Mankind's all time worst enemies...

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

So you're saying it's a fact that Steve Vai's physical makeup is something all men should envy?

We'll have to check with Sissyroo for clarification, but I'm fairly certain that submission makes you...well...GAY.

[RadioFan]

This Steve Vai fetish of yours, though, borders on lust.

And before that, we got this...

I'd be filthy rich and also one of the most talented, innovative and imitated musicians ever.

Anyone seen Buehler? Class? Anyone?

Touche.

Still doesn't change the fact that absence from school on "music appreciation day" was missed by the majority of the Western World, yet we're hated for it.

A lack of music/the arts, has gotta rank up there with "mankind's worst enemies."

'Sup Taliban and the rest of you psychotic "purists"?

[Diogenes]

Dio, atheism is just another faith based set of beliefs, just like organized religion.

The main difference is we aren't seeing shitloads of (Non) Holy Wars fought on behalf of atheism.

As for the "actual followers of Christ", well, I'm pretty sure all the marauding Crusaders and all the blood thirsty witch hunters and all the leaders of the Inquisition would've considered themselves devout followers of Christ.

You left out the conqiustadors.

And the fact is, even given (mearly for the sake of argument, since it isn't actually true) that all of the above were following Christ, they still wouldn't have the numbers to match Pol Pot, let alone Stalin.

They couldn't even match the numbers who died due to the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars which resulted from it. Historicly, you simply don't know what you are talking about.

Atheism still wins.



But itis good to know that all ministers are nothing but derelicts and perverts. :roll:

Neither Pol Pot nor Stalin killed in the name of atheism.

I didn't say they did. But their belief system was a logical outgroth of the atheist world-view, whereas the Inqusitions for example, were an aberant perversion of the Christian one. Ditto for the philosophes and their Jacobin ofspring, which made the Napoleonic wars possible.

[Diogenes]

Neither God nor poop made my list though, did they?

Actually you had him at '#1, with a bullet: Jesus Christ'.

[Diogenes]

Jean Jacques Rousseau
Sigmund Freud
Charles Darwin
Alfred Kinsey
John Lennon

The sad thing about this list is that you are serious...

Honestly, anyone that would be that frightened of intelligent and progressive minds should be #1 on the list.

No, the sad thing is that I am right.

[RadioFan]

Jean Jacques Rousseau
Sigmund Freud
Charles Darwin
Alfred Kinsey
John Lennon

The sad thing about this list is that you are serious...

Honestly, anyone that would be that frightened of intelligent and progressive minds should be #1 on the list.

No, the sad thing is that I am right.

Yeah, because everyone knows the war cry "Alfred Kinsey!"

C'mon Dio. Your last 2 posts made good points, then you go off to reinforce the deep end of insanity. Sorry to disappoint you bro, but the world's still round and it still revolves around the Sun, just as our Sun revolves around the galaxy. Unless, of course, you want to put Joseph Keppler on your list.

Van had a little caveat on his list of which I'm pretty sure -- he was talking about mankind's worst enemies as we understand them to be today and not 10,000 years ago.

Otherwise, put me down for turtles. You know, for not holding the Earth up as it should be and all.

[Diogenes]

What do elliptical orbits have to do with anything? And there's only one L in Kepler, BTW.

The ones listed are mankinds worst because of the influence they have had on today's world. I added Darwin, for example, because without Social Darwinism (a natural consequence of his theory and the atheist world view) their would have been neither Hitler nor Stalin.

Rousseau for his influence on the Philosophes, the Romantics, and through them the Communist movement and the beatnik culture respectively. I could have said Lenin and Neil Cassady, but they were just followers.

[RadioFan]

What do elliptical orbits have to do with anything?

Sincerely,

The "Christian" Church, and its view of "Mankind's worst enemies," about 400 years ago.

I added Darwin, for example, because without Social Darwinism (a natural consequence of his theory and the atheist world view) their would have been neither Hitler nor Stalin.

Blaming Darwin for communism would be like blaming Jesus for Nazism.

[Diogenes]

First of all, I'm not blaming Darwin for Nazism or Communism, mearly pointing out the unintended consequences of his theory, and Social Darwinism in particular. Just as the unintended consequences of Whitney's Gin was the viability of slavery, and of his standardization system was the economic means for the north to subjegate the south. Leading to Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and all the racial animosities of our day.

And the Medival Church got their views on cosmology from the pagans, not scripture. It would be Copernicus you want to site, not Kepler, anyway. Things were well decided by Kepler's time.

[Cuda]

that assumes dio even knows what the fuck "cosmology" means, which he obviously doesn't

[Diogenes]

What part of Ptolemaic astronomy and Aristotelian cosmology isn't pagan?

Ptolmey and Aristotle were actually.....?

[Diogenes]

that assumes dio even knows what the fuck "cosmology" means, which he obviously doesn't

I'm not surprised you don't know what I'm talking about.

Quit projecting though, it's quite basic to anyone with a fuctioning brain.

[Van]

So you're saying it's a fact that Steve Vai's physical makeup is something all men should envy?

No, I said "facts is facts" in response to this...

I'd be filthy rich and also one of the most talented, innovative and imitated musicians ever.

...and your "Buehler? Anyone?" post.

[Van]

Neither God nor poop made my list though, did they?

Actually you had him at '#1, with a bullet: Jesus Christ'.

Are you calling Christ poop, 'cause he sure isn't God.

[Diogenes]

Rather Gnostic statment there. And Ignorant. If Jesus of Nazareth wasn't God, than by definition he wasn't Christ. Like I said before, Christ is a title, not a last name.

[Van]

God wasn't born of Mary. God's kid was, supposedly. God's supposed kid is at best half man, and therefore not the "One God, the one True God", as God described himself in the 10 Commandments.

Son of God. Not God.

As good as he is, Dweezil still ain't Frank.

[Diogenes]

So the Son of God, the redeemer of the Universe (Christ by definition) is '#1 with a bullet' the all time worst enemy of mankind?

You're definitly Satan's kind of 'agnostic'...

[Tom In VA]

Tom has got to be in the running for the most misinformed, brainwashed lump of jello on the planet. If he was born Muslim, this guy would have strapped a bomb to himself a looooong time ago.

Care to back that up Sir O'Sis ?

Fucking twat.

[Van]

So the Son of God, the redeemer of the Universe (Christ by definition) is '#1 with a bullet' the all time worst enemy of mankind?

You're definitly Satan's kind of 'agnostic'...

Like I said before, instead of singling out Jesus and Muhammed maybe I might amend it to where it's just "organized religion".

Thing is, Jesus is the focal point for the world's #1 organized religion and that organized religion has prompted far too many people in this world to check their brains and their ambitions at the door in lieu of a life of doing fuckall with themselves simply because they believe they don't have to do anything but wait for some fairy tale afterlife.

Oh yeah, there's also all those killings in Christ's name, and in the name of Muhammed.

While I have the same basic problem with all organized religions I do still see Christianity and Islam as being the two religions which are traditionally the most damaging to mankind's progress.

[Tom In VA]

While I have the same basic problem with all organized religions I do still see Christianity and Islam as being the two religions which are traditionally the most damaging to mankind's progress.

And that pathetic cunt Dinsdale calls me "misinformed".


Hate to break it to you Van but if it wasn't for all that "killing", you wouldn't be where you're at.

[poptart]

The 10 Commandments? Those are just basic rules of living which the average monkey with any sort of a conscience ought to naturally follow.

If so, then why don't you follow simple Commandment #1 .... ?


I am the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.


Is the Lord your God ... ?

Which one? Christianity's God (and Son, and Holy Spirit)? Islam's? Hinduism's? Buddhism's?

Van, the Ten Commandments didn't come from Hinduism or Buddhism. Perhaps those religions have some form of 'commandments' that are similar (or even VERY similar), I dunno, but The Ten Commandments came from God Almighty......of the Bible. There is no spinning that.

And there is a VERY good reason God put Commandment numero uno, "I am the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me," at the head of the class.

Reason is that apart from God, man is screwed. He naturally and inevitably falls into religion and idol worship. Unhappiness, disasters and curses follow after his trek into idol worship and religion.

The churches of Europe have all but died, and the churches in America are on the same path.
Reason?
They have lost the Gospel.
They follow religion, legalsim, unhealthy mysticism ...... ALL 'man-made' concepts.
God's Covenant with man is in the Christ.
Meeting God is holding that Covnenant.
So simple.

Satan's favorite workshop is the church.

Through history, those who killed in the name of 'Christianity' were not holding to God's Covenant.
If they were there is absolutely nothing to worry about, much less, freaking KILL over.
It's absurd.
God ....... who parted the Red Sea ..... is gonna git 'er done.
God will spread the Gospel of His Christ to all corners of the earth and then Christ will return.

Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess.........

Get on board.

You're a smart kid.

[Van]

While I have the same basic problem with all organized religions I do still see Christianity and Islam as being the two religions which are traditionally the most damaging to mankind's progress.

And that pathetic cunt Dinsdale calls me "misinformed".


Hate to break it to you Van but if it wasn't for all that "killing", you wouldn't be where you're at.

What sort of argument is that??

Also, actually, no, I don't really think the Crusades and the Inquisition had all that much bearing on my ending up in Sacramento. Same with Islamic "jihad", for that matter.

Dude, you're all over the map in this thread but no matter where you drive you just keep piling it into the kitty litter...

[Van]

poptart, I'm no kid. I'm probably older than you, as a matter of fact.

Anyway, my point about "which god?" was meant to sarcastically address one of the most obvious flaws in most any organzied religion.

"There is only one true God, and I'm it, asswipe! There are no others!"

Great. So, what if you're not Christian? Or, in that case, more literally, Hebrew? Is that God really the only God, when the majority of the planet doesn't even know him, much less recognize his divinity and his dominion over whichever "one true God" they worship?

They're all man made and wholly regionalized "Gods", at the inception...

More than likely either everybody's all worshipping the same entity, known across the globe by fifty different identities, or it's the obvious: It's all nonsense and everybody's simply swallowing the local man made divinity story that was jammed down their throats.

[poptart]

I'm 45.


:wink:

[Tom In VA]

While I have the same basic problem with all organized religions I do still see Christianity and Islam as being the two religions which are traditionally the most damaging to mankind's progress.

And that pathetic cunt Dinsdale calls me "misinformed".


Hate to break it to you Van but if it wasn't for all that "killing", you wouldn't be where you're at.

What sort of argument is that??

Reality

[Van]

Tom, okay, "reality" as defined by "non sequitur"...

Gotcha. Knock yourself out. By all means, keep making perfectly true and perfectly irrelevant points.

poptart, okay, you (barely) got me beat. :-)

We're definitely contemporaries though. I seriously doubt you'd refer to me as a "kid" if ever we met. LOL!

[poptart]

That's right.

Only on the board(s) do I behave like an asshole.



.......although my wife may occassionally disagree.

[Diogenes]

So the Son of God, the redeemer of the Universe (Christ by definition) is '#1 with a bullet' the all time worst enemy of mankind?

You're definitly Satan's kind of 'agnostic'...

Like I said before, instead of singling out Jesus and Muhammed maybe I might amend it to where it's just "organized religion".

Actually you would be better off seperating secularized 'christianity' which only uses the name of Christ for it's own social purposes (you can add MLK to the list of good intentions/disasterous results, BTW) and legitimate adhearants of Mohammed.

And the Atheists still have them both beat. You seem rather defensive of atheists for an 'agnostic', BTW.

[Diogenes]

They're all man made and wholly regionalized "Gods", at the inception...

More than likely either everybody's all worshipping the same entity, known across the globe by fifty different identities, or it's the obvious: It's all nonsense and everybody's simply swallowing the local man made divinity story that was jammed down their throats.

More Gnosticism from Van. That's okay, Huxley was a hypocrite too.

[Tom In VA]

Tom, okay, "reality" as defined by "non sequitur"...

Gotcha. Knock yourself out. By all means, keep making perfectly true and perfectly irrelevant points.

My point was not irrelevant it was right on as a counter point to your "bleat" about ....

While I have the same basic problem with all organized religions I do still see Christianity and Islam as being the two religions which are traditionally the most damaging to mankind's progress.

You see if it wasn't for the "killing", mankind would not have progressed as much as it has. Scientifically, medically, intellectually.

So before you posture yourself for your next pseudo-intellectual mental circle jerk, go read a fucking book about the history of mankind.

[Van]

Tom, don't even try and pretend that you're in any position whatsoever to assume you're more well read than anybody here, much less yours truly.

Every point you've made was a tangent that bore no relevance to the topic.

"Oh yeah?? Well, umm, people kill for other reasons too!!"

Prescient shit there, professor.

Mankind has greatly progressed intellectually, medically and even scientifically due to organized religion?

Other than for highly literate monks plying their trade mankind has progressed despite organized religion, not because of it. Organized religion has fought science at every turn. Organized religion has created a world populated by sheep who do NOT investigate other messages and other truths because to do so would be "heresy". Organized religion has created a world where deviating from the norm intellectually can be punishable by torture and death. Organized religion teaches its adherents that it's okay to be poor, destitute, lacking in ambition and utterly without earthly means because it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to gain entry into heaven.

Mankind hasn't prospered because of its penchant to slaughter each other in the name of the various Gods and Prophets. Certainly the middle east isn't prospering now because of it, is it? What, do you think it was ever any different, that there was ever a time when one could look across the landscape of bloodshed and surmise, "Yep, those people slaughtering each other over religion, that's a good thing."

Mankind didn't progress because of its penchant for slaughtering each other over organzied religion. Mankind survives and prospers (mostly where organized religion isn't the driving force, natch) in spite of this penchant, is all.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Other than for highly literate monks plying their trade mankind has progressed despite organized religion, not because of it. Organized religion has fought science at every turn.

Untrue. The fact is that our perception of the religion-science divide is colored by the Galileo controversy and the relatively modern religious fundamentalist attacks on evolution.

Gregor Mendel (the father of genetics) was not only a Christian but a monk - and his mathematical and scientific education was promoted and paid for by the church. Furthermore, his research on genetics was encouraged by the church.

Darwin's theories were originally opposed not merely on religious grounds (because Biblical literalists believed that they contradicted the Bible) but also because his arguments undermined class structure concepts. The fact is that the single largest Christian denomination, Roman Catholicism, has supported the scientific theory of evolution for a very long time and that the majority of mainstream Christian denominations have no problem with evolution (unless it is misused as some sort of "proof" that God does not exist...).

A good chunk (some might say majority, but I have neither the time nor interest to do the research and math...) of the "Age of Enlightenment" scientists, including Boyle, Lord Kelvin, Descartes were devout Christians (Newton was a closet heretic in that he secretly denied the Trinity).

Organized religion has created a world populated by sheep who do NOT investigate other messages and other truths because to do so would be "heresy". Organized religion has created a world where deviating from the norm intellectually can be punishable by torture and death.

Something quite similar can be said of atheistic nations who doubt the teachings of the state. The Soviets were so obsessed with proving Marxist theory was applicable to science that they abandoned Mendel and Darwin and went with the idiotic hypotheses of Lysenko. Those scientists who stuck with Darwin and Mendel wound up executed or sent to prison camps.

Organized religion teaches its adherents that it's okay to be poor, destitute, lacking in ambition and utterly without earthly means because it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to gain entry into heaven.

What, precisely, is wrong with giving the poor and downtrodden hope for a better life after death? What, precisely, is wrong with condemning the acquisition of wealth at the expense of others from a spiritual point of view? The "justness" of societies is usually decided based on how they treat their weakest, which usually includes the poor, orphans, widows, the elderly, the disabled, etc. Many religions, including those of Judeo-Christian origin, specifically revere taking care of those folks for no other reason than that it is RIGHT. Going by a strictly utiltarian, non-religious standard, society might be more productive if those folks were taken off the count.

Mankind hasn't prospered because of its penchant to slaughter each other in the name of the various Gods and Prophets.

Agreed, but no one has made that claim. Additionally, neither has mankind profited from the penchant to slaughter each other in the name of profit, nationalism, or power.

Mankind survives and prospers (mostly where organized religion isn't the driving force, natch) in spite of this penchant, is all.

Some, myself included, would argue that mankind survives and prospers because of those impulses that, despite the financial/energy/emotional drain on resources, cause us to behave in a moral way - self-sacrifice, giving to the poor, caring for the sick and disabled - without regard to bloodlines or national origin. These "higher" impulses are promoted by mainstream religions, and the misuse of religion by ambitious and bigoted individuals in no way negates that fact.

It is the misuse of religion that causes these problems, not religion itself. The same could be said for patriotism, ethnic pride, family pride, etc.

[Van]

Mankind hasn't prospered because of its penchant to slaughter each other in the name of the various Gods and Prophets.

Agreed, but no one has made that claim.

Tom in Virginia made that precise claim...

While I have the same basic problem with all organized religions I do still see Christianity and Islam as being the two religions which are traditionally the most damaging to mankind's progress.

You see if it wasn't for the "killing", mankind would not have progressed as much as it has.

Scientifically, medically, intellectually.

Why he put "killing" in quotes though, I have no idea. Systematic slaughter in the name of one's God is no pseudo killing, it's killing.

[Diogenes]

Other than for highly literate monks plying their trade mankind has progressed despite organized religion, not because of it. Organized religion has fought science at every turn.

Untrue. The fact is that our perception of the religion-science divide is colored by the Galileo controversy and the relatively modern religious fundamentalist attacks on evolution.

Gregor Mendel (the father of genetics) was not only a Christian but a monk - and his mathematical and scientific education was promoted and paid for by the church. Furthermore, his research on genetics was encouraged by the church.

Darwin's theories were originally opposed not merely on religious grounds (because Biblical literalists believed that they contradicted the Bible) but also because his arguments undermined class structure concepts.

Actually one of the biggest concerns the fundamentalists of the 20s and 30s (including W. J. Bryan) had was the implications of social Darwinism.

~edit-of course that might be what you were getting at here anyway.~

And most of them had no problem with the general Darwinian concepts except when it cam to applying them to Homo Sapiens.

Interesting book on the history of the subject.

[Dinsdale]

Reason?
They have lost the Gospel.

Really?

Tell us more.

Sin,
The Possibly Married Chick In Your Avatar Who You Covet



Starting to see why the intelligent people aren't latching on to your cult anymore? You cry about lack of adherence to "The Gospel," yet you can't follow it yourself.

[Van]

And most of them had no problem with the general Darwinian concepts except when it cam to applying them to Homo Sapiens.

Rather significant, disingenuous and downright onerous exception there, wouldn't you say?

[Diogenes]

Reason?
They have lost the Gospel.

Really?

Tell us more.

Sin,
The Possibly Married Chick In Your Avatar Who You Covet.

Link?

I was under the impression she was there because pop's a Raiderfan, not because of any lustful obsessions he has with her. Nice non sequiter though.


Not really.

[Diogenes]

And most of them had no problem with the general Darwinian concepts except when it cam to applying them to Homo Sapiens.

Rather significant, disingenuous and downright onerous exception there, wouldn't you say?

No.

[Dinsdale]

I was under the impression she was there because pop's a Raiderfan, not because of any lustful obsessions he has with her.

I very rarely even read anything you post. Not only does your inane rambling defy the mathmatical probability of occasionally saying something intelligent(even a broken clock is right twice a day), you manage to distinguish your particular brand of stupidity by being the most humorless dullard on this board.

The post I quoted is a fine example of this concept at work.

Stupidity beyond any and all reasonable level.

[Diogenes]

Stupidity beyond any and all reasonable level.

Pretty much all I expect from you. That and spelling tips.




Idiot.