• 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.

Why We Shouldn't Procrastinate Repentance

bruto said:
I think most who make an issue here have a problem with the frequent assertion by deists that the use of that word connotes faith, which in turn makes atheism a religion. For some theists that's a "gotcha," with the conclusion that there can be no such thing as a true atheist.
Click to expand...
"You believe something (that there are no gods) therefore you can't be a atheist" is such a ridiculous argument that I can't see why anybody would be afraid of it.
 
Delvo said:
I saw a video of one guy who had come up with a simpler version of that trick: prime everybody to expect the "healing" to come with getting blasted to the floor at first and then getting up afterward, then just go around hitting people & seeing them knock themselves down if you didn't hit them hard enough & moving on to the next & taking the spotlights & cameras with you before there's enough time for the spotlights & cameras to show whether the last one is getting up or not.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's not what's going on there.

Falling to the floor is called being "slain in the spirit" and it's not a result of being hit hard. Hitting someone so hard that they fall down has a tendency to cause injury and concussion. I've described this phenomenon before (it's happened to me so I have personal experience with it), but it's a bit off-topic for this thread.
 
psionl0 said:
"You believe something (that there are no gods) therefore you can't be a atheist" is such a ridiculous argument that I can't see why anybody would be afraid of it.
Click to expand...
It is a ridiculous argument indeed, and pointing that out is not to be afraid of it, I think. I don't think we're in disagreement here. I have noted that argument among some theists, and have not happened to among atheists, but it's a silly one whoever makes it.
 
As Leumas points out in his own way, someone has got love very wrong, and though I'm going with the people who invented gods, it would be worse or at least no better if there were a real god that bad.

One of the many ironies here is of course that the intolerant, doctrinaire, theocratic Mormons were, until they fled right out of the boundaries of the then United States, chased, disenfranchised and often persecuted literally to death by the intolerant, doctrinaire, theocratic other Christians, who had fled to this country to escape being chased and often persecuted literally to death in other countries by other intolerant, doctrinaire, theocratic Christians, who were in their turn persecuted to death, burned at the stake, kidnapped and tortured by other Christians before they turned right around and did it right back. They didn't figure it out, and it looks as if they never will.
 
bruto said:
As Leumas points out in his own way, someone has got love very wrong, and though I'm going with the people who invented gods, it would be worse or at least no better if there were a real god that bad.

One of the many ironies here is of course that the intolerant, doctrinaire, theocratic Mormons were, until they fled right out of the boundaries of the then United States, chased, disenfranchised and often persecuted literally to death by the intolerant, doctrinaire, theocratic other Christians, who had fled to this country to escape being chased and often persecuted literally to death in other countries by other intolerant, doctrinaire, theocratic Christians, who were in their turn persecuted to death, burned at the stake, kidnapped and tortured by other Christians before they turned right around and did it right back. They didn't figure it out, and it looks as if they never will.
Click to expand...

To paraphrase Philomena Cunk, "The early Christians were so moved by Jesus' message of peace and love that they were soon slaughtering anyone who disagreed with it".
 
bruto said:
The word "believe" is fraught.
Click to expand...
Yes, especially when abused by theists.

I would prefer saying an atheist is someone who asserts that there are no gods
Click to expand...
But that's not right. An atheist is simply someone who lacks belief in gods, whether they assert there are no gods or not. We shouldn't have to constantly make assertions about everything that doesn't exist.

The supernatural doesn't exist by definition. Gods are defined as supernatural so they don't exist. Q.E.D. When theists drop the supernatural requirement we can consider the possibility that their gods exist, but until then...
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Yes, especially when abused by theists.

But that's not right. An atheist is simply someone who lacks belief in gods, whether they assert there are no gods or not. We shouldn't have to constantly make assertions about everything that doesn't exist.

The supernatural doesn't exist by definition. Gods are defined as supernatural so they don't exist. Q.E.D. When theists drop the supernatural requirement we can consider the possibility that their gods exist, but until then...
Click to expand...
Point taken, and in a basic sort of way, of course, atheism should include simply not thinking at all about a god. A baby is a natural born atheist in one sense, but an agnostic in another. I think once one is exposed to the idea of a god, and arguing about it, atheism becomes assertion.

It is natural and appropriate, and free of any requirement at all, to be entirely unconcerned with whether there is a dragon in the garage. If it never occurs to you to think about it you need not, and the absence of a garage dragon is the unspoken default position of reality. But if someone comes up to you and says "there's a dragon in your garage," as soon as you even say "nonsense" there's a little change in the situation. Once the subject comes up at all, even the rankest bovine excrement requires a degree of assertion.

Of course we can go round and round on the semantics here, but I think there is a semantic issue here, just as there is about what a "right" is. We have a multitude of unspoken rights, things we just do, and those unspoken rights are quite literally unspoken, not named or even likely thought of as separate from life itself. But when a right is defined and named, that naming and defining was brought about by a challenge, and the definition of the right is created by the challenge.

Likewise, though there is a natural atheism that would be the default if nobody ever thought of any gods, the idea of atheism requires theism, and the word for it is inherently an assertion against that challenge.
 
bruto said:
Likewise, though there is a natural atheism that would be the default if nobody ever thought of any gods, the idea of atheism requires theism, and the word for it is inherently an assertion against that challenge.
Click to expand...


If I told you that @#DR43*& came to my house yesterday and gave me $1M and if you give me $1K I will ask @#DR43*& to do the same for you.

What would be the first question you would ask me?

What would be the second question?

What would be the third question?
.
.
.

As you can see there might be numerous questions you would like answered before you gullibly hand over $1K to me.... no?

Well... that is what atheism is in regards to the claims about "gods"... until the claimants give coherent and true and rational answers the only sane and rational stance is to not hand over the "$1K"... no?
 
Last edited:
Late to this thread. I for one am glad we still get proselytizers through, especially when they stick around a little and respond to questions. Unfortunately, Billy is much like the others who've run our gauntlet -- they seem more interested in glorifying their own souls than changing hearts and minds.

I say this because we're always expected to meet them where they stand, rather than them putting in the hard work to meet us where we are. Billy has been here long enough to know we're skeptics and to have a sense of what that means. He knows his audience. But he's not catering his message to us. At all.

In fact, if anything his approach is fairly certain to turn us skeptics even further from God. I can pretty much guarantee that's what's happening here, Billy. But if you're still around, it's not too late. I invite you to rethink your approach and try again. It's our eternal souls you're trying to save, right? -- I would love to see you put a little honest effort into it. Challenge us. Make us think. Put your scripture down, put your thinking cap on and rock our world. That's my challenge to you.
 
Leumas said:
If I told you that @#DR43*& came to my house yesterday and gave me $1M and if you give me $1K I will ask @#DR43*& to do the same for you.

What would be the first question you would ask me?

What would be the second question?

What would be the third question?
.
.
.

As you can see there might be numerous questions you would like answered before you gullibly hand over $1K to me.... no?

Well... that is what atheism is in regards to the claims about "gods"... until the claimants give coherent and true and rational answers the only sane and rational stance is to not hand over the "$1K"... no?
Click to expand...

Quite so, there would be numerous questions and a very very slim chance of their being satisfactory. And the whole process begins with your claim to have negotiated with @#DR43*&. My new assertive a@#DR43*&ism differs, or so I would contend, from the natural a@#DR43*&ism that existed before I had any idea such a thing might exist, even though the end result - an absence of @#DR43*& from my list of things that exist - might appear the same.
 
Ryan O'Dine said:
Late to this thread. I for one am glad we still get proselytizers through, especially when they stick around a little and respond to questions. Unfortunately, Billy is much like the others who've run our gauntlet -- they seem more interested in glorifying their own souls than changing hearts and minds.

I say this because we're always expected to meet them where they stand, rather than them putting in the hard work to meet us where we are. Billy has been here long enough to know we're skeptics and to have a sense of what that means. He knows his audience. But he's not catering his message to us. At all.

In fact, if anything his approach is fairly certain to turn us skeptics even further from God. I can pretty much guarantee that's what's happening here, Billy. But if you're still around, it's not too late. I invite you to rethink your approach and try again. It's our eternal souls you're trying to save, right? -- I would love to see you put a little honest effort into it. Challenge us. Make us think. Put your scripture down, put your thinking cap on and rock our world. That's my challenge to you.
Click to expand...

As I said back in post #174...

Norman Alexander said:
I don't think he even got started beyond his opening stance. Probably scoring "points" for "taking on the heathens".
Click to expand...
 
Billy Baxter said:
Why Is It Important Not To Procrastinate Repentance?

It is important that we don't procrastinate repentance because this life is the time given to us to prepare for eternity. ...
Click to expand...


Billy Baxter said:
Because, as my link above explains, when we don't repent, we get "out of shape" spiritually, and as any exercise guru will tell you, use it or lose it.
Click to expand...

Awww shucks!
I learned of this need to repent early, and to practice repenting, and to keep my spiritual muscle in shape, only today. But now, I am 55, I never excercised my spiritual muscles, and now surely I have lost them and it is too late now :(

Or - isn't it?

What if I was 75 and discovered your message for the first time today - would it be too late because my spiritual agility is lost and can't be regained this late in life?
Or if I were 95?

If your answer is that yes, it will probably be too late at 55/75/95 for a newly converted to make it to a pleasant eternity, I respect your answer.

If however you respond that I can still be saved, then I wonder: Had I been a devout Latter Days Saint from birth onward, why could I not procrastinate the whole repentance thingy till I am 55/75/95? For it would not be too late then to get the muscle back in shape?
 
Billy Baxter said:
A Parkinson's patient leapt up out of his wheelchair and danced around the room.
Click to expand...

Parkinson's is a degenerative disease: It starts with no symptoms, then mild ones, and gets worse over time. Medications exist to slow the progress, and some interventions can help patients retain or regain abilities for a bit more time. It is not unusual for them to have variation in "form" from day to day: Yesterday they walked alone, today they need some assitistance, tomorrow nothing is possible without a wheelchair, but the day after that, they are back to unassisted walking. But overall, the condition will continue to get worse, and they will eventually be confined to a wheelchair, and later to bed.

(I had such a patient until recently: For a while, he was confined to the bed, for he couldn't keep sitting for any length of time, but then he got better and we would mobilize him into the wheelchair for meals, sometimes longer.
And then one day, he felt so strong that he actually lept out of his wheelchair.
Bad idea: He fell on his head. Following a hospital stay, he was back to the bed, and died just a couple of weeks later.)

Now, a Parkinson patient who is truly confined to a wheel chair (i.e. is no longer, not even occasionally, able to stand up and move without it) typically is also badly afflicted with some of their mental capacities, particularly speech. This, I presume, would be detrimental to their ability to have a conversation with their deity, or to do the communications necessary to convey repentance. So how would that Parkinson patient you observed have earned the "right" to be "healed"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom