|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 25, 2009 2:13:30 GMT -5
zdenny.com/?p=1790&cpage=2#comment-534Basic idea: Apparently, atheism is about "becoming one with nature." Because of this, Hinduism & atheism are very similar religions. Disregard that atheism means "not believing in gods or goddesses." Their argument also consists of a lot of word redefinition, flawed premises, argument from opinion, & other fun little tactics like that. Basically, I'm posting this to vent. I'm looking for a good place to drop out of this Idiot vs. Asshole competition, so if someone else wants to take a crack at this person (their head's thick enough to take it), go ahead. Also, realizing that I've referred to them in 3rd person plural the entire time, I believe that Zdenny is a woman with 2 kids, judging from some of the things she's said, as well as the picture on her blog.
|
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Oct 25, 2009 4:08:36 GMT -5
Dear god this is a beautiful statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Oct 25, 2009 6:36:56 GMT -5
Well, there is this whole concept in Hinduism of nastika, where... Well, it's complicated. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_HinduismHinduism isn't really one cohesive unit, and there are atheistic branches of Hinduism. Not that I'm suggesting your fundie there knew anything about that, but it's an interesting point. |
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Oct 25, 2009 6:42:28 GMT -5
Ehr, now that I've read your response, I'm not going to reply there to feed the troll but... Hinduism in ALL it's forms is NOT about dharma in relation to reincarnation (though that's more prevalent than strict theism), nor does it in all its forms believe in Brahma nor the additional gods/goddesses and aspects of Brahma. The more prevalent forms do, but not ALL forms. I am not familiar with any strict materialism in Hindu thought (though the wikipedia article references such, I am not personally read on their reference), strict materialism and atheism are not actually the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Oct 25, 2009 7:13:40 GMT -5
I want my time back, plz. ZDenny is a certifiable idiot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 25, 2009 16:14:23 GMT -5
I thought I made sure to use terms that suggested most of Hinduism was like that, but not all of it. I also figured there are atheistic branches, but I didn't want to make that assumption.
Also, earlier on--or maybe it was on another blog page, I don't know--I pointed out that her stereotype, for lack of a better word, of atheism wasn't entirely accurate, because there were some atheistic religions, such as Buddhism.
I'd like to point out that I was typing that up at like 5 in the morning. That it's in any way coherent is nothing short of a miracle.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Oct 25, 2009 19:53:48 GMT -5
How does one accomodate the belife in nothing at all into a religion with half a billion gods and goddesses?
Ironbite-I truely don't understand that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 25, 2009 23:01:00 GMT -5
I've tried explaining that a few times, but no dice. Also, since when is there an "e" in "truly"?
This argument is getting boring, but she's pulled the "save yourself from Hell!" line a few times, so I'm going to try moving to that instead of quitting this altogether.
Why she hasn't blocked me yet, I have no fucking clue. I clearly have no problem insulting her just for the sake of being insulting.
|
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Oct 25, 2009 23:30:47 GMT -5
Oh yeah, I was just being nitpicky. Also I don't believe for an instant that ZDenny knows anything about that. You just did actually say "all" in the post.
You gotta love other people telling atheists what atheism is all about. I mean, me personally, I'm all about nature, and am also a member of a religion with no god requirement. It's not what "atheists" are up to. *eyerolls*
|
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Oct 26, 2009 0:35:44 GMT -5
According to Twitter, she's been at it for some time now, usually attacking Canuckian (Canuck?/Canucki?) atheists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 26, 2009 20:52:52 GMT -5
Then I must kill everyone who saw it.
Yeah, I will say that being a "member" of a particular ideology, for lack of a better word, in no way makes you an expert, or even proves that you know the first thing about what you're going on about, but it's a safe bet that, if you're a Christian apologist "explaining" it to like 10 people, you're full of shit. Comma.
Canadia doesn't have atheists. All Canadia has is snow, mooses, & cavemen. All the same, I should see if I can get Harley to show up there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 28, 2009 18:52:45 GMT -5
So, as time goes on, I'm getting less & less serious with my arguments. My latest one has degenerated (or evolved, depending on how you look at it) into this:
Which she wouldn't put up do to language, & I refused to change it, on the grounds that it was epic. For the same reason, I thought I'd put it up here, so at least it can be seen.
In case you don't want to check, this is in response to her recent argument that:
1. All religions are just moral systems to atheists.
2. Moral systems are subject to natural selection.
3. Therefore, natural selection has determined that Christianity is the best "vehicle for human survival."
4. Therefore, by "atheistic reasoning," Christianity is right.
Yeah. You can probably see why I'm just hamming it up now.
|
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Oct 28, 2009 20:14:42 GMT -5
3. Therefore, natural selection has determined that Christianity is the best "vehicle for human survival." Not when we hunt all of her kind down and wipe them from the face of the earth. Oops, I've said too much. We mustn't reveal the plan or they will go into hiding by pretending to be Hindus or something. If you're at the point of hamming it up, you might as well just fuck with her mind while you're at it. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 28, 2009 20:46:04 GMT -5
That's not a bad idea, maybe I should.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Oct 28, 2009 21:53:14 GMT -5
Funny version of ad populum. Also completely idiotic, which might be what makes it funny.
|
|
