O’Donnell pisses off the wrong contingent...

[james1906]

“She says, ‘I’m not a witch, I’m you,’ ’’ complained Amy Blackthorn, a 28-year-old Wiccan from Newark, who protested at the event. “That’s the problem. I am a witch.’’

99% percent likely that Amy Blackthorn is a morbidly obese lesbian. I call em as I see em.

 

[FrankRep]

99% percent likely that Amy Blackthorn is a morbidly obese lesbian. I call em as I see em.

Rev. Amy Blackthorn Ph.D, DD. HPS, RM

Expertise: Proud Witch I teach Wicca 101, 202 and more specific advanced subjects. I can answer questions on several Traditions. I have experience in subjects including, Astrology General Wiccan information, Dianic Wicca, Folk Magick and indigenous Religions, including Celtic Reconstruction, Native Herbal uses, Hoodoo and Green WitchCraft. I am a Reiki Master, as well as a trained in several other forms of healing.​

 

[libertarian4321]

Christ, can you guys correct one person on something regarding theology without inserting afterward, "...by the way, I believe your core values are created by a sky man and your morals are derived from bed time stories! You are so stupid. Have I told you how stupid you are? Because you need to be told that, because you're so fucking stupid." Fuck, you have no sense of common decorum. You can disagree with someone with something they feel strongly about without being a goddamned asshole.

The guy was using religion as an excuse to be a bigot- he even admitted it.

So yeah, I clearly and directly told him know how stupid his statement was- I was intentionally not delicate and diplomatic. Do you think I should be delicate and diplomatic with bigots?

I'm diplomatic with those who are religious, but don't beat others over the head with their religion.

I'm a whole lot less delicate with those who use their version of religion as a cudgel.

If that's a character flaw, I'm just going to have to live with it.

 

[nate895]

@Libertarian4321:

The problem isn't so much that you are supposedly demonstrating religion to be irrational, it is that atheists always go around and get involved in religious discussions and just go like "you both are ignorant fools even though I have no idea what either of you two believe, really." Just because you cannot wrap your mind around the idea of there being a supernatural transcendent element to the universe doesn't mean that other people shouldn't be allowed to discuss the issue in peace without constantly being called a moron for doing so. The fact that atheists/agnostic-types have to do that on a regular basis just shows to me that they are uncomfortable in what they believe, whereas most religious believers are assured enough, no matter how right or wrong their religion is, that they do not have to butt in every time two people of different religions decide to duke it out.

 

[nate895]

The guy was using religion as an excuse to be a bigot- he even admitted it.

So yeah, I clearly and directly told him know how stupid his statement was- I was intentionally not delicate and diplomatic. Do you think I should be delicate and diplomatic with bigots?

I'm diplomatic with those who are religious, but don't beat others over the head with their religion.

I'm a whole lot less delicate with those who use their version of religion as a cudgel.

If that's a character flaw, I'm just going to have to live with it.

What is wrong with being a bigot?

 

[FrankRep]

What is wrong with being a bigot?

Everyone is a bigot in their own way. The word is pretty much pointless.

 

[nate895]

Everyone is a bigot in their own way. The word is pretty much pointless.

I was trying to prove a point. You have to some sort of moral standard in order to judge whether something is wrong or not.

Of course, another point is that you have to be a bigot. Even if you weren't a bigot against anything else, you then must be a bigot against bigots. That's what libertarian4321 seems to be: A bigot against bigots. Of course, you could take the rational alternative, that there is an objective standard on what to be "bigoted" about and when it is wrong to be "bigoted."

 

[libertarian4321]

The problem isn't so much that you are supposedly demonstrating religion to be irrational, it is that atheists always go around and get involved in religious discussions and just go like "you both are ignorant fools even though I have no idea what either of you two believe, really."

To the contrary, I know a fair amount about religion, more than most of the religious. The fact that I corrected you on Wiccan beliefs should indicate to you that I may be more well read on religion in general (as opposed to just one religion) than you are...

Just because you cannot wrap your mind around the idea of there being a supernatural transcendent element to the universe doesn't mean that other people shouldn't be allowed to discuss the issue in peace without constantly being called a moron for doing so.

I assure you, I understand the concept of people believing in the supernatural to explain things they don't understand. Every primitive culture in history has created some absurd fairy tale to explain the unexplained- whether it's the Greek myth of Nyx, Gaia, Zeus and the pantheon of Gods; the Great Turtle myth of the Iroquois; the creation myth of the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism), or any of hundreds of others.

To show that I understand the concept, I once believed in Santa Claus (at least until I grew up). It's the same concept- a fairy tale was created and fed to people to explain that which they do not understand (how did those presents get under the tree? Why it was jolly old Santa Claus!).

However, the fact that I understand WHY people make up fairy tales to explain the the unexplained does not mean I believe the fairy tale itself.

The fact that atheists/agnostic-types have to do that on a regular basis just shows to me that they are uncomfortable in what they believe

Did I give the impression that I was "uncomfortable" and unsure? Wow, I thought I was pretty clear that I am not. Maybe I wasn't strong enough in my words?

Let me try again.

Religions are absurd and childish (ALL of them). Creating a fairy tale to explain the unexplained is nothing short of moronic. We should strive to discover the REAL truth rather than making up a false "truth" (fairy tale).

I can assure you, you won't find me chanting over an ancient religious tome (any of them).

 

[nate895]

To the contrary, I know a fair amount about religion, more than most of the religious. The fact that I corrected you on Wiccan beliefs should indicate to you that I may be more well read on religion in general (as opposed to just one religion) than you are...

I stopped reading after this since you obviously entirely discounted my clarification I gave earlier in the thread regarding the relation between Wicca and demons. Furthermore, the resounding statement "I know more about religion than the religious" resounds as a testament to the arrogance of the one who wrote it. I mean, find a real argument. You haven't actually presented one yet in this thread. I never said anything about Wiccans worshiping demons, you simply read that into it because you are bigoted against Evangelicals, and possibly all religious people. You simply assume that I must have this total strawman in my head when I didn't express that idea. You literally built a strawman-strawman and burnt it.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I never said I had "all the answers."

However, not knowing the answers should make people want to use REASON to try and discover the answer (we call it SCIENCE) rather than create a FAIRY TALE to explain the unknown (we call that RELIGION).

I hope this clears things up for you...

You sure implied that.

You sure made it seem that you had the answer to every existential question that ever was.

Because faith has no place in your world, you must have all the answers, right?

 

[libertarian4321]

Furthermore, the resounding statement "I know more about religion than the religious" resounds as a testament to the arrogance of the one who wrote it.

As they say here in Texas, it isn't arrogance if you can back it up.

Gather a random group of 100 or 1,000 church goers (I don't care which religion- mix and match if you want), create a test of religious knowledge (you can even limit it to the major religions- say Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism) and I'd gladly bet you $10,000 (or more, if you can afford to lose that much) that I'd score higher than their average score (I'd guarantee that I'd score higher than 95% of them, but you'd probably think that was "arrogant," so I won't do it).

 

[LibertyEagle]

Originally Posted by libertarian4321
I never said I had "all the answers."

However, not knowing the answers should make people want to use REASON to try and discover the answer (we call it SCIENCE) rather than create a FAIRY TALE to explain the unknown (we call that RELIGION).

I hope this clears things up for you...

Did you use that same REASON when you and your wife voted for Obama?

 

[libertarian4321]

You sure implied that.

You sure made it seem that you had the answer to every existential question that ever was.

Because faith has no place in your world, you must have all the answers, right?

Your last line is patently absurd.

The fact that I don't believe in fairy tales doesn't mean I claim to know everything- that doesn't even make sense.

I don't know the answer to everything, so I seek to learn, through rational means, the answers, rather than making up fairy tales to explain the unknown.

Why are you having so much trouble comprehending that?

 

[nate895]

As they say here in Texas, it isn't arrogance if you can back it up.

Gather a random group of 100 or 1,000 church goers (I don't care which religion- mix and match if you want), create a test of religious knowledge (you can even limit it to the major religions- say Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism) and I'd gladly bet you $10,000 (or more, if you can afford to lose that much) that I'd score higher than their average score (I'd guarantee that I'd score higher than 95% of them, but you'd probably think that was "arrogant," so I won't do it).

