Come all ye brothers; all you have to do is forsake all others. Come be a disciple, spread the word of the one true and only belief.

Together you can create heaven right here on Earth.

Why wait for death to bring nirvana, surely what is offered here, is much more than Mohamed taught. All you have to have is faith, faith that mankind is the pinnacle of evolution in the universe and that mankind is in charge of its destiny.

Don’t listen the words of peace brought to you by ventriloquists thousands of years ago. Join the true religion, all followers of “God” are idiots and whackos.

You don’t want to be whacko do you? Of course not, you’re an intelligent and contemplative human being, why would you believe any thing you can’t see or imagine.

The demands of this faith are very strenuous, you must be willing to sacrifice friendships, family, and yes, even in some cases, be shunned by society. But it’s worth it because in the end if you can convince one person not to believe, than brother you’re a success.

Be proud of yourselves Atheist Brothers you are the world greatest fanatics. You will show the way to true faith and life.

Yes just look at what religion has done for mankind in the last thousand years

Yes just look at what religion has done for mankind in the last thousand years

Don't you mean "Just look at what mankind has done for religion, in the last thousand years" ? religion is only a concept, it can't physically do anything.

Don't you mean "Just look at what mankind has done for religion, in the last thousand years" ? religion is only a concept, it can't physically do anything.

Ah, I thought he was talking about money, after all that's the worlds true religion

Well I just knew the US was full of wierd cults, so I assumed this was one of them.

The Grand Wizard Speaks

The Grand Wizard Speaks
That's a title reserved for good ol' southern babtist christians

That's a title reserved for good ol' southern babtist christians


Your come-backs are getting weaker all the time. Soon it won’t be any fun to antagonize you.

Try to come up with something creative for a change. You’re beginning to bore us to death.

Your come-backs are getting weaker all the time. Soon it won’t be any fun to antagonize you.

Try to come up with something creative for a change. You’re beginning to bore us to death.
"Us" ;delusions of grandeur again:rolleyes:

"Us" ;delusions of grandeur again:rolleyes:hmmm...

You’re beginning to bore us to death.

us- any group of two or more people which the speaker is part. TRUE

US- United States: North American republic containing 50 states - 48 conterminous states in North America plus Alaska in northwest North America and the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific Ocean; achieved independence in 1776. TRUE

Us is a weekly American magazine dedicated to celebrities. TRUE

Us (1992) is the seventh studio album by British rock musician Peter Gabriel. ???
Can't prove or disprove that last one, only because as far as I know he's not a member of this forum but I think J's got that one right, there Rich. :rolleyes:

That's a title reserved for good ol' southern babtist christians

That's 'Baptist' :rolleyes:

For goodness sake Rich, if you're going to babble on about something, at least spell it correctly. (Unless you're hitting the sauce, then we understand...;) )

That's 'Baptist' :rolleyes:

Somebody should have told these guys :rolleyes:

http://schools.privateschoolsreport.com/Utah/Ogden/BereanBabtistChristianAcade.html

hmmm...

You’re beginning to bore us to death.

[INDENT]us- any group of two or more people which the speaker is part. TRUE



Just like Bush thinks he speaks for the free world eh?:rolleyes:

Just like Bush thinks he speaks for the free world eh?:rolleyes:No, Rich... in order to fall into that category J would have to have said "all of us". Which, in context would probably be true, but is irrelevant since he didn't use the all inclusive.

What happened to Rich's post that Jenny quoted?:confused:

Originally Posted by Rich
Well I just knew the US was full of wierd cults, so I assumed this was one of them.

Don't say it was deleted by an overzealous bible basher

Col

No, Rich... in order to fall into that category J would have to have said "all of us". Which, in context would probably be true, but is irrelevant since he didn't use the all inclusive.
Us is plural, thefore Jenny thinks he's speaking for many, like I said, "delusions of grandeur"

What happened to Rich's post that Jenny quoted?:confused:



Don't say it was deleted by an overzealous bible basher

Col
Almost certainly since it contained a reference to the church of scientology

Almost certainly since it contained a reference to the church of scientology(sceintology != Bible) :rolleyes:

Your come-backs are getting weaker all the time. Soon it won’t be any fun to antagonize you.


I thought you were leaving anyway:confused: you said you were - or is that the usual American empty promises like your government use.

Can you give us a leaving date? then we can have a whip round and collect some barbed paper clips for your present

Col

(sceintology != Bible) :rolleyes:
:confused: :confused: :confused:

Almost certainly since it contained a reference to the church of scientology
Isn't that the cult that little Tommy Cruise funds?

surely all religions are cults - they all survive on fear and brainwashing its followers - especially in the USA where they believe anything:rolleyes:

Col

I thought you were leaving anyway:confused: you said you were - or is that the usual American empty promises like your government use.
Can you give us a leaving date? then we can have a whip round and collect some barbed paper clips for your present
Col


Col,

I hate to break it to you but our own PM is just as bad at providing a leaving date.

It was best worded in satire by comparing Blair's leaving timetable to an exam timetable - he's spent so long creating the timetable, he's not done any of the things he's timetabled to do


Aagh! I've just realised what you and J have made me do - I've been drawn in again! D'oh!

Isn't that the cult that little Tommy Cruise funds?

Col
Don't they all have wierd names so the aliens can identify them when they invade earth, or something?:rolleyes:

:confused: :confused: :confused:
Since scientologists don't read or follow the bible but some screwy notions of aliens, mild electric shocks, and transcendence (LRH must still be laughing), the conditional statement (scientology != bible)

Col,

I hate to break it to you but our own PM is just as bad at providing a leaving date.

It was best worded in satire by comparing Blair's leaving timetable to an exam timetable - he's spent so long creating the timetable, he's not done any of the things he's timetabled to do


Aagh! I've just realised what you and J have made me do - I've been drawn in again! D'oh!
I think you should have compared it to a British Rail timetable, it'll either turn up late or not at all

Since scientologists don't read or follow the bible but some screwy notions of aliens, mild electric shocks, and transcendence (LRH must still be laughing), the conditional statement (scientology != bible)
Is that how cruise appeared to be the same height as holmes in the wedding pic

Aagh! I've just realised what you and J have made me do - I've been drawn in again! D'oh!
Don't fight it - the force will overcome you in the end. Resistance is futile. . . . :D

Col

Is that how cruise appeared to be the same height as holmes in the wedding picMore thetans clinging to her than he due to her obviously lesser OT level from her shorter experience with Scientology... Damned Xenu, anyway:eek:

Don't fight it - the force will overcome you in the end. Resistance is futile. . . . :D

Colnice one! SW & ST reference in the same sentence. Take that with the scientology references, and I'm either going to fall out of my chair laughing or go straight to hell :D

A Scientology comment was dropped??

Someone's going to get sued lol

How can athieism be the one true religion? They don't have any churches.

Us is a weekly American magazine dedicated to celebrities. TRUE

Us (1992) is the seventh studio album by British rock musician Peter Gabriel. ???[/INDENT]
Can't prove or disprove that last one

You may have problems with the second from last, too. They appear to be willing to print anything. :D

They don't have any churches.neither do the Amish

neither do the Amish

No, but the Amish do make nice wooden cabinets and - in my limited experience - bake decent cakes.

Scientologists, however, appear to specialize in other areas. Russian fighters you want shot down? Nuclear missiles you want stolen? Impossible missions you need carried out? Boston bars you need managed? These appear to be the guys to speak to. On the other hand, they wouldn't the first people you'd turn to if you wanted a barn assembled.

Interesting to see how different religions/lifestyles place different values on things. I suppose that's what makes society so interesting. :D

They don't have any churches.
Or books for brainwashing, oops I mean study

neither do the Amish
Don't they have windmills instead?:confused:

What happened to Rich's post that Jenny quoted?:confused:



Don't say it was deleted by an overzealous bible basher

Col

Is there an 'overzealous bible basher' moderator around here?

Don't they have windmills instead?:confused:
They're not that type of Dutch...

