The Nonsense of Atheists

But Lori, you are not the slave and you can do something about that if you wish. You are free to work to free them. We both are. Unfortunately, as you will find, it is very difficult to do much else in the way of helping others in such situations when you have a family to take care of. I have more pressing responsibilities and can only have the knowledge that such atrocities are still occuring.

Horrible things are done to people by greedy sob's but claiming that you and I are actually experiencing what they are is an insult to them.

This is all I am going to say on this subject, we are going to have to just agree to disagree.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i believe, because of what i've experienced, that people who get to know god are better off for doing so, and so are the people around them. i believe that 100%. i don't care where you start and where you end in this world, you'll always be better off knowing than not knowing.

so the bible says we all fall short of the grace of god, not one of us is worthy in a moral sense. judge ye not lest ye be judged, and get the plank out of thine's eye before looking at me.

my relationship with god has been very introspective. i understand god, and what is wrong with the world, by understanding myself.

theists this and theists that. are you a theist? are you an expert on theists? are you kidding?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i'm not insulting anyone; i'm exalting everyone!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no..
i would expect if you were describing how/what you believe of god, i would expect that it doesn't line up with what/who i think god is..
this is not supposed to be an opportunity for conflict.
when ppl discuss something about god,it usually ends with 'your just full of it'
(no matter atheist/theist)

then you make it about what someone else thinks of god..
when you ask 'what god' you are defining what is acceptable by others,
figure out what/where god is for you..
there are guides to let you know if it is god or not..

its not hidden..
if you see:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and you described it to me, it would not line up with what i see..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

that does not mean what you see is not true..
most religions only focus on their piece of the picture and tell everyone else they are wrong when your picture doesn't line up with their picture..

i have told what i see in other posts/threads..if i could find them i would link them..but then i would just be accused of referencing my own opinions,and would be dismissed..

i do not have a problem with ppl who do not believe in god..
i do have a problem with ppl who stereotype me, by trying to classify me with all those who i think are not true believers (they believe in religion more than they believe in god)..i believe that god does not like religion..('why doesn't god do something about it?' is not a valid question)..

i am not trying to claim of knowledge, with the exception of what i know/believe to be true..
despite being harassed to the contrary..IE questions of 'Define'.. you are asking me to claim objective reasoning..(something that someone else can validate)

and im not opposed to the suggestion of god is in our collective conciousness..

and ppl wonder why i get evasive when trying to define god..we don't need another religion..
i have bad attitude with 'religion'
i don't believe in religion..
i believe in god..
god is god..
religion is mans creation, and as such is susceptible to errors..

um this question really asks 'what's the point if god doesn't do anything for me'..
i believe god is doing what god needs to do..sometimes i can sense him..most of those times i don't do what he wants..(hindsight works to see this)
i have seen others who have done what he wants, and sometimes they benefit..mostly they don't..
but were not supposed to be doing it because there is a payoff when we do it..

through others..
i have seen god work through other ppl..irrelevant to what that person believes..IOW god can utilize you whether you believe or not.

i believe i do not know all there is to god..i never will..i know i do not have to know all there is to god to recognize that he is not a bad thing.

what measuring stick did you use..
what scale..was it calibrated?
brown? light or dark..
this does not define who you are...just what you look like..

BP,MC,K,R,S,Fishing..
these just define what you do..not who you are..

beer,women in hot outfits,woman naked,
its a guy thing...
but again this doesn't define you..it only says what you like..

wife and kids at least most of the time..
this kinda defines who you are..but not directly..

my point is that no matter how you would define yourself, it doesn't..
how you would define yourself and how your wife would define you would be two different opinions..which is true?

there is no fact in how one defines oneself..
how can we assign fact to god?

man makes it up because too many men are asking to define god.
they wanna know exactly what/who god is before they make a decision as to believe or not..
when you do this,you try to define god according to what the religion dictates. not to what god is..everyone has the ability to see god..its not his fault ppl won't acknowledge it is him.

um i have not created him..i have seen him, not by his face but by what he has done in my life..
i am not following a god of the bible or of the koran..
i have found the bible does a better job of describing what/who god is better than i can..(i am interested in what is in the quran for the same reasons)
IOW i look at what i think god has done in my life and compare it to what the bible says,if they match then there is a real good chance that i was right when i thought i saw god..

he works through others..he finds ways to motivate ppl to do what is best.

to prove it to someone else or to yourself?
IOW you do not need anyone to validate your beliefs for you..

true,
true enough,
true enough,
personal philosophy that i believe has been influenced by god..


