10 May 08
Originally posted by dizzyfingersI assume that you are also Muslim, Hindu, Bhuddist, and every other conceivable religion "just in case".
I think you missed the point, which is:
The intellectually arrogant attitude of anti-theists is really something to behold. But the greatest intellect in the world still has a rendevous with death, and won't be able to debate his/her way out of it. You can't intellectually overcome death. That's my point.
Or maybe this will help ...
(dizzyfinge ...[text shortened]...
(dizzyfingers turns his baseball hat around the right way)
...'nuff said.
Your post only makes sense to anyone who lends any credence to an afterlife. I don't.
I'm not sure an "anti-theist" can exist. An anti-theist would be against God, which would assume that accept that God exists. To recognise God would be to accept him, even if you don't accept his rules.
An atheist, someone who simply denies the existance of God, like many on this fair forum, is perfectly fine.
10 May 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf you don't like 'anti-theist', then how about 'secular fundamentalist'? Seems appropriate.
I assume that you are also Muslim, Hindu, Bhuddist, and every other conceivable religion "just in case".
Your post only makes sense to anyone who lends any credence to an afterlife. I don't.
I'm not sure an "anti-theist" can exist. An anti-theist would be against God, which would assume that accept that God exists. To recognise God would be t ...[text shortened]... who simply denies the existance of God, like many on this fair forum, is perfectly fine.
I don't mind re-wording and re-phrasing my point - I hope it re-emphasizes it for anyone reading through these threads and posts. Which is ...
The basic attitude that comes across from so many secular fundamentalists is that they are too intelligent to believe in any god. They proclaim how they only believe in science, and how they have searched and pondered and scoured the earth in search of evidence that would lead them to believe that God exists, ... and have come up short. What strikes me is most of their arguments are what they don't like about the idea of god and/or religion, like,"If God is just, then how come this and that happens?", and,"If God is supposed to be omnipresent, then how can he be sitting on a throne in heaven?", or,"Why is religion the cause of so many wars?" These types of arguments come from insincere people who simply do not want to believe, but who love to argue, or from people who have been duped by those kinds of people. I hope you can see why I think they should more accurately be called 'anti-theists'.
10 May 08
Originally posted by dizzyfingersNo. Anti-theist would be the wrong word. A theist is someone who accepts the existence of God (nothing more than God's existence is implied by theist). An atheist simply denies the existence of God.
If you don't like 'anti-theist', then how about 'secular fundamentalist'? Seems appropriate.
I don't mind re-wording and re-phrasing my point - I hope it re-emphasizes it for anyone reading through these threads and posts. Which is ...
The basic attitude that comes across from so many secular fundamentalists is that they are too intelligent to bel ...[text shortened]... ope you can see why I think they should more accurately be called 'anti-theists'.
I don't think "secular fundamentalist" is right either, since, by definition, secularists don't have anything to be fundamental about! We have no sacred texts, no rules, we are not homogenous. The only commonality amongst atheists is that we don't believe in God. Some might be pretty ardent about that, but the majority would be swayed by actual evidence of God.
I don't think atheists tend to be over zealous about God bashing - they are merely dispassionately critiqueing a flawed idea. God's own properties logically condradict each other. When this happens to another diety of choice, theists tend to be quite as quick as atheists to jump on that and exploit it.
10 May 08
Originally posted by dizzyfingersUmm, this:
I didn't suggest that atheists are. Don't know where you got that from.
But Someone was and has. That should say something about LIFE, don't you think?
The intellectually arrogant attitude of anti-theists is really something to behold. But the greatest intellect in the world still has a rendevous with death, and won't be able to debate his/her way out of it. You can't intellectually overcome death. That's my point.
Or did you mean something entirely different, in which case, what?
10 May 08
Originally posted by RBHILLHow many have been killed by non atheist, non comunist states, often with complicity of the US?
Has anyone ever been killed in the name of atheism?
Yes. Atheistic Communist regimes have slaughtered 100 million people. In China an incredible 72 million were murdered, in the Soviet Union 20 million, Cambodia 2.3 million, North Korea 2 million, Africa 1.7 million, Afghanistan 1.5 million, Vietnam 1 million, Eastern Europe 1 million, Latin America 150,000.
The victims of military regimes in S america, sponsored by the CIA are legion.
