The Real Funny Part About the RRS!
Offline My activities on this site are not without much fruit. In fact I did engage in much debate about the origin of the universe and the theories of biological evolution. However, I would be remiss if I didn't bring to light some of the more humourous aspects of this ridiculous web endevour:
1. One of the founders, a man by the name of Rook Hawkins, claims to be an ancient text expert. However, we never really come to understand the nature of his expertise, or even his competence in this field. News at 11:00.
2. The Phsychology expert is a person who referes to on air debates as Bakkuke Parties. These parties are Japanese in nature and is a group sex practice wherein a series of men take turns ejaculating onto a woman, or in rare cases a man, sitting, lying down, or kneeling. The semen is left on the face as another man repeats the routine.[1] A new variant is lesbian bukkake, practiced by women.
3. Another frequent, and seemingly founding member of the group maintains a website that promotes Pimping Whores. Need I say more at : http://www.outpimp.com/index.php?iam=LilSexyRed
4. Most others just profess an atheist view due to a fundamental lack of undersatnding of how the real world works. This is ironic considering the basis of much of their debate deals with just that, how the world works!
Oh well!
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
- Login to post comments
Here's a surprise: NO.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
While you're here, DMI, why don't you head over to your "Christianity in a Nutshell" thread and read the three posts from me in the last page and show me up! Prove to everyone how much of a non-expert I am. I dare you.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Aren't you adorable. Awww, sooo cute! You're the type of guy that I'd like to hug and squeeze and kissy all foo-foo with for a few minutes, just because you're "snuggle bear" adorable.
Then I'd stab you in the face repeatedly with a plastic spoon until you died from it.
Every step I took in faith betrayed me
-Sarah McLachlan
Well I'm glad you took the step to issue an apology for some. I'm not a member of the RSS yet as an atheist you made a claim that I didn't understand how the 'real world' works. It was an ambiguous statement to begin with, not to mention that I did not know what warranted a comment like that against me. But in the heat of the moment , people say things that looking back on wasn't a good idea.
But really the attack against the RSS didn't accomplish anything, and was very silly. Especially the bukakke thing, lol - that was too funny and pointless. Look, in the heat of exchanges things will be said. Just remember your best arsenal is a good logical and reasonable defense to your position.
Very well put.
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
I am not interested in 'showing you up', I don't claim to be an expert in anything. In case you were not aware, I simply pointed out to you that experts are usually classified as such by thier peers, I personally don't care how much you know, or don't know.
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
What you are really saying is (with fingers in ears) " I can't hear you. LA LA LA...."
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
What he's really saying is, "I'm too dishonest to admit I lied and was wrong...Mean Rook put me in my place...blah blah blah...I'm so pathetic..."
Okay I indulged a little.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Mean Rook.. no cookies..
MY favorite interpretation of Free Will
Everything that happens has to be either determined (the situation has one and only one possible outcome, as dictated by the preceding conditions and physical laws), random or some combination of the two.
Now, something which is determined doesn't have any element of choice in it. The situation, as it exists, uniquely determines what will happen next. You may not be able to predict what will happen, but that doesn't remove the determinedness (a chaotic system like weather, for example, follows simple, deterministic laws of fluid dynamics but is nonetheless unpredictable). You're standing there trying to decide between the chocolate cake and the peach cobbler, but your existing brain state and the laws of physics move inexorably to your picking up the chocolate cake; the "choice" was an illusion.
Things that happen at random don't have an element of choice, either, because they're, well, random. If it happens at random, then it isn't chosen.
A combination of determination and randomness doesn't seem to yield any free will, either. Take, for example, a random number generator that churns out numbers between one and ten. The numbers are random, even though they'll never be higher than ten or lower than one. The range of numbers is determined (which doesn't allow for free will), but the actual outcome is random (which also doesn't allow for free will). No matter how complex the combinations of determinedness and randomness get, it still comes down to random systems affecting or being affected by deterministic systems, and there isn't any free will in either of those things.
The only thing that seems to be left for free will to be is something that is not determined, not random and not any combination of the two. Unfortunately, there isn't anything that fits that description.
Therefore, holding people accountable for their actions in ludicrous. It is logically impossible that people choose their actions. "Choice" implies that there is more than one possible option in a situation and that the agent is responsible for which of those options is taken. In determinism, there is only one possible outcome and hence the agent has no real choice. In randomness, there are a bunch of possible outcomes, but the agent has no control over which of them occurs, and therefore no real choice.
We can't predict what people are going to do, which gives us the illusion that they can make a choice between alternatives. They may not be able to predict what they're going to do either, which gives them a similar illusion of being in control of the situation. The reality, though, is that there can be no choice involved.
This immediately leads to a problem with any moral system; the people really aren't ever responsible for what they do. To punish them for things over which they have no control is cruel; free will may be an illusion, but pain is real. Of course, you don't have any real control over your actions, either, so I guess you can't be faulted for what you do.
This seems to leave a couple of alternatives open to you. You can either just do whatever crosses your mind, knowing that no matter how long you deliberate, you really aren't making a choice. You can also just sit in a chair doing nothing, since you're not in control of what you're doing, anyway.
The only way to proceed is to ignore what we know. We have to pretend that free will exists, despite the fact that we know that it doesn't. This is, of course, highly irrational behavior. It is also our only choice, pragmatically speaking. Reason demands that we ignore reality.
Alternatively, you can believe in free will regardless of the fact that you know it isn't real; if you're going to be ridiculous, at least have the nerve to be glaringly so (when 'god' said that stuff about making man in his image.. what he meant was talking about was the ability to exist outside the bounds of reason; despite the fact that free will cannot exist, we have it. Explaining it is a different matter entirely).
Any way you slice it, it's beautiful. We can't even say what free will is, whether we're claiming to have it or just pretending that we do. So even if you know that you're only pretending to have it, you're only pretending to pretend, because you can't even conceive of the thing that you're pretending to have. It slips right through the cracks of the mind and into the Spinning Nothing at the Source of EverythingTM.
So, do you believe that you have free will? Do you honestly think that you're making the decision between the chocolate cake and the peach cobbler (metaphysically speaking)?
"Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell.... Kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change.
Here we go again with the insults and the name calling. I find this site to be less and less about the study of the truth through science, and more and more about the justification of your [RRS' and Atheists' in General] own moral relativism. Look at the nature of yours and Randal's posts. You're projecting your own hostility and frustration on to me because you can't stand the fact that I don't agree with you, and the fact that I don't bow down to your self professed expertise. Why would you care if a nobody like me, who obviously is ignorant to anything science has concluded, doesn't agree with you. I know the answer, do you? I'm simply exposing the façade if you will. For example, if I were to really take you to task, I would ask the following:
Rook, when you're not jet setting to Europe, Asia or to the Middle East to put the ancient texts and manuscripts of the world under your intense expert scrutiny, or collaborating with the world's leading experts like James Robinson or Sarah Allen, or when you're not busy penning the latest soft core porn scenes for the romance novel industry (as evidenced in your Blog), how do you spend your time? Or,
Rook, I see in your blog that you see yourself sharing some of the beliefs that many Eastern Religions share, i.e.. Buddhism, etc. Many of these religions and philosophies have a common strong belief in reincarnation. As an Atheist, and one that could see himself believing in this, how do account for reincarnation, and more specifically, what would be the mechanism by which it would operate? Who or what decides how an organism is reincarnated?
Perhaps you are an expert. Then please direct me to where I can find some of your published works, or recent lectures on the subject. Maybe a group of your peers in the same discipline has rigorously critiqued your work. Show me. So far you've just been beating your chest around, and expressing to everyone how smart you are. I just see a bunch of self righteous, prideful, arrogant and self-proclaimed experts who like to use filthy and raunchy language to assert that God doesn't exist. This is a common theme among some, not all, atheists in that there is usually an underlying facet of their lives that simply wants to eliminate the existence of God from the equation.
I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just reclaiming the intellectual high ground from you and some of the other members. Mocking a person's beliefs does not promote your views, claiming that a majority of the world's population suffers from a delusional mental disorder is absurd, bashing Christianity does not advance your position, claiming that religion has no right to dictate morality and then engaging in immoral behavior takes credibility away from your stance as an atheist. For instance, maybe you do now, but if and when you have children, and those children get to the age where they ask about the origin of the universe and the existence of God, will you push your logical conclusions on to them, or allow them to come to their own conclusions? By pushing, are you not doing the same thing that you rail against. By pushing, are you claiming that you alone are in possession of absolute truth, and all the rest is BS?
The real question of this debate should not be about other people's conclusions [people smarter than all of us] regarding Big Bang or Evolution, but about absolute truth. Are there absolute truth's in this world?
Question for RRS - Are people inherently good, or inherently bad? Answers to these questions will get us closer to our mark.
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
RRS - Does this sink to the level of putrid diatribe? Just curious! Perhaps not because he didn't actually disagree with anything you've posted, and he didn't insult Richard Dawkins.
I'm not sure what is worse, what he actually said in the post, or the quote he chose to associate himself with. Although I do hear that the Lilith Fair plays host to some of the most elite intellectual thinkers.
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
Very interesting.
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
dmiclock asked:
"Are people inherently good, or inherently bad?"
I may not be one of the people you're looking to have answer this but may I give it a shot anyway?
People are inherently people. "Good" and "bad" are concepts that are learned later in life.
"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
Indeed, I would add that society does have an effect on individual behavior, but ultimately indivuduals make individual choices. How does this tie to the concept of free will? If we have no free will, then we must inherently be 'something', good or bad, or are those just concepts. If we can be either good or bad, then we must have the capability to make choices independently of our situations.
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
If you are interested I could ask if the guy that runs this site (http://www.biblechristiansociety.com) wants to be on the show (not sure if he even does stuff like this). I think he would be better at answering quesitions. How does the radio show work? Is it just a "call in" type of thing?
He was being humorous, lighten up. His assesment was fairly close to spot on, even in humor.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
The first part no. I think the childish rationalizations of Christians can often be cute, and just adorable. Sometimes I just want to squeeze their cheeks and say "you're like a 3 yr old, adorable!" As for the last sentence, the stabbing comment, if I thought there was any level of seriousness to the comment he'd owe you an apology or he'd be getting kicked from the board. His comment is of the type, that he shouldn't even joke about it, as someone who doesn't know he's joking would get the wrong idea. I apologize on his behalf if you thought he meant it. CashtoChurch, feel free to weigh in.
For the record "putrid diatribe" isn't against the rules, however death threats are.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Yes, I'm interested. He needs a landline and availability on a currently undetermined Saturday in January. Our recording sessions run 12 hours from noon to midnight est, so there is ample ability to fit something in.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Sapient,
I never thought for a minute he was serious, and I can pretty much roll with all the punches. Like I said earlier, I do enjoy this site even though I don't agree with your views. I'm just making observations.
PS - Why the new format for dropping posts in the reply/quote section? Just curious.
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
I don't know what you mean. I don't see anything like that. Can you be more specific?
Oh, and are you still coming on the show?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
I will send him an email to see if he even does this kind of stuff!
Oh course it was a joke. Perhaps I should have said "until you bruise from it". If anuyone sees it as a death threat, I apologize. Mu usual death threats have something to do with the combination of my car's trunk, a hammer, and a hacksaw. I'll try to be more specific and differentiate between jokes and actual death threats, which you are not worthy of - yet..
But yes, about the adorableness. I pretty much meat it like Sapient said - squeezing the cheeks and all.
Lilith Fair? Is that a lesbien joke? Is that a remark on my fine craftsman and carpentry skills? If so, thank you. I certainly hope you aren't wanting me to wear more plaid clothing.
Please specify, because I'm more than a vagina away from being a lesbian.
Every step I took in faith betrayed me
-Sarah McLachlan
It always amuses me to see a theist reduced to personal attacks in order to get their point across. Proving that they've ultimately failed.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.