Has your outlook changed since realising there is no God?

krudler

gbee wrote: »

Sorry now but I HAVE to correct you slightly.

On TV, several times, George W Bush as President of The Continental United States of America, has said he spoke to or with God ~ I'd have to look it up now to be pedantic, if it's to or with ~ but he then plunged the world into war again.

say God speaks to you and you'll get elected, say Zeus does and you'll be committed.

gbee

krudler wrote: »

say God speaks to you and you'll get elected, say Zeus does and you'll be committed.

That's just poetry.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Bishop! wrote: »

It seems to be you who conveniently wants to redefine the word.

Now you are just making stuff up. Here is the definition I pasted:

bul·ly/ˈbo͝olē/
Noun:
A person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.
Verb:
Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.

What strength or power do I have exactly? How am I intimidating someone weaker? What is my superior strength? Who or how am I forcing?

The only one redefining the word here appears to be you. No wonder you keep ignoring the questions I asked you.

old hippy

All this talk of bullying reminds me of the deity of the New Testament, a cruel, vengeful, smiting, hurtful, fitful bully was he.

Who'd subscribe to such a grim set of scriptures?

One's outlook can only get better once all that is abandoned!

nozzferrahhtoo

^ Now that is an accurate application of the word "Bully" there. The imagined god is at least in a position of some power.

But do not listen to me. Apperently taking a dictionary and looking a word up is "conveniently redefining" words now.

The Bishop!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Now you are just making stuff up. Here is the definition I pasted:

bul·ly/ˈbo͝olē/
Noun:
A person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.
Verb:
Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.

What strength or power do I have exactly? How am I intimidating someone weaker? What is my superior strength? Who or how am I forcing?

The only one redefining the word here appears to be you. No wonder you keep ignoring the questions I asked you.

Yeah, i had a feeling you were going to try and pull that one.

It's online bullying, not physical bullying. We're on the internet. We're online. I haven't meant you're physically bullying anyone. We both know that if we're being honest here.

I invited you to find a definition of online bullying that states one must be in some position of power or superiority over them.

9959

krudler wrote: »

say God speaks to you and you'll get elected, say Zeus does and you'll be committed.

Agreed.

"Open your mouth and shut your eyes and see what Zeus will send you"
Aristophanes (ancient Greek bloke with sense of humour).

God, Zeus, David Koresh....
...same as it ever was.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Bishop! wrote: »

It's online bullying, not physical bullying. We're on the internet. We're online. I haven't meant you're physically bullying anyone.

Firstly your canard that I am "redefining" words by looking them up in a dictionary is ridiculous. How is looking a word up in a dictionary "redefining" it exactly? Are you even trying to make sense?

Secondly the definition I pasted has nothing to do with being online, offline, inline or outline or any line. The definition of "Bully" is one of using any position of power to influence, intimidate, harm or force another. There is nothing there either about it having to be "Physical". Much bullying in our world is mental.

Thirdly just putting "Online" in front of it does not demand a redefinition of the word "Bully" any more than putting "Black" in front of "Football" renders the definition of "football" useless. Words do not have to have a new definition just because you put a word before them.

So the only person redefining anything here is you. If YOU have a different definition of Bully that differentiates between online and offline which you can cite/link then I am all ears to hear it. Until then I am unsure why the actual dictionary definition of the word "bully" has been rendered obsolete as if by magic.

The Bishop!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Thirdly just putting "Online" in front of it does not demand a redefinition of the word "Bully" any more than putting "Black" in front of "Football" renders the definition of "football" useless.

Online bullying is a specific form of bullying. It has clear definitions of what it is and what it isn't and what qualifies as it and what doesn't.

Now, i've clarified it more than once what i meant.
We're talking about online bullying here. Obviously.

You're able to understand that by now i gather. I personally think you understood it from the start, and you're dancing around the issue.

You seem to be under the impression that you're somehow not (online) bullying philogos by taunting him repeatedly in countless threads as you've done because one must be in some position of power or superiority over them for it to qualify as (online) bullying.

So again, if you have some dictionary definition that cites the above, now is your chance to provide it. Or you can just be honest and confirm that it does indeed not require power or superiority to be classed as such.

Delirium

The Bishop! wrote: »

Online bullying is a specific form of bullying. It has clear definitions of what it is and what it isn't and what qualifies as it and what doesn't.

Now, i've clarified it more than once what i meant.
We're talking about online bullying here. Obviously.

You're able to understand that by now i gather. I personally think you understood it from the start, and you're dancing around the issue.

You seem to be under the impression that you're somehow not (online) bullying philogos by taunting him repeatedly in countless threads as you've done because one must be in some position of power or superiority over them for it to qualify as (online) bullying.

So again, if you have some dictionary definition that cites the above, now is your chance to provide it. Or you can just be honest and confirm that it does indeed not require power or superiority to be classed as such.

Have you reported the posts that you perceive to be instances of bullying? Pretty sure it's not allowed on the site.

The Bishop!

koth wrote: »

Have you reported the posts that you perceive to be instances of bullying? Pretty sure it's not allowed on the site.

Yeah pretty sure too. That's why i finally brought it up this morning to a mod. I haven't reported any of the many many other very similar ones from all the other threads until now.

Time to let them decide what it is i suppose. Although perhaps i'll be accused by someone of "running away" if i don't respond further. Not sure what to do. What's your advice?

nozzferrahhtoo

The Bishop! wrote: »

Online bullying is a specific form of bullying. It has clear definitions of what it is and what it isn't and what qualifies as it and what doesn't.

In your head or do you have citations and / or links for this?

The Bishop! wrote: »

Now, i've clarified it more than once what i meant.

No. You have not. You have just declared that online bullying has another definition but have not cited one. Allow me to do it for you since your capability to do so appears lacking:

The term "cyberbullying" is attributed to anti-bullying activist Bill Belsey.
Legal definition
Cyberbullying is defined in legal glossaries as
actions that use information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm another or others.
use of communication technologies for the intention of harming another person
use of internet service and mobile technologies such as web pages and discussion groups as well as instant messaging or SMS text messaging with the intention of harming another person.

I am unaware what "harm" you think I have caused here.

The Bishop! wrote: »

You seem to be under the impression that you're somehow not (online) bullying philogos by taunting him repeatedly in countless threads

I am in a society which believes in innocent until proven guilty. So yes I am under the impression I am innocent of a perposterous and baseless accusation which has not been backed up in anyway. I repeat though that if you actually try a dictionary you will find the word you want is "Harass" not "bully". But I await your citations.

However the user in question claims to have me on full time ignore. Although I personally do not believe this at all.... how you think I can be harassing someone who can not even read a single word I write is truly beyond me. My ability to taunt him therefore is about the same as my ability to annoy a corpse by poking it with my finger.

My replies to him do not require him to actually read them and I could not care less if he does or does not. I reply to his posts for the benefit of OTHERS. In fact I do not even subscribe to After Hours. Any thread you see me writing on in After Hours is due solely to the fact someone has PMed me and asked me to.

koth wrote: »

Have you reported the posts that you perceive to be instances of bullying? Pretty sure it's not allowed on the site.

Doubtful. He would require the courage of his own convictions in order to do that. I do not think he really takes his bully accusation any more seriously than I do.

Delirium

The Bishop! wrote: »

Yeah pretty sure too. That's why i finally brought it up this morning to a mod. I haven't reported any of the many many other very similar ones from all the other threads until now.

Time to let them decide what it is i suppose. Although perhaps i'll be accused by someone of "running away" if i don't respond further. Not sure what to do. What's your advice?

PM one of the mods and/or report post(s) are usually the way to go.

[-0-]

How predictable. A theist doesn't like what is being said in a thread their biased opinion isn't welcome in and reports the user.

Bishop, were you the kid who took the soccer ball home when he was losing against his friends?

The Bishop!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In your head or do you have citations and / or links for this?

No. You have not.

Yes i do. It's the one you just posted.

I am unaware what "harm" you think I have caused here.

You're joking right? So you think that if your actions (if deemed to be a form of bullying online) did not actually cause harm, that it's ok and not bullying?

I repeat though that if you actually try a dictionary you will find the word you want is "Harass" not "bully". But I await your citations.

No, i found the word i was looking for first time.
If you think it's harassment, then that's not too cool either really is it?
But oh i forgot. You think that philogos deserves to be treated this way don't you?

In fact I do not even subscribe to After Hours. Any thread you see me writing on in After Hours is due solely to the fact someone has PMed me and asked me to.

Oh i see.
Do they also request that you harrass philogos in the manner you do? Or do you decide to do that yourself?
Actually never mind. I'm not interested.

He would require the courage of his own convictions in order to do that. I do not think he really takes his bully accusation any more seriously than I do.

I take it very seriously. That's why i reported it this morning. You can check that with the moderators.
And it's time to leave it there i think. I need to "run away" and get some stuff done.

The Bishop!

[-0-] wrote: »

How predictable. A theist doesn't like what is being said in a thread their biased opinion isn't welcome in and reports the user.

Bishop, were you the kid who took the soccer ball home when he was losing against his friends?

har har.:P

I'm an agnostic Sherlock, not a theist, but well done you for displaying your own bias against theists.

philologos

For the record, just to say I have been reading a lot of the posts here. A lot of them are valid questions. I probably won't get a good chunk of tine today, but I'm intending to respond to quite a bit tomorrow.

Some of the posts are very interesting particularly in light of the Gospel and what Jesus said and did and I hope to get into some meaningful and good discussion around these.

RainMaker

Dear Bishop,

If you would kindly go back to page 1 of this thread, you will see that philologos came into this discussion all by himself presenting his theist view in what was a conversation about athiest views.

He then quite expectedly got some abuse (try posting pro-Liverpool comments in a Man Utd thread in the football forum and see if it gets a better reaction!)

Now in fairness his initial postings were quite harmless, but it was his reluctance to provide any evidence or what he considers evidence to back up his beliefs that got people so upset here.

You on the other hand have been going on for pages now contributing nothing to the conversation other than harassing nozzferrahhtoo - how about you arrange to meet him after school somewhere and fight (to the death if necessary), or even better, just forgive him and move on...

Cheers.

B.A._Baracus

El Weirdo wrote: »

There's no reason for this not to go in the existing thread.

A new thread will only re-hash the same arguments.

Merged.

Aiel wrote: »

Can the title of this thread be changed then since opinions that there is and is'nt a God will be shared here and not in 2 seperate threads?

El Weirdo wrote: »

I see no reason to do that.

Also, please don't query moderation on thread- if you have a question take it to PM.

Thanks.

Ahh yes. Just as I thought... ok to have atheist thread with atheist title. Not ok to have religious thread with religious title.

Not shocking tho. Majority of people who use boards are atheists IMO.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Bishop! wrote: »

Yes i do. It's the one you just posted.

So you had no citations at all to back up your position until I went and found one for you. That says a lot indeed. However as I have caused no "harm" the citation I posted that you could not find helps you not at all.

The Bishop! wrote: »

So you think that if your actions (if deemed to be a form of bullying online) did not actually cause harm, that it's ok and not bullying?

If it does not cause any harm... which it does not... and it does not fit the dictionary definition of bullying... which it also does not... then I am not sure what your point even IS any more. I see nothing wrong with my actions. If I did I would stop doing it.

Again people are innocent until proven guilty. Just calling me a bully does not magically make it so. You have to do a bit more work than that. How about you just mail a moderator with your concerns, then leave it there and stop derailing the thread? I made a lovely long post which was actually on topic to the thread. Why not go reply to that one.

The Bishop! wrote: »

If you think it's harassment, then that's not too cool either really is it?

I don't. I just thought that might be a better word to fit what you appear to be floundering at trying to say.

The Bishop! wrote: »

But oh i forgot. You think that philogos deserves to be treated this way don't you?

I am not sure why you are asking me what I think given every time I tell you what I think you tell me it is not true. However I will repeat what I told you twice already. I call people on unsubstantiated and baseless claims. That is what over 90% of my posts on this forum do. I do not think any person "deserves" any bad treatment but if a person continuously makes unsubstantiated claims then I am going to continuously call that person on them.

If one person makes more unsubstantiated claims than others then I am more likely to reply to that person more than others too.

And if a person who has not substantiated their claims in any way enters into a mantra of claiming they did... over and over... when they did not... then I will call them on that too. Again I see no reason to apologize for that. It is the _right_ thing to do in my mind.

The Bishop! wrote: »

Do they also request that you harrass philogos in the manner you do?

No one requests that I post in any particular manner. I often however get PMs asking me merely to reply and no more. For example I replied in THIS thread today because I was sent a link to the post(s) I replied to with a message saying "I would be interested to see your response to this".

So I provided one. At which point you... for want of a better description... went off on one.

The Bishop! wrote: »

I take it very seriously. That's why i reported it this morning.

Good, then there is no reason to continue to derail the thread further. As I said I tried to help the thread back on topic with this post here. Perhaps you could reply to that instead and we can engage in a joint apology to all and sundry around us for the derailment and express our shared keenness for the thread to go back on topic.

[-0-]

The Bishop! wrote: »

har har.:P

I'm an agnostic Sherlock, not a theist, but well done you for displaying your own bias against theists.

Some bloody bishop you are!

nozzferrahhtoo

[-0-] wrote: »

Some bloody bishop you are!

Ah well. If the Clergy project is anything to go by there is a significant number of clergy at all levels of the churches who simply do not believe themselves the crap that they themselves are selling.

It has gotten to the point now that I no longer take it for granted that someone with a religious title of any kind, even pope, actually believes there is a god.

AnonoBoy

CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG????????

Sarky

philologos wrote: »

For the record, just to say I have been reading a lot of the posts here. A lot of them are valid questions. I probably won't get a good chunk of tine today, but I'm intending to respond to quite a bit tomorrow.

Some of the posts are very interesting particularly in light of the Gospel and what Jesus said and did and I hope to get into some meaningful and good discussion around these.

Aaaand that's the last we'll see of you until you think everyone's forgotten about you or another chance to preach to people who don't give a rat's ass presents itself.

Internet Hero

AnonoBoy wrote: »

CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG????????

If the zealots on each side would calm down yes, but they don't listen too good

humanji

Boards is the only god you need! And since this thread isn't really going anywhere, I'm locking it.