You are an offensive irritant of small intellect.
now now, I think you just undermine your own credibility by resorting to invective 🙁 If [b]tyger [/b]wants to pray for you it's unlikely to do you any harm...
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me."
Emo Philips.
Coor, a lot of people seem to know loads about that course without ever actually having been on it. Remarkable. Maybe being an atheist makes you omniscient too?
Plus, a lot of your arguments ridiculing religion are pretty peurile, focusing on the simplest possible interpretations of the concepts. So you're really not making yourselves look particularly clever and giving atheists a really bad name.
Did it ever occur to you that not all Christians believe the bible verbatim?
"now now, I think you just undermine your own credibility by resorting to invective If tyger wants to pray for you it's unlikely to do you any harm... "
It's unlikely to do anything. Personally, it feels like someone's just slapped their last dump in my hand, hence my impulse to invective.
Anyway. Peace and Love.
Beddy-byes time. If I get any messages from god, I'll let you know in the morning.
🙄
Personally, it feels like someone's just slapped their last dump in my hand, hence my impulse to invective
hmmm, now who's delusional ?
Peace and Love.
now *I* feel violated 🙁
simonfbarnes - Membernow now, I think you just undermine your own credibility by resorting to invective
Just ???
Woppit has spent the whole thread throwing insults at people. And although I haven't read the majority of the posts, I assume the lowest point in this thread, was when Woppit denigrated, insulted, and ridiculed LoulaBella for her commitment towards her severely disabled child, something which she is clearly utterly dedicated to.
Surely no one and no post, stooped lower than that ?
It takes a special sort of person to stoop that low ......... most people simply wouldn't have the stomach for it 😐
and giving atheists a really bad name.
like that's a big difference ? We need more solidarity ?
Did it ever occur to you that not all Christians believe the bible verbatim?
the wonder is that any do...
At root, any belief is necessarily arbitrary - if it had a basis it would be a hypothesis - and so is ripe for ridicule. My favourite is "Termagant" which is a made up god which Mediaeval Christians believed Muslims believed in, apparently having confused them with Zoroastrians - how's [b]that[/b] for mental contortions ?
I'm amazed an 11 page thread on Singletrack hasn't resolved this issue
Maybe it's worth going to after all 🙂
And many christians would hold the view that those who don't take the bible verbatim are not, in fact, christians.Did it ever occur to you that not all Christians believe the bible verbatim?
Who's right, the christians or the christians?
Coor, a lot of people seem to know loads about that course without ever actually having been on it. Remarkable. Maybe being an atheist makes you omniscient too?
Not really, however those who have been on the course don't seem to be refuting those assumptions, which are that it exists to convert. Is there more too it?
Plus, a lot of your arguments ridiculing religion are pretty peurile, focusing on the simplest possible interpretations of the concepts.
Are you saying its made up of complex concepts? I think in its simplest terms it comes down to faith. Its often desirable to add a layer of incomprehensible complexity to these beliefs to give it a false air of respectibility and intellectualism however it comes down to belief in the unprovable and is made up of often ridiculous assumptions.
Inferring it is more complex than it is is a desperate tactic.
So you're really not making yourselves look particularly clever and giving atheists a really bad name.
Oh I dont know! I suppose these things are relative and in comparison with those who preach the ridiculous I dont think the Atheists come out of this too bad. Its also fair to point out that Atheists have to stoop a little to argue with such widespread and ridiculously accepted belief system. As has been said its those with faith that can only understand the arguments in relation to a homogeneous group (atheists) They aren't.
Its also fair to point out that Atheists have to stoop a little to argue with such widespread and ridiculously accepted belief system
Ah, be careful. Some wise person once said pride goes before a [s]fool[/s] fall! You're already stooping I notice! 🙂
It's worth noting that if you follow the alpha course and become a Christian, you WILL be going to Naraka, so be careful out there.
