[Closed] "I asked God to help me"

[img] [/img]

@ Toys mleh what are you trying to achieve here [ that is rhetorical resist the urge to reply]

sorry can't resist.

I want cougar to either prove that that my behaviour is somehow different from his. (Ie I am offensive for calling people stupid and he is not for calling me stupid) or to admit that he was also being what he accused me of. I back down all the time when I am proved wrong, that is the point of discussion, but Cougar has not demonstrated that he was not being offensive when he called me stupid (and implied I was an arse) when I am happy to admit I did call people stupid, which cougar thinks is "being offensive" .

Teej the theists went away ages ago..

Lifer STW is the thunderdome!

I want cougar to either prove blah blah

I want a kitten.

Given that Jesus used parables to illustrate points

There is no evidence to suggest that the character in the bible called jesus ever existed.

The biblical character is, anyway, a cartoon masochistic self-harmer with delusions of grandeur who loathed his father.

... and also, an arse.

Mr Woppit, from that august publication [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus ]wikipedia[/url]

[b]Most modern historians agree that Jesus existed and was a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judaea[/b], who was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate.Scholars have offered competing descriptions and portraits of Jesus, which at times share a number of overlapping attributes, such as a rabbi, a charismatic healer, the leader of an apocalyptic movement, a self-described Messiah, a sage and philosopher, or a social reformer who preached of the "Kingdom of God" as a means for personal and egalitarian social transformation.

But the historians have yet to prove he was actually the son of God.

sorry can't resist.

Scholars have offered competing descriptions and portraits of Jesus,

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Thats OK JY, I only write stuff to entertain myself.

Mr Woppit, yes it is dodgy ground, but to be honest that is the least of the theists worries, I am happy to believe that a bloke called Jesus exists in as much as I believe in any other historical character.

... and in the interests of even-handedness:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/11/new-robert-spencer-book-coming-next-spring-did-muhammad-exist.html

Actually Mr Woppit, having now read much of my own link and yours, I think jesus existence is without foundation outside of the christian texts..

The jesus religion was just one of several competing with each other in the classical world at that time - Mithraism, for instance - which all shared the same story line. Prediction/fullfillment/miracles/dying to save others/going to heaven etc etc...

The only reason the xtian fairy story gained traction, was because the Roman Emperor Constantine adopted it and enforced it as a state religion.

Nothing to do with any "god" intervention...

It's gone a bit quiet. Have the faithfull been raptured already?

We scared them off with irrefutable logic.

I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God,for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.' But,' says ...Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

That is a tasy worm there Teej, a few fish will be along any minute.

your use of language has been rather provocative - both cougar and myself are basically on the same side as you and both have asked you if you could tone it down a bit. The theists are fragile and get easily upset when challenged - if you consider them to be mentally feeble then some kid gloves might be useful?

FLOUNCE!! 😉

That is a tasy worm there Teej, a few fish will be along any minute.

Douglas Adams, again. For his next trick, man proves that black is white, and gets killed on a zebra crossing.

Oy woppit, stop trying to draw me back in! This is definitely, absolutely my last word on the matter! 🙂

That barnsleymitch turns up on these threads and wipes the bloody floor with all of us; he doesn't care what anyone thinks of what he believes, and fully recognises that his adherence to religion can be questioned and stripped bare, but it doesn't matter to him.

...and that's really what religion or a lack of it is all about, whether you believe in it or not; it's about what people think and how they act towards one another.

Good on yer BM.

Barnesleymitch - you missed an earlier post. That one you object to was supposed to be light in tone and taking the piss out of toys to an extent ie mocking his view of the religious so if he tinks they are feeble minded then basic politness and a sense of fair play would be not to be rough with them - like you would treat a child - but as ever with hindsight can be taken in other ways

the post you may have missed is

TandemJeremy - Member

toys - I read your posts - just nowt to respond to apart from to say I agree with you basically but maybe ease off on the pejorative language?

I got a metaphorical kicking from (IIRC) Barnsleymitch for intemperate language and accepted it as its not right to insult moderate non proselytising folk like him as well

Which I think shows I did at least try to accept your similar point made before and to try to take the pejorative language out of my part in the debate

As crikey says respect to you for your attitude and thanks for the second metaphorical kicking * goes of to lick wounds*

Toys - your use of language has been rather provocative - both cougar and myself are basically on the same side as you and both have asked you if you could tone it down a bit.......

Very sensible advice, doesn't do the Athiest argument any favours at all......

Oh wait a minute...... What's this. ........

.....The theists are fragile and get easily upset when challenged

You ruined an otherwise valid point by being... How can I put this..... An arse.... Oh well. Nice try 🙄

.
.
.
.
I started out on this thread as an Atheist.

