Log in

View Full Version : Okay Umm...

Fire and Ice
July 9th, 2007, 08:13 PM
pff queers

July 9th, 2007, 08:33 PM
AHAHHAHAAAA! Oh goodness, another half-wit. What fun!

So, you're against the freedom of speech?

please. Don't like it = don't come here.

And yes, we mock other religions. You're obviously mocking us back. The only problem is that you can't seem to handle it while we just shrug it off.

Why dont you go ahead and write a hate letter so we can mock you on your own little thread? Run along now, dear, go pray or something...

July 9th, 2007, 10:09 PM
I could call you half-wit :)

Which half of you is xtain? Top or bottom? I'd go for top half, you know what they think about the "naughty bits" - sinner :)

I always thought the unforgivable sin was blaspheming the holy spirit? Of course no one really knows what that means!

I smell troll!

July 10th, 2007, 11:11 AM
*Passing out John Constantine model Holy Shotguns to all my fellow non-believers and blasphemers*

Troll hunt, anyone?


Wait ... blast-phemers ........... AAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Sorry, that was too good to pass up.

:icon_cool: LJ

Alice Shade
July 10th, 2007, 01:44 PM
Come on, now, guys.

That`s exactly what he was talking about.

One thing is to mock for good reasons.

Other is to mock just to be asshole. You guys are doing second now, sorry.


Look, "Fire and Ice"... I`m not exactly sure, what you meant aside from people being occassionally nasty, when you said we`re evil.

However, such post - 100% emotion, 0% logic is a sure-fire way to make everyone here seem less tolerant then Fred Phelps.

If there is some genuine problem you want to point out, just sum it up better, so everyone`d understand.

Insofar, you sound like our former posters - "OMG, you`re mocking religion!"

Doi, we do. Consider this revenge for centuries of mockery of atheism.

July 10th, 2007, 10:58 PM
Guys, guys, calm down. You're being trolled. Trolls crave attention; do not feed them, lest you would have them reproduce and bury you in stupid.

To this end, I suggest we use this thread to talk about power armour (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/21/TFMI.gif/180px-TFMI.gif) and mobile armour (http://www.gundamofficial.com/worlds/uc/0083/mechanics/images/ms_gp03_a.gif), and hopefully it'll be moved somewhere else for being off topic.

July 10th, 2007, 11:49 PM
LOL...since when did SATIRE become Evil? If you're going to start making literary devices and critical techniques evil, then you'd better start looking inside your Sacred Book while you're at it because there are a TON of Xian fundamentalists who interpret your precious word-of-God in any number of different ways!

Personally, I think killing people in the name of God is Evil, and yet Christians, Jews, Muslims and all kinds of religious people have been getting away with that for centuries. Do you have no criticism for THAT? Or are you like all other religious people who believe that Religion is not to be criticized, questioned, or examined?

July 11th, 2007, 07:11 AM
Actually, I wasn't trying to flame. It was an attempt at humor; nothing more, nothing less.

Just think of me as the forum's heretical comic. Thank you ... I'll be here all week. Try the chicken and don't forget to tip your waitress. Up next: Talking donkeys and rabbits that chew their cud...

:icon_cool: LJ

July 11th, 2007, 07:51 AM
The more I read this thread the harder I have to laugh.... It's obvious that "Fire and Ice" still believes in his "Invisible Friend" from childhood, and he's sure pissed off that The Church of Google doesn't follow his belief! I would apologize to Fire and Ice except that gesture would be insincere, since I'm NOT truly sorry!

Keep on praying Fire and Ice...I'm sure it hasn't gotten you anywhere to this point, and I'm positive it won't help you any in the future...In fact, you should thank ALL of us here at the COG for awakening you to REALITY and REASON. Once you open up your mind, and "KILL" your "invisible friend", then come back to us and talk sense! It may take you 20 years, but you'll still be welcome here.

In the meantime, I will continue to hope you find Atheism, Science, Reason, Skepticism, Truth, a brain of your own, and HOPE (NOT FAITH...it hasn't done shit for you to this point)!

Remember: Ignorance is FREE; Knowledge and Enlightment costs time, effort, emotional AND educational commitment. The WORST thing you can do is actually READ your Bible (I know you've never honestly read it to this point, otherwise common-sense would not have escaped you).

July 11th, 2007, 08:23 AM
Funnily enough, the more I read this thread, the more I see a bunch of Christian-haters instead of open-minded, free-thinking individuals. Apparently even atheism can have it's own forms of zealotry and fundamentalism. Remember, there are many ways to debunk fanatical belief without having to resort to ridicule.

Alice is right. Mocking someone out of spite makes you no better than the people you're so desperately trying to oppose.

July 12th, 2007, 06:05 AM
I do not believe that this specific acusal of evil on our behalf can be truly valid. Since your definition of evil is such that we are worshipping another god, a "false idol" as you might say, then it is true that for this definition to be perceived as evil we must first accept your views as the truth with regard to right and wrong. Since we do not hold your beliefs as our own, we do not perceive the worship of Google as being an evil act.

In short, calling someone who is not Christian evil by Christian belief is basically to us the equivalent of saying "Cuz' I say so!". In the end, using your belief as an argument is completely invalid unless the other party shares those beliefs. In that case, it's still invalid as an argument but no one will disagree (so it works out).

July 13th, 2007, 05:53 PM
You could call me, "half-christian", but I don't have strong religious beliefs. All I have to say is, you have committed the unforgiveable sin and are surely going to hell.

Also wanted to add, your a bunch of dicks mocking other religions. What makes you so special? This is the most insanely idiotic page I've ever seen.

I was joking with my friend on XFire, he asked me for help with something dumb, and I was like.

http://google.com <-- Has the answer to everything.
http://google.com <-- everyone's friend.
http://google.com <-- makes you feel lucky sometimes.
http://google.com <-- always there for you.
http://google.com <-- GOD

Then he gave me this link. At first glance, it looked like the funniest shit I've ever seen in the world. Then when you guys decided to get serious and mock things.... All I have to say is, You're Truly Evil. This kind of mockery should be Illegal and you should all be locked up.

Oh dear. I think you just judged us, which God explicitly tells you not to do. Only He is allowed to do that. You also failed to turn the other cheek, and failed to love thy neighbour.

In assuming your mockery of our religion is justified and our mockery of yours isn't you've also shown yourself guilty of the deadly sins of Pride and Vengeance.

However, the contempt with which my fellow Googlists have treated your post and your religion is equally unwarranted. We should never treat Christianity or Christians with contempt, or we're just hypocrites. We really, really don't want to appear to be just another intolerant group of militant atheists, ok?

July 14th, 2007, 06:21 PM
I don't think we showed contempt at all Erasmus.

Lord_Jereth, Diggs and I all screamed TROLL. For that's what it was! (yeah - I know, don't feed the trolls! It's just so damned tempting though - a decent troll can keep you amused for hours - as long as they're funny. Disclaimer! Allegedly)

I try to treat people as they treat me. If they're aggressive, so am I. If they're sarcastic, me too. If they're decent, well argued people who disagree with me then we tend to get on well!

You're spot on in one thing - fundamentalists aren't always Christians. Atheists can be as well.

July 14th, 2007, 10:33 PM
All I have to say is, you have committed the unforgivable sin and are surely going to hell.

So, if this is a sin, let's see..

We're all going to Hell, right. I think I've been condemned to Hell quite a few times for things worse than this.

Question: Are there levels of Hell to be condemned to? Like, say I get condemned for this and for say, throwing a Bible on the ground in disgust after reading a bit of it. Do I get to go to the lesser level of Hell or is the the greatest level of Hell I am condemned to, that's the one I have to go to? You can't honestly go to the same Hell level for expressing free speech and throwing a Bible on the floor in disgust. Just thought I'd ask.

Oh, and is all free speech a sin, or just everything against God and the Christian Faith? What if I used my free speech against the intelligence of Jews or Muslims? Do I still go to Hell for intolerance of other's intelligence? If intolerance is a sin punishable by a condemning of Hell, I got a lot of people to point and cackle at.

Now, I guess I'll start answering some of your post, don't want to be silly and just answer with my own.

