Do you respect the views of the religious?

ChocolateSauce

Malty_T wrote: »

Also, isn't it possible that because millions of people worship Jesus there is a possibility of having the name etched in some sort of Genetic Memory??
Just a theory....
Or the fact people swear J's name a lot :P
Honestly, I'm pretty sure there's a rational explanation for it

I swear Jesus's name all the time, but this is purely because I was raised in a country with Christian roots. If I'd been raised in another culture with a different religion, I'd be swearing on that. Also, genetic memory? Nope.

vibe666

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Just looking up a few stats there, and it says that sleep related hallucinations only occur during sleep deprivation, when the individual has been deprived of sleep for x amount of days (differs from person to person).

not sure where you read that, but it's totally incorrect. i have only been genuinely sleep deprived once in my life and I did not have any hallucinations at all at that time.

i do however have hallucinations every couple of months or so now, and thanks to the missus 'loving her bed' as she calls it and not sleeping properly if i'm not there, i get very regular sleep, actually too much if anything.

it's been happening for as long as i can remmeber, in different houses, in different climates, in different countries, with different people (or alone) so it's not environmental either.

you saw what you wanted to see. maybe not consciously, but your brain filled in a need for it and you lapped it up. i honestly don't see how as a steadfast atheist you could be swayed by a vision in the night.

personally, if jesus christ appeared to me out of thin air, in person, flesh and blood, in broad daylight i would spend all the time i had questioning his legitimacy every way i could to discount any other possibility. i'd want to be seeing solid miracles and getting dna samples and even then he'd have to work damn hard to convince me it wasn't a hoax.

sorry, but you were NOT an atheist, despite what you claim.

philologos

vibe666 wrote: »

personally, if jesus christ appeared to me out of thin air, in person, flesh and blood, in broad daylight i would spend all the time i had questioning his legitimacy every way i could to discount any other possibility. i'd want to be seeing solid miracles and getting dna samples and even then he'd have to work damn hard to convince me it wasn't a hoax.

sorry, but you were NOT an atheist, despite what you claim.

That sounds like you genuinely wouldn't want it to be true. You would be so desperate to refute any notion that went against your hypothesis concerning Jesus Christ.

Why don't you ever exert the same scepticism about your current position? Maybe the Christians could be right? What makes you so sure that faith is delusional?

As for wanting to see miracles, that's a little bit Pharasaic. You somehow think that you are deserving of having God perform miracles before you, and that He should do everything you want just because you say so. Sounds rather arrogant to me.

Anyhow, this doesn't prove that midlandsmissus wasn't an atheist, just that she had a conversion moment. I.E that the secular worldview made no sense to her in light of her religious experience. Indeed, the secular worldview makes very little sense to me in light of my relationship with God. Although I have to say, I've never had any form or vision of Jesus Christ at all. A lot of converts from Islamic / Hindu / Buddhist countries do.

Interesting thread all, although some of the posts took me back quite a bit :pac:

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

Sounds rather arrogant to me.

Jeez can we go one thread without someone labelling someone else arrogant.

Dave!

Dades wrote: »

Jeez can we go one thread without someone labelling someone else arrogant.

Typical arrogant atheist thing to say ! Are you Dawkins in disguise? :mad:

Dades

Only because my Emma Watson disguise was rumbled!

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

Only because my Emma Watson disguise was rumbled!

So you're saying the hot chick wont be at the next beers?
Booo.....

//methinks the word arrogant should be added to Goodwin's law.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

That sounds like you genuinely wouldn't want it to be true. You would be so desperate to refute any notion that went against your hypothesis concerning Jesus Christ.

