So um Atheists

[HeartGirl]

Miss P, be thankful that u don't know webexplorer in person ...
I agree thats a terrible thing to say to someone he
doesn't know personally . Even if this person lived with u
for a year or a few, he still don't know u .

 

[webexplorer]

Miss P, be thankful that u don't know webexplorer in person ...
I agree thats a terrible thing to say to someone he
doesn't know personally . Even if this person lived with u
for a year or a few, he still don't know u .

Well. Good try. I believe that you will be surprised about her issues, and it makes you "puzzle" of what she wrote on her posts because it does not make a sense, but of course, it's her own opinion. I believe that she missed a lot of things in her life that makes her miserable. In the past, I thought that we tried to help her in a way to make her happy, and it doesn't work because she insists in her own justice to criticize on people.

Here are some of her posts:

http://alldeaf.com/showpost.php?p=405941&postcount=76

http://alldeaf.com/showpost.php?p=404824&postcount=35

http://alldeaf.com/showthread.php?t=21009&page=3&pp=20

 

[HeartGirl]

It’s been my experience that religion is frequently used as a means of rationalizing socially irresponsible behavior. I see this particularly in ‘born again’ Christians. They frequently have the manners and morals of spoiled children, and are very often little more than whiney-ass little bitches. If anything, I think that atheists as a whole demonstrate far more constructive prosocial behavior than do religious types.

What about Mother Theresa and Rev. Martin Luther King Jr??
They sacrificed so much, without them, where would we be?
Target Store, I believe run by Atheist Owners, why would
they ban Salvation Army for? Salvation Army wanted to help
poor people. I don't understand Atheists at all.

 

[deafdyke]

Oh GAWD!!!!!! Atheists are HUMANS TOO you know! We have the SAME values and experiance the same love you do...We don't hate Christians.....lordy lordy SOMEONE certainly has bought into the giant "Us Rightous People Against The Evil Godless Godforsaken Heathen Atheitist" Conspiracy!

 

[Maria]

Ummmm that wasn't my point! Jesus said that it's best to have a private one on one relationship with God, then it is to parade your belief all around the streets. It's exactly like the way the Phrasees were ALL about how important it was to show everyone that they were THE most devout ones!

Well, Jesus DID pray in public, didn't He ? He prayed for Communion with His disciples at the table ... and, He prayed to the Father in public before Judas came to him and gave Him a Death of Kiss.

Christians can pray with other christians at the table in the restaurants, if they wish. It doesn't mean that they HAVE TO pray SO LOUD for other non-believers to hear it. Gee - Christians know better than that. It could be anywhere - not just restaurants. Freedom of speech - keep that in mind, DeafDyke.

I do pray in car at parkin' lot while other people see me prayin'. I don't make it LOUD for them to hear it. *chuckles* Just be humble and pray normally. Pharisee in Ancient Times likes to SHOW and say their prayers OUT SO LOUD.. everyone heard it. It is not necessary to show boast, thinkin' that the Pharisees were better than the true believers' prayers. That prayers are supposed to be for GOD directly from the bottom of the heart when talkin'.

Just BE HUMBLE and say few words in prayer ( not fancy words ) in any circumstances/situations to ask for God's protection where ever they go in public. I don't care, if any one of the Muslims or other foreign religion shoot their gun at me, if I pray in public. I prefer to lay down my life for Christ and carry His Cross.........

 

[Cheri]

You people have grudge on me for a very very long time,GOD SEE THEM, if they meet you Judgement Day,
GOD JUDGE THEM.

Practice what you preach sista! You did and still do the same thing with others as well.

It doesn't mean that they HAVE TO pray SO LOUD for other non-believers to hear it. Gee - Christians know better than that.

That's not true, I've been to Terri Schiavo's Pinellas Park hospice where she lay for years the day she died, I was there and I have seen a lot of Christians and Catholic people shouting out their prayers.

 

[Maria]

That's not true, I've been to Terri Schiavo's Pinellas Park hospice where she lay for years the day she died, I was there and I have seen a lot of Christians and Catholic people shouting out their prayers.

Re-read my post again... I talked about prayin' at the restaurants.

 

[Cheri]

Re-read my post again... I talked about prayin' at the restaurants.

I did read your post Cyber red, If you have notice I quote part of what you said, to reply to your quote. deafdyke is not pointing out "restaurant" only, She talking about praying in public, Public is anywhere not just restaurant.

 

[Maria]

I did read your post Cyber red, If you have notice I quote part of what you said, to reply to your quote. deafdyke is not pointing out "restaurant" only, She talking about praying in public, Public is anywhere not just restaurant.

Yeah, I am aware of DeafDyke's talkin' about public. I could add mine to talk about the restaurants as well. Just general ideas. I also mentioned about Jesus' prayin' in public via Pharisees'.

On top of that, I don't believe in prayin' out loud in public.That's my opinion.

 

[deafdyke]

Pharisee in Ancient Times likes to SHOW and say their prayers OUT SO LOUD.. everyone heard it.

Exactly...... They were very conspicious about praying and about how it was so important that they be seen in the public eye as THE FAITHFUL! Just like MANY Christians are, today. Some Christians aren't all that flamboyant about their beliefs, but many are. I have nothing against prayer done privately and quietly.....but when it becomes a "bling bling" conspicious thing.....
I have friends who are very devout Christians and they practice their faith as a relationship between THEM and God.

 

[RedFox]

How is it hypocritical? To be hypocritical is to say you have beliefs, feelings or virtues that you don't really have.

I think the writer of the example is using an extreme analogy to draw and keep people's attenion. It bashes groups for both their beliefs and actions that result from those beliefs.

He is angry that he is being bashed by a group for his "beliefs" (non-belief).
So he bashes them back to let them know how he feels?
I'm glad you posted the deffenition, that will make it easier to explain.
He is proffessing a virtue by saying it is wrong to bash others for their beliefs.
He is proffessing this By bashing others for their beliefs.
That's Hypocritical.

I see what you mean. You could say that it's bashing. When I read it, I figured that the reason he wrote that was to give religious people a way to see how some religious people make atheists feel.

As I wrote in my long post above, we can't assume our universe has all of the possible freedom of choice.

An art for circular logic.

I don't believe there could be any other possible choices, and since there is no evidence to support that there could be, then obviously even trying to suggest it is ridiculous.

I'm not even sure how you were able to suggest an idea that lies outside of physical boundries without support.

I was writing from the point of view of creating universes. If we're creating universes, we could define things beyond good, neutral and evil. There's no evidence to suggest that such things exist in this universe, but if we made our own universes, we won't have that restriction because we'd also create the range of choices.
I knew there wasn't any evidence for such things. It's good you saw that there wasn't any. Can do this kind of analysis for any text, including religious ones?

Things like gods making a rock it can't lift are meaningless because these situtions are logically impossible. Omnipotence is about being able to do any logically possible things. It does not include doing logically impossible things

That wasn't my point. You made a statement in a past post stating:
If "God" knows what's going to happen, "It" can't change "It's" action.
That's a logical impossibility. You've argued against your own point.

I didn't argue against my own point. The point I was making is that it's logically impossible for a god to both know what it will do and change what it will do. So it's logically impossible for a god that is both omniscientist and omnipotent to exist. That sitution is meaningless because it can't happen. That was the point I was trying to write about. I used the rock example as an example of another logical impossiblity.

Different people have different ideas of what good and evil are. Here are mine: Good is something that aids something. Evil is something that hurts something. An action can have degrees of both because there are multiple things in the universe and it is possible for actions to affect more than one thing in different ways. I consider humanity important, so I try to do actions that help and not hurt humanity. It is difficult to know for sure how much your actions help or hurt things because of the large number of things and connections between things with processes operating over many different timescales.

I'm curious as to why you consider Humanity important? What does it benefit me to help anyone?
Your idea of "Good" and "Evil" VS My ideas of "Good" and "Evil"
It's not a contest. You've just left it very subjective.

Thousands of people die when a building collapses:
"Evil" to those who have an emotional connection.
"Neutral" to those who have no emotional connection.
"Good" to those who brought honour to thier extremist views of faith by crashing a plane.

Who is right?
No one is right, yet they are all right. It is all subjective.
If it is all subjective, and there is no definite "Good", and no Definite "evil". "Evil" is a view point. Do not argue that "God" does not exist because there is "Evil" in the world because:
There is no "EVIL" in the world.

It benefits you to help others because that would encourage them to help you too. There is definite good and evil and in betweens within each person's point of view. It is an attribute each person decides on for each thing and event. It's not an attribute of the thing or event itself. That's what meant by subjectivety. I think that if I were a god, I'd make an universe that would make it less likely or impossible for anyone to consider labelling anything evil. Such an universe would be very different from ours and beyond my imagination because I'm so used to this one where people could each label different things as evil.

 

[DreamSlayer]

As a religious person reading the essay, I felt very bashed, as if I have not put any thought into my belief. Although I agree that the writer is trying to convey that feeling, the conotation is negative. Many people are put down for their beliefs, not only Atheists. Although the essay is moving, I happened to feel a kind of reverse discrimination.

I hope that although I disagree with your belief, and that I continue to debate with you, that you understand I respect your intellegence, and your belief. If my tone comes off cold, I appologize, that's just how I write.

I didn't argue against my own point. The point I was making is that it's logically impossible for a god to both know what it will do and change what it will do. So it's logically impossible for a god that is both omniscientist and omnipotent to exist. That sitution is meaningless because it can't happen. That was the point I was trying to write about. I used the rock example as an example of another logical impossiblity - RedFox

I'm a little confused as to what point you believe. The first argument you made, and I quote:

Things like gods making a rock it can't lift are meaningless because these situtions are logically impossible. Omnipotence is about being able to do any logically possible things. It does not include doing logically impossible things. - RedFox

Your first point was:

Point 1) It is logically impossible for a god to both know what it will do and change what it will do.

