DieselDaisy Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 You speak some bollocks.Oh? Let's break down what I just wrote in a few bullet points and you can amuse us by pointing out which are bollocks:* I can conceive of a hypothetical society where we wouldn't have to prioritize what to fund.* In most modern socities this is not to case, and we aren't able to spend as much money on the arts as we would like.* Stopping the expected results of human overpopulation is a good thing.* Not all contemporary architecture is shit.* There is a difference between having to choose between 'food and art', and having to choose between 'food and some very expensive forms of art'.Bollocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted December 13, 2014 Author Share Posted December 13, 2014 .... taken purely as a historical thing there's so much of value in there, I mean our culture is informed by this stuff, great art, paintings, music, the architecture of some of these places, the meaning behind the rituals, the way the thing as a whole has kinda informed the evolution of the human race. It just seems to me that in this dismissive approach you kinda miss so much that is of value.Well said. Anyone that has ever visited the Vatican could attest to this.I've been following this debate closely. I am a catholic, but SoulMonster still has my vote. That would be the equivalent of a Jew voting Hitler in office prior to WWII/The Holocaust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 That would be the equivalent of a Jew voting Hitler in office prior to WWII/The Holocaust.I checked the time in Florida. You shouldn't be drunk at 4 pm already. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted December 13, 2014 Author Share Posted December 13, 2014 That would be the equivalent of a Jew voting Hitler in office prior to WWII/The Holocaust.I checked the time in Florida. You shouldn't be drunk at 4 pm already. Just warning the sheep. Hitler never said he was going to execute 6 million Jews (plus millions of others) before he rose to power either, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 That would be the equivalent of a Jew voting Hitler in office prior to WWII/The Holocaust.I checked the time in Florida. You shouldn't be drunk at 4 pm already. Just warning the sheep. Hitler never said he was going to execute 6 million Jews (plus millions of others) before he rose to power either, And you haven't said you like raping donkeys either, but now I am going to hold that against you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted December 13, 2014 Author Share Posted December 13, 2014 That would be the equivalent of a Jew voting Hitler in office prior to WWII/The Holocaust.I checked the time in Florida. You shouldn't be drunk at 4 pm already. Just warning the sheep. Hitler never said he was going to execute 6 million Jews (plus millions of others) before he rose to power either, And you haven't said you like raping donkeys either, but now I am going to hold that against you.Lost me there. Your intellectualism has once again trumped my "drunkenness". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 That would be the equivalent of a Jew voting Hitler in office prior to WWII/The Holocaust.I checked the time in Florida. You shouldn't be drunk at 4 pm already. Just warning the sheep. Hitler never said he was going to execute 6 million Jews (plus millions of others) before he rose to power either, And you haven't said you like raping donkeys either, but now I am going to hold that against you.Lost me there. Your intellectualism has once again trumped my "drunkenness". It's as simple as:If you can claim (albeit jokingly) that I am against religious freedom based on nothing but the extraordinary weak argument that once upon a time a historic bad man had a secret agenda, (and despite my numerous statements to the contrary), then surely I can accuse you of everything I want, too, with no obligation to have any supporting evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted December 13, 2014 Author Share Posted December 13, 2014 That would be the equivalent of a Jew voting Hitler in office prior to WWII/The Holocaust.I checked the time in Florida. You shouldn't be drunk at 4 pm already. Just warning the sheep. Hitler never said he was going to execute 6 million Jews (plus millions of others) before he rose to power either, And you haven't said you like raping donkeys either, but now I am going to hold that against you.Lost me there. Your intellectualism has once again trumped my "drunkenness". It's as simple as:If you can claim (albeit jokingly) that I am against religious freedom based on nothing but the extraordinary weak argument that once upon a time a historic bad man had a secret agenda, (and despite my numerous statements to the contrary), then surely I can accuse you of everything I want, too, with no obligation to have any supporting evidence?It's the ideology, I speak of. You have clearly stated that you oppose religious freedom, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 That would be the equivalent of a Jew voting Hitler in office prior to WWII/The Holocaust.I checked the time in Florida. You shouldn't be drunk at 4 pm already. Just warning the sheep. Hitler never said he was going to execute 6 million Jews (plus millions of others) before he rose to power either, And you haven't said you like raping donkeys either, but now I am going to hold that against you.Lost me there. Your intellectualism has once again trumped my "drunkenness". It's as simple as:If you can claim (albeit jokingly) that I am against religious freedom based on nothing but the extraordinary weak argument that once upon a time a historic bad man had a secret agenda, (and despite my numerous statements to the contrary), then surely I can accuse you of everything I want, too, with no obligation to have any supporting evidence?It's the ideology, I speak of. You have clearly stated that you oppose religious freedom, no?WHAT??? No, I have NEVER said anything like it. In fact, I have numerous times across the board and even in this thread said I am OF COURSE in favour of religious freedom. This is alarmingly absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted December 13, 2014 Author Share Posted December 13, 2014 (edited) That would be the equivalent of a Jew voting Hitler in office prior to WWII/The Holocaust.I checked the time in Florida. You shouldn't be drunk at 4 pm already. Just warning the sheep. Hitler never said he was going to execute 6 million Jews (plus millions of others) before he rose to power either, And you haven't said you like raping donkeys either, but now I am going to hold that against you.Lost me there. Your intellectualism has once again trumped my "drunkenness". It's as simple as:If you can claim (albeit jokingly) that I am against religious freedom based on nothing but the extraordinary weak argument that once upon a time a historic bad man had a secret agenda, (and despite my numerous statements to the contrary), then surely I can accuse you of everything I want, too, with no obligation to have any supporting evidence?It's the ideology, I speak of. You have clearly stated that you oppose religious freedom, no?WHAT??? No, I have NEVER said anything like it. In fact, I have numerous times across the board and even in this thread said I am OF COURSE in favour of religious freedom. This is alarmingly absurd... Edited December 13, 2014 by Kasanova King Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 That would be the equivalent of a Jew voting Hitler in office prior to WWII/The Holocaust.I checked the time in Florida. You shouldn't be drunk at 4 pm already. Just warning the sheep. Hitler never said he was going to execute 6 million Jews (plus millions of others) before he rose to power either, And you haven't said you like raping donkeys either, but now I am going to hold that against you.Lost me there. Your intellectualism has once again trumped my "drunkenness". It's as simple as:If you can claim (albeit jokingly) that I am against religious freedom based on nothing but the extraordinary weak argument that once upon a time a historic bad man had a secret agenda, (and despite my numerous statements to the contrary), then surely I can accuse you of everything I want, too, with no obligation to have any supporting evidence?It's the ideology, I speak of. You have clearly stated that you oppose religious freedom, no?WHAT??? No, I have NEVER said anything like it. In fact, I have numerous times across the board and even in this thread said I am OF COURSE in favour of religious freedom. This is alarmingly absurd...Being so openly and often blunt about my disregard for religion, I always make sure to point out that I am a strong adherent of freedom of religion, or just basically freedom to believe in whatever you want, whenever possible. I think the distinction between knowing that theisms hold humanity back and also understanding that freedom of belief is a fundamental human right, is important. These are two different things and we can't have a good society if we police what people are allowed to think, feel or believe. That would not only be a violation of what it basic human rights but also a moronically ineffective way of trying to abolish religion which is prone to backlash. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, Jr., darkness cannot drive out drakness, ony light can do that. The way to rid the world of religion is through further enlightenment, not by employing facist policies that would result in a worse society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 To translate, Soul advocates religious freedom but you are going to have to put up with him telling you 'you are stupid' a lot of the time as a form of compensation for his troubles!