Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion
In a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit DiscussionIn a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
I just read a short divine advice column in which the person asking for advice responds to a book entitled The Bible Cure for Headaches by pointing out that the Bible doesn’t mention headaches, or a cure for headaches, anywhere. How can there be a Bible cure for headaches when there aren’t any headaches mentioned in the Bible?
Well, that person got it half right. It is true that the Bible does not mention any cure for headaches, and never uses the word headache as such. However, in the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, chapter 30, verse 23 declares, “Behold, the whirlwind of the Lord goeth forth with fury, a continuing whirlwind: it shall fall with pain upon the head of the wicked.”
So there we are. The Bible says quite clearly that God is the cause of headaches. What is the Bible cure for headaches, then?
Simple. Avoid God.
(281 votes, average: 3.03 out of 5)
Irregular Times
New Button Designs
67 queries. 1.282 seconds
March 16th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
I suppose for some people avoiding wickedness isn’t an option.
March 16th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
I would prefer to avoid the wicked part. PW, you tear apart the bible with such animosity. Have you ever taken this approach? For the 10% of the population that try cramming religion down our throats and putting it into our laws, yes they need to be stopped. But have you ever thought that maybe the rest of us use the Bible, Quran, Tanakh, just to name a few, just for guidance and not a way of life like others use self help books? I would rather find inner peace through my grandfathers bible than pay a blood sucking industry a mint to buy a book then the tapes then god knows what. You are persecuting the many for the blood of a few. Amazing how that happens everywhere doesn’t it.
There is a difference between religion and the “good book”. One is an original and one has been plagurized for thousands of years.
March 16th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Also, it is amazing how you stretch the meaning of words like all other religious leaders do around the world. Same day different shit.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Laurie, I criticize the ideas of the book and the religion, and of the huckster who claims to have a Bible-based way to cure headaches.
I stretch the words of the Bible no more than the people who believe in it.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Then please be a little less general when you make these statements. Its just like saying all blondes are dumb and all rap stars are hoodlums.
March 17th, 2007 at 7:40 am
What general statement is there in the article above that is equivalent to saying that all blondes are dumb?
Where?
March 17th, 2007 at 10:39 am
It does seem like Peregrim is taking the writing out of context to satisfy some grudge. Who was Jeremiah, Peregrin? When and where did he live, and who was he writing to? What was happening in the world and in the region when he wrote it?
If you are trying to comment on the book, have you read the book? I was amazed when so many Moslems wanted to object to the cartoon thing, without looking at the cartoons first. Aren’t you doing the same thing, just being difficult about something without bothering to find out what it’s about?
March 17th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
So there we are. The bible clearly states……..
You and whose army PW? You’re including your reader, its offensive.
Next time try “So there it is.”
It’s all in the generalities.
March 17th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
What?
Me saying something about what the Bible says is equivalent to saying that all blondes are dumb?
S T R E T C H I N G . . .
March 17th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
“I stretch the words of the Bible no more than the people who believe in it.”
Not a fair generalization.
Still, I don’t know that Laurie should tear you a new one over it.
Don’t feel bad about being blonde.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:29 am
I think maybe Peregrin is, uh, joking.
He is quite purposefully stretching the bounds of plausible interpretation, in order to come up with something that is funny.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Oh, I totally get it that Peregrin is trying for reducio ad absurdum. But why does he always pick Christianity and not Islam? It’s not funny. What would you say if he used your wife for his example and decided he would pick on her in order to be “funny”?
I checked on Amazon for this book and it’s a real book. The book even has a review written by someone who read it and was able to decrease his dosage for migraine prescriptions.
We have no end of brainless TV shows that think it’s funny to vote someone off an island, fire them, or encourage people with no talent to perform and then mock them. Our popular culture thinks ridicule, exclusion, humiliation, and verbal abuse are entertaining. I don’t.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
OMG, Anonymous and I agree on something.
PS Im not blonde - maybe in a previous life - but not now.
I like PW’s writing most of the time except when he uses “we” and “us” to include his readers. Im not part of his army. He has a right to his opinion, but don’t please don’t include me in it. My generalization statement was a poor comparison and I should never be on this site when I am falling asleep on my keys. Whether he was making a “funny” or not, rising above the mediocre and status quo is the only way to bring about change.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I meant Peregrin shouldn’t feel bad, but now that you mention it, yeah, I’m blonde, and that’s ANOTHER thing that’s not funny.
Peregrin does like to play close to the edge–and this does seem to be the right place for it–but he’s also giving us something to think about. Hopefully now he has something new to think about too.
Sometimes it’s not so much what you say but how you say it. Laurie usually sounds level-headed, but in the last couple days she’s been coming off as mean, although I did think the generalizaton comparisons were apt.
The atheist writers here have an ongoing problem with tolerance, and this post of Peregrin’s is no exception. They want tolerance for themselves in the political sphere–as in the first pulic official to be openly non-religious–but are not willing to grant it to others. The impression I get is that they want to replace the current bible-thumper politics with their own religion-forbidding politics. Sorry, but under the constitution the people get to choose their own opiates. So yeah, by all means call Peregrin out on his attitude, he probably doesn’t even know he’s showing it. I used to feel pretty sympathetic towards atheists and freethinkers of all sorts, but the writers here are weaning me away from that attitude, and I think they should know that.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Anonymous,
Knock it off.
SHOW. Show me where we writers at Irregular Times call for religion to be forbidden.
You are blowing things out of proportion in an absurd quest for sympathy.
You think it’s unfair for Peregrin, a little old independent writer, to pick on Christianity?!? Christianity, the most powerful religion in the world?
Pardon me if the violin I play for you is teeny tiny.
Besides, Ralph is right! He’s making a joke, a little joke, about the fact that someone would write a book named The Bible Cure For Headaches, and there is no cure for headaches in the Bible and the only time that anything like a headache is mentioned in the Bible, it comes from God.
Do I have to spell it out for you? Okay, okay, then, I’ll spell it out for you:
I-R-O-N-Y.
Irony. It’s kind of like what happens when a Christian suggests that a little independent atheist writer isn’t making fair arguments or being sympathetic.
Irony. Loads.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:57 am
We like Peregrin and we like to read what he writes. We are just pointing out where we differ with it.
We’re not telling him to knock it off and shut up.
We’re not shouting at him with large fonts and all caps and boldface and dashes between letters.
We’re not trying to intimidate him.
We’re not making up weird motives for his opinions.
We’re actually being very nice to him, taking what he says at face value, and responding to the content of his ideas, not to him personally. We are not, however, agreeing with him. And I am not backing down on my criticism of his jeering. It makes all of youse guys look bad, and I want to respect you. I want other non-atheist liberals to respect you too.
Have you read the book yet, jClifford?
March 19th, 2007 at 6:29 am
Anonymous, you did say that we here at Irregular Times are in favor of forbidding religion.
That’s a pretty harsh accusation. J. Clifford is asking you to back up that claim. I agree that you ought to show us where any of us at Irregular Times call upon religion to be forbidden - or admit that you were wrong.
March 19th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Anonymous - and you say the rest of us push it. You were doin fine until you had to twist that titty. Please stop sticking up for me.
I just find it interesting that JC, PW and some of the other writers when it comes to religion continue to point out the obvious over and over again - funny, ironic, or factual. I take all conversation at face value as a opening for honest debate. I am not attacking your opinion guys, Im challenging your verbage thats all.
March 19th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Stop putting words in my mouth, Peregrin. That`s not an honest debate. You want to criticize a book you haven`t read and a bible verse you can`t explain, but you say you can twist the facts because some christians twist facts. And you don`t want to talk about the difference between the tolerance you wish for yourselves as atheists and the tolerance you are willing to show other traditions.
It turns out Laurie was right when she busted in here with six-shooters blazing. (Sorry Laurie, looks like I`m going to have to agree with you again.)If you try to have a discussion with these guys they just twist what you say and start repeating the same junk over and over. They aren`t engaging in dialogue, they`re just trying to shout down everyone who is not like them. They only way they respect you is if you start out, not by trying to be fair, but by acting like they are imbeciles. If anyone wants to see for themselves what happens when atheists go into the public sphere, and whether atheists are any better than right wing fruitcakes, they don`t have to look to California politicians, they can get an earful right here.
I`m done with trying to protect you all. You guys go right ahead and go to it with the muzzles off. Give everyone a taste of your brand of moral values. I`m afraid I will have to miss the “entertainment.”
April 7th, 2007 at 12:22 am
You will not be missed.
April 8th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
So, it seems that Anonymous ran away because he couldn’t back up his own words. Figures.
Bye, bye Anonymous. Go make your Anonymous rambling nonsensical rantings without substance elsewhere.
April 8th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
I don’t get off on ridiculing Moslem, Jewish, Mormon, or even atheist beliefs. I don’t try to bully or intimidate people into changing their religion. My way is to try to find mutual respect and common ground between peoples.
