Could We Blame Lack of Religion and the Liberal Culture of Death?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: jman19
"Liberal Culture of Death" aka more labeling and rhetoric, and no substance. Bravo :thumbsdown:

Not surprising that GT would use this tragedy to recharge the Neocon Culture of Blame.

Big :thumbsdown: to the OP. Seems like he is doing exactly what he dispises.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: OrByte
This transcipt is the epitomy of everything that is wrong with Rush. And why so many people defend him.

Rush is like 5% truth 95% hyperbole and fallacy.

well...in this case he is more like 7% truth and 93% junk.

LOL. How about telling us what is junk before attacking the man, or is the politics of personal destruction your only recourse here?

Are you sure you read the entire thing, word for word, in 7 minutes?
That's funny, because there is a sticky at the top of this forum that says "Please Include Your Own Input" and yet you failed to do so in your OP.

The Mods should just lock this flame-bait-style thread until you decide to read the article and comment on it yourself.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
32
81
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: jman19
"Liberal Culture of Death" aka more labeling and rhetoric, and no substance. Bravo :thumbsdown:

Not surprising that GT would use this tragedy to recharge the Neocon Culture of Blame.

Big :thumbsdown: to the OP. Seems like he is doing exactly what he dispises.

Rush's comments are first and foremost a critique of the Liberal media. And he certainly was not the first person to politicize this tragic event:

Rep. Jim Moran who, less than '24 hours after the deadliest shooting spree in U.S. history' took to the airwaves to launch a political attack against President Bush, congressional Republicans and the National Rifle Association.... Moran suggested Republicans were to blame for Monday's tragedy at Virginia Tech..

 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,220
654
126
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: jman19
"Liberal Culture of Death" aka more labeling and rhetoric, and no substance. Bravo :thumbsdown:

Not surprising that GT would use this tragedy to recharge the Neocon Culture of Blame.

Big :thumbsdown: to the OP. Seems like he is doing exactly what he dispises.

Rush's comments are first and foremost a critique of the Liberal media. And he certainly was not the first person to politicize this tragic event:

Rep. Jim Moran who, less than '24 hours after the deadliest shooting spree in U.S. history' took to the airwaves to launch a political attack against President Bush, congressional Republicans and the National Rifle Association.... Moran suggested Republicans were to blame for Monday's tragedy at Virginia Tech..

Just because he wasn't the first certainly doesn't make his comments any better. It just means he's also a scumbag.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,952
8,007
136
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: Vic
You can blame whatever you want to blame, it doesn't make you right. If you're looking for the REAL cause of all this to heap blame upon... sorry, but that particular misaligned sequence of DNA self-destructed after completing its mission.

Hush! Libs need this event to bolster their gun control myth! Don't let the truth get in their way! ;)

And Rush Limbaugh needs this to USE FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES to call Democrats Heathens and and Murderers

Uh yeah, I thought it would be clear that my comment was in reference to Limbaugh and his nonsense.

All this blame game nonsense is counter-productive. I understand that America is in mourning right now, but going Nancy Kerrigan ain't gonna solve a damn thing.

You were 100% clear

I just think Rush Limbaugh is a very sick man who hurts America more than his followers realize.

Should we lock him up at your discretion? Civil rights indeed. ;)
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: shadow9d9

You are right in that I wasn't clear... what I meant was that there IS a belief there, which has the potential for forcing.

If you do not believe, then you are agnostic, not atheist. Atheist is the belief that god doesn't exist. If you are unsure, or have not beliefs, you are agnostic.

dictionary.com-"An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. "

This is incorrect.

As you can see in Wikipedia, the Oxford English Dictionary, and Webster's dictionary, atheism covers both disbelief (which means to not believe or to withhold belief) in god, and active belief in the nonexistence of god.

The definition you are trying to use is one that is mostly used by the religious right in an attempt to demonize atheism. (although to be honest their definition doesn't bother me much) In fact, if you do not believe in god (different from active denial of), then you are probably an atheist more then an agnostic. If anything you are certainly part of the overlap between the two definitions.

There are lots of resources on the web where you can educate yourself on the difference between positive and negative atheism and how they relate to agnosticism. If you need any I can point you their way.



 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: shadow9d9

You are right in that I wasn't clear... what I meant was that there IS a belief there, which has the potential for forcing.

If you do not believe, then you are agnostic, not atheist. Atheist is the belief that god doesn't exist. If you are unsure, or have not beliefs, you are agnostic.

dictionary.com-"An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. "

This is incorrect.

As you can see in Wikipedia, the Oxford English Dictionary, and Webster's dictionary, atheism covers both disbelief (which means to not believe or to withhold belief) in god, and active belief in the nonexistence of god.

The definition you are trying to use is one that is mostly used by the religious right in an attempt to demonize atheism. (although to be honest their definition doesn't bother me much) In fact, if you do not believe in god (different from active denial of), then you are probably an atheist more then an agnostic. If anything you are certainly part of the overlap between the two definitions.

There are lots of resources on the web where you can educate yourself on the difference between positive and negative atheism and how they relate to agnosticism. If you need any I can point you their way.

What would be the difference between non believing atheists and agnostics then?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Check this out

That might shed some light. The problem is that the two definitions cover a huge range of intellectual thought and so they have considerable overlap.

 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Check this out

That might shed some light. The problem is that the two definitions cover a huge range of intellectual thought and so they have considerable overlap.

Didn't help clear it because it said this: "Ultimately, the term "Agnostic" is something like "Christianity." Both refer to a wide diversity of belief systems, but in many cases, an individual asserts that their particular definition is the only fully valid one."

That makes no sense.. how could someone saying they don't know if a god exists or not able to declare that their assertion is the only valid one?
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
They mean that the individual's definition of agnosticism is the only valid one.

That is a mass generalization on a non cohesive or defined group... Nonsensical.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
!?!? They simply said the definition of agnosticism is difficult to pin down exactly because many people have their own interpretations of it.

Funny... that seems to be exactly the argument we're having right now. You're doubting others' (my) definitions of agnosticism.

I'm just trying to show you that your views on what constitutes agnosticism and atheism are not correct as they take a very limited definition of two terms that are very expansive. Don't take it personally and get unreasonably argumentitive please.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
When "Christianity" was the moral compass of America, it was far from true Christianity. An often repeated quote from Augustine: "Do not judge a philosophy by its abuses." (how it is abused)
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Somehow, I just can't believe that GTaudiophile would post some barely coherent rambling rant from Limbaugh and then expect any sort of intelligent commentary to ensue. Still, let me give it a go -

This is a manufactured issue by the usual AM hate radio crowd to stir up pro-gun NRA types. Other than Jim Moran, nobody else is talking about gun control. The media, a constant target for Limbaugh, has speculated that perhaps like Columbine this incident may spark more calls for gun control. It's a reasonable assumption and for the media, whose job it is to report on this stuff and who sometimes takes things a little too far to sensationalize events, has speculated that perhaps the issue of gun control will resurface.

And that's what really seems to piss off the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and Larry Elder. Even the mere speculation by the media is enough to put these guys on total offense. Meanwhile there hasn't been any serious Congressional efforts to enact gun control since the Brady Bill and the assault weapon ban in the early 90s. In fact, if you look at the Democrats over the last decade, there has been very little talk of gun control and zero action on gun control. In fact, the whole issue seems to be stricken from the Democratic platform completely. Other than a few random reporters speculating on the matter, there is no story here.

Gun owners are safe and their rights are secure, yet that doesn't stop the usual hate radio wingnuts from stirring up concern over nothing. They have to put the fear into their base somehow and the morons are using this manufactured issue to do so.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: spittledip
When "Christianity" was the moral compass of America, it was far from true Christianity. An often repeated quote from Augustine: "Do not judge a philosophy by its abuses." (how it is abused)

And when the abuses of today are pointed out tomorrow you will claim that "Christianity" of yesterday is far from true Christianity.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,226
5,803
126
Same Rant he's always made, some details changed to appear Current.

Rush is an idiot [/]
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Abortions and embryonic stem cell research causes all murders to happen, how did i not think of that before! The connection is just so eerie :disgust:
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
So GTA, how do you reconcile reality with that tripe you posted? I mean, a quick look at any number of other countries will show far lower rates of both religion and homicides (gun related and otherwise), so obviously less religion does not mean more crime. Yet, you ignore this and claim the exact opposite.

Can you please explain your thought process? I really am interested, since such doublethink is beyond me.
 

Bumrush99

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2004
3,334
194
106
Anyone that believes the crap Rush spews is beyond help.
Culture of death? What a f&cking joke, only a drug addicted fat ass like Rush would equate stem cell research with death. Only a partisan hack would make this about the culture wars, without doing a tiny bit of research and realizing that this psycho came from a Jesus loving, bible toting religious family. His ramblings went on and on about Jesus and religion, if anything his delusional religious perspective may have contributed to his killing spree.. But I guess Rush thinks that only God fearing religous people are pious and incapable of doing harm unless federal agents raid their holy house of worship where the Jesus Messiah is f&cking little girls and building a fortress in the middle of Texas. Yes Rush is right on with analysis on this one.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: OrByte
This transcipt is the epitomy of everything that is wrong with Rush. And why so many people defend him.

Rush is like 5% truth 95% hyperbole and fallacy.

well...in this case he is more like 7% truth and 93% junk.

LOL. How about telling us what is junk before attacking the man, or is the politics of personal destruction your only recourse here?

Are you sure you read the entire thing, word for word, in 7 minutes?

Well it seems pretty clear that most of it is junk. The kid grew up in a Christian home, yet rejected Christianity. So having more 'prayer on college campuses' wouldn't have helped. Then Limpaugh goes into a rant about a culture of death with liberalism which seems strange given the wild-eyed fascination that some conservatives have with handguns, automatic weapons, tactical nukes, bombers, etc. Limpaugh's verbal diarrhea dribbles on from embryonic stem cells to euthanasia to defeat in Iraq. My guess is that the gunman didn't consider those topics. He then claims an imaginary effort to ban God and faith from the public square is somewhat responsible for a Green Card wielding English major to gun down 32 people.

It sounds like the same rant the VA killer made in his videos. Incoherent and rambling. Has Rush fallen off the wagon again? Rush IMHO is the Al Sharpton / Jessie Jackson of the right. He brings nothing new to improve the conversation and does nothing new to improve the situation in the world.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
What a ridiculous thread. GTa, you are a nice guy but you're absurdly misguided. The shooter was by all appearances floridly mentally ill, and it looks as though his conduct had nothing to do with the "liberal culture of death" and everything to do with untreated schizophrenia.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: OrByte
I read the whole thing.

The Waco reference is junk

The "culture of death" is junk

he is right though when he says the shooter was a nutcase.

I agree with him about gun control not being a factor (but this is opinion) But where his junk comes into play is that he generalizes that this is the "leftists" acting opportunistically in bringing in the gun control issue. I'm "leftist" and I dont agree with the idea that we need more gun control as a result of this tragedy.

Then he brought in Imus, Katrina, and somehow relaying the idea that since the "leftists" were wrong about that...they are wrong about this tragedy too....that is fallacious reasoning.

Most of his junk stems from the fact that he argues both sides of his point...then shoots down what the "leftists: or "drive-by media" would say in retort. There is no real substantial dialogue..only his perspective, and how his perspective is superior to everyone elses.

I read the whole thing, I can't take him seriously though because he layers his argument with too much ill reasoning and hyperbole.

I do not think the Waco statement was junk. There was no media outcry when the government went in and did the killing and burning of women and children, etc.


Now you just loss all creditability.

David Koresh was a suicidal nut case like the VA Tech killer. He did not think about the safety of the women and childern in his care who he killed. All he cared about was himself and living out his lunatic fantasy of being Christ reborn. I find it sad that a portion of the right believes that David Koresh and his "Jim Jones" like cult followers are victims of the government. Especially when it's been proven by several creditable investigations by both Dem and GOP officials that David and the gang lit their own fires in order to commit mass suicide. Of which was already foretold by David that they were going to do on FBI recorded telephone conversations during the siege of their compound. Not to mention his own confessions that he had the right to marry any girl as young as 12 years old within his group of followers. So if you want to defend a suicidal, child molesting, nut case who believed he would die and be reborn as the next Messiah along with his brain washed followers who never once thought of the safety of their own childern then you are doing so at the expense of your creditability IMHO.

 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: spittledip
When "Christianity" was the moral compass of America, it was far from true Christianity. An often repeated quote from Augustine: "Do not judge a philosophy by its abuses." (how it is abused)

And when the abuses of today are pointed out tomorrow you will claim that "Christianity" of yesterday is far from true Christianity.

wrong. The "mainstream" Christianity upheld today isn't true either. It is pretty much the same stuff as 50 years ago.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,134
223
106
Lack of religion? This guy probably say next to you in church every Sunday...

I don't know what you have been reading or listening too but according to us news, 90% of all americans believe in a catholic / muslum god...

Tell me what's lacking about that?