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 (edited) To translate, Soul advocates religious freedom but you are going to have to put up with him telling you 'you are stupid' a lot of the time as a form of compensation for his troubles!!Being told you're stupid versus being told you're going to burn in hell?Meh, seems fair. Edited December 14, 2014 by Dazey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 To translate, Soul advocates religious freedom but you are going to have to put up with him telling you 'you are stupid' a lot of the time as a form of compensation for his troubles!!Being told you're stupid versus being told you're going to burn in hell?Meh, seems fair. The, generally orthodox Catholic version of hell (for lack of a better description), the type seen in Dante's Inferno, is not even shared by every christian denomination let alone, every religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 To translate, Soul advocates religious freedom but you are going to have to put up with him telling you 'you are stupid' a lot of the time as a form of compensation for his troubles!!Being told you're stupid versus being told you're going to burn in hell?Meh, seems fair. The, generally orthodox Catholic version of hell (for lack of a better description), the type seen in Dante's Inferno, is not even shared by every christian denomination let alone, every religion. Sill a load of shite though innit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 The archetypal hell seen in medieval church architecture, fire and brimstone, is a sort of gothic construct, with a slight degree of scriptural precedent but owing just as much to Homer's depiction of Hades. Those gargoyles, tortured bodies and things were made to scare parishioners as much as anything else. The basic premise is, hell is a place where one is excluded from communion with god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 To translate, Soul advocates religious freedom but you are going to have to put up with him telling you 'you are stupid' a lot of the time as a form of compensation for his troubles!!I have never told a believer he or she is stupid . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 'Fairy tales', 'cupcakes' - I am paraphrasing here but you have definitely repeated one or two of those, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 'Fairy tales', 'cupcakes' - I am paraphrasing here but you have definitely repeated one or two of those,I have compared the belief in gods as far as substantiating evidence goes, to belief in other tings with a glaring lack of evidence like unicorns, yes. This is vastly different form calling believers stupid . I know the human nature is complex and that we all harbour beliefs and thoughts that could separately be referred to as "stupid" or "irrational", but going from that to calling a whole individual "stupid" is nothing I would ever do, because that person could on all other aspects be brilliant. There has been lots of fantastically intelligent persons who had individual, irrational beliefs and behaviours. That doesn't negate all their brilliance and render them "stupid", I find having to even explain this asinine.All this being said, everything suggests that theists as a group is slightly less intelligent than atheists. BUT, and this is important, the difference isn't vast and there is a lot of individual variation, meaning that I can't point to any individual atheist or theist and claim one is more intelligent. I just don't know that. But I could, probably, say that a random group of 1000 atheists would have a higher average inteligence than a similarly random group of 1000 theists. And when I now talk about intelligence I am of course referring to the analytical, problem-solving kind.So now, I will never embarass myself by claiming a person is stupid based on nothing else than knowing he or she believes in gods. I am not THAT stupid. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 As world leader I would only appear as a hologram and leave the world as it is. All I would ask for is a mansion and fleet of Ferraris and unlimited cash. I would be the hologram messiah of earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovim Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 As world leader I would only appear as a hologram and leave the world as it is. All I would ask for is a mansion and fleet of Ferraris and unlimited cash. I would be the hologram messiah of earth.Still a scary thought to give you too much cash and Ferraris. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 (edited) The December 11 edition of the scientific journal Nature had an article on the status of biodiversity on Earth. Again, one of the many reasons why there should be less humans on Earth, is exactly the effect we have on biodiversity with a large number of species going extinct every year. The number may be high enough for this to be the 6th mass extinction event in Earth's history (!). In addition to this being wrong because every life form has an inherent value on its own, it is also short-sighted since we humans rely on functioning ecosystems and access to other species as sources for medicines, materials, and of course sustenance. It is simply unsustainable and morally despicable.Read the Nature article here: http://www.nature.com/news/biodiversity-life-a-status-report-1.16523 Edited December 15, 2014 by SoulMonster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Soulmonster in a nutshell 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Saving the world isn't necesarry entertaining business Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.