I think we can all see what the atheist way is.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
That’s a lovely sentiment, Anonymous, but its a glaring logical fallacy.
You say “I don’t get off on ridiculing blah blah blah” and then go on to say “I think we can all see what the atheist way is” and that is where your logical fallacy lies.
You tout “your way” in a manner which is designed to give the impression that its the way of all people of your religion, which is bullshit. A lot of religious people do get off on bullying atheists and people of different religions, some have even been known to kill people of different beliefs. A lot of religious people do, in fact, try to bully and intimidate people into converting. Christianity has a bloody history in that respect and while those days have (largely) been put behind us, christians are still some of the most ham-handed people around when it comes to getting others to convert.
You might not try and berate and belittle people into converting, but that does not mean its a sentiment shared by everyone of your religion. You’d be wise to not make generalizations and to refrain from making such logical fallacies as the one you posted above.
April 9th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Read my words again, Damen. It specifically says “I” as in myself and “my” as in my. I am speaking for myself. Speaking for oneself is not a “generalization”. This is exactly what I try to do. Don’t put words in my mouth.
But now that you mention it, this is also the specific stated policy of the church I belong to, as well as many other churches. Try googling their official websites before you make generalizations.
I don’t see you making the same generalizations about Moslems being violent.
What do you try to do, Damen? Are you also an atheist? Do you get off on ridiculing people who are different from you?
April 10th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Anonymous, I’m not putting words in your mouth, I’m using the words you yourself have said. Re-read your post which elected my observation.
The “I” was not a generalization nor was it what I was referring to when I asked you to refrain from making generalizations and logical fallacies. However, for your benefit, I will point out your generalization in no uncertain terms.
That is your generalization. Do you think that because a single atheist posts something you believe is “bullying” that all atheists act the same way? If even all of the atheists you’ve ever interacted with acted that way, do you think that all atheists on the planet act that way? If you don’t then why would you post a statement like the one above?
Oh, and so your church actually tells you not to go out and try and convert people and spread your god’s word? It tells you to, in essence, go against your bible’s teachings (Matthew 28:19)?
And if you go through my previous post, Anonymous, and bother to read it carefully you’ll find that I made little mention of Christianity specifically and the bulk of that post contained “religious people” and “religions” when it comes to pointing out violence done in the name of religion. By saying “Religious People” I include everyone from every religion who has done violence in the name of their religion. That includes Muslims, Christians, and even Buddhists.
I singled out Christianity only for the purposes of pointing out that the Christian religion has a history of being the most violent and also is the most stubborn when it comes to trying to convert people. It is a fact that the history of Christianity is a bloody one, it is also a fact that those times are largely behind us (as I said before). I say largely, not completely. It is also a fact that because of the teachings of the bible many Christians feel it is their duty to convert others.
You want to know my religion? I’m a pagan. Oh, wait, I meant I’m a catholic. No, wait, I’m a wiccan. Actually, I’m a Hindu. No, that’s not true, I’m a Buddhist. No, that’s not true either. Why do you care about my religion or lack there of? The only reason I can think of is to use it in an attempt at a logical fallacy, Poisoning the Well or Guilt By Association. My spirituality is irrelevant to this conversation.
On a side note, I am trying to show you a measure of maturity, Anonymous, which I don’t feel is being returned. Am I foolish in my attempted civility?
April 10th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
You haven’t googled any church websites yet, have you, Damen. Still making those generalizations, though.
If Peregrin and jClifford want to be able to fabricate stuff to be able to treat christians with animosity, but want atheists to be treated with respect and tolerance, how does that NOT have anything to do with their religious beliefs?
I find it rather amusing when someone thinks they can discourse at length about some group they do not belong to, have not researched, and know nothing about, but are unable to explain anything at all about their own religious group, which you would think they would have firsthand eyewitness information about.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Now look who’s sticking words in the mouths of others. I fear I was foolish to attempt to show you a measure of civility.
This post of yours is full of generalizations, Anonymous. And frankly, no, I haven’t. Further, I have no intention of doing so because it is irrelevent to the conversation. No one is talking about your church (which you still haven’t named), except for a remark made in jest by myself. Also, your church is not the one under discussion. The bible, its commandments, and those who do harm in the name of religion, however, is.
Nice try at a strawman fallacy. No one made any mention of their religious beliefs or lack of belief. the only mention made of that since you and I started discussing was when I brought up the question of why you care about my religion and that it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Now, I am neither JClifford nor am I Peregrin Wood, so I can not speak with 100% accuracy about how they feel on that subject, however I can hypothesize and say that, if they believe in the First Amendment they would support christian right to say whatever the hell they want to say so long as they don’t try and get those religious ideals (or any religious ideals) crammed into the government.
