"no, I'm actually an athiest"

prinz

optogirl wrote: »

Cool - why don't we discuss stuff like, dressing children up in white dresses as little brides of christ when they are far too young to understand what is happening...

Two points on this (a) the little white wedding dresses are usually the fault of the idiotic parents who want to repeat some sort of cultural thing. There is no requirement whatsoever for candidates for first communion to be wearing a white dress from the religious side, and (b) the sacraments are rushed through at far too young an age in the Irish RCC IMO. So we don't disagree there.

Sam Vimes

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And I don't see why it's such a big deal to bring him into to it tbh.

I'm not sure what you mean...

strobe

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Actually what it says to me is each to their own

But you don't really believe that Audrey do you? "Each to their own" I mean. You have 233 posts in the A&A forum. Which is all well and good, I like your posts over there even if I rarely agree with you.

But how do you reconcile coming into a forum for Atheists and making that volume of posts, with an "each to their own" philosophy? That seems more to me like you actually believe we should keep our opinions to ourselves but you should be free to give your opinions to us. It's a little inconsistent.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Don't start that again please!!!!!

Start what? Quoting the bible? Is that reserved to believers now?

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

What do you think the church thinks baptism is?

A celebration of new life for the parents and friends of the new baby.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Nuns....grown women who have made a concious descision to become nuns, not as you suggest little girls who are forced into it.

The term is also used to describe little girls in their white communion dresses.

I have to say I'm amazed you never heard it before.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

A celebration of new life for the parents and friends of the new baby.

The church would disagree with you there, I'm sorry.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It really wasn't meant to be insulting or offensive. Perhaps it's more that you're easily offended than that people are deliberately being offensive?

Really, so you went to the bother of linking the Wikipedia article, why?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes absolutely I do. I also think there's a difference between telling your children you vote for Labour, with reasons why, and telling them that you believe that if they don't follow the religion you believe in they will go to hell. you can't deny that that is one of the fundamental beliefs of christianity

Actually it isn't. It is not a fundamental belief of Chrisitans that only certain people will go up or down.

AudreyHepburn

strobe wrote: »

But you don't really believe that Audrey do you? "Each to their own" I mean. You have 233 posts in the A&A forum. Which is all well and good, I like your posts over there even if I rarely agree with you.

But how do you reconcile coming into a forum for Atheists and making that volume of posts, with an "each to their own" philosophy? That seems more to me like you actually believe we should keep our opinions to ourselves but you should be free to give your opinions to us.

Yes actually I do really honestly truely believe that. I post in A&A because I enjoy the debate.

I have never once asked anyone to keep an opinion to themselves, I argue against that all the time.

optogirl

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Nuns....grown women who have made a concious descision to become nuns, not as you suggest little girls who are forced into it.

I didn't say anything of the kind. I said little girls are made to dress up like little brides of christ. And they pretty much are forced into it - show me the seven year old who knows exactly what is happening on communion day (apart from getting a wad of cash of course)

Marcus.Aurelius

Nobody has thus far considered the alternatives to Prof. Dawkins as religious people's perceived "spokesman" for atheism.

Chris Hitchens is far more reaching in his condemnation of religious belief of any kind. Sam Harris is a fine writer, but as a speaker he comes across (to me at least) as too timid and lacks experience as an orator.

There are others that have been prominent, but none so well spoken and considered in their response as Dawkins. There is no spokesperson for atheism, nobody elected or appointed Dawkins or anyone else as such.

genericguy

if we atheists are wrong, we'll be the ones running heaven anyway, because a sheep without logic is not management material.
and sickener for all ye proponents of the catholic rape ring if hinduism proves to the correct religion.

i'm done attempting rational argument with the soldiers of christ, because they are devoid of reason, and have no defence other than "but it's my belief" to any argument presented to them.

anyways, safe premarital fucking for the win.

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

The term is also used to describe little girls in their white communion dresses.

I have to say I'm amazed you never heard it before.

Well that's not what anyone I know who has made communion is ever taught tbh.

Shenshen wrote: »

Start what? Quoting the bible? Is that reserved to believers now?

No you made a comment on that fact that I disagree with a biblical teaching. I'm not getting into all that what I do and don't believe stuff again.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

Really, so you went to the bother of linking the Wikipedia article, why?

To back up my argument by showing the arguing technique I was using. you said "Yes, that's it. Go to the outermost extremes to try to find a loophole" so I pointed out that this is a perfectly valid form of argumentation called reductio ad absurdum and to further back up my point (and in case you hadn't heard of it) I referenced it

prinz wrote: »

Actually it isn't. It is not a fundamental belief of Chrisitans that only certain people will go up or down.

From the book of John:
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g]

Seems pretty conclusive to me......

kylith

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And since does anyone tell a child that they are born sinners and only a priest can take it away. I've never once heard or told a child anything like that?

Were you out the day that original sin was covered because that's what that is? I distinctly remember the nuns going on about it.

AudreyHepburn

optogirl wrote: »

I didn't say anything of the kind. I said little girls are made to dress up like little brides of christ. And they pretty much are forced into it - show me the seven year old who knows exactly what is happening on communion day (apart from getting a wad of cash of course)

Show me a little girl who doesn't love getting all dressed up on her communion day.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Well that's not what anyone I know who has made communion is ever taught tbh.

I would suggest you actually read up on what the church teaches.... if you still want to declare yourself part of it after that, fair enough. But to deny that it teaches what it plainly does just because you never heard of it is not helping your credibility.
And I include the teachings on original sin and baptism in that.

No you made a comment on that fact that I disagree with a biblical teaching. I'm not getting into all that what I do and don't believe stuff again.

See above please....

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

I would suggest you actually read up on what the church teaches.... if you still want to declare yourself part of it after that, fair enough. But to deny that it teaches what it plainly does just because you never heard of it is not helping your credibility.
And I include the teachings on original sin and baptism in that.



See above please....

Like I said not getting into that so move on please.

Marcus.Aurelius

genericguy wrote: »

if we atheists are wrong, we'll be the ones running heaven anyway, because a sheep without logic is not management material.
and sickener for all ye proponents of the catholic rape ring if hinduism proves to the correct religion.

i'm done attempting rational argument with the soldiers of christ, because they are devoid of reason, and have no defence other than "but it's my belief" to any argument presented to them.

anyways, safe premarital fucking for the win.

Only a matter of time before a post like this arrived. :pac:

Scanlas The 2nd

Bookworm85 wrote: »

Again, apologies. I'm not very good at getting a point across in my writing

I'm not trying to say that atheists 'aspire' to be him, but to theists it certainly appears that Richard Dawkins is the spokesperson for the atheist community, and I don't like that.

The main thing about Dawkins that annoys me is his belief that religious people are deluded or have some sort of mental problem is atrocious. I come from a religious family both my parents are believers in the God, but I suppose they would be 'a la carte' believers. They believe in God, Jesus, afterlife etc. Are they mentally unstable? - heck no. They are the ones who raised me, and encouraged me to form my own opinions and to form my own beliefs etc. To suggest that the two people I have the utmost admiration and respect for are deluded crazies really annoys me.

And for others (non theists) to think that as an atheist I hang on Dawkins' every word pisses me off big time. The media has portrayed him as the poster child for atheism, and therefore his opinions are the opinions of all atheists.

I don't think he's calling your parents deluded crazies or that they are bad people, or anything of the sort. He's just saying he believes that on the particular point of religion they happen to be wrong, ( being wrong doesn't make you a lesser person) he's not saying that they aren't competent people in generel in life and I don't know where you got the idea that he thinks they are mentally unstable.

sponsoredwalk

Where's Outlaw Pete since (s)he was demolished in that monster post earlier? :D:pac::D:cool:

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Like I said not getting into that so move on please.

Move on from where?
You are the one proclaiming falsities about church teachings in place of arguments against atheism.

Galvasean

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

A celebration of new life for the parents and friends of the new baby.

Are you being purposely naive?
It's about welcoming the new baby into the Catholic religion.

robindch

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Show me a little girl who doesn't love getting all dressed up on her communion day.

And what's dressing up got to do with baby Jesus?

Jesus preached poverty and not displaying one's religious alignment in public:

Matthew 6:5 wrote:

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

Why do christians keep on ignoring what Jesus said?

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

Move on from where?
You are the one proclaiming falsities about church teachings in place of arguments against atheism.

You know where. I've gotten into trouble argue about what I do or don't believe on other threads and I don't want to get into all that again.

Please Shenshen just leave it.

Shenshen

Galvasean wrote: »

Are you being purposely naive?
It's about welcoming the new baby into the Catholic religion.

Mostly, it's about removing the original sin.
Sort of giving the kid a clean slate to muck up until it can go to its first confession.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

To back up my argument by showing the arguing technique I was using. you said "Yes, that's it. Go to the outermost extremes to try to find a loophole" so I pointed out that this is a perfectly valid form of argumentation called reductio ad absurdum and to further back up my point (and in case you hadn;t heard of it) I referenced it......

You didn't use it effectively however, and if I needed help in understanding forms of argumentation, I'd go look for it.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

From the book of John.Seems pretty conclusive to me......

You realise this is something which would occur after death yeah? Not to get too much into explaining the whole thing, but contrary to popular opinion you don't die and get a 'Christians Only' golden escalator to the pearly gates in Christianity.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You know where. I've gotten into trouble argue about what I do or don't believe on other threads and I don't want to get into all that again.

Please Shenshen just leave it.

Can you please tell me why and what you try and argue here, then?
Because I'm honestly, sincerely confused.

Marcus.Aurelius

Shenshen wrote: »

Mostly, it's about removing the original sin.

I know religion is all about telling you you're defective and need to pay for a good repair. But what did the baby do wrong?

AudreyHepburn

Galvasean wrote: »

Are you being purposely naive?
It's about welcoming the new baby into the Catholic religion.

I'm not naive no but thanks for asking :rolleyes:

That's just how I see a baptisim.