Scratch an atheist and you will find a skeptic!

[inocente]

1690 is more than 300 years ago and in 1690 they didn’t bomb bars which what we were discussing.

I didn’t say they bombed bars, I said “cut us up”. Look at the post. And yes, instead of pedantically saying 327 years ago last Saturday, it has been known for people to round intervals of time, it’s not as if I was setting a precedent there.

Well if it wasn’t in Ireland its’ hardly surprising it wasn’t bombed.

I never said it was bombed. Look at the post.

And strange if you forgot the bombs outside Ireland. Around 30 separate incidents. In attacks specifically on pubs, 26 people killed and 257 injured.

*I don’t have to explain it. You know it isn’t what I wrote, and should you say 100 times it did it will not make it true. *

I’m puzzled what’s going on here, I’ve quoted you verbatim several times now. Do you deny that you wrote the post?

Glad you found it interesting.

Yes, it sounds like they got stuck in nineteenth century hellfire.

*I did in other posts and if you weren’t cherry picking from one post I made in continuation of others you would know that. That said, you probably do no.

Ah - the 'let’s make disparaging comments of personal nature to the opponent simply to annoy them opponent strategy? It is often the case people resort to this strategy when they have no viable counter argument to offer and know they loosing?

Judges don’t uphold what one party’s assertions purely on their insistence something was said or don.t Judges don’t cherry pick, nor misinterpret, and remain neutral. They don’t ‘join in the sport.’ But then you already know that as well.*

Your profile says you’re a legal advocate. Facts are facts. I’m not a legal advocate, but I reckon that when someone exceeds the speed limit, the cop isn’t cherry picking to pull him over, and the driver can’t argue that it doesn’t count as he was below the limit before he put his foot on the gas.

Likewise, you posted an attempt to link atheists with fundamentalists, and it isn’t cherry picking for me to give reasons why I think it was flawed, and you can’t argue that it doesn’t count as you made other posts beforehand.

I’m not a legal advocate, but I reckon in court you would either need to correct your claim or make a logical rebuttal to my arguments, rather than just resort to a strategy of vaguely waving at your undoubted niceness. If that’s disparaging, guilty as charged .

 

[Vonsalza]

I didn’t say they bombed bars, I said “cut us up”. Look at the post.

Us?

Ah, the pointless and ancient game where we claim the grief of the wronged centuries-dead. With its satanic assistance, old wars shall never end.

Particularly interesting case here where you’re a Spanish Baptist. If you’re ethnically Spanish as well, good chance you’re related far more to your perceived cutters than you are to the recipients - particularly as the great majority of the Baptist faith in Spain was due to American efforts in “re-introducing” it (As the 17th century Baptist movement never strayed too awfully far from the English-speaking world).

Of course, one can also point out that a Catholic man could also stupidly claim the same ideological grudge toward Protestants, as the violence went both ways.

Stupid, fruitless practice… The grievous dead are centuries dead and those responsible are centuries dead too.

Your profile says you’re a legal advocate. Facts are facts. I’m not a legal advocate, but I reckon that when someone exceeds the speed limit, the cop isn’t cherry picking to pull him over, and the driver can’t argue that it doesn’t count as he was below the limit before he put his foot on the gas.

Quite right. But you can argue at trial that there were extenuating circumstances that justified speeding in this case as a necessary ill; as I have successfully done.

There’s a reason the cop isn’t also the judge.

I’m not a legal advocate, but I reckon in court you would either need to correct your claim or make a logical rebuttal to my arguments…

See immediately above.

 

[inocente]

inocente;14753155:

I didn’t say they bombed bars, I said “cut us up”. Look at the post.

Us?

Ah, the pointless and ancient game where we claim the grief of the wronged centuries-dead. With its satanic assistance, old wars shall never end.

Particularly interesting case here where you’re a Spanish Baptist. If you’re ethnically Spanish as well, good chance you’re related far more to your perceived cutters than you are to the recipients - particularly as the great majority of the Baptist faith in Spain was due to American efforts in “re-introducing” it (As the 17th century Baptist movement never strayed too awfully far from the English-speaking world).

Of course, one can also point out that a Catholic man could also stupidly claim the same ideological grudge toward Protestants, as the violence went both ways.

Stupid, fruitless practice… The grievous dead are centuries dead and those responsible are centuries dead too.

Read what you quoted from me above. See where I said look at the post? Did you look at the post? No of course you didn’t.

What I actually said was “The rantings of that politician speak of others as sub-human. That’s not merely a dispute over governance, it goes far deeper into psyches. There’s the whole tribal internecine thing going on, them and us, they worship false idols, they’re a different race, they cut us up 300 years ago so we’ll do the same to them, etc.”

So by quoting me out of context, you seem to have mistook my meaning. I was referring to a battle in a sectarian war long forgotten except in the rantings of sectarians. As you say, sectarianism is “stupid, fruitless”. But not merely that, it is always driven by fear and hate, by raw tribal divisiveness, and there is never a good ending. Stereotyping, racism, homophobia, misogyny, sectarianism. Never a good ending.

You gave me an opportunity to say what I think about stereotyping so no harm done, but next time it might be an idea to check your facts .

 

[minkymurph]

Quite right. But you can argue at trial that there were extenuating circumstances that justified speeding in this case as a necessary ill; as I have successfully done.

There’s a reason the cop isn’t also the judge.

And if the driver was 10 miles over the speed limit it cannot be argued they were 50 miles over the speed limit simply because they were speeding.

 

[minkymurph]

I didn’t say they bombed bars, I said “cut us up”. Look at the post. And yes, instead of pedantically saying 327 years ago last Saturday, it has been known for people to round intervals of time, it’s not as if I was setting a precedent there.

I never said it was bombed. Look at the post.

You said at the commencement of this discussion post bars were bombed in the name of Jesus. This is what is in dispute. If my claims are invalid why would tonyrea - post 253 state they are undeniable facts? Is he wrong too?

In post 268 you said neither side bombed atheist bars.

I’m puzzled what’s going on here, I’ve quoted you verbatim several times now. Do you deny that you wrote the post?

You know I’m not.

Your profile says you’re a legal advocate. Facts are facts. I’m not a legal advocate, but I reckon that when someone exceeds the speed limit, the cop isn’t cherry picking to pull him over, and the driver can’t argue that it doesn’t count as he was below the limit before he put his foot on the gas.

It’s a fact I did not say all fundamentalists think Godlessness is to blame for all the world’s ills and homosexuality is an abomination.

I wrote - I would also say radical atheists are the new fundamentalists. I say this based on their words and actions. In my parents time fiery evangelical preachers stood on street corners shouting through megaphones, ‘Get saved or burn in hell.’ There has been a contemporary revival of this in my home town - though not on the same scale, and every week there are insertions in the local paper, ‘Remember the days of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah.’ In other words - Godlessness (atheism) is to blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination. Current law prevents them from actually publishing this but they can cite Scripture so we know what they are getting at.

You claim I said all fundamentalists assert “Godlessness (atheism) is to blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination” Where do you see these words in post? These words are not there. The word ‘all’ is not there. I think I can state with confidence a judge would not see the word ‘all’ in my post.

I refer to radical atheists as the ‘new fundamentalists.’ If said all fundamentalists assert “Godlessness (atheism) is to blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination.” then by your reasoning I must be claiming they think Godlessness is to blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination. I think I can state with confidence a judge would not arrive at that conclusion.

Would you claim no religious fundamentalist thinks godlessness (atheism) is to blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination. If so, why do you think biblical quotes concerning Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah are cited in national newspapers?

I’m not a legal advocate, but I reckon in court you would either need to correct your claim or make a logical rebuttal to my arguments, rather than just resort to a strategy of vaguely waving at your undoubted niceness. If that’s disparaging, guilty as charged .

It’s not disparaging, but I don’t think you should cite anything from my personal profile to lend weight to your arguments.

If we were in court, I would confident a judge would not find I said all fundamentalists think Godlessness is to blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination. If you want to argue my post implies this, that’s different. Before a court this is what I would argue if I was you.

 

[minkymurph]

Sometimes I am being sarcastic. But it is true that many posts I find amusing. As a matter of fact, I find YOUR posts worthy to be considered, and I never use sarcasm when I reply to you. I only wish there would be “more of you”.

