Atheists... Your life is pointless

I think that you are close to what he meant but he was not trying to be mean about it!
I think that we can all agree that there can be some very educated theist and atheist alike so it does not appear that the brain is completely messed up in either side.

Here is the big difference of view to some atheist.
I can at least speak for myself, I have studied neuroscience, psychology, anthropology history of religion sociology and many other subjects without mastering any of them but I did gain an understanding that has given me the understanding that I have.

Many of us have come to realize that if any child is raised in a different environment it will be related to that environment. We have also come to the understanding that if there is no god or a different god being taught in that environment then that is whats going to be psychological for that child.
Our environment molds us and Christians know this logic but they seem to exclude god from this logical equation!

Someone is quite the hypocrite here, and I do mean you Arella. There is always a pattern with you in the more philosophical forums. You generally just spout out what you believe and whenever someone questions it or has a different opinion you gradually (and often exponentially) become aggressively hostile. So, basically, what happens is you provide a couple of mediocre posts and then we spend the next 2-3 pages in a bickering match and trying to soothe your oversized ego. You say that you are tolerant about what other people believe but that's only when you don't have to listen to it or see it. That's what you don't seem to understand about these forums though, that's what it's all about. It's not about who's right and who screams the loudest, it's about what's right and why it's right. No one is 100% on everything least of all you so why not try to really participate in discussions and be open to other ideas to help better yourself as a person rather than just shoving your idea's down our throats and giving up and whining when we don't comply.

You are entitled to your opinion. I have no ill will towards you for it.

I try my best to explain why I believe what I believe. Unfortunately, for some, my saying "I just do" when asked why I believe something, it's not enough but I am only being honest about it. When it gets to the point that it is obvious it is going to be nothing but a tit for tat and neither are going to change their views I do "give up". I don't see the sense in continuing to argue about something that obviously is not going to change.

Do I get angry and say things I should not say? Yes, I do. I always feel badly for doing it and I have no excuse for doing it. I do try to work on that. There are some posters that I have to ignore for my own good. I am pretty passionate about some things and when those buttons are sticking out and I let them get pushed I often don't know when to shut up. I would never deny that.

I was not speaking to you in that quote. That was to a specific person for a specific reason. I have him on ignore now so that in my weakness I won't continue fighting with him.

I am not really well learned in philosophical discussions. I definitely lack in the dynamics and I know that is probably frustrating to others. I seriously do try to NOT shove anything down anyone's throat. I guess I still need work on it.

In view of that Arella you would help the cause of Christianity by staying away from discussions on the matter and leave the defence of it to those who do know why they support it. The position "I just do" is as equally vulnerable to attack as, say, a belief in flying saucers or any of the 30,000 pagan gods and goddesses. And the position allows the atheists a free rein to influence people many of whom are only too ready to set aside Christian teachings.

Christianity should be defended pragmatically. On its utility. Which allows the argument to enter the debate concerning the utility of atheism. I agree that atheists, when challenged on that point, will select Ignore, as it stumps them, but that is all to the good as people will see it and draw the only conclusion possible: that they have no answer to it and therefore they are attempting to lead people into the dark.

Only a fool would follow somebody who doesn't know the destination his opinions lead to. The destination Christianity has led to can be seen through the window. Abolishing Christianity and embracing atheism is not an abstract concept. It is an entirely pragmatic position. Either for the individual who seeks freedom from Christian sexual inhibitions or for a political policy which views Christianity as less useful for the future social organisation than atheistic materialism. Both of which positions can be, and have been, defended in ways that are not really refutable except by lengthy philosophical arguments which are never conclusive.

What you should focus on is the question of what an atheist government, which your opponents have to be aiming for to have any credibility, will replace Christion inhibition of sexual licence with or admit that those inhibitions are no longer of any use. And inhibitions of biological research. Or inhibitions of free speech.

They would, for example, be obliged to agree an age of consent on scientific principles. The evolutionists, as they all are, supporting a considerable lowering of it on biological grounds read off nature. And a national DNA database established in order to find out who is who's father and mother and grandfather and grandmother. Which is an interesting question.

Watch them creep away when you get them in a corner on such substantive arguments. What do we get if they convert us all and it is very tempting to be converted to atheism. But the Devil only has the best tunes for the first few bars. A bit like cocaine.

The reason I bring this up is because I have had these kind of interacts with you in the recent past and have tried to significantly limit my interactions with you due to that. I'm not trying to point these things out to be mean, although I'm aware that it may seem that way. I'm merely pointing these things out in which you yourself said that you would like to change and prevent. If we can just overcome these problems there wouldn't be anymore arguments or hostile words and just peaceful discussion. By this, I'm not saying that you start everything, quite the opposite, it's just that things tend to escalate more.

Philosophy basics are actually quite easy because all that's really required is mere thought and opinions. You may not know all of the terms and branches dealing with philosophy, but that's not really required unless you would like to make a reference to them. If someone makes a reference to them and you don't know it, then that's what Google is for. I actually do research before many of my posts just to double check things. You also don't exactly "shove" your idea's down peopled throats. A better description would be that you just throw your opinions out there and only focus on them and you really only aim them at people rather than discussing both yours and theirs in comparison. That wouldn't really be a problem if this was a debate, but I think discussions are better when dialectics are used instead.

Thank you. I sincerely appreciate your advice and it seems to me to be pretty wise advice and I believe I'll take it. I am not very good at the written word. I am a very animated person but that doesn't come across when I try to explain things and I know I frustrate others because of it. Thank you again! GBU!

I didn't think you were being mean. I really didn't. I know I can be frustrating. I don't like that about myself. My only defense is I am a redhead? I am just joking. I mean I am a readhead but it's not an excuse.

When people talk to me like you and Spendius just did I can see things more clearly. I do tend to let my emotions rule sometimes and I really am trying to work on it.

Thank you for not just writing me off for future discussions!

That might take Arella in but it won't me.

What is "philosophy"? What are "dialectics"? I mean other than rhetorical tricks by which those with certain linguistic skills can overpower those who lack them mainly due to their being busy growing food, supplying electricity and gas, defending the nation and organising a regular supply of cheap beer.

As far as controlling your emotions, if you ever think that you're starting to get heated, try taking a little break to cool off. You don't have to reply immediately to every single post. I find myself a little heated at time as well but I usually also spend a lot of time composing my posts so that I can revisit certain parts and edit them depending on my current mood.

I think discussions are better whe people are just honest with each other and don't try to outsmart each other with "words". I am glad we are on civil terms Chights but honestly I haven't a clue as to what dialectics are and some things you can't just google answers to (though I am sure with dialectics I could). Google is okay but when it comes to my understanding of scripture I'm going to be a bit more specific about who I listen to.

One thing you said earlier. You said it's not about who is right but it is about what is right? Correct? How do you decide that when you can't agree on who or what the authority is?

Philosophy is basically the love and pursuit of wisdom which is actually more on the side of theists while dialectics is basically when people intertwine their ideas to come to a greater understanding between both ideas. It's pretty much the opposite of debate which is about being you being right and the other person being wrong. Both idea's are understood and integrated for a better understanding of the world, so no one is really overpowered...that's not the point.

Simple, there is no authority nor is there any "right". This is to promote understanding, it's not about who's right or wrong or about accepting or rejecting what someone says. Everyone believes that what they believe in is the truth for a reason whether it can be explained or not. Since the goal is understanding you can choose within yourself what you want to believe. If you listen to my side and decide that you no longer want to believe in God, then that's strictly your choice and the same goes for me. If I listen to you and feel that I want to believe in God then I will. I believe that I have a good understanding of religion which is why I don't reject except within myself like some athiests.

And what pray is wisdom? And what is the love of it?

And your assertion that "no one is really overpowered" is false for the reasons I gave. The better dialectician is bound to overpower. And there's an equivocation in the "really" it seems to me.

The dictionary I have here (Collins) says--"the art of discussion, disputation or debate; the science of reasoning; dexterity in argument so that fallacies appear true."

How do you rid dialectics of subjectivity? Even vows of poverty, chastity and obedience which are adhered to cannot do that so what chance is there any other way? And once subjectivity enters dialectics or philosophy the carpet begins to move.

Arella's "I just do" is obedience. To choose within yourself what to believe is a recipe for anarchy. An opponent of anarchy can always act as if he believes whether he believes or not and in today's conditions that isn't asking much. One needn't rock the boat.

There are however rational and irrational ways of looking and dealing with the universe and not all beliefs systems are of equal worth.

You judge such systems by how they fit or do not fit the known facts and how logical or illogical they happen to be.

Pretending that the Christian belief system is a rational one does no one any service at all any more then pretending that a belief system base on the god Zeus have any real value in dealing with the known universe.

There is no authority and there is no right? Without authority and no delineation of right and wrong you have nothing but utter chaos. If we did not have laws to take care of those doing wrong we would kill ourselves off a lot quicker than we already are.

Yes and without the Christian bible we would not know it is right to kill gay men and children who talk back to their parents and anyone who work of Sunday or................

No chaos so let all go out after killing our teenagers and find some gay men to kill.

Question is killing those who work on Sunday on Sunday work or just a hobby as if it is work we would then need to kill ourselves for working on Sunday.

Ruling AM?

Wow, you've taken this way to far. I meant specifically in the discussions about our belief, not an entire anarchy of the world. By your statement do you think that I am irrational, insane, or completely wrong for not believing in God? If not then would you be irrational, insane, or completely wrong for believing in God? If there must be a right and a wrong then who is it? Or could it be that we are both correct in our own beliefs. How come Atheism can't be right for me and Christianity right for you?How can both not exist, why do we have to war between each other rather than accept each other?

Come on Bill--get real-- who is killing homosexuals or kids who talk back or those who work on Sundays? Anybody doing any of those things would be locked up. Or executed in some states.

This is 2011 I believe. Do you believe it is 2011? It says so on your post. Such a belief in efficient. Does it have any other justification? If not then do you accept that other beliefs might be efficient and might have no other justification.

In other economic systems it might have been decided, by the great and the good, that killing homosexuals and kids that talk back and those who work on Sundays was efficient. Or constructive. Who do you think should have decided such things if not the great and the good. And what does what they decided have to do with us?

How do you avoid anarchy Chightie if everybody is free to think as they fancy and are free to act upon their fancies. That's the Sadian position, or at least it was when the Marquis' arse wasn't being held to the fire.