It works for me!

Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 857
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
It works for me!

 

Faith in Jesus works for me - it's exciting.  I love the Bible and believe all of it - though there is mystery.  There is mystery everywhere though, right?  I am a incredibly happy believer in Jesus.  I'm not a theologian, I just believe in Jesus.

I understand you can't make anybody believe in Jesus and the Bible, and I don't personally try to do that.  But I highly recommend it from my experience with it.  I can't get enough of the Bible or Jesus.  I can't imagine trying to navigate through life without it at this point in my life. 

I don't think Jesus or God is a thing you can prove to somebody.  I heard about it a large percentage of my life and it didn't mean anything to me until a certain point - then that all changed. 

So do you guys think that I'm fooling myself, not really happy, you don't believe me, or do you really think I can't be as happy or enlightened as you - are you evangelistic in that sense or what?  What is the purpose of this site?   Do you have something better to offer?  If so, what is your gospel? 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Oh for pete's sake...luca

Oh for pete's sake...

luca wrote:
I'm sorry that people spends time in an unsuccessful and unsatisfying discussion, but I don't know what I can do to change things.

There's an essential difference between having an "unsuccessful and unsatisfying discussion" and trying to talk to an unrepentant, pathological liar. 

I'm tired of trying to explain to you exactly what that difference is, so I'm just going to let you experience it by yourself.

 

Enjoy.

 


 


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
enjoy-a-lot

Anonymouse wrote:
There's an essential difference between having an "unsuccessful and unsatisfying discussion" and trying to talk to an unrepentant, pathological liar.

If you don't listen to me, you're not having a discussion with me. It's not the point if he lied or not, but if he thinks he lied or not.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote:If you don't

luca wrote:
If you don't listen to me, you're not having a discussion with me.

Which is exactly what's going to happen, when he finally notices you again. By George, you finally got it ! 

Well, I hope for your sake that he doesn't leave you hanging much longer, and gives you the "not a discussion" you've been craving. Like I said, have fun. 


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 857
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
STATIC CLING

luca wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:
There's an essential difference between having an "unsuccessful and unsatisfying discussion" and trying to talk to an unrepentant, pathological liar.

If you don't listen to me, you're not having a discussion with me. It's not the point if he lied or not, but if he thinks he lied or not.

 

Luca - 

What do you want to discuss?  (there is some static on the line)

 

 

 

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1476
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Coming to that most wonderful juncture . .

  Fonzie you are at most wonderful juncture, where life is new again. I was wondering if you are going to be asking questions again. And if so, will they be about anything other than what Atheists believe (serious question, no mocking or sarcasm in the least bit intended)


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:luca

Fonzie wrote:

luca wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:
There's an essential difference between having an "unsuccessful and unsatisfying discussion" and trying to talk to an unrepentant, pathological liar.

If you don't listen to me, you're not having a discussion with me. It's not the point if he lied or not, but if he thinks he lied or not.

 

Luca - 

What do you want to discuss?  (there is some static on the line)

 

 

 

 

 

Toldya this would work. 

 

Have fun, Luca. No charge. Smiling


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 857
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
GRAVITAS ANNUIT COEPTIS

danatemporary wrote:

  Fonzie you are at most wonderful juncture, where life is new again. I was wondering if you are going to be asking questions again. And if so, will they be about anything other than what Atheists believe (serious question, no mocking or sarcasm in the least bit intended)

 

Danatemporary,

Yes, life is new indeed every day and lived entirely apart from location zero.  I have seen guys think retirement the be all end all of freedom - all restraints removed, all weights unhitched, all chains broken, rudderless freedom (if you will) afloat in the sea of perilous adventure, a universe of potential limitless free floating ever expanding exciting ideas but none  within the realm of possibility or their doing such that there is a suspicion of the value of gravity's restraint and sight's guidance and the pain of light's fire and firing thereof and Company's company.  There are no markers, no poles to count, no walkers to walk therewith, no leaders to lead where to, no signs to indicate movement or destiny thereof - men look them like trees walking when not stumbling over unknown vaporous objects still unknown and unappealing.  Nothing accomplished. 

While I just today consider doing a small thing or two - stopping to smell a rose on my way out.  Do you like the smell of a rose Danatemporary?  Can you name a better?

 

 

 

 


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
1802

Fonzie wrote:
Luca - 

What do you want to discuss?  (there is some static on the line)

Well you have to cope with the static you generated, to put it bluntly. Anyway...

 

At the beginning I did not have much will to discuss, but thinking about it question were born pretty easily. Pretty much 99.9% of the thread is still unanswered.

So just a taste of 'em.

 

Often in response to a science-y answer you'll say: "yes, but God did that, so it doesn't matter"; what I think is that you apparently don't understand why that answer has been given to you. I'll put it in another way: how could God be the answer if not only you can't verify it and it goes well beyond our daily experience, but being the nature of this being you can't tell his motivations?

 

You say you get bored easily. How come you've been here for this many years?

 

How do you want atheists to answer you? You have not made clear you standards.

Probably the more concerning question would be your wanting an "atheist reason to live". What would you accept as an answer? (not the answer itself, but the type of it, categories, something)

 

Would you describe your "unresolved guilt/conscience issue"?

 

Another argument from our interrupted discussion was your judging of people based on what you read from the bible. What do you do when you are wrong about that?

I think I alredy said that you focus extremely on people, but why should they matter? Why does it matter if I believe in what you say or not? Why at a certain point you would 'decide' that the one you're arguing with "will not understand"?

You need to be explicit, A LOT more explicit. Every your answer should be an essay considering the diversity of experiences you allude to, the implications. So instead do the reverse: keep it simple, express facts, use unanbiguous words (so metaphors are out). Maaan I wish you could do that.

 

Do you need something unchanging to believe to? Why?

 

Last: what are you able to do with your faith? What can you do for others? Have you ever been able to change someone's life? (I don't mean as in "completely alter", just a bit different)

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1476
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Reminding me of blue rose images I searched for . .

Fonzie wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

  Fonzie you are at most wonderful juncture, where life is new again. I was wondering if you are going to be asking questions again. And if so, will they be about anything other than what Atheists believe (serious question, no mocking or sarcasm in the least bit intended)

 

Danatemporary,

Yes, life is new indeed every day and lived entirely apart from location zero.  I have seen guys think retirement the be all end all of freedom - all restraints removed, all weights unhitched, all chains broken, rudderless freedom (if you will) afloat in the sea of perilous adventure, a universe of potential limitless free floating ever expanding exciting ideas but none  within the realm of possibility or their doing such that there is a suspicion of the value of gravity's restraint and sight's guidance and the pain of light's fire and firing thereof and Company's company.  There are no markers, no poles to count, no walkers to walk therewith, no leaders to lead where to, no signs to indicate movement or destiny thereof - men look them like trees walking when not stumbling over unknown vaporous objects still unknown and unappealing.  Nothing accomplished. 

While I just today consider doing a small thing or two - stopping to smell a rose on my way out.  Do you like the smell of a rose Danatemporary?  Can you name a better?

  Why yes I do like roses. I seem to enjoy finding out impossible things, a thing I was never consciously knew about myself of until we had a Thread titled: Origin of Language = Epic Evolution/Atheist FAIL! At one point I went on an image search for roses when involved in the Thread,. A theist who is an Evangelical introduced the Thread and it really ended up about Babel in the Bible. The OP found a way to argue herself into a corner almost from the inception but certainly by page three. I not sure anyone had the boldness to tell her though. I sent myself on the task to look for a rose image to send to the OP from the net, for an appropriate rose image to send to her. Undoubted she was complaining of feeling overwhelmed and insisted on not devoting enough time to TWD's own thread (it was her thread). Although repeatedly reminded of what was expected. I would invite you to check it out but I know it's against your religion (used in the general expression manner) to go to another Theist's Threads on this board. When you have the time at least read pages 8-11 of the other thread.  Anyhow, looking for an appropriate rose colour, I settled on both white and blue roses. True blue roses are not found in nature, and the way my mind works has many layers of meaning. But, if you follow the thread it was initially sent a token of kindness. White roses were included in the image so you know. After sending the image of this rose, I wanted to know how close breeders had come to breeding a true 'blue', and more as a visual than genetic study, but I sought that.  From Aspects of TWD's thread about Language (i.e. - knowing about the first language, before writing). And my insistence in knowing how close they had come to breeding a blue rose showed me something about myself. I furthermore have a reason I should Thank TWD. Because due to looking up a few things surrounding the topic, I found out about a book that I now plan on pre-ordering. The thing is, it not even known about yet, if she  hadnt  introduced the Thread, I would have never ran across it, though I am a seasoned pro when it comes to looking up titles. This Pre-order, doesn't come up in searches, so I would have completely missed. Speaking of, there is another thread about the Second Temple very recently you will miss.

  Retirement is a two-edged sword. Most longingly look forward to retirement, although they'll often end up with too much time on their hands. If you are able to fill some of the time by coming here in your case if I read correctly, then that serves its' role. But, yes I do like roses (read comments above).

 

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:I found

danatemporary wrote:

I found out about a book that I now plan on pre-ordering. The thing is, it not even known about yet, if she  hadnt  introduced the Thread, I would have never ran across it, though I am a seasoned pro when it comes to looking up titles. This Pre-order, doesn't come up in searches, so I would have completely missed. 

 

You're going to order that book ? Cool. I was hoping someone would. If you learn anything interesting, do share. 

I kinda feel like thanking TWD as well for bringing up the topic, as the current scientific research being done there seems fascinating. 


 


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 857
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
RAMPING UP

luca wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
Luca - 

What do you want to discuss?  (there is some static on the line)

Well you have to cope with the static you generated, to put it bluntly. Anyway...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

so stay focused  

 

 

luca wrote:

 

At the beginning I did not have much will to discuss, but thinking about it question were born pretty easily. Pretty much 99.9% of the thread is still unanswered.

So just a taste of 'em.

 

Often in response to a science-y answer you'll say: "yes, but God did that, so it doesn't matter"; what I think is that you apparently don't understand why that answer has been given to you. I'll put it in another way: how could God be the answer if not only you can't verify it and it goes well beyond our daily experience, but being the nature of this being you can't tell his motivations?

 

 

 

 Because I knocked and came through the door.  It is possible to get to Know Someone inside if they are dying to make it happen, which They did.  When in the presence of Great Things little things don't bother.  
luca wrote:
 

 

You say you get bored easily. How come you've been here for this many years?

 

 

 

 

 I haven't gotten bored.  
luca wrote:

 

How do you want atheists to answer you? You have not made clear you standards.

 

 

 

 Well, I have told the house plan I have accepted, the Plan, the Architect, and talked about Who's paying for the materials, the Guarantee, the Fun Forman, Tips and Techniques, Furniture, Foundation, Profit, Toil - what I'm about and why. What I'm building and how long I expect it to last.  That would be nice to match.  
luca wrote:

 

 

Probably the more concerning question would be your wanting an "atheist reason to live". What would you accept as an answer? (not the answer itself, but the type of it, categories, something)

 

 

 

Life beyond demolition.  
luca wrote:

 

Would you describe your "unresolved guilt/conscience issue"?

 

 

 I don't have one.  
luca wrote:

 

Another argument from our interrupted discussion was your judging of people based on what you read from the bible. What do you do when you are wrong about that?

 

 

When I read the plan, make wrong measurements - I've mis measured.  When I'm wrong about the plan - I'm wrong about the plan.  But I didn't make the plan or buy the materials.  
luca wrote:

 

 

I think I alredy said that you focus extremely on people, but why should they matter? Why does it matter if I believe in what you say or not? Why at a certain point you would 'decide' that the one you're arguing with "will not understand"?

 

I have a great thing to share.  There is plenty of it.  I'm confident in it.  I'm not threatened by criticism of it.  I'm confident in the Product.  
luca wrote:

 

 

You need to be explicit, A LOT more explicit. Every your answer should be an essay considering the diversity of experiences you allude to, the implications. So instead do the reverse: keep it simple, express facts, use unanbiguous words (so metaphors are out). Maaan I wish you could do that.

 

When ramping up there is a need to ramp up.  
luca wrote:

 

 

 

Do you need something unchanging to believe to? Why?

 

 No, I have It.  
luca wrote:

 

Last: what are you able to do with your faith? What can you do for others? Have you ever been able to change someone's life? (I don't mean as in "completely alter", just a bit different)

 

 

 

There is a story where a guy said to another guy he didn't have what the guy thought he wanted but he had something even better and beyond better.  I don't have power to do myself but I know Where it is.  Yes I have been used as  a successful GPS.  
luca wrote:

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote:You need to be

luca wrote:
You need to be explicit, A LOT more explicit. Every your answer should be an essay considering the diversity of experiences you allude to, the implications. So instead do the reverse: keep it simple, express facts, use unanbiguous words (so metaphors are out). Maaan I wish you could do that.
 

Oh Luca, you poor, naive sweetheart.

Kudos for trying, though. 

 

luca wrote:
Last: what are you able to do with your faith? What can you do for others? Have you ever been able to change someone's life? (I don't mean as in "completely alter", just a bit different)

Fonzie wrote:
There is a story where a guy said to another guy he didn't have what the guy thought he wanted but he had something even better and beyond better.  I don't have power to do myself but I know Where it is.  Yes I have been used as  a successful GPS.  

I can vouch for that. I was about 14 when I first came here, and firmly on the fence about the whole theist/atheist thing. It wasn't so much Meph on his own that convinced me to make the jump to atheism, but the contrast between him and the people he was talking to. To be precise, the contrast between the way he treated them, and the way they treated him. Let's just say that it did not do him any favors. 

But what was most impressive, and what I'm still grateful for to this day, is that his behavior and posts here managed to convert a very good friend of mine to atheism. I'd mailed my friend the link to the first thread, as an answer to his repeated question, "what's your problem with christians ?", and to be honest, I didn't really expect it to have any effect at all, but it made him see my side of it. I guess he recognized some of Meph's tone and tactics in himself, and didn't like it very much. 

