God returns to Earth. Is promptly arrested for breaking and entering.

God has finally returned to Earth after 2000 or so years and has already gotten in trouble with the authorities by trying to claim the vacant home of a couple in prison for tax evasion to be used as his new church:

A bearded man dressed in white and identifying himself as “Son of Man” and “Son of Israel” was arrested at the Browns’ home Sunday night after he broke into the home to claim it for his religion, the House of Israel, according to court documents.

The man, who resembles descriptions of a mysterious spiritual adviser who visited the Browns last year during their eight-month standoff with authorities, was arraigned yesterday in Claremont District Court, where he refused to enter pleas, talk to his court-appointed attorney or recognize the judge’s authority. Instead, he insisted on the absolute power of God’s word before being led back to the Sullivan County House of Corrections, where he will stay until a psychiatrist evaluates him. A hearing was scheduled for August.

You’d think God would have learned his lesson the last time he came down here and tried to start a new church when he ended up nailed to a tree. Looks like it still hasn’t sunk in even after all this time.

48 thoughts on “God returns to Earth. Is promptly arrested for breaking and entering.

  1. Maybe he’s just repressing what happened last time. I know i’d do everything I could to forget it.

  2. Funny. The True Bible Code Believers predicted the arrival of the “Son of Man” around this date. Funny, though, as the article doesn’t mention this guy shooting nukes out of his hand to destroy a UN complex.

  3. See, this is the problem inherent in the second coming of the messiah:  Even if you make the wild assumption that there is a God and Jesus….. Who’s going to believe him?  Even the faithful have fractured into a hundred different sects and if one of them turns out to be true, all the others will turn on the guy as a heretic and a false prophet, and given that there isn’t one religion left that practices every single piece of dogma in the Bible, what are the odds that even one of them has it right?  Jesus is going to find out that almost everyone still has faith but NOBODY believes in him anymore.

    I’d stay away too.  Screw the end of days.

  4. Kinda pust stuff like pascals wager into perspective: if you do decide to believe, then what in. The truth could be that the universe was created by a celestial kettle, and in the absence of evidence, we may just as well worship that as some guy with a white beard who apparently always has and always will speak in King James English.
    I can just amagine some prayer ending
    “Amen….Innit”

  5. Can you imagine a 20th cent version of the biblical Jesus confronting Falwell, Robertson, WBC etc. Now, do you think they would repent their sins, or describe him as an atheist trick?

  6. hi this was the most recent god related post i could find so sorry if i go off track a little

    – but we can’t prove or disprove him, so we have to accept that god, in some form, is a possibility – at least for now until we know more

    but i do agree with a lot of atheists that we shouldn’t go through the whole of life only thinking about death, kinda stops you using it

    do people like the example in the post annoy you? if so why do you let it? – there must be a reason why les posted it – does he hope to change them? – if not, is there another reason. i know how people at work get annoyed by silly things people do in the newspaper – but i don’t understand, because it’s not within their control, it’s just what happened for whatever reason

  7. – but we can’t prove or disprove him, so we have to accept that god, in some form, is a possibility – at least for now until we know more

    Then you must also accept the possibility of invisible flying unicorns with sparkly pink horns, because you can’t prove they don’t exist, either. In fact, you can’t prove anything doesn’t exist, because you can’t prove a negative.

    Sigh.

  8. Atheist Trick?  They’d call him the Anti-Christ.  Haven’t they been telling us all this time that the AC would be a nice guy, a charismatic leader that people would WANT to follow?  Isn’t it ironic that if Jesus came back he’d probably fall into that category.

    “Back on the cross Haysoos!  What do you think you are, the second coming or something?”

  9. KPatrickGlover – correct, that’s entirely possible, and who am i to say it’s unlikely if I don’t know anymore? I can’t see reasons why it’d be that way, but i can’t see reasons why it’d be any way really

  10. but we can’t prove or disprove him, so we have to accept that god, in some form, is a possibility – at least for now until we know more

    You (and I) will go through your entire life without proof.  After you die is a pretty embarassing time to find out you wasted your life.  What about those of us who don’t care if he exists or not?  Those of us who think that is is far better to focus our attention on making this life better and let the next take care of itself?

  11. Shadowwank (bizarre choice of names, by the way), you seem a polite enough chap, but every time I read one of your posts I can feel brain cells dying…

  12. swordsbane – you are correct too by that, and obviously any good you do won’t be for the selfish persuit of heaven, you’d be doing things for the right reasons, and you won’t be worried about it. i’m not trying to force anyone to believe in him, but i want everyone to at least feel like they can accept it as possible, and maybe allow yourselves to feel like you are able to think about/ talk to him in your own mind if ever it might help.

    really i don’t like words like ‘belief’ or ‘faith’ because that’s the end to their thought about the subject, i want it to be flexible and dynamic – and changing as we figure shit out

    it’s possible there are consequences in an afterlife, be that fair or unfair, it’s just the way it might be, and we have to work with that. i really do admire anyone who would put their view of right and wrong ahead of their own persuit of heaven

  13. KPatrickGlover – cool smile we can figure this out – are you afraid of the subject? – that maybe a certain mindstate is more itelligent than another? – if so we could consider why that might be – what makes atheism smarter? – sure, there are a lot of insecure idiots who are theists, and sure, there are a lot of smart people who are atheists, but they have different reasons for the path they take

    the theories themselves – aside from how people percieve them, as genuine possibilities, both seem logically possible from all i know smile

  14. i’m not trying to force anyone to believe in him, but i want everyone to at least feel like they can accept it as possible, and maybe allow yourselves to feel like you are able to think about/ talk to him in your own mind if ever it might help.