I reject your standard. I am talking about the best and brightest, not Joe Christian or Sally Mormon. As far as that goes, I can guarantee you I'll score better than 95% of a random sample of 1,000 people on a science test. I won't say I'm an expert scientist who can speak with his own authority because of that, I'm just smarter than the average joe. Not that there is anything wrong with the average joe's level of knowledge, that they are stupid, or that it proves anything at all other than my high level of lay knowledge on a variety of subjects.

 

[libertarian4321]

Did you use that same REASON when you and your wife voted for Obama?

Did you read anything I wrote?

Can you make an intelligent argument on this topic, or is that too much to ask?

Yup, I was pissed off that in 2008 that Ron Paul didn't get nominated and that the Republican Party picked a couple of vile candidates (McCain and Palin). I caste a meaningless "screw you!" vote in 2008, and I said so here on the forums. While it wasn't a big deal, I haven't regretted it for a moment.

I know you are hurt that I didn't vote for whichever bad candidate you voted for- I can't remember if your boy was McCain or Bob Barr- they were the only other candidates on the ballot. Or did you want me to caste a meaningless vote for the Theocrat (Baldwin) who was running a "write-in" campaign?

Might I humbly suggest you suck it up, get over it and address my arguments ON THIS TOPIC, if you can?

 

[libertarian4321]

I reject your standard. I am talking about the best and brightest, not Joe Christian or Sally Mormon.

All I said was that despite being non-religious, I know more about religion than the average religious person. Don't read more into it. I never said I understood more about religion than someone with a PhD in religious studies.

 

[nate895]

All I said was that despite being non-religious, I know more about religion than the average religious person. Don't read more into it. I never said I understood more about religion than someone with a PhD in religious studies.

You used it to make a bogus appeal to authority, and now you are backing off. You have done that this whole thread. You haven't actually responded to any arguments, but rather pick out statements and deny them, and maybe pontificate about your opinion on the subject. Quite frankly, I could really give a hoot about whether you know more religious data points than the average believer or your opinion, if you aren't going to post anything besides your pontifications, I have better uses for my remaining pre-10,000 posts than listen to the lay atheist Pope.

 

[libertarian4321]

You used it to make a bogus appeal to authority, and now you are backing off. You have done that this whole thread. You haven't actually responded to any arguments, but rather pick out statements and deny them, and maybe pontificate about your opinion on the subject.

You made it clear you believe in demons. I'm sure I'm not going to convince you that demons don't exist, so I won't belabor that point (though I will continue to chuckle).

I thought you said you despise Wiccans because they worship demons. I pointed out that they don't. You then said you meant that Wiccans use demon powers, or some such nonsense. I'm sure I won't break you of that belief, either. So what's left to discuss?

Just keep the light on at night so the Wiccans and their demonic friends don't get you- the demons love the dark spots under your bed and in your closet....

Quite frankly, I could really give a hoot about whether you know more religious data points than the average believer or your opinion,

Fine, so don't bring it up again and I won't either.

 

[low preference guy]

You made it clear you believe in demons. I'm sure I'm not going to convince you that demons don't exist, so I won't belabor that point (though I will continue to chuckle).

Sometimes I avoid those discussions, as some people tend to stop believing such nonsense as they grow up. Just wait a few years, and maybe 24-year-old Nate will be chuckling along with you.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Your last line is patently absurd.

The fact that I don't believe in fairy tales doesn't mean I claim to know everything- that doesn't even make sense.

I don't know the answer to everything, so I seek to learn, through rational means, the answers, rather than making up fairy tales to explain the unknown.

Why are you having so much trouble comprehending that?

Because rational means fail to provide all the answers.

When someone becomes as belligerent and bellicose, meaning you, as the people he is berating, it suggests to me that "rational means" has become your religion, equally prone to mistakes, absurdities and horrors all it's own.

There can be no doubt that the 20th century was a culmination of the age of rational thought.

And no one can deny that the 20th century was a horrorshow of man made death the likes of which have never been seen before.

Alongside incredible advances.

Paradoxical and defying simple "I know it all, you stupid, stupid man" analogies.