quadraginta
Becoming Beth
The day you are saved - from religion
- Thread starter sylvan8798
- Start date
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
The video is extremely low level. That's what made me laugh.
You say you are open. You immediately make a long list of things you consider to be correct as long as "the religious folks re-evaluate their beliefs".
This conversation reminds me a story with my older nephew: he was 5 and he was answering "No" and finding objections to everything we offered or proposed:
unclE aleC: - "Don't be so negative!"
nepheW: -I am not negative. No! No! No! No! and No!
"That's all I have to say about it." -forresT gumP
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
You're just playing dumb about this and other matters.
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
There's a surprise.
You see, you're not alone in that!
"Never so many told so little to such a few people" -Uiston Cachill (about this forum)
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
An analogy which would have much more significance had Kim Davis ever reached the point where she had actually committed a crime. Unfortunate there were no statutes in existence which raised her intransigence to that level.
The closest she came was contempt of court. A civil issue, not a criminal one, and one for which, it should be noted, she was quite clearly punished.
There doesn't seem to be enough substance to weave them into much of anything (if you want to pursue the metaphor).
Not sure why. They don't seem to improve much with age.
My. You're just full of pith, aren't you.
Here's one for you;
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
Not sure what that's supposed to tell us. We should be thankful that you grace us with your exalted presence?
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
That is a truly weird way of trying to avoid admitting you had made a mistake.
And we have made clear by your own admission that you didn't inadvertently misspeak the first time. You were (and apparently remain) utterly clueless about the facts surrounding your anecdote. The ones which make it implausible.
How about trying to respond with actual content.
Which major Protestant denominations in the U.S. practice a prohibition against eating meat on Fridays?
If you can answer that question (which should be interesting) you may follow up by demonstrating that the influence of those Protestant denominations is so strong in Boston that not only would the cafeterias refuse to serve any meat on Fridays, but that "the public" would view anyone who wanted meat with overt hostility.
These are the claims you have made, and doubled down on.
Try offering some real evidence instead of pithing all over everything.
Belgian thought
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 3, 2004
- Messages
- 2,345
Ofc it was "low level". The entire reason I used it was to see if we could share a common ground on something which I know is frequently misunderstood but it really rather simple.
Ya, holding a position does not make one closed to changing it. What kind of backwards world do you live in where if you hold a position on anything you're can't possibly be open to changing your mind? You keep saying I'm closed minded without good justification.
I've given REASONS for my position. I've given you and others the opportunity to poke holes in my reasoning but instead of doing so, I am met with accusations of being closed minded.
Your analogy doesn't work. Here's a summary from my point of view, with some things skipped/combined for clarity.
Me: I think it is worth applying skepticism to religious claims on a case by case basis
Others: Why do you think you're so RIGHT about religious beliefs? Don't you realize you're as militant as the fundies?
Me: I'm advocating for a method to better reach the truth for reasons X, Y, Z
Others: Exactly, you think your position is right and that makes you "religious" (antitheist). It also probably stems from how your deconversion and now all you can think to do is convert people to the NEW truth.
Me: I was never deconverted. Of course I think I'm right. I gave you reasons for why I think I'm right that my methodology is worth spreading, and not to put religion on a pedestal in this respect. What is wrong with my reasoning? I don't claim to hold the truth on any specific position (such as "does god exist") only that what we should believe is best filtered through scientific skepticism, and that most people have never even seriously evaluated their religious beliefs (thanks to indoctrination).
Others: See! you have religious fervor and think that you couldn't possibly be wrong!
Me: Where am I wrong?
Others: You're closed minded!!!
. . .
. . .
. . .
Alec: You're closed minded because you have a belief!
Me: Under that logic all beliefs are impossible to change because all beliefs are enclosed in a closed mind
Last edited:
truethat
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 13,389
I jumped the gun in directing it to YOU specifically without specifying that my description of the ANGRY ATHEIST doesn't seem to apply to you. You seem to do such things out of a sort of benevolence and rationalization.
Far cry from the hyena-like demeanor of Angry Atheists hovering around the dead pile of religion and picking at it endlessly.
Without trying to pick up Alec's comments I would appreciate if you went back and read what I wrote before in the spoilers for sylvan.
