Well Jesus is the shepherd and his followers a flock, does that give you a clue.
Any atheists here who were once believers?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
From the Urban Dictionary:
What the "Asexual-cranium-in-rectum-propagation. " means beats me. Even though it could mean in Kiwi speak: "the useless buggers are Fucked in the head"
If Christians are sheople, geeser and his type are geople!
Oh well. People don't always mean what they say, nor do they always say what they mean. There's reason to believe that some of the people who claim to believe in TOE, make this claim for the sake of protecting their self-image within a particular community, not because they would really believe it (or even know much what it is about). Possibly this is even more likely if a person's theism is rather tentative to begin with.
While on principle, I agree that theism and TOE are mutually exclusive, going by this standard then, for example, most people who claim to be Christians, aren't theists either, given that there is a number of beliefs and activities they hold and engage in that are also barriers to theism (such as hunting for sport, having sex when they don't want to have children, drinking alcohol, supporting abortion and the death penalty).
Personally, I have nothing against raising the bar for who is to be considered a "theist" and who not, but by such heightened standards, we're left with perhaps only a handful of theists in the whole world.
Why sit and wonder? Why limit oneself to particular Christian ideas of theism? Why not look around to what other theisms have to offer?
One needn't go any further than Islam to find radically different ideas about theism than those that mainstream Christianity offers, or even closer in traditional Catholicism, what to speak of going further East and investigating Hinduism, for example.
Many of the problems that you speak of have doctrinal solutions in the doctrines of some other religions. Most of these have already been addressed in previous threads here.
When the going gets tough, theology becomes required in order to press on despite hardship.
Why not?
Strong agnosticism is effectively the same as strong atheism.
I'm only trying to explain the meaning of the terminologies, and "Asexual-cranium-in-rectum-propagation. probably means "head up your arse or as the Americans say ass"
As said I was only trying to explain the terminology, don't get upset with me I wasn't using the term myself merely explaining it.
And what does geople mean. Being sarcastic does it mean Genius+people=Geople.
I was thinking more of Geese - birds - bird brained - bird brained + people.
To be honest bird brains are weight for weight better than ours I've heard.
So geople are brainier than sheople. You were right for once.
And I prefer the rhythm of the Kiwi saying "the useless buggers are Fucked in the head" better than " "head up your arse" which is just too mild.
@geeser
@Robittybob1
"Sheople", are people who, for whatever reason, prefer NOT to do their own "Critical Thinking" - thus just repeating something/anything that will make them appear "normal"?!?!
"Sheople", are not really anything - theist/atheist/republican/democrat/liberal/conservative - those things would require the "Critical Thinking" they fail to exercise!
sheepish def. : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sheepish
showing or feeling embarrassment especially because you have done something foolish or wrong ;
resembling a sheep in meekness, stupidity, or timidity ;
affected by or showing embarrassment caused by consciousness of a fault <a sheepish grin>
Ergo...sheepish + people = "sheople"! 'nuf said?
@Robittybob1
"Sheople", are people who, for whatever reason, prefer NOT to do their own "Critical Thinking" - thus just repeating something/anything that will make them appear "normal"?!?!
"Sheople", are not really anything - theist/atheist/republican/democrat/liberal/conservative - those things would require the "Critical Thinking" they fail to exercise!
sheepish def. : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sheepish
showing or feeling embarrassment especially because you have done something foolish or wrong ;
resembling a sheep in meekness, stupidity, or timidity ;
affected by or showing embarrassment caused by consciousness of a fault <a sheepish grin>
Ergo...sheepish + people = "sheople"! 'nuf said?
So they can be totally individual, and not tow the party line, if they are republican/democrat/liberal/conservative/theist/etc they can be a non-team player. Ok! But are you sure on that.
geeser, I have no idea how what you Posted ^^above^^ has any relation to anything I Posted.
What you, geeser, Posted ^^above^^ are DEFINITELY NOT my my stated nor implied words and, may I, dmoe, attempt to be abundantly clear on this, are DEFINITELY NOT my stated nor implied personal views!
If a person is a true "individual" - they could not possibly fit my definition of a "sheople"!
geeser, to be a true individual - would it not require, at the very least - that a person possess their very own, " Individual Critical Thinking"?
BTW, geeser, I believe the proper wording of that expression is - "TOE the Party Line" - does not, "TOW", somehow entail "pulling or dragging behind"?
'nuf said, yet?
The Pope and the Catholic Church have supported evolution openly for the past six decades. Are you saying the Pope cannot be a theist?
Have you never taken the time to actually find out what the official position is with the Pope and the Church regarding evolution? Like I said, it's only been around for six decades. Seriously.
Exactly I think your getting it.
Exactly. Therefore they would not be part of any group, would they. The very definition of individual, is. "a single human being as distinct from a group: a distinctive or original person. " So a person who is part of a group and one that follows the doctrines and tenets of said group is in no way being an individual, nor using "Critical Thinking" as they are following a group mentality.
Hence why it is that if they were to follow any one of these "republican/democrat/liberal/conservative/theist" they would be failing as an individual and failing at using Critically Thinking skills. Thus they would be "Sheople" This is why I ask "are you sure"?.
Maybe so, however sheople is not a term I use, I just gave a definition. but then DMOE stated the people who follow a group mentality are not sheople. whereas the converse is true. That's not to say they don't think for themselves in every other aspect of there lives. But using your critical thinking skills requires you use them in all aspects of you lives.
Therefore the two are mutually exclusive you cant follow a group and also be an individual. You can only be an individual if you think and act in a different way to everybody else.
My daughters friend recently got a tattoo, I said why did you get that, she replied she wanted to be an individual I said what like everybody else who has a tattoo. She was stuck for words.
Last edited:
Not to mention times in the past -- throughout the history of Christianity -- when questions of the fundamentalist sort have been weighed against some piece of evidence known to be true; in which case they have sometimes determined that certain forms of fundamentalist-type inquiry is simply invalid.
Popes tend to be well educated esp. of late. During the last century or so they would have understood that an utterance doesn't propagate without air, that it requires a vocal tract to transmit it, that it requires a living human to hear and understand the words, particularly a person fluent in Hebrew dialect. That being said, there has been a discussion going on for thousands of years as to whether some parts of Bible should be taken literally. They have been describing the use of metaphor and parable for a very long time.Jan Ardena said:
I haven't understood why you equate Christian fundamentalism with a fundamental belief in God. Isn't that what you're advocating?
In fact in the Beautiful Christian Song thread I even say The Lord asks me to rewrite Genesis, and it is definitely going to have Darwinism as part of it, unless Jan Ardena can tell us clearly why it shouldn't.
Last edited: