1. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulรคrer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    04 Apr '11 14:39
    Think it'll sell as many copies as The God Delusion?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/03/grayling-good-book-atheism-philosophy?INTCMP=SRCH
  2. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    04 Apr '11 14:491 edit
    Looks interesting, although also potentially mind-numbingly boring.
  3. Standard memberSeitse
    Doug Stanhope
    That's Why I Drink
    Joined
    01 Jan '06
    Moves
    33672
    04 Apr '11 15:23
    "But then he says, with a mischievous
    twinkle: "Of course, what would really
    help the book a lot in America is if
    somebody tries to shoot me.""

    He'd wish.
  4. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    04 Apr '11 17:47
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Think it'll sell as many copies as The God Delusion?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/03/grayling-good-book-atheism-philosophy?INTCMP=SRCH
    Could be interesting. As long as his ethics don't include an endorsement of capitalism, that is.
  5. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35519
    06 Apr '11 00:35
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Could be interesting. As long as his ethics don't include an endorsement of capitalism, that is.
    You're getting amazingly predictable, my friend. ๐Ÿ˜›

    Not that I don't agree with your opinion of capitalism, I'm just saying.
  6. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    06 Apr '11 01:12
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    You're getting amazingly predictable, my friend. ๐Ÿ˜›

    Not that I don't agree with your opinion of capitalism, I'm just saying.
    Getting predictable? I've been making the same freakin' set of posts for almost ten years:

    1. Kill the rich
    2. Promote egalitarianism/express outrage at vast income disparities
    3. The precise definition of atheism
    4. Jesus was a socialist
    5. Religious fundamentalists suck

    Only Whodey sticks to the same set of topics with such consistency as that (but he's brain damaged).
  7. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91522
    06 Apr '11 01:27
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Getting predictable? I've been making the same freakin' set of posts for almost ten years:

    1. Kill the rich
    2. Promote egalitarianism/express outrage at vast income disparities
    3. The precise definition of atheism
    4. Jesus was a socialist
    5. Religious fundamentalists suck

    Only Whodey sticks to the same set of topics with such consistency as that (but he's brain damaged).
    Yes, you are coming upto ten years, congrats. your posts have been a good constant reminder of a more valid, practicle interpretation of christianity as it portrays itslef in our modern world.
    Perhaps whodey has brain damage, but lets not go there. Thats a can of worms I'm not keen on openning. not to say you cant open it...

    1.I couldn't promopte the killing of the rich per se, but maybe we could eat them, as Motorhead proposes in their song of the same title . ๐Ÿ˜€ lol

    2.Good point that one. We must be vigilante about reintroducing equality back into our world.

    3.Seems people on here still dont quite get athiesm despite many posters trying to calrify this point numerous times. (At times, it seems the (some of the) thiests here are just not willing to accpet that athiests have made up their minds about religon, and that they are not just waiting to be converted.)

    4.Agreed. (although its only a losse agreement, as it is hard to tell exactly what jesus was like. But your interpretation is as practical and down to Earth as any. Which is what is needed for SOME to proceed with their understanding of JC, christianity and the historical implications of such a stance.)

    5.Agreed. Not only that, they can be dangerous, which is more worrying than just sucking
  8. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    06 Apr '11 09:24
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Getting predictable? I've been making the same freakin' set of posts for almost ten years:

    1. Kill the rich
    2. Promote egalitarianism/express outrage at vast income disparities
    3. The precise definition of atheism
    4. Jesus was a socialist
    5. Religious fundamentalists suck

    Only Whodey sticks to the same set of topics with such consistency as that (but he's brain damaged).
    And therefore learned nothing in ten years.
  9. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    06 Apr '11 09:50
    Originally posted by Palynka
    And therefore learned nothing in ten years.
    I've learned that you're a big meany! :'(
  10. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    06 Apr '11 09:561 edit
    Originally posted by rwingett
    I've learned that you're a big meany! :'(
    Says the resident Robespierre! ๐Ÿ™‚
  11. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    06 Apr '11 11:03
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Says the resident Robespierre! ๐Ÿ™‚
    But if several million people die each year from hunger because $4.5 trillion is concentrated in the hands of 1,200 people, then from a utilitarian point of view killing the billionaires would be a humanitarian act. For the price of 1,200 people, we would save several million.
  12. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86285
    06 Apr '11 11:502 edits
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Getting predictable? I've been making the same freakin' set of posts for almost ten years:

    1. Kill the rich
    2. Promote egalitarianism/express outrage at vast income disparities
    3. The precise definition of atheism
    4. Jesus was a socialist
    5. Religious fundamentalists suck

    Only Whodey sticks to the same set of topics with such consistency as that (but he's brain damaged).
    Why doesn't your star have wings?

    You don't drink Red Bull?
    You had them confiscated by God?
    You sold them and gave the money to the Salvation Army?
    You sold them and gave the money to the Socialists For a Better Than Today But Not So Much As To Make All The Other Days Feel Disenfranchised Party?
    You are really called "Unwinged"?
  13. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    06 Apr '11 16:56
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Why doesn't your star have wings?

    You don't drink Red Bull?
    You had them confiscated by God?
    You sold them and gave the money to the Salvation Army?
    You sold them and gave the money to the Socialists For a Better Than Today But Not So Much As To Make All The Other Days Feel Disenfranchised Party?
    You are really called "Unwinged"?
    I was (am) an original pawn star. I purchased a lifetime membership when they offered them. To show my support for the site I voluntarily paid a yearly membership for several years. When I started playing fewer than ten games per year, I quit paying. My star subsequently faded, although I seem to have retained all the benefits of a full membership.
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    06 Apr '11 17:32
    Originally posted by rwingett
    But if several million people die each year from hunger because $4.5 trillion is concentrated in the hands of 1,200 people, then from a utilitarian point of view killing the billionaires would be a humanitarian act. For the price of 1,200 people, we would save several million.
    But is that true? Surely most of that money is actually ownership of companies and is essentially political control, not cash. So surely they are just as guilty of standing by and doing nothing as most politicians?
    And surely the not so very rich are also capable of ending world hunger etc if they could only get together.
    Or are you saying those rich people somehow stifle the economy and create the hunger?
  15. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    06 Apr '11 17:58
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    But is that true? Surely most of that money is actually ownership of companies and is essentially political control, not cash. So surely they are just as guilty of standing by and doing nothing as most politicians?
    And surely the not so very rich are also capable of ending world hunger etc if they could only get together.
    Or are you saying those rich people somehow stifle the economy and create the hunger?
    T
    There is enormous wealth in the world and yet we have grinding poverty for millions of people. We have the capacity to adequately feed every man, woman and child on the face of the earth, but yet millions starve. How is it possible to conclude anything other than these evils persist because the available resources are distributed in wildly uneven proportions? It must surely be the case that if the 1,200 billionaires were thrown into a pit and doused with napalm that millions of others would live.

    The rich DO stifle the economy. We could produce a superabundance of goods. We could adequately feed everyone. But we do not do either because they cannot be done at a profit. We enforce an artificial scarcity because there aren't enough people who can afford to buy back the products their labor created. How does it come to pass that there is rampant unemployment when millions lack the basic necessities of life? Are the goods they could produce not needed? No, it's simply the case that they can't be sold at a profit. It is the profit motive and the private ownership of the earth's productive resources which maintain this artificial scarcity and directly contribute to the death and impoverishment of millions.

    The not-so-very rich are quite capable of ending hunger and artificial scarcity. If they would get together, kill the rich and end their private ownership of the world's resources, then it would be done.
Back to Top