StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Ah yes, sorry, I was suggesting a thread for others to see breakdowns and responses to these common arguments, in the vein of such threads in OSF and GnC. It'd make these sort of arguments a lot shorter I think if a link could simply be posted to a thread that provides all the information, rather than a couple of pages of back-and-forth that goes nowhere because christians can't be rational about this stuff. Informing thinking people > arguing with christians, I think.

I agree it help out a lot. I am a lot better at one on one in person debates than I am on here. I keep hoping to eventually get better.

It's not so much about debate style as being informed - making statements about atheism or communism or fascism or whatever that clearly show you have no idea what you're talking about and are simply repeating christian talking points is always going to be bad.

Stark wrote:It's not so much about debate style as being informed - making statements about atheism or communism or fascism or whatever that clearly show you have no idea what you're talking about and are simply repeating christian talking points is always going to be bad.

It sucks because this is what I learned in a Secular High School and most books I've run across. I've been thinking about making a thread asking for books I need to read but I got no idea what to even ask for.

Darth Wong wrote:He also lacks the critical thinking skills to understand that "Hitler believed in some pagan beliefs" does not mean "Hitler did not believe in the Christian god". There are huge numbers of Americans who believe in God but who also believe in all kinds of other things, like karma or superstitions or horoscopes.

That sort of thing is even more common in Latin America. There are large numbers of Catholics who mix in ancient American Indian religious practices, like the Aztec-influenced Day of the Dead. Mixing and matching in religion is not unheard of at all.

Metatwaddle wrote:That sort of thing is even more common in Latin America. There are large numbers of Catholics who mix in ancient American Indian religious practices, like the Aztec-influenced Day of the Dead. Mixing and matching in religion is not unheard of at all.

Indeed - back in the day this was very common in order to 'sell' christianity to new cultures. It's also been said that once you believe in one brand of stupid crap, you're vulnerable to believing anything said by an authority. I've heard this used as an explanation for the way many religious people ALSO buy into tarot, astrology, numerology, scientology, moon hoax, UFO abduction, etc.

Metatwaddle wrote:That sort of thing is even more common in Latin America. There are large numbers of Catholics who mix in ancient American Indian religious practices, like the Aztec-influenced Day of the Dead. Mixing and matching in religion is not unheard of at all.

That's ridiculous and God will punish those heretics! Why, my priest told me that those dark-skinned folk down there aren't even real Christians! Bunch of Virgin Mother worshipping idolators! Gosh darn Marians...

It's really like language, I think. We have Canadian English, American English, Indian English, Jamaican English, right? Why can't we have different flavours of Christianity? Other than providing arguments for the folks who claim "those aren't real Christians!"

Holy snapping foreskins, did that simple question ever spark a firestorm.

I'm quite dismayed reading Chewie's responses. His reticence in explaining his views in detail, particularly on issues like "moral" ones, demonstrate what I personally see far too often reflected in Republican/Conservative people. (I'm not necessarily saying this is exactly the case with you CC, but from past threads I would strongly suspect so. However I'm speaking in general now).

Many people opposing homosexual tolerance, abortion, comprehensive sex ed, etc. seem to be of two camps when involved in a public discussion. They either piously state their belief that God tells them what is right and end of discussion, or they go the politically correct (or possibly cowardly) route and cryptically state their support of a candidate and their platforms with vague references to general "moral" principles that they share.

What's particularly maddening about this is that I can picture an analogy of trying to reason with someone by thinking of Ghostbusters and how no matter what Bill Murray was saying to Dana, all she kept saying in the end was "There is no Dana, there is only Zuul". How can you truly discuss issues, work with other people of differing principles or even attempt to meet them halfway if the most primal tenet of the person who is going to vote is focused on an absolute belief that their position is the only one that can possibly be 'right'?

I really want to believe that the grand majority of people with strong religious beliefs whether Christian, Muslim or even Wiccan for all I care, have the sense to "do unto others" first and foremost. They certainly wouldn't like others forcing them to do things or NOT do things against their religious principles, so in complete fairness it shouldn't be much to expect them to keep their theological beliefs out of all action they take in regards to voting in people that are meant to be representing everyone from Satan worshipper to total atheists.

When someone does not completely support the principle of separation of chuch and state, they instantly get my danger radar going off with huge alarm bells. Fuck it's so frustrating how damn intertwined religion and politics still is. It's like a fucking cancer.

Justforfun000 wrote:I don't believe I've seen anyone yet, but out of curiosity, are there any members of the board that are supporting McCain?

I do. I have a lot of reasons for this, so bear with me, this is going to be a long post. Also I'm using it to vent. You can skip it if you want.

I previously thought Obama would be best, but after seeing the election, not any more. There's no way in hell this race should be this close after the past 8 years and last 2 elections. This should be an Obama landslide that makes 1984 look like 2000. But due to the voting public's rampant stupidity and the Obama campaign's and democratic parties weak and ineffectual campaigning in general, you have a situation where the republican is actually ahead in the polls.

After the past 8 years, "Republician" should be a dirty word. 8 years of Bush with most of those having the GOP control congress, and the voting public is tripping over it's self to elect another one. Somehow they've managed to convince themselves that that was a one time thing, and that the next one will fix everything. And the Obama campaign is doing nothing to disabuse them of that notion. They've banned 527 groups that should be making it impossible to turn on the TV or radio without hearing about how John McCain was previously opposed to banning abortion, the bush tax cuts, "agents of intolerance" or any of the hundreds of things that would have made him worth voting for in 2000, then changed his stance on just in time to be nominated by the GOP in 2008. Or Sarah Palin, who's list of scandals I have to update to include charging the government of Alaska to pay her for the days she slept in her own house as opposed to the governor's mansion, or trying to get the police of Wasilla to charge rape victims for rape kits to try to identify their rapists, then trying to fire the chief of police when he refused to implement that policy. I mean that is sickening, and I wouldn't have even heard about it if I hadn't watched Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

The reason Obama has banned the 527 groups, and all negative campaigning is so he can tell people he's running a "clean campaign." I fully expect him to take the stage in the early morning on November 5th and announce "The vote totals are in and America has chosen John McCain as it's new president. We fought long and hard, but we we not victorious. But that's not important. We ran a clean campaign, and that's all that matters." I honestly believe that running a clean campaign is more important to him then winning, and cannot in good faith support a man who is so stupid.

So what I'm hoping, and willing to take a gamble on is after their messiah loses, democrats finally get it through their head that playing nice with republicans won't get them anywhere and they need to hit back, even harder then they get hit. Hopefully when 2012 rolls around, they can nominate someone cut from an entirely different cloth then Kerry and Obama, someone willing to go after every weak point their opponent has, with none of this "family is off limits" naive crap. Anyone care to guess what would happen if Obama had a 17 year old daughter that wasn't married and got knocked up? Here's my guess: the election would be over. Every member of the republican party would start hammering him on that, and every so called journalist would start mindlessly parroting those lines, and telling people this issue is important enough that because of it you can't vote for obama, and every moron sitting in front of the boob tube would believe them, and the election would be over with McCain winning in a landslide.

Which is what the media is best at: mindlessly parroting the talking points they are given. So many people think the media is biased, that not me. I think they're just so lazy they don't bother doing any analysis of anything to determine it's truth or importance, just what effect it may have on the election. I believe if democrats start employing the same media and spin tactics republicans do, the media would treat them the same as they treat republicans now (not Fox, obviously). So I'm hoping the 2012 democratic candidate will be a real candidate, and not a wishy washy push over like Kerry or Obama. I'm worried if Obama wins, the democrats might keep fielding candidates like them. That's the biggest reason I support John McCain.

The other reason is the attitude of the voting public. After the last 8 years, and especially after the 06 elections, I assumed Americans had learned their lesson about conservatism. But apparently not. Apparently they haven't figured out that the 3 major ideals of modern American are forcing as many people as possible to obey the rules people think are in a 2000 year old collection of books (which book is "thou shalt not get abortions" and "thou shalt let gay people marry" in again? Was it Leviticus or the Gospel of John?), helping the rich get richer even at the expense of the poor getting poorer, and keeping everyone scared so they don't realize the two previous things. My hope is that people wise up after another 4 years and the impending economic crash J, Her Grace, and the Admiral keep predicting which will be caused by the housing crisis caused by the deregulation of the market by republicans, the exploding deficit caused by the Iraq War and drunken sailor-like spending by the bush administration, and the climate crisis caused by global warming. Global warming may not be directly caused by republicans, but I just bet if Al Gore had been elected, we wouldn't be having this problem. After all those things happen, and if the Democrats can come out swinging and make sure the republicans get all the blame they deserve, they'll be swept out of office and running on a republican ticket will be a poison in almost every state in the union.

Obviously the last part is much less sure, end even the first part may never happen, so supporting McCain is a huge risk, but I don't see any other alternative. Letting things continue as they are is unacceptable.

Anyway like I said, this is mostly a vent. Feel free to ignore it if you want, or feel free to correct me if any of my facts are wrong.

Wow. Rarely have I heard anyone so blunt and obvious about supporting everything wrong with politics in the United States.

So your idea is that as bad you think McCain will be, electing him and having him fuck up will somehow improve the country in the long term?

That's the point. Support everything wrong with politics and hope people get sick of it and actually try to fix it.

Also, in the above post I was just typing as the thoughts came to me. I didn't go back and edit it or anything, so I apologize for how disjointed everything sounds.

Also: sig and avatar test.

Dominus Atheos wrote: I previously thought Obama would be best, but after seeing the election, not any more. There's no way in hell this race should be this close after the past 8 years and last 2 elections. [...] So what I'm hoping, and willing to take a gamble on is after their messiah loses, democrats finally get it through their head that playing nice with republicans won't get them anywhere and they need to hit back, even harder then they get hit. [...] After the last 8 years, and especially after the 06 elections, I assumed Americans had learned their lesson about conservatism.

• Large parts of the population are disappointed with the current government, yet "stay the course", i.e.keep voting Republican.
• The Democrats lost in 2004, yet stay the course, i.e. keep running a clean campaign.
• You are disappointed by both groups, so your solution is to... stay the course, i.e. keep the Republicans in office?

Is that an accurate summary of your position? If so, why do you think that if after 8 years of Bush neither the people are fed up with the Republicans nor the Democrats have started dirty campaigning, then 12 years of Republican rule will make them change their mind? It would seem to me that your hypothesis -- if the Republicans just screw up badly enough and the Democrats keep losing elections with clean campaigning, both the electorate and the Democrats will change their attitude -- has already been put to the test in the past four years, and it didn't work the way you hoped.

Out of curiosity, were you old enough to vote in the 2004 election, or is this your first presidential election?

Invictus ChiKen wrote: He also used Norse Paganism and even elements of the Jewish Kabahala to forge a religion based around him. But I see your ignoring that part.

That's because that's bullshit. Some parts of the SS were up for that shit, but Hitler himself was never allied with that (and furthermore called norse revivalists cowardly, lazy scum). Hitler's cult of personality was also totally unconnected to the minority occultism you're referencing here. His cult of personality was a lot more down to his personal charisma, the messianic nature of his rise to power, the fact he was targetting the people the overwhelming, catholic majority hated, and the association of him with a national and religious faith in schools.

Please do correct me if I am wrong but to be morally superior do you not need a superior moral code first?

Yeah. That doesn't mean atheism is that code, any more than theism is a moral code. Christianity is a specific group of ideologies (motivating beliefs) and cultural standards.

