[Yonah ben Amittai]

A stupid question. The Bible never said the Moon produced light.  God, you are batting a thousand for being obtuse, aren't you?

"Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound." Isaiah 30:26



Please pay attention, Jaakov. This seems to imply that the moon produces its own light similar to how the sun produces light. Now this is just flat out wrong, as the Moon is a natural satellite and the Sun is a fucking star.

That verse in no way insinuates that the Moon produces her own light. It simply indicates that in some manner, the Moon shall shine as brightly as the Sun does. Your point?

[Ghost of V]

A stupid question. The Bible never said the Moon produced light.  God, you are batting a thousand for being obtuse, aren't you?

"Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound." Isaiah 30:26



Please pay attention, Jaakov. This seems to imply that the moon produces its own light similar to how the sun produces light. Now this is just flat out wrong, as the Moon is a natural satellite and the Sun is a fucking star.

That verse in no way insinuates that the Moon produces her own light. It simply indicates that in some manner, the Moon shall shine as brightly as the Sun does. Your point?

It clearly insinuates that the Moon produces its own light. What are you smoking?

[Yonah ben Amittai]

How does it insinuate that? You are the fucking obtuse one here, not me.

[Ghost of V]

How does it insinuate that? You are the fucking obtuse one here, not me.

Do you need to reread the post? Because if so: do that. I don't care about your dodgy interpretation. It seems like it's insinuating that it produces its own light. How could the bible be so wrong about this?

[Particle Person]

I don't see the implication. The light of the moon really is as the light of the sun.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

Does the Moon produce its own light?

No. The tiny creatures on it do and they bloom across its surface in crescent shaped waves.

How does it insinuate that? You are the fucking obtuse one here, not me.

Do you need to reread the post? Because if so: do that. I don't care about your dodgy interpretation. It seems like it's insinuating that it produces its own light. How could the bible be so wrong about this?

Now, I have seen some strange shit in my day, but THORK, you take the taco, man. I mean, seriously, Dude. What are YOU smoking, is the question that needs to be asked.

VAUX,It seems like? It only seems like? You are basing an entire argument on a statement as weak as that? Dude, even assuming I agreed with you, and I don't, one doesn't attempt to make a logical argument based on "it seems like". That is just a whole new class of stupid.

Remember, the Rabbis answered all these questions long before you were even thought of, or your father, or your father's father, or your father's father's father, or... well, you see where I am going with this. I don't ultimately give a shit and a half what you think about the matter because your lack of wisdom can never compare to the 4500 years of thought that has gone into the Bible, the Talmud, the Ethics of the Fathers, and all the other literature that has been around since about forever was. So, if you are trying to change my opinion, you should stop bothering. All you are doing is making me think you are an idiot. I would encourage you to pick up a book, perhaps your first volume of Talmud, and start reading, which is what I intend to do right now. So, go enlighten yourself by reading something other than Dawkins et al. Enjoy.

THANK YOU PP! One person here does indeed have a brain.

[Vindictus]

And the fact that your zealots invent words like 'meme' (an invention of Richard Dawkins, and even defined by him) put them in the same class of mystical as our zealots. The big difference is that ours actually look at the world beyond themselves and see the world for what it is, namely, the creation of something bigger than they are. Your zealots think they are the master of all they survey, and that nothing can possibly be greater than them. Who is the pompous one?

For someone who loves bringing up Dawkins, you're pretty shit when it comes to understanding his position. You'd be hard pressed to find a single atheist/agnostic that thinks they're the master of the Universe and they have all the answers. That's a view inherent in many religious philosophies, so it's humorous to see you project it on to those opposed to such things.

The man invented a word and even a definition for it! If that isn't arrogance, what is? I mean, seriously, how does some asshole actually try to come up with a new word in the language to justify his perverted philosophy? And every atheist in this room has proven to me that they do indeed consider themselves the greatest thing since peanut butter and sliced fucking bread. I have never seen more stuck up, pompous, arrogant people in my life.

I shan't deny that some religious people resemble them. But its a pale resemblance at best. I guess that's why the State Atheists, like China, the USSR, Albania, Cambodia, and every other regime that tried it ended up killing so many millions of people. Just China and the USSR alone managed a good 70 million people, and that is an estimate. It was probably higher than that. Although religion and religious people have been  responsible for a lot of intolerance, it pales in comparison to that kind of vicious brutality. In the 20th Century alone, more people died in outright government sponsored brutality than any other century. And the current century appears to coming along similarly. And most of that government sponsored brutality was at the hands of the so-called "Communist" regimes, which weren't in any way really Communist, but they were surely Atheist, both officially and in practice.

So, continue you on your way. Keep telling yourselves the lies you need to in order to sleep at night. I've got no problem with that, honestly. Go right ahead.

This just in, every person that invents a word is literally Hitler. You realise that 'meme' has a different usage on the internet that Dawkins never intended?

I'm also really tired of seeing Communist states mentioned whenever atheism comes up. Those people weren't killed because of atheism, because atheism is not a belief system. How many died under Nazism? Because Hitler used christian rhetoric to justify some of his behaviour. The crusades as well, religious wars justified through religion. Your buddies in Israel, how many wars have they fought over the last 60 years? Countless.

Many more people have died due to religious wars than because of atheism. I challenge you to find a case of an atheist killing someone because they're religious. It hasn't happened because there isn't some atheist fantasy book that tells you who you should kill, such as the Bible, Koran and Torah.

[Rushy]

Yonah, I'm a little hard pressed finding any evidence that atheists want to murder people and think they're better than everyone else. Could you mind giving me some sort of, you know, atheist bible that clears up all the atheist rules for me? Thanks. I want to make sure I'm being an orthodox atheist.

[garygreen]

It's almost as if every nation has at some point done a bunch of fucked up stuff, so any subdivision of nations is going to contain nothing but nations that have done a bunch of fucked up stuff.  Weird.

Also, I have a rock that keeps tigers away.

[mathsman]

The man invented a word and even a definition for it! If that isn't arrogance, what is? I mean, seriously, how does some asshole actually try to come up with a new word in the language to justify his perverted philosophy? And every atheist in this room has proven to me that they do indeed consider themselves the greatest thing since peanut butter and sliced fucking bread. I have never seen more stuck up, pompous, arrogant people in my life.

Lewis Carroll invented the word 'chortle'. Is he an arsehole? The 20 volume Oxford English Dictionary has entries for 171,476 words; did these words spring in to existence in one natural explosion of language or were they coined, one after the other, by succeeding generations of writers, readers and speakers?

To label Dawkins an arsehole is one person's opinion; to present as evidence for his arseholeness ( I may have just invented this word) the fact that he invented a word is just silly. For one who prides himself on the quality of his thinking you've scored an own goal.

Just look at this:

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/wordsinvented.html

Shakespeare, the ultimate arsehole.

Edited for link after Beardo's excellent post.

[beardo]

Every word were invented by someone.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

The man invented a word and even a definition for it! If that isn't arrogance, what is? I mean, seriously, how does some asshole actually try to come up with a new word in the language to justify his perverted philosophy? And every atheist in this room has proven to me that they do indeed consider themselves the greatest thing since peanut butter and sliced fucking bread. I have never seen more stuck up, pompous, arrogant people in my life.

Lewis Carroll invented the word 'chortle'. Is he an arsehole? The 20 volume Oxford English Dictionary has entries for 171,476 words; did these words spring in to existence in one natural explosion of language or were they coined, one after the other, by succeeding generations of writers, readers and speakers?

To label Dawkins an arsehole is one person's opinion; to present as evidence for his arseholeness ( I may have just invented this word) the fact that he invented a word is just silly. For one who prides himself on the quality of his thinking you've scored an own goal.

Just look at this:

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/wordsinvented.html

Shakespeare, the ultimate arsehole.

Edited for link after Beardo's excellent post.

I am well aware that Shakespeare invented about half (yes, half) the language we speak. But for Dawkins to do it, particularly to define something which he has no proof exists, makes him look as stupid as he perceives religious people to be, since they supposedly commit that same error, according to him. Have you read what he means by the word "meme"?

"An element of a culture or system of behaviour that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, esp. imitation.

<origin> 1970s: from Greek mimema 'that which is imitated', on the pattern of gene."

Source: New Oxford American Dictionary

At least with Shakespeare, he wasn't coming up with ideas that didn't actually exist.

So, what's the God meme that Dawkins talks about in the "God Delusion"? How do people imitate it? Or how does it get imitated? How does it reproduce itself?  See? You can't even use the word intelligently in English, and yet, some sorry dumb bastard has actually accepted it into the language. Well, I guess that is what happens when you have a language that isn't governed by an Academy, unlike most languages, which are.

[Snupes]

What? You think the idea of something being passed on to another person/culture is ridiculous?

[Yonah ben Amittai]

This just in, every person that invents a word is literally Hitler. You realise that 'meme' has a different usage on the internet that Dawkins never intended?

I'm also really tired of seeing Communist states mentioned whenever atheism comes up. Those people weren't killed because of atheism, because atheism is not a belief system. How many died under Nazism? Because Hitler used christian rhetoric to justify some of his behaviour. The crusades as well, religious wars justified through religion. Your buddies in Israel, how many wars have they fought over the last 60 years? Countless.

Many more people have died due to religious wars than because of atheism. I challenge you to find a case of an atheist killing someone because they're religious. It hasn't happened because there isn't some atheist fantasy book that tells you who you should kill, such as the Bible, Koran and Torah.

You are so full of shit its amazing. Go to Albania, which was officially declared a completely Atheist State in 1967, and EVERY house of worship was closed, and anyone who owned any religious material could be given extremely long prison sentences, and anyone who spoke of it in public was shot. Even the USSR never went quite that far.

Your challenge is easily defeated. The State Atheists made it policy that religious people, starting with the clergy, were to be killed outright, or otherwise dealt with such that they would be removed as a threat to the State. In China, and in North Korea, worship of the Leader (especially in North Korea where it is still going on) has replaced traditional religions, and practice of those religions has become difficult if not impossible.

God, if you had a brain you would seriously be a danger to yourself. Go read some history, and then come back and maybe we can have a conversation. MAYBE.

What? You think the idea of something being passed on to another person/culture is ridiculous?

Not at all. But you have to prove that it can be. Explain how that works for the "God meme". If God does not exist, then how do ideas of him continue to resonate through the collective consciousness?  Wouldn't it be like a "married bachelor", an illogical idea in and of itself?

[Rama Set]

So the oral history of the Jews does not exist. Got it.

This meme idea is extremely simple and self-evident. The God meme is passed on by a culture participating in and propagating the idea throug story-telling, worship, rituals, holidays, etc.... Why are you struggling Yaakov?

[mathsman]

I am well aware that Shakespeare invented about half (yes, half) the language we speak. But for Dawkins to do it, particularly to define something which he has no proof exists, makes him look as stupid as he perceives religious people to be, since they supposedly commit that same error, according to him. Have you read what he means by the word "meme"?

"An element of a culture or system of behaviour that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, esp. imitation.

<origin> 1970s: from Greek mimema 'that which is imitated', on the pattern of gene."

Source: New Oxford American Dictionary

At least with Shakespeare, he wasn't coming up with ideas that didn't actually exist.

So, what's the God meme that Dawkins talks about in the "God Delusion"? How do people imitate it? Or how does it get imitated? How does it reproduce itself?  See? You can't even use the word intelligently in English, and yet, some sorry dumb bastard has actually accepted it into the language. Well, I guess that is what happens when you have a language that isn't governed by an Academy, unlike most languages, which are.

Simple arithmetic suggests Shakespeare did not invent half of the words we have today: I'll use the 171,476 words defined in the Oxford English Dictionary and compare that figure with the 31,534 different words Shakespeare used. Could it be you've heard that Shakespeare invented half the words we use today and have passed on that idea to others? An example of a meme perhaps?

The very fact that meme is defined in reputable dictionaries suggests that it is now part of the language. Words aren't placed in dictionaries by sorry dumb bastards but by lexicographers whose expertise in language certainly exceeds mine so I will bow to their superior knowledge.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

I should have said, half of the words we use in common speech. As for the word "meme' now appearing in dictionaries, so does the word "ain't". And remember, ours is a society that bows to political pressure faster than just about any other. God forbid we piss off the atheist.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

So the oral history of the Jews does not exist. Got it.

This meme idea is extremely simple and self-evident. The God meme is passed on by a culture participating in and propagating the idea throug story-telling, worship, rituals, holidays, etc.... Why are you struggling Yaakov?

If God does not exist, then the idea of God cannot be passed down in the culture, since the idea is inherantly illogical, like the idea "married bachelor". Either God exists or he doesn't. Story telling is one thing. But God, the ultimate power in the universe, either exists as a logical thought, or he does not. If he does not, then that illogical thought cannot be propagated. Since it can be, he must exist. A variation on the Ontological Argument. But true nonetheless.

[mathsman]

I should have said, half of the words we use in common speech. As for the word "meme' now appearing in dictionaries, so does the word "ain't". And remember, ours is a society that bows to political pressure faster than just about any other. God forbid we piss off the atheist.

Ain't should appear in dictionaries: it is a proper English word. It has a spelling and a definition.
I don't understand the pertinence of your comment about society to the inclusion or exclusion of words in dictionaries; I always thought it was down to the use and occurrences of the words. This link seems to back up my assertion:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/how-do-you-decide-whether-a-new-word-should-be-included-in-an-oxford-dictionary

Shakespeare invented approximately 1700 words. Given that some of them may now have fallen by the wayside, are you saying that common speech has a lexicon of just 3400 words?

[Yonah ben Amittai]

Yes, actually. The average American, at least, reads at no higher than the Eighth Grade level. The average newspaper here is written at that level, with the New York Times doing a bit better at the 12th Grade level. Having been a Professor before, I know this shit.

And if you look at the language called Basic English, they manage to reduce the vocabulary to 800 words.