True Irony [Trollville]
Offline When one thinks of a radical Theist, many thoughts come to mind; irrationality, ignorance, arrogance, and general stupidity. And yet, those adjectives aren't solely limited to radical Theists. The key word in that phrase is the term radical. And another noun that can easily accompany that word is the word Atheist. But that's impossible right? After all, atheists live without an irrational belief in a god and are therefore freethinking and open to a whole new world. But that phrase, oft-used as an atheist’s self-description, falls right under the descriptor of arrogance. The fact of the matter is that many Atheists, in particular, my audience the Rational Response Squad, readily coin any Theist a number of condescending terms, as their if belief in a god somehow makes them inferior to such “enlightened” people. In reality, these people so deeply enthralled in the belief of disbelief are no different than the fundamentalists and extremists that give religion the image that atheists superimpose on anyone who holds a belief in a higher power.
In essence, radical theists are no different than radical atheists. A look at the words themselves, theist and a- (anti) theist, show that the two are simply opposites of each other. One can deduce from Newton’s third law of gravity that for every one thing, there exists an equal counterpart of said thing. As such, an extreme atheist is equal to an extreme theist.
Examples of this equal and opposite existence can be found easily; and one of the quickest and best sources for examples is, of course, the internet. On one end of the spectrum exists the Christian Teen Forum, on the other, the Rational Response Squad. The former dedicates itself to spreading the “good news of God” while the other seeks to stop any expression of the word “god,” save the few Christians that are baited into Atheist vs. Theist debates that leave both ends believing that the other was foolish for believing what he or she believes, with the grand conclusion of each argument being, “Where is your god now?” (and oppositely, “Where is your science now?&rdquo
.
In conclusion, both sides believe they have life figured out and that the other side is completely foolish. The difference, however, is that radical Christians are proud to declare their involvement in a religion, a religion with God at the center of it. However, radical atheists are offended when their beliefs are labeled as a religion, which is truly what radical atheism is, a belief with science at the center of it. By denying that their beliefs form a religion, radical atheists are free to criticize theists for their beliefs without risk of scrutiny for being essentially the same as any radical Christian. And with this control over the word “religion,” in conjunction with the ability to attack Christians with the word like a knife, atheists comfortably settle into the mindset of superiority. From this mindset, groups such as the Rational Response Squad exist to exert their dominance over radical theists despite the fact that the word radical—and all the descriptions that entail the word—describes the group just as well as it would describe any fundamentalist.
EDIT - changed text color for readability - dead_again
EDIT - It's like ray-ee-ayn on your wedding day, a free riiiiiiiiiiiiide when you're already late... - magilum
So quick to point the finger
Yet you fail to realize you've become what you've hated.
- Login to post comments
Case in point. Thank you for serving as an example.
Hi Essence. Your rhetoric is long-winded old hat.
I apoligize if my points aren't condensed into a simple bumper-sticker catch phrase like I'm so accustomed to seeing out of radicals.
So quick to point the finger
Yet you fail to realize you've become what you've hated.
Ooh, a straw-man. Let me know how your fight with your imaginary radicals goes.
Who said anything about a fight with radicals? I'm simply expressing my thoughts and observations of the situation to the audience that will react in the most enjoyable manner.
In essence... I do it for the lulz.
So quick to point the finger
Yet you fail to realize you've become what you've hated.
Dear Mr. Essence,
Calling out a bigot, does not *make* one a bigot...or in this case, niether does calling out a douche bag.
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
I don't know what reality you live in, but it must not be Earth based. Atheists are more looked down on and then criticized than muslims here in the U.S. The only group we beat out is Scientologists, and that change is recent (thank you Tom).
There is one key difference between theists and atheists, believing in imaginary friends. As long as theists tell me I need my very own imaginary friend I will say "No thanks." When they insist (as they often do) I will unabashed tell them to fuck off. I don't mind ifthat makes me "radical."
I'm of a certain age where it's nice to be called radical every now and again.
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.
I'm surprised this hasn't wound up in trollville yet.
[edit] : ummm... never mind!
Really, you're getting lulz from this? Seems like you've been uniformly denied. You must be super desperate.
Holy crap....what am I to do now.
Gulp. For many, many years I've known that I didn't have any beliefs. No beliefs at all...nada, zilch, zero, none.
Now, lowly me, I'z just so confused. Essence is telling me what exists inside me, even though he's not near me, he's not in this room, he couldn't possibly be in my brain....unless he....
scary
Are you god, Essence?
Yes Essence, that's the sarcastic thing about irony, sometimes its so....ironic.
Have a nice day!
Or he's dancing the Masochism Tango.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You may ( or may not ) have a point.
I'll admit that I do sometimes feel superior to theists. In this group I have actually referred to fundamentalists as re-tards.
However, lately I have begun to look into critical thinking which examines all sides of an argument against convincing evidence as a way to solve problems. I'm not convinced that you're evidence proves that atheism is a religion but I'd like to see more discussion on this.
Rick
Frosty's coming back someday. Will you be ready?
Essence of Irony
You have said virtually nothing, as is a lesson of yin yang. Theists and so Atheists. Umm, how might I actually say something regarding this ??? ...... "I am god , god is atheist" .....
Humbling it is, condemned to be what we are, call it whatever, don't make god shit up, and my arrogant atheist jesus called you religious types, blind hypocrites, vipers and snakes, ye who pray in public as the fools serving satan you are. In other words, FUCK YOU ! Oh my , the arrogance of simple truth.
WTF isn't god, you dumb shit anti christ separatist, evil messenger ??? You are the enemy to love , to understand, to heal .....lol , wise up .....
Atheism Books.
Give him the asshat avatar.
OK, Essence, you win. I'm going to kill time with your post.
A nicely awkward, third grade book report kind of opener. Bravo.
This is a revelation, and I'll be sure to tell all the people who are claiming this, which is no one.
Well, no, the theist position still qualifies as irrational, to whatever extent they promote it.
Again, I'll be sure to tell the people claiming it's impossible. The same ones as before.
Not consistent with our capitalization, I see. Your remedial English teacher would be disappointed if he didn't already snuff it, despairing over your trite writing. As to the word atheist, it means what the definition says it means. If you want to argue associated demographics, whatevs.
It was an ambitious sentence to attempt, I'll give you that. But it is just a naked assertion.
If by "superior" and "enlightened" you mean less prone to a particular delusion, however traditional, then sure.
You have a lazy brain.
Ew, ugly category error. How Postmodern.
Yawn.
Every man (or zit-faced teen) writes his own indictment.
You mention their deity like it's something in their favor. Telling.
I'll leave it to your lazy brain to figure out what "religion" means, and why you're wrong.
Whaaahmbulance, anyone?
Whaaahmbulance, anyone? ..... Yup, it's an emergency !
Soooo, you're stereotyping our alleged stereotype of theists????
By your own admission, you have sought an audience rather than a discussion. Arrogance anyone?
Along with those condescending terms comes a great deal of pity with them.
Ummm. When did an atheist fly a plane into a building?
You should have stopped at the base assertion. a- is not anti-. atheism is a lack of belief in god(s) whereas theism is the belief in god(s). They are opposites though.
OH BOY!!! Can I put this in the funny thread?
You're here to tell us that we are arrogant when we present facts to people and then you say THIS???
Newton's third law of MOTION states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
I found a grade school website for you to become acquainted with physics:
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/newtlaws/u2l4a.html
ALSO, that applies to physics NOT any type of socio-ideological interactions.
How many religious sites are there in comparison to atheist sites?
If it were truly an 'equal and opposite' existence then why do christians maintain a 92% majority in the US?
Yet again. Please stop. You're helping to maintain the stereotype of the ignorant theist.
[sarcasm] Oh yes by all means because we declare all the time that we have THE TRUTH given to us despite the facts to the contrary. Our people all the time are explaining to us how we should live and eat and fornicate.[/sarcasm]
Has it ever occurred to you that atheists did not make theists more radical in their beliefs?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
According to you, that makes republicans and democrats religions also.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
It's funny how condescending people can get when they accuse others of being condescending. Ironic, even.
But one observation is merited concerning Essence's faulty analysis, and that is namely the problem with his or her use of the term "radical". Calling atheists radical is a bit like calling the sea wet. "Radical", meaning addressing the root issues, is exactly what atheists tend to be, since society as a whole presents the atheist daily with challenges to their adoption of a rational approach to the question of deity and the wilful ignorance required to support a belief in that deity. If society did not present itself as overtly deist with such frequency there would not be a need for a radical response. But then neither would there be a need for the term atheist either.
The rest of the post therefore doesn't make much logical sense, not surprising given the false premise with which it began. There seems to be a confusion in Essence of Irony's mind between the terms "radical" and "fundamental" when applied to human behaviour, a complete misunderstanding of what constitutes "baiting", and a very slanted interpretation of the tendency for arguments between the theist and atheist viewpoint to end inconclusively. This they indeed do with great frequency, but often on the way give either or both parties to the debate pause for thought.
The ultimate false conclusion is of course that which claims the atheist's viewpoint can be termed a "religion" itself. This strange averral normally emanates from people for whom knowledge and assumption are, through dint of their own religious beliefs, interchangeable entities. The atheist, who tends more to a rational attitude towards distinguishing between these two quite different ways of interpreting data, can therefore never adopt the "blind belief" which typifies his theist counterpart. The atheist is not immune to the charge of ignorance - no one is - but he or she is most definitely immune from the charge of having religious tendencies. The glaring proof of this mistake on Essence's part is their final statement in which the website directors here are accused of attempting to exercise some kind of dominion over "radical theists" ( a very typical religious perspective on how supremacy of an idea should infer supremacy of the group that holds it) .
The truth is quite different. For a start "radical theists" are very thin on the ground - most theists cannot, by definition, address the root causes of their delusion. Secondly, the idea of "dominance" infers a desire to exert control over others, a laughable charge if it is levelled against those whose only association with the term at all is a wish that some day the rational viewpoint might dominate over superstition as a social norm.
All in all Essence has written a provocative post, and judging by his or her follow-up remarks, has intentionally done so. But all that he or she has managed to draw attention to in the end is the woeful ignorance of the meaning of words which permeates society and which leads ignorant people to give and take meaningless offence with such depressing inevitability and regularity, and all that he or she has provoked in the end is simply sympathy for his or her unfortunate inclusion amongst their number.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
Thanks to Adrian Barnett (again) for the chart below...
Let me ask....do you believe that Leprechauns do not exist?
If so, are you a member of the "No Leprechauns" religion?
Then again...come to think of it maybe we atheists should become a religion.
We might be able to get Atheism taught in Texas schools and get tax exempt status, if so...
Wouldn't that be fun?
Actually atheism only refers to belief (or lack thereof) in a deity. An atheist could have a belief in an afterlife, it wouldn't be warrented, but is not a qualifier for being an atheist. Or any of those other things listed (aside from the ones refering directly to a deity).
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
i thought name calling was frowned upon here? or is there some sort of line you can't go past?
BTW GREAT chart!!!
The OP shouldn't even be in this forum but seems careful not to outright prove it, so I think it's fair game. Throwing it straight to Trollville doesn't get the accusations answered. Redirecting them to the previous conversations referenced doesn't work that often either, but we have to try. Otherwise, we'd just take our position as 'faith' rather than being able to reason it.
Most like this will go unanswered except by happy-ass kitten pics or whambulances. I picked this one to respond to because of the glaring errors.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
note to self:
When reading magilum posts, do not drink from cup.
Unless believe that rum and coke= computer screen cleaner.
Heh. That reminds me of one in like 5th grade where I didn't read anything so the teacher had me do it on this story I hated (something about these kids who got lost on vacation) from the reading book. I opened the opinion part with "This story stank like a really rotten egg. "
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Since when does the prefix a mean anti? I always thought it meant "without or not." As in asexual, or abiogenisis. So a-theism would translate to without theistic beleif instead of oppesed to theistic beliefe. I thought anti was the prefix for anti...
And just to beat a dead horse, atheism is not the belief in science, it is the rejection of the very idea of "belief" itself. Atheism at it's core is the reluctance to put stock in an idea that has no supporting evidence.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
The OP does not posit a problem with "Atheism and Theism" but instead advertises brilliantly how utterly wrong one can be when one profoundly misunderstands the meaning of a crucial word.
I'm recognising one now, for all my supposed ignorance.
Atheism does not require denial. Nor does it require logic, be it fallacy or not. And it most definitely does not require an air of superiority. Both you and the OP really need to invest in a dictionary, though being too dense to recognize the stupidity of one's argument might also infer that you do not as yet see a need to understand the meaning of words.
Maybe not, but if I were you - or indeed the OP - and belatedly realised how stupid I had just proven myself to be, I would probably derive very little entertainment from the fact and instead experience some little upset at least that my failure to correctly interpret one little word led me to expose myself as such a thorough fool.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
The OP is scientifically illiterate. He thinks that citing Newton's Third Law of Motion proves that for every radical theist, there is an equally radical atheist.
How about this? Every individual maintains their religion or lack of religion until acted upon by an outside source of information. Or, even better, your expertise in fundamentalist logic is equal to your stupidity multiplied by how many Creationist websites you've visited.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I'm recognising one now, for all my supposed ignorance.
I doubt it. I'm sure you overlooked the moron standing in your reflection so I can't trust your judgment.
"Their behavior- the denial, the logical fallacies, the air of superiority- is funny to me. They are too dense to recognize their own stupidity...."
Atheism does not require denial. Nor does it require logic, be it fallacy or not. And it most definitely does not require an air of superiority. Both you and the OP really need to invest in a dictionary, though being too dense to recognize the stupidity of one's argument might also infer that you do not as yet see a need to understand the meaning of words.
I never said it did. Reread my post. Obviously Atheism doesn't require nor use sound logic. You get no argument from me there. I said that this is all you Atheists in this forum have to offer along with ignorance and stupidity. This straw man stun here proves it.
To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute..... it carries little or no real evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
That's all you Atheists resort to because you can't handle arguing the FACTS. At least, none that you haven't made up on que.
Maybe not, but if I were you - or indeed the OP - and belatedly realised how stupid I had just proven myself to be, I would probably derive very little entertainment from the fact and instead experience some little upset at least that my failure to correctly interpret one little word led me to expose myself as such a thorough fool.
OMG.... blah blah blah.... This is the BS I'm talking about. I don't know why he wrote the OP but my experience with Atheists in this forum have been exactly what he described. So maybe YOU and the rest of RRS need to go back and study the dickshunary. If one doesn't have a belief in something then say that instead of spouting lies as if they are scientific facts with evidence to back it up. That would make a lot more sense to me.... but hey, I'm not in denial like you are.
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
I take it back - I shouldn't have used the word "stupid" in your case.
I should have used the term "predictably and tediously stupid".
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
I've checked my reflection and don't see you there at all (this can run and run)
The straw man argument infers invention on the part of its proponent. I don't need to invent the fact that you have seriously misunderstood the meaning of the word atheist. You prove it - even now in your refutation. Logic or lack of logic is immaterial to the definition. That does not mean of course that it is immaterial to the atheist. A healthy respect for logic is normally a contributory factor to adopting such a rational stance.
See my first point above. When it comes to stupidity you seem determined to be a repeat offender.
In fact "repeat ad nauseum" is the term that springs to mind.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
Practically none of this statement makes sense and most of it fails to follow even its own internal logic.
However it does contain one very honest and shrewd self-observation on your part. Your admission that you do not have the ability to recognize when someone employs logic and reason must have taken great courage. I commend you for it - even if I find its honesty rather surprising given all from you that preceded it, and which does not even hint at the fact that you are capable of such an insight.
However it's a sign that there's hope for you yet. Best advice I can give you is to refrain from posting on messageboards etc until you have followed the insight to its conclusion. Best of luck!
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
And yet, Arj, when people ask you how you know what you know you fall back on (parentheticals mine based on the thought that appears behind your earlier posts) "I'm not here to debate. I'm just telling you what I believe. You should all respect me (and tell me I'm right) for what I believe."
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You generalize far too much. When one thinks of a radical of any kind really one thinks of single minded full speed ahead direction to achieve their view of reality. This can be caused by deep seated emotions, such as with antiwar protesters who see wars as simply a waste and evil. In the case of radical theists I would not suggest they are ignorant or stupid but rather they have a single minded purpose driven by their view of reality. In the view they see as real they have no problem with extremist behavior as God will sort out the good from the bad a typical view during the Crusades.
Radical atheists have the single purpose in mind to eliminate all religion from the World. Many of us don't care what you believe as long as you keep it to yourself. When you cross the line and attempt to push your beliefs down the throats of others we resist. This line crossing actually makes these theists radical. Thus forcing citizens to recite "One Nation Under God" is a form of radical behavior. If you wish to believe the 2000 to 3000 year old stories from an ancient people as reality feel free.
The only thing equal is their desire to push their views on others. I don't recall atheists per se doing things such as the Inquisition or the pogroms as Christianity has done. Communist countries don't count as the control point was the state not atheism.
You realize you wrote this in a condescending superiority complex sort of way don't you?
Your view God is good news but what if you have misplaced faith based on errors not of your own creation such as a belief that was erroneous due to failure of understanding. What for example if the Jews are correct and the Messiah hasn't come or he was a prophet such as Islam suggests. Or if he was just misunderstood and was built up to be more than he was?
Many of us simply suggest you need to further examine your basis of beliefs because there are problems. We have found there is no basis for the claim of God and suggest you have misplaced basis for your beliefs. In the case of many atheists realization that there is probably no God and the stories from the ancients are little more than myths is a relief. One can focus on the really important things in the world such as living and people. Nothing is more important than people.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
Clearly, the OP was referring to theists and atheists in general. Furthermore, Arj completely failed to address my actual argument. The fallacy of comparison between Newton's Laws of Motion and belief systems still remains. Picking out a specific group, (RRS) does not eliminate the fallacy.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Let her wear the asshat already.
Many of the individuals you are debating have college degrees, and have clearly shown a much stronger understanding of logic, science, and religion than you. Why do you persist in your infinite arrogance? It's baffling. Though your beliefs in the supernatural might have no supporting objective evidence, I could easily understand why you believe in those things. However, what I don't understand is why you refuse to acknowledge that you're an atheist, intentionally ignore dictionary definitions, and throw philosophical terms around without understanding their meaning.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
I'd like to propose Arj be banned for trolling.
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
Ad hominem with an unwarranted assertion sprinkled on top.
I refuted the OP's argument. You disagreed with my argument so I assumed your position based on what you disagreed with. If you were supporting the fallacy, then I'm sorry I misinterpreted your response.
You highlighted the portion of my post where I said this...
Then, you stated,
Whether you disagreeing with me on his fallacy or his intended subjects (or both), you are wrong.
I did.
So this is another one of your pathetic, self-contradicting cop-outs? What the fuck do you expect when you say you disagree with someone on an Internet forum? If you don't want to debate, stop debating. Is that so fucking difficult to comprehend?
*Yawn*
Yes, but I don't see what that has to do with topic we're discussing.
1) Oh, okay, so you acknowledge that you're an atheist
Are you an atheist?
2) You don't intentionally ignore dictionary definitions.
What does the dictionary say about the term "atheism?"
3) And, you don't throw philosophical terms around without understanding their meaning.
What is a fallacy of equivocation? Ad hoc? Ad hominem? True Scotsman? Non sequitur?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
This thread is becoming confusing. The next post was directed at me.
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
Don't be hatin'. She's just an innocent little girl who's being bullied by fanatical skeptics and elitist idiots. She doesn't even want to debate, poor thing. We should all have a group hug in support of rational mysticism.
That doesn't count as debating.
That's doesn't count either.
Or that.
And that.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare