Rockfish does not usually ridicule religious beliefs straight up......- or Rockfish in another disguise.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Rockfish does not usually ridicule religious beliefs straight up......- or Rockfish in another disguise.
I disagree with Rock on most topics, but I agree with Doug, he would not do this.
Well.......Good luck to you, eternity is a long time!I'm afraid you guys are all mistaken: I'm still me, here at 4119 E 42d Place in the Indian Territory. None of you know me nearly as well as you think you do; for that matter none of you actually know me at all, in my incarnation as a person. And CoH, you don't have a clue, despite the fact that you've actually talked to me, though you pretty clearly weren't listening.
I have not in fact been conked on the head by a golf ball; due to my illness I don't play a lot any more. I just got conked on the head by organized religion once too often, but the views I'm expressing here, admittedly in a somewhat malicious attempt to rattle the bars on the monkey cage, are ones I've long held. I'll bet a buck Rock recognized my style.
My source of morality is observation of the real world, CoH, the process of observing how human beings actually operate and what serves the interest of our species of mammals and what doesn't. That strikes me as at least more-or-less objective, and I find the suggestion that any morality resting on a primitive superstition and the views of a psychotic Big Sky Daddy as having any objective underpinnings risible in the extreme.
The idea that primitive, violent superstitions with the blood of billions on their hands are somehow deserving of a respect that no other body of thought merits, and that those who withhold it must perforce be insane, would be equally risible if it wasn't so appalling, and I agree with Richard Dawkins that it has no support in either logic or morality, but is simply an attempt to put criticism of such foolishness beyond the discussion and criticism to which we subject everything else. Notwithstanding such attempts heresy and related offenses remain victimless crimes, which is way more than can be said for organized religion.
Actually eternity is timeless, if I understand my physics correctly, but since none of us will be around forever, and our universe itself has a sell-by date, your point seems, well, off-point.Well.......Good luck to you, eternity is a long time!
I'm afraid you guys are all mistaken: I'm still me, here at 4119 E 42d Place in the Indian Territory. None of you know me nearly as well as you think you do; for that matter none of you actually know me at all, in my incarnation as a person. And CoH, you don't have a clue, despite the fact that you've actually talked to me, though you pretty clearly weren't listening.
I have not in fact been conked on the head by a golf ball; due to my illness I don't play a lot any more. I just got conked on the head by organized religion once too often, but the views I'm expressing here, admittedly in a somewhat malicious attempt to rattle the bars on the monkey cage, are ones I've long held. I'll bet a buck Rock recognized my style.
My source of morality is observation of the real world, CoH, the process of observing how human beings actually operate and what serves the interest of our species of mammals and what doesn't. That strikes me as at least more-or-less objective, and I find the suggestion that any morality resting on a primitive superstition and the views of a psychotic Big Sky Daddy as having any objective underpinnings risible in the extreme.
The idea that primitive, violent superstitions with the blood of billions on their hands are somehow deserving of a respect that no other body of thought merits, and that those who withhold it must perforce be insane, would be equally risible if it wasn't so appalling, and I agree with Richard Dawkins that it has no support in either logic or morality, but is simply an attempt to put criticism of such foolishness beyond the discussion and criticism to which we subject everything else. Notwithstanding such attempts heresy and related offenses remain victimless crimes, which is way more than can be said for organized religion.
I'm afraid you guys are all mistaken: I'm still me, here at 4119 E 42d Place in the Indian Territory. None of you know me nearly as well as you think you do; for that matter none of you actually know me at all, in my incarnation as a person. And CoH, you don't have a clue, despite the fact that you've actually talked to me, though you pretty clearly weren't listening.
I have not in fact been conked on the head by a golf ball; due to my illness I don't play a lot any more. I just got conked on the head by organized religion once too often, but the views I'm expressing here, admittedly in a somewhat malicious attempt to rattle the bars on the monkey cage, are ones I've long held. I'll bet a buck Rock recognized my style.
My source of morality is observation of the real world, CoH, the process of observing how human beings actually operate and what serves the interest of our species of mammals and what doesn't. That strikes me as at least more-or-less objective, and I find the suggestion that any morality resting on a primitive superstition and the views of a psychotic Big Sky Daddy as having any objective underpinnings risible in the extreme.
The idea that primitive, violent superstitions with the blood of billions on their hands are somehow deserving of a respect that no other body of thought merits, and that those who withhold it must perforce be insane, would be equally risible if it wasn't so appalling, and I agree with Richard Dawkins that it has no support in either logic or morality, but is simply an attempt to put criticism of such foolishness beyond the discussion and criticism to which we subject everything else. Notwithstanding such attempts heresy and related offenses remain victimless crimes, which is way more than can be said for organized religion.
I no longer believe the perfect cinnamon roll exists, sad to say. I'll pass on your greeting when SWMBO returns from the golf course (which is why I'm here more-or-less working). Hope your riding thing is still going good.Wasn't listening?
Do you mean your eternal quest is not find and eat the perfect cinnamon roll?
Relativity is fine for physics, but morality?
Best to Suzy.
Well, in that case I acknowledge my mistake. My recollection of your style connected with some elements of some of your posts (the use of "L" when referring to Ladoga, for example), but I don't recall you ever being caustic for the sake of being caustic; that's more my speed. (Among others here, of course.)
I'm glad to know you're alive and kicking, Buzz . . . and just as glad to know that I need to pay attention so I can stay of of the way when you're kicking like a mule.
That said, I'm going to ask you about last week's mass shooting in Charleston; do you think that some victims' families' forgiveness of the shooter, and other victims' family members' remorse for not being able to forgive as of yet, is a rational response? A natural response? Or an unusual response under the circumstances? Do you think that response is something that would be made by folks without a religious belief? Would you agree or disagree that religion's influence has made it more likely that generally (not just the Charleston folks), victims' families' focus would be on forgiveness rather than revenge? Just curious . . .
. . . for the record, my observations of people - which I assert is at least as more-or-less objective as yours - indicates that religious people are generally (but not exclusively or in all individual instances) more likely to be generous with others than non-religious people, particularly in very difficult circumstances.
One more thing: would you differentiate among religions? Would fundamentalist Christians and Catholics be more likely to draw your ire (because of their social conservative politics, for example) than say mainline Protestants and Buddhists? I'm curious if yours is a blanket condemnation or more nuanced than your statement above seems to be.
I'm afraid you guys are all mistaken: I'm still me, here at 4119 E 42d Place in the Indian Territory. None of you know me nearly as well as you think you do; for that matter none of you actually know me at all, in my incarnation as a person. And CoH, you don't have a clue, despite the fact that you've actually talked to me, though you pretty clearly weren't listening.
I have not in fact been conked on the head by a golf ball; due to my illness I don't play a lot any more. I just got conked on the head by organized religion once too often, but the views I'm expressing here, admittedly in a somewhat malicious attempt to rattle the bars on the monkey cage, are ones I've long held. I'll bet a buck Rock recognized my style.
My source of morality is observation of the real world, CoH, the process of observing how human beings actually operate and what serves the interest of our species of mammals and what doesn't. That strikes me as at least more-or-less objective, and I find the suggestion that any morality resting on a primitive superstition and the views of a psychotic Big Sky Daddy as having any objective underpinnings risible in the extreme.
The idea that primitive, violent superstitions with the blood of billions on their hands are somehow deserving of a respect that no other body of thought merits, and that those who withhold it must perforce be insane, would be equally risible if it wasn't so appalling, and I agree with Richard Dawkins that it has no support in either logic or morality, but is simply an attempt to put criticism of such foolishness beyond the discussion and criticism to which we subject everything else. Notwithstanding such attempts heresy and related offenses remain victimless crimes, which is way more than can be said for organized religion.
