Atheists... Your life is pointless

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's not "gainsaying." It's a fact proven by your own inability to comprehend what is written in simple English.

If you believe what you wrote is a metaphore, it only again proves you don't understand simple English.

When you use the word "opposite x of the same coin" it's an analogy. If you believe what you wrote is a metaphore, it means you don't even undertand what you yourself wrote. As a metaphore, it contradicts itself, and has no meaning.

Thankyou for your ignorance soaked in automatic gain saying. Aren't you the creative type?
And let me remind you of the ignorance you just wrote:

ciceroneimposter wrote:

When you use the word "opposite x of the same coin" it's an analogy.

I think you'll have better luck sticking with Japanese than English, seeing that you're quite ignorant in knowing what an analogy is.

I'll give you a hint as to fix your blind ignorance. A metaphor chiefly conveys relational commonalities, that shows a system of relations, implicitly, to reflect structural parallelism between two domains. My original comment meets the criteria. It is a metaphor.
Now say that you think this is an analogy, what two things am I relating? I sure as hell ain't relating coins to atheists and fundamental Christians. No that doesn't make sense at all. But what I'm doing is regarding two sides of the coin as representative of their contrasting or opposing belief.
Now do you see your ignorance now in the english language? If that didn't help go back and re read the two definition that geezer posted and compare the two definitions.

1 Reply

@Val Killmore,

You,

Quote:

Now say that you think this is an analogy, what two things am I relating? I sure as hell ain't relating coins to atheists and fundamental Christians. No that doesn't make sense at all. But what I'm doing is regarding two sides of the coin as representative of their contrasting or opposing belief.

You can't see your own ignorance. End of story; I'm otta here.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

And you've proved your ignorance, by the phrases you have set to bold, seeing that the main use of the object, a coin, I used to convey my message was used as a symbol to represent something instead of finding associations and connections between atheists and fundamental Christians. Yes it seems your ignorance, even in simple matters such as this, seems to know no bounds.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Reasoning Logic we may never know for sure about Spendius but he may have a few slaves in his basement because the bible certainly permits slavery and we all know god’s law is higher than man’s law. Who is a mere man to tell you that you can’t have slaves if the bible says that you can?

The power structure in a religious cult is indeed scary because they are taking orders from an imaginary entity and anyone no matter how sick they are can claim to be following orders from god. Schizophrenics are famous for hearing disembodied voices. Some were sure they were hearing the voice of god. Baby Bush said God spoke directly to him as he plunged this country into a $3 trillion discretionary war with Iraq to drive up the price of oil.

1 Reply

@Zardoz,

The Bible does not permit slavery. It is a book and as such an inanimate object. The OT describes what we escaped from. The NT what we hope for. It was written by men.

I will tell you that you can't have slaves except by recourse to certain legal fictions.

If you wish to confuse me with certain people who choose to interpret the Bible in a particular way, as a springboard for a foolish rant, what can I do about it just a somebody being bushwhacked can't.

We may never know for sure about Zardoz but he may have a nice pair of snot ginnels on his top lip, athlete's foot, short bandy legs, piles, halitosis, staring eyes and an over-large, purple and bulbous nose and eats with relish the raw inner organs of beasts and fowl.

One never knows. One might make up anything one wants about others with even half a mind.

3 Replies

@spendius,

Or he may bear an uncanny resemblance to 007 in a posing pouch.

0 Replies

@spendius,

@ Zardoz

Spendius says:

Quote:

The Bible does not permit slavery. It is a book and as such an inanimate object. The OT describes what we escaped from. The NT what we hope for. It was written by men.

Of course, the god of the Bible DOES PERMIT SLAVERY. Ya know...THE GOD JESUS WORSHIPED!

Spendius, in a technical way is correct...a book cannot permit anything. But the god described in the Bible...the god Jesus worshiped...DID PERMIT SLAVERY.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Ya know...THE GOD JESUS WORSHIPED!

Depends on what sort of Christianity you look at. The New Testament is as much Greek as it is Jewish, having more in common with Stoics and Cynics than anything involving the worship of Jehovah.

Some of the Gnostic Christians went one step further and saw Jehovah as the Demiurge, the blind god, who created the universe by stealing power/resources/souls from the real source of creation.

So a Gnostic Chritian would say that Jesus did not worship Jehovah/The Demiurge, but the real God.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5237569)
Frank Apisa wrote:
Ya know...THE GOD JESUS WORSHIPED!

Depends on what sort of Christianity you look at. The New Testament is as much Greek as it is Jewish, having more in common with Stoics and Cynics than anything involving the worship of Jehovah.

Some of the Gnostic Christians went one step further and saw Jehovah as the Demiurge, the blind god, who created the universe by stealing power/resources/souls from the real source of creation.

So a Gnostic Chritian would say that Jesus did not worship Jehovah/The Demiurge, but the real God.

Could be, Izzy. But I am much, much less interested in what some Gnostic would say about who Jesus worshiped...than I am about who, according to the Bible, Jesus said he worshiped. With that in mind, we all know who Jesus said he worshiped...right?

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

The Bible does not permit slavery. It is a book and as such an inanimate object. The OT describes what we escaped from. The NT what we hope for. It was written by men.
...

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/14935_226662444136860_1170871159_n_zpscaeb064d.jpg

1 Reply

@John Creasy,

Quote:

If there is no God and this world is truly just a cosmic fluke, than your life and everything that happens in it are of no consequence whatsoever. Why not just do whatever you want and not care about others. After all, survival of the fittest is the name of the game right? Love of others is just some accidental emotion that means nothing. So do whatever you want.

I wonder if most Christians share this same view. If they do then maybe they do need a sky daddy to keep them straight, "if they are unable to find value in morality without a God.

Quote:

Why not just do whatever you want and not care about others

I would hope that most people are doing whatever they want and caring about other people, Does this empathy thing really take a God to get right? If so I feel sorry for you.

0 Replies

Seems to me that humans most likely evolved with compassionate and cooperative behavior because they benefit survival for both the individual and the group. No need of a god or anything else supernatural to explain that.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

With that in mind why should we pay more attention to one set of Gospels over another? In was the council of Nicea that decided what went in and what stayed out? Gospels according to Thomas and Mary Magdalen are older than those in The Bible. Don't historians try to find the oldest source.

1 Reply

@FBM,

So even though you think that what Christians believe is ridiculous, you still feel able to dictate exactly what that should be. So all Christians must believe exactly what's written in Matthew, even though it was written hundreds of years after the crucifixion.

That's a lot different from how the Inquisition behaved.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5237586)
With that in mind why should we pay more attention to one set of Gospels over another?

I don't think we should. None of them seem particularly compelling, but if you are into the notion that they impart wisdom...all should be considered.

Quote:

In was the council of Nicea that decided what went in and what stayed out?

Okay. I have no problem with disregarding the "gospels" the council thought were proper to include...and I have no problem with disregarding the ones they thought were not proper for inclusion.

Likewise, I have no problem with anyone who wants to pick and choose which (or all) to accept.

Quote:

Gospels according to Thomas and Mary Magdalen are older than those in The Bible. Don't historians try to find the oldest source.

I'll take your word that they are older...but sometimes older documents get things more wrong than more recent documents. Future historians using the first reports on Benghazi, for instance, would be getting less reliable information than if they used more recent ones.

In any case, since we are discussing the god Jesus worshiped... are you saying that the books of Thomas and Mary claim that Jesus did NOT worship the god of the Old Testament?

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

So even though you think that what Christians believe is ridiculous, you still feel able to dictate exactly what that should be. So all Christians must believe exactly what's written in Matthew, even though it was written hundreds of years after the crucifixion.

That's a lot different from how the Inquisition behaved.

I'm not dictating anything. Can you imagine how many times I've heard Christians talk about the Bible = the word of God? But then they immediately set about cherrypicking out the parts they like and discounting the embarrassing, ridiculous and contradictory parts. Embarrassment is the only real criterion you have for discrediting certain parts of the Bible and stumping for the other parts. If you're a Christian, then by definition you accept the teachings of Christ, no? If so, then you need to cut out the cherrypicking, because the Jesus of the Bible wouldn't have it.

1 Reply

@FBM,

But the Bible is a political construction. So just because something was dictated in 325 every Christian has to believe exactly that? Regardless of what evidence archeological and otherwise, has come to light they have to believe something fixed in stone. So atheists are allowed to think, but that luxury isn't afforded to others.

Isn't the real reason you insist they adopt a fundamentalist attitude because it's a lot easier to ridicule, and at the end of the day that's really all you're interested in?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

But the Bible is a political construction. So just because something was dictated in 325 every Christian has to believe exactly that? Regardless of what evidence archeological and otherwise, has come to light they have to believe something fixed in stone. So atheists are allowed to think, but that luxury isn't afforded to others.

Isn't the real reason you insist they adopt a fundamentalist attitude because it's a lot easier to ridicule, and at the end of the day that's really all you're interested in?

I'm not insisting or demanding anything. I'm reporting what so many Christians say. THEY say you've got to believe it. If you feel happy with denying the parts that you don't like, then those Bible-believers would deny that you're even a Christian. Want me to post some videos? Wink

1 Reply

@FBM,

I'm not bothered about what they say, I'm more concerned with why you feel the need to parrot them.

Why do you automatically assume I'm a Christian, just because I challenge some of the things you say? That's just like the Pilgrim Fathers calling all opponants witches. The more things change, the more they stay the same..

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

They say ridiculous things, so they attract ridicule. I'm not parroting them. I understand what they say and I find it ridiculous.

0 Replies

Atheists... Your life is pointless

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know