No, but the Amish do make nice wooden cabinets and - in my limited experience - bake decent cakes.


not that they need to now with $4m bucks in the bank:rolleyes:

Col

not that they need to now with $4m bucks in the bank:rolleyes: http://www.livenirvana.com/forum/images/smilies/DeadHorse2.gif

They're not that type of Dutch...
Are they Double Dutch?:confused:

http://www.livenirvana.com/forum/images/smilies/DeadHorse2.gif
http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/orang-utan.gif

Is there an 'overzealous bible basher' moderator around here?
I wouldn't know, you tell us. . . . . you are the expert in assessing people

Col

Are they Double Dutch?:confused:
Pennsylvania Dutch descend from German ancestry as opposed to the Netherlands

I wouldn't know, you tell us. . . . . you are the expert in assessing people

Col

Typical spineless response. :rolleyes:

Pennsylvania Dutch descend from German ancestry as opposed to the Netherlands
How can they be called Dutch then and not American?:confused: :confused:

How can they be called Dutch then and not American?:confused: :confused: You'll find the only people interested in connotating their "minority" status by appending the "American" behind their national heritage, i.e. African American, Latin American, are only interested in retaining that segregation. We Native Americans, or as the rest of my family goes German Americans (and in some small amount, Pennsylvania Dutch), could care less...We're American.

Typical spineless response. :rolleyes:

In what way?:confused:

Col

In what way?:confused:

Col

You're quick with the generic name calling and accusations but when it comes to being specific you're remarks seem spinelsss:

spineless

adj 1: weak in willpower [syn: namby-pamby, wishy-washy] 2: lacking courage or vitality; "he was a yellow gutless worm"; "a spineless craven fellow" [syn: gutless] [ant: gutsy]

If you think I'm an 'overzealous bible basher', call me that and tell me why. You don't have to beat around the bush. If you think I deleted his post why don't you ask me?

You'll find the only people interested in connotating their "minority" status by appending the "American" behind their national heritage, i.e. African American, Latin American, are only interested in retaining that segregation. We Native Americans, or as the rest of my family goes German Americans (and in some small amount, Pennsylvania Dutch), could care less...We're American.
I wonder why African Americans feel segregated

You don't have to beat around the bush.
We'd jolly well like to

You're quick with the generic name calling and accusations but when it comes to being specific you're remarks seem spinelsss:



If you think I'm an 'overzealous bible basher', call me that and tell me why. You don't have to beat around the bush. If you think I deleted his post why don't you ask me?


They've just run out of new negative things to say about us.

It might be easier if they copied all of their irrelevant insults and nonsensical dribblings and just pasted them whenever a thread had the appearance of going somewhere constructive.

They've just run out of new negative things to say about us.


That'll never happen

It might be easier if they copied all of their irrelevant insults and nonsensical dribblings and just pasted them whenever a thread had the appearance of going somewhere constructive.
Where's the constructive part that you speak of?:confused:

Anyway.

It doesn’t seem like anyone has decided to follow up on my atheist bashing, so I’ll post it as a question.

Why is it that the most, vehement, obnoxious, orthodox, fundamentalist, religious fanatics, I have ever met, have been atheist?

Why would someone who doesn’t believe in creation, care at all if we believe or not.

Why is it that the most, vehement, obnoxious, orthodox, fundamentalist, religious fanatics, I have ever met, have been atheist?

Your own church membership is too small?:confused:

You're quick with the generic name calling and accusations but when it comes to being specific you're remarks seem spinelsss:

If you think I'm an 'overzealous bible basher', call me that and tell me why. You don't have to beat around the bush. If you think I deleted his post why don't you ask me?
Paranoid again are you? Nowhere have I mentioned your name. The generic term I used may (or may not) cover several people - I really don't know or care.

It was nice here last week.

Col

Why is it that the most, vehement, obnoxious, orthodox, fundamentalist, religious fanatics, I have ever met, have been atheist?Because it is human nature to demonize that which we perceive as different from ourselves

Paranoid again are you? Nowhere have I mentioned your name. The generic term I used may (or may not) cover several people - I really don't know or care.

It was nice here last week.

Col

Col,

You should be ashamed of yourself for pretending that your generalizations aren’t meant to be taken personally.

It is a very week minded approach to insulting people, plus it tries to insult them twice by implying that they are too stupid to get it. But that part backfires as being too transparent.

Because it is human nature to demonize that which we perceive as different from ourselves

Yes, but you would think that the highly evolved atheist would be above such nonsense.

Col,

You should be ashamed of yourself for pretending that your generalizations aren’t meant to be taken personally.

It is a very week minded approach to insulting people, plus it tries to insult them twice by implying that they are too stupid to get that. But that part backfires as being too transparent.

Now listen - I'm not ashamed of anything - I have no idea how many moderators or whatever there are, plus I have no idea of all of their religious opinions therefore I could not be specific. I know some have become power-crazed since they have had "the power":rolleyes: , we were self policing for years quite happily.

If Rich's post was deleted by one of them (it may not have been), it was quickly done (overzealous) and if they took exception to the scientology bit then they could be bible bashers - so I stand by my comment.

If someone with the ability to delete posts recognises themselves in my comment - then thats hardly my fault

Col

Yes, but you would think that the highly evolved atheist would be above such nonsense....just as the highly evolved christian and the highly evolved muslim??

Pennsylvania Dutch descend from German ancestry as opposed to the Netherlands

I guess , this story tells it all :

http://www.horseshoe.cc/pennadutch/culture/index.htm

Dutch came from the word Deutsch and the majority of the people coming from new England were germans and not from the lowlands ;)

If Rich's post was deleted by one of them (it may not have been), it was quickly done (overzealous) and if they took exception to the scientology bit then they could be bible bashers - so I stand by my comment.


Col





Actually Col,

The quote was from another thread, illustrating my point even more succinctly, there doesn’t seem to be any thread that is immune to impetuous attacks on Christianity.

It’s boring and suffices only to prove that atheists haven’t evolved more than the rest of us.

The more you argue about religious topics the more you prove that atheism is a religion.

Which of course, is the premise for this thread.

...just as the highly evolved christian and the highly evolved muslim??



I think that there has been quite a bit said about Muslims and Christians. The point I’m trying to make is that some atheists don’t seem to get it that they are themselves, fanatics.

The point I’m trying to make is that some atheists don’t seem to get it that they are themselves, fanatics.I'll agree with that


...most of the time

there doesn’t seem to be any thread that is immune to impetuous attacks on Christianity.


so stop going on about religion then:rolleyes:

Col

I think that there has been quite a bit said about Muslims and Christians. The point I’m trying to make is that some atheists don’t seem to get it that they are themselves, fanatics.



And some followers of religion don't either......Just my two penn'orth.

However I think even you'd find it hard to reconcile the numbers of humans slaughtered throughout history in the name of Atheism with those slaughtered in the name of God or Gods.

The generic term I used may (or may not) cover several people - I really don't know or care.
Col

So it must have been some more of your worthless opinions...:rolleyes:

You seem a bit on edge today old buddy, everything OK?

And some followers of religion don't either......Just my two penn'orth.

However I think even you'd find it hard to reconcile the numbers of humans slaughtered throughout history in the name of Atheism with those slaughtered in the name of God or Gods.


History is replete with slaughters, for all kinds of reasons.

Mostly the religious ones stem from governments getting into the business of dictating beliefs.

It could be said that, while not strictly in the name of atheism, but it was at its core, the Soviets decimated their own Christian and Jewish populations.

If there was a post about Scientology that has been deleted then it has either been physically removed from the database by whoever edited it, or it was edited by the person that posted it before the time limit had passed that puts the EDITED BY on it.

As for jsanders' ridiculous claims about atheism, I will post at length when I get home from work.

As for jsanders' ridiculous claims about atheism, I will post at length when I get home from work.:eek: :eek: Sounds like someone's fixin' ta open the whole Keg instead of just a can

... As for jsanders' ridiculous claims about atheism, I will post at length when I get home from work.

We can't wait for the authority to finally set us all straight...:rolleyes:

We can't wait for the authority to finally set us all straight...:rolleyes:

Yes, this should be good.

Yes, this should be good.

Maybe we should take off from work and go home to wait. :p

On the other hand, they wouldn't the first people you'd turn to if you wanted a barn assembled.




Though if anyone is up on movies, Kirstie Alley did star in that one movie, for richer or poorer, where her and her husband hide out in Amish country. so she might have some experience with putting up a barn :P

Though if anyone is up on movies, Kirstie Alley did star in that one movie, for richer or poorer, where her and her husband hide out in Amish country. so she might have some experience with putting up a barn :P

Didn't Harrison Ford do an amish flick?

