|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 7, 2017 16:45:48 GMT
Not that I hold a candle either way but the Pope feels the opposite, apparently: that good atheists are eligible.
LOL, very funny, I'm pretty sure the pope isn't in charge of any final decisions.
He is, though, further up the pecking order than some poe on a message board...
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 7, 2017 16:47:26 GMT
Not that I hold a candle either way but the Pope feels the opposite, apparently: that good atheists are eligible.
I guess we'll see. That is just what Harold Camping said.
But now it is home time here at Atheist Central and I still have more agendas to mail out. Good evening and may your god go with you.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 7, 2017 16:58:06 GMT
Besides, that's only one example I offered. Everyone having the exact same dream of meeting/talking to God on the same night and waking up and reporting the same experience would work just as well. Impractical then, but the main thing is that you don't seem to realise the sheer egotism and self-importance of your ridiculous demand! There is nothing egotistical about wanting unambiguous evidence for everyone rather than the entirely ambiguous "personal" evidence that SOME people experience and others don't. In fact, the people who claim they know because of ambiguous personal experiences and that everyone else is wrong are the real egotists. Nonsense. You do realize that many "working class" people can post on message boards from their work and all of them can post in their spare time, don't you? If everyone had the same dream then anyone claiming others were mentally ill for admitting it would also be claiming it about themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2017 17:13:24 GMT
Sure ask all the questions you want, can you answer one question? can you prove there is no God? no? THEN WHY are you an atheist??? One doesn't need to prove - or believe - that there is no god in order to be an atheist.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 8, 2017 6:15:59 GMT
Impractical then, but the main thing is that you don't seem to realise the sheer egotism and self-importance of your ridiculous demand! There is nothing egotistical about wanting unambiguous evidence for everyone rather than the entirely ambiguous "personal" evidence that SOME people experience and others don't. In fact, the people who claim they know because of ambiguous personal experiences and that everyone else is wrong are the real egotists. Nonsense. You do realize that many "working class" people can post on message boards from their work and all of them can post in their spare time, don't you? If everyone had the same dream then anyone claiming others were mentally ill for admitting it would also be claiming it about themselves. How can a shop assistant or a long-distance lorry driver post from the office they don't have? As for the dream, you have a touching faith in the honesty of those who are atheists for emotional reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 8, 2017 16:33:21 GMT
There is nothing egotistical about wanting unambiguous evidence for everyone rather than the entirely ambiguous "personal" evidence that SOME people experience and others don't. In fact, the people who claim they know because of ambiguous personal experiences and that everyone else is wrong are the real egotists. Nonsense. You do realize that many "working class" people can post on message boards from their work and all of them can post in their spare time, don't you? If everyone had the same dream then anyone claiming others were mentally ill for admitting it would also be claiming it about themselves. How can a shop assistant or a long-distance lorry driver post from the office they don't have? As for the dream, you have a touching faith in the honesty of those who are atheists for emotional reasons. I said some working class people; namely, most of them in offices with access to a computer, smart phone, and internet. Plus, there are plenty who aren't technically "working class" but make about the same amount working from home from a PC. That included me for many years and I would simply post on boards like this in between what work I had to do. I would agree that there will be some atheists for which no evidence would convince; I'd still contend they're in the minority. Most atheists are so simply because they don't see any evidence for God. My endeavor was just trying to think of something that would count as universal and unambiguous evidence, something everyone could witness. You're also forgetting about all the believers in different religions, or all those that grew up in highly atheist/secular societies who have just never given much though to religion. It wouldn't just be for the types of atheists that post here.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 8, 2017 16:37:36 GMT
Christianity , in imitation of Jesus, does routinely tell us not to worry abut what wicked people think.
Never the less, believers have a bloody history of defining wicked people to suit themselves or their scriptural preferences and then frequently persecuting them for their thoughts. For a religion 'not worried' about what others think a lot of people have ended up suffering, regardless.
Not by my hand or any Christian I know.
Maybe if I wouldn't be a slave during the darker periods of European history, I might burn a person or two at a stake.
Now, aside from occasionally hurting an evil person's feelings, I'm totally harmless!
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Mar 8, 2017 17:33:52 GMT
Because every time a "hater" asks a question, he or she changes the question after the answer. For instance, you ask "what makes us think there is a god?". And there are many answers. First of which is that there are "laws of Physics". You can't have a law without some character, good or bad, making it. Newton didn't "make" his laws of motion. He discovered them. My view is that a Satanic creature created them, so I am less a traditionalist, but still a theist. A bit Gnostic. The reality is that to those of us skilled in Mathematics, Algebra, and Geometry, you can't have order out of chaos. A law of Physics won't write itself.
Now, the trouble is that every time I've given this answer, the person asking the question will whine and change the subject, or will print a quotation of a famous dead person, which means absolutely nothing in logic. Or decide that people can "vote" on reality. Western culture is big on that.
There are other reasons. The reality is that the actual "good God" Jesus spoke of, works outside the world, and that reality is seen by the reality of the devil and demons overplaying their hands. The devil character obviously exists, and there are quite obviously many evil forces, and if we're honest, we can say they work inside us, and try to make our decisions.
It is natural to be afraid of this fact, and try to blame everything on chemicals, on Nature, on anything but reality. However, even here we see proof of demonic influence in the psychiatric world, from the fact that psychiatrists defend only the actions of human monsters who decide to do demonic acts, but refuse to help those who are victims of demons and don't do the acts, but remain victimized. Killers, thieves, psychopaths, are protected, but people suffering from fears, phobias, and persecution are dismissed completely. There can be no possible "natural" or "logical" explanation for this. It is all spiritual devilry.
The existence of the devil is the best proof that there is a good God or good forces working behind the scenes, from way beyond our scope. Otherwise, we'd just simply be tortured every second. We know this from the way demons overplay their hands.
How do we know then that there is a force of good? From both History and Logic (Mathematics) History: Jesus had to succumb to the laws of "sacrifice". Anyone who thinks "sacrifice" is a good God's work is seriously demented. We're told in the story of Genesis that after the "fall", Adam was punished. We're actually told the truth in a cryptic way. The "tree of knowledge", if it was "knowledge", would have given knowledge, but instead it merely brought confusion. A lot of people think they're Sherlock Holmes, and know everything, but they know nothing. They don't know what is going on outside their senses, and even the senses are fooled in relaying and decoding information.
Thus, the "tree of knowledge" is what we are told it is "ipso facto". If it was truly "tree of knowledge", everyone would know everything, and there would be no argument ever. All this was written after the fall, so obviously it was "tree of confusion (or anti-knowledge)". There is no way that Adam could even recognize God afterwards, so the character who came in and punished Adam wasn't even the real God, but another devil figure. Even Jesus says that Satan is the "prince of this world".
The evil is done by evil principalities. We're here to realize, identify, and testify of them when we leave this existence. Not all the evil angels are fallen yet in our time line. God awaits our testimonies, which is why they don't kill us quickly. They are sadistic beings, but are afraid of our testimonies when we die, that will immediately put them into the Hell they meant for mortals.
Mathematics and logic: This comes with experience. You'll eventually see, if you live long enough, demons overplay their hands. People who think they're Sherlock Holmes (as I stated before) make judgments on others, and to this date I've never seen one be correct on a "gut feeling". Never. They even claim to use some logic, but the logic has no logic. Even police detectives and lawyers do this. Live long enough, and you'll see how utterly stupid, ugly, and prejudiced the highest ranked people are.
Can't be coincidence, and it can't be logical, since it defies "Natural Selection". The human race completely defies natural selection. Most animals weed out the weakest of their species, but humans, out of some demonic jealousy, continually seek to weed out the strongest and fittest.
Just too much proof that supernatural "cognitive" forces exist. That can't be denied by a sane person, but I admit we want to deny it. We're all afraid of the supernatural truths beyond our control. I don't blame the anti-theist for being afraid (and most are just uneducated ignorant buffoons). I do blame the theist hater for not admitting you're a coward. I hope that when I ever get as cowardly as that, I would at least admit it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 19:32:55 GMT
Can't be coincidence, and it can't be logical, since it defies "Natural Selection". The human race completely defies natural selection. Most animals weed out the weakest of their species, but humans, out of some demonic jealousy, continually seek to weed out the strongest and fittest. I think this has more to do with the human traits of compassion, empathy and love,...and not exclusively relying on base animal instinct for reproductive purposes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 20:08:43 GMT
Can't be coincidence, and it can't be logical, since it defies "Natural Selection". The human race completely defies natural selection. Most animals weed out the weakest of their species, but humans, out of some demonic jealousy, continually seek to weed out the strongest and fittest.
There speaks a man who doesn't know what "fittest" mean in evolutionary terms.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 20:20:34 GMT
Can't be coincidence, and it can't be logical, since it defies "Natural Selection". The human race completely defies natural selection. Most animals weed out the weakest of their species, but humans, out of some demonic jealousy, continually seek to weed out the strongest and fittest. I think this has more to do with the human traits of compassion, empathy and love,...and not exclusively relying on base animal instinct for reproductive purposes. There's also the fact that evolution works on a group-wide level. And a group that throws the physically fittest people into a fight with a rival group, sacrificing some of them to give itself a greater chance of victory, is more fit in evolutionary terms than one which doesn't. Humans are far from being the only species which sacrifices individuals to increase the evolutionary fitness of the group. Every socialised species does it. Look at an insect colony, which tosses away individual lives constantly for the benefit of the hive. It's the same principle taken to a greater extreme. Or perhaps insects are just possessed by the devil...
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 8, 2017 23:07:17 GMT
How can a shop assistant or a long-distance lorry driver post from the office they don't have? As for the dream, you have a touching faith in the honesty of those who are atheists for emotional reasons. I said some working class people; namely, most of them in offices with access to a computer, smart phone, and internet. Plus, there are plenty who aren't technically "working class" but make about the same amount working from home from a PC. That included me for many years and I would simply post on boards like this in between what work I had to do. I would agree that there will be some atheists for which no evidence would convince; I'd still contend they're in the minority. Most atheists are so simply because they don't see any evidence for God. My endeavor was just trying to think of something that would count as universal and unambiguous evidence, something everyone could witness. You're also forgetting about all the believers in different religions, or all those that grew up in highly atheist/secular societies who have just never given much though to religion. It wouldn't just be for the types of atheists that post here. Only the atheists who post here would demand that God do something special for Them.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 9, 2017 16:38:04 GMT
I said some working class people; namely, most of them in offices with access to a computer, smart phone, and internet. Plus, there are plenty who aren't technically "working class" but make about the same amount working from home from a PC. That included me for many years and I would simply post on boards like this in between what work I had to do. I would agree that there will be some atheists for which no evidence would convince; I'd still contend they're in the minority. Most atheists are so simply because they don't see any evidence for God. My endeavor was just trying to think of something that would count as universal and unambiguous evidence, something everyone could witness. You're also forgetting about all the believers in different religions, or all those that grew up in highly atheist/secular societies who have just never given much though to religion. It wouldn't just be for the types of atheists that post here. Only the atheists who post here would demand that God do something special for Them. Most all believers are the ones that contend God has done something "special for them" that convinced them of his existence. So "demanding" God do something to convince everyone seems the opposite of special.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 9, 2017 22:43:22 GMT
Only the atheists who post here would demand that God do something special for Them. Most all believers are the ones that contend God has done something "special for them" that convinced them of his existence. So "demanding" God do something to convince everyone seems the opposite of special. You sound jealous! God could reveal Godself to you and has probably been trying but you and your fellows have perfected the art of resistance.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Mar 10, 2017 13:38:11 GMT
Most all believers are the ones that contend God has done something "special for them" that convinced them of his existence. So "demanding" God do something to convince everyone seems the opposite of special. You sound jealous! God could reveal Godself to you and has probably been trying but you and your fellows have perfected the art of resistance. Ah yes, the narcissistic self-proclaimed Christian shows her true colours.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Mar 10, 2017 16:25:07 GMT
I think that depends on how you were raised. For instance, say two families go to a restaurant. In each, a kid screams, makes noise, is rude to the staff, etc. In family A, father says "You don't do that! If you behave that way, I'll spank you when we get home!" In family B, father explains to the kid that what he's doing is wrong. He points out that the people are there to have a good time and being noisy ruins it for him. Maybe he says something like "When you're watching cartoons, you want people to be quiet so you can hear them, right? These people only want the same thing from you." I think you could fairly say that approach A isn't likely to lead to a moral person, just one who is trained to do as he's told. B, however, is teaching a person to apply empathy and rationally consider the impact of his actions on others. Obviously, I favour approach B.Actually, that created a worse problem during the modern days of America. This became more common, from what I observed certainly in middle America, during the seventies and eighties.The problem is that it doesn't allude to "moral" issues unless the child has a moral compass. The "demon possession" in people makes people simply "tunnel" their scope to certain priorities. Unless the child has a "moral compass", he will simply choose other people to torment. I know because I witnessed this 100 times out of 100. e.g.-former KKK families who were taught that negroes had human rights would simply channel their demon possessed persecution to someone else they could get away with doing it to. Part of the hostility during the sixties and seventies was because pretty much every one of the white people who joined in civil rights action were descendants of slave owning families and klan members. This was known at the time. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had a harder time keeping these people in check than he did with traditional racists.e.g. A kid with no true moral compass can be told to keep the noise down for the reasons you state, but he will simply choose another way to torment and persecute others. (In fact, most "new generation people" simply ignore this and continue to claim they don't abuse others). If the kid with demons can't harass others with noise, and noise is a "no-no", this will be used for the benefit of the demon inside. He'll yell threats at someone who is hard of hearing, or someone who is in a squeaky chair and doesn't know it. In fact, I know positively of a case where "new generation" people would complain of a squeaky chair and then when the subject of their complaint changed chairs, each time the subject left the room, the "new generation" punks would switch the chair back to the original in order to yell threats again. They know that they can band together in demonic worship and "outvote" any one person, and make their "votes" a false testimony to get someone fired.Truth has no place with people who have no "good holy ghost" as a moral compass.Sorry, but those are the facts. If you live long enough, and get out among Nature and people enough, you'll learn this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 16:36:44 GMT
For one, I don't believe there's any such thing as demon possession. I've no idea if you use the term literally of figuratively, but I just don't believe it. The idea is ridiculous and nonsensical.
For another, the vast majority of the time I think that what you allude to simply goes to how these people have been raised. There are always going to be occasional exceptions who are born with something "wrong" with them, but in most cases I do not believe that people inherently need or want to attack others; those that do are like that because they've been raised to be like that. The solution is, as always, education. Alas, that is an achingly slow process.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 10, 2017 20:02:30 GMT
Most all believers are the ones that contend God has done something "special for them" that convinced them of his existence. So "demanding" God do something to convince everyone seems the opposite of special. You sound jealous! Let me put it this way: if God really exists and is providing special experiences to others that prove to them his existence, then anyone who hasn't had such an experience would have a reason to be jealous. That's a big "if" of course. If I've "perfected the art" of anything it's processing experiences rationally and not leaping to the most widely held socio-cultural explanations.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 14, 2017 6:37:16 GMT
If I've "perfected the art" of anything it's processing experiences rationally and not leaping to the most widely held socio-cultural explanations. So you say, but I think it's just angry resistance.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Mar 14, 2017 13:11:20 GMT
There is nothing egotistical about wanting unambiguous evidence for everyone rather than the entirely ambiguous "personal" evidence that SOME people experience and others don't. In fact, the people who claim they know because of ambiguous personal experiences and that everyone else is wrong are the real egotists. Nonsense. You do realize that many "working class" people can post on message boards from their work and all of them can post in their spare time, don't you? If everyone had the same dream then anyone claiming others were mentally ill for admitting it would also be claiming it about themselves. How can a shop assistant or a long-distance lorry driver post from the office they don't have? As for the dream, you have a touching faith in the honesty of those who are atheists for emotional reasons. Mobile phones. Like you claim to use. Or lunch spent at the library. Is New Zealand that far behind everyone else?
|
|