I'm afraid you guys are all mistaken: I'm still me, here at 4119 E 42d Place in the Indian Territory. None of you know me nearly as well as you think you do; for that matter none of you actually know me at all, in my incarnation as a person. And CoH, you don't have a clue, despite the fact that you've actually talked to me, though you pretty clearly weren't listening.
I have not in fact been conked on the head by a golf ball; due to my illness I don't play a lot any more. I just got conked on the head by organized religion once too often, but the views I'm expressing here, admittedly in a somewhat malicious attempt to rattle the bars on the monkey cage, are ones I've long held. I'll bet a buck Rock recognized my style.
My source of morality is observation of the real world, CoH, the process of observing how human beings actually operate and what serves the interest of our species of mammals and what doesn't. That strikes me as at least more-or-less objective, and I find the suggestion that any morality resting on a primitive superstition and the views of a psychotic Big Sky Daddy as having any objective underpinnings risible in the extreme.
The idea that primitive, violent superstitions with the blood of billions on their hands are somehow deserving of a respect that no other body of thought merits, and that those who withhold it must perforce be insane, would be equally risible if it wasn't so appalling, and I agree with Richard Dawkins that it has no support in either logic or morality, but is simply an attempt to put criticism of such foolishness beyond the discussion and criticism to which we subject everything else. Notwithstanding such attempts heresy and related offenses remain victimless crimes, which is way more than can be said for organized religion.
I no longer believe the perfect cinnamon roll exists, sad to say. I'll pass on your greeting when SWMBO returns from the golf course (which is why I'm here more-or-less working). Hope your riding thing is still going good.
Hijack..... How is your health? You referenced it above but didn't say much. If you don't want to share any more that's fine but I've wondered for a long time how you're doing. Somehow I lost your email address. I saw you on Yahoo Messenger one time and tried to contact you but you either didn't see my message or chose not to respond.Actually eternity is timeless, if I understand my physics correctly, but since none of us will be around forever, and our universe itself has a sell-by date, your point seems, well, off-point.
Riding thing is ongoing
I don't ride as far but I am a lot slower. Signed up for another week tour in 2016, which is quite an optimistic endeavor given we don't buy green bananas any more.
Nope. Nowadays its present and hope for the best.Sooo, no green bananas . . . are you becoming a member of the "Present Perfect" crowd that Noodle linked to the other day?
As to the missing e-mails, if you think you're gonna get any political traction with things like that you're dumber than Karl Rove, and he's pretty ****ing dumb. On the other hand, you don't sound much like a potential brain donor either.
What a bias, jealous statement. You may not like Rove, but to call him dumb is just idiotic. He got W elected twice over whomever you (or I) voted for. Let that set in for a second.
What a bias, jealous statement. You may not like Rove, but to call him dumb is just idiotic. He got W elected twice over whomever you (or I) voted for. Let that set in for a second.
Winning elections doesn't take brains; cleverness and manipulation are sufficient where there's enough money behind a candidate. Don't confuse brains with cleverness and manipulation, as they're not even remotely the same thing.
Rove is a short-term opportunist, not someone with a focus on good policy. Don't confuse success as the former with qualifications for the latter.
Hijack..... How is your health? You referenced it above but didn't say much. If you don't want to share any more that's fine but I've wondered for a long time how you're doing. Somehow I lost your email address. I saw you on Yahoo Messenger one time and tried to contact you but you either didn't see my message or chose not to respond.
Sure they are. Those that are "dumb" are incapable of manipulation and cleverness. Again, your personal bias is blinding the truth. I think Rove is as sleazy and sketchy as anyone, but I acknowledge that he is not "dumb".
At 6 pm on election day 2012 KR sat on his fat ass in the Fox studio and proclaimed that Romney was gonna win comfortably. By that time those of us in the reality-based community had known for a month that Obama was gonna win comfortably and get well over 300 electoral votes.What a bias, jealous statement. You may not like Rove, but to call him dumb is just idiotic. He got W elected twice over whomever you (or I) voted for. Let that set in for a second.
