A nicely done short video presentation.

http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/

A nicely done short video presentation.

http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/

I harken back to the scenario where one is driving late at
night in a strange big city,takes a wrong turn and gets further
and further into a Bad neighborhood.Make a few more turns and
really are lost.They're car gets stranded { stalls out at light }
and they're stuck,in a bad neighborhood,little if any streetlights
and a car that won't budge.
That is where GoD becomes important.For anyone who knows the
true gift of Faith,belief and prayer,God seldom abandons his flock
and at those key moments,seems to shine.
Sometimes not.But still,it's far better to have Sheer Goodness
and light on one's side,in those troubled waters,than mere
happenstance or some cruddy Rap CD in the car stereo.

I harken back to the scenario where one is driving late at
night in a strange big city,takes a wrong turn and gets further
and further into a Bad neighborhood.Make a few more turns and
really are lost.They're car gets stranded { stalls out at light }
and they're stuck,in a bad neighborhood,little if any streetlights
and a car that won't budge.
That is where GoD becomes important.For anyone who knows the
true gift of Faith,belief and prayer,God seldom abandons his flock
and at those key moments,seems to shine.
Sometimes not.But still,it's far better to have Sheer Goodness
and light on one's side,in those troubled waters,than mere
happenstance or some cruddy Rap CD in the car stereo.
If God is truly as good as you claim, why did he allow this hypothetical person to get lost in the bad part of a big city, then allow his car to stall?

If God is truly as good as you claim, why did he allow this hypothetical person to get lost in the bad part of a big city, then allow his car to stall?

Maybe because Our's is NOT to question why.
Does one question Why { Women often do } right after a flat tire.
Or a terrible accident.
That is why Only men should lead in battle.Women have a predisposition
towards hysteria.
The world is amuck in Why's.
Maybe gOd 's master plan is for us to truly depend on his
good grace,all the while trying in ernst.
Why do some folk lead charmed lives.
And other's lives of quiet desperation.
Why do some toil,endlessly,only to be poorer at the end of the day,
than when they started.
Other's acquire wealth,w/o lifting a finger.
I know Virtue may be the key.
That's all I really know.

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty creator."-Adoph Hitler

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty creator."-Adoph Hitler

....

????

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty creator."-Adoph Hitler
Wow, this thread Godwin-ed out fast.

Wow, this thread Godwin-ed out fast.

A thread doesn't HAVE to deconstruct.
Nor a President or Political Party.
Except for the unravelling jest of some,who thrive on such
divisive construct,the better to fill their void.
A void of never ending downward degeneration,until Dante's Inferno
is within reach.And by that time it's too late.
The better for Lucifer and the screeching madness of his Netherworld.

"A religion, even if it call itself the religion of love, must be hard and unloving to those who do not belong to it."- Sigmund Freud

"A religion, even if it call itself the religion of love, must be hard and unloving to those who do not belong to it."- Sigmund Freud


Civilization and its Discontents {1930}

" Once the apostle Paul had laid down universal love between all
men as the foundation of his Christian community,the inevitable
consequence in Christianity was the utmost intolerance towards
all who remained outside of it . " p.91

-- Freud

"I contend that we are both atheist. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."- Stephen Roberts

I harken back to the scenario where one is driving late at
night in a strange big city,takes a wrong turn and gets further
and further into a Bad neighborhood.Make a few more turns and
really are lost.They're car gets stranded { stalls out at light }
and they're stuck,in a bad neighborhood,little if any streetlights
and a car that won't budge.
That is where GoD becomes important.For anyone who knows the
true gift of Faith,belief and prayer, God seldom abandons his flock
and at those key moments,seems to shine.

Yeah.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, genius.

I guess that why so few people who get in that situation are ever harmed in any way. :rolleyes:

Because "Well, I guess Gawd wuz lookin' out fer 'em!"


ROTFLMAO.

If your little invisible fucking friend were **looking out for them**, then why not just not allow them to become lost in the first place...........?!?!?

Your logic in looking at such a situation as this is truly infantile.

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty creator."-Adoph Hitler


excellent post...excellent... This is one of Dawkins argument that people can make themselves believe ANYTHING!!

Maybe because Our's is NOT to question why.


You have GOT TO BE KIDDING! This is just mental manipulation!

Anybody have a comment on the video presentation? :)

Anybody have a comment on the video presentation? :)

I thought it was beautiful, Vile. And not one single scary thing about it.

Here's another one with some good advice.

http://www.dashpoemmovie.com/

:flowers:
SMW

You have GOT TO BE KIDDING! This is just mental manipulation!

On the whole,Man does not decide when they're Born or when
they Die.We're not so in control of lives as we often pretend
to think.I'm not at all of the school that - One can be anything
in life they choose -. I think that is sheer silliness.
I know it's popular for Father's to tell their sons that.
And that those,like Rush and Hannity Love to talk in those
optimistic tones,almost hourly.Actually we're all more given to Luck
and either a break here or there,than we realize.
My Proof.
Take the Rich.They drive fancy cars,and are THE first ones to
cut you off in traffic.After all,they feel they're More important than
someone else in a cheap car,and their time more valuable.
They obviously may seem classy with their clothes and car and
job titles,but they Break God's Good Samaritan Law,more often
than those of lower station in Life { the Poor }.
So,Fat Kats like Rush Limbaugh may talk a good game,but when
push comes to shove,in a disaster,they'll literally push their weight
around to get at the front of the line.
Like that snivelling coward man aboard the Titanic.Who puts on an
old woman's shawl to sneak aboard one of the few remaining Lifeboats.
That Guy is Rush Limbaugh.
So,success doesn't buy class or Virtue.
Virtue costs literally nothing.But it's hard work and takes almost constant
practice.
Why do some have Virtue and other's regardless of their station in Life,
seem without it.
Why's don't explain much.
Why do you ask.?

A nicely done short video presentation.

http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/

The one line that gave away it was an American who made this.

"They lose their health to make money,
and then they lose their money to restore their health."

Only in America do people have to go broke when they get sick....

Otherwise, it was a great video. Thanks for sharing Vile.

I thought it was well done, and had very few specific references. Not to mention some good advice.

I like the idea that "God" wasn't specified in any way. It can mean whatever we want it to mean, and that's the way it should be, because God is only what we make of him/her anyway.

I thought it was well done, and had very few specific references. Not to mention some good advice.

I like the idea that "God" wasn't specified in any way. It can mean whatever we want it to mean, and that's the way it should be, because God is only what we make of him/her anyway.

*****************
Because,after all,you don't want to be burdened too much with
all this God business.
I mean,like,after all,You've never seen the guy { GoD } and
like,well ... why bother.


Bwa Haa ha ha ha ha ha ha

Anybody have a comment on the video presentation? :) Well first of all can you imagine why anyone would ask that question? Plus god is suppose to know everything so he would have been able to know the question already. And plus I thought nobody has seen gods face so how could they see him smile? Of all the things the person could ask he asked God's view of humankind? I mean if there was a god. But as far as the video presentation it seems like so much other apologist dribble out there. And I don't like the words flashed across the screen. And I'm also curious as to why a pagan would post this?

Thanks, Vile...I really enjoyed the video. The words and advice surely hold special meaning to me.

:)

Anybody have a comment on the video presentation? :)

Very beautiful.

But the particular "god" who was being questioned in that video in no way resembles the same "god" (Yahweh) that is spoken of in the Bible of the Christians.

Far too loving and sane.

Anybody have a comment on the video presentation? :)

It's very nice Vile.

Thank you for sharing it. :)

Well first of all can you imagine why anyone would ask that question? Plus god is suppose to know everything so he would have been able to know the question already. And plus I thought nobody has seen gods face so how could they see him smile? Of all the things the person could ask he asked God's view of humankind?

A lot of interesting questions.


I mean if there was a god.

There must be, because we're discussing him/her/it.


But as far as the video presentation it seems like so much other apologist dribble out there.

In what ways? It made no claims that can be disproven, it preached nothing....at least not much.


And I don't like the words flashed across the screen.

Fair enough. :)


And I'm also curious as to why a pagan would post this?

I'm not actually a pagan, I'm an atheist. At least insofar as the common definition goes. I don't believe that god exists as depicted in the Christian Bible. I chose my screen name hurriedly, with little thought I might be using it for a long time.

I'm not actually a pagan, I'm an atheist. At least insofar as the common definition goes. I don't believe that god exists as depicted in the Christian Bible. I chose my screen name hurriedly, with little thought I might be using it for a long time.[/QUOTE]
************************************
Again ...Atheism is the DENIAL of a gOD.
That God does NOT Exist.
There is No belief to it.
One CANNOT Believe in something to the contrary,Theologically.
" Don't believe " means you have No belief.
To BELIEVE is an affirmation.

I'm not actually a pagan, I'm an atheist. At least insofar as the common definition goes. I don't believe that god exists as depicted in the Christian Bible. I chose my screen name hurriedly, with little thought I might be using it for a long time.
************************************
Again ...Atheism is the DENIAL of a gOD.
That God does NOT Exist.
There is No belief to it.
One CANNOT Believe in something to the contrary,Theologically.
" Don't believe " means you have No belief.
To BELIEVE is an affirmation.[/quote] Well a person can believe there are no gods and well as a person can believe the world is flat. My belief is that there are no gods! To believe is to have an opinion.

************************************
Again ...Atheism is the DENIAL of a gOD.
That God does NOT Exist.
There is No belief to it.
One CANNOT Believe in something to the contrary,Theologically.
" Don't believe " means you have No belief.
To BELIEVE is an affirmation. Well a person can believe there are no gods and well as a person can believe the world is flat. My belief is that there are no gods! To believe is to have an opinion.[/QUOTE]

That is more attune to a Misbelieve.You trust that those who believe
in a GoD are Misbelieving.
In actuality you don't believe in a god.
Not.... you believe there is no GoD.
Atheists Deny GoD.
To believe is to affirm or establish.
If GoD doesn't exist,there is nothing to affirm or Believe about.
One can't " believe " in Nothing.
Philosophically one can be a Nihilist.
Which is more a Repudiation based on complete Skepticism,
denying all existence.
Which makes about as mush sense as most Atheists.

Well a person can believe there are no gods and well as a person can believe the world is flat. My belief is that there are no gods! To believe is to have an opinion.

That is more attune to a Misbelieve.You trust that those who believe
in a GoD are Misbelieving.
In actuality you don't believe in a god.
Not.... you believe there is no GoD.
Atheists Deny GoD.
To believe is to affirm or establish.
If GoD doesn't exist,there is nothing to affirm or Believe about.
One can't " believe " in Nothing.
Philosophically one can be a Nihilist.
Which is more a Repudiation based on complete Skepticism,
denying all existence.
Which makes about as mush sense as most Atheists.[/quote]

Ok foolsworth then I will say I have a lack of belief in god(s)! Atheism is a "lack of belief" in god(s). But that is what I believe.

Vilepagan, you are not an atheist if you believe in a God(s)! Also just because we are discussing something does not mean it really exist. And the burden of proof is on the person saying that God does exist.

There is no "burden of proof" for a faith. No one can prove or disprove that there is a God, just like no one can prove or disprove that they love their kids. To be honest I grow weary of the "prove" faith debate... it is an exercise in masterbation for both sides of the issue.

A basic rule of logic is it must be supported by evidence. If someone is making a claim that there is a god and I'm skeptical then prove it. I don't haeve to prove it because you have no evidence in support of your claim. The person who says there is a god has the burden of proof!

A basic rule of logic is it must be supported by evidence. If someone is making a claim that there is a god and I'm skeptical then prove it. I don't haeve to prove it because you have no evidence in support of your claim. The person who says there is a god has the burden of proof!

Not really, I can say I'm happy... but I may have no empirical evidence to "prove" it. The same goes for faith (in most anything). It's like trying to use logic to explain emotion.

A basic rule of logic is it must be supported by evidence. If someone is making a claim that there is a god and I'm skeptical then prove it. I don't haeve to prove it because you have no evidence in support of your claim. The person who says there is a god has the burden of proof!
It's commonly accepted, in any sort of religious debate, that nobody has any proof, on either side, in any direction. When people either A) demand proof from someone, or B) provide "proof" themselves, they're full of shit. Debates on religion do not, by convention, work in that manner.

There is no "burden of proof" for a faith.

Correct.

No one can prove or disprove that there is a God

A proof requires verifiable evidence or it's not a proof. There is no such evidence of god(s). Therefore, those who insist that god(s) exist have the burden of proving their case.

Saying things like, "I can feel him working in my life" or "Jesus cured me" or "I just know" are not proofs.

A proof requires verifiable evidence or it's not a proof. There is no such evidence of god(s). Therefore, those who insist that god(s) exist have the burden of proving their case.
I can no more "prove" God exists than I can "prove" I love my wife. Why should I even try? And further more, unless you ARE me, the debate is without any common ground.

Saying things like, "I can feel him working in my life" or "Jesus cured me" or "I just know" are not proofs.
I agree.

It's commonly accepted, in any sort of religious debate, that nobody has any proof, on either side, in any direction. When people either A) demand proof from someone, or B) provide "proof" themselves, they're full of shit. Debates on religion do not, by convention, work in that manner. Commonly accepted by who? You think your suppose to throw logic out the window when you debate religion? That's absurd.

Commonly accepted by who? You think your suppose to throw logic out the window when you debate religion? That's absurd.
If your argument is "You have no proof and the burden of proof is on you", you're going to have extremely short debates. So you'll "win"; big deal. A good religious debate utilizes clever hypotheticals and historical evidence, rather than trying to turn omnipotent beings into mathematical proofs.

It's commonly accepted, in any sort of religious debate, that nobody has any proof, on either side, in any direction. When people either A) demand proof from someone, or B) provide "proof" themselves, they're full of shit. Debates on religion do not, by convention, work in that manner.
Exactly.

:eek: Are you saying that afinertouch is not a clever debater, Borg?

I can no more "prove" God exists than I can "prove" I love my wife.