And of course Lenin and Stalin had a large support base on the Left. They were trying to violently carve a socialist state and it seemed to be working from the outside. Stalin lost a LOT of Left support through the alienation of the Troskyites and others, to the extent that democratic socialists like George Orwell wrote books like Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four about the Napoleonic (hence the name of the pig) and totalitarian leanings of the authoritarian Left.

As for the notion of voting McCain to ruin the country more so people won't vote republican again, that is fucking retarded. All it will mean will be more poverty and ignorance and self-reinforcing beliefs about it being all the blacks' fault or whatever.

DA, that's retarded. How many people do you think will suffer as a result of a McCain election?

CaptainChewbacca wrote:He has similar moral values to me, and I believe he will make more moral choices that I agree with than Obama would.

I went to the McCain website looking for some of his "morality policies", and could find none.

What are these moral policies that appeal to you?

You know, madness is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

The democrats were ineffectual in 2000, they were ineffectual in 2004, if they're ineffectual in 2008 then there's no guarantee that they're going to suddenly 'get it' in 2012. The voting public isn't going to suddenly figure out how it all works and be smarter from then on. If anything you're helping establish a trend for republican victories for years to come.

Even if your cunning plan would did work, how long to you think the benefit would last and how many years of Republican rule do you think it will take to get the point across? If you're lucky, you'll get two terms of Democrats after 12 years of Republican rule, suddenly the country forgets how it got so fucked and votes Republicans back in. You can then begin your clever little campaign tactic of voting for the Republicans in order to get them out of the long term all over again.

Long story short, if you don't agree with the guy's policies, don't vote for him.

M wrote:

Dominus Atheos wrote: I previously thought Obama would be best, but after seeing the election, not any more. There's no way in hell this race should be this close after the past 8 years and last 2 elections. [...] So what I'm hoping, and willing to take a gamble on is after their messiah loses, democrats finally get it through their head that playing nice with republicans won't get them anywhere and they need to hit back, even harder then they get hit. [...] After the last 8 years, and especially after the 06 elections, I assumed Americans had learned their lesson about conservatism.

• Large parts of the population are disappointed with the current government, yet "stay the course", i.e.keep voting Republican.
• The Democrats lost in 2004, yet stay the course, i.e. keep running a clean campaign.
• You are disappointed by both groups, so your solution is to... stay the course, i.e. keep the Republicans in office?

Is that an accurate summary of your position? If so, why do you think that if after 8 years of Bush neither the people are fed up with the Republicans nor the Democrats have started dirty campaigning, then 12 years of Republican rule will make them change their mind? It would seem to me that your hypothesis -- if the Republicans just screw up badly enough and the Democrats keep losing elections with clean campaigning, both the electorate and the Democrats will change their attitude -- has already been put to the test in the past four years, and it didn't work the way you hoped.

It almost worked. Obama would never have been nominated in 2000 or 2004. Look at what happened to Dean. Democrats realized they had to nominate someone who would get people excited, which is something kerry never did. The problem is that getting people excited wasn't enough. The key to winning is getting people angry. Obama refuses to do that, and that's why I oppose him.

Out of curiosity, were you old enough to vote in the 2004 election, or is this your first presidential election?

I was 16 in 2004, so I'm old enough to remember it but not old enough to have voted.

Gandalf wrote:DA, that's retarded. How many people do you think will suffer as a result of a McCain election?

A lot, or at least that's what I'm hoping. With luck, enough people will suffer as a result of 12 years of trickle-down economics and deregulation, and someone will have the balls to lay the blame squarely where it belongs, that people reject those principles and all the principles of conservatism in general. It's unlikely, and probably impossible, but the alternative is much worse. Think of it this way: It's a question of a lot of suffering over the next 4 years, or even more suffering spread out over the next hundred. Conservatism needs to die, and this is the best way I can think of.