Whether we want it to be true or not is irrelevant. The point is that it's extremely unlikely to be true. You say "You somehow think that you are deserving of having God perform miracles before you, and that He should do everything you want just because you say so. Sounds rather arrogant to me" but the whole point is we don't expect that and if it appeared to be happening there would almost certainly be another explanation, so we would look for it

vibe666

Jakkass wrote: »

As for wanting to see miracles, that's a little bit Pharasaic. You somehow think that you are deserving of having God perform miracles before you, and that He should do everything you want just because you say so. Sounds rather arrogant to me.

living up to your username again. :rolleyes:

I'll keep it as simple as I can. your god does not exist, therefore i have no want or need of a non-existent entity to do anything for me, since he isn't there.

the funny thing is, you DO believe in this all powerful non-existent entity, yet you feel the need to jump to his non-existent defence every time someone questions him. is your faith getting a little shaky there? :rolleyes:

what I meant was, 'if' someone claiming to be Jesus or god or elvis, or whatever appeared in front of me, I'd need some pretty damn convincing proof that he was who he said he was because i'd have to be completely out of my tree to just take his word for it without looking for some kind of evidence (which is kinda the whole point of atheism, believing what you can prove) now wouldn't I?

oh, sorry. definitely barking up the wrong tree there. fruitcake anyone? :rolleyes:

kiffer

midlandsmissus wrote: »

How was I 'predisposed to read non-existent religious connotations into visions', I was an athiest, from an atheist family.

um... I might be wrong and I might be confusing two people but didn't midlandmissus talk in another thread about being annoyed at her atheist mother for not letting her make her confirmation with the rest of the class?
That doesn't sound like some one with no real exposure to Christianity, not that any one could avoid Christian imagery in Ireland...

Hmmm In fact I'd better search a bit to make sure I'm not confusing midlandmissus with sukikettle or someone...

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Hiya I'd say I wanted to be catholic as a child, purely during my primary school years. And yes it would have been totally just to fit in. For the social aspect. It's not like i actually understood what they were on about (and im sure most of the other kids hadnt a clue what it was about either, it was purely a social thing, and the excitement of communion and confirmation.)

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I never ever got bullied by other kids about it, but I still definitely felt really left out at times. I was the only one in my class at primary school who didnt have communion or confirmation, and that was awful!
I remember saying to my mum once, 'I know you dont believe in it, but you should have made me catholic anyway if I'm in a place where every other person is catholic'.

You were in a choir, you mentioned arguing with priests... if you argue with people you will be exposed to their ideas... unless you are so bloody minded that you never stop to listen to what you are rebutting you will pick up details of what they believe even if it is just so you can come up with a better comeback later.
I've only had a few little hallucinations; a face (maybe Jesus? why not Odin, Tyr or Dagda?) in a tree's branches, a giant fox the size of a horse, jumbles of objects appearing briefly to be people or animals... and this has been while wide awake, during the day and not sleep deprived.
Whilst sleep deprived I've seen; movement of objects that wasn't real, believed (repeatedly) that a jellybean machine was a person (I'd strung together a few all-nighters at this point), various audio hallucinations, banging, knocking, explosions, music, screaming, doorbells and probably more, sleep dep also messes up your memory a bit.
I've also suffered from sleep paralysis mostly as a child but a few times while an adult... *shudder*...


tl;dr? Minor hallucinations are common, the spin we put on them depends on the individual and recent events in ones life. Generally believers put them into the context of their religion, non-believers put them in to what ever context they feel makes sense at the the time; aliens, Jesus or what ever fits the bill (or "oh crap another hallucination")

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

Why don't you ever exert the same scepticism about your current position? Maybe the Christians could be right? What makes you so sure that faith is delusional?

When a sceptic says "Well maybe it was X, Y or Z..." where x, y and z are naturalistic explanations for something unusual, please bear in mind that he doesn't necessarily believe that it was any of those, simply that any of those are far more likely than personal intervention from the supernatural master of the universe. Any naturalistic explanation, however convoluted, is still a better explanation than saying "a wizard did it". I mean "Jehovah did it".

Incidentally this is also true for fiction as well! Just in case you're ever writing a screenplay...

As for the whole arrogant thing, here's a revelation: I'm arrogant, and I'm right, and you're wrong. Being arrogant in no way renders one's point inert, it is an entirely meaningless strawman.

I propose the new Godwin be called "The Jakkass Clause".

Zillah

kiffer wrote: »

um... I might be wrong and I might be confusing two people but didn't midlandmissus talk in another thread about being annoyed at her atheist mother for not letting her make her confirmation with the rest of the class?

Ta da!

midlandsmissus wrote:

I never ever got bullied by other kids about it, but I still definitely felt really left out at times. I was the only one in my class at primary school who didnt have communion or confirmation, and that was awful!
I remember saying to my mum once, 'I know you dont believe in it, but you should have made me catholic anyway if I'm in a place where every other person is catholic'.

Curious indeed!

vibe666

like i said, some people NEED religion.

i stand by my previous assertion that you were a crappy atheist (sorry but it's true, you didn't want to be an atheist by your own admission) and a bad example of an atheist to christian convert.

you saw what you wanted to see, end of story.

or you made the whole thing up to try and make a point.

this is the internet after all. :rolleyes:

ChocolateSauce

Jakkass, in a way you (and every believing theist) are also arrogant. Such people believe that their view is right, meaning that by extension everyone in the world who disagrees with you on that subject is wrong. We're just more vocal about it.

If one doesn't feel this way, they're agnostic.

kiffer

Zillah wrote: »

Ta da!



Curious indeed!

Ta Da?! I already found and linked to the posts from that thread... you're stealing my thunder...

Zillah

kiffer wrote: »

Ta Da?! I already found and linked to the posts from that thread... you're stealing my thunder...

Er, where?

kiffer

Zillah wrote: »

Er, where?

Top right of the quote box is a little image ... it links to the post that the quote is from.

Zillah

kiffer wrote: »

Top right of the quote box is a little image ... it links to the post that the quote is from.

Haha, oh God, I didn't read the rest of your post. I assumed those quotes were part of the current discussion. Sorry

philologos

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Jakkass, in a way you (and every believing theist) are also arrogant. Such people believe that their view is right, meaning that by extension everyone in the world who disagrees with you on that subject is wrong. We're just more vocal about it.

If one doesn't feel this way, they're agnostic.

So let's see, if we assess Mena. Is saying "you take nothing a theist seriously" in any way reasonable? I really strain to see how. I don't think I've ever heard any Christian say that on boards.ie concerning atheists.

However, you are correct in saying that I think Christianity is correct, and that atheism is incorrect. I don't think I am any less vocal than you about putting it forward either. However I think it has to do more with the gravity of what is said. Mena is a perfect example of this.

There is also something peculiar about thinking that one is worthy to demand things from the highest being that has ever existed. God will do as God wills, not as mankind demands. If God did what mankind demanded of Him all of the time, God would no longer be God, but He would be the puppet of mankind. This is why I think vibe666's criticism of midlandsmissus is just plain absurd.

Zillah wrote: »

I propose the new Godwin be called "The Jakkass Clause".

I'm touched. I propose the Mena clause, I.E the fallacious viewpoint that rejects anything that someone says merely because they have different beliefs, irrespective of how correct it is.

kiffer

Zillah wrote: »

Haha, oh God, I didn't read the rest of your post. I assumed those quotes were part of the current discussion. Sorry

No noes!!!! you're one of them! :eek:

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

There is also something peculiar about thinking that one is worthy to demand things from the highest being that has ever existed. God will do as God wills, not as mankind demands. If God did what mankind demanded of Him all of the time, God would no longer be God, but He would be the puppet of mankind. This is why I think vibe666's criticism of midlandsmissus is just plain absurd.

You can't demand something from somebody you don't think exists and if somebody told you he was Jesus you would be asking him to prove it because you don't think he is so you would not be making demands of God.

Besides which, it's perfectly reasonable to demand that someone prove that they are who they say they are when being who they say they are is incredibly unlikely and if the request was refused and the claimant still expected belief he would be making a virtue out of credulity and punishing rational inquiry. If anything God should applaud our refusal to believe that someone is him just because he says he is

ChocolateSauce

Jakkass wrote: »

So let's see, if we assess Mena. Is saying "you take nothing a theist seriously" in any way reasonable? I really strain to see how. I don't think I've ever heard any Christian say that on boards.ie concerning atheists.

I haven't really read the whole thread, I just glanced the topic of arrogance and my comment was meant to be stand-alone and not in reference to another's. I don't think anyone should say that (though Mena may have meant nothing to do with a specific topic. I wouldn't take anything a creationist said about evolution seriously, for example). There are certainly people who I can't take seriously, and views, but I would agree it is unreasonable to take nothing a theist says seriously by default.

However, you are correct in saying that I think Christianity is correct, and that atheism is incorrect. I don't think I am any less vocal than you about putting it forward either. However I think it has to do more with the gravity of what is said. Mena is a perfect example of this.

To be fair, I think you are less upfront about it than me (less of an asshole, in other words). I haven't seen you say "your belief is stupid" or some such thing.

There is also something peculiar about thinking that one is worthy to demand things from the highest being that has ever existed. God will do as God wills, not as mankind demands. If God did what mankind demanded of Him all of the time, God would no longer be God, but He would be the puppet of mankind.

My observation exactly that the gods of men do as man wills. After all, in every case hasn't it been a human being that brings divine "revelation"?

vibe666

Jakkass wrote: »

This is why I think vibe666's criticism of midlandsmissus is just plain absurd.

that's excellent news because actually I AM your god, jesus AND elvis and this was all a big test of your faith.

since I am your creator and you will willingly and unquestionably take me at my word without question or the burden of proof, I'd like to hear you start praying to me now, thanks very much.

don't worry, i'll make it worth your while in the afterlife, 72 virgins and all that. oh no, wait, that's what I promised to the other lot.

scratch that last bit, you'll just get to sit on a cloud by my side playing a harp. assuming you're going to be any good at it obviously, can't just have you strumming away at it if you're crap.

are you praying to me yet?

Sam Vimes

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I
To be fair, I think you are less upfront about it than me (less of an asshole, in other words). I haven't seen you say "your belief is stupid" or some such thing.

I wouldn't agree with that tbh. he said "You somehow think that you are deserving of having God perform miracles before you, and that He should do everything you want just because you say so" and then said we are arrogant for holding that position. Saying "your belief is stupid" and saying "your belief is arrogant" is pretty much the same in terms of 'upfrontness'. The fact that we don't actually hold that position doesn't change the fact that he called us arrogant for holding it, although it would explain why you would overlook it when making your judgment.

What he said was actually worse than saying "your belief is stupid" because at least when an atheist says that he/she is generally describing beliefs the person actually holds and not beliefs that they don't hold but that we have accused them of holding because we like to think they're wrong

MrPudding

My view on this has changed considerably over the time I have been reading this and the other forum. At the begining I thought the whole religion thing was ok. I did not believe it but what harm could it do? I did not nessecarily respect the beliefs but appreciated that people were entitle to them. However, as I read boards and the various books it has lead to my view has changed considerably. I now believe the religious deserve no more, in fact possibly less, respect than alien abduction and flat earth nuts. The beliefs are redicu
lous and should be rideculed. Neither the beliefs or the people holding them deserve respect, though they seem to feel they are somehow entitled to it. Further, I am begining to wonder why we should even respect peoples right to hold these views.

MrP

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with that tbh. he said "You somehow think that you are deserving of having God perform miracles before you, and that He should do everything you want just because you say so" and then said we are arrogant for holding that position. Saying "your belief is stupid" and saying "your belief is arrogant" is pretty much the same in terms of 'upfrontness'. The fact that we don't actually hold that position doesn't change the fact that he called us arrogant for holding it, although it would explain why you would overlook it when making your judgment.

What he said was actually worse than saying "your belief is stupid" because at least when an atheist says that he/she is generally describing beliefs the person actually holds and not beliefs that they don't hold but that we have accused them of holding because we like to think they're wrong

Strawman argument.

I don't think any human is deserving of demanding anything from God given our sinful nature, and what we have done.

To think that we are deserving of demanding from God, we have to think that we are somewhat on a level playing field to God. I don't think that. Therefore my point is as it stands.

My point wasn't a special case for unbelievers, it applies to anyone. I think it is a haughty and arrogant view to demand things from God as if you have some form of right to do so.

vibe666 does hold the view that he has the right to demand miracles from God:

vibe666 wrote:

personally, if jesus christ appeared to me out of thin air, in person, flesh and blood, in broad daylight i would spend all the time i had questioning his legitimacy every way i could to discount any other possibility. i'd want to be seeing solid miracles and getting dna samples and even then he'd have to work damn hard to convince me it wasn't a hoax.

I think it is perfectly understandable that God wouldn't have anything to do with such a haughty and arrogant attitude.

Personally, I'd understand the view that if one doesn't want to humble oneself to find God, that is entirely your choice and choices come with consequences. If one humbles themselves before God, one will be exalted. If one exalts oneself before God, one will be humbled.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Strawman argument.

I see we're playing wheel o' logical fallacy again

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think any human is deserving of demanding anything from God given our sinful nature, and what we have done.

Neither do we. We don't think God exists. Asking someone to prove it when they say they're God is not demanding something of God, it's disbelieving the claim of someone who says they're God and asking them to prove it with the expectation that they can't. As vibe666 points out when he says he's God, it's mostly quite advisable to disbelieve someone when they say they're God. Unless you believe him? And if not are you not demanding proof from God? Should you not accept everything he says without demanding further proof because he has said he is God?

philologos

Sam: You mightn't. vibe666 has made it rather clear that he does from his post.

Speaking for all atheists when you are speaking about your own views is fundamentally unhelpful in a discussion.

vibe666

Jakkass wrote: »

vibe666 does hold the view that he has the right to demand miracles from God:

I think it is perfectly understandable that God wouldn't have anything to do with such a haughty and arrogant attitude.

NO, perfectly reasonable attitude from someone who knows that your imaginary god does not exist.

just to clarify: I do not demand anything from your non-existent god.

repeating the same irrelevant statement isn't going to make it the truth.

i do not believe in your imaginary sky wizard, therefore I do not, cannot and will not demand anything of him because he isn't there.

the reason that someone would have to work hard to convince me they were god is because as an ATHEIST i know he does not exist. the tooth fairy and santa claus would have to work equally hard to convince me too, BECAUSE NONE OF THEM EXIST.

therefore, i know that anyone claiming to be him would have to be a total fruitcake, something with your unquestioning belief does not.

none of this requires any arrogance, just a reasonable level of education, an open mind and a modicum of common sense. :rolleyes:

now, on a more serious note, I still don't hear you praying to me yet and I'm starting to doubt your faith in me as your eternal creator, so you're going to have to step up your game in order to stop me from smiting you with a bolt of holy lightening.

Sam Vimes

vibe666 wrote: »

i do not believe in your imaginary sky wizard, therefore I do not, cannot and will not demand anything of him because he isn't there.

I think that deals with the accusation of speaking for others fairly adequately

Dades

vibe666 wrote: »

none of this requires any arrogance, just a reasonable level of education, an open mind and a modicum of common sense. :rolleyes:

This kinda comment doesn't really help your cause, tbh.

philologos

vibe666 wrote: »

NO, perfectly reasonable attitude from someone who knows that your imaginary god does not exist.

Interesting. Quite a strong claim. I would say that you believe that my "imaginary" God doesn't exist in a similar fashion to my belief that God does exist. It has no more value whatsoever. Both are unfalsifiable claims.

vibe666 wrote: »

just to clarify: I do not demand anything from your non-existent god.

Read above concerning non-existence.

As for not demanding. That's fair enough. Your post says that if you ever did come into contact with a higher power you would demand of it as if it were on the same level as you are.

vibe666 wrote: »

repeating the same irrelevant statement isn't going to make it the truth.

It was perfectly relevant to your post.

vibe666 wrote: »

i do not believe in your imaginary sky wizard God, therefore I do not, cannot and will not demand anything of him because he isn't there.

We can do this without the meaningless rhetoric.

vibe666 wrote: »

the reason that someone would have to work hard to convince me they were god is because as an ATHEIST i know he does not exist. the tooth fairy and santa claus would have to work equally hard to convince me too, BECAUSE NONE OF THEM EXIST.

Yes, but claiming that midlandsmissus was never an atheist because she wasn't the exact same as you are is a bit ridiculous.

As for none of them existing, this is mere belief.

vibe666 wrote: »

therefore, i know that anyone claiming to be him would have to be a total fruitcake, something with your unquestioning belief does not.

Who says my belief is unquestioning? It's something I've spent the last few years (nearly 3) thinking about. Before this point it wasn't really something I gave all that much time to.

vibe666 wrote: »

none of this requires any arrogance, just a reasonable level of education, an open mind and a modicum of common sense. :rolleyes:

As for a reasonable level of education, many Christians are reasonably educated. Infact I'd say most of the people in my church congregation excluding children and teenagers have a university degree of some form. Research in the US and Australia has also indicated that people who attend church regularly have a higher rate of educational attainment than those who do not.

Your post demonstrates arrogance and condescension to people who merely think differently than you. However, I won't digress.

vibe666 wrote: »

now, on a more serious note, I still don't hear you praying to me yet and I'm starting to doubt your faith in me as your eternal creator, so you're going to have to step up your game in order to stop me from smiting you with a bolt of holy lightening.

This is what I find arrogant and condescending. Unless you leave such meaningless and petty rhetoric out of the discussion we won't be getting anywhere.

ChocolateSauce

jakkass wrote:

I don't think any human is deserving of demanding anything from God given our sinful nature, and what we have done.

Why not? If god existed, I'd at least demand an answer for why he created us so sinful and then punished us for being how he made us.

A far more reasonable explanation is that he isn't real, and the human race is how we are for natural reasons.

Sam Vines wrote:

I wouldn't agree with that tbh. he said "You somehow think that you are deserving of having God perform miracles before you, and that He should do everything you want just because you say so" and then said we are arrogant for holding that position. Saying "your belief is stupid" and saying "your belief is arrogant" is pretty much the same in terms of 'upfrontness'. The fact that we don't actually hold that position doesn't change the fact that he called us arrogant for holding it, although it would explain why you would overlook it when making your judgment.

What he said was actually worse than saying "your belief is stupid" because at least when an atheist says that he/she is generally describing beliefs the person actually holds and not beliefs that they don't hold but that we have accused them of holding because we like to think they're wrong

Darn you, driving me to go read pages and pages of back thread! But I think I probably should have done that before posting yesterday...

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think that deals with the accusation of speaking for others fairly adequately

Losing the habit would still be helpful. Speak for yourself, if I am referring to another persons views, it's more reasonable that they respond for themselves.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think any human is deserving of demanding anything from God given our sinful nature, and what we have done.

I know this is off topic or maybe its not but this where I get confused about how theists such as yourself don't see the massive hole in the logic of your creastion story. Or maybe you just through out logic? What have we done that a God who created us the universe and everything that he could not have forseen in which he feels the need to basically punish us? God created us with a sinful nature or else he is not a god but a fallible designer? In a system where we have no control over our design but is completely up to the designer and in which the designer knows everything, every possibility how could we be anything other than what we are designed to be? Is there a little bit of a paradox going on there? In that system humans haven't done anything because the god you believe in did everything or else he's not a god, at least not one worthy of the whorship you waste so much of your energy giving him.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Losing the habit would still be helpful. Speak for yourself, if I am referring to another persons views, it's more reasonable that they respond for themselves.

If you have misunderstood his position, as you did in this case, I see no reason why I shouldn't clarify it, if only to support him. Your accusation of "speaking for all atheists when I am speaking of my own views" was bogus because the views I was expressing were the same as his. I knew they were because I had read his posts, unlike you who misinterpreted his posts

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you have misunderstood his position, as you did in this case, I see no reason why I shouldn't clarify it, if only to support him. Your accusation of "speaking for all atheists when I am speaking of my own views" was bogus because the views I was expressing were the same as his. I knew they were because I had read his posts, unlike you who misinterpreted his posts

I can discern this from waiting and reading the reply straight from the person I am discussing with. It's fine if you offer your own opinion, but it is a bit presumptuous to offer someone elses opinion when they themselves haven't even posted yet. It's bad form IMO.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I can discern this from waiting and reading the reply straight from the person I am discussing with. It's fine if you offer your own opinion, but it is a bit presumptuous to offer someone elses opinion when they themselves haven't even posted yet. It's bad form IMO.

The point is he had posted it but you had misunderstood it. I was reiterating his opinion, not presuming it

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

God will do as God wills, not as mankind demands. If God did what mankind demanded of Him all of the time, God would no longer be God, but He would be the puppet of mankind.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think any human is deserving of demanding anything from God given our sinful nature, and what we have done.

There is something strangely at odds with telling someone they can't speak for all atheists while speaking for God & the human race...

Sam Vimes

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There is something strangely at odds with telling someone they can't speak for all atheists while speaking for God & the human race...

Especially when the only thing I said is that an atheist cannot be demanding something of God because he doesn't think he exists and that there is a difference between demanding proof from God and demanding proof from someone who claims to be God. The only thing I said about "all atheists" is that they don't believe in God which is fair enough I think

vibe666

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Especially when the only thing I said is that an atheist cannot be demanding something of God because he doesn't think he exists and that there is a difference between demanding proof from God and demanding proof from someone who claims to be God. The only thing I said about "all atheists" is that they don't believe in God which is fair enough I think

thank you, that was exactly the point i was trying to make.

that, and that I STILL don't hear any praying (since I don't need to offer any proof of my divinity for you to believe in me).

midlandsmissus

Zillah wrote: »

Ta da!



Curious indeed!

Zillah,

What has that post of mine got to do with anything?

I believe it was posted in a thread entitled 'Your views and your children' where we were talking about how your views could affect your potential future children.
I said that I felt left out at times as a child because I was on my own during religion ,and I was the only non-catholic in my primary school. It didn't affect me badly but I did feel left out at times. I would have wanted to be a catholic sometimes, just because everybody else was one, but I would have had no idea of what a Catholic actually was.

midlandsmissus

vibe666 wrote: »

not sure where you read that, but it's totally incorrect. i have only been genuinely sleep deprived once in my life and I did not have any hallucinations at all at that time.

i do however have hallucinations every couple of months or so now, and thanks to the missus 'loving her bed' as she calls it and not sleeping properly if i'm not there, i get very regular sleep, actually too much if anything.

it's been happening for as long as i can remmeber, in different houses, in different climates, in different countries, with different people (or alone) so it's not environmental either.

you saw what you wanted to see. maybe not consciously, but your brain filled in a need for it and you lapped it up. i honestly don't see how as a steadfast atheist you could be swayed by a vision in the night.

personally, if jesus christ appeared to me out of thin air, in person, flesh and blood, in broad daylight i would spend all the time i had questioning his legitimacy every way i could to discount any other possibility. i'd want to be seeing solid miracles and getting dna samples and even then he'd have to work damn hard to convince me it wasn't a hoax.

sorry, but you were NOT an atheist, despite what you claim.

WE differ there, as you state that you hallucinate all the tiime, and I have never 'hallucinated' before or since.

That last sentence is arrogant in the extreme 'you were NOT an atheist, despite what you claim'.

I was an atheist for 22 years, I argued with everybody about God and the bible, I dismissed it all as rubbish, sorry I am not up to your atheist 'standards',which are what exactly?

midlandsmissus

vibe666 wrote: »

NO, perfectly reasonable attitude from someone who knows that your imaginary god does not exist.

just to clarify: I do not demand anything from your non-existent god.

repeating the same irrelevant statement isn't going to make it the truth.

i do not believe in your imaginary sky wizard, therefore I do not, cannot and will not demand anything of him because he isn't there.

the reason that someone would have to work hard to convince me they were god is because as an ATHEIST i know he does not exist. the tooth fairy and santa claus would have to work equally hard to convince me too, BECAUSE NONE OF THEM EXIST.

therefore, i know that anyone claiming to be him would have to be a total fruitcake, something with your unquestioning belief does not.

none of this requires any arrogance, just a reasonable level of education, an open mind and a modicum of common sense. :rolleyes:

now, on a more serious note, I still don't hear you praying to me yet and I'm starting to doubt your faith in me as your eternal creator, so you're going to have to step up your game in order to stop me from smiting you with a bolt of holy lightening.

'Just a reasonable level of education' You don't think that's arrogant? I have a 1.1 degree, I do a lot of research in a lot of different areas....and I'm not an atheist.

Turtwig

midlandsmissus wrote: »

'Just a reasonable level of education' You don't think that's arrogant? I have a 1.1 degree, I do a lot of research in a lot of different areas....and I'm not an atheist.

No not in the slightest. IF someone doesn't have any education then how do you think they'll explain things?
Explain how the earth is round?
Explain why the sun 'rises'?
Without some education...

philologos

midlandsmissus wrote: »

'Just a reasonable level of education' You don't think that's arrogant? I have a 1.1 degree, I do a lot of research in a lot of different areas....and I'm not an atheist.

This is ultimately where the deck of cards falls down for the anti-theist if they are to say that people of faith are less intelligent than people who are atheists. The difficulty arises when one finds intelligent people of faith throughout history, and in the present.

The other deck of cards falls down when one claims that atheism has a monopoly on science. It takes a quick investigation to see the amount of work that Christians, Muslims and countless others of faith have put into science both in history, and in the present.

This claim is quite frankly non-sensical. If anything is a delusion, it is to think that people are more intelligent merely for the fact that they have dismissed the notion that God exists.

Anti-theists will continue to spout this kind of material on and off. It is merely a testament to mere arrogance rather than anything of substance.

People of faith are not going to go away, we should learn how to deal with people who differ with us rather than resorting to mere slander.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

This is ultimately where the deck of cards falls down for the anti-theist if they are to say that people of faith are less intelligent than people who are atheists. The difficulty arises when one finds intelligent people of faith throughout history, and in the present.

The other deck of cards falls down when one claims that atheism has a monopoly on science. It takes a quick investigation to see the amount of work that Christians, Muslims and countless others of faith have put into science both in history, and in the present.

This claim is quite frankly non-sensical. If anything is a delusion, it is to think that people are more intelligent merely for the fact that they have dismissed the notion that God exists.

Anti-theists will continue to spout this kind of material on and off. It is merely a testament to mere arrogance rather than anything of substance.

People of faith are not going to go away, we should learn how to deal with people who differ with us rather than resorting to mere slander.

Intelligence is nothing, emotion and empathy is everything.:)

Seriously, though who has actually been hairbrained enough to suggest that atheists are superior intellectually?

Eulick D

Science flies people to the moon.
Religion flies people into buildings.

ChocolateSauce

Jakkass wrote: »

This is ultimately where the deck of cards falls down for the anti-theist if they are to say that people of faith are less intelligent than people who are atheists. The difficulty arises when one finds intelligent people of faith throughout history, and in the present.

The other deck of cards falls down when one claims that atheism has a monopoly on science. It takes a quick investigation to see the amount of work that Christians, Muslims and countless others of faith have put into science both in history, and in the present.

This claim is quite frankly non-sensical. If anything is a delusion, it is to think that people are more intelligent merely for the fact that they have dismissed the notion that God exists.

Anti-theists will continue to spout this kind of material on and off. It is merely a testament to mere arrogance rather than anything of substance.

People of faith are not going to go away, we should learn how to deal with people who differ with us rather than resorting to mere slander.

Not going to get into religion here (for once!), but can you name a single scientific discovery that owes itself to religion? That is not to say anything about the faith of the scientist, but did they use their religion to further the science? I think you'll find that even the most religious scientist used secular thought and experiment to do their science.

Science is a method of doing something, a method which is by definition without a god.

Turtwig

Eulick D wrote: »

Science flies people to the moon.

Why then was the first manned orbit of the moon described in terms of genesis?
Gotta say it was partially religiously motivated..