How much longer?

[justlookinla]

I will ask again, should Nazism be defended as free speech?

Why does a relatively meaningless sack of chemicals seek an answer to this?

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Why does a relatively meaningless sack of chemicals seek an answer to this?

This is where I really start shacking my head. Where on God's green Earth does anyone ever get the idea that simply because someone doesn't believe in God that they automatically think humanity is this relatively meaningless sack of chemicals?

Life and living doesn't automatically loose anything to someone just because they reject God.

 

[justlookinla]

This is where I really start shacking my head. Where on God's green Earth does anyone ever get the idea that simply because someone doesn't believe in God that they automatically think humanity is this relatively meaningless sack of chemicals?

Life and living doesn't automatically loose anything to someone just because they reject God.

If one believes they're more than a sack of chemicals, why would they believe that? On what basis?

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

If one believes they're more than a sack of chemicals, why would they believe that? On what basis?

Because they are who they are and sees others as the same.

 

[justlookinla]

Because they are who they are and sees others as the same.

But, why would a mere sack of chemicals believe they're more than a sack of chemicals? On what basis?

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

But, why would a mere sack of chemicals believe they're more than a sack of chemicals? On what basis?

Are you going to repeat your question until you get the answer you want. If so please just copy and paste my responces right below yours.

 

[AV1611VET]

But, why would a mere sack of chemicals believe they're more than a sack of chemicals? On what basis?

Man is a trichotomy: body, soul, spirit.

Scientists deny the soul and the spirit -- or at least define them contrary to the Scriptures.

Thus we are only ⅓ of what Christians say we are.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't voodoo teach that zombies are just dead bodies resurrected, with no soul or spirit?

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Man is a trichotomy: body, soul, spirit.

Scientists deny the soul and the spirit -- or at least define them contrary to the Scriptures.

Thus we are only ⅓ of what Christians say we are.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't voodoo teach that zombies are just dead bodies resurrected, with no soul or spirit?

I don't see that. the atheists I've talked to only reject the manner in which religion says we came into being.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

How much longer do you think creationism will be tolerated in the US?

Until 2060, when the world ends according to Isaac Newton

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't see that. the atheists I've talked to only reject the manner in which religion says we came into being.

You mean by God breathing into man the breath of life, and man becoming a living soul?

Are you telling me they accept that?

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

You mean by God breathing into man the breath of life, and man becoming a living soul?

Are you telling me they accept that?

Did I not say that they reject what religion says we came into being?

 

[justlookinla]

Are you going to repeat your question until you get the answer you want. If so please just copy and paste my responces right below yours.

I'm really not looking for a response, I'm looking for an answer.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

I'm really not looking for a response, I'm looking for an answer.

A responce is an answer. Maybe not the answer you want, but an answer all the same.

Come to think of it, you never really responded to my post . I didn't want anything other than where you got the idea that people who reject God think of themselves as how you describe.

 

[justlookinla]

A responce is an answer. Maybe not the answer you want, but an answer all the same.

Come to think of it, you never really responded to my post . I didn't want anything other than where you got the idea that people who reject God think of themselves as how you describe.

The idea comes from the fact that those who reject the view of a theistic creation, and instead embrace the view that they're the product of only a series of naturalistic processes, would have to face the fact that they're only an evolved sack of chemicals. If one were to believe otherwise, one would need to explain why they're more than an evolved sack of chemicals.

 

[DDan]

The entire point of freedom of speech is that it protects unpopular speech.

Even if it's detrimental to the society? where do you draw the line?
I would say there is free speech and then there is stupidity with society deciding what is stupid and what is not,
in the US it's money that decides what stupid is and for that reason religion and ignorance is supported and encouraged,
the masses can have the religion and while they're praying the top people can take all the money.

 

[DDan]

Come to think of it, you never really responded to my post . I didn't want anything other than where you got the idea that people who reject God think of themselves as how you describe.

That's because religions give no answers all they give are feelings of inferiority and uselessness, the believer then needs to create a god to rid them of those feelings and lift them up to where their life has importance and meaning.
Religions make full use of our imaginations.

 

[justlookinla]

That's because religions give no answers all they give are feelings of inferiority and uselessness, the believer then needs to create a god to rid them of those feelings and lift them up to where their life has importance and meaning.
Religions make full use of our imaginations.

Any worldview would do this, religious or non-religious. Atheism's God is the individual who believe themselves to be more than a sack of chemicals, with their self-identification being more than just synapses firing in the brain. They assign, from within themselves, personal value and particular views of behavior which is moral or immoral.

For example, you apparently believe you're more than simply a sack of chemicals, with your subjective personal value entwined with revealing to others, of a different worldview than you, that feelings (wherever they come from, whatever their source) which are detrimental to themselves should be discarded in favor of your worldview which doesn't include such undesirable emotions such as "inferiority and uselessness". Somehow, you've concluded that you're a life form with superior thought processes and conclusions. From where does this come? What is the source for your thought process? What is the source for your imaginations?

 

[crjmurray]

That's because religions give no answers all they give are feelings of inferiority and uselessness, the believer then needs to create a god to rid them of those feelings and lift them up to where their life has importance and meaning.
Religions make full use of our imaginations.

It's weird that you're a bogeyman here.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

The idea comes from the fact that those who reject the view of a theistic creation, and instead embrace the view that they're the product of only a series of naturalistic processes, would have to face the fact that they're only an evolved sack of chemicals. If one were to believe otherwise, one would need to explain why they're more than an evolved sack of chemicals.

First of all. You are setting up a strawman here which no one needs to respond to. Second of all it is the quality of the person themselves that grants them any relivancy in the world.

 

[justlookinla]

First of all. You are setting up a strawman here which no one needs to respond to.

What strawman?

Second of all it is the quality of the person themselves that grants them any relivancy in the world.

How do they grant themselves relevancy? By what process?