I think my girlfriend is a Christian! Advice needed.

[stonester1]

In all seriousness (Yes, I can do that)...

Christians are people too. I'm happy that you discovered Richard Dawkins and I'm happy to hear that he has helped open you to reality.

*snicker*

 

[ThankQ]

In all seriousness (Yes, I can do that)...

Christians are people too. I'm happy that you discovered Richard Dawkins and I'm happy to hear that he has helped open you to reality.

*snicker*

Really? Again? Give me a few minutes. I gotta get drunk first.

 

[stonester1]

In all seriousness (Yes, I can do that)...

Christians are people too. I'm happy that you discovered Richard Dawkins and I'm happy to hear that he has helped open you to reality.

*snicker*

Really? Again? Give me a few minutes. I gotta get drunk first.

No need, just I get a tickle whenever anyone obnoxiously evangelizes Dawkinsism. Or asserts they've got the only "correct" version of "reality" all gift wrapped for the "delusional" masses.

 

[ThankQ]

*snicker*

Really? Again? Give me a few minutes. I gotta get drunk first.

No need, just I get a tickle whenever anyone obnoxiously evangelizes Dawkinsism. Or asserts they've got the only "correct" version of "reality" all gift wrapped for the "delusional" masses.

*Oh, good grief*

Reality is reality.

I'm happy that you discovered Richard Dawkins and I'm happy to hear that he has helped open you to reality.

That's evangelical? Really? If that's the case, maybe you've been right all along and reality isn't reality after all.

Like I've said at least twice now, if you want to be a mystic, god bless you and go be a mystic. Lord knows I can't stop you. What may be surprising to you is that I wouldn't stop you even if I could.

All I ask of you is to quit having your cake, eating it too, and then asking for a second slice. I, and others, have exposed your attempts to deliberately misrepresent Einstein. I have exposed your deliberately truncated quotes manipulated by omission to support your position.

You may chuckle your ass off and believe in "The Force" to your heart's content. What do damned fuckers like me who put our trust in empirical, verifiable, repeatable evidence know about shit, anyway.

 

[stonester1]

*Oh, good grief*

Reality is reality.

But there's no reason to unthinkingly fall in line to what Dawkins declares "reality".

That's evangelical? Really?

Yes. It has every bit the cultish "welcome, brother" to it.

If that's the case, maybe you've been right all along and reality isn't reality after all.

I've no problem with "reality". Just Dawkins. And his more obnoxious followers.

All I ask of you is to quit having your cake, eating it too, and then asking for a second slice. I, and others, have exposed your attempts to deliberately misrepresent Einstein.

No. I have exposed Dawkins' error in trying to claim Einstein in the atheist/materialist camp, when Einstein in his own words, which I have reproduced several times, not only disagreed, but actively disassociated himself with that camp.

Your insistence otherwise is an act of irrationality in the face of the facts.

I have exposed your deliberately truncated quotes manipulated by omission to support your position.

You've exposed your willingness to scream in the face of facts, ignore/manipulate/warp quotes to do so, rather than take them at face value as to what they actually said, etc.

You may chuckle your ass off and believe in "The Force" to your heart's content. What do damned fuckers like me who put our trust in empirical, verifiable, repeatable evidence know about shit, anyway.

A particular set of facts, carefully chosen and interpreted in service of a particular viewpoint.

You can insist that you have reality pinned to the mat (wouldn't be the first time zealouts have done so), and scream your choice of invective at those who take exception.

But one set of raging zealots and "true believers" all tend to look and act the same, both in their pushing their view and the insulting, condescending attitude they take towards others.

At least you could be honest about it.

 

[ThankQ]

I saw someone talking about how we should accept reality as it is rather than turning to fantasy and various stuff similar to that, and I guessed that you had poked your head in to do something like post a set of vague platitudes plucked from Albert Einstein without much of a context other than he appears to be some kind of hippie mystic, when really he was critical of the Bible and called it an honorable but childish set of fairy tales.

CONFORM! CONFORM!

And when you try to make the "debate" about this hinge on literal interpretations and applications of religious text, when that isn't Einstein's or my position, it just tells me you don't even really read a damn thing I write.