Then you said:

Point 2) Omnipotence is about being able to do any logical possible thing.

Then your third statement:

Point 3) So it's logically impossible for a god that is both omniscientist and omnipotent to exist

Therefore, if it is not logical for God to change something he knows will happen, that does not stop him from being omnipotent. So it is not logically impossible for God to be both omnipotent and omniscient.

Again, I will restate that you have argued against yourself.

As for the evil argument, I will quote two lines from your last paragraph.

It's not an attribute of the thing or event itself. That's what meant by subjectivety.

That is my point. if an event or action is not inherently evil, then nothing can be "evil" unless subjectively labelled.

I am of the opinion that some actions are inherently evil, because I believe in "One" objective view, which would be "God" (If he exists, without "God" things become subjective)

I am also of the opinion that reducing, or eliminating our ability to label things as "evil" would greatly reduce the amount of choice we had in life.

I also think that if I was a "god", I would definitely have created Dragons (flying ones, that breath fire, ice whatever...).

[???? Why was I quoted when webexplorer started talking about Miss P ???]

If anything, I think that atheists as a whole demonstrate far more constructive prosocial behavior than do religious types. - levonian

I will not agree, nor disagree. I will only say, People go through different expierences and respond in different ways. Theists, Agnostics, Atheists all contain individuals who can be rude, ignorant, and selfish. They also contain individuals who are upright, intellegent, and "Good" (for a lack of a better word).

To put down another because you feel that person is not behaving the way YOU want, will do nothing to change that persons actions.

Throwing mud only gives you less ground to stand on.

 

[RedFox]

As a religious person reading the essay, I felt very bashed, as if I have not put any thought into my belief. Although I agree that the writer is trying to convey that feeling, the conotation is negative. Many people are put down for their beliefs, not only Atheists. Although the essay is moving, I happened to feel a kind of reverse discrimination.

I think that the writer was trying to make religious people feel like that so they'd learn that atheists feel discriminated against by religious people.

I hope that although I disagree with your belief, and that I continue to debate with you, that you understand I respect your intellegence, and your belief. If my tone comes off cold, I appologize, that's just how I write.

Nonbelief, not belief. :P Your writing is ok

I'm a little confused as to what point you believe. The first argument you made, and I quote:

Your first point was:

Point 1) It is logically impossible for a god to both know what it will do and change what it will do.

Then you said:

Point 2) Omnipotence is about being able to do any logical possible thing.

Then your third statement:

Point 3) So it's logically impossible for a god that is both omniscientist and omnipotent to exist

Therefore, if it is not logical for God to change something he knows will happen, that does not stop him from being omnipotent. So it is not logically impossible for God to be both omnipotent and omniscient.

Again, I will restate that you have argued against yourself.

I'll try writing it more clearly. If the god was omniscientist, it would know everything, including all of the things it will do. The god's future actions is in the set of "everything" so knowing everything includes knowing what it will do. The things it will do is written in stone because those things are known to be coming and therefore can't be changed, like fate. The god is fated to do what it knows it will do.
If the god is omnipotent, it can do anything that is possible. Could it change its plans on whim? Changing plans on whim is an action. Omnipotence is the ability to do any action, so it includes being able to change plans on whim. If the god is fated to be locked to a fixed squence of actions it knows it will do, it cannot have any unplanned changes of plans on whim, therefore not being omnipotent. If a plan change doesn't appear in the squence of actions the god knows it will do, it can't perform that plan change. If the god doesn't know everything about what it will do, therefore not being omniscientist, it is free to change its plans on whim, allowing it to be omnipotent. If the god has one of those omni-properties, it can't have the other.
To fix this, one of the properties could be restricted. Omnipotence could be restricted to being able to do anything, but not including unplanned changes of plans. That would remove a set of actions that would not be logical if the god has omniscience. Then the god could be omniscientist and have that limited version of omnipotence.
Or omniscience could be restricted to the god knowing everything, except for its future actions. That would mean the god isn't stuck to what it knows it will do, then it could do things on whim. It would have a limited version of omniscience and full omnipotence.

If anything, I think that atheists as a whole demonstrate far more constructive prosocial behavior than do religious types. - levonian

I will not agree, nor disagree. I will only say, People go through different expierences and respond in different ways. Theists, Agnostics, Atheists all contain individuals who can be rude, ignorant, and selfish. They also contain individuals who are upright, intellegent, and "Good" (for a lack of a better word).

To put down another because you feel that person is not behaving the way YOU want, will do nothing to change that persons actions.

Throwing mud only gives you less ground to stand on.