Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

Comment #256799 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 29, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Al,
We got any local perverts you want me to condemn?

Comment #256794 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 29, 2008 at 2:13 pm

I see sin. Absolute sin has a root cause, yeah? That'd be the Devil.

Once you've got yourself a devil then you've got yourself a god.

103. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256781 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 29, 2008 at 2:00 pm

As Styrer said on another thread, "You're a long time dead" and so he urged people not to sit on the fence. So I won't.

Fanusi clearly hasn't made much effort to cover his tracks, which may show how honest he is. However, it's just as likely that he expected to have been caught out by now. He's probably surprised he's not been called on this before now. Hence the melodramatic statement about not being able to post on this site. For which my assumption is that as long as he doesn't come out with any of that nicedoggy shit on this site then he'll be allowed to continue commenting here. But as to how his words are taken? Well, visting sites like that definitely says something about Fanusi. So any future comments will be treated like those of people like Joe Moreale. Not words of reason, but simply the hateful search for anyone and anything that will oppose a Muslim presence. Fanusi is too comfortable with religious fundamentalists, as long as those fundamentalists oppose Islam.

I oppose Islam. I don't want Sharia law here. I don't want any more mosques and I don't want any more faith schools (for any faith).

If I say something extreme then I hope someone opposes me in a sensible argument. But Fanusi should rightly be told that his position is not one of reason, but one of hate. The person he pretends to be here is not actually the person he pretends to be on the other sites. He is simply seeing whether he can collect more hearts and minds for the holy war.

I appreciate that some people don't want to over-react to what we are finding out about Fanusi. I appreciate that people want an informed Fanusi-style input to keep people on their toes about the dangers of Islam. But I cannot believe that people don't see some of Fanusi's tacit agreement with what is happening on that site. And "no" I'm not going to make a special visit to that site to tell them what I think. And that doesn't make me the same!

104. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256532 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 29, 2008 at 8:02 am

Titania,
I'd stopped visiting this thread, but today I'm glad I did. For now I'll restrict myself to saying, "Fascinating!"

105. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255219 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 27, 2008 at 4:10 am

Styrer, yup that's all it was. I'll just keep lurking for now. Cheers.

106. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255212 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 27, 2008 at 3:38 am

Styrer

I've only just woken to this set of comments, so I couldn't post earlier. But also, I'm not sure I would have got involved. It's the same circle I've seen us all go around on nearly every topic Fanusi comments on.

I agree with you on a couple of things. I want Fanusi's input and I'd want him on my side. I agree that there's something very dangerous out there and people acting within Islam can be extremely nasty. I say hit 'em, hit 'em hard. But the "hit" I want is the full force of a legal system to not-tolerate and to give these people life sentences.

If asked to kill. I won't do it. I can't do it.

[edit - dunno where the word naive came from, so I changed it]

107. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254941 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 26, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Thanks Hawt
Very kind of you to say. I did start my comments on this thread, rather cowardly, by saying I really wasn't sure what my thoughts were, other than I wasn't totally comfortable with it, so without any other certainty I'll defend women's rights to have abortions within the current legal restrictions.
I'm afraid I'm still unsure, but it's been interesting to hear what others on this site have said.

108. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254907 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 26, 2008 at 11:39 am

Mitchell

Strange question. My answer is that I would throw up at the thought of being somehow forced to do either. And then once I had done one of them then I am quite sure that it will have been a life-changing experience, and one that will probably lead to me taking my own life within 10 years.

109. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254904 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 26, 2008 at 11:33 am

hawt4dawk

No, I'm not pushing any "hot" button. I was just about to apologise because I had reacted to the later comments and had not had read the earlier one from you. My bad!

110. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254884 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 26, 2008 at 11:05 am

Hawt4dawk
When did this become a Eugenics site? We've moved on from primitive rights for existence. I don't know what level of deformity we're discussing right now, but the people at the para-olympics seemed ok to me.

111. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254879 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 26, 2008 at 10:58 am

698. Comment #254856 by Sciros on September 26, 2008 at 10:25 am

So you are saying that you disagree with the idea of deciding whether something is ethical based on the physical/emotional response it elicits. "It's evil because it makes me gag." Something like that, right? And the reason you disagree with that idea is that one can reach some... questionable conclusions if the premises are simply those physical/emotional responses

Strangely enough, I already understood this, and had started to respond in my post "379. Comment #253929"

It's very easy to argue that something horrible should be done, but when you have to do it yourself - well, it focuses the mind a bit more on whether it's a good thing to do or not.

Some would argue that it was correct for Haig to order soldiers "over the top" in World War I, but if the generals had to do it themselves once in a while ... well they may still have done it, but they may have thought more carefully about this little cost-benefit exercise and given the alternatives a bit more of their attention. If you had to perfom an abortion yourself you might think harder about what stage in the pregnancy it is ethical to terminate. It occurs to me that, for Mitchell, this is all a bit too theoretical. It's too easy to say that it would be easy to get rid of damaged baby-type-thing after full term because it might (althought it's difficult to tell how much yet) cause the parents a lot of hassle. If I were in Logicel's shoes I'd like to imagine that I would do the right and helpful thing for the mother, but as you get closer to full term you've got to start wondering whether it's the right thing to do. You've really got to wonder when you're getting close to the "murder" line.

112. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254855 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 26, 2008 at 10:20 am

Mitchell
I accept the point that it's not just that you're saying I don't understand - it could simply be that I don't understand.

What's worrying me is that if I say that this is your point you'll probably come back and inform me that I've misunderstood.

113. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254836 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 26, 2008 at 9:41 am

Mitchell

This is what was said early on:

I'd support the termination of fully formed infants with sufficiently handicapping mental or physical malformations. Whether they can feel pain or not

We could have discussed this point more sensitively and intelligently, but you wanted to pull me up for misunderstanding you, for misrepresenting you, and for not understanding the words in your vocabulary. I've seen you use this technique when challenging others. You might be correct to pull some people up on this, but I don't think it applied to my comments. I hope I can illustrate this.

I asked if you could actually do it. I used the word "knife", but changed this later to "could you be the one that pushes the button that removes the existence of a handicapped/malformed baby-type-thing?"

You said:
"I only care about things that have personage ... I doubt I could bring myself to even touch a slimy new born at all, I'm quite squeamish, you see. Though I couldn't bring the knife down and make the first incision in a life saving operation either, but I don't think that means the operation should not be had ... Whether someone is physical affected by an act or not is irrelevant to its ethicality"

I still don't think my summary of your argument was wrong. This was my summary: "You said it's someone else's job and the fact you didn't wanna do it didn't mean the job shouldn't be done" i.e. it may well be that the job should be done because it's worth doing, because it has some value, because it's ethical. You responded, "That was not my argument. I remember now why I stopped responding to you before". I think this was harsh, unfair and incorrect.

You also pointed out that there was something "knee-jerk" surrounding this area. You said, "ending the malformed infants life causes far less pain and suffering than letting it grow up, and be a burden on its family. I find it knee-jerk, and emotional to just want to let it live regardless of everyone involved". Part of my response started with something of Brave New World , 'What type of human are you? An alpha or beta? How much suffering have you and I caused to people around us? It's not knee-jerk to suggest that afflicted life be given a chance to live beyond birth. Now someone who says, "Be gone with this monstrosity!" and turns his back whilst the doctors carry out their orders - well, that might be a little knee-jerk'

You then asked me to look up what knee-jerk means. I have looked it up. This is one definition: "reacting spontaneousely in the expected manner". My imagined dis-compassionate leader, turning his back and flicking his hand in the expected manner was descriptive of a knee-jerk response. Now you could have pointed out that I didn't understand your comment, 'The ol` "I know you are but what am I" come back doesn't always work', because I really didn't have a clue what that was about.

So, rather than discussing the topic, we have instead discussed my lack of intellect and my wilful deception!

Right. Now we can get down to business. Remember everyone, this is the point that Mitchell has asked me to discuss. It doesn't have much to do with abortion.

You ask, "Does it matter if a person would personally take the action demanded of others? Does one person's reluctance to do it have any bearing on whether it is ethical to do?". You say no. I say that it does matter in certain circumstances. If I can't clean up someone else's defecation, then it's still plausible that others will do it, and I'm thankful for those people that do (probably for low pay). However, when a soldier is told to kill another human simply because they are not on the same team, when a young-woman glamour model is asked to perform with many partners on-screen, when an audience is asked to watch a public execution. All these things can impact on those taking part, doing more than turning the stomach, but changing their viewpoint about others and changing their values for life. Tell me Mitchell, would you regularly subject a group of nine-year olds to hard-core pornography involving defecation and bestiality? Would you also subject them to public executions?

If you can lay off the "you've ignored my point" and the "you don't understand", then perhaps you might find that you can bear speaking with me. Otherwise, lets forget it. Move on. Speak to someone else.

114. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254748 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 26, 2008 at 7:11 am

Oh, just quickly, before I continue with anything particularly sensible. Now I remember why I thought you were a complete idiot. Look up idiot in the dictionary.
(Shit - this Mitchell technique is brilliant)

115. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254744 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 26, 2008 at 7:08 am

Mitchell

First of all. You're an anarchist. I didn't specify what type of anarchist you were. I couldn't remember what type you were, so I didn't specify precisely what you were. And then you told me that you weren't an anarchist and then you told me exactly what type of anarchist you were. Will you get over yourself.

More to follow.

116. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254733 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 26, 2008 at 6:53 am

Hey Brian
I wasn't arguing for the foetus there either. However, the discussion was related to abortion and Catholics, and people not wanting to give referrals. I find it difficult to say too much about abortion because I'm never going to have one myself, but Logicel gave an interesting story. She took part in the real thing and has a viewpoint. From what I gather, she's not a doctor, so she didn't have to do it. And when involved in a particularly messy job she carried on even though she wasn't the senior person on the team.

Logicel. I'm going to repeat myself. Respect.

117. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254704 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 26, 2008 at 5:54 am

607. Comment #254666 by Logicel on September 26, 2008 at 4:35 am

I just wanted to applaud your thoughtful comment, including the link you posted with it. You've actually been there. You've genuinely walked the walk, and even found it difficult at times. I'm humbled.

(I did find myself agreeing at times with that Jesus guy. I'll have to re-read the posts)

118. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254034 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 25, 2008 at 7:22 am

Shit. I've just realised what a bastard AtheistJon is. I urge everyone not to read anything he says! He's just spoilt the end of Brokeback Mountain for me ;-)

119. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253999 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 25, 2008 at 5:34 am

Post your comments Titania. We'll wait. And anyway, you don't want to do any real work today ;-) I know I don't!

120. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253945 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 25, 2008 at 4:29 am

Sorry Laurie. One last post then I'll give it up.

Mitchell, I've seen you post both intelligently and sensitively in the past, but just lately you seem to argument a point that isn't there and always conclude that "that's not what I said", and "you conveniently ignored what I said".

From what I've seen I suspect that you're a lot more caring about your own and other people's existence than you're letting on. I do think that if you were personally, emotionally involved in an incident then you would think twice about your decision, in the same way that at the moment I would recoil from abortion right now, but would probably change my mind if involved in a particular set of circumstances.

Of course none of the above has any relevance to anything you or I have said earlier, so I'll just go back to my lunch and keep watching as you attempt to savage other people you've not met and who've hardly said more than hello to you.

121. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253931 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 25, 2008 at 4:06 am

Laurie
Fair point. Sorry. Carry on everyone.

122. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253929 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 25, 2008 at 4:02 am

Mitchell,
I didn't ignore. You said it's someone else's job and the fact you didn't wanna do it didn't mean the job shouldn't be done. It's very easy to argue that something horrible should be done, but when you have to do it yourself - well, it focuses the mind a bit more on whether it's a good thing to do or not. Retarded and malformed people are all around. And they have meaningful relationships with each other, with their carers and others. Which leads me to my next (related) question. What type of human are you? An alpha or beta? How much suffering have you and I caused to people around us? It's not knee-jerk to suggest that afflicted life be given a chance to live beyond birth. Now someone who says, "Be gone with this monstrosity!" and turns his back whilst the doctors carry out their orders - well, that might be a little knee-jerk.

123. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253919 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 25, 2008 at 3:20 am

epeeist,
Oh no! I felt inadequate before, but now I realise I really shouldn't be here :-(

124. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253916 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 25, 2008 at 3:18 am

Mitchell
I think "Whether someone is physical affected by an act or not" is relevant to this article. Especially when you were suggesting it was ok to terminate a full term human-type, whether they feel pain or not. Doctors may feel just as squeamish as some others on this point, but you'd just say, "That's your job, get on with it," but you're not prepared to take that action yourself.

I can't help feeling that some amount of empathy and compassion is an important human trait, to be cherished and encouraged.

125. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253914 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 25, 2008 at 3:06 am

Vaal, I agree with you on the euthanasia thing. I even agree that suicide in general should not be frowned upon so negatively. It's not cowardice to walk away from a wretched existence. Better if the person could be persuaded otherwise, but people should be able to come to their own conclusion that a life is not worth living.

126. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253911 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 25, 2008 at 3:02 am

Somebody else must have posted something related to this, but just in case, did anyone see the Catholic school refusing to administer the cervical cancer vaccine on their premises?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7634979.stm

127. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253905 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 25, 2008 at 2:50 am

I'd be squeamish , but I think, if I had to, I could kill the animal I eat. But could you be the one that pushes the button that removes the existence of a handicapped/malformed baby-type-thing.
Edit - fixed "squeemish"

128. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253904 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 25, 2008 at 2:47 am

Ok I remove the word "knife". But could "you" do it. I mean "really". Be honest. Could you?

129. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253900 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 25, 2008 at 2:42 am

I know I'm gonna get my head kicked in for daring to comment on this. In all honesty, I'm not totally sure where I stand on the abortion debate. I'll defend women's rights to have abortions within the current legal restrictions, but I'm really not totally comfortable with the idea. When does a life become a life? I'm happy to accept that a small number of cells isn't life ... but ... aborting at 20 weeks ... I just don't know? And if I'm the one constantly killing living matter - how does that affect my personality? What impact does that have on me. If you're the hangman, killing wrongdoers (or mostly wrongdoers), every week, does that affect how you value life?

319. Comment #253851 by Mitchell Gilks on September 25, 2008 at 1:17 am
I'd support the termination of fully formed infants with sufficiently handicapping mental or physical malformations. Whether they can feel pain or not.

I feel it's important to ask the question, Mitchell. Could you do it? I mean, really, could you bring down the knife?

130. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253119 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 24, 2008 at 5:14 am

I find it almost frightening that you're asking AtheistJon to come up with a rational explanation of his revulsion. It's the same as his irrational disgust when asked to eat brussel sprouts. It's not completely rational, but by carefully introducing him to the idea of contact with sprouts his attitude can change with time. He sounded to me like a person that could change slowly with time and I agree with Steve that there's something admirable about admitting it, without inciting others to hate. There's quite a lot of prejudice harboured silently. Talking openly might actually help and be a be just as good as seeking "professional help".

131. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252734 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 23, 2008 at 2:45 pm

BrandySpears, he may well be disgusted by quite a few of these things. Although I can't see him starting to dig those holes too!
EDIT - Eeewww! Old people!!!

132. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252726 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 23, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Fanusi, I think a large part of it is psychological. For me cigarettes were just as much a psychological crutch as any. Whenever I was out drinking with a group of people I didn't know so well I would go straight to the cigarette machine. Just made me feel a bit better about problematic social situations. Only recently did I realise I'd been a part-time smoker half of my life. The smoking ban helped me to stop altogether.

133. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252718 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 23, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Fanusi. I sensed a smug satisfaction a little while earlier. And rightly so. May I congratulate you on giving up smoking? Not easy.

134. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252710 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 23, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Aawww. Fanusi, such a pleasant happy ending to such a wonderful story. Just shows you how loving and peaceful god and religion really are.

135. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252699 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 23, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Steve
I think your "irrational fear analogy" is a good one. For much of my life I haven't encountered too many "out" homosexuals. I seem to have lived in a small, blinkered world. To me, homosexuality has seemed strange. I can't fully get my head around it, because I don't think I'm close to level-6 on that scale, and because I don't encounter obvious homosexuality so much. I guess, in essence, I've been scared of that which I don't know and don't understand. Yet, at times, I've met some people who have openly stated their sexuality. It's only then that I realise how alike to other people I've met we all are. My stupidity and fear subside. My understanding increases simply by living with the people I thought were weird and different.
I'm sure racism in some people is just the same. The ignorance is dangerous and damaging, but it can often be fixed more easily than some people think.

136. 'All Terrorists are Darwinists': An Interview with Harun Yahya

Comment #252638 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 23, 2008 at 12:58 pm

I don't know how you guys find so much time to think up all those profanities and to post on this site. I personally am busy planning my next terrorist attack. Just recording my video now.

137. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252506 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 23, 2008 at 8:17 am

Sargeist
I too have a science degree - no PhD though :-(
I saw you getting a hard time earlier for putting your thoughts out there. I had a lot of sympathy for you, but it's tricky saying such things because it implies that's your concrete ideas on the topic. Before you know it, as you experienced, you're getting beaten up about it.

I too have some incomplete thoughts about society's ills. In reality I too could say some unwise things about abortion and homosexuality. At the very least I will be demonstrating that I'm just unsure and unaware of the real issues. At worst I'll just be demonstrating what an unintelligent bigot I really am!