Also wanted to add, your a bunch of dicks mocking other religions. What makes you so special? This is the most insanely idiotic page I've ever seen.

All right,well, you seem to be very angry and this may be making you intolerant. What makes us so special is we are Humans. We Americans are using our freedom of speech given to us and protected by the Bill Of Rights, ratified in 1791, and written and approved by leaders of that time of our glorious Country that is apparently based on Judeo-Christian ethics. Pray to my God and she'll enlighten you and enable you to discover what I'm saying is in fact true. Everyone in other locations, they are humans, don't all humans deserve freedom of speech? Why yes, they do. Therefore, they have it. Due to our freedom of speech, we are given the special right to create websites like this to express our opinions that Google is the closest thing to God, as shown in our 9 proof page here (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/Scripture/Proof_Google_Is_God.html). I ask you to try and be tolerant of our beliefs as we try to be tolerant of your beliefs and numerous people just like you. If you look at our site in an unbiased point of view, seeing it as what it really is, just a mock religion celebrating how great Google is, you might find it, like a lot of other people, that it is a clever and thought out site, complete with well taken care of forums, filled with brilliant people, and other things that would make most people laugh.

Then he gave me this link. At first glance, it looked like the funniest shit I've ever seen in the world. Then when you guys decided to get serious and mock things.... All I have to say is, You're Truly Evil. This kind of mockery should be Illegal and you should all be locked up.

Yeah, it is pretty funny, isn't it? I told you. What you see that is apparently very evil is thought free from the chains of force-fed religion. We may mock, but then again, everyone does, don't they? Go to any little clique or group of people and you will hear at one point or another mocking or making fun of others. We choose to mock religion, since this is a mock religion, Googlism. Tell me why if Christians can make fun of Atheists and torment them and tell them they are going to Hell and other things like that, we can't poke fun at them? Fairness is great, although I find Xians might have trouble accepting this, seeing their views on Gays and Woman's Rights (Abortion). See? This is poking fun. I'm not condemning someone to Hell, I'm just making an observation based on what I know about Xians. I don't get offended what so ever when someone says I'm going to Hell, I'm an idiot because I'm an Atheist, other prejudice comments, but I get told them, so I guess I have the fair right to return fire, don't I?

I apologize that you believe we are all very mean, dickish sinners that should be locked up for embracing our Freedom of Speech. We aren't that bad of a bunch, really. I hope someday we all can learn to develop tolerance for one another.

P.S. on the Freedom of Speech: Method-X gives us right to Freedom of Speech, that's all we need anyways.


July 15th, 2007, 02:58 PM
"What makes us so special is we are Americans, using our freedom of speech given to us and protected by the Bill Of Rights, ratified in 1791..."

Not all of us! There is life outside the USA you know :D

July 15th, 2007, 05:30 PM
Fixed, added in homage to Method-X, as she is the scion and I suppose the head of this site. If she isn't tell me who is damn it!

Apologies to the excluding ;)

Alice Shade
July 15th, 2007, 08:25 PM
Founder of the site is Method-X. Aka, Matt McPherson. See main page.

I`m more or less technical consultant of the site.

July 15th, 2007, 08:52 PM
erasmus, is your name from the robot in the Butlerian Jihad trilogy in the Dune series?

Alice Shade
July 15th, 2007, 10:50 PM

Kero... Google the name "Erasmus". Please.

July 16th, 2007, 04:14 AM
oh sorry ^_^''

its just that im reading that series and i didnt know that name had a history lol
thought it was original

Alice Shade
July 16th, 2007, 09:46 AM
Kero, when in doubt, first Google, and then ask.

It`s a very good strategy to appear even smarter then you are really.

July 16th, 2007, 04:16 PM
I wait for the day when I'll be able to get an antenna in my humorous or femur, and claim Google as part of my extended mind. It'll need some kind of complicated electronic-to-electronuerochemical transmission interface, too.

If you have a semi-permanent link to a store of information, is it proper to call that information part of your mind? "Personal infosphere" is more correct, I guess, but that's so dry.

July 19th, 2007, 08:03 AM
Something Lunchbox said on page 1 of this thread is interesting, and also misleading:

"Apparently even atheism can have it's own forms of zealotry and fundamentalism."

