Atheists... Your life is pointless

youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGcPjAH2iHQ[/youtube

CI when I clicked on the link you shared it was not valid.

Did you take out the (youtube]...[/youtube) part?

This was his link mate...

That was a great commercial

You may like these funny ones, I thought a couple of them were stupid. The old people were kinda cool

How did you find SB commercials? I looked for the Doritos one of the seniors doing all kinds of crazy things with the "Fun, we are young" song in the background sung in Spanish...but I could not find it...Is it just because someone did not upload it? Or did you type some sort of special quandary in there?

I got it!!!

It was because it was a Taco bell commercial for Doritos taco's...

Izzy people who do not belong to a cult are simply not members of a cult. I guess that they could chose to start their own like Charles Mansion or David Koresh.

Or the man who invented atheism?

Spendius dictionary.com did the defining I didn’t. That is a commonly accepted definition of a cult. I think it is important that everyone that is involved in a cult realize that they are involved in a cult.

“The church was invented” you have a point there the church was invented like all other cults. However other cults believe that your cult has reached a dead end that is why they started their cult.

Like the man who invented atheism?

Ragman thank you that works, I frequently used cut and paste under other version of IE to copy and paste things from the internet and other posters. I didn’t use this computer for long time because I couldn’t do the things the older computer did. I waited until the other one died.

Try Google Chrome, it is a much better browser than IE...

I think you should apply that thinking to yourself. You're the most evangelical poster on this thread in a long while. I've got a healthy mistrust of anyone who thinks they know what's best for anyone.

Your particular object of adoration is the 'well respected Christopher Hitchens, a man whose main drive was always his ego. The quotation about 9/11 that you ascribed to him was incredibly simplistic; blaming everything on Islamic fundamentalism ignores the legitimate grievences the Arab World has towards America. I suppose that's why he approved of the wholesale slaughter of Iraqis, because it justifies his extremist ideology.

It is all about ego, he liked to tell people how clever he was, and you like to think you're all so very enlightened by reading his stuff. Your cult claims Reason as opposed to Spirituality, but it's a cult nonetheless. Not only that, it's all been done to death before, in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. One of the results of such new found 'reasoned behaviour' was the interest in Eugenics. Something very popular with the movers and shakers of the time until Nazi Germany took it to its logical conclusion. I'm sure Hitchens bore that in mind when he gave a cheery thumbs up to the slaughter of rival cultists.

You're no different from the Bible bashing nutjob screaming on the streetcorner, you're both selling horseshit.

Spendius don’t you believe these moral teachings of the church would have some effect on the clergy. The clergy has been programed to teach other’s the cult line. The fact that it does not influence the immoral behavior of the clergy should tell you something. The child molestation shows the church is not a well spring of morality in fact it tried to hide the molestation from the public for years. What the high clergy had learned is the cult is more important than the children.

Spendius there was no widespread condemnation of child molestation by the Catholic Church until the lawsuits and suicides were too widespread to keep quite. There were simply too many parents who refused to keep quit and started going to the police.

Zardoz, in defense of some of the arguments and rebuttals made by Spendius and Izzy:

The people who comprise “the Church” are humans…and are subject to being corrupt. That does not mean that the institution is necessarily corrupt. And the institution being “the institution” has a vested interest in trying to preserve the integrity of the institution…and often travels a road best not traveled in that interest.

Yeah…priests have abused children (and adults)…and the Church has, at times, attempted to deflect the scandal that accrues…often by traveling that road best not traveled. But to go from that to where you want it to appear it is, makes no sense, Zardoz.

You are painting with much too broad a brush…and you really need more than just black and white on your palette.

In this discussion, you are essentially traveling the road best not traveled. Ease back a bit…you might do the argument you are tying to make more good.

This reminds me of a time when a fundamentalist Christian at work asked me
"Were you born an atheist?"
To which I could only respond
"I guess so...I wasn't born believing in a god."

So then believers are born believing in God? Or do you think that one discovers who they are, atheist/agnostic/theist once they reach an age of reasoning?

Do you think you had a choice in embracing atheism? And yes, I said embracing atheism...

Even if, you were born a certain way about any topic in general...How could you know that you are one of those characteristics if you did not discovery it about yourself? Or directly compare it to others who were different than you were? About any topic in general? And if you did then how does that = being born a certain way? Surely, you agree that everything that one is exposed to, ultimately, cultivates them into the person that they are, from where they were, to where they are going? etc...

If that is the case and you were born an atheist, why even take the time to talk about Christianity unless you are looking for a cultivating factor either for or against the characteristics you would already claim you possess, and are not looking for sources to compare yourself to help change the things that you would like too, and strengthen the things you think you already do well?

In other words, if people are born with dispositions, why should anyone care about anything other than who they already are?

What gets me Frank, is that all the **** the Catholic Church has got up to is bad enough, without resorting to wild allegations and exaggerations. I honestly can't see what point it serves, unless Zardoz is some sort of Jesuit double agent trying to make criticics of the Catholic Church look ridiculous. If that's the case he's succeeding.

As for all that nonsense about the Rivers of Babylon meaning something else entirely, him finally accepting he was mistaken, then backtracking and saying it was justified because he read his Gran's special Bible only issued to the Presbyterian Snake Handler's Guild or some such nonsense, I just can't take him seriously anymore.

And if he's going to quote a skate, I'll quote someone worth reading.
Anyone who believes he owns all the answers is a lunatic. William Burroughs.

I think he may only be pointing out what he sees wrong.



Is this also a skate? If so he seems like a logical skate.




I see nothing wrong with mistrusting anyone who thinks they know what's best for anyone but I see nothing wrong with someone sharing what they believe to be truth with others, "unless it is harmful to themselves or others.




This could be true but none the less a lot of what he share may have been factual.



I agree that even though I think Chris was an intellectual he got many things wrong like the rest of us.



I think that morality was one of his weak points.



I would not stereotype him as being like Chris but I guess he could have the right stuff but only he would know for sure.

http://www.ocdonline.com/articlephillipson6.php


I personally think that all of you have shared some very intellectual information on this page but don't you think that we could all be wrong about something.

I would not put someone down for trying too implement logical reasoning even if they are wrong because I think that it is because of logical reasoning we advance.