• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are atheists too complacent?

Oh god. Not the colour healing crapfest, please no.

Is there any crankery that you will reject?

Gladys Mayer was a very spiritual lady. Her paintings are beautiful and inspiring. It was a privilege to know her.
 
Last edited:
I am trying not to discuss my beliefs on this thread, I just wanted to see what atheists would have to say.

I particularly like GDon's post above. Post 162
Thanks, but please note that I was critical of your OP in Post 150. As a theist myself, I'd say there are far more theists that are complacent about their ideas of God than there are atheists.
 
Hey, did you know that the word “gullible” also is not in the Oxford dictionary?

You must have the concise oxford dictionary, it is not in that. But it is in the two volume shorter oxford dictionary
 
Actually, even in the very modern western world,

...


As a lawyer, I'm pretty well aware of everything that was in your post and have been for some twenty-six years. I stand by my statements which were full of examples. Bad thoughts alone, no matter how horrible, are completely immune from any legal or moral consequences.

I firmly drew the distinction between bad acts and mere thoughts.

Incidentally, there are plenty of crimes that require no mens rea whatsoever. Merely doing the thing is itself a crime regardless of one's mental state. Speeding or driving with an expired license is are often strict liability offenses.

Good luck convicting me in any court for just thinking about speeding.


What does cromulent mean? I have the two volume Oxford shorter English dictionary, and cromulent is not in it.


Sigh.
 
when he chooses the incestuous Lot as "His man".


Come on, man, give me at least a little bit of a break. Lot's daughters (believing they were the only people left on earth) got him so drunk he didn't know what was happening.

Generis 19:33 - And the first-born went in, and lay with her father; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

19:35 - And the younger arose, and lay with him; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

Once again, your points are well-made without throwing in the hyperbole. Although, I agree with others. Nobody was really defending the Abrahamic God, just the meaning of the vague concepts of omnipotence and omnibenevolence.
 
Come on, man, give me at least a little bit of a break. Lot's daughters (believing they were the only people left on earth) got him so drunk he didn't know what was happening.

Generis 19:33 - And the first-born went in, and lay with her father; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

19:35 - And the younger arose, and lay with him; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

Once again, your points are well-made without throwing in the hyperbole. Although, I agree with others. Nobody was really defending the Abrahamic God, just the meaning of the vague concepts of omnipotence and omnibenevolence.


Always thought that believing this (about the daughters being the guilty ones), was drawing along bow. Lot was so pissed he didn't know he was screwing his daughters but managed to get it up and knocked them both up. Come on!

Can't see any hyperbole in what I have said. :confused:
 
Always thought that believing this (about the daughters being the guilty ones), was drawing along bow. Lot was so pissed he didn't know he was screwing his daughters but managed to get it up and knocked them both up. Come on!


We've got exactly eight verses that tell the entire story and exactly zero that in any way describe Lot's feelings about the situation.

What you're saying isn't in the text.

A whole whack of nonsense is. Cite that. (Although, once again, no one here was arguing for the Abrahamic God.)
 
1800 year ago is relatively "modern times" compared to when the Abrahamic God was conjured up.
Fair point.

Don't know why you quoted that highlighted stuff. Does it really make sense to you?
Well, yes. But then I love all that stuff, trying to understand the mind-set of ancient people.

For example, the question posed to the Christians that Origen alludes to: "If the world had its beginning in time, what was God doing before the world began?" was asked at a time when it was mainstream to think that the world was eternally old. So the idea that the world began at a single point in time was an odd one that had to be defended by Christians. I just find it all fascinating. I demand everyone else find it fascinating also! :)
 
Last edited:
You must have the concise oxford dictionary, it is not in that. But it is in the two volume shorter oxford dictionary

Please tell me you're kidding, Scorpion, that you weren't really gullible enough to go and look up the word gullible in the dictionary. If you did you're the first person I've seen that trick work on, and I must have seen people try it (usually on very young and naive people) a dozen times over the years. It was tried on me a couple of times when I first started work in my teens, I did not fall for it even then.
 
Atheists seem to assume that people who believe in God and an afterlife are mentally weak and gullible. Thereby assuming intellectual superiority over them.
But have they considered what it means to really believe you are answerable to a higher power in everything you do?
Is it not easier and more comfortable to believe death brings oblivion, than to believe you are held accountable in an eternal afterlife?

What obligation does death have?

It's not supposed to be comforting, It's an inevitability.

Live for today.
 
Come on, man, give me at least a little bit of a break. Lot's daughters (believing they were the only people left on earth) got him so drunk he didn't know what was happening.

Generis 19:33 - And the first-born went in, and lay with her father; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

19:35 - And the younger arose, and lay with him; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

Once again, your points are well-made without throwing in the hyperbole. Although, I agree with others. Nobody was really defending the Abrahamic God, just the meaning of the vague concepts of omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

I don't really think that, "I was drunk at the time is ever a good excuse". :boggled:
 
Nope, he could not. He does not exist.
This is a great way to take what might have been an interesting discussion about the variety of religious belief and the reasons why certain beliefs may be held, and render it immediately boring and a waste of time.

If that's your goal, congratulations.
 

Back
Top Bottom