[Turey]

best one on the entire thread:

http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=16447

"I am a bit troubled. I believe my son has a girlfriend, because she left a dirty magazine with men in it under his bed. My son is only 16 and I really don't think he's ready to date yet. What's worse is that he's sneaking some girl to his room behind my back. I need help, God! I want my son to stop being so secretive!"

[Rictor]

"To-day, then, since I have opportunely freed my mind from all cares, and since I am in the secure possession of leisure in a peaceable retirement, I will at length apply myself earnestly and freely to the general overthrow of all my former opinions."

--René Descartes, First Meditation

Language was just cooler back in the day. You could say "I'm going down to the store for some milk", and it would sound like the most profound thing ever, worthy of being quoted for all time to come.

[KappaWing]

best one on the entire thread:

http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=16447

"I am a bit troubled. I believe my son has a girlfriend, because she left a dirty magazine with men in it under his bed. My son is only 16 and I really don't think he's ready to date yet. What's worse is that he's sneaking some girl to his room behind my back. I need help, God! I want my son to stop being so secretive!"

I think thats more just the parental urge saying "My son wouldent be one to look at dirty magazines, it must not be him"

Homosexuality probably never crossed their mind. They always think if they raise their children in their perfect, religious image, there is no possiblility that they will be "seduced" by such "temptations". Admitting such a possibility would be admitting that her own parenting style is flawed. Trust me, I know mothers.

Not make her seem like she has common sense or anything.

[aldo_14]

"To-day, then, since I have opportunely freed my mind from all cares, and since I am in the secure possession of leisure in a peaceable retirement, I will at length apply myself earnestly and freely to the general overthrow of all my former opinions."

--René Descartes, First Meditation

Language was just cooler back in the day. You could say "I'm going down to the store for some milk", and it would sound like the most profound thing ever, worthy of being quoted for all time to come.

"I seek the cleansing sweep of milk like the raven of truth seeks the memory of all things"

At the risk inherent in arguing with a mod on topics such as this:

Charismatic is conservative and believes it's morally wrong to be gay. The majority of Internet users I've seen are for some reason liberal-leaning. This whole topic is making fun of Fundamentalist Christians, a group which has right-leaning views. If you want to stop people from getting pummeled, you might as well close this topic before it turns into a political debate.

Also, I have no problem making fun of ignorant people, it's one of the greatest sources of comedy in existence, but making fun of someone's beliefs, what they choose to believe in and embrace, is something I personally do not do. For example, your quote from the page (I'm on thin ice here, aren't I) was someone's heartfelt belief. For example, I feel that people who think they can go ahead and talk about with confidence something they do not in anyway understand can be made fun of. I respect people's beliefs, however, because just because there is no evidence something is true does not mean it is not. If someone's belief gives meaning to their life, and acts as a spiritual compass, then I believe they should have it. In my (admittedly uninformed) mind, there are two kinds of philosophy, the kind that has been largely been replaced by modern science, and the kind which simply teaches and gives meaning to life. It is this type of philosophy that is so close to religion. As long as someone's beliefs do not lead them to hurt others, and do not drive them to hatred of other groups, they can believe.

It does drive them to hatred here, though.  Of - for example - aetheists, muslims, scientists, or homosexuals.

[Kosh]

"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it. [emphasis added]"

Would that big outside source of energy be something called "the sun" by any chance?

"[about a girl being born with mental disabilities]

This girl is like a leper so what she needs to do is try and find god

if she really believes she can be healed from this state, she will be healed from this state

Most afflictions like this are caused by sins committed while still inside the womb. If she can repent for what she does god will embrace her and make her as human as you or me but if she chooses not to she'll always be like this

god tests every one of us [emphasis added]"

Wow, did he do this hard hitting scientific data research.....in his ass?

"I AM here to be my husband's "personal maid" and to be "stuck in the house." I showed plenty of verses that showed that - the 31st chapter of Proverbs! Wives are to be a help meet for their husbands. I consider it a privilege to cook the meals, do the laundry, clean the house, rear the children, pick up clothes he may leave lying around, clean the kitchen counters after he makes a sandwich...... [...]

Yes, women have rights - the right to obey God's Word......."

I have nothing to say about this person.....

[karajorma]

Now on the arguing with a mod subject. I can do that, because that mod will have to deal with me on a mod project we work together on no matter what happens here..

Doesn't mean I can't ask someone else to ban you on the sly.

Charismatic is conservative and believes it's morally wrong to be gay. The majority of Internet users I've seen are for some reason liberal-leaning. This whole topic is making fun of Fundamentalist Christians, a group which has right-leaning views. If you want to stop people from getting pummeled, you might as well close this topic before it turns into a political debate.

Political debates are fine as long as everyone keeps their heads and doesn't start flaming.

Also, I have no problem making fun of ignorant people, it's one of the greatest sources of comedy in existence, but making fun of someone's beliefs, what they choose to believe in and embrace, is something I personally do not do. For example, your quote from the page (I'm on thin ice here, aren't I) was someone's heartfelt belief.

I've actually made several quotes on this thread but I assume you're on about the cat anointing guy. To be honest while I find that whole story amusing the real comedy is not in the whole story with the cat but the last line where he says that the dog is next. Whether you believe or not that line is funny.

However as far as I understand Christianity the main difference between humans and animals is meant to be that we possess an immortal soul. So even if I am laughing at the cat anointing I'm still not having a go at Christianity. So as long as there is no one on the this board who believes that animals do have immortal souls that Jesus needs to save it shouldn't be a problem. 

For example, I feel that people who think they can go ahead and talk about with confidence something they do not in anyway understand can be made fun of. I respect people's beliefs, however, because just because there is no evidence something is true does not mean it is not. If someone's belief gives meaning to their life, and acts as a spiritual compass, then I believe they should have it. In my (admittedly uninformed) mind, there are two kinds of philosophy, the kind that has been largely been replaced by modern science, and the kind which simply teaches and gives meaning to life. It is this type of philosophy that is so close to religion. As long as someone's beliefs do not lead them to hurt others, and do not drive them to hatred of other groups, they can believe.

And no one has said that they can't believe. Hell if my making a joke about how ridiculous a belief is can make you not believe it then it was never that strong a belief in the first place.

The simple fact is that everyone has the right to believe whatever they like. I respect peoples right to believe. That doesn't however mean that I have to respect the belief itself. If someone believes the Earth is flat I'm going to point out why that simply isn't true. If someone believes that rape is okay because the woman was asking for it I'm going to point out the flaws in that logic.

Just because someone believes in something doesn't make it sacrosanct.

[castor]

So your saying it's okay for someone to belive that rape is okay, for example?

Sure thing.
But expressing this belief in any physical form isn't.

[Ford Prefect]

Language was just cooler back in the day. You could say "I'm going down to the store for some milk", and it would sound like the most profound thing ever, worthy of being quoted for all time to come.

I dunno, I think 20th century philosophy sometimes sounds more profound simply by virtue of its being totally impossible to read. Sure, Descartes can make you say, "Wow," but Heidegger will make you say, "Jesus ****ing Christ what the ****?"

[aldo_14]

but Heidegger will make you say, "Jesus ****ing Christ what the ****?"

Pff, I can get that on the internet any day of the week.....

[Turey]

but Heidegger will make you say, "Jesus ****ing Christ what the ****?"

Pff, I can get that on the internet any day of the week.....

As evidenced by the topic of this thread.

[Mathwiz6]

Please. Please tell me someone made all of those up on purpose.
Because if not, we're all screwed.

[Ace]

Sure, Descartes can make you say, "Wow," but Heidegger will make you say, "Jesus ****ing Christ what the ****?"

Someone's been reading too much Foucalt...

[TrashMan]

How much you wanna bet Charismatic likes Lesbian porn, but will still go on about the immorality of gays?

Who the hell doesn't like that? It's only natural..yas men are attracted to women and two women are more of an eye candy than one..no? 

But as far as I recall the Church doesn't teach that being born gay is evil, but that indulging in it is... which is a considerable difference.

[Unknown Target]

How much you wanna bet Charismatic likes Lesbian porn, but will still go on about the immorality of gays?

Who the hell doesn't like that? It's only natural..yas men are attracted to women and two women are more of an eye candy than one..no? 

It's hypocritical and instantly negates your argument that "gay is bad", because it shows that it's really just based on your preferences, not some higher power's "will".

But as far as I recall the Church doesn't teach that being born gay is evil, but that indulging in it is... which is a considerable difference.

I hate it when people use this, it's the dumbest thing possible. Oh, yea, you can be born gay, but you know, if you ACT gay then we hate you.
That's like giving a person a bit of candy and telling them they can look at it, but if they eat it, then they're somehow committing some evil act. What gives you the right to tell someone that they are wrong for what they're doing, as long as it's not hurting someone else?