Millions of people believe in Astrology. We all know it's woo. But go find the number of "Astrology is WOO" threads on this site. They don't exist because we don't "put it on a pedestal" like we do religion. Anti theists exalt religion and religious discussion in a way they would not other ridiculous beliefs.
It's like going into a CT thread and spending years debating 911 truthers. The Anti Theists are often the ones keeping the conversation going. They are retaining the religiosity of society.
Case in point "Gay marriage rights" The minute the discussion turns to RELIGION and starts debating RELIGION you've created a legitimacy in the conversation.
If someone was against gay marriage because a psychic told them that when we let gay people get married, the end of the world will happen. Would you really spend time arguing with the validity of the psychic???
Why not?
Last edited:
sylvan8798
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,847
I see what you are trying to get at, but is Astrology a good analogy? As far as I can tell we don't have people in power (or who are trying to be/influence those in power) who are arguing that we should do X, Y, or Z because there is a rising star in Libra or the alignment of Mars and Pluto has told them to. We do, OTOH have those who are battling vehemently for a theocratic government in the U.S., many of whom seem to believe that we used to have one until 1963 or so.
If Pastor Nutcase is telling people that we need to put GOD back in the government, where would one begin in making the case against that, as it were?
truethat
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 13,389
Actually we do. Nancy Reagan was famous for this. But it didn't turn everyone upside down.
We perpetuate it. I'm not saying religion is like Astrology, I'm saying it SHOULD be treated like Astrology.
The debates, need to argue etc. We need to shift the paradigm. We shift the paradigm by focusing on the LAWS of the land. So for example I knew eventually gay marriage would be passed through the Supreme Court because of tyranny of the majority issues, not by changing people's "beliefs"
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/jsmill.htm This is what the checks and balances were designed to protect us against. As soon as people started VOTING on gay marriage laws, they violated the Constitution and the Supreme Court had to step in.
Imagine if you have your family around you discussing Astrology, and you don't believe it. Would you feel the need to make an "announcement." I think in some cases just saying "I'm atheist now" might just set up some understanding.
But what are you saying really "Oh I don't believe in that stuff any more." Can you see how that statement is a totally different one than the dramatic "coming out" we often see?
I tell people I'm atheist all the time. No one really cares. I don't ever discuss or debate people's beliefs any more. I just push to the legal concept. The Kim Davis thing annoyed the hell out of me, not because of what she did, but because of all the attention she got in doing it.
Mostly from the anti theists. Most of my Christian friends thought she was gross and a hypocrite because of all of her divorces. There was an ick factor in her using her religion to get attention.
Pastor Nutcase can wanna put God back in the Constitution all he wants. It doesn't change anything. It just makes a lot of noise.
Last edited:
Wow wee.... that was an amazingly LENGTHY and time consuming impassioned piles of words in support of changing people's minds towards something you claim you do not care about and do not even bother to waste time over.
Man o man how I shudder to think what you would have done if you did care about it.
So isn't the above an attempt to convert atheists into apathetic non-theists? An attempt at neutering atheism and making it like astrology in relation to religion?
Why are your posts after posts after posts arguing with atheists and maligning the active outspoken ones with your quack-psychoanalysis and obsessive attempts at converting atheists not
Do you want to know why religion should be treated differently from astrology?
Because religionists are trying to shove their world view down everyone's throat and to enforce it upon everyone by making it the laws of the land.
It is not astrologists who are
- Persecuting Gays and denying them equal citizenship privileges.
- Targeting and killing abortion clinic staff and flying airplanes into buildings.
- Impeding scientific Research and Development because of their delusion.
- Obstructing education based upon rational realities and trying to shove their delusions into children's education.
- Machinating and supporting things that will cause world destruction because they want to hurry their delusion's long awaited consummation of his marriage to them behind closed doors.
- Hindering action to stem global worming because they believe those disasters are part of their delusion's plan
- Fomenting civil unrest in the defense of their delusion,
Please read some history to find out how pernicious religions have been.
While we are busy fending off allegations of being "scary nasty mentally damaged totalitarian fundamentalist atheists" hurled at us by Concern Trolls, this stuff is going on:
Vision America's Rick Scarborough was a guest on Gordon Klingenschmitt's "Pray In Jesus Name" program recently, where he explained that God is blessing the state of Texas because "Christians have infiltrated" and taken over the state GOP. Scarborough was discussing his efforts to mobilize right-wing pastors to get involved in politics across the nation and noting that he has had a great deal of success in Texas; so much so that if one now attends an annual Republican Party convention in Texas, it feels as if one is attending a revival meeting.
It is not astrologists nor atheists who are trying to enforce their world view wherever they can.
It is not astrologists nor atheists who are insidiously trying to dominate the "seven mountains of power" and take over the country.
While we argue on forums whether it is insane to debate theists on internet forums, theists are pressing on quietly with their strategic plans.
From Here
The George Grant quote cited below comes from a book he published in 1987 with Dominion Press, entitled The Changing of the Guard. Yes, they have been aiming for this for a very long time. And for a very long time they have worked under the cover of our ignorance. Who could have predicted a few nut cases could ever acquire such influence in our politics and our military? (No apologies to Condoleeza Rice).
"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ-to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.
It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.
World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.
If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose.
Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land – of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God’s Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations."
But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.
It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.
World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.
If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose.
Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land – of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God’s Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations."
Last edited:
Wow wee... that is an impassioned piece of angry maligning of outspoken atheists.... I wonder how much more anger and disdain you might have hurled had you cared more about the subject of religion than you have feigned that you do.
[imgw=400]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/43814533545b71ccc3.jpg[/imgw]
Last edited:
Telltale Testimonials To Tall Tales!!!
Every post of his has been nothing more than obvious and clear dissimulations.
It all started with his very first post (post#10) in this thread
and ended with
All the while trying to convince us that religion is harmless but what's worse than the fanatical not true Scotsmen are his anti-theistic straw men.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Indeed... Concern Trolling of the most obvious kind.
So it is alright for her to tell everyone what they "SHOULD" do and what "paradigms" we "need" to change.
When she does it, it is not obsessive insanity or a futile pursuit or foaming at the mouth dementia due to childhood past abuses.
When she does it is a wholesome and worthwhile pursuit despite her repeatedly stating that she does not care an iota about religion and that she does not bother to waste her time debating about it.
When atheists want to argue with theists and Concern Trolls that they SHOULD and NEED to have a paradigm shift, she quack-psychoanalyzes them as angry mentally damaged hyenas circling the dead carcass of religion.
She is trying to convince us that sane atheists would not even frequent forums like this one. She wonders why would they bother argue about something which they believe does not exist.
Accordingly she concludes that any atheists who spend time in religion forums debating theists and Concern Trolls must therefore not really believe that deities do not exist and they must be obsessed with religions because they have been mentally damaged in their childhood and thus are only seeking vengeance as angry militant hyena-like fanatical anti-theists.
But her spending post after post hurling piles and heaps of claptrap trying to tell us what we SHOULD do and how we NEED to have paradigm shifts... it is all just the right thing to do.... no hint of any effects whatsoever from having been a seminary failed dropout.
Well… maybe directing her very own words right back at her might have some effect... although I doubt it!!
Last edited:
Elagabalus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 7,051
Oh, Leumas. R U trying to make a point? And what point would that be?
Explained as
All I saw in that post you so psychically interpreted is more anti-atheism claptrap telling us that "non-theist freaks" want to brainwash people into atheism.
But your explanation is interesting too... so what he is saying is that atheists should not be allowed to be jurors because they are fanatical freaks incapable of thinking rationally and thus can never render a just verdict.
Well...well!!!
Belgian thought
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 3, 2004
- Messages
- 2,345
But that is a situation similar to a case of a person infected with AIDS.
Being infected with the religion virus renders the person vulnerable to infections from all sorts of other memetic viruses.
Most AIDS victims do not actually die directly because of the HIV virus but rather due to secondary infections.
This is the case with astrology and Evangelism and so forth.... they are the secondary deadly infections.
Physicians and pharmacologists are struggling and researching daily and have dedicated their professional lives and careers to studying the HIV virus with the aim of finding a cure for it.... but of course the AIDS patient is also medicated for the secondary infections resulting from his immune system being rendered too deficient to fend off the perniciousness of other pathogens.
If only we could do the same for religion and its related secondary infectious memetic pathogens.
Last edited: