How many people would go for this if they could?

[jpcedotal]

Who are these "religious people" you reference here?
Do you think I hold this position? Do you think sidhe does? Do you think every person who identifies as a Christian does?
What you describe here isn't "religion", or "monotheism", or even "Christianity". It's fundamentalism: an extremist branch of religion, and (thankfully) a minority position.


Unfortunately, you will have very little success with the tactics you currently employ. It is VERY easy to dismiss your posts simply on account of the broad and sweeping generalizations you employ, not to mention your unfounded assertions about historical facts that can easily be checked. (And nope, going for a "tu quoque"-fallacy doesn't help your case, either.)

At times, it seems as if you've read "The God Delusion" once, and now basically parrot what you remember of it. In spite of its flaws (and there are some), Dawkins's book *does* go to the trouble of providing sources for its assertions, whereas your "arguments" are the equivalent of a Wiccan shouting:

"The Catholic Church killed nine million women during the Burning Times!!!1!"

hey, that hurt my feelings a little

 

[jpcedotal]

Originally Posted by jpcedotal

mentally challenged or VERY young....or both
​

Wrong, if I was mentally challenged I would be religious. (dingdong)

Originally Posted by jpcedotal

She has been hurt by someone (my guess is a man) who called himself a Christian.
​

As a devoted Atheist do you honestly think I would go out with a Christian? or anyone religious for that matter. (dingdong)

Originally Posted by jpcedotal

So now she hates everything Christian and can not believe in any god (other than herself) who would let whatever happened to happen.....
​

You got one part of that right anyway, I can not believe in any Gods. (dingdong)



I just wanted to clarify that I posted this with the "mentally challenged" part to show her that she would react the same way some of us did when she labeled us.

As hard as she tries to be different, the more she shows me that she is just as human, just as imperfect, just as needy, just as emotional...as the rest of us.

I might have been a little meaner than I wanted to be, but I was trying to get the real girl out from behind the "dingdong".

 

[Eudaimonist]

but you can't keep "zinging" everybody and then wonder why people get so uptight and offensive. Show a little love and respect and see how much comes back at you......

True, "zinging" people doesn't encourage them to think, which is dingdong's stated goal. It actually makes people defensive, and when people get defensive they can only think about protecting themselves.

Respect encourages thought, because it starts by appealing to the self-worth of others. People who have their self-worth honored are far more likely to listen and really think about what is being said.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SithDoughnut]

How can I give them evidence? God being part of their imagination should be self evident to them, where was their God before they believed in him and where will he go if they decide not to believe in him anymore? their God is a part of their imagination wether they believe it or not.

You can't give them evidence, which is why your statements (notably ones such as the one I've bolded) cannot be taken as fact. "It's self-evident" is a very weak argument as any religious person can easily throw it right back at you. After all, God is real whether you believe it or not...

What about them insulting my intelligence with their talk of Gods and magic? I agree that I'm free to get away from religion anytime I want and they're not, they have been snared by a beast that can get into the deepest parts of their minds and hurt them badly, so I perhaps should be a bit more charitable.

You don't have to be charitable. Polite would do. I will point out one thing though: if talk of God and magic is offensive to you, this really isn't a good forum for you. However, I don't really think that it's that offensive to you, seeing as you chose to create an account and post here.

 

[dingdong]

Who are these "religious people" you reference here?
.

As I don't know them all by name I should really remember to keep saying 'some' every time I write anything.

Do you think I hold this position? Do you think sidhe does? Do you think every person who identifies as a Christian does?
What you describe here isn't "religion", or "monotheism", or even "Christianity". It's fundamentalism: an extremist branch of religion, and (thankfully) a minority position
Unfortunately, you will have very little success with the tactics you currently employ. It is VERY easy to dismiss your posts simply on account of the broad and sweeping generalizations you employ, not to mention your unfounded assertions about historical facts that can easily be checked. (And nope, going for a "tu quoque"-fallacy doesn't help your case, either.)

At times, it seems as if you've read "The God Delusion" once, and now basically parrot what you remember of it. In spite of its flaws (and there are some), Dawkins's book *does* go to the trouble of providing sources for its assertions, whereas your "arguments" are the equivalent of a Wiccan shouting:

"The Catholic Church killed nine million women during the Burning Times!!!1!"

I haven't read "The God Delusion" or any of Dawkins books for that matter, but I will say this, from what I've heard and seen of him there is no need to read his books because I think I would just sit nodding in agreement.

