Oh never mind

http://www.chrismadden.co.uk/meaning/atheist-heaven.jpg


According to Christianity, it should also say "No Jews, Moslems, Hindus, etc". It would likewise have all unbelievers thinking "I don't believe it".
According to Islam, wouldn't it say "No Christians"?


Many Christians villify atheists much more than Moslems yet The Holy Babble says both are unbelievers & are condemned.

Why do some theists hate atheists so much more than they hate theists of conflicting religions???

Its not hate, its logic.

If I am a book lover, I would take into my book club even people who did not read or love the same kind of books as I did. But anyone who proclaimed they did not read or hated books, should not be surprised if they were kept out. Especially if they spent all their time telling the others how stupid books are.


According to Islam, wouldn't it say "No Christians"?

No.

-=-

Your rabid rhetoric reeks of hate & finding any logic in your posts is as searching for a needle in a barn full of hay.
Your attempt at analogy is inept. It doesn't fit.

You asked why atheists are considered lesser than people of other religious beliefs.

Its because while religious people may not agree on what God is, they most definitely find any theism closer to their ideology than atheism. If you consider religious beliefs as several overlapping circles, athiests stand outside all the circles. There is no agreement of any kind between atheists and theists but there are many points of agreement between theists.

You can see this in practice here at sciforums. I can get along with theists of differing beliefs when it comes to God. But atheists are another story altogether.

Why do some theists hate atheists so much more than they hate theists of conflicting religions???


and the question is justified by a stinking cartoon contained in a quote by sam?

-=-

Gustav
What the heck are you babbling about???

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/3247/atheistheaven.jpg


happy now, lightweight?

You can see this in practice here at sciforums. I can get along with theists of differing beliefs when it comes to God. But atheists are another story altogether.


ja
the enemy of my.....
doctrinal diffs b/w abrahamic religions slight
whatnot

but
what would the brickforbrains know

You asked why atheists are considered lesser than people of other religious beliefs.

Its because while religious people may not agree on what God is, they most definitely find any theism closer to their ideology than atheism. If you consider religious beliefs as several overlapping circles, athiests stand outside all the circles. There is no agreement of any kind between atheists and theists but there are many points of agreement between theists.

You can see this in practice here at sciforums. I can get along with theists of differing beliefs when it comes to God. But atheists are another story altogether.


It's not simply that people disagree on what God is but that they believe in different contradictory gods. Thus the circles do not overlap.
You agree there is an omniscient omnipotent angry god with a lust for punishment & that's about it. According to Christianity, you will be punished along with the atheist.
It's creepy.

.......& finding any logic in your posts is as searching for a needle in a barn full of hay. .


well
you failed but at least you tried
you did what you could under the circumstances
for that, i commend you

/pats

great
it is settled
creepy it is

-=-

It's certainly settled that you can be disruptive.

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/3247/atheistheaven.jpg


happy now, lightweight?
:roflmao:

well
you failed but at least you tried
you did what you could under the circumstances
for that, i commend you

/pats

:thumbsup:

http://enmos.eu/tempdir/atheist-heaven.jpg

http://enmos.eu/tempdir/atheist-heaven.jpg

LOL, even a similar font.

can you make it "no sciforum members"

LOL, even a similar font.

can you make it "no sciforum members"

It's the exact same font. I copied it from the other text in the cartoon ;)
I can try the sciforums thing, but I'll have to do it later on.

just thought i'd point out that, according to their own doctrine, christians aren't supposed to hate anyone at all. ha!

You asked why atheists are considered lesser than people of other religious beliefs.

Its because while religious people may not agree on what God is, they most definitely find any theism closer to their ideology than atheism.

The only real agreement between theists is the supernatural; ie. delusions.


If you consider religious beliefs as several overlapping circles, athiests stand outside all the circles. There is no agreement of any kind between atheists and theists but there are many points of agreement between theists.

What points of agreement are there between Christians, Muslims and Jews on their gods?


You can see this in practice here at sciforums. I can get along with theists of differing beliefs when it comes to God. But atheists are another story altogether.

No, you have plenty of posts where you've disagreed vehemently with other theists.

The only real agreement between theists is the supernatural; ie. delusions.

Whatever it takes



What points of agreement are there between Christians, Muslims and Jews on their gods?

There are several, which become more and more obvious when political economic and social matters are discussed. If you don't believe me you can ask practising Christians and Jews here.




No, you have plenty of posts where you've disagreed vehemently with other theists.
And I still get along with them better than I do with atheists.

just thought i'd point out that, according to their own doctrine, christians aren't supposed to hate anyone at all. ha!


Jesus said to hate your parents. You need more?

Jesus said to hate your parents. You need more?

You'll certainly find theists of most, if not all grades, standing outside this ^^^ circle.

Stranger in his post #1, asked;

Why do some theists hate atheists so much more than they hate theists of conflicting religions???

In more than a dozen years of encounters in various discussion groups with theists, I've confirmed a few points on this question.

[a] Theists live in mortal fear of cancellation of their ticket on the Glory Train. This fear enables them to overlook the abuse of their children by priests and the conspiracy of cover-up by the bishops and cardinals. That fear also enables them to despise atheists with grotesque enthusiasm.

[b] In a perverse way they envy the atheist's intellectual freedom and thus they despise him/her for having more fun and meaning in this life than they, the theists, do. They must wait for the next one at their god's convenience.

[c] All holy books call upon the faithful to eradicate the unbeliever by the most painful method they can devise. Civilised communities restrict this imperative in several ways, thus attracting the fury of the faithful. The faithful view this as an unconscionable intrusion into their right to religious freedom.

That should be enough to begin with.

OriginalBiggles, Prime

"They hate us for our freedoms"

Now where have I heard this before?

SAM in his post #23 asked;
"They hate us for our freedoms"
Now where have I heard this before?

If your [rhetorical?] question was asked in response to my post #22 then I'd be delighted to help you, but I have no idea where you might have heard it before. I'd be very surprised if the question had not been raised in this group some time previously. What was the response then?
Doubtless you've encountered [a] and [c] before and have no query regarding them.

OriginalBiggles, Prime

As a thiest, I am constantly boggled by how dumb some of the atheist arguments are. So no, I don't hate atehists for their "intellectual" freedom. Not when I see the difference between civilisations willing to develop abstraction inspite of it being unstructured and subjective and those restricted by what they can see and touch.

I know which side of that river I want to be on.

Organised religions have come to an uneasy alliance, because they have realised that any criticism of another religion, applies equally to their own, so instead, berate atheists.

That is of course a rather idiotic position to hold, since there are major theological difference between the Abrahamic schisms even, and each one is guilty of blasphemy according to the other's credo. But these are minor blasphemies, and if Jews don't believe God sent Jesus as a messiah, well, they end up questioning God, and that's one thing they do agree on. Ah, but those naughty atheists don't agree there, so let's demonise them, and keep tithing the flock.

Let's face it, it's all about the flock, and atheists aren't getting fleeced. That irks them.

Jesus said to hate your parents. You need more?

The bible also says to honor them.

Do you seriously not know what that means? Have you ever heard of something called context?

You'll certainly find theists of most, if not all grades, standing outside this ^^^ circle.

What circle???

Do you know what's wrong with religious and atheist alike?

They pick and choose scripture out of context to serve their own agenda.

Jesus' message in regards to humanity was very simple. Even for all you masterminds. It was to love each other.

What gets in the way of that love? Sin.

What does god hate? Sin. Not the sinner, for we all are sinners.

Why? Because we are BORN into it.

Who is our spiritual father? God, our creator.

And we are redeemed through christ.

THAT is context.

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
Jesus said to hate your parents. You need more? ”



You'll certainly find theists of most, if not all grades, standing outside this ^^^ circle.


In that they don't believe he said that or they choose not to follow it?



The bible also says to honor them.

Do you seriously not know what that means? Have you ever heard of something called context?


The Holy Babble says many contradictory things.
I seriously do know what it means. It is not out of context.

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
Jesus said to hate your parents. You need more? ”





In that they don't believe he said that or they choose not to follow it?





The Holy Babble says many contradictory things.
I seriously do know what it means. It is not out of context.

It is entirely out of context. The bible is not contradictory if taken as a whole and understood with spiritual guidance. Understanding and spiritual guidance being 2 things you admit to not wanting.

They pick and choose scripture out of context to serve their own agenda.


I think you find what is considered to be scripture today, was picked and chosen for you, by the Council of Nicaea.

That said, you'd have to revert some of their decisions, and read all the apocrypha, and the dead sea scrolls, as well as a more accurate translation of accepted scripture, and make your own mind up.

Then, you'd just have an opinion of what actually happened, as it's clear the council sat because the collective of stories is not consistent.

Between the Romans, and The Council of Nicaea, all we really learn, is that Christianity is a political compromise to retain control of the masses.

I think you find what is considered to be scripture today, was picked and chosen for you, by the Council of Nicaea.

That said, you'd have to revert some of their decisions, and read all the apocrypha, and the dead sea scrolls, as well as a more accurate translation of accepted scripture, and make your own mind up.

Then, you'd just have an opinion of what actually happened, as it's clear the council sat because the collective of stories is not consistent.

Between the Romans, and The Council of Nicaea, all we really learn, is that Christianity is a political compromise to retain control of the masses.

No dear, that's what you do. Not that I'm opposed to it.

The bible also says that it is to be interpreted by its author, the holy spirit.

Do you really think that man can thwart god? Wouldn't that make god not god?

... Why do some theists hate atheists so much more than they hate theists of conflicting religions???

because they at least believe in a god. Its how they worship that god that's different. They share a core belief.
Atheists don't believe in any of it. They scoff, ridicule and laugh at it.

No dear, that's what you do. Not that I'm opposed to it.

Sorry Lori, but I'm not one of the members of the Council of Nicaea. I didn't edit the Bible.


The bible also says that it is to be interpreted by its author, the holy spirit.

But it was written by men, and edited by a council. How do you know which bits were written by whom?


Do you really think that man can thwart god? Wouldn't that make god not god?

I don't believe in God, so I don't understand why you are asking me that question.

because they at least believe in a god. Its how they worship that god that's different. They share a core belief.
Atheists don't believe in any of it. They scoff, ridicule and laugh at it.

Well, it is to be scoffed at. Was Jesus a messiah? 2/3 of the Abrahamic religions say a resounding NO. But it's the same God they worship? No, it's not, they don't all worship the same God at all, they all have similar myths based on earlier myths, but the characters have been re-worked.

Until they can agree on the basics, well, they all look a little silly.

Well, it is to be scoffed at. Was Jesus a messiah? 2/3 of the Abrahamic religions say a resounding NO. But it's the same God they worship? No, it's not, they don't all worship the same God at all, they all have similar myths based on earlier myths, but the characters have been re-worked.

Until they can agree on the basics, well, they all look a little silly.

Who cares if its the same god? Its still a god. A god which atheists laugh at.

Who cares if its the same god? Its still a god. A god which atheists laugh at.

Well, three religions all claiming to be worshipping the same guy, but the same guy telling them different things, is rather laughable, isn't it?

yeah, so. LOL, my children have parents who tell one of them one thing and a few days later something else. All the while saying 'do as I say, not as I do"

Its probably why god is called Father.

Sorry Lori, but I'm not one of the members of the Council of Nicaea. I didn't edit the Bible.

i was talking about reading those things, not writing them.




But it was written by men, and edited by a council. How do you know which bits were written by whom?

who gives a shit? what matters is what is accomplished through it.




I don't believe in God, so I don't understand why you are asking me that question.

you can't put mind out there? theoretically...think about it. if man could thwart god, he wouldn't be much of a god now would he? come on...

As a thiest, I am constantly boggled by how dumb some of the atheist arguments are.

The religiously deluded always think atheists arguments are dumb. Theists can't fathom a world without their delusions.


I know which side of that river I want to be on.

Yes, we know, the religiously deluded.

The religiously deluded always think atheists arguments are dumb. Theists can't fathom a world without their delusions.



Yes, we know, the religiously deluded.

hey Q, could you say the word "deluded" again?

hey Q, could you say the word "deluded" again?

Deluded.

Deluded.

thanks, that was great. ;)

i was talking about reading those things, not writing them.

Reading which parts? The edited remains of what the council decided later generations should read?


who gives a shit? what matters is what is accomplished through it.

Is it the inspired word of God, or not. If the content is not important, then any work that inspires people to accomplish good things is just as worthy and correct, and my few books on Zen will achieve the same results, and I don't need God.


you can't put mind out there? theoretically...think about it. if man could thwart god, he wouldn't be much of a god now would he? come on...

I don't believe in God, therefore considering such a position, without you fully explaining all the attributes of God is rather pointless.

The religiously deluded always think atheists arguments are dumb. .....


LOL, oh puleeese. LOL, you think that about ever theist you have ever met.

thanks, that was great. ;)

Anytime. :)

Reading which parts? The edited remains of what the council decided later generations should read?

read whatever the hell you want. you were the one proposing that i should have to read all of the parts that were edited out. the point is that god can use all sorts of things as spiritual learning tools, including those things which have been edited. it's apparent to me, that what is available to us is useful only if the holy spirit is using it as a tool to teach you. think about god-like qualities for a moment. omnipotence and omniscience. you really think a bit of editing is going to make a difference?




I don't need God.

just wanted to reiterate that in quotes.



I don't believe in God, therefore considering such a position, without you fully explaining all the attributes of God is rather pointless.

ok, don't consider it theoretically...this is you being obstinant and close-minded by the way.

LOL, oh puleeese. LOL, you think that about ever theist you have ever met.

When theists demonstrate their ignorance, it is observed. It has nothing to do with what I think about them.

When theists demonstrate their ignorance, it is observed. It has nothing to do with what I think about them.

who are you kidding? You make your arguments personal. :bugeye:

who are you kidding? You make your arguments personal. :bugeye:

No, I don't.

No, I don't.

hmmm, let's ask Sam and Lori, shall we. LOL

Why do some theists hate atheists so much more than they hate theists of conflicting religions???
Isn't it obvious? It's because theists have more in common with other theists of different religions than they do with atheists. Duh...

read whatever the hell you want. you were the one proposing that i should have to read all of the parts that were edited out. the point is that god can use all sorts of things as spiritual learning tools, including those things which have been edited. it's apparent to me, that what is available to us is useful only if the holy spirit is using it as a tool to teach you. think about god-like qualities for a moment. omnipotence and omniscience. you really think a bit of editing is going to make a difference?

Editing, yes, after all, it was the council of Nicaea that decided a lot of stuff, like, whether to propagate the notion that Jesus was the literal son of God or not. MEN made that decision. Not the 'Holy Spirit'. The 'Holy Spirit' is a work of fiction decided upon by MEN. you have read.


ok, don't consider it theoretically...this is you being obstinant and close-minded by the way.

No, it's theists not providing a logical and consistent description of their God. I cannot entertain the concept I have been described thus far. If you think you can make a rational case, and list non-contradictory attributes, go for it.

hmmm, let's ask Sam and Lori, shall we. LOL

I don't treat Sam's or Lori's delusions and differently than yours. ;)

hmmm, let's ask Sam and Lori, shall we. LOL

he has been civil to me lately.

Q, :thankyou:

Editing, yes, after all, it was the council of Nicaea that decided a lot of stuff, like, whether to propagate the notion that Jesus was the literal son of God or not. MEN made that decision. Not the 'Holy Spirit'. The 'Holy Spirit' is a work of fiction decided upon by MEN. you have read.

i have experienced the holy spirit.




No, it's theists not providing a logical and consistent description of their God. I cannot entertain the concept I have been described thus far. If you think you can make a rational case, and list non-contradictory attributes, go for it.

given, what is a consistent and logical description of god, being omnipotent and omniscient, you can certainly see how the wills of men and the actions of men would not thwart him. right? :bugeye:

he has been civil to me lately.

Q, :thankyou:

Right back-atcha, Lori!

In that they don't believe he said that or they choose not to follow it?



In that they certainly understand what it means to choose between your parents and the truth.


who are you kidding? You make your arguments personal. :bugeye:


No, I don't.


hmmm, let's ask Sam and Lori, shall we. LOL

No he doesn't. Whatever else you can accuse (Q) of, he keeps himself distant on sciforums. He's an equal opportunity asshole. :D

Christianity, Judaism and Islam are very similar . They are the mediterranean folklore . They all represent a barrage of contradictions and laughable aspects . Buddhism, Hinduism and some others are based on some thoughts brought by observing nature around them . Now with pantheism we are looking at mixing all mud and hoping it will stick one day .Lool .

Stranger in his post #1, asked;

Why do some theists hate atheists so much more than they hate theists of conflicting religions???

In more than a dozen years of encounters in various discussion groups with theists, I've confirmed a few points on this question.

[a] Theists live in mortal fear of cancellation of their ticket on the Glory Train. This fear enables them to overlook the abuse of their children by priests and the conspiracy of cover-up by the bishops and cardinals. That fear also enables them to despise atheists with grotesque enthusiasm.

[b] In a perverse way they envy the atheist's intellectual freedom and thus they despise him/her for having more fun and meaning in this life than they, the theists, do. They must wait for the next one at their god's convenience.

[c] All holy books call upon the faithful to eradicate the unbeliever by the most painful method they can devise. Civilised communities restrict this imperative in several ways, thus attracting the fury of the faithful. The faithful view this as an unconscionable intrusion into their right to religious freedom.

That should be enough to begin with.

OriginalBiggles, Prime

There's a lot of sense here. I remember as a Christian that I felt kinda like what OB is saying.

However, I don't think it is hate that theists have against atheists. It's really frustration. More of a sick feeling when I was around atheists. It's a stereotype that atheists are close minded. And now I feel that way about both theists and atheists. But, I definitely have lost a lot of frustration. I've got a little more tolerance to both sides unless either side strays away from the facts.

No he doesn't. Whatever else you can accuse (Q) of, he keeps himself distant on sciforums. He's an equal opportunity asshole. :D

Thank you for clearing that up, Sam. I owe you one. Insult, that is... ;)

StrangerInAStrangeLa,

Well, it depends on the Christians and the timeframe. Right about now many Xians are thinking Jews, Hindus, Muslims and Buddhist could go to Heaven - if they lived Good lives and if they didn't outright reject jesus, but just didn't know about him. Because most Atheist outright reject God, well, there's a special place in Hell for us.

That all said, most Christians are coming around to thinking Hell is only for the truly evil, like Hitler, Mohammad, Dick Cheney..... :D For the people they conned, Germans, Muslims and GW Bush Jr., there's still a chance they can go to heaven.

Originally Posted by (Q)
Deluded.

thanks, that was great. ;)
masochist,..huh?

Jayleew #60,
There's a lot of sense here. I remember as a Christian that I felt kinda like what OB is saying.
Careful my friend, you are breaking the mould here. But I appreciate the confirmation.

However, I don't think it is hate that theists have against atheists. It's really frustration. More of a sick feeling when I was around atheists. And if that "sick feeling" was aroused into physical expression, do you think hostility is the best description for the phenomenon? "Frustration" is most commonly expressed as hostility when aroused from the sub-conscious.

It's a stereotype that atheists are close minded.
Indeed, it's a juvenilely simplistic stereotype. Atheists are intellectually discriminating and skeptical. Their minds are not so open that all that is good falls out and all that is fantasy floods in.

And now I feel that way about both theists and atheists.
Do you see fence-sitting as a viable alternative? Or do you still hold to the christian view?

But, I definitely have lost a lot of frustration. I've got a little more tolerance to both sides unless either side strays away from the facts.
Putting aside frustration is a plus and substituting a little of it with tolerance is dangerously close to heresy. But the point you raise about FACTS is an interesting one. What FACTS might the other side have from which they might stray? Can you reconcile religious FACT and scientific FACT? The first has the whiff of oxymoron about it, which confuses the task.

OriginalBiggles, Prime

It is entirely out of context. The bible is not contradictory if taken as a whole and understood with spiritual guidance. Understanding and spiritual guidance being 2 things you admit to not wanting.


It is not out of context. It is simple & clear.
It is contradictory. It is obviously contradictory & your blind faith doesn't change facts.
You mean I can't understand it because I haven't accepted it by faith to be totally true & inerrant. That is a backward process which can result in believing anything to be true & inerrant.
The verse I was thinking of is by far not the only instance of The Holy Babble promoting hate & intolerance. You want to take it as a whole? How many examples do you need?

Speaking of facts, I have not admitted to not wanting understanding & spiritual guidance. Are you frigging full of it or are you taking on too much at once & confusing me with someone else?




No dear, that's what you do. Not that I'm opposed to it.

The bible also says that it is to be interpreted by its author, the holy spirit.

Do you really think that man can thwart god? Wouldn't that make god not god?


So 1 must believe it to be true & inerrant before 1 can understand it.

Do you really believe god can twart god? Indeed, god is not god. God is simply what you decided to label something YOU cannot understand.

Who cares if its the same god? Its still a god. A god which atheists laugh at.


Some worship a god who condemns to eternal suffering the worshippers of the other gods. I just don't see commonality there.




you can't put mind out there? theoretically...think about it. if man could thwart god, he wouldn't be much of a god now would he? come on...


It isn't much of a god.

As a thiest, I am constantly boggled by how dumb some of the atheist arguments are. So no, I don't hate atehists for their "intellectual" freedom. Not when I see the difference between civilisations willing to develop abstraction inspite of it being unstructured and subjective and those restricted by what they can see and touch.

I know which side of that river I want to be on.


Yes, it is so frigging idiotic to require proof. It is so stupid to see absurdity & cruelty & call it as it is.

Isn't it obvious? It's because theists have more in common with other theists of different religions than they do with atheists. Duh...


Oh really?
You find a group of people who seem to have much in common with you. Then you find that they believe you will & should suffer horribly for eternity. Do you yet feel a close bond?

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
In that they don't believe he said that or they choose not to follow it?
”



In that they certainly understand what it means to choose between your parents and the truth.


I had to choose between my parents & the truth. I don't hate them.

I had to choose between my parents & the truth. I don't hate them.

The idea behind Jesus' teaching is that sentimentality is not a substitute for the truth. You shouldn't choose a path simply because your parents decreed it if it is morally deplorable. This lesson is often repeated in the Bible and the story of Abraham and his son is an instance where, if necessary, the parent should be willing to 'sacrifice' his child for the truth.

To reduce it to


Jesus said to hate your parents.

is a sign that you are not thinking at all.

i have experienced the holy spirit.

See, now, you had an idea of what this spirit was like, from scripture. Scripture edited by people. Your spiritual experience was defined for you by mortals.



given, what is a consistent and logical description of god, being omnipotent and omniscient, you can certainly see how the wills of men and the actions of men would not thwart him. right? :bugeye:

If god is omnipotent and omniscient we have no free will, so could not 'thwart' God. But this brings us back to the attributes of God being consistent, which they aren't.

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa

I had to choose between my parents & the truth. I don't hate them. ”



The idea behind Jesus' teaching is that sentimentality is not a substitute for the truth. You shouldn't choose a path simply because your parents decreed it if it is morally deplorable. This lesson is often repeated in the Bible and the story of Abraham and his son is an instance where, if necessary, the parent should be willing to 'sacrifice' his child for the truth.

To reduce it to

“ Jesus said to hate your parents. ”

is a sign that you are not thinking at all.


This is a sign you decided on your interpretation & that's all there is to it.
Why the quotes around sacrifice? There is no ambiguity. He was told to kill his son & he was about to do it.
Both of those are not anti sentimentality. They are anti decency. They are nasty & repulsive.

And now I feel that way about both theists and atheists.
Do you see fence-sitting as a viable alternative? Or do you still hold to the christian view?

No, I don't want to sit on the fence forever, it's just where I am. I'm leaning towards atheism, coming from theism.



Putting aside frustration is a plus and substituting a little of it with tolerance is dangerously close to heresy. But the point you raise about FACTS is an interesting one. What FACTS might the other side have from which they might stray? Can you reconcile religious FACT and scientific FACT? The first has the whiff of oxymoron about it, which confuses the task.

OriginalBiggles, Prime

You are right, and herein is the cause of the issue. Theists have nothing to stand on aside from their beliefs. The beliefs do not themselves have any supportable evidence. It takes life experiences to give testimony that the theories and speculation are true. So, first there is frustration that the atheist doesn't believe the theist's testimony, then there is defensiveness when the character is attacked when the testimony is picked apart....or the belief is challenged with reason. The main reason being that there is no evidence gives some credence to the atheist's position which further infuriates a theist, where there is loss of respect of an atheist. And so, the atheist loses respect when the theist does, then you have yourself a war.

My point is that it could lead to hate yes, but it doesn't have to be that way. Does it typically happen that way? I'm not convinced, but that's probably because my bias is in the way.

I digress.

It is not out of context. It is simple & clear.
It is contradictory. It is obviously contradictory & your blind faith doesn't change facts.
You mean I can't understand it because I haven't accepted it by faith to be totally true & inerrant. That is a backward process which can result in believing anything to be true & inerrant.
The verse I was thinking of is by far not the only instance of The Holy Babble promoting hate & intolerance. You want to take it as a whole? How many examples do you need?

Speaking of facts, I have not admitted to not wanting understanding & spiritual guidance. Are you frigging full of it or are you taking on too much at once & confusing me with someone else?

well you obviously don't have spiritual guidance in regards to this, otherwise you would not assume that you would need to accept anything as true based on blind faith.

spiritual guidance helps you to understand. understanding is not blind faith.

there's nothing backwards about that.







So 1 must believe it to be true & inerrant before 1 can understand it.

no, how could you?! what you are proposing here doesn't make any sense!


Do you really believe god can twart god? Indeed, god is not god. God is simply what you decided to label something YOU cannot understand.

now you're just rambling...

It isn't much of a god.

he'll get his way, whether you're in or out.

he'll get his way, whether you're in or out.

What a bully !

See, now, you had an idea of what this spirit was like, from scripture. Scripture edited by people. Your spiritual experience was defined for you by mortals.

no, actually there was nothing that could prepare me for what i experienced, and his personality is not like what a lot of religious people would like you or i to think. BUT, he did identify himself, and through understanding him i came to understand a lot of scripture that religious people don't seem to understand.

i've told religious people about my experience and had them claim it to be of evil. isn't everything with them huh?

if you'll notice from what i have to say about religion on this forum, those people aren't going to be anymore happy (maybe even less) about what i've been shown than the average atheist.



If god is omnipotent and omniscient we have no free will, so could not 'thwart' God. But this brings us back to the attributes of God being consistent, which they aren't.

you obviously have the free will to reject the possibility of him and his word.

What a bully !

i told you he kicked my ass! you're next bro.

i told you he kicked my ass! you're next bro.

We'll see, we'll see..

you obviously have the free will to reject the possibility of him and his word.

Thus proving their is not an omniscient and omnipotent God.

Thus proving their is not an omniscient and omnipotent God.

he knew you were going to say that.

he knew you were going to say that.

Then I have no free will, and cannot be judged for my actions.

You can't have it both ways.

Then I have no free will, and cannot be judged for my actions.

You can't have it both ways.

you feel controlled? like a puppet. aw...poor thing. :bawl:

you feel controlled? like a puppet. aw...poor thing. :bawl:

I didn't say that, my statement was the logical conclusion from your assertions. I was merely attempting to demonstrate your logic is flawed.

It's simple, you cannot have both free will and an an omniscient/omnipotent God.

The two are incongruous. I have explained via the machine analogy. You clearly did not grasp it.

I didn't say that, my statement was the logical conclusion from your assertions. I was merely attempting to demonstrate your logic is flawed.

It's simple, you cannot have both free will and an an omniscient/omnipotent God.

The two are incongruous. I have explained via the machine analogy. You clearly did not grasp it.

grasp this...

if god is the embodiment of all of the laws of the universe, then god is indeed omniscient and omnipotent and your creator, and part of everything, and you indeed have a choice to abide or transgress, thus proliferating or destroying.

Oh really?
You find a group of people who seem to have much in common with you. Then you find that they believe you will & should suffer horribly for eternity. Do you yet feel a close bond?
Theists of different religions differ in the specifics of their beliefs, but they at least all believe in powerful magical forces in the world, that we can keep existing after we die, supernatural miracles, etc, even if they can't agree on what exactly they should call the magical being or how to best go about pleasing them. They have far, far more in common with each other than with atheists. I strongly suspect (but cannot prove, of course) that if tomorrow someone came out with universally-convincing proof that a given religion was false, most of the believers from that religion would quickly pick a new one rather than quitting the game and becoming atheists.

It's like two groups who argue over whether to play basketball or football vs. a third group that doesn't like sports at all.

grasp this...

if god is the embodiment of all of the laws of the universe, then god is indeed omniscient and omnipotent and your creator, and part of everything, and you indeed have a choice to abide or transgress, thus proliferating or destroying.

"embodiment of all of the laws of the universe"? What does that even mean??? How could the law of, say, gravity have an "embodiment"?

"embodiment of all of the laws of the universe"? What does that even mean??? How could the law of, say, gravity have an "embodiment"?

it's a tangible or visible expression of it. then god would be in everything and in all of us.

Theists of different religions differ in the specifics of their beliefs, but they at least all believe in powerful magical forces in the world, that we can keep existing after we die, supernatural miracles, etc, even if they can't agree on what exactly they should call the magical being or how to best go about pleasing them. They have far, far more in common with each other than with atheists. I strongly suspect (but cannot prove, of course) that if tomorrow someone came out with universally-convincing proof that a given religion was false, most of the believers from that religion would quickly pick a new one rather than quitting the game and becoming atheists.

It's like two groups who argue over whether to play basketball or football vs. a third group that doesn't like sports at all.


That doesn't answer the question.


“Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
Oh really?
You find a group of people who seem to have much in common with you. Then you find that they believe you will & should suffer horribly for eternity. Do you yet feel a close bond? ”

it's a tangible or visible expression of it. then god would be in everything and in all of us.

In the murderer, the rapist, the suicide, the addict, your god is kinky.

i have experienced the holy spirit.

How do you know that is what it was? Have you experienced a lot of different spirits, some holy, some not? Can you distinguish experiencing a holy spirit from other experiences which just seem like experienceing a holy spirit? Can you have this holy spirit confirm that is what happened and collaberate on your story?

grasp this...

if god is the embodiment of all of the laws of the universe, then god is indeed omniscient and omnipotent and your creator, and part of everything, and you indeed have a choice to abide or transgress, thus proliferating or destroying.

Grasp this, if God created the Universe, and knows how everything will end up, I cannot have free will, because the Universe was created to have a specific course. It's simple, an omniscient creator God and free will are mutually exclusive. There is no way around this. All you have to do to fix your description of God, is admit that God isn't omniscient.

grasp this...

if god is the embodiment of all of the laws of the universe

Huh, what's the point?
Why do you need to have an embodiment of the laws of nature?

According to Christianity, it should also say "No Jews, Moslems, Hindus, etc". It would likewise have all unbelievers thinking "I don't believe it".

From the Christian theological viewpoint, those other religions ('cept Judaism and maybe Islam) are atheistic. Not necessarily the view of every or even most Christians, in practice. But their theology holds to a doctrine of exclusivity; thus, any other deities are seen as delusions or demons. One way or another, Christian theology sees other gods as not gods. To them, belief in any other god beside their own is tantamount to believing in no god at all.

Huh, what's the point?
Why do you need to have an embodiment of the laws of nature?

It's Lori contradicting herself again. Her delusion is not consistent with itself. A creator God would not be the embodiment of 'laws' but their creator.

Maybe she just isn't very good at expressing herself though, and uses the wrong words.

It's Lori contradicting herself again. Her delusion is not consistent with itself. A creator God would not be the embodiment of 'laws' but their creator.

Maybe she just isn't very good at expressing herself though, and uses the wrong words.

I know some theists that claim that God created himself :D

Many Christians villify atheists much more than Moslems yet The Holy Babble says both are unbelievers & are condemned.

Why do some theists hate atheists so much more than they hate theists of conflicting religions???

I don't believe your premise.

In history I don't hear about persecutions of atheists but their have been many persecutions of minority religions by majority religions.

The loudest hate that I hear now in the USA is the hate of Muslims but that more like the hate of communists and blacks was so perhaps it is not religious. American Christians seems to hate homosexuals more than than they hate atheists.

Some American Christians seem to hate Mormons more than they hate atheists.

I did a big old genealogy and found that I had one ancestor who was burned to death at the stake by Christians for the heresy of promoting a slightly modified version of Christianity and another ancestor who died in prison while awaiting trial for being accused of being a witch. While doing my genealogy, I found no mention of anybody being persecuted for atheism.

I don't believe your premise.

In history I don't hear about persecutions of atheists but their have been many persecutions of minority religions by majority religions.

The loudest hate that I hear now in the USA is the hate of Muslims but that more like the hate of communists and blacks was so perhaps it is not religious. American Christians seems to hate homosexuals more than than they hate atheists.

Some American Christians seem to hate Mormons more than they hate atheists.

I did a big old genealogy and found that I had one ancestor who was burned to death at the stake by Christians for the heresy of promoting a slightly modified version of Christianity and another ancestor who died in prison while awaiting trial for being accused of being a witch. I found no mention of anybody being persecuted for atheism.

You can't be serious..

You can't be serious..

If he is serious, his Google-Fu is weak;

http://www.google.co.uk/search?rlz=1C1CHMB_en-GBGB291GB303&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=apostasy+crime

If he is serious, his Google-Fu is weak;

http://www.google.co.uk/search?rlz=1C1CHMB_en-GBGB291GB303&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=apostasy+crime

Did you check your link? It reinforces my position. At least in the first few pages the links point to so many examples of presumably American presumably Christians demonizing Islam for Islam's alleged crime of not allowing Muslims to switch to other religions particularly not allowing Muslims to become Christians.

Atheism and Atheists don't get much mention in the pages that Google puts first.

You can't be serious..

About which part?

6 million Jews were killed in the holocaust. Were is the great massacre of Atheists?

About which part?

6 million Jews were killed in the holocaust. Were is the great massacre of Atheists?

You said: "In history I don't hear about persecutions of atheists," which is clearly nonsense.

Does the OP mean "treated worse" as in physically? Or in terms of receiving equal hearing for their beliefs?

If the former, he's clearly done no homework whatsoever. So far as I know of, there's never been an organized hunting specifically of Atheists. There were times when being an Atheist was illegal, but face it, there was a time when nearly everybody was illegal somehow.


In terms of receiving equal hearing, I have to say that I think Atheists (in terms of percentage) are just as intolerant as any religion. Just, there are more Christians, Muslims, and Hindus than Atheists.

But even then, it only makes sense. Some scientists believe that the big bang was a product of quantum fluctuations. Some believe it is rebound from the collapse of the last universe. Yet both have a lot of common ground, and both would be much more hostile towards someone who believed the universe is eternal than they would be to each other.

Personally, I think the OP is projecting. Dunno why, but most of the more hostile atheists seem to think religious folk are out to get them. Maybe it's cause I don't live in a Muslim country or some backwater country town. I can tell you that, at least at my High School (Boston), you could get suspended for discussing religion over lunch, and apparently prayer groups are against the school's policy. I'm glad MIT is much more tolerant of free exchanges of ideas...

You said: "In history I don't hear about persecutions of atheists," which is clearly nonsense.

I am not saying that I could not find a persecution of a Atheist if I looked hard enough, I am just saying severe and therefore historical cases of religions persecuting other religions is much more prevalent than religions persecuting atheists and therefore the OP's premise that atheists get treated worse is wrong.

I don't remember Atheists getting mentioned in the Spanish inquisition.

Do you know of any historical persecutions of atheists that led to atheists being killed? Can you name one?

I am not saying that I could not find a persecution of a Atheist if I looked hard enough, I am just saying severe and therefore historical cases of religions persecuting other religions is much more prevalent than religions persecuting atheists and therefore the OP's premise that atheists get treated worse is wrong.

I don't remember Atheists getting mentioned in the Spanish inquisition.

Do you know of any historical persecutions of atheists that led to atheists being killed? Can you name one?

First, where does the OP say that they have to be historical cases ?
Secondly, where does they OP say they have to be killed to count ?

You said: "In history I don't hear about persecutions of atheists," which is clearly nonsense.

Evidence please?

You know, it's really odd that a science forum boasts so many unsubstantiated claims.

Evidence please?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists
As a start...
Yes I know.
*gasp* it's, horrors, Wiki.


You know, it's really odd that a science forum boasts so many unsubstantiated claims.
Happens all the time...

First, where does the OP say that they have to be historical cases ?
Secondly, where does they OP say they have to be killed to count ?

The OP seemed to be implying that religious people are more hostile towards atheists than towards theists of other faith. That is the premise that I reject.

"Historical" and "Killings" are things that I brought up to support my position that the OP is incorrect. You seem to have implied that my position on who religions have killed historically is incorrect or perhaps you meant that I was incorrect when I said the OP was incorrect.

What was I incorrect about? I did word my examples too imprecisely but what should I have not been serious about? Are you one of those atheists who resent living in a theist dominated world?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists
As a start...
Yes I know.
*gasp* it's, horrors, Wiki.


Happens all the time...

Actually, I don't mind wiki, provided the references section is thorough. It's a great way to find condensed information.


But I will contend that this article of yours does NOT in fact verify the OP. Namely speaking, he claims that atheists are being treated "Worse" than other non-believing groups.

The examples cited in the Wiki page are all cases where atheists ALONG WITH OTHER GROUPS are being persecuted because of not following the status quo's religious preferences.

Of course, I only skimmed the article and would be happy to withdraw my objection until more research can be done if you think I'm still missing something.

The OP seemed to be implying that religious people are more hostile towards atheists than towards theists of other faith. That is the premise that I reject.

"Historical" and "Killings" are things that I brought up to support my position that the OP is incorrect. You seem to have implied that my position on who religions have killed historically is incorrect or perhaps you meant that I was incorrect when I said the OP was incorrect.

What was I incorrect about? I did word my examples too imprecisely but what should I have not been serious about? Are you one of those atheists who resent living in a theist dominated world?

I already told you: post 102.
Whether or not atheists are treated worse than other unbelievers I don't know.

Actually, I don't mind wiki, provided the references section is thorough. It's a great way to find condensed information.
Agreed.


But I will contend that this article of yours does NOT in fact verify the OP.
Largely correct: I gave that link in reply to your comment replying to Enmos's
Originally Posted by Enmos: You said: "In history I don't hear about persecutions of atheists," which is clearly nonsense.
fiicere: Evidence please?


Of course, I only skimmed the article and would be happy to withdraw my objection until more research can be done if you think I'm still missing something.
Although there are indications in the Wiki article that atheists were to be treated (or considered) worse than believers of other faiths:
Locke's call for denial of citizenship.
Shelley's expulsion from Oxford (wouldn't have happened if he'd been Catholic).
More's assertion that tolerance should be extended to all except those who did not believe in a deity...

Stranger,

in all seriousness man, you and people like you are the ones with hate.
You don't appear to have anything but toxic contempt for God, religion, the religious, and theists. It's really obvious.

Why do you harbour such negativety?

jan.

Stranger,

in all seriousness man, you and people like you are the ones with hate.
You don't appear to have anything but toxic contempt for God, religion, the religious, and theists. It's really obvious.

Why do you harbour such negativety?

jan.

Meh. I'd have asked that if I thought we could ever get an answer.

TBH, I don't think he could give us an honest answer if he wanted to. I've realized that there are a few things which piss me off and I have no good reason for them. Some of them even sound stupid to me.

Seems everyone has a little anger in them, and some have more than a little. I don't even know if that kind of anger can be satisfied, even if the whole world were to burn. kinda sad, really.

Did you check your link? It reinforces my position. .

it exactly does not reinforce your position. Apostasy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy) is the rejection of your former religion, and that includes becoming an atheist, as well as converting to another religion. People are persecuted for losing their faith, and becoming atheists, therefore. You lose the point.

Stranger,

in all seriousness man, you and people like you are the ones with hate.
You don't appear to have anything but toxic contempt for God, religion, the religious, and theists. It's really obvious.

Why do you harbour such negativety?

jan.

Perhaps because religion has caused the persecution and death of many innocent people, and religion is generally organised hypocrisy? Also, being proselytised at, called heathens, heretics and blasphemers, and having laws that protect religious nonsense from criticism, and religions dodging taxation pisses off atheists?

Why should the people that provide your religious entertainment escape paying tax?

Stranger,

in all seriousness man, you and people like you are the ones with hate.
You don't appear to have anything but toxic contempt for God, religion, the religious, and theists. It's really obvious.

Why do you harbour such negativety?

Zeus is a very cool god, one couldn't harbor negativity towards him. Was that the god you were referring or was it some other god? There's so many to choose from, perhaps there's a god you hate, Jan? Or a religion, perhaps?

It wouldn't occur to you that people who believe magic and mystery should lead the lives of people is not a positive or beneficial concept. The persecution, hatred and bigotry your religion alone which has caused much of the worlds misery throughout the ages is reason enough to despise it and have it eradicated.

And THAT, Jan, is what's REALLY obvious.

Perhaps because religion has caused the persecution and death of many innocent people,

So have governments. Are you an anarchist?



and religion is generally organised hypocrisy?

No, hypocracy is going to a forum of reason and science to see its advocates shrouding their arguments with obvious bias, ad hominem attacks, and a refusal to judge all evidence equally.



Also, being proselytised at, called heathens, heretics and blasphemers, and having laws that protect religious nonsense from criticism, and religions dodging taxation pisses off atheists?

Why should the people that provide your religious entertainment escape paying tax?

Ummm. That's definitely false. My pastor pays income and property taxes. My church pays tax on the land it owns.

And if you're talking about entertainment, I could ask you the same question.

As for proselytising, isn't that what you're doing right now? Actually, wait, it's not. That's what's known as ranting and insulting.



Zeus is a very cool god, one couldn't harbor negativity towards him. Was that the god you were referring or was it some other god? There's so many to choose from, perhaps there's a god you hate, Jan? Or a religion, perhaps?

It wouldn't occur to you that people who believe magic and mystery should lead the lives of people is not a positive or beneficial concept. The persecution, hatred and bigotry your religion alone which has caused much of the worlds misery throughout the ages is reason enough to despise it and have it eradicated.

And THAT, Jan, is what's REALLY obvious.

Yawn. The intolerance of your beliefs leads me to believe you should be eradicated. Except I'm not you, and I am nowhere near as comfortable groundlessly dismissing any possible benefit of a belief system as you are.

Or would you prefer the line "The foolishness, and recklessness of scientists who designed such things as the Atomic Bomb is reason enough to have science eradicated"

Or the line "The death and destruction brought about by governments fighting wars is enough to have governments eradicated"

Or even "The hatred, bigotry, death, destruction, pain and sorrow inflicted by humans is enough to see them all eradicated"


Let everyone here be both judge and witness. Is it called Tolerance for one group to call for the destruction of the other belief system in its entirety? Is it called open-mindedness to call another group groundless and with no basis in reality? Is it called rationality to revert to ad hominem and call one's opponents deluded and foolish with evidence not being taken into account? As both a religious man and a scientist I am disgusted by the blatant hypocrisy and bias found in a place which claims to be a place of a free exchange of ideas, by a group which claims to support science, where all evidence is weighed equally regardless of who is putting it forward.

So have governments.

We have governments now, so we don't need superstition to make us behave. Sure, governments do bad things from time to time, but that's not the argument, is it?


Are you an anarchist?

No.


No, hypocracy is going to a forum of reason and science to see its advocates shrouding their arguments with obvious bias,

Obvious bias? Hmm, somehow, I doubt that people who have religious beliefs have examined all religions equally, given them equal consideration, and chosed the one that makes most sense to them. Somehow, I think there is HUGE bias in the way the majority ended up believing what they believe.

I however don't believe _any_ religious dogma. How can that be biased, when I disbelieve all, equally?


ad hominem attacks,

Oh please substantiate that one.


and a refusal to judge all evidence equally.

There is no evidence. That's why they are called 'faiths'


Ummm. That's definitely false. My pastor pays income and property taxes. My church pays tax on the land it owns.

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchestaxexemptions/a/whatarethey.htm


And if you're talking about entertainment, I could ask you the same question.

I pay sales tax on the concert tickets I buy. So some pastpr does his act on a Sunday for his audience, and some aspects of his life are tax exempt, and that's bogus.


As for proselytising, isn't that what you're doing right now? Actually, wait, it's not. That's what's known as ranting and insulting.

Insulting? Oh, boo hoo for you. I have not insulted a person, but their faith. If you can't separate the person from their beliefs, I think you are looking for offense, where there is none.

Yawn. The intolerance of your beliefs leads me to believe you should be eradicated.

Are you sleepy? Maybe, you should get some rest? What beliefs do you refer? Please explain.


Except I'm not you, and I am nowhere near as comfortable groundlessly dismissing any possible benefit of a belief system as you are.

What benefits. Please explain. Why aren't you comfortable, are your shorts riding up?


Or would you prefer the line "The foolishness, and recklessness of scientists who designed such things as the Atomic Bomb is reason enough to have science eradicated"

Did those scientists drop the atomic bomb or did a bunch of theists drop it?


Or the line "The death and destruction brought about by governments fighting wars is enough to have governments eradicated"

Agreed.


Or even "The hatred, bigotry, death, destruction, pain and sorrow inflicted by humans is enough to see them all eradicated"

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply eradicate the ideology causing the hatred, bigotry, death, destruction, pain and sorrow, rather than the people themselves? Seems like such a waste of humans, don't ya think?



Let everyone here be both judge and witness. Is it called Tolerance for one group to call for the destruction of the other belief system in its entirety. Is it called open-mindedness to call another group groundless and with no basis in reality? Is it called rationality to revert to ad hominem and call one's opponents deluded and foolish with evidence not being taken into account? As both a religious man and a scientist I am disgusted by the blatant hypocrisy and bias found in a place which claims to be a place of a free exchange of ideas, by a group which claims to support science, where all evidence is weighed equally regardless of who is putting it forward.

If the religious ever offered a speck of evidence, you might have a case, but in essence, you've offered little but blow hard pontification and hypocrisy.

Are you sleepy? Maybe, you should get some rest? What beliefs do you refer? Please explain.
The belief that faith is blind and composed of "magic and mystery"



What benefits. Please explain. Why aren't you comfortable, are your shorts riding up?
For one thing, I can give an objective value to human life. And say that something is right just because it is, not because we decided it to be.



Did those scientists drop the atomic bomb or did a bunch of theists drop it?

Are you implying WWII was a religious war? Or that there was a religious motivation for dropping it? Or that Truman was particularly religious?



Wouldn't it make more sense to simply eradicate the ideology causing the hatred, bigotry, death, destruction, pain and sorrow, rather than the people themselves? Seems like such a waste of humans, don't ya think?
Actually, humans have been killing each other for a very, very long time. It's possibly ingrained, and more than likely to be irremovable from our psyche. Just saying, your logic that removing something because it has failed in the past is, well, thoughtless at the least, and downright silly at best.



If the religious ever offered a speck of evidence, you might have a case, but in essence, you've offered little but blow hard pontification and hypocrisy.
http://www.4shared.com/account/dir/18296364/49f11f08/sharing.html?rnd=96 (Username: fiicere@yahoo.com, Pword: free)

TBH, I'm surprised at how little read you all are. One would think you never even read any of the arguments posed by the religious, and just kind of jumped to the conclusion that you were right without considering both sides!

http://www.4shared.com/account/dir/18296364/49f11f08/sharing.html?rnd=96 (Username: fiicere@yahoo.com, Pword: free)

Wow, now all you have to do is get your essay published in a peer reviewed journal and you've silenced all the world's atheists!


TBH, I'm surprised at how little read you all are. One would think you never even read any of the arguments posed by the religious, and just kind of jumped to the conclusion that you were right without considering both sides!

Both sides? I'm surprised you are so poorly read that you don't understand there is more than one religion to not believe in.

According to Christianity, it should also say "No Jews, Moslems, Hindus, etc". It would likewise have all unbelievers thinking "I don't believe it".
According to Islam, wouldn't it say "No Christians"?


Many Christians villify atheists much more than Moslems yet The Holy Babble says both are unbelievers & are condemned.

Why do some theists hate atheists so much more than they hate theists of conflicting religions???
Because atheists go around condemning and suppressing religion. Everybody else respects each other's right to propogate one another's beliefs. Atheists hate it when religious people go around propagating their beliefs. Atheists are self-righteous and biggoted. They even try to stop others from discussing religion in ways other than how the atheists want religion to be discussed.

Because atheists go around condemning and suppressing religion.

When a religion commands mutilating a child's genitals, I think it's worthy of condemnation. That, is just the tip of the Iceberg. (Pun Intended)



Everybody else respects each other's right to propogate one another's beliefs.

Wow, if you believe that, you clearly haven't travelled much.



They even try to stop others from discussing religion in ways other than how the atheists want religion to be discussed.

You mean, rationally?

Wow, if you believe that, you clearly haven't travelled much.
Irrelevant. Atheists like to use irrelevant attacks to prove a point. Unfortunately, they only prove their lack of logic.


You mean, rationally?
This is not what I mean. Your interpretation is irrational.

Irrelevant. Atheists like to use irrelevant attacks to prove a point. Unfortunately, they only prove their lack of logic.

It's entirely relevant, despite what they preach, religions hardly have a history of acceptance, and tolerance of differing viewpoints. Why do words such as 'heathen', 'heretic', and 'blasphemer' even exist, if Religions are so tolerant of other points of view? Again lix, you display your totally blinkered and uneducated view of this subject.


This is not what I mean. Your interpretation is irrational.

Please supply some evidence to back up that assertion.

Perhaps because religion has caused the persecution and death of many innocent people, and religion is generally organised hypocrisy? Also, being proselytised at, called heathens, heretics and blasphemers, and having laws that protect religious nonsense from criticism, and religions dodging taxation pisses off atheists?

Why should the people that provide your religious entertainment escape paying tax?

What about the other categories I mentioned?

jan.

(Q),


Zeus is a very cool god, one couldn't harbor negativity towards him.

I read somewhere that "Zues" is another name for "Satan".


Was that the god you were referring or was it some other god?

Aah, you're not gonna play that silly game are you (Q).

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861614462/God.html

as opposed to;

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861614461/god.html


There's so many to choose from, perhaps there's a god you hate, Jan? Or a religion, perhaps?

Mmmmm....! Not really, no.
How about you?


The persecution, hatred and bigotry your religion alone which has caused much of the worlds misery throughout the ages is reason enough to despise it and have it eradicated.

What?
More misery than the narcissistic, handfull of atheist butchers of the 20th century, who between them caused the murder of at least 100 million (way more then all the religious attrocities put together) innocents that we know about, on the basis of belief, position, intellect, personal views, and anything else that may have been undesirable to them?

:confused::confused:

jan.

More misery than the narcissistic, handfull of atheist butchers of the 20th century, who between them caused the murder of at least 100 million (way more then all the religious attrocities put together) innocents that we know about, on the basis of belief, position, intellect, personal views, and anything else that may have been undesirable to them?

:confused::confused:

jan.

Oh please, you're starting to sound like SAM. Pol Pot, and Stalin were educated in RELIGIOUS schools. Quit blaming atheism for their actions, they were politically motivated. Hitler was a Christian, but I don't blame his faith for his atrocities against Jews, so please, grow up, and stop stuffing straw men.

Oh please, you're starting to sound like SAM. Pol Pot, and Stalin were educated in RELIGIOUS schools. Quit blaming atheism for their actions, they were politically motivated. Hitler was a Christian, but I don't blame his faith for his atrocities against Jews, so please, grow up, and stop stuffing straw men.

I didn't blame atheism, that must be you sub-concious mind.
The fact is, they were atheist.

jan.

I didn't blame atheism, that must be you sub-concious mind.
The fact is, they were atheist.

jan.

The fact is, they were brought up as Christians. Stalin had a beard, you gonna blame beards too? They wore shoes, gonna blame shoes?

Please Jan, stop clutching at straws trying to pin something on atheism, when it clearly didn't inspire their atrocities.

So anyone who was brought up Christian is a theist even if he becomes an atheist?

The belief that faith is blind and composed of "magic and mystery"

Those are observations, not just beliefs. Do you know what an observation is?


For one thing, I can give an objective value to human life. And say that something is right just because it is, not because we decided it to be.

So, what are the benefits?



Are you implying WWII was a religious war? Or that there was a religious motivation for dropping it? Or that Truman was particularly religious?

No, but you ARE claiming that science is the problem for designing a bomb. Note how silly your statement is?



Actually, humans have been killing each other for a very, very long time. It's possibly ingrained, and more than likely to be irremovable from our psyche. Just saying, your logic that removing something because it has failed in the past is, well, thoughtless at the least, and downright silly at best.

No, silly would be to make a claim that killing is ingrained into our psyche. You'd then have to explain why we are all still here?


TBH, I'm surprised at how little read you all are. One would think you never even read any of the arguments posed by the religious, and just kind of jumped to the conclusion that you were right without considering both sides!

If you're referring to your documents with the typical tired nonsense arguments, yes, I've seen that before. I like the last part the best, it demonstrates the massive width and breadth of your ignorance.

"One last word to the atheists who are reading this:
I don’t actually care to debate you. This was not written for you. I am living in a manner consistent with the path I have chosen, namely that I should try to talk to those who are honestly looking for answers, and hopefully benefit them. If you’re looking for an argument, or a fight, or even a debate, you’ll not find one here. Go elsewhere.
But ask yourself why you are so bent on not believing. Take yourself out of the attitude where you are trying to beat me, and honestly think for a second. Do you really think you can prove God DOESN’T exist? If not, then why are you fighting so hard? Is there honestly NO merit to any of the evidence for religion? If there is ANY shred of truth to these arguments? If so, if you find yourself thinking for a few seconds, trying to come up with a reason why my points are not valid, then ask yourself if you are not biased. Why are you looking to beat my argument, starting out as an opponent, rather than a human, who, by his nature, always has more to learn?"

I read somewhere that "Zues" is another name for "Satan".

"Isn't that special..."




Aah, you're not gonna play that silly game are you (Q).

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861614462/God.html

as opposed to;

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861614461/god.html

Would that be the silly game in which you believe in ONLY one more god than me?


What?
More misery than the narcissistic, handfull of atheist butchers of the 20th century, who between them caused the murder of at least 100 million (way more then all the religious attrocities put together) innocents that we know about, on the basis of belief, position, intellect, personal views, and anything else that may have been undesirable to them?

:confused::confused:

jan.

You're confusion is cute, Jan, almost as if you'd never heard of the atrocities your religion has caused. So much so, that you had to make up lies in order to defend your cult. Cute.

(Q),


"Isn't that special..."

It just could...


Would that be the silly game in which you believe in ONLY one more god than me?

Which part of the title "Supreme Being" don't you understand?



You're confusion is cute, Jan, almost as if you'd never heard of the atrocities your religion has caused.

What religion?


So much so, that you had to make up lies in order to defend your cult. Cute.

You're in denial (Q) (and i don't mean a river in tEygypt).

jan.

It's entirely relevant, despite what they preach, religions hardly have a history of acceptance, and tolerance of differing viewpoints.
It doesn't matter. Atheists are way worse. There is no religion more intolerant and self-righteous than the religion of atheism. That is why atheists are worse than other unbelievers as the topic of this thread. Sure all religions have weirdos with that crazy attitude. But the difference is that atheists condemn others for having it when it's the atheists who do the most condemning.

So anyone who was brought up Christian is a theist even if he becomes an atheist?

A theist if he does bad things.
An atheist if he does good things.

Atheist = good.
Theist = bad.

An atheist cannot, by default, do anything bad.
A theist cannot, by default, do anything good.

Repeat after me....

A theist if he does bad things.
An atheist if he does...........

Wow...this stuff works.
I almost believed that shit myself, as I was writing it.

jan.

It doesn't matter. Atheists are way worse. There is no religion more intolerant and self-righteous than the religion of atheism.

Try to grasp the basics lix; atheism is not a religion.


That is why atheists are worse than other unbelievers

Atheists are unbelievers.

But we've been over this several times before, and it doesn't sink it. Do you think the fact you can't learn has a bearing on the fact you are unemployable?

Which part of the title "Supreme Being" don't you understand?

That would be the title given to a great many gods throughout history, Jan. You're still just flapping your arms wildly here.

That would be the title given to a great many gods throughout history, Jan.

Quit right, and the 'Supreme Being" has a great many names.
But you will find, that the 'Supreme Being" always has the same distinct qualities.


You're still just flapping your arms wildly here.

Just tryin to keep your brain from exploding.

jan.

The fact is, they were atheist.
Not really. Of those, only Stalin was an atheist at any point; and even at that, he vacillated between that and Eastern Orthodoxy. He died on good terms with the Russian Church.
Hitler was a very fervently religious Nazi; that is to say, Nazism was his religion, not just a political ideology. He was a deist that saw himself as the German messiah.


It's entirely relevant, despite what they preach, religions hardly have a history of acceptance, and tolerance of differing viewpoints. Why do words such as 'heathen', 'heretic', and 'blasphemer' even exist, if Religions are so tolerant of other points of view?
Because a few religions, out of a great number of religions that have existed in human history, happen to have an exclusivist viewpoint.
You can't blame all religions for the actions or positions of a few.


It doesn't matter. Atheists are way worse. There is no religion more intolerant and self-righteous than the religion of atheism.
Oh, FFS. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is just a theological stance of nonbelief in deity. That is all that binds atheists under the same label.

Try to grasp the basics lix; atheism is not a religion.



Atheists are unbelievers.

But we've been over this several times before, and it doesn't sink it. Do you think the fact you can't learn has a bearing on the fact you are unemployable?
Atheism is a religion. Atheists are unbelievers in God. But they are believers that there is no God. And they believe that they aren't fanatics.

Believers are treated worse than atheists by other believers. The ME is what? ...a believer's paradise.:rolleyes: Has an atheist choirboy ever become the bumboy for a paedophile priest? Do atheists pretend they're chowing down Christ's body parts? Do atheist women willingly join Xian cults to be sexually exploited?

As an atheist its just plain hard to get out of the line of fire when believers start knocking heads.

After listening to the opinions of some atheists here, I'm surprised that any of them would even need to ask this question.

Atheists have an irrational tendency to fear the term "belief" as if it's a plague. Unfortunately, anything anybody claims to know is their belief.

Atheists have an irrational tendency to fear the term "belief" as if it's a plague. Unfortunately, anything anybody claims to know is their belief.

It's posts like this that remind me why I don't bother posting here anymore. The only thing religious apologists have left to offer is that non-belief is the same as belief... which even if true, I have no idea how it makes the atheist vs religious nutjob debate 50/50. It's not 50/50.

It's posts like this that remind me why I don't bother posting here anymore. The only thing religious apologists have left to offer is that non-belief is the same as belief... which even if true, I have no idea how it makes the atheist vs religious nutjob debate 50/50. It's not 50/50.

http://www.4shared.com/account/dir/18296364/49f11f08/sharing.html?rnd=96

Because a few religions, out of a great number of religions that have existed in human history, happen to have an exclusivist viewpoint.
You can't blame all religions for the actions or positions of a few.

I'm not blaming all religions, sorry if it comes across that way, I'm blaming the most popular Abrahamic schisms for all the evil they have perpetrated, and those that still proselytise such schisms, and fail to recognise, or accept blame for their appalling history.

Atheism is a religion.

No it's not. There is no central tenet, no practice, no core belief, no ritual. It fails to qualify as a religion.


Atheists are unbelievers in God.

Correct.


But they are believers that there is no God.

Some do, but that's not what atheism is. You still don't grasp set theory, do you?


And they believe that they aren't fanatics.

I know I'm not a fanatic. I'm very calm and reasoned in my rejection of religion. You guys show fanatical tendencies, when you start twisting words and making false accusations about atheism. That's your frustration showing. Now, argue honestly, or resign the debate.

Wow, now all you have to do is get your essay published in a peer reviewed journal and you've silenced all the world's atheists!


No. It's neither scientific, nor a proof.

But let's not hear any more nonsense about "no evidence."

Those are observations, not just beliefs. Do you know what an observation is?
Yes. Contrary to popular beliefs, not all theists are uneducated provincial people living in some backwater. This one at least is working on his MEng at MIT.

But anyways, you were saying that you have OBSERVED mysticism? Meaning that you can prove in a scientifically rigorous way that the faith behind those beliefs is, in fact, blind? As in, you have OBSERVED that I have no rationale for my beliefs, but have merely accepted them without thinking about them?

Good Luck.




So, what are the benefits?
I've already told you.



No, but you ARE claiming that science is the problem for designing a bomb. Note how silly your statement is?
If you'll notice, I was making fun of you. The fact that people have used religion to kill people and the fact that people have used science to kill people must either imply that both are at fault or neither is.



No, silly would be to make a claim that killing is ingrained into our psyche. You'd then have to explain why we are all still here?
Please don't be a total idiot. Obviously I was not implying that killing was the only part of our psyche. Just like reproducing is part of our psyche. But I don't have to explain why everybody doesn't have kids.



If you're referring to your documents with the typical tired nonsense arguments, yes, I've seen that before. I like the last part the best, it demonstrates the massive width and breadth of your ignorance.

"One last word to the atheists who are reading this:
I don’t actually care to debate you. This was not written for you. I am living in a manner consistent with the path I have chosen, namely that I should try to talk to those who are honestly looking for answers, and hopefully benefit them. If you’re looking for an argument, or a fight, or even a debate, you’ll not find one here. Go elsewhere.
But ask yourself why you are so bent on not believing. Take yourself out of the attitude where you are trying to beat me, and honestly think for a second. Do you really think you can prove God DOESN’T exist? If not, then why are you fighting so hard? Is there honestly NO merit to any of the evidence for religion? If there is ANY shred of truth to these arguments? If so, if you find yourself thinking for a few seconds, trying to come up with a reason why my points are not valid, then ask yourself if you are not biased. Why are you looking to beat my argument, starting out as an opponent, rather than a human, who, by his nature, always has more to learn?"

Clearly, that part was not meant for you.

No. It's neither scientific, nor a proof.

But let's not hear any more nonsense about "no evidence."

If it's not scientific, it's mere allegory, and doesn't count as 'evidence'.

And no, I haven't read it, there is no point, I've read enough twisted cherry picked factoids, I doubt you have anything fresh.

The problem you have, is that you need to counter science, with science. Cosmology, abiogenesis are all scientific arguments. Until you have scientific evidence for a counter theory, you have no evidence at all.

I'm not blaming all religions, sorry if it comes across that way, I'm blaming the most popular Abrahamic schisms for all the evil they have perpetrated, and those that still proselytise such schisms, and fail to recognise, or accept blame for their appalling history.

Then blame the individuals who chose to interpret the scripture in such a way
as to justify their actions. The church is NOT 'religion'.

jan.

It's posts like this that remind me why I don't bother posting here anymore. The only thing religious apologists have left to offer is that non-belief is the same as belief... which even if true, I have no idea how it makes the atheist vs religious nutjob debate 50/50. It's not 50/50.
Non-belief is not the same as belief. Non-theism is not atheism. Atheism is a belief.


Some do, but that's not what atheism is.
Yes it is.

Then blame the individuals who chose to interpret the scripture in such a way
as to justify their actions. The church is NOT 'religion'.

jan.

The Catholic Church is definitely a religion, and went on a rampage, called 'The Inquisitions'. Please name me an incident where similar happened in the name of not believing in something.

Yes it is.

Oh, poor lix, can't grasp the basics.

What's your point with all the lies anyway lix? Do you have some point to make, that you need to base upon this lie?

Non-belief is not the same as belief.

So, something that is the opposite of itself is the same as itself?

Stellar logic, there. :rolleyes:

The Catholic Church is definitely a religion, and went on a rampage, called 'The Inquisitions'. Please name me an incident where similar happened in the name of not believing in something.

Is this part of the catholic religion?
Do current catholics agree with the inquistitions, or still paying homage to them?
If it is not a part of the religion of the bible, and
ceases to exist, how are these acts considered religious?

jan.

Is this part of the catholic religion?
Do current catholics agree with the inquistitions, or still paying homage to them?
If it is not a part of the religion of the bible, and
ceases to exist, how are these acts considered religious?

jan.

Jan, you are starting to sound a little ignorant of history now. Go read about it, and answer your own questions.

Current Catholics aren't so disgusted by the former activities of their organisation that they quit, are they? At least very few people these days profess being a member of the 'National Socialist' party these days, and people distance themselves from it. So yes, Catholics clearly think it's OK to be associated with the Inquisitions, and obviously don't see any shame in that association.

So, something that is the opposite of itself is the same as itself?

Stellar logic, there. :rolleyes:

Here;

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2331632&postcount=217

Jan linked to a definition of Theist.

Seems Lix thinks not being a theist makes people take a firmer stance than being one. I guess by Jan's definition, even the term 'anti-theist' would still not qualify as a belief God does not exist!

Ah, I'd love lix to try and back up some of his assertions, merely than flaccidly restating them. I could do with a laugh.

So, something that is the opposite of itself is the same as itself?

Stellar logic, there. :rolleyes:
What? How?

Seems Lix thinks not being a theist makes people take a firmer stance than being one.
Where did I say anything about any firmer stance. Any delusion of firmness of any stance doesn't exist. There are only 3 stances. True, false, inconclusion. Atheism is the stance that the existence of God is false which is equivalent to the non-existence of God is true. Inconclusion is not atheism.

More facts: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2331867&postcount=1

What? How?

Confused? Yes, we know.

Confused? Yes, we know.
So explain your claim of how a belief can be the same thing as a non-belief.

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
Many Christians villify atheists much more than Moslems yet The Holy Babble says both are unbelievers & are condemned.

Why do some theists hate atheists so much more than they hate theists of conflicting religions??? ”



I don't believe your premise.

In history I don't hear about persecutions of atheists but their have been many persecutions of minority religions by majority religions.

The loudest hate that I hear now in the USA is the hate of Muslims but that more like the hate of communists and blacks was so perhaps it is not religious. American Christians seems to hate homosexuals more than than they hate atheists.

Some American Christians seem to hate Mormons more than they hate atheists.

I did a big old genealogy and found that I had one ancestor who was burned to death at the stake by Christians for the heresy of promoting a slightly modified version of Christianity and another ancestor who died in prison while awaiting trial for being accused of being a witch. While doing my genealogy, I found no mention of anybody being persecuted for atheism.


Let go of my leg!

Stranger,

in all seriousness man, you and people like you are the ones with hate.
You don't appear to have anything but toxic contempt for God, religion, the religious, and theists. It's really obvious.

Why do you harbour such negativety?

jan.


In all seriousness, you are a fool. You prove it with that post & will probably prove it further with a response to this.
I do not hate anyone. I have given absolutely no indication in this forum that I am capable of hating anyone yet there are indications of the reverse. You see what you want & read into my posts things which are not there.
God (according to The Holy Babble), religion & most theists have nothing but contempt for me & I am sick&tired of it.
What seems obvious to you only shows what a pitiful blind fool you are.
I do not harbor negativity. It is insane gods & fallaciously faithful theists who do that so well.

So explain your claim of how a belief can be the same thing as a non-belief.

That is your claim, not mine. You said:

"Non-belief is not the same as belief. Non-theism is not atheism. Atheism is a belief."

That is your claim, not mine. You said:

"Non-belief is not the same as belief. Non-theism is not atheism. Atheism is a belief."
What are you talking about? How does me specifically stating in your own quote of me "Non-belief is not the same as belief" mean that I am stating non-belief is the same as belief?

What are you talking about? How does me specifically stating in your own quote of me "Non-belief is not the same as belief" mean that I am stating non-belief is the same as belief?

Lix, you need to take a step back, and read the things you have written, 'cos you are getting wrapped up in your own contradictions.