Do We Have A 'Silly Shit Politicians Say' Thread? If Not, Here We Are

[Gokku]

Alternatively you could also file this under retarded things Christians say

Are you just being an ass? The verse mentioned would be a great rebuttal to the crazy dudes idea. If your stance is religion is silly cool, but your comming off as a self serving asshole.

[Callisto]

In a shocking turn of events, people from a wide range of beliefs are fully capable of being giant dildos.

[Niiro]

Are you just being an ass? The verse mentioned would be a great rebuttal to the crazy dudes idea. If your stance is religion is silly cool, but your comming off as a self serving asshole.

When someone quotes a 3000 your old book of contradictions to justify their ignorant, self-serving viewpoint the solution should not be to reference them back to the same book.

[Callisto]

They posted in earnest that you can believe in said book without being a hateful piece of shit about it. Apparently the same can't be said about believing in not-god? lol

[Niiro]

Bob Marshall Reiterates Claim That Disabled Children Represent God's 'Vengeance' For Abortion

This is clearly a man who will listen to reason and cease to be a hateful piece of shit if only someone points a few things out to him.

Clearly.

[Blubbartron]

Religious texts, such as the bible, are one of those amazing pieces of literature that simultaneously supports every possible action in the universe (even before the idea had been conceived). People are good with the bible, and people are dicks with the bible, and the bible is the cause of neither of those things.

[Surealistic]

but when you use the bible as backup for your being a dick, then it is a problem

[Stumblingdrunk]

They posted in earnest that you can believe in said book without being a hateful piece of shit about it. Apparently the same can't be said about believing in not-god? lol

If I'm going to be called a hateful piece of shit for pointing out something stupid someone said in a thread that exists for the sole purpose of pointing and laughing at people who say stupid things, perhaps we should look into why some stupid things people believe are beyond reproach.

[Gokku]

The religious side of it is just an excuse for alot of people's craziness. That being said, when crazy religious douche makes a ass of himself and non crazy non douche religious person rebuttals, but is then attacked by *possibly*crazy non religious douche... 2 people are still douches and religion had nothing to do with it. *sorry for the poor wording*

@ stumbling : your doing the same shit the crazy guy is using religion as a scapegoat to be an asshole your statement of "retarded things Christians say" is a blanket statement and had no bering to the person whom you quoted.

[kareface]

Religious rant I'll likely not have time to respond to, read at your own risk:

Spoiler: show

I think bronze age mythos is a silly thing to cling to in the modern area. Almost every major religion has used its tenets at some point to justify otherwise unjustifiable actions. It's also strange that people who hold these beliefs feel as if they have some special privilege to have those beliefs respected by others. We are arguing about one person interpretation of the bible, but I guarantee every self professed christian in this thread cherry picks what they do and don't follow, call it allegorical interpretation if you want but it's no less reasonable than what Mr. incest isn't rape thinks. If I came out right now in support of him I'd get roundly criticized and my reasons for doing so would be put to the sword, and rightfully so. I would hold a belief that affects the lives of others which is based on some ridiculous world view and regardless of what that belief entails it should be open to criticism and ridicule. Before people complain about their religious beliefs not affecting anyone besides themselves, that is rarely the case. Don't get me wrong, there are positive aspects to religion. However, none of them require a following a belief system from the land before time. If a bedtime story about where we go after the lights go off is the only reason people of faith do good then they weren't good people to begin with.

[Xno Kappa]

Religious rant I'll likely not have time to respond to, read at your own risk:

Spoiler: show

I think bronze age mythos is a silly thing to cling to in the modern area. Almost every major religion has used its tenets at some point to justify otherwise unjustifiable actions. It's also strange that people who hold these beliefs feel as if they have some special privilege to have those beliefs respected by others. We are arguing about one person interpretation of the bible, but I guarantee every self professed christian in this thread cherry picks what they do and don't follow, call it allegorical interpretation if you want but it's no less reasonable than what Mr. incest isn't rape thinks. If I came out right now in support of him I'd get roundly criticized and my reasons for doing so would be put to the sword, and rightfully so. I would hold a belief that affects the lives of others which is based on some ridiculous world view and regardless of what that belief entails it should be open to criticism and ridicule. Before people complain about their religious beliefs not affecting anyone besides themselves, that is rarely the case. Don't get me wrong, there are positive aspects to religion. However, none of them require a following a belief system from the land before time. If a bedtime story about where we go after the lights go off is the only reason people of faith do good then they weren't good people to begin with.

Wow, I'm not even religious but get the fuck off your high horse.

[kareface]

Spoiler: show

You can say what you want but I think treating someones beliefs about religion like any other belief system isn't unreasonable. If someone came onto this forum convinced that invisible fairies kept us from floating into space (with no empirical evidence), I think most people would ignore him an chock it up some nuts opinion. If a large enough group of people held this belief, they very well could affect political change that reflected their world view. In that case there would rightfully be people upset and the opinion of the pro-fairy crowd would be the subject of ridicule. A good analogy for that scale might be the fringe of the tea-party or occupy wall street. If a sizable portion of the population believed it and this belief had been long held by our ancestors it could be a culturally accepted belief to profess. People could very well say that it's disrespectful to criticize someone who held that belief. The belief is no less reasonable, but the context changes how we approach it. It wasn't long ago we had preachers at the pulpits attempting to justify segregation, and their reasoning is just as valid as the gay debate today. There is no distinction between that and gravity fairies, if anything the gravity fairy belief might have done less harm. It's not just religious views, it's views that are contradicted by a large body of evidence: the anti-vaccine crowd, the conspiracy theorist, the homeopaths, as well as the young earth creationists, the anti-evolution crowd, faith healers, you can pick your poison. Or views that claim knowledge beyond nature: heaven, hell, alien visits, thetans, demons, devils, ect.

You don't respect every opinion you hear, I doubt you've even tried to hide your contempt for many (this one for example). What is your metric for assessing if an belief is worthy of contempt? Ridicule? Debate? Do you asses it by who is hurt by it? If it brings people happiness? What if they are at odds? What is unique to faith that keeps it from that same criticism? If the guy who believes in fairies is an idiot, or the homeopath, why not ones who believe the bearded man in the sky?

What I'm getting at is crazy beliefs may have a gradient. I agree that politician's beliefs are worthy of contempt. The only difference is I go a step further and say contradicting the collective work of the greatest minds of the world should at least be accompanied by evidence, not absolutism and special status among beliefs. Maybe claiming knowledge to something outside of the realm of nature is worth calling people out on.

[Xno Kappa]

Spoiler: show

You can say what you want but I think treating someones beliefs about religion like any other belief system isn't unreasonable. If someone came onto this forum convinced that invisible fairies kept us from floating into space (with no empirical evidence), I think most people would ignore him an chock it up some nuts opinion. If a large enough group of people held this belief, they very well could affect political change that reflected their world view. In that case there would rightfully be people upset and the opinion of the pro-fairy crowd would be the subject of ridicule. A good analogy for that scale might be the fringe of the tea-party or occupy wall street. If a sizable portion of the population believed it and this belief had been long held by our ancestors it could be a culturally accepted belief to profess. People could very well say that it's disrespectful to criticize someone who held that belief. The belief is no less reasonable, but the context changes how we approach it. It wasn't long ago we had preachers at the pulpits attempting to justify segregation, and their reasoning is just as valid as the gay debate today. There is no distinction between that and gravity fairies, if anything the gravity fairy belief might have done less harm. It's not just religious views, it's views that are contradicted by a large body of evidence: the anti-vaccine crowd, the conspiracy theorist, the homeopaths, as well as the young earth creationists, the anti-evolution crowd, faith healers, you can pick your poison. Or views that claim knowledge beyond nature: heaven, hell, alien visits, thetans, demons, devils, ect.

You don't respect every opinion you hear, I doubt you've even tried to hide your contempt for many (this one for example). What is your metric for assessing if an belief is worthy of contempt? Ridicule? Debate? Do you asses it by who is hurt by it? If it brings people happiness? What if they are at odds? What is unique to faith that keeps it from that same criticism? If the guy who believes in fairies is an idiot, or the homeopath, why not ones who believe the bearded man in the sky?

What I'm getting at is crazy beliefs may have a gradient. I agree that politician's beliefs are worthy of contempt. The only difference is I go a step further and say contradicting the collective work of the greatest minds of the world should at least be accompanied by evidence, not absolutism and special status among beliefs. Maybe claiming knowledge to something outside of the realm of nature is worth calling people out on.

Legitimate question, did you just take your first soft science class in college? Your stance on the matter just reeks of generic university of phoenix online type shit.

[BaneTheBrawler]

my metric is thus: is this shit ridiculous? can i make a funny joke out of it? if yes to both, ridicule ensues.


also suck my balls.

[kareface]

Legitimate question, did you just take your first soft science class in college? Your stance on the matter just reeks of generic university of phoenix online type shit.

Spot on, if by university of phoenix online you mean U.C. Berkeley and the "first soft science class" is QFT. This whole science thing is a little new to me. It's hard to believe I quantum mechanically entangled my first qbits last week. But don't worry, I try not to let my cheap liberal arts education influence my opinion on the matter.