Whether or not you love your wife isn't at issue, and I suspect the answer doesn't really matter to anyone here, either way (Although I suspect it matters a great deal to her!). But when the question of "Does god(s) exist?" arises, and some people say "Yes! Hallelujah!" those who haven't been to god's house for dinner and cocktails have every reason to want to see some sort of reasonable evidence before believing in things that can't be seen or heard or smelled or touched or tasted.

Why should I even try?

You don't have to. Nobody has to. But the truth is, there are an awful lot of people stomping around out there saying bad things about those who haven't seen (and therefore don't believe in) god's new jacuzzi and renovated patio area. You can hardly expect them to let it roll off forever, before they start demanding that you offer your evidence or drop it, once and for all.

And further more, unless you ARE me, the debate is without any common ground.

Oh, there's an answer. :rolleyes: Guess we might as well turn off the lights and shut this place down permanently then, since none of is any of the others.

Whether or not you love your wife isn't at issue, and I suspect the answer doesn't really matter to anyone here, either way (Although I suspect it matters a great deal to her!). But when the question of "Does god(s) exist?" arises, and some people say "Yes! Hallelujah!" those who haven't been to god's house for dinner and cocktails have every reason to want to see some sort of reasonable evidence before believing in things that can't be seen or heard or smelled or touched or tasted.

I understand, but I don't think you could say that I myself have done that.


You don't have to. Nobody has to. But the truth is, there are an awful lot of people stomping around out there saying bad things about those who haven't seen (and therefore don't believe in) god's new jacuzzi and renovated patio area. You can hardly expect them to let it roll off forever, before they start demanding that you offer your evidence or drop it, once and for all.
I have never offered evidence, nor do I plan to.

Oh, there's an answer. :rolleyes: Guess we might as well turn off the lights and shut this place down permanently then, since none of is any of the others.
LOL... that's not exactly what I meant. I'll use my old analogy again. I detest english peas, they taste like crap to me. You, on the other hand, may think they are wonderful. You will never convince me they taste good, nor I convince you they do not... so the debate is an wasted exercise.

Same with faith in God. If you want to know why I have that faith, or the particular dogma that surrounds the practice of it... that's discussable/debatable. If you want to try prove my faith has no basis... well................. we are back to green peas.

I understand, but I don't think you could say that I myself have done that.

No, you haven't. But you have to agree there are plenty of folks who have/do. It's rude, completely uncalled for, and incredibly tiring.

I have never offered evidence, nor do I plan to.

And you don't need to, because you don't stomp around saying nasty things about people because they don't believe in your god. But there are those...

LOL... that's not exactly what I meant. I'll use my old analogy again. I detest english peas, they taste like crap to me. You, on the other hand, may think they are wonderful. You will never convince me they taste good, nor I convince you they do not... so the debate is an wasted exercise.

I'm not sure your analogy quite fits, as taste is not only subjective (I love peas!) but something we can both test. Not so with the proposed existence of god. The issue isn't whether I "like" or "care about" peas (or god); the issue is "do peas exist? (does god exist?)"

You think you're suppose to throw logic out the window when you debate religion?

For the religionist, it is an absolute prerequisite.

__________________________

Religion is the one area of discourse in America in which people are systematically protected from the requirement to provide evidence and valid arguments in defense of their strongly held beliefs. And yet these beliefs regularly determine what they will live for, what they will die for and --all too often-- what they will kill for.

No, you haven't. But you have to agree there are plenty of folks who have/do. It's rude, completely uncalled for, and incredibly tiring.
I agree, and so are the attacks on people's faith that are done by those that are "in the other camp" so to speak.


And you don't need to, because you don't stomp around saying nasty things about people because they don't believe in your god. But there are those...
Nor do I remember you being in "attack" mode in these discussions either.

I'm not sure your analogy quite fits, as taste is not only subjective (I love peas!) but something we can both test. Not so with the proposed existence of god. The issue isn't whether I "like" or "care about" peas (or god); the issue is "do peas exist? (does god exist?)"
Maybe not the best direct analog, but if the definition of faith is belief in things that are not seen (or provable), then in that context it does work.... in my simplistic mind anyway. As I stated earlier here, logic does not lend itself to debates over feelings and faith. My computer cannot be programmed to love my wife or see the beauty of a fall sunset, it is not "codeable" or logical.

My computer doesn't like green peas though...I think...

.... I did find a empty DelMonte can of baby green peas behind my monitor the other day.... oh dear God, no! Not you too!

:comphit:

Vilepagan, you are not an atheist if you believe in a God(s)!

Perhaps I'm more of an agnostic. :)


Also just because we are discussing something does not mean it really exist.

Well, it exists at least as much as we need it to to discuss it. It may only exist as an abstract concept, but that's existence nonetheless.

In a sense, you must acknowledge that God exists merely because his alleged existence has had an impact on our lives and history as a whole. It's hard to look at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and say that God had nothing to do with its creation.

God is what we make of him, because we made him in our image. If there were a God, we'd be completely unable to comprehend his existence, his actions, or his motives, and it rather baffles me why people try. It's as if an amoeba were trying to comprehend humans.

Perhaps I'm more of an agnostic. :)
Agnostic theist, it seems.

Agnostic theist, it seems.
Sounds to me like Vile isn't theistic at all. He's saying that God exists as a concept, which is something I agree with even though I'm a strong atheist.

Perhaps I'm more of an agnostic. :) Probably.



Well, it exists at least as much as we need it to to discuss it. It may only exist as an abstract concept, but that's existence nonetheless.

In a sense, you must acknowledge that God exists merely because his alleged existence has had an impact on our lives and history as a whole. It's hard to look at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and say that God had nothing to do with its creation. I don't buy that at all!

God is what we make of him, because we made him in our image. If there were a God, we'd be completely unable to comprehend his existence, his actions, or his motives, and it rather baffles me why people try. It's as if an amoeba were trying to comprehend humans. We made him in our image. We made god in our image? Who says so? I don't believe in god so I did not make him into my image. And amoeba and humans exist but you can't prove that a god does. And I don't know if there was a god we'd be completly unable to comprehend his existence because I don't believe there is a god so I'm not worried about it. I do know that God-belief does not answser any questions:it just replaces a mystery with another mystery:if god made everything,who made god?

We made him in our image. We made god in our image? Who says so?

I did. You quoted me, remember? :)


I don't believe in god so I did not make him into my image.

It wasn't an accusation.


And amoeba and humans exist but you can't prove that a god does.

I wasn't trying to prove god exists, rather I was stating it would be impossible for us to know.


And I don't know if there was a god we'd be completly unable to comprehend his existence because I don't believe there is a god so I'm not worried about it.

Why are you talking about something you don't believe exists? :)


I do know that God-belief does not answser any questions:it just replaces a mystery with another mystery:if god made everything,who made god?

A god-maker of course. ;)

Wow, Vile, your viewpoint on this is great - perfectly logical. :)

Sounds to me like Vile isn't theistic at all. He's saying that God exists as a concept, which is something I agree with even though I'm a strong atheist.

To exist as a concept,means the Word { GoD } must have
interpretation for what is universally understood.
Seems you Atheists love to play word games.
Like the use of being " Believers ".
Now this " concept " word play.
Ya know what I think.
And based on many discussion with those who get a kick
out of insisting they're ... Atheists.
Atheist find it Sheik,even contemporary to avoid the use
of { Faith } and GoD because of the Unkool peer pressure
it will summon.
The use of the words "Faith" and "GoD" denote a kind of
Old-fashioned corniness and simplicity that renders the user
easy subject to ridicule and even scorn,because Unreligious
thought has now been accepted as a very appealing alternate
mindset,in lieu of Morals or an education with some Theology.
Those who have grown up with little if any Religious thought
in school,and with parents w/o any church,are doomed to this
ulterior ignorance in spitiruality and Theological relevance.

Sounds to me like Vile isn't theistic at all. He's saying that God exists as a concept, which is something I agree with even though I'm a strong atheist.
Afinertouch said that you can't be a theist if you believe in God. Saying that God exists as a concept is not belief in God, any more than saying that Superman exists in comic books means you believe in Superman.

Sounds to me like Vile isn't theistic at all. He's saying that God exists as a concept, which is something I agree with even though I'm a strong atheist. Well who here does not believe that God exists as a concept? Certainly not me! That does not mean god is real.

To exist as a concept,means the Word { GoD } must have
interpretation for what is universally understood.
Seems you Atheists love to play word games.
Like the use of being " Believers ".
Now this " concept " word play.
Ya know what I think.
And based on many discussion with those who get a kick
out of insisting they're ... Atheists.
Atheist find it Sheik,even contemporary to avoid the use
of { Faith } and GoD because of the Unkool peer pressure
it will summon.
The use of the words "Faith" and "GoD" denote a kind of
Old-fashioned corniness and simplicity that renders the user
easy subject to ridicule and even scorn,because Unreligious
thought has now been accepted as a very appealing alternate
mindset,in lieu of Morals or an education with some Theology.
Those who have grown up with little if any Religious thought
in school,and with parents w/o any church,are doomed to this
ulterior ignorance in spitiruality and Theological relevance. Oh please define God for us!

Afinertouch said that you can't be a theist if you believe in God. Saying that God exists as a concept is not belief in God, any more than saying that Superman exists in comic books means you believe in Superman.

Yeah...quite a Brilliant observation.
Equating and making an analogy between God and Superman is
quite a triumph.
Do you have even a cognitive sense of how unravelling silly
you appear.?
The Word GoD dates back very,very far.The word GoD is quite
possibly the most used NOUN in History.
Now,don't you feel a trifle,like an out of work Carny gEEk that
has to eat somethin to gain employment ford he Both goes hungry
and hasn't the needed funds for his straw bedding.

Oh please define God for us!

THE Supernatural Creator of Mankind.
Omnipotent,Omniscient,and Omnipresent.
Also ALL Good.
THE personification of Good.

Yeah...quite a Brilliant observation.
Equating and making an analogy between God and Superman is
quite a triumph.
Do you have even a cognitive sense of how unravelling silly
you appear.?
The Word GoD dates back very,very far.The word GoD is quite
possibly the most used NOUN in History.
Now,don't you feel a trifle,like an out of work Carny gEEk that
has to eat somethin to gain employment ford he Both goes hungry
and hasn't the needed funds for his straw bedding.
LOL, you're never dull, Foolsworth, never dull.

Well who here does not believe that God exists as a concept? Certainly not me! That does not mean god is real.

By definition saying one believes that GoD is Indeed a concept
would also have to include what GoD IS or is defined as.
In other words,one can't say that GoD exists as a concept
but that concept is Unreal or undefined to include reality.
Either GoD IS or is Not.
The use of Concept is only a petty way of circumventing
the popular use of the word GoD to include what selfish little
Ignurnts WISH to include.
Which is basically the root cause and problem with Atheists.

Why are you talking about something you don't believe exists? :)
We talk about Lord of the Rings, Dungeons and Dragons, The O.C., and the Fantastic Four, why not religion?

You talk about The O.C.? :p

You talk about The O.C.? :p
just Nappy:rolleyes:

We talk about Lord of the Rings, Dungeons and Dragons, The O.C., and the Fantastic Four, why not religion?

I don't wanna appear Rude and a Buddinski,but didn't your parents
or early teachers ever drill some sense of Religiosity into you.?
Religion IS NO GAME.
Some hold it to be THE very reason we exist.
Many cultures and throughout the Millennia,Religion was THE
motivating force behind all human interaction.
You can at least,admit to the role Religion has played in
Mankind,I hope.
Merely saying it isn't important,might well border on
Retardation.Historically,there is ABSOLUTELY no doubt it wood.

You talk about The O.C.? :p
Oh God no!

I don't wanna appear Rude and a Buddinski,but didn't your parents
or early teachers ever drill some sense of Religiosity into you.?
Religion IS NO GAME.
Some hold it to be THE very reason we exist.
Many cultures and throughout the Millennia,Religion was THE
motivating force behind all human interaction.
You can at least,admit to the role Religion has played in
Mankind,I hope.
Merely saying it isn't important,might well border on
Retardation.Historically,there is ABSOLUTELY no doubt it wood.
that he left the Force out of this is good.http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/starwars/star-wars-smiley-057.gif

Why not just discuss phenomenology?

:)

Why not just discuss phenomenology?

:)

I say Atheists are lazy.They enjoy looking for cushy reasons to
Deny & discount Religions and GoD.No different than a teenager
who is frumpy,overweight and a plain jane.Instead of working to
Undo and overcome her weakness,she seems content to revel or
muddle in it.
Such is not life.
No one gets out of life,alive.
No one is born knowing how to do anything.
There are those who may insist that let nature take its course
and a baby,like a Puppy will eventually adjust,grow and develop.
If only life were that easy.
Religion is no different.

I say Atheists are lazy.They enjoy looking for cushy reasons to
Deny & discount Religions and GoD.No different than a teenager
who is frumpy,overweight and a plain jane.Instead of working to
Undo and overcome her weakness,she seems content to revel or
muddle in it.
Such is not life.
No one gets out of life,alive.
No one is born knowing how to do anything.
There are those who may insist that let nature take its course
and a baby,like a Puppy will eventually adjust,grow and develop.
If only life were that easy.
Religion is no different.We are all born atheist. Religion must be artificially imposed. Just because atheists are unwilling to accept myths and fables does not mean they are blind to the truth. Just because they don't believe what you want them to does not make them lazy. I would never say a believer was lazy just because they are a believer. You have every right to believe in whatever supernatural deity you want but you are just arrogant and rude if someone does not buy what your pushing. And if you think that people can't adjust,grow and develop without religion you are totally wrong. Truth is the degree to which a statement corresponds with reality. Reality is limited to that which is directly perceivable through our natural senses or indirectly ascertained through the proper use of reason. Atheist don't need "cosmic absolutes" to live a happy and meaningful life. The individual, not a "creator" endows human life with meaning. The philosopher Bertrand Russell once wrote: "I am not young, and I love life. But I should scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihilation. Happiness is none the less true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting."

THE Supernatural Creator of Mankind.
Omnipotent,Omniscient,and Omnipresent.
Also ALL Good.
THE personification of Good. "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? -----Epicurus

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? -----Epicurus

As usual for a Liberal,and especially a Liberal Atheist,you misquoted
and also inserted the word [ GoD ] in place of { The gods }.

Aphorisms

" The Gods can either take away evil from the world and will not,or,
being willing to do so cannot;or they neither can nor will,or lastly
they are able and willing.
If they have the will to remove evil and cannot,than they are not
omnipotent.If they can but will not,then they are not benevolent.
If they are neither able nor willing,they are neither omnipotent
nor benevolent.
Lastly.if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil,
why does it exist? "

Pay particular attention to the huge affront to correct wording
in yer quote.Your quote conveniently supplants the word [ he ]
in place of { they } which means [ GoD ] vs. { The gods }.
Quite a big difference in my humble opinion.

Fragments {from uncertain sources}

" If God listened to the prayers of men,all men would quickly
have perished: for they are forever praying for evil against
one another. " Physics 58
-- Epicurus

We are all born atheist. Religion must be artificially imposed. Just because atheists are unwilling to accept myths and fables does not mean they are blind to the truth. Just because they don't believe what you want them to does not make them lazy. I would never say a believer was lazy just because they are a believer. You have every right to believe in whatever supernatural deity you want but you are just arrogant and rude if someone does not buy what your pushing. And if you think that people can't adjust,grow and develop without religion you are totally wrong. Truth is the degree to which a statement corresponds with reality. Reality is limited to that which is directly perceivable through our natural senses or indirectly ascertained through the proper use of reason. Atheist don't need "cosmic absolutes" to live a happy and meaningful life. The individual, not a "creator" endows human life with meaning. The philosopher Bertrand Russell once wrote: "I am not young, and I love life. But I should scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihilation. Happiness is none the less true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting."

*****************************8
Which begs the question ...What came First the mention of GoD or
the Atheist.?
get it ?

*****************************8
Which begs the question ...What came First the mention of GoD or
the Atheist.?
get it ?

The atheist of course.

We talk about Lord of the Rings, Dungeons and Dragons, The O.C., and the Fantastic Four, why not religion?

I wasn't suggesting that we not discuss religion. It was in response to this statement by afinertouch5 :"And I don't know if there was a god we'd be completly unable to comprehend his existence because I don't believe there is a god so I'm not worried about it."

As usual for a Liberal,and especially a Liberal Atheist,you misquoted
and also inserted the word [ GoD ] in place of { The gods }.

Aphorisms

" The Gods can either take away evil from the world and will not,or,
being willing to do so cannot;or they neither can nor will,or lastly
they are able and willing.
If they have the will to remove evil and cannot,than they are not
omnipotent.If they can but will not,then they are not benevolent.
If they are neither able nor willing,they are neither omnipotent
nor benevolent.
Lastly.if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil,
why does it exist? "

Pay particular attention to the huge affront to correct wording
in yer quote.Your quote conveniently supplants the word [ he ]
in place of { they } which means [ GoD ] vs. { The gods }.
Quite a big difference in my humble opinion.

Fragments {from uncertain sources}

" If God listened to the prayers of men,all men would quickly
have perished: for they are forever praying for evil against
one another. " Physics 58
-- Epicurus Well the way I posted it is exactly how it is in my book of quotes and it is exactly like I have seen it posted all over the internet! I have never seen it quoted like you put it.

My computer doesn't like green peas though...I think...

.... I did find a empty DelMonte can of baby green peas behind my monitor the other day.... oh dear God, no! Not you too!

:comphit:

:D

The atheist of course.

Where did the notion of GoD originate in an Atheist,then.?
I hope your're not presupposing that Atheists are born with an
inherent Bias towards DOUBTING.
That would drive back Psychoanalysis,to before even Sigmund Freud's
Great,Great Grandparents.

Where did the notion of GoD originate in an Atheist,then.?
I hope your're not presupposing that Atheists are born with an
inherent Bias towards DOUBTING.
That would drive back Psychoanalysis,to before even Sigmund Freud's
Great,Great Grandparents.
I think what Vile means is that people existed before religion did, as religion is a man-made social construct, as is the concept of God. It's pretty self-explanatory.

Wow, Vile, your viewpoint on this is great - perfectly logical. :)
Your being sarcastic right?

Agnostic theist, it seems. Sounds like he does not know what he is.

It's commonly accepted, in any sort of religious debate, that nobody has any proof, on either side, in any direction. When people either A) demand proof from someone, or B) provide "proof" themselves, they're full of shit. Debates on religion do not, by convention, work in that manner. That is not correct Borghunter. The burden of proof is on the person that is saying there is a god. It is no way commonly accepted. Where are earth did you come up with that?

Vilepagan, you are not an atheist if you believe in a God(s)! Also just because we are discussing something does not mean it really exist. And the burden of proof is on the person saying that God does exist. Exactly!!!

