It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I am a Theist.

page: 11
6
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Hydroman
 



Yes, there are christians who are idiots. There are atheists who are idiots, and the same can be said of every group of people.


Well said. Assuming the position of "Atheism" or "Theism" doesn't automatically grant you intelligence, or knowledge.


Come on man, yeah it does. You have to be a complete retard to believe in Jesus or Noah's flood.

Everyone knows that.


Nope. You have to be a complete idiot to force the idea on other people.


Not true, the idiotness begins with the Christian thinking it's true themselves. They have to do this before they can force it on others. If the Christians force the idea on people is that like the mental equivalent of rape? I don't think anyone should be forcing anything on others, that doesn't sound morality.

Star for you!




posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I'm only learning. That's all we can try to do at this point.

I do have to take frequent breaks though.


Take your time. Evolution is slow you know... except when it's fast, according to Gould.


I'll have to keep that in mind.

Break time!



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


yeah right

Verbatim Latin - the term "Verbatim" means, in a UK legal context: "word by word, exactly"

The odds in favor of an event or a proposition are expressed as the ratio of a pair of integers, which is the ratio of the probability that an event will happen to the probability that it will not happen.

Fact is used synonymously with truth or reality, as distinguishable from conclusions or opinions.

Fact may also indicate findings derived through a process of evaluation, including review of testimony, direct observation, or otherwise; as distinguishable from matters of speculation.


What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him? -Psalm8

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” “Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” -Matthew26

For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels. -Luke9

But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” He said to the paralyzed man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” -Luke5

Then Jesus said to them, “How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? David himself declares in the Book of Psalms:
“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”’ -Luke20

what counts is a new creation

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. -John5

Anyone who believes in Christ is a new creation -2Corinthians5
www.biblegateway.com...

edit on 11-6-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Break time!

Hope you get to come back soon after your, um, break.

Cuz I'd hate to think that in that other thread where somebody took a "don't tread on me" attitude and kept changing their nastygrams to something a little less obvious, would see to it that you got slapped with a posting ban. Or something. I mean, that sort of underhanded skulduggery would put quite a damper on our lofty opinions of anti-theists and their vaunted rationality and superior morality.

Hypothetically.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 



I mean, that sort of underhanded skulduggery would put quite a damper on our lofty opinions of anti-theists and their vaunted rationality and superior morality.


Opinion. No one declared Atheism as more rational or morally superior. It's just you projecting your anger for atheism, and individual atheists who have criticisms of the Philosophy of the religious, and the dogma of which religion was formed.

I honestly chuckle everytime you get a star for your slander.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth
And yet atheists play the part of God over us by judging us by their own standards, telling us what they insist the Bible says, and then having the gall to flame us for proselytizing! Who are atheists that they should tell other people what their own beliefs should be or how to live them out? Who do they think they are? Who says "Christians mess up"? We will take care of our own internal issues; it is not for atheists to dictate our doctrines to us. We are human beings doing the best we can, and INDIVIDUALS who cannot be responsible for the whole group. This once again is that double standard where atheists reserve the right to decide what we believe and then flame us for not acting as atheists decree we should.

Yes!
I've been flamed on different sites as a Christian for: not voting Republican (despite my being a socialist, but more importantly, not being an American!), for accepting evolution, (we're all supposed to be Creationists, apparently), and for writing science fiction in my spare time. (We're not allowed to believe in the possibility of extra-terrestrial intelligence.) These rules were those laid on me by atheists of course...


Originally posted by SaberTruthChristians are human, got that?

Oh, but we're not allowed to be!

Vicky



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

SOME christians are targeted as being 'dangerous'. That such christains are to be 'eliminated' is your fabrication.

No it's not. Re-read Dawkins. And Sam Harris.

Afaik, Harris has been the foremost advocate of sanctions against Christians - imprisonment, having their children taken away and 're-education'...



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


In the last 10 of your posts that can be found on your user profile (with timestamps similar to this post) show that you have suddenly changed your position and are now complimenting arguments that you once ridiculed and cast away.

So is it just facetiousness, or are you being genuine?

Well, what do you think?
V



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Rustami
 


You wrote:

["Fact is used synonymously with truth or reality, as distinguishable from conclusions or opinions."]

I have no objections to the above, but would like to add something.

In the often complex contexts of, say religion, theology, philosophy and advanced science, 'facts' need reference-points.

