92
   

Atheists... Your life is pointless

 
 
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Thu 6 Dec, 2012 09:42 am
@spendius,
I understand what you are saying and agree with that...Without the codes of morality that were presented...No one would even understand what gold is or how special it could be...And it was just another metal to people who worked with it...That thought it just looked shinier than other metals...

And Christianity gave us a sense of morality and understanding...Or higher purpose that was never fully known or understood previously before...And it gave us all sensibility about everything in the world in which we live in...And gave us an amazingly broad perspectablilty...

I agree mate...
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 6 Dec, 2012 09:47 am
@spendius,
Then you really ought to be more careful with your wording, Spendius.

In any case, to attribute turning dirt into useful products to Christianity is laughable. But as I've noted, when you are in one of these moods...best to treat you as providing humor rather than relevance.
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 6 Dec, 2012 11:50 am
@Frank Apisa,
It never entered my head that anybody might confuse the workings of the dirt before Christianity to the operation after it.

What else could it be but Christianity? I covered the point earlier. All the others had the same dirt all that long time. At least Paganism showed us what not to do.

Quote:
..best to treat you as providing humor rather than relevance.


I covered that sort of shite as well.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 6 Dec, 2012 02:01 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5186943)
It never entered my head that anybody might confuse the workings of the dirt before Christianity to the operation after it.

What else could it be but Christianity?


Ahhh...so the making of things from ores HAS TO BE the result of Christianity!!!

Another attempt at humor...and it succeeded beyond your wildest imagination. My stomach hurts from the laughing.

I love ya, Spendius.


Quote:
I covered the point earlier. All the others had the same dirt all that long time. At least Paganism showed us what not to do.


And still more! Paganism spawned some of the most successful empires of all history, Spendius. C'mon...get with the program.


Quote:

Quote:
..best to treat you as providing humor rather than relevance.


I covered that sort of shite as well.



And very well, I might add, because I got a kick out of it back then also.
0 Replies
 
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Fri 7 Dec, 2012 01:27 am
I could be wrong...But I don't think what Spendius is saying is really talking about the sources themselves...And if they were used or were not...physically...before Christainity...But that Christianity gave everything a value that it never had before...Or an understanding, or perspective of what everything was, is, and may be...Or how it could be different than the way it was previously seen, or looked at....Or seem to appear...It let us question everything...Or understand everything we seek to find...by looking at it from a perspective that was never known previously...

That allowed us the ability to differentiate...Or understand with our own perpectives what things of value are...And what are not...And why...according to each own persons perspectives about everything...it gave us morality...And the ability to know what morality is...

I think he is saying that the morality of Christianity gave everything a value...it never had...And gave everyone sensibility about everything...and awareness...And puts everything into perspectives for everyone to understand why they see things the way they do...And a sensibility, or awareness, or a reason to want to try to understand how it could be something else than what our own, one, mind thinks it is...And how another may have a perspective of value about what they think the value of things are and why they think that way about the perspective values themselves...rather than just seeing things as to how they appear on the outside...but giving us the ability to look inside of things...Or find deeper meanings to everything...

I don't think that anyone can say this is not true...

The only arguement I can see, is if this caused indifferences that are harmful? Rather than remaining simple-minded? And I would say, if you do not know the difference between higher meanings or simple-minded itself...

Than one would naturally want to be able to know the differences...

And is essential in creationism, or evolution...does not matter...

And everyone loves the ability to be able to do this...

And every theist and atheist would probably agree with this deep down...even if some do not want to admit, or are unwilling to admit, they like the fact the can now do this...

The reasons why people do wrong, or evil with this...Is because there own perspectives about reality are unwilling to try to see things for another reason than their own thinking...And why remaining simple-minded would have never worked....

If people fail with morality...There really is no good reason to believe we would have succeeded without morality...

God said that man was good, not perfect...

And with these perspectives we now each have...Comes responsibilty...People have the freedom of what they wish to use it for, whether they chose to do evil, or good things with them...

But if the morality was never actually revealed...Humans would not have been anything more than a single-celled organism...And never were...And never will be...

That is why I personally do not agree with evolution just by itself...

And feel bad for people who do not think that humans are as great as they are...Or that we just came to be by chance...Or that people are just not that important...I think it is sad to look at life or other people, or yourself in this sort of way...
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Fri 7 Dec, 2012 01:54 am
And just because others may see things similiar to the ways I do...Does not mean that we think that we are the most important people who ever lived...Or that no one else matters...they only think this way...Cause they refuse to take anyone else's perspectives as valuable as their own...And are unwilling to ever change...They are the ones who do what they say others should not do...Along with the ones who use their perspectives to do evil...Even if they say they do it for goodness...And even if they believe this is true...it doesn't matter...

And are the reasons why creationism, evolution stumbles...Again it does not matter...

But either way, according to both...these people will be weeded out in the long run...
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 7 Dec, 2012 06:33 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Not bad Spade.

The thing I notice about atheists and agnostics is that they think that their position is intellectual and it's as far from being intellectual as it is possible to get.

They have another trick too. First they convince women that abortion, birth control, divorce etc are good for them and then they pose as friends to women by supporting their right to have access to those things.

The argument about whether those things are actually good for women is allowed to slip through the cracks and thus they have a giant non sequitur on their hands. And a tautology.

Their conclusion is based on their own assertions and whether those things are good for women in the mass has not been aired. Even the argument whether those things are good for business in the long run has not been conclusively demonstrated.

Here is a short quote from Spengler's The Decline of the West--

Quote:
The Faustian money-thinking "opens up" whole continents, the water-power of gigantic river-basins, the muscular power of the peoples of broad regions, the coal measures. the virgin forests. the laws of Nature, and transforms them all into financial energy, which is laid out in one way or in another--in the shape of press, or elections, or budgets, or armies-- for the realization of master's plans. Ever new values are abstracted from whatever world-stock is still, from the business point of view, unclaimed, " the slumbering spirits of gold," as John Gabriel Borkman says: and what the things themselves are, apart from this, is of no economic significance at all.


Atheists and agnostics are of no economic significance. They think of themselves as masterless men while they wallow in the cornucopia of goodies as if they had grown on trees when in actual fact they are the productions of the Christian project.

They are talking through the front of their underpants and Media and the legal profession see a rich nutrient bed in encouraging them to do so. As also do the owners of the plant, machinery and tools which facilitate their romantic entanglements and those who advertise them and those who search for palliatives for the confusion.

The prospect of them approaching the opposite sex without these artificial aids scares the **** out of them. I'm not convinced they would know how to proceed.

Ibsen's Nora is seen by most critics as the provincial woman derailed by reading derived from the megalopolitan outlook.
aspvenom
 
  1  
Fri 7 Dec, 2012 07:11 am
@spendius,
Interesting that you mentioned Doll's house by Ibsen. It does challenge gender norms, which is what makes it interesting.
In China, the women in general reacted positively to the play, and it was most influential to the liberal thinking chinese women's movement, etc. While in Japan it was not so much straight forward or gained as many positive movement as it was in China or Europe. This contrast is an interesting find, don't you agree? What are the implications and what does it tell about society, do you think?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 7 Dec, 2012 08:01 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Atheists and agnostics are of no economic significance.


Actually, some of us own pubs...where boozers can go to drink and drive away their demons, Spendius.

0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 7 Dec, 2012 08:43 am
@spendius,
Quote:
The thing I notice about atheists and agnostics is that they think that their position is intellectual and it's as far from being intellectual as it is possible to get.


Oh, my, we are having a bad day today, aren’t we Spendius! But you are such fun when you are in one of these moods, I almost cannot feel sorry that you are suffering so.

Quote:
They have another trick too. First they convince women that abortion, birth control, divorce etc are good for them and then they pose as friends to women by supporting their right to have access to those things.

The argument about whether those things are actually good for women is allowed to slip through the cracks and thus they have a giant non sequituron their hands. And a tautology.


No tautology there, Spendius…just some very poor logic on your part.

The alternative to “allowing” women to decide things for themselves, by the way…is to have men decide things for them. We real men DO support women’s rights to have access to “those things”…and think people like you who would limit their rights because they are women (or because you think they should not make those kinds of decisions) really ought to re-think what you are advocating. Respectfully as possible, Spendius…you are way off track here.

Quote:
Their conclusion is based on their own assertions and whether those things are good for women in the mass has not been aired.


Some of actually think the women ought to decide for themselves whether or not it is “good” for them…rather than telling them they are children and we will make the decisions for them. You ought to consider coming over to our side on this, Spendius.


Quote:
Even the argument whether those things are good for business in the long run has not been conclusively demonstrated.

We feel the women ought to decide if they want to avail themselves of those things…rather than making it a “good for business” kind of decisions. You ought to consider coming over to our side on this, Spendius.


This is great...it is fun, Spendius. Let's keep at it. Wink
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 7 Dec, 2012 08:58 am
@aspvenom,
That's rather a large question aspy. Which women in China? In what period?

Ibsen woman is not "mother" but companion and thus free from biological urges. She has become a problem of mentalities. As Shaw said--" unless Woman repudiates her womanliness, her duty to her husband, to her children, to society, to the law, and to everyone but herself, she cannot emancipate herself."

An attractive prospect to the woman of the urban intelligentsia. Woman as comrade, as heroine in literature, as business partner. Inner conflict replaces children. Her relationships are crafted in aid of mutual understanding as if understanding is possible between the ****** and the fucked. She belongs to herself.

Heterosexuality diffusing into homosexuality. Only inward migration can solve the resulting decline in population as the Romans discovered. It was certainly nothing new.

I wouldn't know what to say about the relative receptivity in Japan to that of China and the West.

Joyce elaborates on it all in the last chapter of Ulysses. And many others since.

The lover as hero and the husband as mistake. Boylen/Bloom.

Shaw was, reputedly, in a white marriage with a rich heiress. A Fabian. As he said somewhere--we shatter marriages and create suffragettes.

I've no idea really. I take what comes. My experiences tell me to beware of Ibsen woman. I'll take the common slags anytime. Their intelligence is innate and cannot be measured by nerdy IQ tests designed by men to flatter themselves.

It is all very entertaining though.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 7 Dec, 2012 09:05 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
There has come into existence, chiefly in America, a breed of men who claim to be feminists. They imagine that they have understood 'what women want' and that they are capable of giving it to them. They help with the dishes at home and make their own coffee in the office, basking the while in the refulgent consciousness of virtue. Such men are apt to think of the true male feminists as utterly chauvinistic.


Germaine Greer.
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 7 Dec, 2012 09:15 am
@Frank Apisa,
What do you think of a man who places a lady at risk of needing an abortion so that he can shoot his load? A fair enough exchange eh?

And we know that since Roe/Wade there have been almost 50 million ladies handed that risk under the auspices of the USSC. All men.

How many more who agonised over the choice is unknown.

How many young persons have felt it indiscreet to ask their parents whether there was a family debate whether to let them live? It is a rather obvious question for anybody under 40 in the climate you are so enthusiastic to encourage.
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 7 Dec, 2012 09:23 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Oh, my, we are having a bad day today, aren’t we Spendius!


Quote:
No tautology there, Spendius…just some very poor logic on your part.


Quote:
Spendius…you are way off track here.


Quote:
You ought to consider coming over to our side on this, Spendius.


Four more examples of you marking your own homework.

When women have control they don't need any of those things. You are just laying on them the management of your own weakness.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 7 Dec, 2012 09:52 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5187846)
Quote:
There has come into existence, chiefly in America, a breed of men who claim to be feminists. They imagine that they have understood 'what women want' and that they are capable of giving it to them. They help with the dishes at home and make their own coffee in the office, basking the while in the refulgent consciousness of virtue. Such men are apt to think of the true male feminists as utterly chauvinistic.


Germaine Greer.


Apparently that is precisely what you suppose, Spendius.

I and others like me...simply want to allow women the right to decide for themselves what they want...and then to be able to get it without having someone "give it to them."

Thank you for helping make my point.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 7 Dec, 2012 09:58 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5187846)
What do you think of a man who places a lady at risk of needing an abortion so that he can shoot his load? A fair enough exchange eh?


I think such a man would be a bit of a scumbag...which is why I had a vasectomy early in life. What bizarre form of reasoning would lead you to conclude that those of us who champion a woman's right to choose an abortion...think that would be a "fair exchange?"


Quote:
And we know that since Roe/Wade there have been almost 50 million ladies handed that risk under the auspices of the USSC. All men.


You mean SCOTUS gave women the right to determine what to do with their own bodies? Wow! Imagine those guys actually allowing women freedom of that sort. It must irritate the hell out of you, Spendius.

Quote:
How many more who agonised over the choice is unknown.


I would imagine every woman "agonizes" over such a decision, Spendius. That does not mean we should take the right away from them.

Quote:
How many young persons have felt it indiscreet to ask their parents whether there was a family debate whether to let them live? It is a rather obvious question for anybody under 40 in the climate you are so enthusiastic to encourage.


If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy occurring in her own body...she should have that right. This other stuff you are raising is nonsense...since you cannot actually reasonably debate the alternative to that.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 7 Dec, 2012 10:00 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5187846)
Quote:
Oh, my, we are having a bad day today, aren’t we Spendius!


Quote:
No tautology there, Spendius…just some very poor logic on your part.


Quote:
Spendius…you are way off track here.


Quote:
You ought to consider coming over to our side on this, Spendius.


Four more examples of you marking your own homework.

When women have control they don't need any of those things. You are just laying on them the management of your own weakness.


Yup...a bad day indeed. And I still am getting too much a kick out of seeing you deal with it to feel any real sympathy for you. But I love ya...my fellow human being.
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Fri 7 Dec, 2012 10:33 am
@Frank Apisa,
Honestly Frank...I can't really see how you could "love Spendius"...If you enjoy laughing at his positions? Or think his positions are so rediculous...They are worth laughing at?...And if you think he has no skills of relevance to refute what you are saying...? What is funny about that? And what do you love about that?
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Fri 7 Dec, 2012 10:52 am
I agree or disagree with both of what you are saying...I think that a females body is her own...And she should have the freedom to do as she wishes to it...And I do not think it is right for another (especially a male) to tell her what she would/should/could be able to do with it...

Now having said that...I understand the Catholic position about abortion...as well...

And think that some of these "scumbag" men these women sleep with do not have an ounce of sympathy compared to what these Preists have to say in trying to protect these women from preditor men like that...And some of these women do not see this...Because they do not want to look at it this way...

But it is clear to me that not every preist or man, is trying to force women to do things with their own bodies that the women do not want to do...But that they are trying to protect people who may actually need this at a time in our existence where there are not many genuine, honest, trustworthy people...If I was a women, and disagreed with priests or men, I would have to say, I would do what I wanted, but I would also respect that people out there are interested in protecting me from harmful people who would take advantage of me in a heartbeat if they could...even if I did not agree with their positions...

I think that a lot of priests or people of God are genuinly interested in protecting women...But I think the ways they express these notions is wrong...And gives the wrong idea...to women, and other people...Hopefully this will change one day...And be focused on both young couples understanding what sex is...what procreation is...And what an abortion means...In the couples own perspectives...And not what a book has to say about it...

So that a women fully understands what they think they are doing to their own bodies, and the ramifications before they do certain things...

There is nothing wrong with thinking twice about things....

They do not have to go if they do not want too...

If they do not agree with a preist or another male...They still have the freedom to do what they want to do once they leave...

How is a good honest preist who cares about protecting young women, any different than that of the females father?

And if you listen to what people say, and think about it twice you are almost a genius in todays age...
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 7 Dec, 2012 11:39 am
@Frank Apisa,
Yeah!! Only because I am pulling my punches about 90%.
 

Related Topics

Atheism - Discussion by littlek
American Atheists Barred from holding Office - Discussion by edgarblythe
Richard Dawkins doesn't exist! - Question by Jay2know
The New State Religion: Atheism - Question by Expert2
Is Atheism the New Age Religion? - Question by Expert2
Critical thinking on the existence of God - Discussion by Susmariosep
Are evolution and the big bang true? - Discussion by Johnjohnjohn
To the people .. - Question by Johnjohnjohn
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/11/2025 at 08:54:22