That is not correct Borghunter. The burden of proof is on the person that is saying there is a god. It is no way commonly accepted. Where are earth did you come up with that?
You're entirely missing my point. I'm saying that by invoking the burden of proof and declaring victory, you would be circumventing the debate process entirely and instead just out to build up your ego. We're not building logical proofs here; we're casually debating on a two-bit Internet message board. Such a format will have, as a matter of course, different standards of debate. The "burden of proof" argument against God is an old one, one I happen to agree with. But I do not, as an atheist, go around using it very often, because it happens to stymie debate, and I'm here for debate. I'm not here to be right all the time.

Anybody have a comment on the video presentation? :)

Yes :)

A few good observations about modern society, little to do with religion tho. Except for the worrying suggestion that being childish is a virtue, it usually in religious context implies not to learn to much and think for yourself. At least that what it has been used for in any context I have ever seen it used.

You're entirely missing my point. I'm saying that by invoking the burden of proof and declaring victory, you would be circumventing the debate process entirely and instead just out to build up your ego. We're not building logical proofs here; we're casually debating on a two-bit Internet message board. Such a format will have, as a matter of course, different standards of debate. The "burden of proof" argument against God is an old one, one I happen to agree with. But I do not, as an atheist, go around using it very often, because it happens to stymie debate, and I'm here for debate. I'm not here to be right all the time. If someone said that there was such a thing as unicorns I would not have to accept it. I would want proof. I would not have to offer any logical proofs that they do not exist. Not if they can't prove they do exist. And by the way, saying people are full of shit because they don't believe like you do is not good debating skills. Even if this is a two-bit message board.

That is not correct Borghunter. The burden of proof is on the person that is saying there is a god. It is no way commonly accepted. Where are earth did you come up with that?

Hey if the Guy wants to claim Atheists believe there is No GoD
before they ever HEARD the Word GoD,then So be It.

If someone said that there was such a thing as unicorns I would not have to accept it. I would want proof. I would not have to offer any logical proofs that they do not exist. Not if they can't prove they do exist.
You are still missing my point. Look, everyone on here knows that nobody has any proof of the existence of God (except maybe SMW). If there was proof, it'd be a huge news story as all the atheists suddenly convert to various religions. It brings nothing to a debate to point out a truism. Again, you take a lot of the point out of debate if you're going to bring up the "proof" argument vis-a-vis religion.
And by the way, saying people are full of shit because they don't believe like you do is not good debating skills. Even if this is a two-bit message board.
What on Earth are you talking about? Of course they're full of shit if they claim to have some logical proof that (dis)proves the existence of God. The very concept is impossible to (dis)prove.

I think you're going WAY over Purple's head there, Borg.

I think you're going WAY over Purple's head there, Borg.
I do not think that is very difficult.

:D

Hey if the Guy wants to claim Atheists believe there is No GoD
before they ever HEARD the Word GoD,then So be It. I believe PurpleKush is a female.

So why was Fool banned?

Sounds like he does not know what he is.

Sounds like you're hung-up on nice neat labels for people. :)

"All good intellects have repeated, since, Bacon's time, that there can be no real knowledge but which is based on observed facts."--August Comte

Sounds like you're hung-up on nice neat labels for people. :)
Well you have to admit you said you were and atheist but believed in God. Then you said well perhaps your an agnostic. Just because your confused about what you are does not mean she is hung-up on nice neat labels.

Well you have to admit you said you were and atheist but believed in God.

That's not what I said, that's what you thought I said.


Then you said well perhaps your an agnostic.

Yep.


Just because your confused about what you are does not mean she is hung-up on nice neat labels.

Just because I don't fit into a nice neat category doesn't mean I'm confused.

"All good intellects have repeated, since, Bacon's time, that there can be no real knowledge but which is based on observed facts."--August Comte

That's a load of hooey.

Tell me afinertouch, have you ever been in love?

That's a load of hooey.

Tell me afinertouch, have you ever been in love? Of course and it's very easy to observe two people when they are in love. It happens all the time.

Of course and it's very easy to observe two people when they are in love. It happens all the time.

So you can observe love? Or are you observing people you believe to be in love, and concluding that they are even though you can't actually observe the love itself?

That's not what I said, that's what you thought I said.



Yep.



Just because I don't fit into a nice neat category doesn't mean I'm confused. Didn't you say that you were not a pagan but an atheist? That you made your screen name hurridly and with not much thought. Then you said perhaps you were an agnostic.

"Let us begin, then, at once,with that merest of words, "Infinity." This, like 'God' 'spirit' and some other expressions of which the equivalents exist in all languages, is by no means the expression of an idea--but of an effort at one. It stands for the possible attempt at an impossible conception."--Edgar Allan Poe