It's worth noting that if you follow the alpha course and become a Christian, you WILL be going to Naraka...
Is that near Swindon?
Ah, be careful. Some wise person once said pride goes before a fool fall! You're already stooping I notice!
Point taken!
@The Mighty Higs 🙂
Coor, a lot of people seem to know loads about that course without ever actually having been on it.
was it ever about the nominal topic?
Atheists have to stoop a little to argue with such widespread and ridiculously accepted belief system
everyone believes in something - and I don't think you need to justify a belief (even were it possible), it's just an idea that seems to fit with your view of the world, and perhaps if that belief is congruent with your sensibililities, you are happier for it. There's a natural tendency to think that your own belief is "right" and try to persuade others to take it up, though when this degenerates to violence, it's my belief that this is pointless and unhelpful. I still maintain that what you believe is essentially private, and all that matters to anyone else is how you behave as a result.
For the record, I believe in compassion, justice and fairness - and sometimes I feel with scant evidence...
was it ever about the nominal topic?
Yes it was. The original post makes that clear.
Until it was hijacked by fanatical atheist-botherers. Of course.
Until it was hijacked by fanatical atheist-botherers. Of course.
isn't it the nature of conversation to wander ? If I were talking to someone who insisted we had to stick the their agenda I'd soon lose interest.
Until it was hijacked by fanatical atheist-botherers. Of course.
You mean fundies? Atheist botherer doesn't make sense otherwise 😉
Let's sum up:
Believers in a god 'believe' [u]because they want to[/u] and feel comforted by it despite the fact that there isn't any feedback or evidence for it(nobody on here has offered anything to contradict this). Many probably do know that it's unlikely to be true, but hedge their bets and hide behind the notion that 'blind faith' in something is a virtue. Dogma and tradition have been developed by humans, on Earth, over time and are followed in different ways by different people. It can't all be right, even if everyone 'believes' that their way is the one true way.
Non-believers do not believe in a higher being because they see no reason to. they are, by their vary nature, not a group at all and have no common philosophy. They often resent the influence of religion on society.
There's little more to say.
There's little more to say.
That won't stop us.
it's my belief that this is pointless and unhelpful. I still maintain that what you believe is essentially private,
I wouldnt join this debate (at least not with so vigour) if it were private. One of the overwhelming motivations for my Atheism is the political and Economic influence religion has.
When scarce resources are diverted from more important and tangible causes such as education and health then it ceases to become a "private belief" and becomes something that can and should be challenged.
When medical research is halted due to a "faith" then that faith should be scrutinised and asked to account for itself in the same way as a person who believed in the tooth fairy would be refused tax free status for example.
Alpha Course
Just interested in what people think.
my sister went on an alpha course a few years ago, she had hard time over a few years, she is also a Dr of some form of chemistry and had spent her youth and twenties relyingon science and scientific ideas. She decided to become a christian as a result of the questions she got answered and the care and love of the people running the course. my parents decided to go on an alpha course a year or 2 later, they both really enjoyed the course and like the folks who ran it. asked loads of questions and decided at the end that no-one (or God) holds a monopoly on the truth.
Both sets would have rejected doing such a course say 15 years ago. Both really enjoyed the course and found the people running it very helpful and caring.
Someone else mentioned chrsitianity explored as a course which i think is slightly different to alpha.
Others on hear have mentioned counselling, which is slighlty different, in that generally it will just be you and a counsellor, as apposed to a course were there will be others in a similar position to yourself and may ask questions you have not thought of.
If you want to ask questions about life then it seems a reasonable place to start, if you don't like it then stop going.
hope this helps answer the op question, after several pages and some interesting, some funny and some low posts.
I don't think people running alpha will claim to know the answer to all questions, they will give you their view, which being a christian course will have a christian bias.
If you want the definitive answer then i would just post you quesitons on here as it seems there are poeple with the answers here, although they may not be the answer to the question you ask
Atheist botherer doesn't make sense otherwise
that's not his strong suit...
Many probably do know that it's unlikely to be true, but hedge their bets and hide behind the notion that 'blind faith' in something is a virtue.
I suppose this is my problem, if people predicate their lives on some subsequent reward. Even Jesus railed against this in his parable about the talents! If your faith makes you a better person, all well and good, but if it merely limits your horizons for fear of retribution then you lose out
Besides, in the unlikely event of there actually being some kind of supreme being, I think using Pascal's wager is likely to be counter-productive, as no-one likes a smart arse.
as no-one likes a smart arse.
really ? That's [b]me[/b] scuppered then 🙁
as no-one likes a smart arse.really ? That's me scuppered then
Somehow I don't think you are alone there. 😉
Would it be mean to tell Mr Woppitt that I'm praying for him too, even if I'm not? 😈
Would it be mean to tell Mr Woppitt that I'm praying for him too, even if I'm not?
even meaner to pray for him devoutly in secret!
Actually, I don't get prayer, I mean if old godbod is supposed to be omniscient then why would it need to be reminded not to let bad things happen to people, incessantly ? Alternatively, if prayer just makes the prayee feel better about stuff, isn't that an easy way out compared to actually [b]doing[/b] something about whatever was being prayed over ?
even meaner to pray for him devoutly in secret!
I'll have him added to the pew leaflet for next Sunday, so a whole load of delusional people can talk to their imaginary friend about him.
Actually, I don't get prayer, I mean if old godbod is supposed to be omniscient then why would it need to be reminded not to let bad things happen to people, incessantly ?
I don't get that either.
Alternatively, if prayer just makes the prayee feel better about stuff, isn't that an easy way out compared to actually doing something about whatever was being prayed over ?
Personal responsibility for action is not removed by praying for it. That's how I understand it, anyway.
It's all very well Tyger pointing us to the Psalm where the fool says "There is no God", but answer me this...
...If there was a god, surely there would be a Psalm 32:16
Unless it was a 29er . . .
I don't "get" prayer either. But I think that is because there is more to it than I understand, not because the people doing it have not gone through the obvious thought process that we're going through here.
This point about the omniscience of god meaning that he doesn't need to be reminded about things is so trite that it leads to the conclusion that the reasoning must be considerably more interesting. Not knowing the thought process here is something of a pity, whether we believe there is anyone there to be prayed to or not.
As an atheist, I definitely don't usually spend a few minutes of each day identifying people I know about who need some help, or focussing on having the wherewithal to do something to help them. I wonder whether it would influence my actual behaviour slightly if I made time to. Just a thought... 🙂
This point about the omniscience of god meaning that he doesn't need to be reminded about things is so trite that it leads to the conclusion that the reasoning must be considerably more interesting
ooooh, I like it 🙂 So in fact, people only deserve the bounty of god(s) if other people care enough about them to pray for them ? Or the gods have been oversold and they're very absent minded and need prompting ? Or gods' amazing wisdom and love for us is easily redirected by gnat-like entreaty ? Let's have some positive spin please I'm floundering...
actually BigDummy has it ? Prayer is a mental preparation for action, and not an end in itself ? Let's hope so...
Can you petition the Lord with prayer?
not according to the lizard king
Doors/ Jim Morrison reference BTW
Th Psalm below
1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one
So apparently no aethist does any good and we were being rude to them.
I look at the good of the catholic church in africa in respect of AIDS /condoms and child deaths. I struggle to see how their position is the good position to maintain.
What Lord wants dying children and people for the sake of a condom?
Sorry I forgot not only is God infallible so is the Pope , even when he contradicts a previous infallible pope!
I always wonder why they have to vote for a Pope as they commune with God surely they all want the same person?
EDIT: Yes ernie Mr Woopit did take bad taste to new depths with his palliative care comment and his defence of not using fluffy enough language.
