Why The Atheists Fight

[Theocrat]

Who Made You a Judge?

We should organize a universal/group forum "ignore" of Theocrat; not ban him, just let him talk in a vaccuum without interrupting everything with irrationality.

I'm half-kidding.

Yeah, you're just like the mainstream media, sophocles07. When you don't agree with someone's message, you just ignore them, since you can't really silence the messenger. You're a real libertarian...

Half-kidding or not, what gives you the right to allow for many of things you've spouted on these forums (calling us Christians by a range of expletives just because we believe in God) without a "universal/group forum" ignoring, but then turning around and suggesting to the forum users here to ignore my views and considerations?

I tell you, you really have a "Judas Complex" going on, and it's a shame that one has to deal with such shun-tactics against someone they fundamentally disagree with, on a forum where the freedom to exchange ideas and disagree are paramount to our libertarian convictions, whether they be irrational or not.

 

[Hiki]

I'm sorry, but I don't recall the sentence or paragraph where I stated that "atheists" were low-lifes. That's your interpretation of what I said, Hiki. If you read and understood my last paragraph in the post you quoted me on, you would see that I acknowledged "atheists" as being created by God with rights from God. That doesn't sound like "low-life" to me.

So.. Atheists:

Pros

-Created by God

Cons

-Have no idea of human rights
-Cant tell the difference between right or wrong
-In power, nation would go into anarchy
-No sense of rights to live
-No sense about liberty

Sounds pretty low-life to me. In other words, Stalin (being an atheist) wasn't lowlife then as he was created in God's loving image? Or those Westboro Baptist Church guys, they ain't even atheist.

Hiki, you are entirely correct. If a CARTOON can summarize the situation better than bandying words about for pages with Theocrat (IRRATIONALIST EXTRAORDINAIRE), it should be posted. Hit the n a i l on the h e a d, you'll avoid smashing your fingers in with the wasted time of arguing over when or whether or how Jesus is coming back.

Exactly. If I can save me time and fingers, then I'll post a fricking cartoon if it makes my point.
And about my skills in english, yes I know I'm not perfect for christ sakes. On the other hand you could speak in common tongue and not in the political tongue which few can understand.

 

[Theocrat]

If You're Going to Quote Me, Do It Fairly

Cons

-Have no idea of human rights

I said "atheists" have no objective, absolute way of establishing nor accounting for human rights.

-Cant tell the difference between right or wrong

I said "atheists" are philosophically and therefore, politically arbitrary in establishing right and wrong.

-In power, nation would go into anarchy

Two words: French Revolution.

-No sense of rights to live

-No sense about liberty

I said "atheists" cannot make sense of these rights in any final, right, true, and consistent fashion.

Sounds pretty low-life to me. In other words, Stalin (being an atheist) wasn't lowlife then as he was created in God's loving image? Or those Westboro Baptist Church guys, they ain't even atheist.

If that's your definition of low-life, then that's your call. I would conclude that Stalin was being sinful when he governed the way he did, being made in God's image.

By what moral standard do you even preclude to judge those Westboro Baptist Church members, as an "atheist," Hiki? At least I can judge them to be the foolish, ignorant, and arrogant Christians they are because I have an absolute standard of morality to judge them by.

 

[sophocles07]

Yeah, you're just like the mainstream media, sophocles07. When you don't agree with someone's message, you just ignore them, since you can't really silence the messenger. You're a real libertarian...

Joke, you ogre. If I haven’t ignored you yet, I probably won’t.

Half-kidding or not, what gives you the right to allow for many of things you've spouted on these forums (calling us Christians by a range of expletives just because we believe in God) without a "universal/group forum" ignoring, but then turning around and suggesting to the forum users here to ignore my views and considerations?

I don’t recall using a “range of expletives” at you for “believing in God”, though I may have tossed a few when you repeatedly claim for 50+ pages in multiple threads that your way is the ONLY way, that you are a THEOCRAT, and wish to subvert the US government to work like that of SAUDI ARABIA (subtract Mohammed insert Jaysus of course). I have no problem with believers; most of my family is. I don’t argue with them or curse them out; if they advocate repeatedly to my face that they are connected to God and that we should set up a government based in their “ideas” then I definitely will argue with them, and if they persist, it will probably either (based on my mood at the time) 1) get the fuck away from them or 2) say some “not nice” things.

I tell you, you really have a "Judas Complex" going on, and it's a shame that one has to deal with such shun-tactics against someone they fundamentally disagree with, on a forum where the freedom to exchange ideas and disagree are paramount to our libertarian convictions, whether they be irrational or not.

Dude, you know I’ve never ignored or blocked you or anything of the sort. It’s a fizucking JIZOKE, big dawg—got it?

You, besides, declined (apparently), to show why Hiki’s short summarization of Christianity was so “horribly immature” or whatever insult you used without justification.

Let me show you the tunnel of irrationality he gets to go down if he actually attempts a rational debate with you: (your recent statements in this thread arguing his):

I said "atheists" have no objective, absolute way of establishing nor accounting for human rights.

I said "atheists" are philosophically and therefore, politically arbitrary in establishing right and wrong.

I said "atheists" cannot make sense of these rights in any final, right, true, and consistent fashion.

By what moral standard do you even preclude to judge those Westboro Baptist Church members, as an "atheist," Hiki? At least I can judge them to be the foolish, ignorant, and arrogant Christians they are because I have an absolute standard of morality to judge them by.

This by the same guy who said he wouldn’t know murder and rape were wrong without his “God”.

Deduce from this why posting a cartoon in reply is much preferable to battering the tips of your fingers with his sophistry/blather (i.e., needs to go get laid) typescript.

 

[Theocrat]

A Reply to Soph(ist)cles07

I don’t recall using a “range of expletives” at you for “believing in God”, though I may have tossed a few when you repeatedly claim for 50+ pages in multiple threads that your way is the ONLY way, that you are a THEOCRAT, and wish to subvert the US government to work like that of SAUDI ARABIA (subtract Mohammed insert Jaysus of course).

First of all, you just called me an ogre in your last reply, but time and space don't permit me to go back into the archive of forums where you've, admittedly, used all sorts of expletives against me and my views.

Second of all, I've never claimed to subvert the U.S. government to work like that of Saudi Arabia. You've said this about me before, and I challenged you to locate any thread or post where I made that preposterous claim. To this day, you have not proven my saying that, so I wish you would evade from lying on me.

Third of all, if I'm wrong for believing that Jesus Christ is the only way for establishing absolute truth in life, then your problem is with God, not me. As a Christian, I cannot afford to compartmentalize my faith by dividing certain aspects of it to the private arena and others to the public arena. No, my beliefs require that I maintain a totality of faith in how I understand government, politics, law, etc. I will not give that up for anybody, especially in this relativistic, postmodern culture that's eroding America today. If you "atheists" want to fight fairly (as suggested in the original post), then you must deal with this from your theistic partners in the freedom movement.

You, besides, declined (apparently), to show why Hiki’s short summarization of Christianity was so “horribly immature” or whatever insult you used without justification.

Since you and Hiki seem reluctant to read the Bible about the true tenets of Christendom, then let me recommend you read this summarization of Christianity as a start in your thinking about what it really stands for.

This by the same guy who said he wouldn’t know murder and rape were wrong without his “God”.

Let me tell you that I would believe murder and rape were wrong "outside" of God's revelation. The point is I could never justify why murder and rape were wrong because I would have no absolute standard to judge and know with irrefutable certainty that they were wrong. After all, knowledge is "justified belief." I know non-believers believe murder and rape are wrong, but they can't justify why it's wrong; therefore, they could never know in an absolute sense that these two atrocities were immoral.

Deduce from this why posting a cartoon in reply is much preferable to battering the tips of your fingers with his sophistry/blather (i.e., needs to go get laid) typescript.

I have no clue what you're asking here.

 

[LittleLightShining]

If anyone is interested, pm me and I will direct you towards a Bible study which effectively demonstrates my belief about Eve and the "apple." I came to a somewhat disjointed version of this on my own and when I read this, the way it was put together, it makes total sense to me.

