Comments on BELIEVERS, DO YOU HAVE PROOF THAT BELIEF IN GOD MAKES PEOPLE BETTER?

Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t - Add a comment - Go to BELIEVERS, DO YOU HAVE PROOF THAT BELIEF IN GOD MAKES PEOPLE BETTER?

kooka_lives - I thought it might

I always feel refreshed and somewhat inspired after returning bile to its rightful owners. I look forward to your post.

posted by gomedome on May 16, 2007 at 9:32 PM | link to this | reply

Gomedome

Your comment gave me an interesting idea for a post. Hopefully I'll have the time to write here soon.

posted by kooka_lives on May 16, 2007 at 8:34 PM | link to this | reply

kooka_lives - you and I are now better people, we can thank their God

for that.

These people we keep meeting that are acting on his behalf are very inspiring to me. After I have demonstrated for me all that I find repulsive in human nature, I cannot help but try to improve myself. I am sometimes even overcome with an uncontrollable desire to begin muttering gibberish to their invisible friends and ending the final prayer sentence with: "And there but for the grace of God go I"

Again I apologize for taking this even further, we have however stated our cases and expunged much of our pent up vitriol on the deserving of such an honor. If I am to be honest; that is what compelled me to add so much verbiage to your comments section. Anger from not realizing that I was being too kind in past encounters, anger from watching my standards lowered in public behaviour and civility.

Now it is time to demonstrate that we are in fact above all of this.

I'm done now. I am beginning the reciprical part of an agreement fully expecting the requested portions to be breached. At the end of the day it has to stop somewhere.

posted by gomedome on May 16, 2007 at 8:18 PM | link to this | reply

You peanut gallery bloggers need a dose of reality .

Getting caught lying and having your ass kicked in debate does not make us immoral. Nor does our not agreeing with your twisted assessment of our words and actions mean that we have denied anything. Denial is your game. I personally stand behind every word I have ever put to print (for better or worse) If I said something I will never deny it. You should try that sometime, it would make your attempts to sound sincere actually carry some weight.

The term "Peanut Gallery" has two meanings as well, though I have already said which meaning I am using, I reserve the right to switch back and forth as is convenient or anytime I want to lie my way out of a situation (or do I have to believe in your God to be such a liar?). Not having as much experience at lying and denying as you do, I would look to you for guidance on these things. You are absolutely correct, people on this site know what you say you stand for. Those who believe in God think you stand for truth, justice and the American way, those who do not believe in God think that you are a complete fool. The disparity of these opinions being a direct result of your widely differing behavior towards the two groups.

In the past I have challenged you to back your accusations towards me, you have not done so once. Instead, you have manufactured more accusations. You seem not able to grasp that I have the same rights that you have to express my religious opinions. Your declaration of "...the word being sacred...." does not give you any additional rights. What you refer to as defence of your beliefs has been decidedly offensive in nature. I think we both agree that further dialogue between us is pointless so I'm going to take you up on your offer:

"As I’ve told you both, if you do not wish to converse with me then all you have to do is ask and I will be happy to depart. I have no wish to ostracize you."

I am going to request that you do not reference me, my user name or anything that I have written, either directly or in the thinly veiled manner that you have been doing so. I will reciprocate in entirely leaving you alone, never mentioning or referencing you in comments or in posts. I do not invite dialogue or interaction with you in any manner.

I already know how this is going to go, if I make a deal with someone, my honor is at stake, my word is my bond. My promises and obligations will be fulfilled to the best of my abilities. You on the other hand . . . . well . . . I could carve a better man out of a banana.

posted by gomedome on May 16, 2007 at 7:38 AM | link to this | reply

Oddy

Wow, you are just not going to stop with these lies then.

If you were not at Vail, then I am puzzled as to why you invited me up there to meet you. At the most I might be mistaken about the resort, But I know you wanted me to meet you are a ski resort, but I am fairly sure it was Vail. This did happen, I remember it very well. I obviously have a much better memory than you from everything that has been shown here, since you seem unable to remember your own words. Don't try to lie you way out of this one, I know better.

Yes, the term 'iconoclast' on its own is not an insult. No one has ever actually said it to be. When you use it however, you use it as an insult. That has been proven here to be the truth of it all. I am serious here, if you insult me one time by trying to lie your way out of this, we are done. I will not put up with this any longer from you. All the evidence has been shown here and it all shows that for YOU the term is an insult you use towards free thinking people who just do not agree with your very deluded beliefs.

No feelings have been hurt here. I just do not put up with such lies and games as you have been playing here. It is sad and childish that you are unable to admit the truth about what you say, what you've done and the meaning of your own words, which are obvious as it gets and right there for all to see. As far as I can see you defend the untruth of your own words more than anything else. Not sure how that puts you as being more moral than Gomedome and I. You lost this little debate right off the back and have been slowly destroying your integrity since then by lying and twisting words and showing your true colors, once again. This is the kind of thing that made me block you before and it is obvious that you have not changed and have no desire to change.

At least once more you have helped me greatly in seeing that my beliefs are obviously the ones that led to true spirituality, peace of mind, integrity and the basic fundamentals of just straight out good human morality. I would loose all of that if I ever took one step into the world of your beliefs, since all of that is obviously meaningless compared to the need to convert and get others to tell you how right you are.

posted by kooka_lives on May 16, 2007 at 7:11 AM | link to this | reply

You iconoclastic bloggers need to try and get a grip......