History is replete with slanderings, for all kinds of reasons.

Mostly the religious ones stem from governments getting into the business of dictating beliefs.

It could be said that, while not strictly in the name of atheism, but it was at its core, the Soviets decimated their own Christian and Jewish populations.
You've misspelt Stalin:rolleyes:

Didn't Harrison Ford do an amish flick?
Yep and Kelly tossed aside her religion for a toss with Harrison

Didn't Harrison Ford do an amish flick?

That was the one I was on about 'Witness'.

Kirstie Alley did star in that one movie, for richer or poorer, where her and her husband hide out in Amish country. so she might have some experience with putting up a barn

Okay, I'll keep her in reserve in case Ms McGillis is busy.

Yep and Kelly tossed aside her religion for a toss with Harrison

Did you google that or did you remember her name?

Did you google that or did you remember her name?
I remembered, maybe something to do with looking much like a nun:confused:

You've misspelt Stalin:rolleyes:

Astually I misspelled slaughter

Did you google that or did you remember her name?

Can't speak for Rich, but as someone who saw that film in his adolescent years I can assure you no research was needed on my part ;)

Astually I misspelled slaughter
Irrelevant, you still attested it to a system and not the person responsible

I guess , this story tells it all :

http://www.horseshoe.cc/pennadutch/culture/index.htm

Dutch came from the word Deutsch and the majority of the people coming from new England were germans and not from the lowlands ;)
So the Yanks have screwed the Dutch language as well as the English, one wonders why;)

Irrelevant, you still attested it to a system and not the person responsible

Oh I see; so when you blame Christians for the war in Iraq, that's different.

Not only do you contradict others; you contradict yourself as well.

Oh I see; so when you blame Christians for the war in Iraq, that's different.

.
No, I've always blamed Bush (who claims to be Christian):rolleyes: get it right man

Irrelevant, you still attested it to a system and not the person responsible
No, I've always blamed Bush (who claims to be Christian) get it right man

The above are from posts by Rich. Elsewhere , many times, he has blamed religion for wars and conflicts, so perhaps this fount of all knowledge would care to enlighten us as to when it is the fault of a person's beliefs and when it is the guy himself who is responsible.

Brian

The above are from posts by Rich. Elsewhere , many times, he has blamed religion for wars and conflicts, so perhaps this fount of all knowledge would care to enlighten us as to when it is the fault of a person's beliefs and when it is the guy himself who is responsible.

Brian
Bush says he's a Christian, are you suggesting he's not?:confused:

You are ducking the question, and you know it, you blame the persecution of jews etc in Russia on stalin not his beliefs but seem to blame Bush's actions entirely on his beliefs. Look at my post again and answer the question.

Brian

You are ducking the question, and you know it, you blame the persecution of jews etc in Russia on stalin not his beliefs but seem to blame Bush's actions entirely on his beliefs. Look at my post again and answer the question.

Brian
You're dodging mine, Bush claimed God was on his side over the war in Iraq, has God fled the scene? Bush claims to be a Christian, Stalin didn't

... Bush claimed God was on his side over the war in Iraq....

I think you're taking a bit of a liberty on this one... Where/when did he say this? Got a link?

Where/when did he say this? Got a link?
Happy to oblige with your education

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

Bush claims to be a Christian, Stalin didn't

You’re absolutely correct. For a change.

He persecuted people of faith. How much clearer does it need to be? Millions were killed in the pursuit of a religion free country.

You’re absolutely correct. For a change.

He persecuted people of faith. How much clearer does it need to be? Millions were killed in the pursuit of a religion free country.
He persecuted people, period, what's your point?

All you [as an atheist] have to have is faith, faith that mankind is the pinnacle of evolution in the universe and that mankind is in charge of its destiny.

First of all let's begin by asserting that an atheist does not have faith in evolution. Why would an atheist require faith when all they rightly need to do in order be convinced by the probability of evolution when they can just refer to the evidence. It's in books, it's scattered online, and is currently under study to further understanding.

Secondly, we are not aware of what exists out there on the estimated billions of other planets capable of supporting life, but research pushes on. We may be an advanced example of evolution on Earth but that shouldn't give us a superiority complex as per the universe.

Mankind (homosapiens, to keep it scientific) is not in charge of his destiny. Natural selection will decide what becomes of him as it has decided how he - and all other living organisms - have reached what they currently are.

all followers of “God” are idiots and whackos.
You may not be far off the truth there. What is it about their brains - that makes them part of this intelligent species we deem ourselves - that would accept such improbable nonsense as God, utter prayers to him, and waste time partaking in little rituals whether it be bowing to Mecca five times a day or chomping on a wafer? Why would they accept such rubbish - which has no basis in fact - in the face of substantial evidence favouring the Darwinian model? Idiots and whackos; you're on the money.

why would you believe any thing you can’t see or imagine.
Simply because there is no evidence for it. The other alternative, being natural selection, offers much more, weighing the argument in its favour.

you must be willing to sacrifice friendships, family, and, in some cases, be shunned by society.
It's a shame that by being atheist that people with religious convictions can't get over themselves to appreciate the person over their choice in belief. It's a sad state of affairs that in America the electorate would vote in a black, Jewish, Muslim, or Catholic candidate as President (http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=26) over an atheist. (More here (http://race42008.com/2006/10/03/gallup-america-ready-for-a-black-woman-president/).)The perception that someone of faith has moral integrity is a fallacy that needs to be overcome. Religion does not install morals and is therefore no indication of how good a person is.

But it’s worth it because in the end if you can convince one person not to believe, than you’re a success.
If an atheist can wean someone person of their religious crutch/blinkers then it should be seen as a success. It would mean that one person no longer turns to improbable inventions based upon inconsistent scriptures and has taken a look at the evidence as to why there is no intelligent designer but why natural selection is a logical method in which to place their undestanding of their place in the world.

Atheist Brothers, you are the world greatest fanatics.

An atheist can't be a fanatic. A fanatic, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, is "a person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause." While a religious fanatic is one who rallies against common sense and eschews the evidence put forward by science in favour of the scribblings set out in their favourite holy scriptures. No matter the evidence contrary to those ancient texts they will believe unerringly in them. It's farcical. An atheist, who may currently be adamant that natural selection is the way of the world (and there is no better solution at the moment) may one day change their mind about our predicament due to further scientific study. Therefore, by the logic of the actual definition of fanatic, an atheist cannot be one because they are not unreasoning. Atheists are people who are capable of reason.

Why is it that the most, vehement, obnoxious, orthodox, fundamentalist, religious fanatics, I have ever met, have been atheist?
Probably because you fail to understand them and haven't a clue about them as you have obviously show by calling them vehement, religious, and the tautological fundamentalist fanatic. An atheist personality is no more vehement than your seeming pro-Christian Taliban (http://www.christiantaliban.org/) spurts. They may be passionate in their argument against the existence of a God and that's because the evidence is there showing how improbable it is yet religious people don't want to see it. Atheists are also not religious because they follow no faith and practice no rituals.

Why would someone who doesn’t believe in creation, care at all if we believe or not.
Because religious parents of children perpetuate such crazy notions as Supreme Creator, what is right and wrong (the skewed religion version), an afterlife, and so on. This is tantamount to child abuse on a psychological level and denies the child their human rights to choose whether they want to be an atheist or, as you so delightfully put it earlier, a whacko.

We do not become better people through religion, so what is the point in it? It's not as if we need it in order to be good. The world would not fall apart without it. Indeed, the world would be a better place because of atheism.

I think you're taking a bit of a liberty on this one... Where/when did he say this? Got a link?

Take your pick

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10349260

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/07/1344220

He persecuted people, period, what's your point?

Oh I think you know my point Rich, you only use facts when they can be twisted to support your irrational views.

Happy to oblige with your education

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

Thank you. I won't bother reading it as I know you to be the thorough one :)

Oh I think you know my point Rich, you only use facts when they can be twisted to support your irrational views.
Are you disputing the fact that Stalin persecuted atheists

An atheist can't be a fanatic.

I'm guessing you can be a fanatic about most anything... Like posting long drawn-out responses :D :D

I'm guessing you can be a fanatic about most anything... Like posting long drawn-out responses :D :D


I think SJ pretty much, was agreeing with me.