And again, what you defend is not "reality". It is an interpetation of it through a particular lense. That not everyone clings to, including scientists, as the soul arbiter of what qualifies as real, certainly not with your level of fanaticism when you engage in your usual tired Thought Police rantings. It is clear you and Einstein part ways. But then, he revolutionized our understanding of the universe.

You won't.

Moving on...

I'm not going to pick on you here, but you have cherry picked Einstein. You've taken the bits you like that you feel support your philosophy.

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

And just to be helpful, as I'm sure it was a Freudian slip, it would be the "sole arbiter," not "soul".

I'm not going to pick on you here, but you have cherry picked Einstein. You've taken the bits you like that you feel support your philosophy.

Sure. As you picked the ones that support yours. Einstein, if you take his quotes as a whole, clearly was of two minds on the subject.

Hey, Scott Fitzgerald was the one who said that ""The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

Joss Whedon has a similiar attitude. He is an avowed atheist, BUT...

Whedon has identified himself as an atheist on multiple occasions. When interviewed by The AV Club on October 9, 2002, Whedon answered the question "Is there a God?" with one word: "No." The interviewer followed up with: "That's it, end of story, no?" Whedon answered: "Absolutely not.

I'm not going to pick on you here, but you have cherry picked Einstein. You've taken the bits you like that you feel support your philosophy.

Sure. As you picked the ones that support yours.

No, you have taken Einstein out of context and used dry quotes to support your philosophy. Forget, for the moment, our previous debates. In this case, I'm not pushing any agenda. I'm not trying to use Einstein to support any position. I posted the quotes I could find in a 5-minute search in which Einstein clearly spells out his thoughts about God and his opinion of people who are trying to attribute to him beliefs he did not hold, exactly as you are doing here.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

What you're doing with Einstein is exactly what he's addressing here. I'm not using Einstein to support a position, you are, by bastardizing the man's own words.

You see the difference?

Einstein, if you take his quotes as a whole, clearly was of two minds on the subject.

J.Allen covered this, so I'll move on.

Hey, Scott Fitzgerald was the one who said that ""The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

That's not relevant to this discussion. A better example would be my (an others') position on abortion: I feel it is morally wrong, but I don't feel it is my role or place to make that decision for others.

I bet someone else here could come up with an even better example than that.

Joss Whedon has a similiar attitude. He is an avowed atheist, BUT...

Whedon has identified himself as an atheist on multiple occasions. When interviewed by The AV Club on October 9, 2002, Whedon answered the question "Is there a God?" with one word: "No." The interviewer followed up with: "That's it, end of story, no?" Whedon answered: "Absolutely not.

Okay, this was just dishonest. You left off the end of the quote. Let's look at the whole thing from exactly the place that you got it:

Whedon has identified himself as an atheist on multiple occasions. When interviewed by The AV Club on October 9, 2002, Whedon answered the question "Is there a God?" with one word: "No." The interviewer followed up with: "That's it, end of story, no?" Whedon answered: "Absolutely not. That's a very important and necessary thing to learn."[63]

Sounds to me like he's saying it's important and necessary to learn that there is no God. I'm not certain that's what he meant, as I can see how it's possible to read it different, but it is an undeniable example of your cherry picking. You made a deliberate decision to leave that part out. You copied it from an article (or whatever) that had the whole quote. You did even bother to close the quote in your post. You just copied and pasted to the point that you wanted to post here to make your argument.

Also:

Whedon comments that "I don't believe in the 'sky bully'"

Even I don't use the term "sky bully". That's not a man struggling with a position or of a dual mind.

We'll let the good people here be the judges.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Here's a suggestion that might improve ratings. MB could take his lady friend to see the wrastling. Of course, there's always a risk that she'll fall for a Christian Wrastler, and run off with him instead of going on her mission work. On the other hand, maybe that will strengthen their relationship, if she is made to see that MB is willing to take risks in order to win her heart. Just a thought.

 

[cooleddie74]

If only Macho Man Randy Savage were still alive. His presence in this story would mean that MB is finally whipping out his "A" game and material. Who can dislike anything with the Macho Man in it? Not this buckaroo...no, sirree!

Forecast: will MB give us an entertaining update to this whole mess?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, yeah!!!

 

[stonester1]

[


Sounds to me like he's saying it's important and necessary to learn that there is no God. I'm not certain that's what he meant, as I can see how it's possible to read it different,

You think?

it is an undeniable example of your cherry picking.