So yeah, Meph certainly has been a "successful GPS", in his own way. It's kinda awkward, though, trying to express your gratitude to someone who takes pride in tuning you out. 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10371
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I recognised fairly quickly,

I recognised fairly quickly, after starting to debate online, that often the greatest weapon against theist arguments is the arguments themselves, coupled with the standard theist arrogance and belittlement.
A significant number of theists do the whole biased reinforcement thing, where they consciously or unconsciously ignore posts/information they don't like or agree with. Many of these people have never really thought about what they believe, having used this tactic all their lives.
As they generally only read theist responses, the tone of those responses can be an eye opener to the problems with their beliefs that they never analysed before.
So whenever a theist gets completely owned, shorts out, and starts stumbling around with ad hominems and blatantly stupid arguments that even a 6 year old would 'wtf' at, we've actually got a theist who's helping us convert the on-the-shelf lurkers.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1476
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
To high functioning autism sufferers (christians on the board)

 re ::  To high functioning autism sufferers . . .

Anonymouse wrote:

luca wrote:
You need to be explicit, A LOT more explicit. Every your answer should be an essay considering the diversity of experiences you allude to, the implications. So instead do the reverse: keep it simple, express facts, use unanbiguous words (so metaphors are out). Maaan I wish you could do that.
 

Oh Luca, you poor, naive sweetheart.

Kudos for trying, though. 

So yeah, Meph certainly has been a "successful GPS", in his own way. It's kinda awkward, though, trying to express your gratitude to someone who takes pride in tuning you out. 

 

    One thing I've never understood is why we are supposed to be subject to the whims of visitors to the board? I dont think they realize consciously just how irritating and emotionally draining they can be, if you factor time into the equation. The clock didnt stop for them because they are on a mission. Sometimes the strange impression is they arent trying hard enough to relate to others. Does it count, anymore?  This almost weird-azz mentality develops(in all cases). Where they arent able to step back and realize people at one point or another people begin to lose patience (with them). On this board words are exchanged but it does promise to remedy a thing. There is no emotional meter like a MIT Computer Lab experiment gone mad, that let's people gauge when someone has had more than enough of-a certain kind of behaviour on their part.  Made extremely hard to anticipate, in an Online forum. They feel perfectly justified in continuing as they are. To be honest,  I used to think I had a lot of patience but this goes on for weeks and usually months. People talking past one another. With no real hope of getting any behavioural change 'ever' in sight. Frustrations ever growing on both sides. While they are just exploiting the situation. While nothing is accomplished. In this case, People are expected to know the reference ?  Even if you do know the reference. It's still incredibly difficult to decipher  as if there is some  defiance  against cogent message giving, or some attempt at profundity. Hard to tell. Even harder to care. They'll act like high-functioning autistics, with no capacity to understanding how this will become to others, when it's more of a engrained behaviour on their part,(applying to all!).  Where's the empathy ?  I know it is a shock to learn the world doesnt revolve around-you, in your 'Me' universe nor is it about people rubbing your damn belly. Empathy, please. It not about your whims, was my real thought.  Thanx. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  From the John Wycliffe version

 (the Wycliffe Bible) John Ch. 16 -- .

29 His disciples said to him, Lo! now thou speakest openly and plainly, and thou sayest no proverb.

 


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 857
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
UNKNOWN DETAIL AND ETERNAL DURABILITY

danatemporary wrote:

 re ::  To high functioning autism sufferers . . .

Anonymouse wrote:

luca wrote:
You need to be explicit, A LOT more explicit. Every your answer should be an essay considering the diversity of experiences you allude to, the implications. So instead do the reverse: keep it simple, express facts, use unanbiguous words (so metaphors are out). Maaan I wish you could do that.
 

Oh Luca, you poor, naive sweetheart.

Kudos for trying, though. 

So yeah, Meph certainly has been a "successful GPS", in his own way. It's kinda awkward, though, trying to express your gratitude to someone who takes pride in tuning you out. 

 

    One thing I've never understood is why we are supposed to be subject to the whims of visitors to the board? I dont think they realize consciously just how irritating and emotionally draining they can be, if you factor time into the equation. The clock didnt stop for them because they are on a mission. Sometimes the strange impression is they arent trying hard enough to relate to others. Does it count, anymore?  This almost weird-azz mentality develops(in all cases). Where they arent able to step back and realize people at one point or another people begin to lose patience (with them). On this board words are exchanged but it does promise to remedy a thing. There is no emotional meter like a MIT Computer Lab experiment gone mad, that let's people gauge when someone has had more than enough of-a certain kind of behaviour on their part.  Made extremely hard to anticipate, in an Online forum. They feel perfectly justified in continuing as they are. To be honest,  I used to think I had a lot of patience but this goes on for weeks and usually months. People talking past one another. With no real hope of getting any behavioural change 'ever' in sight. Frustrations ever growing on both sides. While they are just exploiting the situation. While nothing is accomplished. In this case, People are expected to know the reference ?  Even if you do know the reference. It's still incredibly difficult to decipher  as if there is some  defiance  against cogent message giving, or some attempt at profundity. Hard to tell. Even harder to care. They'll act like high-functioning autistics, with no capacity to understanding how this will become to others, when it's more of a engrained behaviour on their part,(applying to all!).  Where's the empathy ?  I know it is a shock to learn the world doesnt revolve around-you, in your 'Me' universe nor is it about people rubbing your damn belly. Empathy, please. It not about your whims, was my real thought.  Thanx. 

 

 

 

Danatempory,

 

Working on a house there is the grind  that settles in but... there are encouragements  if the plan comes together.  

You can get tips anywhere for any old house but when it comes to your special own house - beware.  You only want those gathered by and from One Architect.  There is indecision swirling around on insignificant things in cushy circumstances from spoiled sources but what is there that calls for empathy in that?  There are things that are too much to ask - the wrong questions of the wrong people for the wrong reason toward the wrong purpose.  Empathy needs to make its own search and have its own backlight.      

The way to accomplish the work is do a little and keep doing it - but the way to stay paralyzed and twirling a straw is to have grandiose notions about one's own designs then do and end up accomplishing nothing to fill the grandiose void except picking one's nose and calling that a study.  Some things are communicated from the One Architect - others aren't - but no worries if understood He's Certified.  Focus on the Plan will get harmonious results, slowly proving proof with  resulting  results and constructed constructs.  

The old tradesman has had many blows wound and many strokes clear the way though strength has diminished there is great steady encouragement looking back and ahead seeing how the plan really did and does work and is working, solidifying the confidence invested in the Architect and satisfying pressures held back from critics while the product has developed showing eternal nuclear hope and Rock solid durability, though those who don't know don't care and those who don't see won't see because they don't live here where here is or care where here is or care to leave cushy fried-air thinking to empathize with the Great Crisis and do math to the base of said Crisis.  Thus 1 + 2 is still less than nothing to them and when weighed in the balance they are short on postage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
do little to nothing and

do little to nothing and keep doing it - Christianity in a nutshell. Just believe and you don't need to do anything.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:They'll

danatemporary wrote:

They'll act like high-functioning autistics, with no capacity to understanding how this will become to others, when it's more of a engrained behaviour on their part,(applying to all!).  Where's the empathy ?  I know it is a shock to learn the world doesnt revolve around-you, in your 'Me' universe nor is it about people rubbing your damn belly. Empathy, please. It not about your whims, was my real thought.  Thanx.

Still, most high-functioning autistics don't speak in ridiculous metaphors like Fonzie does. They also don't tend to lie about their identity like Fonzie did.

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1476
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
.. And by extension might be considered unloving . .

blacklight915 wrote:


Still, most high-functioning autistics don't speak in ridiculous metaphors like Fonzie does. They also don't tend to lie about their identity like Fonzie did.

Anonymouse wrote:

luca wrote:
You need to be explicit, A LOT more explicit. Every your answer should be an essay considering the diversity of experiences you allude to, the implications. So instead do the reverse: keep it simple, express facts, use unanbiguous words (so metaphors are out). Maaan I wish you could do that.

  I am seeing a tread. It looks as if people do not like the use of metaphors. Finding it difficult to follow the intended meaning. You run the risk of seeming only self-indulgent, not caring about the means or the outcome. And by extension might be considered unloving in the attempt. I only just barely mentioned, the knowledge of the bible isn't as prevalent. The board may have diversified in the last few years. There arent as many former-christians as there once were, but I have no data to verify this so it may be more prudent to withdraw that. The answer may be obvious to him alone; how could you even tell ?

ps -- This is going way over-board in trying to relate. Some puzzles are interesting and some are frankly not. 

 

 


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote: Working on a

Fonzie wrote:

Working on a house there is the grind  that settles in but... there are encouragements  if the plan comes together.  

You can get tips anywhere for any old house but when it comes to your special own house - beware.  You only want those gathered by and from One Architect.  There is indecision swirling around on insignificant things in cushy circumstances from spoiled sources but what is there that calls for empathy in that?  There are things that are too much to ask - the wrong questions of the wrong people for the wrong reason toward the wrong purpose.  Empathy needs to make its own search and have its own backlight.      

The way to accomplish the work is do a little and keep doing it - but the way to stay paralyzed and twirling a straw is to have grandiose notions about one's own designs then do and end up accomplishing nothing to fill the grandiose void except picking one's nose and calling that a study.  Some things are communicated from the One Architect - others aren't - but no worries if understood He's Certified.  Focus on the Plan will get harmonious results, slowly proving proof with  resulting  results and constructed constructs.  

The old tradesman has had many blows wound and many strokes clear the way though strength has diminished there is great steady encouragement looking back and ahead seeing how the plan really did and does work and is working, solidifying the confidence invested in the Architect and satisfying pressures held back from critics while the product has developed showing eternal nuclear hope and Rock solid durability, though those who don't know don't care and those who don't see won't see because they don't live here where here is or care where here is or care to leave cushy fried-air thinking to empathize with the Great Crisis and do math to the base of said Crisis.  Thus 1 + 2 is still less than nothing to them and when weighed in the balance they are short on postage.

Wow, I seriously don't understand half of what you said there...  Perhaps you could be a bit clearer?

 

danatemporary wrote:

They'll act like high-functioning autistics, with no capacity to understanding how this will become to others, when it's more of a engrained behaviour on their part,(applying to all!).  Where's the empathy ?  I know it is a shock to learn the world doesnt revolve around-you, in your 'Me' universe nor is it about people rubbing your damn belly. Empathy, please. It not about your whims, was my real thought.  Thanx.

Wait, I really do have high-functioning autism, and I would be extremely ashamed if I were to ever act like Fonzie.

Though...I suppose I may act like that without realizing it. *shudder*  Please tell me if I ever start to act like that, ok?

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Wow, I

blacklight915 wrote:
Wow, I seriously don't understand half of what you said there...  Perhaps you could be a bit clearer?

 

Basically, he's saying : atheism bad, theism good. 

Meph quite enjoys these "building a house" metaphors, as that was his job before he retired.

It's a false analogy, of course. But what matters to Meph is that it sounds/looks good. Unfortunately, he has a point there. Flowery language can be more attractive than cold, hard facts.

(What's so tragic about this, is that we could easily have a pleasant and educational discussion with Meph, if the subject was actual carpentry or running home electrical wiring)

 


blacklight915 wrote:
Wait, I really do have high-functioning autism, and I would be extremely ashamed if I were to ever act like Fonzie.

Though...I suppose I may act like that without realizing it. *shudder*  Please tell me if I ever start to act like that, ok?

 

No worries. If you did, you'd know. 


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Meph quite

Anonymouse wrote:

Meph quite enjoys these "building a house" metaphors, as that was his job before he retired.

Ah, I see. Wait, so he's actually an adult?  What kind of adult knowingly acts like he does, without feeling ashamed!?

 

Anonymouse wrote:

No worries. If you did, you'd know.

Oh ok, thanks. 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Ah, I

blacklight915 wrote:
Ah, I see. Wait, so he's actually an adult?  
 

 

He's a grandfather with 4 or 5 grandkids. He came here because of the blasphemy challenge, hoping to offer the misguided youth an alternative to atheism, by offering himself as a shining example of living through christ.

 

He pretends to be looking for a discussion, but actually he's only looking to express his personal conviction. IOW, he's testifying. That's why trying to debate him can be quite frustrating at times. He genuinely doesn't care what we say, and has admitted as much.

 

blacklight915 wrote:
What kind of adult knowingly acts like he does, without feeling ashamed!?
 

 

Man, I'm so relieved that I'm not the only one who wonders about that.

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 blacklight915 wrote:What

 

blacklight915 wrote:
What kind of adult knowingly acts like he does, without feeling ashamed!?

 

 One who self medicates with lithium without getting blood work done?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:He's a

Anonymouse wrote:

He's a grandfather with 4 or 5 grandkids. He came here because of the blasphemy challenge, hoping to offer the misguided youth an alternative to atheism, by offering himself as a shining example of living through christ.

He pretends to be looking for a discussion, but actually he's only looking to express his personal conviction. IOW, he's testifying. That's why trying to debate him can be quite frustrating at times. He genuinely doesn't care what we say, and has admitted as much.

Ah, I think I understand now, thank you Anonymouse.

Well, Fonzie, you have provided quite an example: an adult man who lied about both his identity and his intentions in an effort to spread his belief system.

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Man, I'm so relieved that I'm not the only one who wonders about that.

Yea, I often wonder the same about people like Ray Comfort...

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:One who self

jcgadfly wrote:

One who self medicates with lithium without getting blood work done?

 

I totally forgot about that. 

 

Meph, don't bother telling me how you think my concern is insincere (I'm not going to repeat my reasons for caring), but I really hope you're managing to keep your bipolar under control with the limited means at your disposal.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1476
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Autism is a bad word choice I should have used unempathic

blacklight wrote:
I actually am  a high functioning autistic

 

Ironically, In a way I may have only choose the word autism due to it being the least insulting condition I could think of off the top of my head, not in anyway accurately describing autism nor Fonzie, major opps !!

