31
   

ATHEISTS ONLY

 
 
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 10:29 am
Let us not forget this thread is satire.
And any of us who post here only do so to show our stupidity

Wait. . . .
Did I just say?
Er. . .
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 10:58 am
@Johnjohnjohn,
Quote:
God just is.


Special pleading fallacy. The universe just is. So we're even on that approach. Now, what evidence do you have that your god of the goat herders is real?

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/download-1.jpg
Johnjohnjohn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 11:12 am
@FBM,
Its everywhere ...

Now stop looking on able2know forums for God because its obvious He's not here.
FBM
 
  3  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 11:13 am
@Johnjohnjohn,
Nor anywhere else, judging from the amount of evidence you've produced.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/12122605_979391032135382_2534997171222070328_n.jpg
0 Replies
 
timur
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 11:16 am
@Frank Apisa,
A bit more crap, as usual..
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 11:32 am
@neologist,
Quote:
Let us not forget this thread is satire.


Whatever, Neo. All I know is that I need me some MORE SPAM!

LOVE that ****, just can't get enough, ya know?
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 03:54 pm
I'm thinking we need to change this thread's title to 'Atheists xor fuckwits only'

That is a boolean 'xor' BTW.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 03:59 pm
@hingehead,
Which one is you?
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 04:17 pm
@hingehead,

Quote:
That is a boolean 'xor' BTW.


Talkin for my own damn self, I don't have no kinda truck with no Boolean logic.

Gimme bayesian , baby. Aint gunna settle for no less.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2015 05:23 am
@FBM,
Quote:
It takes an extra special, super-delusion reality filter to get "followers" from "slaves."
Well the word used in KJV was 'servant' and if you actually read it in context, he was clearly talking about those who serve him.

And you claim to have studied the book in college?
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2015 05:34 am
@timur,
timur wrote:

A bit more crap, as usual..


No...not back for more! Shocked

Even you should have more sense, Timur.

But...you are a sucker for punishment...so let it start.

As usual...I will end it.
Laughing
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2015 05:35 am
By the way...has anyone ever seen Layman and Setanta in the same room at the same time?
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2015 06:24 am
@layman,
Quote:

Which one is you?


Poor baby, professes love of bayesian, but apparently doesn't grasp any logic at all.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  3  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2015 06:27 am
@Leadfoot,
Gee, the King James Version. How on earth do you pick which translation to believe in 'literally'?

Oh that's right, which ever one suits your purposes. The same reason the translations vary so much. To suit 'purposes'.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2015 06:33 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
It takes an extra special, super-delusion reality filter to get "followers" from "slaves."
Well the word used in KJV was 'servant' and if you actually read it in context, he was clearly talking about those who serve him.

And you claim to have studied the book in college?


New American Standard. The KJV is arguably the shittiest of all the translations of those myths. Scholars agree that the NASB is a much more exacting, literal translation. http://lwelliott.com/Documents/Translations_Summary.pdf

Servants don't have masters. Slaves do. Servants have bosses.

Yes, I studied it in university and learned that a great deal of what the preachers in the pulpits had been saying was bullshit. Maybe you might consider availing yourself of the works of theologians instead of preachers.

Regardless of whether it was servants or slaves, it's advocating beating the **** out of them, and as for his followers/preachers, it's a hellfire and damnation threat, anyway. Exacting obedience, professions of faith and love under extreme psychological duress. Ever heard of the Stockholm syndrome?

Elsewhere in Luke...

49 “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

But, of course, being stricken with Stockholm syndrome, you'll say that you/we deserve it.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2015 06:51 am
@FBM,
Quote:

Yes, I studied it in university and learned that a great deal of what the preachers in the pulpits had been saying was bullshit. Maybe you might consider availing yourself of the works of theologians instead of preachers.
That's funny, I've been saying that about religions & preachers since I came here. But I think your problem is that you didn't include 'theologians' among the bullshit spreaders.

As the book says: 'Let every man work out his own salvation.'

And your last quotation from Luke was the one I read to a congregation just before they threw me out. I've quoted it here in A2K as well.

But as you said, you're not paying any attention to me...
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2015 07:08 am
@hingehead,
Quote:
@Leadfoot,
Gee, the King James Version. How on earth do you pick which translation to believe in 'literally'?

As I've frequently said, none of them. And as I've said about FBM's list of 'crazy statements in the bible', they have something important to teach us. Then, as now, there were people who go so far over the top in their interpretation of 'the law' that they go hopelessly wrong.
Quote:

Oh that's right, which ever one suits your purposes. The same reason the translations vary so much. To suit 'purposes'.
Nope, all the ones I've seen have basically the same story. We can quibble about 'slave' vs 'servant' in FBM's example but anyone open to the story will get the same message in both versions.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2015 07:38 am
@Leadfoot,
So, anyway, Jeebus was cool with people beating the **** out of social inferiors and threatening his subjects with eternal suffering in order to force compliance. Forgive me if I'm less than worshipful. He said some good things, to be fair, when he was in the right mood, but he also spread some real stinkers around. If I were still a believer, I'd still be cherry picking my way through the scriptures, too. Instead of juggling all that intellectual dishonesty, however, I'd rather just admit that I don't see any reason to think there's an invisible guy in the sky running things in the first place, so on the whole, whatever that literary character had to say carries no more weight than what anybody else has to say.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/12193479_900192950072348_2376913231049872814_n.jpg
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2015 08:02 am
One cannot come to "there is a GOD" or "it is more likely there is a GOD than that there is not one" through science, logic or reason.

Theists normally do the ethical thing and say, "I believe there is a GOD."

Atheists on the other hand...pretend they get to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are"...through science, reason and logic.

Baloney! You can no more get to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are"...through science, reason and logic...than you can get to "there is a GOD" or "it is more likely there is a GOD than that there is not one"...that way.

In that regard, theists are more honest and ethical than atheists.

Oh, wait...this is supposed to be a humor thread.

But I guess talking about atheism is humorous.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2015 08:24 am
@FBM,
Quote:
If I were still a believer, I'd still be cherry picking my way through the scriptures, too.
I've done my best to avoid the charge of cherry picking by tackling the hardest to explain scriptures rather than just the 'God is love' stuff. If there are logical flaws in my interpretation, I want to hear them. That's one of the main reasons I'm here. It's OK to call me batshit crazy, but I'd like some meat in the sandwich too.
 

Related Topics

Atheism - Discussion by littlek
The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » ATHEISTS ONLY
  3. » Page 45
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/23/2020 at 02:41:44