Atheism

@Romeo Fabulini,

All the Abrahamic myth based cults are circular in their beliefs.
Ask an observant Fundmentalit Christian about how they can be sure of their postings and they start quoting from this book that was written several decades after the death of their 'Saviour"> WHO, its been seen, has been given an entire life cycle that gets further embellished and added to every few hundred years or so.

Now the Easter bunny seems to be written into the Credo, in or about the mid 1850's . The Easter bunny was added to engage the forces of evil that were represented by Charles Darwin and his silly theory

0 Replies

Farmerman said:

Quote:

[the bible] has been given an entire life cycle that gets further embellished and added to every few hundred years or so

Prove it.. Smile

Anyway, if it's been prettied up every so often over the past 2000 years, why do atheists claim it's still full of contradictions?
Let's have a laugh -

How the Bible was written (according to atheists)-
ABBOT - "Father Batholomew, I want you to carefully copy our library of dusty volumes of ancient scriptures onto brandnew parchment, take them to your room and spend the next 20 years on the task, I'll have wine and hot food sent in to you every day to ensure your comfort"
BART - "Thank you Father, I'm honoured and humbled that you should choose to honour me with the task"
ABBOT- "Bless you my son" (Abbot departs)
BART'S MATE - "Hey man, why didn't you tell him you can hardly read and write?"
BART - "Not me chum, I know when I'm on to a good thing, i'll make it up as i go along"..

0 Replies

@neologist,

Neologist
I consider you a friend, despite our differences.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Yea, neo's a nice guy. We've been trading barbs for many years - and I think of him as a friend.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

I need clarification here. Isn't the word 'probably' more in the vocabulary of the weak atheist?

I don't know what you mean by the term "weak atheist". It's a term that others use to categorize us. I don't know anyone in real life who would naturally say "I'm a weak atheist" rather than just "I'm an atheist."

neologist wrote:

Because the best I can hope to demonstrate by my exegeses is 'probably'. Sure, my personal belief is to me a certainty, but I can't cause you to believe it any more than I can have you taste the IPA I plan to enjoy with dinner. You'd have to taste it yourself.

I sometimes have a tinnitus that makes me hear a high-pitched and annoying sinus tone in my ears. I think your perception of god is more nearly analogous to my tinnitus than to your beer. I believe in beer, including the one you'll be drinking. Enjoy!

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

I wrote:

When you're dead you're dead

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Hey atheists you can enjoy watching me slap JW Neologist around! Here goes-
Jesus said to his mates at their last supper:- "In my fathers house are many mansions, I'm going on ahead to get them ready for you, then i'll come back to take you there with me.....I will not drink wine from now on until I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom." (John 14:2, Matt 26:29)

So heaven could be desribed as "the party that never ends", but if Neo doesn't want to come he doesn't have to, in fact he already said in another thread- "I'm not aiming for the "pearlies".." (Neologist 23 Sep 013)
Funny guy..

Slap yerself RF.
What did Jesus mean when he said the meek would inherit the earth?
Oh, that's right. You are anything but meek.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

. . .I sometimes have a tinnitus that makes me hear a high-pitched and annoying sinus tone in my ears. I think your perception of god is more nearly analogous to my tinnitus than to your beer. I believe in beer, including the one you'll be drinking. Enjoy!

Yeah, but Thomas. That tinnitus is real and could be a sign of something serious. Whereas my beer . . . Well, its gone now.

0 Replies

Neologist asked:

Quote:

What did Jesus mean when he said the meek would inherit the earth?
Oh, that's right. You are anything but meek

You JW's sit out wars and refuse to fight, so if that's your interpretation of being "meek", you can keep it.. Wink

When they came to arrest Jesus, his right-hand man Peter whipped out his sword and whacked the high priest's flunky across the head with it, slicing off his ear. Obviously Jesus had no beef with him packing a sword, that's the type of meekness I like, except that I use words, not a sword, to cut people down to size.. Smile

Paul did it too, like when he ordered a sloppy church to get their act together-"I already gave you a warning...on my return I won't spare those who sinned earlier or any of the others" (2 Cor 13:2)
Others packed quite a punch too- "The Lord made my mouth a sharp sword,an arrow in his quiver" (Isaiah 49:1/2)
"Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should" (Eph 6:19/20)

God said "Raise a banner on a bare hilltop, I have summoned my warriors to carry out my wrath..they come from faraway lands..to destroy the whole country..and destroy the sinners within it" (Isaiah ch 13)

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/iwoflag.jpg

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

For the record, I prefer talking with atheists. They understand some fundamental truths not easily admitted by those shackled by run-of-the-ill religions.
1] When you're dead you're dead.
2] The history of organized religion is inundated with the blood of innocents.

The history of humanity...the history of life...is inundated with the blood of innocents, Neo.

And as for what happens to what we each refer to as "I" after death...every indication is that none of us KNOWS. Anyone who thinks his/her blind guess about what happens to the "I" after death is better than some alternate guess being offered by someone else...is kidding him/herself.

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

I wrote:

What did Jesus mean when he said the meek would inherit the earth?
Oh, that's right. You are anything but meek

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

You JW's sit out wars and refuse to fight, so if that's your interpretation of being "meek", you can keep it..

Yeah. So, If any of you have lost a loved one in any act of war, you may be certain it was not one of Jehovah's witnesses who pulled the trigger or dropped the bomb. But hey! Who needs a world without war, eh RF?

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

When they came to arrest Jesus, his right-hand man Peter whipped out his sword and whacked the high priest's flunky across the head with it, slicing off his ear. Obviously Jesus had no beef with him packing a sword, that's the type of meekness I like, except that I use words, not a sword, to cut people down to size..

Did you miss the part where Jesus restored the man's ear and said something about all those who live by the sword, shall perish by it Question

Speaking of missing things, you missed this: http://able2know.org/topic/141106-349#post-5471954

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Do you ever try to figure the odds on any of your guesses, Frank?
Or are they all just 50/50?

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Do you ever try to figure the odds on any of your guesses, Frank?
Or are they all just 50/50?

I always try to figure the odds on my guesses, Neo.

The ones I cannot figure odds on...I usually do not make a guess.

0 Replies

@panzade,

That's interesting re the religion-involved heavy posters on atheist threads, and of course this thread was littlek's, who posted how she was making this thread as a conversation spot for atheists. I'm well aware people don't own threads, am for freedom of speech and so on, but there is such a thing as courtesy, and such courtesy has been followed on some other threads on other matters on a2k out of respect for the thread authors' hopes for them. Coffee and tea shop and shipmate threads come to mind. Even beer threads.

Courtesy is timeless. Whole thread takeovers against the authors' wishes are rude. Indeed, most of us atheists don't go spouting off in religious threads, even once, much less over and over for pages - whether or not the religious author of
the thread may care.

You get a thumb up anyway, I get your well stated view.

1 Reply

@neologist,

I'll agree I wouldn't call you a fuckhead, Neo, makes me laugh, no. I mentioned you because you've been posting a lot here last I noticed. I don't think EdgarB does either. But some others are.

By now there aren't many of us atheists left talking here and maybe others who are left talking are fine with the conversation. At the time littlek started this, there were seeming zillions of religion threads and atheist threads and an ongoing ritual argument in some threads for years and years with Frank Apisa (hi, Frank).

I agree that conversations between believers in different-from-each other religions or spiritual practices and atheists and agnostics with different tunes is a good thing........... on some other thread. After about 350 pages, I get it's too late, but some of us still get irritated when a new blowhard shows up who either didn't read the opening post or ignored it.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Quote:

Now we have 349 pages of people trying to argue with us instead of letting us talk, all that probably due to Spendius at the time (no, I haven't looked back, but he's incessant).

But I'm an atheist osso. What is up with an atheist presenting a case that the running of a civilised society needs a lot more than any atheist can offer?

An atheist can quite properly seek to restrain other atheists. if such they are, from undermining an accepted morality in the total absence of any suggestions regarding an alternative.

You must have heard of Kant's Categorical Imperative. And it was a criticism of his fellows that Kant felt the need to remind them of something so blindingly obvious.

That's why a number so called atheists have me on Ignore.

Can you not see the utter ridiculousness of the chap from 69, Breakneck Terrace, with or without a diploma from an institution of the Higher Learning, or the woman from the meat counter, having a firm and settled view on the existence of God.

But both might well have a view of the morality imposed upon them by the Christian God through the offices of His representatives here on earth. Whether that view, however come by, might justify a root and branch re-ordering of society, one in the high teens on the Richter scale imo, along atheist lines is a matter for them.

I gathered from the threadmistress that we are here to discuss what it is like to be an atheist and my experience is that it is quite convenient in one's prime but as one's powers decline that convenience is slowly suffused with amusement and at last in semi-dotage nothing but amusement.

Is your experience anything like that? I nearly piss my pants watching Dawkins perform. It must really bug him that he can't come out and say what the real reason for his activities are and has to resort to all the equivocating scientific blather that he does and which must pain his professorial peers past their well known patience parameters.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

You're not gonna get a lot of brawls on a crock-pot recipe thread;or a beer thread for that matter.

But when you start a politics or religious or non religious thread you're gonna get discourtesy.

I adore littlek but I think she was a little naive when she started this thread and expected it to be a high-tea klatch.

I get where you're coming from osso, but an atheist thread without theist posters is like a souffle without eggs.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

The history of organized religion is inundated with the blood of innocents.

You would say then, I presume, that history without organised religion would have been spared the inundations of blood?

I think that there is an argument that it very well might. But only because the scale of it would be much less on account of there being many fewer people than there were before organised religion placed its grasping fingers around the throats of mankind.

At least before organised religion nobody bothered about global warming or whether they looked their best in blue. A few shrunken skulls dangling from the belt of the breech cloth was sexy.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
The history of organized religion is inundated with the blood of innocents.

You would say then, I presume, that history without organised religion would have been spared the inundations of blood?

I think that there is an argument that it very well might. But only because the scale of it would be much less on account of there being many fewer people than there were before organised religion placed its grasping fingers around the throats of mankind.

At least before organised religion nobody bothered about global warming or whether they looked their best in blue. A few shrunken skulls dangling from the belt of the breech cloth was sexy.

People will act like people, whether or not they follow a religion. I say religion has little to do with it.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

I'll agree I wouldn't call you a fuckhead,

That's a relief. Rolling Eyes

ossobuco wrote:

. . . but some of us still get irritated when a new blowhard shows up who either didn't read the opening post or ignored it.

A world without blowhards is a world without targets.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

People will act like people, whether or not they follow a religion. I say religion has little to do with it.

In order for people to "act like people" in an organized fashion, we can give much credit to the priests who provide fodder for the cannons by divine decree.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know