But to be perfectly honest, the Athiests that are only really interested in insulting people and making themselves out to be Superior because they don't believe are totally turning me off Atheism.

I'm off to church to see what it's all about.

Fair enough Jezzer - pint?

man up all of you. If you believe then surely god will smite me. 🙂

"but it doesn't matter to him." .... or me

The amount of times I've typed a reply, to then held back incase I'm perceived to be peaching.

Mr BM is an inspiration... A belief in God and woolly jumpers... I wonder which came first for him.

Toys... no need, your doing a fine job yourself.... but maybe that's the point ??

[img] [/img]

But to be perfectly honest, the Athiests that are only really interested in insulting people and making themselves out to be Superior because they don't believe are totally turning me off Atheism.

You decide to abandon your beliefs becasue a few people who hold the same beliefs as you are a bit rude?

Toys... no need, your doing a fine job yourself..

Ro5sey, I dont get it, I have to say I feel thoroughly unsmote.

man up all of you. If you believe then surely god will smite me

Good lord is this one still going?

Have we all come to some form of cencesus yet?

A provisional draft?

I'm afraid I asked someone if they'd kindly try not to be a little less abrasive, and the wheels came off. There was a decent conversation in there for a while. Sorry about that.

]

The amount of times I've typed a reply, to then held back incase I'm perceived to be peaching

[img] [/img]

try not to be a little less abrasive

?

In there... I'm not delving 'in there' to find it, but nice.

I know the answer anyway cos I follow God on Facebook... 8)

Sods, typo. "Try to be a little less abrasive" I meant, of course.

But managed to be just as abrasive yourself. Captain Piety.

Sods, typo. "Try to be a little less abrasive" I meant, of course.

Thought so, but on a 21 page STW thread about the [non]existence of a god i didn't feel i could be sure 😉

For example if you believe that 1+1 =3 (without any evidence to prove it, and despite evidence to the contrary) then surely you must be either: poorly informed, mad or stupid. Correct?

Or the fourth option - I know something you don't. Don't ever miss that one, it's very very important.

If you lack the mental capacity to make your point without being offensive to everyone, perhaps you're not in a position to be calling others stupid

He didn't call you stupid, he equated a certain behaviour with a certain level of intelligence. It's up to you to negotiate that link!

Or to put it another way, stupid is a stupid does.

But anywya let's not let that feud spoil a good theological thread. It's putting off some important posters from whom I would love to hear further contribution.

You decide to abandon your beliefs becasue a few people who hold the same beliefs as you are a bit rude?

Was that not a joke?

i didn't feel i could be sure

Good point, well made.

Have we all come to some form of cencesus yet?

Any form of what?

Or the fourth option - I know something you don't. Don't ever miss that one, it's very very important.

I think I accounted for that elswhere, but the definition does predicate you not having demonstratable proof, therefore you cannot know something I don't? If you did have proof it wouldn't be faith and you wouldn't be stupid.

He didn't call you stupid, he equated a certain behaviour with a certain level of intelligence. It's up to you to negotiate that link!

Or to put it another way, stupid is a stupid does.

It's the same as calling someone stupid.

It's not a feud, I don't have any bad feeling, it's jsut a fact that cougar told me not to be rude and he was rude int he process. Ironic, and hypocritcal.

but the definition does predicate you not having demonstratable proof, therefore you cannot know something I don't?

This is getting philosophical now, isn't it?

If say, you are colour blind, and I tell you a green ball and a red ball are different colours, is there any way I can conclusively prove it to you?

It's the same as calling someone stupid.

No, it's not. It's actually an invitation to think about the wisdom of what you're saying or doing.

This is getting philosophical now, isn't it?

If say, you are colour blind, and I tell you a green ball and a red ball are different colours, is there any way I can conclusively prove it to you?

Thats interesting I'll have to think about that for a minute.

Yes by measuring wavelength. Try again.

No, it's not. It's actually an invitation to think about the wisdom of what you're saying or doing.

This is ironic , if I get your meaning correctly, as you could say thats all I said.

Yes by measuring wavelength. Try again.

How do you know the machine is correct?

How do they measure the wavelength of light that isn't in the visible spectrum?

try again.

cougar told me not to be rude and he was rude int he process. Ironic, and hypocritcal.

I'm sorry you felt I was rude, as I've repeatedly explained and you've repeatedly ignored, that wasn't the intention. It was a simple request because I felt you were making atheists look bad (as I explained) and it really didn't need two pages of deconstruction. Do you think we can stop now please? I'm utterly bored out of my mind and wish I'd never said anything.

I know how such machines work, that's not the issue. How would you know it wasn't all a conspiracy to trick you?

You wouldn't - that's my point. It is of course a means to illustrate a point and perhaps open another line of philosophical debate, not an actual discussion about instrumentation.