Or are you one of those people who somehow believe someone being gay makes others gay too?

[TrashMan]

It's hypocritical and instantly negates your argument that "gay is bad", because it shows that it's really just based on your preferences, not some higher power's "will".

You realise I can like something that is bad for me, don't you? Or even something I feel is wrong.... so it really doesn't negate anything.

But as far as I recall the Church doesn't teach that being born gay is evil, but that indulging in it is... which is a considerable difference.

I hate it when people use this, it's the dumbest thing possible. Oh, yea, you can be born gay, but you know, if you ACT gay then we hate you.
That's like giving a person a bit of candy and telling them they can look at it, but if they eat it, then they're somehow committing some evil act. What gives you the right to tell someone that they are wrong for what they're doing, as long as it's not hurting someone else?

Or are you one of those people who somehow believe someone being gay makes others gay too?

I personally have as much right as everybody else I guess. What gives you the right to say X is right (which is the opposite of X is wrong)?
Note that I'm not useing the words "good" and "evil", since I for one don't belive that is evil, but hey.. for discussion sake..

I'm not gonna turn this into a long discussion about homosexuality - suffice to say that we each belive what we do, and since there are no definite evidence going either way..it doesn't really matter what we belive..meh.

[Ford Prefect]

Someone's been reading too much Foucalt...

Haha! Actually my knowledge of Foucault is pretty woeful. As of yet, I've picked up most of what I know of him through organized discussions as opposed to direct reading.

[Turey]

That's like giving a person a bit of candy and telling them they can look at it, but if they eat it, then they're somehow committing some evil act.

 

You almost gave me a heart attack!

I need my sugar! 

[aldo_14]

It's hypocritical and instantly negates your argument that "gay is bad", because it shows that it's really just based on your preferences, not some higher power's "will".

You realise I can like something that is bad for me, don't you? Or even something I feel is wrong.... so it really doesn't negate anything.

It does show you to be more homophobic than rational, though.  It's hypocritical - oh, sure, homosexuality is wrong.... unless you can have a swift wank watching it, in which case it's fine by you.

But as far as I recall the Church doesn't teach that being born gay is evil, but that indulging in it is... which is a considerable difference.

I hate it when people use this, it's the dumbest thing possible. Oh, yea, you can be born gay, but you know, if you ACT gay then we hate you.
That's like giving a person a bit of candy and telling them they can look at it, but if they eat it, then they're somehow committing some evil act. What gives you the right to tell someone that they are wrong for what they're doing, as long as it's not hurting someone else?

Or are you one of those people who somehow believe someone being gay makes others gay too?

I personally have as much right as everybody else I guess. What gives you the right to say X is right (which is the opposite of X is wrong)?
Note that I'm not useing the words "good" and "evil", since I for one don't belive that is evil, but hey.. for discussion sake..

I'm not gonna turn this into a long discussion about homosexuality - suffice to say that we each belive what we do, and since there are no definite evidence going either way..it doesn't really matter what we belive..meh.

Evidence of what?  I'm pretty sure there's comprehensive evidence that homosexual (or bisexual) people are human, and that they freely and informedly consent to sex with those of the same sexual orientation, so I'm not sure what more evidence is required.

[Herra Tohtori]

I personally have as much right as everybody else I guess. What gives you the right to say X is right (which is the opposite of X is wrong)?
Note that I'm not useing the words "good" and "evil", since I for one don't belive that is evil, but hey.. for discussion sake..

That logic is actually a bit flawed. You know the principle "innocent until proven guilty"? Means that in order to be able to say "X is wrong" you have to have something against X. Saying that X is right doesn't specifically require any proof as to why it should be right. AS long as it's not "wrong", it's ok, right?

That means that those who judge should be the ones presenting arguments for the case "Why is X wrong". The question "Why shold X be right" should never be asked even. It is only asked by people who have deeply stuck opinions that X is wrong without the question.

It's one manifestation of Occam's Razor I suppose - simplest of two otherwise equal wins. Ergo acceptance is the standard and condemning is an exeption that requires some argumentation to be valid, otherwise it's just as valid as saying that moon is made of cheese. You can say so but it doesn't make it true until you send a Lunohod to get you a sample and you analyze it to prove that Moon is indeed made of cheese.

[aldo_14]

On the subject....