ALL FOOLISHNESS MATTERS: Kindred Spirits in Racism & Atheism

Muhammad Rasheed -


Reg Clinton Brown - I came to this conclusion in grade school
Stephen Wilkinson - Good for you!

Many GROWN MEN *cough*Muhammad*cough* are yet to... *cough*

..oh dear me, I seem to have suffered a coughing fit of some sort! :D

Muhammad Rasheed - First of all, keep the hell still so I don't have to run up and down this damn thread looking for you. >:(

Second, anyone explaining that they came to a narrow-minded, uninsightful conclusion in grade school, and stubbornly held onto it until they were 40+, shouldn't be used as a role model.

Reg Clinton Brown - Well the Holy Books were not scribed by God, they were scribed by men who claimed that "God wrote through them" Muhammad

Muhammad Rasheed - And what are you using to determine that those claims are false?

Reg Clinton Brown - Plus there are missing books in the Bible. The King James version was adulterated by Anglo Saxon agendas. The first books were written in Hebrew and we didn't go in depth of pre-Egyptian polytheism... Sumarian... Babylonian... Dogon Tribes etc

Muhammad Rasheed - What are you using to determine that those "God wrote through them" claims are false?

Reg Clinton Brown - I'm not saying it's false, but people do have the free will to write falsehoods.

Stephen Wilkinson - @Muhammad Rasheed... he does not have to prove them false, rather, the bearer of "extraordinary truths" must themselves also bear the burden of proving their factual basis, lest the people be forever occupied with chasing the theories of fools :P

Therefore, come hither with thy claims of monsters, but bring also his head so that I may examine it!

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm not asking him to prove them false (you can tell because I didn't ask him to do that), but asking him what he personally used to determine the claims were false.

Jeremy Travis - It seems good practice to consider false any story that begins with a talking snake.

Reg Clinton Brown - lol Well sometimes reality could get stranger than fiction :)

Jeremy Travis - True, but, as Stephen mused "...but bring also his head so that I may examine it!" Which is to say that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.

Muhammad Rasheed - I consider that attitude the basic flaw in study so shallow, that the surface level story can only be taken at face value because you lack a knowledge base deep enough to probe further. If "talking snake" is all I walk away with, then it means my knowledge of the material is similar to walking away from America's chattel slavery history thinking "undocumented workers who ate regularly."

It's impossible to take the disbeliever's opinion of the bible seriously when they do that. "I don't believe in this stuff, I don't care or respect it enough to care what it means, and my ignorant opinion of it is somehow profound because I don't believe in it as a badge of honor."

Jeremy Travis - Nope, it means that the story has many logical gaps that require people to make up their own logic hole-fillers, which is why one story leads to thousands of different interpretations by people who all claim to be smarter/better/more studious than the others but offer no more definitive proof than the others. If any of it was divinely true, surely that divine truth would/should have destroyed all the falsehoods by now, and yet more falsehoods pop up all the time. It's as if a great deity decided to share its great message with the world and didn't give a single fuck about quality control.

Muhammad Rasheed - Your "nope", the "proof" comment, the "thousands of different interpretations" part, the "destroyed all falsehoods" part, and the "quality control" part all support what I just said. All of these items are addressed, but you don't know that, dismiss it when it has been pointed out because you don't care, and go on saying the exact same stuff about it like your "Nope" is noble and profound. Just like racist GOP folk sound when they talk about Blacks and BLM, etc.

Jeremy Travis - "All of these items are addressed"
By a lot of different people who say a lot of different things and show a lot of "proof" that's just as dubious but no more definitive than the others.

"Just like racist GOP folk sound when they talk about Blacks and BLM, etc."

If there were literally thousands of people who claim to speak for the BLM movement giving different interpretations, that conflict with each other and with observable reality, of the BLM movement, then one should rightly expect people to be confused about the BLM movement. But considering that those few who speak for the BLM movement give the same message, all confusion is either willful or due to bad, biased reasoning.

Muhammad Rasheed - I have Tea Party-ish, GOP-ish, FB Friends who routinely post Prager U vid clips featuring Blacks explaining why racism isn't what the Black community thinks and we all need to get over it, etc. The poor Black community do think differently about many Black community issues than Blacks in the middle and the wealthy do. There's Blacks who will throw in your face "Black on Black crime" just as quickly as the stupidest racist will, when you get mad over the White cop modern lynching incidents. All Blacks aren't on the same page when it comes to the history of Blacks in this country.

And the opinionated outsider that genuinely doesn't give a shit about Black community concerns -- believes our grievances are fictions we made up or need to get over because we just want free stuff or whatever -- sounds exactly the same when he talks about Black folk stuff as the atheist sounds when discussing organized religion.

In my experience, arguing with you all is the same, with one exception that actually challenged me. The rest of you dip out of the same pool, and sound exactly alike, reinforcing the same straw men and ignorance among each other, exactly like the White racists do in their watering holes when they discuss Blacks.

Jeremy Travis - Is said "But considering that those few who speak for the BLM movement give the same message....", I didn't say "listen to a lot of random Black people". There is a difference.

Muhammad Rasheed - My point is that there is an objective body of work detailing the thread of Black history, in addition to the works, opinions and thousands of different interpretations by Blacks who all claim to be smarter/better/more studious than the others, while they try to tell the rest of us "What We All Need To Do As A People." To the White racist who doesn't give a shit anyway, it all sounds the way organized religion folk sound to the atheist in the exact same parallel.

To the people who DO care, and are in it, both Black history, and Organized Religion sound different, and the opinions of the outsiders sound stupid in their pretend intelligence arrogance.
Stephen Wilkinson - "I consider that attitude the basic flaw in study so shallow, that the surface level story can only be taken at face value because you lack a knowledge base deep enough to probe further"
^ Ah, but there lies the rub.
You start with your claims, based on nothing but your belief which is based on nothing but on your belief WHICH IS BASED ON TURTLES ... ALL THE WAY DOWN! * if y'all dont know what THAT means, look it up!
The problem - and this is a problem we MUST recognize Jeremy, when we deal with people like this, is that activities are not necessarily "single threaded", based on one particular goal. You think, albeit correctly, that Muhammad's goal here is to impress you with his superior skills and argument ( dont hang around for that, disappointment awaits :D) but there are also OTHER parallel goals, some of which are even more important and realistically achievable!
1. Looking good to his audience."Wow my brother, you certainly battled fiercely with the infidel! I liked how you smote their foul words with the golden phrases from the Book! \ :D /"
2. Basking in the glow of a spirited conversation in a forum he commands
3. Plain old trolling
Circling back to the original quote, paraphrased as "you studied and think its bullshit - but that's only because you HAVENT STUDIED IT ENOUGH!"
But THAT will lead us only into a logical BLACK HOLE where reason and common sense will disappear, never to escape its event horizon. Why? Because if something is intrinsically bullshit, it will NEVER STOP BEING BULLSHIT -
- your self reinforcing quest to keep going will fail because there is no light at the end of the tunnel.
There is also the illogical premise of "analyzing" something which, whenever the analysis fails, we are then asked to "just believe it!"
Muhammad Rasheed - Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “Ah, but there lies the rub.”
Nah, that ain’t it. I’ll point out the rub. 
Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “You start with your claims, based on nothing…”
My claims are based on the Word of the Supreme Creator of the universe. You’re the one that’s the atheist, remember? You have the monopoly on “nothing.” Eat up.
Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “…but your belief which is based on nothing…”
My belief is based on the enduring scripture of the ages, that whole human civilizations were built upon. That’s hardly “nothing.”
Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “…but on your belief WHICH IS BASED ON TURTLES…”
I bear witness that there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad (peace be upon him) is His messenger. 
Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “The problem […] You think, albeit correctly, that Muhammad's goal here is to impress you with his superior skills and argument ( dont hang around for that, disappointment awaits :D)”
Since Jeremy lacks your own weird, blind faith adoration for Israel (from an ATHEIST! "Rhnh?!"), and self-appointed protector of White Tears®, I doubt he’s liable to get disappointed were I to rough handle them in this part of the thread. He’s safe. Don’t worry about it, J.
Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “but there are also OTHER parallel goals, some of which are even more important and realistically achievable!” 
I enjoyed your attempt to read me my mail, though it’s only a couple notches or so above Southern Mormon level. I’m sure you’ll pick up more as we continue to trade. 
Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “1. Looking good to his audience.”
That’s just a side effect of my bad assery. 
Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “2. Basking in the glow of a spirited conversation in a forum he commands”
I’m enjoying Riley & Kenjji being comfortable as they battle it out here in a safe zone. I swear I’d set snacks out for them if I could.
Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “3. Plain old trolling”
Nah, I don’t troll on race or religion. Everything else is fair troll patrol.
Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “Circling back to the original quote, paraphrased as 'you studied and think its bullshit - but that's only because you HAVENT STUDIED IT ENOUGH!'" 
By NO means do I believe you yahoos actually studied anything in religion. To be clear, walking away from the origin legend with only “talking snake” as the take away means you know nothing, and are unqualified to share an opinion. High-fiving your equally ignorant fellows in self-reinforcing atheist circle jerks is NOT "study."
Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “But THAT will lead us only into a logical BLACK HOLE where reason and common sense will disappear…”
This is a tragic tool firmly within the grasp of the atheist, made even more tragic when he happens to be a tech or scientist, like you and that damned Steed. The 'rub' is that organized religions function on very clear and solid logic, reason, and common sense, but your willful ignorance, and refusal to peek into the concepts to even at least try to get it so you will have a solid base to critique FROM, prevents you from enjoying their beauty on even a rudimentary level.
Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “There is also the illogical premise of 'analyzing' something which, whenever the analysis fails, we are then asked to 'just believe it!'"
The organized religion is composed of two parts:

1.) The immaterial spirit that we are commanded to believe in, so that it's supernatural components will work in our favor both in this world and in the next.

2.) The history of the scripture in the hands of mankind, preached by the messengers. This aspect is part of human history, with data capable of being collected, measured, studied, and analyzed by the scientist.

Reg Clinton Brown - Hhhmmm... good reading

Stephen Wilkinson - @Muhammad Rasheed... I see you parroted my "Turtles reference" though I am overly dismissive of my avian friends for they have shown a capability to understand words and concepts....
"My claims are based on the Word of the Supreme Creator of the universe. "

HE said them, and wrote those claims in a Book which HE (pbuh) also wrote! ( see where this is headed? of course you dont!)

The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise."The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"



Muhammad Rasheed - Waaayyy back in 1981, comic book legend John Byrne wrote/drew this wonderful tale within the pages of Fantastic Four #237. The team was trying to capture an asexual alien being, known as “Spinnerette,” who was running around New York causing mischief. Drunk on our oxygen-rich atmosphere, the troubles she caused were only confusion-based misunderstandings, and the FF was able to put things to right relatively quickly in the one-shot, standalone tale. In the end, Sue expressed confusion as to why… with the technology she wielded… the 9ft tall, blue-skinned Spinnerette never tried to disguise herself so she would've negated at least some of the conflict her presence produced. Reed explained that on her planet full of asexual beings, they all looked literally exactly the same. So much so that the humans of planet earth all came across as radically diverse to her, too the point that, in its adorable raw ignorance, it genuinely didn’t think we’d notice it walking around.


This is exactly how the proudly ignorant atheist sounds (“ALL Gods Matter!”) whenever he produces such items as “I’ll go over here and make MY own religion, because I CAN!” and foolishly dumps all belief system concepts in a jumbled heap. He’s genuinely proud that he doesn’t know anything about the concept of ‘The One God,’ and why it’s important philosophically, why it is important to mathematics and physics, and he doesn’t care because he believes that his shallow ignorant opinion is of equal worth to that of a Thomas Aquinas on the subject. Meanwhile your arrogantly proclaimed ignorance is literally parallel to the “n!99er joke” of the White racist. He also believes his self-reinforced ignorant stereotype-based opinions about Blacks, faithfully passed along from generation to generation, are in every way equal or even superior to those of the most informed Black historian-activist, and like the atheist will PROUDLY strut his ignorant foolishness about in the land as if it is some kind of badge of honor.

Stephen Wilkinson - ^ tl;dr was invented for the post above. :P
Atheists do not say "all religions matter"
We are saying that religions are bullshit
"ignorance of" is not the same as "disdain for"
Muhammad Rasheed - Somehow the atheist community believes they have a monopoly on intelligence and critical thought.  This is far from the truth of the matter, and in fact, they are the very definition of close-minded willful ignorance.  Those among you who are truly dumb I suspect believe they will be perceived as smart-by-association simply by proclaiming to their fellows that they are atheists. Deliberately closing off your mind to concepts, making up straw men based on what your uninformed foolishness believes about those concepts, developing a pseudo-belief system by trading "n!99er jokes" with your fellows about those straw men, and then call yourself scoring clever 'zingers' by tossing these stupid-assed "n!99er jokes" at the people who are informed, does NOT make you smart.
My advice?  Unfuck yourself, take the time to at least actually know what you are talking about in a REAL critique, and then come back and duel with me for real.

Stephen Wilkinson - ^ lol?

edit your post for reasonable sentence structure and mental organization and tag me so I can come back

Not worthy of 'debate' at this time :D

Muhammad Rasheed - Your own "tl;dr" meant you are unequipped for a worthy debate, sir. It's my turn to be disappointed.

You may run along now.

Reg Clinton Brown - I do agree Muhammad that atheists do have a "know it all attitude" that's arrogant.

Their closed mindedness explains why they never experienced a spiritual awakening that would challenge that attitude.

They are like a person who says that they know 1st hand everything about deep dark oceans but can't even break the surface of the water because they can't swim.

Stephen Wilkinson - @Reg Clinton Brown... on the contrary.

The key thing about being a scientist, first and foremost is that you not only "look to science", you look to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

What is that?

It is a structured way of thinking and a structured way of organizing information you have gathered from direct observation, using logical rules and other facts to derive additional facts by inferential logic.

The scientific process also has a mechanism that not only welcomes but DEMANDS CHALLENGE and peer review.

Since there is no "magic man" at the end of all curiosity, we are forced to CONTINUE SEARCHING.

With religion, the answers are ALREADY THERE!

A mind that starts with an intellectual dead end is already flawed.

Muhammad ( "my" tl;dr post was simply your own, cut and pasted ( so that you could have it to look at as you edited your alphabet soup into a cogent thought )

Reg Clinton Brown - Talk to me when you explore the entire universe, then come back with your updated "theory of everything".

Reg Clinton Brown - Also, btw science and religion do compliment each other including on the topics of Souls/ Energies.

And Mr Wilkerson, you can say "scientific method" all you want. I'm pro-scientific discovery but you Sir ARE NOT A QUALIFIED SCIENTIST to break any of this down. Holla back when you get that Nobel Prize then I might consider what you say.

Muhammad Rasheed - Stephen Wilkinson wrote: "The key thing about being a scientist, first and foremost is that you not only 'look to science,' [...] and a structured way of organizing information you have gathered from direct observation, using logical rules and other facts to derive additional facts by inferential logic."

See #2 of the "two aspects of the organized belief system above.

Stephen Wilkinson wrote: "The scientific process also has a mechanism that not only welcomes but DEMANDS CHALLENGE and peer review."

And on what planet is someone who lacks basic knowledge about a given topic considered the peer of one who does?

Stephen Wilkinson wrote: "Since there is no 'magic man' at the end of all curiosity, we are forced to CONTINUE SEARCHING."

This is an example of someone starting with a flawed intellectual dead end in their assumptions as to how the organized religion they are supposed to be critiquing functions. His is well off the mark, has no idea he is off the mark, but is close-minded as to discovering how he is off the mark, while he arrogantly proclaims boldly to the world how his ignorant opinion about the topic has so much value over the primitive mind of the committed theist.

Stephen Wilkinson wrote: "With religion, the answers are ALREADY THERE!"

lol The high-level vision was explained to you by the Lord of the universe, and it is your job to dig up the details if your curiosity moves you to do so. The One God told you upfront that He created the universe from a single finite point in the distant past, you as the atheist scientist doubted this, but you found yourself confused and stumbling when the facts leading to Big Bang Theory supported what religion told you upfront was true. In the face of this truth, here we find the atheist scientist STILL flapping his gums in impotent doubting foolishness pulled from the disdainful, mocking, "nothing" the atheist charter is so proudly based upon.

Stephen Wilkinson wrote: "A mind that starts with an intellectual dead end is already flawed."

Aye, and you demonstrate this principle BRILLIANTLY.

Stephen Wilkinson wrote: "Muhammad ( 'my' tl;dr post was simply your own, cut and pasted ( so that you could have it to look at as you edited your alphabet soup into a cogent thought )"

After having already witnessed you abandon a conversation by feigning shocked outrage that I'm not willing to coddle Caucasian feelings in my analysis of their own compiled medical data, I'd like you to know that I recognize a pitiful red herring fallacy when I see one. In the 'cancer' discussion, you found your own testicular cancer article 'tl;dr' while failing to notice it didn't comply to the terms of our contest, as you apparently intended to magically win simply by posting a link *TO SCIENCE!* Your fake pearl-grabbing outrage was actually the sting of cognitive dissonance when I grabbed the science and proved my point using the Qur'an, logic, reason, and wit. You lacked an equal counter, cried and ran.

I have no doubt of your high intellect, Stephen when you are flexing it within your own lane and preferred fields of interest. Your decision to abandon that same intellect -- as ALL otherwise bright atheists do -- as they approach religious discussion, does you zero credit.