Kooka…..I’ve never even been to Vail. We do not frequent that resort. There was only the one suggested meeting in Denver that I chose not to go through with, no others. It is overwhelmingly apparent that you both misunderstand the term iconoclast because you consider it an insult. As I’ve mentioned to you, many famous people have been labeled such. And your contention that you and gomedome do not attack religion is absurd, everyone here has read your posts. That, in and of itself, makes you an iconoclast. It is impossible for you to deny it because your posts clearly establish it as observable fact. But, as I say, the term itself is not an insult.

Gomedome…….Morality is not so much connected to God as it is, in its purest sense, comprised of God. Gomedome, the folks here have read your posts and witnessed firsthand your name calling and derogatory commentary against the religious. Your attempts here to deny or justify such action are absurd and also immoral. I decided to use the term iconoclast in writing here so that I could distinguish you from other atheists who do not constantly position themselves in such open opposition and hostility to everything religious. Again, it is not an insult, but a legitimate word to single you out by your activity and apparent mission in life.

For the both of you, your propaganda of untruth here is not working. People on this site know what I stand for. Neither of you have been pursued or ostracized by me. You have both engaged me in consensual debate and have obviously gotten your feelings hurt a bit, and I regret that I’ve somehow inadvertently hurt your feelings. As I’ve told you both, if you do not wish to converse with me then all you have to do is ask and I will be happy to depart. I have no wish to ostracize you. But please understand that I will not fail to rise to the defense of my beliefs because the word is sacred and not something to be stomped upon. You both constantly contend that you harbor morality but you constantly refuse to exhibit it. This profusion of verbiage from you is but one example of this.

posted by telemachus on May 16, 2007 at 3:56 AM | link to this | reply

kooka_lives - you missed your chance- alone in the woods, talking about God

sounds like fun. . . okay I'm being sarcastic again.

I could get into the others on the salvation list. You are not alone but I've made a point of sticking to things that I can directly reference with a link or irrefutable evidence from the Blogit site. But even things written in black and white don't seem to matter, it is all denied. Forget reason or appealing to intellect, it all becomes reduced to drivelling immature nonsense, the original issues being discussed are long forgotten as they are evaded continuously, new insults are thrown up, history is revised on the fly. If I ever act that confused and insufferably obtuse, I want you to promise me that you will take me for a walk in the woods . . . then shoot me to put me out of my misery.

posted by gomedome on May 15, 2007 at 5:46 PM | link to this | reply

Oddy

Are you really doing that heavy of drugs?

There have been at least three instances that you have contacted me saying you would be in the Denver area and hoping we could meet up. The first one your hiking thing and you were obviously serious about that, making the promise you obviously had planned to break about not talking about religion.

The second time was more casual. I don't really remember too much details. I think you just wanted to go to a bar for drinks.

The third time you were going to be in Vail and were wondering if I could drive up there to have drinks with you.

There might be more, but I only remember those three. If your memory is not good enough to remember those times that says a whole lot and give me a great insight in just how our issues here start up.

Also, look at Gomedome's page where he give BOTH definitions of the word "iconoclast". Yes there is more than one (Another interesting thing I learned back in grade school, words can have multiple definitions). Then look at your own post about the word itself, where you talk about iconoclasts trying to destroy religion. The one definition you give here is NOT the same as the one you clearly are using in your own post.

You have filled this comments sections with untruths at every turn. Anyone can clearly see that by reading through these comments.

posted by kooka_lives on May 15, 2007 at 5:00 PM | link to this | reply

Odysseus - typically your comments are loaded with half truths and

nonsense.

When you come up with gems like this: ".....you do not uphold and worship morality in a spiritual sense." You simply have defined morality as someone agreeing with your religious perspective, your tenuous attempts at justifying your contempt towards us is ultimately nothing more than that. The truth of the matter is your behavior demonstrates that you don't really understand what morality is, in your mind it has to be connected with a belief in your God. We continue to have this pointless dialogue in the comments section of an atheist who does not believe in God yet he routinely embarrasses you with an inherent honesty and integrity that you do not seem to comprehend and may never achieve in your lifetime.

Here is another perfect example taken from the comments at the previous link: "I know when I read hatred! I can see them calling religious people who try to converse with them names like “stupid”, “retarded”, “ignorant”, “insane”, and on and on it goes." You say that you are not guilty of half truths but this previous statement is a lie of omission bordering on slander. I have never once in my life called anyone attempting to converse with me on any subject a name such as these, I would bet that Kooka could make the same claim. If I have ever called anyone a name such as these you can bet that it was in response to an insult received by them or prompted in some manner. You neglected to mention that part. That whenever I have called you a name, you have always started the name calling, absolutely every time and I defy you to show us an instance where this is not true.

"Attempting to converse" is the key phrase. Dialogue with you is not an effort on your part of attempting to converse. It is condescension by someone who is out to prove at any costs that anyone who does not buy into their version of God is morally inferior to them and a detriment to society. (you don't want to argue this last point, I have more links to use if need be) It is an attempt by you to convert them to a belief in God which in itself is incredibly naive. You can rant and rave all you want as to why I have you blocked, that is never going to change. If you cannot understand that no one must endure your atrocious behavior, I view that as entirely your problem. If you want to continue to imply that it is because you are intellectually and morally superior and that I cannot handle dealing with such superior people as you, be my guest. Many of us find that claim very entertaining.

posted by gomedome on May 15, 2007 at 7:07 AM | link to this | reply

Gomedome……much of what she said at that link I find agreeable,

with the exception that I do not believe that you and Kooka can’t be moral, only that you do not uphold and worship morality in a spiritual sense. My commentary above and below what Ariala wrote there is very relevant as well.

posted by telemachus on May 15, 2007 at 1:05 AM | link to this | reply

Kooka, your insinuations that I have somehow bothered you

about meeting are absurd. There was one time that we briefly considered it and that was half jokingly. It has never been something that either of us fully planned or intended to do.