    AHA! See, this is why we don’t trust you crazy fuckers. In two posts you jump from trying to get us to acknowledge that a god could exist (because we can’t prove he doesn’t) to wanting us to be comfortable talking to the hypothetical megalomaniac.

    This is like jumping from the possibility of the existence of invisible flying unicorns with sparkly pink horns to proposing marriage to one and picking out furniture (sight, of course, still unseen).

  15. we can figure this out – are you afraid of the subject?

    No, I’m afraid of the way you construct sentences. You need a book on basic grammar.

    what makes atheism smarter?

    Atheists appear to be the only ones smart enough to NOT believe in fairy tales.

    aside from how people percieve them, as genuine possibilities, both seem logically possible from all i know

    And therein lies the problem. If you think “God” is “logically possible” you are just, well, not that bright.

  16. Shadowwank writes…

    – but we can’t prove or disprove him, so we have to accept that god, in some form, is a possibility – at least for now until we know more

    I don’t know many atheists who completely rule out the possibility that God(s) might exist. However that doesn’t really give any support to believing he does.

    do people like the example in the post annoy you? if so why do you let it? – there must be a reason why les posted it – does he hope to change them? – if not, is there another reason. i know how people at work get annoyed by silly things people do in the newspaper – but i don’t understand, because it’s not within their control, it’s just what happened for whatever reason

    I posted it because I thought it was funny. It also occurs to me that there is, however slight, the possibility that the man really could be God and how odd that would be for him to come back and try to get started on The End Times only to get arrested because the police think he’s a nutbag.

    But mostly I posted it because I thought it was funny.

    the theories themselves – aside from how people percieve them, as genuine possibilities, both seem logically possible from all i know

    That depends on which God you’re speaking of. There’s plenty about the Christian God that is far from logical.

    Before you can have any truly meaningful discussion about God you’d have to define what you mean by the word. Even among Christians there’s no consensus.

  17. KPatrickGlover – lol it doesn’t matter what form it takes, and sure, we don’t know who we are talking to, and again, whoever it is might not be reasonable, but you can tell helpful thoughts from bad ones – in life it’s healthy to listen to nice comments and not take seriously to nasty ones, it doesn’t matter who said them, be they alive or dead, as long as it’s kind

    it doesn’t even matter if there’s someone on the other end of the line, really, it can still get stuff off your chest if you think you’ve said it to someone, and make you feel less alone – surely that’s good if it helps them cope with life, even if it is to no avail in the end

  18. KPatrickGlover: No, I’m afraid of the way you construct sentences. You need a book on basic grammar.

    mebbe, but poor grammar doesn’t make me a bad person, or unhappy, what else could matter in life?
    what makes spelling and gramar important enough to bother you? surely the content is the decider…

    Atheists appear to be the only ones smart enough to NOT believe in fairy tales.

    i think it’s best if people construct their own theories – i’m fully against people just believing some story just because they were told to – i want them to question it and think for themselves

    it’s possible to be open to the idea of god without taking it at face value

    And therein lies the problem. If you think “God” is “logically possible” you are just, well, not that bright.

    anything’s possible unless it can either be disproved or you can show unarguably that there is no possible way it could be accomodated

    Les: I don’t know many atheists who completely rule out the possibility that God(s) might exist. However that doesn’t really give any support to believing he does.

    maybe so, i have in the past met some that do rule him out though, or who don’t allow themselves to think about it, obviously i don’t know you lot and mebbe i’m batting blind but i hope that it’ll be appropriate to someone

    it’s not my intention to get people to believe in him, just to not have inhibition about it. i would be wrong to jump to conclusions, and i can’t really build a case anyway, not really, i don’t fight on the level of what there is/isn’t valid evidence for. i even think that some of the reasons for going atheist are healthier than blind belief, but still i want people to feel like they may have someone to talk to, or that they may not be alone, because that helps too

    But mostly I posted it because I thought it was funny

    good enough for me smile

    That depends on which God you’re speaking of. There’s plenty about the Christian God that is far from logical.

    Before you can have any truly meaningful discussion about God you’d have to define what you mean by the word. Even among Christians there’s no consensus.

    i think we have to keep it as broad as possible until we have more information – i suppose any is possible, they might not be rational, but you don’t have to be rational to exist – i’m sure you’ve seen examples of that in people in life

    could be more than one, could be none at all but other forms of existence for us mortals might be there. even after we die, if we’re concious, all we’re guaranteed to find out is whether existence continues for ourselves – everything/everone else you see could still be illusion, and we could still not know any more about any godlike being

  19. it doesn’t even matter if there’s someone on the other end of the line, really, it can still get stuff off your chest if you think you’ve said it to someone, and make you feel less alone – surely that’s good if it helps them cope with life, even if it is to no avail in the end

    Hmm…. you know… my Christian-o-meter is wiggling a little.  I’ve seen this before.  Get them to say “Oh that sounds fine”  then hit them with… “Well then why not turn to God as the one to tell these things too?”

    Not that I’m saying you’re doing this…. but you’re displaying all the signs….

  20. swordsbane – i think it’s just that some people who are christan have also talked a lot to him in their minds – and felt better for it, which may of been a big driver for them to become theist

    since it made them feel better – they want to get that across too, but a lot of them do pevert it into a selling point for their religion and try to suck people in through the back door

    i will say it now that i am against organised religion – because it groups ideas together but then makes people feel like they shouldn’t move on – and makes them afraid. i wouldn’t do that- i want people to feel free to explore all options, and move both ways. i want people to reach their own conclusions, but for those to be flexible and for nothing to be ruled out. if people can take comfort, that’s a good thing and i’d leave it at that.

    i don’t care about what afterlife may be, life is my chance to do permanent things, i want to help people with life, some feel sad but trapped in life for whatever reason – it must mean something if i can help, if only to them. if it helps people overall to cope with life, whatever life is, then it’s a good thing – and to me giving them the idea might offer comfort and sanctuary, maybe false hope too but it’d never be realised if there is no afterlife

  21. mebbe, but poor grammar doesn’t make me a bad person, or unhappy, what else could matter in life?
    what makes spelling and gramar important enough to bother you? surely the content is the decider…

    You can’t expect anybody to bother taking anything you have to say seriously if you can’t be bothered to make sure you say it properly.

    anything’s possible unless it can either be disproved or you can show unarguably that there is no possible way it could be accomodated

    Sorry, you invoked the word logic. Logic requires a system of deductions and inferences based on evidence. That leaves your deity entirely outside the discussion.

    lol it doesn’t matter what form it takes, and sure, we don’t know who we are talking to, and again, whoever it is might not be reasonable, but you can tell helpful thoughts from bad ones – in life it’s healthy to listen to nice comments and not take seriously to nasty ones, it doesn’t matter who said them, be they alive or dead, as long as it’s kind

    There’s so much wrong with that statement, I’m not even sure where to begin. Maybe we should start with the crap about telling helpful thoughts from not helpful ones. What about the people who think God has told them to chop up their neighbors? Happens all the time. And if you’re hearing the voices of dead people talking to you, please, seek some help before they tell you to invade Poland.

    i think it’s just that some people who are christan have also talked a lot to him in their minds – and felt better for it, which may of been a big driver for them to become theist

    You seem to think that your talking about some generic creator and not the Christian God of the Bible, but your statements don’t hold to that. You’re using the word “Him”, presupposing a male figure, and setting up the concept that you can pray, or talk to him. That’s a far cry from some vague creator, it’s very specific.

  22. KPatrickGlover – it is ultimately your decicion, but i cannot see how spelling/grammar, or the underlining choice of words, changes the message – if someone with better english than me got exactly the same idea it wouldn’t be any more valid an idea – in their mind it’d be the same.
    unlikely as it may seem, there’s always the chance that someone may say anything helpful in poor english, where’s the sense in restricting ourselves only to what’s written well? i’m deliberately trying to show that someone can make points that are far more thoughtful than your stereotype fundie without capitalization. i’m still using punctuation because it reads more easily

    Logic requires a system of deductions and inferences based on evidence. That leaves your deity entirely outside the discussion

    in the way that no evidence proves or disproves it, yes. that doesn’t make it’s existence contrary to any logic, or any less likely, it just means it’s existence is a complete unknown

    Maybe we should start with the crap about telling helpful thoughts from not helpful ones. What about the people who think God has told them to chop up their neighbors? Happens all the time

    that’s exactly where people need to be able to tell them apart – ignore the ones telling them to chop up neighbours or generally be paranoid, but perhaps indulge in any that are supportive. i suspect there could be more than one voice talking to people, not all of them good, people generally can’t tell who’s talking, so they need to be able to filter the good comments from the bad, and secondly they need to accept that it doesn’t matter who makes any good points, as long as they’re made – this could give one of the previously malicious beings a chance to change and then be listened to

    schizophrenia that makes people paranoid or scared or whatever is bad, but if there is schizophrenia that makes people feel comforted (without risk of being draged into the paranoid form) – how could that be a bad thing?

    You seem to think that your talking about some generic creator and not the Christian God of the Bible, but your statements don’t hold to that. You’re using the word “Him”, presupposing a male figure, and setting up the concept that you can pray, or talk to him. That’s a far cry from some vague creator, it’s very specific

    i should’ve used “it” instead, but it was convienient to refer to it as a person, and clearer what “it” was. i think i have already said it doesn’t matter what form “it” takes, as long as they’re nice.

    yeah, talking to “it” is like praying, but by no means do i mean anything formal or the traditional christian “go into a church, bow with your hads together, crap for a better afterlife” – i just mean you can talk casually, as if to a friend, anytime you like, within your own mind if ever it might help.

    talking to a living person isn’t praying, and if a dead one can hear your thoughts, there’s no point saying anything verbally to them, you would be able to talk from within the privicy of your own mind, whenever you like. people need not wait until sundays to do it under formal conditions in an arbitary building at an arbitary time to do it when it may not even be genuine – best to deal with issues as they come up, at the time

  23. Shadowwank writes…

    KPatrickGlover – it is ultimately your decicion, but i cannot see how spelling/grammar, or the underlining choice of words, changes the message – if someone with better english than me got exactly the same idea it wouldn’t be any more valid an idea – in their mind it’d be the same.

    Perception matters. Had Einstein taken as little care with the presentation of his ideas as you do with yours it’s likely they’d never have revolutionized science. If your presentation is so sloppy that it’s annoying to read then a lot of folks won’t bother and then it doesn’t matter if you just happen to have the greatest idea in the world.

    unlikely as it may seem, there’s always the chance that someone may say anything helpful in poor english, where’s the sense in restricting ourselves only to what’s written well? i’m deliberately trying to show that someone can make points that are far more thoughtful than your stereotype fundie without capitalization. i’m still using punctuation because it reads more easily

    All you’re accomplishing in trying to make your point is looking like a bit of an idiot. Not that I’m not saying you are an idiot, just saying that your presentation gives one little reason to think otherwise so far.

    The only reason anyone listens to anything I have to say is that my presentation, while far from being flawless English, is decent enough that it’s not a distraction from what I have to say. They don’t have to spend time trying to decode my comments before they can start to think about whether or not I said something worth considering and that goes a long way on making up for the fact that I’m not really an expert on much of the things I comment on.

    in the way that no evidence proves or disproves it, yes. that doesn’t make it’s existence contrary to any logic, or any less likely, it just means it’s existence is a complete unknown

    Actually, based on most of the definitions of God that are out there to consider, the concept of God is often contrary to logical consideration.

    Take for example the common description of God being “all powerful” which provokes the question: Can God make a stone so heavy that he can’t lift it? If he’s all powerful then the answer should be yes while at the same time it should be no because he is, as said, all powerful. That’s a logical contradiction right there.

    that’s exactly where people need to be able to tell them apart – ignore the ones telling them to chop up neighbours or generally be paranoid, but perhaps indulge in any that are supportive. i suspect there could be more than one voice talking to people, not all of them good, people generally can’t tell who’s talking, so they need to be able to filter the good comments from the bad, and secondly they need to accept that it doesn’t matter who makes any good points, as long as they’re made – this could give one of the previously malicious beings a chance to change and then be listened to

    This begs the question of why even bothering to consider that “little voice” to be the voice of God in the first place. Again most definitions of God state that he’s only good and therefore would never put bad thoughts into your head. So if you’re having bad thoughts then, logically, that can’t be God talking to you. If it’s not God talking to you then why assume that it is?

    schizophrenia that makes people paranoid or scared or whatever is bad, but if there is schizophrenia that makes people feel comforted (without risk of being draged into the paranoid form) – how could that be a bad thing?

    So you’re suggesting there are good forms of schizophrenia? That’s a new one on me.

    i should’ve used “it” instead, but it was convienient to refer to it as a person, and clearer what “it” was. i think i have already said it doesn’t matter what form “it” takes, as long as they’re nice.

    yeah, talking to “it” is like praying, but by no means do i mean anything formal or the traditional christian “go into a church, bow with your hads together, crap for a better afterlife” – i just mean you can talk casually, as if to a friend, anytime you like, within your own mind if ever it might help.

    talking to a living person isn’t praying, and if a dead one can hear your thoughts, there’s no point saying anything verbally to them, you would be able to talk from within the privicy of your own mind, whenever you like. people need not wait until sundays to do it under formal conditions in an arbitary building at an arbitary time to do it when it may not even be genuine – best to deal with issues as they come up, at the time

    Sounds to me like you’re just labeling the standard childhood habit of having an “invisible friend” as God. Which is pretty much how most atheists view a lot of believers to begin with. If you’re willing to admit that this generic “it” that you’re talking to in your head doesn’t necessarily have to be anything that actually exists at all then why bother labeling it God? Why not think of it as a six foot tall rabbit named Harvey? It worked for James Stewart.

  24. it is ultimately your decicion, but i cannot see how spelling/grammar, or the underlining choice of words, changes the message – if someone with better english than me got exactly the same idea it wouldn’t be any more valid an idea – in their mind it’d be the same.
    unlikely as it may seem, there’s always the chance that someone may say anything helpful in poor english, where’s the sense in restricting ourselves only to what’s written well? i’m deliberately trying to show that someone can make points that are far more thoughtful than your stereotype fundie without capitalization. i’m still using punctuation because it reads more easily

    This topic has been discussed before on more than one occasion.

    The poorer your language skills, the harder it’ll be to clearly communicate what it is that you want to say. Everybody cuts non-native speakers some slack, but the same is not true for native speakers.

    While some of the nonbelieving regulars here have atrocious spelling (you should know who you are and you should be ashamed of yourself), there is strong empirical support for a correlation between poor grammar and spelling and fundamentalism. In short, we are biased to expect that the poorer somebody writes, the more of fundie he or she is and fundies aren’t interesting—they don’t bring anything new to table, always assuming they’re even interested in an actual debate (forget about a discussion). Or in other words, we consider the likelihood of a fundie—stereotypical or not—bringing something thoughtful to our attention as probable as some god or other existing.

    Finally, how charming that you use punctuation to make whatever you write “more easier” to read. The fact of the matter is that not not using proper capitalization comes across as a buggered affectation at best and disrespect at worst. It takes extra effort to read, reeks of stereotypical fundie, and makes me disinclined to read your comments. The only reason I was arsed into replying is that I caught references to spelling etiquette in the sidebar.

  25. Les – as you said, presentation does affect people’s willingness to listen, i wish this wasn’t the case, so much so that i’m deliberately avoiding capitalizing things here to get across the point that it doesn’t mean the person’s unreasonable. i used to visit this blog long ago, i know how much of an issue it is here, so from the outset i was trying to challenge it

    obviously this is a dangerously subjective thing to say, but my punctuation, spelling aren’t that bad compared to my avoidence of capitals, if we look at it as seperate things, if i changed only that…

    Actually, based on most of the definitions of God that are out there to consider, the concept of God is often contrary to logical consideration.

    Take for example the common description of God being “all powerful” which provokes the question: Can God make a stone so heavy that he can’t lift it? If he’s all powerful then the answer should be yes while at the same time it should be no because he is, as said, all powerful. That’s a logical contradiction right there.

    this is why i try to avoid giving a precise definition, but i am pretty sure that there isn’t a being that is both all powerful and benevolent, because otherwise it could (and would) make everything instantly perfect without pain, and life wouldn’t be necessary for learning or testing. if he didn’t know about suffering in life, that would be a limit to his power
    indeed a need to test would suggest a lack of confidence in us, the ability to go wrong is a flaw

    with your analogy, i think one ability would prevent the other, because they violate the terms of each other, it’d be impossible for anything to be both if all other coordinates were the same

    This begs the question of why even bothering to consider that “little voice” to be the voice of God in the first place. Again most definitions of God state that he’s only good and therefore would never put bad thoughts into your head. So if you’re having bad thoughts then, logically, that can’t be God talking to you. If it’s not God talking to you then why assume that it is?

    i don’t know who it is, may even be part of my mind, may be several beings, but it doesn’t seem to matter to me or them – if someone thinks they’re talking to god but really talking to someone else, whoever it is could still give feedback regardless. who you address the thought to and who responds back need not be the same person, afterall, we don’t have any other real name for these other than “god” so i think they’d know what we mean, and we don’t know either if (even if there was afterlife) anything other than god existed – maybe that one person says it all, the good and the bad, for any reason, i don’t know

    So you’re suggesting there are good forms of schizophrenia? That’s a new one on me

    may well be, we shouldn’t dismiss it yet, people might be frightened to admit, it may also be difficult to tell the difference between a “prophet” and a schizophrenic – maybe it’s connected somehow. like autism, i wonder if we all have varying shades of schizophrenia, some of it might be subconcious and neither visual or audible (more like when thoughts come to your head), and a lot of people wouldn’t want to even admit to themselves – it’s hard to tell whether a thought really originated from ourselves, but when it’s on your mind, it becomes your thought in addition to anyone else who may/may not of provided it

    If you’re willing to admit that this generic “it” that you’re talking to in your head doesn’t necessarily have to be anything that actually exists at all then why bother labeling it God? Why not think of it as a six foot tall rabbit named Harvey? It worked for James Stewart.

    i suppose, as you say, it doesn’t really matter, but people know what i mean by ‘god’, even though it may not be him at all – and generally are more willing to accept themselves talking to “god” than talking to Harvey

    a big difference though is if you know whether it’s within your imagination – if you conciously conjoured a friend you couldn’t easily believe he is real, it’d be like making a toy doll and talking to it – people are more likely to believe something they imagined is really there if it was conjoured subconciously, so they don’t know that they made it up, so it seems like a real part to their reality that found them.

    elwedriddsche: In short, we are biased to expect that the poorer somebody writes, the more of fundie he or she is and fundies aren’t interesting—they don’t bring anything new to table

    this is the natural assumption i’m trying to challenge – i’m trying to show that someone who doesn’t capitalize can still be far more thoughtful than the average fundie stereotype, and also not to just dismiss ideas on basis of prejudice. it may be unlikely, but you never know what you’ll get – not everyone conforms to stereotypes, but a lot of people generally in life aren’t willing to notice that, and prejudice remains

  26. Shadowwank writes…

    Les – as you said, presentation does affect people’s willingness to listen, i wish this wasn’t the case, so much so that i’m deliberately avoiding capitalizing things here to get across the point that it doesn’t mean the person’s unreasonable.

    If you’re going to insist on making your point then don’t be surprised if folks ignore you. For example, this will be the last I’ll bother addressing you on this topic. The rest of your comment is just more nonsense about encouraging people to engage their delusions on the off-chance they might be real.

    Thanks, but I’ll stick to the reality based frame of mind.

  27. Shadowwank, you’re not challenging perceptions, you’re just making excuses for your laziness. If you can’t be bothered to address us properly, well, sod off.

  28. I saw a bumper sticker once that said “Even if the voices are in my head, they have some pretty good ideas”

    I laughed at the time, but it works for so many things.  I don’t care that some people say that God speaks to them.  It doesn’t matter.  What does matter is that people try to justify bad things because God told them.  That’s wrong.  The rightness of something has nothing to do with who/what says it.

    If God tells you to torture and kill someone for no reason, he’s wrong.  Don’t waste your breath trying to tell me that it really was God that told you to do it.  I don’t care.  Even if it was God, he’s wrong, and you’re worse for not running it through your brain filter to realize that.  If Satan tells you to be nice to people and work tirelessly to make the world a better place, then good for Satan…. I still won’t invite him to any parties…. but good for Satan.

    By the same token, crazy homeless dude should probably be arrested for breaking the law, doubly so if he really was a “Son of Man” or “Son of Israel” because he obviously should have known better.  He doesn’t get a free pass because he’s been gone for 2,000 years and can’t be bothered to pick up a newspaper now and then.  Some very dedicated people went into creating a lot of our laws.  It wouldn’t be fair if any old messiah can come along and break them, now… would it?

  29. Les – but surely you understand what i was saying about the content mattering? i have been very reasonable, i’ve taken you all seriously, i don’t deserve to be held to prejudice like that, i’m nothing like a christian, there are so many things i’ve said that should corroborate that.

    is it that you don’t want to deal with anything that may challenge that stereotype?

    The rest of your comment is just more nonsense about encouraging people to engage their delusions on the off-chance they might be real

    not so, it’s not because it may be real, it’s because it might comfort them and get stuff off their chests. i don’t want them to do stuff out of fear.

    KPatrickGlover: Shadowwank, you’re not challenging perceptions, you’re just making excuses for your laziness. If you can’t be bothered to address us properly, well, sod off.

    not so, i’m going to a deliberate effort to avoid capitals because it’s not natural to me, and my intention is to bring down the arbitary prejudice around style, i want people to look beyond that and judge writing individually for it’s content

    swordsbane: I don’t care that some people say that God speaks to them.  It doesn’t matter.  What does matter is that people try to justify bad things because God told them.  That’s wrong.  The rightness of something has nothing to do with who/what says it

    exactly. it’s ultimately their decision whether to act on the thoughts too, and they don’t know whether it really was god, some other being , or themselves, so they have to have some method of filtering good thoughts from bad

    If God tells you to torture and kill someone for no reason, he’s wrong.  Don’t waste your breath trying to tell me that it really was God that told you to do it.  I don’t care.  Even if it was God, he’s wrong, and you’re worse for not running it through your brain filter to realize that.  If Satan tells you to be nice to people and work tirelessly to make the world a better place, then good for Satan…. I still won’t invite him to any parties…. but good for Satan.

    exactly smile – as you said, it’s not who said it that decides whether it’s right or wrong, but what is said, and what the underlying intention is. as you say, it is our decision on what we decide to do bearing this, and our knowledge of laws and how it’ll affect people, into account

  30. is it that you don’t want to deal with anything that may challenge that stereotype?

    No – it is the fact that most of us read English. We are used to reading English. It is easy for us to read English.

    When you misspell words, use incorrect punctuation and capitalization, it is no longer English. It takes much more effort to read than proper English does. Reading it is a pain. And people like yourself who cannot take the time to write properly, rarely have anything to say that’s worth reading, let alone deciphering. For me, I generally find my eyes sliding off posts as badly written as yours.

    If you want us to take the time to read what you have to say, take the time to make sure it’s as easy to read as possible. It is extremely rude for you not to make the effort to write properly and then expect us to make the extra effort of deciphering your comments, which as I said earlier we would not expect to find worth reading in the first place.

    Nobody is expecting perfect spelling, punctuation, capitalization and the rest of it, but you are not even making a bare minimum of an effort.

    And that’s the last I’m going to say about that.

    BTW is the UK flag not showing for everyone or am I the only one?

  31. Julian, looks like the UK flag is MIA. It’s odd, because the image file is still present.

    Oh, and I’ve added shadowwank to my twit filter.

  32. Julian – i just spell checked my last comment – honestly the only non-capitalization error was the word ‘arbitrary’ which i spelt ‘arbitary’.

    how can it be that hard to read when the main body of normal text is lower case? puncuation is there too to seperate points. all i want on this point is a genuine acknowledgement that style doesn’t strictly correlate to substance – you still hold the prejudice that it’s not worth even reading just because of style and the angle you all percieve i’m coming in from without engaging with my points directly.

    les also dismissed the rest of my comment as nonsence without dealing directly with those points, and now some of you are withdrawing yourselves from the discussion, presumably to save face, so you won’t be forced to acknowledge my point. if me saying that annoys you lot, i gather your response would be just to say the same thing again backed up with more frustration – that won’t work on me, i won’t get suppressed into backing down

    unfair as it may feel for me to not use capitalization, it’s also unfair on other people who post here who get their ideas dismissed purely on prejudices like this – i’m doing this to make it fairer on them. i accept that a lot of them may be idiots, but i stand for work to be judged on the merits of it’s content rather than how it looks and what religious stance the person who says it takes, otherwise you’re no better than the theists who discriminate against atheist because of what they stand for and how they do things – the very people who cause your alienation with the idea. i want you to disconnect the ideas from the people who promote them – deal with them as valid thoughts in their own right without disregarding them just because the most vocal people who promote them may be idiots

    the ability to see writing for what was intended for and what it really says rather than what it looks like deserves credit – don’t judge a book by it’s cover

  33. Sorry Shadowwank, but I won’t be baited back into the discussion by claims that I’m afraid to address the points.

    You want to insist on being treated like an adult while still acting like a child and you want in on the discussion, but you want to dictate the terms on which it happens. What you don’t seem to realize is that we also have the right to write you off as a childish twit for stomping your feet and whining about how mean and prejudicial we all are.

    Ironically by acting in this manner you’ve derailed conversation away from whatever ideas you have about God and made it all about you. Essentially defeating your own purpose in participating.

  34. Les – look back to the start, from early on the comments to me had a tone to them that felt uncalled for, and a lot of it was assumed about me based on how you all view theists, even though i agreed with a few of you on certain things and said things that should’ve indicated that i don’t fit the stereotype of the typical theist who comes here

    towards the end it was not on the points i was making, and even in the beginning it was straight away assumed that i was trying to subvert people into believing things, that was never my intention, and my goal was never to convert people, i have said a few times that all i wanted on that topic was for people to feel able to talk to “it”, whatever it may be, if ever it might help, but to ignore it if it doesn’t. all i’ve done in terms of ramping up the pressure is in responce, because i felt that the only way i stood any chance at all in being taken seriously here would be to make you realise that you were writing me off from the beginning, before you even gave me any chance at all. it may be too much to hope for that this would ever change, you don’t know how i feel

    i have no control over how you view me, or how any of you discuss, that’s ultimately your decision, but you don’t really understand me unless you put your feelings about me to one side when you read it, and give it a chance to make it’s point and be fairly considered – to do that you can’t second guess their intentions before reading it.

  35. shadowwank – Yet you still refuse to use good grammar, and you’re worse than those who don’t know how, because you do.

    Good grammar and punctuation and spelling are part of the merits of a post.  It is about communication.  If you can’t be bothered to construct your sentences in a way that doesn’t distract the reader from their meaning, what does that say about the care with which you construct your arguments?

    What you say is different than how you say it, but both are important.  No, how you say something has nothing to do with the truth of it, but it has everything to do with taking an idea from your brain and recreating it without alteration in the brain of another.  If you can’t communicate properly, you can’t do that recreation and then it doesn’t matter if what you say is true or not.

    You’re not taking a stand when you don’t capitalize.  You’re just appearing sloppy.  It is YOUR responsibility to speak in a manner that other people can understand.  It is not their responsibility to somehow understand you.  The best way to do that is if everyone knows the rules of a common language that everyone understands AND USES THEM…. all of them.  This means you.  If you don’t, and people begin ignoring you because of it…… That’s your fault, not theirs.

  36. i have no control over how you view me

    Yes you do.  There are people who come here and debate and end up as respected enemies rather than as childish and stubborn, even if nothing is resolved by the debate.  That is the difference between an argument and a debate, and you get to choose which side you’re on.  You choose how your opponent sees you.

    This board has a history.  You have no excuse for not having some idea at least, how your views will be received, and what might be seen as valid and what might be seen as childish.  You certainly should have known that bad grammar wasn’t going to make you many friends.

  37. In addition to what Swordsbane said I’ll comment on the following:

    i have no control over how you view me, or how any of you discuss, that’s ultimately your decision, but you don’t really understand me unless you put your feelings about me to one side when you read it, and give it a chance to make it’s point and be fairly considered – to do that you can’t second guess their intentions before reading it.

    As already pointed out, you do have some control over how others view you and have even been told how to improve your standing in other people’s eyes. Your response has been to stomp your feet and whine about how you are intentionally doing something that makes you look silly to make a point.

    You made the decision to be antagonistic so I’m not sure how you can try to claim that you have “no control” over how others see you. Putting our feelings about you aside to consider your points would be easy enough to do if you weren’t insisting on using a style of presentation that makes you look like an idiot. In the arena of ideas presentation does matter. This is proven by the fact that there are plenty of bad ideas that have become accepted because they were presented well.

  38. Hmmn, Do you think that we are overreacting a little here? From what I’ve seen Shadowwank has some honestly good points about the way that we should see things such as Schizophrenia,(I mean, if we can find a form of it that will prompt people to become more productive, happier beings, then why not keep it, induce it even?), however this message has been lost through a combination of his stubborn refusal to change his grammar for the sake of making a completely unrelated point (that may or may not be valid), and our stubborn refusal to concede that we may (or may not. I am definately not getting involved in that one!) judge people more than is necesary, based upon how they present their ideas.

    By the way, I just read through my post, and realised how condecending it sounds. I am really sorry, I do not mean to sound that way, but I cannot rephrase what I have said in a way that keeps the message and does not come across that way.

  39. Speaking for myself only, I find it only careless when someone makes honest mistakes in grammar or punctuation or spelling.  I do it too, so I’m not trying to take the moral high road here too.  I can, and do forgive that easily.

    On the other hand, when someone deliberately refuses to use good grammar and when called on it says that he was trying to create an effect no one here seems to have understood, then tries to defend it further by saying that good grammar isn’t really important anyway… I have to say it’s a little more irritating than “Oops! Forgot that comma.”

    Sorry if that sounds petty, but trivializing the importance of good communication kinda gets under my skin.

  40. BeSiDeS.  If aLl mY CoMmEnTs wErE SuBmItTeD LiKe tHiS, eVeRyOnE WoUlD gEt oN mY CaSe, No mAtTeR wHaT mY PoInT wAs.

    So yes.  Good grammar is important.  Deliberately not using it is insulting…. very irritating at the very least.

  41. Les + swordsbane – the only real issue about my english was the capitalization – other than that the spelling, grammar and punctuation were all the way i would normally talk, it’s not that bad, and certainly not like the example swordsbane gave just above, that’s taking it out of context – what i write all reads pretty much normally after the beginning of the sentance

    it’s not my goal in life to get people to like me or get what’s best for myself – you can’t make many points in life if you’re always trying to please people, i wouldn’t be able to demonstrate that point if i did – and i would probably face exactly the same conflict if i debated this issue with perfect grammar. people’s ideas about things like grammer do invoke feelings, but nobody should be restricted by the feelings of others – people limit each other unless they grow thick skins to tolerate each other

    we make our points any way we think might work, then it’s the reader’s decison how they choose to respond – just like people decide to crack if they’re under pressure, decide to get angry if frustrated, or they decide to suicide if depressed, it is nearly always someone’s decision whether to give in to their feelings – people wrongly draw an arbitrary line of when they’ll stop tolerating

    Edd – I really do admire your ability to recognise the point behind it, and see the point for what it is smile . Also not condecending at all – you said what was on your mind, what you thought might help, that was all

    I am stubborn my end because (generally) I refuse to be pushed into conforming – I stand my ground, which makes it more likely they’ll eventually be forced to understand, if they don’t withdraw. It is my belief that people should not be held to ransom by the dependancies of others, which could be on any scale – if we always gave in there’s no limit to how far they could push it – not just on the subject of spelling, but general standards in a lot of things where any line you do draw is arbitrary and could eb pushed further (i.e. hygene)

  42. I recognized your point shadowwank and commented on it.

    My objection to you is not that you didn’t use proper grammar, but that you knew proper grammar and refuse to use it in a medium that is literary.  You also refuse to acknowledge the importance of at least trying to be precise in your speaking, and even admit that improper grammar is a “tactic” in your writing, a tactic that seems to have failed miserably.

    Please go away.  I may agree with your general point, but you have none of the small respect I had for your opinion when I saw your first post.  Congradulations.

  43. swordsbane – i’ll admit it was a tactic – i’ve tried to say it but maybe didn’t find those words, i also try to be precise with my words but maybe i’m not as precise as i would like to be – but still that shouldn’t need to matter that much, people should be able to pick up the general gist in writing that may still have minor wording errors – otherwise it’s just deliberately looking for ways to pick it apart. – if you had a scratched cd you’d rather your computer was able to salvage some information from it rather than just dismiss the whole thing as broken

    i know that spelling affects people’s willingness to listen, i have acknowledged that, but i choose to make this point. any tactic i use can only be as successful as far as people are willing to listen – and i don’t know any way to get across this point. it’s also unnecessary to try to demoralize me – i don’t do that to you lot

    finally i’ll admit stubborness myself, but say that most of you are stubborn on this point too – it takes at least 2 stubborn people for a prolonged arguement, i can’t be the only one who is stubborn

  44. I never said I wasn’t stubborn and never claimed that it was necessarily a bad thing.  Admitting your mistakes is good too.  Since your last post still has no capitalization, I can only surmise that you don’t subscribe to that either.

    However, your last point is a good one.  It does take two to argue.  I seem to be the last one willing to respond to your lameness.  Please allow me to remedy that.

    Good day.

  45. swordsbane – Thankyou smile – I’ll now offer peace on this issue to you since you’ve been reasonable – I feel I’ve made my point now, at least to you, so I won’t press you on it (that’d be unreasonable), unless you want that is. I had thought about using capitalization in the last post, but I wasn’t sure, now is better because it’s because I think you deserve it, rather than me doing it out of capitulation.

    OK, some see stubbornness as good, some see it as bad – I was described as stubborn, almost used against me – I felt I needed to get it recognised that I was not the only one, so it can’t be used against me, or at least it’d be hypocritical if it did.

    Anyway hopefully I’ll see you some point later, though I do not expect it – time will tell and hopefully you’ll get a chance to see my peaceful side smile

  46. I bet that is indeed Sonny, the same “spiritual advisor” who convinced the Browns that the key to getting their convictions thrown out was to sign only their first name, followed by “a Living Soul, in the Body of the Lord, of the House of Israel”.  According to Sonny, that stopped the government from having jurisdiction over them, by invoking heavenly jurisdiction. 

    Not at all surprisingly, it didn’t work, but nobody can claim the Browns didn’t try their best.

    Obviously Sonny-boy needs a psychiatrist, but then again, so do Ed and Elaine.

    I’m pretty sure that house now belongs to the federal government, seized because the Browns owed about a million bucks in taxes.  It was supposed to go on the market, and it’s one helluva house, but I decided not to bid on it after the feds found that the entire house and property was rigged with bombs and booby traps.  Also, I kind of figured that it would attract weirdos for some time to come, given what happened there, and you couldn’t pay me to put up with that kind of crap.

    Here’s a photo of the house in question:
    http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/&_/__/prisonplanet/140607brown_house.jpe

    Strange aside on this case …. after the Browns were finally arrested and sent to serve their prison sentences, it was revealed, by someone who lived on their property in an RV through the entire standoff (supposedly guarding them from the feds), that Ed Brown planned to murder Elaine, and blame it on the government.

    There is just no end to the weirdness in this case.

  47. But, don’t fundamentalists argue that their “Bible” was written by God? Or, at least men inspired by God. How, then, can they deny that this person may, in fact, be God? I do recall something about “by their fruits ye shall know them” as a key to “false” prophets. Who has the authority to judge which of the fruits or accomplishments of God in the Bible will make the case? If the “prophet” dashes infants heads against rocks, does that make him a “true” prophet? If he practices genocide, does that make him a “true” prophet? So many miracles, so few manifestations!!!  tongue wink LOL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.