'Obviously' green is 'green'. Though the scientific green is a bit off-hue from the most greeny green of perception. Then some people are colour-blind, so it's only a word for them, and (I've read) the old greeks didn't distinguish between blue and green.

The abrahamic 'god' is not only different from a buddhistic 'god' in individual identity, he belongs to another category of beings (buddhistic 'gods' are not ultimate reality). The diffuse new-age 'god' is often a confused conglomerate of incompatible characteristics, and then there are entities just pretending to be 'god'.

A scientific emipirical 'fact' differs from mathematical 'facts' (mathematics very much being axiomatic).

In the end it's a question of having epistemological bases, which can be compared.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Hydroman
 



Yes, there are christians who are idiots. There are atheists who are idiots, and the same can be said of every group of people.


Well said. Assuming the position of "Atheism" or "Theism" doesn't automatically grant you intelligence, or knowledge.


Come on man, yeah it does. You have to be a complete retard to believe in Jesus or Noah's flood.

Everyone knows that.


Nope. You have to be a complete idiot to force the idea on other people.


Not true, the idiotness begins with the Christian thinking it's true themselves. They have to do this before they can force it on others. If the Christians force the idea on people is that like the mental equivalent of rape? I don't think anyone should be forcing anything on others, that doesn't sound morality.

Star for you!


Thanks. A validation, usually in form of a reasoning chain or similar, can be requested for all 'answers'/methods/positions.

Also for e.g. both science and salvationism. Nothing is, or should be, under protection. Former times' 'scientism' was a disgrace.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You wrote a comment on my personal anomaly-experiences post (which I edited):

Quote: ["Don't change it at all! Why did you edit it?? You were dead-on the first time!!!"]

If I rmemeber correctly, it was the last sentence, I changed. The original was terrible grammar and actually said something else than I intented to say.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by bogomil

SOME christians are targeted as being 'dangerous'. That such christains are to be 'eliminated' is your fabrication.

No it's not. Re-read Dawkins. And Sam Harris.

Afaik, Harris has been the foremost advocate of sanctions against Christians - imprisonment, having their children taken away and 're-education'...


You're building an argument through contructing a general category around some individuals.

(I don't read much of this kind of pro/anti theism and atheism. I generally rely on other kinds of information and my own ability to use it).

On this forum I don't remember anyone saying anything about 'elimination' of theists. Removal of theism from being part the formal running of society is often mentioned. I support such. Theism is a private activity.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


That's a lie. Sam Harris has proposed no such enforcement. He proposed no such restrictions on religious belief, he never offered them as a solution.

If you listen to any of Sam's speeches, or debates; he clearly states he only wishes for a new form of dialogue, in which religion is not free from criticism, and shouldn't gain automatic respect, especially within the context of debate.

That's the only peaceful way to stop fanatacism, to stop fundametalis, to take a new approach to dogma.... to ask people to accept that an ancient book might not be as "holy" as the preists have insisted for so many centuries.
edit on 12/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

That's a lie. Sam Harris has proposed no such enforcement. He proposed no such restrictions on religious belief, he never offered them as a solution.

It amuses and saddens me that you people always claim that a mistake is a lie!
If it's not Harris, it's one of the others. (Probably Dawkins). However it has been said.
Not lying. Mistaken. End of.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

That's a lie. Sam Harris has proposed no such enforcement. He proposed no such restrictions on religious belief, he never offered them as a solution.

It amuses and saddens me that you people always claim that a mistake is a lie!
If it's not Harris, it's one of the others. (Probably Dawkins). However it has been said.
Not lying. Mistaken. End of.


There was the inquisistion, burning people as a cleansing ritual. Are ALL christians like that?

There are contemporary christians, who from either homophobia or doctrinal grounds interfere with the lives of sexual minorities. Are ALL christians like that?



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



There was the inquisistion, burning people as a cleansing ritual


Indeed bogomil, just my thoughts comrade. It was not so long ago that Preists were "mistaken" regarding sorcery and witchcraft, and were punishing people accordingly for such "suspicions". It comes from an era of superstitious belief, extraorindary beliefs can cause prejudice; For example, the demonisation of those who don't think like you, or those who have criticisms of religion.
edit on 12/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

edit on 9-4-2012 by starheart because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


''Please persuade me to believe that God doesn't exist.''

Okay. God doesn't exist.
Are you convinced?

Just kidding around.
Some threads lacks this emoticon:

I can't convince you, I lack credible counter-evidences.
edit on 9-4-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join