Not all that good, actually: I'm still dealing with that rare kidney disorder, which I'm told is neither curable nor really treatable, though it is manageable. Rather have had a nice club sandwich. Learning to play and build guitars, though, which is fun, and have plenty of time to do it, since I get almost no sleep any more. Anybody need a custom guitar:
edesping@sabcglobal.net
Not all that good, actually: I'm still dealing with that rare kidney disorder, which I'm told is neither curable nor really treatable, though it is manageable. Rather have had a nice club sandwich. Learning to play and build guitars, though, which is fun, and have plenty of time to do it, since I get almost no sleep any more. Anybody need a custom guitar:
edesping@sabcglobal.net
How much do you charge for a auditorium-sized Koa wood acoustic? SopeJr#1 mentioned that the other day . . . although I think he wants the Taylor.
You using any special electronics in yours?
What an interesting hobby.
I hope you are staying away from undocumented wood.
If you are ever in Phoenix, I think you would really enjoy the Musical Instrument Museum. The exhibits about the history and culture of string instruments from around the world is amazing. Surprising what people made those things out of.
Sorry to hear that your health problems keep on. Every day I learn again to appreciate how lucky we are to have relatively good health.
I am really sorry to hear that. Most of us don't appreciate good health until we don't have it. I've had health issues for a while but not near as serious as yours sound. I'm still able to get out and do most things. I've tried to learn to play a guitar a couple times....just don't have the patience and besides that my fingers won't bend the right way to make some of those cords.Not all that good, actually: I'm still dealing with that rare kidney disorder, which I'm told is neither curable nor really treatable, though it is manageable. Rather have had a nice club sandwich. Learning to play and build guitars, though, which is fun, and have plenty of time to do it, since I get almost no sleep any more. Anybody need a custom guitar:
edesping@sabcglobal.net
I build from kits, since I don't have room for a side-bending machine and a circular saw, and LMI and StewMac don't do woods that violate the Lacey Act. I mostly build from East Indian Rosewood, which has the advantages of being the best of the rosewoods you can currently get and also fairly affordable, since there's a lot of it around.
A friend of mine recently went to that museum while out if Phoenix for some health care (pretty good picker, who plays a nylon-string crossover I built for him) and said it was really good.
The health thing isn't that big a deal; I don't feel very good any more, but I feel better than dead, my brain still works about as well as it ever did, and I can still stumble around the golf course from time to time. Still finding the antics of my clueless species, including my own, a source of constant amusement. Can't wait to watch the 20165 election; looking forward to more high comedy from Karl Rove and the moronic blonde.
Should be sbcglobal.netI am really sorry to hear that. Most of us don't appreciate good health until we don't have it. I've had health issues for a while but not near as serious as yours sound. I'm still able to get out and do most things. I've tried to learn to play a guitar a couple times....just don't have the patience and besides that my fingers won't bend the right way to make some of those cords.
BTW is that email correct... the sabcglobal.net ? I have an sbcglobal.net address but mine doesn't have the letter a in it. Thanks.
Megyn Kelly, IIRC.Well, um, which moronic blonde would that be? There are candidates and non-candidates who fit that description - female and otherwise.
Megyn Kelly, IIRC.
Thanks.... are you still working or have you retired.... I don't recall how old you are.Should be sbcglobal.net
I'm too ****ing old, but we haven't won powerball yet and my rich father is still with us, so I'm still working, as is SWMBO. We mostly don't mind, though; legal R&W is entertaining more than its not.Thanks.... are you still working or have you retired.... I don't recall how old you are.
My daughter recently moved to the Dallas/FW area but she works west of Oklahoma City a lot of times. Luckily she likes hot weather (since she's outside a lot). Have you been hit with any damage from all the tornadoes out that way? Seems like everytime I turn around there's a tornado out there somewhere.
