LITTLE DID THEY SUSPECT THAT FLUFFY
LITTLE DID THEY SUSPECT THAT FLUFFY WAS A HIGHLY TRAINED KILLER
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: leonmattson
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous GANGSTA GANGSTA | Tempting Next »
» 391 comments
-
Recent Comments
HelOnWheels on PHOTOBOMB I Like Peanut Butter… on SPEECHLESS HelOnWheels on SPEECHLESS HelOnWheels on SPEECHLESS I Like Peanut Butter… on SPEECHLESS Wino on SPEECHLESS I Like Peanut Butter… on SPEECHLESS I Like Peanut Butter… on SPEECHLESS HelOnWheels on SPEECHLESS Wino on SPEECHLESS 
Cheezburger Network Blog
Killer kitteh, go for teh nazees!
I may have to hunt you donw and kill you with your family for bringing LOLspeak to PK
Nothing personal…
Mean you down, Padowan?
*Padawan?
HEH!
for someone in whom the force is so weak, I’d be careful…
Attempt at levity = fail.
Attempt at fail = success.
Thank god. At least I did something right today!
I like your style. You remind me sometimes of OMG
(where is he???).
OMG and Mrs. Goodness are moving house, iirc.
I just tuned in VERY briefly after having packed up the books. FIFTY-FIVE SMEGGING BOXES of books. Admittedly, the Bush Memorial Library would struggle to find 55 books, let alone boxes…
At least you didn’t hurt your back and end up
in a wheelchair mumbling nonsensically
about ominous rumors circulating among
high-level Western leaders that the Soviet
Union had been at work somewhere in the
Arctic peaks of the Zhokhov Islands on
what was darkly hinted to be a doomsday
device …
I have my suspicions that Cheney just wanted an excuse not to stand out of respect for a man he thought was inferior. He’s that kind of smug, smirking bastard.
Or mabye he was right
@PittyPat: I did that again last Thursday.
Boy am I ever embarrassed!
While shut in, trying to live it down, I plan
to take a stab at diagramming that sentence
of yours. That should kill a week…
I’m with you. I have a hard enough time getting back to regular speak after visiting the kitties.
Never read the comments… NEVER read the comments.
On second thought, based on the now previous president’s bungaling of language LOLspeak might be more appropriate for PK than ICHC. I definitely think my cats are equipped with far superior intelligence than the average politician.
Seriously. The comments at ICHC will brain your damage.
True story. I wonder if that lolcode project ever went anywhere, though…
I recall there being a compiler for it even. But lolcode wasn’t invented by ICHC people.
It’s like reading what Gollum is saying. When I read those comments I hear his voice.
Also, never feed the comments after midnight!
And never, ever give them water!
Getting back to “regular speak”? I can’t even bring myself to READ them….it takes too long to try and figure out what half of the ICHC’ers are trying to say. It always feels like I’m talking to a 3 year old with a terrible speech impediment.
Sorry, I digress.
What I meant to say was: “Awwww, I think it’s cute the SS troopers are enjoying the kitty. Those poor boys were fighting a war they didn’t necessarily agree with, much like many of our soldiers and no one can resist a kitty.”
or am I supposed to say “gud kitteh, keeell teh naziiiiiii’s!”?
Nope. Those are SS troops, i.e. they literally are Nazis. Party members and all. While possible, it’s highly unlikely they were unhappy about the war – They were fulfilling their “destiny” as the “superior race.”
And thus ends our history lesson. Please return to the LOLs.
But sometimes in smaller countries which were evaded people had no choise but to choose the best of two evils and still got the more evil. I know people who fought in WWII with Germans, because Russian you don’t know what Russian army was like. But those people lived through Russian occupation. So when you know little about history then don’t try to look smart.
SS troops as opposed to the regular German army. SS were the card carrying Nazis, the rest were some either way.
*nod nod* Yep. My great-grandfather was in the German army during WWII, but he wasn’t part of the Nazi party. I do have a great-uncle Adolf, though.
Oy! I did say “highly unlikely”, as opposed to impossib;e, because I have heard that there were a very few non-Germans drafted into the SS.
And I repeat: These men were *not* in the German army, they were in the SS, an entirely different organisation. So once, you know the difference, *then* you can tell me how stupid I am, thank-you-very-f-much.
The Gentlemen in the above picture were NOT SS. My great grandfather was SS and while I don’t agree with their beliefs, I do know exactly what their uniforms looked like. Those are members of the German Army. The symbol on the far left man’s collar is not “SS” It has something to do with Tanks.
They are all part of the Waffen-SS. These men (at least the one in the center and the one on his left,) are from the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian). Of course this doesn’t mean they are Nazis as in memeber of the NSDAP, many men from the Baltic states were conscripted into the Waffen-SS.
*gg* Would you rather want me to bring the “FIRST!!!”-Postings from Failblog to POK?
THen, simply, I hunt you and kill you… nothing personal…
Is it going to tell the killer joke?
w00t monty python FTW!
my thoughts exactly! lol
So, does that mean the kitty is sitting next to the Holy Hand Grenade?
“And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats”
Shouldn’t this go to icanhascheezburger? It’s cute if you think kittens next to grenades are cute and all but c’mon no lols here.
Nazis are funny! Ask Mel Brooks.
I’m going to have to agree with you again. I probably shouldn’t make a habit of that.
Also Tom Cruise. Oh, wait, `Valkyrie’ wasn’t supposed to be comedic?
Haven’t seen it yet *plans to watch illegal copy online tonight*
Looking forward to your review. part of me wants to see it, parts of me are in “not another Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise” movie. Ever since he played the two-meter tall, rake-thin Lestat…
Did this site correct my spelling, or did I really type “meter” instead of “metre”?
You really did spell it wrong.
how is it spelled wrong? I didn’t know we were typing in french now. Je m’excuse.
Americans have one way to spell it, the English have the right way to spell it.
As Australians, OhMyGoodness and I will spell it the same as in British English.
No, Mel Brooks is funny – no matter what the subject.
damm strait
dam the strait?
Charlie Chaplin did just as good a take on comedic Nazidom…
Hogan’s Heroes…
The Indiana Jones franchise…
Charlie Chaplin – yeah, have to agree. The man was brilliant.
-
Hogan’s Heroes – For what they were, sure. I loved the show as a kid. The Nazi characters were one dimensional simpletons. I believe they were easy to write because they lacked any real nuance. They remind me of the ’80s sitcom father. The mother and (esp) the kids were always smarter than goofy old dad, and always helped him out of his problems. If it weren’t for the kids, I think dad wouldn’t have been able to feed himself. In HH, the prisoners were ‘the kids’ and the nazis were ‘the dad’. It made for good comedy. I still remember the one episode where there was a German character named Dr. Krank. (krank is German for sick).
-
The Indiana Jones franchise – eh, really? Funny? I think they were bumbling in a less slapstick comedic way than Hogan’s Heroes, but in a very Hollywood formulaic way.
-
And I stand by my assertion that Mel Brooks was funny, nazis or no nazis. Young Frankenstein, Blazing Saddles etc.
Gutentag Hop Hop!
I got a giggle out of it because I mean… come on, it’s implying that a kitten could take out an SS officer! lolcats tend to stay away from scary things like natzis.
natzurally.
Notzo much.
Nacho mutz.
Nutzo Mutts.
Lutz o’ mutts
Ich kann Kaseburger haben?
the other one was better…
.
“don’t come any closer or i’ll pull the pin…”
Agreed! I also had a snigger over the “Powepuff Girls” one.
Yeah, I liked that one too. I think I favorited it.
*is mildy amused*
*mimics DWN*
I’m like UBR up above. the ‘don’t come any closer or i’ll pull the pin’ is better. This one doesn’t even mention the grenade.
They’re just scared of Kitten based explosions.
This picture will probably blow up in the comment area.
You mean comments like “See SSers were people too!” or something like that
Anyway, why the f would you lay a handgranade next to a kitten…
they are people.
Like Soylent Green
Thanks, you made me choke on my cereal.
I don’t think that is a grenade. The Germans used the stick grenade, and that looks more like a air pump or sorts.
Only if the kitten pulls the pin.
Woah! Not mocking George Bush or lauding Obama? This is more strange than funny. o.O
I like it.
No, no Jug Ears or Monkey boy…
Obama is teh PWNAGE. NO INSULT THE NEW PREZ, ‘K?
I’ll insult who I want to you moron…
Am I the only one here who’s getting a little tired of U/Fester and his inane comments?
Lately PK has become merely a place for rabid USA political hooey and Festers’s blathering.
BOR-ING.
Hey look! AF found a sock! You might want to clean that, Bob/Mike/AF/(whoever), it’s kind of dirty and makes you look fat.
Speaking of sock puppets, Frou, Fester, Rhorho….
You mean they’re all one person who manages to be a conservative christian, a misanthropic englishman and a left-wing “nutjob” and argues with theirself?
O_O Whoa. And since I know froo works nights and I usually see Fester on in the morning, that person must never, ever sleep!
It’s a Frhofest!
I…have…been…assimilated!!
No, wait…That’s a good thing.
Froo, your turn on dishes…
Unc, your turn on laundry…
*naps*
Damn, I knew I needed more meds to stop the voices…….*goes to wash dishes*
In fact none of them are on just now….Perhaps… You’re one of them too…. Aren’t you?
In fact… Maybe everyone on PK is actually one person who has it in for Mike/AF/Bob/supreme troll….. perhaps I’m a sock……
WE ARE THE INTERNET’S BIGGEST, SMELLIEST SOCK……
And now, since he knows, he will be assimilated as well! Mwa ha ha ha ha!
Resistance is futile! Put your hand inside the puppet head! *on a TMBG kick*
Well, the folks at the institution let Uncle Fester on the Net as long as he wants- It keeps him away from sharp objects, masturbation and real poo flinging….
ah, there speaks the hero of a nation… he’s peeled potatoes all over the US for the Air Force you know…
Shame on you Unc! He peeled those taters for FREEDOM!!!
Would that make him a freedom frier?
Woah, how does the Net keep anyone from masturbating?
Pretty sure the Net is the only way I can even get it up anymore… That and sharp objects with fecal painted walls\ceilings…
The Net was made for the nudes.
There are some good antedotes out there, like much of what can be found on the “Why Women Hate Men”-blog, for instance. After a dose of that, masturbation desires decrease in anyeon, but those with VERY strange perversions.
What branch of the military did you serve in, and where and when did you serve?
Hey, I’ve got an idea. How about this: if you have a problem with what Fester has to say, either debunk his argument, or outwit him. Failing that, STFU.
[LINK]
Sorry it’s got “monkey boy”, I just LOVE this one for it’s, well, veracity!
God I suck today.
*its (on the second one, not the first)
Aw f**k it. The whole comment’s a grammatical failure.
Just click the damn link.
Ummm. Bacon.
@n8:
a) Yes I have a problem with Fester, he’s bringing this whole site down to his pathetic level;
b) He isn’t actually MAKING any arguments to be debunked; and
c) Outwitting a dullard is, in the dullard’s eyes, impossible. I’ve seen classic put-downs here met with more bull-headed, mindless tripe… why would one waste bandwidth arguing with such mindless drivel???
STFU is something that I was going to suggest Fester and his accolytes should consider, so thank you for the pre-emptive lob.
I second that.
You know, talking to yourself can be controlled with medication….
Yeah, but he’d actually have to take the meds… or have them force-fed. HEY! I have a tube here, if you grab the rx we could clean out a few of his more inane persoanlities!
Can we give them to him as suppositories?
YOU are BRILLIANT. We can use these visegrips & plumber’s helper that I happen to have on standby.
*gets shovel, cutting torch and pliers*
so….can I come too?
Nice…
A) You can’t stop him from posting as he pleases, so if you’re tired of it, your only real option is to stop visiting the site. Or have him assassinated.
B) Sometimes, he does. If you actually engage him in conversation instead of slinging idiotic talking points and half-baked BS, you’ll find that he (and many others) actually do have brains and use them. If, on the other hand, you come spewing nonsense, you’ll probably be answered with general abuse because it’s worth nobody’s time to correct you.
C) Outwitting somebody on the internet isn’t judged in either of the combatants’ eyes, it’s judged by the audience. Seems to me like you’re not scoring very highly with anyone just now, except for your probable alter-ego.
I’ll give you the same advice I gave the last troll. Sit down and shut up before you make yourself look even more of a fool.
@n8
a) Yay! An assassination! I’ll gather the socks and alert the media;
b) *sigh* what’s up your bum today? “spewing nonsense” = expressing an opinion which, as you’ve pointed out in your own red-faced-and-spitting fashion is is something we’re all entitled to do here.
c) I wasn’t aware that duelling opinions were a spectator sport – thank you for the englightenment.
Back at ya bud.
Have a lovely day.
Well, now you know. It IS [not were / are] a spectator sport. So far, you’re not even getting a 2.5 from the Ukrainian judges.
I suppose that there’s not much stopping you from posting here as you please. However, since it only appears to be you and your sock-drawer on your side of the paddock, may I suggest you contemplate as did Professor Julius Sumner-Miller: “why is it so?”
I think the Austrian judge is giving him a 6, but we always knew those Austrians were a sneaky bunch.
And here I thought it was the Swiss.. that shoots holes in my theory!
Is that a brie-eze blowing through your holes, Eddie?
Just like clockwork…
Nice froo.. I love a nice brie! But only with some red..
What goes with white?
I can smell blue.
*blushes*
@rho: some sourdough with a strong cheddar maybe? Bleu would work well with a pinot noir I think.
It’s all worth a try. *hic*
lush..
Could be worse, could be a mini-lop rabbit.
Ka-Click.
You mean like mine? Nothing could be more terrifying
More dreck. Don’t those who vote have any wit?
Kittens are only funny if they’re bleeding or causing others to bleed.
but… but… it’s got NAZIS…
One of my all time favorites [Link}
- Don’t be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the Nazi party!
- Springtime for Hitler and Germany, Deutschland is happy and gay!…
Ok, I posted this a couple of hours ago, but it still hasn’t shown up, so I’m going to try again.
Springtime for Hitler on youtube. This is from the original 1968 movie, not the piece of crap remake.
[Link]
Piece of crap remake. Sigh. But that’s how I got my kids to just love “The Producers.” Now they watch it, no matter what version, whenever it comes on.
I know. But they loved “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” so much I was willing to give it a try. And I have to admit an affinity for Nathan Lane in “”The Birdcage.”
Will Ferrell makes my teeth ache, but he was amusing as Franz Liebkind.
I know, I know. I also enjoyed “La Cage Aux Folles;” I actually found it funnier. But Nathan Lane … who doesn’t appreciate Timon (who, with children, that is). And yup. I do know who voiced Simba.
Do I win “six degrees of Kevin Bacon” yet?
First, that was an impressive string of movies / actors there. It made my head spin. Second, Kevin Bacon and I said hello to each other once. Does that count for anything?
Ok, I’m not opinionated, really, I’m not…., not buying it huh? Eh Screw it, I am, but I’m also right.
Ok the biggest thing that I hated about the remake was Matthew Broderick! I’ve loved him in other things, (like Ferris Bueller). If he had played the part of Leo Bloom, he might have been ok. Instead, he played the part of Gene Wilder, playing the part of Leo Bloom. As much as I like him, he’s no Gene Wilder. The theactrical term is aping. He was aping Gene, and he sucked.
The second thing, I don’t like musicals. I didn’t like what they did with the overall story. If you and your kids like the new version, cool. I’ll hold onto the original. I bought the DVD the second it came out.
Oh, Nathan Lane was good. I had no issues with him.
You had me at hello (Kevin Bacon).
You complete me.
I thought it was two degrees from Kevin Bacon.
Theres only one degree to Kevin Bacon. He is quite omnipresent.
In my head.
With a penis.
Especially if it’s his.
to SCUM:
you named yourself correctly. If you think kittens are only funny if they are bleeding you are a disgrace. If you said it only trying to be funny, GROW UP.
Eh, blow me.
Now go back to your ham and eggs, or was it a steak and cheese sandwich?
I thought it was whine and cheese?
Venom and Velveeta?
Rage and Requesón?
Oh, I like that one.
Venom works, but Velveeta is disgusting and it does not qualify as cheese.
Venom GOES with Velveeta, for that very reason, Dear one…
Well, they are both dangerous to your system.
That’s putting it mildly. It could easily turn you into a munster.
It’s a feta compte plea.
Will….not….go….there
That was Gouda.
Damn!
Yup, she’s grate.
When she isn’t shredding someone.
Now you cut that out!
Hey, edam and weep, ok?
We’re getting a bit sharp here, dontcha think?
Cheddar knock it off!
If you ricotta, someone else started this. I’m just going along for the rye.
I don’t cottage to these remarks. They’re too aged for me.
Don’t you bring up aged with me missy!
Keep it up, and someone’ll cream ya!
Besides, all this brickering is starting to make me blue …
ah monsieur, surely you mean bleu?
Ah, I see what you’re saying, but Googling will provolone me right, sir!
I camembert being spelled both ways ….
There aren’t any hard and firm rules here.
Ah, how I admire the neutrality of swiss.
You show culture, but your assertion is full
of holes.
@rho: I’m not going to touch that one..
-
@Literal: yes, the swiss goes with everything!
@rhoho
-
So is my head.
@eddiescapetti
-
That’s a fact, Jack!
Sorry, I believe I referred to you as monsieur earlier, but shouldn’t it have been mademoiselle?
Well, she’s certainly no Monterrey Jack!
These puns make me want to croque, Madame.
Nah, my point was that it would whine about a cute cuddly furry animal, but will still go eat meat, you know, from other animals, and products (eggs and chesse) from animals kept in captivity in order to feed it.
“Kitty knew that if the torture became unbearable, he had a way out”
Dullard…
Fecal encephlopath…
and?
if you’re going to insult him, you could at least spell it correctly.
*shrug* He’s 0-for-all of ‘em so far, why should this be any different? Sounds suspiciously like another troll known to me who, upon hearing/reading* a nifty new idea/insult would parrot it interminably, mis-spelled, mis-labelled, mis-understood & all.
*’read’ meaning out loud & mis-pronounced.
He’s now claiming to be military…
Yeah, the ‘peeling potatoes for freedom’ line made me giggle. Like our Anniee & her Austrian Mensa Economics & Poodle Grooming PhD. ABout on par with each other. He knows military like Anniee knows ec.
He should probably be made aware that the US Postal Service does not generally qualify as military service.
Neither does the priesthood..
Unless you’re Father Butt Ranger. Then it’s debatable.
In which case the end result might be the same..
I’m just glad it’s not in a poorly executed motivational poster format.
A-Frickin-Men.
Indeed.
Wait, are you, as an atheist, allowed to say ‘amen’? Isn’t that like a Christian invoking evolution?
*throws holy water on DevilFester*
*boils off leaving no mark*
It takes more than a pagan man god to spoil my day…
*throws Hari Krishna at DevilFester*
As a Christian, are you allowed to say (type) “Hare
Krishna?”
I’m not sure. My fingertips started burning the second I got the first word out.
Wrong location for psychotic stigmata…
Stigmata are a sign of favor from God (I think), not punishment for screwing up. I figure I’m getting burned by the pagan equivalent to holy water.
Stigmata are a sign of teh batpoop crazy.
You get good drugs, though.
Not being Catholic, I can agree with you, hehe. That’s why I’m not sure the ‘reason’ behind Stigmata, whether favor or curse. That and bleeding statues are all in the same category for me.
Stigmata is a sign of somebody being like Christ and thus being able to understand his sacrifice first hand. Rather morbid but supposedly it is a sign of favor.
Buddhist stigmata are a sign of favoritism
from Buddha, then?
I’m sticking with my “batpoop crazy” answer.
Psychotropics can control occurrence of
stigmata.
What is a Buddist stigmata? A third eye suddenly popping out on your forehead?
Um no… If you read the path of the conversation, you are the one who brought up stigmata in the first place, got it wrong, and now are pinning it on Froo. I was clarifying what Stigmata actually is. You are the one saying it was from Buddha. If anything, Froofrou got burned by her beliefs by typing something she doesn’t believe in. More like a holy water joke than anything else.
I am still wondering why you thought Stigmata in the first place.
Misread on you.
I didn’t get anything wrong. I was gently
pointing out that stigmata occur in people who
follow Christianity and Buddhism (Islam, too,
though I didn’t mention it).
I’m not “pinning” anything on Froo. It was a
joke about her finger wounds. This is a
musing, not a quarrel. If you reread froo’s
last post, you’ll see that she is clearly getting
the light nature of our conversation.
You still didn’t tell me what the Buddist stigmata is
“You still didn’t tell me what the Buddist stigmata is”
`
Um… your stomach gets really fat?
Your earlobes stretch?
Seriously, the Wiki article attached doesn’t
describe the wounds/marks, but says they
are “regularly indicated in Buddhist art.”
Yeah but the wiki article only cites two books for that and I haven’t been able to find any internet source on that that doesn’t link back to the wiki article
The ‘Buddhist Stigmata’ are not wounds, more like features of the Buddha. There are 32, I believe. They deal with how long his arms are, his hair, his tongue (yowza), and other cosmetic things that define what the Buddha is supposed to look like.
Here is a [LINK] to the characteristics of the Buddha.
[LINK] Here’s another source, indicating that
stigmata is not an exclusively Christian
phenomenon.
According to the article linked above,
“Stigmatization has also been reported in Islamic societies, but in these cases, the wounds correspond to those suffered by Mohammad in his fight to spread Islam.”
Ref the Buddhist stuff… there are numerous images of the buddha, but the all date from the Alexandrian invasion of India… prior to that there were no images.
The 32 signs thing sounds very Tibetan to me, which is only one collection of sects and is not representative of all Buddhist thought (or imagery)
The only article I could find had a table set up to compare St Francis to the Buddha, and had ’stigmata’ on par with ‘characteristics’. I’d love to find out if there is something different. I’m kind of getting hooked on reading this stuff.
You’re throwing a saffron dressed loon at me?
Krishna is really just another god-man, Indian instead of Classical. All much of a muchness…
Oddly enough, some of us crazies believe in both evolution and creation… But that is just craziness.
That’s just…..well, crazy.
I find it just crazy enough to work.
Origin of the specious?
Just to let you know: that’s been giving me a case of the snickers for a coupla hours now.
Ooh … you have a case of Snickers? Does it satisfy?
Creation by what?
Is it so hard to believe that some completely bored and apathetic being put all this nonsense into motion and gets a sick thrill watching us screw each other over?
Pretty much.
Like when you send random tornados to ravage your metropolis in SimCity? I loved doing that. But then I love sneezing too.
I preferred floods and monsters.
It is said that we craft god in our own image. So God must be a complete whackjob.
If that’s the case, I don’t exist.
Occam’s razor would indicate that, since evolution is sufficient to explain observable reality, throwing in creation on the side only adds needless complexity, and is therefore less likely.
But I know where you’re coming from. It’s entirely possible that all the myriad processes that evolved into the current situation were set in motion by the snap of God’s fingers. It’s a comforting notion, but there’s just nothing to back it up.
Hence, Faith
Faith is believing what you know ain’t so. — Mark Twain
I always find it funny that Atheists quote authors with authority while decrying the works of other authors.
-
First, there’s no need to capitalize the word atheist. In fact it is grammatically incorrect. It is not a name or a title.
-
Second, everyone will quote some authors while decrying the works of other authors. Or are you telling me that you believe everything ever written by anyone anywhere?
-
Third, quoting Mark Twain and others helps to illustrate a point. Sometimes it’s because they’ve said what we’re trying to say, sometimes it is because they may have some experience which we lack. Sometimes it’s simply because we believe they know what they’re talking about so it lends legitimacy to our argument. Again, I’m willing to bet these are the same reasons you quote certain authors.
-
The big difference between who atheists quote, and (since you’ve set the stage for atheist and theist here), what theists quote, is that we’re not trying to use those quotes as any kind of omniscient authority endowed with the power to decide how individuals live their lives.
-
We use the quotes for example and from which to learn. Theists tend to use the quotes to subjugate.
Most of what you said is interesting, but your last paragraph is a broad brush.
I’m thinking you’re only hung up on the last
word of it. Is that the case?
AC, I responded but it’s down below ’cause I screwed up on the nesting – oops.
It’s the post that starts with:
I like the broad brush, ask rho.
Thank you for putting this all so well. I missed
DWN’s comment yesterday, so your answer was
most pleasant to find this morning.
I used the quote both for its use as illustration
and for its quality of brevity.
In your last sentence, “Theists tend to use the
quotes to subjugate,” the word “tend” is a good
choice, but perhaps “subjugate” doesn’t cover
the various agendas theists have in mind at
different times.
I tend to use tend because there tend to be exceptions…
See above for my explanation of the use of the word subjugate.
Oops, I responded to my own post instead of ACs so
change ‘above’ to ‘below’. It’s down there.
Ah, apparently I was painfully vague. Sorry about that, allow me to elaborate.
Atheists: People with a system of beliefs that state there is nothing to believe. Known to bring up quotes from figures of authority to back their statements with the quote being the evidence.
Theists: People with a system of beliefs that state there is something to believe. Known to bring up quotes from figures of authority to back their statements with the quote being the evidence.
Is the irony apparent now?
*snork*
And I firmly hold the belief that all beliefs are fraudulent.
I didn’t quote Mark Twain as “authority,”
though. He expressed the thought well, imo.
Theists quoting religious texts are usually
assuming their source to be more authori-
tative than the atheists’ sources.
Omniscient, even.
@rho: Twain’s observations are usually (I would say entirely, but I know I may be missing something) on the behaviors of believers, feelings that I share wholeheartedly. So, for that matter, are the best observations of many atheists. Twain gets quoted frequently on this topic, but was he actually an atheist?
@pdq: The debate rages, but I would venture
to guess that he was no more atheistic than I
am.
Atheist – (my definition) a person who believes that there are no gods, angels, devils, spirits, ghosts, goblins or oogy-boogies.
Theist – (my definition) a person who believes exactly the same as an atheist, with the one exception of their god(s). The theist is atheist for all of the other gods etc in which people throughout the world profess belief.
-
To state that atheists have a ‘belief system’ in order to ‘believe in nothing’ is one of the many ridiculous right-wing talking points. For lack of a better phrase, it’s really stupid
Atheism is not a system of beliefs, or a belief in itself. It is simply not believing that your gods, exist or have ever existed outside of the minds of gullible, frightened cave-folk and some of their ancestors.
@Scum: To believe there is nothing else out there, you have to use the word believe. Ergo, you believe in something that is not necessarily provable since you have to believe that everything is already known. Since everything is not already known, you are still believing in something as opposed to knowing since you cannot possibly know everything.
Simply put, to believe in nothing you have to believe in something, even if it is only that there is nothing.
Also, why the increase in aggression in your posts?
@Rhorho: Sorry for the confusion, I was reveling in a sense of irony in quoting Twain especially after seeing n8 quote Occam’s Razor. Wasn’t implying anything about you in particular. Just an odd observation I inevitably see in Theism and Atheism debates.
Right, as in I do not believe. I didn’t say I know for a fact. I believe that to some degree or another, everything in existence is subjective.
-
If it makes you feel better, I believe that there are no such things as gods etc. I believe that anyone who believes in gods is being self-delusional.
-
You also have a set of beliefs. You believe Zeus does not exist. You believe Odin does not exist. You believe salamanders do not grow on trees. You believe George the pink sea monster with orange spots, green and white hair, who talks to me and lives in my bathtub does not exist. You believe that a poly-cotton blend will not in and of itself enable me to fly.
-
Do you understand how ridiculous it is to attempt to state all of a person’s non-beliefs as a belief? The lists would continue forever as there are an infinite number of things we don’t believe and it serves no purpose.
-
I’m sorry you think there’s an increase in aggression. There is none intended. Perhaps you’re talking the conviction of my beliefs (see, I did it again), as anger? or aggression? because you can see that I stand firm in them?
No I think I saw the part where you are calling me self delusional and resorting to name calling against a group of people as aggression… Your conviction doesn’t really matter to me as you just spent your post proving my point.
And as for my set of beliefs, what about them? I never said I didn’t have a system of beliefs. I was simply pointing out that you do as well. Ergo Atheism is a set of beliefs. And you are proving my point quite nicely. How I feel about it is irrelevant. You don’t have to make me feel better at all nor do I expect you to. I am simply pointing out that Atheists have a system of beliefs.
You are set in your beliefs that what a number of others believe is wrong. Still, it is a system of beliefs. Thanks for proving me right. I still don’t understand why you thought your paragraph about my beliefs was relevant to disprove my statement.
Side note: I always hate religious debates as they make my posts redundant…
I find this type of discussion rather interesting (especially without aggro from any side), so I’ll butt in! (No butt comments, tyvm.)
.
There are good arguments for both sides, i think. Atheism is one way of looking at the world, but it is not a religion. It must be a set of beliefs in the way anyone’s view on life must be (or it would be a living hell), but it is not a belief system based on faith-belief. I mean, I don’t go around believing there is no god. I just don’t have the belief of one.
.
Maybe it’s just semantics and irrelevant, but to me I often see quite a big difference between not believing there are “higher powers” and doing so.
@DWN
Why did I list some of the trillions of beliefs that you have? Simply to show how ridiculous it is to call non-beliefs beliefs. Can you do it? Sure. I can call an orange a supercomputer too. I didn’t mention self-delusional until this previous post so no, that’s not why you thought I was being aggressive. If it was the comment about cave-folk and their ancestors, I was referring to you as one of the ancestors, not the cave folk. Not an insult. I too am an ancestor of gullible, frightened cave-folk.
-
I think you’re projecting your anger onto me. That’s ok. You’re not going to hurt my feelings. I’ve been where you are right now. I used to be one of you and I too grasped at straws in an attempt to defend my beliefs to others, all the while, deep down I was really trying to make myself believe – I just didn’t realize it at the time. I thought I had some of the strongest ‘faith’ out there. In the long run however, the more I used my ‘god-given’ brain , the less I could believe in the existence of any of the gods.
-
If you think that I’ve proved you right in any aspect of your argument – congratulations! Take it, and enjoy the victory.
There is a big difference, I am simply stating it is a similar category. Also, you have to remember that a person isn’t walking the streets constantly thinking about whatever higher power they believe in. They just hold the belief and when it comes up, they discuss it.
Though your one sentence is contradictory. If you have the belief there is no god, then you do constantly hold that belief thus believing there is no god. It is a static state and I think you are trying to make it nonstatic. It’s a yes or no question more than a state of mind.
And finally, because I like to be a pest, I will state this. There is a bit of faith involved to believe there was nothing because it is honestly a question that nobody can know. Perhaps neither side is right. We don’t know, so anything we have to draw a conclusion on before we have all the information is a leap of faith, even if it seems so tiny to be invisible.
@Scum: Did you mean “ancestors” or
“descendants” there?
@Scum: Projecting anger? What anger? When have I been angry? As for listing what I believe in and don’t believe in, still both are a form of belief. If I hold the belief that Zeus doesn’t exist, it is still a belief. Calling it a nonbelief doesn’t change that it is, in fact, a belief. I believe that Zeus doesn’t exist. It is a belief because it is something I believe to be true. Why is that such a hard issue for you again?
Now you’re just getting insulting. You honestly have no idea what my beliefs are do you? Grasping at straws? No, I’m just trying to point out a semantics lesson and you keep wanting to make it personal.
And for the record and REALLY read my words this time, I am not trying to sell you anything. I am not asking you to believe. I don’t have a stake in your faith or lack of faith. I am simply trying to point out holding the belief in anything as truth is still a believe. Even if you think that nothing is true, you still have the issue that you believe and thus have a belief in that fact.
@rhorho
D’oh!
Nice catch, thank you.
@Scum — knew what you meant, but of course it’s entirely possible that in the future we’ll be the ancestors of frightened, gullible cave folk. All it would take is one really massive disaster.
“”Take your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape!”
@rho: ‘zactly!
@DWN
Sorry, first, over the course of several posts, I changed your accusation of an increase in aggression in my posts to ‘anger’. My mistake. Second, I’m not saying you’re angry. I was saying if you felt I was angry, maybe you were angry and were projecting. No accusation of actual anger, just an observation as to why you might think I was angry – and it was all supposed to be ‘aggression’ anyway.
-
Belief vs non-believe. I believe I am alive. I believe I am going to head out in a few minutes. I believe I’m going to have chicken for dinner. Everything, literally everything can be phrased as a ‘belief’. Ok, the point is what? What most of us are arguing against is that atheism is not a belief system in the way a religion is. It is not, as many have tried to state, a religion in and of itself and more than bald is a hair color.
-
I’m not attempting to be insulting. I think you’re not parsing out the words properly. I did say that I believe that you, as I grasp at straws in order to defend/justify/prove the faith. You can’t prove faith. There is no proof or evidence for it. You’re not going to come up with tangible evidence to prove it to others, therefore, it is grasping at straws. Then I said that I, not you, I, was trying to make myself believe. I wouldn’t presume to know what’s in your mind regarding your own beliefs.
I believe I have read your words carefully, at least as carefully as you’ve read mine. I don’t believe I have accused you of attempting to sell me anything. I don’t believe I’ve even once in this thread thought that you were trying to convince me of anything spiritual. I think you’ve been trying to get me to ‘admit’ that atheism is a religion (aka belief system), but that’s not going to happen.
Ok, have many things to do today, and need to head out, but I’ll check back later on if there’s follow up. Have a great rest of your day!
@Danbala
Thanks, you said it very well.
@dissimilitude
Yes, looking forward to hanging out with those funny Morlocks!
Mmm, I don’t recall stating that Atheism is a religon. I said it was a belief system. My original issue was to show the irony between atheists and theists and their arguments. If anything I think our terminology is getting mixed up and causing this thread.
Atheists have a system of beliefs about how and why just as Theists do. There isn’t a church needed or even a religion per say. However, it is still a system of beliefs that is used as your filter for information. The best example is from your own words. You believe that people who believe in a god are self deluded. You apparently don’t need any other fact than they have a belief in a higher being before you are assured of their delusion.
But, in arguing semantics, you decided to say I was projecting, that you’ve been me, and then waffle about it.
So here is the proof, it isn’t tangible but it is logical. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You have no tangible proof of the existence or nonexistence of a higher being just as I lack the same proof. Ergo, both of our systems of belief are based on faith. I’m not even talking about proof of Christian divinity, just divinity in general. Neither your nor I have proof to the positive or contrary. So at best, we have a theory, a hypothesis, a belief, all of which has some form of faith without fact.
About the idea of atheism being a belief, albeit a belief in the non-existance of things, I disagree. I’m an eternal pessimist, so I don’t believe in anything. Instead I will accept something as true if it can be demonstrated as so. This is actually qute debillitating in many aspects, for instance getting paid at the end of the month, or when my girlfriend tells me she loves me: I accept these things to be true once they are demonstrated.
I don’t believe in the non-existance of gods, in the same way as I don’t believe in the non-existance of the Loch Ness Monster. Both are things which are irrelevant to my life until such time as evidence can be logically sifted, by myself if I get bored, as I frequently do and have done by other things, such as why free will exists or why backwards time travel is impossible. I’m not claiming to have perfect logical skills or anything, but nothing that I ‘know’ (whether it’s correct or not) is based on belief, it’s based on facts, with again the caveat that it’s easy to misunderstand facts.
I’m going to shut up now as I’m wibbling on like an MP avoiding a question…
Right and as I’ve said religion is a belief system, although not all belief systems are religion. So basically, we’re saying the same thing, you want to claim that atheism is a religion/belief system.
-
I don’t collect coins. Is ‘not collecting coins’ a hobby, like ‘not believing in gods’ is a belief system?
-
Look, you’re doing a fine job of spouting the right-wing talking points (please, don’t bother insulting all of us here by claiming you’re not) . It would appear that you and I have both been there before. We’re not going to change each others minds. I simply responded to your initial post of I always find it funny that Atheists quote authors with authority while decrying the works of other authors. to correct you on your attempted insult. The trick that you’re trying to pull now, is that since you know that you can never find anything to demonstrate that any religious belief is valid, you try to bring opponents down to your level and claim that our ‘beliefs’ are no better than your ‘beliefs’. It doesn’t work, yet theists continue to try it. Good luck with that.
-
You state: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.. Do you know what else it isn’t? Proof of anything. And yet, that’s how theists cling to the absence of evidence, as proof of their god, and only their god.
-
Just so you know and understand, I am not only atheist, I am anti-theist. Most atheists would be happy if they simply weren’t bothered by theists. I on the other had, truly believe that the world would be a far far better place if people didn’t have their mythologies to blame for all of their hatred of others. If people had to actually take personal responsibility for their own beliefs (as we atheists do) instead of justifying them through some god, at least they’d be honest about it, and from there a conversation can begin.
-
I do not believe in denying anyone the right to believe in the myths of their choice. All religion has to die a natural death or it will continue to haunt mankind forever. But, if mankind can’t crawl out from underneath the antiquated and fetid veil of religion, we are doomed to die at each others throats all in the names of the gods.
-
- just my opinion…
Yo StupidMan,
The only thing you’ve said with which I will disagree is:
“backwards time travel is impossible.”
Of course, I can only tell you why, in the past, so look for me there…
Hey, Scum, I’m in Cairo, 540 A.D. Look
me up!
@rhorho
Damn, I was just there next week…
Dammit! I will have been washing my hair
then!
Ok then, can you meet me in Palos de la Frontera, Spain on August 3, 1492 about 4PM?
-
Please don’t be late though. I have a boat to catch.
Sorry, but I’ll be in 20 November, 1969, with
Apollo 12 then. I would rebook, but I need to
finish my moon rock garden before the
Spartan gymnastics class starts in 616 BC.
Right wing talking points? You think? Wow… After I read that, I lost all interest in bothering since you have no damn clue what you are even debating.
Oh yes, I’m an evil rightie with evil rightie talking points.
Wow, DWN–Impressive nest traveling. Scum
and I were merely time traveling…
Oops! My bad: This *is* the right thread.
I thought PK had pulled another of its
famous tricks…
It’s okay, I’m done here anyway. Once the myriad of assumptions began, I realized he was arguing with somebody else entirely. So no worries.
@Rho
Nope, it’s the correct thread, and DWN is trying to slip out the back door with a little dignity – not that s/he has any left after accusing me of all sorts of made up crap.
-
It’s the right-wings escape strategy, play victim, accuse the others of being mean and name calling while you’re running for the door.
-
No problem, I’m sure DWN has done it many many times before.
Okay, okay. This is funny enough to make me post.
Right wing? You think I’m right wing? Crispy Gerbils on a pogo stick, you have really no idea what you’re talking about, do you?
And you say I lack dignity. You don’t even know who or what you are debating with.
Fine, you want a last post in this thread? Here it is.
I just work with what you give me. I don’t know you from any other person on the net. All I know is what you’ve presented here, in this thread.
-
If you find it offensive to be called a rightwinger, then stop presenting yourself by using the right-wing/fundie talking points and you won’t be. Funny though, I think you’re more upset at being found out and exposed up here than you are of being falsely accused.
-
- You start off by accusing all atheists of being deceptive – (right-wing tactic).
-
- You state that atheists ‘believe in nothing’ – (right-wing tactic)
-
- You try to soften the word religion by using the phrase ‘belief system’ – (right-wing tactic)
-
- You claim that atheism is a ‘belief system/religion’ and desperately try to get me to say the same. – (right-wing tactic)
-
- You accuse me of becoming aggressive, yet only offer as an example a lie about name calling ( – right-wing tactic) and what was said after the accusation as evidence.
-
- You intentionally twist my words in order to feign some outrage over something never said – (right-wing tactic)
-
-You ignore my apology for my misinterpretation of a single word – (right-wing tactic)
-
- You claim several times that I prove your point, yet offer no example of such. – (right-wing tactic)
-
- You accuse me of being ‘insulting’ so that you can play the victim (help me help, I’m a theist and I’m being oppressed by the big mean atheist!) – (right-wing tactic)
-
- You simply make things up (the REALLY read my words this time section is a good example) – (right-wing tactic)
-
- You’ve ignored every explanation for your, misunderstandings – (right-wing tactic)
-
- You finally come out with what you’ve been wanting to say the whole time, that atheism is based on faith and is therefore as viable or non-viable a religion as your belief in invisible magical sky critters.- (right-wing tactic)
-
- You didn’t answer my question I don’t collect coins. Is ‘not collecting coins’ a hobby, like ‘not believing in gods’ is a belief system?
-
So, if you walk like a right-winger and quack like a right-winger, and crap all over everything like a right-winger, you leave me no choice but to conclude that you are a right-winger.
-
I really don’t get it. Do you right-wingers really think that you can ‘trick’ others into believing in your invisible magical sky critters? Is that how they got you? You were tricked into it?
-
I’m done with you. If you want to play those games, fine, but take your faux outrage and find someone who can’t see through your BS. Yeah yeah, I know, I’m too dense to know with whom I’m arguing, but like I said, I’m just working with what you give me. Fine. If you want to go brag to all of your fellow 12 year old right-wing fundie pals, be my guest.
Two Words. Rhymes with Sick Puppy.
McGuppy?
Chick luppy?
Tip Stuppy?
Pick Suppy?
Scum, not to be confrontational here, but if you were on the right side of the aisle instead of the left, you would be saying that those were ‘typical left wing responses’. Your complaints are about the ARGUING STYLE, not the side of the aisle it’s coming from. Perhaps if you stood back and really looked, you’ll see that both sides use faulty arguments here and there, and that’s what you’re having trouble with.
-
DWN never has been and never will be right wing anything. He’s pretty staunchly moderate.
@DWN & Scum:
First, I think froo is correct.
Second, this debate isn’t even about the
subject that began it.
Third, I don’t think anything is going to
be resolved here, in this format, in this way.
Fourth, I think you are both wise enough to
call this quits.
Fifth, I’ve got cookies. Froo and I can already
have some, and both of you can, too, if you
agree to drop this one.
*holds platter of still-oven-warm cookies in
front of froo*
*sigh* The things I put myself into by coming back to check.
@Scum:
1. I would have to be upset for your statement to work. I’m not, so it doesn’t. There was nothing to find out.
2. I never said Atheists were deceptive, feel free to make up the statement where I said this. I simply said I found irony in that both side resort to the same type of appeal to authority arguments. Nothing more or less.
3. Atheists do believe in nothing, at least as far as gods or anything else divine is concerned. So I guess you got me there, slick.
4. I didn’t soften anything. I said belief system and I meant belief system. It is called a dictionary. I suggest reading one before getting your panties in a bunch.
5. It is a belief system since neither atheism nor theism is Fact. Ergo belief system.
6. I accused you of aggression because of the tone of your posts, read back to them and see what I mean. If that doesn’t work, we are at loggerheads and I drop the point there.
7. Twist your words, care to actually back that up? Because I was trying to be as calm and cool as possible. If you can cite examples, I can apologize.
8. Hmm, I would have to go back through to find that apology.
9. Proving my point. You state that you hold a fervent belief that there is no god and even claim a bit of zealotry and yet that somehow proves that you don’t have a belief system that you are steadfast in… Alright then…
10. Victim play, not my thing. If anything read the tone of both post streams and see who is being more aggressive. Wasn’t me. I won’t go so far as to say Help me but if thinking that gets you off, have at.
11. Make things up… No, that statement is me telling you to read what I was saying because you had an aggravating tendency to make up strawmen.
12. You really didn’t do any more explaining as to strengthen what I was saying. Not my damn fault you didn’t take a couple seconds to hit dictionary.com.
13. So stating that two nonprovable systems of belief are just as viable as the other is somehow wrong now…
14. No, I didn’t answer your question as it was a strawman. Having a belief system is holding a certain number of ideas as true based on what you personally believe is or isn’t out there. A hobby is doing something in your spare time. Trying to compare two things with no relation to give yourself a perceived boost to your argument is a strawman since we aren’t talking about hobbies. Nice try though.
15. Rightwinger is a statement of politics not faith. Not all rightwingers have theistic beliefs and not all leftwingers are atheists. Your insult, which is how you are positioning, is unfounded. You are making a VERY groundless assumption of my politics over a silly little argument on the internet. You aren’t asking me my politics, you’re telling them to me.
16. What exactly do you think I am trying to trick you into? I don’t care if you are atheist. I am not part of any religion or church. I am not ministering. I am discussing semantics while you assume up and down that I am a rightwing and treacherous theist as well as make assumptions of my beliefs which I haven’t stated beyond a dual belief in creationism and evolution. For all you know, I could believe in flying spaghetti made from refried ninjas in turnip sauce who taste of elderberry.
Conclusion: You’re a cretin who prefers to argue with a strawman than the person who is actually posting to you. I have maybe two fundie friends, Froofrou and Barton. Barton is pretty atheist as far as I know and against marriage in general but still a bit of a fundamentalist. Froofrou you should be able to infer on your own but given your last tirade, I have my doubts.
Short version: You still don’t have a damn clue what we are arguing.
Apology: Yes, I realize this is feeding him but I am compulsive and decided to see if he would actually debate with me instead of a fictional character.
I like the broad brush, ask rho. It gets attention, and while it might not be perfectly accurate, it is based in reality.
For the above broad-brush, I made the assumption that the book being quoted by theists was their own religious texts. From that, I propose the simple premise that anything and everything quoted out of their holy book to a non-believer is meant to change the non-believer into a believer, eventually. Since religions are not about personal freedom, but about servitude toward whichever gods (and their mouthpieces here on earth) they profess to believe exist, I submit that the word subjugate was exactly the concept I was going for.
I tend to like your submission…
Thanks rho, I tend to like yours too!
OK, Wurm… I give up who was
Ripping a new orifice in?
And this is why I don’t usually talk about it. I will simply nod and point you to what Occam believed made rain…
Occam’s Razor…
When you find a pocket watch on the beach is it simpler to believe something that complex formed on its own or that it was made?
Not stating anything towards faith, just pointing out a flaw in Occam’s Razor since the simplest solution in the debate of Evolution and Creation isn’t exactly simple.
Again, not a matter of proving faith more as a flaw in your argument.
If I see a pocket watch on the beach, I don’t assume it appeared spontaneously, for that would not be the result of Occam’s razor type reasoning. For there wouldn’t be enough entities to create a reasonable explanation.
.
Depending on what I see, I would more likely assume it was either placed there or dropped there. I do not assume why it is there, nor how it got to wherever it was previously, just how it got to where is is now.
.
Although you are right in that Occam’s Razor cannot be properly applied to evolution/creationism, because each side will usually claim their explanation is simpler. That their explanation has less unnecessary entities.
Leave my damn razor next to the sink where it belongs. I know you used it to shave your legs; it’s gone all dull.
Sac and crack, not legs…
And never said anything about snap of fingers, now did I? Assumptions, you are making them.
I wasn’t criticizing you Wyrm, just putting out there what I once wished were so, and sometimes still do in the dark of the night.
No worries, I was grouchier than I intended to be and apologize for it.
It’s cool, I’ve been a little crusty myself lately. I suspect it’s the enduring frigidity and limited sunlight… this winter needs to hurry up and be over.
Ya, the single digit and negative number temperatures won’t be missed. I am just hoping Iowa avoids a flood of epic scale this year.
I guess I can’t complain too badly in the face of single digit & negative temps… I think the worst it’s gotten here (DC area) is single digit wind-chill. I don’t think it’s gone negative, tends not to get that bad. Still, it’s freakin’ cold to me!
No worries, cold enough. Wind chill can feel worse because it gets more penetration into your clothes that way.
Reply to n8 on 1-21,6:29 PM–& to all correspondents:
Evolution is the name for the scientific “how” (did life occur?).
Is objective, ideally.
Creation is a “why” it occurred. No science can ever be involved.
it’s subjective.
That simple. Stephen Jay Gould, in “Rocks of Ages” referred to them as
“non-overlapping magisteria”.
Science does not tell us how we should behave. Religion does.
Interesting words. Reading them begged two questions:
-Then how do atheists behave?
-Do better religions offer the world better behaved constituents than lesser ones?
I’ve never understood the conflict. If you accept the initial principle of an omnipotent creator, why the hell can’t the omnipotent creator use evolution as a means of creation?
I’ve never quite understood the conflict either.
As see anything wrong with evolution, however evolution doesn’t explain why one day inanimate objects became animate. Evolution just explains what living life does, we mutate! Also am open to the idea of a god. Then again, I’m probably just a deist and we’re just a tv show for some indifferent entity.
Actually, we’ve created self replicating RNA-type molecules with little more than water, methane and some high voltage discharges…
2004ish if memory serves…
Well…kind of. Miller and Urey’s experiment about 50 years ago produced amazing amounts of proteins and amino acids from water, ammonia, and methane, but those two gases weren’t present in large amounts in the Earth’s early atmosphere. However, more recently, the experiement was redone with the correct gases (nitrogen and carbon dioxide), and an article about that is linked in my name.
No this was recent SCIAM stuff…
Mind linking an article about yours? The biogeek over here would love to read about it! Plus, I always love to have more ammo to throw at my dad when we debate evolution (although I’m not sure it can be considered a debate when all he says is, “Because God says so!”).
It’s probably still in the pay site… could be on the BBC, but I couldn’t find it…
Addendum – If you let me have your profile, I’ll friend you so I can send it when I find it…
ATM, I’m reading about the Austin Maid Killer… you can blame Rhorho for opening that box of worms…
*looks at empty box*
That’s funny–They were here yesterday…
I believe in both. Mainly because I think the ‘7 days’ could possibly be millions of years in actual time. Like we’re in dog years for example. God said it took me seven days to create heaven and earth and to us that amount of time would be millions upon millions of years, hence evolution. I dunno.
*shrugs*
Don’t get me wrong, I love my God, it’s just that I find it hard to believe it was JUST 7 days.
Yeah, exactly. 7 units of some kinda God-time.
Once upon a time in my church days, we had a similar discussion. At some point it was stated that a day was the equivalent to a thousand years. I don’t think that quite fits evolution’s time frame but it kinda helps to bring the two ideas together I guess. IDK I’ve just decided I don’t give a rat’s ass anymore and life today is good enough for me.
Usual apologia… nothing to see here, move along…
You’ve never upbraided me for
God’s Wounds and Strips
God’s Death
God’s Teeth
Amen
Jesus, Mary, Joseph and their little donkey Kevin (or sometimes ‘George’)
Bless you…
etc…
You could be referring to Athenian gods and their deaths, teeth, and wounds, and you could be referring to the actual people (Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were historically real)…..you could be sending Satan’s blessings on someone…….now, the ‘amen’……
-
Aw, hell, go burn for your filthy mouth!!! All you hypocritical atheists are all alike!
Using words from a cultural norm isn’t hypocritical…
Claiming historicity for people for whom there is none is debatable in its honesty however…
*points to answer below*
Read it… if that’s your claim to historicity, then Rick Blaine in Casablanca is real, as is Indiana Jones…
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were historically real
HAHAHAHA
Thanks, I needed a good laugh today. You should put that on a LOL, you’d win first prize!
Ok, I have to answer, even though I don’t want to. Why are those people being historically real so hilarious to you?
There are so many reasons. I’ll see if I can keep this short-ish.
There is no proof, or evidence that these people existed. The only writings that are drawn out as proof are written hundreds of years after the time in which they were supposed to have lived, and those reference others, who reference others etc etc.
-
Christians and other mythologists insist that faith is what’s required, and yet in recent times, do everything they can to prove that which they claim is only believable by faith. Which is it, provable, or based on faith alone? You can’t have it both ways.
-
Faith is supposed to be defined (by the mythologists anyway) as the evidence of things not seen. It’s supposed to be believing in things in spite of their being no evidence or proof, but it seem to me to be more believing in thing because there is no proof.
-
Finally, each and every one of these people is based on characters out of other far older mythologies, mix, blended and puried for your consumptional pleasure.
-
There were many magicians around at the same time as your Jesus (several with the same name) who were all performing many of the same miracles including the standard water-into-wine, in an effort to be worshiped as the chosen one.
What I find funny, is that people convince themselves that these things are true. They convince themselve in order to bolster their own failing faith. They convince themselves in order to convince others, so they have company in the myths in order to bolster their own failing faith.
If your gods are so powerful, why are there 300 different versions of the same stories? I know, I know, it’s mans failures. Well, man failed again…
Full disclosure – I used to be one of you, but about 30 years ago, I saw the light if you will.
I’m not bringing faith into a discussion of Jesus the person at all. YOU did that. My mention of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph as historically real can be backed up partially by Josephus, who mentions Jesus, but not as Christ (other than as a tag, which was common as a descriptor in those days). The authenticity of Jesus as divine wasn’t being discussed. I am aware that there was more than one Jesus, which is why I didn’t differentiate. Jesus was the brother of James, as mentioned in Josephus’ writings.
-
As far as Mary and Joseph, both were common names, and while you inferred that I was speaking of the parents of Jesus of the Bible, that was not the intention. I was answering Fester’s post in a sarcastic manner, and your inference about whom I was speaking is YOURS.
-
As far as the rest of your post, you’re holding up something shiny to take away from the original intent of my post, which was to gently poke Fester.
Right, and I was poking fun back at you and you asked for details, so I provided them. You brought up ‘faith’ because that’s all there is to support the physical and historical existence of these people. And yes, we know to whom you were referring, and it wasn’t Joseph and Mary Smith from Schenectady. I wasn’t referring to faith in the divine sense. I was referring to your faith that the people written about in your bible were ever actual people.
Josephus’s writings are amongst those to which I was referring when I said they’d been debunked. It’s the one brought up most often. There’s more to it than this, but Josephus wasn’t born until 37AD. How could he be a reliable witness to anything that happened years before his birth? If he was recording the personal eyewitness of others, of reliable people for whom we had proof of their existence, that would be one thing, but all he did was document people’s beliefs.
Gaius Suetonius mentions christians (as a cult of troublemakers) in the book The Twelve Caesars (a really good read BTW). All that means is that the belief system was established. It holds no evidence for the validity of the existence of the actual people on whom the myth was established.
Linky. I know that some of the writings of Josephus have been found to be falsified, but look at this one. It is considered to be authentic still.
-
I’m sorry the parenthetical took away from the silly point I was trying to make. I certainly didn’t want to get into a theological or faith-based discussion tonight.
Ok, but even in that highly disputed text, he’s not writing in the first person. He wasn’t there to witness any of that.
I’ll drop it.
I didn’t intend to get into one of these discussions either.
But seriously, if anyone reading this hasn’t read The Twelve Caesars, you should. [Link] It only has the one mention of Christians and isn’t a text used to support or debunk any of it. That’s not my point in suggesting it as reading material. I just find much of it to be a fascinating read.
Josepheus really is unreliable, and has many sections as false as the bequest of Constantine.
None of the major events around the life of Jesus are mentioned, nor the alleged earth quake that occurred at the time of the Crucifixion… The interpolation of the Christ into Josepheus is clumsy at best and can safely be ignored.
Many people confuse the authenticity of a
document with the veracity of the words
therein.
Most people are just plain unaware of the cottage industry there was in holy forgery… it’s like the photoshopping of magazines these days…
And why I avoid organized religion and most magazines.
For reasons mysterious to me, your comment just reminded me of the infamous “Salamander Letter” by Mark Hofmann.
[LINK]
@Fester: “If all the pieces of the True Cross were gathered together across Europe, Christ would have to have been crucified not on a tree but on a forest.”
Sorry, DWN. My last two posts were @Unc.
I was thinking Eco… both ‘rose’ and ‘pendulum’ point at it…
Thanks! I saw the NOTR movie, but now
FP is on the top of my Amazon wish list.
Sounds like a great ride!
Arrrgh – didn’t take time to proof read..
“spite of their being” = “spite of there being”
“but it seem to me ” = “but it seems to me ”
“believing in thing ” = “believing in things ”
“mythologies, mix, blended” = “mythologies, mixed, blended”
“and puried for your” = “and Puréed for your”
wow, that was a lot, and I probably missed several. From now on, no posting in haste.
Posthaste, scum!
Hehe, very good.
You’ll note I didn’t say “amen”, I said “indeed.” ;-P
*dances*
JEHOVAH, JEHOVAH, JEHOVAH…
How can I not say the word if you won’t tell me what it is!?
*throws Watchtower into UF’s face*
Begone, vile Russellite!
I was personally fond of Awake when I was in that nonsense.
*sputter*
Whu …?
That was worth that bit of past revealing.
You’re serious?
*chokes on tongue. Dies*
Didn’t say I still was but my parents had me in the religion for a few years before I became a teen and said hell with it.
Not making fun at all. Been there, done that, thought I was the only one.
*shudders at memories of slammed doors and sputum*
WHich reminds me of a joke:
-
A Jehovah’s Witness goes up to the door and knocks, and when the man answers, is asked if he could come back tomorrow as he’s really busy. Next day comes along and the Jehovah’s Witness knocks on the door, only to be asked again if he could come back tomorrow as he is really busy. The next day, the JW knocks on the door and the guy opens it and invites him in. “Ok, what did you want to talk about?” the man asks. The JW replies, “I don’t know, I’ve never gotten this far before.”
*rimshot*
Never got spit on but I stopped bothering with door to door before too long.
Life of Brian fail?
“Amen” just means “so be it”, does it not?
Correct… and that is all.
I thought it meant “Wake up!”
lol!…. I can’t pray with my eyes closed in church (especially when it’s the gaelic preacher) because I really do almost fall asleep…. Something about the rythm of a voice…..
Entrainment was always an important part of crowd control…
The flower is clearly a peace offering so that the mighty FLUFFY would not kill them. Also, FLUFFY is obviously an acronym for something apocalyptic.
F.L.U.F.F.Y. is an apocalonym?
Fools Loving Uncle Fester Feel Yearning?
-
Nah.. too disturbing to think about..
“For the Love of Uncle Fester, Fock You!”
Not you, Eds.
Fester’s Lurex Underpants Felt Funny Yesterday
*dies from the having too vivid an imagination*
unknown to the nazi troops the kitten had trained with the rabbit from Monty Python and the quest for the holy grail, it is also of note the nazis didnot have a Holy Hand grenade of antioch
to ascatal 1-21, 10:15PM: (& everyone else)
Look thru the other captions, there’s a MP Holy Hand Grenade one in there.
Some are better than the one that md it to the top, IMHO
i would LOVE to know how this picture happened.
Let’s see, Nazis, a kitten and someone happened to have a camera.
winz!
Something just struck me — how do we know these are actual Nazis and not actors taking a break from filming a WWII movie?
Would it matter at all?
Not as far as the funny goes, I guess!
*voice over in low whisper*
We are here Berlin, where we’ve secretly replaced the nazi soldiers
with Hollywood actors. Let’s see if anyone can tell the difference!
The kitten is really cute.
And what’s with all the uptight, b*tchy people on this page? I didn’t realize so many people who come to Pundit Kitchen are ***holes.
Asterisk holes?
Or starholes?
So the Chosen one flubbed his oath of office! Even Bush “is dumb” never did that ! Hahahahaha!
Are you really a Democrat and Obama-supporter?
As he is required to, he repeated what the other person said. It is just that they said it wrong in the first place.
But hey, at least there is some equality already in blaming him for things that aren’t his fault.
He didn’t. The Chief Justice did. Obama gave him a pause to redo it, which he did, again incorrectly. In the end, Obama ended up going with the first flawed version, probably because that phrasing made more sense than the second. He obviously knew it was wrong, though, because he paused at the mistake.
-
But, either way, the oath was redone today, so, no harm, no foul.
And that’s not possibly a good omen how???
Hahahahaha! I laugh because it was actually the conservative justice that made the mistake, and now you look dumb! Hahahahaha!
What do you mean he ‘looks’ dumb?
Try not to be such a fool. Roberts made public his apology for getting it wrong, and just to be on the safe side he and Obama re-did the oath (properly) this morning.
Holy crap… is EP back?
Or Bob?
On thread:
Now I remember why I don’t read these: I hate everyone now, including myself.
Granted, I hate all people by default, and make exceptions on a per-acquaintance basis, but the luxury of distance is dead now.
On image:
Do you think they asked the kitten if it was Jewish?
And my caption: “Awww, he’s playing with the grenade pin!”
It’s pretty awesome to see nazis playing with kittens. I guess under all the fascism they were like us in ways we couldn’t even imagine.
Maybe rather in most ways, and in ways we’d do damned well to keep remembering.
BTW, This has evolved into a thread with great info, debate, insight. Just what was
hoped for! Enjoyed reading!
Even members of the SS liked to play with kittens. They couldn’t have been all that bad… (he said very sarcastically but only so people don’t call me antisemitic)
These are soldiers of the Waffen-SS 20th Grenadier division (1st Estonians).
They didn’t join the SS because they believed in Hitler, but they had once lived trough the red terror in 1941 and they didn’t want it to happen to their homeland again.
Estonians just did not have any other choice
they better get that kitten away from that grenade damn quick.
Great post, People need to read this.