Again, my commentary here is valid, there are no untruths. I have not redefined anything, the defintions are in your dictionary...go look at them. They were there, in your dictionary, when I first posted the word "iconoclast". I promise, I have not sneaked into your house and changed the words in your dictionary.

Good grief! Like you, I tire of this. Can we stop now?

posted by telemachus on May 15, 2007 at 1:00 AM | link to this | reply

kooka_lives - I'm surprised that you would rebuff such heartfelt

sincerity and good intentions . . . okay, I'm being sarcastic.

All one needs to do is trip across comment exchanges, where as a casual observer, one learns all one needs to learn about where certain people are coming from. Such as this one: HERE . . . I was rather impressed with the attempts by the host at moderation at this link, but not so impressed with the lunatic ravings she was being forced to moderate. Mind you, there is a great deal of comedy to be gleaned from it all. Especially humorous when compared against recent representations.

posted by gomedome on May 14, 2007 at 10:59 PM | link to this | reply

Oddy

You are so full of it. It does get old.

I'm not dancing this circle with you again. I am well aware of the truth of all that has happened here. I remember everything about the few occasions you have tried to get me to meet up with you (Unlike you I have real good memory)and I know what to take literally and what not to( That is why the literal meaning of 'iconoclast' is unimportant, since YOU use it as an insult). You cannot go and try to paint yourself as being the moral one here, since it was clear that you have lied, that you have tried to redefine your words after the fact and that you have done all you could to confuse the issue of it all.

I am tired of it all.

I hope to never be as removed from reality as you are. In truth I bet I understand the various concepts of God far better than you could ever hope to, since it has been made very clear that you are trapped in the dogma you claim to not be a part of. You believe in the Biblical God, and nothing beyond that. Every time we get into one of these all you do is show me I understand true spirituality far better than you do.

I need not be converted, because your ways have NOTHING to offer me and if anything they would hold me back and cause damage to my spiritual side.

posted by kooka_lives on May 14, 2007 at 8:20 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka, to referesh your mind, the hiking

talk sprung from commentary to one of your posts and was never anything we decided to do definitely.

Everything that I have said in this commentary is true. There are no lies.

You know, it would do you good to go back and read gomedome’s link and think about the time and context in which that comment was written. Although I certainly have no problem with contending that I would like to convert you, that comment about conversion was clearly made in lightheartedness, as you have given me very little expectation to succeed in converting you.

But I have no regret in wishing to convert you. It would do you great good. I would convert you tonight, if I could find a way. But nonetheless, the comment was not made with that expectation, but as a lighthearted and fun response to the interview.

It is this same habit of taking a literal translation of things that prevents you from fully understanding the definition of “iconoclast”, or another’s concept of God. It is the same literal insistence that keeps the fundamentalist or cultist from seeing beyond the limitations of their doctrine and dogma.

God is not Thor or Zeus, but rather a concerted direction, with great power, that all may follow. You are young. You have much of your life to live. I remain optimistic that you will one day discern. Be good!

posted by telemachus on May 14, 2007 at 6:56 PM | link to this | reply

kooka_lives - I found this exchange rather humorous and completely typical

One day awhile back, I added up all of the hours I was wasting in this type of nonsensical round and round dialogue and decided to put a stop to it. I also do not claim innocence in how this exchange turned out, I prompted some of it knowing full well how it was going to go . . . as it always does. The humour isn't over yet however, somewhere down the road a claim will be made of how we lost this "debate", of how we ignored irrefutable logic and of how it is only our shortcomings and our "hatred" of God that has us not seeing things clearly. This was one of those so called "intellectual thrashings" . . . I'm sorry but I end up cackling with laughter at that thought. I don't see anything at all intellectual about this type of exchange. One person is out to prove that anyone who does not believe in his God is lacking in integrity while demonstrating a complete lack of integrity to prove this point. I find that incredibly funny. . . . is this demonstration the answer to the question you pose in this blog's title? Is this proof that belief in God makes people better? . . . too friggin funny.

posted by gomedome on May 14, 2007 at 11:01 AM | link to this | reply

Oddy

This exchange has greatly shown you to be person that cannot be trusted, who twists his words and back tracks constantly.

This started off as a talk about morals. What I find most interesting is that we are not talking about your attempts to get me to meet with you while you've been out here in Colorado. You had promised me through e-mails that if I actually did that, you would be polite and shows some sense of integrity by NOT talking about religion at all. yet here we have now seen a very open statement by you that says if you got eh chance you would push religion on me in hope sot convert me to your way of thinking. So basically you lied to me outright in order to get me to meet with you.

When I get the time I might have to go through this set of comments and see just how many lies we have caught you in just in this comments section. Gomedome and I have not lied once here. We went and found all the evidence we needed to back up what we were saying. You went and twisted words and changed definitions at every turn. You have helped me greatly to defend the concept of this post.

And just for the record, there is a reason as to why all your attempts to get me to meet up with you have failed. I hope you are not nieve enough to think such a meeting was something I wanted to do. You see if Gomedome were to send me the same kind of e-mails I would actually go out of my to sit back and have a drink with him.

posted by kooka_lives on May 14, 2007 at 8:59 AM | link to this | reply

Gomedome

As always you are not the problem here. You have nothing to apologize about.

posted by kooka_lives on May 14, 2007 at 8:51 AM | link to this | reply

kooka_lives - I hope you derived some entertainment from this exchange

I also hope that you derived a few extra clicks as well and I apologize if it went too far or if it carried on for too long. How I got into it was as you can see, I commented on your comment, then subsequently the door was opened to give a long time antagonist another swat in the head. Proof, reality, things written in black and white (and by the antagonist's own hand no less) seem not to matter. Denial is the order of the day, wow, I hope I never act like that.

One last thing: Have I ever even suggested that you block our antagonist, let alone anyone? Both you and I know the answer to that one. Yet again I find myself accused of petty actions by the petty of mind . . . but what else is new?

posted by gomedome on May 13, 2007 at 12:36 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka – I think this exchange right here is very exemplary

of the entire realm of conflict that has ensued. I agree with you that anyone can read the commentary right here in this section and see much of why I cannot resolve this conflict.

By the way, my first response was put up before I saw gomedomes most recent comment, that is why I inserted the OMG response.

It is interesting that he brought up the hiking adventure. Remember that? You might want to tell him that I went on up into the mountains without ya. He seems a bit worried. Good grief!

Anyway, I gotta go!

posted by telemachus on May 13, 2007 at 12:20 PM | link to this | reply

Oddy

Funny, it has been you that has instigated the confrontation every single time from what I keep seeing. You come in and insult Gomedome when he has left a comment here to me and then expect that it will go unnoticed.

I find it very interesting that you have completely turned this into a big debate over a issue that really has nothing at all to do with the post itself. Although the most interesting part is that Gomedome and I have shown integrity and honesty in our comments here, while you have gone and denied stuff that is right there for all to see and then tried to double talk your way through it in order to make it look like you've done nothing wrong. If anything this debate here has only helped to prove my point all the more about just where positive values come from.

posted by kooka_lives on May 13, 2007 at 12:03 PM | link to this | reply

Oddy

Did you ever misread that whole comment. I am seriously trying to figure out what parts of the English language you understand. if you truly thought that such was the point of Gomedome's comment, then you have shown just how far off your understanding of simple words really is.

If all of this is because you were just taught wrong when it came to reading, you might have a good cause against the schools that taught you. If this is just that your mind does not work in the needed manner in order to understand what other people are saying, then you need to go and get some real help. Either way I am at a lose as to how you are able to function in our society, let alone be able to run your own business, with such a horrible understanding of English. or maybe Gomedome's Canadian accent throws you off.

posted by kooka_lives on May 13, 2007 at 11:59 AM | link to this | reply

Kooka - OMG! He is afraid that I’ll convert you!

posted by telemachus on May 13, 2007 at 11:49 AM | link to this | reply

Kooka-lives – As I’ve told you before, I’ll write what I want

when I want. The threat of you blocking me concerns me very little. That's because I'm more than happy to vacate your blog anytime you like. If you don't want me to comment here then just say so and I will be gone. Is that what you want? Gomedome never even asked me to leave his blog, he just blocked me one day, out of emotion, when he was getting the sore end of the debate. He's been busy trying to justify his action every since. But I think its a waste of words because I have no desire to be anywhere someone doesn't want me.

But I must say, the fact that you have me unblocked does seem to bother gomedome a great deal, as his habit of disrupting our exchange seems to be with a purposeful motive to get you to block me. Any idea why that might be? It can’t be that he’s genuinely concerned that I might convert you? Could it be that he doesn’t think you’re capable of standing up for yourself? I can't see why he would thin that. Anyway, it is quite odd to me that he has me blocked and yet he wants to instigate these exhanges with me everytime I try to comment in your blog. What's going on?

posted by telemachus on May 13, 2007 at 11:46 AM | link to this | reply

….that is the most bizarre concoction of untruths - Oh Really?

Did I not mention that it would be unwise for you to deny any of this? Following are your words which illustrate exactly what motivates and fuels your obsession. When asked the following question here is your response:

"8. If you could spend a week with any blogger, in any city, where would you go and with who? Kooka_lives, hiking in Colorado. I’m sure I could convert him if I had him in person for a week." The link to this interview is: HERE

I could go on, I can back everything that I have contended with proof. Even the subjective contentions of your having an obsessive disorder are heavily weighted with corroborating evidence. . . . still wanna analyze each other bucko? . . . and you have never harassed anyone on Blogit? So your warning from the site administrators to stop doing exactly that was just their idea of "funning" with you?

If you tire of my lunacy, let us just see how long you can stay away from me. And for the last time, my blog is only blocked to one person, it has only ever been blocked to one person. Those that know me and know how much nonsense I am willing to endure from the faithful while discussing religion can only say: "wow . . . there is a religious numbnut so insufferable that he could achieve being blocked permanently by gomedome? . . he must be a piece of work."

And finally now that I have gotten rid of you (we'll see), let me explain one last thing: When you say: "I tire of your lunacy" . . . you hurled the first insult again, it never fails. So don't try playing the victim when I came back with ". . . there is a religious numbnut etc."

I'll keep this link handy for down the road when you try to use this phrase out of context to vilify me.

posted by gomedome on May 13, 2007 at 11:37 AM | link to this | reply

Oddy

I never called the Church of Satan 'mainstream', just traditional. Those are two different words that do not mean the same thing. Once more, in grade school I learned how words do not all have the same meaning and that words that have different meanings cannot be interchanged in the manner you seem to wish to do.

As for being called an 'iconoclast', I really have no problem with that if it were not for the simple, proven fact that you mean it was a clear and direct insult towards anyone you use that term on. It is the intent of the usage of the word that is insulting, not the term itself.

Go and read your own post on the concept and see that you use the term as an insult. I really am starting to remember why I blocked you. If you keep wishing to play the idiot (And man are you good at playing the idiot) it will happen again. I am not going to put up with your load of B.S. For you to use that term on a person, you are insulting them because the intention being the term in insulting as was clearly shown in your post about said term. No amount of B.S. from you can change that simple fact. All one needs to do is read your post on the issue and it is clear.

Either start to learn what insulting people really is and admit up to it, or seriously, get lost.

posted by kooka_lives on May 13, 2007 at 10:59 AM | link to this | reply

Gomedome….that is the most bizarre concoction of untruths

that have ever spewed forth from your blasphemous lips (or should I say pen). I’ve never harassed anyone on blogit. Your blog is blocked because you cannot defend the logic of your ravings. I tire of your lunacy. Good day!

posted by telemachus on May 13, 2007 at 10:37 AM | link to this | reply

Odysseus - this is how I started a blog war?

kooka_lives - your last comment response is too funny

posted by gomedome on May 11, 2007 at 10:55 AM | link to this | reply

You are however correct on one thing: You are not harassing me, I put a stop to that months ago which brings me to your next point. I have one religious person blocked, I feel that one religious person has harassed me since being on Blogit, that one person was nearly booted off of Blogit for doing so which sort of validates my claim. As for your guessing why I write one of my blogs and what shapes the themes of its content, religious folks such as you are a huge problem in our society. You are armed with nothing more than the cheap justification of what you believe God is and wants from us and as your attrocious behavior while on Blogit attests to; can convince yourself that anything you do is righteous. If you want to call my not putting up with your mindless religiously motivated crap and that of people like you, displaced aggression, so be it. Knock yourself out.

Since we are now into analyzing each other even though I warned you not to go there, I'm sure you will not mind if I analyze you. (Actually you probably will mind because you can never handle receiving what you dish out.) This nonsense with you has been going on for 3 years on and off, it is fairly obvious that you have an obsessive disorder. Warning signs began to appear when you began trying to arrange meetings with non believers off of Blogit. It might not be a good idea to deny this as I can drop a dozen links that show you attempting to do this. It is also fairly obvious to many of us that you cannot just blog, do your own thing and derive some entertainment from the comment interaction. When you attempt to simply blog, it isn't long before you are driven to return to your old obsessions, is it just a coincedence that a comment from you appears right after just about every comment I have left over the last little while? (just as in this post) You will claim that it is merely a coincidence of course, others see it differently. Based on your past history of pursuing and harassing non believers on Blogit, to see it differently hardly qualifies as paranoia. I could go on but there is not much point, your obsessive disorder completely overrides your intellect.

posted by gomedome on May 13, 2007 at 10:10 AM | link to this | reply

Gomedome…….Again, I am not harassing you.

I came here to comment to Kooka and you jumped in and tried to start a blog war. The only reason I’ve mentioned your past is because you are clearly exhibiting “displaced aggression ” as a result of what happened to you in your childhood. If you have as much trouble defining that phrase as you do the word “iconoclast ”, then I suggest you visit a shrink. The only nonsensical thing about this whole exchange is that you somehow think Godly people are harassing you. Your delusion is fully contained in your postings and your interactions with others who believe in God, not just me. Truly gomedome, Godly people are not out to get you and your enhanced paranoia is getting out of hand.

Definitions:

Paranoia – a psychiatric disorder involving systematized delusion, usually of persecution.

Displaced Aggression - an attack against a person/object that is not the original source of frustration.

posted by telemachus on May 13, 2007 at 12:40 AM | link to this | reply

kooka_lives - it's hilarious isn't it? I especially got a kick out of your

reply comment.

The little trick that is being attempted in attempting to switch meanings of a clearly intended insult is of a grade school mentality. The funniest part however is that this is in black and white print, there is no escape except to backtrack.. . . but I expect the link I have provided to go dead soon. The next game from here is "delete and deny" . . . . It's been 3 years of this. There is a distinct pattern and there is only one underlying propagating factor to this childish exchange. One person cannot accept that his religious opinion is nothing more than just his opinion. Other religious opinions cannot exist, those holding these other opinions must be attacked and vilified, their views exterminated if possible. Because his invisible friend told him that is what he wants.

To Odysseus: all I can say is you are very entertaining but the novelty of your ramblings has worn off. There must be other non believers you can harass and attempt to convince that your God exists. Most of your last comment is nonsensical but I will address two things. I will address your mentioning the fact that I have you blocked permanently again. There are many reasons why I don't read you blogs or comment on them, or invite dialogue with you. Most of these reasons have to do with episodes such as this. Your bare faced denials, backtracking and gameplaying is beneath me, if you were actually promoting that which you insist you represent it would be beneath you as well. But you don't seem to even be embarrassed by your behavior?

Attempting to analyze those you do not know and further attach your assessment of their personal lives is about as classless as it comes in a public forum. You really don't want to go there with me. . . .now you better get busy deleting your blogs so you can retain full deniability. Denying stuff doesn't work worth a darn when people can link to proof so easily.

posted by gomedome on May 12, 2007 at 10:20 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka….if the church of Satan could be considered mainstream,

that is, in the broad social sense of the word, then what you say would be true. But that is not the case. Listen, you guys are getting too upset over this word “iconoclast”. There have been many famous people, like George Orwell, Andrew Jackson, Orson Welles, etc., etc. who have been considered iconoclasts. It is just a reference to what you are doing. Neither you or Gome understand the word. Please Google it and gain an understanding of it before you rave at me for insulting you, because I have not.

posted by telemachus on May 12, 2007 at 8:14 PM | link to this | reply

Gomedome……. Neither I, nor any of the Christians here,

are the religious zealots that raised you and hurt you when you were young. Your hatred toward us is misplaced. I harbor no ill will against you. If you wish to embark upon some malicious campaign against me than so be it. But why don’t you let Kooka speak for himself.

The link you posted is your self-admission of iconoclastic belief, so how can my reference to you as an iconoclast be construed as derogatory? That makes no sense. Listen, if you perceive the word Iconoclast as derogatory, then perhaps you should re-assess whether or not you want, by you own self-admission, to be one.

And by the way, if I couldn’t handle a return volley, I’d have my blog blocked like yours.

posted by telemachus on May 12, 2007 at 8:08 PM | link to this | reply

Oddy

Wow, you really do switch around a lot. Go and read your own post that Gomedome linked to. There you first off make it clear that you see an iconoclast as being a bad thing, so it is an insult for YOU to call someone such. Second, in that same post you say "In fact, this hatred has festered into an iconoclastic mindset that is convinced that the world would be a better place if all religions were removed and destroyed", which would imply that you place the term in the first definition as given on Gomedome's post, which is 'a breaker or destroyer of images, esp. those set up for religious veneration.'

Obviously you either don't understand you own words, or you just have that selective amnesia that Gomedome talks about. Either way, it is clear what you original opinion of an iconoclast is and now you are just back tracking and trying to make it not look like you are a total jerk, who just insults people and then tries to pretend he did nothing wrong.

As for the you being an iconoclast. The Church of Satan is based on traditional beliefs. They are pagan beliefs, but they are very much traditional. In fact to some degree the heart of the Church of Satan's beliefs are more traditional than any set of Christian beliefs. So this all comes down to perspective. In fact by claiming that their Satan is the Biblical Satan, you are very much being the worst example of an iconoclast that you can be. Such a claim crosses both definitions as given by Gomedome and is then backed up by your unwilling ness to accept any value in their beliefs just because of the name itself. I at least study the beliefs I question and do not just go off of the title of the faith.

Of course the truth of this issue is that if one were to go with the basic definition of 'somebody who challenges or overturns traditional beliefs, customs, and values' then everyone is an iconoclast, unless there are fully mindless followers who do not think for themselves at all. I know of not one person who does not do this to some degree.

I guess you just got confused with words that have more than one meaning, not understand that you CANNOT switch between meanings as you so desire. The meaning you clearly give to the word when you use it is that meaning that is relevant. I learned such things back in grade school. But don't be too embarrassed, some people take longer to learn things than others.

posted by kooka_lives on May 12, 2007 at 8:00 PM | link to this | reply

A little amnesia setting in again is it?

This subject has been covered and covered again. We know the definition of the word thank you, covered in a post: HERE

The meaning of this word was never the issue. The issues are the implications attached to your use of it. This is not an imaginary offence, as you have defined your meaning and therefore the sentiment implied when you use this word in numerous posts and comments. Plain and simple you use it as a derogatory term, suggesting that you don't and that we offend too easily is utter bullshit but we have come to expect nothing but this type of backpeddling from you. For some reason you seem incapable of intelligent, mature dialogue and even less capable of standing behind your words.

Now Kooka and I will both come up with a word to describe you, elaborate on our meaning of this word, analyze you in the process and then put the disparaging conclusions we draw to print encapsulating these insults with this new word. We will then see how offended you become at this effort. I already know the outcome so I won't bother. You cannot handle any form of return volley.

posted by gomedome on May 12, 2007 at 6:31 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka_lives and gomedome......

Guys, the word “Iconoclast” is defined as “somebody who challenges or overturns traditional beliefs, customs, and values”. That is what you do. It is not an insult. You guys get insulted too easy. Nobody is harassing you or bothering you in any way. Iconoclast is a legitimate, descriptive term for what you two do day in and day out on blogit. It is not an insult or even an opinion, but rather a fact that is clearly substantiated by your posts and commentary on this forum. You are both iconoclasts. Plain and simple!

Now, Kooka raises a good question by suggesting that I too may be an iconoclast because I refuse to accept his beloved church of Satan and instead openly despise and ridicule it. But the difference is that the beliefs of the church of Satan are not “traditional beliefs, customs, and values” but instead an aberration. So you see, I’m not an iconoclast. But you two clearly are! You two are the ones that openly wish to alter “traditional beliefs, customs, and values”. Do you deny this? Or do you now accept the reality that you are indeed, iconoclastic?

You know, I’ve also learned the definitions of a lot of new words while blogging. That’s nothing to be embarrassed about.

posted by telemachus on May 12, 2007 at 4:32 PM | link to this | reply

kooka_lives - I have only ever blocked one blogger as well.

I did block a couple of festering religious nutcases briefly but that was only until I could impress upon them that their religious beliefs did not give them the right to be abusive towards those who do not hold those beliefs. Whether they got the message or not became irrelevant when they stopped with the abusive comments. On the other hand I have had one person that just won't get the message, who still to this day insists that being blocked by me has nothing to do with their atrocious, insulting and childish behaviour but everything to do with my personal shortcomings. The doublespeak, denials, temporary amnesia and what seem like deliberate attempts to miss or sidestep the point, may in fact be the result of abusing inebriating substances but I think it is more than that. Many of these games are deliberate, attempts to be difficult because it is perceived by this person that a belief in their God justifies such actions somehow. But only towards those who aren't buying into their delusion. Whatever the cause, this is not adult behaviour, nor is it behavior that anyone must tolerate in a public forum.

Again; the saddest part of this little cybor show is that this behavior is reserved only for those who profess non belief. Those who are willing to support this individual's religious perspective get an entirely different treatment. No issues are sidestepped, the doublespeak, denials and other childish games are non existent if you just say the magic words. Which of course are that you believe in God, preferably his version of God but any God will do in a pinch.

I have little time for people suffering from this type of mental defect.

posted by gomedome on May 12, 2007 at 2:04 PM | link to this | reply

Oddy

Whatever drugs you are on you really need to get off them, they seem to affect your memory and your ability to think clearly. I'm also guessing you are having some strong hallucinations, although that would explain your messiah complex that you have. Just get off the drugs and sober up.

I have no desire at all to destroy anyone's faith. My goal here is to get people thinking and not just follow beliefs blindly and to get people to show respect for all beliefs (Even one's such as the Church of Satan which is a faith you seem to wish to destroy, which would make you the iconoclast). My problem is not with religions themselves, but with people who use them and abuse them and all the issue that come from blind religious faith just for ht sake of religious faith. I know you don't understand that since you only wish to see me as an immoral atheist, who is trying tear down those great, solid walls of belief in God that are just so perfect and undeniable (Since I already know you have a hard time understanding sarcasm, that was a sarcastic statement, don't for one moment believe I have lose my senses and believe that your concept of God is either perfect or undeniable).

Also, please learn English. Once you do that, then maybe you would stop making yourself look so foolish. I talked about the Bible because the concept of God you keep presenting, even though you claim otherwise, is very clearly based on the Biblical idea of God. After all that is the ONLY source of a God that is perfect and all good and so on. In order for you to have a belief in a God that embodies all you claim your God embodies, you would have to have taken it from the Bible. So your God is clearly the biblical God. If you wish to actually break away from the Bible, then stop using the Biblical concept of God. Is that too complex for you to understand because I know I have tried to explain this to you numerous times in the past. and for whatever reason (My guess is drug abuse) you just don't get it.

And on to the next one.

By you logic in your post that Gomedome linked to, I am not an iconoclast, since I have never been hurt by religion or the church or really had any truly negative experiences that have scared me. I have no hatred at all for religion or God or any of that. I know that the world will be a better place when everyone starts to show true respect for each other's religious beliefs and start to make their own religious beliefs true beliefs and stop trying to force them on other people. I have never once had to lower myself to name calling because the debate was falling apart, in fact just the opposite seems to happen. I have been the one called 'mildly retarded' by a believer because of my beliefs once that blogger had nothing else to use in our debate and I have been blocked by several Christian bloggers because they did not want my views in their comments, while the only blogger I have ever blocked was you because you were being as disrespectful as it got to my beliefs, refusing to listen to a thing I said and going on like a broken record, not being constructive with your comments and insulting me with every post you made. Everything you said in that post was 100% way off and I have yet to see such attitudes come from the non-believer side of things. Most of what you said fits the believers here on Blogit much better.

And just for the record, I do not for one moment truly believe you are on drugs. So don't get all upset over that or think that I am trying to make you look bad. It is just a lot of times it seems you just do not understand what is being said to you for whatever reason. Most likely you have one of those self-denial things going on where you will read something and only understand it to say what you wish it to say and so you can never truly understand what is being said to you. Now more often such things seem to be caused by drugs, but I truly do not know if that is the case with you.

posted by kooka_lives on May 12, 2007 at 1:35 PM | link to this | reply

Odysseus - it is your claim that there is not an insult intended when you

use the term "iconoclast" to address or refer to people that is the issue.

Not whether or not you wrote the post which I am certain that if it were not linked to you would deny having written.

This is your pattern, you say one thing with its intent or meaning clear to everyone then deny that you meant such a thing afterwards. This illustrates exactly why dialogue with you is pointless. Not to mention; what in hell gives you the right to label other users of this site? . . . you've even insulted my commentors in the past by calling them "groupies" or do you wish to deny that one as well? . . . grow up buddy, admit your quest to save the souls of the "iconoclasts" or any of the other non believers that you have pursued and harrassed on this site, has failed.

posted by gomedome on May 12, 2007 at 10:33 AM | link to this | reply

Gomedome – Yes, I wrote the post at that link and believe it is right on.

If you wish to attempt to refute some portion of the post, feel free to do so. Did this post strike a nerve with you?

posted by telemachus on May 12, 2007 at 7:36 AM | link to this | reply

Kooka – Well now you see that is a real surprise to me

that you say here that you have no desire to destroy religion. I gather something deeply different from reading your posts. I suppose if you destroyed religion though, you’d be left without anything to ridicule.

Is the latter part of your response to me, or to someone else? I never mentioned anything to you about the Bible here. I’m talking about your moral ideal.

posted by telemachus on May 12, 2007 at 7:30 AM | link to this | reply

kooka_lives - It was completely hilarious and you can be certain that its

meaning, though right on the money, was completely missed.

It looks like selective amnesia is setting in again: HERE is but one example of the latest thing that is being denied. There are many more examples, maybe someone should explain to the peanut gallery what constitutes rude and ignorant behaviour . . . we can work on what constitutes childish behavour later.

posted by gomedome on May 11, 2007 at 5:45 PM | link to this | reply

Gomedome

I figured you'd like that comment. It really does help when they basically set themselves up for you.

posted by kooka_lives on May 11, 2007 at 5:34 PM | link to this | reply

Oddy

First off I am not an iconoclast, since I have no desire to destroy icons or religions or anything people hold sacred.

Second, you made it very clear that as far as you are concerned it is not a good thing for people to be, and so for you to call someone that is you insulting them. It would be like me calling someone a 'conservative fundamentalist' since I can think of nothing that could be a greater insult to call a person, yet comes might not understand it to be an insult. You clearly use the term 'iconoclast' as an insult and that is overly obvious.

Aspects of the universe beyond what we know are NOT God or any form of a god. Is that what you are now claming? If we don't understand it now, then it is God? That is just silly.

I guess God can be whatever you wish to label it, but that does not mean that I have to believe in it. Of course the concept of God you have started with comes from the biblical ideas and therefore unless you actually stop using the mythological concept of God or gods, and start to name each aspect separately in a manner that actually labels them independently and accurately (Which starts to become actual science then) you are still trapping yourself with the Biblical concepts. Yet you refuse to grow beyond the need to link it all to the very dogma that you claim to be breaking away from. You won't accept Satan as anything but one religion's concept of Satan, yet you want me to believe that your God is somehow not also still greatly from that same set of beliefs?

Do you ever really know what it is you are saying or do you just keep going on without paying any attention at all as to what you said in the past? Must be nice to have such flexible beliefs that you can pick and choose from everything as you please.

posted by kooka_lives on May 11, 2007 at 5:32 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka_lives

Are you insulted by being labeled an iconoclast? Please look up the definition and I think you will agree that it describes you and your cohort very well. In fact, your blogs and your commentary attest to the fact that you are, indeed, iconoclastic. It is not an insult to you, it is instead an observed fact, based upon your actions in this forum. There is nothing directly derogatory about the term. It is just a description of what you are doing here in blogit. Many famous people have been labeled iconoclasts.

But, that aside, I would like to speak to you today about how we might get your intellect to progress beyond a perception of God as a mythological entity, like a superhero or such, and seek to understand God as something quite different. Have you done any reading about multi-dimensionalism? Do you perceive that there are dimensions about you that are beyond your sense of sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing?

If you imagine what it must be like to not be able to hear and to then have that ability opened up to you, then you can imagine what it must be like to have one of these other dimensions opened up to you that your senses cannot presently discern. Do you agree with me about these dimensions?

posted by telemachus on May 11, 2007 at 3:58 PM | link to this | reply

kooka_lives - your last comment response is too funny

posted by gomedome on May 11, 2007 at 10:55 AM | link to this | reply

Oddy

You are so right. There are some people here on Blogit who go around and preach like mad about how moral they are, and then they will go and out right insult a person right off the back by calling them 'iconoclast' or something similar in a manner clearly meant to be insulting, and then going and tying to make such idiotic claims such as 'God is morality' towards people who do not believe in God and so are once more insulted by the clear attack on their beliefs, as well as the outright attack on the whole of humanity.

Those people are just hypocrites and need to actually start acting moral if they claim to be such.

As for the first part of your comment, no God is NOT morality in the least. If you need a belief in God in order to do right and live a good moral life, then fine by me if it gets people to act like the atheists I know who need no such belief to be moral, but there is no way that God can be morality. Have you read the Bible? The God presented there is about as immoral as it gets.

posted by kooka_lives on May 11, 2007 at 7:57 AM | link to this | reply

The expression of morality (and, as you say, “better values”) is itself

an expression of God. God is morality. God is manifest in what is right and proper. It is ironic that some on blogit profess to be moral, but consistently exhibit open rudeness and vileness.

posted by telemachus on May 11, 2007 at 1:01 AM | link to this | reply

actually 8im th9inking of posting

basically -- non-believers actions are more in tune with the teachings of "Jesus" than believers'

posted by Xeno-x on May 6, 2007 at 5:12 PM | link to this | reply

kooka_lives - not suggesting anything about the previous commentors but:

For a believer to say that belief versus non belief does not determine a person's character sometimes takes on the characteristics of an individual claiming to be devoid of prejudice. It is not possible in an absolute sense to overcome human bias (prejudice) completely, just as it is very difficult to not want to elevate one's own life guiding philosophies above all others. I always take it with a grain of salt when a believer pays lip service to the notion of viewing belief/non belief as being irrelevant as character determinents. Where I do not doubt that many of them are sincere in what they say, the very opposite has been drilled into their heads as a means of selling them their religious constructs. I haven't as yet seen a preacher, priest or pastor step up to the pulpit and say something to the effect of: "there is virtually no difference in how you will view right and wrong if you believe in God or not" . . .

posted by gomedome on May 6, 2007 at 3:12 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka...

In the Believer VS. Non-Believer debate, I believe nobody is better than the next person. You either do good and do right by others or you don't. That is a provable fact. And for anybody to say they are better than someone because they believe or don't believe is, to me, very arrogant and distasteful.

posted by ---Masky--- on May 6, 2007 at 2:25 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka... I believe, it does not make me better or worse ...

posted by Chilitree on May 6, 2007 at 12:41 PM | link to this | reply