Atheism

David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheism

 Let's restart off easy like . . . with kindness.

What is atheism to you? To me, it is, by it's most basic definition, ridiculous. That is to say "the opinion that there is no god(s)" is nonsensical. There are billions of gods. The title atheist and the concept of atheism make sense to me, though. Theist. Atheist. Antithisis. Simple. The intellectual difficulties in accepting the supernatural is perfectly rational to me. It has been my experience that there are two distinct types of atheists, though there are too many labels these days to describe the degree of atheism which I think are unnecessary. The two types I perceive are the majority of atheists, who just want to be left alone. They have no interest in debating or discussing the subject. They aren't politically or socially motivated to engage in any conflict regarding the subject.

The second type are the militant atheists. They are more politically and socially outspoken and active. They are the types of people you would most likely encounter on forums such as these.

I was in the first group for 27 years.

That's pretty much it. What is atheism to  you?

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4902
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote: The

David Henson wrote:

The Bible is a collection of 66 books, written by over 40 different people, from about 1513 B.C.E. to 98 C.E., or over a period of about 1,500 years. Writers included shepherds, doctors, kings, fishermen, musicians, poets, priests, scholars and lawyers. It has poetry, song and prophecy, but consists mostly of material of an historic nature. Allegedly witnessed by the people who wrote it, as well as, more importantly, witnessed by Jehovah God.

Maybe you haven't had a chance to read it yet, but iwbiek's post says it best. In response to my claim that atheist's confidence wasn't based upon evidence, he wrote:

You seem to be suggesting that I'm not being honest, that I'm distorting the meaning of gods to suit my purpose. You are confused by the common misconceptions about God. The term god isn't the name of the being who allegedly created the heavens and earth. The term is like the term Lord, or King, or President, Queen, Prince, Prime Minister etc. Jehovah introduced himself to Abraham and then became the god of Israel, the nation he founded. God doesn't mean supernatural being who created the universe, Jehovah is only an example of one of millions of gods. The term is stylized with an uppercase G, as in God in application to Jehovah because he is generally considered to be the god above all other gods. The term god means, simply, mighty; venerated. The term Lord means having authority, usually granted. Like, for example, Landlord.

I've already given the dictionary defintions of various uses of the word god, which included as examples, powerful or influential people, idols, animals used in worship. Here is the Bible's take on it.

The bible is one of several dozen religious text written before or after 1513bce to 98ce which means diddly to every one else who doesn't follow those [insert] religion. It is nothing more than stories, folklore, from a time when people thought a comet was a bad omen and clay golems existed. It is literally bullshit and nothing different than people today believing in Harry Potter. Which I believe will one day be a religion after a meteor hits Earth, wipes out all but 100,000 people world wide then some one starts a religion based on the books.

I saw iwbiek's post. However the people who made The Flying Spaghetti Monster a religion are justified in their belief. No one has any proof one way or another which is the funniest thing of them all. There is no proof that none of these things exist/don't exist and yet people believe in them. I find that fucking hilarious. You might as well pick up a bottle from the ground and say that the savior Mr Poo Poo Head drank from that bottle and sacrificed his life so that others may live.

If you believe in the god of abraham you are following a folklore. Far be it from me to tell you not to follow it, but I have to ask you, "WHY?" Why fucking follow it? Are you afraid of nothingness? Are you incapable of understanding or comprehending that your existence, nay, all of existence could exist with out a creator? Is it that you can't believe all this came from nothing or a singularity or if it has happened countless times before only to be repeated over and over and over again? Why? Why? Why do you follow the god of abraham?

I understood why you used the "there are a million gods" term. I knew your point of view already because you aren't the first person to come to these forums and proclaim such a statement.

I understood the definition. We are all gods ourselves. We create. We destroy. yadda yadda yadda.

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1523
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Dave, Dave-

No Offence intended. You're giving every one here bible lessons. Everyone here already knows what's in the book. The Smurfs sit between Religion and
Atheism, we're attempting to talk to both. The one's on this site either know about our info and reject it, or, don't care about it. But that's Ok with us, we expect it. I don'r give them bible lessons, they don't need it. When I give a bile passage example it's for them to compare the world idea of the book with ours. I give no advice in this instance.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith and I'm not a Theist

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4902
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote: iwbiek

David Henson wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
you're absolutely right. it isn't based on evidence: it's based on a lack of evidence. the atheist has no evidence god doesn't exist--he can't, by definition. he is "without belief" because no one has verified belief to his satisfaction. whether or not you think his criteria for evidence are reasonable is immaterial: until you have satisfied those criteria, atheist he will remain. 

the existence of god cannot be falsified in theory, and that is why it isn't a scientific matter and totally outside the realm of evidence. god cannot be proved or disproved. even if the sky were to roll back as a scroll and some awesome being were to be revealed, speaking in a strictly logical sense, that would only be evidence that the sky has rolled back as a scroll and some awesome being has been revealed. speaking in a subjective sense, however--and of course the compulsion of evidence is subjective; that is a truism, as basically everything is subjective--for most people that would probably be enough evidence for god. but, working solely in the realm of logic, it would not suffice.

Another good answer.

So, to recapitulate; for the purpose of this discussion, we all need to agree to the following:

1. Atheism is the rejection of gods due to disbelief in the existence of gods.

2. Gods in this case are the supernatural. Example: Jehovah of the Bible. 

3. Evidence is subjective. Case in point: iwbiek's quote directly above.

4. We can't prove or disprove god, that isn't the point. We have to verify belief to the satisfaction of whomever it may concern.

Now we have to determine what significance the Bible and Science have on this discussion, if any. [Edited to add] And possibly work out a more agreeable definition of faith, but I don't think that is absolutely necessary.

No, I don't agree.

Subjective evidence isn't evidence at all. Evidence must be tested and proved. Every thing else is an assumption and conjecture.

I could say that Brian37 is a child molesting, gay, drug dealing, murdering dictator but it means nothing unless it can be proved.

I could say that Jesus was the savior of all mankind and the son of god but it means nothing because it can't be proved.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4902
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote: That is

David Henson wrote:

That is to say "the opinion that there is no god(s)" is nonsensical. There are billions of gods. The title atheist and the concept of atheism make sense to me, though. Theist. Atheist. Antithisis. Simple. The intellectual difficulties in accepting the supernatural is perfectly rational to me. It has been my experience that there are two distinct types of atheists, though there are too many labels these days to describe the degree of atheism which I think are unnecessary. The two types I perceive are the majority of atheists, who just want to be left alone. They have no interest in debating or discussing the subject. They aren't politically or socially motivated to engage in any conflict regarding the subject.

Going back to your OP.

It is nonsensical to have the opinion of any god(s).

The statement "The intellectual difficulties in accepting the supernatural is perfectly rational to me" is insulting. Your statement basically says, "you are intellectually challenged because you can't accept the supernatural".

You forgot the enitre segment of buddhists (and others) who are atheists and do not fall under those two definitions.

 


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:of

Old Seer wrote:
of interpretation is one of material creation. Our interpretation of creation has nothing to do with the creation of the material universe. Our interpretaion is in the mental catagory. (psychiatry)

 

Yes, I understood from your website that that was your approach, but I don't understand what it means. I'm really busy with my own site and this discussion so I don't have time to try and grasp the full meaning in detail, could you expand upon the mental as opposed to the material creation? l


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:No Offence

Old Seer wrote:

No Offence intended. You're giving every one here bible lessons. Everyone here already knows what's in the book. The Smurfs sit between Religion and
Atheism, we're attempting to talk to both. The one's on this site either know about our info and reject it, or, don't care about it. But that's Ok with us, we expect it. I don'r give them bible lessons, they don't need it. When I give a bile passage example it's for them to compare the world idea of the book with ours. I give no advice in this instance.

Don't forget, I'm not exactly new here. I'm aware of your position on discussing the Bible. Frankly I was surprised to see you join in the discussion, even after there wasn't being serious devotion to scriptural references, but as far as I'm concerned that is inevitable if this discussion continues.

Everyone here, including myself, as far as I'm aware, has an opinion on what the Bible says. I look forward to your interpretation of the book as well as theirs if willing to give it.

My definition of religion is at it's very basic sense. Religion is the beliefs which a person strictly adheres to. Everyone is, in this sense, religious. Organized religion I want nothing to do with. I'm a theist, the others here are atheists, you are a Seer, your input is most welcome.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:No, I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

No, I don't agree.

Subjective evidence isn't evidence at all. Evidence must be tested and proved. Every thing else is an assumption and conjecture.

I could say that Brian37 is a child molesting, gay, drug dealing, murdering dictator but it means nothing unless it can be proved.

I could say that Jesus was the savior of all mankind and the son of god but it means nothing because it can't be proved.

 

I am of the opinion that Jehovah of the Bible exists, and the Bible is his true witness to his rightful sovereignty as creator. You are of the opinion that this is false. It's not going to go beyond that if we can't agree on those terms or work something out we can agee upon.

Evidence is data used to support or refute a claim. Evidence and fact are not the same. More dictionary references.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

Fact: a thing that is indisputably the case: used in discussing the significance of something that is the case: a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article. the truth about events as opposed to interpretation:

Opinion a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge: the beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing: an estimation of the quality or worth of someone or something: a formal statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter: a formal statement of reasons for a judgment given. a lawyer's advice on the merits of a case.

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions: Contrasted with objective.

Objective: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: Contrasted with subjective.

You are correct in that you could say that Jesus was the savior and it would mean nothing, but the same is true of saying he isn't. That is opinion.  So give us an example of subjective as well as objective evidence that Jesus is and isn't the savior.

 


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Going

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Going back to your OP.

It is nonsensical to have the opinion of any god(s).

That's only your opinion.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
The statement "The intellectual difficulties in accepting the supernatural is perfectly rational to me" is insulting. Your statement basically says, "you are intellectually challenged because you can't accept the supernatural".

No, my statement basically says that it isn't easy to accept the supernatural. A virgin birth, walking on water, angels, demons, etc. These aren't things we see around us.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1523
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
You are quite right

David Henson wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

No Offence intended. You're giving every one here bible lessons. Everyone here already knows what's in the book. The Smurfs sit between Religion and
Atheism, we're attempting to talk to both. The one's on this site either know about our info and reject it, or, don't care about it. But that's Ok with us, we expect it. I don'r give them bible lessons, they don't need it. When I give a bile passage example it's for them to compare the world idea of the book with ours. I give no advice in this instance.

Don't forget, I'm not exactly new here. I'm aware of your position on discussing the Bible. Frankly I was surprised to see you join in the discussion, even after there wasn't being serious devotion to scriptural references, but as far as I'm concerned that is inevitable if this discussion continues.

Everyone here, including myself, as far as I'm aware, has an opinion on what the Bible says. I look forward to your interpretation of the book as well as theirs if willing to give it.

My definition of religion is at it's very basic sense. Religion is the beliefs which a person strictly adheres to. Everyone is, in this sense, religious. Organized religion I want nothing to do with. I'm a theist, the others here are atheists, you are a Seer, your input is most welcome.

this isn't a discussion I care to be in. On the first count, I analyze someone new to me. I give an input and get to know what they present and what they say. and their reaction to what is presented by me. I consider you basically neutral, a requirment of a Seer. However, a Seer cannot be religious as it would taint his/her  neutrality. We believe in nothing, as we find it's not necessary as previously explained. Just for present information (no comment om your part necessary as I know where form you are)We don.t see Chrisitnaity as a religion as it's purpose isn't to destroy false religion,as some religion present, it's purpose is to remove all religion and government. If we (The Old Seers) have no beliefs then we have no religion, because belief is needed to form a religion. OK. I will extracte myself from the discussion and if you have anything for my consideration it would be best to take it to Old Seer's Corner in the General discussion Forums. So, I'll get the hell out of everyone's way. Smiling

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith and I'm not a Theist

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:The

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The bible is one of several dozen religious text written before or after 1513bce to 98ce which means diddly to every one else who doesn't follow those [insert] religion. It is nothing more than stories, folklore, from a time when people thought a comet was a bad omen and clay golems existed. It is literally bullshit and nothing different than people today believing in Harry Potter. Which I believe will one day be a religion after a meteor hits Earth, wipes out all but 100,000 people world wide then some one starts a religion based on the books.

I saw iwbiek's post. However the people who made The Flying Spaghetti Monster a religion are justified in their belief. No one has any proof one way or another which is the funniest thing of them all. There is no proof that none of these things exist/don't exist and yet people believe in them. I find that fucking hilarious. You might as well pick up a bottle from the ground and say that the savior Mr Poo Poo Head drank from that bottle and sacrificed his life so that others may live.

If you believe in the god of abraham you are following a folklore. Far be it from me to tell you not to follow it, but I have to ask you, "WHY?" Why fucking follow it? Are you afraid of nothingness? Are you incapable of understanding or comprehending that your existence, nay, all of existence could exist with out a creator? Is it that you can't believe all this came from nothing or a singularity or if it has happened countless times before only to be repeated over and over and over again? Why? Why? Why do you follow the god of abraham?

I understood why you used the "there are a million gods" term. I knew your point of view already because you aren't the first person to come to these forums and proclaim such a statement.

I understood the definition. We are all gods ourselves. We create. We destroy. yadda yadda yadda.

 

Feel better? Everything you said was based upon your own personal opinion and . . . meaningless.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:this isn't a

Old Seer wrote:

this isn't a discussion I care to be in. On the first count, I analyze someone new to me. I give an input and get to know what they present and what they say. and their reaction to what is presented by me. I consider you basically neutral, a requirment of a Seer. However, a Seer cannot be religious as it would taint his/her  neutrality. We believe in nothing, as we find it's not necessary as previously explained. Just for present information (no comment om your part necessary as I know where form you are)We don.t see Chrisitnaity as a religion as it's purpose isn't to destroy false religion,as some religion present, it's purpose is to remove all religion and government. If we (The Old Seers) have no beliefs then we have no religion, because belief is needed to form a religion. OK. I will extracte myself from the discussion and if you have anything for my consideration it would be best to take it to Old Seer's Corner in the General discussion Forums. So, I'll get the hell out of everyone's way. Smiling 

Well, I'm sorry to hear that, Old Seer. If you should change your mind and the discussion continues, feel free.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13214
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Exactly.

David Henson wrote:
Exactly. The same applies to faith.

Noone said otherwise. But you aren't acknowledging certain definitions and it is making the communication of a concept impossible.

David Henson wrote:
Exactly. Now we're gettin' somewhere.

I doubt it.

David Henson wrote:
I don't know why this is so difficult for you to grasp. Something is tripping you up. In order to have influenced Jewish thinking and later Christianity Plato and Socrates would have had to predate those teachings.

No, they would have had to come after, else the bibles did not come from god but from man, which immediately and irrevocably refutes the entire christian & jewish religions and all of their offshoots. Plato & Socrates could have influenced the people of the time certainly, but that influence would end instantly in the face of a higher authority on all possible subjects. Why would anyone care what two men said centuries previous when god itself is speaking? They wouldn't.

David Henson wrote:
The immortal soul, Easter, Christmas, hell, the trinity (triune gods) all were around before Moses started writing the Bible.

No one person wrote any bible. There's no evidence of a moses. And not all christians believe in accepting these non-christian adoptions into christianity.

David Henson wrote:
Christianity adopted a great deal of pagan nonsense in order to attract pagans to the church. Jesus wasn't born near the 25th of December, he was probably born in the first week of October. Why cellebrate Christmas? It was a pagan celebration that was around long before Christ.

There probably was never a jesus, so any birthday is most likely fiction. And not all christians celebrate christmas. Also, it doesn't say much about christian credibility if christians had to lie in order to get people to join up.

David Henson wrote:
You have to drop this attitude that science is fact and the Bible is fiction.

No I don't.

David Henson wrote:
Your overconfidence in science isn't realistic and your knowledge of the Bible isn't sufficent enough to make that argument.

Wrong on all counts.

David Henson wrote:
The Bible doesn't claim perfection, in fact it warns the reader to test every inspired expression because of the possibility of error.

It doesn't directly claim perfection, but it does indirectly claim perfection. If you can't see that then it is you who needs to learn more about the bible.
There is no testing in the bible. Not for the reader anyway.

David Henson wrote:
And science is constantly getting it wrong,

Difference being when science is wrong, it changes. Religion does not. Religion stays wrong, forever. When was the last accepted revision of the bible? The late 1800's or early 1900's? Just spend 5 minutes thinking of all the things we've discovered since then. The entire field of microbiology and all other things too small to see with the naked eye. We can now see with the entire electromagnetic spectrum, instead of just visible light. The whole field of genetics, as well as irrefutable proof of evolution. We've discovered billions and billions of things since the last revision of the bible, yet the bible is still using flawed terminology and making false claims.

That is the reason religion is useless. It cannot adapt the way science does, and it never will.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1523
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Well we don't-

David Henson wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

this isn't a discussion I care to be in. On the first count, I analyze someone new to me. I give an input and get to know what they present and what they say. and their reaction to what is presented by me. I consider you basically neutral, a requirment of a Seer. However, a Seer cannot be religious as it would taint his/her  neutrality. We believe in nothing, as we find it's not necessary as previously explained. Just for present information (no comment om your part necessary as I know where form you are)We don.t see Chrisitnaity as a religion as it's purpose isn't to destroy false religion,as some religion present, it's purpose is to remove all religion and government. If we (The Old Seers) have no beliefs then we have no religion, because belief is needed to form a religion. OK. I will extracte myself from the discussion and if you have anything for my consideration it would be best to take it to Old Seer's Corner in the General discussion Forums. So, I'll get the hell out of everyone's way. Smiling 

Well, I'm sorry to hear that, Old Seer. If you should change your mind and the discussion continues, feel free.

At least I've been advised from the outset before I began here about 5 yeras ago, refrain from getting into debates, verbal contested etc. Basically, just state what we've found and let others take it from there. If it gets dumped so be it. It took a few months to get used to bringing our topics to others, so at the beginning I didn't quite know hpw to start things off. So, Is used the "blurt" method and it seems everyone went--what the ??????, and I was taken to be a Theist.  Years went by without dealing with this stuff and it was like starting from scratch. It took a while to remember things. We want to be informers not preachers. We are Atheistic, which sounds stupid but as you can see I have a label of Theist. It would seem that managment here can't make head or tail of us so--theist is it and I leave it alone. We can't find a superhuman being (person )anywhere in the universe and also the bible itself. Someone's made an assumption along time ago and attached their religion to the book which doesn't go there. So, explanation over--off I go. Smiling.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith and I'm not a Theist

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4902
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:I am of

David Henson wrote:

I am of the opinion that Jehovah of the Bible exists, and the Bible is his true witness to his rightful sovereignty as creator. You are of the opinion that this is false. It's not going to go beyond that if we can't agree on those terms or work something out we can agee upon.

Evidence is data used to support or refute a claim. Evidence and fact are not the same. More dictionary references.

You are correct in that you could say that Jesus was the savior and it would mean nothing, but the same is true of saying he isn't. That is opinion.  So give us an example of subjective as well as objective evidence that Jesus is and isn't the savior.

I learned a long time ago not to expect change in a true believer. However you are not a true believer. You are some one else completely different.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4267
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:3.

David Henson wrote:
3. Evidence is subjective. Case in point: iwbiek's quote directly above.



i didn't say that. i said the compulsion of evidence is subjective. if you submit a bible verse as evidence, it's evidence. there are no two ways about that. the subjective bit is whether or not i find the evidence compelling.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I learned a long time ago not to expect change in a true believer. However you are not a true believer. You are some one else completely different.

And what is that? What's so different about me?


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:But you aren't

Vastet wrote:
But you aren't acknowledging certain definitions and it is making the communication of a concept impossible.

This is a group discussion, we should hammer out all the definitions we need until we all agree. There is absolutely no point in going on if the unbeliever insists that science can only be true, evidence has to be scientific (true) Religion can only be false, the Bible has to be religion, faith is a only a lie and atheism is only true. The subject is closed before it started. That's why no one does this anymore.  

Vastet wrote:
No, they would have had to come after, else the bibles did not come from god but from man, which immediately and irrevocably refutes the entire christian & jewish religions and all of their offshoots. Plato & Socrates could have influenced the people of the time certainly, but that influence would end instantly in the face of a higher authority on all possible subjects. Why would anyone care what two men said centuries previous when god itself is speaking? They wouldn't.

Dude. They still do. The writers of the Bible wrote, for hundreds of years, that the soul was mortal. It died. Along comes Alexander the Great and they learn about Socrates and Plato so they start saying the soul is immortal. The people of the Alluvial plains of Babylon celebrated the spring and the goddess of fertility, Astarte aka Ishtar by painting eggs, making cross buns, and dressing up children in new clothes and sacrificing them to Astarte, then having an orgy. Urns with paintings of the egg, cross (fertility symbol), and rabbit, Astarte's symbols of fertility, with the charred remains of children in them. Thousands of years later the Christians come along and water it down. Drop the sacrifices and orgy, for the most part, and there you have Easter. Christians didn't start celebrating Christmas en mass until after Charles Dickens wrote Christmas Carol, in what? 1842? The Rapture was unheard of until John Darby invented it. The trinity goes back to ancient Babylon, where Plato much later discovered it. Hell as well, popularized and Christened by Dante and Milton. The cross, from Constantine. Christians thought the cross was a filthy idol, because it is. A phallic symbol. Until Emperor Constantine. How do you not know this? And those things didn't influence the writing of the Bible, they influenced religion much later. Except for in the case of Alexander. Not that the Jews in the time of the Bible weren't practicing false religion. Read Ezekiel 18.  

Vastet wrote:
Difference being when science is wrong, it changes. Religion does not. Religion stays wrong, forever. When was the last accepted revision of the bible? The late 1800's or early 1900's? Just spend 5 minutes thinking of all the things we've discovered since then. The entire field of microbiology and all other things too small to see with the naked eye. We can now see with the entire electromagnetic spectrum, instead of just visible light. The whole field of genetics, as well as irrefutable proof of evolution. We've discovered billions and billions of things since the last revision of the bible, yet the bible is still using flawed terminology and making false claims. That is the reason religion is useless. It cannot adapt the way science does, and it never will.

I hate to tell you this, but you don't know what's going on. Science is constantly changing because its constantly wrong. It's as relevant as lava lamps, bell bottoms or the mullet. The science they taught me in school is laughable today and the science they teach in school today will be laughable soon. Religion always changes. But unlike science which corrects itself, religion corrupts itself. That's why I don't mind science and I loath religion. But that has nothing to do with the Bible. Abuse doesn't negate usefulness.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:David Henson

iwbiek wrote:
David Henson wrote:
3. Evidence is subjective. Case in point: iwbiek's quote directly above.

i didn't say that. i said the compulsion of evidence is subjective. if you submit a bible verse as evidence, it's evidence. there are no two ways about that. the subjective bit is whether or not i find the evidence compelling.

Okay. We can make adjustments. I don't think it matters at this point though. The discussion is pretty much over.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4267
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
regardless, i don't care to

regardless, i don't care to be misquoted.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13214
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:This is a

David Henson wrote:
This is a group discussion, we should hammer out all the definitions we need until we all agree. There is absolutely no point in going on if the unbeliever insists that science can only be true, evidence has to be scientific (true) Religion can only be false, the Bible has to be religion, faith is a only a lie and atheism is only true. The subject is closed before it started. That's why no one does this anymore. 

That's a monumentally ridiculous caricature of the discussion.

David Henson wrote:
Dude. They still do.

They most certainly do not.

David Henson wrote:
The writers of the Bible wrote, for hundreds of years, that the soul was mortal. It died. ~~~ Read Ezekiel 18. 

So you're a jew and you discard christianity as false. NOW we're getting somewhere. I'll never understand why jews are so afraid of admitting they are jews. It's like they think Hitler is hiding around every corner. Instead of playing games you should just state it outright. It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion when a party is refusing to participate you know. Besides, we all here discard judaism as equally as christianity or islam, so you won't be treated any differently.

David Henson wrote:
I hate to tell you this, but you don't know what's going on.

No, that's you.

David Henson wrote:
Science is constantly changing because its constantly wrong.

Either you're completely ignorant of science or you're a liar. Science itself hasn't changed since the 1700's. In part because it works, and in part because noone has come up with a better system.

Certain concepts in science have changed, but not science itself. Even so, concepts in science do not constantly change. It took 200 years before Newton's theories were challenged. The laws have never been challenged. Evolution has never been challenged. Tweaks are occasionally made to make predictions more accurate, but the underlying foundation of the greatest scientific theories have never been overturned, even though people have been trying for centuries. Suggesting that science is constantly wrong on a computer communicating over the internet (two inventions possible only because of science) is a remarkable demonstration of irrational thought processes. If science was constantly wrong then why do we still have functional communications? Why does gps work? How have we populated the solar system with probes and landed men on the moon?

Your comments defeat yourself.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4267
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: That's a

Vastet wrote:

That's a monumentally ridiculous caricature of the discussion.




fucking spit take.


Vastet wrote:
Besides, we all here discard judaism as equally as christianity or islam, so you won't be treated any differently.



careful, that goddamn tranny might be around...

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:regardless, i

iwbiek wrote:

regardless, i don't care to be misquoted.

I apologize for my carelessness and will try and be more careful in the future.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: So you're a

Vastet wrote:
So you're a jew and you discard christianity as false. NOW we're getting somewhere. I'll never understand why jews are so afraid of admitting they are jews. It's like they think Hitler is hiding around every corner. Instead of playing games you should just state it outright. It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion when a party is refusing to participate you know. Besides, we all here discard judaism as equally as christianity or islam, so you won't be treated any differently.

I'm not a Jew. I discard Judaism, Islam and Christianity as false. All religion is false. There has never been any religion that could remain true to itself. Jehovah himself was among the ancients and still they proved false every step of the way. The apostle Paul forwarned of the impending apostasy of the Christian congregations at 2 Timothy 4:3-4 3 "For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories." Where false stories appears he used the Greek word mythous (myth) which was later translated into the Latin, fabulas (fables).
 

Vastet wrote:
Either you're completely ignorant of science or you're a liar. Science itself hasn't changed since the 1700's. In part because it works, and in part because noone has come up with a better system. Certain concepts in science have changed, but not science itself. Even so, concepts in science do not constantly change. It took 200 years before Newton's theories were challenged. The laws have never been challenged. Evolution has never been challenged. Tweaks are occasionally made to make predictions more accurate, but the underlying foundation of the greatest scientific theories have never been overturned, even though people have been trying for centuries. Suggesting that science is constantly wrong on a computer communicating over the internet (two inventions possible only because of science) is a remarkable demonstration of irrational thought processes. If science was constantly wrong then why do we still have functional communications? Why does gps work? How have we populated the solar system with probes and landed men on the moon? Your comments defeat yourself.

Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . I know. Some people may think that God created all things great and wonderful, but the atheist will tell you it wasn't God, it was science. Science dammit, man, pull yourself together! And don't forget science's contribution to our global economy and oh, I don't know - thermonuclear and chemical weapons of mass destruction that has us all pissin' ourselves.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13214
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:I'm not a

David Henson wrote:
I'm not a Jew. I discard Judaism, Islam and Christianity as false. All religion is false.

Well you have noone but yourself to blame. Quit bullshitting about what you aren't and start describing what you are.

David Henson wrote:
All religion is false. There has never been any religion that could remain true to itself.

Bullshit. Scientology does it. So did the Greeks snd Romans and Vikings, at least for a time. The reason the abrahamic religions fall apart is because they ascribe all possible aspects to a single god, which creates inherrent contradictions and inconsistencies. But as long as you don't do that, there aren't any inherrent contradictions and inconsistencies. Which is not to say there cannot be contradictions and inconsistencies, just that it is possible to create a foundation without them.

David Henson wrote:
Some people may think that God created all things great and wonderful, but the atheist will tell you it wasn't God, it was science

No. Science didn't create anything. WE created science.

David Henson wrote:
And don't forget science's contribution to our global economy and oh, I don't know - thermonuclear and chemical weapons of mass destruction that has us all pissin' ourselves.

Speak for yourself. I'm not particularly worried about such weapons. I'm much more concerned about our species being stuck on this rock until everything here dies and all evidence of all life throughout the history of Earth vanishes. Which is definitely going to happen.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Quit

Vastet wrote:
Quit bullshitting about what you aren't and start describing what you are.

I'm a Bible believer. I've never belonged to any organized religion. Never will. My beliefs are similar, for the most part, to the Jehovah's Witnesses. Though I've never been a JW and never will.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13214
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old bible or new bible?

Old bible or new bible? Version?

I don't know anything about JW's except that they are the religion most likely to ruin your dinner. They don't seem to have much presence online, and I've nevrer been 'lucky' enough to be the one to open the door when they come knocking. I haven't bothered researching them because in my experience they aren't a threat.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4902
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Old bible or

Vastet wrote:
Old bible or new bible? Version? I don't know anything about JW's except that they are the religion most likely to ruin your dinner. They don't seem to have much presence online, and I've nevrer been 'lucky' enough to be the one to open the door when they come knocking. I haven't bothered researching them because in my experience they aren't a threat.

I used to get a few of them around my house but now they stay away. I have a really nice sticker I put on the window near the door. It basically tells them to go fuck off and leave me alone, but in a stern polite manner.

Of the JW that have come to my house to speak none of them are any fucking different than any other fucking cult. They all believe in the same shit but their tune is different.

I was told by one that if I didn't accept jesus as my savior then I would go to hell. I asked him if a baby was on a cruise and the ship sank, the parents made it to an island but later died because a tiger ate them, but the baby was rescued by gorillas and then raised by them, to which this man lived and died thinking he was a gorilla, would that mean he would go to hell.

The reply I got back was "yes, he would go to hell".

I said, "so it was god's intent to create this baby, never introduce him to jesus, then send him to hell for shits and giggles?"

The response was more or less, yeah, that is what would happen.

JW are all fuck ups just like scientology and every religion in the world. their completely bullshit and while I respect their right to follow bullshit as truth, they shoudl never be in a position of power to make laws which benefit their belief and diminish mine or others.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I used

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I used to get a few of them around my house but now they stay away. I have a really nice sticker I put on the window near the door. It basically tells them to go fuck off and leave me alone, but in a stern polite manner.

Of the JW that have come to my house to speak none of them are any fucking different than any other fucking cult. They all believe in the same shit but their tune is different.

I was told by one that if I didn't accept jesus as my savior then I would go to hell. I asked him if a baby was on a cruise and the ship sank, the parents made it to an island but later died because a tiger ate them, but the baby was rescued by gorillas and then raised by them, to which this man lived and died thinking he was a gorilla, would that mean he would go to hell.

The reply I got back was "yes, he would go to hell".

I said, "so it was god's intent to create this baby, never introduce him to jesus, then send him to hell for shits and giggles?"

The response was more or less, yeah, that is what would happen.

JW are all fuck ups just like scientology and every religion in the world. their completely bullshit and while I respect their right to follow bullshit as truth, they shoudl never be in a position of power to make laws which benefit their belief and diminish mine or others.

 

The JWs don't believe in hell.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13214
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
^ No true scotsman fallacy.

^ No true scotsman fallacy. The christians technically don't have a hell in any offshoot, but that doesn't prevent a significant percentage of them from belief in hell, under vared different meanings.
In this case, the jw was probably referring to death itself, not some destination after death. The jw's do believe in hell, just not the same way as the rc's or p's or m's or whatever else.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4902
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:

David Henson wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I used to get a few of them around my house but now they stay away. I have a really nice sticker I put on the window near the door. It basically tells them to go fuck off and leave me alone, but in a stern polite manner.

Of the JW that have come to my house to speak none of them are any fucking different than any other fucking cult. They all believe in the same shit but their tune is different.

I was told by one that if I didn't accept jesus as my savior then I would go to hell. I asked him if a baby was on a cruise and the ship sank, the parents made it to an island but later died because a tiger ate them, but the baby was rescued by gorillas and then raised by them, to which this man lived and died thinking he was a gorilla, would that mean he would go to hell.

The reply I got back was "yes, he would go to hell".

I said, "so it was god's intent to create this baby, never introduce him to jesus, then send him to hell for shits and giggles?"

The response was more or less, yeah, that is what would happen.

JW are all fuck ups just like scientology and every religion in the world. their completely bullshit and while I respect their right to follow bullshit as truth, they should never be in a position of power to make laws which benefit their belief and diminish mine or others.

 

The JWs don't believe in hell.

Typical of my memory but either way the story was that if you don't believe in jesus you don't get a pass in to heaven, etc, etc ,etc


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4902
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:^ No true

Vastet wrote:
^ No true scotsman fallacy. The christians technically don't have a hell in any offshoot, but that doesn't prevent a significant percentage of them from belief in hell, under vared different meanings. In this case, the jw was probably referring to death itself, not some destination after death. The jw's do believe in hell, just not the same way as the rc's or p's or m's or whatever else.

I just looked it up on their website and it said that hell is the common grave, that hell is not fiery hell with eternal torment but death and non-existence.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Be careful guys; this was

Be careful guys; this was posted in the Kill 'em with Kindness subforum. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Typical of my memory but either way the story was that if you don't believe in jesus you don't get a pass in to heaven, etc, etc ,etc

It sounds like your visit was from the Mormons. Probably 2 young guys wearing black suits, white shirts. Either walking or riding bicycles?

 


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Vastet

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
^ No true scotsman fallacy. The christians technically don't have a hell in any offshoot, but that doesn't prevent a significant percentage of them from belief in hell, under vared different meanings. In this case, the jw was probably referring to death itself, not some destination after death. The jw's do believe in hell, just not the same way as the rc's or p's or m's or whatever else.

I just looked it up on their website and it said that hell is the common grave, that hell is not fiery hell with eternal torment but death and non-existence.

Right. Like the atheist belief in hell. When you're dead your dead. That's it. Worm food. Non-existent. No consciousness.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13214
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Vastet

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
^ No true scotsman fallacy. The christians technically don't have a hell in any offshoot, but that doesn't prevent a significant percentage of them from belief in hell, under vared different meanings. In this case, the jw was probably referring to death itself, not some destination after death. The jw's do believe in hell, just not the same way as the rc's or p's or m's or whatever else.

I just looked it up on their website and it said that hell is the common grave, that hell is not fiery hell with eternal torment but death and non-existence.

Yes exactly. Which would be as frightening to many people as eternal fire and brimstone, so there remains the implied threat. The jw's believe they can believe their way into an afterlife of perfection and avoid oblivion, avoid hell. Though like most religious folk they don't bother to think things through to their natural conclusion.
They do have the interesting distinction of believing heaven has a set limit. Only 144,000 people can get into heaven. So believers are more desperate than in most religious branches.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4902
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Typical of my memory but either way the story was that if you don't believe in jesus you don't get a pass in to heaven, etc, etc ,etc

It sounds like your visit was from the Mormons. Probably 2 young guys wearing black suits, white shirts. Either walking or riding bicycles?

 

To be honest, I only recall the two guys but I do not recall bikes nor do I recall their dress.

I have so many of them visit over the years they tend to blur together. JW's and Mormons alike.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4902
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:digitalbeachbum

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
^ No true scotsman fallacy. The christians technically don't have a hell in any offshoot, but that doesn't prevent a significant percentage of them from belief in hell, under vared different meanings. In this case, the jw was probably referring to death itself, not some destination after death. The jw's do believe in hell, just not the same way as the rc's or p's or m's or whatever else.

I just looked it up on their website and it said that hell is the common grave, that hell is not fiery hell with eternal torment but death and non-existence.

Yes exactly. Which would be as frightening to many people as eternal fire and brimstone, so there remains the implied threat. The jw's believe they can believe their way into an afterlife of perfection and avoid oblivion, avoid hell. Though like most religious folk they don't bother to think things through to their natural conclusion. They do have the interesting distinction of believing heaven has a set limit. Only 144,000 people can get into heaven. So believers are more desperate than in most religious branches.

It reminds me of a con man selling a bad product. They use scare tactics to convince you to make the purchase because "this deal isn't going to last forever". So you rush to make the purchase instead of waiting first to examine the product.

I see that also in those commercials online which say, "1st 50 callers get..." but when you call no matter how long you wait, every one is a "1st 50 caller".


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4902
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
^ No true scotsman fallacy. The christians technically don't have a hell in any offshoot, but that doesn't prevent a significant percentage of them from belief in hell, under vared different meanings. In this case, the jw was probably referring to death itself, not some destination after death. The jw's do believe in hell, just not the same way as the rc's or p's or m's or whatever else.

I just looked it up on their website and it said that hell is the common grave, that hell is not fiery hell with eternal torment but death and non-existence.

Right. Like the atheist belief in hell. When you're dead your dead. That's it. Worm food. Non-existent. No consciousness.

What is the meaning of life?


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:digitalbeachbum

Vastet wrote:
Yes exactly. Which would be as frightening to many people as eternal fire and brimstone, so there remains the implied threat. The jw's believe they can believe their way into an afterlife of perfection and avoid oblivion, avoid hell. Though like most religious folk they don't bother to think things through to their natural conclusion. They do have the interesting distinction of believing heaven has a set limit. Only 144,000 people can get into heaven. So believers are more desperate than in most religious branches.

When religious people talk about going to heaven it's everything wonderful that they can imagine. A utopian dream based upon their own desires and imagination. Heaven, though, wasn't created for man. It isn't a place that would appeal to the human. Heaven, the Bible says, was made for God and the spirit creatures. I wouldn't want to go to heaven. The earth, however, was made for man. It appeals to us. The grass, the trees, the sounds, the smells etc. But, the Bible also indicates that everlasting life isn't under Jehovah's rightful sovereignty as creator isn't something they would be interested in. There isn't anything wrong with that. There isn't anything wrong with choosing to opt out and die. There's nothing to be afraid of. There's no hurry.  


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:What

digitalbeachbum wrote:

What is the meaning of life?

The meaning? Jehovah God made us out of love, he made us to enjoy ourselves.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13214
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:When

David Henson wrote:
When religious people talk about going to heaven it's everything wonderful that they can imagine. A utopian dream based upon their own desires and imagination.

Which would bore anyone to suicide after a few thousand years.

David Henson wrote:
Heaven, though, wasn't created for man. It isn't a place that would appeal to the human. Heaven, the Bible says, was made for God and the spirit creatures. I wouldn't want to go to heaven.

You are in a minority. Most people want to go to heaven. And most christians do not think heaven would be unappealing to man just because it wasn't created for man. The Earth wasn't created for man, but we're here and most of us seem to like it well enough.

David Henson wrote:
The earth, however, was made for man.

No, it wasn't. In both the biblical accounts of creation, contradictory as they are, the Earth was created first. It cannot have been for man, as man didn't exist.

David Henson wrote:
But, the Bible also indicates that everlasting life isn't under Jehovah's rightful sovereignty as creator isn't something they would be interested in.

What?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4902
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

What is the meaning of life?

The meaning? Jehovah God made us out of love, he made us to enjoy ourselves.

Interesting.

Let me rationalize this for a second.

So long before this Universe was created, your god knew that I would be created, live my life the way I wanted to live it, then knew that I would reject god, reject jesus, then end up worm food and cease to exist?

 

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4267
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Be

butterbattle wrote:

Be careful guys; this was posted in the Kill 'em with Kindness subforum. 




christ, i forgot all about that. still, at this point, aren't such niceties a bit like making sure norman bates's mummified mother is wearing the right brooch?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4902
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:butterbattle

iwbiek wrote:
butterbattle wrote:

Be careful guys; this was posted in the Kill 'em with Kindness subforum. 


christ, i forgot all about that. still, at this point, aren't such niceties a bit like making sure norman bates's mummified mother is wearing the right brooch?

His approach is to cherry pick the replies. Ask him a specific question which exposes the faults of his opinion then he moves on to another subject. It doesn't matter if you speak with kindness or not.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13214
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It's still the rule. There's

It's still the rule. There's very little moderation here, and I don't think anything in this topic has crossed the line. Though admittedly some posts are rather borderline, some of my own included. It doesn't hurt to have a bit of a reminder I think. Especially since the banners that are supposed to show up to remind everyone which forum we're in don't show up under certain circumstances. I didn't actually fully appreciate which forum this was in until Butter's comment.

We have to abide by our own ethics, and this forum was specifically created as a safe space for theists to come here without being exposed to abuse. David was quite clear in the op that it was intentional that he was posting in this sub forum when he started this topic, so that should be respected.

His other topics aren't in the kill 'em with kindness sub forum, so if you really feel it necessary to be more aggressive then I'd ask you unleash that aggression in those topics. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:His

digitalbeachbum wrote:

His approach is to cherry pick the replies. Ask him a specific question which exposes the faults of his opinion then he moves on to another subject. It doesn't matter if you speak with kindness or not.

Yeah, if this were the only thread he'd made, I might be inclined to start a conversation with him. But, judging by his other threads, I wouldn't get anywhere.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4267
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
fair enough. i posted one

fair enough. i posted one reply with rather blue language, but it wasn't directed at david or anybody else. nevertheless, i apologize.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4902
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:fair enough. i

iwbiek wrote:
fair enough. i posted one reply with rather blue language, but it wasn't directed at david or anybody else. nevertheless, i apologize.

Me too. I said fuck a bunch of times but not directed at him.

I think we scared him off anyway.