Like you and atheism?
Working on the assumption that this is directed towards myself and christianity, what makes you think I haven’t researched it? All I have to do is crack a history book and I can find out all I want abut christianity and guess what! I’ve done that already.
Again working on the assumption that you’re referring to me, there is a difference between being “unable” and “unwilling” to tell others about my spirituality. I am unwilling to tell you about my beliefs or lack there of. They’re irrelevant to this conversation and only serve as a distraction.
I find myself curious as to what “firsthand eyewitness information” you’re talking about.
April 10th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Civility? You never said whether you agree with the practice of ridiculing people who are not like you. It sounds like you are defending the practice.
The next time I want to know something about Islam I will try to remember to pick up a history book instead of googling their websites or asking my Moslem neighbors.
Do share the sources of your information about Christianity so we can all become as enlightened as you. Maybe you can recommend a good history book about atheists too.
April 11th, 2007 at 1:04 am
I support the practice of questioning ones beliefs and encouraging others to question theirs. Be that through polite questioning, heated debate, or, yes, mocking stories and jokes. I do not ridicule those different than myself because that is all I would ever do.
No belief is above questioning, Anonymous, be it christian, atheist, or any other religion or belief system. And only one who’s weak in their belief would get a bug up their ass at having their beliefs mocked.
Yeah, go ahead and pick up a history book or even an encyclopedia when you want to find out about another religion. Because you know, a church or person can give you a water downed version of the religion they follow rather than what that religion actually teaches.
You want my sources on christianity? Text books from my history classes and about every other source you can think of…and…oh, right, the bible. I really loved that one passage that shows how much tolerance christians historically have had for people of other faiths. What was it…can’t rightly remember…oh! Right, here it is!
“They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.” Chronicles 15:12-13
April 11th, 2007 at 1:42 am
You seem to be setting yourself up as an ultimate authority on both Christianity and atheism, yet you don’t want to disclose either your credentials, your sources, or your personal belief system, all of which would seem pertinent for someone who is basically saying, “I know what I am talking about, trust me”. Can you think of even one reason anyone should take you seriously?
What are your sources..besides a vague “every source you can think of”? Can you name even one?
So you do think “mocking stories and jokes” are fine, even mocking a book you have not read and do not understand, or a factoid that is not grounded in the real world. I hear you can really look taller if you dig a hole under somebody else. These “mocking stories and jokes”, even when they are about things invented, must give you a lot of self-esteem and make you feel like you are really somebody.
April 11th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Whether you take me seriously or not is ultimately your problem and not mine. I talk about violence done in the name of religion and your posts increasingly reduce to little more than personal attacks and even more logical fallacies. Thus I see no reason to take you seriously, nor am I going to bother to have an open discussion about religion with someone who shows no sign of returning the favor and any further interaction I have for you will be done for little more than my amusement, though I will still attempt to keep to the facts, even if you won’t. I tell you this because I feel that even you deserve to know what you’re in for and I am going to be completely honest with you.
When did I ever claim to be an authority on either? Find where I said that or even alluded to that notion and I’ll give you a cookie. Can’t do it, can you? No cookie for you.
Because it is irrelevant, why don’t you pull your head out of the dirt and try to process that bit of information? Actually, you know what? I think you can’t debate me using the facts so you’re left with the resort of trying to make it about my own personal beliefs in order to throw the topic off of those facts and make it about faith. If I tell you I’m a christian then it became a debate on the merits of faith and ceases to be about the facts, if I tell you I’m an atheist then it’ll become about how I’ve obviously never felt the “touch of god so you can’t understand” and if I tell you I’m wiccan or anything else then it becomes “you don’t believe so you can’t understand.”
Thus I refuse to tell you so that we can stick to the facts. That’s the reason I am unwilling to tell you what I believe. If you don’t like being ignorant of my spirituality, tough shit.
Funny, I thought anyone who bothered to stay awake during history class would know what I’m talking about. Violence done in the name of religion is well documented.
You want my sources? I told you already, you failed to read it. History text books and the bible itself.
You claim I haven’t read the bible but that’s a mighty tall claim coming from someone who’s never met me, let alone has no clue of what I read.
You mean like the idea of an almighty being who created the universe in a week? The same being who loves everyone on the condition that they love him back or else they’ll be punished for eternity? Are those the “factoids that are not grounded in the real world” you’re talking about?
Oh sure, but that’s an awful lot of work when you can just stand on a milk crate and get the same effect.
No, the fact that I’m alive and aware that I am somebody makes me feel like I really am somebody. However if by mocking someone’s belief encourages them to question it then whatever the outcome of that, be it to strengthen those convictions or weaken them, then I think its been a good day. And if someone comes and mocks my beliefs and gets me to question them, then its still been a good day.
April 11th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
You need to read the original post again. The book in question is “The Bible Cure for Headaches”, which nobody appears to have read, except for a lone reviewer on Amazon who says it helped his migraines.
April 11th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Right, the original post mentions a book with a rather absurd title and a bible passage which might be a reference to headaches. I fail to see how poking fun at the title of a book counts as religious intolerance.
April 11th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Doesn’t it strike you as a bit odd that PW has to invent something in order to jump start his animosity and work up his “entertaining” ridicule and mockery of Christians?
Why do you find the title absurd? Have you read the book? Are you making fun of people with medical problems, too? Is pain funny?
April 11th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Point out what exactly it was that he invented. And for that matter, why don’t you point out exactly it was that he posted which was mockery directed at christians rather than at the book in question?
You did bother to read the title, right? How can a title like that not be considered comedy? “The Bible Cure for Headaches” like a book written before even the development of basic dentistry is gonna have valid cures for headaches? Do you think god or the bible will do a better job at curing a headache than a Tylenol?
No, hearing people yap about the bible and god gives me a headache.
Let me know if you caught that.
That’s a bit of a leap, even for you. You know damn well I made no such allusions to finding either funny throughout the course of our exchanges, quit throwing up Straw man arguments.
April 11th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
What do headaches have to do with dentistry? You are thinking of toothaches.
If you have known anyone with migraines, they can be quite debilitating, even with prescriptions much stronger than Tylenol. But let me get this straight. You haven’t read the book, so you don’t know what’s in it. You don’t know anything about treating pain, but you dispute the reviewer who was able to use the book to decrease their migraine prescription. And you can’t explain why you think this book about curing pain is “comedy”.
Try re-reading post #2, #3, #7, and #12.
April 11th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
I’ve finally come to two possible conclusions: You’re either ignorant or an antagonist. I don’t take either of those seriously, nor do I take anyone who can’t refrain from using logical fallacies seriously.
You’d have to be ignorant if you thought I was being serious and actually mistaken a toothache for a headache rather than making a quip about the lack of medical knowledge of that era.
I’ve had them before, I know how bad they are, so do you honestly think that faith in either god or the bible is going to work better than modern medicine?
And have no desire to.
And that really isn’t what is being discussed, is it? The original post was in reference to the title, not the contents.
I know how to treat pain. I know that when you have pain, you take medicine to get well.
Yes, I dispute his perception. Key word there “perception.” The “more tangible treatments” are more likely to have helped him with his headaches than the bible or a god or prayers. I’m willing to bet a few wiccans and pagans know of “more tangible treatments” that are made from herbs that’ll cure headaches. Does that mean the credit goes to the Goddess or the herbs?
Nice try, but you know I never said the book was comedy, the title was. Quit trying to distort my statements into something they’re not, it won’t work, especially when you can scroll up and see what I actually said.
I will if you bother to carefully read my posts before responding.
April 11th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Why do you continue to cut and paste and harrass me? What have I ever done to you? None of my questions have been answered either. Why do you evade the questions and tap dance around them?
1)Who was Jeremiah in the Bible verse cited above? When and where did he live, and who was he writing to? What was happening in the world and in the region when he wrote it?
2)What is in the book “The Bible Cure for Headaches”. What is it about and what does it say? How can you comment about the book without knowing what it says? Isn’t that just like the people who criticized the Mohammed cartoons without seeing them first?
3)If, as Laurie O says, it’s “10% of the population that try cramming religion down our throats” aren’t you “persecuting the many for the blood of a few”?
4)Why should not someone use their grandfather’s Bible, Quran, Tanakh, etc. for guidance and to find inner peace instead of spending a fortune pay a blood sucking self help industry a mint to buy a book, then the tapes, etc. What’s wrong with that?
5)We have no end of brainless TV shows that think it’s funny to vote someone off an island, fire them, or encourage people with no talent to perform and then mock them. Do you think ridicule, exclusion, humiliation, and verbal abuse are entertaining?
6)How can the atheists expect tolerance for themselves in the political sphere if they are not willing to grant it to others? Doesn’t that just amount to trying to cram their own beliefs down everybody’s throats?
7)Why do you make the generalization that “christians are still some of the most ham-handed people around when it comes to getting others to convert” and “its a sentiment shared by everyone of your religion”? EVERYONE? Where is the proof of this? What is a ham hand? If this is in one of your books, what is the title and author of the book?
8)How can you make the generalization that “the Christian religion has a history of being the most violent”? More violent than the “Religion of Peace? Where is the proof of this? What is the name of the TITLE and AUTHOR of this “history book”?
9)How can you discount policy statements on the official denominational websites for correct information about their official beliefs and what they teach themselves about their own religion? How is a secondary source that collects information from a primary source more accurate than the primary source itself? Can one only obtain accurate information about a religious group from that groups enemies? If I want accurate information about atheists, must I go to their enemies and discount what they say about themselves?
10)Why do you say “only one who’s weak in their belief would get a bug up their ass at having their beliefs mocked”? What is a “weak belief”? Is it not true there is no belief or disbelief that can be proved or disproved? Why do you then idealize those who are certain they have a franchise on truth, but think those who keep a humble and flexible mind are worthy of mockery?
11)Are you aware that the book of the Bible you cited to make some point about the practices of Christians was written literally thousands of years before the birth of Jesus? How can you have any Christians before Jesus even walked the earth? Christians are “followers” not “preceeders” of Jesus, hee hee.
12)Are you sure the real reason you don’t want to reveal your spiritual preferences is that you don’t want them subjected to mockery in the same way you say it’s okay to make “mocking stories and jokes†about Christianity? You have imagined a lot of potential conversations-all negative-that could take place if you revealed your religion, but you will never know what conversation actually WOULD take place until that conversation DOES take place.
13)What is a comedy about“The Bible Cure for Headachesâ€? Why do you find this worthy of mockery? Why do you presume that any Wiccan herbs would be superior to any Biblical herbs that might be in the book? How can you be so negative about the book when you don’t even know what is in it? Do you feel the same way about the medical cures offered from the Koran? Why do you care if the herb cures your headache or the Goddess cures your headache, or if they do it together, as long as the headache is gone?
I have many, many more questions, oh yes, so many more, but since you indicate pagan as one of your religions of choice, I will leave it at a lucky thirteen. And you may be just starting your spring break, but mine has just ended, so my time is limited. No doubt you yourself will need extra time to tweek your broomstick for the upcoming Friday the thirteenth holy day. Have a safe flight.
April 12th, 2007 at 2:30 am
A whole list of questions and even more distortions. Oh well, I just had me a nice supper and I’m in a good enough mood to bestow upon you a few more moments of my time.
I cut and past your comments for a number of reasons but the main reasons are so that I can respond to the best of my ability to the issues you raise without distortions of the quote, be it intentional or otherwise. It also helps others see that I don’t take the things you say and twist them into something wholly different in an effort to either gain the upper hand or drag the conversation off topic. This is not harassment, this is a response. Unless having your words quoted to you is now harassment, though I doubt the definition has extended to encompany that.
They’ve been answered, its not my problem if you don’t like the answers you got.
He was a prophet in the Old Testiment, lived around 628BCE and I believe during the time of that verse the people of Jerusalem had been cast into exile by Nebuchadnezzar. I might be mistaken, however.
I’d already told you that I haven’t read the book, have no intention of reading it, and thus far I have made no claims or comments as to its contents. This was one of those questions you asked and then promptly stuck your head in the sand so you could ignore the answer I gave you in post #37. And no, its not like people who would criticize the Muhammad cartoons because that book is not a religious icon, it is not central to any religion, and no one has based their ideology around this book. To try and equate the two is, frankly, foolish.
First off, people have thrown around the persecuted card so much that word has become all but meaningless. There has been no persecution committed. Last I checked, questioning someone’s belief via the internet or conversation was not like throwing them to the lions, stoning them, stabbing them, crucifying them, hacking them to pieces or just outright murder. Questions someone beliefs and actions is not persecution.
And second, I don’t take issue with anyone except that ten percent. However, I have to question the other 80% or 90% who don’t speak out against the actions of that ten percent.
When did I ever say there was anything wrong with it? I didn’t, I questioned whether it worked and whether it would be more effective at curing a headache than medicine. Also, no one said anything about “inner peace”. We’re talking about headaches not emotional turmoil, stop trying to make this into something its not.
Your example is flawed. There’s a difference between poking fun at something a person believes in so they will question that belief and examine its own validity and between poking fun at someone for the sole purposes of cruelty and profiteering. I make no money from questioning someone’s belief and I get little satisfaction out of it.
No. I don’t know of any atheist who isn’t tolerant of another’s religion. No atheist I’ve ever met or heard of has seriously suggested keeping people from practicing their faith. Granted, I’m willing to bet those people do exist, though, and for those who do…well, they’re idiots. The only complaints I’ve heard atheists raise in an official and unofficial capacity is to keep religion out of politics. If they were trying to cram their beliefs down other people throats they would be trying to force churches to read On the Origin of Species during services.
This is why I quote the things you say, to prevent any distortions like the one you just attempted. I never once said that being ham-handed in converting others is a sentiment shared by everyone in your religion. I said:
“That’s a lovely sentiment, Anonymous, but its a glaring logical fallacy.
You say “I don’t get off on ridiculing blah blah blah†and then go on to say “I think we can all see what the atheist way is†and that is where your logical fallacy lies.
You tout “your way†in a manner which is designed to give the impression that its the way of all people of your religion, which is bullshit.”
In short, I was saying that many religious people do enjoy ridiculing others for their religious beliefs or lack there of and while you yourself might not hold with those actions that does not mean everyone of your religion shares your ideals. Stop trying to pull these fallacies on me.
As for your question about the term “ham-handed”, in this context its a metaphor for an overbearing, over-eager, superfluous approach to handling things, in this case convincing someone to convert to another religion.
Are you really so ignorant as to the history of your own religion? Okay, lets think about this: The crusades, the witch hunts, Holy Wars, torture, the inquisition, burning of heretics, forced conversion, genocide. Did you bother to read your history books in school?
You know, I could create a website that says I (myself) am a multimillionaire college professor with a degree in biotechnology, does that make it true? Now, would you believe what my official website says, or would you listen to independent sources that’ll tell you I’m full of shit? Do you now see why I’d find it hard to believe, at face value, a church which preaches something contrary to the book which is the core of their religion?
A weak belief is one that someone holds without really having firm convictions to back it up. Those people don’t like having their beliefs questioned because one of those points just might be hitting too close to home.
And there are beliefs and religions which can be disproved by a simple trip to a museum of natural history. Like the belief that the earth is only 6,000 years old and yet evidence has been found which shows the earth is billions of year old. That’s where faith comes in, and faith is what keeps those beliefs alive.
And are you aware that book is…gasp, shock and awe…a part of the bible?! And that the followers of that bible are Christians? I could argue that those were retroactive christians.
Of course, by your logic, there were no humans until the word “human” was invented, and no computers until the word “computer” was invented.
Hee hee.
I gave you my reasons for not telling you what my belief system is. Its not relevent to the conversation, it has no bearing on the original post, it has no relevence to the posts following it and the only reason it seems like it does is because you just can’t seem to survive unless I tell you. Okay, you want something to help you sleep at night? I worship Prometheus. Happy? Oh, you know I’m bullshitting? Good, because as I said before, it would only serve as a distraction to the facts. If you want to know really bad, post a topic (a topic, not a response in this area) that would have some bearing on my religion and I’ll tell you. Until then, I refuse to answer you and if you don’t like it, well…eat shit. I’m not a spirit-whore.
What is comedy about it? The title, as I’ve said before. Why do I find it worthy of mockery? Because in my opinion its a pretty stupid title. I made no presumptions as to the merits of wiccan or christian herbs, I used wiccan herbs as a point to question where the credit to the cure of the headache goes to, god or the medicinal herbs which were taken. And I’m negative about a stupid title, not the contents of the book. And to answer your question in a broader scope, I question cures offered in any religious text. As to your question about a god/goddess/herb cure and whether it matters to me, its a moot point. I don’t take herbs and say prayers, I take a couple asprines and get a nights sleep.
So long as you read the answers I’ve provided I’ll have no problem answering them. However, any repeated questions will be ignored.
Don’t think that wasn’t lost on me. But lucky? I’ve always been weary of that number. Tend to avoid it like the plague, in fact. The number 3 however…
I would tweak my broom for my flight out to Salem to pay homage to my fallen sisters, but I find myself involved in looking up a method for cursing you with genital warts. Don’t worry, I’m sure one prayer to your god will clear that right up.
…oh, wait…blasted karma. Nevermind, I don’t want to be hit with something worse…like Mormons showing up at my door.
April 12th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Genital warts. How charming.
There are so many inaccuracies and false assumptions in your last post I can’t possibly begin to address them. I don’t know if you’re just uninformed or are deliberately trying to provoke something.
