Atheist!

[Stella_Omega]

I was asking because I've met atheists who defined their beliefs as being, essentially, anti-God (as in, anti-Christianity, Islam, etc.) but still with tenets and doctrines attributable to those faiths. That doesn't strike me as being strictly atheist. It's more like anti-establishment.

I'm not sure what you mean -- some people are atheist but still pro religion, if that's what you're talking about, in that they feel that religion is a social frce that has good qualities.
And there are people who are anti-deist-- who believe in their religion's god but have decided to withhold their worship.
And there are many atheists who gladly agree with the moral tenets that are common to most religions. We don't need to reinvent the moral wheel.

I've yet to meet anyone who absolutely does not believe in any sort of higher-order force or being or plane at all. But I'd love to talk to them.

Yes you have.

But I don't know what you would want to talk about--not believing isn't a very earth shattering experience, or exotic function.

 

[slyc_willie]

And please do not try to turn my participation here into an attack on my character and philosophy as so many do. I am here, doing what I do, for my pleasure and my entertainment, not yours or anyone else's.

I do not fault anyone for their faith or belief in whatever it takes to get them 'through the night', as the saying goes; then again I do not tolerate those who proclaim superiority whilst drinking the blood and eating the flesh of a fictional character either.

I've never attacked your character, Ami; I was just making a philosophical point and nothing more. Many may wonder why, but I value your opinion.

I'm not sure what you mean -- some people are atheist but still pro religion, if that's what you're talking about, in that they feel that religion is a social frce that has good qualities.
And there are people who are anti-deist-- who believe in their religion's god but have decided to withhold their worship.
And there are many atheists who gladly agree with the moral tenets that are common to most religions. We don't need to reinvent the moral wheel.Yes you have.

But I don't know what you would want to talk about--not believing isn't a very earth shattering experience, or exotic function.

If you allude to yourself, Stella, I find it hard to believe you believe in nothing. At the least, you believe in yourself, and there are many philosophical grounds for a belief system based in that.

I don't mean to come off sounding as patronizing. God knows I have no room for that.

Alas, it's late, and my mind's becoming befuddled. Sleep well, Stella.

 

[wmrs2]

I say this over and over again; if our children went to Sunday Science shool, instead of bible school. They could go one nature walks, look at the real world, learn what science is, how to persue genuine enquiries.

Imagine all of that passion for learning, opened up to empirical methodology, and encouraged to enlarge on the body of knowledge!

Instead, Christians-- and most particularly fundamentalists dig themselves into one mere book, a ragbag of apocryphia, fable, political commentary, gossip, all rendered barely recognisable over thousands of years of telephone-game-repetition. And call it Truth with a capital T.

Such a waste of lives and minds.

We are beginning to get a real rush out of your efforts to reply to our dialogue with any rationality at all. Your writing skills are demising as your intellectual position is challenged. This was not the case when you were allowed to call names and chide us with unsupported statements. Your facade crumbles. Please notice, if our children went to Sunday school, instead of bible school is not a complete thought and does not complete a compound sentence, if that is what you were trying to do. Also, how to persue genuine enquiries is subject to the same poor grammar. You need a comma between fundamentalists and dig. Furthermore, And call it Truth with a capital T is not a complete sentence. Also, where is the verb in Instead, Christians-- and most particularly fundamentalists dig themselves into one mere book, a ragbag of apocryphia, fable, political commentary, gossip, all rendered barely recognisable over thousands of years of telephone-game-repetition? Oh Shit! We just noticed, there is not a complete sentence in your entire post. If you are a real author, we bet your editor works himself to death on grammar alone.

Now, let's examine incorrect word usage and spelling: school not shool, no capital letter for bible, need "on" instead of one, and persue, recognisable enquiries. apocryphia, are all miss spelled. All these errors remind us of what you said to us when we first posted on the Author's Hangout. You must remember that you said our writing skills should be perfected before posting on the Author's Hangout. Dear Amicus. look just what came home to the queen of the RABD pack.

 

[DeeZire]

wmrs2 - You must have missed my post, so here it is again.

Hey wmrs2 - Would you mind posting some of the Bible verses they used to use to justify slavery? I'd be curious as to how you'd interpret them, now that slavery is no longer in vogue. I mean, if you're going to ignore the slavery bit but embrace the hating-God bit, what does that say about the validity of a literal interpretation of the Bible?

(Anyone want to bet wmrs2 never addresses this particular post?)

 

[wmrs2]

This is what's always bothered me, and why I couldn't resist my two cents. Insistent arrogance is always, as far as I'm concerned, essentially ignorance. If anyone is so right they have to pound it into other people's heads, that shows either brainwashing or a basic fear that they aren't as faithful as they want others to believe.

Or they have an agenda of control.

Yes, we agree and of course, you were looking into a looking glass self when you made this statement, were you not or were you just talking about Stella and her pack of RABD?

 

[amicus]

Heh...I was already gonna say, you are up late tonight but still sharp as a tack and then your last few words caught me by surprise.

Not sure that last one is a writer here, just a socialite with nothing better to do; I do not converse with that one or a couple other obvious Trolls.

Give 'em hell, kid! You go!

Amicus...

 

[BentSecrets]

BentSecrets:

~~~

Well...the old saying...'you can lead a horse to water...', applies to you as well.

Since I have posited that I have no faith and that my stand is science based and you simply confront that...there really is no place for this conversation to go.

regards...


amicus...

You have CLAIMED that you have no faith. You have CLAIMED that your position is science based. You have PROVEN exactly NOTHING and provided ZERO evidence for your position. THAT, any way you slice it, is *Faith*.

Your reply here evidences one thing and one thing alone: You're talking out of your ass and have no rational leg upon which to stand. Which, from what I've seen on this board, isn't a particularly uncommon position.

 

[wmrs2]

That's a crock. Most posters have been far more polite to wmrs2 than wmrs2 has been to anyone. I know I have. That poster started by posting a disgusting story line to another thread and then goading posters to take him/her/it on (in very direct words).

The posters you say are ganging up together disagree with each other as much as they do with wmrs2. And you're still my leading candidate for being wmrs2. You've just become bored that no one is paying much attention to you anymore and broadening your attention-getting game. But it don't bother me a bit. Just another Internet chat board game.

Dear Sir,
Amicus and I have many differences of opinions on the origins of knowledge although we arrive at many of the same deductions. He is his own man as I am my own girl. We simply are civil with each other; it is a civility that is lacking in you.

My first meeting with Amicus was when I answered the bait on this thread on Atheist. I knew that the thread was bait and thought at the time that there were very few theist on the forum willing to take on the arrogance of such a post. That is what I do, take on arrogance and challenge the ignorant to support their positions with logical thinking. That is what has all you great intellects upset. Here is a Christian who has no respect for your logic or reasoning whatsoever. You have no premise on which to base your life deductions and you resort to name calling and intellectual escape ism in an attempt to hide your ignorance. Here is the challenge to your superior intellect, provide me with the substance of your position or leave me alone.

 

[amicus]

What the hell crawled into your powder puff tonight, sweety? Gads.

As this is an internet site, we converse by typing and any possible proof would be logic and reason, which you reject. It was at that point that I dismissed you as a viable conversationalist.

And now you get nasty?

Take two Amicus and call me in the morning.

 

[wmrs2]

No dear, I do not believe that you have ever passed a dung heap. You came here with the intent of creating a cesspool out of an intelligent conversation, so that you might take a dive and go swimming in it. How does it feel to be the queen of your out shit?

d
We certainly did not come here to be a nice humble Christian to be be beaten to death. Can you please note for us where at anytime you have made any contribution to a friendly intelligent conversation with us. We suggest, if you can not do so, that you put on the mantle of a pompous ass. You might really be a Pig with your mentality of what an intelligent conversation is.

 

[wmrs2]

Hey wmrs2 - Would you mind posting some of the Bible verses they used to use to justify slavery? I'd be curious as to how you'd interpret them, now that slavery is no longer in vogue. I mean, if you're going to ignore the slavery bit but embrace the hating-God bit, what does that say about the validity of a literal interpretation of the Bible?

(Anyone want to bet wmrs2 never addresses this particular post?)

If you were a student of the Bible you would not ask a senseless question like this. Christians treated slaves with the same respect with which they were treated. Christians, whether slaves or free, were seen as equals. In most cases the slave was a Christian. Christians did not condone slavery nor practice slavery but they did teach a slave how to endure hardships as a slave. It was atheist like you who enslaved others, not Christians. See, you lost your bet and you made an ass out of yourself for asking a dumb question with the intent to trap this little girl.

Your assumptions are incorrect. It has always been the atheist who have ignored the slavery bit and not the Christian who must justify slavery. Slavery says nothing about the literal interpretation of the Bible. You misunderstand the purpose of the New Testament. Christians were Christians before the New Testament was composed. The purpose of the New Testament was to confirm the faith of the believer. Its intent was not to prove God existed. That God was, was a self-evident truth already accepted by all reasonable men.

 

[amicus]

Slyc_willie....went scrolling back after you retired and discovered this:

"...As far as the rest of Ami's argument, I see where he's coming from. Religion has played a powerful role in just about every civilization on this planet. One could easily infer that religion is therefore necessary for any civilization to grow and remain organized. That may be true. Or it may also be true that a truly atheistic civilization could thrive just as well. As far as I know, there's not much evidence for such..."

~~~

The passage of time, I think, is the critical factor. Man had to invent god/gods to answer questions of creation and purpose before he could abandon faith and discover knowledge.

The future will be full of societies without theology, not the near future and not soon, but mankind will slowly learn the logic of natural moral and ethical actions and have the courage to stand alone without bowing down to a supreme being.

And I think, with that, that I too shall close down for this evening. Rest well.

Amicus...

 

[wmrs2]

That is pretty simple to answer - and I hope that sr71plt doesn't mind if I do that quickly. Whereas the O.T. is a set of stories by different authors we cannot identify, but share the loose connection that the content has been "revealed" to them (in other words - some experience met with a very specific mindset), the N.T. is most likely based on writers who either were contemporaries of Jesus, or wrote down what had been circulating about him soon after.

If one stipulates that Jesus was in fact a real person and the stories and quotations are authentic to a certain degree, the statement "I and the father are One" becomes the starting point for his message. The only time Jesus showed any anger was when he drove away the "bankers" from the temple, a sentiment a lot of people can relate to in these trouble times, apart from the tree incident and venting his frustration that his disciples didn't manage to stay awake with him. Very clearly he opposed the self-righteous who tried to stone a "sinner" and very clearly he indicated that it is not up to us to judge others, but to God alone. He wasn't overly concerned with following the "law" of the O.T. either, if you recall, but gave a very clear indication of how what is written there has to be interpreted through his words and actions.

Jesus tended to stress forgiveness through his life and his allegories. If he was the embodiment of God's qualities the image of a "hating" God becomes very very difficult to uphold. Did he not forgive even the "atheists" who killed him on the cross? Did he not consort with "sinners" and "atheists" like prostitutes and tollkeepers?

Yet you seem convinced that you know more than Jesus did, that you can judge and tell us what God is like and how he sees us - and excuse me, this strikes me as more than just a little bit of megalomania and self-righteousness - and almost certainly not Christian at all, as I would understand it.

The message seems to be reasonably clear as to how we have to conduct ourselves, and how certain qualities of God were embodied in Jesus - anything beyond that would be idle speculation, or limited interpretations of very limited minds, some apparently more limited than others.

The decision to include the O.T. was made by the Church, one of many errors in judgement I would think they made, but hey, to err is human.

You sound like one of the tormentors of Job. Only this sentence in your first paragraph makes any sense at all. We refer to this statement: the N.T. is most likely based on writers who either were contemporaries of Jesus, or wrote down what had been circulating about him soon after. and that is all. The rest of what you say is bull shit.

In your second paragraph, you demonstrate your ignorance of the Bible. This statement: The only time Jesus showed any anger was when he drove away the "bankers" from the temple, a sentiment a lot of people can relate to in these trouble times, apart from the tree incident and venting his frustration that his disciples didn't manage to stay awake with him certainly ignores all the parables in the four gospels where God the Father cast disobedient servants into the lake of fire, preserves hell and darkness for those who allow their lamps to go out, and condemns those to hell who do not keep the law that Jesus came to fulfill, not to destroy, and who can not see beyond the end of their nose the actual appearing of God. Your interpretation of the Bible is a farce and you do not even make a good false prophet.

Nobody here on earth is trying to judge you but to deny that Jesus said there would be a judgment where all men would be judged according to their behavior is utter nonsense. The idle speculation to which you refer is done by you, that God does not still hate sin and that God sent his son to die for our sins has no meaning to you, because your only interest is to fulfill the lust of your flesh. In your fulfilling the pride of life, you want people to believe that you understand the Bible but you clearly do not. You are the one that has a limited interpretation of the Bible and you leave out much of the Bible which says that God will damn your RABD ass for altering the Bible to suit your image of what you think God should be like. Yes, it is human to error and we suggest that you make the biggest error of all to interpret the Bible by your liberal logic and twist.

You are correct in this, you best leave judgment to God because you are very ill suited for the task. Therefore, you best leave theology to those who are better studied in both revealed and natural theology, which you obviously are not.

 

[wmrs2]

We have had fun tonight debunking all the liberal bull shit. We have no DR's appointments so we sleep all day. See you tonight for more intelligent conversation. We hope you are up to it. R ember this, no more bull shit allowed, only the facts, no liberal spin allowed and only the truth will pass by me.

 

[ishtat]

???

Wmrs2. I would be interested to know with more precision what your own religious beliefs are and particularly what is the position of the bible in your beliefs. Do you for example interpret the bible literally, allegorically, selectively or in some other way.

Thus far in reading this thread I only have a poorly defined idea of your opinions/beliefs drawn from your responses to other posters. Thank you.

 

[past_perfect]

You sound like one of the tormentors of Job. Only this sentence in your first paragraph makes any sense at all. We refer to this statement: the N.T. is most likely based on writers who either were contemporaries of Jesus, or wrote down what had been circulating about him soon after. and that is all. The rest of what you say is bull shit.

In your second paragraph, you demonstrate your ignorance of the Bible. This statement: The only time Jesus showed any anger was when he drove away the "bankers" from the temple, a sentiment a lot of people can relate to in these trouble times, apart from the tree incident and venting his frustration that his disciples didn't manage to stay awake with him certainly ignores all the parables in the four gospels where God the Father cast disobedient servants into the lake of fire, preserves hell and darkness for those who allow their lamps to go out, and condemns those to hell who do not keep the law that Jesus came to fulfill, not to destroy, and who can not see beyond the end of their nose the actual appearing of God. Your interpretation of the Bible is a farce and you do not even make a good false prophet.

Nobody here on earth is trying to judge you but to deny that Jesus said there would be a judgment where all men would be judged according to their behavior is utter nonsense. The idle speculation to which you refer is done by you, that God does not still hate sin and that God sent his son to die for our sins has no meaning to you, because your only interest is to fulfill the lust of your flesh. In your fulfilling the pride of life, you want people to believe that you understand the Bible but you clearly do not. You are the one that has a limited interpretation of the Bible and you leave out much of the Bible which says that God will damn your RABD ass for altering the Bible to suit your image of what you think God should be like. Yes, it is human to error and we suggest that you make the biggest error of all to interpret the Bible by your liberal logic and twist.

You are correct in this, you best leave judgment to God because you are very ill suited for the task. Therefore, you best leave theology to those who are better studied in both revealed and natural theology, which you obviously are not.

Oh, you mean like Matthew 5:22?

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

I'd recommend you look at your posts and heed that patent advice in future.

Again, you are judging me (and saying in the same passage that you are not judging me ) and telling me I should leave judgement to God? I'd say it would be wise for you to do the same, since you seem so keen to point out the consequences.

Where did I alter the Bible? Where have I speculated whether or not God hates sin? I don't have any idea of how God should be like, but I have a rather clear idea of how Jesus was probably like, according to what we have written about him in the N.T. - please quote any passage where he has shown hate, or claimed that God hates. I think that is your interpretation, unless you can disprove that in the way I asked and would corroborate my theory that your view of God is limited to your limited world-view of good and evil, love and hate. So far I have only heard you spouting hate and disdain, pass judgement about people you don't even know and wallow in a sense of self-righteousness and an authority you clearly do not possess. If what you deliver here is your interpretation of:

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

you are into tough love or what? So was Jesus too liberal for you also?

 

[cloudy]

Wormie:

By using "red" as an insult, you are showing yourself not only as ignorant, but as a racist, as well. I shouldn't be surprised; the two often go hand in hand.

"Red" isn't an insult. Red is proud, defiant, and above all else, a survivor. Please find some other word to use in your insults rather than a racial slur towards me and mine.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

d
We certainly did not come here to be a nice humble Christian to be be beaten to death. Can you please note for us where at anytime you have made any contribution to a friendly intelligent conversation with us. We suggest, if you can not do so, that you put on the mantle of a pompous ass. You might really be a Pig with your mentality of what an intelligent conversation is.

Why on Earth would I want to talk to you? The intelligent conversations happened three years before you showed up trying soil everything. The only intelligent conversing happening now is when you aren't involved. Please do go away so that the intelligent people can continue their conversations without interruption.

 

[Guest]

I keep directing her to talk with English Lady.

She would learn about being a true Christian.

 

[cloudy]

I keep directing her to talk with English Lady.

She would learn about being a true Christian.

Indeed.

 

[oggbashan]

I think, after all the abuse she has thrown about in this forum, wmrs2 needs to expand her acronym to:

Warning! Mindless Rant Series Two (amicus is of course Series One)

Of course, someone may have a better expansion of the acronym wmrs2 - ideas pelase?

Og

 

[Stella_Omega]

If you allude to yourself, Stella, I find it hard to believe you believe in nothing. At the least, you believe in yourself, and there are many philosophical grounds for a belief system based in that.

I don't mean to come off sounding as patronizing. God knows I have no room for that.

Alas, it's late, and my mind's becoming befuddled. Sleep well, Stella.

Slyc, you were kinda specific; ...higher-order force or being or plane... As far as I see those terms commonly defined, nope;

I do not believe in any force that unites souls on any mystic level. This concept is a beautiful example of the human ability to live symbolically, and should be understood as such; we have the primate need for constant contact, and these ideas can alleviate the physical need by letting us feel in contact without being so.

I do not believe in a "higher plane" of consciousness at all; Nirvana is an emotive state, not a functional reality. It's a damn fine place to be, don't get me wrong, and we all could use more of it!

And no "higher-order being," as I said. I certainly am not a "higher-order being," and my belief in myself is limited to the things I think I might be capable of; suddenly fly an airplane is remotely feasible, imaginatively visit Jupiter most definitely, etherically visit Jupiter not at all.

What do you think of, when you say "Higher order?"

Ogg; I think of it as "worm 2" and find in me a lack of curiosity as to the first worm.

 

[sr71plt]

you resort to name calling

Please point to my name calling (as opposed to you calling me a liar, when if I'd known there was even one reference to God hating people in the Bible, I certainly would have worded my challenge on that differently to begin with). I challenged you on your claim before that I called you names and you backed down. Point to the names that I've called you. I've been far more polite to you than you have been to me.

Is it that I've called you unChristian? Well, that's fairly obvious from your own vitrolic postings.

 

[wmrs2]

Why on Earth would I want to talk to you? The intelligent conversations happened three years before you showed up trying soil everything. The only intelligent conversing happening now is when you aren't involved. Please do go away so that the intelligent people can continue their conversations without interruption.

How do you answer this thread then? Only yes people can answer, is that it? You are of a high opinion of your lack of brain activity, is that not correct? Sorry, you are one of the reasons we are here. Thank you for another show and tell reaction.

 

[sr71plt]

How do you answer this thread then? Only yes people can answer, is that it? You are of a high opinion of your lack of brain activity, is that not correct? Sorry, you are one of the reasons we are here. Thank you for another show and tell reaction.

Ummm, no. That isn't a response to examples of names I've called you.