Conquer Club

I watched "Unbelief", it reminded me a lot of you Chang.

See in it, they made several claims:

they follow the truth,
they have morals,
God is a sky fairy,
God is for idiots.

They didn't back up these claims. Truth, but they didn't really say what's truth. They mentioned unobservable multi-verses, which is not very scientific of them, they spent a lot of time insulting Christians, they spent a lot of time saying others didn't understand them correctly, but never said what truth they stand for.

They said they have morals, which ones they never discussed, except to say any morals they wanted, which means no morals to me.

God is a sky fairy. That conclusion could be reached from the Bible, on the other hand he is described as omnipresent which I take to mean present in all things, i.e. he is not invisible, nor a he.

And to the idiots part. Doesn't bother me a mite. But it is an interesting, reoccurring theme. Why do they need to insult Christians? Childish angst? It would seem so to me.

A big propaganda fest. There was an older guy, and please don't take offense, but he brought you to mind. He was outside and saying, "never have I felt such warmth, so welcome. No one here is arguing over religion, they're just great people." Well most events are like that. He should really get out more (and choose other topics when around Christians?).

It's with such glee that they deride and insult mainly Christian religion, repeatedly. They make it clear that their intention is to destroy God. Just as you do when you only appear on threads that relate to mainly Christian religion.

I argue with people everywhere in the forums. I got a team full of would be scientists trying to claim they know the future temperature of the earth and its outcomes, but they can't tell me the base unit of what they are arguing about, and then they have the gall to tell me I'm ignoring the facts or shifting the conversation.

Well, dude, I say God is everything. You say he is invisible. According to me that means you can't see anything. And you'd say, I'm seeing things that aren't there. No I say, I'm not. What is, is and as it is, it is God. And you repeat, he is invisible. Then you can't see the screen? Even if you're getting someone else to read it because you can't see, you should still know that they can see it.

And if you got no senses, you can still think and the platform which made thinking possible is God.

And you say God isn't there. And you specifically come to tell others to believe that.

shickingbrits wrote:Childish angst? It would seem so to me.

Sums up your posts thus far.


--Andy

Thanks, I get it.

I can't even get Christians to agree we should treat others as we want to be treated, I'm an asshole for trying with atheists.

chang50 wrote:

nietzsche wrote:Atheists that are stupid tend to behave similarly to religious persons that are stupid.

They ridicule, bully religious persons every chance they get. They blindly follow and repeat arguments without understanding them. They worship Darwin and Dawkins and HItchens just like religious persons worship the Pope. They fail to recognize that at some point they adopted a belief as well. They probably became atheists because they are dumb and are afraid that others find out they are dumb.

On the other extreme, thinkers like Spinoza who wrote with genius and beauty, were God believers.

Just saying. Perhaps what matters is not the metaphysical beliefs, but other beliefs that deal with empathy toward others.

So how about showing some empathy yourself towards people with different beliefs to your own.I for one am not feeling any after reading that rant.

This is an interesting question, the content and not the reason for it. You started a little offended and wanted to reject anything on my argument, the first thing that came to mind that was refutable. Yes, that is the way the ego works.

But to the question itself, it's interesting because it has many answers, or points:

If I did everything I thought was right, I'd be Jesus combined with Buddha combined with Rockefeller combined with Steve Jobs, combined with Brad Pitt, combined with Mother Teresa de Calcuta.

If in my being i was totally empathic towards others I wouldn't be on a forum arguing ideas about sensitive (to some) topics. I wouldn't have posted. I would be probably at a hospital working as a volunteer.

Truth is, I am still puzzled about all this, have many ideas but don't have a complete theory. If I had a complete theory I'd be somewhere else, I wouldn't find gratifying debating here. You could say I'm working on my complete theory still, and probably will for years, and meanwhile I enjoy correcting you. I'm petty like that.

Just typing that I reminded the meaning of "the truth is subjective" by Kierkegaard. What is the point of learning truths? The importance is being true. Being those truths. Funny how this unexpected idea answers your question Chang.

shickingbrits wrote:Thanks, I get it.

I can't even get Christians to agree we should treat others as we want to be treated, I'm an asshole for trying with atheists.

No you are not. Just trying with members on this forum is a complete waste of time.

shickingbrits wrote:I watched "Unbelief", it reminded me a lot of you Chang.

Is that the one with Hercules?

shickingbrits wrote:I've defined my use of atheist for the purposes of this thread which has yet to be challenged. Challenge it if you will, until then don't get pissy.

So you get to decide who's an atheist?
And you'll only argue with those that fit your definition?
Is your definition "people I can out-argue"?
'Cos that appears to be a small subset.

nietzsche wrote:

chang50 wrote:

nietzsche wrote:Atheists that are stupid tend to behave similarly to religious persons that are stupid.

They ridicule, bully religious persons every chance they get. They blindly follow and repeat arguments without understanding them. They worship Darwin and Dawkins and HItchens just like religious persons worship the Pope. They fail to recognize that at some point they adopted a belief as well. They probably became atheists because they are dumb and are afraid that others find out they are dumb.

On the other extreme, thinkers like Spinoza who wrote with genius and beauty, were God believers.

Just saying. Perhaps what matters is not the metaphysical beliefs, but other beliefs that deal with empathy toward others.

So how about showing some empathy yourself towards people with different beliefs to your own.I for one am not feeling any after reading that rant.

This is an interesting question, the content and not the reason for it. You started a little offended and wanted to reject anything on my argument, the first thing that came to mind that was refutable. Yes, that is the way the ego works.

But to the question itself, it's interesting because it has many answers, or points:

If I did everything I thought was right, I'd be Jesus combined with Buddha combined with Rockefeller combined with Steve Jobs, combined with Brad Pitt, combined with Mother Teresa de Calcuta.

If in my being i was totally empathic towards others I wouldn't be on a forum arguing ideas about sensitive (to some) topics. I wouldn't have posted. I would be probably at a hospital working as a volunteer.

Truth is, I am still puzzled about all this, have many ideas but don't have a complete theory. If I had a complete theory I'd be somewhere else, I wouldn't find gratifying debating here. You could say I'm working on my complete theory still, and probably will for years, and meanwhile I enjoy correcting you. I'm petty like that.

Just typing that I reminded the meaning of "the truth is subjective" by Kierkegaard. What is the point of learning truths? The importance is being true. Being those truths. Funny how this unexpected idea answers your question Chang.

Sounds highly reasonable and quite empathetic to me,very much in contrast to your earlier post.

shickingbrits wrote:I watched "Unbelief", it reminded me a lot of you Chang.

See in it, they made several claims:

they follow the truth,
they have morals,
God is a sky fairy,
God is for idiots.

They didn't back up these claims. Truth, but they didn't really say what's truth. They mentioned unobservable multi-verses, which is not very scientific of them, they spent a lot of time insulting Christians, they spent a lot of time saying others didn't understand them correctly, but never said what truth they stand for.

They said they have morals, which ones they never discussed, except to say any morals they wanted, which means no morals to me.

God is a sky fairy. That conclusion could be reached from the Bible, on the other hand he is described as omnipresent which I take to mean present in all things, i.e. he is not invisible, nor a he.

And to the idiots part. Doesn't bother me a mite. But it is an interesting, reoccurring theme. Why do they need to insult Christians? Childish angst? It would seem so to me.

A big propaganda fest. There was an older guy, and please don't take offense, but he brought you to mind. He was outside and saying, "never have I felt such warmth, so welcome. No one here is arguing over religion, they're just great people." Well most events are like that. He should really get out more (and choose other topics when around Christians?).

It's with such glee that they deride and insult mainly Christian religion, repeatedly. They make it clear that their intention is to destroy God. Just as you do when you only appear on threads that relate to mainly Christian religion.

I argue with people everywhere in the forums. I got a team full of would be scientists trying to claim they know the future temperature of the earth and its outcomes, but they can't tell me the base unit of what they are arguing about, and then they have the gall to tell me I'm ignoring the facts or shifting the conversation.

Well, dude, I say God is everything. You say he is invisible. According to me that means you can't see anything. And you'd say, I'm seeing things that aren't there. No I say, I'm not. What is, is and as it is, it is God. And you repeat, he is invisible. Then you can't see the screen? Even if you're getting someone else to read it because you can't see, you should still know that they can see it.

And if you got no senses, you can still think and the platform which made thinking possible is God.

And you say God isn't there. And you specifically come to tell others to believe that.

You're very keen on telling others what they think even though in reality you have very little clue.I do not think god is for idiots.I respect the intellect of the majority of theists I meet in real life.Here in cyberspace less so as it is unrepresentative of society in general giving a platform to lots of extremist wackjob creationists.Call me intolerant or unempathetic but these types are demonstrably idiots.

chang50 wrote:

shickingbrits wrote:I watched "Unbelief", it reminded me a lot of you Chang.

See in it, they made several claims:

they follow the truth,
they have morals,
God is a sky fairy,
God is for idiots.

They didn't back up these claims. Truth, but they didn't really say what's truth. They mentioned unobservable multi-verses, which is not very scientific of them, they spent a lot of time insulting Christians, they spent a lot of time saying others didn't understand them correctly, but never said what truth they stand for.

They said they have morals, which ones they never discussed, except to say any morals they wanted, which means no morals to me.

God is a sky fairy. That conclusion could be reached from the Bible, on the other hand he is described as omnipresent which I take to mean present in all things, i.e. he is not invisible, nor a he.

And to the idiots part. Doesn't bother me a mite. But it is an interesting, reoccurring theme. Why do they need to insult Christians? Childish angst? It would seem so to me.

A big propaganda fest. There was an older guy, and please don't take offense, but he brought you to mind. He was outside and saying, "never have I felt such warmth, so welcome. No one here is arguing over religion, they're just great people." Well most events are like that. He should really get out more (and choose other topics when around Christians?).

It's with such glee that they deride and insult mainly Christian religion, repeatedly. They make it clear that their intention is to destroy God. Just as you do when you only appear on threads that relate to mainly Christian religion.

I argue with people everywhere in the forums. I got a team full of would be scientists trying to claim they know the future temperature of the earth and its outcomes, but they can't tell me the base unit of what they are arguing about, and then they have the gall to tell me I'm ignoring the facts or shifting the conversation.

Well, dude, I say God is everything. You say he is invisible. According to me that means you can't see anything. And you'd say, I'm seeing things that aren't there. No I say, I'm not. What is, is and as it is, it is God. And you repeat, he is invisible. Then you can't see the screen? Even if you're getting someone else to read it because you can't see, you should still know that they can see it.

And if you got no senses, you can still think and the platform which made thinking possible is God.

And you say God isn't there. And you specifically come to tell others to believe that.

You're very keen on telling others what they think even though in reality you have very little clue.I do not think god is for idiots.I respect the intellect of the majority of theists I meet in real life.Here in cyberspace less so as it is unrepresentative of society in general giving a platform to lots of extremist wackjob creationists.Call me intolerant or unempathetic but these types are demonstrably idiots.

Again, you have an open forum to say what you think. You may think, I am an atheist therefore I don't have beliefs, but you quite obviously do. If you really wished to clarify your beliefs further, go for it, until then I will respond to you based on what you have written.

I would hope you treat me the same.

jonesthecurl wrote:

shickingbrits wrote:I've defined my use of atheist for the purposes of this thread which has yet to be challenged. Challenge it if you will, until then don't get pissy.

So you get to decide who's an atheist?
And you'll only argue with those that fit your definition?
Is your definition "people I can out-argue"?
'Cos that appears to be a small subset.

You want me, I'm your huckleberry.

I'll suggest the tactics you should use:
don't state any beliefs,
change the beliefs I've stated to fit your ends,
state beliefs you don't believe as it fits your needs,
take potshots.

Oh... Sorry, I guess you didn't need my advice.

I'm an atheist because
(i) I see no reason to postulate a creator,
and
(ii) Well, that's it really.

jonesthecurl wrote:I'm an atheist because
(i) I see no reason to postulate a creator,
and
(ii) Well, that's it really.

But you're not playing fair Jonesy your 'worldview' has to provide detailed alternatives it's not enough to be dissatisfied with other views or heaven forbid be humble enough to simply not know : (
Can't you just make some shit up?

Now we're getting somewhere.

So what morals are inherent in your position?

shickingbrits wrote:Now we're getting somewhere.

So what morals are inherent in your position?

None. It's not a moral question.

shickingbrits wrote:Now we're getting somewhere.

So what morals are inherent in your position?

There is the problem with this question and thread. Morals are not inherent.... Morals are learnt.

Good. So then there are no atheistic morals.

As such, atheists either have none, at least the possibility exists, or they are founded in other areas. I know that many forms of atheist exist, but in the west, would you say atheists mainly adhere to a "scientific" explanation of creation?

shickingbrits wrote:Good. So then there are no atheistic morals.

As such, atheists either have none, at least the possibility exists, or they are founded in other areas. I know that many forms of atheist exist, but in the west, would you say atheists mainly adhere to a "scientific" explanation of creation?

As already stated they are learnt like Geography or History are learnt,little by little as the child develops.Any explanation of creation scientific or not is irrelevant to the process..

Don't beliefs drive motivation?

A Christian has a global motivator, an overriding belief from which others stem. Doesn't this exist for an atheist? If it does, is it the state? family? wealth? acclaim? Which of those are inconsistent with a Christian belief?

Will the global motivation produce specific actions? Did wishing to fulfill those specific actions determine the global motivator?

Determining morality depends on what we know to be right. If the main body of western atheist knows science to be right, then it should be pertinent to the thread.

shickingbrits wrote:Don't beliefs drive motivation?

A Christian has a global motivator, an overriding belief from which others stem. Doesn't this exist for an atheist? If it does, is it the state? family? wealth? acclaim? Which of those are inconsistent with a Christian belief?

Will the global motivation produce specific actions? Did wishing to fulfill those specific actions determine the global motivator?

Determining morality depends on what we know to be right. If the main body of western atheist knows science to be right, then it should be pertinent to the thread.

Take 1000 babies, baptize them Christian, and then throw scatter them in the various woods around the world with no contact with humans.

After fifteen years, a few will survive. Guess what? None will have the nonexistent, inherent morals. Instead, since they've been separated from humans, they'll be unintelligible beasts. What makes us human is living with other humans--there's no inherent morality going on here.

Baptizing a baby doesn't make it Christian. Go fish.

shickingbrits wrote:Don't beliefs drive motivation?

A Christian has a global motivator, an overriding belief from which others stem. Doesn't this exist for an atheist? If it does, is it the state? family? wealth? acclaim? Which of those are inconsistent with a Christian belief?

Will the global motivation produce specific actions? Did wishing to fulfill those specific actions determine the global motivator?

Determining morality depends on what we know to be right. If the main body of western atheist knows science to be right, then it should be pertinent to the thread.

No,morality is what we believe to be right,and science is the most reliable method thus far for determining the nature of reality.I will leave the knowledge claims to others.

Excellent, so we should be free to discuss the reality that scientist have convinced atheists they live in and what such a person may believe to be right.

shickingbrits wrote:Baptizing a baby doesn't make it Christian. Go fish.

Because that has to be learnt..like everything else????

Decided upon and followed through.