QUOTE (newguy+Aug 20 2011, 03:53 PM)
"An ounce of doubt" in relation to what? God or some specific situation? In regard to the former, not an ounce.
Of course not, how could anyone expect you to doubt yourself?
Of course not, how could anyone expect you to doubt yourself?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 20 2011, 07:30 PM)
There's no-one else here "like you." You are unique in your self-righteous stupidity. I can carry on conversations with theists and actually have it be mutually beneficial. You, on the other hand, are so in love with yourself that you cannot self-analyze in the least. You have so intimately tied yourself to your idea of god that your idea is more important than the truth. Every theist that I respect has at least an ounce of doubt or the ability to admit that they don't know something. You're a prideful jack*ss, and I hope you realize this someday.
Newguy is the dumbest form of theist that thinks since he believes in god that he can pass judgement on those who don't. God probably told him so since their buds.
Sums it up nicely:
"You have so intimately tied yourself to your idea of ... that your idea is more important than the truth.'
Same for all crackpots, debate trolls, etc..
Newguy is the dumbest form of theist that thinks since he believes in god that he can pass judgement on those who don't. God probably told him so since their buds.
Sums it up nicely:
"You have so intimately tied yourself to your idea of ... that your idea is more important than the truth.'
Same for all crackpots, debate trolls, etc..
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 20 2011, 06:17 PM)
You should meet some of the Anglicans I know. Aside from (some) Unitarian Universalists, they're the most rational Christians out there, and at least one of them has laughed uproariously upon reading one of newguy's posts.
I was raised Episcopalian and was an altar boy until I was 14. I was present for the ordination of a very wonderful priest, Father Quinby. At 20 Father Quinby was preparing my wife and I for our marriage ceremony. I was such a prideful idiot, I told him I was now an atheist. Regretful considering how much I loved and respected him.
I was raised Episcopalian and was an altar boy until I was 14. I was present for the ordination of a very wonderful priest, Father Quinby. At 20 Father Quinby was preparing my wife and I for our marriage ceremony. I was such a prideful idiot, I told him I was now an atheist. Regretful considering how much I loved and respected him.
Thanks RC. You've always been so civil with me I am sorry to not have returned the favor and actually went overboard by laughing my head off. I'll assume your charitable nature is a result of your parents instilling moral value as you grew under their care, plus the teachers, leaders and friends. They in turn were shown the way by those before them all they up to those that were ministered to by spiritual leaders, saints and God almighty. I believe I don't need consent to co-opt your ancestors in the larger scheme of things cause obviously I can't contact them (I don't believe in spirit medium).
I am some kind of a theist agnostic you know. No de-programming needed (or maybe it is, I don't know).
I am some kind of a theist agnostic you know. No de-programming needed (or maybe it is, I don't know).
QUOTE (Newguy+)
Said the control freak who left this forum to start his own, tried to steal most of the sheep from this flock and then sacrificed most of them on his altar of self by banning them. How's that sound? About right? Anyhow, do me a favor and stick around for a while, would you? This way, when NymphaeaAlba returns, she'll have to choose who to hate on most...me or you.
I don’t hate anyone but both of you irritate me.
The Beatitudes of Christianity are centered on love and humility, rather than force and exaction. This is Synthsin75's argument towards atheism. Synthsin75 argues that atheists are irrational because we are rude and condescending, when in fact; we are drawing attention to the most dominant, irrational, condescending ideology of all times.
Christians feel that being humble is bowing down to God, admitting you’re human and capable of making mistakes, and then asking God for forgiveness. Atheists too, ask for forgiveness, but not from God, but from those whom we have wronged. We acknowledge that we are not only Homo sapiens, but an animals, as well. Christians are wrong to insist that humans and animals are vastly different and that this difference arises from the fact that God created us humans in his own likeness. “The meek shall inherit the earth” How exactly, is Christianity considered meek?
Who claims here to be a moderate or agnostic? The religious have historically taken violent and condescending attitudes toward atheists before we did anything to merit it. We deserve to be loved, accepted, and tolerated. If you cannot understand this...THEN you are not a moderate.
The social pressure to believe in God is real. Atheists are appealing to your intellect and sense of humanity. The religious are loud, vocal, and shouting from their roof tops. People like synthsin75 are wrong to try to shame us into silence. We need to have the courage to speak up against that which is simply accepted without scrutiny. Don’t try to denigrate one side of a discussion by merely stating that we are being rude because we oppose. We have been polite. We have listened to them. When will it be our turn to be heard?
My signature represents who I am. I listen. I’m interested in knowing you and all that you know. Does anyone feel otherwise? “An attentive ear is a wise man’s joy” the art of being humble is truly listening with genuine interest in another man’s perspective and understanding, admitting not only that we are human, but merely an animal, who was not created in a godly image.
I don’t hate anyone but both of you irritate me.
The Beatitudes of Christianity are centered on love and humility, rather than force and exaction. This is Synthsin75's argument towards atheism. Synthsin75 argues that atheists are irrational because we are rude and condescending, when in fact; we are drawing attention to the most dominant, irrational, condescending ideology of all times.
Christians feel that being humble is bowing down to God, admitting you’re human and capable of making mistakes, and then asking God for forgiveness. Atheists too, ask for forgiveness, but not from God, but from those whom we have wronged. We acknowledge that we are not only Homo sapiens, but an animals, as well. Christians are wrong to insist that humans and animals are vastly different and that this difference arises from the fact that God created us humans in his own likeness. “The meek shall inherit the earth” How exactly, is Christianity considered meek?
Who claims here to be a moderate or agnostic? The religious have historically taken violent and condescending attitudes toward atheists before we did anything to merit it. We deserve to be loved, accepted, and tolerated. If you cannot understand this...THEN you are not a moderate.
The social pressure to believe in God is real. Atheists are appealing to your intellect and sense of humanity. The religious are loud, vocal, and shouting from their roof tops. People like synthsin75 are wrong to try to shame us into silence. We need to have the courage to speak up against that which is simply accepted without scrutiny. Don’t try to denigrate one side of a discussion by merely stating that we are being rude because we oppose. We have been polite. We have listened to them. When will it be our turn to be heard?
My signature represents who I am. I listen. I’m interested in knowing you and all that you know. Does anyone feel otherwise? “An attentive ear is a wise man’s joy” the art of being humble is truly listening with genuine interest in another man’s perspective and understanding, admitting not only that we are human, but merely an animal, who was not created in a godly image.
QUOTE (Psalm 14:1+)
The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God.” - John Locke
John Locke promoted religious toleration, with atheism being the one notable exception.
“I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true church. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of toleration.” –John Locke
I, as an atheist, do challenge the religious privilege of toleration! “Historically, most incidents and writings pertaining to toleration involve the status of minority and dissenting viewpoints in relation to a dominant state religion.” I am an atheist, but I am a person, just like you. Why should I be denied this privilege?
Separation of Church and State
If this is in fact, what our forefathers meant. Is it right?
Who here believes that the first amendment only grants freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion?
Am I not to be tolerated, or am I...just as synthsin75 said, "ѕhit out of luck”???
Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God.” - John Locke
John Locke promoted religious toleration, with atheism being the one notable exception.
“I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true church. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of toleration.” –John Locke
I, as an atheist, do challenge the religious privilege of toleration! “Historically, most incidents and writings pertaining to toleration involve the status of minority and dissenting viewpoints in relation to a dominant state religion.” I am an atheist, but I am a person, just like you. Why should I be denied this privilege?
Separation of Church and State
If this is in fact, what our forefathers meant. Is it right?
Who here believes that the first amendment only grants freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion?
Am I not to be tolerated, or am I...just as synthsin75 said, "ѕhit out of luck”???
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Aug 20 2011, 09:06 PM)
.
To the forum at large....
I draw your attention to the fact that synthsin75 has no real answer to the observation I made that he tried (for whatever rationalisation of his own as a supposed 'moderate' without 'any horse in this race' etc) to dishonestly and without foundation illogically co-opt my and others' good for some god or other espoused in the religious rationalisations which are falsified by the reality of the true innocents I have merely pointed to, and which therefore requires no 'allowance' as to that god's existence from ME as the objective observer of that falsifying reality.
Please note also his insistence that I must somehow allow for the existence of such a god before I can point to the reality that ipso facto denies that existence. Can there be any greater non-sequitur than that insistence?
No one is being specifically engaged, and no people/animals were hurt in the making of these observations. Cheers all.
.
I've always tended to agree with much of what you've been pointing out. You may have said this but the ultimate delusion is the theist expects to be forgiven for all the crappy self serving stuff they do throughout their lives just because they believe in god.
To the forum at large....
I draw your attention to the fact that synthsin75 has no real answer to the observation I made that he tried (for whatever rationalisation of his own as a supposed 'moderate' without 'any horse in this race' etc) to dishonestly and without foundation illogically co-opt my and others' good for some god or other espoused in the religious rationalisations which are falsified by the reality of the true innocents I have merely pointed to, and which therefore requires no 'allowance' as to that god's existence from ME as the objective observer of that falsifying reality.
Please note also his insistence that I must somehow allow for the existence of such a god before I can point to the reality that ipso facto denies that existence. Can there be any greater non-sequitur than that insistence?
No one is being specifically engaged, and no people/animals were hurt in the making of these observations. Cheers all.
.
I've always tended to agree with much of what you've been pointing out. You may have said this but the ultimate delusion is the theist expects to be forgiven for all the crappy self serving stuff they do throughout their lives just because they believe in god.
NymphaeaAlba: Who said that you're not tolerated? And even if somebody did say or insinuate as much, who cares? Why do the opinions of others impact/irritate you so much? I'm genuinely asking...
P.S.
Psssttttt..which one of us irritates you more?
P.S.
Psssttttt..which one of us irritates you more?
Questions like what is the meaning/purpose of life can not be answered in a science class. Hard core atheists never ask this question.
http://www.en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_of_life
I want to read this again, this time slowly so that i can comprehend.
http://www.en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_of_life
I want to read this again, this time slowly so that i can comprehend.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
The last straw was when, after I turned 9 1/2, after longstanding abuse and insensitivity from the convent school teachers towards my brother (who was ill and not so quick on the uptake then), where he would be punished for not reciting the catechism correctly etc etc, I saw the whole organised religion and its rituals and rationalisations and BEHAVIOUR and plain inhumanity 'in the name of god' etc etc, I took it upon myself to try an experiment and transfer myself to the secular state school a half-mile down the road. Not to mention all that time being wasted on 'programming' young mins at the expense of time spent on objective learning about the reality and its wonders as they were.
I could carry out this experiment quite easily since I already had my parents permission to sign their name on all legal documents/letters etc as experience showed them that I was trustworthy and competent to act on their behalf when they were at work and something arose which merely required exchanges of information etc. and which did not require their presence.
Anyhow, afte a while at the state school I concluded that was the way to go because it satisfied my need to know and did not attempt to feed me garbage like that at the convent school.
I spoke with my brother and sister about it and they too wanted to try it for themselves. So I transferred them too.
Only after a short time my parents noticed how much happier and less stressed my brother was. Also my sister and myself. They agreed to make the arrangement permanent and let the situation continue as arranged by me.
So you see, the religious experience/value was NEGATIVE and the secular experience/value was POSITIVE....as it has been for me and my siblings to this day.
Interesting. Seriously. In fact, to a degree, it mirrors my own childhood experiences with "religion"...especially of the Roman Catholic kind. I am the 8th out of 9 children and 5 of us (3 graduated and one sibling died at age 6) were pulled from the Catholic school system after a 6'7" (SERIOUSLY...she looked like the giant penguin from the Monty Python skit) nun slammed my brother's head into a blackboard and he, in turn, shoved her against a wall (I still laugh my head off to this day as my brother tells the story...probably with a few deliberate embellishments for humor's sake). Anyhow, although I don't doubt for a moment that your experience was as negative as you describe it, what does any of it have to do with God? Show me Roman Catholicism in the scriptures...
I'm just saying...
I could carry out this experiment quite easily since I already had my parents permission to sign their name on all legal documents/letters etc as experience showed them that I was trustworthy and competent to act on their behalf when they were at work and something arose which merely required exchanges of information etc. and which did not require their presence.
Anyhow, afte a while at the state school I concluded that was the way to go because it satisfied my need to know and did not attempt to feed me garbage like that at the convent school.
I spoke with my brother and sister about it and they too wanted to try it for themselves. So I transferred them too.
Only after a short time my parents noticed how much happier and less stressed my brother was. Also my sister and myself. They agreed to make the arrangement permanent and let the situation continue as arranged by me.
So you see, the religious experience/value was NEGATIVE and the secular experience/value was POSITIVE....as it has been for me and my siblings to this day.
Interesting. Seriously. In fact, to a degree, it mirrors my own childhood experiences with "religion"...especially of the Roman Catholic kind. I am the 8th out of 9 children and 5 of us (3 graduated and one sibling died at age 6) were pulled from the Catholic school system after a 6'7" (SERIOUSLY...she looked like the giant penguin from the Monty Python skit) nun slammed my brother's head into a blackboard and he, in turn, shoved her against a wall (I still laugh my head off to this day as my brother tells the story...probably with a few deliberate embellishments for humor's sake). Anyhow, although I don't doubt for a moment that your experience was as negative as you describe it, what does any of it have to do with God? Show me Roman Catholicism in the scriptures...
I'm just saying...
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 20 2011, 01:45 PM)
NymphaeaAlba: Who said that you're not tolerated? And even if somebody did say or insinuate as much, who cares? Why do the opinions of others impact/irritate you so much? I'm genuinely asking...
To save me, or silence me…is not tolerating me.
Listen to me and understand me.
Which one dislikes me the most?
To save me, or silence me…is not tolerating me.
Listen to me and understand me.
QUOTE
P.S.
Psssttttt..which one of us irritates you more?
Psssttttt..which one of us irritates you more?
Which one dislikes me the most?
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+)
To save me, or silence me…is not tolerating me.
Listen to me and understand me.
For starters, my very first encounter with you was when you asked a Biblically based question to which I provided an answer. In fact, when you thanked me for it, some undiscerning forum members thought that you were my sock puppet. Remember? Since then, you've asked other questions, either publicly or privately (whether to satisfy your own curiosity or on behalf of another) and you've also gone on the attack in regards to both God and the scriptures. I've responded and you've gotten all bent out of shape. With such being the case, just who is seeking to silence whom? Incidentally, I have listened to you. Very closely. As a result, I believe that I do understand you to a pretty good degree (as much as someone can understand someone whom they've never actually met, that is)...assuming that you've always been honest and that it's really been "you" that I've been conversing with. Not an accusation, per se. It's just that there are several folks around here who are anything but honest.
Listen to me and understand me.
For starters, my very first encounter with you was when you asked a Biblically based question to which I provided an answer. In fact, when you thanked me for it, some undiscerning forum members thought that you were my sock puppet. Remember? Since then, you've asked other questions, either publicly or privately (whether to satisfy your own curiosity or on behalf of another) and you've also gone on the attack in regards to both God and the scriptures. I've responded and you've gotten all bent out of shape. With such being the case, just who is seeking to silence whom? Incidentally, I have listened to you. Very closely. As a result, I believe that I do understand you to a pretty good degree (as much as someone can understand someone whom they've never actually met, that is)...assuming that you've always been honest and that it's really been "you" that I've been conversing with. Not an accusation, per se. It's just that there are several folks around here who are anything but honest.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+)
Which one dislikes me the most?
Certainly not me. In fact, I don't dislike you at all. Oh, I can do without the belly-aching which seems to have disappeared...so I won't mention it again unless it resurfaces. Anyhow, I'm not your enemy...whether you'll ever understand that or not.
Take care.
P.S. "Pity", by the way, needs not to be "condescending" in nature. Just as an FYI.
Certainly not me. In fact, I don't dislike you at all. Oh, I can do without the belly-aching which seems to have disappeared...so I won't mention it again unless it resurfaces. Anyhow, I'm not your enemy...whether you'll ever understand that or not.
Take care.
P.S. "Pity", by the way, needs not to be "condescending" in nature. Just as an FYI.
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 20 2011, 09:45 PM)
NymphaeaAlba: Who said that you're not tolerated? And even if somebody did say or insinuate as much, who cares? Why do the opinions of others impact/irritate you so much? I'm genuinely asking...
P.S.
Psssttttt..which one of us irritates you more?
You're a nasty twit. Didn't you just say this?
"This way, when NymphaeaAlba returns, she'll have to choose who to hate on most...me or you."
NA is above choosing to 'hate on most'. Not her style.
P.S.
Psssttttt..which one of us irritates you more?
You're a nasty twit. Didn't you just say this?
"This way, when NymphaeaAlba returns, she'll have to choose who to hate on most...me or you."
NA is above choosing to 'hate on most'. Not her style.
QUOTE (brucep+)
You're a nasty twit.
Thanks for the laugh. Seriously. First of all, you seem to be nastiness personified. Beyond this, you're the twit. Why didn't you also place the laughing emoticon that I included TO SHOW THAT I WAS JOKING in your "quote" of me? Nasty DECEPTIVE twit, thy name is brucep.
Thanks for the laugh. Seriously. First of all, you seem to be nastiness personified. Beyond this, you're the twit. Why didn't you also place the laughing emoticon that I included TO SHOW THAT I WAS JOKING in your "quote" of me? Nasty DECEPTIVE twit, thy name is brucep.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
My good is from within as a human being; not from some 'god/religion'.
This seems to be a very major issue with you...defending your own "goodness". What about your "badness"...or do you insist that you have none? Anyhow, it's such "badness/sin" that needs to be atoned for...although you'll most certainly disagree. When people start harping on their "goodness", it always reminds me of a portion of the O.J. Simpson trial that I saw on TV years ago. One of his defense lawyers (I think that it was Johnnie Cochran, but I'm not certain) got up and said something to the effect of how O.J. had donated a large amount of money to the Girl Scouts. I thought to myself, "What the...?!?" What does such a charitable act have to do with the charges of murder that he's facing for allegedly stabbing two people to death? Anyhow, one's "goodness" doesn't eradicate one's "badness" is my point.
This seems to be a very major issue with you...defending your own "goodness". What about your "badness"...or do you insist that you have none? Anyhow, it's such "badness/sin" that needs to be atoned for...although you'll most certainly disagree. When people start harping on their "goodness", it always reminds me of a portion of the O.J. Simpson trial that I saw on TV years ago. One of his defense lawyers (I think that it was Johnnie Cochran, but I'm not certain) got up and said something to the effect of how O.J. had donated a large amount of money to the Girl Scouts. I thought to myself, "What the...?!?" What does such a charitable act have to do with the charges of murder that he's facing for allegedly stabbing two people to death? Anyhow, one's "goodness" doesn't eradicate one's "badness" is my point.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
So anyway, all the 'water under the bridge' aside, newguy, can you address the point about the true innocents as second class being, as collateral damage etc etc in the religious rationalisations, and how those said rationalisations effective disenfranchise the true innocents from free will, choice etc etc in anything at all, including the right and opportunity to 'find god' or not for themselves as adults which they have no chance of becoming/experiencing as you and others who 'find god' have had the opportunity etc to do?
All else is just skirting around the issue. And please don't come back with that eternal life for innocents as compensation for being maimed/killed (from whatever cause/agency) before the innocent had any say in the matter. Thanks.
How many times would you have me to answer the same question? Once again, you're being deceptive by interjecting "free will" into this as I clearly wasn't discussing such in my conversation with you. Also, what's with all of this "second class" stuff? If I were on a plane ride, I couldn't care less whether I flew "first class" or "second class" AS LONG AS I REACHED MY DESTINATION. Is this so hard to understand? And this doesn't even take into account that many people would probably choose the "shortcut" (what you call "second class"), if given the chance. IOW, for many, this world in its present condition is anything but peaches and cream...as witnessed by such things as suicide, mental/nervous breakdowns, etc., etc. Additionally, for the sake of honesty, please drop all of this "collateral damage" garbage as if that's anything that I've ever stated or even imagined in my entire life. IOW, stop trying to put words in my mouth...words that are anything but savoury to me. Finally, and probably of greatest importance, if you're going to try to convince anyone about the non-existence of their God/god, then you ought to do it within the parameters of said God/god. Like it or not, as I've already explained, the Christian God is a God of ETERNITY. Just because you refuse to accept this in your own "rationizations" doesn't mean that others are somehow forced to do the same. There's also the variable of the earnest of the Spirit that I've already explained, so what else is it that you want to hear? You're starting to remind me of buttershug in that you insist that I haven't answered your questions when, in fact, I have and you just don't like my answers. Ask somebody else, then.
P.S. Make sure that you jump on my words "if given the chance"...I'd expect nothing less. My point is that your "second class" would probably be considered to be "first class" by many.
All else is just skirting around the issue. And please don't come back with that eternal life for innocents as compensation for being maimed/killed (from whatever cause/agency) before the innocent had any say in the matter. Thanks.
How many times would you have me to answer the same question? Once again, you're being deceptive by interjecting "free will" into this as I clearly wasn't discussing such in my conversation with you. Also, what's with all of this "second class" stuff? If I were on a plane ride, I couldn't care less whether I flew "first class" or "second class" AS LONG AS I REACHED MY DESTINATION. Is this so hard to understand? And this doesn't even take into account that many people would probably choose the "shortcut" (what you call "second class"), if given the chance. IOW, for many, this world in its present condition is anything but peaches and cream...as witnessed by such things as suicide, mental/nervous breakdowns, etc., etc. Additionally, for the sake of honesty, please drop all of this "collateral damage" garbage as if that's anything that I've ever stated or even imagined in my entire life. IOW, stop trying to put words in my mouth...words that are anything but savoury to me. Finally, and probably of greatest importance, if you're going to try to convince anyone about the non-existence of their God/god, then you ought to do it within the parameters of said God/god. Like it or not, as I've already explained, the Christian God is a God of ETERNITY. Just because you refuse to accept this in your own "rationizations" doesn't mean that others are somehow forced to do the same. There's also the variable of the earnest of the Spirit that I've already explained, so what else is it that you want to hear? You're starting to remind me of buttershug in that you insist that I haven't answered your questions when, in fact, I have and you just don't like my answers. Ask somebody else, then.
P.S. Make sure that you jump on my words "if given the chance"...I'd expect nothing less. My point is that your "second class" would probably be considered to be "first class" by many.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
Were you in any way more worthy to be allowed to live long enough so that you could have the opportunity to 'find god' and be 'saved' and forgiven your own evil on the way up to your own 'salvation'?
Here we go, again...
Let me ask you a question:
Why do you assume/insist that the one who lives longer on the earth is somehow "more worthy" or travelling "first class" as it were?
If you're truly going to consider the aforementioned "Biblical parameters", then the book of Ecclesiastes might be a good place to start. Aside from continually addressing the utter VANITY of everything that is "done under the sun" or in this vain life here on earth, it actually goes so far as to state that "an untimely birth" or a miscarriage would be better than for some who have actually lived on this earth and fared certain ways.
"If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he. For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness. Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: THIS HAS MORE REST THAN THE OTHER." (Ecclesiastes 6:3-5)
Solomon said that the untimely birth that departs in darkness (obscurity) HAS MORE REST THAN the man who lived many years and begat a hundred children and found no good. Just one example.
Here we go, again...
Let me ask you a question:
Why do you assume/insist that the one who lives longer on the earth is somehow "more worthy" or travelling "first class" as it were?
If you're truly going to consider the aforementioned "Biblical parameters", then the book of Ecclesiastes might be a good place to start. Aside from continually addressing the utter VANITY of everything that is "done under the sun" or in this vain life here on earth, it actually goes so far as to state that "an untimely birth" or a miscarriage would be better than for some who have actually lived on this earth and fared certain ways.
"If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he. For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness. Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: THIS HAS MORE REST THAN THE OTHER." (Ecclesiastes 6:3-5)
Solomon said that the untimely birth that departs in darkness (obscurity) HAS MORE REST THAN the man who lived many years and begat a hundred children and found no good. Just one example.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
Are you tempted to choose that "short cut" for your own children?
Not in the least. Perish the thought. HOWEVER...somebody else might be tempted to, so I'll do my best to prepare my children for the afterlife, come what may.
Not in the least. Perish the thought. HOWEVER...somebody else might be tempted to, so I'll do my best to prepare my children for the afterlife, come what may.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
SAME DESTINATION? You assume too much. That is one of the rationalisations which have given rise to my observtions of the reality of the true innocents; so.....
My "assumptions" are only based upon your continual use of the phrase "TRUE INNOCENTS". Don't like my assumptions? Then change your parameters.
My "assumptions" are only based upon your continual use of the phrase "TRUE INNOCENTS". Don't like my assumptions? Then change your parameters.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
Does "The end justifies the means" work for your humanity and intellect as 'well' as it seems to 'work' for the religious rationalisations which give the innocent no choices at all before being re-directed to the "short cut" boarding gate?
Certainly not in the way that you seek to infer. As I recall, you got all bent out of shape because I mentioned David Berkowitz a short time ago. It was then that all of this "collateral damage", "kill them all and let God sort them out" and "the end justifies the means" nonsense got started. Right? Once again, those are all of YOUR CONCLUSIONS/RATIONALIZATIONS and not my own. When did I ever even insinuate that such "means" were somehow "justified"? Of course, the correct answer is NEVER. It's just you seeking to put words in my mouth (strawman erecting, remember?) to force your own point. Give it up, mate. As I've told you many times before, I'm not that gullible, nor am I anywhere near that stupid. This, you ought to know by now. Anyhow, I would never seek to harm anyone, nor would I ever encourage such. There are, however, many instances IN MY OWN LIFE where I do fully believe that "the end justifies the means". IOW, God will ofttimes put me through "fiery trials" which are unsettling at times, but forge a better character in me in the long run. IN THIS SENSE, Yes, I do believe that "the end justifies the means"...but no one is being MURDERED in such a scenario as the one that I just described.
Well, that's all. If it's still not sufficient enough of an answer for you, then you'll just have to live with it. I'm not going to spend the rest of my life explaining the same thing over and over again. By the way, don't waste either your breath or your time in trying to somehow turn me away from the Lord. Unlike you, I've had proof after proof after proof after proof of His existence and Faithfulness. I'm immovable (you're free to substitute "stubborn", if it makes you feel better).
Take care.
P.S. I cannot help but notice that you dodged my question about abortion. Care to answer it, now?
Certainly not in the way that you seek to infer. As I recall, you got all bent out of shape because I mentioned David Berkowitz a short time ago. It was then that all of this "collateral damage", "kill them all and let God sort them out" and "the end justifies the means" nonsense got started. Right? Once again, those are all of YOUR CONCLUSIONS/RATIONALIZATIONS and not my own. When did I ever even insinuate that such "means" were somehow "justified"? Of course, the correct answer is NEVER. It's just you seeking to put words in my mouth (strawman erecting, remember?) to force your own point. Give it up, mate. As I've told you many times before, I'm not that gullible, nor am I anywhere near that stupid. This, you ought to know by now. Anyhow, I would never seek to harm anyone, nor would I ever encourage such. There are, however, many instances IN MY OWN LIFE where I do fully believe that "the end justifies the means". IOW, God will ofttimes put me through "fiery trials" which are unsettling at times, but forge a better character in me in the long run. IN THIS SENSE, Yes, I do believe that "the end justifies the means"...but no one is being MURDERED in such a scenario as the one that I just described.
Well, that's all. If it's still not sufficient enough of an answer for you, then you'll just have to live with it. I'm not going to spend the rest of my life explaining the same thing over and over again. By the way, don't waste either your breath or your time in trying to somehow turn me away from the Lord. Unlike you, I've had proof after proof after proof after proof of His existence and Faithfulness. I'm immovable (you're free to substitute "stubborn", if it makes you feel better).
Take care.
P.S. I cannot help but notice that you dodged my question about abortion. Care to answer it, now?
synthsin75
Non-sense, since any theism, by definition, involves a particular theistic concept called god, and all such concepts involve the supernatural(else it does not meet the requirements of the concept). You're not going to start using meanings of words that only you ascribe to again, are you?
Non-sense, since any theism, by definition, involves a particular theistic concept called god, and all such concepts involve the supernatural(else it does not meet the requirements of the concept). You're not going to start using meanings of words that only you ascribe to again, are you?
Dishonest tactic, as you've no need to pontificate for the benefit of others, since you've already said:
So it appears you don't really trust the "intellect and free will" of others after all. See, you don't have confidence solely in the merit of your view.
Rather, it would seem he has no confidence in your abilities, not his conviction in the rightness of his views.
boit
Are you operating under the delusion the can be answered in Sunday School? There is no reason to think there is any meaning/purpose of life at all, other than that we ourselves give it.
Are you operating under the delusion the can be answered in Sunday School? There is no reason to think there is any meaning/purpose of life at all, other than that we ourselves give it.
Hard core atheists never ask this question.
Nor do most "soft core" atheists, as, again, what makes you think there is an answer? Life needs no reason or purpose to exist, nor does the Universe. Purpose implies intelligence and everything we find out about life informs us intelligence is a result of the Universe, not it's cause.
Grumpy
QUOTE
A theistic world view is not dependent upon a specific religion, nor even supernaturalism.
Non-sense, since any theism, by definition, involves a particular theistic concept called god, and all such concepts involve the supernatural(else it does not meet the requirements of the concept). You're not going to start using meanings of words that only you ascribe to again, are you?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A theistic world view is not dependent upon a specific religion, nor even supernaturalism. |
Non-sense, since any theism, by definition, involves a particular theistic concept called god, and all such concepts involve the supernatural(else it does not meet the requirements of the concept). You're not going to start using meanings of words that only you ascribe to again, are you?
QUOTE
(RC)
This is not to engage anyone in particular, but to merely make observation/comment for the benefit of the forum at large solely in the interests of more honest discussion.
This is not to engage anyone in particular, but to merely make observation/comment for the benefit of the forum at large solely in the interests of more honest discussion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (RC) This is not to engage anyone in particular, but to merely make observation/comment for the benefit of the forum at large solely in the interests of more honest discussion. |
Dishonest tactic, as you've no need to pontificate for the benefit of others, since you've already said:
QUOTE
(RC)
Anyone coming across these exchanges will use their own intellect and free will to arrive at their own adult realisations.
Anyone coming across these exchanges will use their own intellect and free will to arrive at their own adult realisations.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (RC) Anyone coming across these exchanges will use their own intellect and free will to arrive at their own adult realisations. |
So it appears you don't really trust the "intellect and free will" of others after all. See, you don't have confidence solely in the merit of your view.
Rather, it would seem he has no confidence in your abilities, not his conviction in the rightness of his views.
boit
QUOTE
Questions like what is the meaning/purpose of life can not be answered in a science class.
Are you operating under the delusion the can be answered in Sunday School? There is no reason to think there is any meaning/purpose of life at all, other than that we ourselves give it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Questions like what is the meaning/purpose of life can not be answered in a science class. |
Are you operating under the delusion the can be answered in Sunday School? There is no reason to think there is any meaning/purpose of life at all, other than that we ourselves give it.
Hard core atheists never ask this question.
Nor do most "soft core" atheists, as, again, what makes you think there is an answer? Life needs no reason or purpose to exist, nor does the Universe. Purpose implies intelligence and everything we find out about life informs us intelligence is a result of the Universe, not it's cause.
Grumpy
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
And the reason why only the 'good' is stressed as it is, is because synthsin75 (and most recently boit) dishonestly attempted to co-opt my (and as I also have stressed before: AND OTHERS') 'good' in the usual way of religious rationalisations/conditioning to which neither seem to be immune to such persistent/insidious religious brainwashing legacy even though they claim to be impartial/rational themselves. Meanwhile the evil is NOT so co-opted for the same god/plan! So only the 'good' was the subject of my 'dishonest co-opting' observations. OK?
I missed this part of your earlier post since you edited it to add this. For whatever it's worth, it turned my stomach when boit sought to "co-opt", as you call it, your "good" to God. Quite frankly, and this may offend him, it reminded me of all of the MANipulations (I know that the "man" in "manipulate" really has to do with "hands", but I'm just playing with the word to make a point) that I've seen in church (and without) over the years. You know, the old "You'll catch more flies with honey than you will with vinegar" tactic. Certainly NOT my "modus operandi"...in case you haven't noticed. I trust that I'll garner at least a smidgeon of respect from you for refraining from such.
Take care.
I missed this part of your earlier post since you edited it to add this. For whatever it's worth, it turned my stomach when boit sought to "co-opt", as you call it, your "good" to God. Quite frankly, and this may offend him, it reminded me of all of the MANipulations (I know that the "man" in "manipulate" really has to do with "hands", but I'm just playing with the word to make a point) that I've seen in church (and without) over the years. You know, the old "You'll catch more flies with honey than you will with vinegar" tactic. Certainly NOT my "modus operandi"...in case you haven't noticed. I trust that I'll garner at least a smidgeon of respect from you for refraining from such.
Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 20 2011, 04:16 PM)
I missed this part of your earlier post since you edited it to add this. For whatever it's worth, it turned my stomach when boit sought to "co-opt", as you call it, your "good" to God. Quite frankly, and this may offend him, it reminded me of all of the MANipulations (I know that the "man" in "manipulate" really has to do with "hands", but I'm just playing with the word to make a point) that I've seen in church (and without) over the years. You know, the old "You'll catch more flies with honey than you will with vinegar" tactic.
Certainly NOT my "modus operandi"...in case you haven't noticed. I trust that I'll garner at least a smidgeon of respect from you for refraining from such.
Take care.
What is your modus operandi then. To tell the truth? THEN TELL IT!
Tell boit that you do not know if there is a God or not!
That's all I want, even from agnostics. To stand up and tell the truth! Tell them that there is currently NO WAY to know if god exists!!! You only "feel" that he does.
Certainly NOT my "modus operandi"...in case you haven't noticed. I trust that I'll garner at least a smidgeon of respect from you for refraining from such.
Take care.
What is your modus operandi then. To tell the truth? THEN TELL IT!
Tell boit that you do not know if there is a God or not!
That's all I want, even from agnostics. To stand up and tell the truth! Tell them that there is currently NO WAY to know if god exists!!! You only "feel" that he does.
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 20 2011, 10:26 PM)
QUOTE (brucep+)
You're a nasty twit.
Thanks for the laugh. Seriously. First of all, you seem to be nastiness personified. Beyond this, you're the twit. Why didn't you also place the laughing emoticon that I included TO SHOW THAT I WAS JOKING in your "quote" of me? Nasty DECEPTIVE twit, thy name is brucep.
Actually I'm a real nice guy. Your comments weren't a joke. You were being a smarta$$. That's kinda your MO.
Thanks for the laugh. Seriously. First of all, you seem to be nastiness personified. Beyond this, you're the twit. Why didn't you also place the laughing emoticon that I included TO SHOW THAT I WAS JOKING in your "quote" of me? Nasty DECEPTIVE twit, thy name is brucep.
Actually I'm a real nice guy. Your comments weren't a joke. You were being a smarta$$. That's kinda your MO.
QUOTE (brucep+Aug 20 2011, 03:26 PM)
I was raised Episcopalian and was an altar boy until I was 14. I was present for the ordination of a very wonderful priest, Father Quinby. At 20 Father Quinby was preparing my wife and I for our marriage ceremony. I was such a prideful idiot, I told him I was now an atheist. Regretful considering how much I loved and respected him.
I'm not sure what you're saying here... Care to elaborate?
I'm not sure what you're saying here... Care to elaborate?
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+)
What is your modus operandi then. To tell the truth? THEN TELL IT!
That's exactly what I've been doing. Haven't you been paying attention?
That's exactly what I've been doing. Haven't you been paying attention?
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+)
Tell boit that you do not know if there is a God or not!
Why would you want me to lie to boit? Didn't you just tell me to tell the truth? Your schizophrenia is acting up, again, I'm afraid.
Why would you want me to lie to boit? Didn't you just tell me to tell the truth? Your schizophrenia is acting up, again, I'm afraid.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+)
That's all I want, even from agnostics. To stand up and tell the truth! Tell them that there is currently NO WAY to know if god exists!!! You only "feel" that he does.
Oh, my. You're doing it, again. Stomping your foot like a little crybaby and demanding to get your ways. That won't work with me...neither will all of your exclamation points. By the way, wasn't it you who said the following earlier today in regard to atheism:
Oh, my. You're doing it, again. Stomping your foot like a little crybaby and demanding to get your ways. That won't work with me...neither will all of your exclamation points. By the way, wasn't it you who said the following earlier today in regard to atheism:
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+)
Good deal! It’s liberating, huh?
???
You seem anything BUT "liberated" to me. In fact, you seem to be in total bondage. Not only are you a slave to the opinions of others (and you fly off the handle when they don't match your own), but you're also "irritated", questioning as to whether or not you're "sh*t out of luck" and a bunch of other self-describing things as well. Just as an FYI.
One last thing...
This recent outburst of yours reminded me of an incident from my past. I was teaching Sunday school at a church in NY several years ago and I was required to attend a meeting for all teachers once every month or so on a Wednesday evening. Well, being notoriously early, I had a little time to kill and spent it out on the streets just walking around. "Mr. Lucky" that I am, I happened upon a bunch of black men in robes and carrying clubs (literally) who were on a platform and spewing "death to the white man"...basically. I'm pretty sure that they referred to themselves as "Black Israelis", as I believe there was a banner to that effect across the bottom of their platform. Anyhow, the man with the microphone said, "Let me show you how stupid white people are!" and then he pointed to ME ("Mr. Lucky" strikes again!) and asked me a Biblical question that he didn't think that I would know the answer to. He asked me what "Edom" meant and I proceeded to shout back "red"! He was momentarily stunned, but then went on to twist the scriptures to say that "Edom" referred to "the white man" and was hated of God and demanded that I admit that my skin color was actually red to meet his twistings. When I refused, one of his group members jumped up onto the platform, ripped the microphone out of the speaker's hand and shouted towards me, "I'LL PUT A GUN TO YOUR HEAD AND THEN YOU'LL ADMIT THAT YOU'RE RED!". What can I say...I'll never die of boredom.
Well, obviously I lived. Anyhow, my point is this:
You remind me of this guy with your demands that I LIE to boit.
Have a good night.
???
You seem anything BUT "liberated" to me. In fact, you seem to be in total bondage. Not only are you a slave to the opinions of others (and you fly off the handle when they don't match your own), but you're also "irritated", questioning as to whether or not you're "sh*t out of luck" and a bunch of other self-describing things as well. Just as an FYI.
One last thing...
This recent outburst of yours reminded me of an incident from my past. I was teaching Sunday school at a church in NY several years ago and I was required to attend a meeting for all teachers once every month or so on a Wednesday evening. Well, being notoriously early, I had a little time to kill and spent it out on the streets just walking around. "Mr. Lucky" that I am, I happened upon a bunch of black men in robes and carrying clubs (literally) who were on a platform and spewing "death to the white man"...basically. I'm pretty sure that they referred to themselves as "Black Israelis", as I believe there was a banner to that effect across the bottom of their platform. Anyhow, the man with the microphone said, "Let me show you how stupid white people are!" and then he pointed to ME ("Mr. Lucky" strikes again!) and asked me a Biblical question that he didn't think that I would know the answer to. He asked me what "Edom" meant and I proceeded to shout back "red"! He was momentarily stunned, but then went on to twist the scriptures to say that "Edom" referred to "the white man" and was hated of God and demanded that I admit that my skin color was actually red to meet his twistings. When I refused, one of his group members jumped up onto the platform, ripped the microphone out of the speaker's hand and shouted towards me, "I'LL PUT A GUN TO YOUR HEAD AND THEN YOU'LL ADMIT THAT YOU'RE RED!". What can I say...I'll never die of boredom.
Well, obviously I lived. Anyhow, my point is this:You remind me of this guy with your demands that I LIE to boit.
Have a good night.
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 20 2011, 09:26 PM)
Why would you want me to lie to boit? Didn't you just tell me to tell the truth? Your schizophrenia is acting up, again, I'm afraid.
See, this is why you're a liar.
You do not under any circumstances know that God exists. You may believe to the point where you have no doubts at all, which is not the same as knowing, but we both know that's not the case, either.
You know, in your heart that you don't know that god exists, which is why you're so insistent upon claiming that you do. The funny thing is, you'd find more acceptance here and elsewhere if you'd admit it, but you're too afraid to.
Which I find incredibly amusing.
See, this is why you're a liar.
You do not under any circumstances know that God exists. You may believe to the point where you have no doubts at all, which is not the same as knowing, but we both know that's not the case, either.
You know, in your heart that you don't know that god exists, which is why you're so insistent upon claiming that you do. The funny thing is, you'd find more acceptance here and elsewhere if you'd admit it, but you're too afraid to.
Which I find incredibly amusing.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
See, this is why you're a liar.
No, this is why you're ignorant. By the way, I thought that you just finished saying that you care less about me than any human being alive (except Lui). Go away, then. Can't do it...can you? Don't worry...I'll throw you a bone every now and then to keep you around. Afterall, ignorant hecklers usually draw a crowd. Thanks for supporting my ministry.
Take care.
No, this is why you're ignorant. By the way, I thought that you just finished saying that you care less about me than any human being alive (except Lui). Go away, then. Can't do it...can you? Don't worry...I'll throw you a bone every now and then to keep you around. Afterall, ignorant hecklers usually draw a crowd. Thanks for supporting my ministry.
Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 20 2011, 09:44 PM)
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
See, this is why you're a liar.
No, this is why you're ignorant. By the way, I thought that you just finished saying that you care less about me than any human being alive (except Lui). Go away, then. Can't do it...can you? Don't worry...I'll throw you a bone every now and then to keep you around. Afterall, ignorant hecklers usually draw a crowd. Thanks for supporting my ministry.
Take care.
ignorant.
You're just priceless.
Oh, and not caring about you doesn't stop me from being entertained by you, dumbass.
No, this is why you're ignorant. By the way, I thought that you just finished saying that you care less about me than any human being alive (except Lui). Go away, then. Can't do it...can you? Don't worry...I'll throw you a bone every now and then to keep you around. Afterall, ignorant hecklers usually draw a crowd. Thanks for supporting my ministry.
Take care.
ignorant. You're just priceless.
Oh, and not caring about you doesn't stop me from being entertained by you, dumbass.
Whoops...I forgot something:
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
The funny thing is, you'd find more acceptance here and elsewhere if you'd admit it, but you're too afraid to.
What makes you think that I'm the least bit interested in "finding acceptance here or elsewhere"? Frankly, I couldn't care less as to whether or not any of you (and I mean ANY of you) "accept me" or not. For the umpteenth time, I am not the issue here. "Afraid"? Me? Sorry, friend, but those days are long past. You might want to speak to some of the blowhards on this forum about being "afraid", though. You know...some of the foot-stomping crybabies with either no balls or backbone to take what they profess OFFLINE. Just a suggestion. Now, I'm ready for bed.
Good night.
What makes you think that I'm the least bit interested in "finding acceptance here or elsewhere"? Frankly, I couldn't care less as to whether or not any of you (and I mean ANY of you) "accept me" or not. For the umpteenth time, I am not the issue here. "Afraid"? Me? Sorry, friend, but those days are long past. You might want to speak to some of the blowhards on this forum about being "afraid", though. You know...some of the foot-stomping crybabies with either no balls or backbone to take what they profess OFFLINE. Just a suggestion. Now, I'm ready for bed.
Good night.
QUOTE (newguy+)
This recent outburst of yours reminded me of an incident from my past. I was teaching Sunday school at a church in NY several years ago and I was required to attend a meeting for all teachers once every month or so on a Wednesday evening. Well, being notoriously early, I had a little time to kill and spent it out on the streets just walking around. "Mr. Lucky" that I am, I happened upon a bunch of black men in robes and carrying clubs (literally) who were on a platform and spewing "death to the white man"...basically. I'm pretty sure that they referred to themselves as "Black Israelis", as I believe there was a banner to that effect across the bottom of their platform. Anyhow, the man with the microphone said, "Let me show you how stupid white people are!" and then he pointed to ME ("Mr. Lucky" strikes again!) and asked me a Biblical question that he didn't think that I would know the answer to. He asked me what "Edom" meant and I proceeded to shout back "red"! He was momentarily stunned, but then went on to twist the scriptures to say that "Edom" referred to "the white man" and was hated of God and demanded that I admit that my skin color was actually red to meet his twistings. When I refused, one of his group members jumped up onto the platform, ripped the microphone out of the speaker's hand and shouted towards me, "I'LL PUT A GUN TO YOUR HEAD AND THEN YOU'LL ADMIT THAT YOU'RE RED!". What can I say...I'll never die of boredom. Well, obviously I lived.
QUOTE (newguy+)
As I just mentioned on another thread recently, I used to date a Russian JEWESS. I not only loved her dearly, but I've had NUMEROUS Jewish (and Muslim, Roman Catholic, etc., etc.) friends throughout my lifetime. In fact, I just spoke to one of them (a Jew) yesterday. Gets you "right there", doesn't it? Well, I wouldn't want this tread to be about "me"...even though that's all that some of YOU seem capable of talking about.
Wow! And here I thought you were a bigot. I'm embarrassed. Silly me. My face is red.
I didn’t realize that you actually have friends who are Russian, Jewish, or atheists. And you outsmarted a group of BLACK Israelis, eh? Good for you Mr. WHITE Lucky man.
Do you have any Hispanic, Japanese, or Chinese friends? How about a gay friend? You have to have a token gay friend.
Didn't they teach you that in Sunday school? 
Wow! And here I thought you were a bigot. I'm embarrassed. Silly me. My face is red.
I didn’t realize that you actually have friends who are Russian, Jewish, or atheists. And you outsmarted a group of BLACK Israelis, eh? Good for you Mr. WHITE Lucky man.
Do you have any Hispanic, Japanese, or Chinese friends? How about a gay friend? You have to have a token gay friend.
Didn't they teach you that in Sunday school?
In biology we are taught that at certain age in life most animals are capable of procreating. If you embark on a spiritual journey (you have to make the effort) you'll reach a stage of spiritual growth where just deeply believing will turn to knowing. The cognitive software will be installed in you so to speak. What proof do I have for this? I have seen people change for the better and to whom do the give credit? You guessed right.
Those who have set out on journey to atheism seem to benefit nobody but themselves. Maybe they benefit a few near them as evidenced by RC but it is not their atheism per se that benefits these souls but rather the charity. With words alone I doubt if they can change a single individual for the better, let alone humanity.
PS. I know (substitue with deeply believe if you're an atheist reading this) there is a deity. What I don't know is the answers to all the questions atheists pose. If there is anything like one man religion then I follow my own. This may just be past of the spiritual journey. As synth said, a theistic world view is not dependent upon a specific religion. I promise not to co-opt anyone's goodness to any god. Peace.
Those who have set out on journey to atheism seem to benefit nobody but themselves. Maybe they benefit a few near them as evidenced by RC but it is not their atheism per se that benefits these souls but rather the charity. With words alone I doubt if they can change a single individual for the better, let alone humanity.
PS. I know (substitue with deeply believe if you're an atheist reading this) there is a deity. What I don't know is the answers to all the questions atheists pose. If there is anything like one man religion then I follow my own. This may just be past of the spiritual journey. As synth said, a theistic world view is not dependent upon a specific religion. I promise not to co-opt anyone's goodness to any god. Peace.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 21 2011, 02:11 AM)
I'm not sure what you're saying here... Care to elaborate?
I went from being an alter boy at 14 to an atheist at 20. There really was no reason to tell Father Quinby that at that time so if I had it to do over again I probably would have kept it to myself.
I went from being an alter boy at 14 to an atheist at 20. There really was no reason to tell Father Quinby that at that time so if I had it to do over again I probably would have kept it to myself.
Rejoice O daughter of Zion; shout O daughter of Jerusalem: behold thy king cometh unto thee: [is] just, and having salvation; lowly and riding upon an ***, and upon a colt the foal of an ***. [KJV].
Is any of your ready to open your heart for the King to enter? Or have I cast pearls . . . .
Is any of your ready to open your heart for the King to enter? Or have I cast pearls . . . .
QUOTE (Jesuit+Aug 21 2011, 01:29 AM)
Rejoice O daughter of Zion; shout O daughter of Jerusalem: behold thy king cometh unto thee: [is] just, and having salvation; lowly and riding upon an ***, and upon a colt the foal of an ***. [KJV].
Watch your language. Swearing is not allowed.
Watch your language. Swearing is not allowed.
Did I swear? You quoted just the text, not my words. It didn't come out clear though (what is it with all those asteriks). This is the quote from Zechariah 9:9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...3A9&version=KJV
There seems to be a problem with the forum's. So many error messages showing.
There seems to be a problem with the forum's. So many error messages showing.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 20 2011, 08:39 PM)
...full of ѕhit
Do other guys spell it 'sh!t' or 'sh*t' out of politeness or they just haven't mastered how to sneak in these censored words? My condolence to Jesuit who meant no harm in calling a donkey by another name. Stick to NIV in future. Anyway *** happens. LOL.
PS. There is a site that actually shows you how to do just that i.e. write censored words in uncensored way. Out of civility and etiquette I'm not going to reveal it.
Do other guys spell it 'sh!t' or 'sh*t' out of politeness or they just haven't mastered how to sneak in these censored words? My condolence to Jesuit who meant no harm in calling a donkey by another name. Stick to NIV in future. Anyway *** happens. LOL.
PS. There is a site that actually shows you how to do just that i.e. write censored words in uncensored way. Out of civility and etiquette I'm not going to reveal it.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+)
Wow! And here I thought you were a bigot. I'm embarrassed. Silly me. My face is red.
I didn’t realize that you actually have friends who are Russian, Jewish, or atheists. And you outsmarted a group of BLACK Israelis, eh? Good for you Mr. WHITE Lucky man.
Do you have any Hispanic, Japanese, or Chinese friends? How about a gay friend? You have to have a token gay friend. Didn't they teach you that in Sunday school?
NymphaeaAlba: Is this supposed to be some more of your humor/sarcasm? If it is, then I really don't get it. Anyhow, by way of reminder, I'm married to a black Latino woman from Panama...if that helps you in any way. Incidentally, I only think of/refer to her as being "black" or Latino when I have to describe her to others. IOW, to me, she's my wife and her color or ethnicity means little to nothing to me...except when it comes to her delicious ethnic cooking, of course. It's rather ironic, by the way, that you should accuse me of not listening to you when you're the one who is constantly trying to remold me and fashion me into an object of your own bigotry. No worries, though...I'm used to that around here. Doesn't faze me in the least.
Take care.
P.S. If your face really is "red", then you might want to avoid any black Israelis...especially the ones with clubs or guns.
I didn’t realize that you actually have friends who are Russian, Jewish, or atheists. And you outsmarted a group of BLACK Israelis, eh? Good for you Mr. WHITE Lucky man.
Do you have any Hispanic, Japanese, or Chinese friends? How about a gay friend? You have to have a token gay friend. Didn't they teach you that in Sunday school?
NymphaeaAlba: Is this supposed to be some more of your humor/sarcasm? If it is, then I really don't get it. Anyhow, by way of reminder, I'm married to a black Latino woman from Panama...if that helps you in any way. Incidentally, I only think of/refer to her as being "black" or Latino when I have to describe her to others. IOW, to me, she's my wife and her color or ethnicity means little to nothing to me...except when it comes to her delicious ethnic cooking, of course. It's rather ironic, by the way, that you should accuse me of not listening to you when you're the one who is constantly trying to remold me and fashion me into an object of your own bigotry. No worries, though...I'm used to that around here. Doesn't faze me in the least.
Take care.
P.S. If your face really is "red", then you might want to avoid any black Israelis...especially the ones with clubs or guns.
QUOTE (Jesuit+)
Did I swear?
Jesuit: Certain words will automatically be replaced by asterisks on this forum. In the future, if you need to say @ss, then you'll have to do so creatively, such as a$$.
Jesuit: Certain words will automatically be replaced by asterisks on this forum. In the future, if you need to say @ss, then you'll have to do so creatively, such as a$$.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 20 2011, 08:27 AM)
You're really going to rely on a semantic argument here? You're going to pretend to speak for newguy's intentions (displaying your psychic powers again, are we?) by claiming that since he didn't use a specific phrase, my whole argument is invalid?
There's nothing semantic about what was actually said, and since newguy has already verified that he indeed didn't intend to imply what you thought, apparently it is you who was flexing your psychic muscles. The entirety of your accusation is called projection. Know thy self.
You might try keeping it in context instead of quote-mining to suit your purpose.
You might try keeping it in context instead of quote-mining to suit your purpose.
By the way, your comments certainly seem to indicate that you view a man who would destroy his marriage and family through adultery as "a scumbag". Why so...in your worldview?
Notice the question which preceded? Now if you're insecure about the moral implications of your world view, I can see why you'd prefer to go on the offensive rather than just answer the question. Otherwise, there seems to be a genuine question about the discrepancy between animal and human moral behavior. This doesn't imply that atheists are immoral, only that there seems to be a disparity that requires explanation.
Sure, instinctive reaction is different from evolutionary selection, as evolutionary selection is what forms instinct, and thus instinctual responses are merely an extension of natural selection. Otherwise predation wouldn't factor into evolution.
Sure, instinctive reaction is different from evolutionary selection, as evolutionary selection is what forms instinct, and thus instinctual responses are merely an extension of natural selection. Otherwise predation wouldn't factor into evolution.
Way to dodge that having nothing to do with the point you were making, imbecile.
Ahh, I retract that particular insult. You were correct about one thing, in that the link I posted was not the link I intended to post. (This happens when you bookmark everything interesting).
If I assume your sincerity, perhaps you should better consider your abundant insults. But either way, just goes to show that mine is verified.
Good, evidence of species identity confusion. You finally provide something useful to furthering the discussion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXR2xZrF5SA First, this footage has obviously been edited. When the impala's head is shown coming out of the hippos mouth, and still held up, this is just the footage of the hippo taking its head into its mouth but reversed. Painfully obvious, and it "ends" with the same "nuzzle" that the forward action began with. So the impala was obviously in better shape before the hippo bit(?) its head, as afterward it doesn't manage to raise its head as much again. Just clever editing to weave a little fiction.
Second: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippopotamus#Aggression
Good, evidence of species identity confusion. You finally provide something useful to furthering the discussion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXR2xZrF5SA First, this footage has obviously been edited. When the impala's head is shown coming out of the hippos mouth, and still held up, this is just the footage of the hippo taking its head into its mouth but reversed. Painfully obvious, and it "ends" with the same "nuzzle" that the forward action began with. So the impala was obviously in better shape before the hippo bit(?) its head, as afterward it doesn't manage to raise its head as much again. Just clever editing to weave a little fiction.
Second: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippopotamus#Aggression
Frequent targets of their aggression include crocodiles, which often inhabit the same river habitat as hippos.
So nothing necessarily heartwarming nor definitively indicative of morals. Just a hippo doing what hippos are known to do. Although I suppose you'll now tell me that that was hippo-Kevorkian. It's all just foolish and overly anthropomorphous. And if that simple video editing trick is what passes for evidence to you...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpfvkeo0KBc This leopard (female) obviously confuses mothering/predatory behaviors, perhaps exacerbated by being full off the baby baboon's mother. Hunger drives predatory behavior, and in its stead the females mothering instincts kick in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD5bCNvAihU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion#Reproduc..._and_life_cycle
There's nothing semantic about what was actually said, and since newguy has already verified that he indeed didn't intend to imply what you thought, apparently it is you who was flexing your psychic muscles. The entirety of your accusation is called projection. Know thy self.
QUOTE
Let me clear this up for you, numbnuts: When newguy said "Afterall, according to you, we're all just animals, right? Other animals have many "conquests", don't they?" the immediate and unambiguous meaning (not even implication, but meaning) was an accusation that atheism rejects monogamy because atheism doesn't include dictates from a higher being not to cheat on your wife. That's specifically denying that atheist have morals, in at least one matter.
You might try keeping it in context instead of quote-mining to suit your purpose.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Let me clear this up for you, numbnuts: When newguy said "Afterall, according to you, we're all just animals, right? Other animals have many "conquests", don't they?" the immediate and unambiguous meaning (not even implication, but meaning) was an accusation that atheism rejects monogamy because atheism doesn't include dictates from a higher being not to cheat on your wife. That's specifically denying that atheist have morals, in at least one matter. |
You might try keeping it in context instead of quote-mining to suit your purpose.
By the way, your comments certainly seem to indicate that you view a man who would destroy his marriage and family through adultery as "a scumbag". Why so...in your worldview?
Notice the question which preceded? Now if you're insecure about the moral implications of your world view, I can see why you'd prefer to go on the offensive rather than just answer the question. Otherwise, there seems to be a genuine question about the discrepancy between animal and human moral behavior. This doesn't imply that atheists are immoral, only that there seems to be a disparity that requires explanation.
QUOTE
Wow, you really don't have any clue what I was actually saying, or draw any distinction between a human instinctive reaction and an evolutionary 'choice'. This is priceless. I mean, this displays such a phenomenal level of stupidity that I'm actually going to copy and paste this into a word document so I can save it for later reading.
Sure, instinctive reaction is different from evolutionary selection, as evolutionary selection is what forms instinct, and thus instinctual responses are merely an extension of natural selection. Otherwise predation wouldn't factor into evolution.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Wow, you really don't have any clue what I was actually saying, or draw any distinction between a human instinctive reaction and an evolutionary 'choice'. This is priceless. I mean, this displays such a phenomenal level of stupidity that I'm actually going to copy and paste this into a word document so I can save it for later reading. |
Sure, instinctive reaction is different from evolutionary selection, as evolutionary selection is what forms instinct, and thus instinctual responses are merely an extension of natural selection. Otherwise predation wouldn't factor into evolution.
QUOTE (me+)
Way to dodge that having nothing to do with the point you were making, imbecile.
Ahh, I retract that particular insult. You were correct about one thing, in that the link I posted was not the link I intended to post. (This happens when you bookmark everything interesting).
If I assume your sincerity, perhaps you should better consider your abundant insults. But either way, just goes to show that mine is verified.
QUOTE
Try these links, instead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXR2xZrF5SA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpfvkeo0KBc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD5bCNvAihU
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/...from-wrong.html
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal...y-about-animals
(the last one is the one I intended to post ) wink.gif
Also, some animals even have Death Rituals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXR2xZrF5SA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpfvkeo0KBc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD5bCNvAihU
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/...from-wrong.html
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal...y-about-animals
(the last one is the one I intended to post ) wink.gif
Also, some animals even have Death Rituals.
Good, evidence of species identity confusion. You finally provide something useful to furthering the discussion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXR2xZrF5SA First, this footage has obviously been edited. When the impala's head is shown coming out of the hippos mouth, and still held up, this is just the footage of the hippo taking its head into its mouth but reversed. Painfully obvious, and it "ends" with the same "nuzzle" that the forward action began with. So the impala was obviously in better shape before the hippo bit(?) its head, as afterward it doesn't manage to raise its head as much again. Just clever editing to weave a little fiction.
Second: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippopotamus#Aggression
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Try these links, instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXR2xZrF5SA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpfvkeo0KBc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD5bCNvAihU http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/...from-wrong.html http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal...y-about-animals (the last one is the one I intended to post ) wink.gif Also, some animals even have Death Rituals. |
Good, evidence of species identity confusion. You finally provide something useful to furthering the discussion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXR2xZrF5SA First, this footage has obviously been edited. When the impala's head is shown coming out of the hippos mouth, and still held up, this is just the footage of the hippo taking its head into its mouth but reversed. Painfully obvious, and it "ends" with the same "nuzzle" that the forward action began with. So the impala was obviously in better shape before the hippo bit(?) its head, as afterward it doesn't manage to raise its head as much again. Just clever editing to weave a little fiction.
Second: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippopotamus#Aggression
Frequent targets of their aggression include crocodiles, which often inhabit the same river habitat as hippos.
So nothing necessarily heartwarming nor definitively indicative of morals. Just a hippo doing what hippos are known to do. Although I suppose you'll now tell me that that was hippo-Kevorkian. It's all just foolish and overly anthropomorphous. And if that simple video editing trick is what passes for evidence to you...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpfvkeo0KBc This leopard (female) obviously confuses mothering/predatory behaviors, perhaps exacerbated by being full off the baby baboon's mother. Hunger drives predatory behavior, and in its stead the females mothering instincts kick in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD5bCNvAihU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion#Reproduc..._and_life_cycle
QUOTE (^+)
For instance, lionesses in a pride often synchronise their reproductive cycles so that they cooperate in the raising and suckling of the young (once the cubs are past the initial stage of isolation with their mother), who suckle indiscriminately from any or all of the nursing females in the pride.
So a lioness is already predisposed to "adopt", nurture, and even suckle babies that are not her own, and exacerbated by a full stomach, may have their mothering instincts imprint upon anything resembling a baby cub.
Notice in the comments: "I saw the full story a few years ago on Animal Planet. She ended up adopting six oryx calves within a year." So having imprinted on one, perhaps never having cubs of her own, she continued to follow that pattern.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal...y-about-animals
So a lioness is already predisposed to "adopt", nurture, and even suckle babies that are not her own, and exacerbated by a full stomach, may have their mothering instincts imprint upon anything resembling a baby cub.
Notice in the comments: "I saw the full story a few years ago on Animal Planet. She ended up adopting six oryx calves within a year." So having imprinted on one, perhaps never having cubs of her own, she continued to follow that pattern.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal...y-about-animals
QUOTE (^+)
Peterson offers a simple functional definition of morality: "The function of morality ... is to negotiate inherent serious conflict between self and others."
While I don't think this is a good, universal definition of morality, as it is moral relativism, it does draw attention to the crux of the disparity between animal and man. If animal "morality" is assumed "to negotiate inherent serious conflict between self and others", then it has no analogue to human self-sacrifice, or risk of such, to save a member of an already conflicting group. The intent to negotiate doesn't justify the risk where negotiation is precluded from success.
Man has been known to do what is considered to be more universally right regardless of all even known and imminent consequences. Aside from the very obvious problem of definitively determining the intent of an animal, we have never observed then to display such behavior.
So all of this, lacking any hard evidence, merely falls into the category of anthropomorphic idealism, or confirmation bias hoping to find a basis for morality where a specific world view cannot otherwise account for one.
ANY intervention would interfere with the accomplishment of that purpose, as I've already clearly explained that ANY intervention would have a multiplicative effect as each subsequent individual in the chain of interacts will a similar number of people, increasing the effect of the intervention almost without bounds.
I don't disagree with that. But, I recognize that non-intervention has the EXACT SAME EFFECT.
No, the "EXACT SAME EFFECT" of divine interventions would be the injection of causes that cannot be found to originate within the system. Very much inline with inherited intervention, as I described to RC, where human morality is concerned.
What, do you think religion is nothing but a set of scriptures? Without the people, you'd have absolutely no reason to criticize religion at all, as it'd be mere poetry, so it is self-defeating to every anti-religious argument of an atheist to attempt to distance the two. Imbecile.
What, do you think religion is nothing but a set of scriptures? Without the people, you'd have absolutely no reason to criticize religion at all, as it'd be mere poetry, so it is self-defeating to every anti-religious argument of an atheist to attempt to distance the two. Imbecile.
However, the existence of religion puts an impetus upon others to respect the beliefs which a crazy person uses to justify their behavior, which is bad. We should not be expected to show any more respect to those beliefs than we should to non-religious extremist beliefs (such as the KKK espouses).
So where is your outrage against science? You are a fool if you think science has never been used to justify atrocious behavior. If your rational is good for religion then it is equally good for every other justification ever used. So quit making idiotically broad generalizations.
While I don't think this is a good, universal definition of morality, as it is moral relativism, it does draw attention to the crux of the disparity between animal and man. If animal "morality" is assumed "to negotiate inherent serious conflict between self and others", then it has no analogue to human self-sacrifice, or risk of such, to save a member of an already conflicting group. The intent to negotiate doesn't justify the risk where negotiation is precluded from success.
Man has been known to do what is considered to be more universally right regardless of all even known and imminent consequences. Aside from the very obvious problem of definitively determining the intent of an animal, we have never observed then to display such behavior.
So all of this, lacking any hard evidence, merely falls into the category of anthropomorphic idealism, or confirmation bias hoping to find a basis for morality where a specific world view cannot otherwise account for one.
QUOTE (MP+)
QUOTE (me+)
ANY intervention would interfere with the accomplishment of that purpose, as I've already clearly explained that ANY intervention would have a multiplicative effect as each subsequent individual in the chain of interacts will a similar number of people, increasing the effect of the intervention almost without bounds.
I don't disagree with that. But, I recognize that non-intervention has the EXACT SAME EFFECT.
No, the "EXACT SAME EFFECT" of divine interventions would be the injection of causes that cannot be found to originate within the system. Very much inline with inherited intervention, as I described to RC, where human morality is concerned.
QUOTE
Religion has never been informed by science. Religious people have, and there's a difference.
What, do you think religion is nothing but a set of scriptures? Without the people, you'd have absolutely no reason to criticize religion at all, as it'd be mere poetry, so it is self-defeating to every anti-religious argument of an atheist to attempt to distance the two.
Imbecile. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Religion has never been informed by science. Religious people have, and there's a difference. |
What, do you think religion is nothing but a set of scriptures? Without the people, you'd have absolutely no reason to criticize religion at all, as it'd be mere poetry, so it is self-defeating to every anti-religious argument of an atheist to attempt to distance the two.
Imbecile. However, the existence of religion puts an impetus upon others to respect the beliefs which a crazy person uses to justify their behavior, which is bad. We should not be expected to show any more respect to those beliefs than we should to non-religious extremist beliefs (such as the KKK espouses).
So where is your outrage against science? You are a fool if you think science has never been used to justify atrocious behavior. If your rational is good for religion then it is equally good for every other justification ever used. So quit making idiotically broad generalizations.
QUOTE (MP to newguy+)
There is NO meaningful interpretation of your post which doesn't rely upon your assumption that atheism doesn't provide for a moral basis in at least one area.
Not if you're so insecure you cannot see the question clearly asked. Care to answer it now? Of course you are free to keep mocking it. Humor is an oft-used defense mechanism.
_______________________________________________________________
newguy,
Don't get me wrong, as I try to maintain any goodwill attained with people who have been in conflict with me (like I tried with Bruce for quite a while), but like MP posted a new thread to point out, your agreement is not always welcomed. If expressing it suits your own purposes, so be it. Just don't do so on my account.
Thanks.
_______________________________________________________________
Said the control freak who left this forum to start his own, tried to steal most of the sheep from this flock and then sacrificed most of them on his altar of self by banning them.
Still sore about that, are we?
MP has a forum? Ooh, ooh, can I join and get banned?
_______________________________________________________________
Not if you're so insecure you cannot see the question clearly asked. Care to answer it now? Of course you are free to keep mocking it. Humor is an oft-used defense mechanism.
_______________________________________________________________
newguy,
Don't get me wrong, as I try to maintain any goodwill attained with people who have been in conflict with me (like I tried with Bruce for quite a while), but like MP posted a new thread to point out, your agreement is not always welcomed. If expressing it suits your own purposes, so be it. Just don't do so on my account.
Thanks.
_______________________________________________________________
QUOTE (MP+)
QUOTE (newguy @ Aug 20 2011+ 12:41 PM)
Said the control freak who left this forum to start his own, tried to steal most of the sheep from this flock and then sacrificed most of them on his altar of self by banning them.
Still sore about that, are we?
MP has a forum? Ooh, ooh, can I join and get banned?
_______________________________________________________________
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
If the only Christian religion was Unitarian/Universalist, there really would be little debate, and it would be rational, friendly, and over dinner with beer/wine.
Really? You mean atheists can resist ridiculing someone's search for spiritual, and even transcendent, growth, often espousing any number of theologies/ideologies? If so then it would seem that their problem is of a more interpersonal nature.
_______________________________________________________________
Really? You mean atheists can resist ridiculing someone's search for spiritual, and even transcendent, growth, often espousing any number of theologies/ideologies? If so then it would seem that their problem is of a more interpersonal nature.
_______________________________________________________________
QUOTE (bruce+)
Sums it up nicely:
"You have so intimately tied yourself to your idea of ... that your idea is more important than the truth.'
Same for all crackpots, debate trolls, etc..
Yep, fitting for impotent little trolls.
______________________________________________________________
"You have so intimately tied yourself to your idea of ... that your idea is more important than the truth.'
Same for all crackpots, debate trolls, etc..
Yep, fitting for impotent little trolls.
______________________________________________________________
QUOTE (RC+)
To the forum at large....
Really? More of this fiction? Look, just because you are too insecure to address me directly, where you'd be expected to own up to your faulty rationalizations, doesn't mean you need to lie to everyone. No one buys that you are addressing anyone but me, as your reply soundhertz, mostly addressed to me, demonstrated.
You go from hedging a specific description of a God to hedging that you are addressing me at all. But perhaps you are delusional enough to think this ploy has any bearing whatsoever. The mad man retreating into his own mind.
Yet again, you completely ignore this post of mine (quoted below) which clearly answers your "observation". Here, I'll even type it so you won't have the excuse of inadvertently omitting from your quote of my post.
QUOTE(me)
If a God originated everything then it is only logically consistent to consider your actions as an extension of that origination. No disconnect at all. {Notice the inherited intervention rather than direct, which in no way interferes with freewill}
Evil is a possible side effect of the greater good of allowing freewill. Assuming a God's will is for that greatest good, it must allow errant freewill to maintain that greater good. It is only a matter of perspective on whether you'd attribute evil to that God, based on what you believe as its nature. (And let's hear some complaining about me leaving out the "or not" here, since you're so worked up about it.)
It's called confirmation bias, where you see only that which affirms your assumptions. That is not observing reality, and since you have now missed what I said there twice, it is obvious that your meager powers of perception (isn't it you who was always bellyaching about you eyes?) simple make you incapable of accurate observation.
Note the increasing abundance of ad hominem (and no, MP, ad hominem doesn't simply mean insult; look it up) statements with absolutely no substantiation for your DEFINITIVELY UNREASONED "SELF-EVIDENT" EVIDENCE AND HYPOCRITICALLY UNILATERAL APPLICATION OF THE "ESPOUSED" HEDGE YOU INTRODUCED.
Whether the "due diligence" you so tout is beyond you, having ignored my answer twice now, it is obvious that you are just forwarding ad hominem lies to avoid answering for the major discrepancies in your own paranoid rationalizations.
You have provided absolutely no falsification, as you refuse to substantiate your "self-evident" evident nor your hypocritical exploitation of a hedge you introduced.
Yet again, you completely ignore this post of mine (quoted below) which clearly answers your "observation". Here, I'll even type it so you won't have the excuse of inadvertently omitting from your quote of my post.
QUOTE(me)
If a God originated everything then it is only logically consistent to consider your actions as an extension of that origination. No disconnect at all. {Notice the inherited intervention rather than direct, which in no way interferes with freewill}
Evil is a possible side effect of the greater good of allowing freewill. Assuming a God's will is for that greatest good, it must allow errant freewill to maintain that greater good. It is only a matter of perspective on whether you'd attribute evil to that God, based on what you believe as its nature. (And let's hear some complaining about me leaving out the "or not" here, since you're so worked up about it.)
It's called confirmation bias, where you see only that which affirms your assumptions. That is not observing reality, and since you have now missed what I said there twice, it is obvious that your meager powers of perception (isn't it you who was always bellyaching about you eyes?) simple make you incapable of accurate observation.
Note the increasing abundance of ad hominem (and no, MP, ad hominem doesn't simply mean insult; look it up) statements with absolutely no substantiation for your DEFINITIVELY UNREASONED "SELF-EVIDENT" EVIDENCE AND HYPOCRITICALLY UNILATERAL APPLICATION OF THE "ESPOUSED" HEDGE YOU INTRODUCED.
Whether the "due diligence" you so tout is beyond you, having ignored my answer twice now, it is obvious that you are just forwarding ad hominem lies to avoid answering for the major discrepancies in your own paranoid rationalizations.
You have provided absolutely no falsification, as you refuse to substantiate your "self-evident" evident nor your hypocritical exploitation of a hedge you introduced.
Please note also his insistence that I must somehow allow for the existence of such a god before I can point to the reality that ipso facto denies that existence. Can there be any greater non-sequitur than that insistence?
I never implied any such thing. You are a delusional fool. I said that, if you want to use innocents suffering (as I know if I just say "suffering" you'd go off about the difference again) as evidence against a God existing, you must assume a God IF IT EXISTED to be responsible. You are simply mentally handicapped if you cannot follow that very simple logic. You cannot use one thing to exclude another unless that have some relation.
Really? Then why do you keep responding to every single response to you? Seriously, does ANYONE buy this sham?
________________________________________________________
Really? Then why do you keep responding to every single response to you? Seriously, does ANYONE buy this sham?
________________________________________________________
This is Synthsin75's argument towards atheism. Synthsin75 argues that atheists are irrational because we are rude and condescending
Nope. I think you are irrational because you misrepresent science with your own specific confirmation bias.
Let's see some hard science to back up that statement then, or will you hedge over the degree of "vastness"?
Let's see some hard science to back up that statement then, or will you hedge over the degree of "vastness"?
We deserve to be loved, accepted, and tolerated.
Of these, the only one people may innately deserve would be to be tolerated, but evolution even excludes that.
I'm not shaming you into silence, you perpetual victim. I am shaming you into arguing on the merits of "your intellect and sense of humanity" you just touted.
I'm not shaming you into silence, you perpetual victim. I am shaming you into arguing on the merits of "your intellect and sense of humanity" you just touted.
Don’t try to denigrate one side of a discussion by merely stating that we are being rude because we oppose.
Nonsense. I've clearly criticized both sides for "being rude", and not for merely "opposing". See, this is exactly how fundamentalists twist things around to justify their own ends.
BS.
BS.
My signature represents who I am. I listen. I’m interested in knowing you and all that you know. Does anyone feel otherwise?
As you have demonstrated above, listening and hearing are two very different things.
Define what "freedom from religion" is. Is it no one allowed to express their religion in public? Are you going to wear an armband to identify yourself as someone the religious cannot approach? User posted image: User posted image
Define your terms.
Define what "freedom from religion" is. Is it no one allowed to express their religion in public? Are you going to wear an armband to identify yourself as someone the religious cannot approach? User posted image: User posted image
Define your terms.
Am I not to be tolerated, or am I...just as synthsin75 said, "ѕhit out of luck”???
Probably as much as you, yourself, are tolerant. And I said "SOL". Why can't you represent anything accurately?
_______________________________________________________
Really? More of this fiction? Look, just because you are too insecure to address me directly, where you'd be expected to own up to your faulty rationalizations, doesn't mean you need to lie to everyone. No one buys that you are addressing anyone but me, as your reply soundhertz, mostly addressed to me, demonstrated.
You go from hedging a specific description of a God to hedging that you are addressing me at all. But perhaps you are delusional enough to think this ploy has any bearing whatsoever. The mad man retreating into his own mind.
QUOTE
I draw your attention to the fact that synthsin75 has no real answer to the observation I made that he tried (for whatever rationalisation of his own as a supposed 'moderate' without 'any horse in this race' etc) to dishonestly and without foundation illogically co-opt my and others' good for some god or other espoused in the religious rationalisations which are falsified by the reality of the true innocents I have merely pointed to, and which therefore requires no 'allowance' as to that god's existence from ME as the objective observer of that falsifying reality.
Yet again, you completely ignore this post of mine (quoted below) which clearly answers your "observation". Here, I'll even type it so you won't have the excuse of inadvertently omitting from your quote of my post.
QUOTE(me)
If a God originated everything then it is only logically consistent to consider your actions as an extension of that origination. No disconnect at all. {Notice the inherited intervention rather than direct, which in no way interferes with freewill}
Evil is a possible side effect of the greater good of allowing freewill. Assuming a God's will is for that greatest good, it must allow errant freewill to maintain that greater good. It is only a matter of perspective on whether you'd attribute evil to that God, based on what you believe as its nature. (And let's hear some complaining about me leaving out the "or not" here, since you're so worked up about it.)
It's called confirmation bias, where you see only that which affirms your assumptions. That is not observing reality, and since you have now missed what I said there twice, it is obvious that your meager powers of perception (isn't it you who was always bellyaching about you eyes?) simple make you incapable of accurate observation.
Note the increasing abundance of ad hominem (and no, MP, ad hominem doesn't simply mean insult; look it up) statements with absolutely no substantiation for your DEFINITIVELY UNREASONED "SELF-EVIDENT" EVIDENCE AND HYPOCRITICALLY UNILATERAL APPLICATION OF THE "ESPOUSED" HEDGE YOU INTRODUCED.
Whether the "due diligence" you so tout is beyond you, having ignored my answer twice now, it is obvious that you are just forwarding ad hominem lies to avoid answering for the major discrepancies in your own paranoid rationalizations.
You have provided absolutely no falsification, as you refuse to substantiate your "self-evident" evident nor your hypocritical exploitation of a hedge you introduced.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I draw your attention to the fact that synthsin75 has no real answer to the observation I made that he tried (for whatever rationalisation of his own as a supposed 'moderate' without 'any horse in this race' etc) to dishonestly and without foundation illogically co-opt my and others' good for some god or other espoused in the religious rationalisations which are falsified by the reality of the true innocents I have merely pointed to, and which therefore requires no 'allowance' as to that god's existence from ME as the objective observer of that falsifying reality. |
Yet again, you completely ignore this post of mine (quoted below) which clearly answers your "observation". Here, I'll even type it so you won't have the excuse of inadvertently omitting from your quote of my post.
QUOTE(me)
If a God originated everything then it is only logically consistent to consider your actions as an extension of that origination. No disconnect at all. {Notice the inherited intervention rather than direct, which in no way interferes with freewill}
Evil is a possible side effect of the greater good of allowing freewill. Assuming a God's will is for that greatest good, it must allow errant freewill to maintain that greater good. It is only a matter of perspective on whether you'd attribute evil to that God, based on what you believe as its nature. (And let's hear some complaining about me leaving out the "or not" here, since you're so worked up about it.)
It's called confirmation bias, where you see only that which affirms your assumptions. That is not observing reality, and since you have now missed what I said there twice, it is obvious that your meager powers of perception (isn't it you who was always bellyaching about you eyes?) simple make you incapable of accurate observation.
Note the increasing abundance of ad hominem (and no, MP, ad hominem doesn't simply mean insult; look it up) statements with absolutely no substantiation for your DEFINITIVELY UNREASONED "SELF-EVIDENT" EVIDENCE AND HYPOCRITICALLY UNILATERAL APPLICATION OF THE "ESPOUSED" HEDGE YOU INTRODUCED.
Whether the "due diligence" you so tout is beyond you, having ignored my answer twice now, it is obvious that you are just forwarding ad hominem lies to avoid answering for the major discrepancies in your own paranoid rationalizations.
You have provided absolutely no falsification, as you refuse to substantiate your "self-evident" evident nor your hypocritical exploitation of a hedge you introduced.
Please note also his insistence that I must somehow allow for the existence of such a god before I can point to the reality that ipso facto denies that existence. Can there be any greater non-sequitur than that insistence?
I never implied any such thing. You are a delusional fool. I said that, if you want to use innocents suffering (as I know if I just say "suffering" you'd go off about the difference again) as evidence against a God existing, you must assume a God IF IT EXISTED to be responsible. You are simply mentally handicapped if you cannot follow that very simple logic. You cannot use one thing to exclude another unless that have some relation.
QUOTE
No one is being specifically engaged
Really? Then why do you keep responding to every single response to you? Seriously, does ANYONE buy this sham?
________________________________________________________
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No one is being specifically engaged |
Really? Then why do you keep responding to every single response to you? Seriously, does ANYONE buy this sham?
________________________________________________________
This is Synthsin75's argument towards atheism. Synthsin75 argues that atheists are irrational because we are rude and condescending
Nope. I think you are irrational because you misrepresent science with your own specific confirmation bias.
QUOTE
Christians are wrong to insist that humans and animals are vastly different
Let's see some hard science to back up that statement then, or will you hedge over the degree of "vastness"?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Christians are wrong to insist that humans and animals are vastly different |
Let's see some hard science to back up that statement then, or will you hedge over the degree of "vastness"?
We deserve to be loved, accepted, and tolerated.
Of these, the only one people may innately deserve would be to be tolerated, but evolution even excludes that.
QUOTE
The social pressure to believe in God is real. Atheists are appealing to your intellect and sense of humanity. The religious are loud, vocal, and shouting from their roof tops. People like synthsin75 are wrong to try to shame us into silence.
I'm not shaming you into silence, you perpetual victim. I am shaming you into arguing on the merits of "your intellect and sense of humanity" you just touted.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The social pressure to believe in God is real. Atheists are appealing to your intellect and sense of humanity. The religious are loud, vocal, and shouting from their roof tops. People like synthsin75 are wrong to try to shame us into silence. |
I'm not shaming you into silence, you perpetual victim. I am shaming you into arguing on the merits of "your intellect and sense of humanity" you just touted.
Don’t try to denigrate one side of a discussion by merely stating that we are being rude because we oppose.
Nonsense. I've clearly criticized both sides for "being rude", and not for merely "opposing". See, this is exactly how fundamentalists twist things around to justify their own ends.
QUOTE
We have been polite. We have listened to them.
BS.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We have been polite. We have listened to them. |
BS.
My signature represents who I am. I listen. I’m interested in knowing you and all that you know. Does anyone feel otherwise?
As you have demonstrated above, listening and hearing are two very different things.
QUOTE
Who here believes that the first amendment only grants freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion?
Define what "freedom from religion" is. Is it no one allowed to express their religion in public? Are you going to wear an armband to identify yourself as someone the religious cannot approach? User posted image: User posted image
Define your terms.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Who here believes that the first amendment only grants freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion? |
Define what "freedom from religion" is. Is it no one allowed to express their religion in public? Are you going to wear an armband to identify yourself as someone the religious cannot approach? User posted image: User posted image
Define your terms.
Am I not to be tolerated, or am I...just as synthsin75 said, "ѕhit out of luck”???
Probably as much as you, yourself, are tolerant. And I said "SOL". Why can't you represent anything accurately?
_______________________________________________________
QUOTE (impotent little troll+)
the ultimate delusion is the theist expects to be forgiven for all the crappy self serving stuff they do throughout their lives just because they believe in god.
All theists don't believe in the religion you describe here.
_______________________________________________________
All theists don't believe in the religion you describe here.
_______________________________________________________
QUOTE (RC to newguy+)
So you see, the religious experience/value was NEGATIVE
Funny how often that is the case for atheists, but you should be objective enough to realize it is not universally so. Oh wait, I forgot about your paranoia. Man, fears instilled at a young age sure are resistant.
It was your dishonestly about applying the hedge of a caring God while unilaterally refusing to allow anyone else to do so as well. Hypocrite.
It was your dishonestly about applying the hedge of a caring God while unilaterally refusing to allow anyone else to do so as well. Hypocrite.
Meanwhile the evil is NOT so co-opted for the same god/plan! So only the 'good' was the subject of my 'dishonest co-opting' observations. OK?
Liar, as I have now pointed it out to you three times that you clearly ignored where a definitely did allow for "co-opting" evil. So yet again, completely false observations.
Yes, that is all you seem capable of doing.
_____________________________________________________________
Yes, that is all you seem capable of doing.
_____________________________________________________________
Non-sense, since any theism, by definition, involves a particular theistic concept called god, and all such concepts involve the supernatural(else it does not meet the requirements of the concept).
Are you now an authority on theism? Are you very well acquainted with every conception of a God? There is nothing necessarily supernatural about the notion of an emergent God.
Oh, I have no doubt of his conviction, as conviction is often used to compensate for merit.
______________________________________________________________
Oh, I have no doubt of his conviction, as conviction is often used to compensate for merit.
______________________________________________________________
So your honest reaction to boit's and others co-optive approach to my and others' goodness is merely a confirmation of your intellect and fairmindedness that keeps me engaged with you when I have disengaged with certain others on the matters here.
He didn't qualify his reaction to include anyone else. And you obviously are only playing pretend with your "disengaging".
EXACTLY AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING THE LOGIC DICTATES, EXCEPT YOU CAN'T GET IT THROUGH YOU THICK DULL SKULL THAT EXISTENCE DOESN'T NECESSITATE INTERVENTION.
______________________________________________________________
EXACTLY AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING THE LOGIC DICTATES, EXCEPT YOU CAN'T GET IT THROUGH YOU THICK DULL SKULL THAT EXISTENCE DOESN'T NECESSITATE INTERVENTION.
______________________________________________________________
Tell them that there is currently NO WAY to know if god exists!!! You only "feel" that he does.
Do you "know" that you exist, or do you merely "feel" that you exist?
______________________________________________________________
Funny how often that is the case for atheists, but you should be objective enough to realize it is not universally so. Oh wait, I forgot about your paranoia. Man, fears instilled at a young age sure are resistant.
QUOTE
And the reason why only the 'good' is stressed as it is, is because synthsin75 (and most recently boit) dishonestly attempted to co-opt my (and as I also have stressed before: AND OTHERS') 'good' in the usual way of religious rationalisations/conditioning...string of debating, ad hominem nonsense.
It was your dishonestly about applying the hedge of a caring God while unilaterally refusing to allow anyone else to do so as well. Hypocrite.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And the reason why only the 'good' is stressed as it is, is because synthsin75 (and most recently boit) dishonestly attempted to co-opt my (and as I also have stressed before: AND OTHERS') 'good' in the usual way of religious rationalisations/conditioning...string of debating, ad hominem nonsense. |
It was your dishonestly about applying the hedge of a caring God while unilaterally refusing to allow anyone else to do so as well. Hypocrite.
Meanwhile the evil is NOT so co-opted for the same god/plan! So only the 'good' was the subject of my 'dishonest co-opting' observations. OK?
Liar, as I have now pointed it out to you three times that you clearly ignored where a definitely did allow for "co-opting" evil. So yet again, completely false observations.
QUOTE
...just skirting around the issue.
Yes, that is all you seem capable of doing.
_____________________________________________________________
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ...just skirting around the issue. |
Yes, that is all you seem capable of doing.
_____________________________________________________________
Non-sense, since any theism, by definition, involves a particular theistic concept called god, and all such concepts involve the supernatural(else it does not meet the requirements of the concept).
Are you now an authority on theism? Are you very well acquainted with every conception of a God? There is nothing necessarily supernatural about the notion of an emergent God.
QUOTE
Rather, it would seem he has no confidence in your abilities, not his conviction in the rightness of his views.
Oh, I have no doubt of his conviction, as conviction is often used to compensate for merit.
______________________________________________________________
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Rather, it would seem he has no confidence in your abilities, not his conviction in the rightness of his views. |
Oh, I have no doubt of his conviction, as conviction is often used to compensate for merit.
______________________________________________________________
So your honest reaction to boit's and others co-optive approach to my and others' goodness is merely a confirmation of your intellect and fairmindedness that keeps me engaged with you when I have disengaged with certain others on the matters here.
He didn't qualify his reaction to include anyone else. And you obviously are only playing pretend with your "disengaging".
QUOTE
Either it IS a horrible and unmerciful act of god, or it isn't and there is no god to 'blame'.
EXACTLY AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING THE LOGIC DICTATES, EXCEPT YOU CAN'T GET IT THROUGH YOU THICK DULL SKULL THAT EXISTENCE DOESN'T NECESSITATE INTERVENTION.
______________________________________________________________
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Either it IS a horrible and unmerciful act of god, or it isn't and there is no god to 'blame'. |
EXACTLY AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING THE LOGIC DICTATES, EXCEPT YOU CAN'T GET IT THROUGH YOU THICK DULL SKULL THAT EXISTENCE DOESN'T NECESSITATE INTERVENTION.
______________________________________________________________
Tell them that there is currently NO WAY to know if god exists!!! You only "feel" that he does.
Do you "know" that you exist, or do you merely "feel" that you exist?
______________________________________________________________
QUOTE (MP to newguy+)
You do not under any circumstances know that God exists. You may believe to the point where you have no doubts at all, which is not the same as knowing, but we both know that's not the case, either.
know - Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
certain - assured in mind or action
You need to distinguish between "know" and "prove".
prove - Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument
I'm sure he can honestly say he "knows" by information and subjective observation. What he can't do, nor you can do to counter him, is provide proof.
know - Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
certain - assured in mind or action
You need to distinguish between "know" and "prove".
prove - Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument
I'm sure he can honestly say he "knows" by information and subjective observation. What he can't do, nor you can do to counter him, is provide proof.
QUOTE (RC+)
Make no mistake, I have always respected you as much as I have respected anyone, ever. And that is highly. Your intellect and humanity is what comes across despite any differences we may have in the interpretation of the reality (material and 'non-material').
So your honest reaction to boit's and others co-optive approach to my and others' goodness is merely a confirmation of your intellect and fairmindedness that keeps me engaged with you when I have disengaged with certain others on the matters here.
And, as I've ofttimes stated, either publicly or privately, for whatever reasons, I genuinely like you. In fact, I wish that we were literal neighbors. That way, I could mow your law in the Spring/Summer and bean you with a snowball in the Winter. Seriously, my straightforward speech aside, I have no animosity towards you whatsoever and sincerely wish you and yours the best.
So your honest reaction to boit's and others co-optive approach to my and others' goodness is merely a confirmation of your intellect and fairmindedness that keeps me engaged with you when I have disengaged with certain others on the matters here.
And, as I've ofttimes stated, either publicly or privately, for whatever reasons, I genuinely like you. In fact, I wish that we were literal neighbors. That way, I could mow your law in the Spring/Summer and bean you with a snowball in the Winter.
Seriously, my straightforward speech aside, I have no animosity towards you whatsoever and sincerely wish you and yours the best.QUOTE (RC+)
IT appears that we are at an impasse, however. Since you are determined to be "immovable".
I'm "immovable" in my knowing of God's existence for the reasons that I've mentioned here throughout the years and many more reasons that I've never stated. Anyhow, since I'm far from omniscient, I'm not "immovable" when it comes to learning.
I'm "immovable" in my knowing of God's existence for the reasons that I've mentioned here throughout the years and many more reasons that I've never stated. Anyhow, since I'm far from omniscient, I'm not "immovable" when it comes to learning.
QUOTE (RC+)
Nevertheless I trust to your own fairminded intellect to understand and allow that my perspective is informed by the reality I point to and not by any subjective/personal considerations?
But that's the point. I totally view your perspective to be a "subjective/personal consideration"...especially in regards to the issue of whether or not God truly exists. Look, I don't discount your bad experiences with "religion" in the least. I've had them myself and probably everybody else on this forum has had them, too. But "religion" and Jesus Christ/Christianity are not necessarily the same thing. Who primarily persecuted/killed Christ? THE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. Who primarily persecuted/killed the prophets? THE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. Who primarily persecuted/killed the Apostles? THE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. Who do I have most of my genuine run-ins with? Well, you know... Anyhow, I know that you'll add that this has been your lifelong observation, but I truly believe that you closed your eyes to the big picture at any early age due to the bad taste that "religion" left in your mouth and have consequently only seen additional bad in the name of "religion". IOW, as both synthsin75 and I have suggested, you now come across as an extremist in that you only see the bad and ignore the good. For example, since you've been going on about "true innocents", what of all the "religious" people who travel to other countries as missionaries and help people with food, schooling, medicine and even ORPHANAGES. Are these people "evil", too? No need to answer...I'm just trying to make a point.
But that's the point. I totally view your perspective to be a "subjective/personal consideration"...especially in regards to the issue of whether or not God truly exists. Look, I don't discount your bad experiences with "religion" in the least. I've had them myself and probably everybody else on this forum has had them, too. But "religion" and Jesus Christ/Christianity are not necessarily the same thing. Who primarily persecuted/killed Christ? THE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. Who primarily persecuted/killed the prophets? THE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. Who primarily persecuted/killed the Apostles? THE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. Who do I have most of my genuine run-ins with? Well, you know... Anyhow, I know that you'll add that this has been your lifelong observation, but I truly believe that you closed your eyes to the big picture at any early age due to the bad taste that "religion" left in your mouth and have consequently only seen additional bad in the name of "religion". IOW, as both synthsin75 and I have suggested, you now come across as an extremist in that you only see the bad and ignore the good. For example, since you've been going on about "true innocents", what of all the "religious" people who travel to other countries as missionaries and help people with food, schooling, medicine and even ORPHANAGES. Are these people "evil", too? No need to answer...I'm just trying to make a point.
QUOTE (RC+)
Which reality does not admit the right to deny the life experience (good or bad) that every being is entitled to have for themselves without anyone pretending to speaking FOR them (ie, to the effect that it would be better dead than etc etc etc as implied by your quoted piece in your other post). The reality must speak for itself, either way.....without having to fall back on ancient rationalisations based on fear and incomprehension of what life and death are etc etc.
I only "quoted" that "piece" to offset your mindset concerning all of this "second class" business that you've been going on about lately. IOW, you seem to insist that a longer life equates with being "first class". Why then do so many people commit suicide? What about euthanasia? Have your "scientific observations" missed such a large percentage of the populace as these? Anyhow, I could have just as easily mentioned Judas Iscariot (who committed suicide, incidentally). You know, the one of whom Jesus said that it would have been better for him to not have even been born.
I only "quoted" that "piece" to offset your mindset concerning all of this "second class" business that you've been going on about lately. IOW, you seem to insist that a longer life equates with being "first class". Why then do so many people commit suicide? What about euthanasia? Have your "scientific observations" missed such a large percentage of the populace as these? Anyhow, I could have just as easily mentioned Judas Iscariot (who committed suicide, incidentally). You know, the one of whom Jesus said that it would have been better for him to not have even been born.
QUOTE (RC+)
You see, if a life is so horrible for a child to be born into and suffer and die before reaching the same opportunities you and I enjoyed to see for ourselves as adults, then the question becomes What is the 'good' in it (for them) to be conceived/born and die without any hope for such chances/choices as you and I have enjoyed as adults?
I said "vain" (vanity)...not "horrible". Anyhow, there are many who view this life as "horrible". Have you honestly never met any? I've met quite a few. Anyhow, my point was that a Christian is one who must "overcome the world", via the power of the indwelling Spirit of God, even as Christ "overcame" it. In other words, it's a battle. Literally. I was merely addressing how you seem to think that those who have missed the battle have somehow "lost out" and are therefore "second class". Anyhow, it's no big deal to me. I understand why you believe as you do, I really do, but I just have a different perspective because I have the additional "reality" of eternity before me whereas you don't. Not said in a condescending manner, but that's just the way that it apparently is.
I said "vain" (vanity)...not "horrible". Anyhow, there are many who view this life as "horrible". Have you honestly never met any? I've met quite a few. Anyhow, my point was that a Christian is one who must "overcome the world", via the power of the indwelling Spirit of God, even as Christ "overcame" it. In other words, it's a battle. Literally. I was merely addressing how you seem to think that those who have missed the battle have somehow "lost out" and are therefore "second class". Anyhow, it's no big deal to me. I understand why you believe as you do, I really do, but I just have a different perspective because I have the additional "reality" of eternity before me whereas you don't. Not said in a condescending manner, but that's just the way that it apparently is.
QUOTE (RC+)
See my perspective/observation? The religious rationalisations cannot have it both ways. Either it IS a horrible and unmerciful act of god, or it isn't and there is no god to 'blame'. It is not I myself doing the rationalisations, I merely observe the effective disenfrachisement and seeming 'better dead' rationalisation in order to cover the credibility gap in such rationalisation.
Again, the "better dead" example that I gave was strictly in relation to someone who lived a long life of vanity, saw no good and ultimately died without even a proper burial. It wasn't meant as a blanket statement, but merely as one possible refutation of this whole "second class" argument.
Again, the "better dead" example that I gave was strictly in relation to someone who lived a long life of vanity, saw no good and ultimately died without even a proper burial. It wasn't meant as a blanket statement, but merely as one possible refutation of this whole "second class" argument.
QUOTE (RC+)
And I repeat: There is no cause or requirement for me to a priori allow/believe in parameters that are, by dint of those credibility gaps observed in the religious rationalisations, not in accordance with the reality I point to.
"Believe in...a priori"? Definitely not. CONSIDER...a priori? Definitely so. Look, if you're going to attempt to "demonize" the Christian God, then you need to attempt to do so based upon what is actually written about said God. Like it or not, not only is the Christian God consistently portrayed as being ETERNAL, but the Bible consistently speaks of either ETERNAL LIFE or ETERNAL DAMNATION for individuals. With such being the case, ETERNITY is a legitimate parameter for this specific God. Disagree? Fine. Personally, I have no need to argue this point with you. As I've already testified, I have the aforementioned "earnest of the Spirit" (IOW, I'm not "believing...a priori"), so you're not about to move me an inch in this regard (or several other regards).
"Believe in...a priori"? Definitely not. CONSIDER...a priori? Definitely so. Look, if you're going to attempt to "demonize" the Christian God, then you need to attempt to do so based upon what is actually written about said God. Like it or not, not only is the Christian God consistently portrayed as being ETERNAL, but the Bible consistently speaks of either ETERNAL LIFE or ETERNAL DAMNATION for individuals. With such being the case, ETERNITY is a legitimate parameter for this specific God. Disagree? Fine. Personally, I have no need to argue this point with you. As I've already testified, I have the aforementioned "earnest of the Spirit" (IOW, I'm not "believing...a priori"), so you're not about to move me an inch in this regard (or several other regards).
QUOTE (RC+)
We must agree to disagree, because your responses are based on your 'paramters' and mine are based on the observed reality.
Not even close. Mine are based upon a lot more than just "parameters". IOW, I have plenty of "observed realities" in relation to my Christian walk. I feel no need whatsoever to rehash any of them at this stage. As I've repeatedly stated, I have no desire whatsoever for any of you to believe anything based solely upon my testimony. At the same time, however, it's a waste of time and breath for any of you to seek to disengage me from the plethora of encounters that I've had with either God or demons over the last 23 years or so. An absolute waste of time and breath.
Not even close. Mine are based upon a lot more than just "parameters". IOW, I have plenty of "observed realities" in relation to my Christian walk. I feel no need whatsoever to rehash any of them at this stage. As I've repeatedly stated, I have no desire whatsoever for any of you to believe anything based solely upon my testimony. At the same time, however, it's a waste of time and breath for any of you to seek to disengage me from the plethora of encounters that I've had with either God or demons over the last 23 years or so. An absolute waste of time and breath.
QUOTE (RC+)
So, until either you can change the reality as I have observed it and/or explain it within the parameters my intellect can reconcile with, then your 'immovability' is of no effect either way. Hence the impasse.
I cannot override your own will, nor do I have any desire to do so. The only way that your "change" can come is if you sincerely turn to God through Jesus Christ on your own. Those are the given "parameters" for change. Not interested? Your choice.
I cannot override your own will, nor do I have any desire to do so. The only way that your "change" can come is if you sincerely turn to God through Jesus Christ on your own. Those are the given "parameters" for change. Not interested? Your choice.
QUOTE (RC+)
Anyhow, I think deep down you know I am not as easily placed into a 'convenient' category as many would like to place me. And as I have observed over the years, neither are you as easily placed (at least insofar as I am concerned).
Aside from some general observations of similarities amongst atheists, I try to/tend to deal with people as individuals. I understand that you refer to yourself as a "self-made man"...in essence. That's fine, except for the included variable of "self-righteousness". Therein, my friend, lies the proverbial "rub".
Aside from some general observations of similarities amongst atheists, I try to/tend to deal with people as individuals. I understand that you refer to yourself as a "self-made man"...in essence. That's fine, except for the included variable of "self-righteousness". Therein, my friend, lies the proverbial "rub".
QUOTE (RC+)
I wish you and yours all the best; and am glad to hear that all those insurance/mold/economy etc 'life circumstances' are not causing you too much stress. Cheers and good luck, mate!
I just roll with the punches. As you've probably noticed, I don't have a "glass chin". I have noticed in increase in the amount of white hairs in my beard, though. I'm getting old...
Take care.
I just roll with the punches. As you've probably noticed, I don't have a "glass chin". I have noticed in increase in the amount of white hairs in my beard, though. I'm getting old...
Take care.
QUOTE (Synthsin75+)
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
You're really going to rely on a semantic argument here? You're going to pretend to speak for newguy's intentions (displaying your psychic powers again, are we?) by claiming that since he didn't use a specific phrase, my whole argument is invalid?
There's nothing semantic about what was actually said, and since newguy has already verified that he indeed didn't intend to imply what you thought, apparently it is you who was flexing your psychic muscles. The entirety of your accusation is called projection. Know thy self.
There's nothing semantic about what was actually said, and since newguy has already verified that he indeed didn't intend to imply what you thought, apparently it is you who was flexing your psychic muscles. The entirety of your accusation is called projection. Know thy self.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Let me clear this up for you, numbnuts: When newguy said "Afterall, according to you, we're all just animals, right? Other animals have many "conquests", don't they?" the immediate and unambiguous meaning (not even implication, but meaning) was an accusation that atheism rejects monogamy because atheism doesn't include dictates from a higher being not to cheat on your wife. That's specifically denying that atheist have morals, in at least one matter.
You might try keeping it in context instead of quote-mining to suit your purpose.
You might try keeping it in context instead of quote-mining to suit your purpose.
QUOTE (newguy+)
By the way, your comments certainly seem to indicate that you view a man who would destroy his marriage and family through adultery as "a scumbag". Why so...in your worldview?
Notice the question which preceded? Now if you're insecure about the moral implications of your world view, I can see why you'd prefer to go on the offensive rather than just answer the question. Otherwise, there seems to be a genuine question about the discrepancy between animal and human moral behavior. This doesn't imply that atheists are immoral, only that there seems to be a disparity that requires explanation.
BULL'S EYE!
There have been many times in the past where I've left off further explaining things WHICH OUGHT TO BE SELF-EVIDENT to anyone with any intelligence. Congratulations. Unlike many around here, you can actually read and comprehend what you're reading...when it doesn't personally affect you negatively, anyhow.
Notice the question which preceded? Now if you're insecure about the moral implications of your world view, I can see why you'd prefer to go on the offensive rather than just answer the question. Otherwise, there seems to be a genuine question about the discrepancy between animal and human moral behavior. This doesn't imply that atheists are immoral, only that there seems to be a disparity that requires explanation.
BULL'S EYE!
There have been many times in the past where I've left off further explaining things WHICH OUGHT TO BE SELF-EVIDENT to anyone with any intelligence. Congratulations. Unlike many around here, you can actually read and comprehend what you're reading...when it doesn't personally affect you negatively, anyhow.
QUOTE (synthsin75+)
newguy,
Don't get me wrong, as I try to maintain any goodwill attained with people who have been in conflict with me (like I tried with Bruce for quite a while), but like MP posted a new thread to point out, your agreement is not always welcomed. If expressing it suits your own purposes, so be it. Just don't do so on my account.
Thanks.
My "agreement", or lack thereof, has nothing to do with "my purposes", but rather it has to do with whether or not something is correct...regardless of who said it. No worries...I can assure you that I'm not looking for any "political, strange bedfellows".
On a sad note, it seems as if the "Three Musketeers" (you, me and MP) have disbanded.
Rats...and my wife was making brownies for our first meeting.
Pssstttttt...I had her "spike" yours and MP's...
Anyhow, I'm probably done for the next few days. I've got a ton of work to do today and then I'm on the road for 3 days after that. Later...
Don't get me wrong, as I try to maintain any goodwill attained with people who have been in conflict with me (like I tried with Bruce for quite a while), but like MP posted a new thread to point out, your agreement is not always welcomed. If expressing it suits your own purposes, so be it. Just don't do so on my account.
Thanks.
My "agreement", or lack thereof, has nothing to do with "my purposes", but rather it has to do with whether or not something is correct...regardless of who said it. No worries...I can assure you that I'm not looking for any "political, strange bedfellows".
On a sad note, it seems as if the "Three Musketeers" (you, me and MP) have disbanded.
Rats...and my wife was making brownies for our first meeting.
Pssstttttt...I had her "spike" yours and MP's...
Anyhow, I'm probably done for the next few days. I've got a ton of work to do today and then I'm on the road for 3 days after that. Later...
I forgot something...
RealityCheck: I still cannot help but notice that you've avoided my question regarding your views concerning abortion. This will be the third and final time that I ask you to please provide such. If you choose not to respond, then I'll just assume that you favor abortion and don't want to say so as to not possibly be called a HYPOCRITE for sanctioning the MURDER (in the eyes of many, such as myself) of "true innocents" yourself. Thanks.
RealityCheck: I still cannot help but notice that you've avoided my question regarding your views concerning abortion. This will be the third and final time that I ask you to please provide such. If you choose not to respond, then I'll just assume that you favor abortion and don't want to say so as to not possibly be called a HYPOCRITE for sanctioning the MURDER (in the eyes of many, such as myself) of "true innocents" yourself. Thanks.
newguy cites:
"If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he. For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness. Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: THIS HAS MORE REST THAN THE OTHER." (Ecclesiastes 6:3-5)
........................................
QUOTE (RealityCheck)
Are you tempted to choose that "short cut" for your own children?
.........................................
newguy responds:
........................................
QUOTE (RealityCheck)
Are you tempted to choose that "short cut" for your own children?
.........................................
newguy responds:
Not in the least. Perish the thought. HOWEVER...somebody else might be tempted to, so I'll do my best to prepare my children for the afterlife, come what may.
So what are you trying to convey, newguy?
....That your children will HAVE MORE REST in death than all the others who have died?
Wow! Death must be another form of sleep, huh?
QUOTE (soundhertz)
If the only Christian religion was Unitarian/Universalist, there really would be little debate, and it would be rational, friendly, and over dinner with beer/wine.
Really? You mean atheists can resist ridiculing someone's search for spiritual, and even transcendent, growth, often espousing any number of theologies/ideologies? If so then it would seem that their problem is of a more interpersonal nature.
My comment was meant to be a bit on the light side, and MP took it the way I meant. I responded to him inspired by what he said. Perhaps I was remiss for not using an appropriate smilie. U/U's are very non-confrontational. I know several (it's what my parents became post -Catholicism also); I've done audio work at a U/U church 15 minutes away from me.
But I must say, as I have both theist and atheist acquaintances in respectable numbers: In general the atheists don't broach the subject, and the theist ones do. iow, it's the theists that are on the go more, afa wanting to change someone else's perspective to their own, in my experience.
This thread has presented a picture of atheists as a confrontational group similar to fundamentalist Christians on a mission. It's a synthesized view due to the nature of the thread and how protracted it has become, thus it is not representative of the larger arena. It is certainly not representative of the atheists in my arena.
******
My comment was meant to be a bit on the light side, and MP took it the way I meant. I responded to him inspired by what he said. Perhaps I was remiss for not using an appropriate smilie. U/U's are very non-confrontational. I know several (it's what my parents became post -Catholicism also); I've done audio work at a U/U church 15 minutes away from me.
But I must say, as I have both theist and atheist acquaintances in respectable numbers: In general the atheists don't broach the subject, and the theist ones do. iow, it's the theists that are on the go more, afa wanting to change someone else's perspective to their own, in my experience.
This thread has presented a picture of atheists as a confrontational group similar to fundamentalist Christians on a mission. It's a synthesized view due to the nature of the thread and how protracted it has become, thus it is not representative of the larger arena. It is certainly not representative of the atheists in my arena.
******
I'm getting old... sad.gif
"If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he. For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness. Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: THIS HAS MORE REST THAN THE OTHER." (Ecclesiastes 6:3-5)
QUOTE
newguy Solomon said that the untimely birth that departs in darkness (obscurity) HAS MORE REST THAN the man who lived many years and begat a hundred children and found no good. Just one example.
........................................
QUOTE (RealityCheck)
Are you tempted to choose that "short cut" for your own children?
.........................................
newguy responds:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| newguy Solomon said that the untimely birth that departs in darkness (obscurity) HAS MORE REST THAN the man who lived many years and begat a hundred children and found no good. Just one example. |
........................................
QUOTE (RealityCheck)
Are you tempted to choose that "short cut" for your own children?
.........................................
newguy responds:
Not in the least. Perish the thought. HOWEVER...somebody else might be tempted to, so I'll do my best to prepare my children for the afterlife, come what may.
So what are you trying to convey, newguy?
....That your children will HAVE MORE REST in death than all the others who have died?
Wow! Death must be another form of sleep, huh?
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 21 2011, 02:35 PM)
I forgot something...
RealityCheck: I still cannot help but notice that you've avoided my question regarding your views concerning abortion. This will be the third and final time that I ask you to please provide such. If you choose not to respond, then I'll just assume that you favor abortion and don't want to say so as to not possibly be called a HYPOCRITE for sanctioning the MURDER (in the eyes of many, such as myself) of "true innocents" yourself. Thanks.
There might be circumstances where it would wise (and necessary) for the procedure.
RealityCheck: I still cannot help but notice that you've avoided my question regarding your views concerning abortion. This will be the third and final time that I ask you to please provide such. If you choose not to respond, then I'll just assume that you favor abortion and don't want to say so as to not possibly be called a HYPOCRITE for sanctioning the MURDER (in the eyes of many, such as myself) of "true innocents" yourself. Thanks.
There might be circumstances where it would wise (and necessary) for the procedure.
QUOTE (Bloy+)
So what are you trying to convey,newguy?
....That your children will HAVE MORE REST in death than all the others who have died? Wow! Death must be another form of sleep, huh?
"Wow!", indeed...in relation to you totally misconstruing what I said. Unless I misunderstood RealityCheck, when he asked me if I was tempted to take the shortcut in regards to my own children, he was asking me if I was tempted to kill them. I said that I'm not. Perish the thought. I then added that someone else might be tempted to, though, or that someone else might be tempted to kill them throughout their lifetimes. As such, I also added that I'll do whatever I can to prepare them for the afterlife while they're still among the living. Got it?
....That your children will HAVE MORE REST in death than all the others who have died?
Wow! Death must be another form of sleep, huh?"Wow!", indeed...in relation to you totally misconstruing what I said. Unless I misunderstood RealityCheck, when he asked me if I was tempted to take the shortcut in regards to my own children, he was asking me if I was tempted to kill them. I said that I'm not. Perish the thought. I then added that someone else might be tempted to, though, or that someone else might be tempted to kill them throughout their lifetimes. As such, I also added that I'll do whatever I can to prepare them for the afterlife while they're still among the living. Got it?
QUOTE
QUOTE (soundhertz)
If the only Christian religion was Unitarian/Universalist, there really would be little debate, and it would be rational, friendly, and over dinner with beer/wine.
Really? You mean atheists can resist ridiculing someone's search for spiritual, and even transcendent, growth, often espousing any number of theologies/ideologies? If so then it would seem that their problem is of a more interpersonal nature.
My comment was meant to be a bit on the light side, and MP took it the way I meant. I responded to him inspired by what he said. Perhaps I was remiss for not using an appropriate smilie. U/U's are very non-confrontational. I know several (it's what my parents became post -Catholicism also); I've done audio work at a U/U church 15 minutes away from me.
But I must say, as I have both theist and atheist acquaintances in respectable numbers: In general the atheists don't broach the subject, and the theist ones do. iow, it's the theists that are on the go more, afa wanting to change someone else's perspective to their own, in my experience.
This thread has presented a picture of atheists as a confrontational group similar to fundamentalist Christians on a mission. It's a synthesized view due to the nature of the thread and how protracted it has become, thus it is not representative of the larger arena. It is certainly not representative of the atheists in my arena.
******
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
QUOTE (soundhertz) If the only Christian religion was Unitarian/Universalist, there really would be little debate, and it would be rational, friendly, and over dinner with beer/wine. Really? You mean atheists can resist ridiculing someone's search for spiritual, and even transcendent, growth, often espousing any number of theologies/ideologies? If so then it would seem that their problem is of a more interpersonal nature. |
My comment was meant to be a bit on the light side, and MP took it the way I meant. I responded to him inspired by what he said. Perhaps I was remiss for not using an appropriate smilie. U/U's are very non-confrontational. I know several (it's what my parents became post -Catholicism also); I've done audio work at a U/U church 15 minutes away from me.
But I must say, as I have both theist and atheist acquaintances in respectable numbers: In general the atheists don't broach the subject, and the theist ones do. iow, it's the theists that are on the go more, afa wanting to change someone else's perspective to their own, in my experience.
This thread has presented a picture of atheists as a confrontational group similar to fundamentalist Christians on a mission. It's a synthesized view due to the nature of the thread and how protracted it has become, thus it is not representative of the larger arena. It is certainly not representative of the atheists in my arena.
******
I'm getting old... sad.gif
'Define irony' (as said by Buscemi ): I'm getting old too, and do not believe in your afterlife, and I am not
): I'm getting old too, and do not believe in your afterlife, and I am not
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Aug 20 2011, 07:03 PM)
directed at newguy...
Make no mistake, I have always respected you as much as I have respected anyone, ever. And that is highly. Your intellect and humanity is what comes across despite any differences we may have in the interpretation of the reality (material and 'non-material').
I don't believe it! Not one bit. RealityCheck, I think you are BS'ing here. For what purpose eludes me., if not to "clean the slate" and start back at square one.
Make no mistake, I have always respected you as much as I have respected anyone, ever. And that is highly. Your intellect and humanity is what comes across despite any differences we may have in the interpretation of the reality (material and 'non-material').
I don't believe it! Not one bit. RealityCheck, I think you are BS'ing here. For what purpose eludes me., if not to "clean the slate" and start back at square one.
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
There might be circumstances where it would wise (and necessary) for the procedure.
Derek1148: There might be, but, as we both know, that's generally not the case.
Derek1148: There might be, but, as we both know, that's generally not the case.
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 21 2011, 10:11 AM)
QUOTE (Bloy+)
So what are you trying to convey,newguy?
....That your children will HAVE MORE REST in death than all the others who have died? Wow! Death must be another form of sleep, huh?
"Wow!", indeed...in relation to you totally misconstruing what I said. Unless I misunderstood RealityCheck, when he asked me if I was tempted to take the shortcut in regards to my own children, he was asking me if I was tempted to kill them. I said that I'm not. Perish the thought. I then added that someone else might be tempted to, though, or that someone else might be tempted to kill them throughout their lifetimes. As such, I also added that I'll do whatever I can to prepare them for the afterlife while they're still among the living. Got it?
I didn't misconstrue anything. You may claim so to defend your idea of life after death, but you were definately saying that you were going to prepare your children(as best as you can) for having MORE rest in death. Implying that the goal of life is to attain the MOST rest when in the state of death.
Else, what are you preparing your children for?
....That your children will HAVE MORE REST in death than all the others who have died?
Wow! Death must be another form of sleep, huh?"Wow!", indeed...in relation to you totally misconstruing what I said. Unless I misunderstood RealityCheck, when he asked me if I was tempted to take the shortcut in regards to my own children, he was asking me if I was tempted to kill them. I said that I'm not. Perish the thought. I then added that someone else might be tempted to, though, or that someone else might be tempted to kill them throughout their lifetimes. As such, I also added that I'll do whatever I can to prepare them for the afterlife while they're still among the living. Got it?
I didn't misconstrue anything. You may claim so to defend your idea of life after death, but you were definately saying that you were going to prepare your children(as best as you can) for having MORE rest in death. Implying that the goal of life is to attain the MOST rest when in the state of death.
Else, what are you preparing your children for?
QUOTE (Bloy+)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
Make no mistake, I have always respected you as much as I have respected anyone, ever. And that is highly. Your intellect and humanity is what comes across despite any differences we may have in the interpretation of the reality (material and 'non-material').
I don't believe it! Not one bit. RealityCheck, I think you are BS'ing here. For what purpose eludes me.
Bloy: I certainly don't want to put any words in RealityCheck's mouth, but, personally, I do believe it...apart from the word "always". Anyhow, I trust that I know the "parameters" of such respect, too...but I'll let RealityCheck answer for himself.
Bloy: I certainly don't want to put any words in RealityCheck's mouth, but, personally, I do believe it...apart from the word "always". Anyhow, I trust that I know the "parameters" of such respect, too...but I'll let RealityCheck answer for himself.
I can accept that you believe it....considering that you believe that there is something after death....other than memories from the living.
If you truely follow (or cherry pick) the bible, you should be preparing your children to NOT experience death. Wasn't your Christ the one who died so that we could have life everlasting? Maybe you should be preparing your children how NOT to die. Sound feasible? I think more so than playing adult Santa Claus games with their minds.
Of course, then your children would have to put aside the fantasies of an external god, and concentrate on the sciences as applied to themselves.
I don't believe it! Not one bit. RealityCheck, I think you are BS'ing here. For what purpose eludes me.
Bloy: I certainly don't want to put any words in RealityCheck's mouth, but, personally, I do believe it...apart from the word "always". Anyhow, I trust that I know the "parameters" of such respect, too...but I'll let RealityCheck answer for himself.
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 21 2011, 10:27 AM)
Bloy: I certainly don't want to put any words in RealityCheck's mouth, but, personally, I do believe it...apart from the word "always". Anyhow, I trust that I know the "parameters" of such respect, too...but I'll let RealityCheck answer for himself.
I can accept that you believe it....considering that you believe that there is something after death....other than memories from the living.
If you truely follow (or cherry pick) the bible, you should be preparing your children to NOT experience death. Wasn't your Christ the one who died so that we could have life everlasting? Maybe you should be preparing your children how NOT to die. Sound feasible? I think more so than playing adult Santa Claus games with their minds.
Of course, then your children would have to put aside the fantasies of an external god, and concentrate on the sciences as applied to themselves.
QUOTE (Bloy+)
I didn't misconstrue anything.
Yes, you did. In fact, your condition has only worsened since your last post in relation to me.
Yes, you did. In fact, your condition has only worsened since your last post in relation to me.
QUOTE (Bloy+)
You may claim so to defend your idea of life after death, but you were definately saying that you were going to prepare your children(as best as you can) for having MORE rest in death. Implying that the goal of life is to attain the MOST rest when in the state of death.
Else, what are you preparing your children for?
What are you talking about? Again, the "shortcut" of which RealityCheck spoke, in context, was the "shortcut" of cutting my own children's lives short by killing them...presumably. That is what I was addressing in my response and not any sort of "more rest". As such, I replied that I would never consider cutting my own children's lives short (or anybody else's children, for that matter), BUT SOMEBODY ELSE MIGHT CONSIDER THAT OR SOMEBODY ELSE MIGHT KILL THEM. Got it? With such a possibility (or the possibility for any number of other ways my children might eventually die), I'm doing my best to prepare them for eternity while they are still alive. Got it? You're interjecting the part about preparing them for "more rest". I wasn't addressing that at all. I was merely addressing death itself and the afterlife which follows.
Well, I'm through explaining this as well.
Take care.
Else, what are you preparing your children for?
What are you talking about? Again, the "shortcut" of which RealityCheck spoke, in context, was the "shortcut" of cutting my own children's lives short by killing them...presumably. That is what I was addressing in my response and not any sort of "more rest". As such, I replied that I would never consider cutting my own children's lives short (or anybody else's children, for that matter), BUT SOMEBODY ELSE MIGHT CONSIDER THAT OR SOMEBODY ELSE MIGHT KILL THEM. Got it? With such a possibility (or the possibility for any number of other ways my children might eventually die), I'm doing my best to prepare them for eternity while they are still alive. Got it? You're interjecting the part about preparing them for "more rest". I wasn't addressing that at all. I was merely addressing death itself and the afterlife which follows.
Well, I'm through explaining this as well.
Take care.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
QUOTE (newguy+)
I'm getting old...
'Define irony' (as said by Buscemi ): I'm getting old too, and do not believe in your afterlife, and I am not
You're only joking, right? If not, then you're pretty desperate. First of all, my "sad emoticon" was meant PARTIALLY as a joke. Although I am truly PARTIALLY sad that I'm getting old, it has nothing to do with the afterlife, but rather with this present life. IOW, I'm PARTIALLY sad because I'm 46 years older than my youngest child and I want to be around as long as I can FOR MY CHILDREN'S SAKES and not my own. Got it? Secondly, as I already stated, my "sad emoticon" was meant PARTIALLY as a joke. Perhaps you think that I'm genuinely "sad" that the "Three Musketeers" are breaking up, too? Afterall, I used a "sad emoticon" there as well.
Anyhow, you should be more than sad...but we've already been down that road, haven't we?
Well, back to work (you guys and gals actually make work seem enjoyable...)...
What are you talking about? Again, the "shortcut" of which RealityCheck spoke, in context, was the "shortcut" of cutting my own children's lives short by killing them...presumably. That is what I was addressing in my response and not any sort of "more rest". As such, I replied that I would never consider cutting my own children's lives short (or anybody else's children, for that matter), BUT SOMEBODY ELSE MIGHT CONSIDER THAT OR SOMEBODY ELSE MIGHT KILL THEM. Got it? With such a possibility (or the possibility for any number of other ways my children might eventually die), I'm doing my best to prepare them for eternity while they are still alive. Got it? You're interjecting the part about preparing them for "more rest". I wasn't addressing that at all. I was merely addressing death itself and the afterlife which follows.
Well, I'm through explaining this as well.
Take care.
No I didn't...misconstrue. The subject was based by your own quotations from your "book" about having MORE REST after death. Period! And I just commented on how you were saying that you were "preparing" your children for the at present eventuality of it(death) or as you call it ..the "afterlife".
Anyhow, you should be more than sad...but we've already been down that road, haven't we?
Well, back to work (you guys and gals actually make work seem enjoyable...)...
I take it you aren't all inclusive when making this "you should" comment. Reasons for evoking the emotion of sadness are not dictated by you unless you think yourself of such high stature, "partially" joking or not.
Your comment was nothing more than a bit of preaching again.
Every road you speak of is always down as if you are always on the high road.
Think about it.
I personally have little respect for you...and that's NOT saying I have an overabundant respect for myself.
'Define irony' (as said by Buscemi
): I'm getting old too, and do not believe in your afterlife, and I am not You're only joking, right? If not, then you're pretty desperate. First of all, my "sad emoticon" was meant PARTIALLY as a joke. Although I am truly PARTIALLY sad that I'm getting old, it has nothing to do with the afterlife, but rather with this present life. IOW, I'm PARTIALLY sad because I'm 46 years older than my youngest child and I want to be around as long as I can FOR MY CHILDREN'S SAKES and not my own. Got it? Secondly, as I already stated, my "sad emoticon" was meant PARTIALLY as a joke. Perhaps you think that I'm genuinely "sad" that the "Three Musketeers" are breaking up, too? Afterall, I used a "sad emoticon" there as well.
Anyhow, you should be more than sad...but we've already been down that road, haven't we?
Well, back to work (you guys and gals actually make work seem enjoyable...)...
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 21 2011, 10:40 AM)
What are you talking about? Again, the "shortcut" of which RealityCheck spoke, in context, was the "shortcut" of cutting my own children's lives short by killing them...presumably. That is what I was addressing in my response and not any sort of "more rest". As such, I replied that I would never consider cutting my own children's lives short (or anybody else's children, for that matter), BUT SOMEBODY ELSE MIGHT CONSIDER THAT OR SOMEBODY ELSE MIGHT KILL THEM. Got it? With such a possibility (or the possibility for any number of other ways my children might eventually die), I'm doing my best to prepare them for eternity while they are still alive. Got it? You're interjecting the part about preparing them for "more rest". I wasn't addressing that at all. I was merely addressing death itself and the afterlife which follows.
Well, I'm through explaining this as well.
Take care.
No I didn't...misconstrue. The subject was based by your own quotations from your "book" about having MORE REST after death. Period! And I just commented on how you were saying that you were "preparing" your children for the at present eventuality of it(death) or as you call it ..the "afterlife".
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 21 2011, 10:51 AM)
Anyhow, you should be more than sad...but we've already been down that road, haven't we?
Well, back to work (you guys and gals actually make work seem enjoyable...)...
I take it you aren't all inclusive when making this "you should" comment. Reasons for evoking the emotion of sadness are not dictated by you unless you think yourself of such high stature, "partially" joking or not.
Your comment was nothing more than a bit of preaching again.
Every road you speak of is always down as if you are always on the high road.
Think about it.
I personally have little respect for you...and that's NOT saying I have an overabundant respect for myself.
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 21 2011, 10:35 AM)
RealityCheck: I still cannot help but notice that you've avoided my question regarding your views concerning abortion. This will be the third and final time that I ask you to please provide such. If you choose not to respond, then I'll just assume that you favor abortion and don't want to say so as to not possibly be called a HYPOCRITE for sanctioning the MURDER (in the eyes of many, such as myself) of "true innocents" yourself. Thanks.
YOU of all people are taking issue with someone avoiding your arguments? You, the king of ignoring inconvenient arguments?
YOU of all people are taking issue with someone avoiding your arguments? You, the king of ignoring inconvenient arguments?
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 21 2011, 04:19 PM)
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
There might be circumstances where it would wise (and necessary) for the procedure.
Derek1148: There might be, but, as we both know, that's generally not the case.
Generally, that is probably correct. But that doesn't negate the necessity in some cases.
Derek1148: There might be, but, as we both know, that's generally not the case.
Generally, that is probably correct. But that doesn't negate the necessity in some cases.
QUOTE (Bloy+)
No I didn't...misconstrue. The subject was based by your own quotations from your "book" about having MORE REST after death. Period! And I just commented on how you were saying that you were "preparing" your children for the at present eventuality of it(death) or as you call it ..the "afterlife".
Yes, you did. In fact, the words of yours that I bolded prove so. Here, let me help you (you certainly need it). You've obviously MISUNDERSTOOD the portion of scripture that I quoted from Ecclesiastes. Here it is, again:
"If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he. For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness. Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: THIS HATH MORE REST THAN THE OTHER." (Ecclesiastes 6:3-5)
This "more rest" of which Solomon spoke HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AFTERLIFE. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Solomon was contrasting the miscarried child's LACK OF VAIN LABOR UNDER THE SUN OR IN THIS PRESENT LIFE with the vain labor of the man who lived many years, saw no good and didn't even wind up with a proper burial. Try reading the book of Ecclesiastes. It's about all of the vanities UNDER THE SUN. The miscarried child had MORE REST in that it didn't have to go through the same vain labor that the man whom it was contrasted with had to go through. Got it? The rest of your error stems from this primary one. Deal with it.
Next...
Yes, you did. In fact, the words of yours that I bolded prove so. Here, let me help you (you certainly need it). You've obviously MISUNDERSTOOD the portion of scripture that I quoted from Ecclesiastes. Here it is, again:
"If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he. For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness. Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: THIS HATH MORE REST THAN THE OTHER." (Ecclesiastes 6:3-5)
This "more rest" of which Solomon spoke HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AFTERLIFE. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Solomon was contrasting the miscarried child's LACK OF VAIN LABOR UNDER THE SUN OR IN THIS PRESENT LIFE with the vain labor of the man who lived many years, saw no good and didn't even wind up with a proper burial. Try reading the book of Ecclesiastes. It's about all of the vanities UNDER THE SUN. The miscarried child had MORE REST in that it didn't have to go through the same vain labor that the man whom it was contrasted with had to go through. Got it? The rest of your error stems from this primary one. Deal with it.
Next...
QUOTE (Bloy+)
I take it you aren't all inclusive when making this "you should" comment. Reasons for evoking the emotion of sadness are not dictated by you unless you think yourself of such high stature, "partially" joking or not.
Your comment was nothing more than a bit of preaching again.
Every road you speak of is always down as if you are always on the high road.
Think about it.
I personally have little respect for you...and that's NOT saying I have an overabundant respect for myself.
Look, I couldn't care less about your opinions of me, nor could I care less about what level of respect you have towards me. I addressed your comments about Ecclesiastes because they were Biblically based. As far as any future personal comments of yours are concerned, you can expect a non-reply from hereon out.
Take care.
Your comment was nothing more than a bit of preaching again.
Every road you speak of is always down as if you are always on the high road.
Think about it.
I personally have little respect for you...and that's NOT saying I have an overabundant respect for myself.
Look, I couldn't care less about your opinions of me, nor could I care less about what level of respect you have towards me. I addressed your comments about Ecclesiastes because they were Biblically based. As far as any future personal comments of yours are concerned, you can expect a non-reply from hereon out.
Take care.
QUOTE (soundhertz+Aug 21 2011, 04:13 PM)
'Define irony' (as said by Buscemi ): I'm getting old too, and do not believe in your afterlife, and I am not
"What if I told you insane was working fifty hours a week in some office for fifty years at the end of which they tell you to *** off; ending up in some retirement village hoping to die before suffering the indignity of trying to make it to the toilet on time? Wouldn't you consider that to be insane?" - Steve Buscemi (Con Air)
): I'm getting old too, and do not believe in your afterlife, and I am not "What if I told you insane was working fifty hours a week in some office for fifty years at the end of which they tell you to *** off; ending up in some retirement village hoping to die before suffering the indignity of trying to make it to the toilet on time? Wouldn't you consider that to be insane?" - Steve Buscemi (Con Air)
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
YOU of all people are taking issue with someone avoiding your arguments? You, the king of ignoring inconvenient arguments?
First of all, I fully expected to hear from you along these lines. Secondly, there's no such thing as an "inconvenient argument" from my perspective. All such imaginings only exist within your own troubled mind. Thirdly, although it is true that I haven't engaged certain people in certain conversations at times, it's more related to my lack of confidence in the intelligence/integrity/honesty of my debater than any sort of "inconvenience" at my end. Fourthly, there are certainly things that I'm not sure of myself, so I generally just listen to both sides of such arguments/discussions and ponder such until the time comes that I feel that I'm qualified to offer a somewhat informed opinion on the matter myself. Finally, as I've plainly told you many times in the past, I find you to be a numbskull who only parrots others, with nothing of his own to offer. so the odds of me engaging you in any sort of serious talk are slim to none. Got it?
First of all, I fully expected to hear from you along these lines. Secondly, there's no such thing as an "inconvenient argument" from my perspective. All such imaginings only exist within your own troubled mind. Thirdly, although it is true that I haven't engaged certain people in certain conversations at times, it's more related to my lack of confidence in the intelligence/integrity/honesty of my debater than any sort of "inconvenience" at my end. Fourthly, there are certainly things that I'm not sure of myself, so I generally just listen to both sides of such arguments/discussions and ponder such until the time comes that I feel that I'm qualified to offer a somewhat informed opinion on the matter myself. Finally, as I've plainly told you many times in the past, I find you to be a numbskull who only parrots others, with nothing of his own to offer. so the odds of me engaging you in any sort of serious talk are slim to none. Got it?
QUOTE (boit+)
Those who have set out on journey to atheism seem to benefit nobody but themselves. Maybe they benefit a few near them as evidenced by RC but it is not their atheism per se that benefits these souls but rather the charity. With words alone I doubt if they can change a single individual for the better, let alone humanity.
The two top givers are atheist. Countless atheists have made the world a better place. Research it.
The two top givers are atheist. Countless atheists have made the world a better place. Research it.
QUOTE (synthsin75+)
Do you "know" that you exist, or do you merely "feel" that you exist?
Yes, I exist.
I have no good reason to doubt it.
Would you be surprised if the God that Newguy describes, suddenly manifested, and was exactly as he believed him to be?
What value is there in nodding to your God?
Yes, I exist.
I have no good reason to doubt it.
Would you be surprised if the God that Newguy describes, suddenly manifested, and was exactly as he believed him to be?
What value is there in nodding to your God?
QUOTE (soundhertz+Aug 21 2011, 10:13 AM)
My comment was meant to be a bit on the light side, and MP took it the way I meant. I responded to him inspired by what he said. Perhaps I was remiss for not using an appropriate smilie. U/U's are very non-confrontational. I know several (it's what my parents became post -Catholicism also); I've done audio work at a U/U church 15 minutes away from me.
But I must say, as I have both theist and atheist acquaintances in respectable numbers: In general the atheists don't broach the subject, and the theist ones do. iow, it's the theists that are on the go more, afa wanting to change someone else's perspective to their own, in my experience.
This thread has presented a picture of atheists as a confrontational group similar to fundamentalist Christians on a mission. It's a synthesized view due to the nature of the thread and how protracted it has become, thus it is not representative of the larger arena. It is certainly not representative of the atheists in my arena.
Didn't mean to take it the wrong way, but wouldn't you agree that what NA (who started this thread) advocates would put atheists on par with Christians? Those atheists that currently "don't broach the subject", she'd like to start railing against anyone who mentions religion around an atheist. This is echoed in the sentiments of Dawkins and Harris who advocate open ridicule of any expressing a religious view.
But I must say, as I have both theist and atheist acquaintances in respectable numbers: In general the atheists don't broach the subject, and the theist ones do. iow, it's the theists that are on the go more, afa wanting to change someone else's perspective to their own, in my experience.
This thread has presented a picture of atheists as a confrontational group similar to fundamentalist Christians on a mission. It's a synthesized view due to the nature of the thread and how protracted it has become, thus it is not representative of the larger arena. It is certainly not representative of the atheists in my arena.
Didn't mean to take it the wrong way, but wouldn't you agree that what NA (who started this thread) advocates would put atheists on par with Christians? Those atheists that currently "don't broach the subject", she'd like to start railing against anyone who mentions religion around an atheist. This is echoed in the sentiments of Dawkins and Harris who advocate open ridicule of any expressing a religious view.
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 21 2011, 12:51 PM)
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
QUOTE (newguy+)
I'm getting old...
'Define irony' (as said by Buscemi ): I'm getting old too, and do not believe in your afterlife, and I am not
You're only joking, right? If not, then you're pretty desperate. First of all, my "sad emoticon" was meant PARTIALLY as a joke. Although I am truly PARTIALLY sad that I'm getting old, it has nothing to do with the afterlife, but rather with this present life. IOW, I'm PARTIALLY sad because I'm 46 years older than my youngest child and I want to be around as long as I can FOR MY CHILDREN'S SAKES and not my own. Got it? Secondly, as I already stated, my "sad emoticon" was meant PARTIALLY as a joke. Perhaps you think that I'm genuinely "sad" that the "Three Musketeers" are breaking up, too? Afterall, I used a "sad emoticon" there as well.
Anyhow, you should be more than sad...but we've already been down that road, haven't we?
Well, back to work (you guys and gals actually make work seem enjoyable...)...
Nah, I just wanted to see if you thought I was joking.
The longer the thread goes the more aloof I feel. The thread is waxing Mobius
'Define irony' (as said by Buscemi
): I'm getting old too, and do not believe in your afterlife, and I am not You're only joking, right? If not, then you're pretty desperate. First of all, my "sad emoticon" was meant PARTIALLY as a joke. Although I am truly PARTIALLY sad that I'm getting old, it has nothing to do with the afterlife, but rather with this present life. IOW, I'm PARTIALLY sad because I'm 46 years older than my youngest child and I want to be around as long as I can FOR MY CHILDREN'S SAKES and not my own. Got it? Secondly, as I already stated, my "sad emoticon" was meant PARTIALLY as a joke. Perhaps you think that I'm genuinely "sad" that the "Three Musketeers" are breaking up, too? Afterall, I used a "sad emoticon" there as well.
Anyhow, you should be more than sad...but we've already been down that road, haven't we?
Well, back to work (you guys and gals actually make work seem enjoyable...)...
Nah, I just wanted to see if you thought I was joking.
The longer the thread goes the more aloof I feel. The thread is waxing Mobius
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 21 2011, 01:41 PM)
First of all, I fully expected to hear from you along these lines. Secondly, there's no such thing as an "inconvenient argument" from my perspective.
Of course not. All evidence can be "creatively interpreted" to fit your fairy tale worldview.
You've got nothing on me. Is that the best you can come up with? You actively avoid debating me or anyone else on a scientific basis, and you throw out insults at every opportunity. Is ad hominem really the best thing you can come up with?
Of course not. All evidence can be "creatively interpreted" to fit your fairy tale worldview.
QUOTE
Finally, as I've plainly told you many times in the past, I find you to be a numbskull who only parrots others, with nothing of his own to offer. so the odds of me engaging you in any sort of serious talk are slim to none. Got it?
You've got nothing on me. Is that the best you can come up with? You actively avoid debating me or anyone else on a scientific basis, and you throw out insults at every opportunity. Is ad hominem really the best thing you can come up with?
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Aug 21 2011, 12:26 PM)
Yes, I exist.
I have no good reason to doubt it.
Would you be surprised if the God that Newguy describes, suddenly manifested, and was exactly as he believed him to be?
What value does your God have?
Not really, as Christians describe God to manifest as a man.
My conception of a God has the value of encouraging faith (read confidence) in oneself and others and describing the relationship between them.
I have no good reason to doubt it.
Would you be surprised if the God that Newguy describes, suddenly manifested, and was exactly as he believed him to be?
What value does your God have?
Not really, as Christians describe God to manifest as a man.
My conception of a God has the value of encouraging faith (read confidence) in oneself and others and describing the relationship between them.
QUOTE (s75+)
but wouldn't you agree that what NA (who started this thread) advocates would put atheists on par with Christians?
Not quite, else atheists would be going door to door with Origin of the Species among other things. I don't see her views quite that way, tho I admit I haven't read 100% of all posts as I start getting eyeboggled at all the rhetoric. I think what NA wants is an approach to theist/atheist debate on world stages (so to speak) but in a way representative of the rational and logical methodology expected from ration and logic. To approach this debate according to your take of what NA advocates is inconsistent with the rational logical frame of mind necessary for atheism, a view that she has championed. That she does it emotionally on this thread sometimes should not falsley color your perception of her, especially if you know women...
Apologies, NA, but you're a gal! This was necessary to present my complete point in this particular matter...
Apologies, NA, but you're a gal! This was necessary to present my complete point in this particular matter...
QUOTE (soundhertz+Aug 21 2011, 01:32 PM)
QUOTE (s75+)
but wouldn't you agree that what NA (who started this thread) advocates would put atheists on par with Christians?
Not quite, else atheists would be going door to door with Origin of the Species among other things. I don't see her views quite that way, tho I admit I haven't read 100% of all posts as I start getting eyeboggled at all the rhetoric. I think what NA wants is an approach to theist/atheist debate on world stages (so to speak) but in a way representative of the rational and logical methodology expected from ration and logic. To approach this debate according to your take of what NA advocates is inconsistent with the rational logical frame of mind necessary for atheism, a view that she has championed. That she does it emotionally on this thread sometimes should not falsley color your perception of her, especially if you know women...
Apologies, NA, but you're a gal! This was necessary to present my complete point in this particular matter...
So you think ridicule is appropriate to a rational and logical debate? Obviously, not even the majority of Christians are going door to door, so this may be a generalization based on a selective minority.
As I've expressed umpteen times, people are not a good judge of world views they do not, themselves, hold, so it is spurious to argue on anything but the merit of ones own view. Obviously, one cannot expect someone who does not espouse a particular view to fully understand it.
Apologies, NA, but you're a gal! This was necessary to present my complete point in this particular matter...
So you think ridicule is appropriate to a rational and logical debate? Obviously, not even the majority of Christians are going door to door, so this may be a generalization based on a selective minority.
As I've expressed umpteen times, people are not a good judge of world views they do not, themselves, hold, so it is spurious to argue on anything but the merit of ones own view. Obviously, one cannot expect someone who does not espouse a particular view to fully understand it.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Aug 21 2011, 09:26 PM)
The two top givers are atheists. Many atheist have made the world a better place. Research.
Being atheist does not stop someone from being philanthropic. I conceded that it is mainly (solely) through charity that they benefit others. They are by no means selfish. But man can not live by bread alone. . .
Being atheist does not stop someone from being philanthropic. I conceded that it is mainly (solely) through charity that they benefit others. They are by no means selfish. But man can not live by bread alone. . .
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 21 2011, 11:26 AM)
The miscarried child had MORE REST in that it didn't have to go through the same vain labor that the man whom it was contrasted with had to go through. Got it? The rest of your error stems from this primary one. Deal with it.
Next...
Next...