What do you feel about Filo V's current avatar? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

What do you feel about Filo V's current avatar?

Roger the Dodger
03-20-2012, 05:56 PM
Is it in good taste?

For all the ills caused by religions and Christianity, Jesus himself was a noble man/entity all along, if the legends are true.

Obviously, a person who can bear torture of the cruelest sorts, wouldn't show his finger that way.

Also, those who feel it is acceptable in the forums, would the same be acceptable on a highway billboard?

Filo V.
03-20-2012, 07:14 PM
The tastefulness of my avatar means little to me. I chose it because it's a powerful figure saying fuck you by giving the one-finger salute. That's my mentality............towards a lot of people, not just on here, but overall. No-one knows my thoughts so no-one is in the position to deduce what my intent is and ultimately, I'm doing this for me and not anyone else. If others can't handle it, they can ignore.

electronicmusic
03-20-2012, 07:15 PM
permaban

Tulipe
03-20-2012, 07:38 PM
Whatever the intent is, at least some things should stay untouched.

Time Violation
03-20-2012, 07:38 PM
There is always adblock if you use firefox, comes handy in case of some avatars and/or signatures :)

Orka_n
03-20-2012, 07:41 PM
There is always adblock if you use firefox, comes handy in case of some avatars and/or signatures :)Thanks for this. I find Filo's avatar to be offensive, and I don't say that a lot.

samanosuke
03-20-2012, 07:57 PM
so you use your avatar to say someone " fuck you " because you don't have balls to say them that face to face . and if you searching someone strong to encourage yourself better use Hulk Hogan or someone like that . It doesn't sound scary when saint man says " fuck you " to somebody

Filo V.
03-20-2012, 08:18 PM
so you use your avatar to say someone " fuck you " because you don't have balls to say them that face to face . and if you searching someone strong to encourage yourself better use Hulk Hogan or someone like that . It doesn't sound scary when saint man says " fuck you " to somebodyWell, I can't see you face to face to say fuck you to you, now am I right? I think so. :wavey:

samanosuke
03-20-2012, 08:21 PM
Well, I can't see you face to face to say fuck you to you, now am I right? I think so. :wavey:

No. Now you are reported. :wavey:

Filo V.
03-20-2012, 08:35 PM
:lol:

Did I say fuck you to you? No. But if you want to be a little baby and whine to the administrators, go ahead. Says more about you than anything.

Lopez
03-20-2012, 08:46 PM
I'm indifferent but probably some people don't like it (as we can see in this thread). But honestly, Jesus probably looked nothing like that :p. But I guess the thing it implies matters for some.

Time Violation
03-20-2012, 09:18 PM
I'm indifferent but probably some people don't like it (as we can see in this thread). But honestly, Jesus probably looked nothing like that :p. But I guess the thing it implies matters for some.

Yup, just having hair and beard doesn't make one Jesus... it's just some hairy dude showing finger, which is not a surprising choice for the user in question anyway. :lol:

safin-rules-no.1
03-20-2012, 09:24 PM
I find it rather sexual.

Filo V.
03-20-2012, 09:32 PM
Yup, just having hair and beard doesn't make one Jesus... it's just some hairy dude showing finger, which is not a surprising choice for the user in question anyway. :lol:
Awww, do you still think you're cute and witty? Guess you haven't learned a damn thing since I got banned.

safin-rules-no.1
03-20-2012, 09:43 PM
Awww, do you still think you're cute and witty? Guess you haven't learned a damn thing since I got banned.

People with very low IQs tend not to learn quickly. Plus it's a c**t.

Time Violation
03-20-2012, 09:45 PM
Like you would know - certainly you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer :shrug:

Johnny Groove
03-20-2012, 09:48 PM
The avatar only has as much power as you give to it.

Mind games, people.

Deathless Mortal
03-20-2012, 09:48 PM
Unlike, I'd guess, a lot of people here, I have nothing against Filo, but I'd appreciate it if he changed that avatar.

buddyholly
03-20-2012, 09:50 PM
I thought it was Patrick Rafter and was offended.

Now I'm OK with it.

Filo V.
03-20-2012, 10:49 PM
People with very low IQs tend not to learn quickly. Plus it's a c**t.

Nothing else is necessary to be said.

Filo V.
03-20-2012, 10:51 PM
I was going to change it anyway since I bored of it, but now I'm probably going to keep it to piss off the BITCHES on this forum who I despise. To those I don't hate and you know who you are, if you're offended, I apologize.

To everyone else, I said I didn't give a fuck when I first returned, so yeah.............I don't give a fuck what you have to say. Tell me one thing and I'm going to do the opposite. Fuck you and get off my dick.

buddyholly
03-20-2012, 11:17 PM
You really sound as though you are not having fun.

Pirata.
03-20-2012, 11:22 PM
Pressed thread full of pressed people :rolleyes:

I'm not religious so I'm not offended.

Filo V.
03-20-2012, 11:25 PM
Pressed thread full of pressed people :rolleyes:
I know, it's pretty gross. I'm used to it, though. And I love it :hearts: What better way to have a laugh :angel:

Clay Death
03-20-2012, 11:29 PM
why is this even an issue?

filo v is not bothering anybody. it seems like the other way around: some of the ejaculites are bothering the hell of filo v very simply because they cant mind their own business.

leng jai
03-20-2012, 11:57 PM
Not that I care but isn't the gesture in itself offensive regardless of of whose giving it? Not surprising that some people don't appreciate seeing the middle finger all the time when browsing MTF.

Ajde

Hewitt =Legend
03-21-2012, 12:02 AM
It's a struggle, but somehow I don't lose any sleep over it.

Ajde :sad:

Nidhogg
03-21-2012, 12:05 AM
I've never given it much thought, but apparently it serves a purpose. Satire and caricatures have always been good tools to make people think about what they believe in.

Should I feel offended by following pic just because I believe in evolution? I can't say I do. :p ;)

http://i39.tinypic.com/34xrul2.jpg

BroTree123
03-21-2012, 12:08 AM
Cauz' it's fun to pick on users :shrug:.

Seth82
03-21-2012, 01:13 AM
what's so bad about it

people need to have a sense of humor for crying out loud

tripwires
03-21-2012, 01:14 AM
Not that I care but isn't the gesture in itself offensive regardless of of whose giving it? Not surprising that some people don't appreciate seeing the middle finger all the time when browsing MTF.

Ajde

Speaking as objectively as I can, this is the best response in this thread. :eek:

I personally don't care though. The poll should have a third option - "who gives a shit".

kinski76
03-21-2012, 01:19 AM
I'm an atheist, but my mother is a methodist minister. Having said that, I've had my share of indoctrination and read the scripture and the Jesus character I read about certainly wasn't beyond giving people the finger every once in a while. so Filo's avatar isn't necessarily out of character.

"Intent doesn't matter"? My previous avatar wasn't intended as a provocation (quite the contrary, in fact), yet was deleted without ANY explanation (even when the latter was specifically and courteously requested) by a power hungry mod who made no effort to understand my motives or intentions whatsoever. I've left forums with less provocation than that. I stick around this place because of the (sometimes involuntary) humor on display.

Filo V.
03-21-2012, 01:19 AM
The gesture is as offensive as you make it. If you think it's directed at you, and you're offended, then my job has been done.

Filo V.
03-21-2012, 01:22 AM
"Intent doesn't matter"? My previous avatar wasn't intended as a provocation (quite the contrary, in fact), yet was deleted without ANY explanation (even when the latter was specifically and courteously requested) by a power hungry mod who made no effort to understand my motives or intentions whatsoever. I've left forums with less provocation than that. I stick around this place because of the (sometimes involuntarily) humor on display.People here are overly sensitive and think that others should walk on eggshells in talking/behavior with them. I don't find much humor on this forum, but I do agree that rules need to be less restrictive at this place and that more freedom for posters is a great thing and much needed.

tripwires
03-21-2012, 01:22 AM
I'm an atheist, but my mother is a methodist minister. Having said that, I've had my share of indoctrination and read the scripture and the Jesus character I read about certainly wasn't beyond giving people the finger every once in a while. so Filo's avatar isn't necessarily out of character.

"Intent doesn't matter"? My previous avatar wasn't intended as a provocation (quite the contrary, in fact), yet was deleted without ANY explanation (even when the latter was specifically and courteously requested) by a power hungry mod who made no effort to understand my motives or intentions whatsoever. I've left forums with less provocation than that. I stick around this place because of the (sometimes involuntarily) humor on display.

What was your previous avatar?

