Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amie · 11-14-2002, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onegreatperson:
This is why the atheist and theist exist. The theist believes, the atheist questions.

The theist believes, the atheist does not. I think both parties question it is simply a matter of how one perceives those answers that they come up with...

Quote:

The theist see's the atheist as a "sheep unto his flock". The atheist see's the theist as a dictator of what happens and when it happens.
Still the theist will coax the atheist into what they want them to believe, but the atheist is still questioning.

I don't necesssarily think it is a matter of coaxing, I think some people want to share their beliefs with others and that is ok as long as you are not forcing personal beliefs on to someone else...

Quote:

The idea of a supreme being is what theist's make of it. It is the superb leader, it is the mother, it is the milk that the retarded child succles on.

why not just milk the child sucks on, why the milk the retarded child sucks on?

Quote:

The idea of a supreme being is humorous to the atheist. It is the crutch, it is the faux story made to lead people into belief or be damned to a doom, it is the belief that cannot be pursuaded upon an animal.

I understand God belief is not for everyone, I do not see my belief as any crutch though..

Quote:

"I'd rather question, than pretend to be a worshiper of something that tells me what to do, and when to do it. Because when I screw up, I know it's my fault, and I don't need some cosmic force to make me un-fuck myself!"

I am glad you question...have you ever asked yourself "what if I am wrong about this?" this is a sincere question, not at all antagonistic...

onegreatperson · 11-14-2002, 05:08 PM

Amie said: The theist believes, the atheist does not. I think both parties question it is simply a matter of how one perceives those answers that they come up with...
I reply with: Now you are changing what I was saying "The theist believes, the atheist questions." However what the theist percieves are true is usually
what they refer to as the truth, and the atheist claims it to be what it is.

=================================
Amie said: I don't necesssarily think it is a matter of coaxing, I think some people want to share their beliefs with others and that is ok as long as you are not forcing personal beliefs on to someone else...
I reply with: I guess that's why you hear of protestant reformation, and not atheist reformation "hmmm....."
Forcing personal beliefs may not be outright coaxing, no, hell no, it's sugar coated.
=================================
Amie said: why not just milk the child sucks on, why the milk the retarded child sucks on?
I reply with: It sounded much more funner

=================================
Amie said: I understand God belief is not for everyone, I do not see my belief as any crutch though..
I reply with: So when you pray it's not a crutch per say, it's a plea??? <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />
=================================
Amie said: I am glad you question...have you ever asked yourself "what if I am wrong about this?" this is a sincere question, not at all antagonistic...
I reply with: For the record I once held the belief of a baptist. =================================

Best wishes, luck, and whatever else
Me, myself, and me
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Amie · 11-14-2002, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onegreatperson:
Now you are changing what I was saying "The theist believes, the atheist questions." However what the theist percieves are true is usually
what they refer to as the truth, and the atheist claims it to be what it is.

I understand however I do not refer to it as "the truth" but I do recognize that a great many people do...

Quote:

I reply with: I guess that's why you hear of protestant reformation, and not atheist reformation "hmmm....."

well atheism is not a religion so yeah..

Quote:

Forcing personal beliefs may not be outright coaxing, no, hell no, it's sugar coated.

I don't think the intention is a bad one, I think the people that do try to force their beliefs are doing what they feel is right, however that certainly does not make it right...

Quote:

I reply with: It sounded much more funner

well I want you to have fun

Quote:

I reply with: So when you pray it's not a crutch per say, it's a plea???

not necessarily. I believe there are 5 basic forms of prayer and it is not a plea for me...anything from thanking to intercessory prayer. Ultimately I feel that it is a positive for me to pray for others...

Quote:

For the record I once held the belief of a baptist.

when did your beliefs change? was it a single profound event that made you question your faith or was it a gradual change? did the process of change hurt?

Quote:

Best wishes, luck, and whatever else

Same to you onegreatperson...always

onegreatperson · 11-14-2002, 06:21 PM

Amie said: I understand however I do not refer to it as "the truth" but I do recognize that a great many people do...

I reply with: You and a great many people differ, but as a whole you're almost all the same.
=========================
Amie said: well atheism is not a religion so yeah..

I reply with: I concour.
=========================
Amie said: I don't think the intention is a bad one, I think the people that do try to force their beliefs are doing what they feel is right, however that certainly does not make it right...

I reply with: Good point. I understand it's not bad intentions. But once you're in, it becomes a chore in which a type of slavery for freedom is set in. When you are not religiously astute
you tend to understand things, and influencing people is not your main goal, your main goal is the critique of ideas.
=========================
Amie said: not necessarily. I believe there are 5 basic forms of prayer and it is not a plea for me...anything from thanking to intercessory prayer. Ultimately I feel that it is a positive for me to pray for others...

I reply with: 5 basic forms of "holding on"???
=========================
Amie said: when did your beliefs change? was it a single profound event that made you question your faith or was it a gradual change? did the process of change hurt?

I reply with: I guess it was just this "thirst" for knowledge. But as far as hurting. No, it made me feel like I could expand the boundaries which I once bore.
=========================

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Amie · 11-14-2002, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onegreatperson:
You and a great many people differ, but as a whole you're almost all the same.

How so? How are we almost all the same?

Quote:

I concour

we agree on something! Its a miracle! Godidit!

Quote:

I reply with: 5 basic forms of "holding on"???

lol...oh ye of little or no faith

Quote:

I guess it was just this "thirst" for knowledge. But as far as hurting. No, it made me feel like I could expand the boundaries which I once bore.

so you felt a sense of freedom then...when did this process take place I am just curious?

onegreatperson · 11-14-2002, 06:58 PM

Let's see, I guess since I agreed with you, that must have been the work of the great Geehovah! Muah hahahahahahahahahaha.

Anywho! Well let's see I think since I decided that religion held no real value too me then it was of no use. That is the answer to that.

Now let us get back on track and not sentimental. After all I am a man of little or no expense

I am asking this of you. When you debate that what you believe is the absolute truth, you seem to not reference much of it, most of it is your opinion. Most theist have some book they go off of. What is yours? The intimate relationship with "god" seems profusly staticky too me. You have a relationship with some supreme being, that you claim is all powerful, all whatever, blah blah....whatever, just like on the Wizard of Oz.
Well my break it down question is, you and a million other's who believe all have something in common. That is an infallibale faux hope in something that you say exist, but scientifically is not proven, but bibilically is still a probability, never proven. Oh don't get me wrong maybe by context, but realisiticly it is a restricted enticement towards "real proof" of a supreme being ever existing. So here it is in it's true being, you prove too me that whatever you believe in exist, and I will question what you argue. Now how do we solve this? Well we can't, and can never it seems, but wait their is a light at the end of the tunnel. What is that might you ask? Well explain too me this, the bible seem's fundamentally unexplicabley monkeyish, and you claim it to be truth. But I claim it to be faux, so who is correct, and why?

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Amie · 11-14-2002, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onegreatperson:
I am asking this of you.

I'm all ears...er...eyes

Quote:

Most theist have some book they go off of. What is yours?

Bible. However I am no bible literalist by any stretch of the imagination...

Quote:

You have a relationship with some supreme being, that you claim is all powerful, all whatever, blah blah....whatever, just like on the Wizard of Oz.

I guess from an outside objective opinion, you could compare it to the Wizard of Oz yes, however the difference lies in my mind since I do not love or worship the wizard of oz...

Quote:

you and a million other's who believe all have something in common. That is an infallibale faux hope in something that you say exist, but scientifically is not proven, but bibilically is still a probability, never proven. Oh don't get me wrong maybe by context, but realisiticly it is a restricted enticement towards "real proof" of a supreme being ever existing. So here it is in it's true being, you prove too me that whatever you believe in exist, and I will question what you argue. Now how do we solve this? Well we can't, and can never it seems, but wait their is a light at the end of the tunnel. What is that might you ask? Well explain too me this, the bible seem's fundamentally unexplicabley monkeyish, and you claim it to be truth. But I claim it to be faux, so who is correct, and why?

we are both correct because we believe what is right for us...
neither of us are wrong. The difference between us is the fact that we do not share in one belief...I can't say you are wrong, I can only say you have a pont of view that I do not share. Can you say I am wrong with my God belief?

[edited because once again I screwed up the quote boxes]

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: Amie ]</p>

onegreatperson · 11-14-2002, 07:24 PM

Don't you mean theologian, not bible literalist?
I am using a simile in other words no you don't love or worship, oh here is a quicky on love, "love" is caused by dopamine

. Anywho!
The simile of Wizard of Oz and god is that you could be compared. Reason being your belief in a falsity such as god could be a mental
paitents belief in the Wizard of Oz, but of course you and the mental one would be on the same page so-to-speak.
As far as us being both correct, I disagree. The void of belief on my part is not the apt enigmatic faith that you have.
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Amie · 11-14-2002, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onegreatperson:
The simile of Wizard of Oz and god is that you could be compared. Reason being your belief in a falsity such as god could be a mental
paitents belief in the Wizard of Oz, but of course you and the mental one would be on the same page so-to-speak.

well from an objective viewpoint possibly...however the great difference between the two beliefs would be social acceptance. Lets face it if I walk down the street and say "I believe in God" more often than not people will just smile and say "thats good" however if I walk down the street and announce my belief in the wizard of oz those same people will probably ask if I skipped my med for the day...

Quote:

As far as us being both correct, I disagree. The void of belief on my part is not the apt enigmatic faith that you have.

Then we can agree to disagree on this...

rdalin · 11-15-2002, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar:
<strong>defining God is a problem so big that some of us call ourselves igtheists- we are ignorant of what anyone means when they use the word God. It has been my observation that no two believers have exactly the same definition, although they be members of the same denomination. Ask the right questions and the differences show up. </strong>

Whenever I argue about my belief that there is no god, I am always careful to define what god I'm talking about. The god(s) which I believe don't exist are what I call supernatural gods - that is, entities which are capable of transcending the physical laws and constraints which govern the universe. By treating them as a class, I find I can ignore the individual characteristics which separate god A from god B (and which are pretty generally silly in the first place).

Richard

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-14-2002, 05:08 PM	#22
onegreatperson Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 22	Amie said: The theist believes, the atheist does not. I think both parties question it is simply a matter of how one perceives those answers that they come up with... I reply with: Now you are changing what I was saying "The theist believes, the atheist questions." However what the theist percieves are true is usually what they refer to as the truth, and the atheist claims it to be what it is. ================================= Amie said: I don't necesssarily think it is a matter of coaxing, I think some people want to share their beliefs with others and that is ok as long as you are not forcing personal beliefs on to someone else... I reply with: I guess that's why you hear of protestant reformation, and not atheist reformation "hmmm....." Forcing personal beliefs may not be outright coaxing, no, hell no, it's sugar coated. ================================= Amie said: why not just milk the child sucks on, why the milk the retarded child sucks on? I reply with: It sounded much more funner ================================= Amie said: I understand God belief is not for everyone, I do not see my belief as any crutch though.. I reply with: So when you pray it's not a crutch per say, it's a plea??? <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> ================================= Amie said: I am glad you question...have you ever asked yourself "what if I am wrong about this?" this is a sincere question, not at all antagonistic... I reply with: For the record I once held the belief of a baptist. ================================= Best wishes, luck, and whatever else Me, myself, and me <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

11-14-2002, 06:21 PM	#24
onegreatperson Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 22	Amie said: I understand however I do not refer to it as "the truth" but I do recognize that a great many people do... I reply with: You and a great many people differ, but as a whole you're almost all the same. ========================= Amie said: well atheism is not a religion so yeah.. I reply with: I concour. ========================= Amie said: I don't think the intention is a bad one, I think the people that do try to force their beliefs are doing what they feel is right, however that certainly does not make it right... I reply with: Good point. I understand it's not bad intentions. But once you're in, it becomes a chore in which a type of slavery for freedom is set in. When you are not religiously astute you tend to understand things, and influencing people is not your main goal, your main goal is the critique of ideas. ========================= Amie said: not necessarily. I believe there are 5 basic forms of prayer and it is not a plea for me...anything from thanking to intercessory prayer. Ultimately I feel that it is a positive for me to pray for others... I reply with: 5 basic forms of "holding on"??? ========================= Amie said: when did your beliefs change? was it a single profound event that made you question your faith or was it a gradual change? did the process of change hurt? I reply with: I guess it was just this "thirst" for knowledge. But as far as hurting. No, it made me feel like I could expand the boundaries which I once bore. ========================= <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

11-14-2002, 06:58 PM	#26
onegreatperson Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 22	Let's see, I guess since I agreed with you, that must have been the work of the great Geehovah! Muah hahahahahahahahahaha. Anywho! Well let's see I think since I decided that religion held no real value too me then it was of no use. That is the answer to that. Now let us get back on track and not sentimental. After all I am a man of little or no expense I am asking this of you. When you debate that what you believe is the absolute truth, you seem to not reference much of it, most of it is your opinion. Most theist have some book they go off of. What is yours? The intimate relationship with "god" seems profusly staticky too me. You have a relationship with some supreme being, that you claim is all powerful, all whatever, blah blah....whatever, just like on the Wizard of Oz. Well my break it down question is, you and a million other's who believe all have something in common. That is an infallibale faux hope in something that you say exist, but scientifically is not proven, but bibilically is still a probability, never proven. Oh don't get me wrong maybe by context, but realisiticly it is a restricted enticement towards "real proof" of a supreme being ever existing. So here it is in it's true being, you prove too me that whatever you believe in exist, and I will question what you argue. Now how do we solve this? Well we can't, and can never it seems, but wait their is a light at the end of the tunnel. What is that might you ask? Well explain too me this, the bible seem's fundamentally unexplicabley monkeyish, and you claim it to be truth. But I claim it to be faux, so who is correct, and why? <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

11-14-2002, 07:24 PM	#28
onegreatperson Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 22	Don't you mean theologian, not bible literalist? I am using a simile in other words no you don't love or worship, oh here is a quicky on love, "love" is caused by dopamine . Anywho! The simile of Wizard of Oz and god is that you could be compared. Reason being your belief in a falsity such as god could be a mental paitents belief in the Wizard of Oz, but of course you and the mental one would be on the same page so-to-speak. As far as us being both correct, I disagree. The void of belief on my part is not the apt enigmatic faith that you have. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.