 

   Important thing to understand about my remark is, blacklight.  I humbly submit that 'unempathic' should have been my word choice.  Which now that I think of it is the wrong thing to say. Garrison keeler radio personality made a joke about autism. Which I dont know if it would be offensive but I found mildly amusing. He said as a boy, he was shy and had glass. Somewhat subdued, often alone and off to myself immerced in his interests and books. Now-a-days they would have said I was autistic (his current wife roared in laughter). Looking at it from the perspective of trying to be the least insulting, you might say autism is pretty benign but that is specially pleading on my part. Obviously I made a link to empathy and the capacity to feel empathy in my remarks. Sorry for any bad analogy to autism. Most people with high functioning autism, know they have autism and go to great lengths to find ways to interact with people. Always overcoming. In other words they are constantly finding ways to compensate and so by overcome, people with autism are actually sometimes better individuals than 'normal' folks. Fonzie is purposefully doing what he is doing, I think it gets into a set of tactics. Never thought of how potentially very insulting on my part it was to do what  I did, (it was one of the more thoughtless remarks in what I did). If I were like you and someone compared me to Fonzie I would have immediately gotten tweaked about it. Fonzie is in no way like you. You are a joy, Fonzie is a trial, Okay? He is in no way like you have shown yourself to be on the board. I am wildly guessing in all the little knowledge I have. Like with you, You are always striving, he is not putting effort consciously and unconsciously. You are 'always' putting effort. You understand. Ironically, In a way, I may have only choose the word autism due to it being the least insulting condition I could think of off the T0P of my head.  Pretty much is at the core of the remarks.. Fonzie in no away reflects you. That is to laugh. I was stuck between a rock and a hard place with him. No doubt that is it due to my personality seeks to offend people unnecessarily. But Apparently that didnt extend to people with autism somehow. All the the real conditions that could actually describe Fonzie as were too offensive ever say and I unconsciously took them off the table (an idiom). Sorry about that. Dont think he in anyway reflects people with autism, it was the least offensive thought that came up.

 

 

 


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 857
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
THE FELLOWSHIP OF NO FAITH SORT OF

danatemporary wrote:

blacklight wrote:
I actually am  a high functioning autistic

 

Ironically, In a way I may have only choose the word autism due to it being the least insulting condition I could think of off the top of my head, not in anyway accurately describing autism nor Fonzie, major opps !!

 

   Important thing to understand about my remark is, blacklight.  I humbly submit that 'unempathic' should have been my word choice.  Which now that I think of it is the wrong thing to say. Garrison keeler radio personality made a joke about autism. Which I dont know if it would be offensive but I found mildly amusing. He said as a boy, he was shy and had glass. Somewhat subdued, often alone and off to myself immerced in his interests and books. Now-a-days they would have said I was autistic (his current wife roared in laughter). Looking at it from the perspective of trying to be the least insulting, you might say autism is pretty benign but that is specially pleading on my part. Obviously I made a link to empathy and the capacity to feel empathy in my remarks. Sorry for any bad analogy to autism. Most people with high functioning autism, know they have autism and go to great lengths to find ways to interact with people. Always overcoming. In other words they are constantly finding ways to compensate and so by overcome, people with autism are actually sometimes better individuals than 'normal' folks. Fonzie is purposefully doing what he is doing, I think it gets into a set of tactics. Never thought of how potentially very insulting on my part it was to do what  I did, (it was one of the more thoughtless remarks in what I did). If I were like you and someone compared me to Fonzie I would have immediately gotten tweaked about it. Fonzie is in no way like you. You are a joy, Fonzie is a trial, Okay? He is in no way like you have shown yourself to be on the board. I am wildly guessing in all the little knowledge I have. Like with you, You are always striving, he is not putting effort consciously and unconsciously. You are 'always' putting effort. You understand. Ironically, In a way, I may have only choose the word autism due to it being the least insulting condition I could think of off the T0P of my head.  Pretty much is at the core of the remarks.. Fonzie in no away reflects you. That is to laugh. I was stuck between a rock and a hard place with him. No doubt that is it due to my personality seeks to offend people unnecessarily. But Apparently that didnt extend to people with autism somehow. All the the real conditions that could actually describe Fonzie as were too offensive ever say and I unconsciously took them off the table (an idiom). Sorry about that. Dont think he in anyway reflects people with autism, it was the least offensive thought that came up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Danatempory,

 

So do you believe your apology was adequate?  And do you believe blacklight accepts?  And what do you believe you should do if you don't believe he does?  And do you believe Brian hates faith - things that can't be proved?  And can you prove any of these things you believe yet claiming to be the fellowship of unbelievers?  

I can tell you Any. is wrong on his "facts" BTW.  But do you believe him anyway since he doesn't believe anything?  And do you believe Fly's view of Christianity?  Do you go find somebody who believes he believed something but now believes he doesn't and believe their view of it?  Is that the way you establish what and who you believe then say you are an unbeliever? 

I can only imagine the joys of being a part of this atheist bunch who fool themselves into thinking they believe what they can't prove even though it's wrong only if the one telling them also believes what he can't prove which is also wrong and he got from other people (himself also not believing anything) who don't believe they believe anything either - which all together goes nowhere ......

So bring on more evidence of that fact for all to see.  

 

 

 

 

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:And do you

Fonzie wrote:

And do you believe Brian hates faith - things that can't be proved?  And can you prove any of these things you believe yet claiming to be the fellowship of unbelievers?  

I can tell you Any. is wrong on his "facts" BTW.  But do you believe him anyway since he doesn't believe anything?  And do you believe Fly's view of Christianity? 

 

 

Uhm, she didn't mention Brian Sapient, JC or me in that post. 

Btw, what "facts" am I wrong about ? You never mentioned those to me.

 

Fonzie wrote:
So bring on more evidence of that fact for all to see.
 

Evidence of what fact ?

Look, you can't just use words because you think they sound impressive. They need to refer to something. So what fact do you need evidence of ? 

 

Fonzie wrote:
I can only imagine the joys of being a part of this atheist bunch who fool themselves into thinking they believe what they can't prove even though it's wrong only if the one telling them also believes what he can't prove which is also wrong and he got from other people (himself also not believing anything) who don't believe they believe anything either - which all together goes nowhere ......
 

Could you be a bit more precise ? What exactly do they "think they believe that they can't prove even though it's wrong...etc" ?

You know, the reason why this "all together goes nowhere", might be because you can never bring yourself to clearly express just what the heck it is you're talking about.

 


 

 


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:So do you

Fonzie wrote:

So do you believe your apology was adequate?  And do you believe blacklight accepts?  And what do you believe you should do if you don't believe he does?

Her apology was more than adequate, and I absolutely accept it. Worry about apologizing for your own actions first, Fonzie.

 

danatemporary wrote:

If I were like you and someone compared me to Fonzie I would have immediately gotten tweaked about it. Fonzie is in no way like you. You are a joy, Fonzie is a trial, Okay? He is in no way like you have shown yourself to be on the board. I am wildly guessing in all the little knowledge I have. Like with you, You are always striving, he is not putting effort consciously and unconsciously. You are 'always' putting effort. You understand. Ironically, In a way I may have only choose the word autism due to it being the least insulting condition I could think of off the top of my head, not in anyway accurately describing autism nor Fonzie, major opps !!

Thank you very much for the apology/clarification, Dana; I really appreciate it. 

  


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1476
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm too tired right now but will try to answer you anyway . .

 

Quote:
I am too tired right now but will try to answer you anyway ..

 

  ATTN Mr Fonzerelli

 

 Fonzie wrote : Danatempory,

 

So do you believe your apology was adequate?  And do you believe blacklight accepts?  And what do you believe you should do if you don't believe he does?  And do you believe Brian hates faith - things that can't be proved?  And can you prove any of these things you believe yet claiming to be the fellowship of unbelievers?  

I can tell you Any. is wrong on his "facts" BTW.  But do you believe him anyway since he doesn't believe anything?  And do you believe Fly's view of Christianity?  Do you go find somebody who believes he believed something but now believes he doesn't and believe their view of it?  Is that the way you establish what and who you believe then say you are an unbeliever? 

I can only imagine the joys of being a part of this atheist bunch who fool themselves into thinking they believe what they can't prove even though

 


  . You might think I am kidding/fibbing but there's a newly opened up  Thread about an 'Atheist's defense of the Bible', havent read any of it but it is more than likely suggesting it better off in the olden days, not everyone start a local biblestudy in their area. Not playing well, havent read it. This board is always got its' surprises. Another Thread is by an Atheist who is reading Catholic Church fathers not kidding/fibbing either. So Fonzie still doesnt know what he's missing. I wanted to mention this to point out Nony brought up the third temple and temple mount And I can honestly attest the article was much longer than you'd find on your christian forums. Being on the best board on the net colors the glasses a bountiful shade of rose pink for me at times. You are just happy to be here and so relieved at the environment it makes you appreciate everyone on the board in a way. Getting back to what you asked about giving people who believed something and now dont believe something is. For me, Before I forget, What you say in derision, I consider the greatest joy, I do. I think, from your perspective,  There is only the narrowest set of 'beliefs' everyone one 'shares'. Outside of that the diversity is unimaginable. What you specifically asked: Why not give you a partial list of people who were former christians and now sail under the proud banner of Atheist. Off the top of my head users like : iwbiek (fundementalist/liberal christian), tonyjeffers (evangelical), Atheistextermist (Protestant), ex-minister (protestant), harleysporters (Roman Catholic), pauljohntheskeptic (liberal Catholic), ThunderJones (Protestant), Watcher (Fundementalist), Zeeboe (raised something), Prozacdeathwish (fundementalist),  Old Seer (sort of) Brian says is a theist, so she's a theist, Cpt_pineapple  (deist), Cj (Protestant) Gauche (unknown) GodsUseForAMosquito(unknown) and A_Nony_Mouse (havent asked Nony ever) about a full dozen others I am too sleepy to remember. All of which are a joy. They all took the journey to belief to full on unbelievers. The standard reply is they were never Theists. That is the biggest lie out. You sit in and listen and you can hear the years of devotion and service and 'faith' they had. Everyone has his or her own cliche in our board's ecosystem.  I do apologize but Im way too tired to go on I'm needing some sleep. I hope that answers part of what you want. I feel if you comment on my remarks in the way you just did. Maybe about three or four others can talk with you. My Grandpa told me a few months before he died, the last neighbors he or I should say 'we' had were the best he had ever had. Well, This board is the absolute best board on the internet hands down, nothing compares with it. I should say I have been on dozens of boards for usually a few months at the most (if that). Likewise. my Grandpa had moved a lot in various places in his lifetime. So, 'we' both have other points of reference to compare something against. Finally, I think if you keep asking the same questions over and over, it indicates you dont have a very good handle on Atheism to start with and you insist on making based like a faith and a belief for the 'Atheistic religion', hmm? This cannot be making much sense but after four years maybe you'll buy a book or something to aid the trouble in conceptualizing.

 

 

 

 

 

  Everyone tells me Catholics and Protestants love Shakespeare , so please

allow me to share some from Henry the V then

  The Play Henry V ( quote, impossible to choose only one)
 
O ceremony, show me but thy worth!
What is thy soul of adoration?
Art thou aught else but place, degree and form,
Creating awe and fear in other men?
Wherein thou art less happy being fear'd
Than they in fearing.
What drink'st thou oft, instead of homage sweet,
But poison'd flattery? O, be sick, great greatness,
And bid thy ceremony give thee cure!
Think'st thou the fiery fever will go out
With titles blown from adulation?
Will it give place to flexure and low bending?
Canst thou, when thou command'st the beggar's knee,
Command the health of it? No, thou proud dream,
That play'st so subtly with a king's repose;
I am a king that find thee,..

So, if a son that is by his father sent about
merchandise do sinfully miscarry upon the sea, the
imputation of his wickedness by your rule, should be
imposed upon his father that sent him: or if a
servant, under his master's command transporting a
sum of money, be assailed by robbers and die in
many irreconciled iniquities, you may call the
business of the master the author of the servant's
damnation: but this is not so: the king is not
bound to answer the particular endings of his
soldiers, the father of his son, nor the master of
his servant; for they purpose not their death, when
they purpose their services.

That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Defy us to our worst: for, as I am a soldier,
A name that in my thoughts becomes me best,
If I begin the battery once again,
I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
Till in her ashes she lie buried.
The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the flesh'd soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh-fair virgins and your flowering infants.
What is it then to me, if impious war,
Array'd in flames like to the prince of fiends,
Do, with his smirch'd complexion, all fell feats
Enlink'd to waste and desolation?
What is't to me, when you yourselves are cause,
If your pure maidens fall into the hand
Of hot and forcing violation?
What rein can hold licentious wickedness
When down the hill he holds his fierce career?
We may as bootless spend our vain command
Upon the enraged soldiers in their spoil
As send precepts to the leviathan
To come ashore. Therefore, you men of Harfleur,
Take pity of your town and of your people,
Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command;
Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace
O'erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil and villany!!
If not, why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters;
Your fathers taken by the silver beards,
And their most reverend heads dash'd to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes,
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused
Do break the clouds,.. What say you!?!?  Will you
yield, and thus avoid, Or, guilty in defence, be
thus destroy'd?

..when lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the
gentler gamester is the soonest winner.


    ACT VI      Now entertain conjecture of a time
    When creeping murmur and the poring dark
    Fills the wide vessel of the universe.
    From camp to camp through the foul womb of night
    The hum of either army stilly sounds,
    That the fixed sentinels almost receive
    The secret whispers of each other's watch:
    Fire answers fire, and through their paly flames
    Each battle sees the other's umber'd face;
    Steed threatens steed, in high and boastful neighs
    Piercing the night's dull ear, and from the tents
    The armourers, accomplishing the knights,
    With busy hammers closing rivets up,
    Give dreadful note of preparation:
    The country cocks do crow, the clocks do toll,
    And the third hour of drowsy morning name.
    Proud of their numbers and secure in soul,
    The confident and over-lusty French
    Do the low-rated English play at dice;
    And chide the cripple tardy-gaited night
    Who, like a foul and ugly witch, doth limp
    So tediously away. The poor condemned English,
    Like sacrifices, by their watchful fires
    Sit patiently and inly ruminate
    The morning's danger, and their gesture sad
    Investing lank-lean; cheeks and war-worn coats
    Presenteth them unto the gazing moon
    So many horrid ghosts. O now, who will behold
    The royal captain of this ruin'd band
    Walking from watch to watch, from tent to tent,
    Let him cry 'Praise and glory on his head!'
    For forth he goes and visits all his host.
    Bids them good morrow with a modest smile
    And calls them brothers, friends and countrymen.
    Upon his royal face there is no note
    How dread an army hath enrounded him;
    Nor doth he dedicate one jot of colour
    Unto the weary and all-watched night,
    But freshly looks and over-bears attaint
    With cheerful semblance and sweet majesty;
    That every wretch, pining and pale before,
    Beholding him, plucks comfort from his looks:
    A largess universal like the sun
    His liberal eye doth give to every one,
    Thawing cold fear, that mean and gentle all,
    Behold, as may unworthiness define,
    A little touch of Harry in the night ..

 And far too many to add  . . 

 

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2766
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Hesed wrote:Photo above is

Hesed wrote:

 Carrie Devorah, God in the Temples of Government)

Photo above is from the USA Supreme Court Door.  It seems that our forefathers of this great country thought the 10 Commandments were a good foundation to build on.  Suggesting that the decalogue is secular morality is an interesting concept.  Are you suggesting that if you were ruler for a day you would have come up with at least 6 of these (5-10)?

I have avoided posting on this tread for a long time, but I got bored and started to thumb through it. I couldn't help but respond to this old message.

1 - Those are not the ten commandments

2 - They are the original 10 bill of rights of the constitution

Proof of this is in the design work from the original artists.

3 - The forefathers (washington, jefferson, etc) were all six feet under when this building was erected in 1935.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 857
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
WHEREFORE ART THOU MS TEMP??????

danatemporary wrote:

 

Quote:
I am too tired right now but will try to answer you anyway ..

 

  ATTN Mr Fonzerelli

 

 Fonzie wrote : Danatempory,

 

So do you believe your apology was adequate?  And do you believe blacklight accepts?  And what do you believe you should do if you don't believe he does?  And do you believe Brian hates faith - things that can't be proved?  And can you prove any of these things you believe yet claiming to be the fellowship of unbelievers?  

I can tell you Any. is wrong on his "facts" BTW.  But do you believe him anyway since he doesn't believe anything?  And do you believe Fly's view of Christianity?  Do you go find somebody who believes he believed something but now believes he doesn't and believe their view of it?  Is that the way you establish what and who you believe then say you are an unbeliever? 

I can only imagine the joys of being a part of this atheist bunch who fool themselves into thinking they believe what they can't prove even though

 


  . You might think I am kidding/fibbing but there's a newly opened up  Thread about an 'Atheist's defense of the Bible', havent read any of it but it is more than likely suggesting it better off in the olden days, not everyone start a local biblestudy in their area. Not playing well, havent read it. This board is always got its' surprises. Another Thread is by an Atheist who is reading Catholic Church fathers not kidding/fibbing either. So Fonzie still doesnt know what he's missing. I wanted to mention this to point out Nony brought up the third temple and temple mount And I can honestly attest the article was much longer than you'd find on your christian forums. Being on the best board on the net colors the glasses a bountiful shade of rose pink for me at times. You are just happy to be here and so relieved at the environment it makes you appreciate everyone on the board in a way. Getting back to what you asked about giving people who believed something and now dont believe something is. For me, Before I forget, What you say in derision, I consider the greatest joy, I do. I think, from your perspective,  There is only the narrowest set of 'beliefs' everyone one 'shares'. Outside of that the diversity is unimaginable. What you specifically asked: Why not give you a partial list of people who were former christians and now sail under the proud banner of Atheist. Off the top of my head users like : iwbiek (fundementalist/liberal christian), tonyjeffers (evangelical), Atheistextermist (Protestant), ex-minister (protestant), harleysporters (Roman Catholic), pauljohntheskeptic (liberal Catholic), ThunderJones (Protestant), Watcher (Fundementalist), Zeeboe (raised something), Prozacdeathwish (fundementalist),  Old Seer (sort of) Brian says is a theist, so she's a theist, Cpt_pineapple  (deist), Cj (Protestant) Gauche (unknown) GodsUseForAMosquito(unknown) and A_Nony_Mouse (havent asked Nony ever) about a full dozen others I am too sleepy to remember. All of which are a joy. They all took the journey to belief to full on unbelievers. The standard reply is they were never Theists. That is the biggest lie out. You sit in and listen and you can hear the years of devotion and service and 'faith' they had. Everyone has his or her own cliche in our board's ecosystem.  I do apologize but Im way too tired to go on I'm needing some sleep. I hope that answers part of what you want. I feel if you comment on my remarks in the way you just did. Maybe about three or four others can talk with you. My Grandpa told me a few months before he died, the last neighbors he or I should say 'we' had were the best he had ever had. Well, This board is the absolute best board on the internet hands down, nothing compares with it. I should say I have been on dozens of boards for usually a few months at the most (if that). Likewise. my Grandpa had moved a lot in various places in his lifetime. So, 'we' both have other points of reference to compare something against. Finally, I think if you keep asking the same questions over and over, it indicates you dont have a very good handle on Atheism to start with and you insist on making based like a faith and a belief for the 'Atheistic religion', hmm? This cannot be making much sense but after four years maybe you'll buy a book or something to aid the trouble in conceptualizing.

 

 

 

 

 

  Everyone tells me Catholics and Protestants love Shakespeare , so please

allow me to share some from Henry the V then

  The Play Henry V ( quote, impossible to choose only one)
 
O ceremony, show me but thy worth!
What is thy soul of adoration?
Art thou aught else but place, degree and form,
Creating awe and fear in other men?
Wherein thou art less happy being fear'd
Than they in fearing.
What drink'st thou oft, instead of homage sweet,
But poison'd flattery? O, be sick, great greatness,
And bid thy ceremony give thee cure!
Think'st thou the fiery fever will go out
With titles blown from adulation?
Will it give place to flexure and low bending?
Canst thou, when thou command'st the beggar's knee,
Command the health of it? No, thou proud dream,
That play'st so subtly with a king's repose;
I am a king that find thee,..

So, if a son that is by his father sent about
merchandise do sinfully miscarry upon the sea, the
imputation of his wickedness by your rule, should be
imposed upon his father that sent him: or if a
servant, under his master's command transporting a
sum of money, be assailed by robbers and die in
many irreconciled iniquities, you may call the
business of the master the author of the servant's
damnation: but this is not so: the king is not
bound to answer the particular endings of his
soldiers, the father of his son, nor the master of
his servant; for they purpose not their death, when
they purpose their services.

That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Defy us to our worst: for, as I am a soldier,
A name that in my thoughts becomes me best,
If I begin the battery once again,
I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
Till in her ashes she lie buried.
The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the flesh'd soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh-fair virgins and your flowering infants.
What is it then to me, if impious war,
Array'd in flames like to the prince of fiends,
Do, with his smirch'd complexion, all fell feats
Enlink'd to waste and desolation?
What is't to me, when you yourselves are cause,
If your pure maidens fall into the hand
Of hot and forcing violation?
What rein can hold licentious wickedness
When down the hill he holds his fierce career?
We may as bootless spend our vain command
Upon the enraged soldiers in their spoil
As send precepts to the leviathan
To come ashore. Therefore, you men of Harfleur,
Take pity of your town and of your people,
Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command;
Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace
O'erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil and villany!!
If not, why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters;
Your fathers taken by the silver beards,
And their most reverend heads dash'd to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes,
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused
Do break the clouds,.. What say you!?!?  Will you
yield, and thus avoid, Or, guilty in defence, be
thus destroy'd?

..when lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the
gentler gamester is the soonest winner.


    ACT VI      Now entertain conjecture of a time
    When creeping murmur and the poring dark
    Fills the wide vessel of the universe.
    From camp to camp through the foul womb of night
    The hum of either army stilly sounds,
    That the fixed sentinels almost receive
    The secret whispers of each other's watch:
    Fire answers fire, and through their paly flames
    Each battle sees the other's umber'd face;
    Steed threatens steed, in high and boastful neighs
    Piercing the night's dull ear, and from the tents
    The armourers, accomplishing the knights,
    With busy hammers closing rivets up,
    Give dreadful note of preparation:
    The country cocks do crow, the clocks do toll,
    And the third hour of drowsy morning name.
    Proud of their numbers and secure in soul,
    The confident and over-lusty French
    Do the low-rated English play at dice;
    And chide the cripple tardy-gaited night
    Who, like a foul and ugly witch, doth limp
    So tediously away. The poor condemned English,
    Like sacrifices, by their watchful fires
    Sit patiently and inly ruminate
    The morning's danger, and their gesture sad
    Investing lank-lean; cheeks and war-worn coats
    Presenteth them unto the gazing moon
    So many horrid ghosts. O now, who will behold
    The royal captain of this ruin'd band
    Walking from watch to watch, from tent to tent,
    Let him cry 'Praise and glory on his head!'
    For forth he goes and visits all his host.
    Bids them good morrow with a modest smile
    And calls them brothers, friends and countrymen.
    Upon his royal face there is no note
    How dread an army hath enrounded him;
    Nor doth he dedicate one jot of colour
    Unto the weary and all-watched night,
    But freshly looks and over-bears attaint
    With cheerful semblance and sweet majesty;
    That every wretch, pining and pale before,
    Beholding him, plucks comfort from his looks:
    A largess universal like the sun
    His liberal eye doth give to every one,
    Thawing cold fear, that mean and gentle all,
    Behold, as may unworthiness define,
    A little touch of Harry in the night ..

 And far too many to add  . . 

 

 

 

 

Ms Danatempory,

I have seen evidence atheists are able to think, imagine, type and manage general things.  You are adding the concept that they have "principles" and "deep thoughts" about "concepts" that are a match for what the theist says is missing - and the spinning of their tale is off somewhere happening behind the "Green Door" and I don't know what I'm missing.  Concepts, principles, deep stuff, exciting stuff, living stuff to die for exciting you like nothing else ever though you are too tired to know the way to the city like a hummingbird coming over the gulf and plummeting down to the last flap exhausted.  

But I think what we have here is the accusation (valid) which is drawn, aimed and let fly against false religion (not however living faith in Christ)  having become a "form", a "shell", a "veneer" (as you quote also from BS also true about the atheist "form", "shell", "veneer", "front) - "wherefore art you Danatemporary"?  Are you in a living breathing atheist body of unbelievers not believing anybody unless they don't believe anybody (does that bring you together and become enough to build a relationship on?), not believing any principle unproven - and which principle is proven?   Do you have any proven principles to share, the ABC's of atheism, the 123, the working atheist model (I'm talking other than recess where the straw man Christian is annihilated).  If school is on and the teacher is in then go to the blackboard (the other half at your seats) and draw this out for me.  What are your principles proven if you have them and how do you prove them without faith?  

Brian says he hates faith and instead goes with only things proven.  You are delighted, so bring me the fruits of your delight.  

 

 

 

 

 

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1476
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
It would be good to know more about 'your' chosen subject IS ?

 

 

Quote:
Brian says he hates faith and instead goes with only things proven.  You are delighted, so bring me the fruits of your delight

Funny, I wasnt under the impression you were drawing a lot of traffic from Brian, I dont know. As for Brian, I cannot put words in his mouth nor speak for him. Remember that diversity in the board. Early indications is he finds no value in even quoting a holy book, that is only an impression. (You'd need to talk more directly to concur with him.). Though he recently went so far as to say all tempts with all are 'playing with play-dough'. Potentially a highly offensive remark, I'd think. By contrast, the people I'm thinking of, are willing to do quite lengthy word studies, such as myself. I'd love to sit down a do a word study on the term death in the OT and NT. As for bringing the fruits of my delight, I cannot be expected to fix your traffic problem nor do that. To do so, I'd have to cut-paste major portions of threads (plural) to here. And, Apparently I am having browser trouble is the feed back I got from a long-standing Moderator. Plus, If your Thread is about something, I dont think it would be fair for me to do so. Then you're at the mercy of my editing not to mention all my interests by such an act. That doesnt mean that is an excuse not to do something for you if asked  however.

Fonzie wrote:

 . . the ABC's of atheism, the 123, the working atheist model (I'm talking other than recess where the straw man Christian is annihilated). 

  An impression is The board has a tendency to not view Christianity as any different from any other religion, past or present, in part due to 'Faith'.  It further would find considerable problems with its' root-stock/humble origins. That said, I want you to know, I was making a general statement about the board and only an impression you were giving within your most recent interactions. I dont feel you should walk away from it with this notion you need to be schooled, it was not implied  in that remark, only an impression I was having by multiple characterizations made in 'some' of the remarks. I have a tendency to joke a lot (not the ridicule, Ill have you know), that may be for more serious minded folk. Should it be so presumptive or unworthy in the taking on the role of teacher, he all have things to offer,. Presumptous for me to think of teaching.


    I could be wrong, but another general impression  is the board is highly offensive to Theists' understanding such as w/ these :

   The  User:Damma's initial preferencing remarks :

Quote:
I would like to demonstrate thanks to this thread that the concept of the fall is actual and true, and that scientific findings reinforce the need to recognize this as a fact, that we are humans that have fallen
         . This board's own, now late, TGBaker suggested, Since the Fall is mythological and not a literal account there is no basis to assume there is Original Sin. Christology, in part, is based upon Original Sin. The death of Jesus upon the cross is a sacrifice (propitiation) for that sin. Paul argues it, “As in Adam all have sinned and died so in Christ all are made alive.” and so forth . . (JPTS contends) "Since we agree that the account is found to be just a story or literature what basis do you use for needing Jesus? The argument in most Christian churches has been that Jesus needed to be a sacrifice, the just for the unjust, in our place so we would be saved. If the Genesis account isn't really all that true what then, what?"

 * * *

   Lastly, One of the other threads that has lasted a long time defined enforceable parameters. Most people on the board are not willing to define or redefine what a thread is all about. If they do it soon goes off on some tangent so departed from the original intent of, not to mention the topic. If you had read any of my posts in the past I have a far higher  portion of direct quotes from particular passages of scripture, then other than two individuals, well, three individuals of that I can think of. Faith claims are never taken off the table in any of the Threads. In the act of wanting to quote from holy literature. I would hope you'd consider me more serious minded at times too and they mercifully/ seamlessly fit into the (actual) Topic. Most Threads have them. Topics I mean. I didnt answer one thing, I am not all that sure what to say about being in a relationship (you're meaning friendship) it being on an Online forum of all places. Hope springs eternal.

 


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 857
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
BRIAN'S WORLD #3243

danatemporary wrote:

 

 

Quote:
Brian says he hates faith and instead goes with only things proven.  You are delighted, so bring me the fruits of your delight

Funny, I wasnt under the impression you were drawing a lot of traffic from Brian, I dont know. As for Brian, I cannot put words in his mouth nor speak for him. Remember that diversity in the board. Early indications is he finds no value in even quoting a holy book, that is only an impression. (You'd need to talk more directly to concur with him.). Though he recently went so far as to say all tempts with all are 'playing with play-dough'. Potentially a highly offensive remark, I'd think. By contrast, the people I'm thinking of, are willing to do quite lengthy word studies, such as myself. I'd love to sit down a do a word study on the term death in the OT and NT. As for bringing the fruits of my delight, I cannot be expected to fix your traffic problem nor do that. To do so, I'd have to cut-paste major portions of threads (plural) to here. And, Apparently I am having browser trouble is the feed back I got from a long-standing Moderator. Plus, If your Thread is about something, I dont think it would be fair for me to do so. Then you're at the mercy of my editing not to mention all my interests by such an act. That doesnt mean that is an excuse not to do something for you if asked  however.

Fonzie wrote:

 . . the ABC's of atheism, the 123, the working atheist model (I'm talking other than recess where the straw man Christian is annihilated). 

  An impression is The board has a tendency to not view Christianity as any different from any other religion, past or present, in part due to 'Faith'.  It further would find considerable problems with its' root-stock/humble origins. That said, I want you to know, I was making a general statement about the board and only an impression you were giving within your most recent interactions. I dont feel you should walk away from it with this notion you need to be schooled, it was not implied  in that remark, only an impression I was having by multiple characterizations made in 'some' of the remarks. I have a tendency to joke a lot (not the ridicule, Ill have you know), that may be for more serious minded folk. Should it be so presumptive or unworthy in the taking on the role of teacher, he all have things to offer,. Presumptous for me to think of teaching.


    I could be wrong, but another general impression  is the board is highly offensive to Theists' understanding such as w/ these :

   The  User:Damma's initial preferencing remarks :

Quote:
I would like to demonstrate thanks to this thread that the concept of the fall is actual and true, and that scientific findings reinforce the need to recognize this as a fact, that we are humans that have fallen
         . This board's own, now late, TGBaker suggested, Since the Fall is mythological and not a literal account there is no basis to assume there is Original Sin. Christology, in part, is based upon Original Sin. The death of Jesus upon the cross is a sacrifice (propitiation) for that sin. Paul argues it, “As in Adam all have sinned and died so in Christ all are made alive.” and so forth . . (JPTS contends) "Since we agree that the account is found to be just a story or literature what basis do you use for needing Jesus? The argument in most Christian churches has been that Jesus needed to be a sacrifice, the just for the unjust, in our place so we would be saved. If the Genesis account isn't really all that true what then, what?"

 * * *

   Lastly, One of the other threads that has lasted a long time defined enforceable parameters. Most people on the board are not willing to define or redefine what a thread is all about. If they do it soon goes off on some tangent so departed from the original intent of, not to mention the topic. If you had read any of my posts in the past I have a far higher  portion of direct quotes from particular passages of scripture, then other than two individuals, well, three individuals of that I can think of. Faith claims are never taken off the table in any of the Threads. In the act of wanting to quote from holy literature. I would hope you'd consider me more serious minded at times too and they mercifully/ seamlessly fit into the (actual) Topic. Most Threads have them. Topics I mean. I didnt answer one thing, I am not all that sure what to say about being in a relationship (you're meaning friendship) it being on an Online forum of all places. Hope springs eternal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Danatemporary,

The point is the atheist DOES believe things he cannot prove while fooling himself.  He thinks he is on the solid  rock of reasoning with "provable pilings" but in reality - there is his faith gluing his stage prop  together at every joint.  I can understand why the atheist doesn't want to trot out what he believes (but can't prove) - which also doesn't work and goes nowhere.  He then muddies the water with frogs coming out of his mouth (and mouths of forum toadies)  to try to cover the delicate lid on his failed system with more aggression and accusations.  

In contrast, the Word of God builds faith - with investment of faith - because the reality proves to be there.  When we believe in a risen Jesus (with Indestructible Life) we don't step out into nothingness - He is there and He is here in us.  He proves His Presence in faith daily - renewing life moment by moment, sustaining and satisfying as the Bread of Life and Water of Life that He claimed He then proves.  The principles prove themselves sound and sure as well building total faith in the Architect.  As John Bunyon (imprisoned in the 1600s for preaching without being ordained) said, "...know for certain that the things signified by parables are wonderful realities".  When faith is in spiritual realities - faith is supported and increased by those realities.  

When faith is denied as even being fundamental by self-fooled atheists thinking that they don't actually use faith for what they actually believe and try to say it's reason and proof that testify to their reality they have a delicate reality indeed - so they get louder and more blasphemous and get more bombs and flaming arrows - behind their "machine" is the little wizard that can't prove and doesn't have.  So the atheist transmitter has no real message in it's blowtorch.    

If you look back where Brian couldn't provide anything of substance to my question -  he only came on and tagged some name on me (which doesn't matter unless you're in 3rd grade) that's where he said he hates faith (post #3243).  I say he is kidding himself and displaying to the whole forum that he has nothing of substance beyond the Bob Vila sledgehammer approach to Christian demolition.  His answer and action proves my position and his pseudo reality and also his dissemination of his hate with which he leads this effort.    

So the bottom line is this:  what I believe (THE WORD OF GOD AND JESUS WHO DIED AND IS ALIVE) but can't prove - TO YOU - I admit is faith.  But it is faith in THE TRUE REALITY that proves itself every moment to me and a multitude (or one Christian standing alone)  of other believers (some of whom even sang in the fire).  The Word of God is Real, It Works, Proves Itself in Practice, yields Profit in every investment and is a Ship sailing straight to the Harbor.  

What the atheist says he doesn't believe he actually does believe - fooling himself.  It doesn't work, doesn't exist, he can't prove it (though he claims he can), it goes nowhere, and again and again he fools himself tragically that he can and it does. He won't face this fact and attacks those who knock "this old box" over.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie

Fonzie wrote:
Danatemporary,

Since you don't bother to address anything she actually said, I guess I can take this one.

 

Fonzie wrote:
The point is the atheist DOES believe things he cannot prove while fooling himself.  He thinks he is on the solid  rock of reasoning with "provable pilings" but in reality - there is his faith gluing his stage prop  together at every joint.

Oh ?

Does gravity stop working when you don't have faith in it ? 


 

Fonzie wrote:
I can understand why the atheist doesn't want to trot out what he believes (but can't prove) - which also doesn't work and goes nowhere.


 

When you ask what they believe, they answer you. This happened most recently on the preceding page. Now you're pretending it never happened. Again. Seriously, why do you keep doing this ? I keep telling you, people can read, even if you don't seem to want to.

 

Fonzie wrote:
He then muddies the water with frogs coming out of his mouth (and mouths of forum toadies)  to try to cover the delicate lid on his failed system with more aggression and accusations.

 

And when all else fails, you try childish insults ? 

Bah. 

 

Fonzie wrote:
In contrast...,

 

In contrast to a situation that exists only in your imagination, let's try to keep that in mind.

 

 

Fonzie wrote:
the Word of God builds faith - with investment of faith - because the reality proves to be there.

 

You seem confused about what words like "reality" and "proves" actually mean. Reality doesn't prove imagination. That doesn't even begin to make sense.

 

 

Fonzie wrote:
When we believe in a risen Jesus (with Indestructible Life) we don't step out into nothingness - He is there and He is here in us.  He proves His Presence in faith daily - renewing life moment by moment, sustaining and satisfying as the Bread of Life and Water of Life that He claimed He then proves.  The principles prove themselves sound and sure as well building total faith in the Architect.  As John Bunyon (imprisoned in the 1600s for preaching without being ordained) said, "...know for certain that the things signified by parables are wonderful realities".  When faith is in spiritual realities - faith is supported and increased by those realities.  

 

Again, your use of the verb "proves" makes no sense here. Especially since you can't keep from expressing your disdain for any knowledge that relies on evidence. You keep trying to have it both ways. I'm sorry, but you can't. 

If you had proof, it wouldn't be faith.


 

Fonzie wrote:
When faith is denied as even being fundamental by self-fooled atheists thinking that they don't actually use faith for what they actually believe and try to say it's reason and proof that testify to their reality they have a delicate reality indeed

 

Uhm....read what you just typed, repeatedly, just a few sentences ago : "..He proves", "..He then proves", etc..

So actual proof leads to a "delicate reality indeed" ? ....Oh, I guess you weren't talking about YOUR "proof" there. 

 

See, that's what happens when you don't care what words mean : You end up trapping yourself in your own nonsense.


 

Fonzie wrote:
- so they get louder and more blasphemous and get more bombs and flaming arrows - behind their "machine" is the little wizard that can't prove and doesn't have.  So the atheist transmitter has no real message in it's blowtorch.  
 

Is that what happened ?

So these 5 years worth of threads where atheists calmly and repeatedly answer the same questions over and over again, and where you sometimes even thanked us for it....that never happened ?

 

Then why can I, and everybody else, still read it ?


 

 

Fonzie wrote:
If you look back where Brian couldn't provide anything of substance to my question - 
 

 

Yes, could you maybe show us all where that happened , please ? Cause I can show you were he answered your questions, as we all did. Page 65. Look, if you're going to simply lie, try to make it a little harder to check.

 

Fonzie wrote:
he only came on and tagged some name on me 
 

 

Nope, he actually came on to explain why he WASN'T going to give you back the badge you earned in your first thread, for the yearlong repeated habit of ignoring the answers you asked for yourself.

But you couldn't stop yourself from bragging how much you enjoyed being a troll. So he granted your wish. 

 

Fonzie wrote:
(which doesn't matter unless you're in 3rd grade) 
 

 

Which doesn't matter unless you're a theist who feels like comparing atheists to frogs and such.  That's allowed.

(As for the badge, for all the hundreds of theists who visited this site, you're one of a handful who managed to earn it. Think about that for a second) 

 

Fonzie wrote:
that's where he said he hates faith (post #3243). 
 

 

Where he also said this : 

Sapient wrote:
I may believe things that I have a reasonable expectation based on data, evidence, or experience of something but certainly never faith.
 

In other words, he doesn't simply say he "hates" something, he gives a reasonable explanation for dismissing it. That's always the bit you somehow miss.

 

Fonzie wrote:
I say he is kidding himself and displaying to the whole forum that he has nothing of substance beyond the Bob Vila sledgehammer approach to Christian demolition.His answer and action proves my position and his pseudo reality and also his dissemination of his hate with which he leads this effort.
 

 

Okay, first of all, you already claimed that "proof" doesn't count. 

 

But more importantly, "sledgehammer" ?? Dude, Sapient's site is hosting 5 years worth of your sermons !! You really have no shame at all, have you ? 

 

Fonzie wrote:
So the bottom line is this:  what I believe (THE WORD OF GOD AND JESUS WHO DIED AND IS ALIVE) but can't prove - TO YOU - I admit is faith.  But it is faith in THE TRUE REALITY that proves itself every moment to me and a multitude (or one Christian standing alone)  of other believers (some of whom even sang in the fire).  The Word of God is Real, It Works, Proves Itself in Practice, yields Profit in every investment and is a Ship sailing straight to the Harbor.
 

 

You're not distinguishing between subjective and objective reality. So what else is new.

I'll put it another way : What you imagine doesn't become real. That's not how reality works. 

 

Fonzie wrote:
What the atheist says he doesn't believe he actually does believe - fooling himself.
 

 

Actually, what "the atheist" has simply noticed, is that reality still functions even if you don't believe in it. 

Wait, didn't we already tell you that ?

..oh, sorry, I keep forgetting you don't really care what we say.

 

Fonzie wrote:
It doesn't work, doesn't exist, he can't prove it (though he claims he can),
 

 

Are you talking about science ?

Then I guess you have one of those computers that run on pixie dust, and your bipolar is kept in check by faith, not medicine. 

 

Fonzie wrote:
it goes nowhere, and again and again he fools himself tragically that he can and it does.
 

 

Why would we need fooling, when we take reality as it presents itself, without trying to squeeze it into our limited imaginations ? 

Yet another question doomed to go unanswered. 

 

Fonzie wrote:
He won't face this fact and attacks those who knock "this old box" over.  
 


 

I guess answering your questions, again and again, for over 5 years, counts as an "attack" now ?  And so does offering you a free forum to preach in to your heart's content ? 


 

Oh yes, those evil, evil atheists.

 

What would you do without them, eh ? 

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1476
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
As for bringing.. my delights, I cannot be expected . . . .

danatemporary wrote:

  As for bringing the fruits of my delight, I cannot be expected to fix your traffic problem nor do that. To do so, I'd have to cut-paste major portions of threads (plural) to here. And, Apparently I am having browser trouble is the feed back I got from a long-standing Moderator. Plus, If your Thread is about something, I dont think it would be fair for me to do so. Then you're at the mercy of my editing not to mention all my interests by such an act. That doesnt mean that is an excuse not to do something for you if asked  however.

 

 A thread that exists outside your bubble:
Old and New Testament Hell

{GodsUseForAMosquito}

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:


 Biblical reports of hell vary considerable between old and new testament.

 Hell is mentioned in the bible 31 times in the old testament, and always in terms of 'sheol' the hebrew word meaning hades, or simply grave. It is not a place of suffering, just a place where the dead go. That's all dead, whether you've been good or bad.

 Enter Jesus, and the new testament. Now there is a proper Hell with lakes of fire, burning sulphur, eternal torment. I mean seriously - what a bastard! I prefer the old testament version if I had to choose.

 Why would Jesus and God invent something so terrible as Hell as a punishment? If Christians are supposed to favour the New testament over the Old, because Jesus died for their sins, and not we live in grace, Why did he feel like belief in Jesus wasn't enough on its own, and have to add a massive spanking stick in the form of "and if you don't believe all this, you're now going to burn in hell for all eternity".

 Given that from the time of Jesus, through history, more people have not been Christian than have (including many millions who never even heard 'the word' of god before they died, so never stood a chance of salvation), god has basically decided to create a huge pit of suffering and fairly arbitrarily plunge people into it.
Seriously, do Christians actually consider this stuff?   

Jabberwocky wrote:


Christians typically aren't too big on details. For those who haven't heard the gospel, there is always some sort of explaining away of how someone can't be held responsible for something they had no control over (even though I don't believe there is anything in the bible offering up this exception..." I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." )

Pretty cut and dry if you ask me. Of course us atheists who have heard the gospels (with probably a higher completion rate of reading the bible than Christians...) ARE going to hell. We have heard and rejected the gospels.

As far as why god/Jesus would have done such a thing, the answer is simple. In the New Testament, the demeanor of god is much different than in the old. He's stopped ordering his followers directly to commit genocide, even stopped doing it himself. He's not killing people on the spot for pulling out any more, put a stop to flooding the world, stopped sending bears to maul large groups of children...he's really seemed to calm down. But without a heavenly psychiatrist, he's probably still the same vindictive bloodthirsty jerk he always was. He's just become a troll now. "Hey look. I'm nice now, no more world-wide floods.......juuuuuuuuuuuuust kidding, you were the wrong kind of Christian. Now let this guy torture you forever, I'm going to watch!"

 


danatemporary wrote:

Re:: A Point of comparison

OP wrote:
.. always in terms of 'sheol' the hebrew word meaning hades, or simply grave. It is not a place of suffering, just a place where the dead go That's all dead ..


In other ancient books and texts of the region. The topic of the underworld could be quite lengthy but I will only mention two things. The grave is mentioned as a place for departed souls become ghosts, residing down there. In many myths there are odd contradictions being more a projection than anything else, at times. If you are that almost undefinable ghostly spirit. Why would you need to eat? I wonder this ? And yet I cannot think of any of the many nations that surrounded Israel, that do not describe food of the underworld. Secondly, In Sumerian accounts the place of departed souls is a very miserable existence. Was Dust Their Food and Clay Their Bread? The land from which you never return from. It's cold, it's dark, it's dreary, it's dusty, a projection of a literal grave. Nevertheless, The plus side you meet up with lost loved ones who have gone on before you.
 
Brian wrote:


This is fun sport to attack if we were at a si fi convention arguing over Star Trek vs Star Wars. But the reality is that Jews and Christians, while they claim to be best buddies, are the si fi fans arguing over Captain Kirk vs "the force of Jesus". I am weary of jumping into their respective comic books. I think it is much more important to point out, even before you endulge them, that they both start, even before word one, postulate a non material super hero with magical super powers as their naked assertion.
I am aware that we do need skeptics that do that, we most cerainly do. Just a reminder to never forget, even if a new religion with a new god is started tommorow, with a new book, we'd have to battle that too.
When Mel Gibson had his drunken bigoted rant about Jews causing everything, of course he was wrong and bigoted. But Jews did exist prior to Christianity. I would simply point out that there was a religion Jews got their inspiration from prior as a result of the polytheism of the Caananites. So if Mel wanted to be correct about "who started it", I say that the Jews then and the Jews now are as much victims to credulity as Chrisitanity and Islam, as is anyone buying an invisible friend claim . .

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
Biblical reports of hell vary considerable between old and new testament.

Seriously, do Christians actually consider this stuff?


 Nony wrote:  The OT served as a backstory for Judean rule over the conquered Galileans Jesus being a Galilean. We do not know what the Galilean religion was like before they were conquered and forced to convert. See Wars of the Jews, Josephus, for more details of the conquest and forced conversion.
So it may have simply been the NT is the Galilean view of things.
Further one of the differences between the infamous Sadduces and Pharisees is that one of them did NOT believe there was an afterlife. So simply finding it in the OT is not definitive.
Going back to Josephus again it is clear from his writings he did not consider the OT, aka Septuagint, to have any particular interest or importance or in any factual content for that matter. As he was a priest of that religion his apparent ignorance of its very existence is contrary to the modern view of those days. (He apparently knows of some similar stories but that is about all.)
As to what Christians think, atheists who appear in forums like this probablly know tens of times more about their religion than the average Christian.
 

danatemporary wrote:


 re:: Who's being thrown where ?

 First, Hope GodsUseForAMosquito to be seeing GodUseForAMosquito around.

AE wrote:


TWD39 wrote:


I rather be alive and fellowshiping in joy with my fellow believers than either being annililated or burning in hell. If you honestly think hell will be a party with other sinners then you are truly ignorant.  You won't have company there.   You are either going to be destroyed from existence or weeping and gnashing your teeth forever.    


  AE said, After reacting to TWD's banal and hateful post here I thought I'd get some input from an intellectual christian philologist with a degree in theology and a PHD in philosophy. I asked Brother David: Do you believe in hell? Is there proof of hell in the biblical texts? What motivation might there be for amplifying the oblique hell in Genesis into the Augustinian hell of the Roman Catholic Church? Why do some christians wallow in the idea of hell?
{AE brought a quote from BrotherDavid}
BrotherDavid wrote:
     Yes, look, the dogma of hell is a problem, to me; I mean with respect to its textual basis. In brief, these are the difficulties I see.
(i) The biblical language on the subject is often figurative, which means it is vague, eg. ‘the lake of fire which burns eternally’. What does that designate?
(ii) The language on the subject doesn’t all express the same idea, eg. Christ is reported as saying, ‘Beware God who has the power to destroy body and soul in hell’. So is simply passing out of existence a possible way to interpret the biblical writings on the question of some people’s eternal fate?
(iii) If you don’t read the biblical writings selectively, other considerations are pressing. Eg. God is supposed by these writings to be absolutely fair—but how fair would eternal suffering be for even the worst people, the Hitlers for example, given their terrible actions? Such a thing seems entirely unfair, to ordinary human intuition, does it not? Limited consequences which are reformatory are just in response to limited faults; infinite suffering for these faults is not. This mitigates against the traditional idea of hell.
(iv) The biblical writings hardly say anything on the subject of hell. If we wrote a book together on wine-making, it would be detailed, clear, with diagrams etc., so that our readers would understand us well. Should we not expect, given hell’s importance, that if it were so the whole thing would be described in the biblical writings carefully & in unmistakable detail?
(v) Traditionalists cannot read. If they expressed their interpretations tentatively, while honesty placing in the foreground their lack of hermeneutic skill, you could respect their views, even if you disagreed with them. But the only respect they deserve as readers is I think over what is simplest. Otherwise they deserve mockery. It seems to me that the whole of traditional Protestant reading is in essential ways false and even dishonest. Whatever traditional Protestantism asserts about any difficult problem of reading is to be doubted. Catholicism similarly.
(vi) A person who really believes in hell should be utterly transfixed at the indescribable horror of it. Should they not? Anyone who is not so transfixed does not believe there is a hell, in the traditional sense. So most—all?—traditionalists do not really believe; they only say they do. If they don’t believe, why should anyone else?
My own view is that what the biblical writings say is something like, ‘There is an after-life, and the rejection of God leads to unpleasant consequences there which it is much better to avoid; however, what really matters is behaving in this life with kindness and honesty, while respecting God, and asking the forgiveness of God & Christ for your errors, recognising that as with the acquisition of all forgiveness, you depend in that case upon the graciousness of the other to give it to you’. (Of course there is somewhat more, all as moderate, but this is a start.)
I think the biblical writings also say implicitly, by their unscientific and inexact linguistic form, ‘Each person who is interested has to work out for themselves as best they can what is going on, with respect to everything not communicated in the simplest sentences’. These views if they were widely embraced among Christians would involve the death of institutionalised interpretations, though.
The question, ‘What motives led to the dogma of hell?’ is fascinating. I don’t really know; but you can see with church leaders that they are often not motivated by a love for truth. Something else is in play...fear? self-importance? love for feeling as though they belong to something important? willingness to tyrannise over others? respect for old things merely because of the oldness? desire to keep their own lives within the pattern to which they are accustomed? stupidity? Several of these? All of them?
I think we will search without any success for a traditional Protestant theologian who accepts the old-fashioned position about hell, and who understands these things well, and takes them properly into account. How often are the considerations mentioned above ever raised intelligently and knowledgably, let alone dealt with adequately in the supposed demonstrations made of the traditional view? Yet we have little difficulty in finding teachers in our communions who despite this failing are quite happy to say that they know the truth. Scholar after scholar merely takes the traditional dogma to be obvious, and offers exposition that other than with respect to grammar and semantics is almost entirely rhetorical, ie. that in important ways bears no resemblance at all to proper language-analysis.
Every time one of our leaders confidently expresses their views on this subject, the scorching words of Nietzsche, who was a philologist by profession, enter the mind: ‘How little Christianity educates the sense of honesty and justice can easily be seen from the writings of its scholars; they advance their conjectures as blandly as dogmas…the Bible is pricked and pulled apart, and the people formally inculcated in the art of reading badly’.


Misc  and  UnRelated  :: Misc Stock Image which I cannot place
http://cojs.org/cojswiki/images/9/9b/First_Temple.jpg

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Vastet wrote:
"This is fun sport to attack if we were at a si fi convention arguing over Star Trek vs Star Wars. But the reality is that Jews and Christians, while they claim to be best buddies, are the si fi fans arguing over Captain Kirk vs "the force of Jesus"." Fan wars are boring as fuck...For real bragging rights JWC published one of my letters. And Cabel W. Johnson occassionally posts on the web.
I agree today'a fans have no real concept of science much less what we called hard science fiction of the Astouding/Analog variety of the Heinlein and dozens of real SF authors wrote. Today what is called SF comes by the inch/pound and multiple sequels because they are too damned incompetent to come up with rational ideas and explore them. But the fans love them.
 


Myself (Nony speaking), give me a 2D character and don't let him get in the way of the story. Before you ask, I do appreciate real science fantasy as long as magic has rules which are essential to the story and Lord of the Rings sucks because it is a story with arbitrary magic.
Taking it back to the god wars, yes it is fun because they mostly do not understand the terms they are using, rather repeating some crap they read or were told without ever thinking about what the words and terms mean. Pick a god, any god. Give me its rules. If any of them did in fact exist the rules could have been deduced from millenia of experimentation even if accidental variants later described as experiments. As with the Diodorus reading suggestion Christianity and Judaism is all dumbed down to the dumbest common denominator. See also the Einstein letter which says the same thing.
I can go back to my first posts here where I was BANNED for criticizing Judaism in the same terms as Christianity. I realize most old timers are FAKE jews  claiming to be atheists and their real target is Christians only. That was my first week's experience. And in fact that was discussion partly public which was against permitting such criticism, analytics, ridicule of Judaism. AND I played the game with a "strike the root" strategy which all regulars should remember.
And, yes, I have been posting for a very long time without regard to the automatic denigrations such as yours because I ridicule Judaism and jewish "people" without hesitation or remorse and often with relish because I have the field to myself.
So, my friend, I know the rules of the game. I have been in public debate on religion and politics since 1980, 32 years. Good lord willing and stroke don't rise I will soon be able to say half my life and it will mean something. Now I have no problem dealing with newbies since most everyone is relatively. Public debate is simply debate. Playing debating games in this format means you are likely to try to use something I pioneered if not invented.
All of that is simply to encourage honest, open discussion without any games whatsoever.
This has gotten too long. Try it this way. Any time you try to contrast Jews v Christians as positive v negative I will not let you get away with it as Jews v Hindus or Jews v Muslims or Jews v animists is no different. Jews are followers of an idiot religion and those who think there is a jewish "people" are closet idiot believers.


{Vastet Replies}

Vastet wrote:
Now if only you could cross the line into recognising the jews aren't special yourself, everyone will be a bit better off. Edit: I don't remember you ever being banned. Are you sure it was here you got banned?

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
  .. Why would Jesus and God invent something so terrible as Hell as a punishment? If Christians are supposed to favour the New testament over the Old, because Jesus died for their sins, and not we live in grace, Why did he feel like belief in Jesus wasn't enough on its own, and have to add a massive spanking stick in the form of "and if you don't believe all this, you're now going to burn in hell for all eternity".
Given that from the time of Jesus, through history, more people have not been Christian than have (including many millions who never even heard 'the word' of god before they died, so never stood a chance of salvation), god has basically decided to create a huge pit of suffering and fairly arbitrarily plunge people into it.
Seriously, do Christians actually consider this stuff?   

Hell is for children 

 Warning Edit Addition :: Suppli. -- {digitalbeachbum wrote}
 


 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
  Your faith is your faith and your faith alone. Faith is a blind belief that a 'thing' is real but you have no proof that it is real nor can any one disprove it. If you have proof that your 'faith' is real, then it stops being faith and becomes a fact. You do not have faith because you keep trying to justify it by posting evidence to show to others that it exists. You are trying to gain acceptance by giving us personal opinions from you and others. When a person of faith debates their faith they are not actually debating their faith because in order to actually debate you must follow specific rules of debating. One of which requires you to be open to the fact that you could be wrong.  If you actually debate you must suspend your faith and therefore are a non-believer. I however have never found a person of faith who can actually suspend their faith. They either are faithful or they are not. Since you can not suspend your 'faith' for a debate it is no longer a debate and becomes a speech with a conclusion

 


Old Seer wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
                Biblical reports of hell vary considerable between old and new testament.  Hell is mentioned in the bible 31 times in the old testament . .         

OT and NT  applications are the same. The Euro interpretation makes the difference in term. In the Hebrew language there is no such term as God. "God" is strictly a Euro attachment from their own ancient ideas. In Hebrew they followed "that which is". Today the Israelis do not have the same religion as in the OT.  OT hell is equal to dead. In actual and proper Christianity it is understood that their will be a resurrection. "Lake of fire" is equal to no chance of resurrection, and, it doesn't only have to do with death---The ways of the world after Armageddon are also thrown into the lake of fire---that's not people particularly. The entire interpretation of the book by the Euros is faulty and inaccurate.. Alpha Smurf regards Americans also as Euros.

 

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Now if only you could cross the line into recognising the jews aren't special yourself, everyone will be a bit better off. Edit: I don't remember you ever being banned. Are you sure it was here you got banned?

Absolutely correct. It was here. If there is a way to search on oldest posts they should be there commenting on it. As to special, no more special than Chrisitans and deserving of no less disdain than Christians. Of course as we say about the West Bank, were it nor for antisemitism that would be Apartheid.


RobbyPants wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
Why would Jesus and God invent something so terrible as Hell as a punishment?

My guess would be it likely has to do with Zoroastrianism, a religion that was quite popular six centuries earlier. There are a lot of things in that religion that are noticeably absent in early Judaism and present later in the religion and in Christianity. These include a savior (born of a virgin, no less!), heaven, and hell.
GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
Seriously, do Christians actually consider this stuff? It's crazy. 
Yes, they do. It was one of the things that totally killed omnibenevolence for me when I was still Christian. My wife (still Christian) is a huge Rob Bell fan, if for no other reason, so she can write off hell as a metaphor and get herself a bit closer to reconciling theodicy.

Re:: Old and New Testament Hell
Professor wrote:

  Christian teachers refer to the Bible as "progressive revelation." God revealed Himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Then He revealed more of His nature and His precepts to Moses, David, Isaiah, Ezra, etc. God's Word is perfect. The Bible all revolves around the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the second person of the blessed Trinity, Who took on human form. In the Old Testament Christ had not yet been born of the virgin Mary nor completed His mission. Hence the sins of the elect had not been paid for. All were sent after death to the same place in one sense, awaiting Christ's payment for sin. Christ's sacrifice of Himself on the cross was accepted by God as payment for the sins of those whom God ordained from the foundation of the world to be justified. After Christ shed His blood, the Epistle of Peter declares that "He went to preach to the spirits in prison." Assumedly at that time the elect were separated from the reprobate. My interpretation is not the only one among Christians, although I believe it is that of the majority. When you go out on a date, your girlfriend / boyfriend is not obligated to tell you everything about himself/herself on the first date. How much more is a holy, infinite God free to reveal only as much about Himself as He wishes? There is no question from the Bible that Jesus Christ believes in hellfire, for He spoke about it in the Sermon on the Mount and in other places. After Christ's resurrection and ascension, the apostles further explained, through the Holy Spirit, Christ's teaching.
Anonymouse wrote:


So you believe in literal hellfire ?


{RobbyPants stated}

RobbyPants wrote:

Professor wrote:

Christian teachers refer to the Bible as "progressive revelation." God revealed Himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Then He revealed more of His nature and His precepts to Moses, David, Isaiah, Ezra, etc. God's Word is perfect. The Bible all revolves around the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the second person of the blessed Trinity . . the apostles further explained, through the Holy Spirit, Christ's teaching. 

Basically, for the first four thousand years, people didn't know their souls were in peril if they didn't do what they were supposed to, because God decided to omit that part for the first 2/3 of creation. Got it. I like how this is compared to a series of dates. I can see doing that on dates, because those last a few hours at a time, and you can only give out so much info at any one. But you're saying that for some reason, God couldn't have told us everything over a single person's lifetime. No, the more likely reason the religion changed so much over the course of time is because it literally changed over the course of time. The ancient Judaean people wanted a war god. The people of 70+ CE were looking for eternal rewards. People today want those eternal rewards, but with a lot less of the crazy associated with YHWH carried to his logical conclusion.

And Lastly,
danatemporary wrote:

Re: What is believed.
Anonymouse wrote:

Professor wrote:
      Christian teachers refer to the Bible as "progressive revelation." God revealed Himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Then He revealed more of His nature and His precepts to Moses, David, Isaiah, Ezra, etc. God's Word is perfect. The Bible all revolves around the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the second person of the blessed Trinity, Who took on human form. In the Old Testament Christ had not yet been born of the virgin Mary nor completed His mission. Hence the sins of the elect had not been paid for. All were sent after death to the same place in one sense, awaiting Christ's payment for sin. Christ's sacrifice of Himself on the cross was accepted by God as payment for the sins of those whom God ordained from the foundation of the world to be justified. After Christ shed His blood, the Epistle of Peter declares that "He went to preach to the spirits in prison." Assumedly at that time the elect were separated from the reprobate. My interpretation is not the only one among Christians, although I believe it is that of the majority. When you go out on a date, your girlfriend / boyfriend is not obligated to tell you everything about himself/herself on the first date. How much more is a holy, infinite God free to reveal only as much about Himself as He wishes? There is no question from the Bible that Jesus Christ believes in hellfire, for He spoke about it in the Sermon on the Mount and in other places. After Christ's resurrection and ascension, the apostles further explained, through the Holy Spirit, Christ's teaching.


So you believe in literal hellfire ? 

A.
  2 Pet. -- ..and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words ..  and their destruction is not asleep. 4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; . . 10 and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.

etc.

 


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 857
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
CONCERNING GRAVITY, FAITH AND BEING ALL WET

Anonymouse wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
Danatemporary,

Since you don't bother to address anything she actually said, I guess I can take this one.

 

Fonzie wrote:
The point is the atheist DOES believe things he cannot prove while fooling himself.  He thinks he is on the solid  rock of reasoning with "provable pilings" but in reality - there is his faith gluing his stage prop  together at every joint.

Oh ?

Does gravity stop working when you don't have faith in it ?

 

Any,

(Matthew 14.22-33) "Then He made the disciples get into the boat and go before Him to the other side, while He dismissed the crowds.  And after He had dismissed the crowds, He went up on the mountain by Himself to pray.  When evening came, He was there alone, but the boat by this time was many furlongs distant from the land, beaten by the waves; for the wind was against them.  And in the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea.  But when the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were terrified, saying, 'It is a ghost!'  And they cried out for fear.  But immediately He spoke to them saying, 'Take heart, it is I; have no fear.' 

And Peter answered Him, 'LORD, if it is you, bid me come to You on the water.'  He said, 'Come.'  So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus; but when he saw the wind, he was afraid and beginning to sink he cried out, 'LORD, save me!'  Jesus immediately reached out His hand and caught him, saying to him, 'O man of little faith, why did you doubt?'  And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.  And those in the boat worshiped Him saying, 'Truly You are the Son of God!'"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:Any,(Matthew

Fonzie wrote:

Any,

(Matthew 14.22-33) "Then He made the disciples get into the boat and go before Him to the other side, while He dismissed the crowds.  And after He had dismissed the crowds, He went up on the mountain by Himself to pray.  When evening came, He was there alone, but the boat by this time was many furlongs distant from the land, beaten by the waves; for the wind was against them.  And in the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea.  But when the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were terrified, saying, 'It is a ghost!'  And they cried out for fear.  But immediately He spoke to them saying, 'Take heart, it is I; have no fear.' 

And Peter answered Him, 'LORD, if it is you, bid me come to You on the water.'  He said, 'Come.'  So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus; but when he saw the wind, he was afraid and beginning to sink he cried out, 'LORD, save me!'  Jesus immediately reached out His hand and caught him, saying to him, 'O man of little faith, why did you doubt?'  And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.  And those in the boat worshiped Him saying, 'Truly You are the Son of God!'"

 

 

Uhm...your bible verse doesn't address my question. 

The question was : Does gravity stop working if you don't have faith in it ? 

If you really don't know the answer, then try it : Stop having faith in gravity. If that makes you float up into the stratosphere, let us know.

 

As for your bible verse : The combined faith of every single believer in the entire world, is still not enough to make even the most anorexic child walk on water.


 

So you see, bragging about the amazing magical powers of faith is really not a very good idea. 

 

Because we can test it, and it always fails.

 

You yourself are a prime example of that simple truth.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Fonzie

Anonymouse wrote:

Fonzie wrote:

Any,

(Matthew 14.22-33) "Then He made the disciples get into the boat and go before Him to the other side, while He dismissed the crowds.  And after He had dismissed the crowds, He went up on the mountain by Himself to pray.  When evening came, He was there alone, but the boat by this time was many furlongs distant from the land, beaten by the waves; for the wind was against them.  And in the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea.  But when the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were terrified, saying, 'It is a ghost!'  And they cried out for fear.  But immediately He spoke to them saying, 'Take heart, it is I; have no fear.' 

And Peter answered Him, 'LORD, if it is you, bid me come to You on the water.'  He said, 'Come.'  So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus; but when he saw the wind, he was afraid and beginning to sink he cried out, 'LORD, save me!'  Jesus immediately reached out His hand and caught him, saying to him, 'O man of little faith, why did you doubt?'  And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.  And those in the boat worshiped Him saying, 'Truly You are the Son of God!'"

 

 

Uhm...your bible verse doesn't address my question. 

The question was : Does gravity stop working if you don't have faith in it ? 

If you really don't know the answer, then try it : Stop having faith in gravity. If that makes you float up into the stratosphere, let us know.

 

As for your bible verse : The combined faith of every single believer in the entire world, is still not enough to make even the most anorexic child walk on water.


 

So you see, bragging about the amazing magical powers of faith is really not a very good idea. 

 

Because we can test it, and it always fails.

 

You yourself are a prime example of that simple truth.

I think he tried to answer it, Nony.

He used that story to show that Peter defied gravity by believing in the Jesus.

then again, it was written by a bunch of guys converted to Christianity by Paul who wanted to put Jesus' original disciples (and Jews in general) in a bad light.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I think he

jcgadfly wrote:
I think he tried to answer it, Nony.

Yeah, my bad for putting a rhetorical question in my post. Shoulda known he'd jump on that chance to miss the point. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:
He used that story to show that Peter defied gravity by believing in the Jesus.

Funny thing about that story : My catholic chem teacher used it to teach us all about density, claiming Peter was simply having a nice, therapeutic float on the extra-salty Dead Sea. 

It's science, baby !

 

jcgadfly wrote:
then again, it was written by a bunch of guys converted to Christianity by Paul who wanted to put Jesus' original disciples (and Jews in general) in a bad light.

If that's what they were going for...well, that would explain why it's so easy to write apostle comedy sketches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjrn4dXE2yI

 


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 857
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
ANYONYMOUSE'S ANTI-GRAVITY BOOTS

Anonymouse wrote:

Fonzie wrote:

Any,

(Matthew 14.22-33) "Then He made the disciples get into the boat and go before Him to the other side, while He dismissed the crowds.  And after He had dismissed the crowds, He went up on the mountain by Himself to pray.  When evening came, He was there alone, but the boat by this time was many furlongs distant from the land, beaten by the waves; for the wind was against them.  And in the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea.  But when the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were terrified, saying, 'It is a ghost!'  And they cried out for fear.  But immediately He spoke to them saying, 'Take heart, it is I; have no fear.' 

And Peter answered Him, 'LORD, if it is you, bid me come to You on the water.'  He said, 'Come.'  So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus; but when he saw the wind, he was afraid and beginning to sink he cried out, 'LORD, save me!'  Jesus immediately reached out His hand and caught him, saying to him, 'O man of little faith, why did you doubt?'  And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.  And those in the boat worshiped Him saying, 'Truly You are the Son of God!'"

 

 

Uhm...your bible verse doesn't address my question. 

The question was : Does gravity stop working if you don't have faith in it ? 

If you really don't know the answer, then try it : Stop having faith in gravity. If that makes you float up into the stratosphere, let us know.

 

As for your bible verse : The combined faith of every single believer in the entire world, is still not enough to make even the most anorexic child walk on water.


 

So you see, bragging about the amazing magical powers of faith is really not a very good idea. 

 

Because we can test it, and it always fails.

 

You yourself are a prime example of that simple truth.

 

 

Any,

In your answers you show faith in your own perception of things that can't be proved; your read on my attitude - which you can't prove, your divining of my purposes - which you can't prove, even levitating yourself above the Word of God, believing your own dreamings - which you can't prove - instead - this is the point: all these things you can't prove yet you fool yourself into thinking you only function on things provable, rock solid evidence.  Gravity would bring you to see this hypocritical position you are in maybe except for others levitating with you.

It's as if you can't see, you can't hear, you can't walk, you can't navigate - but you think you can still drive.  

You defy gravity in your attitude, you are suspended on air - not fresh air BTW.  

Still I know it's much easier for you to discuss your faith in your imagination than to discuss your better approach to things which I'm betting to conclude (with my faith in my perception) doesn't exist.  The only thing propelling you appears to be your hate for God and your levitation above your position to even describe God's purposes.  I'm not sure you do believe in gravity.  I do and I'm confident you will come back down eventually - hopefully you know how to land.  

Attacking me does not represent a way to live.  So instead of airing up again simply describe your better way to live than having faith in the living Christ, walking with Him in faith, your descriptions of my attitude, and the usual.  

 

So there is a blank space available for you to fill with your better way of life, your better reason to live, your better way, your view of life and death and the reason we are here and where we are going.  But what are the odds that you will lay that out Anonymouse?  I'm almost thinking it's a provable fact that they are zero - no faith needed to know that.  Maybe that's one thing that doesn't require faith - the direction of your answers.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:In your answers

Fonzie wrote:
In your answers you show faith in your own perception of things that can't be proved

 

No sweetheart, read what I wrote. 

Here, I'll repeat if for you, underlining the bit you seem to have taken particular care to ignore : 

Anonymouse wrote:
Does gravity stop working if you don't have faith in it ?

 

You see ? I asked about YOUR perception. So could you answer the question, please ? I'm sorry, but it's a very simple question, so it's another yes or no.


 

Fonzie wrote:
; your read on my attitude - which you can't prove, your divining of my purposes - which you can't prove,


 

You mean I read them ? You realize your words are right here, for anyone to read, right ? This proof you keep claiming isn't there, you keep typing it.

 

Fonzie wrote:
even levitating yourself above the Word of God, believing your own dreamings - which you can't prove - instead

 

What ? Are you saying I wrote this on a plane ? So what ? 

"My own dreamings" ? Dude, again, your words are here for anyone to read. 

 

Fonzie wrote:
- this is the point: all these things you can't prove yet you fool yourself into thinking you only function on things provable, rock solid evidence.

 

Meph, read that sentence you just wrote  : "all these things you can't prove....only function on things provable, rock solid evidence"

*sigh*

You know, if I was one of those "mocking and raging" atheists you're always going on about, I would put that quote of yours in my signature here on the board.

 

 

Fonzie wrote:
 Gravity would bring you to see this hypocritical position you are in maybe except for others levitating with you.

 

It's "hypocritical" to acknowledge a fact ?

Why ?

 

Fonzie wrote:
 It's as if you can't see, you can't hear, you can't walk, you can't navigate - but you think you can still drive.

 

If I'm doing such a bad job, "not seeing, hearing, walking, navigating", then how did I manage to save a person's life, twice, simply through rejecting faith and "learning to drive" myself ? 


 


 

Fonzie wrote:
You defy gravity in your attitude, you are suspended on air - not fresh air BTW.

 

Did you just find a way to say "you stink" without sounding like a 4 year old ? Congratulations.

 

Fonzie wrote:
Still I know it's much easier for you to discuss your faith in your imagination than to discuss your better approach to things which I'm betting to conclude (with my faith in my perception) doesn't exist.

 

Everyone in your threads discussed any and every topic you brought up. And here you go again : "...doesn't exist"

You're posting "..doesn't exist" on top of thousands of posts where people discuss those very things, again and again.

 

Seriously, do you have any shame at all ? 

 

Fonzie wrote:
 The only thing propelling you appears to be your hate for God and your levitation above your position to even describe God's purposes.

 

God ? No. It's been explained to you before that it's impossible to "hate" something you don't believe exists. 

What I hate is dishonesty. 

 

Fonzie wrote:
 I'm not sure you do believe in gravity.

 

I don't need to for it to work.

 

That's the simple point I've been trying to get you to acknowledge. Can you acknowledge that, or would you like to run away from that some more ? 

 

 

Fonzie wrote:
I do and I'm confident you will come back down eventually - hopefully you know how to land.  

 

You're getting your metaphors mixed up again.  

 

 

Fonzie wrote:
Attacking me does not represent a way to live.  

 

Pay very close attention now : Asking you a question is not an attack. 

 

 

Fonzie wrote:
So instead of airing up again simply describe your better way to live than having faith in the living Christ, walking with Him in faith, your descriptions of my attitude, and the usual.So there is a blank space available for you to fill with your better way of life, your better reason to live, your better way, your view of life and death and the reason we are here and where we are going.  But what are the odds that you will lay that out Anonymouse?  I'm almost thinking it's a provable fact that they are zero - no faith needed to know that.  Maybe that's one thing that doesn't require faith - the direction of your answers.  
 

 

What are the odds ? Same as always. I answer you AGAIN. You wait a few posts, and then you claim, AGAIN, that it never happened.

So that's a first answer right there : My way to live lets me afford honesty. No need for me to lie, or shroud my motivations in endless metaphors. When I ask a question and somebody answers me, I don't lie about it later and say it never happened. 

The answers to all your other questions is in live itself, the people around us, and the endless possibilities it all opens up for us. That's my "better reason to live" : Other people. My "better way" : meeting and interacting with as many of them as possible (and hopefully making a few of them happier along the way). My view of life and death is as simple as the facts available about those two states. Why would anyone need more ? The "reason we are here" ? Again, I'm quite happy with the available facts. "Where are we going" ? Since there's so much room for improvement still left, I would say a better future in general. That seems a better thing to strive for than an apocalypse, don't you agree ? (Oh, I forgot. You don't)

 

 

So yeah, even after answering all your questions for years, I just did it again. And will do it again, probably, the next time you feel like lying about it.

 

So could you now maybe answer mine : Does gravity stop working for you if you don't have faith in it ? Yes or no. 

 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
(Poe)

After several weeks of dormancy, the Troll began to stir again.  It laid aside Its false identity, confident that the people would keep it well-fed.

While waiting restlessly for fresh scraps to fall into Its trough, It composed a sonnet to Its falter ego:

 

Shall I compare thee to a Hapless Fool,

Who speaketh more, but meaneth less?

Rough dentures, coated thicke with drool,

Slurp Lithium unto Excesse.

When Elvis (P.B. upon Ham) didst waddle into town,

As hath been prophesied, upon a Blue Suede Ass,

Didst knoweth He there yonder lurk'd a Trollish Clown

Through carpenty contriv'd, to deferend his vas?

Midst swaths of sawdust, varnish, paint and rust

Of bent and Bowie'd frame, Its Golden Years turned bronze  

Child of a zombie god, to planks of wood well-truss’d

Anon (and on!), Its yapping breeds but yawns -- Lithium, thy name is Fonz!

And yet wouldst many vainly seek unto the Truth this Bum to steer

Whose forkéd tongue hath at last confess'd

"Yes, I did create the "what faith you" thread? That would be the thread titled

"what faith you"; created by the user named "mephibosheth"

on September 6, 2007 - 5:57pm, and which can be found here."

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:...

zarathustra wrote:

... confident that the people would keep it well-fed.

 

 

...........

Okay, point taken. I'll stop. 

 

No need to answer questions anymore, Meph. You may now lie to your heart's content. Not that I ever managed to stop you. All the best. (Yeah, for reals this time) 


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 857
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
GRAVITATION AND ANTI-GRAVITATION

Anonymouse wrote:

 

 

Fonzie wrote:
So instead of airing up again simply describe your better way to live than having faith in the living Christ, walking with Him in faith, your descriptions of my attitude, and the usual.So there is a blank space available for you to fill with your better way of life, your better reason to live, your better way, your view of life and death and the reason we are here and where we are going.  But what are the odds that you will lay that out Anonymouse?  I'm almost thinking it's a provable fact that they are zero - no faith needed to know that.  Maybe that's one thing that doesn't require faith - the direction of your answers.  
 

 

What are the odds ? Same as always. I answer you AGAIN. You wait a few posts, and then you claim, AGAIN, that it never happened.

So that's a first answer right there : My way to live lets me afford honesty. No need for me to lie, or shroud my motivations in endless metaphors. When I ask a question and somebody answers me, I don't lie about it later and say it never happened. 

The answers to all your other questions is in live itself, the people around us, and the endless possibilities it all opens up for us. That's my "better reason to live" : Other people. My "better way" : meeting and interacting with as many of them as possible (and hopefully making a few of them happier along the way). My view of life and death is as simple as the facts available about those two states. Why would anyone need more ? The "reason we are here" ? Again, I'm quite happy with the available facts. "Where are we going" ? Since there's so much room for improvement still left, I would say a better future in general. That seems a better thing to strive for than an apocalypse, don't you agree ? (Oh, I forgot. You don't)

 

 

So yeah, even after answering all your questions for years, I just did it again. And will do it again, probably, the next time you feel like lying about it.

 

So could you now maybe answer mine : Does gravity stop working for you if you don't have faith in it ? Yes or no. 

 

 

 

 

 

Any,

I have heard that answer but I thought there was surely more - but evidently there isn't.  If that's it - well, thanks for repeating it (and I'm serious) I appreciate you sharing what you really think when you not only didn't have to but probably didn't want to. 

I can imagine that I could view things like you have described if things were different - if I didn't believe God and believe IN God.  It's amazing how the whole thing turns on faith/ vs unbelief in God and the Word of God.

I understand you think you are trying to help me because you think I'm deluded with this faith in God thing, wasting my life, imaginary friend, deluding others, etc, etc.  And from my side there is a totally opposite perspective on that which doesn't need to be brought up at this time.  

As to the question of gravity I didn't really think that was a serious question because faith involves things not seen as you probably know, the definition of faith from Scripture.  So there's no need to have faith in what is constantly seen and felt and touched or crashed - if gravity gets you positioned for it.  I know you probably won't like this illustration; but in my continuing effort to "make things better for my fellow man" as you say, from my view there is I think a similar thing to gravity in the spiritual (you might prefer attitudinal) realm.  Thoughts come one at a time that are potentially despairing, discouraging, depressing, the road of despair.  Just suspend and call that bad gravity for a second.  The presence of God with me and my faith (my connection with Him through faith), my knowledge of Him, what He has done, where this is going and why, the light of it and the strength of it helps me see and stand against each of these gravitational thoughts and fight and win.  

I'm not lying to you either.  The problem here I think is turning on your faith/unfaith in me as well which we have also discussed.  It's hard to even want to communicate with a person you have no faith in - actually seen as a threat.  Again I don't see you as a threat but I don't see you taking anything I say seriously either.  Or maybe you think weaker atheists need to be shown not to allow any good thing from the evil believer in God, I don't know.

Is the atheist thing a quitting thing, so you don't want to discuss it further?  I was cordially invited to this site by those who set it up to discuss with friendly hospitable atheists.  Check the home page.  When there was a broken connection I was assured it was not by design - I was wanted here (personal emails from Brian).  Now I'm back, I think I was kicked off without cause, haven't cussed anybody out, haven't degraded the site.  I'm here on the Atheist vs Theist section.  I'm not bothering anybody - I admit I'm not answering questions to your satisfaction (if I did that I wouldn't be a Theist would I?).  

You can track my thread clear back through "what faith you" (and BTW remember your sock puppet attempt?) and see that I have been consistent throughout.  The reason why you know I struggled with bipolar up to 35 years ago (not since) is because I was trying to help and encourage somebody on this site (help my fellow man).  This is not a thing a person brings up to brag on.  Again it's not a problem for me at all now.  Actually I view it as having had a good effect now - it sped up the success of the search for what's real in life.  And I've found it for me.  

Let's say you were a diabetic and had said a few things about that to encourage your fellow man on this site.  Why would I bring that up as an insult to you later, a put-down said in a way that makes you out to be damaged goods?  I think you have been fooling yourself in saying you want to help me by giving me pointers on that.  I could say I'm trying to help you here by encouraging you to not fool yourself.  It's not good to fool yourself.  If I was discussing your atheist unbelief versus my belief in God and I let it slide "you diabetic you" - I wouldn't be trying to help you with that, I would be fooling myself in thinking that this elevated my argument and exposed your incredulity.  It would make much more sense to know that you know much more about your problem than I do and if I have a point on the issue of atheist vs theist I would do well to stick with it rather than take a passing dog by the ears on your problem.  You take care of your dog and I'll take care of mine.   

 

Here's a quote from Brother Lawrence (17th century) experiencing the same joy in the presence of God: (speaking in the third person)  "Judge by this what content and satisfaction he enjoys, while he continually finds in himself so great a treasure:  he is no longer in an anxious search after it, but has it open before him and may take what he pleases of it."

 

HERE'S AN INTERESTING VIDEO THAT ILLUSTRATES THE DIFFERENCE "WITHOUT GOD" VS "WITHOUT ARMS":

 

(YOU TUBE):

 

 JT EBERHARD INTERVIEWS TISHA UNARMED:  ATHEIST VS ARMLESS   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 143
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:It's amazing

Fonzie wrote:
It's amazing how the whole thing turns on faith/ vs unbelief in God and the Word of God.
I'm not sure "amazing" is the word so much as "tautologically true". When dealing with the belief in something that has no evidence, those are pretty much the only two options you have. 


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 857
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
TAUTOLOGICAL TRUTH

RobbyPants wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
It's amazing how the whole thing turns on faith/ vs unbelief in God and the Word of God.
I'm not sure "amazing" is the word so much as "tautologically true". When dealing with the belief in something that has no evidence, those are pretty much the only two options you have. 

 

Rob,  would you mind explaining what YOU mean by "tautologically true"?  I've never heard that word before.   

 

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2766
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:RobbyPants

Fonzie wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
It's amazing how the whole thing turns on faith/ vs unbelief in God and the Word of God.
I'm not sure "amazing" is the word so much as "tautologically true". When dealing with the belief in something that has no evidence, those are pretty much the only two options you have. 

Rob,  would you mind explaining what YOU mean by "tautologically true"?  I've never heard that word before.   

Rhetoric.

(edit)

Ah, I see the connection. After JDF posted his reply I had to look it up. It is a technical notion in formal logic, universal unconditioned truth, always valid.


 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:RobbyPants

Fonzie wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
It's amazing how the whole thing turns on faith/ vs unbelief in God and the Word of God.
I'm not sure "amazing" is the word so much as "tautologically true". When dealing with the belief in something that has no evidence, those are pretty much the only two options you have. 

 

Rob,  would you mind explaining what YOU mean by "tautologically true"?  I've never heard that word before.   

 

 

Let me break it down before Robby gets to it - he may have a different idea.

What you said was "fatth depends on fain" - that is a taurtolgy. It's true but it's not terribly informative.

Just like "Designed things need a designer".

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
(Poe)

It was still quite easy to duplicate the Troll's output

 

McFly,

Of course it's true that god exists because god exists.  
Because otherwise, he wouldn't exist.

But he does.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††