ATHEISTS ONLY

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. . .

1 Reply

@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

1 Reply

@FBM,

Its everywhere ...

Now stop looking on able2know forums for God because its obvious He's not here.

1 Reply

@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

@Frank Apisa,

A bit more crap, as usual..

1 Reply

@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

I'm thinking we need to change this thread's title to 'Atheists xor fuckwits only'

That is a boolean 'xor' BTW.

2 Replies

@hingehead,

Which one is you?

1 Reply

@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

@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?

2 Replies

@timur,

timur wrote:

A bit more crap, as usual..

No...not back for more!

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

By the way...has anyone ever seen Layman and Setanta in the same room at the same time?

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Which one is you?

Poor baby, professes love of bayesian, but apparently doesn't grasp any logic at all.

0 Replies

@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'.

1 Reply

@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.

2 Replies

@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...

1 Reply

@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

@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

2 Replies

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.

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know