Spoiler: show

It's not like I walk around all day and taking verbal shits on the faithful. If I have a disagreement with a friend I don't go out of my way to be disrespectful, but that's because I respect them and not necessarily their belief. I just don't happen to agree that faith deserves this strange special status in society. If you believe something I think it's our obligation to society to make sure our possible false beliefs minimize the impact to others and that moral actions, actions that affect others, are whenever possible based on the best knowledge we have to us (collectively) at the time. We are getting to a point where people have access to the knowledge necessary to weigh heavy moral decisions. I think our psychology makes my modern interpretation of the categorical imperative impossible. I think the religions that thrive are the ones that appeal to our fears and insecurities. I rarely hear stories of people turning to god after having a great life and being satisfied with how things are going. Religion continues to thrive because it's humanities security blanket. We turn to it when we fear or lack answers because if fills the gap with rules and understanding regardless of how unfeasible it might be.

Bane, what is interesting to me is what our metric for ridiculous becomes through societies lens. I would hope most people find Scientology to be ridiculous, but for everything they believe you can find something in the 3 principle monotheism that sounds equally crazy. Yet we suffer one as reasonable and the other as ludicrous. Is what the politician said any less reasonable than the city in the clouds we go to after death? It may directly impact people but that belief is no less incongruous with modern credenda. I can't prove there isn't a heaven, but I'm damn sure that neither can the faithful. I'll never claim there can't be one, but I won't respect those that claim there is.

[Gokku]

i view peoples religious or non religious beliefs like peoples sexual preferences... does it affect me? does it matter on who they are? are they using it to push an agenda? if all are NO then why the fuck does it matter. right /wrong/ sensible or not at the end of the day when you die its 50 / 50 doesn't affect you in the least bit and if it makes someone happy why should you care. Given the choice between a smug scientific person and a nice religious person id take the none smug one cuz at least they are tolerable.

it really should all be treated like that LGBT violence thread.Though i still think the term lgbt is dumb thats a totally different topic.
Thread i mentioned


*copyed from rhinox kinda*
I'm disgusted by all comments of senseless Stupidity. Stupid comments from the religious community does not and should not get any more disgust from me.

[Buffy]

When someone quotes a 3000 your old book of contradictions to justify their ignorant, self-serving viewpoint the solution should not be to reference them back to the same book.

When a person bases their entire belief system off of that book and holds all truths to be subject to that book, it is in fact the ONLY way to change their mind.

[kareface]

i view peoples religious or non religious beliefs like peoples sexual preferences... does it affect me? does it matter on who they are? are they using it to push an agenda? if all are NO then why the fuck does it matter. right /wrong/ sensible or not at the end of the day when you die its 50 / 50 doesn't affect you in the least bit and if it makes someone happy why should you care. Given the choice between a smug scientific person and a nice religious person id take the none smug one cuz at least they are tolerable.

it really should all be treated like that LGBT violence thread.Though i still think the term lgbt is dumb thats a totally different topic.
Thread i mentioned


*copyed from rhinox kinda*
I'm disgusted by all comments of senseless Stupidity. Stupid comments from the religious community does not and should not get any more disgust from me.

I agree with most of what you've said. I'm not advocating for additional disgust for religious ideas, only that they should be subject to the same level of criticism as a political ideology or people who like child beauty pageants.

I just want to point out there are overt ways that a person's world views affect us even if their beliefs seem otherwise innocuous. By definition the average person in America is unlikely to take extreme political views, extreme being compared to the political norm at the time. Yet at any given point you can find politicians that represent extreme views, and a disproportionately large number of them given the minority they closely represent.

Michele Bachmann is a perfect example of this. Not all of her views are extreme but enough of them can be represented as such. The extreme elements of her party is why she's always wins the primaries, but she can't get elected with them alone. Granted this is just conjecture, but I heavily doubt she has a strong showing of support from the Atheist community. Even if people's beliefs lead them to vote along their ideological lines, this can have profound ramifications. Why is it so unrealistic to have an atheist president? Enough people who have perfectly innocent world views prevent this from being a reality. I'm not saying that's some grand travesty, I don't think the world would be dramatically different if there was someone in the highest office who openly professed to be non-religious. I'm just pointing out the subtle nature of the problem.

On the whole I tend to avoid debating people whose world view, however misguided, avoids directly conflicting with others well being. I don't honestly expect faith to evanesce in my lifetime. Although I still enjoy a good discourse about it.

[BaneTheBrawler]

what's interesting to me is how much bullshit you just regurgitated


adding more and bigger words does not a philosopher make

[notorious bum]

lol this dude is lost in his own ass