So much for my ideas being ridiculous.

Are you disputing the fact that Stalin persecuted atheists

Not at all, but they weren’t targeted for their faith.

Not at all, but they weren’t targeted for their faith.
You mean there weren't any communists targeted?:confused:

SJ - Did you write the 'Beirut: Gulag Orkestar' music review on last.fm? If you did you're wasting your time around here... :)

SJ - Did you write the 'Beirut: Gulag Orkestar' music review on last.fm? If you did you're wasting your time around here... :)
Yes, I did. Why would you think I'm wasting my time here?

Why would you think I'm wasting my time here?
Brainwashed ?;)

SJ - Did you write the 'Beirut: Gulag Orkestar' music review on last.fm? If you did you're wasting your time around here... :)

I agree Ken, we all are.

I agree Ken, we all are.
We ?:confused: :rolleyes:

SJ - Did you write the 'Beirut: Gulag Orkestar' music review on last.fm? If you did you're wasting your time around here... :)

What has this got to do with 'The One True Religion'? :confused:

I'd be interested to know what the panel thinks about Spirituality,
it hasn't had a mention.

I'd be interested to know what the panel thinks about Spirituality, it hasn't had a mention.
I don't perceive there to be a separate entity (soul) independent of my body and see no evidence of such a thing. I would expect those who assert that there is such a thing to offer evidence in support rather than press forward with faith as a sole justification, which is not justification at all.

P.S. It's not a panel, feel free to weigh in with your side.

It is interesting that so many religions seem to signify their deity is the spiritual embodyment of a once existing human or portray them in a human form of some kind.
What do you think that is all about?

First of all let's begin by asserting that an atheist does not have faith in evolution. Why would an atheist require faith when all they rightly need to do in order be convinced by the probability of evolution when they can just refer to the evidence. It's in books, it's scattered online, and is currently under study to further understanding..

What evidence? Evolution started out a theory and still is a theory. You choose to be more convinced by the evidence that a scientist brings to you and a person of faith chooses to believe what their Bible/Torah tells them. Difference being. Usually, someone who believes in evolution is some how more intelligent. Someone who believes God created is some how simple, dumb, or a whacko. (see below for an example)

You may not be far off the truth there. What is it about their brains - that makes them part of this intelligent species we deem ourselves - that would accept such improbable nonsense as God, utter prayers to him, and waste time partaking in little rituals whether it be bowing to Mecca five times a day or chomping on a wafer? Why would they accept such rubbish - which has no basis in fact - in the face of substantial evidence favouring the Darwinian model? Idiots and whackos; you're on the money


If an atheist can wean someone person of their religious crutch/blinkers then it should be seen as a success. It would mean that one person no longer turns to improbable inventions based upon inconsistent scriptures and has taken a look at the evidence as to why there is no intelligent designer but why natural selection is a logical method in which to place their undestanding of their place in the world....

Please point me to the "inconsistent scriptures" that you have found in the Bible. Just curious as to where they are.

Indeed, the world would be a better place because of atheism.

Please help me to understand how.

I started this thread simply to illustrate that anyone, no matter what their beliefs, can act the fanatic.

What evidence? Evolution started out a theory and still is a theory.

...

Please point me to the "inconsistent scriptures" that you have found in the Bible. Just curious as to where they are.I've just been involved in a huge thread on another forum, of creationism vs evolution
(started by the news of a creationist "museum" :rolleyes: being built in the USA)
There were some very good posts there, pointing out biblical inconsistencies etc...
I'll post some of the links when I find them...

but for now... "Theory" in the scientific sense is not the same as in the general sense.
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.

The cranks are coming out here too :mad:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/newsenglish/witn/2006/11/061127_intelligent.shtml

I wonder how many of the people here espousing religion can truthfully say that they formed their beliefs of their own free will, at an age when they were (one would hope) able to think for themselves, as opposed to having been indoctrinated from the cradle by parents/family peers/local church/synagogue/mosque/wicca/witchdoctor and so on?

Also how many had alighted on a specific religion after critically examining all the alternatives as opposed to blindly following the example set by family etc?:rolleyes:

I wonder how many of the people here espousing religion can truthfully say that they formed their beliefs of their own free will, at an age when they were (one would hope) able to think for themselves, as opposed to having been indoctrinated from the cradle by parents/family peers/local church/synagogue/mosque/wicca/witchdoctor and so on?

Also how many had alighted on a specific religion after critically examining all the alternatives as opposed to blindly following the example set by family etc?:rolleyes:
Very good Barry.

You could also ask how many people here espousing religion can truthfully say they stick to its teachings?

Too many so called christians here act in a way that is at odds to their faith. Which actually enhances what Rich and I say.

At least Rich and I have never claimed to be something we're not - unlike many Americans here. I would never call fellow posters names, or immediately dismiss an opinion as being "worthless" - but sadly, it seems the norm here now.:mad: Strange we didn't get so much of it towards the end of last week - can't think why:confused:


Col

I wonder how many of the people here espousing religion can truthfully say that they formed their beliefs of their own free will, at an age when they were (one would hope) able to think for themselves, as opposed to having been indoctrinated from the cradle by parents/family peers/local church/synagogue/mosque/wicca/witchdoctor and so on?

Also how many had alighted on a specific religion after critically examining all the alternatives as opposed to blindly following the example set by family etc?:rolleyes:

This I believe is a crucial point, and have on a previous thread pointed out that religion seems to be a post code lottery, if it is so important why would the supreme being leave so much to chance?

Brian

I wonder how many of the people here espousing religion can truthfully say that they formed their beliefs of their own free will, at an age when they were (one would hope) able to think for themselves, as opposed to having been indoctrinated from the cradle by parents/family peers/local church/synagogue/mosque/wicca/witchdoctor and so on?

Also how many had alighted on a specific religion after critically examining all the alternatives as opposed to blindly following the example set by family etc?:rolleyes:
I'm reminded of a visit I made to an Irish rc family just a couple of years ago.
The woman's son who was about 9yrs old came into the room at about 5pm and asked his mother if he could go out to play with his friends, yes replied his mother,AFTER you have learnt chapters 1 to 396 for father ted, and after you've done your essay on god and after you've practiced next weeks sermon and after you've read father ted's thesis and don't forget you've got to read the bible before you go to bed.
Education my ass! The poor sod didn't stand a chance of being allowed to think for himself

Education my ass! The poor sod didn't stand a chance of being allowed to think for himself

and we have all seen pictures of the nodding donkeys learning the Koran

Brian

This I believe is a crucial point, and have on a previous thread pointed out that religion seems to be a post code lottery, if it is so important why would the supreme being leave so much to chance?

Brian
What would be the point otherwise? surely our existense depends on our ability to take those chances.

What would be the point otherwise? surely our existense depends on our ability to take those chances.

So some poor sod born in the wrong place ends up in hell because he/she didn't get to read the right book?

Brian

and we have all seen pictures of the nodding donkeys learning the Koran

Brian
Were they the ones seen carrying placards around the streets of London not so long ago?:D

What evidence? Evolution started out a theory and still is a theory.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.

Thanks to Adeptus for providing that explanation.

You choose to be more convinced by the evidence that a scientist brings to you and a person of faith chooses to believe what their Bible/Torah tells them.
I most certainly choose to be convinced by the evidence of science until it proves otherwise, as it's a logical solution and, despite the improbability of life, it's the only sane solution to the origins of species. I would doubt that the majority of religious people chooses to believe what their scriptures tell them since most children are brought up indoctrinated into the religion and denied the right to choose for themselves until such a time as the dogma has infected their minds and ability to think rationally about the ridiculous notion of a supreme power.


someone who believes in evolution is some how more intelligent.
I think that somehow is because the follow logical evidence supporting evolution. Religion provides no evidence - indeed, it ignores the evidence - and bases its whole argument upon a collection of papers written over a number of years that have been translated and edited at various stages of their existence to the point where they make no sense.

Someone who believes God created is some how simple, dumb, or a whacko.
See above.

Please point me to the "inconsistent scriptures" that you have found in the Bible. Just curious as to where they are.
Have a look at this list (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html).

