www.ditl.org

I listened to "Rapture" by Blondie a little while ago... does that count?

I'm kind of new to this apocalypse thing. But I'm pretty sure you are going to heaven for cluing me into Lita Ford and hence I dub ye Saint Mikey.

Wow, that was easier than I thought.

Well, it was Lita Ford.......

WTF guys, I am in heaven with my 72 hotties, rocking the peace pipe with Buddha Jesus, but God is Cthulhu and she really is a sociable fellowette.

So sociable that she, in her tentacled glory, has provided me with a connection to the interweb.

Anyways, got to go, Cthulhu says it is time for tea and then we go to Valhalla for a round of golf.

Well, you have fun T_A.

I am... still here. Meh, I like Earth. We have Transformers here.

Nutso wrote:Happy Judgment Day guys.

I can imagine that guys getting a broken nose because of that sign.

I don't know the mechanism by which we acquired different spellings and vernacular than you guys. I don't think it was a case of conscious effort, because in most cases our versions seem like a very basic simplification or an across-the-board change: using the suffix "-ize" rather than "-ise," for example, or wholesale changes from things like "cheque" to "check." I'd be interested to see the instance of change in things like going from "queue" to "line."

Mikey, as far as the spelling is concerned from what I understand in the early 19th century, some American created a dictionary which for some reason he wanted to make American English different. I do not remember entirely the whole story. I actually did look it up one day for that reason and why new Englanders and New Yorkers have their accent. Unfortunately I was drunk at the time.

I'm getting very angry just now, after watching this.

People here probably know what I think of religion. Suffice to say I'm not a fan. But there is a time and a place to take on people's beliefs. Posting in a public forum where people can respond or not, or take their time to think about their response, is one thing. Having a proper debate to preagreed rules is one thing.

A large crowd yelling at a single confused old man who has just been through a severe reality shock?

No. Unclassy, uncivilized, and unacceptable. This poor man deserved sympathy and help in that moment, not abuse and ridicule.

Seriously... that was just wrong.

Indeed. Showing basic human decency to another person has absolutely F.A. to do with how you feel about their beliefs.

Agreed, at least show respect even if you think the person is batshit insane.

Oh joy, turns out Harold Camping has a body count.

A 14-year-old girl from Russia was so scared of the May 21 doomsday and rapture prediction made by Harold Camping that she committed suicide the same day, investigators said Wednesday. The teenager wanted to choose death rather than be among the ones suffering on earth after the rapture.

For those who wonder, this is what Richard Dawkins meant when he said that indoctrinating children into religion can be considered child abuse.

Well, Mr. Dawkins needs to fine-tune his rather sweeping generalization. Oh, no, he probably wants to take pot-shots at everyone who believes differently from him, whether they've merited it or not. This type of comment is no different from the WBC, or from people who want to protest a peaceful, legal mosque because some terrorists also happened to be Islamic. It must be OK, though, when it comes from an atheist, 'cause then it's erudite philosophy rather than prejudice... I guess. It appears his support for the Brights Movement is superficial enough to only incorporate understanding and tolerance for folks who think just like him.

Did you read or listen to what he actually said, or just what people reported about what he said?

Yeah, um, here's how it breaks down. I have no problem with Dawkins - or anyone - believing what they want. The problem I have arises from the fact that he doesn't want anyone else to believe differently from him. He has been described, in his own words as well as the words of his peers, as a "bulldog" and as "militant" in his opposition of any sort of religious faith.^* He doesn't believe in G-d - fine, I get it, and I also get how his extensive and admirable scientific work led him to that conclusion. What I don't get is why he feels the need to attack others for not believing as he does. Why does it bother him if I believe in G-d? Why does he need to try to proselytize for atheism? I never said that he has to believe in order for me to feel complete, and I just don't understand why he sees the need for validation of his own belief by attacking others.

^* BTW, on one hand he decries completely the existence of any sort of prime mover, either a traditional monotheistic G-d or any other sort. On the other hand, however, his famous "blind watchmaker" analogy sort of subsumes the existence of an uncaused cause. I definitely don't understand how he integrates that dichotomy.

PS - The BHS, of which he was (maybe still is) an officer and the Brights Movement (I'm not sure of his official involvement, but he's been a public supporter) reek of exclusivity and elitism, which I can't abide no matter what the rationale behind the beliefs of the "haves" group.