Thanks for the compliment - but your posts do confuse me. Sometimes your rhetoric is pretty radical and sometimes it’s not. I find your post something of an enigma.
;14752627:

Don’t worry about my spare time. I spent a lot of time during the last few years (way past after retirement age) of having interesting conversations with all sorts of Christians in general, and Catholics in particular. I rather doubt that there is a lot that I have not heard before. But I am an optimist, so I hope that there are new insights what will educate me.

So if your past retirement age I take it your not the young, female singer?
;14752627:

Do not take the words “Christian sexual propaganda” seriously. They were intended to be sarcastic. I do not find that poster in the same league as you.

Sometimes your rhetoric is pretty radical and sometimes it’s not. I find your posts something of an enigma.

You mean those who hypocritically call themselves humanist, while not living up to their own qualifications? I am with you all the way. I despise every hypocrite of any shape and hue.

Likewise I would say it is hypocritical to call oneself Christian and not try to live as one.

Of course not. In my opinion God is an equal opportunity “non-listener”. But when I see a whole lot of unnecessary and cruel suffering, I consider it as a very strong evidence (NOT proof!) against the “God is Love” slogan.

I can relate to that. Unnecessary and cruel suffering is hard one to reconcile with the belief God is Love. That said, some pretty cruel humans have demonstrated a loving side. Apparently Stalin adored his daughter.

 

[o_mlly]

Your definition of ‘very few’ is different to mine. Especially when it runs into the scores of millions in just America. Sixty percent, Christine. Sixty percent believe they went in two by two. That’s an awful lot of fundamentalists.

washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/

But you can take some consolation that only 40% of Catholics can be described as such.

And you can be consoled (or worried) that 29% of “No religion” were described as such (in 2004).

                                “Literally true” 
                             Red Sea  Creation   Noah 
 All                           64%       61       60 
 Catholics                     50        51       44 
 Protestants                   79        75       73 
 Evangelical Protestants       91        87       87  
 Non-evangelical Protestants   59        55       50 
 No religion                   32        24       29

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Thanks for the compliment - but your posts do confuse me. Sometimes your rhetoric is pretty radical and sometimes it’s not. I find your post something of an enigma.

Because none of us are papier-mâché characters.

So if your past retirement age I take it your not the young, female singer?

Good guess. Though I don’t get the “the” in your question. Is there a singer with the name of “Vera Ljuba”?

Likewise I would say it is hypocritical to call oneself Christian and not try to live as one.

Agreed. But there is one thing about hypocrisy, which makes it the worst of all the “sins”. One can be a liar sometimes, one can be gluttonous once in a while, or greedy, etc… periodically. But hypocrisy (which is not even one of the seven deadly sins) is a “full-time job”.

I can relate to that. Unnecessary and cruel suffering is hard one to reconcile with the belief God is Love. That said, some pretty cruel humans have demonstrated a loving side. Apparently Stalin adored his daughter.

Indeed. But none of us is worshipped as “infinitely loving”. And you are correct, the “problem of evil” is the perennial thorn in the side of Christianity. If you are interested in details, just Google “The tale of the twelve Officers”.

Moreover, the question of “what is unnecessary suffering” is a major stumbling block in conversations.

 

[o_mlly]

…
Where an atheist states, ‘I hate God’ or I hate all religion,’ is this not making a radical statement …

In the good old days, an atheists’ meeting agenda would consist of 2 pieces of paper. The first, a blank piece listing all the things they believed in. And, the other a monotonous list of all the things they don’t believe in. Now, things aren’t as good. Radical?
*Dec 2, 2005 SAN ANTONIO — A group of atheists at the University of Texas at San Antonio is putting a novel twist on the toys-for-guns programs run by many urban police departments. But instead of toys, they are handing out porn in exchange for bibles.

“We consider the bible to be a very negative force in the history of the world,” student Ryan Walker said. Walker is part of a student group that calls itself the Atheist Agenda. *

 

[o_mlly]

Good Lord, …

I note some, perhaps unconscious, movement toward theism, here. “Good Lord” certainly sounds biblical; even his capitalization is correct.

 

[minkymurph]

Because none of us are papier-mâché characters.

True - but some of us are more straightforward than others.

Good guess. Though I don’t get the “the” in your question. Is there a singer with the name of “Vera Ljuba”?

To my knowledge - yes. I have a vague recollection of coming across here on YouTube.
I believer there is also a Vera Ljuba group that sells spiritual jewelry? Something tells me your not part of that group either.

Agreed. But there is one thing about hypocrisy, which makes it the worst of all the “sins”. One can be a liar sometimes, one can be gluttonous once in a while, or greedy, etc… periodically. But hypocrisy (which is not even one of the seven deadly sins) is a “full-time job”.

Their is no doubt one has to make a concerted effort to be a hypocrite. Being a hypocrite probably falls into being a liar.

Indeed. But none of us is worshipped as “infinitely loving”. And you are correct, the “problem of evil” is the perennial thorn in the side of Christianity. If you are interested in details, just Google “The tale of the twelve Officers”

Had a quick look at it. I get what it’s about. The 12 officers don’t step in, why does God not step in?

I have a theory on the problem of evil. It’s not a very good one. To date formulated only on notions that pass through my head and I’m toying around with them at present.

I believe the ultimate for the human race is to become Godlike. God desires this for us as it is the purest form of existence. Had we been created Godlike, there would have been no need for us to become Godlike. We are already ‘it.’ Becoming something of your own choosing is infinitely more satisfying and more meaningful than being something someone else made us to be. Also - only God can actually be God so we can’t be created ‘God.’

To become Godlike means ‘passing through evil.’ ‘Passing through evil’ means knowing what ‘evil’ is, but more. It is overcoming it. Once we ‘overcome evil’ entirely we are Godlike. ‘The Fall’ was inevitable, but part of the process of becoming ‘Godlike.’

Humankind possesses God given talents and abilities to enable us to become ‘Godlike.’’ Each time we use them we take a step closer to the purest form of existence. Each time we don’t we take a step away from it. But becoming Godlike is not something we can achieve totally on our own. It can only perfected by God, and thus becoming Godlike demands a relationship with God. You cannot become like someone if you have no relationship with them.

Of course none of this is much use to the poor woman in the tale of the 12 officers. I did say my theory isn’t a particularly good one and I’m only toying around with ideas at present.

Moreover, the question of “what is unnecessary suffering” is a major stumbling block in conversations.

Coming up with a definition certainly presents a challenge. Again toying around with ideas - suffering directly imposed by another for no other purpose than to cause suffering? Indirectly imposed when it could readily be avoided, the suffering was foreseeable but the person ran the risk of causing the suffering?

Perhaps the pain of childbirth can be described as a ‘necessary suffering.’ Necessary in that there is no such thing as painless childbirth but there is a positive outcome in that one has a child? Assuming of course it’s a wanted and loved child.

Having to walk home in high heels in the rain as you spend your bus fare/taxi fare in the pub as you were having such a good time? Note to self - leave pub earlier to avoid suffering? And yes I am speaking from experience.

I have a vague recollection of a theory pain is a good thing as it teaches us to avoid danger.

 

[Bradski]

And you can be consoled (or worried) that 29% of “No religion” were described as such (in 2004).

                                “Literally true” 
                             Red Sea  Creation   Noah 
 All                           64%       61       60 
 Catholics                     50        51       44 
 Protestants                   79        75       73 
 Evangelical Protestants       91        87       87  
 Non-evangelical Protestants   59        55       50 
 No religion                   32        24       29

It looks like you have discovered that a fair proportion of people who don’t align themsleves with a specific religion believe in God and could be described as fundamentalists.

Well done.

 

[Bradski]

I note some, perhaps unconscious, movement toward theism, here. “Good Lord” certainly sounds biblical; even his capitalization is correct.

I also use terms and phrases that might indicate an offer from me to indulge in a sexual dalliance. Rest assured it’s not. And I capitalise certain words to make sure you know I am talking about (for example) your God as opposed to a generic concept of a god.

And my mother always told me to be polite. I try not to let her down.

 

[goout]

Indeed. But none of us is worshipped as “infinitely loving”. And you are correct, the “problem of evil” is the perennial thorn in the side of Christianity. If you are interested in details, just Google “The tale of the twelve Officers”.

