Christianity vs Religion vs Atheism

May 10, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: News24

Awarded after your tenth article is published on MyNews24. You've got 15 more to go to reach the next level! All children are born Atheist, without the knowledge of God or whatsoever.

Comments
141 - 160 of 288 Comments Last updated Jun 2, 2013

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144
May 18, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
bobby if you don't clean up your post I can not longer read them or respond.
Just saying, not that I would expect you to change.
Your EXTORTION-god is unworthy of the title "god".

More to the point?

Your bible specifically states there is no free will.

Or did you forget about that one?

In any case?

What is the point?

The "choice" is eternal torment (your "heaven") as a slave, or eternal torment (your "hell") as a slave.

Either way?

Infinite torment; infinite slavery.

That's not free will.

That's just plain old extortion...

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Your EXTORTION-god is unworthy of the title "god".
More to the point?
Your bible specifically states there is no free will.
Or did you forget about that one?
In any case?
What is the point?
The "choice" is eternal torment (your "heaven") as a slave, or eternal torment (your "hell") as a slave.
Either way?
Infinite torment; infinite slavery.
That's not free will.
That's just plain old extortion...
Godbots like KJV have no free will in the first place they are totally submissive esle they would not be godbots.

Their ego is so low they not even conceive of the idea that people are capable independent thought.
Misa

Wedmore, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146
May 19, 2013
 
xianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
if god is defined as being everywhere,there should be evidence of it everywhere,
if theres no evidence it obviously doesnt exist
nice vid on god
http://youtu.be/ODetOE6cbbc
I was talking about "gods" in general rather than any specific definition.

Some gods are certainly ruled out by evidence, e.g. BibleGod™.
Misa

Wedmore, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147
May 19, 2013
 
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> Here you are arguing with Bob, and here I disagree with each of you slightly, as I tried to explain above. I tried to explain it in such a way as to state my own views, both about what are proper definitions of certain words, and about what is the most rational opinion to hold: i. e. agnostic atheism (with the qualifier that atheism refers to all gods I have ever heard of, and with the definition of agnostic as not making a knowledge claim regarding my opinion). If you and Bob would please read and reply to my comment or comments above, maybe they we could see whether we are much closer together than we seem - and we are certainly closer together in views than we are to the true believer types, whom we all oppose. Maybe we can find ways to narrow our apparent slight differences, with enough qualifiers, to get to the common core of opinion which we share. Then the nuances will appear to be as slight as I suspect they are. And the real differences will be more interesting to discuss, when we have clearly idenfified them. I much prefer slight quibbles and clarifications with the wise people to arguing with superstitious idiots, except when I am in a bad mood and need to unload my hostilities on someone distant and stupid~ I am feeling only slightly hostile today, due to weather forecast of possible tornado activity tomorrow night, which makes me hostile to believers in an allgoodallpowerful God, whom I usually regard as mostly being brainwashed and stupid.
Reading over your posts, I don't see much to disagree with. Perhaps you give more probability to YHWH existing than I do (I'd put the probability at virtually zero), at least if we define YHWH as literally the deity described in the Bible, and not that as modified by later theologians/apologetics.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#148
May 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Misa wrote:
<quoted text>
I was talking about "gods" in general rather than any specific definition.
Some gods are certainly ruled out by evidence, e.g. BibleGod™.
Wrong.

Such evidence rules out no god, whatsoever.

Evidence can rule out various descriptive characterizations of a god made by writers.

No god is ruled out.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149
May 19, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Such evidence rules out no god, whatsoever.
Evidence can rule out various descriptive characterizations of a god made by writers.
No god is ruled out.
God isn't real, if you disagree, you may attempt and fail to present evidence to the contrary. You may f*ck off now, pitiful creationist troll.
Lincoln

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150
May 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Case in Point
"You may f*ck off now"
The phrases uttered by a person with Tourette syndrome do not necessarily reflect the thoughts or opinions of the person.
Pied Piper of Atheism is aging and the two percent may wish look elsewhere for a leader.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151
May 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lincoln wrote:
Case in Point
"You may f*ck off now"
The phrases uttered by a person with Tourette syndrome do not necessarily reflect the thoughts or opinions of the person.
Pied Piper of Atheism is aging and the two percent may wish look elsewhere for a leader.
Pretty good. LOL
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152
May 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>Godbots like KJV have no free will in the first place they are totally submissive esle they would not be godbots.

Their ego is so low they not even conceive of the idea that people are capable independent thought.
ricky we're just here to have fun reading the ridicules post from you and your buddy's.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153
May 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Such evidence rules out no god, whatsoever.
Evidence can rule out various descriptive characterizations of a god made by writers.
No god is ruled out.
If you rule out one descriptive trait of something, then that something cannot exist. Your god is impossible.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#154
May 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Misa wrote:
<quoted text>
I was talking about "gods" in general rather than any specific definition.
Some gods are certainly ruled out by evidence, e.g. BibleGod™.
I agree completely-- there is more than enough reason to dismiss BibleGod™ as total myth.

Same for QuoranGod™ and BookOfMormanGod™ too...

;)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155
May 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If you rule out one descriptive trait of something, then that something cannot exist. Your god is impossible.
Correct: nobody but nobody fights for, or even worships, and un-defined god.

What would be the point?

:)

They *always* without fail, have very specific definition(s) attached to their delusion (of god).
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
This fits with the definitions that I prefer. You write more from a philosophical place, I from a practical, but we are essentially in agreement.
I started reading philosophy after my junior year in high school, and discovered the ones I liked best - Santayana, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Hume, Mill, Bertrand Russell, and even the Kant Categorical Imperative (not the rest of his difficult to read writing however). I was raised agnostic atheist, though my parents just called it agnostic. My town was dominated by one religious group - then called Reorganized Latter Day Saints - the monogamous alternatives to Mormons. My friends in that church helped move it toward being a much more tolerant and ethical church, now called Community of Christ, and now not discriminating against minorities or women, and even being ready to discuss gay rights. Seeing that progress, and knowing the nicest of those church leaders, and being openly a non-believer without suffering disapproval from them, gave me a high comfort level with the best of religious types. I care most about Ethics, especially political and social and economic issues, and tend to support the left of any institution, whether political, religious, or whatever - as long as people are for more equal rights, more equal opportunity, kindness ethics, peace, political and governmental reforms to minimize corporate influence, etc.(I support Elizabeth Warren, not Hillary, for example, and like the very liberal Catholics like Tom Harkin, in the Senate). I am far more anti what I am against, than wildly for what I am for - and regard the threats as more of a motivation than the hopes. So a Christian who is anti-right-wing views, on ethics, and on religious matters, and policy views, is a potential ally, whom I do not wish to attack. Very few of them on topix, I admit.
People like you, and Bob, whom I find here, are special to the extent that I can be very free in expressing my agnostic atheist views and can enjoy your comments, intellectually. I sort of assume that you would have good views on ethics and politics, and hope I am correct in that assumption. But I am not so hopeful as to think all agnostic atheists have an ethical and political view that I agree with. And not so pessimistic as to think all religious types are rightwing nuts.
That should explain some of my comments. I am so pleased to be able to know the ones on religious/philosophical topics like you and Bob whom I regard as the wise ones - there are at most 20 on topix whom I really admire and like a lot, and you and Bob are two of them. There are a few others here, and it is wonderful to find new ones from time to time.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157
May 21, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree completely-- there is more than enough reason to dismiss BibleGod™ as total myth.
Same for QuoranGod™ and BookOfMormanGod™ too...
;)
I regard the ethical reasons for dismissing them as strongest - they are horrid beings. I am usually more offended by the lack of ethical standards in believers who are either apologists for an evil God or justify their own horrid actions in the name of such a God, than dismayed by the lack of rationality in believers. I assume folke are brainwashed to believe nonsense, and tolerate that in my friends far more easily than I tolerate nasty ethics. Too often the ridiculous theology supports nasty ethics, but some variations are far worse than others. I see that in the varieties of Catholics for example,,, especially in politics. I also see the difference between left and rightwing Mormons, and more progressive forces in the dominant religion in my town. There are even environmental ecumenicals, who want to save the planet by being good stewards, and that differs so much from the rightwing variety. like Bachmann and others - who think it is fine for God to hurt innocents to teach a lesson to liberals, and the types who think God will not let things get bad no matter how badly people behave with wars and pollution (climate change especially).
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Under your skewed definition then a pitcher is baseball is not a pitcher if he throws the perfect pitch and the batter hits it out of the park.
God created a perfect universe and world and gave man freedom of choice.
Mans sin not God brought suffering and death into the world. Just as God had told Man if he choose to sin.
God made a perfect world
God gave man freedom of choose
God created choices for man
God warned man man about the Consequence of sin.
Without choices there would not have been freedom of choice.
God did not make man as a robot he made him with both good and evil and let man choose his own path. All men (humans) have this in them. God is there to help them make the best choices if they ask.
Your dead squirrel is dead because man brought death into the world.
The person who drove the car that hit the squirrel made the choice to drive that day on that road at that speed that resulted in the squirrel getting killed.
Every choice has it's Consequences.
[/QUOTE] you are not one of the nice religious people. Even from your extreme theology I can tell that manyof your ethics are as evil as your theology. You blame the victim, and that is an essential element of evil.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159
May 21, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Cop out, blame everything but the thing you attribute everything to.
that was to kjv or whatever the initials are - I did not see your comment before I replied to him! interesting that we are outraged by the same thing. I even get the impression that your disapproval is at least as much a moral objection as an intellectual one, to his nonsense. you are on my list of people I am very glad to find on topix.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160
May 21, 2013
 
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Not so KK, the perfect pitch can still be hit.
Sorry you can't follow the logic that in fact to have freedom of choice you must have choices and consequences.
[/QUOTE] you are so simplistic. even if there were human freedom of choice it would not be cause for anything else to suffer the consequences, if your God were fair. it is nonsense to blame either the squirrel or the driver for the fact of suffering and death. A God could not be both allgoodandallpowerful. If you wanht to admit to a partially evil God, at least that would not be impossible.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161
May 21, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand, and have no fault with your goals.
In spite of the acerbic tone I frequently take on Topix?
In truth, I have no beef in the least, with religions that keep pretty much to themselves.
Take Judaism, for example: even in it's milder forms, they typically eschew bacon/pork products.
And that is their right.
The difference between them, and most Genuine Christians™?
The Jewish community isn't interested in creating secular prohibitions on pork products. They are content to avoid it individually; they feel no need for *secular* compulsion.
Genuine Christians™ on the other hand? Are hell-bent on force-feeding their ugly religion's rules into *secular* venues, such as the 10 commandments (of which few of these people actually follow, or understand even) as a "monument", or forcing the idiotic idea of creationism into science class and so on.
I find their actions so repugnant, that I actually campaign to get their tax exempt status revoked-- they do not deserve such support.
I agree entirely that churches should not be tax exempt.
Not from income tax or from property tax. Their contributions to soup kitchens and food panttries, providing there is no religious indoctrination attached, can be a legitimate charity and thus tax exempt. I think.

If you will notice the socalled IRS scandal, and what it is really about, you will see that Lawrence O'Donnell on The Last Word on MSNBC, and Senator Bill Nelson, are the ones who really understand the issue. Neither the tea party types nor progressive groups should get tax exemption under that provision of the tax code - the actual language of the law states that the exemption is EXCLUSIVELY for social welfare groups, and not for political activity. The IRS officials disregarded the wording of the law first in l959, and again in 1959, to open the door to abuse of that provision. And the Citizens United case made it possible for corporates to contribute to such groups and hide their identity, in order to pretend the groups are do-gooders, instead of special interests.

There are plenty of churches who violate the provisions giving tax exemptions to churches also, when they are participating in politics. Mormons and catholics the worst on the right, and many black churches on the Democratic side. That tax exemption should be ended as well. Some in the Senate started to investigate that, and then backed off. Grassley of Iowa, for one - because the tea party types and rightwing Christian types are very active in the Iowa gOP. They support types like Steve King in Congress, and Bachmann and Huckabee and Santorum for President.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> that was to kjv or whatever the initials are - I did not see your comment before I replied to him! interesting that we are outraged by the same thing. I even get the impression that your disapproval is at least as much a moral objection as an intellectual one, to his nonsense. you are on my list of people I am very glad to find on topix.
I think "outrage" is the incorrect word. I am merely pointing out their fallacies, inconsistencies, and contradictions. ;)

My only ethical objection is that they are harming people in the name of their gods all the time, and this needs to stop. If they stop this, if they stop trying to interfere with the real world, then I have no care of their existence or beliefs.

But thank you, I am glad you are posting here as well, you do offer some interesting conversation, maybe one day we will have the pleasure of disagreeing on something enough to even discuss it, it would be a nice change of pace. As you can tell, I am sick of bothering to educate these creatards, they are just too stupid to bother with now, time to focus on the next generations instead and educate just them, the older creatards are just not interested in learning.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163
May 21, 2013
 
again in 1981, I meant. both under Republican Presidents. (Buy I am not a Clinton fan. He did stuff I don't like, also.).

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••