Originally posted by ShakyamunisonThere was a movie, made in the fifties, I think (it was black and white), where starting one day, a voice came over all the radios on Earth (I'm pretty sure it wasn't just the US), a voice claiming to be that of God.
Isn't the radio really God? At some point in the past, the radio would have been worshiped. 😉
The voice spoke every day at the same time, iirc, but here's the thing: something always came up where you, the viewer, never actually heard the voice. There was always some reason, eg, people thought it was a hoax, so they turned their radios off.
Anyway, after days of more and more people hearing this voice, finally, when the whole world is ready to listen -- including you, the viewer; you will hear the voice -- nothing comes over the radios. No voice, no sound. Nothing.
It was then people realized today was the Sabbath.
Sound familiar at all? I remember as a child getting a "chill of wonder" at the end with that little twist. So far, I haven't been able to hit the right combo of key words to find anything about it online.
EDIT: Nix the above.
"The Next Voice You Hear"...
Originally posted by Mindship
There was a movie, made in the fifties, I think (it was black and white), where starting one day, a voice came over all the radios on Earth (I'm pretty sure it wasn't just the US), a voice claiming to be that of God.The voice spoke every day at the same time, iirc, but here's the thing: something always came up where you, the viewer, never actually heard the voice. There was always some reason, eg, people thought it was a hoax, so they turned their radios off.
Anyway, after days of more and more people hearing this voice, finally, when the whole world is ready to listen -- including you, the viewer; you will hear the voice -- nothing comes over the radios. No voice, no sound. Nothing.
It was then people realized today was the Sabbath.
Sound familiar at all? I remember as a child getting a "chill of wonder" at the end with that little twist. So far, I haven't been able to hit the right combo of key words to find anything about it online.
EDIT: Nix the above.
"The Next Voice You Hear"...
LoL, you're old!
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
You have chosen to interpret the non-Christian beliefs as dangerous without giving the same ruling to Christians, which is a baffling kind of selective judgment on your part.
My "baffling kind of selective judgement" is one made even by the most non-Conservative, anti-religious secularists of today.
The fact that Fox News apparently makes a similar judgement might not give you pause, but the former should.
Why is the same judgement being made by liberals and atheists?
The simple fact is, there IS a difference among religions, there IS a difference among belief systems and what manifests from them, there IS cause for judging among those belief systems, and the man that ignores this fact is ignoring reality.
Originally posted by DigiIt's a shame that we've had to default to laughing trollishly at ignorance. In reality, it's sad that something so misguided could make it to print, but we'd quickly become depressed if we thought for long about it. I do the same thing...just enjoy it for the lulz...but I feel like there's a darker defense mechanism at work there as well.
I suspect statements like these are the key to understanding how the Digi of the KMC Respect Forum can be so markedly different from the one that expresses himself in a place like this. Indeed, that Digi behaves so differently the problem would be inexplicable to me. Finding that Digi is a follower of Richard Dawkins, though? That clarifies quite a bit.
Digi, your paragraph above is something that could have come right from one of Dawkins' 2012 speeches.
Ravi Zacharias gives a good response to D's call for ridicule, though, and points out the flaw in Stealth Moose's reasoning that all religions are equal at the same time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPlqjziNFdA
(2 minutes 40 seconds)
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonIf you can't attack the idea, then attack the person. Despicable!
😕
1. Why are you pretending to know the content of the clip I posted when you claim your computer cannot play YouTube videos?
2. How are you supposedly responding to the message I posted before this one to begin with when you also claim to have put me on "ignore", a formal KMC feature on your control panel that would automatically make any text I write unviewable to you?
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonI suggest putting BWR on ignore. That's what I did!
3. How is it you can type statements like the very first quote in this post when you regularly attack people who rarely, if ever, even say anything to you?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Stealth Moose, you are better off with eninn not talking to you. He is far, far, far, more delusional then any of the Christians.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonYa, English is not his/hers/its first language.
Originally posted by RobtardUsed to watch these as a kid too. Another decade, these will be hundred-year-old toons.
LoL, you're old!
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I suspect statements like these are the key to understanding how the Digi of the KMC Respect Forum can be so markedly different from the one that expresses himself in a place like this. Indeed, that Digi behaves so differently the problem would be inexplicable to me. Finding that Digi is a follower of Richard Dawkins, though? That clarifies quite a bit.
Villify me if you need to. A lot of times it's like debating a wall, though. Not with you specifically, but fundamentalists and/or scientifically illiterate Christians. And it manifests as all sorts of hateful, damaging social trends like persecution of LGBT or the subversion of education in our schools in order to push a religious agenda. Sometimes shaking my head and making a joke out of it is all I can do.
Also, don't call me a Dawkins follower. If anything, my atheist heroes are Penn Jillette and Christopher Hitchens. But you'd miss the point there as well. The point isn't to attack the person. It's to attack the belief, the thought process, the lack of information as vehemently as possible to try to promote critical thinking, understanding, and eliminate evil. But people see attacks on beliefs as attacks on people, especially when it's an attack on what they use as the basis for their worldview. Maybe Dawkins crosses that line occasionally. I really don't care. When you're on the front lines like he is, some (verbal) shots will inevitably be fired. He's the recipient of far, far worse from supposedly godly people. In any case, it's a line I try not to cross, but it hardly matters. Because in not pulling punches where I see ignorance, people take it personally regardless of how I present it.
For example: Noah's Ark as it exists in the Bible is physically impossible for a number of reasons. It's at worst entirely false, and at best a metaphor for obedience to God. In this case, the belief is something benign. No one's being hurt because you believe something that's rationally on par with believing in the Easter Bunny. But that isn't always the case, and the truth can often be its own goal.
Originally posted by Digi
Villify me if you need to. A lot of times it's like debating a wall, though. Not with you specifically, but fundamentalists and/or scientifically illiterate Christians. And it manifests as all sorts of hateful, damaging social trends like persecution of LGBT or the subversion of education in our schools in order to push a religious agenda. Sometimes shaking my head and making a joke out of it is all I can do.Also, don't call me a Dawkins follower. If anything, my atheist heroes are Penn Jillette and Christopher Hitchens. But you'd miss the point there as well. The point isn't to attack the person. It's to attack the belief, the thought process, the lack of information as vehemently as possible to try to promote critical thinking, understanding, and eliminate evil. But people see attacks on beliefs as attacks on people. Maybe Dawkins crosses that line occasionally. I really don't care. When you're on the front lines like he is, some (verbal) shots will inevitably be fired. He's the recipient of far, far worse from supposedly godly people. In any case, it's a line I try not to cross, but it hardly matters. Because in not pulling punches where I see ignorance, people take it personally regardless of how I present it.
^ This.
Great post, Digi.
Originally posted by DigiThe point isn't to attack the person. It's to attack the belief, the thought process, the lack of information as vehemently as possible to try to promote critical thinking, understanding, and eliminate evil. But people see attacks on beliefs as attacks on people, especially when it's an attack on what they use as the basis for their worldview. Maybe Dawkins crosses that line occasionally. I really don't care. When you're on the front lines like he is, some (verbal) shots will inevitably be fired. He's the recipient of far, far worse from supposedly godly people. In any case, it's a line I try not to cross, but it hardly matters. Because in not pulling punches where I see ignorance, people take it personally regardless of how I present it.
Key word is "supposedly".
Not everything the general public calls "Muslim" is actually "Muslim".
Not everything the general public calls "Christian" is actually "Christian", either.
Back to Richard Dawkins, though.
He evolved in his thinking following that Ravi Zacharias clip I showed.
In fact, Dawkins' thinking has evolved to the point that he himself illustrates one reason why Stealth Moose is wrong if he equates one religious belief equivalent to one another, and yourself, if you likewise hold that view.
Interestingly enough, it is a near complete reversal of the content of his earlier "mock them with ridicule" speech shown in the previous video.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Dawkins confronts a Muslim who says Islam is peaceful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Ks4pCO5O8
7 min 14 sec
(the deadly penalty of apostasy in a Muslim country)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3:35
I would be thoroughly in favor of education in the Bible as literature.
You can't understand English Literature without the Bible.
You can't take your allusions ...
This IS a Christian country, historically it's a Christian country,
You can't understand English History or English Literature without a knowledge of the Bible.
...
By the way, I should say, the act of collective worship, I don't approve of it, but nevertheless:
The Christian religion ... is benign by comparison ...
The penalty for apostasy in the Christian religion is not death.
There is no penalty for apostasy at all in the Christian religion.
The Christian religion is comparatively benign, and we should respect it as such. -- Richard Dawkins
4:33
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Key word is "supposedly".Not everything the general public calls "Muslim" is actually "Muslim".
Not everything the general public calls "Christian" is actually "Christian", either.Back to Richard Dawkins, though.
He evolved in his thinking following that Ravi Zacharias clip I showed.
In fact, Dawkins' thinking has evolved to the point that he himself illustrates one reason why Stealth Moose is wrong if he equates one religious belief equivalent to one another, and yourself, if you likewise hold that view.
Interestingly enough, it is a near complete reversal of the content of his earlier "mock them with ridicule" speech shown in the previous video.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Dawkins confronts a Muslim who says Islam is peaceful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Ks4pCO5O8
7 min 14 sec
(the deadly penalty of apostasy in a Muslim country)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3:35
I would be thoroughly in favor of education in the Bible as literature.
You can't understand English Literature without the Bible.
You can't take your allusions ...
This IS a Christian country, historically it's a Christian country,
You can't understand English History or English Literature without a knowledge of the Bible....
By the way, I should say, the act of collective worship, I don't approve of it, but nevertheless:
-- Richard Dawkins
The Christian religion ... is benign by comparison ...
The penalty for apostasy in the Christian religion is not death.
There is no penalty for apostasy at all in the Christian religion.
[b]The Christian religion is comparatively benign, and we should respect it as such.
4:33
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/B]
No True Scotsman, yadda yadda. He takes 10x worse than he gives, is the point, especially when it comes to cherry-picking points, quotes, and arguments.
(Nearly) all religion is founded on blind faith, and none are beyond some kind of moral and/or social reproach, so trying to separate it from Islam is an odd angle to take. But w/e helps you justify it.
I'm not entirely sure what idea you're trying to ascribe to me this time, using Dawkins as a proxy, but needless to say, you're the only one discussing it. Not me.
Originally posted by Digi
No True Scotsman, yadda yadda. He takes 10x worse than he gives, is the point, especially when it comes to cherry-picking points, quotes, and arguments.(Nearly) all religion is founded on blind faith, and none are beyond some kind of moral and/or social reproach, so trying to separate it from Islam is an odd angle to take. But w/e helps you justify it.
I'm not entirely sure what idea you're trying to ascribe to me this time, using Dawkins as a proxy, but needless to say, you're the only one discussing it. Not me.
😕
Did you actually watch either of the clips I posted or did you simply respond sight unseen?
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
😕Did you actually watch either of the clips I posted or did you simply respond sight unseen?
I watched the clips, but have no desire to be dragged into a discussion that has nothing to do with anything I've posted. You arbitrarily decided I'm a Dawkins follower, despite explicit statements otherwise. And instead of seeing my last couple posts for what they were - positive statements about the nature of critical thought, and documentation of my attempts to separate beliefs from the people who believe them when I am attacking an idea - you instead decide to plow past that to further whatever point you're trying to push here. Which, again, have nothing to do with anything I've posted and have completely ignored my posts.
Did you ever dig up that thread you demanded I respond to? Please either post it here or declare that you're dropping it. I'd like to tie a bow on this whole unfortunate discussion. I don't think it's intentional, but you're an extremely frustrating person to try to have a conversation with.