Dominus Atheos wrote:A lot, or at least that's what I'm hoping. With luck, enough people will suffer as a result of 12 years of trickle-down economics and deregulation, and someone will have the balls to lay the blame squarely where it belongs, that people reject those principles and all the principles of conservatism in general. It's unlikely, and probably impossible, but the alternative is much worse. Think of it this way: It's a question of a lot of suffering over the next 4 years, or even more suffering spread out over the next hundred. Conservatism needs to die, and this is the best way I can think of.

What makes you think that the Democratic party will somehow magically rally in 2012? What if it takes them until 2020? Think of how bad things can get in that time.

Then, how will this magical resurrected Democratic party magically be able to fix the system? Don't forget that this is the system that the right are slowly corrupting to make ineffectual to non-RNC users.

Gandalf wrote:

Dominus Atheos wrote:A lot, or at least that's what I'm hoping. With luck, enough people will suffer as a result of 12 years of trickle-down economics and deregulation, and someone will have the balls to lay the blame squarely where it belongs, that people reject those principles and all the principles of conservatism in general. It's unlikely, and probably impossible, but the alternative is much worse. Think of it this way: It's a question of a lot of suffering over the next 4 years, or even more suffering spread out over the next hundred. Conservatism needs to die, and this is the best way I can think of.

What makes you think that the Democratic party will somehow magically rally in 2012? What if it takes them until 2020? Think of how bad things can get in that time.

Then, how will this magical resurrected Democratic party magically be able to fix the system? Don't forget that this is the system that the right are slowly corrupting to make ineffectual to non-RNC users.

I never said it was a good idea, just the only one I had. If you have any better ways to destroy conservatism in America, I'd love to hear it. But letting trickle-down economics social conservatism survive for the next hundred years will do more damage then even if it does take until 2020.

Dominus Atheos wrote:I never said it was a good idea, just the only one I had.

If it's not a good idea, why are you acting upon it? Get involved with the process, rather than sitting at a keyboard railing for suffering in the hope that it turns out right for you.

Don't forget what can happen in systems where people are so dissatisfied. Look at Germany about eighty years ago. Didn't that work out well for everyone?

Dominus Atheos wrote:I never said it was a good idea, just the only one I had. If you have any better ways to destroy conservatism in America, I'd love to hear it. But letting trickle-down economics social conservatism survive for the next hundred years will do more damage then even if it does take until 2020.

... you know, you could do something along the lines of vote for the less conservative party. Because that will, you know, stop giving the conservatives positive reinforcement.

And then maybe do some campaigning for a better education system. Education does marvels when you're suffering from a case of conservatism.

OMG! I thought of a better idea, and it only took me two minutes!

What are these moral policies that appeal to you?

Well, they're certainly nothing to do with running a campaign that isn't the typical Rovian bullshit. His campaign is fucking rancid, and has been for weeks on end. And his VP-pick is the most irresponsible decision I've seen from a politician since the Tie-Chomping Thomas Jefferson of Tbilisi thought he could take on Vladimir Putin - a fucking Hockey Mom a heartbeat away from the Presidency? Like Matt Damon recently said, it's like a bad fucking Disney movie.

Republican message boards don't have any of this whining. Or at least, the ones I've looked at don't. The far-right conservatives are absolutely sure that they will win; any polls that show the opposition in the lead are dismissed as lies, while the polls that show them in the lead are automatically reliable. But to a large extent the evidence is irrelevant, because of course the conservatives have a manifest god-given destiny (if they ever lose, they'll rationalise it post-facto, no point thinking about it in advance).

Unfortunately in this case the extremist trait of indiference/immunity to real world evidence (and a concern for abstract rights over outcomes) actually works in their favour, in that an unshakeable conviction that they must and will win can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I have to say DA, that's some of the strangest reasoning I've ever seen.

So DA, if you had cancer, you would let it go untreated because treatment means it might come back, but if it kills you the cancer is definitely gone for good?