Nasty old Mr Woppit here. Boo! Hiss! He's behind you! etc.
Yes, I do find that being told I am being "prayed for" to be SO offensive that the only way to describe how it makes me feel is as I said, which I won't repeat. It is a vile and patronising act that insults my intelligence and anyone who offers it can shove it, frankly...
I think t's worth repeating (evidently, you didn't take the point,Junkyard) that Loulabella's description of her way forward actually agreed with my analysis of the need for respitive care. As I said, my use of the word "palliative" was an error, but my analysis was spot on, confirmed by the subject, no less. Sorry about that.
Anyway, if this thread teaches anything, I think it's this:
An argument is joined between atheists and the superstitious.
The superstitious attempt, unsuccessfully, to try and meet the atheists on their own ground by employing what they think is a reasoned approach.
This doesn't work because their "reasoning" is, as ever, warped by the filter of "faith" (in whatever...) concreted into their psyche by indoctrination and contains no internal logic.
Eventually, these attempts trail off, to be replaced by the first fallback position - quoting scripture. This is doomed to failure - the atheist argument has already said that the particular "scripture" thus employed is (as far as the atheist is concerned) at least invalid, if not complete nonsense. Despite this, the superstitious continue to try and use the tactic to argue their case, ignoring the fact that it is not going to work. Note: an indication of insanity is to repeat the same thing over and over again whilst expecting a different result.
Having eventually been made to realise that the scriptural quoting is a dead end, the superstitious then resort to "prayer", informing the atheist that this is happening.
As prayer has been shown to result in being able to affect no change whatsoever, nothing happens.
Next: The circular argument starts up all over again with the same results.
Endgame: still no evidence.
Please employ the following regarding any further comments you may have:
"I refer you to my earlier comment on this subject" - just look it up back in the thread, it's already been said and you probably missed it.
That's me done on this one. 
Nasty old Mr Woppit here. Boo! Hiss! He's behind you! etc.
It's ok, Jesus loves you.
Y'know I think Jesus would make an exception here 😉
Yes ernie Mr Woopit did take bad taste to new depths with his palliative care comment and his defence of not using fluffy enough language.
In defence (of the indefencible?)... I don't understand 'palliative care' to be exclusively end-of-life. I understand it to be any care aimed at relief of symptoms/suffering as opposed to a cure.
Make what you like of the rest of his comments but I wouldn't get too hung on on choice of the word 'palliative' over 'respite'.
Atheist botherer doesn't make sense otherwise
There was no attempt to make grammatical sense, indeed spellcheck always reminds that there is no such word as 'botherer'. The intention rather, was to convey an opinion or feeling, in much the same way that fanatical atheists insist rather childishly, to spell God without a capital gee, despite the fact of it being quite incorrect.
that's not his strong suit...
No SFB, english grammar is most certainly [i]not[/i] my strong point. If I recall correctly, I received grade 4 in CSE english. But do I detect a tinge of disapproval ? Because that would be indeed strange, from one who claims to support linguistic anarchy.
Note: an indication of insanity is to repeat the same thing over and over again whilst expecting a different result.
except in relation to software ?
Oh and palliative is not necessarily to do with dying:
pal·li·a·tive (p?l'?-?'t?v, -?-?-t?v)
adj.
1. Tending or serving to palliate.
2. Relieving or soothing the symptoms of a disease or disorder without effecting a cure.
n. One that palliates, especially a palliative drug or medicine.
The intention rather was to convey an opinion or feeling, in much the same way that fanatical atheists insist rather childishly, to spell God without a capital gee, despite the fact of it being quite incorrect.
I've noticed that atheism and atheist have been capitalised a few times in this thread.
Woppit isn't the only one to take being told someone will pray for you less than graciously, it really does wind me up as well. Usually because when someone has said it to my face they have been being simultaneously patronising and pitying. They'll usually get a hearfelt FOAD in response, at best.