I sure know that feeling. I've been retired for quite some time (since 2002) but still stay busy. I have a lot of jobs but none of them pay anything. Both my wife and I do a lot of volunteer stuff. A person can't just sit around. I get bored with TV in a hurry so there's lots of days that our TV isn't even turned on. My M-I-L is having major health issues now so that is taking up a lot of my wife's time so that means I have to take care of everything else.I'm too ****ing old.
Trump would be good to help get rid of govt waste. Politicians always talk about it,but nobody every does anything. The Donald would actually pinpoint the waste and find ways to cut it out.Donald Trump as the Republican nominee is one of them.
Fortunately, I don't think he is serious, and I don't think he will get the nomination. Personally, I think he would be a very dangerous President.
Well, in that case I acknowledge my mistake. My recollection of your style connected with some elements of some of your posts (the use of "L" when referring to Ladoga, for example), but I don't recall you ever being caustic for the sake of being caustic; that's more my speed. (Among others here, of course.)
I'm glad to know you're alive and kicking, Buzz . . . and just as glad to know that I need to pay attention so I can stay of of the way when you're kicking like a mule.
That said, I'm going to ask you about last week's mass shooting in Charleston; do you think that some victims' families' forgiveness of the shooter, and other victims' family members' remorse for not being able to forgive as of yet, is a rational response? A natural response? Or an unusual response under the circumstances? Do you think that response is something that would be made by folks without a religious belief? Would you agree or disagree that religion's influence has made it more likely that generally (not just the Charleston folks), victims' families' focus would be on forgiveness rather than revenge? Just curious . . .
. . . for the record, my observations of people - which I assert is at least as more-or-less objective as yours - indicates that religious people are generally (but not exclusively or in all individual instances) more likely to be generous with others than non-religious people, particularly in very difficult circumstances.
One more thing: would you differentiate among religions? Would fundamentalist Christians and Catholics be more likely to draw your ire (because of their social conservative politics, for example) than say mainline Protestants and Buddhists? I'm curious if yours is a blanket condemnation or more nuanced than your statement above seems to be.
In my experience, atheists are generally kinder and more generous than religious folks. I think it is because the assumption that this life is all anyone gets naturally leads to a greater respect for your life and others.I disagree quite a bit with the bolded part. Nothing in my life has shown me that religious people are more likely to forgive or focus on forgiveness. In fact I bet there is a direct correlation between death penalty supporters and religious faith. I see very little forgiveness in the death penalty (not to mention very little intelligence).
Having lived in a place in which 85% are either atheist or non religious, I see that religion has little to do with compassion, forgiveness or care about their neighbors. In fact I have seen just the opposite.
I disagree quite a bit with the bolded part. Nothing in my life has shown me that religious people are more likely to forgive or focus on forgiveness. In fact I bet there is a direct correlation between death penalty supporters and religious faith. I see very little forgiveness in the death penalty (not to mention very little intelligence).
Having lived in a place in which 85% are either atheist or non religious, I see that religion has little to do with compassion, forgiveness or care about their neighbors. In fact I have seen just the opposite.
Sope, you are really striking out a lot today. Go back to pre-Christian Europe? What nonsense is this? All Ziz said was that he finds he has good people around him, and they don't need religion to push them into being good. Trying to change the subject into some sort of civilization history lesson? That's weak sauce.That's a particularly ignorant post, Ziz . . . where you live has close to a couple of millennia's worth of development where the primary cultural influence has been a powerful Christian church. To establish your baseline comparison about what that area would otherwise be like today you'd have to go back to pre-Christian history and follow the likely development of that culture without Christianity . . .
Sope, you are really striking out a lot today. Go back to pre-Christian Europe? What nonsense is this? All Ziz said was that he finds he has good people around him, and they don't need religion to push them into being good. Trying to change the subject into some sort of civilization history lesson? That's weak sauce.