Birch
i am choosing to answer JP's posts cause i think he is asking the same questions you are (for the most part)..
he is asking with limited distractions..IE he boils out all the BS to ask what he is trying to ask..
IOW his questions seem more to the point, and not filled with personal opinion and insults..


with the exception of..

when did i say that?

 

One should never trade in salve when you can buy it at the drug store.

Speaking of black people and their standing in human society, your beloved pal, Charles Darwin, propounded the idea that blacks were closer to apes than whites. He expressly in one of his books that blacks would, in the not too distant future, be exterminated by whites, who Darwin said were intellectually and socially superior. And since the godless left worships at the altar of Darwin...

Incidentally, in what century will Democrats stop playing the salve card?

 

Please provide a reference.

 

I am under no pressure to do so. YOU should have established some equity before making your substitution. It was your analogy, not mine. You failed to do so, and failed in total.

My argument? My argument is simply that yours is flawed. And yours is.

 

This is where I must slightly disagree; complete control of emotion is degrading of life. A sailor has no need to control the wind but an understanding of it can deliver him to his destination. To propose a steady wind and then retreat to the products of the mind is the very definition of masturbation.

 

I'm not talking about emotion.
I am talking about what one ultimately sees as one's relationship with this world and the other living entities within it.

 

one can vacillate between the two states ( in fact there are numerous scriptural commentaries on how the aspiring spiritualist does this) , but basically it boils down to either the senses being utilized by one's decision making, or the sensesI doing the decision making for one.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself fully but you are a bit off the track.

Consider the value of scientific advancement if it serves no other function than animal pursuits.

If a dog does its business on four legs and a man does the same sort of stuff on four wheels, where is the advancement?

 

its called an analogy
get over it

:shrug:

Your argument is that a child int he womb is somehow divorced from the rights usually afforded to people at large ... which bears a striking resemblance to the arguments of yesteryear from white industrialists that blacks somehow stand outside the rights usually afforded to people at large.

IOW in both cases one is applying an arbitrary designation to further a blatant ideological agenda.

Hence your argument is circular at best and criminal at worst.
Either way it serves as a good example of the nonsense of atheists.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't think this relationship can be defined by controlling ones senses. In this case you may end up with the monosensical relationship of gratification. It's rather born out of a reciprocation with others and consultation with your emotions. Complete control dictates rather than harmonises.

 

If one ultimately sees this world's purpose as serving no greater principle than one's pleasure one simply doesn't have the hardware to enter in to any sort of reciprocation in the true sense of the word

 

If one dictates the world's purpose through control of ones senses one surly has no need of reciprocation. Pleasure can be defined as more than just selfishness, and understanding is a better tool than control.

 

It wasn't an apt analogy. You get over yourself.

Children exist outside the womb, but anyway, it is apparent that a foetus does not have the same rights as a 'person at large', so your comparison was incorrect.

Only in your head, dearie.

You only see it that way, dearie.

What argument? My argument? My argument is simply that yours is flawed. And yours is.

 

Ah, and you don't even understand yourself, that is the problem.

There is no such thing as an unselfish act. Altruism serves the self, as much as it does those who you benefit. Denial can please the self more than indulgence in the case of the puritan. It's all about pleasuring yourself.

If you do not grasp this tenet, your philosophy will always be starting from a false premise.

 

golly
kind of like the plight of Negroes a few hundred years ago ... but oh thats right, its different because a materialistic view doesn't grant it a status (aka classic circular argument)
:shrug:

I must admit you certainly haven't fleshed it out
all you seem to offer are condescending quips

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

actually it was a statement about the absence of hardware afforded by a materialistic outlook

hence altruism and austerity are not celebrated as activities performed by a liberated person

On the contrary, if you don't have a clue about the goal of religious principles beyond caricature, your critique of the philosophy will always be starting from a false premise

 

what on earth makes you say that?
I don't even understand how one could dictate the world's purpose through control of one's senses, much less how that dissipates the need for reciprocation, or even how reciprocation could be classified as a need based response

I agree.
the problem is however that selfishness provides a small aperture for understanding and hence a miserly quality of pleasure.

 

Sorry, I don't buy your point of view at all. It's basically just a false worldview that separates the material from the spiritual. I don't think there is any difference. We are our senses, we are our brains that manipulate and process sense data. The answers are right in front of our faces, but we look to abstractions. There is more truth in the senses than in a million sacred texts.