Oh no, poor Mormonism. Maybe I can just forget their past of rape, kidnap and forced marriages.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^Shepppard:
>> ^shinyblurry:
As much as I disagree with mormonism, it's easy to see what this really is, which is an attack on faith, especially faith in Jesus Christ. They just found a way to caricature it in mormonism. It's really quite a sad thing to watch those people revel in the mockery. Our society has degenerated to such a point where it is socially acceptable to openly ridicule millions of people. While I am concerned for the souls of the mormons, I think this attack on their faith is really quite despicable.

FFS. You know what, I'm too tired to write something significant to this.
Just go wiki "The Book of Mormon(musical)" and scroll down for the churches response. In short, you're in idiot.

First, the churches response is described as "measured", which it is, and not favorable. Second, do you honestly think the mormon church is pleased with having their beliefs ridiculed? They simply realized that there was nothing they could do about it, and to fight against it would only call more attention to it.

>> ^Shepppard:

>> ^shinyblurry:
As much as I disagree with mormonism, it's easy to see what this really is, which is an attack on faith, especially faith in Jesus Christ. They just found a way to caricature it in mormonism. It's really quite a sad thing to watch those people revel in the mockery. Our society has degenerated to such a point where it is socially acceptable to openly ridicule millions of people. While I am concerned for the souls of the mormons, I think this attack on their faith is really quite despicable.

FFS. You know what, I'm too tired to write something significant to this.
Just go wiki "The Book of Mormon(musical)" and scroll down for the churches response. In short, you're in idiot.


First, the churches response is described as "measured", which it is, and not favorable. Second, do you honestly think the mormon church is pleased with having their beliefs ridiculed? They simply realized that there was nothing they could do about it, and to fight against it would only call more attention to it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

As much as I disagree with mormonism, it's easy to see what this really is, which is an attack on faith, especially faith in Jesus Christ. They just found a way to caricature it in mormonism. It's really quite a sad thing to watch those people revel in the mockery. Our society has degenerated to such a point where it is socially acceptable to openly ridicule millions of people. While I am concerned for the souls of the mormons, I think this attack on their faith is really quite despicable.


FFS. You know what, I'm too tired to write something significant to this.

Just go wiki "The Book of Mormon(musical)" and scroll down for the churches response. In short, you're in idiot.

As much as I disagree with mormonism, it's easy to see what this really is, which is an attack on faith, especially faith in Jesus Christ. They just found a way to caricature it in mormonism. It's really quite a sad thing to watch those people revel in the mockery. Our society has degenerated to such a point where it is socially acceptable to openly ridicule millions of people. While I am concerned for the souls of the mormons, I think this attack on their faith is really quite despicable.

I'm all for mockery of god and such, but this was a pretty naff effort. There's no flair or wit to what he's saying. He's just saying stuff that's stupid about the bible.

Also, where's this guy's eye-wrangler?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but Ron Paul is running a distant last place campaign with dismal national polling numbers. He has yet to win a single state primary and has no realistic chance at winning the race. Despite all of this, he gets plenty of news coverage - nearly 10,000 articles on google news.
To contrast, both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich - the second and third place winners in the nomination fight - are getting far less coverage than Paul. Why no tears for the media BLACKOUT on Rick and Newt?
I agree with you that all of the other candidates suck too.


I'm sorry to break it to you, but Ron Paul is running a close second, possibly first in delegates. Wikipedia shows him having won 2 primaries, contrary to your claim, and coming in second in 13 more with up to 36% of the vote. The rub is that is primary vote results, not delegates. The Paul campaign has made no secret that they are working for delegates, not votes...they are not the same thing. The delegates are elected in meetings held AFTER the primary vote, and are not required to vote with the populace...and Paul supporters more than anyone stayed and voted for delegates, and voted for themselves AS delegates, so Paul MAY have the most delegates and be the candidate at this point, there's no real telling until the convention. That was his clearly and publicly stated methodology at the beginning of the campaign, and is one more thing about Paul that was either barely or completely not reported on so few know, and fewer understand.
Hits on Google news are NOT the same as 'media coverage'...on broadcast/print media, Paul is almost completely ignored, is removed from polls AND primary result reporting repeatedly (even when he's close second or even first in polls), and when he is mentioned it's nearly always with derision and mockery. The most Paul reporting I've seen on broadcast was about the voting irregularities that put Romney in first in some states where Paul was somehow completely omitted before results had been reported from precincts, and the like. Again, fuel for conspiracy theorists if not actual conspiracy.
As for Santorum and Gingrich, they are NOT candidates, but are still mentioned (usually with a semblance of respect) on broadcast 'news' infinitely more than Paul, and he is at worst running second (out of 2 candidates left). It is the consistency of the omission and derision of his name in broadcast/print news that creates the APPEARANCE of conspiracy, especially when you consider he's one of two remaining candidates.

*beg for hollywood mockery

So, one of the guys trying to spread the faith back then kinda realized the whole dogma looked really silly, sometimes even despicable to people outside its own tautology. He knew that some of those people would mock its followers. To make sure the followers didn't listen to the mockers, wake up, and leave the religion, this writer included a line in his instructions predicting this mockery, making it sound like prophesy realized whenever it happened, strengthening the believer's faith. That's real genius. Seriously. Mad props to this "Peter" guy.

And there have been scoffers for the last 2,000 years, so when exactly are the "last days", again?>> ^shinyblurry:

2 Peter 3:3
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

You're right, I am making an argument about you. This has always been about you. I don't care about the whole god argument, I care about why you believe what you believe and that is what I'm talking about. I could care less about what you believe, the 'why' is far more significant.

So in other words, you have such a faith in your position that you aren't even interested in talking about it. You've just admitted that you are completely closed minded to the existence of God, and you're talking to me about confirmation bias? You are a poster child for confirmation bias.

It took you an hour to throw all of those quotes together to make a case. Based on that, do you really expect me to believe that you're not just quote mining from some general creationist website somewhere? Do you really expect me to believe that you've actually studied the subjects that you're presenting as evidence for your claims? You are by definition, cherry picking. You are not taking into account the whole of scientific findings, you are ignoring the information which dis-confirms your existing views, and you are unknowingly misrepresenting the facts. If you were well read on any of the subjects of physics or evolutionary biology then you'd completely understand where I'm coming from.

Actually, what I was doing was disputing your claim that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to open systems. The whole of scientific findings say that the 2nd law applies everywhere at all times, and this is very widely agreed upon. Your claim of cherry picking is bogus; the facts in them are plainly stated and from witnesses hostile to my overall position, which gives them even more weight. If those facts do not match reality, feel free to point out how so. Again, you are coming from a complete lack of substance, saying I am doing this or that, without actually having any real evidence to back up your assertions. If you're not interested in talking about things that require you to demonstrate an actual knowledge of the subject matter, please stop making baseless claims about what I am doing or back them up.

That's you, you said that. Why do you believe those things? Are you willing to attempt to prove yourself wrong? Are you willing to work to subdue cognitive biases in order to be as certain as you can be that you aren't mistaken? How can you say that your god is the correct one and all of the rest are incorrect? How can you justify a jump from the idea that we don't understand entirely how a system works to, there must be agency behind it? That is exactly what you are asking everyone to do. That is a huge leap and it does not directly follow. Extraordinary claims such as a personal god, require extraordinary evidence. You can't simply suggest that because we don't understand something that there must be agency there, that is not how logic works nor science. You can say nothing about the true nature of something if it requires faith in order to have evidence.

My argument is not a God of the gaps argument. I am not suggesting because we don't understand something, God did it. I am saying that God is a better explanation for the evidence. I am saying that even if you were to explain every mechanism in the Universe, you still haven't gone any farther to say that the uniformity in nature which upholds the physical laws that causes those mechanisms to operate isn't better explained by Agency. Unless you can demonstrate a purely naturalistic origin of the Universe, you have no case against Agency. This isn't to mention things like the fine tuning of physical laws, the information in DNA, and the appearance of design in biological systems. They are all better explained by a Creator.

Further, when you talk about faith, there are many examples in science. No one has ever seen macro evolution happening, yet scientists have great faith that it occured. There is absolutely no hard evidence for it, only a just-so story based on very questionable inference from the fossil record. The major predictions of evolutionary theory have all actually been falsified by the fossil record, which would be enough to torpedo any theory, but they are committed to it regardless of what the facts say:

we take the side of evolutionary science because we have a prior commitment to materialism. it is not that the methods..of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation..on the contrary..we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.

richard lewontin

harvard professor of zoology and biology

The thing is, I am in doubt about you. I am in doubt about your sincerity for meaningful investigations into reality. I am in doubt that you have actually read any scientific material in their entirety. I am in doubt that you value critical thinking. I am in doubt that you understand what a logical fallacy is or how they work. I am in doubt that you are doing anything more than attempting to justify a belief that you already hold by attempting to give legitimacy in the face of dissonance.

That's wonderful, but until you demonstrate a knowledge of the subject matter which is not inferior to my own (ala, believing the 2nd law doesnt apply to biological systems), everything that you have said here is irrelevent. Even if everything you said here is true and I understood nothing about this, you have shown you understand even less than that. However, I am going to give you more credit than that, and I would hope, but not expect, for you to do the same, however thus far you have only worked to try to discredit me. That is a logical fallacy called an ad hominem attack. It is a sad testament to atheists that there are only a very few out there willing to engage in rational discourse and not lower themselves to mockery and ridicule. I know rational discourse is possible because I have seen it in debates, and have found it on the internet from time to time. Overall though, it is a very bad advertisement for your point of view.

This was always about you. Your belief is based on quotes taken out of context and stitched together to weave a picture that conforms to what you already believe in while ignoring all of the information that doesn't agree with you. This is called a confirmation bias. You wont know how unconvincing your statements and claims are until you get past that kind of bias and seek to prove what you believe wrong to see if it actually holds water.

Again, this is the pot calling the kettle black. Your confirmation bias meter reads at 100 percent. My claims stand on their own and so do the quotations which flatly refute your claim. Feel free to show me scientific literature which supports your case at any time.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr

I've seen a lot more people and media mocking the History Channel. I guess they finally reached the tipping point for the amount of non-history related bullshit they can air before the well deserved mockery can begin.

So defacing or destroying books is a good thing?

>> ^kceaton1:
I would just remove the whole old testament. Just so everybody knows if they want to do the whole, "...we only use the New Testament now!", we can make sure they're not lying--which I think they usual are (... coughs creationism coughs ...).
To be honestly blunt.
/Good show Sir Ian; it truly bugs me for some reason that they feel compelled to put THAT in all the rooms. Not only does it cheapen it (which is fine and everything), but it's a mockery to everyone that doesn't follow it--which is a large amount of the world's population.
//I know they still use some of the OT, but it's fun to pull strings sometimes

I dont like TYT because Cyncky dink is an arrogant, pompous fool. I love how he generalizes. Yes, many Ron Paul supporters think he can't do wrong or that his policies will be miracle balm. But many, like me, just like the fact that he states some obvious truths--that he reaches both the liberal and conservative side. That he is electable and hated proves such.

This is Cyncky dink. "All Ron Paul supporters are crazy. All Muslims support Jihad. All blacks eat watermelon..."

Its funny, the reason he does this is transparent. He wants to make a mockery of those he puts down--by doing so he derails them and their legitimacy.

I would just remove the whole old testament. Just so everybody knows if they want to do the whole, "...we only use the New Testament now!", we can make sure they're not lying--which I think they usual are (...*coughs* creationism *coughs*...).

To be honestly blunt.

/Good show Sir Ian; it truly bugs me for some reason that they feel compelled to put THAT in all the rooms. Not only does it cheapen it (which is fine and everything), but it's a mockery to everyone that doesn't follow it--which is a large amount of the world's population.
//I know they still use some of the OT, but it's fun to pull strings sometimes

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and to quote Cassandra Clare:

“Sarcasm is the last refuge of the imaginatively bankrupt.”

It's a tool passive aggressive people use to make the point about you, to delegitimize your point of view. It is just thinly veiled mockery. For a theist, ridicule from atheists, or more commonly, militant antitheists, is a daily event. It's just something that you get used to. It is rare to find rational discourse on this subject, although a few people on this board have stepped up to the plate.

It is about ego, and prejudice. Since he has decided to bash me in this thread, let's take HPQP as a good example of this. You only have to look at his videos to see that he has quite a lot of hatred stored up in his heart for Christianity. Thoughtful people aren't going to dedicate their time to trashing something they disagree with. This is clearly obsessive behavior fueled by anger and resentment, and most likely an underlying inferiority complex.

But, this is the way of the culture. Rudeness and intolerance is becoming the norm, especially in these United States. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705331806/Poll-Americans-are-becoming-more-rude.html

I appreciate you advocating for more decorum on here. On this subject particularly, if you watch some of the debates, like say dawkins vs lennox, you can see it is possible to discuss these issues in a respectful and civilized way, that is even intellectually satisfying. Even Hitchens said that the question of God was the greatest conversation you could have because it was a subject that led to every other important subject. It's sad that many people here don't seem to realize that and go out of their way to stifle discussion.




>> ^SDGundamX:

@hpqp
Thanks for explaining why you @GeeSussFreeK and I.
I'd like to explain my position more clearly. I'm not saying sarcasm is bad or should be banned or anything. I'm not saying "don't be mean to Shiny." I know you can't regulate people's behavior on the Net and I'm not about to try.
If I understand what you wrote correctly, you're saying using sarcasm is still "being a dick," it's just not nearly as much of being one as replying "you're a fag" to someone's argument. If that's what you're saying I agree with you on both counts (i.e. that using sarcasm is rather boorish behavior but it's not nearly so bad as resorting to direct insults).
Sarcasm can indeed be useful depending on what you intend to use it for. If you're looking to boost your own ego at another's expense and look intelligent while doing so, then really sarcasm is exactly what you're looking for. So too if you're hoping to get comment upvotes on the Sift--it seems like many of us Sifters appreciate a good burn.
But sarcasm also has a number of drawbacks and I personally find these to outweigh the benefits. The first drawback is adding unnecessary confrontation to a discussion. Sarcasm is an in-your-face ploy. It's personal. It might not be a punch in the face like "you're a fag" is, but it's at the least an back-handed bitch slap. Its goal is to belittle. If the target of the sarcasm wasn't aggressive before, they most likely will be when they reply because--let's face it--who wants to sit around and be insulted? Sarcasm exponentially increases the odds that a thread is going to devolve into a verbal brawl and that the original points being debated will get lost. Why introduce that risk into the argument? Why not just rationally argue your points?
Which brings me to the second drawback--sarcasm stifles debate. Sometimes this is intentional--rather than argue the points under discussion, the poster is looking to score ego points (or upvotes or whatever) because they really don't have anything substantial to contribute. I think, though, more often here on the Sift the debate gets lost unintentionally. People are so busy grandstanding and showing everyone how witty and sarcastic they can be that they forget to address or flat-out ignore valid points made by the opposition.
This is what I was trying to point out in the other thread. People dog-piled on Shiny not because of his main point (about the irony of toasting what he perceived to be an alcoholic/excessive drinker) but because he suggested praying for Hitchens (which, as far as Shiny goes is pretty mild in terms of the evangelical department). As I've said before, you actually were the only person to respond to the content of Shiny's comment rather than attack Shiny himself--your quotation implied that Hitchens would be pleased with the idea since he felt his drinking to be more of a benefit than a hindrance. It moved the conversation forward, if only for a moment. Things went rapidly downhill from there.
I know that sarcasm is all the rage these days--the fact that we now have a 'sarcasm' button for our comments on the Sift is telling. But reading the threads here on the Sift I can't help feeling it is detracting more than it is contributing. If the goal of posting is to feel good by belittling others, well I guess that's fine and dandy then. But if our goal of posting here is to approach the truth through dialogue, then I think the sarcasm is getting in the way of that.
Ultimately, of course, everyone is free to choose how they act on the Sift. My hope is that people who read this post who may be considering being sarcastic in a reply to another poster will think a bit more about what their goal is before posting. Looking to feel superior to another person? Flame away! But if you're looking to make a valid point and further the discussion, maybe sarcasm isn't way to go.

What a revolting law, and what a beautiful, passionate and articulate argument against it. Too many laws in too many countries are being passed with 'special considerations' for religious beliefs. "Special considerations" that make a tragic, ironic mockery of the legislation they are trying to put in place, and all because of the ridiculous amount of "respect" we are supposed to show for those who believe some preposterous lies sacred myths.

This culture of respect and tolerance for religious beliefs is bullying all of us into kowtowing to the absurd demands of religiots who hold our morality to ransom.