Atheists are idiots
-
Jason Henderson wrote: That is exactly opposite of what we are supposed to do. JC is supposed to be our example and he hung out with anyone open to his word. Especially drunks, poor people, and tax collectors. Exactly. More evidence of how much humans have screwed up his teachings and subverted them for their own good. I was just relating what I have seen in Christian communities.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaNOPcode wrote: ...but in America, you're not allowed to thrust, moan or see anything...
This brings up a contradiction of sorts for most Christians. We are given this example of Jesus which we are to follow, yet the apostle Paul tells us not to do anything that would cause someone else to turn away from Christ. So what do we do? Do we go into the bar and spread the word of Christ or do we stay away because someone may see us and be influenced badly? We also need to recognize that we are mere humans and we are weak when it comes to temptations. If we aren't confident enough in our ability to resist those temptations then we should stay away from them. Those are the main reason why many Christians shy away from the best evangelical opportunities.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
David Wulff wrote: so that you (and more importantly others) wouldn't be mislead by the prejudical Christian view of athiests that I have yet to see backed up by hard evidence And what would that be? BTW I don't claim to belong to that particular club (Christian) either. You shouldn't limit your criticism to that brand of tri-theism. Some of the other theisms are less generous and less tolerant. David Wulff wrote: We all assume everybody in third world and deprived situations wants to or should live to our standards, but truth be told given the choices the vast majority would prefer not to. I would be interested in the evidence you have to support that assertion. Given the rather overwhelming pace of immigration we in the US are seeing across our southern border, I am inclined to believe the opposite... David Wulff wrote: I could live with the fake views pushed around by an organsiation Either mispoken or ungenerous on your part (fake): I believe most religions are quite sincere about their beliefs. If you meant 'false' instead, then I can only say that I have yet to see either proof or disproof for most of their assertions (christian, muslim, hindu or other...). I would agree that a very good deal of the allegory (fables?) delivered with the message is suspect, but even that remains largely unprovable as to its veracity or falsehood. David Wulff wrote: Pascal's wager is for cowards, and that is said with 100% sincerity. I fail to see how courage is relevant here...a failing on my part I am sure. Now I suppose I have said enough to get spam demoted to #2 at least:-D.
OldRob wrote: And what would that be? Exactly what has been portrayed by many people in this discussion. OldRob wrote: You shouldn't limit your criticism to that brand of tri-theism. Some of the other theisms are less generous and less tolerant. I'll often limit it to merely Christianity (all falvours) because the vast majority of this web site's members are Americans, and thus very likely to be Christian. If I had uttered the "evil" Islam then even more stereotypical tripe would be let out of the bag, and those are the only two main religions I understand in any real detail. OldRob wrote: I would be interested in the evidence you have to support that assertion. There are the problems with even a people's own government providing aid to people who don't want it in the desert belt of Africa. So the government use extreme intimidation techniques to try and force them to cooprerate because it is obviously for their own good. Sadly though because these "good" people have never experienced what it is that is supposedly so very very bad, they are killing off communities. Ask Colin, he's actually been with people like this, it seems. OldRob wrote: Given the rather overwhelming pace of immigration we in the US are seeing across our southern border, I am inclined to believe the opposite... Whenever you have a rich country bang next door to a poor country - the flow of people is going to be there. I sugggest you pop down to the border one day and have a chat with some of the people coming into your country and ask why it is they are making that journey. I think you'll find aid would not have made the slightest difference. Education, now there's another story, but educating someone doesn't give the individual the sense of "I am so kind look at what I've done" (even if they don't say so aloud) that sending them your secondhand junk does. Egos, egos, egos. And they say money makes the world go round. :( OldRob wrote: If you meant 'false' instead, then I can only say that I have yet to see either proof or disproof for most of their assertions (christian, muslim, hindu or other...). Ask yourself this: just why are there so many "ultimate and 100% correct" religions out there? We are talking thousands here, not the six main ones. You can't proove nor disproove a single one of them, any more than you can disproove the existance of a purple he
-
David Wulff wrote: I was referring to what is best summed up using GWB's words: "you're either with us or against us". GWB was quoting (or possibly paraphrasing). Some things *are* black and white, much as we'd love to live in gray. David Wulff wrote: Another term for this is psychological intimidation. If i tell you sticking your finger in the wall socket will get you a nasty shock, what is that? Does it matter?
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
Shog9 wrote: GWB was quoting (or possibly paraphrasing). Some things *are* black and white, much as we'd love to live in gray. I was using them at face value as an analogy. Shog9 wrote: what is that? Does it matter? Can you proove that will happen? Yes. Can you proove the other will happen? No.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.
-
Shog9 wrote: GWB was quoting (or possibly paraphrasing). Some things *are* black and white, much as we'd love to live in gray. I was using them at face value as an analogy. Shog9 wrote: what is that? Does it matter? Can you proove that will happen? Yes. Can you proove the other will happen? No.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.
David Wulff wrote: Can you proove that will happen? Yes. Can you proove the other will happen? No. Things being as they are, it's exceedingly rare for someone to die and then be in a condition to talk about it. So the outcome is not known - you bet or you believe. You implied Pascal was a coward for betting on one outcome, so what are *you* doing? Betting on a different outcome, or believing there is none? David Wulff wrote: I was using them at face value as an analogy. I'll wait 'till i've had a bit more caffeine before deciding if that's possible or not. :)
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
-
David Wulff wrote: Can you proove that will happen? Yes. Can you proove the other will happen? No. Things being as they are, it's exceedingly rare for someone to die and then be in a condition to talk about it. So the outcome is not known - you bet or you believe. You implied Pascal was a coward for betting on one outcome, so what are *you* doing? Betting on a different outcome, or believing there is none? David Wulff wrote: I was using them at face value as an analogy. I'll wait 'till i've had a bit more caffeine before deciding if that's possible or not. :)
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
Shog9 wrote: You implied Pascal was a coward for betting on one outcome, so what are *you* doing? Betting on a different outcome, or believing there is none? I believe that my body is reconsumed into the matter bank when it looses it's electro-chemical assistance ("life"). I don't believe, nor do I see any reason to want or need to believe, that there is anything after that. I do not believe there was anything before this either. I follow exactly the same life process as every other living organism in the known universe: I am created by my parents, I function, then I destruct. Sadly though I don't get to reproduce on the same scale as a bacteria... :(( Shog9 wrote: I'll wait 'till i've had a bit more caffeine before deciding if that's possible or not This is CodeProject - every post needs an analogy! :-D
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.
-
So you immediately tar the other atheists who did help their children participate with the same brush ? Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
Shog9 wrote: You implied Pascal was a coward for betting on one outcome, so what are *you* doing? Betting on a different outcome, or believing there is none? I believe that my body is reconsumed into the matter bank when it looses it's electro-chemical assistance ("life"). I don't believe, nor do I see any reason to want or need to believe, that there is anything after that. I do not believe there was anything before this either. I follow exactly the same life process as every other living organism in the known universe: I am created by my parents, I function, then I destruct. Sadly though I don't get to reproduce on the same scale as a bacteria... :(( Shog9 wrote: I'll wait 'till i've had a bit more caffeine before deciding if that's possible or not This is CodeProject - every post needs an analogy! :-D
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.
David Wulff wrote: I don't believe, nor do I see any reason to want or need to believe, that there is anything after that. You do realize though, that you can no more prove there isn't than others can prove that there is? David Wulff wrote: This is CodeProject - every post needs an analogy! Oh... hmm... well, you know how cheese is made using stuff from a calf's stomach to curdle milk? In a similar fashion, CP threads grow and evolve when stimulated by related but foreign material introduced into them...
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
-
David Wulff wrote: I don't believe, nor do I see any reason to want or need to believe, that there is anything after that. You do realize though, that you can no more prove there isn't than others can prove that there is? David Wulff wrote: This is CodeProject - every post needs an analogy! Oh... hmm... well, you know how cheese is made using stuff from a calf's stomach to curdle milk? In a similar fashion, CP threads grow and evolve when stimulated by related but foreign material introduced into them...
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
Shog9 wrote: You do realize though, that you can no more prove there isn't than others can prove that there is? Of course, but we were talking about Pascal's wager here and believing something purely on the "well if I'm wrong I'm fucked but if I'm right I'll have one big orgasm for the rest of eternity" principle is non comparable. I don't believe in anything. (you know what I mean)
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.
-
Shog9 wrote: You do realize though, that you can no more prove there isn't than others can prove that there is? Of course, but we were talking about Pascal's wager here and believing something purely on the "well if I'm wrong I'm fucked but if I'm right I'll have one big orgasm for the rest of eternity" principle is non comparable. I don't believe in anything. (you know what I mean)
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.
David Wulff wrote: we were talking about Pascal's wager here Among other things. If i remember correctly, i wanted you to clarify your position on when it's ok to tell someone they're taking a long walk off a short plank. But Pascal's wager is a good example of the difference between belief and knowledge. Belief is not something you can change at the drop of a hat - strong belief tends to be something you nurture over time, strengthening and reinforcing. Without it you are tossed by the wind, unable to stand up to those who are firm in their beliefs - correct or no. And so it is very important that you take care in what you believe... David Wulff wrote: I don't believe in anything. (you know what I mean) Sad to say, i strongly suspect you believe in Nothing.
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
-
David Wulff wrote: we were talking about Pascal's wager here Among other things. If i remember correctly, i wanted you to clarify your position on when it's ok to tell someone they're taking a long walk off a short plank. But Pascal's wager is a good example of the difference between belief and knowledge. Belief is not something you can change at the drop of a hat - strong belief tends to be something you nurture over time, strengthening and reinforcing. Without it you are tossed by the wind, unable to stand up to those who are firm in their beliefs - correct or no. And so it is very important that you take care in what you believe... David Wulff wrote: I don't believe in anything. (you know what I mean) Sad to say, i strongly suspect you believe in Nothing.
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
Shog9 wrote: Among other things. If i remember correctly, i wanted you to clarify your position on when it's ok to tell someone they're taking a long walk off a short plank Which was answered previously. Shog9 wrote: And so it is very important that you take care in what you believe... Of course. Shog9 wrote: Sad to say, i strongly suspect you believe in Nothing. Not at all. I believe very much in people; indeed very much more than a great deal of others do. I believe that every individual has the potential to do great good if they can find the strength to do so, and I am all for empowering an individual to get them there.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.
-
Shog9 wrote: Among other things. If i remember correctly, i wanted you to clarify your position on when it's ok to tell someone they're taking a long walk off a short plank Which was answered previously. Shog9 wrote: And so it is very important that you take care in what you believe... Of course. Shog9 wrote: Sad to say, i strongly suspect you believe in Nothing. Not at all. I believe very much in people; indeed very much more than a great deal of others do. I believe that every individual has the potential to do great good if they can find the strength to do so, and I am all for empowering an individual to get them there.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.
David Wulff wrote: I believe very much in people; indeed very much more than a great deal of others do. I don't trust, respect, or even particularly like them myself, but i'll admit there are a few admirable ones out there. David Wulff wrote: I am all for empowering an individual to get them there. Know any good ways to do this?
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
-
Here's my contentious rant of the day: There's a charity in the US that is sending shoe boxes full of toys and household needs to children living with HIV in africa. School children were asked to take part, but apparently several parents would not let their children participate because "it's just a thinly veiled attempt to spread Christianity". So in other words, "Sorry, Junior. You can't take part in a humanitarian act of kindness and good will toward your fellow man, because it's just a bunch of religious people trying to shove their beliefs down your throat. Only I'm allowed to do that." When an atheist claims that man has no soul, perhaps they are only refering to themselves.
"My brother says 'Hello'... So hurray for speech therapy!" -Emo Phillips
I too wouldn't give any help to someone labeled with a religion. True humanitarian help organizations doesn't need to push "the holy words". That's not an act of humanism, it's an act of selling a religion. It's just not right to help out in the third world and then say "Our god made this possible". That's like saying "Come on and show us your gratitude by converting". I simply find that ethically and morally wrong. If you are going to give someone help, then do it because it's a good thing - don't do it because it's a good opportunity to push your own religion. [edit]Christians talk about unconditional love. How about unconditional help?[/edit] I have not yet decided whether I'm agnostic or atheist. On one hand I find logic to be the way of enlightenment, on the other hand it's hard to prove by logical means that there is no higher beings. Currently I'm leaning towards atheism. Now what was it you called me... an idiot? -- This space for rent.
-
David Wulff wrote: I believe very much in people; indeed very much more than a great deal of others do. I don't trust, respect, or even particularly like them myself, but i'll admit there are a few admirable ones out there. David Wulff wrote: I am all for empowering an individual to get them there. Know any good ways to do this?
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
Give a man your utmost respect and he will in turn respect you. I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this principle.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.
-
Give a man your utmost respect and he will in turn respect you. I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this principle.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.
David Wulff wrote: I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this principle. That it's a good idea to respect others? No, i agree with that - i just have trouble doing it. and as long as i'm being a prick about it - who *really* wants to "agree to disagree" on anything beyond a preference for pizza toppings?
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
-
I too wouldn't give any help to someone labeled with a religion. True humanitarian help organizations doesn't need to push "the holy words". That's not an act of humanism, it's an act of selling a religion. It's just not right to help out in the third world and then say "Our god made this possible". That's like saying "Come on and show us your gratitude by converting". I simply find that ethically and morally wrong. If you are going to give someone help, then do it because it's a good thing - don't do it because it's a good opportunity to push your own religion. [edit]Christians talk about unconditional love. How about unconditional help?[/edit] I have not yet decided whether I'm agnostic or atheist. On one hand I find logic to be the way of enlightenment, on the other hand it's hard to prove by logical means that there is no higher beings. Currently I'm leaning towards atheism. Now what was it you called me... an idiot? -- This space for rent.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I too wouldn't give any help to someone labeled with a religion This charity wasn't labeled as religious. The Atheists just interpretted it that way. I'm fairly certain that the organizers went out of their way to distance the activities from their religious beliefs. Instead of helping out, the atheists accused them of being sneaky and under-handed. IMHO, the average atheist is far more preachy and zealous about converting people to their beliefs that 90% of the relious people I know. The other type of atheist is the kind who are glad you are "so deluded about all that God nonesense". It allows them to feel intellectually superior somehow. I don't think I've ever met an atheist who is neutral, agreeing to disagree or whatever. I don't think I've ever met a humble atheist. Agnostics yes. Atheists no. Perhaps there are some out there that I simply haven't met yet.
"My brother says 'Hello'... So hurray for speech therapy!" -Emo Phillips
-
The amount of rage in your reply is remarkable. To a great degree, I think you confirm my first point (the "True believer" fervor one, not the one you quoted). David Wulff wrote: OldRob wrote: I've always suspected that they were just afraid they might be wrong... I should have put a :) after that, it was meant in far greater jest than you took it. Some clarification: 1. Personally I have little use for organized religions of any stripe, not so much because of the supposedly "core" beliefs they espouse, but because like most human organizations their primary focus is on self promotion; the organization and its human hierarchy are unfortuanately more important to them than the beliefs. That said, however, I prefer Pascal's wager over your position. I am also very suspicious of anyone claiming to have exclusive truth on their side (Atheists included). 2. I would not however, deny a child a lesson in sharing, nor exposure to the idea that there are less fortunate in the world merely because I objected. That some children get some aid seems more important than whether or not they are subjected to the indoctination that I disagree with. Presented with a purely secular charitable organization as an alternative, I would surely choose them, but in the abscence of such (Does UNICEF DO anything these days?), I would posit that even a tarnished act of charity is preferable to the abscence of charity. 3.I too could care less what your (or anyone elses) beliefs recarding the existance of a deity might be, and object to anyone who insists on forcing their system on me. I do not, however, believe that I have the right or obligation to insist that organized religions be prevented from recruiting, unless they endanger the well being of either the recruited or the apostate. Belittling another because they belive OR don't believe is equally reprehensible behaviour. The initial post was in poor taste (a bit too sweeping a condemnation, which questioned intelligence where it should have questioned motive) at best. IMHO your response is little more tasteful. I am reminded of the quote from MacBeth: 'Methinks the lady dost protest too much' In closing, my apologies for unintentionally offending you so much. I just didn't realize it was THAT important... :rolleyes:
OldRob wrote: The initial post was in poor taste (a bit too sweeping a condemnation, which questioned intelligence where it should have questioned motive) at best. It was intentionally worded so bluntly. This is the soapbox afterall, and I've been critcized in the past for being too banal in my posts. Plus I like being pelted with rotten fruit and flamed. It's funny to see the harsh reactions of people to opinions I post that I don't even entirely agree with myself. The truth is I don't believe all atheists are idiots. They are simply blind to the existence of the spirtitual aspects of life. Their spiritual blindness is self-inflicted, and even celebrated. They are offended even at the suggestion that they are blind, because their blindness is usually due to their overpowering need to believe we are already aware of everything that exists. "If it can't be seen(proven), it's not there." This is essentially the fundamental argument of the atheist. They value intellectual integrity above all else. This is not a fault. It merely limits their perception of the universe. I don't hate atheists. I don't feel threatened by them, and I don't pity them. They have simply chosen to dismiss anything that they themselves can not personally fathom. They unfortuneately must also dismiss those who do believe as self-deluded, mindless zombies who simply follow the teachings of religion like brainless sheep. How can a single celled life-form without any means of photo-reception possibly be aware that there is a such thing as light? Even given billions of years evolution can not improve on something that doesn't exist, a sense of sight for example. Nothing times nothing will always be nothing, even after eons of time. Yet here we are with eyeballs in our heads. Perhaps then, there are other sensory perceptions that we simply haven't developed the biological capacity to perceive. "No! That's impossible. If it can't be perceived, measured, quantified, or explained within the means of our current scope of perception, it doesn't exist." If that was possible, than it's possible that there may be a God as well. The intellectual integrity of the sworn atheist breaks down if he accedes to this. He would rather pull out his own eyes than admit that he could be wrong. He is trapped by his need to believe that man already knows everything that is, or ever could be. As one atheist I know put it, "Even if God himself did walk right up to me and say hello I still wouldn't believe. I'd check myse
-
Kevnar wrote: , "Sorry, Junior. You can't take part in a humanitarian act of kindness and good will toward your fellow man, because it's just a bunch of religious people trying to shove their beliefs down your throat. Only I'm allowed to do that." Where was the "only I'm allowed to do that" bit? I'm sure these parents would be more than happy to let their kids do such things *outside* the context of religion. And what if it were Jehovah's Witnesses? Or Moonies? Would you let your kids get involved as long as they were doing humanitarian acts of kindness and good will toward your fellow man?
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
Atheistic parents see belief in an unseen God as a weakness. Thus, instead of encouraging their children to seek out the truths of the universe with their own hearts and minds, they impress upon them their own notions of God and his believers. They "shove their opinions down their children's throats" out of fear that their children should come to accept what they believe to be a lie. That's their perogative as parents, but it makes them hypocritical if they in turn critize believing parents for "brain-washing" their kids with their own religious beliefs. "Why can't you just let your little Johnny or Julie decide for themselves?" they say. "Why can't you?" I reply.
"My brother says 'Hello'... So hurray for speech therapy!" -Emo Phillips
-
Kevnar wrote: So in other words, "Sorry, Junior. You can't take part in a humanitarian act of kindness and good will toward your fellow man, because it's just a bunch of religious people trying to shove their beliefs down your throat. Only I'm allowed to do that." Works both ways mate. Many a Christian organisation will not team up with an actively non-Christian organisation no matter how many lives the teaming up can save. Hell, I remember prominent Christians telling their congregation not to associate with non-Christians unless it was to convert them! How screwed up is that?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaNOPcode wrote: ...but in America, you're not allowed to thrust, moan or see anything...
Paul Watson wrote: Many a Christian organisation will not team up with an actively non-Christian organisation no matter how many lives the teaming up can save. If a Christian by definition is one who lives by the teachings of Christ, than these people are not Christians. Jesus helped thousands who could not have otherwise cared less about his spiritual message. God does so everyday, feeding, clothing, and loving even his worst enemies. These Christian organizations you refer to are Christian in name only. Those who call themselves Christians and do not live up to the standard of Christ will be judged more harshly in the end than the most deplorable sinner on earth who at least admitted he was bad. Paul Watson wrote: Hell, I remember prominent Christians telling their congregation not to associate with non-Christians unless it was to convert them! How screwed up is that? Once again, not really a Christian, though they may be prominent in their religion. See the parable of the Sheep and Goats. Of course, just because there are hypocritical Christians all over the place, does not mean that the unbeliever is any better. Nobody is good. We all take our next breath in God's good grace. Let's not use hypocrites in church as an excuse to dismiss him altogether.
"My brother says 'Hello'... So hurray for speech therapy!" -Emo Phillips