[Closed] Bloody Athiests!

And what do you mean by that, exactly? (Having responded not with a counter-argument, but resorted to some sort of accusation...).

slackalice - Member

Rogerthecat - refer to Dr Michael Newton 'Journey of Souls' Excellent mind opening read and he has 2 other publications along the same lines.

Well there's 10 mins of my life I'll never get back - I'll park that over on the shelf with the crystal healing and magic memory water - but thanks for the link.

If you select cardinal points in the modern City of New York (Penn Street station, the Empire State Building, Central Park and so on), then draw connecting lines, it matches the same image that you get if you connect the stars of the constellation of "Leo"! Wow. Amazing. Must "mean" something, eh? Maybe the building was erected by... and so on.

Don't forget all those Woolworths stores that are built on perfect straight lines. Aliens, I tell ya!

You're saying that their ability to talk to the government is the privilege?

To be included in direct discussions with the first minister for no reason beyond your position in a religious organisation is most definately a privilege.

There is a hypothesis beloved by the "open minded", that the temple of Angkor Wat in Cambodia has a "spiritual" relationship with the star constellation of "Drago" because if you draw lines between "cardinal points" on the building and then repeat the exercise with the star constellation in question, they match!

I know you are a non- believer. But in an expanding universe how can that theory ever hold water, the points in space are ever changing in relation to one another, whereas the building is pretty much a fixed structure?

Arthur C Clarke's Mysterious World has a lot to answer for IMO.

Mr Woppit

I forgive you for your damning of my personal beliefs, I am sure that you are a kind and loving and open minded person.

I refer you to my earlier post:

But then again, it's my world/my universe and I'll do any amount of wooly-ness I like that helps me spread a little LOVE!!

I also reserve the right to change them any time I choose - go figure that one 😆

I am not questioning yours if you have any, or anyone else's belief's, please accept that I have mine and I'm VERY happy with them. 😀

So the universe is a self-concious entity that has willed itself into being.

in an expanding universe how can that theory ever hold water, the points in space are ever changing in relation to one another, whereas the building is pretty much a fixed structure?

... and it's a three-dimensional arrangement, not a flat image. But of course, during the days of the ancient wisdoms, before the invention of computers, the stars were all stuck onto a flat surface, as any fule kno.

it's my world/my universe and I'll do any amount of wooly-ness I like that helps me spread a little LOVE!!

Amen. That's what I've been trying to argue for the last dozen or so STW religion threads.

But in an expanding universe how can that theory ever hold water, the points in space are ever changing in relation to one another, whereas the building is pretty much a fixed structure?

You really want to talk about cosmology? There's a big difference between questions that have no answer and therefore expose limitations in modern science, and [i]questions to which you do not know the correct answer[/i].

Just your normal charmless comments/stories.

Negative ALL the time.

So yeah .... soulless.... shame.

PS spacetime itself is expanding, but not evenly all over I don't think.

ooops.... double post

Except to say... Ro5ey, thank you 8)

So yeah .... soulless

Far from it.

I am not questioning yours if you have any, or anyone else's belief's, please accept that I have mine and I'm VERY happy with them.

Of course I accept that you have them, but if all you can do in their defense is to say that although you know they are "woolly", you use them to spread "love", then I'm not impressed.

1: You have adopted beliefs that you know, or at least suspect, are wrong.

2: You try to convince strangers that you know nothing about and have never met, on a website forum, that you "love" them. This sounds like some sort of neurotic displacement activity to me.

I don't love you. I don't hate you, either. I just expect more challenging responses that are actually related to my various points.

druidh - Member

Trade Unionists sometimes make it to the House of Lords too.....

Aye- and so do other religious people, but there not Lords Union as there are Lords Spiritual Temporal, and they're not there specifically to represent a Union. As you well know 😉

Ro5ey - Member

Just your normal charmless comments/stories.

Negative ALL the time.

So yeah .... soulless.... shame.

So, you don't have any actual points of discussion, just some sort of attempt at character assassination. THIS is from someone who has a "soul" (whatever that is).

Of course my argument sounds negative to you - I don't agree with your claims. I don't know why you find this so unusual.

Sorry Mols ... not you dude.

You have adopted beliefs that you know, or at least suspect, are wrong.

2: You try to convince strangers that you know nothing about and have never met, on a website forum, that you "love" them. This sounds like some sort of neurotic displacement activity to me.

For these points to matter, you're assuming that these activities are in some way wrong. Kant, is ought and all that:
How are they wrong?

woppit are you clearly stating there is no god, no higher power, no after life, no spiritualistic eternal existence and then complaining about someone stating you have no soul?

really?

Ro5ey - Member

Sorry Mols ... not you dude.

Me, presumably. Care to explain how such a "soulfull" person can descend so rapidly from discussing the subject into morbid accusations of character defect?

 

Interesting stuff Mr Woppit

If I told you the basis of my beliefs, here is not the place, how about we go for a ride?

1. They are right for me

2.I'm not trying to convince anyone, you asked, I provided you with an opportunity to find out where I am in my journey.

3. Here is an interesting point. How do you define love?

I define it in 2 ways:
1. The cathexis - an object of desire
2. The will to extend oneself for the purpose of nuturing one's own or another's spiritual and personal growth
(with thanks to M Scott Peck)

I'll let you work out which one I endeavour to live by. 😀

No claims from me and no need for discussion on the point of someone posted a heartfelt belief that you rubbished.... charmless.

how about we go for a ride?

No thank you.

edited: don't want to add to any offense.

Ro5ey - Member

No claims from me and no need for discussion on the point of someone posted a heartfelt belief that you rubbished.... charmless.

If you want robust discussion on controversial subjects, let's have one.

If you want to express hurt because your holy flower of universal love has been tarnished by the nasty man who seems impervious to being moved by the universal spirit of one-ness, stay away. That's my advice, anyway.

how about we go for a ride?

No thank you.

You sure? I think we would get along famously 😀

Or is my neurotic displacement disturbing you? 😉

loum - Member

Am I right in understanding this,
that someone who doesn't believe in the soul and believes that they don't have one, is taking offence at being described as soulless?

The intention of the proposer is to level an accusation of being somehow a "lesser" person than are they, because they possess a "soul", and I do not.

I take offense at the attempt to belittle, couched in the belittler's terms. Not the terminology itself, which is as vapid as the "philosophy" that is being touted.

Fair enough. I've removed my comment now anyway.

1. The cathexis - an object of desire
2. The will to extend oneself for the purpose of nuturing one's own or another's spiritual and personal growth

I'll let you work out which one I endeavour to live by.

Given your chosen nickname is slackalice.. is it the first one? 😉

slackalice - Member

how about we go for a ride?

No thank you.

You sure?

Positive.

Given your chosen nickname is slackalice.. is it the first one?

Northwind - Member
Regretably there is no alternative to a Religious belief system that gives kids moral guidance and sets boundaries.
And yes, this is incredible cobblers.

Ironically, despite not being at all religious, and coming from an irreligious family, I've ended up with a fairly "christian" set of morals. Reason being, they mostly make sense, which is why they're shared with most other religions. And the reason for that, is that religions don't create morals- they coopt them.

Honour thy father and thy mother
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness
Thou shalt not covet

Not a trace of religion in that. And the rest is basically copy protection.

Interesting quotes, who said that and why should it be true?

I can't stand evangelical Atheists any more than the the other sort.

There is no proof, we can argue all day, but the fact remains, even for those allegedly claiming faith we are agnostic, like it or not.

As to the bringing up kids thing you need to have done it a few times to get it, once they stop believing in Father Christmas (yet still hang those stockings up) they get it and the whole God hypocrisy thing, but it keeps them in line, they 'get' right from wrong, which unfortunately in this day and age fewer and fewer folk do, so give me the Catholic method over the hand wringing lefty liberal way any day.

Now folk using their 'God' to justify wholesale slaughter or to swear themselves in to another parliamentary session so they can renege on their election promises whilst fiddling their expenses, their rules? Sorry they don't count, so if Cougar could just absolutely prove to me beyond all reasonable doubt that shooting that bastard bank manager of mine in the head is not going to impact on any future condemnation of a lifetime here, I'd like to hear about it, because there are a couple of other types that have it coming...

"If you want robust discussion on controversial subjects, let's have one."

No thanks

"If you want to express hurt because your holy flower of universal love has been tarnished by the nasty man who seems impervious to being moved by the universal spirit of one-ness, stay away. That's my advice, anyway."

And I'll pass on taking the advice of a "nasty man" thanks. How do feel about calling yourself that by the way? Not sure many would like to be known as nasty?

"I take offense at the attempt to belittle" ... Do unto others wopptit do unto others .... Luke 6:31

Edit... Not sure Luke actually knew you.

And I'll pass on taking the advice of a "nasty man" thanks. How do feel about calling yourself that by the way?

Allow me to enlighten you - the phrase "nasty man" is a reference to how you seem to view me, not a self-description.

Luke 6:31 Oh the ironing. 🙄

Allow me to enlighten you

WOWZER! There are a fair few "Bloody Athiests" on posting here! You question why some athiests are so angry, especially in the UK, and certain athiests are start mouthing off. It reminds me of when you ask more evangelical religious people questions that cause them to think about their beliefs! And 5 pages in 4 hrs with constant reminders of past discussions of the same arguments... there really is no difference between a militant athiest and a young Earth creationist'esq beleiver when trying to discuss certain topics.
Don't be mad at religious people or even some religious leaders for trying to impose their beliefs on other people, that's what their books tell them to do. Be mad at the politicians that let them get away with it.
I'm trying to find out why some athiests (maybe you are or maybe your not) still get angry at some random plumber who goes to a local church and believes 2000ya in the middle east a man who some people claimed he said he was the son of a god and was born of a virgin and pretty much said we should all get along and he wishes to live a life simalar too that? Why does that bother some people so much that they have to speak up against it with such hostility and claim he his a delusional fool. Militant athiests tar every religious person with the same brush as the most extreme example of the most hostile religions.

igrf - Member

Interesting quotes, who said that and why should it be true?

Er, I was quoting you. Unless you mean the 10 Commandments? That was quoting God.

Edit: got the poster wrong and went off on a tangent and frankly this has gotten tedious. As usual.

I should know better, really.

And that's why I'm out.

There is no proof, we can argue all day, but the fact remains, even for those allegedly claiming faith we are agnostic, like it or not.

Militant agnosticism. Like +1 😉

if Cougar could just absolutely prove to me beyond all reasonable doubt that shooting that bastard bank manager of mine in the head is not going to impact on any future condemnation of a lifetime here, I'd like to hear about it, because there are a couple of other types that have it coming...

I'm not sure I understand the question. You're saying that if you weren't a Catholic, you'd be a serial killer?

Religion the most successful money making/ marketing scam of all time.

I'm trying to find out why some athiests (maybe you are or maybe your not) still get angry at some random plumber who goes to a local church and believes 2000ya in the middle east a man who some people claimed he said he was the son of a god and was born of a virgin and pretty much said we should all get along and he wishes to live a life simalar too that? Why does that bother some people so much that they have to speak up against it with such hostility and claim he his a delusional fool.

If only it were that simple. I don't think many people would argue with what the supposed chap is supposed to have said, it all seems very laudable. However, it's when they build an organisation around it that becomes hugely wealthy and powerful, which then starts to force people into behaving as they say because that's how they interpret what the supped bloke has supposedly said.

They can worship the devil, Odin or any other deity[ or deities] they choose for all i care as long as it has no impact on anyone else

I'm an atheist (that does not exclusively define who I am, just like being a mountain biker does not define all of who I am).

Morality does not come from God(s)- morality does not derive from doing what a higher power tells you to (as the WWII Nazi trials demonstrated.)

However,

Anyone can believe in whatever God(s) what they want. I personally can't understand why people fall for this BS, but then again some people think golf is fun.

But:-

Their beliefs are not protected form ridicule - there must be no blasphemy laws, no protection form ridicule about a particular belief system (protection from discrimination, of course).

Their beliefs do not protect them from the law. (Circumcision male or female, beating, killing your child because God told you to, refusing healthcare to employees, paying taxes, discriminating against people on grounds of race, gender, colour, sexual orientation, disability).

Religion cannot and must not define the law. I don't think we need to look at many theocracies past or present to see that it's generally a bad idea. Separation of church ad state should be absolute.

If all religions/religious people did that, there would be no 'angry atheists'

But that is not how the world currently is, so some people feel a need to try and change that. I think you'll find that many people who have striven to overturn injustice, bigotry and immorality have got a bit shouty from time to time.