Moreover, the question of “what is unnecessary suffering” is a major stumbling block in conversations.

Evil is not an unsolvable problem in Christianity. In fact, if you are paying attention, you might find that is the whole point of Christianity, is that evil does not win, and is nothing.

Good is something.
Evil is nothing, good is real and durable.

Don’t you have an answer to why good exists?
Or do you take it for granted?

Seems like an obsession with “the bad”. Now that is a problem.

 

[Bradski]

Evil is not an unsolvable problem in Christianity.

There are very many extremely well educated and erudite Christians who would categorically disagree with that statement. You should take it up with them.

 

[PRmerger]

Evil is not an unsolvable problem in Christianity.

Indeed.

The answer to all evil for the Believer is: God’s justice.

God makes it right in the end for all of those who have suffered evil, and for all those who have committed evil.

But for the atheist, evil is, indeed, an unsolvable problem.

The atheist answer to the question, “Daddy, why did my favorite cousin have to die of cancer?” is only, “Bad things happen in this world, son.”

A wholly unsatisfactory answer to any 6 year old…16 year old…and 66 year old.

 

[Bradski]

Now, things aren’t as good. Radical? *Dec 2, 2005 SAN ANTONIO — A group of atheists at the University of Texas at San Antonio is putting a novel twist on the toys-for-guns programs run by many urban police departments. But instead of toys, they are handing out porn in exchange for bibles.

“We consider the bible to be a very negative force in the history of the world,” student Ryan Walker said. Walker is part of a student group that calls itself the Atheist Agenda. *

Did you say ‘now’? Good Lord (there it is again…), that was 12 years ago. And our good friends in Texas, having decided that outraging spluttering conservatives (that’s what students tend to do) and winding up the media by swapping porn for bibles had served its purpose by generating suitable publicity, they have taken a less aggressive approach.

“We don’t plan on doing (the smut-for-smut campaign) ever again,” said Jacob Schmidt, an officer with the newly formed group. “We encourage conversation, but we did it in the wrong way, just getting a rise out of people. And once you make someone defensive about their beliefs, you’re not going to get through to them….”.

“We’re out here just promoting the values of humanism. You can be moral in the absence of religion,” said Duncan, 24, who in 1997 prayed for Christian salvation during a Billy Graham sermon at the Alamodome and officially came out as an atheist two years ago. “Our goal now is to, instead of inciting hostility, we want to engage in civil dialogue.” mysanantonio.com/news/religion/article/Atheist-group-changing-its-message-4947906.php

Now that you are up-to-date, I’m sure the guys at San Antonio will have your full support in their attempt to promote open and constructive dialogue.

 

[Bradski]

I have a vague recollection of a theory pain is a good thing as it teaches us to avoid danger.

It would be fatal if we didn’t feel pain. So whether you believe that the system was designed by God or is a natural result of evolutionary pressures (or a combo of both), then it is obviously a good thing. However…

There are some things that we experience that are only handy from an evolutionary sense and which could obviously be described as ‘non-optimal’ if we look at them from a design perspective. That is, if they have been designed, then the guy who did the designing did a pretty sloppy job.

Childbirth, for example, does not have to be painful. Unless of course you accept church teaching on the fall and God purposely made it so (but hey, that’s a fundamentalist approach and we don’t want to head in that direction again). If you have ever seen a dog or a cat giving birth, it’s a pretty low key event. If your dog went through as much pain as the average woman did in giving birth, then I would seriously consider puting it out of its misery. And trust me, I know what you girls go through – I was there for the birth of my two kids (tip for future fathers: when you hold your wife’s hand during a contraction, make sure she’s not just gripping your fingers).

And the process that one goes through that results in childbirth…well, there’s a reason children find the mechanics of the act to be disgusting. Unless your hormones are kicking in, it is pretty gross if you think about it. You will be aware of the requirement to teach children that any action in the nether regions at their age needs to be treated as a matter that requires strict hygiene. We’ll have to change your pants…you need to wash your hands…you have to keep that clean.

And then they get a little older and hey – guess where you are supposed to put that!

And the fact that sex is actually enjoyable has caused more problems since the dawn of time than any other single facet of human existence. And don’t tell me that God wouldn’t have been aware of that fact. So He acted like a rather sadistic father who places a bowl of ice cream in front of his child and then tells her that if she touches it, she will be punished.