Your answer to #5 has me puzzled.”There’s a difference between poking fun at something a person believes in so they will question that belief and examine its own validity and between poking fun at someone for the sole purposes of cruelty and profiteering. I make no money from questioning someone’s belief and I get little satisfaction out of it.”
So you aren’t trying to learn something for yourself. You want other people to question beliefs. What is the belief in the Bible cure for headaches you want them to question? Why do you go to so much trouble just to get someone to question beliefs?–and you have gone to a lot of trouble, writing literally hundreds of words. What is the outcome from this that you expect or hope for? What conclusions do you want people to come to?
April 13th, 2007 at 2:04 am
I could say you started it with the crack about me being a pagan, but that’s a little too much of a grade-school defense for my taste.
Oh no, if I was trying to provoke something you’d know it. And I answered your questions this time around, regardless of how off topic they were (I.E. many of them about me and not the topic in question). But if I’ve made a false assumption, please tell me where. Show me what has confused you and I’ll do my best to clear it up.
No, I’m always trying to learn things for myself. Be it general knowledge or spiritual beliefs.
I made that clear, yes.
Whether or not the bible or prayer will actually cure a headache better than medicine and/or herbs.
Because any belief that can’t be questioned is a weak belief and it can even be a dangerous thing. Dangerous in how it influences choices and people’s actions. And yeah, I’ve written hundreds of words, but you yourself have been coming back for more for four or five days now.
My lofty hope is that you might take a moment to think about these beliefs you hold and question whether they fit in logically with things that can be proven to be true through the use of evidence. A lofty hope, but a hope none the less, and its that hope that keeps me urging everyone to question their beliefs, religious and non-religious people alike.
I have no hopes or expectations about what conclusions they’ll come to.
April 13th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
If think being called a pagan is offensive, Damen, why did you call yourself a pagan?
The only belief I have expressed here is that people from different religious traditions should be treated with tolerance. That does not include giving them genital warts.
Apparently the idea of tolerance is too radical for this crowd.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
I never called myself a pagan, that’s you distorting the things I say. Show me where I ever said “I am a pagan” or “as a pagan, I…” in fact, show me where I even alluded to being a pagan.
Good for you.
Stop harping on a joke.
Only if “tolerance” means no questioning anyones beliefs and letting the government mix church and state. However, I doubt you’ll find anyone here talking about banning any practice of religion or booting anyone off the website who has a different viewpoint. In my experience, they’re actually very tolerant of differing views.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Except for giving them genital warts.
I have some more really funny jokes about giving syphilis to black servicemen and doing fertility experiments on Jews.
You see, it’s really important to question other people’s beliefs. Without answering for your own, of course.
April 15th, 2007 at 3:31 am
Gonna dine on that for a while, are ya?
Your inability to move past a joke which your own comment spurned is now past annoying and has moved into the realm of immaturity and stupidity.
Really? Lets hear ‘em. Unless you’re trying to equate an off-the-cuff remark about a superstition of curses with violence done in the name of racism. A real reach and…kind of lame when you think about it.
Question others and question your own.
But answering for my own? You make it sound like holding beliefs is a crime that must be answered for. Is that what it is for you? Holding beliefs and refusing to tell them in regards to a conversation that they have no bearing on is a crime? Do you want to outlaw the refusal to share one’s beliefs? Do you want to make people wear a sign around their neck that says “I AM A CHRISTIAN” or “I AM AN ATHEIST” whenever they interact with others? Isn’t that like what the Nazi’s did to the Jews? Tattooing serial numbers on their arms and all?
See, I can do the lame racist accusation too.
Why does not knowing my spirituality bother you to the point that you’ll beat that poor horse carcass to a bloody pulp for a week straight? Is it because not knowing it makes it hard to put a label on me and stick me in a nice comforting group that’ll allow you to pin whatever stereotype you can think of on me?
I’m gonna be honest, your inability to move past wanting to know my beliefs is providing endless amusement for me.
April 15th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
I’m still working on this one because it seems to be the central bugaboo that Damen thinks justifies everything, from saying a book title about curing headches is comedy to thinking its funny to say you want to give genital herpes to people who you think might be christians.
What is funny about a book *title* that is about healing headaches, and what is funny about a *joke* about giving people diseases based on their religion?
Why does Damen want to examine the validity of beliefs? Obviously beliefs cannot be proved or disproved or they would not be called “beliefs”. And after these Other People, specifically christian people, not Damen, have “examined the validity of beliefs”, then what happens? The beliefs stay the same? Damen is afraid they might change their beliefs and he wants to prevent that from happening? Yeah, that must be it. Damen is up in arms because he wants those Other People to keep their beliefs the same.