Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:42:35 -0700, Jason wrote: > In article <4qm7v4-bu1.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:49:28 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> Atheists also don't see crises in a lot of situations in which theists >> >> do. >> >> > They have many crisis situations such as getting fired from their jobs; >> > flunking out of college; their mates walking out on them or cheating on >> > them; >> >> Sorry, why would any of those be a "crisis"? Those would be, at most, >> annoyances. >> >> > being told by their doctors they have cancer and only 3 or less >> > months to live etc. >> >> This one might qualify. > > Would finding your girl friend in bed with your best friend qualify? Nope. -- Gross Ignorance: 144 Fundies Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:42:35 -0700, Jason wrote: > In article <4qm7v4-bu1.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:49:28 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> Atheists also don't see crises in a lot of situations in which theists >> >> do. >> >> > They have many crisis situations such as getting fired from their jobs; >> > flunking out of college; their mates walking out on them or cheating on >> > them; >> >> Sorry, why would any of those be a "crisis"? Those would be, at most, >> annoyances. >> >> > being told by their doctors they have cancer and only 3 or less >> > months to live etc. >> >> This one might qualify. > > Would finding your girl friend in bed with your best friend qualify? Nope. -- Gross Ignorance: 144 Fundies Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:10:08 -0700, Jason wrote: > In article <8mu3i35qkek5nlctf0ldq9vkskibitref9@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:42:35 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2510072343160001@66.53.220.126>: >> >In article <4qm7v4-bu1.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> [snips] >> >> >> >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:49:28 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Atheists also don't see crises in a lot of situations in which theists >> >> >> do. >> >> >> >> > They have many crisis situations such as getting fired from their jobs; >> >> > flunking out of college; their mates walking out on them or cheating on >> >> > them; >> >> >> >> Sorry, why would any of those be a "crisis"? Those would be, at most, >> >> annoyances. >> >> >> >> > being told by their doctors they have cancer and only 3 or less >> >> > months to live etc. >> >> >> >> This one might qualify. >> > >> >Would finding your girl friend in bed with your best friend qualify? >> > >> No. Once again, you don't understand people or the causes of suicide or >> the fact the religiosity doesn't prevent it. > > I disagree. I have heard cases about young girls committing suicide when > their boyfriends were caught having sex or even kissing another young > girl. I agree that many men would not even care. They would find a new > girl friend. “I would say that you should be what you were made to be. If you were created white, stay that way. If you were made male, stay that way. And if you were made heterosexual, AS WE ALL WERE, stay that way.” And these cases... you've shown that they are, in fact, the norm, rather than the exception? And you've demonstrated that the people involved were, in fact, atheists - or theists, whichever is applicable to whatever point you're trying to derive from this? And you've demonstrated that, apart from whatever stressors are involved in the situation, these people are basically normal, sound, functioning people, with the usual quota of survival and life coping skills? And... Oh, no, wait, you missed all that. So what you've got is a hatful of random people of unknown stability doing something for unknown reasons, based on an undetermined world view. I'm sure this is supposed to demonstrate something, but I'll be hanged if I can figure out what. -- EB> JP> SF> RJ> LY> PM> SS> AO> ER> SP> DL> Stop quoting this. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:10:08 -0700, Jason wrote: > In article <8mu3i35qkek5nlctf0ldq9vkskibitref9@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:42:35 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2510072343160001@66.53.220.126>: >> >In article <4qm7v4-bu1.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> [snips] >> >> >> >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:49:28 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Atheists also don't see crises in a lot of situations in which theists >> >> >> do. >> >> >> >> > They have many crisis situations such as getting fired from their jobs; >> >> > flunking out of college; their mates walking out on them or cheating on >> >> > them; >> >> >> >> Sorry, why would any of those be a "crisis"? Those would be, at most, >> >> annoyances. >> >> >> >> > being told by their doctors they have cancer and only 3 or less >> >> > months to live etc. >> >> >> >> This one might qualify. >> > >> >Would finding your girl friend in bed with your best friend qualify? >> > >> No. Once again, you don't understand people or the causes of suicide or >> the fact the religiosity doesn't prevent it. > > I disagree. I have heard cases about young girls committing suicide when > their boyfriends were caught having sex or even kissing another young > girl. I agree that many men would not even care. They would find a new > girl friend. “I would say that you should be what you were made to be. If you were created white, stay that way. If you were made male, stay that way. And if you were made heterosexual, AS WE ALL WERE, stay that way.” And these cases... you've shown that they are, in fact, the norm, rather than the exception? And you've demonstrated that the people involved were, in fact, atheists - or theists, whichever is applicable to whatever point you're trying to derive from this? And you've demonstrated that, apart from whatever stressors are involved in the situation, these people are basically normal, sound, functioning people, with the usual quota of survival and life coping skills? And... Oh, no, wait, you missed all that. So what you've got is a hatful of random people of unknown stability doing something for unknown reasons, based on an undetermined world view. I'm sure this is supposed to demonstrate something, but I'll be hanged if I can figure out what. -- EB> JP> SF> RJ> LY> PM> SS> AO> ER> SP> DL> Stop quoting this. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 [snips] On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:06:46 -0700, Jason wrote: >> > Many pastors Note key phrase: "many pastors" >> no longer teach the truth about what the Bible states >> > about murder and various other commandments. >> >> How would you know? > For several months, I watched such a preacher Note pointless follow-up, "a preacher". Singular. Now, again the question is asked: how would you know what _many_ preachers preach? For that matter, are you capable of differentiating between "many" and "a statistically significant number"? 1,000 preachers doing this might qualify as "many", but if they're taken from a worldwide pool of a million preachers, they're pretty much totally irrelevant, now aren't they? At least until you demonstrate a causal relation between their preaching and whatever claims you're making about it. -- What you forget is that no one has a right to live. -- Ken Wiens Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 [snips] On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:06:46 -0700, Jason wrote: >> > Many pastors Note key phrase: "many pastors" >> no longer teach the truth about what the Bible states >> > about murder and various other commandments. >> >> How would you know? > For several months, I watched such a preacher Note pointless follow-up, "a preacher". Singular. Now, again the question is asked: how would you know what _many_ preachers preach? For that matter, are you capable of differentiating between "many" and "a statistically significant number"? 1,000 preachers doing this might qualify as "many", but if they're taken from a worldwide pool of a million preachers, they're pretty much totally irrelevant, now aren't they? At least until you demonstrate a causal relation between their preaching and whatever claims you're making about it. -- What you forget is that no one has a right to live. -- Ken Wiens Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:44:28 -0700, Jason wrote: > In article > <DipthotDipthot-FEA202.19041425102007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > >> In article >> <Jason-2410071607180001@67-150-124-72.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > I honestly believe that atheists are more likely to commit suicide in a >> > crisis situation than a Christian. >> >> What you "honestly believe" has no bearing on what is . > > That's true. However, what you "honestly believe" does have bearing on > your own life. Pretty much by definition. If I believe in racial tolerance, I'm not likely to join the Klan, so there's a distinct bearing on my own life. > If you end up in hell, it will be your own fault. Actually, no, it won't be. If we assume, for the nonce, that God exists and created us - created me - then I am as I was created. That is to say I have a brain, I have a mind, I have curiosity, I have the ability to and desire to learn. I also, however, have a distinct inability to accept wild, unfounded nonsense. This is how I was made, whether by God or the combination of a couple billion years' worth of evolution plus whatever familial influence may be relevant. It is who and what I am; to be otherwise would mean being something, someone, other than me. Given that I , as a person, am built this way, then we must conclude that God wanted me this way. He designed me this way. He designed me in such a way that when faced with claims such as "God exists" I will do the only thing I can do while remaining me - I'll say "Show me. Can't? Fine, then shut up already." Now, according to you, this will land me in Hell. If we assume this is true, though, it cannot be argued that this is my fault. I was built, presumably by God in your view, in such a manner I cannot do otherwise than reject such claims. Which means I was built in such a way as to be designed, from the ground up, to reject such things and, according to you, wind up in Hell. If I'm designed to wind up in Hell, and I played no part in my design, it is hardly rational to assert that I am at fault - that design was established independent of any action on my part. Thus we must conclude it was, depending on how one views it, either my parent's fault, or the fault of several billion years' worth of evolution, or, if we're to adopt your views, it is God's fault. Which is to say that if I'm going to end up in Hell, this is exactly how God designed me to be, exactly where God planned me to be. If he hadn't, he would have given me a mind capable of accepting unfounded nonsense with insufficient support. Yet he didn't. It's my fault for being exactly as God designed me to be? But to do otherwise would be contrary to God's design, which would be to challenge God, which I'm quite certain, in your weird world views, would also end me up in Hell. Thus, again, even if I were to try to be other than what God made me, I'd still wind up in Hell - for trying to do exactly as the theists want, namely believe. Net result, according to them, I'm heading for hell if I don't believe, but I'd be heading for hell if I did, and not a bit of it is in any way "my fault" as I did not set the design. That said, I don't exactly lose a lot of sleep over this, since as far as I'm concerned God is no more meaningful or real than pixies or fairies or a thousand other deities, and the notion that your imaginary friend might send me to an equally imaginary place just really doesn't worry me. -- “If a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce, to oblige me to believe it... To say that God... hath spoken to him in a dream, is no more than to say he dreamed that God spake to him.” -- Hobbes ‘Leviathan’ Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:44:28 -0700, Jason wrote: > In article > <DipthotDipthot-FEA202.19041425102007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > >> In article >> <Jason-2410071607180001@67-150-124-72.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > I honestly believe that atheists are more likely to commit suicide in a >> > crisis situation than a Christian. >> >> What you "honestly believe" has no bearing on what is . > > That's true. However, what you "honestly believe" does have bearing on > your own life. Pretty much by definition. If I believe in racial tolerance, I'm not likely to join the Klan, so there's a distinct bearing on my own life. > If you end up in hell, it will be your own fault. Actually, no, it won't be. If we assume, for the nonce, that God exists and created us - created me - then I am as I was created. That is to say I have a brain, I have a mind, I have curiosity, I have the ability to and desire to learn. I also, however, have a distinct inability to accept wild, unfounded nonsense. This is how I was made, whether by God or the combination of a couple billion years' worth of evolution plus whatever familial influence may be relevant. It is who and what I am; to be otherwise would mean being something, someone, other than me. Given that I , as a person, am built this way, then we must conclude that God wanted me this way. He designed me this way. He designed me in such a way that when faced with claims such as "God exists" I will do the only thing I can do while remaining me - I'll say "Show me. Can't? Fine, then shut up already." Now, according to you, this will land me in Hell. If we assume this is true, though, it cannot be argued that this is my fault. I was built, presumably by God in your view, in such a manner I cannot do otherwise than reject such claims. Which means I was built in such a way as to be designed, from the ground up, to reject such things and, according to you, wind up in Hell. If I'm designed to wind up in Hell, and I played no part in my design, it is hardly rational to assert that I am at fault - that design was established independent of any action on my part. Thus we must conclude it was, depending on how one views it, either my parent's fault, or the fault of several billion years' worth of evolution, or, if we're to adopt your views, it is God's fault. Which is to say that if I'm going to end up in Hell, this is exactly how God designed me to be, exactly where God planned me to be. If he hadn't, he would have given me a mind capable of accepting unfounded nonsense with insufficient support. Yet he didn't. It's my fault for being exactly as God designed me to be? But to do otherwise would be contrary to God's design, which would be to challenge God, which I'm quite certain, in your weird world views, would also end me up in Hell. Thus, again, even if I were to try to be other than what God made me, I'd still wind up in Hell - for trying to do exactly as the theists want, namely believe. Net result, according to them, I'm heading for hell if I don't believe, but I'd be heading for hell if I did, and not a bit of it is in any way "my fault" as I did not set the design. That said, I don't exactly lose a lot of sleep over this, since as far as I'm concerned God is no more meaningful or real than pixies or fairies or a thousand other deities, and the notion that your imaginary friend might send me to an equally imaginary place just really doesn't worry me. -- “If a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce, to oblige me to believe it... To say that God... hath spoken to him in a dream, is no more than to say he dreamed that God spake to him.” -- Hobbes ‘Leviathan’ Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 [snips] On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:12:06 -0700, Jason wrote: >> The fact that you "honestly believe" that hell exists has no bearing >> on the FACT that it doesn't. > > You can NOT prove that hell does not exist. Probably true, but also wholly irrelevant. Just as one does not assume there are little pixies moving electrons about inside your monitor, one does not assume there are larger pixies moving souls about in the ether. This is standard Ockham; entities shall not be multiplied without reason. We've no reason to think pixies are needed to explain the movement of electrons, and we've no reason to think larger pixies are needed to move souls - even more so as we have no reason to think souls exist in the first place. Asserting, flatly, that Hell doesn't exist is perhaps technically wrong, but it's correct insofar as there has never yet been a single reason to think otherwise, so we don't. -- Swim, swim, hungry, hungy. <<<<=< -- Church of the Dopey Fish Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 [snips] On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:12:06 -0700, Jason wrote: >> The fact that you "honestly believe" that hell exists has no bearing >> on the FACT that it doesn't. > > You can NOT prove that hell does not exist. Probably true, but also wholly irrelevant. Just as one does not assume there are little pixies moving electrons about inside your monitor, one does not assume there are larger pixies moving souls about in the ether. This is standard Ockham; entities shall not be multiplied without reason. We've no reason to think pixies are needed to explain the movement of electrons, and we've no reason to think larger pixies are needed to move souls - even more so as we have no reason to think souls exist in the first place. Asserting, flatly, that Hell doesn't exist is perhaps technically wrong, but it's correct insofar as there has never yet been a single reason to think otherwise, so we don't. -- Swim, swim, hungry, hungy. <<<<=< -- Church of the Dopey Fish Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:08:06 -0700, Jason wrote: > I believe that one of the > reasons is because so many of the young people in 2000 and 2001 were not > Christians. > > Do you agree or disagree. Disagree entirely. Many years ago, as a kid, I played chess with my father on a few occasions. My father is one of those sorts who has to win, though, and he was at one point quite the skilled player. I was about 8, and not so skilled. The results were inevitable: I would lose game after game, until I got to the point I couldn't be bothered playing any more. When faced with such a superior force, the only sane action is to give up. So it is with God. According to the tales, God created pretty much everything. There is nothing you can do to challenge him, to beat him. Nothing you can do to change his designs, his goals, his rules. But this isn't a chess board; this is life. Did your parents beat you? God must have wanted that, because if he didn't, he could have stopped it, with a snap of his fingers. He didn't, so obviously he intended you to be beaten. You priest molested you? God wanted it. Your boyfriend left you? God wanted it. Your cat got run over? God wanted it. And it goes on. Pollution is poisoning the atmosphere? If God wanted anything else, a snap of the fingers and voila, it's done. But it's not - so God must want it that way. Corruption in politics, in business, in pretty much everything? God wants it that way. God has all the power to change any and all of these things, but doesn't - so obviously he wants them that way. You, of course, could do something, you could work towards putting that molesting priest in jail, or cleaning up the environment, but if God can't do it, what hope do you have, and if God won't do it, then you doing it means you're now going against what God wants. You cannot win. Like that 8-year-old kid facing his father across the chess board, you haven't a hope of winning, so the only sane thing to do is give up. Except that giving up, in this case, means realizing the full and total futility of your entire life, and thus killing yourself. Of course you can't even do that, as that is against the rules, right? So your only action is to sit and fester, to sink deeper and deeper into the blackness of all-consuming depression, until you go insane or finally realize the hypothetical punishment couldn't be any worse than the reality of futility and misery, and kill yourself anyway. If you're one of the "lucky" ones - the ones who never find themselves in such straights, or manages to convince themselves that any suffering is worth the imagined payoff in the end, or perhaps you're just one of those who manages to tuck all the horrors of life off into some dark, closed room of your mind never to be examined, if you're one of those, then perhaps you can convince yourself that your life is, in fact, worth living. Not everyone can do it, though, and the ones who can't are faced with the realization that the world - and often their personal lives - are going straight down the toilet, but there is nothing, NOTHING they can do about this, as it is all God's will and trying to do anything about it would be to defy that will, to wind up with just the sort of punishment that they're trying to avoid in the first place. Fortunately, however, not everyone is in the same boat. Some are atheists. Some are theists in life-affirming religions. These people live not by arbitrary rules imposed by irresistible forces, but by codes of ethics and codes of conduct derived from cooperation, from mutual survival goals, from reason and compassion. Such people can face harsh realities without being forced to conclude that there is absolutely no point in trying to do something, realize they're fighting the vagaries of life, perhaps, but not some cosmic puppet master with sadistic tendencies. They have hope, they have the knowledge that they can change things, make things better, for themselves and for others. Sure, they too sometimes find themselves in a dark place full of pain where the only solution seems to be the final one, but they're not drawn there by the sheer futility of simply living in the knowledge that nothing they will ever do matters; they are drawn there by active and transitory hurts. Christianity gives one no hope, no power, no goals, no belief in or reliance upon self, no expectation that one can do anything, improve anything, nor even the desire to, as attempting to do so flies in the face of the very things set forth by that irresistible force, and will be punished. How can a belief which instills such a total sense of individual worthlessness do anything but increase the suicide rate? The only way it can limit it is with threats of what will happen if you do commit suicide, but again, threats of hypothetical futures, when compared to real and in-your-face hurts and miseries, just aren't enough. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:08:06 -0700, Jason wrote: > I believe that one of the > reasons is because so many of the young people in 2000 and 2001 were not > Christians. > > Do you agree or disagree. Disagree entirely. Many years ago, as a kid, I played chess with my father on a few occasions. My father is one of those sorts who has to win, though, and he was at one point quite the skilled player. I was about 8, and not so skilled. The results were inevitable: I would lose game after game, until I got to the point I couldn't be bothered playing any more. When faced with such a superior force, the only sane action is to give up. So it is with God. According to the tales, God created pretty much everything. There is nothing you can do to challenge him, to beat him. Nothing you can do to change his designs, his goals, his rules. But this isn't a chess board; this is life. Did your parents beat you? God must have wanted that, because if he didn't, he could have stopped it, with a snap of his fingers. He didn't, so obviously he intended you to be beaten. You priest molested you? God wanted it. Your boyfriend left you? God wanted it. Your cat got run over? God wanted it. And it goes on. Pollution is poisoning the atmosphere? If God wanted anything else, a snap of the fingers and voila, it's done. But it's not - so God must want it that way. Corruption in politics, in business, in pretty much everything? God wants it that way. God has all the power to change any and all of these things, but doesn't - so obviously he wants them that way. You, of course, could do something, you could work towards putting that molesting priest in jail, or cleaning up the environment, but if God can't do it, what hope do you have, and if God won't do it, then you doing it means you're now going against what God wants. You cannot win. Like that 8-year-old kid facing his father across the chess board, you haven't a hope of winning, so the only sane thing to do is give up. Except that giving up, in this case, means realizing the full and total futility of your entire life, and thus killing yourself. Of course you can't even do that, as that is against the rules, right? So your only action is to sit and fester, to sink deeper and deeper into the blackness of all-consuming depression, until you go insane or finally realize the hypothetical punishment couldn't be any worse than the reality of futility and misery, and kill yourself anyway. If you're one of the "lucky" ones - the ones who never find themselves in such straights, or manages to convince themselves that any suffering is worth the imagined payoff in the end, or perhaps you're just one of those who manages to tuck all the horrors of life off into some dark, closed room of your mind never to be examined, if you're one of those, then perhaps you can convince yourself that your life is, in fact, worth living. Not everyone can do it, though, and the ones who can't are faced with the realization that the world - and often their personal lives - are going straight down the toilet, but there is nothing, NOTHING they can do about this, as it is all God's will and trying to do anything about it would be to defy that will, to wind up with just the sort of punishment that they're trying to avoid in the first place. Fortunately, however, not everyone is in the same boat. Some are atheists. Some are theists in life-affirming religions. These people live not by arbitrary rules imposed by irresistible forces, but by codes of ethics and codes of conduct derived from cooperation, from mutual survival goals, from reason and compassion. Such people can face harsh realities without being forced to conclude that there is absolutely no point in trying to do something, realize they're fighting the vagaries of life, perhaps, but not some cosmic puppet master with sadistic tendencies. They have hope, they have the knowledge that they can change things, make things better, for themselves and for others. Sure, they too sometimes find themselves in a dark place full of pain where the only solution seems to be the final one, but they're not drawn there by the sheer futility of simply living in the knowledge that nothing they will ever do matters; they are drawn there by active and transitory hurts. Christianity gives one no hope, no power, no goals, no belief in or reliance upon self, no expectation that one can do anything, improve anything, nor even the desire to, as attempting to do so flies in the face of the very things set forth by that irresistible force, and will be punished. How can a belief which instills such a total sense of individual worthlessness do anything but increase the suicide rate? The only way it can limit it is with threats of what will happen if you do commit suicide, but again, threats of hypothetical futures, when compared to real and in-your-face hurts and miseries, just aren't enough. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 [snips] On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 22:17:22 -0700, Jason wrote: > I don't honestly know whether the dope smokers were Christians or > atheists. I would guess that some were Christians and some were > non-Christians. Let's re-establish context: >> Ask almost any Christian and he'll tell you that atheism is still a tiny >> minority in this country. Assertion: Christians think atheism is a tiny minority. > I hope those Christians are correct. I doubt if those Christians that > believe that live in California. Response: if they lived in California, they probably wouldn't believe that atheists were a tiny minority. Hmm... why? Ah, yes, the reasons: > We went to a high school football game > last week and saw about a dozen teenagers smoking marijuana on school > property. The reason was kids smoking pot on school property. Which would only be relevant if it is asserted that the kids doing so are atheists. If they weren't - if they were Christians or Buddhists - then this would not be a sensible thing to say when suggesting that atheists are not a tiny minority in California. Thus, you are in fact asserting that the kids smoking pot were, in fact, atheists. Now you're saying you don't know, you think they may have been, partially at least, Christians. Which means you have no idea the relevance - if any - between these pot-smoking kids and the relative prevalence of atheism, yet this is exactly the point you were making, using exactly this situation as support of the claim. Which means you were lying when you brought it up. Doesn't it bother you, at least the tiniest little bit, to be so dishonest? -- Lot: the only “righteous” man in Sodom, and he raped his daughters. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 [snips] On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 22:17:22 -0700, Jason wrote: > I don't honestly know whether the dope smokers were Christians or > atheists. I would guess that some were Christians and some were > non-Christians. Let's re-establish context: >> Ask almost any Christian and he'll tell you that atheism is still a tiny >> minority in this country. Assertion: Christians think atheism is a tiny minority. > I hope those Christians are correct. I doubt if those Christians that > believe that live in California. Response: if they lived in California, they probably wouldn't believe that atheists were a tiny minority. Hmm... why? Ah, yes, the reasons: > We went to a high school football game > last week and saw about a dozen teenagers smoking marijuana on school > property. The reason was kids smoking pot on school property. Which would only be relevant if it is asserted that the kids doing so are atheists. If they weren't - if they were Christians or Buddhists - then this would not be a sensible thing to say when suggesting that atheists are not a tiny minority in California. Thus, you are in fact asserting that the kids smoking pot were, in fact, atheists. Now you're saying you don't know, you think they may have been, partially at least, Christians. Which means you have no idea the relevance - if any - between these pot-smoking kids and the relative prevalence of atheism, yet this is exactly the point you were making, using exactly this situation as support of the claim. Which means you were lying when you brought it up. Doesn't it bother you, at least the tiniest little bit, to be so dishonest? -- Lot: the only “righteous” man in Sodom, and he raped his daughters. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:01:46 -0700, Jason wrote: > If you think heaven is bad--that is not a problem--you will end up in > hell. You again fail to deal with the issue, namely that as far as I'm concerned, the Christian notion of "Heaven" is indistinguishable from the Christian notion of Hell, in any terms that matter. Oh, right, Hell involves fire and brimstone - physical agony. Heaven simply involves mental suffering beyond all description. The net result is the same - eternal suffering for anyone caught in either place. > Take my word for it Why? It's not like you've ever given us a reason to take your word on anything. > --heaven is far better than hell. You prefer mental torture to physical? That might be fine for you, but for me, the difference is ultimately insignificant. -- One does not have to be stupid to believe. -- Kim Kelley Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:01:46 -0700, Jason wrote: > If you think heaven is bad--that is not a problem--you will end up in > hell. You again fail to deal with the issue, namely that as far as I'm concerned, the Christian notion of "Heaven" is indistinguishable from the Christian notion of Hell, in any terms that matter. Oh, right, Hell involves fire and brimstone - physical agony. Heaven simply involves mental suffering beyond all description. The net result is the same - eternal suffering for anyone caught in either place. > Take my word for it Why? It's not like you've ever given us a reason to take your word on anything. > --heaven is far better than hell. You prefer mental torture to physical? That might be fine for you, but for me, the difference is ultimately insignificant. -- One does not have to be stupid to believe. -- Kim Kelley Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:41:11 -0700, Jason wrote: > If you hate heaven so much--you don't have to go-- Since the whole notion is, as far as anyone's ever demonstrated, nothing more than a fiction, you're right - I don't have to. > I am looking forward to heaven. I continue to miss my parents and my > sister that died last year. I am looking forward to seeing them in > heaven. You want your family to suffer eternal suffering? You are one sick fuck, Jason. -- “I resign from this echo. Any echo that is too proud to allow God in it is too proud to have me or my BBS in it. This echo will now be expelled from my BBS. When you have repented you may reach me in netmail to apologize and ask me back...” -- Kit Ballyantine Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:41:11 -0700, Jason wrote: > If you hate heaven so much--you don't have to go-- Since the whole notion is, as far as anyone's ever demonstrated, nothing more than a fiction, you're right - I don't have to. > I am looking forward to heaven. I continue to miss my parents and my > sister that died last year. I am looking forward to seeing them in > heaven. You want your family to suffer eternal suffering? You are one sick fuck, Jason. -- “I resign from this echo. Any echo that is too proud to allow God in it is too proud to have me or my BBS in it. This echo will now be expelled from my BBS. When you have repented you may reach me in netmail to apologize and ask me back...” -- Kit Ballyantine Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 In article <4rWUi.2413$%Z2.1368@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, cactus <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <gHRUi.2756$Vx3.2291@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>, cactus > > <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <mbhUi.60742$Um6.37127@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>, cactus > >>> <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <ffr5u2$cg1$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >>>>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Al Klein wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:31:29 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason > >>>>>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [snips] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:02:20 -0700, Jason wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> For a person that is dying in terrible pain, there are hospice centers > >>>>>>>>> where people like that receive medications to ease the pain and > > they are > >>>>>>>>> allowed to die without feeling hardly any pain. > >>>>>>>> No, Jason, there are not. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> There are many diseases where the pain is so intense that the > >>> anaesthetics > >>>>>>>> required to kill the pain would kill the patient. Nice try, though. > >>>>>>> There are many diseases that cause so much pain that the amount of > >>>>>>> anesthesia required to kill the patient STILL won't even mitigate the > >>>>>>> pain. It's one reason some doctors make mistakes in morphine dosage. > >>>>>> I would not call it "mistake". > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tell you the truth, we do it on purpose. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If the patient is in so much pain, and has no hope whatsoever. What > >>>>>> should we do? Let him die tomorrow with 24 hours of pain or let him die > >>>>>> painless today? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tell you another thing. We live with them. We KNOW we gave hin too much > >>>>>> morphine. And that is what killed him today. And not on his own tomorrow. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I know the faces. I SAW them. That is no fun. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We KNOW that it will shorten their lifes.... by a few hours. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You have any idea how often the death certificate should say "morphine > >>>>>> overdose" rather than some other horrible cause? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The difference is maybe a day. On the outside. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tokay > >>>>> I don't blame any doctor that gives such a patient a morphine overdose. It > >>>>> should be legal for doctors to do that. It's legal in one state for > >>>>> doctors to do that--it should be legal in every state. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Jason, why do you condone one person killing another? > >>> I was discussing a doctor killing a patient that was already dying and was > >>> in severe pain. Mercy killing is VERY different than first degree murder. > >> Only in degree. And besides your religion opposes it strenuously. How > >> can you go against your religious teachings? It could send you to your > >> hell. Or do you simply let others do the killing and going to hell > >> while you bask in the dubious glory of being sensitive to the pain of > >> others? > >> > >>> In one state in America, it's legal for doctors to commit mercy killings. > >>> It should be legal in every state. Jesus spent most of his ministry > >>> talking about LOVE. Mercy Killing is a form of LOVE. > >> And yet you do not condone suicide, even when done to relieve pain. You > >> appear to believe that it's OK to kill someone in pain, but not for that > >> person to take their own life. Weird. > >> > >> > >>> Jesus. > >>> > >>> > > > > Not really, if a person was told by their doctor that they only had two > > months to live--I would not have any negative things to say to that person > > if that person told me that he planned to commit suicide since he was had > > terrible pain and agony. > > But would you send that person to your hell? > > > > > However, if I was in that same situation, I would not kill myself. > > > > Do you see the difference? > > > > > You would make a personal choice. However, you should not commit > yourself to a choice now, when you might have to make it later with more > knowledge of your actual circumstances. We have covered this issue before in relation to the use of illegal drugs and people that are having sex outside of marriage. I stated over and over again that I am not a sex cop; drug cop; or moral cop. If various people want to take dope; have sex--even homosexual sex or commit suicide---I will NOT take actions to prevent those people from doing those sorts of things. I would probably be arrested even if I tried to prevent people from doing those sorts of things. If people ask me for my advice related to moral issues, I will tell them not to take illegal drugs; not to have sex outside of marriage and to not commit suicide. If doctors choose to conduct mercy killings--if I was on their juries--I would vote NOT GUILTY unless there was evidence to indicate they were killing healthy people that were NOT near death. I would force my advice on the members of my family but not on anyone else. I am NOT a moral cop. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 In article <4rWUi.2413$%Z2.1368@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, cactus <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <gHRUi.2756$Vx3.2291@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>, cactus > > <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <mbhUi.60742$Um6.37127@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>, cactus > >>> <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <ffr5u2$cg1$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >>>>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Al Klein wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:31:29 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason > >>>>>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [snips] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:02:20 -0700, Jason wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> For a person that is dying in terrible pain, there are hospice centers > >>>>>>>>> where people like that receive medications to ease the pain and > > they are > >>>>>>>>> allowed to die without feeling hardly any pain. > >>>>>>>> No, Jason, there are not. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> There are many diseases where the pain is so intense that the > >>> anaesthetics > >>>>>>>> required to kill the pain would kill the patient. Nice try, though. > >>>>>>> There are many diseases that cause so much pain that the amount of > >>>>>>> anesthesia required to kill the patient STILL won't even mitigate the > >>>>>>> pain. It's one reason some doctors make mistakes in morphine dosage. > >>>>>> I would not call it "mistake". > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tell you the truth, we do it on purpose. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If the patient is in so much pain, and has no hope whatsoever. What > >>>>>> should we do? Let him die tomorrow with 24 hours of pain or let him die > >>>>>> painless today? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tell you another thing. We live with them. We KNOW we gave hin too much > >>>>>> morphine. And that is what killed him today. And not on his own tomorrow. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I know the faces. I SAW them. That is no fun. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We KNOW that it will shorten their lifes.... by a few hours. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You have any idea how often the death certificate should say "morphine > >>>>>> overdose" rather than some other horrible cause? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The difference is maybe a day. On the outside. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tokay > >>>>> I don't blame any doctor that gives such a patient a morphine overdose. It > >>>>> should be legal for doctors to do that. It's legal in one state for > >>>>> doctors to do that--it should be legal in every state. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Jason, why do you condone one person killing another? > >>> I was discussing a doctor killing a patient that was already dying and was > >>> in severe pain. Mercy killing is VERY different than first degree murder. > >> Only in degree. And besides your religion opposes it strenuously. How > >> can you go against your religious teachings? It could send you to your > >> hell. Or do you simply let others do the killing and going to hell > >> while you bask in the dubious glory of being sensitive to the pain of > >> others? > >> > >>> In one state in America, it's legal for doctors to commit mercy killings. > >>> It should be legal in every state. Jesus spent most of his ministry > >>> talking about LOVE. Mercy Killing is a form of LOVE. > >> And yet you do not condone suicide, even when done to relieve pain. You > >> appear to believe that it's OK to kill someone in pain, but not for that > >> person to take their own life. Weird. > >> > >> > >>> Jesus. > >>> > >>> > > > > Not really, if a person was told by their doctor that they only had two > > months to live--I would not have any negative things to say to that person > > if that person told me that he planned to commit suicide since he was had > > terrible pain and agony. > > But would you send that person to your hell? > > > > > However, if I was in that same situation, I would not kill myself. > > > > Do you see the difference? > > > > > You would make a personal choice. However, you should not commit > yourself to a choice now, when you might have to make it later with more > knowledge of your actual circumstances. We have covered this issue before in relation to the use of illegal drugs and people that are having sex outside of marriage. I stated over and over again that I am not a sex cop; drug cop; or moral cop. If various people want to take dope; have sex--even homosexual sex or commit suicide---I will NOT take actions to prevent those people from doing those sorts of things. I would probably be arrested even if I tried to prevent people from doing those sorts of things. If people ask me for my advice related to moral issues, I will tell them not to take illegal drugs; not to have sex outside of marriage and to not commit suicide. If doctors choose to conduct mercy killings--if I was on their juries--I would vote NOT GUILTY unless there was evidence to indicate they were killing healthy people that were NOT near death. I would force my advice on the members of my family but not on anyone else. I am NOT a moral cop. Jason Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 [snips] On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:43:43 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris wrote: >>> We KNOW that it will shorten their lifes.... by a few hours. >> >> A few hours less life, but in those few hours, a lifetime of suffering and >> agony. The few hours lost are nothing compared to the pain relieved. > > Have you seen those eyes? I have. We kept them alive endlessly. Because > it was dogma. In a person? No. I have, however, seen it several times in animals. The terror, the suffering, the complete inability to do anything about it. I've put such animals down myself, for that very reason - there is no hope, no point, nothing but extending the suffering. I have no reason to think it would be any less terrible with a person involved, even if they are, unlike the animal, capable of understanding what is going on and why. Knowledge means we know why it is happening, it doesn't mean the suffering is any less. >>> You have any idea how often the death certificate should say "morphine >>> overdose" rather than some other horrible cause? >> >> Probably not often enough - though I'm not advocating wanton injections of >> a little too much. > No. Not by law. Not by definition. Each case is separate. Each case is > unique. And you know what? The ones where I refrained from doing > anything, these are the ones that haunt me. For those in a position to relieve suffering, it is expected that failure to do so will be more haunting than doing so, even where doing so means supplying a final friend. Theists - Christians in particular - are fond of asking whether we fear death. Personally, I'm not. I don't _seek_ it, I look both ways when crossing the street and the like, but death holds no terrors for me. What does hold terror for me is _not_ dying, of being left to hang on, suffering, without hope and without release. If I get there and some kindly doctor does me a favour, I can't say I'd bless him or look down on him from heaven, as I do not ascribe to such things, but I would certainly, in my few remaining moments, have boundless thanks and gratitude for him. -- “Those who have loved God most have loved men least.” Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 [snips] On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:43:43 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris wrote: >>> We KNOW that it will shorten their lifes.... by a few hours. >> >> A few hours less life, but in those few hours, a lifetime of suffering and >> agony. The few hours lost are nothing compared to the pain relieved. > > Have you seen those eyes? I have. We kept them alive endlessly. Because > it was dogma. In a person? No. I have, however, seen it several times in animals. The terror, the suffering, the complete inability to do anything about it. I've put such animals down myself, for that very reason - there is no hope, no point, nothing but extending the suffering. I have no reason to think it would be any less terrible with a person involved, even if they are, unlike the animal, capable of understanding what is going on and why. Knowledge means we know why it is happening, it doesn't mean the suffering is any less. >>> You have any idea how often the death certificate should say "morphine >>> overdose" rather than some other horrible cause? >> >> Probably not often enough - though I'm not advocating wanton injections of >> a little too much. > No. Not by law. Not by definition. Each case is separate. Each case is > unique. And you know what? The ones where I refrained from doing > anything, these are the ones that haunt me. For those in a position to relieve suffering, it is expected that failure to do so will be more haunting than doing so, even where doing so means supplying a final friend. Theists - Christians in particular - are fond of asking whether we fear death. Personally, I'm not. I don't _seek_ it, I look both ways when crossing the street and the like, but death holds no terrors for me. What does hold terror for me is _not_ dying, of being left to hang on, suffering, without hope and without release. If I get there and some kindly doctor does me a favour, I can't say I'd bless him or look down on him from heaven, as I do not ascribe to such things, but I would certainly, in my few remaining moments, have boundless thanks and gratitude for him. -- “Those who have loved God most have loved men least.” Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 In article <fg26m1$7f9$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <ffvg3p$3pt$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> You never said "it's a sin for a young, healthy person to commit > >> suicide." You've said "it's a sin to commit suicide, period." > >> > >> So why is it that it's a sin for a sick, dying person to commit suicide > >> and not a sin for the doctor to kill him? > > Snip non sequiter. > > Answer the question ASKED for a change, Jason. Why is it a SIN for a > person to commit suicide and not for a doctor to kill that person? I > don't care about who has more knowledge or who you'd forgive (like your > forgiveness means anything) but what makes one a SIN and not the other? > Will a person who is terminal (and who KNOWS they are terminal, not this > "oh, I have a bad headache" crap of yours) and who kills themselves go > to heaven or hell? Simple question, simple one word answer. Now if you > say "heaven" then why would you not kill yourself in the same situation? > If you answer "hell" then what makes the difference between the person > doing it to himself or the doctor doing it? God is the judge of people and I am NOT the final judge. I don't know whether or not God would allow someone into heaven that committed suicide--regardless of the circumstances. I know that there are some preachers that believe that God will not allow anyone into heaven that commits suicide. Since I don't know for sure how God judges cases of suicide, I don't advise anyone to ever commit suicide. I would not ever even consider committing suicide for that reason. Doctors that commit mercy killings are a different situation. It's my opinion that mercy killing on patients that are near death and in terrible pain--are not committing sin but instead are showing love and compassion. I would advise those doctors to ask for forgiveness each day for their sins just in case God considers their actions to be sinful. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 In article <fg26m1$7f9$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <ffvg3p$3pt$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> You never said "it's a sin for a young, healthy person to commit > >> suicide." You've said "it's a sin to commit suicide, period." > >> > >> So why is it that it's a sin for a sick, dying person to commit suicide > >> and not a sin for the doctor to kill him? > > Snip non sequiter. > > Answer the question ASKED for a change, Jason. Why is it a SIN for a > person to commit suicide and not for a doctor to kill that person? I > don't care about who has more knowledge or who you'd forgive (like your > forgiveness means anything) but what makes one a SIN and not the other? > Will a person who is terminal (and who KNOWS they are terminal, not this > "oh, I have a bad headache" crap of yours) and who kills themselves go > to heaven or hell? Simple question, simple one word answer. Now if you > say "heaven" then why would you not kill yourself in the same situation? > If you answer "hell" then what makes the difference between the person > doing it to himself or the doctor doing it? God is the judge of people and I am NOT the final judge. I don't know whether or not God would allow someone into heaven that committed suicide--regardless of the circumstances. I know that there are some preachers that believe that God will not allow anyone into heaven that commits suicide. Since I don't know for sure how God judges cases of suicide, I don't advise anyone to ever commit suicide. I would not ever even consider committing suicide for that reason. Doctors that commit mercy killings are a different situation. It's my opinion that mercy killing on patients that are near death and in terrible pain--are not committing sin but instead are showing love and compassion. I would advise those doctors to ask for forgiveness each day for their sins just in case God considers their actions to be sinful. Jason Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:56:48 -0700, Jason wrote: > In article <10t6v4-bu1.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:02:20 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > For a person that is dying in terrible pain, there are hospice centers >> > where people like that receive medications to ease the pain and they are >> > allowed to die without feeling hardly any pain. >> >> No, Jason, there are not. >> >> There are many diseases where the pain is so intense that the anaesthetics >> required to kill the pain would kill the patient. Nice try, though. > > I guess they could move to that state where doctors are allowed to legally > kill them. Right, you're so far gone you can't even have your suffering reduced with the best available drugs, but hey, get up and go for a jaunt down to that other state. Good goat, Jason, do you ever stop to think before you post? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.