Or alternatively, the fact that it is enjoyable is a purely evolutionary tactic to make sure we actually went through with the process as often as possible to ensure the survival of the species (I think someone wrote a book about that).

Which do you think is the more likely?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

True - but some of us are more straightforward than others.

If you take into account the posters I reply to, you will see a definite pattern.

To my knowledge - yes. I have a vague recollection of coming across here on YouTube.
I believer there is also a Vera Ljuba group that sells spiritual jewelry? Something tells me your not part of that group either.

Never heard of it. I chose it in a semi-random fashion.

Their is no doubt one has to make a concerted effort to be a hypocrite. Being a hypocrite probably falls into being a liar.

I don’t think so. The hypocrites believe what they say. In a sense they are worse than the simple liars. (My opinion only).

Had a quick look at it. I get what it’s about. The 12 officers don’t step in, why does God not step in?

No, you are mistaken. The 12 officers represent the different answers usually given by apologists, who try to explain “away” the severity of the problem. Just look at them, the “free will” defense, the “greater good” defense, the “you are too ignorant to understand it anyhow” defense, the “it does not matter compared to the eternal bliss” defense… and some more.

I have a theory on the problem of evil. It’s not a very good one. To date formulated only on notions that pass through my head and I’m toying around with them at present.

I believe the ultimate for the human race is to become Godlike. God desires this for us as it is the purest form of existence. Had we been created Godlike, there would have been no need for us to become Godlike. We are already ‘it.’ Becoming something of your own choosing is infinitely more satisfying and more meaningful than being something someone else made us to be. Also - only God can actually be God so we can’t be created ‘God.’

To become Godlike means ‘passing through evil.’ ‘Passing through evil’ means knowing what ‘evil’ is, but more. It is overcoming it. Once we ‘overcome evil’ entirely we are Godlike. ‘The Fall’ was inevitable, but part of the process of becoming ‘Godlike.’

Humankind possesses God given talents and abilities to enable us to become ‘Godlike.’’ Each time we use them we take a step closer to the purest form of existence. Each time we don’t we take a step away from it. But becoming Godlike is not something we can achieve totally on our own. It can only perfected by God, and thus becoming Godlike demands a relationship with God. You cannot become like someone if you have no relationship with them.

Interesting approach. We might discuss it when you want to.

Of course none of this is much use to the poor woman in the tale of the 12 officers. I did say my theory isn’t a particularly good one and I’m only toying around with ideas at present.

Toying with ideas is always a good thing.

Coming up with a definition certainly presents a challenge. Again toying around with ideas - suffering directly imposed by another for no other purpose than to cause suffering? Indirectly imposed when it could readily be avoided, the suffering was foreseeable but the person ran the risk of causing the suffering?

Perhaps the pain of childbirth can be described as a ‘necessary suffering.’ Necessary in that there is no such thing as painless childbirth but there is a positive outcome in that one has a child? Assuming of course it’s a wanted and loved child.

Having to walk home in high heels in the rain as you spend your bus fare/taxi fare in the pub as you were having such a good time? Note to self - leave pub earlier to avoid suffering? And yes I am speaking from experience.

I have a vague recollection of a theory pain is a good thing as it teaches us to avoid danger.

This problem we could examine, if and when you feel like it. Just one observation here. For those beings, whose body has a “perfect” regeneration there is no need to avoid danger. They lose a body part? No problem, it will regrow. Just think of the model of vegetation. Sapient trees and other kinds of vegetation are not problematic, since the parts of the nervous system which “reports” danger are separate from the parts which allow thinking. The low-level planaria has perfect regeneration. Cut it in half, and both parts will regenerate.

The “necessary suffering” is not “physically necessary”. Logically necessary, which means that even an omnipotent cannot get rid of it. As such the pain of childbirth is not necessary at all. Very easy to overcome with proper technology. Ectogenesis would be one possible answer.

 

[PRmerger]

I Unless of course you accept church teaching on the fall and God purposely made it so (but hey, that’s a fundamentalist approach and we don’t want to head in that direction again).

Just to be clear to the lurkers: the above is NOT Church teaching.