Ash Wednesday: Feel so weird keeping ashes on, but feel guilty washing them off!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks, the way to deal with any troll - or bigot, which is what we've got here - is to ignore her so the thread dies.

Every time somebody responds with balance and reason, it prompts her to make 2-3 new posts that simply restate her earlier points. She restates. And restates again. Without any sign, any sign at all, that she understands what some other posters find that's good. She's incapable of learning, or taking in a "nuanced" view.

Let's not give her a platform for her bigotry, and let this thread die. Bigots aren't worth your time. I'm not catholic, so I can say these uncharitable things.

9:51 and 10:44 here. Thanks for the smack up side the head to just shut up - I needed it! My contribution to the thread is done. Enjoy your weekend!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dear bigot: what religion are you?

I love how I'm the bigot, but no one here has even attempted to defend the church's positions on gay people, for example. The best anyone can do is, "Well, Muslims do it too!" You hold steadfast to your bigoted beliefs and tell yourself that I am the bigot. Go ahead. Take part in denying gay people the right to marry, in denying women the right to lead your church and have domain over their bodies. I can tell it's easier to call me names than to address any of the things I've mentioned. Appearantly it's easier for you all to say simply that it's "complicated," or there is "nuance." I'm sure there were people who said it was "complicated" and that there was "nuance" when the church prohibited interracial couples from marrying as well. Ok, for you maybe. You have that luxury since appearantly your lifestyles conform closely enough to the church's teachings that you can live comfortably within it. For gay couples trying to live their lives and marry and raise children it's not so easy.

I am agnostic by the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear bigot: what religion are you?

I love how I'm the bigot, but no one here has even attempted to defend the church's positions on gay people, for example. The best anyone can do is, "Well, Muslims do it too!" You hold steadfast to your bigoted beliefs and tell yourself that I am the bigot. Go ahead. Take part in denying gay people the right to marry, in denying women the right to lead your church and have domain over their bodies. I can tell it's easier to call me names than to address any of the things I've mentioned. Appearantly it's easier for you all to say simply that it's "complicated," or there is "nuance." I'm sure there were people who said it was "complicated" and that there was "nuance" when the church prohibited interracial couples from marrying as well. Ok, for you maybe. You have that luxury since appearantly your lifestyles conform closely enough to the church's teachings that you can live comfortably within it. For gay couples trying to live their lives and marry and raise children it's not so easy.

I am agnostic by the way.

So you're an agnostic who supports gay rights. Fine. I'm just tired of all the constant criticism towards Christians and the USA by the media and individuals such as yourself. We all have a lot of areas in which improvement is needed. Let's quit giving certain countries and religions a free pass.

[Anonymous]

The defense against charges of bigotry seems to be "Well, not all of us really believe all this shit that is in the bible".

I get the fundamentalists like the Westboro baptists - they have their crap, they believe the whole thing, and while it may be hateful and abhorrent, it is at least consistent.

Back to the question in hand, of course if I see you with ashes on your head I will think less of you, particularly in a work context. It is proof of your irrationality.

And don't start the whining about persecution of Christians in this country, because it is total shit. Almost everyone in this country believes this crap because they are too stupid or too conformist to see it for the primitive clap-trap it is. So don't pretend that you are some put-upon minority.

And there is no more need for me to respect your beliefs than I would respect the beliefs of any other fantasist with their imaginary friends. The fact that you hear voices and take orders from non-existent beings makes you a nut-case, not a hero.

And yes, other religions are even worse. The Muslims with their subordination of women and primitive punishments (I know, I know, not all Muslims believe all their crap either). And the Aztecs were much worse, what with their ripping people's hearts out and wearing their skins till they dropped off. But at the end of the day they are all primitive, irrational, and not a sound basis for making public policy decisions of any kind. But whatever, put on your dab of ash and think about all the lovely things sweet Jesus did and how much meaning it gives to your life, before returning to sit in your drab little cubicle for a few hours of typing crap into a computer. And, who knows? Maybe some sheep on the metro will be inspired to do the same.

I am an atheist, by the way.

[Anonymous]

I am an atheist, by the way.

Really? Because it wasn't obvious from your post at all.

An angry atheist? Un-possible!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The defense against charges of bigotry seems to be "Well, not all of us really believe all this shit that is in the bible".

I get the fundamentalists like the Westboro baptists - they have their crap, they believe the whole thing, and while it may be hateful and abhorrent, it is at least consistent.

Back to the question in hand, of course if I see you with ashes on your head I will think less of you, particularly in a work context. It is proof of your irrationality.

And don't start the whining about persecution of Christians in this country, because it is total shit. Almost everyone in this country believes this crap because they are too stupid or too conformist to see it for the primitive clap-trap it is. So don't pretend that you are some put-upon minority.

And there is no more need for me to respect your beliefs than I would respect the beliefs of any other fantasist with their imaginary friends. The fact that you hear voices and take orders from non-existent beings makes you a nut-case, not a hero.

And yes, other religions are even worse. The Muslims with their subordination of women and primitive punishments (I know, I know, not all Muslims believe all their crap either). And the Aztecs were much worse, what with their ripping people's hearts out and wearing their skins till they dropped off. But at the end of the day they are all primitive, irrational, and not a sound basis for making public policy decisions of any kind. But whatever, put on your dab of ash and think about all the lovely things sweet Jesus did and how much meaning it gives to your life, before returning to sit in your drab little cubicle for a few hours of typing crap into a computer. And, who knows? Maybe some sheep on the metro will be inspired to do the same.

I am an atheist, by the way.

Charlie Sheen, is that you!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear bigot: what religion are you?

I love how I'm the bigot, but no one here has even attempted to defend the church's positions on gay people, for example. The best anyone can do is, "Well, Muslims do it too!" You hold steadfast to your bigoted beliefs and tell yourself that I am the bigot. Go ahead. Take part in denying gay people the right to marry, in denying women the right to lead your church and have domain over their bodies. I can tell it's easier to call me names than to address any of the things I've mentioned. Appearantly it's easier for you all to say simply that it's "complicated," or there is "nuance." I'm sure there were people who said it was "complicated" and that there was "nuance" when the church prohibited interracial couples from marrying as well. Ok, for you maybe. You have that luxury since appearantly your lifestyles conform closely enough to the church's teachings that you can live comfortably within it. For gay couples trying to live their lives and marry and raise children it's not so easy.

I am agnostic by the way.

Actually, 9:51/10:44 (not me) gave you some really thoughtful, earnest responses. So did some others. I posted the link to the Kristoff piece, and I (and some others) acknowledged there is some bad with the good.

Apparently you read/absorbed NONE of it. Because you didn't want to.

This unwillingness to even consider alternative points of view, which others here HAVE offered to you, is what makes you a bigot: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bigot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am an atheist, by the way.

Really? Because it wasn't obvious from your post at all.

An angry atheist? Un-possible!

And clearly she's read Dawkins and/or Harris (given the content of her post which parrots parts of them).

But unfortunately, she was out to lunch when Dawkins said that calling yourself an atheist isn't intellectually defensible. Even Dawkins allows for a 1% chance there's a god, which means he calls himself an agnostic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
And clearly she's read Dawkins and/or Harris (given the content of her post which parrots parts of them).

But unfortunately, she was out to lunch when Dawkins said that calling yourself an atheist isn't intellectually defensible. Even Dawkins allows for a 1% chance there's a god, which means he calls himself an agnostic.

You really aren't very bright, are you? A 1% chance there is a god?

"I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."
Richard Dawkins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And clearly she's read Dawkins and/or Harris (given the content of her post which parrots parts of them).

But unfortunately, she was out to lunch when Dawkins said that calling yourself an atheist isn't intellectually defensible. Even Dawkins allows for a 1% chance there's a god, which means he calls himself an agnostic.

One further point - I have never read any Dawkins or Harris, though I did hear the former on the radio once and thought he made some sense. It was clear that being an intelligent man he would never have allowed for a 1% chance that there is a god - very stupid thing to suggest.

The point about atheism is that you don't need to get the idea from anyone else - intelligent people all over the world could reach the same conclusion without ever having communicated with each other. This is where it differs from religion, since Christianity or Hinduism or Islam could never emerge simultaneously in two different places. It is because they are made up, whereas atheism is logical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And clearly she's read Dawkins and/or Harris (given the content of her post which parrots parts of them).

But unfortunately, she was out to lunch when Dawkins said that calling yourself an atheist isn't intellectually defensible. Even Dawkins allows for a 1% chance there's a god, which means he calls himself an agnostic.

One further point - I have never read any Dawkins or Harris, though I did hear the former on the radio once and thought he made some sense. It was clear that being an intelligent man he would never have allowed for a 1% chance that there is a god - very stupid thing to suggest.

The point about atheism is that you don't need to get the idea from anyone else - intelligent people all over the world could reach the same conclusion without ever having communicated with each other. This is where it differs from religion, since Christianity or Hinduism or Islam could never emerge simultaneously in two different places. It is because they are made up, whereas atheism is logical.

Uh, if you only heard Dawkins once, then you did indeed miss the part where he allows for a 1% chance of a god. He does so grudgingly, but he does.

Obviously you don't know enough about Dawkins, after hearing him just once, to present yourself as an authority on him. Unless you want to continue making yourself look bad, of course.

[Anonymous]

Why am I not surprised that you presented part, but not the complete, Dawkins point about about fairies at the bottom of the garden?

For the rest of you, here's a good, complete explanation of where Dawkins stands, with the bits that 15:43 intentionally left out. Because, by the time you get to the end, you will see that he's actually not saying the words that 15:43 tried to put into his mouth.

*********

Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

Dawkins notes that he would be "surprised to meet many people in category 7." Dawkins calls himself "about a 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."

[Anonymous]

11:38 - LMFAO!!

NP here: I am a practicing Catholic who, as an individual, supports gay marriage, uses birth control, believes in a woman's right to chose, engages in IVF treatments, has had unmarried sex, finds child molestation repulsive, and votes how I choose. And, even though my personal positions may be at odds with the "official" Church positions or practices, I have no plans to ever switch religions. I am was raised going to a Catholic Church and have always felt comfortable there and really don't feel compelled to change the way I worship. I hate it when bigots like this nut job crackpot demand that more progressive Catholics like me must jump ship from the religion and culture I was raised in. I wonder why he/she feels the need to peer inside my mind and heart to judge my sense of morality. Seems a tad intrusive! And arrogant. Go find your own inner peace, dude, and quit judging my mind and heart.

[Anonymous]

Yes, props to 11:38!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The defense against charges of bigotry seems to be "Well, not all of us really believe all this shit that is in the bible".

I get the fundamentalists like the Westboro baptists - they have their crap, they believe the whole thing, and while it may be hateful and abhorrent, it is at least consistent.

Back to the question in hand, of course if I see you with ashes on your head I will think less of you, particularly in a work context. It is proof of your irrationality.

And don't start the whining about persecution of Christians in this country, because it is total shit. Almost everyone in this country believes this crap because they are too stupid or too conformist to see it for the primitive clap-trap it is. So don't pretend that you are some put-upon minority.

And there is no more need for me to respect your beliefs than I would respect the beliefs of any other fantasist with their imaginary friends. The fact that you hear voices and take orders from non-existent beings makes you a nut-case, not a hero.

And yes, other religions are even worse. The Muslims with their subordination of women and primitive punishments (I know, I know, not all Muslims believe all their crap either). And the Aztecs were much worse, what with their ripping people's hearts out and wearing their skins till they dropped off. But at the end of the day they are all primitive, irrational, and not a sound basis for making public policy decisions of any kind. But whatever, put on your dab of ash and think about all the lovely things sweet Jesus did and how much meaning it gives to your life, before returning to sit in your drab little cubicle for a few hours of typing crap into a computer. And, who knows? Maybe some sheep on the metro will be inspired to do the same.

I am an atheist, by the way.

I feel sorry for this poster.