At 11/11/09 10:04 PM, SevenSeize wrote: pic related

You're giving me evil ideas, seven. And I am highly curious to see what my parent's dashdunds would do in that situation...

-----

I don't know how I could have forgotten this; "Battlefield" by Blind Guardian. It was the first song by them I was fortunate enough to hear back when I was in Highschool... and it still rocks 7 years later.

At 11/10/09 06:45 PM, Ravariel wrote: Then just build the central assembly and Bob's your uncle.

What's weird is I understood every bit of that... and I do have an uncle named Bob (as previously mentioned). O_o;

What I really want to make is that chain it's hanging on, the "Jen's Pind Linkage" pattern. It's supposed to be one of teh more difficult patterns to weave, but at the same time... it looks so damn cool.

At 11/10/09 08:39 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: The shaming has already begun.

That dog is going to have a nervous breakdown any minute. New home, new people, constantly running into furniture... now he's got an identity crisis to deal with. I hope you're happy, skunky. ;-D

At 11/10/09 03:39 PM, Evark wrote: Yet none of the other definitions contradict my point. The idea was not to distort the meaning of the words to support my argument, but instead to choose the two definitions with the simplest and clearest link in order to simplify the point.

Fair enough. But I will say this... you do realize that your whole argument hinges on equating all faith -- not just religious in nature -- with brainwashing, right? Pretty broad argument you've put forth there, ain't it?

But, that's besides my point entirely. I was saying that whether someone is brainwashed is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. Whereas, accusing someone of being brainwashed IS a matter of opinion and not fact.

So... you're saying you can't actually prove someone to be brainwashed -- which is what I asked for to begin with -- just that you can offer up an opinion on the matter? Wouldn't that make it a matter of faith to believe someone is brainwashed without actual proof...?

IRONY!!!

At 11/10/09 12:24 PM, Evark wrote: Yes. Hence my assertion that everyone agrees that education is necessary. Did you entirely skip that section?

Your education argument constituted one sentence out of those 8 paragraphs you posted. So yeah, I probably missed it.

I rested my entire argument on linking the concept of faith in an idea without supporting proof EXACTLY AS YOU JUST DESCRIBE.

the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

That's what you defined as "faith" in your argument, and then you compared that to a comparison of brainwashing. You cherrypicked definitions based on what would support your argument, not on what the actual use of those words normally mean.

Actually, no. There is no opinion of who is brainwashed vs. who isn't, merely the fact of it.

If you've got some foolproof method for determining someone to be brainwashed, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, without concrete proof to back up your assertion, all you have is an opinion.

At 11/10/09 10:10 AM, Evark wrote: Oftentimes, it may simply be identification of one's refusal to hear reason.

Given that people on here aren't to quick to relinquish their opinions in the light of their opponents logic and reason, could it not be said that the brainwashed argument could apply to everyone?

The words are intrinsically linked in meaning.

Only by your own dogmatic reasoning. You fail to acknowledge the fact that Faith (as defined by the rest of the article) is simple belief in an idea, often without supporting proof. One example being that Pox has faith that Jesus did not exist as historians depict him to have been (and I speak only of his physical being, not divine nature) and that the whole thing is a historical conspiracy theory... yet he has no evidence or smoking gun to support his ideas.

If having faith in an idea makes you brainwashed, would you argue that Pox is in fact, brainwashed?

I doubt it, because then you would have to argue against your own philosophy. But that's the point; depending on which side of the fence you stand, your opinion of who is or is not brainwashed is going to vary. My argument (which turns out to be nothing more than package deal fallacy) can go both ways, not just deist versus atheist.

At 11/9/09 01:23 PM, morefngdbs wrote: magnetism

*shakes head*

The only thing I can figure is that the "no problem" rings double on the backside, sandwiching the "questionable" rings in the center while their binding rings hold everything together. I'll probably just have to make one in order for people to get it.

At 11/9/09 06:44 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: Why do pets always want to "help" you with whatever you're doing?

Our dachshunds like to "help" cook. They'll sit there and watch you cook, and wait for you to drop something, then pounce on it.

At 11/9/09 05:05 PM, poxpower wrote: Wow after all this time you STILL cannot recognize an instance of "proving a negative"????
How many times will I have to tell you this?

It's not "proving a negative" if you supply supporting evidence of your own position, pox.

At 11/9/09 12:44 PM, fatape wrote: only if you return the favour

Non Sequiter. You called bullshit on my "centuries" claim, I provided it evidence to support what I said, and you respond with... atheist discrimination? How am I discriminating against you by showing how old atheism actually is?

At 11/9/09 12:47 AM, poxpower wrote: Enjoy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth _theory

All you've got there is conjecture and reasons for doubt, not hard evidence to justify your "he didn't exist" position.

At 11/9/09 01:17 AM, BrianEtrius wrote:

At 11/9/09 01:12 AM, JoS wrote: My upload speed is 0.01 mgb. I cant do anything.

What's with the tortoise connection?

Ma'am, I'm afraid the diagnosis isn't good. It's.... Lupus...

*dun-dun da*

Nah, it's probably just a really slow dialup connection if he's going at 10 kilobytes a second. JoS' job probably has him stationed in the outskirts of civilication right now, thus explaining the lack of a good connection. Nice to see he's alive, though. :-D

=====

I wanted to post this last night but my connection was acting weird. I found this chainmaile pendent I wanted to try and make, but I can't quite figure out part of it. So I'm going to post a picture of the pendent here with an explanation, if anyone want's to take a crack at it, it would be greatly appreciated.

At 11/8/09 09:58 PM, poxpower wrote: Jesus most likely never existed and if he did, there is no convincing evidence of it.
I challenge you to find it.

Click.

At 11/8/09 03:51 PM, fli wrote: Nobody says "holmes" anymore...
always "sup, G."

missing the 90s...

uh...

Orale... holmes?

Did I say that right? Token white guy, here.

I'm assuming that "orale" means "what's up"

------

My three year old niece just gave me a wet-willy. We were playing around and my brother went "Give Uncle Stephen a wet-willy" and she DID IT!!! It was really weird because those small child fingers went right into my ear, too. Just... unnerving.

At 11/8/09 08:58 AM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: My guy has no races on file, so maybe he sucks too. They start racing at 18 months, and he's only three years old, so I'm guessing he just didn't pan out. That's okay - he tore ass around the back yard this morning, fast enough for me.

That's the way our old wolamute used to do; turn her loose, and *poof* she was gone. But I think that was as much the sleddog in her as anything. :-3

What was really funny was to see her play with the chihuahua/dachshund mix we had at the time. He'd prance around her trying to get her attention, and if she wasn't in the mood to play she'd just take on paw *fwap* send the little twerp rolling. All you would see is this big plume of dust get kicked up from around her dog house, and there would be the little one about 4 or 5 feet away.

At 11/7/09 08:26 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: I don't have to bend down to pet him ;)

Oh, so he is that big. I thought you were... uhm... short.

Never assume, people. NEVER.

At 11/7/09 08:21 PM, fli wrote: biiiiiiig dog...

It's a matter of perspective, fli. ;-D

At 11/7/09 10:15 AM, fatape wrote: complete and utter bull

Kiss my ass.

At 11/7/09 11:40 AM, Elfer wrote: I think if atheism had some sort of "common goal," (which is a bit weird given the nature of atheism), it would be more along the lines of getting people to think for themselves, or maybe getting rid of the more damaging influnces that organized religion has on society.

"Elevating atheism to the same status that religion holds now" would be a pretty terrible idea.

I've read enough of these threads to know what the common goal of atheism is, that's why I find the idea of an atheist church to be deliciously ironic. I know the intention is to satirize religion as a whole, but the idea that they would actually copy the organizational pattern of the Church in spreading atheism intrigues me. Could it lead to atheism becoming a large organization, with doctrines and dogma?

Personally, I don't see why it couldn't happen... just look at what the Church has done with Jesus' original message of peace and love.

And there isn't a one of you here reading this who doesn't get a little bit queasy at the thought of Pox being an atheist pope.

At 11/7/09 05:20 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: pupdog

I will pet him, and stroke him, and call him GEORGE.

:-D

At 11/6/09 10:48 PM, Elfer wrote: You also realize that there's no actual church building, and the only thing that organization does is ordain people as ministers, right?

Where is the First Church of Atheism located?

The FCA is located atop the lush rolling hills of Levittown, Pennsylvania.

Wherever the website is based from, they deem that building to be a Church. So.... *blows a raspberry*

At 11/6/09 10:54 PM, poxpower wrote: Pretty clever. I can't really guess if it's a social commentary or a genuine attempt at making some kind of money.

I think it's a social commentary that will eventually lead to some money making. But I don't think the commentary in this instance is going to be glaringly obvious.

Avowed atheism as it stands today has been around for a couple hundred years, yet it has failed to take hold of the populace at large the same way other religious movements have, mainly because the philosophy relies on individual thought and work instead of a collective effort. What better way to help spread atheism than to get together as a group with a codified body of beliefs, and work together toward a common goal... like a Church denomination.

After all, isn't the common goal of Atheism to see the Church taken out of society and atheism elevated to the same worldwide status that religion holds now? Hardly seems to me like your motives are altruistic if that's the case.

After all...

Can atheism really have a church?

A church is defined as an association of people who share a particular belief system. So yes, a church of atheism can really exist.

What do I have to do to start my own congregation?

Once you become an ordained minister, you can begin preaching to a congregation immediately.

At 11/6/09 09:20 PM, poxpower wrote: But at the end of the day, they're all in the same racket.

You do realize that there is such a thing as Church of Atheism, right?

At 11/6/09 11:22 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Yes I'm bitter & all the Mud Pie in the world can't sweeten the mess governments continue to make.

I've always thought the commercialization of Christmas was a bit over the top, especially in light of how early we put out Christmas stuff where we work. But you raise an excellent point about how all this overshadows Veteran's day.

I helped one of my coworkers load out a hot water heater for a customer the other day, and while talking to the guy, I found out that he was a retired veteran of three wars; WW2, Korea, and Vietnam with 101st Airborne Division. I asked him what business he had being among the living... thanked him for his service to our country... and bid him God Bless. It made his day. :-D

At 11/6/09 08:58 PM, Ravariel wrote: I'm going to hell for thinking that's funny.

The devil's got a 10 pound pineapple with your name on it, bub.

At 11/6/09 11:05 AM, Drakim wrote: Wut, I hadn't even read your post while posting my post. It wasn't addressed to you

What he said was addressed to me in response to those numbers I cited earlier, ergo, I assumed you were making a sarcastic response to what I said.

At 11/6/09 11:11 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Wait a minute...I was positive this was over Weapons of Mass destruction !

*high five*

At 11/6/09 10:08 AM, Ericho wrote: Wait, Iraqi freedom? Wasn't that caused by Muslim extremism? And wasn't it influenced by Christianity? I mean, in the conflict in the Middle East, everyone is always saying that it's the fault of religion.

Really? Here I thought it was fought for oil instead of being fought to overthrow a maniacal dictator who had nothing to do with 9/11. At least that's the line I've heard used on here umpteen million times in the last 6 years.

At 11/6/09 10:10 AM, Drakim wrote: Nothing can ever be blamed on religion ever, it's untouchable.

There's google. Don't like what I wrote? Come up with something to refute it.

At 11/5/09 11:39 PM, poxpower wrote: About as legit as lying to people for money can be.

Which brings me back to my previous point; ludicrous conspiracy, anybody?

At 11/5/09 11:10 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: I hate it when people use religion as a synonym for Christianity. :/

I hate it when people don't have the balls to come out and say which religion they have beef with, attacking the whole group instead of the one offending branch.

At 11/5/09 10:49 PM, poxpower wrote: I didn't say pyramid scheme, I said business.

Oh, so it's legit.

But this is coming from you, so why would I assume for one second you meant a legitimate business venture and not a way to rip people off, as you're whole post implied?

One day you'll understand the cause/effect relationships.

You said atheism doesn't cause any certain behavior.... what's there not to understand? Atheists have no reason to justify their own bad behavior other than their own acerbic personalities, much the same way that religious extremists have no justification for their actions beyond their own delusions of grandeur.

At 11/5/09 09:59 PM, SevenSeize wrote: thats 2 months away!

I've you beat.

When my store opened two years ago, they had all the christmas stuff on the shelves ready for sale... in the middle of September. I don't remember how early we put it out last year, but the Christmas set has already been out in our store now for the last few weeks, right next to the halloween stuff.

At 11/5/09 10:00 PM, poxpower wrote: No one said that.
Any of that.

Ever.

You just did, not even 9 hours ago; last reply on page 1. Want me to post a screen cap of it? Perhaps quote it back to you verbatim? This topic isn't long enough for me to misread something you said pages ago.

Atheism is not the cause of any behavior, good or bad.

Neither is religion, it is merely a justification for a set behavior.

At 11/5/09 07:58 PM, Elfer wrote: Not really, no.

It was an oblique reference to the original subject of this topic; atheist bigotry.

I've never had Mississippi mud pie is the thing, that's why I gave such an odd response. I've heard of it, but I can't say I've ever had it. :-\

I have had peanut butter pie, which basically tastes like a nice big frozen slice of deliciously rich reeses peanut butter, with a graham cracker crust. I've also had million dollar pie with maraschino cherries in it, my dad's favorite. I've also had a chess pie my grandmother used to make that involves 5 cups of brown sugar and a stick or two of butter... so damn sweet it would lock your jaws.

I also owe tony a debt of gratitude; I can't taste the difference between lactose free milk and regular milk. :-D

At 11/5/09 07:03 PM, poxpower wrote: Is science lying to me? To think so implies a LUDICROUS conspiracy on a global scale involving everyone from the lowest college student to the highest Nobel winner...

And implying that all religion is a pyramid scheme isn't a ludicrous conspiracy?

That's why we talk about brainwashing a lot more with religion, because it seeps into every aspect of a person's life. Every day they do something they would otherwise not do because they've been told by someone who doesn't know his dick from his ear that he should do it.

Whereas atheism doesn't encourage you to act in a specific way, right?