kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 10:00 pm
young_thinker wrote:
KickyCan, telling me that Jesus will save me in a moment of utter agony I consider preaching. Shocked


Yes, it would be, if that's what I had said. You may want to go back and read that post again. It sounds like you only read the first part.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 10:02 pm
Ah, I see Momma Angel has beaten me to the punch on that one.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 10:02 pm
kickycan wrote:
Ah, I see Momma Angel has beaten me to the punch on that one.

No problem, big guy. Happy to help!
0 Replies
 
youngthinker
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 10:07 pm
**Slaps self on forehead (hard)**

Well I'm dumb. Totally got it now.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 10:11 pm
Intrepid wrote:
After all is said and done, what was the original point and purpose of what Fresco wrote?


I believe it was to draw a distinction between theism and atheism and showing why atheism was preferrable in terms of preventing armed conflict. Maybe I'm wrong and he will correct this assumption.

(He also stated that mankind cannot account for the origins of science which is puzzling).

I posted links disputing it...showing the numbers who killed in wars and there beliefs.

The link provides a study that shows.....all of mankind of all races, religions, languages, creeds etc. Have all spilled blood against one another. Even those within the same groups do so. Including atheists which for their small numbers....killed far more by comparison.

I believe the causes of war are common to all men and not exclusionary.

I also believe the solution is the same for all men as the word of God testifies.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 10:18 pm
young_thinker wrote:
**Slaps self on forehead (hard)**

Well I'm dumb. Totally got it now.


That's okay. You can make up for it by acknowledging me as your savior and worshipping me without question. :wink:
0 Replies
 
youngthinker
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 11:02 pm
KickyCanism-the world's newest religion! All HAIL OUR LORD AND SAVOIR!!!!
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 11:06 pm
Excellent, my young protege. Now, go make me a sandwich.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 11:21 pm
Words of Mother Theresa.

I pray that you will understand the words of Jesus, "Love one another as I have loved you." Ask yourself "How has he loved me? Do I really love others in the same way?" Unless this love is among us, we can kill ourselves with work and it will only be work, not love. Work without love is slavery.

http://www.ewtn.com/motherteresa/words.htm

I'm not even catholic and this woman's life has been a blessing to me.
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 12:16 am
kickycan wrote:
Bartikus, I'm too tired to give it much thought right now, so I'll just have to get back to you on that when my brain starts functioning normally again.


Must be the.....nevermind.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 12:25 am
Intrepid wrote:
J_B wrote:
That's entirely possible, intrepid. This topic is a little deeper than I usually venture, but I hear what fresco is saying.


Let me try this. If the folks in question that fly the plane into the building do not believe in an afterlife. They believe in satanism. Does that mean that every person that believes in satanism is in support of those flying the planes?

If you disagree.... tell me how that is different from those who believe in an afterlife are any differently being accused of being associated with radicals who believe in an afterlife flying planes into buildings.

Your definition of Satanism is completely incorrect.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 12:37 am
Doktor S wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
J_B wrote:
That's entirely possible, intrepid. This topic is a little deeper than I usually venture, but I hear what fresco is saying.


Let me try this. If the folks in question that fly the plane into the building do not believe in an afterlife. They believe in satanism. Does that mean that every person that believes in satanism is in support of those flying the planes?

If you disagree.... tell me how that is different from those who believe in an afterlife are any differently being accused of being associated with radicals who believe in an afterlife flying planes into buildings.

Your definition of Satanism is completely incorrect.


That is fine, but perhaps you could provide a correction
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 12:49 am
Satanism is a codified religion, complete with dogma philosophy and tenets.
What it is certainly not is 'anything that isn't christianity'
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 12:50 am
Doktor S wrote:
Satanism is a codified religion, complete with dogma philosophy and tenets.
What it is certainly not is 'anything that isn't christianity'


and how did I define it?
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 12:52 am
Oh..my mistake. I seem to have misread your post.
Ok then, to correctly answer your initial question...
Self preservation is the highest law of Satanism, so those people weren't Satanists to begin with.
Try a more feasible example.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 02:06 am
Fine... replace the word satanism with anything else and the premise is the same.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 02:39 am
To all,

I see in my absence you have had a debate on "guilt by association". This is in fact part of Sam Harris's thesis although to be fair the migitating circumstances for "addicts" is that non-addicts may not be able to hold them totally responsible for their "in-action".

Of course thesists will say "I don't buy that "! Who would willingly want to give up a potential "jackpot payout" ? Harris's point is that times have changed. The stakes for holding such irrational beliefs are that fringe individuals can now destroy multitudes, and key individuals can do even worse. When George Bush cites "God" as part of his rationality for invading Iraq who can argue with him ? ....not YOU if you are a "believer" !

Theists need to wake up ! Atheists are sick of being victims of "passive smoking".
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 02:41 am
fresco wrote:
To all,

I see in my absence you have had a debate on "guilt by association". This is in fact part of Sam Harris's thesis although to be fair the migitating circumstances for "addicts" is that non-addicts may not be able to hold them totally responsible for their "in-action".

Of course thesists will say "I don't buy that "! Who would willingly want to give up a potential "jackpot payout" ? Harris's point is that times have changed. The stakes for holding such irrational beliefs are that fringe individuals can now destroy multitudes, and key individuals can do even worse. When George Bush cites "God" as part of his rationality for invading Iraq who can argue with him ? ....not YOU if you are a "believer" !

Theists need to wake up ! Atheists are sick of being victims of "passive smoking".

Shocked You have got to be kidding?!
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 02:43 am
Shocked I don't think he is.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 02:45 am
Read Harris !

http://www.samharris.org/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » I'm an aethist....
  3. » Page 13
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 03:50:42