How many have been lilled by theist states Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi (with US complicity) Israel (with US complicity)
Come back when your hands are cleam Mr Hill
10 May 08
you can not say every murder by an atheist was a murder in the name of atheism; that assumption is ridiculous. there will always be murderers; murderers kill for various reasons, anger, necessity(debatable i know), war, and in some cases religion. look at it like this, A stands for the murders out of anger, B for the murders out of necessity, C for the murders out of war and D the murders in the name of religion. A+B+C+D= a lot of murders. if we take D, murders in the name of religion, we get a lot less murders in our history. you can show me many murders BY an atheist, but please, show me ONE mass murder like the crusades that was IN THE NAME of atheism. atheists dont go out and say, "he is a theist, i must kill him because he does not believe what i believe."
10 May 08
Originally posted by RBHILLRB, even though you may not see it, I think Starrman is actually sounding a little like Jesus when he says to look at a person's heart and not their outsides (labels like Democrat or Republican). I think he was suggesting that it is OK for you to vote for the person and not a label that goes with the person.
Ya, and? I am a Republican. If that is why I signed up to be a Republican then why would I vote for anotehr party.
10 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by RBHILLIt sounds like Obama goes to lot more church than McCain does. As the spiritual leader of your household, that is something that you should consider when deciding how you and your wife will vote.
Ya, and? I am a Republican. If that is why I signed up to be a Republican then why would I vote for anotehr party.
10 May 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesRB, does it concern you that McCain has said he has little use for church, but seems to have no problem visiting Falwell's church or John Haggee's church to talk about his running for president?
It sounds like Obama goes to lot more church than McCain does. As the spiritual leader of your household, that is something that you should consider when deciding how you and your wife will vote.
10 May 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribbleshttp://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/mccain.jpg
It sounds like Obama goes to lot more church than McCain does. As the spiritual leader of your household, that is something that you should consider when deciding how you and your wife will vote.
Yo, I think the brotha is kinda gettin his religion at Bedspring Baptist. Know what I'm sayin?
11 May 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesReally? Is that a consideration in US politics? I should have thought a man's religion is between him and his God.
It sounds like Obama goes to lot more church than McCain does. As the spiritual leader of your household, that is something that you should consider when deciding how you and your wife will vote.
Personally, I7d be focussing on the person's ability to do the job, but I guess that's just me (not that it actually affects me, not being American and all).
11 May 08
Originally posted by StarrmanPlease read the whole succession of posts that I've put up in this thread. I hope that will make things clearer. But if not, I'll try again.
Umm, this:
[b]The intellectually arrogant attitude of anti-theists is really something to behold. But the greatest intellect in the world still has a rendevous with death, and won't be able to debate his/her way out of it. You can't intellectually overcome death. That's my point.
Or did you mean something entirely different, in which case, what?[/b]
The significance of being alive is so much greater than being able to exercise your intellect. But if that is all there is for you, then go your merry way. I pity you for not having any passion beyond that limited exercise. But if you know that there is something more than that, I can't fathom how you cannot view death as an obstacle. If you simply accept it as part of life, then, again, go on your merry way, have your meager life. Go to a few more funerals, and be content. Forsake all grief of losing loved ones, and then let the other attendees know there is no reason to mourn because life has no significance beyond the significance we give it with our mental exercises accomplished between the 2 dates on our tombstones.
Or ..., perhaps there is something more, something much more, and that was proven and demonstrated by Someone who died and then rose again. By Someone of whom it was foretold centuries before it happened, how He would live, how He would die, why He would die, and then rise from the dead. Perhaps that person has something to say about life and reality that is more substantial than anyone else (and gives perspective to atheist vs. theist debates). And perhaps there is substantial evidence to believe that is exactly what happened in the life of Jesus Christ.
11 May 08
Originally posted by dizzyfingersblah blah blah blah blah blah.
Please read the whole succession of posts that I've put up in this thread. I hope that will make things clearer. But if not, I'll try again.
The significance of being alive is so much greater than being able to exercise your intellect. But if that is all there is for you, then go your merry way. I pity you for not having any passion beyond that limite ...[text shortened]... is substantial evidence to believe that is exactly what happened in the life of Jesus Christ.
Provide a single shred of empirical evidence for your case.
Currently, Christianity has, for anyone who looks at it objectively, the same credibility as Santa Claus and fairies.