Naudio Spanlatine
03-21-2012, 04:15 AM
Well im a christian, but im not that religious so i dont find this offensive, i mean its nothing wrong with Filo's avi at all, i mean it shouldnt harm anyone at all.:shrug:

Kat_YYZ
03-21-2012, 06:55 AM
I'm an atheist, but my mother is a methodist minister. Having said that, I've had my share of indoctrination and read the scripture and the Jesus character I read about certainly wasn't beyond giving people the finger every once in a while. so Filo's avatar isn't necessarily out of character.

...

yeah, that bit about throwing the money-lenders out of the temple :eek: and frequently clashing with the authorities of the time.

Nah, I don't have any problem with the avatar :shrug:

Roger the Dodger
03-22-2012, 10:31 AM
People here are overly sensitive and think that others should walk on eggshells in talking/behavior with them. I don't find much humor on this forum, but I do agree that rules need to be less restrictive at this place and that more freedom for posters is a great thing and much needed.

This is the reality, although people will make posts full of hope and cheeriness. Life's a bitch and it's how you accept and adjust to this that matters. We're living in a world with evil all around us. There are positive moments, there are rays of sunshine, you have to keep going to see and hope those days come again. I question sometimes if it's even worth it, to go through the struggles, to read the countless stories of horrific behavior I didn't think was possible from my fellow man. The world is really total bullshit. Genuinely kind, sensitive hearted individuals aren't cut out for it, we're too good for this.

Your second post is from the 'what's the point of living?' thread. So what are you being to another individual, 'sensitive or insensitive?'

Are you the poster in the first quote who justifies his false reasoning for tainting an individual's image in the eyes of millions of sensitive people who have their faith and genuine respect towards him, and even in their most trying times, economic hardships and failures, never see him - of all people - as someone who'd turn towards them with a lowly gesture likened to those 'I don't give a damn about the world,' kind of jerks - you know, the kinds that get drunk and beat their wives and kids cause they are too weak to face life. Well, this individual did give a damn about the world, and he gave his life for it.

OR

Are you the "genuinely kind, sensitive-hearted individual" you claim to be in your second quote, who by the image you create of yourself certainly ought to be sensitive to the needs of other individuals, most certainly to the image of an individual who even now, inspires and gives hope to millions of other "sensitive-hearted" people, even if he doesn't inspire you, or whatever be your personal grudges with him.

Everyone has their fight with God/Consciousness/Creation/Nature, and no one's life is easy - but why malign someone's reputation - someone who of all people, unlike the self-serving politicians and attention-hogging superstars of our world, actually, in his time -with all his mental and spiritual powers - came out to help ordinary people like a simple friend? Isn't that a rare man?

Filo V.
03-22-2012, 11:43 AM
I'm not anti-Jesus.

Filo V.
03-22-2012, 11:45 AM
I'm sensitive but I also don't give a fuck. Some things are bullshit, and I treat them like bullshit accordingly. Like the pleas for me to change my avatar. It's mostly bullshit, IMO. I gave my reasons why I chose it, if people continue to choose to be offended, it's no longer my problem. You can be sensitive without being over-sensitive, and PC.

cristalmeister
03-22-2012, 12:07 PM
I like that avatar, one of few funny!
I'd say people who react 'badly' to it should ransack what they think is so offensive and aim their discontent elsewhere (perhaps to something that actually matters in this world).

gulzhan
03-22-2012, 12:09 PM
I didn't realize it was Jesus :tape: I agree, the finger just doesn't go with Jesus, so it's a bad taste. But the guy has right to use the avatar he likes :shrug: To me that's the face and the finger of Filo and yes, every time I see his post I feel like he says "F*ck you" to me. Not a pleasant feeling but shit happens :sigh:

buddyholly
03-22-2012, 12:21 PM
I'm sensitive but I also don't give a fuck. Some things are bullshit, and I treat them like bullshit accordingly. Like the pleas for me to change my avatar. It's mostly bullshit, IMO. I gave my reasons why I chose it, if people continue to choose to be offended, it's no longer my problem. You can be sensitive without being over-sensitive, and PC.Nobody cares. In your determination to shout from the rooftops that you don't care who is offended, you are missing the embarrassing truth that nobody really cares that you don't care.

Har-Tru
03-22-2012, 01:57 PM
Whatever the intent is, at least some things should stay untouched.

Bullshit.

Enough with this outrageous veil of immunity religion is supposed to have.

Roger the Dodger
03-22-2012, 02:49 PM
I'm sensitive but I also don't give a fuck.

You say you are not anti-Jesus but are doing things which are anti-Jesus.

Please don't give self-contradictory statements only to prove a point. You prove nothing. Anyone sensible can read into your total lack of logic. Sensitive people care. Insensitive people don't care. You can't be sensitive and insensitive about the same issue at the same time. The endorsement of your action is similar to saying, 'I care about black people but I still wanna shoot the f***ing niggers!' Either you do or you don't. Don't self-contradict yourself.

Some things are bullshit, and I treat them like bullshit accordingly. Like the pleas for me to change my avatar.

The pleas are valid. This is liberal public forum open to all people from the world. And as with every community, you need to be careful about what can be brought openly in public. Don't misuse its liberal ideology to suit your theories. You want to walk naked in the boulevard. Well, you might want to, but if the laws restrict you; you will be led away. You can't say 'this is how I am and all of you have to accept me as I am.' Its about communal harmony. Everything is not accepted everywhere. If you wanna go nude, go to a nudist beach. There it wouldn't be a crime.

Similarly, this is not some underground anti-Christ forum. There your avatar might have been valid because you would be among your lot. But to most people, Jesus is a revered saint and to publicly humiliate him is to humiliate those who believe in him. That is not being sensitive. That is being a very weak man who doesn't care. Your actions are not justified. You act like a petulant twelve year old without regard to consequence of his actions.

Tell me, would you have the audacity to do what you did, to Mohammed? You wouldn't. It would make headline news. They'd track down your IP, send a man of your own religion to your doorstep, and chop those pretty fingers running mayhem on a keypad and there'd be no middle finger to show anyone. Jesus is a soft target, and Christians are more liberal, and hence your show of false courage, chat-room hero.

star
03-22-2012, 03:06 PM
But to most people, Jesus is a revered saint and to publicly humiliate him is to humiliate those who believe in him.

To Christians, Jesus is not a revered saint. He is God, no?

Har-Tru
03-22-2012, 03:09 PM
You say you are not anti-Jesus but are doing things which are anti-Jesus.

Let us not forget that Jesus is a disputed character, not a living person. To an atheist, saying you're anti-Jesus is like saying you're anti-Gnomes (at least in terms of the supernatural attributes).

Don't self-contradict yourself.

I chuckled.

The pleas are valid. This is liberal public forum open to all people from the world. And as with every community, you need to be careful about what can be brought openly in public. Don't misuse its liberal ideology to suit your theories. You want to walk naked in the boulevard. Well, you might want to, but if the laws restrict you; you will be led away. You can't say 'this is how I am and all of you have to accept me as I am.' Its about communal harmony. Everything is not accepted everywhere. If you wanna go nude, go to a nudist beach. There it wouldn't be a crime.

Similarly, this is not some underground anti-Christ forum. There your avatar might have been valid because you would be among your lot. But to most people, Jesus is a revered saint and to publicly humiliate him is to humiliate those who believe in him.

To most people where? In the world? Wrong. This is an international forum. Not that it would matter much in any case.

Tell me, would you have the audacity to do what you did, to Mohammed? You wouldn't. It would make headline news. They'd track down your IP, send a man of your own religion to your doorstep, and chop those pretty fingers running mayhem on a keypad and there'd be no middle finger to show anyone. Jesus is a soft target, and Christians are more liberal, and hence your show of false courage, chat-room hero.

And who would be to blame for Filo V's loss of their digital appendixes if he were to sport a Muhammed avatar? Filo V? Or the insanely oversensitive Muslims?

It takes two people for an offence to take place: the offender and the offended person. Why, I ask, should the blame always fall on the offender? Why is the offendee somehow never held responsible?

Roger the Dodger
03-22-2012, 03:28 PM
Bullshit.

Enough with this outrageous veil of immunity religion is supposed to have.

I would say, get done with Religion but don't disgrace a noble soul. Respect every individual as an individual and for what they are - therefore respect Jesus too, because he was one in a billion. Perhaps the only good thing that comes from the decadence of religion is that people will be free of dogmas and morals, but they will still need examples, still need inspiration, and to strip away the dignity of the visionaries and leaders tantamounts to stripping your own.

The destiny of a human being is to be stuck between Doghood and Godhood. We all feel it, don't we? Yet, no matter how much we are rooted to our base instincts, we also habitually gaze upwards, towards higher qualities like Love, Hope, Delight, Wonder, Knowledge, Innovation, Imagination, Intuition, Charisma etc. The last thing one should do is defame those who show us the brighter side of life and bring them to our low-level. This was the original criteria for religion: To not mix up the two because the chances of falling are always higher than the chances of rising. Hence, creating separate places of worship, etc.

But everything is mixed up now, with ritualistic followers and trigger-happy fundamentalists, which is why religion is a done-and-dusted institution.

My verdict - respect Jesus the Individual; down with Religion. Jesus was a great, great and rare noble birth, and our chat-room hero needs to grow up and not hurt the sentiments of his more liberal followers.

Har-Tru
03-22-2012, 03:37 PM
I would say, get done with Religion but don't disgrace a noble soul. Respect every individual as an individual and for what they are - therefore respect Jesus too, because he was one in a billion. Perhaps the only good thing that comes from the decadence of religion is that people will be free of dogmas and morals, but they will still need examples, still need inspiration, and to strip away the dignity of the visionaries and leaders tantamounts to stripping your own.

The destiny of a human being is to be stuck between Doghood and Godhood. We all feel it, don't we? Yet, no matter how much we are rooted to our base instincts, we also habitually gaze upwards, towards higher qualities like Love, Hope, Delight, Wonder, Knowledge, Innovation, Imagination, Intuition, Charisma etc. The last thing one should do is defame those who show us the brighter side of life and bring them to our low-level. This was the original criteria for religion: To not mix up the two because the chances of falling are always higher than the chances of rising. Hence, creating separate places of worship, etc.

But everything is mixed up now, with ritualistic followers and trigger-happy fundamentalists, which is why religion is a done-and-dusted institution.

My verdict - respect Jesus the Individual; down with Religion. Jesus was a great, great and rare noble birth, and our chat-room hero needs to grow up and not hurt the sentiments of his more liberal followers.

Why didn't you write "his more liberal followers need to grow up and not have their sentiments hurt by our chat-room hero"?

Everyone's entitled to feel any way they want. I am not religious, but I recognise the power and virtue of the message attributed to Jesus. If he existed, he must have been a very wise and enlightened man. Yet I could not bring myself to be offended by a caricature of him showing the middle finger. For one, because depictions of people on the internet are close to the bottom of my list of important stuff. And secondly because I fail to see how that belittles Jesus.

arm
03-22-2012, 04:18 PM
Bullshit.

Enough with this outrageous veil of immunity religion is supposed to have.

It's not about religion having immunity itself bug rather about respecting people who see (in this case) Jesus someone who should.be respected.

For me it's about respecting the people who believe in him, not about respecting Jesus or giving religion some sort of immunity. For instance I would be mad if someone did a similar thing to a photo of my sister, but it wouldn't bother either you or anyone else at all. :shrug: I couldn't care less about the avatar, but some people do, and I think they should be respected.

Gagsquet
03-22-2012, 05:16 PM
Falsely provocative. Filo V is the personification of bad taste.

sicko
03-22-2012, 06:22 PM
For me it's about respecting the people who believe in him, not about respecting Jesus or giving religion some sort of immunity.

this argument is not valid. why: (always take the extreme example) so you wouldn't disrespect Hitler because there are some people that worship him?

u see, if it's someone's opinion that religion is a big bullshit (very reasonable btw), then this person has every right to point this out.

arm
03-22-2012, 07:01 PM
this argument is not valid. why: (always take the extreme example) so you wouldn't disrespect Hitler because there are some people that worship him?

u see, if it's someone's opinion that religion is a big bullshit (very reasonable btw), then this person has every right to point this out.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think disrespecting Hitler is the way to get anywhere let along express an opinion against his actions.

But hey, I must agree that you make a good point.

And tbh, I also think religion or at least its big entities are a big BS, and I believe everyone has the right to point this out! Please that's a basic right. But that image simply is not the way.

Sauletekis
03-22-2012, 07:12 PM
It's not good or bad taste. It's just not taste at all. Now please close this thread and don't waste time in needless stuff...

Har-Tru
03-22-2012, 07:21 PM
It's not about religion having immunity itself bug rather about respecting people who see (in this case) Jesus someone who should.be respected.

For me it's about respecting the people who believe in him, not about respecting Jesus or giving religion some sort of immunity. For instance I would be mad if someone did a similar thing to a photo of my sister, but it wouldn't bother either you or anyone else at all. :shrug: I couldn't care less about the avatar, but some people do, and I think they should be respected.

I'm not sure I understand your point fully. Are you saying Filo V shouldn't have used that avatar out of respect for the people who believe in Jesus?

I don't think the comparison with your sister is appropriate. That would be a personal attack.

this argument is not valid. why: (always take the extreme example) so you wouldn't disrespect Hitler because there are some people that worship him?

u see, if it's someone's opinion that religion is a big bullshit (very reasonable btw), then this person has every right to point this out.

You lose the argument by Godwin's Law. ;)

arm
03-22-2012, 07:29 PM
I'm not sure I understand your point fully. Are you saying Filo V shouldn't have used that avatar out of respect for the people who believe in Jesus?

I don't think the comparison with your sister is appropriate. That would be a personal attack.



You lose the argument by Godwin's Law. ;)

But attacking Jesus pretty much feels like a personal attack to A LOT of people... don't you realize that?

Jeez, I am making myself seem like a religious individual with strong beliefs, and I really am not. :o I just like respecting people whatever their beliefs are, and I expect people to respect me back just the same way. :shrug: The image is offensive for a lot of people, hence he shouldn't use it.

I also agree with you that religion and its entities shouldn't get half the immunity they get most of the time, but that is a whole other story..

Roger the Dodger
03-22-2012, 07:32 PM
Everyone's entitled to feel any way they want.

Everyone is entitled to feel any way they want (as long as they only feel it or think it or the stuff hovers in their subconscious. When you express your feeling in words or actions, you must refine them in a way that everybody understands. Whatever be Filo's case against Jesus or God, not everybody thinks of Jesus as someone who'd turn against those who have faith in him, and show his finger to them.

I am not religious, but I recognise the power and virtue of the message attributed to Jesus. If he existed, he must have been a very wise and enlightened man. Yet I could not bring myself to be offended by a caricature of him showing the middle finger. For one, because depictions of people on the internet are close to the bottom of my list of important stuff. And secondly because I fail to see how that belittles Jesus.

Needless to say, it wouldn't make a difference to Jesus, given the forgiving personality he had, but ask someone who loves Jesus and genuinely feels his protection, power and blessings, how he feels if someone ridicules his image.

For me it's about respecting the people who believe in him, not about respecting Jesus or giving religion some sort of immunity. For instance I would be mad if someone did a similar thing to a photo of my sister, but it wouldn't bother either you or anyone else at all. I couldn't care less about the avatar, but some people do, and I think they should be respected.

Spot on. I couldn't have expressed it better. To tarnish the image of Jesus in the eyes of those who believe in him is what is wrong. And no matter your personal feelings about him or his religion be, you certainly don't express it in that arrogant infantile manner and justify your behaviour with false reasoning.

orangehat
03-22-2012, 07:35 PM
in bad taste, definitely, and I guess I could see how it would be offensive to some.

I'm not the biggest fan of being politically correct but in this case I would rather it be taken down.
My argument isn't so much as to that it would offend others, but more of "What is it aimed at accomplishing?"

If it really is just a "I don't care about whatever you say" sign Filo could just have used anyone, not this symbol of representation as Jesus.
Hence I conclude that the main point of that as his avatar is just to shock, polarize and insult.
Which frankly has no place on this discussion board.

Roger the Dodger
03-22-2012, 07:41 PM
I don't think the comparison with your sister is appropriate. That would be a personal attack.

But it is the most appropriate comparison, Har-Tru. A truly religious feeling (again, in its origin and not in its perversion as we see today) is an intimate, deeply personal communion with God or the saint or guru who brought you in contact with Truth/Consciousness/Divine. It is very personal and when someone hurts the one you love and revere deeply, in such an ignorant manner, you take it extremely personally.

Forget Jesus. Think about someone hurting someone you really love, truly, madly, deeply - your child, wife, friend, mother, father. It doesn't matter who. The hurt is exactly the same intensity.

Har-Tru
03-22-2012, 07:45 PM
But attacking Jesus pretty much feels like a personal attack to A LOT of people... don't you realize that?

Jeez, I am making myself seem like a religious individual with strong beliefs, and I really am not. :o I just like respecting people whatever their beliefs are, and I expect people to respect me back just the same way. :shrug: The image is offensive for a lot of people, hence he shouldn't use it.

I also agree with you that religion and its entities shouldn't get half the immunity they get most of the time, but that is a whole other story..

Of course I realise that. I am well aware of the fact that many people will get instantaneously offended by stuff like this. My point is... let me put it this way:

We have here a case of an "offence". We have an offender, Filo V, and a hypothetical offendee, let's call him Mr. X.

Filo decides to express his opinion about Christianity by using this avatar in an internet forum. Mr. X sees it and is outraged and offended. Why do we, in face of the situation, automatically turn our heads to Filo, hold him responsible and urge him to delete his avatar? Why is the offender at fault by default? Does Filo V, and every user here, have to cater to the personal feelings and beliefs of every single other user? Why must that always be more important than the right to free speech and to the free exercise of opinion?

The man in my avatar is my favourite living philosopher. If another user considered him to be a terrible thinker and a man not worthy of praise, but rather of criticism, and decided to sport an avatar ridiculing him, and if that hurt my feelings and offended me, would you say it would be reasonable for me to demand he got rid of that avatar? Of course not. Why is this any different? Why is this a whole other story?

Har-Tru
03-22-2012, 07:56 PM
in bad taste, definitely, and I guess I could see how it would be offensive to some.

I'm not the biggest fan of being politically correct but in this case I would rather it be taken down.
My argument isn't so much as to that it would offend others, but more of "What is it aimed at accomplishing?"

If it really is just a "I don't care about whatever you say" sign Filo could just have used anyone, not this symbol of representation as Jesus.
Hence I conclude that the main point of that as his avatar is just to shock, polarize and insult.
Which frankly has no place on this discussion board.

That is a whole other issue, and you make good points. Quite frankly, I still don't know what to make of that picture. What is it trying to convey? That Jesus hates today's society and is telling us to fuck off? That Jesus was a gangsta? Is it simply a guy showing his middle finger?

But it is the most appropriate comparison, Har-Tru. A truly religious feeling (again, in its origin and not in its perversion as we see today) is an intimate, deeply personal communion with God or the saint or guru who brought you in contact with Truth/Consciousness/Divine. It is very personal and when someone hurts the one you love and revere deeply, in such an ignorant manner, you take it extremely personally.

Forget Jesus. Think about someone hurting someone you really love, truly, madly, deeply - your child, wife, friend, mother, father. It doesn't matter who. The hurt is exactly the same intensity.

In the face of the recent events in France, I don't think we need be reminded of the intensity that religious feeling can possess.

But you must realise that I, as an atheist, regard religious feelings of relationship with God as hallucination. You cannot compare God, any God you hold dear, with a wife or a mother. Your wives and mothers are known to exist, they have flesh and bones and are distinctively and unequivocaly near you. An avatar ridiculing them is bound to offend not only you but, more importantly, the person portrayed. Furthermore, your wife and mother have not, as far as I know, been used to justify wars, genocides, tortures, murders, psychological abuse, etc.

I respect every person's right to have an imaginary friend. Respect my right to say what I think about him.

arm
03-22-2012, 08:12 PM
Of course I realise that. I am well aware of the fact that many people will get instantaneously offended by stuff like this. My point is... let me put it this way:

We have here a case of an "offence". We have an offender, Filo V, and a hypothetical offendee, let's call him Mr. X.

Filo decides to express his opinion about Christianity by using this avatar in an internet forum. Mr. X sees it and is outraged and offended. Why do we, in face of the situation, automatically turn our heads to Filo, hold him responsible and urge him to delete his avatar? Why is the offender at fault by default? Does Filo V, and every user here, have to cater to the personal feelings and beliefs of every single other user? Why must that always be more important than the right to free speech and to the free exercise of opinion?

You're smart, but I already knew that. This last paragraph is some superb manipulation used in a ery clever way, I must say.

But it's not working for me. Like you pointed out, we have the right to free speech and free exercise of opinion. But that photo is not "an exercise of opinion". The gesture itself is offensive to many, including me, it's a huge lack of good taste, and a childish attempt to irritate or offend people. Now that gesture on a figure like Jesus is just disrespectful in a very deep way to very large group of people (should they be MTFers or not), and the person using it as an avatar obviously knows what type of feelings it arouses in some people.

The man in my avatar is my favourite living philosopher. If another user considered him to be a terrible thinker and a man not worthy of praise, but rather of criticism, and decided to sport an avatar ridiculing him, and if that hurt my feelings and offended me, would you say it would be reasonable for me to demand he got rid of that avatar? Of course not. Why is this any different? Why is this a whole other story?

If the avatar ridiculing him were anything like this you had all the right to ask him to remove it. The gesture involved in this image is offensive per se, regardless of the person who is doing it.

If it was an avatar where Jesus was eating Mc Donalds it would be arguable, but not this gesture, no. On any person.

arm
03-22-2012, 08:16 PM
That is a whole other issue, and you make good points. Quite frankly, I still don't know what to make of that picture. What is it trying to convey? That Jesus hates today's society and is telling us to fuck off? That Jesus was a gangsta? Is it simply a guy showing his middle finger?



In the face of the recent events in France, I don't think we need be reminded of the intensity that religious feeling can possess.

But you must realise that I, as an atheist, regard religious feelings of relationship with God as hallucination. You cannot compare God, any God you hold dear, with a wife or a mother. Your wives and mothers are known to exist, they have flesh and bones and are distinctively and unequivocaly near you. An avatar ridiculing them is bound to offend not only you but, more importantly, the person portrayed. Furthermore, your wife and mother have not, as far as I know, been used to justify wars, genocides, tortures, murders, psychological abuse, etc.

I respect every person's right to have an imaginary friend. Respect my right to say what I think about him.

This is truly funny. :lol: (In a good way, I'm not teasing :hug:)

The only problem I have with it, is that it is a whole other issue. :shrug: And it has little to do with whether he has the right to use the avatar or not.

Har-Tru
03-22-2012, 08:23 PM
You're smart, but I already knew that. This last paragraph is some superb manipulation used in a ery clever way, I must say.

But it's not working for me. Like you pointed out, we have the right to free speech and free exercise of opinion. But that photo is not "an exercise of opinion". The gesture itself is offensive to many, including me, it's a huge lack of good taste, and a childish attempt to irritate or offend people. Now that gesture on a figure like Jesus is just disrespectful in a very deep way to very large group of people (should they be MTFers or not), and the person using it as an avatar obviously knows what type of feelings it arouses in some people.



If the avatar ridiculing him were anything like this you had all the right to ask him to remove it. The gesture involved in this image is offensive per se, regardless of the person who is doing it.

If it was an avatar where Jesus was eating Mc Donalds it would be arguable, but not this gesture, no. On any person.

I assumed of course, for the sake of argument, that Filo is trying to convey some message instead of just being dull and vitriolic... A wild assumption indeed, but the discussion seemed too interesting to me to just let it pass.

I still fail to see what's so terrible about showing the middle finger, though. Vulgar, tasteless perhaps, but so unspeakably offensive?

arm
03-22-2012, 08:26 PM
I assumed of course, for the sake of argument, that Filo is trying to convey some message instead of just being dull and vitriolic... A wild assumption indeed, but the discussion seemed too interesting to me to just let it pass.

I still fail to see what's so terrible about showing the middle finger, though. Vulgar, tasteless perhaps, but so unspeakably offensive?

What does it mean? He said it himself, it means a huge "f*ck you". Feels offensive to me...

I do agree that it is a very interesting discussion, and I am aware of the fact that you're not trying to defend him, or getting him any kind of free pass. :lol: That would be just silly.

Har-Tru
03-22-2012, 08:27 PM
This is truly funny. :lol: (In a good way, I'm not teasing :hug:)

The only problem I have with it, is that it is a whole other issue. :shrug: And it has little to do with whether he has the right to use the avatar or not.

Glad to entertain. :cool:

Do enlighten me, though. What is it that I am so blatantly missing?

Filo V.
03-22-2012, 08:29 PM
Nobody cares. In your determination to shout from the rooftops that you don't care who is offended, you are missing the embarrassing truth that nobody really cares that you don't care.
People who don't care ignore, which you don't/can't.

Filo V.
03-22-2012, 08:33 PM
I actually didn't know that people were still whining about my avatar until 20 minutes ago :lol:

I was going to change it anyway, I'll probably change it to an actual FUCK YOU sign just so everyone truly gets exactly what message I'm trying to convey :wavey:

arm
03-22-2012, 08:35 PM
Glad to entertain. :cool:

Do enlighten me, though. What is it that I am so blatantly missing?

I don't think you're missing anything. :lol: You're a smart guy, I showed you my valid arguments, you explained me your valid arguments. I didn't convince you and you didn't convince me, we just end up having a different posture when it comes to this specific matter. Nothing wrong about it, on the contrary. Specially since I know that regardless of your opinion, you wouldn't use an avatar like that. (Or at least i think I know that. :unsure:)

Roger the Dodger
03-22-2012, 08:37 PM
But you must realise that I, as an atheist, regard religious feelings of relationship with God as hallucination. You cannot compare God, any God you hold dear, with a wife or a mother. Your wives and mothers are known to exist, they have flesh and bones and are distinctively and unequivocaly near you. An avatar ridiculing them is bound to offend not only you but, more importantly, the person portrayed. Furthermore, your wife and mother have not, as far as I know, been used to justify wars, genocides, tortures, murders, psychological abuse, etc.

I respect every person's right to have an imaginary friend. Respect my right to say what I think about him.

But since you are a liberal man, you do understand that not everyone is an atheist as yourself either. As you rightfully live by the sensible and logical experiences you have had and have contributed to your world-view and philosophy; so too you would understand it is with others who are Believers - their spiritual experiences shape their beliefs. And to them - he is no imaginary friend. He is a LIVING TRUTH who showed them the way, brought them fulfillment, and his image to them is pure and sacred. So to me, as far as your bit on the 'imaginary friend' goes, it is clearly a difference between having the spiritual experience or not having the experience, or having faith, so to say.

Human beings are of all kinds. Some need a guiding figure. Some don't. But just because you don't need one, it doesn't give you the freedom to flog every one who does with a whip of your hatred of that need, like Filo did. There are millions who need God, who need an Image, and revere those who come closest to their image of the true, beautiful life.

Filo V.
03-22-2012, 08:41 PM
You say you are not anti-Jesus but are doing things which are anti-Jesus.No, I'm not. A computer avatar that has nothing to do with Jesus is anti-Jesus.

Please don't give self-contradictory statements only to prove a point. You prove nothing. Anyone sensible can read into your total lack of logic. Sensitive people care. Insensitive people don't care. You can't be sensitive and insensitive about the same issue at the same time. The endorsement of your action is similar to saying, 'I care about black people but I still wanna shoot the f***ing niggers!' Either you do or you don't. Don't self-contradict yourself.I am sensitive, but to real issues. This isn't one of them, this controversy over my avatar. I am not sensitive to bullshit. That's not contradictory. That's maturity and common sense.


The pleas are valid. This is liberal public forum open to all people from the world. And as with every community, you need to be careful about what can be brought openly in public. Don't misuse its liberal ideology to suit your theories. You want to walk naked in the boulevard. Well, you might want to, but if the laws restrict you; you will be led away. You can't say 'this is how I am and all of you have to accept me as I am.' Its about communal harmony. Everything is not accepted everywhere. If you wanna go nude, go to a nudist beach. There it wouldn't be a crime. Obviously, since I haven't been banned nor reprimanded for my avatar, it isn't a problem. And since this is a computer forum, I know none of you personally, and I really don't care what 95% of people here think whatsoever, there isn't any actual reason for me to change my avatar. The pleas are not valid because it's my avatar, therefore my choice to have whichever photo I want as my avatar. This is the one I chose.

Similarly, this is not some underground anti-Christ forum. There your avatar might have been valid because you would be among your lot. But to most people, Jesus is a revered saint and to publicly humiliate him is to humiliate those who believe in him. That is not being sensitive. That is being a very weak man who doesn't care. Your actions are not justified. You act like a petulant twelve year old without regard to consequence of his actions.This is a computer forum. There are no consequences here. And I'm not anti-Christ, so therefore you are making assumptions and essentially allowing yourself to make a big deal over something that wasn't even intended to be offensive in the first place. If you get offended when I told you it's not meant to attack Jesus, then it's you to blame. Stop allowing yourself to get offended by the avatar and you won't have a problem.

Tell me, would you have the audacity to do what you did, to Mohammed? You wouldn't. It would make headline news. They'd track down your IP, send a man of your own religion to your doorstep, and chop those pretty fingers running mayhem on a keypad and there'd be no middle finger to show anyone. Jesus is a soft target, and Christians are more liberal, and hence your show of false courage, chat-room hero.Of course, I would, since I was GOING TO originally, but then I chose this photo because it was BIGGER for the avatar space. There was a middle finger of Mohammed, a middle finger of Obama, middle finder of Osama Bin Laden, middle finger of Steve Jobs, and several other figures. I just chose this one, since it makes the most powerful statement. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK. That's what it means and that's what I feel :wavey:

Har-Tru
03-22-2012, 09:28 PM
I don't think you're missing anything. :lol: You're a smart guy, I showed you my valid arguments, you explained me your valid arguments. I didn't convince you and you didn't convince me, we just end up having a different posture when it comes to this specific matter. Nothing wrong about it, on the contrary. Specially since I know that regardless of your opinion, you wouldn't use an avatar like that. (Or at least i think I know that. :unsure:)

I wouldn't use it, and I'll tell you why in poetry:

There once was a man in Moldavia
Who did not believe in his Saviour
And he erected instead
With himself at the head
The religion of Decorous Behaviour

But since you are a liberal man, you do understand that not everyone is an atheist as yourself either. As you rightfully live by the sensible and logical experiences you have had and have contributed to your world-view and philosophy; so too you would understand it is with others who are Believers - their spiritual experiences shape their beliefs. And to them - he is no imaginary friend. He is a LIVING TRUTH who showed them the way, brought them fulfillment, and his image to them is pure and sacred. So to me, as far as your bit on the 'imaginary friend' goes, it is clearly a difference between having the spiritual experience or not having the experience, or having faith, so to say.

Human beings are of all kinds. Some need a guiding figure. Some don't. But just because you don't need one, it doesn't give you the freedom to flog every one who does with a whip of your hatred of that need, like Filo did. There are millions who need God, who need an Image, and revere those who come closest to their image of the true, beautiful life.

You think I don't know all this? I was a believer until just some years ago. But that is beside the point.

I know, people feel passionate about things and get hurt when others bash them. So what?? Instead of censoring ourselves left and right and walking on eggshells maybe we should take a look at ourselves and stop being so damn oversensitive about everything.

orangehat
03-22-2012, 10:46 PM
That is a whole other issue, and you make good points. Quite frankly, I still don't know what to make of that picture. What is it trying to convey? That Jesus hates today's society and is telling us to fuck off? That Jesus was a gangsta? Is it simply a guy showing his middle finger?

I would assume that the creator of that image probably meant it to be an insulting gesture towards religious people, that Jesus was not the wholesome and sacred person they construed him to be. Then again, what the author of the image meant it to be is not as important as what Filo V. meant it to be.

Judging from Filo V.'s posts in general, I assume this was at least partially a veiled potshot at the religious community (in particular Christians). Maybe he meant for it to be a "I don't give a damn about anything" in general, (though I would find that slightly hard to believe) but then it still shows poor judgment in choosing his avatar :shrug:

tripwires
03-23-2012, 03:39 AM
The man in my avatar is my favourite living philosopher.

Who is he?


You think I don't know all this? I was a believer until just some years ago. But that is beside the point.



May I ask what happened? :) (Obviously) feel free to PM me if my request isn't unreasonable.

Har-Tru
03-23-2012, 03:08 PM
Who is he?

Shelly Kagan, Professor of Philosophy at Yale.

He is not mainstream and has a huge ego, but he's boss.

May I ask what happened? :) (Obviously) feel free to PM me if my request isn't unreasonable.

I started thinking. :)

I realised there are no good reasons to believe in the existence of any deity, and there are plenty of good reasons to believe they are a human construct.

Sapeod
03-23-2012, 07:40 PM
Anyone who finds this offensive: keep in mind you are getting irked by a picture of a person who probably never existed giving you the finger. That is all.

Oh, by the way Filo, you're goung to put a "FUCK YOU" avatar so people can see what message you're trying to convey? On an internet forum? Are you serious? :superlol:

Lopez
03-23-2012, 11:27 PM
Shelly Kagan, Professor of Philosophy at Yale.

He is not mainstream and has a huge ego, but he's boss.

Loved him debating William Lane Craig. Have you seen it?

Har-Tru
03-23-2012, 11:42 PM
Loved him debating William Lane Craig. Have you seen it?

Of course. :) The only time Craig has been clearly defeated, which says a lot about Craig's superb debating skills.

Lopez
03-24-2012, 12:41 AM
Of course. :) The only time Craig has been clearly defeated, which says a lot about Craig's superb debating skills.

Yeah I checked some WLC material a some time ago for the first time when Seingeist introduced him in the Bible Question Thread. Since then I regularly develop an interest on the topic and check out relevant vids or news related to debating. I do this intensly for a few weeks at a time until my interest stops (for a while at least). The Kagan/Craig debate was one of the first I watched.

Har-Tru
03-24-2012, 09:09 AM
Yeah I checked some WLC material a some time ago for the first time when Seingeist introduced him in the Bible Question Thread. Since then I regularly develop an interest on the topic and check out relevant vids or news related to debating. I do this intensly for a few weeks at a time until my interest stops (for a while at least). The Kagan/Craig debate was one of the first I watched.

Craig is a remarkable individual. He manages to win debates despite using the same arguments over and over again since 20 years ago. His debaters are usually not as trained in debating, not as prepared and not as eloquent as Craig. Out of all the debates I've seen, Kagan was the only one that clearly beat him, and Peter Millican did a good job as well.

It's annoying that his debaters are so unprepared when they face him... I mean for the last five years or so Craig's been quoting the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem to support his trademark cosmological argument by stating that said theorem proves the universe cannot be infinite in the past and therefore must have a beginning, and since nothing can come from nothing... enter God. Yet not a single debater has been able to do as Craig and quote the same Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenking saying about their theorem that the universe can come from literally nothing. I mean, Vilenkin even wrote a paper titles "Creation of Universes from Nothing" that he starts defining thus: "A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunneling from literally nothing".

You do not win debates by holding the most plausible arguments, you do it by exposing them properly and convincing your audience. Craig is a master in that.

BadLineJudge
03-24-2012, 10:40 AM
Why doesn't the poll have an "I think it's in neither good or bad taste because i don't give a toss about others' sexual preferences" option?

or "neither".

BadLineJudge
03-24-2012, 10:41 AM
oh wait, it's not the current one you're whining about.

meh!

Lopez
03-24-2012, 01:15 PM
It's annoying that his debaters are so unprepared when they face him... I mean for the last five years or so Craig's been quoting the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem to support his trademark cosmological argument by stating that said theorem proves the universe cannot be infinite in the past and therefore must have a beginning, and since nothing can come from nothing... enter God. Yet not a single debater has been able to do as Craig and quote the same Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenking saying about their theorem that the universe can come from literally nothing. I mean, Vilenkin even wrote a paper titles "Creation of Universes from Nothing" that he starts defining thus: "A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunneling from literally nothing".

That's what irritates me immensly as well! Both Guth and Vilenkin, who wrote the paper, don't believe in god and say that universe did come from nothing. Additionally, it's weird that Craig states that infinity cannot exist in the real world and then refers to the Big Bang singularity "of infinite density" :rolleyes:. Talk about being contradictive!

I've studied some physics related to my degree in Engineering (of course nothing so advanced) and it baffles me that no one attacks the faulty physics in Craig's cosmological argument. I posted a vid about it in the Bible Question thread, it's probably the last post in that thread since no one commented on it. Good stuff :yeah:.

Filo V.
03-24-2012, 01:33 PM
I'm changing my marriage avatar to something more tennis oriented. I mean, of course, I love supporting my gays, but I'm too much in a tennis state of mind right now.

Filo V.
03-24-2012, 01:35 PM
Does everyone approve of that? Do I need the approval of everyone before deciding which avatar I will or wont use? Maybe I'll use this thread to do that, ask people what they think about EVERY SINGLE avatar/signature choice I make before I make it. Because, you know, I'm all about being respectful and I'm soooooo not wanting to hurt the feelings of anyone :wavey:

tripwires
03-24-2012, 02:37 PM
Shelly Kagan, Professor of Philosophy at Yale.

He is not mainstream and has a huge ego, but he's boss.


I love people with huge egos (like Fed). :hearts:


I started thinking. :)

I realised there are no good reasons to believe in the existence of any deity, and there are plenty of good reasons to believe they are a human construct.

I agree. What are your thoughts on death? I'm reading Julian Barnes' Nothing to be Frightened Of where he discusses his fear of death and his lack of religiousness. To me, and to put it simplistically, religion makes death mpre acceptable - insofar as death could ever be acceptable - for people as it gives them some sort of promise of an afterlife. It seems like it's easy to dismiss it when you're young and death is generally quite far away; but what if you're suddenly faced with it, either your own or someone that you love? I can't foresee religion ever being a source of comfort for me (which is why I've taken to reading that Barnes book) but I just wonder what normal atheists think of this. It's okay to think of myself fading into oblivion once I die, but it's hard to really accept this when it comes to the people that I love.

I don't think I've expressed myself well but I hope you get what I mean.

Roger the Dodger
03-24-2012, 06:27 PM
Why doesn't the poll have an "I think it's in neither good or bad taste because i don't give a toss about others' sexual preferences" option?

or "neither".

Because the easiest thing in the world is to be indifferent to things around you. And that doesn't go well with me. I always give-a-damn (though I suffer frequently for it, but I learn more about life, just because I take the punches). We are in the world to know the truth of things, not while time away because everything seemingly ends at nothing.

Does everyone approve of that?

I do. Thanks for a flash-in-the-pan show of maturity. :yeah:

Do I need the approval of everyone before deciding which avatar I will or wont use?

No. You need a Conscience.

Maybe I'll use this thread to do that, ask people what they think about EVERY SINGLE avatar/signature choice I make before I make it. Because, you know, I'm all about being respectful and I'm soooooo not wanting to hurt the feelings of anyone :wavey:

Knowing your recent history, that would be nice.

BigJohn
03-24-2012, 06:46 PM
The poll should have had a 3rd choice:

I think it is (was) attention-whorism.

Filo V.
03-24-2012, 07:17 PM
The poll should have had a 3rd choice:

I think it is (was) attention-whorism.

We all already know you're an attention whore, honey. And an actual whore at that, too. We didn't need clarification :hug:

BigJohn
03-24-2012, 07:24 PM
We all already know you're an attention whore, honey. And an actual whore at that, too. We didn't need clarification :hug:

Wow... Good one, ass clown.

How many threads have you started that have you as the topic? How many threads have you started in GM since Miami started?

Har-Tru
03-24-2012, 07:43 PM
What are your thoughts on death?

How about I show you a full course on Death by Professor Kagan. :lol:

p2J7wSuFRl8

I'm reading Julian Barnes' Nothing to be Frightened Of where he discusses his fear of death and his lack of religiousness. To me, and to put it simplistically, religion makes death mpre acceptable - insofar as death could ever be acceptable - for people as it gives them some sort of promise of an afterlife. It seems like it's easy to dismiss it when you're young and death is generally quite far away; but what if you're suddenly faced with it, either your own or someone that you love? I can't foresee religion ever being a source of comfort for me (which is why I've taken to reading that Barnes book) but I just wonder what normal atheists think of this. It's okay to think of myself fading into oblivion once I die, but it's hard to really accept this when it comes to the people that I love.

I don't think I've expressed myself well but I hope you get what I mean.

I got what you mean. :)

There is a quote that is often attributed to Mark Twain (though I personally it to be misattributed): “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

When I die, I will not know I'm dead. Death is only significant insofar as it is related to life. I think you are right in that religious people might have a better chance at coping with death based on their beliefs in an afterlife. But I cannot help what I believe, and I certainly cannot believe in something just because it makes me feel good or I find it reassuring.

What I find rather striking, however, is the realisation that religious people do not seem to fear death less than atheists do. Surely they ought to congratulate themselves in the prospect of eternal bliss in paradise. But they overwhelmingly don't...

Let me ask you something though, what do you mean but "normal atheists"? Are you an "abnormal atheist"? What does that mean? :lol:

EDIT: That is one of the main issues I have with Christianity. Christianity has at its core the concept of redemption and the quest for salvation. Life is merely a transitional step, a stepping stone, a test for admission into the real life, the one that we shall experience eternally in paradise or in hell. That is such a limited and limiting view, it is phantasmagorically depressing to the point of being wicked. It deprives life of its meaning by turning it into a sort of a mixture between a rat lab experiment, an agility contest and a puppet show.

You and me and every single one of the 7 billion people on this planet are extremely fortunate to be individuals of the more highly evolved creature on this spec of dust. We exist for a brief period of time in the vastness of history, and then we're gone. Inevitably. I believe it to be not only our right, but also our duty as humans to do the best we can to contribute to the advancement and flourishing of our species. What better way to survive death than by leaving a mark in the memories of our fellow human beings. Is Mark Twain dead? Einstein? Aristotle? Shakespeare?

This is the only life we've got, so we ought to live it to its fullest and make the best of it.

Filo V.
03-25-2012, 03:18 AM
Wow... Good one, ass clown.

How many threads have you started that have you as the topic? How many threads have you started in GM since Miami started?
Go buy a boyfriend, socially-inept loser.

Start thread=attention-whore? Interesting, since you yourself have started several, none of them being interesting. I guess all the mirrors in your house are broken.

BigJohn
03-25-2012, 05:32 AM
Go buy a boyfriend, socially-inept loser.

Start thread=attention-whore? Interesting, since you yourself have started several, none of them being interesting. I guess all the mirrors in your house are broken.

You truly are a gay caricature, flyboy.

Do you deny the fact that you are an attention-whore? Don't you think that starting numerous threads about yourself is a sign of major attention-whorism?

It is evident it is just an act. The fact that you spam like there is no tomorrow since your return suggests that you have no life and that your stories are as fake as Johnny Grooves sex threads.

Naudio Spanlatine
03-25-2012, 07:40 AM
Look whos talking:spit:

BigJohn
03-25-2012, 02:20 PM
Look whos talking:spit:

:rolleyes:

I know this is supposed to be clever, but what you are trying to imply is unclear...

Filo V.
03-25-2012, 02:29 PM
Look whos talking:spit:

I KNOW right :lol:

So tragic :hysteric:

BigJohn
03-25-2012, 03:31 PM
I KNOW right :lol:

So tragic :hysteric:

Answer these questions truthfully flyboy




Do you deny the fact that you are an attention-whore? Don't you think that starting numerous threads about yourself is a sign of major attention-whorism?




then we'll have an idea of what tragic means...

Naudio Spanlatine
03-25-2012, 08:09 PM
:rolleyes:

I know this is supposed to be clever, but what you are trying to imply is unclear...
Do you deny the fact that you are an attention-whore? Don't you think that starting numerous threads about yourself is a sign of major attention-whorism?

Dude look at your sigy, and better yet, look at your posts, i mean its obvious that you think you are smarter and clever with your words and the way you try to be more sensitive and wise about your answers and such and such but yet you end up sounding like a jackass and a douche trying to outsmart everyone else with your cleverness.:lol: :lol:

BigJohn
03-25-2012, 08:37 PM
Dude look at your sigy, and better yet, look at your posts, i mean its obvious that you think you are smarter and clever with your words and the way you try to be more sensitive and wise about your answers and such and such but yet you end up sounding like a jackass and a douche trying to outsmart everyone else with your cleverness.:lol: :lol:

Lol?

You might not like what I post, and I do understand why you feel attacked by my signature since it appears it does apply (I thought you were merely a castler, but then you started the last volume) , but what you are doing here is not really fair. I said that flyboy is an attention-whore, your post implied I am at least as bad as him. A ridiculous claim to say the least.

You know who else also lols for not reason? SdG. Think about that.

Naudio Spanlatine
03-25-2012, 08:45 PM
Lol?

You might not like what I post, and I do understand why you feel attacked by my signature since it appears it does apply (I thought you were merely a castler, but then you started the last volume) , but what you are doing here is not really fair. I said that flyboy is an attention-whore, your post implied I am at least as bad as him. A ridiculous claim to say the least.

You know who else also lols for not reason? SdG. Think about that.

How can i feel attacked by your sigy, I think its the funniest thing ever:haha:, you're the one whose obsess with the castle, the ACC and CD & SDG, i mean come on, its obvious you dont see that you too are also an attention whore, whose trying to prove everyone wrong. You too need to look at yourself in the mirror and realized that you are an attention-whore.:spit:

BigJohn
03-25-2012, 08:54 PM
How can i feel attacked by your sigy, I think its the funniest thing ever:haha:, you're the one whose obsess with the castle, the ACC and CD & SDG, i mean come on, its obvious you dont see that you too are also an attention whore, whose trying to prove everyone wrong. You too need to look at yourself in the mirror and realized that you are an attention-whore.:spit:

You are missing many points completely.

Naudio Spanlatine
03-25-2012, 09:20 PM
No, im sure i didnt miss any points:angel:

BigJohn
03-25-2012, 10:08 PM
And I thought we were getting along so well...

Gagsquet
03-25-2012, 11:14 PM
Battle of giants

tripwires
03-26-2012, 01:59 AM
How about I show you a full course on Death by Professor Kagan. :lol:



Thanks for this. :) I didn't know there are multiple videos so I was a bit confused when I was watching that video you posted, until I went to YouTube and found the rest of it. :lol: I like the way he sits cross-legged on the table when he lectures. :lol:


I got what you mean. :)

There is a quote that is often attributed to Mark Twain (though I personally it to be misattributed): I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.

When I die, I will not know I'm dead. Death is only significant insofar as it is related to life. I think you are right in that religious people might have a better chance at coping with death based on their beliefs in an afterlife. But I cannot help what I believe, and I certainly cannot believe in something just because it makes me feel good or I find it reassuring.

What I find rather striking, however, is the realisation that religious people do not seem to fear death less than atheists do. Surely they ought to congratulate themselves in the prospect of eternal bliss in paradise. But they overwhelmingly don't...


It's this thing that they say in response to news of a young person's impending death from a sudden disease - that it's "God's plan" - and the way they say it that seem to suggest that they are more adept at dealing with deaths than atheists. As an atheist though I can't help but find that highly offensive even though they don't mean any offence by it. Apart from how it makes no sense to me and therefore doesn't bring me any sort of comfort and in fact does the opposite, how do you reconcile the early, needless and cruel termination of a young life with a deity that apparently "planned" for it to happen? Doesn't that make a mockery out of life? How is that comforting in any way?

If it is indeed true that they don't fear death any less than us, then I don't see the point in having a religion at all. :lol:


Let me ask you something though, what do you mean but "normal atheists"? Are you an "abnormal atheist"? What does that mean? :lol:


Sorry that was badly phrased - I meant ordinary atheists who aren't famous for writing books on atheism, like Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. :p


EDIT: That is one of the main issues I have with Christianity. Christianity has at its core the concept of redemption and the quest for salvation. Life is merely a transitional step, a stepping stone, a test for admission into the real life, the one that we shall experience eternally in paradise or in hell. That is such a limited and limiting view, it is phantasmagorically depressing to the point of being wicked. It deprives life of its meaning by turning it into a sort of a mixture between a rat lab experiment, an agility contest and a puppet show.

You and me and every single one of the 7 billion people on this planet are extremely fortunate to be individuals of the more highly evolved creature on this spec of dust. We exist for a brief period of time in the vastness of history, and then we're gone. Inevitably. I believe it to be not only our right, but also our duty as humans to do the best we can to contribute to the advancement and flourishing of our species. What better way to survive death than by leaving a mark in the memories of our fellow human beings. Is Mark Twain dead? Einstein? Aristotle? Shakespeare?

This is the only life we've got, so we ought to live it to its fullest and make the best of it.

I couldn't have said it better myself. :)

Naudio Spanlatine
03-26-2012, 04:08 AM
And I thought we were getting along so well...

We are i just like to test you;)

Time Violation
03-26-2012, 07:19 AM
I believe it to be not only our right, but also our duty as humans to do the best we can to contribute to the advancement and flourishing of our species. What better way to survive death than by leaving a mark in the memories of our fellow human beings. Is Mark Twain dead? Einstein? Aristotle? Shakespeare?

This is the only life we've got, so we ought to live it to its fullest and make the best of it.

Not sure what makes you draw such a conclusion, it looks pretty much out of place. Since there's no deity or "higher plan" or any of that as you say, then we can't really have any duty, same as a cockroach has no duty when it runs around the kitchen. There's no reason to think our running around should be any better than a cockroach's.

Moreover, there's no surviving death either: what does it matter to Mozart that he's one of the greatest living composers now, when he died before he turned 36, suffering in pain and spending most of his life in poverty; buried in a common grave with almost no one attending the funeral. He's dead, so he can't really know anything that happened later on, can he?

Har-Tru
03-26-2012, 08:00 AM
Not sure what makes you draw such a conclusion, it looks pretty much out of place. Since there's no deity or "higher plan" or any of that as you say, then we can't really have any duty, same as a cockroach has no duty when it runs around the kitchen. There's no reason to think our running around should be any better than a cockroach's.

How can you possibly say such a thing?

There is none, if you don't want to give it any. A cockroach doesn't know what it is or what it does, or why it does what it does. We humans do. We have the extraordinary capacity to reflect upon our actions and their consequences, to look around us and ask questions about the world, about ourselves, our fellow human beings... we are able to feel love and hatred, compassion and ire, pride and despair, etc., etc.

Only if we accept reality for what it is will we truly excel as human beings. I find it an extremely limited, sad and depressing view that we are merely creatures made by a superior supernatural being, and that our ultimate duty is to please him and adore him so that he may grant us access into his happy place, and not send us into eternal torment.

Let us rise to the occasion and accept that we are evolved apes in a tiny spec of dust within this immense universe. Only then will we be able to fully thrive as a species and progress.

Moreover, there's no surviving death either: what does it matter to Mozart that he's one of the greatest living composers now, when he died before he turned 36, suffering in pain and spending most of his life in poverty; buried in a common grave with almost no one attending the funeral. He's dead, so he can't really know anything that happened later on, can he?

You're missing the point completely...

Of course Mozart died young, poor and sick. Quite probably, he did not have a very happy life. But just stop and think about the happiness and sense of joy he's brought to millions of people around the world with his music. He has been moving hearts and providing human beings with a sense of bliss like few individuals have done in history.

Humans are social beings. Mozart is eternal, for his legacy lives on in our societies and has an influence on them.

Which brings me back to the first point. That is, I say, the duty that we humans have in this world, and what gives our life a sense of purpose. Make your best to make this world and this society a better place. "Act so, that you maximise the well-being of the highest possible number of conscious creatures." Achieve something, don't just pass by.

Time Violation
03-26-2012, 08:32 AM
You're missing the point completely...

Of course Mozart died young, poor and sick. Quite probably, he did not have a very happy life. But just stop and think about the happiness and sense of joy he's brought to millions of people around the world with his music. He has been moving hearts and providing human beings with a sense of bliss like few individuals have done in history.

Humans are social beings. Mozart is eternal, for his legacy lives on in our societies and has an influence on them.

No, I'm not missing it, more like you're stretching it. Mozart knows nothing about the millions, nor about the moving hearts or bliss. The last thing he remembers is dying in horrible pains. So much for the bliss.

How can you possibly say such a thing?

There is none, if you don't want to give it any. A cockroach doesn't know what it is or what it does, or why it does what it does. We humans do. We have the extraordinary capacity to reflect upon our actions and their consequences, to look around us and ask questions about the world, about ourselves, our fellow human beings... we are able to feel love and hatred, compassion and ire, pride and despair, etc., etc.

Only if we accept reality for what it is will we truly excel as human beings. I find it an extremely limited, sad and depressing view that we are merely creatures made by a superior supernatural being, and that our ultimate duty is to please him and adore him so that he may grant us access into his happy place, and not send us into eternal torment.

A cockroach or a earthworm indeed (most likely) doesn't know what it does, what it does or why it does. So what? Do they have to know? Should an earthworm reflect on its actions and consequences? People maybe can reflect and compose symphonies, however an earthworm can bore through the ground and stay alive after you cut it in two; should the earthworm pride itself for being able to do that, while we can't?

What I find very amusing, is that at the same time you seem to be rejecting the possibility of a higher being, yet convinced we have some kind of our higher purpose. That's pretty much the same (or very similar) thing.

Har-Tru
03-26-2012, 05:46 PM
No, I'm not missing it, more like you're stretching it. Mozart knows nothing about the millions, nor about the moving hearts or bliss. The last thing he remembers is dying in horrible pains. So much for the bliss.

May I remind you that this discussion started when you stated that there can be no sense of duty in life without a God. That some people die without knowing they have been so influential and their life has had such a purpose is irrelevant. Unless you're saying that it doesn't matter whether you change the world if you don't see it in your lifetime.

By the way I used the world bliss when referring to the effects of Mozart's life work, not when talking about Mozart himself. Cheeky manipulation there.

No wonder you picked Mozart though, instead of Einstein or Shakespeare, who, like most influential people did witness the significance of their work in their lifetime.

A cockroach or a earthworm indeed (most likely) doesn't know what it does, what it does or why it does. So what? Do they have to know? Should an earthworm reflect on its actions and consequences? People maybe can reflect and compose symphonies, however an earthworm can bore through the ground and stay alive after you cut it in two; should the earthworm pride itself for being able to do that, while we can't?

You what?? What is your point? I was talking about people, not cockroaches or worms.

What I find very amusing, is that at the same time you seem to be rejecting the possibility of a higher being, yet convinced we have some kind of our higher purpose. That's pretty much the same (or very similar) thing.

It is, if you want to play around with the English language.

It isn't, if you identify higher being with supernatural creator-God.

Time Violation
03-26-2012, 07:47 PM
Mozart is just an example, there are many famous people with similar or even more tragic stories - Tesla, Oscar Wilde, Van Gogh, Kafka, etc - just to name a few everyone knows.

What am I talking about? What is my point? Not just about God as depicted on someone's avatar, painting or whatever. If life is just a random event, with no "bigger picture" involved, then we really are not too different than the mentioned worms or roaches - we run around this planet without much sense or purpose. In 50 to 60 years, >90% of MTF users (for example) will be dead anyway; what kind of life they had, whether it was "improved" or not matters little. Do you know what kind of life your ancestor from XII century had? Or your ancestor from VIII century b.c.? Do you care? 5000 years later, is anyone going to care what life we had today, did we do our duty or whatnot? Doesn't really seem so in case of random life. :)

Har-Tru
03-26-2012, 08:07 PM
Mozart is just an example, there are many famous people with similar or even more tragic stories - Tesla, Oscar Wilde, Van Gogh, Kafka, etc - just to name a few everyone knows.

What am I talking about? What is my point? Not just about God as depicted on someone's avatar, painting or whatever. If life is just a random event, with no "bigger picture" involved, then we really are not too different than the mentioned worms or roaches - we run around this planet without much sense or purpose. In 50 to 60 years, >90% of MTF users (for example) will be dead anyway; what kind of life they had, whether it was "improved" or not matters little. Do you know what kind of life your ancestor from XII century had? Or your ancestor from VIII century b.c.? Do you care? 5000 years later, is anyone going to care what life we had today, did we do our duty or whatnot? Doesn't really seem so in case of random life. :)

To start with, it makes a difference for you.

Yes, we are animals. Yes, most of us will probably be forgotten eventually. While we're here, however, we have the chance to give our life a sense and a purpose.

You seem to be saying humans are unable to find a sense or a purpose for their own lives in a scenario without a deity. That anybody could think that I find extremely sad.

Time Violation
03-28-2012, 01:39 PM
How can it make a difference to me if I'm dead? Or if I get Alzheimer's? In that case you are just deceiving yourself thinking you can have some purpose - a temporary one at best, but when you die you're dead.

Imagine someone is in the middle of a desert with no one there in the circle of 2000 miles, and has only 0,1l of water. Without that water the person died in 3 days. With the water, the person died in 5 days. Did that water make a difference, had a very important purpose?

Har-Tru
03-28-2012, 05:39 PM
How can it make a difference to me if I'm dead? Or if I get Alzheimer's? In that case you are just deceiving yourself thinking you can have some purpose - a temporary one at best, but when you die you're dead.

Imagine someone is in the middle of a desert with no one there in the circle of 2000 miles, and has only 0,1l of water. Without that water the person died in 3 days. With the water, the person died in 5 days. Did that water make a difference, had a very important purpose?

If you didn't get it already I don't think you're going to get it... what you do in life has an effect upon yourself when you're alive and upon others while you're alive and even when you're dead.

Your allegory is twisted, because two days in the same gruesome conditions are of course no difference (except if they get him rescued). But what if Einstein had said at age 25 "look, when I'm dead I'm dead, there is no purpose to all this... so I might as well just sit back and sulk my life away"? He wouldn't have had such a fascinating life and wouldn't have left the legacy he left.

Why is there the need for a cosmic significance for life to have a purpose? Millions of non-believers have had extremely fulfilling and thrilling lives full of sense and purpose.

Start da Game
03-28-2012, 06:40 PM
why is this even an issue?

filo v is not bothering anybody. it seems like the other way around: some of the ejaculites are bothering the hell of filo v very simply because they cant mind their own business.

concurred.....too bad he was forced to remove that.....

Everko
03-28-2012, 06:54 PM
I wonder if Filo V would get so much hate if he were a Federer fan. Not likely. people didn't like that he defended Nadal in the beating Nishikori thread, now they complain about his avatar. Pathetic.

tripwires
03-29-2012, 01:47 AM
:haha: This thread was started before that Nadal match dear.