Clovis
(Mystical FUG Sage)
07/22/12 10:15 AM
184.153.242.54
Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Is James Holmes an Atheist?

What do we know about him?

1)He loves science.

It's common knowledge that atheists generally place science as the pinnicale of human studies. Does this warrant suspecting Holmes is an atheist. The problem is that those who go into this field do so without a well rounded education. They lack understanding of the other disciplines of knowledge. Hence many scientists become materialists and atheists.

2)He was a Phd candidate in Neuro-science.

An interest in the mind coupled with the materialist bent calls into question free-will and truth. Many who deal with this issues through the atheist paradigm come to unsettling conclusions.

This fact doesn't mean James Holmes was an atheist, but it suggests he struggled with this question, "what is the real meaning of life?" If there is no God...is it all CHAOS?

*He called himself the "Joker" upon his arrest.

This is the point that compels me to think he is an atheist.

I have argued many times before that the "Joker" seen in Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" is someone who takes atheism to it's logical conclusion.

Click the links to see the arguments for this point, which I made some time ago:

Why the "Joker" is a true believing atheist.

Agents of Chaos

Why so serious?

I know the militant atheists like Bob and Pasta will try to change the subject and whine that I want to round up all atheists and place them in camps and claim I'm a Facist.

I'm not and I don't. People must have the freedom to believe what they believe.

However, that freedom doesn't mean their beliefs are free from scrutiny and criticism. The evils of their belief and how those beliefs adversely affect the person and society must be considered in order to help others see atheism is not a rational position, it is the least rational belief a person can hold.

I am convinced atheism is indeed an evil and that its logical outworking is deterimental to the individual and society. History has shown us time and time again that when atheists come into power, they are the most dangerous of people.

Just look at the atheists on this forum, consider how many of them attack theists and try to hurt people emotionally for what they believe.

I believe James Holmes is just one more example of someone seduced by the materialist rheotoric of atheism. He used his intelligence to consider what atheism really means, he looked into the abyss--that is atheism--and went mad, and like the Joker wanted everyone to look into the abyss with him.

That is no Joke.

I'm interested to see how this unfolds. Am I right about Holmes?

We shall see.


Minx
(stranger)
07/22/12 10:29 AM
98.175.167.150
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

12 people are dead and countless others are injured and all you're interested in is proving your trolly little point. Go crawl back under your rock and give these people time to mourn.

True_Bob
(FUGmaster Flash)
07/22/12 10:43 AM
66.87.105.248
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

Is James Holmes an Atheist?

What do we know about him?

1)He loves science.

It's common knowledge that atheists generally place science as the pinnicale of human studies. Does this warrant suspecting Holmes is an atheist. The problem is that those who go into this field do so without a well rounded education. They lack understanding of the other disciplines of knowledge. Hence many scientists become materialists and atheists.

2)He was a Phd candidate in Neuro-science.

An interest in the mind coupled with the materialist bent calls into question free-will and truth. Many who deal with this issues through the atheist paradigm come to unsettling conclusions.

This fact doesn't mean James Holmes was an atheist, but it suggests he struggled with this question, "what is the real meaning of life?" If there is no God...is it all CHAOS?

*He called himself the "Joker" upon his arrest.

This is the point that compels me to think he is an atheist.

I have argued many times before that the "Joker" seen in Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" is someone who takes atheism to it's logical conclusion.

Click the links to see the arguments for this point, which I made some time ago:

Why the "Joker" is a true believing atheist.

Agents of Chaos

Why so serious?

I know the militant atheists like Bob and Pasta will try to change the subject and whine that I want to round up all atheists and place them in camps and claim I'm a Facist.

I'm not and I don't. People must have the freedom to believe what they believe.

However, that freedom doesn't mean their beliefs are free from scrutiny and criticism. The evils of their belief and how those beliefs adversely affect the person and society must be considered in order to help others see atheism is not a rational position, it is the least rational belief a person can hold.

I am convinced atheism is indeed an evil and that its logical outworking is deterimental to the individual and society. History has shown us time and time again that when atheists come into power, they are the most dangerous of people.

Just look at the atheists on this forum, consider how many of them attack theists and try to hurt people emotionally for what they believe.

I believe James Holmes is just one more example of someone seduced by the materialist rheotoric of atheism. He used his intelligence to consider what atheism really means, he looked into the abyss--that is atheism--and went mad, and like the Joker wanted everyone to look into the abyss with him.

That is no Joke.

I'm interested to see how this unfolds. Am I right about Holmes?

We shall see.




Quoted lest you edit this example of what a despicable and desperate lowlife bigot you are. If anyone cares to research multiple homicides in the USA and report on religious affiliations of the perps, dandy. I don't expect it will show a preponderance of atheists, do you, Clovis? Care to wager on the most well represented religion among them? How would your hatelogic deal with the dissonance when you find it's not atheists? Oh right, The Nile.

Unless you make a complete investigation, all you are doing is milking human misery in order to gloat - you are standing atop a pile of dead innocents, gloating. How christ-like.

PS If you were an atheist with the reverse argument and assumptions, you would still be a despicable troll, gloating atop the corpses of innocents. Disgusting, but not too surprising that you can't tell why.


Clovis
(Mystical FUG Sage)
07/22/12 10:59 AM
184.153.242.54
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

12 people are dead and countless others are injured and all you're interested in is proving your trolly little point. Go crawl back under your rock and give these people time to mourn.




Minx, you obviously do not understand how the internet works.

The grieving process of the families of the victims is in no way interrupted by my post.

To suggest otherwise is utterly stupid.


Clovis
(Mystical FUG Sage)
07/22/12 11:18 AM
184.153.242.54
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Why in the world would I want to edit the content of my argument.

Believing Atheism is evil is not bigotry, anymore than believing Nazism is evil, or Communism is evil.

You're just a sucker for ad hominem arguments. Aren't you?

There is absolutely nothing in my post to apologize for. This tragedy is something everyone is concerned about. What caused this tragedy?

I speculate it is atheism.

This tragic event perfectly resonates with what I said last year about the "Joker" being an atheist who followed the logical conclusion of believing there is no God.

I believe this guy, James Holmes, is also an atheist, who came to this conclusion and the "Joker" was a fictional character he could perfectly relate to.

And like the Atheist Joker, he wanted to show "Gotham" that life really has no meaning, he wanted to convert everyone to his world view. He was "sending a message."

You and your fellow atheists love to send messages too about how "stupid" religious beliefs are. Thank God, you guys haven't allowed the atheistic "idea" lead you as far down the garden path as it has led kids like Dylan Klebold and potentially James Holmes.

Atheism is evil. I'm curious to see if Holmes is an atheist.

I'm betting my bottom dollar he is. At the very least, he bought into the atheist worldview as told by the Joker in "the Dark Knight."


Clovis
(Mystical FUG Sage)
07/22/12 11:27 AM
184.153.242.54
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

Unless you make a complete investigation, all you are doing is milking human misery in order to gloat - you are standing atop a pile of dead innocents, gloating.




No, I'm not gloating. I'm trying to capitalize on a point that I believe is of the utmost importance.

People are apathetic about the rise of secularism. I've been warning people of the dangers of atheism. And my point about the "Joker" which I made last year, is now hit home for all of us.

It isn't fiction, it's real. And I believe atheism is a key factor in this.

You better pray to the Magical Life Giving Firecracker that this James Holmes isn't an atheist. Because if he is, you're going to be hearing hearing about it.


senor
(FUG Honcho)
07/22/12 01:34 PM
72.73.16.96
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

1) Articles have said he was heavily involved in the local Presbyterian church.

2) go f.uck yourself.


True_Bob
(FUGmaster Flash)
07/22/12 01:42 PM
66.87.104.165
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

What a fail you are.

I believe that christianity makes people evil.

Anders Breivik.

That's one, responsible for more deaths than your latest fascination.

I believe Seminary makes murderers.

Stalin went to seminary, then he became a murderous despot.

Your logic is not logic, it is hate rationalization.

Also, your "logic" says plenty about you - someone is interested in science, they must be atheist. Obviously you are unhealthily obsessed, and looking for any rationalization to justify the hate that keeps you so warm.

Keep posting, I forget what inhumanity looks like when you're away.


StaffordLarry
(Mystical FUG Sage)
07/22/12 02:12 PM
71.117.31.190
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

crawl back under your rock


edit to cover ass> It just seems so out of character for you.


IndependentBoof
(FUG Addict)
07/22/12 02:37 PM
71.171.34.218
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

I'm not even Atheist, but this post is offensive and I know you can do better than this, Clovis. All you've done is speculated based on gross generalizations and used specious reasoning to come to a conclusion. No, you haven't even used it to come to a conclusion, instead you just tried to validate a conclusion you already believed. It just demonstrates a poor understanding of logic and reason.

Even more so, it is also in quite poor taste that you're trying to capitalize on a tragedy to win some points in your battle against the Atheist boogeyman.


john1315
(stranger)
07/22/12 02:42 PM
71.161.46.50
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?



StaffordLarry
(Mystical FUG Sage)
07/22/12 03:00 PM
71.117.31.190
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Ya gotta read all of it, fer sure.


bbc
(FUGmaster Flash)
07/22/12 07:50 PM
24.254.95.158
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

I have argued many times before that the "Joker" seen in Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" is someone who takes atheism to it's logical conclusion.



Probably it's best if I am the first to tell you of these things you apparently did not know: The Batman series is fiction, and "The Joker" is not a real person who can actually take an idea "to it's [sic] logical conclusion."

Don't feel bad - Dan Quayle made a very similar mistake and he was waaaay smarter than you.


Pastafari
(Super FUG)
07/22/12 08:09 PM
173.72.166.96
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

Is James Holmes an Atheist?

What do we know about him?

1)He loves science.

It's common knowledge that atheists generally place science as the pinnicale of human studies.




So?

Quote:

Does this warrant suspecting Holmes is an atheist.




Maybe. Not that his being an atheist or not makes what's about to follow from you any less stupid.

Quote:

The problem is that those who go into this field do so without a well rounded education.




Citation needed.

Quote:

They lack understanding of the other disciplines of knowledge.




Citation needed.

Quote:

Hence many scientists become materialists and atheists.




There is nothing "well-rounded" about believing in the wrong answers to the questions that scientists investigate day in an day out.

Quote:

2)He was a Phd candidate in Neuro-science.

An interest in the mind coupled with the materialist bent calls into question free-will and truth.




How so?

Quote:

Many who deal with this issues through the atheist paradigm come to unsettling conclusions.




How many? What conclusions? Where are you getting this "information"?

Quote:

This fact doesn't mean James Holmes was an atheist, but it suggests he struggled with this question, "what is the real meaning of life?"




So?

Quote:

If there is no God...is it all CHAOS?




Is it? I think there are no gods, and I don't think it's all chaos. I can't think of any atheists that I know who think it's chaos.

Quote:

*He called himself the "Joker" upon his arrest.

This is the point that compels me to think he is an atheist.




What does his attendance at a Presbyterian church tell you?

Quote:

I have argued many times before that the "Joker" seen in Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" is someone who takes atheism to it's logical conclusion.




Is this your analysis, or someone else's?

Quote:

Click the links to see the arguments for this point, which I made some time ago:

Why the "Joker" is a true believing atheist.

Agents of Chaos

Why so serious?

I know the militant atheists like Bob and Pasta will try to change the subject and whine that I want to round up all atheists and place them in camps and claim I'm a Facist.




Or we could just destroy your argument, like usual.

Quote:

I'm not and I don't.




Not yet, anyway.

Quote:

People must have the freedom to believe what they believe.

However, that freedom doesn't mean their beliefs are free from scrutiny and criticism.




HAA!!!! The irony!!!

Quote:

The evils of their belief and how those beliefs adversely affect the person and society must be considered in order to help others see atheism is not a rational position, it is the least rational belief a person can hold.




OWWWW my sides!! Crackers turning into meat is MUCH more rational than crackers staying crackers.

Quote:

I am convinced atheism is indeed an evil and that its logical outworking is deterimental to the individual and society.




Meanwhile, some of the most socially conscious people these days are atheists...

Quote:

History has shown us time and time again that when atheists come into power, they are the most dangerous of people.




Most dangerous, right behind religious zealots. Zealots whose death tolls were only limited by their day's technology.

Quote:

Just look at the atheists on this forum, consider how many of them attack theists and try to hurt people emotionally for what they believe.




We attack the ideas. Except for you. You haven't earned the respect to not be attacked personally.

Quote:

I believe James Holmes is just one more example of someone seduced by the materialist rheotoric of atheism. He used his intelligence to consider what atheism really means, he looked into the abyss--that is atheism--and went mad, and like the Joker wanted everyone to look into the abyss with him.




Why is not believing in gods any more of an abyss than not believing in the loch ness monster? Neither is real, and I don't see too many people getting bent out of shape about things that are not real.

Quote:

That is no Joke.




Are you sure?

Quote:

I'm interested to see how this unfolds. Am I right about Holmes?




Not likely, but we'll see.

Quote:

We shall see.




Yes, thanks, I already said that.


Pastafari
(Super FUG)
07/22/12 08:10 PM
173.72.166.96
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:


Probably it's best if I am the first to tell you of these things you apparently did not know: The Batman series is fiction, and "The Joker" is not a real person who can actually take an idea "to it's [sic] logical conclusion."





You're talking to a guy who can't differentiate between fiction and non-fiction to begin with.


bbc
(FUGmaster Flash)
07/22/12 08:17 PM
24.254.95.158
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

A most excellent post, sir.

Thank you for reading his in detail and replying - I'm busy having beers right now, so best if I mostly just observe from up here in the peanut gallery.


bbc
(FUGmaster Flash)
07/22/12 08:19 PM
24.254.95.158
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

Quote:


Probably it's best if I am the first to tell you of these things you apparently did not know: The Batman series is fiction, and "The Joker" is not a real person who can actually take an idea "to it's [sic] logical conclusion."





You're talking to a guy who can't differentiate between fiction and non-fiction to begin with.



Hmm, now that you mention it, that could be an impediment for him.
I recall now being advised long ago to avoid giving voice lessons to swine...


bbc
(FUGmaster Flash)
07/22/12 08:34 PM
24.254.95.158
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

Is James Holmes an Atheist?



He described himself as an agnostic.

Huh, "militant agnostic".
Is that some kind of oxymoron?
"I can't make up my mind, but I'm going to kill every mother-[*d`oh!*] who contradicts me!"


Sipowitz
(Mystical FUG Sage)
07/22/12 10:38 PM
72.209.213.198
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Apparently you haven't seen the episode of South Park where Kenny gets sent to an agnostic foster home.

Sipowitz
(Mystical FUG Sage)
07/22/12 10:47 PM
72.209.213.198
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

QR: Seriously, folks. Why do you give this worse-than-troll human scum the attention he wants?

He would commit genocide with the touch of a button given the chance and should not be taken seriously in the least.

Also, if you really want to ding him on this stuff just mention two words: Anders Breivik.


Palehorse
(Mega FUG)
07/23/12 06:15 AM
65.210.63.19
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

The difference between the athesists/agnostics (well, everyone else, really) and you is they know when to show some compassion and common decency.

Even I, a sociopathic, who cannot empathise with how others feel at least will give condolences and respect the feelings of others in times of mourning.

You remind me of the critical gay bashers who, in the end, turn out to be flaming homosexuals themselves. Is that the case with you? Are you really an atheist/agnostic and you're trying to divert the attention away from your feelings with all of this rhetoric and tripe?


True_Bob
(FUGmaster Flash)
07/23/12 06:55 AM
155.178.4.10
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

It is quite likely that he is a trolling self-hating atheist in denial. He denies transubstantiation, thus all divinity of the Christ, so there you go.

Clovis
(Mystical FUG Sage)
07/23/12 11:41 AM
184.153.242.54
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

I believe that christianity makes people evil.

Anders Breivik.




Let's look at the words of Anders:

Quote:

"I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person, as that would be a lie", calls religion a crutch and a source for drawing mental strength, and says "I've always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment"; regarding the term "cultural Christian" which he says means preserving European culture, he notes "It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy...)"[




According to Anders himself "secularism" (atheism) was a serious influence.

You suck at this.


Clovis
(Mystical FUG Sage)
07/23/12 11:49 AM
184.153.242.54
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

Quote:

I have argued many times before that the "Joker" seen in Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" is someone who takes atheism to it's logical conclusion.



Probably it's best if I am the first to tell you of these things you apparently did not know: The Batman series is fiction, and "The Joker" is not a real person who can actually take an idea "to it's [sic] logical conclusion."

Don't feel bad - Dan Quayle made a very similar mistake and he was waaaay smarter than you.




Aristotle states in Poetics

"Art is an imitation of life."

The Joker is a fictional charater who perfectly sums up what the logical outworking of atheism looks like.

Shallow thinks, like yourself, take the belief "there is no God" to justify your unwillingness to accept traditional morals and conventions.

Atheists who really think about the significance of what atheism really often become real life monsters.

I suspect Holmes is just one more.


Clovis
(Mystical FUG Sage)
07/23/12 12:00 PM
184.153.242.54
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

I'm not even Atheist, but this post is offensive




Why are you offended? The religion forum is located in the category called "The Hot Seat."

Quote:

All you've done is speculated




I know that and stated as much, with respect to Holmes.

Quote:

based on gross generalizations and used specious reasoning to come to a conclusion.




What aspects were "gross" and what parts of my reasoning were "specious"?

Quote:

No, you haven't even used it to come to a conclusion, instead you just tried to validate a conclusion you already believed.




What are you referring to?

Quote:

It just demonstrates a poor understanding of logic and reason.




How so?

Quote:

Even more so, it is also in quite poor taste that you're trying to capitalize on a tragedy to win some points in your battle against the Atheist boogeyman.




It's only tastes bad to those who are under the impression atheism is not evil.


Clovis
(Mystical FUG Sage)
07/23/12 12:04 PM
184.153.242.54
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

The difference between the athesists/agnostics (well, everyone else, really) and you is they know when to show some compassion and common decency.

Even I, a sociopathic, who cannot empathise with how others feel at least will give condolences and respect the feelings of others in times of mourning.





What are you talking about?

I've never said anything about you.


True_Bob
(FUGmaster Flash)
07/23/12 12:13 PM
155.178.4.10
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

Quote:

I believe that christianity makes people evil.

Anders Breivik.




Let's look at the words of Anders:

Quote:

"I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person, as that would be a lie", calls religion a crutch and a source for drawing mental strength, and says "I've always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment"; regarding the term "cultural Christian" which he says means preserving European culture, he notes "It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy...)"[




According to Anders himself "secularism" (atheism) was a serious influence.

You suck at this.




You want to talk about suck? Damn you're a glutton.

As you wrote above, "let's look" at what Anders Breivik himself wrote:

Quote:

I consider myself to be 100 percent Christian.




Awsnap! You can never take that away from him, haterboy.

Keep writing about the suck, the irony cracks me up!














PS "secularism" is not the same as atheism. Write about suck some more! Keep showing us what a colossal and hateful idiot you are.


PPS Unlike you, I am not serious, I am merely reversing your moronic arguments to show how vapidly stupid they are - and they are extremely stupid. See, I don't actually believe it was his Christianity that made Breivik go on a killing spree. But you DO believe your equally idiotic thesis.

Also, as has been pointed out, you work from your conclusion - massive logic fail.


True_Bob
(FUGmaster Flash)
07/23/12 12:27 PM
155.178.5.10
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I have argued many times before that the "Joker" seen in Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" is someone who takes atheism to it's logical conclusion.



Probably it's best if I am the first to tell you of these things you apparently did not know: The Batman series is fiction, and "The Joker" is not a real person who can actually take an idea "to it's [sic] logical conclusion."

Don't feel bad - Dan Quayle made a very similar mistake and he was waaaay smarter than you.




Aristotle states in Poetics

"Art is an imitation of life."

The Joker is a fictional charater who perfectly sums up what the logical outworking of atheism looks like.




Proof? Nope, just your hate driven claims. You must be so very lonely. You will even go back to your ridiculous "logic" outworking nonsense (scare quotes because you don't use logic, you predetermine the desired outcome and create a string of stupidity that you think is logic. But it isn't, it's an example of bad logic.). But your "logical" outworking is demonstrably wrong. It's the same sort of logic I could apply to show why every christian thinks killing is good (but it's so damned stupid, I would be embarassed to post it as if I believed it. Thankfully you are not embarassed by your stupidity.).

Quote:

Shallow thinks, like yourself, take the belief "there is no God" to justify your unwillingness to accept traditional morals and conventions.




So wrong. Traditional morals and conventions do not all rely on god beliefsduh. Man, do they let you up and about without your helmet on? They shouldn't, that would be neglect.

Quote:

Atheists who really think about the significance of what atheism really often become real life monsters.




You have supporting data? How often is "often"? I know the answer - whenever you say it does. You have no data, just confidently ignorant bigotry. You really are making yourself look stupider here. Keep posting!

Quote:

I suspect Holmes is just one more.




Well, you "suspect" him to be atheist based on outrageously loose and specious reasoning (especially in the face of his Presbyterianism). I didn't expect you to make yourself look stupider still, but you have.

/Slow clap


Sipowitz
(Mystical FUG Sage)
07/23/12 01:14 PM
140.147.233.105
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

If you haven't, you should read Breivik's manifest.

Seems to make the exact same arguments using the exact same "logic" as our pal here on certain social issues. Hmmmm, I wonder if they're giving him access to a computer over there. I hear he has his own cell block and forced friends.


peabody
(Super FUG)
07/23/12 04:14 PM
65.38.93.2
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

QR: Just when I thought clovis had posted the ultimate in hate and ignorance, he comes on here and tops himself.

All I can say is: If there was a god, he would immediately send clovis to the deepest pit of hell for bastardizing his works.


IndependentBoof
(FUG Addict)
07/23/12 08:13 PM
108.15.214.247
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

Why are you offended? The religion forum is located in the category called "The Hot Seat."




It is offensive not because of its content, but its context. You are using a tragedy to try to levy an argument (and not really a relevant argument at that). It would even be in poor taste if someone tried to capitalize on the tragedy to make an argument for or against gun control -- and that argument is at least somewhat relevant. Just a couple days ago, a dozen people were murdered by a stranger and instead of showing respect to those lost, you saw it as an opportunity to gain some points for your ideology. Do you see why that might reflect badly on you?

It actually reminds me of a conversation I had a few weeks ago from a friend of mine. I hadn't seen him in years, but he was a good friend in college and he shared very similar political and religious ideologies as you do (from what I know about you both). However, he expressed how he was coming to an epiphany from his experience with a church he attended for years. As he put it, he was feeling disillusioned because "it seems like they are only concerned about peoples' souls, and not the people themselves."

The sentiment seems to be reflected in your argument as well. There was a tragedy which should as a society bring us together to mourn, support their friends and families, and show respect for their loss. Instead, you immediately took advantage to be divisive and try to score religious points.

That is what bothers me most -- it is a sort of disrespect that makes the Westboro Baptist Church and politicians who try to capitalize on tragedy so infamous.

However, your argument is also very weak. It is based on speculation, which is never a good way to start an argument. If your premise is ill-supported and very possibly false, an alarm should go off in your head that says, "I don't have much of an argument if this is what I'm depending on."

In this case, I hope it has served as an opportunity for you to learn that lesson. As it turns out, your speculation (that the serial killer was an atheist just because of his occupation) was wrong. To the contrary, he actively participated in church. As a result, your whole argument crumbles because you made this irresponsible speculation.

Your assumptions didn't end there. Your whole argument used ill-supported assumption on top of ill-supported assumption. Doing so is "specious reasoning" as I put it before. Even if I ignored the distaste in your capitalizing on tragedy, your argument is just plain-out weak... and it turns out, quickly debunked.


Pastafari
(Super FUG)
07/23/12 08:22 PM
173.72.166.96
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:



The Joker is a fictional charater who perfectly sums up what the logical outworking of atheism looks like.




Maybe that's what your logic tells you about atheism, but there are plenty of thinks[sic] who are much smarter than you who don't find that to be "the" logical outworking of atheism at all.

Quote:

Shallow thinks, like yourself, take the belief "there is no God" to justify your unwillingness to accept traditional morals and conventions.




Which tradition? Only recent ones, in your mind. Meanwhile, the "traditional morals and conventions" that you would hold everyone to are themselves evolutions of prior traditional morals and conventions. Do you know why? Because morals change.

Quote:

Atheists who really think about the significance of what atheism really often become real life monsters.




How often? How do you know what they're thinking? Or are you talking out of your ass again?

Quote:

I suspect Holmes is just one more.




So what? Even if he is an atheist, that does absolutely NOTHING to prove that your god or any other is real. Your explanation for the way the world works is just as wrong no matter what Holmes was.


silverspoon
(FUG Professional)
07/24/12 12:33 AM
71.63.22.123
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Clovis logic:



Pastafari
(Super FUG)
07/26/12 09:33 PM
173.72.166.96
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

The stupid is spreading...



Look familiar?


bbc
(FUGmaster Flash)
07/26/12 10:49 PM
24.254.95.158
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and proclaim that that article is slightly less stupid than what Clovis wrote. Why? Because they wrote less.

True_Bob
(FUGmaster Flash)
07/27/12 05:51 AM
66.87.87.230
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Proof that haters will hate. Data point for Teh Stupid being contageous.

Clovis
(Mystical FUG Sage)
07/28/12 12:12 AM
74.110.194.15
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

I'd like to start by addressing the most pertinent point in your posts

Quote:

In this case, I hope it has served as an opportunity for you to learn that lesson. As it turns out, your speculation (that the serial killer was an atheist just because of his occupation) was wrong. To the contrary, he actively participated in church. As a result, your whole argument crumbles because you made this irresponsible speculation.




Actually, as it turns out my speculation was spot on:

Holmes' admission that he is an atheist (at least according to the defintion provided by True_bob and Pasta)

Verification

(and no I didn't think he was an atheist simply because he was a PHd candidate in neuroscience--that was just one of the indicators.)

My argument still stands on solid ground. Yours however? Well, let just say it languishes. The curious thing for me is what's your angle? What do you believe? Are you religious? Agnostic?

The reason I asks is because you said:

Quote:

It actually reminds me of a conversation I had a few weeks ago from a friend of mine. I hadn't seen him in years, but he was a good friend in college and he shared very similar political and religious ideologies as you do (from what I know about you both).




Do you have a dog in this fight? I get the impression that you do. Don't get me wrong. I hold you in high regard. You're generally a pretty thoughtful fellow. However, I get the impression that you're a bit left leaning and not very religious. Is this correct?

I say this because you say:

Quote:

However, he expressed how he was coming to an epiphany from his experience with a church he attended for years. As he put it, he was feeling disillusioned because "it seems like they are only concerned about peoples' souls, and not the people themselves."




What does this even mean? Do you think your friend's experience of his specific "Church" or my comments in this forum define the concerns of religion and Churches in general?

When you consider all the hospitals, orhanages, universities, colleges, high schools and elementary schools run by Catholic organizations your comments are dubious at best.

Perhaps you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder? I don't know maybe you don't want this discussion to meander on to your issues. I can appreciate that. Perhaps you ought to consider that and stop talking about ME and address the arguments I've made.

Seriously you have gone to great lengths to construct a juicy Red Herring:

Quote:

It is offensive not because of its content, but its context. You are using a tragedy to try to levy an argument (and not really a relevant argument at that).




I agree context matters, I just wish that you would have considered that I made these comments in the context of aforum, where people go to address issues.. My comments made in the context of a forum are not out of place. Why? Well, because I'm angry about this tragedy and I think atheism is part of the problem.

I genuinely believe that and have good reasons for holding this position. You may disagree. But if you want me to consider your reasons you need to address my arguments with something of substance. Thus far you have less than nothing and have lost some credibility.

In fact, your entire argument is essentially predicated upon mere matters of taste. You say:

Quote:

It would even be in poor taste if someone tried to capitalize on the tragedy to make an argument for or against gun control -- and that argument is at least somewhat relevant.




De_gustibus_non_est_disputandum

The irony is that you use the tragedy to try to stifle my argument. If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is. And the worst thing is that you resort to ridiculous hyperbole:

Quote:

That is what bothers me most -- it is a sort of disrespect that makes the Westboro Baptist Church and politicians who try to capitalize on tragedy so infamous.




You can do better than this.


True_Bob
(FUGmaster Flash)
07/28/12 07:13 AM
24.227.213.162
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist? No evidence.

Is he the atheist you imagined him to be in your OP? Well, let's see what your source says:

Quote:

Faith: Agnostic




OH SNAP! That's the stand that one Clovis T Moron has been touting as the most rational position. It pretty much sinks your impetuously stupid atheist-hater's theory, but instead of taking this new information and incorporating it, you insist on lying about it, and calling him an atheist when he doesn't even meet your definition of atheist. In fact, you rely on a militant, long term, deep-thinking atheist, having had the time to embrace atheism and "look into the abyss". OH SNAP! An agnostic doesn't do that - an agnostic hasn't chosen a side, as you know and like to lecture - when it suits you.

So why would you lie about his agnosticism? To preserve your pride in this bigoted idea of yours? It's not like lying about it is going to save you any embarassment. And, while you grievously distort this datum, you pointedly ignore some other new datum.

Is there anything you won't lie about, you Good and True Christian you? So far, the answer is "No, Clovis will lie about anything at all". Have you no conscience? This wasn't even Lying for the Lord (it's not just for Mormons anymore!), it was lying for Clovis' pride. For shame.


About that new datum: what do you have to say about this: Holmes was being treated by a specialist in schizophrenia. Irrelevant, it's all the rumored atheism, eh? Not affecting your theory about his actions and motivations? Damn but you could write THE DIY book on fail.

So, how do you explain the Good Christian (so like you) Anders Breivik? He could not have been influenced by any death-dealing agnosticism. What made him murder all those people? His good Christianity?

What a simply awful human being you are. There may have been a good reason that book of yours says not to judge others...not that you obey those rules, you big old liar you.


PS Damn, it's as if people are more complicated than you imagine. A schizophrenic going on a murderous rampage? UNHEARD OF! It must be that atheism he doesn't have.

PPS You are the guy they invented the word 'phuquetard*' for.

PPPS You have a lot of folks to apologize to so far - atheists, Presbyterians, agnostics, and perhaps murderous schizophrenics. Keep posting, it keeps being revelatory. What a hateful and plain stupid** person you are.


*I am impressed that the filter killed the properly spelled version.

**Stupid because you thought nobody would check into this latest lie, stupid because you keep doubling down for pride when it's more and more obvious what a fail this hate-based theory of yours is. But I have faith that you will not let it go - because cutting your losses would be sensible, and you are being stupid. Those roads don't intersect.


True_Bob
(FUGmaster Flash)
07/28/12 07:30 AM
24.227.213.162
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

If your "theory" is sound, you can find other ways to prove it without ghoulishly piling on this slaughter. In fact, if your "theory" is sound, you need other evidence to show it - because a single incident is an anecdoteduh, a point sampleduh, not evidenceduh.
What you need is statistical support via data.
Which, of course, you cannot find.
And you cannot find it because your "theory" is based only on your personal bigotry (as evinced by your reliance on lies to push and maintain your "theory") and is unsupported by actual evidence.

Don't you remember how science works? You have to adjust your "theory*" when new evidence arises.

But instead you adjust the evidence.

That's called "lying". For shame.







*FYI, yours is not a scientific theory. That is a relatively precise phrase, and your hate-driven ideation does not meet the criteria. What you've provided is an ignorant statement of bigoted belief, not a theory. Please, moron, post some more on the subject!


Pastafari
(Super FUG)
07/28/12 08:09 AM
173.72.166.96
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?



Clovis
(Mystical FUG Sage)
07/28/12 10:35 AM
74.110.194.15
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist? No evidence.

Quote:

OH SNAP! That's the stand that one Clovis T Moron has been touting as the most rational position. It pretty much sinks your impetuously stupid atheist-hater's theory, but instead of taking this new information and incorporating it, you insist on lying about it, and calling him an atheist when he doesn't even meet your definition of atheist. In fact, you rely on a militant, long term, deep-thinking atheist, having had the time to embrace atheism and "look into the abyss". OH SNAP! An agnostic doesn't do that - an agnostic hasn't chosen a side, as you know and like to lecture - when it suits you.




It is true that at one time I held that agnosticism is the only purely rational position. I don't believe that any more.

As for Holmes posting on a dating site that he was agnostic, is there any reason that he would want to hide that he was actually an atheist? Yes there is and you and Pasta have provided those reasons.

1) It is general knowledge that atheism is considered by many to be evil and people don't trust atheists.

2) Either you or Pasta said that agnostics were just atheists without spines.

3) You went so far as to start calling yourself agnostic--in an attempt to distance yourself from the negative connotations that accompany the term "atheist".

I suspect that since Holmes was looking for "luv" on Match.com, he decided to label himself "agnostic" for the very same reason you did here at Fredtalk. He didn't want the negative connotation of atheism to scare girls away.

This point is supported by what you or Pasta said, agnostics are just closet atheists. he was likely just an atheist in the closet, calling himself agnostic--in this case--for "luv."

That said, you and Pasta (two militant atheists) have provided very good reasons to hold that James Holmes was indeed an atheist.


Clovis
(Mystical FUG Sage)
07/28/12 10:42 AM
74.110.194.15
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist? No evidence.

Quote:

So why would you lie about his agnosticism? To preserve your pride in this bigoted idea of yours? It's not like lying about it is going to save you any embarassment. And, while you grievously distort this datum, you pointedly ignore some other new datum.

Is there anything you won't lie about, you Good and True Christian you? So far, the answer is "No, Clovis will lie about anything at all". Have you no conscience? This wasn't even Lying for the Lord (it's not just for Mormons anymore!), it was lying for Clovis' pride. For shame. [-




Your ad hominems won't work. I cited my source and qualified my statement that according to YOUR definition, James Holmes IS an atheist.

You're just pissed that I'm hanging you with your own rope.


Pastafari
(Super FUG)
07/28/12 11:47 AM
173.72.166.96
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist? No evidence.

Quote:

Quote:

OH SNAP! That's the stand that one Clovis T Moron has been touting as the most rational position. It pretty much sinks your impetuously stupid atheist-hater's theory, but instead of taking this new information and incorporating it, you insist on lying about it, and calling him an atheist when he doesn't even meet your definition of atheist. In fact, you rely on a militant, long term, deep-thinking atheist, having had the time to embrace atheism and "look into the abyss". OH SNAP! An agnostic doesn't do that - an agnostic hasn't chosen a side, as you know and like to lecture - when it suits you.




It is true that at one time I held that agnosticism is the only purely rational position. I don't believe that any more.




Why not?

Quote:

As for Holmes posting on a dating site that he was agnostic, is there any reason that he would want to hide that he was actually an atheist?




Is there any evidence that he "was actually an atheist"?

Quote:

Yes there is and you and Pasta have provided those reasons.

1) It is general knowledge that atheism is considered by many to be evil and people don't trust atheists.




That is true, though the consideration itself is false. Still doesn't mean that Holmes was a atheist. Occam's razor would suggest that he was agnostic Presbyterian.

Quote:

2) Either you or Pasta said that agnostics were just atheists without spines.




Citation needed.

Quote:

3) You went so far as to start calling yourself agnostic--in an attempt to distance yourself from the negative connotations that accompany the term "atheist".




The false negative connotations, you mean.

Quote:

I suspect that since Holmes was looking for "luv" on Match.com, he decided to label himself "agnostic" for the very same reason you did here at Fredtalk. He didn't want the negative connotation of atheism to scare girls away.




Or, he was agnostic.

Quote:

This point is supported by what you or Pasta said, agnostics are just closet atheists. he was likely just an atheist in the closet, calling himself agnostic--in this case--for "luv."




Speculation being all that you have, you have nothing.

Quote:

That said, you and Pasta (two militant atheists) have provided very good reasons to hold that James Holmes was indeed an atheist.




We have not at all. The only one who can tell anyone whether James Holmes was an atheist is James Holmes. Until he says that he's an atheist (and he might very well say it one day, I don't know), all you can do is speculate and in so doing, make yourself look foolish.

Further, it STILL doesn't matter if he was an atheist, a Presbyterian, a Buddhist, the Joker, or a martian.


True_Bob
(FUGmaster Flash)
07/28/12 11:48 AM
66.87.102.127
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist? No evidence.

If it were my half assed "theory", my definition would apply. It isn't, so it doesn't. As you first declared, he has to be an abyss-viewing atheist. You have nothing to support that - the most reasonable conclusion (so this will be news to you) is that the Presbyterian Holmes was having doubts about his faith, but had made no committment - but reasonable doesn't comport with your hate ideation.

It's your scatterbrained hate ideation, support it - with data, not an anecdote that you lard up with ASSumptions. Good luck, because you'll need it.

If an agnostic were to be looking for love, how would they describe their faith? You continue to "adapt" the evidence to fit your hate ideation. That is still a stupid approach.

You continue to paint scraps as though they were hard evidence. What you don't actually have is proof that Holmes is atheist, proof that that bears responsibility for any of his murderous actions, and statistically sound data showing that Holmes is not an anomaly. Show us what you got - more fail.

Thanks for posting some more, you keep showing what a pathetic grasp of logic, evidence, and human behavior you base your hate on. Post some more, flesh out that picture of how rock stupid you are.


True_Bob
(FUGmaster Flash)
07/28/12 11:53 AM
66.87.102.127
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist? No evidence.

I described myself as agnostic in relatio to the harm of public nudity etc, and I taunted you (yes, taunted!) to convince me. You instantly bailed and showed us a lot about ad hominem attacksduh.

So are you agnostic about Ba'al, or atheistic?


Clovis
(Mystical FUG Sage)
07/28/12 01:38 PM
74.110.194.15
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist? No evidence.

Quote:

If it were my half assed "theory", my definition would apply. It isn't, so it doesn't. As you first declared, he has to be an abyss-viewing atheist. You have nothing to support that - the most reasonable conclusion (so this will be news to you) is that the Presbyterian Holmes was having doubts about his faith, but had made no committment - but reasonable doesn't comport with your hate ideation.

It's your scatterbrained hate ideation, support it - with data, not an anecdote that you lard up with ASSumptions. Good luck, because you'll need it.

If an agnostic were to be looking for love, how would they describe their faith? You continue to "adapt" the evidence to fit your hate ideation. That is still a stupid approach.

You continue to paint scraps as though they were hard evidence. What you don't actually have is proof that Holmes is atheist, proof that that bears responsibility for any of his murderous actions, and statistically sound data showing that Holmes is not an anomaly. Show us what you got - more fail.

Thanks for posting some more, you keep showing what a pathetic grasp of logic, evidence, and human behavior you base your hate on. Post some more, flesh out that picture of how rock stupid you are.




Sorry, Bob you can't escape from all the crap you said about what agnostics actually are. The fact's are here for all to see:

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You have worked very hard to fold agnostics into atheism. You're right. They are much more like you.

I believe James Holmes' issues stem from atheism.


Clovis
(Mystical FUG Sage)
07/28/12 01:47 PM
74.110.194.15
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist? No evidence.

Quote:

I described myself as agnostic in relatio to the harm of public nudity etc, and I taunted you (yes, taunted!) to convince me. You instantly bailed and showed us a lot about ad hominem attacksduh.

So are you agnostic about Ba'al, or atheistic?




Guess who said this:

Quote:

PS Tell me again what atheists believe. Atheist is about what is not believed; agnostic is, no matter how you want to twist it, explicitly about availability of knowledge, and not about belief.




According to what you say, by declaring himself agnostic, Holmes was declaring himself an atheist.

Own it Bobo.


True_Bob
(FUGmaster Flash)
07/28/12 02:03 PM
66.87.102.1
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist? No evidence.

Quote:

Quote:

I described myself as agnostic in relatio to the harm of public nudity etc, and I taunted you (yes, taunted!) to convince me. You instantly bailed and showed us a lot about ad hominem attacksduh.

So are you agnostic about Ba'al, or atheistic?




Guess who said this:

Quote:

PS Tell me again what atheists believe. Atheist is about what is not believed; agnostic is, no matter how you want to twist it, explicitly about availability of knowledge, and not about belief.




According to what you say, by declaring himself agnostic, Holmes was declaring himself an atheist.




Does it take any effort on your part to so misinterpret, or are you really that much an idiot? Since he only cmmented on his perspective on availability of knowledge, he revealed nothing about his beliefs - except we all know about his prior Presbyterian bent.

Quote:

Own it Bobo.




You obviously have a poor grasp of the difference between knowledge and belief. Thanks, I knew you could reveal some more of your stupid.

You just keep on adjusting the evidence, faithhead. It undermines your claim to any intellect.


BTW, where is all the statistical data that supports your claim? Oh yeah, still nonexistent. Anecdotes and point samples cannot support a theory. You are still a very very long way from data and theory. Keep posting, I'm sure you have more stupid to share.

And which are you wrt Ba'al? You are atheist wrt Ba'al. And every other god ever invented. With one minor exception.


bbc
(FUGmaster Flash)
07/28/12 11:12 PM
75.136.228.245
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

I'd like to start by addressing the most pertinent point in your posts

Quote:

In this case, I hope it has served as an opportunity for you to learn that lesson. As it turns out, your speculation (that the serial killer was an atheist just because of his occupation) was wrong. To the contrary, he actively participated in church. As a result, your whole argument crumbles because you made this irresponsible speculation.




Actually, as it turns out my speculation was spot on:

Holmes' admission that he is an atheist (at least according to the defintion provided by True_bob and Pasta)

Verification

(and no I didn't think he was an atheist simply because he was a PHd candidate in neuroscience--that was just one of the indicators.)

My argument still stands on solid ground.



The predicate of your argument - speculation that he was an atheist - was shown to be incorrect.
He described himself as an agnostic.
Now you have lied about that, and hope nobody will even notice, nor call you out for being a liar?
You are a liar and you are an idiot and you are a troll.


Clovis
(Mystical FUG Sage)
07/29/12 12:50 AM
74.110.194.15
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

Quote:

I'd like to start by addressing the most pertinent point in your posts

Quote:

In this case, I hope it has served as an opportunity for you to learn that lesson. As it turns out, your speculation (that the serial killer was an atheist just because of his occupation) was wrong. To the contrary, he actively participated in church. As a result, your whole argument crumbles because you made this irresponsible speculation.




Actually, as it turns out my speculation was spot on:

Holmes' admission that he is an atheist (at least according to the defintion provided by True_bob and Pasta)

Verification

(and no I didn't think he was an atheist simply because he was a PHd candidate in neuroscience--that was just one of the indicators.)

My argument still stands on solid ground.



The predicate of your argument - speculation that he was an atheist - was shown to be incorrect.
He described himself as an agnostic.
Now you have lied about that, and hope nobody will even notice, nor call you out for being a liar?
You are a liar and you are an idiot and you are a troll.




Based on the comments of your fellow atheists True_bob and Pastafari, there is more than sufficent reason to believe he labeled himself an agnostic, when in fact he was an atheist.

Pasta and Bob have said that most agnostics are just closet atheists. And many atheists call themselves agnostics to shield themselves from the bad mojo that goes along with being an atheist.

That said, you suck at this.


True_Bob
(FUGmaster Flash)
07/29/12 06:33 AM
24.227.213.162
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I'd like to start by addressing the most pertinent point in your posts

Quote:

In this case, I hope it has served as an opportunity for you to learn that lesson. As it turns out, your speculation (that the serial killer was an atheist just because of his occupation) was wrong. To the contrary, he actively participated in church. As a result, your whole argument crumbles because you made this irresponsible speculation.




Actually, as it turns out my speculation was spot on:

Holmes' admission that he is an atheist (at least according to the defintion provided by True_bob and Pasta)

Verification

(and no I didn't think he was an atheist simply because he was a PHd candidate in neuroscience--that was just one of the indicators.)

My argument still stands on solid ground.



The predicate of your argument - speculation that he was an atheist - was shown to be incorrect.
He described himself as an agnostic.
Now you have lied about that, and hope nobody will even notice, nor call you out for being a liar?
You are a liar and you are an idiot and you are a troll.




Based on the comments of your fellow atheists True_bob and Pastafari, there is more than sufficent reason to believe he labeled himself an agnostic, when in fact he was an atheist.




No, there isn't. We, like you, don't know Holmes, and what Holmes has written would be honest for an agnostic (I would consider it incomplete, but not dishonest.But when it doesn't fit your need, you instantly know he's a liar? Projection...). Remember, it was your requirement that the killer be a dyed in the wool atheist, having looked into the abyss blah blah blah. What you claim as evidence isn't even close. What a small person you are.

You just can't stand to see holes in your bigotry, and there are plenty (I hope you're feeling the dissonance). Like the fact that you ignore he was under treatment for mental health. That datum MUST affect your "theory" on his motivations, but you instead ignore that and alter what new data you see, to prevent changes in your hate ideation. And thank you for that - it's an important reminder to humanity that ignorant and bigotred relics like you still exist and they will twist facts and lie to maintain their comfortable bigotry. Sucks to be you, in this ever-changing world. Adapt or die.

Quote:

Pasta and Bob have said that most agnostics are just closet atheists. And many atheists call themselves agnostics to shield themselves from the bad mojo that goes along with being an atheist.




You don't get to use us as expert sources if you pick and choose when in our expert field we are experts. Seriously, are you even trying? Keep trying to have it both ways - it shows what a liar and fool you are, and that is richly entertaining.

BTW, the "Bad Mojo" that comes from being atheist is not related to atheism, but comes directly from bigotry. From people who cannot tolerate differences, like you. I am very confident that you would have been dead set against Loving v Virginia - too much change, change that benefits subhumans.

Quote:

That said, you suck at this.




Keep writing about the suck.

You need, in order to maintain your "theory", PROOF that Holmes is atheist.
You don't have that, you have your bigoted conjecture (How would an agnostic Presbyterian describe their faith? Answer: Agnostic.).

You need PROOF that his atheism led to his actions.
You hysterically ignore the recent factual information about his mental health as you distort what you do find about his faith.

You need PROOF that Holmes was not an anomaly, which means you need statistically supported data.
You don't have that, either, because your "theory" is based in bigotry and hatred, not in reality.

So all that remains is your bigoted ideation, which you defend by lying.

Now, I'm going off topic for the nonce:
Clovis, if you are going to pretend to be a christian on a religion forum, you ought to at least learn and pretend to obey the christian philosophies. FYI, under christianity, lying is right out, but you rely on lies constantly (and getting closer to 'exclusively' in this case). Ergo, you Clovis are not a christian.
Not a True Christian, at least.



You might want to put the shovel down, this is about the deepest hole you've dug yet.


Pastafari
(Super FUG)
07/29/12 07:03 AM
173.72.166.96
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I'd like to start by addressing the most pertinent point in your posts

Quote:

In this case, I hope it has served as an opportunity for you to learn that lesson. As it turns out, your speculation (that the serial killer was an atheist just because of his occupation) was wrong. To the contrary, he actively participated in church. As a result, your whole argument crumbles because you made this irresponsible speculation.




Actually, as it turns out my speculation was spot on:

Holmes' admission that he is an atheist (at least according to the defintion provided by True_bob and Pasta)

Verification

(and no I didn't think he was an atheist simply because he was a PHd candidate in neuroscience--that was just one of the indicators.)

My argument still stands on solid ground.



The predicate of your argument - speculation that he was an atheist - was shown to be incorrect.
He described himself as an agnostic.
Now you have lied about that, and hope nobody will even notice, nor call you out for being a liar?
You are a liar and you are an idiot and you are a troll.




Based on the comments of your fellow atheists True_bob and Pastafari, there is more than sufficent reason to believe he labeled himself an agnostic, when in fact he was an atheist.

Pasta and Bob have said that most agnostics are just closet atheists. And many atheists call themselves agnostics to shield themselves from the bad mojo that goes along with being an atheist.

That said, you suck at this.




We've also said that many atheists also call themselves religious, for the same reasons. So, using your logic, we can claim anyone we want to as an atheist, can't we? William Lane Craig? He's an atheist, he's just hiding it. Ken Ham? Total self-hating atheist. (Try as I might, I really could not think of one notably religious person that I would want to claim as a rational thinker...)

Hell, why not claim ALL religious people are just hiding their atheism? Guess what, Clovis.... you're an atheist now. You were just hiding it all along. Your denial of transubstantiation was just our most recent clue.


True_Bob
(FUGmaster Flash)
07/29/12 07:10 AM
24.227.213.162
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?



+1


bbc
(FUGmaster Flash)
07/29/12 08:40 AM
75.136.228.245
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

According to your own logic, you are a closet atheist, hiding behind a charade of Roman Catholicism.
Go ahead and deny it. According to your logic your denials just furnish us with more proof that you are desperately trying to hide your atheism.

(The truly scary part is that this could all be spot on...)


True_Bob
(FUGmaster Flash)
07/29/12 08:54 AM
24.227.213.162
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Oh yeah, by the way, since we all know how much you despise logical fallacies...

And this, too.


True_Bob
(FUGmaster Flash)
07/29/12 09:05 AM
24.227.213.162
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

You never know what a troll actually believes.

senor
(FUG Honcho)
07/29/12 10:43 AM
72.73.16.96
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?



Clovis
(Mystical FUG Sage)
07/29/12 12:46 PM
74.110.194.15
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

No, there isn't. We, like you, don't know Holmes, and what Holmes has written would be honest for an agnostic (I would consider it incomplete, but not dishonest.But when it doesn't fit your need, you instantly know he's a liar? Projection...). Remember, it was your requirement that the killer be a dyed in the wool atheist, having looked into the abyss blah blah blah.




Some words when spoken, cant be taken back. Based on your own admission, there is very good reason to believe he was an atheist.

I've cited you. I'm comfortable people reading your vitriol will see for themselves that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Typical of a militant atheist.


Pastafari
(Super FUG)
07/29/12 01:10 PM
173.72.166.96
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

Quote:

No, there isn't. We, like you, don't know Holmes, and what Holmes has written would be honest for an agnostic (I would consider it incomplete, but not dishonest.But when it doesn't fit your need, you instantly know he's a liar? Projection...). Remember, it was your requirement that the killer be a dyed in the wool atheist, having looked into the abyss blah blah blah.




Some words when spoken, cant be taken back. Based on your own admission, there is very good reason to believe he was an atheist.

I've cited you. I'm comfortable people reading your vitriol will see for themselves that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Typical of a militant atheist.






Pastafari
(Super FUG)
07/29/12 05:00 PM
173.72.166.96
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:






Also,



Since we're making irrelevant connections related to this story...


True_Bob
(FUGmaster Flash)
07/29/12 06:02 PM
66.87.101.64
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

You should be examining what you have and what you are missing. Here's what you are missing:

Proof that Holmes was atheist. Your twisting of the evidence results in Clovis being a very militant atheist indeed, so you should reconsider (but you won't, 'cause you're so darned stupid!).

Proof that Holmes was not influenced in his actions by anything except his supposed atheism. Fail already because his mental condition is key to his actions, and he was under the care of a mental health professional.

Proof (after proving the above 2) that his actions are not anomalous. That needs the statistically supported data you will never find.

Your fallacy supports my (intentionally as stupid as your OP) assertions about christians (Breivik) and seminary (Stalin). It's funny that you can't see the fail in your OP, it's the same fail I made (the difference being I knew it was fail before I posted. You stepped on your crank in post 1 and haven't figured out that digging deeper isn't going to fill your hole.

Again, and still, the only things supporting you are your bigotry, hatred, and ignorance. But that's to be expected from a militant atheist like you.


IndependentBoof
(FUG Addict)
07/31/12 11:10 PM
108.15.214.247
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

Actually, as it turns out my speculation was spot on:

Holmes' admission that he is an atheist (at least according to the defintion provided by True_bob and Pasta)

Verification




Quite to the contrary. Both of your links suggest that he had a dating website account that listed him as "Agnostic." Out of curiosity, I went to the website to see what the choice looked like:


True enough, Athiest is an option and he chose not to select it (assuming that the profile was genuinely his). Others in this thread might be interested that he also didn't identify himself as Christian either, despite the several different variations of Christianity available.

Basing someone's belief system on a label is pretty shallow, but we don't have much information about him. Let's review what little we know:
- He grew up in a Christian household
- He was active at a Christian church
- Acquaintances described him as a "Good, Christian boy."
- He helped at a Jewish camp
- He identified himself as "Agnostic" on a dating website

You made the assumption about him being an atheist before we even knew any of these things. You're now still assuming he is despite that several things we've found out suggest that he wasn't atheist. That is your first (and I'd say most significant) problem -- but I'll address that more later.

Your second major error is now trying to equate Agnosticism with Atheism. They're not the same. In fact, they're not even addressing the same concept. Gnosis describes someone's personal, spiritual experience. In short, an Agnostic does not have first-hand experience that demonstrates an existence of God to him. This contrasts with a Gnostic who has experienced a personal, spiritual "enlightenment," if you will.

On the other hand, Atheism contrasts with Theism. Former describes a lack of faith and the latter describes faith in a deity. An Agnostic could actually be either an atheist (not having experience and therefore not believing) or theist (not having experience but still maintaining belief) or perhaps something in between. Perhaps you've heard of Christian Agnosticism.

This point is starting to digress, but all it has really illustrated is that
(1) once again you're making assumptions
(2) you are coming to conclusions before knowing facts, and then grasping for disparate information to try to justify your conclusion.

The latter is a trend I've witnessed in numerous of your threads. It worries me because it is an intellectually disingenuous method. Your style of argument might have flown in the 1600's but after the Age of Enlightenment, we favor reason and scientific process. Using reason, you should first examine the facts and then make conclusions based founded on those facts, paired with logic. Instead, what you are doing is making a hunch and then searching for how to support it, while dismissing any facts that might cast a shadow of doubt (or outright disprove) your hunch. Do you see the danger in this backwards process?

Quote:

My argument still stands on solid ground. Yours however? Well, let just say it languishes.




I think you must be confusing me with someone else. I have made no argument for why James Holmes massacred people he didn't even know. Want to know why I think he did? Well, I don't know. I don't know much about him. However, from what I know, it seemed like his life was in shambles: he dropped out of grad school, was getting evicted from his home since it was only for students, and he sought out psychiatric services. Based on what we know about him I certainly can't come to any conclusions. It seems to me as though he was a troubled guy and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a combination of factors that lead him to "snap". It would be hasty to make any conclusions at the moment.

Quote:

The curious thing for me is what's your angle? What do you believe? Are you religious? Agnostic?




My angle is that as an objective third party, you are taking the wrong approach to coming to any conclusions and your argument heavily relies on speculation which makes it quite specious.

Quote:

Do you have a dog in this fight? I get the impression that you do.




I do my best to consider arguments objectively for their merits. This is true for all arguments regardless of topic. I try to critically analyze arguments as an independent (hence the pseudonym) whether we're discussing religion, politics, science, or anything else. In short: no, I don't have a "dog in this fight." But that is irrelevant of my personal faith. Even if Mr. Holmes and I shared some common categorization, I know his actions do not represent me nor my beliefs so I don't need to defend myself. That would be true even I went to the church that he attended. It would also be true if I identified myself as any other self-labels he chose.

If you are really that interested in my personal faith, I'll let you know next time I'm in town and we can discuss it over tea. Another one of my friends once said, "Religion and politics are better discussed than labelled" and I concur.

Quote:

Quote:

However, he expressed how he was coming to an epiphany from his experience with a church he attended for years. As he put it, he was feeling disillusioned because "it seems like they are only concerned about peoples' souls, and not the people themselves."




What does this even mean? Do you think your friend's experience of his specific "Church" or my comments in this forum define the concerns of religion and Churches in general?




That is not the message I was trying to convey. Heck, you don't have to preach the positives that have come out of religions to me. I appreciate and acknowledge what they've done (both good and bad). I even got my Masters from a Catholic university.

To the contrary, I was not attacking your religious affiliation at all. My point addressed the major reason I joined in this discussion. Honestly, I don't participate in Fredtalk very much any more because it seems to have just developed a schism where all the two sides do is mock each other, call names, and provoke fights... well, that and I've been busy. There is very little constructive, respectful argument on Fredtalk any more.

The reason I replied to your thread is not because I really care much about the persistent fight you and the local atheists wage; rather, I replied because it was offensive. You posted shortly after a dozen people were killed. We still know very little about the killer, but knew even less then. Instead of demonstrating compassion for those mourning over a tragedy, you seized on the moment to point the finger at your opposition. Frankly, it disgusts me.

It sickens me the same way it does when both NRA and Gun Control advocates try to capitalize on a tragedy to push their agenda. Your case is just as bad... perhaps worse. While we know guns were involved, we don't know if religion (or lack thereof) had any part. Apart from any debate of relevancy, either argument is just in poor taste. That was the most significant point I've been trying to make.

I was trying to convey that my friend was disillusioned because people at his church (according to him) seemed overly concerned about others' beliefs, why they needed saving, and so forth; meanwhile, they seemed to be neglecting the second greatest commandment: loving their neighbors. That is, actually caring for them and not just their beliefs. This thread struck me as a similar sentiment. You are absorbed with condemning atheists -- speculating and finding whatever ways you can to blame atheism and categorizing "them" as "the problem." You capitalize on a tragedy to champion this point.

Meanwhile, you seem to be neglecting (or at least neglect showing) sympathy, respect, and compassion for those who lost their lives and for those mourning for them. In response to a tragedy, I'd hope we all (regardless of our beliefs) could come together and share in this compassion for our neighbors. I'd expect this even more so from those who profess to follow Jesus, who taught us to love our neighbors. Let's show some love and not try to score cheap political points off a tragedy.

Edited to clarify some wording


bbc
(FUGmaster Flash)
08/01/12 09:38 AM
75.136.228.245
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

I heard that his rampage was caused by him not getting enough tail.

Clovis
(Mystical FUG Sage)
08/22/12 08:33 AM
71.176.208.168
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

Quote:

Actually, as it turns out my speculation was spot on:

Holmes' admission that he is an atheist (at least according to the defintion provided by True_bob and Pasta)

Verification




Quite to the contrary. Both of your links suggest that he had a dating website account that listed him as "Agnostic." Out of curiosity, I went to the website to see what the choice looked like:




Yes I saw this too. What you don't know is that True_Bob and Pastafari have insisted in the past that agnostics are the same as atheists.


Quote:

True enough, Athiest is an option and he chose not to select it (assuming that the profile was genuinely his). Others in this thread might be interested that he also didn't identify himself as Christian either, despite the several different variations of Christianity available.




The problem with your analysis is you ignore the human variable of deceit. On a dating website this is very common. People typically put themselves in the best light possible. They describe themselves as thinner, taller, and generally more appealing overall. Now, It's common knowledge that atheism is not popular. Because of obnoxious behavior of militant atheists, like True_Bob and Pasta. A kid looking for chicks may very well rationalize describing himself as agnostic in order to cast a broader net.

Quote:

Basing someone's belief system on a label is pretty shallow, but we don't have much information about him. Let's review what little we know:
- He grew up in a Christian household
- He was active at a Christian church
- Acquaintances described him as a "Good, Christian boy."
- He helped at a Jewish camp
- He identified himself as "Agnostic" on a dating website

You made the assumption about him being an atheist before we even knew any of these things.




You forget the biggest peice of data, after shooting all of those people in the DKR movie, he said, "I am the Joker." If you haven't seen the Dark Knight, you probably won't understand why I surmised this kid was an atheist.

The reason I made such a big deal of this is that over a year ago I explained why the character of the Joker is a perfect example of the logical outworking of atheistic thought in action. Then, bam, we have James Holmes, shooting up people without rhythm or reason and calling himself, "the Joker."

Quote:

You're now still assuming he is despite that several things we've found out suggest that he wasn't atheist. That is your first (and I'd say most significant) problem -- but I'll address that more later.




Also sometime ago Pastafari and True_Bob defined atheism so that it included agnostics. Now you and I both know this to be different. I just thought this was an opportunity for them to take ownership of their shoddy definition. So according to their definition I am correct. According to our definition, the fact remains to be seen; however I suspect he actually is an atheist, but I admit I could be wrong. But I don't think I am and have solid reasons for this.

Quote:

Your second major error is now trying to equate Agnosticism with Atheism. They're not the same. In fact, they're not even addressing the same concept. Gnosis describes someone's personal, spiritual experience. In short, an Agnostic does not have first-hand experience that demonstrates an existence of God to him. This contrasts with a Gnostic who has experienced a personal, spiritual "enlightenment," if you will. On the other hand, Atheism contrasts with Theism. Former describes a lack of faith and the latter describes faith in a deity. An Agnostic could actually be either an atheist (not having experience and therefore not believing) or theist (not having experience but still maintaining belief) or perhaps something in between. Perhaps you've heard of Christian Agnosticism.




I know that, you know that, but many of the militant atheists here and abroad do not. So, I say, let the suffer their sins of misdefining terms.


Quote:

This point is starting to digress, but all it has really illustrated is that
(1) once again you're making assumptions
Quote:





IB I prefer theory. And yes, I granted in the OP it was speculative. As I said, the reason I brought this up was based on my comments over a year ago about the character "the Joker" in the movie The Dark Knight" because IMO that character was a perfect example of the logical outworking of atheism.

Then along comes James Holmes who said, "I am the Joker" after shooting all those people in the movie theater where they showed "the Dark Knight Rises."

Based on James Holmes comments "I am the Joker" his actions, and my knowledge of that character "the Joker," I surmised James Holmes was an atheist, because the Joker is an atheist. And truth be told, according to True_Bob and Pasta's definition of atheist, Holmes is an atheist.

So I was right, at least according to the definition given by our resident militant atheist. (They are free to change their definition, which would greatly please me. As it would move them one step closer to the truth.)

For people like us who recognize the distinction between agnostics and atheists, this speculation is certainly questionable, I grant that. But my hypothesis is certainly reasonable. You have done NOTHING to undermine it.


Quote:

The latter is a trend I've witnessed in numerous of your threads. It worries me because it is an intellectually disingenuous method. Your style of argument might have flown in the 1600's but after the Age of Enlightenment, we favor reason and scientific process. Using reason, you should first examine the facts and then make conclusions based founded on those facts, paired with logic. Instead, what you are doing is making a hunch and then searching for how to support it, while dismissing any facts that might cast a shadow of doubt (or outright disprove) your hunch. Do you see the danger in this backwards process?




I see you using a strawman argument and I know the dangers of that! Your comment is truly disingenuous. You don't think reason was used before the Enlightenment? Guess what, the Scientific Method was product of Francis Bacon , who by the way championed
inductive reasoning, which you apparently think medieval (it isn't). You are guilty of chronological snobbery.

Quote:

Quote:

My argument still stands on solid ground. Yours however? Well, let just say it languishes.




I think you must be confusing me with someone else. I have made no argument for why James Holmes massacred people he didn't even know.




No, I gave reasons why I think Holmes is an atheist. You argued (badly) my point wasn't solid.

Quote:

Want to know why I think he did?




No.

Quote:

Quote:

The curious thing for me is what's your angle? What do you believe? Are you religious? Agnostic?




My angle is that as an objective third party, you are taking the wrong approach to coming to any conclusions and your argument heavily relies on speculation which makes it quite specious.




I said it was speculative in the OP, which means I could very well be incorrect. What's your point? You just wanted to reemphasis what was already stated?

Quote:

Quote:

Do you have a dog in this fight? I get the impression that you do.




I do my best to consider arguments objectively for their merits. This is true for all arguments regardless of topic. I try to critically analyze arguments as an independent (hence the pseudonym) whether we're discussing religion, politics, science, or anything else. In short: no, I don't have a "dog in this fight." But that is irrelevant of my personal faith. Even if Mr. Holmes and I shared some common categorization, I know his actions do not represent me nor my beliefs so I don't need to defend myself. That would be true even I went to the church that he attended. It would also be true if I identified myself as any other self-labels he chose.

If you are really that interested in my personal faith, I'll let you know next time I'm in town and we can discuss it over tea. Another one of my friends once said, "Religion and politics are better discussed than labelled" and I concur.




In other words, no comment. Fair enough.


Quote:

To the contrary, I was not attacking your religious affiliation at all. My point addressed the major reason I joined in this discussion. Honestly, I don't participate in Fredtalk very much any more because it seems to have just developed a schism where all the two sides do is mock each other, call names, and provoke fights... well, that and I've been busy. There is very little constructive, respectful argument on Fredtalk any more.




I agree with you. It is a reflection of the rise of fundamentalism on all sides.

Quote:

The reason I replied to your thread is not because I really care much about the persistent fight you and the local atheists wage; rather, I replied because it was offensive. You posted shortly after a dozen people were killed. We still know very little about the killer, but knew even less then. Instead of demonstrating compassion for those mourning over a tragedy, you seized on the moment to point the finger at your opposition. Frankly, it disgusts me.

It sickens me the same way it does when both NRA and Gun Control advocates try to capitalize on a tragedy to push their agenda. Your case is just as bad... perhaps worse. While we know guns were involved, we don't know if religion (or lack thereof) had any part. Apart from any debate of relevancy, either argument is just in poor taste. That was the most significant point I've been trying to make.

I was trying to convey that my friend was disillusioned because people at his church (according to him) seemed overly concerned about others' beliefs, why they needed saving, and so forth; meanwhile, they seemed to be neglecting the second greatest commandment: loving their neighbors. That is, actually caring for them and not just their beliefs. This thread struck me as a similar sentiment. You are absorbed with condemning atheists -- speculating and finding whatever ways you can to blame atheism and categorizing "them" as "the problem." You capitalize on a tragedy to champion this point.

Meanwhile, you seem to be neglecting (or at least neglect showing) sympathy, respect, and compassion for those who lost their lives and for those mourning for them. In response to a tragedy, I'd hope we all (regardless of our beliefs) could come together and share in this compassion for our neighbors. I'd expect this even more so from those who profess to follow Jesus, who taught us to love our neighbors. Let's show some love and not try to score cheap political points off a tragedy.

Edited to clarify some wording




It is to your credit to try to encourage compassion. But frankly, it was misplaced. Your response to my OP here sounded more of an emotional appeal to support your weak criticism of my argument.

This is a forum halfway across the country and not a funeral parlor where the mourners are likely to gather. Like I said, the point of my OP was tied to a point I made some time ago. When I saw what he said, I was eager to tie it in to what I previously argued. There is no lack of compassion for the victims and their families.

I challenge you to show where I've condemned people simply for being atheists. This is another strawman. Sure, I think atheism is an egregious misjudgment, but I don't believe it makes all atheists militant a-holes. I'm "absorbed" with subjecting the New Atheists to their own medicine. There is a war (of words) going on and I believe it's worth fighting because we have seen what happens to nations that become influenced by atheism. It isn't good and that is a fact.


Pastafari
(Super FUG)
08/22/12 08:51 AM
173.72.166.96
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Go back and fix that.

True_Bob
(FUGmaster Flash)
08/22/12 09:13 AM
155.178.4.10
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

Go back and fix that.




He's too broken inside to know what to fix.


Clovis, you are proving the point against you. You planned a targeted destination, and you ignore all countering information. For example, you have yet to weigh in on Holmes' mental health issues. They must bear on his motivation (and again, atheism is not a motivator any more than disbelief in the tooth fairy is a motivator - there's no reward for "compliance" with the atheist "dogma" - since there isn't one), and yet are conspicuously absent from your consideration.
His mental state is absent from your consideration.
His mental state is absent from your consideration.
His mental state is absent from your consideration.
And you claim to be looking for his motivation. Could you be more phony?

It's just like your lame "logical outcome" nonsense. Every last time, you have preselected the outcome, you tailor the inputs and process to ensure that outcome, and have the stupidity to think your claim is logically sound. You are proving how poorly your argument is constructed, again.




Keep on posting, keep on bigoting, and we know you by your True Christian love, you big old hater you.


True_Bob
(FUGmaster Flash)
08/22/12 09:21 AM
155.178.5.10
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Agnostic has to do with knowledge and ability to obtain it. I have told you that before.

Atheist means not having god beliefs. There is a lot of disagreement among atheists as to modifiers, and you for one are uniquely unqualified to speak about atheists and their thoughts, moods, attitudes, motives, etc. You have proven previously what a sorry understanding of atheists you have, and how uninterested you are in fixing your ignorance.

PS How can you live as such a hypocrite? You acknowledge that agnostics span the breadth of belief, but argue based on your intentional misinterpretation of Holmes' self-claimed faith, with the lamest excuse that he must be lying. Really? Well, then you must be lying. Why? Human deceit. I just don't understand how you can look yourself in the mirror, knowing how deeply dishonest you are. But then, you are a troll, and perhaps you've accepted that as a troll, honesty is sacrificed for the sake of turmoil.


Edit to add

PPS Are you truly so stupid that you do not understand my secret atheist of the day series?


Pastafari
(Super FUG)
08/23/12 10:41 PM
173.72.166.96
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Uh, Francis Bacon was an atheist. Duh.

Clovis
(Mystical FUG Sage)
08/23/12 10:58 PM
71.176.208.168
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

Uh, Francis Bacon was an atheist. Duh.




The words of Sir Francis Bacon "On Atheism"

Quote:

I HAD rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind. And therefore, God never wrought miracle, to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it. It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth manís mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth menís minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity. Nay, even that school which is most accused of atheism doth most demonstrate religion; that is, the school of Leucippus and Democritus and Epicurus. For it is a thousand times more credible, that four mutable elements, and one immutable fifth essence, duly and eternally placed, need no God, than that an army of infinite small portions, or seeds unplaced, should have produced this order and beauty, without a divine marshal. The Scripture saith, The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God; it is not said, The fool hath thought in his heart; so as he rather saith it, by rote to himself, as that he would have, than that he can thoroughly believe it, or be persuaded of it. For none deny, there is a God, but those, for whom it maketh that there were no God. It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip, than in the heart of man, than by this; that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted in it, within themselves, and would be glad to be strengthened, by the consent of others. Nay more, you shall have atheists strive to get disciples, as it fareth with other sects. And, which is most of all, you shall have of them, that will suffer for atheism, and not recant; whereas if they did truly think, that there were no such thing as God, why should they trouble themselves? Epicurus is charged, that he did but dissemble for his creditís sake, when he affirmed there were blessed natures, but such as enjoyed themselves, without having respect to the government of the world. Wherein they say he did temporize; though in secret, he thought there was no God. But certainly he is traduced; for his words are noble and divine: Non deos vulgi negare profanum; sed vulgi opiniones diis applicare profanum. Plato could have said no more. And although he had the confidence, to deny the administration, he had not the power, to deny the nature. The Indians of the West, have names for their particular gods, though they have no name for God: as if the heathens should have had the names Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, etc., but not the word Deus; which shows that even those barbarous people have the notion, though they have not the latitude and extent of it. So that against atheists, the very savages take part, with the very subtlest philosophers. The contemplative atheist is rare: a Diagoras, a Bion, a Lucian perhaps, and some others; and yet they seem to be more than they are; for that all that impugn a received religion, or superstition, are by the adverse part branded with the name of atheists. But the great atheists, indeed are hypocrites; which are ever handling holy things, but without feeling; so as they must needs be cauterized in the end. The causes of atheism are: divisions in religion, if they be many; for any one main division, addeth zeal to both sides; but many divisions introduce atheism. Another is, scandal of priests; when it is come to that which St. Bernard saith, non est jam dicere, ut populus sic sacerdos; quia nec sic populus ut sacerdos. A third is, custom of profane scoffing in holy matters; which doth, by little and little, deface the reverence of religion. And lastly, learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow menís minds to religion. They that deny a God, destroy manís nobility; for certainly man is of kin to the beasts, by his body; and, if he be not of kin to God, by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature. It destroys likewise magnanimity, and the raising of human nature; for take an example of a dog, and mark what a generosity and courage he will put on, when he finds himself maintained by a man; who to him is instead of a God, or melior natura; which courage is manifestly such, as that creature, without that confidence of a better nature than his own, could never attain. So man, when he resteth and assureth himself, upon divine protection and favor, gathered a force and faith, which human nature in itself could not obtain. Therefore, as atheism is in all respects hateful, so in this, that it depriveth human nature of the means to exalt itself, above human frailty. As it is in particular persons, so it is in nations. Never was there such a state for magnanimity as Rome. Of this state hear what Cicero saith: Quam volumus licet, patres conscripti, nos amemus, tamen nec numero Hispanos, nec robore Gallos, nec calliditate Poenos, nec artibus Graecos, nec denique hoc ipso hujus gentis et terrae domestico nativoque sensu Italos ipsos et Latinos; sed pietate, ac religione, atque hac una sapientia, quod deorum immortalium numine omnia regi gubernarique perspeximus, omnes gentes nationesque superavimus.




Once again, Pastafari, you have shown yourself to be an absolute dotard. "Duh" indeed. LOLZ


Pastafari
(Super FUG)
08/23/12 11:00 PM
173.72.166.96
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

He was a secret atheist, duh. Haven't you been paying attention?

Clovis
(Mystical FUG Sage)
08/23/12 11:04 PM
71.176.208.168
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

He was a secret atheist, duh. Haven't you been paying attention?




Pay? Why? Your comments aren't worth spit.


True_Bob
(FUGmaster Flash)
08/24/12 05:43 AM
66.87.143.53
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

Quote:

He was a secret atheist, duh. Haven't you been paying attention?




Pay? Why? Your comments aren't worth spit.




Not nearly as valuable as your hate derived theories. They provide a priceless service, by reminding us that immature, superstitious hate mongers like you, unaffected by exposure to reality, still afflict humanity with their irrationality.

Keep on posting, haterboy. Show us some more of your medieval thinking. Show us the genius of your pseudo-logic exercises.


Clovis
(Mystical FUG Sage)
08/24/12 07:12 AM
71.176.208.168
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

He was a secret atheist, duh. Haven't you been paying attention?




Pay? Why? Your comments aren't worth spit.




Not nearly as valuable as your hate derived theories. They provide a priceless service, by reminding us that immature, superstitious hate mongers like you, unaffected by exposure to reality, still afflict humanity with their irrationality.

Keep on posting, haterboy. Show us some more of your medieval thinking. Show us the genius of your pseudo-logic exercises.




LOLZ!!!! Says the militant atheist who regularly spews anti-religious vitriol in a RELIGION forum.

Love the irony Bob!


Clovis
(Mystical FUG Sage)
08/24/12 07:41 AM
71.176.208.168
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

By the way Bob, did you know that the largest act of terrorism in this country was also committed by one that you consider "one of ours?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jun/11/mcveigh.usa4


True_Bob
(FUGmaster Flash)
08/24/12 08:14 AM
66.87.100.36
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Agnostic is what you declared the most rational position. McVeigh is one of Clovis' most rational people.

McVeigh had declared his motives for his bombing. Look it up. There was no religious component, but he did consider his afterlife possibilities. Not too atheistic, IMO.

PS McVeigh was not involved in 9/11. Important adjective you missed, fool.

PPS Thanks for posting, you continue to serve as a warning to modern humankind.


True_Bob
(FUGmaster Flash)
08/24/12 08:26 AM
66.87.100.36
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

He was a secret atheist, duh. Haven't you been paying attention?




Pay? Why? Your comments aren't worth spit.




Not nearly as valuable as your hate derived theories. They provide a priceless service, by reminding us that immature, superstitious hate mongers like you, unaffected by exposure to reality, still afflict humanity with their irrationality.

Keep on posting, haterboy. Show us some more of your medieval thinking. Show us the genius of your pseudo-logic exercises.




LOLZ!!!! Says the militant atheist who regularly spews anti-religious vitriol in a RELIGION forum.

Love the irony Bob!




Point avoided, eh?

PS I am anti-hatred, anti-bigotry, anti-theocracy, anti-persecution, and surely anti- many other heinous things. I am not anti-religion. Just keep it to yourself, don't try to force your religion into secular law, and don't be an irrational hater hiding behind phony piety, and we're cool. But you can't stop using your faith as cover for your very public hatred, and since you advertise your irrational bigotry in a public discussion, I will respond to reveal the bigotry you ensconce yourself in.

Just because I despise you and your use of religion to justify your irrational hatred doesn't make me anti-religion. Religion isn't the problem - it's human actions, and despicable you have already used faith to justify atrocity. Dash those baby skulls in, Good Israelites, sorry if slaughtering babies is stressful to you.

Keep posting, you're on a roll of stupid.


bbc
(FUGmaster Flash)
08/25/12 10:49 PM
98.101.223.99
Re: Was the Batman Killer an Atheist?!?

I suspect Clovis actually is a pederast, but I admit I could be wrong. But I don't think I am and have solid reasons for this.


E-Mail the FredTalk Admins | Privacy statement (Site Rules and User Agreement) Go to fredericksburg.com

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5



Fredericksburg.com, 616 Amelia Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401
Copyright 2013, The Free Lance-Star Publishing Co. of Fredericksburg, Va.