View Full Version : Are theists afraid of atheists?
Medicine*Woman
10-22-08, 10:09 AM
*************
M*W: If theists believe that atheism is not a legitimate belief, why do they seem so afraid of it?
*************
M*W: If theists believe that atheism is not a legitimate belief, why do they seem so afraid of it?
Because they go against everything that doesn't jive with their own beliefs. That's one of the messages in the Bible.
How would you define "fear" of atheists ?
Do they see us as evil ? As in associated with the devil ?
Jan Ardena
10-22-08, 12:38 PM
Do they see us as evil ? As in associated with the devil ?
Asociating with the "devil" as you put it, is exclusive to atheists how exactly?
jan.
No, mostly as objects of pity who deserve to be saved.
Jan Ardena
10-22-08, 12:42 PM
*************
M*W: If theists believe that atheism is not a legitimate belief, why do they seem so afraid of it?
That is a very limited understanding of theism, and atheism. We spend most of the time (on this forum) arguing from your limited persepective.
The real frightening thing is, this limited perspective becoming the norm, not so much the the person adhering to it.
jan.
Mr. Hamtastic
10-22-08, 12:55 PM
Hmmm. Fear? No. I'm scared of Bears, they might eat me. Atheism? Just another religion. Atheists, here anyway, seem to need to attack theists, as if in fear, why is that? I'm not going to eat anyone. Not without dressing you up some first anyway.
I think theists feel sorry for our poor damned souls.....which is nice of them, really.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-22-08, 01:25 PM
*************
M*W: If theists believe that atheism is not a legitimate belief, why do they seem so afraid of it?
Nearly everyone is xenophobic & power lusty.
No, mostly as objects of pity who deserve to be saved.
Deserve's got nothing to do with it.
I think theists feel sorry for our poor damned souls.....which is nice of them, really.
I don't consider it nice.
Asociating with the "devil" as you put it, is exclusive to atheists how exactly?
jan.
What ? I asked if that is how theists see us.
No, mostly as objects of pity who deserve to be saved.
Really ? :D
Yourself included ?
Mr. Hamtastic
10-22-08, 01:31 PM
GAH! Sorry, thought I saw a bear.
Really ? :D
Yourself included ?
Nah, like I just said to one_raven elsewhere, to Muslims other people's beliefs are like other people's children. We'll be fierce if anyone attacks our children, but whether we approve or disapprove of other people's children, we consider them as none of our business.
Nah, like I just said to one_raven elsewhere, to Muslims other people's beliefs are like other people's children. We'll be fierce if anyone attacks our children, but whether we approve or disapprove of other people's children, we consider them as none of our business.
But you just said:
No, mostly as objects of pity who deserve to be saved.
Is this how you see atheists ?
But you just said:
Is this how you see atheists ?
I was being facetious. :D
I was being facetious. :D
Care to answer it seriously ?
Care to answer it seriously ?
This was seriously answered
Nah, like I just said to one_raven elsewhere, to Muslims other people's beliefs are like other people's children. We'll be fierce if anyone attacks our children, but whether we approve or disapprove of other people's children, we consider them as none of our business.
This was seriously answered
No, I mean post 4.
Do they see us as evil ? As in associated with the devil ?
No, mostly as objects of pity who deserve to be saved.
Your answer here wasn't serious, as you admitted to being facetious.
So, please, answer seriously.
No, I mean post 4.
Your answer here wasn't serious, as you admitted to being facetious.
So, please, answer seriously.
Do they see us as evil ? As in associated with the devil ?
More like whiny and needy. :D
P.S. for serious response, refer post #14 and #18
More like whiny and needy. :D
Fine.. don't answer. Sigh..
Here's an idea...
Why don't people just believe whatever the hell they want to believe and stop worrying about what everyone else believes? Everybody's so fucking codependent it makes me sick.
greenberg
10-22-08, 02:44 PM
Nah, like I just said to one_raven elsewhere, to Muslims other people's beliefs are like other people's children. We'll be fierce if anyone attacks our children, but whether we approve or disapprove of other people's children, we consider them as none of our business.
But what is the philosophical basis of such a stance? What is it about Islam's philosophy that entails such a stance toward other people's beliefs?
In comparison, for example, with mainstream Christians who apparently consider it their duty to fiercely convert others and that others are obligated to convert to Christianity.
But what is the philosophical basis of such a stance? What is it about Islam's philosophy that entails such a stance toward other people's beliefs?
I think its because Islam does not believe in intercession and is mostly an individualistic religion. ie I am accountable for every atom of good and bad that comes from me and not at all for what other people do. You can see this playing out when Muslims discuss their own religion. While Kadark and I may sneer at each other's outlook for example, we respect the fact that we are each entitled to them.
I think this is also the reason why most Muslims puzzle out over why they are supposed to condemn or oppose the actions of "radical" Muslims. It would be like someone telling me on this board, why don't you condemn Kadark's avatar, you're both Muslims??? And Kadark and me would go, so what? We're not joined at the hip! This is a notion very different from the western form of religion, which is probably another factor in the misunderstandings.
In comparison, for example, with mainstream Christians who apparently consider it their duty to fiercely convert others and that others are obligated to convert to Christianity.
Thats a separate notion. Muslims too have the notion of dawah [invitation], but thats an invitation to join the group, not a judgment on your beliefs. If you go for a dawah session, for example, they won't tell you whats wrong with your religion, they'll tell you what they like about theirs.
As a further example, for instance, even among Muslims, you are not really supposed to ask [in a challenging way] if someone prays or fasts, if you do, it should be as an invitation as in: let us pray together or let us break fast together, etc.
This is to avoid any judgment on the piety of the other person.
A man as conservative as Maududi has written on the topic of kufr [unbelief] in Muslims:
Allah, who revealed Islam for the guidance of all mankind is the best knower of differences in human nature, and none more than He can make allowances for these differences. This is why He based His religion on such simple and brief beliefs that everyone, from a simpleton to a philosopher or a scientist, can accept them. It is the simplicity and the brevity of these beliefs which has made them worthy of being the fundamental principles of a universal religion of mankind. For the man not capable of deep thought, it is sufficient to accept that God is one, Muhammad is His Messenger, the Quran is His Book, and that we have to appear before Him on the day of Judgment. For the man who can think, this brevity contains such breadth that he can follow numerous paths in the search of truth, in accordance with his capability and aptitude. He can go as far as he likes. He can spend his entire life in this search, without ever reaching a stage where he could say that he had understood all that he could. Whatever path a thinking man may take for his enquiry and search, and however far he may go, as long as he walks within the limits which the word of Allah has drawn between Islam and kufr, he cannot be declared as excluded from the fold of the faith, no matter how much we may differ with the wanderings of his mind.
And this is just between Muslims.
People of other faiths and atheists are far far away and can be summed up with a short sura from the Quran:
Surah 109:
Al-Kafiroon (The Disbelievers, Atheists)
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
1. Say : O ye that reject Faith!
2. I worship not that which ye worship,
3. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
4. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,
5. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
6. To you be your Way, and to me mine.
Medicine*Woman
10-22-08, 05:01 PM
Here's an idea...
Why don't people just believe whatever the hell they want to believe and stop worrying about what everyone else believes? Everybody's so fucking codependent it makes me sick.
*************
M*W: You bring up a good point. Atheists are for the most part independent in their belief. Theists, however, have a desire to belong to a group. That seems to be co-dependent to me.
Jan Ardena
10-22-08, 06:45 PM
What ? I asked if that is how theists see us.
Why would you ask that?
jan.
Because they go against everything that doesn't jive with their own beliefs. That's one of the messages in the Bible.
Perhaps that message from THE BIBLE was misinterpreted. I'm sure you'd be the first to "jive" with that. :D
Orleander
10-22-08, 07:10 PM
*************
M*W: If theists believe that atheism is not a legitimate belief, why do they seem so afraid of it?
My mother is afraid of it because she doesn't want me to go to tell. It is a very real fear for her and she actually cries about it.
As near as I can tell they ones who are most troubled by atheists are the ones who in their hearts can't really believe the BS any more and it scares the shit out of them.
Theists who really believe aren't any more bothered than atheists who really don't care.
Mr. Hamtastic
10-22-08, 07:16 PM
Orly-consideration for the emotions of theists of any sort is anathema to many atheists.
Q-<gasp> Say it ain't so! YOU said misinterpret and bible in the same sentence!
Mr. Hamtastic
10-22-08, 07:18 PM
swarm-I care about your soul. Really. My wife is agnostic at best. I think about it all the time, but don't beat her over the head about it.
Orleander
10-22-08, 07:41 PM
Orly-consideration for the emotions of theists of any sort is anathema to many atheists...
Not me. I'm not gonna be like a theist and demand that others believe the things I believe.
I don't know why some people thing everything having to do with god belief is wrong or evil. There are a lot of believers out there feeding and clothing the homeless
Mr. Hamtastic
10-22-08, 07:54 PM
<shrug> people are fond of their stereotypes. Anytime someone starts with All ______ are ________ it's bound to end up poorly. There is one of those ________'s that is not ________. Stereotyping is stupid.
greenberg
10-22-08, 11:01 PM
Anytime someone starts with All ______ are ________ it's bound to end up poorly.
Why?
Is this due to making a statement about all?
Or is there something else about the statement that is problematic?
Carcano
10-23-08, 12:38 AM
If theists believe that atheism is not a legitimate belief, why do they seem so afraid of it?
Because atheists are obviously instruments of the anti-christ.
Mr. Hamtastic
10-23-08, 04:38 AM
greenburg-All cannibals are worthy of respect.
Mr. Hamtastic
swarm-I care about your soul. Really.
That is only because you have less faith in your god than I do, and I don't even believe in him.
CheskiChips
10-23-08, 05:09 AM
Judging from all the damn similar threads by Atheists, I think it's the contrary.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-23-08, 06:08 AM
If most people were Nazis yet we had the freedom to post what we want, there would be many threads exploring why it's not a good thing.
Jan Ardena
10-23-08, 06:08 AM
That is only because you have less faith in your god than I do, and I don't even believe in him.
That is an interesting and unusual testimony.
Care to exand on it?
jan.
My mother is afraid of it because she doesn't want me to go to tell. It is a very real fear for her and she actually cries about it.
She doesn't want you to tell what ?
jayleew
10-23-08, 08:40 AM
*************
M*W: If theists believe that atheism is not a legitimate belief, why do they seem so afraid of it?
There are many reasons, but all of them stem from the Bible saying that if you don't believe you are doomed. It also says to avoid socializing with hethens. It also says, "wide is the gate, but narrow is the road". Meaning that you can easily be lost or deceived. It is a common theme that you must be focused on God to make it into heaven.
These reasons alone are enough to be afraid, not of atheism, but of God's "justice" foretold concerning non-believers. The only reason I stand here today as an agnostic theist and not as many other theists here is that I am willing to accept that there is no God because of reason and common sense. I don't fear God (if he exists) because I am what I am because of God and there really is nothing I can do about it, or there is no God. Either way, there is no point to fear my imaginary friend. I am doomed to whatever fate lies in store for me if he manisfests itself.
Sure, I can take Pascal's wager, and believe because there is nothing to lose by believing in an imaginary God. The problem I have is my imaginary God has a historical document that says a lot of things about how he proved his existence, but has nothing for me today. His excuse is "...You believe because you have seen. Blessed are those who believe, but have not seen."
What about people like me?? Willing heart, but born a skeptic as a result of my imaginary God. Pssshhh.. it's much easier just to side with the facts.
Other believers...all they have is their faith. If you threaten their relationship with God, it is game on....they become defensive.
There's a lot of fish tales in the Bible.
Perhaps that message from THE BIBLE was misinterpreted. I'm sure you'd be the first to "jive" with that. :D
There are certain messages that need no interpretation. I thought you read it?
*************
M*W: You bring up a good point. Atheists are for the most part independent in their belief. Theists, however, have a desire to belong to a group. That seems to be co-dependent to me.
mw, you are so full of crap. you're the most co-dependent one out here! you're practically on a campaign! give me a break...really. :confused:
Hmmm. Fear? No. I'm scared of Bears, they might eat me. Atheism? Just another religion. Atheists, here anyway, seem to need to attack theists, as if in fear, why is that? I'm not going to eat anyone. Not without dressing you up some first anyway.
dress me up and eat me? you're an interesting fellow. ;)
Mr. Hamtastic
10-23-08, 12:51 PM
Lori-see my post about what a certain club in the cesspool should wear ;P
Lori-see my post about what a certain club in the cesspool should wear ;P
peanut butter?!?! it's my favorite!! *blink, blink* :p
Mr. Hamtastic
10-23-08, 01:06 PM
whoa-that one ended up in the cesspool too!? no, the fucktard club- Crotchless unitard. Although two jars of creamy and one crunchy would work too.
She doesn't want you to tell what ?
I think she mena HELL.
Medicine*Woman
10-23-08, 02:28 PM
Because atheists are obviously instruments of the anti-christ.
*************
M*W: I understand your point, but I am just curious if you think it could be possible for a theist to also be an instrument of the anti-christ?
To answer your post further, I have no problem being called an anti-christ. I admit I am one. I deny everything about JC--his mere existence, his lifestory, his salvation of humankind, his being a god.
I don't see how an atheist could not be considered an anti-christ.
Medicine*Woman
10-23-08, 02:32 PM
Because atheists are obviously instruments of the anti-christ.
*************
M*W: Oh, I just thought of something else. You use the word "instruments" when you refer to atheists being anti-christs. I don't think this is correct. Atheists are anti-christs, but they are not "instruments" of anti-christs. "Instruments" would imply that atheists are used in the destruction of religion. Atheists don't do that. Atheists can only express their beliefs and viewpoints. The destruction of theists and their religions can only be accomplished by the believers themselves.
Medicine*Woman
10-23-08, 02:39 PM
mw, you are so full of crap. you're the most co-dependent one out here!you're practically on a campaign! give me a break...really. :confused:
*************
M*W: When and where have I ever needed anyone else on this forum to justify my opinions? I'm not on any campaign. I have my rights to my opinions and beliefs, and I have a right to express them. If you don't like what I have to say, you can report me. Lori, you sound paranoid. BTW, what does being on a campaign and being co-dependent have to do with anything? What are you afraid of?
Carcano
10-23-08, 06:46 PM
I understand your point, but I am just curious if you think it could be possible for a theist to also be an instrument of the anti-christ?
The pope certainty thinks so. Back when he was a cardinal he published an essay referring to protestants as "instruments of the anti-christ."
I got the phrase from he...who speaks for God on earth.
Carcano
10-23-08, 06:50 PM
*************
M*W: Oh, I just thought of something else. You use the word "instruments" when you refer to atheists being anti-christs. I don't think this is correct. Atheists are anti-christs, but they are not "instruments" of anti-christs.
THE anti-christ is not just anybody who happens to be anti-christian.
The anti-christ is the apostle of hell...foretold in the book of revelation.
ALL who do not not follow Christ must by necessity be followers of Satan.
For there can only be ONE truth...as it is written.
Mr. Hamtastic
10-23-08, 07:02 PM
Carcano, you had me up to one truth. Isn't truth relative?
Orleander
10-23-08, 07:03 PM
*************
M*W: If theists believe that atheism is not a legitimate belief, why do they seem so afraid of it?
I don't know of any theists afraid of the atheism. I think most theists are afraid of other theists.
Carcano
10-23-08, 07:06 PM
Carcano, you had me up to one truth. Isn't truth relative?
Not according to GOD!
Medicine*Woman
10-23-08, 08:08 PM
I don't know of any theists afraid of the atheism. I think most theists are afraid of other theists.
*************
M*W: I can understand this concept. When I was a christian, I always felt that others were more christian than me. I felt inferior to them, even though I didn't know what was going on in their hearts. Then there were the others who had a more lackadaisical approach to christianity. Even though I didn't know what was in their hearts, either, I felt superior to them. This was the absolute worst thing I could have done. I should have paid more attention to my own faith and not that of others. Of course, I can understand my feelings now.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-23-08, 11:13 PM
Sure, I can take Pascal's wager, and believe because there is nothing to lose by believing in an imaginary God. The problem I have is my imaginary God has a historical document that says a lot of things about how he proved his existence, but has nothing for me today. His excuse is "...You believe because you have seen. Blessed are those who believe, but have not seen."
Pascal's wager is absurd.
There are certain messages that need no interpretation.
Please define what does and what doesn't require interpretation in the bible? We await your answer all aquiver. :rolleyes:
I think she mena HELL.
I know, I was just being obnoxious. ;)
Please define what does and what doesn't require interpretation in the bible? We await your answer all aquiver. :rolleyes:
I'm not going to copy-and-paste from Biblequotes.com like you do.
jayleew
10-24-08, 12:45 PM
Pascal's wager is absurd.