In short, I feel your turmoil. Watching this site helps though :-)

EDIT - You, me and thatgingerscouser could share the million, as long as we keep our mouths shut. We don't want Laurie to realise that it's the 1001st customer that wins.

138. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252499 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 23, 2008 at 7:53 am

On this site it's the 1002 post that wins the million dollars ;-)
FURTHER EDIT - JAMCAM, I wish I were invertebrate!

139. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252495 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 23, 2008 at 7:45 am

Sargeist,
You are correct to point out, "But how can we be absolutely sure?" That's where the fun begins. I can make a statement like that and it sounds like a good thing to do. But it's very difficult to implement. All it shows is that we agree about the problem, but in specifying that part of the solution ... well I haven't given a solution at all.

Titania, I agree it's a slippery slope. Defining laws and defining "terrorist" is not always as easy as we'd like to think it is (as I'm sure you know better than me).

140. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252485 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 23, 2008 at 7:15 am

Fanusi, I can see you are taking a well-earned break. Is it worth pointing out 2 things here?
1) I don't accept your constant harassing of Nairb with "Show me the figures"
2) Most people here agree with you

Nairb has shown you the figures, the data, the reports, the sources. He's backed up his claim and you thanked him for part of it. Now if that's all damned lies and statistics then so be it, but can I suggest that everyone here demands your figures, reports, sources etc. And when you provide them can I suggest that each one of us throws another variable in to the pot to muddy the waters. Perhaps something like (off the top of my head) what about the effects of tuburculosis on population growth, or what are the effects of breeding within a smaller gene pool? And then demand the new model with all the new parameters built in. Now, where's those facts and figures you promised (ad infinitum)?

The second point is more contentious, but I'm confident enough to suggest that most people here agree with what you are saying. Every day you take the opportunity to say Islam is rotten to the core. It's very dangerous. People are willing to fly 'planes in to buildings, and such, at great cost to their own people. There is a religious-political system underlying every muslim that ever looked at the koran, which can drive them to either convert or kill the untermenschen-unbeliever. We are all very concerned about nutters getting a strong foot-hold in society, making it less possible for people like us to think, speak and act freely. We don't want them contolling our schools, we don't want them shaping our laws and we definitely don't want them indiscriminately killing people (civillians) just because they want us to stop, stare and be afraid. We don't want them, we don't like them, we won't tolerate them.

The thing is, the way that unsubtle Republican USA goes about tackling this doesn't seem to work that well. The suggestion is that the liquid-bomb plotters were arrested too soon because of American intervention, and so the outcome of the convictions was not so good. Invading Iraq for WMDs that didn't exist hasn't helped at all. The region is still unstable and Iraq does not appear to be more tolerant, following the news that Iraqui MP Mithal al-Alusi could be executed for visiting Israel! Afghanistan is a mess, and it doesn't look like things will be tidied up in my lifetime. Pakistan is a nuclear power - where it is heading worries us all.

Seeing as we agree on the main points - shouldn't that be it? Can't we leave it at that now? No-one on this site is running for government. We all clearly have a slightly different viewpoint about the exact detailed solutions to these problems. If you want positive action against the dangers of Islam now, isn't there a better outlet for your passionate need to do something? Al suggested joining the army? There must be a better way to spend your time to get some real action taken. Speak to your MP? Form a gang of defending vigilantes?

If you want me to show how much I myself agree with you, here it is. I think every person that we "know absolutely for sure" is willing to wage war within Europe and kill civillians should be exterminated immediately or given life sentences in isolated detention centres purely for those kinds of nutters. Immigration rules should ask that people coming in to this country should respect Human Rights laws, and if they demonstrate that they do not respect these laws then they should be deported to the country they came from with no concern for asylum.

141. Richard Dawkins infected with Satanic 'virus of mind', Christian group claims

Comment #251337 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 21, 2008 at 11:28 am

On the "eyes are blinded" front, I heard John Mackay, director of creation research, tell the faithful that during these "end times" they will indeed be scoffed at for their beliefs (well worth certainly scoffing at). How do they know? Well, it's in the bible. Funny thing is, later on they were scoffing at the Jehovah's Witnesses.

So, which ridiculous version of scoffed-at faith should I choose? It's a tough one.

142. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251215 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 21, 2008 at 8:00 am

Mitchell

You have my apology. My memory is not what it was. I thought I'd seen some statement from you about anarchism, but I must be mixing you up with someone else.

143. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251213 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 21, 2008 at 7:55 am

Fanusi

I don't actually remember getting huffy.

Lazarus, as I've explained before, it's not that I have no problems with her, it's that I have far more problems with Obama. Now what is so complicated about that idea?

Everyone else saw that statement from Fanusi, right?

Obama accepts a vague belief in god (possibly because he has to do so to stand any chance of getting elected). Palin believes in magic-god-language, prophecy, and miracle cures. I've heard quotes on this site about her saying she'd seen human footprints in amongst the dinosaur bones, which suggests that she may well be a Young Earth Creationist. That means she does not accept what science tells us. She could well be anti-science. But she's not anti-technology, so she could well use some brutal technology as part of a christian crusade. That is scary, and you cannot see it, cos you kinda like them friendly christian folk.

144. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251205 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 21, 2008 at 7:44 am

Mitchell

I don't see why you are addressing that comment to me. I specified "insane right-wing views"

I was clarifying my view after you had previously said:

It matters far less to me whether they believe in a god or not than whether they hold such insane right-wing views. I'd vote for a sane theist long before I'd vote for an insane atheist.

Because that statement was aimed at me I thought I'd better explain why I was talking to Fanusi about his acceptance of people like Palin getting in a position of power.
If that still doesn't make sense, then all I can do is ask, why did you make your initial comment to me?

145. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251194 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 21, 2008 at 7:31 am

Fanusi said
"I'd say your comments put you close to someone who harbours a hidden desire for freedom from moral constraints"

I rest my case.

I don't know if I do harbour it though. Maybe I do.

Mitchell, what about you? You're an anarchist. You got problems with freedom from moral constraints? I personally don't have any argument with people who want such freedom.

146. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251188 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 21, 2008 at 7:24 am

Mitchell
But Palin goes to a charismatic church that preaches that Jesus is coming soon to save the "good", and all the other types of christians (you know - the not quite as insane because they accept the Theory of Evolution), and the Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. are going to hell. They really do believe that they can speak a magic language, they do believe that members of their church can predict the future, and if a doctor isn't around they'll cure your back with force of the holy spirit!

That's not a sane person. I have no reason to believe that Obama is quite that insane, but Fanusi finds no problem with Fundie-Palin!

147. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251183 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 21, 2008 at 7:12 am

Fanusi
I won't let you translate me that way. There are lots of atheists who don't hold the same viewpoints as me. Many would disagree with me, but you mention words like "faith", and hold on to ideas of absolute "evil" (who causes absolute evil - that'd be the devil). And you'd vote a fundamentalist christian to lead your country because of your paranoia about the other guy not condemning Islam enough.

That puts you pretty close to being someone who harbours a hidden desire for god - just as long as the god doesn't look too much like allah.

148. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251165 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 21, 2008 at 6:43 am

Fanusi, I have no idea whether this has been said before, but I'm finding it harder to believe that you are an atheist. To quote the way you see it, "I never vote for anyone I always vote against". That's exactly it. You are against Islam.

Never mind the oft stated, when things get worse, "I'll grow a beard and go down to my local mosque." At this point you're probably already visiting the local Sikh temple as well as your local Fundie church to recruit people for your crusade. Strange bed-fellows you have. You can indeed tell a lot about a person from the company they keep.

Yep. Islam is a danger. A big reason for it existing "here" is that the christians insist that they are important and belief in god is their right. Well, we gotta be fair. You can't favour the catholics nor the protestants, nor anyone else for that matter, so belief in any god is a good thing.

Well, when you've won your crusade and kicked the other religions in to touch, you can forget about your freedoms, you can kiss goodbye to that scientific research you do, you won't be able to get an abortion, and you'll be lucky if any pro-abortionists aren't executed. But I'll be ok, I'll drag my lilly-white ass down to my local church and condemn the Large Hadron Collider with the rest of them.

Stop supporting these religions. They are dangerous. Refuse them the oxygen you freely give.

149. The real difference between liberals and conservatives

Comment #250732 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 20, 2008 at 7:34 am

Oh yes. The nineties. They were well-paid times, although I was late jumping on the contracting boat. Still, anyone with that amount of academia under his belt needs knocking off hist pedestal.
(*looks up and shakes fist*) you hear me Richard?

150. The real difference between liberals and conservatives

Comment #250723 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 20, 2008 at 7:19 am

Yeah Steve, but what about real-world experience? You clearly avoided getting a real job for as long as possible. Without real-world experience your thoughts might not be quite so valued ;-
EDIT - Get a job you lot!