Utter horseshit. To do this, I would be attempting to demonstrate that Joss Whedon is not an atheist. He clearly is by declaration.

But it is also clear that, to him, the conversation is not over with. That's called being open minded and facing reality squarely, acknowledging that it won't let itself be hammered into those neat little packages some say that it is. And examining those ambiguities in thought and perspective squarely is part of what makes him the genius storyteller he is.

We'll let the good people here be the judges.

Yes, we will.

As to my "cherry picking" on Einstein, here's an entire article on the stuff, on his views on religion...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views

I never made the case that he was some kind of closet orthodox believer, though you seem to be trying to allude to it. He clearly wasn't. But he also clearly was not some materialist atheist who believed in a mindless, mechanical universe. No matter how much Richard Dawkins tries claiming otherwise.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

The judge of what, how stupid it is to argue about the invisible?

 

[Misfit Toy]

That's evangelical? Really?

Yes. It has every bit the cultish "welcome, brother" to it.

"Welcome, brother" is how virtually all men were greeted in the Southern Baptist church where I grew up. My father attended there for over 30 years without ever realizing he was in a cult. Nice catch, stonester!

 

[Sean Aaron]

I couldn't be bothered to read much after the first page, but was there a follow-up? I'm a bit confused about this person being his "girlfriend" when all I see in support of this is he likes her and held her hand once.

I'll attempt to chime in with something serious and say that I'm involved with a practicing Catholic and I do find it challenging, not just because I've been historically dismissive of Christianity for various reasons, but the fact that her father is Jewish (though he was absentee most of her life) means that in my eyes she's a fellow Jew.

I think the fact that neither one of us wants more kids is what enables this relationship to work. There is no way in hell I'd raise my kids Christian or any other faith.

 

[DonIago]

I held hands with a woman once, and now they're my wif...

...no wait, that was some poor schlub in "Mary Poppins". My bad.

 

[cooleddie74]

I couldn't be bothered to read much after the first page...

Oh...you lucky, lucky bastard.

If only the rest of us possessed your unique strength. We never learn.

 

[stonester1]

That's evangelical? Really?

Yes. It has every bit the cultish "welcome, brother" to it.

"Welcome, brother" is how virtually all men were greeted in the Southern Baptist church where I grew up. My father attended there for over 30 years without ever realizing he was in a cult. Nice catch, stonester!

I'm good like that.

I'm not going to say it is always a "cultish" expression. But it can be.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Yes. It has every bit the cultish "welcome, brother" to it.

"Welcome, brother" is how virtually all men were greeted in the Southern Baptist church where I grew up. My father attended there for over 30 years without ever realizing he was in a cult. Nice catch, stonester!

I'm good like that.

I'm not going to say it is always a "cultish" expression. But it can be.

It does have a Return of the Archons vibe.

 

[FlyingLemons]

You may chuckle your ass off and believe in "The Force" to your heart's content. What do damned fuckers like me who put our trust in empirical, verifiable, repeatable evidence know about shit, anyway.

Just be satisfied that you're right in the end as you've got the facts on your side. If you haven't got facts or verifiable evidence on your side, there's ultimately nothing to argue about really.

 

[cooleddie74]

"Welcome, brother" is how virtually all men were greeted in the Southern Baptist church where I grew up. My father attended there for over 30 years without ever realizing he was in a cult. Nice catch, stonester!

I'm good like that.

I'm not going to say it is always a "cultish" expression. But it can be.

It does have a Return of the Archons vibe.

That's what MadBaggins's wrestling scenario was missing...Landru and the Lawgivers! The Lawgivers could have come into the ring and started zapping and Absorbing the participants into the Absolute Good. Then, at 6:00 on the dot, the Red Hour would commence and they'd all get back to beating the snot out of one another inside the wrestling ring for the next sixty minutes. The perfect mix of order and anarchy. Balance achieved.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

That's what MadBaggins's wrestling scenario was missing...Landru and the Lawgivers!

I've heard of them! Didn't they get to #1 on the charts with "Not of the Body"?

Man, their last album Live at the FESTIVAL!!! was a killer.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

The perfect mix of order and anarchy. Balance achieved.

Also thread needs more of this: