Atheists... Your life is pointless

Dreams are not susceptible to explanations. Mine are not anyway.

I can't believe that there's this guy walking around bollock naked in the sort of lush pastures Ovid dreamt up and he's doing what Theo in Amarcord does shouting, in the most plaintive acted manner I've ever heard, "I want a woman" (it's in Italian in the movie but you know what it is when the last one is sung). And God is moved to act. Snaffles a rib from his chest,( why not a stalk of grass?) and lo and behold the cutest, naked doxie you ever did see, (imagine your own ideal cute, naxed doxie to get the picture) appears on the scene and he doesn't even know that our troubles are on the starting blocks.

It takes artists, the real thing I mean, not your Arts Council Grant malarky, to suggest explanations and they are pretty consistent about the matter.

The thing about the atheist explanation is that it is impolite. Grossly so because the cute, naked doxie is a blue-bottomed monkey in that scene and it is hard to go to posh cocktail parties with that in mind. I find it is at least. I thrust it away as best I can. When I am introduced to a lady I look at her as I imagine Adam looked at Eve when she mooned her lustrous eyes at him. Assuming she passes muster, which is not all that difficult in my case, I am making love to her right away. I'm looking for Mae West.

If you dig my drift.

Thanks, Just curious...Would you say this to Setanta as well?

I have tried avoiding him all together...It isn't that easy for me to do...

I will go quite a while doing this, and he will come out of nowhere like a snake in the grass, and attack me...

I will keep what you said in my mind, but remember what I said...It isn't the easiest thing in the World for me to do...

Do you post to theists?? Does this mean that you think you act like a dumb ass at times in posting to people who have opposition to you as well?? Just curious....

Youre really not that difficult of a target. Youve got this interesting messianic thing going that is both weird and entertaining. Presently you are baiting setanta so that shows me that you need engagement of this sort to continue

So far, about 3 or 4 like you have taken up the cudgel in honor of the theistic viewpoint. SOme more outrageous than others. Yet all wind up as insane sounding or as strident as you. It must be in the fabric of the thread.

Trust me, Im not easily amused .

Does this apply to you as well?? (not specifically with Setanta) I mean with theists...

Im just here for the free food and the show

Is that a Yes?, or No?, Can you specify please??

If it is a yes, your guilty as well, in which case I would only listen if you were saying those words for encouragement, or betting of myself...(Like Krumple said to me...)

If it is a No, then you really aren't here for anything meaningful then, are you?

What was the point of pointing out I am baiting Setanta then??

For more entertainment? and to be further amused? Or for more free food, and show(s)??

Setanta...any day you want to compare posts--I will be delighted to do so. I have attempted to be reasonable and courteous in my replies to everyone...even you most of the time, but eventually you lash out at me and I respond. But I am willing to compare posts. It wouldn't even be close, because you constantly call people stupid, jerks, idiots...and you repeatedly belittle people. You are one of the rudest people I have ever encountered.

You mentioned that you were rude to the JW in your comment...and I asked you how that was different from your normal demeanor. Considering your "normal demeanor"...it seemed like a reasonable question.

You still haven't answered, by the way.

If you find what I have to say "hilarious"...good. I am delighted to bring some humor into your life, because your posts seem to indicate there is very little except anger in it.

That's not strictly true. Opposing points of view can be altered. I would have placed " in the way you are discussing it" in between the "something" and the "with". Your experience of similar discussions along similar lines being your evidence. And mine.

When I think about it for a moment I can't see how an atheist can be said to ever be wasting time. Is the idea of wasted time a Christian one. Was Emily Bronte wasting time when she lay on the bank of a stream watching minnows swim between the fingers that held the pen which wrote her works? All afternoon if the weather was good. Kalahari bushmen sat around a fire chewing the fat all day long. It seems incoherent as a concept from an atheist viewpoint.

A Calvinist idea I shouldn't wonder. And an exceedingly interesting one it is.

Add in my post about America being just a concept, as God is to one side, and you have a sort of tectonic grinding with a lot of mush in the interzone.

When Mr Bush was introducing the Pope to the USA he said, "I hope he isn't going to scold me". With that 1/4 smile he did so often. Like a lad the headmaster had sent for. Whether it was irony or not I couldn't tell. He did his best to try to look a bit sheepish. He was great with a crowd.

God Bless America must bend the knee to God's official representative on earth. Obviously.

I value Krumple actually giving me words of encouragement...and not trying to exploit, laugh at, or ridicule me...But I have to agree with the way you explained it, at the beginning of your post...

Here it is again...

Spademaster...you are wasting your time here. Setanta is an angry person who simply cannot or will not be reasonable. Just leave it be.

You and I are not going to agree on many things, SpadeMaster, but we can agree that Setanta just cannot control his anger.

When I first came to Abuzz (the forum before this one) I posted reasonably and courteously. At some point, I realized that I had fallen into the habit of sniping and being snide and rude. Everyone seemed to be doing it and it was an easy thing to do since there is so much of it. It actually became a form of fun to call people names...like we use to do on the playgrounds as kids.

I was wrong to fall into that pattern--I regret that I did.

I am trying very hard not to do any of that anymore, but I do not intend to allow Setanta to take shots at me without firing back. But I am keeping even those return volleys to a reasonable standard--not name-calling, just gentle reminders that I see through him.

I am suggesting (you can disregard this if you feel it presumptuous) that you not fall into that same hole I did. Stop with the anger generated posts. You come off much better if you avoid the name-calling--no matter how hard it is not to return mud with mud.

I disagree with your philosophy, SpakeMaster, almost entirely...and will discuss why in appropriate threads. But I promise I will do it without the use of words like "idiot" "stupid" or all that kind of nonsense.

You're just trying to be cool and a bit flippant fm to cover over you not answering any of my points. You're letting them stand unopposed. Which tells viewers a great deal.

You're rowing your boat ashore. Goodstyle. You had mounted a demonstration at a religious meeting hall sufficiently aggravating to get you thrown out. I can't remember if you had dragged Mrs fm along with you. You subscribe to the NCSE.

You ain't cool. You're retreating.

Yeah and yes. There are people who regardless of the data will refuse to accept the reality. Arguing with them is useless because they will chose to believe what they want regardless of what is said. They aren't there to learn anything, they are there to impose their beliefs.

So yes trying to discuss the topic with them is dumb because it will go no where. A person who does not want to accept reality is not worth discussing anything with. However; if you can possibly plant the seed to show them their mistake, you just might get them to explore their beliefs instead of just blindly accept them.

I KNOW you will Frank...And I have no problem discussing things with you at all...You were VERY courteous to me in the thread you had started...

I am not interested in you explaining yourself to me, you do not have too...

Everything you stated below is how I have seen you act here...So it wouldn't even be wise for me to post about things of the past...I have done things in the past I regret as well...But I thank you For the advice about the Hole...I will really try hard...But like I said, It is not the easiest thing for me to do...I feel the same way as you do, at times...Sometimes the mud must be slung with mud, for people to realize how hateful, Irrational that type of thinking truly is...I really can't think of any other way they would understand this?? Can you?? If you can, I am open for it indeed!!

As far as you comment of blocking it out, and not returning anger for anger...especially when it isn't necessary...I will show you that I agree...By simply saying, I do not even have to comment about/regarding it...You already know how I feel about the Subject!!

See, This is what jades me from Atheism... I gave you a compliment above about you giving me words of encouragement...But now it seems to me as if you are trying to spit in my face, with your posts??

Do you believe that Atheists are not guilty of all that stuff you listed as well, as a theist is??

First, you were the one who was banned for saying "**** you" to me, but you behave as though that incident had never occured. Second, you insult people with your snide, passive-aggressive comments on a routine basis, but you behave as though that doesn't occur, either.

In my response to Djjd, i mentioned an encounter with a JW in which i was not rude. This can easily be seen by reading those posts again. Thomas then commented that my response seemed mild to him. So i freely admitted that i don't usually give those types the time of day. You jumped in to make one of your typical sneering remarks, one of your typical passive-aggressive insults. Now you're attempting to claim that you were just sweet reason. You're getting to be as delusional as the fanatical christians around here. You end this post with another of your typical sideswipes in which you attempt to suggest that i have a problem which you don't. What's been going on here all along is that, like the playground bullyyou are but won't admit to, you are trying to pick a fight. Tell us again how courteous and resonable you are. What a sad joke.

Here we go again, Frank being civil. Once again, you're trying to pick a fight. You would love to think that you can manipulate me with anger--it's all you've got left in your quiver because your superior agnostic bullshit hasn't held up to the criticims of me and many others. So you fall back on your playground bully routine. How sad for you, Frank.

Save me some of that there popcorn, Boss . . . i do love popcorn . . .

did you check your p.m.'s?

If you did not get them, i will send them all again, and number them for you...

Not sure why it would read like that.



We yeah it can go both ways on any topic. I don't think that should discourage you from personal acknowledgment though. Just because you don't like some atheists or theists should have no bearing on weather or not you accept the same title. You are what you are regardless. If you believe or don't believe is what determines it.

There is abuse from both sides, but I see them as tactics that both sides play because both sides have something to lose and to gain. When a theist claims that non believers are not worthy of the same rights as them, I understand why a non-believer would become upset with that.

Regardless if you want to acknowledge it or not, there is a mental battle going on. Ultimately reality will support the winning side. It might just take a while to come to that realization.

Here is the thing though. If a god exists and truly loves it's creation all it would have to do, to settle the issue is to present itself in a way that can't be denied. It would have to know the best way to do this and the result of that yet doesn't do it? There would have to be reasons as to why it would not. There is a limited number of possibilities...

1. The god knows better than me, so what I assume to be better, is in fact not better. What it has chosen to do is a better solution.

(I object to this reasoning because "better" is only seen in the perspective of that god but two groups are involved, us and that god. So it must be better for both groups and as I see it, I don't feel it as better to hide. It would solve so many problems to reveal itself undeniably. So better is only relative to that god which doesn't solve the problem. It would have to understand this to be true.)

2. It has revealed itself yet for some reason some people can't see it.

(If this is the case then it wasn't a very good method of revealing. It needs to be undeniable. I am more than willing to accept the existence of said being if I have enough reason to believe it is a undeniable reality, but so far there is not even a shred to suggest that one does. This god would have to know what would convince me yet does not provide that information.)

3. There is no god to begin with and that is why none have revealed themselves.

(more than likely the case.)

4. The god is incapable of revealing itself for some reason. It would want to but something either restricts it from doing so or if doing so would cause everything to destruct.

(another option that is plausible but points out fundamental draw backs to this gods existence then. If it is incapable of doing so then it is not all powerful. If by doing so it destroys the universe then it once again is not all powerful to prevent the destruction. )

5. It does not want to or wish to, it could reveal itself but chooses not to because it does not care to do so.

(This one is plausible but it has a lot of baggage with it. Of course theists would never accept this as being a case because they only support the concept that a god cares about it's creation and can't fathom one who would be indifferent to it. Just like every five year old human loves their ant farms.)

These are the only possibilities. Sure there could be minute detail additions but they all fall within one of these five realms of possibilities. There is no other option and all claims that I would have to understand the mind of that god to propose that I understood all the possibilities is nonsense. Why? Because there are two parties involved in this situation. What is good for that god must also be good for me, it can't be one sided or else it is the problem itself.

You know how many conflicts would end if it was undeniable? The effecting of free will argument is bogus. Because people could still chose to deny or reject that gods existence if they wanted to. It would in no way effect their free will to do so. Hell I believe aliens exist but I don't believe they are visiting earth. I have absolutely no proof that alien life exists yet I believe there is alien life in the universe some where other than on planet earth. It is not however flying in space ships and abducting humans or mutating cows.

There are just WAY too many stars and planets in the universe even in our galaxy to assume that earth is the ONLY place life has arisen. I am certain one day we will discover life on another planet other than earth. It might not be within my life time, I hope that it will but more than likely won't. The odds are just too great to say earth is the only place were life exists in the entire universe.

This idea that life could exist on other planets poses a problem for theists. Especially for christians. If there were intelligent life on other planets then why would a god single out earth to send itself to? Would every intelligent life civilization in the universe get it's own jesus? If that were the case what is so bad about explaining that other life exists in the universe?

Why would the bible not clearly state that there are other planets with life on them? This god would have to know that eventually we would discover it in time. So why not beat us to the punch and mention it? The fact that it doesn't reveals something about those who wrote the bible. They only seem to write about the things that happen within a ten mile radius of where the bible has thought to come from.

The science in the bible seems to be very primitive and in many cases it's flat out wrong or mistaken. The same is true with the koran despite the fact that theists try to claim otherwise. If science is so wrong, why are they struggling to inject it into their religious documents so desperately? Why on one hand they outright reject science that conflicts with their religion and on the other hand accept it if they can find passages that seem to mimic scientific discoveries? Or if they can bend certain passages to make them sound scientific.

A bible or a koran if it were an actual work of an actual god it would not require apologetic. It should be the best read. However; it is a horrible read and horribly put together. I would imagine that if a god were behind a book that it would be so appealing to read that I would want to read it all the time. It's far from it. Sure there are people who try to claim that it is a great read but they only cherry pick it for statements they repeat over and over and ignore all the other garbage that shows it to be horrible.