I don't want to stir up more debate about the Truth of Christianity, but the ridiculously oversimplified version of Christianity which Hiki posted continues to rear it's ridiculously oversimplified head and I would like the opportunity to address some of these points and why they offend me. I take my faith very seriously and unless you can prove to me that God absolutely does not exist, which you cannot, I will continue in my faith. I will continue to try to show the love and forgiveness which God has so gracefully given to me.

I have not ridiculed any atheist here for their lack of belief. I will not belittle you for that. It is not my place to judge you, for with whatever measure I judge others I will then be judged. I'm going to ask for that same respect in return, whether you agree with my premise or not.

 

[micahnelson]

I have not ridiculed any atheist here for their lack of belief. I will not belittle you for that. It is not my place to judge you, for with whatever measure I judge others I will then be judged.

How Christian of you =)

 

[Hiki]

I said "atheists" have no objective, absolute way of establishing nor accounting for human rights.

Well then I simply cant understand what you mean, I looked up the definitions of those adjectives and I simply understand it in a way that atheists are somehow not able to establish human rights.

I said "atheists" are philosophically and therefore, politically arbitrary in establishing right and wrong.

Same as above.

I said "atheists" cannot make sense of these rights in any final, right, true, and consistent fashion.

Well you're just avoiding here. If you say that somebody cant make sense of those rights in an right and true way, THEN HE BLOODY HELL CANT MAKE SENSE OF THEM! Mere playing with words, you either say yes or no.

By what moral standard do you even preclude to judge those Westboro Baptist Church members, as an "atheist," Hiki? At least I can judge them to be the foolish, ignorant, and arrogant Christians they are because I have an absolute standard of morality to judge them by.

So basically I have no morals for judging anyone? Listen mate. I have every single fucking reason in the world to judge those people. I saw the documentary "Fall from Grace" and found those people to be lowlife. And for the record they thanked God for last year's school shooting here in Finland ending with 9 dead people. So that alone gives me all the right to judge them.
And isn't that just arrogant, you have the morality to judge them and I dont. And please no more playing with ambiguous adjectives.

 

[Kade]

Christians have been in the same position atheists are in. So have other religions. Nothing new is under the sun.

Most of the other Christians I know do not agree with atheists but would never act unkindly towards them because their faith is not about that. However, I have experienced some of the nastiest people who consider themselves atheists. They have no respect towards Christians, even the ones who are respectful towards them. (let me add though that i have met some people who were nasty who called themselves "christians," to be fair)

Me personally, I do not lump people into categories. I make my decisions on someone based on how they treat me, not what their skin color is, religious beliefs are, or sexual preferences or any other collectivist type thinking.

You can't insult people and then want them to understand where you are coming from, it doesn't work like that.

Christianity and religion is being forced into homes, meaning sooner or later we won't be able to even speak about Jesus or the Bible in public. Why would that be something an atheist wants? How is that fair?

I don't know a single atheist who would not fight for your right to speak publicly about anything you wanted, including your faith.

By turning this around, you and Familydog have ignored the point. I am accusing your side of refusing to side with us when it matters, both on libertarian principles and on principles of religious freedom. We may disagree on most things, but when the arm of the government is used to discriminate and stripmine these freedoms, I believe most of you should be more vocal.

You didn't read the two articles I posted I suspect.. nor really read the whole post.

 

[Hiki]

And about the picture

Cosmic: ("Of or relating to the universe, especially as distinct from Earth.", "inconceivably extended in space or time") I think we all can agree that God fills the definition of "cosmic", and as Jesus is basically God then we can agree that Jesus is cosmic. I've been taught that Jesus, God and The Holy Spirit are all one, and as God made Mary pregnant, I think we can all agree that Jesus "was his own father". Jesus was jewish and he rose from the dead and walked on the earth so he's a zombie (=a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force). Belief in Him gives you eternal life. We all eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood symbolically when we perform the Lord's Supper in church, so therefore we "symbolically eat his flesh". We can't talk to Jesus face-to-face, we cant write Him a letter and we cant talk to him with a telephone, so we must "telepathically (=Communication through means other than the senses, as by the exercise of an occult power.) tell him we accept him as our master". As Eve was convinced by a talking snake to eat from the *magical tree, she then became a sinner and humanity fell into sin, aka "an evil force in our soul", that's what Jesus does doesn't He?

*Why it is magical is because when Adam and Eve ate from it, they acquired "sin" and knowing of "bad and evil", so I think you could call something like that magical. And why I say it is a appletree is, because anywhere I see a picture of it, it's always shown as an appletree.

That's my post from the "Religion"-thread. If I got something wrong, then please correct me because that stuff is what I've been told as a young child and what is told in school.

 

[LittleLightShining]

And about the picture



That's my post from the "Religion"-thread. If I got something wrong, then please correct me because that stuff is what I've been told as a young child and what is told in school.

No where in the Bible does it say Eve ate an apple. If that's what you were taught you were taught wrong. Eve ate fruit. Fruit has many different meanings.

 

[Hiki]

No where in the Bible does it say Eve ate an apple. If that's what you were taught you were taught wrong. Eve ate fruit. Fruit has many different meanings.

Did you read my post carefully? In the end I stated that why I like to call it an appletree, is because every single painting I see about it, it shows the tree as a fricking appletree.

 

[LittleLightShining]

Did you read my post carefully? In the end I stated that why I like to call it an appletree, is because every single painting I see about it, it shows the tree as a fricking appletree.

Ok, so you're perpetuating a myth that you don't believe in. You admit it's not an apple tree, yet you continue to label it as such to make your point. Should we move this over to religion? I don't want to detract from Kade's OP.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

No where in the Bible does it say Eve ate an apple. If that's what you were taught you were taught wrong. Eve ate fruit. Fruit has many different meanings.

so does 'ate' for that matter.

 

[Hiki]

Ok, so you're perpetuating a myth that you don't believe in. You admit it's not an apple tree, yet you continue to label it as such to make your point. Should we move this over to religion? I don't want to detract from Kade's OP.

Well I have to if I'm to discuss about it. Well no-one can know what kind of a fruit was hanging from the tree, and besides does it really matter? It's just logical to call it "an appletree" because the apple is always linked to it. Heck we even have an Adam's apple in our throat.
Ok, let's call it "the fruittree" then, happy now?

 

[LittleLightShining]

so does 'ate' for that matter.

Good call. I should take a break because I didn't even mean that she ate it... She partook.

 

[Kade]

Please, let's not argue the bible. I know you guys care greatly for it, and my degrees and knowledge of it will never be enough to convince you. So let's drop it.

I care more about the cause of liberty, freedom of all religious persuasions, then I do to persuade you against your faiths. Just please don't use the bible to persuade me, I reject it absolutely and without excuses. I am a man of laws and literature, and good arguments, the bible will never apply to me because I refuse in all manner of my being to accepting what I consider man-made ancient literature.

I would like to draw attention away from Theocrat, Familydog, and Allyinoh, and arguments about religion, and focus this back on a mutual understanding of principles.

 

[LittleLightShining]

I would like to draw attention away from Theocrat, Familydog, and Allyinoh, and arguments about religion, and focus this back on a mutual understanding of principles.

Ok, so I think we should add Hiki to that list, too. I have yet to see him make any kind of statements pertaining to liberty and freedom.

 

[familydog]

I don't know a single atheist who would not fight for your right to speak publicly about anything you wanted, including your faith.

By turning this around, you and Familydog have ignored the point. I am accusing your side of refusing to side with us when it matters, both on libertarian principles and on principles of religious freedom. We may disagree on most things, but when the arm of the government is used to discriminate and stripmine these freedoms, I believe most of you should be more vocal.

You didn't read the two articles I posted I suspect.. nor really read the whole post.

I specifically said I agree with much in your OP. So, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Shall I repeat myself?

 

[Kade]

Ok, so I think we should add Hiki to that list, too. I have yet to see him make any kind of statements pertaining to liberty and freedom.

I would like to draw attention away from Theocrat, Allyinoh, Familydog, and Hiki.