Why is "racist" such a hurtful insult?

DJ_Smerk wrote:But underneath, aren't we all the same?

Can I nominate you, Trev, and Bucky to have autopsies so we can find out?

I have a doctors note.

Your crude crayon-etched forgery won't count.

But that's how I always right.

Zat wrote:And 'We Are Racist' wouldn't have sold as many copies..

except in Mumbai

G.Wood wrote:

Zat wrote:And 'We Are Racist' wouldn't have sold as many copies..

except in Mumbai

And some suburbs of Perth.

G.Wood wrote:I admire shoey's religious fervour

oh hang on


I think he may be Merlin's love child

Oi Gwood - bugger off!
I absolutely deny any involvement with Shoey's Mum ... ever.
Furthermore, I have now instructed my lawyers to act immediately to quash such irreligious rumours.
Finally, I strongly suggest you wear a box whilst keeping a close watch out for a hoodie wielding two bricks ...

A white hoodie?

Zimi's moonlighting?

Snap.

skully wrote:A white hoodie?

No.
Zim offered to blacken up so as to authenticate the 'surprise' factor!

They're drinkin' buddies. Woody would smell him a mile off.

skully wrote:They're drinkin' buddies. Woody would smell him a mile off.

Is that the normal form of recognition in Wozzieland?
I'd imagine that must be the case as you can't see much through the eyehole (as opposed to the other hole) slits cut into the hoodie

Sound logic.

Henry wrote:Aussie in 'what's wrong with racists?' shocker........

Says the Aussie racist!

tac wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:Still no evidence to provide Tac? This is extremely straightforward. You are asserting the existence of a God. I am saying there is no evidence for such a statement, and you still provide none. Ultimately, you are saying there is a God simply because you say so.

Once more, please provide evidence, and explain to me why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a suitable candidate.

Again you ask for evidence yet claim not to? Again you turn to your worship of the rational approach and cannot begin to accept that anything might exist outside that?

If you lived a few hundred years ago you would have been as certain that the earth was flat and cells were indivisible as you are now that God could not possibly exist . . . (how silly you would have felt, eh?)

This proletarian scrabbling after proofs and facts is merely intellectual pride . . . it is impossible to conceive of anything existing outside what can be known by man . . .

I'm sorry, shoey, but I accept that science presents only a very poor approximation of the universe around us but also it will one lead to a fuller understanding of God . . . if God so desires it . . .

How can you have a fuller understanding of something that you're guessing must exist?
And why is science 'scrabbling after proofs and facts'? It's responsible for all of our understanding of how the world works. Religion explains nothing - it's a belief system based on incredulity. See, that's the inherent contradiction in your argument: 'it's impossible to conceive of anything outside of what can be known by man'. Exactly - so why bother? You can't refute Darwinism and the anthropic principle by saying, 'Ah, but what existed before the big bang? Where did the gases come from? Must be God.'
Where's the intellectual rigour in that?
You write as if there's something noble about blind faith and something base about epiricism. Why should that be the case?

Exactly. What I cannot understand is how people expect an omnipotent being to give a shit about us as a race, let alone as individuals. Surely someone omniscient would trivialise love and worship down to it's chemical nature. We expect humanoid understanding, compassion and, more than anything, anger. How can we expect such things from such a being?

footwork wrote:

Zat wrote:Up to page 7 this thread was quite funny. Then it got all goddy. And turned to drivel. FFS, I was brought up by very religious parents, and accepted the existence of a God as much as I accepted the sun would come up in the morning.

A bit of life experience made me realise that there's a shitload of inculcation going on, and that while there may be a god, any god that wants people to act the way some people who act in the name of religion would have to be vindictive, petty and stupid.

I find it hard to accept that if there is a god, that any of the religions on earth have got it right.

I also suspect that there is more likelihood of their being intelligent alien life somewhere out in space than of there being a god that earth people have got right.

I wrote a post on page nine, you swine.

And it was repeated in so many ways, for the next ten pages, while being completely ignored. But do I care??
I have just this to say:

Blah!!!


Anyhoo, to shoey:
Shoey do you KNOW there is no god; or do you have FAITH there is no god??

Nice try, but that doesn't work.

It is extremely unlikely there is no God because there's absolutely no reason to assume there is one. It is no different to saying it is extremely unlikely that there are pixies, extremely unlikely there are fairies. In all cases there is no reason to assume that they exist. No faith involved anywhere - as stated repeatedly I am quite willing to change my mind should there be reason to. Thus far there isn't.

Who is this God person anyway?

Well, depends who you talk to. Originally? He was called Jove and was one of many gods.

Robbie Fowler

Anyone read Richard Dawkins? His book the God Principle (I think, from memory - can't be arsed to look it up) is a rigourous examination of what we're discussing here.

Though Robbie Fowler is conspicuous by his absence from said tome.

Brass Monkey wrote:Well, depends who you talk to. Originally? He was called Jove and was one of many gods.

The comment has been made before that we're all atheists with regards to Jupiter, Apollo, Mithras, Mabon, Wodin, Thor and Zeus. Some of us just go one god further.

Jontyh wrote:Anyone read Richard Dawkins? His book the God Principle (I think, from memory - can't be arsed to look it up) is a rigourous examination of what we're discussing here.

The God Delusion.