Do you think God is an egoist?

The strident anti-religionists are just one aspect of what's termed atheism, though. Most atheists aren't militant about it.

I know, but Ricky Gervais is, and that's who Hingehead was quoting. Like I said if you're claiming atheism isn't a religion it's probably best not to use Gervais as an authority on the subject.

It's about time atheists thought about what others believe about belief because believers know more about belief.

That's laughableoutlood.

A risible apocryphal anthropomorphic almighty?

If only respondents knew a little more about semantics !
Any word like 'God' or ''atheist' or 'belief' takes its meaning from the context in which it is used. For example, 'atheist' in the context of opposition to 'religion curtailing freedom' can take on a militant aspect. On the other hand, in terms of the OP, an 'atheist' who rejects 'creationism' is merely bemused by a request to characterize a mythical entity. Unlike in most of the sciences, there is no agreed meaning to any of the terms being used in this metaphysical discussion. What we observe here is merely what some philosophers call Geschwätz, or 'the idle chatter which happens when language goes on holiday'.

JFC Izzy I'm so surprised at you letting your personal emotions colour your interpretation of truth. Í never tried to claim ******* anything - I offered an interpretation that completely pissed you off for personal reasons.

I absolutely watched Frankie Boyle's video AGAIN. Big effin deal. Gervais' point stands no matter how much you hate him. Oh **** he blocked someone - cool, I can dismiss the opinion of anyone whoever blocked someone on twitter.


Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

The alleged atheist is very likely not militant. It is hard to know because non-believers are understandably wary, but surveys show that most of those the religious nutters brand atheists are the so-called "weak" variety, the implicit types. They are the ones who, when confronted with the notion of a god, simply say: "I don't believe that." Pew Research, Ipsos-Reid and Religious Tolerance-dot-org have all said as much, although they all also acknowledge that it is impossible to know for certain. The ranting, militant type of atheist is just as tedious as the god squad.

The point doesn't stand. There aren't facebook groups for people who don't go skiing, neither do people who don't go skiing bang on about it all the time. Your point was that atheism is not a religion, yet you choose an evangelical atheist to make that point.

Gervais tries to proselytise, and you can't get more religious than that. If you don't want people to consider you religious you need better sources, ones that aren't so ******* religious.

We actually agree on something. Preachy people are pains in the arse regardless of what they're preaching.

He blocked someone who had never interacted with him at all just because they praised Spencer Jones' performance on Upstart Crow.

If you've ever watched Upstart Crow, (which is every bit as good as Blackadder btw,) you'll see that Jones does Kempe as Ricky Gervais and he gets him to a T. That's how petty Gervais is, he's got absolutely no sense of humour at all where he's concerned.

Gervais is a preachy twat and an extremely unfunny one at that. Quoting him as proof that atheism isn't a religion is like quoting Hitler to prove something isn't racist.

You nailed it, izzy, about both you and Setanta.

"Preachy people are pains in the arse regardless of what they're preaching."

Peas in a pod, Set and you.

Yes, the story of Lucifer's fall from grace as an angel is a story of going from being an angel in service to God's will to being a competitor with God in a self-construed competition for glory and pride.

To construe God as egoistic requires construing Him as separate from us, His children. The moment we seek to be angels in harmony with His will, ego is gone and our only motive is to achieve goodness and do the right thing to the best of our abilities.

Construing God as egoistic also serves the (satanic) function of causing enmity between us and Him. I.e. if we think of Him as egoistic, then we will think of Him as bad and be opposed to him. It's like when you think of the police as bad or corrupt, you automatically feel enmity toward them, which makes you seem like a criminal. It's the same with God if you construe Him as bad, then you put yourself in opposition to Him.

To construe God and thus yourself as good, you have to hold the belief that the universe was created by a fundamentally good spirit and that the universe is in a state of deviation from ideal perfection (i.e. sin). Then, if you put yourself on the side of God/goodness/angels, you seek only to do God's good work of helping heal the universe of sin. Then you have to pray and hope for God to reveal ways of helping the universe without further harming it, or by harming it in ways that are ultimately good for it, i.e. the way a fever harms the body a bit to help it heal from an infection.

Now, if you read that last sentence, you should realize there are secular/atheists who will construe that as some kind of terrorist manifesto, but in reality it is just another way of expressing the biblical concept of positive discipline that a good father deals to his children for the sake of their own good. "Spare the rod spoil the child" doesn't really mean you're supposed to spank your children, necessarily; but it is a general metaphor for the importance of discipline, even punitive discipline, rather than encourage spoilage.

Don’t you see that as soon as you say the words “the best of our abilities” you have invoked ego, the self, into reality. You cannot avoid it, because our ego and God's are a reality. To deny this is to divide one against oneself. As the book says, ‘a house divided cannot stand.'

Because skiers aren't evangelists - but they do crack as **** when they are taken the piss out of as ski bunnies. The only difference is they aren't as organised or dogmatic as the religious

Your logic is failing badly - better sources? So if I quote a source the quote doesn't stand on it's own - it only has value if the source is blameless? So if a pedophile priest says ''Thou shalt not kill" I can ignore it?

Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

I suppose, but this world is imperfect and we are imperfect beings. There is no possibility of transcending egoism completely. The best we can hope for is to see it for what it is and observe how it happens.

Observation is a form of transcendence. It is the basis for confession and repentance. By observing ego, we can confess it and repent. That doesn't mean we will subsequently transcend it completely and become perfect, egoless beings. It just means we'll be progressing in the right direction and humbly accepting forgiveness for failure instead of fundamentally rejecting forgiveness because we can't accept anything short of total perfection.

I've already said why the quotation doesn't stand, regardless of Gervais' character. You're being deliberately obtuse.

Repeating the same hackneyed phrase over and over isn't doing you any favours either.

If you need a paedophile priest to tell you killing is wrong you're seriously fucked up. Most of us can work that out for ourselves and have no time for nonces.

If you're trying to say that atheism isn't a religion you don't want to go quoting one of the self appointed high priests. Infra blue's cartoon made the point that yours tried to. It was witty and not at all preachy.

Why do you need to take the piss out of people who go skiing? I don't give a **** about skiing, but they're not hurting anyone or trying to shove it in my face, so live and let live. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you have to take the piss out of it all the time. Not if you're a grown up.

Now you're being obtuse. Have another a beer and enjoy the game - oh, just checked the score - just be glad you're not in league one.

You knew the score beforehand, so don't try to be coy.