Religions can not allow Dawkins to be listened to or even argue with him properly because Dawkins is reality and religion is the opposite to reality, (I've forgotten the word) if people start thinking about their religions rather than just believing them there could be problems for religions, they must keep up the knocking and smearing of him for the sake of themselves, but of course that's just my opinion and I can not produce evidence for any of what I have just written.

 

[Mobiosity]

As I don't know them all by name I should really remember to keep saying 'some' every time I write anything.


I haven't read "The God Delusion" or any of Dawkins books for that matter, but I will say this, from what I've heard and seen of him there is no need to read his books because I think I would just sit nodding in agreement.

Religions can not allow Dawkins to be listened to or even argue with him properly because Dawkins is reality and religion is the opposite to reality, (I've forgotten the word) if people start thinking about their religions rather than just believing them there could be problems for religions, they must keep up the knocking and smearing of him for the sake of themselves, but of course that's just my opinion and I can not produce evidence for any of what I have just written.

We have thought long and hard about our faiths and have come to the considered opinion that God exists, He loves us, and you're gonna be shocked when you end up in heaven after you die.

 

[SithDoughnut]

We have thought long and hard about our faiths and have come to the considered opinion that God exists, He loves us, and you're gonna be shocked when you end up in heaven after you die.

Unless, of course, we don't.

 

[jpcedotal]

We have thought long and hard about our faiths and have come to the considered opinion that God exists, He loves us, and you're gonna be shocked when you end up in heaven after you die.

It won't be heaven....but shock will be a big understatement

 

[Mobiosity]

Unless, of course, we don't.

Ah, but you will.

 

[Gardenia]

When I am given good reasons to change my mind I will, until then I will continue to reject all offers that I should get into your heads to meet your Gods, after all you refuse to meet my God Atheism. (and my God won't kill you if you reject him)

I've said it to you before, and I'll say it again. I do not care if you are an atheist. I have no desire to change your mind. I have not 'refused to meet your God' - I can understand and respect that you are an atheist, and there's no problem with that alone. Yes, some religious people will feel differently than I do, but ya know, there's proof that not all religious people are the same. It is not wise to keep treating us all as if we were exactly alike. (Although since you brought it up. My Deity has no desire to kill anyone. Not all religions teach that unbelievers are going to be punished. Again, not all religions are the same, not all religious people are the same... Just as not all atheists are the same in everything they think, as you've also seen here.)

Your problem lies with your words and actions. For example, you make a bunch of historical claims and then can't back them up. A historical discussion is not a spiritual one, although with history often there's also a bit of speculation, there's often also evidence. If you can not provide evidence for your historical statements, and in fact dismiss any evidence against what you're saying simply because it does not show you to be correct, that is a problem.

 

[Mobiosity]

I've said it to you before, and I'll say it again. I do not care if you are an atheist. I have no desire to change your mind. I have not 'refused to meet your God' - I can understand and respect that you are an atheist, and there's no problem with that alone. Yes, some religious people will feel differently than I do, but ya know, there's proof that not all religious people are the same. It is not wise to keep treating us all as if we were exactly alike. (Although since you brought it up. My Deity has no desire to kill anyone. Not all religions teach that unbelievers are going to be punished. Again, not all religions are the same, not all religious people are the same... Just as not all atheists are the same in everything they think, as you've also seen here.)

Your problem lies with your words and actions. For example, you make a bunch of historical claims and then can't back them up. A historical discussion is not a spiritual one, although with history often there's also a bit of speculation, there's often also evidence. If you can not provide evidence for your historical statements, and in fact dismiss any evidence against what you're saying simply because it does not show you to be correct, that is a problem. You can say there's no god all day long (and sure, some will disagree with you... but since many of us are here to discuss spiritual matters, that's not much of a shocker), but when you start dragging history into it, bring proof.

I think some statements posted on CF could as easily fall under hysterical as historical.

 

[Wicked Willow]

It won't be heaven....but shock will be a big understatement

And you still wonder why people consider your particular brand of Christianity to be somewhat... extreme?
Imagining that you have no problem whatsoever with seeing the vast majority of mankind in eternal torment (unless they join your faith) hurts my feelings - sort of.
Nah, that's the wrong phrase. It's more that I consider it shocking that otherwise decent persons seem to feel no cognitive dissonance whatsoever at the notion of sentient beings conscripted to unending suffering by the very God who's supposed to be the epitome of Goodness and Justice (note the capital letters). I find such people to be more than a little creepy, to be completely honest.

 

[Mobiosity]

And you still wonder why people consider your particular brand of Christianity to be somewhat... extreme?
Imagining that you have no problem whatsoever with seeing the vast majority of mankind in eternal torment (unless they join your faith) hurts my feelings - sort of.
Nah, that's the wrong phrase. It's more that I consider it shocking that otherwise decent persons seem to feel no cognitive dissonance whatsoever at the notion of sentient beings conscripted to unending suffering by the very God who's supposed to be the epitome of Goodness and Justice (note the capital letters). I find such people to be more than a little creepy, to be completely honest.

And he's wrong. Biblically, you go to heaven or cease to exist. At the last judgement, you're brought before God and judged by your actions and statements. Then if you're not in the Lamb's Book of Life (accepted Jesus sacrifice for your sins) then you're thrown in the lake of fire and cease to be. You are no more.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So they'll be burnt alive? Well, that's okay then.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[dingdong]

I don't think you're wrong due to your metaphysical stances. I think your rhetorical technique is flawed and your ability to hold a mature and meaningful conversation is minimal.

I'm really sorry about that, all I can do is my best.

You say this,

When someone starts talking about Gods their maturity seems to diminish they get mentally younger the longer they speak.

then...you say this.

Tell me - how does this statement advance your viewpoint in any way? Does it make your audience more likely to listen to you? When you make sweeping, unsupported claims about things like history (where there can be objective research and evidence) and compare them to a philosophical field like theology or metaphysics (which work in conjecture and possibility, rather than hard facts), do you really think that makes your stance seem stronger, or does it make you seem illogical?

When you broadbrush everyone who believes in any kind of metaphysical construct as if they were a hellfire-and-brimstone Christian or a Wahabbi Muslim, do you think that you're showing your knowledge of the subject, or sounding as prejudiced as those you claim to oppose?

Understanding something does not mean you agree with it, it just means you can speak on it from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALA" when someone explains how you're mistaken concerning your broadbrush statements isn't conducive to any kind of discussion.

I was replying to what you said about me,
'your ability to hold a mature and meaningful conversation is minimal'
what would you have said if someone had said that to you?

Could you please explain the meanings of the words 'metaphysical construct'.

 

[dingdong]

Then if you're not in the Lamb's Book of Life (accepted Jesus sacrifice for your sins) then you're thrown in the lake of fire and cease to be. You are no more.

So they'll be burnt alive? Well, that's okay then.

When you think about it most religions are not very nice are they?
They seem to be designed for mean and selfish people who are happy to pat each other on the back for being lucky enough to be blessed with the one true religion, the rest of the worlds religious people can all die in pain.
Not for me thank you very much.

 

[Wicked Willow]

When you think about it most religions are not very nice are they?
They seem to be designed for mean and selfish people who are happy to pat each other on the back for being lucky enough to be blessed with the one true religion, the rest of the worlds religious people can all die in pain.
Not for me thank you very much.

How many religions are there that follow this kind of approach?
The only ones I can think of right now are some specific branches of Abrahamaic monotheism, some groups that qualify as "cults", and (ignoring some profound metaphysical differences) a few radical sects within Hinduism.

That's not exactly "most religions", is it?

 

[dingdong]

That's not exactly "most religions", is it?

When you think about it a few religions are not very nice are they?
They seem to be designed for mean and selfish people who are happy to pat each other on the back for being lucky enough to be blessed with the one true religion, the rest of the worlds religious people can all die in pain.
Not for me thank you very much.

Better?

 

[Wicked Willow]

When you think about it a few religions are not very nice are they?
They seem to be designed for mean and selfish people who are happy to pat each other on the back for being lucky enough to be blessed with the one true religion, the rest of the worlds religious people can all die in pain.
Not for me thank you very much.

Better?

It's an improvement, although the term "some" might have served you better. We're talking about at LEAST two major religions with billions of adherents, after all.

 

[dingdong]

Your problem lies with your words and actions. For example, you make a bunch of historical claims and then can't back them up. A historical discussion is not a spiritual one, although with history often there's also a bit of speculation, there's often also evidence. If you can not provide evidence for your historical statements, and in fact dismiss any evidence against what you're saying simply because it does not show you to be correct, that is a problem.

You are absolutely right I should not try to mix spirituality with history, one is based on evidence and facts while the other is based on speculation.

But I don't believe in anything spiritual so it would seem I can not discuss anything here, thinking about it how can anyone discuss anything here when all they have is their opinions? nothing substantial just opinions, I have an opinion so I can discuss things.