patrick.net

Rin says

You may want to explain to the Puritannical P N Dr Lo R, that Romans having sex, didn't lead to the fall of the Empire.

I've tried, but he's now sacrificed nearly his whole life to his preferred charlatan. Never married, maybe even a virgin, "P N Dr Lo R" has no children or grandchildren to persuade him. Even Barry Goldwater began speaking out on behalf of equal rights for gay Americans after learning that he had a grandson who was gay. "P N Dr Lo R" remains stuck in Reverse.

@P N Dr Lo R, this might actually help you, to know that Cadillac advertising now includes gay couples and themes. They ran a beautiful ad during "When We Rise" on ABC TV. If you watch the show via ABC Go, which I highly recommend, you might see it. The ad includes a nostalgic look at Cadillacs over the years, including one much like your avatar.

Rin says

Attila

is probably the reason why the Hungarians set the age of consent at 12, though they've raised that recently. It's a long story, but he had a spectacular career, starting at age 12.

From another thread where I'd mentioned that there were ppl out there, who'd remembered their so-called past lives ...

P N Dr Lo R says

Rin says

recalls a past life,

And Christians are delusional?

You mean that it's not ALL ABOUT FAITH?

Seriously, when someone else injects an alternate spiritual belief, these born-again types try to fall back to objective reality as if Jesus is standing right next to them, during the discussion, lending his silent presence.

Once again, P N Dr Lo is a fucking hypocrite!

Show me the presence of Jesus, you fucking delusional liar!

curious2 says

preferred charlatan

Right out of Saul Alinsky: don't attack institutions, attack individuals. And who is your preferred charlatan?

curious2 says

Cadillac advertising

When my Cadillac was built, GM had 50% of the market. Today GM has less than 20% of the market and destroyed Pontiac and Oldsmobile in the process.

P N Dr Lo R says

When my Cadillac was built, GM had 50% of the market. Today GM has less than 20% of the market and destroyed Pontiac and Oldsmobile in the process.

And who'd been hammering on restoring American R&D and engineering since he'd joined his board ... it was Rin.

P N Dr Lo R says

Right out of Saul Alinsky: don't attack institutions, attack individuals. And who is your preferred charlatan?

You seem to rely heavily on a logical fallacy called "the appeal to authority." You deify your preferred charlatan and believe whatever he says because he said it. You demonize Saul Alinsky and attack whatever he said, because he said it. Neither gets you any closer to ascertaining the truth or falsehood of what either authority said.

If you want to understand the history of Rome, then read enough histories of Rome (including by contemporary Romans and professional historians) that you can begin to understand the major achievements, improvements, and failures. If instead you subjugate your intellect to a charlatan who makes you feel better (or less bad) about throwing away your own life, then you end up loving and spreading his lies instead of living truthfully. The Islamic State people love their charlatans' lies as much as you love your charlatan's lies, and that gets neither of you any closer to reality.

curious2 says

You deify your preferred charlatan and believe whatever he says because he said it.

First of all, this guy had never seen Jesus. In fact, his connection to him is removed by three layers of separation, along with 2000 years.

First of all, Jesus's connection to his so-called original 12 disciples .. a story which is vaguely referenced by one historian Josephus Flavius, who was really talking about John the Baptist. That's as close as one can get to some historical account. The rest is hearsay.

And then, Paul of Taurus, a man who'd only seen Jesus, as a vision on the road to Damascus. Much of today's Christianity is based out of Paul's travels and teachings throughout the empire.

Was he just another version of Joseph Smith? Or L. Ron Hubbard? Who knows?

P N Dr Lo R says

curious2 says

Cadillac advertising

When my Cadillac was built, GM had 50% of the market. Today GM has less than 20% of the market and destroyed Pontiac and Oldsmobile in the process.

Here you rely on two different logical fallacies: "cherry-picking" and what the Romans called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc." Detroit's "Big Three" lost share in the 1970s-90s due to rising oil prices favoring competition primarily from other countries, especially Europe and Japan. With regard to Japan, for example, Subaru began advertising to gay couples decades ago. GM started reaching out only one decade ago. By cherry-picking dates, you seem to imply a counter-factual belief, when in fact those dates don't tell you anything about the effect of advertising on sales.

Rin says

Paul of Taurus, a man who'd only seen Jesus, as a vision on the road to Damascus. Much of today's Christianity is based out of Paul's travels and teachings throughout the empire.

Was he just another version of Joseph Smith? Or L. Ron Hubbard? Who knows?

Paul of Tarsus (note spelling) was an enforcer for the Jewish priests who persecuted Christians but then converted to the growing Christian cult, probably because that enabled him to gain more fame and fortune for himself and especially his family. Such opportunistic conversions are commonplace. He reintroduced Jewish rules into the new Christian cult, thus accomplishing much of his original, repressive raison d'être on a larger scale. Repression and sacrafice are crucial motivators and tools of Abrahamic religions, as P N Dr Lo R illustrates chronically. Islam provides by far the worst examples: the continuing practice of child sacrifice, which they call "honor killings", and recently suicide terrorism. Christians might rather have forgotten Paul but Constantine and his chosen "Christians" at the Council of Nicaea found Paul useful because he said to obey TPTB placed over you, unlike other Jews who had previously resisted Hadrian.

curious2 says

Rin

Someone who no one wants to marry and can only get sex by paying for it?

curious2 says

preferred charlatan

Right out of the Soviet Union--the atheists would stand outside churches before atheism became official and mock worshippers as they left--earning them martyrdom in God's kingdom.

You seem to rely heavily on a logical fallacy

And so what. Why are you so offended by my religious beliefs unless you think they're true? Sixty years ago it would have been routine and unquestioned and no one cared what unbelievers thought anyway. We had daily Bible readings over the PA system in school followed by a short devotional and a few seconds of silence before we ate our noon meal. I wouldn't exchange it for anything, I thought it was wonderful. We thought atheists were nuts and I still do. What kind of country to do you want, to recreate communist Russia?

curious2 says

P N Dr Lo R says

Why are you so offended by my religious beliefs unless you think they're true?

1. 2000 years of rape, murder, and mayhem.
2. Laws that restrict freedoms without justification.
3. The most vocal Christians are pro-torture and pro-death-penalty.
4. The brainwashing of children.
5. The derailing of education with misinformation.
6. Whitewashing history.
7. Corruption of the courts.
8. Prosecution of free speech.
9. Dehumanization of others.
10. Attacks on secularism.
11. Promoting lies.
12. Attacks on science and truth.
13. Endangering mankind with climate change denial.

I could go on, but those are the main things.

P N Dr Lo R says

Why are you so offended by my religious beliefs unless you think they're true?

Your religious beliefs are false. I don't recall claiming to be offended by them, do you have a link?

Calling them "Christian" does not make them so; try reading Luke and John instead of only Paul. Your comments about HIV, which spread primarily by heterosexual behavior, imply lesbians are god's chosen people. Gospel according to Cal: "And after the Africans converted to Christianity, Jesus did smite them with HIV, for worshiping Him. When wives did submit graciously to their husbands, Jesus smote them, and their children also. CAL'S PREFERRED CHARLATAN IS THE LORD, because Cal saith so."

Also, your gratuitous comments about Rin are unproved. At his age and pay grade, probably many women would like to get married to him. He pays them to go away quietly. Why are you so offended by that, unless you think he's right?

P N Dr Lo R says

Sixty years ago it would have been routine and unquestioned and no one cared what unbelievers thought anyway. We had daily Bible readings over the PA system in school followed by a short devotional....

Was that a public school? The unbelievers and non-Abrahamic believers have the same right to the equal protection of the laws as the people who call themselves Christian (and who twist that doctrine as too many Texans do). Government brainwashing might explain your false certitude, but illustrates the problem rather than excusing it. The 1st Amendment prohibited the federal government from respecting an establishment of religion, and the 14th applied that to the states also.

curious2 says

Also, your gratuitous comments about Rin are unproved. At his age and pay grade, probably many women would like to get married to him. He pays them to go away quietly.

www.youtube.com/embed/77rJ8VLj2-c

That's not why you pay a prostitute. You don't pay her for sex, you pay her to leave afterwards.

curious2 says

Also, your gratuitous comments about Rin are unproved. At his age and pay grade, probably many women would like to get married to him. He pays them to go away quietly.

In fact, during 2016, I'd turned away a visiting scholar from Chile ... you know, that very cultured woman with all the academic, vocational, and cultural achievements.

Unfortunately, she'd turned up too late in my life. If I'd met her let's say some 8+ yrs ago, things might have been different.

Today, I'm done with that stuff.

I don't mix business and pleasure. She was a part of an institute and thus, my firm was trying to arrange philanthropy, between her place of work and our clients.

Rin says

In fact, during 2016, I'd turned away a visiting scholar from Chile ... you know, that very cultured woman with all the academic, vocational, and cultural achievements.

Rin, I defer entirely to you about your life choices, but while P N Dr Lo R is on about comments being supposedly offensive, might I please suggest giving the pluperfect a break? English has at least a dozen verb tenses, no need to get married to just one...

BTW, P N Dr Lo R, though I've mentioned the pluperfect before, that doesn't imply that I secretly think it's always the right tense to use. To the contrary, I'm sure it isn't.

curious2 says

Rin says

In fact, during 2016, I'd turned away a visiting scholar from Chile ... you know, that very cultured woman with all the academic, vocational, and cultural achievements.

Rin, I defer entirely to you about your life choices, but while P N Dr Lo R is on about comments being supposedly offensive, might I please suggest giving the pluperfect a break? English has at least a dozen verb tenses, no need to get married to just one...

I got it, you're a U Chicago type, however, when one uses the 'had', several times, it's about tossing that experience onto the back burner.

Rin says

tossing that experience onto the back burner.

Good point, book smart vs street smart. Even President Obama started talking like a yokel after moving to DC, though it never seemed to fit him.

curious2 says

At his age and pay grade

It's a shame he confines himself to the cesspools of life.

curious2 says

Was that a public school?

Bible reading and discussion of the Bible both for moral instruction and literature in public schools were routine and accepted, indeed expected, before 1963 and the lawsuit by Madelyn Murray O'Hair which stopped it. My mother, who taught from 1924 to 1970, always used Biblical stories as examples of the best literature in her English classes.

Dan8267 says

I could go on

...but nobody cares.

When my cousin Doris died in 2006 we were talking about Doris-isms and her granddaughter told about how when she was in college she introduced her to one of her Jewish friends and after she left Doris said "well, she seemed like a nice girl, it's a shame she's going to hell."

P N Dr Lo R says

Bible reading and discussion of the Bible both for moral instruction and literature

What good did it do? Now you believe the world was created in 6 days, and snakes can talk.

Strategist says

Now you believe the world was created in 6 days, and snakes can talk.

Yes, his name is Snake Plissken ...

www.youtube.com/embed/gHUqNCDwQj4

P N Dr Lo R says

curious2 says

Was that a public school?

Bible reading and discussion of the Bible both for moral instruction and literature in public schools were routine and accepted, indeed expected, before 1963 and the lawsuit by Madelyn Murray O'Hair which stopped it. My mother, who taught from 1924 to 1970, always used Biblical stories as examples of the best literature in her English classes.

Were you trying to say "Yes, it was a public school?" Perhaps if you had devoted more time to Socrates rather than reciting "devotionals" you might have a better grasp of how questions and answers and logic work.

BTW, I hope your late mother used Samuel and Luke. According to Samuel, David called Jonathan's love sweeter than that of women. Luke wrote of two men in a bed, and two women grinding together in a field. Maybe you missed those parts?

P N Dr Lo R says

When my cousin Doris died in 2006 we were talking about Doris-isms and her granddaughter told about how when she was in college she introduced her to one of her Jewish friends and after she left Doris said "well, she seemed like a nice girl, it's a shame she's going to hell."

If Jesus lived, then his parents were Jewish, as were most of his family. A parade of charlatans got many Texans to believe Joseph and Mary and most of the human race are and should be burning in Hell. It would be bizarre enough by itself, but then they call it "Christian", which leads everyone else to say "It's crazier in Texas, y'all."

"(There's Crazy, And Then There's) Texas Crazy"

curious2 says

"Yes, it was a public school?"

Yes. It wasn't seen as strange or any kind of intrustion into people's lives, it's just the way everyone lived. No one could have imagined that anyone would ever object.

curious2 says

"It's crazier in Texas, y'all."

That's right.

Without god we'd be failing morally, it would be hell on earth.

Dan8267 says

P N Dr Lo R says

Why are you so offended by my religious beliefs unless you think they're true?

1. 2000 years of rape, murder, and mayhem.

2. Laws that restrict freedoms without justification.

3. The most vocal Christians are pro-torture and pro-death-penalty.

4. The brainwashing of children.

5. The derailing of education with misinformation.

6. Whitewashing history.

7. Corruption of the courts.

8. Prosecution of free speech.

9. Dehumanization of others.

10. Attacks on secularism.

11. Promoting lies.

12. Attacks on science and truth.

13. Endangering mankind with climate change denial.

I could go on, but those are the main things.

P N Dr Lo R says

...but nobody cares.

Actually, that's only you. Anyone with a moral backbone cares a great deal about the things I listed.

But, of course, the more fervently Christian a person is, the more immoral he is. The fact that you don't care about those things demonstrates my point that Christianity corrupts and corrodes morality. Every single one of those issues is a moral issue, and one in which the harm done impoverishes future generations.

And that brings us right back to the question you asked, "why is Christianity so offensive". It's offensive because it makes people like you become immoral and harm future generations.

P N Dr Lo R says

My mother, who taught from 1924 to 1970, always used Biblical stories as examples of the best literature in her English classes.

Then your mother was a shitty teacher.

Leviticus 15:19-26

19 “Whenever a woman has her menstrual period, she will be ceremonially unclean for seven days. Anyone who touches her during that time will be unclean until evening.
20 Anything on which the woman lies or sits during the time of her period will be unclean.
21 If any of you touch her bed, you must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening.
22 If you touch any object she has sat on, you must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening.
23 This includes her bed or any other object she has sat on; you will be unclean until evening if you touch it.
24 If a man has sexual intercourse with her and her blood touches him, her menstrual impurity will be transmitted to him. He will remain unclean for seven days, and any bed on which he lies will be unclean.
25 “If a woman has a flow of blood for many days that is unrelated to her menstrual period, or if the blood continues beyond the normal period, she is ceremonially unclean. As during her menstrual period, the woman will be unclean as long as the discharge continues.
26 Any bed she lies on and any object she sits on during that time will be unclean, just as during her normal menstrual period.

The Bible is the shittiest work of fiction every written with the possible exception of the Quran.

Rin says

Yes, his name is Snake Plissken ...

A three-digit code to shut down the whole planet? That doesn't seem secure. At least ATM pins have four digits.

Rin says

Strategist says

Now you believe the world was created in 6 days, and snakes can talk.

Yes, his name is Snake Plissken ...

Watch it. If you speak Parseltongue, P N Dr Lo R might accuse you of being a witch.

FortWayne says

Without god we'd be failing morally, it would be hell on earth.

You got it backwards. The belief in the false Christian god is highly correlated to immorality. Just think about climate change, the most important moral issue of our time. You never hear an atheist or agnostic denying man-made climate change or insisting that we allow corporations to continue to pollute the world for short-term profit at the expense of all future generations. No, you only hear Christians spouting that immoral crap.

Of course, Fort Wayne will have no answer for this.

FortWayne says

Without god we'd be failing morally, it would be hell on earth.

Muslims have God. What morals do they have?

P N Dr Lo R got awfully silent. #Hitchslapped

They got it wrong, wrong god.

Strategist says

FortWayne says

Without god we'd be failing morally, it would be hell on earth.

Muslims have God. What morals do they have?

Dan8267 says

Then your mother was a shitty teacher.

Most people would be offended by this, but when I consider the source, what else should I expect? Imagine what the reaction would be if I'd said that about his mother.

FortWayne says

They got it wrong, wrong god.

Actually, it's the same damn god. The god of Abraham. So you both got it wrong. All gods are wrong.

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

They got it wrong, wrong god.

Actually, it's the same damn god. The god of Abraham. So you both got it wrong.

Exactly. The dead charlatan Mohamed hijacked the god of Abraham just as FortWayne's and P N Dr Lo R's preferred charlatans did. Mohamed was worse, but the tactic is the same: take a population conditioned to believe in a paradoxically omnipotent yet inchoate monotheistic deity, and pretend to represent that deity. Mohamed used force, thus embodying omnipotence. Historically, many Christians have done the same, though currently they rely primarily on brainwahing children and trying to convert a few adults.

If an omnipotent deity wanted you to know something, he wouldn't need to pay charlatans to tell you. As a wise former priest explained, all organized churches are fundamentally about the denial of god. The minute you put one stone atop another, or fix a roof, you're saying an omnipotent deity wanted a church there, when in fact that's false: if he wanted a church there, it would be there, and you wouldn't need to build or maintain it. These institutions empower charlatans, and reward charlatans, thus luring more. Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, George "Rentboy" Rekers, Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson (Yale JD lawyer realized he could gain more $$$ and power and a private jet by fleecing the faithful), on and on it goes, and suckers keep lining up. Fool them with identity and emotional sales, tell them to identify as believers and to feel good and superior to their fellow men, it works every time. "Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

www.youtube.com/embed/SdcGoBOsaQM

curious2 says

paradoxically omnipotent yet inchoate monotheistic deity

Lol, that's about it, and it's why I am not a believer, except in the Golden Rule.

And yet, I have sympathy for Christianity for a lot of reasons:

* It's where I came from (well, aside from my Jewish grampa on mom's side).
* Jesus was a good role model and Christianity has a good message (that Golden Rule) even if it doesn't really sink in for a lot of people.
* Christianity provides some immunity against joining Islam, which is a ridiculously violent cult bent on world domination.
* Churches provide communities, and therefore meaning, for lots of people.
* Christianity provides a lot of people hope in hopeless situations. Who am I to take that away without anything better to offer?

Strategist says

but still not a fair question.

Dan is obfuscating, I'm calling it out, totally fair.

Dan8267 says

This is a No True Scottsman argument.

No it's not. It's simply stating that you have to practice what your religion dictates, not what your personal, incorrect interpretation of that religion leads you to believe.

Dan8267 says

So, by your criteria, no terrorist can be a Muslim by definition, and therefore no Muslim is a terrorist.

What you're really getting at is exactly my point above. I'm sure you're aware their are many different denominations of Protestantism. From Catholics to Seventh Day Adventists. In the same way there are many sects of Islam. In many cases the divisions are over petty things like how to baptize(sprinkle vs immerse). But in some cases they are much larger. There are many Catholic church's that mandate you cannot go to heaven without practicing the sacraments. In many other protestant denominations, this is heresy as it amounts to salvation by works. The larger differences ARE important, and you cannot judge all of a religion based on one extreme sect.

Dan8267 says

No moral entity, nonetheless the embodiment of morality, would allow atrocities to be committed in his name.

Now we're getting somewhere. Your problem isn't with God, it's with choice. And hypocrisy obviously. I don't think you understand this, you're too busy being angry to get past that.

Dan8267 says

You see, I have this psychological condition called empathy which allows me to value the lives of others.

Bullshit. Most people aren't sociopaths, so we're all generally against these same things. But only YOU rant about religion. Why? I'm not letting you off with some impersonal excuse.

And I'll say this. If you can't be honest about your hatred of my God, you can't bad mouth Him or His followers here. At least not with any dignity or justification.

NuttBoxer says

Dan is obfuscating,

Obfuscating my ass. I gave you a very clear, direct, and defensible answer. Then you pussied out.

NuttBoxer says

No it's not. It's simply stating that you have to practice what your religion dictates, not what your personal, incorrect interpretation of that religion leads you to believe.

It's clearly a No-True-Scottsman argument as you are literally arguing that any Christian, no matter how fervent in his belief and proselytizing, is not a real Christian if he does any evil in the name of Christ. Well, that include 99% of Christians throughout history including today. It also includes all American Christians who are pro-war, pro-torture, pro-death-penalty, anti-gay, or climate change deniers.

NuttBoxer says

Dan8267 says

No moral entity, nonetheless the embodiment of morality, would allow atrocities to be committed in his name.

Now we're getting somewhere. Your problem isn't with God, it's with choice. And hypocrisy obviously. I don't think you understand this, you're too busy being angry to get past that.

That's a load of bullshit. My problem is with brainwashing people to make irrational choices and to corrupt government. It would be trivial for your fictional god, if he were real, to make it clear to every single person on Earth what his wishes are in a completely unambiguous way. There would be no debate about which religion was right or which wars or policies were just. God could have a damn Twitter feed answering questions 24/7. None of this would interfere with choice.

[stupid comment limit]

Furthermore, you are making an ad hominem by falsely accusing me of being angry. It's childish, and it's obvious that you are spreading that lie in order to discredit me. You feel the need to do this because you simply are not intelligent enough to come up with a rational argument to defend your position, so you are hoping you can fool the audience into thinking that I'm the irrational one. The audience isn't as dumb as you.

This isn't anger, but rather the certainty one gets from being on the side of truth and having the evidence and reasoning to back up his position. That's a feeling you will never know.