I'm wondering how many people here actually believe that atheism can be fundamentalist in nature? I don't mean to imply that Lunchbox lied on purpose, but the statement is patently untrue by definition. However, the argument that atheists are fundamentalist or zealous in their beliefs is one which is frequently cited by religious people and moral relativists as a case against atheism. This argument is also nonsensical, since you're comparing non-faith to faith through the use of a faith-based vocabulary!

The word "fundamentalist" originated among Christians who believed in the literal truth of the Bible, and while the word "zealotry" is greek in origin, it actually refers to a political movement within Judaism that occurred in the first-century. In Hebrew, the word "zealotry" literally means "jealous on behalf of God." Both terms, as originally defined, refer to faith and a belief in God.

If you think that atheists are capable of being fundamentalists or zealous then the first thing you have to do -- as Christopher Hitchens points out in his excellent article "Bullshitting about Atheism" (Free Inquiry, June/July 2007) -- is to delude yourself into thinking that the atheist position and the faith position are equivalent. They are not!, and Hitchens points out the difference between people who believe in heaven and hell and people who do not. The first group "has a lot of work to do by way of providing anything that even looks like evidence. The second rests [its] case on the extreme improbability of any such evidence being adduced" (25).

The idea, therefore, that atheism and faith can both be fundamental or zealous becomes a red-herring. It harkens back to the same effort that has been made over-and-over again by religious fundamentalists, religious apologists, and moral relativists who wonder "can't we all just get along?"

Hitchens explains, "In the 1980s, Pat Robertson began a campaign to have "secular humanism" defined as a religion. This was not just his pathetic attempt to be ironic. It was so that "secular humanist" precepts could be banned from being taught in schools. A nice try from the Jew-baiting TV tin-rattler who claims to be able to change the course of hurricanes by prayer. It didn't work, of course. But the faithful never give up, and soon they were back in business under the banner of "intelligent design." If they can't get scientific inquiry defined as religion, perhaps they can get creationism defined as science. High marks for dogmatic persistance, anyway. The new effort to describe the enemies of fundamentalism as fundamentalists is indebted to this Robertson/Falwell scam. It is intended to muddy rather than clear the waters and should be shunned by all serious participants in the argument"

Finally, if you want to talk about someone's "strength of argument," "conviction," or "vehemence" with regard to atheism, you should use those words, but do not ignorantly confuse fundamentalism or zealotry (which require belief in a religion to posses) with atheism.

Alice Shade
July 19th, 2007, 08:35 AM
I believe, that his notion was about atheists exhibiting same traits as religious fanatics and zealots.

After all, yes, it is possible to be stupidly-stubborn even for atheist.

July 19th, 2007, 08:55 AM
Alice is quite right.

It was merely an attempt to illustrate some of the more interesting shared traits between atheists and religious people. Yes, I knew by definition the terms weren't completely accurate, but they had the desired effect. If I'd wanted to be clinically correct, maybe "fanaticism" and "incendiarism" would have been better choices.

Regardless, you go a long way towards justifying my statement. Your signature alone is deliberately antagonistic and shows nothing but complete disrespect for a major religion. That hardly leaves you in a position to criticise Christians for their disdain for atheism.

If you want to argue semantics, that's great. Personally, I just can't be buggered. If you ever want to debate an issue without feeling the need to be deliberately insulting towards someone just because you don't share their beliefs, I'm interested. Judging by your two posts on the first page of this thread, however, that doesn't look very likely. If you want to prove you're better than someone else, the last place to start is by displaying their worst characteristics yourself.

July 20th, 2007, 03:17 AM
I understand Lunchbox's point, and I realize it was about "fanatics" and "zealots." I also agree with much that he says, but I don't agree with the idea that the argument between atheists (secular humanists, agnostics, etc.) and religious fundamentalists (the Moral Majority, the 700 Club, evangelicals, etc.) should be so severely downplayed or excused merely as "semantics," especially when one side (the religious side, in my opinion) is trying to control the argument of the debate (with regard to evolution, Intelligent Design, creationism, etc.).

I know Alice lives in the Ukraine (according to her screen name), and I'm not sure where Lunchbox lives, but in the USA right now there is a very real, very ideological type of fight going on, and much of that fight revolves around vocabulary, the use (and mis-use) of words as they relate to propaganda, public opinion, media, and politics. This "fight" is very clearly laid out in Michelle Goldberg's fantastic book from 2006 entitled "Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism." I finished it early this year, and it is very much at the forefront of my thinking as an atheist, and as an anti-theist.

George W. Bush has (in MANY ways) completely mis-led and mis-guided America, that he did not win the popular vote (many feel he "stole" the election) and that he continues to allow evangelicals and neo-conservative agendas (through the Republican party) to control HIS administration (it's no longer the American people's administration -- even according to his definition) is a frightening reality as an American (let alone as an atheist American). Regardless of where you live, I'm sure you realize many of the horrible implications that Bush's administration has had upon the world (not just upon Iraq). With America as an influential world-power, this should frighten EVERYONE, in my opinion.

Hopefully the election of 2008 will bring a more rational, reasonable -- and, yes! -- less religious, administration into power here in the states, thereby restoring some of the diplomacy, good-will and good-opinion which Bush has squandered from countries around the world. However, one of the main reasons that Bush was re-elected in 2004 was precisely because Karl Rove, the Republican party, the neo-conservatives, and the evangelical christians across America controlled the language -- and thereby the very nature-- of the election debate.

Lastly, I understand the idea that semantics can be seen as merely a type of "word game," but as an English professor I also understand that language can cut both ways. One person's "semantics" is another person's propaganda. This idea drives Christian fundamentalism in this country as they try to control the evolution, scientific, and creationist language which is a dividing line between a scientific-centered rationale, and a religious-centered one.

Alice Shade
July 20th, 2007, 07:15 AM

First of all, I have to disagree with "world power" notion. You see, "world power" and "christian Bush" are mutually-exclusive terms. In my opinion, Bush would run USA into political ruin before it will become serious threat to the whole world.

I think, that Bush is somewhat resembling Nehemiah Skudder. (Check "If This Goes On..." by Robert A. Heinlein. Very interesting reading.)


And once again... There are militant atheists as intolerant of any other notion, as "devoted" christians are. There is a good difference between stating your opinion, and denying everyone else`s opinion, you know.

July 20th, 2007, 08:36 AM

If you are saying that the level of the USA's world power is less because of Bush, then I agree 100%. I also laughed when you wrote that Bush and "world power" are mutually exclusive. They are oxymorons...(or perhaps it's merely he that is the moron). The country will be better off without him; his is -- arguably -- the worst administration in U.S. history. This is one reason why I'm so vehemently anti-Bush and anti-religion.

I will definitely look into the Robert Heinlein reading. I enjoy recommendations from alternative perspectives.

...As for Lunchbox? My suggestion is to check out my post on the tolerance issue in the Tolerance thread! I answered all questions as honestly as possible.
Having qualified that...let the flames begin:

In my opinion, Lunchbox seems to think I am intolerant because I am a vocal and adamant atheist and (anti-theist). He takes offense at my "signature photo" because it depicts the destruction of a torture device (crucifix) which has come to stand for the Christian faith and Jesus' death.

I wonder if you're "tolerant" of ALL torture devices, or is it just the crucifix specifically? Perhaps we should start wearing little images of a roped noose or a wooden electric chair around our necks too!

I have very little respect for organized religion because, in my opinion, it has done much more harm than good over the last 2 to 3,000 years. That is my OPINION...and I am certainly allowed to speak about that here on a satirical, open forum web site entitled "The Church of Google." I mean, after all, that is WHY I signed up. If you cannot cope with that, then that's just too damn bad. If you don't like what I have to say, you simply don't have to read it or respond. You want to play "nice" and be "soft and cuddly" with religion, then go to a religious web site and cuddle up to the masses. I respect your right to do so, and I would be more than happy to tolerate your absence! After all, you don't have to talk to me and I really don't care if you do. As it is, you have given very little by way of where you stand, or what you believe (dis-believe) anyway.

Having said that, I would gladly debate you on ANY topic you want if you would only say something more than "be tolerant." I'm beginning to think your official position is NOT TO HAVE A POSITION! You see, in order to DEBATE, two people (or two groups) must each have an opinion (or am I merely stressing semantics again?)!

You fail to talk at all about your own beliefs and while I will assume here that you are either agnostic or religious, you only seem to talk about "tolerance" in obscure terms. While tolerance is great 100 % of the time in theory, it is not always what is required. Moral relativism and pluralism are simply ways of not having to make a decision--they are a form of fence-sitting. Often times they are the coward's way out, and I strongly feel that there is very little room for cowardice when it comes to religion, especially as it concerns Christian Nationalism in the United States in the year 2007. Perhaps you would like to continue to tolerate Bush's failed war plan and continue to tolerate the slaughter in Iraq (which is a religious war)?

Finally, perhaps you do not live in the U.S. Lunchbox, and so while you call me "intolerant" you yourself are being hypocritical because you have no idea what it's been like living at a low-point in American history.

It's funny how easy it is to criticize someone for their opinions when you don't actually have to live through what they are experiencing.

Alice Shade
July 20th, 2007, 08:52 AM
I`m saying more then that.

I`m saying, that by the time Bush will be able to push through anything outright hazardous for the rest of the world, he will have USA run in the ground so much, that USA won`t be capable of that anymore.

July 21st, 2007, 07:58 AM
Oh dear.

Firstly, the "semantics" I referred to has nothing to do with trivialising the argument between atheists and religious fundamentalists. It had to do with your previous post revolving around whether or not "zealotry" and "fundamentalism" were the ideal choice of words. I chose them as much for impact as anything else. The meaning of my post was clear and hardly left room for misinterpretation. That being said, I did correct myself in reply and I hope that cleared up any misconceptions.

One person's "semantics" is another person's propaganda.

That is a notable truth and one I agree with completely. Bear in mind, however, that the fight you refer to going on that revolves around the use and mis-use of vocabulary is largely borne out of a culture that has been created in the US. The US is notorious for being the most litigious society in the world. We all hear the stories coming out of people suing each other for the most ridiculous things. In that kind of society, a culture of being paranoid about what you say and how you say it is going to be prominent because one small word out of place leaves a person open to legal action.

To answer your earlier question, I'm from, and living in, South Africa, a country that for some reason chose to mold it's entire judicial system on the principles on US law. The obsession with fairness hasn't been taken to such extremes, but we have so many other wonderful things to worry about (like having the highest crime rate in the world) that we find our own extremes along the way. But at the same time, as a white person living in South Africa, if you make one comment that could be taken out of context and interpreted as racist, you're up the proverbial creek. Believe me, I understand the mentality you speak of.

That being said, after living for so long surrounded by this sort of anal retention, I've developed a bluntness in my nature borne of frustration. I prefer to get to the point and avoid the sensitivity dance that goes with it. If I offend, so be it. I will always apologise if I've caused justifiable offense. But as far as I'm concerned, a spade is a spade. Even if we all possess as our common residential abode the interior of a mid-visible spectrum double hulled buoyancy controlled ship of war, we're still living in a yellow submarine.

Finally, perhaps you do not live in the U.S. Lunchbox, and so while you call me "intolerant" you yourself are being hypocritical because you have no idea what it's been like living at a low-point in American history.

With all due respect, knowing what it's like to live at a low point in American history has nothing to do with this thread whatsoever.

Moving back to the original issue, I'm not offended by your signature at all. I referred to both the image and text as "deliberately antagonistic" not offensive. Truth be told, I have my own beliefs that make sense to me and, until presented with proof of any other, fit nicely into my picture of the world. It's something of a combination of many different religious aspects interpreted as philosophies. What I was asking was how you justify your intolerance and ridicule of a devout (fanatical?) Christian and yet still intentionally maintain such an inflammatory forum signature, displaying a similar level of devotion / fanaticism to your own belief (or lack thereof)?

NB: I don't generally believe in disclaimers, but for the record, this is a factual question. I'm not religious and I'm not rushing to the defense of the OP. I do believe in doing unto others, though.