I read it all.

You could have just directed me to the end of it, if you merely wanted me to see you post another "STFU" and call me a pompous ass.

But I know you were multi-tasking and yes, I see that you had plenty to say about the extreme lefties too. But didn't I already say that it offended ME and they could speak for themselves?

JC'ers or whatever, is unecessary.

They are Christians.

If you are talking about extreme political ones, then the Christian Right, or the extremem Christian Right even, would get the point across without purposefully demeaning ALL of Christianity's adherents. It's like telling me that you are not offending me, but rather my brother, when you use a mocking name for his father... which coincidentally, happens to be mine too. You see?

But it's ok, I mock the same people, and maybe I mistakenly feel I have more right, since I am sort of "related" to them, by faith in the same messiah, whereas yours comes across as lumping everyone together.

And fine, faithless is not an appropriate term for YOU personally.

But sheesh... I called you faithless and you are up in arms, whereas you called me a pompous ass and told me to STFU several times?

Seems inequitable to me.

And sorry, but you "DO" have quite a few immoral, and at least unloving positions and attitudes. We won't agree on that... EVER. Sorry if you're offended, but it can't be any more offensive than some of the doozies you have used on me, today, and particularly in the past.

Love ya anyway!

Carry on and STFU!



.

Lets diss all the genre's
Lets diss all the music videos
Lest diss all the amatures
Lets just put down everyone and everything

I really thought this music site would be different.

Crap now I'm doing it.

never mind carry on.

LOL

I'm having too much fun today, Craig.

I use j/c to mean the judeo/christians, btw, it doesn't mean "Jesus Christers." I DID mention that they were the activists, too.

Carry on...

LOL

I'm having too much fun today, Craig.

LOL

That's fine. You've earned it.

I use j/c to mean the judeo/christians, btw, it doesn't mean "Jesus Christers." I DID mention that they were the activists, too.

Ok... THAT was my mistake. Sorry.

Carry on...

You mean "Carry on and STFU!!!"

Same to you RGmix, you wolf in sheep's clothing!

LMAO!!!

.