As regards Christianity, you have to wonder upon why such people would dote on the notion of Jesus Christ. In much the same way that 'thou shalt not kill' in the Old Testament meant 'thou shalt not kill a Jew', the Jesus who claims in the New Testament that you should 'love thy neighbour' uses neighbour to mean 'fellow Jew'.

The apocryphal Book of Judas states that Jesus asked Judas to betray him - it was all part of the divine plan. Christians seem to neglect that if it wasn't for Judas (or Jesus asking Judas to help) then Christ would not have supposedly died for their sins. So why persecute Judas? He gives their religion its existence. By calling Jews 'Christ-killers' the hypocrisy deepens as withouth the crucifixion, there would no doubt be no Christianity.

It was awfully nice of Jesus to die for sins past, present, and future. Nice of him to die for sins people have as yet to make the decision to commit. Sin, of course, being passed down in the semen since Adam for the crime of munching on a bit of fruit, an apple classically. But Jesus, as the Son of God, and as God Himself, knew that Adam didn't exist anyway since the Creation story of the Book of Genesis is meant to be interpreted symbolically. So where's the actual sin that Jesus is meant to have died for. Utterly crazy. If anything should be committed, it's not sin but the people who believe this, especially those who believe literally in it.

So some poor sod born in the wrong place ends up in hell because he/she didn't get to read the right book?

Brian
I wonder where you end up if you read them all?:confused:

I started this thread simply to illustrate that anyone, no matter what their beliefs, can act the fanatic.

I don't believe anyone is going overboard. It would seem your illustration doesn't exist.

In much the same way that 'thou shalt not kill' in the Old Testament meant 'thou shalt not kill a Jew',
Well no not really, it's now been re-translated, apparently to 'thou shalt not murder'

So some poor sod born in the wrong place ends up in hell because he/she didn't get to read the right book?

Brian
Thats a question I've asked many times on these forums, with no real answer.

How do you know what religion is the right one? Say you practise christianity to the letter - then you die and find that Hinduism was the real religion - what a sod eh?

Col

Well no not really, it's now been re-translated, apparently to 'thou shalt not murder'

That's good. By default it should deter the anti-abortionist crazies such as Paul Jennings Hill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Jennings_Hill) since murder is a legal term and not a religious one. Murder, being the killing of a person that has been born. Of course, it won't deter them because they pick and choose what to believe in.

So some poor sod born in the wrong place ends up in hell because he/she didn't get to read the right book?

Brian
Still taking that chance! besides hell is an imaginary human concept. No factual evidence that it exists.

Thats a question I've asked many times on these forums, with no real answer.

How do you know what religion is the right one? Say you practise christianity to the letter - then you die and find that Hinduism was the real religion - what a sod eh?

Col
I think that any religion you choose, is the right one for you. Nobody can tell you different. what if there is only one god, but your perception sees a different face?

I think that any religion you choose, is the right one for you. Nobody can tell you different.
I think you are taking away from Col's question by adding 'for you'. He asked which is the right religion, not which is the right religion for you? There is a difference. The latter is personal, while the former is responsible for worldwide disagreements.

The right religion, to silly believers, is that to which they are indoctrinated. The religion teaches that and calls all others heathen or infidel. But, to play on the words of Henry Ford, religion is bunk.

I think that any religion you choose, is the right one for you. Nobody can tell you different. what if there is only one god, but your perception sees a different face?

What we're talking about is the end product - the heaven, nirvana, eternal peace after you die.

Surely any religion teaches on how to live your life to the benefit of mankind, being a good nice person etc etc whilst you're alive. The heaven bit is the reward for living that good life - not killing, stealing etc etc

Too many people think they can go to church once a week and then be a complete bastard the rest of the week, but surely it doesn't work like that does it?

I'm still betting on the sun as a god. At least it's there in the sky and you can see it, its pleasant, warm and without it we all die. Its a better bet than some old scraps of paper based on heresay.
"God" could be the sun, who knows for sure its not?

Col

I think you are taking away from Col's question by adding 'for you'. He asked which is the right religion, not which is the right religion for you? There is a difference. The latter is personal, while the former is responsible for worldwide disagreements.

The right religion, to silly believers, is that to which they are indoctrinated. The religion teaches that and calls all others heathen or infidel. But, to play on the words of Henry Ford, religion is bunk.

Sorry I have to dissagree, he clearly uses the word you as personal Say you practise christianity to the letter - then you die and find that Hinduism was the real religion

Edit: by that I don't mean me personal, but personal general, which is the way I meant 'for you' general get it?

I'm still betting on the sun as a god. At least it's there in the sky and you can see it, its pleasant, warm and without it we all die. Its a better bet than some old scraps of paper based on heresay.
"God" could be the sun, who knows for sure its not?

There's an interesting section in The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, in which he talks of Incan ritual. He mentions a documentary in which the makers praise a girl of around nine years for her willing sacrifice to the sun. Due to religious indoctrination she may believe that it is good to die for the sun but if you were to whisper in her ear and explain the science that the sun is simply a star converting hydrogen to helium via nuclear fusion then she may be less than willing to step up the altar. Back then our science wasn't as great as it was now. So why, in this day and age, can people ignore the science and still believe superstition?

I have to dissagree, he clearly uses the word you as personal
Which was an example inspired by the preceding question: How do you know what religion is the right one?

Sorry I have to dissagree, he clearly uses the word you as personal



Bullshit Col uses the word here as one , anyone, I suppose he should have written
Say one practises christianity .......

Brian

Bullshit Col uses the word here as one , anyone, I suppose he should have written
Say one practises christianity .......

Brian
Which is exactly how I meant 'for you' for anyone. I have no need to make personal attacks on col:confused:

I didn't mean to cause a fight.

I was asking - out of all the religions, which religion is the "real" one.

My example of being a devout christian then finding the christianity is all tosh when you die and Hindu is the real religion should have clarified it.

I don't care which is the right one for me, I want to know which is the right one - full stop. As Bri says, its like a postcode lottery.

Stu - I know what the modern scientific thoughts are re the suns construction, but you have to admit that if you think god can manifest in any form, god could be the sun, it has to be a better bet than christianity.

I don't agree with the sacrifices bit though.

Col

ps - note how we have good discussions in the morning, but not in the afternoons:cool:

I don't care which is the right one for me, I want to know which is the right one - full stop.

As I was trying to say, I don't think it's important which one is chosen. As the saying goes "All roads lead to Rome"

It is perhaps only our failing to believe in ourselves, that gives us cause to crucify others.

As I was trying to say, I don't think it's important which one is chosen. As the saying goes "All roads lead to Rome"

That may be correct, its certainly an idea, I don't know enough about the many religions to disagree, I just know that christianity is practised by hypocrits who hide behind the religion to make themselves appear superior.

Other posters who reckon they know everything, may log on this afternoon and dismiss this comment as worthless.

Col

Col if there is a god then I'm more inclined to the Greek/Roman view of many bickering gpds with us caught up in the middle, it least it would explain natural disasters which you would thing an all powerful merciful loving supreme being would prevent, although I suppose the followers of Islam who believe themselves to be servants of their god can more readily accept them than Christians who are their God's children.

Brian

I just know that christianity is practised by hypocrits who hide behind the religion to make themselves appear superior.
Col

This is a bit strong as it suggests that it applies to all christians, but I'm sure that we have all met some who are not like that.
I personally would not dismiss a religion because of the behaviour of some of its followers, anymore than i wou;d blindly follow one.

Brian

I would say that a religion is chosen to make someone appear moral, but there is no link between religion and morals.

Col if there is a god then I'm more inclined to the Greek/Roman view of many bickering gpds with us caught up in the middle,
Thats a good point.

The christian god so say gave us a free will and washed his/her hands of it after that, so natural disasters etc we're left to cope with ourselves.

I will say in seriousness, that the Americans are really quick to respond with help if there is a big disaster in the world. They're not so quick on home soil (like Katrina) but credit still due in my book.

Anyway, my wording was a bit strong, I should have said "christianity is practised by many hypocrits"

Many christians and non-christians do excellent work for others. It makes you wonder though if its in their nature anyway to do it - and nothing to do with religion. Take Mother Teresa - its natural for her to have done what she did, I doubt she would have done differently if she wasn't a nun.

Col

Take Mother Teresa - its natural for her to have done what she did, I doubt she would have done differently if she wasn't a nun.

Col
My bet is that she would say that her faith gave her the strength to do the work, and i am sure that if one does have a deeply held faith it would help in many circumstances, I know my mother's faith gave her comfort in her later days, pity they were such bastards during the rest of her life.

Brian

My bet is that she would say that her faith gave her the strength to do the work, and i am sure that if one does have a deeply held faith it would help in many circumstances, I know my mother's faith gave her comfort in her later days, pity they were such bastards during the rest of her life.
Believing in something does help, but the main drive has to be seeing the results of ones labours and how it benefits others.

Sorry about your Mum, mine was the same.:(

Col

Col
I noticed some of our friends across the pond signed in and read this thread , but have now gone!!, as I must do to pick up the boss

Have fun

Brian

Col
I noticed some of our friends across the pond signed in and read this thread , but have now gone!!, as I must do to pick up the boss

Have fun

Brian
I'm off out to a meeting soon anyway

Catch you later

As I was trying to say, I don't think it's important which one is chosen. As the saying goes "All roads lead to Rome"

It is perhaps only our failing to believe in ourselves, that gives us cause to crucify others.

My personal opinion and yes my opinion and no one elses, is that all religions are correct. look at Judaism and Islam and Christianity. The basic teachings are all the same. be a good person, dont kill etc etc. I like to thin of it as something like the way you teach children. no one way is the right way to teach everyone. some kids are a little slower or they need to be taught a different way than these kids over here.

but again that is only my opinion take it as you will

Surely any religion teaches on how to live your life to the benefit of mankind, being a good nice person etc etc whilst you're alive. The heaven bit is the reward for living that good life - not killing, stealing etc etc

Too many people think they can go to church once a week and then be a complete bastard the rest of the week, but surely it doesn't work like that does it?
Col

Col, we've gone over this before and I'll still say the same thing. Sad but true. There are way too many people who use "Christianity" and God as a magic wand and believe if they do something then they are alright or if they go to church, say their prayers, then they can live how they want after that and start the process all over again. I disagree with that life style and believe it is not what the Bible teaches. I not going to dive too deep into this subject because it is not my place to change someones mind or win a debate. I believe that I know there are many things stated about christianity, here, that are so far from the truth and certainly are not my experiences. I am one of those folks who's life was in partying, drug, drinking and did not care too much about God and anything He could have done for me, but when I was around 20 years old, I had someone take the time to introduce me to the God of the Bible and now I am one of those simple minded, can't reason for myself, blind christians. What I do know is that my life is not the same and that I would not trade it for anything anyone else could offer me. I believe that many things stated here are misrepresented but I'm not going to spent time debating them because in the end it really doesn't accomplish anything. Hope this makes at least some sense to you.

Yes, I did. Why would you think I'm wasting my time here?

Just that you have a talent with words. I didn't mean anything personal. :)

Thats a good point.

The christian god so say gave us a free will and washed his/her hands of it after that, so natural disasters etc we're left to cope with ourselves.

I will say in seriousness, that the Americans are really quick to respond with help if there is a big disaster in the world. They're not so quick on home soil (like Katrina) but credit still due in my book.

Anyway, my wording was a bit strong, I should have said "christianity is practised by many hypocrits"

Many christians and non-christians do excellent work for others. It makes you wonder though if its in their nature anyway to do it - and nothing to do with religion. Take Mother Teresa - its natural for her to have done what she did, I doubt she would have done differently if she wasn't a nun.

Col

Why can't you be more like this all the time? If I try to stop being a butt will you?

I don't believe anyone is going overboard. It would seem your illustration doesn't exist.

Really? then why even care at all?

I can tell you, I could care less about what you believe and I don't make statements saying it’s ridiculous.

The very act of trying to persuade someone that their beliefs are flawed is fanatical.

I’m merely pointing out, that it seams to me, that atheist are a pretty fundamentalist group.

I’m merely pointing out, that it seams to me, that atheist are a pretty fundamentalist group.(Just trying to continue that train of thought, so bear with me.)
How many "athiests" do you personally know? Perhaps, as with all things, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. You perceive "fanatacism" because the "fanatacism" is what brings it onto your personal radar. Much like many in rural America perceive all Muslims to be extremist because they simply do not know any.

Thats a good point.


I will say in seriousness, that the Americans are really quick to respond with help if there is a big disaster in the world. They're not so quick on home soil (like Katrina) but credit still due in my book.

Col


Actually Col,

We were “willing” to come to the aid of Louisiana, but the idiot and his programs demoralized FEMA. Between his political appointments to his obsessive fervor over terrorism, FEMA was left with most of the career administrators and mangers taking early retirement.

So much for less government, it’s a bit like Napoleon, whacking the heads off his best sea captains, and starting a navel war with the British.

(Just trying to continue that train of thought, so bear with me.)
How many "athiests" do you personally know? Perhaps, as with all things, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. You perceive "fanatacism" because the "fanatacism" is what brings it onto your personal radar. Much like many in rural America perceive all Muslims to be extremist because they simply do not know any.


You're exactly correct.

Mostly the only ones I know, post on this forum.

Why can't you be more like this all the time? If I try to stop being a butt will you?

Is that within ya'lls Charter? I thought it was an edict that the line was drawn here.

[QUOTE=jsanders]
The very act of trying to persuade someone that their beliefs are flawed is fanatical.
[QUOTE]

This isn't right. If I believe wholeheartedly that fire can't hurt me and constantly try to walk into burning buildings as a result, you calmly trying to convince me that I'll be hurt by doing so isn't fanaticism. You're looking out for my well-being.

By the same token, if someone joins a cult where they are at risk of mental or physical harm, another person trying to point this out isn't fanatical.

Applied to religion as whole, if I believed something or other to be true because I'd been taught that it was. Somebody else pointing out inconsistencies in the teachings isn't a fanatic, they're allowing me to make a more informed decision (which may well still mean my believing in the same things, but for a different reason).

For the sake of argument, if I believed totally that it was wrong to kill/murder, based on one part of a holy text, what would be wrong with someone pointing out that another part of the same text instructs me to allow the men of my city to stone my son to death if he's rebellious?

One is a direct instructon not to kill - no exceptions, no explanation, very clear cut. The other seems to be an exemption to the rule. Surely, if one accepts either as being true, it automatically precludes the other? That said, if at least one area of the text is incorrect, who's to say others aren't? Other areas that I may have based my life decisions around. By having inconsistencies pointed out, I am better able to decide for myself what to believe in or reject.

Mostly the only ones I know, post on this forum.
Such as ? :confused:

Is that within ya'lls Charter? I thought it was an edict that the line was drawn here.

I'm flexible. I guess we'll see if he's game when he checks in - :)

If I try to stop being a butt will you?
Why do you need to try to stop, can't you just be constructive like Col and me?:confused:

Such as ? :confused:

What? Such as?

What? Such as?
Yes, such as who. Don't you understand written English?:confused:

Yes, such as who. Don't you understand written English?:confused:

Of course, but the answer is so obvious, that your question transcends the normal level of your obtuseness.

Why do you need to try to stop, can't you just be constructive like Col and me?:confused:

That's 'Col and I'. Please don't make this mistake again.:rolleyes:

That's 'Col and I'.
Are you absolutely sure?

Of course, but the answer is so obvious, .
Not to me it isn't, but then you're just doing the normal American thing and jumping to conclusions

That's 'Col and I'. Please don't make this mistake again.:rolleyes:

Sorry old man, but I believe your Southern upbringing got the best of you here.

Not to me it isn't, but then you're just doing the normal American thing and jumping to conclusions

Last post of the day.

Ah yes, that ole American thing, we are so guilty of that aren't we?

, we are so guilty of that aren't we?
Ye s

Sorry old man, but I believe your Southern upbringing got the best of you here.

Isn't that the proper way to say it?:confused:

Edit - Let's ask SJ, he'll know...

Isn't that the proper way to say it?:confused:
Not within the context in which it was used here.

I believe that Ken is correct,
can't you just be constructive like Col and I? is a shortened version of
can't you just be constructive like Col and I are constructive?

Brian

I believe that Ken is correct,
can't you just be constructive like Col and I? is a shortened version of
can't you just be constructive like Col and I are constructive?

Brian
Surely not, had I said Col and Me went to the pub, then yes, but with nothing on the end, I'm not so sure

I'm not sure either but thought I'd add my 2ps worth:D

Brian

Isn't Worley an English teacher or summat like that?

Isn't that the proper way to say it?:confused:

Edit - Let's ask SJ, he'll know...

An English teacher of mine maintained that the test was to remove the "other" from the sentence and see how it reads.

Why cant you be a friendly, informative, pleasant, fun loving guy like (col and ) me.

I just went back and reread the quote, I got confused about who's quote I was correcting. I should have corrected Rich's

Me is correct.

Sorry Ken.

An English teacher of mine maintained that the test was to remove the "other" from the sentence and see how it reads.

Why cant you be a friendly, informative, pleasant, fun loving guy like (col and ) me.

I just went back and reread the quote, I got confused about who's quote I was correcting. I should have corrected Rich's

Me is correct.

Sorry Ken.
You're still confused, why would you correct my post?:confused:

Brian

Isn't Worley an English teacher or summat like that?
Have you read his posts?:confused: :D

You're still confused, why would you correct my post?:confused:

Because you erroneously corrected his.

Surely not, had I said Col and Me went to the pub, then yes, but with nothing on the end, I'm not so sure

It's Col and I went to the pub.

Wow Rich you must be having an epiphany (or you should be anyway). You’re whole life you’ve been saying it incorrectly.

It's Col and I went to the pub.

Wow Rich you must be having an epiphany (or you should be anyway). You’re whole life you’ve been saying it incorrectly.
I thought you'd given up the drink, read what I said again:rolleyes:

It's Col and I went to the pub.

.

WOW!! Does that mean you've kissed and made up.:D

Brian

WOW!! Does that mean you've kissed and made up.:D

Brian

Except for the drinking part.

I've done some research and tho' I can't point to a particular reference as I read a few it would appear that Ken and I are guilty of hypercorrection, and that it is..... like you and me. Like is a preposition apparently in this use and the pronoun is always an object not a subject after a preposition.

Brian

I thought you'd given up the drink, read what I said again:rolleyes:

That was nearly 18 years ago. I no longer even think about it.

Congratulations Joe, but we do sell nonalcoholic drinks in our pubs, they just cost an arm and a leg.:D

Brian

I've done some research and tho' I can't point to a particular reference as I read a few it would appear that Ken and I are guilty of hypercorrection, and that it is..... like you and me. Like is a preposition apparently in this use and the pronoun is always an object not a subject after a preposition.

Brian



Which goes to demonstrate the richness of the English language.

As common usage dictates…so does the language evolve.

I had a friend that was a stickler for 25 year old proper English. But lest we take our lessons from the French (God forbid) we should embrace the fluidity of our language.

Now 200 years after the French elected to freeze their language, English has grown to over a million words while French has something like 170,000.

That was nearly 18 years ago. I no longer even think about it.
Perhaps you should and then try reading what I said again

Congratulations Joe, but we do sell nonalcoholic drinks in our pubs, they just cost an arm and a leg.:D

Brian
One could always go to the bog and get a free drink out of the tap:cool:

Going back to the original theme.

I was actually less interested in the variations in people’s beliefs but as to where it would lead.

It seams to me that the planet is squaring off on all issues and absolute fanaticism is running rampant.

More and more the society of acceptance seams to be breading “I’m right you’re wrong and, well, maybe it’s time you died for being wrong”.

This problem doesn’t seem to be limited to any particular group, but kind of a general consensus. Lets all disagree as vehemently as possible.

No, just start by banning brainwashing in schools
anyway I thought you were going to bugger off for the day a couple of hours ago?

No, just start by banning brainwashing in schools
anyway I thought you were going to bugger off for the day a couple of hours ago?

Got my work done early.

I've done some research and tho' I can't point to a particular reference as I read a few it would appear that Ken and I are guilty of hypercorrection, and that it is..... like you and me. Like is a preposition apparently in this use and the pronoun is always an object not a subject after a preposition.

Brian

Good use of the 'and I' rule - :D

Going back to the original theme.

I was actually less interested in the variations in people’s beliefs but as to where it would lead.

It seams to me that the planet is squaring off on all issues and absolute fanaticism is running rampant.

More and more the society of acceptance seams to be breading “I’m right you’re wrong and, well, maybe it’s time you died for being wrong”.

This problem doesn’t seem to be limited to any particular group, but kind of a general consensus. Lets all disagree as vehemently as possible.

I see two possible causes, both connected to the fact of easier access to information.

Firstly, people are more aware of the reasoning behind things that happen (invasions, wars, etc.) and are quicker to latch onto certain words when world leaders explain their motivation. Religion being a highly emotive one. In my opinion, this is due in no small part to the fact that it depends on faith rather than - for want of a better word - logic. When someone is carrying out behaviour one disagrees with and 'justifying' it using their beliefs, it is a lot harder to argue with than if they were doing it foir a reason that could be concusively proved or disproved e.g. WMD.

Secondly - and the option I would like to think is the case - people may just care more, now that they are better informed. Right or wrong, they are so upset by the idea of someone 'ruining their life' by following a set of guidelines that they disagree with, emotions kick in instead of reason. this ties in with my points on #157.

Yes, there will always be people who use religion to deliberately cause unease, but I like to think of them as being in the minority. Unfortunately, history has proven it to be an effective tool, so world leaders are unlikely to stop.

My two cents' worth and no insult intended to anyone.

For what it's worth.

It may be of course that none of the evangelicals on this thread saw the questions I posed earlier and so the benefit of the doubt should be given, but the cynic in me finds it interesting that so far not one has responded.......

It may be of course that none of the evangelicals on this thread saw the questions I posed earlier and so the benefit of the doubt should be given, but the cynic in me finds it interesting that so far not one has responded.......

I would admit that I skimmed it but really didn't notice the question being asked so now that you have brought it to my/our attention, then I will answer them as good as I can. I sort of answered at least part of your first question in another post below:

I wonder how many of the people here espousing religion can truthfully say that they formed their beliefs of their own free will, at an age when they were (one would hope) able to think for themselves, as opposed to having been indoctrinated from the cradle by parents/family peers/local church/synagogue/mosque/wicca/witchdoctor and so on?

I am one of those folks who's life was in partying, drug, drinking and did not care too much about God and anything He could have done for me, but when I was around 20 years old, I had someone take the time to introduce me to the God of the Bible and now I am one of those simple minded, can't reason for myself, blind christians. What I do know is that my life is not the same and that I would not trade it for anything anyone else could offer me. I believe that many things stated here are misrepresented but I'm not going to spent time debating them because in the end it really doesn't accomplish anything. Hope this makes at least some sense to you.

I think this quote pretty much covers the first question. If not, then post back and I'll go further.

Also how many had alighted on a specific religion after critically examining all the alternatives as opposed to blindly following the example set by family etc?

At first I did align with the specific denomination that led me to God, but after I grew more in what the Bible says then I began to seek out a church that taught more in line with what I believe the Bible teaches. I did not "blindly" follow the example set by my family. I personally believe that one of the biggest problems facing Christianity is religion. I also rarely meet anyone who practices what the Bible teaches and that's not to say I'm any better. If they did then I don't think atheist would have the same impression of Christianity that they do. People who are raised in religion learn just that. How to live religious. The God that I read about in the Bible wants a relationship. One that is not based off of "do's" and "don'ts" but rather one that is based on a heart of love and gratitude. When Jesus Christ was on this earth He was asked, by the religious leaders (who hated Him BTW) what is the greatest commandment. His answer was "to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind and to love your neighbor as yourself." How many of us Christians do you see living like that? I already know the answer and that is why I think there is such a misconception of what Christianity really is. unfortunately, us Christians lives are the only Bible some folks read and they don't like how the story goes.

“I’m right you’re wrong and, well, maybe it’s time you died for being wrong”.You think this is a new thing?
Have you heard of the Crusades?
The Inquisition(s)? (Spanish and others)
Wasn't Jesus' crime heresy?

And how many wars have been fought over "I'm right you're wrong"? (religious or otherwise)

And how many wars have been fought over "I'm right you're wrong"? (religious or otherwise)

All of them.

I didn't mean anything personal.
makes a change:rolleyes:

Why can't you be more like this all the time?
I am - in the mornings;)

Anyway, back to the thread.

Why do people need religion to lead a "good" life? surely it should be normal for people to do that anyway. It may be that religion can enhance that (possibly)

But sometimes people get confused and think that its a black and white issue. i.e. if you are a christian (or whatever) you are a "good" person, if you're not a christian you are a bad person.
I have to say though, its only [some] christians I know that subscribe to that. Its built in to their holier-than-thou attitude.

We were “willing” to come to the aid of Louisiana, but the idiot and his programs demoralized FEMA
I mentioned it because [to the outside world] it appeared that New Orleans was left to fend for itself because it was on "home soil".
The main thing is that the USA does act quickly and many hundreds of people who would have died were saved by the quick response.

Col

I mentioned it because [to the outside world] it appeared that New Orleans was left to fend for itself because it was on "home soil".
The main thing is that the USA does act quickly and many hundreds of people who would have died were saved by the quick response.

Col
And of course it was their own fault for living there in the first place and secondly for not leaving when they were told to. The fact that they were abandoned with no means of transport is irrelevant:rolleyes:

I would admit that I skimmed it but really didn't notice the question being asked so now that you have brought it to my/our attention, then I will answer them as good as I can. I sort of answered at least part of your first question in another post below:.

Thanks ShaneMan. I respect your right to your beliefs athough I can't share them and if it works for you that's great. I'm just not surprised that yours is the only response.

I would admit that I skimmed it but really didn't notice the question being asked so now that you have brought it to my/our attention, then I will answer them as good as I can. I sort of answered at least part of your first question in another post below:.

Thanks ShaneMan. I respect your right to your beliefs athough I can't share them and if it works for you that's great. I'm just not surprised that yours is the only response.

makes a change:rolleyes:


Not sure what this means :confused:


Anyway, back to the thread.

Why do people need religion to lead a "good" life? surely it should be normal for people to do that anyway. It may be that religion can enhance that (possibly)

But sometimes people get confused and think that its a black and white issue. i.e. if you are a christian (or whatever) you are a "good" person, if you're not a christian you are a bad person.
I have to say though, its only [some] christians I know that subscribe to that. Its built in to their holier-than-thou attitude.


I mentioned it because [to the outside world] it appeared that New Orleans was left to fend for itself because it was on "home soil".
The main thing is that the USA does act quickly and many hundreds of people who would have died were saved by the quick response.

Col

Your '[some]' and '[to the outside world]' type qualifiers speak volumes. And given that, I think both statements are dead on. :)

also on the subject of Katrina and New Orleans. I have done some research into this as well. FEMA was on the ground in New Orleans in like 12 hours. They could have been there sooner had they actually been in New Orleans when Katrina hit, but then they would have possibly been more victims . any type of humanitarian rescue effort of these proportions, # of people affected, size of the area etc etc takes time to get planned and into place. had the nat. guard and the rescuers been any close to the center of the problem, they ran the risk of becomming more victims instead of rescuers.

Not sure what this means :confused:
I didn't think you would:rolleyes:

Col

any type of humanitarian rescue effort of these proportions, # of people affected, size of the area etc etc takes time to get planned and into place. had the nat. guard and the rescuers been any close to the center of the problem, they ran the risk of becomming more victims instead of rescuers.

But the authorities there knew this hurricane was coming and I'm sure that the likes of the police were still on duty there at the time

Why do people need religion to lead a "good" life? surely it should be normal for people to do that anyway. It may be that religion can enhance that (possibly)

But sometimes people get confused and think that its a black and white issue. i.e. if you are a christian (or whatever) you are a "good" person, if you're not a christian you are a bad person.
I have to say though, its only [some] christians I know that subscribe to that. Its built in to their holier-than-thou attitude.Col

Hey Col, of course I would be the one to take a stab at this.:D I don't think people "need religion" to lead a good life. As I stated earlier, I think religion is a big cause of problems. Probably "good" and "good life" would need to be defined. The Bible says, "no one is good, no not one." I person could run with that in a disagreeing way and say that they know plenty of "good" people, so obviously the Bible is not talking about what we consider "good." With that being said, people don't need religion to be good or do good things and "yes" I do think people should be good normally. If the Christians you ran into have painted a picture for you of they are good because they are a Christian and your not, then in my opinion they have painted the wrong picture for you. According to the teaching in the Bible a Christian is forgiven and knowing that they should live a life of gratitude and love. This gratitude of love should be expressed toward God and his neighbor. If this truly happened then I would think that would look good to someone watching them. When the Bible teaches to be kind, patient, long suffering, hope all things (never give up on someone), and etc., then I think these are good things and if practiced will make the person look good. Does Christianity have the corner on the market for this? No, but I did want to try and shed a little more light on what the Bible does teach and perhaps what it does not. Hope I've made some sense and did not over extend beyond what you wanted to hear.

But the authorities there knew this hurricane was coming and I'm sure that the likes of the police were still on duty there at the time

if I am remembering correctly, the mayor of new orleans basically told everyone to get out of the city, and I am going to assume that would mean the majority of the police and civilian security force, security guards and the like. But if you remember when the looting started, the police were involved in the looting. there is news footage of a police person loading up a shopping cart at a Wal-mart and stealing with the criminals.

would youw ant the police there when they are in as bad a shape if not worse than you are?

This gratitude of love should be expressed toward God and his neighbor

What about your own family, do they count for nothing?:confused:
Who's god's neighbour by the way, Venus?:confused:

there is news footage of a police person loading up a shopping cart at a Wal-mart and stealing with the criminals.


Now if that had been in Iraq I wouldn't have been shocked:eek:

Shaney - I understand what you're saying. My interpretation of good, is not killing / robbing people etc and trying to help people if you can and just lead a normal life, pay the bills, go to work etc.

I like your comment

According to the teaching in the Bible a Christian is forgiven and knowing that they should live a life of gratitude and love.This gratitude of love should be expressed toward God and his neighbor.
you don't have to look too far around here to see that is totally ignored by so called christians:rolleyes:

also
Does Christianity have the corner on the market for this? No,
I agree. Definately no. Too many so called christians are wallowing in self pride, they can't even see what arrogant annoying tits they are.
I would suggest more non-christians do more good than christians.
The non-christians get on and do it. The christians make such a fuss to firstly ensure everyone knows they're doing it.

Col

What about your own family, do they count for nothing?:confused:
Who's god's neighbour by the way, Venus?:confused:

Rich, please start with me on twisting statements and don't reply back with your "what?" stuff either. Your a smart man and figuring out what was said is not that hard.

Rich, please start with me on twisting statements and don't reply back with your "what?" stuff either. Your a smart man and figuring out what was said is not that hard.
You haven't answered the question Shane, I still don't understand why love for your own family (which as far as I'm concerned is the highest on the pecking order list) is omitted entirely from yours.?

you don't have to look too far around here to see that is totally ignored by so called christians:rolleyes:

I agree. Definately no. Too many so called christians are wallowing in self pride, they can't even see what arrogant annoying tits they are.
I would suggest more non-christians do more good than christians.
The non-christians get on and do it. The christians make such a fuss to firstly ensure everyone knows they're doing it.

Col

Can't disagree. What the Bible teaches and what us Christians live, unfortunately, don't agree with each other much, now days. And as I said before, when we live and act the way we do, then some one watching says to themselves, "if this is what it's all about, then no thanks."

You haven't answered the question Shane, I still don't understand why love for your own family (which as far as I'm concerned is the highest on the pecking order list) is omitted entirely from yours.?

Do you simply chose to be obtuse, or are you really as dumd as you seem?

ANSWER THE QUESTION.

You haven't answered the question Shane, I still don't understand why love for your own family (which as far as I'm concerned is the highest on the pecking order list) is omitted entirely from yours.?

When I said that you are to love you neighbor as yourself, that does not mean that family is left out. It only means to look at others around you and if your in the position to do so, then take care of them as you would yourself. You feed yourself. Help feed them. You cloth yourself. Help cloth them and etc. The Bible spends a large amount of time taking to husbands, fathers, mothers, wives, children. How to love. How to treat and etc. It does not leave family out of the picture. If by what I said it gave the impression that family was left out, then my bad. Family and love for family is defineately in there. As a matter of fact with a much bigger responsiblity attached to it.

Edit: and I totally agree with you and so does the Bible. Family is highest on the pecking order.