Why do you say that? It is the only logical reason there is to believe in anything of fantasy....which is simply because it does no harm to believe in fantasy, given normal people who can separate fact from fiction.
And on the off chance, fantasy becomes reality is icing on the cake.
What's so absurd about believing in Santa Claus, unless in the situation that the belief would cause harm? You aren't a scrooge are you?
Why do you say that? It is the only logical reason there is to believe in anything of fantasy....which is simply because it does no harm to believe in fantasy, given normal people who can separate fact from fiction.
And on the off chance, fantasy becomes reality is icing on the cake.
What's so absurd about believing in Santa Claus, unless in the situation that the belief would cause harm? You aren't a scrooge are you?
It's not a logical reason, and that's his point. The Wager assumes too much about the nature of a god or an afterlife.
jayleew
10-24-08, 01:00 PM
It's not a logical reason, and that's his point. The Wager assumes too much about the nature of a god or an afterlife.
I suppose you are right, but there is nothing wrong with believing in fantasy so long as the belief is not immoral. And, if the fantasy is proven true, then that person who believed is "one-up." That is the essence of Pascal's Wager that is the only argument to believe in God, or any myth.
I am defining immoral here from the utilitarian point of view.
I suppose you are right, but there is nothing wrong with believing in fantasy so long as the belief is not immoral. And, if the fantasy is proven true, then that person who believed is "one-up." That is the essence of Pascal's Wager that is the only argument to believe in God, or any myth.
I am defining immoral here from the utilitarian point of view.
There is no proving of the fantasy as truth. And who says what is immoral? The question is, does it negatively affect people. And in this case, yes, it does.
jayleew
10-24-08, 02:48 PM
There is no proving of the fantasy as truth. And who says what is immoral? The question is, does it negatively affect people. And in this case, yes, it does.
No proving of the fantasy as truth? Don't you dream of future innovations and how they can improve people's lives? Things like the automobile were things of fantasy before someone had a dream of something better than horse drawn buggy. How do those fantastic ideas become reality?
You can't prove fantasy as truth without a dream, hope, and faith that what you believe is true...
It is possible to prove anything, once the evidence uncovered. Does that mean there are pink elephants? No, just like there is no God, but I'm talking about fantasy and believing in myth. That is not harmful unless the person is not able to separate fact from fiction. And if that person can't, like some Christians, it has the potential to be deadly, but only in the wrong hands like the KKK, Hilter, and Isalmic terrorists. The fact of the matter is that most Christians and most non-Christians are the same when it comes to a moral compass.
You are a scrooge. lol You would have all the fun sucked out of life if this is what you think...
The reason I say this, is if 'There is no proving of the fantasy as truth' then what is the point of "reaching towards the stars"?
Does believing in something that does not exist negatively affect people? In all cases, no. How one responds to that belief is another matter entirely, and that is why I bring in the character of the person to my statement.
Are atheists afraid of theists? Hmmm....
No proving of the fantasy as truth? Don't you dream of future innovations and how they can improve people's lives? Things like the automobile were things of fantasy before someone had a dream of something better than horse drawn buggy. How do those fantastic ideas become reality?
You can't prove fantasy as truth without a dream, hope, and faith that what you believe is true...
It is possible to prove anything, once the evidence uncovered. Does that mean there are pink elephants? No, just like there is no God, but I'm talking about fantasy and believing in myth. That is not harmful unless the person is not able to separate fact from fiction. And if that person can't, like some Christians, it has the potential to be deadly, but only in the wrong hands like the KKK, Hilter, and Isalmic terrorists. The fact of the matter is that most Christians and most non-Christians are the same when it comes to a moral compass.
You are a scrooge. lol You would have all the fun sucked out of life if this is what you think...
The reason I say this, is if 'There is no proving of the fantasy as truth' then what is the point of "reaching towards the stars"?
Ah, well, you got me there, I admit.
[quote]Does believing in something that does not exist negatively affect people? In all cases, no. How one responds to that belief is another matter entirely, and that is why I bring in the character of the person to my statement.
Are atheists afraid of theists? Hmmm....
Well, I guess that's a way of looking at it.
I'm not going to copy-and-paste from Biblequotes.com like you do.
So, you're whining because you wrongly assume they're copied from that site. And even though the crux of the post is to demonstrate that those biblical quotes confirm my argument, you conveniently ignore that and focus on the irrelevant.
It would appear focusing on the irrelevant is what you're best suited.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-24-08, 08:55 PM
Bah Humbug!
There's an astronomical difference between deciding to believe something on the off chance it might turn out to be true & believing things might be possible which are currently not known.
I reach for the stars. It pains me that I can't be zipping around out there exploring different planets & galaxies.
I need to know everything. I need to KNOW. Not pretend to know. If I can't know something, it won't do me any good to fool myself into thinking I know.
In addition to this & JDawg's comments, Pascal's Absurdity ignores what kind of life I'd have if I accept it as opposed to otherwise. The Holy Cost is more than I can pay.
Simon Anders
10-24-08, 09:02 PM
*************
M*W: If theists believe that atheism is not a legitimate belief, why do they seem so afraid of it?
1) some atheists say here (and elsewhere) say atheism is not a belief. Do you disagree with them?
2) what do you mean by legitimate belief
3) what makes you think theists are afraid of atheism? are there theists here who you think are afraid of atheism?
Simon Anders
10-24-08, 09:04 PM
*************
M*W: You bring up a good point. Atheists are for the most part independent in their belief. Theists, however, have a desire to belong to a group. That seems to be co-dependent to me.
And again. Many atheists think that atheism is a lack of belief. Generally people group around things they have in common not around things they lack in common. There are exceptions, but i wonder if you have noticed that a number of atheists think atheism is not a belief and in fact that you are misusing the term.
Medicine*Woman
10-24-08, 10:29 PM
1) some atheists say here (and elsewhere) say atheism is not a belief. Do you disagree with them?
2) what do you mean by legitimate belief
3) what makes you think theists are afraid of atheism? are there theists here who you think are afraid of atheism?
*************
M*W: Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. I would consider that it is a belief, but certainly not a religion. I believe that no gods exist. I don't believe in theism. I am specifically an anti-christian.
My OP was just a query. Some theists seem to be afraid of atheists. From my own personal experience when asked what is my religious designation, I always say atheist. You'd think I had the plague from they way people (mostly Blacks) act toward the admission of atheism. I don't make a habit of broadcasting my atheism, but when asked for say a hospital admission, I was treated rudely and hatefully by the admissions clerk (a young Black woman). It just makes me wonder how widespread this fear of atheism is.
Medicine*Woman
10-24-08, 10:30 PM
And again. Many atheists think that atheism is a lack of belief. Generally people group around things they have in common not around things they lack in common. There are exceptions, but i wonder if you have noticed that a number of atheists think atheism is not a belief and in fact that you are misusing the term.
*************
M*W: An atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods.
Simon Anders
10-24-08, 11:35 PM
[QUOTE]M*W: Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. I would consider that it is a belief, but certainly not a religion. I believe that no gods exist. I don't believe in theism. I am specifically an anti-christian.
According to Phlogistan you should be called an anti-theist because you believe there is no God or are no gods. This is different from a mere lack. I would include you in the category 'atheists' but it seems a number of atheists consider this incorrect. In fact Phlogistan said there are very few who make the 'error' you are making.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-24-08, 11:41 PM
If people weren't afraid, they wouldn't believe in nonsense.
Most people are afraid of what they don't understand & most theists don't understand atheists.
Many theists feel threatened by the possibility that someone can actually not believe what they think they must believe.
The Holy Babble commands to preach to & convert everyone. It even says to preach to animals.
Then of course, there is xenophobia & conformism.
Fear is the root of evil.
Simon Anders
you believe there is no God or are no gods
A lack of belief in gods doesn't imply one believes no gods exist.
I for example neither believe gods exist nor do I believe gods don't exist because 1) I find the term "god" void of any discernible definition from which I could even begin to draw a meaningful conclusion; and 2) belief is completely irrelevant to a something's existence.
Simon Anders
10-25-08, 07:44 AM
A lack of belief in gods doesn't imply one believes no gods exist.
swarm,
she made the following statement in what I quoted:
I believe that no gods exist.
Which is very clear and was the reason I responded to her the way I did. She also said
I would consider that it is a belief, but certainly not a religionmy emphasis. 'it' referring to atheism.
If like Phlogistan, an atheist here, you believe atheism is merely a lack of belief in God, then you also disagree with her self-labeling. If like me you believe that Medicine Woman is an atheist even though she does not merely lack a belief in god or Gods but believes these things do not exist, then you disagree with Phlogistan.
*************
M*W: If theists believe that atheism is not a legitimate belief, why do they seem so afraid of it?
We're not afraid of atheists in the least which is why we don't try to censor them as they do with us. Many atheists forums don't allow preaching because they're afraid of the truth. But we know that they can't hurt us because they don't have the truth. So we don't need to censor them even though they're proud of swearing and hating God. After all, there's a reason that the words of atheists aren't considered to be preaching and the words of Christians are. That shows that even atheists know they're not telling the truth. ;)
We're not afraid of atheists in the least which is why we don't try to censor them as they do with us.
You misunderstand the difference between censorship and asking for supporting evidence.
Many atheists forums don't allow preaching because they're afraid of the truth.
No, we don't allow preaching simply because it is merely that: preaching a point of view with no evidentiary support - i.e. opinion rather than fact.
So we don't need to censor them even though they're proud of swearing and hating God.
Proud of swearing? Evidence?
How can we hate something that probably doesn't exist?
After all, there's a reason that the words of atheists aren't considered to be preaching and the words of Christians are.
Because atheists try to provide factual supprt and Christians don't?
That shows that even atheists know they're not telling the truth. ;)
Simply false...:rolleyes:
*************
M*W: If theists believe that atheism is not a legitimate belief, why do they seem so afraid of it?
You misunderstand the difference between censorship and asking for supporting evidence.
Untrue. We have witnesses to Christ's life and words and His words in print today. But what historical supporting evidence to evolutionists have? Zero. No witnesses, and no ancient cultures passing along accounts of their ape ancestors. So by your definition of evidence, we don't need witnesses or historical verification. We can simply say that Jesus is Lord because we say so and it can be considered a fact.
No, we don't allow preaching simply because it is merely that: preaching a point of view with no evidentiary support - i.e. opinion rather than fact.
Again, since youhave to make up your own history to deny our claims about Jesus, it's you who lives in a fantasy world, not us. So if you believe our words are lies, then why censor them? Why call them preaching? :bugeye: Do you think beings that you claim are imaginary can hurt you?:eek: Apparently so. So why don't you call the words of atheists preaching?
Because atheists try to provide factual supprt and Christians don't?
So what factual support do you have that Jesus is not Lord? Anything? Oh, I forgot, atheists don't need factual evidence to support their beliefs. They can just make up imaginary creatures whom no one in history can identify. :D
So your whole post is the pot calling the kettle black.
Untrue. We have witnesses to Christ's life and words and His words in print today.
Oops, lie.
You have no "witnesses". You have one source of "written testimony", with no other supporting documentation, that was written some 20-30 years after the supposed events.
There is some dispute as to whether Jesus actually existed.
But what historical supporting evidence to evolutionists have? Zero. No witnesses, and no ancient cultures passing along accounts of their ape ancestors.
Um, actually the witness ands supporting evidence is the entire record of paleontology, biology etc...
So by your definition of evidence, we don't need witnesses or historical verification. We can simply say that Jesus is Lord because we say so and it can be considered a fact.
Unfortunately that's exactly what you do: claim it's a fact and consider it such - without evidence.
Do you think beings that you claim are imaginary can hurt you?:eek:
Nope, but the folowers of this imaginary being are more than capable of hurting us - physically, culturally and intellectually.
So what factual support do you have that Jesus is not Lord? Anything?
The same factual evidence that Pinnochio, Aslan and Harry Potter aren't the lord, or even (if he did exist) Julius Caesar, Hannibal or Adolf Hitler.
Oops, lie.
You have no "witnesses". You have one source of "written testimony", with no other supporting documentation, that was written some 20-30 years after the supposed events.
There is some dispute as to whether Jesus actually existed.
Wrong again. We actually have 4 different gospel writers. ;) we also have different authors for most of the books in the bible. So you need to do your research so you'll be speaking from knowledge rather than ignorance.
Um, actually the witness ands supporting evidence is the entire record of paleontology, biology etc...
Sorry but looking at a rock or bones and imagining what they are isn't called fact but fantasy. So you are wrong again.
Unfortunately that's exactly what you do: claim it's a fact and consider it such - without evidence.
So let me get this straight: Anything that can be documented in history is not called evidence and anything that cannot be documented in history is called evidence. Is that correct? :bugeye: If so, then neither logic nor good contact with reality seem to be your strong points. :rolleyes:
Nope, but the followers of this imaginary being are more than capable of hurting us - physically, culturally and intellectually.
So you ARE afraid of Christians, proving my post true. So what part of our beliefs can hurt you physically or emotionally? Loving you enough to care where you spend eternity, or turning the other cheek? Or how about a god you think is imaginary? if those beliefs scare you, then you're not just afraid, you're TERRIFIED of beings you claim are imaginary.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-25-08, 10:01 AM
Once again, whether evolution is wrong has nothing to do with whether there are gods.
He didn't say there weren't more than 1 writer. Has nothing to do with the point. Which you didn't understand & don't want to understand.
If you weren't afraid, you wouldn't believe such nonsense.
You obviously know nothing of love.
You're the 1 blathering from ignorance.
We want to know. You want to feel you know. You can't handle not knowing so you pretend you do.
OilIsMastery
10-25-08, 12:23 PM
It's obvious atheists are afraid of theists which is why we see and witness the extremely bad and poor behavior that we do, namely censorship, thought segregation, locking of discussion and debate, and thought policing.
Theists have nothing to fear from atheists because the truth always wins.
People like Richard Dawkins are so arrogant that they actually believe the vast majority of the world suffers from mental illness because they disagree with them. No wonder atheists cannot coexist peacefully with their neighbors.
Medicine*Woman
10-25-08, 01:27 PM
We're not afraid of atheists in the least which is why we don't try to censor them as they do with us. Many atheists forums don't allow preaching because they're afraid of the truth. But we know that they can't hurt us because they don't have the truth. So we don't need to censor them even though they're proud of swearing and hating God. After all, there's a reason that the words of atheists aren't considered to be preaching and the words of Christians are. That shows that even atheists know they're not telling the truth. ;)
*************
M*W: Carico, let's get this straight, shall we? Atheists DO NOT SWEAR AT NOR HATE GOD. If I heard an atheist swear at or hate god, I would call him a liar, because he's not an atheist. Atheists don't believe in deities, so there's no point in swearing at a god nor hating said god. A god is for believers only. Atheists believe in no gods. It's that simple.
Medicine*Woman
10-25-08, 01:46 PM
Untrue. We have witnesses to Christ's life and words and His words in print today.
*************
M*W: I was hoping not to have to address your fallacious beliefs, because I know it falls on deaf and dumb ears.
There is no proof that a man named Jesus existed, besides his name was supposed to be Emanuel who didn't exist either. Also, there were no witnesses at the alleged time of his existence. The gospels and Epistles were written much later after Jesus no longer existed (if he did, in fact, exist at all). The first book of the gospels, Mark, was written at about 70 AD. The remaining gospels were written by 125 AD. The Epistles were written before 68 AD when Paul (if he existed) died. They were written before the gospels. The Epistles and Gospels were a coordinated effort and probably a Roman forgery.
I've always thought it peculiar that the Epistles and Gospels were written AFTER the fall of Jerusalem, not before or during Jesus's lifetime (if he had one).
My personal belief is that the NT had ghost writers in Rome, and the life of Jesus compares quite nicely with the life of Julius Caesar. (Atwill; Carotta). Flavius Josephus was a great Jewish historian of the day. He wrote A History of the Jews and the Antiquities, and some of his own work may have been forged to include a person named Jesus.
But what historical supporting evidence to evolutionists have? Zero. No witnesses, and no ancient cultures passing along accounts of their ape ancestors. So by your definition of evidence, we don't need witnesses or historical verification. We can simply say that Jesus is Lord because we say so and it can be considered a fact.
*************
M*W: Evolution has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. You're making claims that Jesus existed, and I'm making claims he did not. In fact, you have nothing tangible to prove Jesus existed except your bible. That's circular logic. It just doesn't add up.
Again, since you have to make up your own history to deny our claims about Jesus, it's you who lives in a fantasy world, not us. So if you believe our words are lies, then why censor them? Why call them preaching? :bugeye: Do you think beings that you claim are imaginary can hurt you?:eek: Apparently so. So why don't you call the words of atheists preaching?
*************
M*W: We don't need to make up any kind of history. History stands on it's own. There is nothing to preach about. It's all in your mind. That's what you've been brainwashed to believe. I used to believe that crap, too, when I was a christian.
So what factual support do you have that Jesus is not Lord? Anything? Oh, I forgot, atheists don't need factual evidence to support their beliefs. They can just make up imaginary creatures whom no one in history can identify. :D
*************
M*W: Well, Jesus is imaginary, so he is neither lord, nor master, nor god. He's a fictional character and that's it.
So your whole post is the pot calling the kettle black.
*************
M*W: No, I wouldn't say this is a case of pot:kettle, but it is a case of truth:lies. You're confused to which is the truth and what are the lies. I'm glad you have come to sciforums. Maybe you will learn the truth like I did.
Orleander
10-25-08, 01:48 PM
...Theists have nothing to fear from atheists because the truth always wins....
well, I'm confused. I thought that was EXACTLY the reason why a theist would be afraid of an atheist.
well, I'm confused. I thought that was EXACTLY the reason why a theist would be afraid of an atheist.
Hehe :D
It's obvious theists are afraid of atheists which is why we see and witness the extremely bad and poor behavior that we do, namely censorship, thought segregation, locking of discussion and debate, and thought policing.
Atheists have nothing to fear from theists because the truth always wins.
Some theists are so arrogant that they actually believe the vast majority of the world suffers from mental illness because they disagree with them. No wonder theists cannot coexist peacefully with their neighbors.
I changed some things so it is closer to the truth. I hope you don't mind :D
OilIsMastery
10-25-08, 03:21 PM
I changed some things so it is closer to the truth. I hope you don't mind :D
How clever...:rolleyes:
How clever...:rolleyes:
It's not clever at all.. a five year old can see it's more accurate this way :D
M*W: Well, Jesus is imaginary, so he is neither lord, nor master, nor god. He's a fictional character and that's it.
That's like saying that King Kong once ruled the world and that's true. :D Sorry, blanket statements without supporting evidence aren't facts, just statements. ;)
So do your research on Jerusalem during the time of Christ so you can tell the world what really happened then. Then you'd be dealing with facts, not fantasy. ;) But since you've already admitted that it's atheists who are afraid of Christians, then there really is no more point in seeing you guys continue to contradict yourselves.
greenberg
10-25-08, 03:56 PM
We're not afraid of atheists in the least which is why we don't try to censor them as they do with us.
I was banned from a Christian forum because I asked "Why did God create ugly people?" and insisted to get an answer.
Many atheists forums don't allow preaching because they're afraid of the truth.
Oh? You can read people's minds, you know what their intentions are?
Did you ever ask any atheist, or anyone for that matter, why they don't like preaching?
I was banned from a Christian forum because I asked "Why did God create ugly people?" and insisted to get an answer.
He didn't.. it was the devil (obviously) :rolleyes:
Medicine*Woman
10-25-08, 07:10 PM
That's like saying that King Kong once ruled the world and that's true. :D Sorry, blanket statements without supporting evidence aren't facts, just statements. ;)
So do your research on Jerusalem during the time of Christ so you can tell the world what really happened then. Then you'd be dealing with facts, not fantasy. ;) But since you've already admitted that it's atheists who are afraid of Christians, then there really is no more point in seeing you guys continue to contradict yourselves.
*************
M*W: I never said atheists are afraid of christians. We pity them! I'm afraid you are the most ignorant person who has ever come to sciforums.
I have done a lot of research on Jerusalem at the alleged time of christ, and it just doesn't add up. There is no evidence that any such person existed. However, there is an abundance of information that Jesus was a metaphor for the sun, ergo, the early sun worshippers.
There are several other members of sciforums who have also done their homework. Something with which you are not familiar. You have this preconceived idea in your head that you are right and everybody else is wrong, but you are the laughing stock of christianity. Keep it up, though, we all need a good laugh now and then. You're pathetic.
Mr. Hamtastic
10-25-08, 07:22 PM
MW-To coin a wise phrase I heard recently.... Pot, meet Kettle. At least I embrace my laughingstock status. Your religious theories remind me of a certain theory about Earth and such... http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/ You'll find there those who wholeheartedly support your theories, as well as your frequent antagonism towards theists.
IOW-It's okay to slap him around, but when the slapping starts, all hell breaks loose, so be careful! :D
Simon Anders
10-25-08, 07:33 PM
I am afraid of some theists and some atheists, though less of the latter. There are less of them, so statistics and all.
I don't know how to categorize Buddhists. This does not scare me. But some Buddhists do.
I have never met a Mormon who scared me. But I think this has been luck. I think some Mormons would scare me, but I can't be sure, given my limited interest in pursuing empirical studies.
I have also, on occasion, been afraid of members of both sexes. Sometimes even at once.
OilIsMastery
10-25-08, 07:55 PM
I am afraid of some theists and some atheists, though less of the latter. There are less of them, so statistics and all.
I don't know how to categorize Buddhists. This does not scare me. But some Buddhists do.
I have never met a Mormon who scared me. But I think this has been luck. I think some Mormons would scare me, but I can't be sure, given my limited interest in pursuing empirical studies.
I have also, on occasion, been afraid of members of both sexes. Sometimes even at once.
Quality...:D
Yes, she did say "I believe that no gods exist. I would consider that it is a belief, but certainly not a religion" and I thought it worth mentioning that a lack of belief in gods doesn't imply one needs to believe no gods exist because I feel making the matter a point of belief is unsound. Belief is irrelevant.
Simon Anders
If like Phlogistan, an atheist here, you believe atheism is merely a lack of belief in God, then you also disagree with her self-labeling.
Personally I feel atheism is just more special pleading on the part of theists to make it seem like their imaginary god is more important then the tooth fairy. Its not and doesn't require one to adopt a special designation in order to be laughing at it.
While I feel she is taking atheism beyond the point where it is effortlessly defensible without adding anything of importance to the stance, her self labeling as an atheist is entirely reasonable.
Simon Anders
I have never met a Mormon who scared me.
Mormons are intensely scary. The level of mindless obedience required to swallow mormonism results in people with huge holes in their minds.
Medicine*Woman
10-25-08, 11:29 PM
MW-To coin a wise phrase I heard recently.... Pot, meet Kettle. At least I embrace my laughingstock status. Your religious theories remind me of a certain theory about Earth and such... http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/ You'll find there those who wholeheartedly support your theories, as well as your frequent antagonism towards theists.
IOW-It's okay to slap him around, but when the slapping starts, all hell breaks loose, so be careful! :D
*************
M*W: I wasn't necessarily referring to you, but if the shoe fits....
There are some christians who present honest, logical statements. That shows they may have their religious belief, but they are certainly well-tuned to make a positive argument. What I'm talking about here is the fantasy believers who shut out reality. That's really scary.
Medicine*Woman
10-25-08, 11:31 PM
Mormons are intensely scary. The level of mindless obedience required to swallow mormonism results in people with huge holes in their minds.
*************
M*W: I never met a Mormon I didn't like. Not that I agree with them, but I love those people as a group. In fact, I almost moved to Salt Lake City in the 90s to do medical research. I love that place! I guess it's all in the attitude, but the Mormons welcome people from all walks of life, religious or not.
Jan Ardena
That is an interesting and unusual testimony.
Care to exand on it?
You mean "That is only because you have less faith in your god than I do, and I don't even believe in him."
The part about not believing your outlandish fantasy god?
Or the part where I have enough faith to believe that if by some chance I'm wrong about gods, an actual good god is not going to be nearly as stupid, mean or slimy as you theists make her out to be?
I see no reason to fear any good god. I've no fear of your hell or concern for my soul.
I see not the least evidence for any of your claims for your bronze age myths. They are laughable and in particular your "saving" people for your misogynist, misanthropic, paranoid, jealous, angry, begrudging, symbol of all that is vile in a power monger "god" is completely ludicrous.
Carcano
ALL who do not not follow Christ must by necessity be followers of Satan.
The false dilemma of a worshiper of evil - you are for me or against me.
A good people are fine with you not being for or against them.
Pascal's wager is absurd.
It is an insult. An appeal to base cowardice and greed.
jayleew
which is simply because it does no harm to believe in fantasy
It erodes your understanding of the truth and it is a failing of your personal integrity.
MW I couldn't agree less. Mormons are intensely racist, they just smile a lot while they do it.
Mormons are welcoming only if they think they can score you. Cross them and they are almost as nasty as the scientologists.
Carico
We have witnesses to Christ's life and words and His words in print today.
Liar!
But what historical supporting evidence to evolutionists have?
Yes, the extensive fossil record.
no ancient cultures passing along accounts of their ape ancestors.
Gee, no ancient cultures passing along accounts of their lasers either. What an idiot.
So by your definition of evidence, we don't need witnesses or historical verification.
Actual physical evidence trumps "witnesses" every time.
We can simply say that Jesus is Lord because we say so and it can be considered a fact.
Insanity must be fun.
So what factual support do you have that Jesus is not Lord?
The great god Qerg has said Jesus is not lord. Can you prove it is not so? Didn't think so.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-26-08, 07:32 AM
That's like saying that King Kong once ruled the world and that's true.
Slip of the fingers?
Sorry, blanket statements without supporting evidence aren't facts, just statements.
About time you realized this.
So do your research on Jerusalem during the time of Christ so you can tell the world what really happened then. Then you'd be dealing with facts, not fantasy. But since you've already admitted that it's atheists who are afraid of Christians, then there really is no more point in seeing you guys continue to contradict yourselves.
Cite your research.
How do animals react when you preach to them?
Mr. Hamtastic
10-26-08, 07:36 AM
I have to agree about Mormons. Ever met a black mormon? Their scarce, at best. :D
Or the part where I have enough faith to believe that if by some chance I'm wrong about gods, an actual good god is not going to be nearly as stupid, mean or slimy as you theists make her out to be?
:D .
As atheism is a religion (apparently) that makes atheists theists.. uh right ?
So should I be afraid of myself ?
Are Muslims afraid of Catholics ?
Are Christians afraid of Jews ?
lol *shakes head*
Medicine*Woman
10-26-08, 03:49 PM
I have to agree about Mormons. Ever met a black mormon? Their scarce, at best. :D
*************
M*W: When I visited there, the LDS church had missionaries in Africa. In fact, they brought in busloads of Blacks from other states on pilgrimages. The LDS are in virtually every country in the world doing missionary work.
And then there are those former LDS members who stand outside Temple Square passing out tracts on how evil the LDS are.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-26-08, 04:32 PM
Are theists afraid of Jesus?
Mr. Hamtastic
10-26-08, 05:24 PM
Curious, the Mormons I've encountered all have this bizarre idea that black people are black for rebelling against God. Then there's the whole dying and becoming a god thing. Nice people, but the nicer they are, the more frightening.
Atheism is a lack of belief in deity. This could be pursued religiously, I suppose, but would hesitate to call it a religion, Enmos.
Stranger-I wonder if we are sometimes. Confronted with the picture of Him suggested by... I think it was Time?... the reconstruction photo, I know of christians who shied away from it. Then there are the ones who want OT law followed, and don't put their women outside the camp for being unclean one week out of the month.
Curious, the Mormons I've encountered all have this bizarre idea that black people are black for rebelling against God. Then there's the whole dying and becoming a god thing. Nice people, but the nicer they are, the more frightening.
Atheism is a lack of belief in deity. This could be pursued religiously, I suppose, but would hesitate to call it a religion, Enmos.
Stranger-I wonder if we are sometimes. Confronted with the picture of Him suggested by... I think it was Time?... the reconstruction photo, I know of christians who shied away from it. Then there are the ones who want OT law followed, and don't put their women outside the camp for being unclean one week out of the month.
I believe the Mormons have gotten rid of that little bit about black people being black as punishment. I don't know for sure if they have, but in recent years their ad campaigns make me think they have.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-26-08, 05:34 PM
We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me. ---------- Jack Handey
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-26-08, 05:36 PM
I believe the Mormons have gotten rid of that little bit about black people being black as punishment. I don't know for sure if they have, but in recent years their ad campaigns make me think they have.
I know christians who believe that.
I know christians who believe that.
Really? I wonder what passages they could have derived that message from. But then again, sometimes religious folks are stupid, and just make it up themselves.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-26-08, 05:52 PM
Verily, verily, I say unto thee: christians shalt believe crap.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-26-08, 05:55 PM
It might be from 1 of Noah's son's seeing his nudidity.
MW they think blacks are black because they are cursed by god.
Ever seen the ruling elite? It is a faith founded by a slimy white con man (literally that was his profession) for slimy white com men.
Wrong again. We actually have 4 different gospel writers. ;) we also have different authors for most of the books in the bible. So you need to do your research so you'll be speaking from knowledge rather than ignorance.
The "one source" being the bible - do try to keep up.
Sorry but looking at a rock or bones and imagining what they are isn't called fact but fantasy. So you are wrong again.
Nope, since they are all consistent with each other.
So let me get this straight: Anything that can be documented in history is not called evidence and anything that cannot be documented in history is called evidence. Is that correct? :bugeye: If so, then neither logic nor good contact with reality seem to be your strong points. :rolleyes:[/quote]
If that's how you read my comment then you're showing extremely poor understanding of anything, let alone logic or contact with reality.
The bible is NOT verified as historically factual.
So you ARE afraid of Christians, proving my post true.
How do you work that out?
So what part of our beliefs can hurt you physically or emotionally? Loving you enough to care where you spend eternity, or turning the other cheek?
How about: denying/ contradicting the findings of science on no evidence, not allowing free thought, condemning people for having different beliefs/ life styles/ sexual preferences?
Medicine*Woman
10-27-08, 11:08 AM
MW they think blacks are black because they are cursed by god.
Ever seen the ruling elite? It is a faith founded by a slimy white con man (literally that was his profession) for slimy white com men.
*************
M*W: Yes, I've heard that, but in my experience, it was more about the fear the young woman had of atheists... apparently, from what she had been taught. Had I been in her position, and a client told me they were atheist, it wouldn't have phases me in the least. Of if they told me they were christian, jewish or FLDS, it wouldn't have phased me.
Simon Anders
10-27-08, 08:31 PM
Mormons are intensely scary. The level of mindless obedience required to swallow mormonism results in people with huge holes in their minds.I'll try harder to be afraid of Mormons in the future.
Simon Anders
10-27-08, 08:37 PM
Yes, she did say "I believe that no gods exist. I would consider that it is a belief, but certainly not a religion" and I thought it worth mentioning that a lack of belief in gods doesn't imply one needs to believe no gods exist because I feel making the matter a point of belief is unsound. Belief is irrelevant.
Well, it's odd you said it to me, since I said
According to Phlogistan you should be called an anti-theist because you believe there is no God or are no gods. This is different from a mere lack. I would include you in the category 'atheists' but it seems a number of atheists consider this incorrect. In fact Phlogistan said there are very few who make the 'error' you are making. where I contrast my position with Phlogistan's and say that I would include her in the category atheists. IOW one can simply lack a belief in god(s) or one can believe there is no are no God(s). Either stance is atheistic.
While I feel she is taking atheism beyond the point where it is effortlessly defensible without adding anything of importance to the stance, her self labeling as an atheist is entirely reasonable.
As do I. Which is why I said that I would include her in that category in the post you responded to. I think these thoughts of yours are better directed at someone else.
flameofanor5
10-27-08, 09:35 PM
Are atheists afraid of theists? Are theists afraid of atheists? it works both ways. :)
*************
M*W: When and where have I ever needed anyone else on this forum to justify my opinions? I'm not on any campaign. I have my rights to my opinions and beliefs, and I have a right to express them. If you don't like what I have to say, you can report me. Lori, you sound paranoid. BTW, what does being on a campaign and being co-dependent have to do with anything? What are you afraid of?
mw, i have heard you congratulate people for agreeing with you. i said WOW.
Mr. Hamtastic
10-28-08, 02:17 PM
Really? I wonder what passages they could have derived that message from. But then again, sometimes religious folks are stupid, and just make it up themselves.
I have heard of this. It requires someone reading alot into Cain's being marked. It also requires someone to forget that Cain's descendants died in the flood, if one wants to go the Fundy route. It's pretty illogical, even for Genesis, to come up with Cain was marked as black. I have fun pointing out to people who are into this whole idea... Maybe he was marked white. Strange color for a guy near the equator...:eek:
Mr. Hamtastic
10-28-08, 02:21 PM
We're so off-topic now, I'm not sure the steering works anymore. My final answer to the thread title-No. I don't want your reasons for why you think we should be, I don't care what reasons you have we shouldn't be. Assuming something as true and asking why is foolishness. That's like starting a thread,"Beastiality?" and asking "When will you stop raping your dog anally?" Ick. These threads of yours tire me, MW. Start one where you have a fair, sincere question, and leave out the "holier-than-thou" attitude.
We're so off-topic now, I'm not sure the steering works anymore. My final answer to the thread title-No. I don't want your reasons for why you think we should be, I don't care what reasons you have we shouldn't be. Assuming something as true and asking why is foolishness. That's like starting a thread,"Beastiality?" and asking "When will you stop raping your dog anally?" Ick. These threads of yours tire me, MW. Start one where you have a fair, sincere question, and leave out the "holier-than-thou" attitude.
*hallelujah chorus*
We're so off-topic now, I'm not sure the steering works anymore. My final answer to the thread title-No. I don't want your reasons for why you think we should be, I don't care what reasons you have we shouldn't be. Assuming something as true and asking why is foolishness. That's like starting a thread,"Beastiality?" and asking "When will you stop raping your dog anally?" Ick. These threads of yours tire me, MW. Start one where you have a fair, sincere question, and leave out the "holier-than-thou" attitude.
To be fair, Hambone, it's an honest question. With the way theists try to pressure the courts and the government to bow to their every command, and especially their long history of litigation against evolution, it's worth wondering if there is something more to this. If you don't like the question, fine. Don't answer it.
To be fair, Hambone, it's an honest question. With the way theists try to pressure the courts and the government to bow to their every command, and especially their long history of litigation against evolution, it's worth wondering if there is something more to this. If you don't like the question, fine. Don't answer it.
i don't think lobbying is a result of a belief in god, just a corruption. *chuckle*
i don't think lobbying is a result of a belief in god, just a corruption. *chuckle*
:bugeye:
Mr. Hamtastic
10-28-08, 06:40 PM
To be fair, Hambone, it's an honest question. With the way theists try to pressure the courts and the government to bow to their every command, and especially their long history of litigation against evolution, it's worth wondering if there is something more to this. If you don't like the question, fine. Don't answer it.
Honest question my foot. If I start a thread and ask,"Should atheists be allowed to raise young?" it would be just as stupid. Here's why:
1. MW is stereotyping atheists
2. MW is stereotyping theists
3. MW is suggesting that theists are less than Atheists
4. MW is suggesting that atheists are suffering religious prejudice
I don't care about the rest of the thread. These 4 things are just from the topic question. Care to look at MW's history of 'thoughtful' postings? This thread should die a horrible embarrassing death. Questions like the one you are suggesting are different. Do you want to discuss bleed-through from church to state? We can go over to politics for that, maybe ethics. Do you want to suggest that atheists are trodden upon by theists? Start a new thread. I'm a theist, if I fear things, I usually face them and try to kill them. I'm not going to go kill anyone, luckily, so I am not afraid of atheists. GAWD!:mad:
Simon Anders
Well, it's odd you said it to me,
I fully admit being odd. Sorry for the confusion.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-29-08, 08:02 AM
I fully admit being odd. Sorry for the confusion.
If we weren't odd, would we be even?
1111
so I am not afraid of atheists. GAWD!:mad:
I can vouch for that ;)
Honest question my foot. If I start a thread and ask,"Should atheists be allowed to raise young?" it would be just as stupid. Here's why:
1. MW is stereotyping atheists
2. MW is stereotyping theists
3. MW is suggesting that theists are less than Atheists
4. MW is suggesting that atheists are suffering religious prejudice
I don't care about the rest of the thread. These 4 things are just from the topic question. Care to look at MW's history of 'thoughtful' postings? This thread should die a horrible embarrassing death. Questions like the one you are suggesting are different. Do you want to discuss bleed-through from church to state? We can go over to politics for that, maybe ethics. Do you want to suggest that atheists are trodden upon by theists? Start a new thread. I'm a theist, if I fear things, I usually face them and try to kill them. I'm not going to go kill anyone, luckily, so I am not afraid of atheists. GAWD!:mad:
Are you sure this isn't just a knee-jerk reaction to the phrasing of the question?
Well, regardless, I guess it's settled.
Im scared of atheists, I think there working for the goverment.
lol
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-29-08, 08:53 AM
The government orks for theists.
Works too.
1111
mynameisDan
11-05-08, 09:53 AM
*************
M*W: If theists believe that atheism is not a legitimate belief, why do they seem so afraid of it?
actually, atheists are a parasite of Christianity. If anything, the fear is all theirs as they only "evidence" for atheism is the destruction of theistic arguments. Since biblical theism is far and away the best philosophy out there I agree with Pascal that the outside chance that I might be wrong combined with the lack of any negative consequences is far and away exceeded by the likelihood that I am right combined with the incredible benefits.
Simon Anders
11-05-08, 09:58 AM
What if there are no benefits for those who think in terms of Pascal's wager, not having, from God's perspective, their hearts in the right place.
Simon Anders
11-05-08, 09:59 AM
Anyone afraid of agnostics?
Anyone afraid of agnostics?
I am.. I mean what the fuck are they thinking ? They creep me out..
Simon Anders
11-05-08, 10:06 AM
I am.. I mean what the fuck are they thinking ? They creep me out..
we could form a support group.
I personally am most afraid of skeptics. I mean what if they decide to doubt the idea that other humans are sentient and just run me over with their 'only possibly real' cars.
And then all the agnostic witnesses saying to the judge that really there is no way to know if the 'running over that guy' was what killed him.
I want atheists or theists behind the wheel of those cars and in the witness stand.
Call me crazy.
...I agree with Pascal that the outside chance that I might be wrong combined with the lack of any negative consequences is far and away exceeded by the likelihood that I am right combined with the incredible benefits.
For anyone who believes in Pascal's wager, I have great news! In two days a magic parrot will deliver a check for $2 million to you. But only if you believe it will happen. Ok, go ahead and apply your Pascal's wager decision matrix. Weigh the costs and benefits of being right or wrong about believing or not believing. Clearly according to Pascal, it is most reasonable for you to believe me about this magic parrot that will soon make you rich. Yet I can't help but suspect that for some reason you won't really believe me about the parrot. Ponder why you don't believe in my magic parrot despite Pascal telling you to, and perhaps you will understand why most atheists don't consider Pascal to be very persuasive.
we could form a support group.
I personally am most afraid of skeptics. I mean what if they decide to doubt the idea that other humans are sentient and just run me over with their 'only possibly real' cars.
And then all the agnostic witnesses saying to the judge that really there is no way to know if the 'running over that guy' was what killed him.
I want atheists or theists behind the wheel of those cars and in the witness stand.
Call me crazy.
lol :D
Simon Anders
11-05-08, 10:09 AM
For anyone who believes in Pascal's wager, I have great news! In two days a magic parrot will deliver a check for $2 million to you. But only if you believe it will happen. Ok, go ahead and apply your Pascal's wager decision matrix. Weigh the costs and benefits of being right or wrong about believing or not believing. Clearly according to Pascal, it is most reasonable and logic for you to believe me about this magic parrot that will soon make you rich. Yet I can't help but suspect that for some reason you won't really believe me about the parrot. Ponder why you don't believe in my magic parrot despite Pascal telling you to, and perhaps you will understand why most atheists don't consider Pascal to be very persuasive.
You're not selling, man. You gotta learn to sell, if you wanna throw Pascal's Wager in an empirical study.
But I do believe the Wager puts the cart before the horse, so I am with you to some extent.
Simon Anders
11-05-08, 10:09 AM
lol :DYou didn't call me crazy. No one listens to me.
mynameisDan
11-05-08, 11:17 AM
For anyone who believes in Pascal's wager, I have great news! In two days a magic parrot will deliver a check for $2 million to you. But only if you believe it will happen. Ok, go ahead and apply your Pascal's wager decision matrix. Weigh the costs and benefits of being right or wrong about believing or not believing. Clearly according to Pascal, it is most reasonable for you to believe me about this magic parrot that will soon make you rich. Yet I can't help but suspect that for some reason you won't really believe me about the parrot. Ponder why you don't believe in my magic parrot despite Pascal telling you to, and perhaps you will understand why most atheists don't consider Pascal to be very persuasive.
I am not concerned with what is persuasive to you, only what is persuasive to me. I find atheist infantile spagetti monster comparisons to be as equally stupid and irrelevent as you consider the arguments of theists.
mynameisDan
11-05-08, 11:34 AM
*************
M*W: If theists believe that atheism is not a legitimate belief, why do they seem so afraid of it?
I have rethought this question and wish to put forth a new response. Yes, I am afraid of atheists. Atheists pretend to possess a morality of their own, but I don't trust them. I am afraid that if they possess high enough numbers, they will commit the same atrocities they did during the French revolution, the Bolchevik revolution and the Cultural revolution. I am afraid the millions more innocents will die under the new morality of the new atheist believers. I am afraid of some theists also, particularly the islamic variety, as there morality which is derived from the Quran actually encourages genocide.
I have some fear of abherrant catholics as well. They have a history of violence which stems from their decision to merge their faith with paganism and to reject biblical literalism for papal decrees and abuses. Yet my fear here is much less than that of atheism because the sheer numbers of murder of the papists doesn't come close to rising to the smelly stench of atheist revolutionary's.
I don't fear evangelical bible believing christians. Although there are some abuses such as the burning of witches in the U.S. and U.K, those crimes were small by comparison to any other faith mentioned above (numbering less than 1000). Calvin was a pretty nasty fellow also, even approving of the burning of a friend as a heretic and other such abuses. Yet I am consoled by the fact that evangelical theists are followers of Jesus and if they are true to His teaching, they will make for the best citizens, the best neighbors and the best friends. Here in the U.S. evangelicals are in the vast majority and I have yet to hear of any calling for the death of nasty athiest believers. We are largely a very tolerant bunch of folks who would rather duke it out in the world of ideas.
Yes, I am afraid of atheist believers, I don't believe they possess any objective morality. While most obey the laws of the land, given the right opportunity, I view them as dangerous to society, as has been the case time and time again.
I am not concerned with what is persuasive to you, only what is persuasive to me. I find atheist infantile spagetti monster comparisons to be as equally stupid and irrelevent as you consider the arguments of theists.
And yet you have not addressed my basic point; one can use the logic of Pascal's wager to "prove" that one should believe in all sorts of absurd things, like the magic parrot in my example. Do you disagree? If so, explain why. Clearly according to Pascal it is best to believe in my magic parrot; if you believe and are wrong you have lost nothing, while if you don't believe and are wrong you will lose out on $2 million. So why don't you believe in the magical, money-bearing parrot?
You didn't call me crazy. No one listens to me.
I don't need to call you crazy, everyone already knows that :D
mynameisDan
11-05-08, 11:54 AM
And yet you have not addressed my basic point; one can use the logic of Pascal's wager to "prove" that one should believe in all sorts of absurd things, like the magic parrot in my example. Do you disagree? If so, explain why. Clearly according to Pascal it is best to believe in my magic parrot; if you believe and are wrong you have lost nothing, while if you don't believe and are wrong you will loose out on $2 million. So why don't you believe in the magical, money-bearing parrot?
because unlike christian theism, your magic money-bearing parrot offers nothing of substance which I find convincing. I do find biblical faith convincing. Former atheist believer Antony Flew acknowledged that he does find the evidence for the resurrection miracle "rational". My own personal study of biblical prophecy has led to me to the conclusion that the bible is as it states that it is, of divine authorship, just like it did Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist to have ever lived. Like former atheist Sir Fred Hoyle, I find the alternative explanation that life originated by blind chance on the side of some volcanoe to be completely ridiculous and so like he and Dr Chandra Wichsramasingh I believe, there must be a God! I believe the kalam cosmological argument that everything which has a beginning has a cause is sound and consistant with biblical monetheism, but inconsistant with atheism and most other religions. I feel that the laws of logic themselves, which are immaterial universal truths independent of human invention, argue that an immaterial world exists and that materialistic atheism is irrational. My own personal non objective experience also confirms to me that my axiomatic positions are correct. I could go on, but suffice to say that for me, christian theism is no blind leap in the dark as is atheism, but rather a step of faith on a solid foundation of good arguments and sound reasoning.
because unlike christian theism, your magic money-bearing parrot offers nothing of substance which I find convincing.
But the entire point of Pascal's wager is showing that people should believe in christianity regardless of whether or not you find the evidence for it convincing. Evidence doesn't enter into it; according to Pascal, you should believe in it anyway because there are no consequences for incorrect belief but major consequences for incorrect disbelief. But perhaps I am assuming that you understand Pascal's argument better than you actually do.
mynameisDan
11-05-08, 12:56 PM
But the entire point of Pascal's wager is showing that people should believe in christianity regardless of whether or not you find the evidence for it convincing. Evidence doesn't enter into it; according to Pascal, you should believe in it anyway because there are no consequences for incorrect belief but major consequences for incorrect disbelief. But perhaps I am assuming that you understand Pascal's argument better than you actually do.
It is possible that neither of us understand his wager completely as it was a pretty technical argument. But I do not feel Pascal would agree with you that one should make a blind leap in the dark equivalent to your silly parot analogy. I think his point would have been that nothing can be absolutely known and that at some point, you must make a committment. In the case of Christianity, that decision to committ is followed by only positive repercussions, unlike the decision to commit to atheism. Pascal was a genius and your characterization of him is a straw man.
While Blaise Pascal was a man of faith, he was also a man of reason and would never assent to faith schemes which he did not find reasonable intellectually. ‘Faith tells us what the senses cannot, but it is not contradictory to their findings.’ Nothing in scripture invites the adherent to check their minds at the door, which is why christians are enjoined to love God with all their mind and the first Christians, including Paul, cited the resurrection as the reason for assent to Christianity.
Pascal was very familiar with the laws of probabiliy and undoubtedly thought long and hard about his faith and the likelihood of is premises being true. We know he went through a time of doubt but eventually embraced Christian faith. He died at age 39 and had this to say upon his death:
‘And so I stretch forth my hands to my Redeemer, who came to earth to suffer and die for me.’ Upon your death, you will discover, whether Pascal was correct or not, just like the rest of us.
Simon Anders
11-05-08, 01:35 PM
I don't need to call you crazy, everyone already knows that :DIt was about my needs, not yours.
Medicine*Woman
11-05-08, 01:43 PM
actually, atheists are a parasite of Christianity. If anything, the fear is all theirs as they only "evidence" for atheism is the destruction of theistic arguments. Since biblical theism is far and away the best philosophy out there I agree with Pascal that the outside chance that I might be wrong combined with the lack of any negative consequences is far and away exceeded by the likelihood that I am right combined with the incredible benefits.
*************
M*W: Obviously you don't have an understanding of the parasite-host that atheists are parasites on christians. In fact, the opposite is true. Christianity is a parasite of not only atheism, but of all other religions. Hosts don't want or need parasites, but parasites need their hosts.
You're an idiot.
Simon Anders
11-05-08, 01:50 PM
*************
M*W: Obviously you don't have an understanding of the parasite-host that atheists are parasites on christians. In fact, the opposite is true. Christianity is a parasite of not only atheism, but of all other religions. Hosts don't want or need parasites, but parasites need their hosts.
Christianity is a parasite of atheism. So Christianity is housed inside atheism, somehow, feeding. That is a lot of mouths for atheists to feed. Usually the host is larger than the parasites.
Christianity is a parasite of ALL other religions. This will be news to the followers of Shinto.
It was about my needs, not yours.
Oh come on, you know I love you. You do, right ? :p
mynameisDan
11-05-08, 01:53 PM
*************
M*W: Obviously you don't have an understanding of the parasite-host that atheists are parasites on christians. In fact, the opposite is true. Christianity is a parasite of not only atheism, but of all other religions. Hosts don't want or need parasites, but parasites need their hosts.
You're an idiot.
I think I do understand. Atheists are obligate parasites. They have no postive argument for their universal negative faith, so they must spend night and day on forums such as this attacking people of faith so that they feel good about their own faith leap.
Medicine*Woman
11-05-08, 02:25 PM
I think I do understand. Atheists are obligate parasites. They have no postive argument for their universal negative faith, so they must spend night and day on forums such as this attacking people of faith so that they feel good about their own faith leap.
*************
M*W: My analogy asserts that atheists do not need hosts to suck the life out of. We don't need, hosts such as gods, religions or fairy tales. Christians OTOH seem to need us atheists and other religions to suck the life out of. Atheism means "without god/s," is not necessarily a "negative." I see it as a positive, and I'm sure other atheists do, too. Your perception of negativity is in anyone or anything in which you do NOT believe. That is a very narrow mind-set. In fact, it is ungodly.
Also, let me remind you that sciforums is a predominantly atheistic forum. It makes me wonder why you came here. You just don't see to fit in.
AlActor
11-05-08, 04:18 PM
You are afraid when someone attacks your ideas and you have no way of defending them.
If you are totally sure about what you think is true, then why to fear. You are right, period.
Only when you are not 100% sure, there is fear.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.